NATO, Article 5, and resource strangulation/cyber attacks

Does it constitute shilling for a new high hit-count day if I post twice in one day for the first time in like, ever? Probably, but I’m going to do it nonetheless, if only to make Jason stop whining.

So while my more thoughtful friends and acquaintances are carrying on meaningful email dialogues and challenging me to think about putting fingers to keys on some bigger-think strategic questions, I’m going to direct you to this short piece that I saw last week about Ivo Daalder’s first trip to Europe as the U.S. ambassador to NATO.

Insurgent basketball: Gladwell on sports and asymmetric conflict

I was all girded up to write a couple thousand words on Malcolm Gladwell’s New Yorker piece “How David Beats Goliath: When underdogs break the rules.” I even made notes. And then I left them at work. 

So as part of my new commitment to try to write something every day (increase frequency of posts, decrease frequency of “excuses” tag), I’m just going to direct you to the article and the thread on Abu Muqawama where I got scooped in the middle of the work day. Hopefully I’ll get back to this tomorrow, because I think there’s really a lot of interesting stuff to say about this. Gladwell has really only just nibbled at the edge of this subject, but his conclusion that “effort > skill” is noteworthy.

Gunmen raid police academy in Lahore

It’s being reported this morning that a police training center in Lahore has been raided by gunmen disguised as police officers. There was an 8-hour standoff, and the death toll currently stands at 27 (with more than triple that number wounded). This is significant for a number of reasons, but here’s two: 1) this attack took place in the generally placid city of Lahore, in Punjab — not in the Northwest Frontier Provinces, the Swat Valley, Baluchistan, or the FATA, and 2) this is the second time in about six months that massed bands of militants have assaulted a target using military-style tactics and then engaged with security forces in an attempt to hold ground.

New book in the mail

Fresh out of the mailbox!

If I end up falling back into my habit of infrequent posting any time soon, then this time it won’t be because I’m distracted by beer and basketball (like every other time). No, this time it’s different: it’s because I’m likely to end up spending the next three or four years, Roget’s dictionary close at hand, trying to get through the 209 pages of Vincent Desportes’ La Guerre Probable (The Likely War). After two weeks’ wait and twenty-odd dollars in shipping charges the book arrived in my mailbox today via Amazon.fr. 

Thoughts from a combat advisor in Afghanistan

Over the last several days, I’ve been corresponding with a senior NCO currently serving as a combat advisor in Afghanistan. He’s on his second tour, and he has some pretty strong opinions about both the way the war is being fought and the way that our advisor personnel are being used. Our communication began after he commented on my post from last week about a “successful” but counterproductive raiding mission in Logar Province.

Vengeance 7 — the name he has commented under on this and other blogs — sent me an email this morning with some cobbled-together thoughts from other postings he’s made (here and here). I asked if I could share, and so here are some excerpts with very slight editing and my limited commentary. I lost about 500 words to a browser crash earlier, so we’re going to do this thing in installments.

Tactical mistakes by a “strategic thinker”

Admiral William Fallon, commander of U.S. Central Command, resigned yesterday in the wake of reports that he and the President were not on the same page about U.S. policy towards Iran. His unlikely assassin: Tom Barnett, a man who professes admiration for Fallon and has identified him as one of the greatest strategic thinkers in today’s American military. Barnett’s anti-White House hit piece in Esquire illustrates the limitations of a self-styled strategist trying to moonlight as a journalist: in making what he must’ve thought was a good faith effort to report the news and inform the public, Barnett struck a damaging blow to the sort of strategic approach he encourages in his books.

Hostage-taking as an emerging tactic in Afghanistan

UPDATE: This entry has been picked up by The Issue’s July 31st edition. More details here.

Several months ago I blogged an article about the return of an Italian journalist who had been held hostage in Afghanistan. The Prodi government orchestrated the exchange of five jailed Taliban for Daniele Mastrogiacomo, much to the dismay of the U.S. government. Speculation was rife that such exchanges would further endanger westerners in Iraq and Afghanistan by increasing their value as potential targets of kidnapping, and it seems that the Taliban have taken a lesson from the whole affair.

Twenty-three South Korean aid workers were abducted in Afghanistan over a week ago, and one has turned up dead. Entreaties by the Seoul government for its citizens’ safe return have been ignored, though a deadline for prisoner exchange set by the Taliban captors came and went without incident.

Hostages and the diplomatic response

Saturday’s IHT contains a very interesting piece by Ian Fisher about the way that governments deal with kidnappings and ransom demands. The article was no doubt conceived as a commentary on the recent prisoner exchange between the Taliban and Romano Prodi’s government, where 5 militants were released from Afghan jails in exchange for the return of Italian journalist Daniele Mastrogiacomo. Though not mentioned in the piece, Friday’s capture of 15 British sailors and marines by the Iranian navy presents a similar challenge to a Western government; while the IRI doesn’t seem likely to execute the Britons, Jimmy Carter learned that even live hostages are a political nightmare.

Saudi oil diplomacy

I keep reading that the Saudis are helping us put pressure on Iran, notably through their refusal to cut back production as part of an OPEC plan to drive up prices. So why are CNN Money and the WSJ reporting that they are now doing exactly that? And why is outgoing Saudi ambassador to the U.S. Turki al-Faisal “dismiss[ing] speculation that Saudi Arabia was trying to drive down oil prices to constrain export revenues for political rival Iran”? Not that I’d be shocked to find a diplomat being coy about something so touchy when questioned, but doesn’t this step seem to suggest that he’s actually being straightforward and honest?

Iran op-ed chuckles

I’m finding it a bit difficult to get back in the flow of writing about meaningful things, so let’s start by making fun of someone. Namely one Frederick Grab, who we’re told is a former California AG. This, to open a column that later advocates war with Iran: