Feral Jundi

Sunday, July 4, 2010

Afghanistan: Petraeus Calls For Unity Of Effort

     This is significant, because this speech sets the pace and tone of the new management in Afghanistan.  This is an excellent first step, and I absolutely agree that unity of effort is the one thing we should be able to control, before we press forward.  That means everyone comes together and rallies around the strategy and goals, and insures their efforts do not negatively impact the overall effort. Unity of effort is vital to success in war.

     What is interesting though, is that Petraeus is making great pains to create this revitalized unity of effort in Afghanistan amongst all the top civilian and military leadership, but he is also missing a huge group that must also be brought under this umbrella of ‘unity of effort’. That group is contractors….all 110,000 plus contractors working in Afghanistan.

     So the next question with that, is how do you reach all of these contractors, and how do you insure they all are focused on unity of effort? What contractor general or CEO would you talk with, to get something like this done?  That is a good question, and because there is a lack of centralized authority or organized labor for this gaggle of civilian workers, all Petraeus really can do is get the word out on how each and every one of us can contribute to this ‘unity of effort’. He can can also make sure that contracts that are signed have language that pushes along a company towards this unity of effort, and he could also personally talk with the CEO’s of companies and insure they are on the same sheet of music.

     Those are just some ideas, but I do know one thing.  If he does nothing about contractors, then how could he or anyone expect any kind of synergy or synchronicity?  How could expect any kind of harmony with operations or interactions with one another? In other words, you cannot treat us like the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. If Petraeus wants to be the great unifier, contractors are a group he must bring under the tent. –Matt

———————————————-

Petraeus Calls for United Effort to Win Afghan War

Ayaz Gul

3 July 2010

New U.S. commander of the international military mission in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, has called for united efforts to solve the problems of the war-ravaged country. The U.S. general made his first public comments a day after arriving in Kabul to take command of the 140,000 American and NATO forces.General David Petraeus has arrived in Afghanistan to lead the international forces at a time of rising Taliban insurgency. The month of June was the deadliest for the U.S.-led coalition since the Afghan war began nearly nine years ago.Addressing hundreds of local and foreign guests gathered at the U.S. Embassy to mark America’s Independence Day, General Petraeus underlined the need for unity to deal with the challenges in Afghanistan.”This is an effort in which we must achieve unity of effort and common purpose, civilian and military, Afghan and international, we are part of one team with one mission,” he said. (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…)

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.

 

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Iraq: Winning The Sniper War In Iraq

Filed under: Iraq,Military News — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 2:48 PM

     The most dangerous enemy snipers proved to be the insurgents who mimicked the Washington, D.C.-area snipers who terrorized our nation’s capital in 2002 by firing from the concealment of a car. Cruising the streets of Baghdad, Mosul and other towns, these mobile sniper teams sought G.I.s manning roadside checkpoints, fixed security posts and sitting in armored vehicle cupolas. As quickly as they fired, the insurgent riflemen disappeared into urban traffic. Some sniping vehicles carried extra license plates, phony taxi markings and secret compartments for stowing a sniper rifle. Insurgent Web sites boasted that quick reaction forces arrived too late to catch them.

     Because al-Qaeda paid the gunmen up to $5,000 per kill, the mobile snipers documented their engagements on videotape, the spotter serving as both observer and videographer.

***** 

   This is a fantastic article, and kind of rare. The sniper guru talks about insurgent tactics and how we stopped them. If you would like to further expand your knowledge on how our guys did it, Plaster added a whole new chapter in his book dedicated to the current war.  Not only is he famous for his books and lectures on sniping, but he is also a veteran of MACV SOG during the Vietnam War and certainly a living legend.

   Why is this significant?  To me, SOG was probably the most daring and most innovative unit to come out of the Vietnam War, and I put them right on par with the Selous Scouts. Both units had to be masters of their environment and of their task, because both had to operate behind enemy lines.  They also had to operate in other countries, which made the advent of getting caught even more dangerous and extremely embarrassing to their home countries. I look at the Pakistan problem in today’s war as the same dilemma.

    Al Qaeda has no problem exploiting the borders of sovereign nations, and that is how they are able to survive and grow.  It is an aspect of this war that will most certainly have to be fought by covert warriors for a very long time, and in some very dangerous places.

   But back to this article.  Mr. Plaster mentioned one thing that caught my eye.  Al Qaeda introduced free market warfare into their strategy, and the end result was some pretty dangerous and innovative sniper teams.  Please note the quote up top. –Matt

—————————————————————-

Winning the Sniper War in Iraq

A war within a war.

By Maj. John L. Plaster, USAR (Ret.)

As an American military convoy rumbled along a dusty street in Habbaniyah, Iraq, 50 miles west of Baghdad, a silver van eased to the curb. Preoccupied with operating their heavy trucks, the U.S. Marine drivers didn’t notice the van and its civilian occupants.

Fortunately the convoy was overwatched by guardian angels: a Marine sniper and his spotter atop a nearby roof. Alerted by his spotter, the Marine marksman shifted his 10X optic to the silver van—and discovered the driver videotaping the convoy while his passenger raised a scoped rifle! As one, the Marine sniper and his spotter fired, shooting dead the cameraman and his sniping partner. By itself this was a dramatic accomplishment, but there was more: Pried from the dead terrorist’s hands was a Marine-issue M40A3 sniper rifle—taken from a Marine sniper killed by insurgents in August 2005. It was now back where it belonged.

The Habbaniyah engagement was a limited but significant milestone in this unnoticed war-within-a-war, a quiet triumph of skill and courage, strategy and technology, which yielded a victory as great as that of British snipers who wrested domination of the World War I trenches from Germany’s snipers in 1915.

(more…)

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Military News: 1,200 National Guard Troops To Be Deployed To Arizona Border

   Wow, this is great news.  Arizona has been pushing hard for National Guard troops and the White House has finally agreed to allow it.  It’s about time is all I have to say.

     I am not sure what will be purchased with the 500 million dollars, and I am sure that money will mostly go to this NG deployment.  Although we might see an emphasis again on building a substantial wall or fence on the border.  If that is the case, I am sure a contractor or two will be tasked with building that thing. If they do start building the fence, I am sure they will also build a couple of camps out in the remote areas so they can support that effort. –Matt

——————————————————————

1,200 National Guard troops to be deployed to border

5/25/2010

WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Tuesday announced the White House has agreed to her requests to deploy National Guard troops to the U.S. border with Mexico.Giffords called for the Guard’s deployment immediately after the March 27, 2010, murder of Cochise County rancher Rob Krentz.

Giffords also says in a statement Tuesday that President Barack Obama will request $500 million in funding for border security.

In 2006, President George W. Bush sent thousands of troops to the border to perform support duties that tie up immigration agents. The troops wouldn’t perform significant law enforcement duties.

That program has since ended, and politicians in border states have called for troops to be sent there to curb human and drug smuggling and prevent Mexico’s drug violence from spilling over into the United States.

Story here.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress