Fight or Flight?

Is America still willing to fight for the future of Iraq after defeating ISIL in Iraq War 2.0 that defeated ISIL?

I worried that America might not support the Iraqi government enough to suppress Iran's militias inside Iraq:

The Iraqis are finally cracking down more on armed militias and tribes which give Iran a path to destabilize Iraq. So why Trump is not being more supportive of Iraq's prime minister given Iraq's problems with Iran is a mystery to me.

The threat to leave Iraq is paired with a demand for Iraqis to battle the Iranian pawns who are attacking our embassy:

As the attacks against US and other foreign missions and bases in Iraq continue, the United States is warning the Iraqi government that it will take action against the militias involved in the attacks if it fails to do so itself.

A source attending a meeting called by Iraqi President Barham Salih, attended by many Iraqi political and faction leaders, told Al-Monitor that Salih told the participants that he had received a letter from US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warning Iraq that if the attacks against the United States do not stop, it will close its embassy in Baghdad and target all involved militias without distinction.

It helps in getting Iraqi support that the Iranian proxies can't seem to help themselves in limiting their attacks:

Five Iraqi civilians were killed and two severely wounded Monday after a Katyusha rocket hit near Baghdad airport, Iraq's military said. It was the first time in months an attack caused civilian casualties.

The rocket targeted the international airport but struck a residential home close by instead. Among the dead were three children and two women. Two children were also severely wounded. The home was completely destroyed.

And America's willingness to hit ISIL in Kirkuk province with air strikes (notwithstanding my unease over putting our capital ships in the Persian Gulf) demonstrates the ability to hit Iranian proxies in Iraq, too:

For the first time in over two years, carrier-launched U.S. aircraft conducted an airstrike against Islamic State targets in support of Operation Inherent Resolve, the global coalition battling the terrorist group in Iraq and Syria.

The Iraqis insist they are trying and worry American departure will trigger other withdrawals:

[Iraqi Foreign Minister] Fuad Hussein spoke at a press conference amid a heated week, sparked by the U.S. warning that it was taking measures to close its embassy in Baghdad unless the Iraqi government took action to stop frequent rocket and improvised explosive device attacks by Iran-backed militias and rogue armed elements against the American presence in the country.

Hussein called the threat to close the U.S. Embassy “dangerous” because “there is a possibility that the American withdrawal from Baghdad will lead to other (embassy) withdrawals.”

I certainly hope our pressure to get the Iraqis to protect our embassy from Iranian attacks is part of a carrot and stick approach to waging war on Iran in Iraq rather than a prelude to bugging out of Iraq and risking the victory we have achieved.

UPDATE: An American threat to withdraw from Iraq has to be credible to be effective in getting change in Iraqi policy toward Iran. So I hope this indicates that change is taking place and that we will work with Iraqis:

Washington warned Thursday that it would not tolerate attacks on US interests in Iraq by Iran-backed militias, as Baghdad worries about a possible US withdrawal. ...

"We are working, and we look forward to continuing to work with our Iraqi partners to keep our personnel and our facility safe," [David Schenker, assistant secretary of state, for near Eastern affairs] said.

Fingers crossed.

Israel's Vision of War

Israel is planning and exercising for ground warfare differently:

The tank fire had been the closing salvos of a multi-day drill to keep Israel’s armored units and infantry at their highest level of readiness for the next conflict. That conflict could come in the Gaza Strip against Hamas, or against the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon. As the exercise was taking place in the Golan Heights, not far from the border with Syria and Lebanon, the terrain looked like what Israel would confront in a battle with Hezbollah. The mock “village” that the tanks and infantry from Israel’s storied Golani brigade assaulted this month also looked like the kind of challenge Israel would face against Hezbollah. The village, a series of metal sea containers, included mock Katyusha rocket launchers and cutouts of enemy fighters hiding amid the rocks and trees.

The Israelis aren't happy with their performance in the 2006 war with Hezbollah. Israel screwed the pooch, no doubt.

The emphasis on armored and combined arms warfare in that training seems to indicate that my thoughts on how a renewed war against Hezbollah would unfold are valid:

I assume that any war will be a multi-division push north of the Litani that will take advantage of the fact that Hezbollah, after 2006, wrongly believes it can go toe-to-toe with Israeli troops and so will fight as light infantry rather than as insurgents. For a while, Israel will be able to really pound Hizbollah ground forces as the Israelis take over rocket-launch sites and armories with troops.

Further, I'd guess the Israelis will push rapidly into the Bekaa Valley as far as Baalbek to tear up Hezbollah's rear area to slow down rearmament after the war is over. Air strikes would take place north of that, if necessary, I'd guess.

This is on top of other indications that Israel could go deep.

Remember, Israel can't possibly endure the scale of a Hezbollah rocket bombardment until air and artillery fire can knock out the rocket firing and storage sites. Especially if Hezbollah has acquired significant numbers of precision rockets and missiles. Israel must occupy the ground from which rockets can be fired at Israel. And once there why not go further north to really tear that enemy apart?

I thought the timing for such a large-scale ground raid would be when Hezbollah had suffered the most from their Syria expedition to save Assad but before Hezbollah could recover. But I've been wrong on connecting dots for a long time. Maybe the sanctions on Iran are hurting Hezbollah even more.

Also, does Lebanon have so many problems now that an Israeli invasion narrowly focused on hurting Hezbollah while avoiding punishing Lebanon would be tolerated or welcomed by most Lebanese?

The past year has been nothing short of an earthquake for Lebanon, hit by an economic meltdown, mass protests, financial collapse, a virus outbreak and a cataclysmic explosion that virtually wiped out the country’s main port.

Yet Lebanese fear even darker days are ahead.

The country’s foreign reserves are drying up, the local currency is expected to spiral further out of control, and incidents of armed clashes between rival groups are escalating. Bickering politicians have been unable to form a government, putting an international bailout out of reach.

Or would Lebanese rally around Hezbollah despite the Iranian-backed terror group's likely role in the massive Beirut port explosion?

Might an Israeli offensive take place after Trump's reelection? [UPDATE: Or after his defeat, of course, but before he leaves office.]

UPDATE: Clearly if the Israelis move north it will be very rapid:

In some ways war hasn’t changed here; the use of tanks, machine guns and infantry uses much of the same equipment that has been in use for years. What has changed is Israel’s investment in having units working closely together, to fight throughout the night and day with air support, more drones and intelligence for the fighters on the ground.

 I don't think Hezbollah can handle that.

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Nuclear Weapons

Of course Iran loves the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. The deal is a shield to protect Iran until it gets nuclear weapons.

This is not a sign that Iran is peace-loving:

The head of Iran's nuclear agency said Monday that the landmark 2015 deal between Tehran and world powers on his country's atomic program is struggling since the unilateral U.S. withdrawal, but is still worth preserving.

Ali Akbar Salehi told delegates at a conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna that the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, has been “caught in a quasi-stalemate situation” since President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out in 2018.

It is a sign that Iranians were better negotiators than the clown car of Obama administration morons led by the chief clown Kerry:

Iran is continuing its hostile policy more than a year after the deal was announced. Iran has been getting worse, fomenting unrest in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia.

They've captured more of our people and had their sock puppets fire at American warships in the Red Sea. In the Persian Gulf, they've fired near our ships, carried out mock attack runs, and captured two of our vessels that broke down in the Gulf--humiliating our crews in the process.

So that magical reset has not occurred yet despite supposedly clearing the decks for restoring American-Iranian relations.

Clearly, Iran still views us as hostile.

Yet they agreed to the nuclear deal. Why?

If Iran sees America as a threat, why would Iran agree to even suspend nuclear work for a decade? Doesn't that just lock in a period of Iranian vulnerability to an American attack on Iran? That's why many leftists in the West say Iran needs nuclear weapons. Remember? The Iraq War proved why enemies need nukes. That's how the left excused Iran's nuclear ambitions (even as Iran denied having such ambitions).

Despite all that, Iran agreed to the deal. Because the existence of the deal deters America and Israel from striking Iran until Iran uses the deal provisions to build their own nuclear weapons. And Iran may have thought they could buy North Korean nukes to get an instant nuclear deterrent until Iran can build sufficient weapons.

Thank goodness Trump pulled out of that awful deal. Now we have a real plan of action to prevent Iran from going nuclear.

An Admission of National Defense Bankruptcy

Russia's pretense to great power status is undercut by their growing reliance on nuclear weapons.

This Russian attitude should worry us:

According to Marek Menkiszak, head of the Russian Department at Poland’s Centre for Eastern Studies in Warsaw, “…the list of moves which could fall under the Russian definition of ‘threatening’ is impressive, and contains both offensive and defensive actions by a potential adversary.” The Litovkin version of Russian nuclear first-use policy indicates that these “concerns” are really conditions for “pressing the button.” He is apparently saying that in addition to Paragraph 19 criteria in the Putin decree, just about any serious threat to Russia justifies first use of nuclear weapons. Moreover, it appeared in Russian state media without any disclaimer concerning whether or not this is state policy. 

Lowering the threshold for Russian use of nuclear weapons is an admission of conventional military weakness. For all the unjustified hype about Russian "hybrid warfare" Russia has weak conventional military options against any but the weakest and closest opponents.

And the Russians are nuts to want to defend their territorial integrity with a policy that could just lead to nuclear strikes on Russia itself and escalate to their total destruction. The reality is that the only way this comes up against NATO is if Russia invades a NATO country and NATO counterattacks despite Russia claiming that their new conquest is suddenly part of Holy Mother Russia and a red line for nuclear weapons use.

That's rational?

My hope is that this reliance on nuclear weapons for territorial defense is actually directed against China which lost huge amounts of territory to Russia in the 19th century and Russia is just too afraid of China to admit that China is the real threat to Russian territorial integrity.

That's the scary aspect. Russia is too weak to admit that China is the main threat to Russia and take steps to repair relations with NATO which is too weak to threaten Russia and totally uninterested in doing that. 

Have a super sparkly day.

In Harm's Way

China's growing economic strength and technological advances have denied Taiwan the ability to control the Taiwan Strait. What type of fleet does Taiwan need in this situation?

This is a good summary of Taiwan's fleet of small anti-ship vessels and traditional longer-endurance ships [link and quote formatting fixed]:

In this new era of great power competition the ROCN is designed to maximize utility with a small budget while facing a much wealthier and larger adversary. The small surface fleet patrols and guards the island’s territorial waters, while the anti-invasion force is designed to ensure that the PLA will not be able to land troops on the beach without paying a heavy toll. 

The future of the ROCN is likely one of further bifurcation, with the anti-invasion fleet continuing to dwarf the surface fleet. Pursuant to its hedgehog strategy, the ROCN will concentrate on raising the cost of conflict with China in the years to come in an attempt to prevent Chinese aggression, while the surface fleet will conduct goodwill tours and conduct joint operations with allies to build relationships and raise Taiwan’s image abroad.

Yes, the Taiwan Strait is no place for the bigger ships and the small missile boats operating with shore-based missiles, guns, and aircraft to hit the invasion force are the way to go.

But I'll add one more reason to keep the bigger ships. Taiwan's bigger ships for sea control are needed on the east coast to hold the sea lines of communication open:

Taiwan will need boats like this to deter or defeat an invasion. Taiwan's bigger ships are too vulnerable in the narrow straits exposed to Chinese fast attack boats, submarines, and aircraft. The bigger Taiwanese ships with air defense and anti-submarine capabilities are safer east of Taiwan where they can keep Taiwan's sea lines of communication open. Together with mine countermeasures vessels and helicopters, that's where these ships belong. Also, operating at the northern and southern tips of Taiwan, the bigger ships could use anti-ship missiles to strike into the strait area before retiring behind the shield of the home island.

I don't assume that right now the Chinese could sustain a naval effort east of Taiwan to blockade Taiwan. Certainly not with surface ships. Subs would be safer from Taiwanese counter-measures and a sudden American intervention. But subs alone are a problem for a blockade as the Germans demonstrated in two world wars. With no ability to inspect a ship by boarding, a sub can only sink a suspect ship, potentially angering neutrals.

In that situation, America will be happy to have ROCN help to maintain lines of communication to Taiwan. And Taiwan needs those LOCs open to receive American resupply and reinforcements--the latter especially might be essential to eject the PLA from Taiwan, as I wrote in Military Review recently.

Eventually China's skill in sustaining a fleet away from China will allow China to operate east of Taiwan. Carriers will provide naval aviation that will help defend the blockade ships and delay or distract a U.S. Navy effort to break the blockade. Then America and other allies will be needed to break China's sea grip and intervene ashore. But short of that worst case situation, Taiwan's surface fleet has roles in peace and conflict.

Aim High

The United States first needs to control the Earth-moon system to dominate the new high ground of space and maintain access to the moon.

According to a recent report:

The summary report explains that the U.S. faces major challenges and inflection points in the final frontier. In terms of cislunar (Earth-moon) space and the moon itself, there is a need to control critical "choke points." 

"As space activities expand beyond geosynchronous orbit, the first nation to establish transportation infrastructure and logistics capabilities serving GEO [geosynchronous Earth orbit] and cislunar space will have superior ability to exercise control of cislunar space and in particular the Lagrange points and the resources of the moon," the report says. (Lagrange points are gravitationally stable spots in space where probes can "park," remaining in place without expending much fuel.) 

Focus on the Earth-moon system is appropriate. Because who knows what China will claim:

And as the high ground of Earth, philosophically I think Space Force should have more of the Air Force model. And terminology. Save a space navy for when America moves beyond the Earth-moon system.

And again, let's work on getting SMOD ground forces in the Earth-moon system theater. That's one area I prefer a Marine pattern in space since boarding actions are likely to be a mission.

Anyway, I'm glad that Space Force is more than just an additional bureaucracy even if it is lean for now. By the time it is bloated we can carve out a Space Navy that will at least start of lean for the rest of the solar system.

Weekend Data Dump

Without the Soviet ground threat looming over Turkey from Bulgaria, Georgia, and Armenia, the Turks can focus on their Ottoman restoration strategy and push to dominate the eastern Mediterranean Sea.

I just want to note that long before America got a realistic appraisal of the Chinese threat I was warning against our mil-to-mil contacts that just provided the PLA with insights into how our military worked.

Honestly, I think Hillary Clinton wants Trump to defeat Biden. I mean, she choked on a one-foot putt against Trump in 2016. Can her mental health and/or liver survive Trump losing to Ham Sandwich (D) in 2020? 

Is peace breaking out in Sudan? Yes, it will happen eventually when the losing sides get beaten down or the winning sides get tired of killing. But now? Call me skeptical.

This process really should be entertaining if the federal government doesn't let up on Princeton. Tip to Instapundit.

The latest Taiwan national defense report. 

Only 22% of people think the 2020 election will be "free and fair." Well, the campaign up to the election won't be because of the extreme leftist partisanship of the vast majority of the news media. The election itself? Well, it will be "mostly fair," I imagine. But if that qualifier is defined as just 7% not free and fair much as riots are only 7% of mostly peaceful protests, that will be decisive, no?

American heavy infantry. 

For some strange reason, Turkey's drive to dominate their former Arab imperial subjects is angering Arab states (with the exception of Qatar which is also too friendly with non-Arab Iran despite close ties to America) and making Turkey more isolated as Arab states make common cause with Israel, which is also a target of Turkey's ire under Erdogan. Remember that Turkey is condemning Arab states for doing what Turkey did in 1949--recognizing Israel and establishing peaceful relations. Apparently the Palestinians aren't as important as Erdogan pretends they are to him.

The China-Taiwan information war that China hopes will make Taiwan more receptive (or resigned to?) to Chinese domination and control. My contribution to that Taiwan issue of Military Review is here.

