Posse Incitatus

Memorial Day 2012

My obsession this spring has been the spacious grounds of the recently upgraded ranch.  Weeding, mowing, pest eradication and minor landscaping have dominated my thoughts and intruded into my dreams.  Between that and a hectic work schedule, the onset of Memorial Day came almost as a surprise.  Tempus fugit and all that.

Taking a quiet moment to contemplate Memorial Day this year, I cannot help but feel a sense of loss and bitterness.  Long-time readers know that we have taken it as our honored duty to keep the memory alive of one of our friends - Capt. Sean Grimes - who fell in Iraq seven years ago this spring.

Looking at the disorderly way in which our forces were withdrawn - and the similar sense of urgency in leaving Afghanistan to its fate - it is hard not be bitter about what our military has sacrificed and what our leaders have thrown away.

War is an extension of policy by other means, as Clausewitz pointed out almost 200 years ago, and a rational person can admit that there are times when there is no other recourse than to its dreadful call.

But what if that policy is hopelessly muddled, willfully blind, or cynically driven?

Afghanistan and Iraq were both wars of necessity.  Afghanistan had sheltered our enemies and on Sept. 11, 2001, we saw just how deadly they could be.  Iraq was an ongoing strategic threat, tying down our forces and constantly attacking our aircraft (though without much effect).  Both required a military solution.

Both went well at first, but then bogged down into a foggy counterinsurgency.  We gained the upper hand and did so for comparatively little loss of life - far less than Korea, or Vietnam.  But then a new administration came in, one devoid of strategic vision and looking only to the next opinion poll.  And so we are in retreat.

What did the sacrifice of Sean and his comrades achieve?  What is his legacy?  They gave up all the tomorrows - for what?

A free Iraq?  A modern Afghanistan?

Both teeter on the brink.  And then there is Libya, which has spawned at least one civil war (in Mali) and may itself break up.

At this point, we cannot know.  I believe that Sean died in the opening round - the overture, if you will - of the clash of civilizations between the West and radical Islam.  His actions as a healer proved to those who would listen that there is a better way than one of Islamofascist hate - a path of forgiveness and compassion, of hope and eventual prosperity.

In a larger sense, his sacrifice transcends the political.  Like all of our fallen warriors, he was called to serve, and died for his nation.  It is the ultimate expression of selflessness.  Whatever happens in Iraq, he did not die in vain so long as we honor him, and uphold Freedom.

Movie Review: Act of Valor

At this point, when critics hate a movie for being "flag-waving," "simplistic," and "jingoistic," I'm almost certainly going to love the film.

Such is the case with Act of Valor, which generated quite a bit of buzz by being the top-grossing movie over Oscar weekend - despite not a single big name in the cast.

Indeed, most of the cast are active-duty SEALS.  This means their acting is a little stiff, but their emotion and professionalism is amazing.

The storyline is solid and while not terribly complicated, has the virtue of carrying the ring of truth.  Unlike many Hollywood projects that claim to be "torn from the headlines" this one is extremely plausible.

Make no mistake, this is a powerful film, and while much attention has been lavished on the action scenes (which set a new standard for accuracy and pulse-pounding tension), the emotional aspect is profound.

I'm sure other aspiring filmmakers will take note of this project, which cost only $12 million to make and looks to recoup ten times that. 

Perhaps the most amusing part of my evening was watching the trailers.  There was one for some insipid, weepy romance starring the kid of High School Musical (all buff, tattooed and ex-soldierified) and then the G.I. Joe sequel (I have a warm place in my heart for that movie - saw it on an overseas military base and the crowd response to his hilarious inaccuracies was...sublime).

Anyhow, the juxtaposition of these two Hollywood productions - the one all melodramatic and the other stuff with meaningless special effects - demonstrated that even when they try to appeal to the same audience as Act of Valor, the establishment can't get it right any more.

Go see it in the theater.  It's worth the money.

Veterans Day 2011

As always, the Posse offers deep thanks to our military veterans for their service.  Perhaps I was just inattentive, but it seems to me that more businesses are offering discounts and promotions for veterans than ever before.  This is a good thing.

