Saturday, September 24, 2016

Operation Overlong Continues to Prepare the Perfect Killing Blow

It was 30 months between Pearl Harbor and the D-Day landings in Normandy, France, during World War II, in the heart of Nazi Germany's Fortress Europe. It has been 27 months since ISIL captured Mosul from Iraq.

Granted, we've been supporting offensives elsewhere in Iraq during the last year despite leaving the ultimate objective in Iraq in enemy hands.

But we had also been on the offensive elsewhere in Europe before going after the ultimate goal of landing in France to defeat the Nazi army.

I'm not sure what to make of this:

When Kurdish Peshmerga, Iraqi army, and U.S.-led coalition forces move to liberate nearby Mosul, possibly within two weeks, Islamic State fighters will not abandon their prized city and quietly slink away as many in Washington have predicted, according to the Peshmerga’s top military officer.

“They will fight to the death,” said Gen. Jamal Mohammad Omer, Kurdish military chief of staff, in an exclusive interview with Defense One in his office Thursday.

One, will ISIL really fight to the death for Mosul? Since the end of last year, I've been wondering why the jihadis weren't fighting to the death to defend their caliphate.

Sure, the jihadis could rediscover the "we love death" attitude that has compensated for their lack of numbers, training, and equipment. When Iranian morale collapsed in 1988 during their war with Iraq, enough Iranians discovered the will to fight when Iraq made thrusts into Iran to convince Iraq to end that war while they held the edge rather than push for a bigger victory.

So ISIL could rediscover the will to fight.

But what are the reasons for this? Because Mosul is their prize city? If it is so prized, why isn't Mosul the de facto capital of their caliphate rather than Raqqa, Syria?

And there have been reports that ISIL has executed their fighters for running from other cities that were supposed to be held to the death. What makes ISIL's purported decision to fight to the death for Mosul more real than past orders to do so?

Now, let me be so bold as to suggest that the Iraqi Kurds have a motivation to say the fight will be hard. The harder taking Mosul appears to be, the more assistance the Kurds can get from America and other coalition partners.

With the caveat that morale can change during a campaign, I still expect the offensive to go more rapidly and easily than the Kurds say it will be.

Although it is also possible that ISIL just wants to increase our body count to make us pay a price for defeating them.

That said, the second point I want to make is that many in our capital think the offensive will be fairly easy? Is that the position of our military people in charge of facilitating the Iraqi offensive?

If that is so, why has Mosul been occupied by ISIL for 27 months now? Why haven't we helped organize a much more rapid counter-offensive to take Mosul from badly outnumbered defenders by now?

At the rate we are going, ISIL will be able to boast that their caliphate held out longer against the might of America than Nazi Germany managed!


The Hillary Clinton campaign was catfished--by a frog:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has published a parody of Vox, the liberal news site for young adults. Headline: “Donald Trump, Pepe the Frog, and White Supremacists: An Explainer.” Subheadline: “That cartoon frog is more sinister than you might realize.”

The campaign fell for a complete joke that a cartoon frog had been hijacked by white supremisists.

Doesn't get email security. Doesn't get Internet jokes.

This is horrifying. What can you do? Don't vote for Hillary.

To be fair, the parody Clinton site is as valuable as the actual Vox.


Is somebody trying to figure out how to take down the Internet?

Over the past year or two, someone has been probing the defenses of the companies that run critical pieces of the Internet. These probes take the form of precisely calibrated attacks designed to determine exactly how well these companies can defend themselves, and what would be required to take them down. We don't know who is doing this, but it feels like a large nation state. China or Russia would be my first guesses.

That "critical pieces" of the Internet is important, I think.

We like to think of the Internet as a diffused network designed to provide communications despite the damage of a nuclear attack.

But that Internet doesn't exist anymore. One, surviving for email doesn't begin to cover what the Internet is now with its massive bandwidth and speed appetite.

And for commerce, efficiency is prized more than redundancy. So rather than being diffused with easy ways to rout around blockage, there are now "critical pieces" of the Internet that make the Internet more vulnerable.

In 2007, I wondered if the potential for cyber-attacks had not reached the level that high explosives could achieve, so that question was whether the Internet could be physically attacked and taken down given that just 13 critical locations needed to be destroyed.

Later, the answer seemed to be no, but it could be damaged. But some of the assumptions seemed questionable.

And certainly, specific geographic locations at the ends of single points of Internet access can be knocked down.

More recently, I posted about Russian efforts to reach the underwater cables that account for 99% of transoceanic digital traffic.

Nine years after I first asked the question, is redundancy even less important than efficiency? How many critical pieces of the Internet are there?

And are cyber-tools so advanced that physically attacking the web isn't a potentially easier method of taking down the Internet?

Friday, September 23, 2016

They Do it for the Love They Dare Not Blame

The Saddam-era Iraqi press at least had the excuse of being threatened with their death or the death of their families for being sycophantic supporters of his regime. What's our media's excuse?

This complaint about Trump's dislike of the media is rich, coming from CNN (quoting Breitbart):

Sporting a look of concern, [Ashleigh] Banfield gazed into the camera and asked plaintively, “Why so much cheering?” She then said of the excited Trump supporters heard on the video clip, “Do people not realize, or are they forgetting the other critical element of it, either you have a media, or you have what I witnessed in Saddam’s era, and the Libyan’s era, where you never got to actually call yourself press or you’d go to jail for it.”

Banfield essentially insisted that if you criticize a biased press you are necessarily imposing a Saddam-like tyranny on America.

That's a shocking lack of nuance between questioning the even-handedness of our media and imposing a dictatorial regime with controlled media, isn't it? Sheesh, I thought I was bad at nuance!

But at least the Iraqi media under Saddam was both paid by the regime and under threat from the government's security apparatus.

What the excuse of our "independent" media that loves and excuses Democratic-run government (or those who want to run the government) with a devotion that no compliant Iraqi journalist could match:

Granted, now our media usually doesn't face the threat of going to jail if they get out of line from the left-leaning narrative. They just don't get to go to the right cocktail parties and other social events if they dissent.

Oh, and Ed Driscoll comments about that resisting government tyranny:

Gee, you mean the Saddam Hussein that former CNN president Eason Jordan admitted in April of 2003 that CNN was in bed with so that it could have “Live from Baghdad” appear on its Chyrons? The Saddam Hussein who when asked in 2000 if he could be described as evil, CNN founder Ted Turner replied, “I’m not sure that I know enough to be able to answer that question,” as quoted by Ken Auletta of the New Yorker?

And since when did CNN ever worry about fighting tyranny in the world, let alone America? From Saddam to Castro to Kim Jong Il, there aren’t many dictators whom CNN hasn’t gushed over.

Well, not many anti-American dictators, to be more precise.

So, do we have a media under the Banfield standard?

Welcome Mat

We would be wise to track prevailing winds in the region of this chemical plant in Iraq:

[Colonel Hamish de Bretton Gordon, former commanding officer of the UK Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment (CBRN)] told the Telegraph that Peshmerga commanders have intelligence that Isil has rigged a chemical plant at Misraq with explosives. The plant lies just 25 miles south of Mosul and six miles north of where the US troops are at Qayyarah.

An explosion at Misraq, which holds thousands of tonnes of sulphur dioxide and hydrogen sulphide, could be catastrophic.

The good news (for friendly forces if not local residents, of course) is we could avoid such a threat by going around the plant until the cloud dissipates without wrecking the offensive to liberate Mosul.

I don't know how we'd continue the offensive if ISIL manages to set off a "water bomb."

Reunited (and it Feels So Good)

What is the limit of Russia's "reunification" efforts?

I was a fool to ever leave your side
Me minus you is such a lonely ride
The breakup we had has made me lonesome and sad
I realize I love you 'cause I want you bad, hey, hey

Despite giving Crimea to Ukraine three times, Russia says that he didn't annex Crimea. Oh, no! Crimea and Russia were "reunited." 

Russian President Vladimir Putin says Moscow did not annex the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea in 2014 but claimed it was "reunified" with Russia.

Yeah. The Russians really just piss me off sometimes.

And it feels so good! Who else might be reunited with poor lonely Russia because Putin decides he wants them bad?

There's the rest of Ukraine. All the pieces of Moldova. Estonia. Latvia. Lithuania. Belarus. Finland (from the Russian Empire days). Kazakhstan. Turkmenistan. Uzbekistan. Tajikistan. Kyrgyzstan. Armenia. Azerbaijan. The rest of Georgia.

Heck, toss in Alaska under Putin's logic. Or California.

A Bridge to Nowhere--Because Kim Jong-Un Isn't Stupid

A bridge that would link China to Pyongyang along a major highway to Pyongyang remains incomplete:

Towering above the murky waters, the New Yalu River Bridge was supposed to symbolize a new era in relations between China and North Korea, helping bring investment to landmark free trade zones jointly run with the impoverished and isolated state.

Costing 2.2 billion yuan ($330 million) and partially completed last year, the dual-carriageway bridge today sits abandoned, the impressive border post on the Chinese side deserted and locked, not a soul to be seen.

On the North Korean side the unfinished bridge ends abruptly in a field, with little sign of infrastructure work happening.

North Korea would be stupid to finish that bridge given that the North Korean army is mostly deployed along the DMZ with South Korea and the bridge would be a vital route into North Korea for an invading Chinese army:

So if there is a dispute among the powers about who should administer a collapsed North Korean state, China is making sure that the main highway into North Korea allows the Chinese army to rapidly drive south to Pyongyang.

And from there, the Chinese army can fan out to other parts of North Korea to various provincial capitals.

Not finishing that bridge is a feature and not a bug of the North Korean regime.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

The Art of the Shiv

As Hillary Clinton and her supporters set their Indignation Dial to 11 because Trump took so long to admit that President Obama was born in America (ignoring that while Trump ran with the idea, Hillary supporters started the notion 8 years ago), let's recall how Hillary managed to leave doubt about the subject of Obama's religion even as she said she didn't believe President Obama was Moslem back when he denied Herself the presidency in 2008:

After saying she doesn't believe he is Moslem, she manages to modify the statement with another ("as far as I know"!) that creates doubt. Even the CBS journalist could see what she was doing.

Not that there's anything wrong with being Moslem, of course!

Pakistan May Wake a Sleeping Giant

Will India strike Pakistan to inflict direct pain on the Pakistanis for supporting terrorists who kill Indians?

India said on Monday it had the right to respond when and where it chose to a deadly attack on an army base in Kashmir, after blaming Pakistan for the raid that killed 18 soldiers.

The assault, in which four gunmen burst into a brigade headquarters in the town of Uri before dawn on Sunday, was among the deadliest in the disputed Himalayan region and has sharply raised tensions between the nuclear-armed rivals.

Army officials said the critically wounded had been flown to New Delhi and one had died in hospital. Most of dead and wounded suffered severe burns after their tents and temporary shelters caught fire from incendiary ammunition while they were sleeping.

Senior Indian politicians, including Home Minister Rajnath Singh who called Pakistan "a terrorist state", were quick to warn of action against Islamabad, putting pressure on Prime Minister Narendra Modi to take a tough line.

The head of military operations of the Indian army, Lieutenant General Ranbir Singh, said India had the desired capability to respond, without elaborating.

I thought the 2008 Mumbai slaughter by Pakistan-supported terrorists brought the region close to war.

The article notes that India refrained from retaliating in the wake of the 2008 attack because of the risk of escalation, in order to let diplomatic means work.

The risk of escalation may or may not be greater now, but after 8 years diplomatic means have not worked to stop Pakistan (or at least parts of the Pakistani government that are semi-freelancing) from supporting terrorism against India.

Of course, Pakistan is increasing their ability to escalate to nuclear levels:

Airbus Defence and Space imagery captured on 28 September 2015 and on 18 April 2016 shows new construction at Pakistan's Khan Research Laboratories (KRL) site in Kahuta that is consistent with that of a uranium enrichment facility.

Let's set aside whether this is for Pakistani nukes or whether Pakistan might want to sell enriched uranium to Iran, for example.

Indian military retaliation isn't ruled out by fear of escalation. But it is constrained. India and Pakistan would be back to Cold War rules where a military advantage had to be cemented fairly quickly before threats of superpower escalation pushed a ceasefire in place. So you want to have the edge when the ceasefire is declared or face the prospect of a new status quo where you have lost ground.

India seems to have been building that capability to quickly gain ground with their Cold Start Doctrine initiative.

The problem is that while I saw the doctrine as a means to gain limited objectives before the logic of nuclear balance compelled an end to conventional hostilities, India seems to view the doctrine as a means to crush the Pakistani military.

On the bright side, I don't think India has the capability to crush Pakistan's military quickly while it does have the ability to make quick gains before both sides feel compelled from fear and external cries of near-panic to end the shooting in place.

Of course, does Pakistan fear being crushed or just losing a little ground as punishment for supporting terrorism against India?

Despite the early talk hinting at military responses, the Indian government seems to want to continue that diplomatic track in the face of a murderous assault:

For all the shrill rhetoric immediately following Sunday's attack on an Indian army camp in Kashmir, which New Delhi blamed on Pakistan, the threat of a sudden escalation in hostilities between the nuclear-armed rivals has receded for now.

Two days after 18 Indian soldiers were killed, in the biggest blow to security forces in the disputed Himalayan region for 14 years, some officials called for a measured response and plotted a diplomatic offensive to increase pressure on Pakistan.

Yet another war between the two nuclear-armed countries is possible notwithstanding the apparent lack of imagination at CNN:

Could India and Pakistan really go to war? It almost seems an absurd question to ask.

Why is it absurd? They've gone to war before. From big wars to the very limited Kargil War. Pakistan sends in terrorists to kill Indians. Pakistan fears India because of the power imbalance even if India has no desire to rule the mess to the west.

And as you read the CNN article, you see a problem with saying both sides have nukes--they may not have enough nuclear weapons to reach the "assured destruction" part of mutually assured destruction that can provide (a dangerous) deterrence.

Indians can surely believe that in a nuclear exchange, Pakistan would be destroyed while enough of India to rebuild would survive. Or either side could believe that a first strike could disarm the enemy of enough nukes to keep their home country safe. That's scary dangerous thinking, to be sure, but it does show that even with nukes it is not absurd to ask whether India and Pakistan could go to war (again).

One day, Indian public opinion--and India is a democracy, remember--may compel the Indian government to use military force as diplomatic initiatives fail to get Pakistan to even admit that they are sponsoring terrorism let alone stop it.

This isn't something Americans think a lot about, but it sure raises my pucker factor considerably.

Who Creates Jihadis?

For all the talk among the Left about how our liberation of Iraq mobilized jihadis around the world to fight us there, the body counts of the jihadi fights against America or Syrias dictator Assad is illuminating.

Perhaps 27,000 insurgents died in Iraq during Iraq War 1.0. This includes Iraqi insurgents, so the foreign total is far less than this.

In Syria, 52,000 foreigners fighting to overthrow Assad have died so far.

So who really inspires jihadi hatred and recruitment?

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Hey, Look What We Have!

ISIL appears to have fired a poor-quality mustard gas shell at a base containing US troops in Iraq:

ISIS is suspected of firing a shell with mustard agent that landed at the Qayyara air base in Iraq Tuesday where US and Iraqi troops are operating, according to several US officials.

One, a successful chemical attack requires a density of shells fired to blanket the target area with a thick enough blanket of poison gas to actually kill and wound those targeted.

A single ("poorly weaponized") shell is just a propaganda shot.

Two, isn't it funny how our entire nuclear arsenal did not deter ISIL from using chemical weapons?

Funny, that is.

UPDATE: We confirm chemical weapons use:

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee “mustard blister agent” was released in the vicinity of a military airfield in the western part of al Qayyara, about 40 miles south of Mosul, in northern Iraq.

Whether this was just a propaganda strike or a test prior to trying to launch a real chemical attack is unknown.

But we do know that killing with poison gas isn't beneath these jihadis.

Worse than Kerry

The Philippines foreign minister is aware that China would roll through his country without American support, right?

The Philippines is firmly committed to its alliance with the United States but will not be lectured on human rights and treated like a "little brown brother," the country's Foreign Minister Perfecto Yasay said on Thursday.

And as an aside, Yasay is aware that our African-American president is darker than he is, right?

I guess some clubs are too valuable to discard. Ever.

UPDATE: I find it hard to disagree with this assessment of Kerry.

Throwing All of Us Under the Bus

I don't understand how Hillary Clinton could have a problem with dehydration given all the water that the media carries for her.

Oh my God, this guy says it is America's fault that Hillary Clinton is a secretive and a liar:

Clinton would arguably never again sound so open, so vulnerable, so searching, so full of hope. Slowly, inexorably over the years, she has grown a harder and harder shell until, like Marley’s ghost, she now wears the chain she’s forged in life, link by link and yard by yard. The effects of that armor plating are obvious. A desire for privacy has congealed into a demand for secrecy. Candor is dangerous; artifice is safe. Full disclosure is for suckers; hunkering down is the only way to win. Above all, too much honesty about yourself brings you only more grief.

The media was mean to Hillary when Bill ran for and won the presidency in 1992. So obviously she had to transform into a Bond villain.

But if the media wrote things that hardened her, what were these horrible stories that caused it?

Her introduction to the national political media came in the white-hot glare of Gennifer Flowers, Whitewater and the history of her husband’s Vietnam draft record, a baptism that friends say left her forever scarred.

“If your first experience with your private life going public was that humiliating and that haunting, you would be camera-shy, too,” says one longtime former Clinton White House aide. “Scared of what happens when stuff about your personal life—whether it’s family, medical or sexual, is scrutinized.”

Oh! Her husband maneuvered to avoid military service during war but couldn't avoid having an affair; and the Clintons were involved in a shady business deal relying on the kindness of wealthy backers.

No mention of when Hillary displayed an almost magical skill in investment opportunities that put Trump's grandest claims of business skills to shame.

And let's review the White House Travel Office scandal (do read it all--tip to Instapundit):

So—that was the Clintons’ first big Washington scandal. It showed what has now become the Clinton Scandal Ritual: lie, deny, revise, claim not to remember specifics, stall for time. When it passes, call the story “old news” full of questions that have already been answered. “As I’ve repeatedly said . . .”

More scandals would follow. They all showed poor judgment on the part of the president, and usually Mrs. Clinton. They all included a startling willingness—and ability—to dissemble.

People watched and got a poor impression.

The point is it didn’t start the past few years, it started almost a quarter-century ago. You have to wonder, what are the chances it will change?

Rather than blame the media for writing about that stuff (and Americans for believing it), isn't the blame on her and her husband for doing that stuff?

And that transformation of Hillary from an open, caring, idealist took place rather rapidly don't you think, given that in 1996 Safire could already note that she is a "congenital liar:"

Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady -- a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation -- is a congenital liar.

Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.

For a woman who staffed the Watergate Committee, Hillary Clinton seems to have not drawn the lessons that crimes, lying, and cover-ups are bad as much as she used the investigation of the Nixon administration as an after-action review to make sure she wouldn't make the same mistakes.

Lord, I hate this election.

I despise Donald Trump. I always have. The thought of voting for him revolts me.

But Hillary Clinton is truly deplorable. And irredeemable. I simply cannot vote for her under any circumstances.

Say? If the media made Hillary Clinton secretive and a liar, what outside force made her corrupt against her will, too?

Nothing stops the machine from raking in cash (tip to the Instapundit Borg).

I eagerly await the next Politico piece.

Yes, But ...

Strategypage again notes (correctly) that neither Russia nor China are as formidable militarily as they appear. But that fails to account for how they threaten us which makes their threat more potent than a simple balance appears.

Okay, sure, Strategypage has a point:

[The] puffery [by our military about the military threat] is back now with regard to China and Russia. It's no secret that China and Russia have long found it impossible to create effective military forces in peacetime. Not to underestimate them, but both nations have a long history of spectacular failure in this area. The Soviets proved that the historical lessons still apply.

But this near dismissal of their threat fails to account for the fact that China and Russia are close to targets whose conquest could harm our national security; while we are far away.

So Russia and China can make gains by initiating a war that they prepare for; win that opening campaign against one of our allies who are badly outgunned; and then hold the line and dare us to take it back.

Japan had a tenth of our GDP in 1941. They won their opening campaign. Sure, we won in the end. But we took heavy casualties to do it.

Even Iraq managed to win their opening campaign by taking Kuwait in 1990.

Hell, ISIL managed that in Iraq in 2014.

And China and Russia have nuclear weapons--the ultimate weapon that the Japanese lacked in 1945 to dissuade us from rolling them back and crushing them.

Mind you, I readily admit that I would never trade places with Russia or China. (China has made great economic strides in a short time--from a very low base. So don't over-estimate what China has achieved compared to the Western world--which includes Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. I'm not sure where to place Singapore in this context.)

But both have opportunities to make gains at our expense against targets close to them while we mobilize and deploy our still-superior but largely distant military power to defeat them and roll back their gains.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Deportation? Good


More than 800 illegal immigrants from countries of concern who were set for deportation were mistakenly granted U.S. citizenship because the Department of Homeland Security didn’t have their fingerprints on file, according to an internal audit released Monday.

There is video at the link, but The Dignified Rant has exclusive video of the mix-up in action:

Out of the door, line on the left, one vote each.

Funny, not one of the 800+ illegals let the government official know that they were just pulling the official's leg.

Let Them Eat Kale

I do not grant that deplorable and corrupt woman, Hillary Clinton, the moral authority to decide which Americans are deplorable and who are not.

Yeah, take a hike Hillary:

Hillary Clinton’s comment that half of Donald Trump’s supporters are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic”—a heck of a lot of phobia for anyone to lug around all day—puts back in play what will be seen as one of the 2016 campaign’s defining forces: the revolt of the politically incorrect.

They may not live at the level of Victor Hugo’s “Les Misérables,” but it was only a matter of time before les déplorables—our own writhing mass of unheard Americans—rebelled against the intellectual elites’ ancien régime of political correctness.

The people in "fly-over country" have been let down by our east and west coastal political and cultural elites. But Hillary and her supporters--of all people--have taken the role of judge of these people?

When these self-righteous elites never think our enemies are deplorable and irredeemable?

I may not like Trump. Or have much respect for him. Or even think he is a Republican. But despite the letters I can put after my name, I grew up in Deplorableland. The American people who have placed their hopes in Trump can rightly believe that they have few alternatives. These Americans aren't deplorable. They just feel they are almost out of options.

These people find the elites deplorable and all the evidence so far is that our elites are the ones who are irredeemable.

The Long Half-Century

The half-century era of violence in Colombia may be petering out:

Even a ratified August agreement will not produce immediate peace. Several observers argue some FARC militants will quickly give up on civilian life and join militias that are not subject to the peace deal or go to work for drug cartels. The agreement does signal FARC as a combatant force has fractured. That means overall violence should diminish, dramatically, and that will give political reconciliation a chance.

But the question of whether a new round will build up is an open one.

And please note that the half century it took Colombia to break their insurgents/drug gangs reflects rather well on American efforts made over about 5 years to break the back of the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq from mid-2003 to mid-2008 (note that I wrote this at the end what I called phase 5, and we did go on to win the phase 6 I defined with pretty good precision; sadly, we allowed Iraq to fail in phase 7, although we are making an effort to reverse that failure).

The 90% Solution

As the saying goes, 90% of Russian success is just Secretary of State John Kerry showing up.

Although that will end soon.

Tip to Instapundit.

Monday, September 19, 2016

Jihad Versus Unicorn

Huh, so we're in a global war on narrative:

"When it comes to ISIL, we are in a fight, a narrative fight, with them, a narrative battle," said [presidential spokesman Josh] Earnest "And what ISIL wants to do is they want to project that they are an organization that is representing Islam in a fight, in a war against the West, in a war against the United States. That is a bankrupt, false narrative. It's a mythology. And we have made progress in debunking that mythology."

Yeah, I hate it when their narratives blow up in our trash bins.

So before the Obama administration came along, the myth of jihadis representing all Moslems in a war against America was strong?

It took hope, change, and a lovely presidential outreach speech in Cairo to make progress--so it is not nearly complete, apparently--in debunking that mythology?

Sadly, I think the narratives are that ISIL (and other jihadis) want to kill us; and our administration's narrative is that we need to understand more fully why they hate us and want to kill us so we can stop provoking them.

While it is true that long-term victory requires Moslems to reject violent jihad, we can't break the jihadi narrative while they are winning and killing us.

I think we take a big step to breaking their narrative by first defeating and killing them so decisively that the jihadis and proto-jihadis cheering the jihad on over the Internet no longer love death as much as we love life:

Give our enemies all the death they love until they love death no more.

Narrative, indeed. Too often those all-in on the narrative aspect think it is the only fight we need to wage.

Roll Tide

About that receding tide of war that our president promises us he has engineered:

While Americans savored the last moments of summer this Labor Day weekend, the U.S. military was busy overseas as warplanes conducted strikes in six countries in a flurry of attacks. The bombing runs across Asia, Africa and the Middle East spotlighted the diffuse terrorist threats that have persisted into the final days of the Obama presidency — conflicts that the next president is now certain to inherit.

The six are Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan (what, no Pakistan that weekend?)

And here I thought that we waged war only because of war-mongering "neo-cons".

Say? Who on the Left will be the first to claim that President Obama just likes to bomb brown people?

Oh, who am I kidding?

High Wire Act

I'm not sure how much of this is hyperbole:

The last time Russia’s sole aircraft carrier sailed into the Mediterranean Sea, five years ago, the U.S. Navy’s 6th Fleet kept a close eye on its progress. The concern among American officers wasn’t the ship’s contingent of fighter planes; instead, it was the very real worry it would sink and necessitate a potentially risky rescue operation.

The 26-year-old Admiral Kuznetsov made it through that 2011 deployment without sinking and is now headed back to the eastern Mediterranean this fall as part of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s effort to use Syria as a showcase for his new model military.

When announced, I was wondering how good the ship and air component could be given that we require constant practice to remain proficient.

I didn't realize that the ship was so fragile.

I assume worries of her sinking are exaggerated.

But given that land-based planes would be better for actual operations over Syria and that this deployment is simply for prestige, I have to wonder why the Russians would roll the dice for the latter objective with such a potential for a high-profile mishap.

