NATO, or the North American Treaty Organization, was created by a treaty for the protection of Europe and the west from the Soviet Union and their “Warsaw” pact nations. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the alleged end of the Cold War, NATO has wandered the planet in search of a larger meaning. Meanwhile, the individual nations from Europe have allowed their military budgets to fall lower and lower, to offset the expenditure of their domestic agendas. Sure, they have engaged in some operations, such as Afghanistan, but largely, this just hasn’t had the same feeling of urgency since the old USSR left us. Now, we’re seeing a resurgence. Eastern Europe has brought life back into an older organization, and the Europe that has so long neglected their military is starting to see a need to re-tool, reorganize, and regroup. Newer nations, formerly under the old umbrella of the Warsaw Pact, are now seeking membership. As NATO grows, so will the bureaucracy and arguments, since there will be the inevitable clashes among the varying agendas, and self interests, of the individual nations comprising this now larger membership. Still, now there is meaning, and a real need to evaluate the world threat, even beyond that of terrorism. Congratulations, Mr. Putin, since you have single handedly done what nobody else could do. You’ve given Europe a focus and sense of defensive purpose that they haven’t had in years. I just hope to hell that it won’t come down to the actual use of that purpose. ~ Michael S. Pauley
0 Comments
Are you there yet? The AARP Life@50+ Boston event begins Thursday, May 8. Check out the Authorhouse booth, enjoy the sites, and send us an up-date! Speaking of up-dates, the 'Locales' page and those pages relating to fleets, etc., have new links!
I had a friend some years ago that used to say, “One monkey don’t make no show!” Obviously, he was making reference to the fact that no operation should be reliant on one person, and the notion that there is nobody that can’t be replaced. I would say to a large extent, this is quite true. Usually there is always someone that can step up and take over in your absence. Still, you look through history, and sometimes the show is the damn Monkey. If Hitler had been eliminated during the beer hall putsch of November 8, 1923, would things have turned out differently for Europe in the 1930s and 1940s? What if Stalin had never existed? Would there still have been pogroms, and purges in Russia? Like most “what if” questions, there are no accurate answers, since that is not how it happened. All we can do is a “best guess,” which renders these questions little more than either conversation starters at a professorial dinner party, or the basis for an alternative history book.
Still, I love a good guess, so I’m thinking that the answer about Hitler would be that someone else might well have stepped up and done a different kind of damage, but damage nonetheless. Many of the players were in place, and instead of Hitler, it could well have been a guy named General Kurt von Scheleicher. (See The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, W. L. Shirer, 1959, at page 150). General Scheleicher was by all accounts a sneaky power monger, who was quite dangerous. Would he have established a military dictatorship? Probably, if given half a chance he would have done so, and eventually, he would have launched a war. In fact, for the world at large, he would have been as, or perhaps more, dangerous than the schmuck we got. As for Stalin, there were countless scoundrels waiting in the wings, and in a cut throat society, especially during hard times, there never seems to be a shortage of vermin to step up and take control. What if? Simply put, the “what if” is likely not going to be all that different from the “what actually happened,” at least when it comes to the ultimate conclusion. This just sets up the question for us today, which is simply, “if not Putin, then whom?” ~ Michael S. Pauley Authorhouse will again have a booth at the AARP Life@50+ event next week in Boston! They Own the Night:The First Gomer Wars will be represented, although we will not be able to attend. If you are in the area, please stop by and express interest in the book! Following is a link to AARP for the event. AARP Life@50+ Boston
The tough thing about doing a blog post about the situation in Ukraine is that the situation is highly fluid, and most open sources are all over the boards. Twitter “tweets” from people who have watched the same event will often vary their view of the outcome based on their own slant. News people on the ground have encountered resistence, and in some cases, have become hostages or prisoners themselves. Most recently, several news gathering organizations have had their people snatched up by the local Separatists, only to be released later. Sadly, we have no idea if these people, after being captured, are telling us what is really going on now that they’ve been released. Similarly, the Military Observer Team, comprised of military personnel from several western nations, was captured and then eventually paraded before the press to make statements. Clearly, not a new tactic, since this was done by Goebbels for Nazi Germany, and later by the North Vietnamese, during the Viet Nam War.
