You have to look carefully in the newspapers to see it.  An enigmatic
title that evokes memories of the "Drug Czar" position from
administrations past.  The new phrase is "War Czar," and the first I
saw it, the news stories were saying that the Bush Administration was
having trouble finding anyone who would take the job.

So, what
is a "War Czar" to do, if one is ever found?  As envisioned by Stephen
Hadley, the National Security Adviser, the person who takes this job
will be responsible for briefing the president every day regarding the
ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  This person would also have the
authority to tell the various members of the president’s Cabinet what
to do. 

The problem is, no one seems to want the job.  At
least three retired 4-star generals have turned down the offer of a job
managing the wars.  Comments have been made that Hadley, the National
Security Director, is farming out an important part of his job,
possibly to pass any failures of policy off to the new person.  Maybe.
Other comments criticize the president for farming out HIS job.
Maybe.  As I see it, the biggest failure (among the individuals
involved), is that of the retired military officers who turned the job
down. 

Retired or not, they made a career of serving their
nation, and now, when their Commander-in-Chief calls on them to help
direct the wars against our enemies, the wars in which our servicemen
and women are dying almost daily, the wars which, if we fail, could
expand into more dangerous regional conflicts, they just said "no
thanks."
I think those generals have turned their backs on their
country.  It is true that the president has not done a good job of
inducing a sense of national sacrifice or ownership of the wars, as FDR
did in World War Two, but these generals should know better. 

If
they cannot stand up and show the nation what is needed to win these
wars, (because the president sure can’t do that), then who will?  Would
Patton, or Eisenhower, or Marshall, or Bradley, or MacArthur turn down
a similar request from their president?  Hell no!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001776.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/washington/30hadley.html

You have to look carefully in the newspapers to see it.  An enigmatic title that evokes memories of the "Drug Czar" position from administrations past.  The new phrase is "War Czar," and the first I saw it, the news stories were saying that the Bush Administration was having trouble finding anyone who would take the job.

So, what is a "War Czar" to do, if one is ever found?  As envisioned by Stephen Hadley, the National Security Adviser, the person who takes this job will be responsible for briefing the president every day regarding the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  This person would also have the authority to tell the various members of the president’s Cabinet what to do. 

The problem is, no one seems to want the job.  At least three retired 4-star generals have turned down the offer of a job managing the wars.  Comments have been made that Hadley, the National Security Director, is farming out an important part of his job, possibly to pass any failures of policy off to the new person.  Maybe.  Other comments criticize the president for farming out HIS job.  Maybe.  As I see it, the biggest failure (among the individuals involved), is that of the retired military officers who turned the job down. 

Retired or not, they made a career of serving their nation, and now, when their Commander-in-Chief calls on them to help direct the wars against our enemies, the wars in which our servicemen and women are dying almost daily, the wars which, if we fail, could expand into more dangerous regional conflicts, they just said "no thanks."
I think those generals have turned their backs on their country.  It is true that the president has not done a good job of inducing a sense of national sacrifice or ownership of the wars, as FDR did in World War Two, but these generals should know better. 

If they cannot stand up and show the nation what is needed to win these wars, (because the president sure can’t do that), then who will?  Would Patton, or Eisenhower, or Marshall, or Bradley, or MacArthur turn down a similar request from their president?  Hell no!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001776.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/washington/30hadley.html

Just wondering how it is that we always seem to have candidates who say they want to appeal to the average voter, and who say that despite their relatively immense wealth, they are really just like the rest of us.

What malarkey!  When John Edwards spends $400 to get his hair cut by a Hollywood hair stylist (not a barber, but a "stylist") how on earth are we to take him seriously when he blathers on about understanding the problems that poor people suffer?  And compared to him, most folks are poor.

Edwards often recites the story of how his dad was a poor millworker, and they all grew up in poverty.  He made his money as a trial lawyer, so, yes, he did make his money by earning it, unlike the Kennedy and Bush clans.  And, yes, he has the right to spend or waste his money as he sees fit.  But this man is running for President, and he is running with a campaign theme of "help the poor."  I don’t think he gets it.  He is contradicting himself by acting like a rich man with money to burn while at the same time he is bemoaning the state of this nation’s poor.

Bill Clinton, for all of his personal faults, came from basically a middle-class background, and was not a wealthy man until after his presidency was over.  For most of their marriage, his lawyer wife made more money than he did.  The $200,000 presidential salary was the most he had made up to that point in terms of salary.  When  he said that he understood people’s pain, it was believable.  John Edwards can’t get away with that one.  And neither can Romney, nor most of the candidates from either party.

A good column to read on the Edwards haircut issue is written by Leonard Pitts, Jr.  He is a columnist for the Miami Herald, and  he usually writes common sense articles on politics, culture, and life in America.  Read his column on the $400 haircut at http://www.miamiherald.com/285/story/88153.html

The War in Afghanistan is often forgotten in America against the backdrop of the violence in Iraq and the almost daily list of casualties from that war.  In Canada, however, Afghanistan and the war there have taken center stage in Canadian foreign policy and defense issues.

Canada, like the rest of the NATO allies, rushed to help the U.S. in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, joining the American military in liberating Afghanistan from the Taliban and its al-Qaida allies.   As the warfare in Afghanistan starts to ratchet up again this  spring/summer, Canada, which does not support the war in Iraq, is facing increasing casualties and is looking at those European NATO allies who they feel are not doing their part to help out with combat duties in the war.

2,500 Canadian troops serve in Afghanistan, and the government recently extended their mission until 2009.  54 Canadian troops have perished since 2001, which is quite a few, considering that Canada is more used to seeing her soldiers in peacekeeping roles than in actual combat.  The last major war with Canadian involvement was Korea, over fifty years ago.

So, what is the solution to the issue of the other allies, those with troops there, but who decline major combat roles, (see previous post on Dutch forces in Afghanistan)?  With hindsight, it is clear that the U.S. and the Allies should have put more combat forces in the fight early in the war to truly smash the Taliban, not just drive them back in to the mountains and over the border to Pakistan.  Hindsight is nice, but it does not solve the problem.  NATO should make a concerted effort to flood Afghanistan with combat troops, engage in a major offensive that does not end with the beginning of winter, and truly pressure Pakistan to end the Taliban’ s presence over the border.  Canada is right…the other allies need to step up in order to win this war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/world/americas/23canada.html

America’s latest Somali adventure, in partnership with Ethiopia, is
beginning to get a bit complicated.  A news report (see below),
indicates that the U.S., allowed a shipment of North Korean
arms and military supplies purchased by Ethiopia, to go through despite
a United Nations resolution against North Korean arms shipments.  Back
in October, 2006, North Korea tested its new nuclear arsenal, which
caused President Bush to get all hot and bothered.  Actually, quite a
few nations and leaders reacted with alarm, even though everyone knew
the North Koreans would eventually  test a weapon of some sort.

Anyway,
back to the Ethiopian issue:  As you will recall, in December, 2006,
Ethiopia intervened in the ongoing Somali Civil War with clear American
support.  U.S. warplanes conducted air strikes on Islamist targets, the
U.S. Navy blockades the Somali coast, and American Special Forces
accompanied Ethiopian troops into Somalia and apparently aided in the
interrogation of suspected al-Qaida and other Islamist prisoners. 

It
is obvious that America and Ethiopia are allies, which does explain why
Washington wants Ethiopia to have a well-supplied military.  But the
question comes up as to what is more important:  pacifying Somalia and
keeping al-Qaida out, or being serious about  showing North Korea we
are serious about punishing them for their nuclear program?  And if we
are going easy on North Korea despite our  threats and bellyaching
about their nuclear ambitions, won’t Iran and other would be nuclear
powered threats look at this incident and wonder just how serious we
are about them?

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/15/MNGVLP6LVQ1.DTL&type=politics

America’s latest Somali adventure, in partnership with Ethiopia, is beginning to get a bit complicated.  A news report (see below),  indicates that the U.S., allowed a shipment of North Korean arms and military supplies purchased by Ethiopia, to go through despite a United Nations resolution against North Korean arms shipments.  Back in October, 2006, North Korea tested its new nuclear arsenal, which caused President Bush to get all hot and bothered.  Actually, quite a few nations and leaders reacted with alarm, even though everyone knew the North Koreans would eventually  test a weapon of some sort.

Anyway, back to the Ethiopian issue:  As you will recall, in December, 2006, Ethiopia intervened in the ongoing Somali Civil War with clear American support.  U.S. warplanes conducted air strikes on Islamist targets, the U.S. Navy blockades the Somali coast, and American Special Forces accompanied Ethiopian troops into Somalia and apparently aided in the interrogation of suspected al-Qaida and other Islamist prisoners. 

It is obvious that America and Ethiopia are allies, which does explain why Washington wants Ethiopia to have a well-supplied military.  But the question comes up as to what is more important:  pacifying Somalia and keeping al-Qaida out, or being serious about  showing North Korea we are serious about punishing them for their nuclear program?  And if we are going easy on North Korea despite our  threats and bellyaching about their nuclear ambitions, won’t Iran and other would be nuclear powered threats look at this incident and wonder just how serious we are about them?

