Lawbreaker in Chief, the article by Jed Rubenfeld, misses one point on the authority to operate outside the provisions of a law passed by Congress, and that is that the Constitution gives the President specified powers not granted to Congress, that of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and the power to conduct relations with foreign nations. In fact, in those areas, the decisions of the President have the force of law.
It is the same power that a police officer or military officer has in issuing orders. A military officer who orders his unit to defend or attack a piece of ground, that order has the force of law.
The extension of Commander in Chief powers past the point in which military forces are directed on the ground, sea, or in the air, is problematic as the Constitution gives the Congress the authority to determine what kind of military the President gets to command, including the organization, staffing, training, and doctrine that the forces are developed under. Of the eighteen specified powers of the Congress in Article 1, at least seven deal with military issues.
Since the creation of the Defense Department after WW2, the Congress has ceded it’s authority to the Defense Department in what used to be routinely performed by the Congress. The failure of US military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to have a post invasion plan is due to a major shift in the regulation (doctrine) and organization of the military called “Transformation”.
“Transformation” is predicated on what is best for the retention of military personnel, and not upon actually winning. “Transformation” is more concerned with fighting a war than winning it. Winning a war is not in the best interests of the Pentagon as ending the war would end the funding. And that includes the billions of acquisition costs intended for a war that is entirely imaginary.
Congress should focus on what their authority is in the military arena instead of wandering outside their Constitutional authority such as putting time lines on the commitment of troops. The meddling in Turkish affairs just recently is a equally unconstitutional and which has, as intended, a devastating impact on the conduct of both military and diplomatic relations in the Middle East.
The division of national authority specified in our Constitution is a part of the Anglo-American political tradition with the separation of those powers going back to the English Civil Wars. There, the King wanted to wage war on French Catholics with whom the traders of London were trading with. End result, a Parliamentary Army today knows as the British Army, and the beheading of the King. The meddling of the Continental Congress in military operations reinforced the notion that Congress should stay out of the conduct of military operations.
The sticky part of the wicket is that while the Congress has the exclusive power to declare war, the conduct of military operations against a hostile foe or in the enforcement of the Presidents conduct of relations with foreign relations does not need a declaration of war to open fire. A declaration of war is a legal state, that may or may not involve military forces. Battles may be fought without a declaration of war. The only safeguard, as with the British, is the funding which cannot include a restriction of Presidential powers, lest the funds be treated as unencumbered money free to be spent as the President chooses.
The Founders clearly understood that giving the President (or King) a large standing military force would tempt the usage thereof. The British system kept the Regular British Army small with large supplements of colonial troops, such as the Indian Army from which Dr. Watson retired.
The “well regulated militia” guaranteed in the Second Amendment is the default military force for the United States. These state forces, however, are restricted from having ships of war or standing military forces in time of peace. Likewise, the “regulations” (doctrine) of the state forces is that which the Congress directs. Here also the Congress has failed by leaving these decisions to the Defense Department without adequate review, such as having hearings on the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) which should be a Congressional task.
On an ominous note, the Army and Air Forces raised during the Cold War that used to be stationed overseas are being brought back to the Continental USA so that they can sally forth in ten days, win in thirty and rebound in another thirty. Given the failure of this approach, the Pentagon forges ahead with “Transformation” with a pig-headedness not seen since Sir Douglas Haig drenched the trenches of Flanders with British blood. One wonders in Rumsfeld’s New Model Army has a Pride’s Purge in mind. One wouldn’t like to see a “Rump Congress”
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Why need Regulars when Blackwater is here?
Blackwater proves that we don’t need a large standing military to raise highly technical and specialized military forces in time of need from the general population. Their excesses prove that this shouldn’t be done by the private sector. Likewise, the logistical and service support needed for an eclectic military force provided by such firms and Halliburton proves the same point.
South Africa has made it illegal for South Africans to join private military companies in the aftermath of objections to Executive Solutions, featured in “Blood Diamond” were objected to by the rest of the African states. Executive Solutions proved that a highly trained force was more than cost effective, replacing ineffective UN and African peacekeeping force in Sierra Leone. Since reconciliation, large numbers of highly trained and combat experienced South Africans have been seeking employment in the guns for hire sector.
Historically privatized military forces on sea were either pirates or privateers, the latter being pirates with a government license. Privateers were banned by the Declaration of Paris in 1856 signed by all the major European powers, but which the US did not for lack of greater protection for what was left of US shipping after the devastations by the Confederate Navy. Half the US merchant marine reflagged itself to prevent capture by the Alabama and Shenandoah.
Field and siege artillery were private sector until the French in the late 17th Century made it a part of the regular military establishment. It seemed that the private artillery companies had a penchant for leaving the battlefield to preserve their capital investments against capture or destruction.
Logistics in the US Army used “sutlers”, private PX’s, up until after the Spanish American War. They tended to be gougers of troopers paychecks. While there are many private sector logistics operations that have provided the services that Army Reserve and Guard logistics units were tasked to perform, there has been widespread corruption and incompetence that has proved counter-productive in the war on terror. The building built by private contractors for the Iraqi Police Academy leaks shit from the light sockets. Shoddy construction and abandoned projects throughout Iraq leave a bad taste in the mouths of the people whose hearts and minds we bleed for.
The motives for the unprecedented use of the private sector on the battlefield stems two mutually reinforcing sources: Neo-Con religious fervor towards privatization and job security for the Regular Army. The latter fear that People From Outside the Box will threaten the job security and promotion opportunity and flowpoint if the Guard and Reserve forces trained for over a quarter of a century to provide combat service support and service support at levels from battalion to Theater Army would interfere the availability of command and field staff positions to budding field grades.
Few outside the military know that the structure of units above division (corps, field army, and theater army) were well trained and ready to go to support any kind of military operation. Fortunately for the US, the private sector has drawn from the experience and training of the Guard and Reserve in this capacity to provide the services needed. That is in addition to the ranks of the retired, and from those on active service who wish to double or triple their paycheck in the private sector.
There is a move in global politics and within the Bolshevik Left in the US to exploit the trigger happy reputation of Blackwater to emasculate GWOT. Rather than revert to the tried and true,however, the threat of Guard and Reserve parity with the Regular Army is enough for the Pentagon to now speak of withdrawing from Iraq to be able to be ready to fight an imaginary war instead of winning he real one in front of them.
South Africa has made it illegal for South Africans to join private military companies in the aftermath of objections to Executive Solutions, featured in “Blood Diamond” were objected to by the rest of the African states. Executive Solutions proved that a highly trained force was more than cost effective, replacing ineffective UN and African peacekeeping force in Sierra Leone. Since reconciliation, large numbers of highly trained and combat experienced South Africans have been seeking employment in the guns for hire sector.
Historically privatized military forces on sea were either pirates or privateers, the latter being pirates with a government license. Privateers were banned by the Declaration of Paris in 1856 signed by all the major European powers, but which the US did not for lack of greater protection for what was left of US shipping after the devastations by the Confederate Navy. Half the US merchant marine reflagged itself to prevent capture by the Alabama and Shenandoah.
Field and siege artillery were private sector until the French in the late 17th Century made it a part of the regular military establishment. It seemed that the private artillery companies had a penchant for leaving the battlefield to preserve their capital investments against capture or destruction.
Logistics in the US Army used “sutlers”, private PX’s, up until after the Spanish American War. They tended to be gougers of troopers paychecks. While there are many private sector logistics operations that have provided the services that Army Reserve and Guard logistics units were tasked to perform, there has been widespread corruption and incompetence that has proved counter-productive in the war on terror. The building built by private contractors for the Iraqi Police Academy leaks shit from the light sockets. Shoddy construction and abandoned projects throughout Iraq leave a bad taste in the mouths of the people whose hearts and minds we bleed for.
The motives for the unprecedented use of the private sector on the battlefield stems two mutually reinforcing sources: Neo-Con religious fervor towards privatization and job security for the Regular Army. The latter fear that People From Outside the Box will threaten the job security and promotion opportunity and flowpoint if the Guard and Reserve forces trained for over a quarter of a century to provide combat service support and service support at levels from battalion to Theater Army would interfere the availability of command and field staff positions to budding field grades.
Few outside the military know that the structure of units above division (corps, field army, and theater army) were well trained and ready to go to support any kind of military operation. Fortunately for the US, the private sector has drawn from the experience and training of the Guard and Reserve in this capacity to provide the services needed. That is in addition to the ranks of the retired, and from those on active service who wish to double or triple their paycheck in the private sector.
There is a move in global politics and within the Bolshevik Left in the US to exploit the trigger happy reputation of Blackwater to emasculate GWOT. Rather than revert to the tried and true,however, the threat of Guard and Reserve parity with the Regular Army is enough for the Pentagon to now speak of withdrawing from Iraq to be able to be ready to fight an imaginary war instead of winning he real one in front of them.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
The Turkey Turkey
The passage of the Congressional resolution condemning Turkey for the genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire over eighty years ago may well rank as one of the most unique victories of psychological operations by a nation’s legislature against it executive and its armed forces engaged in combat. With a “non-binding” resolution expressing an opinion in areas for which the Congress has no authority, the Pelosi “progressive” Democrats may have severed an important Line of Communication (LOC) to troops engaged in combat against a hostile foe. In ordinary military terms this is a move that would have taken at least a full corps of ground forces together with air power to match to accomplish the same thing.
This propaganda coup clearly aligns the Progressive Democrats with Al Qaeda, and the other factions of extremist Islamic terrorism presently waging war with the United States, and against all other nations who chose not to join a radical fundamentalist global Caliphate. Aide and comfort, anyone?
Given the simple fact that the philosophic position of the Progressive Democrat is presented as extreme liberalism which that of the Terrorist is extreme conservatism makes this alliance of opposites somewhat like the autocratic French King’s support of the American Revolution, a move which was decidedly regicidal in the end.
It might be said that President Bush’s intrusion into Congressional affairs triggered an equivalent response by the Congress, by the latter’s intrusion into matters concerning the direction of troops in combat and the direction of foreign policy which are reserved exclusively to the President under the Constitution. As such we are facing a serious Constitutional crisis which, if not nipped in the bud, may boil over into a civil war as it did in Great Britain in the English Civil Wars back in the mid 1600’s. Parliament against King.
Who are the Progressive Democrats, those who have allied themselves with the enemies of civilization, Western and otherwise? Aren’t they the same who claim they ended the War in Vietnam by pulling out US troops, leaving the Vietnamese to fight on alone for two more years? Aren’t they the ones that condone the Killing Fields of Cambodia? Aren’t they the ones who back Hugo Chavez in his near perfect emulation of a Soviet style takeover, the last of which occurred in South Vietnam?
Who are these Progressive Democrats who champion the suppression of expression and religion through the substitution of whim and caprice for admissible evidence under the Common Law? They and their over-Conservative counter-parts should pause and think of the ramifications of deviation from the Constitution and the Common Law if the tools of repression they devise gets into their opponents hands. Imagine using Guantanamo to house Christian Conservatives for preaching the overthrow of the US to establish a Kingdom of God on earth? Or for practicing ritual cannibalism in the Holy Eucharist?
It is time for Liberal Democrats to let the Progessives sink back into the sewers from which they came.
This propaganda coup clearly aligns the Progressive Democrats with Al Qaeda, and the other factions of extremist Islamic terrorism presently waging war with the United States, and against all other nations who chose not to join a radical fundamentalist global Caliphate. Aide and comfort, anyone?
Given the simple fact that the philosophic position of the Progressive Democrat is presented as extreme liberalism which that of the Terrorist is extreme conservatism makes this alliance of opposites somewhat like the autocratic French King’s support of the American Revolution, a move which was decidedly regicidal in the end.
It might be said that President Bush’s intrusion into Congressional affairs triggered an equivalent response by the Congress, by the latter’s intrusion into matters concerning the direction of troops in combat and the direction of foreign policy which are reserved exclusively to the President under the Constitution. As such we are facing a serious Constitutional crisis which, if not nipped in the bud, may boil over into a civil war as it did in Great Britain in the English Civil Wars back in the mid 1600’s. Parliament against King.
Who are the Progressive Democrats, those who have allied themselves with the enemies of civilization, Western and otherwise? Aren’t they the same who claim they ended the War in Vietnam by pulling out US troops, leaving the Vietnamese to fight on alone for two more years? Aren’t they the ones that condone the Killing Fields of Cambodia? Aren’t they the ones who back Hugo Chavez in his near perfect emulation of a Soviet style takeover, the last of which occurred in South Vietnam?