As I've mentioned, I did not vote for Trump in 2016. I despised Clinton and did not vote for her, of course. But I could not bring myself to vote for Trump who seemed doomed to lose. Mind you, unlike the rabid anti-Trumpers on the left I did not believe it was remotely possible that he'd radically change foreign policy; I thought it was nonsense to think he was a Russian puppet who had colluded with them; I dismissed worries of mass deportation of illegal aliens, LGBTQ concentration camps, or that he'd become a dictator. I did worry that given his long association with Democrats that he'd govern as a liberal with Democratic Congressional help. And I had a long history of really disliking him. But Trump has governed way better than even I thought he would. And obviously, none of the crazy worries of his rabid opponents came true. So reasons to vote against him in 2020 faded away over time. In addition, the insane and relentless Resistance which has culminated in street riots, arson, and murder to complement ridiculous impeachment, Kavanaugh hearing travesty, unjust demonization of Trump's supporters, and serial "game changer" scandals that ended up being BS give me a strong reason to vote for Trump just to punish the Democrats for their behavior the last four years.

Maybe America did send in to eastern Syria a company-sized element of under 100 troops. I had assumed that 6 armored vehicles mentioned in an early story meant that only 6 were sent. But this article noting the dispatch of 6 Bradley Fighting Vehicles might mean a platoon security element plus other assets. I had initially assumed the 100 comment was simply to avoid giving away the size because even one troop is "under 100."

More on China's version of the X-37B. And there's this on the small US X-37B unmanned orbital vehicle: "For regular satellite refueling missions a larger “X-37C” would probably be used. This is a scaled-up X-37B that would have a much larger (probably over a ton) payload. The X-37C could be quickly switched between cargo and passenger configurations. The X-37C would still be robotic and not require anyone onboard to control it. Work on the X-37C has apparently been halted because there are similar alternative designs that are closer to service." Alternative? Huh.

Four weeks ago I wrote "It's almost funny how Democrats get outraged over things Trump does that they didn't even blink over when Obama did them. It's like the Resistance isn't even trying any more. They've gone from Russia collusion to the Hatch Act? What? Has Mailboxgate joined Murder Hornets as a failed crisis already? By the election Democrats will be outraged that Trump ends sentences with a preposition." Events have overtaken me. We've reached the point where some Democrats claim that it is an impeachable scandal if Trump appoints a replacement for the Supreme Court before the election--which is actually his job. Apparently an alleged death bed wish--like the words of some dying queen--trumps the Constitution. WTF? I choose the Constitution rather than the dying wishes of a judge. Democrats should be embarrassed. But they're not. Some are threatening to "burn it down" if that wish isn't honored. That's horrifying.

So trying to pressure Maduro into leaving has not worked. What now? I was not terribly hopeful that we could just tell him he had to step down and expect compliance. Everyone knew America would not invade to overthrow him. And Venezuelans have fled rather than rise up. The remainder of non-Maduro supporters are desperate just to survive.

The  state of Michigan sent me an absentee ballot application without me asking. This is better than just sending me an actual ballot without me asking. But it still opens up room for some shenanigans. And given how close Michigan was in 2016, even that is disturbing. I plan to vote in person so I ripped it up, to make sure it isn't used.

Yes, the stakes of each Supreme Court justice appointment shows that they are way too important. My solution is to make the federal government less powerful and restore authority to states and local government for most areas. Reserve the federal approach for truly national and foreign policy areas. When the federal role isn't there, the stakes for control go down. And national partisanship will decline (to be replaced by state and local partisanship, but our nation will be better for that change). My fear is that we won't reduce the scope of the federal government's powers until we go broke trying to sustain deficit spending that keeps the federal government so powerful.

Lukashenko hasn't necessarily sold Belarus to Putin. Lukashenko may just want to take the money and run, only to back away from Putin when he has outlasted the protesters.

Black Lives Matter is seeing a drop in support. I don't understand why anyone would support that Marxist group which has no serious belief that Black lives matter other than for cannon fodder in their revolution goals. If you think Black lives matter--and of course they do--you should reject BLM which by rioting, arson, looting, and murder is wrecking police reform momentum by conflating the belief that Black lives matter with BLM. Support the statement. Reject the organization.

The gnashing of teeth over how Arab states are making peace with Israel without solving the Palestinian issue first is delightful given that the Palestinians are the most stupid and self-destructive people on the planet. Well, their leadership, anyway. They threw away the deal they could have had under Clinton. But heck, I'm old enough to remember when we couldn't destroy the Saddam regime in Iraq before solving the Palestinian issue because the Arab "street" would go nuts. Not so much. And still not so much. The Arab world seems done with being held up by the Palestinians. After seeing Palestinians cheer the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and seeing Hamas siding with Iran, enough is enough.

I don't understand why delivered "meal kits" seem to be the rage. I see commercials for them all the time. Isn't this just one more thing that has turned a basic cheap product--like coffee and beer--into upscale expensive products? Food is cheaper as a burden on budgets than the past. Already we have status symbol organic foods that cost more for no real advantage other than the snob factor for buyers. Now meal kits. There are a lot of people with money to burn in this country.

This author thinks the U.S. Army has an opportunity to strengthen Taiwan's ground forces--including their potentially large reserve--in case air and naval power don't keep the PLA off of the island democracy. I think that is prudent, as my contribution to that Military Review article supports.

Europe is experiencing a second wave of Xi Jinping Flu pandemic infections. Americans who pointed to Europe's lull to condemn the American response really need to wait for this to be over for useful comparisons. You don't get to point to your lead after the first quarter of a football game and claim that proves your game-winning strategy is superior. And we have to correct for differences among nations for populations and definitions of cases and deaths, of course.

The city government of Washington, D.C., will cope with the pandemic endless lockdown by doling out grants to winterize their outdoor dining areas with propane heaters and tents. In a sane world you'd ask why restaurants couldn't simply open their windows and put in fans to let people use the indoor area. But that doesn't allow politicians to dole out taxpayer money to supporters. Tip to Insanity Wrap.

The fall Xi Jinping Flu scale is uncertain. 

Explain to me again how Trump is the threat to democratic norms: "On the table [for Democrats]: Adding Supreme Court justices ... eliminating the Senate's 60-vote threshold to end filibusters ... and statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico." Apparently Democrats have to burn down our institutions in order to save them. Remember, these dramatic changes are on the table for the Republican sin of doing their jobs. The bias of the article framing is astounding, as the author says Democrats put those options on the table because of "GOP hypocrisy of rushing through a new justice for President Trump after stalling President Obama's final nominee." Had the author wished, he could have framed it as the "Democratic hypocrisy of opposing a new justice for Trump after demanding the Senate vote on Obama's final nominee." But the author didn't. Why? Because he doesn't want to admit that both sides are playing politics with their flip flops, and hypocrisy is the least of the problems of politicians these days. Honestly, if Republicans hold the Senate after this election I will laugh even harder than I did when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the judicial nomination filibuster would be dead after 2016--and then the Republicans won the presidency and the Senate.

Yeah, I liked it more when liberals threatened to move to Canada if they don't get their way rather than threatening to riot.

Remember, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could have retired from the Supreme Court in the Obama administration at the old age of 75 when Obama was sworn in. She chose to stick around until after Obama left. Oops. Maybe 75 would be a good mandatory retirement age to allow some predictability in court replacements.

Russia has its bases in Syria but otherwise can't get anyone to do what Russia wants; and Syria is too weary of war and short of troops to really take control of areas in the south and east outside of core Syria. The war drags on and even some of Assad's supporters are unhappy with him. And American sanctions have pretty much wrecked Iran's ability to subsidize a sufficient security apparatus to clamp down.

Why stress Eisenhower with a "double pump" rapid deployment after returning home? I'll ask again, why can't we send a carrier air wing to land bases in the region instead of the carrier?

Yes, we will have a blatant reminder that feminism is simply the women's auxiliary of the Democratic Party.

"Investigating" this clear political statement is an abuse of government power. And anybody confused about voting procedures because of the display is clearly an idiot and unworthy of casting a ballot.

The Army LAW is still useful despite the advances in tank protection.

It is interesting that Turkey--a less than enthusiastic NATO member--is heading for a clash with France--an often less than enthusiastic NATO member in its history--in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Not interesting in a good way, to be clear. Let's hope calmer heads prevail.

Hard to disagree with that ruling.

So ABC disguised Democratic partisans as "uncommitted" voters for a Trump town hall. To be fair, ABC would do the same for Biden.

The public debt is skyrocketing. I've cared a great deal about the federal budget deficit and our national debt for forty years now. Democrats couldn't care less and Republicans only say they care. What's a man to do at election time with this?

"Trust only the party’s power." Well that's not worrisome ...

No! Way! Tip to Instapundit.

I've often noted that Feminists are simply the women's auxiliary of the Democratic Party. Sadly we have seen many in-theory professional or non-partisan groups become auxiliaries of the Democratic Party--even scientists.

Never let a crisis go to waste: Algeria edition. With a bonus notation that Islamist-friendly Algeria bucks the trend of Arab states resenting Turkey's foray back into the Arab world to rebuild influence in its former Ottoman Empire expanse.

Navalny survived Putin's poisoning attempt, and is out of the hospital mocking Putin. That, my friends, is true Resistance against actual tyranny.

The knowledge base of the ISIL caliphate retreats to the Internet before the true believers can restore the physical caliphate.

International law may have provided the Philippines with a legal win against China, but try collecting it from Emperor Xi with his shiny new military that still has that new-plane smell.

Shockingly, Lukashenko was inaugurated for a new term ruling Belarus despite mass protests. I guess Putin's support and cash mattered more. The "you have to go" club that Syria's Assad started now has Venezuela's Maduro and Lukashenko for members.

No wonder Alyssa Milano thinks guns should be banned--she probably thinks everyone who calls 911 gets this kind of rapid and massive police response. And I'm sure Milano thinks that even a defunded police force--that she also advocates--remnant will prioritize her emergencies.

Russia has been compelled to reduce its military spending because sanctions have helped hammer Russia's finances.

Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court. This was expected. As is the Democratic reaction. So how is nominally Catholic Biden going to react to his political allies savaging a successful Catholic woman?

A fleet of 550 Navy ships obviously requires fewer capital ships to achieve. Now that is picking a number. Unmanned vessels will be a big part of reaching that number.

The Air Force is thinking about a longer-range fighter to avoid needing air-to-air refueling aircraft. Maybe my AABONE idea isn't nonsense.

Hahaha!

How is it even legal for big companies to pay such huge amounts of money for former Supreme Court law clerks when the clerks do the bulk of the work researching and writing the opinions?!!

Sadly accurate:

One percent of American counties had half of the Xi Jinping Flu pandemic cases. But somehow Democrats say a nation-wide effort based on a federal standard would have worked better?

Of course, doing nothing and aiming for herd immunity wasn't my preferred method of dealing with the pandemic. Truly, 2-4 weeks of "bending the curve of infections" made a lot of sense under these circumstances.

To be fair, the jihadis hate all French people and not just the Jews.

So that Marxist Brennan (seriously) in charge of our CIA overruled intelligence analysts who argued what I believed--that the Russians preferred Clinton in 2016 if they had any preference in their election interference that sowed chaos here (and still does). The whole "collusion" investigation stinks of Banana Republic politics. And the fact that this information was concealed from the American people is an outrage. 

The Iraqis are finally cracking down more on armed militias and tribes which give Iran a path to destabilize Iraq. So why Trump is not being more supportive of Iraq's prime minister given Iraq's problems with Iran is a mystery to me.

Okay, that's interesting that there is evidence on the formation of the Earth-Moon system. But what happened to Theia? 

Armenia and Azerbaijan fought at the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave that Armenia controls but the Azeris claim. The scope is unclear.

I think it is BS to claim that American support for Taiwanese defense capabilities forces China to be more aggressive toward Taiwan. Are there analysts who are really going to argue that Taiwan is dressing kind of slutty and so who can blame China for slapping the island democracy around?

Civil War 2.0?

I don't think we are on the verge of a civil war even if the actual violence now and threat of localized but intense violence later this year is too high for me.

I think the violence and unrest America experienced in the late 1960s and early 1970s was worse than today's violence and unrest. Which makes sense because the causes of today's unrest is amazingly smaller than what triggered the earlier wave. And back then civilian authorities with limited military support managed it. 

Today, even if communist Antifa and their allies masquerading as popular movements decide to go to war if Trump wins reelection, I think civilian authorities can do the job of defeating the revolutionaries. 

Since 9/11, police are more effective at intelligence and internal policing. There are also more federal law enforcement personnel, especially when you consider the Department of Homeland Security. So committing active Army and Marine combat units is unlikely to be necessary.

Of course, a major difference is that there are cities that seem to side with the communists. I don't think the last round had that. But I don't know if this virtue-signalling support of most of those local government leftists will survive an actual urban insurgency that threatens them, too.

Violence is bad enough. But civil war seems highly unlikely. 

UPDATE: This researcher doesn't think post-election insurrection is likely:

While I think some concern is valid, it is important to remember that there is a big difference between using a call to arms to mobilize your voters and instill fear in the other party’s supporters, and staging a post-election insurrection, which could subject its instigators to charges of sedition, if not high treason.

Ultimately, the three factors discussed here suggest that fears of widespread violence by vigilantes and activists during and after Election Day should be treated as fears, not as a probable outcome.

I think he is right. Violence may likely be greater than after 2016, but it will be no threat to the country as a whole. 

And maybe we will get lucky and our summer of riots and arson will have slaked the thirst for street violence among the non-core revolutionaries out there.

NATO Should Adopt the Hippocratic Oath

I just don't see a crossroads for NATO that should have any route to Asia.

How should the military alliance NATO handle China? 

NATO has been a major part of the United Kingdom’s defence strategy for over 70 years, but the Alliance is facing a major crossroads in the coming years regarding how it should address the challenge of China. Some members prefer a cordial relationship based on trade, while others chastise the resurgent power through trade wars and vicious rhetoric. The political divide is exacerbated by a gap emerging between the US and the rest of NATO in terms of military doctrine and procurement, which in turn generates further pressure on the pillars the Alliance is built upon.

Shortly after the end of the Second World War, the existential Soviet threat was met with a united response from NATO in the shape of the Brussels Treaty. 70 years later, Europe is a different place and the world has changed. NATO’s most powerful member sees China as the pacing threat. It is only proper to question the future of NATO and how this may shape our security strategy, and potentially the shape and form of our own military.

This is a UK-centered article. But it is really a general question for the entire NATO alliance. Yes, Britain is a power that can project power globally. But in comparison to what China fields in the Asia-Pacific region, Britain's power is virtually indistinguishable from a country like Belgium which can project nothing that far. If America and regional allies can't handle China, no shape of Britain's military and strategy will be decisive in that contest.

Basically, I don't think NATO should change its military and military strategy to cope with China. NATO has enough on its hands handling Russian aggression and safeguarding the southern border from uncontrolled migration that destabilizes the continent. 

Add in the proximity to the crisis-generating Middle East and an internal threat from Erdogan's empire-building Turkey, and that is more than enough to challenge European NATO's threadbare defense efforts.

How would European NATO contribute to INDOPACOM when it has enough problems contributing to the eastern frontier in NATO?

My only hopes for NATO in regard to China is doing no harm--write a memo to Germany, please. If NATO would adopt provisions that preclude actions and deals that would help China fight America and our allies in the Asia-Pacific region, that would be more than enough contribution.

And being capable of reducing the amount of American help required to contain and defeat China's junior partner Russia from committing more aggression in Europe would be great.

I just don't see how the current vital NATO missions can be seen as so insignificant that NATO has to seek distant enemies it can never actually confront in battle. There is no crossroads in sight.

Defeat, Deter, Distract

It would be better to deter China from invading Taiwan than to defeat China in a costly war. It is in America's interest to do so. But even that isn't the ideal situation.

This makes sense:

“I believe the United States will fight to defend Taiwan if China invades Taiwan. In my opinion, it’s unthinkable that the United States would stand by and allow China to conquer Taiwan.” These are not the words of a wide-eyed Wilsonian or a neocon hawk. Rather, they come courtesy of John Mearsheimer, perhaps America's foremost realist foreign-policy scholar. If we accept Mearsheimer's assessment as a given—and there's no reason not to—the next step of the given would be trying to fend off such an attack or, even worse, trying to liberate a conquered Taiwan, which raises a crucial question: If it's unthinkable that America would allow the PRC to conquer Taiwan, wouldn't it be less costly and more prudent to do all we can now to deter Beijing from taking that step?

Still, a formal defense treaty might not deter China from invading Taiwan as the author writes as much as it might trigger an invasion even if China isn't sure it would win. Right now Taiwan is a core Chinese interest and the focus of its military build up.

But deterrence in some fashion is needed even if that method isn't the best way to do that right now. Perhaps if America had done that in 1996 when American military dominance was complete, we'd be sitting on a quarter century of deterrence history. But we didn't. So what can be done now?

I recently wrote in Military Review that simply letting China retain a bridgehead on Taiwan after accepting a ceasefire is just a guarantee that China will renew the war and conquer Taiwan in two steps rather than just one. Taiwan has to be prepared to drive the invaders into the sea; and America must be prepared to send an Army corps to spearhead such a drive if necessary. That capability, I concluded, might deter China and if it doesn't could defeat China in that first step.

But even that isn't the best course of action in the long run. The best bet to keep Taiwan free is to make sure China has bigger problems than Taiwan (quoting a 15-year old post):

Sure, if we must fight I'd rather win, but just going to war is going to cost us in lives and money.

One can say that we hope that by becoming strong enough we deter the Chinese but this is still only second best. A deterred China will always be on the verge of attacking, just waiting for the moment when we cannot stop them for one reason or another and so cannot deter them for even a short window of opportunity.

No, defeating China makes the best of the worst case and deterring China makes the best of the second worst case. We need to shovel the Snow back north. We need to play the Great Game in Asia to achieve our best case--a China pointed away from the south--Taiwan and the United States and our other allies--and pointed toward the north and the interior of Asia.

Until China has bigger problems to distract them, deterring or defeating China are critical to keeping the asset of Taiwan out of China's hands.

Pressing a Fleeting Advantage?

Should Russia be the most worried country if China's power has peaked? America can encourage that worry.

Will China's rulers conclude that China's rise will peak before gloriously passing America by?  And what will those rulers do with that conclusion?

Well, if history is any guide, they might include launching a war of desperation in the hope of securing the best geopolitical settlement possible before China is weakened to the point where it is simply condemned to another ‘hundred years of humiliation.’  What that war might look like – how it might erupt, whom it might involve, what course it might take – cannot be forecast with any certainty. But then neither could the war started by Germany in 1914 nor that by Japan in 1941.  The point is that in those two earlier cases, the only rational course of action for the faltering challenger was the strategic Hail Mary pass.  The question is, will a China whose rise is similarly stalling throw a comparably desperate strategic pass the early in the 21st century?

I've been on this failure to pass America by issue for a long time. Even if China could pass America by mid-century, I wondered if China could hold it by the end of the century. But now it looks like China might not even make it to number one by 2049 at the century mark of Communist China. 

If China tries to salvage something from their peak of power and strikes America, America needs to avoid giving China the option of crippling American power in the western Pacific to clear the decks for a war against a local target that might cement Chinese gains in a peace treaty before China's relative decline is clear. Note that America is starting to get those anti-ship missiles for land deployment in the western Pacific as I called for back then.

Of course, a problem with striking America in order to target a small objective is that it draws in America and our allies into what China would hope could be a small, short, and glorious war. A war against America and its allies won't be small, and it probably wouldn't be short or glorious.

And even targeting a small country--like Taiwan or the Philippines--risks drawing America in to the war. And then American allies may come in and that small, short, and glorious war goes down the tubes, too.

So what military objective could China gain that might cement lasting gains that will continue even as China's relative power declines?

Russia. 

I'm sure that the Chinese are aware that Russia is no friend of China and is simply appeasing China out of weakness to keep China from taking Russian territory that Russia took from China in the 19th century.

So maybe a conventionally weak and internationally isolated Russia would be a prime target for China in a short and glorious war that signals China's rise to great power status. A victory that would cement China's claims to the Russian Far East in a peace settlement even if China did not demand much of it at all to end hostilities.

Russia needs to take steps to repair ties with America fast. If Putin thinks China will fight and die for Russia, he is mistaken.

We'll Have to Agree to Disagree

Trump is eager to get American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Just ... no.

Trump will reduce American troops in Iraq from 5,200 to 3,000 by the end of the month:

The U.S. is preparing to reduce its troops in Iraq to 3,000, down from 5,200, by the end of this month, the top commander in the Middle East announced Wednesday. 

The announcement makes public plans that have been in the works for months, as President Trump has sought to make good on campaign promises to withdraw troops from foreign entanglements before the 2020 election.

But Iraq can't stand on its own yet, so I sure hope we continue to help Iraq enough to defeat battlefield enemies and keep Iran at bay. 

Or will we pull a Obama 2011 that led to a disaster in 2014 and Iraq War 2.0? Ditto for Afghanistan on that issue, of course. 

The issue of whether those wars were necessary and worthy of defending as victories is one that I strongly disagree with Trump over. We won in Iraq and we won in Afghanistan. 

And those victories are part of the reason that the war on terror is tamped down enough to think about withdrawing American (and allied) troops from both countries to rely on the locals to fight our common enemies. 

Mind you, the situation now is different than it was earlier under Obama. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have endured the enemy and hopefully are more capable of standing with less American and allied support.

But it would be immensely stupid to pull out so much that our local allies lose and stop fighting enemies, and instead be yoked to the jihadi effort as allies--as they once were.

History Restarts

It is a good idea to prepare for major conventional operations. Our enemies certainly will try that if they get the chance.

It's on:

The U.S. military is shifting its training focus to conducting more large-scale warfighting exercises, Undersecretary of the Air Force Matthew Donovan said Sept. 14.

The services have grown accustomed to working in smaller units for counterinsurgency operations, he noted during the Air Force Association’s Air, Space and Cyber Conference, which was held online due to COVID-19 safety considerations.

Now, the Defense Department is looking to implement more wide-ranging exercises similar to those conducted during the Cold War.

“We’re restarting those efforts,” Donovan said. “These types of exercises reassured our allies and demonstrated this capability to our adversaries. … It provided significant return value.” 

If the Russians move west it will be with big units.

And I think that deterring China from invading Taiwan will require similar joint operations, as I wrote this month in Military Review.

Thank God our military isn't oddly focused on "hybrid war" BS.

Mission Accomplished?

Will Trump succeed in getting out of the Middle East after Obama's failed effort?

I'm sorry, but this is flat out wrong:

President Trump’s foreign policy is significantly different from that of his predecessors. Unlike George W. Bush, who fought a land war in Iraq post 9/11 and deployed thousands of troops throughout the region, Trump is pulling back. He is instead emphasizing the geopolitical threat from China while withdrawing troops from the Middle East, including both Syria and Iraq, where Iran is a major presence.

Trump is following in the tracks of President Obama. His "pivot" to the Asia-Pacific region was all about pivoting away from the Middle East:

Should we have announced a pivot to Asia when increasingly it seems only to be an excuse for the Obama administration to pivot away from CENTCOM? ...

But the most important part of the quoted section is the reason given for pivoting to Asia--that the wars in CENTCOM are coming to an end.

This is no reason for our loud pivot. As I said, the pivot has been going on for many years in reaction to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of China.

So for our president, who simply doesn't want to fight Islamist radicalism in the Middle East--or admit there is a war on terror--pivoting to Asia--which is already taking place--was really about pivoting away from the Middle East. It is repackaging an unwillingness to fight the war we are currently in as a strategy of preparing for the next war (or preventing it with strength).

