Demoting Pakistan

Indian defense doctrine is graduating from worrying about Pakistan's conventional threat to worrying about China's power as the main mission:

Essentially, the changes are aimed at strengthening the Army’s capacity for fighting what one serving general has described as a war on ‘two and a half fronts’—a reference to possible simultaneous confrontations with Pakistan and China at the same time as managing an internal counter-insurgency effort.

While the shift in focus is welcome, I think it is too army-centric. And I'm army-centric. So when I say that, I'm probably on to something. Here's my take on India's overall position and how their military can be used against threats.

Buh Bye

An American who sold information about the B-2 to the Chinese is going to jail for a long time:

Noshir S. Gowadia, 66, of Maui, Hawaii, was sentenced late yesterday to 32 years in prison for communicating classified national defense information to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), illegally exporting military technical data, as well as money laundering, filing false tax returns and other offenses.

Good riddance.

I hope we are vigorously defending our technology from China's spies.

Oh. So Close

It's a full blown scandal of an American three-star general aware that allied security people tortured those they detained yet didn't stop them!

A senior U.S. military officer who oversaw the training of Palestinian security forces in the West Bank was aware that some engaged in the torture of detainees, according to a confidential document published Tuesday.

Oh, wait. Palestinians did the torturing? Well never mind then.

Gosh! Nuance is so easy once you understand the ground rules!

Russian Missile Defense

It is clear that the New START treaty defends the integrity of Russia's offensive missile force. Russia's parliament passed the New START treaty with a passage statement that links the treaty to our missile defenses:

"The State Duma proceeds from the assumption that the New START treaty can be functioning and viable only in conditions when there is no quantitative and qualitative buildup of the U.S. missile defense systems, developed independently or jointly with other countries," the Duma said in a statement accompanying the passage of the ratification bill.

There was never any doubt that Russia would ratify this gift to them, of course.

Yeah, weren't we who opposed the treaty using this as one of the arguments against passage just being silly?

Oh, and about Russia's large numbers of theater and shorter range nukes outside the treaty, according to the initial story:

In its statement on Tuesday, the Duma also turned a cold shoulder to the U.S. push for a quick start of U.S.-Russian talks to cut short-range nuclear weapons.

On top of news that Russia has room to increase their strategic nukes under the ceiling while we will have to cut to get to our ceiling, we have ample evidence that this treaty was rushed through our Senate last year without proper debate. I knew we'd finally get to see what's in the treaty once it was ratified, and that seems to be the case.

Admit it, Russian missile defense ideas are all about defending their missiles--and we gave it to them in New START. Maybe that is even a wise foreign policy move. But the treaty defenders never argued that case. They simply denied the validity of treaty opponent objections. Now we know that many of those objections are valid. And it is still January.

On the bright side, this isn't the Cold War and Russia isn't the Soviet Union, and so the stakes aren't as high right now. Still, I would have rather had an honest debate on the treaty.

When Rivers Run Green With Blood

Is nobody disturbed that climate researchers looked at how mass deaths of humans reduced carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (Tip to Tim Blair)

The Carnegie study measured the carbon impact of a number of historical events that involved a large number of deaths.

Time periods also looked at included the Black Death in Europe, the fall of China's Ming Dynasty and the conquest of the Americas.

All of these events share a widespread return of forests after a period of massive depopulation.

But the bloody Mongol invasion, which lasted a century and a half and led to an empire that spanned 22 per cent of the Earth’s surface, immediately stood out for its longevity.

And this is how Genghis Khan, who repeatedly wiped out entire settlements, was able to scrub more carbon from the atmosphere than any other despot.

‘We found that during the short events such as the Black Death and the Ming Dynasty collapse, the forest re-growth wasn't enough to overcome the emissions from decaying material in the soil,’ explained Pongratz.

‘But during the longer-lasting ones like the Mongol invasion... there was enough time for the forests to re-grow and absorb significant amounts of carbon.’

