3 Deaths Will Rock The Middle East

"You see? Death comes for us all."

Allegedly whispered to King Edward by Princess Isabella, such ancient ideas are actually right on target today.

US policy is often dominated by the here-and-now, but what happens when dominant figures for good or bad are suddenly no longer on the scene? That’s probably going to be a challenge that will confront the next administration and throw long-held policy assumptions into doubt.

Here are three figures to whom Washington has geared policy for years that likely will not survive the next administration:

• Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. 
Khamenei has served as Iran’s supreme leader (and, as far as the Iranian regime is concerned, the deputy of the Messiah on earth) since 1989, but the 77-year-old ayatollah has recently battled cancer and is reputed to be in ill-health. That he allowed himself to be photographed in the hospital signaled Iranians that they should be prepared for a transition and that his health crisis was not merely something that could be swept under the rug. What comes next? In theory, the 86-member Assembly of Experts picks the new supreme leader but, in reality, they are little more than a coffee klatch that rubber stamps a decision made by influential powerbrokers and faction heads. So who might come next? Council on Foreign Relations scholar Ray Takeyh has suggested it could be Ibrahim Raisi, a hardliner. Other scholars might argue that Khamenei’s successor would likely be a weaker, more run-of-the-mill ayatollah since no one else would get buy-in from all factions. Takeyh is probably right, however, in the notion that the new Supreme Leader will trend far more hardline than even Khamenei did after his selection. The difference between now and 1989 is that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is far better resourced and powerful (thanks, Secretary Kerry!). They will never subordinate themselves to someone who they see as weak and too flexible.

Is the West prepared for an even more radical and ideological supreme leader? Of course, there’s another possibility: Nothing requires the leadership to be an individual; it’s always possible that absent a consensus, a council of leadership will emerge with multiple ayatollahs representing the major factions. 

This might create an entirely new dynamic but again one not favorable to the West as, when the factional competition gets too fierce, bad things happen as hardliners seize hostages and sponsor terrorism in order to prove their dominance and purity.

• Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. 
As corrosive as Khamenei has been to international peace and the reputation of Shi’ism globally, Sistani has been the opposite. In every crisis, Sistani has worked to repair crises and calm passions rather than inflame them. He has regularly reached across the sectarian divide and condemned terrorism. When Sunni terrorists blew up the al-‘Askari shrine in Samarra in 2006, Sistani forbade any reprisals but when the Islamic State seized the overwhelmingly Sunni city of Mosul, he called for volunteers to help the city; hundreds of Shi’ites willingly gave their lives in answer to him. But what happens when Sistani passes away? It’s a subject of conversation in Najaf and Karbala. Few locals believe the other three resident Grand Ayatollahs will rise to the stature of Sistani, though. In 1994, when Grand Ayatollah Araki passed away, Khamenei tried to suggest that he would now be the sole ‘source of emulation,’ but was basically laughed off the stage as his religious credentials barely qualify him to be an ayatollah. Khamenei has been maneuvering to impose the 68-year-old former Iranian Judiciary Chief Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi upon Najaf. Iraqis say local Shi’ites wouldn’t accept Shahroudi and would likely favor one of Sistani’s prominent students but what might a fight mean? Again, nothing requires a single source of emulation—historically, there have been many–but if there is a crisis, would any successor have the stature to restore calm and promote peace as Sistani has done?

One thing is clear: Any Palestinian aspirant would likely only consolidate his power upon the corpses of his rivals.

