We Win, They Lose

One of my first thoughts of hearing the wonderful news that Osama Bin Laden was killed by American special forces in a spectacular raid into Pakistan was a comment by Ronald Reagan. Reagan was asked his vision of how the Cold War with the Soviet Union would end, and Reagan replied, "We win, they lose."

While Bid Laden's death is not synonymous with victory in the war on terrorism, it certainly is an important piece: America lives and thrives, while one of our leading enemies is dead. That is the lesson we want all of America's enemies to fear, so as to prevent them from being our enemies in the first place.

Another thought that quickly came to mind was the contrast in the success of this mission with the abysmal failure of the 1980 effort to rescue the American hostages held by Iran. 30 years of an American military build up led by Ronald Reagan, which provided the capacity and confidence to gain operational experience from successful war fighting and special operations activities, have honed our military's skills today to a degree that dwarfs the capabilities of the U.S. military in 1980.

Lastly, the extraordinary skill and bravery of America's warriors is remarkable, and for which we should be very grateful. Without men such as these, we could not enjoy the quality of life we take for granted in America.

Military Preparedness

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has made various comments on why the United States can safely maintain a smaller navy and why we don't need to buy more F-22 fighters, the most advanced fighter plan in the world.

Regarding the U.S. Navy, Gates has said:

"It is important to remember that, as much as the U.S. battle fleet has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, the rest of the world's navies have shrunk even more. So, in relative terms, the U.S. Navy is as strong as it has ever been."

The problem is, the United States hasn't fought a significant naval battle since World War II, yet a powerful navy is critical to our national security. The reason is geography: we are (fortunately) far from many of the places in the world where wars and conflicts occur, and we need a powerful navy to project power from the Continental United States to up to 10,000 miles away.

As example, the United States has shrunk its aircraft carrier fleet from 15 to 11, and with a number of ships out of commission at any one time for refit and maintenance, we have not yet been able to deploy a carrier to the Mediterranean in case it is needed in action against Libya. Such a carrier is not relevant for defeating Libya's navy, but could be critical if we enforced a no-fly zone or provided tactical air support to the rebels.

Likewise, Gates has said we don't need more of the very expensive F-22 fighters.

But one of the problems in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya is that our military feels it needs to suppress Libyan air defense before allowing our F-15, F-16, or F-18 fighters to patrol over Libya. In reality, such air defense suppression could be done, but no doubt the Obama administration is wringing its hands because more of the enemy might be killed while taking out their air defenses.

However, another option could exist. The Wall Street Journal quotes a former top Pentagon official, who said:

"You could put a squadron of F-22s in southern Italy and it could operate inside Gadhafi's airspace with impunity" due to its stealth, the higher altitude at which it flies, and speed.

So even against a weak military like Libya, we could find great political and military advantage by using the F-22.

The Libyan situation is exposing real weaknesses in America's military preparedness. It is a profoundly disturbing fact.

Then and Now

North Korea's latest military attack on South Korea yesterday and its disclosure of building a uranium enrichment facility continues the tyrannical regime's efforts to extract concessions from the United States and South Korea.

The South Korea responded by saying it would take "stern measures" if attacked again.

Attacked again? But yesterday's attack was the "again" - after sinking the South Korean warship this past spring that killed 46 South Korean sailors.

In a similar vein of wanting to keep tensions to a minimum, the Obama administration initially said it wasn't deploying additional military forces to the region, citing our existing forces in South Korea, Japan, and Guam.

It is instructive to review our response to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 to see how far we've come in accepting threatening behavior today and attacks on us or our allies.

After the United States discovered that the Soviet Union had deployed nuclear missiles to Cuba, we imposed a quarantine on Cuba - a naval blockade in all but the name.

Vast military forces began to pour into our military bases in Florida and the Gulf coast as we prepared for a possible invasion of Cuba.

Most ominously, our nuclear-armed bombers in the Strategic Air Command greatly increased their air patrols and carried out attack runs aimed at the Soviet Union - each time pulling back before carrying out the attack but intending to intimidate the Soviets.

And the intimidation worked. Because despite the threat of looming war, which typically leads nations to at least prepare for war by deploying its forces accordingly, the Soviet Union didn't move a muscle. After starting the crisis with the deployment of its missiles, it then became terrified with America's overwhelming response and military superiority in the region and in nuclear weapons - so scared it didn't even prepare for war.

48 years ago, we responded to military threats by preparing for the worst, and in doing so, deterred war and obtained a better political settlement.

Today, we and our allies are the ones who are scared of preparing for war, and in so doing, increase the risk of war and of obtaining a worse political settlement.

