Captain's Quarters -

It's interesting to watch Hamas' ambivalent attitude toward AQ, for they're branches of the same tree. Zawahri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which merged with AQ, is a spin-off of the Muslim Brotherhood, as is Hamas. Different flavors of the same rotten dish, if you will.

And yet our government wants to engage with their parent, the Muslim Brotherhood. Argh.

You're right Captain, this is both endorsement and threat. "Good going guys! Now get going on Sha'ria or we will!"

Its interesting that Hamas would see AQ as a threat to their power and purpose. I guess it's way too easy to think of all maniacs as being pretty much the same. Keep a loose grip on your stereotypes, folks!

Now don't y'all feel silly for attacking Jimmy Carter last week as if he were out on a limb by hi'sself? World leaders are flocking behind him!

Well, the "human shields" thing is a cute touch, but I don't recall that it worked out that well for the people in Hiroshima or Nagisaki.

Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

That was over 60 years ago now, and it was a different time and a different place and we were a different people then. In growing, something's gained and something's lost.

That was then, and this is now!

I had the same thought about Jimmy Carter who was also out there last week supporting Hamas. It's pretty clear who's side he's on. Loony left gives AQ hope.

I thought Iran was supporting the Hamas takeover. Won't Iran get pissed off if poor little backwards Al-queda tries to insert itself in the middle of whatever plans Iran is concocting?

Iran and Al-Queda *are* two different entities with two different end goals, aren't they?

Lew,
Yes we are in a different time and place. Fortunately for me, I don't live in NYC, or LA, or DC (rather too close, though), for I fear it will be one of our cities that disappears, before we respond with any sort of force. The general lesson of wars I've ever read about indicate the way to win is to show such overwhelming strength that the other side realizes the futility of continuing.

What has this to do with the Palestinians? I'm not sure. But given the Hamas - AQ - Syria - Iran links we are hearing of now... well a small nuke from Iran or purchased from NK would certainly fit in a truck, if not a suitcase.

Good observation msr!

I was always a big supporter of Don Rumsfeld until I recently began to think about exactly what you mentioned; victory needs to be overwhelming and utterly unequivocal in order to be lasting. The Rumsfeld strategy of measured economy of force, is really just another way of saying that we're going to dribble our forces into the fight in measured increments until we just barely achieve our goals with the minimum necessary. This is in response to the current political agenda of war fighting with minimum expense to the budget and minimum inconvenience to the voting public, and no need to sacrifice even the most trivial of functions. We have a volunteer military who've assumed the burden for the rest of us, so we can just watch on TV and kibitz to our hearts content.

If you compare this with WW2 you can see why we're still fighting to nail down a victory our people won 4 years ago. In 1945 there was no way anybody could spin or rationalize who won the war. Germany and Japan were utterly and completely and visibly devastated beyond any equivocation or argument. Iraq on the other hand is by comparison, barely inconvenienced and still as dysfunctional as ever because all we did was pinch off the very tip of the power pyramid. In fact, the recent strategic shift toward a more intense effort (i.e. the "surge") is tacit admission that the careful precision with which we achieved the removal of Sadaam was actually a negative to the process of winning a lasting peace after the victory.

Once again, we must learn the basics. Never strike when its unnecessary, but when its necessary strike quickly and with devastating impact and overwhelming violence so as to end the bloodshed quickly and leave no doubt in the mind of your enemy. To fight a war with a persistent tapping is to invite defeat.

Now that we have bipartisanship on seeking out moderate terrorists it does mean that we will finally need to recognize the connecting element between al Qaeda and Hamas: the Muslim Brotherhood. The entire upper echelon of al Qaeda comes *from* the MB and Hamas started out as the 'military wing' of the MB, although it has become an all-source funding organization since then, it still relies on the MB to get recruits and training via its network of contacts and subsidiary organizations.

