Since US editorials have become so partisan it is difficult to find good analysis these days, independent forums and blogs are slowly becoming the last place for thoughtful discussion regarding strategies unfolding, and even they break down into political bias before discussions get momentum.
The election of 2006 in the United States has made a decisive impact on war strategy and war related events. It is not unique, major elections and other political events within the democracy of the United States has shaped virtually every war including the Revolutionary War. In fact, only 1 war in US history has avoided public political descent from politicians during the actual fighting phase of the war. Ironically, that war happened in the vast majority of the worlds populations lifetime, in 1991 in the Gulf War.
Since that 2006 election, several major events that will undoubtedly mark new chapters in future history books have occurred regarding the United States military operations and wars in the Middle East and Africa. While these events have been reported in the news, and analyzed through the prism of partisanship driving all discussions about the war in the media and politics, little actual analysis has taken place to date. Perhaps it is time, as events are now happening that paint what is coming, and shape potential events in the future. These insights into the near future allow some leverage by independent observers like us, and is what I consider the foundation of interesting discussion.
With Rumsfeld being the first casualty of the 2006 elections in the United States, Robert M. Gates became the next Secretary of State. When this was announced, little was made of what he was doing just prior to his appointment. On November 10th, 2006 Gates stepped down as a member of the Iraqi Study Group. With the Iraq Study Group releasing its full report by December 6th, 2006, only three and a half weeks after Gates resigned from the group, Gates must of contributed a great deal to this report.
It is interesting the report has been met both from a political perspective and a military perspective with resistance. What hasn't been discussed though is what the Gates appointment may mean for changes to the military action in the region, particularly given his contributions to the Iraqi Study Group, and further by evaluating the people he is recommending for positions of various worldwide commands.
Examples. The following are among various Diplomatic Concerns expressed by the Iraqi Study Group Report:
However, Gates represented military interests more than diplomatic interests as apart of the Iraq Study Group, so narrowing in on the military strategies and alternatives within the report, this part which matches the strategy he has unfolded is worth discussion:
Of the intentions leaked regarding the new plan for Iraq, going after the military support structure logistically suppling the Sunni insurgency and the Shia militia's appears to be top priority. What is interesting is how it is apparently widely believed that the source of support for the Shia is Iran, but additionally the support for the Sunni is said to be Iran. Obviously, to make the second part of that sentence believable proof will have to be provided.
Gates follows this plan by naming new commanders in the theater. The two appointments of Gen. David H. Petraeus as Commanding General of military forces in Iraq, and Admiral William J. Fallon as CENTCOM commander are very telling These choices are interesting, as they give a lot of insight regarding the tactical, strategic, and diplomatic changes coming with the new plan.
General Petraeus is one of the most respected US Generals, by the Iraqi Army. In 2004, Petraeus was assigned to build the Iraqi Army, he basically raised the Iraqi Army himself. While the quality of the Army resulted in criticism of Petraeus by some in late 2005, it should be noted he took an Army with numbers of less than 1000 and turned it into a force of over 150,000 in less than a year. His quantity over quality initiative may not of been popular a year later, it is hard to say he wasn't successful in getting the process started even if he didn't serve long enough to meet the instant expectations placed upon his mission.
Over the last two years, Petraeus has literally wrote the book on US counterinsurgency operations, also known as Field Manual 3-24. He was also responsible for oversight of the Command and General Staff College and seventeen other schools, centers, and training programs. Over the last 2 years, Petraeus has undoubtedly participated in numerous war games specific to his new mission, including the intangibles posed by regional influences.
I believe the appointment of General Petraeus is specifically to turn the security situation within Iraq over to the Iraqi's, and the surge that is designed to temporarily reduce violence in concentrated areas is specifically designed to establish a peace before letting Iraqi's decide the fate of that peace. I believe the targets are specific, Saudi Arabian and Iranian influences in Iraq, and keeping those influences out and disrupted.
