Changing My Mind

Every once in a while I read or hear that serious analysts should be able to change their minds on issues.

That's tough because views evolve and it can be hard to say when the view has evolved enough to be a change.

Further, it is easy to forget issues where you've changed your mind.

So I took a stab at the issue for me. It must be incomplete because of the problems above. But here we go.

1. The UN is useless and America should get out of the anti-American body exploited by our enemies.

Given how many times our enemies have used the UN to attack America, it was once easy to want to dump the UN. At one time I thought that the democracies of the world should have their own separate international body. Which would de-legitimize the UN. 

But now I think it is better to have a body where everyone--no matter how odious--can talk. Isolating aggressors and rogues just lets them stew in their own anger and hate out of sight and out of mind. But the anger and hate does not go away.

And I think that it is foolish to think democracies will automatically support America. Indeed, opposition from democracies would hurt us more than opposition from a body largely composed of autocrats.

So keep the UN. Kill agencies that are taken over by our enemies. And remember some UN bodies do some good.

Oh, and could we move the UN complex from New York City to Halifax, Nova Scotia? Canadians wouldn't mind, right?

2. America should use mercenary combat units to supplement our regular Army.

That was the rage during the Iraq War when recruiting got difficult. I thought that might be possible to do to meet the demand. It would be temporary.

In the end, I rejected mercenaries. I worried about the price America would pay if we could not get Americans or legal residents to enlist. Better to do whatever we need to do to recruit from here than start going down a path where the military is not part of America because it is not recruited from America.

Of course, I worry our flag officers have grown apart from the military and pose a different threat to American security. But that's a different issue.

3. The Korean War was a draw.

For a long time that seemed obvious. Yes, we initially defended South Korea from invasion. But we did not stop at the 38th parallel. We tried to unite all of Korea. And then China intervened as our troops approached the Chinese border. The Chinese drove the American-led UN forces back across the 38th. We lost Seoul again. But we clawed our way back north to roughly restore the pre-war border at the current DMZ.

Had we stopped at the 38th initially, I'd have called it a win. Because we escalated our objective and failed. It was a draw, despite ultimately preserving South Korea. 

And in the years that followed, a South Korea that was an autocracy seemed better than the brutal North Korea. But South Korea was not a democracy. And it was initially more poor than the industrialized north.

But eventually, South Korea evolved into a democracy. And South Korea built up its economy to be modern and efficient. South Korea became a producer rather than a consumer of security. Looking at a free and advanced South Korea that is part of the West makes it clear that the war was a victory. It just took many decades before that victory became apparent.

4. Gay marriage. 

In my younger days, I was against gay marriage. I didn't hate or even dislike gay people. I just saw marriage as inherently an institution for men and women. What part of "alternative lifestyle" was unclear? You be you and we'll be us.

But it was never a high priority issue for me. So as society evolved to accept it, I had little interest in fighting it. If gay people want the joys of marriage--and divorce--enjoy. Hey, my history hasn't been a stout defense of the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.

Besides, I figured, if marriage is a foundation of traditionalism, it would be hilarious if gay marriage eventually turned more gay people into conservatives. Welcome to the party, pal.

5. The 2nd Amendment is not an individual right.

Again, in my younger days I didn't think much about the Second Amendment. I valued the right but didn't see the harm in conceding that it didn't limit reasonable restrictions on it.

As I got older and read more about the issue, I changed my mind. And as I saw that the left was unwilling to stop at reasonable restrictions, that base of my amorphous view collapsed. So yeah, it is an individual right. And law-abiding people exercising that right is a foundation of our freedom from both government and criminals, who can't be sure their victims are helpless.

6. Aircraft carriers are vital for the Navy to control the seas.

I loved carriers. Their role in winning the war against Japan in World War II was a thrilling history. And in the Cold War, the carriers were vital for hot wars and for holding back the Soviets. I was glad that Harpoon anti-ship missiles spread our offensive power beyond the carriers. But carriers were queens of the fleet. I had some worries about the Russian ships and subs that trailed our carriers to fire on them the moment war broke out. But I wasn't worried about losing many and figured those that survived would be valuable.

Eventually, a couple decades ago, I began to see the proliferation of cheaper and longer-range anti-ship missiles integrated into a persistent surveillance network as the effective end of expensive carriers for sea control missions. 

Sure, the carriers are great against minor powers without the ability to find let alone attack the carriers off their coast. But masses of missiles fired from dispersed enemy assets unified by a surveillance and communications network would signal the dominance of network-centric warfare over the platform-centric warfare in which the super carriers were the pinnacle of massing firepower on a single platform.

So yeah, I want to see our super carriers dwindle in number over many decades, in favor of more ships and subs taking their place.

7. China is our ally.

I was happy to have China as an ally against the Soviet Union. It was a marriage of convenience. But it was useful. Sure, they were Commie bastards. But the more threatening Commie bastards in the USSR were the priority. So bolster their ground forces to inflict damage on the Red Army if it attacked China.

The collapse of the USSR and the rise of China led me to abandon that. China was now the next big threat. Heck, I hoped a post-Soviet Russia would join the West. At best on the latter, I can only say that Russia hasn't decided to join the West yet.

Before the September 11, 2001 jihadi terror attacks on America, I was already working on an article that argued we had to think about how to fight China in a ground war. We were getting used to the concept of preparing for Major Theater Wars (or Major Theater Conflicts) against smaller threats like Saddam's Iraq or North Korea.

The war on terror ended any Army bandwidth that notion might have had. I remember getting my paper essay I mailed to Parameters on the issue returned shortly after 9/11 all brown from whatever they had done to it to neutralize Anthrax. Remember that?

Since then I rewrote the essay from different angles. All were rejected. Until I managed to get it published in Military Review in 2018. My view was finally ready for consideration.

8 & 9. I've changed my mind twice on Donald Trump.

I've had a complicated relationship with Trump. I had a long history of despising him as a New York loud-mouthed Democrat. I didn't trust his claim to be a Republican when he began putting his toe in the political waters. I thought he was a Democrat in Republican clothing, notwithstanding his welcome stance on the side of blue collar workers. That's where I came from. 

So when he got traction in the primaries for the 2016 election, he was literally the last candidate I wanted to win. He won anyway. And he faced the equally odious Hillary Clinton whose deep immersion in corruption led me to despair. I could read polls. I did not see how my vote could help defeat Clinton in Michigan. And even if that was true, I didn't see how Michigan could affect the election that would put Hillary! in the White House. So I did not vote for Trump. I voted for whoever the Libertarian candidate was.

When Clinton lost, I was over-joyed. Ecstatic even. I was never worried about him becoming a dictator and assumed his Republican staff would steer him away from what I felt were his left-wing tendencies.

Democrats did two things. They turned the dial of Resistance to 11 and kept it there, with the most ridiculous charges and reactions. All bolstered by the media and--as we've discovered--the permanent bureaucracy, to their eternal shame. The sheer unfairness of the attacks pushed me toward Trump. 

The Democrats also rejected working with Trump. I thought Trump would work with Democrats on spending bills both could support. Instead, Democrats forced Trump to be more Republican in policies, which reassured me. And obviously, despite the insane worries of the left, Trump did not become a dictator in any way.

So I enthusiastically voted for him in 2020. His style still grated me at some level. But the overreaction of Democrats got me to appreciate his humor more. And his policies were largely fine from my perspective. And where they were not--like spending too much money--was he that different from past Republican presidents?

But while Trump was deprived of an earned reelection by his mistakes in Covid pandemic over-reaction and from the relentless Democratic media propaganda campaign against him (and yes, the likelihood--but I've seen no proof--is that mail-in voting was designed to welcome voter fraud that could not be detected), his behavior since then has eroded my support for him.

Now, while I thank him for what he did, admire him for enduring the onslaught against him, and regret his defeat in 2020, I'm moving on. I supported Trump because of his policies. The policies he promoted were key--not him personally. He has sniped at Republicans, denying the Republicans control of the Senate--twice!--and oddly violating Reagan's 11th Commandment not to attack fellow Republicans. And Trump is getting old. We can see what having a barely sentient empty suit in the Oval Office looks like. I won't risk that again with my vote. 

I understand Republicans who don't like Trump. But I still don't get the Never Trumpers who did not come around to make the best of having Trump in office after he won in 2016. I don't like how their opposition to Trump has morphed into support for Democrats who are pushed left by Twitter activists.

But that's in the past. I have never elevated presidents into a god. They are tools for policy. Despite everything done to Trump,  I must look to the future. So thank you for your service, President Trump. I wish you the best in your post-presidential endeavors. But I want your endeavors to be post-presidential.

10. Congress is the only body able to declare a legitimate war.

The power to declare war is a Congressional power and is enshrined in the Constitution. We haven't issued a declaration of war since World War II. That seemed disturbing at some level.

But really, that has not limited our wars. As commander-in-chief, the president can order the military into action. Seemingly in defiance of the Constitutional provision.

Indeed, early on our country waged wars without a declaration of war and without drawing concern from the people who had actually built our country. The Quasi-War with France at sea. And the Tripolitan War, and extended campaign against North African pirate states.

The United Nations system also erased a reason for declaring war. Declaring war once triggered international law powers for states declaring war. That body of law and custom was ended by the UN system. Further, declaring war triggers presidential war powers that nobody wanted triggered for smaller wars. But nobody wanted to end that trigger when a nuclear attack might make it impossible for Congress to grant a president those powers with any speed following an attack on America.

Further, it was once probably much easier to distinguish between Congressional war power and presidential commander-in-chief powers. With no standing army and a small navy (which large oceans and old technology made an easy risk to take as enemies tried to project power across an ocean), the president couldn't start too much of a war on his own--note my examples above were largely naval wars--without Congress voting to raise those armies and build a larger navy. 

Now we have a large standing military, removing that Congressional brake on presidential powers. Based on early history and recent practice, it is clear that we can go to war by Congressional declaration of war, authorization to use force resolutions by Congress, or simply by Congress agreeing to fund the war that the president embarks on (with or without UN authorization).

And my former view that a declaration of war ensured that the people would back the wars until victory was naive, really. Congress backed wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, yet public support eroded over time.

So legitimate war under the current situation is spread more widely than one would think by a narrow reading of the Constitution.

11. The central role of main battle tanks in land warfare. 

Tanks provide mobile, protected firepower to break a stalemate based on too much firepower on too small of a frontage. I've long defended the central role of armored vehicles in land warfare. Twenty years ago in Military Review I warned against the urge to build a "wonder tank" that tried to create a light and strategically mobile, lethal, and well protected "tank" to solve all the problems we had sending tanks overseas to fight and win.

I'm not quite turning against tanks. I've long figured the sheer numbers and more complicated nature of land warfare slowed down the trends I'd seen affecting carrier survivability.

But I now think that we might be entering an era when alternatives to the large and expensive main battle tank engaged in direct fire combat must be considered. We still need mobile, protected firepower if we want to avoid static wars of attrition.

My guess now is we need a new "Sherman" tank that is adequate and cheap, with a focus on crew survival. And the vehicle should probably be more of an indirect shooter plugged into a persistent surveillance network whether on defense or attack, advancing without emphasizing closing with an enemy for direct fire combat.

How we get there is unclear. And maybe we get a different form of mobile, protected firepower to retain mobility on the battlefield. I just don't think bigger and more expensive tanks is how we will get there.

12. The A-10 as a close support aircraft.

I have affection for the A-10. I remember reading my brother's Army Reserve magazine when I was a lad and it had a story on the new ground support aircraft. I remember during basic training hearing the chain gun fire as the aircraft used our night firing exercise as a way to practice strafing runs forward of troop lines. And in my National Guard unit, my vehicle was A-10, which we nicknamed Warthog in honor of the plane.

The plane was designed to go low and slow while surviving ground fire to support ground troops in action against masses of enemy tanks. It was outstanding.

But technology moves on. Ground defenses are more lethal. Ground support can be provided from a distance with stand-off precision weapons guided by better forward observer technology.

So yes, the Air Force has a point when it says the A-10 can't come in slow and low against peer military enemies.

But. The A-10 is good against insurgents in a slow and low attack profile. And for peer enemies, the A-10 has been modified to use stand-off weapons out of range of ground air defenses. So that isn't an issue.

Ultimately, I defend the A-10 not because of the plane characteristics themselves--it is in fact very old--but because the A-10 exists as a dedicated ground support plane for ground troops. I'd be fine with a new close air support plane for the Air Force.

But the Air Force doesn't want a replacement for the A-10. The Air Force wants the F-35 multi-role plane to take over the role. When it isn't busy with missions that have a higher priority with Air Force planners than responding to Army calls for immediate air support.

For me it is a matter of trust in the Air Force. Despite its outstanding record during the war on terror and in the initial Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, I don't have trust on this issue based on the long history of the Air Force campaign to kill the A-10 by hook or crook.

Perhaps if the Air Force organized and trained some of its F-35 squadrons exclusively for close air support, I'd be more comfortable getting rid of the A-10 before it finally must die from old age without a replacement.