Our nation is not only divided between the producers and consumers (or "makers" and "takers" but also between those who serve and those who do not - and will not.

I never liked all the flowery rhetoric about the World War II generation being the "Greatest Generation."  First off, every generation faces is challenges.  To say that this one or that one had more strikes me as the height of arrogant self-importance. That this label came from the Baby Boomer made it even more obnoxious.

When I think about important generations, I think about the parents of the "Greatest," the people born between 1890 and 1910.  They weathered slumps, two wars and ignited the greatest period of technological advancement in human history.  The leaps forward in medicine, communication, transportation - and even warfare - far exeeded anything before or since.

When war came, they went.  When the economy collapsed, they muddled through.  The World War II generation provided the footsoldiers for victory, but the architects came from this age group.

As everyone should know, today marks the anniversary of the culiminating moment of that earlier generation - the end of the World War I.  Back then they called it the Great War, the World War, the War to End All Wars.  It gets little attention here in the United States, but it lies like a chasm across human history, a break with what went before every bit as significant as the fall of the Roman Empire or the Norman Conquest of England.

That calamity saw the collapse of the old ways - religion, tradition, family - and the rise of new beliefs, like Communism, National Socialism, moral relativism.  We are now, almost a century later, still trying to pick up the pieces of that conflict.  The constant crisis in the Middle East, the uncertain rise of China, Russia's turmoil, Africa's uneasy borders and the strife in the Balkans are all the legacy of that perfect storm and imperfect peace.

Where do veterans come into this?

In 1917, for the first time since the Civil War, the United States implemented conscription.  The fear was that were would be draft riots, as their had been in 1863.  It did not happen.  Instead, millions of young men registered and, when called, reported for duty.  Almost from scratch this country went from a miniscule peacetime army to millions of Doughboys ready to go "Over There" and fight in France.

It took time to call up, train, equip and ship them there.  More than a year after the declaration of war, the US Army was still pulling itself together.  In the meantime, the desperate Germans launched the Kaiserschlacht - one last desperate gamble to win the war before our troops arrived in force.  It failed,

The Allied counterstroke was terrible, and starting in July 1918, it proceeded without stop.  Unlike previous offensives, this was no localized affair, but a series of hammer-blows all across the Western Front.  There was no pause, not respite, and as American divisions became ready they were marched to the front and hurled into the inferno.

The American portion of the offensive has gone down in history as the Meuse-Argonne campaign.

To call it a bloodbath is to cheapen the term.  In the space of six weeks, roughly 120,000 American troops were hit with 25,000 of them killed.  In six weeks.

The American commander, "Black Jack" Pershing, used tactics as subtle as a tire iron to the head, but it worked. By early November, the German army was reeling. The Armistice took effect 93 years ago today, at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month.

Since then, World War I has faded from memory.  Its veterans are all dead, and those who remember them are mostly gone.  Yellowed pictures, dusty uniforms, spiked helmets - these are all we recall.  Even the Red Baron has been distorted and commercialized.

The point here is that a generation was called and went.  In 1941, 1950 they also went.  Some disagreed in the 1960s, but enough went to give us a victory - that we pissed away.  After that, it fell to the volunteers, and they have performed admirably.  The prestige of American arms has never been greater -and the reputation of American politicians has never been lower.

Looking at the "Occupy" protesters, one cannot help but contrast their self-indulgent tantrums with the quiet sacrifices of the veterans.  Let there be no mistake, military people are no saints (f they were, the JAGs would be unemployed).  They expect to be paid and complain about everything (a time-honored tradition).

But they do their duty.  They join to be part of something bigger than themselves and they yearn for the opportunity to prove that they are just as tough as those who went before.

The Occupiers want none of that.  They want free wi-fi, guaranteed income and a life of unearned leisure.  A half-hour of PT would leave them begging for death.

This Veterans Day, think about that contrast and what it says about those who choose to serve despite every reason not to.  MSU's basketball game today on the USS Carl Vinson is a great example.  I admire coach Tom Izzo, but his remarks about how sports pale in comparison to the military life are heartful and utterly appropriate.

Enjoy the game, and thank a veteran.

