Herding the INDOPACOM Cats

America's Pacific allies and friends need confidence in American power to stand up to a common enemy.

 Exactly!

If China can gain sufficient military advantage over its neighbors, it may convince them to accept its hegemony given the plausible alternatives they will face. And the best way for Beijing to operationalize such advantage is not to fight all its potential opponents at once, but to pursue a focused and sequential strategy against the antihegemonic coalition arraying against it, seeking to pick it apart or short-circuit it.

The key for Beijing is to strike at the coalition’s center of gravity: perceptions of Washington’s willingness to come to the stout defense of those to which it has committed. Only if they believe Washington can and will stand with them will Asian countries judge it prudent to take the risks necessary to check Beijing’s ambitions. If they do not have this confidence, they will fear being isolated and punished by China and thus will likely cut a deal with Beijing. If Beijing can pick off enough countries in this fashion, it could achieve regional hegemony without having to fight World War III. 

As I've long held, American military power is key to stopping that kind of Chinese divide and conquer strategy against countries that don't want China to dominate them:

But for all those neighbors to be willing to stand up to China's power, they have to be confident that we have the power and determination to use it against China and to be confident that other potential partners won't stop absorbing some of China's power by making deals with China to ally with Peking. If these countries don't have confidence that we will help them, they'll cut a deal with China to protect themselves and turn away from us.

So we have to be careful about maintaining our power in the Pacific and maintaining our reputation for supporting allies and fighting until we win. If any nation, like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, or Vietnam think that they can't count on us for effective military support, they'll withdraw from the potential balancing coalition against China. And once one country defects, the power potential arrayed against China will drop enough to perhaps push another country to defect and align with China rather than with us.  

America's efforts to herd the cats have been working even as China's power grows:

The Pentagon’s efforts to improve U.S. force posture in the Pacific have yielded a flurry of major agreements in recent months, with allies motivated by China’s aggressive behavior to embrace the U.S. With new arrangements, the Pentagon aims to spread what it calls “combat credible” forces closer to Taiwan as a way to deter China from invading the island and ― if deterrence fails ― win any resulting fight.

Some people who urge America to pull back argue that China's neighbors would naturally arm up and contain China without America. Win-win! But that is incorrect. America is the indispensable nation in the western Pacific:

America's military power and geographic reach are the factor that can weave the separate power capabilities of nations around the perimeter of China into an effective proto-alliance.

Our absence from the region will allow China to divide and conquer. 

But it could accelerate defection if America puts too many assets forward, if that tempts China into conducting a theater-wide Pearl Harbor attack to destroy our best military forces at the onset of a war. 

That sort of defeat can demoralize allies and get them looking for the exits.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 continues here.

Wanted: Dead Or Alive

Does a past 18th century war over Crimea have lessons for the Winter War of 2022? Well, it certainly reveals a Russian preference for destroying everything in its path.

This author notes the Russo-Turkish War of 1736-39 over Crimea that Clausewitz examined as a "cabinet war" for limited objectives. 

The problem with using this framework to analyze Russian and Western policies on Ukraine today is that Russia has risked its entire ground forces in a fight that does not look like a cabinet war for Putin, even if it really is--or should be--for Russia. And Ukraine is no mere passive province to be fought over. Ukraine wants to live.

Still, given Russia's switch from a parade ground occupation march to a firepower intensive war against Ukraine's frontlines and cities, this observation by Clausewitz is perhaps instructive:

He asserts, “It is uncertain whether the Empress Anna… wanted to conquer Crimea, or just to devastate it… the latter made but little political sense.” Despite this judgment, Clausewitz returns to the theme of devastation again and again in the text, showing that the various Russian armies, put the enemy territory, “under fire and sword,” “destroy[ed] these areas,” waged, “a campaign of raiding,” and “devastate[d] the peninsula.” Clausewitz eventually concluded that these measures were essentially “preventative… namely as a means of distracting and hindering the [Crimeans] so they could not,” take more decisive military action. Modern Russian tactics, such as the strike campaign against the Ukrainian power grid, have confused modern commentators, but experts such as Justin Bronk and Michael Kofman assert they have a similar goal: depleting Ukraine’s stocks of air defense missiles. In other words, in both the 1730s and 2020s, Russia has used devastation against civilian targets to cause chaos, diluting the effectiveness of their enemy’s military response.

Russian preference for destroying anything of use to an enemy is applicable. And predictable, I suppose.

Indeed, a careful reading of recent Russian military writings would reveal that Russian strategic thought emphasizes brutalizing civilians and lying about their responsibility for brutalizing civilians. Westerners who demand criminal trial levels of proof help Russia get away with this. Although Russian doctrine to minimize Russian troop casualties as much as possible has not been evident in the Winter War of 2022.

And there are other parallels with that 18th century war on how Russia wages war. I do worry Russia will eventually learn enough to win despite repeated stumbles and high losses. 

Still, if the destruction is meant to dilute Ukrainian military effectiveness, the main source of Ukraine's military capability is abroad from Western supplies. With all due respect to Ukrainian skill and valor, that skill and valor would be displayed in a guerilla war east of the Dnieper River by now without the supplies. And Russia's firepower is not diluting Western support or Ukrainian skill and valor.

But despite my reservations on the article's application, by all means check it out. Depending on what Russia and America decide, the Winter War of 2022 could go on. Then we might have more applicable lessons.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 continues here.

There is No Short and Glorious War For All Your Problems

Do states too often assume short and glorious wars? Yes. But even short and glorious wars are no silver bullet to all your problems.

