A new Cold War started last week. China and the U.S. exercised their militaries while trading threats like the old Cold War days with the Soviets. But unlike the Soviets, Beijing’s motivation is mostly economic, not spreading communism. The U.S. needs a plan to win this war.

The U.S. and its allies conducted an anti-submarine exercise in the Sea of Japan to signal North Korea, China’s proxy, that its recent provocative behavior that included the sinking of a South Korean warship is unacceptable and the U.S. remains ready to defend its ally.

Chinese General Ma Xiaotian, the deputy chief of staff of the People’s Liberation Army, protested that exercise, claiming it threatened Beijing, China’s capital. The Chinese responded to the perceived threat with naval exercises in the South China Sea, hundreds of miles to the south.

The Chinese used those exercises to reiterate its territorial claims to the South China Sea as “indisputable sovereignty” and warned the issue should not be “internationalized.” Then for the first time Beijing elevated its sovereignty claim to the level of a “core” national interest—a category previously reserved for Tibet and Taiwan.

China’s “internationalized” comment was a reaction to a statement made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She told the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) that “the United States has a national interest in freedom of navigation, open access to Asia’s maritime commons and respect for international law in the South China Sea.”

Control of that sea was supposedly settled by an ASEAN declaration in 1992 which Beijing signed. But that agreement was quickly violated by the Chinese and now that Beijing is a superpower it is demanding sovereign control of the sea through which passes half of the world’s merchant fleet tonnage and hosts rich fishing and oil reserves.

The problem for the U.S. and its Asian allies is Beijing won’t stop demanding more territory. It will extend its territorial waters from the usual 12 miles to include its entire exclusive economic zone which extends 200 miles from its coastline. That impacts Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and South China Sea rim countries like Vietnam.

Apparently the intent to expand its sovereign sphere of influence was prompted by China’s new heady superpower status which influenced ordinary Chinese who anticipated the new Cold War. Earlier this year China’s state-run newspaper the Global Times announced more than half of Chinese people agree that “a Cold War will break out between the U.S. and China.”

A Cold War, according to the Pentagon, is the state of tension wherein political, economic, military, and other measures short of overt armed conflict are employed to achieve national objectives.

China’s national objectives—regime survival, a robust economy, and political control of its sphere of influence—have created tension with the U.S.

Consider some of those Cold War-producing tensions:

• America’s decision to sell weapons to democratic Taiwan raised political tensions. The U.S. earlier this year announced its decision to sell $6.4 billion worth of weapons to the island nation, a territory China claims as part of the mainland. “This time China must punish the U.S.,” said Major-General Yang Yi, a Chinese naval officer, in response to the weapons sale.

• China’s support for rogue regimes raised tensions. Robert Einhorn, the U.S. State Department’s adviser on nuclear non-proliferation, testified that China is a major obstacle to the success of U.S. sanctions against Iran by taking up the slack left by countries that have dropped business and trade ties with Iran in adherence to the sanctions.

• China is creating tensions by helping North Korea. Not only is China giving North Korea political cover regarding the recent military exercises, but last week a Chinese delegation was in Pyongyang to sign an economic and technological agreement. That agreement indicates Beijing will continue its defiance of U.S. attempts to reproach the wayward North Koreans.

• There are significant economic tensions. China holds $2.5 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves—mostly U.S. debt. Some Chinese like Luo Yuan with China’s Academy of Military Sciences recommends using that debt to leverage American cooperation on fractious issues like arms sales to Taiwan.

Recently China became the world’s second-largest economy and could surpass America by 2025. That success is attributable to Beijing’s guiding principle for all policies—do whatever grows its gross domestic product (GDP). The 17-year estimates for GDP per capita annualized growth is 12.13% for China, according to the United Nations.
• China’s economic guiding principle explains growing tension over competition for limited raw materials and the regime’s decision to keep its currency under- valued. Beijing keeps its currency, the Yuan, cheap to give its exporters a competitive edge which undercuts American exporters.
Beijing aggressively pursues raw materials using every state means available. That explains why it has monopolized material markets like rare earth metals, which are used for high-tech devices such as lasers and iPhones. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that China “already consumes one-third of the world’s copper and 40% of its base metals, and produces half of the world’s steel.”

• China’s rapidly growing military is creating superpower tensions. The Pentagon’s annual report on China’s military indicates the regime has been on a top-to-bottom transformation campaign for more than 20 years, fueled by annual double-digit budget increases. Today Beijing fields a 3.35 million man force that is armed with sophisticated anti-access capabilities for targeting American aircraft carriers; a submarine fleet that rivals America’s in number and stealth; and an increased ability to project forces abroad.

Chinese Rear Admiral Zhang Huachen earlier this year said, “With our naval strategy changing now, we are going from coastal defense to far sea defense.” That view explains China’s use of the military to enforce its territorial claims and conduct high-seas bullying such as harassing merchant ships and U.S. warships much as the Soviets did in the first Cold War.

China’s militarization surge threatens U.S. long-term interests in Asia especially given that Beijing, according to that country’s 2006 Defense White Paper, intentionally plans to use military force to advance its economic interests.

Washington and Beijing should mitigate these tensions but until that happens America needs a plan to win the Cold War which must include three elements.

First, the U.S. must increase its military presence in Asia by establishing numerous bases that assure our allies and contain Beijing’s expanding military. China is poised to expand its military presence throughout the region and will likely employ an asymmetric capability to advance its hegemonic ambitions.

Second, the U.S. must form a robust Asian alliance. That NATO-like organization must include military, diplomatic, and economic arms. The Asian “NATO” must stand-up a credible, united effort against China’s intimidation and hegemonic actions much as NATO formed the backbone of our defense against the former Soviet Union.

