Author: Graham J.

Recommended Reading (2010-05-09)

Posted by

A ground crew member removes a fuel hose from a U.S. Marine Harrier jet from Marine Attack Squadron 231 during operations in Kandahar April 4, 2010.

Happy Mother’s Day to all! Deborah Mullen offers her own greetings.

– Kyle Mizokami, a frequent contributor at War is Boring, has branched out and started his own blog, Japan Security Watch, on security issues specific to Japan and the JSDF (which naturally entails a lot of naval stuff for the more aquatic-minded among you). One of the first posts is particularly interesting: Japan’s 2010 budget includes $1.3 billion USD for the 22DDH project, a replacement for the Hyuga-class ‘helicopter destroyers’. “That’s a very big…destroyer.”

– Robert Gates publicly address the threat of asymmetric naval warfare with Iran: “Iran is combining ballistic and cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, mines, and swarming speedboats in order to challenge our naval power in that region” (via Robert Gates’ Facebook feed).

– And speaking of Gates, Robert Farley addresses his “shot across the bow” to the Navy, and contemplates what ‘right-sizing’ it would look like.

– Malcolm Gladwell looks at Operation Mincemeat and draws lessons for the craft of intelligence:

The British theory was that using someone the Germans strongly suspected was a double agent to tell the truth was preferable to using someone the Germans didn’t realize was a double agent to tell a lie. Or perhaps there wasn’t any theory at all. Perhaps the spy game has such an inherent opacity that it doesn’t really matter what you tell your enemy so long as your enemy is aware that you are trying to tell him something.

– Vanity Fair posts a sizable excerpt from Christopher Hitchens’ forthcoming memoir, Hitch-22. Highlights include a spanking from Margaret Thatcher, Clive James’ metaphors (Arnold Schwarzenegger: “A brown condom full of walnuts”) and his trip to a brothel with Martin Amis as ‘research’ for the latter’s book (“I wearily started to count out the ever steepening fee, which was the only thing in the room that showed any sign of enlarging itself”).

– John Robb nails the precarious state of the global economy – the day before the roller coaster ride on Thursday. The seer of our time?

And from the past week on Automatic Ballpoint:

I analyze Russian ‘maskirovka‘ tactics in Operation Bagration. The British have some sort of election that may or may not affect the United States, which is a shame seeing what they were able to do as partners in the Falklands.

I offer a mea culpa for my wildly off-the-mark Times Square bomber prediction, and lash out at Greece for being infantile little communists.

America recoils in horror at the sight of a SWAT team’s raid on a man and his family for a misdemeanor charge of weed possession.

So This Is America

Posted by

Holy fucking shit. This has to go viral now. It depicts a SWAT team in Missouri storming a man’s house and shooting his two dogs (one was a corgi) while his wife and seven year-old look on. Why, you might ask?

They found a “small amount” of marijuana, enough for a misdemeanor charge. The parents were then charged with child endangerment.

So smoking pot = “child endangerment.” Storming a home with guns, then firing bullets into the family pets as a child looks on = necessary police procedures to ensure everyone’s safety.

Just so we’re clear.

Here’s the video, and it’s really as horrifying as it sounds:

The worst part is that this is not an uncommon event. There are 100-150 raids like this every day – 40,000 a year. The right rails against the “tyranny” of Obama, but this is tyranny right now, right here. He didn’t create it, and I’d be surprised if he ends it. Events like these, the casual intrusion of paramilitary forces into our everyday lives that we not only accept but welcome, are enough to make you agree that “all cops are pigs.” And after seeing footage like this, representative of hundreds of thousands of police state actions across the country, I have to amend my earlier post. The police aren’t our friends. They’re not here for us. They are already our enemies.

But thank God, Jonathan Whitworth won’t be smoking any more pot.

Via The League of Ordinary Gentlemen.