• Mahmoud Abbas. 
The 81-year-old Palestinian Authority president is currently serving the 12^th year of his four-year presidential term. Unlike Yasser Arafat before him, Abbas refuses to appoint a successor. So what happens when he dies? Muhammad Dahlan, the former head of Arafat’s and Abbas’ Fatah political party in Gaza, is a name often floated, but he wouldn’t be a shoo-in or unopposed. Nasser al-Kidwa, Arafat’s nephew, is another possibility. The United States and Europe like Salam Fayyad, the former finance minister. Marwan Barghouti, a Palestinian politician serving time in an Israeli prison for terrorism and murder, is popular among many Palestinians but it is unlikely Israel would release a man serving five life sentences. One thing is clear: Any Palestinian aspirant would likely only consolidate his power upon the corpses of his rivals. Palestine is already a failed entity, with Hamas controlling the Gaza Strip. If the West Bank collapses, that would change fundamental assumptions which have been enough to keep what little peace process there is on life support. It also might provide an opening for Hamas or other radical groups (think the Islamic State) to make inroads.

China's Stealth Drones

When it comes to weaponized drones - Red China has potential!

Two drones especially look threatening. Both are somewhat innocuously labeled 'target drones' 

The Stealth bomber looking CH - 805 Stealth Target Drone, is a 4-meter wingspan flying wing drone that can fly high subsonic speeds. Its RCS of 0.01 square meters indicates its role as a target for simulating stealth aircraft to Chinese fighters and air defense missiles. However, its high flight performance would make it a good candidate for potential modification into an operational use, such as a 'wingman' drone for Chinese fighters and bombers.

And the Orbital Fighter looking CK-20 is a supersonic target drone concept in the advanced stages of development. A 5.5-ton, single-engine aircraft roughly the size of a jet fighter trainer, it can fly at an altitude of 18 km, reach speeds of up to Mach 1.8. It may make first flight around 2020, and like the CH-805, has stealthy features, including canted vertical stabilizers. Similarly, its high speed could make it a candidate to be developed into an operational role.

44's Failed Middle East Policy

Everyone knows the Iraq 44 inherited was seemingly stable but had 144,000 American troops in the country. Saddam's dictatorship was deposed. The 2007 Bush military surge had worked and Iraq was beginning to exhibit long-awaited signs of stability. By a precipitous politically motivated withdrawal of U.S. forces, 44's policy mortgaged the hard-won gains made through spilled blood and treasure and, moreover, allowed Iraq's venal sectarian divide to dominate the Baghdad government.

Thus, the outcome, which witnessed the rise of IS, reflected a quick political fix rather than a commitment to long-term stability. Key Iraqi cities fell to the ISIL militant insurgents. Fast forward. Now thousands of American special forces are back in Iraq trying to help the Iraqi military retake lost territory.

We are still paying the regional price for 44's hasty withdrawal.

Egypt: While much of the Mideast appeared strangely static, the Arab Spring exploded in Cairo in 2011. Pro-democracy demonstrations toppled the authoritarian but pro-American rule of President Hosni Mubarak ushering in a swirl of events that resulted in an elected but thuggish Muslim Brotherhood regime. Soon rising frustrations the following year led to a new military government in Cairo. Once close political ties between Cairo and Washington are destabilized.

Syria exploded in 2011 as demonstrations tried to topple the entrenched Assad Family regime, a secular but longtime Russian client. Syria's original uprisings were probably democratic but were soon hijacked by hardline Islamic jihadi forces. While 44 fiddled rhetorically while supporting the Syrian uprising, his Administration led from behind when it came to decisive action. Before long Russia decided to support their longtime Syrian client. Over 500,000 people have been killed; Aleppo is a humanitarian hell. Millions of Syrians have become refugees; the surge has swamped neighboring Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey and is flooding into Europe. There's no end in sight in this grinding conflict.

Libya saw its longtime dictator Col. Gaddafi toppled by a series of tribal uprisings. Later the U.S. and France sent massive air support to help break in the impasse in the civil war. But what then? Radical jihadi militias burned down the American consulate in Banghazi and killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Libya remains in chaos and serves as a conduit for refugee flows into Italy. While we are well rid of Gaddafi, what were HRC State Department's plans for the day after the overthrow?

Yemen: Once touted as an Administration socio-political success story, Yemen has descended into a dangerous spiral of tribal conflict amid sectarian divides. A U.N. official told the Security Council, "The state of Yemen is broken," and there are 20 million people in need of humanitarian assistance."

Turkey: The once rock solid and reliable relationship between the U.S. and Turkey is threatened. Tragically, Turkey's once staunchly secular Republic is increasingly Islamic-lite under the authoritarian rule of President Erdogan. Ties with Washington are deeply frayed.

The Mideast now suffers the aftershocks of 44's fundamentally failed foreign policy.

Super Patriot Missiles

The Army is advancing effort to upgrade the radar, fire control technology and flight software for its PATRIOT missile in order to sharpen its target tracking ability against approaching enemy attacks.

The Army has awarded a contract-extension with Lockheed Martin to further develop these technological advances for the weapon.   

The $ 13.4 million modification includes engineering services for phased array tracking radar intercept on the PATRIOT Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) - also known as PAC-3 MSE.

“The PAC-3 MSE program includes flight software, flight testing, modification and qualification of subsystems, production planning and tooling, and support for full Patriot system integration,” according to Lockheed.

At the end of last year, the Army’s Patriot missile destroyed a mock-enemy theater ballistic missile target in a recent test-firing in order to demonstrate new guidance technology built into the weapon, Army officials said.

The Patriot Advanced Capability-3 is an advanced kinetic energy hit-to-kill interceptor surface-to-air missile designed to knock out incoming threats and protect ground forces, buildings and other assets.  As a kinetic energy interceptor, the weapon relies upon the sheer force of impact to destroy approaching enemy attacks and does not need to use explosives – thus the “hit-to-kill” description. 

The Patriot can be used for close-in threat approaching targets such as drones, cruise missiles and even enemy aircraft. At the same time, the missile can destroy longer-range theater ballistic missile targets as well, Army officials have explained.

The missile system also functions in tandem with the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense, THAAD, system to provide the U.S. with a “multi-tier theater defense.” 

To intercept an incoming missile, it steers towards a predetermined intercept point chosen by its ground-based fire solution computer, selects the proper trajectory, and then applies a direct, body-to-body hit on the target.

In service since the early 80s, Patriot missiles have been upgraded several times, including this latest MSE software improvement. This test, which took place in December of last year, was engineered to asses an even newer target-tracking technology called Post Deployment Build, or PDB-8, service officials explained. 

“PDB - 8 software is a major software build that provides improved capability against the evolving threat and is fully compatible with the IBCS (Integrated Battle Command System). The air and missile defense threat continues to progress and proliferate, and the Patriot system is continually evolving to deliver threat-paced capabilities in the current and persistently-changing threat environment,” Dan O’Boyle, spokesman for Program Executive Office, Missiles and Space, told Scout Warrior in a written statement last year. 

The PAC-3, which is deployed in military theaters around the world, is a lower-tier, hit-to-kill missile and member of the Ballistic Missile Defense System. It features a solid propellant rocket motor, aerodynamic controls, attitude control motors and inertial navigation.

During last year's test, at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., the Patriot used its Active Electronically Scanned Array to track data, detect and engage the target, an Army statement said. The system uses radar, sensors, guidance technology and an integrated fire control technology to track and destroy targets. 

“Preliminary test data indicates a successful Juno (Theater Ballistic Missile-like) target intercept with missile number one and a successful test flight.  The test was conducted to:demonstrate the capability of the PATRIOT system, using PDB-8 to detect, track, engage and kill a threat representative TBM (Theater Ballistic Missile) with PAC-3 MSE Missiles.

The Patriot is now in service with at least 13 countries around the globe, including five NATO countries. Up to 16 PAC-3 missiles can be loaded up into a launcher for increased firepower and defensive capabilities. Also, the weapon is highly mobile and can be fired from an Army Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck, or HEMTT.

Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Boeing are all associated with Patriot missile development, technology and production.

The full $13.4 million modification amount agreed upon for this most recent contract was obligated at the time of the award. Work will be performed at the Army Reserve Center in Grand Prairie, Texas and at the White Sands Missile Reserve in White Sands, New Mexico. The estimated completion date is January 30, 2018. Army Contracting Command, is the contracting activity.

Future Navy

The Navy is undertaking a series of reviews, one, the force structure assessment, is currently underway at the Pentagon under the auspices of the service’s leadership. Three other Congressionally mandated studies look further out into the future—one internal to the Navy, another conducted by a federally-funded research center and another by a think-tank—are nearly complete and are currently in the process of being approved before being submitted to lawmakers.

All four reviews are likely to call for a larger fleet and will likely be shared with the Congress before the new President submits his or her budget proposal.

Generally speaking, the Navy will operate in a much more dispersed manner to maintain its presence around the globe while still maintaining its striking power.

One of the keys to the Navy’s future force structure architecture will be the submarine fleet.

 The Navy does not have enough submarines to meet the demand for undersea assets with the 52 boats currently in the fleet, which is more than the stated requirement for 48 attack subs (SSN). However, even if the Navy increases the requirement for the number of submarines, the service is physically incapable of increasing the number of boats in the fleet significantly by the late 2020s. However, the service is trying to mitigate the gap by extending the lives of older Los Angeles-class SSNs so that they can deploy one more time. The Navy also hopes to buy a second Virginia-class SSN in fiscal year 2021 and continue buying two attack submarines per year indefinitely. That is the only way for the Navy to recover from the current submarine deficit.

 However, given the insatiable demand for ships and submarines around the globe, the Navy recognizes it will never have enough assets to meet every combatant commander request. Thus, the service is turning toward unmanned technology.

 Meanwhile, recapitalizing the all-important sea-based strategic deterrent—which will comprise 70 percent of America’s nuclear arsenal—remains the Navy’s top priority.

America's Future Navy: Dispersed, Unmanned and Underwater

War: The American Way

From Havok Journal

There is an unfortunate disconnect when it comes to the American perception of war. The average American seems to think that war is conducted by drone strikes and jets dropping precision munitions on folks living in tents. Yes, we do kill our enemies this way but it is not the only way. Unfortunately what it does is paint a false picture of the reality of armed conflict. 

While we have many advanced weapons at our disposal, war is still essentially the same. To be decisive we must place American rifleman in range of opposing and similarly armed counterparts.

Violence on this level has not changed, only the popular and public perception of it. Americans at home want their wars run clean and cold, through the digital optics on board fast moving airframes delivering their ordinance. This is a problem, because this is not how war works.

Let’s take a look at some recent conflicts, starting with WW2. Often looked back on with nostalgia and reverence for being the last time the good guys fought real bad guys. The shine of metallic P-51 Mustang fuselages and flashy nose art can be distracting from the fact that our grandparents were killing each other by any means possible. In this conflict there was no mistake about the goal, or the nature of the conflict. Everything was a valid target, be it soldier or civilian. High level bombers rained high explosive and incendiary death down on the civilian populations of their enemies.

The will of the enemy needed to be broken, not just the fighting man and materiel. We understood that in this war, the violence nob needed be cranked up to 10 and then snapped it off. We nuked two cities just to end the war and to prove a point. The folks back home had no idea of the level of brutality that men were inflicting upon other men. The American idea of war at the time remained this, that what must be to end the war should be done.

Fast forward a few years and we are now in Vietnam. Not only politically volatile but socially as well; images and video of the soldiers in combat were being broadcast into the living rooms of Americans at home. This didn’t sit too well with the American public as Mom and Dad got to watch their sons being blown apart on the evening news. The nation, for the first time got to see the true face of war. This had consequences of course, as this apparently wasn’t how the young folks in America wanted to spend their summer vacations. They could turn to those images and see what was waiting for them in the jungles of a place thousands of miles from home.

