dialectican.com

Tacit Approval Scenario: Confirmed

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 05:45:00 +0000

I wrote a couple of weeks ago about the strong tactical and operational indicators for the idea that Pakistan was tacitly endorsing (while publicly denouncing) American airstrikes in its own territory. However, I wasn't thinking creatively enough. Turns out the tacit endorsement extended to direct operational support (basing) of those CIA operations inside Pakistan:

Information Dissemination was the first blog on my radar to ping this explosive Chicago Tribune story:

At a hearing, Feinstein expressed surprise at Pakistani opposition to the ongoing campaign of Predator-launched CIA missile strikes against Al Qaeda targets along Pakistan's northwest border.

"As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base," she said of the planes.

The basing of the pilotless aircraft in Pakistan suggests a much deeper relationship with the United States on counterterrorism matters than has been publicly acknowledged. Such an arrangement would be at odds with protests lodged by officials in Islamabad and could inflame anti-American sentiment in the country.

Feinstein's spokesman claims that she was referring to this article from the Washington Post last March:

Musharraf, who controls the country's military forces, has long approved U.S. military strikes on his own. But senior officials in Pakistan's leading parties are now warning that such unilateral attacks -- including the Predator strikes launched from bases near Islamabad and Jacobabad in Pakistan -- could be curtailed.

A further article appeared last November that suggested, on background from "senior officials in both countries," that Pakistan had a secret deal with the US to continue the airstrikes. That speaks of a purposeful, approved leak to the press designed to deflate domestic political doubt and opposition, and to send a signal internationally (ie, NATO allies) to avoid loud protestations. The article is quick to point out that the airstrikes have been "a success":

Two former senior intelligence officials familiar with the use of the Predator in Pakistan said the rift between Islamabad and Washington over the unilateral attacks was always less than it seemed.

"By killing al-Qaeda, you're helping Pakistan's military and you're disrupting attacks that could be carried out in Karachi and elsewhere," said one official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. Pakistan's new acquiescence coincided with the new government there and a sharp increase in domestic terrorist attacks, including the September bombing of the Marriott hotel in Islamabad.

"The attacks inside Pakistan have changed minds," the official said. "These guys are worried, as they should be."

The assertion that the strikes have been strategically effective has been disputed by many in the COIN community:

"Sometimes we might have to [attack with drones] -- but only where larger interests (say, stopping another 9/11) are directly affected," he tells Danger Room. "We need to be extremely careful about undermining the longer-term objective -- a stable Pakistan, where elected politicians control their own national-security establishment, and extremism is diminishing -- for the sake of collecting scalps."

Kilcullen's premise is that the airstrikes have been "destabilizing" to the Pakistani government. That government may have concluded that that such tactical pressure is worth the risk of internal upheaval. As I wrote in "The Tacit Approval Scenario:"

In short, the Reaper can do the kind of reconnaissance and surveillance that makes the missile strikes it launches possible in the first place: it represents a tactical capability that the Pakistanis simply don't possess.

Remember: Pakistan is fighting a civil war. Their leadership may feel, rightly or wrongly, that they should use whatever tactical advantage they can (particularly one that, first and foremost, gives them the initiative).

Update: David Axe weighs in:

The advent of killer drones has enabled the U.S. military and CIA to run lethal air campaigns without a lot of people noticing.

That’s bad. It’s all too easy to push ethical boundaries when nobody’s watching.

So open up those verbal floodgates, Senator, and shine some sunlight on our secretive air wars.

A dramatization of my job woes

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 03:01:00 +0000

And the reason I haven't posted lately. Fucking time vampires.

Obama at Townhall meeting in Elkhart

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:00:00 +0000

Part 1:

Part 2:

I concur with David Neiwert at C&L:

Anyone remember the Potemkin Village quality of George W. Bush's "town hall" appearances? How everyone was prescreened, and uncomfortable or difficult questions -- let alone questions posed by someone from the other side of the political aisle -- were never ever EVER asked?

Take the inspirational rhetoric with a grain of salt. First Obama needs to throw post-partisanship under the bus already. Jane Hamsher, most valuable for her seemingly rare ability to actually recognize that people act to further their own interests, has been beating that drum as long as anyone:

The administration assumed that Obama's overwhelming popularity, combined with a rapidly worsening economic crisis and a welcome mat for the GOP would be enough to push Republicans into a collaborative mode. It wasn't. They belatedly began calling the act the Economic Recovery Act, but it never caught on. The White House hailed the Nelson/Collins compromise because it creates "jobs jobs jobs," yet Krugman and others maintain that the changes they made significantly reduced job creation, with estimates ranging between 600,000 and 1.25 million jobs over the next two years. When Larry Summers was confronted with that charge on This Week he would not dispute it. Apologists like Claire McCaskill are left to tilt at straw men.

