The 100th Anniversary of the End of World War I

I am London on my way to Berlin to attend the international fighter conference.

Because I was here in London, I had a chance to see the remarkable film by Peter Jackson and his team which provides a unique look at the First World War.

It was previewed appropriately on Armistice Day, and unlike the Western leaders in Paris who seemed to show up more to make political points than to honor those who fought in the two world wars, Peter Jackson and his team provided a real remembrance event.

The team has put together restored film, audio tracks from interviews with World War I veterans, and introduction where possible of the words being spoken in the films (via lip reading techniques coupled with actors voices) and the experience is very clear — you get a sense of who these people were and how they lived through the war and came out of it.

As Jackson put it in an interview, our interpretation from the outside is how this war was necessary and a meat grinder for those who fought in it.  Although much truth is to be found in that view, it has nothing to do with the perspectives of those who fought in that war.

What Jackson has given us is a precious gift in the study of history — he put us back in the historical horizon of those who lived the era, rather than providing later generation’s views, which have little to do with what created history in the first place.

And what came through was a clear sense of excitement at the beginning of the war, and as the war went on, the camaraderie of those who fought it.  The war created a sense of community among the soldiers and that sense of community kept them going during the war, but also set in motion the core problem that would affect them when they came back.

No civilians at home could grasp their experience nor share their comradeship.

And when unemployment and displacement faced the returned veterans, alienation was a core problem. After the economy recovered and veterans began to be integrated into the civil economy, the Great Depression came and dislocated the war generation yet again.

One can better understand as well the run up to World War II.  The experience of losing a million men fro the UK and the British empire certainly would not make one enthusiastic to take on the Nazis in the 1930s by taking military actions of virtually any sort.

But one also grasped what the experience might have been for Hitler as a young soldier in World War I. Having shared deep comradeship with his fellow soldiers and then thrust into a society which did not care and then when the Great Depression came, the ability to draw upon the comradeship experience gained in World War I provided him with a ready audience who had already experienced the kind of comradeship which the Nazis then projected into their movement.

It is a powerful film because it allows you to share an historical experience, without being lectured to and told what you must think about the experience.

You just experience it.

Pulling the Plug on the Endless War

Commander James Durso SC USN (ret) has been one of our key “go to experts”  on many military Middle East issues since Second Line of Defense, our original website, was founded.  Now that we have expanded our website scope, with defense.info, he remains so.

Previously we had worked together during the early days of the Iraq War.

After the invasion of Iraq, our Office of International Technology Security OSD had the “reach back” responsibilities for supporting the Iraq Ministries of Transportation and Communications.

James Durso was at CPA Baghdad overseeing “security” for Ministry of Transportation.

Fortunately, our fighting forces managed to push further out a wider defensive perimeter so it did not happen again.

He is now currently the Managing Director of Corsair LLC and has continued, after his CPA days, to keep his involvement with Iraq and Afghanistan as a professional staff member on the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Consequently, as a very credible and experienced expert in ME combat theaters, he  has written a very thoughtful and provocative article in favor of a plan submitted by Erik Prince to change the strategy of US-NATO engagement in Afghanistan.

Durso makes a very strong case for President Trump to fundamentally reevaluate the current “Forever War” strategy,” something the President raised several times during his campaign to become President.

The most remarked upon feature of the plan was Prince’s suggestion that the effort be led by a “viceroy” who would answer directly to the President and command all military, diplomatic, and intelligence assets in Afghanistan.

This is known as “unity of command,” and has never existed in America’s long project in Afghanistan.

That person would need experience with the military and intelligence agencies, but no candidate may satisfy all the bureaucracies so the President (and Congress) will have to back it up by giving the viceroy hire-and-fire authority and control of the budgets.  

Is this a pre-General Grant moment?

General Mattis USMC (ret) and now Defense Secretary Mattis has been at the highest levels of leadership fighting the Afghan war for almost 25% of the time the war has gone on.

He has put his very honorable and credible service to America on line in opposition to Erik Price’s plan:

“When the Americans put their nation’s credibility on the line, privatizing it is probably not a wise idea,” Mattis said when asked recently if there were any advantages to using a contractors in Afghanistan.

Yet there are important precedents for thinking through the proposed option.

For example, an American President during some very dark days early in WWII actually empowered one of the most effective “private” airpower fighting forces  in our Nation’s  history, the Flying Tigers.

Early in the Second World War, in the skies over Rangoon, a handful of American pilots met and bloodied the Japanese Army Air Force, winning immortality as “Flying Tigers.”

Arguably America’s most famous combat unit, they were hired to defend beleaguered China for $600 a month, plus $500 for each Japanese plane shot down–fantastic money in 1941, when a Manhattan hotel room cost three dollars a night.

So when the Defense.info team asked him for his comments on our “Forever War In Afghanistan” James Durso was brutally honest on the current course of the US and NATO commitment to fight in Afghanistan:

U.S. forces arrived in Afghanistan two weeks after the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. and are still there seventeen years later.

The tab to date: over $840 billion for military operations, $126 billion for reconstruction, probably another $1 trillion for veterans’ health care, over 2,400 dead, and over 20,000 wounded.

The annual cost is $50 billion, more than the defense budget of the U.K.

Despite the cost in dollars and lives, there hasn’t been much progress.

The Afghan central government controls or influences under 60% of the country and “opium production in Afghanistan increased by 87 percent to a record level of 9,000 metric tons in 2017 compared with 2016 levels” according to the latest report by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime.

President Trump was channeling many Americans when he asked his national security advisor, “What the f**k are we doing there?”

Cost in terms of budgets, equipment, manpower and lives remains high for a set of objectives that remain unclear and beyond reach,

We have major challenges competing with Russia and China, and the later certainly are not investing in forever wars to the neglect of their core capabilities to support peer warfighting capabilities.

The featured photo shows the flying tigers during World War II. Credit photo: Wikipedia

Appendix: Opportunity Costs

Current state-of-play on 2019 funding ALONE simply to provide Afghan security forces, military and police with $4.92 billion in 2019 for equipment, training, supplies, services, infrastructure repair and other funding.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr6157/text

Representative ample of opportunity costs of the “Forever War”:

USAF

An F-35A in 2019 is expected to cost $85 million per unit complete with engines and full mission systems.

B-21 “Raider” is expected to come in around $600 Million

USN

The Navy has awarded a $5.1 billion contract to General Dynamics Electric Boat for Integrated Product and Process Development of the COLUMBIA Class submarine, a next-generation nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines designed to ensure a second-strike capability in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States.

Arliegh Burke Class Destroyer  around $200 Billion

US Army ADA

“With a price tag of about $3 million, the U.S. Army’s Patriot missile is among the most sophisticated, not to mention costliest, surface-to-air defense weapons in the world. “ Washington Post

US Coast Guard

A National Security Cutter will cost approximately $ 682 Million per ship

Also, see the following:

Terminating the Endless War

Trident Juncture 2018 in Strategic Perspective

Trident Juncture 2018 is a major NATO exercise which is focused on Northern Tier defense.

It also is an exercise for the Norwegians in mobilizing their society to deal with crises in the region in which NATO forces would be called upon to operate from Norwegian soil.

A key part of the strategic shift facing the Nordics is the shift from expeditionary out of area operations to direct defense.

As we noted earlier this year when we released our report on the Nordics and the strategic shift:

The Russian seizure of Crimea and other aspects of its global activism have had a significant effect on the Nordics.

The Nordics are working mores closely together to deal with the strategic shift.  And they are adding new capabilities to shape a more effective approach to crisis management and deterrence in depth.

And the Norwegians, Swedes and Finns are clearly committed to a total defense concept whereby society is being mobilized to support defense in depth as well.

The direct defense focus is coming as well within the context of a significant shift within Europe itself with regard to the next phase of European development. 

In an article entitled “The Coming of Hanseatic League 2.0,” Harald Malmgren highlighted this strategic political and economic shift as well:

German authorities are now beginning to address the possibility of a different European context in coming years, as the pressures within the EU and Eurozone build towards a potential breakup over mutual financial commitments.

Italy in particular is posing this financial issue as central to its demand for greater fiscal and banking autonomy.

Less noticed in press and media is a parallel process of thinking among other European national militaries. Among the militaries of the Nordic nations there has already developed a Northern Europe Defense Cooperation group, which involves closely integrated operations of the four Nordic nations’ militaries with the UK and the US. This group has been joined de facto militarily by the Netherlands and Belgium. Its area of direct concern includes the security of the Arctic and virtually all of the Baltic Sea region, including the Baltic States.  

How divisions between military thinking (clear desire to be part of the Nordic club) and political thinking in Germany (where Macron and Merkel have tried to work a closely relationship) and other European nations evolves is uncertain.

Most likely there will be clashes among these disparate sources of power in Europe in the future,when economic and security challenges arise and require action.

Norway sits in a geography where the greatest concentration of military force rests, namely the Kola Peninsula.

Essentially with the Russians building out bases throughout their part of the Northern region inclusive of the Arctic, they are distributing their access points to put pressure on the Nordics and NATO in a crisis.

The reworking of the geography is sometimes referred as the militarization of the Arctic.

But it is better understood as enhanced base distribution by the Russians to provide operational points from which force can be applied in a crisis or as part of the diplomatic side of deterrence strategy.

This reworking of geography provides a backdrop of the challenges facing NATO which Trident Juncture 2018 is trying to address.

As Megan Eckstein noted in an article published by USNI News on November 7, 2018:

The massive exercise – which grew to include more than 50,000 personnel, 65 ships and 250 aircraft, including 14,000 American troops, a carrier strike group (CSG) and an amphibious ready group (ARG) – centered around a scenario of protecting Norway from an invasion at its borders by inserting reinforcements by air and by amphibious landing.

A key piece of the amphibious landing was the Iwo Jima ARG and embarked 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit. The ARG/MEU stopped in Iceland for training on the way to Norway, but the two smaller ships, dock landing ship USS Gunston Hall (LSD-44) and amphibious transport dock USS New York (LPD-21), had to return to Iceland when heavy seas hampered their voyage to Norway.

Personnel on the LSD suffered minor injuries, and the well deck of the ship and an unsecured landing craft utility (LCU) were damaged in the heavy seas. The LPD returned to Iceland with the LSD as a precautionary measure. New York made it to Norway for the start of the exercise, but Gunston Hall did not.

According to a 24th MEU news release, the Marines successfully landed ashore at Alvund, Norway, on Oct. 29.

The landing force included Marines from Battalion Landing Team 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, and 700 Marines pushed ashore with 12 amphibious assault vehicles, six light armored vehicles and 21 humvees.

“We came to the North Atlantic looking for a challenge and Trident Juncture delivered; throughout the exercise the environment forced us to be flexible and adaptive,” Maj. Anthony Bariletti, the 24th MEU operations officer, said in the news release.

“It is the adaptability that makes Marine Expeditionary Units such a lethal crisis response force. As Marines, we gain our lethality from the ability to operate as part of a naval integrated team. The ability to conduct amphibious operations in the premier core competency of our service and this exercise provided an outstanding opportunity for the 24th MEU to hone its skills and prepare for combat as a forward deployed, sea-based Marine Air-Ground Task Force.”

Additional amphibious landings took place in the exercise, including a French-led force that also included Dutch Marines and Finnish Coastal Jaegers as well as British soldiers with their Viking All Terrain Vehicles.

https://news.usni.org/2018/11/07/trident-juncture-wraps-up-after-several-amphibious-landings-training-ashore?utm_source=USNI+News&utm_campaign=83dc69fad1-USNI_NEWS_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0dd4a1450b-83dc69fad1-230422265&mc_cid=83dc69fad1&mc_eid=d5b4bb05ef

It should be noted that enhanced operational rhythm has consequences for the blue force as well. For example, the Royal Norwegian Navy frigate HNoMS Helge Ingstad (F313) collided with the Malta-flagged oil tanker Sola TS during the exercise with significant damage to the frigate.

Without placing blame in the Thursday collision, the increased operational tempo of warships in general are pushing navies around the world harder and adding stress to operations, Eric Wertheim, author of U.S. Naval Institute’s Combat Fleets, told USNI News on Thursday.

“As you get ops tempo increasing, navies are going to be stressed. It’s not just the U.S.,” Werthheim said.

“The more you drive your ships, the more you’re going to have accidents.”

This recent piece published by NATO highlights the key aspect of how the Norwegians addressed their role in the exercise.  

Although the article highlights that national resilience is a NATO wide trend, this clearly is not so.

But it is also clear that the Nordics are focused specifically on enhancing their national resilience for sure.

Norway uses Exercise Trident Juncture to strengthen its national resilience

Trident Juncture 18, NATO’s largest exercise in recent years, is also the Alliance’s first military exercise to include substantial civil preparedness elements and to practice cooperation between the military and the civilian authorities. Norway, which is hosting the exercise, is using the collective defence scenario not only to train its armed forces, but also to build up its ability to respond to a crisis of any kind.

This is fully in line with the commitment that all NATO Allies have undertaken to increase national resilience, which is a key element of NATO’s collective defence. Resilience is rooted in the Washington Treaty. At the Warsaw Summit in 2016, NATO leaders also pledged to enhance national resilience, including by improving civil preparedness. 

To meet this pledge, Norway added an extra challenge to Trident Juncture 18, in the form of close interaction between the military participants and civilian crisis responders, such as the health service, the police, the fire department, and non-governmental organisations. Specific events have been integrated in the exercise programme, including simulated mass casualty incidents, evacuation drills, Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) emergencies, taking care of evacuated civilians, and crisis management. 

In addition to contributing to Norway’s crisis management capacities, this also contributes to interoperability with other NATO Allies.  Some of the forces participating in Trident Juncture have been involved in these events as well – for instance, Danish and French CBRN soldiers, part of NATO’s Spearhead Force (the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force) in 2019, have been part of a simulation where they had to give first aid to victims of a chemical attack, and decontaminate the area.

 

Norway and Trident Juncture 2018

Recently, the Norwegian Ministry of Defence created a web page and posted a video explaining to the Norwegian population about the coming Trident Juncture exercise and what the core focus of Norwegian defense unfolding in the current period.

What follows is our translation (with apologies to our Norwegian friends) of the webpage and of the video.

Why Should Norway Have a Defense Force?

Why is Norway a member of NATO?

Norway is a small country with just over five million inhabitants. We have never had and will never have our own defense that is big enough to resist a major attack by a powerful external enemy for a long time.

NATO membership is therefore crucial for Norway’s security because the NATO Treaty establishes that an attack on a member state should be regarded as an attack on all. “One for all, all for one” has therefore been the foundation of Norwegian security policy ever since 1949.

Why will 50,000 NATO soldiers come to Norway for an exercise?

NATO is a defense alliance that, in its size and power, will have a deterrent effect on any attackers. A NATO exercise can in many ways be compared to a fire prevention exercise. The few of us experience a fire close up during life, but if the worst happens, it’s a good idea to have tested all the routines in advance.

Trident Juncture is the fire preparation exercise of the Armed Forces. Here we shall practice receiving soldiers and equipment from all over NATO. And with 30 other countries, we will try to defend our country by any attack.

Why does Norway need a new fighter?

Fighter aircraft are one of the most important capabilities in a modern and efficient defense, and F-35 is the world’s best combat aircraft.

F-35 can defeat other aircraft and targets on the ground and the sea. In addition, combat aircraft operate electronic warfare and provide their own forces at sea and land with valuable information. The aircraft’s ability to collect information also becomes crucial for Norway’s role as NATO’s eyes and ears in the north.

Why does Norway need a new submarine?

Norway has the second longest coastline in the world and rages across major ocean areas in the north. So we have a lot of sea to watch.

Submarines can operate hidden over large areas for a long time and they have great impact. This means that an opponent must spend a lot of time and effort to safeguard our submarines.

The Government has therefore decided that Norway will buy four new submarines to help ensure Norway’s maritime interests and its own borders.

Why are many any of our best young people being sent out in the woods or into the mountains for a whole year?

In Norway, we have universal service, which means that women and men have the same duty and the right to serve our country. The duty of consecration ensures that Norway has a solid defense at all times, consisting of our most suitable people.

We want as many as possible to be motivated to do something for their country and to serve in the Armed Forces.

It is a duty, but also an outstanding opportunity for you.

What do we want to happen?

Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

German Ministry of Defence Looks at Germany’s Strategic Future

Will the international world order erode?

Will value systems drift apart?

Will globalization be stopped in its tracks?

Just 10 years ago, in 2008, the Western world was experiencing the worst financial crisis since the Black Thursday crash of 29 October 1929. Through the financial storms that ensued in Spain, Ireland, Greece and Portugal, Germany’s political and financial leadership argued for a unified and coordinated strategy to address the issues and stave off a possible wide-scale collapse.

Germany has continued to lead the European Union (EU) in its response to the 2016 British referendum to leave the EU, better known as BREXIT.

Germany has demonstrably become the financial leader and economic powerbase of the EU. In tandem, Europe, “continues to be encircled by threats and instability, from an increasingly autocratic Russia which is waging a multifaceted hybrid war against the West, to continued instability in the Middle East, and an ongoing Islamist terror threat and a refugee crisis to the south that may escalate exponentially in the coming decades,” as Guy Verhofstadt wrote in The Telegraph earlier this year.

In response to the ongoing political, financial and economic uncertainty and instability, strategists at Germany’s Ministry of Defence developed six possible scenarios and the potential cascading political consequences.

The resulting “Strategic Forecast 2040” was published in February 2017 and sent a very distinct message that the “structure of Western Europe since World War II, and of all of Europe since 1991, is no more.

And Germany intends to look out for itself.”

The analysis was commissioned in response to Western failure to anticipate the end of the Cold War and Russia’s military aggression in eastern Ukraine since 2014. Authored by defence strategists belonging to Germany’s Federal Armed Forces Planning Office, “the Defence Ministry secret paper is remarkable in every respect,” noted German newspaper Der Spiegel, which further elaborated that the document “describes a possible failure of the EU with potentially incalculable consequences for German security.”

That such a document was authored, suggests serious tensions within the global system.

The paper went so far as to outline the implications of “weakening national loyalties, faltering economies in the West, disease epidemics, ‘drone swarms’ deployed by hostile states, and miniaturized chemical, nuclear and biological weapons.”

As with many governmentally-authored strategic analysis, Strategic Forecast 2040 was reportedly kept secret until Der Spiegel accessed a copy.

The classified report outlines a number of social trends and international conflict scenarios that could have an impact upon Germany’s future security environment.

While the document reportedly does not make any prognosis, it does emphasize that the scenarios described in its pages are “plausible with the 2040-time horizon.”

It is projected that the combined threat of BREXIT, plus the persistent Russian aggression in Ukraine and along the borders of the Baltic states, would create a period of insecurity that could precipitate the breakup of the EU.

Six scenarios are described, with the worst-case scenario being the breakup of the European Union, a development that would force Germany into a “reactive mode.”

Other scenarios include issues surrounding BREXIT and calls by some elements within the EU nations to break away.

Historically, Germany has been a powerful voice for European unity and has continued since the EU inception to be a supportive voice as well as the economic driver.

Should the EU dissolve, Germany would likely find a separate path for continued economic success while other countries could find themselves in economic turmoil resulting, ultimately, in economic ruin without the financial life-support systems that the EU provides members.

The forecasted scenarios could push other European nations to seriously consider their respective situations and incorporate these potential realities to their national strategic planning.

Notwithstanding, Germany would stand to lose from the dismemberment of the EU although perhaps not to the same degree as many other members.

The scenarios envisioned by the German strategists embrace a variety of interesting geopolitical predicaments that could confront Germany and its leadership.

They include European nations being seduced by Russian influence to join the Eastern Bloc, the consequences of American isolationism, and the potential for a China versus Western confrontation. The Forecast includes the ultimately dire scenario identified as the complete demise of the West.

In the wake of each scenario, the authors provide an analysis of the trends in society, the economy, and environmental and political issues, as well as military analysis.

The first two scenarios imagine a European Union confronting various internal struggles, with Germany continuing to address local and international peacekeeping efforts.

According to Der Spiegel, these two scenarios use the term ‘existential crisis’ to define maintaining a unified and stable Europe, while fully appreciating the inherent flaws of the union itself. Notwithstanding, a strong transatlantic relationship continues. The scenarios were “regarded as the current state of affairs for Germany, where its defence and security focus has been on local and international peacekeeping operations.”

Interestingly, the third scenario resonates, reflecting the sentiments and activities that are currently occurring in Europe and the rest of the Western world.

It depicts a period of “rising nationalism and expanding anti-EU sentiment” as well as the heightened threat from terrorism. This is currently exemplified in the ongoing political machinations in Austria and within the former Eastern Bloc countries of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. The situation describes exacerbating factors such as the uncontrolled mass migration of over 1.8 million into continental Europe. This issue has sparked serious political concerns predicated on the spectrum of experiences that EU members have had recently over Islamist-inspired terrorist acts.

Moreover, many countries see this mass migration as a means to facilitate the infiltration of Islamist terrorists into European Union member nations.

This scenario recognizes that the situation has sparked the phoenix-like rise of nationalist movements that emphasize sovereignty and security issues in certain EU members. These developments raise serious concerns over the future of the union itself.

As the study points out, these trends could facilitate the disintegration of the European dream.

This third scenario does not appear to explore further the implications of an EU breakup or its cascading consequences.

The last three scenarios are more global in nature but appear to be much darker and futuristic, detailing “the further deterioration of the economies of Europe and, ultimately, the collapse of the European Union, coupled with an ‘increasingly overstrained’ United States still serving as the world’s key ‘stabilizing factor.’”

Scenario four describes a collapse of the European Union as a political body. Extremism is rising and there are a number of EU partners who appear to “seek a specific approach to Russia’s ‘state capitalist model.’”

In this scenario, the United States is experiencing imperial overreach, including trying to address some issues of global strife as well as serious economic instability. Nonetheless, the United States continues to serve as a tentative stabilizing factor in the West.

This scenario notes a significant decline in the economies of Europe and China, with the commensurate direct impact upon Germany’s economy as their two main export markets experience extreme economic problems.

Entitled “West to the East”, the fifth scenario explores the possibility in which some eastern European countries are no longer pursuing European integration, and instead opt to join the Eastern Bloc.

Scenario five describes the West as being the United States and Europe (not the European Union) and the East consisting of Russia and China.

These two countries have negotiated a strategic partnership in their challenge to the unipolar world dominated by the United States.

In this new bipolar world, economic competition between these two blocs remains confrontational and intense, although the issues surrounding economics and trade precludes, for the most part, any major conflict.

Access to oil and gas draws some eastern European countries to ally with Russia as economic dependency on fossil fuels and natural gas continues unabated.

The most problematic of the six scenarios is entitled, “The EU in Disintegration and Germany in Reactive Mode”, which would consist of “multiple confrontations.”

This future prognosis describes a world in which the international order erodes after “decades of instability,” the value systems worldwide diverge and globalization comes to an end.

According to this study, EU enlargement has been abandoned, countries have abandoned the European Union and, Europe loses its global ability to complete economically.

“The increasingly disorderly, sometimes chaotic and conflict-prone world has dramatically changed the security environment of Germany and Europe.”

This sixth and last scenario proffers the strategic notion of a total collapse of the European Union as a political body. In this projection, the United States is experiencing critical imperial overreach and, as a nation, is concomitantly experiencing global strife and economic instability.

Nonetheless, the United States serves as a tentative stabilizing factor in the West.

Unfortunately, American leadership is increasingly seen as “no longer able to act decisively to prevent global crises from escalating.”

This scenario also identifies a significant decline in the economies of Europe and China, which would impact its top export markets and therefore Germany’s economy writ large.

Should such as situation arise, Germany would experience a serious economic slowdown and would have to find new markets for its manufactured goods.

This scenario paints a very dark futuristic view. The EU has experienced a total collapse, and the American national leadership has diminished such that it cannot provide the decisions necessary, nor act decisively, to prevent a global crisis.

Drawing from the open sources available regarding the scenarios, albeit futuristic, they do appear to embrace a number of strategic, national and domestic issues that presently exist in either nascent or maturing terms within the EU.

The strategists who authored the paper warn “there could be a breakdown in national societies because of a greater tendency for people to identify themselves by ethnic, regional or religious groups.”

It is clear from this analysis that the state’s social fabric in terms of national defence is of critical importance, and that the oft-repeated social meme that diversity is strength appears to fail in real terms.

The issues surrounding the mass migration of over 1.8 million people, many of them young males, has brought with it a spectrum of issues – secondary and third order affects – not fully considered or anticipated in terms of the real or potential social, economic and cultural costs.

This migration has posed a threat to German unity, particularly with the rising conservative and nationalistic movement consisting of concerned, generally conservative German citizenry, joined with less savoury, ultra nationalistic elements that could prove a serious threat to internal stability and security.

The situation is further exacerbated by the real concerns and fears of Islamic extremism, European Islamisation in various manifestations as well as growing insecurity in the form of European cultures.

Recently, observers noted that certain countries in Eastern and Central Europe, particularly Poland and Hungary, have seen their respective governments becoming increasingly authoritarian, predicated in part upon the perceptions and differences that exist within the European Union on how best to deal with the flow of refugees since 2015.

The presence of formal and informal no-go zones in a number of EU countries poses a direct threat to sovereignty and the safety of their respective citizens.

Great Britain’s stated intent to leave the EU, could potentially see other countries following suit, resulting in the rise of nationalistic sentiments within the EU membership in regards to protecting respective language, culture and security.

This multilayered environment, combined with a dearth of strategic leadership from either the United States or the EU, to deal with a number of multifaceted challenges, both domestically and internationally, is reflective of present themes and their manifestations.

Germany’s economic and political interest in an economically and politically stable European Union, combined with its inherent interest in maintaining its markets in France and other EU nations is fully understandable.

Thus, Strategic Forecast 2040 and its scenarios demand attention.

As one reporter notes, an “increasingly disorderly, sometimes chaotic and conflictual world has dramatically changed the security policy environment for Germany and Europe.”

The German scenarios underline a seemingly growing concern as to the future of the EU and, with it, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which appears incapable of addressing increasingly divergent national interests and concerns.

The 2018 visit of American President Donald Trump to NATO highlighted that Germany, as well as other EU and NATO members, may no longer be able to rely on the United States security umbrella as it has since creation of NATO in 1949.

Should this be the case, there is an elephant in the room, in that a number of strategists and analyst have pointed out that Germany could create an independent nuclear capability in a relatively short time, joining Great Britain and France in a troika of European nuclear powers.

The present political situation may have sparked discussions on bringing about “National Service” as Italy, Germany and France are again considering reinstituting such a national defence program.

We may have witnessed the high point of European domination and the intellectual aspiration to create a unified European superpower incorporating liberal values may have experienced political overreach.

Moreover, the substantial costs of a Brussels-based bureaucracy and Parliament, a disregard (in some cases contempt) for personal or national perspectives, as well as the bureaucratic arrogance and determination to Europeanize sovereign states, seemingly at all costs, may prove its downfall.

For Germany, the European Union is strategically important as it relates to Germany’s core national interest as the foundation of its relationship with France, the structure and purpose of which was to “ensure that the conflicts of the past stay in the past”

Another core interest is that Germany needs the EU free trade zone as the crux and market for the burgeoning German economy.

After decades of peace, the EU and NATO may be experiencing a slow and painful breakup “under the weight of an increasingly divergent set of interests among their members.

So, Germany must make its own plans and it must plan for the worst.”

Given the dire scenarios propounded by the German study, other EU nations would be prudent to create contingency plans for the possible demise of an EU dream, as well as considering the necessity for rearmament programs to address future defence and security requirements.

Colonel Taillon’s 42-year military career included more than 22 foreign training missions and numerous deployments and 30 years in the intelligence community.

© 2018 FrontLine Defence (Vol 15, No 5)

https://security.frontline.online/article/2018/5/10469-Germany%E2%80%99s-disturbing-look-into-the-future

This Florida Recount is NOT the same as the Bush vs. Gore days

By Ed Timperlake

The shame of south Florida rigging elections is now evident.

Even The New York Times captures a moment of truth that actually shows why this Florida recount is different than the horrific 2000 Presidential Process.

It’s Déjà Vu in Florida, Land of Recounts and Contested Elections

Lawyers and party activists raced to Broward and Palm Beach Counties, where two of the most closely watched races in the country — for a Senate seat and for governor — still hang in the balance, nearly four days after the election on Tuesday.

Judges held emergency hearings, siding with Republicans who questioned the secrecy imposed on ballot counts by local elections officials.

In using the term “Déjà Vu” in their headline they would have their readers believe it is all the same almost two decades later.

But it isn’t.

There is a very powerful difference that can finally put a stop to south Florida political corruption.

I would put in bold above the huge difference.

For all who lived through and remember the trajectory of the Bush-Gore recount it went forward from “hanging chads” and other buffoonery to finally winding up in the courts.

This time there is very important difference, the Judicial Branch in our Constitutional process entered the fight early.

Note the phrase “lawyers and party activists raced to Broward and Palm Beach Counties” as The New York Times and many in both the Main Street Media and cable news shows breathlessly report ad nauseam, the linear trajectory of a recount process.

In other words the famous quote about “Generals fighting the last war” will play out.

But 2000 is truly “a last war” moment.

The Republicans should not give enhanced credibility to a corrupt process because this time the Judiciary has already given President Trump due process and 4th Amendment top cover.

President Trump put it all on the line in his heroic campaign effort, so now it is time to bring the FBI/DOJ to the fight time to engage in stopping this type of behavior forever by using the tools of Surveillance State for a good purpose

Bringing DOJ supported legally by DNI “surveillance state capabilities” to the fight can show any electronic conspiracy communications of the players that executed this horrific illegal threat from within.

Thanks to smart early Judicial intervention, it will not be an illegal “fishing expedition,” if Federal law and Order starts a full field criminal investigation.

On the physical evidence side of an FBI/DOJ investigations, Americans have already seen armed police threatening a US Congressman filming their illegal activity, and then he was asked to move away while getting fully engaged to stop injustice:

“Matt Gaetz showed up to cool the passions of the crowd urge restraint and respect—yeah right or to yell at police officers and election officials,” Maddow said.

Maddow then showed a video of him arguing and demanding to go in an inspect the building as police polity ask him to move because he is creating a safety hazard.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/watch-msnbc-catches-gop-congressman-matt-gaetz-yelling-cops-elections-officials-florida/

Those police officers were given instructions which has a legacy going back to the deep south of Sheriff Bull Connor years.

Bull Connor set the dogs on non-violent protesters in Birmingham Alabama. President’s Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson all brought the honorable majesty of the federal government to bear when civil rights corruption was discovered.

Sounds like Rachael Maddow is channeling an inner Bull Connor:

Our people of Birmingham are a peaceful people and we never have any trouble here unless some people come into our city looking for trouble. And I’ve never seen anyone yet look for trouble who wasn’t able to find it”

My political ally Bart Marcus nails it perfectly in bringing RICO statutes in play:

President Trump should direct Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to stop election fraud in Florida and elsewhere.

It is highly probable that a disciplined investigation will find a pattern of using electronic communications such as telephone calls, texts, and chats to conspire to commit election fraud.

That opens up the conspirators to charges of wire fraud.

So with Judicial “Top Cover” already set, and a RICO predicate being used by the FBI and DOJ I would offer three Rules to stop this once and for all:

Rule 1 Be very careful to not overly empower a corrupt process by accepting their terms of engagement-so far it is their rules on their turf-change that by FBI/DOJ intervention.

Rule 2 See Rule 1 and bring Senate Majority leader in support to this fight-it is his Senate and that would give unity of purpose by all three branches of Government.

Rule 3 Start immediately arresting people in Florida-TODAY.

Immediately, arresting identified criminals will totally change the linear narrative established by those currently engage in or reporting on those fighting “the last war.”

 

 

Navy “Thinkers” Versus The Fighting Navy

This story was first published on July 27, 2011 but we are republishing because it is central to any rethink about reshaping US and allied forces for high intensity conflict.

In a July 11, 2011 story about the improving military capability of the Peoples Republic of China—“China’s ‘eye in the sky’ nears par with US” —A Professor at the US Naval War College symbolically rowed ashore and surrendered her sword to the PLA forces.  Another cubicle commander articulates the way ahead.

“The United States has always felt that if there was a crisis in Taiwan, we could get our naval forces there before China could act and before they would know we were there. This basically takes that off the table,” said Joan Johnson-Freese, a professor at the US Naval War College in Rhode Island.

History shows the fighting Navy with modern 21st Century weapons and systems might think otherwise.

Rick Fisher, a Senior Fellow on Asian Military Affairs at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, nails it on the need for strong capable 21st Century Technology in the Pacific to deter war.

“Washington gains nothing by delaying the sale of new F-16s to Taiwan. Selling new F-16s with modern subsystems will more quickly prepare the Taiwan Air Force for what it really needs, a version of the fifth-generation F-35. Depending upon the equipment package, upgrading Taiwan’s early model F-16s can sustain a low level of parity, but that will not keep pace with a Chinese threat that grows every day,” Fisher said.

The statement in a global newspaper from the Naval War College by Professor Johnson-Freese sends the exact opposite signal.

First a history lesson for Professor Johnson-Freese. Less then a year after the attack on Pearl Harbor. the “Doolittle

Raiders” had their “30 Seconds Over Tokyo” bombing raid and in doing so the Navy-Army Air Corp team gave the Japanese leaders a real wake up call that they would ultimately lose WWII. B-25 Army Air Force crews made their heroic flight launching from the deck of the CV-8, USS Hornet.

After the Doolittle Raid, the USS Hornet continued to fight the Imperial Japanese Fleet. At the Battle Of Midway the entire complement, save one pilot, of Torpedo Squadron 8 from the Hornet were all killed, but the great miracle at Midway victory was achieved.

Finally, the heroic ship was sunk at the Battle of the Santa Cruz Island.  Quoting various reports about the battle proved that it was a hard ship to kill.

(From various sources compiled by Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hornet_%28CV-8%29)

  • In a 15-minute period, Hornet took three bomb hits from “Val” dive bombers, another bomb hit compounded by the “Val” itself crashing into the deck, two torpedo hits from “Kates”, and another “Val” crashing into the deck. Because of the damage the Hornet was taken under tow when another Japanese plane scored a hit.
  • The order was given to abandon ship. U.S. forces then attempted to scuttle Hornet, which absorbed nine torpedoes and more than 400 5 in (130 mm) rounds from the destroyers Mustin and Anderson. Mustin and Anderson moved off when a Japanese surface force appeared in the area.
  • Japanese destroyers Makigumo and Akigumo then finished Hornet with four torpedoes. At 01:35 on 27 October, she finally sank with the loss of 140 of her crew
  • It was the last US fleet Carrier to be sunk in WW II.

And another history lesson this time from my class in Naval History over four decades ago at the US Naval Academy. I have tried to find the original source but I just remember the Professors narrative.

As the war in the Pacific got closer to the main Islands of Japan, Kamikaze – the “unmanned” vehicles of the day — were used to attack the American Battle Fleet—at that time the Aircraft Carrier was the primary ship leading the attack. So killing carriers was the goal. The Navy knowing this screened the fleet Carriers with radar picket Destroyers to both give warning and provide anti-aircraft fire at incoming Kamikazes.

During a lull in after a wave of deadly Kamikaze attacks a voice was heard skipping across the waves-by sailors of the main fleet — sound can do this at sea. As told it was an Ensign on a radar picket ship and he was telling the crew that all the officers were killed but he was in command and they would continue to fight the ship—I was told the Destroyer was lost.

There is a fundamental rule in tactical battles that all technology is relative against a reactive enemy. It is most often the intangibles of training, tactics, and developing newer and more capable technology that can win the final battle.

Now to the 21st Century–apparently the Professor missed a recent event.

If PLA satellites are a problem and it is a choice between putting a Carrier Battle Group at risk or fighting a space war, I think the fighting Navy is capable and ultimately ruthless enough to blind the PRC military.

After the PLA shot down a satellite from a land based launch pad the US Navy demonstrated our at sea capability-from a Department of Defense Report:

“At approximately 10:26 p.m. EST, Feb. 20, (2008) a U.S. Navy AEGIS warship, USS Lake Erie (CG-70), fired a single modified tactical Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) hitting the satellite approximately 133 nautical miles over the Pacific Ocean as it traveled in space at more than 17,000 mph. USS Decatur (DDG-73) and USS Russell (DDG-59) were also part of the task force.”

So to make it simple for the PLA, PLAN. PLAAF and 2nd Artillery-the US Navy is battle tested with a legacy of carrying the fight to any enemy.

But wait Professor it gets even better.

In the 21st Century it will be important that no platform fight alone.  USN satellite killing Aegis ships will soon be joined by F-35s flying from the Navy/Marine Amphibious Readiness Group “Gator” Navy-the USMC F-35B V/Stol. This is a huge at sea multiplier in capability. Carrier Battle Group Air Wings with the F-35C will give Naval Forces afloat both situational awareness and the ability to fight a 3 Dimensional War.

Finally, like the radar picket ships of WWII, current  Destroyers, Frigates and perhaps even the Littoral Combat Ship can add a huge defensive element against CHICOM incoming missiles. The capability to spoof and jam incoming guided weapons is an art of “tron” war practiced by Navy forces for decades. One can imagine the targeting frustration trying to hit a 50+ knot LCS that an incoming warhead thinks is an aircraft carrier.

But wait Professor it gets even better.

By pure accident during a test flight over Pax River an F-35 system picked up a launch in Florida over 800 miles away. So the second a missile is launched against the fleet the Commander can light up the launch pad—B-2s and F-22s, along with at sea and sub launched cruise missiles and eventually UAS systems with combat firepower guided by F-35s can take out the threat. Launch and die.

So rather then unilaterally “take our forces off the table,” the 21st Century Navy can blind them and blast them-and that is real deterrence and should give the PRC pause before starting a hostile action.

American just needs the political will to continue to commit the resources to keep the US Navy/Marine/AF the number one fighting force in the Pacific.

Just another swing and a miss by the US Naval War College.

http://www.sldforum.com/2011/05/black-swans-and-the-pacific-future/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Will the Helsinki Summit Reduce Tensions: The Case of Reducing Threats to Air Combat Crews

When American military lives are at risk the world media should focus on the words spoken in Helsenki with some hope.

A very ugly US Vs USSR “Cold War” incident that cost the lives of three USAF Officers bears witness to paying close attention to the promise of better relations announced by both Presidents.

The 1964 T-39 shootdown incident occurred on 28 January 1964, when an unarmed United States Air Force T-39 Sabreliner on a training mission was shot down over ErfurtEast Germany by a Soviet Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-19 fighter aircraft.[1][2][3] The occupants of the aircraft were Lieutenant Colonel Gerald K. Hannaford, Captain Donald Grant Millard and Captain John F. Lorraine. All three died,[4]becoming some of the few US confirmed direct casualties of the Cold War in Europe.

Residents from the nearby town of Vogelsberg in Thuringia erected a memorial to the three downed pilots, in 1998, once the “Iron Curtain” had been lifted.

The Helsinki meeting between Putin and Trump can be measured as a success in part against progress on a key issues, namely the attenuation of such a threat occurring again.

And with the Russians regularly threatening US and allied pilots by close encounters but not of the extraterrestrial type, it is about time to sort through this challenge.

A pair of Russian Su-24 jets pass in close proximity to the USS Porter on February 10, 2017.. Credit: CNN

President Putin clearly promised to do so.

The Cold War is a thing of past. The era of acute ideological confrontation of the two countries is a thing of the remote past — it’s a vestige of the past.

Let me remind you that both Russian and American military have acquired a useful experience of coordination of their action, established the operational channels of communication, which permitted [us] to avoid dangerous incidents and unintentional collisions in the air and on the ground.

And President Trump has launched a policy process to engage the Russians on this and other key issues as well.

We also agreed that representatives from our national security councils will meet to follow-up on all of the issues we addressed today and to continue the progress we have started right here in Helsinki.

Make no mistake as a Marine Fighter pilot who scrambled against Russian fighters coming out of Cuba at the height of the Cold War, I have no false illusions but a real hope for a safer world for all combat aviators.

In an Air Power Summit in Copenhagen Denmark in 2015, with Russians invited I stopped my presentation beginning at the 6:39 time hack to interject a very strong signal to Russia to “knock it off” with their fighter pilots flying dangerously close  our non-ejection seat Intelligence aircraft.

I called them “ham-fisted plumbers” flying Su-27s.

I am also sure they got my point when I quoted the late great American “warrior princess” Joan Rivers that when faced with incredible stupidity she simply said “Oh grow up.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G2b8sTA9CE

Consequently, a very significant point is being overlooked, in the over the top hot house rhetoric by many in the media,  and even with “not so” friendly fire from Republican’s who should know better.

True dynamic progress was made that can now continue by having Russian and US National Security teams engage as expressed by President Trump.

If President Trump had not gone to Helsinki to meet President Putin the world would be a more dangerous place, especially for our serving military.

As the history of “Cold-Hot War” in the air shows it was a constantly evolving process of human factors integrated into technology.

The Cold War ended well for humanity and a lot of courageous pilots, bold leaders, and smart technologists deserve a lot of credit for this great victory.

The U.S. would be wise to remember the lessons learned and along the way the loss of very good men in the air who paid in their blood for America today to have the best technology available flown by best Air Force, Navy, and Marine aviators this country can produce.

So please all stop the political posturing, harvest the best and leave the rest, to recognize the world has just become a much safer place because of President Trump’s political courage.

If the Russian Air Force continues to “buzz” American military ships and planes then President Putin on this issue cannot be trusted.

That World Cup ball is now firmly still in his court going forward.

A version of this article was first published by American Thinker on July 18, 2018.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/trump_and_putin_take_steps_to_save_lives_.html

 

The Israelis Shape Innovation in the Offensive-Defensive Enterprise

As Herman Kahn once noted: “Anything that reduces war-related destruction should not be considered altogether immoral.”

There is now the demonstrated promise of advanced weapons systems integrated together in an offensive and defensive enterprise to actually save the lives on innocents on both sides of combat action.

The Israeli Defense Force is pioneering such lifesaving con-ops of reducing the term “collateral damage.”

Collateral damage is a euphuism that can capture two parts of the loss of life.

Often in so called “friendly fire” incidents, which is actually not “friendly,” one’s own forces come under attack by their own forces.

The second, and most widely used expression for collateral damage, is hitting non-combatants with munitions.

Tragically in global war, at times, “collateral damage” really isn’t a mistake in ordinance delivery but rather a deliberate direct targeting of a  civilian population to achieve a strategic outcome.

The Cold war debates about how to fight and win a nuclear war had two building blocks of strategic thinking that defined a generation of intellectual turmoil and weapons development.

The two words on how to target ones opponent was “counter-force” (CF) and “counter-value. (CV).

At times many vicious debates were engaged in by very smart people on the issue of CF or CV targeting and Herman Kahn tried to always bring enlightened thinking  to that intellectual debate.

Fortunately those very public strategic debates had a desired effect of actually freezing the use of nuclear weapons by the USA and of our nuclear armed allies against the USSR and to a lesser extent the PRC.

Inside that construct President Reagan and his defense and foreign policy team prevailed and the Wall came down.

Sadly the proliferation of  nuclear weapons to places like North Korea and Pakistan, and the growth of PLA arsenal now complicates deterrence thinking and in not a good way.

The rumored removal of devices from South Africa, the actual removal from Ukraine and the IDF’s strategic ambiguity is often seen as positive steps but in different ways.

Hopefully the process of dealing with North Korea will led to de-nuclearization, and  Iran can be dealt with effectively to abort completely its quest for a workable weapon system a warhead married to a delivery vehicle, aircraft or missile.

Inside the issue of debating nuclear deterrence, since 1945, conventional wars and flash point combat engagements have clearly continued.

Tactical wars with strategic implications flourished from the dawn of the nuclear age to this day.

Combat engagements, including terrorism in the name of religious ideology sadly have followed the lyrics of a song  “and the beat goes on,” from the 20thCentury into this one.

But unlike the counter-force and counter-vale debates at a strategic nuclear level there has been so far an unspoken, for the most part, merging of 21st Century offensive and defensive conventional tactical weapon systems that have allowed for reduced collateral damage with the context of defending key interests against adversaries.

And this approach saves lives.

Conceptually, this can be understand in terms of changing how to execute the payload-utility function of warfare. A distributed  kill web can deliver a combat effect with reduced collateral damage and has the  tremendous promise in saving the lives of innocents in a limited conflict.

Employing OODA loop thinking can capture the two elements of fleet wide payload utility (Pu)and it is very simple to explain and difficult to execute:

Observe/Orient (OO) is essentially target acquisition, and Decide/Act (DA) is target engagement.

Thus there is a very simple formula, better and better TA and TE =more effective employment of all payloads available to the battle commander.

The Israeli Defense Forces are on the cutting edge of understanding, developing and employing advanced payload utility kill web capabilities.

The new capabilities begin with their Iron Dome.

The Iron Dome missile defense system, designed and developed by Israel and jointly funded through the United States, is a response to the threats Israel faces from short and medium-range rockets and mortar shells fired by Palestinian terrorists in Gaza.

The system has the capability to identify and destroy such projectiles before they land in Israeli territory and is considered one of the most effective anti-missile systems in the world.

Iron Dome is comprised of three key components:

(1) the design and tracking radar, built by the Elta defense company;

(2) the battle management and weapon control system, designed by the mPrest Systems software company; and,

(3) the missile firing unit, manufactured by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd.

One of the most advanced features of Iron Dome is its capability to determine where an incoming rocket will land and to only intercept such projectiles that pose meaningful threats to populated civilian areas.

Note the emphasis on directly focusing on threat to populated civilian areas.

A few years ago I was given the opportunity to be part of a press call by a senior supporter of the IDF/Iron Dome and he made a brilliant point. Because their Iron Dome resulted in fewer deaths of innocent Israel citizens, included targeted schools, the IAF could more accurately target their counter strikes to the identified point of origin.

The counter force strike had the potential for collateral damage because their very nasty opponents often launched from high value civilian areas where it was almost guaranteed innocents would die.

But with the introduction of the most accurate bombing aircraft to ever fly, the F-35, a new chapter in fighting in civilian –military conventional hybrid-wars is opening.

The Iron Dome not only saved Israeli lives but gave the IDF much more accuirate aim points in their appropriate retaliation.

Enter the F-35 or as the IDF calls it the Adir or “Strong  One”

Israel has struck targets in the Middle East with the F-35 Adir jet twice, making the Jewish state the first country to use the stealth fighter in a combat role in the region, Israel Air Force Commander Maj.-Gen. Amikam Norkin announced on Tuesday.

“We are flying the F-35 all over the Middle East. It has become part of our operational capabilities.

“We are the first to attack using the F-35 in the Middle East and have already attacked twice on different fronts,” he said during the IAF Senior Air Force Conference in Herzliya.

https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/IAF-commander-Israel-first-to-use-F-35-jet-in-combat-558030

For the first time in history, individual IAF F-35 pilots will have the best database of real time knowledge in the history of combat aviation.

And all of this is internal to their cockpit and enabled by advances in computer processing and sensor information fusing.

Each F-35 pilot combined with human sensing (seeing visual cues outside the cockpit) will be enabled by machine driven sensor fusion to allow combat “situational awareness” (SA) better than any other opponent.

Concurrent with their ability to look-see, which is limited by physical realities, the F-35 pilot will be able to “see” using cockpit electronic displays and signals to their helmet allowing them not to just fight with their individual aircraft but be able to network and direct engagements at significant range in 360 Degrees of 3 dimensional space out to all connected platforms.

A fleet of F-35s has the inherent capability to share their fused information displayed at the speed of light to other aircraft and other platforms, such as ships, subs, satellites, and land based forces, including UAVs and eventually robots.

Marrying the Adir with Iron Dome is the dawn of this next chapter of 21stCentury Kill Web integrated war fighting that will actually save lives on innocents on both sides.

Today over the skies of the Middle East a “tactical” aircraft is evolving into a key technology for strategic operations and impacts.

The Payload-Utility dynamic executed within a distributed kill web is leaving the legacy kill chain in the rear view mirror

Payload utility as practiced by IDF/IAF can be a driver for understanding the future development of combat systems.

It is the process of understanding the huge complexities in such a simple Payload/Utility formula that is the challenge.

Understanding the technology and human dynamic through an analytic filter of a Payload Utility function consisting of weapons (kinetic and TRON) and the dual components of Target Acquisition (TA) and Target Effectiveness (TE) effectiveness in a fighting fleet engaged in high or low intensity combat in the unforgiving cauldron of battle and mitigation of unfortunate collateral damage maybe a war winner.

Either in one platform, or melded into a unified fighting force to bring all different types of appropriate “weapons on” for the kill shot is a powerful concept.

America must always appreciate that no platform should fight alone if the Wynne Doctrine, named for 21st Century Secretary of Air Force, is employed: “If it is a fair fight someone failed in planning.”

A very simple filter to look at platform and weapons development within the integration of current weapon systems and platforms is asking the largest questions possible and pursuing force design and operational answers to these questions:

What does weapon or system add to fleet Payload/Utility?

How does this system help in TA?

How does this system help in TE?

What is the best weapon for the highest Pk against the target?

Is the TA, TE and Weapons (kinetic and Tron) carried together F-35 or separate?

So far every nation flying in the F-35 global enterprise can learn from the IDF combat leaders merging the Iron Dome and F-35 into a demonstrated and formidable building block in Kill Web con-ops, while saving lives or otherwise known by the military acronym, “collateral damage.”

 

 

 

With Success Like This, What Would Constitute Russian Failure?

I have a question.

Let’s presume Mueller’ indictments are valid.

Let us evaluate what we know.

Putin or some other Russian official charges the GRU (Army Intelligence) to effect secretly a specific outcome of the US presidential election.

In our system I think that means affecting votes, not changing vote totals.

These GRU operatives utilize servers in the US, set up blinds to conceal the true source of their activity and perform myriad nefarious deeds.

And what does the record seem to show:

1) they got detected while the op was on going,

2) their ruses didn’t work,

3) they get identified down to the name,

and 4) enough information is gathered about each of them to specifically charge and indict 12 of them.

I speculate that we learned a lot about methods and techniques that are used by the GRU cyberwarriors.

So your mission is to secretly affect the US election.  You proceeded, hacked, stole, and disseminated propaganda.

You were discovered and identified by name.

You gave away operational information.

And, according to the Deputy Director of the Justice Department, you did not affect one vote.

Did you successfully accomplish your mission?

Are you an example of ham-fisted bungling?

Do you relish going into your boss’ office to debrief him on the op?

Am I missing something?

Shouldn’t we be laughing at these bunglers.

If they want to sway voters wouldn’t be better to use their rubles to hire Saachi and run an ad campaign (the old-fashioned way)?

Col Mike Osajda Marine Corps is a retired JAG Officer.