Target Centermass

The Dallas Morning News is reporting that the Marines are interested in an armed tilt-rotor escort for the V-22 Osprey.

The Marine Corps’ top aviation officer has asked Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. to study arming its executive jet-sized BA609 tilt-rotor aircraft as an escort for the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor troop transport.

The request by Lt. Gen. Michael Hough, deputy commandant for aviation, is a striking vote of confidence in the V-22 and in the future of tilt-rotor aircraft. The V-22 program was nearly canceled after two crashes in 2000 killed 23 Marines.

“I would have done this earlier, but I didn’t even know if I had a V-22,” Gen. Hough said, referring to the Osprey’s near-cancellation.

Per the report, this could potentially result in millions of dollars for Bell Helicopter. However, with the checkered story of the Osprey’s development, I predict this will be a rather interesting approval process.

The V-22 and the BA609 both use wingtip rotors to take off and land like helicopters. But they tilt their rotors forward to fly like airplanes, giving them far greater speed and range than helicopters. Critics still regard the revolutionary method of flight as highly risky.

Much work would have to be done, and many hurdles cleared, before Bell could produce an armed BA609 derivative.

The gunship would have to be designed, approved by the Pentagon, funded by Congress, prototyped and tested.

There is no guarantee any of that will happen.

But Gen. Hough said the V-22 will need some type of armed escort to carry Marines into combat zones, and only a tilt-rotor will do. Helicopters are too slow for the job, and jets are too fast.

For over a year now, the media and the leftists have demanded for the Bush administration to voice an exit strategy from Iraq and Afghanistan. Many on the right, sans media, have wondered about the exit strategy from Bosnia for years.

What is our exit strategy from the Korean conflict? Did Truman ever voice one?

What is our exit strategy from our bout with the Axis powers of Germany and Japan? Surely FDR announced an exit strategy to the American public in World War Part Deux.

Well, yes, he did. Speaking almost a year before Pearl Harbor, FDR spoke of “no end save victory” in the defense of liberty and freedom. This is how he led the American and Allied efforts in WWII, demanding the unconditional surrender of the Axis countries of Germany, Italy and Japan. He did not fight for a stalemate. He did not settle for a return to pre-war boundaries. He fought to win.

It is my belief that the very concept of exit strategy is a self-defeating idea. To have any strategy other than victory as the objective is a mistake. A stated and accomplished list of milestones may insure a “peace with honor,” but it in no way guarantees a desired outcome in the long term. War is not the end-all be-all solution to the world’s problems; however, when war must be waged, it must be waged to win. American lives should not be tossed aside for the sake of a tie or, worse yet, an honorable defeat when victory could have been attained had we, as a people, had the stomach for it.

I have been unable to find any military or political usage of the phrase “exit strategy” prior to the Viet Nam War. Certainly, this is the conflict that popularized the term.

Stated bluntly, exit strategy is a planned way of disengaging short of victory. Contingency planning in the event of defeat is needed and understandable; planning a withdrawal, based on milestones and dates decided by political needs and not long-term requirements, without defeat but before victory is achieved is indefensible. And yet, this is just what has been demanded by the media during practically every American military involvement of the last thirty years.

Yes, in the short term, this does have the effect of reducing casualties within a given conflict. Unfortunately, it serves to set the stage for greater loss of life in the next conflict. It is the cowards’ way of waging war, deferring the losses to those fighting later.

FoxNews.com is reporting that a video of a group of Iraqis threatening Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been send to al-Arabiya television.

A group of armed, masked Iraqi men threatened Tuesday to kill Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search) if he did not immediately leave the country, accusing him of murdering innocent Iraqis and defiling the Muslim religion.

The threats revealed the deep anger many Iraqis, including insurgent groups, feel toward foreign fighters, whom many consider as illegitimate a presence here as the 160,000 U.S. and other coalition troops.

I would rather see such threats coming from the Iraqi security forces, but vigilante justice is preferable to al-Zarqawi’s injustices until the security forces are capable and reliable enough for the task. Also, it is encouraging to see some practitioners of Islam standing up for the tenets of their faith violated by these Islamist terrorists.

In the video, three men, their faces covered with Arab headscarves, were flanked by rocket propelled grenades and an Iraqi flag. The man speaking had a clear Iraqi accent.

“We swear to Allah that we have started preparing … to capture him and his allies or kill them and present them as gift to our people.” the man said. “This is the last warning. If you don’t stop, we will do to you what the coalition forces have failed to do.”

Al-Zarqawi, said to be connected to Al Qaeda, is believed to be behind a series of coordinated attacks on police and security forces that killed 100 people only days before U.S. forces handed over power to an Iraqi interim government.

His followers have also claimed responsibility for the beheading of American businessman Nicholas Berg (search) and South Korean translator Kim Sun-il (search).

Hopefully, this is a sign that the Iraqis have had enough and are reaching the point that they’ll fight for their own future.