It least there is a small glimmer of hope that he may get banks right yet. One word: nationalize.

Obama followed up his speech at Elkhart with a press conference. His prepared remarks follow:

Recession Reality

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 01:55:00 +0000

Two quick clips worth watching from TP:

Kentucky:

South Carolina:

USS Cole Repercussions Continue...

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 04:12:00 +0000

...and Larry Johnson lays them squarely at the feet of... who else?

This is one of the many fuck ups by George Bush. Al-Nashiri was captured back October 2002 and, despite having him in custody for more than six years, the Bushies could not figure out what to do with him. This one ain’t on Barack.

And while we are at it, we would not be in this dilemma if the Commander of the U.S.S. cole, Kirk Lippold, had done his job in the first place. That clown failed to implement his ship’s security plan and created an opening that allowed the terrorists to attack the Cole. Instead of doing the decent thing and keeping his yap shut, Lippold is back seeking public attention.

LJ's not exaggerating:

It's not the failure itself that is the rot here, it's the failure to take responsibility, from the top down.

Republican Levity

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 04:09:00 +0000

First there's the news that Bush and Cheney are wanted men in Vermont:

Then, word comes out that Ann Coulter is being probed for voter fraud:

Ann Coulter lives in New York where she owns an apartment but votes in Connecticut using her father's address. And that's illegal. So following a formal complaint filed by coulterwatch.com's Dan Borchers and a report in the NY Daily News, Connecticut's Elections Enforcement Commission is probing the faux-comedienne/brassy blonde author.

Cheney and Coulter facing jail in the same week? If only we enjoyed a justice system that truly applies the law equally...

The Navy's ongoing Identity Crisis

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 03:57:00 +0000

The Navy has suffered from a general lack of direction in recent years. It can't decide what to pursue in terms of a coherent procurement plan:

“If you stop building DDG 1000s and you have a DDG 51 that really doesn’t have that X-band and isn’t intended to operate close to the shoreline and in that cluttered environment, it’s not clear how you provide air protection for the littoral combat ship (LCS).

“So there, you’ve got to ask yourself what the strategy is that has us wanting to buy 55 LCSs, which don’t have any air self-defense capability, and I don’t really have a ship that helps provide the air cover for that ship. Because when [the LCS] was envisioned by [former Chief of Naval Operations] Adm. [Vern] Clark and others, that was the strategy, the way it would hang together.”

That's John Young speaking in his capacity as "Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics." He's in the difficult position of having to explain the high dollar amount attached to the Navy's version of the F-22 or FCS, the DDG-1000 Zumwalt Destroyer. All are, in some way or another, gold-plated poster children of a completely dysfunctional procurement process.

The Navy also can't decide how to pursue its new missions:

The same day, McKnight transferred his staff to the cruiser Vella Gulf and San Antonio turned back to the United States [and away from its role as flagship of CTF-151]. The Navy said the rotation was routine, but it’s worth pointing out that San Antonio has suffered severe mechanical problems as a result of shoddy construction.

Just a week earlier, McKnight had praised San Antonio as the perfect pirate-fighting warship.

...

Trading San Antonio ship for a cruiser will have some knock-on effects. The cruiser has less aviation deck space and fewer helicopters, potentially fewer small boats and definitely less space for staff, extra boarding teams and captured pirates. A deal-breaker for the Navy’s first dedicated counter-pirate force? Certainly not. But it’s not good news.

My guess is, the Navy simply realized that it was never going to go amphibious on the pirates.

Finally, the Navy's having trouble doing some basic things right:

The USS Port Royal (CG 73), the youngest cruiser in the fleet, went aground just outside Pearl Harbor Thursday night

.

Galrahn has more:

Normally I wouldn't bother posting about a grounding here, but PORT ROYAL is one of just three BMD cruisers in the fleet and she looks to be well in the shoal water on Runway Reef and parallel to the beach, to boot.

Luckily, no one was hurt, and it is apparently not leaking anything.

Tom Ricks media blitz

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 03:01:00 +0000

Tom Ricks has released a new book, "The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq," and has been pimping it on TV and in print.

Here he is on Meet The press discussing Iraq...

...and Afghanistan.

