#1
"In April of 1951, General Ridgway replaced General MacArthur, who had different views on how to conduct military operations than did many in the Pentagon ... Changes in command during time of war can be dangerous."
Well, so there's a lesson that we haven't learned, eh?
#2
General Walton Walker pretty much ran the show in Korea until September 1950, when MacArthur took over.
I know you will say that everything was MacArthur's plan, and that was true, but it was MacArthurs plan which immolated the US 25th Infantry Division in the early going.
Yet,it was Walker rewriting modern US defensive doctrine on the fly in the Pusan Perimeter between June 1950 and September 1950 which won the war for MacArthur.
One premis of early problems was the civilianization of the military, the Army more so than the Marines.
Walker did just fine, considering the circumstances. One notable diffiency was the lack of anti-tank weapons. Mac represented a full committment and had such resources. And a bold plan. And no rules of engagement as we know that term today.
Another lesson, according to the book, air superiority is nice but not necessarily decisive. Back when the norks and chicoms were able to hide out in valleys without detection. Maybe not congruent nowadays, but perhaps it is as opponents are always looking to exploit weaknesses; this in particular the thinking that total superiority in a subject means it is undeniable and/or hubristic.
Just went through Neptune's Inferno, James Hornfischer, and at times Generals are more like baseball pitchers than football quarterbacks, and I don't mean that disparingly.
I would like to add that the French, and the Turks, did serve honerably. One could argue that the French, however one wants to look at Vietnam, could possibly have lost the opportunity to stop the communists in their tracks (that teatre, it was a red tide no offense to Alabama) by redeploying a significant number of troops to reinforce Korea, but that is IMHO.
Nasty times for what the kids refer to as cold war peace. Nevermind Africa or ME.
#5
There were no Satellites back then, + the Chicoms were just as capable or adept as the Japanese + Nazis were in hiding mass troop movements from enemy air recce, in addition to using PYWAR = Disinformation, etc. techniques at the Field, Media, + Diplomatic levels.
More, the US + USDOD, Society were still demobilizing from WW2 + getting used to the new Cold War agz the USSR - the USDOD had EQUAL DEFENSE = SECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES IN BOTH WESTERN EUROPE + ASIA, BU WID AN ARMY-IN-POSTWAR-REDUCTION + A MAINSTREAM USA NOT READY OR WILLING TO ENGAGE IN ANY NEW WAR REGARDLESS OF SCALE.
Both the Soviets' + Chicoms' claim to trace their ideo, national "People's War/Struggles" to long before WW2, to before Chiang Kai-Shek + 1917 Bolshevik Revolution or even the beginning of the 20th century.
The philosopher-kings over at The New Republic (which is still deeply admired by both its subscribers) recommend that The One just ignore that silly debt limit thing.
With a Republican-controlled House demanding large cuts in present and future spending in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling, the possibility that the federal government will have trouble financing and issuing new debt is becoming more frighteningly likely each day. Uh, dudes, you're conflating two points here: one if whether the gummint can legally issue new debt; the other is whether the gummint can find someone to buy the debt at a price we can afford.
When it comes to Congress's ability to stop the Obama administration from ignoring the debt ceiling, legal experts An expert is a guy with a briefcase more than 100 miles from home
note that the first obstacle standing in its way is the question of standing, or whether a certain party has the right to sue over an issue in the first place. Jonathan Zasloff, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who has discussed this idea on a blog that he writes with several other academics not one of whom has ever examined a witness in court or written a contract
told me that while an order from the president for the Treasury Department to continue issuing new debt sounded extreme "Extreme" meaning "something that would provoke a major Constitutional crisis and imperil the legitimacy of the US government"
it was unclear who could prove sufficient injury from the decision that would qualify the person to sue the administration in court. A debatable point but (1) voters have standing to vote and (2) Congress has standing to impeach The One. So: go ahead, make my day.
But even if standing could be established and the Obama administration gets taken to court, some legal experts all of whom apparently have a lot of time on their hands, being untroubled by things like clients willing to pay for their services
note that an additional argument of surprising strength could be made: The government cannot legally default on its debts. Well that's peachy news for all holders of US debt. I guess it all depends on correctly fixing the dollar/wampum exchange rate.
Of course, Epps admits, a move like this would represent a major assertion of executive power. Sort of like blowing off the War Powers Act. "The Code? You're pirates. Hang the Code, and hang the rules! They're more like guidelines anyway!"
Posted by: Matt ||
06/26/2011 12:06 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hello Matt.
:)
As usual, yes. All that and a traveler.
Posted by: S ||
06/26/2011 16:43 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Hey, Mr. S. Welcome back.
Posted by: Matt ||
06/26/2011 17:59 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The government most certainly can default.
Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment says, "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
What that means is that 1) the debt Congress authorizes is valid 2) the President can't authorize debt and 3) debt, once created, has to be serviced (notice that the Amendment doesn't give Congress the right to stiff anyone).
So Congress certainly could default.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/26/2011 19:40 Comments ||
Top||
#4
You mean new bond/notes/bills could be issued to pay for accumulating interest on existing debt, but NOT to cover any new spending?
Including interest for the "trust funds" there is way too much wiggle room for back door shenanigans. Around $500 Billion/year?
This should guarantee 100% voter turnout.
Posted by: My two cents ||
06/26/2011 20:54 Comments ||
Top||
#5
They're advising the president to ignore the Constitution and the first thing they think is "would anyone have standing to sue"?!
These idiots have been fellating the trial lawyers for too long. It's not an issue of being sued. It's an issue of being impeached or forcibly ejected.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
06/26/2011 21:36 Comments ||
Top||
#6
What odds President Obama would be able to talk the Secretary of the Treasury and the directors of the Fed into going along with such shenanigans? None of those august personages are sworn to obey all orders from the chief executive, even those which endanger the Republic. The New Republic writer and his experts ignore the fact that the chief executive of a free society does not have the powers of dictators and tyrants.
I would suggest that merely trying to do such an end-run would be enough to guarantee that Mr. Obama doesn't get reelected -- he hasn't many Independents left, after all.
#7
"More frightenly likely each day" > given now ...
* DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > US POLITICIANS DEMAND TO KNOW IFF THERE IS ANY GOLD LEFT IN FORT KNOX [+ other US Gold Depositories] | RON PAUL CHAIRS CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION ON US GOLD RESERVES.
US#14.0Trilyuhn-n-rising US Debt
versus
US$300.0Bilyuhn of potentially MISSING? US Gold???
Has the Atlantic alliance outlived its usefulness? The British journalist and writer Geoffrey Wheatcroft raised that question in an opinion article (Who needs NATO?, June 16) that drew a strong reaction from Ivo H. Daalder, the U.S. permanent representative to NATO, who argued that the alliance is more needed than ever (Counterpoint, June 18-19). Sarwar Kashmeri, a senior fellow in the Atlantic Councils International Security Program and the author of NATO 2.0: Reboot or Delete?, joins the debate.
In Ambassador Ivo Daalders surreal world of NATO more than 150,000 troops participate in six NATO operations on three continents; in Afghanistan, a NATO-led force made up of troops from 48 nations is helping to build security; in Libya, 17 allies and partner nations have taken on the new responsibility of helping the Libyan people determine their own destiny; and NATO continues its long-standing commitment to stabilize the Balkans.
The reality, of course, is very different.
In the real world, the war in Afghanistan isnt NATO-led; it is led by the United States, which would never let its forces in Afghanistan be run by NATO. That would be a disaster. Just look at the NATO-led war in Libya in which only six out of the 28 NATO countries are participating, and only three of those actually attack Libyan targets to enforce the United Nations mandate.
In the real world, after a mere 11 weeks of conflict against Libya, the mightiest alliance in the world has run out of munitions, does not have enough aircraft to conduct its missions, and seems unable to prevail against a minor military power.
As for the Balkans, after more than 20 years of operations, NATO has still not succeeded in stabilizing it.