Admiral William J. Fallon, Fox Fallon as he is nicknamed, is equally an interesting choice with equally interesting background. He is the man who basically forced the US Military, as commander Pacific forces, to cooperate with China via Navy exchanges and exercises. He is the man, who with his staff, established the constant 3 month air force fighter, bomber, and logistics rotations in the Pacific that keeps state of the art capabilities on the front lines constantly nagging at North Korea, and has been the face of ballistic missile defense in the field for the Navy.
When Fallon was first appointed, there was widespread speculation that his appointment was directly in response to the shift in focus to Iran that is looming with the IAEA deadlines due to come about late this month. The speculation was not lost on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the question was posed to Fallon for his appointment hearings.
Bold is Senate, Italics is Fallon's response.
What is often missed about Fallon is he served as Deputy Director for Operations, Joint Task Force, Southwest Asia in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. He saw first hand the political effect Patriot missile defense batteries had on Israel, despite their lack tactical capability. He saw first hand the political capabilities of virtually all the regional Gulf powers, and he was apart of the planning operations that influenced the decision making process in that region.
I believe his intention in "consulting with select nations" is basically part of the larger strategy unfolding. Fallon is a widely respected naval officer with a record in leadership of combat operations and command, well established in credentials in that regard for the new position in CENTCOM. What I find unique about Fox Fallon though is he is also a very wise political mind. There are few places that rival the complexity of politics in Northeast Asia, but the Middle East would qualify as one of those places. I believe the Fallon appointment is to reestablish the US shrewd diplomacy in the Middle East the US was once capable of, but has been degraded to conditions approaching critical. I believe the most attracting aspect of Fallon's style is his rare combination of political capacity and military boldness. It is a historical fact that Muslims respect power, and understand its advantages and weaknesses as a cultural trait. I believe Fallon, as both aggressive yet tempered, is intended to reposition the United States position in the Middle East, and I believe he has more leverage, including military leverage, than most people assume. In many ways, the blueprint he represents appears already in motion.
Hamas and Fatah rivalry has deteriorated the Palestinian issue in the region, with the Iranian supported Hamas being confronted militarily by the Saudi supported Fatah. In Lebanon, Iranian supported Hezbollah is facing off against Saudi supported Christians and Sunnis in clashes that have been mixed with violence. On the economic side, Saudi Arabia is being accused by Iran of pumping 3 million barrels of oil per day more than they say they are, and the price of oil drops. This apparently started after a Saudi diplomatic visit to India and China. 3 million is an interesting number, because Iran only exports 1.7 million barrels of oil per day, so in effect Saudi Arabia is over producing almost twice the amount Iran can export in total.
In my opinion over the last month Saudi Arabia has engaged aggressively against Iran, but Saudi Arabia's involvement in Iraq is still very much a question. By the Senates own questions, the US government appears to see Iran as not only a military threat in Iraq, but additionally as a threat to the region with ballistic missiles and WMD, that needs to be dealt with delicately. The diplomacy taking place quietly between the US and the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia appears to have been engaged, and there appears to be measurable action taking place.
But where is this going? Is Fallon there to start a war, build a case for the UN Security Council with political support from regional partners, or simply manage the currents as events unfold in Iraq, IE stay the course? Is the US looking to 'win' or 'get out' of Iraq, or some measure of both? Clearly the changes taking place in the ranks reflect a changing strategy, and aspects of that strategy can be presumed based on the men being assigned regional positions.
The question is; with what can be presumed what is the goal, and what actions is the US looking to take next month when Iranian rhetoric hits the press daily in defiance of the UN, as Russia stands firm, as Europe engages in anti-Americanism to distract from UN failures regarding Iran, and support for the war continues to decline in the US without spectacular events that change the entire discussion; where is this going and how can this new strategy, or any new strategy be effective for the United States and its coalition allies?
The election of 2006 in the United States has made a decisive impact on war strategy and war related events. It is not unique, major elections and other political events within the democracy of the United States has shaped virtually every war including the Revolutionary War. In fact, only 1 war in US history has avoided public political descent from politicians during the actual fighting phase of the war. Ironically, that war happened in the vast majority of the worlds populations lifetime, in 1991 in the Gulf War.
Since that 2006 election, several major events that will undoubtedly mark new chapters in future history books have occurred regarding the United States military operations and wars in the Middle East and Africa. While these events have been reported in the news, and analyzed through the prism of partisanship driving all discussions about the war in the media and politics, little actual analysis has taken place to date. Perhaps it is time, as events are now happening that paint what is coming, and shape potential events in the future. These insights into the near future allow some leverage by independent observers like us, and is what I consider the foundation of interesting discussion.
With Rumsfeld being the first casualty of the 2006 elections in the United States, Robert M. Gates became the next Secretary of State. When this was announced, little was made of what he was doing just prior to his appointment. On November 10th, 2006 Gates stepped down as a member of the Iraqi Study Group. With the Iraq Study Group releasing its full report by December 6th, 2006, only three and a half weeks after Gates resigned from the group, Gates must of contributed a great deal to this report.
It is interesting the report has been met both from a political perspective and a military perspective with resistance. What hasn't been discussed though is what the Gates appointment may mean for changes to the military action in the region, particularly given his contributions to the Iraqi Study Group, and further by evaluating the people he is recommending for positions of various worldwide commands.
Examples. The following are among various Diplomatic Concerns expressed by the Iraqi Study Group Report:
It is my opinion you cannot read those recommendation and believe the Iraq Study Group diplomatic concerns were focused on anyone but Iran and Saudi Arabia.
However, Gates represented military interests more than diplomatic interests as apart of the Iraq Study Group, so narrowing in on the military strategies and alternatives within the report, this part which matches the strategy he has unfolded is worth discussion:
Because this is stated in the Iraq Study Group report, and because Gates was apart of that Study Group, it can be assumed he contributed in some measure to the conclusions behind this statement. Despite this, he has implimented several phases of a military plan that increases the number of troops, apparently in a strategy to "help limit violence in a highly localized area" which probably includes Baghdad,
Of the intentions leaked regarding the new plan for Iraq, going after the military support structure logistically suppling the Sunni insurgency and the Shia militia's appears to be top priority. What is interesting is how it is apparently widely believed that the source of support for the Shia is Iran, but additionally the support for the Sunni is said to be Iran. Obviously, to make the second part of that sentence believable proof will have to be provided.
Gates follows this plan by naming new commanders in the theater. The two appointments of Gen. David H. Petraeus as Commanding General of military forces in Iraq, and Admiral William J. Fallon as CENTCOM commander are very telling These choices are interesting, as they give a lot of insight regarding the tactical, strategic, and diplomatic changes coming with the new plan.
General Petraeus is one of the most respected US Generals, by the Iraqi Army. In 2004, Petraeus was assigned to build the Iraqi Army, he basically raised the Iraqi Army himself. While the quality of the Army resulted in criticism of Petraeus by some in late 2005, it should be noted he took an Army with numbers of less than 1000 and turned it into a force of over 150,000 in less than a year. His quantity over quality initiative may not of been popular a year later, it is hard to say he wasn't successful in getting the process started even if he didn't serve long enough to meet the instant expectations placed upon his mission.
Over the last two years, Petraeus has literally wrote the book on US counterinsurgency operations, also known as Field Manual 3-24. He was also responsible for oversight of the Command and General Staff College and seventeen other schools, centers, and training programs. Over the last 2 years, Petraeus has undoubtedly participated in numerous war games specific to his new mission, including the intangibles posed by regional influences.
I believe the appointment of General Petraeus is specifically to turn the security situation within Iraq over to the Iraqi's, and the surge that is designed to temporarily reduce violence in concentrated areas is specifically designed to establish a peace before letting Iraqi's decide the fate of that peace. I believe the targets are specific, Saudi Arabian and Iranian influences in Iraq, and keeping those influences out and disrupted.
Admiral William J. Fallon, Fox Fallon as he is nicknamed, is equally an interesting choice with equally interesting background. He is the man who basically forced the US Military, as commander Pacific forces, to cooperate with China via Navy exchanges and exercises. He is the man, who with his staff, established the constant 3 month air force fighter, bomber, and logistics rotations in the Pacific that keeps state of the art capabilities on the front lines constantly nagging at North Korea, and has been the face of ballistic missile defense in the field for the Navy.
When Fallon was first appointed, there was widespread speculation that his appointment was directly in response to the shift in focus to Iran that is looming with the IAEA deadlines due to come about late this month. The speculation was not lost on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the question was posed to Fallon for his appointment hearings.
Bold is Senate, Italics is Fallon's response.
It is telling the first units deployed as apart of the surge include the Stennis CSG, with its additional AEGIS BMD destroyers, a Patriot 3 missile battalion, numerous USAF and USMC ECM and AEW squadrons, extra logistical support throughout the region from Africa to former Soviet states, and most interestingly several lesser armed naval assets including SOF MSC ships and extra frigates.
What is often missed about Fallon is he served as Deputy Director for Operations, Joint Task Force, Southwest Asia in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. He saw first hand the political effect Patriot missile defense batteries had on Israel, despite their lack tactical capability. He saw first hand the political capabilities of virtually all the regional Gulf powers, and he was apart of the planning operations that influenced the decision making process in that region.
I believe his intention in "consulting with select nations" is basically part of the larger strategy unfolding. Fallon is a widely respected naval officer with a record in leadership of combat operations and command, well established in credentials in that regard for the new position in CENTCOM. What I find unique about Fox Fallon though is he is also a very wise political mind. There are few places that rival the complexity of politics in Northeast Asia, but the Middle East would qualify as one of those places. I believe the Fallon appointment is to reestablish the US shrewd diplomacy in the Middle East the US was once capable of, but has been degraded to conditions approaching critical. I believe the most attracting aspect of Fallon's style is his rare combination of political capacity and military boldness. It is a historical fact that Muslims respect power, and understand its advantages and weaknesses as a cultural trait. I believe Fallon, as both aggressive yet tempered, is intended to reposition the United States position in the Middle East, and I believe he has more leverage, including military leverage, than most people assume. In many ways, the blueprint he represents appears already in motion.
Hamas and Fatah rivalry has deteriorated the Palestinian issue in the region, with the Iranian supported Hamas being confronted militarily by the Saudi supported Fatah. In Lebanon, Iranian supported Hezbollah is facing off against Saudi supported Christians and Sunnis in clashes that have been mixed with violence. On the economic side, Saudi Arabia is being accused by Iran of pumping 3 million barrels of oil per day more than they say they are, and the price of oil drops. This apparently started after a Saudi diplomatic visit to India and China. 3 million is an interesting number, because Iran only exports 1.7 million barrels of oil per day, so in effect Saudi Arabia is over producing almost twice the amount Iran can export in total.
In my opinion over the last month Saudi Arabia has engaged aggressively against Iran, but Saudi Arabia's involvement in Iraq is still very much a question. By the Senates own questions, the US government appears to see Iran as not only a military threat in Iraq, but additionally as a threat to the region with ballistic missiles and WMD, that needs to be dealt with delicately. The diplomacy taking place quietly between the US and the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia appears to have been engaged, and there appears to be measurable action taking place.
But where is this going? Is Fallon there to start a war, build a case for the UN Security Council with political support from regional partners, or simply manage the currents as events unfold in Iraq, IE stay the course? Is the US looking to 'win' or 'get out' of Iraq, or some measure of both? Clearly the changes taking place in the ranks reflect a changing strategy, and aspects of that strategy can be presumed based on the men being assigned regional positions.
The question is; with what can be presumed what is the goal, and what actions is the US looking to take next month when Iranian rhetoric hits the press daily in defiance of the UN, as Russia stands firm, as Europe engages in anti-Americanism to distract from UN failures regarding Iran, and support for the war continues to decline in the US without spectacular events that change the entire discussion; where is this going and how can this new strategy, or any new strategy be effective for the United States and its coalition allies?
