The Raid That Wasn't

Is the media actually suggesting we ignore international law and invade a foreign country, even though it is an ally, to go after al Qaeda? The US has been having issues with al Qaeda/Taliban crossing the border from Pakistan in to Afghanistan, and Musharraf has been walking a fine line on the matter. He is providing some support for the counter terrorism missions, but not too much that it might cause those areas to rise up against him. We've been leaning heavily on him to do more to crack down on the Taliban and al Qaeda along the border, and have worked out a deal to allow US forces to engage in hot pursuits across the border.

Zawahiri is supposedly one of the targets in the mission that was called off.

A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.

The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group’s operations.

But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected an 11th-hour appeal by Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.

Mr. Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and C.I.A. operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said.

This is supposed to be a hit piece against Rumsfeld and the Administration, but what exactly are the alternatives, considering that the NYT doesn't like when the US invades countries when we have declarations of war.

I completely sympathize with the members of the special forces who were ready to go into Pakistan and attempt to get Zawahiri and other al Qaeda in Pakistan, but was this mission going to have ramifications that might lead to Musharraf being ousted or cause an Islamist uprising in Pakistan? Those are issues that the Administration had to consider in making the raid.

UPDATE:
Ed Morrissey makes the good point that GOPers often accuse the Clinton Administration of bungling an attempt to get Osama when he was in Sudan and that the failure of the Bush Administration to do the same here requires the same tough questions to be asked of the Administration. I agree. I also agree that the Administration needs to provide details on the incident to determine whether the Times got the story right.

A Matter of Size and Mission

How big a military is needed in these troubled times? How many thousands more troops are needed beyond the figures set forth by Congress and the Army? Are we going to need a million troops to handle the various threats that are on the horizon (and those we haven't even anticipated despite war planning and gaming any multitude of scenarios)? Are we going to need to ramp up troops significantly beyond this? Since we're in a long war, the odds are that we're going to need to significantly ramp up troops, but not only because of the situation in Iraq or the Middle East.

President Bush said today that he plans to expand the size of the U.S. military to meet the challenges of a long-term global war against terrorists, a response to warnings that sustained deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched the armed forces to near the breaking point.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Bush said he has instructed newly sworn-in Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to report back to him with a plan to increase ground forces. The president gave no estimates about how many troops may be added but indicated that he agreed with suggestions in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill that the current military is stretched too thin to cope with the demands placed on it.

"I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops -- the Army, the Marines," Bush said in the Oval Office session. "And I talked about this to Secretary Gates and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea."

The president's decision comes at a time when he is rethinking his strategy in Iraq and considering, among other options, a short-term surge in troop levels to try to secure violence-torn Baghdad. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are resisting the idea during internal debates in part out of the conviction that it will further strain already-pressed forces.

(snip)

The Army has already temporarily increased its size from 482,000 active-duty soldiers in 2001 to 507,000 today and soon to 512,000. But the Army wants to make that 30,000-soldier increase permanent and then grow an additional 7,000 soldiers or more per year. The Army estimates that every 10,000 additional soldiers will cost about $1.2 billion a year.

And yet, the size of the military is besides the point here. It's what do we as a nation expect our military to do and what missions must it be prepared to handle?

Our military is the best the world has ever seen at breaking stuff and doing it with overwhelming force, precision, and totality if need be. We can place a bomb on target anywhere in the world within minutes of a decision to do so. Billions have been spent to develop the technology and train the soldiers, sailors, and Marines to break stuff and do so efficiently.

The US military has shrunk steadily ever since the end of the Vietnam War. Indeed, it has shrunk ever since the last huge war of consequence - World War II. The spending charts bear that out. Congress has limited the increase in the size of the military even though spending has increased significantly over the past few years. The manpower available for various missions remains limited. It is this reason that you hear about the same units being sent back to the theater of operations time and time again.

However, this is where things get interesting. Do we need a larger military force to handle the breaking stuff aspect of warfighting and defending the nation, or do we need a force capable of doing the nation-building peacemaking that comes after conflicts?

It is likely a combination of the above, but leaning towards more forces available to do the nation-building.

Here's my reasoning. If you have a sizable force that handles the nation-building, it frees up those forces that are responsible for breaking stuff. Special forces are great at breaking stuff, but are too valuable and specialized to be tasked to nation building for months on end. Military police are of limited use in breaking stuff, but become quite valuable at the end of a conflict to restore law and order. Engineering units are needed in both breaking stuff and in rebuilding stuff. You need the right mix of troops for the missions.