Politicians ran the war as popular support waned with every image of napalm burned children, and GIs in various states of messed up. The soldiers suffered as their ability to make violence was limited by restrictive rules of engagement, stemming from indecisive political meddling. We all know how this story ends, yet it started a new chapter in the way Americans fight, and their perception of warfare. Americans just didn’t realize that what they were seeing was not new.

As a consequence of Vietnam the American public came face to face with the brutal nature of warfare. Atrocities committed by both sides were exposed and the scars from these events were left on the heart of the nation. We abolished the draft, and the military industrial complex continued working on smarter munitions. Weapons were being designed to save lives; if you don’t see the irony in that statement then I can’t help you.

The idea that war and its magnitudes of violence could be minimized and victory still attained over a determined enemy were easily swallowed by the public. Americans watched as laser guided bombs and cruise missiles devastated the Iraqi army in Gulf War I and we all swallowed this as proof. We were in and out, victory accomplished with minimal casualties on our side. What we didn’t see was that the violence was still there. This factor however was mitigated by the disintegration of the Iraqi military. In the near future this would change.

We now find ourselves in the present day, 14 years into a conflict that should have been over in less than half the time. In WW2 our goals were clear: victory at any cost because there was no alternative. The violence needed to accomplish this was understood by all who participated. If only America understood this necessity now they would know why we are still fighting the same enemy with no victory in sight. America has confused the pop culture idea of war with its reality.

War has not changed; only the popular perception of it has. We are bombarded from youth by images and concepts of what war is or should be. So there is an understandable bit of confusion when the military is producing weapons to reduce damage, at the same time politicians are selling war as a thing that can be limited to preserve the image of the American peace keeper. These things contribute to the American version of war, ideally bloodless affairs where only the enemy gets killed and the harming of civilians is unacceptable.

Here is the reality of warfare: people die. What I mean by people is this; that combatant and non-combatant are killed the same. War is the breaking of bone, of high explosive liquefying solid organs. It is the ignition of organic matter through the heat of explosive chemical reactions. It is the boot heel and the fist. We have been plagued by the notion that warfare can be limited and in doing so we have diluted our ability to achieve victory.

War is a destructive process and our ability to creatively destroy our fellow man is unrivaled. Warfare as an extension of politics should be the last resort; I do not seek to glorify it. It must be conducted with the utmost violence in order to achieve the goals set forth. If this is not the intent, and conflict is entered into with limitations and lack of vision, then we will find ourselves repeating the mistakes of the other conflicts we so often find ourselves half-heartedly engaging in.

We draw these conflicts out because we are fighting according to a set of culturally imposed rules that no one else is playing by. Do you think ISIS shares our same view on warfare? This is not a gentleman’s game. Hang up your powdered wig and 18th Century ideals of fairness in war.

What I ask is that we as a nation face this reality. If we send our soldiers into harm’s way let them do what needs to be done to preserve their lives and to deprive the enemy of theirs. Wars are won in the will and we seem to be lacking the conviction to rob the enemy of theirs. If you don’t want our warriors to be plying their trade then do not send them.

This is a conversation that must happen as we face an inhuman enemy, capable of horrific violence, and who is single minded in their pursuit of total war. What can be gained by a more realistic view on war I cannot say? Perhaps a diminished propensity to rely on it for our answers, and when used it is done in such a way as to end it swiftly and decisively.

Yemen No Fly Zone?

For much of the post-World War II era, Saudi Arabia has enjoyed a special relationship with Washington. As America's key regional ally, primary energy provider and key arms market, Riyadh’s ideological mismatch with Western liberal values has traditionally been overlooked, but the contemporary focus on Salafist-inspired jihadism has highlighted this ideological mismatch.

For all Riyadh's multi-billion dollar annual outlays on American and British defence equipment, it has rarely had to employ the weapons on which it has splurged so much money. That is, until the young defence minister Muhammad bin Salman launched an ill-considered Saudi-led air campaign against, and subsequent invasion of, Yemen more than a year ago.

Time for a Yemeni No Fly Zone?

The Saudi prosecution of the war has come under increasing criticism for its apparent lack of a coherent strategic aim as well as the lack of attention paid to target identification and minimisation of civilian casualties. A UN report released in January criticised the significant humanitarian impact of Riyadh’s naval blockade on the Yemeni population, and noted that up to the time of the report 60% of civilian deaths (or more than 2600 people) were caused by the air campaign. These deaths are not on the scale we have seen in Syria of course, but Riyadh’s poor performance in prosecuting the campaign are beginning to pose deep questions for Washington and some European capitals.

The targeting mishap that led to the deaths of scores of Yemenis and injuries to hundreds more has thrown into sharp focus the role of the West in the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen.

Targeting mistakes will always happen in war regardless of the professionalism and experience of the aircrew, particularly when air support is provided while troops are in contact with the enemy or there are targets on the ground inter-mingled with the civilian population. Civilian casualties also occur when attacking forces are in an urban area and the intent is to kill those fighters or force them to leave through indiscriminate use of force, such as we see in Aleppo right now.

But Yemen appears to be a different case – civilian casualties are being caused by incompetence.
Early on in the campaign, US officials were quoted in the New York Times as saying that inexperienced Saudi pilots were flying their missions at too high an altitude, thereby decreasing the accuracy of their attacks and increasing the risk of civilian casualties. Only five days before the strike on the funeral the Washington Post quoted a US official as saying Saudi killing of civilians was due to 'errors of capability or competence, not malice.' Despite these concerns, there appears to be an unfounded belief that the Arab coalition is capable of changing its operational methodology by itself. A British Conservative MP, after returning from a fact-finding mission to Saudi Arabia, recently told the BBC that 'they (Saudi-led coalition) have made some mistakes and have breached (international humanitarian law) in the past, but I can tell you this...things have been really tightened up.'

The rather uncomfortable fact for Washington is that it has provided refuelling aircraft to support the Saudi-led air campaign, and some operational staff support (which allegedly doesn’t extend to target or weapons selection). Moreover, both Washington and London have provided the munitions that are killing Yemeni civilians. US-made cluster munitions have turned up in civilian areas of the capital Sana’a and Amnesty International claims an August 2016 attack on a MSF-run hospital in northern Yemen that killed 11 people used US-made bombs. Claims have also been made that UK-manufactured munitions have featured in attacks on civilian targets in Yemen.

The focus on civilian deaths in Yemen resulting from the actions of a close American ally is also challenging for those in Washington trying to advocate for military intervention in Syria to stop civilians being killed in Aleppo. If the justification for establishing a no-fly zone or safe zones in Syria under US protection is to stop Washington’s enemies from targeting Syrian civilians, isn’t then there an equally compelling case for establishing the same to protect Yemeni civilians from the incompetent actions of Washington’s allies? Of course this is not going to happen, but to counter this argument, Washington's response to Riyadh's poor handling of its air campaign has to be something more than rhetorical.

Washington has leverage over Saudi behaviour in Yemen that it doesn’t have in trying to influence Russian and Iranian behaviour in Syria. Riyadh is reliant on Washington for its own security, and much of its military training and equipment. And while the National Security Committee’s spokesman has said that US assistance is not a blank cheque, Washington could send a much stronger message to Riyadh by ceasing refuelling support to the air campaign, with a threat to cease future supply of air-delivered munitions.

Stopping refuelling would hinder but by no means stop the campaign, and the Saudis could purchase weapons elsewhere and arguably hit back by seeking other suppliers in the future. But if Washington can do little to stop civilian deaths in Syria because it has no leverage, it should at least do all it can to avoid complicity in civilian deaths in Yemen.