From Fox News:
The top U.S. military officer said Saturday that the Pentagon could double the number of American forces in Afghanistan by next summer to 60,000 -- the largest estimate of potential reinforcements ever publicly suggested.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that between 20,000 and 30,000 additional U.S. troops could be sent to Afghanistan to bolster the 31,000 already there.
U.S. commanders have long requested an additional 20,000 troops to aid Canadian and British forces in two provinces just outside Kabul and in the south.
But the high end of Mullen's range is the largest number any top U.S. military official has said could be sent to Afghanistan. Mullen said that increase would include combat forces but also aviation, medical and civilian affairs support troops.
"So some 20,000 to 30,000 is the window of overall increase from where we are right now," Mullen said at a news conference at a U.S. base in Kabul.
"We certainly have enough forces to be successful in combat, but we haven't had enough forces to hold the territory that we clear," he said. Overall, there are more than 60,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan.
Mullen said any increased U.S. deployment would be directly tied to force levels in Iraq, where U.S. commanders are drawing down troops.
This year has been the deadliest for U.S. forces in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion to oust the Taliban for hosting al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Suicide attacks and roadside bombs have become more dangerous, and Taliban fighters have infiltrated wide swaths of countryside and now roam in provinces on Kabul's doorstep.
More to follow:
God Bless America
Bryan
Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
Army Warrior Soldier of the Week
Please click on the picture for the up-close version.
God Bless America
Bryan Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, December 11, 2008
What's Right?
Well after receiving a couple question regarding this topic, both on the site and via email, I decided to try to take up this topic next. The question asked in general was, "How do you train someone in an ethical decision making process?" To be honest that is a lifelong endeavor in my opinion, that goes through a couple of different stages.
The first stage I believe is what is taught to us by our parents, family, and friends. Most importantly though, it is our parents. We, within the military, can not effect this portion, but I believe this is our first glimpse at what right and wrong is.
So the question becomes, what can I effect within a person once he joins the military. The first stage of this is what we call indoctrination or boot camp. Within that stressful environment a new additional family bond is formed and within it the Army Values are taught. Honor, Integrity, Selfless Service, Valor. These values are further refined as a soldier goes through all stages of his training.
Once a soldier moves beyond that initial training stage, it is inherent upon the unit to foster and solidify this mindset. It is an everyday affair. You wont find it on a training schedule, but rather it is a day to day affirmation through our actions that we solidify it. That is one of the reasons it is so important to always lead by example.
Now if we diverge from the central theme and take up one that it is much more focused such as right and wrong reactions within a combat situation, that is a slightly different answer. This is something that you can find on a training schedule. It is constantly honed, refined, and mentored through classes, situational training exercises, live fire exercise, and field training exercises. What I mean by all of these fancy terms is that soldiers and leaders alike are placed in a stressful situation over and over again where they are trained on the possible outcomes. We can no longer just teach a class on what the rules of engagement are, they must be trained over and over again in the field in a realistic environment.
This is where I spent as much time as I could as a Company Commander. Training, and mentoring my leaders to think for themselves, and placing all of them in field stressful situation where they had to make these decisions constantly. This is what I believe set us up for success in combat, and is something that we must continue doing within the military. Gone are the days of standard live fire ranges. The future is dependant on replication of deployed areas and inducing a high level of stress and fatigue where snap decisions must be made over and over again. That is the type of training that we owe our soldiers, and coupled with our Army Values leads to ethical decision making.
God Bless America
Bryan Sphere: Related Content
The first stage I believe is what is taught to us by our parents, family, and friends. Most importantly though, it is our parents. We, within the military, can not effect this portion, but I believe this is our first glimpse at what right and wrong is.
So the question becomes, what can I effect within a person once he joins the military. The first stage of this is what we call indoctrination or boot camp. Within that stressful environment a new additional family bond is formed and within it the Army Values are taught. Honor, Integrity, Selfless Service, Valor. These values are further refined as a soldier goes through all stages of his training.
Once a soldier moves beyond that initial training stage, it is inherent upon the unit to foster and solidify this mindset. It is an everyday affair. You wont find it on a training schedule, but rather it is a day to day affirmation through our actions that we solidify it. That is one of the reasons it is so important to always lead by example.
Now if we diverge from the central theme and take up one that it is much more focused such as right and wrong reactions within a combat situation, that is a slightly different answer. This is something that you can find on a training schedule. It is constantly honed, refined, and mentored through classes, situational training exercises, live fire exercise, and field training exercises. What I mean by all of these fancy terms is that soldiers and leaders alike are placed in a stressful situation over and over again where they are trained on the possible outcomes. We can no longer just teach a class on what the rules of engagement are, they must be trained over and over again in the field in a realistic environment.
This is where I spent as much time as I could as a Company Commander. Training, and mentoring my leaders to think for themselves, and placing all of them in field stressful situation where they had to make these decisions constantly. This is what I believe set us up for success in combat, and is something that we must continue doing within the military. Gone are the days of standard live fire ranges. The future is dependant on replication of deployed areas and inducing a high level of stress and fatigue where snap decisions must be made over and over again. That is the type of training that we owe our soldiers, and coupled with our Army Values leads to ethical decision making.
God Bless America
Bryan Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
How to think, not What to think....
After my last post on transformation, I received a great deal of emails from you asking; well what should we look like? That's not a question that can be easily answered on one post, so I decided to break it down into a number of smaller posts. That way you are not forced to try and read a hundred pages of my ideas in one sitting:)
As I eluded to on my first post, the most important part of transforming our military is not one of equipment or vehicles, but rather of developing, training, and mentoring our Soldiers and leaders. GEN Krulak USMC (Ret) talked about the complexities of our operating environment when he discussed the three block war in the 90's. On one block a Soldier or Marine would be engaged in a fire-fight, on the next block he would be distributing humanitarian aid, and on the next engaging the local populace.
This dynamic operational environment calls for a Soldier or Marine that can think on his feet. More importantly it calls for a Soldier or Marine that has been trained in not what to think, but how to think.
This answer gives us two end states. The first is a Soldier or Marine that is empowered and trained to make decisions on his own with limited guidance other then the Commander's End State. The second is a leadership training challenge that must infer upon our leadership the ability to empower these Soldiers and Marines to be able to make these decisions.
For example, as a Company Commander, I would give my men a task, purpose, and my end state; and as GEN Patton said, let them surprise me with their plan. This is a hard thing to do though. As a leader you always want to be in control. You want to know every detail. But, in our current environment that is impossible. You can know a great deal, but you have to rely on your subordinates to get the job done.
Training for our leaders must be focused upon battle command as we call it within the Army. As a leader we must provide a vision and then back off and let our junior leaders and subordinates accomplish the mission through their own leadership and ingenuity. We must also train our subordinates to readily take on this mantle of responsibility. It was not too far ago in our past, where a fire team leader was responsible for his three other men, and that was all. Now, he may be responsible for a street, or a key leader, or an entire training plan.
Our schools need to change to reflect this, and we as the leaders within our Army need to change this within our own training plans and vision. It also means breaking paradigms within our Army. Something as simple as who can run a range, seems to be an upfront type of question, but it really is not.
Before 9-11 I remember a day when only a Sergeant First Class or above could run a basic rifle marksmanship range. Now, thanks to visionary leaders such as LTG Dubik, changes were made where a SGT (Team Leader) can run a static rifle marksmanship range. The rationale used in the decision making process was, if he can run a check point in Iraq, why not a static range here in the United States? I whole-heartily agree.
Our junior leaders and soldiers are ready, and this is the very heart of transformation. Changing the way we think about things, and changing how we train our soldiers for the better.
God Bless America
Bryan Sphere: Related Content
As I eluded to on my first post, the most important part of transforming our military is not one of equipment or vehicles, but rather of developing, training, and mentoring our Soldiers and leaders. GEN Krulak USMC (Ret) talked about the complexities of our operating environment when he discussed the three block war in the 90's. On one block a Soldier or Marine would be engaged in a fire-fight, on the next block he would be distributing humanitarian aid, and on the next engaging the local populace.
This dynamic operational environment calls for a Soldier or Marine that can think on his feet. More importantly it calls for a Soldier or Marine that has been trained in not what to think, but how to think.
This answer gives us two end states. The first is a Soldier or Marine that is empowered and trained to make decisions on his own with limited guidance other then the Commander's End State. The second is a leadership training challenge that must infer upon our leadership the ability to empower these Soldiers and Marines to be able to make these decisions.
For example, as a Company Commander, I would give my men a task, purpose, and my end state; and as GEN Patton said, let them surprise me with their plan. This is a hard thing to do though. As a leader you always want to be in control. You want to know every detail. But, in our current environment that is impossible. You can know a great deal, but you have to rely on your subordinates to get the job done.
Training for our leaders must be focused upon battle command as we call it within the Army. As a leader we must provide a vision and then back off and let our junior leaders and subordinates accomplish the mission through their own leadership and ingenuity. We must also train our subordinates to readily take on this mantle of responsibility. It was not too far ago in our past, where a fire team leader was responsible for his three other men, and that was all. Now, he may be responsible for a street, or a key leader, or an entire training plan.
Our schools need to change to reflect this, and we as the leaders within our Army need to change this within our own training plans and vision. It also means breaking paradigms within our Army. Something as simple as who can run a range, seems to be an upfront type of question, but it really is not.
Before 9-11 I remember a day when only a Sergeant First Class or above could run a basic rifle marksmanship range. Now, thanks to visionary leaders such as LTG Dubik, changes were made where a SGT (Team Leader) can run a static rifle marksmanship range. The rationale used in the decision making process was, if he can run a check point in Iraq, why not a static range here in the United States? I whole-heartily agree.
Our junior leaders and soldiers are ready, and this is the very heart of transformation. Changing the way we think about things, and changing how we train our soldiers for the better.
God Bless America
Bryan Sphere: Related Content
Monday, December 8, 2008
Army Warrior Soldier of the Week
Please click on the picture for the close up version.
God Bless America
Bryan Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Today's News Update 4 December 2008
Update as of 0800 Eastern Time:
Bottom Line Up Front:
1. Israel
2. Pakistan
While I have no idea how true this is, it is an interesting item to keep tucked in the back of our brains due to its possible implications.
From Fox News (Israel):
Israel is drawing up plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities and is prepared to launch a strike without backing from the U.S., an Israeli newspaper reported Thursday.
Officials in the Israeli Defense Ministry told The Jerusalem Post that while they prefer to act in consultation with the U.S., they are preparing plans that would allow them to act alone.
"It is always better to coordinate," a senior Defense Ministry official told the newspaper. "But we are also preparing options that do not include coordination."
It would be difficult, but not impossible, to launch a strike against Iran without permission from the U.S., as the American Air Force controls the Iraqi airspace Israel's jets would have to enter on a bombing mission.
"There are a wide range of risks one takes when embarking on such an operation," a senior Israeli official told the Post.
Iran, the world's fourth-largest crude oil producer, maintains that its uranium enrichment activities are aimed at making fuel for a network of planned electricity-generating nuclear power plants and not for developing weapons.
From CNN (Pakistan):
Pakistan understands the need to move "urgently and transparently" against extremists on its soil after last week's terrorist attacks in India, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said after meetings with Pakistani leaders.
"I found a Pakistani government that's focused on the threat and understands its responsibility to respond to terrorism and extremism wherever it is found," Rice told reporters Thursday after sessions with the country's president and prime minister.
After the talks, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari pledged to assist in the investigation and move against "any Pakistani elements found involved in the attack," his office said.
Rice landed in Islamabad in an effort to ease tensions between India and Pakistan following the terrorist attacks in India's financial capital Mumbai.
Indian authorities have said the gunmen who killed nearly 180 people came from Pakistan, but Pakistan has blamed "non-state actors" for the attacks.
Rice said the discussions focused on the attacks and what she called Pakistan's obligation "to deal with those who may use Pakistani territory, even if they are non-state actors."
"There does need to be action," she said. "There needs to be action urgently and transparently. And it's a message that has been well-received in Pakistan, because it's Pakistan's fight as well."
More to follow:
God Bless America
Bryan Sphere: Related Content
Bottom Line Up Front:
1. Israel
2. Pakistan
While I have no idea how true this is, it is an interesting item to keep tucked in the back of our brains due to its possible implications.
From Fox News (Israel):
Israel is drawing up plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities and is prepared to launch a strike without backing from the U.S., an Israeli newspaper reported Thursday.
Officials in the Israeli Defense Ministry told The Jerusalem Post that while they prefer to act in consultation with the U.S., they are preparing plans that would allow them to act alone.
"It is always better to coordinate," a senior Defense Ministry official told the newspaper. "But we are also preparing options that do not include coordination."
It would be difficult, but not impossible, to launch a strike against Iran without permission from the U.S., as the American Air Force controls the Iraqi airspace Israel's jets would have to enter on a bombing mission.
"There are a wide range of risks one takes when embarking on such an operation," a senior Israeli official told the Post.
Iran, the world's fourth-largest crude oil producer, maintains that its uranium enrichment activities are aimed at making fuel for a network of planned electricity-generating nuclear power plants and not for developing weapons.
From CNN (Pakistan):
Pakistan understands the need to move "urgently and transparently" against extremists on its soil after last week's terrorist attacks in India, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said after meetings with Pakistani leaders.
"I found a Pakistani government that's focused on the threat and understands its responsibility to respond to terrorism and extremism wherever it is found," Rice told reporters Thursday after sessions with the country's president and prime minister.
After the talks, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari pledged to assist in the investigation and move against "any Pakistani elements found involved in the attack," his office said.
Rice landed in Islamabad in an effort to ease tensions between India and Pakistan following the terrorist attacks in India's financial capital Mumbai.
Indian authorities have said the gunmen who killed nearly 180 people came from Pakistan, but Pakistan has blamed "non-state actors" for the attacks.
Rice said the discussions focused on the attacks and what she called Pakistan's obligation "to deal with those who may use Pakistani territory, even if they are non-state actors."
"There does need to be action," she said. "There needs to be action urgently and transparently. And it's a message that has been well-received in Pakistan, because it's Pakistan's fight as well."
More to follow:
God Bless America
Bryan Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
So what's up with Transformation?
The military of the future has been the subject of a great deal of talk lately from political pundits, defense experts, and even the President-Elect. It seems everyone has their own ideas about it. Some say we should strike a happy medium between counter-insurgency and major conventional warfare. Others say we should forsake major conventional warfare all-together and concentrate on only counter-insurgency. Our own President-Elect has said a number of times he thinks FCS and programs such as the F22 Raptor need to be rethought or cancelled all together.
So where does this leave us?
Well the problem with this entire question is; I haven't heard an analyst yet frame the question the right way. The first question should be what do we expect is going to threaten our nation in the next 20-30 years, and then assign a probability to that. Counter-Insurgency or low intensity conflict, I would say is a very high probability of us being involved in. A medium intensity conflict is about a 50/50 chance. A major conventional war....well most likely a very low possibility.
Now with that being said....the second question that has to be asked is; if it occurs what is the level of catastrophic threat to our way of life if we fail? In a counter-insurgency....very little. In a medium intensity conflict, probably low to medium. In a major war, well you guessed it, it would be catastrophic.
What we are left with is an inverse ratio that says low intensity conflict is very likely, but a low threat to our way of life. A major war while being low probability would be catastrophic to our way of life if it happened and we failed.
So if we put all of our money and resources into only counter-insurgency capability and forsake anything for major war, we run a very huge risk. While it is unlikely to happen, if it does, we lose catastrophically.
The smart move is to create a force that can handle both extremes. Programs such as the Stryker, improved Bradleys and Abrams, and FCS are designed to do that. Most importantly our transformation is not built around platforms, it is built around our Soldiers, and that is where we have done the bulk of our development. Creating a unit and most importantly the Soldiers who can handle either of these extremes, or something in the middle.
If we think that we can predict the future, well we are usually wrong. If you asked Americans in 1935 about the possibility of World War Two, how many do you think would have guessed the extent of the war we would be in? In 1988 how many Americans would have guessed at the Gulf War? In 2000 how many Americans would have guessed at the Global War on Terrorism? War and life itself have a way of sneaking up on us. If you are unprepared for either, you get burnt.
God Bless America
Bryan
(Much thanks to LTC (Ret) L. DiMarco for helping me come to these ideas and conclusions.) Sphere: Related Content
So where does this leave us?
Well the problem with this entire question is; I haven't heard an analyst yet frame the question the right way. The first question should be what do we expect is going to threaten our nation in the next 20-30 years, and then assign a probability to that. Counter-Insurgency or low intensity conflict, I would say is a very high probability of us being involved in. A medium intensity conflict is about a 50/50 chance. A major conventional war....well most likely a very low possibility.
Now with that being said....the second question that has to be asked is; if it occurs what is the level of catastrophic threat to our way of life if we fail? In a counter-insurgency....very little. In a medium intensity conflict, probably low to medium. In a major war, well you guessed it, it would be catastrophic.
What we are left with is an inverse ratio that says low intensity conflict is very likely, but a low threat to our way of life. A major war while being low probability would be catastrophic to our way of life if it happened and we failed.
So if we put all of our money and resources into only counter-insurgency capability and forsake anything for major war, we run a very huge risk. While it is unlikely to happen, if it does, we lose catastrophically.
The smart move is to create a force that can handle both extremes. Programs such as the Stryker, improved Bradleys and Abrams, and FCS are designed to do that. Most importantly our transformation is not built around platforms, it is built around our Soldiers, and that is where we have done the bulk of our development. Creating a unit and most importantly the Soldiers who can handle either of these extremes, or something in the middle.
If we think that we can predict the future, well we are usually wrong. If you asked Americans in 1935 about the possibility of World War Two, how many do you think would have guessed the extent of the war we would be in? In 1988 how many Americans would have guessed at the Gulf War? In 2000 how many Americans would have guessed at the Global War on Terrorism? War and life itself have a way of sneaking up on us. If you are unprepared for either, you get burnt.
God Bless America
Bryan
(Much thanks to LTC (Ret) L. DiMarco for helping me come to these ideas and conclusions.) Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Todays News Update 2 December 2008
Update as of 0800 Eastern Time:
Bottom Line Up Front:
1. Mumbai Terrorist Attacks
2. Afghanistan
From Fox News (Mumbai):
India has demanded that Islamabad hand over dozens of suspected terrorists believed to be living in Pakistan, including India's most-wanted man.
Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee says the names of about 50 people were given to Pakistan's high commissioner to India during a meeting Monday night.
The list includes Dawood Ibrahim, the alleged mastermind of 1993 Mumbai bombings and India's most-wanted man. He is thought to be living in Pakistan, though Islamabad denies that.
The demand comes in the wake of the deadly Mumbai attacks.
From CNN (Mumbai):
India has blamed "elements from Pakistan" for the attacks that killed 179 people in Mumbai and renewed demands for its neighbor to hand over wanted militant leaders.
External Affairs Minister Sri Pranab Mukherjee said Pakistan was originally given the names of those leaders after a 2001 attack on India's parliament that brought the South Asian nuclear rivals to the brink of war.
"We will await the response of Pakistan," he told reporters Tuesday.
India summoned Pakistan's High Commissioner, the top-ranking Pakistani diplomat in New Delhi, to Mukherjee's office Monday to inform him that last week's massacre in Mumbai "was carried out by elements from Pakistan."
"The government expects that strong action would be taken against those elements, whosoever they may be, responsible for this outrage," a statement from the ministry said.
"It was conveyed to the Pakistan High Commissioner that Pakistan's actions needed to match the sentiments expressed by its leadership that it wishes to have a qualitatively new relationship with India."
The attacks on Mumbai, the center of India's financial and film industries, left 179 people dead. A band of gunmen attacked 10 targets in the city, sparking three days of battles with police and Indian troops. Most of the deaths occurred at the city's top two hotels, the Oberoi and the Taj Mahal.
On Tuesday thousands of mourners thronged to funerals in Israel for a rabbi and his wife who were killed in the attacks
From NY Times (Afghanistan):
Military experts agree that more troops are required to carry out an effective counterinsurgency campaign, but they also caution that the reinforcements are unlikely to lead to the sort of rapid turnaround that the so-called troop surge in Iraq produced after its start in 2007.