Reagan, Thatcher, and the ‘Tilt’

Posted by

8

The British election has decided in favor of no one in particular. The possibilities seem confined to a Conservative minority Government or a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition one. With so much going wrong for Britain (just look at the accidental disenfranchisement), the last priority of whatever the new British Government is will be their friend across the pond.

At the same time, Rockhopper has claimed to have discovered oil in the area of the Falkland Islands, reversing the disappointment felt by Desire Petroleum earlier this year. With these two events in mind, it seems like a perfect moment to look back at the last time the special relationship really came to the fore, while the Falklands were in the news.

 

The Falkland Islands

One of the last vestiges of British empire, the likelihood that the Falkland Islands would ever become a household name – let alone the site of a major twentieth century conflict – seemed slim at best. Yet when the military government of Argentina dared to invade in April of 1982, the successful British retaking of the Falklands entered into the realm of legend and revitalized both Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Government and Great Britain as a whole.

The extent to which American assistance was a crucial part of the British war effort is still debated. Paul Sharp claims that “Britain’s success in the Falklands War…would not have been possible without US support.”[1]Then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger downplayed the role of American aid, characterizing himself as a mere “assistant supply sergeant, or an assistant quartermaster.” He placed the glory of victory solely with the British:

Some said later that the British could not have succeeded if we had not helped. This is not so – I think the decisive factor was Mrs. Thatcher’s firm and immediate decision to retake the Islands, despite the impressive military and other advice to the effect that such an action could not succeed.[2]

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan's cabinets meet at the White House, 1981.

While the revival of the wartime Anglo-American ‘special relationship’ did not necessarily ensure a British victory, the effects that American support had on British and Argentinian morale and indeed, world opinion, were significant. As Sharp explains, “had the Americans decided to oppose Britain’s recovery of the Islands, then the war would have been impossible and Thatcher’s political demise all but assured.”[3]

The sophisticated weaponry supplied by the Pentagon, such as the Sidewinder air-to-air missile and the Stinger man-portable surface-to-air missile, helped to minimize British casualties. Especially crucial was US intelligence. That support was all the more surprising as it constituted a near-complete reversal of the centuries-old Monroe Doctrine demarcating the western hemisphere as an entirely American preserve.

Continue reading →

Whither the Special Relationship?

Posted by

1

There’s an interesting debate going on over at Harry’s Place as to which British political party has been and would be most conducive (or accommodationist, if you like) to the ‘Special Relationship’. “Norflondon’s” article, in particular, claims that Labour is the “true Atlanticist party.” I would have to disagree.

If you take the three major personal relationships throughout the twentieth century, you have FDR and Churchill, Jack and Mac, and Reagan-Thatcher. All three Prime Ministers were Tories and two of three Presidents Democrats.

This is not meant to imply that the most fruitful partnership would necessarily be Obama-Cameron (i.e. a Democrat and a Tory), but rather that Labour has until recently never been a particularly stalwart half of the Special Relationship. Indeed, America was rather fearful when Clement Attlee and Labour came into power – they were seen as ‘red’ socialists, and socialism was naturally a bad thing (a contemporary cartoon by David Horn in the Evening Standard showed Attlee surrounded by a circle of U.S. Congressmen all asking themselves “no hooves? No tail”)?

The article mentions the Major Government and divides over the Balkans , but considering that was a highly contentious debate within the Clinton Administration itself – not to mention a low-risk bombing campaign – the absence of British support wasn’t seen as a low blow in the same way that say, the Wilson Government’s silence was in Vietnam. Then, of course, there’s Major’s wholehearted British contribution to the first Gulf War.

The change could be pinned on Blair and New Labour, but also keep in mind the nature Blair-Clinton relationship: new center-left incarnations of their old selves.