Thomas Barnett also has a book out, and takes a moment to lament the promotional advantage that Ricks enjoys as a traditional media insider:

Then check out Tom Ricks' new book, excerpted big-time on the frontpage of the Washington Post. His associated story on Odierno, the man who changed the course of the war, is also big-time news just in time to plug his book's release. I mean, that's pretty cool when you can get the editors of a national newspaper to pretend that the lead items of your book just so happen to warrant national coverage just before your book comes out. I mean, if Ricks wrote this stuff all down months ago, why not get that newsworthy stuff out there back then? I know, hardy har. "Meet the Press" talked about having me on "sometime," but guess who's on today to plug his book out on Tuesday? Of course, because this weekend news cycle is just screaming for a history of the surge from 2007 and 2008.

...

You ever wonder how MSM journalists always seem to have bestsellers? I don't. They enjoy an entire system of scratch-my-back-today-and-I'll-get-yours-tomorrow. They put in the years and so they get the media access when the book comes around.

Of course, Tom's latest article was also just a book-selling exercise, but hey.

Abu Muqawama highlights an excerpt from said Odierno article, while poking a bit of fun at the idea that The Surge™ was crafted by a few, good, men:

Now if you happen to know a lot of the people who were responsible for implementing the surge, you also happen to know there are several different narratives for who was responsible for making the surge happen. Team O, Team P, and Team First Cav all have their own versions of what happened, and those are just the guys and girls in Baghdad. I can only imagine how many people in the 202 area code also take credit for the drop in violence that took place over 2007.

What narrative do I privilege? Whose story do I trust the most? Well, I take a very unconventional view of surge history. In my mind, it was all one big romantic comedy, filled with sexual tension and hi-jinks.

On the long flight home to Washington in a C-17 military cargo jet, Gates, who declined to be interviewed for this article, disappeared into his mobile home in the plane's belly with Pace and a bottle of California cabernet sauvignon. A few days later, Odierno got the word: Gates wants you to have all five brigades.

Now if that isn't the funniest thing you'll read all weekend, I don't know what is. This is how we plan our wars, world. Why you lot haven't succeeded in beating us in more of them I have no idea.

Obama Speech on Economic Recovery

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 00:14:00 +0000

Posted here because it's worth watching in its entirety.

Economic Illiteracy

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 23:34:00 +0000

Paul Krugman writes:

A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to economic recovery. Over the last two weeks, what should have been a deadly serious debate about how to save an economy in desperate straits turned, instead, into hackneyed political theater, with Republicans spouting all the old clichés about wasteful government spending and the wonders of tax cuts.

...

So what should Mr. Obama do? Count me among those who think that the president made a big mistake in his initial approach, that his attempts to transcend partisanship ended up empowering politicians who take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. What matters now, however, is what he does next.

"Post-partisanship" does not work as a negotiating tactic if the other side is not arguing in good faith. The Republicans exploited the automaker bailout to try and eliminate union power in that industry, not to protect jobs or the economy. They're doing the same now with the Employee Free Choice Act, and desperately trying to dilute the stimulus bill with tax cuts so that they don't suffer a completely black and white repudiation of their self-serving, supply-side, economic policies. After all, they can't be so stupid that they actually believe tax cuts are the answer to the current crisis.

...can they? Ignorance and malice are often very hard to tell apart.

What Class Warfare looks like

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 23:18:00 +0000

With all the bleating about "wealth redistribution" these days, you would think American capitalism itself was under attack.

"Tyranny and socialism!" Those are supposedly the twin outcomes of the potential passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, because said act would supposedly "eliminate" the right for workers to organize by secret ballot.

Except there's one small problem: that's a bald-faced lie.

Or in the words of Jane Hamsher, "it's all complete horseshit:"

Until 35 years ago, workers could choose either secret ballot or majority sign-up ("card check") as a way to recognize a union to contractually represent them. But in 1974, the Supreme Court handed down a decision saying that an employer could refuse to acknowledge majority sign-up and demand a "secret ballot" election instead. The secret ballot system under the jurisdiction of the NLRB has been rife with abuse, as Frank's article details well. The Employee Free Choice Act would simply put the choice about organizing method back in the hands of workers rather than the employer.

You see, it's not as if the "secret ballot" elections are organized and conducted by United Nations elections observers. They're run by management directly, which effectively hands the reins to the whole process to the very same people that workers would be trying to organize against.

It's also the reason we don't have a labor secretary yet:

Shameful.

Ukrainian ship freed, but whither the cargo?

