Search This Blog

Friday, July 23, 2010

LESS IS MORE : Arnaud de Borchgrave

 (This is a cross post )


America’s global commitments, from Japan to Germany, from NATO to Afghanistan, from EUCOM to AFRICOM, from the Gulf of Mexico to the Persian Gulf, from USPACOM in Honolulu to CENTCOM in Tampa, Fl., all are being reassessed – at home and abroad. Can a superpower whose infrastructure is rapidly decaying to third world standards in many sectors, and in need of a $1 trillion facelift, afford to be the free world’s gendarme, spending more on defense than the rest of the world put together? 
From a no-win Afghan war, where Pakistan, a “major non-NATO ally,” would be happy to see a reformed Taliban regime rule the tribal roost (sans Al Qaeda); to the perceived need for some 700 U.S. military bases and outposts at home and abroad; to the presence of 75,000 troops in Germany, a country that is cutting defense spending to 2 percent of GDP; to the very purpose of NATO if many of the allies see little value in collective defense -- everything is bound to be part of an agonizing reappraisal.
All these questions should not lead people to conclude the United States can afford to be isolationist. Clearly U.S. military presence is required in Japan, a major power that worries about being left in the lurch with big brother China, well on its way to superpowerdom in Asia. Also in South Korea as a deterrent, or tripwire to the dangerous antics of dictator Kim Jong-il, clearly a cruel despot who could be tempted to end it all by launching a nuclear missile or bomb on Seoul in a final “Gotterdammerung.”
The Persian Gulf is critically important to Western security and an over-the-horizon U.S. carrier task force may not deter Iran but it would go a long way to reassuring our Gulf friends, as it did throughout the Cold War.
A Muslim fanatic with a British passport said on Fareed Zakaria’s CNN/GPS Sunday program that in a free election in most Muslim countries today, Osama Bin Laden would probably win. This is one of the reasons most Gulf leaders would welcome US bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities as well as the capture and execution of OBL.
The F-35 will be the last manned fighter built by the U.S. for the U.S. and many of its friends and allies. Military commitments in the 21st century will be less visible and less expensive.
Remote controlled aircraft, beginning with the Predator and the Rapier, are the first entrants in robotic wars of the future. Pilot and co-pilot sit in a mock cockpit in Nevada and fly drones over Afghanistan and the Pakistani tribal border areas and press a button, instead of squeezing a trigger, as they see via satellite relay hostile guerrillas with AK-47s slung over their shoulder. Soon unmanned bombers and fighter-bombers will succeed many of today’s manned military aircraft.
Robotic wars of the future are in the planning stages. But the U.S. is still spending countless billions on legacy systems. It is now hard to imagine the U.S. involved in tank warfare thousands of miles from home base, as it was briefly in Iraq in February 1991.Yet we still have to pay for the maintenance of almost 9,000 tanks.
Can the U.S. afford $6 billion destroyers that can’t operate in shallow coastal waters? More useful would be World War II-type PT-Boats – but with devastating firepower.
All manner of UCAVs are now on everything from drawing board to production line to flight line. Last week, the British defense contractor BAE Systems unveiled Tiranis. Named after the Celtic god of thunder, the Tiranis takes unmanned fighting aircraft to a new level of robotic warfare. It can fly anywhere in the world guided and operated by satellite to spy, drop precision-guided bombs or missiles – and even fight back like a fighter-bomber if attacked by another drone or by a manned aircraft.
Tiranis is leading the charge into robotic warfare. 
Next to fly will be Boeing’s Phantom Eye that can operate for four days at 66,000 feet (20,000 meters). Already available are tiny UCAVs that can be carried as part of a soldier’s backpack and used for an overhead view of an enemy attack. Some are the size of a large beetle that fly into an enemy HQ, settle on a wall and transmit conversations. Flocks of bird-sized MAVs (Micro-Air Vehicles) can swarm all over a target. Already, UCAVs are a $5 billion business that is grounding pilots. 
UUVs (Underwater Unmanned Vehicles) are already in the water. Autonomous perimeter security mobile robots are also deployed. How long before terrorists get their hands on the same technology?
The Terrafugia (Latin for escape from land) company Bloomberg Businessweek reported, produced a car-cum-aircraft, the flying automobile many fantasize about when stuck in barely moving commuter traffic. The FAA recently gave the car-plane an exemption so it can carry air bags and other car safety features. This puts the “Transition” at 1,430 pounds, or half as much as a Mini Cooper, that can be pre-ordered for $194,000 (delivery by the end of 2011
The Transition goes from car to plane or vice versa in about the time it takes to lower the top on a convertible, says Carl Dietrich, the co-founder of Terrafugia in Woburn, Mass. The company plans to produce 300 to 400 a year. It must take off and land at an airport and can fly 460 miles at a speed of 110 mph. On the ground, wings folded alongside, it can easily cruise at 60mph.
The latest Quadrennial Defense Review looks ahead about five years, instead of 20 years as was the original intent, say House and Senate lawmakers, both Republican and Democrat, who are focused on defense issues. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is looking for savings in the $100 billion range in a $861 billion defense budget, or 22 percent of the total federal budget, which propels the deficit to a record $1.6 trillion in 2010.
The deepest and longest recession since World War II is bound to produce an agonizing reappraisal of America’s global commitments. 


(Arnaud de Borchgrave is the UPI Editor at large).

17 comments:

  1. Thank you for the post Yasmeen.Though I find reference to Fareed Z in bad taste.The man is pro India and biased.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Terrorism is not an answer to terrorism. Borchgrave is quite correct in his analysis. USA is being forced to negotiate with Afghan Taliban. What was then the point of the war? Unnecessary pressure on Pakistan & creating chaos in Pakistan besides destruction of Afghanistan & Iraq is the result. Obama has been a failure as President. In the first place, he lacked the experience for the job. Pity. It may be aometime before another black President is chosen.
    Americans voted for him as a rebound resulting from Bush's policies. It has given them just more of the same.
    But then, could we have expected any different? It simply shows Israel control over US policies that becomes more obvious day by day.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Borchave , with saying that he is fearing a similar melt down in the USA,like the one faced by the soviet union due to financial overloading . However USA, unlike the defunct Soviet state is a more dynamic economy which can mutate easily and survive.
    His write up ,surprising , while starting with the financial crises in USA, gives a similar answer alluded to above . He sees a restructuring of the American military due to technological reasons , reasons of finance and the changing threat environs . In brief he does not see a dooomsday scenario for the USA, which we all seem to be waiting for.
    As regards Fareed Zakaria , we may not agrre with his perceptions , but the statement of the Jehadist , about Osama winning , does ring a bell . But more intersting is the deduction of the writer , that this very attitude or collective thought , helps in every way a possible strike on Iran , which he does not rule out .
    In the end , it may sound comical, but the article seems to discuss the birds and the bees! whereby the serious side appears more as a distraction , with the mention of nano weapon systems and their impact on the battlefield and the saving of the american financial system as a whole, with a possible reduced spending of the GDP on defense like the German model.In this there is a possible a lesson for us too, but we are a nation which never learns from history or take cognizant of the dynamic forces of the existing threats, national economy and production or the society as a whole .

    ReplyDelete
  4. Aquarius
    Fareed Zakarya is a known pro India and anti Pakistan.I feel his calling a muslim fanatic to so state about OBL was to whip up US frenzy regarding the justification of not only the act so far but also to imply that the same must be sustained. He understands American sentiments well & must know that it will work.
    We in Pakistan are well aware of the general hatred against those whose acts have resulted in the death of so many innocent people with nothing to do with this scenario. So let us not fall in the exact trap Zakriya wants us to fall in.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pentagon and naval officials must decide whether to keep buying multibillion-dollar warships, since the Navy’s shipbuilding budget is unlikely to grow amid economic uncertainty and two wars.This by the way is by Robert Gates.
    Does the United States really NEED can a Navy that relies on $3 [billion] to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines and $11 billion carriers? Can US afford this in its current economic situation?
    The U.S. Navy is the world’s best-equipped and most lethal, and can position more fighter jets at sea than the rest of the world combined.
    De Borchgrave is one hundred percent correct here.
    Well written!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Question is Rais who is going to match US ship for ship? Submarine for submarine?
    Should they not use this money where it is more needed?
    Welfare of the American people?

    ReplyDelete
  7. YASMIN , PLEASE TELL ME ARE WE IN ANY WAY IN A POSITION TO EVEN ADVISE 'RWANDA', LEAVE ALONE USA , WITH THE MESS WE HAVE CREATED AND CONTINUE TO CREATE AT HOME IN EVERY FACET OUR NATIONAL SCENE . TELL ME ONE JUST ONE INSTITUTION THAT WE CAN BE PROUD OFF?
    WE AS A NATION , AND AS INDIVIDUALS ARE SLIDING DOWN THE CHUTE , WITH NO HOPE IN SIGHT . WITH THIS BEING THE SITUATION , HOW COME WE ARE READY TO ADVISE AND GIVE SERMONS TO THE STRONGEST NATION ON EARTH .IT BORDERS ON THE FRONTIERS OF SUBLIME COMEDY !!
    AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED IT IS A LIKE A PACK OF MONKEYS LED BY HYENAS , TRYING TO TEACH MORALITY TO A PRIDE OF LIONS , WHO DO NOT HAVE MUCH PATIENCE , AND ARE ALSO VERY HUNGRY!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear Aquarius
    YES we are in a position to advise anyone who is following a wrong policy whether it is our government or another. More especially a country whose policies have a direct impact on our nation. I think it is high time, that people like you & me, who understand where a wrong is flowing from, stand up & let our voices be heard.
    Writers who write with a truthful pen, must be encouraged, from whichever side they come from.

    ReplyDelete
  9. A well written article. Logical arguments. Borchgrave is singing a different tune from the one he usually sings.
    I hope the "masters" in USA are listening what he wrote?
    My doubts!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Arnaud,
    You have highlighted the end well. The 761 odd military/naval sites spread all over the world, the legacy of the British Empire, passed on to the New Western Super power and so,to enforce the writ,the new super power, went into charades in Korea, Vietnam,Afghanistan,Persian Gulf,Iraq & Afghanistan with side shows in Lebanon, Somalia,Grenada, Panama &Yugoslavia . It is predicted that the eventual cost of Iraq-Afghan venture will cost the Americans up to 7 trillion US dollars.However, a mad rush to bleed an invisible enemy continues. A forward policy based on the principles that there is,"no sovereignty but the American" and to enforce it, all is fair. So come in the various facets of new technology well tabulated by you in your article. However, even if the robots man the ground, and the electronic eyes monitor from the skies, and blast away the "nest" to run these operations has to be manned by the humans, who will become the eventual targets.It will be eventually the world at large vs the USA. t should be borne in mind it is easier to strike the unwary but hard to defend when the counter punch comes- and for what? A new order? And the chant of peace!

    ReplyDelete
  11. An educative article. Good, educated comments by readers. A forum with finesse. Congrats Yasmeen Ali! Small is certainly beautiful.
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yasmin , you are doing a wonderful job getting people like Mr Borchgrave , to listen in to our point our point of view , and also providing a platform with lesser clutter, for the few concerned from here and for those across the Atlantic to communicate.
    As regards the comprehension of the matter or what of what he has said ,that is likely to differ in perception from person to person.
    while you are convinced about the fact that our views may be heard at least where it matters ,i feel otherwise , and that is the beauty of human discussion , no clawing or biting , only mild to strong disagreement, with smiles , and at times anger , but just the same communication .
    The Romans , pacified the province called Judea , under a fairly mild emperor, Tiberius, and then later in a very brutal and massive manner till 'Masada' fell, under a different emperor, who had no time for the rabble,or any group or nationality which disturbed Roman trade or commerce.and the 'Jewish' problem of then like the 'Taliban' problem of today was resolved .As far as the Romans were concerned 'Christ'was not good, the Jewish king 'Herod', was very good . Empires do not have the morality of individuals. 'Realpolitik', dictate the actions small or big.
    All expanding empires have had similar nature since antiquity , and that cannot change .It has always been similar to the behavior of a meat eating predator , not a herbivore.
    Primarily ,If one cares to notice , Mr Borchgrave, is hopeful of a transition in the American military mindset, of doing the job well, but at a lesser cost , as he aptly says 'small is beautiful'!!
    What i meant when i mentioned the birds and the bees ,in my earlier comment was, not just a referral to the cost effective 'nano' weapon systems, but to the rebirth of a new American war machine which is small and beautiful, so well said by Mr Borchgrave, but as lethal while being cost effective..
    He is very honest in his appraisal, but his concerns are not for those who are at the receiving end , but for those manning the present redundant and extremely expensive war tools which can be detrimental to the economic health of USA, in the long term.
    A dream of a true American patriot , i wish we had more like him in our country!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. A good insight into the technologically sophisticated alternatives being tried and perfected by USA for keeping her hold over the globe. Ten years back Predator drones were unthinkable. Likewise, I am quite prepared to believe that in about 10-15 years from now, Tiranis, Boeng's Phantom Eyes, tiny UCAVs, MAVs and car-planes will become their mainstay instruments of warfare. These systems are obviously being developed to achieve economy in manpower and dollars and will afford a great advantage to the US in harvesting her global ambitions. Million dollar question is, what, if any, options are available to those who don't want to see USA maintaining her hold over the world......???????

    ReplyDelete
  14. Exactly what Borchgrave states Haidre(Ref your closing line ). Naveed too has said the same: It is easy to hit an unwary target but a counter punch when comes will be difficult to handle. No country can continue like a bully indefinataly.

    ReplyDelete
  15. American public opinion is sensitive to two things: Human casualties and money being spent by their Government on wars in other countries. Accordingly, their military scientists are working on development of weapon systems that will considerably minimize the number of troops to be physically employed in the foreign battlefields. A few pilots safely sitting in Nevada conducting the drone attacks on Pakistan are doing what would have taken many squadrons of fighter aircraft and hundreds of men; AND then crossing of international borders by fighters and bombers manned by LIVE pilots would have created ripples of entirely different kind in Pakistan as well as around the world.
    The systems being developed by America as listed in the article are aimed at economy in cash as well as manpower. These are going to bring a more effective conceptual change in the way she is going to conduct operations in future against guerrillas/terrorists. That is going to result in a great advantage to America in her war against terror. Moreover, the effect of suicide bombings(the biggest weapon the terrorists have today against large number of troops and their cumbersome logistic system employed and spread over large tracts of area in virtually uncontrollable/hostile territories) is going to greatly diminish.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Haidre you are spot on. Read Jesse Jackson's article posted a while ago.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Arnaurd is a hugely successful & respected man in USA. The policy makers should, must, heed what he says.
    But does it look like it?

    ReplyDelete