But it is way too early to pivot away from the Middle East.

As it turns out, it was too early for Obama to pivot away from the Middle East. In 2014 Obama had to initiate Iraq War 2.0, which Trump intensified to defeat ISIL; and even Trump in 2017 reinforced Afghanistan.

So Trump's desire to get out of the Middle East and focus on Asia has continuity from the Obama administration, which declared the post-Cold War trend a policy that seemed to me more like an excuse to leave the Middle East.

The question for Trump is whether it is still too early to pivot away from the Middle East too much. Has enough changed in 8 years to make it work this time?

I think we need to retain forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to help our newly created allies in Iraq and Afghanistan fight jihadis and resist Iran. 

Perhaps we can do it with less than what we would have needed a decade ago. But let's not declare the mission over too soon.

The Truth Hurts

The United States is not going to get obsessed with Russia notwithstanding the sudden Democratic hatred of Russia. Which is bound to disappoint China.

The truth hurts:

The secretary of defense on Wednesday dismissed Russia as unable to present persistent dangers to the U.S., marking a notable shift in the Pentagon's view of the global threats for which it must prepare.

"China has a vast population, its resources, its vast dynamism of its economy," Defense Secretary Mark Esper said at an event organized by the RAND Corporation in California, "very different from Russia in terms of demographics." 

"We see Russia as a challenge right now, but in the future, less so."

Esper's comments mirror the kind of American denigration for the former Soviet republic that has reportedly infuriated Russian President Vladimir Putin in the past, including in 2014 when then-President Barack Obama referred to Russia as a "regional power." 

Esper is right. Heck, I chuckled when Obama noted that fact.

Not that the truth is an excuse to ignore Russia or dismiss their aggression. Russia is a threat to smaller powers near Russia--including NATO states--so this reality check does not say that Russia does not pose a military threat close to Russia. And Russia has nukes, of course.

I swear, Russia really just doesn't like to be ignored after being the "big bad" during the Cold War:

The Russians and their Soviet predecessors acted on the theory it is better to be feared than liked. Russia is finding that without conventional military power, the fear option is not readily available.

And the charm and grace of Putin isn't enough to make up for that lost power.

But China is a growing military power even if their economic growth is faltering. Russia is only useful to China if Russia soaks up American power in Europe. 

And if we don't fall for that ploy and misdirect too much of our attention and power to Europe (although I do think we need Army and Air Force reinforcements for Europe) what use to China is Russia?

At that point, Russia's policy of appeasing China might be cancelled by China just as Russia has pointlessly alienated NATO with aggression in fact and rhetoric.

Bravo, Putin. Bravo.

#WhyRussiaCan'tHaveNiceThings

Remember the Job Description

The purpose of America's military is to fight wars and defeat enemy combat forces. Don't distract our armed forces by giving them non-military missions that downplay battlefield victory. 

Oh good Lord:

[Enemy efforts to avoid fighting American strengths] implies that future major-power wars are likely to be contests of will, stake, and risk-taking, involving coercion, blackmail, and brinkmanship at least as much as direct armed hostilities between general-purpose military forces. 

If America downgrades military capabilities with the aim of defeating enemies on the battlefield, our enemies will be able to think about defeating America in battle rather than find approaches that avoid American military strengths.

And if I may be so bold to point out, if enemies avoid fighting us as much as possible they forfeit the ability to make dramatic gains at our expense. And since America is basically on strategic defense to hold what we have and what our allies have, that's a good thing. 

Still, this is a good point:

The Red theory of victory consists of two notions. First, that decisive military action by the United States to reverse a fait accompli can be prevented by exploiting divisions within and among its allies and the United States itself. And second, that the United States can be persuaded to cede some important regional interest rather than employ its full military potential because its stake is not sufficient to engage in sustained brinkmanship and competitive escalation. The Red concept of victory includes more than just seizing and holding some gain. It encompasses also the choice by Blue to terminate conflict on terms that sacrifice the interest it was defending, thereby showing America’s security guarantee to be unreliable.

If enemies attack, we can't let them get a partial victory and deter America from using its military power to reverse the enemy gains. This is exactly the point of my recent article about defending Taiwan that was published in Military Review.

And I've addressed this in regard to our Baltic state NATO allies.

If our enemies want to attack us but are trying to avoid fighting America directly notwithstanding their push to increase conventional warfighting abilities, we have other elements of our huge national security apparatus to tackle their non-military efforts. And use the military to defeat our enemy on the battlefield. 

For God's sake, if our enemies fear our military that much, make them play our game and not their non-military game if they decide to go to war.

Delay to Kill?

There is push back from the Air Force for getting special forces a light attack aircraft right now. Or is that just a short-term goal to kill the plane?

Next year for sure, right guys?

Earlier this year, Special Operations Command (SOCOM) announced a new contract solicitation to eventually buy 75 manned aircraft for Armed Overwatch for special operations missions. The command asked for $106 million in its fiscal 2021 budget request for the proposal.

But AFSOC commander Lt. Gen. James Slife said recently that, while congressional committees understand the overall need for Armed Overwatch, they may not be convinced that fiscal 2021 is the time to buy new aircraft. ...

SOCOM's light-attack push came after the Air Force remained noncommittal on its own light-attack endeavor.

The Air Force still isn't buying anything and doesn't seem to want SOCOM to buy any.

Not that the Air Force wants to provide the capability that the light attack aircraft would provide. The Air Force just doesn't want competition for money to build fighter aircraft.

As I wrote some time ago, the Air Force just pretended to want a light dedicated ground support aircraft until it could kill the A-10, which is the last remnant of Air Force dedicated close air support for ground troops.

Keep Congress Too Busy With its Job to Make Mischief

My career was in the legislative branch at the state level. So I'm biased toward that body. I wish Congress was more of a legislating body.

This isn't my observation, but Congress has relinquished power to the president in part because it is safer to let presidents solve problems with executive orders and rules. That is, if a legislator authors a bill that is supported 70-30 in the district, that means 30% of people are potentially angry with the legislator. Keep authoring 70% victories and pretty soon a lot of 30% opposition adds up in increments to defeat at the next election. 

But if you ask the president to issue an order, the legislator can quietly tell people from the 70 side that he (or she, calm the ef down before you cancel me) was the guy that told the president to solve the problem. And he won't mention that issue when speaking to the 30 side. 

That makes sense. Although it bizarrely makes such a process reliant on having a president of your own party, because the president presumably wouldn't be eager to help the opposition members that way. Which makes it a quasi-parliamentary system, in a way, no? 

My question is why does the president go along with that? Shouldn't the president be happy to refuse all requests and let Congress take the public relations hits instead of him for making decisions and angering some motivated minority that opposes the action? And that's apart from a president's possible philosophical commitment to restraining the size of the executive bloat--I've given up that dream for the most part.

And sure, you can say that the president doesn't want to harm their own party's members by making them legislate. But wouldn't it be better to force Congress as an institution to make hard decisions and keep them busy legislating rather than politicking? 

Maybe Congress would have less time for political exercises masquerading as Congressional oversight or solemn impeachment.

Maybe members of Congress would have less time for auditioning for their post-Congress media gig by building an audience of Twitter fanatics.

Mind you, just because I think that Congress should be a legislating body rather than a body that lobbies the president to take action that I think it should pass legislation for every problem. I dislike the periodic measures of Congressional effectiveness that focuses on how many bills are passed.

Anyway, that came to mind. For what it's worth.

Weekend Data Dump

China wants a Western-style military but is having problems and isn't there yet. But can China fully succeed without having a Western-style society? As an aside, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not achieved by three divisions! Yes, an American Army, an American Marine, and a British division spearheaded the invasion. But if you looked at the maneuver battalions sent before the war, those were the front-line equivalents of 3 Army divisions, 3 Marine divisions, and 1 British division. The major innovation was reducing iron mountains of supplies and reducing the artillery component dramatically to rely on air power for fire support. [Division equivalents corrected, with link to restore my memory. And to be fair, Australian and Polish special forces were involved even though they did not contribute maneuver elements.]

Kids are ignorant and intellectuals prey on them. Let's hope that while growing up that being hit about the head and shoulders with the clue bat helps them grow out of their Santa Claus socialism which requires gulags and secret police to attempt--but which ultimately fails leaving good little boys and girls dead, imprisoned, or ground under the boots of the uncaring state. Tips to Instapundit.

The idea that Trump will seek a third term is nonsense. His comments simply highlight that Democrats have in many ways through their unhinged and relentless--with a good measure of illegality--Resistance practically if not literally denied him his first term. Have you forgotten what they did even before he was sworn in, let alone since then? He'll leave after two terms, assuming he wins reelection. As he should.

Nigeria knocked down the jihadis in the north by 2017 after seeing the situation spiral to horrible dimensions prior to getting serious. But the jihadis are gaining ground again in the face of corruption that provided an opening to Boko Haram to rebuild and re-terrorize the locals.

Lynx goes to Hungary.

If Americans should only rely on the state for personal protection from criminals, why would you support riots, arson, and violence to make sure Black lives matter? Tip to Instapundit.

Do not become confused. When Iran allows IAEA inspectors into a facility, the Iranians have moved everything out and believe they have scrubbed it sufficiently to get a clean bill of health from the IAEA.

Israel continues to strike Iranians in Syria who are seeking to turn Syria into a launching pad for attacking Israel.

That would be great if China relied on attracting Taiwan into reunification. But wouldn't it require a free China to make the case? I suppose if China remains a dictatorship I can't be sure that enough Taiwanese won't fall for that kind of gambit, but if they do there is nothing America can do to stop it (other than to make sure we don't sell Taiwan F-35s so they don't get turned over to China). But I doubt that China can persuade Taiwan to give up their freedom. And so at some point China will try to conquer Taiwan. America needs to prepare capabilities we haven't thus far in case China invades, as I argued in Military Review recently.

Planes and weapons with longer ranges plus drone refueling planes will eventually extend the reach of carrier aviation. That will help with survival. But I guess it depends on whether enemies extend their reach, too.

Oh FFS, why?

I guess I'll watch the Detroit Lions now that I can without cable. But the rest of the NFL is dead to me. And we'll see if woke BLM Marxist cheerleading crap (and yes, yes, of course Black lives matter--but BLM is a Marxist scumbag group) turns me off the Lions. And keep in mind that the Lions haven't turned me off because of their record and play.

An Atlantic author argued that "law and order" conservatives should vote for Biden to keep the peace after the election because Democrats will not accept the results if Trump wins and we will see street violence. The author has no idea what "rule of law" means. Conservatives who value rule of law do not consider submitting to blackmail "rule of law." To Hell with them and their blackmail. This sort of thing can't be rewarded or they'll be back again and again with the same threat.

Oh FFS, riots took place over this?! No peace, no justice.

The Islamic Republic of Iran. And other places where the jihad is hurting the brand of Islam. If the nutballs are to be defeated in the Islamic Civil War, this is a necessary shift. More narrowly, the shifts in attitude against Iran are rolling back Iran's regional power. 

Instapundit and a colleague are preaching to the choir here on TDR on this court fines issue, as I mentioned in a recent data dump: "I know I've mentioned this issue before, but relying on fines and penalties is a disgraceful way to raise money and this 'taxation by citation' smacks of tax farming granted by the states to local governments on the backs of poor and working people. Government should be financed by direct taxes. The federal court system should be used to break this as arguably a civil rights violation."

Norway has long known the joys of bordering Russia.

Die, die, die! With festering boils, die! 

The "Harris administration?" Oops. Well that's awkward. Luckily Biden will never be aware of what Harris revealingly said. I guess the plan is to have Biden named the President Emeritus about 5 seconds after swearing in--God forbid. Or maybe Biden already thinks he is the vice presidential candidate. This is seriously sad. I watched my father retreat from the world through dementia, going through the motions of living because of diminishing awareness.

India and Japan signed a logistics support agreement. Which will allow Japan to operate in the Indian Ocean with more ease and will allow India to operate in the Pacific with more ease. Of note, "Japan becomes the sixth country with which India has such an arrangement, adding to the United States, France, Singapore, South Korea, and Australia."

Um, no: "A [Chinese] group army is made up of 78 combined-arms brigades, each of which can have as many as 5,000 soldiers." So each group army has up to 390,000 troops just in the combat brigades? But earlier the author said each of the 13 group armies have 20,000 to 45,000 troops total. A group army is actually made up of six of those brigades. Math is involved, unfortunately. I stopped paying attention after reading that.

There is no way Biden will debate Trump. Democrats who say Biden was fine in the primary debates neglect to point out that Biden was one of a dozen (?) on the stage and that Biden was speaking or the target of the others who spoke a small fraction of time. How will Biden handle being half of the debate? Especially if you consider that time since then hasn't been kind to Biden's mental capacity.

I don't think that normalizing trade with China was a mistake. I think normalizing Chinese espionage as the price of doing business with China was the mistake. A China plugged into the global system America designed but without thinking that China can get away with murder while in it would be much better now (and weaker).

Putin will want to nip this in the bud. 

Well that's certainly inconvenient for the narrative. 

That was great. The outrage of the comrades was better.

"Biden says American suburbs will be destroyed by fires, floods, and “superstorms” if Trump is reelected." By election day he will be predicting a full slate of Biblical plagues. Tip to Instapundit.

Russian military exercises in Belarus this month and next month make me nervous.

Has Chicago (and other cities) been sacrificed with the lockdown craziness for the purpose of dragging Biden over the finish line? "Two weeks to bend the curve" made sense. And even tacking on a couple more weeks just in case was okay. But it became a lockdown until Democrats say "science" says so. And I wouldn't be shocked if the only "science" is the election of Biden. Or maybe the reaction to the open-ended sentence of confinement will cause a voter backlash.

The wounded China continues to push its neighbors.

"Crimes against humanity." I'm shocked that a UN human rights investigation would say anything mildly bad about Maduro's socialist Hell hole.

From the Israeli perspective, Erdogan's energetic efforts to expand influence throughout the former Ottoman Empire is disturbing. Note the 5,000 Turkish troops in Qatar, which has a dispute with Saudi Arabia. So we have a three-way contest to lead the Moslem Middle East: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey.

Shouldn't we be on to the next BS "scandal" by now?

What part of "state-owned enterprise" was unclear all this time? 

Did President Obama warp the ideological make up of O-7s and up? I don't know enough to evaluate this. Although too many retired ones seem willing to intervene in our politics.

"State That Just Voted To Reduce Penalties For Pedophiles Not Sure Why God Keeps Lighting Them On Fire" Hahaha!

China's blackmail and bribery database. Via Instapundit.

Are Democrats working themselves up into a paranoid frenzy that could turn violent after the election? I tend to think this is just cynical pre-election work to convince people to vote Democratic out of fear of violence. But they've been in this turn-it-to-11 Resistance frenzy for so long that I worry they might believe their own BS. But even if they are, I suspect this will be restricted to the usual communist Antifa/BLM suspects egged on by the Twitter universe--which hardly represents America. Via Instapundit.

A new dawn for U.S.-Democratic Republic of Congo relations?

I'm of two minds on the issue of whether America has too many officers or not. On the one hand, we have too many for day-to-day operations. On the other hand, if our military ever had to be expanded we'd need those officers who can't be trained quickly in an expansion. It would be nice to get the excess out of chains of command, of course to avoid slowing down decision-making. But how?  

Ukraine is still struggling to build a real democracy. Rule of law is vital. I've warned that without rule of law Ukraine will just be a smaller version of Russia and unable to generate sufficient combat power to defeat a major invasion.