However, when it comes down to it, does the United States really want a Blairite United Kingdom as part of the special relationship? Patrick Porter has made this point much more eloquently than me; he reminds us of Britain’s pretensions to Great Power status, but then points out the absurdity of Britain trying to do so much:

Geography comes up in the Strategy, but only in a perfunctory and generalised way. It asserts that Africa matters wherever there is extremism or violence, not a very discriminating test; Eastern Europe matters because Britain is engaged there; the Middle East matters because it is central to security and ‘totemic’ to extremists, and Afghanistan-Pakistan for its links to domestic terrorism. Central Asia, Eastern Europe, large chunks of Africa and the Middle East: these four spheres would strain a superpower, let alone Britain.

If at least a portion of an alliance is for figuring out what’s best for an individual country, isn’t the New Labour approach of ‘America first, British national interest second’ pretty bankrupt at this point? Prime Ministers in the past have easily subordinated their Atlanticism to the national interest of the United Kingdom – Thatcher being a notable example – but the times the call for spartan budgets and austerity measures, and those will have to translate into defense cuts as well.

Sadly, I don’t know which prime minister would be the most healthy combination for the Special Relationship and the United States. Perhaps Britain itself must reduce it to no more than a ‘special partnership.’

Jumping to Conclusions

Posted by

Well, um, whoops. Not so much the teabagging type, but rather “a Connecticut man, a naturalized United States citizen from Pakistan” named Faisal Shahzad.

So yes, mea culpa. Though the white guy in his 40s remains a ‘person of interest’, clearly he’s not the focus of the investigation, and for that I apologize. But I do think we’re overdue for a reckoning with the enemies of a domestic variety, as all the commentary spouted that subtly sympathizes with them might even serve to legitimize their cause. It certainly increases the likelihood of a right-wing Times Square bomber, though there probably aren’t enough government buildings there to hold their interest for long.

Michael Sheehan has a perfect analysis of this in the New York Times, as well as suggestions on how to stave off ‘lone wolf’ or ‘home grown’ terrorists:

Law enforcement has to focus on preventing sophisticated terrorist organizations from establishing a presence within the United States. The good news is that we know how to do this. The bad news is we aren’t doing it enough. No other American city even attempts to do what New York has accomplished.

[…]

For society as a whole, paying for a handful of detectives at the local level is far more efficient than spending billions inside the Beltway on bloated bureaucracies and large-scale defensive measures that will most likely have little practical effect. And while issues of civil liberties are important, they can be managed with close legal oversight of terrorism investigations.

Attacks won’t come from the center, but from the fringes. You can’t centralize national security, nor can you completely disperse it.

Until then, keep following. And keep following afterward. Remain vigilant.

The Mask of the Bear: Soviet Deception in Operation Bagration

Posted by

6

German columns advance past immobilized Russian tanks, July 1941.

From the moment the first Wehrmacht tank crossed the Soviet border in 1941 until the Battle of Stalingrad in the winter of 1942-43, German victory in World War II seemed inevitable. The fighting on the Eastern Front took place on a scale never seen before or since, a colossal undertaking that consumed three-quarters of all combat forces in Europe, and cost the lives of over twenty-five million Soviet citizens.[1] The war could not have been won without the Soviet front, and even after the Red Army had successfully defended Moscow and Stalingrad, while holding out in besieged Leningrad, victory was far from certain.

The summer offensive of 1943, culminating in the Battle of Kursk—the largest tank battle ever fought by man—finally pushed the Germans onto the defensive. It was not until Operation Bagration, the 1944 summer offensive, that the German ability to conduct offensive operations was curtailed once and for all.

Operation Bagration won the war in the east, and that victory can be attributed to a practice at which the Red Army excelled—deception. The Soviet practice of maskirovka literally translates to ‘camouflage,’ but in the context of military doctrine has a wide variety of definitions covering everything from strategic disinformation to the effective  masking of an individual soldier’s foxhole. The official Soviet definition for maskirovka was:

The means of securing combat operations and the daily activities of forces; a complexity of measures, directed to mislead the enemy regarding the presence and disposition of forces, various military objectives, their condition, combat readiness and operations, and also the plans of the command … Maskirovka contributes to the achievement of surprise for the actions of forces, the preservation of combat readiness, and the increased survivability of objectives.[2]

The Soviets invented the art of maskirovka, and perfected it over the course of World War II. By the summer of 1944, it was second-nature, and the operational planning reflected this. In absolute secrecy, the Soviet High Command (Stavka) managed to position over 2.3 million men and the necessary supplies, all the while deceiving the Wehrmacht as to the actual objectives of the offensive.

It is no stretch to say that Operation Bagration would have unfolded far more poorly without the extensive deception operations, and as it marked an end to any chance of a German victory, the maskirovka so skillfully executed in the summer of 1944 in fact shortened World War II by a substantial amount.

Continue reading →

Big Bust in the Big Apple, Cont’d

Posted by

1

New development from the ongoing Times Square car bomb story:

Police and federal agents on Sunday were reviewing surveillance footage that shows a possible suspect in the failed Times Square car bombing, describing him as a white man in his 40s who was walking away from the area where the vehicle was parked, looking furtively over his shoulder and removing a layer of clothing, officials said [emphasis mine].

Is it possible that the poorly-veiled, separatist, militia-oriented, violent uprising-style rhetoric of the ignorant sectors of the right has taken root? In case you need a reminder:

The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45 [emphasis mine].

One nut begets another. Black swans on the horizon…

Recommended Reading (2010-05-02)

Posted by

– Just why should we care what Presidents are reading? The Washington Post attempts to answer.

– A coherent argument against the coddling, wait-’til-you’re-older strain of permanent adolescence that seems to be all the rage these days. We’re not all special. We need a chance to fail. But we need a chance to begin with (via Isegoria).

– Where have all the Vlashki and Mamuju speakers gone? Why, New York, of course.

– 72% of the millennial generation is “more spiritual than religious.” One devout optimist “is encouraged by the roughly 15% who, he says, appear to be ‘deeply committed’ Christians in study, prayer, worship and action.” That’s cute. Only one or two more impediments halting progress to go…

– Why conspiracy theories matter, and why Christian Caryl thinks you’re an idiot for believing in them. Not that I necessarily disagree, I just hold the right to reserve judgment on one or two official verdicts. But I offer no theories of my own.

– China v. America: fight of the century?


And from the past week on Automatic Ballpoint:

I settle on a dissertation topic and unearth a gem from the archives, but most of my time is wasted checking out interesting new sites. Currently making me angry: old people, the state of Arizona, and at least one guy with a pickup truck in Virginia.

A post on obesity and the military blows up my traffic for the better, while an interesting map might explain the obesity. New tech is found, as is a failed car bomb in Times Square. I take a look at other dimensions to urban warfare than VBIEDs.

The Chinese naval ‘menace’ is probably overrated, but may be sent west if water tensions with India continue; knife-wielding crazies remain a threat to Chinese schoolchildren.

The French built a pretty sweet Vespa for their paratroopers.

Big Bust in the Big Apple

Posted by

2

A police officer in a bomb suit examined a Nissan Pathfinder sport utility vehicle.

If you haven’t been following, a pretty poor VBIED was found in Times Square today after a t-shirt vendor notified a horse cop that there was a smoking SUV parked at a strange angle. Quick evac of the area and speedy response from the NYPD. Turns out it was in the midst of detonating, but was shoddily constructed and thus never actually went off. Possibly a downside to open-source warfare, etc. : you can have the plans and the equipment, but actually following those instructions may prove difficult. Ever try to assemble something from Ikea?

But so far, the reaction from Bloomberg and the NYPD has been pretty stellar. And no one is panicking a la the Pants Bomber. In this case, at least, failure as a strategy has proven to be no more than just a plain failure.

The vendor who found the bomb is absolutely Mr. Cool:

He said that he was reluctant to speak with members of the media because they had twisted his words when they interviewed him in recent years.

He got into the back seat of the taxi, took off his hat and used it to fan his face.

Before he left, he was asked what he had to say to New Yorkers.

“See something, say something,” he said.