So there you go. Many times I've discovered old posts that show I do not change my views on a basic issue just because a different president is in office. I've occasionally noted those as I found them. But I never looked at the other side of the coin. I explained more than I intended when I started this. I spent 15 minutes pondering changing views over my life. I'm sure I've missed many. But the examples are enough that I think you can see I can change my mind. And that changing my mind is based on changing facts rather than being a pursuit of the trendy or popular--or politically motivated to back "my" team.

Thank you for reading The Dignified Rant. I'll be here in the new year. May it be happy and good for America.

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

Suddenly Unsustainable Casualties?

Casualties didn't destroy the Afghanistan military in 2021. Being abandoned by America destroyed the Afghanistan military.

Eric emailed me about an analyst who thought Afghanistan casualties precluded a hope that a minimal American involvement in the war could have sustained the government in its fight against the Taliban. Specifically, the charge is that America's war in Afghanistan was doomed because Afghanistan's special forces were losing 1,200 per month.

This clearly isn't KIA since that would exceed the total force size with killed, wounded, and missing per year. The special forces loss number at least must include wounded and missing. And even that interpretation indicates losing half of the special forces per year. 

Does it include those whose terms of service expired? And was that a particularly bad month? A recent month? Or an average over a longer period of time? The figure is too vague to draw sweeping conclusions, no? Certainly the American soldier cited in the article for that figure didn't believe it was critical given his view that more time training the Afghan troops prepare could have helped them endure our withdrawal.

But more to the point, Afghanistan security forces fought for years with heavy casualties. Nearly 70,000 died over 20 years. With the numbers heavily weighted toward the end after we expanded Afghanistan's forces and turned over primary fighting duties to them. The total is not much more than the much smaller Taliban force's casualties--about 53,000 killed, plus 2,000 al Qaeda killed.

And keep in mind that the vast majority of Afghanistan's 30,000 "special forces" were simply adequately trained, equipped, and led infantry that did the bulk of the fighting (the rest of the army troops were basically static garrison troops). Don't think of them as Afghanistan's version of our special forces operators--which would absolutely be crippled with 1,200 losses of all kinds in a year, let alone a month.

In fact, America had a long history of worrying if Afghanistan's military could endure its casualties. It clearly did endure them. Right up until America abandoned them. 

Remember, our military--which knew the casualties as we pulled out in the summer of 2021--assumed the Afghan government forces could fight on for two years before collapsing, even without us there at all. Yet when we left, the collapse was immediate. That wasn't a sudden coincidental result of too-heavy casualties. That was a result of feeling abandoned.

UPDATE: I should add this related post.

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

Bad Military Leadership is Weakening Our Military

The military is a unique institution that requires its members to kill--and die--as a natural part of its mission. Senior officers acting as if the American military is just a big bureaucracy in need of woke Environmental, Social, and Governance compliance officers is a path to self-destruction. For the good of our country we need a vigorous decimation of our flag officers.

Our woke flag officers have politicized our military. 

Yes, [our senior officers should deflect political questions to the civilian realm and focus on the core functions of their military profession]. However, in the last few years we have seen the most senior uniformed members of the military from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley, USA and the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gidlay, USN happily jump forward to weigh hip deep in to the most divisive domestic political cultural war topics – specifically racial essentialism.

While Schake does mention this later in the article obliquely, it is important to understand when in front of the people’s elected representatives, Milley expended substantial institutional and personal capital arguing about how critical it was to his job to understand, “white rage.”

Gilday on multiple occasions promoted and defended the cancerous racial essentialism of Ibram X. Kendi. Taking that example from his boss, the Chief of Naval Personnel let one of the worst kept secrets out and, well, let’s let him speak for himself and the institution he serves.

I've been upset with active and retired senior officers interjecting views on political issues; and I'm unhappy that politicians hide behind military leaders for political decisions. This dynamic hasn't raised the trustworthiness of politicians but has lowered the trustworthiness of our officers.

Politicians are expected to be untrustworthy. Our officers should have better judgment given the trust we've placed in them. But no, our military leadership sees many substitutes for victory. 

Damn them to Hell for undermining fine institutions we desperately need to protect America. We must purge their ranks. 

Now to be fair, a major problem is bureaucratic bloat that burdens combat unit leaders and distracts them from preparing to fight. If not wokeness, other BS would infiltrate the military, demanding paperwork that leaches combat capacity.

And yeah, we specifically need accountability for the American defeat in Afghanistan that the Biden administration pretends was a glorious achievement. We did not need to lose that war.

We will lose more wars if our senior officers don't focus on winning wars instead of winning faculty room debates on politics.

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

The Grand Strategery of Running Away

Please make the stupid stop. America absolutely needs to defend Europe.

The Ukraine war does not prove Europe is capable of defending itself. 

The threat of Russia overrunning and dominating Europe—the fear that led Cold War strategists to keep U.S. forces in Europe—is inconceivable today. U.S. policymakers should avoid threat inflation and seek a more equitable relationship with prosperous European allies. Adhering to a policy out of habit rather than adapting it to conform to reality is folly. The United States has served as Europe’s primary defender for over seven decades. It is high time that Europe provides for its own defense. If the largest war in Europe since the Second World War does not prompt that change, what will?

This analysis is pure idiocy, in my opinion. A Europe left to is own defenses is too risky given the importance of Europe to our economy and national security.

One, that judgment about sufficient European power applies to a Russian all-out drive to the Rhine River trying to overrun Europe. I readily concede that Europe could eventually stop a Russian drive well short of that, given how far east Russia has been pushed. But what then? Is a Europe plunged into war really a good thing? Just a war in Ukraine is harming the world, including America. 

Two, the threat should not be judged solely on whether Russia could overrun Europe in a single campaign. When the USSR sat in East Germany, a short drive to the Rhine River would have shattered NATO. It took centuries for Moscow to reach East Germany. Russia could pick off smaller targets than Ukraine and hold them off with nuclear threats if America isn't there to organize the fractured European military efforts. Lather, rinse, repeat--and grow relatively stronger.

Three, Russia's military can get stronger. Don't assume Russia must always be as weak as it is now. 

Four, Europe is an objective as well as an ally. America has interests in protecting Europe even if Europe disarmed.

Five, we should not want a united Europe capable of organizing its fractured military power. The divisions are a feature and not a bug. Don't assume our friends would control the united military of Europe.

Six, if you think America shouldn't need nearly as much military power to defend Europe from Russia compared to when the threat was the USSR,  well ... mission accomplished! 

At the height of the Cold War America had lots of troops in Europe with large numbers of tanks, artillery, and aircraft. In the seas around Europe, the American Navy roamed to contain the Soviet navy and keep lines of supply from North America to Europe intact. America's troop level in Europe--even with enhancements to reassure NATO allies while Russia is at war with Ukraine--is a tiny fraction of Cold War commitments. Compare the 100,000+ American troops in Europe now--up from 80,000 in the month before Russia invaded this year--to the 450,000+ Americans in Europe in 1959, the peak year of troop strength there.

And seven, why do so many so-called strategists seem to think even a small commitment of American power is too much to defend a victory? Maybe Ukraine's resistance shows what even a small American presence in Europe can achieve indirectly to keep the Russians at bay. American military support has been the most important by volume, easily. Maybe the Russian invasion of Ukraine proves that America is in fact crucial to keeping the peace in Europe because Russia will free to strike where America isn't.

Blood and steel have returned to Europe. A relatively small American commitment to NATO puts together the pieces of European power as an ally and reduces the risk of a Russian or EU threat to Europe. This is not the time to pretend we have no need to protect what we've won over the last century in Europe.

Being penny wise and pound foolish is not grand strategy.

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

Total War at Sea Shielding a Subliminal Border War

China continues to gnaw at India's border. India must bolster its ability to repel the Chinese and advance their own border claims. And prepare for responding to a Chinese escalation when China's subliminal offensive is contested and thwarted.

India revealed that China tried to push the border in China's favor on December 9th:

Rajnath Singh, who addressed lawmakers in Parliament, said the Friday's encounter along the Tawang sector of eastern Arunachal Pradesh state started when Chinese troops “encroached into Indian territory” and “unilaterally tried to change the status quo” along the disputed border near the Yangtze River area.

Singh said no Indian soldiers were seriously hurt and troops from both sides withdrew from the area soon afterward. A statement from the Indian army on Monday said troops on both sides suffered minor injuries.

This is the part of a long-term Chinese strategy of crowding the border.

Can India build a military strong enough to defeat China? After brutal hand-to-hand combat on the disputed India-China border in 2020, India has sobered up about the China threat: 

"Following Galwan, China after decades was perceived by the Indian public and policymakers as a clear and present challenge," says Dhruva Jaishankar, executive director of the Observer Research Foundation America, a think-tank. "There was a wider realisation that the military power of China could not be managed by diplomatic agreements alone, and would require India to take its own military and economic steps."

India redeployed 6 divisions from the Pakistan front to the border with China as a result. This marks a continuation of Pakistan's demotion as the pacing threat for India's military. 

The threat to India is all across the common border, as the FT article notes:

Yet some analysts believe new clashes with China are likely, and not only in Ladakh. Analysts believe the risk is greatest in the far north-eastern state of Arunachal Pradesh, where India’s troops are more thinly spread and its infrastructure less developed, and the entirety of which China considers part of Tibet and claims as its territory.

But the question of whether India can build a superior military isn't just a China-India equation. And the sub-equations of particular conflict scenarios are more important than the top-line balance. 

One, China faces more potential enemies that occupy China's military power than India faces, notwithstanding the FT article's caution for India:

“The Chinese look at the US as their peer competitor,” says Joshi. “That is trouble for India, since the Chinese effort and resources being deployed to take on the US will give them a capability boost that India cannot hope to match.”

That is true enough narrowly. But the bigger picture is that China marks America as its peer competitor not for some abstract reason of promoting Chinese military power. But because the vast majority of China's power must face America and its allies in the western Pacific. 

India has to worry about Pakistan. China has to worry about Vietnam, Taiwan, Australia, Indonesia, America, Japan, South Korea, and Russia. Oh, and its own subjects in Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong.

This applies to China's superior nuclear arsenal. I imagine India has enough of a nuclear deterrent to keep China's nukes in their silos during a war:

India on Thursday successfully test-fired a long-range “Agni-5” intercontinental nuclear-capable ballistic missile, a government minister said, that is expected to strengthen its deterrence against long-time rival China.

Two, a Chinese invasion of India can't go far. First, Tibet isn't the best power projection platform. China can't mass a lot of its power on the border even if it could afford to ignore other potential enemies. And second, India can afford to reinforce because Pakistan is outclassed as an opponent. And because both India and Pakistan have nukes, decisive conventional gains are likely limited by the threat of escalation.

Assuming India builds up infrastructure there that for a long time was left insufficient as a deliberate policy to slow down Chinese advances into India. As China builds up the infrastructure on its side of the border, India has a lot to do to catch up.

Three, if China goes big even on the limited Himalayan front, India has a trump card at sea that will devastate China's economy. China's navy is superior to India's, but will have problems sustaining a fight in the Indian Ocean to keep sea trade routes open there. China can't afford to lose its seaborne trade for long.

And how much of China's naval power does it want to dispatch toward India when South Korea, Japan, America, Australia, and other countries loom over China's coast?

Indeed, with increased Indian ties to foes of China east of the Strait of Malacca, China may have problems reaching India's first line of defense holding the eastern entry to the Indian Ocean:

India is already building a screen at its Andaman and Nicobar island chain. But Chinese nuclear subs have other paths to reach Indian home waters. Holding the line east of the Malacca Strait line will reduce China's ability to exploit their capability to rain down anti-ship ballistic missiles on Indian ports and home waters.

The result is that India can focus much of their defense efforts on a harder small-scale border defense that resists China's small-scale grab-and-gab strategy, and actually returns the favor to make China pay a price for the tactic in a persistent subliminal war that matches China's aggression, secure in the knowledge that India can act at sea if China escalates on the border too much.

An important part of India holding the northern border (and supporting it's island line of defense at sea) is finally addressing India's longstanding desperate need for modern fighter aircraft. Quality will matter in this kind of low-level running subliminal war along the border. Especially if India has to fight small-but-intense Kargil Wars with China periodically.

The FT article notes that India's choice to prioritize building its own arms industry rather than purchasing arms is a handicap. That's kind of true. But the real problem is India's corrupt and slow-moving defense procurement bureaucracy that undermines domestic design and production as well as delays needed purchases from abroad. A prime example is that fighter plane purchase agony that pretends to be a procurement process.

The FT article notes: 

For New Delhi, the objective at least in the short term is to avoid a confrontation that will expose the gulf in capabilities between China and India.

I'm not sure how much of a brake on India's actions that capabilities gulf is for India. India is far weaker than China. But India faces a far weaker Pakistan as a far smaller drain on its military power than China must cope with. Which means India can go toe-to-toe in the small scale subliminal border war that so far China has been winning.

UPDATE: This is downright silly:

With limited and manageable conflict in the Himalayas, the Chinese are testing the will of the United States to check China’s muscle flexing and the strength of burgeoning American partnerships in the Indo-Pacific, especially the one with India.