Complicating matters further, you have differing missions. You need major forces for potential conflicts in North Korea or Iran or Syria or China, but special forces and nimble forces for dealing with failed state regimes like Sudan, Somalia, and other places that are or have the potential to become terrorist incubators. Those missions require different and competing interests that cannot be addressed with the current budget.

California Yankee wonders what took so long for this decision to be made and thought that Rumsfeld should have made the call years ago.

Now, it appears that even Democrats would be willing to consider the increase the physical size of the military where they may have been reluctant to do so previously, as noted here in the WaPo story:

The incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee spoke out forcefully today for increasing the size of the Army and Marines, noting that their leaders describe the services as "stretched and strained." "We're going to have to pay attention to this," Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) told reporters. Saying the two services are "bleeding," he added, "I think we have to apply the tourniquet and strengthen the forces. I think that will be a major part of our work."

Others commenting: Blue Crab Boulevard, Stop the ACLU, Hot Air, Unpartisan, Macranger, Redstate, and Political Pit Bull.

UPDATE:
Oliver Willis thinks it isn't the size of the military that is the problem, but rather that it's been tasked to Iraq. Reasonable minds can differ as to Iraq, but Willis does ignore the fact that the military is in Iraq and hoping that the military breaks or forces a withdrawal of the battlefield crawling with insurgents and jihadis doesn't make much sense either.

The Left Coaster has some questions for Bush.

Dan Riehl weighs in. Instapundit has a link-o-rific post from earlier in the week, citing Austin Bay and notes some of the issues I raise above (albeit far more effectively).

Greyhawk notes that another Iraqi province has been handed over to the Iraqi military to handle security; a good thing no matter where you stand on the situation in Iraq.

UPDATE 12/20/2006:
Welcome Instapundit readers! Thanks for visiting and take a moment to check out the rest of my site.

ISG Report Runs Counter To Military Assessment

Count me among those who aren't surprised at all by the fact that members of the military find the Iraq Study Group recommendations run counter to their experience and own assessments.

Military experts say there are several difficulties with the panel’s recommendation. First, it underestimates the challenge of building a capable Iraqi security force. After several years of desultory efforts, the United States has taken steps to upgrade and better prepare the teams of American advisers who are assigned to Iraqi units. But training the Iraqi Army is more than a matter of teaching combat skills. It requires transforming the character of the force.

“The new Iraqi Army will need years to become equal to the challenge posed by a persistent insurgency and terrorist threat,” Lt. Col. Carl D. Grunow, a former military adviser, wrote in a recent issue of Military Review, a journal published by the United States Army.

One big problem, Colonel Grunow notes, is that the Iraqi military is not proficient in counterinsurgency operations or sufficiently sensitive to the risk of civilian casualties.

“They are still fighting their last war, the high-intensity Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, a war with clear battle lines fought with mass military formations, and one in which civilians on the battlefield were a nuisance, and not a center of gravity,” he wrote. The Iraqi military, he added, “must learn to fight using strategies and tactics far different than those used in the past.”

One could expand this to note that the Left in this nation is fighting the war in Iraq as though it is Vietnam, though the consequences of failure will be just as devastating as cutting and running from Vietnam (more than 2 million killed, millions more displaced, and harsh imposition of Communist policies that only 30+ years later are being reversed).

The ISG lacked military input, despite having some military advisors providing some input. There were no generals in the group, which was dominated by diplomat and lawyer types. The document they produced was a diplomatic paper, which could provide political cover, and even there it falls short considering that it manages to piss off the Iraqis who are trying to get things straightened out under fire.

Another problem is that withdrawing troops could accelerate attacks - a feedback loop between attacks and US withdrawals, resulting in the terrorists and insurgents achieving a victory without having conquered the field of battle. The media and political dimensions of this conflict have been seriously distorted. The consequences of failure are not sufficiently tangible for people to recognize what would happen.

Yet, the ISG does not provide a template for victory. Indeed, the document doesn't even mention the term victory. That's curious in and of itself.

The situation remains quite fluid and the media has done a poor job reporting on successes and changes in the situation - including in the restive Anbar province.

Meanwhile, the media continues to refer to the ISG as a realist manifesto, which is utter bunk. This is not realism, but a psuedorealism that does not take into account the Iranian and Syrian endgames. Nor does it deal with the fact that negotiations will not deter either nation's designs for Iraq or the region at large.