Consider the MB to be the 'Godfather' organization for organizations, as most of the heads of other Sunni based organizations come through MB. And MB turned into such a lovely organization in the 1950's when it got a brand new backer... folks who didn't like Nasser's concept of Arabism. Yes, Saudi Arabian Wahabbists funded MB to make it into this grand 'terror central' it is today.

And, to put the reason *why* the US could not use 'overwhelming force' against Iraq, it is necessary to understand, yes, the size and scope of the US forces that are actually available. Not only can you *not* get those high force levels at a *sustainable* rate, but if you did, the amount of troops for rotation are then paltry.

You cannot say you want that lovely Shinsekian 500,000 troops unless you realize that Shinsecki was utilizing that to point out that the US Armed Forces are far too *small* as an organization to take on such operations under the 'Powell Doctrine'. That doctrine, in and of itself, has serious limitations on recognizing force multipliers, changing scope of the battlefield in modern times and the new abilities brought forth with GPS guided munitions. It was a very nice doctrine for the 5 years or so it took to transition to having the majority of US munitions that are air dropped move into precision targeting. The exact counter-argument on minimal force use is Afghanistan, in which a true handfull of US Special Forces and a quite small and lackluster Northern Alliance utilized US precision bombing to knock the Taliban down as a fighting force and then all the way out of Kabul before any *real* US forces showed up. What a difference 10,000 special forces and ground spotters make!

This does point out that the entire US Armed Forces need to undergo structural change and re-alignment, particularly the USAF, as critical needs are now falling out from these conflicts. A re-alignment and new force structure for the USAF will change the focus of the organization to:

1) Combat Air Support - The A-10 has proven the most reliable and survivable of sudden force protection and obstacle removal in the US arsenal. We only have about 300 of them from the 1980's. Rotary wing aircraft do not afford the amount and types of munitions the A-10 brings, nor the morale lift of it.

2) Air Dominance and Maintenance force - The actual number of air forces able to field last generation technology is limited and current stealth technology is unheard-of by other forces. Here there needs to be a transition to a all-stealth force and the need for Carrier based operations is also needed. This does not need to be the current large force fielded by the USAF and USMC, and concentration on immediate airspace superiority and maintenance are goals, not huge numbers of aircraft.

3) UAV/UCAV operations - There are not *enough* of these. The USAF wants them all, but the needs for combat field information means that they are the worst ones to have it. Long-term, extremely high altitude should be the province of the USAF for air space management and near-space management. Anything below 30,000' is considered Theater strategic or Theater tactical. What does need to happen is a long-term shift to a UAV/UCAV carrier based platform.

4) Long range bomber - Current stealth bombers are necessary for establishing air space dominance. That said a much larger load, higher flying, non-stealth 'bomb delivery services' is necessary once air space dominance is assured. Large payload and long loiter time are key elements for this.

5) Space based geo-strategic information control and assurance - The USAF needs to shift to the Aerospace Force in the long run. Perhaps by giving back the CAS elements to the ground forces and concentrating on space presence and satellite safety. Someone needs to get the dead satellites and *space debris* out of orbit and until a real, commercial space venture service can be found to do that, the USAF should have that for common satellite safety in terrestrial space plus finding ways to neutralize ASAT weapons (ground or space based). Any Nation that attempts to put the GPS system at peril to remove its military and civilian benefits needs to know that doing so is a direct threat to the US.

Needless to say the other Armed Forces need to undergo some changes too... robotics and new equipment need to get to field testing and out of demo/test mode. The entire training cycle has already been changed and that needs to be ratified by the Doctrine arms and fully instituted on a regular, not ad-hoc basis. It is a continuous training cycle with troops in training, in-field and cycling out to R&R and sustainment all involved to pass experience and retain it in the organizations involved.

It is not just sheer troop numbers, but the changing face of warfare that needs to be addressed now... although troop numbers are damned important, I want them to be effective *modern* forces. Unfortunately I don't think Congress is up to doing this. Too much ideology in their positions, and not enough of adhering to their Oaths of Office.