Battleland

U.S. Military Might. Then Again, It Might Not.

  • Share
  • Read Later
Air Force photo / Senior Airman Jeffrey Allen

Figuring out the proper mix of forces and weapons for the 21st Century remains a challenge for the nation.

The American calibration of threats-vs.-the-forces-to-deal-with-those-threats has been a Battleland focus since the Cold War’s end two decades ago.

We remain somewhat dumbfounded by the seeming inability of the nation to adjust to what the original President Bush called the “New World Order.” Our national-security infrastructure remains pegged to a post-World War II world of massed forces, nuclear might and hyper-weapons.

Top U.S. national-security officials say things like “the world hasn’t gotten any safer” when its demonstrably untrue.

That tension was clearly on display in two of the nation’s leading newspapers Sunday.

Former Washington Post Pentagon reporter Greg Jaffe had a piece in the paper’s opinion section headlined

The World Is Safer, But No One Will Say So

…which began:

There’s one foreign policy fact that President Obama and Mitt Romney dare not mention this election season. No American general will speak of it. Nor will it displace the usual hot topics at Washington’s myriad foreign policy think tanks. Measured by most relevant statistics, the United States — and the world — have never been safer.

…he then goes on to explain why he believes this is so (there are many powerful interests for whom the status quo is near-perfect), and what can be done about it. Not much, he concludes:

What’s missing is any serious effort to study whether the decline in state-on-state war, violence and terrorism around the world means that the United States can scale back its spending on defense.

The flip side of the argument appeared in Sunday’s New York Times, under the headline:

Libya Attack Shows Pentagon’s Limits in Region

Reporters Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt autopsied the Defense Department’s inability to respond to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last month. The raid, linked to al-Qaeda elements in North Africa, led to the death of U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. officials. The event, the pair wrote,

points to a limitation in the capabilities of the American military command responsible for a large swath of countries swept up in the Arab Spring…At the heart of the issue is the Africa Command, established in 2007, well before the Arab Spring uprisings and before an affiliate of Al Qaeda became a major regional threat. It did not have on hand what every other regional combatant command has: its own force able to respond rapidly to emergencies — a Commanders’ In-Extremis Force, or C.I.F.

Of course, the ability to protect a diplomatic outpost doesn’t require a standing army so much as a robust, but limited, Marine presence. Such units have ably defended U.S. embassies, and protected their secrets, around the globe for decades. That it was MIA in Libya remains the key scandal in the Benghazi disaster.

It’s too bad that many decision-makers don’t realize that the two newspaper stories reflect flip sides of the same coin.

2 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Don_Bacon
Don_Bacon like.author.displayName 1 Like

Uncle Leon says it's dangerous:

Violent extremism, weapons proliferation, international instability and the rise of new powers across Asia are just some of the challenges facing the country, Panetta said.“And now we confront a whole new threat of warfare in cyber [space]” he said. “I think this is an area we have got to pay close attention to. This is the battle front of the future. As I speak, there are cyberattacks going on in this country.”

hahahahaha

Don_Bacon
Don_Bacon like.author.displayName 1 Like

<blockquote>"a diplomatic outpost"</blockquote>There is no US consulate in Benghazi, which is why State didn't care about security and why State tried to avoid responsibility. It was a CIA operation with about two dozen agents.  (Ineffective in intelligence, of course.) Why should State provide security for CIA? Besides, the Agency likes to keep a low profile.The US does not have an embassy, a consulate or a diplomatic mission in Benghazi. There are none listed on this State Department list of all the US embassies and consulates in the world.http://www.usembassy.gov/On September 12, 2012, SecState Clinton made two statements. She never used the word “consulate.”To describe the place that was attacked in Benghazi she used instead the words ‘U.S. diplomatic post, compound, our buildings and our office.’http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/09/197654.htmhttp://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/09/197630.htmThere is (and was) no US consulate in Benghazi. No consul. No consular officials. No commercial officers. No diplomats of any kind. No consulate. It was a CIA operation with two dozen agents which the US has euphemistically called a "mission." Gives it a religious flavor. Chris Stevens was in this dangerous, volatile city in eastern Libya to coordinate CIA arms shipments to Turkey. His last official act in Benghazi was a dinner meeting with the Turkish ambassador. Stevens was also probably using his past knowledge of Libyan militias -- he managed them for the US from Benghazi in 2011 -- to coordinate drone strikes in eastern Libya. There were several reported (by CNN) against an al Qaeda training camp in the Derna area in June.The real story here is the Benghazi-Turkey arms & people connection and drone strikes  that motivated Ambassador Stevens to be in Benghazi rather than in Tripoli where he was needed for necessary diplomatic functions.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,107 other followers