The fallacy of the short, sharp war: 

States have frequently embarked on military campaigns that failed to achieve their objectives as quickly—and cheaply—as expected. For every Spanish-American or Austro-Prussian War that seems in retrospect to be a short, sharp success for the victors, there is a Crimean, Boer, or Afghan War that those of us with the benefit of hindsight know grinds on longer and presents a butcher's bill greater than planners and politicians anticipated. In fact, history suggests that quick, decisive victories are the exception rather than the norm. Yet, states continue to plan and initiate wars with the expectation that they can achieve decisive victories unreasonably swiftly. All too often, disaster results.

The author undermines the premise by citing Afghanistan as an example of failing to get a rapid victory; but citing the Spanish-American War as one that worked. 

The Taliban (2001) and Spanish government's military forces (1898) were both defeated quickly. But both victories featured long insurgencies (in the Philippines, for the latter) after the conventional win. 

But yes, many times a planned short, sharp war doesn't work out that way. Here's Exhibit A, in my opinion. So far, I suppose. Putin did ask us to hold his beer.

Further, arguing that Japan's decision to attack America at Pearl Harbor is an example of planning a short and sharp war ignores that Japan did not have that plan. Japan planned a short and sharp offensive to establish a perimeter in the wake of smashing our fleet, encompassing newly conquered oil resources. At that perimeter they believed they would exhaust American willingness to die to push through to Japan. Japan thought they had the advantage in willingness to die in a long war despite economic inferiority.

The Doolittle Raid prompted Japan to instead try to extend their perimeter to Midway Island, where the American fleet ambushed the much larger Japanese force. The carrier and pilot losses crippled the ability of Japan to hold their perimeter. And America was not put off by the casualties.

But even successful short, sharp wars (Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait, Iraqi Freedom to overthrow Saddam, Enduring Freedom to overthrow the Taliban) just punch your ticket for the next problem. A decade+ of confrontation with Saddam, insurgencies and invasions by al Qaeda and Iran, and insurgencies, respectively. 

Heck, the classic short and sharp Israeli victory in the 1967 Six-Day War just evolved on the Egyptian front into the War of Attrition along the Suez Canal line. The short war solved a specific military problem--keeping the Egyptians from knifing into Israel. The war of attrition was hardly ideal. But it was a better military problem than a Sword of Damocles hanging over Israel's survival.

A big problem for America is too high expectations for what a military victory can achieve. No war is a silver bullet solution to your problems. We always have to work the next problem.

But by all means, one subset of the issue is wrongly assuming a short and glorious war. Does anybody ever go home by Christmas? Leaders must guard against that tendency. 

UPDATE: Related thoughts from a few years ago.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 continues here.

Dear EU Fanboys (and Girls), Go Away

The European Union (EU) fanboys (and girls) aren't saying NATO is to blame for European defense weakness. But they're saying NATO is totally to blame for European defense weakness. Sod off, swampies.

Oh?

Ultimately, of course, the perilous state of European armed forces is the fault of European governments. But NATO’s role in bringing about this state of affairs also deserves scrutiny. European defense is not in disarray because the EU has “duplicated” NATO efforts. With the EU neutered as a defense actor for the past two decades, European defense has been the domain of NATO and its member states. The results speak for themselves.

NATO can coordinate and integrate forces, pulling together units from different countries’ militaries and forming a cohesive organization that can fight effectively. But it has proven incapable of integrating over 25 different European defense ministries and armament divisions.

So the authors recognize that NATO is doing what America-led NATO was formed to do--knit together the various military forces of the alliance's sovereign member states into a coherent whole.

But, the authors say, NATO has failed to integrate the defense ministries and armaments divisions of the European member states--a power clearly beyond what the alliance of free states can do.

Indeed, NATO should not be the super-ministry for subject defense ministries and their defense industries. That's a sovereign power that nobody should want NATO to have.

So that's where the proto-imperial EU comes in. It will use that purported claim to justify their assertion that only a super-authority can solve the so-called problem.

The authors blame NATO for the fact that Europeans in general falter in their defense efforts. But everybody knows that Europeans wouldn't contribute more to defense if the EU is in charge rather than NATO coordinating the efforts. Russia is finally doing that. But if the EU gets the power they'll take credit--and entrench their Brussels-based EU power.

And then they Euro transnational elites will finally strip away that inconvenient prefix and get the imperial government they've long wanted, with the power to eject the hated America from Europe--not keep Russia out.

America must fight that European imperial urge--for our security and the good of European people. 

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 continues here.

The Winter War of 2022 Converted the Democrats?

Just because Democrats are suddenly and oddly determined to defeat Russia despite their late-Cold War "moral equivalence" nonsense doesn't make me oppose defeating Russia. Instead I say to the Democrats, "Welcome to the party, pal." But how converted are they?

Ukraine continues to fight off the Russian offensives, inflicting heavy casualties on the Russian ground forces and in general humiliating Putin for failing to defeat Ukraine after a year of fighting--let alone crushing Ukraine cheaply in days.

Although Putin still works on outlasting the West to defeat Ukraine, not much is going on beyond fighting and dying along a generally static front. This author doesn't see things changing until May, presumably when the mud dries.

I want to defeat the Russians. And the fact that Democrats are oddly enthusiastic about defeating Russia is not going to get me to wonder if maybe I should worry about the Russians losing or think maybe they're not that bad. Nor am I going to suddenly believe that Ukraine isn't pure enough to be worthy of our help. 

Just like Churchill defended aiding the Russians after Nazi Germany invaded the USSR in 1941, if Putin invaded Hell I'd be willing to put in a good word for the Devil in Congress. The Ukrainians aren't perfect. But they want to join the West. And they are way better than Russians are. 

Especially better than accepting Russians farther west. No buffer will ease Russian paranoia.

Russia is our self-described enemy. That's on them. Not us. I'm not suddenly going to go along with Obama's dismissal of Russia as a foe and justify watching Ukraine burn and go down.

