There’s a new Afghanistan war plan. Last fall, NATO commander General Stanley McChrystal rolled out more restrictive rules of engagement, heralding a “population-centric” approach to the war. U.S. President Barack Obama announced more U.S. troops. While U.S.-led forces in eastern Afghanistan doubled their efforts to prop up faltering local governance, troops in the south identified Taliban strongholds in Marjah and Kandahar and went on the offensive. “Has the U.S. broken the Taliban’s momentum?” reporter Nathan Hodge asked. Maybe. But there are new risks, too: the Dutch might pull out of a key southern province, and Afghan national leadership remains weak. The war might be going our way, for once, but it’s far from over. David Axe and Greg Scott head to “The ‘Stan” to see for themselves.

Aeromedical Evacuation Team at Bagram. David Axe photo.

by DAVID AXE

The job’s never easy. But it does get easier. That’s what 25-year-old Staff Sergeant Ryan Phillips told me as we shared a pair of rear-facing jumpseats in the cargo hold of an Alabama Air National Guard KC-135R tanker bound from Ramstein, Germany, to Bagram, Afghanistan on March 7. Phillips is an aeromedical evacuation technician. He and his teammates transport injured troops from Afghanistan to hospitals in Europe and the U.S.

On this day, they had brought along 12 stretchers, stacked three high in four columns bolted to the tanker’s floor. At high altitude, the 1962-vintage tanker gets cold, real cold, so in addition to monitors, bandages and defibrillators, the medical techs also brought plenty of blankets. They would pick up their patients at Bagram in the dead of night and head right back to Germany.

In this job Phillips has seen amputees, burns and other serious injuries. But he said his previous job helped prepare him. Before becoming an aeromedical tech, he worked in the Intensive Care Unit at Balad, Iraq.

The Pentagon spares no expense caring for its wounded warriors. Three weeks ago Phillip’s team was called on to transport a patient with lung injuries. That meant bringing along a special pulmonary team and critical-care specialists in addition to the regular evacuation techs. In one famous case, the Air Force spent $17 million transporting a single patient. In this case, the cost was much lower. Not that it mattered.

Related:
Axeghanistan ‘10: Moon Shot
Axeghanistan ‘10: Down Side of the Surge
Axeghanistan ‘10: “Now You Know More than You Did Five Minutes Ago”

Axeghanistan ‘10: Moon Shot

Posted by: adminin No War
9
Mar

There’s a new Afghanistan war plan. Last fall, NATO commander General Stanley McChrystal rolled out more restrictive rules of engagement, heralding a “population-centric” approach to the war. U.S. President Barack Obama announced more U.S. troops. While U.S.-led forces in eastern Afghanistan doubled their efforts to prop up faltering local governance, troops in the south identified Taliban strongholds in Marjah and Kandahar and went on the offensive. “Has the U.S. broken the Taliban’s momentum?” reporter Nathan Hodge asked. Maybe. But there are new risks, too: the Dutch might pull out of a key southern province, and Afghan national leadership remains weak. The war might be going our way, for once, but it’s far from over. David Axe and Greg Scott head to “The ‘Stan” to see for themselves.

by DAVID AXE

Chilling in Ramstein, Germany, awaiting a flight to Afghanistan, who do we run into but Eugene Cernan, the last man to walk on the moon, plus a bunch of other aerospace legends visiting airmen at Ramstein. Cernan took a few minutes to chat with us about the present and future of spaceflight.

Related:
Axeghanistan ‘10: Down Side of the Surge
Axeghanistan ‘10: “Now You Know More than You Did Five Minutes Ago”

There’s a new Afghanistan war plan. Last fall, NATO commander General Stanley McChrystal rolled out more restrictive rules of engagement, heralding a “population-centric” approach to the war. U.S. President Barack Obama announced more U.S. troops. While U.S.-led forces in eastern Afghanistan doubled their efforts to prop up faltering local governance, troops in the south identified Taliban strongholds in Marjah and Kandahar and went on the offensive. “Has the U.S. broken the Taliban’s momentum?” reporter Nathan Hodge asked. Maybe. But there are new risks, too: the Dutch might pull out of a key southern province, and Afghan national leadership remains weak. The war might be going our way, for once, but it’s far from over. David Axe and Greg Scott head to “The ‘Stan” to see for themselves.

