Attacks strike at the heart of the Shia faith

This article appeared on MSNBC.com


Attacks strike at the heart of the Shia faith
Francona: Jihadists could succeed in igniting civil war with attack


COMMENTARY
By Lt. Col. Rick Francona
Military analyst - MSNBC

If you’re a Sunni jihadist in Iraq, such as a member of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) organization of the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, things are not going well for you of late. The Iraqi Sunnis, once your ally in the fight against the Americans, have turned on you. Many of the Iraqi groups that once were your allies are now hunting you down. Your major success over the last 15 months, one of your stated goals, was plunging the Arab portions of the country into a sectarian civil war – Sunni against Shia.

Since the American and Iraqi forces’ “surge” operations began earlier this year, the Shia have mostly stayed out of the fight, allowing the coalition forces to concentrate on you. The Shia leadership, be it Addul Aziz al-Hakim, Ayatollah al-Sistani or even Muqtada al-Sadr, inspires great moral discipline among the Shia. To reignite the civil war, it is necessary to goad the Shia to reengage the battle. Up until now, you have been unsuccessful.

Ah, so you take a look at what has worked in the past. You have to hit the Shia hard enough to make them react. Pick a target that will generate retaliation no matter what the calls for calm from the Shia leadership. Your memory turns to the Golden Mosque in Samarra. In February 2006, AQI thugs attacked the mosque and severely damaged the 100-year old gold-plated dome. The twin minarets were left standing.

Samarra is an excellent choice of target for the Sunni jihadists. It sits in the middle of the “Sunni triangle” about 75 miles north of Baghdad, making it easy for you to attack. The Golden Mosque is revered among the Shia as probably the fourth holiest site for the sect. The shrine is also known as the Imam ‘Ali al-Hadi and Imam Hasan Al-‘Askari mosque, named for the 10th and 11th imams of Shi’a Islam and two of the “14 Infallibles.” The two ninth-century imams, father and son, are buried in the mosque.

Samarra is also the birthplace of the twelfth imam, Imam Muhammad Al-Mahdi (and son of 11th Imam Hasan Al-‘Askari). His shrine - not his tomb - is adjacent to the Golden Mosque. It is not his tomb, because in “Twelver” Shi’a, so named for the 12th imam, it is believed that he is still alive but in hiding (“occultation”) and will return prior to the Day of Judgment to establish justice on earth. Twelver Shi’a are dominant in Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon. It is the main sect of Shia Islam.

Although the initial reaction has been somewhat muted, the jihadists just may get the reaction they seek. This strikes right at the heart of the Shia faith. To Christians, this is akin to blowing up the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

In Iraq, sometimes death is the only justice

This article appeared on MSNBC.com

In Iraq, sometimes death is the only justice
'Chemical Ali,' others face death penalty for chemical attacks against Kurds

COMMENTARY
By Lt. Col. Rick Francona
Military analyst - MSNBC

In a continuation of the series of trials that saw Saddam Hussein and some of his closest circle hanged in December 2006 and January 2007, it appears that the gallows at the former Directorate of Military Intelligence compound in the Khazimiyah section of Baghdad may have new victims.

The most famous of the accused is Ali Hassan al-Majid, more commonly known as “Chemical Ali” and the “Butcher of Kurdistan.” Al-Majid (Saddam’s cousin) is charged with a variety of war crimes, including genocide for his role in the Anfal campaign against the Kurds. It was during this campaign that 5,000 Kurds were killed in the village of Halabjah in March 1988.

Also in the dock with al-Majid is former defense minister Sultan Hashim Ahmad al-Jabburi al-Tay and Sabr Abd Al-Aziz al-Duri, former director of military intelligence. The Associated Press reported the verdict will be announced on June 24.

I have met both of these officers personally, and served with one professionally.

'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'
In 1988, during the last year of the Iran-Iraq War, I was sent to Baghdad as a liaison officer to the Iraqi Directorate of Military Intelligence. Gen. Sabr (al-Duri) was that organization’s director. I was in Baghdad working with Sabr when the Iraqis conducted their chemical attacks on Halabjah. It is doubtful the attacks on the Kurds could have been conducted without Sabr’s knowledge; someone had to develop the targeting information for the Iraqi pilots.

Once we learned of the attacks, we immediately halted the flow of American intelligence information. The halt was short-lived. After a series of meetings in Washington, it was decided that it was more important to ensure that Iran did not emerge victorious than to refuse to assist the Iraqis for their chemical attacks on the Kurds. This decision defines the Middle East adage:“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

In the ensuing months, Iraq continued to use chemical weapons against Iranian troops in a series of offensives beginning in April 1988 and lasting until the Iranians gave up later that summer. I was aware of Iraqi use of chemical weapons; I had gathered the evidence while on tours of the battlefields. There was no doubt Gen. Sabr was an integral part of the military decision-making process. Ironically, Sabr will be hanged in the same compound that housed his intelligence directorate.

The U.S.-Iraqi relationship was based on political reality. The Iraqis were astute enough to realize our efforts were about containing Iran, not supporting Iraq. That’s why it ended almost immediately after the end of the war.

Weighing the death penalty
Sultan Hashim Ahmad, then a lieutenant general and Iraq’s military operations chief, was the senior Iraqi officer present at the military-to-military talks at Safwan on March 3, 1991. I was the interpreter for General Norman Schwarzkopf for those talks and was the one who introduced the two generals to each other.

My initial meeting with Sultan Hashim was a bit contentious. I had gone over to his vehicle to escort him to meet General Schwarzkopf. As I introduced myself (in Arabic), he glared at me, prompting my use of some Iraqi slang that caught his attention. It seemed to amuse him. After I told him we were going to search him before admitting him to the meeting tent, he again glared. After he realized he was going to be treated as a professional, he acted the same in return.

As the invasion of Iraq began in 2003, I was on set at CNBC and who was giving a televised briefing to Saddam Hussein? None other than Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmad.More than most, I am acutely aware of the seriousness of the charges against these two officers. I had the opportunity to visit Halabjah in 1995 while serving in northern Iraq. It was a visit I will never forget. These two officers were a part of that operation.

I am not a proponent of the death penalty, but in this case, it may be the appropriate punishment. For the Kurds, it may be the only punishment.

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

New Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has announced that he will nominate the current Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Mike Mullen (left), to succeed General Peter Pace as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when Pace's term expires in September.

A few thoughts.

While many news organizations have portrayed this as Gates firing Pace, that's really unfair. Pace has served in the Joint Chiefs for six years, four (two terms) as the Vice Chairman and two as the Chairman. Although a waiver to the three-term limit can be done with the stroke of a pen, the general would still have to be confirmed once again by the Senate.

Secretary Gates was (rightfully) concerned that a confirmation hearing in the Democrat-controlled Senate would be a circus of grandstanding, posturing and recriminations about the past rather than where we are headed. To spare General Pace (and no doubt the administration) that ordeal, he opted to select a new candidate for the position - Admiral Mullen.

Mullen has been the chief of naval operations for almost two years now, so might face some questions about current administration policies, but won't have to endure the WMD debate, the decision to invade, intelligence issues, etc. He technically has not been in the chain of command for operations in the Middle East (or anywhere else for that matter) - the title "Chief of Naval Operations" is a throwback to the days when the different Navy fleets conducted their own operations.

With the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, the service chiefs (Chief of Staff of the Army, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Chief of Naval Operations) were removed from the operational chain of command. Orders now flow from the President to the Secretary of Defense to the combatant commander (Central Command, Pacific Command, etc.). The service chiefs provide trained and equipped forces to these commanders, but do not exercise operational control over them. Note also that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not in the chain of command - "the Chairman" is the principal military advisor to the President, Secretary of Defense and the National Security Council; he commands no forces.

General Pace is the first Marine Corps officer to hold the position of chairman. Prior to Pace, there were eight Army officers, four Navy officers and four Air Force officers in the position. Given the world political situation and American strategic interests, the appointment of a Navy officer is a good choice. Oil moves on the world's oceans, we move our forces by sea, trade moves via the world's waterways, and the United States traditionally has been a maritime power.

The founding fathers recognized this when they framed the Constitution, addressing the fact that the new nation had no Navy - the Continental Navy extant at the time of the Revolutionary War had disappeared. Article I of the Constitution includes this passage: "The Congress shall have power...to provide and maintain a navy....

Britannia no longer rules the waves, nor do we aspire to. That said, when there is a crisis somewhere in the world and Americans or American interests are at risk, the first question asked is, "Where are the carriers?" Having the officer responsible for training and equipping the United States Navy for the past two years is not a bad idea.

Is Gaza this summer's Lebanon?

This article appeared on MSNBC.com

Is Gaza this summer's Lebanon?
Gaza situation has been deteriorating steadily since the 2006 elections

COMMENTARY
By Lt. Col. Rick Francona
Military analyst - MSNBC

Last summer’s war between Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia and Israeli military forces was triggered by the ambush of an Israeli army patrol along the Lebanese border. That ambush resulted in the deaths of eight Israeli soldiers and the kidnapping of two others. That Hezbollah operation came just a few weeks after an attack in Gaza by Hamas’s Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades in which two Israeli soldiers were killed and one taken hostage. All three Israeli soldiers remain in the hands of their respective captors.

As the summer of 2007 approaches, it appears another war may be brewing in the region, this time in the Gaza Strip. The situation in Gaza has been deteriorating steadily since the 2006 elections in which Hamas – considered a terrorist organization by the United States government – soundly defeated (76 seats to 43) the Fatah party of Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas.

The bad blood between Hamas and Fatah has erupted into a virtual civil war. Despite the hostilities between the two groups, Hamas has been launching Qassam rockets into Israel, at times averaging 30 attacks a day on the Israeli city of Sderot, located just inside the border fence and mortar attacks on Israeli army border posts.

Israel thus far has responded with air strikes, but will likely escalate that response if the attacks do not stop. Just when Hamas has indicated it may accept a one-year ceasefire with the Israelis, Islamic Jihad has begun launching rockets into Sderot. The proposed Hamas ceasefire would include the West Bank as well as Gaza, something the Israelis will probably not accept. It is not clear if Islamic Jihad would abide by the Hamas agreement. Thus far, neither the former Fatah-led government of Muhmud Abbas nor the current Hamas-led government of Ismail Haniyah has been able to stop attacks on Israeli forces and towns, nor stem the internal violence in Gaza that has plagued the Palestinians for years.

Israel reportedly decided that it would augment its air strikes on Hamas and Islamic Jihad targets in Gaza with increased commando raids and “targeted assassinations” of the two groups’ political and military leadership. Israel’s public security minister stated that Israel would attempt to kill “at the first opportunity” Hamas’s political chief Khalid Mashal, who is currently resident in Damascus, where he runs the organization’s political offices. The minister also said that Israel might consider an attempt on the life of the Palestinian prime minister. In the past, attempts on high-level Palestinian officials have gotten some senior leaders, to be sure, but at the cost of numerous civilian casualties – which does not help their cause.

At some point, the Israeli people are going to demand the government take action against these groups in Gaza. Hamas and Islamic Jihad, like Hezbollah in Lebanon, are supported by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which provides money, weapons and training to all three groups. Israeli military intelligence officers claim that Iran has provided sophisticated anti-tank weapons – missiles and later-generation rocket propelled grenades – to both Palestinian organizations via tunnels from Egypt. Even leaders of the Fatah-affiliated al-Aqsa Brigades claim they are creating a “south Lebanon” in Gaza in case of an Israeli assault, admitting they are receiving rockets from outside the territory.

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and even the al-Aqsa Brigades might think they can fight a successful Hezbollah-style guerrilla campaign against the Israel Defense Forces, but Gaza is not Lebanon. It is flat, not mountainous like Lebanon, much smaller and bordered on two sides by Israel. Its Mediterranean coast is less than 25 miles long and could be blockaded by the Israeli navy, much more easily than controlling Lebanon’s 120-mile coast. Will the three Palestinian groups put aside their differences with each other and coordinate their operations against the Israelis?

More importantly, though, is the attitude of the Israeli leadership. Given the criticism that the Olmert government received for its poor performance in Lebanon last summer, they won’t make the same mistakes twice. Any military action against Gaza will likely by swift, violent and decisive.

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

Timing of Iran talks insulting to troops

This article appeared on MSNBC.com

Timing of Iran talks insulting to troops
Why are we meeting with the people responsible for killing Americans?
COMMENTARY
By Lt. Col. Rick Francona
Military analyst - MSNBC

On May 28 –- Memorial Day –- U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker sat down with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad for the first official talks between the two countries in over two and a half decades.

Mr. President, what were you thinking? While you are visiting Arlington National Cemetery honoring America’s fallen warriors, your ambassador is sitting down with the representative of a pariah regime that has American blood on its hands – including the blood of those same warriors we remember on that holiday.

An American diplomat meeting with the likes of Hassan Kazemi Qomi on any day is problematic, but to do so on Memorial Day is an insult to anyone who has ever worn a uniform. Kazemi is a former member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force, the Iranian special forces group that is involved in the training and arming of Iraqi Shia militias, particularly the jaysh al-mahdi (Mahdi Army) of radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The Iranian-supplied weapons include the explosively-formed penetrator used in roadside bombs that have killed over 100 U.S. soldiers. Of course, the Iranian ambassador denied any support to the Shia militias – what did you expect him to say?

Why are we meeting with the people responsible for killing our troops? I know why the Iranians want to meet with us. Anytime a pariah nation like Iran can convince the United States – the only remaining superpower – to meet as equals, it bestows legitimacy on that regime and provides a platform for hurling insults veiled as diplomacy. It also sends a chilling message to the moderate, Western-aligned Gulf Arab nations, as well as Jordan and Egypt, that Iran is fast becoming “the” power broker in the Persian Gulf. An American ambassador meeting with an Iranian ambassador seems to underscore that status, something Iran has been seeking for a long time.

During the meeting, Kazemi offered his country’s assistance to train and equip the Iraqi army and police. This is great: the organization responsible for supporting some of the worst violence in Iraq – sectarian fighting between the Sunni and Shia Muslims – is going to come in and solve the problem? To be sure, they just might “solve” the problem, but do we really want that kind of solution? Do we really want Shia-dominated security and military forces imposing Iranian values on the entire country?

Let’s remember who we are talking about – the Iranians. These are the people that created Hezbollah in Lebanon, seized the American embassy in Tehran, took American diplomats hostage, murdered Marine Lt Col Rich Higgins and CIA officer Bill Buckley, continue to support a variety of terrorist organizations – Hamas and Islamic Jihad included –- and are pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Not exactly the best recommendation for potential negotiators.

However, Mr. President, if you absolutely insist on talking to –- and I mean talking “to” not “with” –- the Iranians, start acting like the leader of a superpower instead of treating these thugs as equals. I do agree with your position that any talks should be limited to the security situation in Iraq.

Here are suggested talking points: Stop providing weapons and training to Iraqi militias. You can deny it, but here’s a news flash -- we don’t believe you! You have American blood on your hands and we will no longer tolerate it. Your diplomatically-protected facilities in Iraq are nothing more than operating locations for the Qods Force. That has to stop -– either you stop it or we will.

Say it, mean it, then do it.

'On behalf of a grateful nation'

This article appeared on MSNBC.com

'On behalf of a grateful nation'
Let us make sure that we do not forget our fallen men and women
COMMENTARY
By Lt. Col. Rick Francona
Military analyst - MSNBC

Memorial Day weekend – most people associate that with the start of the “summer driving season.” The constant news coverage of record high gasoline prices tends to overshadow the real meaning of the holiday. It’s not about driving or shopping – it’s about remembering the men and women who died while in military service. It is important that we not forget the reason for this holiday – we are at war and lose some our finest young men and women every day.

