President Obama Talks CSRs

Thanks, Rex :)

By: Brant

A "Reward" For Turning In President Obama?

Boy, you know Stewart & Colbert are going to have a field day with this one... the twits in Somalia have offered "rewards" for knocking off President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

The al Qaeda affiliate in Somalia has mocked the new $33 million bounty on its top leaders heads by offering its own bounty for President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – 10 camels for Obama and 20 chickens for Clinton.
"Anyone who helps the Mujahideen find the whereabouts of Obama and Hillary Clinton will be rewarded with 10 Camels to the information leading to Obama and 10 hens and 10 cocks for Hillary," said senior Shabaab commander Fuad Mohamed Khalaf in a statement reported on numerous websites.
Earlier this week, the U.S. offered a total of $33 million through the State Department's Rewards for Justice program for information leading to the capture of seven different Shabaab leaders, including Khalaf.
The U.S. offered $7 million for founder and commander Ahmed Abdi Aw-Mohamed, AKA Godane or Mukhtar Abu Zubeir, five million for Khalaf and three other men, and $3 million apiece for two other leaders.
The announcement of the U.S. bounties came as Somali and other African military forces have begun to squeeze Shabaab into a smaller and smaller section of Somalia. In a statement, the Somali government said the rewards would help crush the al Qaeda affiliate.

By: Brant

Drone War in AfPak Hurting the US?

UK's Telegraph has an interesting editorial about how the drone war in Afghanistan is destroying the West's reputation.
There's an extended article, but it wraps thus...

Meanwhile, America refuses to apologise for killing 24 Pakistani servicemen in a botched ISAF operation. This is election year and Mr Obama, having apologised already over Koran-burning, may be nervous about a second apology, and has therefore confined himself to an expression of “regret”.
I am told by a number of credible sources that this refusal to behave decently – allied to dismay at the use of drones as the weapon of default in tribal areas – is the reason for the unusual decision of the US ambassador in Islamabad, Cameron Munter, to step down after less than two years in his post. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – increasingly irrelevant and marginalised in an administration dominated by the partnership between Leon Panetta, the Secretary of Defence, and Petraeus – has protested but been ignored.
We need a serious public debate on drones. They are still in their infancy, but have already changed the nature of warfare. The new technology points the way, within just a few decades, to a battlefield where soldiers never die or even risk their lives, and only alleged enemies of the state, their family members, and civilians die in combat – a world straight out of the mouse’s tale in Alice in Wonderland: “ 'I’ll be judge, I’ll be jury’, said cunning old Fury. 'I’ll try the whole cause and condemn you to death.’ ” Justice as dealt out by drones cannot be reconciled with the rule of law which we say we wish to defend.
Supporters of drones – and they make up practically the entire respectable political establishment in Britain and the US – argue that they are indispensable in the fight against al-Qaeda. But plenty of very experienced voices have expressed profound qualms. The former army officer David Kilcullen, one of the architects of the 2007 Iraqi surge, has warned that drone attacks create more extremists than they eliminate. Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, Britain’s former special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, is equally adamant that drone attacks are horribly counter-productive because of the hatred they have started to generate: according to a recent poll, more than two thirds of Pakistanis regard the United States as an enemy. Britain used to be popular and respected in this part of the world for our wisdom and decency. Now, thanks to our refusal to challenge American military doctrine, we are hated, too.

By: Brant

Let's Hope They Get More Time Than Last Time

When the combat role wound down in Iraq, and the training role was emphasized, the troops there barely got 2 years to do what they could before leaving Iraq in a Rube Goldbergian set of political machinations. Let's hope that with the announcement of the 2013 shift to training that the 2014 "see-ya" date isn't that hard and fast. I mean, the Afghans haven't even learned to wipe shit in a toilet yet, and we expect them to secure their own country?

The US will seek to wind down combat operations in Afghanistan during 2013, more than a year before a deadline for withdrawal, the defence secretary says.

Speaking while travelling to a Nato summit, Leon Panetta said the US hoped to switch to a role training and supporting Afghan forces.

It is the most detailed public indication of when US troops might pull back from America's longest war.

