Brown, Blair and the British Military (03:56AM)

In the Sunday Telegraph there are four articles of note regarding the forthcoming memoirs of General Sir Richard Dannatt that are damning of both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. I have always viewed Mr. Blair as the most toadying of politicians on either side of the Atlantic, Mr. Brown I found to epitomize, both in individual and public conduct, the dour Scotsman. Here is a quote which believe sums up General Sir Dannatt perspective,

History will pass judgment on these foreign adventures in due course, but in my view Gordon Brown’s malign intervention, when chancellor, on the SDR by refusing to fund what his own government had agreed, fatally flawed the en tire process from the outset.
“The seeds were sown for some of the impossible operational pressures to come.”
Mr Blair “lacked the moral courage to impose his will on his own chancellor”.

Here are the links:
One, Two, Three, and Four, which is excerpt from General Sir Danatt's memoirs.

:: Comments left behind ::

Thought Provoking Piece by Andrew Bacevich (03:43AM)

Here is the link to a good article written by Andrew Bacevich and which was published by Tom Dispatch, entitled The Unmaking of a Company Manhttp://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175290/tomgram%3A_andrew_bacevich%2C_how_washington_rules__.

:: Comments left behind ::

Long Weekend Off (06:22AM)

Welcome back to Tango Seven Six! I'll be interested to see what comments ensue from the Army War College post.

I'm out for dove this afternoon, and then deer Monday morning.

We'll be checking in periodically. Have a good one.

UPDATE... I brought home a pair of doves. It was a light day-- but a FUN day-- with not a whole lot of bird movement. But what birds did come in gave us a good time, and as always it's the hunting party that makes the day. And dove hunting is, I think, the most social of all sports. The Bird of Peace is numerous, fast, and delicious; long may he take flight over America's corn fields.

Also, three huzzahs again for the Remington 870-- the most versatile, reliable and sturdy game-getter you can buy. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

:: Comments left behind ::

Have the same shotgun and concur!

:: GOPCC September 5, 2010 03:01 AM

Army Bands (03:48AM)

I am not against Army Bands, in fact I find they are outstanding musicians and serve an important purpose, however I have to wonder if the every Division, Corps, and Army needs a band? What is the cost each year? How many do we really need? Good article in today's New York Times.

:: Comments left behind ::

Some of the problem boils down to 'surge' need: there are times of the year, especially summer, when bands are used a lot more than others.

Pretty much every Friday, all summer, there are basic training graduation ceremonies at Forts Jackson, Benning, Sill, Leonard Wood, and I think Knox still. That's a requirement for 4 or 5 bands, simultaneously. Also, summer is change of command season. It seems like for a while this summer, we had at least 2 battalion or above changes of command per week, each of which, traditionally, has a band. Figure the larger posts - Bragg, Hood, Stewart, Campbell - are similar.

But you probably don't need nearly so much musical capacity from about October til April or so (although basic still graduates a class pretty much weekly, just not as big.) Not sure what a solution would be: reserve component bands? But that would require even more, since you'd only get 2 weeks use out of them at a time.

:: Heartless Libertarian September 4, 2010 05:22 AM

The Army War College (01:10PM)

I am back! Took a while off to get well, to work through my attack Vertigo. So I thought I would throw some red meat to the crowd! Go for it! Because of the spam I will turn the comments off in 48 hours.

Tom Ricks linked a great article on the Army War College that appeared in the Small War Journal.

This is an important article as it lays out a good and convincing reason that the Army War College should be closed. I have been informed by friends that combat arms officers are being sent to the National Defense University and that only Combat Support and Service Support are going to the Army War College. This is an admission by the Army that future Strategic Leaders are not produced by the Army War College. In fact the Army War College is considered to be the weak sister of the service and joint War Colleges.

My experience with graduates of the Army War Colleges has not been good. Most are a mile wide and inch deep. The Army attempts to make them Strategic thinkers in one year. This is not possible when they have been raised on a diet of what to think and not how to think. In fact most do not come out of the Army War College with a basic understanding of the role and responsibilities that the Army has as a service. The ignorance of what the responsibilities and authorities as specified in 10 USC section 3013 (b) is appalling. I do not make these statements lightly, as for the last several years I have provided an introductory block in our Staff Training on Title 10 and role the Army Service Component Commands play in exercising those responsibilities. In the session in which the new O6 assigned to Third Army have attended I have been shocked at the gross ignorance of just the basic responsibilities of the Army as a service. Given that most graduates from the Army War College will serve in a variety of staff assignments on the Army Staff or other staffs I find this to be just plain wrong.

:: Comments left behind ::

The demographics of age and time-in-service may be a symptom of the war. Correct me if I'm wrong, but prior to 9/11/01, War College attendees (from the Regular Army) were early forties, and at the 18-20 year mark following battalion command AND an allegedly competitive selection board. With the drive inside the beltway to put the war in the past-tense, we'll likely see the age/TIS drop, following the pattern of the early 1980s.

As for only 16 officers from maneuver - good! Hopefully they all have MBA. They are being educated to operate at the corporate level where rubbing the tab is useless when your battlefield is the D-ring and your weapons are powerpoint and expert power.

:: DaveO September 3, 2010 06:28 AM

Things have not changed. from the 60's & 70'.

:: Bill Wilson September 4, 2010 08:56 AM

The ARMY War College and there are only 13 Infantry men in attendance? it appears that the War College is basically becoming another way station for REMFS. that should serve the Army well- a general staff composed of finance, AG and Ordinance guys.

:: bruno September 4, 2010 10:02 AM

Uninspiring, Part II (05:07PM)

An update for "Uninspiring," posted last night. I'm not the only one who, in the words of USMC Steve, was underwhelmed.

NRO: "Some Thoughts on the Speech." "

WaPo: "What was Obama's Oval Office address about, exactly?"

The President cannot lead our armed forces in battle, even though he's the CINC. (In the case of this POTUS, that's a good thing.) He has to lead with words and with direction, and with inspiration. His speech-- only the second from the Oval Office-- fell flat when it needed to ring true. Neither here nor there, it was an opportunity lost. The nation is the worse for it, and for him.

:: Comments left behind ::

That is a very true Statement LtCol/P

:: Walter-Sadi McDaniel September 1, 2010 07:24 PM

LtCol P, I have enjoy this blog for some time now, and have posted my share of comments, which usually causes USMCSteve to question my patriotism, but damnit, you're turning this to Fox News Lite. Fine, you don't like President O, but do you really think the former POTUS led the troops any better. He avoided the risk of draft by using daddy's connections to join the Texas Guard. Although I had no use for Dan Rather's hatchet job on his Gurad service, the simple fact is that his Guard time was somewhat undistinguished, although the Mexican Air Force never successfully attacked Texas when he was a pilot. Then, you have to admit that President B struting around on the aircraft carrier deck in his flight suit under the Mission Accomplished banner was a stomach-turner.

The sad fact for the Republic is that President Bush was ill-served by his advisors, especially the chicken-hawk neocons, who wanted to scare Iran into never attacking Israel. What they succeeded in doing was destroying Iran's counterbalance (Iraq) freeing up Iran to develop its nuclear program, with the help if China and Russia; export Shiite terrorists; and demonstrate that the General officer corps has beome useless fighting a war.

The Pentagon never went onto a war footing. Wearing Uggs and jammies and calling themselves "warriors" isn't war footing. The promotion system is still rigged to favor completion of the required schools and passing the PT test rather than skill in leading troops in combat. No Lieutenant Colonel or Colonel has been jumped in grade to reflect their skill and competence. If George Marshall was alive today, he would be appalled at the General Officer corps and their mishandling of Iraq and Afghanistan.

There, you have my opinion for what it's worth. And USMC Steve, prove me wrong.

:: Bill September 2, 2010 05:46 AM

Bill,

you have some vaild point's ill give you that, just one thing I want to say. When we look at Bush we are looking at him through hindsight and thats always 20/20.

When it came to him being a leader, at the time I think his speeches made people believe it was going to be alright. I mean the guy made people go back to the mall and keep buying things in order to stop the bad guys. when he landed on what I think was the USS Abraham Lincoln and made his speech we did not know how it would all unfold so at that point in time he inspired the people.

As far as Iran, they have fought wars by proxy since the 60's they will continue to do so no matter what we did. That is what they are good at ask Israel.

the subject of general officers is not in my lane, but I would like to think there is more to it than that.

until next time, Semper Gumby

:: IlikeIke September 2, 2010 04:56 PM

You're absolutely right, you cannot judge events by what you know now.

:: Bill September 2, 2010 07:45 PM

Bill, at least Bush SERVED. Are you saying that anyone who went in the Guard instead of active duty during the war was a bum? Barry O didn't even bother. I guess he knew his limitations. As for Bush versus Barry O, ask the troops who fought for them. I have heard very little negative from them about Bush, and cannot get an opinion about Barry O. Having been under fire a time or two though, I can tell you based on what I have seen of the two that I would fight for Bush, and not for an arrogant LEFTIST SOCIALIST like Barry O. I don't trust him because I did my research and have watched what he does. He is a weasel with no spine.

I agree with you on the advisors particularly the career civilian CIA spooks he had providing him intelligence. I did 20 years in the Marine Intel field, and we had very little confidence in the CIA's intelligence capabilities, having often seen them at work. But if you look at their composition you will find very few conservatives in that organization.

I don't need to prove you wrong, you will do it yourself eventually. And opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. You simply hate Bush and everything about him and your BDS is affecting your judgement. BTW, when he made that statement on the carrier, he was precisely correct. The organized hostilities were over and the Iraqi military had ceased to exist. Mop up always follows after those actions, just like on the islands in the Pacific in WW2. You just don't want to see it. And given that this was a new type of war, there was no way to predict the future of it.

As for the general officers bit, I really don't know about how the Army does things, but the Corps' generals have been getting it done just fine, such as Mattis and others. That is FACT. Ignore it if you will but again, reality counts and your fantasies don't. It is that simple.

:: USMC Steve September 3, 2010 10:12 AM

Room to Cut (05:35PM)

Here, surely, is room to cut the budget.

Sailors and Marines can all agree that NMCI has been a disaster, and an expensive one at that. It appears to be a system that is set up to fail, and could scarcely be more destructive of military efficiency if it was run by the paid agents of a hostile foreign power.

GET RID OF IT, NOW.

(Thanks to MDL for the link.)

UPDATE... The link has been fixed.

:: Comments left behind ::

Amen!

:: Foxfier August 31, 2010 06:37 PM

That link needs fixing.

:: Marc August 31, 2010 07:01 PM

Uninspiring (05:22PM)

Against my own better judgment, I watched POTUS's speech on Iraq tonight.

I did not come away inspired.

""Ending this war is not only in Iraq's interest, it is in our own," Obama said... NO! THE WAR IS NOT OVER. The combat phase of this campaign might have been declared over, but The War goes on-- it predates 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq. What is our plan to wage it and win it?

""The United States has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people."" That is true, but nowhere that I could tell did he talk about v-i-c-t-o-r-y, the ultimate triumph of civilization and liberty over submission and tyranny, however long it might take, however hard it might be. I don't think he believes in it.

How nice for us, so good to hear. So very reassuring.

Tell me what you think.

:: Comments left behind ::

Spectacularly unimpressive.... geeze, really? I'm an Iraq combat vet and I appreciate it every single time someone says "thanks for your service" so, being a recipient of this country's pride in it's service people I think we vets understand that... but shouldn't he have mentioned something like: "we kicked their ass", or "we set out what we set out to do" or "everytime you met them on the field of battle you annihilated the enemy"??? There really was no mention of any adjective or descriptive that commuicated we had just completed a combat action on the field. Did I miss something?

:: MajW DC August 31, 2010 06:10 PM

The punk underwhelms me on a daily basis, so I cannot say that I am surprised at anything he says. But it shows very clearly his total LACK OF GRASP of reality. This is one scary sumbitch running around loose.

:: USMC Steve September 1, 2010 10:39 AM

Dry Run: Nothin' to See Here, Move Along... (04:56PM)

If you felt something whizz past your head a few hours ago, it was another bullet we dodged...

"Pair held after odd items turn up in luggage," runs the WaPo headline, but the wording belies a more sinister reality:

"Dutch police have detained two men who flew from Chicago to Amsterdam on Sunday night after U.S. screeners found suspicious-looking items in their checked luggage before they departed, U.S law enforcement officials said.

"Security screeners found a cellphone taped to a Pepto-Bismol bottle, three cellphones taped together and a number of watches taped together..."

Odd indeed.

Let me guess-- fine young Irish lads out protesting Protestant rule in Ulster! No? Huh. Maybe Basque separatists? No again. Orthodox Jews gone wild?? Nope. Who then?

WHO ELSE?!

:: Comments left behind ::

Key phrase: ..."flew from Chicago to.."

One would think Amtrack and Greyhound would be capitalizing on such news...

:: DaveO August 31, 2010 07:33 AM

"Bill Millin: Piping in D-Day" (04:41PM)

The ever-vigilant Tony-Sahib sent this in:

"Bill Millin, piper at the D-Day landings, died on August 17th, aged 88"

Aug 26th 2010

"ANY reasonable observer might have thought Bill Millin was unarmed as he jumped off the landing ramp at Sword Beach, in Normandy, on June 6th 1944. Unlike his colleagues, the pale 21-year-old held no rifle in his hands. Of course, in full Highland rig as he was, he had his trusty skean dhu, his little dirk, tucked in his right sock. But that was soon under three feet of water as he waded ashore, a weary soldier still smelling his own vomit from a night in a close boat on a choppy sea, and whose kilt in the freezing water was floating prettily round him like a ballerina’s skirt.

"But Mr Millin was not unarmed; far from it. He held his pipes, high over his head at first to keep them from the wet (for while whisky was said to be good for the bag, salt water wasn’t), then cradled in his arms to play. And bagpipes, by long tradition, counted as instruments of war. An English judge had said so after the Scots’ great defeat at Culloden in 1746; a piper was a fighter like the rest, and his music was his weapon. The whining skirl of the pipes had struck dread into the Germans on the Somme, who had called the kilted pipers “Ladies from Hell”. And it raised the hearts and minds of the home side, so much so that when Mr Millin played on June 5th, as the troops left for France past the Isle of Wight and he was standing on the bowsprit just about keeping his balance above the waves getting rougher, the wild cheers of the crowd drowned out the sound of his pipes even to himself."

A fighting man, there.

Many thanks to T-S for the tip, and tomorrow I'll pick up a bottle of scotch-- like I need an excuse-- and raise one to Mr Millin and all those like him. I cordially invite all of you to do the same.

:: Comments left behind ::

God knows, it's a hideous sound, but nothing stirs a Brit's or Scot's martial blood like the sound of pipes. You hear that noise, no question in your mind who's coming to kick butt. If for no other reason, the troops move forward just to get away for that sound.

:: Bill August 31, 2010 12:33 PM

Apparently You Can't Rant (05:34PM)

Lightning-6 sent this in:

A senior American staff officer has been sacked after publishing a rant against the bureaucracy and endless PowerPoint briefings at Nato's Kabul headquarters.

I know *exactly* how he feels.

:: Comments left behind ::

You know, I've had a revelation.

In October of 2001, we sent in a hanful of ODA's who rode horseback and had unlimited US airpower on tap and did circles around the Taliban. The highest-ranking man in country might have been a light colonel.

After we accomplished our objectives and installed our guy in power, the generals and colonels moved in with their staffs, maps, and brigade-sized elements. And, of course, power point.

That's when the whole show started going downhill.

It would be a great plot for a comedy movie if it weren't so tragic and good men were getting killed.

:: PSYOP Cop August 30, 2010 04:44 AM

Robert Kaplan foretold the coming of this disaster in Imperial Grunts. Also, we should give appropriate credit to Clausewitz's observation that war is simply an extension of politics, except now, it is the generals that are the body politic.

PSYOP Cop nailed it.

:: VFRMarine August 30, 2010 04:59 AM

As a comment to the article in Slate said, and I paraphrase, The good Colonel needs to proactively reengineer his attitudinal paradigm to conform more closely to being a team player, and thereby maximize his Total Quality contribution to the unit's mission statement. And there are actually people who disagree with Secretary Gates that we have too many flag officers.

I am a retired National Guardsman who ended his undistinguished career at Troop Command. Whenever I would have to go to State HQ, nka Joint TF HQ, I never ceased to be amazed at the number and rank (very senior NCO's and field grade officers) of people whose sole function appeared to be making powerpoint slides--complete with animated graphics--for the Commanders briefing. But, it kept the incompetent insiders--and we all knew who they were--from actually commanding troops, or having to face the possibility of being deployed and having to leave State HQ.

:: Bill August 30, 2010 05:40 AM

@ Bill:

May I recommend changing "conform to being a team player" to "leverage team equities to maximalize contributions and incentivize members to stratospheric heights..."

I was once given the privilige of performing the full manual of arms, with an M4, for an American Army colonel who did not believe one could salute from sling arms. The starch in his DCU were the pride of Kabul. Simply lovely.

:: DaveO August 30, 2010 06:46 AM

DaveO, Good one!

:: Bill August 30, 2010 06:53 AM

And Speaking of the Future of Afghanistan... (04:55PM)

GREAT WHITE FATHER SPEAK-UM TRUTH!!

"A senior US general has warned President Barack Obama's deadline to begin pulling troops out of Afghanistan is encouraging the Taliban.

"US General James Conway, head of the US Marine Corps, said the deadline was "giving our enemy sustenance".

"Gen Conway warned that US forces in southern Afghanistan will likely have to stay in place for several years.

"His comments are likely to fuel debate over US strategy in Afghanistan and Mr Obama's July 2011 withdrawal date."

Yep.