Jesus, people. Not everything is about America. China has been pushing against India for a long time--long before America and India started moving closer--with no relationship to America.

China's attacks on India are certainly an opportunity for America to help India defend its border and tighten our defense relationships further. 

But China isn't testing America by attacking India. China is taking Indian territory and testing India.

UPDATE: China finds it can't rely on a weakened Pakistan to send messages to India and sees border clashes as a way to get India's attention:

However, this is gradually becoming a less valuable tool. As India expands its border infrastructure and strengthens its military, it will become increasingly difficult for China to achieve any significant military gains against India. The Yangtze clash is just one example of the changing dynamics on the Sino-Indian border.

Quite right, I think. China's superiority rested on India choosing not to harden their northern frontier. Which was a problem when Pakistan was the primary military threat to India.

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

The Winter War of 2022 Prepares to See How Lucky Putin Is

Putin has defined his special military operation to conquer Ukraine as a war for Russian survival against Nazis, NATO, and Satan himself. And Putin has made an effort to show he is finally taking charge of the war from his weak and inept commanders who have been blamed for Russia's faltering invasion. That's a lot of pressure on a partially trained, poorly led, and inadequately trained mass of new recruits.

Russia certainly plans to win this war:

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba stated on December 13 that indicators such as Russian mobilization efforts, the announcement of conscription, and the movement of heavy weaponry suggest that Russia may be preparing for a large-scale offensive in January and February 2023.

Russian efforts to portray Putin as taking charge of the Russian war effort is risky for Putin. Rather than being a master strategist playing Russia's bad hand with great skill as so many in the past wrongly portrayed Putin, Putin seems like he is bluffing and trying to draw to an inside straight.

Will Ukraine strike south first to cut off Russian-occupied Crimea along the Sea of Azov (and perhaps taking a bigger shot at the Kerch Strait bridge)? And try to break the morale of Russia's ground forces to preempt a Russian offensive? 

Or will Ukraine wait and let Russia get its new army bogged down in a new offensive? That would prevent Russia from using the new army to counter the Ukrainian southern counteroffensive. But it risks requiring Ukraine to commit reserves earmarked for the southern counteroffensive to holding off the Russian offensive. That might cripple the capacity of a southern counteroffensive to reach its objectives. Just getting a salient that doesn't cut Russian lines of supply could be counter-productive. Delaying a southern counteroffensive to first blunt a Russian offensive also risks granting time to Putin to reconstitute his forces if the threat of a new offensive with new forces is a bluff.

Russia's threat to reopen the northern front is unclear, according to ISW. And the timing if it is planned is unclear. Winter? Spring? And what would the purpose be? Conquest? Diverting Ukraine from the real renewed Russian offensive? I lean to the latter. I've mentioned that plugging new forces into existing lines of attack based on established supply lines would be easier than establishing a new one across a broader northern front. 

Could this choice depend on whether Belarus can be pushed into joining the war?  Lukashenko may fear his own people and possibly his lower ranking troops too much to listen to Putin's persuasion to join the war. But what if Putin stopped trying to persuade Lukashenko and went right to the "You might die from your people if you join the war; but I will absolutely kill you if you don't join me" stage?

I have no idea.

ISW wants the West to help Ukraine maintain its battlefield momentum; help regain the territory that Russia could exploit to renew its offensive deeper into Ukraine; weaken Russia's core military capabilities with more effective sanctions and improved Ukrainian capabilities; and prevent Russia from gaining propaganda advantages that weaken Western resolve. 

I'm hoping Ukraine can conduct an offensive this winter more decisive militarily than they've managed thus far.

UPDATE: Ukraine made a drone attack on a Russian air base deep inside Russia. Russia said it shot down the drone over the airfield. [It apparently looks more like a strike that hit.]

UPDATE (Tuesday): Russia and Ukraine seem to be trading blows on the Kharkov-Luhansk front. Is Ukraine on the cusp of a breakthrough?

UPDATE: Russian forces on the Bakhmut front seem to attack in squad strength now. The offensive may be culminating.

NOTE: ISW coverage continues here.

Weekend Data Dump

Merry Christmas! And my annual PSA if you have problems with using the word "Christmas" for your work parties this season.

Russia's artillery ammunition woes. 

China's global poaching in search. China angers a number of countries with valuable fishing grounds.

The B-21 is more than a stealth bomber: "Allvin credited Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall for challenging the Air Force to see the B-21 'a little bit differently, not as just the next B-2, but as a part of a family of systems' that can generate a range of different effects and challenges to an adversary." So, is this a stealth "truck" that could carry even long-range air-to-air weapons that other assets fire with their own targeting?

As I've gotten older and watched two parents decline and die, I've concluded that the best thing I can do for my children is to hang on to life hard. While it was difficult to watch my parents decline knowing the end was inexorably advancing, in the end that helped. I knew I had done what was within my power to help. And I knew that death had become a release from misery rather than a loss of future life and happiness. I know they rest in peace. So that will have to be my final gift to my children. God willing.

India's demographic window of opportunity to expand its economy. It's a race to get rich before getting old.

Well that's what I'd try to do: "'Russia is trying to build up a better striking force rather than just throwing people into the front line,' Crump said. 'They think they can last the course and come back in greater numbers next year and do something much more impressive then.'" Better to build a reserve to try to do something decisive than to simply feed all your new men into a meat grinder on the front. Assuming you can hold the front and assuming the reserve you build is adequately trained, equipped, led, and supplied. We'll see.

The Islam will continue until Iranian morale improves.

Living in his own private Idaho. The media "fact checkers" will be brutal on this. LOL. I crack myself up. Tip to Instapundit.

It's nice when someone does something that decent and it pays off for him.

House Republicans will release its view on the January 6th riot as the Democrats' committee releases its insurrection porn report. Despite four years of claiming Trump would establish a dictatorship, Congressional Democrats were oddly lax about Capitol Building security that day. Why? Tip to Instapundit.

A HMMWV-mounted 120mm mortar for American special forces. The article is silent on this, but I assume it includes precision ammunition.

Britain will send more military aid to Ukraine, with artillery rounds highlighted.

The EU is tightening sanctions that will hinder Russian military production.

Shit rolls downhill and doesn't stop flowing down until it passes the rank of colonel, apparently. Via PJ Media.

Lukashenko is apparently sending hard signals that Putin won't push Belarus into directly joining his invasion of Ukraine.

Germany's new Puma infantry fighting vehicles are too unreliable. So Germany is pulling old Marder IFVs out of storage to equip their unit assigned to the NATO Very High Readiness Joint Task Force. Meh. Just add more adjectives to the task force, I say.