Finally, the U.S. and its Asian allies must employ effective “soft power.” China cultivates influence across the globe vis-à-vis business ventures—“soft power,” irrespective of the client’s radical ideology such as Sudan. The U.S. and its Asian partners must engage peace-seeking nations in the region using an all-of-government approach working with global business partners to provide governing and business alternatives to China’s aggressive, no-holds-barred “soft power” intimidation.

The business side is especially critical. Europe’s NATO was successful during the first Cold War because the partners were economically developed with U.S. aid over time. Countries like Vietnam, Thailand, and India are ripe for diverting U.S. manufacturing investment from China. This approach surrounds China with westernized countries at Beijing’s expense.

The U.S.-China Cold War may be driven by economics but it could easily become a shooting war. Both nations should cooperate to mitigate their differences. But until that happens the U.S. must implement a plan that defends American and Asian ally vital interests against the world’s newest and hegemonic superpower.

By: -Col. Bob Maginnis

North Korea uses atomic weapons tests, long-range missile launches, weapons proliferation, and attacks against its neighbor to extort inducements. It is time to break that extortion cycle with real consequences before Pyongyang makes another major provocation, especially now as the regime is preparing to change leaders.

Sixty years ago North Korea invaded South Korea, never expecting the West to come to Seoul’s aid. That provocation led to the Korean War with an estimated 2.5 million lives lost. Today the 1953 armistice that put the war on hold is cracking and the situation is “highly precarious,” according to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who warns of the real risk of escalation.

Warnings that the security situation could spin out of control come in the wake of the March sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan, killing 46 sailors. An international investigation found North Korea culpable but the ever politically correct United Nations refused to publicly finger North Korea in spite of strong evidence.

But North Korea has never paid a price for state-sponsored violence since the Korean War. In 1968, North Korean commandos staged a raid in on Seoul’s presidential palace in an attempt to assassinate the country’s president and days later Pyongyang’s navy seized the American spy vessel the USS Pueblo.

The North’s agents blew up a landmark in Burma (present day Myanmar) just before Korea’s president arrived, killing four South Korean cabinet ministers in 1983. Four years later, North Korean agents blew-up a South Korean airliner and in 1996, a North Korean submarine launched 24 commandos on a suicide mission in the South.

Pyongyang’s behavior has taken on a decidedly international flavor over the last 15 years that directly threatens America. The regime startled the world by launching long-range ballistic missiles across Japan in 1998, 2006, and 2009. The 2009 missile flew 2,200 miles and was declared a satellite launch attempt. Washington is concerned Pyongyang’s intercontinental ballistic missiles will inevitably target America with atomic weapons. North Korea already has atomic devices thanks to the Russians and the regime uses its nuclear program to extort concessions.

In 1985, the Soviet Union pressured North Korea to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), pledging not to employ its nuclear facilities to create weapons. But by the early 1990s Pyongyang built a plutonium reactor near the city of Yongbyon and threatened to withdraw from NPT monitoring.

The U.S. confronted Pyongyang about its suspected atomic weapons program which led to a concession deal known as the Agreed Framework. Pyongyang promised to dismantle its nuclear facilities in exchange for light water-reactors and other inducements like fuel oil, food and political concessions.

South Korea piled on the inducements under its so-called “sunshine policy” to improve relations with the North. It shipped food, provided financial aid, and constructed more than 100 factories in the North Korean city of Kaesong.

But the Agreed Framework and “sunshine policy” crumbled after the Bush administration found the regime continued to pursue nuclear weapons. Then in January 2002, President Bush lumped North Korea, along with Iraq and Iran, in a rhetorical “axis of evil.” But the Bush Administration didn’t give up on inducements. It proposed a “bold approach” suggesting wide-ranging arms control by North Korea in return for even more concessions.

Those talks fell apart in 2005 after the Hermit Kingdom declared it had nuclear weapons “for self-defense.” A year later the rogue tested an atomic device and a second in 2009. Today it claims to have enough plutonium for six to eight nuclear weapons and is enriching uranium like Iran for use in atomic weapons as well.

Pyongyang is also in the business of proliferating dangerous technologies with limited adverse consequences. A 2010 UN report claims Pyongyang has exported nuclear and missile technology to Iran, Syria and Myanmar. In 2007, for example, a North Korean-built plutonium reactor in the Syrian desert was destroyed by Israeli fighters. North Korean scientists are also in Iran working on missile and nuclear programs and there are press reports regarding suspected North Korean nuclear material shipments to Myanmar, another rogue regime.

Recently, North Korea ratcheted-up tensions by declaring it “will not be bound” by the armistice that ended fighting in the Korean War. That declaration plus the aforementioned provocations, proliferation business, and Pyongyang’s constant war-like bravado are part of the regime’s leader succession strategy.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, 69, reportedly had a stroke in 2008 and has only a short time to live. His youngest of three sons, 27-year-old Kim Jong Un, is the father’s choice to succeed him.

The regime is preparing Kim Jong Un for succession by bolstering his credentials. Last year, Kim Jong Un was secretly appointed to the legislature, a step for Communists to rise in the party structure.

Recently the regime launched a propaganda campaign to bolster the young leader’s credentials and two weeks ago the North’s official news agency announced the convening of a Workers’ Party of Korea Convention in September. The convention will be the first such meeting in three decades to select the eight most senior officials who, together with Kim Jong Il, comprise the Central Committee. The speculation is the occasion will be used to designate Kim Jong Un as the heir to the dictatorship.

But the most important piece of the succession strategy is giving the son military credibility, even though he never served. This was done for his father by creating a record with military exploits, such as the 1968 capture of the USS Pueblo. Soon Kim was called “the respected and beloved general.” A similar scenario appears to be emerging for Kim Jong Un who may be identified as the great hero who sunk the South Korean warship.

A change in Pyongyang’s leadership provides an opportunity to reassess our North Korea policy. We should expect the regime’s new leader to be much like his father but our policy doesn’t have to remain the same. Rather than a policy of appeasement, we need a policy that harshly responds to North Korean bullying, prevents it from proliferating dangerous technologies, and eliminates its atomic-tipped missile arsenal.

First South Korea, with American backing and assistance, should adopt a tit-for-tat policy, much as the Israelis strike back every time Arabs launch rockets and suicide bombers at Jewish people. Bullies like Pyongyang understand force and it is past time South Korea responds in kind to every provocation.

Second, America must prevent Pyongyang from proliferating weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. and its allies must interdict North Korean shipments that appear to be transferring dangerous technologies. Expect Pyongyang to threaten retaliation for boarding its ships but the alternative—the spread of dangerous weapons—is a far worse outcome. The regime wants to survive and will not risk all-out war with the U.S. if we press the point.

Finally, North Korean long-range missiles and atomic weapons threaten our homeland and many of our allies, such as Japan, in the region. The Obama Administration must warn the regime that this threat is unacceptable and that it will be removed by military action unless North Korea ceases their pursuit of nuclear weapons.

North Korea will inevitably launch another military provocation. Only this time it could come as an atomic-tipped missile landing in Seoul, Tokyo or Los Angeles. That’s why it is time to break the extortion cycle with real consequences and there’s no better time than now with the turn-over of leadership in Pyongyang.

By: -Col. Bob Maginnis

President Obama’s efforts to scuttle the military’s gay ban are nearing the finish line. Those who care about protecting the military from another of President Obama’s ideologically bad decisions had better act quickly.

The Senate is possibly days from passing an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that matches one just passed by the House, which creates a “Trojan Horse”-like repeal of the Pentagon’s ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military.

If that amendment becomes law it remains on hold until a to-be-published Pentagon study based on a biased and just-released survey triggers a rigged certification process. The certified report will automatically lift the military’s longstanding gay ban.

“Trojan Horse” is a term for something intended to subvert by deceptive means. Its etymology is traced to the ancient Greeks who gave a giant wooden horse secretly filled with soldiers as a peace offering which the Trojans brought into Troy. The soldiers emerged from the horse to open Troy’s gates to Greece’s conquering army.

The congressional Democrats’ “Trojan Horse”-like amendment is part of a stratagem launched by Obama in his 2010 State of the Union address to repeal the gay ban.

“I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve,” Obama said. The following week Defense Secretary Robert Gates testified, “We have received our orders from the commander in chief, and we are moving out accordingly.”

On March 2, Gates told the Pentagon’s Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) to “consider how best to implement a repeal” of 10 U.S.C. § 654, the ‘Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces,’ which is often confused with the Pentagon’s implementing regulation known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Gates directed the CRWG to “examine the issues associated with repeal” and develop “an implementation plan that addresses the impacts” by December 1. Most importantly he wrote, “I believe it essential that the working group systematically engage the force.”

While the CRWG prepared to “engage the force” through focus groups, a confidential comment website and surveys, the Democratic-dominated Congress realized that waiting until December for the CRWG’s report before acting to repeal the ban could prove politically disastrous. Polls predicting the possibility pro-ban Republicans will take back the House this November would dash the Democrats’ repeal hopes.

Realizing a political tsunami was coming, Sen. Carl Levin (D.-Mich.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, floated the idea of introducing an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill to repeal the ban. That idea gained momentum in April but drew criticism from Secretary Gates who asked the Democrats to wait for the CRWG’s report before taking action.

But in late May anxious gay activists gathered at the White House to craft their “Trojan Horse” amendment. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D.-Pa.) attached that amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill, which was passed by the House along party-lines on May 27. The bill passed even though the four chiefs of the military services asked Congress to wait for the December report and in defiance of the American people.

A May 2010 Zogby interactive poll found that 59% of likely voters want our military leaders to make the decision about the homosexual ban as opposed to 23% who favored Congress. Our constitutional form of government gives the responsibility for such decisions to Congress but legislators shouldn’t ignore the advice of the military chiefs.

Murphy’s amendment links the repeal of the ban to the CRWG’s December report. The legislation requires certification of the report by Secretary Gates, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the President that it is “consistent with military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruiting” and once the Pentagon “has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to implement its repeal.” Once certified, the ban becomes history.

Obama is anxious to sign legislation that includes the repeal. It’s also certain that once Gates’ report is delivered the President and Adm. Mullen, who already expressed his support for lifting the ban, will join the secretary in certifying the report no matter what the CRWG finds. Of course, the CRWG’s report will favor repeal which makes it part of the deceptive “Trojan Horse” strategy.

The CRWG’s charter is clearly biased because Gates’ forbids the group from exploring whether repeal of the gay ban is appropriate for the armed forces. That explains the flawed, pro-repeal survey just released which will play a significant role in formulating the CRWG’s final report.

Last week a defense contractor, Westat of Rockville, Md., e-mailed the CRWG’s survey to 200,000 active duty and 200,000 reserve personnel. The survey was not released to the public because as a Pentagon spokeswoman said, “We want the service members to have the opportunity to open it and read it before they read it in the press.” But on July 9, the Palm Center, a pro-gay group in California, posted the survey on its website.

The survey fails to ask service members whether the homosexual ban should be repealed and doesn’t explore the many consequences of lifting the ban. I advised the Pentagon’s 1993 Military Working Group that drafted the current ban. That group’s report recommended against lifting the ban based on many significant consequences: impact on cohesion, combat effectiveness, privacy, medical, recruiting, retention, and family issues.

The CRWG’s survey measures some of these consequences but completely ignores others affecting morality and the impact on chaplains.

The survey assumes military respondents understand terms like morale, personal readiness, motivation, combat effectiveness, and homosexuality. Providing definitions would have helped and using illustrations or describing behaviors would have been a superior approach. Also, there’s no mention of relevant U.S. government research on homosexual practices such as a report indicating 71% of all American males living with HIV/AIDS infections are “men who have sex with men.”

Respondents are not asked to identify whether they are homosexual or heterosexual, which is a major shortfall. Some survey questions suggest there are gays serving in the military without offering a shred of evidence to support that view. Then the survey asks respondents whether those perceived homosexuals impact undefined unit morale, motivation, readiness, and unit performance.

The questions are stated in such a manner that responses can easily be manipulated to paint a picture that open homosexuality—which is not defined—is a neutral factor. For example, the survey asks respondents to identify the “top three factors that enable you to fulfill your mission during combat?”

“Having only heterosexual members in the unit” is one of thirteen choices. But respondents unfamiliar with the potential damaging impact of open homosexuality on combat would unlikely list that factor from among a list that includes technical capabilities, unit morale, clear objectives, and officers who lead by example.

The CRWG is doing what its political masters directed—chart a path for repeal and figure out how to mitigate the inevitable consequences. The new survey and likely the one scheduled for release to 150,000 military spouses next month are purposely prejudiced by politically correct guidance that ignores contradictory evidence.

The American people should insist the President and Congress stop playing politics with the armed forces. The pending “Trojan Horse” amendment should be withdrawn and the CRWG should be disbanded or redirected to conduct an unbiased study.

The contrived Turkish-led aid flotilla crisis was intended to force Israel to lift its arms blockade of Gaza. While the Israelis were victorious in forcing the flotilla to its demands, the political outcomes are still reverberating around the globe.

For now the Islamist forces have been emboldened, Turkey has been added to the list of terrorism supporters and long-term Israeli security has been weakened.

But what’s President Obama going to do? It appears the President is inclined to lean on Israel to accept more risk in Gaza—abandon the blockade, which would further radicalize the region vis-à-vis greater Iranian influence and increase violence against Israelis.
Obama isn’t averse to leaning on Jerusalem because U.S.-Israeli relations are already on the skids. The Israeli intelligence chief Meir Dagan told the Knesset last week that “bit by bit, Israel is becoming less of a strategic asset for America.” The result is to downgrade Israel’s importance for America and increase pressure for Jerusalem to realign itself with U.S. interests.
U.S. National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer was quick to declare Obama’s position. “The current arrangements [in Gaza] are unsustainable and must be changed,” Hammer said. He offered no alternative to the blockade nor defended Israeli actions.
Obama’s Middle East policies have no traction. He made his famous speech to the Muslim world last summer from Cairo University promising change, but so far his Mideast initiatives have fallen flat. There is no positive movement on Israeli-Palestinian peace; Syria quit peace talks; diplomacy failed with Iran; Iraq is in political turmoil; and the Afghan war is going badly. Terrorists squeezed from war zones are turning up in Yemen to Detroit.
Things got even worse last week. A six-ship aid flotilla organized by a terrorist-leaning group from Istanbul tried to crash Israel’s blockade of the radical Hamas-run Gaza Strip. Israeli commandos intercepted the flotilla before it reached Gaza, which resulted in a violent clash that infuriated its sponsor, Turkey, and created an international backlash against Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defended the blockade. It was meant to keep weapons out of the hands of the Iranian-backed Hamas and he would “not allow the establishment of an Iranian port in Gaza.” The U.S. State Department accuses Iran of providing “extensive” funding, weapons and training to Hamas.
Obama will lean on Israel to quickly repair relations with Turkey. Turkey’s Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said, “Israel stands to lose its closest ally in the Middle East if it does not change its mentality.” Erdogan rejects claims that Hamas is a terrorist organization.
Obama needs Erdogan’s help to safely withdraw American forces from Iraq and facilitate a solution with Tehran on its nuclear program. No doubt Turkey’s ally Tehran welcomes international pressure focused on the Israeli blockade rather than its nuclear program and not surprising, on June 6, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei offered Iran’s navy to escort aid ships to Gaza.
But Obama could push Netanyahu too hard. Hamas is a terrorist organization according to the U.S. Department of State and has a declared goal of destroying Israel. It has rained thousands of rockets from Gaza on Israeli settlements and Netanyahu indicates those rockets can already reach major Israeli cities.
Under international law “Israel has every right to interdict this weaponry and to inspect the ships that might be transporting them,” Netanyahu told his nation. He explained, “We have already interdicted vessels bound for Hezbollah and for Hamas from Iran, containing hundreds of tons of weapons.” That’s why, Netanyahu said, “Israel simply cannot permit the free flow of weapons and war materials to Hamas from the sea.”

The flotilla crisis was manufactured by Hamas sympathizers and perhaps with support from Turkey’s Islamist governing party, the Justice and Development Party (AKP). That explains why the Turkish government said the flotilla was a civilian initiative, but it appears the operation was sanctioned by the AKP to increase Turkey’s credibility in the Muslim world and distance itself from Israel.