Sunday, September 18, 2016

The Usual Suspect

I know that the media and Hillary supporters (I use "and" for the theoretical location of a Venn diagram where the former mostly subset of the latter could extend almost imperceptibly beyond the set boundary of the latter) are outraged at the Trump "lie" that Hillary Clinton started the birther controversy back in 2008.

While it is true that there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton herself started the rumor, just who in the world do you think started it during the Democratic primary contest between Hillary and Barack Obama? Ralph Nader, perhaps?

Given the record of Clinton's 2008 primary campaign, this isn't so much a Trump "lie" as the usual Clinton defense that "there is no evidence" of their guilt.

The circumstantial evidence (tip to Instapundit) is significant, you must admit.

One More Tool in the Box

As we watch wars rage and threaten around the world, could there be war in the Caribbean Sea?

Venezuela's authoritarian rulers bought a little time by inflating the economy. But that bad solution to their problems is about to run out and if not reversed will tip Venezuela into collapse:

Venezuela seems to be hovering on the edge of tipping into hyperinflation. Or perhaps it has already fallen into the abyss. Given the paucity of official data -- the none-too-believable official figures were last published in February -- it's a little hard to tell.

I know. It is inconceivable that an economic system organized by this man isn't working out.

Yeah, if I was a bird I'd be too embarrassed to show my face, too.

That collapse would be bad for the authoritarian rulers' prospects for survival, except that there is one more bad solution that could put off the day when they are jailed or hung from lamp posts:

Venezuela's socialist idiocy has proven that socialists can ef up an oil-wet dream.

Given that kind of stubborn refusal of the Venezuelan government to admit they have a problem with their socialist system, could my worries from a decade ago come true now? Could Venezuela target the Netherlands' Caribbean island possessions of Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao to distract the people of Venezuela and justify any authoritarian measures to keep the people in line?

Lord knows what that chump Maduro discussed with Iran's chief nutball:

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani set off Friday for a tour of Venezuela and Cuba before heading to New York for next week's UN General Assembly, official media reported.

Rouhani will take part in a summit of Non-Aligned Movement countries and hold separate talks with Venezuelan counterpart Nicolas Maduro, the IRNA news agency said.

War in Europe. Wars in Africa. Wars in the Middle East. Aggression and threats of war--even nuclear--in the Far East. And I fear we could add war in South America.

And every once in a while I recall that the World Wars started out as separate regional wars that eventually got numerous enough, large enough, and connected enough to justify calling them all a single world war.

Have a super sparkly day.

I, For One, Welcome Our New Insect Drivers

It is interesting that Uber seems to be using human drivers as necessary meat sacks to test the system until self-driving cars are available:

When Pittsburgh wakes up on Wednesday morning, some residents will have the choice of going about their day in an Uber that drives itself.

The launch of Uber’s self-driving pilot program marks the public unveiling of the company’s secretive work in autonomous vehicles and the first time self-driving cars have been so freely available to the U.S. public.

I begin to wonder how many cars I will own before it is cheaper to just use a service like this?

Tip to Instapundit.

Crazy Kim's Nuclear Bazaar Coming Soon!

North Korea will have the ability to build 6 Nuclear warheads per year soon. How many has Iran committed to purchase?

North Korea has improved facilities that will provide the raw materials for 6 nuclear bombs per year:

That project, believed to have been expanded significantly, is likely the source of up to 150 kilograms (330 pounds) of highly enriched uranium a year, said Siegfried Hecker, a leading expert on the North's nuclear program.

That quantity is enough for roughly six nuclear bombs, Hecker, who toured the North's main Yongbyon nuclear facility in 2010, wrote in a report on the 38 North website of Johns Hopkins University in Washington published on Monday.

Added to an estimated 32- to 54 kilogram plutonium stockpile, the North will have sufficient fissile material for about 20 bombs by the end of 2016, Hecker said.

North Korea doesn't yet have a nuclear warhead design perfected. But they are getting closer.

And broke North Korea I believe will sell some of them to recently enriched Iran.

Have a super sparkly day.