Who are these Progressive Democrats who champion the suppression of expression and religion through the substitution of whim and caprice for admissible evidence under the Common Law? They and their over-Conservative counter-parts should pause and think of the ramifications of deviation from the Constitution and the Common Law if the tools of repression they devise gets into their opponents hands. Imagine using Guantanamo to house Christian Conservatives for preaching the overthrow of the US to establish a Kingdom of God on earth? Or for practicing ritual cannibalism in the Holy Eucharist?
It is time for Liberal Democrats to let the Progessives sink back into the sewers from which they came.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
The Pentagon's Inner War
The Pentagon’s counter attack on COIN is well underway together with a full fledged assault on the Guard and Reserves. Both actions are “Rice Bowl” issues as both COIN doctrine and the clear proof that Guard and Reserve forces are full fledged combat forces and having the extra flexibility of adaptation to the chaos and confusion of war.
The Pentagon’s PSYOP plan for preparing the political battlefield includes the subtle placement of “articles” in the professional journals and in the press extolling the virtues of Transformation and undermining the credibility of those they oppose. The Navy’s termination of the Navy’s TAR program was preceded by articles denouncing the TAR. The attempt to strip the Air Guard of fighter aircraft was (and still is) preceded by claiming that Guard and Reserve pilots needed consolidated training away from home station, and it was cheaper. The Army’s combat service support structure has been largely replaced with civilian contractors who use Guard. Reserve, and Retiree personnel at multiples of their original military salaries, but do not compete with Regulars for promotion and command assignments.
From NGAUS come the alerts of further actions to emasculate the Guard and Reserves:
The Issue: Reserve Forces Policy Board (RFPB)Immediate/Urgent Action Required: Contact your members of Congress and urge them to oppose changes to the current structure of the Reserve Forces Policy Board (RFPB) until hearings and debate in Congress can properly evaluate the way ahead.
The Reserve Forces Policy Board (RFPB) has served as the vital linkage between the senior leadership of the Reserve Components with the Department of Defense (DoD) and Congress of the United States.The current structure, when permitted to function within the DoD, as provided by previous legislative guidance of the Congress, permits face-to-face consideration and debate by senior Reserve Component officers and the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense, with appropriate reporting to the Congress.Current proposals to reduce or eliminate these Reserve Component leaders are counter-productive (Sec. 1623 in the Senate version; Sec. 531 in the House version). When permitted to work within its charter, the RFPB has stood the test of time and has provided a critical path on Reserve issues to our nation’s leaders
The Issue: Mixed Status ForcesImmediate/Urgent Action Required: Contact your members of Congress and urge them to reject Section 1621(b) contained in the House version of the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The National Guard Association of the United States joins with the National Governor’s Association, the Department of Defense and the President in opposing Section 1621(b) of the House version of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, “Command and Control of Mixed Status Forces in Certain Missions.”This language directs the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures allowing U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) to exercise command of National Guard forces which are not federalized but are under State control performing “full-time National Guard duty” in Title 32 status. The language refers to “mixed status forces” which are defined as National Guard units in Title 32 status which are training or operating alongside active duty units.A law purporting to allow state-controlled National Guard forces to be placed under the command of federal military officers would be in conflict with 32 USC 115, unless such law requires consent of the governor. There is no mention of governor’s consent in Sec. 1621(b)
The key issue that we have to decide is to accept or reject the idea that all military wisdom and competence extend as a natural extension of a Regular commission, and that those who are not Regular are inherently inferior, save as temporary labor, seasonal workers, or cannon fodder.
Additionally we should question to continued utility of a career obsessed structure whose concern for military glory aka career management outstrips their concern with defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The advance PR about the likelihood of COIN operations as a passing fad is based on the Pentagon’s assessment that the War in front of us interferes with the Pentagon’s imaginary war needed billions in fancy hardware. They would rather lose the War on Terror than face the reality that the current Defense Department is terminally dysfunctional in fighting real wars.
It is time to restore the ability of the nation to build a war winning military capability in the manner we did prior to the creation of the Defense Department. This Defense department has no concept of defense nor of war, and should be renamed the Military Department.
Gordon S Fowkes
Lt Col, US Army (Ret)
The Pentagon’s PSYOP plan for preparing the political battlefield includes the subtle placement of “articles” in the professional journals and in the press extolling the virtues of Transformation and undermining the credibility of those they oppose. The Navy’s termination of the Navy’s TAR program was preceded by articles denouncing the TAR. The attempt to strip the Air Guard of fighter aircraft was (and still is) preceded by claiming that Guard and Reserve pilots needed consolidated training away from home station, and it was cheaper. The Army’s combat service support structure has been largely replaced with civilian contractors who use Guard. Reserve, and Retiree personnel at multiples of their original military salaries, but do not compete with Regulars for promotion and command assignments.
From NGAUS come the alerts of further actions to emasculate the Guard and Reserves:
The Issue: Reserve Forces Policy Board (RFPB)Immediate/Urgent Action Required: Contact your members of Congress and urge them to oppose changes to the current structure of the Reserve Forces Policy Board (RFPB) until hearings and debate in Congress can properly evaluate the way ahead.
The Reserve Forces Policy Board (RFPB) has served as the vital linkage between the senior leadership of the Reserve Components with the Department of Defense (DoD) and Congress of the United States.The current structure, when permitted to function within the DoD, as provided by previous legislative guidance of the Congress, permits face-to-face consideration and debate by senior Reserve Component officers and the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense, with appropriate reporting to the Congress.Current proposals to reduce or eliminate these Reserve Component leaders are counter-productive (Sec. 1623 in the Senate version; Sec. 531 in the House version). When permitted to work within its charter, the RFPB has stood the test of time and has provided a critical path on Reserve issues to our nation’s leaders
The Issue: Mixed Status ForcesImmediate/Urgent Action Required: Contact your members of Congress and urge them to reject Section 1621(b) contained in the House version of the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The National Guard Association of the United States joins with the National Governor’s Association, the Department of Defense and the President in opposing Section 1621(b) of the House version of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, “Command and Control of Mixed Status Forces in Certain Missions.”This language directs the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures allowing U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) to exercise command of National Guard forces which are not federalized but are under State control performing “full-time National Guard duty” in Title 32 status. The language refers to “mixed status forces” which are defined as National Guard units in Title 32 status which are training or operating alongside active duty units.A law purporting to allow state-controlled National Guard forces to be placed under the command of federal military officers would be in conflict with 32 USC 115, unless such law requires consent of the governor. There is no mention of governor’s consent in Sec. 1621(b)
The key issue that we have to decide is to accept or reject the idea that all military wisdom and competence extend as a natural extension of a Regular commission, and that those who are not Regular are inherently inferior, save as temporary labor, seasonal workers, or cannon fodder.
