Blackwater runs SEAL prep school...

A Blackwater press release issued along with thier weekly email newsletter announced a sort of prep school for the Naval Special Warfare and Naval Special Operations (NSW and NSO respectivly) community. The program has been in effect since 2007 and has boosted the number of candidates graduating from the various Naval programs to such a degree that the second program has been created to recruit sailors directly out of boot camp for mentoring and training.
Such a training regime brings up several questions. First, has U.S. strategy overstreched the Special operations community? Record numbers of special operations personnel have left the community in recent years, citing burnout and pay gaps between the military and private security firms. Second, should a private firm play such a large role in the training of elite forces? The expanding role of Special operations in multiple roles by the U.S. gives them unprecedented scope and scale in prosecuting the Global War on Terrorism. Should a private for -profit company have such a strong prescence in this highly classified world? Third, does this create a closed loop where mentors aid SEALS who later become mentors?
Black water has an extensive relationship with the SEAL units, as Erik Prince and Al Clark are both former SEALS themselves. The notion of a "closed loop" should be of concern to lawmakers. They are charged with carrying out the most sensitive and dangerous missions the military has been charged with. This creates a situation whereby in many ways the U.S. has become beholden to a private interest.

The trillion dollar war?

A report issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform details how nearly $15 billion dollars has gone unaccounted in Iraq. Rep. Henry A. Waxman of California, the chair of the commitee, stated 'The Defense Department spent $1.8 billion of seized Iraqi assets with "absolutely no accountability.'

The funding for the war has reached outrageous peaks, with some experts calling the conflict the "trillion dollar war."

How is it possible that so much money (Enough to write a check for $37,500 to every Iraqi man, woman, and child) has gone into funding the war and that nearly $15 billion dollars of it has gone unaccounted for? The simple answer is Emergency Supplemental Funding. The use of emergency supplemental funding has in effect given the executive branch a way to go around requesting the funding from Congress. Emergency funding has a long history in the U.S. Eisenhower used it in the initial years of the Korean War. The same budgetary plan occurred during the Vietnam War.

From the Veronique de Rugy article in Reason:

"In 1990, under bipartisan congressional pressure to reduce the size of the deficit, President George H.W. Bush signed the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA), which exempted emergency bills from other rules of the era designed to restrain spending. The BEA allowed the government to exclude emergency spending from the deficit projections required in the annual budget. To prevent lawmakers from abusing that loophole, the law required that Congress offset supplemental spending with rescissions—that is, by permanently withholding already appropriated funds."

President Bush's plan to fund the war has consisted of manipulating the numbers to keep the money flowing with a minimum of oversight in Iraq. How this funding is of benefit to anyone other than those profiting from the war is yet to be seen.

US opts out of cluster bomb treaty

The United States as well as Russia, India, Pakistan, and Israel have declined to join 100 other nations at a conference in Dublin that examines the use of Cluster munitions. State department expert Stephen Mull acting U.S. assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, said the weapons have a "certain military utility." Mull states that the U.S. will instead continue to work within the framework of The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, initated by the United Nations on October 10, 1980 and ratified by 50 nations by April of the following year. The section that most specifically speaks to this issue, Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War was adopted on 28 November 2003.

From the Article:

'For example, if the convention passes in its current form, any U.S. military ship would be technically not able to get involved in a peacekeeping operation like disaster relief, or humanitarian assistance, as we are doing right now in the aftermath of the earthquake in China and the typhoon in Burma, not to mention everything we did in southeast Asia after the tsunami in December of 2004," Mull said.'

Seeking a Ban on Bomblets

BBC news has a story today on a conference being held in Ireland with the intention of creating a ban on cluster munitions. Hosted by the Cluster Munitions Coalition , the CMC seeks to ban the use of such weapons as the bomblets (shown above) create hazardous situations for civilian populations that come back after the conflicts to unexploded ordnance. South Lebanon for example is covered in the sub munitions from the border conflicts of Hizbollah and the IDF. A weapon of such an indiscriminate nature can and has become a humanitarian nightmare. Similar to the anti-personnel landmine, hundreds of non-combatants worldwide are being injured or killed by the weapons annually. While the use of such weapons in war provide certain tactical advantage (for example disable vehicles, runways, etc.) the tipping point of this weapons is its terror factor. Its ability to inflict damage to combatants as equally effectivly as non-combatants makes this a weapon that should be looked at by governments of the world as a weapon of terror similar to landmines.

What really happened at Najaf?

David Isenberg published an article earlier this past week on United Press International looking at what actually happened during an incident in April of 2004 where Blackwater security fought off an insurgent attack in Najaf. According to the recently published memior from retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez entitled Wiser in Battle, Sanchez refutes several of the claims made by Blackwater, including the most incindiary claim that Spainish soldiers abandoned thier posts and left Blackwater operatives to fend for themsleves.

From the article:

"Not true, sir," the (Spanish)commander replied. "Those Blackwater and CPA guys wanted us to put all of our troops back and surround their building. But we didn't need to do that, because there was never any threat of being overrun. Besides, it was better for us to protect the entire compound rather than just one building."

So what was it that happened exactly?

Book Review: The Transformation of War

From time to time (and as I finish them) I will attempt to write reviews of books that I read. I thought perhaps starting with a classic of military theory such as the Transformation of War would be a good place to start. Martin Van Creveld wrote this book in the pre-Global War on Terror world. This fact however does not lessen its impact in today's global environment. I would argue its prescience makes it even more relevant to policymakers.