Yes, we are at war. No one knows this more than the families of those who have fallen on battlefields far from home with names most of us cannot pronounce. Unlike most of the wars America has fought in the past, we are fighting with an all volunteer force – there has been no draft since 1973. Less than one-half of one percent of our people will serve in uniform (in World War II, it was over 12 percent) at any one time.

In the draft era, a much higher percent of the population entered the service, creating a large pool of veterans. Veterans understand the unique demands of military service, the separation from loved ones, the dangers of combat. With far fewer veterans or a veteran in the family, community and government, it is easy to lose sight of the demands military service requires of our men and women in uniform – all volunteers – and to forget too quickly those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Sometimes one could get the feeling that foreign countries – especially those that have been liberated by American forces – pay more tribute to our fallen troops than we do. I will never forget standing in a church in rural France – not a fancy cathedral, not a tourist spot, nothing architecturally significant, just a village church. I would not have paid much attention until I spotted a well-maintained corner with a small American flag and a plaque.

I walked over and read the simple but powerful words in French and English, “In gratitude to the United States of America and in remembrance of her 56,681 sons that now and forever sleep in French soil.” A elderly parishioner sitting in a pew nearby saw me reading the inscription and asked if I was an American. I said that I was – she slowly rose, nodded at the memorial and said, “You are welcome in France.”

Over the years, over a million Americans have died in military service. Each fallen warrior is afforded a military funeral. Military funerals symbolize respect for the fallen and their families. Anyone who has attended a military funeral will never forget it – the flag on the coffin, the honor guard in full dress uniform, the crack of the rifles firing three volleys as Taps is played on the bugle, the snap of the flag as it is folded into the familiar triangle of blue, the reverence of fellow warriors.

Before his final salute, the officer in charge presents that folded flag to, in most cases, a young widow. He makes that presentation “on behalf of a grateful nation.”

At some point on this day, let us make sure that we do not forget our fallen men and women, and that we are in fact a grateful nation.


© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

Quoted about al-Qa'idah

NBC Investigative Producer Bob Windrem has written an excellent article, What's next for refocused al-Qaida 3.0?. It's a well-researched piece, as usual for Bob, and is a good read - not because he quotes me, but because he looks at all sides of the issue.

Recommended reading!

Potential for a new civil war in Lebanon?

This article appeared on MSNBC.com

Lt. Col. Rick Francona analyzes the current Lebanese-Palestinian conflict
MILITARY ANALYSIS
By Lt. Col. Rick Francona
Military analyst
MSNBC

For two days now, Lebanese army troops have been shelling the Nahr al-Barid Palestinian refugee camp north of Tripoli. The government of Fouad Siniora claims that an al-Qaida-inspired group calling itself Fatah al-Islam is holed up inside the camp; elements of the Lebanese Army have been dispatched to take on the group.

Fatah al-Islam is a fundamentalist Muslim breakaway faction of a pro-Syrian group, declaring itself operational in November 2006. Its direct ties to al-Qaida are tenuous at best; the leader of Fatah al-Islam is linked to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq who was killed last year. Both Fatah al-Islam leader Shakir al-Abbsi and al-Zarqawi were convicted for the 2002 murder of American diplomat in Jordan.

A Syrian connection?
The Lebanese government claims the group has ties to Syrian intelligence. If true, this likely means ties to Syrian military intelligence, long charged with managing Syrian interests in Lebanon. American counterterrorism analysts are not sure of this connection. Of course, Syria denies any connection.

Assuming a Syrian connection, why would Syria want to provoke a fight between the Lebanese Army and a Palestinian Islamist group in northern Lebanon?

Let’s look at Syria’s current situation. A United Nations investigation into the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri implicated Syrian and pro-Syrian Lebanese officials. President Siniora has come under increasing Syrian pressure not to approve a tribunal to try the accused perpetrators. Following Syria’s withdrawal of its military force and claimed withdrawal of intelligence officers from Lebanon, there have been a series of assassinations of anti-Syrian political leaders. The Fatah al-Islam group was implicated in one of these attacks earlier this year.

Syria wants to re-establish its previous dominant position in Lebanon. It has always regarded Lebanon as in its sphere of influence and has sought to control events in the country. Increased violence may result in the Lebanese recalling the days of pax Syriana when thousands of Syrian troops kept the peace. A deteriorating situation in Lebanon plays into Syrian interests.

Potential for a civil war?
The Siniora government is under additional pressure from three of Lebanon’s pro-Syrian political parties. Hezbollah, Amal (both Shia groups) and Christian Free Patriotic Movement oppose any tribunal over the al-Hariri assassination. Thus far, they have been successful, to the point that the United States and the United Kingdom are about to introduce a United Nations resolution establishing the tribunal without Lebanese approval. The three parties are also demanding the formation of a new “national unity” government, one that gives them more participation. The power struggle in Beirut has effectively crippled the government.

It is imperative that the Siniora government contain this violence quickly and decisively. They must prevent the escalation of the fighting and prevent the spread of this confrontation in the north to the rest of the country. Up to this point, the Lebanese Army has suffered unusually high casualties. The Fatah al-Islam fighters are well-equipped and willing to die for their cause. The Lebanese Army may be willing to fight for the country, but they are not as committed as the fighters in the camp. That said, President Siniora must commit the military resources to end this now. Although there are reports of a cease-fire, if this group is not disarmed, it will only be a matter of time before it resurfaces.

Should Hezbollah, the only remaining armed militia in Lebanon, decide to take advantage of this situation and present an armed threat to the Lebanese government, the Lebanese Army will be hard pressed to mount an effective defense of the country.

As of now, the situation is between the Lebanese and a Palestinian group (albeit with some foreign fighters). Most of the animosity in the north is Lebanese versus Palestinians –- many Lebanese blame the massive influx of Palestinians after the Palestine Liberation Organization’s failed coup attempt in Jordan in 1970 as the basis for most of the internal problems in the country. These feelings have resurfaced during this confrontation.

There does not seem to be any interest in expanding the fight into a Lebanese on Lebanese civil war. The government has to keep it that way.

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

Should Prince Harry even be in the army?

This article appeared on MSNBC.com 

Other than tradition, keeping Harry in the British Army makes little sense 

COMMENTARY By Lt. Col. Rick Francona Military analyst MSNBC 

 The British Chief of General Staff announced on Wednesday that Prince Harry, or in this context more properly Lt. Harry Wales, will not deploy to Iraq with his unit, a squadron of the Blues and Royals Regiment. The prince is a reconnaissance troop commander in charge of four Scimitar armored vehicles and 12 soldiers. 

Several months ago, soon after it was announced that the prince’s unit was scheduled for deployment to Iraq, insurgent groups – both Sunni and Shi’a – threatened to kidnap (some threaten to mutilate) the young royal. Harry, to his credit, insisted that he be allowed to serve as any other British officer. 

That’s admirable, but naïve. Harry is not “any other British officer;” he is third in line to the throne of the United Kingdom. The ramifications of him being taken hostage far outweigh his desire to serve. 

The threats go beyond the prince himself. His presence in Iraq would put at risk anyone around him. His unit would be singled out for increased attacks in an attempt to get at him. British forces in Iraq have come under increased attacks in the recent months, and units that use the Scimitar armored vehicle have been attacked repeatedly. The fact that Harry was to command four of these vehicles has been widely reported. It is no secret that if you want to kill or capture the prince, these are the vehicles to hit. 

Given the threats made specifically against the prince and the risk that his presence would be disruptive to the British units in Iraq, removing Prince Harry from the deployment roster was the only decision the Ministry of Defense could make. 