Additionally we should question to continued utility of a career obsessed structure whose concern for military glory aka career management outstrips their concern with defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The advance PR about the likelihood of COIN operations as a passing fad is based on the Pentagon’s assessment that the War in front of us interferes with the Pentagon’s imaginary war needed billions in fancy hardware. They would rather lose the War on Terror than face the reality that the current Defense Department is terminally dysfunctional in fighting real wars.
It is time to restore the ability of the nation to build a war winning military capability in the manner we did prior to the creation of the Defense Department. This Defense department has no concept of defense nor of war, and should be renamed the Military Department.
Gordon S Fowkes
Lt Col, US Army (Ret)
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Surge to wipe out /COI?N
The Counter-Insurgency doctrine manhandled into position by the Combined Arms Center under the tutelage of LTG Petraeus and published as FM3-24 represents a clear and present danger to Transformation of the military from one capable to fighting anyone anywhere, for any reason into one focused on a notional figmentary enemy and terrain created to foster predictable career development patterns and to justify the spending of tens of billions in weapons and equipment solely needed for the notional battlefield.
The principle threat to the SuperGrade-Industrial Complex, formerly known as the Military-Industrial Complex until rotational assignment rotas ensured that the impact of the military assigned to be Pentagon is controllable by superior GS15 plus Supergrades which has effectively reduced the military in the Pentagon to Hand Puppers. Likewise, any political appointee can, like in other governments, can be danced around until they quit for frustration or get set up.
The proof that such a pageant exists is that the military assigned to the Pentagon normally serves for three years, not long enough to find out who does what, who produces and go obfuscate, and my the second year figures out what needs to be done and before the third implementing rule is finished, so is the policy which the next Colonel who comes in will get an MSM for reversing it.
Likewise it is impossible for any unstable force of milicrats to sustain a policy of anykind for more than three years and most of the policies associated under the lable :”Transformation” are remarkable in consistency over multiple administrations, something a rotational military/appointed civil service could sustain.
While there were serious conflict in the Pentagon over the conduct of the war between the role specified in FM3-24 calling for a multi-disciplined multi-level effort to mix economic, political, health, governance, and judicious use of massive firepower, has been sabotaged by the Surge, a rotational concept beloved by rotational career centric policies of Transformation.
Surges are temporary which sabotages the longpull approach of COIN operations. By associating Petraes name with the Pentagon Surge Policy dooms his effectives which the srurge recedes..
Likewise is the Pentagon;s insistence that the Army is over-extended, a condition created by the Pentagon by not pushing for Full Presidential Mobilization which would have kept the Guard and Reserve units on active duty until the emergency was over..
The principle threat to the SuperGrade-Industrial Complex, formerly known as the Military-Industrial Complex until rotational assignment rotas ensured that the impact of the military assigned to be Pentagon is controllable by superior GS15 plus Supergrades which has effectively reduced the military in the Pentagon to Hand Puppers. Likewise, any political appointee can, like in other governments, can be danced around until they quit for frustration or get set up.
The proof that such a pageant exists is that the military assigned to the Pentagon normally serves for three years, not long enough to find out who does what, who produces and go obfuscate, and my the second year figures out what needs to be done and before the third implementing rule is finished, so is the policy which the next Colonel who comes in will get an MSM for reversing it.
Likewise it is impossible for any unstable force of milicrats to sustain a policy of anykind for more than three years and most of the policies associated under the lable :”Transformation” are remarkable in consistency over multiple administrations, something a rotational military/appointed civil service could sustain.
While there were serious conflict in the Pentagon over the conduct of the war between the role specified in FM3-24 calling for a multi-disciplined multi-level effort to mix economic, political, health, governance, and judicious use of massive firepower, has been sabotaged by the Surge, a rotational concept beloved by rotational career centric policies of Transformation.
Surges are temporary which sabotages the longpull approach of COIN operations. By associating Petraes name with the Pentagon Surge Policy dooms his effectives which the srurge recedes..
Likewise is the Pentagon;s insistence that the Army is over-extended, a condition created by the Pentagon by not pushing for Full Presidential Mobilization which would have kept the Guard and Reserve units on active duty until the emergency was over..
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Centers of Gravity Aren't
In order to sound both appropriately pompous, erudite, and authoritative on things military, it is fashionable to use the term “Center of Gravity” to define that which the power of a belligerent emanates, and “around which” the opponent operates. This concept was described in pompous, erudite, and authoritative terms in the book “On War” by Karl Clauswitz published by his wife in the 1800’s after his death. Likewise, it has become quite the fad to quote Clausewitz in the same manner a fundamentalist religionist quotes Holy Scripture be it Bible, Koran, Torah, or Karl Marx.
Unfortunately for the military professional, that which constitutes the Center of Gravity (COG) isn’t all that obvious. It could be geographic, political, social, economic, technical, and/or personal at multiple levels of interest. Clausewitz’s concept itself shifts throughout his book being quite different at the end of the book than of the beginning. As such, military writings today are filled with differing notions of what it is. Or how many there are.
In order for the concept of a COG to be useful to a combatant, it should be consistently understood by his or her forces, but if it were that obvious to one side, it would be obvious to the other(s). Hard to be deceptive under those circumstances and Sun Tzu, the next most quoted authority, would send a pupil who used COG as a term to the blackboard to write “COG’s aren’t”, ten thousand times.
The very notion that one operates “around” a COG suggests a circular voyage as in staff coordination in the Pentagon. Quite useless in practice and the French would be aghast as it not only doesn’t work in practice (forgivable), it doesn’t even work in theory.
The notion that COGs exist in the RW (Real World) has lead to more tragedy than triumph. Clausewitz was fashionable during and before WW1 which induced combatants of both sides to attack each others strong points as at Verdun while the collapse of the Triple Entente came from inside and their rear as hunger, chaos, and Communism carried by troops from the Eastern Front defeated the Will of the People.
The Japanese perceived the COG as the US battle fleet, the defeat of which would bring the US to a negotiating table. That didn’t work out that way. Likewise, Osama Bin Ladin chose the World Trade Center (WTC) as the Center of Gravity of the Great Satan. Both events were somewhat counter-productive.
If one had the Sword of Damocles suspended by a single horse hair above one’s head, the Clausewitzean would deal with the sword, while students of B H Liddell Hart would step out of the way and cut the thread. Like Yin and Yang, and in Aikido, one uses the weakness against the strength.
COGs are too elusive a concept to be useful for field commanders to guide their actions which, instead should be based on proven concepts of military decision making taking into account the Factors of METT (Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops Available), plus Time and Technology available. At the risk of my own pomposity, let me suggest METT-T2.
Likewise the analysis of capabilities, limitations, weaknesses and strengths should take into account that some factors are timeless, some a transitory, and some are illusionary. The closest of factors to consistency is the human will, and geography which we called COCOA in the Pentomic Era. Cover and Concealment, Observation, Critical Terrain, Obstacles, and Avenues of Approach, all of which are used to be able to dominate or deny movement over five kinds of terrain: hills, holes, valleys, ridges, and passes by movement over the high ground, low ground, cross corridors, ridge running or through the pass.
Clausewitz posited that the Will to Resist is a function of the ability to resist, which in Napoleonic times seemed reasonable. But given the stubborn resistance of U-Boot crews, Viet Cong troops, and the Jihadi, it’s just as likely that the reverse is true. The ability to resist is a function of the will to resist, a sort of Triumph of the Will, so to speak.
Gordon S Fowkes
Unfortunately for the military professional, that which constitutes the Center of Gravity (COG) isn’t all that obvious. It could be geographic, political, social, economic, technical, and/or personal at multiple levels of interest. Clausewitz’s concept itself shifts throughout his book being quite different at the end of the book than of the beginning. As such, military writings today are filled with differing notions of what it is. Or how many there are.
In order for the concept of a COG to be useful to a combatant, it should be consistently understood by his or her forces, but if it were that obvious to one side, it would be obvious to the other(s). Hard to be deceptive under those circumstances and Sun Tzu, the next most quoted authority, would send a pupil who used COG as a term to the blackboard to write “COG’s aren’t”, ten thousand times.
The very notion that one operates “around” a COG suggests a circular voyage as in staff coordination in the Pentagon. Quite useless in practice and the French would be aghast as it not only doesn’t work in practice (forgivable), it doesn’t even work in theory.
The notion that COGs exist in the RW (Real World) has lead to more tragedy than triumph. Clausewitz was fashionable during and before WW1 which induced combatants of both sides to attack each others strong points as at Verdun while the collapse of the Triple Entente came from inside and their rear as hunger, chaos, and Communism carried by troops from the Eastern Front defeated the Will of the People.
The Japanese perceived the COG as the US battle fleet, the defeat of which would bring the US to a negotiating table. That didn’t work out that way. Likewise, Osama Bin Ladin chose the World Trade Center (WTC) as the Center of Gravity of the Great Satan. Both events were somewhat counter-productive.
If one had the Sword of Damocles suspended by a single horse hair above one’s head, the Clausewitzean would deal with the sword, while students of B H Liddell Hart would step out of the way and cut the thread. Like Yin and Yang, and in Aikido, one uses the weakness against the strength.
COGs are too elusive a concept to be useful for field commanders to guide their actions which, instead should be based on proven concepts of military decision making taking into account the Factors of METT (Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops Available), plus Time and Technology available. At the risk of my own pomposity, let me suggest METT-T2.
Likewise the analysis of capabilities, limitations, weaknesses and strengths should take into account that some factors are timeless, some a transitory, and some are illusionary. The closest of factors to consistency is the human will, and geography which we called COCOA in the Pentomic Era. Cover and Concealment, Observation, Critical Terrain, Obstacles, and Avenues of Approach, all of which are used to be able to dominate or deny movement over five kinds of terrain: hills, holes, valleys, ridges, and passes by movement over the high ground, low ground, cross corridors, ridge running or through the pass.
Clausewitz posited that the Will to Resist is a function of the ability to resist, which in Napoleonic times seemed reasonable. But given the stubborn resistance of U-Boot crews, Viet Cong troops, and the Jihadi, it’s just as likely that the reverse is true. The ability to resist is a function of the will to resist, a sort of Triumph of the Will, so to speak.
Gordon S Fowkes
Thursday, September 6, 2007
The One to Ten Percent Rule for Mobilization
There are valid questions of what type and level of force the nation needs for any given period. I suggest several benchmarks based on the level of human resources needed:
One percent of total population should be available for military service in short order, regardless of composition in service or component. Given the WW2 benchmark, the nation should be able to go from one percent to ten percent in three years.
At the population that means three million in idle times, while serious war would require thirty million. In WW2 we fielded 100 combat divisions (Army and USMC) and 102 aircraft carriers of all sizes. There were twelve million in uniform in WW2 with a population of 120 millions (e.g. 10%)
As to composition, at base level the defense of the Continental U.S. alone can be done with a well trained Guard and Reserve force, while the needs of the defense of the trade by sea requires a standing naval capability
It is the need to project force overseas, and to deal with extant threats overseas, that standing forces are needed. In between big wars, there is a need for soft power integrated with political, economic, social as well as firepower is needed. Once a big one starts, the need for more firepower and logistics changes the complexion of forces, and both must be planned for, with those forces not needed forward are kept in reserve."
Comparison of weaponry from age to age doesn't impact on how many people are employed. Were that so, the entire combined Confederate and Union forces could be defeated by a Marine Expeditionary Unit (a division sized force with it's own air and sea forces.). One Apache gunship could have swept the field at Gettysburg. A single Raptor could have wiped out the Japanese fleet with fuel to spare. That doesn't mean the our defense needs could be met by a Raptor and a Marine division.........
The Range of weaponry hasn't affected the reaction time for a nation to react. Consider the days of the Viking raiders whose appearance out of the morning fog coming over the surf was all the warning that the local castle, town or monastery would get .... minutes. Cities kept their gates locked at night to defend against a sudden assault, the likes of which happened all too often. Before radar, the firs sight of an invading force was the appearance of the fleet as it deployed to begin bombardment .... minutes, maybe hours. Even with advanced warning before the age of the telegraph, it often took days to spread that warning.........
We don't have the industrial base we had in the Twentieth Century and that is a major limiting factor on our mobilization in terms of material, but not in terms of manpower. It means that, like a lot of nations in the past, meant that the invading hordes would be met with staves and pitchforks. ........
Do we have the time? Yes, unless the invaders come from outer space with technology to match. There is no nation with sufficient force in place or within less time to mobilize than we, that could cross one of two oceans or invade from Mexico or Canada. The creation of such force anywhere could not take place without considerable advance notice, of sufficient time for the US to counter it ... should we chose. ......
The threat to the US is to it's Constitution, not a piece of dirt nor of a bunch of people except as it relates to changing the Constitution, which requires only 13 states to preserve. One must consider what parts of the continental US must stay under US control before the US would consider surrender. For the sake of simplicity, one could break down the US into six zones: The Union, the Pacific Coast, the Mississippi, the Confederacy, the Great Planes, and the Mountains, in order of importance. The nation could be still operation with three of these with one of the first three. It gets to be a problem if there are large non-contiguous areas. The geographic center of gravity is St. Louis which if controlled by a force marching from any direction is in a position to over-whelm the rest. ....
By the time any force gets big enough to launch such an attack, we would be well past staves and pitchforks. And through whatever ad hoc coastal defense force we could stamp out of the ground/water/
The option of surrender to an overwhelming nuclear or death ray threat, only depends on our own capability to annihilate someone else's population centers.
One percent of total population should be available for military service in short order, regardless of composition in service or component. Given the WW2 benchmark, the nation should be able to go from one percent to ten percent in three years.
At the population that means three million in idle times, while serious war would require thirty million. In WW2 we fielded 100 combat divisions (Army and USMC) and 102 aircraft carriers of all sizes. There were twelve million in uniform in WW2 with a population of 120 millions (e.g. 10%)
As to composition, at base level the defense of the Continental U.S. alone can be done with a well trained Guard and Reserve force, while the needs of the defense of the trade by sea requires a standing naval capability
It is the need to project force overseas, and to deal with extant threats overseas, that standing forces are needed. In between big wars, there is a need for soft power integrated with political, economic, social as well as firepower is needed. Once a big one starts, the need for more firepower and logistics changes the complexion of forces, and both must be planned for, with those forces not needed forward are kept in reserve."
Comparison of weaponry from age to age doesn't impact on how many people are employed. Were that so, the entire combined Confederate and Union forces could be defeated by a Marine Expeditionary Unit (a division sized force with it's own air and sea forces.). One Apache gunship could have swept the field at Gettysburg. A single Raptor could have wiped out the Japanese fleet with fuel to spare. That doesn't mean the our defense needs could be met by a Raptor and a Marine division.........
The Range of weaponry hasn't affected the reaction time for a nation to react. Consider the days of the Viking raiders whose appearance out of the morning fog coming over the surf was all the warning that the local castle, town or monastery would get .... minutes. Cities kept their gates locked at night to defend against a sudden assault, the likes of which happened all too often. Before radar, the firs sight of an invading force was the appearance of the fleet as it deployed to begin bombardment .... minutes, maybe hours. Even with advanced warning before the age of the telegraph, it often took days to spread that warning.........
We don't have the industrial base we had in the Twentieth Century and that is a major limiting factor on our mobilization in terms of material, but not in terms of manpower. It means that, like a lot of nations in the past, meant that the invading hordes would be met with staves and pitchforks. ........
Do we have the time? Yes, unless the invaders come from outer space with technology to match. There is no nation with sufficient force in place or within less time to mobilize than we, that could cross one of two oceans or invade from Mexico or Canada. The creation of such force anywhere could not take place without considerable advance notice, of sufficient time for the US to counter it ... should we chose. ......
The threat to the US is to it's Constitution, not a piece of dirt nor of a bunch of people except as it relates to changing the Constitution, which requires only 13 states to preserve. One must consider what parts of the continental US must stay under US control before the US would consider surrender. For the sake of simplicity, one could break down the US into six zones: The Union, the Pacific Coast, the Mississippi, the Confederacy, the Great Planes, and the Mountains, in order of importance. The nation could be still operation with three of these with one of the first three. It gets to be a problem if there are large non-contiguous areas. The geographic center of gravity is St. Louis which if controlled by a force marching from any direction is in a position to over-whelm the rest. ....
By the time any force gets big enough to launch such an attack, we would be well past staves and pitchforks. And through whatever ad hoc coastal defense force we could stamp out of the ground/water/
The option of surrender to an overwhelming nuclear or death ray threat, only depends on our own capability to annihilate someone else's population centers.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Prime Ministers Chamberlan and Pelosi
Neville Chamberlain was Prime Minister of Great Britain. Prime Ministers of Great Britain like many other Parliamentary governments have the authority to direct foreign affairs and the conduct of war, albeit in the name of a King. Pelosi thinks she is Prime Minister of the United States.
Under the Constitution, Speakers of the House aren't Prime Ministers, and the Constitution specifically reserves the authority to direct wars and foreign policy to the President, and not to the Congress. We nearly lost the Revolution through Congressional meddling so the Founders ensured that the Congress couldn't do that again.
There is with these Presidential powers a great deal of difference in opinion in what the powers of the President as Commander in Chief can do. Bush has stretched those meaning far beyond all but a short list of other presidents have. But at the narrowest interpretations of those powers, and that of his/her control of foreign policy means that the movement of troops in foreign countries is exclusive to the President. Congress has no such authority.
Congress does has the authority to declare war, and to some extent considerable control to authorize military operations, but once authorized the control shifts to the President until a treaty has been signed and is ready for the Senate to ratify .... the House isn't included in that latter action.
Congress has eighteen specified powers of which seven deal with war and the military. The have the specified and exclusive powers to raise, equip, staff, and provide for the regulation (doctrine) of forces, including the mobilized militia. In short, the Congress designs and provides the forces the President gets to command.
In this latter regard, the Congress has given this authority to the Executive branch through law and appropriation and walked away from all but trivial pursuits in this regard. As such, the E-Ring establishment developed the military into a closed union shop designed to stabilize the careers of those in their second and third decades of service ... field and flag ranks and the Sergeants Major.. And with no regard of how to win a war, focusing on battle as a means to fatten 201 files.
WE have had a large standing permanent (regular) military only since about 1980. Most of the Cold War was conducted with a large standing military with over half it's ranks in a temporary status. The concept of a large temporary force was the logical response to the fact that wars are temporary in duration and when the war is over, the temporary forces go home. The Cold War was the first really "long war", lasting forty years, a longness the E-Ring wants to replicate.
The temporary forces used in wars include the Guard and Reserves, historically the Guard. Unknown to the E-Ring Warriors is the fact that the Guard is the default military force provided for in the Constitution. All others are at the wish, whim, and will of the Congress. Including the USMC and the Navy.
The Constitution restricts the Guard by prohibiting the states from maintaining standing troops (full time units) or ships of war in peace. There used to be Naval Militia units but only New York has one now. The regulations (doctrine) of the Guard (militias) is the business of the Congress to preclude the problem of different manuals of arms and battle drill that occurred in the Revolutionary War.
By allowing the E-Ring Warriors to focus on building a military based on career management criterion instead of war management criterion, they built a concept called "Transformation" which replicated the dynamics of rotating brigades to Irwin to rotating to war zone, and increasing the number of Army modular brigades by adding ten colonel command slots and no more guns to enhance the competition of colonels for flag rank, creating top heavy under gunned and maladjusted to eclectic warfare.
No credible battle study exists to justify standardization of combat brigades into expeditionary packages to meet all and sundry contingencies. Were it not for the fact that the troops in the field, four stars and below, pay absolutely no attention to the intent of the E-Ring that task organization only applies to echelons above Colonel. The tact that the Pentagon still clings to “life cycle management” for brigades is evidence that the E-ring considers actual combat according to FM3-24 a temporary aberration.
The war in Iraq requires far more sophisticated tasking, tasks, missions, and organizations than at any time in our past. And is doing it with ease. That's what we are really good at. AT present, Navy officers provide EW support at multiple levels of command on the ground. USAFR officers have OPCON of mixed forces of other services and nations. That is an unsung battle except on the podiums of our military schools.
Fortunately, the school system and the troops outside the E-Ring have developed the right doctrine now published as FM 3-34 put together by General Petraeus now putting it in effect in Iraq. It is a multi-level multi-discipline approach aimed at providing basic services and governance at the lowest level, a level ignored by most third world countries.
Unfortunately, this threatens the E-Ring, and surprisingly, has enraged the Bolshevik branch of the Democratic Party led by Prime Minister Pelosi whose connections with Viet Cong "revolutionary" war principles tell them that the Petraeus Doctrine has a chance of working. So far, the Bush doctrine was doomed, something the VC base campuses know, and have rallied to replicate their victory over the USA in the Vietnam War using the same rhetoric.
"Ending the War"is classic Bolshevik rhetoric that they used to undermine the armies of the Tsar in 1917, the French in 1940 when the Bolsheviks were allied to Hitler, and the US in Vietnam. This rhetoric,when used against the Bolsheviks earns on a one way trip to the killing fields or gulags when they have to fight a war. Hollywood turned from anti-war to pro-war overnight on June 21, 1940 when Hitler doubled crossed the Kremlin.
Prime Minister Pelosi isn't another Chamberlain, she wants to be another Cromwell or Robespierre. Unfortunately for her, the military won't follow her, and the killing fields or regicides past won't happen again.
What to do? First, Bush shouldn't veto the appropriations bill, he should accept it and ignore any provisions that restrict his authority unconstitutionally. He can have his new Attorney General issue the appropriate readings, make a signing statement, and use the money which now has no strings attached. Unless someone is harmed by ignoring such which would allow the courts to deal with the issue, a process which will take longer than Bush has in office. The Congress can't do diddly to enforce such silly provisions, as enforcement is in the Executive branch.
The next Congress should be directed by the electorate to rebuild our military establishment along traditional lines by reducing the size of the active establishment to that which is needed to deal with foreign threats, and a military capable of expansion and retraction with capable forces drawn from the Guard and Reserves.
The Guard's traditional roles require combat forces, with an enhanced capability in engineers and military police and other forces dealing with natural disaster. This should also include such medical, PSYOP, civil affairs, and water borne forces as are needed. The Coast Guard and Reserve may need larger craft whose wartime usages are riverine and littoral defense, including ASW and minesweeper units.
The Reserve components of the services (USAR, USAFR, USNR, etc) need to refocus on the combat aupport and service support structures needed for field armies and corps, and to some extent forces needed stateside such as the WW2 equivalent of the US Army Service Forces which was equal with the Army and Army Air Force.
Additionally, the Reserves are the only component of providing trained individuals and are doing that now by cannibalization of TOE units, reducing the effectiveness of the latter. Only twenty percent of the IRR seems ready to roll, involuntarily. Once they walked away from any commitment involving commitment in time and effort, they became useless unless and until the Federales are willing to arrest, convict, and execute those who miss movement to combat as the law allows.
Units and activities for reservists need to be established to provide training for pay in those individual and collective skills needed in war. This means allowing overstrengths in existing units, IRR detachments training as if they were deployable (sans gear) in virtual reality training to allow mobilization as replacements or as the core of new units.
This country put ten percent of it's population under arms in WW2, today that would be a military of thirty million. WW2 had one hundred divisions and one hundred aircraft carriers. Do the math. After five years of war in Iraq, we don't have much to show for it except a lot of damn good troops.
The mess in Iraq is the fault of the Congress no less than the President, both of whom took advice from the self serving.
It's time for a real change, one which is non partisan.
Gordon S Fowkes
Lt Col, US Army (Ret)
Under the Constitution, Speakers of the House aren't Prime Ministers, and the Constitution specifically reserves the authority to direct wars and foreign policy to the President, and not to the Congress. We nearly lost the Revolution through Congressional meddling so the Founders ensured that the Congress couldn't do that again.
There is with these Presidential powers a great deal of difference in opinion in what the powers of the President as Commander in Chief can do. Bush has stretched those meaning far beyond all but a short list of other presidents have. But at the narrowest interpretations of those powers, and that of his/her control of foreign policy means that the movement of troops in foreign countries is exclusive to the President. Congress has no such authority.
