DoD Ignores threat from Islam and Iran...instead focuses on Climate Change!

[Warrior-Mentor]

Obama’s National Defence Review ignores Iran and Islam
in favour of… climate change!
James Corum
Telegraph
February 11th, 2010

Under American law, every four years the US Defence Department must present to Congress a comprehensive review of the security threats and challenges to America. The security picture presented in the review provides the justification for planning and creating the appropriate military forces and capabilities. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is supposed to be a non-partisan and objective strategic document – free of partisan politics. After all, the duty to protect the nation and its citizens is supposed to take a higher priority than subsidies to labour unions, or hand-outs to party loyalists.

Last week the Defence Department released the 2010 QDR. It is a remarkable document. As guidance for American strategy it might even take a historical place alongside some of the great assessments of the Bush administration—such as the 2003 Congressional testimony by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz that a war in Iraq could be waged at little cost.

The 128-page Defence Review says some important things. It outlines the problems with maintaining the US military’s technological lead over potential adversaries. It discusses the need to counter terrorism. The threat to Western cyber systems is noted. The proliferation of Russian high-tech anti-aircraft missiles around the world is noted as a problem.

However, it’s not what is in the document that surprises the reader – it’s what was left out. There presence of two elephants in their living room apparently escaped the notice of American’s top civilian and military leaders. Islamic radicalism does not receive any mention whatsoever in the American Defence Review and the threat posed by a nuclear Iran is mentioned in only one general sentence at the end of a document (page 101).

To put this lack of discussion in proportion, contrast this non-discussion with other security issues mentioned in the document. For example, the security effects of climate change are highlighted and discussed in depth in eight pages of the document.

I would not have thought it possible that one could publish a book-length assessment of America’s security challenges and responses and NOT address the problem of Islamic radicalism or the Iranian bomb – but that’s just what Defence Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mullen have done. From this one can draw one of two possible conclusions: these men are really, really stupid (not very likely), or they have deliberately minimised the current security threats to please the Obama administration and support the President’s desire to cut defence spending. The smart money is on the latter explanation.

Obama’s plan is to spend, spend, and spend on domestic entitlement and welfare programmes. His next budget contains a deficit of $1.6 trillion – almost as much as Bill Clinton’s whole government budget of 2000. But Obama is under pressure to make some budget cuts somewhere. Clearly the massive domestic budget with really necessary items like a $35 billion General Motors bailout can’t be touched without offending essential groups such as the United Auto Workers Union.

However, President Obama HAS finally found the place to cut waste – defence! In late January he demanded that Congress cut $2.5 billion from the defence budget for the purchase of C-17 transport planes. Obama declared the money for military transport was “waste, pure and simple”.

Of course, “waste” is a matter of interpretation. No one says that the C-17 is a bad aircraft or doesn’t do its job very effectively. In fact, it’s probably the best and safest large transport plane in the world today, and has done sterling service in Afghanistan and Haiti. But, according to Obama’s Pentagon officials, there is just no need to maintain such a large military transport fleet. If the Pentagon’s own assessment determines that there are not too many threats out there – and you can do that if you ignore minor things like Iranian nuclear weapons and the radicalisation of millions of followers of Islam – then you can feel safe in cutting defence expenditures and free up even more money for the President’s domestic agenda.

It’s a neat political trick to ignore the elephants in your living room. But Obama is making a huge gamble and betting the lives and security of Americans that these particular elephants will remain perfectly behaved for the next four years.

SOURCE:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamescorum/100025806/obama%E2%80%99s-national-defence-review-ignores-iran-and-islam-in-favour-of-climate-change/

[Richard]

From the end of the horse with the teeth...

http://www.defense.gov/qdr/

And so it goes...

Richard

[Sigaba]

James CorumFWIW, Professor Corum is a highly respected military historian. His c.v. is available here (http://www.bdcol.ee/files/files/CV/James%20Corum.doc).

IMO, his assessment of the 2010 QDR would have been devastating had he written it as a historian rather than as a polemicist.

YMMV.

[Warrior-Mentor]

FWIW, Professor Corum is a highly respected military historian. His c.v. is available here (http://www.bdcol.ee/files/files/CV/James%20Corum.doc).

IMO, his assessment of the 2010 QDR would have been devastating had he written it as a historian rather than as a polemicist.

YMMV.

Thanks for the curriculum vitae. Provides depth of insight beyond the assessment itself.

One question, devastating for _________?

[Sigaba]

One question, devastating for _________?The current administration. IMO, Professor Corum's political views and manifest dislike of the president get in the way of his bringing his historical knowledge to his discussion of the 2010 QDR.

Here are two examples, the 2010 QDR emphasizes (a) the increased use of UAVs in America's counter terrorist efforts, and (b) expanding the role of the 'base force' in COIN.

In regards to (a), Professor Corum's knowledge of the history of air power is unsurpassed. IMO, he might have pointed out the perils of relying on cutting edge technology in wartime. He could have asked probing questions like:
Are eyes in the sky an adequate substitute for boots on the ground?
How will a political neophyte like the current president negotiate civil-military relations when certain quarters start beating the drum of "victory through air power"?
(How does the Democratic party benefit from an increased reliance on UAVs?)

As for (b), Corum could raise the valid question--are all elements of the American armed services suited for COIN or are there some more capable than others? While this question stimulates much debate, the fact that the QDR glosses over this debate could raise questions about the current president's understanding of military affairs in general and SOF in particular.

Finally, one last point on Iran. In early March 2010, the department of defense will publish its nuclear posture review (NPR). Professor Corum might have used a historian's patience and taken a step back from the fray and saying "It remains to be seen if the current administration will discuss Iran's nuclear weapons program in the NPR.":cool: Unless Professor Corum is certain that document will not discuss Iran's efforts to build a bomb, he may have jumped the gun in assailing the QDR's discussion of Iran.

Just my $0.02.

[Sigaba]

FYI, the document is available here (http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf).

The issues of concern raised by Warrior Mentor in the OP are addressed on pages 3, and 9-13.

Each reader will decide for him/herself if the tone and substance of the NPR adequately address the threats posed by radical Islamicist groups and by Iran.

(FWIW, the document is a little more milquetoast than I'd like...but then, so is the administration that produced it. And I do not like its discussion of the U.S.'s nuclear capabilities. America's existing arsenal is not part of the problem any more than its eventual elimination will be part of the solution. YMMV.)

[Bordercop]

The link: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-tries-to-eradicate-radical-islam/?singlepage=true


Obama Tries to Eradicate Radical Islam

Not from America, but from America’s mindset.

April 9, 2010 - by Raymond Ibrahim

The Obama administration has just announced its intent to ban all words that allude to Islam from important national security documents. Put differently, the Obama administration has just announced its intent to ban all knowledge and context necessary to confront and defeat radical Islam (news much welcomed by Islamist organizations like CAIR). While this move may reflect a naively therapeutic administration — an Obama advisor once suggested that Winnie the Pooh should inform U.S foreign policy — that Obama, the one U.S. president who best knows that politically correct niceties will have no effect on the Muslim world, is enforcing this ban is further troubling.

An Associated Press report has the disturbing details:

President Barack Obama’s advisers plan to remove terms such as “Islamic radicalism” from a document outlining national security strategy and will use the new version to emphasize that the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism, counterterrorism officials say.

First off, how, exactly, does the use of terms such as “Islamic radicalism” indicate that the U.S. views “Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism”? It is the height of oversensitivity to think that the so-called “Muslim street” can be antagonized by (ultimately accurate) words in technical U.S. documents — documents they don’t know or care about — especially since the Arabic media itself often employs such terms. Surely we can use “Islamic radicalism” to define, well, Islamic radicals, without simultaneously viewing all Muslims “through the lens of terrorism”? Just as surely as we can use words like “Nazism” to define white supremacists, without viewing all whites through the lens of racism?

The AP report continues:

Obama’s speechwriters have taken inspiration from an unlikely source: former President Ronald Reagan. Visiting communist China in 1984, Reagan spoke at Fudan University in Shanghai about education, space exploration and scientific research. He discussed freedom and liberty. He never mentioned communism or democracy.

The analogy is flawed. For starters, in Reagan’s era, the Soviet Union, not China, was America’s prime antagonist — just as today, Islamic radicals, not Muslims, are America’s prime enemy. Moreover, unlike Obama, who would have the U.S. bend over backwards — or, in his case, just bend over — to appease Muslims, Reagan regularly lambasted the Soviet Union, dubbing it the “evil empire.” Finally, the Chinese never attacked America, unlike Islamic radicals, who not only have attacked it, but daily promise it death and destruction — all in the name of Islam.

The ultimate problem in the White House’s new “words-policy,” however, is reflected in this excerpt from the report:

The change [i.e., linguistic obfuscation] would be a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. It currently states, “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”

No doubt this important document will soon say something totally meaningless like “The struggle against extremism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.” Such changes bode ill for the future. For it is one thing to carefully choose your words when directly addressing Muslims; it is quite another to censor American analysts and policy-makers from using the necessary terms that conceptualize who the enemy is and what he wants.

The situation is already dire. There is already a lamentable lack of study concerning Muslim war doctrine in the curriculum of American military studies, including in the Pentagon and U.S. Army War College. Obama’s more aggressive censorship program will only exacerbate matters: another recently released strategic document, the QDR, nary mentions anything remotely related to Islam — even as it stresses climate change, which it sees as an “accelerant of instability and conflict” around the world.

At any rate, as I have argued several times before, the U.S. government needs to worry less about which words appease Muslims — another governmental memo warns against “offending,” “insulting,” or being “confrontational” to Muslims — and worry more about providing its own citizenry with accurate knowledge concerning its greatest enemy.

In short, knowledge is inextricably linked to language.The more generic speech becomes, the less precise the knowledge it imparts; conversely, the more precise the language, the more precise the knowledge. In the conflict against Islamic radicalism — there, I said it — to acquire accurate knowledge, which is essential to victory, we need to begin with accurate language.

This means U.S. intelligence analysts and policymakers need to be able to use, and fully appreciate the significance of, words related to Islam — starting with the word “Islam” itself, i.e., submission.

It means the U.S. military needs to begin expounding and studying Islamic war doctrine — without fear of reprisals.
In sum, it means America’s leadership needs to take that ancient dictum — “Know thy enemy”– seriously.

Deplorably enough, nearly a decade after the Islamist-inspired attacks of 9/11, far from knowing its enemy, the U.S. government is banning itself from merely acknowledging its enemy, which is doubly problematic, as knowledge begins with acknowledgment.

Nor is there much room for optimism: if the Obama administration can easily expose America to attack by reducing our physical defenses, surely a subversion of our intellectual safeguards — that is, a subversion of something as abstract as knowledge — will go unchecked.

[Sigaba]

linguistic obfuscationAn irony is that Mr. Ibrahim excoriates the current administration for using the same tactics he brings to bear in his editorial.

My $0.02.

[Buffalobob]

You might want to check traffic conditions downtown. They have the whole of downtown blocked off while discussing what to do about Iran and the nuclear threat. Seems to me that they are taking things pretty seriously.

The lady that was run over by the NG truck is a well known journalist for AAAS. We have a subscription to Science.