Thursday, March 28, 2013
Sabbatical
Off to the races boys and girls . . . taking sabbatical. Not like I would have simply disappeared without having said anything . . .
The times demand focus. Haven't been much in the mood/mode to post, and things have kinda turned nasty . . . on various fronts . . . which is too bad.
So I'll be commenting on other blogs & forums, but neither posting nor commenting on this one. Although I will return and post. At some point in time, but it is difficult to say when. I'm sure that all my past posts and comments will stay up and be accessible.
Private email is cool . . . Email me at seydlitz89@gmail.com if you wish to communicate.
MilPub has been good to me, and I wish to be good to MilPub as well. But not right now.
So to my fellow barkeeps, regulars, guests, friends and those who follow, Aufwiedersehen
Where are we going? And why are we in this handbasket?
Remember Sammy the Whiny Seal we talked about back in February?
Well, turns out that that Dark Nexus of infomercials, CNN, has brewed a tempest in...I don't know, something smaller and less significant than a teacup. A shotglass? (Probably appropriate, since the whole damn nonsense makes me want to drink heavily).
I won't bother you with the sissy-fight, something about which sailor put two rounds in Osama's ten-ring. Go read the article at the link, if you care.
But here's what bugs me. Back in the day we fought dangerous people. Seriously dangerous guys, people who controlled entire armies, fleets, scads of big ol' bombers loaded with torpedoes and five-hundred pound blobs of high explosive. Guys who could command the actions of millions of hard-core, well-trained, dangerous sons-of-bitches.
Well, it took millions of us, but we fought them, and won. And then went back to work, making cars, building houses, watching television, electing rubes and gomers, stealthily gettin' busy after the kids went to bed. Y'know, being regular civilians in a nation at peace.
We got over ourselves, is what I'm saying. We seem to have gotten over getting over ourselves, if this ridiculous nonsense over who actually put bullets in the World's Tallest Saudi is any indication. Faced with the saddest lot of raggedy-ass fundamentalist wannabees we have let ourselves become some sort of quasi-Star Wars Empire, farkling about all over the world, torturing and disappearing people, and letting folks who shouldn't be allowed to run a raffle directing our politics and military operations that most of us don't know - or, much care - about. We're at perpetual war, and yet, who gives a shit?
The guy who shot down the aircraft carrying ADM Isoroku Yamamoto, who could have wreaked more havoc in his sleep than Osama could have on his Best Day Ever,
It was just another day at war. And when the war was over - which We the People WANTED it to be - we got on with the business of getting back to business.
Now, this. It's perfect; the entire business of this ridiculous "War on Terror" in a shotglass. Neverending. Inconclusive. Utterly meaningless. But chock-full of noisy, furious bullshit.
Who gives a shit who "killed bin Laden"? We soldiers were once taught that we were a team; that every one of us was important to completing the mission, from the chancre-mechanic that gave us our plague shot to the guy who drove the truck that took our Class V down to the port of embarkation, to the cooks who mermited our hot chow up to the firebase to the guy who pulled security while we slept.
And, yet, here we are; sitting at home listening to a couple of knuckleheads pissing down each others' legs about who shot some scruffy wog in a dirty house in butt-rump Pakistan. And CNN, which should have a pantsload of better things to talk about (How did Osama manage to sit around Abbotabad - described as location of "...the regimental headquarters for the Frontier Force Regiment, the Baloch Regiment and Pakistan Army Medical Corps and Kakul Military Academy..." - for years without our old pal Pakistan giving us the heads-up..?), that managed to pass the tenth anniversary of the Iraq Debacle without so much as a whimper of discontent that the montebanks, grifters, thugs, and stooges that lied us into that Mess-o-potamia (and comprehensively screwed what was going on in Afghanistan in the process) are still with us, nattering on Morning Joe and Meet the Press as if they weren't as complicit as Bob MacNamara in getting a bunch of Americans killed in somebody else's goddamn civil war.
If that doesn't say something about us, and something not very complimentary, I don't know what the hell it does.