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/15/MNGVLP6LVQ1.DTL&type=politics

A recent article in the New York Times highlights some of the problems
the Allies face in dealing with the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/world/asia/06afghan.html

The Dutch regular army troops take a very different approach to
pacification than the Americans, British, Canadians, and other allies.
The Dutch focus more on making personal contact with the locals,
cultivating relationships, and, most unusual of all for combat troops,
they avoid combat with the enemy. 

Many of history’s best counter-insurgency campaigns focused a great
deal of energy, time, and resources, on denying the enemy forces the
use, cover, and allegiances of the local population.  Some, campaigns,
such as the British concentration camps for the Boer civilian
population and the Spanish attempt to squelch the Cuban Revolution in
the 1890s, used barbaric methods to achieve their aims.  (The British
won, the Spanish managed to tick off the Americans so much that the
U.S. intervened).  The Dutch method goes to the other end of the
spectrum to an extreme.  Be friendly, polite, build schools and roads,
and don’t kill anyone.  Even if they shoot at you.

Back in the 1990s, the Dutch participated in an Allied attempt to
protect Bosnian Serbs (http://www.historyguy.com/balkan_war_third.htm)
at a place called Srebernica.  The Dutch soldiers avoided combat, and
allowed the Serbs to slaughter 8,000 Bosnian men and boys.  If I were
an Afghan civilian making nice with the Allies in this war, and I have
to depend on the Dutch Boys from the Gandhi School of Pacification to
save my life from the Taliban or al-Qaida, I’d better have my funeral
plot picked out in advance. 

In all the talk of the "Surge" of American troops into Baghdad, one
facet of that increase of soldiers is that they are now supposed to be
actively patrolling neighborhoods and making face-to-face contact with
local civilians.  In this sense the American strategy in Iraq is
similar to the Dutch ploy in Afghanistan.  The comparison ends here
though, since we all know that the U.S. troops are going to defend
themselves and shoot back.

A recent article in the New York Times highlights some of the problems the Allies face in dealing with the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/world/asia/06afghan.html

The Dutch regular army troops take a very different approach to pacification than the Americans, British, Canadians, and other allies.  The Dutch focus more on making personal contact with the locals, cultivating relationships, and, most unusual of all for combat troops, they avoid combat with the enemy. 

Many of history’s best counter-insurgency campaigns focused a great deal of energy, time, and resources, on denying the enemy forces the use, cover, and allegiances of the local population.  Some, campaigns, such as the British concentration camps for the Boer civilian population and the Spanish attempt to squelch the Cuban Revolution in the 1890s, used barbaric methods to achieve their aims.  (The British won, the Spanish managed to tick off the Americans so much that the U.S. intervened).  The Dutch method goes to the other end of the spectrum to an extreme.  Be friendly, polite, build schools and roads, and don’t kill anyone.  Even if they shoot at you.

Back in the 1990s, the Dutch participated in an Allied attempt to protect Bosnian Muslims (http://www.historyguy.com/balkan_war_third.htm) at a place called Srebernica.  The Dutch soldiers avoided combat, and allowed the Serbs to slaughter 8,000 Bosnian men and boys.  If I were an Afghan civilian making nice with the Allies in this war, and I have to depend on the Dutch Boys from the Gandhi School of Pacification to save my life from the Taliban or al-Qaida, I’d better have my funeral plot picked out in advance. 

In all the talk of the "Surge" of American troops into Baghdad, one facet of that increase of soldiers is that they are now supposed to be actively patrolling neighborhoods and making face-to-face contact with local civilians.  In this sense the American strategy in Iraq is similar to the Dutch ploy in Afghanistan.  The comparison ends here though, since we all know that the U.S. troops are going to defend themselves and shoot back.

Below is a look at America’s major wars
and their length in months. Time periods are rounded up or down for
ease of comparison. Current conflicts are italicized and are colored
red. The longest wars are listed first in descending order by lenth.
The start dates reflect when the United States entered the
wars.

