The Risk of Being Overextended

The Risk of Being Overextended———————–
A commentary
By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

As President Barack Obama retreats from his confident assertion that the tide of war was receding and acknowledges the threat posed by the Islamic State, our capacity to respond militarily to multiple, simultaneous threats appears on the wane. Seeking to reduce the U.S. military footprint in the Middle East, the president had announced a refocus to the Pacific where an increasingly assertive China is at odds with its neighbors over disputed islands and claiming sovereignty over vast stretches of the South China Sea.

Unfortunately, world events interfered with his plans and the much-anticipated pivot to the Pacific, where we have vital interests, never really got off the ground. Russia’s revanchist moves in Eastern Europe stoked new fears of a resumption of the Cold War. And his belated recognition of the Islamic State threat is resulting in a new military commitment of yet unknown magnitude.

Meanwhile, the president has announced that he will dispatch 3000 troops to West Africa to “fight” Ebola which, he says, is a threat to our security and the world’s. I wasn’t aware that fighting epidemics was a military mission, but let that pass for now. The military, with its command, control, communications, logistical and management capabilities is very good at disaster relief and just about any other task the civilian leadership imposes.

My question is, with at least the three afore-mentioned hotspots generating a demand for more military assets, where will they come from? Military force levels, numerically at least, are at historic lows. The services have been wracked by budget constraints including sequestration. We are not procuring enough ships and aircraft to maintain even current levels and maintenance and training have suffered. Ship deployments have been lengthened and will probably need to be lengthened some more. Senior leadership has even proposed capping military cost of living increases to help preserve funds for readiness.

What is the commander-in-chief doing about rebuilding the armed forces to the levels needed to deal with multiple threats? The answer is nothing; at least nothing that I am aware of, and the hour is late. You don’t wait for the threat to be upon us before preparing for it. It isn’t as if you can just turn on the spending spigot again and trained people, ships, aircraft and weapons suddenly materialize. It takes months and even years to begin to rebuild the capacity that has atrophied during Mr. Obama’s years in office. Meanwhile, don’t expect the threats to wait until we are ready.

So confident was Mr. Obama and his dovish advisors that the days of ground combat for U.S. military forces were over that the military appears to be giving away surplus combat vehicles to police departments and even school districts. It seems every small-town police department now needs to have a chief with four stars on his collar and an armored military combat vehicle. These expensive vehicles, designed for the battlefield and hardened against improvised explosive devices, were once in short supply and may be needed again. Who decided that they were surplus and who authorized making them available to civilian law enforcement and school districts?

The United States, the world’s largest economy, with widespread vital economic interests abroad, will always need a large military regardless of the cost or the administration’s distain for its use. Ours has grown too small to ensure that we can protect all that we have to protect. So let’s do what any competent decision maker would do when faced with multiple demands and greatly limited resources. Prioritize the threats by magnitude of risk and focus first on the most imminent and serious of them.

The U.S. has no vital interest in Ukraine, Georgia or Moldova, for example, so if Russia’s actions in these countries are deemed a threat to Europe, let Europe deal with it. If we want to help we should increase energy exports to Europe so European nations are less dependent on Russian energy. If NATO members are attacked, we must, of course, respond. Vladimir Putin obviously knows that and is unlikely to provoke a military confrontation of that magnitude.

The U.S. has, on the other hand, a vital interest in the Western Pacific including the South China Sea through which much of the world’s commerce passes. We are a Pacific power and must remain one with a strong and well-deployed naval presence. An expansionist China will test us but is no match for our navy at present.

The most immediate and pressing threat to us are the forces of radical Islam, especially, but not exclusively, those of the Islamic State. Let’s focus on eliminating, not just containing, this threat and start rebuilding the armed forces so that we perhaps can deter the other threats from becoming a reality. Our future security in this dangerous world will depend more on military strength than on diplomacy, much as Messrs. Obama and Kerry would wish otherwise.

