“Washington (CNN) — Preparing the U.S. military to fight two major
conventional wars is “out of date” and does not reflect the numerous
challenges U.S. military forces could face in the future, U.S. Defense
Secretary Robert Gates said Monday.

Gates made that pronouncement as he revealed the 2010 Quadrennial
Defense Review, the military’s strategic outlook. He said the military
needs to start planning for multiple operations such as major disasters
in the United States and various scuffles around the planet.”

Gates knows better than this.

He knows that China is the rising threat, and the U.S. military has to prepare to confront it, not just assisting in humanitarian disasters or chasing al Qaeda.

This is what happens to DoD when Democrats are in charge. Thank goodness Gates is there to provide some adult supervision.

This QDR is a man caused disaster to borrow a term from Homeland Security under Obama.

He can’t do that publicly.  He can do that through his policy choices.

There is clear daylight between the Obama Administration and Gen. McChrystal, the commander of forces in Afghanistan.  McChrystal wants more forces to address the growing insurgency, ideally, to defeat it.  Obama does not want to give him what he wants due to pressure from the Leftists in his own party.

This is outrageous.  We do not know what it will take to defeat the insurgency in Afghanistan.  More troops may fail.  The only guarantee in Afghanistan is that everything is hard.   But not to support the requests of the senior American there is wrong.  To deny the troop request causes the United States to lose the best chance, according to professional military advice, of defeating the insurgency.

This, despite Obama’s pledges in March 2009, to do whatever was necessary to win in Afghanistan.

Obama has placed McChrystal in a terrible position.  If Obama sticks to his decision, McChrystal must continue to face a deteriorating situation without the forces that could be provided but will not be or he must resign.  Faced with that choice, he should resign.  A hard choice, no doubt.  As an exceptional military officer, he would feel he were abandoning his men.

But it is necessary, nonetheless.  By so doing, he would force attention to the issue and create a firestorm, despite the best efforts of the Leftist Old Media to put a pro-Obama spin on.  McChrystal would ensure that the responsibility for failure rested with the Obama administration.

Most importantly, he would ensure that, when faced with the choice of military victory or defeat, Obama chose defeat.  Nothing else could be expected from Obama.

The Wall Street Journal has a good story here.

The costs of this mistake are many.

First, will Central Europe ever again trust that the United States will live up to its agreements?  Many Polish and Czech politicians went out on a limb to make this happen, and Obama just sawed it off.  The memory of this betrayal will be hard to erase.  It is an outrage that “Trust but Verify” must now be applied to the United States.  But who can blame the Central and Eastern Europeans.

Second, the Obama administration has given Russia a veto over NATO decisionmaking.  Like it or not, that is the impression.  That is bad news for NATO allies and potential NATO members like Georgia.

Third, and related to the previous point, it is clear Obama has a very different relationship with Europe than did Bush.  Gone are the heady days of summer and fall 2008.  In addition to backing out of missile defense, he does not want to extend NATO.  The window on additional NATO expansion is closing, and the alliance and Washington may rue the day they let the opportunity slip through their fingers.

Fourth, the administration did this at the same time it is negotiating a follow on to the START strategic arms treaty with the Russians.  Even if you decide to make the mistake of giving up this system, why would you do it without getting anything from the Russians?

This stinks to High Heaven.  Where are the adults in the national security community?  If you don’t care about NATO, it will go away.  The U.S., Canada and Europe are far worse off in that world.

Why should any country again trust the United States?

Obama is now abandoning them.

This is a disaster for U.S. credibility and the coherence of the alliance.  The Russians are happy.  The Iranians are pleased.

The peoples of Central and Eastern Europe are terrified of being abandoned by their ally, the United States. They would be right to ask:  Is this what we get for trying to help the United States and NATO?

Those states have been through this before.  And what seems like a small matter from the standpoint of Washington, is critically important to them.  They have been abandoned by allies before with disastrous results.

They should be warned, with Obama in power, the Russians have a veto on U.S. policy.  Efforts to make the NATO alliance stronger will be defeated by Barack Hussein Obama, the appeaser-in-chief.

There are three reasons to be concerned with nuclear North Korea:  1) They will use the weapons against the U.S. or our allies; 2) they will start a proliferation chain (e.g. Japan); and 3) they will provide the material, know-how or bombs to terrorists or other countries.

The implications of a nuclear North Korea are profound.  The United States has wrestled with this problem since 1991 and no administration has found a good solution.  Each has preferred to kick the can down the road and hope that the regime collapses.

That policy has not worked.  North Korea has only grown its nuclear capabilities.  There is every reason to believe this will continue.  The administration seems to adopt the action of its predecessor, watching North Korea closely to ensure no bombs or components leave.  That is an imperfect solution because North Korea gets stronger, with more fissile material to sell.  It also places a huge burden on the U.S. intelligence community.  But it is the only practical solution and so is good enough for the present circumstances.

We do not know yet how the Obama administration handled this. There is a worrying report that they preferred a “peaceful solution.” No doubt, if true, such a path placed Philips and servicemen in peril and prolonged the standoff.

The larger issues of how such lawlessness developed and why vessels do not assume the obligations of protecting themselves rather than troubling the Navy with such responsibilities need to be addressed.  

This sounds like a job for NATO.  

NATO does have a force in the area, but it is time for it to be expanded in order to relieve the burden on the U.S. Navy.  Whether that will happen is doubtful since the Obama-love of the European Left is superficial.

Americans can be grateful once again for their armed forces.  The best in world. We can join Captain Philips in his appreciation and gratitude.  Thanks, U.S. Navy.

Jason D. Wood has written an excellent article detailing why Obama’s space policy is impractical and dangerous.

Wood writes that it is impractical for 3 major reasons:

First and foremost, there is no internationally agreed-upon definition of a space weapon. One proposed definition includes only space-based systems specifically produced to destroy other space objects. But that raises the question of intent, always difficult to prove. This definition also fails to take into account Earth-based systems that could be used to destroy objects in space, like the anti-satellite weapons used by the People’s Republic of China in 2007 and the United States in 2008. Nor does it include terrestrial laser systems capable of jamming satellite communications. An alternate definition — any object in, or passing through, space that has the capability of damaging or destroying another space object — is equally unfeasible. Theoretically, any object in space could be used to intercept or collide with another object, again raising the issue of determining intent.

Second, there is no conceivable way to effectively verify a space weapons ban. Assuming that a workable definition of “space weapon” could be agreed upon, effectively inspecting space payloads would present enormous challenges. Some components could have dual use applications. And unlike Earth-based systems, where inspection delays simply postpone verification, an inspection delay in this case would allow the launch of the disputed payload.

Third, because the U.S. relies heavily on space systems to achieve battlefield dominance, our adversaries have greater incentive to develop the means to negate U.S. space capabilities. Given U.S conventional superiority, a strike on U.S. space assets becomes a quick and relatively cheap way of gaining an asymmetric advantage. An ambiguously defined treaty that cannot be verified or enforced — but that would limit U.S. options to deter and defend against enemy space attack — would not alter this calculus, and would therefore be unlikely to prevent an attack on U.S. space assets or forestall the deployment of space weapons by other nations.

The result of Obama’s effort would be damaging to American security:

The importance of space to the security of the United States cannot be overstated. In the military sphere, space assets serve as a tremendous force multiplier — providing early warning, communications, timing, navigation, and targeting information around the globe. The diplomatic arena also benefits greatly from U.S. space capabilities. Space-based intelligence systems provide the means to verify arms reduction treaties and nonproliferation agreements. These same systems help policymakers assess the damage of manmade or natural disasters, allowing humanitarian aid to be directed more efficiently and effectively. U.S. space assets are also increasingly vital to the commercial sector, providing data that is critical for weather forecasts, agriculture, construction, and geological surveys. More and more, everyday citizens rely on satellite systems for GPS navigation, direct-to-home television, financial transactions, and emergency services. In the future, space will continue to become exponentially more important across the spectrum of defense, diplomacy, commerce, and daily life.

Under a space weapons ban, the United States would not be able to deter an attack on these vital systems. Given the difficulties of determining intent, as well as verifying and attributing noncompliance, the United States cannot guarantee that an aggressor will be swiftly and harshly punished, militarily or diplomatically. Barring the ability to deter an attack, protection is the next reasonable alternative. However, under a treaty banning space weapons, the United States would be hampered in its ability to defend its satellites against enemy attack, leaving its increasingly vital space assets vulnerable.

All of us owe Wood thanks for calling attention to what the Obama administration is doing to hinder American security.

The Air Force’s neglect of its nuclear mission and responsibilities is shocking, but should be expected for the reasons that Gertz’s story identifies.  But what is more worrisome is that the “nuclear neglect” is found at the highest levels of the civilian leadership from Clinton until the present.  It is right to chastise Air Force Secretaries and Chiefs of Staff, but there is a lot of blame to go around, it includes Secretaries of Defense Perry, Cohen and Rumsfeld.  We hope that Secretary Gates will be successful in his effort to reverse the decline.

The Schlesinger Commission (referenced in the story) and the equally important  Welch Commission are good places to start, but their suggestions have to be incorporated by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Air Force, and Navy–as well as by the Secretary of Defense.

If not, then the United States is on the path to de facto denuclearization.  The consequences of this for the country, our allies, and our ability to deter our foes must be considered.

So how will history judge President Bush.  The Left will write the history, so the answer is “not well.”  Iraq will be figured prominently, as indeed it should.  But the positive and negative aspects of Iraq deserve attention, although the former will not receive their due.  The calculus will be Bush=Iraq, unless Iraq is a stable, good ally.

Conservatives should be upset with the Bush presidency.  For most of it, Republicans held the Hill.  Yet, no progress was made stemming the tide of illegal immigration, eliminating affirmative action, or any of the other measures that would please the Republican base.  Just the reverse, Republicans in power govern like moderate Democrats on domestic and social issues.

After 9/11, Bush had a chance to make progress in domestic policy.   For example, to illustrate the absurdity and perniciousness of multiculturalism and to restore sanity on immigration policy.  His great failing as a president was that he did not act when he had the opportunity.

The time is now to change the Republican leadership and restore conservative principles to the Party.

What was the Bush presidency?  A very good one in foreign and defense policy.  Leaving the ABM Treaty was a positive step.  One that allows America to be partially protected from ballistic missiles.  That work continues in Europe, with the construction of the European site for missile defense in the Czech Republic and Poland.  The list continues:  Forging the 9/11 coalition of states; de-escalating the tension between India and Pakistan; expanding NATO; forcing Libya to surrender its WMD and rolling up the A.Q. Khan network; calling attention to North Korea’s uranium enrichment facilities (started under Clinton); and readily assisting after natural disasters.

On domestic policy:  He was a failure–marked by lost opportunities to make progress.

What was the Bush presidency?  A Bush presidency.  You knew how he would govern in 2000.

Let us hope that he is not the last Republican president.

Seven years ago, America was under attack. America’s first responders, law enforcement, and emergency specialists responded to that attack. Our preparedness specialists provided guidance on the types of terrorist threats that we might be facing in the weeks that followed. Preparedness details about how to respond to potential Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) terrorist threats were distributed. America created a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other agencies to address the need for homeland security. Counterterrorism groups were created or expanded in the federal government and law enforcement; specialists in tactical areas were identified and recruited. From a military perspective, our National Guard patrolled major American airports and transportation hubs. On September 2001, Congress authorized the use of military force against those responsible the 9/11 attacks and nations that harbored such terrorists. A year later, Congress again authorized the use of military force, this time to address perceived threats by Iraq. America’s Homeland Security Department assessed potential terrorist targets and offered recommendations as to appropriate areas and types of threats that were the most likely and most vulnerable for “targeted” use homeland security funding and resources.
These resources were focused on tactical and targeted efforts to protect Americans and prevent terrorism. Such efforts were a reaction to the 9/11 attacks and the realization of the vulnerability of the American homeland to such attacks. Such reactive preparedness was and continues to be a priority for America. But we also need to reflect and gain a strategic awareness of the threat by asking who and what are we fighting, and why are they attacking us. We need to do more than just react, we need to plan, we need to think, and we need a real national strategy on the enemy.

Such strategic awareness and analysis is a part of any major endeavor. For our first responders today in an emergency circumstance, they try to think strategically. They will ask questions to triage an attack – is it an explosion, a fire, a chemical attack, a radiological attack? They will recommend actions, especially in an emergency situation, based on an understanding of the threat. Such strategic awareness and definition of the threat is imperative for effective actions by emergency responders.

Why isn’t such strategic awareness an imperative for America’s government leadership on the larger, ideological threat that is the basis for Jihadist terror attacks like 9/11?

Seven years after 9/11, most of our resources continue to remain focused exclusively on tactical measures and operations.

Seven years after 9/11, America’s governmental leadership still has no strategic definition of the enemy or its ideology.

Seven years after 9/11, America’s governmental leadership can’t even agree if they should use the word “Jihad.”

This exceptional commentary continues:

By our very identity as Americans, we have the obligation and the duty to confront those ideologies that are against equality and liberty, such as Islamic supremacism. We must mobilize our elected representatives and the American people in every area of life to take on this war of ideas. We must reveal those Islamic supremacist groups that seek to infiltrate America for what they are. We must not allow those who lack the courage or knowledge of what it means to be an American to represent us here in this country or to represent us to people around the world. We must demand that our government leaders acknowledge the ideological threat of Islamic supremacism to America. We must not tolerate leadership that continues to be in denial of this threat and that continues to refuse to develop a comprehensive, multi-faceted strategy against this threat.

In America, every life is precious. Unlike our enemy, we do not “love death.” Our respect for human life is another one of the human, inalienable rights that we defend as Americans. We respect and admire the sacrifices made by our law enforcement, our emergency rescue teams, our armed forces. We mourn every loss of life. We respect those who sacrifice their lives for our national cause.

Our brave men and women deserve the same type of courage that they give, and they deserve the same type of sacrifice that they make. This is why we must never tolerate a war without a strategic direction, without a defined enemy, and without a defined enemy ideology. Their sacrifices must never, never be made in vain. Those who have lost their lives and those who have dedicated their lives in such struggles must never be taken for granted. That would be inherently un-American.

The courage that we show in confronting this Islamic supremacist enemy is not only our personal sacrifice, it is also the courage of our convictions. It is our public demonstration and commitment to the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. The world is watching America to see whether it truly believes in equality and liberty enough to confront the ideology of Islamic supremacism.