Our enemies observe this, and plan accordingly. North Korea has had great success in pushing past previous "lines in the sand", only to find we don't really mean it and will appease them with concessions to avoid future provocations. Then North Korea repeats the cycle, crossing new lines in the sand and obtaining new concessions.

Will Barack Obama be up to the challenge to stop this dangerous pattern, that both Bill Clinton and George Bush engaged in?

Release the Doves

Do you feel safer now that the United States and Russia have reached an agreement in principle to reduce nuclear arms (see here)?

Because if you don't feel safer, then you get no benefit from this - since in reality such an agreement makes the world less safe.

The Obama crowd somehow believes if we limit our nuclear arsenal, it makes it less likely that Iran and other nations will develop their own nuclear weapons - as if America's overwhelming conventional military superiority was irrelevant to Iran's strategic considerations. This is, of course, ridiculous - our weak posture in the world as reflected in Obama's foreign policy, of which this nuclear treaty is just one example, emboldens Iran and America's enemies to think they can get away with their ambitions. Note French President Sarkozy's question last year about Obama: "Is he weak"?

America's nuclear deterrent is directed against many threats and to protecting its many allies. We need to deter Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and possible new extrants to the nuclear club like Iran - and protect under our nuclear umbrella large chunks of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Russia doesn't protect anyone with its nuclear weapons other than itself and maybe Belarus. We need a nuclear arsenal of sufficient size, modernization, and flexibility to address this multitude of concerns, not one driven by a good photo op and diplomatic "win" for Obama.

The nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia have been shrinking without a formal treaty requiring such reductions, reflecting the diminished tensions between the two nations. Russia's arsenal is on a path to continued declines, reflecting its relative poverty as compared to America - as Joe Biden so aptly stated it last year.

So we are proposing a treaty that either codifies that which will happen anyway and/or limit our flexibility to deal with a a greater number of nuclear powers. And we have been anxious to strike such a bargain with Russia, who has naturally seen our anxiety and taken advantage of it in the negotiations.

More of the "change" voters probably didn't bargain for in November 2008.

Three Cheers for Thomas Friedman

You will rarely hear me say good things about the columnists in the New York Times, but Thomas Friedman's column on what Barack Obama should do with winning the Nobel Peace Prize is truly outstanding.

The premise of the column is that Obama should state, when giving his acceptance speech, that he cannot accept the prize on behalf of himself. Instead, he accept it on behalf of the greatest peacekeepers in the world for the past 100 years - the U.S. military. Friedman writes what he thinks Obama's acceptance speech should say, with this key quote:

"Let me begin by thanking the Nobel committee for awarding me this prize, the highest award to which any statesman can aspire. As I said on the day it was announced, 'I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize.' Therefore, upon reflection, I cannot accept this award on my behalf at all.

But I will accept it on behalf of the most important peacekeepers in the world for the last century - the men and women of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corp."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Russia Wins Again

Barack Obama keeps on handing victories to Russia on important matters. The latest victory is Obama's decision to abandon plans to place missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend Europe against a missile attack from Iran.

Although the system would have had only 10 interceptors, far too few to thwart a Russian missile attack, Russia felt threatened by the system. So Obama has accommodated Russian pressure, at the expense of our allies who took risks to help defend the region.

Obama's decision comes on the heels of Russia announcing it won't support sanctions against Iran. Perhaps with this gift, Russia will change its mind.

This incident also highlights that bombing Iran is not just the only viable alternative to stopping its nuclear activities, but that the price we are paying to try to stop them through diplomacy keeps on growing.

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Missile Defense

As these recent Wall Street Journal articles (see here and here) illustrate, the Obama administration is significantly reducing spending on defensive systems to stop a ballistic missile attack. Obama would rather the United States have no defense against missile attack, so our enemies feel "safer" and be comfortable in not developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

Instead, our enemies such as Iran see such behavior as further encouragement to develop these weapons, since we appear weak in our resolve to stop them.

Real Stimulus

The WSJ article on the building of a new military vehicle illustrates that defense spending is "stimulus" spending too, according to those who believe government spending "stimulates" the economy.

As I discussed earlier (see here), one of the few categories of spending that didn't increase in Obama's "stimulus" plan was defense spending - despite the wear and tear our military equipment has incurred in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and despite the fact that the military has long-range plans to acquire weapons that could be accelerated in an economic downturn to provide jobs today without increasing government spending over a longer-term budget cycle.

And the fact that such spending didn't increase, gives the lie as to what the Democrats' plan was all about - spending money on Democratic constituents and priorities.