September 21, 2014

Coalition of the Unwilling

Coalition of the Unwilling———————–

A commentary
By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

President Barack Obama finally presented his long-awaited strategy for dealing with the Islamic State (IS) which he still refers to as ISIL, presumably because he does not regard it as a state. His stated purpose was to make Americans aware of the threat posed by IS, ISIL, ISIS or whatever one wishes to call them. But the recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll showed that most Americans are already well-aware of the threat. They were waiting to hear what the commander-in-chief actually planned to do about it.

The game plan, as Mr. Obama characterized the strategy before he had one, is to step up the air attacks in Iraq and expand them to Syria when intelligence on IS positions there catches up with the strategy. The strongest part of the speech was when he affirmed unequivocally that those who threaten America will have no sanctuary. Vice-president Joe Biden had put it more colorfully the previous week saying that we would pursue them to the gates of hell where they belonged. Obama’s words were reminiscent of those of George W. Bush who warned nations against providing al Qaeda with aid or sanctuary, saying that they were either with us or against us after 9/11.

Unfortunately, another strongly-emphasized element of the strategy was an assurance that no American boots would touch the ground in a combat role. But without boots on the ground, you can never really control events on the ground and what you promise not to do has no place in an effective war strategy.

And by any other name, this will be a war because the forces of radical Islam are at war with us, albeit a different kind of war. Air strikes are, in fact, an act of war. To military forces involved, it sure feels like war. Even the administration finally got around to calling it what it is, which is some progress, at least.

The president also made some points which seem at odds with reality. Point 1: America is safer than when he took office. Not in the minds of Americans, according to the afore-mentioned poll. Point 2: ISIL (IS) is not a state; it is not recognized by the UN or other nations. Perhaps not, but it gives a pretty good impression of one, controlling an oil-rich area larger in size than New England. Do you really think it cares much about UN recognition? Point 3: ISIL (IS, ISIS) is not Islamic. Are you kidding? What does “I’ stand for, then? Point 4: ISIL (IS, ISIS) has no vision. You could have fooled me. I thought it was to establish an Islamic Caliphate, governed by Sharia law and to kill, convert or extract homage from infidels who got in their way. It’s an ugly one, but it sounds like a vision to me.

The strategy seems largely dependent upon establishing a coalition and relying on others to do the fighting on the ground while we provide logistics, training and air support. This sounds a lot like leading from behind and above. We have seen an example of how this works in Libya which has now descended into chaos and become, like Somalia, another vast, ungoverned sanctuary for anti-West radical Islamic terrorists who will pose a continued threat to America and the West.

As for the coalition, Secretary of State John Kerry is having to learn to live with rejection. Germany, the world’s fourth largest economy that devotes less than 2% of GDP to defense, says no to any military action. Ditto the Brits. Turkey will not join any coalition against other Muslims that could cause dissent at home and will not even permit the use of our air base there. Saudi Arabia offers to host training but will never agree to participate in actual combat against fellow Sunnis. Australia, Canada, France, the UAE and perhaps others might provide token support.

That leaves the Iraqis, Kurds and some free Syrian forces to do most of the grunt work on the ground while we lead from behind or above or somewhere. This is a far cry, so far, from George W. Bush’s coalition that deposed Saddam Hussein and this may be an even longer, tougher slog. Americans don’t have much patience for long, drawn-out wars.

Air strikes and logistic support alone will not win this war. Americans now need to be told more about what the actual strategy for winning it is before U.S. forces are put in harm’s way again in another war of limited objectives, directed by politicians and diplomats in Washington. They also need to know what the plans are for restoring military readiness and capacity, necessary to ensure victory, that were allowed to atrophy during Mr. Obama’s stewardship as commander-in-chief.

September 13, 2014

Awaking to the Threat

Awaking to the Threat————————-
A commentary
By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

Results of the most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll provide some measure of encouraging news for Americans in general but not so much for Democratic candidates in the upcoming congressional elections. The encouraging news is that more of us, in spite of war-weariness brought on by the drawn-out Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, are waking to the threat to our country’s and our own safety posed by the Islamic State (IS). The incidental bad news for the Democratic congressional candidates is that poll respondents favored Republicans over Democrats in dealing with foreign policy by a substantial 18% margin at a time when the national focus is shifting from domestic to foreign policy. By a small margin (45% to 43%) they now favor Republican control of Congress.

In contrast to President Barack Obama’s earlier assertion that the tide of war is receding, 47% of respondents now feel that the country is actually less safe than it was before 9/11 with the remaining respondents evenly split between “about as safe” (26%) and “more safe” (26%). The poll also indicated that nearly three-fourths of Americans now favor U.S. military action against IS with only 15% opposed. Over a third (34%) actually favored the use of U.S. troops in a combat role.

The results mark a dramatic change in public sentiment regarding the threat posed by radical Islamic forces. 61% of respondents said that action against ISIS (another acronym for IS) was in the national interest. As recently as last year, following revelations of the use of chemical weapons by the forces of Syria’s Bashar al Assad and notwithstanding Mr. Obama’s famous red line warning, only 21% said it was in our interest to take military action. What a difference a year makes.

So what brought about the change in public sentiment? Part of the answer is the stunning rise of the IS which in a matter of months gained control of a huge land area in eastern Syria and western Iraq about equal in size to Syria itself. The area contains oil resources, captured wealth and other assets which, along with ransom money from kidnappings and donations from wealthy sympathizers in Qatar and elsewhere, finance their operations. It also contained a wealth of U.S. military equipment left behind by fleeing, U.S.-trained Iraqi troops. The Obama Administration appeared to have been taken by surprise despite the largest and costliest intelligence organization in the world as it dithered over what, if anything, to do about the chaos in Syria.
But the principal catalyst for this change in sentiment was the televised beheading of two American journalists. The gory executions displayed the utter depravity and barbarism of these fanatics who promised more to come. They horrified, frightened and then angered Americans but at least finally got their attention although beheadings and executions have been the modus operandi for these vermin from the start and will continue to be until they are finally exterminated.

The poll also revealed what most Americans already know. The president’s job approval rating continues to plummet and is now around 40%. Approval of his foreign policy is even lower at 32%. This is a problem because he is commander-in-chief of America’s armed forces which, most Americans now believe, must play a leading role in the campaign to destroy IS. But Mr. Obama has neglected the armed forces in his haste to stand down the military overseas and sequestration and budget constraints have taken a significant toll. The U.s Navy, for example, is the smallest in size since the Great Depression. Presumably the Navy’s carrier strike forces will again be called upon to play a leading role in the stepped up air strikes.

With a majority of Americans believing that America has been on the wrong path and over two-thirds disapproving of his foreign policy, confidence in Mr. Obama as a wartime commander-in-chief will require that he demonstrate greater leadership and decision-making skills than he has in the past. He still seems uneasy in military settings and vaguely uncomfortable and detached even talking about military options except to say what’s off the table, like boots on the ground. Why would any commander-in-chief ever tell the enemy what’s off the table? He also needs to recognize that this is not a police action to rid the Middle East of criminals. It is a war and it will be won, not by diplomacy, but by military action as distasteful as that may be to him and his dovish advisors.

It will be a difficult role for this president who envisioned his legacy, not as a wartime leader, but as the president who ended America’s involvement in unpopular overseas conflicts and a crusader for social reform at home. But events often intrude on our fondest dreams and wishes. Job One now is to defend Americans from the evil and the danger posed by the forces of radical Islam which are at war with us, whether we call it that or not, and with our way of life.

September 11, 2014

NATO Needs Re-defining

NATO Needs Re-defining———————-
A commentary
By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was founded in the aftermath of World War II to counter an expansionist Soviet Union threat to Western Europe and to American interests. But the collapse of the Soviet Union and the democratization of former Soviet Bloc nations in Eastern Europe left NATO with the need to re-define its purpose, particularly as relations with Russia improved and it became more integrated into the European economy. That re-definition remains incomplete to say the least and some now even question the need for NATO at all.

As former Soviet Socialistic Republics including Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania sought and won membership in NATO, Russia expressed growing concern over what it viewed as encroachment into areas it considered lay within its traditional sphere of influence on or near its borders. Still, relations between Russia and the West, after the Cuban Missile Crisis at least, generally continued to improve as the global economy grew and trade between Russia and the rest of Europe increased with Europe becoming heavily dependent on Russian energy.

Russia objected strongly to U.S. plans to base ballistic missile defense installations in Poland and other former Soviet republics despite assurances that these installations were not designed to counter a Russian threat but rather a missile attack from a rogue nation. The Obama Administration capitulated in deference to Russian concerns. Moscow again appeared to draw a red line when two formerly solid members of the Soviet Union with large ethnic Russian and Russian-speaking minorities and historic ties to Russia, Georgia and Ukraine, sought closer relations with the West including eventual membership in the European Union and NATO. Russia, quite predictably, perceived this as not only an existential threat to its security but also a blow to its prestige and world status as a former superpower equal, in military status at least, to the United States.

Georgia and Ukraine, moreover, contain provinces where pro-Russian sentiment is high. In the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, large portions of the populations demonstrated for a return to Russia or at least greater autonomy. When the Georgian government attempted to forcibly subdue them, Russian forces invaded and still remain in the two regions. In Ukraine, an elected Russian- leaning government was overthrown by violent demonstrators in Kiev who wanted closer ties to the West. Subsequent counter-demonstrations were held in the Russian-leaning regions of Eastern Ukraine near the Russian border and in Crimea, which used to be a part of Russia. Pro-Russian rebels are still fighting Ukrainian troops, which they largely regard as outsiders, in what is, in fact, a civil war. They, too, wish greater autonomy and some wish re-unification with Russia.

Crimea, home to Russia’s principal warm-water naval base, voted for re-unification with Russia and Russian troops obliged. They have also provided assistance, including troops, to Eastern Ukrainian rebels. Russia has consistently maintained its right to protect ethnic Russians living in former Soviet Bloc nations.

Both Europe and the U.S. have expressed outrage over these Russian actions with many in the U.S. criticizing the Obama Administration for not taking more forceful actions. Many liken the situation to Nazi aggression in WWII against neighboring countries with large German-speaking populations. They warn that nations like Poland and the three Baltic countries could be next which is most unlikely since they are NATO members and by treaty, an attack against one is considered an attack against all. European criticism has been far more muted, of course, because they have much more at stake. Russia is Europe’s third largest trading partner and provides much of its energy.

U.S. General Philip Breedlove, the NATO military commander was quoted in an interview as saying, “A force (Russia) crossed an internationally-recognized border of a sovereign nation by force. We need to be able to respond to that in the future.” If by “we” is meant NATO, it would be the United States doing most of the heavy lifting. The U.S. accounts for nearly three-fourths, 73%, of NATO’s total defense expenditures, up from 68% in just six years. Perhaps we need to re-think NATO’s funding sources and its purpose in the world today instead.

Ukraine and Georgia aspire to join NATO. Their membership would add to the list of nations which NATO is already obligated by treaty to protect against foreign attack. As I have argued before, Europe has more at stake than the U.S. in what happens to portions of Ukraine and Georgia which poses no military or economic threat to America. If European nations perceive a threat to their security requiring more forceful action, they might start by increasing their defense budgets, most of which are far below the 2% of GDP originally agreed to by NATO members. We have enough on our plate at present. Calls by some Republican senators for providing military equipment and ammunition to the Ukraine military are in my view, irresponsible. Any military aid which we would provide will be easily and quickly matched by the Russians and would only prolong a civil war that we have no business being involved in. Here is a case where we really shouldn’t do stupid stuff.

September 1, 2014