Nor am I going to disguise opposition to defeating Russia by adopting the leftist strategy of always opposing the current "flawed" war (Ukraine) to support a hypothetical future perfect war (Taiwan).

The (partial) partisan divisions over helping Ukraine are interesting. Democrats mostly seem to back Ukraine. And a good portion of Republicans oppose helping Ukraine too much. With "too much" ill defined and a strange faith in diplomacy with Putin.

I support helping Ukraine win. Am I backing Biden? I guess, if you turn down the lights and squint.

I think it is really the other way around. I'll say again that I think Biden is accidentally supporting Ukraine. I think Biden was told Ukraine would lose fast. I think the early war shipments of anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons were designed for a post-invasion Ukrainian insurgency. The arms would be a relatively cheap way for Biden to show resolve after needlessly losing Afghanistan. 

But Ukraine and Russia didn't cooperate with that political strategy. Russia effed up and Ukraine fought. Oops. Biden got trapped into backing Ukraine. And I worry he's looking for an exit ramp.

I'm willing to get over being portrayed by Democrats as a horrible human for wanting to resist the USSR back then as the price of getting their support for resisting the Russians today. 

Heck, I'm willing to overlook the odd fact that Democrats seem to own more Ukrainian than American flags. 

So to Democrats, welcome to the party, pal. Don't go wobbly on me this time if Russia drags the war out. 

UPDATE: Yet another telegraphed counteroffensive called off? Or appearing far when near?

President Volodymyr Zelensky has said Ukraine's counter-offensive against Russia cannot start until Western allies send more military support. 

Hard to say. I lean to the latter at this point.

UPDATE: Is Zelensky's open determination to defend Bakhmut, which he says losing would discourage his people and encourage Russia, a ploy to feign a retreat that gets Russia to pursue--making the advancing Russian army vulnerable to a counter-attack that transitions to the counteroffensive?

UPDATE (Thursday): Hmmm:

America’s top general said the city of Bakhmut has become a "slaughter-fest for the Russians" and that Vladimir Putin’s forces are getting "hammered" by Ukraine.

Zelensky already said Ukraine can't afford to lose the city. Could we do anything else besides Ukraine renaming Bakhmut to "Zelenskygrad" to get Putin to keep attacking until Ukraine's counteroffensive?

NOTE: ISW coverage of the war continues here.

Weekend Data Dump

From the "Oh, F**k" files: "The latest nutritional advice from the [Egyptian] state suggested cooking up some chicken feet - a protein-rich part of the bird usually reserved as scraps for dogs and cats." 

The Black Sea grain export deal was renewed. The term is unknown. But Russia wanted 60 days. The West wanted 120 days. Will the West assume 120 days and dare Russia to stop the food exports? 

Where is Code Pink during the Winter War of 2022? Usually they love despots America opposes and make their interest in saving those despots clear. And the media was all too happy to promote them. I assume the Code Pink hags oppose aiding Ukraine. But I'll guess that their enthusiasm is much less with a leftist administration in power. And I'm sure the pro-Democrat media has minimal interest in reporting on them.

I heard an analyst who seems to know what he's talking about say that while he doesn't think the risk of nuclear use by Russia against Ukraine is likely, one shouldn't say that Russia's nukes may not work or that Russian officers won't obey an order to fire nukes. I've certainly raised both issues. I hope I haven't portrayed that I assume they are true. But I think it would be high risk for Putin to order their use given how much Russia relies on them for Russian territorial integrity. Does he want enemies to think they don't work or that officers won't obey orders to use them?

I don't know nearly enough to know if the Northern Ireland deal is good for Brexit or is a Trojan Horse for the EU to launch a subliminal counter-invasion of Britain.

Extending Ukraine's battlefield reach from the air. I suppose it is possible that Ukraine could use HIMARS and anti-radiation missiles on aircraft to suppress Russian air defense missiles to open a temporary corridor for other aircraft with extended-range air-to-ground weapons to strike the Kerch Strait Bridge.

The new and innovative dinosaur super carrier Ford is having teething problems coming out the wazoo: "A ship, especially a warship that has a lot of problems, is often referred to as a cursed ship. The USS Ford, the first of the class, has become a major disaster rather than a more effective new ship design." I was worried about a perfectly working Ford when she was just blueprints. Ah, what a glorious rush to failure.

Turkey will back Finland's bid to join NATO. Sweden waits. Hungary dithers on the applications.

Two F-22s rotated into Clark Air Base in the Philippines for the first time. It's nice to complicate Chinese planning.

New technology will reach Guam next year to help defend it from different types of missiles. That's nice. And needed. But how about hardened aircraft shelters? And I'll speculate that rapid runway repair capabilities are probably low on the priority list.

China seeks a bigger global role ... by bolstering Putin and Iran's mullahs?

Will Russia use tactical nukes against Ukraine? I can't rule it out. But those small nukes don't have the impact of the big city busters. I can't imagine Russia risking that. Don't conflate the two weapon classes. So using tactical nukes would fail to sufficiently frighten Ukrainians. Alienate the world. Maybe even anger China. And possibly convince the West that letting Russia win by using nukes will just lead to more nuclear-armed aggression in the future. America gave up most tactical nukes in favor of precision conventional weapons that do what we once needed small nukes to do. In my view the Western response would likely be to give Ukraine longer-range precision weapons. That would reverse the tactical edge of Russia using nukes. 

The Philippines "reported a People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy vessel, a China Coast Guard (CCG) vessel, and 42 suspected maritime militia vessels, anchored within 4.5 to 8 nautical miles of [Thitu island in the South China Sea]. The Philippines is lifting the curtain on China's subliminal war.

And ... "After finishing with the Philippines, Chinese maritime militia and fishing boats apparently swarmed inside Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the South China Sea, according to a Vietnamese research organization citing vessel-tracking data." Will Vietnam draw a line in the EEZ?