Who Needs Missile Defense Anyway?

Barack Obama's defense budget cuts missile defense spending, at the very time Iran and North Korea are making progress on developing ballistic missiles.

Astounding, but true.

And why would they do this?

Because they believe, in the spirit of arms control, that by renouncing defensive capabilities we can make our enemies less nervous and reduce their weapons development.

Instead, Iran and North Korea will be emboldened to develop their missiles if they believe less defenses exist to shoot them down. If we had robust defensive systems, or at least they perceived we did, they would worry that their massive investment in missile development would be wasted.

Of course, the administration has also moved the defensive systems we have to Hawaii to protect it in case North Korea launched missiles towards us - the same systems that so many in the administration advocated against when developed under George Bush.

So much for the new "realism" in our foreign and defense policies.

Defending America

The United States is moving missile defense systems to Hawaii, as news reports indicate North Korea may be planning a ballistic missile launch toward the islands.

In a different age, when a nation carried out a military attack against another, a severe response (usually war) was the result.

We have been "dumbing down deviancy" for a long time on the international stage, such that attacks against America have not resulted in a vigorous response by us. Recall in 1993 when George H.W. Bush visited Kuwait, Iraqi agents attempted to assassinate him but failed.

Our response? We lobbed some cruise missiles at Iraq without much impact. With such ineffectual responses to acts of war, we should not be surprised when other nations learn the lesson that they don't pay a fearful price for attacking, or attempting to attack, us.

If North Korea does launch a missile toward Hawaii, we should respond vigorously. One place to start is to board their ships on the high seas that we suspect of shipping weapons. Or by striking back at the site of their missile launch.

D-Day

I wonder how many Americans think of D-Day, not just when reminded of it on the news, but in the days leading up to it: bringing it to mind, considering its great place in American and world history, and giving a silent thanks to the American military personnel who fought to free Europe of totalitarianism and to defeat the Nazis.

I also wonder how many people in western Europe think of it, since D-Day represented the beginning of the end of the war and Nazi occupation in Europe, and without the colossal effort by America to wage two enormous wars simultaneously during World War II, one against Japan who attacked America and one against Germany who hadn't, Europeans would have lived for many years, and might still be living, under totalitarian regimes.

It Was Nice While It Lasted

Barack Obama's decision to release the memos on the CIA interrogation techniques means we will get much less useful information from terrorists, who now know we won't even scare them into telling us useful information.

We are led to believe that putting harmless insects in enclosed spaces, while leading the prisoner to believe the insects are dangerous, is bad. But it is OK to launch missile strikes on suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In other words, scaring terrorists is bad, killing them is good.

As bad as all that is for our security, it is possibly not the worst aspect of this.

By not firmly and decisively rejecting prosecutions and investigations into Bush administration officials, Obama has exposed as a joke that he wanted to heal the partisanship wounds in Washington. To consider criminalizing policy differences is a new low in our politics.

The peaceful transition of power, from one party to another, is one of the great achievements in American history. It rests on the premise that the defeated party only loses political power - the members of that party don't lose their freedom or lives. So losing an election is bad, but not that bad.

Now Obama and the Democrats are raising the specter that this great principle and tradition is at risk. And it is critical that it be a tradition, so that each party has confidence it won't be prosecuted when it leaves office.

I wonder how many Obama voters thought the change they were voting for included putting at risk America's unprecedented history of peaceful transitions of power?

Americans Fight Back

You have to admire the bravery and determination of the American crew of the freighter Alabama that fought off the pirates that attacked their ship, and the attempt by their kidnapped captain to escape.

If only their nation, and the international community, took the matter of piracy as seriously as their efforts to defend themselves. The United States has already done far more than any other nation to deal with the pirate threat, but it hasn't been enough.

The number of ships in the Navy continues to decline, as we degrade our naval capabilities. We have about 280 ships in the fleet, down by over half from the Reagan-era peak. Fewer ships means we cover less of the surface area of the globe with our naval forces.

But just as importantly, we need to pursue a strategy that takes the battle to the pirates' base in Somali. Just like terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan who find it hard to plan attacks on America while fighting our troops in their region, so we should make the pirates defend themselves in their bases and homes, to deflect their energies from attacking ships at sea and defeat them.

China and Russia Rejoice

The Obama administration released its blueprint for defense spending, which calls for a reduction in spending on advanced weapon systems with a focus on spending on counter-insurgency weapons such as drones.

Unfortunately, such advanced weapons are an important part of preventing a military confrontation with China and Russia through deterrence. For example, all China needs is a local advantage near its territory, such as in a conflict over Taiwan, whereas American needs a predominance of power throughout the world to defend our interests and protect freedom.

