By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

Munich, Germany: The Battle of Waterloo was to Napoleon Bonaparte what the war in Afghanistan could become for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Emperor Bonaparte lost at Waterloo and was exiled. NATO’s relevance is crumbling in Afghanistan which could relegate the mutual defense alliance to history’s trash heap. That, however, could provide the United States an opportunity to shift resources to an alliance of combat-ready global partners.

Last week, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was in Europe to urge NATO defense ministers to get serious about fighting the war in Afghanistan. Gates warned, “I worry a great deal about the alliance evolving into a two-tiered alliance, in which you have some allies willing to fight and die to protect peoples’ security, and others who are not.” Gates warns, “I think that it puts a cloud over the future of the alliance if this is to endure, or perhaps even get worse.”

Others echo Gates’ assessment. Retired US Marine Corps General James Jones, who serves as a Bush administration special envoy, concluded in a Center for the Study of the Presidency report that the Afghan mission is under “serious threat” because of the uneven commitment of NATO nations.

In August 2003, the 59-year-old alliance assumed command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. This became NATO’s first post Cold War test out of sector.

There is serious counterinsurgency in the southern part of Afghanistan while relative stability is found elsewhere. The allies doing the dying — Americans, British, Dutch and Canadians — want help in the south but many alliance partners seem unwilling to fight.

Many NATO troops such as the Germans arrive in Afghanistan with national caveats that preclude them from offensive operations. Other nations only volunteer non-combatants. “Caveats deny me the ability to plan and prosecute,” ISAF commander General Dan McNeill said. “I can’t amass them to where I might have a decisive point. . . . Obviously I can’t move as quickly as I want to.”

The overall troop numbers are insufficient as well. Afghanistan has more land mass and a larger population than Iraq. The US-alone has 155,000 troops in Iraq. By comparison, there are 55,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan with 41,000 under NATO’s command. A senior NATO official told this writer that a troops-to-task analysis would allocate 800,000 to Afghanistan.

The US, responding to NATO’s shortfall, is deploying an additional 3,200 Marines for seven months. Gates has two purposes behind this deployment: to guarantee security gains in the south and to encourage NATO to “see if they could dig deeper and come up with more troops.” Germany, for example, has only 6,000 of its 250,000 military deployed abroad.

There are also equipment and technology issues. Recently, Gen McNeil said that to attain a minimal force requirement he needs more helicopters for transport and aviation for intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance. But NATO nations lack these resources critical to counterinsurgency operations in the vast spaces of Afghanistan. In addition, there are serious doctrinal differences.

Last month at a NATO meeting in Scotland, Gates said, “Most of the European forces, NATO forces, are not trained in counterinsurgency; they were trained for the Fulda Gap” the German region where a Soviet invasion of Western Europe was deemed most likely.

Predictably, NATO officials bristled at the suggestion. A NATO official argued, “The reason there is more fighting now is because we’ve uncovered a very big rock and lots of things are scurrying out.”

The specific criticism is that some NATO allies are overly dependent on heavy weaponry, including airstrikes, and this may have contributed to rising violence. However, by comparison, US forces tend to get it right, says McNeil. “[I]t’s generally accepted amongst many members of the alliance that the most effective counterinsurgency operations that are presently occurring in Afghanistan are occurring in the US sector. That’s not a derisive comment …. It’s just that clearly the US has put the effort [read money and manpower] into making this piece of it right…,” McNeil explained.

“The problems NATO faces in Afghanistan are just a symptom of what is wrong with the alliance,” says Michael Williams, director of the Transatlantic Program at the Royal United Services Institute in London. The alliance is not united about its mission and equitability of investment.

It’s not clear among the membership whether NATO should be a Europe-only defense pact to take care of flare-ups like Bosnia or whether it should include expeditionary capabilities for Afghanistan-like operations.

There is also the matter of not enough deployable troops. Julian Lindley-French’s study for the British Bertelsmann Foundation states Europe’s military is hollow. “There are 1.7 million Europeans in uniform, but only 170,000 soldiers of which 40-50,000 could be used for robust combat operations at any one time,” states Lindley-French. Only about 25,000 are truly deployable due to other missions and they tend to be British or French.

The lack of troops is partly due to decreased defense investment. After the Cold War, NATO countries cashed in their militaries for peace dividends. Security budgets dropped to near one percent of national GDPs. Even after the attacks of September 11, only the US expanded its security investments. Today, the US invests 4.2 percent of its GDP in defense while NATO’s other members fall short of the alliance’s target of two percent GDP.

This lack of investment highlights a misunderstood reality about modern warfare. Most NATO nations use their defense money to sustain Cold War era militaries while the US has rapidly transformed its force into an expeditionary, highly sophisticated, world-class fighting machine. This has created a major capability gap between the US and most of NATO and may explain the misguided complaint about US unilateralism.