Well, turns out that that Dark Nexus of infomercials, CNN, has brewed a tempest in...I don't know, something smaller and less significant than a teacup. A shotglass? (Probably appropriate, since the whole damn nonsense makes me want to drink heavily).
I won't bother you with the sissy-fight, something about which sailor put two rounds in Osama's ten-ring. Go read the article at the link, if you care.
But here's what bugs me. Back in the day we fought dangerous people. Seriously dangerous guys, people who controlled entire armies, fleets, scads of big ol' bombers loaded with torpedoes and five-hundred pound blobs of high explosive. Guys who could command the actions of millions of hard-core, well-trained, dangerous sons-of-bitches.
Well, it took millions of us, but we fought them, and won. And then went back to work, making cars, building houses, watching television, electing rubes and gomers, stealthily gettin' busy after the kids went to bed. Y'know, being regular civilians in a nation at peace.
We got over ourselves, is what I'm saying. We seem to have gotten over getting over ourselves, if this ridiculous nonsense over who actually put bullets in the World's Tallest Saudi is any indication. Faced with the saddest lot of raggedy-ass fundamentalist wannabees we have let ourselves become some sort of quasi-Star Wars Empire, farkling about all over the world, torturing and disappearing people, and letting folks who shouldn't be allowed to run a raffle directing our politics and military operations that most of us don't know - or, much care - about. We're at perpetual war, and yet, who gives a shit?
The guy who shot down the aircraft carrying ADM Isoroku Yamamoto, who could have wreaked more havoc in his sleep than Osama could have on his Best Day Ever,
"...joined the 449th Fighter Squadron in China, still flying P-38s. He claimed three further Japanese planes probably destroyed and damaged, but he was shot down on his 139th mission, bailing out near Kiukiang on April 29. He was rescued by Chinese civilians, who treated his injuries and escorted him to safety five weeks later. At the end of the war, Barber attained the rank of major and commanded one of America's first jet squadrons. He retired as a colonel in 1961."Guy didn't get out with four years to run until retirement. He didn't get into a public pissing contest with CPT Lanphier, the other guy involved in the shootdown.
It was just another day at war. And when the war was over - which We the People WANTED it to be - we got on with the business of getting back to business.
Now, this. It's perfect; the entire business of this ridiculous "War on Terror" in a shotglass. Neverending. Inconclusive. Utterly meaningless. But chock-full of noisy, furious bullshit.
Who gives a shit who "killed bin Laden"? We soldiers were once taught that we were a team; that every one of us was important to completing the mission, from the chancre-mechanic that gave us our plague shot to the guy who drove the truck that took our Class V down to the port of embarkation, to the cooks who mermited our hot chow up to the firebase to the guy who pulled security while we slept.
And, yet, here we are; sitting at home listening to a couple of knuckleheads pissing down each others' legs about who shot some scruffy wog in a dirty house in butt-rump Pakistan. And CNN, which should have a pantsload of better things to talk about (How did Osama manage to sit around Abbotabad - described as location of "...the regimental headquarters for the Frontier Force Regiment, the Baloch Regiment and Pakistan Army Medical Corps and Kakul Military Academy..." - for years without our old pal Pakistan giving us the heads-up..?), that managed to pass the tenth anniversary of the Iraq Debacle without so much as a whimper of discontent that the montebanks, grifters, thugs, and stooges that lied us into that Mess-o-potamia (and comprehensively screwed what was going on in Afghanistan in the process) are still with us, nattering on Morning Joe and Meet the Press as if they weren't as complicit as Bob MacNamara in getting a bunch of Americans killed in somebody else's goddamn civil war.
If that doesn't say something about us, and something not very complimentary, I don't know what the hell it does.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Problem? What problem?
Robert Farley discusses the question of sea-lane control facing the delightfully named People's Liberation Army Navy.
Much has been made recently of the U.S. "turn east"; renewed interest in and contemplation of the situation along the West Pacific littoral as well as curiosity over the PRC's intentions regarding her maritime "near abroad". Farley comes to what I would consider the "textbook" conclusion:
The PRC, although more "maritime" today than at nearly any period in her history, is still largely a continental power. One of the reasons she has been so interested in central Asia is securing access to Afghan natural gas, Iranian and Pakistani oil, and similar petroleum resources in the former Soviet 'stans.
She also has to consider what her naval options are. To attempt to compete with the USN and its likely allies' naval airpower would require a 1914-Kriegsmarine-like naval race complete with a fairly significant aircraft and shipbuilding program. But what if, instead, the PLAN could concentrate in sinking the USN's carrier platforms? What if, instead, China concentrated on sea-denial, depending on deterrence to keep the enemy airstrikes away from its merchies? What if her submarine force became, in effect, the "escort carriers" of the US-China Pacific War, chasing off and sinking the US carriers much as the CVEs did the U-boats of 1944? And what, if anything, should the U.S. and the USN do about that?
(Mind you - the FIRST thought that occurs to me is "Don't get involved in a war with China", so there's that...)
Thoughts?
(Oh, and as we know, the Taiwanese aren't worried. Because they have mastered Decepticon technology...)
Update 3/28: As a counter to the Farley piece, here's Jim Holmes over at The Diplomat arguing that the increased range of modern aircraft actually makes the expense and technical complexity of carrier aviation a greater liability than you'd think:
"China faces a very basic set of maritime problems. The PRC draws its most important resources from across an ocean that it cannot control, and exports most of its finished goods to overseas partners who similarly lay beyond the reach of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). Whether or not the PLAN can deter or defeat the U.S. Navy (USN) in China’s littoral, the organization’s true test lies in its ability to secure the PRC’s critical lines of communication."I link to the article here not so much as a recommendation of Farley's analysis but as a conversation starter.
Much has been made recently of the U.S. "turn east"; renewed interest in and contemplation of the situation along the West Pacific littoral as well as curiosity over the PRC's intentions regarding her maritime "near abroad". Farley comes to what I would consider the "textbook" conclusion:
"...by skipping ahead the PLAN has left itself bereft of the kind of low cost, medium size platforms that can support sea control operations at a distance from home. The lack of these sea control platforms (or suitable alternatives) will leave the PLAN at a serious disadvantage when and if it needs to protect lines of communication in unfriendly environments. Liaoning can only operate in one place at a time, and only for a limited time period. The PLAN might have been better served by adopting the more evolutionary Soviet approach to naval aviation."But I guess my question here would be; why would the PLAN really need much naval aviation at all?
The PRC, although more "maritime" today than at nearly any period in her history, is still largely a continental power. One of the reasons she has been so interested in central Asia is securing access to Afghan natural gas, Iranian and Pakistani oil, and similar petroleum resources in the former Soviet 'stans.
She also has to consider what her naval options are. To attempt to compete with the USN and its likely allies' naval airpower would require a 1914-Kriegsmarine-like naval race complete with a fairly significant aircraft and shipbuilding program. But what if, instead, the PLAN could concentrate in sinking the USN's carrier platforms? What if, instead, China concentrated on sea-denial, depending on deterrence to keep the enemy airstrikes away from its merchies? What if her submarine force became, in effect, the "escort carriers" of the US-China Pacific War, chasing off and sinking the US carriers much as the CVEs did the U-boats of 1944? And what, if anything, should the U.S. and the USN do about that?
(Mind you - the FIRST thought that occurs to me is "Don't get involved in a war with China", so there's that...)
Thoughts?
(Oh, and as we know, the Taiwanese aren't worried. Because they have mastered Decepticon technology...)
Update 3/28: As a counter to the Farley piece, here's Jim Holmes over at The Diplomat arguing that the increased range of modern aircraft actually makes the expense and technical complexity of carrier aviation a greater liability than you'd think:
"First, if future combat aircraft boast ranges measured in thousands of miles, it's worth asking at what point navies can dispense with mobile airfields altogether. UCAVs could operate from strategically placed islands or landmasses abutting important theaters — in effect converting land into an unsinkable aircraft carrier. Persuading allies to host air bases that might expose them to attack could prove tricky. Still, it's worth asking what a world without carriers would look like."Hmmm.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
We petty men
Tomorrow is the Tin Anniversary of the Third Gulf War.
I wish I had something to post better than Charlie Pierce, but I don't. So I will merely direct you to his scathing reminder that we petty men will - now and forever - creep between the broken legs of the statue in Firdos Square and peep about to find ourselves dishonorable graves.
The war may have killed thousands but completely spared the lives and even the public careers of the wretched, greedy, cowardly liars that summoned it from the depths of the Eblis of national fear, violence, and hubris. And we have chosen to accept that without demur. That is our shame. That is our crime; not that we committed the wrong but that we did not punish it when we saw that it was wrong.
The persistence of these Tin Gods in the public life of our nation is, and should be, a great enduring unbearable shame to us, all of us, us the We the People who were entrusted with the honor and truth of this nation. We have chosen to be a nation of Men rather than a nation of Law, chosen comfortable dishonor above painful rectitude, chosen the deaths of others rather than to sacrifice ourselves.
When our generation is remembered it should be for that, and for that above all. Whatever good we have done, whatever kindnesses we may do, the crimes for which we hung the defeated leaders of Nazi Germany, the crime of making aggressive war, the "crimes against peace" of Nuremberg; the crimes of others that by our acceptance and indifference we have made our own, will remain with us always. Like the unquiet ghosts of the dead of Baghdad, Ramadi, and Basra, like the mournful fragments of the GIs flown home inside plastic sacks, and like the cries of the headscarved women, weeping for sons and fathers and lovers vanished in the morning mists that rise above the Tigris as the merciless dawn floods the watermeadows with light as red as blood.
I wish I had something to post better than Charlie Pierce, but I don't. So I will merely direct you to his scathing reminder that we petty men will - now and forever - creep between the broken legs of the statue in Firdos Square and peep about to find ourselves dishonorable graves.
The war may have killed thousands but completely spared the lives and even the public careers of the wretched, greedy, cowardly liars that summoned it from the depths of the Eblis of national fear, violence, and hubris. And we have chosen to accept that without demur. That is our shame. That is our crime; not that we committed the wrong but that we did not punish it when we saw that it was wrong.
The persistence of these Tin Gods in the public life of our nation is, and should be, a great enduring unbearable shame to us, all of us, us the We the People who were entrusted with the honor and truth of this nation. We have chosen to be a nation of Men rather than a nation of Law, chosen comfortable dishonor above painful rectitude, chosen the deaths of others rather than to sacrifice ourselves.
When our generation is remembered it should be for that, and for that above all. Whatever good we have done, whatever kindnesses we may do, the crimes for which we hung the defeated leaders of Nazi Germany, the crime of making aggressive war, the "crimes against peace" of Nuremberg; the crimes of others that by our acceptance and indifference we have made our own, will remain with us always. Like the unquiet ghosts of the dead of Baghdad, Ramadi, and Basra, like the mournful fragments of the GIs flown home inside plastic sacks, and like the cries of the headscarved women, weeping for sons and fathers and lovers vanished in the morning mists that rise above the Tigris as the merciless dawn floods the watermeadows with light as red as blood.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Moderate Thinking
--Broken Chains, anonymous
Gonna pass me a brand new resolution
Gonna fight me a one man revolution, someway
Gonna start my rebellion today
But here come the people in grey To take me away
People in grey have gone and taken away
My right to voice my complaint
Her majesty's government
have sent me a form
I must complete it today
--The People in Grey, The Kinks
The only way to mobilize popular support
for secret armies of resistance fighters during the war
was to stage such dramatic acts of terrorism
versus the German occupying forces
--Winston Churchill, fr. Nihilist Monthly (Feb, 2012)
_____________________
Gonna pass me a brand new resolution
Gonna fight me a one man revolution, someway
Gonna start my rebellion today
But here come the people in grey To take me away
People in grey have gone and taken away
My right to voice my complaint
Her majesty's government
have sent me a form
I must complete it today
--The People in Grey, The Kinks
The only way to mobilize popular support
for secret armies of resistance fighters during the war
was to stage such dramatic acts of terrorism
versus the German occupying forces
--Winston Churchill, fr. Nihilist Monthly (Feb, 2012)
_____________________
The stated United States' policy is to support moderates in the Syrian Civil War. What does this mean? Following are some questions regarding moderation in the Civil War business:
- Does a moderate person engage in a Civil War?