Further, McCain and Giuliani both dispute the need to link the Iraq situation with the Palestinian-Israeli conflicts. They are separate and should not be linked unless you are willing to concede that the state sponsors of terrorism - Syria and Iran must be held to account for their trechery and their leaders deposed because of the violence spawned by their terror proxies. Since the ISG report has no intention of inflicting punishment on those who actually oppose the US and threaten US interests and those of our allies, it should be a nonstarter.

UPDATE:
These are the members of the ISG - not a general among them: James A. Baker, III, and Lee H. Hamilton, Co-Chairs, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Edwin Meese III, Sandra Day O’Connor, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb, Alan K. Simpson. Former senators, a former supreme court justice, and a former secretary of defense. That's the closest you get to someone with military experience in the bunch. That is wholly inadequate and insufficient if you are trying to deduce a strategy to win the conflict in Iraq. This is why so many on the right would say that this is a document designed to cut and run gracefully or that it is a complete nonstarter because so many of the recommendations are predicated upon negotiating with the very entities that are the cause of so much of the violence in the region and who have no reason to fear the consequences a US response to their actions.

UPDATE:
As if to reinforce my point about the uselessness of the ISG report for anything other than for Democrat and terrorist talking points, TF Boggs offers up his view from Mosul (that's in Iraq and yes, he's military):

We cannot appease our enemies and we cannot continue to cut and run when the going gets tough. As it stands in the world right now our enemies view America as a country full of queasy people who are inclined to cut and run when things take a turn for the worse. Just as the Tet Offensive was the victory that led to our failure in Vietnam our victories in Iraq now are leading to our failure in the Middle East. How many more times must we fight to fail? I feel like all of my efforts (30 months of deployment time) and the efforts of all my brothers in arms are all for naught. I thought old people were supposed to be more patient than a 24 year old but apparently I have more patience for our victory to unfold in Iraq than 99.9 percent of Americans. Iraq isn’t fast food-you can’t have what you want and have it now. To completely change a country for the first time in it’s entire history takes time, and when I say time I don’t mean 4 years.

Confederate Yankee distills the point further: Either you kill the terrorists or you appease them. The ISG manages to claim to do both, but in reality pushes us closer to the latter through negotiating with the very regimes that sponsor the terrorism in the first place.

The New York Post doesn't mince words either. They call the ISG report and Baker/Hamilton nothing more than surrender monkeys. "Peace with honor" and all that crap is nothing more than putting a cheery slogan on a defeat for want of willpower to see a difficult task through to completion. The Post's lede sums things up:

The Iraq Study Group report delivered to President Bush yesterday contains 79 separate recommendations - but not one that explains how American forces can defeat the terrorist insurgents, only ways to bring the troops home.

Donald Sensing takes a closer look at the Baker/Hamilton presser and notes that their desire to produce a uninamous report shows a lack of critical thinking and that the report is riddled with contradictions, not the least of which is that Baker is simply trying to resuscitate his old Middle East plans, which worked out so well the last time. The same problems are there, and Israel is in as bad or worse a position as it was then. Meanwhile, one of the critical assumption of the report - linking the Israel situation to Iraq is demonstrably false because if the situation in Israel suddenly disappeared (Israel destroyed and Palestinians running the show) the situation in Iraq would not change one iota - except that it might actually be worse as the jihadis would be emboldened to take even more harsh action than they are currently.

Ralph Peters also takes the ISG to task for not getting the motivations of those that are causing the violence and what withdrawing would mean. Lorie Byrd comments on the President's presser with British PM Tony Blair. She notes:

President said the violence in Iraq is not by accident or the result of faulty planning, but rather is a deliberate strategy of those in Iraq wishing to gain control by creating chaos.

Who is supporting those creating the chaos in Iraq? Syria and Iran.

For those who lambasted Rumsfeld and were happy to see him dispatched, here's an analysis that shows Rumsfeld to have been proven quite right on a number of fundamental issues and here (via Instapundit).

Also blogging: Wizbang, JammieWearingFool, Don Surber (and here), Wake Up America, and Flopping Aces.



Technorati: iraq, isg, iraq study group, bush, baker, terrorism.

Full Senate Confirms Gates 95-2

95-2. That's how it went down. Rick Santorum and Jim Bunning voted against the confirmation. So why did Santorum vote against Robert Gates for the Secretary of Defense position? Well, it's for the same reason that Former Spook was not impressed.

Gates didn't take the threat of a nuclear Iran seriously enough. From Santorum:

Speaking on the Senate floor after the vote, Mr. Santorum said he thought that Mr. Gates did not fully understand the dangers of “Islamic fascism” in the Middle East. He said that Iran and “its client state of Syria” were stirring violence in Iraq, and that the Iraq Study Group’s recommendation to engage Iran and Syria was “a prescription for surrender.”

