Feral Jundi

Friday, March 19, 2010

Industry Talk: To Defense Industry, The Future Looks Uncomfortably Unfamiliar

Filed under: Books,Industry Talk,Strategy — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 12:46 PM

     For traditional defense companies, the operative word is “non-kinetic,” another speaker asserted.

“We love our kinetic weapons, and we don’t want to let them go,” he said. “But the world is moving in a different direction.”

     Here’s the problem: Kinetic weapons only are useful in phases two, three and four of war. Gates is veering the emphasis to the fringes — to phases zero and one (prevention of conflict, interagency work) and to phases five and six (stabilization and policing).

*****

     I love articles like this, because looking into the future of an industry, takes analysis and synthesis.  You have to put all the pieces together, and create a picture of what you think will happen.  If you have a enough of these articles, you can start to gain a consensus with predictions.  You also hope that people aren’t just copying what everyone else is saying, and calling that prediction.

   With that said, I take all of these with a grain of salt, and enjoy the process.  From what I can deduct, I think organizations like the IPOA are gonna be very popular in this industry.  Because stabilization and policing is right at the top of the list with this industry, and if we continue to apply Kaizen to the way we do business, this industry will continue to gain.

   I also got the obvious hint in this article about what the big guys are reading. Andrew Krepinevich should be on the reading list for everyone here, if they want to make their own assessments.  If the big guys are reading it, and the thing is shaping policy because of what was said, I kind of think that our industry should keep up and get on the same track. – Matt

——————————————————————

To Defense Industry, the Future Looks Uncomfortably Unfamiliar 

April 2010

By Sandra I. Erwin

Once upon a time there was much anxiety in the defense industry about the Obama administration gutting the Pentagon’s budget.

Those worries have been allayed, for now. Defense is the only portion of the federal budget that the president sheltered from the axe.

So the industry is breathing a sigh of relief, sort of.

Yes, the budget is huge, but the industry still feels vulnerable. Executives fear that weapons systems that for decades have been reliably profitable are becoming obsolete. They see the Defense Department shifting into new areas of warfare, but are not sure how to reposition their companies to succeed in non-traditional markets. They also fret about the nation’s oncoming fiscal train wreck, and wonder when someone will make the tough choices.

The much-anticipated Quadrennial Defense Review was supposed to give the industry “planning tools” to strategize about the future of the business. But the review was mostly a disappointment for its lack of specificity. One industry official compared the QDR to the Soviets’ infamous five-year plans for economic development.

In boardrooms these days, corporate bosses are brainstorming.

(more…)

Saturday, March 6, 2010

Strategy: The New Rules Of War, By John Arquilla

Filed under: Al Qaeda,Strategy — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 1:19 PM

   Just a heads up, John was one of Rumsfeld’s advisors. lol  But he does bring up some good points to think about, and I wanted to put them out there for the FJ readership to analyze. Here is a quick run down of the rules the author came up with:

   Rule 1: “Many and Small” Beats “Few and Large.”

   Rule 2: Finding Matters More Than Flanking.

   Rule 3: Swarming Is the New Surging.

   I guess the common theme of it all, is getting smaller and more mobile, in order to defeat a smaller and more mobile enemy. I just wonder if today’s militaries are even capable of this kind of flexibility? Because if we haven’t been able to get there yet, then when will we?

   Better yet, if you are reading this and would like an interesting thought to ponder, here it is.  How could a PMC use this information against an enemy it was tasked with destroying? The interesting angle with PMC’s is that the company with the better strategy and tactics, will win.  So if these new rules of warfare are sound, then they could be applied by an army or PMC for today’s battles, and they should come out victorious. Right?

   Or are these concepts really that radical, and just a rehash of older strategy?  I tend to go with this position, and today’s strategists have a tendency to just repackage old themes. The proof in the pudding is for John Arquilla to apply his rules in a war game in which the opposition is let’s say some player taking the side of Al Qaeda.   Either way, it is food for thought, and I would like to hear what you guys think. –Matt

——————————————————————

The New Rules of War

The visionary who first saw the age of “netwar” coming warns that the U.S. military is getting it wrong all over again. Here’s his plan to make conflict cheaper, smaller, and smarter.