 

Vietnam War–August, 1964 to April, 1975= 116
   months (American involvement began in the late
   1950s, but major U.S. combat forces began taking part in large
   unit combat in 1964)
   
   

American Revolution–April, 1775 to September, 1783= 100
   months

   
   

Afghanistan–
   October, 2001 to Present (as of April, 2007)= 66
   months

   
   

Iraq War–March,
   2003 to Present (as of April, 2007)= 49 months

   
   

U.S. Civil War–April, 1861 to April, 1865= 48
   months

   
   

World War II–December, 1941 to September, 1945= 45
   months

   
   

World War I–April, 1917 to November, 1918= 19
   months

   
   

Korean War– June, 1950 to July, 1953= 37 months

   
   

War of 1812–June, 1812 to February, 1815= 32 months

   
   

U.S.-Mexican War– May, 1846 to February, 1848= 21
   months

   
   

Spanish-American War–April, 1898 to August, 1898= 5
   months

   
   

Gulf War–January, 1991 to March, 1991= 3 months

Source:  http://www.historyguy.com/american_wars_by_length_of_time.html

   
   

 

 

 

 

Nuclear War is Bad for the
Environment…

 

…and for humans, dogs, cats,
cows, and just about everything else. Though it could end up solving global warming, at least for a
while. Seriously though, several recent
news stories point out the increasing dangers associated with the nearly
unchecked proliferation of nuclear weapons in an increasingly unstable
world. 

 

What exactly are the possible
scenarios for small-scale regional nuclear conflicts? Those are exactly the type of wars that the
scientists at the American Geophysical Union’s annual
meeting in

San Francisco

warned about.

Even a
Small Nuclear War Could Change the World: New Study Shows Distant and Minor
Nuclear Blasts Could Cause a Global ‘Nuclear Winter’—ABC News Dec. 12, 2006

 

Megacities, global warming
make nuclear war even more dangerous–By Michael
Kanellos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com, Dec. 11, 2006Now that
civilization has moved to cities, we are easier bombing targets, say experts.

 

 

The War and
Conflict Journal sees several realistic scenarios that could occur within the
next few years.

 

Scenario 1: Nuclear

North Korea

rolls the dice and makes a go at taking over

South Korea

. The President of South Korea does not appear
too worried though. He says that despite
the North’s nuclear weaponry, the South would still prevail. Is the man a fool, or has

South Korea

have a nuclear ace up its sleeve?

Roh says nuclear North
Korea no match in warfare to the South

 

Scenario 2: 

Iran

and

Israel

duke it out with nukes. Iran’s President is famous for periodically
threatening to wipe Israel off of the map, but Israel’s Prime Minister recently
all but admitted that Israel has nuclear weapons (a well-known fact, but Israel
consistently has not admitted such). These two nations could easily wipe out the entire Middle East and its
oil supplies (once

Iran

creates those weapons).

ISRAEL NUKE
COMMENT SPARKS CONTROVERSY

History Guy: Israel-Lebanon/Hezbollah War (2006)

 

 

Scenario 3: The

U.S.

(with or
without allies), tries to take out

Iran

’s nuclear processing
facilities. To take out the hardened
underground sites, the

U.S.

may resort to “mini-nukes,” or nuclear “bunker-busting” weapons. Messy.

Attack
on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War

History Guy: Iran-U.S. Hostage Crisis (1979-1981)

 

 

 

Scenario 4: 

India

and

Pakistan

, who each possess at least
50 nuclear weapons, fight another war and go nuclear. The two old enemies have been talking peace
lately, but with an active Islamist insurgency in Indian-ruled

Kashmir

, and very important elements of the Pakistani
military and security forces backing the insurgency, the possibility of a
future war that could go nuclear is ever present.

India’s
Strategic Environment and the Role of Military Power—Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, August 22, 2006

 

History Guy: Wars of India

History Guy:
Indo-Pakistani Wars

 

 

 Scenario 4.1: A coup topples
President Mushareff of

Pakistan

and the new government is openly pro-Taliban, pro-al-Qaida, and calls for holy
war to free Kashmir from

India

. The

U.S.

,

Britain

, and

India

decide to take out

Pakistan

’s
nuclear capability. 

U.S.

and British
special forces try to seize the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, but miss a few,
while the Indian military surges across the border to end the “Pakistani
problem” once and for all. Use your
imagination on how a pro-Taliban Pakistani government would react to such an
attack… NOTE: There supposedly WAS such an Anglo-American plan to seize

Pakistan

’s
nukes right after 9/11 when it was not clear which way Mushareff would go when
told to choose between continuing his support of the Taliban and aligning with the
West.

U.S.
Worries about Pakistan Nuclear Arms—

Washington

Post, Nov. 4, 2001

Bombing Pakistan Back
to the Stone Age by Eric
Margolis

 

 Scenario 4.2: 

India

and

China

re-fight their 1962 border war, except this time they both have nukes. Even though they have been talking nicely to
each other lately,

India

has
made no secret of its concern that

China

’s
recent military expansion is up to three times a large as publicly acknowledged
by

Beijing

.

 

Other scenarios
exist of course, but in terms of the most likely wars between nations, these
are the most likely. And you thought the
end of the Cold War made the world a safer place, didn’t you?