Motes and Planks

The Russians risk losing dominance in their own Far East as their population dwindles and the Chinese gain economic leverage there.

Russia has a massive potential China problem yet Moscow focuses on little bits of land in Georgia while alienating America and NATO.

One day the Russians will notice their real problem, but what then?

If Russia begins losing control over the Far East to a resurgent China, the Kremlin will have to seek America's help. While Mr Putin's driving purpose is to show that Russia has the strength to stand alone, in the end America may be an indispensable ally to contain a rising China. Those steadily emptying forests in the Far East explain why.

That's about the size of it. I'm sure we'll be more than happy to help Russia, right? There are glimmers of hope in Russian thinking, but so far nothing has seeped in deep enough to affect their bizarre theories of being under virtual assault by the West.

The Russians are just effing idiots. I don't know how to put it more kindly.

The Lions Will Lie Down With the Lamb?

I sure hope we don't have to fight a tough enemy in a conventional fight any time in the next decade or so, because we've assumed we won't have to.

Secretary Gates sets forth the rationale for a defense budget that slights advanced weaponry:

So the most important shift in President Obama’s first defense budget was to increase and institutionalize funding for programs that directly support those fighting America’s wars and their families. Those initiatives included more helicopter support, air lift, armored vehicles, personnel protection equipment, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, we also increased funding for programs that provide long-term support to military families and treatment for the signature wounds of this conflict – such as traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress.

But, while the world of terrorists and other violent extremists – of insurgents and IEDs – is with us for the long haul, we also recognize that another world has emerged. Growing numbers of countries and groups are employing the latest and increasingly accessible technologies to put the United States at risk in disruptive and unpredictable ways.

Other large nations – known in Pentagon lingo as “near-peers” – are modernizing their militaries in ways that could, over time, pose a challenge to the United States. In some cases, their programs take the form of traditional weapons systems such as more advanced fighter aircraft, missiles, and submarines.

But other nations have learned from the experience of Saddam Hussein’s military in the first and second Gulf wars – that it is ill-advised, if not suicidal, to fight a conventional war head-to-head against the United States: fighter-to-fighter, ship-to-ship, tank-to-tank. They also learned from a bankrupted Soviet Union not to try to outspend us or match our overall capabilities. Instead, they are developing asymmetric means that take advantage of new technologies – and our vulnerabilities – to disrupt our lines of communication and our freedom of movement, to deny us access, and to narrow our military options and strategic choices.

At the same time, insurgents or militias are acquiring or seeking precision weapons, sophisticated communications, cyber capabilities, and even weapons of mass destruction. The Lebanese extremist group Hezbollah currently has more rockets and high-end munitions – many quite sophisticated and accurate – than all but a handful of countries.

In sum, the security challenges we now face, and will in the future, have changed, and our thinking must likewise change. The old paradigm of looking at potential conflict as either regular or irregular war, conventional or unconventional, high end or low – is no longer relevant. And as a result, the Defense Department needs to think about and prepare for war in a profoundly different way than what we have been accustomed to throughout the better part of the last century.

What is needed is a portfolio of military capabilities with maximum versatility across the widest possible spectrum of conflict. As a result, we must change the way we think and the way we plan – and fundamentally reform – the way the Pentagon does business and buys weapons. It simply will not do to base our strategy solely on continuing to design and buy – as we have for the last 60 years – only the most technologically advanced versions of weapons to keep up with or stay ahead of another superpower adversary – especially one that imploded nearly a generation ago.

To fight the wars we are in today, we will buy the capabilities needed to fight those wars even though that reduces our abilities to fight high intensity warfare. For this we will accept sufficiency instead of dominance. So much for preparing for the full conflict spectrum.

It is doubly insulting to justify downgrading advanced weapons for lower-cost (but still vital) weaponry and equipment for our infantry because who believes this administration and the constituency that sent it to Washington will actually fight another counter-insurgency? I count ourselves lucky that President Bush won in Iraq and it would cost President Obama more headaches to lose it now. And I still have no idea if the president or Congress will maintain the determination to fund and win the war in Afghanistan. I guess future foes will be too pacified by yet-to-be deployed presidential speeches to fight us.