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 04:25:00 +0000

That is the question asked by Elisabeth Dickinson over at FP:

Somali pirates released the hijacked Ukrainaian vessel, the MV Faina, today to much international applause. Held since September, it cost 'just' $3.2 million in ransom. (And yes, that is a bargain given the cargo's value is estimated at $30 million).

How delightful that the hostages on board are free! But I feel quite differently about the cargo. Doesn't anyone remember what is on this ship? That $30 million of cargo is not oil or clothes or cars. It's weapons -- tanks, arms, and more. The Ukranian press reports that it is still headed to Kenya -- it's original desintation, maybe. Or was it the semi-autonomous but increasingly armed Government of Southern Sudan?

Barnett's new release: "Great Powers"

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 04:22:00 +0000

Tom Barnett has a new book out, "Great Powers: America and the World After Bush." He's been giving interviews and writing articles lately to lay the groundwork for its release, and if the thinking in them is any indication, his book should turn out to be a must-read.

From this month's Esquire:

But here's the tough compromise that may hold up this much-needed expansion: The EU seems determined to get some sort of global securities-and-exchange commission to regulate intermarket financial flows in the future — in effect, viewing the current global crash as Washington once did Wall Street's 1929 collapse. As far as emerging markets are concerned, that's going to feel suspiciously constraining; having just achieved some wealth, the rising East and South now face the West's desire to regulate crucial investment flows so as to smooth out an inevitable global business cycle. Which is like wanting to go all the way on the first date — that trust simply does not yet exist in the system.

...

If Ahmadinejad is toppled by either the moderate former president Mohammad Khatami or the technocratic Tehran mayor, Mohammad Qalibaf, then Iran is definitely back in play, giving Obama plenty more wiggle room elsewhere, but only if he and Hillary Clinton can keep a lid on Israel's hard-line factions, which seem intent on taking out Iran's nuclear facilities preemptively. (Such strikes won't succeed, but they would trigger Iran's hard-line retrenchment, no matter which candidate prevails.) To that end, when the Obama camp coolly floats the notion of extending America's nuclear umbrella over Israel and — implicitly — any friendly neighboring Arab state that desires it, the former junior senator from Illinois is breaking out the big-boy voice of the world's sole military superpower.

Also today, via SWJ, Ten Questions with Thomas P.M. Barnett:

I want to make clear to the reader that this globalization is of our making—the result of a conscious grand strategy that I can trace back to at least Teddy Roosevelt’s dream of making the world more hospitable to America’s need to simply be all that it can be. That somewhat undifferentiated vision got sharper with Wilson, after WWI. The vision became reality with FDR, after WWII, when he set in motion the international liberal trade order that begets the West and, in turn, the globalization we enjoy today. That model of states uniting and economies integrating and defense shifting to security and a uniquely competitive religious landscape was built here—first—in these United States, the planet’s original multinational political and economic and security union. With Deng’s decision to marketize China, creating a critical mass for globalization in the early 1980s, we’ve since seen that model spread like wildfire around the planet, reformatting traditional societies in a dynamic right out of Marx’s Das Kapital. In short, our revolutionary vision for ourselves has now become our intentional revolutionary vision for the planet. This made-in-America, globalization—love it but you can’t leave it—now encompasses everybody save the “bottom billion.”

Bill Gates sicks mosquitos on Ted audience

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 04:08:00 +0000

Stimulus dramatics

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 04:02:00 +0000

President Obama, after seemingly expecting the stimulus bill to float through congress on a hopey cloud of change, and all but ceding the mass media squawk boxes to Republicans, has finally come out swinging. Via today's Washington Post:

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.

John McCain's BFF and the Republicans' foremost court jester, Sen. Lindsey Graham, countered with a fever pitch of hand wringing and lip quivering whining:

Rachel Maddow wraps up today's debate in the Senate nicely here:

The takeaway from Daschlegate: Executive Accountability

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:40:00 +0000

Obama did his best to turn the Daschle lemon into lemonade by taking personal responsibility for the screw-up. That kind of thing will work as long as people don't tire of these Obama v. Bush mashups.

Laura Flanders tells it like it really is: Daschle would not have been an effective advocate for the kind of health care reform that is needed anyway:

TPMs 2/5/09 in 100 seconds

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:36:00 +0000

Attackerman!

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:24:00 +0000

No, not Spencer. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) tears into SEC stooges:

I need a cigarette.

TPMs 2/4/09 in 100 seconds

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:17:00 +0000

SCHIP: "The first step"

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:12:00 +0000

If you want to feel just a little bit better about the direction we're headed in, watch this. Obama doesn't pull any punches. With this much political steam, you have to wonder why he's fumbling the stimulus football so badly.