The US often fights unilaterally because it has no peer. It has a significant technological and fighting expertise edge over virtually every ally and across all combat operating systems.

Many ask why the US should stay with NATO. Perhaps NATO will fix itself out of necessity.

A future attack on the mainland by terrorists with ties outside the region could inspire some serious soul searching among NATO’s complacent and politically correct members. The alliance might then decide it needs a legitimate expeditionary capability. There is also the likelihood that the Russian bear will re-emerge to threaten Western Europe or Iran will gain nuclear weapons.

The US must not wait for NATO to be shocked out of its complacency, however. America should quickly shift resources out of NATO and coalesce with allies such as the British and Australians who are willing to fight. These countries, both in combat capabilities and policy, are reliable allies in the war on terror. The rest need a stiff kick in the rear.

By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

Just a few weeks ago, Japan successfully intercepted a ballistic missile over the Pacific Ocean. Facing a rising China — which had, before the Japanese test, conducted its unparalleled military buildup as a one-nation arms race — Japan has now moved decisively to defend itself. But the Japanese move may now accelerate, and engage other neighboring nations in a growing and dangerous Pacific hemisphere arms race.

At least 31 nations possess ballistic missiles and to counter that growing threat nations like Japan are scurrying to build anti-missile shields. However, more and better missile shields create a Hobson’s choice for nations that depend on their missile arsenals for strategic deterrence. They must either build larger and more sophisticated — read expensive — missile fleets or abandon missiles for other ways to deter would-be adversaries.

On December 17, the Japanese Self-Defense Force’s JS Kongo (DDG-173), a guided missile destroyer, fired a US Standard SM-3 interceptor which quickly destroyed its ballistic missile target about 100 miles above the Hawaiian Islands. The US Missile Defense Agency called the intercept a “major milestone” and Japan’s defense minister called the test “extremely significant.”

Japan’s ballistic missile defense (BMD) program started in August 1998 after North Korea fired a missile over Japan. Tokyo’s BMD efforts were accelerated in July 2005 after North Korea once again fired ballistic missiles toward Japan and in October 2006 when Pyongyang tested a plutonium-based atomic device. Japan views these actions as a direct threat to her survival.

“The land of the Rising Sun” responded to Pyongyang’s threat by pouring billions of yen into missile defense. The Japanese have purchased US-Aegis radar systems, launched spy satellites, and allowed the US to station an X-band radar on the island. Tokyo has deployed 27 anti-missile US-made Patriot PAC-2 batteries and this year it began deploying the more capable Patriot PAC-3. Much more is in the works.

More daunting for Japan’s neighbors is the fact that Tokyo’s BMD investments are linked to the US missile defense system. In the Pacific the US boasts more than 20 ground-based interceptors, 18 sea-based missiles, hundreds of PAC-3 Patriots and intends to create a multi-layered system with hundreds of interceptors to include other programs like the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and the Airborne Laser (ABL). These systems are guided by early warning satellites, radar complexes and more than a dozen Aegis-equipped cruisers and destroyers.

The growing US-Japanese missile shield seriously diminishes North Korea’s fledgling missile threat and the second order effect is to marginalize China’s strategic balance and perhaps even Russia’s.

Pyongyang is believed to have more than 800 ballistic missiles, including a few which could potentially strike the US homeland. Most are old Soviet-era Scuds and the communist state has developed a medium-range missile, the Nodong, and a long-range missile based on Scud technology, the Taepodong.

North Korea sells ballistic missiles to nations like Iran, Syria, and Pakistan. It also tests missiles and shakes its nuclear weapons program rattle to create regional tension that is used to leverage blackmail payments of food and fuel oil in exchange for empty disarmament promises. Although soon to be deterred, it is unlikely Japan’s missile shield will persuade Pyongyang to abandon its misguided activities.

China’s reaction to Japan’s test was cautious. “We hope the Japanese side will act in ways that help to safeguard regional peace and stability and that promote mutual trust between its nations in the area,” Qin Gang, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman.

Beijing’s primary “regional peace” concern is Taiwan. The communist regime wants the break-away island nation back under its iron fist and intends to make that happen either by diplomatic coercion or military force.

The Peoples Liberation Army has arrayed an impressive armada of short-range ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan. Should China exercise the military option then Japan’s BMD linked with the US’s fleet of Aegis cruisers could make that operation very expensive for the communists.

Beijing’s “stability” concern is that Japan’s BMD impacts the credibility of its small intercontinental ballistic missile fleet. The Red Chinese have 20 nuclear-tipped, silo-based, liquid-fueled CSS-4 ICBMs which puts China at the bottom of the major-power table behind France.

