NATO Commander Breedlove Discusses Implications of Hybrid War

Outlaw 09- I don't think access to raw resources is a new strategic concern, that has been a driving factor for war since the beginning of history, but I do think globalization is a major factor that we don't fully understand. We love to harp the benefits of globalization, but when we do so at the expense of not recognizing how it destabilizes and threatens some states (to include the U.S.) then we become the proverbial three monkeys (blind, deaf, and mute). I suspect we'll start seeing a backlash against excessive globalization and more of a shift to regional economic blocs over time. Bill Clinton was the first President, I believe, who was a major advocate of what I would call modern hyper-globalization. It is an ideology that has been proven to create as much harm as it does good. Unfortunately, once it becomes an ideology, rational thought is no longer desired. I'm not against anti-globalization, quite the opposite, but we need to take two steps back and look at the bigger picture and assess its real impacts versus the impacts the theories thought it would have and adjust accordingly.

The following link discusses Bill's views on foreign policy, and to Bill C., that doesn't mean every politician in the U.S. embraces that view. In fact, his wife is getting forced to back away from it somewhat. I personally like the vision, but much like the revolution in military affairs (RMA), the theory sounds nice, but in practice it becomes something else.

Link and small excerpt relevant to the topic of NATO.

http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-10.html

"Our Alliances with Europe and Asia are the Cornerstone of Our National Security, but They Must be Constantly Adapted to Meet Emerging Challenges.

These core alliances are today stronger and arguably more durable because they are organized to advance an enduring set of shared interests, rather than to defeat a single threat. President Clinton broke new ground in 1993 by welcoming our European and Asian allies' desire to play a more responsible role while maintaining our troops and adapting our alliances in both regions."

Let's look at strategy from the perspective of:

a. First, George Soros' and his "Global Open Societies" (cir. 1998). And,

b. Then, compare Soros' thoughts to President Obama's -- re: key passages in the President's 2015 National Security Strategy.

Herein, to give some consideration, IN THE CONTEXT OFFERED BY SOROS AND THE PRESIDENT, on (1) greater military spending to NATO versus (2) helping Russia become both more democratic and more prosperous.

PART I: First: Soros, and the fundamental problem of global capitalism, to wit: the NEED for a "global open society:"

"But the real deficiencies are outside the economic field. The state can no longer play the role it played previously. In many ways that is a blessing, but some of the state's functions remain unfulfilled. We do not have adequate international institutions for the protection of individual freedoms, human rights, and the environment, or for the promotion of social justice -- not to mention the preservation of peace. Most of the institutions we do have are associations of states, and states usually put their own interests ahead of the common interest. The United Nations is constitutionally incapable of fulfilling the promises contained in the preamble of its charter. Moreover, there is no consensus on the need for better international institutions."

"As regards security and peace, the liberal democracies of the world ought to take the lead and forge a global network of alliances that could work with or without the United Nations. NATO is a case in point. The primary purpose of these alliances would be to preserve peace; but crisis prevention cannot start early enough. What goes on inside states is of consequence to their neighbors and to the world at large. The promotion of freedom and democracy in and around these alliances ought to become an important policy objective. For instance, a democratic and prosperous Russia would make a greater contribution to peace in the region than would any amount of military spending by NATO. Interfering in other countries' internal affairs is fraught with difficulties -- but not interfering can be even more dangerous."

"With the passage of time the deficiencies are likely to make their effect felt, and the boom is likely to turn into a bust. But the ever-looming breakdown can be avoided if we recognize the flaws in time. What is imperfect can be improved. For the global capitalist system to survive, it needs a society that is constantly striving to correct its deficiencies: a global open society."

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/98jan/opensoc.htm

PART II: Next: President Obama and his determination to (1) CREATE a global open society -- so as to (2) provide for global capitalism:

"Underpinning it all, we are upholding our enduring commitment to the advancement of democracy and human rights and building new coalitions to combat corruption and to support open governments and open societies. In doing so, we are working to support democratic transitions, while also reaching out to the drivers of change in this century: young people and entrepreneurs."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_secur…

Anyone, other than me, see the similarity in certain words, phrases and purposes -- this, Soros and Obama?

PART III: Thus, and re: strategy we have:

a. The master that strategy must serve (not the U.S. or the western world but, rather, global capitalism). And

b. The deficiency that must be overcome in this regard (the need for a global open society). These matters being resolved, then

c. The goal of strategy must be to produce such a global open society.

d. In this regard to see the common purpose -- if not the common approach -- of both our recent past, and indeed our present, national security strategies?

SACEUR nails exactly what I have been saying for a year now--this White House has no strategy for Russian and has basically not been leading at all in Europe and has left it for the French and Germans.

On top of it all they vastly under estimated Putin and his military--even the SACEUR admits national IC also blew it--too many years at fighting COIN which has been basically heading since 9/11 in the wrong direction

US leadership in Europe "perhaps more important now than at any time in recent history"

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/commander-of-us-militar… … pic.twitter.com/zxPjdZST4g

This is the result when one does not immediately push back on Russian non linear warfare. "Soft power" was never the correct way forward starting with Crimea and the economic nuclear option of "cutting Russia from SWIFT" should have been the way forward. Putin always uses "negotiations" as a "time killer" in order to achieve other goals.

This is one of those "what the heck" comments from Putin--meaning when Minsk 2 has completely fallen apart in the last few days he is blowing smoke on "what progress" when he cannot even support a simple thing called a "ceasefire". So is this statement for Russian internal consumption or western consumption????? Russian has been in total non compliance and yet he claims the West is basically approving Russian actions as being "positive" and DC sees this smokescreen right?????

Russia Says Western Leaders Note Progress In Cease-Fire In Ukraine http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-france-ukraine-germany-cease-fire-p… … via @RFERL 30 April

Gen. @PMBreedlove: Crisis "is about more than just Ukraine. Russian activities are destabilizing neighboring states"

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/commander-of-us-militar… …

It has been from the beginning about Putin's three geo political "end states"--non linear warfare has always just been the "means".

One has to "love" the Iranian creative messaging at work--now the court document allowing for the seizure is from an unnamed Iranian company rumored to be under control of the IRGC and then this today:

Maersk Tigris Held By Iranians Over 10-Year Old Missing Cargo http://gcaptain.com/maersk-tigris-at-anchor-in-bandar-abbas-crew-safe/ …

Really ---stopping a ship in the legal open waters over a ten year old alleged missing cargo by an "unnamed" Iranian company alleged to be IRGC owned makes for a great script so "WHAT" was the real reason especially after the IRGC actions the previous Friday??

This particular ship has been in and out of Iran multiple times over the past years and NOW the court "finds something"??

AND this is not an intended "message" for the US and our reaction was what again--"we are monitoring the situation"??

BTW--the US was extremely quick to point out (really quick to point out) the ship was "technically" in Iranian waters while in the Strait but per the online ship tracker it was not.

The first incident never made western media it seems:

Four Iranian vessels surrounded US-flagged Maersk Kensington in Strait of Hormuz last Friday http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/28/politics/iran-seizes-commercial-ship-u-s-… …

2 dangerous IRGCN incidents in 4 days with Maersk vessels in the Gulf...it's almost like the Pasdaran are sending USG a message ....

IRGC was probably gauging US response in preparation for today's seizure

Evidently the freighter was in fact in international waters so actually either an act of war or piracy--either way a new version of non linear warfare--one cannot twist the words as in the Ukraine ie incursion vs invasion.

Maersk Tigris was clearly in international waters and diverted by Iranian navy pic.twitter.com/3hVbLy0KlG

MV Tigris can be tracked via this online ship tracking program--still heading to port--last reported location was just over two hours ago.

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:56.28555/centery:27.01…

There was a warning about IRGC small boat threat === apparently did not raise many eyebrows.

Notice to Mariners put out 26 April warning of IRGC small boat threat after Kensington incident but little noticed

RC--right out of my 60s SF training for sabotage of rail lines--classic attack common to all behind lines UW ops.

Sabotage attack right out of the 60s USSF handbook—conducted on rail line inside Russia that leads to the Ukraine—then photo and location uploaded via social media in near real time for the rear to analyze

pic.twitter.com/ULcplLbd1F

Second "rumored" sabotgage UW operation from today--classical attack against a major ammo depot AND just across the border-thus doable.

Alleged to have been started by a "fire" after a SPG blew up.

#Rostov rgn: Field ammo depot on fire photo @GirkinGirkin pic.twitter.com/d1mFaZW4Oq see https://twitter.com/loogunda/status/592949760899833856 …

View from Taganrog :) Russian Army ammo/fuel dump burning, western Rostov region 28 April (via @GirkinGirkin) pic.twitter.com/juZR8v237Q

RC--you might find this article agrees with most of what you are saying--probably one of the best currently available analysis of Russian military moves.

http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_russias_military_options_in_ukrai…

BTW has been an interesting shift in the Syrian fighting with the Sunni moderates and even the Islamists recently uniting multiple times on the battlefield to defeat Assad forces and are on a roll right now--we see a number of things at play that were not there six months ago;

1. far better tactical coordination between the Sunni fighting groups following a clear tactical strategy which means to me--western intel agencies are in the fight now --even the Sunni fighting groups have taken on IS and defeated them as well
2. a tactical shift to using the US TOW and French MILAN ATMs to dominate the battlefield as Assad relied heavily on tanks and APCs
3.--this is the interesting piece--when after winning a fight instead of headlong racing onto the next town or city was is typical for Arab fighters-there is a methodical hold in place, then reorg and then selection of the next target sets--ie influenced now by western intel or via the KSA intel

BUT it has been the TOW and MILAN that have tipped the fight--THAT is why the TOW is so important for the Ukraine--many in DC state they are afraid of the UA going on the offensive but they fully understand their weaknesses--they just need to take the armor advantage away from the Russians and then the price for Russia climbs beyond what they are willing to pay--the same for counter battery to take some of the artillery pressure off them.

Taken from the above linked article:

The myth of Russian escalation dominance

Western policymakers, particularly in Western Europe, often say “there is no military solution to the conflict”. The phrase is misleading and self-defeating. All military conflicts are ended by diplomatic agreements – but the military situation dictates the terms of the agreement. And as long as the West refrains from further engagement, Russia can pursue its own military solution.

As long as the West refrains from further engagement, Russia can pursue its own military solution.

Moreover, the idea that Russia will escalate the conflict as soon as Western lethal aid arrives in Kyiv is out of touch with reality. In Russian propaganda, Russia is already fighting a proxy war in Ukraine against NATO, the US, or a Western conspiracy. Russia does not care whether its lies are “confirmed” by the West’s actions or not. Russia refrains from total escalation because of costs, not Western behaviour. Russia’s aggressive rhetoric aims to scare off the West – the more seriously the West takes Moscow’s empty threats, the more effective they are.The problem for Moscow is that as long as the US are able to shift forces to the European continent, the West will be capable to mount a military response Russia cannot match. Russia knows that it would lose a major war with the West. But this situation would change if Russia could split the West, especially by splitting the US from Europe. And Russia knows that Western policy makers are hesitant to resort to military means – hence Russia uses military threats for intimidation. Especially nuclear threats are aimed at subverting Western unity and willingness to react to Russian aggression. Since 2008, top Russian officials have threatened to use deep nuclear strikes against selective high-value targets should the West interfere in a conflict in Russia’s immediate neighbourhood. Vladimir Putin entered this game for the first time during the annexation of Crimea, with his remarks about raising the state of alert of Russia’s nuclear weapons. In the past, aggressive rhetoric about pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons formed part of an intimidation strategy to dissuade Europe from engaging in Russia’s “sphere of influence”. But the West could escalate even a nuclear war to Russia’s disadvantage.

Russia is betting that in a nuclear game of chicken, the West would back down first.

However, if Russia finds that it cannot deter the West with these kinds of threats, it will hardly escalate further. The West possesses the ultimate escalation dominance. And as long as the West is ambiguous about the support it will provide Kyiv, Russia needs to be careful about the risks it is prepared to take.

AND the shelling attacks just keep on intensifying AND then we get this from the Germans--that the Ukraine needs to implement the Minsk 2 agreement--notice it is not Germany that is getting shelled IN direct violation of Minsk 2 WHICH Germany says nothing about--is in fact Germany shifting to a proRussian stance?????

The first three key points have never been implemented by the Russian troops and her mercenaries;
1. full exchange of all POWs-stopped by Russia
2. full verified pullback of all heavy weapons of more than 100mm--and what is being fired today at the UA positions heavy artillery and MRLSs which are back at the contact line
3. a "true ceasefire" meaning no shooting

"Germany urges Ukraine to fulfil Minsk ceasefire agreement" http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/51a31...#axzz3YUeO9Kba …

This is exactly how the Ukraine is holding to Minsk 2--heavy artillery shellings with man sized craters and direct tank fire AND they only respond with 82mm mortars?????

Rus proxies attacked UA troops in #Shyrokyne all day long, used 120,152mm weapons. UA command allowed response w 82mm http://www.0629.com.ua/news/810008

THEN this minutes ago and the Ukraine is to respond using 82mm mortars--AND still today not a single verbal response to the increased shellings by the Germans, French or the US.

Reports of at least 5 rockets launched from #Novoazovsk, smoke column in the air, possibly fired towards #Shyrokyne. Tornado rockets?

BREAKING
The @OSCE_SMM counted 17 main battle tanks, 3 self-propellered howitzers & 60(!!!) armored fighting vehicles 50 km N of #Shyrokyne

Here is a comment indicating exactly what I have been mentioning about the role of Germany and France in basically telling the Ukraine to hold to Minsk 2 meaning they are getting shelled and attacked now at a level that is full warfare AND yet nothing is being stated/done by France, Germany AND the US.

Means even the Ukrainians while being shelled and attacked are simply not returning fire and the Russians know that and just keep raising the attack numbers. Ukrainians loss numbers are climbing as a result.

WHY is that? AND at the same time nothing is being undertaken by Germany, France and the US to increase the pressure on Russia--Why is that?

Consistent reports, incl. by @FT: #Merkel & #Hollande R twisting #Ukraine hands 2 make us fulfil #Minsk deal - WHILE RUSSIA'S BREAKING IT.

EVEN OSCE yesterday took note of the massive shelling and indicated the massing of Russian troops.

At least they make comments but that is about it.

Sigh.

Move Forward:

We are discussing whether the (purported) "universal appeal" -- and "great positive galvanizing power" -- of our way of life, our way of governance and our corresponding values, attitudes and beliefs (a) ring true and (b) have value; this, in the following foreign policy and national security sense, to wit: as to whether these such ideas and influence tend to cause native populations, thus inspired, to:

(1) Stay in their countries.

(2) Fight and defeat our (and their) enemies therein. (Those with differing state and societal ordering ideas.) Thereafter, these like-minded natives:

(3) Working diligently -- with us -- to transform their states and societies such that these might become organized, oriented and ordered more along modern western political, economic and social lines.

It is in this specific foreign policy and national security sense that we must, I believe, determine whether the "universal appeal" -- and "great positive galvanizing power" -- of our way of life, our way of governance, etc., (a) exists and, if they exist, (b) have the power needed to achieve our goals.

Move Forward:

In this regard, the information that you provide above and below, while being both very interesting and, indeed, very inspiring, appears to have, would you agree, little or no bearing?

Sigh. If the U.S. is not a “great positive galvanizing power” with “universal appeal,” you can’t get much closer despite the propaganda of naysayer competitors. Just about anything is possible in the U.S. and thankfully we get more lions than sheep as Outlaw puts it. Even those who choose to stay in their native lands realize the potential our country offers:

• President Obama’s father was not an American. Two Republican 2016 candidates are sons of Cuban immigrants. A former California governator started out in Austria as a weight lifter turned actor. The Governors of Louisiana and South Carolina both have Indian immigrant parents.

• Most of us have stayed in mom and pop motels owned by immigrants. Our local Dairy Queen was purchased and greatly improved by Pakistani immigrants. How many of us have eaten at Mexican restaurants owned by early generation immigrants?

• A local club friend is the son of Indian immigrants and recently married an Indian woman who came to the U.S. Another friend from that club works for a German metal pipe company that gets steel in part from a German steel factory near Mobile. Airbus has factories in the relative vicinity as does an Australian ship manufacturer Austral.

• I predict Dr. Madhu is the daughter of Indian immigrants.

• My son and his friend rent a farmhouse from a Greek elderly couple who have operated 7 restaurants over the year. They are now U.S. citizens although they still own a villa in Greece.

• My daughter attended medical school with numerous early generation immigrant kids. She was roommates for over a year with a daughter of African immigrants.

• Years ago as a temp my daughter worked briefly at a Hyundai plant with many immigrants and drove by a Mercedes plant frequently near the University of Alabama. I’ve owned numerous Japanese cars over the years and many were built in the southern U.S. When we visit our kids we pass Michelin and BMW factories en route off I-85.

• My wife is half German. Her now U.S. citizen mother married a G.I. and now lives in the U.S. Her mother still cries when telling the story of leaving the now Czech Republic with her parents as a young child and witnessing a German Soldier shoot and kill someone who refused to give up jewelry before getting on a train fleeing the Soviets.

• At a recent event with thousands of attendees, people spoke about the need to retain jobs at the local military base. A local German woman business owner spoke eloquently about her support for Soldiers and the local city chamber and her retired G.I. husband also spoke.

• Another local German woman recently retired from Walmart where she worked many years to include as a manager.

Notice that none of these folks came from current enemy countries although some were past enemies and allies. We are a melting pot nation that unfortunately has mistakenly assumed that other countries could govern and conduct free market commerce identically. When they couldn’t, refugees and immigrants often resulted from resulting in-fighting frequently aggravated by neighbors. Russians and Chinese are not our enemies either nor are their governments. They are trading partners in many cases who occasionally do dumb stuff threatening neighbors which is how most U.S. war involvement unfortunately has begun…not due to recent U.S. expansionism/colonialism or desire to seize and retain other’s territory.

If you think about it, just about anyone here can cite similar anecdotes. Suspect many of these immigrants and sons/daughter thereof stay in contact with others in their former countries and relay the truth about the U.S. rather than the ill-conceived spin and conspiracy theories.

Bill C--I have been commenting here too many times on our weak President and his NSC and no strategy anywhere to be seen that makes any coherent sense.