BY JOHN ARQUILLA

 MARCH/APRIL 2010

Every day, the U.S. military spends $1.75 billion, much of it on big ships, big guns, and big battalions that are not only not needed to win the wars of the present, but are sure to be the wrong approach to waging the wars of the future.

In this, the ninth year of the first great conflict between nations and networks, America’s armed forces have failed, as militaries so often do, to adapt sufficiently to changed conditions, finding out the hard way that their enemies often remain a step ahead. The U.S. military floundered for years in Iraq, then proved itself unable to grasp the point, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, that old-school surges of ground troops do not offer enduring solutions to new-style conflicts with networked adversaries.

So it has almost always been. Given the high stakes and dangers they routinely face, militaries are inevitably reluctant to change. During World War I, the armies on the Western Front in 1915 were fighting in much the same manner as those at Waterloo in 1815, attacking in close-packed formations — despite the emergence of the machine gun and high-explosive artillery. Millions were slaughtered, year after bloody year, for a few yards of churned-up mud. It is no surprise that historian Alan Clark titled his study of the high command during this conflict The Donkeys.

Even the implications of maturing tanks, planes, and the radio waves that linked them were only partially understood by the next generation of military men. Just as their predecessors failed to grasp the lethal nature of firepower, their successors missed the rise of mechanized maneuver — save for the Germans, who figured out that blitzkrieg was possible and won some grand early victories. They would have gone on winning, but for poor high-level strategic choices such as invading Russia and declaring war on the United States. In the end, the Nazis were not so much outfought as gang-tackled.

(more…)

Monday, March 1, 2010

Afghanistan: Marjah Update–The Afghans Are ‘Trash Talking’ Their Way To Victory

Filed under: Afghanistan,Funny Stuff,Strategy — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 11:47 AM

   I love stories like this.  I can just picture these guys all grouped together and listening to the radio, and planning their comebacks.  They probably have guys in these groups who pull up the ‘yo momma’ jokes, or some crude reference to ‘relationships with camels’. lol

   So my take on this, is why are we not helping these guys out with trash talk strategy?  In the US, we have some outstanding trash talking comedians or athletes that could certainly advise the Afghan army.  Think about it?  A perfectly crafted comeback or slam, could easily infuriate the opposition to the point of doing something that would compromise their position or force them to do something stupid.  I posted a similar story awhile back of US troops trash talking the Taliban in order to get them out for the fight.  It worked, and if I were these Afghans, and the Coalition forces working with them, I would take advantage of that weakness to no end.  Hell, get creative and infuriate them with the kind of trash talking that only Muhammad Ali or Mike Tyson would be proud of .  If the Taliban is that easily goaded, then by all means that weakness should be exploited. –Matt

——————————————————————

Trash Talking the Taliban During Firefights

By MIGUEL MARQUEZ

MARJA, Afghanistan, Feb. 25, 2010

It’s a remarkable combination of psychological warfare, political roundtable and trash-talking. Afghan soldiers and Taliban fighters taunt each other, debate each other and try to persuade each other almost daily over their radios, at times while even shooting at each other.

I came across the astonishing facet of the Afghan War while spending time with the 302nd kandak, or battalion, of the Afghan National Army. The foes chatter with each other over their Vietnam-era, two-way radio system. It’s such an antiquated system that the Taliban and the Afghan forces share radio frequencies, and verbal barbs, as they try to kill or capture one another.

I asked Maj. Said Rahim Hakmal what they talk about. Politics, he said. “The Taliban will say things like why do you side with the Americans? Why do you sell out your country? You love Obama more than Afghanistan.”

Hakmal said the standard response goes something like, “The Americans are here to help our country function again. They don’t want to stay. They want to help, then leave. You should help, too.”

Then the shooting starts.

To the Taliban, religion is politics and they are willing to die for their way of life. At least half the Afghan Army’s and its government’s job here is to sell the Talibs on the notion that they can have their religion, they just have to keep the politics separate. Easier said than done when it comes to fundamental beliefs about the nature of being and whom the almighty favors.

The Taliban and their politics aside, there are other questions Afghans have for America. While they do appear to trust that America has no interest in colonizing Afghanistan, they wonder about our true motives. Their No. 1 concern, maybe fear: Pakistan. They are desperate to know what America is really up to with their needed yet distrusted neighbor. Who does America support in Pakistan and why? Why doesn’t America, with all its power, just kill all the “terrorists” in Pakistan? For many Afghans, all their problems, and conspiracies, are rooted and imported from Pakistan.

