Thomas E. Ricks's Blog, page 156

A chat with the Iranian foreign minister: He goes all amiable and reasonable, and wonders what all this fuss is about

By Nathan R. Sherfinski

Best Defense diplomatic bureau

In an hour-long conference call hosted by the Council on
Foreign Relations yesterday, Iranian Foreign Minister, Ali Akbar Salehi
discussed a range of issues including: nuclear ambitions, Syria, and anti-American
sentiment. His tone was measured and
notably non-inflammatory. 

Salehi, who received a PhD from MIT, described Iran as
acting with rational manner in its foreign policy. He dismissed concerns that
Iran's nuclear program is intended for anything aside from civilian energy
purposes. Salehi stated that Iran having
a nuclear bomb would neither make the region more stable nor make rational
sense. "Iran's possession of a nuclear
bomb would only invite attack and threaten other countries; it would not increase
security in the region," he stated in response to a question on the issue. He contended that energy diversification was
the sole purpose of Iran's nuclear program. Furthermore, he reaffirmed Iran's position as a signatory to the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Regarding Iranian support for Syria, he reiterated strict
opposition to foreign intervention of any kind and aimed to communicate Iran's
role in resolving the conflict. "The
Syrian people are entitled to democracy and freedom," he said.  He went on to say, "We [Iran] have been in
talks with the opposition for at least a year." He contended that a political, not a military, solution is the key to
the issue and that Iran puts strong support behind U.N. efforts to resolve the
situation.  "We [Iran] are on the same
wavelength with Brahimi, al-Arabi, and the quartet of countries," he
stated. He did draw a red-line in
Iranian support for the Syrian government. He asserted that, should the Syrian government use WMD, then Iran would
pull its support for the government and any country that would employ WMD,
"...loses legitimacy."

Salehi addressed the issue of anti-American sentiment,
saying, "Iran has great respect for the United States." While he noted that Muslims must stand up for
acts against the Prophet, he said that, "some went beyond what was
expected." He contended his country is
opposed to anti-Americanism or an "America-phobia," as he called it. He went on to say, "We [Iran] have no
animosity toward the United States."

Nathan R. Sherfinski is a researcher at the Center for a New
American Security .

Best image of the day

Not quite sure how to interpret it, though.

Echevarria: The president's mind is the true American center of gravity, plus why landpower is different, and more thoughts

Antulio
Echevarria is one of those guys I always read, no matter what aspect
of defense he is writing about. Even when I don't agree with him, his assertions
make me think.

For
example, in a recent article,
he argued that "It is the mind of the commander in chief-where gains and losses
are weighed-that has always been America's center of gravity, not the will of
the public." I had never thought of that, and it did make me stop and consider.
On reflection I suspect he is correct: I think it was Lincoln who often shaped
public opinion during the Civil War, not the opposite. It was Lyndon Johnson's
fears and flaws that drove both his handling of the Vietnam War and his failure
to level with the American people. It was George Bush's determination to invade
Iraq
that led to the American invasion, not a groundswell of public opinion that
drove him.

In
the very next paragraph, Echevarria launches another provocative thought on how
landpower is fundamentally different from airpower and seapower: "Landpower is
generally employed not only to defeat an opponent's ground forces, and the
quicker the better, but also to establish and maintain control over people and
places thereafter." I think he is right, and this is one reason that landpower
is, I think, more important than the other two forms of power. (And that is one
reason this blog focusses more on the Army and Marine Corps than on the Navy
and Air Force.)

Then,
in the next paragraph after that, he loses me. He argues that the contemporary
era is no more uncertain or ambiguous "than the era of the Cold War, or any
other era." I disagree. The Cold War may have been more dangerous to the future
of humanity, but there were some knowns. The Soviet Union was a stable,
slow-moving, conservative, and rather poor enemy. For several decades, our
national strategy of containment remained in place. But as I say, even when I
disagree with him, he makes me stop and think.   

That's
a lot of thinking to pack into an op-ed piece not much longer than this blog
post about it.

Less CoBell??? Navy whacks 18th CO

The Navy defenestrated Capt. James CoBell,
who had a shore command overseeing aircraft maintenance in Oceana, Virginia. The charges are that he was
an unethical jerk: "misused
his position in using subordinates for personal favors, used abusive language
toward his personnel and failed to properly account for personal leave." 

CoBell is publicly challenging the action, which was the Navy's 18th
ouster of a commander this year. 

Al Haig as a fictional character

Interestingly done, here. From Occupation Japan to the Vietnam War to Watergate to
the Reagan Administration, an interesting character, to be sure.

Rebecca's War Dog of the Week: Army corporal and JaJo survive IED blast together

By Rebecca Frankel

Best Defense Chief Canine Correspondent

A young Army corporal and his detection dog named JaJo, a
German Shepherd, suffered life-threatening injuries from an IED blast on Sept.
15 in Afghanistan where the team was on deployment. Family members who have
been sending updates to the Military Working Dogs Facebook page (run
anonymously by former and current handlers) said that the corporal suffered
"severe blunt trauma and shrapnel injuries to his face, neck, and legs." JaJo,
who also took a hit, ultimately had
"half of his spleen removed and suffered two broken bones in his right-rear
foot."

One of the flight medics who says he was on the team that picked
up the wounded dog and handler after the blast also wrote in to MWD group about
the incident:

"The credit to saving
their lives goes to a small surgical team in Afghanistan. They did not have a
vet at their location. The surgeon, who is an Army Colonel, attended to [the
corporal] first. He later provided the lifesaving chest tube intervention to
JaJo. It was his first chest tube performed on a dog. His years of experience
and knowledge paid off to save these soldiers lives."

The handler was sent to the intensive care unit Landstuhl
Regional Medical Center, Germany and his dog to "a medical clinic nearby."
A U.S. Army article
that came out this week details the team's brief but harrowing stint in Germany
following the incident notes that the soldier when conscious asked after JaJo.

"When his nurse told
him JaJo (pronounced "zsa-zso") was being treated for injuries at a
nearby military veterinary clinic, but was doing fine, she said a tear of
relief rolled down his cheek."

Because JaJo, who is part of the Army's
TEDD program that pairs detection dogs with infantry men (Tactical Explosive
Detection Dog), was well enough, the head doctor of the Military Working Dog
Ward at the Dog Center Europe, Captain Catherine Cook, arranged for the dog to look
in on his handler. Though the soldier wasn't "initially aware of his visitor,
JaJo licked his outstretched hand. ... Moments later, an eye opened as JaJo
licked his hand again and the Soldier was alert enough give his friend a loving
cuddle."

As of Wednesday, the FB group reports
that both handler, who has continually shows signs of improvement, and JaJo are
now back stateside and continuing their recuperation.

Rebecca Frankel, on leave from
her FP desk, is currently writing a book about
military working dogs, to be published by Free Press in the Fall of 2013.

Photo Credit: There is no credit assigned from this photo.
It originally appeared with this story.

What our war colleges should do

My friend Richard Kohn, a distinguished historian of the American military, mentioned in a note what he
thought the mission of the military's war colleges should be:

Broaden
perspective, deepen understanding of war on the policy and strategy level,
introduce civil-military relations at the societal and policy-strategy level,
teach people how to formulate strategy, and force a certain rigor of thought,
critical reading, and skepticism through an experience of deep research and
critical discourse such that when these people have high positions, they are
less likely to accept conventional wisdom, clichés, sloppy thinking,
superficial research, dumb ideas, and the rest. And to widen their
understanding of the contemporary security environment now and likelihoods for
the next decade. And make a stab at making up for a poor educational
background. And attack reflexive anti-intellectualism. And more and
more and more. . . .

Quote of the day: A Pussy Riot member on the upside of being imprisoned

Russian punk
rocker Nadya Tolokonnikova on
how she spends her time
in jail:

Prison is a good place to learn to really listen to your own
mind and your own body. I've learned to read much more deeply, for instance.
For four months, I had nothing to read but the Bible, so I read it for all four
months -- diligently, picking everything apart. Prison is like a monastery -- it's a
place for ascetic practices. After a month here, I became a vegetarian. Walking
in circles for an hour in that tiny dusty yard gets you into a pretty
meditative state as well. We don't get much in the way of the news. But enough
to get inspired.
"

Later in the interview, she comments,
in an aside, "unlike Putin, we're not
chickenshit."

Hey West Point, here's an airpower reading list from an expert

[image error]

By Lt.
Gen. David Deptula (USAF, ret.)

Best
Defense department of airborne victory

--Winged Defense: The Development and Possibilities of
Modern Air Power Economic and Military, William
Mitchell, 1925

-- The Air Campaign: Planning for Combat, John Warden, 1988

--The Transformation of American Air Power, Benjamin S. Lambeth, 2000

--The Influence of Air Power upon History, Walter
J. Boyne, 2003

--Airpower Advantage: Planning the Gulf War Air
Campaign, 1989-1991, Diane T. Putney, 2004

--The Art of Airpower: Sun Tzu Revisited, Sanu
Kainikara, 2009

--Learning Large Lessons: The Evolving Roles of
Ground Power and Air Power in the Post-Cold War Era, David E. Johnson, 2007

--The Foundations of US Air Doctrine: The Problem
of Friction in War, Barry D. Watts, 1984.

--A History of Air Warfare, John Olsen, 2010

--Global Air Power, John Olsen, 2011

--Ideas, Concepts, Doctrine: Basic Thinking in the
United States Air Force, Frank Futrell, 1989

--The Icarus Syndrome, Carl Builder, 1993.

I
would replace Douhet on the USMA History
Department's top 10 classics with "Winged Defense."

The hell of some 'new normals'

Quote of the day comes from "Gold Star Father," a
one-time Marine whose son became a Marine and was killed in action, made this comment the other day: " We all have'‘new
normals' as recently discussed in TBD, but some
new normals are absolute hell."

Yes, I know that
those aren't Marines in the photo. I chose it because this is about more than
his own experience, as he says "we all."