There’s a great story in the New York Times about the Pentagon giving Gen. McChrystal a lot of leeway to put together his “dream team” of Afghan command.

It’s precisely what the doctor ordered and the kind of thing that folks like Nagl and the Kagans have been saying would be the key to success there. It’s the same kind of carte blanche control that GW Bush gave Petraeus — with great success in a very short time.

Also, it’s brilliant that McC wants these guys to stay on for three years instead of one year stints in their billets. They’ll become more invested in the success of the fight and have greater insight into the inner workings of Afghanistan.

The Times story says Gates and Mullen have impressed upon McChrystal that Afghanistan is the “main effort”…it’s about time from my perspective. And it’s a good thing that we have a steely-eyed special operator at the helm. He understands economy of force, unconventional warfare and rapid tasking — which is just the kind of mindset the conflict in Afghanistan needs.

Another interesting note…the Times piece mentions that McC asked Rear Adm. Greg Smith to be his chief of public affairs. Petraeus did the same thing when he asked Smith to come over to Iraq to assess the PA operation there and when Smith delivered his report said “OK, can you stay here and implement it for me?”

Smith was due to retire but has reportedly agreed to stay on with McC…true patriots all and we wish them the best of luck.

– Christian

Iraqi troops in northeastern Baghdad have a new weapon in their arsenal, thanks to U.S. soldiers here.

Soldiers from 115th “Muleskinner” Brigade Support Battalion of the 1st Cavalry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team delivered five up-armored Ford F-350 trucks to the 11th Iraqi Army Division at Joint Security Station Rasheed here June 19.

The upgraded trucks offer significant protection and maneuverability for Iraqi Staff Maj. Gen. Mizher Shaher Lateef and his men to move about in his area of operations, said Army Capt. Peter Bogart, the brigade’s provost marshal. “It was a project that highlights the partnership we have with the [Iraqi army],” Army Maj. Michele Reid, the battalion’s executive officer, added.

Soldiers on Mizher’s personal security detachment will use the trucks to escort the general during his daily operations. The detachment’s officer in charge will be held responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the vehicles.

Soldiers from the 115th BSB’s B Company armored the trucks by increasing the amount of protective layers inside and outside the vehicles. After 37 days and about 60 work hours per truck, the trucks were complete and ready for delivery to Mizher.

“The soldiers in the service and recovery shop worked extremely hard on these trucks,” said Army Chief Warrant Officer Staceyann McNish, the battalion’s service and recovery chief. “They spent numerous manhours perfecting the construction of these turrets and gunner’s boxes. The end result was breathtaking.”

Other than determining the best way to complete the armor, the project went quite smoothly, Reid said. “We did have to consider the added weight of Kevlar and metal to how it would affect the trucks,” she explained, “along with considering road conditions.”

The beds of the trucks now contain a gunner’s box made of armor plating and Kevlar for maximum protection while on patrols. The seats are lined with Kevlar and were re-upholstered to cover it.

“We are very grateful to the United States military for all their help,” said 2nd Lt. Salem Ibrahim, a platoon leader for the 11th Iraqi Army Infantry Division. “It has been a great opportunity to work this closely with the coalition forces.”

[source: decencetalk]

Iranian protesters defied Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s warnings of “bloodshed” and took to the streets over the weekend, to protest the country’s allegedly rigged election. Riots cops responded with batons, tear gas and water cannons. Earlier, hard-line Basji militias reportedly broke into protesting students’ dorms, to intimidate or even beat them.

No one knows how the escalating protests will play out, in the end. More broadly, regional worries over Iran have propelled a lucrative arms market, dominated by U.S. defense firms. While most countries cut back their military spending, due to the global recession, many of Iran’s neighbors are continuing years-long shopping sprees for high-tech arms, apparently aimed at building an iron wall around Iran. Egypt, Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the UAE account for the majority of sales, projected to total $70 billion, this year. The bulk of the sales are for fighter jets and missile defenses.

The U.S. is careful not to single out Iran as the major factor in weapons sales. “This is about building a more secure world,” said Bruce Lemkin, a U.S. Air Force official who oversees many arms deals. But Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was less circumspect, when he told his political party that “the Persians are trying to devour the Arab states.” Forecast International is equally forthright, citing “worries over Iran” as the major driver of military investment by the Arab states and Israel.

Using weapons exports to shore up defenses against Iran is a calculated move by the Obama administration, experts say. Defense industry analyst Jim McAleese said the Pentagon is boosting subsidies to Middle East weapons buyers, using so-called “defense-wide” funds to shore up allies’ defenses. It’s cheaper in the long run to help other countries pay for the weapons they need to fight their own battles, than it is for the U.S. to deploy its forces, McAleese said.

[PHOTO: IDEX]

There is a silly debate starting about the impact of President Obama on the Iranian election. It is worth noting that President Obama is making no such claims. Here are some examples:

“'Whereas the Bush administration united Iran's disparate political factions against a common threat, Obama's overtures have accentuated the deep divisions and incongruities among Iran's political elites,'' said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (from the BBC).

Could there be something to all the talk of an Obama effect, after all? A stealth effect, perhaps?
…
And in his Cairo address June 4, he accepted responsibility for America’s part in the enmity between the United States and Iran.
“In the middle of the cold war, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government,” Mr. Obama said — a reference to the 1953 coup in which an Iranian prime minister, under whom Iran had nationalized its oil industry, was overthrown and the now-despised Shah was restored to power. (from The New York Times).

So is there “an Obama effect” in Iran?

Short answer: No

Long answer: No

Why? Because the Clinton Administration made the same overtures. Here and here are links to stories from 2000 in which Madeleine Albright acknowledged the U.S. role in the 1953 coup in Iran. President Obama is saying little different from his last Democratic predecessor.

What has changed is Iran. Back in 2000 Iran was run by a so-called reformist who was running into opposition from the same forces that have recently showed just how dishonest Iran's system is. Today Iranians are on the streets in protest against that act of massive electoral fraud and the regime's violent response.

It is about them. It is not about us.

Do you dare?

A few years ago a Los Angeles-based firm called SolarReserve had what they thought was a great alternative energy idea: A field of mirrors directs sunlight toward a tower filled with salt. The salt heats up to 1,050 degrees Fahrenheit and then flows down to a container where the heat is used to drive turbines that can power upwards of 50,000 homes.

Naturally such a device would need to be built where the sun shines a lot. And, ideally, it wouldn’t take up space in a populated area or harm wildlife.

Hey, how about the Nevada desert? At a glance that makes sense, except once you start to move on the idea you realize that “Nevada desert” is synonymous with “Nellis Air Force Base Range Complex.”

And among military ranges, Nellis is as mysterious as they come, even for the military aviators who’ve flown around there. (“The Box” — rumored to be where nuke testing goes on — notoriously lurks adjacent to regular operating areas. Troll into it and you’ll lose your first-born not to mention your wings.)

So it’s little surprise that after originally warming to the idea, the Air Force has balked at having the project on home turf. After all, who wants a bunch of green-minded brainiacs from LA (where they worship the devil — very un-USAF) arcing around your ‘hood, even if your ‘hood is in the middle of nowhere?

Read the entire article here.

(Photo: SolarReserve artist’s rendering photo)

– Ward

Navy Adm. James Stavridis, arguably the sea service’s intellectual leader, is making the leap from Latin America’s U.S. Southern Command, to the top job at European Command. That means he’ll also be NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, which puts him at the head of in the chain of command for the faltering NATO war effort in Afghanistan. (See here for an explanation of NATO’s complex command structure.)

So how has his experience in Latin America prepared him for waging war on a deeply entrenched insurgency, half a world away from his previous command? “The operations I’ve been most focused on in South America has been the insurgency in Colombia,” Stavridis told the Florida Times-Union, in a wide-ranging interview.

My experience there will translate well to my role as the NATO commander in Afghanistan, which is, let’s face it, an insurgency, drug-fueled, obviously 100 percent different in many ways. But, my experiences in understanding and learning counter-insurgency I think are up to the task.

This is one of the first times a senior U.S. commander has drawn a parallel between Colombia and Afghanistan. Stavridis explained the seemingly tenuous connection.

Both are insurgencies seeking to topple the government, both are drug-fueled. In Colombia it’s a political insurgency. In Afghanistan, it is a deeper, more cultural, religious-based insurgency.

Based on his experience in Colombia, Stavridis praised the elevation of commando Gen. Stan McChrystal, to lead U.S. and NATO forces, at the operational level, in Afghanistan. “I think he’s a perfect choice. He has deep, deep tactical experience in insurgency.”

Stavridis, the author of several widely read books, is no stranger to controversial claims. In March, he told Senators that Lebanese extremist group Hezbollah was involved in the Colombian drug trade. A retired Lebanese general fired back, saying there was no evidence of such involvement.

[PHOTO: Colombian drug-smuggling submersible, via Daylife]

When North Korea threatened to launch a ballistic missile in March, the Pentagon responded coolly. No effort would be made to shoot down the test missile, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said. The experimental, floating SBX missile-defense radar, would stay in dry-dock. This was a test, not an imminent attack, after all; and it would’ve cost as much as $100 million to move the thing into place.

How times have changed. First came the attempted launch in April. Then, last month, Pyongyang detonated a test nuclear device, which may or may not have worked as planned. Now the Norks are threatening to launch another Taepodong-2 missile, with a 4,000-mile range, towards Hawaii — and Gates is pulling out all the stops, to prepare for an intercept.

That means sending Army Terminal High-Altitude Air Defense missile systems, still in development, to the islands, and deploying the SBX radar. Joint Chiefs vice chairman General James Cartwright said he was “90-plus percent” sure the U.S. could intercept a Nork missile, in the unlikely event it overflew U.S. territory.

THAAD, you might recall, had a weak start in the 1990s, when it failed to hit targets in six test intercepts, in a row. A redesign improved the system considerably: a second round of test intercepts since 2005 scored five for five. For all its apparent success, THAAD is still unproven, in combat. Critics say that a real warhead would be faster, and surrounded by sensor-confusing debris, unlike the relatively slow, and clean, test targets.

SBX is equally controversial. The huge, X-band radar has been plagued by maintenance problems and reports of fragility and security gaps. Intended for rough, Alaskan waters, SBX has spent much of its time confined to the calmer waters, further south. “The bottom line is that the designers of this system didn’t begin to contemplate the realistic conditions under which the X-band would have to operate,” said Phil Coyle, former top Pentagon weapons tester.

Ready or not, THAAD and SBX might finally get their first real-world tests, if North Korea makes good on its threat.

The tension over North Korean nukes, satellites and missiles is surely a welcome boost for missile-defense supporters. President Barack Obama has been wishy-washy in his support for missiles defenses, particularly those meant for Europe, on the grounds that they provoke Russia.

[PHOTO: Missile Defense Agency]

Some of the Web’s leading firms are rolling out new features, to accommodate worldwide interest in the protests in Iran — and to not-so-subtly help out the pro-democracy movement inside the country.

Iran’s activists have been relying on blogs, Tweets, text messages, Facebook groups, and uploaded YouTube videos to share information with one another, and with the outside world. Late Thursday night, both Facebook and Google’s translation service added Persian language support, which should make it even easier for the Iranian opposition and its growing global network of supporters to connect.

“We feel that launching Persian is particularly important now, given ongoing events in Iran. Like YouTube and other services, Google Translate is one more tool that Persian speakers can use to communicate directly to the world, and vice versa — increasing everyone’s access to information,” Google principal scientist Franz Och noted in a Thursday night blog post.

Almost immediately, supporters of Iranian opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi used the new feature to begin translating his official site into English.

In the past few days, Google’s YouTube video-sharing site recently changed its policy on violent footage, to allow videos from Iran’s protests to stay posted to the site. Twitter rescheduled maintenance, to accommodate Iranian activists.

Facebook — which was blocked in Iran, during the run-up to last week’s disputed election — also unveiled a Persian service. “Since the Iranian election last week, people around the world have increasingly been sharing news and information on Facebook about the results and its aftermath. Much of the content created and shared has been in Persian—the native language of Iran—but people have had to navigate the site in English or other languages,” writes Facebook engineer Eric Kwan. “Today we’re making the entire site available in a beta version of Persian, so Persian speakers inside of Iran and around the world can begin using it in their native language.”

[Assist: The Lede]

ALSO:

• Iran Activists Get Assist from ‘Anonymous,’ Pirate Bay
• Iran: Before You Have That Twitter-Gasm….
• Tehran Threatens Bloggers, ‘Deviant News Sites’
• Web Attacks Expand in Iran’s Cyber Battle (Updated Again)
• Iran’s Tweets: Windows into Protests – or Digital Mirrors …
• Taking to the Streets — and Tweets — in Tehran
• Iran Reporting = MSM Fail?
• Activists Launch Hack Attacks on Tehran Regime
• Iran’s Wired Generation Challenges Ahmadinejad

Washington has been expecting a showdown between the defense secretary and Congress over his plan to radically overhaul the Pentagon’s arsenal. That fight may finally go down, after a key House panel defied Robert Gates Wednesday by adding money to keep making stealth fighter planes — with an apparent assist from a top Air Force general.

Two-and-a-half months ago, Defense Secretary Gates proposed the most sweeping Pentagon overhaul in nearly 20 years. The plan eliminated funding or scaled back resources for all sorts of high-priced, high-tech, big-war weapons projects that had been previously untouchable, things like advanced jets, missile interceptors and next-gen tanks. Instead, Gates called for funding more troops and more drones, weapons more suitable for today’s fights in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet, for nearly 75 days, opposition to the plan — from Congress, from the armed services, from the defense industry — has been token, at best. No major Democratic defections on the Hill, despite the potential loss of manufacturing jobs in their districts. No big advertising pushes from the arms-makers, despite the obvious threat to their cash cows. None of the traditional back-channel efforts by the generals to keep their pet programs. Just a few neocon op-eds, and some grumbling from congressional Republicans.

Yesterday, however, things changed. Republicans managed to peel off just enough Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee to add $369 million to keep up production of the Air Force’s prized F-22 Raptor stealth jet. That means 12 more fighters built next year — 12 fighters Gates has made clear he doesn’t want or need. If the Raptor increase is approved by the other relevant congressional committees, that could open up the flood gates of opposition, with other ad hoc coalitions forming to keep funds for the Airborne Laser missile-zapping boondoggle, or the Navy’s massive (and massively overbudget) DDG-1000 destroyer. “[The Pentagon] needs to learn who’s in charge, and the Congress is,” House Armed Services Committee Democrat Neil Abercrombie told the Christian Science Monitor.

So now the questions are: Will the extra money stick? What does this mean for the secretary’s other cuts, to things like missile defense and hulking battleships? And would the president consider a veto, if Congress doesn’t go along with Gates’ plan?

The defense secretary is speaking with key congressional leaders, letting them know which changes are potential red lines for him, and which ones he just might accept. More Raptors is an absolute deal-breaker for him. Gates has said over and over again that 187 of the dogfighters is just plenty. Especially since the Raptors, originally commissioned to duel with Soviet MiGs, have never been used in Iraq or Afghanistan. “Everybody knows where the secretary and the president stand on the F-22,” Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said, in an unusually terse statement. In other words: Obama has Gates’ back on this. There might even be a veto, congressmen, if you push too far.

Judging from past public statements, I’d say the same goes for trying to piece together the Army’s “Future Combat Systems” family of armored vehicles (”an expensive disaster,” Gates all but called it); for trying to restore money to programs like the Airborne Laser (”significant affordability and technology problems and the program’s proposed operational role is highly questionable“); or for resurrecting the disastrous VH-71 helicopter program (”a poster child for an acquisition process gone seriously wrong“). But I’d wager Gates does have some flexibility over the number of missile interceptors he’s willing to take; he recently said the choice to buy only 30 of the ground-based, mid-course interceptors was “not a forever decision.”

Meanwhile, the tussle over the Raptors continues. Utah Republican Rep. Rob Bishop believes that 187 jets is “frighteningly low,” because of the threat that Russia and China may one day build fighters than can compete with the Mach 2 Raptors. Retired Air Force officials, who still maintain their ties to Congress, agree. Yesterday’s vote was “absolutely the right thing to do,” one former senior military officer told Danger Room. “The number 187 has no [military] analysis as a basis.”

In a letter to Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), four-star Gen. John Corley, the current chief of Air Combat Command, wrote, “In my opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid term… To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate that 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy.”

Air Force Secretary Michael Donnelly and Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz have already walked back Corley’s note. “We assessed the F-22 by taking into account competing strategic priorities and complementary programs within the context of available resources. After carefully considering a full range of views and alternatives, including those expressed by Gen. Corley, we recommended to Secretary Gates that other priority Air Force programs should not be reduced in order to fund additional F-22s beyond the program of record,” the pair said in a statement.

But opponents of the president are girding up for a new fight. “Resistance to the Obama administration’s massive defense cuts is more substantial than what might have been apparent at first glance,” writes Michael Goldfarb over at the Weekly Standard.

UPDATE: At a press conference Thursday, Gates was asked for his reaction to the House vote. His answer: “I have a big problem with it.”

Q: Why?

SEC. GATES: Well, because it continues the F-22 program, which is contrary to the recommendations I made to the president and that the president sent to the Congress in his budget. That’s why it’s a problem.

Q: Is it veto material?

SEC. GATES: I’m not going to go that far at this point. I think describing it as a big problem suggests where I am on it.

[Photo: DoD]

ALSO:

• Gates Pushes for Radical Overhaul of Pentagon Arsenal
• Congress Shoves Back on Pentagon Reboot (Updated)
• Robert Gates is Not a Hippie
• Gates: Why I Stopped the Stealth Jets
• Stealth Jet Gets Online Push, as a Jobs Program
• Pentagon, Congress Square Off Over Uncoventional War Shift …
• Gates: Air Force Must Do More (Updated)
• Gates: F-22 Has No Role in War on Terror
• Gates: Time for the Pentagon to Actually Wage War