Pakistani support for the Afghanistan Taliban is just riding a rabid tiger: "Several Pakistani Taliban detainees overpowered their guards at a counter-terrorism center in northwestern Pakistan overnight, snatching police weapons, taking hostages and seizing control of the facility, officials said Monday."

You just know the Taliban are telling everyone the stacks of cash being flown into Afghanistan is tribute from the defeated American infidels, right? Hard to argue we aren't the weak horse. Tip to PJ Media.

Verdun in the Donbas?

I take Kissinger's diplomatic advice on Ukraine with reservations. One, contra his statement, the winter is likely to see military action increase rather than pause. And two, Kissinger was at his height of power when the foreign policy establishment assumed the USSR was ascendant and that good diplomacy would manage America's decline with the fewest concessions. Still, I have no basic objection to his proposed objective of restoring Ukrainian borders to the pre-February 2022 invasion lines. Although I'd really like the option of Ukraine getting Crimea back with a Russian Sevastopol Base Area lease. The cost of liberating everything may push Ukraine to retreat from its expansive objectives now, without Western pressure.

Japan's dramatic rearmament is getting a lot of attention. I imagine it is designed to project power to protect Taiwan at America's side.

Can you even imagine any of our foes or enemies worrying about saving America from a "dangerous decline" in its power? I'm not convinced that China will think it must attack America if China's rise falters. Fuck nuance. Let China decline. Besides, how much does the CCP worry about China?

As the expression goes, big if true: "Entire divisions of Russian army are surrendering[.]" But it is not true. A division is 10,000-20,000 troops, with Russian divisions at the small end of the range. I don't think Ukraine has taken more than a thousand prisoners. I almost never read Ukrainskaya Pravda despite its constant presence on my YouTube news feed. It is just propaganda for the good guys.

Huh. Maybe offering Denmark a hefty payment for Greenland would be a good idea, after all.

The term "brown bag lunch" is racist. Seriously, if you hear the dog whistle, you're the dog. Tip to Instapundit.

Surveillance: "Several U.S. MQ-9 Reaper drones have found a new base in the newly upgraded Larissa air base in Greece, as American military officials keep an eye on NATO’s southern and eastern borders." It's Plan B.

At some point Pakistanis have to question if Allah is on their side. Maybe try to disband the circular firing squad that defines Pakistani governance.

A Russian failure to communicate.

A Chinese carrier task for operated in the Philippine Sea.

India is reacting to China's subliminal border conquest campaign: "India's foreign minister has said that the country has scaled up troop deployment along a disputed border with China to an unprecedented level."

Sweden's defense priorities are joining NATO, arming Ukraine, and increasing its defense budget informed by Ukraine's experience. 

Somalia's government requested the two American air strikes that killed 15 jihadis.

Lukashenko has resisted Russian efforts to integrate Belarus into Russia's state and war, using the phantom NATO threat to his territory as an excuse. Putin had to go along.

Meanwhile with American forces in the war on terror in Syria.

Good: " Leaders from the Middle East and Europe gathered in Jordan Tuesday in a conference focused on bolstering security and stability in Iraq." But Iran is there not for solutions but to keep an eye on a major source of insecurity. And point of order: Overthrowing Saddam did not cause "years of intense violence and sectarian strife[.]" The strife was already there. But the intense violence was almost exclusively Saddam's directed at Shia Arabs and Kurds. And Iran already had much influence posing as the Shia defender.

The first Flight III Burke class destroyer is underway.

Is Ukraine Putin's last stand? We'll see if he takes Russia down with him. So far Russians are unwilling to escape Putin's Viking funeral ride.

The partisan House J6 committee insists that Trump was planning to overthrow our government with an unarmed mob mostly taking selfies in the Capitol Building. A mob whose members are the most heavily armed part of the population left their guns at home for the "insurrection". Got it. I say Biden should be the defense's first witness: "Biden said, 'If you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.'" The riot was awful. It was not an insurrection. Democrats could have united a lot of people to punish rioters. Instead they over-reached.

The Biden administration says it wants $3.4 billion from Congress for "border security." In fact, Biden wants the money to facilitate the processing of illegal immigrants into the interior of America.

Shrinkage in China. I've been all over that.

This is clever propaganda. Until I see reports of bulging POW camps I won't move beyond that.

Japan's rearmament is a big deal. China effed up.

Republicans talking about an open southern border is the cause of the open border? And now for something completely different:

I find it amusing that the argument is that fighting in World War I and II respectively started and then hid America's decline as a power--as if everything that happened then and since would have happened without our efforts. Fascinating. And about that article's military-industrial complex warning. But sure, there is no "end of history."

China has a point. Without American interference the Philippines would quietly accept being bullied: "China's embassy in Manila accused the United States on Tuesday of driving a wedge between the Philippines and Beijing, deploring Washington's 'unfounded accusations' that it said sought to stir up trouble in the South China Sea."

The U.S. thinks there are Russians who aren't trying to decide where to resume an offensive--they doubt whether Russia should use its mobilized new forces for another offensive. I doubt their voices will counter Putin's need to seem like he is on the offensive and winning the struggle against Satan himself. 

Is it just me or does the real insurrection seem like it was the federal bureaucracy in league with the media and social media undermining a lawfully elected president? You don't have to like Trump to think that was an actual threat to our democracy. Heads. Spikes. On walls. Figuratively, of course. But I don't know if even I am optimistic enough to think we'll get justice.

Um: "In interviews, Putin associates said he spiraled into self-aggrandizement and anti-Western zeal, leading him to make the fateful decision to invade Ukraine in near total isolation, without consulting experts who saw the war as pure folly. Aides and hangers-on fueled his many grudges and suspicions[.]" How do you deter someone like that? Do read all of that NYT article. It's like a Fuck-Up Fairy How-To Manual.

More: "'Russia drew a lot of lessons from the Georgia war and started to rebuild their armed forces, but they built a new Potemkin village,' said Gintaras Bagdonas, the former head of Lithuania’s military intelligence. Much of the modernization drive was 'just pokazukha,' he said, using a Russian term for window-dressing." I was not confused.

Wait, when America abandoned our allies and fled Afghanistan, my moral and intellectual superiors in the Biden administration assured me Taliban 2.0 were kinder and gentler: "The new Afghan government has returned to its hard-line stances from the 1990s, instituting public beatings and executions as well further restricting women’s rights." Surely you remember that bold lie. This never gets old:

Thule Air Base lives on.