Nearly 700 activists joined the flotilla hosted by a Turkish aid group, the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedom and Humanitarian Relief, known by its Turkish acronym IHH. A press report indicates law enforcement recently found firearms, explosives and bomb-making instructions, along with a jihad flag in IHH’s Istanbul offices. Stratfor, an American intelligence think tank, reports the IHH bought the Mavi Marmara cruise ship that led the flotilla from “the Istanbul municipality at a hefty discount.”

Israel outlawed the IHH in 2008 because of its ties to Hamas. Last year, the IHH leader, Bulent Yildrim, spoke defiantly in Gaza City, “We are not afraid of anyone but Allah.” Yildrim is accused by French intelligence of recruiting soldiers for the “coming holy war [jihad]” and allegedly dispatched men to war zones to gain combat experience.

On May 30, the day before the flotilla confrontation, Hamas television showed an interview with Yildrim. “We will not allow the Zionists to get near us and we will use resistance against them,” Yildrim said. He continued, “How will they wage resistance? They will resist with their fingernails. They are people who seek martyrdom for Allah, as much as they want to reach Gaza, but the first [martyrdom] is more desirable.”

The Turkish government allegedly inspected and approved all passengers and cargo prior to departure. But well-known terrorists and terror sympathizers from many countries were aboard. There were Jordanian, Yemeni, and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood delegations, the group that inspired the creation of al Qaeda. There were Kuwaiti Salafists, convicted arms smugglers and Algerian Islamists seeking “martyrdom.” The flotilla organizers asked all participants to “write their wills.”

Netanyahu said Israel offered “to deliver the goods on board the flotilla to Gaza after a security inspection.” The Israeli commandos tried to persuade the ships to alter course but the terrorists “rejected” the offers and taunted the Israelis shouting “Go back to Auschwitz,” officials said.

The Israelis knew the flotilla was looking for a fight which makes Jerusalem’s decision to board the Mavi Marmara, where nine activists died, hard to understand. Jerusalem will investigate to determine why other less deadly courses of action weren’t followed.
Israeli commandos rappelled from helicopters onto the ship’s deck and “Were met with a vicious mob. They were stabbed, clubbed, and fired upon. They were going to be killed and they had to act in self-defense,” Netanyahu said.

YouTube videos show the terrorists were battle ready. They are seen waiting on the ship’s deck outfitted with gas masks, bulletproof vests and portable communication devices. Israeli forensic experts found casings belonging to a weapon that was not used by the commandos and the Turkish captain reportedly told the Israelis the “mercenaries” threw their weapons overboard after the commandos took control of the vessel.

The flotilla crisis has clear winners and losers. Iran and Hamas win because there will inevitably be some loosening of the blockade. Israel becomes the biggest loser because Obama will force Jerusalem to accept something less than the current blockade and thereby put Israel in greater jeopardy.

The big unknown is Turkey — will Ankara continue to gain credibility in the Islamic world through its anti-Israeli stand? Obama’s policies are encouraging Turkey to do just that. As for Obama, he may gain praise for being tough on Israel, but in the long-term U.S. national security will be weakened as the terrorists gain confidence in their success.

By: -Col. Bob Maginnis

President Obama released his blueprint last week for pursuing a new world order that offers no compelling vision to guide the ship of state. Rather it dangerously shifts our military’s focus from counterterrorism to nation building and subordinates aspects of our foreign policy to international organizations like the United Nations.

The 2010 National Security Strategy outlines Obama’s strategic approach and priorities for advancing American interests. Obama’s report, which is supposed to be submitted to Congress 150 days after the beginning of the administration, provides a bleak assessment of our current state, abandons key parts of President Bush’s security strategy and identifies Obama’s vision for a new world order with no new approaches.

Obama’s assessment of the current strategic environment is bleak. “We live in a time of sweeping change where events far beyond our shores impact the safety, security, and prosperity of Americans,” Obama writes.

His strategy calls for strengthening “our military’s capacity to partner with foreign counterparts, train and assist security forces, pursue military-to-military ties with more governments.” This means he will refocus military priorities away from more traditional war-fighting to nation building. Preparing other nations to defend themselves has merit but that mission shouldn’t sap scarce resources from more important missions.

Obama’s nation building plan is a whole of government effort. He intends to assemble a civilian expeditionary capacity to join the military in nation building as we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps instead of sending that force to places like Sudan they ought to go to Louisiana to help clean-up the oil or to Arizona to guard our border.

He also states the risk of nuclear attack has increased since the Cold War and nuclear dangers continue to proliferate. We no longer fight wars over ideology, Obama explains, but “over religious, ethnic and tribal identity.” Inequality and economic instability have intensified and “the international architecture of the 20th Century is buckling under the weight of the new threats.”

President Obama’s strategy discards significant parts of his predecessor’s blueprint. He repudiates the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption by rejecting “the false choice” of “an endless campaign to impose our values.” This was a backhanded comment regarding Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.

He drops the concept of the global war on terrorism, arguing we are not waging a “global war against a tactic—terrorism—or a religion—Islam,” but a “war with al Qaeda.”

He also drops the use of the term “radical Islam” or “jihad” because as his spokesman explained, we don’t want “to validate the perception that Islam somehow justifies their violent actions.”

Obama restates his intent to close the prison for enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. His spokesman argues the prison serves “as a recruitment and propaganda tool for terrorists” and endangers “our troops when they are captured” which has never been proven. An administration spokesman argues that moving enemy combatants to an Illinois prison—the proposed replacement site for Guantanamo—will cut our costs in half. However, he fails to mention the legal and terror threat implications associated with that move.

The President reaffirms his prohibition for “torture,” which allegedly some American interrogators used on al Qaeda suspects, including waterboarding the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Obama claims such methods of interrogation “are not effective means of obtaining information” and they serve as a recruitment and propaganda tool for terrorists. He offers no proof for either claim.

Obama introduces his strategy with dreamy rhetoric that calls for Americans to “see the horizon beyond” our current situation to a world in which “America is stronger.” He calls for “a strategy of national renewal and global leadership” that rebuilds the foundation of “American strength and influence.” But his strategy is mostly generalities and devoid of substance.

Obama’s strategy puts America at the center of the world from which he intends to manipulate our international engagements to address global challenges. He promises to be “steadfast in strengthening old alliances” and expand cooperation with 21st Century centers of influence, such as Russia, China and India. His plan calls for building “deeper partnerships in every region,” and strengthening international institutions like the United Nations and the G-20, the top 20 economic nations, to be more capable of responding to challenges.

The blueprint outlines elements that advance America’s interests. On security he seeks to end the war in Iraq, defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates, and stop the spread of nuclear and biological weapons. He seeks a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace based on a two-state solution and a broader engagement with Muslim communities to “spur progress on critical political and security matters.”

He wants to advance our prosperity by reducing dependence on foreign oil and cutting our budget deficit. He promises to spend taxpayer money wisely and get our allies to share more of the security burden.

Advancing a just and sustainable international order is an Obama priority. That includes expanding cooperation with nations like Russia, with which we have “reset” relations and pursuing international effort to combat climate change, beginning with the Copenhagen Accord.

But Obama provides little detail on how he intends to realize his global vision. His intentions for our military and engagement with international organizations are revealing and troubling.

“Our armed forces will always be a cornerstone of our security,” Obama writes. Then he outlines plans to “rebalance” our military’s capabilities. He wants our forces to excel at counterterrorism, counterinsurgency and stability operations. Those missions fit the current wars—Iraq and Afghanistan—but not the possible high-intensity conflicts against a near peer competitor like China. Obama promises “We will monitor China’s military modernization program and prepare accordingly to ensure that U.S. interests … are not negatively affected.”

Obama’s plan is to fight the last war over again—terrorism and insurgencies—an option the American people should reject. We need a “rebalanced” armed force that can field a credible full spectrum capability to respond to future challenges from counterterrorism to high-intensity conflicts, and helping others should be part of that strategy.

Obama’s blueprint also calls for significant engagement with international institutions. He naively hopes to galvanize collective international institutional action to resolve the most pressing challenges of our times.

He argues past administrations have engaged organizations like the United Nations “on an ad hoc basis.” He intends to strengthen institutions like the United Nations to “face their imperfections head on and to mobilize transnational cooperation.” Obama is right about the UN’s “imperfections” but it is not the place to mobilize cooperation, at least for America. The UN has proven to be a corrupt anti-Western arena for the world’s malcontents to waste our money on radical and inefficient programs.

“We need a UN capable of fulfilling its founding purpose—maintaining international peace and security,” Obama writes in his strategy. He says “we are enhancing our coordination with the UN … [and] paying our bills,” a dig at former administrations which fell behind on UN contributions. He also promises to help reform the organization’s “overall performance, credibility and legitimacy.” Rather than “enhancing our coordination with the UN,” we ought to distance ourselves from the world body and strengthen alliances elsewhere.

President Obama’s strategic blueprint is devoid of new approaches to solving our nation’s international issues and showing a clear military strategy that ensures our sovereignty. It’s full of rhetoric and little substance with which to guide the ship of state.

President Obama on Saturday told 1,064 graduating West Point cadets—some bound for Afghanistan—they face a “tough fight” but “I have no doubt … we will succeed in Afghanistan.” The commander-in-chief shouldn’t be so confident.

“There will be difficult days ahead [in Afghanistan],” Obama warned the graduating class at the United States Military Academy. He knows our forces are poised to attack Kandahar, the country’s second largest city and the Taliban’s birthplace, and that battle will decide his strategy’s success.

Obama’s strategy pits our forces against a resilient enemy while intentionally handicapping our chances of success as demonstrated by the proof-of-concept operation in Marjah, a community South of Kandahar.

Three recent back-to-back Taliban attacks on American symbols of power in Afghanistan demonstrate the enemy’s daring. Hours after Obama’s Saturday speech at West Point, Taliban forces attacked the massive allied airfield outside of Kandahar. That attack comes close on the heels of an attack on American military convoys in the capitol, Kabul, and a frontal assault on the sprawling American military headquarters at Bagram airfield North of Kabul.

Evidently the resilient Taliban are also ready to do in Kandahar what they’ve done in Marjah. The Marjah operation started in February and was suppose to be the coalition’s proof-of-concept for the upcoming battle for Kandahar. But three months after the initial assault that operation has bogged down.

Obama’s concept calls for the military to clear out the Taliban and then establish security with Afghan security forces. Next, the Afghan government moves in to establish rule of law, deliver basic services and kick-start the economy. Finally, if all goes as planned the population will abandon the Taliban for the government.

But Obama’s concept has yet to be validated. Even though the coalition declared victory two weeks into the Marjah operation, daily clashes with the Taliban continue. Afghans still flee the city because of the lack of security and Washington’s promised civilian projects have faltered. And the opportunity to win the population’s trust is fading as evidenced by a recent field survey by the International Council on Security and Development which found 61% of those interviewed in Marjah felt more negative about coalition forces after the operation than before the offensive.

Even thought Marjah hasn’t validated Obama’s Vietnamization-like strategy, our forces are poised to launch operations to take Kandahar. Obama’s promise of success cannot be kept unless the following five hurdles are overcome.

First, the development arm of Obama’s strategy is failing in Marjah. Why then should anyone expect a better result in Kandahar?

