My answer was a careful consideration of limited use of land-based Airpower in concert with non-military instruments of national power. If land-based air is not available, do not further stress the Navy by going with sea-based options other than perhaps TLAMs.* Although I doubt that a few TLAMs here or there would save Erbil from a concerted offensive by Erbil's enemies.
Had thought to remain away from this subject but this last thought of Mr. Perry's deserves further:
I can’t agree with Christopher Rein’s assessment of Robert E. Lee. The claim that he was “one of the worst, if not the worst, military commander of all time” is wildly overstated, and to dismiss him as “a traitor and a failure” is overly simplistic.
“The existence of his nation (if you recognize the South's right to secede) depended on his performance on the battlefield and as an advisor, and he failed miserably.”
Some on this thread evince a desire for a sort of clarity that I find has little to do with the real world.
That said, let us boil it down to several, fundamental questions:
-First, should the semi-autonomous regime in Erbil be threatened what should the US Role be? Military (first choice in all cases for last 30 years), Diplomatic (usually never employed alone and usually in back seat to military/hammer solution), economic, informational [thus I have used the DIME], other (this is for the HG audience to take on), or combinations?
John--with an acknowledgement that it is a new month, and that our recent operations in support of Iranian allies against the Kurds certainly throws Operation Provide Comfort into stark relief, I just have to take a swing at Ian's softball:
Unfortunately, only John K has access to that particular blog tab, but if people are interested in submitting guest hand grenades, the editor on duty could post them.
H-War List Editor
This month I am doing as the Europeans do, I am taking a vaction for the whole month...but only for the handgrenade deal. But if someone wants to post something, please go right ahead using the blog tab on the main H-WAR page.
best, John T. Kuehn
Fort Leavenworth Kansas
All: I have July's hand grenade ready to publish...and will.
However, I am soliciting topics from you, the H-WAR readership in an effort to perhaps broaden my pool of targets.
I have opinions on just about everything out there, but specifically military and warfare related topics, so send 'em my way and I will weigh in on them with explosive prose--or whatever passes for the writing I do. The gauntlet has been thrown down. Will any pick it up?
vr, John T. Kuehn
Fort Leavenworth KS
Problems with the word and concept of “threat” in national security punditry
John T. Kuehn
A response to: NationalInterest.org ,June 2, 2016, "What America's Big New Defense Plan Gets Wrong, Five points on which the Pentagon’s "Third Offset" deserves scrutiny." By Jeffrey P. Bialos and Stuart L. Koehl
One of the problems with how we think about the future has to do with the word “threat”.
Mr. Hitchens , January 9, reply seems quite accurate. This does not in any way deny those valid and valuable points presented here by Paul Westermeyer, Jan. 11.