CEP (Circular Error Probable)

In ballistic missile technology, the amount the missile is likely to miss the actual target by, is referred to as C.E.P. or Critical Error Probable.

It mattered, for ICMBs, SLBMs etc.. which were to be used to destroy enemy missile silos, because an error of 1000' might in fact mean a failure to destroy the silo. During the cold war, Soviet missiles had large CEPs, sometimes above 1000', while US made missiles had much smaller CEPs, sometimes as small as 10'. Considering the missile was fired into low orbit, and the warhead had extremely limited opportunity for guidance or correction (in fact ZERO once the second stage had separated), hitting a target 10' in radius from 6000 miles is pretty darned good.

In contrast, our targetting of Al Qaeda, has been somewhat less effective/accurate. Yesterday, the New York Times published the following from the Associated Press:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/washington/30tribal.html?hp

The thrust of the story is that SIX YEARS after Tora Bora - after the destruction of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda is resurgent, stronger, NOT WEAKER, than it was in 2002 and stronger, not weaker, than it was prior to Iraq, or as a result of our involvement in Iraq.

In detail, the story conveys the lack of organization, the political in-fighting, and bureaucratic red-tape that President Bush SAID he'd do away with, has in fact not gotten ANY better, it is in fact, probably worse, given the revelations of political nepotism we've seen throughout the administration - down to the policy and expert level.

It goes further, though, and points out what the left has been saying for 7 years, namely that Pervez Musharraf, despite receiving BILLIONS of dollars in aid from the US, despite all of our posturing about 'either they'll get the terrorists or WE will', in fact not only hasn't Pakistan gone after Al Qaeda seriously - Al Qaeda has grown, and we can't get access. WE are being played for fools, and further, that all the 'chest thumping' about being able to get our 'allies' to perform, about how there is a new sherrif, the difficulty in dealing with Pakistan was going to make getting Al Qaeda in Pakistan very difficult, and why we COULD'T miss the opportunity to kill them in Afghanistan.

Instead, we started pulling troops out of Afghanistan in 2002 - to send them to Iraq. Iraq has made AQ stronger - not weaker, we have had bureaucratic, turf-war, fiefdom battles side-track our own actions, and we have a foreign leader de-facto sponsoring AQ - not North Korea, not Iran, but Pakistan, just as the left asserted, we missed the mark, we went after the wrong targets, we pushed troops to the wrong place, and we failed to get Bin Laden. In short, we had rampant political pandering, cronyism, and political patronage, all of which greatly impared the GWOT - probably fatally in Afghanistan - the FAR more important locale.

In Iraq, attacks are down, accomplished by creating neighborhood prisons, by 'balkanizing' Baghdad. Not all bad, people are alive who wouldn't be, but it's not sustainable, and it sure isn't 'winning,' it's postponing.

If this is 'experience', if this is an example of how the Republicans will 'win the GWOT', then I'll take a change in approach - I suppose it COULD be worse, but it'd be hard to see how. Republican claims of victory are, as Mark Twain said, "somewhat premature," but wrapping oneself in the flag has always been the last refuge of scoundrels.

Our CEP has been 6 years, even if we immediately correct, we've missed the mark badly, not even the Soviets would have missed so badly.