C-17 at Ramstein. David Axe photo.

by DAVID AXE

The downside to the ongoing “surge” of U.S. troops and equipment into Afghanistan is that it can be hard to find space on Air Force jets bound for the country. Landing in Ramstein, Germany, on a Charleston-based C-17 that would be flying on to Iraq, we immediately set about finding a jet bound for Bagram.

For three days, no luck. One KC-135 mission got canceled. A couple of C-17s were too full of urgent equipment. Reporters are understandably a low priority on Air Mobility Command flights, so we had to wait until a flight became available that wasn’t already fully committed to the surge.

It’s Sunday at chilly Ramstein. C-17s, C-5s, C-130s and other mobility aircraft pack the ramp outside the terminal window. We’re booked on a medical-evacuation-equipped KC-135 that should be leaving in a few hours. But if it doesn’t, I won’t be shocked. The Air Force is running at full capacity boosting U.S. forces in Afghanistan. That leaves little room for the press.

It could be worse. Like our colleague Mike Hoffman, we could be trying to get to Kandahar, requiring an additional leg beyond Bagram. Mike’s looking at even longer delays than we are.

Related:
Axeghanistan ‘10: “Now You Know More than You Did Five Minutes Ago”

T-50. Photo via APA.

by DAVID AXE

It was dubbed by some defense analysts as a “game-changer.” Earlier this year, Russia’s newest fighter aircraft rolled down a runway in the country’s Far East for its 47-minute debut flight.

The 72-foot-long, twin-engine T-50 fighter bears a striking resemblance to the U.S. Air Force’s F-22 Raptor, widely considered the most lethal air-to-air fighter aircraft ever produced — so lethal that U.S. law prohibits its export. Yet the United States is buying just 187 F-22s, in order to husband resources for buying larger numbers of the smaller and less powerful F-35 fighters.

The problem, according to two Australian defense analysts, is that in the absence of more F-22s, other U.S. aircraft and ground and naval forces could be “slaughtered en-masse in a shooting war” by enemy T-50s.

The result, suggest Peter Goon and Carlo Kopp writing for the think-tank Air Power Australia, would be no less than a fundamental shift in the strategic balance, as decades of U.S. military superiority crumble — all due to the advent of single weapon systems.

The only solution, Goon and Kopp contend, is for the United States to cancel the F-35, develop a new version of the F-22, and sell the new “Raptor II” to its closest allies, including Japan and Australia. In other words, initiate a regional arms race.

This assessment might seem alarmist, but it’s one shared by lawmakers, military officers and industry officials from the United States and its allies, especially in the Pacific.

High-tech planes, high-stakes posturing, high rhetoric. Welcome to the world of fighter-jet diplomacy. It’s a world where appearances matter as much as substance.

Read the rest at The Diplomat.

Related:
Once More with Feeling: Disband the Air Force!
Warships International Fleet Review: Unmanned Systems Could Help Fill “Fighter Gap”
F-15Cs for Future Ground Attack?
The Many “Beasts” of Kandahar
Drone Snoops over Iran
What do Chinese Experts Think of Russia’s Stealth Fighter?
American Aerospace’s False Doom
Imagining the “Air Force after Next”
The Emerging U.S. Counter-Insurgency Air Force
U.S. Air Force’s Failure of Imagination
Advocating a Systemic View of Air Superiority
What’s Wrong with the F-22?
Gates Budgetpalooza: Air Force Loses Altitude
The Day U.S. Air Power Was Saved from Itself
F-22s versus Russia’s Rusting, Ramshackle Air Force
Analysts: Buy Fighters, or Die
Boeing Unveils New “Stealthy” F-15
Getting the Most from Your New F-22

Juwono Sudarsono served as Minister for Defense under President Abdurrahman Wahid from 1999 to 2000; ambassador to the United Kingdom under President Megawati Soekarnoputri in 2003 and 2004; and Minister for Defense under President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono from 2004 to 2009. Sam Abrams spoke to him in Jakarta in January.