China is rebuilding credibility by modernizing its ICMB fleet, however. By 2010, Beijing will add the DF-31 ICBM which is a road-mobile, solid-propellant system and the JL-2, a submarine launched ballistic missile. These strategic weapons will be augmented by new spy satellites, anti-spacecraft lasers and “information warfare units” that can attack western technologies.

China has launched its own missile shield project as well. Beijing recently tested an interceptor missile that downed a high-flying reconnaissance plane. Its spokesman claims, “We can intercept not only high-flying reconnaissance planes or missiles but also low-flying targets.”

Russia, both a European and Asian country, is impacted by BMD programs on both flanks. President Vladimir Putin objects to a proposed US BMD system in Poland and the Czech Republic which is intended to defend against Iranian missiles much like Japan’s BMD is designed to counter North Korea. But Putin and his generals claim the anti-Iran BMD is really intended to marginalize Russia’s fleet of nuclear missiles. In October, Japan officially rebuffed Russian calls for Tokyo to abandon its BMD as well.

Russia possesses 700 ICBMs and 3,000 nuclear warheads which could quickly overwhelm the combined anti-missile capabilities of the proposed anti-Iranian system, Japan’s emerging shield and the US’ BMD network. Likely, Russia is concerned these shields will eventually be fine-tuned and expanded to deter its vast arsenal.

Russia is doing more than complaining about anti-missile shields, however. It is building better missiles, warheads and beefing up its anti-missile shield.

In mid-December, a Russian submarine in the Barents Sea test-fired a new ballistic missile which reportedly can elude anti-missile systems. The Kremlin will be ready in January 2008 to operationally deploy a new multiple-warhead missile system equipped with Topol-M multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles. This mobile missile can reach the US with a variety of weapons packages.

In August, Colonel General Alexander Zelin, commander of the Russian air force, announced activation of the first S-400 interceptors as part of Moscow’s improved missile defense. The S-400 reportedly can reach out 250 miles and stop missiles with ranges greater than 2,000 miles.

Japan’s missile shield may not be directly responsible for China’s or Russia’s decision to expand missile arsenals and BMD systems. Whatever the reason, these nations and others are investing in more sophisticated missiles that could ratchet-up global tension and further proliferation of ballistic missiles to other states and non-state actors.

Then again the presence of missile shields in places like Japan might convince rogues that the days of ballistic blackmail are over. For larger countries like Russia and China, effective western BMD systems might convince them to see the futility of investing in another bottomless arms race. Let’s hope for the later.

By: Robert Maginnis- Human Events

The assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto will destabilize Pakistan for the near term, the January 8th parliamentary elections will be probably be postponed, but the worst outcome will be the increased Talibanization of that country, the region. The US shares some responsibility for this mess because it created the deal that brought Bhutto home.

Yesterday, crowds outside the hospital where Bhutto was pronounced dead chanted “Dog, Musharraf, Dog” and “Long live Bhutto!” and “Musharraf is a murderer!” Her followers believe Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf is behind the assassination in part because of the backroom deal mediated by the US which turned messy.

In mid-2007, the US pushed for a deal in which Musharraf would remain as president but step down as military head, and Bhutto could come home with a chance to become prime minister.

The US objective has been to keep Musharraf in power because as President Bush has said, the General has been a “good ally” in the war on terror. Unfortunately, some of Musharraf’s allies objected to Washington’s power-sharing arrangement which might explain events that led to Bhutto’s troubled home coming and her assassination.

The US-Pakistan deal started with a warming-up campaign by both Bhutto and Musharraf. Bhutto would publicly support Musharraf and keep her followers in line. Musharraf would take off his general’s uniform but remain president.

Bhutto struck first by publicly endorsing Musharraf’s tough actions at Islamabad’s Red Mosque. “I’m glad there was no cease-fire with the militants in the mosque because cease-fires simply embolden the militants,” Bhutto told Britain’s Sky TV. She continued, “We have to stop appeasing the militants.”

In October, Bhutto restrained her political allies by forcing them to remain quiet when Musharraf won the parliamentary election for president. Bhutto’s Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) refused to join the opposition’s boycott of the election.

Musharraf eased Bhutto’s transition by releasing her frozen funds and right before her return in October the general signed the National Reconciliation Ordinance giving her amnesty in all court cases against her including all corruption charges. These actions set Bhutto up for a return to a possible third term as prime minister.

Bhutto’s assassination was on both their minds, however. Musharraf sent her a message asking her to reconsider returning to Pakistan. But she came anyway and after the October 18 assassination attempt she answered Musharraf’s letter. She accused “certain individuals [within the government] who abuse their positions, who abuse their powers” to advance the cause of Islamic militants.

