Leadership Archives
Or, We Could Kill All The Pirates
By Lt Col P
Against the dictates of all common sense, and fine historical examples, this shit is still going on.
On a Vital Route, a Boom in Piracy Somali Marauders Step Up Attacks in Gulf of Aden; Shipping Costs SoarABOARD A YEMENI COAST GUARD VESSEL -- Somali pirates plying the Gulf of Aden in speedboats equipped with grenade launchers and scaling ladders have launched what the maritime industry calls the biggest surge of piracy in modern times, sending shipping costs soaring and the world's navies scrambling to protect the main water route from Asia and the Middle East to Europe.
We have discussed this before, always with the same tone of disbelief. WTF, over? This is an ugly problem, but a simple one, and one that has a remarkably simple solution--
Kill all of the pirates.
Seriously. Why do we allow a handful of khat-addled assholes to dominate one of the world's most important sea lanes? We, the western powers, have sufficient naval units in the area to take care of the problem in very quick order. What we lack is the will. We apply an idiotically high standard of judicial due process to a situation that doesn't lend itself well to a judicial solution. Anyone who has dealt with Somalis can tell you that they laugh at western legalisms, and what they perceive as western weaknesses. And then they redouble their violent efforts to take what they want from you. They do react very well to a boot on their necks, and a gun to their heads. Then they tend to wise up quickly.
Here's how it needs to be done. Oil tanker sends distress call, takes evasive actions insofar as it is capable. (Or better yet, armed men aboard oil tanker defend by fire.) Coalition forces despatch vessels and boarding parties. Pirates who survive ensuing gun battle are lined up by the rail and shot in the head, then dumped overboard. Pirate boats are burned. If their bases or villages on the coast can be identified, said bases are raided and destroyed. No fuss no muss, no ransom, no hostages, no skyrocketing costs.
Damn, sometimes we are our own worst enemies. At the very moment we need to keep oil flowing freely at the lowest possible prices, our own flaccidness jacks up the price.
Read More »
Accountability: The Axe falls on the GW
By Bull Nav
I have been wondering for some time when this was going to happen.
SAN DIEGO — The skipper and executive officer of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier George Washington were fired Wednesday, Navy officials said, in the aftermath of an investigation into the May 22 at-sea fire that blamed unauthorized smoking that ignited improperly stored flammables.
Ships have fires. Not a lot but they happen. Most are small and quickly extinguished and usually don't require even a port visit to repair.
The GEORGE WASHINGTON has been in port San Diego since late May undergoing evaluation and repairs. It missed its scheduled relief of the USS KITTY HAWK and participation in the RIMPAC exercise.
The fire has forced the delays in the turnover of both ships and crews in San Diego, now scheduled to begin Aug. 7 when the Kitty Hawk arrives in San Diego, Navy officials said.
George Washington is slated to leave San Diego on Aug. 21 for Japan, where the ship is expected to arrive in late September, they added.
I had an instructor once upon a time who insisted that accidents did not happen: they are caused.
When you find the cause is lax standards, you punish those responsible, which on a ship is the Captain. He is held accountable.
Its unfortunate. But in my mind they were lucky: no one died.
Suck It Up, Pretty Boy
By Lt Col P
Boo hoo. Cry all you want. Plenty of other soldiers and their families have a lot more to cry about.
I hope the Army screws every last day of active duty out of him, and that he misses any chance he ever has to play pro ball. You took the money, young man, and you took a space that someone else, say someone else truly dedicated to the cause, could have taken.
PERMITS. A nation-wide drain on the military.
Read More »
Musings on the USAF
By Townie 76
John and I have been having a private email conversation for several months regarding the state of Air Force leadership. Let me say upfront that I have a great deal of respect for individual members of the United States Air Force. In fact, my only Brother Rat to make General Officer, is in the Air Force, and believe it or not is not a rated Pilot.
Read More »
How does this happen?
By Bull Nav
Over the weekend, while I was at NAVSTA Great Lakes, unbeknownst to me,
An autopsy revealed that a Great Lakes Naval Training Center recruit found dead on Route 41 Sunday died of a mixture of drugs.
According to Lake County Coroner Dr. Richard Keller, 20-year-old James Stephens of Texas died because of a mixture of heroin, cocaine and an anti-anxiety drug called Benzo Diazepines.
Stephens body was found early Sunday near the Crossland Economy Suites, 1177 S. Northpoint Blvd., between routes 41 and 43 and south of Route 120. There were no signs injury or trauma.
He had not been in the Navy for very long (according to a Navy Times article):
Navy spokesman Matt Mogle said Stephens joined the Navy five months ago as a fireman recruit. Stephens was enrolled in an engineering program at Naval Station Great Lakes.
But again: how does something like this happen?
The young man had been in the Navy for all of 5 months, and now his division officer is going to be writing a letter to his family. Its not going to be a letter about how heroic he was. No, to the contrary it is going to be one that I don't think any family would understand.
Who was watching out for him? I thought we were teaching our young men and women about teamwork and about how they need to take care of each other.
My heart goes out to his family.
How We Fight
By John
Interesting video, though -in typical Air Force fashion- they named it as cumbersomely as possible: Spherical Situation Awareness in the Groundfight .
Some this should probably be taken with a grain of salt. Wynne and Mosley were canned and I'm highly suspect of military leaders who toss around meaningless company words like "habits of thought" and "spherical situation awareness." You know what George Marshall said about war?
The art of war has no traffic with rules, for the infinitely varied circumstances and conditions of combat never produce exactly the same situation twice. Mission, terrain, weather, dispositions, armament, morale, supply, and comparative strength are variables whose mutations always combine to form a new tactical pattern. Thus, in battle, each situation is unique and must be solved on its own merits.It follows, then, that the leader who would become a competent tactician must first close his mind to the alluring formula that well-meaning people offer in the name of victory. To master his difficult art he must learn to cut to the heart of a situation, recognize its decisive elements and base his course of action on these. The ability to do this is not God-given, nor can it be acquired overnight; it is a process of years. He must realize that training in solving problems of all types, long practice in making clear, unequivocal decisions, the habit of concentrating on the question at hand, and an elasticity of mind, are indispensable requisites for the successful practice of the art of war. The leader who frantically strives to remember what someone else did in some slightly similar situation has already set his feet on a well-traveled road to ruin.
In other words, you can't condense the art of war into bullet points or powerpoint presentations or.... nifty little phrases like "spherical situational awareness." And I'd submit to you that forming predictable "habits of thought" is a terrible characteristic in a military leader.
But the video sure is purty! Style over substances? No... not the Air Force!
New Air Force Nominations
By Bull Nav
OK, so today SECDEF announced his recommendations for nominations for Secretary and Chief of Staff:
WASHINGTON, June 9, 2008 – Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has recommended that President Bush nominate Michael B. Donley, the Defense Department’s director of administration and management, to be the next secretary of the Air Force and Air Force Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, commander of U.S. Transportation Command, to become Air Force chief of staff.
I don't know anything about either of these folks, so I invite your feedback and comments.
Specifically for all you Air Force types (or those who deal with the AF on a regular basis), are the SECDEF's choices going to give you the type of leadership that is truly needed right now?
John Says: Yes! General Schwartz is a career tactical airlift/special forces flyer. I figured it'd be either someone with that type of background or a bomber pilot with experience in the nuclear delivery mission. This is a historic hand off -- fighter pilots have ruled for a long time. Now command goes to a man who has spent his life in the tactical, black world. So is it safe to say that the rise of the Special Forces is complete?
Air Force Top Leadership Out
By Bull Nav
If this report in Air Force Times is correct, they are:
Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley are expected to be asked to resign Thursday, Air Force Times has learned.
The stunning development follows a series of high-profile scandals and disagreements between Air Force leadership and Defense Secretary Robert Gates in the past year, during which both the Pentagon and congressional leadership have increasingly expressed frustration about the Air Force’s top bosses.
The last straw appears to be a report on nuclear weapons handling by Navy Adm. Kirkland Donald, director of naval nuclear propulsion. The critical report convinced Gates that changes must be made.
I guess SECDEF just does not like the way the Air Force is doing things. I sincerely hope (if this report is accurate) that this will be a change for the better.
UPDATE: according to ABC, this has been confirmed by a "senior defense official."
Officer Rot
By John
No comments, good discussion already raging at the link.
I am on board with that...
By Bull Nav
President Bush today to the Israel's Knesset:
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Outstanding.
Somebody, however, is a little upset with this...
Gunday Sunday: Charlton Heston
By Lt Col P
Charlton Heston, actor, patriot, veteran, civil liberties activist, died yesterday in California.
Generations of movie-goers know him by his major roles. Even greater numbers of Americans are indebted to him for his outspoken advocacy of Liberty. He marched for civil rights in the 1960s. In the 1990s he ascended to the presidency of the NRA and added his voice and considerable presence to the fight for the 2nd Amendment, retaking the moral high ground and fearlessly venturing into campus lions' dens and MSM cesspools. He never backed down and always did it with a smile and a good-natured challenge to his audiences-- good advice for us.
Let's not forget that he also served in the US Army Air Force in WWII, in an unglamorous but vital theater of the war. Like millions of others, including most of his fellows in the entertainment industry, he did what he was called on to do, when and where he was needed. There too is good advice for us.
Godspeed to you, Mr Heston. Keep your front sight clear and your powder dry. Thanks upon thanks for all you did for your country.
Fox Fallon Out as CENTCOM
By Bull Nav
As I am sure most everyone has heard by now, ADM Fallon has submitted his resignation (and retirement request) which has been accepted by SECDEF. The official release is here at Defenselink.
Most folks point to this Esquire article as the straw that broke the camel's back.
I remember when he took over last year and thinking that he was overstepping his bounds as a Combatant Commander. You might be a 4-star, but the CINC is the one who makes the policy.
At home from work tonight, I got a call from a guy I know at work. Nice enough fellow, younger, tends towards the Dem side of things. He has not been in a leadership position and does not understand what that means. He wanted to know if this was normal, if anyone else in this type of situation would have resigned.
I explained to him command and accountability. I explained to him the Oath of Office and what it entails. I explained that when you can't follow the bosses policies, then it's time to go.
Not sure if he got it...
I hope ADM (soon to be retired) Fallon enjoys retirement. Wonder where he will pop up next?
A Foul Case of Appeasement
By Charlie
Thought I'd Highlight Dr. Seuss's other patriotic work ahead of a CGI flick this weekend.
Also, the Lorax is about the tragedy of the commons, not preserving the environment or the precious "trees". But don't get me started...
So I was reprimanded the other day...
By John
Because the abbreviation for "Lieutenant" in my powerpoint briefing was soldier-style LT instead of Air Force style Lt. Exact words? "Son, this is not the Army." Noted.
In other news, I hear there's a war going on.
Thanksgiving with the Boss Man
By John
Mike Yon breaks bread with General Petraeus, and reports on Baquba five months after Arrowhead Ripper:
Back in May, just before operation Arrowhead Ripper, there were about 60 violent acts per day. Now there are about 6. The markets are opening and the streets are again filled with people. I thought the veterans of Baqubah might like to know that their efforts have made a tremendous difference for the people here. You fought hard. This writer saw it. Your sacrifices truly meant something.
Hotel Tango: Vodkapundit
Ivan Embraces Transformation
By John
Are the Ruskies reading from the book of Rumsfeld? Russian Army Chief of Staff Yuri Baluyevsky says da.
In a press conference last week, Baluyevsky said that:
Russia's Armed Forces, like all militaries in the world, would be putting an emphasis on quality, not quantity."It will be a leaner but meaner, well trained and equipped, and professional force," the general said.
......
"As for the modern Russian Army, it is not the Army that we have inherited from the collapsed Soviet Union in the early 90's," Baluyevsky added. "Today it's a totally new Army. As for the number of men, in the Soviet times the Army had more than 4 million servicemen and now it is a bit over 1 million. As you may notice, it has shrunk by 3 million."
Nice of him to do the math for us, I almost got out my calculator.
In Russia's case, you can certainly make the argument that they're in bad need of upgraded training and tactics, despite the fact that their improvement from the First Chechen War to the Second Chechen War was extraordinary. The bar was set pretty low after Ivan took an Afghanistan-esqe whupping in the first war, but I digress...
Lighter and leaner is the new hotness in today's global defense establishment. The problem is, while many nations have some force multiplying technology that allows for a reduced military, few are advanced enough to sync up geographically dispersed units into a single fighting force. That's a type of synergy that only the US military enjoys, where pilots drop bombs on targets in Iraq while sitting in an air-conditioned trailer outside Las Vegas and forward air controllers call in B-52s from Guam to drop iron on Tangos in Afghanistan.
Russia has some technological standouts. They make superb fighters, tanks, and SAMs, but they can't tie it all together. Glonass, the Russian GPS constellation, sucks, their comm sats are relics of the Cold War, and they seem more interested in supporting the grunt with indiscriminate artillery bursts than precision air strikes. They want leaner and meaner, but so far have only accomplished the "leaner" end of their transformation.
No doubt Ivan will one day develop a capable net-centric approach to warfighting. But, as the success of the Surge is creating a movement to undo 16 years of US defense cuts, by the time Russian catches up, warfare may have already evolved to the point where the lean, mean fighting machine is obsolete.
Petraeus' New Crew
By John
Petraeus helping pick new Generals:
The Army has summoned the top U.S. commander in Iraq back to Washington to preside over a board that will pick some of the next generation of Army leaders, an unusual decision that officials say represents a vote of confidence in Gen. David H. Petraeus's conduct of the war, as well as the Army counterinsurgency doctrine he helped rewrite.The Army has long been criticized for rewarding conventional military thinking and experience in traditional combat operations, and current and former defense officials have pointed to Petraeus's involvement in the promotion board process this month as a sign of the Army's commitment to encouraging innovation and rewarding skills beyond the battlefield.
Some junior and midlevel officers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have been particularly outspoken in their criticisms, saying the Army's current leadership lacks a hands-on understanding of today's conflicts and has not listened to feedback from younger personnel.
"It's unprecedented for the commander of an active theater to be brought back to head something like a brigadier generals board," said retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, former head of the Army War College.
Not that it's completely related, but when George C. Marshall took over as Army Chief of Staff, one of his first moves was to unload the hodgepodge of Army generals who had spent a career drinking the "old war" kool-aid. Controversial plan at the time, yeah. But it revolutionized the force, effectively destroying the Army good old boys club, a bunch of stubborn old bureaucrats who gave Billy Mitchell the boot while the Nazis were developing a brilliant choreography of infantry, armor, and aircraft known as the blitzkrieg.
The restructuring paid off. Omar Bradley was promoted from straight from Lt Colonel to Brigadier General, skipping over the rank of full colonel. George S. Patton was a colonel in 1939. By 1943 he had three stars. Dwight Eisenhower was rotting away in a staff job up until 1942, two years later he was leading Operation Overlord as Supreme Allied Commander. And so it went.
So do I see a bit of a connection here? A brilliant leader going sapper on Big Army's cumbersome checklist style of officer promotion, so as to better posture the force to fight tomorrow's war?
Yeah, you betcha.
Update: Whoops, a belated Hotel Tango to W.Thomas Smith at The Tank. Lo siento, dude!
SECDEF Gets Some
By John
Robert Gates seems to know what he's about:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that unless Congress passes funding for the Iraq war within days, he will direct the Army and Marine Corps to begin developing plans to lay off employees and terminate contracts early next year.Gates, who met with members of Congress on Wednesday, said that he does not have the money or the flexibility to move funding around to adequately cover the costs of the continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"There is a misperception that this department can continue funding our troops in the field for an indefinite period of time through accounting maneuvers, that we can shuffle money around the department. This is a serious misconception," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.
As a result, he said that he is faced with the undesirable task of preparing to cease operations at Army bases by mid-February, and lay off about 100,000 defense department employees and an equal number of civilian contractors. A month later, he said, similar moves would have to be made by the Marines.
Some members of Congress believe the Pentagon can switch enough money to cover the war accounts, Gates said. But he added that he only has the flexibility to transfer about $3.7 billion — which is just one week's worth of war expenses. Lawmakers, he said, may not understand how complicated and restrictive the situation is.
The House on Wednesday passed, 218-203, a $50 billion bill that would pay for the wars but require that troops start to leave Iraq in 30 days.
I like the idea of hitting Congress where it hurts, constituencies that care more about their jobs than Iraq, but -if things go nuclear- how effective is it going to be? Without pulling out the map, aren't most representatives -sans Senators- from military areas generally conservative and pro-mission? I've got the big ones in mind, Norfolk/VA Beach, Fort Hood, Fort Bragg/Pope AFB, certain areas of San Diego, etc.
I was talking with Charlie a few days ago (yes, he's finally home), and we both noted how much the military has suffered from the Clinton-era cuts and then the later Rumsfeldian Transformation snafu. While we can't posture ourselves against a single, solid threat like the USSR anymore, both Charlie and I agreed that we need to elevate our capabilities to a much higher level of general readiness, given the instability and unpredictable nature of our new enemy.
Anti-war representatives love to toss around these canned, meaningless press releases about how the wars are "breaking" our Armed Forces, when -in reality- their underfunding of the military is placing more strain on the force than the wars ever could.
Think about it like this. If you've neglected your Armed Forces to the point where it can't deal with the stresses of two small wars (where your combined enemy numbers approximately 25,000 bad guys), then you have failed your servicemen and women.
Can you defeat an enemy ideology by throwing money at the problem? Who knows? Reagan seemed to think so....
Kill the Air Force!
By John
Robert Farley sees a brave new military world over at the American Prospect: a world without the US Air Force.
What it does on its own -- strategic bombing -- isn't suited to modern warfare. What it does well -- its tactical support missions -- could be better managed by the Army and Navy. It's time to break up the Air Force
Here's the column: What's the Air Force for?
I was flattered to join Robert, the Danger Room crew, Jason Sigger of Armchair Generalist, Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard, and David Axe of War is Boring in a roundtable discussion on whether or not the Air Force should be rolled back into the Army.
I'm closing comments on this one, I'd rather have you guys go over to Prospect and weigh in there.
I will say this. Although not everyone agreed that we should burn the AF (I voted nay), feelings were unanimous that the Air Force is without a compass and a paddle. I joked with Robert about the amount of hate mail that he'd get over this one, but honestly.... good on him for recognizing the problem, and organizing a non-partisan roundtable to talk out solutions.
Also, my buddy Bruce at QandO launches his own discussion about Robert's column here.
Progress
By John
Finally, an Air Force general who speaks my language.
On the use of UAVs to help identify fires in southern California, Brig. General James Poss says "This is the United States Air Force you are talking to. We designed these things to locate targets -- to help us start fires, not put them out."
Hey, he's no General Mattis.... but compare that line to this cumbersome quote from Chief of Staff General Mosley: "America depends on the Air Force to maintain global reach, global power and global vigilance today, tomorrow and into the future" and you can't help but to feel a little foward momentum.
Drinking the Blue Kool-Aid
By John
I've talked before about how horribly inept the Air Force has become at the fine art of public affairs. Right now, the AF is in the middle of a large-scale modernization effort that is as controversial as it is needed. They have a fleet of aircraft that are falling apart, with the average age of most airframes being appx. 27 years.
The modernization plan is expensive. Way expensive, actually. And the Air Force is having a tough time justifying the acquisition of $200 million dollar fighter aircraft while the Army and Marines scream for funds to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It wouldn't hurt to start talking like human-freakin-beings instead of a corporate cliche machine. Take this Air Force news story on a senior leadership conference onfleet modernization:
Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Rodney J. McKinley underscored the impact these strategic plans have on Airmen who accomplish the Air Force's mission."I'm very pleased with the level of discussion and critical thinking that went on here today," he said. "Our Airmen should know that their service's top leaders are fully engaged and working hard to ensure that (they) have the right tools at the right time to defend the nation in the fight tonight and the fight tomorrow."
The summit concluded with senior Air Force leaders -- including major command, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve leaders -- sharing a common vision of a comprehensive, capabilities-based force structure plan to enable continued Air Force mission success.
"America depends on the Air Force to maintain global reach, global power and global vigilance today, tomorrow and into the future," General Moseley said.
Today, tomorrow, and into the future. BLECH. Yeah, that's going to win us plenty of support. What a meaningless quote. Instead of considering the Air Force's need for new jets, I'm still trying to figure out the difference between "tomorrow" and "into the future." Maybe next time we go in front of Congress for funds we can justify it by farting out the core values then demanding a 30 billion dollar check.
The Air Force is not going to be able to win the political backing needed to modernize until they reengage themselves in this fight. That means they stop talking like Hal from 2001: A Space Odyssey, cowboy up and sacrifice some of their new fast movers for a big honking fleet of COIN birds. You know how many A-10s you can get for the price of a single F-22 Raptor? 20. 20. And a full compliment of 22 Super Tucanos for nearly the same price. Even cheaper is the MQ-9 Reaper. We should have so many CAS birds flying over CENTCOM's AOR that you could walk from Baghdad to Djibouti to Kabul on their wingtips.
Yeah, I know that doesn't fit the neat and tidy Five Rings concept of Air War. But if the Air Force really wants to get in the fight, that's precisely what they need. They've got to stop thinking about fighting other states, at least for a while, and start thinking about killing Tangos.
The Pomp and the Toils of War
By John
You want to talk memorable scenes in Patton? Everyone always throws back the opening speech, George C. Scott juxtaposed against a towering American flag, gruffly speaking of our national love for the "sting" of battle.
Me?
Yeah, I like Patton the warrior. But I love Patton the mystic. The poet. The historian.
My favorite scene in Patton wasn't the defeat of the Afrika Corps, or the seizure of Palermo, of even the legendary opening speech. It was this scene. "I was here."
Hardass generals are a dime dozen. Patton's roughness isn't what immortalized him.
It was his poet's heart. That's what made Patton Patton.
Read More »
"He Didn't Have Any Quit In Him"
By Lt Col P
Just saw Marcus Luttrell on Bill O'Reilly, talking about his fellow SEAL and Medal of Honor recipient, LT Michael Murphy. O'Reilly asked him to tell us about LT Murphy's character, what set him apart. Set him apart even from those who are in a different league altogether.
"He didn't have any quit in him," came the reply.
About a year from now we'll select our next President, a whole new House of Representatives and a good number of Senators. Are we going to vote for quitters or for fighters?
If you need some guidance, remember LT Murphy and his men-- no quit in them.
Sub-Standard Troops: Keep ‘em?
By Charlie
As my endless deployment draws to a close, I have a philosophical question to offer up to the readership of the blog. Should below-standard soldiers be retained by the Army, or thanked for their sub-standard service and be shown the door?
In any organization, you will have some folks that just aren’t up to the professional standards of the group. In the civilian world, these people are usually fired. In the Army, however, there is a current retention crunch that is persuading many commanders to retain troops despite their performance simply to couch their numbers. Unit manning numbers now reflect on a commander’s evaluation report, giving them an incentive to keep troops in their units, whether they meet standards or not.
So should soldiers be kept on the books if they desire to stay and serve their country but can’t pass the PT test or meet their unit’s duty requirements? A standard is just that, and allowing people to not meet it sets a new standard. Also, some soldiers simply need the right leader to motivate them to meet the standard. However, some troops who have been in for a while are set in their ways, and simply lack the ability to change.
I have my own thoughts on this, but I’d like to get some feedback from the audience on this. Thoughts?
***UPDATE: Let's stipulate that the standards here are either physical or poor performance, not UCMJ.
The Hammer Swings
By Bull Nav
It looks like the Air Force is taking their little nuclear weapon incident from August seriously and some heads are gonna roll:
The Air Force has decided to relieve at least five of its officers of command and is considering filing criminal charges in connection with the Aug. 29 "Bent Spear" incident in which nuclear-armed cruise missiles were mistakenly flown from North Dakota to Louisiana, two senior Air Force officials said yesterday.
I was wondering if something like this was going to happen.
You just don't play around with those things.
Although some details are not yet publicly known, officials familiar with the investigation say the problem originated at Minot when a pylon carrying six nuclear-armed cruise missiles was mistaken for one carrying unarmed missiles. Minot had been in the midst of shipping unarmed cruise missiles to Barksdale for decommissioning.
Sounds to me like someone got a little careless.
That initial mistake was followed by many other failures, ultimately allowing six nuclear warheads to slip outside the Air Force's normal safeguards for more than 36 hours. The warheads were airborne for more than three hours and sat for long periods on runways at both air bases without a special guard. Air Force officials say there was little risk that the warheads could have been detonated, but the lapses could theoretically have led to warheads being stolen or damaged in a way that could have disseminated toxic nuclear materials.
This is what happens when you settle into a "routine" and get lackadaisical about major evolutions.
Every time you have a major incident like this, it is a leadership issue. Period.
Clearly standards were not being enforced and that comes from the top.
What is Wrong with the Air Force?
By John
Buckle up folks, this one is a bear.