Ukraine charged Wagner positions with M-113 APCs and a Dutch variant. Say what? M-113s are not designed for that. Egad, nothing should do that, really. If Wagner had anti-tank weapons they'd be smoldering hulks. Those systems are better suited to ferrying infantry safe from artillery fragments and machine gun fire to unload close to the enemy. Although I concede the Dutch vehicle is marginally more suitable for exposing itself to direct fire.

Thoughts on improving American weapon production capacity.

Putin and fanboys (and girls) of the USSR would like you to believe that Stalin defeated the Nazis. Stalin cruelly bled the USSR to feed the meat grinder. But Stalin didn't defeat the Nazis. And that's glossing over how Stalin enabled the rise of Nazi Germany and got Germany to wage war against France and Western Europe. And without the Western Allies, he could not have pushed the Germans out of the USSR. I suppose you could argue America and the Western Allies fought Nazi Germany to the last Soviet. But that's it. Also, let's talk Soviet rape culture. And Stalin's planned Holocaust of Soviet Jews before he died (was killed?). Also, ponder what Stalin considered doing with his Western-sustained military after all of us defeated Nazi Germany. Effing Communists are always and everywhere evil. Tip to Instapundit.

More ammunition, engineering, and logistics supplies for Ukraine. Among other items.

Bad China! "Secretary Austin underscored the United States' unwavering alliance commitment with the Philippines and reiterated that the Mutual Defense Treaty extends to Philippine armed forces, aircraft, and public vessels, including those of its Coast Guard, anywhere in the South China Sea.  The two leaders condemned the PRC's gray-zone activities, which interfere with the livelihoods of local Philippine communities and the rights of other claimant states that seek to operate lawfully in the South China Sea consistent with the 2016 Arbitral Tribunal ruling." About those gray-zone activities.

Sigh. Please, God, let this be satire. Tip to Instapundit.

Thoughts on the Iraq War. I agree with parts and disagree with other parts. But it's measured and admits time changes judgments. I think the war was just and a victory--albeit with mistakes that even the goodiest of good wars has (sadly, the comment of mine I quoted on Instapundit is apparently dead).

After Xi met Putin on March 20th in Russia, Xi has apparently discovered limits on their "no-limits" partnership.

America and Japan will partner on designing weapons capable of shooting down hypersonic missiles.

And now for something completely different:

India's economy has advanced but its military hasn't benefited that much. Also, Pakistan supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, which alienated America and gave them a Pakistan-hating Taliban government. And Maoists. And Kashmir.

Russia hasn't tried to bypass urban areas and has instead plowed through them at the cost of high casualties and a lot of time lost. Is this because cities can't be bypassed or because Russia is incapable of bypassing cities?

Russia's regions will have more of the burden of sustaining Putin's invasion of Ukraine in 2023.

If this is the foundation of Peking's drive for global stature, well, have fun storming the castle! "Following Beijing’s role in brokering a peace deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia this month, Xi’s comments have raised hopes in some quarters that he is preparing to use his leverage with Putin, who is now dependent on trade with China, to bring peace to Ukraine."

Space Force: "The U.S. Space Force is seeking more than $1.2 billion in funding over the next five years for a secretive 'Long Range Kill Chains' program to track moving targets from space." This might be useful for you.

Did Ukraine manage to destroy Russian Kalibr cruise missiles being transported through Russian-occupied Crimea?

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida visited Kiev just after Xi visited Russia. It's a reminder to Russia that Japan has options to hurt Russia if Russia won't give back island territory Russia captured from Japan at the end of World War II. And it's a message to China, too, that Japan can bog China down in Ukraine if China escalates support for Russia.

The European Union agreed on a plan to provide Ukraine with artillery shells.

Russia's long, violent war on potential suppliers of Ukraine prior to Russia's invasion. I've noted the poison attack on an arms dealer. I've mentioned the attacks on Bulgarian and Czech arms supplies.

Greta Thunberg was granted an honorary doctorate in theology. LOL. Tip to Instapundit. Now go and emit no more. And now for something completely different:

The U.S. will send an earlier M-1A1 Abrams model to "speed up" delivery of 31 to Ukraine in as little as 8 months. This is embarrassing. That's 8 additional months minimum since the delivery was announced.

Oh nos! That's so sad! "Crippled by war and sanctions, Russia now faces evidence that its already-struggling space program is falling apart." Not that our state space program is all that amazing. And now for something completely different:

Mission from God accomplished? "Iranian security leaders have announced in recent days that they will resume enforcing the mandatory hijab law with a confrontational approach."

Break it up for usable parts and burn the rest to the ground. Tip to Instapundit.

Trump's behavior during the outrageous and dangerous political witch hunt by Alvin Bragg does not make me want to reward him over DeSantis or other Republican candidates for 2024. 

From the "Well, Duh" files: "Russian servicemen who joined regional volunteer battalions over the summer of 2022 revealed that the Russian military command treats Russian volunteers like cannon fodder."

A Marine Corps Marine Littoral Regiment practiced how it will fight.

Ukrainian troops are learning how to use Patriot missiles faster than our military expected. That confusion confuses me. In basic training we were told that during war, training would be compressed. Ukrainians are at war.

Of course unit cohesion is important and so team-building despite prejudice is important. But inclusion should not be built on demonizing one group of Americans as the source of all that is evil. I say that if a unit commander has a bigoted troop undermining unit cohesion, deal with that problem troop! The military managed to successfully integrate African-American troops without witch hunts. Why is it incapable of doing the same now?

Well, yes, the Air Force would need to sink PLAN warships that carry air defense weapons in order to defend Taiwan. There are many reasons why the Air Force needs to sink enemy warships. I'm glad the Air Force has some level of awareness about that need:

A government attempt to cancel a depiction of the first "hands up, don't shoot" incident in America. 

North Korea.

Collateral damage: "Russia rents [the Roscosmos space launch facility] from Kazakhstan and has fallen behind in rent payments. In response Kazakhstan seized Roscosmos assets at Baikonur. Russia is not getting foreign commercial launch business because of the sanctions. Because of the Ukraine war sanction, Russia has less cash in general and can’t even muster enough troops to threaten Kazakhstan."

Given the high cost of putting mass in orbit, it seems like a waste to bring the ISS down to burn up rather than salvaging it in orbit for other uses. We can't do that. It's still a shame.

Depleted uranium tank gun rounds are not nuclear weapons. They are very dense projectiles to punch through enemy armor. Those rounds are not an escalation of support--not that escalation of support is wrong given the fact that Russia is trying to conquer Ukraine. Oddly enough, all ammunition designed to kill has toxic side effects after use. Let the Russians complain. The bastards make actual nuclear threats.

The U.S. Army is setting up camp in Poland. This goes beyond what I wanted after Russia invaded Georgia.

I'm so old I remember when Democrats said they'd never take the "Trump vaccine."

China is really angry that the Netherlands won't export advanced computer chips to China. The Netherlands should offer to increase exports of  "paper teacups" to China.

A long, complicated Russia-China friendship? Frenemies with temporary benefits, I say.

Xi tells Putin to have fun storming the castle: "'Take care of yourself, dear friend, please' and waved goodbye to the Russian president who wished him a 'safe journey'."

Eat the rich woke. 

Incompetence or resistance in Putin's Russia?

Good grief, is everything, everywhere, all at once now taking on the bitterness and pettiness of faculty room disputes?

The Israel-Iran Quasi-War goes on: "An Israeli missile strike destroyed a suspected arms depot used by Iran-backed militias at Syria's Aleppo airport Wednesday[.]" 

The climate end is always nigh a decade away. And always will be. Scientists do the long science. Activists write the short "synthesis" report. Who "explain" it to activist journalists. Who filter and exaggerate the BS even more. Tip to Instapundit. And now for something completely different:

So leftists really are out to make us miserable? Their self loathing really shouldn't be my problem. Via Instapundit.

Pass, indeed. Hard pass. Tip to Instapundit.

Japan steps up to defend the West--in Europe. China started this. But Russia may pay the price first. But I strongly disagree with the statement that nothing in diplomacy is done by accident.

Americans don't need a "national divorce", whatever that means. Under federalism the states aren't supposed to be married--just friends with limited federal benefits. Honestly, the "sorting" by politics has been going on for decades, now. 

Even if Russia's claim is true, so what? Who on Earth claims American weapons and equipment can't be destroyed?

That's nice. And possibly useful. But if Ukrainians with weapons weren't violently resisting the Russians, he and anyone remotely suspected of nonviolent resistance would be dead or in gulags by now. Gandhi had the good fortune to resist a democratic Britain weary of empire.

Russia sends the ancient T-55 back to war. But as Green correctly notes, for infantry support they're fine.

Old time segregationists would be astounded to find out that you can destroy minority chances of success and separate them from white people even as you claim to be the biggest supporters of minorities. Amazing. And shameful. Mostly shameful.

The Long They Line. Said with sadness for the Long Gray Line that graduated before who defended our country.

The rise and fall of the Russian 200th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade.

The Navy: "The shortage of dwell time and 2018 reduction in retirement benefits (by about 20 percent), the increase in ideological instruction (to make sailors less sexist and prejudiced), and a general loss of confidence in senior leadership has reduced morale and the percentage of sailors who remain in the navy, especially after they have re-enlisted at least once." No worries.

The Army should focus on Europe because the rest of the military is pivoting to Asia. I somewhat agree--and used the same World War II precedent. But only in part because I fear the Army is being wasted as a naval auxiliary rather than carrying out its core competency in Asia (as I addressed in Military Review, here and here; and provided an example of the synergy of each service dominating their primary domains). 

The Air Force is practicing logistics for scattered elements across INDOPACOM.

China falsely claimed it drove an American destroyer out of its faux territorial waters in the South China Sea. Russia should pretend to stand up to America the same way rather than risk incidents in Syria, the Black Sea, or a nuclear arms race (seriously, Russia?)

Oops: "China struck a cordial tone in talks with the Philippines on Thursday, seeking 'friendly consultation' to settle dispute as South China Sea tensions rise and the US strengthens ties with its longstanding ally." The Philippines is getting results already. Manila won't be fooled, will it? Probably not.

Well, yes, America's objectives in Ukraine aren't clear now. Initially it was clearly to slow down or stop Russia's onslaught. Now we need to figure out what we want after that. This is not shocking. World War II had been going on for a year to more than three years for the countries fighting Germany in Europe before settling on "unconditional surrender" of the Germans as the objective. And as I noted, our objectives will eventually diverge from Ukraine's.

Could China crush Taiwan with a long blockade of Taiwan's west coast ports that America can't prevent? Maybe. As long as Taiwan's allies don't counter-blockade China. Which has its own dangers.

Increasing interest rates shouldn't be the sole weapon to fight inflation. Tip to Instapundit.

Huh. India repelled a Chinese border grab because of "'...unprecedented intelligence-sharing' by the U.S. with India caught 'China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) forces off-guard' as they prepared to launch their incursion. For '...the first time' U.S. military intelligence officials '...provided real-time details to ... Indian counterparts.' The real-time intelligence detailed 'Chinese positions and force strength.'"

The Russians have an advantage in artillery firepower. But are the Russians firing it because Putin demands inputs he can read in reports? Or is there a measurable output? If measured in ground gained, the advantage isn't that apparent. 

The threat is the geopolitical little red sports car of the Russian government: "Asked whether the threat of a nuclear conflict has eased, Medvedev responded: 'No, it hasn’t decreased, it has grown. Every day when they provide Ukraine with foreign weapons brings the nuclear apocalypse closer.'" Medvedev continues to carry out his humiliating role.

Acceptable collateral damage? For who, you might ask. Tip to Instapundit.

Was the loss of our EP-3 to the Chinese 22 years ago a pointless risk?  I disagree that America wouldn't tolerate similar flights in international air space off our coast.

The federal government is creating a Social Credit Score with American characters. Our intelligence apparatus expanded to cope with jihadis. As the government declines to see jihadis as much of a threat, instead of reducing that apparatus the government turns the apparatus on loyal Americans deemed enemies of the state. This is evil.

Huh: "A breakthrough that enables a human to guide a robot merely by thinking could help troops on a future battlefield  to communicate with a wide array of sensors, vehicles, and robots—all while the enemy is looking to intercept radio communications."

I'll not again that if America is such a "systemically racist" society, why didn't our society hold the line closer to slavery than to an African-American president? Odd, no?

Badthink not allowed to contaminate college students. Tip to Instapundit.

It is valid to ask questions about what America wants in the Winter War of 2022. But Russia can't necessarily leverage its size advantage over Ukraine. Nor do I see the problems Hanson notes as real, more important than stopping Russia, or a result of our support to Ukraine. And then there is the key problem that simply denying Russia a total victory in this war may simply set up Russia for complete victory in a future war.

Saudi Arabia and Syria will restore diplomatic relations. Rather than being a result of Saudi-Iranian detente supposedly engineered by China, I see this as a Saudi effort to pry Arab Syria out of Persian Iran's orbit.

 

 

Just defeat Russia. There's no substitute for victory.

Russia has integrated Belarus into its air defense umbrella: "The recent addition of more S-300 systems in Brest completes Russian-Belarusian air defense overage over Poland and much of western Ukraine and further indicates the Belarusian military’s operational subordination to the Russian Western Miliary [sic] District." If Today NATO doesn't defeat Russia in Ukraine, that air defense capability will be a bigger problem for Tomorrow NATO. Russia understands that running the NATO air gauntlet to reach the NATO frontlines is a challenge. Russia has long wanted this and hopes their figurative cavalry will link up with Kaliningrad.

American aircraft struck Iran-linked positions in Syria after an Iranian drone killed a U.S. contractor at an American Coalition base in northeast Syria. Five American troops and another contractor were also wounded by the drone attack.

The murder and atrocities will continue until love for Russia improves.

While I'm at it, keeping the old Baathist-led Iraqi army when we overthrew Saddam would have been a mistake. And it would not have been possible because the army self-disbanded and their bases were looted. [Don't click on any old Geocities links. But it is possible to find the original posts from that dead site by going to the monthly blog archives and searching around a bit or using a word search.]

Russia can locate Starlink terminals. Action and reaction in Ukraine continues.

"Could," of course: "Russia could have its most powerful and quiet nuclear attack submarines on persistent patrols off either U.S. Coast in the next two years[.]"

The coming E-7 replacement for the long-serving E-3 AWACS plane.

Even as Macron maneuvers to be the emperor of the EU, the French peasants at home undermine his coronation.

The Air Force is sending its unwanted A-10s to the Middle East while they still exist.

Mowing the jihadi grass in Somalia. We entered to feed starving Somalis more than 30 years ago and stayed for the jihadis.

China threatens "serious consequences" to the U.S. over freedom of navigation missions in international waters of the South China Sea. Note that our ship was ordered to "conduct routine maritime security operations" there. This indicates there was no mere "innocent passage" through another country's territorial waters. I hope we provide robust overwatch for those ships.

The wealthiest and most annoying illegal immigrant? Tip to Instapundit.

Why more Americans don't recoil from being ruled by--or only told what is true or false by--"arrogant power-worshipping mediocrities" is beyond me. These mediocrities claim our enemies use our Constitution effectively. The real problem is that these mediocrities don't understand how Americans use our Constitution effectively. Laws intended to stop jihadi terrorists have been turned against Americans. I trusted Americans not to do that. I was wrong. I disagree with some of Taibbi's points. For example, jihadi "illegal combatants" don't deserve Geneva Convention protections designed for uniformed soldiers who do not commit war crimes as the price of those protections. That doesn't mean illegal combatants should be crippled by torturing them. But there's a big gap between denying jihadis Geneva Convention protection and torturing them. Still, the larger picture stands. And that's the vitally important part to act on now rather than quibbling over irrelevant details. Tip to Instapundit.

A time traveler warned us that aliens would conquer Earth, killing almost all of us, on March 23, 2023. Tip to Instapundit. To be fair, his prediction was no worse than serial predictions of planetary doom by climate change fanatics.

Does America go crazy every 50 years (tip to Instapundit)? Probably. This bout might be extra bad in causes if not effects. Will we do better next time? I doubt it. I'm an optimist but I'm a realist. I'm only hoping to enjoy the interregnum.

There are tax-calculating programs for federal income taxes. The government drafted all the tax laws. And the government collects data on all of our financial information. Why doesn't the federal government calculate what we owe and let us tell them if they got it right? Right now we play a long-distance game of bartering with a vendor over the price of a Persian rug, but face penalties for getting the price wrong.

 

As long as that chef cooks a good steak, I don't care what his personal dietary preferences are:

If they can't prove dangerous climate change warming, they'll settle for making us feel warmer to justify making their mental health problems our problem. Via Instapundit.

Okay one more. LOL!