Not surprisingly, most of Americas next generation of military leaders has lost confidence in NATO. At a recent talk I gave at an elite U.S. military institution, just five participants out of an audience of some 60 raised their hands when asked how many believed NATO ought to continue in business.
An American colonel, recently returned from Afghanistan, told me that when he asked an officer from a European NATO member country to lead a supply convoy one evening, the officer explained that he was only paid to work for a set number of hours and his working day was done. Reminded that there was a war in progress, the officer said, Maybe your country is at war, but not mine.
European lack of support for the wars in Afghanistan and Libya has nothing to do with the bravery of Europeans soldiers or their fighting skills. Europeans simply do not feel as threatened as Americans do, and are not interested in using their tax dollars to fight in distant lands.
It's not clear that they would even fight at home. If Europe were to be invaded today by a large foreign power, who in Europe would rise up in defense?
This European/American schism within NATO is further aggravated by a split between Central and Eastern European members on one side, and Western ones on the other. The former continue to regard Russia as a threat, the latter do not. If this NATO is an essential source of stability in an unpredictable world, heaven help us all.
One more point: NATOs disarray has begun to chip away at the wider European-American relationship currently contributing 14 million jobs and $3 trillion in commercial sales. American officials regularly berate the Europeans with calls to spend ever more money on defense, even when the European Unions total defense budget is already $300 billion, pretty close to Americas defense budget prior to 9/11.
The real problem is the way in which this money is spent for example, the wasteful duplication of weapons procurement programs. This will not change unless there is political will among E.U. leaders for change.
It's not just the waste in procurement. One dirty secret is that the European armies are, by and large, social programs that provide jobs, not create soldiers. Yes, every Euro army has 'elite' and 'special' forces that are darned good. The British army is darned good. But for many of the others, the regular infantry isn't up to contemporary standards, and isn't supposed to be. The enlistees are there to mark time -- after all, civilian unemployment in Europe is above eight percent, so why not sit in the army for a while?
It's also the waste in allotment of people to needed skills, and allotment of funding to needed military programs. Europe has as many soldiers as the U.S., but they don't have intel specialists to analyze and select targets for an air force. They have combat jets but not tankers. They have rifles but not ammunition.
After speaking with over 50 military and political leaders on both sides of the Atlantic, I am convinced this will to change will only come about when America decides to take away its defense credit card and asks Europe to take responsibility for its own security.
I'm not convinced it would change then. Perhaps the Poles and Czechs would step up, but does anyone seriously expect Spain, Italy or Greece to increase common defense spending when their economies are swirling the bowl?
The E.U. is increasingly capable of defending itself under its Common Security and Defense Policy, through which the E.U. has already deployed 27 military and civilian missions from Asia to Africa, and just approved the 28th a military force for Libya that is ready to be deployed as soon as the U.N. asks for it.
C.S.D.P. should be the pre-eminent vehicle to defend Europe; NATO should be bridged to C.S.D.P. and only come into action when Europe, America, and Canada wish to act together in conflicts where all three share vital national interests.
Or let C.S.D.P. do its job and form an alliance with the U.S. and Canada on an as-needed basis, and just dump NATO.
NATO has truly done a magnificent job, but it is time to move on.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/26/2011 12:42 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
[Dawn] According to a WikiLeak, a large number of senior officers at Pakistain's National Defence University are virulently anti-American. This was lent credence when Hussain Haqqani, our man in Washington, spoke at the NDU: when the officers attending the course were asked who they considered their major foe, apparently 30 per cent named the United States.
I presume this number has gone up since the SEALs operation in Abbottabad last month that rid the world of the late Osama bin Laden. ... who is currently warming his feet by the fire with Hitler and Himmler... Indeed, any suspicion of supporting America's ongoing battle against jihadist forces in the region is met with immediate charges of being on CIA's payroll. And yet, returning to the theme of strategic clarity, how is this war not our war? Any commander with an iota of sense would accept help from any source in a battle for survival. And yet Pakistain constantly cavils at the alliance it's in by its own choice.