That tracks closely with Former Spook's analysis as well.

My earlier take on Gates and his performance highlighted the Committee's weak questioning and their embrace of Gates because he was not Rumsfeld - not necessarily because of his worldview or consideration of the seriousness of threats posed by Syria, Iran, or China.

Bill's bites has more.

Technorati: gates, bush, rumsfeld,confirmation, politics, robert gates.

Confirmed

So Robert Gates was confirmed by the US Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously (21-0). His nomination now goes to the entire Senate where he'll likely be easily confirmed.

The red meat for liberals were the following exchanges:

He warned that the war in Iraq risks provoking a "regional conflagration" unless a new strategy can arrest the nation's slide toward chaos. He called the status quo there unacceptable and said Iraq would be his "highest priority."

Asked by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, whether "you believe we're currently winning in Iraq," Gates answered, "No, sir." He repeated the assessment when asked the same question by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Gates later told the committee he agrees with the view of Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said yesterday that the United States is not winning in Iraq, but is not losing either.

What else did he say? A full transcript is here. Well, if you were paying attention, you'd find that he said that there were serious problems with what the US was dealing with in Iraq. Gates also thinks that more troops were needed in Iraq.

While this exercise sheds some light on Gates' philosophy, it does little to reveal what Gates will do with his time in office. Will he call for an enlargement in the US military forces overall? Will he call for an expansion in the overall US defense budget? There are real serious questions that the Sec. Def. and Congress needs to address going forward, including readiness for conflicts not yet anticipated (China, Russia) and those that are (Iran, Syria).

After all, the Washington Post/MSNBC noted that there are issues with how quickly equipment is being worn out by the constant service - the need for refurbished and rebuilt tanks, APCs, and other equipment is staggering, and could affect force projection if there is another major conflict. Billions need to be spent on new equipment, and rebuilding the spent equipment.

Someone has to manage this, and from the look of things, the Senate wasn't particularly interested in that crucial aspect.

Hot Air has the video. Allah noted that the Committee seemed to have a simple rationale for the confirmation - he was not Rumsfeld.

Outside the Beltway notes that if you're not 100% siding with one group or another that amounts to courage. I concur. The soundbite sounds worse than the situation indicates. Things do need to change, and the ISG report due out tomorrow will provide some more insight into what could be done, and what shouldn't be done.

Defense Tech notes that the confirmation hearing was short on specifics on how to deal with China. They point to a Fred Kaplan piece in Slate who was quite impressed with Gates, and his addressing of the Iran question:

"We have seen in Iraq," Gates replied, "that once war is unleashed, it becomes unpredictable." The Iranians couldn't retaliate with a direct attack on the United States, he said, but they could close off the Persian Gulf to oil exports, send much more aid to anti-American insurgents in Iraq, and step up terrorist attacks worldwide...

When Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the panel's senior Democrat, asked if the United States was winning the war in Iraq, he said, "No, sir." Later, when James Inhofe, R-Okla., asked if he agreed that we weren't losing the war either, Gates replied, "Yes," but added, "at this point..."

Here's something to consider. Gates' job would be to prepare the US military for any potential conflicts on the horizon - from Iran to China to Pakistan and all threats in between. Some of those conflicts have differing and divergent tactics and weapons/platforms that are best suited for the tasks. Competing interests means that projects fight for funding in the budget.

Iran isn't going away as a threat, and regardless of how Gates answered that question, Iran is engaging US forces by way of supporting insurgents in Iraq and propping up Hizbullah in Lebanon. Iran is trying to surround US interests in the region with belligerents, and to think that the US should not return the favor in spades is to leave cards on the table that should be played. Indeed, if the US does not play all the cards in its hand, the Iranians and Syrians will take full advantage of the situation - witness Lebanon for the spectacle of a slow motion coup d'etat.

Gates also notes that if Iran does obtain nuclear weapons, it is quite possible that Iran would use them on Israel. An attack on Iran would be a last resort. Military action usually is the last resort when regimes have played out their hands diplomatically or by means that fall short of outright war. However, Iran's first salvo in a shooting war might be long range missiles hitting Israel before the Israelis or US forces are able to respond. In short, this suggests that Gates is wary of the preemption idea, even though rogue regimes like Iran are telegraphing their intentions and what their endgame involves.

Also blogging: Blue Crab Boulevard, Confederate Yankee, and Macranger.

Technorati: gates, bush, rumsfeld,confirmation, politics, robert gates.