But no, we spin tales that we won't have to fight any high-intensity wars any time soon. And we justify this new ten-year rule by assuming we won't have to fight any near-peer or peer competitors in the medium term. In other words, we are preparing to fight the last war. That used to be a sin in defense policy.

Admire the Plastic

The whole "Bush plotted to kill al Qaeda leaders" plastic turkey scandal truly is made of the finest plastics available to our Left:

The statute in question, 50 USC 413b, requires the administration to disclose many covert activities to Congress, but the same statute specifically allows the administration to withhold such information when disclosure would not be "consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters." Thus, even assuming that the alleged CIA program had reached the stage of development that might implicate the statute, the statue itself allows for nondisclosure.

Furthermore, the statute commits the disclosure/nondisclosure decision to the president, not Congress (to say nothing of left-wing activists). Under Section 413b(c), the president ensures that disclosure is made when possible; when immediate disclosure is impossible, the president should disclose the information "in timely fashion" and with appropriate justification for the delay.

Huh, Congress authorized the president to determine whether he should fill in Congress on our efforts.

Let the Congressional investigations begin!

Freedom? Freedom?

The anger in Iran over the corrupt election process continues to simmer despite government efforts to smother the protests:

Tens of thousands of government opponents packed Iran's main Islamic prayer sermon Friday, chanting "freedom, freedom" and other slogans as their top clerical backer Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani delivered a sermon bluntly criticizing the country's leadership over the crackdown on election protests.

Outside, pro-government Basiji militiamen in front of a line of riot police fired tear gas at thousands of protesters who chanted "death to the dictator" and called on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to resign. Young protesters with green bandanas over their mouths and noses set a bonfire in the street and kicked away gas canisters, facing off with the security forces while others scattered.

The opposition aimed to turn the Friday prayers at Tehran University into a show of their continued strength despite heavy government suppression since the disputed June 12 presidential election.

Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, who claims to have won the election, sat in the front row of worshippers, attending for the first time since the turmoil began. Many of the tens of thousands at the prayers wore headbands or wristbands in his campaign color green, or had green prayer rugs.

Unless this type of anger spreads to the rest of the country outside of Tehran, it will ultimately be futile. But I am rather surprised that the anger continues to be displayed so openly. And as long as there are fissures in the ruling elite and those elites maneuver for advantage, the simmering anger could still explode.

Still, remember that the elites are maneuvering for advantage and surely just want to leverage the anger of the protesters to win the power struggle. How many of those leaders truly want "freedom" as understood by the protesters? Darn few. Whoever wins the power struggle may be just as willing as Ahmadinejad to use force to suppress the protesters.

But once unleashed, growing protests will take on a life of their own that the ruling factions may not be able to control.

And the Answer Is

There will actually be a battle in Congress over whether to fund more than the already-funded 187 F-22 Raptors:

The Pentagon and Congress all but dared each other Thursday to a showdown over funding for fighter jets in a multimillion-dollar squabble that each side said they were fighting in the interests of U.S. security.

The chairman of a key House Appropriations panel said he's confident that plans to add $369 million to the Pentagon's budget for a dozen more F-22 jets will survive a White House veto threat.

I've long said I want two wings of Raptors (144 planes). I also assumed this requires more than 144 planes to account for training and experimentation, attrition, and war losses. I don't think that 187 is enough for this, but I don't know how this if calculated. The Air Force fighter guys say a minimum of about 250 are needed (some news says 243) for a moderate or possibly higher risk in carrying out our wartime missions.

This article gives me some numbers to work with. Oh, not the maintenance rate and availability junk. That stuff is true for all aircraft and is just meant to mimimize the number of apparent Raptors we have to argue for more. There is a place for this kind of math in planning operations, but procurement is not appropriate.

The numbers I take from this are that we have 130 in 7 weak squadrons as front line strength with the remainder used for training and other purposes.