This decision raises a whole host of questions about “the royals” and military service. The British monarchy has a rich history of military service. Harry’s uncle, Prince Andrew, served as a Royal Navy helicopter pilot in the Falklands War. His grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, trained as a driver during World War II, and his grandfather, Prince Philip, saw combat while serving in the Royal Navy. Harry’s father, the heir apparent to the throne, served for a total of five years in the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. 

Prince Harry/Troop Commander Wales was commissioned in 2006 after attending a year-long course at the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst. After that, he attended British Army training schools to become a troop commander. He was assigned to the Blues and Royals, he trained and bonded with the men he was to lead. Now those men will either not deploy to Iraq, or they will deploy without their commander and have to re-bond with another officer. 

The British military is small, considered too small by some to meet Britain’s international commitments. Therefore, the British forces must be used effectively. Having an officer that cannot deploy to certain areas complicates planning for commanders. He trains with his unit, but cannot serve with them when needed. 

Another consideration is perception. The British are perceived in the Middle East to have backed down in the face of threats. It sends the wrong message, not only to the insurgents, but possibly to a segment of the British population as well—our sons and daughters can serve, but not Harry? Inside the British forces, he will be regarded as someone who wants to play soldier, but can’t be a soldier. 

I applaud the prince for wanting to serve, for insisting that he deploy to a combat zone, that he be treated as any other British officer. The reality is that he is will never be – maybe “cannot be” is a better phrase – treated like any other officer. It is a factor of genealogy, not honor or integrity. That fact places an unfair burden on his commanders and fellow soldiers, now and in the future. 

Other than tradition, keeping him in the British Army makes little sense. 

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

We already have a 'war czar'

This article appeared on MSNBC.com

President Bush has named the Joint Chiefs of Staff Director of Operations to a newly created position innocuously titled the “assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan policy and implementation.” The more popular moniker for this position is the “war czar.”

This is not about Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute; by all accounts, he is a fine officer. This is about the need—or perhaps more importantly the wisdom—of creating such a position. We already have a czar for America’s wars – he’s called the Secretary of Defense. And we already have a war czar for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan – he’s called the Commander, U.S. Central Command (COMCENT).

Okay, I can hear the arguments already. The new position is in charge of not only the military aspects of our operations, but the civilian effort as well – the “hearts and minds” – in both countries. In other words, it spans the purview of both the Defense and State departments and requires a coordinator. Well, that’s part of the problem with the administration’s handling of the wars thus far. They need to realize that these are still wars and wars require a combat commander to run the show, not an “advisor.”

This is exactly how we got into the situation we now face in Iraq. The administration was so anxious to put a civilian face on the invasion of Iraq that it appointed a civilian administrator before the bullets stopped flying. We all know how well that turned out – Ambassador Jerry Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army and botched the security situation so badly that we are still there four years later fighting an insurgency that threatens to erupt into a full-scale civil war. Maybe if we had let the generals prosecute a war instead of letting an administrator manage the “transition” prematurely, it might have been over by now.

So, to continue the failed policy of portraying this as a political effort rather than the war that it is, the president appoints an Army general to the National Security Council to oversee the efforts of the Defense and State departments.

For those of us who served at the Pentagon in the late 1980’s, this is reminiscent of the tyranny of the National Security Council when field-grade military officers assigned to the White House dictated “policy and implementation” to the generals. We all know how that worked out. Anyone remember Iran-Contra?

We are fighting a war and we have a defined chain of command. The Constitution establishes the president as the commander in chief. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 establishes the military chain of command from the president (the commander in chief) to the Secretary of Defense, to the combatant commander, in this case COMCENT.

What happens when LTG Lute calls the Secretary of Defense (or State) and directs something be done and the Secretary disagrees? This sets up confusion and confrontation inside the administration. Then it has to go to the president for resolution.

Instead of creating yet another layer of authority between the president and troops in the field, how about some clear unambiguous direction to the Secretary of Defense and the field commander? The commander of the Central Command and the commander of Multinational Forces-Iraq need to hear orders loud and clear directly from the president and the Secretary of Defense, not guidance from an advisor.