After seven years of war, Afghanistan presents a unique set of problems: a rural-based insurgency, an enemy sanctuary in neighboring Pakistan, the chronic weakness of the Afghan government, a thriving narcotics trade, poorly developed infrastructure, and forbidding terrain.
American intelligence reports underscore the seriousness of the threat. From August through October, the average number of daily attacks by insurgents exceeded those in Iraq, the first time the violence in Afghanistan had outpaced the fighting in Iraq since the start of the American occupation in May 2003. Almost half of the insurgents’ attacks were directed against American and other foreign forces, while the remainder were focused on Afghan security forces and civilians.
“Afghanistan may be the ‘good war,’ but it is also the harder war,” said David J. Kilcullen, a former officer in the Australian Army who recently left his job as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s senior adviser on counterinsurgency issues.
During the Bush administration, the Afghan conflict has taken a back seat to Iraq, where the American military struggled to combat a virulent insurgency and tamp down an explosion of sectarian violence. According to the latest data from the military command in Baghdad, violence in Iraq has been rolled back to the levels of early 2004.
But violence in Afghanistan has climbed. The 267 allied military deaths this year are the most ever. (The monthly total peaked at 46 in June and August but dropped to 12 in November, partly because of seasonal variations in the fighting, according to a count by icasualties.org.)
Declaring Afghanistan to be the central front in the struggle against terrorism, Mr. Obama talked during the campaign of sending at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan — in effect staking the reputation of his new national security team on the outcome of that war, which appears to be stalemated, at best.
Mr. Obama and his aides have yet to outline a strategy for precisely how many reinforcements would be sent and how specifically they would be employed.
But the Pentagon is already planning to send more than 20,000 additional troops in response to a request from Gen. David D. McKiernan, the top commander in Afghanistan. Pentagon officials say that force would include four combat brigades, an aviation brigade equipped with attack and troop-carrying helicopters, reconnaissance units, support troops and trainers for the Afghan Army and the police.
The first of the combat brigades is to deploy in the eastern part of Afghanistan, while the rest of the brigades are expected to be sent to southern and southwestern Afghanistan. All told, it would increase the number of American troops in Afghanistan to about 58,000 from the current level of 34,000, and add to the approximately 30,000 other foreign troops who are operating there under a NATO-led command.
More to follow:
God Bless America
Bryan Sphere: Related Content
Bottom Line Up Front:
1. Mumbai Terrorist Attacks
2. Afghanistan
From Fox News (Mumbai):
India has demanded that Islamabad hand over dozens of suspected terrorists believed to be living in Pakistan, including India's most-wanted man.
Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee says the names of about 50 people were given to Pakistan's high commissioner to India during a meeting Monday night.
The list includes Dawood Ibrahim, the alleged mastermind of 1993 Mumbai bombings and India's most-wanted man. He is thought to be living in Pakistan, though Islamabad denies that.
The demand comes in the wake of the deadly Mumbai attacks.
From CNN (Mumbai):
India has blamed "elements from Pakistan" for the attacks that killed 179 people in Mumbai and renewed demands for its neighbor to hand over wanted militant leaders.
External Affairs Minister Sri Pranab Mukherjee said Pakistan was originally given the names of those leaders after a 2001 attack on India's parliament that brought the South Asian nuclear rivals to the brink of war.
"We will await the response of Pakistan," he told reporters Tuesday.
India summoned Pakistan's High Commissioner, the top-ranking Pakistani diplomat in New Delhi, to Mukherjee's office Monday to inform him that last week's massacre in Mumbai "was carried out by elements from Pakistan."
"The government expects that strong action would be taken against those elements, whosoever they may be, responsible for this outrage," a statement from the ministry said.
"It was conveyed to the Pakistan High Commissioner that Pakistan's actions needed to match the sentiments expressed by its leadership that it wishes to have a qualitatively new relationship with India."
The attacks on Mumbai, the center of India's financial and film industries, left 179 people dead. A band of gunmen attacked 10 targets in the city, sparking three days of battles with police and Indian troops. Most of the deaths occurred at the city's top two hotels, the Oberoi and the Taj Mahal.
On Tuesday thousands of mourners thronged to funerals in Israel for a rabbi and his wife who were killed in the attacks
From NY Times (Afghanistan):
Military experts agree that more troops are required to carry out an effective counterinsurgency campaign, but they also caution that the reinforcements are unlikely to lead to the sort of rapid turnaround that the so-called troop surge in Iraq produced after its start in 2007.
After seven years of war, Afghanistan presents a unique set of problems: a rural-based insurgency, an enemy sanctuary in neighboring Pakistan, the chronic weakness of the Afghan government, a thriving narcotics trade, poorly developed infrastructure, and forbidding terrain.
American intelligence reports underscore the seriousness of the threat. From August through October, the average number of daily attacks by insurgents exceeded those in Iraq, the first time the violence in Afghanistan had outpaced the fighting in Iraq since the start of the American occupation in May 2003. Almost half of the insurgents’ attacks were directed against American and other foreign forces, while the remainder were focused on Afghan security forces and civilians.
“Afghanistan may be the ‘good war,’ but it is also the harder war,” said David J. Kilcullen, a former officer in the Australian Army who recently left his job as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s senior adviser on counterinsurgency issues.
During the Bush administration, the Afghan conflict has taken a back seat to Iraq, where the American military struggled to combat a virulent insurgency and tamp down an explosion of sectarian violence. According to the latest data from the military command in Baghdad, violence in Iraq has been rolled back to the levels of early 2004.
But violence in Afghanistan has climbed. The 267 allied military deaths this year are the most ever. (The monthly total peaked at 46 in June and August but dropped to 12 in November, partly because of seasonal variations in the fighting, according to a count by icasualties.org.)
Declaring Afghanistan to be the central front in the struggle against terrorism, Mr. Obama talked during the campaign of sending at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan — in effect staking the reputation of his new national security team on the outcome of that war, which appears to be stalemated, at best.
Mr. Obama and his aides have yet to outline a strategy for precisely how many reinforcements would be sent and how specifically they would be employed.
But the Pentagon is already planning to send more than 20,000 additional troops in response to a request from Gen. David D. McKiernan, the top commander in Afghanistan. Pentagon officials say that force would include four combat brigades, an aviation brigade equipped with attack and troop-carrying helicopters, reconnaissance units, support troops and trainers for the Afghan Army and the police.
The first of the combat brigades is to deploy in the eastern part of Afghanistan, while the rest of the brigades are expected to be sent to southern and southwestern Afghanistan. All told, it would increase the number of American troops in Afghanistan to about 58,000 from the current level of 34,000, and add to the approximately 30,000 other foreign troops who are operating there under a NATO-led command.
More to follow:
God Bless America
Bryan Sphere: Related Content
Monday, December 1, 2008
Terrorist Attacks in India
A lot of you have asked me via email what my take on the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India is. Well I think first off, there is a lot more info that we need to know. But as of right now, here are some of my concerns and questions...
First off as far as why someone would do this, beyond the obvious reasons of death, terror, and destruction; I see two reasons. The first is an attempt to splinter Indian society. India is very proud of the fact that they are the world's largest democracy. They have a very large amount of diversity within their country and it is something they are equally proud of. I could definitely see a feasible reason behind these attacks to divide these groups, and cause even greater problems with the second and third order effects.
The second reason would be to ratchet up the threat of force between Pakistan and India. Pakistan today already said that if India became too hostile worded and shifted troops that they might have to pull troops out of the FATA and Northwest Frontier Provinces and move them to the Indian Border. (a veiled threat to us also, that if we don't help keep the situation de-escalated that things will get worse in Afghanistan) Both of these developments would help Al Qaeda, and the Taliban. It would also help other break-away and splinter groups in the border regions with India.
Where do I think this is going? Well my number one concern is the ISI right now. Is there going to be evidence or accusations made in the coming days and weeks about them being involved. If either is true, then you can just about guarantee India is going to get very angry with Pakistan. A couple months ago, I believe about April or May 08, the ISI was linked to a bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul. If they were to be linked to something like this, India's actions would be swift and severe.
That is the information I am really watching for now. Much is going to depend on the answer to that question.
God Bless America
Bryan Sphere: Related Content
First off as far as why someone would do this, beyond the obvious reasons of death, terror, and destruction; I see two reasons. The first is an attempt to splinter Indian society. India is very proud of the fact that they are the world's largest democracy. They have a very large amount of diversity within their country and it is something they are equally proud of. I could definitely see a feasible reason behind these attacks to divide these groups, and cause even greater problems with the second and third order effects.
The second reason would be to ratchet up the threat of force between Pakistan and India. Pakistan today already said that if India became too hostile worded and shifted troops that they might have to pull troops out of the FATA and Northwest Frontier Provinces and move them to the Indian Border. (a veiled threat to us also, that if we don't help keep the situation de-escalated that things will get worse in Afghanistan) Both of these developments would help Al Qaeda, and the Taliban. It would also help other break-away and splinter groups in the border regions with India.
Where do I think this is going? Well my number one concern is the ISI right now. Is there going to be evidence or accusations made in the coming days and weeks about them being involved. If either is true, then you can just about guarantee India is going to get very angry with Pakistan. A couple months ago, I believe about April or May 08, the ISI was linked to a bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul. If they were to be linked to something like this, India's actions would be swift and severe.
That is the information I am really watching for now. Much is going to depend on the answer to that question.
God Bless America
Bryan Sphere: Related Content
Todays News Update 1 December 08
Update as of 0800 Eastern Time:
Bottom Line Up Front:
1. Mumbai Attacks
2. Pirates
From Fox News (Mumbai):
At least five terrorist gunmen have evaded capture in Mumbai and could make a secondary strike on India's financial capital, police feared Monday morning.
Indian security forces are officially claiming that ten militants – nine of whom were killed and one caught alive – were behind a coordinated terror attack that claimed nearly 200 lives.
However, the hijacked Indian fishing boat used by the gunmen to approach Mumbai, the crew of which were also slaughtered, had equipment for 15 men on board when it was discovered adrift off the city shore – suggesting that several gunmen could still be at large.