Starting with two full wings we start with 144 planes as the frontline strength. Using the ratio of planes in squadrons to the training/other total, add 56 more planes. (I'm assuming the lesser planes incapable of being upgraded over the life of the plane are included in this number.) I'll assume 30 more years of useful life and that we could expect one plane lost each year, for 30 more planes for normal attrition. And then we'd want war loss replacements. Over those 30 years, most enemies won't even require the use of these planes to beat them, so I'll call it 20 more.

That adds up to 250 planes. I actually wasn't adding it up as I went so the number kind of surprised me for matching the general number the Air Force fighter guys have tossed off.

Of course, in a major war, the training/other craft would be thrown into the fight even if they aren't top of the line. They'll still be better than whatever is our second-best fighter.

I'll mention that I have a tiny number of Lockheed shares. But they aren't nearly enough to influence me into exaggerating what I think we need. If I run across calculation assumptions that lower the amount of planes we need to maintain two full squadrons for the life of the plane, I'll surely report that.

UPDATE: I meant to add that my assumptions also include the idea that our defense budget is not static. I assume that given our massive domestic spending, perhaps buying more F-22s is "affordable" in these strange budgetary times.

Strategypage rightly points out that in a static or shtrinking defense budget, we have priorities--even within the Air Force--higher than more F-22s:

The air force knows it cannot get the money for everything it needs (or thinks it needs), and has to establish priorities. A new president and Congress is likely to cut the defense budget, and the air force is eager to get sufficient money to build thousands of F-35s, to replace the many F-16s and F-15s that will be retired, because of old age, in the next decade or so.

In this reality, we still certainly need more Raptors. But we can't risk doing without the capabilities that would need to scaled back to afford more Raptors.

I'd rather change the assumption that drives Strategypage's observation. But since I can't, I accept that more American F-22s aren't going to happen.

And I'm not sure whether it is safe to allow even export versions of the plane to trusted allies such as Japan. Although I admit the Chinese might get information on the planes whether or not the Japanese have them.

Uh Oh

If this is how General McChrystal expects to win in Afghanistan, I'm officially worried:

“I think we’re talking months for this to play out, and it’ll play out at a little different speed everywhere,” he said. “Until we hit the point where the insurgent fighters decide they cannot force us out or cannot discourage us, I think they’re likely to stay significantly.”

This sounds an awful lot like we expect to outlast their will to win. I know this is but one comment and I shouldn't extrapolate too much from it. And I know that the general is talking about Helmand Province here and not all of Afghanistan, but it is still wrong to think this way about even a slice of Afghanistan. Even a slice that provides such a large amount of the enemy's funding. Yes, it is important to hold this territory even if the enemy abandons it. But this isn't a silver bullet to win the war. They'll get other funding and adapt to lesser amounts to support their jihad.

We can't outlast the enemy there. We have gone a long way around the globe to fight the jihadis. The jihadis live right there. We can't outlast them.

We have to be talking in terms of defeating the enemy. We have to think of winning the war and not being the last man standing.

Just because this is a counter-insurgency doesn't mean that defeating the enemy is less important than in a conventional fight.

Yes, it means that kinetics must be an important but secondary focus, with winning hearts and minds the first job. But it doesn't mean we don't have to destroy the enemy in the field.

Defeating the enemy armed groups is primarily an effort designed to destroy the enemy's assets of recruits, weapons, money, and terrain (to rest, train, and stage from). The non-kinetic elements of COIN can cripple these things and recruit the locals to our side who also have no place to go if they don't win, but the kinetic elements must kill off the existing hard core fighters and scare the less committed into deserting.

So yes, this is not a fight where firepower is dominant. But it is still a fight and we still must defeat the enemy.

Outlasting a domestically based insurgency is a sucker's game. I hope we know better than to play that game.

The China Expert Mentality

It always annoys me that people ascribe great patience to Chinese foreign policy--in great contrast to our focus on next week, which will lead to our eventual defeat. This expert is one of many to think this way:

One of the great advantages the Chinese have is time is always on their side. Why is time on China’s side? Because it’s growing so quickly, and with that big population, they can afford to play a waiting game. The historical trend for as far as the eye can see is toward growing Chinese strength. You remember what Deng Xiaoping was supposed to have said when Henry Kissinger asked whether he thought the French Revolution was a good thing: “It’s too early to say.” That to me is a very good insight into the Chinese mentality.

This mistakes extreme caution and secrecy for patience and far-sightedness.

This analysis doesn't seem to buy the party line on patience:

A leading social researcher, Yu Jianrong, recently analysed China's primary problem as a governance style based on "rigid stability". Instead of reacting in a "resilient" way, accepting risk and seeking to manage it creatively, the Chinese state was prone in a host of different areas to take the "rigid" option. This involves zero tolerance for risk, managing uncertainty by pushing it outside the borders.

Sheesh. Time is always on China's side? When dynasties have risen and fallen and the territory China ruled has waxed and waned over the centuries?

We shall see if the Chinese get rich before they get old, eh?

And when economic progress peters out, fissures within the Han majority will come out into the open:

The Han — split in seven or more linguistically and culturally distinct groups — are anything but homogenous. The major languages in China other than those in minority homelands include Mandarin, Hakka (spoken in several southern areas), Gan (Jiangxi province), Wu (Zhejiang province), Xiang (Hunan province), Yue (mostly Guangdong province), Pinghua (an offshoot of Yue), Southern Min (Hokkien/Taiwanese) and Northern Min.

Yet the CCP has used the myth of homogeneity to fan Han nationalism.

It isn't just the minorities in the western part of China that could break away. "China," far from overtaking America, could become a geographic rather than a political term just as "Europe" is today.

A lot of entities over the last 60 years have hoped to supplant us as the dominant power. None have succeeded. I wouldn't put a lot of money on China succeeding any time soon.

Wait Listed

I continue to be amazed at how smart diplomacy aimed at restoring our reputation abroad consists mostly of alienating friends and rewarding enemies.

Some of our best friends in a rough neighborhood are worried about all the nuanced talk coming out of Washington, D.C. these days:

A group of prominent former Eastern European leaders wrote to President Barack Obama on Thursday that their region is gripped by anxiety that his efforts to reach out to Russia could lead him to forget their interests.

The 22 former leaders warned U.S. credibility would be damaged if Washington abandons plans for a missile shield, saying they still feel bullied by their giant neighbor and former master. They claimed Russia continues to challenge their sovereignty 20 years after the Cold War's end.

Do you want to know how bad they think the current situation is? Well:

"Had a 'realist' view prevailed in the early 1990s, we would not be in NATO today and the idea of a Europe whole, free, and at peace would be a distant dream," the letter said.

That glorious era includes the period of NATO expansion east that occurred in the Clinton administration.

That's what we're reduced to, people: nostalgia over the integrity and forcefulness of President Bill Clinton.

UPDATE: The Polish leaders endorse the letter:

Poland's prime minister and president say they back an appeal by former Eastern European leaders to President Barack Obama urging him not to overlook them as he pursues better ties with Russia.

The Poles have a long an unfortunate history at the hands of the Russians--and their other neighbors. The idea that their independence could be snuffed out in a new agreement among the big powers surely keeps them up at night.

Drawn and Quartered

China's ability to invade Taiwan rests not just with an analysis of China's ability to attack, but a comparison of China's ability to attack to Taiwan's ability to defend. Reducing the latter is just as important to determining whether China can pull off an invasion and the price they'd have to pay in lives.

The Chinese charm offensive is paying off:

Taiwan will reduce the size of its armed forces by a fifth as ties improve with longtime rival China, a defense ministry official said Wednesday.

The defense ministry hopes to cut the number of soldiers to 215,000 within five years from 275,000 now, the official said, adding that about a quarter of the generals would also be phased out.

So let me get this straight. For decades the Chinese have snarled at and threatened Taiwan, asserting Peking's right to rule Taiwan, right?

But recently, the Chinese have been smiling and acting nice--while not abandoning their claim of having the right to rule Taiwan as one big China--and this means ties between the two are improving?