Everybody Has an Opinion

Pro-government Afghans have a harder time wrestling with their beliefs than the Taliban. They have to simultaneously believe that the United States is good and questionable, maybe bad, for Afghanistan. Afghans are all for America when it comes to the surge, defeating the insurgency and building its government. They are less trustful when they look at U.S. actions outside Afghanistan.

It’s like Americans who love their congressmen but have few kind words for Congress.

Afghans want to know just about everything about America but they’ll settle for the American in front of them. The questions are non-stop. Where are you from? Who is your father? How big is your family? Do you have a wife? Children? What do you do for fun? What food do you like? Show me your pictures? Is that your phone? Signal? Can I call home?

When we’d go about our work shooting interviews or sending back material via a small satellite transceiver, the Afghans would gather around as though it were the day’s entertainment. They all want to be interviewed. They don’t really care about the questions. They have an opinion on just about everything and are always ready to share. That, too, reminds me of home.

Story here.

——————————————————————

Afghan Flag Raised Over Marja After Battling Taliban for 12 Days

Raising of the Afghan Flag Symbolizes a New Beginning in the Town of Marja

By ZOE MAGEE

Feb. 25, 2010

After 12 days of combat, U.S. commanders said today the worst of the fighting is over and as if to prove the point they watched as the new Afghan government raised its flag over the former Taliban stronghold of Marja for the first time in years.

U.S. military commanders were upbeat, bolstered by the high turnout in the center of town to watch the flag raising ceremony and the swearing-in of Abdul Zahir Aryan as the town’s new administrator.

“What you see here is Afghan government getting under way and the hard work really starts from today onwards,” Major Gen. Nick Carter said.

(more…)

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Aviation: Drone Operators Climb On Winds Of Change In The Air Force

Filed under: Aviation,Technology — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 12:15 PM

     Like with contractors, drones have been the ‘new thing’ that the military has been trying figure out. Now a kid who is really good at video games, could essentially fly these drones.  Hell, I think drone piloting will only become easier and more user friendly in the future.  We will also see drones that are more intuitive, that will actually help out the drone archer in their missions.  Of course we will also see autonomous drones come on to the scene, but I believe the military will still want some kind of human interface to be that ‘elephant chisel’ for that drone.

     I don’t think human flight will go away in the Air Force per se. It’s just now commanders have the choice between risking the life of a pilot for a mission versus using a UAV. So human powered missions will more than likely be the stuff that requires the utmost in human discretion.  Humans can also feel out a situation and provide more random strategies in the air, that machines would have a hard time deriving patterns from.

     But yet again, a human in a small box in Nevada, could apply the same strategies with a highly maneuverable UAV.  There are no physical limitations for the drone archer either.  They can go to the bathroom, eat, work in shifts, and the G Forces or altitude of the aircraft will not impact the mission.  Most importantly, there is no fog of war for the pilot.

     That leaves another question.  For some pilots, physically being in the battle, is a good thing.  It empowers them by heightening their senses and really pushing their strategies and desire to kill the enemy.  In other words, there are high stakes involved with human piloting, and that causes a person to really perform. The drone archer in the box, just looks at it like a video game. There might be a strategic edge to a pilot that is ‘more connected’ to the battlefield.  Who knows, and this stuff is a little out of my lane.  Either way, drones are here to stay, and they are causing a significant shift in military aviation mindset. I wonder what Col. John Boyd would have to say about drones? –Matt

——————————————————————-

Combat Generation: Drone operators climb on winds of change in the Air Force

By Greg JaffeSunday, February 28, 2010

The question, scrawled on a Pentagon whiteboard last fall, captured the strange and difficult moment facing the Air Force.

“Why does the country need an independent Air Force?” the senior civilian assistant to Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, the service’s chief of staff, had written. For the first time in the 62-year history of the Air Force, the answer isn’t entirely clear.

The Air Force’s identity crisis is one of many ways that a decade of intense and unrelenting combat is reshaping the U.S. military and redefining the American way of war. The battle against insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq has created an insatiable demand for the once-lowly drone, elevating the importance of the officers who fly them.