Juwono Sudarsono. Viva News photo.

by SAM ABRAMS

Perhaps it is worth explaining why I am writing about Indonesia when the United States has troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Indonesian doctrine, strategy and organization stems directly from its 1945-to-1950 war for independence, in which the Indonesian military waged a disorganized guerrilla war against the Dutch. After independence, Indonesia was poor and its territory difficult to defend with modern technology. The defense system that developed subsequently was, in a sense, the state co-opting victorious guerrillas: “total people’s defense” doctrine was very similar to classical Maoist insurgency, and the territorial command structure called for military units to be based throughout the country and embedded into local society.

Under this system, officers were assigned to partner with officials at every level of government down to the village level. These territorial commands also executed civic action programs. Against foreign invaders, the army waged guerrilla war; against internal enemies, the army conducted counterinsurgency, and against potential internal enemies, the army practiced preventative counterinsurgency. Today, Indonesia is a democracy, but legacies of previous regimes persist.

In the second part of my interview with Juwono Sudarsono, I ask about reform of the territorial command structure and total people’s defense concept, which had, since independence, provided a base for the military’s dominant, role in society. As all good COINdinistas know, COIN almost mandates a large role for the military in a society where civilian government is weak. Presumably, though, a functioning democracy would not welcome such a role.

WIB: How do you advocate for reforming the territorial command structure and total people’s defense doctrine?

Sudarsono: I would envision no external threat from any country abroad. The real threat is our own weakness, our own poverty, our own inequity in development. I have advocated what I would call the need to balance territorial defense with the use of the integrated command of the army, navy and air force. We lose about $25 billion a year from illicit trafficking because we don’t have the effective capability to interdict or intercept piracy, smuggling and so forth. They’re more powerful, they’re better organized, well financed and have links across the world. This is why [Indonesia] is one of the most poorest countries in the world.

The best we can do is to develop a strategy whereby we put strong emphasis on transport capability, transport vehicles, transport trains and ships, so that by and large the circulation of goods and services in Indonesia can be supported by the military. That is, until civilian authorities can get their act together and develop the country on a much more modern basis.

There’s this hybrid role of the military in support of territorial defense as well as economic defense. It’s very important.

WIB: How do you support, on the one hand, this “hybridity,” and on the other hand maintain momentum for civilian primacy. It seems like there’s a risk of locking into a stasis where the military is relied on to do what would ideally be civilian tasks.

Sudarsono: This is the challenge to my civilian colleagues including those in business. Young professionals in the civilian sector, including young Muslim entrepreneurs, must be engaged in this total defense concept. We define this concept in terms of defense in the 21st century, not the defense of the 1950s and ’60s. The substance of that defense must encompass these two notions of territorial physical defense as well as defense of skills and knowledge.

WIB: Do you include the extreme right and the extreme left in the same category of territorial defense as smuggling and illegal trafficking of stuff? They seem qualitatively different.

Sudarsono: The right extremist is the problem of our day and age that isn’t welcome. So many young men and women in Indonesia still look at what they call the failure of secular democracy. The challenge is to make the secular world much more relevant with the message of justice.

WIB: How do civilians view the military’s social role?

Sudarsono: The one defining moment was December 2004. It was the tsunami. There the depiction of the military as first on the scene. What they did, I think, redeemed what they were — the sort of bad image they had created over the past 20 years before. It was captured on TV and it helped me persuade congressmen, people in Europe, and people in parliament in Australia that the military was still very important in political operations other than war. Emergency response, food, medicine, tents, blankets. The army chief of staff spent two weeks there. He didn’t take a bath for ten days.

Related:
Former Indonesian Defense Minister Speaks Out, Part One
Sam in Indonesia: A-List Treatment
Sam in Indonesia: Security Reform’s Shortfalls, Successes
Sam in Indonesia: Indonesian Military’s Stalled Reform
Indonesian Human Rights Activist Challenges Government
New Defense #2 Raises Concerns
Sam in Indonesia: Deadly Penalty
Former Indonesian Prez Dies
Is Indonesia Actually Corrupt?


U.S. Army photo.

by KYLE MIZOKAMI

According to a report on IGN, game developer Atomic Games has completed work on the 3rd person shooter video game Six Days in Fallujah. The game, based on the actual 2004 Battle of Fallujah, allows the player to realistically experience modern urban warfare from the perspective of a U.S. Marine Corps fire team, complete with “shoot/don’t shoot” situations involving civilians and combatants.