JERUSALEM, Oct. 13 — A study of the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war commissioned by the United States Air Force and to be published this month concludes that Israel’s use of air power was of diminishing value as the fight dragged on because it was used without enough discrimination.Although the war was widely criticized in Israel and abroad for relying too heavily on the air force, the study argues that air power remains the most flexible tool in fighting groups like Hezbollah, because ground forces alone could not have achieved Israel’s aims. Israel’s error, the study concludes, was insufficient discernment in its airstrikes.
By bombing too many targets of questionable importance for its aims, and not explaining why it bombed what it did, Israel lost the war for public opinion, according to the author of the study, William M. Arkin, an expert in assessing bomb damage. “Israel bombed too much and bombed the wrong targets, falling back upon cookie-cutter conventional targeting in attacking traditional military objects,” Mr. Arkin wrote. “Individual elements of each target group might have been justified, but Israel also undertook an intentionally punishing and destructive air campaign against the people and government of Lebanon.”
If this guy could stick to straight-shooting analysis, I'd have no problem with the Air Force drawing on him as a resource. The problem is, everything that he writes is corrupted by his ideology. His military "analysis" was slanted enough to draw the attention of The Weekly Standard back in 2003:
For starters, he is the scribbler who launched the assault on Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin a week ago by providing NBC with tapes of Boykin speaking in churches, and then followed with a Los Angeles Times op-ed that accused the general of being "an intolerant extremist" and a man "who believes in Christian 'jihad'" (Arkin later admitted on my radio program that Boykin never used the term "jihad").Arkin also wrote that "Boykin has made it clear that he takes his orders not from his Army superiors but from God--which is a worrisome line of command." This statement, like the "jihad" quotation appears to be pure fiction.
ARKIN TOLD ME he got his tip on Boykin's faith talks from a Pentagon source, which suggests that the general has an enemy inside the Pentagon. But if, as most of Boykin's critics have argued, the danger presented by the general's private talks about his faith is their effect on the Islamic world, then why did Arkin rush to publicize these private, little-noticed talks that he believes will hurt the U.S. abroad?
The answer is best found in Arkin's own speech to an audience at the U.S. Naval War College on September 25, 2002. In this lengthy and vitriolic attack on the Bush administration, Arkin admitted to feeling "cynical about the fact that we are going to war to enhance the economic interests of the Enron class," and declared that "the war against terrorism is overstated." Arkin believed, in fact, that the war "is not the core United States national security interest today." He rhetorically asked the audience: "Aren't I just another leftist, self-hating American?" and condemned the administration for taking "enormous liberties with American freedoms." "The war against terrorism," he said, "if it is a war at all, is not World War II or the Cold War, and it is grasping at empty patriotism to claim that it is." He warned of "our tendency to fall back upon secrecy and government control." And he concluded by warning that our foreign policy "convey[s] the wrong message, which is that we have no values, that we are for sale...."
Arkin caused a national uproar earlier this year when he accused American soldiers of being "mercenaries." So yeah, while he's got the cred to talk about the war, it's pretty obvious that his inability to separate factual military analysis from his strong political convictions makes him completely unreliable as an analyst.
So let's analyze his analysis.
“Israel bombed too much and bombed the wrong targets, falling back upon cookie-cutter conventional targeting in attacking traditional military objects,” Mr. Arkin wrote. “Individual elements of each target group might have been justified, but Israel also undertook an intentionally punishing and destructive air campaign against the people and government of Lebanon.”
So if I'm reading this correctly, Israel restricted itself to "cookie-cutter" aim points against strictly military targets, while they waged an unrestricted air war against the Lebanese people.
Yeah, it confused me too.
This is junior high crap, real armchair general stuff. If the US Air Force is "influenced" by Arkin's report, then the Air Force has bigger problems than its budget. Israel's air war was a highly sophisticated, force-centric campaign. Sophisticated enough, the Israelis thought, to do the job of ground troops. Hence the light grunt footprint back in summer 2006. Which, both Arkin and I agree, was foolish..... although for completely different reasons.
Here's a simplified version of the problem:
Arkin is regurgitating a popular meme in anti-war circles, that the Untied States and Israel indiscriminately use air power in their quest to defeat Islamic terrorists, despite the fact that Hezbollah is clearly the one ignoring the established law of armed conflict. It's become a common trademark with Arkin's military analysis. He disguises his opinion pieces by garnishing them with all the right military language, "target sets" and "precision air campaigns," and his only interest seems to be in pushing his ideology.
So that's that. He's a self professed leftist (not that there's anything wrong with that) and his analysis fits a common leftist narrative.
The bigger question is, why did the Air Force hire a used car salesman like Arkin? Or to paraphrase Michael, the OPFOR reader who sent me this link, "What is wrong with the Air Force????"
