If Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is to be believed, not much. Change is not in the air at the Pentagon.

Vice chairman: Deterrence plays into overseas basing decisions

Posted 6/5/2009

by Jim Garamone

American Forces Press Service

6/5/2009 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- The overseas basing choices the United States makes for its military forces are a factor in deterring potential enemies, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said June 4 here.

....

"For me the most important question in the review is what does deterrence look like in the 21st century," General Cartwright said, "and how is that reflected in our priorities of basing and posture and basing and availability?"

The people hunkered down in that monstrous building on the south side of the Potomac are still convinced that having a strong military dispersed around the globe somehow inhibits other people's aggressive tendencies. You'd think that the last eight years would have taught them differently.

Clearly, more attention needs to be paid. After all, the script for the New World Order was laid out in just such a review in the early nineties.

There seems to be some misunderstanding on the General's part.

The operations in Iraq and Afghanistan also influence basing decisions. The conflicts -- and those the United States is likely to face -- will last at least five to 10 years, the general said. Those forces and their replacements must be factored into the process.

"That's a reality that forces us to change," General Cartwright said. "Are we going to shift that balance off of the conventional to the most likely?"

I have no idea what that last sentence about "the most likely" is supposed to mean. But, the General is talking about a conflict in Iraq lasting five to ten years without any apparent recognition that his troops and his military assets are supposed to be in the process of being withdrawn. And he seems not to be alone. The Air Force also reports on a Joint Airspace Conference, lacking even an inkling of awareness that the airspace over Iraq needs to be vacated post haste.

Joint airspace conference takes place in Iraq

Posted 6/4/2009 Updated 6/5/2009

by Staff Sgt. Tim Beckham

U.S. Air Forces Central Public Affairs

6/4/2009 - CAMP VICTORY, Iraq (AFNS) -- Members of the Multinational Corps-Iraq held an Airspace Interoperability Synchronization Conference in an attempt to better use the airspace over Iraq here May 30.

As members of the MNC-I joint fires and effects cell, air and missile defense team servicemembers are responsible for executing, in concert with other entities, airspace command and control as well as air and missile defense within the Iraq theater of operations.

Ah, the storied "air and missile defense within the Iraq theater of operations," we almost never hear anything about. Probably because it might lead to the question of what they're doing in a theater of operations that had all its missiles (defensive and offensive) wiped out in 2003 and doesn't have an air force (except for the few planes the U.S. has sold them) either. If having bases on the ground serves as a deterrent, who's being deterred by "airspace command and control" over Iraq?

General Cartwright's explanation is not reassuring.

The Defense Department must adjust the balance, the general said. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates wants to make sure "the institution understands and fights the war that we are in, not the one we'd like to be in, that we planned for. The question is how do you put yourself in sufficient strategic agility to be able to handle whatever it is that comes up?"

Right now, "our bases are where we fought the Indians, the Japanese and the Germans," General Cartwright said. "The real question is can we change from that, are we really disadvantaged from that and, if so, how compelling is the argument that we can get resources to be based elsewhere?"

We have bases "where we fought the Indians"? Really? And, "we'd like to be in (a war) that we planned for"? This explanation sounds a lot like "you go to war with the Army you have." While that may explain how we got into warring on Iraq, it doesn't sound like the Vice Chairman has really bought into the Gates perspective.

Never mind diplomacy or nation building, Cartwright seems fixated on aggressive deterrence.

Another basing construct involves global strike.

"Global strike is the acknowledgment that there are certain forces that really do have global reach, and they can move to global scale very quickly," General Cartwright said. "Historically, we have thought in terms of conventional bombers. The reality is conventional bombers for global strike is probably not credible - they are too slow, they are too intrusive and require too many permissions to get from Point A to Point B. What we are trying to understand is what are the attributes and characteristics of global strike so we can generate those capabilities and deliver them in a credible way."

The low-end capability for global strike "is probably any place on the face of the earth in an hour," the general said. "The high end is any place on the face of the earth in about 300 milliseconds -- that's cyber."

I don't know about you, but this sounds a lot like "star wars" with a new moniker. Now it's all about "cyber"--i.e. the new domain that the Bush/Cheney Air Force was keen to add to its dominion over land, sea and air.

"If we are trying to deal with a conflict that could be over in minutes, then you have to have something that deters that conflict and it has to be more than nuclear."

Really? "More than nuclear?" What might that be? Forgive my quibble, but the General's shift from the first person to the second is not reassuring. It's usually an indication that the person is unclear what he's talking about, or trying to be deceptive.

In that regard, the report from the joint airspace conference might be illuminating:

...the joint fires and effects cell, air and missile defense cell is the nerve center for all Army air and missile defense data link communications in Iraq. Its coordination and integration with the Air Force Control and Reporting Center at Joint Base Balad, Iraq, the Marine Tactical Air Operations Center at Al Assad, Iraq, and theater air defense airspace management systems is critical for successful airspace management and deconfliction.

"deconfliction" is what occupying another nation's airspace is now called. This, no doubt, accounts for why Air Force assets are being deployed to deal with snipers on the ground. Which, quite frankly, strikes me as either over-kill or a sign that the Air Force has a lot of toys it has no real use for. So, they're sending the equivalent of a tank after a fly.

I suppose what makes "deconfliction" attractive is the same as in "decontamination"--unlike peace, or even pacification, there's no termination in sight. Deconfliction can go on as long as our military riles the locals up.