This social media quote today from a major ongoing conference seems to hit it on the head:

Brilliant by @AnIllarionov - sheep led by lion will beat lions led by sheep. West losing because of weak leadership/willpower

BTW--I have been repeating this mantra for awhile now as the core driver for the Russian/Putin three geo political goals which is the end state he is driving for using non linear warfare as the "means".

Putin wants grand bargain with US: divide Europe into spheres if influence again, says Andrei Illarionov at #lennartmeri

Putin approach is not 19th century -- it is to restore 1945 Yalta-Potsdam world says @AnIllarionov

Reference your comment of the ability of Russians to get outside information upon which to makes their own decisions:

"Only 2% of Russian TV is on domestic issues," says @peterpomeranzev. "The 98% of the rest is Putin with kittens and chaos in Ukraine."

Former finance minister says Moscow wages information war against its own citizens https://meduza.io/en/news/2015/04/24/former-finance-minister-says-mosco… … via @meduza_en

We need to remember that Phases seven and eight of the Russian non linear warfare use conventional forces.

If this does not grab attention in DC --not sure what will??

@NATO spokeperson - Separatists in #Ukraine have now more tanks than most of EU member states

There was even a convoy of T-90s spotted crossing into the Ukraine yesterday and more heavy weapons seem to be crossing today from Russia.

A major Russian offensive is just days away now as the shellings have taken on a softing up tactic, heavy weapons ie tanks, heavy artillery and MRLSs have been moved to the contact line and Russian troops and her mercenaries are in large really large exercises which will allow them to go straight into offensive operations without a warning of any kind.

Surprising that in non linear warfare the Russian military is still using their old fashioned battle tactics of the WW2 even though we are in the 21st century.

<blockquote>I’m not opposed to a Revolution in Military Affairs. If we managed to master UW that would definitely be a RMA. The problem is what many consider a revolution in most weapon systems is in fact an evolution – not a revolution - from the systems that ensured victory in WW2. The RMA of WW2 was driven by the very necessary and honorable objective to annihilate the enemy in order to end a world war that cost 150 million lives.

The pinnacle RMA - the nuclear attack on Japan - probably spared the lives of ten million people. From the incredibly tough fighting on Iwo and Okinawa the US expected a million US casualties taking the Japanese homeland. As it happened there were no US casualties and perhaps 250K Japanese dead – a typical week of B-29 firebombing. A miraculous turn of events delivered by a revolutionary weapon.

The problem is this type of war is currently redundant and much of the RMA it inspired likewise. </blockquote>

Suspect we largely agree that RMA is problematic, but that has little to do with modernizing ground forces which largely are left out of most RMA and “offset strategy” concepts and procurements. High RMA costs are most prevalent in USAF and Navy airpower, naval, and nuclear forces. Lack of actual procurement of modernized systems and early cancellations are a problem the Army has experienced.

To be sure, the firebombing of Tokyo and Germany killed far more enemy civilians than two smallish atomic bombs. But as we both know, megatons of current hydrogen bombs would lay waste to far more civilians. That is why A2/AD and offset strategy concepts of deep penetration using bombers and missiles are so dangerous a strategy insofar as they easily could lead to mistakes in escalation. In contrast, ground forces providing forward deterrence present no nuclear escalation threat. And unlike SF/SOF and CIA UW tools, they often possess the requisite armor and anti-armor capability to deter and fight if necessary enemy armored and aircraft elements. Their armor also helps to withstand enemy indirect fires which threaten lighter forces and SF/SOF more than they do Stryker and armored BCTs.

<blockquote>The enemy respects this overwhelming power and neutralizes it by ‘swimming in the sea of people’. We stupidly keep deploying more and more powerful annihilators until we disappear up our own ass and go home beaten and broke. We have invested huge amounts of treasure for a form of war-fighting that is currently redundant. Certainly, as you point out, the proportion of our taxes invested is not as significant as in the past but in a liberal democracy, wherein soccer mums decide who governs the country, we have to prioritize.

Obviously the reason it is redundant is our supreme ability to annihilate and we need to maintain the capacity (something the Europeans, and recently even the Brits, have forgotten) but we need to adjust as we are taking hits and bleeding out.</blockquote>

The problem of enemies hidden “swimming in the sea of people” is that without boots on the ground we cannot drive enemies into the open. When only one quarter of current flights against ISIL actually release ordnance and those often involve tactical small targets, it reflects the problem of relying on airpower without the ground facilitators needed to optimize air attacks. In addition, you can bomb to your heart’s delight and not put a dent in subsequent stabilization problems that only boots on the ground enforcing smart diplomacy can achieve.

Redundancy in capability to annihilate is not the problem. Cost of modernized ground systems also is not the primary issue as most soccer moms are conservatives who would support that. It is the single moms, the ignorantly uninformed masses and worse, the college-educated in other areas who think-they-are-informed that vote against broader use of ground force and forward deterrence.

