HG S2 (Intel Bot)

Were they ever? I will stick with my quote that they are the best friend about $5 B a year will buy, except you can't buy friends. We have some tough decisions to make and whether we keep paying a bunch of corruptocrat weasels who have never played straight with us is first and foremost. I don't have an answer yet, and I don't think there are any good ones. View the full article

Iran test launches Shahab 3 missiles in 2009 The German newspaper Die Welt reports that Iran is building intermediate- range missile launch pads in Venezuela. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards firm, Amir al-Hadschisadeh, is building the launch complex, including missile silos and bunkers on the Paraguaná Peninsula, on the north coast of Venezuela facing America. Miami is about two thousand miles north from the launch site. Iran's Shahab 3 IRBM has a range of a thousand miles, the Shahab 4 1200 miles, and the Shahab 5, under development, more than 4000 miles. Washington, DC and New York City are about 3000 miles from the launch site. The Shahab missiles were based on North Korean missile designs which were, in turn, based on Soviet designs. Cash-poor Iran is paying for initial construction costs itself, running into tens of millions of dollars. Die Welt claims there is a secret agreement between Iran and Venezuela in which Venezuela would launch its missiles should Iran come under attack. In other words, if America and its allies attack Iran's nuclear bomb facilities it wants Venezuela to attack America and its allies in the Western hemisphere. I suspect much of this is posturing for domestic constituencies of the mad mullahs and Hugo Chavez. The threat is more scarecrow than real. The Iranians are not a particularly competent culture. It seems unlikely that their missiles will be reliable, particularly when they have not been tested at their extreme range. Likewise, Hugo Chavez has not established a competent regime. The only competent professionals in Venezuela run the oil business there. The government is composed of corrupt cronies of Chavez who have made it their business to plunder their local oil units, bankrupting them and chasing their staff out of the country. It seems unlikely that Venezuela retains the technical and professional expertise to staff a missile complex. One is amused by the recklessness of Iran and Venezuela who would threaten the American mainland with missiles of dubious capability. It's hard to believe they think they would win a missile exchange with the US. And really, missile silos in ill-defended undeveloped countries are perfect targets for B-2 bombers. Our pilots could take these missile sites out and still be home in time to pick up the kids from school. Hat tip to Hot Air View the full article

A bit sensationalistic, but a very valid question under the circumstances. Jonn starts the discussion of the death of Jose Guerena and details the problems he saw at the start. Jose was a Marine, served two tours in Iraq, survived that, and came home to be killed by Sheriff Dupnik's (yes, that sheriff Dupnik) SWAT Team. The sheriff's office has changed it's stories multiple times since, finally admitting that he had not fired and that more than 70 rounds were fired by them in response to an accidental discharge by one of their own officers. Operator Dan follows up with yet more. Much more, and even more disturbing. Having warrants and records sealed after the fact, claims of conspiracy that -- frankly -- reek, and more. Let's not even get into keeping the ambulance at bay for more than an hour, despite eyewitness claims that Jose was still alive as his wife was dragged out. Given all, I would have to question any "evidence" found at the house at this point. I join those in the comments and elsewhere who are pointing out the extreme lack of professionalism displayed from the start. There is cause to question the intelligence (and lack of due dilligence in doing intelligence gathering) involved; the piss poor weapons handling by the doorframe shooter and the response to that shot that saw 70 plus rounds fired apparently without aim; and, the handling of the incident since. Frankly, given the multiple story changes and efforts to control the story by what appear to be increasingly draconian (and desperate) means by Sheriff Dupnik's office and the questions raised, I think that a huge spotlight needs to be shined on this. In point of fact, given the taint already on the Sheriff's office, I think an outside probe is needed. Both state and federal probes (law, law enforcement, civil rights) are absolutely required. Given all, I have no faith or confidence that an honest and accurate report will ever be obtained otherwise. I also agree with starting a fund for the family of this Marine. For more on why the raid and others like it are a very bad idea from the start, check out Jimbo's post from last year along with this report from Radley Balko. Radley routinely covers this type of story and his writings on them are something anyone interested in liberty and good police work should read. If outside investigations find that he was up to something with drugs, I will acknowledge that here in a post. My comments on the lack of professionalism, training, and related topics in regards the execution of the raid will stand, as the evidence to back those up is overwhelming. Bring on outside investigations, and let justice be done. LW View the full article

An F-35 Lightning II maneuvers overhead during its first flight at Eglin Air Force Base, April 23, 2009. The jet is a fifth generation, single engine, stealth capable strike fighter and can perform close air support, tactical bombing and air defense missions. If you've been paying attention to the battle for US air dominance, you might be, like me, a little wary of the comparisons and the rhetoric. Since there are numbers flying all over the place with regards to cost (mostly from PR firms), I thought we ought to take a look at what the REAL cost of an F-35 is...and we'll look at it in the same terms that the DoD/USAF use to evaluate the bids. First, we need to talk in terms of 2010 dollars. We’re talking about what is known as the Unit Recurring Fly Away cost (URF) for a conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant (the type the Air Force is buying). In 2010 terms, it will cost about $65 million dollars. Whoa, wait a minute, you say, I’ve seen costs as high as $110 million a copy! I’m sure you have. But they don’t reflect the URF. Instead they may reflect the Total Ownership Cost (TOC) - the cost of everything necessary to operate the aircraft over the span of its service life - or any of a number of other costs used in the project for various purposes, but it won’t reflect the one we should be most concerned with, the URF. Confused yet? Think of buying a new car. You go in, look at the sticker price and ask the sales person, “how much will it cost me to drive this car off the lot?†He or she is going to give you a cost at or near the sticker price. You’re going to negotiate it down and, if you strike a deal, you’ll drive it off the lot for that negotiated price. That’s the URF in a nutshell. With me so far? But does that cost reflect the TOC? Of course not. Gas and oil. Extra cost. Maintenance. Extra cost. Extended warranty. Extra cost. Parts. Extra cost. Labor. Extra cost. New tires. Extra cost. Etc. In fact, if you take all of those costs associated with owning, driving and maintaining the car over the years you own it you’ll find that TOC to be significantly higher than the cost to drive it off the lot (URF). Of course that’s the case for any fighter aircraft. However, in the media, the price you see applied to the F-35 may reflect the higher TOC and not the URF. When such a cost basis is used without identifying it, you end up comparing apples and pomegranates. The TOC is not what it will cost to fly the plane off the lot. As an example, imagine the original cost of the B-52. Now imagine – with the aircraft having been in constant service for 50 years or more – the total cost of ownership. The difference is going be huge. We could easily see a difference of several hundred million dollars per aircraft between URF and TOC as fuel, maintenance, upgrades, modifications, parts, labor, crew costs, and basing costs are all added to the aircraft’s original price, correct? Imagine seeing the TOC for a B-52 represented as the URF. You’d say “no way, we can’t afford itâ€. So, given that understanding, what will it cost us to fly the aircraft off the dealer’s lot (URF)? Again, in 2010 dollars, assuming all the aircraft originally contracted for are bought (2,443) and production can begin in a timely manner, a CTOL variant F-35 is going to cost $65 million to fly away. The Marine variant, the STOVL (Short Take Off Vertical Landing) will be in the $75 million range and the CV version (more robust frame/undercarriage built for carrier operations) for the Navy in the $70ish million range. I briefly talked about other versions of cost associated with this or any other defense project. They are only meaningful within the government/defense procurement community and are used in reporting and monitoring each program within that community. They have no real relevance to the URF but are sometimes quoted in the media as reflecting that price. They provide another example of the wildly divergent costs we see. As an example, one cost used is APUC or Average Process Unit Cost. Essentially they take the URF and add some other costs to it (see chart) to arrive at that cost. There’s another called PAUC or Program Acquisition Unit Cost. Again, in the case of PAUC, URF has some selected costs added to it to arrive atthe particular cost. They’re not costs we should be concerned with as they deal more with program costs over the life of the aircraft (as well as some R &D costs) than the eventual cost per plane to fly away. If you see a cost of $93 million per copy floating around out there, for instance, it is likely the PAUC cost as reflected in the chart. Again, that’s not the cost per plane to fly it away (URF). Finally, just because it is interesting, let’s talk about something else associated with cost and also not properly compared. So, I think we can agree that we can fly an Air Force F-35 CTOL away for about $65 million (2010 dollars). But I can fly a 4th generation fighter away for, say, $50 million – why not build a whole bunch of those for less money? Two reasons – they’re significantly inferior in technology and not very stealthy at all. And that $50 million really doesn’t reflect the true cost – not if you want to do anything with the aircraft other than just fly it around. The F-35 as delivered is mission capable. That means it comes with everything already on board to fly missions in combat. It’s combat ready. The 4th generation fighter? Extra cost is required to make it combat ready. You get a basic 4th generation fighter for the quoted price and then have to buy, at extra cost, what is necessary to configure it for combat. Once you pay to configure a 4th gen fighter to be mission capable, i.e., buy what it needs to do its mission in combat, its cost is pretty close to the same as a CTOL F-35 and it is still an inferior aircraft. Bottom Line: The actual cost to get a new Air Force F-35 into service is about $65 million (2010 dollars). Claims of higher costs for an Air Force F-35 are usually misleading attempts to include years of operating and maintenance costs (costs applicable to all aircraft across the board regardless of generation) in the purchase price. Just thought that you should be aware of that. Let's hear what you think about this in the Comments. Update 1: Just heard from the House Armed Services Committee on this post: Just to piggyback, the Committee is expected to pass an Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act today that authorizes GE-Rolls Royce to self fund their F35 engine. Since the F35 contract will last 3 decades, the Pentagon originally planned for an annual competition for sustainment and procurement costs. The short term cost of developing the GE engine was deemed too high by the Defense Department, and they canceled the program, ignoring the hazards in handing a $1 billion engine contract to a monopoly. With the Pratt & Whitney engine is already $3.5 billion over budget and wrought with thrust and nozzle problems, the General Electric proposal to pay out of pocket couldn’t have come at a better time. So in the spirit of your post, today Congress is in a unique position to significantly mitigate the costs of the F-35 program, with no further financial obligation from the Pentagon. We get taxpayer free competition for JSF engine contracts, avoid the pitfalls of a $100 billion Pratt & Whitney monopoly that’s already taking Congress to the bank, keep thousands of employees working, and finally will start to reap the rewards of industry-led acquisition reform. In short, the precise type of reform that the Pentagon and Congress have been pleading with the defense industry to institute for years. John Noonan Speechwriter & Deputy Communications Director U.S. House Armed Services Committee Update 2: Got a question about how much the ball park cost for upgrading a 4th gen fighter to combat mission capable? $10-15,000,000 which makes it about the same cost as the F35. But you don't get the next gen technology, weapons, capabilities, etc. for that price. View the full article

Let's go back in the time machine and quote your humble blogg'r back in May 05 on an issue I have been writing about since '04. Taking out their tried and true smear template, the Hollywood Left and their fellow travelers are starting out to libel today's veterans just like they did Vietnam veterans. I don't think they can help themselves. For the sake of this post, it would be best if you have read B.G. Burkett's book Stolen Valor . If you have not read it; buy it , read it, and then donate it to your local library. He exposes the macro lies, smears, and half truths that the anti-war/anti-military/anti-veteran slathered over the Vietnam veterans. He exposed the methods, reasons, and styles of the victim/PTSD/homeless-dirty-vet-in-a-boonie-hat hucksters exceptionally well. The Vietnam Vet pushed by The Deer Hunter , Taxi Driver , Apocalypse Now , Platoon , and the rest of that ilk does not have anything to do with the facts, demographics, or social statistics of those vets. I see that at my micro level as well. They are 180 degree opposites of the folks I served with early in my career, my Uncle, my Dad's friends, and my neighbors. I saw this coming last year. The usual subjects and plot lines are coming out. True to form - the NYT & Luke Mogelson plays their part. Of course, while the murders in southern Afghanistan reflect most glaringly upon the men who committed them, the need to revisit these crimes goes beyond questions of culpability and motive in one platoon. As with Abu Ghraib and Haditha and My Lai, it’s hard not to consider how such acts also open a window onto the corroding conflicts themselves. This isn’t to suggest that military personnel are behaving similarly throughout Afghanistan as a result of the conditions there; it is only to say that 10 years into an unconventional war whose end does not appear imminent, the murder of civilians by troops that are supposed to be defending them might reveal more than the deviance of a few young soldiers in a combat zone. I read the article twice to find a direct answer to his question. Of course, I couldn't find it - but he implies it well enough. I hear it, the reader hears it - and the Vietnam generation hears it. We've heard this story before. Have they no shame? Luke; bite me. View the full article