Some 68,000 troops are due to remain in Afghanistan after the end of 2012.

There are currently some 99,000 US troops in the country, with 22,000 scheduled to return home during this year.

Until now, though, there had been little information how the Pentagon planned to manage the main bulk of the drawdown, committing only to a full withdrawal of troops by the end of 2014.

By: Brant

Monday Video: Armored Saint

OK, this week's video takes a bit of explanation... I was listening to Armored Saint's "Dropping Like Flies" in the car and thinking "this would be an awesome tune for a military video". In fact, it was such a great idea that I couldn't believe no one had come up with it already, so I started looking through YouTube to see if one was already out there. I couldn't find anything tagged with "Dropping Like Flies" but I found a bunch of other Armored Saint tunes. With the band now stuck in my head, I felt like I just had to put up a Monday Video with them as the music bed, but I couldn't find a good, blood-pumping, adrenaline-inducing, dick-stiffening video, so we had to settle for this one.

They're basically asking the Obama administration if they can deliver on their promise to bring the troops home. I find it odd that they're using a song about blowjobs to do it, but what the heck, I'm sure someone will make a snarky comment about it.

As always, this is not an endorsement of the political sentiments of the video - it's just trying to get a good song/video combo, and being disappointed with the video options for the songs stuck in my head this week.



If anyone knows a good military video with an Armored Saint soundtrack, please post it below! And don't forget to nominate you're own Monday Videos in the comments, too.


By: Brant

Defense Cuts in Historical Perspective

What does post-war shrinkage look like? And will post-GWOT shrinkage be any worse than historical post-war shrinkages? The CFR notes...

Last summer, defense spending was slashed by $487 billion over 10 years. Then, right before Thanksgiving, a special committee of Congress failed to agree on $1.2 trillion in alternative cuts, which opened the way to another $500 billion or so in defense cuts. Hundreds of billions more in so-called emergency funding will be gone as we wind down operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In all, the defense budget could shrink by 31% over the next decade, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. That compares with cuts of 53% after the Korean War, 26% after the Vietnam War and 34% after the Cold War.

That doesn't sound too far off-line for recent history, but let's go back further...

After the American Revolution, the military plummeted from 35,000 men in 1778 to 10,000 by 1800. As a result, the nascent republic had to scramble to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, fight a quasi-war with France, repress the Barbary pirates and, most spectacularly, defend the new national capital from British attack in the War of 1812. The burning of the White House stands as melancholy testimony to our military unpreparedness.

Yet we made the same mistake after the Civil War. The armed forces fell from more than 1 million men in 1865 to merely 50,000 in 1870. Luckily we did not face a foreign attack in the postwar decades. But we did face the challenge of Reconstruction. Its failure was made inevitable by Washington's inability (or unwillingness) to station enough federal troops in the South to repress the Ku Klux Klan. By 1876, all federal troops were withdrawn and the era of Jim Crow had begun.

In fact, the raw numbers, as summarized by The Economist, look like this:

Revolutionary war: 71%
Civil war: 95%
First world war: 91%
Second world war: 88%
Korean war: 31%
Vietnam war: 43%
Cold war: 38%

So let's face it, comparatively, 31% might not be the worst thing to happen to US defense...

What do you guys think? Is 31% too much? Too little? How does 31% track with strategic requirements?

By: Brant

Pentagon Announces New Military Strategy

So 2MRC is dead. The question now is, "what's next"? There was an attempt at answering that yesterday, as President Obama and Secretary Panetta announced a new "strategy" yesterday that's focused on Asia and stresses 'cheap' stuff like drones and foreign engagement.

quotes, and more articles, after the jump...

Iraq Mission Going to End With 2011

The President has announced that the mission to Iraq will be complete at the end of the year.

President Obama announced that the United States has fulfilled its commitment in Iraq and will bring all American troops home by the end of the year. “As promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year,” Mr. Obama said.

The United States and Iraq had been negotiating whether the Obama administration would leave behind up to several thousand trainers after the end of the year, but had been at odds over whether the Iraqi government would grant legal immunity to American forces that remained.

Iraq’s political leaders announced earlier in October that they had agreed on the need to keep American military trainers in Iraq next year, but they declared that any remaining troops should not be granted immunity from Iraqi law, a point the United States has said would be a deal breaker.

The announcement brings to an end America’s more than eight-and-a-half years of combat in Iraq and comes as Mr. Obama moves ahead with plans to withdraw troops from Afghanistan by 2014. “Now, as we remove our last troops from Iraq, we’ll beginning to bring our troops home from Afghanistan, where we’d begun a transition to Afghan security and leadership. When I took office, roughly 180,000 troops were deployed in both these wars. And by the end of this year that number will be cut in half.”

The DoD has released an official statement by Secretary Panetta on Iraq.

The United States and Iraq affirmed today that the U.S. will fulfill its commitments under the current U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement and withdraw all of our military forces by the end of 2011.

Today’s announcement means that at the end of this year, there will be a clear end to the U.S. combat presence in Iraq. I wanted to take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and appreciation to our men and women in uniform who have served in Iraq since 2003. Our troops and their families have borne a heavy burden during more than eight years of war, and paid a great price. Yet it is a testament to their strength and resilience that we are now able to bring this war to a responsible end. Thanks to their service and sacrifice, Iraq is ready to govern and defend itself and to contribute to security and stability in a vital part of the world.

We will now turn our full attention to pursuing a long-term strategic partnership with Iraq based on mutual interests and mutual respect. Our goal will be to establish a normal relationship similar to others in the region that focuses on meeting security and training needs. Iraq is a sovereign nation that must determine how to secure its own future. Going forward, we will work closely with the Iraqi government and their armed forces to help them continue to build a stronger and more prosperous country.

By: Brant

Troop Cuts to Bring Aid Cuts?

With the looming pullout in Afghanistan, will aid dollars follow the troops home?

President Barack Obama's Afghanistan troop withdrawal is likely to be accompanied by cuts in billions of dollars of civilian aid, bringing a precipitous shift of control many fear could tip the country into further corruption and chaos.
Parallel with Obama's draw-down of combat troops by 2014, the United States plans to pull back hundreds of civilian advisers involved in helping govern Afghanistan, whether helping organize the annual budget or FBI agents setting up crime units.
The aim is to wean Afghanistan off foreign aid to form a sustainable state, allowing the West to exit without being accused of abandonment -- an image that has haunted the international community since the Soviet exit in 1989 ended in civil war.
The strategy risks leaving fewer resources for one of the world's poorest countries. Giving what is left to President Hamid Karzai's government -- widely criticized for endemic corruption -- may just end in unchecked graft and political interference in civil projects.

By: Brant

Troop Withdrawal Roulette

Hey, the White House doesn't want to plug in troop numbers in the latest Afghanistan speech.

President Obama’s Wednesday speech on his promised July drawdown of the 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan is drafted. But on circulating copies, there are still blank spaces where the final troop figures will go. Whether that’s because the White House is still in the midst of internal debate – or whether it’s a fear of leaks – remains the subject of speculation, but guessing precisely what those figures will be was insider Washington’s favorite parlor game Tuesday.

So what do you think? What will the high, medium, and low numbers look like? 10,000 by year's end? 20,000? 50,000? You comments / guesses / crapshoots-in-the-dark below!

By: Brant

Juggling Troops, Leadership

President Obama is doing the personnel shuffle.

President Barack Obama's long-awaited decision on how many troops to bring home from Afghanistan this summer is overshadowing an impending change of arguably equal importance to the course of the war: the departure from Washington and Kabul of senior U.S. leaders with years of experience in managing the conflict.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has presided over the Afghanistan and Iraq wars for 4 1/2 years, is retiring next week. The top two American generals in Kabul — David Petraeus and David Rodriguez — are due to leave for new assignments as early as July. Also departing in July is retired Army Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador in Kabul who in 2006-07 served as the top commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
They will be replaced by men with military and national security resumes but less direct experience in Afghanistan.
This changing of the guard is not intended to steer the administration's Afghan war policy in a new direction. Yet a fresh set of eyes and ears could lead to new advice to the White House on how to wind down 10 years of conflict in the country that provided haven to al-Qaida prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

By: Brant

Official Statements on Leadership Changes

Here's the official statement from Secretary Gates on the changes in US military leadership.

"I enthusiastically support President Obama's choices to fill these key military leadership positions.

"General Dempsey, Admiral Winnefeld, and General Odierno have all excelled in key command and staff roles within their services and in the joint arena. They possess the right mix of intellectual heft, moral courage, and strategic vision required to provide sound and candid advice to the President and his national security team. Above all, they are proven leaders of men and women in combat operations over the past decade, and are uniquely qualified to guide and shape our military institutions through the challenging times ahead.

"On a personal note, I have enjoyed working with Admiral Mullen and General Cartwright and benefited greatly from their wise counsel. All Americans owe these two fine officers and their families a debt of gratitude, and I look forward to paying fuller tribute to their accomplishments at the appropriate time."

And here's the statement by ADM Mike Mullen.

"I fully support the President's decision to nominate Gen. Marty Dempsey and Adm. Sandy Winnefeld for the positions of Chairman and Vice Chairman, respectively, of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"Both men are extraordinary leaders, who will provide the Secretary of Defense and the President not only their best military advice, but also the great benefit of their decades of military experience and their command in combat operations.

"I know, too, that they will represent faithfully and stridently the 2.2 million men and women in uniform, as well as their families.

"In that same vein, I applaud the selection of Gen. Ray Odierno to succeed Gen. Dempsey as Army Chief of Staff. Like Marty, Ray is a combat-proven officer who made a real difference in Iraq, and who will lead the Army with strength and with passion as we complete our mission there and begin to transition in Afghanistan."

By: Brant

US Military Leadership Roulette

Once the wheels stop spinning, this is where Ricks expects everyone to land.

I'm hearing the announcements will start as soon as the Memorial Day weekend is over, probably coming Tuesday. In addition to Dempsey as chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Odierno as chief of staff of the Army, the vice chief of the Army, I am told, likely will be Lloyd Austin. Apparently the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs will be Adm. James Winnefeld.

This means that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the chief of the Army, and the chief of the CIA all will be people who commanded Army divisions in Iraq during that horrible first year, 2003-2004, which I found harder than subsequent years because I never expected the leadership of the United States military and government to screw it up so badly. (Dempsey had 1st Armored Division, Odierno had 4th Infantry Division, and Petraeus had 101st Airborne Division. Makes me want to dig out my notes for Fiasco of the logs of commanders' meetings from that year.)

By: Brant

President Obama to Pakistan: "Suck It"

Proving that Pakistan's sovereignty is more annoyance than hindrance, President Obama is willing to re-run the operation that bagged OBL. The BBC reports:

President Barack Obama has said he would order a similar operation to that which killed Osama Bin Laden if another militant leader was found in Pakistan.

He said the US was mindful of Pakistani sovereignty but said the US could not allow "active plans to come to fruition without us taking some action".

By: Brant

Images and Slideshows Around the US

Slide show from the New York Times

Photo Gallery from Der Spiegel

By: Brant

Osama is Dead: A Quick Tour Through the 'Blogs

Two articles from BlackFive:
- The American People In Their Righteous Might....
- OSAMA BIN LADIN IS DEAD!

Defense Tech’s simple two-word headline: He's Dead

Kings of War:
Bin Laden: To Kill a Man or Kill an Ideology?
Death of Osama Bin Laden on Wikipedia

Danger Room:
U.S. Forces Kill Osama bin Laden
Latest on the Osama Raid: Tricked-Out Choppers, Live Tweets, Possible Pakistani Casualties

New York Times, At War blog, with excerpts for other international coverage:
Bin Laden Is Dead, President Obama Says

Bouhammer:
USAMA BIN LADEN is DEAD! Confirmed!!!

Breach Bang Clear:
Bin Laden Doesn't Get What He Deserves

Interesting Times (New Yorker Magazine)
Osama Bin Laden: Better Late Than Never

NATO/ISAF
U.S. Kills bin Laden in Intelligence-driven Operation

This Ain't Hell:
BIN LADEN DEAD!!!

War on Terror News:
The Death of Osama bin Laden
Bin Laden Killed - Update: Map, Buried at Sea

By: Brant

OSAMA BIN LADEN NOW ENJOYING HELL

We're not excerpting a lot of the coverage. Here are the headlines.

U.S. forces kill elusive terror figure Osama bin Laden in Pakistan - CNN.com

US forces kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistan - MSNBC.com

Bin Laden Is Dead, Obama Says - New York Times

Osama bin Laden dead: U.S. kills Osama bin Laden - Los Angeles Times
-  The text of the statements by Presidents Obama and Bush

Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden dead - BBC News
-  Al-Qaeda's remaining leaders BBC News

Osama bin Laden is killed by U.S. forces in Pakistan - The Washington Post

Osama bin Laden killed in US raid on Pakistan hideout-  The Guardian (UK)

Osama bin Laden killed: live - The Telegraph (UK)
- Osama bin Laden killed: how the deadly US raid unfolded - The Telegraph (UK)

Death Comes for the Master Terrorist - TIME

Al-Qaida Founder Dead: US Forces Kill Osama bin Laden - Spiegel Online (Germany)

Here's the town where the raid went down.  When I can find the link to the specific compound, we'll get it posted.


View Larger Map

By: Brant

NEWS: BIN LADEN CONFIRMED DEAD BY US STRIKE

PRESIDENT OBAMA IS GOING TO MAKE A TELEVISED ANNOUNCEMENT SOON.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42852646#42852646

http://www.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream1&hpt=C1
AND THERE WAS MUCH REJOICING

By: BRANT

Please, Mr President? Pretty Please?

Why would we run the entire text of Mu'aumer Qaddaffi's letter to President Obama? Because it's freaking hilarious...

Gaddafi's letter to Obama in full
Here is the complete text of Gaddafi's letter to Barack Obama. His spelling and grammatical errors have been reproduced as originally written.

Our son, Excellency,
President Obama
U.S.A
We have been hurt more morally that physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you. Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the U.S.A. We Endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaigne. You are a man who has enough courage to annul a wrong and mistaken action. I am sure that you are able to shoulder the responsibility for that.
Enough evidence is available, Bearing in mind that you are the president of the strongest power in the world nowadays, and since Nato is waging an unjust war against a small people of a developing country. This country had already been subjected to embargo and sanctions, furthermore it also suffered a direct military armed aggression during Reagan's time. This country is Libya.
Hence, to serving world peace ... Friendship between our peoples ... and for the sake of economic, and security cooperation against terror, you are in a position to keep Nato off the Libyan affair for good. As you know too well democracy and building of civil society cannot be achieved by means of missiles and aircraft, or by backing armed member of AlQuaeda in Benghazi.
You, yourself, said on many occasions, one of them in the UN General Assembly, I was witness to that personally, that America is not responsible for the security of other peoples. That America helps only. This is the right logic.
Our dear son, Excellency, Baraka Hussein Abu oumama, your intervention is the name of the U.S.A. is a must, so that Nato would withdraw finally from the Libyan affair. Libya should be left to Libyans within the African union frame.
The problem now stands as follows:-
1. There is Nato intervention politically as well as military.
2. Terror conducted by AlQaueda gangs that have been armed in some cities, and by force refused to allow people to go back to their normal life, and carry on with exercising their social people's power as usual.
Mu'aumer Qaddaffi
Leader of the Revolution
Tripoli 5.4.2011

After 50 years in power, are you really still a "revolution"?

h/t Daily Mail

By: Brant

US Tells Gaddafi to Buzz Off

OK, it was a little more polite, but not much.

The US has rebuffed a personal appeal from Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to US President Barack Obama, repeating that he must resign and go into exile.

"Mr Gaddafi knows what he must do," US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, commenting on the three-page letter received by the president.

Colonel Gaddafi urged Mr Obama in his letter to end an "unjust war".

By: Brant