 

Retreat from Iraq

Long-time readers of this blog have no doubt noticed that it has changed over the years.  Initially posting was almost daily and focused on politics, grand strategy and world events.  There was also a good bit of gun-blogging as well.

Over the last few years, that has changed.  Posts happen several times a week instead of daily, they mostly focus on sports, in-state politics and sometimes touch on the national and international scene.

Partly this is a function of our schedule:  T-Mo and I are busier now and simply don’t have the time to do a daily morning update.

At the same time, the world is a more depressing place than it was when we began.  Rather than chronicle the unfolding debacles in economic and foreign policy, we – like a good many Americans – are turning to the things that make us happy.

Since we get paid the same whether we write about something we enjoy or not, we choose to go where the fun is.

That being said, the president’s weekend announcement that the war in Iraq is “over,” cannot pass without comment.

The political calculus here is both obvious and pathetic.  Having failed to negotiate a long-term American strategic presence, the administration is trying to make the best of its failed policies.  Essentially it is “declaring victory and going home.”

That phrase has been thrown around a lot lately, mostly by the left. 

NOTE:  I won’t say “anti-war” because it is now clear that the “peace protesters” don’t give a crap about non-violence.  The war in Libya was unauthorized and bloody and represents an open-ended commitment of the worst kind, yet not a peep was uttered against it.  These people were nothing more than partisans reaching for anything at hand to throw at George W. Bush.  But I digress.

The left focuses on language a lot, and often it’s thumb-sucking think pieces focus not on whether their policies work but whether they’ve named them correctly.  Take the American Jobs Act.  It’s nothing but a sop to unions – Stimulus II:  Electric Boogaloo.  It won’t create any private sector jobs, but no matter.  It’s got a catchy name and that should poll well.

Similarly, the deep-thinkers in the White House believe that simply announcing “WE WIN!” will magically place the laurels of victory around the president’s head – at the same time placating the peace lobby within his political base who – despite the aforementioned cynicism, actually do find all this drone-missile assassination/open-ended undeclared warfare stuff a little unpalatable.

It won’t work.

In the real world, no one cares what you call it – what matters is reality.

Wisconsin could declare that it actually “won” in East Lansing this weekend.  It could announce that the final play was a fluke and therefore it won.  Its press office could refer to the Badgers as undefeated in all news releases.  But it wouldn’t be true.

Similarly, our enemies in the Middle East don’t much care whether we claim we are victorious or not, all they know is that we are leaving and doing it on unfavorable terms.  We have to pull 40,000 troops and their equipment out in a couple of months.  Iraq’s fragile government is under considerable strain already and it is unclear how much protection their military will provide us. 

The knock against the United States has always been that we don’t stick around – particularly in Iraq.  In 1991, we urged the Iraqi people to rise up and that sat and watched Saddam Hussein butcher them.  When we invaded in 2003, our potential allies held back because they expected a repeat of our previous behavior.

We insisted it was different and certainly we’ve shown more stamina, but now the long-expected flight is on.  I am at a loss as to why any Iraqi soldiers would exert themselves to defend our bases or personnel at this point.

At the same time, every surviving radical in Iraq – Sunni or Iranian-backed Shiite – will probably come at us as hard as they can, hoping to cause as much damage as possible.  Their goal is a headline stating that November and December were the two bloodiest months in years.  If they can get anything going at all, they can turn the entire campaign around in the public mind and turn the orderly withdrawal into a disorderly retreat.

Let there be no mistake:  I know our troops are supremely professional and I guarantee every unit commander has set a goal of losing not one G.I. during this final operation.  They are looking to Dunkirk and Gallipoli – the latter was performed flawlessly without losing a single soldier.

But both of those operations were defeats, the last heroic act of an doomed campaign.

No victorious army ever has to withdraw under a strict timeline while harried by the enemy.  If the US decided to remove its bases in Germany, or Japan, we would do so safely and peacefully.  When we closed our bases in the Philippines, we did so without fuss or drama.

That latter example provides a useful contrast.  Facing escalating financial demands for basing rights that no longer mattered, the administration of George H.W. Bush decided to leave.  And that was that.  We left.  No drama, no bombs, just a historical footnote as Clark Field and Subic Bay Naval Base were turned over to the Philippine government.