Jerry Hendrix and Noel Williams are friends of mine. Both are accomplished thinkers and analysts, and I tend to agree with them more often than not on mostly everything. The two have penned an article in the latest Proceedings, and Tom Barnett's picked it up and run with it through the blogosphere. In it, they become the latest advocates in a long line of honorable thinkers who believe the "supercarrier" has reached the end of its useful life, driven to its demise by its cost and its vulnerability. There is a lot of really good thinking in their work, but in the end, I am unpersuaded. I don't disagree, I'm just not willing to walk away from the "supercarrier". Yet. Let's start with the concept of vulnerability. The team writes "Given very clear technology trends toward precision long-range strike and increasingly sophisticated anti-access and area-denial capabilities, high-signature, limited-range combatants like the current aircraft carrier will not meet the requirements of tomorrow’s Fleet." This raises a number of questions for me. First, how do they know the aircraft carrier will not meet the requirements of tomorrow's Fleet? How different is what they are saying about the vulnerability of the carrier than what was said about a panoply of Soviet threats, to include the AS-4, and a variety of high-speed maneuvering ASCM's--both of which were factored into the Navy's acquisition programs, giving us AEGIS, the SM family, and VLS? Where is the belief in our ability to effectively counter A2AD challenges? Is the Navy and Air Force "AirSea Battle" simply a PR effort? Next, they write, "In addition, a series of poor acquisition decisions, beginning with the mismanagement and ultimate cancellation of the A-12 Avenger as the replacement aircraft for the A-6 Intruder deep-strike aircraft, have exacerbated the challenge to carrier efficacy. The resulting reduction in the combat-effective range of the carrier air wing from 1,050 to 500 nautical miles forces the carrier to operate closer to enemy shores even as anti-access systems would logically force the carrier farther seaward." If Hendrix and Williams wish to impugn the effectiveness and capability of our current Air Wing--then I'm on-board without reservation. Read Bob Work's 2008 CSBA report on Carrier Based Unmanned Systems and understand the trade-offs made between striking range (which used to be greater) and sortie generation rate (which now is at all time highs). But the carrier is simply a delivery device for airpower--an incredibly mobile, flexible, and persistent delivery device. Hendrix and Williams go to great lengths in their work to advocate unmanned systems, but the natural case for unmanned systems from CVN's (and from a carrier designed from the keel up for unmanned strike) is ignored. Further to the subject of vulnerability is the following: " The U.S. National Command Authority would need to be facing a gravely extreme scenario to commit this sort of strategic asset, with a crew of 5,000 men and women." Why is it that we can deploy 130,000 ground troops in Iraq in 2003--with the (since disproved)--threat of chem-bio weapons, but 5000 Sailors are somehow too important to commit? If the issue is really cost alone, then I believe the amortized value of a CVN with a 40-50 year lifespan should receive a bit more emphasis than its acquisition cost. Hendrix and Williams make a good case for a renewed emphasis on sea control by the US writing: "we must rebalance our Fleet to meet new sea-control missions while maintaining reasonable power-projection capabilities for the range of global threats we will encounter." I couldn't agree more, but I am left wondering why this isn't once again an AIRWING problem and not a Carrier problem? Nobody forced us to walk away from long range strike, ASUW and ASW from our CVN's--that was a choice--and it is a choice we can un-make. In a bit of logic that I still can't get my arms around, they assert: "In such a new strategic environment, unmanned systems diminish the utility of the supercarrier, because her sea-control and power-projection missions can be performed more efficiently and effectively by other means." Unmanned systems diminish the utility of the supercarrier? I completely disagree. In fact, I believe unmanned systems should be the starting point of a whole new class of supercarrier, one built from the keep up to be a delivery platform for hundreds of unmanned surveillance and strike vehicles, launched recovered, re-armed, refueled and maintained through the use of an assembly line-like construct. Such a platform could could deliver a high-sortie rate of long range strike and surveillance platforms from outside the "keep out" zone. The most interesting argument Williams and Hendrix make in their paper is where they advocate ceasing to build additional supercarriers and instead, devoting some or all of the resources to building additional LHA's. Estimating that 3 LHA's can be purchased for the price of 1 CVN, the authors envision a time in which the CVN's are kept in "reserve" or "surge" , while a multitudinous fleet of LHA's--some of which would have no rotorcraft (instead, embarking two squadron's of F-35's), do the primary business of reactive expeditionary airpower. Which leads to further question: If the CVN's are such sitting ducks, what makes the LHA's so much more survivable? With a CVN, the opportunity exists to have striking power and sea control power operating off of one deck--it is hard to see the same opportunity from an LHA. If the LHA's are going to take advantage of this emerging unmanned sea control revolution that Williams and Hendrix allude to, why couldn't CVN's do so too--only with SIGNIFICANTLY more striking power? Additionally, Hendrix and Williams would have us stop building CVN's in part because of their airwing imposed "keep outs" (my words, not theirs). Yet the size and flexibility of the CVN gives it a MUCH better chance than the LHA of accommodating changes to an airwing that would mitigate that keep-out. Finally, what of the industrial base? The authors would have us walk away from the building of supercarriers in favor of LHA's, as in their view, a given pot of money goes farther when applied to many, less capable ships. But what if the industrial base goes away, and we lose the capability to build nuclear supercarriers? What if Hendrix and Williams aren't right, and ELIMINATING a reasonably successful delivery vehicle for airpower turns out to be a poor choice? What would be the cost of trying to reconstitute that industrial base? To conclude, it seems to me that we come around to this question of small carriers vs. big carriers every time money gets tight--and every time, big carriers win. I don't know why that is, but I'm willing to believe there is a ton of campaign analysis behind it. That said, the entire conversation is for me, emblematic of the ridiculous discussions ongoing these days about the defense budget, discussions that take it as a given that the Navy must spend less and get smaller. Reaching for my broken record player, I'm here to say that Seapower--with its land force (USMC) and its Air Force (Naval Air)--remains the most cost effective, powerful and flexible instrument of military force in the US inventory, and we ought to go down with an empty rhetorical magazine--fully advocating for growing Seapower at the expense of less useful elements of military power--before we start cannibalizing the Seapower we have. Bryan McGrath View the full article

There are those who study history and watch the present to look for the best path in to the future. There are those who are willfully ignorant of history, are not interested in the greater world around them, and instead like to focus on their own ideology and pedantic habits. In the late '70s the UK got rid of its strike carrier capability and just barely survived with their CVS and Harriers since ... until recently when the RAF and their easily debunked theories manages to get rid of the Harrier for good and the silly ships that carried them. Ahem. DEFENCE Secretary Liam Fox is expected to come under heavy pressure to reverse large parts of the government's strategic defence and security review (SDSR) when he appears before MPs tomorrow. ... They will focus in particular on the decision not to have an operational aircraft carrier for most of the next decade and there will be demands to reverse the mothballing of 90 Harrier jets for use in operations in Libya. Dr Fox is understood to want to bring the Harriers back into service. The Scotsman last week revealed the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious, which is supposed to be turned into a helicopter carrier, has been prepared in its refit at Rosyth in a way that would allow Harriers to fly from it. ... Labour Dunfermline and West Fife MP Thomas Docherty said: "I think it is fair to say that we will stick to the subject of Libya, but there are a number of concerns about current operations and the way they are developing that mean much of the session will also look at the SDSR." He added: "I have made no secret of my concerns over the lack of an aircraft carrier and decision to mothball the Harriers. "The operations in Libya have underlined how ridiculous that decision is. "We should have a carrier parked off the North African coast, but instead we are trying to use Italian air bases and are even still flying operations from RAF Marham in Norfolk." The government has said it will not reverse decisions made in the SDSR, but that it is "being kept under review". Meanwhile, back on this side of the pond from a table at some Starbucks comes this chewable bit of myopia, The United States has 11 aircraft carriers in active duty, with two more under construction. Our enemy, the Taliban, doesn't have any ships or planes, or even an official army. We're pleased that our country's massive — and in some cases wasteful — military spending is getting more scrutiny as budget-cutting battles rage in Washington, D.C. There are plenty of questionable military expenditures. Aircraft carriers are perhaps the most visible. The flattops have plenty of historic appeal from World War II battles, but they're becoming increasingly obsolete. The U.S. used cruise missiles much more than carrier-based planes to attack Libya recently. The U.S. needs to take a hard look at reducing the number of aircraft carriers. No other country has more than one. China has none, though it has two under construction. I think I read almost the exact thing, with different numbers of course, some time in the mid-80s in The Nation or The Atlantic magazine. The one with Navy ships that looked like sitting ducks. Cycles. View the full article

Osama Bin Laden is dead. Pointless to link any single article to this fact, as it will be every single headline in the world. I have heard from serious folks it was Navy SEALS. SEAL TEAM SIX. Naturally. View the full article

General Dynamics Electric Boat receives $1.2 billion to begin construction of the 14th Virginia-class submarine, SSN-787, part of Block III with a revised bow design. Russia lays out its vision of European missile defense. Saab sees potential Gripen jet fighter orders in Brazil, Romania, Croatia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Pentagon looks to place military payloads on commercial satellites in order to reduce costs. Wyle gets $14 million contract to provide IT services to support DARPA’s relocation in Arlington, VA. Atlas Air to begin providing passenger service for US military personnel in May, completing its existing military cargo service. View the full article

Back in 2008's Zhuhai airshow, a mysterious SAM called FL-3000N was shown and looked a lot like RIM-116 (aka RAM). You can see my commentary on this system at the bottom of my blog entry on Zhuhai 2008. At the time, I thought it was more of an export project, since Zhuhai airshow tend to display those more prominently. I was also under the impression that PLAN was going the route of using new air defense guns as the next generation CIWS. It turned out with the recent Varyag photos, that they have decided to field both this new SAM (domestic designation is supposedly HQ-10) and what looks to be Type 730 (commonly found on most recent PLAN warships) on Varyag. You can see them clearly on Varyag now that their tarp (at least 3 identified installations on Varyag) are finally uncovered. As with many new weapon systems in PLAN, they are tested on the 892 test ship. We can basically identify two variants of HQ-10. The first one is installed in the front of the ship with 24 launch tubes. You can see it clearly with the first 2 pictures. The second is installed on a platform on top of the helipad of the ship with 18 launch tubes. You can see it clearly with the last 2 pictures taken about 3 weeks apart. Now, it seems like the one in the back is the one installed on Varyag if we count up the number of launch tubes. It also seems like there is a storage compartment beneath the platform it was installed on, which would indicate that it is storing missiles for automatic reload. The one in the front is unlikely to require deck penetration, since it is installed directly on the deck of 892. I don't think they would do the extra work of modifying the front section of 892 just for testing this out. So, that would tell me that the version in front is used for installations that do not allow for deck space below and the version at back is used for installations that do allow for one level of penetration. It also would explain why the version in front carries 24 launch tubes instead of 18. View the full article

I was very surprised a couple of days ago when a friend of my sent me this NY Times Article and asked me if I contributed to it. Varyag has certainly come a long way from the day when it got dragged to Macau to be a floating casino. I've posted many photos of Varyag in the past, but its progress has finally even attracted the attention of major Western newspaper. Of course, there are also plenty of activities around other Chinese shipyards. First of all, we see some new photos showing three different 052Cs under different stage of construction at JN shipyard. To be frank, the first photo (third 052C) has not seemed to have made too much progress, but JN shipyard certainly has a lot of work going on. It is also apparently building a couple of Yuan class submarines that will be ready soon. At the same time, we are seeing the modules to the third Type 071 LPD under construction at HD shipyard. Of course, the second Type 071 LPD is still fitting out the different components at the dockside. I think it should be ready for sea trials soon. Finally, we have some more photos from the WuChang shipyard. We still see the same three submarines (one of the mysterious new type and two of the improved Yuan variant). It seems like one of them is ready to head to Shanghai for acceptance testing. We also, see the final 2 cutters (of this five year plan) getting fitted before been delivered to CMS. View the full article

From Mark Goldblatt at the Corner. Why do I have a sinking feeling that expecting the Libyan rebels to overthrow Qaddafi is like expecting the Coyote to catch the Road Runner . . . and that we’re about to become the Acme Corporation? I am still laughing since I read that. View the full article

Call me juvenile, but if they ever make a movie of the Libyan intervention, this has to be in it: A U.S. Navy P-3C Maritime Patrol aircraft, a U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt attack aircraft and guided-missile destroyer USS Barry (DDG-52) engaged Libyan Coast Guard vessel Vittoria and two smaller crafts after confirmed reports that Vittoria and accompanying craft were firing indiscriminately at merchant vessels in the port of Misrata, Libya, during the evening March 28, 2011. The P-3C fired at Vittoria with AGM-65F Maverick missiles after multiple explosions were observed in the vicinity of the port rendering the 12-meter patrol vessel ineffective and forcing it to be beached. Two small crafts were fired upon by an A-10 using its 30mm GAU-8/ Avenger gatling cannon, destroying one and forcing the other to be abandoned. Barry provided situational awareness for the aircraft by managing the airspace and maintaining the maritime picture. The P-3C, A-10 and Barry are currently supporting operations for Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn. View the full article

This popped up today on Facebook. Good morning PSNS & IMF family, I would like to share with you a recent update from U.S. 7th Fleet. USS George Washington (CVN 73) got underway from Yokosuka last night to assure she can sustain a state of readiness in the long term for the defense of Japan. The forward deployed carrier remains in the local waters off Japan. Moving George Washington is a precaution given the capabilities of the vessel and the complex nature of this disaster. PSNS & IMF has more than 460 project personnel onboard George Washington, nine of whom are our Yokosuka Detachment workers. This team continues to perform work on her Selected Restricted Availability. I have every confidence our team will accomplish this availability despite the additional challenges presented over the last week and a half. Also as a precautionary measure, Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Japan, ordered that Potassium Iodide (KI) be available for all DoD personnel and dependents currently located at Commander Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Ikego Housing Detachment, Negishi Housing Detachment, and Naval Air Facility Atsugi in case a need is identified. People are being directed not to take any KI until official notification is given, and then only to take the recommended dosage; there is enough KI for all personnel. Medical personnel will be standing by at each distribution location to answer any questions and explain about possible side effects from KI. To those of you still in Japan, and to the many of you onboard George Washington—know you have the support, respect and admiration of your Command family. We are all proud of you working through the disaster that hit Japan and the resulting transitional challenges of shifting location and, in some cases, your families. To those of you stateside—it’s because of your tremendous support, planning and flexibility that we are able to continue our work to meet the fleet’s needs. We continue to monitor the situation in Japan, and it is still our top priority to look out for the safety and well-being of our workers and their families. R/CAPT Mark Whitney Commander, PSNS & IMF Followed by this on Facebook. There will be a Town Hall meeting tonight, Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at the Benny Decker Theater. The meeting begins at 1730. Taking your questions will be Admiral Patrick M. Walsh, Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet and Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command. We hope to see you there. Followed by this by CNN. The U.S. military is considering the mandatory evacuation of thousands of American troops and their families in Japan out of concern over rising radiation levels, a senior defense official tells CNN. The official, who did not want to be on the record talking about ongoing deliberations, says there are no discussions to evacuate all U.S. troops across the country. The talks have focused exclusively on U.S. troops in Yokosuka, just south of Tokyo, the official said. Yokosuka is home to America's largest naval base in Japan. The military is monitoring radiation levels on a constant basis. As of Monday, the U.S. Navy had no more warships in port at the base. The aircraft carrier USS George Washington, which had been undergoing maintenance in Yokosuka, left port Monday in order to get away from the plume of radioactive particles that could blow over the base. Because it left port with a much smaller than normal crew, the George Washington will not take part in the Japanese relief effort. No organization on the planet has more experience and expertise with all things nuclear than the United States Navy. No ship in the world is better equipped in a nuclear emergency than a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. When the US Navy and US Navy aircraft carriers start leaving Japan, something serious is happening. The US even contemplating pulling out of Japan right now would represent an extraordinary shift in the balance of power in the Pacific, and yet that they are even considering doing so suggests the seriousness of the situation at Fukushima. It is going to take someone near the very top of government, at minimum Secretary Gates, to interrupt the maintenance of the nations only forward deployed aircraft carrier and put her out to sea with a skeleton crew while still undergoing maintenance. USS George Washington (CVN 73) isn't just some warship, it is one of the 10 most expensive and capable strategic assets on the planet run by an organization with a thorough understanding of the dangers of nuclear radiation. Simply moving the carrier out of dry dock and out to sea during an emergency is no small thing. When combined with news that ADM Walsh and ADM Willard, the two most senior Navy officers in the Pacific, addressed the families of the USS George Washington (CVN 73) what are we supposed to think? That meeting is followed by news reports concerning a potential mandatory evacuation from Yokosuka in the works? If the US Navy pulls their families out of Yokosuka, the carrier won't be returning there for a long time, if ever. The question is, where can the US Navy move the forward deployed ships? A few destroyers to Guam? Would GW be pulled all the way back to Pearl Harbor? Would South Korea, Australia, or Singapore be interested in hosting a US Navy DESRON? What is the message being sent to Japan? Tokyo is on the other side of the bay from Yokosuka; Tokyo is closer to Fukushima than Yokosuka is. Our national decision makers are considering all options with a full understanding that once the US Navy leaves Japan, the political fallout most likely will be we will never be allowed to return. View the full article

British participation in the Libya operation makes comments like this even more on point: It’s not just the Harriers and HMS Ark Royal. The loss of the Nimrod R1 patrol aircraft and the cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft will make British participation in operations like the Libya NFZ much more difficult. That wouldn’t be such a problem were it not clear that the UK was very interested in participating in such operations. View the full article

Nothing official yet - but from multiple sources including Norman Polmar, it looks like the push to chance the mission of USNI to make it an advocacy organization has been defeated. As a matter of fact, I will quote the good Dr. himself; All, The USNI Board of Directors has today decided unanimously to withdraw the proposal for a change in the Naval Institute's statement. [color= rgb(255, 0, 0);font-size:180%;" > Yea!!! Does any more need to be said? On a variety of levels there are a lot of lessons for this battle and at some point a good POSTEX needs to be done - but for now, thanks to all who helped make this happen - and now lets enjoy the moment.[/color] Reinforce victory. View the full article

Sandstorms settled in the south of that sour place, and terror-men opened wide a mouth etched in a hate-filled face. The rifle-spit struck down Malone and he in a moment gave a life well-lived, alone, to set men free of the grave. In later days men drew down statues from on high; they struck Iraqi ground so dust and cheer could fly. What, one Irish fighting man to free millions from cold chains? Not noble words, not gracious plan could make real such gains. Or--Is our time so coy, so wild and free a thing? Not Harvey nor Kelly, boy of Killarn, not the Brian King Freedom bought at such a cost, where glory's priced so steep: Where the name of each good man lost Can memory's Herald keep. -Poem by Grim, April 10th, 2003, in honor of Ian Malone This is an annual Someone You Should Know (St. Patrick's Day Edition) post to celebrate an Irish soldier's sacrifice. Below is the story of Ian Malone - a young Irishman who bridged the divide between Ireland and England in life and death. Ian died during the invasion of Iraq in April of 2003 doing what he wanted to do - Soldiering for his country. Below is his story, told expertly by Philip Watson of the Telegraph: Godspeed, Ian, Godspeed. Update: Grim reminds us of a John Derbyshire article about the Irish (and Ian Malone) and Grim has a poem he wrote in Ian's honor that I'll reproduce as the intro to Ian Malone (top of post). View the full article

