End the war or win the war?

Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is committed to withdrawing American military forces from Iraq. He plans to have this action completed within 16 months of taking office.

That time line, through no prescience on his part, is probably achievable. It is achievable because of the surge - which he said would not work, by the way. Thanks to the increase in the number of troops, changes in tactics and increased capabilities of the Iraqi military and security forces, we may be able to bring most of the troops home even before his artificial deadline.

The time line is really not the issue - it is his characterization of what he hopes to accomplish. Let's look at his words (taken from his official campaign website).

“So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden- as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer.”

The problem is not the plan to withdraw American forces - the senator has said he will consult with the military commanders and assess the security situation in Iraq. That's pretty much what the President and Senator McCain have been saying without adding artificial time lines.

The problem is his choice of words. The senator, as we all know, is a gifted orator and talented speechwriter, so we have to assume he has chosen his words carefully. The offending phrase is "end the war."

We should not "end" the war, we need to "win" the war. Packing up and going home is not a good idea unless we have accomplished some key objectives. Just because we can leave on a a particular date does not mean that we should. Although the "security situation" may allow us to safely withdraw, the assessment should be based on making sure we do not leave a failure waiting to happen.

I guess the question the senator needs to answer is, "Do you want to win in Iraq?" If you think that is not as important as merely "ending" the war, you do not deserve to be the commander in chief of the fine young men and women who want to win in Iraq.

Finally, U.S., Iran diplomats will meet

This article appeared on MSNBC.com

Finally, U.S., Iran diplomats will meet
Opinion: Saturday meeting could be a turning point in nuclear debate

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

In a surprising reversal of its longstanding policy towards Iran, the Bush administration has sent its No. 3 diplomat to Geneva for a weekend meeting with the top Iranian nuclear negotiator. Since the administration is on record as refusing to hold senior-level talks with the Islamic Republic unless certain conditions are met, one might ask what conditions the Iranians have agreed to for this meeting.

The fact that the Iranian representative at the upcoming meeting has the nuclear portfolio is significant. The bottom lines for the two countries have been quite clear. The U.S. has demanded that Iran stop its uranium enrichment efforts, efforts many believe are actually the first steps in the development of a nuclear weapon. For its part, Iran has stated that its right to enrich uranium is not negotiable, and has given no indications that it is willing to compromise on this stance — despite a host of sanctions and incentives.

What has changed? What has changed? It has been just a week since Iran launched a series of ballistic missile launches near the Straits of Hormuz and issued a string of verbal threats against both Israel and the United States. Now a representative of that government will sit down with a American representative. To the Iranians, this is a victory, a vindication of their strategy: Continue to enrich uranium, refuse to compromise on the issue, conduct military exercises and tests, threaten to close the oil flow from the Persian Gulf, and refuse to engage with the Europeans. Do these things long enough and the U.S. will eventually come to the table.

On Saturday, America is coming to the table.

Did U.S. set requirements?
What were the conditions demanded by the U.S. for this meeting? Did they demand any conditions? There does not appear to be any change in Iran’s position, so in the absence of any indications that there will be any progress on the key issue, why meet?

I say meet with the Iranians and explain to them that time is running out. After years of patient and what I consider half-hearted attempts at a diplomatic solution, the Europeans are finally growing weary of Iran’s refusal to address the nuclear issue seriously. The Israelis have already determined that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon and that it presents an existential threat to the Jewish state. Vice President Dick Cheney has stated that the U.S. “will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

Most of the western world seems fairly united on this issue, but Tehran does not seem to get it. Up until now, the U.S. has been content to let the Europeans try the diplomatic route, to no avail. The Iranians have wanted to talk with the U.S. all along. Here’s their opportunity.

Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Bill Burns is an accomplished diplomat - perhaps someone of his seniority and stature can convince the Iranians that this issue is not going away, that they cannot delay and obfuscate forever, that if this issue is not resolved diplomatically, it will be resolved “by other means.”

If the Europeans can’t solve it, and the Americans won’t solve it, the Israelis will try to solve it. The message to the Iranians should be pretty simple. Stop enriching uranium.

Iran - Information Operation?

Over the past few years, Iran has repeatedly demonstrated its improving military capabilities in a series of tests and exercises. Most of these receive prominent coverage in the Iranian media. Some of the most extensive coverage is provided by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) Arabic-language network.


This is a screen shot of MSNBC's coverage of the event - it is a feed from IRIB's Arabic-language channel. The logo in the upper right is that of al-‘Alam (The World). The white lettering on red banner reads in Arabic “pictures of the launch…” The grey box to the right is cut off, but it appears to be the top portion of the Arabic word for “Urgent” (like Breaking News).

Given the intense coverage of the Iranian nuclear research and development program as well as all of Iran's military exercises and tests, one must assume that the intended audience is the other side of the Persian Gulf - the Arab states that are very concerned about the ascendancy of Iranian power and influence in the region.

It would appear that the coming issue in the region is not about Sunni versus Shi'a, it is about Arabs versus Persians.

Iran missile test sends defiant message to West

This article appeared on MSNBC.com

Iran missile test sends defiant message to West
The country continues to raise the stakes in an already tense situation

Iranian missile launcn reported on Iranian television Arabic language channel

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

Iran’s firing of nine ballistic missiles on Wednesday was neither a test nor an exercise. It was a message to the West, United States and Israel. The message is that Iran has no intentions of halting its uranium enrichment program, which most observers believe is the first step in Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. The missile launches are the symbolic equivalent of thumbing your nose at the world.

Despite the findings of the recent National Intelligence Estimate report that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons development program in 2003, both presidential candidates have stated that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons. The Iranians claim they are merely exercising their legal right to develop a nuclear energy capability. A look at their nuclear research and development facilities, hardened and buried structures dispersed over the breadth of the country, would suggest otherwise. It has all the earmarks of a weapons research and development program and the fact that much of it is underground and hardened indicates that the Iranians believe it must be defended. Defense is not an issue for a peaceful energy program.

The Israeli intelligence agencies strongly disagree with the American assessment that Iran has suspended its nuclear weapons program. They believe that Iran is working deliberately and with a sense of urgency toward the development of a nuclear weapon. The Iranians already have a delivery system that puts all of Israel in range and they demonstrated that capability once again on Wednesday. This comes just weeks after Israel conducted what many believe was a “profile mission” hundreds of miles out into the skies over the Mediterranean, replicating a flight from Israel to targets in Iran.

The so-called Iranian missile “tests” were carried out near the Straits of Hormuz, an interesting venue. At a time of record oil prices, conducting missile launches at the spot that overlooks the waterway that carries 25 percent of the world’s daily oil supply is sure to attract attention. It highlights the vulnerability of the sea lanes out of the Persian Gulf. The threat of closure of the straits prompted the commander of the U.S. Fifth Fleet to remark that the U.S. would not allow Iran to close the waterway — strong words.

Good for U.S. plan?
One possible unintended outcome of the continued Iranian intransigence and continued demonstration of log-range ballistic missile capability is more acceptance of an American missile defense system in Eastern Europe. Despite angry rhetoric from Moscow, Russia’s allies in Tehran are doing more for the installation of the American program than Washington can hope to do.

In the past when confronted by the West, Iran has offered to voluntarily suspend uranium enrichment for a short period of time to allow diplomatic efforts to proceed. This is merely a tactic to buy time to continue the program. They again made this same offer, and at the same time demonstrated their ballistic missile capabilities. No one trusts the Iranian leadership, nor should they.

Iran will continue this cat-and-mouse game, demonstrating military capabilities intended to put the Israelis on notice that they are in range, and to put the rest of the world on notice that its oil supply may be put at risk. Iran has no intention of abandoning its quest for nuclear weapons, despite the stream of denials from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

These missile demonstrations are yet another step that is bringing the West, Israel, the U.S., or all of the above, closer to a confrontation with Iran. Instead of trying to lower tensions, the Iranians seem intent on inflaming the situation. They may push Israel to the conclusion that Iran is indeed an existential threat to the Jewish state. Once Israel believes that, they may exercise the military option.

If Israel decides to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, it will be probably the riskiest military operation they have ever undertaken. They will not attempt it until they have made the assessment that there is no other option and their survival as a nation and a people are at risk. With Ahmadinejad continuing his verbal assaults on Israel, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps flexing its military might, Iranian intransigence on the uranium enrichment issue, Israel may be nearing that conclusion.

Launching nine ballistic missiles at the mouth of the Straits of Hormuz does not advance the dialogue.

Iran - Israel's Air Strike Options Update

This is an update to my March 15, 2006 article: Iran - Israel's Air Strike Options.

Last week's power projection exercise by the Israeli air force has been called a possible rehearsal for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. In this exercise, the Israelis flew more than 100 F-15 and F-16 fighter aircraft a distance of 600 miles from their home bases west over the Mediterranean Sea as far as Crete and returned. The exercise involved aerial refueling and practiced search and rescue for downed fliers.

Was this a message to the Iranians? Of course. It was also a message to the rest of the world that if the rest of the world is unable or unwilling to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue, Israel may act unilaterally to counter what most Israelis believe to be an existential threat to the Jewish state.

As I wrote in my 2006 analysis, an airstrike from Israel to targets deep inside Iran is a very difficult mission. The main obstacle is the distance the aircraft would have to fly, almost if not all of it through hostile airspace. As I posited earlier, the two likely avenues of approach were either through Iraq or Saudi Arabia.

When I wrote that article, I assessed that attacking through Turkish airspace was not likely. Is that still the case?

Turkey and Israel have had a defense agreement since 1996 and have conducted joint military training exercises. During the Israeli attack on the alleged Syrian nuclear facility at al-Kibar, Israeli aircraft are believed to have used Turkish airspace.

Would such cooperation extend to allowing Israel to use not only Turkish airspace, but Turkish air bases for operations against Iran? Use of Turkish air space would require the attacking aircraft to fly over 1000 miles in Iranian air space.


Let's look at a map. Last week's exercise from Israel to Crete is about 1200 miles roundtrip. Note the similarities in distance from Israel to Crete and from eastern Turkey to the likely primary target at Natanz, the Iranian nuclear enrichment plant near Esfahan. There are numerous small remote Turkish air bases in eastern Turkey that could be used to stage Israeli tankers and search and rescue helicopters.

The distance from Israel directly to targets in Iran - meaning through Iraq or Sadui Arabia - is barely within the unrefueled combat radius of Israel's F-15I Ra'am and F-16I Sufa fighters. These aircraft were designed for long-range interdiction missions such as the one we are discussing. Using Turkish airspace is a much longer, but safer - flight route. To be able to reach the target, let alone carry meaningful ordnance loads, aerial refueling is key. However, refueling in hostile air space is a difficult operation with a low probability that they would escape detection. The fact that the Israelis practiced aerial refueling as well as search and rescue last week indicates to me that they have successfully acquired the use of friendly airspace.

Turkey is the obvious choice as an ingress route for attacking aircraft. Would Iran retaliate against Turkey if this scenario were to play itself out? Probably not directly - Iran still must consider the ramifications of attacking a NATO country.

"Nothing but Heartaches" by The Supremes

No, it’s not the 1965 hit single by the Motown recording group, but a potentially disastrous recent ruling of the United States Supreme Court (Boumediene v Bush). This creative interpretation of the law in effect gives enemy combatants captured in the act of fighting American troops on a battlefield halfway around the world the same rights in federal courts as American citizens.


This is the court's third attempt to hamstring the American military in the fight against terrorism. In 2004’s Rasul v Bush, they ruled that U.S. laws did apply to detainees held at Guantanamo. Although the treaty with Cuba over Guantanamo Bay grants the United States "complete jurisdiction" over the base while Cuba has "ultimate sovereignty,” the court found that Guantanamo was "effectively part of the United States." I wonder if they ran that by Fidel Castro?

In 2006, they sided with Usamah bin Ladin’s former driver, declaring in their review of Hamdan v Rumsfeld that the military commissions proposed by the Department of Defense did not have Congressional approval and were thus an insufficient means of determining the status of individual detainees. In direct response to the court’s recommendation, Congress enacted legislation establishing the military commissions to remedy that finding.

Surprisingly, Congress doing specifically what the court suggested was not enough. In this recent ruling, five of the justices decided that stateless fanatic zealots determined to kill Americans with impunity anywhere in the world, are entitled to challenge their detention in U.S. federal court using the right of habeas corpus - just like the American citizens they were trying to murder. This is the same syndrome that we saw with the Clinton administration - treat terrorists like criminals. The strategy then was to arrest them and try them in court instead of hunting them down and killing them. On September 11, 2001, we saw how well that strategy worked.

What's next? "Mirandize" all detainees? Extend the same protections to enemy prisoners of war? Conduct interrogations only in the presence of counsel? Allow law suits against the soldiers who detain terrorists? We are creating a potential no-win situation for our field commanders.

I see two solutions here:

- Declare the detainees to be enemy prisoners of war, afford them the Geneva Accords protections they are already receiving, and hold them until the war is over. No commissions, no hearings.

- Take no more al-Qa'idah/Taliban prisoners.

Pick one - either works for me.

Iran concerned about Iraq-U.S. troop agreement

This article appeared on MSNBC.com

Iran concerned about Iraq-U.S. troop agreement
Tehran views long-term presence of American forces as a threat

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators are drafting an agreement that will determine the role of American forces in the country after the current United Nations authorization expires at the end of this year. As one would expect, the most vocal critics of this agreement are Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Chairman of the Assembly of Experts Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and even the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. All have strongly condemned any agreement between Washington and Baghdad as the groundwork for the permanent presence of thousands of American forces on their western border.

It is the possible long-term presence of American troops that has the Iranians concerned – and rightfully so. From the Iranian perspective, the ability to influence events in Iraq is a zero-sum game. If the American forces are there in large numbers, it follows that the United States will exercise substantial influence over the government in Baghdad, at the expense of the Iran’s ability to influence events in Iraq. The more influence Washington has, the less Tehran has.

The Iranians view Iraq and what happens there as a vital national interest. The last thing the Iranian leadership wants is a strong American military presence next door limiting their freedom to do as they wish in the country.

Iran fought a devastating, bloody, eight year war with Iraq, and is rightfully concerned about stability in its neighboring country. Iran wants a stable Iraq to be sure, but a stable Iraq that responds to its influence, not the influence of the United States. When stability finally does come to Iraq, Iran wants to ensure that it emerges as the key power broker in the region. Since they view this as a zero-sum game, that primacy will come at the expense of the United States.

To meet its objectives, Tehran needs an acquiescent government in Baghdad. Given the demographics of Iraq, this is eminently possible. Shiites comprise about 60 percent of the population and will likely dominate the Iraqi government. Despite the losses suffered by many Shiite families in the Iran-Iraq War, most Shiites have a favorable view of Iran, one the few majority Shiite countries in the world..

What stands in the way of having an acquiescent government in Baghdad, in the Iranian view, is the presence of tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq. Prime Minister al-Maliki has recently moved against Shiite groups in al-Basrah and Baghdad’s Sadr City, demonstrating that he is not a Shiite leader, but an Iraqi leader. His willingness to take on Shiite groups, virtually all of which are supported by Iran, is bolstered by the presence of U.S. forces. In the absence of that military power, al-Maliki might be forced to accede to Iranian demands that he not pursue their proxy groups in the country.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki visited Iran to reassure the Iranians that the agreement between Iraq and the United States will not pose a threat to Iran, that American forces will be restricted to their bases unless their assistance is needed, and that Iraq will never be allowed to be used as a platform for attacks on Iran.

The United States would be wise to go along with these conditions. Maintaining a troop presence in the region is important. As long as the world’s economies run on oil, and oil flows from the Persian Gulf constitute about one quarter of that oil, it is in the national interest of the United States to have the capability to guarantee that flow. A military presence in Iraq will help maintain pressure on Iran – the country most likely and capable of disrupting oil shipments from the Gulf.

Iraq is ideally situated to provide a great location for a military presence. The country has the potential for decent infrastructure - adequate water, space, roads, rail, etc. It is the location that is important, given the proximity to two of the real "axis of evil" countries - Syria and Iran (the other is North Korea).The Iranians and Syrians might begin to feel a bit surrounded.

If Iran is concerned that we are doing something in Iraq, we’re probably doing the right thing.

Hamas and Israel - Truce or Consequences?

Thanks to Jimmy Carter's meddling in affairs he should long ago have abandoned, the family of kidnapped Israeli army corporal Gilad Shalit received a letter from their son. This was part of a "concession" Carter "achieved" during his April meeting with Hamas political leaders in Damascus.

On the surface, the delivery of the letter appears to be a humanitarian gesture on the part of Hamas. In reality, it is a cold calculating move, playing on the emotions of the Shalit family and the Israeli population. Since all Israelis serve in the military, and they are a small nation in a sea of what they perceive as hostile Arabs, they tend to view all their servicemembers as their own children.

Hamas leaders know full well the effect this letter would have among the Israeli population. They know that their calls for the release of hundreds of Hamas prisoners in Israeli jails are more likely to be met when there is an outpouring of sympathy for the Shalit family.

The letter comes at a time when Hamas is seeking a truce with Israel. In a statement reported by the Associated Press, senior Hamas officials acknowledged that any truce with Israel would not be a prelude to recognition of the Jewish state, but merely a device to give them time to rearm and regroup.

So what does each side want and what are they prepared to give for a truce?

Israel's demands are simple. They demand the release of Corporal Shalit and the cessation of the daily rocket and mortar attacks into southern Israel from the Gaza Strip. These attacks - Katyusha rockets, homemade Qassam rockets as well as 60mm, 82mm and 120mm mortars - have been going on for at least the last seven years. They increased in scope after the Israelis left Gaza in 2005.

On the Hamas side, they demand that Israel lift the blockade of Gaza that has limited imports to basic humanitarian goods. In return, they will stop the rocket and mortar attacks. The release of Shalit is not part of the truce offer.

This "truce" is going nowhere. Now the consequences. Senior Israeli cabinet members, including the two that really count - the defense and foreign minister - are ready to launch an Israeli assault into Gaza.

The Palestinians - Hamas - should take this seriously. Gaza is not Lebanon, Hamas is not Hizballah, and the Israelis will not make the same mistakes they made in Lebanon in 2006. They will attack with a vengeance this time.

"Operation Inform Our Soldiers" – A disgrace

An organization calling itself The Resistance, self-described as a Christian media watch dog group, has launched a program named “Operation Inform Our Soldiers.”


According to information on their website, "America is to blame for the 9/11 attacks." Organization founder Mark Dice also claims the "9/11 attacks were aided by corrupt U.S. officials for political purposes."

Dice goes on to state that many - he cites an implausible number of 24 percent which I think he made up - U.S. Marines and soldiers believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but are "afraid to speak up out of fear of punishment.”

Okay, here's another conspiracy believer. I tend to summarily dismiss anyone who believes the theory that the attacks on the World Trade Center were in reality explosive charges planted by the U.S. government and that the Pentagon was struck by a missile instead of a hijacked aircraft. The evidence that 19 Arab Muslim young men, 15 of whom were Saudis, led by Egyptian Muhammad 'Atta, were responsible for the outrage of September 11, 2001 is overwhelming. Not only is the evidence virtually undeniable, the organization to which all 19 perpetrators belonged took credit for the attacks. All of the hijackers prepared videotapes to be played after their deaths.

Mr. Dice - wake up. They did it. We didn't.

That said, Mr. Dice, you have the right to believe whatever you like, and thanks to the efforts of the American servicemen you are targeting with this ridiculous campaign, you have the right to say whatever you like. What you are really saying to the servicemen is not (as you claim) to ask the question of their superiors if 9/11 was an inside job, what you are trying to do is foment dissent in the ranks.

These young men and women know why they are in Iraq. Virtually all of them have volunteered to serve in the armed forces after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. They do not believe your drivel. They have better things to do than be distracted by your efforts to hurt the country.

Freedom of speech is one thing – trying to subvert American troops serving in a combat zone is another. Mark Dice is a disgrace.

Email Mark Dice and tell him what you think.

Memorial Day 2008

I was going to write an article for Memorial Day, then decided that what I said last year still holds true - maybe even more so - today.

From May 29, 2007:

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
Lt. Gen. Ed Soriano, left, presents Jessica Hebert, sister of Spc. Justin Hebert who was killed in Kirkuk, Iraq, with an American flag during his military funeral (AP Photo/The Herald, Meggan Booker). Comment - Ed Soriano and I served together in Desert Storm - this must be his hardest duty.

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