Thomas E. Ricks's Blog, page 161

We should encourage our European allies to go to drones as the next natural move

By
Christopher Whyte

Best
Defense office of unmanned history

The
question of whether or not the increasing deployment of unmanned combat aerial
vehicles (UCAVs) is going to radically alter the
nature of warfare and weapons development in the world has been given a number
of different answers recently.

Noel
Sharkey argued in the Guardian that minimal risk and advancing drone technologies will
lead to a global unmanned arms race. My colleague Joseph Singh countered by pointing out that narrow
focus and still-considerable expense means that drone forces will likely remain
in niche roles, with great powers realizing that peer competitors will probably
be able to deploy effective airspace defenses to counteract unmanned threats.
But regardless of which point of view one subscribes to, the truth is that
drones are quickly becoming a viable option for many countries looking to
expand military capabilities.

To date,
drones have proven to be effective in non-traditional theaters of war like Iraq
and Afghanistan, performing in reconnaissance and strike roles alike to support
anti-militant and other asymmetrical mission profiles. And though there has
also been a clear move towards "navalizing" UCAVs, it is fairly clear that such
platforms won't replace traditional manned combat platforms at sea wholesale
anytime soon. The challenge of both taking such technologies from research to
operational readiness and of replacing existing assets virtually ensures that
any transition en masse to a drone-centric force posture will happen long-term,
and would represent a major paradigmatic shift.

So what
practical impact will drones have on the global military balance in the next
couple of decades? One answer is simple. UCAVs in their present form may, and
should, have most impact in the near-term as a tool for the U.S. to devolve
commitments and to encourage the development of security forces that can
effectively meet a number of challenges.

In
particular, the U.S. should be encouraging allies in Europe and other relatively
stable regions to develop and deploy drone technologies over other conventional
aerial platforms. Poland's recent announcement that its near-obsolete bomber
fleet will be replaced by three squadrons of combat drones in the next few
years shows that such a move can be politically feasible. Moreover, the
strategic incentives to go for drones are fairly clear. With the "pivot" to
Asia underway, America is perceived to be moving both its policy focus and the
bulk of its preponderant military strength from Europe and the Middle East
towards the Pacific. And though Europe does not face threats as great as it did
during the Cold War, there is still a need to maintain the regional capacity to
respond to crises like those in Libya or, potentially, Syria.

The
upshot of Europe's needs and Washington's move to rebalance in the Pacific is,
of course, that the potential political, logistical, and financial steps needed
to support a major operation in any of the theaters surrounding Europe become
increasingly complex over time. Pushing allies to take a greater role in
providing for regional security would largely solve that issue, but financial
constraints and diminished popular backing for increasing military spending has
meant that coordinating such an effort has been difficult.

The
proliferation of drones to fill particular conventional roles in the militaries
of Europe's security stakeholders could change that. UCAVs are significantly
cheaper than conventional manned fighters. Moreover, UCAV effectiveness has
proven to be contextual, with drones from the Predator to the Global Hawk
thriving in environments where airspace is not heavily disputed and missions
draw up short of invasive campaign.

This
profile of capabilities clearly fits the needs of America's European allies,
with the majority of the continent's near-term security challenges likely to
revolve around the need to target asymmetrical threats or to protect civilians
in civil warzones. Indeed, considering the general paucity of instances in
which European military forces have had to engage advanced air defenses in
recent years, it could be said that reliance on expensive manned aerial
platforms for reconnaissance and strike operations is wasteful.

It is
also the case that removing the human element from allies' air force operations
could lead to reduced reliance on American military power and more balanced
partner commitments. Though drone forces would still act in concert with
smaller numbers of conventional manned fighters to penetrate defended airspace,
a greater percentage of the risk involved in militarily intervening would be
taken up by unmanned units.

This
could reduce domestic aversion to involvement in international interventions
amongst alliance partners and increase the action potential of those European
countries that have traditionally played smaller roles in coalition campaigns.

The
proliferation of UCAVs in their present form could even bolster the
effectiveness of Europe's navies. Though the transition towards
entirely-unmanned air wings and the infrastructural move away from manned
combat aircraft is likely years away, the use of select drone platforms like
the Sea Avenger could bring some of these advantages of cost, operational
flexibility and willingness to the naval air forces of countries like Britain,
France and Spain.

Ultimately,
the broad deployment of UCAVs in the militaries of those partners left behind
in the "pivot" makes substantive sense. Policymakers in Washington should
realize that encouraging drone development could be a boon to U.S. security
endeavors, and that unmanned platform could allow alliance partners in Europe
to both maintain operational effectiveness and reduce costs.

Christopher
Whyte is a researcher at the Center for a New American Security .

On watching the New Zealand Army mourn: Maybe we should do the same

By Stacy Bare

Best Defense rugby correspondent

I
wonder if there is not something deeply cathartic about the infantry
unit performing
the Haka, an ancient ritual designed to intimidate opponents, while also
honoring them. In a few moments, the unit is able to express incredible,
unified emotion, and sadness, while at the same time letting death know it will
not break their unit's camaraderie. 

There
is a respect shown to death itself here, a worthy opponent in its own right
that accompanies the warrior regardless of the battlefield. Does the warrior
culture of the Ma'ori people, seeped so thoroughly through the NZ Army, allow
for greater resilience in the modern day soldiers? The first time I watched it
I had tears streaming down my eyes and imagined myself and my old units
performing the Haka for a dozen or so fallen comrades.

As
a former rugby player I can relate to the strength and power of the ritual.
When we had a large number of Fijians, Kiwis, and Samoans on the team we did a
similar dance before games. Most of the Islanders were warriors and soldiers
themselves. We do not have this kind of coming home in America, this reinforcement,
even in death, of the inherent strength of our warriors. Are we overly
sensitive, overly surprised that in war, maiming and death occur? 

Then
again, one wonders if the number of deaths of the NZ forces equated to ours,
would this Haka happen every time there?

Still,
I can't help but think if when our brothers and sisters came home, if we
allowed ourselves the opportunity to yell, to scream, and to shake our tongues
at death, we wouldn't be a far healthier society.

Stacy Bare
served as a captain in the U.S. Army from 2000-2004 and again from 2006-2007.
He served as the Counter Terrorism Team Chief in Sarajevo, Bosnia, in 2003-04
and as a Civil Affairs Team Chief in Baghdad, Iraq, from 2006-07. He is now the
Director of Outdoor
Programming for the Sierra Club. 

'No Easy Day': Bad precedent being set?

[image error]

I've
been reading No Easy Day, which I find a
well-done but fairly typical tale by a Navy SEAL who by luck and hard work happened
to be in on the bin Laden kill.

What
worries me is all the talk of pre-publication review by the Pentagon. I know
CIA does that sort of thing, but I don't remember the military doing it much. I
read all the books by guys like Hugh
Shelton, Tommy
R. Franks, and David
Crist, and I don't recall much talk of the Defense Department
getting to peek at the books first. I mean, I doubt that Eisenhower submitted Crusade in Europe to
some lawyer at the Pentagon before it went to press.

So I
think it would be a bad thing if people came to expect some sort of right of
the military to review memoirs. I
suspect that a lot of the criticism of the book is being provoked not by legal
concerns but by anger among SEALs and the like that the author violated the
cultural code of the Special Ops community and blabbed. 

Necessary
disclosure: My books are published by Penguin Press, which is under the same
corporate umbrella as Dutton, which published No Easy Day.

Rebecca's War Dog of the Week: September Postcard Series: Mader and Maxx

By Rebecca Frankel

Best Defense Chief Canine Correspondent

Maxx, an improvised explosive device detector dog, licks the face of his handler, Lance Cpl. Stephen Mader, during a convoy in southern Helmand province, Afghanistan, July 26. Mader, an IDD handler with 3rd Battalion, 8th Marines, Regimental Combat Team 6, volunteered for the job. He's an infantry mortarman by trade, but deployed to use Maxx to help sniff out IEDs and other explosive before they can damage vehicles or Marines."

I'm so tired of Pakistan

Remember
the Clash song "I'm So Bored with the USA"? Similarly, over the summer I
noticed that I am finding it harder and harder to read about , though more out of frustration
than boredom. I have no hope for the place. Its elites strike me as fundamentally
irresponsible and destructive to their nation.

I know,
the same might be said about American economic elites, who over the last three
decades have relentlessly grabbed a bigger piece of the economic pie even as
inequality increases and our infrastructure crumbles. But I am pretty sure that
this situation eventually will be corrected. I sense no such resilience in Pakistan. I am thinking of just stopping
paying attention to Pakistan, at least for a year or so.

I wonder
what a "Pakistani spring" would look like. Bloody,
probably.

Hmm -- something up with the climate?

Below is
a group of headlines from the Canadian Early Bird one day this summer. I wonder if something is up with the climate. Phrase of the season: "the new normal." I mention this because I suspect it has national security implications.

Los Angeles Times: Fierce
storms in Northeast, yes, but probably not a derecho 
The New York Times: Storms threaten ozone layer over U.S., study says 

Los Angeles Times: Greenland
ice sheet undergoes worst surface melt in 132 years 

The Christian Science Monitor: U.S.
drought already rippling out into the world  

Quote of the day: Napoleon pigs out

In an
essay knocking down the concept of "total war" in the book Arms and the Man, West Point history prof (and rowing coach) Eugenia
Kiesling offers this interesting analogy: "If war under the ancien regime was like dining at an
elegant restaurant where one paid extravagantly for small, elaborately
presented portions, Napoleon took advantage of the
all-you-can-eat buffet."

Syria: The long hot summer of 2012

I keep
on seeing talk about how the Obama administration should do more to oust Assad.

I
actually think the best way to get rid of Assad would be to remove the roadblock
posed by the possibility that the ouster would be followed by a punitive
repression of minorities (Christians, Armenians, and such) who supported the
regime. But I don't know if such a removal is possible. Overall, to my
surprise, I tend to agree with this Washington
Times column by Daniel Pipes.

I wonder
if eventually the borders of the Middle East will be re-drawn. I could see it,
Iraq and Lebanon all being reconfigured. I am not sure what that would mean for
the Kurds. It will be interesting to watch the role Turkey plays in all this -- as
a relatively stable, prosperous member of NATO whose interests extend deep into
the affected states.  

Joint Chiefs Chairman Dempsey to retired military: Time to STFU about politics

Good for the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs:

And one of the things that marks
us as a profession in a democracy, in our form of democracy, that's most
important is that we remain apolitical. . . . That's how we maintain our bond
and trust with the American people.

Attackerman, porn, and the Pentagon

Spencer
Attackerman wrote last month somewhat mockingly
about the Pentagon cracking down on soldiers watching porn on official
computers. I actually think there is a clear and present danger in porn: I
suspect it is the vehicle by which the Stuxnet virus was introduced into the
computers running part of the Iranian nuclear program. (Reading Henry Crumpton's memoirs, I began to wonder if the CIA is
a major buyer in the porn market, for use with North Korean diplomats, among
other contacts. They probably have a "chief acquisition officer, pornography.")

If I
were managing any official office that used computers -- which is to say all of
them -- I would make watching porn on them a firing offense, not for moral reasons
but for security reasons. And I would consider bringing criminal charges
against anyone who actually used a thumbdrive to transfer porn into an official
system.