Her relationship with Musharraf once back home was a complicated and constantly shifting game that included both public hostility and private negotiation. Musharraf postponed parliamentary elections and then imposed emergency rule. After Musharraf declared emergency rule on November 3rd, Bhutto was placed under house arrest on two different occasions, but allowed to make public appearances.

For her part, Bhutto started attacking Musharraf publicly for refusing to permit democratic reforms and power-sharing. She proved to be a powerful political figure for Musharraf, however.

Last month, Bhutto announced that her PPP would participate in general elections but reserved the right to boycott “if they have been rigged,” Bhutto said. She warned, “Unless General Musharraf reverses the course it will be very difficult to have fair elections.” She blamed Pakistan’s current political crisis on Musharraf’s “dictatorship.”

Of course, she has a strong political track record. In the 2002 general elections her party secured the highest number of votes (28.4%) and eighty seats in the national assembly. This time around she embraced a populist platform promising five E’s: employment, education, energy, environment, equality.

Bhutto was the most popular candidate running and her PPP was expected to win enough seats for her to become prime minister.

On December 15, Musharraf bowed to political pressure from both Washington and at home to lift the six-week state of emergency and take off his uniform. The election would go forward and to Musharraf’s dismay Bhutto would likely get what she came home for – the prime ministership.

That dream will never happen. She was gunned down while campaigning and likely her assassin is a jihadist linked with the Taliban. All the recent attempts on her life wouldn’t have been possible without the jihadists being enabled by elements within the government because many inside Musharraf’s government feared a Bhutto victory. The culprits could be as Bhutto alleged in her letter to Musharraf the same Islamists with Pakistani security/intelligence connections.

It’s noteworthy that Bhutto was once a Taliban supporter. She was in power when the Taliban took power in Kabul in September 1996. At the time, she viewed the Taliban as a group that could stabilize Afghanistan and enable trade access to its northern neighbors. It’s reported that her government provided military and financial support for the Taliban. Recently, however, she has distanced herself from the Taliban to condemn their terrorist acts.

Her switch might have cost her life. After all, Pakistan has experienced a recent and serious upsurge in Taliban activities. Musharraf’s state of emergency was in direct response to the radical Talibanization spread across Pakistan.

The immediate impact of Bhutto’s death will be a backlash in the form of violence. Also, the parliamentary elections which are less than two weeks away will be postponed in part because of predictable allegations by the PPP that Bhutto’s assassination was a government conspiracy. The just anounced re-imposition of martial law will suppress the media’s access to the facts as well. We may never know the truth.

The more troubling outcome could be the further Talibanization of Pakistan and the implications that has for the region. That government could well become very radical, worse than Afghanistan was in 2001.

The West’s best hope is that Pakistan’s military will restrain the violence and slow the jihadists. The last thing the region needs is Pakistan with its 80 nuclear weapons and a phalanx of ballistic missiles falling into the hands of Islamic radicals. That could happen.

Things still could turn out brighter. Our best hope is that Pakistan’s secular military will control the assassination-related violence and the elections will go forward and moderate democrats will be elected in place of radical Islamists. That’s what the Bush administration had hoped would be the case and with Bhutto as the prime minister.

By: – Robert Maginnis

The Annapolis Mideast peace summit could be an example of the management phenomenon known as the Abilene paradox. Creator Jerry Harvey says the phenomenon occurs when groups “take actions in contradiction to what they really want to do and therefore defeat the very purposes they are trying to achieve.”

Read more….

By: – Robert Maginnis

An American private security contractor that protects State Department personnel in Iraq may be kicked out of the country because its employees reacted with gunfire to a perceived threat.

Read more….

By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

On Monday, General David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq, testified before two House of Representatives committees to provide his long-awaited Iraq war assessment. He provided plenty of evidence that the security surge is working and painted a complex threat picture that includes a more aggressive Iran. The general finished by tossing the Congress a political football by recommending a force reduction and mission shift plan that begins this month but stretches out for unspecified years to come.

Read more….

By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

In June, Chinese military crackers, people who try to gain unauthorized access to computer networks as opposed to hackers who are simply computer enthusiasts, successfully gained access to a Pentagon computer network. Those crackers are members of the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) computer network operations (CNO), the cutting edge of Red China’s maturing information warfare capability.

Read more….

By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

On June 12, 1987 President Ronald Reagan spoke at West Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate to challenge Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev to “tear down this wall!” That wall did crumble and millions of former Soviets were freed. But the Russian Federation, which rose from the ashes of the Soviet Union, is rebuilding its military and the Cold War “Russian bear” our fathers knew may prove to be mild-mannered in comparison to the new one emerging from geopolitical hibernation.

Read more….

By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

The US has tried to fix the Iraqi political process before General David Petraeus, US commander in Baghdad, and Ryan Crocker, US Ambassador to Iraq, deliver their much anticipated mid-September report to Congress.

Read more….