If our military leadership genuinely feels it does not need American help, it should have refused all the cash and equipment it has been getting from Washington for years. After all, nobody is forcing it to accept the shiny new weapons systems that allow it to remain a credible fighting force. The Americans are replacing the Orion naval surveillance planes so carelessly frittered away recently; why don't we say no?
The reality is that our defence forces desperately need constant infusions of dollars and advanced weapons from America.
Pakistain simply cannot afford to pay for all the military hardware being acquired through our alliance with the United States.
But in an effort to eat our cake and have it too, we bristle at the necessity of accepting this assistance, and bare our fangs to show that we are independent.
But we can be independent and accept this help more graciously: all countries operate on the basis of their self-interest, and
America is no different. Of course, it's helping us because Pakistain is strategically placed, and because there is a real danger that a meltdown here would have major regional and global repercussions.
Instead of seeing to what extent our respective interests overlap, and cooperating on this basis, we are continuously conflicted in our dealings with the United States. From the Kerry-Lugar Act that nets Pakistain billions in aid to the wretched Raymond Davis affair, we insist on behaving like immature children who are resentful of adults trying to cure it of a life-threatening fever.
And this fever is the extremism that is eating away at the country's foundations. Those complaining about perceived American arrogance and slights would do well to reflect on the reality of the real threat we face today. The other day, we learned of a nine-year old girl who was reportedly kidnapped, drugged and had a boom jacket tied on. By a stroke of luck, she beat feet and lived to tell the tale. This is the real enemy we face today. It's not America, and it's not India.
In any calculus of threats, we have to prioritise, placing immediate dangers above remote ones. In this rational analysis, most reasonable people would conclude that the most urgent and real threat to Pakistain today comes from the jihadi groups of different stripes that have slaughtered thousands of Paks indiscriminately. Whenever the state has tried to negotiate with them, they have invariably broken their promises and used talks as tactical pauses. This is not a fight we have picked, but one that has been thrust upon us. To defeat this enemy, we need not only military force, but political unity and public support.
Clearly, as long as there is confusion within the country and its institutions, no headway can be made. And so it has proved: in the last decade, things have got worse, not better.
And to add to our woes, we have decided to do our best to alienate the US. Already, voices are being raised in Washington, questioning aid to a country that is increasingly viewed as hostile and duplicitous.
A trite but true cliché of international relations is 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. Thus, it makes eminent sense to cooperate with America in the common battle against extremism. We don't have to share its values, just as we don't share many of China's. But while we cherish our alliance with China, we forget that Beijing, too, bases its relations with Pakistain on the basis of its hostility to India. It's all about being an enemy's enemy at the end of the day.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/26/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Pakistans only true friend is Saudi Arabia.Even Iran does not trust Pakistan!
What does it say when all their neighbours dont like/trust them?
Posted by: Paul D ||
06/26/2011 7:41 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Ah, yes, Pakistan the Captain Queeg of Central Asia:
Queeg: Now there's no need for that I know exactly what hell tell you. Lies! He was no different than any officer in the wardroom -- they were all disloyal, I tried to run the ship properly by the book but they fought me at every turn. If the crew wanted to walk around with their shirttails hanging out that's all right let them take the tow line. Defective equipment no more no less, but they encouraged the crew to go around scoffing at me and spreading wild rumors about steaming and circles. And then old yellow stain. I was to blame for Lt. Merrick's incompetence and poor seamanship. Lt. Merrick was the perfect officer but not Captain Queeg.
Ah, but the strawberries! That's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with geometric logic, that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist! And I'd have produced that key if they hadn't pulled Caine out of action! I-I-I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officer and!......(realizes he has been ranting, babbling)
Naturally, I can only cover these things from memory if I've left anything out, why, just ask me specific questions and I'll be glad to answer them...one-by-one...
Posted by: S ||
06/26/2011 10:24 Comments ||
Top||
#4
#2 that was a fine run you had there. Being just an average sort I can only say it was "insanely good" or its time for the Meds. If it's the Meds I'll join you.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
