Share

This is a very important question and it has been raised recently with the announcement from the White House that INTERPOL will be granted more powers in the U.S. This story is making many Americans very angry. Sovereignty apparently has been set aside for other purposes such as Obama’s civilian national security force. During the campaign many people applauded the idea without stopping to consider that if there is a centralized enforcement entity that means it’s across the board, not designed for each jurisdiction. There is no talk of what kind of training or policies will guide this backup organization(s) once implemented. The idea came and went noticed by a select few and denied by the rest as some form of putdown of the presidential candidate. So can and will INTERPOL’s police powers extended?

Eh, maybe, maybe not. Perhaps we’re not looking at this story objectively. In fact, there is too much emotion involved in how people are reacting to the possibility that this international law enforcement organization could become a centralized police power. Unless there is such a drastic plan in place, it just isn’t feasible but some things are always worthy of investigation. INTERPOL’s purpose is to serve as a hub for information sharing, intelligence, training of law enforcement agencies worldwide. It’s no different than cops back home; when a call takes them to another jurisdiction they call ahead and ask the guys at the other end to be on the alert. INTERPOL is pretty much like that; it helps agencies track statistical data as well, assists in the search for fugitives and their apprehension. INTERPOL in that context is not a bad thing. The fact is that amending EO-12425 is not as significant in itself because there are some other elements missing at this time.

If you look at INTERPOL from a different perspective, say, how could they actually accomplish having all of these powers that we are so afraid of then we must see how that is structured. One of the agency’s accomplishments in 2009 was the successful introduction of the INTERPOL passport. This passport is designed to function just like any other passport however it has been enhanced to afford expediency for teams or individuals who are invited to any of the member countries, all 188 of them, to pass through customs and passport control without interference. I suppose these individuals must be thoroughly vetted before being given such easy access into a country. The US sends plenty of FBI people overseas to assist in counterterrorism investigations all the time but I am sure that these teams can get expedited passage with their credentials. Still, law enforcement travel is tricky so countries track these individuals. Does such a passport mean fast entry but how about monitoring movement in country? Maybe there is something in the language of INTERPOL’s Secretary General that got me thinking:

“When member countries ask INTERPOL for assistance to prevent, investigate, or respond to any terrorist act, serious crime or natural disaster, the safety and security of their citizens may depend on INTERPOL being in place as fast as possible,” said Secretary General Noble.

“That a person is travelling with an INTERPOL passport for official business should be all the information a country needs in order to grant them access. By agreeing to waive visas for INTERPOL passport holders, member countries will ultimately be assisting themselves,” added Mr Noble.

INTERPOL is entering the much needed aspect of police peacekeeping and peace-building operations. You’ve probably heard the term peacekeeping more in relation to police actions such as the intervention in the Balkans of the 1990s. I am saying ‘much-needed’ for a legitimate reason. The importance of an international police force that will help military elements establish and maintain the rule of law in occupied countries has been debated and suggested for many years. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 at first appeared to be beneficial and it was expected that the population would be cooperative. The intention is always to establish the rule of law as soon as combat operations are stable or stop in order to assist the local people re-enter a period of rehabilitation. War is stressful and disrupts the normal lives of people; that’s a given. Stability operations in Iraq went awry five weeks after Coalition troops invaded. Forget the search for Saddam Hussein; the changes going on in Iraqi society took place quickly and violently. Suddenly Iraqis were left with the euphoric feeling of freedom from a tyrant then moved on to the realization that without those social and political controls they could do what they wanted.

This is a good thing because there is a need for a dedicated constabulary to deploy not only in peace time but during the stability phase following the cessation of military operations. It is also the stuff the U.S. is attempting to do in Iraq and Afghanistan; to rebuild their countries from the bottom up. The International Criminal Court – which seeks jurisdiction in the U.S. as it has in other countries – would be more involved in American law and order at all but then it needs an enforcement branch in order to be effective. At any rate, something is missing in the equation. The ICC goes hand in hand with the UN (under war crimes tribunal, not for the persecution – prosecution of individual parties but of countries) and INTERPOL is wrapped nicely inside that circle. The question is how realistic is the possibility of these forces deploying to the U.S.

Theory:

Get acquainted with these terms; stability operations or nation building.
To have a foreign police force deploy to the U.S. it must be due to an invitation by that country or international police authority for them to come. What is different here is the absence of a crisis big enough to warrant such an invitation. After all, that is what happens to other countries, such as it happened in the Balkans, Iraq or Afghanistan where political and military instability threaten the stability of neighboring states or faces total collapse. Given the number of small incidents occurring nationwide after the Delta flight attack, a power grid shutdown during winter, an outbreak of the flu in Florida, civil disobedience, etc. could be considered emergencies or crises that can be handled by a peaceful people and there is no need for an international intervention. What if the economy collapses? Maybe as events accumulate over time things will not look so good for us. Scattered terrorist attacks may give the perception that we are in such trouble that we must outsource our security from others as we have done before. If such a police force is vetted so have passports that allow them to enter any member country easily, does the U.S. have any input on their background?
Worst yet can someone’s background be falsified? Are we sure those cops are really who they say they are?
Just wondering.

Executive Order 12425

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425

Order on Interpol inside U.S. irks Conservatives

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/world/31interpol.html

The White House press release of executive order establishing the council of governors

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-signs-executive-order-establishing-council-governors

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Obama gives foreign cops new police powers in U.S.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=120363

http://www.interpol.int/

http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/PressReleases/PR2009/flashPR2009118/PR2009118.asp

Related posts:

1. Relinquishing US sovereignty: The controversy behind INTERPOL’s extended powers This is a very important question and it has been...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Share

CENTCOM in 2010: Views from General David H. Petraeus
Friday, January 22, 2010

Stretching from Egypt to Yemen, Iran and Pakistan, General David H. Petraeus commands the most challenging area of responsibility in the war against terrorism. In addition to deterring non-state aggressors, he also oversees the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On Friday morning, January 22nd, the Institute for the Study of War held an on-the-record conversation with General Petraeus hosted by ISW President, Dr. Kimberly Kagan. General Petraeus discussed his competing regional priorities at U.S. Central Command and offered a strategic overview of his AOR, explaining the dynamic effect it has on American national security.

Please see transcript link above.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Targeting the Taliban
By Michael Fowler

The simplest and safest way to thwart an enemy’s ability to conduct war is to destroy their supply lines. This is an old and useful tactic from the time of King Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562) of Babylon. His armies would surround their hapless victims who had taken refuge in forts, cut off all supplies, including water and food, until famine weakened their army, and then attack. This is a brutal but effective military ploy. We have been in Afghanistan for eight years—and neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration has effectively utilized this strategy.

The solution to winning the war in Afghanistan is to destroy the Taliban’s ability to make war, causing the decimation of the Taliban war machine. The Taliban’s supply lines are the poppy fields. Eliminating those fields as a source of income would strike a fatal blow to the Taliban.

The Taliban are mafia drug-lords wrapped in Middle-Eastern freedom-fighter apparel. They generate $100 to $150 million annually by imposing “taxes” on opium farmers.Selling and exporting opium raises $700 to $800 million annually for the Taliban. This allows for the purchase of arms for insurgency, terrorism and black-market tyranny. Worldwide, Afghan heroin fuels 93 percent of a $65 billion trade, far surpassing all of Mexico, Southeast Asia and South America combined. The United Nations estimates between 15 to 21 million people use this highly addictive drug. Afghan heroin alone kills over 100,000 people each year, outweighing the U.S. combat losses of Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Grenada and Vietnam combined.

Our current policy of agricultural transformation allows the cultivation of opium poppies until economic incentives prompt farmers to take up other crops such as pomegranates and grapes. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2009 Annual Report, opium production has doubled under U.S. occupation and is so bountiful that the Taliban has reportedly stored 12,000 tons of opium, which can supply the entire world for three years. We need a new plan.

If the poppy fields in Afghanistan were eradicated, this would annihilate the Taliban’s primary source of funding. This in turn would eliminate their ability to corrupt the Karzi government, buy arms, cause terror, protect al-Qaeda and buy foreign influence. It is the single, clearest solution and would end the havoc in southern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan while devastating world heroin trafficking in a matter of weeks. This is a win-win strategy.

Proponents against the eradication of Afghanistan’s poppy fields argue that world demand will only increase production in other areas, making poppy destruction a useless endeavor. “If Afghanistan were suddenly wiped out as a producer of opium—by bad weather or a blight or eradication efforts—other parts of the world would simply emerge as new producers,” said Founding Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance Ethan Nadelmann. This assumption, while based on the law of supply and demand, ignores the difficulties associated with expanding any type of production from clearing and preparing new land and setting up irrigation. Moreover, counter-drug operations performed in the United States and elsewhere use crop eradication as a means. Focused on the drug factor alone, Mr. Nadelmann misses the larger point: Destroying Afghan’s poppy fields would bankrupt the Taliban, preventing them from resupplying arms and killing Americans.

Others believe increased Taliban recruitment is the primary objection to field destruction. U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates are both on record saying that destroying the poppy fields would strengthen the Taliban and that every disenfranchised farmer would become a Taliban recruit. That may be the case with the devastation of one or two fields, but it will not be the case with total destruction of any and all poppy fields.

A counterargument to this is that when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan almost three decades ago, opium production increased in response to increased arms expenditures. This shows that the economic needs of the insurgent army drive production. Moreover, eight-years of permissiveness have allowed the Taliban to strengthen their forces to an all-time high. In fact, 2009 was the highest loss of life for U.S. and NATO forces. Permitting opium production did not eliminate or curb the Taliban. Another point is that when seasonal cultivation ends, the Taliban gains strengths as most of the opium farmers become fighters and take up arms after the harvest.

One of the fiercest arguments against the destruction of Afghanistan poppy fields is that if opium production is eliminated it will destroy the Afghanistan economy. First, no one makes that argument for Mexican drug-dealers or marijuana cultivators in California. Second, if the crops were removed the Taliban would collapse, Afghanistan would become safe and foreign investment money would flow into that country. More to the point, Afghan farmer’s gross revenues from opium is about $1 billion dollars according to 2007 U.N. estimates, while our 2007 U.S. Military operations cost taxpayers $35 billion. Therefore, the plan should be: burn the fields, crush the Taliban, send the boys home, send one billion in aid and save $34 billion a year.

The U.S. dominates the air in Afghanistan. Poppy fields grow in full sunlight, and forests do not obscure the poppy fields. Eradication efforts will not be hampered by a lack of discovery. Modern herbicides are quite safe and effective, as well as the use of tractors to plow the fields under. When the Afghan farmer is faced with the choice of taking U.S. assistance to grow legal crops or face total eradication of his crops and imprisonment, he will be far more motivated than he currently is to switch his crops.

In the past, the United States did not have the ability to eradicate those fields. Now, we are the occupier of Afghanistan and have the capacity and the duty to destroy this trade. Every poppy that grows empowers the Taliban with more artillery that will be used to kill American soldiers and Marines. No one has more power than Mr. Obama to dispatch the largest source of heroin export in the world. If he really wants get out of Afghanistan and cares about our troops, he must destroy those fields.

-Michael Fowler is the director of Veterans for Academic Freedom, a former Force Recon Marine, instructor of Christian apologetics, author and talk-radio host.

Related posts:

1. Heroin fix drives Taliban The simplest and safest way to thwart an enemy’s ability...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Why Mexico is Important

by ME Leclerc

The U.S. must stay engaged with Mexico in the war on drugs

Mexico’s potential for fragmentation is a serious threat to US national security however, there is a low level of preoccupation that the phenomenon of OTM (Other than Mexicans) persons and the spillover of drug-related violence into the US. The threat of incursion by terrorist groups via the southern border is frequently downplayed in the media, such as the recent series of arrests in Mexico of several individuals suspected of being involved in terrorism have not inspired much of a response for action as would an arrest in the US. Mexico claimed that even though the men arrested are indeed tied to a terrorist group they were not actively identified as being part of a plot. US national security is threatened by this instability even more so as Mexico’s fate hangs on a fine line and has been infective in controlling its own borders.

This is a two-dimensional responsibility; the US has a duty to control human traffic through its borders yet Mexico’s inability to combat the drug cartels has opened the doors to intra-national gangs, smaller pockets of indigenous insurgency movements and also invited groups linked to radical Islam-ism. The problem in dealing with Mexico is that it has been receiving help from the US at a lower level than that of Colombia’s drug war while Mexico struggled to contain its own problems. Basically Mexico has been relegated to a secondary place of relevance even though they are our closest neighbor. This is not to say that preserving Colombia’s side in eradication operations in a consistent manner will not at least slow the flow of drugs out of the country however Mexico holds a more relevant threat to the American way of life.

Stratfor reports of increase violence in Mexico’s Northern provinces (Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana, Chihuahua) posing a serious threat to individuals and tourism. The US State department has issued a warning for Americans to stay clear of these areas[i]. Kidnapping for ransom and contract killing cases are a huge problem and a source of anger held by Mexicans and recent public demonstrations show that the rampant violence must be dealt with but there are bigger problems ahead. Violence is believed to be almost as high as that of insurgent groups in Iraq and casualty numbers are rising, making Mexico’s national security problems our own. President Felipe Calderon has the right idea to slowly work a pull-out of military units from the troubled provinces and replace with capable police forces however this is a tough job. The only possible way this situation could improve is through comprehensive political reform, the modernization of Mexican police forces and removal of military forces from drug interdiction and law enforcement operations. Removing military troops from the drug war equation will help protect the armed forces from the same corruption found in police agencies but producing capable and a professional police force takes years and much critical time has been wasted. Calderon’s effort to purge the police of over 40,000 officers by conducting comprehensive background checks is commendable however if his new police and military operations do not handle the surge of violence that will have serious political consequences. For one, any new leadership following Calderon’s presidency could either choose to be friendly and receptive to US aid. Another possible outcome would be that Mexico could become more hostile just as Hugo Chavez’s foreign policy keeps the rest of Latin America from accepting that assistance does not mean a potential US invasion or political meddling and violation of their sovereignty.

Plan Mexico

Funding must be offered to rebuild or replace government services or programs and a more expanded law enforcement presence instead of focusing on modernizing the Mexican Army though there is a great need for Mexico to bring up their military standards. The drug war has been fought so that the military, even if it is successful in their interdiction operations, its image will suffer greatly as the public may see the Army as oppressors rather than saviors. At this point it appears the Mexican public just wants the violence to go away however the root of the problem is becoming more obvious to people. Organizational corruption and drug money are great impediments to achieving rule of law. Unlike the US many countries struggle to keep the parts from separating from the whole and are often the source of such violence; spilling across borders. In essence Plan Mexico will help augment police forces as well as military but more emphasis should be placed on continuing the long-term investigation of police personnel to include prosecution and incarceration. Increasing the number of officers on patrol cannot be accomplished quickly enough to contain the violence and illegal drug trafficking activities and restore order.

Policing in Mexico is not parallel to that in the US in spite of optimistic outlook from law enforcement experts. Bratton and Andrews conducted a study of law enforcement methodologies in Latin America which they believed compatible with US methods. It is doubtful that police-to population ratios can be achieved in Latin American countries as would NYC or any other modern US city. Mexican populations – as is the case throughout South America – are distributed in scattered patterns due to their unique topography and vast segments of land that are uninhabited and hard to reach which are prime areas for drug traffickers and armed insurgencies. These are hardly problems encountered in the US where there are more tolerable levels of law and order and policing large populations is a more achievable goal. Their assessment was not completely off the mark in identifying Latin American inability to establish good relations with the public and conduct investigations.

Their suggestion that police departments break down threats by sectors is a good idea consistent with their theory and could be applicable to the Mexican situation but we must bear in mind that the environment is completely different than that of the US and will require military support until these problems are resolved. This is more a social experiment than political reform which will have to continue in order to afford improvements in policing. The funding from Plan Mexico could supplement the State Department’s law enforcement academies already in place, help support background checks on officers and establish a platform for building pride and professionalism in police forces. Promotion boards and salary scales must be implemented to make the job more desirable to officers not just officials. Force protection measures are also an important consideration as many high-level officials are being targeted for assassination and a personnel security program should be established.

Our focus must be strong in keeping Mexico from falling apart so that its internal troubles do not reach the US is many years behind. The time and place for reforms in this sector must be undertaken now as Mexico’s problems are quickly becoming our own.

Sources consulted

Library of Congress Federal Research Division, Country Profile Mexico, http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Mexico.pdf

White, Bobby, The Wall Street Journal, Pot Crop Infiltrates Vineyards, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122145024251835201.html?mod=hps_us_inside_today

William Bratton and William Andrews, Driving out The Crime Wave: The police methods that worked in New York City can work in Latin America http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_time-driving_out_crime.htm

Hall, Kevin McClatchy Newspapers online, Mexico’s drug traffickers set their sights on top officials, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/46971.html

Root, Jay, McClatchy Newspapers online, Mexican army can’t stop drug lords’ war on cops, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/36404.html

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Today We Were Rock Stars.

We shut the aircraft down and what we saw was 350 plus people ranging in ages from 6 months to old and gray standing silently at a fence watching our every movement. I walked around the nose of my aircraft a mere 150 feet away from this crowd, I gave a simple smile and raised my arm up over my head and was greeted with the most substantial roar of levity that I have ever heard in my life. 350 plus people were cheering. Not because I play an instrument in some notable band, acted in a big Hollywood movie, or wrote some famous novel. They were cheering because I am part of something bigger than that. I am part of a team made up of men and women who all wear a uniform of some kind symbolized by a colorful patch known as the Stars and Stripes. A team that helped liberate an entire culture of people almost killed off because they were different. Like the Americans were to the Jews we are to the Kurds.

Before I ramble anymore about this occasion I feel that I am obligated to expose you to what happened to these people. Halajba, the town we flew too, sits directly on the Iranian border. In fact almost a one quarter of the town is in Iran. During the 1980s there was a conflict known as the Iran/Iraq war. This city was at the frontlines of this battle. Historically speaking the Kurdish people have been oppressed and looked down upon by their Arab counterparts in Iraq because they are not Arabic. They are different. They are a melting pot of many different beliefs; their cultural heritage stems across every religion known to man. This diversity sets them apart and makes them great. Well Islamic Arabs known as Sunni and Shia don’t have a good history of liking people who are different. The perfect illustration of this is the fact that the Sunni and Shia can’t even agree on their own religion. Minor differences between these two branches such as how many times a day they pray, certain important figures in their history, and different holidays is grounds enough for them to not even like each other. Now the Kurds have always been at the bottom of this hierarchy; Saddam was a Sunni and for many years the Sunni Arabs had a good life. The Shia and Kurds were oppressed by this regime quite fiercely with the The Kurds receiving the brunt of it. During the Iran/Iraq war Saddam bombed many cities like this without remorse simply because they were Kurdish. Many ruined cityscapes still litter this country side from that conflict. If that wasn’t enough in 1987 Saddam organized an operation completely aimed at eradicating or otherwise imprisoning every Kurd in the country. It began with interment into concentration style camps outside of the major cities. This was followed by the bombing of Kurdish cities. All this climaxed in 1988 when Saddam launched a massive chemical weapons attack which left over 5,000 fatalities in Halajba alone. The final toll of Kurdish fatalities ranged from 300,000 to 500,000 killed. Thousands more wounded and imprisoned. All this was because they were different.

Today was a side of the war that I had never before seen. I saw the fighting last time I was here. The tracers illuminating the night skies, the bombs and hellfires being dropped on insurgents while inserting fresh troops and pulling out the dead and wounded ones. I saw the fear and terror that people can leash upon one another. The awesome horrific sight of what firepower can do to soft skin targets of both friendlies and enemies. I was prepared to go to war again. To see and experience those horrific moments not often spoken about by those who were there. Today I stood in awe as I was thanked, not by a passerby at the airport or some restaurant I was eating at, but by an entire nation of people that we as a team helped save and preserve. Because of our efforts, which started after the first Gulf War to present, these people have emerged as a supreme culture of individuals at once on the brink of extinction. This is no longer a war as far as a traditional definition would go; it is about the people of Iraq now. It’s not about bullets and bombs but handshakes and smiles. We have done our job and we did it well and I don’t care what any peace loving tree hugging hippy says after watching CNN because today I was personally thanked by more people of another country then that of my own country. If that is not a testament to the job that we have done here than I do not know what is. These are free people who have lived with 3,000 years of oppression. They are free because of our efforts. They are free because of our sacrifice.

Feel free to pass this story and pictures along to every American. It is our duty to make sure that they know the truth about what we are doing over here and the results of those efforts. The liberal media would try and disgrace our sacrifice or otherwise downplay the importance of our mission in Iraq and that is just not fair to the fighting men and women of the United States of America. This is a reminder to those liberal hippies that sometimes there are people in this world who need a good ass kicking to help save the little guy and no one does it better than an American Soldier. Hooah!

SGT Christopher A. Hoffert
Afghanistan ’04-’05, Iraq ’06-’07, and ’09-’10
Alpha Company 3rd Battalion 25th Combat Aviation Brigade
FOB Diamondback, Iraq
3 Oct 2009

Related posts:

1. Don’t Let Anyone Say the World Hates America Today We Were Rock Stars. We shut the aircraft down...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The video below of Silver Star winner SSgt. Bellavia is critical in understanding the warfare faced in Iraq and exactly who the enemy is and how he fights.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Most who watch and comment upon the recent White House Policy shift on the Eastern European Missile Defense Shield plan are focusing on the Iranian angle of things, believing that the biggest threat comes from the Islamic Republic and essentially ignoring the real purpose of the Missile Shield system. In truth, the real focus of any ABM (anti-ballistic missile) system remains and must remain the former Soviet Union for multiple reasons.

First and foremost, we remain fundamentally opposed to the strategic aims of Russia. Even stripped of it’s Soviet satellites and ability to spend obscenely on equipment for the Red Army, Navy and Strategic Rocket forces, Russia remains a military superpower based solely upon “throw weight” and numbers. Even if the forces of the Russians lack the skills, training and abilities of the former Soviets, the sheer weight of numbers – a long standing Soviet tactic – allows an ability to – as always – trade space and men for time.

While many in academia (especially in Poland) believe that there is no longer a threat from Russia, this belief ignores history and demonstrates a shallow understanding of the strategic world situation today. The basic factors of conflict remain the same, as they have ever been – economic. In these terms the Russian strategic focus remains the same: securing economic goals that benefit the motherland. These goals have always and will always include oil, arable land and access to a warm water port. In a moment, I will postulate a scenario in which an Iranian move against Israel compels Russia to side with her.

The basic fact to keep in mind is that in a conflict the Russian view has always been understood to keep as much of the conflict off of direct Russian soil. I continue to believe that the Kremlin considers Belarus and the Ukraine as “Russian soil” in function if not in fact. While it remains to be seen as to where the two nations would stand in the event of an economically based conflict, the fact remains that the Russians will attempt – insofar as possible – to keep combat off of the lands of these area for both political and economic reasons. Being seen as a “protector” of the steppes could contribute heavily in favor of siding with Russia in any conflict.

That being the case, any potential opponent remains to the west. In order to take the fight to the opponent requires Russia to move west. Poland will clearly oppose any Russian move, but as has happened so many times already, she is simply not strong enough on her own. It could be proposed that NATO forces moving into Poland could assist, and it is precisely for this reason that the ABM system is necessary. The Russians, using Soviet era tactics and weaponry could be reasonably expected to employ battlefield (tactical) weapons of an IRBM and SRBM nature, which would seem on the surface to favor the White House shift to defense against such weapons. From a battlefield perspective the relatively mobile ABM system could and would function similar to an AA bubble. This implementation was used to rather spectacular effect during the First Gulf War by the now famed “Patriot” batteries. Although the success rate of the Patriots was overstated, the emotional impact on the Iraqis was critical and it is here that our second point must be considered.