These new earthbound aviators are redefining what it means to be a modern air warrior and forcing an emotional debate within the Air Force over the very meaning of valor in combat.

(more…)

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Strategy: The Failure Of Today’s Counter Piracy Strategy

Filed under: Maritime Security,Somalia,Strategy — Tags: , , , , , , , — Matt @ 9:59 AM

   I don’t care what any of the experts think on this one.  It doesn’t take a defense analyst or a counter piracy expert to look at these two stories, and the one I posted about the chemical tanker and fertilizer ship being taken, and deduct that the current strategy is not working.

   Look at this first story I posted below. The Dutch capture 13 pirates, and they had to release them because no one wanted to deal with them?  And then they had to give them food and fuel so they could ‘make it home alright’? How sweet of us. Pfffft. This is lunacy.  No wonder this whole piracy thing is increasing, because it is the ultimate criminal venture to be in.

   The next story really spells out the failure of the strategy.  We have a massive flotilla of navies from all over the world, that costs millions of dollars to operate every day, and this is what we get out of that investment? An increase in successful pirate operations?  Who the hell is in charge of this mess?

   The strategy I propose is pretty simple. Make it mandatory that all ships have armed security, and they all have the means to contact a Naval quick reaction force via protected communications. Put the cost of security and proper communications on the shipping industry, and only use a few key Naval vessels for back up.  If a ship gets into a fight with pirates, then they put out the distress call to the closest strategically placed Naval QRF, and do the best they can to hang on until they get there. Hell, we could just have armed drones flying around all day to act as back up. But just as long as there is competent and well armed security on these boats, then this will give the boats enough time to out maneuver the pirates or hang on until help gets on station.

   We could also hunt them down at sea, but good luck with that.  It would take thousands of boats, canvasing the sea, all with the right to search and seize vessels.  Even then, these pirates will just hide on a fishing vessel and pretend to be safe, until the hunting vessels are gone.  I say if we are going to hunt them, then you use really good bait, which is why it is so important to have armed ships with a Naval QRF to back them up. That QRF should also be in the form of aviation, and not some slow cruising boat that would take an hour to get where it needs to be. That is my idea of a a QRF on the ocean.

   The second part of my strategy is all about dealing with the land problem, and that requires eradicating any threats to the government, and giving the government the time and support necessary in order to establish a solid governance over the land. But it all requires a professional army to do a proper job of cleaning up that resistance, and establishing control over key corridors and areas. Anything is possible, just as long as you have the manpower and resources to contribute to the effort.  You could either use a competent PMC (something similar to Executive Outcomes) or try to get an organized and well trained Army that is not busy with the current wars we are in.  Good luck with that last one.

   The point being, is that we really cannot be effective at sea, if we do not have a land based component of our strategy. Until we do what we have to do, these pirates will only continue to get more wealthier, more bold, more greedier, and probably more dangerous because now they can afford the good stuff. –Matt

Edit: 12/31/2009 – Further proof of the failure.  Look at these numbers. (I posted the rest in the comments section)

Mr. PHAM: Unfortunately, and I hate to rain on the parades of the world’s navies, but they haven’t sent an unambiguous message. Since August of 2008 to mid December 2009, the combined navies of the world have stopped 706 pirates. Of these 706, 11 were killed in the altercations with the navies. Four hundred and eleven, however, were simply catch and release because the various countries of the world can’t agree on rules for prosecution.

And so the pirates look at this and say the chances of actually being caught and actually having to suffer some legal penalty, 46 convicted out of 706 stopped, your chances are pretty slim.

——————————————————————

Captured Somali pirates get away scot-free

December 18 2009

The Dutch navy frigate HNLMS Evertsen has released 13 Somali pirates who were captured earlier this month. The European Union failed to find a country willing to put them on trial on suspicion of piracy and ordered their release on Thursday.The pirates were kept in detention on the ship’s aft deck, which was “an unpleasant situation” according to the Dutch Defence Ministry. They were released near Djibouti and transferred to their own ship, which had been towed all the way by HNLMS Evertsen.

HNLMS Evertsen was part of an EU mission off the Somali coast. The men were arrested when they attempted to hijack a merchant ship.

(more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress