SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Hawkmoon who wrote (20760)9/30/2008 12:57:50 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 23908
 
Barnett: To rule high seas, make sea traffic transparent

By Thomas P.M. Barnett (Contact)
Sunday, September 28, 2008

One of the main problems in counterterrorism today is that there are so many people and vehicles and so much data and material moving through globalization's myriad networks that it seems virtually impossible to track it all effectively. Nowhere has this problem been more acute than on the high seas.

In 2006, Adm. Harry Ulrich, then U.S. commander of NATO Naval Forces Europe, decided to do something about it. Despite having virtually no resources, his dream was to transpose the global air-traffic control system onto sea traffic.

Worldwide, aircraft are transparent, because they're all required to carry an ID beacon that allows them to be tracked leaving and entering airports and monitored between airports by a global network of sensors. Act suspiciously, and somebody's fighter aircraft will soon be on your tail.

No such pervasive system currently exists globally for maritime traffic. While bigger ships carry an ID beacon similar to aircraft, without a shared monitoring network, that's like tracking only selected commercial jets and giving everyone else a pass.

So Ulrich, upon taking command in Naples, Italy, asked a simple question: "If we can do that in the air, why can't we do it on the sea?" He made a point of pioneering his sea-traffic-control effort first inside the Mediterranean, where NATO's southern naval forces have been historically concentrated, but his real target was waters off Africa - the most ungoverned maritime space in the world.

Ulrich knew the U.S. Navy couldn't do it alone, much less bring Africa's meager coast-guard-like navies up to snuff so they could do it on their own. So he quickly created a network of assets - both public and private - to manage that space, modeling his monitoring system on international air-traffic control.

Ulrich began stitching together a network of shore-based sensors ringing the Mediterranean. His naval command then began initial monitoring by tapping into the International Maritime Organization's existing Automated Identification System, transforming NATO's ability to track ship traffic in the Med.

Almost overnight, NATO went from tracking dozens of ships on the Mediterranean to thousands, and instead of getting the data sometimes up to 72 hours late, now the contacts were being tracked in one to five minutes - to an accuracy within 50 feet on the earth's surface.

When the classic big-firm systems integrators told Ulrich it would be cost-prohibitive to pull it off, the admiral turned to the Volpe Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a Department of Transportation research center. Instead of hundreds of millions, Ulrich's initial network cost $900,000. The shore-based receivers are small, roughly the size of a radar dish you might find on a pleasure craft.

The strength of the system is a function of its reach: The more countries join, the larger the shared operational picture. By the time Ulrich retired at the end of 2007, he had enlisted 32 countries throughout the Mediterranean, the North Atlantic, along the west coast of Africa, around the Black Sea, and in the Pacific. Today, the network continues to spread around the planet.

With Ulrich's system in place, local police, coast guards and border patrols catch most bad guys, obviating American military responses. As Harry told me for an article I wrote about his work in a fall 2007 issue of Esquire, "I don't do defense; I do security. When you talk defense, you talk containment and mutually assured destruction. When you talk security, you talk collaboration and networking. This is the future."

The admiral's legacy program, the Maritime Safety and Security Information System, earned the Volpe Center a prestigious "Innovations in American Government" award this month from Harvard University's Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation.

Full disclosure: Ulrich is now executive vice president at my company, Enterra Solutions. When I bump into such innovative leadership, I offer that person a job.

Thomas P.M. Barnett (tom@thomaspmbarnett.com) is a visiting scholar at the University of Tennessee's Howard Baker Center and author of the forthcoming book "Great Powers: America and the World After Bush."

knoxnews.com



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (20760)11/11/2008 12:38:27 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 23908
 
Subject: Contractors

"As for the size of the force, all of that schooling and training takes time and the usual troop rotation standard has been two years of that for every year on the front line, plus training and schools. 750,000 troops is the minimum number. Personally I favor an 18 division Army and a four division Marine Corps. If you count all of those "civilian" contractors, (most of whom come from truncated careers in the US military) then we already have that. These people are doing a lot of military jobs that we used to fill with troops, at much lower costs. MPs are MPs. We have sacrificed command and control and unit cohesion in the name of a false economy. We need to get back to a force where everyone sings from the same hymnals."