Pity that brief bouts of killing don't have much of an impact. You need really intensive and long-lasting slaughter to have an effect.

Well, hey, maybe we'll get lucky again with these ultimate carbon offsets.

Nobody tell Al Gore. Imagine how many jet trips he could take and mansions he could build if he wipes out an entire country!

The State of Iraq

I really have one interest in listening to President Obama's State of the Union. He seems committed to victory in Afghanistan now. And his domestic talk is predictable and outside the realm of this blog, so why focus on that? I want to know if he is committed to cementing the victory in Iraq or is he trying to set down the burden as fast as he can, consequences be damned.

This is not encouraging, if it accurately reflects the SOTU address:

Look to Iraq, where nearly 100,000 of our brave men and women have left with their heads held high; where American combat patrols have ended; violence has come down; and a new government has been formed. This year, our civilians will forge a lasting partnership with the Iraqi people, while we finish the job of bringing our troops out of Iraq. America’s commitment has been kept; the Iraq War is coming to an end.

The Iraqis surely need our civilian partnership. But they need our military partnership, too. And I don't have high confidence that the State Department can take on that role.

Maybe this is wrong. Maybe the politics of Iraq means we can't even broach the subject yet. We shall see.

UPDATE: That part was delivered just about word for word. The war is not, in fact, over. Our enemies continue to wage war on the Iraqi government and people who we supported at such a cost the last 8 years. Maybe leaving won't mean our enemies win in the end. But why take that chance when such a small ongoing commitment relative to what we've already made can increase our odds of winning a lasting victory?

We shall see. There is time yet for a new agreement between America and Iraq on security issues.

The Entire Kill Chain?

We have Eagles with a new radar coming on line:

The F-15E Strike Eagle took a step forward in its continuous technological evolution as the Air Force's most versatile combat aircraft here, Jan. 18.

The 46th Test Wing's fourth generation fighter launched for the first time with a new and improved radar system, the APG-82(V)1.

The APG-82 uses active electronically scanned array radar technology composed of numerous small solid-state transmit and receive modules.

The article focuses on the radar's detection capabilities:

"One AESA-equipped F-15E can detect and track multiple targets simultaneously and gain the same battle picture and prosecute the same number of attacks that currently require several mechanically scanned radar assets," said Brad Jones, Boeing director for U.S. Air Force development programs. "Adding AESA multiplies the effectiveness of the F-15E."

The advantage AESA radar has over a MSA is its near instantaneous ability to redirect its focus from air-to-air to air-to-ground mode. By no longer having to wait for the array to physically move to a new area of interest the aircrew receives better situational awareness in less time, according to the lieutenant.

Which is cool, mind you. And obviously very useful. But I'm more interested in the potential for the AESA to be used as a weapon. Is the power supply good enough to weaponize the AESA?

The Foundation is Shaking

Egyptians are protesting their autocratic government:

Egyptian police have clashed with anti-government demonstrators as thousands took to the streets demanding an end to President Hosni Mubarak's decades-old rule.

In Cairo, police fired tear gas and used water cannons on rock-throwing demonstrators Tuesday. At one point, demonstrators climbed on top of an armored police vehicle. Another protest erupted in Alexandria, where demonstrators shouted anti-Mubarak slogans.

The protests, reported by foreign media to be Egypt's largest in years, began peacefully.

Egyptians have been calling for political and economic reforms in protests inspired by demonstrations in Tunisia that led to the ouster of that country's president this month. The rallies are taking place in spite of government warnings that demonstrators could be arrested.

The rallies were promoted online by groups that say they speak for young Egyptians frustrated with the kind of poverty and oppression that triggered Tunisia's unrest.

Tunisia may be too unique to represent the first domino in a wave to end autocratic rule in the Arab world, but a whole lot of Arabs (with varying motives, to be sure) want it to be true.

UPDATE: How the day came about.

That's Their Story and They're Sticking To It

Really? This is how the White House is explaining the Lang Lang song that celebrates the defeat of American "jackals" in a Korean War battle?

