<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; David Walsh</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/author/david-walsh/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Iraq, Afghanistan and the Fall of the Middle East</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/david-walsh/iraq-afghanistan-and-the-fall-of-the-middle-east/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=iraq-afghanistan-and-the-fall-of-the-middle-east</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/david-walsh/iraq-afghanistan-and-the-fall-of-the-middle-east/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 04:52:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Walsh]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disaster]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taliban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Withdrawal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=184869</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Catastrophe calling.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-walsh/iraq-afghanistan-and-the-fall-of-the-middle-east/loss/" rel="attachment wp-att-184887"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-184887" title="loss" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/loss.jpg" alt="" width="245" height="198" /></a>Not since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and its aftermath has the Middle East experienced the level of turmoil that has occurred since 2011. Whereas earlier periods of upheaval&#8211;the Iran-Iraq War, the Lebanon War and the 1991 Gulf War&#8211;were relatively contained by the big powers, that of the past two years has spread across the region. The &#8220;Arab Spring&#8221; toppled pro-Western governments in Tunisia and Egypt and has brought Islamists into power. Libya&#8217;s Qaddafi has been overthrown and killed, to be replaced by a weak central government in what has effectively become an al-Qaeda fiefdom. Syria is wracked by a bloody civil war in which a host of players (Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Iran, and al-Qaeda, among others) are fighting to gain or keep control of the country. Jordan faces increasing pressure from it&#8217;s large Palestinian population and the Muslim Brotherhood, while Yemen and Bahrain are experiencing increasing instability due to their Shia populations, backed by Iran. Add to this list the Iranian nuclear crisis, the strategic encirclement of Israel by Iran and its proxies and growing instability in Lebanon, where Hezbollah effectively holds power, and a perfect storm for major regional war is brewing.</p>
<p>Two countries that serve as a fulcrum for such a conflict are Iraq and Afghanistan. Both are now key to the great power struggle for the Middle East between the United States and Iran. Both hold important geopolitical positions in the region. Iraq is the gateway between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula, while Afghanistan has for centuries held a position as a buffer between the Indian Subcontinent and such powers as Russia and Iran.</p>
<p>In both countries, the United States is on defense, while Iran is on offense.</p>
<p>First and foremost, there is Iraq. By the time Barrack Obama took office in January 2009, U.S. forces, thanks considerably to the 2007 surge, had brought about a considerable improvement in security in the country. As a result, Iraq&#8217;s government was able to establish its control though much of the country. This could have been used by the incoming administration to help establish Iraq as a buffer to Iran. Instead, President Obama showed little interest in using this situation for American advantage. The negotiations over the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) were a case in point.</p>
<p>Signed between Washington and Baghdad in 2008, SOFA stipulated that all U.S. forces were to withdraw by December 2011, which was completed. However, efforts to renegotiate SOFA in 2011, to allow 10-12,000 U.S. troops to remain after the deadline for withdrawal, were rejected by Iraq&#8217;s government. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Shia and pro-Iranian, was strongly opposed to any changes to SOFA. In a 2010 interview with the <em>Wall Street Journal</em>, Maliki stated unequivocally that &#8220;The withdrawal of forces agreement expires on December 31, 2011. The last American soldier will leave Iraq.&#8221; Given that President Obama had made opposition to the Iraq War a major plank of his political career and 2008 campaign, he made little effort to dissuade Maliki. This despite private admissions by key Iraqi leaders that their country&#8217;s military was still heavily dependent on U.S. assistance. Thus, just 5,000 private contractors, hired by the U.S. Embassy, are left to provide support to Iraq&#8217;s 806,000-strong military and security forces.</p>
<p>Furthermore, these forces are divided along sectarian lines (70-80 percent of the army&#8217;s enlisted personnel are Shia) and are increasingly politicized. Both the security forces and  the military have been structured by Maliki to ensure personal loyalty to him. Officials close to the Prime Minister have been placed in key positions in both the Ministry of Interior (which controls the security forces) and the Ministry of Defense. The same process has occurred within the high command of the military.  This has enabled Maliki to establish an authoritarian style of leadership, one which rests on strong Shia support and is, not surprisingly, pro-Iranian. Teheran has shipped large quantities of arms to support the Assad regime in Syria via Iraq, and Maliki has refused to shut down this vital conduit despite American requests.</p>
