Home » 2019
Yearly Archives: 2019
The swamp is not a new phenomenon—it is just a new name for a reality that started in the Roosevelt administration. When government began growing at a rapid rate political appointees hired civil servants who shared their vision of what a new policy to be implemented would bring. This large number of oriented civil service grew over time.
Throughout the years as political leaders changed they tried to change the civil service as new positions were created and older bureaucrats retired. I can remember during the Nixon administration a long debate about how to neutralize Kennedy/Johnson liberal bureaucrats. During the Reagan administration a bureaucrat who opposed his arms control policy was given a closet sized office with no phone or computer. He hung on until Clinton became president and sought to get even with policy prescriptions during the Clinton years.
This hangover of bureaucrats thus is not a new thing. What is new is how emboldened some of these bureaucrats have become. NSC staffers personally talking with Presidents of foreign countries and advising them how to “deal” with President Trump. Such bureaucrats are coming out of the woodwork in their attempt to impeach President Trump. These hangovers from the Obama years are risking much—pensions and promotions. This suggests that someone outside of government is offering them a safety net—employment, etc. Some have gone to CNN and MSNBC, but others are not in poverty as the swamp supporters step up to their aid.
Conversely, one hears little of such behavior in the United Kingdom. The UK is known for its politically neutral civil servants who serve their political masters devotedly. The critical difference is one of political culture. Do US political appointees demand more from civil service appointees than they should? Does advancement depend upon political orientation?
I have not performed a statistical analysis but given the “drain the swamp” orientation of President Trump one can believe that the administration is finally getting around to “liberal” bureaucrats. Their cries for support have not been heard by the liberal press as it focuses on impeachment.
Some months ago I argued that behind the smoke screen of Trump’s tweets and other statements the transformation of government was occurring. This related to policy but probably also should be applied to the realignment of civil servants.
The Intelligence Community seems to be a special case. In observing the activities of members of this group of self-declared elites I am reminded of the Pakistani Intelligence Service (IIS). The IIS is the power behind the throne and the country. It has its tentacles throughout Pakistan and has changed the political leadership several times. Is this the power that the US intelligence community seeks?
What do you think?
The Army is looking at extending the range of its Precision Strike Missile to 800 KM. This come following the dissolution of the INF Treaty which had limited ground based missile ranges to 500 KM. The Army’s Precision Fires Cross-functional team will ill conduct its first flight tests from two competitor companies before the end of the year. After the tests the Army will talk to the competitors about pursuing the extended ranges.
The announcement that the US would re-position some of its 1000 troops in Syria to avoid their being engaged by Turkish soldiers if they invade has created another firestorm in the media.
Now that the Turks have started their attack there are numerous reports flying around:
- Civilian targets are being attacked
- The Kurds have requested that the US impose and enforce a “no fly zone.”
- The Senate is considering severe sanctions against Turkey
The media and even some Republicans fear is that Kurdish fighters may be attacked by Turkish armed forces moving into north-eastern Syria. In essence the media and other pundits are saying that the lives of US soldiers should remain at risk in order to protect the Kurds.
Hidden in all of this punditry are several hard facts:
- The Kurds, with US support are holding 11,000 ISIS prisoners. An attack on the Kurds would possibly result in their freedom.
- There are only about 50 Special Forces that are being tactically relocated.
- The US has always wanted the US presence in Syria to be a short term operation
- Now that the Turks have invaded their stated goal is to create a free zone in Syria so that many of the refugees that are in Turkey can be relocated to this safe zone
- There is no indication that the Russians in Syria will get caught up in engaging the Turks—if that should happen it could trip the NATO obligations of other states to come to the assistance of an attacked ally. There are even reports that the Russians were trying to negotiate some form of cease fire.
What I seem to have missed in the reporting is why the Turks chose to attack into Syria now. Probably missed because there are so many possible explanations:
- Expansion of Turkey’s geographic area of control
- Resettlement of Syrian refugees
- Further destabilizing Assad of Syria
- Weakening/destroying the Kurds
None of these explain the current timing. Could the real reason be because Erdogan is in trouble politically? The above objectives could all be valid but the domestic political situation is responsible for the present timing.
If the Turks don’t attack the Kurds and their US Special Forces advisors there will be no problem. The US will have reduced its footprint in Syria and be on the way out, leaving the resolution of the conflict to regional actors with the Kurds secure in an enclave away from the Turkish border.
So when you cut everything away the media frenzy is about US credibility in supporting allies in the future. This assumes that the Kurds are being deserted by their Special Forces advisor / assistants and especially that their logistical support and air support will be shut off. It is difficult to see that happening if for no other reason than the 11,000 ISIS prisoners that they hold.
In a perfect world the Kurds and Turks could coexist and the Syrian refugees could be relocated from Turkey into this safe zone. Such a coexistence would be a very fragile one.
Strategically, there is still something missing from the above discussion. We will watch the situation and update it as appropriate in the future.
We’ll see what happens.
Preamble: While I was on my hiatus the United States and Russia abrogated the Intermediate Range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty. This is a treaty that I was involved in negotiating so I provide some insights today.
In1987 INF Treaty was agreed to between the US and the Soviet Union. The negotiations had their genesis in the NATO Dual Track Decision of 1979. In December 1979, the United States and its NATO allies adopted a long-term strategy to remove the threat posed by new Soviet intermediate-range missiles.
The Dual Track Decision was built on “two parallel and complementary approaches.” First, the United States agreed to deploy intermediate-range missiles of its own to Europe. European nations—Germany, Italy, the UK and Belgium agreed to have either ground-based long range cruise missiles or modernized Pershing missiles—Pershing IIs (PIIs)– stationed on their territory. Second, it would leverage these new missiles in an arms control negotiation with Moscow with the aim of convincing the Soviets to dismantle their weapons. The negotiations both within the US government and those with our NATO allies were extremely divisive.
In fact, as a participant in the intra-governmental activities I can attest to the issues involved. One short vignette might make the point. In 1979 the US and NATO were involved in the Mutual Balanced Force Reduction (MBFR) negotiations where the allies were seeking to reduce Soviet conventional forces in Eastern Europe. Part of the offer from NATO included the removal of nuclear capable Pershing I (PIs) missiles for a Soviet Tank Army. The Army Staff had been unsuccessful in convincing the Carter Administration that it was impossible to negotiate away Pershing Is (PIs) in MBFR and PIIs in the INF negotiations that were to be. Finally we took a model of a PI and a bag of parts over to the State Department. We tore the PI model apart and then using the bag of parts we build a model of a PII. Finally the light came on in Foggy Bottom.
Within Europe there were numerous anti-nuclear demonstrations. It was necessary to have multiple nations basing the new systems to insure that alliance resolve was maintained.
After 8 years of negotiations the resulting treaty required the United States and the Soviet Union to eliminate all of their nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. The treaty marked the first time the superpowers had agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals, eliminate an entire category of nuclear weapons, and employ extensive on-site inspections for verification. As a result of the INF Treaty, the United States and the Soviet Union destroyed a total of 2,692 short-, medium-, and intermediate-range missiles by the treaty’s implementation deadline of June 1, 1991.
Like all arms control agreements between the US and the Soviet Union there were continual claims of treaty violations by both sides. The United States first alleged in its July 2014 Annual Compliance Report to Congress that Russia was in violation of its INF Treaty obligations “not to possess, produce, or flight-test” a ground-launched cruise missile having a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers or “to possess or produce launchers of such missiles.” Subsequent State Department assessments in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 repeated these allegations. In March 2017, a top US official confirmed press reports that Russia had begun deploying the noncompliant missile. Russia has denied that it is in violation of the agreement and has accused the United States of being in noncompliance.
In December 2017 the Trump administration released an integrated strategy to counter alleged Russian violations of the treaty, including the commencement of research and development on a conventional, road-mobile, intermediate-range missile system. In October 2018, President Trump announced his intention to “terminate” the INF Treaty, citing Russian noncompliance and concerns about China’s intermediate-range missile arsenal. Then in December, Secretary of State Pompeo announced that the United States found Russia in “material breach” of the treaty and would suspend its treaty obligations in 60 days if Russia did not return to compliance in that time. In February the Trump administration declared a suspension of US obligations under the INF Treaty and formally announced its intention to withdraw from the treaty in six months. Shortly thereafter, Russian President Vladimir Putin also announced that Russia will be officially suspending its treaty obligations as well.
Last August the United States formally withdrew from the INF Treaty.
The formal stated reason for withdrawal from the Treaty may have been Russian Non-Compliance, however in the second Obama Administration the US began its tilt away from the major threat being in Europe towards concern about the Chinese threat in the Pacific. One of the problems with defense in the region was that the US was prohibited from basing ground based intermediate nuclear forces on the littorals of China because they could range into Russia. Many work arounds were considered such as basing cruise missiles on barges—hence technically not ground based. Elimination of the treaty has solved this problem.
The US Army has been working on developing the hardware that would have the Army fighting a long range defense of islands in the Pacific without significant naval support. Strange task organizations of limited maneuver forces, but layered air/missile defense and engagement means out to 500 miles to engage a hostile naval force and attrite it without naval or air support have been looked at. If I were a sceptic I would suggest that this is the Army seeking to remain relevant in the Pacific Theater.
The Russians’ paranoia about being invaded from the expanded NATO (its Eastern European buffer seized after World War II is gone) is the reason for the basing of longer range nuclear forces in Eastern European Russia. The Russians perceive a strategic need to base intermediate range nuclear forces in the old treaty area to be able to deter the much expanded NATO. Can there be a new INF Treaty? Will the international dynamics be such as to create a win-win situation for the two sides?
Preamble: We have taken a sabbatical from writing articles for the last 18 months in response to the venom that is out there in the media. However, the US response to the Iranian attacks seems to indicate a completely new US approach to global stability. Therefore I felt duty bound to spell out my thoughts and respond to those who can only see their hate of this administration.
The recent Iranian attacks on the Saudi oil facilities in north eastern Saudi Arabia indicate an escalation by the Iranians. Why? Do the Iranians perceive that the US is powerless because of the Democratic calls for impeachment? Are the sanctions and limits on Iranian oil exports taking such a toll that the Iranians feel that the world will react to Saudi oil output short falls and try to force the US to relax its containment of Iran?
The lack of an American kinetic response has the world wondering what has changed in the US approach to the world. By listening to the president’s speech at the UN yesterday it is now very clear that the President does not see the US as the world’s policeman. In the name of regional stability the US is deploying defensive capabilities to Saudi Arabia.
The recent attacks show the deficiencies of the Saudi military. In spite of extensive expenditures their missile defense capabilities are still inadequate in the face of Iranian cruise missiles. Reports indicate that the problems are both the training of the force and the needs of a modern missile defense.
Missile defense requires the ability to intercept multiple types of missiles through a complex spectrum of missile types. Most missile defense systems can be overcome by a volume of missiles. The Israeli “Iron Dome” system attempts to discriminate based on a calculation of impact points. Will incoming missiles hit critical assets? The Saudi system has not reached the degree of sophistication required to make such a discrimination automatically.
The lack of a kinetic attack illustrates the new Trump Doctrine—allies must protect themselves and respond to attacks using their own capabilities. The US will assist where necessary to maintain stability until the allies have developed their own capabilities. This approach means that the Saudis and the Gulf Cooperative Council members should respond to threats. The US may provide technical assistance in such a response, but one should not expect US forces attacking Iran unless US forces have been directly engaged by Iranians.
The military situation in the Gulf is truly asymmetric, but in a different way than the discussion of conventional forces versus terrorists or unconventional forces. The Iranians have devoted a significant part of their defense development to offensive missiles and small attack boats, while the Gulf States have focused on air power and defensive forces. As noted above the Iranian missile assets can most likely overpower the defenses of the Gulf States. However, a series of preemptive attacks might go a long way in leveling the battle field. One could even envision the Apache attack helicopters that the Saudis have being able to go in under the Iranian radar and doing extensive damage.
Will the Saudis/Gulf States respond? The answer to this question is probably in the Iranian hands. If they push the opportunity that they may perceive exists because of the political situation in the US they may in fact cause a reaction with extensive US support. On the other hand if the new status quo continues nothing may happen. The status quo favors the Saudis and the Gulf States as the political situation in Iran may continue to deteriorate and they can enhance their defensive and offensive capabilities.