The Dutch are again showing their mistrust of the European Union. With Britain leaving the Dutch feel out of place and alone on the continent. The Dutch should be wary. The proto-imperial EU seeks to get rid of the prefix. If the Netherlands wants to remain free rather than be a mere province, it should follow Britain. If Britain can forge trade ties with Europe despite EU desires to punish Britain for Brexit (and deter smaller states from following suit) the Dutch might be emboldened to leave. America should support that. The Dutch were among the few countries that actually fought with their Afghanistan contingent. As I've said, we can have friends in Europe. But Europe will not be America's friends.

Somebody got their Biden decoder ring!

Letting "science" determine Xi Jinping Flu pandemic policy. To Hell with them. They have little credibility left as the defenders of sacred "science."

More serious prison time, please.

The U.S. will try to enforce UN sanctions on Iran on its own after the UNSC rejected "snapback" sanctions. I never believed snapback provisions had any legs.

The Russians are one step from declaring Venusians ethnic Russians, aren't they? Then it will be Russian "little green men" versus Venus little green men.

It has puzzled me that pundits claim ignorant Republicans reject masks and social distancing when I see young people violating those practices. To me it seemed highly unlikely that all those young people are all conservatives. It may be a matter of giving young people advice on how to safely be young people rather than just telling them don't do this and don't do that.

I haven't seen evidence that Antifa is trying to make forest fires worse by deliberately setting them. But it would not be beyond them given that Hamas has for years been trying to set fires in Israel with their kite (and balloon, I believe) incendiary campaigns launched from Gaza.

"Cause and effect" is apparently an alien concept to people on the left.

Yes, the news is largely dead and replaced with partisan propaganda. I think "journalism" schools have done more harm than good.

I'm supposed to wring my hands that mostly left-leaning Europeans don't like Trump? I was rightly skeptical that European love of Obama would help America much. And today NATO is arming up to contain Russia despite Europeans not liking Trump. I can live with that.

Again, I'm really pissed at teacher unions for refusing to go back to work in schools where the most disadvantaged could use in-person learning. But teachers might have old relatives at home! It's unsafe, they say! I guess we are all lucky that grocery store workers and every other essential employee out at work is single without any vulnerable relatives at home or in their life. To Hell with the teacher unions.

I remain confused at how "mostly peaceful" protests with so few riots, arson, looting, and murder that violence can only be called a Republican myth can turn out to be the most costly unrest in American insurance history.

I'm sure we'll appropriately file China's complaints about American-Taiwanese relations:

 

There are reasons for China to invade Taiwan soon. But would China take that risk? This is my portion of that Military Review issue.

I've mentioned that Democrats will have problems replacing Biden once mail-in voting starts. How do Democrats handle losing votes for Biden when Biden is no longer on the ballot? So these dates for state mail-in voting pretty much define the deadlines.

The United States says Hezbollah has established caches of ammonium nitrate across Europe for terror attacks. I wonder why this was public and not quietly told to European governments? Is America worried that Europeans will look the other way if Hezbollah promised the Europeans to "only" attack American or Israeli targets and spare Europeans?

Words have consequences. Hahahahahaha!

Is the Xi Jinping Flu pandemic crisis essentially over in America? By this measure, yes. To be clear, this doesn't mean the virus is gone. But the crisis is over and now we have a more routine problem to cope with. Tip to Instapundit.

Virtual Red Flag training.

European cooperation with Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline just gives Russia leverage to blackmail Europeans and--by providing an alternative to pipelines that cross Ukraine--is a weapon against Ukraine daring to act like an independent nation free of Russian control. The latter should be a warning to the Europeans about what Russia is thinking. Don't collude with Russia on this weapon. [Edited for bad link.]

Should the United States recognize Taiwan's ability to participate in international bodies over Chinese objections? Would that trigger a Chinese war on Taiwan on the condition of Taiwan making a move toward independence?

Will the Navy extend the service life of the carrier Nimitz? And a couple more that followed. I must be old. I remember that first-of-class ship entering the fleet and being pretty excited about it.

So ... whose influence was he peddling?

Please adjust your worship of Europe for their handling of the Xi Jinping Flu pandemic. As I've said, wait until this is over before comparing national efforts. And be sure to use uniform definitions and control for national differences in population vulnerability.

DANGER! DANGER! DANGER! Never mind.

What doesn't increase discrimination against Egypt's beleaguered Christians? Odd that blame should fall on them so easily given that nobody calls the covid19 virus the Christian Flu. Via Instapundit.

I heard someone say the Democratic plan is to ease Biden out of the presidential nomination, move Kamala Harris up to the top slot, and bring in a Bernie-type leftist for the VP slot. That seems unlikely. Why would the Democratic Party make such major efforts to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination in two primary campaigns only to throw a slot to him or someone like him? I think the effort--if it happens before the swearing in--will be to replace Biden but keep Harris where she is. And I think it has to happen before early voting begins to avoid wasting votes for Biden who won't be there. Or Democrats go all the way through the swearing in and 25th Amendment Joe out of the way. Hopefully Trump wins handily and the whole thing remains hypothetical.

Two weeks ago I observed: Is it just me or is yelling "Black Lives Matter" while looting a store the American version of jihadis yelling "Allahu Akbar!" while killing infidels? I should have offered a more direct comparison. Via Instapundit.

Nimitz and her escorts transited the Strait of Hormuz, I assume to enter the Persian Gulf. I do not like our capital ships in the Persian Gulf.

Huh.

Justice Ginsburg passed away. 

Likely to be all too accurate some time in the next six weeks.

While I disagree with the idea that Trump hasn't tried to reach out to those who didn't vote for him in 2016--I think he hasn't tried to reach out to the relentless turn--it-to-11 Resistance that has opposed him from day one--this defense of the Electoral College is needed. I think mine is much better. And this is better than that:

Oddly, a convention to ban landmines by countries with no use for landmines has not stopped use of landmines or deaths from them.

Yeah:

Well, mourning for Ruth Bader Ginsburg without politics rushing in didn't last long. I'm unsure of whether it would help Trump more to have a Supreme Court nomination battle now to provoke Democrats into the kind of insanity that the Kavanaugh nomination demonstrated; or if it would be better to delay the nomination until after the election to give conservatives on the fence or even in opposition to Trump a motive to vote for Trump. And would that delay protect moderate Republicans in tight election battles? Would just dangling the possibility of nominating someone to the court prior to the election provoke leftist extremists into violence and insanity, thus reminding people about what Democrats have been supporting, without actually doing so? Given Democratic thinking about packing the court by expanding it, the question is tactical only for Republicans. Certainly don't think a delay even until next year would build good will with Democrats. Remember, too, Obama nominated a justice in 2016. Was he wrong?

I'm not terribly sure how much Putin cares if Belarusians hate Russia if Russia gets to control Belarus.

This is an interesting discussion of long-term thinking and short-term thinking by China and America over Taiwan that sets out the idea that rising powers like China are naturally long-term thinkers because they are weaker; while established powers like America are short-term thinkers because their strength pushes them to seek short-term gains because long-term adverse impacts are far away and uncertain. This makes far more sense and is worthy of inquiry than the silly notion that the Chinese are somehow naturally long-term thinkers. My contribution to that Military Review issue is here. The interesting part is that American and Chinese time horizons regarding Taiwan will get closer together as power converges.

Will the West Coast fires suppress voter turnout in the election? Or will the fires be under control well before then? If there are fewer voters it won't have any effect on how Californiaand Washington (Oregon is all-mail now, so that shouldn't be affected, right?) go in the Electoral College, coukld enough voters sit it out to give Trump a popular vote win? I can't imagine the fires not subsiding by then but how long do they have to rage to have an effect?

Is China's economic relationship with Taiwan a stranglehold on Taiwan that will draw Taiwan toward the mainland? My contribution to that Military Review issue is here. 

Security around the president had best be tight because violent nutballs could react to the constant barrage of Trump-as-Hitler slander. Seriously. Via Instapundit.

Regardless of my speculation about tactical considerations--and I'm no political strategist--Trump looks like he will not shy away from a Supreme Court fight before the election.

The U.S. sent 6 armored personnel carriers with fewer than 100 troops to reinforce the small easern Syria contingent. I'll guess this is just a platoon-sized element.