- How does the State Department define "moderate"?
- Why are we spending money encouraging Moderates in Syria, while Moderates in the states are becoming a vanishing breed?
- What are we buying when we fund these Moderates?
- What do we lose if we do nothing to support the Syrian revels?
- Are the rebels legitimate?
- Do they represent the will of their people?
- Are the moderates foreign Jihadists?
Now for the money question:
Does anyone recall any revolution that was won by a moderate force? "Moderate People of the World Unite" ... somehow that lacks the revolutionary zeal required by such a project.
Answer: Moderation is never the hallmark of a revolution.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Two Interesting Recent Books
FYI-
As a Life Member of the Naval War College Foundation, I not only get my copy of the quarterly Naval War College Review, but email announcement of the many seminars and activities the Foundation sponsors around the country. Just about the time my cynicism meter is about to peg out at maximum, the NWCF sends me something that reassures me that, within the military, rational, independent thought has not been totally extinguished. There are, particularly at the military staff and war colleges, those who look far beyond the party line and speak truth to power. In short, evidence that dumbass policy has not driven off all the saner minds.
The NWCF offers a series of noon-time lectures by contemporary scholars about their most recent book. The format has the author speaking for 40-45 minutes on the topic of their book and the facts leading to its publication, followed by a Q&A session. The most recent announcement for the next round of lectures included:
Thursday, May 9, 2013: The Aden Effect with Claude
Berube. In this change of pace for an 8 Bells Lecture, we have a novel about
murder, politics, sea power, and intrigue centering on the Middle East. Touted
as bringing to the written page "the most interesting new hero since Tom
Clancy's Jack Ryan," this should prove to be a worthwhile departure, both
entertaining and educational. Claude Berube teaches at the U.S. Naval Academy
and will be discussing the non-fiction themes that influenced the novel.
Enjoy.
As a Life Member of the Naval War College Foundation, I not only get my copy of the quarterly Naval War College Review, but email announcement of the many seminars and activities the Foundation sponsors around the country. Just about the time my cynicism meter is about to peg out at maximum, the NWCF sends me something that reassures me that, within the military, rational, independent thought has not been totally extinguished. There are, particularly at the military staff and war colleges, those who look far beyond the party line and speak truth to power. In short, evidence that dumbass policy has not driven off all the saner minds.
The NWCF offers a series of noon-time lectures by contemporary scholars about their most recent book. The format has the author speaking for 40-45 minutes on the topic of their book and the facts leading to its publication, followed by a Q&A session. The most recent announcement for the next round of lectures included:
Thursday, April 4, 2013: Imperial
Crossroads: The Great Powers and the Persian Gulf with editors Professors
Jeffrey Macris and Saul Kelly. This is a study of the contest for control of the
Gulf and its resources, with an emphasis on Portugal, Holland, Britain, and the
United States. The historical perspective will enhance the readers'
understanding of the geo-political development within the region.
Thursday, April 25, 2013: From Kabul to
Baghdad and Back: The U.S. at War in Afghanistan and Iraq with Professor
John Ballard.This book questions some of the fundamental assumptions affecting
decisions regarding the prosecution of the Afghan war. It compares the campaigns
in Iraq and Afghanistan from a national strategic perspective and questions
several key operational decisions in the region. Dr. Ballard is the Dean of
Faculty at the National War College.
With this wonderful "Wired Age", the books are available electronically, so easy peasy to get here on a small Aegean island!
Thus, the reading suggestions above for the crew.
And, on the lighter side, to show that we NWC guys are not totally stuffed shirts:
Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)