Ah, North Korea is shipping newly produced ammunition to Russia. I wrongly assumed the oldest stuff was being shipped. North Korean workers are also being shipped into Russia, including occupied Ukrainian territory.

Trying to make blimps a thing again.

In search of stiff upper lips in Britain: "Anybody arguing that things are looking good would seem laughably out of touch, so it is important to emphasise that this is not my argument at all. I am simply suggesting that we are far more likely to overcome our challenges if we remain optimistic than if we succumb to pessimism." Keep calm and carry on.

Hmmm: "Anti-Ukraine and anti-West sentiment within the Russian population—already significant as demonstrated by the population's explicit or tacit support of the war—will likely only grow as Kremlin propaganda intensifies, Russian battlefield losses accrue, and Russians who oppose the war attrit under growing repression." So casualties will have no effect on Russian support for continuing the invasion? Or at least be swamped by Russian propaganda and repression? That doesn't seem right to me.

Russia says it will expand its military to 1.5 million from its pre-war paper strength of nearly a million. Will they be equipped with spears and shields? 

Foiled coup in Gambia. 

Putin's Mini-Mean was dispatched to China in a surprise visit to discuss the relationship with Xi. Was this an effort to get assistance in the war or an effort to keep China from exploiting Putin's extended face plant in Europe?

Hey, I'm not gonna lie. I won't mock Biden. Biden's decision to stop Russia in Ukraine is one of the few things I agree with him on. One can quibble on details but the big picture is solid. Why some conservatives are against that baffles me. I'm not going to base my position on being the anti-Biden position. I've also said that I think Biden was trapped into supporting Ukraine after shipping weapons to Ukraine early in the crisis in the mistaken belief Russia would quickly win and end the need for a show of resolve. Oopsy. 

America announces a large military support package including a Patriot battery, precision weapons for aircraft, ammunition (including Russian artillery and tank ammunition), vehicles, and infantry kit. This is the total of all aid supplied.

Despite under-performing during the war, Russian fighter aircraft have the technology to destroy Ukraine's limited air power. Flying Tigers 2.0, anyone?

Good: "Ukraine will get more than 10,000 more Starlink terminals in the coming months thanks to a new deal with SpaceX and funding from several European countries[.]" Tip to Instapundit.

The Pact of Steal.

Russia needs Belarus for its territory to stretch Ukraine's ground and air defenses across the north. Putin's ground forces are so ravaged that Putin may think even the weak Belarusian army would be useful. But Lukashenko has leverage now to rebuff pressure to enter the war.

The Russians reported that a fire broke out on the carrier Kuznetsov in a Murmansk dry dock. God keeps trying to help the Russians but the Russians ignore His help.

The Army continues to try to get a design to replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

Europe can't produce enough ammo for Ukraine and itself. Consider this a flashing logistics warning alarm.

Sailor shortages. The Navy is pausing "up or out" rules to retain sailors.

China's "swarm and smother" bullying to take islands from the Philippines. America should bypass those hired Chinese "fishing" boats conducting blockades. But ultimately the Philippines needs to be able to win a brief small war and dare China to escalate beyond that and risk American intervention. And I see the Philippines will increase their military presence in the South China Sea in response to the Chinese aggression.

Butter and guns in Japan, pushing up their national debt. Who do they think they are? America?

JPADS aerial resupply improvements.

Putin claims Ukraine isn't a real country and is trying to conquer it. And Putin has been reeling in weak Belarus into Russia's embrace. Which makes it kind of funny that both were founding members of the United Nations with their own seats as recognized sovereign states at the insistence of Stalin. If Stalin hadn't done that and just made them part of the Russia "republic", would the dissolution of the USSR have resulted in Russia retaining Ukraine and/or Belarus? Oopsy.

I think the FBI should have the top three management layers fired as a warning to those who've politicized the bureau and to those who sat quietly and let it happen. Repeat until it focuses on its actual responsibilities. Tip to Instapundit.

LOL. Give that man a raise. Tip to The Morning Briefing.

Accurate in spirit, no?

Demoting anti-tank missiles. Ukraine's artillery played the biggest role in holding off the Russian onslaught on Kiev. Well, okay. I just assumed the missiles were key to blocking road-bound columns, making it easier for other assets to kill them, too. So it was combined arms that stopped the Russians. Stop looking for silver bullet single-weapon paths to victory. Note too the missile-armed Ukrainian tanks, undermining the notion that the war "proves" tanks are obsolete.

While the human losses seem more in balance, Russia's equipment losses are much higher: "The latest analysis shows that in the ongoing war in Ukraine, total Russian equipment losses reach 8,515 as of 21 December. In contrast, Ukraine’s military has lost 2,613 pieces of equipment in combat." And some of Russia's losses were captured, which added to Ukraine's equipment.

That's where most of Iran's ethnic Arabs live: "Social media accounts reported that Iranian security forces have begun violently killing and mass arresting citizens in Izeh, Khuzestan Province since December 21."

Russians claiming America is making the war worse by arming Ukraine is aggravating. Russia invaded Ukraine, bombards civilians, and wants to erase Ukraine as a country and an identity. So fuck the Russians. Russia does not want "peace." It wants conquest. I want the SOBs as far east as possible--until the clue bat has an effect on Russia.

The V-280 learns from the V-22, which remains a too complicated but too valuable to get rid of system.

Will Putin nationalize the assets of oligarchs to support the invasion of Ukraine? Some time ago I read that Russia financed operations by trading financial opportunities for money to fight. With the oligarchs getting the payoff after the win. That apparently feudal system can't really work in a war this expensive to wage, can it? 

And now for something completely different:

Does Russia want to capture Bakhmut at any cost? Or is Russia content to lose undesirable released prisoners to kill Ukrainian troops and at least keep the Ukrainians pinned in place defending? I just have trouble assuming this is stupid. What's the Russian angle?

Oh?  "President Vladimir Putin blasted the West for trying to 'tear apart' Russia and said his offensive in Ukraine aimed to 'unite the Russian people'." Seems like Putin is doing a fine enough job on his own.

Putin keeps saying he is ready to negotiate an end to his war. Don't believe him. Lying is damn near genetic. Putin is willing to negotiate the terms of surrender of Ukraine. And speaks of diplomacy only to divide the West on supporting Ukraine. Really, how accurate was I in that post when I observed of Russian lies: "This goes beyond my utter frustration with the Russians for invading Ukraine and then standing there saying, 'What? No, no. You are mistaken. We are not invading anyone. Why would you say that? Don't you like us? Are you plotting against us? In fact, you are invading. Why are you invading!?'"