Welcoming the Democrat Victory

Leave it to al Qaeda to exploit the elections. They're gloating over Rumsfeld's departure:

A purported audio recording by the leader of Iraq's al-Qaeda wing gloated over the resignation of US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as a top U.S. general said the military was preparing to recommend strategy changes.

Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, said in the recording posted on the Internet on Friday that the group has 12,000 armed fighters and 10,000 others waiting to be equipped to fight US troops in Iraq. "I tell the lame duck (US administration) do not rush to escape as did your defence minister ... stay on the battleground," he said.

UPDATE:
Apparently that wasn't all the tapes had to say.

Al Qaeda will not be satisfied until they blow up the White House and overtake Jerusalem. When will people realize that it doesn't matter who is in the White House and who controls Congress - the jihadis will not quit until they're vanquished or have won. They'll bide their time when the US fights them on their turf, but will advance and attack when they sense appeasement and withdrawal.

al Masri's definitely trying to exaggerate his capabilities - both in terms of terrorists available to him in Iraq and those that could be dispatched to attack the US. However, we must honor the threat and deal with this group in Iraq, and not on our shores.

UPDATE:
Scared Monkeys notes that al Qaeda isn't going away anytime soon if they're crowing that they have 12,000 troops in Iraq. Since the US has declared al Qaeda to be enemy number one, would it not make sense to keep the troops where the action is - in Iraq where they can eliminate that threat? Al Qaeda is making the Administration's argument to finish the job in Iraq for them. Why would or should the US leave the field of battle to al Qaeda under these circumstances? There's no logic to leaving when the enemy is making these claims.

AJ Strata notes the implications not only for the US, but for our allies in the region - especially Israel if we choose to abandon the battlefield to al Qaeda and the jihadis. They see the US in full retreat - completely and utterly relying on the words and deeds of the Democrats in this country. The Democrats say they want to defund the war (Rangel and Murtha). The Democrats say that we're losing and that Iraq is unwinnable. Al Qaeda hears this and turns it into their latest talking point videos.

Sister Toldjah goes into the history books and notes that al Qaeda remembers our history better than the American public does. The Left in the US doesn't want us to remember what happened the last time the US left the field of battle before the job was done. Millions died. Millions more will die if we do not deal with the ongoing threat presented by al Qaeda's presence in Iraq. The terrorists themselves say they're there - and some here think that we should abandon Iraq as soon as possible?

Others blogging: Secular Blasphemy, bRight and Early, and Mensa Barbie (great name!)

For a lighter take on Rummy's departure, see Flopping Aces who has the video.

Technorati: bush, rumsfeld, politics, al qaeda.

The Piper at the Gates of the Pentagon

Yesterday, as it was reported that Rumsfeld would be stepping down, and Robert Gates would be nominated in his stead, I started to wonder what was behind all this. Why Gates? Who was pushing this nomination?

As others have deduced, it appears that Bush 41 has decided to make his mark on his son's Administration. Gates is a retread from 41's administration. This is not for the better. Gates has to account for his actions in 41's Administration, particularly in what he said and did in relation to the 1991 Gulf War including the Shi'ite and Marsh Arab uprisings against Saddam that led to more than 100,000 dead. Stopping short of doing the right thing led to disasterous consequences, and we need to heed the fact that we're on the precipice of doing the same thing once again.

And then there's that whole little constitutional crisis known as Iran Contra. Will the Democrats overlook that little episode so that they can get someone at the Pentagon who will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Gates is the wrong person at the wrong time for the wrong mission.

I don't see this as a step in fighting the war more vigorously as Austin Bay does. I see this as a way to conduct "peace with honor reloaded." Another way to put it is Vietnam, Part II: The Iraqi Option.

Gates has been involved in the Baker led evaluation team on Iraq, and his recommendations are pretty much in sync with the cut and run. This is not the time and place to cut and run. The terrorists are on the run (and must continue to be hunted down and the threats eliminated), and this only signals that they simply have to outlast any US government that takes a stand. That can be as little as two years, or as long as six years. The terrorists will be on the march, and our allies will regard us far more warily if we want to deal with these threats going forward. They'll see that we simply do not have the resolve to see things through.

Gates wants to open dialogue with Iran, which I see as being pointless. What's the point of engaging in diplomacy if there's no common ground. Iran's mullahs want to impose its view of Islam on the rest of the region and the world. They want nuclear weapons, and are engaging in the necessary research to achieve that goal. The only question is how much time before they've achieved their goal.

They believe that Israel should be annihilated. They believe that their proxy military - Hizbullah - is an extension of that policy. They support Hizbullah, Hamas, and other Islamic terror groups in their jihad against the West.