He's baaaaaaaaaaaaack!

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:04:00 +0000

If you can stomach it, Cheney is back, and the Hardball gang tear into him:

I'll leave it to Larry Johnson for the "analysis" this goon deserves:

Listen up you big Dick, if you guys had spent your energy on tracking down Osama Bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman Zwahiri rather than squandering our nation’s wealth and blood in Iraq and exposing the identity of a covert CIA officer and her network of spies then we might be safer. But by your own admission the terrorists are still in a position to harm America because you guys fucked the dog.

The best thing that came of Cheney's creepy, pathetic interview was that I got to learn a new phrase from LJ.

Of Gonzo and Turdblossom

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:24:00 +0000

Question: why is disgraced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales going on TV?

The answer: Rove may have to spill some beans soon.. which means he'll need a scapegoat.

Stay tuned.

like a high school football coach at half time

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:16:00 +0000

This is classic. Imagine how much worse it is in Afghanistan.

gold plated navy

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:49:00 +0000

Defense spending is in the hot seat, as the jockeying for dollars begins in the new administration.

So let's zero in on the navy for a second, as few services have demonstrated such clownish incompetence and forming requirements then building something, anything, to meet them.

Via Galrahn, a lambasting of the Navy's latest stab at coming up with a coherent procurement plan:

Let no one suggest the Barack Obama administration will be soft on defense, because when the administrations first Navy budget could potentially include a new shipbuilding plan with FOUR of the most powerful surface combatants ever built in human history, it appears absolutely clear to me that the Obama Navy with John Young's pen signing checks with taxpayer money is prepared to defend every square inch of the oceans the US Navy sails from a potential future threat by China, not to mention invasion from outer space.

David Axe echoes his sentiments:

Make that two questions: where does the littoral and amphibious fleet fit in a shipbuilding plan skewed towards more battleships? If we can manage the design, construction and budgeting for a battleship-heavy force and a new littoral fleet, then great: go forth and let’s do both. But if reality and recent experience intervene and force us to make hard choices, are we going to buy the amphibs and coastal forces Obama promised, or ditch them in favor of new battleships designed to destroy alien invaders?

Bottom line: naval shipbuilding needs a reset. But it's not just the Navy:

According to the firebrands at the Air Power Australia think-tank, the Lockheed Martin F-22 stealth fighter, today the priciest U.S.-made fighter at around $140 million per new copy, will actually cost less than the supposedly cheaper F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, built by the same company and intended to be a cost-effective “75-percent” substitute for extra F-22s.

Meanwhile, two emerging superpowers play cat and mouse...

logistical hardball in afghanistan

noreply@blogger.com (Dialectican) — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:16:00 +0000

Via David Axe:

Under pressure from Russia, the Kyrgyz government is taking steps to kick the U.S. military out of Manas air base, a critical supply junction for the Afghanistan war, while militants continue to destroy trucks, pictured, carrying supplies through Pakistan to U.S. and NATO forces. Meanwhile NATO members are considering negotiating with favorite American bogeyman Iran for access to Iranian routes into Afghanistan.

Abu Muqawama weighs in:

Fun fact: A brigade deployed to Afghanistan is twice as expensive to maintain as a brigade in Iraq. Resupply, as you might have guessed, is the primary issue.

...

I can hear Vladimir Putin howling with laughter all the way here in Southeast DC. The Russians are managing to screw us in Afghanistan as badly as we screwed them 20 years ago.

Both bloggers raise the issue of aerial resupply:

Axe kicks off the debate...

Logistics are emerging as the major weakness of the Afghanistan war effort, making a strong argument for greater U.S. investment in logistical forces, especially strategic airlift. More C-17s, anyone?

...and Abu Muqawama carries the football. Good discussion follows in the comments:

Great note on the Afghan resupply problem. Would love to see someone pose the question about why the U.S. cannot build an "air bridge" into Afghanistan? Is it a matter of long-haul planes (C-17s)? Short-haul planes (C-130s)? Airstrip capacity? Logistical personnel / contractor capacity? Cost, which is basically a proxy for the other things? It seems to me that logistical support for power projection is one of the most important missions right now for the Air Force. And, from the Air Force's perspective, it should tickle them pink because it is a mission which can justify a ton of force structure. But they don't seem to have the muscle to do it. Why not?

My question: will this turn into a 21st century Berlin airlift, or will we start to approach the region with some sanity?