This turns out not to be the case. First and foremost, Congress sets specific limits for each service for manpower. It further limits the number who can hold specific ranks. We aren't going to simply get them to drastically up the quantity, even if we magically ignore the call for a 25% cut in military spending. However, the next thing is the belief that this contractor situation is bad. Let me point out a few things. If we hired those soldiers, we'd have to pay them. Contractors make more. Soldiers get medical coverage. Soldiers get retirement benefits. Soldiers get veteran status. Contractors don't. We checked, and soldiers and contractors cost the same, if you consider the costs which aren't base pay. Contractors are more flexible, we can put out a contract if we can afford it, but we can't just up the number of soldiers and get them by snapping our fingers. Oh yeah, lots of those contractors aren't ex-US forces. Most of our contractors are a cadre of real professionals riding herd over a bunch of third country nationals, like Kenyan truck drivers, Korean repairmen, Columbian traffic wardens, I even talked to an Egyptian college professor who taught English who was working as a generator repairman because the trivial (by US standards) pay was so much better than his normal job. Now the ones that get the attention are groups like Blackwater, where you really have to be competitive to join. That is not the normal contractor though.

Historically, the contractor model is normal. Even in the US Army the traditional route was to have contractors do things like the commissary. It was only after the levee en mass that this changed, and cheap soldiers could be used for things which ordinarily demanded civilian contractors. Heck, at points along the way the artillery was contracted out. Now that we no longer have cheap soldiers, it isn't surprising to see reaction to put the precious soldiers into jobs which demand actual soldiers, and put contractors into jobs that just demand a modicum of skill and reliability.

Indeed, we cannot, I say again, cannot, get rid of contractors. Even security contractors. For instance, the US State Dept does not submit to having soldiers guard them. They have a limited amount of security types, and hire contractors when more are needed. No expansion of the Army will ever change that.

Contractors are a red herring. There are much more important things to worry about.

jerrypournelle.com



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (20760)2/18/2009 3:07:41 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 23908
 
Return of the “Ungendered Military”

tank.nationalreview.com



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (20760)12/9/2009 12:59:55 PM
From: TimF2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 23908
 
Killing Al Qaeda? That’s Their Job
July 15th, 2009 at 2:26 pm by Sean Linnane | 24 Comments |
Share

On Monday, the New York Times reported that:

Since 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency developed plans to dispatch small teams overseas to kill senior Qaeda terrorists, according to current and former government officials

. . . for some incredible reason we’re told the plan was never carried out!

The concept seems to have gotten mired down in organizational CIA overkill:

Officials at the spy agency over the years ran into myriad logistical, legal and diplomatic obstacles. How could the role of the United States be masked? Should allies be informed and might they block the access of the C.I.A. teams to their targets? What if American officers or their foreign surrogates were caught in the midst of an operation? Would such activities violate international law or American restrictions on assassinations overseas?

HEY! Earth to Langley, VA: SINCE WHEN DID WE START GIVING A RAT’s *SS ABOUT A BUNCH OF INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS ? ! ? ! ? ! We’re at WAR here, RIGHT? US targeted killings of Al Qaeda terrorists is a legal act of self-defense, point blank and simple – I mean, if it’s OK to launch Hellfire missiles off Predator drones into multi-family dwellings in remote corners of Pakistan, what on Earth is wrong with taking out your targets with surgical precision?

OK – Problem identified; allow me to suggest a solution:

You throw enough money out there to hire a dedicated group of pissed-off ex-Green Berets like myself, and finance our operations. We know how to plan long-term operations, we speak foreign languages, we know how to live incognito overseas, and we have a certain motto when it comes to this sort of thing: “If it bleeds, you can kill it.” We’ll get the job done.

For planning guidance, check out General Patton’s maxims. Here are a few to consider:

A good solution applied with vigor now is better than a perfect solution applied ten minutes later.

Take calculated risks.

Do not fear failure.

In case of doubt, attack.

No one is thinking if everyone is thinking alike.

The only thing to do when a son-of-a-bitch looks cross-eyed at you is to beat the hell out of him right then and there.

And there’s this beauty, of course:

No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair.

frumforum.com