"Fifteen jackets were found, 15 toothbrushes even," one police source said. "That more men were involved, is possible."
The news came as Shakeel Ahmad, India's Deputy Home Minister, said that all the gunmen found so far were from Pakistan, an allegation that threatened to place further stress on the troubled relationship between the two nuclear powers.
The Indian government has raised the country's security to a "war level", claiming proof of a Pakistani link to the Mumbai strikes.
In response, Pakistan threatened to end military operations against Islamist militants - including the Taliban and Al Qaeda – on its border with Afghan border if it is forced into an "unwanted conflict" with Delhi.
Mumbai residents suspect that perhaps two dozen gunmen had stormed the city – an impression supported by early police and media reports on Wednesday night when a wave of attacks at at least eight locations rocked Mumbai. Angry at the Government's response to the crisis, they are reluctant to accept the assurances that all the terrorists are all accounted for.
Yesterday Shivraj Patil, India's Home Minister, resigned after a public backlash at the handling of the attack on Mumbai. People are furious that it took an elite group of commandos at least seven hours to reach the two luxury hotels that were attacked, by which time the gunmen had consolidated their positions and trapped hundreds of people.
It has also emerged that Rata Tata, the head of the Indian conglomerate that owns the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, had been warned of a possible attack on the hotel. He claimed, however, that no security arrangements could have prevented the highly-trained and organised militants.
From CNN (Mumbai):
A second Indian official offered his resignation Monday in the wake of last week's deadly terrorist attacks as Pakistan urged its nuclear neighbor to withhold blame until further investigation.
Vilasrao Deshmukh, chief minister of the state of Maharashtra where Mumbai is located, said he would leave it up to his ruling Congress party to decide whether his resignation would be accepted.
His announcement followed Sunday's resignation of federal Home Minister Shivraj Patil, who quit amid criticism of the response to Wednesday's attacks that left 179 dead.
The attacks have damaged India's already strained relationship with Pakistan, which says India has yet to offer any proof to support allegations that a Pakistani-based Islamic militant group was behind the massacre.
One captured suspect has told police that he is Pakistani, Indian officials said. Sources told CNN's sister station, CNN-IBN, that the captive has said he was trained by Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, a Pakistan-based terror group allied with al Qaeda.
In Washington, Pakistan's ambassador to the United States said the attacks could be a chance to improve cooperation and ease "the burden of history" between the longtime South Asian rivals, who have fought three major wars since independence and conducted tit-for-tat nuclear weapons tests in 1998.
"It's important to avoid miscalculations. It's important not to ratchet up tensions. It is important to understand that this is an opportunity for India and Pakistan to work together," Ambassador Husain Haqqani told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" on Sunday.
Police in Mumbai, located in Maharashtra state, on Monday revised downward the death toll from Wednesday's attacks and the sieges that followed to 179 dead and about 300 wounded.
At least 28 foreigners were among the victims, including six Americans and eight Israelis.
From CNN (Pirates):
Somalis are so desperate to survive that attacks on merchant shipping in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean will not stop, a pirate leader promises.
"The pirates are living between life and death," said the pirate leader, identified by only one name, Boyah. "Who can stop them? Americans and British all put together cannot do anything."
The interview with the pirate was conducted in late August by journalists employed by the Somali news organization Garowe. The complete interview was provided to CNN last week and provides a glimpse of why piracy has been so hard to control in the region.
Recorded on grainy video, the interview took place in the Somali port city of Eyl, now a center of pirate operations. Eyl is on the east coast of Somalia in the autonomous territory of Puntland. It is a largely lawless zone, considered extremely dangerous for Westerners to enter.
The Puntland government said two unidentified Western journalists were taken hostage Wednesday as they attempted to report on pirate activity.
Boyah said that the piracy began because traditional coastal fishing became difficult after foreign fishing trawlers depleted local fish stocks. Traditional fishermen started attacking the trawlers until the trawler crews fought back with heavy weapons. The fishermen then turned to softer targets.
"We went into the deep ocean and hijacked the unarmed cargo ships," Boyah said.
"For the past three years, we have not operated near the Somali coast. We have operated at least 80 miles [out], in international waters."
"No ship has the capability to see everything," he said. "A ship can see 80 miles or so [on radar]. It cannot see us at all. No one can do anything about it."
Boyah said it is unlikely the Puntland regional government would ever crack down on piracy because government officials are involved in financing the piracy and collect a cut of the ransoms.
"They motivate us. It's their money and their weapons," Boyah said. "Thirty percent belongs to them."
The Puntland foreign minister, Ali Abdi Aware, denied government involvement with the pirates, including taking bribes. The minister cited the arrest of six pirates earlier this year as evidence it is acting to stop piracy.
Pirate Boyah said he is unimpressed with the arrests by Puntland authorities.
More to follow:
God Bless America
Bryan Sphere: Related Content
Bottom Line Up Front:
1. Mumbai Attacks
2. Pirates
From Fox News (Mumbai):
At least five terrorist gunmen have evaded capture in Mumbai and could make a secondary strike on India's financial capital, police feared Monday morning.