The game quickly became a lightning rod for controversy, with everyone from peace groups criticizing what they consider a game trivializing a “war crime,” to those who objected to the game developers’ interviewing actual insurgent participants to get a feel for the opposing side. In April of last year, game publisher Konami announced it was dropping the title, and huge layoffs were reported at Atomic. Despite all of that, the title is, according to Atomic, “ready to go.”

Video game publishers find themselves walking a find line in today’s games. Many avoid stirring emotions by framing the game in a past war, such as World War II. Others such as last Fall’s Modern Warfare 2 and the upcoming Medal of Honor, set the action in Afghanistan but not within any specific time or place. Atomic Games might have also erred in picking Konami as a publisher. Japan’s pacifist society largely avoids games with war themes, except in a fantasy or cartoon-like context.

Atomic Games originally began as a wargame company, then moved to produce simulations for the U.S. military. At some point, Atomic decided that a game that depicted the war in Iraq would not only be a money maker, but edutainment, entertaining gamers while at the same time showing them the realities of war. Like other forms of media wrestling with the subject of ongoing wars, Six Days in Fallujah does raise some questions.

Is it inappropriate to develop a video game based on an actual, recent battle, and is it fair to those involved in the battle — the soldiers, Marines, insurgents, and civilians — to have the totality of their experience reduced to a video game? Is there genuine value in conveying to a (mostly young male) audience the ambiguities and complexities of modern warfare? Could such edutainment games be a way of conveying extraordinary experiences?

Kyle’s Links 3/5/10

Posted by: adminin No War
9
Mar

by KYLE MIZOKAMI

* Mexican drug cartels warn government: gang war coming, stay out

* Ex-soldiers may be training Naxalites, Indian government claims

* Medvedev wants 9-10 percent of Russian military equipment replaced annually

* Amnesty to U.N.: pulling out of the Congo in 2011 could be “disastrous”

* U.S. Navy on firing spree

Una Moore photo.

by UNA MOORE

One of the curious, Banksy-esque stencils now appearing on Kabul’s walls.

Related:
Unastan: People Died Here
Unastan: Waking to Bombs in Kabul
Unastan: Afghanistan’s Amnesty Law
Unastan: Taliban Blocks Civilian Flight
Unastan: The Situation (in Afghanistan)
Unastan: The Roads of Kabul

From Hirhurim:

  • Reform rabbis suggest interfaith couple blessingslink
  • Ancient Cairo synagogue reopened: link
  • Nefesh B’Nefesh to stage ‘mega’ events in 8 US cities: link
  • David Greenfield condemns negative attack: link

  • Weiss will not ordain Orthodox female rabbis: link
  • NY Times on eruvin and snow: link
  • Controversial bill to permit local rabbis to perform conversions: link
  • Jewish papal knight in Long Island: link
  • OU gets ready for Pesach with annual website: link
  • Jewish group declares lox unkosher because of parasite, causes uproar: link
  • Special ‘Pollard Haggadah’ issued (I’m waiting for the haggadah dedicated to the three kids who allegedly smuggled drugs into Japan): link

There’s a new Afghanistan war plan. Last fall, NATO commander General Stanley McChrystal rolled out more restrictive rules of engagement, heralding a “population-centric” approach to the war. U.S. President Barack Obama announced more U.S. troops. While U.S.-led forces in eastern Afghanistan doubled their efforts to prop up faltering local governance, troops in the south identified Taliban strongholds in Marjah and Kandahar and went on the offensive. “Has the U.S. broken the Taliban’s momentum?” reporter Nathan Hodge asked. Maybe. But there are new risks, too: the Dutch might pull out of a key southern province, and Afghan national leadership remains weak. The war might be going our way, for once, but it’s far from over. David Axe and Greg Scott head to “The ‘Stan” to see for themselves.

by DAVID AXE

Related:
Axeghanistan ‘10: Air Bridge Video
Axeghanistan ‘10: Easier by the Day
Axeghanistan ‘10: Moon Shot
Axeghanistan ‘10: Down Side of the Surge
Axeghanistan ‘10: “Now You Know More than You Did Five Minutes Ago”