Congress does has the authority to declare war, and to some extent considerable control to authorize military operations, but once authorized the control shifts to the President until a treaty has been signed and is ready for the Senate to ratify .... the House isn't included in that latter action.
Congress has eighteen specified powers of which seven deal with war and the military. The have the specified and exclusive powers to raise, equip, staff, and provide for the regulation (doctrine) of forces, including the mobilized militia. In short, the Congress designs and provides the forces the President gets to command.
In this latter regard, the Congress has given this authority to the Executive branch through law and appropriation and walked away from all but trivial pursuits in this regard. As such, the E-Ring establishment developed the military into a closed union shop designed to stabilize the careers of those in their second and third decades of service ... field and flag ranks and the Sergeants Major.. And with no regard of how to win a war, focusing on battle as a means to fatten 201 files.
WE have had a large standing permanent (regular) military only since about 1980. Most of the Cold War was conducted with a large standing military with over half it's ranks in a temporary status. The concept of a large temporary force was the logical response to the fact that wars are temporary in duration and when the war is over, the temporary forces go home. The Cold War was the first really "long war", lasting forty years, a longness the E-Ring wants to replicate.
The temporary forces used in wars include the Guard and Reserves, historically the Guard. Unknown to the E-Ring Warriors is the fact that the Guard is the default military force provided for in the Constitution. All others are at the wish, whim, and will of the Congress. Including the USMC and the Navy.
The Constitution restricts the Guard by prohibiting the states from maintaining standing troops (full time units) or ships of war in peace. There used to be Naval Militia units but only New York has one now. The regulations (doctrine) of the Guard (militias) is the business of the Congress to preclude the problem of different manuals of arms and battle drill that occurred in the Revolutionary War.
By allowing the E-Ring Warriors to focus on building a military based on career management criterion instead of war management criterion, they built a concept called "Transformation" which replicated the dynamics of rotating brigades to Irwin to rotating to war zone, and increasing the number of Army modular brigades by adding ten colonel command slots and no more guns to enhance the competition of colonels for flag rank, creating top heavy under gunned and maladjusted to eclectic warfare.
No credible battle study exists to justify standardization of combat brigades into expeditionary packages to meet all and sundry contingencies. Were it not for the fact that the troops in the field, four stars and below, pay absolutely no attention to the intent of the E-Ring that task organization only applies to echelons above Colonel. The tact that the Pentagon still clings to “life cycle management” for brigades is evidence that the E-ring considers actual combat according to FM3-24 a temporary aberration.
The war in Iraq requires far more sophisticated tasking, tasks, missions, and organizations than at any time in our past. And is doing it with ease. That's what we are really good at. AT present, Navy officers provide EW support at multiple levels of command on the ground. USAFR officers have OPCON of mixed forces of other services and nations. That is an unsung battle except on the podiums of our military schools.
Fortunately, the school system and the troops outside the E-Ring have developed the right doctrine now published as FM 3-34 put together by General Petraeus now putting it in effect in Iraq. It is a multi-level multi-discipline approach aimed at providing basic services and governance at the lowest level, a level ignored by most third world countries.
Unfortunately, this threatens the E-Ring, and surprisingly, has enraged the Bolshevik branch of the Democratic Party led by Prime Minister Pelosi whose connections with Viet Cong "revolutionary" war principles tell them that the Petraeus Doctrine has a chance of working. So far, the Bush doctrine was doomed, something the VC base campuses know, and have rallied to replicate their victory over the USA in the Vietnam War using the same rhetoric.
"Ending the War"is classic Bolshevik rhetoric that they used to undermine the armies of the Tsar in 1917, the French in 1940 when the Bolsheviks were allied to Hitler, and the US in Vietnam. This rhetoric,when used against the Bolsheviks earns on a one way trip to the killing fields or gulags when they have to fight a war. Hollywood turned from anti-war to pro-war overnight on June 21, 1940 when Hitler doubled crossed the Kremlin.
Prime Minister Pelosi isn't another Chamberlain, she wants to be another Cromwell or Robespierre. Unfortunately for her, the military won't follow her, and the killing fields or regicides past won't happen again.
What to do? First, Bush shouldn't veto the appropriations bill, he should accept it and ignore any provisions that restrict his authority unconstitutionally. He can have his new Attorney General issue the appropriate readings, make a signing statement, and use the money which now has no strings attached. Unless someone is harmed by ignoring such which would allow the courts to deal with the issue, a process which will take longer than Bush has in office. The Congress can't do diddly to enforce such silly provisions, as enforcement is in the Executive branch.
The next Congress should be directed by the electorate to rebuild our military establishment along traditional lines by reducing the size of the active establishment to that which is needed to deal with foreign threats, and a military capable of expansion and retraction with capable forces drawn from the Guard and Reserves.
The Guard's traditional roles require combat forces, with an enhanced capability in engineers and military police and other forces dealing with natural disaster. This should also include such medical, PSYOP, civil affairs, and water borne forces as are needed. The Coast Guard and Reserve may need larger craft whose wartime usages are riverine and littoral defense, including ASW and minesweeper units.
The Reserve components of the services (USAR, USAFR, USNR, etc) need to refocus on the combat aupport and service support structures needed for field armies and corps, and to some extent forces needed stateside such as the WW2 equivalent of the US Army Service Forces which was equal with the Army and Army Air Force.
Additionally, the Reserves are the only component of providing trained individuals and are doing that now by cannibalization of TOE units, reducing the effectiveness of the latter. Only twenty percent of the IRR seems ready to roll, involuntarily. Once they walked away from any commitment involving commitment in time and effort, they became useless unless and until the Federales are willing to arrest, convict, and execute those who miss movement to combat as the law allows.
Units and activities for reservists need to be established to provide training for pay in those individual and collective skills needed in war. This means allowing overstrengths in existing units, IRR detachments training as if they were deployable (sans gear) in virtual reality training to allow mobilization as replacements or as the core of new units.
This country put ten percent of it's population under arms in WW2, today that would be a military of thirty million. WW2 had one hundred divisions and one hundred aircraft carriers. Do the math. After five years of war in Iraq, we don't have much to show for it except a lot of damn good troops.
The mess in Iraq is the fault of the Congress no less than the President, both of whom took advice from the self serving.
It's time for a real change, one which is non partisan.
Gordon S Fowkes
Lt Col, US Army (Ret)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