Where is the common ground? You cannot negotiate with someone unless there is common ground. Trying to get Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions borders on extortion - and the likelyhood that an inspection regime combined with an enforcement protocol are slim given the way Russia and China have been running interference for Tehran.

The US interests in a democratic independent Iraq run counter to Iran's goals. Is the US simply going to try and bribe its way to assuring the Iranians don't try to further destabilize and undermine the Iraqi government? Iraq and Iran are not unrelated problems.

They're part of the same problem.

And Gates is not offering anything new.

He doesn't placate the leftists who made Rumsfeld the locus of their ire. He is not going to provide a sea change in how the Pentagon operates. The changes made in the Pentagon's operations over the past six years need to be continued because unless the Congress appropriates more to expanding the military, the need to speed up the transformational programs delivered by Rumsfeld will be even greater. Congress under the Democrats would not willingly do so, and would sooner cut off funding for the Iraqi operations than spend more on the Pentagon's transformation to deal with emerging threats.

Yesterday, I noted how the Democrats want more money spent on addressing intel on emerging threats in Africa and Africa. That's a reasonable and good idea. The problem is what to do with such intel. What if they find those emerging threats. If the military does not have the necessary forces to handle those threats, let alone the political will to deal with the threats over the long term, the intel will simply be a footnote in history.

I've long argued that the Darfur genocide, the human rights failings in Somalia and elsewhere in Africa are all harbingers of turning those lawless regions into terrorist havens. Having the forces capable of dealing with these threats is one mission that must be expanded and maintained at a high level of readiness. Rumsfeld's transformational policies got in the way of the Army generals who wanted to continue with Cold War style programs like the Crusader mobile gun system that was anything but mobile. Billions were spent on the system before it was killed - freeing up that money for other projects.

Changing any bureaucracy will be sure to result in hurt feelings and toes that are stepped on. Whoever replaces Rumsfeld will have to deal with not only continuing the transformation, but soothing the hurt feelings. I think Gates was going to do more of the latter, and less of the former. That's why he is not the right person for the job.

UPDATE:
Former Spook finds that Gates is the wrong man for the wrong job particularly because of his managerial style and because the CIA during his tenure consistently got its assessment of the situation in the Soviet Union wrong. Another intel guy thinks Gates might be a good fit because of his covert ops in Eastern Europe and their potential applicability in Iraq, Syria, and Iran.

Divining Motives and Outcomes

There are a couple of things that I've been mulling over the course of the day. The GOP isn't in as bad shape as some are making things out to be. Sure, things look bleak now, but what exactly were the margins in a dozen of those races they lost. They're a lot closer than one would think when looking at the overall loss:

At a luncheon on the Hill today sponsored by FreedomWorks, Republican pollster Ed Goeas said that the losses we saw last night are average for mid-term elections, particularly mid-term elections in a time of war. He also said, “One of the things that is different from 1994, is that in 1994 when Republicans won 56 House seats, all but a handful were won by a range of 10 or more percent. Last night if you look at the election, of those 28 House seats, 22 were won by 2 percent or less — 22 of the 28. And of those, 18 were won by less than 5,000 votes, and four of those by less than a thousand votes.” Later he went over the numbers again, and concluded, “In other words you can basically go back and say that we lost control of Congress by 11 seats. You’re talking about less than 50,000 votes.”

So many races in the country, and so many decided by a few thousand votes each. Each independent vote has an impact beyond the borders of the district.

That's 50,000 votes out of the millions cast last night. It's the kind of razor thin margin that drives people absolutely insane (2000 and 2004 and now 2006). But here's what the GOP needs to consider going forward. What are they going to do to woo folks like me?

I'm a registered Democrat and I've found their national candidates wanting, their foreign policy laughable, and some of their domestic policies insincere and unserious. I know there are those who read this blog and think that I'm the reddest of red staters, but those folks cannot be more hopelessly wrong.

What policies and stands resonated with voters that will get the GOP back in office. Being against a thing is not the same as a policy. The Democrats will quickly learn this.

Democrats too will learn that razor thin margins carry a burden as well. Governing is not the same as ankle biting.

Let the GOP loss sting for a bit. That's pride talking. Hastert is gone. That's a start [and should have been gone after his laughable excuses for William Jefferson's malfeasance]. Now let's see what the GOP has in store for the next two years. That's two years the Democrats will have to either show that they mean to fight the war on terror and keep the nation safe or they're simply paying lip service.

The GOP also appeared to be more concerned about staying in government than limiting government. I think that makes a lot of sense. Quite a few GOPers got knocked out because they strayed from their conservative roots. Yet, what to make of the New Jersey GOP hold? How were they able to ride out the storm that cast out GOPers elsewhere, including in GOP strongholds in the South and West.

Democrats did a better job of convincing people that a change was needed, even though it was short on specifics.

Is this a race to the center? I'm not entirely convinced. It may have worked for Joe Lieberman in Connecticut against the nutroots. Will the Democrat leadership take the prudent and adult course of action, or are they going to revert to type - the type that has been spewing calls for impeachment from they found that the situation in Iraq wasn't to their liking.

Here's what the Democrats think are going to be the issues to deal with in the first 100 hours.

_Military: Force an immediate drawdown of troops in Iraq and conduct oversight hearings on missteps on the war. The announcement Wednesday that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was resigning met Democratic demands that he step down to take responsibility for the situation in Iraq.

_Intelligence: Increase attention given to emerging terrorist threats in Africa and Southeast Asia and devote more resources to North Korea and Iran. More oversight of terrorism and government surveillance.

_Minimum wage. Pass legislation to raise the minimum wage from the current $5.15 an hour to $7.25.

_Energy and environment: Increase incentives for biodiesel, ethanol and other alternative fuels as well as wind, solar, geothermal and other sources of alternative energy. Renegotiate oil and gas leases that waived royalty payments to the government. Impose a national cap on industrial carbon dioxide emissions. Resist Bush's efforts to open more public lands to oil exploration.

_Judiciary: Conduct oversight hearings on treatment of terrorism detainees, domestic surveillance programs and President Bush's use of "signing statements" affecting some requirements in the laws he signs.

_Agriculture: Increase conservation programs and require more corn- based ethanol in motor fuel blends.

After reading through them, my concerns only grow. This is a party that realizes that we're at war with an intractable foe that doesn't surrender. It simply waits out its enemies until such time that things favor them.

I actually found that their general position on intel sounds reasonable enough. We do need to pay more attention to emerging threats in Africa and Southeast Asia. The devil is in the details. Will the Democrats unleash the CIA so that they can gather evidence or are they going to implement so many rules and hoops that gathering intel from unsavory sources is not allowed. And what about those intel leads that show emerging threats from those locations. Will the Democrats have the intestinal fortitude to actually deal with them instead of kicking them forward for someone else to deal with them?

The call for investigations on the military is laughable and simply the first step to defeat in Iraq. Our allies in Iraq and around the world are watching and counting their options since the Democrats appear more than willing to let our Iraqi allies hang out to dry all in order to claim to be supporting the troops and bringing them home.

The Democrats' energy policy is schizophrenic. And that's being charitable. They want increased incentives for biodiesel and other renewable sources, but they want to limit oil and gas exploration. They want more corn-based ethanol blends, despite the fact that the energy costs are far higher than if no action were taken.

They want to close the gap between the taxes owed and what's paid. How they intend to do that is unstated. The Democrats will settle for increased taxes, especially if the Bush cuts are allowed to expire January 1, 2010.

Raising the minimum wage affects how many people to be a key issue? This is a national issue of such significance that it demands action above and beyond other issues like the ongoing problems with the Army Corps of Engineers and the rebuilding following Katrina or the fact that our borders are so porous that no one has a real good idea of how many people are getting into the country illegally, let alone who is coming across our borders? I don't think so.

States have already chosen to deal with the matter of minimum wages locally. If they want to raise their state minimum wages above the federal minimum, they'll get to reap the rewards of lower job growth. Saddling the entire nation with a higher minimum wage makes the entry level position all the more scarce as employers will simply higher fewer people for those jobs. Wage growth depends on the region, and imposing a national solution not only distorts the marketplace, but puts yet more pressure on people leaving high cost of living areas for lower cost of living regions. Watch for an increased migration from the rust belt and northeast to the Southwest and Southeast, where costs of living are lower.

Technorati: bush, kean, lieberman, menendez, gop, democrat, election, politics, exit poll, diebold, voters, vote, 2006 elections, republicans, democrats.

Rumsfeld Resigns

Rumsfeld has submitted his letter of resignation. That's the word on the street. If true, here's one possible outcome: Joe Lieberman gets nominated to replace him, leaving Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell (R) to select Lieberman's replacement for the seat. Considering that the GOP needs every seat in the Senate with the way the election turned out, this might be the way to save the situation in the Senate.