Van Creveld's book looks at the world after WWII and sees that notion of state sponsored violence is on the decline, while Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) is on the rise. Van Creveld looks at modern conflict through the lens of Karl Philipp Gottlieb von Clausewitz's seminal Vom Kreige (On War) and deconstructs Clausewitz using his model of Non-Trinitarian warfare. Van Creveld essentially states that as the threefold division of State, Military, and People theorized as the main components of warfare by Clausewitz breaks down in the face of globalization.

Each of the chapters in the book examines specific aspects of war and how they have changed from ancient times to the near future. For example, in the final Chapter of the book entitled "The Future of War", Van Creveld writes about what war will look like in the coming years. It is in this chapter that I found Van Creveld to be most prophetic. He sees conflict as we know it becoming obsolete. Modern strategy and tactics will have to be completely rethought. The rules of war (as they are understood through such international agreements as the Geneva convention) will be called into question as the definition of what a combatant is becomes more fluid. The correlations between this chapter and the current conundrums faced by governments across the globe are hard to ignore.

It is little wonder that The Transformation of War is on the US Army's list of required reading for officers. Van Creveld's articulate (and surprisingly readable) arguments against the militaries of the world continuing in the Clausewitzian tradition challenges military doctrine at its heart . The Transformation of War looks not only at the how war will change but why it will change as well.

EA-18G "Growler" procurment leaves USAF out of the picture

Ares, a defense technology website, reports that the U.S. navy is moving ahead with its production of 85 of the specialized F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, known as "Growlers". The agreement between the USAF and the Navy, who provides thier current electronic warfare airplanes, the EA-6B Prowler, (as seen above) to the USAF for support operations is set to end in 2012, and the Navy is buying only enough for its own use. So what will the USAF do?

See the article....

Euro missile defense funding set to be cut...

A post from Global security.com reports that the U.S. House of Representatives have struck down attempts to restore $200 million dollars to be placed toward the Bush administration proposed European missile defense shield. The 10 radar installations and interceptor missile batteries are to be placed through out Eastern Europe much to the dismay of the Russian government, who sees the move as an aggressive one, as placement would be in Poland and the Czech republic which are both former Warsaw Pact nations.

The SKS: Curio?

Here in my hometown of Philadelphia, a Police officer was murdered this past Saturday in the Port Richmond Area. The weapon used? A Romanian variation of the Russian SKS semi-automatic carbine. Known as the Model 56 (not to be confused with the Chinese Type 56), this weapon is apparently fairly new to the American market, appearing only in the past few years. It would seem that this particular rifle has been modified to accept a 30 round magazine. You may ask how it's possible that a weapon of this calibre (7.62X.39mm) could bought and sold with a 30 round magazine? This weapon is covered under curios or relics laws. Basically it states that once a weapon reaches a certain age (over 50 years old), it is qualifies as a c&r. These laws however do not cover modifications to the weapons...

Unless.

Unless the weapon in question has fewer than 10 imported parts. Those 10 imported parts on an SKS include the following:

(1) Frames, receivers, Receiver castings, forgings or stampings

(2) Barrels

(3) Barrel Extensions

(4) Mounting Blocks (trunnions)

(5) Muzzle Attachments

(6) Bolts

(7) Bolt Carriers

(8) Operating Rods

(9) Gas Pistons

(10) Trigger Housings

(11) Triggers

(12) Hammers

(13) Sears

(14) Disconnectors

(15) Buttstocks

(16) Pistol Grips

(17) Forearms, Handguards

(18) Magazine Bodies

(19) Followers

(20) Floorplates



"The point is, if your newly "assembled", non C&R Yugo SKS is comprised of ten or less of the listed imported parts, is no longer considered to have been "assembled from imported parts" but is considered of US manufacture. If you can successfully play the ten or less game, your rifle is Home grown and you can "Bubba" it to your heart's content...including installing a removable magazine, bipod, pistol grip etc."

- from the Blog "Captain of A Crew of One."



In looking at this explanation, I find that I can understand in relative terms how this all works. There are layers of responsibility that assume that as a weapon passes between hands each person who assembles, sells, or buys the weapon bears some level of responsibility for it. This responsibility breaks down when one person in the chain is unable or unwilling to follow the rules and regulations set forth by the legislature of the respective federal and state governments.
I feel that people should be able to own weapons that are fully operational. Owning a weapon that can't fire is like owning a car that doesn't have a gas tank. It seems somewhat pointless. However owning a weapon in our society should carry a heavy burden of responsibility. Though the constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, it would be just as impossible for the founding fathers to think of what could possibly happened to arms in the 232 years that have passed since the country's inception as would be for us to do so. So the notion of rationality seems to be the logical solution. In other words, people should be able to own weapons. It's part of the culture here in the U.S. However, it is also a part of the culture to grow and mature into its difficult choices of nationhood. This issue requires calm thinking.

The hazards of microchips

In an article recently posted on IEEE Spectrum's website, the notion of semiconductor sabotage is discussed. One theory that is laid out (but unproven) is that Israeli forces were able to render radar systems ineffective during a raid carried out against supposed nuclear facilites located in northeastern Syria. Many suspect that the Israelis were able to do this due to a "backdoor" installed in the chips used in the radar. While unproven (the article states on several occasions that there is a certain level of impractability in carrying out such operations) the questions it brings to the table are one that should be examined. As the process of globalization moves forward, the trust we instill in comanpies outside of the U.S. producing something as ubquitous as the microchip should be called into question. Second, should the manufacture of chips used in ultrasensitive projects like satellites and components for key weapons systems be entrusted to anyone other the military itself? And finally, how do we manage these questions without becoming draconian or irresponsible?

Link to the article