 

He should be fired. Since he didn't have the decency to resign after the Afghanistan Skedaddle Debacle. Is he a traitor? No. I am not persuaded by the big wet kiss the author gave Milley. I have completely lost confidence in his ability to lead. His firing would only be a good start. Honestly, while I understood Milley's discomfort at the Washington, D.C. church photo op, the bottom line is that it was valid to show that the government had reclaimed the streets from rioters who tried to set fire to that church. The military is not required to remain neutral when rioting takes place. Also, I never worried Trump would stage a coup or try to stay in office with a foreign military clash. That threat was all in faux Resistance heads.

Are China and Russia allies? In my view they are frenemies with temporary benefits.

How sure is Putin that Lukashenko doesn't want the weapons in his country to get an instant nuclear deterrent against Russian invasion? "Russian President Vladimir Putin said Saturday he would deploy tactical nuclear weapons in neighbour and ally Belarus." Is Russia sure Belarus can't bribe the key holders? Or will Russia send missiles with ancient warheads that don't work to foil that sort of plot? Yet the West is supposed to be frightened by this?

Iran-controlled forces again attacked American positions in Syria; and Biden vowed to keep fighting ISIL in Syria and to protect American forces there from Iranian attacks.  

Sanctions aren't a silver bullet. But they help: "Russian leader Vladimir Putin likes to boast that Russia has managed to cope with economic sanctions imposed by the West because of the Ukraine War. The reality is different." Russia's military effort is being degraded; and in time the civilian economy may be harmed significantly.

Why do climate change activists hate Africans? Tip to Instapundit.

Russia's claim that it can outproduce the West in regard to sustaining troops in Ukraine is not supported by what we know. Putin counts on Westerners believing his boasts.

Train the Way You Want to Fight Because You'll Lose the Way You've Trained

The Navy has a problem preparing for war. I've counted on our training being superior to the Chinese despite some recent doubts hovering around me. My doubts just burst into my home carrying a pizza and making themselves right at home. But I have some hope, too.

The Navy is only now committing to naval exercises that really test the Navy's ability to fight across the domains. Up until now, the process has been a sham:

The structure of combat exercises in the Navy usually took the form of focusing on individual skillsets and warfare areas—anti-surface warfare and anti-air warfare, and so on. But these things were not often combined in a true, multi-domain way. Instead, exercise and training certification regimes often took the form of a linear progression of individual areas. The opposition forces were made to behave in such a way as to facilitate these events. However, a more realistic and thinking adversary would probably employ the multi-domain tactics and operations that are the mainstay of war at sea. But instead, the opposition often acted more as facilitators for simpler target practice it seems, which is why very high kill ratios were the norm. But more importantly, a steady theme that kept reappearing was that the opposition pretty much never won.

Good. I'd worried we forgot how to fight. That worry was before I read our training has been one-dimensional and scripted. And contrary to our assumptions, the Chinese are exercising more realistically than we have been until very recently:

Now when it comes to the Chinese Navy, those public reports the Office of Naval Intelligence puts out paint a very different picture from what the U.S. Navy was doing.8 The Chinese Navy often trains multiple skillsets at a time, they do not always know the composition and the disposition of the forces they are facing off against, and they do not always know exactly what will happen when the event is about to go down. And not only did Chinese Navy combat exercises become increasingly intense, they were willing to impose on themselves certain warfighting fundamentals of friction that the U.S. Navy was unwilling to do.

So the new exercises over time could begin to correct the faulty structure of the Navy's combat exercises. That article notes, however, that "the Navy doesn’t have a major, multi-domain standing formation to act as full-time opposition for the high-end fight." That author worries about maintaining this late commitment to difficult exercises. 

Maybe a Navy OPFOR could be made with modularized auxiliary cruisers to institutionalize tough training with a core force of ships and crews that simulate the People's Liberation Army Navy both afloat and simulated land positions.

Otherwise we may wonder what's wrong with our bloody fleet one day.

Do read that linked article. And see if your doubts don't camp out on your sofa, too.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 continues here.

Europe is Not Depriving America of Pacific Assets

Is the United States unprepared to fight China in the western Pacific? Probably. But trying to jam more American forces into the scarce land bases in the western Pacific is not a solution. 

This author says America isn't prepared to fight China over Taiwan. But after laying out a number of issues, falls flat:

Want another big problem? The Biden administration continues to divide U.S. forces between Europe and the Pacific, further weakening the already insufficient forces available to deter or defeat China in a conflict over Taiwan. The U.S. needs its European allies to step up so that the U.S. Air Force and Navy can redeploy forces to the Pacific.  

One, our European allies are stepping up. Slowly. But they are. And the truth is that America's military strength in Europe has dropped dramatically since the Cold War. Even Russia's invasion of Ukraine a year ago has reversed that decrease by only a tiny fraction. I addressed the notion that we defend Europe too much in this post on America's interest in defending 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.

American naval and air power in Europe has declined, as part of the overall reduction. No doubt, if needed in Asia they will sail and fly that way.

Good Lord, I was shocked that the deployment of small numbers of American forces to Europe sent one author into a seeming panic over the alleged diversion from Asia:

Two [F-35] squadrons and a single air defense unit are not depriving INDOPACOM of assets. There are limited bases in the Pacific for Army and Air Force assets to battle China. They are crowded enough already.

Also, two missile defense destroyers had best not be the difference between victory and defeat in the Pacific. One, they are needed in Europe for mobile missile defense. Two, they can sail to the Pacific if needed.

Urging more American forces for the Pacific in our limited facilities just creates a target-rich environment for a Chinese first strike:

A classified Pentagon wargame simulated a Chinese push to take control of the South China Sea. The Air Force officer, charged with plotting the service’s future, learned that China’s well-stocked missile force had rained down on the bases and ports the U.S. relied on in the region, turning American combat aircraft and munitions into smoldering ruins in a matter of days.

I've long been wary of putting too much of our military power forward in too few bases. Survive the initial blow and then gather for the counter-attack, I say.

Europe is absolutely an economy-of-force front. But it is a front that still needs American attention.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 continues here.

Code Red in Asia

Is America seeking to suppress and contain China? You're God damned right we are.

Xi Jinping is angry, accusing America of trying to "suppress and contain" China: 

"Western countries, led by the United States, have implemented all-round containment, encirclement and suppression against us, bringing unprecedentedly severe challenges to our country’s development," the Chinese leader said.

To be fair, America helped China develop for decades, even ignoring all the espionage. 

And when China developed, instead of mellowing out it got more expansively aggressive, suppressed its own people with technology supplementing brutality, couldn't wait to stomp its boot on Hong Kong ahead of schedule, and accelerated its cultural genocide of minorities. 

All while stealing more and more economic, military, and personal data from America and the West.

So you're damned right we seek to suppress and contain the China we got and not the China we hoped for.

And most of China's neighbors feel the same way. Go figure. 

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 continues here.

Setting the Stage for Iraq War 3.0

We won the Iraq War. Nearly lost it. Then won it again. Are we sleepwalking into round three as Iran continues to undermine Iraq?*

Yeah, this worries me a lot:

Iran-backed Shi’a militants likely massacred unarmed Sunni civilians in Diyala on February 20. ISIS has not commented on the attack. Pro-Iran politicians accused ISIS of the attack, likely in an effort to obfuscate responsibility. The Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) arrested 18 suspects in the attack, though it is highly unlikely the Iraqi government will hold the perpetrators accountable. ISIS may use this attack to position itself as a protector of the local community. ISIS may do this by targeting local security forces, particularly Shi’a militias, to illustrate its capabilities to locals.

This is the kind of problem that can turn Sunni Arabs into jihadi supporters.

And if the government can't protect people, they will fall back on their group identities that will exacerbate the conflict:

The Iraqi government’s response in Diyala will likely fail to secure both Shi’a and Sunni communities against further acts of violence. Locals are expressing distrust in the ISF’s ability to bring the perpetrators to justice. The ISF will likely briefly arrest militia members before promptly releasing them. The Iraqi government has promised to investigate similar massacres, before failing to make arrests or release findings to the public.

Preventing Shia Arabs from killing Sunni Arabs helped engineer the Anbar Awakening to win the first round.

Yes, we won the original Iraq War.

But we prematurely left in 2011, and without our presence to see the problem developing, ISIL convinced a lot of Iraqi Sunni Arabs--with some justification--that ISIL was their protector against revenge-seeking Shias. 

Since our absence also made us oblivious to the deterioration of the Iraqi military leadership and the alienation of the Sunni Arabs once converted by the Awakening, we didn't even see the approaching rapid ISIL offensive/uprising that swept a collapsing Iraqi military out of western and northwestern Iraq.

To my surprise and delight--and worry that he was not serious--the Obama administration recognized belatedly that it had to defend the win and supported the Iraqis for Iraq War 2.0. Unfortunately, Iran took advantage to make inroads into dominating Iraqi factions.

The new war stretched on way too long in my opinion. Seriously, what was our major malfunction? But Trump carried the war on to a new victory despite his own reservations.

Yet here we are again, with ISIL setting the stage to again look like Sunni Arab protectors. 

America and our allies remained in Iraq to prevent Iraq War 3.0. We didn't make that 2011 mistake again, at least. Not yet, anyway.

Don't act as if 2,500 American troops "still" in Iraq is something alarming. American troops are "still" in South Korea, Japan, Germany, and Italy. Because it is worth it to defend a hard-won victory and keep new allies on our side fighting common enemies.

We can't say we made it to 20 years holding Afghanistan in the win column, can we?

Let's hold the line by stopping the Shia killers that Iran is encouraging or actually controlling--this stage is really a war against Iran inside Iraq notwithstanding the jihadi problem. We must also bolster Iraqi governance and military competence, and directly kill ISIL jihadis wherever we find them.

The Sunni Kurds were an important part of the Iraqi government's counteroffensive to defeat ISIL. Will the Kurds step up again? Or will the Kurds hunker down and try to keep their oasis of stability intact and let the rest of Iraq sort out this problem without them?

Despite my concerns about sustaining our presence inside Syria, our small military presence there actually does help prevent ISIL in Syria from helping out in Iraq more. General Milley visibly stated that:

The nearly eight-year-old U.S. deployment to Syria to combat Islamic State is still worth the risk, the top U.S. military officer said on Saturday, after a rare, unannounced visit to a dusty base in the country's northeast to meet U.S. troops.

And our Secretary of Defense in Iraq for the 20th anniversary of the invasion to overthrow the Saddam regime pledged to stay:

U.S. forces are ready to remain in Iraq at the invitation of the government of Iraq. These forces are operating in a non-combat advise, assist and enable role to support the Iraqi-led fight against terrorism. This is a critical mission, and we're proud to support our Iraqi partners. 

Good. But don't forget promoting rule of law in Iraq to entrench democracy and expel Iranian influence. This Iraqi former member of parliament expressed the current problem well:

Al-Sheikh is keen to be, as he calls it, “fair”. Without US intervention, he concedes, Iraqis would never have been liberated from the former regime, but the job is unfinished.

For God's sake lets not blow this--again. We keep pivoting away from the region a bit too much for my tastes before the job is done.

UPDATE: Mission accomplished:

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Tuesday said he would support legislation to repeal two Iraq war authorizations.

We're in Phase IX of the Iraq War. Does Iran agree the war is over? 

*You could count this as round 4 or 5, depending on how you count the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the subsequent low-level No-Fly Zone conflict during the 1990s. Heck, maybe what is going on inside Iraq is really the Iran-Iraq War 2.0.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 continues here.