The U.S. created a $360 million program aiming to suppress the insurgency by providing agricultural jobs and cash for farmers to buy seed and fertilizer. But in Marjah villagers spurned American aid for fear of Taliban reprisal.

So far, Washington has spent only $1.5 million of the $19 million planned for civilian projects in Marjah and only 20 Marjah residents have been hired. Even the U.S. Agency for International Development stopped plans to provide irrigation pumps to Marjah’s farmers because the Taliban killed farmers who accepted the equipment.

Second, the campaign lacks sufficient time to succeed. Obama promised to begin withdrawing American forces by July 2011 but it’s doubtful Marjah will be pacified by next summer much less the much larger Kandahar. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, cast the Kandahar battle as a make-or-break campaign that will determine whether the U.S.-led war can succeed.

Unfortunately for Obama, his hurried timeline isn’t supported by the history of successful counterinsurgencies. A 2008 RAND Corporation study, “Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan,” assessed 90 insurgencies since 1945 and found it takes an average of 14 years to defeat insurgents, not 13 months.

Third, the Afghan security forces are not ready. Last November Afghan President Hamid Karzai said his country wouldn’t be ready to assume the security lead for three to five years and Kabul won’t be ready to support those forces for another 15 years.
That’s important because indigenous forces are critical to successful counterinsurgencies. The RAND report indicates indigenous forces have to win the war on their own but first they must develop the capacity to do so.

“Leading with indigenous forces is important because they know the population and terrain better and are better able to gather intelligence,” the RAND report states. 

Obama’s strategy recognizes the need to lead with Afghans. Unfortunately, a U.S.-Afghan offensive near Kandahar was just canceled because the Afghan leaders were not considered ready, according to Stratfor, a U.S.-based intelligence think tank. Stratfor concludes, “This is a reminder of the complexity of building a military force from scratch.”

The U.S. commander in Kandahar admits problems with local police as well. Maj. Gen. John Campbell, the commander of the 101st Airborne Division, told the Army Times that the Kandahar police need plenty of attention because in the past they had problems with equipment and training, but now the issue is retaining good leaders.

The Afghan National Police (ANP), which must play a critical role in Kandahar, is also problem plagued. Gen. Sir David Richards, the head of the British army and the former commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, said it will take until 2015 before the ANP are fully functional. Recently, a British press report cited a government assessment of the ANP which indicates those forces are plagued with widespread incompetence, criminality and absenteeism up to 25% and the New York Times reports drug abuse up to 41% among police recruits.

Fourth, there are insufficient counterinsurgents. There are currently 7,800 NATO troops in the Kandahar area along side 12,000 Afghan soldiers and police. NATO forces are expected to swell to 11,200.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, calls the pending fight for Kandahar a “process”—not an “operation”—to indicate a different approach is planned. That may explain why he ignores U.S. doctrine in sizing the force or perhaps he’s executing Obama’s strategy knowing that more troops aren’t possible. Doctrine prescribes 20 counterinsurgents per 1,000 inhabitants or 50,000 troops for Kandahar’s one-million population. 

There aren’t sufficient forces to doctrinally man the Kandahar effort and conduct operations elsewhere in that Texas-sized country. After the U.S. surges 30,000 fresh troops it will have 98,000 by August and there are 46,500 other international forces in Afghanistan, but many of those won’t join the counterinsurgency. As of April, the Afghan army had 113,000 and the Afghan police fielded 102,000 but these forces are at various levels of training.

Finally, Pakistan needs to do more. Obama said, “Our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.” That’s especially true as we prepare for Kandahar, which is 50 miles from Pakistan’s border.

Last year, Pakistan conducted operations along the border which achieved geographic objectives but failed to destroy the Taliban. A new border offensive this winter and an aggressive effort with special forces and drones has degraded Taliban operations further.

Earlier this month, U.S. Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus visited Pakistan to discuss the Kandahar offensive. He sought that country’s support in the form of accurate, actionable intelligence. He also won an agreement “in principle” that Pakistan will launch a major operation into the critical North Waziristan, the heart of Taliban activity. But the timing of that anticipated operation will not necessarily parallel our Kandahar operation.
It seems highly unlikely that Obama will keep his promise to the West Point graduates for success in Afghanistan, as the hurdles to overcome are complex and require more time and treasure than America or Obama are likely to tolerate. Kandahar is shaping up as the “center of gravity” for Obama’s Afghan strategy, but there is little evidence of Afghan and Pakistani support for an American success. At this point failure is more likely than success.

By: -Col. Bob Maginnis

China’s aggressive actions on the high seas, its rapidly expanding navy and its new global strategy suggest Beijing’s motivations are as much about geopolitical power as economics. That’s why the U.S. either accommodates its soon-to-be naval “peer competitor” or face the risk of military conflicts with the emerging superpower.

Japan’s foreign minister expressed concern last week about China’s growing military aggression. “I wouldn’t use the word ‘threat’ – but we certainly will need to watch very carefully the nuclear arsenal and naval capabilities of China,” Katsuya Okada told the Wall Street Journal.

Okada filed a protest with Beijing earlier this month over “obstructive behavior” by a Chinese survey ship in the East China Sea. Okada complained the Chinese ship chased a Japanese coast guard vessel that Tokyo said was conducting marine surveys within Japan’s economic zone.

That was the third Chinese provocation over the past month. On April 10 and 21, a flotilla from China’s East Sea Fleet sailed through Japan’s Miyako Strait, a mineral-rich area disputed between the two Asian powers. During each passage Chinese helicopters circled near Japanese destroyers. These incidents irked the Japanese and they happened just days after warships from China’s North Sea Fleet returned from what the Chinese called “confrontation exercises” in the South China Sea, according to Stratfor, an American intelligence group.