The basic function of ALL nuclear arsenals is to provide for “C3 Decap” which is slang for the reduction of an enemies Command, Control and Communication abilities. In strategic terms, the loss of any one of the three is painful and difficult, but not necessarily devastating. For example, the loss of the American NCA (National Command Authority, i.e. the POTUS) while painful and difficult has already been taken into consideration and can be worked around. The loss of communications via satellite or radio is all but assumed in the planning process and virtually all American Strategic forces (at least during the Cold War and the period after) were drilled and trained to operate without full communication . The loss of control system in the US system is dealt with by the extraordinary self-determination of operation employed by US units, particularly US FBM Submarines and long-range bombers, and to a lesser degree the land based silo units.

The loss of any two would be exponentially more difficult, and of course the loss of all three catastrophic. In the case of the US, the Russian problem is compounded by US training, which assumed the loss of Communications and/or Command resulting a freedom of action for the FBM/Bombers/Silo units. On the Russian side, the very distrust that the old Soviet (and indeed Tzarist) distrusts have instilled led to a system of top down control that demonstrates a very rigid command control system with little opportunity for independent operations. Recall the Soviet shoot down of KAL-007 and the manner in which the Mig-25 Interceptors (designed to counter American Strategic Bombers) were controlled completely by the ground through the intercept and shoot down. The Soviet system is inherently rigid and inflexible.

Consequently, the Soviet, now Russian C3 is highly susceptible to counterforce, represented in this case by the so-called Missile Shield, the ABM system. And for it’s part, it is not only to be expected, but it is logical that Russia should and indeed MUST fiercely oppose any American or NATO effort to provide an ABM system, even one that is employed in a “defensive manner.” In point of fact, an ABM system is “offensive” in strategic terms as it provides that counterforce that prevents the Russians from being capable of achieving a C3 Decap of western opponents, from Poland to Germany to France to Great Britain. An inability to achieve that C3 Decap would by definition handicap Russian forces in any conflict, even a limited nuclear conflict.

Why does any of this matter and why is the White House wrong to eliminate the ABM system in Poland? Simply put, because the focus has been incorrectly placed in Iran.

That is NOT to say that Iran is not a danger. Certainly the ABM system in Poland and the Czech Republic would provide a strong deterrent to any Iranian launch on Western Europe. I would never propose that Iran be ignored. But I will say that any ABM system designed to deal with a Russian threat is both capable and ready to deal with the Iranian threat. A basic principle of combat is to prepare for worst-case scenarios, which in long-term Strategic terms remains the Russian threat.

Imagine a scenario in which Iran, having used a great deal of Russian technological assistance in return for long-term oil concessions becomes overtly belligerent. Long-term Russian strategic goals remain the same as above and even the Russians know that a good crisis is not to be wasted. It cannot be assumed that Russia would automatically side with the West against a divided west, much of which does not support Israel (and given current White House leanings can we assume that even the US would eagerly support Israel?). Presuming that the US would support Israel against an Iranian move of aggression, how best could Russia assist its erstwhile ally, Iran? Saber rattling to the west would provide a major distraction and seriously interfere with a US ability to focus upon Iran AND Russian aggression.

Understand that there need not be any actual Russian move, only the credible threat of such a move. The ABM system prevents the Russians from achieving a rapid C3Decap on Poland, Germany, France or Great Britain, which even in the event of a limited conflict provides Russia with the door opening it seeks for both concessions and prestige gain in restoring itself to dominance of Eastern Europe with a newly added “ally” (albeit a very dangerous one) on the south to threaten US interests in Israel, Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait and even Saudi Arabia.

Engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, and dealing with a nuclear aggressive Iran, how would the US and the west react to such a move by the Russians? With strength or with “diplomacy?”

Current White House policy and trends lead me to conclude that a limited move by Iran (including a nuclear attack on Israel) could be manipulated by Russia for its own gain and advantage.

An advantage that could be effectively and easily reduced by an ABM system deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic.

David Ray Bowman is a former US Navy Submariner and Nuclear Weapons Targeting Specialist for TRIDENT C4 and POSIDEN C3 FBM Weapons systems. He is the host of Afternoons Live on KFIV.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.