Rumsfeld was the focus of ire by the Left - and he bore the brunt of the criticism on how the US dealt with the post-invasion situation in Iraq. He led the US military through some difficult times, and the shrinking size of the military will be an ongoing issue for not only the remainder of the Bush Administration but for years to come.

Modernization of equipment isn't enough. Withdrawing from Iraq and other committments isn't going to improve the US security posture. A larger and more efficient military is just the start. Don't look for any of that to happen in the next two years as Democrats have shown themselves to be opposed to increasing military expenditures.

UPDATE:
The Rumsfeld fighting style has finally met its match. No one could contain it, let alone stop it, not even Darth Rove.

UPDATE:
Bush is nominating Robert Gates, former head of the CIA, to succeed Rumsfeld. I think that's a mistake, especially with the potential to sway events in the Senate.

Technorati: rumsfeld, robert gates, bush, iraq, war on terror.

Sanctions, North Korea, and Ugly Alternatives

North Korea considers sanctions to be an act of war and would likely take out its frustrations on Seoul. Well, knowing the UN, that means that we'll get some weak worded resolution that will not impose anything nearly as strong to deter North Korea's nuclear ambitions. China seems to be okay with this, though one has to wonder why.

Mark Levin among others has called for the US to provide South Korea, Taiwan and Japan with the means to deploy not only missile defense systems, but nuclear weapons to not only deter North Korea, but force China into rethinking its position on North Korea.

Here's one thing that should be considered well before we get to that point. Demand that US and international inspectors have unfettered access to the site of the claimed nuclear detonation so that they can determine what exactly the North Koreans did. If the North fails to permit such access, then go ahead with the sanctions.

Right now, North Korea is dictating the terms of negotiating and they want to cleave the US from the other members of the Six Party Talks, thinking that they can get a better deal that way.

Also, if the UN does impose Article VII sanctions on North Korea, why shouldn't the North Koreans consider that to be an act of war and restart hostilities immediately? Let's keep in mind that the Korean War did not end with an armistice but a cease fire agreement. Sanctions would be casus belli for a renewal of hostilities just as much as those North Korean missile launches fired towards Hawaii and Japan over the summer were.

We're witnessing brinksmanship with a totalitarian dictator with potential or actual nuclear weapons who doesn't have a firm grasp of reality, which is the most dangerous kind of situation one can image.

Japan isn't waiting on the UN, and is imposing strict sanctions on North Korea. Good for them. They're in the line of fire, and they're stepping up to the plate. South Korea, however, is lagging, though that is a function of the simple fact that their capital city, Seoul, is in direct missile and gun range of the North Koreans just on the other side of the DMZ ~20 miles away.

Meanwhile, one needs to remember that North Korea has had as many as 1-2 nuclear weapons as of 2000, and perhaps a dozen or more in 2006. NBC News slipped that part into a news report last nite. So, far from blaming Bush for the sudden realization that North Korea has nuclear weapons, this has been building for years. They clearly had the materials, though whether they had assembled nuclear devices is an open question.

A State Department report notes the following:

In August 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated in Moscow that “North Korea possessed enough plutonium to produce two to three, maybe even four to five nuclear warheads.” This was largest official U.S. estimate of the possible number of North Korean nuclear weapons. U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies and experts have concluded a high range of likelihood that North Korea has acquired enough plutonium and has developed
significant technology to produce a small number of nuclear weapons. North Korea’s
approximately 70 day shutdown of the five megawatt reactor in 1989 gave it the opportunity to remove nuclear fuel rods, from which plutonium is reprocessed. State Department officials estimated that North Korea may have acquired six to eight kilograms of plutonium from the five megawatt reactor at Yongbyon, enough, they say, for possibly one bomb. However, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency reportedly estimated in late 1993 that North Korea extracted enough fuel rods for about 12 kilograms of plutonium — sufficient for one or two atomic bombs. The CIA and DIA apparently based their estimate on the 1989 shutdown of the five megawatt reactor. David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security produced in 1994 a detailed study of the 1989 reactor
shutdown and concluded that if North Korea removed all of the fuel rods from the reactor during the shutdown, the rods would have contained 14 kilograms of plutonium.

This report goes on to suggest that the South Korean and Japanese intel services had even higher estimates. It is key to focus on the timeframe here. We're talking August 2001, which is 8 months after taking office, and the nuclear materials were gathered in the course of the prior decade and didn't necessarily take into account other covert means to obtain nuclear materials.

Ed Morrissey has a Brookings Institute report on the situation and how the Clinton Administration handled matters. It isn't particularly flattering.

Technorati: north korea, nuclear, kim jong il, six party talks, bush, DPRK.