<blockquote>What we need to do is uncouple our revolutionary targeting ability from the annihilation legacy of WW2. Currently our war-winning targeting capability is being completely undermined by the ‘destroy the village in order to save it’ mode. All the hell-yeah tough guy talk of bomb them and let Allah sort it out doesn’t work when a western liberal democracy is paying the bill.

The ISI, Mabahith, FSB believe it does but that is what makes them fascists.</blockquote>

The fact that we are not fascists and will never again fire bomb and cause indiscriminate collateral damage is why all Joint forces require precision annihilation capability. The wholesale carpet bombing of Vietnam and even Desert Storm can now be replicated with greater precision and effect using far less ordnance. However, credible ground forces must be present threatening enemies embedded within urban areas to force them into the open for targeting. A UW force embedded with allied militaries unfortunately either lacks the credibility to force large enemies into the open, as exemplified by ISIL and Iraq forces, or is so well hidden to avoid being targeted themselves that the enemy does not know it should expose itself to fight.

<blockquote>The perfect example of the folly of slaving precision to HE in the current fight is the killing of OBL. For a good 3 months we just stared at him pacing his courtyard, hoeing his vegetable patch and milking his cow. Our decision-makers were caught on the horns of the dilemma by the inadequacy of our RMA. The only option the entire RMA arsenal offered was to annihilate the compound and possibility damaging many neighboring dwellings.

Despite the fact they could probably hit him with the nose-cone of a JDAM whilst he milked his cow they would have to flatten the whole compound to ensure it was him and not the only other 6’ 7” man on the Asian landmass. Not to mention a dozen innocent children, no positive ID of success, a more blatant violation of Pak sovereignty etc.etc.</blockquote>
As someone who once taught Hellfire gunnery, I would argue that OBL could have been taken out with something smaller than a JDAM. But that would have required overflight much farther inland into Pakistan than is typical of most UAS/RPA flights at medium altitudes and slow speeds. To be clear, I know nothing about CIA or military UAS/RPA attacks into Pakistan but have seen 1:250,000 maps of frequently reported attack sites that are close to the AfPak border, not as far inland as Abottabad. True a stealth F-22 might have done the job but I’m not sure the small diameter bomb was an option back then at half the weight of a JDAM. The net result was a rather gutsy decision to use SOF and their aircraft to do the job to ensure he was dead---and gather all kinds of information on computers in the process.

However, that is the rare HVT/HVI option as opposed to something like Ukraine where lots of conventional targets are present. In Iraq and Syria, lots of hidden targets are embedded that ground forces could force into the open to optimize both ground and air discriminate attacks without killing many civilians. But if the National Command Authority is unwilling to use all his Joint tools, then airpower will continue to be only marginally effective and stability operations will never occur.

Even the night raid, "drone" strike, and SF/SOF option does not always work as exemplified by the collateral damage of two aid workers back in January when other al Qaeda members were killed. However, that just shows that USAID without the protection of boots on the ground is never going to be a solution. The sad result of those who try to do the right thing peacefully has too often resulted recently in beheadings, captivity, and now collateral damage. The last thing we need is such collateral damage becoming an excuse not to employ the useful tool of UAS/RPA strikes that so successfully have kept threat leaders on the defensive or in the grave.

<blockquote>All fantastic stuff but we would need 100K SF and 10K stealth helicopters if we did this to every bad guy who deserved it and many of those would have considerably more than two sleeping guards, 20 odd women and kids and a mud wall as a defense. This is obviously impossible and the ISI, IS, FSB and assorted Fruitcake know it.

It is this lack of power to deal with opponents who understand a western liberal democracy can’t afford the political cost of a war of annihilation that has caused all our defeats since WW2. My contempt for what many consider to be RMA is not a rejection of revolutionary technology it is a rejection of the folly of military design created by people who do not understand the kind of war we need to be capable of fighting.</blockquote>

We need to be capable of fighting DPRK infiltrators and regular forces on both sides of the DMZ. We need to be able to defeat and deter Russian T-72s and more modern armor while withstanding their artillery and rockets/missiles. Even Taiwan is an argument for capability to land conventional airborne and air assault forces along with Marines on the east side of the island to fight any PLA invasion.

None of those scenarios can exclusively be solved with 100K SF or SOF aircraft or any UW-exclusive approach and force design. They can be solved with an adequately sized forward-deployed and prepositioned active Army that is modernized and teamed with other Joint and Coalition forces and UW elements.

<blockquote>I have always maintained the strategic reason for mastering CUW is to prevent nuclear proliferation. Already the KSA is saying if Iran goes nuclear they will do likewise. I imagine the day after a Shite bomb is tested the KSA will test the Pak one the Wahhabi paid for. The IS are starting to murder innocents in eastern Afghanistan. The Taliban are appalled their franchise has competition. It will only be a matter of time they start working their ‘magic’ in Pakistan.

Things are beginning to spin out of control.

IMO if we want to stop the downward spiral our effort can be low tech, high tech or no tech - as long as it’s UW.</blockquote>

Not sure I buy your argument that UW is the answer to proliferation either. After all, the Israelis have solved their past nuclear proliferation issues with air attacks into Iraq and Syria. At some point, suspect they may take similar matters into their own hands with air and missile attacks targeting Iran.

Meanwhile, we have other problems deterring elements like ISIL and Putin’s conventional attacks into more of the Ukraine and NATO states. All Joint force elements will be required to succeed in any full scale warfare necessary after failed attempts to appease, sanction, and win by bombing alone, or UW sneaking and peaking without much combat power.

THIS, I believe is what we have to worry about; and it is THIS, accordingly, that I believe that we must address (via CUW or otherwise):

"According to the latest data from the Global Indicators Database, just 23 percent of Russians held a positive feeling toward the United States in 2014, compared with 51 percent the prior year. An October 2014 poll by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center also found that 22 percent of Russians view the United States as the “main source of terrorist threats” to the motherland."

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/27/meet-americas-new-public-enemy-no-1/

These such negative trends in a world in which the Russians (et.al) have greater access -- than every before -- to a very wide range of ideas, opinions, evidence, etc., via the internet and other modern media.

Thus, these negative trends even:

a. In the age of the Internet, etc., and

b. After a full quarter century, post-Cold War; wherein, the United States/the West has had no great power and no great ideological rival.

Even in this amazingly favorable and unprecedented(?) environment, "victory," in terms of more (important?) friends and less enemies has not seemed to come our way.

And this, in spite of the (purported) "universal appeal" -- and "great, positive galvanizing power" -- of our way of life, our way of governance, and our corresponding values, attitudes and beliefs.

Thus, should such negative trends, as outlined above, be viewed from the perspective of [1] the failure of our way of life, our way of governance and our corresponding values, attitudes and beliefs to [2] produce a post-Cold War world in which we had many more friends and many less enemies?

Our CUW approaches, etc., to be both informed by, and undertaken with, this such understanding in mind?

Post Cold War ideas? Really?

There was this document developed over 200 years ago that started like this,

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Clearly American ideas regarding universal values are not new. The people ruled by Saddam, the Taliban, Noriega, Kim Jung un, Stalin, Putin, Crazy Mullahs in Iran, Marcos in the Philippines, Military dictators in Thailand, Maliki in Iraq (now replaced by another proxy), Karzai in Afghanistan (maybe the new President is actually legitimate), etc. didn't and don't represent the majority of the people in their state. In most cases they retained power through terror, facilitated by dividing their people into sects, political groups, and leveraging the strong groups to retain power. Obviously when they're removed from power, there will be an eruption of social and political chaos.

The real issues have little to do with what you claim they are. We went into both Afghanistan and Iraq as a matter of self-defense (real or perceived), and since reinstalling a dictator post Cold War we attempted to do something that we couldn't do. Install a democratic government, neither country was prepared for democracy, so we basically formed illegitimate governments (actually contrary to our ideas), and then defended them, and became part of the problem.

People have to find their own path, we can assist, guide, etc., but we can't impose unless we're going to do so with sufficient force. Note that those who impose us won't hesitate to use sufficient force to impose their way of life. It sure as hell isn't the majority of their population supporting them. I want to see Kim Jung Un removed from power, and while you apparently support a regime that is starving and imprisoning their population, I don't support it. However, removing them and then declaring that the people are free to vote would be crazy. In many cases, these societies will need to develop their human capital before they can pursue a democracy if they want one. As long as the government is seen as legitimate by the people it really doesn't matter if it is a democracy or not. Our Neocons couldn't grasp that idea.

As for the world rejecting our way. I have been around a good part of the world, and I don't see it. I see oppressive leaders who are scared of our way of life. I see religious extremists who leverage anti-Western views to gain political power.

We caused all this? Lenin took power long before we were a superpower. The religious crazies have been fighting for centuries, they can now fight again because of the power of balance has been altered in the Middle East. Yes, we altered the balance of power, but the drivers of this conflict existed long before changed it. IS will be defeated, Iranians will eventually reject the Mullahs, Russia? Who knows, they have a long history (before the U.S. had anything to do with Europe) of seeking empire. War is natural, countries somewhere in the world are at war every year, you can view it as its all our fault if you like. It is certainly in style to do that. We made mistakes, but we don't have near the power you think we do.

