skip to main |
skip to sidebar
After 42 years in power, the brutal regime of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi appears to be over. Over the weekend rebel forces entered the Libyan capital of Tripoli, and reports have it that one of Qaddafi's son's has been captured by rebel forces.
For six months rebels have been trying to over through Qaddafi. In March, NATO entered the fray to prevent a humanitarian disaster, with the U.S. playing a subordinate role. The U.S. however, was still providing 75% of the funding and other logistical support. Recently NATO was having a difficult time continuing the operation as the conflict was fraying the alliance.
If this latest events provide for the removal of Qaddafi, the transition to democracy will be problematic and chaotic as the National Transitional Council (NTC) begins to assume some sort of control over the country. This rebel council had been recognized by France in March, with the U.S. reluctantly supporting it last month. As Libya is tribal society, the question remains if the NTC be able to incorporate all elements of Libyan society into a cohesive government?
In tribal societies we have seen the fragmentation of the country once the authoritative government is removed, one only has to remember the euphoria that swept Iraq after the removal of Saddam Hussein. What role will the U.S. play in assisting with the establishment of a democratic Libya? Remember, President Obama stated `there will be no American boots on the ground.`
The Libyan people are close to ending their long nightmare, but before one gets all euphoric, especially those in the west, it is important to remember that Democracy takes time to build and doesn't happen over night! The U.S. still doesn't have a clear policy for Libya, or for that matter the Middle East.
http://militarybriefingbook.com/browse.cfm?category=Africa&subcategory=North%20Africa
George Washington said it best, "The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation." Unfortunately, this statement rings all to true today. With the nation facing a stagnate economy, the highest demographics for those unemployed are; veterans.
Too often the nation is euphoric as they send brave men and women to preserve the freedom we cherish, but when they return, veterans face bleak employment opportunities.
I have felt this searing sting of rejection while seeking employment. Employers, not fully understanding what a veteran can bring to a company, many times ask questions that are reflections of opinions regarding military service of what Hollywood portrays. Society today has grown detached to what military service is and believing what the media tells them, which is that all veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan face some sort of psychological disorder.
Veterans today don't feel the open hostility felt by veterans returning from Vietnam, but they face the hidden rejection of society not fully understanding what they can bring to a company. Military reservists face the prospects of being denied employment just because they serve their country. I faced this myself when applying to numerous companies, always asked the same question-"when are you deploying'? The other question is, what can your experience from the military bring to our organization.
This is why I started Military Briefing Book so that I can employ veterans who are shunned by a country they swear allegiance to protect, and I urge you to encourage others to do the same. As we ponder my opening statement of a past president, General George Washington (who served his country in the military) we can ask ourselves, where has America gone.
http://militarybriefingbook.com/browse.cfm?category=Military%20Strategy%20and%20Transformation&subcategory=Military%20Reserves%20and%20National%20Guard
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated yesterday that deep defense cuts would "terribly weaken" U.S. national security. Speaking at a rare joint news conference with Secretary of State, he cautioned against radical defense reduction, which would have a devastating effect on U.S. national security.
"We recognize that we're in a resource limitation here, and that we got to deal with those challenges, " said Panetta. "But I don't think you have to choose between our national and fiscal responsibilities. And I want the country to know that we can get this done, but we have to do it in a way that protects our national defense and protects our national security."
Right now it seems that the budget is determining what the national security of the United States should be instead of the other way around. Currently, a revolution in military strategy is being waged in national security circles as to which direction the United States heads in the coming decades. Conventional threats, that had been the hallmark of U.S. national security focus since the end of the Second World War, have been replaced by unconventional and asymmetric security threats.
With the change in the challenges faced by the U.S., it alters what types of weapons the Pentagon will need in the future. At the same time the Pentagon will have to realign its procurement and acquisition systems to meet these new challenges. Currently, the Pentagon operates under an antiquated budget system, in which billions have been squandered without any real oversight and direction. This must change!
As I mentioned yesterday, a dedicated task force needs to be established to look and make the necessary recommendations on how the Pentagon can realign its priorities, look at the duplication of services that are inherent in each military branch, and ultimately end outdated practices.