I doubt the Iraq drawdown will be as smooth.

How's that war in Libya going?

The ongoing non-war in Libya may yet result in Gaddafi’s ouster, but new developments must be giving the Duck of Death and his adherents reason for hope: 

On Thursday events in Libya took a turn for the worse with the killing of opposition army chief Abdel Fatah Younis. Not only have the Libyan rebels lost one of their most experienced military leaders, but the murky circumstances surrounding his death now threaten to provoke a war within rebel-controlled territories—to start another Libyan war before the current one has ended.

As I’ve noted before, the strategic situation in Libya is not what it seems.  While it is true that Gaddafi and his minions are increasingly hemmed in on every side, this has the virtue of shortening his supply lines and allowing him to maintain a tight grip on his own forces.  The opposition, by contrast, must contend with severe logistical problems as it attempts to deliver, food, ammunition and fuel to their advancing forces.  Even the slightest setback and force a lengthy retreat –with all the disorder and waste that this entails.

One thing I had not considered was dissention in the rebel ranks.  It should not be surprising, however, that the rear areas where the troops are being mustered should become breeding grounds for discontentment – particularly when many of the leaders are defectors from Gaddafi’s regime, and therefore have plenty of folks who’d like to settle some scores.

From a tactical standpoint, the rebels have the worst of all positions – their lengthy supply lines mean they can only bring a fraction of their total strength to bear.  Because of divisions between the various elements, this means that the burden of combat will fall unevenly, as will resources.  The main body of troops therefore has nothing to do but get in fights as they wait their turn.

Anyone who has ever watched what happens when the fleet comes in from a tour or army units get leave near a combat zone should be able to guess what happens next.  In the West, we see bar fights and barracks brawls.  In Libya, without stone-faced MPs and a vigilant Shore Patrol, things could rapidly escalate.  Add the mutual distrust and ambition of the higher commanders, and the Libyan uprising looks more like a series of Roman legionary commanders vying for a chance at the Imperial purple than a popular uprising seeking democracy.

 

The dog days of bummer

The Posse has been distracted for the last few weeks with business trips and chores around the ranch, and the blog has been languishing.  For this we apologize, but long-term readers have no doubt come to expect such lapses over the summer.

While most of Washington obsesses about the latest manufactured drama (the debt limit) the rest of the world continues on its merry way.

The war in Libya is effectively at a standstill.  While the optimists at Strategy Page continue to talk up the many strategic advantages held by NATO and its rebel allies, the fact remains that Gaddafi holds a superior position.  Yes, he is surrounded, isolated and at bay, but the effort required to pry him out of his stronghold is beyond the means of his enemies.  The French – who were one of the big supporters of this operation – are now working on a deal to buy him off.  This is not what one would expect if NATO’s situation were as strong as some believe it to be.

In fact, as this blog noted more than two weeks ago, NATO’s ability to fight is rapidly being eroded.  The military prowess is there, but the political will – and therefore the financial/logistical support – is not.  Just as the UK is watching its helicopter fleet wear out years ahead of schedule over Afghanistan, many NATO allies are seeing their pared-down air forces exhaust themselves at a sortie rate far beyond anything they are used to, or are willing to pay for.

NATO’s trump card is of course the US military, which could oust Gaddafi within a few days.  Yet the president cannot escalate matters without further damaging his own credibility.  Unlike his predecessor, Barack Obama does not tend to dig in when matters go against him.  He may become petulant and peevish, but he almost always backs down.  Even his signature accomplishments – the stimulus and Obamacare – owe far more to Nancy Pelosi’s arm twisting than any White House pressure.

So it is that US involvement is downplayed as much as possible so as to provide credence to the bizarre and logic-twisting contention that the War Powers Act doesn’t apply because we aren’t technically doing anything warlike in Libya.

Given that the last thing the president wants is to explain the three-month stalemate, the ongoing soap opera over the debt limit makes perfect sense.

Meanwhile, all Gaddafi has to do is hang on.

 While a flamboyant dresser and ideological lunatic, Gaddafi does possess a high degree of cunning, which is how he has survived so long.  He can read opponents quite well, and the irresolution of the West is helping to sustain his own hopes that he may somehow ride out the storm around him.

