More on the Drone Revolution

The Christian Science Monitor has an extensive article on the latest developments in drone technology that is worth reading.

"We're not about 20 years, or 10 years, or even five years away – a lot of this could be out in the field in under two years," says Mitchell Zatkin, former director of programmable matter at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, the Pentagon's premier research office.

The drone revolution and its continuing impact is fascinating to any student of military history and technology. As the article points out,

The development of a new generation of military robots, including armed drones, may eventually mark one of the biggest revolutions in warfare in generations. Throughout history, from the crossbow to the cannon to the aircraft carrier, one weapon has supplanted another as nations have strived to create increasingly lethal means of allowing armies to project power from afar.

The impact of the drone revolution on warfare is so dramatic that it creates numerous possibilities and raises many questions. If as expected, we eventually progress from the use of armed drones to true robots, acting according to programming as opposed to being under direct human command, we may have seen nothing yet.

In the not-too-distant future, military officials envision soldiers and robots teaming up in the field, with the troops able to communicate with machines the way they would with a human squad team member. Eventually, says Thompson, the robot-soldier relationship could become even more collaborative, with one human soldier leading many armed robots.

The whole article is extremely interesting reading.

Weak Argument Against the Death Penalty

One of the weaker arguments against the death penalty is that it is applied unfairly, therefore it should be abolished. This is the line taken in a New York Times editorial on the military version of the death penalty. Here's the crux of the argument.

Minority service members are more than twice as likely as whites — after accounting for the crimes’ circumstances and the victims’ race — to be sentenced to death, according to a forthcoming study co-written by David Baldus, an eminent death-penalty scholar, who died in June.

The analysis is so disturbing because the military has made sustained, often successful efforts to rid its ranks of discrimination. But even with this record, its failure to apply the death penalty fairly is more proof that capital punishment cannot be free of racism’s taint. It is capricious, barbaric and discriminatory, and should be abolished.

First of all, this type of study proves nothing. It is impossible to say with certainty that a white service member would not have gotten the death penalty in the cases where a minority received it, because a white person was not on trial. We are dealing with hypotheticals. Second, it is quite possible that there are factors more important than supposed racial bias that influenced the death sentences, and that they involve the individual circumstances of each case. And most importantly, even if minorities are more likely to get the death penalty because of racism, that doesn't mean we have to throw out the death penalty. Why not take measures to ensure that sentences are fair and not based on a defendant's race? In other words, why not fix the military death penalty rather than eliminate it?

If we have something that works or is beneficial but is tainted in its operation by racism, we don't just scrap it. We fix it. For example, if a corporation discriminates against minority workers we don't close it down. We bring lawsuits and legal judgments which force it to alter its practices. Now you can certainly argue that the death penalty doesn't work and isn't beneficial, but that's a different argument. Saying we should simply do away with the military death penalty because some statistics correlate with apparent racial bias is a weak argument, the kind made by those already biased against the penalty and looking for any plausible excuse to do away with it.

US Marines Training in Israel

There's an interesting post at Elder of Ziyon about a US/Israeli joint military training program.

As part of the ongoing cooperation between the Israeli Defense Forces and the US Armed Forces stationed in Europe, a company of US Marines came to Israel for a month of intensive training at IDF facilities and alongside IDF soldiers. Dividing their time between the Adam Base in central Israel and the Tze'elim Base in the south, the soldiers trained in urban and cautious warfare, reconnaissance, and at various shooting ranges.

The Israelis have built an entire mock town for urban warfare training. According to Israel Today, this facility has been used extensively by U.S. forces training to go to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Staying in Iraq

I've been saying for years that we aren't leaving Iraq any time soon, despite our supposed withdrawal date, and a report from the Washington Post appears to confirm that assumption.

U.S. officials welcomed on Wednesday Iraq’s decision to negotiate with Washington on keeping some U.S. troops in the country into next year ... Iraq’s top political leaders agreed late Tuesday that the Iraqi military needs to continue training programs with U.S. forces, marking the first step in a process that still could take months to resolve.

On the one hand the U.S. has good reasons for retaining a military presence in Iraq, which are laid out in the article. But the problems lie in the details.

Significant details that remain unresolved include the length and focus of any training program, how many U.S. troops such training might require and how Iraqi leaders would formally request and approve a new partnership. Mullen and his colleagues also want legal immunity for any troops who stay behind.

One huge detail not mentioned is who is going to pay for the continuing U.S. presence. If Iraq wants and needs U.S. troops to remain in its country beyond the agreed upon withdrawal date, it should provide the financial support for that presence. With our fiscal situation as it is, we should not continue to maintain large foreign deployments, plus the aid programs that go with them, at our expense.

Nashiri Cole Bombing Trial

Abd al Rahim al Nashiri faces a military trial accused of bombing the U.S.S. Cole back in 2008. This case illustrates the difficulty inherent in trying to use normal legal rules -- even military court -- to deal with foreign terrorist enemies. Nashiri was waterboarded, held in a secret prison, and subjected to other harsh interrogation techniques, so naturally his lawyers say the case is "tainted." They know he isn't going free, but they argue to spare him the death penalty. Under normal legal rules the case is definitely tainted, as long as you forget that this man isn't an American citizen or a legal resident, but a foreign enemy that attacked a U.S. warship that wasn't even engaging in any warfare at the time. I give him credit for striking a military target instead of the usual preferred soft targets, but summary execution was still warranted for what he did.

Ideally Nashiri should have been quietly executed years ago, after we extracted all useful information, preferably by using rendition to send him someplace that would do it for us. But now, years later, putting him on trial is a farce.. After three years we are going to charge him with crimes and ask for the death penalty? There's no purpose to this trial. He's been sitting in jail since we captured him, and should continue to sit until he dies. The trial gives a veneer of legalism to our continued confinement of a dangerous Al Qaeda member. But it fools no one. People like me see it as unnecessary, and people who think Nashiri has rights are going to view it as a kangaroo court rubber-stamping a preordained outcome.

Abdication of Responsibility by Military Leaders

Top U.S. commanders essentially confirmed that the president's announced 10,000 man withdrawal from Afghanistan was done for political reasons. For example,

"The president's decisions are more aggressive and incur more risk that I was originally prepared to accept," Admiral Mullen said. ... Petraeus said, "the ultimate decision was a more aggressive formulation, if you will, in terms of the timeline than what we had recommended." ... Petraeus said he supports the president's decision and will carry it out, but he refused to say he is comfortable with it.

Robert Kagan claims military commanders "know Obama's decision is a disaster."

The entire military leadership believes the president’s decision is a mistake, and especially the decision to withdraw the remainder of the surge forces by September 2012. They will soldier on and do their best, but as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, put it, in characteristic understatement, they believe the decision will increase the risk to the troops and increase the chance that the mission will not succeed.

Let's assume this is true, and the statements by Mullen and Petraeus indicate that it might be. Kagan writes,

Under our Constitution, military leaders have no choice but to endorse the president’s decision after giving him their best advice. They could resign, of course, but to have the entire senior military leadership resign over a president’s decision contrary to their advice would be a disaster, and not least for the troops on the ground.

Kagan is dead wrong. If our military leaders truly believe that the president's decision is disaster done for political reasons, they have a duty to resign in protest. You can't have it both ways. If you go along with the president, then you automatically sign off on the plan. When you get to the level of a General Petraeus or an Admiral Mullen, you have a duty to resign if you feel that the president is doing the wrong thing and will harm U.S. national interests.

When is the last time a high-ranking officer resigned in protest of a presidential policy decision on military affairs? Today we have military officers who don't want to end their careers, and just go along with things they supposedly feel are terrible decisions. In my opinion that's an abdication of responsibility.

The Drone Revolution

When we look back at the past decade from a military history perspective, one of the things that stands out is the rise of unmanned drones as a key weapon of warfare. Today's New York Times has an article called, "War Evolves With Drones, Some Tiny as Bugs," that looks at current research and advances in drone technology. Here are some of the key points.

From blimps to bugs, an explosion in aerial drones is transforming the way America fights and thinks about its wars. ... far less widely known are the sheer size, variety and audaciousness of a rapidly expanding drone universe, along with the dilemmas that come with it.

The Pentagon now has some 7,000 aerial drones, compared with fewer than 50 a decade ago. Within the next decade the Air Force anticipates a decrease in manned aircraft but expects its number of “multirole” aerial drones like the Reaper — the ones that spy as well as strike — to nearly quadruple, to 536. Already the Air Force is training more remote pilots, 350 this year alone, than fighter and bomber pilots combined.

The roles and uses of drones will continue to expand, on land, sea, air and in space. The Times article looks at miniaturization and efforts to copy the flight of insects, but there are numerous other applications and possibilities for drone technology.

One thing is rarely mentioned in the many articles I've read about drones: defense against them. At the moment we are the leading user of drones and at the forefront of drone technology. Our opponents are non-state forces that are relatively low-tech in comparison. But at some point we might face an adversary with a sophisticated drone arsenal of its own, especially as drone technology not only becomes more advanced, but more widespread. With our extensive research efforts in developing drones, I hope we are also devoting some resources to defensive measures against enemy systems.

Greatest U.S. Military Victory?

National Review had a poll up yesterday asking readers to vote for the greatest U.S. military victory. I found that interesting, but I have problems with some of the selections and the results. I can't link the poll directly, but this was the list with percentage of votes:

• Trenton 8%
• Yorktown 12%
• Mexico City 1%
• Vicksburg 1%
• Gettysburg 9%
• Manila Bay 0%
• Belleau Wood 1%
• Midway 23%
• D-Day 34%
• The Bulge 5%
• Iwo Jima 5%
• Desert Storm 1%

Given those options, I voted for Yorktown. In my opinion it's difficult to argue with the victory that forced an end to Britain's reconquest attempt, and signaled that the U.S. would be established as an independent country. But looking at the two choices from the Revolutionary War reveals a glaring omission. Where's Saratoga? It was far more significant than Trenton and led to direct French involvement as an American ally, a development that was critical to U.S. success and crucial in the culminating victory at Yorktown.

Then there is the Civil War. I wouldn't nominate any battle of Americans fighting Americans as one of our greatest victories. That being said, 1% for Vicksburg vs. 9% for Gettysburg is ridiculous. In my opinion that just demonstrates that most people don't know much about military history. Gettysburg was a big important battle that turned back a heavy Confederate raid into Union territory. Arguably it crushed any chance for foreign intervention. But Vicksburg was not only a military masterpiece, it effectively severed the Confederacy into two pieces. At the very least it should be given equal weight.

I have no comment on the Spanish-American War or the WW1 selection, but then we come to WW2 and the biggest vote-getters. D-day? With the exception of Desert Storm -- which shouldn't have been included at all, given that it was a victory over a third-rate power that was completely outclassed -- all the other poll options are battles. Do they mean the entire Normandy Campaign, or just the landings? It is also worth pointing out that the Normandy campaign involved a massive British effort, and support from other allies including the Canadians, Free French, Poles and others. I wouldn't claim it as the greatest U.S. victory.

How about the Pacific? At sea, where is Leyte Gulf, the greatest naval battle of all time? If you have Iwo, why not Okinawa or Saipan? And where is Guadalcanal? Unlike Iwo, which for all the savage fighting was a foregone U.S. victory, Guadalcanal was in doubt for a long time and was fought on much more equal terms, on land, sea and air. In my opinion it was our greatest island victory in the Pacific. At sea I would vote for Midway, for similar reasons. The U.S. was actually at a force disparity yet inflicted a crushing defeat on the Imperial Japanese Navy.

Bin Laden Finally Eliminated

I was watching the Phillies - Mets game, still in progress as I write this, when the announcement came. Bin Laden, aside from being a murderous enemy, was a tough survivor. The Soviet Union couldn't manage to kill him, and we've been after him for at least ten years. As many suspected he was hiding out in Pakistan. It's great to see the U.S. pull off an effective covert operation, kill our most wanted terrorist enemy, and sustain no casualties in the process.

Covert teams assigned to kill enemy leaders should be one of our main weapons in this asymmetric war against radical Islamic non-state terrorists. It's unclear exactly who comprised this particular team, but based on first reports it appears to have been a CIA/military collaboration.
The death of Bin Laden should send a message to other enemies that if we can find and kill him, we can kill them too.

The Last U.S. World War One Veteran is Dead

In the entire world there were two veterans of World War I alive on Saturday, and now there is only one. Frank Buckles enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1917. He died yesterday at the age of 110. I wrote a brief post and linked an article about him a year ago.

"Feminizing" the Medal of Honor?

I was skimming Memeorandum and came across one of the more bizarre articles I've seen in awhile. Bryan Fischer, writing at a blog called "The Moral Liberal," argues that the Medal of Honor has become "feminized" because we aren't awarding it to people for killing the enemy.

we used the think of our boys storming the beaches of Normandy under withering fire, climbing the cliffs of Pointe do Hoc while enemy soldiers fired straight down on them, and tossing grenades into pill boxes to take out gun emplacements. ...That kind of heroism has apparently become passe when it comes to awarding the Medal of Honor. We now award it only for preventing casualties, not for inflicting them. ...So the question is this: when are we going to start awarding the Medal of Honor once again for soldiers who kill people and break things so our families can sleep safely at night? I would suggest our culture has become so feminized that we have become squeamish at the thought of the valor that is expressed in killing enemy soldiers through acts of bravery.

How many things are wrong with this argument? Let's see. First, it's idiotic. The reason the majority of Medal of Honor's (MOH) are posthumous is that they are often awarded for amazing acts of self-sacrifice, such as falling on a grenade. This is not something new. In what way is throwing yourself on a grenade to save your comrades "feminine"?

By his use of "feminized" as a pejorative, Fischer takes an idiotic argument and combines it with misogyny. But not only is Fischer's argument a blend of stupidity and misogyny, it's also factually incorrect. Here's part of the MOH citation for Sergeant First Class Paul Smith, for actions during the Iraq War.

Sergeant First Class Smith quickly organized a hasty defense consisting of two platoons of soldiers, one Bradley Fighting Vehicle and three armored personnel carriers. As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round. Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier. In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers.

Like many MOH winners, Sgt. Smith not only sacrificed his life, he inflicted major casualties on the enemy. In other words, unlike what Fischer believes, part of the reason Smith won the MOH was because he effectively killed the enemy. It seems clear that Fischer has never bothered to read through the MOH citations available online. If he had, maybe he could have saved himself the embarrassment of posting such a ludicrous column.

Blow-up Weapons

Not exploding ones, weapons that are filled with air. There's an interesting article at BBC News about Russian inflatable weapons.

A turret appears, then out pops a long plastic gun barrel. This is an inflatable Russian tank. ... When the men pump up their next piece of plastic, this one expands into a S-300 rocket launcher, complete with giant truck and inflatable rockets. ... waiting to be blown up are inflatable MiG fighter jets - even entire Russian radar stations. ... They are made of a special material that tricks enemy radar and thermal imaging into thinking they are real weapons.

One thing that the Soviet military was very good at in World War Two was deception. They call it maskirovka, and it has been a fundamental feature of Soviet and now Russian military doctrine. As Globalsecurity.org points out,

The goal of maskirovka is to make the enemy concentrate his forces against false threats and uselessly expend his means of destruction on them. ... they also do it actively, through the use of dummy structures, electronic warfare, false maneuvers, and various other methods.

These blow-up dummies are cheap and have the potential to be extremely effective, not just in manipulating enemy intelligence/observations, but in causing significant diversions of resources away from real threats. These dummies might actually cause more problems for an opponent than some real weapon systems.

Incompetent Whiner-in-Chief

Since he's become president, rather than act as a leader, President Obama's first resort has been to whine, complain and blame others. The latest revelations from Bob Woodward's book provide more confirmation of the lack of leadership at the top. While running for president, Obama had all sorts of criticism for George Bush's war strategy. You might have thought that he'd take office knowing what he wanted to accomplish, with a plan ready to carry out. Instead, as Dick Cheney accurately pointed out, Obama spent months dithering over what to do in Afghanistan. 