Fortunately, I do have one very reliable source for information. In fact, it is my most trusted source for information right now. Stratfor, a source I’ve referred to before in my posts, is cutting edge in ferreting out information, and it is often there that I turn when I really want to know what is happening. While I don’t intend this as a commercial, I will say that if you’re not a subscriber, I would still highly recommend their site to you. A prime example of Stratfor’s usefulness is that I learned a lot from a recent report they released on May 3, 2014. From them I learned that it is being reported by Kiev, that the Military Observers, from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe or OSCE, were freed earlier in the day on May 3, 2014. In the same report, I also learned that the Ukrainian Security Service released a video implicating Russia in the kidnaping, and that there was actual footage showing a phone conversation about the impending OSCE visit, which led to their being taken hostage on April 25, 2014. This footage purports to contain this conversation that was taking place between Russian Military Intelligence Colonel Igor Girkin, an alleged separatist leader in Eastern Ukraine, and Vladimir Lukin, a special representative to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Naturally, the Russians have denied this involvement, while the Ukrainians are holding out the video as evidence against that notion. The real challenge of course is the credibility of everyone’s sources. Personally, I believe the Ukraine’s version of events, just as I believe that the violence in Odessa was in part brought on by individual Russian Separatists from the breakaway region of Transdneistria. (Located between Moldova and Ukraine, Transdneistria has been mentioned before in one of my earlier postings.) The deliberate destabilizing of Eastern Ukraine by outsiders is quite apparent to me, just from the other things emanating from Russia. For example, Russia denies any involvement with the OSCE team, yet after sufficient pressure, they are finally released; the Russian press is stating that there are fascists running things, when there are none; and my favorite, the use of the SA-7 ground to air missile or man portable air defense (MANPAD) system, to shoot down two MI-24 helicopters. These are semi-complex weapons systems that require both access and training in the ability to use them. In short, it would take a soldier, and not just a protestor, to pull off this feat. This time around, the evidence is overwhelming. What isn’t overwhelming is just what is the situation on the ground. Right now, it simply is too hard to call, but I can assure you it isn’t good. ~ Michael S. Pauley The military is notorious for using initials and terms that often are misleading by their very nature. One of my favorite examples is LIC or the Low Intensity Conflict. As future contingency planning is done, one of the primary considerations is “what kind of war or conflict are we considering?” From this concept comes terms such as LIC, as opposed to HIC, (High Intensity Conflict), or even (MIC), Medium Intensity Conflict, that all logically flow easily from the pen. Contingency planning is vital, and these terms are equally vital, but not always logical to the lay person. The old adage of “no plan survives first contact with the enemy” is quite true. Historically, things that might have started out as Low Intensity can very well evolve into something far worse. World War I comes most immediately to mind, but there are other examples, to be sure.
Even as a young soldier, I was always struck by the term “low intensity.” This always seemed a little misleading to me, since it always sounded more like an exercise than a war, yet things like Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, and even Afghanistan are, or were, considered to be Low Intensity conflicts. Casualties are just as serious, but over time there are just not as many. After all, totaling all 12 years of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we’ve lost fewer soldiers than we did in one battle during World War II (Okinawa, Tarawa, D-Day, to name a few). The level of intensity isn’t drawn from casualties, but instead it encompasses more basic concepts. Items such as air superiority, types of weapon systems employed, sea lane control, and lots of other factors go into this analysis, as to whether it is low intensity or not. Sadly though, if you’re one of the casualties, there is nothing “low intensity” about a conflict. Now if you’re even mildly confused, the last High Intensity Conflicts for the United States were World War II and at least the initial stages of Korea. From then on, we’ve controlled the air space above the battlefield, the transportation and supply lines, and the sea lanes to and from each conflict. In other words, the battlefield wasn’t saturated by highly intense enemy activity at all levels, hence these conflicts met the definition of a “low intensity conflict.” I only point all this out, because while things in Eastern Europe may not appear to affect us directly, and while many would think it is a “low intensity” encounter, I can assure you that if the wrong move is made by anyone, it could evolve quite rapidly into something far worse. Is there really a potential for a High Intensity Conflict in Europe? Absolutely, since we are now facing a potential foe with determination and the capability to do its level best to deny us airspace, lines of transportation and supply, and the sea lanes. Moreover, they can employ weapons systems that will deny and saturate a battlefield on a level not seen since World War II. So, what makes this all especially unique is that for the first time since the Cold War ended, we’ll be facing off with someone that actually has the capability to make our war look different. Right now, if we’re not careful, we could be on the edge of a potential High Intensity Conflict, which is something we haven’t seen as a Nation since 1952. ~ Michael S. Pauley Authorhouse will again have a booth at the AARP Life@50+ event next week in Boston! They Own the Night:The First Gomer Wars will be represented, although we will not be able to attend. If you are in the area, please stop by and express interest in the book! Following is a link to AARP for the event. AARP Life@50+ Boston
|
AuthorMichael S. Pauley is a Navy brat and an old soldier who served in all three components of the United States Army. Living in Lexington, South Carolina, Michael is now a practicing attorney and member of the United States Naval Institute and the American Legion, Post 154, Tybee Island, Georgia. Archives
June 2021
Categories
All
|