Hybrid cars

An article in USA Today states hybrid cars are not going to save money for most car buyers. However, this article misses the most important factor in my opinion. When you buy a hybrid car, let's say the Ford Escape, you are getting probably about 30+ mpg, which is about 10 mpg better than the non-hybrid version. You are going to be paying about $6000 more for the hybrid version. Gasoline would have to shoot up a couple dollars a gallon to make up that extra outlay. However, this extra up front payment is going to the car company, which is either American or Japanese. In comparison when you buy gas the extra money is going to Venezuela or Middle Eastern countries or Mexico or Russia. None of these countries have a particular love of the United States and none of them supported us in the War on Iraq. In the case of the Middle Eastern countries many of their people consider us the embodiment of evil. Why would we want to send our money to these people when we can pay a little more for a car made by our own people or a close ally? Plus as these vehicles become more popular and the technology is improved prices will come down. I fail to see the negative aspects of buying a hybrid version of a vehicle when you can, as long as you can afford it.

The CIA

Well those last two were a bit long winded so I apologize. However, they were issues I wanted to give more than a paragraph to. For today let's consider the role of the CIA. For the past twenty years or so they, like the Pentagon, have become too enamored with technology. More resources were applied to satellite imagery and not enough to human intelligence sources. Satellite images are great when you are watching for troop movements or the building of weapons facilities by countries. However, they suck when trying to learn about terrorist organizations.
I believe the problem is one brought about by the Cold War. With all our attention and efforts directed at containing the Soviets small scale attacks by fringe groups were not taken seriously. Because of this the United States was caught with its pants down on 9/11. You can blame Clinton or Bush all you want. But it was a lack of human intelligence that got us to this point. If we had spies infiltrated in these groups we may have gotten some kind of warning. Instead we concentrated on satellites and signal traffic. The problem being that in Afghanistan and other Third World Countries the easiest way of communicating among these groups may not be through electronic means.
As I've said numerous times this week we need to concentrate on getting intelligence operatives into these organizations in order to really start fighting the war on terror, as well as trying to keep tabs on rogue states like North Korea. I can only hope that the high level people who make these decisions reached this conclusion soon after 9/11 and not after reading my Blog.

The military & GW

So now we take a look at the Bush Administration's use of the military. After 9/11 Bush was correctly lauded for his strong response to the attack. We quickly learned who was responsible and where he was. Bush quickly built up an attack force and demanded the Taliban hand over Bin Laden. When they refused we attacked. The Taliban, a brutal Islamic Fundamentalist government was harboring the most wanted terrorist in the world. By refusing to hand him over they sealed their own fate. By coordinating with and using the Mujahadin (sp?) the forces advanced quickly. The Taliban was no match and was replaced.

Now let's turn to the Iraq mess. And it is a mess. Whereas his father built a large and meaningful coalition in the first Gulf War GW blundered from day one by taking an adversarial stance to the UN. He constantly harped on the inadequecy and ineptitude of the UN inspectors. Although he constantly stated that Saddam had WMD's he, to my knowledge, never supplied any credible evidence. Even if everyone in the world thought he had them that is not proof. We now know that the intelligence he had was deeply flawed and pressure was applied to have the intelligence services supply only intel supporting the administration's already held viewpoint, rather than all the facts determining the truth. Then after dismissing the UN as ineffective and useless he built a "coalition of the willing." This consisted of the British, Italians, Spaniards, Australians and a bunch of smaller countries. Other than the Brits and Aussies most of the others contributed only token forces. The vast majority of the troops were US. Although our troops performed admirably and quickly overwhelmed the weak Iraqi forces the planning for securing the peace was horrible. Looting was allowed and probably even smiled upon as a "release" from Saddam's rule.

When things got out of hand Bush & Co. made one bad decision after another. By throwing out all Bathe Party members from government they essentially forced Iraq to start from scratch. Everyone they brought in had no experience because anyone with experience belonged to the Bathe Party. That's like abolishing everyone in the Republican and Democratic parties and expecting the new people to run everything smoothly.

Rumsfeld didn't help things with his brusk manner and stubborn refusal to admit to his mistakes. In a position like the Secretary of Defense you have to have some people skills. I don't think he ever had any. His combative attitude with the press, his comments about "Old Europe" and his "Rumsfeld Doctrine" only made things worse. Not since the removal of the Taliban has Bush/Rumsfeld made a good decision regarding the use of the military. As I said yesterday, the war on terror should mainly utilize small, highly trained rapid response teams and a beefed up human intelligence service. Although we don't really know about the intelligence side I have heard no evidence of his using special forces troops to good effect recently.

So overall the Bush record is mostly negative in my opinion. Poor choices in Iraq have resulted in the overextension of US forces, extensive use of National Guard and Reserves, the implementation of Stop Loss and the inability to meet recruiting goals. When this administration is done in 2008 I fear our military will be much weaker than when they came in. Heaven help us if a real threat like N. Korea or a Chinese invasion of Taiwan occurs. We may not be able to do a damn thing to stop them.

Role of the military

With the War on Terror and the War in Iraq the role of the military has been a constant issue. When should the military be used and how? During the Clinton administration the military was often used for saber rattling and bluster to try to get favorable terms at the negotiating table. Carrier groups were often moved to hot spots to show America's determination. But it was rarely used and when used was very limited. Clinton's favored use of the military was the use of cruise missiles or limited air strikes. The Bush administration, prompted by the fear caused by 9/11, has taken the opposite stance and has primarily used the military as the first choice.

So which is right? In my personal opinion the military should be used as the last resort when all diplomacy has failed and only if there is overwhelming evidence of a serious threat to the United States or its allies. We wouldn't go to war against Sudan or Indonesia, for instance, because they are more threats to themselves than anyone else. I believe our emphasis in the War on Terror should be to beef up our intelligence gathering agencies with human intelligence (aka spies) infiltrated into these terrorist organizations. Then military special forces can be used to hit training camps hard and fast, as well as eliminating the upper level organizers by either taking them into custody or killing them. Because terrorist organizations like Hamas and Al Qaida are so dispersed and are not located in one central location, full scale army units are not very useful and only increase the spread of radical Islamist sympathies. The key to this new type of war is improved intelligence and surgical strikes using specially trained small scale forces. Now considering the secretive nature of this type of warfare it is possible the current administration is doing this already and we just don't hear about it. However, after four + years of watching the swagger and bravado of Bush & Co. I have serious doubts. They don't come across as being prone to subtleties.
This raises the question, if the above was used as the main game plan of the US in the war on terror what is the purpose of having such a large military with all these expensive weapon systems? Why not trim the Defense budget some and cut back on traditional armed forces spending? The answer is because we don't know what the future holds. What if China, which is a rising power in Asia, decides to invade Taiwan? What if Russia becomes a major power again and seeks to expand its regional domination? If 9/11 proved anything it is that we don't know what may happen or what the next big conflict may look like. I would rather maintain the Premier status of our Armed Forces then try to play catch up when we're caught with our pants down.

Happy Memorial Day

Today is a day for remembering our military forces who have sacrificed for all of us to remain free. From the Revolution to the Civil War through World War II and after our military forces have helped keep the United States free. The military has sometimes gotten a bad rap, such as in Vietnam. At other times they have been welcomed home as heroes. But we should all be thankful for their courage and dedication in a too often thankless job.

For a nice article on the history of Memorial Day take a look at this article from the History Channel.

I think I will use this day as a springboard to talk about the role of the military in our modern society. Starting tomorrow I will talk a little about the military's current role in foreign policy and what I think its role should be. Then on Wednesday I'll talk about the positive and negative aspects of the current Administration's use of the military. Then we'll see where the mood takes us for the rest of the week.

On a personal note

Just a side personal note. Today is my 6th anniversary. Its been a fast six years. In that time we've bought a house and had a son who is almost two years old. All in all probably the best six years of my life. So Happy Anniversary Scarlett. Hope we celebrate many more.