I don't know about you, but when a long-time enemy suddenly starts acting all friendly, I don't draw the conclusion that I have a new friend. I raise my level of suspicion.

Instead of keeping their guard up, the Taiwanese government is literally betting their lives that the smiles unaccompanied by any policy changes regarding China's goals genuinely reflect China's intentions to leave Taiwan alone.

With thinking like that being displayed by the rulers in Taipei, I'm starting to come to the conclusion that Taiwan is doomed.

Sure, if we have enough time to move forces into the western Pacific, we can defeat whatever the Chinese can deploy. The problem is that the Chinese may need less time to conquer Taiwan than we need to decide to intervene and actually move sufficient forces to the Taiwan region to defeat the Chinese navy and air force.

The Taiwanese just don't have a consensus to defend their democracy from China, and we can no longer hold off China in the short run regardless of what the Taiwanese do in regard to defending themselves. They can kiss their freedom goodbye.

UPDATE: While the reduction in troops was portrayed as due to better relations with China, if the reduction is really being done to focus on defeating a Chinese invasion in the Taiwan Strait, that's a different manner:

"We have changed the definition of 'winning the war' (for Taiwan's survival) from 'winning over our enemies' to 'preventing enemies' landing on Taiwan'," the Taiwanese Defence Ministry said in a statement.

"Under this guideline, we want to build a small but strong armed force to defend our country and fend off enemy invasion," the statement continued.

Of course, Taiwan still needs a mobile army to drive any invaders who make it past the air and naval shield.

And the bigger problem is civilian morale if the public really believes that China would never invade. The shock of being invaded after believing they are safe--despite the lack of supporting evidence--might be too much to support a hard fight to defeat the Chinese invaders.

The Power of Cheap and Clean Nuclear Energy!

President Ahmadinejad doesn't seem to be cutting President Obama any slack for our muted reaction to the fraudulant Iranian electoral process and that unpleasantness involving dead Iranian protesters:

Iranian leaders often refer to the United States and its allies as the "global arrogance."

"As soon as the new government is established, with power and authority, ten times more than before, it will enter the global scene and will bring down the global arrogance," he told a big crowd in the northeastern city of Mashhad.

"They should wait as a new wave of revolutionary thinking ... from the Iranian nation is on the way and we will not allow the arrogant (powers) to even have one night of good sleep," Ahmadinejad said, according to state broadcaster IRIB.

That's pretty boastful of Ahmadinejad.

It's almost like he expects to have cheap and clean nuclear energy before too long.

Because cheap and clean nuclear energy is the best way to bring down the global arrogance!

You Have to Admire Their Determination

While our president speaks of exit strategies for Afghanistan and our Congressional leadership gives our military a year to show progress that even they can grasp (which they could not in fall 2007 as the Surge in Iraq succeeded), al Qaeda still discusses their multi-year plan to (dramatic pause) rule the world!

It has seven phases, beginning with a phase 1 of murdering innocent people in large numbers. Then it logically concludes with the last phase:

Phase 7, “final victory.” All the world’s inhabitants will be forced to either convert to Islam, or submit (as second class citizens) to Islamic rule. This will be completed by 2020 or thereabouts.

These jihadis may be murderous nutballs, but they do have ambition. And no carping ninnies are whining to bin Laden about rushing to phase 7 within the next year or the whole jihad thing is called right off, mister!

I sure hope that Cairo speech's effects kick in before phase 6 starts.

The Hurt for Red October

The Russian fleet is disappearing and Moscow's plans to build 6 aircraft carriers are seriously stupid. If carried out, this idea would deprive every other naval budget item--and possibly the rest of the military--of funding. And the Russians couldn't operate them if they built them:

Whatever oil prices might have been at the time or how high they might have been sustained on the world market, the idea of Russia constructing this number of naval vessels in even the best of economic circumstances is inconceivable. The funds that would have to be expended in order to boost the navy to these levels would break the bank. Plus it would draw all funding away from the other branches of the armed services, which would be unlikely to sit by idly and watch while the navy vacuumed up every kopeck that they needed for fighter aircraft, tanks, new communications systems, air defense batteries, etc.

The reality now is that not only is the idea of Russia building and operating aircraft carrier battle groups an impossible dream, but just building enough new ships to replace those that are worn-out after decades of use is also not feasible. A recent analysis by the authoritative Moscow-based weekly, the Independent Military Review (NVO), entitled "BMF RF (Naval Military Fleet of the Russian Federation) on Foreign Warships" states that the Russian Navy is currently in a situation of irreversible collapse.

The Russians don't need to interdict the North Atlantic NATO supply lines. Russia's ideas about naval power are lunacy and nostalgia disguised as strategic thinking.

Russia needs ballistic missile submarines based in the Arctic to serve as a survivable nuclear deterrent, nuclear attack subs to protect them, and small surface vessels to act as a coastal defense force. Once that is in place, if they want to build a small force for global show-the-flag operations, have a go at that.

Russia is a land power spanning two continents. The Soviet navy was an anomaly that only made sense in the context of fighting America for Western Europe.

Are the Russians really prepared to cripple their ability to defend the motherland to create the shadow of capability to fight America in the North Atlantic? If so, the Russians really do have one foot in the Cold War. And the other is in their grave.

You Can Do This?

At first I just assumed this was part of cap-and-trade since it happened at a gas station:

A New Hampshire man says he swiped his debit card at a gas station to buy a pack of cigarettes and was charged over 23 quadrillion dollars.

Hey, defending the planet isn't cheap, I figured. PAYGO is pretty strict, apparently.

As it turns out, it was a bank error.

But what really got me was this:

Muszynski says he spent two hours on the phone with Bank of America trying to sort out the string of numbers and the $15 overdraft fee.

One, what's the point of haggling over the $15 overdraft fee when you're talking a 23 quadrillion dollar debit?

And two, you mean that I could buy a 23 quadrillion dollar item, pay for it on my debit card, head for some place with no extradition treaty, and face only a $15 overdraft fee?

I know, I know. Just how in the world did our banks get in financial trouble last fall with policies like that?

Game Over?

I've figured that the protests in Iran that linger on are too narrowly based on urban students and the Twittering class to bring down the regime.

I did hold out hope that divisions within the ruling elites could keep alive the hope of broadening the protests to the level that they could threaten the current system that entrenches the mullahs.

The divisions within the elites may have been papered over:

JUST over a month after a controversial election split Iran's ruling elite into two openly hostile camps, there are signs that the adversaries may be taking a step back from the brink.

If true, hope for Iran is dead.

Which means our president can dust off engagement and start talking with the regime soon.

Which in turn means Iran will face no obstacle to getting nuclear weapons.

We shall see if that then leads to either an Israeli or even an American strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

Only the Finest of Plastics for this Turkey

As plastic turkey issues go, the faux outrage on our left over the CIA's al Qaeda killing program makes this one clearly of the highest quality.

It reaches this apex because the program was revealed--to no apparent outrage--back in 2002:

You know things are bad when you can't keep your national security leaks straight...FIGURES- NY TIMES ALREADY LEAKED INFO ON SECRET CIA AL-QAEDA PLAN IN 2002

Huh. Well what do you know?

Next plastic turkey issue, please. I'm bored with this one already.

Life Support System

I've not been shy about predicting the demise of the super carrier in the face of network-centric warfare. Aircraft like the X-47B, which could be used for bombing, will prolong the lifespan of our big decks, however:

Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy rolled out the X-47B, its first combat UAV (or UCAS, for Joint Unmanned Combat Aerial System). This is part of a six year long, $636 million contract to build and test two X-47B aircraft. The test program calls for first flight later this year, and first carrier operations by 2011. The navy believes that, with aerial refueling, a X-47B can stay aloft for fifty hours. With internal fuel, it can go 2,700 kilometers and return to its carrier. This greatly expands the reconnaissance capability of a carrier.

With that kind of range, it can strike enemy assets that would threaten the carrier while giving the carrier a lot more ocean to hide in.

This isn't an argument to keep building Fords to replace our current Nimitz class ships. We should still plan for the ships and systems that will be the centerpiece of our Navy. After all, UCAS could fly off of much smaller decks, right?

But with the major costs of our existing carriers already paid for (I hesitate to use the term "sunk costs"), anything that extends the useful life of these assets should be exploited.

The Axis of Learn to Love Evil

It looks like Lebanon will be thrown under the bus, just proving that my warning that reaching out to our enemies at the expense of our friends just leads to fewer friends and more enemies.

That'll teach people to stand up to thug regimes.

Already the Iranians have learned the lesson. The Lebanese are learning it. And the Hondurans are getting a nice lesson, too. A new Axis of Learn to Love Evil.

A free Poland can only marvel at their luck of Solidarity arising during the administration of Ronald Reagan rather than Barack Obama.

A Situation to Start a War

North Korea would most likely lose any war with South Korea, the North Koreans know this, and that means North Korea won't start a war, according to this analysis:

South Korea's 650,000 forces are bolstered by 28,500 American troops in the country. The U.S. also has F-16 jets and A-10 attack aircraft in South Korea, while its F-16s in Japan could reach North Korea in an hour.

"I'm sure that the North Koreans know very well that they cannot win," said Yang Moo-jin, a professor at Seoul's University of North Korean Studies.

He and other analysts say it's more likely North Korea's recent missile and nuclear tests are aimed at mustering domestic support for ailing leader Kim Jong Il as he reportedly prepares to name his youngest son as his successor.

"North Korea has many internal problems now: Kim's uncertain health problem, the power succession matter and the country's economic trouble," Yang said. "Given all these, the North is not in a situation to start a war."

The first assumption is certainly true. I don't know about the second. And the third is not supported by history or North Korean logic.

Yes, barring major good luck on the North and major screw ups by the South, South Korea and our forces would almost assuredly defeat North Korea if it came to war.

But how do we know that North Korea's leadership knows this is true?

And the idea that internal difficulties will preclude Pyongyang from starting a war is wishful thinking.

Even if the North Koreans were 95% sure they'd lose a general war, if the North Korean leadership thought there was a 100% chance of a revolt within North Korea that would result in the North's communist elites being hunted down and killed like dogs, that 5% chance would look pretty good by comparison.

Or what if the North Koreans decided that just a limited war would suppress dissent and not risk defeat in a general war? What if that war then spun out of control?

I just don't like this speculation on what North Korea would rationally do under stress. Rational rulers wouldn't be content to run a gulag with a UN seat.

Don't Get Cocky

I continue to worry more about events in Iraq's Kurdish regions derailing Iraq's progress than I do over Syrian, Iranian, and al Qaeda aggression inside Iraq.

This story does not lessen my worries:

Iraqi Kurdistan risks serious instability as Talabani and Barzani show that, despite all their talk of democracy in Kurdistan, their parties do not take such principles seriously.

But if the worst happens and the Kurds overplay their hand, it is no reason to abandon the progress we've made through all the other problems we've overcome.

Work the problem, I always say. Work the problem.

700,000 Grains of Sand

Ah, tourism! Surely it reflects the building good will between China and Taiwan:

Up to 700,000 Chinese tourists are expected to visit Taiwan in 2009 amid improving ties between the two sides, a report here has quoted President Ma Ying-jeou as saying.

With mid-July marking the start of peak holiday season, Ma told the Commercial Times that Taiwan is set to welcome 700,000 mainlanders -- or 2,000 a day -- by year-end, citing a tourism bureau estimate.

How many of those tourists will be PLA members scouting their war time assignment areas?

And when the invasion comes, will the PLA be able to slip a battalion a day into those 2,000 for a week or so prior to D-Day, and so have 4,000 to 7,000 troops on the ground (who'd have to be armed by agents who already established arms and vehicle caches inside Taiwan) right at H-Hour?

Even before the Chinese charm offensive began, aided by President Ma's reaching back, I feared that civilian ships would be the vanguard of the invasion.

I fear now that the Taiwanese are just allowing the pre-invasion PLA special forces to enter Taiwan as tourists rather than parachuting in or landing by small rubber boat.