Woodward's book reveals -- as many people had already observed -- that Obama didn't have the slightest idea what to do in Afghanistan, other than a vague notion of getting out as fast as possible. Obama's main "plan" was simply to "limit U.S. involvement and provide a way out," despite repeatedly bashing Bush for not putting enough emphasis on the war there. But even though he just wanted to run away, as most people suspected, he lacked the competence and leadership to force through some sort of exit strategy. According to Woodward's account, he allowed himself to be bullied by his military advisers against his own wishes. Instead of ordering them to come up with an exit plan, he was reduced to fighting a rear guard action aimed at limiting an increase in U.S. forces in the country. That's how we got to the typical political half-measure: an Afghan surge with less troops than the military wanted.

Read the article for yourself and remember that this man is supposed to be commander-in-chief, not a community organizer conducting negotiations with slumlords over the latest rent increases.

Military Religious Freedom Foundation Wants to Distribute Korans

Seriously. An organization supposedly dedicated to the First Amendment, and keeping religion a private matter within the military, is actually organizing a drive to give Korans to the Afghan Army.

After being contacted by scores of our active duty military clients asking us to do something in response to Terry Jones’s planned “Burn A Koran Day,” MRFF has decided that the most appropriate response would not be to try to stop Jones, but to donate to the Afghan National Army, as a gesture of good will and a statement of opposition to this entirely un-American act of religious bigotry, a new Qur’an for each one destroyed by Jones and his followers.

They are responding to an actual exercise of freedom of religion -- albeit an obnoxious one -- by promoting the Islamic scriptures. According to their own mission statement,

No religion or religious philosophy may be advanced by the United States Armed Forces over any other religion or religious philosophy.

So why are they going to distribute Korans? What does the Afghan Army have to do with a single civilian Christian fanatic making a symbolic personal statement inside the U.S.? This organization that is supposedly so concerned with equality among religious beliefs within the U.S. military is pandering to Afghans where Islamic supremacy is the rule.

What are the odds of the MRFF ever distributing Bibles to the U.S. Army under any circumstances whatsoever, even if Muslims fanatics burned a 10,000 Bible pyramid in downtown Kabul? The Military Religious Freedom Foundation -- except when religious freedom involves doing something that offends Muslims. Then it's the Military Koran Distribution Foundation.

h/t Friendly Atheist

Things Few People Know About

Did you know that the U.S. just completed its first-ever military exercise with Cambodia?

The recently completed US-Cambodia military drills, known as "Angkor Sentinel 10", involved 1,200 soldiers from 23 countries and were ostensibly part of Washington's Global Peace Operations Initiative, a program run jointly by the US Department of Defense and State Department to help train global peacekeepers against insurgency, terrorism, crime and ethnic conflict.

According to the article, although it had token multinational participation, it was primarily a U.S.-Cambodian affair. The U.S. has been providing funding and training for the Cambodian military since 2006. Along with military assistance, the U.S. is also providing economic aid.

Washington is currently one of Cambodia's largest donors with more than $72 million in assistance this year focused on health, education, economic development and government accountability. The US donated $65 million in 2009.

The whole article is interesting reading, and provides many more details, including the controversial nature of U.S. involvement with the Cambodian armed forces, which don't exactly have a sterling reputation. In the view of Clifford McCoy, the author, U.S. aid to Cambodia is part of a contest for influence with China. The quest to buy friends continues. 

McChrystal Gets the Axe

President Obama has relieved General Stanley McChrystal of command for insubordination. It's pretty rare that Obama actually does something I advocated, so I'm a bit surprised. Obama should be congratulated for actually making a tough decision for a change, instead of dithering, waffling, and weaseling, as is his normal practice. 

According to the LA Times. General Petraeus will step in and take charge in Afghanistan. It will be interesting to see what Gen. McChrystal does now. Will he go on the attack against the adminstration, or retire gracefully? Whatever he does, Obama did the right thing in removing him.