Indian security forces are officially claiming that ten militants – nine of whom were killed and one caught alive – were behind a coordinated terror attack that claimed nearly 200 lives.
However, the hijacked Indian fishing boat used by the gunmen to approach Mumbai, the crew of which were also slaughtered, had equipment for 15 men on board when it was discovered adrift off the city shore – suggesting that several gunmen could still be at large.
"Fifteen jackets were found, 15 toothbrushes even," one police source said. "That more men were involved, is possible."
The news came as Shakeel Ahmad, India's Deputy Home Minister, said that all the gunmen found so far were from Pakistan, an allegation that threatened to place further stress on the troubled relationship between the two nuclear powers.
The Indian government has raised the country's security to a "war level", claiming proof of a Pakistani link to the Mumbai strikes.
In response, Pakistan threatened to end military operations against Islamist militants - including the Taliban and Al Qaeda – on its border with Afghan border if it is forced into an "unwanted conflict" with Delhi.
Mumbai residents suspect that perhaps two dozen gunmen had stormed the city – an impression supported by early police and media reports on Wednesday night when a wave of attacks at at least eight locations rocked Mumbai. Angry at the Government's response to the crisis, they are reluctant to accept the assurances that all the terrorists are all accounted for.
Yesterday Shivraj Patil, India's Home Minister, resigned after a public backlash at the handling of the attack on Mumbai. People are furious that it took an elite group of commandos at least seven hours to reach the two luxury hotels that were attacked, by which time the gunmen had consolidated their positions and trapped hundreds of people.
It has also emerged that Rata Tata, the head of the Indian conglomerate that owns the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, had been warned of a possible attack on the hotel. He claimed, however, that no security arrangements could have prevented the highly-trained and organised militants.
From CNN (Mumbai):
A second Indian official offered his resignation Monday in the wake of last week's deadly terrorist attacks as Pakistan urged its nuclear neighbor to withhold blame until further investigation.
Vilasrao Deshmukh, chief minister of the state of Maharashtra where Mumbai is located, said he would leave it up to his ruling Congress party to decide whether his resignation would be accepted.
His announcement followed Sunday's resignation of federal Home Minister Shivraj Patil, who quit amid criticism of the response to Wednesday's attacks that left 179 dead.
The attacks have damaged India's already strained relationship with Pakistan, which says India has yet to offer any proof to support allegations that a Pakistani-based Islamic militant group was behind the massacre.
One captured suspect has told police that he is Pakistani, Indian officials said. Sources told CNN's sister station, CNN-IBN, that the captive has said he was trained by Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, a Pakistan-based terror group allied with al Qaeda.
In Washington, Pakistan's ambassador to the United States said the attacks could be a chance to improve cooperation and ease "the burden of history" between the longtime South Asian rivals, who have fought three major wars since independence and conducted tit-for-tat nuclear weapons tests in 1998.
"It's important to avoid miscalculations. It's important not to ratchet up tensions. It is important to understand that this is an opportunity for India and Pakistan to work together," Ambassador Husain Haqqani told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" on Sunday.
Police in Mumbai, located in Maharashtra state, on Monday revised downward the death toll from Wednesday's attacks and the sieges that followed to 179 dead and about 300 wounded.
At least 28 foreigners were among the victims, including six Americans and eight Israelis.
From CNN (Pirates):
Somalis are so desperate to survive that attacks on merchant shipping in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean will not stop, a pirate leader promises.
"The pirates are living between life and death," said the pirate leader, identified by only one name, Boyah. "Who can stop them? Americans and British all put together cannot do anything."
The interview with the pirate was conducted in late August by journalists employed by the Somali news organization Garowe. The complete interview was provided to CNN last week and provides a glimpse of why piracy has been so hard to control in the region.
Recorded on grainy video, the interview took place in the Somali port city of Eyl, now a center of pirate operations. Eyl is on the east coast of Somalia in the autonomous territory of Puntland. It is a largely lawless zone, considered extremely dangerous for Westerners to enter.
The Puntland government said two unidentified Western journalists were taken hostage Wednesday as they attempted to report on pirate activity.
Boyah said that the piracy began because traditional coastal fishing became difficult after foreign fishing trawlers depleted local fish stocks. Traditional fishermen started attacking the trawlers until the trawler crews fought back with heavy weapons. The fishermen then turned to softer targets.
"We went into the deep ocean and hijacked the unarmed cargo ships," Boyah said.
"For the past three years, we have not operated near the Somali coast. We have operated at least 80 miles [out], in international waters."
"No ship has the capability to see everything," he said. "A ship can see 80 miles or so [on radar]. It cannot see us at all. No one can do anything about it."
Boyah said it is unlikely the Puntland regional government would ever crack down on piracy because government officials are involved in financing the piracy and collect a cut of the ransoms.
"They motivate us. It's their money and their weapons," Boyah said. "Thirty percent belongs to them."
The Puntland foreign minister, Ali Abdi Aware, denied government involvement with the pirates, including taking bribes. The minister cited the arrest of six pirates earlier this year as evidence it is acting to stop piracy.
Pirate Boyah said he is unimpressed with the arrests by Puntland authorities.
More to follow:
God Bless America
Bryan Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
