Afghanistan is about jobs not national defense #military

When you hear that the mission of keeping troops in Afghanistan is important, the reason isn’t for national defense. The reason is jobs.

When $2-$3 billion per week is spent for Operation: USELESS DIRT, that is a lot of contractors both in theatre and back in the U.S. that have a vested interest in this war not ending. It is now an industry dependent on a continuous stream of U.S. tax dollars.

The Afghanistan “mission” is now nothing more than a large government jobs program. This pales in comparison to depression jobs created by President Roosevelt. Imagine the tens of thousands of people that would be out of work if we came home from Afghanistan.

We don’t have an exit strategy for World War II, the Korean War, or the Cold War. We still have troops in those locations. Losing the Vietnam War actually saved us money because you can bet we would still be there had we won.

Maybe budget cutters will figure this out. My bet is that they won’t. Defense contractors for logistics and security companies contribute election campaign funds. In turn, we hear politicians say to stay the course.

Mission accomplished Mr. President; bring the troops home

For those that have forgot; Osama was the main justification for military action in Afghanistan. The killing of this high value target can put a close to Operation: USELESS DIRT. We can leave now and stick to our original word.

Our original justification never mentioned that we were going to go in and nation-build an illiterate and misogynistic society that believes child abuse is an acceptable sport.

Leaving Afghanistan now–with everything–points to our original word; we got the leader of an organisation that performed an act of war on the U.S.

There is no value in sticking around; especially at the cost of $2-$3 billion a week; all for no gain.

We are more powerful at responding to terrorist threats with no large number of troops tied down in a dead-end region of the world that can’t qualify as a nation.

The President can declare victory now and most Americans will be OK with that. I know I will.

Hey Rubio (and others) why don’t you pick up a rifle and go? #military

I love it how people like this are all for U.S. military intervention–that is what he is saying because an unhappy letter from the U.N. or Hillary won’t do it–and then never have day one of military service under their belt. I’ll say it. I don’t care what happens in Syria. We have real nation-building to do at home. And I don’t want a no-nothing career politician trying to add to the work of Team America: WORLD POLICE.

If you know people like this and are tired of this kind of behavior, just point the person to the nearest military recruiter and see if they are willing to do their part. Chances are, they will have an excuse of some kind.

NeoLib’s problem with the war in Libya #military

The NeoLibs have got a war in our name going that has no interest in U.S. national security.

As Sal comments correctly, this is what a war without proper NCO’s and Officers looks like. And we are backing these clowns. For what?

Useless foreign wars. That is our growth industry for this debtor economy. Where is the demand for a no-fly-zone over Syria Mr. Obama?

Reasons why the U.S. should not use military force in Libya #military

There are a lot of people throwing around the idea for U.S. intervention to help rebels in Libya. Many of them have never served in uniform. Here is why U.S. intervention in Libya is a bad idea.

1. Libya in any form is not a threat to the United States. It is not going to invade Florida, New York or Washington D.C.
2. Any military move into Libya is an act of war. This requires a request by the President to Congress for a declaration of war.
3. It is time for nations in the region to fix their own problems without our help.
4. We do not have the money to waste on conflicts that provide no defensive value to the United States.
5. The prime mission of the U.S. is to extract their citizens. That mission is over.

Obama administration releases new national security strategy

I suppose there is a lot that one could find fault with the administrations newly released national security strategy (PDF). More on that in a bit.

It is what one would expect; political. Any administration does the best they can with what they can to keep votes; this is a big election year.

The best part of the document is where it states that the U.S. reserves the right to act unilaterally when needed. This is critical.

The real threat to our security is the federal debt and the down-turn of an economy that depended mostly on house-flipping. Debt is mentioned in this document. Spending within ones means—and strong leadership—are the linch-pins to a strong defense.

What don’t I like? The weak mentions of airline and airport security. One word; profile.

There is a weak neither here nor there mention of border security along with a weak mention of the importance of Mexico. We give aid to the Mexican government in the hopes of security. It gets re-routed to one of the gang factions. Great work. Troops in Afghanistan and Iraq? Better money would be spent with troops along our south border. Money spent in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan is money wasted.

Then there is this: “Pursue the goal of a world without nuclear weapons”. I can’t imagine why someone would want such a thing. It has been nuclear weapons that have kept the peace for a very long time. It has kept major powers from reliving the Battle of the Somme, Barbarossa and so on.

Then there is the bad idea of not producing any new nuclear weapons. Our stockpile will become a paper tiger.

There are those that should not have nukes. It is interesting that almost every time the topic of nukes in the Middle East is brought up; Israel’s stockpile is strangely absent from the conversation. Also on the topic of nukes, it is funny that the U.S. provided Pakistan with F-16s paid for with U.S. taxpayer anti-terror funds. The F-16 if anything is an excellent tac-nuke bomber. So yeah, great idea to give them more. And there are some other bad examples of our nuclear policy but I will leave it at that.

The U.S. ability to secure air superiority past the 2020’s is in serious danger. This has to be one of the five important points after the topic of nukes, federal debt, leadership (as it pertains to the Constitution) and reasonable diplomacy. And yet the ignorant on the topic like Mr. Gates, just don’t get it.

2030 doesn’t look so good for world stability.

A trap for the galactically stupid

I have been wondering recently if it is a trap. That is; an event that takes advantage of a variety of negative circumstances over the years.

Destroy U.S. industry with things like NAFTA. Get the U.S. into two no-win expensive wars. Ruin the economy so that the biggest industry is flipping houses and borrowing foreign money. Then-even that goes bad. Mountains of federal debt.

Let your buddy the Norks stage an international incident. And then finally, the U.S. gets drawn into a very complex war in the Korean region. One it can in no way afford. Did I say “afford”? Sorry; those days are long past.

Who wins in the long run? The Chinese.

U.S. work in Afghanistan…how much money you got?

I am no fan of the Afgan war. Having stated that, the following report to Congress (PDF) isn’t as bad as this article from Slate tries to make out via poll results.

Are things improving in Afghanistan? Yes and no. I would defer to some people that have been there. Consider this though. To go in to a tribal dirt insurgent country and do what has already been done is an amazing achievement.

I don’t think anyone is going to be able to declare “victory” in 2011 as some want so as to look good for U.S. political reasons. There is just too much more work to do and so many more billions of dollars to be spent. And even with that what will the U.S. get as a national defense value? Not much. For any real success, the U.S. will have to be in this country (for lack of better words) for tens of years. Everything considered, we are still well into the early stages of OUD.

The slogan for pouring more U.S. tax dollars into Operation: USELESS DIRT should be: “Anything is possible if you are willing to lower your expectations.”

U.S. tax dollars would be better used for nation-building back home.

For the Afghan air force effort; here is some interesting reading.The last sentence which I have put in bold, applies to every organisation that is in Afghanistan or anywhere else.

6.4: Afghan National Army Air Corps (ANAAC)

The Afghan National Army Air Corps (ANAAC) provides a third dimension in maneuver capability, enhancing freedom of action, battlespace situational awareness, intelligence, and air combat support for national military and police forces. Once organized, trained, and equipped, the ANAAC will perform a wide range of missions including presidential airlift, aero-medical evacuation and casualty evacuation, battlefield mobility, airlift, training, and close air support.

Since the last report, the ANAAC continues to increase in size and capabilities. The ANAAC currently includes approximately 3,100 personnel and 46 aircraft, up from 2,538 personnel and 32 aircraft in May 2009. The ANAAC has a fleet of five AN-32s and one AN-26 fixed-wing propeller-driven aircraft that provides medium cargo lift.

In addition, in October 2009 the ANAAC acquired its first two U.S.-manufactured C-27 Spartan fixed-wing, propeller-driven aircraft, which will also perform the medium airlift mission. This is historic as it is the first ever Western-built aircraft in the ANAAC inventory. The current plan is to build a medium-lift fleet that includes 20 C-27s by late 2012.

The ANAAC also has battlefield mobility provided by 22 MI-17 helicopters, with three additional MI-17s for presidential lift. In addition, the ANAAC has an additional nine MI-35s for rotary-wing close air support. The MI-35s are projected to be replaced with close air support-capable MI-17s. NTM-A/CSTC-A and the MoD are evaluating a potential light attack/close air support aircraft for purchase in the coming years.

With the assistance of NTM-A/CSTC-A mentors, the ANAAC has expanded its reach with functional air wings at Kabul International Airport and Kandahar Airfield. Future plans include

an air wing and training center at Shindand, as well as air detachments, or flying units, in Herat, Mazar-e-Sharif, Jalalabad, and Gardez. NTM-A/CSTC-A and the MoD doubled the size of the Kabul Air Corps Training Center at Kabul International Airport and are in the process of developing an aviation branch school for the ANA.

As capacity and capabilities grow, the ANAAC has had several operational success stories. The ANAAC assisted in the 2009 Presidential election by delivering and retrieving election materials for districts throughout Afghanistan. They provided overhead support following the January 8, 2010 Taliban attack in Kabul. The ANAAC also supported disaster relief and humanitarian operations, including rescuing 75 people after the Salang avalanche in February 2010, when ISAF aircraft were unable to complete the mission, and saving 83 civilians after the Kandahar floods last winter. The ANAAC routinely enables commando kandaks to complete operational air assault missions. Air assault mission successes include support of Operation MOSHTARAK and the capture of a suspected insurgent in RC-West battlespace.

NTM-A/CSTC-A has worked with the MoD over the past year to institute several programs to increase the quality of the ANAAC training and manpower. In 2009, the MoD instituted an Aviator Incentive Pay program to encourage retention of qualified and trained pilots. The ANAAC graduated the first U.S.-trained pilot in over 50 years in 2010 and has had personnel trained as flight surgeons, loadmasters, forward observers, and control staff officers. Future training plans include increased pilot production to develop a young cadre of experienced personnel for Afghanistan.

Despite these efforts, challenges remain. Recruiting will need to be robust over the coming year to mitigate a shortage in pilots and maintenance personnel. Due to the technical nature of the training, new recruits will need to be literate and many will need English language training as well. Capacity of the Kabul Air Corps Training Center must increase to meet the demand for trained technical personnel to perform maintenance on the aircraft fleet, and the ANAAC must continue to add technically capable officers to its leadership ranks. Additionally, it will take time to develop an experienced NCO corps within the ANAAC to create a base of leadership and technical expertise for the force.

H/T-War News Updates