The United States Navy has moved up the deployment of the Bataan ARG. There's word Thursday that the USS Bataan, homeported in Norfolk, will head out on deployment later this month. Navy officials tell WVEC.com that the Bataan is surging to replace the Kearsarge, as part of a contingency operation. The surge is designed to give the president flexibility regarding the recent uprising in Northern Africa and in the Middle East. There's no word on the exact time of the deployment or for how long it will last. There are several things here. The Kearsarge had unloaded Marines into Afghanistan, and while the ship has been reinforced with additional Marines, the Bataan ARG will represent a fully prepared MEU for operations in that theater, if called upon. If the Bataan is being called to the Med, as reported, that would suggest the Boxer ARG recently deployed from California would be sent to the 5th fleet to meet the presence requirements for Marines in that theater. The Bataan ARG was planned to deploy later this year, but this deployment is a surge because the deployment date has been moved up in response to recent events in Northern Africa. This deployment represents an increase in presence requirements for the 6th fleet. Once again, the operational tempo of the US Navy is being increased. The continuous and nearly annual increases in operational tempo and requirements demand by the US Navy - whether it is for HA/DR, contingency planning like North Africa, or Ballistic Missile Defense - needs to be noted as there has been no subsequent increase in funding towards the construction of Navy vessels to account for the demand increases. Another question. There are two serious events taking place worldwide right now, in North Africa/Middle East with the protests and in Japan. When there are wartime challenges, the President is known to ask "Where are the Carriers?" When there are challenges short of war, the question is "Where are the Amphibs?" As the requirement creep continues to increase for operations other than war, the question is whether the minimal number of 33 amphibious ships the current plan budgets for is enough. It would appear 33 is not enough. Update: Aviation Week is reporting that F-22s of the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley AFB, Va. are quietly bring readied for deployment just in case they are called upon for a Libyan no-fly zone. View the full article

To: Major General T. Wilkerson, USMC(Ret) Chief Executive Officer U.S. Naval Institute Please forward to the members of the Board Gentlemen, In early February of this year I sent an e-mail to friends and colleagues advising them of the Board's decision to change the mission and role of the U.S. Naval Institute--without prior discussion or advice to the membership. I have since received almost 200 e-mails in reply plus a few telephone calls. Every response has indicated opposition to the proposed changes to the USNI mission and role. This view is also reflected on the USNI blog, and the blogs of "Commander Salamander" and others. This view was also reflected at a recent luncheon meeting of professional naval historians, almost all of whom are Naval Institute members. What is particularly troubling is the perception that the Board attempted to "put something over on the membership." And this is a membership organization--not a company or a stock-issuing firm. Indeed, the Board had at its disposal the means of advising the membership in advance of the rationale for such major changes to the 174-year organization: The Proceedings, the USNI blog, other blogs, and, indeed the possibility of direct mailings to the membership were (and still are) available. None of these means were employed. Rather, it does appear that the Board was attempting to put something over on the membership. Further, the Board's decision to destroy thousands of printed ballots to "hide" the mission change vote within the vote for the Board and the Editorial Board in another ballot was also against accepted practices for a membership organization. (Of course, the original ballot was mailed with the Naval History magazine.) This attempt at gross deception of the membership can only be remedied by the immediate resignation of all Board members who support these efforts. I feel that I have special and particular qualifications to call for the resignation of those specific members who supported these efforts: I have been a USNI member since age 15, and a Proceedings author since age 18; I have had the honor and privilege of the Naval Institute publishing a score of my books and I have had more bylines in the Proceedings than anyone else in the magazine's 173-year history. I am a former assistant editor of the Proceedings and, of course, a Golden Life member. With respect for the organization's many thousands of members--past, present, and future, yours sincerely, Norman Polmar To: U.S. Naval Institute Board of Directors My friends and colleagues ---- There are two very important articles on this topic today, one at the USNI Blog and the other at CDR Salamander. You want to read them both. The first is the entire Editorial Board of the United States Naval Institute collectively voting "NO" to the mission statement change. It is difficult to interpret that post as anything other than a full blown civil war now taking place at USNI. The second, well, lets just say CDR Salamander is showing you what the Board of Directors is not. Sal explains why so many of us fight and are opposed this change. View the full article

Good analysis by NIGHTWATCH of some events taking place in the South China Sea. Philippines-China : The Philippine military on 2 March sent two military aircraft to patrol the ocean and air space near Reed Bank, a long time Philippine-occupied territory in the South China Sea. The Philippines took the action in response to the behavior of two Chinese patrol boats which harassed a Philippine ship searching for oil, according to Philippine military commander Lieutenant General Juancho Sabban. A Philippine OV-10 aircraft and an Islander light patrol aircraft were deployed after the incident was reported, Sablan said. The Chinese boats appeared ready to ram the Philippine vessel on two occasions before turning away, a military official said. No warning shots were fired and the ships later left, officials said. A Philippine navy patrol vessel was sent to secure oil exploration activities at the Reed Bank, and the Chinese Embassy would not immediately respond to Philippine requests for an explanation. Comment : The significance of this incident is that it shows that China intends to assert its claims to sovereignty of the South China Sea to the shores of the Philippines. Incidents involving the Japanese are neither unique nor isolated. Ship ramming appears to be an approved Chinese tactic. Prior to this incident, the Japanese complaints about Chinese behavior appeared anecdotal, idiosyncratic and racial. This incident shows the Chinese claim everything in the South China Sea, regardless of race, color, creed or national sovereignty. The AP has an article on the initial incident. The Philippines Star reports there was a protest, and China has not responded to the protest in a very productive way, by namely claiming the area as their territory. As if pushing around the Philippines in the South China Sea was just an appetizer, today Hanoi filed a protest regarding a Chinese naval exercises in their maritime territory. 2011 is starting in much the same way 2010 did, with China pushing their neighbors around over territorial claims. This did many good things for US relations in the region in 2010, and with more of this it is sure to do good things for US relations with the region in 2011 as well. View the full article

John Byron is a retired Captain of the United States Navy. He is the author of about 100 articles & essays for Proceedings and was Proceedings Writer of the Year in 1983 and 1992. John wrote prize-winning essays in the US Naval Institute’s Arleigh Burke Essay Contest (1998, 2002, 2004, 2005) and was the first Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Strategic Essay Contest winner in 1982. Additionally, John was the primary adviser to Naval Institute Press on publication of The Hunt For Red October. A life member, I write to ask that you reconsider two disastrous decisions: changing the Institute’s mission; firing its CEO. My right to address you is found in the attached document: I’m a minor representative of the many who’ve given this institution meaning over its long and venerable life. Many years ago I heard Lieutenant General Brad Hosmer, the President of National Defense University, offer a challenge to the assembled faculty and students of his colleges that perfectly sums up the meaning of the Naval Institute’s established mission: “Never be afraid to take risks with ideas.†Generations of naval officers, aided by editors of extraordinary grace and competence, have challenged orthodoxy and taken the sea services safely through uncharted seas through nearly fourteen decades of change and turmoil that shaped the world we live in. They — we — “dared to read, think, speak, and write†concerned only with the judgment of our peers and the challenge of advancing the conversation and our profession positively and well. To quote another NDU President, Lieutenant General John Pustay speaking to my graduating class at The National War College, we took up his charge: “Shake the steeples!†All that now changes, goes away, is obliterated and destroyed forever by this ill-considered initiative to turn the Naval Institute into something it has resisted becoming since its founding: just another damned advocacy group. It’s an easy exercise to highlight the flaws in the proposed new mission: Just ‘global sea power?’ What if sea power is not the best tool? What of jointness and fighting together? What if the advance of sea power has an opportunity cost that weakens national defense? Etc. Just ‘economic prosperity?’ What of democratic freedoms? What of human rights? What of protecting the earth’s environment, dealing with global climate change? And whose economic prosperity? All citizens? All people? Corporate America? Who? It’s all in the eye of the beholder and this proposed mission statement establishes the official beholder’s position as paramount. The more serious concern, the aspect fatal to the Institute, is the inevitable and chilling push for mission correctness that will infiltrate and pervert every aspect of Institute business. “Good essay, lieutenant, but it doesn’t really advocate the necessity of global sea power the way we think best. Go read the CNO’s Posture Statement and try again.†Once. Just once. Do that once and you’ve lost the fleet. And it’s certain to happen; it’s baked into the proposed mission statement and intrinsic to the thought behind it. The next generation of Hollands and Stavridises and Wrights and Owenses and — yes — Byrons will be lost to the pages of Proceedings and the mission of the Institute. The current situation has three possible outcomes, two unacceptable and one the best of a bad lot: The mission-statement fails. This would lead to the resignation of six Board members, their only honorable option, and then a governance crisis compounded by the lack of experienced executive leadership. That’s an unacceptable outcome fraught with risk to the Institute. The mission-statement passes. This would produce wholesale resignations from members (I’d be one), the end of fleet-derived manuscripts, the departure of all but the wage slaves on the Institute’s wonderful staff, and a governance crisis postponed to next year when a member-nominated slate takes over the Board, one well intentioned but inexperienced and unable to deliver the financial resources the Institute needs. The Institute Press and Naval History would lose their academic underpinnings. The Institute would be forced to remove from Academy grounds. The new rivalry with the Navy League would weaken both organizations. Court challenges might come along to test the Institute’s governance and challenge the Board’s actions. This is even more unacceptable, a death knell. The Board withdraws the mission initiative and offers General Wilkerson the opportunity to return to the CEO position permanently. This would restore the status quo ante, though with the deck littered with broken crockery and a long stretch of healing ahead. Still, it’s the best we can do at this pass, an acceptable resolution of a crisis perpetrated on the Institute by six perhaps well-meaning but seriously misguided Directors stunningly out of touch with the membership that placed its trust in them. The uproar around this initiative is certainly a surprise to its proponents. Take it as a portend. Perhaps the individuals pushing this invidious bad idea are cocksure in their position … but they are not the majority of the Board. Even if we can’t unring this bell, we need not sink the ship. The Board should undo the tragedy in play and give the Naval Institute back to its members. A personal note: I’m astonished and saddened by the Institute’s fragility revealed in this crisis. Imagine: three denizens of Wall Street and three retired flags can tear down an institution that’s the envy of the other Services and respected by navies around the world, a mainstay in the life of my navy. Six head-strong individuals can destroy the United States Naval Institute. Shameful. View the full article

The following letter is being circulated and is for members of the United States Naval Institute. I can guarantee that I intend to discuss this topic quite a bit over the next month. All, I am writing to you--fellow members of the U.S. Naval Institute--to urge that you vote against the proposed change of the USNI mission statement that is being mailed out with the March issue of the Proceedings magazine. The current statement is refined from the original, 1873 mission written at the establishment of the USNI (see below). I believe that USNI members who believe in the principles of our 138-year-old professional organization should strongly object to three words/terms in the proposed change of the mission statement: (1) "an independent forum advocating" I believe these words are self-contradictory. The USNI has established itself as the leading international naval--and increasingly "defense"--forum because it has not "advocated" anything but has let authors (military and civilian, of all ranks, genders, and even nationalities) express their opinions. "Advocating" a position will unquestionably deter the USNI serving as an independent forum. (2) "global sea power" What does this mean? The Soviet Union from 1970 (the massive Okean exercise) until 1991 was certainly a "global sea power"--does the USNI advocate a rehabilitation of Russian sea power? Or a buildup of Chinese global sea power? Or Japanese? Or ...? And, does "global sea power" include a strong merchant marine--which we do not have and will not develop in the foreseeable future? Or fishing fleet? Or ....? Again, "global sea power" is ambiguous and misleading. (3) "economic prosperity" Again, for whom? The world? Then the USNI is encouraging every nation (including Iran, N. Korea, China, etc.) to develop global sea power. Or only for the United States? How does "global sea power" help U.S. posterity--other than the shipbuilding industry? The proposed new mission statement makes the USNI appear to be a lobbying and "cheerleading" organization for.... I am not quite certain for what or whom. In the years that I have been associated with the Naval Institute (since age 15), I was taught that those roles--lobbying and cheerleading--were the purpose of the Navy League, not the Naval Institute. The USNI now exists "to provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write in order to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to national defense." I believe that mission statement is still valid and germane. I strongly urge all members to REJECT the proposed change to the USNI mission statement. All good wishes/Norman I stand with Norman Polmar, and strongly believe that information and education on the issue will overwhelmingly lead to a rejection of the proposed change to the USNI mission statement. I encourage all members of the United States Naval Institute to forward a copy of this letter, and all other information about this proposed change to every USNI member you know; via email, Facebook, Twitter, and with every other communication tool you prefer. The mission statement of USNI is Acticle I, Section II of the Constitution and By-Laws and is available from this link to USNI members. The existing mission statement: ARTICLE I Name and Mission Section 2. The Mission of the Institute is “to provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write in order to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to national defense.†The proposed change would be: The Mission of the Institute is “to be an Independent Forum advocating the necessity of global sea power for national security and economic prosperity.†In discussing this issue with many of you over the last week, several of you have commented that we already have a Navy League. I agree, The Navy League is a great organization that some on the Board of Directors apparently want USNI to compete against. The Navy League mission statement is: The Navy League of the United States is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating our citizens about the importance of sea power to U.S. national security and supporting the men and women of the sea services and their families. Some folks on the Board of Directors are trying to pull a fast one here hoping no one is paying attention. I will be doing everything I can to insure every member in my network is aware of the choice represented in this vote. My goal is two fold: Help campaign for members to reject this proposal. Help get out the vote so that this becomes the largest vote in the 138 year history of the United States Naval Institute. As I intend to outline in detail over the next month, I believe the United States Naval Institute has been steadily moving forward over the last few years and is poised to do amazing things towards the objective of the existing mission statement, but apparently before the organization takes that step; the members of USNI will have to burn this bad idea to the ground before launching boldly from those ashes. I cannot stress enough how shortsighted I see this proposal at this time by the Board of Directors, because the appropriate analogy as I see it is to suggest this is like fumbling the football on the 5 yard line on first down after driving all the way down the field, and just as you are about to score after being down at halftime. According to the Constitution and By-Laws of the United States Naval Institute, to amend: ARTICLE XVI Amendments to Constitution and By-Laws Section 1. Proposed amendments to or changes in the Constitution and By-Laws must first be approved by the Board of Directors. Then, they shall be circulated to the members entitled to vote at least thirty days before the date the change becomes effective, if approved. Each such member in good standing shall be furnished a ballot on which to record his or her vote, and no amendment to or change in the Constitution and By-Laws shall be made without the favorable vote of two-thirds of the members voting. I shall have many things to say on this topic over the next month. If any member who has previously been published by the United States Naval Institute (book, Proceedings, blog) wishes to write an open letter of your own to the United States Naval Institute Board of Directors on this topic, I will happily publish that letter on this blog and make sure your letter gets broadly circulated through my network of hundreds of USNI members who over the past week have volunteered to help get the word out regarding this issue. For those who might want to be heard on this topic, I encourage you to email the USNI Board of Directors with your thoughts regarding the new mission statement proposal. View the full article

A few thoughts on the revolutions, and how to respond. Responses are meant to be effective without opening a new ground war, which is a condition that has to be avoided for obvious reasons. Bahrain: This one of the three is the most significant in terms of US power projection because of the 5th Fleet; it is also the one that will require the lightest touch, because we have long been aligned with the monarchy. The military's -- without even a warning shot -- is a quality we should not want in an ally. The Constitutional Monarchy being demanded is a reasonable step; we should publically condemn the shootings of protestors, and begin to push for negotiations between the monarchy and a committee designed to draft such a constitution. The membership of that committee we can help approve as a means of asserting some control on the outcome. Egypt: This is the most significant of in terms of geopolitical effect. The reason it has gone as well as it has is because the US military has worked substantially with the Egyptian military over decades. Many Egyptian officers have trained in the United States, or by American servicemembers; we hold the bienniel Bright Star combined exercises. The military's refusal to use force against the protestors, and its alignment with an ideal of democracy, are in part because of friendships and partnerships built with our own fighting force. The US government should reach out to every US military officer and NCO who has worked with Egypt in a substantial way, and find out if they are still in contact with any friends. Those who are should be built into an ad hoc public diplomacy / IO task force (which, since most of it would be done by telecom, need not require most of them to leave their current positions). This would give us signficant insight and influence into the process between now and the formation of the new Egyptian government. I have heard the State Department has made use of military officers with ties to Egypt on a more limited scale, but this is a place where a distributed public diplomacy effort directed at the whole of the Egyptian military would pay large and long-term dividends at a low cost. Libya: We need to back the protestors against the attacks being carried on by the government. I noticed that Mrs. Palin suggested a no-fly zone yesterday, which is not a bad idea if we can set one up unilaterally and quickly instead of going to the UN for authority (or doing so after the fact). However, I might suggest we consider a more aggressive response such as the one suggested by Michael Totten's man inside Iran's Revolutionary guards. Pin down the loyalist forces from the air. Provide them with humanitarian relief by air drop. We can imagine the heartening effect among the protestors of seeing US warplanes guarding them above. We can also imagine the effect the memory of that sight will have on post-revolutionary Libya. View the full article

The Associated Press has confirmed when the Iranians will cross the Suez Canal. Suez Canal officials say two Iranian naval vessels are expected to start their passage through the strategic waterway early Tuesday. Canal officials say the ships are expected to pay a fee of $290,000 for the crossing. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they aren't authorized to speak publicly about the matter. If the ships make the passage, it would mark the first time in three decades that Iranian military ships have traveled the canal that links the Red Sea to the Mediterranean. It seems pretty clear that from the Iranian point of view, this is a communication exercise. Timing for Tuesday, they are hoping for maximum impact to make the headlines on Tuesday as folks get back to work after a three day weekend. The question isn't if anyone will do anything - the US Navy guarantees freedom of the seas to the world, including Iran. The question is whether people will overreact politically to news of the transit. Keep in mind, it is to the advantage of Israel and Iran for the US markets to overreact, because impacts to our markets give cover to politicians who support Israel's claim the Iranian Naval movements are bad for the US. I don't see any scenario where the US Navy reacts to the Iranians in any way. I will never to presume to know what Israel will do when it comes to Iran. For those who are curious, yes, I do believe the purpose of the Iranian naval force is to deliver weapons for Hezbollah in Lebanon. This voyage is expensive for Iran, so I am thinking there must be a payoff in it somewhere otherwise it wouldn't be done. View the full article

The Tea Party took Madison today, and I wish I was there if just to shake the hand of the guy who made this sign. This will be remembered as the revolt that killed public sector unions. The behavior of the protesters and their grotesque sense of entitlement have awoken the bear. America doesn't cotton to looters or moochers and the folks out this week in Wisconsin were both. Comparing a Governor who was duly elected and ran on a program to cut spending to Hitler and Mubarak is disgraceful. The fact that teachers and others felt empowered to lie their way out of work and then go to the Capitol to piss and moan is shameful and it will cost them. The cry that budget cuts will affect teachers is no longer going to gain any sympathy. We have seen the teachers in action and we are probably better off with our kids being taught by someone else. View the full article