Feral Jundi

Monday, June 28, 2010

Strategy: Secrets From Inside The Obama War Room

Filed under: Afghanistan,Strategy — Tags: , , , , , , , — Matt @ 2:01 PM

     I know this is a little old, but it is totally relevant to today’s discussion about the future of Afghanistan.  As you read through this story, you come to understand why McChrystal or any other military leader in this war might be frustrated.  I said this before, and I will say this again.  There is not a general out there that thinks that declaring a withdrawal date is a good idea in the context of winning wars.  This administration is set on July 2011, and General Petraeus has made his promises to that administration that he could finish this in that time frame. It is a promise he will have to break in my view.

     Most of all, the Taliban love this date, and it is a countdown to their victory. The enemy will certainly pour it on as this date gets closer, and I just don’t see how this is helpful for any kind of plans with Afghanistan. Or the Taliban will just sit and wait, and then pour it on as soon as we leave. It just makes no strategic sense.

     Petraeus has a lot of work to do in turning around the war. There is alleviating the fears that Karzai has with this date, there is letting our troops fight the way they see fit and allowing them to win battles, there is dealing with Pakistan and ensuring they continue their fight, there is the training of the ANA and police so they can take control of the country, and all of this is dependent on changing that stupid date for withdrawal. Or Petraeus can keep his promise of defeat and go down with the ship. Only time will tell, and the clock is ticking. –Matt

——————————————————————

Secrets From Inside the Obama War Room

by Jonathan Alter

May 15, 2010

The first of 10 “AFPAK” meetings came on Sept. 13, when the president gathered 16 advisers in the Situation Room in the basement of the White House. This was to be the most methodical national-security decision in a generation. Deputy national-security adviser Tom Donilon had commissioned research that backed up an astonishing historical truth: neither the Vietnam War nor the Iraq War featured any key meetings where all the issues and assumptions were discussed by policymakers. In both cases the United States was sucked into war inch by inch.

The Obama administration was determined to change that. “For the past eight years, whatever the military asked for, they got,” Obama explained later. “My job was to slow things down.” The president had something precious in modern crisis management: time. “I had to put up with the ‘dithering’ arguments from Dick Cheney or others,” Obama said. “But as long as I wasn’t shaken by the political chatter, I had the time to work through all these issues and ask a bunch of tough questions and force people to sharpen their pencils until we arrived at the best possible solution.”

(more…)

Friday, June 25, 2010

Military News: Admiral Mike Mullens– Debt Is Biggest Threat To U.S. National Security

     “Of the total military spending in the world, the US spends half of that, and that’s an unsustainable number,” Erik Prince, founder and chairman of Xe, told CNBC Thursday.

    “You’re going to have to turn to private sector efficiency initiatives if the US is going to be able to project power and help its friends,” –Erik Prince, June 24, 2010

*****

     Thanks to Doug for sending me this. The numbers on this are staggering.  I also think that Prince is absolutely right.  If we plan on continuing the war effort, then efficiency initiatives in this war will be a necessity.  Those efficiency initiatives come from competition and the innovation born from that competition in private industry.  The money is running out and both government and private industry will be partnering on this to find a way.

     With that said, this is another great reason for introducing methods of warfare that might be more cost effective. I talk about the concepts of incentivizing warfare here all the time.(letter of marque, privateering, bounty hunting, etc)  I personally feel that if you want to combat an out of control industry of terror, drugs, or piracy, you need an organized and violent industry that profits from their demise.

     I would also like to see an effort to make supplying the troops more cost effective. Do we have to fly or convoy fuel into Afghanistan, or can we figure out a way to either grow fuel or utilize some other energy source to power our vehicles? Do we have to ship in food, or could we grow food locally on military farms, or through co-operatives with local farmers? Do we have to use expensive jets and bombers, to provide close air support against an enemy that has no air force? Do we have to helicopter troops in, or can we drop them in by parachute?  Little changes here and there, can do wonders for reducing that million dollar price tag per soldier, per year, in a country like Afghanistan.

     Most of all, are we doing all we can to invigorate investment in Afghanistan?  Could charter cities be set up in Afghanistan, as a way to invigorate progress in that country?  How about focusing on infrastructure that supports this trillion dollars of mineral wealth? Are we creating an environment that is attractive to all investors, and not just China?

     These are all just ideas to throw around, but I really think as the belt is tightened, you will see efficiency initiatives becoming more important to the military.  They will still have a mission to accomplish, but it will be about doing more with less.  And private industry will be right there with government and the military, coming up with the better/faster/smarter/cheaper solutions necessary to get us there. –Matt

—————————————————————–

Joint Chiefs chairman reiterates security threat of high debt

By Roxana Tiron

06/24/10

Pentagon leaders, the military services and defense contractors must work together to cut bureaucratic bloat and unnecessary programs, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Thursday.

Adm. Mike Mullen also renewed his warning that the nation’s debt is the biggest threat to U.S. national security.

“I was shown the figures the other day by the comptroller of the Pentagon that said that the interest on our debt is $571 billion in 2012,” Mullen said at a breakfast hosted by The Hill. “That is, noticeably, about the size of the defense budget. It is not sustainable.”

(more…)

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Industry Talk: Erik Prince On CNBC

Cool Stuff: Paul Romer’s Charter Cities Idea….. Afghanistan?

Filed under: Afghanistan,Cool Stuff — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 5:52 PM

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Military News: McChrystal Steps Down, Petraeus Takes Over Afghanistan Post

     McChrystal is replaced by Petraeus.  The reason for McChrystal being let go is because of what was said in the Rolling Stone article.  The choice of Petraeus was the best choice for the continuity of the mission and strategy according to the President.-Matt

——————————————————————

Petraeus to Replace McChrystal

Jonathan Weisman

JUNE 23, 2010

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama relieved Gen. Stanley McChrystal of commanding forces in Afghanistan, swiftly acting in the wake of derisive comments Gen. McChrystal and his aides made to Rolling Stone magazine, according to a White House official.

The president will announce the decision in the Rose Garden shortly. Gen. David Petraeus, the head of the military’s Central Command and the architect of the surge of forces into Iraq in 2007, will take over as the commanding general in Afghanistan, administration officials said.

The decision to put Gen. Petraeus in command sends a signal that the president stands behind the counterinsurgency tactics pushed hard by Gen. McChrystal and championed by Gen. Petraeus. Technically, as combatant commander in the military region that includes Afghanistan and the Middle East, Gen. Petraeus was Gen. McChrystal’s commanding officer.

By agreeing to take command, Gen. Petraeus himself was showing resolve to see the counterinsurgency effort through in Afghanistan.

Gen. McChrystal left the White House Wednesday morning after about a half-hour meeting with the president to discuss the critical comments the general and his aides made about top administration officials. The general was not seen returning to the White House for the Afghanistan strategy session later in the morning, as he has been expected, the Associated Press reported.

Mr. Obama had summoned Gen. McChrystal back to the White House for a face-to-face meeting to answer for critical comments he made about the administration that are raising questions about the general’s future.

Gen. McChrystal has apologized for the comments he made in this week’s issue of Rolling Stone magazine titled “The Runaway General.”

Gen. McChrystal is quoted as accusing U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry of undermining his efforts in Afghanistan. Aides to the general are quoted anonymously as saying Obama didn’t seem to know who McChrystal was when he appointed him to run the war early last year.

Story here.

 

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress