Tag Archives: defense policy

Security Guarantees

Posted on by
Reply

Several Arab states, members of the Gulf Security Council, are looking for

major new weapons systems and security guarantees from the White House in exchange for backing a nuclear agreement with Iran, according to US and Arab officials.

There are a lot of valid arguments on both sides of that question in The Wall Street Journal article at the link (RTWT), but one thing jumps out at me, and it wasn’t addressed in the article.

Suppose the GSC nations get those security guarantees and promises of delivery of those weapons systems. On what basis do they think this administration would deliver on those commitments?

This administration pulled the rug out from under Poland and Czech Republic on missile defense systems. This administration pulled the rug out from under Ukraine, refusing to send them the equipment they need to defend themselves. This administration refused to take meaningful action against the Assad régime in Syria after painting a bright red line around the use of chemical weapons. This administration pulled the rug out from under Israel in the PA’s terror war against Israel just last summer. This administration currently is pulling the rug out from under Israel in agreeing to a framework that lets Iran obtain nuclear weapons.

A commitment to those Arab nations regarding security and weapons would be just another line this administration would shy away from in the moment of truth.

Choices

Posted on by
Reply

The Air Force says that if an amendment to the defense funding bill that extends the operational life of the A-10 makes it into the final budget, it’ll have to mothball a bunch of F-16s or maybe delay deployment of the F-35.

The F-35 is overpriced and undercapabled. I vote for delaying that—or cancelling it altogether.

Or a choice not currently on the table: the F-22 is even more overpriced than the F-35, and it’s even less capable; albeit it’s less capable in an air-to-air environment rather than the A-10’s or F-35’s air-to-mud milieu. Cancel that albatross, too.

Another Necessary “Letter”

Posted on by
Reply

There is a bill beginning its long journey through the House that instructs DoD to deploy within two years (which is “promptly” as such things— both legislative and arms—go) systems capable of handling Russian cruise missiles and other weapons systems that Russia has been developing in direct violation of the decades old Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

The House Armed Services Committee attached this to the 2016 defense authorization bill. This legislation is significant enough in its own right, but the motivation behind it is interesting for another reason, too.

Here’s Congressman Mike Rogers (R, AL), Chairman of the Armed Services Committee’s Strategic Forces Subcommittee:

For years, we’ve been urging the Obama administration to get serious about Russia’s violation of the INF treaty.

Its response: we’re talking to Russia. While Obama talks, Putin cheats on treaties and invades his neighbors. We must take Russia’s actions seriously, and this authorization of DOD funding does just that. The United States will not be unilaterally bound by any treaty.

Another group of Congressmen have recognized the need to talk directly to foreign governments, since this administration seems incapable of doing so in any serious manner.

Right

Posted on by
1

Sydney Seiler, Deputy DNI Mission Manager for North Korea and the US envoy to the six-nation talks on northern Korea’s nuclear weapons program, had some…advice…for that nation.

[He] said Tuesday that North Korea should learn from the emerging nuclear deal with Iran that Washington is willing to engage its adversaries if it has a “credible” partner to negotiate with.

It’s certainly true that northern Korea can be expected to learn from the emerging nuclear deal with Iran. They can see what can be had through negotiating with credulous partners.

Another parallel that northern Korea can surely recognize, according to Seiler; although not in the way he meant:

Seiler said there has been no sign in the last two years that Pyongyang is willing to de-nuclearize….

Indeed. Just as there’s been no sign in the last several years that Iran is willing to stop its nuclear weapons program before getting the bomb, also “despite sanctions and diplomatic isolation.”

Then Seiler, as is typical of this administration, exposed himself. Badly.

North Korea “may not have learned any lesson” from the Iran talks, and if it had, “we would perhaps [have] seen it earlier.”

No, northern Korea has learned one very valuable lesson from the Iran talks: stonewalling works. We’ll see in short order whether northern Korea learns the follow-on lesson: using Iran’s technique for handling credulity pays dividends.

It just doesn’t get any more feckless than this.

A Saudi Cease Fire

Posted on by
Reply

Recall Libya and Europe’s ejection of Muammar Gadhafi from power. Shortly into the air campaign supporting Libyan rebel efforts, that campaign nearly ground to a halt because the Europeans—really—ran out of ordnance to drop on Gadhafi and his loyalist forces. The Unites States had to step in and rearm the European forces in order for the campaign to continue.

Earlier this week, Saudi Arabia called a halt to its air campaign in support of the just-overthrown government and against Houthi terrorists in Yemen.

Saudi Arabia declared late Tuesday that strikes against the Houthis would transition to a mostly political phase, but left open the possibility of using military action to halt the spread of the militants.

This was followed the next day by the Houthis continuing their advance, including capture of the government forces’ brigade headquarters in Taiz, the country’s third largest city, and it had been immediately preceded by the terrorists’ capture of a major seaport, apparently in preparation for receiving Iranian seaborne arms shipments.

The US isn’t rearming/resupplying the Saudis as far as I can tell. This bodes ill for the Saudis and for Araby in general—and for Israel, on the back side of Araby from Iran—in the coming confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

I hope I’m being overly paranoid. The Saudis also released a statement:

…the new phase of operations “will support the Yemeni government on the ground as it works toward building a stable and secure Yemen[.]”

We’ll see.

Update: It appears the Saudis, or at least their coalition, are resuming airstrikes against the Houthis.  If true, this would be to the good.

An alternative reason for the ceasefire may be this:

The Obama administration told the Saudis the military campaign should be wrapped up quickly because it was no longer having the desired effect, senior US officials said. In the private messages, the administration said the campaign risked escalating into a broader conflict….

The “broader conflict” which President Barack Obama fears is one with Iran.  Never mind that someone needs to stand up to the Iranians and halt their expansion and their hegemonic dreams, and the Obama administration hasn’t the heart for it.  Never mind, too, that the Yemeni situation is only a small part of those dreams, and Iran is unlikely to force the question here.  Yet.