Mullen's Mission
By Steve Hynd Tuesday Nov 18, 2008 4:30pm
Today, a friend sent me a PDF copy of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen unclassified new "CJCS strategic guidance" for 2008-09. It makes interesting reading.
Some first thoughts:
"We have the most combat-hardened forces in history."
That's hyperbole, right? Even if you just restrict it to American forces.
"Our Navy and Airforce are unmatched, although our advantage could easily slip."
Slip to who and over what period of time? There isn't a nation on Earth spends a fraction of what the U.S. does on the military, and the next three biggest spenders are all ostensibly allies (France, Britain, Japan). The US could cut its military budget by two thirds and still outspend all of its possible threats combined.
Mullen's version of the objective in Iraq and Afghanistan:
"...a representative, stable, independent Iraq that is an ally and regional leader, and a representative, stable Afghanistan and Pakistan that are allies and cooperative members of the international community..."
Is this in fact doable at any price America is willing to pay and over any forseeable timeline? And why don't Afghanistan - and Pakistan! - have to be "independent" too?
"In the near term, Al Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan are the probable source of a terrorist attack on the homeland.
So Mullen agrees with Hayden that Pakistan is the true central front in the so-called "War On Terror" (and one the US isn't actually at war in). Is the reason that Pakistan doesn't need to be independent contained therein, for the warmongers? That'll be why we invaded Iraq and sent Pakistan billions in military aid while helping prop up the people in Pakistan's military and intelligence services enabling those Al Qaeda safe havens. That makes perfect sense.