You still didn't answer RantCorp's questions addressing why people are fleeing the countries you say reject our life style in large numbers. Again, you choose to ignore facts, and continue to present the same unsupportable argument. You do so on every thread, so that should be a sign it is a conspiracy instead of a theory. You see it everywhere.

This morning in eastern Ukraine--heavy shellings by Russian mercenaries and or Russian troops, movements of heavy weapons in violation of Minsk 2 up to the contact line under the cover of darkness, several large Russian military convoy's spotted next to Ukrainian border yesterday not seen today thus have already crossed into the Ukraine and another today moving across the border as I write this which was videoed.

Minsk 2 is for all practical purposes now dead--AND what is the next US move--silence???

All the "complaining by the US of Russian Minsk violations" via newspapers and social media is not going to stop Putin the last time I checked.

When will this White House realize "soft power ie diplomacy" is dead and buried with Russia?

It has always been about deterrence and or the perception of deterrence and the US currently has none available outside of talking and talking has historically never stopped an aggressor which Russia is even using the Webster's definition standards.

Bill M:

Relying almost completely (and imprudently it now appears) on our belief in the universal appeal and great galvanizing power of our way of life, our way of government, etc., we recently, in fact, got rid of and/or helped get rid of many of the tyrants that you describe, to wit: those who ran what we believed to be oppressive governments (Mubarak, Gaddafi, Saddam, the Taliban, etc.).

The result of this such (imprudent) reliance and these such (ill-advised) removals has not been "success" but, rather, "failure" and, this, on an almost unprecedented scale.

Nicholas Burns, the former United States Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and the former United States Permanent Representative to NATO (both under the George W. Bush presidential administrations), as recently as yesterday characterized the chaos that has resulted from our such imprudent reliance and ill-advised actions as a:

" ... Middle East ... simply broken apart ... four states in open civil war ... a Middle East that we haven't seen really in a hundred years, since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War."

http://www.npr.org/2015/04/22/401540493/yemen-crisis-creates-even-tough…

Thus, "thousands fleeing these (and/or other) countries for the West?" This to be best understood in the "failure" terms addressed by myself and Nicholas Burns above.

Why? Because these such departures (of people with aspirations similar to our own) detracts from -- rather than provides for and supports -- US foreign policy goals and objectives for these countries.

Thus, it is our understanding -- to our great dismay and disappointment -- that our way of life, our way of governance, etc., even post-the Cold War, clearly DOES NOT garner "universal appeal" and clearly DOES NOT generate great galvanizing power (in this regard also, note the decision of the Russian people to support Putin's rather than Western initiatives), that the United States/the West has been forced to go back to "Square One."

"Square One" being the need to redouble our efforts to, indeed, make our way of life, our way of governance, etc., (1) much more universally attractive and (2) much more galvanizing; this, before we consider embarking on such "liberating" actions (and/or NATO expansions?) as we have in the recent past.

RantCorp:

Because, post-the Cold War, we believed in -- and, more importantly, came to rely upon -- the idea of the "universal appeal" of our way of life, etc., we did not foresee, and therefore did not plan on and/or prepare for, a post-Cold War world in which:

a. People (possibly the majority but at least, it appears, the stronger group).

b. Who had values, attitudes and beliefs -- and hopes and aspirations -- diametrically opposed to our own,

c. Would stay, sacrifice, fight and claw -- so that they might "rule the roost."

Thus, and accordingly, we did not foresee, and therefore did not plan and/or prepare for, a post-Cold War world in which::

1. People (possibly the minority but at least, it appears, the weaker group),

2. Who had values, attitudes and beliefs -- and hopes and aspirations -- similar to our own,

3. Would, more or less, throw up their hands, run and hide and/or simply (as you describe above) flee the scene.

This, rather than (as their opposites at "a" - "c" above have shown themselves willing to do) stand and fight.

Likewise, I suggest, the "universal appeal" of our way of life, etc., -- which we relied and acted upon post-the Cold War -- has not been sufficient to cause the people of Russia, in the face of an expanding NATO, to rally to our, rather than their Russian governments' (Yeltsin's and/or Putin's), cause.

Thus, the ending suggestion in my related comment below, to wit: that our effort must be to cause the appeal of our way of life, etc., to become -- unlike it obviously is now -- both (a) more "universal" and (b) more powerful.

This, before we can hope to rely upon it to provide for our safety, security and prosperity.

Final note in this vein:

The fact that we must consider the deployment of military force (and such innovative measures as BPC) in the greater Middle East, in Europe, and in Asia today; this seems to confirm and acknowledge that the appeal of our way of life, our way of governance, etc., is (1) nowhere near "universal" and (2) certainly not powerful enough for us to rely upon. In fact, it (3) -- because of various dumb moves on our part -- may even be heading downhill.