Fire General McChrystal

Is President Obama an incompetent amateur with an administration full of second-rate appointees? Yes. But I'm saying that as an unknown blogger. I don't work for the government, and I'm not commanding the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. Regardless of what you think about the Obama administration, the comments by General Stanley McChrystal and his staff are way out of line, a clear case of insubordination and attempting to undermine the civilian leadership. That type of behavior should not be tolerated from someone in his position. It's an embarrassment not only to the administration, but to the U.S. as a whole. It exposes the dissension within the ranks of our leaders to our enemies, and it's completely unnecessary.

General McChrystal is well-aware that he went way over the line, but he did it deliberately. His apology is not enough. President Obama needs to exercise some actual leadership for a change, and fire the general. Is it any wonder that we constantly have secret information leaking to the press, when even a high-ranking general like McChrystal thinks he can talk to reporters with impunity? We don't need generals who can't keep their mouths shut. If McChrystal wanted to criticize the administration, he should have done the honorable thing and resigned. But he'd rather have it both ways -- keep his job, and undermine those who are above him through the press.

Relieving McChrystal of command will be difficult. It will free him to launch even nastier and more embarrassing public criticism of the administration, and will be used as an issue against the president. Most likely it will cause at least some disruption in our war efforts in Afghanistan, as a new command team takes charge. But the president should do it anyway. 

I'll Second That

From Politico:

A group of leading military bloggers has issued a joint statement urging Congress to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

In my opinion it is past time to allow gay people to serve openly in the military. Will there be problems? Yes. Will it cripple the military and destroy readiness as opponents suggest? No. There is no reasonable justification for throwing otherwise qualified and capable members of the military out of the service, simply because of their sexual orientation. Kicking people out for being gay is both stupid and unjust. It's time for our official policies to stop catering to bigotry against homosexuals.

School Lunches Affect National Security?

It sounds like an Onion News piece, but there is a story up at ABC News called, "School Lunches Are a Threat to National Security, Retired Officials Say." A group called Mission Readiness: Military Leaders for Kids, claims that they have identified a

dramatic increase of obesity among young adults age 17 to 24 – a trend that is reducing the pool of healthy young adults available for military service.

They argue that healthier school lunches are needed in order to reduce problems finding physically fit military recruits. I find this line of argument both ridiculous and dangerous.

First of all, despite the supposed problems getting physically fit recruits, we seem to have had little problem filling the ranks of the armed forces. This appears to be a manufactured "crisis" based on nothing. Second, whenever someone advocates more government manipulation of the population, let alone children, for reasons of national security, that should be a cause for alarm. Consider this statement.

The reason school lunch reform is so key, Moore added, is that school is an environment in which "we can get to kids" and influence what they eat. At home, it's much harder to change these habits, she said.

"We can get to kids." I don't want the government deciding what my kids need to eat in order to make them good military recruits. How about if schools just provide a decent, balanced selection of food and let it go at that?

I also question another assumption behind this whole idea. Is there any evidence that school lunches have gotten unhealthier over the years? Were school lunches ten, twenty or thirty years ago healthier than they are now? I recall eating all sorts of junk food items when I was in school. Why are school lunches suddenly a big issue?

Sonic Assault in Marjah

I knew we used loud music as an interrogation tactic, but apparently we are also using it for wider psychological operations in Afghanistan.

US special forces in Marjah have hit upon the genius idea of blasting deafening Metallica, Thin Lizzy and Offspring tunes in the general direction of suspected insurgent strong-holds in a bid to root out hard rock-averse guerrillas. ... Marines in Marjah, a farming community in the middle of Afghanistan's poppy belt, have rigged up an armoured vehicle with massive speakers that can be heard up to a mile away. "Taliban hate that music," explains one officer of a multiple-hour playlist that includes the aforementioned rockers interspersed with Afghan government propaganda and death threats.

Unfortunately, according to the article, it annoys the locals in general, not just the Taliban. And apparently it wasn't authorized, since a Lieutenant Colonel in the area is quoted as saying that he's going to put a stop to it.

I can see blasting music like that to motivate the troops before an attack or another major operation, but I have my doubts that just playing music, no matter how loud, is actually going to drive out insurgents. Maybe the idea is to provoke them into attacking, so they can then be killed. That's a time-honored military tactic.