The latter requires a plethora of advanced weapons, in addition to counter-insurgency capabilities.

The odds of a war with China or Russia at some point in the future just increased with Obama's new plan.

Stimulus Spending that Makes Sense

The Democrats' "stimulus" bill that recently passed was noticeably short on added spending in one area where the extra spending could be effective and not increase deficits over the next five years: military spending, particularly arms procurement.

The military plans to purchase weapons systems over time, so a sensible stimulus plan would have been to accelerate weapons purchases that would occur anyway. This would expand defense contractor' employment today, at the cost of such employment several years from now when presumably the economy is recovering.

Moreover, the spending would be on goods that we were planning to buy anyway, as compared to squandering our tax dollars on politically attractive projects or spending for spending's sake.

There is no stronger evidence of the "stimulus" bill being a vehicle to spend money on Democrats' pet projects, causes, and constituencies than this.

China Games

China seems to be up to its old tricks. In a recent incident, five Chinese ships surrounded the USNS Impeccable, a U.S. Navy surveillance ship, in international waters. The five Chinese vessels harassed the Impeccable and its crew, before the ships separated.

This is reminiscent of an incident during the first few months of the Bush administration, when in April 2001 one of our surveillance planes collided with a Chinese fighter jet that was pressuring our plane to leave its patrol area. Our plane had to make an emergency landing on Chinese soil, which prompted China to hold its crew and plane hostage before releasing the crew (but they kept the plane).

The incident's significance lie in China's efforts to test the mettle of President Obama. Our response should be to increase our patrols and surveillance activities, to demonstrate we won't be intimated.

I wonder if, in fact, we are doing that.

The Air Force Caves

The Air Force announced it has reduced the number of its next generation lead fighter, the F-22, that it wants to acquire. Secretary of Defense Gates has pressed the armed forces to devote its weapons procurement toward fighting the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than potential wars against other threats.

While of course we need to fight the current wars to victory, there is a grave danger that we are losing sight of other strategic needs. The F-22 isn't critical to fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is important to maintaining superiority over Russia and China.

Gates may be re-writing the old saying that "generals are always fighting the last war", with "the Defense Secretary is ignoring future wars and what it takes to deter them".

Media Silence

Barack Obama announced his plan to deploy 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, continuing the Bush administrations policy of increasing America's efforts in that country. While Obama also announced that a review of our Afghan strategy is underway, which could lead to additional troops being deployed, it is important to note that the U.S. commander in Afghanistan asked for 30,000 troops.

So why are we delivering fewer troops than the military believes is necessary? Remember the howls directed against George Bush for supposedly doing the same thing?

The silence is deafening.

Pakistan 1, Obama 0

Other nations continue to push their foreign policy objectives as they test the boundaries of how strongly Barack Obama will defend America's interests and values in the world.

Russia is posing obstacles to our efforts in Afghanistan and is flexing its muscles regarding its gas exports to Europe, and we have rewarded their behavior with a softening on our position on stationing a missile defense system in Eastern Europe and on Georgia's ascension to NATO.

Pakistan has released from house arrest A.Q. Khan, who sold nuclear weapons technology to North Korea.

North Korea appears to be making preparations for another test of its ballistic missile capabilities.

Iran launched a satellite into orbit, now the only country in the world who can launch a satellite but doesn't possess nuclear weapons. Yet.

If Barack Obama doesn't start making other nations pay a price for thwarting important goals of our international diplomacy, we should expect more of these disturbing developments.

The UN: Jokers' Wild

A recent incident speaks volumes about the ability of the world to take serious steps to thwart Iran and other thuggish regime - ultimately showing how dangerous the UN is to world peace.

The U.S Navy recently intercepted and searched a suspicious Iranian-chartered ship. The search revealed it contained weapons, purportedly bound for Syria but suspected by the Navy to be bound for Hamas.

In either case, UN resolutions prohibit Iran from exporting weapons and allow nations to inspect ships suspected of smuggling them - but do not allow the ships to be seized.

So our Navy let the ship go.

This is the type of "pressure" on Iran we have secured from the UN. It is a joke: if the Navy can't seize the ship, Iran won't stop attempting to arm the terrorists Even worse, it deludes us into thinking UN actions are effective in pressuring Iran when they are not.

This is what happens when the authoritarian and anti-American regimes in Russia and China have veto power over coordinated international action. Along with outrages such as the UN Commission on Human Rights being populated by the worst human rights abusers, giving Russian and China such veto power and creating the false impression of "doing something" generally makes the UN a force for ill in the world.