The U.S. Navy has been a victim of Chinese “confrontation.” In 2001, Chinese fighters intercepted and crashed into a U.S. Navy P-3 Orion aircraft and then forced it to land at a Chinese military airfield. In late 2007, a Chinese Song class submarine surfaced dangerously close to the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, an aircraft carrier, during a Pacific exercise. Last year, Chinese vessels aggressively maneuvered within 25 feet of the USNS Impreccable, an unarmed ocean surveillance ship, in the South China Sea.

These aggressive actions suggest China’s navy is taking on a new and dangerous character.

China’s aggressive naval behavior accompanies the regime’s growing and seemingly insatiable appetite for natural resources and the movement of its products to sustain a fast-growing economy. That means Beijing must depend on sea routes for transporting goods, which has become a factor shaping its strategic naval behavior.

Beijing’s motive for a large navy is more complex than trade. There is a rising tide of Chinese nationalism aimed at Japan and the U.S., China’s long-time naval rivals. A larger navy feeds Chinese national pride at its rivals’ expense and gives Beijing the tools to eventually reunify the “renegade province” of Taiwan by force if necessary. And it helps to control contested island groups off China’s coasts, which form a new outer-defense security belt.

This multi-faceted motivation prompts China’s strategic military transformation. The Pentagon’s 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review outlines that transformation: “China’s military has begun to develop new roles, missions, and capabilities in support of its growing regional and global interests.”

“We are going from coastal defense to far-sea defense,” Rear Adm. Zhang Huachen, deputy commander of the East Sea Fleet told Xinhua, the state news agency. Adm. Huachen explained, “With the expansion of the country’s economic interests, the navy wants to better protect the country’s transportation routes and the safety of our major sea lanes.”

An April editorial in the Global Times, a Chinese state owned newspaper, tried to dispel concern about its growing navy. “China does not hold an intention to challenge the U.S. in the central Pacific or engage in a military clash with Japan in close waters,” the Times wrote. But that statement radically expands China’s previously defined “core interests” to now include the South China Sea and the entire Western Pacific.

The editorial then warns it’s time for the U.S. and Japan to “adjust their viewpoint when considering China’s moves. The time when dominant powers enjoyed unshared ‘spheres of influence’ around the world is over.” Then it concluded: “A growing Chinese navy is a symbol of China’s peaceful rise.” But that view is contradicted by China’s assertive behavior and its lust for a large, offensively-capable navy.

Two decades of double-digit spending increases have radically grown China’s navy. The 225,000-man People’s Liberation Army-Navy (PLA-N) is organized into three fleets and equipped with 260 vessels including 75 “principal combatants” and over 60 submarines. The U.S. Navy has 286 battle-force ships though the American fleet is qualitatively superior to the Chinese navy.

In March, Adm. Robert Willard, the leader of the U.S. Pacific Command, testified Chinese naval developments were “pretty dramatic.” “Of particular concern is that elements of China’s military modernization appear designed to challenge our freedom of action in the region,” the admiral said.

Beijing’s “pretty dramatic” developments include plans to deploy two aircraft carriers by 2015. It already acquired four retired aircraft carriers: one from Australia and three ex-Soviet carriers. On March 21, the ex-Soviet carrier Varyag left the dry dock in Dalian, China, after refurbishment and now is undergoing the installation of electronics and weapons. A 2009 Pentagon report indicates China is training 50 navy pilots to operate Sukhoi SU-33s (navalized Flankers) for aircraft carrier operations.

China’s navy uses a growing international network of ports known as the “pearl necklace.” Those permanent Chinese bases are along the shores of the Indian Ocean and the maritime routes to the strategic Strait of Malacca: Maldives, Burma, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Seychelles and Pakistan. Beijing is actively negotiating with a number of African countries for permanent ports as well.

Chinese naval units are also going on missions to new locations. Since 2008, the PLA-N has maintained three ships in the Gulf of Aden to conduct counter-piracy patrols and this March two Chinese warships docked in Abu Dhabi, the first time the modern Chinese navy made a port visit in the Middle East. China is also negotiating for a new base in Iran.

China’s expansive trade interests coupled with its new naval strategy and an offensively capable navy requires Washington to make some tough decisions.

Should the U.S. remain engaged in Asia to protect its economic and security interests? It appears the Obama Administration plans to maintain a credible force in the region for now. Recently, it transferred several nuclear submarines from the Atlantic to the Pacific to help keep tabs on China’s submarine force.

But keeping our navy right-sized to meet the Chinese and other global challenges may not be President Obama’s priority. Last week U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned, “The gusher [military spending] has been turned off, and will stay off for a good period of time.”

Gates asked, “Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners?” That statement doesn’t make sense based on the Pentagon’s 2009 report on China’s military power which indicates Beijing has 260 ships (and growing) compared to America’s 286.

We can also train and equip regional allies like Japan. But most Asian allies can ill afford to deploy ocean-going ships to defend their vital interests from China’s superpower fleet.

Finally, the U.S. ought to engage with China to remove its veil of secrecy about military programs and geopolitical intentions. Security cooperation programs – joint exercises, exchanges – can reduce some tension and maneuver-space agreements can help avoid needless confrontations.

China is a rapidly growing naval power that will soon become America’s “peer competitor.” Washington should engage Beijing at every opportunity to promote transparency and cooperation while maintaining a credible deterrent in Asia. Otherwise our economic and security interests will inevitably collide and we could easily land in a new cold war or worse.