Kyle,

Now being in the heart of the chocolate summit you don't keep up with the latest threat briefing to congress. Do some reading....

Kyle

Actually I believe you to be a liberal. This does not mean you are a pacifist. Liberals have no problem in using US military force when it is not connected to the vital interests of the US. Liberals would much rather deploy 3200 Marines to Chad than to Afghanistan.

Given your left coast upbringing, the organizations you have chosen to associate yourself with, and some of your comments and lack of comments in our last exchange about NATO you sound very liberal and should fit in well as an editor/moderator. You just need to be more critical of the US.

The first link is the DNI report to Congress on 5 February 2008

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2008_hr/index.html

This link is the transcript of DNI testimony before the Senate.

http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20080205_transcript.pdf

These links appeared in the WSJ reporting on the testimony.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120243182629452341.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120269602082157967.html


The bottom-line was a walkback by DNI McConnell concerning the unclassified assessment you make reference to in your article. If you slog through the transcript you will clearly see this. Iran remains the threat it was before the euphoria of the December released assessment. Of course the damage has already been done by the left on no longer needing to pressure Iran with non-military means. As the Economist stated in a cover story Iran Won.

That M$M has not widely reported this nor have democrats make an issue of this is because it does not fit the template they have about the threat Iran presents and more to the point about the actions of the current POTUS.

M$M, the left, Europe, and democrats all jumped on the initial release painting POTUS as a warmonger and boxing in his efforts to pressure Iran. Europe breathed a collective sigh of relief. Remember the current POTUS is a greater threat to peace than Iran ever will be. Ask any german.

What the DNI said is the wrong part of Iran’s Nuclear Program was highlighted. (I do not for one minute believe this was not done intentionally BTY.) That part being the suspension of weapons design, which is the easy part of developing a nuclear weapon. Even that part the DNI could not state with any confidence may have already been restarted.

As you pointed out the real threats are the enrichment program and the delivery system. Both of those are on going by Iran. In fact, the DNI stated it is possible Iran will have a functional nuclear weapon by 2009. The more likely date is 2010 -12.

So the new POTUS is going to be awaken one early morning to the news that Iran has denoted a nuclear weapon. It will be a little late at this point for the US and her so-called European allies to do much other than try to revise BMD program. I seriously doubt Europe will have more stomach then for military action. The risk will be too great to their little postmodern paradise.

But then for the European Iran has never really been a threat. Just some more US scare tactics. Israel on the other hand might take action. If Iran gets away with this, which all indications they will, then in 10-12 years the ME will have lots of nuclear states.

Of course there is hope that Obama and his direct dialogue with Iran will preclude all of this. I wish him greater success than what the POTUS has accomplished with PRNK.

Then again it might be possible to attack Iran’s weakest link which is its economy causing a popular uprising. This probably come be done at a cost of between 500m to 1B dollars and less than 3500 lives. Would the US undertake such an effort, I seriously doubt it. We like Europe have become morally pure. One need look no farther than the accomplishment of your former organization who claims as a victory the stoppage of the development of nuclear bunker buster weapons.

Kyle

Chad – I too am watching this deployment with great interest. I consider EUFOR operating under the framework of the ESDP to accurately reflect post NATO Europe.

(Of course, if your concept of the NATO opt out option was formalized into the existing treaty this could be a NATO mission with france having contributed the most troops having the greatest say in it conduct. actually that does seem to be what is happening. multi-polar EU?)

EUFOR has undertaken a very ambitious and demanding mission given the terrain and complexity. It is to cover more than 200,000 SqKM or 77,000 Sq miles, about the size of the UK, and to provide for and protect 400,000 and growing refugees.

With the European battle groups up and functioning, there are two now ready to be deployed; one wonders why it took from September 07 to now to start the deployment. The most recent delay seems to have been the results of a small group of freedom fighters armed with light machineguns in pick up trucks.

I think we both can agree had the US assumed this mission and delayed deployment this long there would have been a firestorm of M$M and diplomatic condemnation. Jorg, NYT, CNN would have had a field day.

If the POTUS tasked DOD with such a mission, I would anticipate as a minimum the 101st Airborne Division with its 18,000 personnel and over 400 helicopters would be deployed. I can assure you they would have arrived in less time.

One can only assume the superior leadership of LTG Nash of the Irish Defense Forces will compensate for what at first brush would appear to be a shortfall in both personnel and lift given the scope of the mission statement from the UNSC.

It surely would be interesting to read the OPLAN/OPORD for this operation. I dare say it is probably several feet thick. The portion dealing with rules of engagement and logistics would be fascinating.

Just from a lift utilization-planning standpoint deploying 10 helicopters would break out something like: 1 C&C, 2 log, 1 down for maintenance at any time, 1 MEDEVAC. That means on any given day assuming there are no UN/EU VIP missions, the french ground commander will have 5 chopters to support the operation. Depending on the threat environment most of these would probably be on standby to airlift an immediate reaction/protection force.

Then to support this mission given the size of the AOR, a lot of forward area refueling points would be required which might required some form of a security force. So boots on the ground to provide actually security grows ever smaller.

I would also be particular interested in the rules of engagement. I wonder if the lessons learned from how the germans reacted to civilians being killed in the Balkans as they remained in their barracks or how the Dutch peacekeeping troops failed to stop the massacre of more than 8,000 men and boys at Srebrenica have been incorporated into the OPORD. Remember the stated reasons for no action to be prevent these deaths were the existing rules of engagement.

Given the UN mission statement it would seem the rules of engagement could be very aggressive as it pertains to the protection of refuges. Armed intervention because of restrictive ROE’s should not be an issue.

From my readings of this mission, EUFOR is not to take sides in the internal conflict between the freedom fighters and the existing government of Chad. It is only for protection of refugees, aid workers, UN personal, etc. I wonder then how france has been able to deliver ammunition to the current government of Chad. Does this mean there are two french forces in Chad? One as part of the EUFOR with a french overall operational ground commander of EUFOR and a second permeate french force which has 1,450 troops plus Mirage jet fighters in Chad and has provided Deby, the president of Chad with logistical and intelligence support under what one has to assume a different french commander. Or is it possible both forces are commanded by the same french general?

If this is true about the french participation it would appear to be direct conflict with the UN mission. It would however answer the question as to why the freedom fighters consider EUFOR to be a hostile force given its overwhelming french makeup.

I guess if the truth be known it does not matter if EUFOR accomplishes it mission or not. What is important is through strategic discussions among the EU members this force has deployed displaying not only the development but the progress the EU has made.

It will be interesting to observe how well the EU handles this mission.

BTW I made a comment to you concept of NATO incentives.

Joerg,

Does that mean references to David drinking moonbat kool aid should also be avoided?