Even assuming that Gaddafi can be toppled, what comes next?  Libya is a deeply fragmented country whose component parts – the east, west and south – historically have not gotten along very well.  The Duck of Death may well decide to partake of a negotiated exile and leave the messy cleanup of his reign to someone else.  Is the US prepared to shoulder that burden?  Of course not.

Oh well, at least the economy’s booming and the job market is surging.

 

Italy calls it quits in Libya

It is rare to see a prediction come true so completely so quickly, but the Posse will claim a victory lap on our earlier Libyan strategic analyses.

The current situation is familiar to anyone who studied the North African campaign of World War II:  The rebels are stymied at what is often referred to as “the corner” of Cyrenaica – the point at which the coastal road turns west after Al ‘Uqaylah and Adjabiya (Agbdabia and El Agheila on my battered copy of “Afrika Korps”).

At this point, the supply line from Benghazi begins to fray – it is stretched too tight.  This was where Sir Archibald Wavell’s brilliant 1940 offensive ground to a halt – and the line from which Erwin Rommel drove Wavell’s depleted troops in a rout in 1941.  After heavy fighting, Wavell’s replacement, Claude Auckinleck, once again drove Rommel back to almost the same line in December 1941 – and once again his forces were sent hurtling backwards by Rommel.

Sir Bernard Montgomery was finally able to punch through - to “turn the corner”-  in 1942, but only because of overwhelming strength and the tremendous advantage of having thousands of Allied troops playing in Rommel’s backfield (Operation Torch).

This is the dynamic to which I was referring.  Gaddafi is under siege, and there is considerable pressure for him to give way. 

At Strategy Page, Austin Bay gives a good summary of all the threats facing Gaddafi.

However, Bay omits a key factor in Gaddafy’s favor:  inertia – what Clausewitz called the friction of war.

The NATO air forces are ill-accustomed to wartime operations.  The keen edge they took on during the Cold War has been dulled by 20 years of budget cuts and loss of mission focus.  Some nations have already exhausted their stocks of munitions and must rely on American replacements.

At the same time, Gaddafi knows that world opinion – and in this case American public opinion – is growing restless with the cost and the burden of the operation.  Indeed, Italy is now calling for a halt to combat operations.

Three months ago, when the uprising first began, Gaddafi could likely have been overthrown with a show of force.  At the moment when Libyan fighter aircraft and warships were defecting to Malta and when Army battalions were throwing in with the rebels – that was the moment for US aircraft to swoop low over Tripoli and send an unmistakable message that the regime’s days were numbered.

The opening hours of a rebellion are critical, for it is at that moment when the loyalty of the old regime is at its weakest.  No one knows who will turn next, and the fear is not that the loyalists will win, but that the rebels will punish those that fail to defect fast enough.

That was the moment when Gaddafi was at his weakest.  Typically, Obama gave a speech.

Gaddafi rallied his forces, and now we are three months into a two-week operation.

Once again, we come down to the eternal truth that war is a contest of wills.

Gaddafi (and his family) has far more at stake and far more to lose than NATO.  Bay is correct that he has five fronts to contend with, but he can do so with utter clarity: His very life is at stake.  This allows him to achieve a degree of focus NATO cannot match.

The rate of operations is already wearing out the various continents’ – Norway pulled its meager contribution and others are likely to follow suit as the operational tempo threatens to take years off of the service lives of their aircraft.

With the Euro in crisis and budgets strained to the breaking point, defense ministers across the Continent are faced with choosing between a face-saving deal with Gaddafi or a much-diminished air force for the foreseeable future.  Make no mistake – any plane lost over Libya will not be replaced, and the European air force generals know it.

This is the friction I spoke of earlier, and it is working almost entirely against NATO – and therefore in favor of Gaddafi. 

Gaddafi knows that he does not need to military defeat the United States or even outlast us – simply hanging on until Italy loses heart will be enough.  From the looks of it, he may almost be there.

 

 

Bye, bye beret

After years of complaints, the Army is finally letting soldiers opt out of the beret.