The New York Times answers:
While critical of how Israel used its air force, Mr. Arkin defends the flexibility of air power in counterterrorism. Although Israel was retaliating for a Hezbollah raid that captured two soldiers and killed others, he considers the war pre-emptive. He said Israel used the raid as a pretext to destroy most of Hezbollah’s longer-range Syrian and Iranian missiles and launchers, which posed the largest threat to Israel.In a post-9/11 world, Mr. Arkin said, the likelihood of the United States’ engaging in another ground war like Iraq is very small. A better model is the fight against the Taliban in 2001, he said, emphasizing air power, special operations and covert action. The 2006 conflict was only the second war of “pure counterterrorism,” he said, which is why the Pentagon wanted to study it.
Why did the Air Force hire Arkin? Because Arkin makes the Air Force relevant again. He writes what they want to hear: that air power is critical to a successful COIN strategy, that properly executed air campaigns can win low-level wars, and that technology -not boots on the ground- is the key to winning to the War on Terrorism.
Think it'd piss off Arkin's buddies at Human Rights Watch and Greenpeace that he's one of the biggest advocates of Secretary Rumsfeld's failed Transformation concept?
This is what the Air Force needs to be told, folks. With the Soviet Union dissolved, they have a dozen secondary missions and no primary one. There's no big bad Bear to fight anymore, just a loosely organized confederation of platoon sized cells..... mosquitoes that the Air Force wants to kill with its cannons. They need someone to say that they're still important, so they hired Arkin to say it.
Unfortunately, despite Arkin's expert "bomb assessment," the Lebanon War proved one thing. This war is a grunt war, it can't be won with the "flexible" employment of air power, or any use of air power for that matter. It takes hearts and minds to win hearts and minds folks, something that a PFC running patrols in Mosul could tell you....but William Arkin and impressive academic resume could not.
The Air Force's Crappy New Language
By John
Back when I was a transition student, waiting to enter official Air Force technical training, I pulled some hours in the base protocol shop. I wasn't too excited about the job, until I found out that we'd be working with base public affairs. PA was actually my first choice on my "dream sheet" for assignment selection. I was kind of bummed when I didn't get it, but that quickly turned to relief when I started learning more about the career field.
One thing I learned to hate about the way Air Force personnel handled the media was their fierce determination to be as rigid and uninformative as possible in press releases. Here, I'll give you an example:
COMBINED AIR OPERATIONS CENTER, Southwest Asia - A U.S. Air Force F-16CJ Fighting Falcon dropped precision munitions near Al Nussayyib, Iraq Sept. 25, killing Abu Nasr al-Tunisi and two other Al Q'aeda in Iraq operatives.
They were killed when the aircraft, assigned to U.S. Central Command Air Forces, dropped two laser guided 500 lb Joint Direct Attack Munition GBU-12 bombs, destroying the terrorist safe house where the three were meeting
"Air power is crucial to setting the conditions for stability in Iraq," said Lt General Gary L. North, Combined Air Forces Component Commander.
He continued with, "Air power overhead provides capability to the fight with precision targeting which was used on Tuesday to ensure these individuals could no longer target innocent Iraq citizens."
You could pratically write a formula for these obtuse canned statements. Acknowledge the overall mission, define impact, and outline your contribution to the overall good. I remember a colonel calling my friend (a PAO) into his office and delivering a 30 minute ass-chewing over an article in which the colonel felt he was misquoted. Turns out he wasn't misquoted, my friend had simply used the parts of the interview that were pertinent. He had quoted the boss word-for-word. Probably left out the part where "Air power is crucial to setting the conditions for stability in Iraq."
It's as if John Madden is doing the war's play-by-play: "scoring is the key to winning, Al." Ugh.
It's not all PA's fault. Somewhere along the line Air Force senior leadership developed this universal lame-speak. Listen to a dozen colonels talk and 11 of them will give you quotes that are so similiar and ambiguous you could interchange each quote to fit a different news story.
Distant from the fight and hated for a controversial acquisitions program, I've always felt that the Air Force is the most disliked service in the Armed Forces. Image is a huge issue with the force right now, and our Public Affairs methodology isn't helping.
I wish the Air Force would shoot straight in these interviews. Talk like men, talk like leaders... instead of talking like robotic bureaucrats.
Take my man General Mattis, for example. When asked in an interview if there would be an increase in the deployment schedule, the hard-charging Marine general replied:
You know, we are at war and the enemy gets a vote in this thing. If the enemy makes a press, a full-court press, and we have to react, we would shrink the dwell (the time troops spend between deployments). It's whatever it takes. But we, what we will not do is permit the enemy an initiative that we don't check him on.
"Full court press" and "check him." You'll never hear an Air Force officer talk like that, not anymore at least. But that's how Americans communicate, that's what America understands. No wonder the public doesn't know what's going on over there. We'll never win the political side of this fight if we keep using this stiff, alien "take me to your leader" dialect.
The Air Force had a General Mattis once. An unapologetic warrior, disdained for his bluntness but so damn alpha-male that you couldn't help but to want to follow the man. A cigar-chomping sonuvabitch who fantasizes about slaying his enemies and made batsh*t crazy claims like we'll "bomb them back to the stone age."
Smartest thing I've heard all day
By John
OMG!!!! Ear porn!
"A committee has often been described as a cul-de-sac down which good ideas are lured and then quietly strangled," said Gen. Ronald Keys, commander of Air Combat Command, during a panel discussion with top Air Force generals in Washington."My thought is let's put somebody in charge of this, let's hold him accountable, and let's see if he can't sort this out," he said.
