Comments for H&I Fires* 12 AUG 2008

H&I Fires* 12 AUG 2008

2008-08-13T04:59:13Z

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite.

********************************

Interesting article about the American military personnel on the ground in Georgia. Am I being too conspiratorially-minded, or is this purposely vague? When did the 1,000 leave?:

In addition to the trainers, 1,000 soldiers from the Vicenza, Italy-based Southern European Task Force (Airborne) and the Kaiserslautern-based 21st Theater Sustainment Command, along with Marine reservists with the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines out of Ohio, and the state of Georgia’s Army National Guard’s 1st Battalion, 121st Infantry recently participated in "Immediate Response 2008."

That exercise, which had the U.S. troops operating from Vaziani, concluded on Thursday. That base, near the capital of Tbilisi, was bombed by Russian aircraft over the weekend, Georgian officials said.

Hot Air lays out a disturbing theory about what "peace" in Georgia really means: "For those who call this a peace, it is no such thing. The Russians have their boot on Georgia’s throat, and have only paused to get a surrender." Over at Blackfive, Laughing Wolf seems a bit more optomistic.

George Will looks at Russia and Georgia through a 20th-century lens. It's a bit of a wandering column, but well worth a read. He never says it directly, but one sees a catalog of mistakes both then and now. And he asks, what would Russia be doing today if we'd admitted Georgia in NATO? Probably nothing.

For those who hope to see the Democrats in full-blown intramural warfare, things are looking up. Of course Hot Air is openly partisan, but the the tactics they highlight are kinda disturbing... whether you're a Democrat or not.

As long as I'm highlighting the thoroughly partisan this morning, I might as well throw this in: a philosophical deconstruction of Obama's ideas on patriotism. If you buy into it, you may need some Maalox nearby. Either that, or a good stiff drink.

After a catalog like the above, we need something light. Can't find anything at the moment, but I'll keep looking... - FbL

********************************

Okay, here's your lightness: If you haven't seen or heard of this yet, or even if you have... this is a good way to start your day. - FbL

********************************

Georgia to pull out of (Russian) Commonwealth of Independent States and suggests other six countries do the same as show of solidarity. That would include the Ukraine among them. It means they won't trade with Russia under the old agreements. There are hints that Russia might be persona non grata at the next G8. Not everything is about shooting people to get what you want.

"I looked into his eyes and saw three letters: K, G and B" - Kat
***************

Now this is interesting. From Major's Perspective, NATO insists that Georgia is still on track to become a member and re-iterates that Georgia is part of the PfP, Partnership for Peace. I believe this is in response to reports that point to NATOs rejection of Georgia to the MAP process (ie, becoming a full fledge member) may have triggered Russia to believe they could get away with deposing the Georgian government. It seems that Europe is none to fond of Russia's apparent naked aggression. Or, as they put it, "disproportionate response" to the Georgian-Ossetian incident. Particularly, with Russia's foreign minister insisting that Saakashvili has to go before they will negotiate.

I think we have to give the Europeans some kudos here for even stepping out on the issue. As someone else mentioned somewhere, it is almost winter and Europe gets a disproportianate amount of natural gas to heat their homes from Russian Gazprom through the Ukraine pipelines. The last two winters with Ukraine/Russian tensions over the pipeline, leases and money have been rather pricey for Europe. - Kat

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Okay, John's down for the count, Dusty's on crew rest and I'm moving to new digs so I'll be offline for a few days. NO food fights.

I don't wanna miss anything. -- Bill

]]>

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-08-13

2008-08-13T19:43:55Z

In addition to the trainers, 1,000 soldiers from the Vicenza, Italy-based Southern European Task Force

We're still occupying Italy? No wonder people hate American Imperialism! When America invades, they never leave...

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-08-13

2008-08-13T19:39:51Z

Nice, pretext. Not sure what the rules of engagement will be, however.

The real problem is one of sustainability. That's a concern with strategy and logistics, rather than short term battles. We have all sorts of problems as Fd listed, but there are also solutions to those problems.

Manpower can be easily solved, in the short term, by using the best Iraqi and Afghanistani units in Georgia, to make it more international and what not.

SInce our diplomatic corps is half way infested with traitors, I don't think you can rely upon them to make the deals. That's one problem you solve by having the right people promoted and the wrong people discharged, fired, or demoted, even promoted out of the direct line of work.

It'd be like giving Petraeus a job to do but having his opponents and strategy opponents make the hiring, firing, promotion, and actual personnel decisions. That'd be a disaster. And it's a diaster in the DoS.

America has too many committments to different bases in the world because these nations can't defend themsevles and won't oftentimes defend themselves when they have a free sugar daddy, the US, to provide our money and treasury and blood for them.

This usually is only a negative thing if you can't combine them together so that you can use them all at once. Numbers mean nothing, geographic control means nothing, unless you can put all those advantages to work in a single tactical situation. And with the DoS as it is and with current American socio-military-political attachments, that's not going to happen. The President could order troop redeployments from any number of areas to supply manpower requirements to Georgia, but he will have to deprioritize certain things like Okinawa, Kosovo, Europe, Italy, Africa, etc. Their logistics have to go to us, which means their logistics get cut, which means they become militarily vulnerable.

But those are still solutions, even if they are not perfect. These are just solutions people won't choose because they want it to have it all. They want to be everywhere, forever, and not actually solve anything.

The military is not supposed to stay around in a semi war zone for too long. Yet that's what we have in Afghanistan and Iraq. But that's fine, that's a necessary correction to enemy tactics that use insurgency and terrorism against us and our allies.

But Russia's a conventional power. There is no point nor need to get into a protracted DMZ look fest with them. But one will develop if you or your allies lose militarily. If the enemy wants something bad enough, they can get it if they are willing to expend the bodies. Russia is willing to expend the bodies, but Putin and his little circle will not expend themselves. And given what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are not likely to try to bluff Bush into finding out whether Bush will take them out or not. They'll probably wait until Obama to test that kind of thing out. Or Mccain.

The danger with these humanitarian pretext missions is that they also attach you to something you don't necessarily have a need for. The only way to solve the humanitarian crisis in a permanent way is as Sherman decided to do. Burn them all out, burn it all down, and then end the war so we can rebuild. Not try to cease hostilities and rebuild at the same time. I thought we had learned this in Iraq by now. That kind of strategy is just endless war and suffering for people. We're still in Korea, for that matter, waiting for North Korea to attack us and kill our troops there.

This kind of strategy will eventually mean America will be spread too thin. Not because she lacks manpower, but because she chose the wrong strategy for the globe.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2008-08-13

2008-08-13T17:20:24Z

Mike, that you did! LOL

Comment from RetRsvMike on 2008-08-13

2008-08-13T16:27:39Z

heh... i called it!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402982,00.html

(btw: the "R" in "I/R" stands for "refugee")

Comment from Maggie100 on 2008-08-13

2008-08-13T16:21:30Z

This may be a really, really stupid question--but according to the US Dept of State website, the US is sending millions and millions of dollars to Russia in foreign aid, including a lot in a category called "Security and Law Enforcement"--that category is a real eye opener, as in "shock". Among the activities funded in this category include "International Military Education and Training (IMET) Program provides training in English, in peacekeeping operations, non-commissioned officer development, search and rescue, civil/military interaction, and military medicine for military and civilian officials of the Ministry of Defense. International Military Education and Training (IMET) Program provides training in English, in peacekeeping operations, non-commissioned officer development, search and rescue, civil/military interaction, and military medicine for military and civilian officials of the Ministry of Defense."

Another site, "US Overseas Loans and Grants" lists millions more to Russia.

Why are we doing this and couldn't these be used to register a more foreful statement than speeches?

Comment from fdcol63 on 2008-08-13

2008-08-13T13:37:16Z

" .. America is hamstrung because America is surrounded by potential enemies, not allies. ..."

As it looks right now, besides the current war against AQ and the jihadists, we have at least 4 major potential adversaries, most likely in this order: 1) Iran; 2) Russia; 3) China; 4) the EU, eventually, especially when and if Muslims attain a majority there.

I doubt that these threats will remain static and allow us to address them sequentially. Most likely, some of them will probably ally themselves with each other or with other proxies/allies (like Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, N Korea, Venezuela, etc.) at various times to continue to keep us busy with their constant pin pricks, hoping to bleed us dry little by little.

Hopefully, we can attempt to resolve issues and crises through "diplomacy" and "sanctions" and other peaceful means. However, I'm not so optimistic that this will be possible most of the time, because each of us have our own very serious, fundamental interests and goals bringing us into conflict in the first place, and some of these are mutually exclusive.

And hopefully, we can ally ourselves with other like-minded friends (who also have the capacity to help militarily) to assist us when we can, and to continue to use technology to overcome manpower shortages where possible.

However, if we don't currently have the capacity to fight all these small fires with the resources and manpower we currently have in our own military, we will - by necessity - need to inrease it. We will need to abandon the current "minimalist" effort that Bush has had the US on post-9/11, and adopt a more intensive "war" footing and mentality, similar to what we saw in WW2, or at least at the levels we committed during the Cold War.

As John pointed out on another thread, we're too "busy" right now trying to handle just Iraq and Afghanistan to do anything about the Russia/Georgia mess. I thought post-Cold War US military planning was to be able to conduct 2 low-level, regional conflicts simultaneously. If we're currently having trouble doing just that in Iraq and Afghanistan, and if we don't have the capacity to deal with Iran - right between them - should that become necessary, then we need to make some serious changes before we can hope to deal with these other threats.

If the problem is Congressional funding, then we need to pressure Congress to spend these monies, and increase taxes if necessary to do this.

If the problem is being able to find enough "volunteers" to adequately staff our military, then we may need to look at draft options, although I believe that we are much better served by professionals who want to serve.

If the problem is political will because we're too divided along partisan lines, then we may be doomed.

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-08-12

2008-08-12T23:21:04Z

One of the crucial reasons why America is hamstrung politically is because if you "listen" to Congress and stay in NATO and the Un, what tends to happen is that our strongest allies have to go on bended knee to suck off nations like France and Germany or American senators.

Since enemy manipulation of those nations and individuals, Obama-Kennedy-Biden who, will always be better than our allies ability to convince them to side with them (Vietnam anybody?), this means that NATO and the Un and the US Congress are essentially war assets of our enemies, Iran and Russia.

Our allies have to beg them and bribe them and give them stuff to even be considered part of NATO. But they only want to join NATO for US protection, so why aren't they negotiating unilaterally with us? Cause we don't matter. We move only where Europe tells us to move, or when Bush gets a spine and got tired of having his balls knocked around.

America is hamstrung because America is surrounded by potential enemies, not allies.

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-08-12

2008-08-12T23:17:29Z

Georgia to pull out of (Russian) Commonwealth of Independent States and suggests other six countries do the same as show of solidarity. That would include the Ukraine among them. It means they won't trade with Russia under the old agreements. There are hints that Russia might be persona non grata at the next G8. Not everything is about shooting people to get what you want.

They're making faces. Doesn't mean anything. The only way they'll "win", the Georgians, if they have de facto, if not de jure, military support from America or her allies Iraq and Afghanistan.

Air power is going to be de facto block against Soviet armor. But even without US Air Power or Navy in the field, the guerrilla fighting learned by the US and our auxiliary forces will do far more damage to the inexperienced Russian army than what happened to them in Afghanistan.

An experienced military has a huge advantage over a green one. Add in advantages like tech, size, and better local auxiliary forces and it is no contest. It is no contest, except politically, and that's where the Russians and Leftists dominate. Right now, at least, cause bush doesn't have a spine after Iraq and Afghanistan and still wants to make faces and beg for things with hat in hand.

Comment from MaryAnn on 2008-08-12

2008-08-12T22:03:19Z

The 1000 participants of the 3-week long training exercise were separate from the 130 long-term advisors and are gone.

There might be some gestures of disapproval on the part of the US/NATO/EU about this, but nothing really material, IMO. Russia has asserted its position in the region and we're going to accept it for now. The Euros need the energy and can't/won't do much anyway. The US has a bigger bone to pick with the Russians than Georgia, and its name is Iran. It sucks but that's the name of the game as I see it.

Comment from RetRsvMike on 2008-08-12

2008-08-12T20:05:32Z

..need to guarantee such a clear line by providing low level "humanitarian support" as an expansion of on-going low level "training and advisory" support....

Comment from fdcol63 on 2008-08-12

2008-08-12T19:43:26Z

The question for me is this:

Let's say the US and NATO countries make good on their recent statements to "punish" Russia by ousting Russia from the G-8, and perhaps even go so far as to impose certain economic sanctions.

With the EU and NATO countries so dependent on Russian oil, and with Putin having proved that the US and NATO don't have the will and/or the capability to stop Russia, what would really deter Russia from moving into the Ukraine? Or other Baltic/former Warsaw Pact states?

What will or would happen if Putin did? Are we now to believe that the US and NATO have a clear line beyond which we won't allow Russia to push?

Comment from kat-missouri on 2008-08-12

2008-08-12T19:29:07Z

Spoke too soon. Belmont club indicates Russia calling for " partial demilitarization" of Georgian Army with a binding agreement of non-use of force. So, Russia gets to put troops on Georgian soil but Georgia can't.

that's just a bunch of political mumbo jumbo that means the Georgia is now Russia's vassal state. Get it? Got it? Not good.

Comment from kat-missouri on 2008-08-12

2008-08-12T19:22:33Z

I am reading that Russia is accepting a ceasefire and possible pull back to "status quo". What that means really is that Russian troops will go back to Abkhazia and Ossetia, but this time I suspect it will be much more than 2500 peace keepers. I don't expect all that armor is going to disappear behind the mountains.

However, it will look good for Putin at home either way. He can claim, as they already are, that Georgia has been punished and that Russia never had designs on over throwing Georgia, just protecting its people. And, he still gets what he wants because Georgia will not be a de facto client state that Russia can easily reach out and swat whenever it gets too big for its britches.

I imagine that they will make great waves about any arms shipments or training given to the Georgians after this.

Comment from Laughing Wolf on 2008-08-12

2008-08-12T19:14:37Z

It's not so much that I am optimistic, but that I do see an opportunity here IF Europe will step up and Bush plays hardball. Big caveat is that Europe, particularly Old Europe, has to step up. New Europe largely is, witness the trip by Poland, Ukraine, and other former subject states. Given that real hope lies in Old Europe, I fear that Georgia is screwed, but hope to be proven wrong.

Comment from Alan Briley, RN on 2008-08-12

2008-08-12T18:04:27Z

BillT, Kat, & FBL,

If I am ever stupid enough to go into politics, the Castle is where I'm recruiting my Foreign Affairs staff. You make Foggy Bottom look like a kindergarden classroom on LSD.

On a Saturday.

Comment from kat-missouri on 2008-08-12

2008-08-12T15:02:33Z

Actually, I'll find the report, but most of them left almost a week before the shooting started. About 130 remain in country per the front page report this morning.

However, I suspect that we knew Russian troops have been massing for over a month and departed in a timely fashion. so did Saakashvili. He knew he was about to be invaded. I think its kind of humorous how many folks are talking about Saakashvili shouldn't have provoked the Russians. Seriously, it was more like the Israelis trying to get a jump on the Egyptians. Sadly, something happened and they didn't make it to the Roki. I think saakashvili thought he could take that tunnel without blowing it up so he could have it for future commerce..

that was a bad decision.

Comment from FbL on 2008-08-12

2008-08-12T14:51:22Z

Second question: Were they still on the base when it was bombed?

Comment from FbL on 2008-08-12

2008-08-12T14:50:57Z

Exactly.

Comment from BillT on 2008-08-12

2008-08-12T14:44:41Z

Am I being too conspiratorially-minded, or is this purposely vague? When did the 1,000 leave?

Who said they left?