Crosshairs - Military Matters in Review Columns writted by Fred Edwards in 2007

Crosshairs - Military Matters in Review
Archive 2008

Free Subscription! To receive future columns by e-mail click here and sign up.

The content of Crosshairs - Military Matters in Review may be copied or retransmitted for information purposes, but may not be used for any commercial purpose without my written permission. Please include this notice and credit the source as Crosshairs - Military Matters in Review by Fred Edwards.

Jan 04 2008 What motivates the enemy?

Jan 11 2008 Brother can you spare a dollar for a veteran? -- How about 30 cents for the vet and 70 for me?

Jan 18 2008 Afghanistan -- A new Operation Yo-Yo

Feb 01 2008 Crosshairs on Taiwan

Feb 15 2008 Taiwan update -- The inscrutable Chinese

Top | Home

What motivates the enemy?

by Fred Edwards

Jan. 4, 2008 -- After discussions with the French Foreign Ministry, officials have cancelled the 7,000-mile,off-road Lisbon Dakar Rally of Jan. 5-20, due to "direct threats" of terrorism from al Qaeda. The concern sprang from the slaying of a family of French tourists on Christmas Eve in Mauritania, a country along the race route. That followed a similar attack on Dec. 28, when three Mauritanian soldiers stationed on the border with Algeria were killed. Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for killing the soldiers, but not the French family.

This latest al Qaeda threat invites a moment to review the enemy's motivation. Let's start with the long-term catalyst of those who have declared global jihad, a term used by Sarah E. Zabel in "The Military Strategy of Global Jihad." She explains that global jihadis share a worldview in which the Muslim world is suffering a prolonged, aggressive assault from the West, in what Abu-Mus'ab al-Suri refers to as three crusader campaigns.

Who is al-Suri? Zabel describes him as a global jihad strategist who served as a military instructor and lecturer in the Afghan-Arab training camps from 1987 to 1992, fought in several jihad campaigns, and held other positions in jihad organizations in Europe and the Middle East. He reportedly was captured in Pakistan in Nov. 2005.

Al-Suri proclaims that the first Crusader Campaign lasted from 1095 to 1291, a fact known to many Christians, Jews and Muslims. Then, his view of history takes a strange turn. He declares that the Second Crusader Campaign began with Napoleon's occupation of Egypt in 1798 and ended with the collapse of Arab nationalism in the 1970s. The Third Crusader Campaign commenced in 1990 and continues to the present time. In the third crusade, the United States leveraged the collapse of the Soviet Union to establish a new world order through which it dominates all aspects of the Muslim peoples' lives, which they find intolerable. All of this might be a mighty stretch of the imagination to you and me, but it represents a huge chunk of world history from the jihadist point of view.

Accordingly, the global jihadists plan to neutralize the superpower guardian of world order, claim land and peoples for Islamic emirates out of the resulting chaos, and bring these emirates together to create a true Islamic state. And the Lisbon Dakar Rally is just one more link in the chain.

Zabel documents that the jihadis have spent more than 40 years refining their philosophy, gaining experience, building their organization, and developing plans to reestablish the international caliphate. The 9/11 attacks set this plan in motion.

If we follow this line of reasoning, we would agree with some non-Muslim extremists who claim that the events of 9/11 were America's fault. Following their line, and that of al-Suri, apparently the United States should have simply capitulated to the Soviet Union early in the Cold War, and Americans would have lived happily ever after--or at least Muslims would have.

As Zabel writes, the global jihadist fervor has sparked the fires of Islamic extremist hatred against the West for more than 40 years. Such hatred won't go away in 2008. America has kept them from our shores since 9/11, so they have searched out easier targets, in Africa, Spain, France, England, the Philippines, and elsewhere. And their tactics have spread to international sports, most recently the Lisbon Dakar Rally. Top | Home

Brother can you spare a dollar for a veteran?

How about 30 cents for the vet and 70 for me?

by Fred Edwards

Jan. 11, 2008 -- Although direct mail advertising is expensive, it can return a decent profit for businesses. But do veterans' organizations have the right to deduct direct-mail costs from what donors might think they are contributing to service members wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan? Unless Congress puts a halt to it, it appears that they certainly do. Here's the background.

The issue surfaced just before Christmas when the American Institute of Philanthropy (AIP) issued a report card on 29 not-for-profit agencies collecting money for veterans and veterans causes. With little oversight by Congress, such charities can spend less than $1 in every $3 they collect for their stated purpose and face no disciplinary action. According to the AIP, 20 of the 29 failed to meet expected standards of efficiency or transparency

Eight veterans charities, including some of the nation's largest, funneled less than a third of the money raised to the causes they champion, far below the recommended standard, says AIP.

This column is not intended to be a finger-pointing episode, but merely to report the information provided by AIP and to advise potential donors to investigate any charitable organization before contributing.

Receiving A grades in the report were: Air Force Aid Society, Armed Services YMCA of the USA, Army Emergency Relief, Fisher House Foundation, Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund, National Military Family Association, and Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society.

Explaining the Fisher House Foundation's operations, spokesman Jim Weiskopf said his charity does not use direct-mail advertising or the fundraising expenses would jump "astronomically." Without direct mail costs, the organization provides more than 90 percent of its donations to its causes.

Charities listed with failing grades were: American Ex-Prisoners of War Service Foundation, American Veterans Coalition, American Veterans Relief Foundation, AMVETS National Service Foundation, Disabled Veterans Association, Freedom Alliance, Help Hospitalized Veterans/Coalition to Salute America's Heroes, Military Order of the Purple Heart Service Foundation, National Veterans Services Fund, NCOA National Defense Foundation, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and VietNow National Headquarters.

Organizations not listed were graded between A and F, while some were not included in the report.

To explain an F grade, AIP president Daniel Borochoff cited Help Hospitalized Veterans. The organization, which provides therapeutic arts and crafts kits to hospitalized veterans, reported income of $71.3 million last year and spent about one-third of that money on charitable causes, according to Borochoff. In its tax filings, the organization reported paying more than $4 million in direct-mail costs and television advertisements.

According to a filing with the Internal Revenue Service, Roger Chapin, the president, received $426,434 in salary and benefits in the past fiscal year. His wife, Elizabeth, received $113,623 in salary and benefits as newsletter editor.

More than one of the lower graded charities took exception to the tone of the AIP report. For example, an AMVETS official wrote that, "according to AMVETS NSF's Federal Form 990 on file with the IRS, we returned more than 77 percent of our charitable donations directly to programs for veterans. The Form 990 is the established tool for rating charities used by the IRS, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Better Business Bureau, and a number of charity watchdog groups including Independent Charities of America, of which AMVETS NSF is a recognized member in good standing."

Also, Richard H. Esau Jr., executive director of the Military Order of the Purple Heart Service Foundation, said the cost of fundraising limits how much his group can spend on charitable causes. "Do you have any idea how much money it costs to advertise? It's unbelievable the amount of money it takes to advertise in the print and electronic media," he said. "I'm very proud of what we do, and we certainly do look after everybody. F or no F, the point is we do the right thing by veterans."

The question remains. When somebody asks you if you can spare a dollar for a veteran, how much of that dollar will actually reach the veteran and how much will be siphoned off to fundraising expenses? Congress is looking into it.

Top | Home

Afghanistan -- A new Operation Yo-Yo

by Fred Edwards

Jan. 18, 2008 -- Just over 57 years ago in Oct. 1950, the First Marine Division was afloat, steaming back and forth in the Sea of Japan. The division had assaulted Inchon, in Korea, and participated in the seizure of Seoul. Then it had been ordered to disengage from the enemy, backload through Inchon, and conduct an amphibious assault on Oct. 20 against Wonsan, in North Korea. Enemy naval mines had complicated the issue, so the invasion force floundered around at sea an extra six days in what had become tagged "Operation Yo-Yo."

Now let's flash forward to 2007. In late November, Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant, tossed out another yo-yo by saying that the Marines should take responsibility for Afghanistan and let the Army handle Iraq. His rationale was that the Army is more geared for nation-building than the Marines while Marines are more predisposed to combat operations of the type needed in Afghanistan.

Except for other Marines, Conway got few takers. For instance, why would the Air Force want a Marine air-ground task force taking over its turf in Afghanistan, and using Air Force assets in a supporting role. And why would the Army jump at the chance to stop sharing Iraq with the Marines. It already was stretched so thin that it was being assisted by thousands of Navy and Air Force augmentees on the ground.

The biggest disagreement came from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, and on Wed. Dec. 5, Gen. Conway told reporters that, "After discussion with the secretary and with my colleagues on the Joint Staff, there is a determination that right now the timing is not right to provide additional Marine forces to Afghanistan."

Suddenly the U.S. Central Command (CentCom) launched its own yo-yo. Secretary Gates had complained that too few countries were pulling their weight in NATO's International Assistance Security Force (IASF) in Afghanistan. Furthermore, planners were looking at the probability of another Taliban annual spring offensive in 2009 -- perhaps a decisive one -- and CentCom was the combatant command responsible to see that it didn't happen. So CentCom fired a request to Washington for a Marine combat force to assist IASF.

The 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) based at Camp Lejeune, N.C. was alerted for a possible seven-month deployment, and on Dec. 15 the Defense Department issued the orders. In addition to the 2,200 Marines from the MEU, some 1,000 Marines from 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment based at the Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms, Calif., also were set to deploy perhaps as early as Feb. 1, according to Marine Corps officials.

This deployment will send a signal to the countries that have been laggard in fully supporting the NATO mission. Whether it will shame them into action might be seen during the NATO defense minister summit scheduled for Feb. 7-8 in Vilnius, Lithuania.

The U.S. Marines will be joining an ISAF of about 41,700 troops, including 14,000 from American units, that are aiding the Afghan army and police forces in security and stability operations. The Marines will bring with them 16 badly needed utility, transport and heavy lift helicopters. In addition to the NATO force, American-led Combined Joint Task Force 82 of 12,000 U.S. and 1,200 coalition troops also is committed to defeating anti-government extremists. This military strength puts NATO in position to defeat any Taliban offensive while continuing to beef up the Afghan security forces.

In the Operation Yo-Yo of 1950, by the time the First Marine Division landed at Wonsan, South Korean troops had already occupied the port with ground troops. The 2007-2008 version of "operation yo-yo" promises great success by putting the Marines where they are needed, when they are needed.

Top | Home

Crosshairs on Taiwan

by Fred Edwards

Feb. 1, 2008 -- How did we get here?

When the civil war in China ended in 1949, two million refugees, predominately connected with the nationalists, fled to the island of Taiwan (also called Formosa). In Oct. 1949, Mao Zedong, leader of the Chinese Communist Party, founded the People's Republic of China (PRC) on the mainland, and in Dec., Chiang Kai-shek established a Kuomintang capital in Taipei, which became the Republic of China. At first, the U.S. government sent signals that a communist takeover of Taiwan would not be of vital concern, and in 1950 the PRC prepared an invasion fleet for that purpose. The invasion plans were abruptly cancelled after June 28, 1950, when the communist army from North Korea invaded South Korea, and the United States placed Taiwan under a naval umbrella, punctuated by U.S. Navy warships patrolling the PRC's doorstep in the strategic Taiwan Straight.

Where are we?

Thus tension was spawned which won't go away. The PRC (generally called "China" today) sees Taiwan as ultimate Chinese territory and its citizens as subjects of the PRC. Taiwan, on the other hand, has developed into a prosperous democracy during the last three generations, and most of its citizens have little or no interest in unification. Commerce and trade with mainland China might be important to them, but not so political change. The United States, for its part, is stuck between supporting Taiwan and not alienating the PRC. It adopted Taiwan in 1950, and has found that, when you adopt a baby, it tends to grow up and behave in its own way.

Where are we going?

Accordingly, President Chen Shui-bian has taunted the PRC by continually asserting Taiwan's sovereignty. His latest effort will be a nation-wide referendum in March, during the presidential election, on Taiwan's membership in the United Nations. Even if the referendum should pass -- which most analysts say is not likely -- it would have no practical impact because the U.N. and the Security Council would be expected to reject the idea. Nevertheless, observers view the referendum as provocative and downright dangerous.

The election results of Jan. 13 for Taiwan's legislature might appear to have quashed Chen's plans. After all, the opposition party -- the KMT -- won a super majority of more than two-thirds of the assembly's seats, thus crushing Chen's Democratic Progressive Party. But Chen has collected enough signatures to put the matter to a vote, and, after the DPP's losses in the legislative elections, he needs to generate a large turnout for the presidential election.

This idea infuriates the PRC, which is seeking hegemony in a large hunk of ocean that contains a chafe next to its eastern underbelly. According to U.S. Defense Department analysts, China has deployed 900 miss[les across from Taiwan, and is adding about 100 a year.