<p>What all this means is that Iraq has effectively become a <em>de facto</em> ally of Iran. During the Iraq War, Teheran supplied large quantities of weapons to Shia insurgents, especially Moqtada al-Sadr&#8217;s Mahdi Army, itself defeated thanks to the U.S. surge. However, Sadr has since turned to politics, and his party is now the largest in Iraq&#8217;s parliament. This, combined with Maliki&#8217;s style of leadership and foreign policy, has seen a considerable increase in Iran&#8217;s influence over the past couple of years.</p>
<p>Given that armed conflict resulting from Iran&#8217;s continuing effort to develop nuclear weapons is a distinct possibility, Iraq&#8217;s strategic importance becomes apparent. An Iranian thrust into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is made much easier thanks to a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad. Iranian forces could easily transit through southern Iraq, the country&#8217;s Shia heartland. Indeed, the presence established by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps&#8217; al-Qods Corps&#8211;specifically meant to spread Iran&#8217;s Islamic revolution abroad&#8211;in southern Iraq would make this go very smoothly, especially since this force is based near the Iraqi border. Given the increasingly close cooperation between Teheran and Baghdad in intelligence and security, Iranian forces could launch an attack from Iraq into the Arabian Peninsula, using insurgent and terrorist attacks (made simpler by the large Shia populations in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, concentrated in the oil-rich coastal regions) as a prelude to a conventional invasion. The warning time available to U.S. planners would be greatly reduced, as would the ability to react effectively. Since this would be probably taken in concert with Iranian moves elsewhere (i.e. the Strait of Hormuz and by proxy against Israel), the danger of Teheran successfully waging war is considerably increased.</p>
<p>Then there is Afghanistan. Here, the threat is of a somewhat different variety. To be sure, Iran has been involved in supporting the Taliban, burying the hatchet (caused by the divisions between the Sunni fundamentalist Taliban and Shia Iran) in order to fight a common enemy. However, the Taliban present the greater danger for the United States and it allies. The growing effectiveness of Taliban forces, including a car bombing that killed a U.S. diplomat, the first since Benghazi in September 2011, along with Taliban infiltration of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and increasingly lethal attacks on U.S. and NATO forces, has called into question whether or not U.S. forces can be fully withdrawn by December 2014, when their combat mission is to conclude. Indeed, the situation is similar in this regard to that in Iraq in 2007. The government of Hamid Karzai is ineffective, unable to exercise its authority beyond Kabul. The ANA remains a less-than-effective force to say the least, and despite the guarded optimism expressed by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey that the ANA will take the lead combat role against the Taliban as early as May or June, this is not a realistic prospect.</p>
<p>Indeed, depending on a SOFA between Washington and Kabul, there may be a need for as many as 10,000 U.S. troops to remain in Afghanistan after December 2014 in both an advisory and combat (counterinsurgency) role. The much-touted surge undertaken by the Obama Administration has not had the success hoped for, while political efforts to incorporate &#8220;moderate&#8221; Taliban elements into a peace process have also been a failure.</p>
<p>There are two dangers facing the United States in Afghanistan. The first is in relation to Iran. In a scenario like the one described above, a general war between Iran and the West, Afghanistan would see a large force of U.S. troops&#8211;at present 66,000, along with 47,000 NATO ISAF troops&#8211;exposed to Iranian attack from the west (most likely by guerrilla forces, including al-Qaeda) and large-scale offensives by the Taliban in the east, especially in Helmand, Kandahar and Paktia. Given that land-locked Afghanistan could only be supplied by air, U.S. and Allied airlift assets would be hard-pressed to keep these forces supplied, a task made harder by full support from Iran for the Taliban. In effect, the West would be subjected to a massive siege, drawing off forces from other fronts to ensure their survival and weakening the overall combat potential of U.S. and Allied forces.</p>
<p>The second is from the Taliban and where it is concentrated. It is a Pashtun organization, which means that it has a strong presence both in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. Indeed, the Pakistani ISI helped establish the Taliban as an effective force during the 1990s. As the killing of Osama bin Laden in Abottabad showed, there are considerable elements within the ISI, as well as the Pakistani government and military, that share the Taliban&#8217;s (and al-Qaeda&#8217;s) Islamist ideology. Here lies the danger. If, after 2014, all U.S. forces are withdrawn and the Taliban manage to take large parts of the country (including Kabul), Pakistan, regardless of the composition of its government, will enjoy considerable influence in Afghanistan. Even a nominally friendly government in Islamabad will be problematic for U.S. interests, as has been shown many times in the past few years. If a hard-line Islamic government were to come to power, however, then things would be much more dangerous. Given the strong influence of Islamism in Pakistani politics and society, and the presence of tens of thousands of veteran Pakistani Taliban in the country&#8217;s North-West Frontier abutting Afghanistan, this is a realistic prospect. This would place Pakistan&#8211;with its large armed forces, its long coastline along the Indian Ocean in proximity to the oil-rich Persian Gulf, and, of course, its nuclear weapons, including ballistic missiles&#8211;under a fundamentalist Islamic government.</p>
<p>This could lead to similar regimes taking control in much of Central Asia (where Islamism is also a powerful force), as well as a threat to the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. It could also lead to war with India, which, needless to say, would be catastrophic.</p>
<p>Given these unacceptable prospects, the United States is unlikely to withdraw from Afghanistan within two years, despite President Obama&#8217;s promises. Given the war-weariness of the American public&#8211;not to mention those of Allied nations&#8211;the only realistic option will be to engage in a full-scale counterinsurgency campaign, in order to eradicate the most effective Taliban groups and force the remainder to cease fighting and make peace with Kabul. This will mean increased casualties, which will lead to additional loss of public support, and thus a race between successful completion of this goal and a forced withdrawal, the latter with the above consequences. The morale of the U.S. military, which faces major reductions in funding over the next several years under Obama Administration plans, would no doubt be eroded if withdrawal without victory was the course taken.</p>
<p>As for Iraq, the consequences of the failure of an effective SOFA has helped lead not only to increased Iranian influence, but to a resurgence of al-Qaeda, which has used Iraq as a base to wage war in both Libya and Syria. It has succeeded in the former, establishing an effective Islamist state that has projected force into both Algeria and Mali. It could succeed in Syria, where at least part of the country could fall under al-Qaeda control. This would no doubt lead to continued violence and instability with rival forces in that country. Worse, it could lead to al-Qaeda influence in Lebanon and even Turkey. Most worrisome, if al-Qaeda militias take control of Syrian chemical weapons, it could trigger Israeli (and probably U.S.) involvement, leading to a wider war with much deadlier consequences.</p>
<p>Whatever the course of events, the above scenarios would cause enormous destabilization in the Middle East. Add such wild cards as the unfinished &#8220;Arab Spring,&#8221; use of WMD by states as Iran and Syria and an Iranian-sponsored guerrilla and terror offensive against Israel, and the consequences only become more disastrous. At worst, the position of the United States in the Middle East&#8211;an area of vital concern to the West&#8211;might collapse, with results that, for the world as a whole, would be a catastrophe.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/david-walsh/iraq-afghanistan-and-the-fall-of-the-middle-east/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>46</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Losing the Next War</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/david-walsh/losing-the-next-war/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=losing-the-next-war</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/david-walsh/losing-the-next-war/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 04:30:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Walsh]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cuts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defense budget]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=183688</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The frightening cost of Obama's war on our military.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-walsh/losing-the-next-war/obama_edited-2/" rel="attachment wp-att-183883"><img class="size-full wp-image-183883 alignleft" title="obama_edited-2" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/obama_edited-2.jpg" alt="" width="350" height="230" /></a>Imagine a situation where American troops are sent to fight an enemy in insufficient numbers, with obsolescent equipment (and not enough of it) and are thrown into battle against a ruthless, well-equipped and utterly dedicated enemy. Now imagine that the United States, as a whole, has an army that has but one full-strength combat division on the other side of the world from where this battle is taking place, a navy with just 27 ships of all types in place to support the troops ashore, and a Marine Corps with just 12,000 men available for deployment.</p>
<p>This is historical fact. In June 1950, when the Korean War broke out, the United States faced precisely this situation. Of the 14 divisions of the U.S. Army, only the single division in Europe was up to full strength. The others, including the four divisions in Japan that were sent to Korea, had infantry regiments with two rather than the usual three battalions and artillery battalions with two rather than three batteries, for a total of 70 percent of authorized strength. The Japan-based divisions lacked 62 percent of their infantry firepower along with 14 percent of their tanks, and much of this equipment was outmoded. Indeed, just 45 days&#8217; supply of ammunition was available to these forces. The Navy had the above number of ships in the Western Pacific, while five years before, it had deployed 1,300 in support of the Okinawa invasion. Only two Marine divisions remained from six at the end of World War II, both woefully understrength, with only the Air Force able to provide sufficient units. Worse, the Army had been &#8220;civilianized,&#8221; meaning that discipline had been greatly relaxed and combat training cut back heavily, in order to make military service more attractive.</p>
<p>The result, not surprisingly, was that the first Americans to see combat in Korea suffered heavy losses and were driven back, in some cases more than 50 miles. Many American soldiers, who had no preparation for combat, broke under fire, or surrendered, or drifted south or east trying to reach the safety of the coast. Only the establishment of a perimeter around the port of Pusan prevented the fall of South Korea in the summer of 1950, and it was a close call indeed.</p>
<p>So what do these events, more than 60 years ago, have to do with the situation faced by today&#8217;s U.S. military? More than we would like to think.</p>
<p>Of course, the quality of our personnel is excellent, and there are tens of thousands, particularly in the Army and Marine Corps, with recent experience of battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of our weaponry remains first-rate, and a match for any foe.</p>
<p>The trouble is, will we be able to maintain sufficient military strength to confront a growing number of adversaries in an increasingly unstable world, where large-scale war is increasingly becoming a distinct possibility?</p>
<p>To begin with, there are the cuts that the Obama Administration has made to the defense budget&#8211;some $487 billion. Personnel strength will be reduced considerably. The Army&#8217;s active personnel level will bottom out at 490,000, down from its current 570,000. This number is well below the 520,000 level that Army Chief of Staff General Ray Odierno has publicly endorsed. The Marine Corps will be reduced from 202,000 to 182,000, meaning that there will be fewer Marines than in 1980, when an understrength Corps had to contend with an important new task of rapid deployment to defend the Persian Gulf. Worse still, while personnel reductions are just eight percent of Marine strength, accomplishing this will mean a 13 percent reduction in combat troops&#8211;11 percent in  infantry, 20 percent in armor and 20 percent in artillery, with the total number of infantry battalions&#8211;the backbone of the Marine ground combat forces&#8211;falling to 24 from 27. Moreover, whereas Marine sergeants had to be promoted before their 13th year of service, this has fallen to just 10 years, meaning that hundreds of experienced NCOs will be forced to retire in the next few years.</p>
<p>The Navy is also hard-hit. Its current strength is just 286 ships. Whereas in 2005 a 313-ship force was set as a goal, this has fallen to just 306. Naval shipbuilding will fall in Fiscal Year 2014 to just seven ships, down from 10 this fiscal year, and will not rise until FY 2018, with 11 ships planned. In some important categories, the fall has been dramatic. In 2005, there were 33 amphibious warfare ships in the fleet. By 2012, there were just 28. In September 2012, one of the three Maritime Prepositioning Squadrons (MPS)&#8211;which carry enough supplies for a full-strength U.S. Marine Expeditionary Brigade for a month&#8211;stationed in the Mediterranean, was deactivated. This will make it much more difficult for U.S. forces, in this case in the Middle East, to respond effectively to crises. The carrier force will fall to 10 ships, rather than the current 11, while just one carrier, rather than the usual two, will be deployed to the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf. Maintenance difficulties, especially with the carriers <em>Harry S. Truman</em> and <em>Abraham Lincoln</em>, will seriously affect the readiness of naval forces.</p>
<p>The Air Force is in even worse shape. At least $54 billion will be cut from its budget. According to the Heritage Foundation, the number of fighters has fallen by some 25 percent since 2001. Along with the withdrawal of 52 F-117 stealth fighters, some 263 F-15s and 372 F-16s have also been retired.</p>
<p>An even more serious problem affects all the services. Much of this equipment is aging, having come into service in the 1990s or even earlier. The Air Force&#8217;s F-15 fighters, for example, are, on average, 30 years old, while its B-1 and B-2 bombers entered service some 25 years ago. The same is true of the Army&#8217;s M-1 Abrams tanks and M-2/M-3 Bradley fighting vehicles. The design of the AAV-7 amphibious landing vehicle that is standard in the Marine Corps is now over 40 years old. Much of this equipment is now being worn out, thanks to arduous combat duty and exacting peacetime training.</p>
<p>This situation calls for an investment in procurement like that undertaken during the 1980s, when aging weaponry was replaced in large quantities by many of the above weapon systems. However, this is not the case. Thanks to the cuts in defense, delays in development and procurement of such items as the F-35 Lightning II and the KC-46A tanker will see this process pushed back&#8211;and carried out on a much more limited scale&#8211;to the 2020s. New attack submarine and cruiser programs have been shelved or cancelled, as has the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, meant to replace the Marines&#8217; AAV-7s, while a new Amphibious Combat Vehicle, development of which was initiated in 2011, is unlikely to enter service until 2024.</p>
<p>So what is all this likely to mean for the future? Military forces must be tailored in relation to the situations they are likely to be used in, and the threats they will face. At present, the Syrian civil war, with the recent use of chemical weapons, is a flash point. More broadly, Iran&#8217;s continued nuclear weapons development, together with the fallout from the &#8220;Arab Spring&#8221; has made more probable a major regional war in the Middle East.</p>
<p>North Korea&#8217;s withdrawal from the 1953 armistice ending the Korean War, and its growing bellicosity, have exacerbated tensions in East Asia, while the continued presence of an anti-American, pro-Iranian regime in Venezuela means that instability in the Caribbean Basin is likely. The procurement by states like Iran, Syria and Venezuela of advanced missiles, submarines, combat aircraft and mines (both locally developed and from Russia and China), as well as by proxies like Hezbollah, means that their military potential has been significantly enhanced over the past several years. Such regional conflicts as described above would provide a much greater challenge for the United States and its allies, especially if they were to occur in concert or in a proximate time (wars in the Middle East and Korea, for example), thanks to the close ties between these states.</p>
<p>Given the situation described above, there appears to be a converging line between declining U.S. military capabilities and the growing capabilities of our adversaries, one which could lead to a danger point in the not-too-distant future. We also must keep in mind China&#8217;s geopolitical ambitions and growing military potential&#8211;especially its naval and ballistic missile forces&#8211;as well as, in the longer term, a rearming Russia, whose interests could conflict with those of the West.</p>
<p>All of which brings us back to where we began. Someday soon, we will face an enemy as ruthless and capable as North Korea in 1950&#8211;perhaps even North Korea again. Our troops&#8211;far superior in training and experience than those sent to Korea to be sure&#8211;will be thrust into battle unexpectedly. However, there may not be enough of them to ensure victory, and their weapons may not be available in the quantity and quality needed to overcome their foes. South Korea was successfully defended, but only at a heavy cost, and it was a near run thing. Unless we examine our national priorities and ensure that we maintain the necessary military strength to overcome all enemies, we may not be as lucky again.</p>
<p><strong>David Walsh is a freelance journalist and contributor to Frontpage Magazine. He is the author of <em>The Military Balance in the Cold War: US Perceptions and Policy, 1976-85</em> (Routledge, 2008).</strong></p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/david-walsh/losing-the-next-war/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>68</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sea Change for American Power</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/david-walsh/sea-change-for-american-power/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=sea-change-for-american-power</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/david-walsh/sea-change-for-american-power/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 04:41:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Walsh]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Britain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Navy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=136167</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Will rising world powers outmatch U.S. naval might? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/0420-0905-0100-3204_u_s_navy_ships_m1.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-136205" title="0420-0905-0100-3204_u_s_navy_ships_m" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/0420-0905-0100-3204_u_s_navy_ships_m1.gif" alt="" width="375" height="247" /></a>Over the last 65 years, the United States has been able to maintain a liberal international order. This era has seen the spread of political and economic freedom across much of the globe. As it did for Great Britain, naval superiority has been central for the success of this system. It has allowed for freedom of the seas (and thus international trade to flourish), and has allowed the United States to project power to counter threats and maintain stability on a worldwide scale.</p>
<p>Today, however, this situation is changing. As with Britain&#8211;which was threatened by German naval expansion before World War I and by Japan&#8217;s before World War II&#8211;external threats have emerged to challenge America&#8217;s control of the seas. China is increasingly asserting its naval reach in the Western Pacific. In April 2010, and again in June 2011, large-scale exercises were held. The 2011 exercise saw 11 ships&#8211;including three missile destroyers and four frigates&#8211;transit within 110 km. of Okinawa, within Japan&#8217;s Economic Exclusion Zone (EEZ). Submarines and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have also been reported. Additionally, China has procured a Russian-built aircraft carrier, which in 2011 made three deployments in the Yellow Sea, off the northeast coast. While reports vary, it is possible that Su-30 fighter-bombers&#8211;comparable to the F/A-18 Hornet&#8211;could be deployed (China has 24 in service), providing an effective tool for power projection. Most importantly, China has deployed the DF-21D ballistic missile, specifically designed for use against U.S. carrier strike groups, providing a serious challenge to American superiority in the Western Pacific.</p>
<p>Another challenger is Russia. For more than a decade after 1991, the Russian Navy was a decrepit shadow of its Soviet predecessor. Now, however, this is changing. Some $160 billion has been allotted to refit the fleet through 2020, while four French <em>Mistral</em>-class amphibious assault ships will be deployed in the next few years. These will give Russia a considerable boost in power-projection capabilities. Furthermore, new supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles like the Yakhont and advanced torpedoes like the Shkival are in service, which are a major enhancement to the fleet&#8217;s firepower.</p>
<p>Then there are the smaller fleets that, due to geopolitical and ideological factors, are most likely to be faced in a shooting war. Iran has developed a formidable naval capability in the confined waters of the Persian Gulf, which U.S. naval forces would have to enter to maintain the flow of oil from the region. It has some 5,000 mines of all types, including Russian-made rocket-propelled EM53&#8242;s, and 23 submarines, many of which carry torpedoes that can home in on a ship&#8217;s wake. Iran also has a large force of patrol craft and corvettes with advanced anti-ship missiles, capable of swarm attacks on U.S. ships. Iran&#8217;s ally Syria, while weak in sea-going forces, has acquired the Yakhont missile from Russia, extending its threat radius into the Mediterranean. North Korea likewise has a large force of missile-armed ships, and it&#8217;s submarine force includes 20 midget vessels, one of which sank the South Korean corvette <em>Cheonan</em> in 2010.</p>
<p>While threats from abroad have emerged, the priorities of the Obama Administration have also served to undermine America&#8217;s continued naval supremacy. As part of the plan to reduce defense spending by $487 billion over the next decade, Navy shipbuilding will be hard-hit. According to the administration&#8217;s budget plan, just 41 ships will be procured over the next five years. The Navy&#8217;s March 2012 shipbuilding plan is even more stark: no new ballistic missile submarines will be built until 2021, while just one more large-deck amphibious ship will be built in 2017. Not until 2018 will shipbuilding be funded above replacement levels. As John Lehman, Navy Secretary in the Reagan Administration, noted in a recent article in the <em>Wall Street Journal</em>, the total of ships in the U.S. Navy could decline from its current 286 to just 240-250 in the next half decade. Given that the U.S. Navy, in its 2006 plan, called for a 313-ship fleet in the 2030s, the current reductions make that prospect highly unlikely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/david-walsh/sea-change-for-american-power/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Showdown in the Strait of Hormuz</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/david-walsh/showdown-in-the-strait-of-hormuz/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=showdown-in-the-strait-of-hormuz</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/david-walsh/showdown-in-the-strait-of-hormuz/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2012 04:34:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Walsh]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hormuz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=124623</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If Iran decided to move to close the Strait.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/strait.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-124746" title="strait" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/strait.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="320" /></a></p>
<p>The crisis in the Middle East continues to intensify, and there is a growing probability of armed conflict with Iran in the near future. With its growing international isolation and continued drive toward nuclear weapon capability, the likelihood of Iran initiating hostilities is also a very real possibility.</p>
<p>A fulcrum of confrontation between Iran and the West is the Strait of Hormuz. On January 9, 2012, Brig. Gen. Ahmad Vahidi, Iran&#8217;s defense minister, stated that Iran has the ability to block the Strait if it deemed it necessary. In testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Lt. Gen. Ronald Burgess, Defense Intelligence Agency director, stated that &#8220;Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz.&#8221; Recent Iranian military exercises have emphasized sea denial of the waterway. In response, U.S., British and French warships have transited the Strait to and from the Persian Gulf to assert freedom of navigation. In January, the U.S. Navy reported four cases of harassment of its warships by Iranian naval vessels in the Gulf. Two U.S. carrier strike groups are deployed in the region, and a buildup of U.S. forces is underway.</p>
<p>The importance of Hormuz to global stability is paramount. According to a report from GlobalSecurity.org, almost 25 percent of the world&#8217;s oil supply transits the Strait daily&#8211;some 16.5-17 million barrels according to 2006 estimates&#8211;approximately 40 percent of all seaborne traded oil. Over 75 percent of Japan&#8217;s oil is carried through this waterway. By 2020, it is estimated that daily traffic will increase to some 30-34 million barrels.</p>
<p>Another thing about the Strait: it&#8217;s narrow, between 34-40 miles wide. Furthermore, there are just two 2-mile wide channels, one each for inbound and outbound traffic. Also, this traffic consists mostly of supertankers carrying over two million barrels each, meaning that fewer ships with more oil are carrying this supply.</p>
<p>If Hormuz were closed, as much as one-fifth of the world&#8217;s oil supply would be lost (assuming maximum output through pipelines from Saudi Arabia to the Red Sea, Turkey (through Iraq). and, possibly, Lebanon.) For the United States alone, this would have severe effects. According to a GAO report of October 5, 2006, such an occurrence could cause oil prices to increase $175 per barrel. Globally, the effects in such regions as Western Europe and East Asia would be even worse.</p>
<p>If Iran decided to move to close the Strait, it would have a variety of forces at its disposal. Its navy has three Russian-built Kilo-class submarines along with several midget submarines capable of laying mines, ideal for use in the Strait. Its surface forces include four guided-missile frigates and some 150 coastal combatants (another 50 are manned by the Revolutionary Guard Corps.) About 25-30 of these small vessels are equipped with the Chinese-made C-802 anti-ship missile, with a range of 60 kilometers. In addition to ships, there are some 60 C-802s deployed on Qeshm Island, covering the Strait, along                     with large numbers of other anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles there and on other small islands just to the west. Iran also has some 3,000 mines, including around 100 EM53&#8242;s, which are rocket-propelled and only strike when activated. There is also Iran&#8217;s air force, which fields about 50 F-14 Tomcat and MiG-29 fighters and 24 Su-24 strike aircraft, with some 200 other attack jets. Among the weapons they carry are C-801K anti-ship missiles, similar in capability to the C-802.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/david-walsh/showdown-in-the-strait-of-hormuz/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Unraveling Middle East, Part III</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/david-walsh/the-unraveling-middle-east-part-iii/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-unraveling-middle-east-part-iii</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/david-walsh/the-unraveling-middle-east-part-iii/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2011 04:00:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Walsh]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=87897</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A look into the possible future of the region -- and the world.  ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a class="highslide" onclick="return vz.expand(this)" href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ballistic-missile-is-displayed-by-the-Iranian-Revolutionary-Guard-in-front-of-a-picture-of-late-revolutionary-founder-Ayatollah-Khomeini-in-front-of-his-mausoleum.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-87914" title="ballistic-missile-is-displayed-by-the-Iranian-Revolutionary-Guard,-in-front-of-a-picture-of-late-revolutionary-founder-Ayatollah-Khomeini,-in-front-of-his-mausoleum" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ballistic-missile-is-displayed-by-the-Iranian-Revolutionary-Guard-in-front-of-a-picture-of-late-revolutionary-founder-Ayatollah-Khomeini-in-front-of-his-mausoleum.gif" alt="" width="375" height="279" /></a></p>
<p><strong>[Editor&#8217;s note: the following is the last installment of a three-part series. Click the following to read <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/18/the-unraveling-middle-east/">Part I</a> and <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/21/the-unraveling-middle-east-part-ii/">Part II</a>.]</strong></p>
<p>It is the near future. The Middle East has been shaken by violent upheaval. A bloody stalemate takes hold in Libya. A power struggle has developed in Egypt between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood, which has increased pressure in Jordan. The same is true in Yemen. Morocco, Algeria, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait and Oman have also seen growing unrest, with violent clashes. Egypt’s chaos has led to Hamas effectively controlling the Sinai, deploying guerrillas and rockets on Israel’s vulnerable Negev border. Tensions are high in Korea, while socialist Venezuela, faced with serious domestic troubles and buoyed by its alliance with Iran, is taking an aggressive stand against the U.S. These developments have had a debilitating effect on global markets. Oil is over $100 a barrel, while commodity prices have soared in the Middle East, stoking the upheaval.</p>
<p>For Iran, this growing crisis provides both danger and opportunity. The danger comes from growing unrest within, as the pro-democracy movement increasingly challenges the Mullahocracy. The opportunity comes from the developing global situation. Israel is effectively surrounded, with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank forming a unity government with Hamas and Jordan unstable. With interests in the Middle East, Asia and Latin America under threat amidst growing economic turmoil, the U.S. global position is highly vulnerable. By contrast, Iran’s position has strengthened. With a naval base on Syria’s Mediterranean coast, unopposed transit for its warships through the Suez Canal and establishment of a missile base in Venezuela, Teheran has increased its military reach considerably.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/david-walsh/the-unraveling-middle-east-part-iii/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Unraveling Middle East, Part II</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/david-walsh/the-unraveling-middle-east-part-ii/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-unraveling-middle-east-part-ii</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/david-walsh/the-unraveling-middle-east-part-ii/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2011 04:10:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Walsh]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=87895</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why Iran is the "evil empire" of the Muslim world. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a class="highslide" onclick="return vz.expand(this)" href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/mullahs51395294.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-87918" title="mullahs51395294" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/mullahs51395294.gif" alt="" width="375" height="286" /></a></p>
<p><strong>[Editor&#8217;s note: the following is the second installment of a three-part series. Part III will appear in tomorrow&#8217;s issue. To read Part I, click <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/18/the-unraveling-middle-east/">here</a>.]</strong></p>
<p>With the Middle East being swept by revolutionary chaos, Iran is the power that stands to gain most from the outcome. The countries affected by the turmoil, their strategic location, the large Shia populations in many of these nations and Iran’s close ties to Sunni Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood could give Teheran a hegemonic position in the region. Already, there is evidence to indicate this is occurring. On March 2, President Ahmadinejad warned the Saudi government not to move against that country’s Shia minority—numbering 2 million—on the planned “Day of Anger” protest set for March 11. This was followed the next day by Iran’s criticism of the Saudi decision to raise oil production by 500,000 barrels a day, to meet the shortfall caused by the fighting in Libya. The fact that Iran has so publicly stated its position regarding Saudi domestic and economic policy indicates growing confidence in Tehran regarding its status as a regional power.</p>
<p>A primary reason for Iran’s growing assertiveness is its capacity to use force. This includes not only Iran’s considerable armed forces, but also the capabilities of its surrogates. This combination enables Iran to wage war throughout Southwest Asia, and in key regions beyond.</p>