Failure to address political reality will have the Pentagon forced to make reductions, not by national security concerns, but by budget realities. This focus will place the security of the nation in peril.
http://militarybriefingbook.com/topic.cfm?topic=Military%20Strategy%20and%20Transformation
With the nation mired in massive debt and the fight in Washington over how to reduce the bloated federal debt every federal program needs to be included in deficit reduction; and that includes the Defense Department.
Too often many in Washington hold defense reductions in the same way, many refuse to entertain any thought of reducing or overhauling entitlement spending as a way to rein in federal spending. The time has come where defense spending has to be included in reducing the federal debt.
Instead of handing the Defense Department over to budget cutters, Washington needs for the first time to look how the Pentagon can reduce spending without reducing military readiness and power projection. Too often in the past, short-sighted policies place the nation in peril, without thinking of what future threats or contingencies will be. The reduction of the Defense Department, after World War II had a disastrous effect on the U.S. in the early days of the Cold War and which the U.S. paid dearly for in the beginning of the Korean War. The same could be said for the time following the Vietnam War and in the 1990's.
The Defense Department needs to overhaul and change how it operates and look at every aspect of procurement and acquisition; this also includes looking at duplication between the various military services. Each military service has unique capabilities that are inherent in that service, but that said, too often many of the same services duplicate supply, communications, and other aspects that could be standardized throughout the Department of Defense.
The time has come for the Pentagon to commission a task force that looks at all aspects of Pentagon spending; otherwise reductions will be made, and as we know, history repeats itself, which will be detrimental to the national security of this country.
http://militarybriefingbook.com/topic.cfm?topic=Military%20Strategy%20and%20Transformation
Much of this month debate has centered on the fragile state of the U.S. economy, with vicious and heated debate on raising the federal debate ceiling and reducing America's massive federal debt. Each side has staked a position, and each side has firmly entrenched itself in its position. Unfortunately, what is missing is any meaningful debate on what is transpiring across the globe.
The President in recent campaign stops routinely highlights the situation in the Middle East, most notably the "Arab Spring" revolution, as on of the root causes affecting the U.S. economy. Since the Arab revolts broke out in January of this year, even though one could say it originally started in Iran in 2009, the United States has articulated confusing and contradictory policies in the region.
In March, the U.S. and NATO undertook military operations in Libya, and six months later the situation is no more clearer then when it was first initiated. Today, it has been reported that scores of Iraqi's have been killed as Iraq is beginning to spiral out of control, what is U.S. policy toward Iraq?
Last weekend 30 U.S. military personnel were killed, but still U.S. strategy in the region is confusing and perplexing, even to the most ardent foreign policy experts; what is our strategy in Afghanistan, and for that matter, Pakistan?
It seems U.S. foreign policy strategy is like a brush fire moving from one crisis to another, without any real direction. At some point that brush fire will turn into a full blaze and will bring to the forefront a failed U.S. foreign policy.
Read More:
http://militarybriefingbook.com/
This past week has seen a tumultuous activity with regard to the nation's economy, as the country witnessed and experienced a wild ride on the economic markets. The wild swings on the Stock Market were the same swings the country witnessed last week as the nation went to the brink of default before finally passing the Debt Ceiling legislation.
Both political parties are playing partisan politics and are only playing to the base of their respective parties. Missing is the leadership that we need to have if the nation is to recover from this economic stagnation, which has the economy virtually at a standstill.
Elements of the Republican party have to realize they only control one aspect of the government. Many scoff and would rather let the nation go to the brink before they compromise with the administration over anything. Democrats, need to stop blaming the other side and pass a budget, which they have failed to do in over two and half years.
Yesterday, President Obama spoke at Johnson Controls, Inc. in Michigan, an advanced battery facility, but unfortunately the President returned to his usual rhetorical partisan rancor of blaming the other side. What the President failed to mention was he has failed to submit his own budget, failed to submit his own proposals for addressing the economy, and failed to embrace any recommendations from his own debt commission.
Before the President unleashes partisan speeches, it's time for leadership and time for the President to submit in writing his own strategy for reviving the nation's economy and for reducing the massive federal debt.
Too bad that it's leadership from both parties that is the real thing missing in Washington!
http://militarybriefingbook.com/topic.cfm?topic=U.S.%20Politics