:: Comments left behind ::

Petraeus: "Reconciliation" (04:38PM)

He's right:

"Reconciliation with the Taliban will ultimately be a goal for Afghanistan once U.S. and Afghan forces create conditions to allow it, Gen. David Petraeus said Wednesday.

"Speaking in Afghanistan to Fox News' Jennifer Griffin -- in her first overseas assignment since recovering from breast cancer -- Petraeus said that orders approved by provincial governors and local leaders Wednesday enable implementation of measures ordered by Afghan President Hamid Karzai to reintegrate the "$10-a-day Taliban" into society."

You heard me, he's right. The essence of a civil war or an insurgency is that something is fundamentally wrong with the body politic. Reconciliation (and progress afterwards) is the goal of the conflict, because you want to build something better and remove the essential cause of the conflict. We Americans know this-- "With malice toward none, with charity toward all..." Abraham Lincoln was advocating reconciliation with the insurgent side, a bold position to take after four years of brutal Civil War.

Note, however, that this has to come from a position of strength, as true in 2010 as it was in 1865--"once U.S. and Afghan forces create conditions to allow it." The reconciliation will be on our terms, not theirs. In a permutation of General Mattis's immortal phrase, they can have the open hand or the fist.

This is absolutely the proper course to take. Let the good General-- and the unlovely but necessary President Karzai-- go forth and do it, with all the support the nation can muster. And let POTUS have the good sense to let them carry on with it.

:: Comments left behind ::

Great post and very true. Kill or capture the die-hards and allow the others to change sides.

:: YatYas August 27, 2010 08:05 AM

I would ordinarily agree with your assessment of the reason for civil wars as such, but in this case, there can be no mediation with a mob of prehistoric moslem extremists. One would not be dealing with normal people, but zealots similar in dedication with the North Vietnamese in their desire to obtain a given outcome no matter what it took to get it. A program similar to the "Cheiu Hoi" program in the Vietnam war might bring some of the enemy back into the fold, but given the tenacity of the enemy here would be of limited effectiveness. The civic action program should also be resurrected as it was shown to be very effective in the past. But all this will be shit useless once the Coward in Chief has us pull out. And the Taliban knows all they have to do is be patient and they, like the NVA, will win by default.

:: USMC Steve August 30, 2010 10:26 AM

We Are Alive and Well (04:55PM)

Apologies for the (relatively) long silence-- Tango Seven-Six has been under the weather and I have been swamped with work and family matters.

There shall be more, soon. Fear nought.

"Plan B" (04:48PM)

A most interesting and striking article at NRO, on what comes next:

"Whether it was wise for Pres. George W. Bush to invade Iraq in the first place is a separate question. Also a separate question: whether it was wise for Pres. Barack Obama to declare Afghanistan the “good war,” the war that must be won.

"Actually, I’d argue they are the same war — just different theaters, much as Europe, Asia, and North Africa were different theaters of World War II. But I guess that, too, is a separate question. The pertinent fact is Obama did commit to Afghanistan, and he doubled down on that commitment by ordering a surge of his own and assigning, once again, General Petraeus to command the mission."

He could be an Op-For contributor! :-) No, seriously, he could. He's that good.

Please read the whole thing. May brings up the topic that few have been discussing, namely, what's next?? As we have stated before, the war predates Afghanistan and Iraq, even 9/11, and it will outlast Iraq and Afghanistan. Where will it be fought? How? Read on...

:: Comments left behind ::

Didn't Robert Kaplan cover this story, albeit without including the CIA involvement, in Imperial Grunts? Also, wasn't the existence of this "shadow war" clarified when the order was given to assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki? This conflict will be fought in a place other than just on the ground. Instead, we will have to win the battles of psychology, economics, and cyber space. Until we defeat the attraction of the jihadist message, and the messengers for that matter, we will constantly face another head of this miserable hydra.

:: VFRMarine August 20, 2010 04:34 AM

"the war predates Afghanistan and Iraq, even 9/11"

Deeper question, does the war go back to the First Crusade, or the Iberian peninsula in the 8th Century A.D?

Talk about long war indeed.

:: rbj August 23, 2010 06:13 AM

thank you verry good kayu site said more blok

:: kayu izle August 23, 2010 07:52 AM

quest what didin gülüm said princes blog radyo yoes fm morento

:: fm August 23, 2010 07:58 AM

i like "plan b" keep going keep going !!

:: jokerblog August 24, 2010 12:40 PM

Thanks for such a great post and the review, I am totally impressed! Keep stuff like this coming.

:: cheap jerseys August 25, 2010 07:00 AM