<p>Iran’s regular armed forces number some 290,000, with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) providing another 155,000. Together, these forces field nearly 2,000 tanks, 340 fighter-bombers and over 200 naval vessels. The regular armed forces are tailored for conventional warfare. The IRGC is considered the most sound branch of the military. While it is tasked with defending Iranian territory, its air force controls Iran’s ballistic missiles, ensuring regime control over this vital component.</p>
<p>While Iran has older equipment in its inventory, it also deploys considerable quantities of modern weapons. These include some 500 T-72 tanks, 25 MiG-29 fighters and 30 Su-24 strike aircraft, and three Kilo-class attack submarines. Older equipment has been modernized, including F-14 Tomcats supplied to the Shah in the 1970s. Iran’s defense industries have also produced tanks and combat aircraft, and have reportedly developed a variant of the Russian S-300 surface-to-air missile, embargoed by Moscow. Cooperation with foreign nations, including North Korea and China, has also taken place.</p>
<p>As for ballistic missiles, Iran is estimated to have 1,000 in service. Most worrisome is the Shahab 3, which has a range of 2,100 km, enough to reach the Aegean Sea. There are estimated to be several hundred Shahab 3s in service. The Shahab 5, developed from North Korea’s Taepodong 2, has a 6,000 km range, covering all of Europe (although it’s not been confirmed if these missiles are deployed).</p>
<p>Then there is the matter of WMD. In a report for Canada’s Mackenzie Institute, its president, John C. Thompson, notes that Iran has produced chemical weapons since the 1980-88 war with Iraq. As for nuclear weapons, while Iran’s program has suffered setbacks due to cyberwar attacks (namely Stuxtnet), Thompson states that “Iran has certainly had ample opportunity to amass a stockpile of radioactive material. They might not yet be able to deliver a nuclear warhead to Tel Aviv, but they could strew hundreds of kilos of radioactive dust over it.” The same could be said for any point in the Gulf.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/david-walsh/the-unraveling-middle-east-part-ii/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Unraveling Middle East</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/david-walsh/the-unraveling-middle-east/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-unraveling-middle-east</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/david-walsh/the-unraveling-middle-east/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2011 04:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Walsh]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=87668</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The balance of power is changing in the volatile region. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a class="highslide" onclick="return vz.expand(this)" href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Picture-41.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-87684" title="Picture-4" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Picture-41.gif" alt="" width="375" height="351" /></a></p>
<p><strong>[Editor's note: the following is the first installment of a three-part series. Part two will appear in Monday's issue.]</strong></p>
<p>The Middle East is in the grip of unprecedented upheaval. Libya is torn by civil war. Egypt and Tunisia have seen their long-time leaders ousted. Bahrain, Jordan and Yemen are wracked by protests, as is Saudi Arabia, with more planned in Lebanon and Kuwait. Oman has seen violence, and demonstrations swept Iraq as well. Both Algeria and Morocco are also experiencing unrest.</p>
<p>The causes of these uprisings are varied but unsurprising. Political repression, corruption, and poverty are key issues to the throngs that have taken to the streets. These complaints have been long-simmering, and while the scope of the protests has been surprising, the fact that popular unrest has occurred is not.</p>
<p>What has not been fully foreseen is just what effect these events will have on the balance of power in the Middle East, and across the globe. While the chaos is perplexing, a more disturbing scenario is beginning to emerge. While it might not be directly involved in every case of upheaval, Iran is becoming a clear beneficiary of it. Indeed, it may be that we are witnessing a major shift in the geopolitical balance of world power, one that could pit Iran against the West in a global conflict.</p>
<p>Already, there are signs of Iran’s taking advantage of the situation for its benefit. On February 24, two Iranian warships transited the Suez Canal and docked at the Syrian port of Latakia. Two days later, Iran and Syria signed an accord providing for an Iranian naval base at the port. This is a profound development. An Iranian base in the Mediterranean allows Teheran to considerably expand its naval reach, which has been growing thanks to exercises in the Red Sea. Along with such overt activity, Iran has benefited from developments in Egypt in other ways. The once-tight control Egypt exercised in the Sinai has been seriously weakened. This has allowed Hamas, backed by Iran, to infiltrate from Gaza, and for Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists to break out of Egyptian jails. Thus Iran’s proxies threaten Israel along its long and vulnerable Sinai border, adding to the pressure Israel faces from Gaza and Lebanon. Moreover, the growing influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in post-Mubarak Egypt, and its close ties to Iran, might see a pro-Iranian state emerge, which would have severe strategic consequences for the West.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/david-walsh/the-unraveling-middle-east/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 629/648 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 06:32:50 by W3 Total Cache -->