It was never a happy choice, what with it infringing on the Ranger status symbol (a black beret) and also another unfortunate resemblance:

A G.I. friend of mine remarked that shortly after it's adoption it was known as the "Monica."  This term was not given out of affection.

Still, it is nice to see our troops getting decent headgear again.

Memorial Day 2011 - Remembering Sean Grimes

This blog started in March of 2004.  A year later, as Iraq continuted to dominate the headlines, we learned that an old friend was killed in Iraq - Capt. Sean Grimes.

Here is what we wrote at the time:

The terrorists are losing, yet they kill all the same.  They kill because it is all they have left, all they can do.  They do it in a petty, pointless way, seeking to ease the emptiness and hatred in their hearts by spewing grief and despair.

Would the darkness in their souls manifest, it could almost blot out the sun, smothering the world in a new age of brutality and death.

People like [a long-departed troll] have chosen to stand on the sidelines, clapping and cheering the onrushing tide of evil.

Fools that they are, they dream of riding out the storm, that somehow the cloud of darkness will bypass them when it reaches up to the heavens.

This will not happen because of the bravery and sacrifice of people like Captain Grimes.

They are the ones holding the torches of hope and liberty bright, keeping the hateful darkness at bay.  So long as we remember and honor them, those flames will never go out.

That was seven years ago, and the light burns still.

Iraq has vanished from the headlines, but we cannot forgot those who gave so much - not just the fallen, but their families and loved ones.

Today, this site honors and remembers a healer who died for his country.

Rest in Peace.

 

 

Apocalypse then - and maybe again

Almost a month ago I noted that Obama's foreign policy was hopelessly muddled and that despite his ostensible objections to "wars of choice," his diplomacy made wars more likely, not less.

This is because our intentions are no longer known, and our objectives are no longer clear.  The past week has only sharpened this criticism.  Are we on Israel's side or not?  Would we support immediate recognition of a Palestinian state?

Wars, particularly in the modern age, often result from miscalculation on the part of one or more of the players.  Each side thinks the other is bluffing and thus they up the ante.  Just off the cuff, one can cite both world wars, Korea and Kuwait in 1990 as wars that were caused chiefly by botched diplomacy.

It is clear that our Libya policy is a mess.  What bothers me about it - other than the waste and pointless destruction - is that it is indicative of a fundamental lack of seriousness about war in general on the part of this administration.

The Belmont Club had a post this week that featured film from the Air Force's 1958 simulation of nuclear war.

The war plan of Strategic Air Command was simple:  bomb the Soviets until they either surrender or we run out of nuclear weapons to drop on them.  There is in fact a scene where this very problem is discussed - "How long until we run out of nukes to throw at them?"

It is easy to look at this through the prism of Strangelovian cynicism, but in fact the military leaders of 1958 were in deadly earnest.  These were men who had served as operational commanders during World War II - generals who led divisions, corps, and even number air forces into the maelstrom of unlimited conflict.  The ones calling the shots in 1958 were the ones who had been subordinates - and therefore planners or executive officers - in 1945.  War was not a gentle, controlled thing.  They figured that the next war would be just like the last one - fought to the finish.

This awareness of war has been lost.  The World War II generation is all but gone - the survivors are fading fast and long vanished from positions of power and leadership.  They are as removed from the levers of power as the Great War generation was in 1980.

The result is that we have a class of political elites who have no experience of total war and who do not understand it.  They speak of "time-limited, kinetic military action" to dampen the electoral fallout of killing and side-step legislative obstacles like the War Powers Act.  For them, dropping bombs on a foreign country is primarily a domestic political event, something to boost the polls and prove the president's "gutsy" decision-making.  "Hah, can't call him a peacenik, look at all the places he's bombed!"  This is their implicit argument.

But at its core, it betrays a far more dangerous attitude to war, for it treats it as a minor event, really nothing more than a campaign advertisement with extra-realistic special effects.

It does not occur to them that things could escalate and spin out of control faster than any of them realize.

The war planer of 1958 understood this.  They had lived it.  They were grimly resolved to finish whatever came their way with the maximum force at their disposal.  The current leadership are their children - but they have yet to grow up.