Taiwan, which historically has counted on defense weaponry for use against its goliath neighbor, is also upping the ante with offensive weapons. It already has successfully tested a Hsiungfeng 2E cruise missile that could carry a nearly 900-pound warhead more than 600 miles. Such a range would include Shanghai, the financial center of the country, as a target.

As a signal of American displeasure with Chen's actions, the United States held up the sale of 66 multirole F-16C/D Block 52 fighters to Taipei. Notwithstanding, it agreed in September to sell 12 surplus P-3C maritime patrol aircraft with T-56 turboprop engines, data terminals and a mobile operation command center. And it announced in mid-November that it would upgrade anti-missile batteries around Taiwan's capital of Taipei.

To continue this dangerous chess game, Beijing cancelled port calls in Hong Kong for the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk, its five escort ships, two minesweepers and a scheduled Christmas port visit of a frigate. In a presumed retaliatory move, the United States sent the ships steaming through the Taiwan Straight. So here we are again -- or still -- just like in 1950.

Top | Home

Taiwan update

The inscrutable Chinese

by Fred Edwards

Feb. 15, 2008 -- In my column of Feb. 2, (Crosshairs on Taiwan), I referred to the interplay between the Peoples Republic of China and Taiwan as if the PRC were solely a military monolith whose actions are inscrutable. Consequently Edward Van Court, an international affairs researcher, reminded me that, based on foreign trade information from basic sources such as the CIA Factbook, Taiwan is essential to both U.S. and foreign trade. Consequently, the PRC's military option might lie somewhere down the list of Chinese priorities.

Noting that China is less than a century out of feudalism, he pointed out indications that the current situation is a hybrid of geographical and functional feudalism under the leadership of the Central Party in Beijing. This suggests a feudal melange among several ministries and agencies, with residual warlord tones. To carry Chinese inscrutability a step further, just overlay the PRC's Military Regions on an ethno-linguistic map of this disparately populated land mass. Now compare the bios of the leaders of the Central Military Commission and it becomes evident why the MRs are established "for centralized control and decentralized operation."

Now let's take another look at why an American aircraft carrier battle group and other U.S. warships resorted to steaming through the Taiwan Straight -- scarcely 100 miles wide at its narrowest--after China cancelled a planned holiday Navy warship visit to Hong Kong. Susan Shirk, a China expert at the University of California in San Diego, and a former State Department official dealing with East Asia, agrees that the cancellation probably signals dissatisfaction with U.S. actions concerning Taiwan.

But look how it played out. According to the White House, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi first told President Bush the port-visit reversals were due to a "misunderstanding." Then later, Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said such reports were not true. So the Foreign Ministry might simply have been out of the loop. That seemed to be the case in January when -- without forewarning the United States -- the Chinese launched a missile that destroyed an aging weather satellite. The Chinese Foreign Ministry seemed unaware of that action.

So is the Chinese government conducting uncoordinated foreign policy, or is it sending signals, or is it just being inscrutable? A great deal depends upon the answer to these questions, because wars too often are started by mistake.

For example, although the circumstances were different in the early 20th century, just look at how the treaty dominos were set up during the summer of 1914. The Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his wife were assassinated in Sarajevo by a Serbian militant. Austria declared war on Serbia. Russia came to Serbia's aid and mobilized for war against Austria. Germany, Austria's ally, declared war on Russia. When France showed signs of supporting Russia, Germany declared war on France. Shortly thereafter Britain declared war on Germany. Now all of Europe was at war. In late 1914, Turkey joined Germany and Austria, spreading the conflagration to the Middle East. Then the United States sent their boys "over there." After millions of casualties on all sides, a new world order emerged.

Now transfer to 2008. According to Van, if the PRC uses the military option to bring Taiwan to heel, the infrastructure that makes it worth taking will be destroyed. Taiwan has become an economic power by virtue of its transportation infrastructure (ports), its manufacturing sector, and its information infrastructure. A rain of bombs, artillery shells, and missiles would devastate what makes Taiwan so valuable. Compounding this, in the event of a war, the brain drain out of Taiwan to the United States and other western democracies would reduce the quality of human capital of the island drastically. It seems doubtful that the Chinese would want to gain a "lost province" that offers no gain. So in the scheme of Chinese inscrutability, let's place trade before out-and-out military aggression.

Top | Home | More Archives