Yah Keys may run the Air Force's premier command, but he's still in the minority. The Air Force hearts committees so much they may as well write a contract for Hallmark to poetically scribe their love for the things on a pretty pink card with a white lace trim.
Trying to think of the dude who said that committees are groups of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling to do the unnecessary.
Committees are the intellectual afterbirth of bureaucrats who can't make a decision. They're popular in big clunky organizations like corporations, the government, and the military because forming a committee is a leader's surefire, never-fail strategy to weasel out of accountability. They guarantee that no stigma for bad calls end up in the permanent performance file.
So what happens? Agile thinkers, improvisers, and folks who just plain make smart decisions find that their prudence isn't the stratifier that it once was. Committees enable bad leaders to rise to the top, while the innovators tread water. Drinking the bureaucratic kool-aid is the only way to get ahead these days.
Unless you're in combat.
But what about the other 90% of the military?
Committees suck.
Oh yeah, the article is about UAVs or something.
Quote(s) of the Day: Warrior Talk
By John
Because after all the shaky-kneed sissy talk post-Petraeus testimony, I'm feeling the need to honey your ears with dialect of real men.
Now there's another thing I want you to remember. I don't want to get any messages saying that "we are holding our position." We're not holding anything. Let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly and we're not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We're going to hold onto him by the nose and we're going to kick him in the ass. We're going to kick the hell out of him all the time and we're going to go through him like shit through a goose!
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders:
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all.
Language so sweet it makes me want to light up a smoke and cuddle.
The Military and the Constitution
By John
Hey, so Small Wars Journal doesn't have a monopoly on deep-minded strategic thinkers/bloggers. We just have to import ours, har. This bit comes from Colonel Hank Foresman, a VMI alumn (of course), currently serving as Chief of Transformation Third Army Operational Maneuver Future Plans.
Colonel Hank Foresman
Many of us in the United States military have not given much thought to what our Oath of Office means. We begin that oath by swearing or affirming that we “will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that [we] will bear true faith and allegiance to the same,” we then swear that we “will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over. . .so help [us] God.” Unlike many militaries our allegiances is not to the Head of Government, but rather to the fundamental law of our nation, The Constitution of the United States.
So what does that Constitution say about the military. It says very little, but by reading what it does say, it is clear, that it was the founders intent, nee their desire that whilst declaring the President the Commander-in-Chief, they clearly intended that the Congress would be the dominate branch in administration of the Armed Forces. Congress was given first and foremost the power to declare war. Whilst formal declaration of wars have ceased to be fashionable, clearly the intent of the founders was that prior to the commitment of the Armed Forces of the United States that the Congress of the United States would give their assent. So why is this power given to the Congress and not the President. For a very simple reason the founders of our nation were well aware of the misadventures, which had occurred under the prerogatives of a nations sovereign. They understood the lessons of a common shared history, a history that had seen Royal government ignore the desires and weal of the Parliament, to fight wars without the assent of Parliament and to demand later that Parliament pay for his adventures. The founders sought to ensure that they alone, as the representatives of the citizens of the United States would commit the United States Armed Forces.
Read More »
Not on the Night Stand
By John
But, it should be.
Was watching Monday Night Football, Bengals-Ravens, and there was a short spot on Carson Palmer's (Bengals Q) offseason reading....
Palmer loved it, apparently. High marks on Amazon, too. I love how football and the military share the same warrior ethos. It's just so damn American.
Book Review: Supreme Command
By John
This one comes from Colonel Hank Forsmen, VMI '76, so it'll be far more serious and cerebral than any review coming from this guy. Col H wrote this back in 02, so it is a bit dated, not that the date really matters, given the subject material.
Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime
A quick read of the Washington Post or The New York Times in recent weeks and months will see quite often the name of Eliot A. Cohen. Mr. Cohen is an academic. He has experience both as a reserve military officer and a former political appointee in the Department of Defense. He is the favorite academic of his mentor Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfweitz and his boss Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and other members of the neo-conservative cabal who advise President Bush. Mr. Cohen work on the relationship between the military and civilian leadership is a must read by all who wish to profess a knowledge of current military thought and strategy. His work, somewhat modeled on Gerhardt Ritter’s seminal work on the relationship between the German General Staff and the Kaiser, The Sword and the Scepter, (4 Volumes originally written in academic German, 2000 plus pages. The English translation is as ponderous)) will never achieve that works reputation for heft and breath of scholarship and analysis.
Mr. Cohen’s thesis is that the proper relationship between the civil and military is one of which the military is subservient to civil authority. He cites as his examples Lincoln’s relationship with the Union Army in the Civil War, Clemenceau relationship with the French Army in World War I, Churchill’s relationship with the British Army in World War II, and finally David Ben-Gurion’s relationship with the Israeli General Staff in the 1948 War for Independence. While one in theory would like to agree that at all times and in all places the military should be totally subservient to civil authority, reality, pragmatic common sense and experience have demonstrated time and time again it is balance between military and civil authority which achieves success.
Read More »