It isn't just the FBI that needs a top-level purge for becoming Democratic Party secret police: "The bottom line? Federal law enforcement asserted primacy over all media distribution, a situation normally only found in tinpot regimes." I don't think I'm exaggerating much. This is not conspiracy theory fantasy. The FBI is trying to say this is all normal routine behavior. Yeah, that's the problem. And you know that prior to 2016 Democrats would be screaming bloody murder over much less government over-reach. And good Lord, people, the government paid Twitter to censor and report on conservatives! How is that not government censorship? How is this not frightening?

I ran into an odd problem on Blogger. My interest in mass-meming ran out barely before the system ran out of capacity. Now when I try to pull up an old meme from Blogger to re-post, the system no longer shows me thumbnails to identify them. So it is virtually impossible to find them. Do I just upload repeats from my computer? Or make new ones again from memory of the original? Do I search my blog to see if I can find them that way to copy the image? That's a lot of searching. With virtually no ability to use key words. Oddly, the system wouldn't let me ask a question of the Blogger team. Does this mean I should start a new TDR 2.0 blog--with a new look--to start over with a new archive that I can start to fill up again?

The Spanish Flu

Did America respond any better to the Wuhan Flu Covid-19 pandemic than it did to the Spanish Flu pandemic a century ago?

I have been waiting for more than two years to read something about our pandemic in comparison to the Spanish Flu of a century ago which killed 600,000 Americans. I've run across nothing. So I finally bought Sandra Opdycke's The Flu Epidemic of 1918, published in 2014.

The most stunning thing for me is that in America the first wave began in January 1918 and the third wave abated in April 1919. So about 15 months, or so. Despite much greater scientific capabilities, we're going on three years with great resistance to declaring the pandemic over as the virus becomes endemic--and not nearly as deadly. Although over a million have died here, but with a population more than 3 times larger than during the Spanish Flu.

Some things stand out a century ago. 

A bias towards thinking "dirty" corresponds to infection led authorities to scour patient homes; sweep and hose down streets; disinfect phones, drinking fountains, library books, and clerks' fingers between transactions. This public sanitation is unlikely to have done much good. How similar does our response with cleaning even groceries reflect that basic revulsion of things "dirty" (and unvaccinated)--with an often moral angle to the worries? Only when prominent pro-vaccine people started getting sick did the moral failure angle of refusing to get immunized fade.

Masks were encouraged a century ago, yet had zero value in protection against the virus. To be fair the gauze masks were a far cry from modern N95s. Still, we have no clear evidence that masks helped much given most are not practically superior to the gauze masks of 1918; and the need to properly wear the right kind. But a century ago, the public health officials realized eventually that the masks did not work. 

Still, approval of mask use was expressed as a means of reassuring people they could go about their jobs without destroying our economy. As for mask mandates, the mayor of Denver quipped that it would take half the city to make the other half wear masks. Indeed, high ranking politicians a century ago were seen flouting mask advice. How familiar that sounds, eh?

In some ways our vaccinations are the modern version of the masks. The vaccination for Covid-19 promised an end to lockdowns and social distancing. It gave us some measure of reassurance to restart the economy. But it was no better than the gauze masks of the Spanish Flu in slowing the spread of the virus. Sure, the vaccination reduced severity of the virus. But I did qualify the comparison.

As a matter of perspective, the book notes the 1977 global flu epidemic that was called Russian Flu despite the likelihood that it started in China. I have zero memory of 1977 being any type of crisis. I was in high school then, but I have no memory of anything out of the ordinary. It was mild and--wait for it--"many scientists suspect that it escaped from a laboratory, perhaps in connection with work on germ warfare."

The author notes that in recent years (from the publishing date of 2014) scientists in several countries began manipulating genetically the H5N1 influenza virus to study the process that could lead it to mutate to a more contagious type. In 2011 people were alarmed this kind of research might lead to an escape (or theft) from the laboratories and trigger a major pandemic. There was a temporary moratorium but it was ended in 2013 with new guidelines to "ensure heightened security." 

Huzzah for "heightened security" in labs.

But the book was hopeful, noting that the world has made great strides in spotting a new virus once they emerge so we can react. WHO, the CDC, and other similar bodies were lauded for their research and surveillance capacity.

And yet here we are with a WHO that ran interference for China which hid the emergence of Covid-19 in China; and the CDC that initially dismissed the worries of the epidemic news leaking out of a closed China. 

This is not meant to be a review of the book or a comparison of pandemics. Just some things that stick out in my mind from reading the book having endured this current epidemic and lockdown policies

Sometimes I wonder if our response to Covid-19 reflects that Americans are (luckily) unused to death as a routine part of life. This winter, as Americans get back to normal life, the normal illnesses seem scary:

For the Covid regime’s loyal subjects, such normalcy simply won’t do. Hence the attempt to extend the 2020-era climate of fear over other, more common illnesses. Or as the Washington Post wishfully put it, “Face masks may return amid holiday ‘tripledemic’ of Covid, flu and RSV.” 

Having stepped into the false security of a mask and social distancing cocoon, are too many people unable to step into the real world that once took those normal illnesses in stride? The Covid-19 pandemic and our government's response were bad enough. Why embrace it as a "new normal"?

One issue with the duration of the current pandemic may be a "definitions" issue. Did the Spanish Flu linger on despite the abatement of the third wave? Would public health and government officials of a century ago look at our situation and declare the pandemic was really over nine months ago when deaths dropped dramatically and leveled out? Or did our shots and social isolation have the effect of stretching out the pandemic that otherwise would have burned through our people and run out of potential hosts more quickly?

Our efforts that might have lengthened the pandemic might have saved lives from the pandemic itself in the long run. I can offer no judgment on whether the length of our pandemic response killed and harmed more people from non-pandemic causes than it saved from Covid-19. I hope our public health researchers can analyze that without being tainted by politics or institutional biases. I look forward to reading a useful comparison of our respective responses to pandemic.

Life must go on. What's the point of living through this pandemic it if we hide in fear of the normal?

UPDATE: This may be true or it may be a strong desire to hang on to the habits of social distancing and lockdowns:

Could the COVID-19 surge in China unleash a new coronavirus mutant on the world?

Scientists don’t know but worry that might happen. It could be similar to omicron variants circulating there now. It could be a combination of strains. Or something entirely different, they say.

But I have to ask if this possibility is a function of our vaccine and lockdown responses that have prevented the virus from burning out sooner.

The debate on the balance sheet of saving lives versus harming lives by our pandemic response could be fascinating. Eventually. When the political positions are mere history. 

And I will ask, will this be an epidemic inside China? Or will China's problem again infect the world as a pandemic. By design or incompetence--or just the way viruses work?

NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.