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor told ABC News that “any suggestion that this was an insult to the United States is just flat wrong.

Huh. Then I guess that it is tragically unfortunate that Chinese nationalists are whooping it up over slipping that one past the protocol people.

I'm not sure whether I prefer our government's people to be too stubborn to admit an obvious mistake or too stupid to realize America was insulted by this incident.

Oh who am I kidding? The White House protocol people probably know all the words and sang along.

UPDATE: Thank you Instapundit for the link. More recent evidence that we don't speak Chinese.

UPDATE: Thank you One Free Korea for the link.

Speed Bump

The sad truth about Russia's ground forces.

Moscow can scrape up small amounts of decent heavy forces from the wreckage of their ground forces to take on weak enemies. I also assume they have some good special forces types along with some capable airborne troops.

But for such a large country, Russia's army is pretty inadequate. You can understand why they want lots of shorter range nukes to defend their border.

Military First? First for What?

Strategypage writes that North Korea is cracking down on signs of dissent and pushing more of their limited resources to the military. Not that it seems that will do much good:

Aid from China only amounts to about $300 million a year. That's still coming in, but not the larger amount of goods bought from China (including a lot of food and fuel, but mostly industrial goods for the arms industries and the military.) The shortages have fallen largely on industry (lots more dark and empty factories) and the military (lots of army bases with less, or no, heat this time of year, and lower quality food as well.) There's less food and fuel for everyone, and for most of the country, there is electricity only a few hours a day, if that.

In response to the growing shortages, North Korea has been spending more on the military. It's is now believed that a third of the North Korea GDP (about $20 billion, compared to $1,000 billion for South Korea) goes to the million man armed forces.

Being first in line for what little there is won't go far, as I wrote in the fall. And I really doubt that the military comes first ahead of the ruling elite who want their luxury goods before troops get a third meal or heat.

It is increasingly looking like President Obama will get lucky and see North Korea collapse before it gets usable nuclear weapons.

Oh, and the Strategypage post, further down, has this interesting nugget:

China is demanding the right to station troops in the northwestern North Korean port of Rason. This would protect a Chinese owned port facility, and make is easier for China to quickly ship in more troops if the situation deteriorated in North Korea.

They mean northeast North Korea, apparently, if I located the right port. It is interesting because having troops there seems far more important to keeping Russia from carving out some territory from the carcass of North Korea than intervening in North Korea. Chinese forces can cross the border overland. Or cross the Yellow Sea to west coast North Korean ports.

Building the Iraqi Military

Strategypage describes the current Iraqi military. It is not yet a force capable of defending against conventional threats, although it has the raw material to be better than the Saddam-era military.

This writer, whose order of battle compilation for Iraq is used by the Department of Defense for public consumption, has given his priorities for Iraqi purchases to make their military ready to defend their borders.

As I've mentioned, he says Iraq's priority should be to extend the American military presence past this year. The Iraqis really need us for another decade with current potential threats.

But when it gets to the recommendations for procurement priorities, I have to strongly disagree with his first priority:

Currently the US provides Iraq’s air defense and there has been no reported agreement to keep that air cover beyond 2011. If I were the Iraqi Government, I would have already commenced negotiations for 8-10 USAF or NATO Fighter Squadrons [with AWACS support] to remain until the Iraqi Air Force can replace them with OPERATIONAL squadrons. I would put 50 percent of the equipment procurement budget towards this problem until they have 200 fighters with sufficient spares and munitions to be operational.

I'm fine with or don't have major objections to the rest of his recommendations for artillery, tanks, anti-tank missiles, and attack helicopters. These are needed to turn a light-infantry force designed to fight internal insurgents and terrorists (which it did successfully) into a force capable of taking on conventional enemies. But the air force recommendation is a gross misallocation of money.

Yes, in time the Iraqis need an air force capable of defending their air space. But half their procurement dollars? If we aren't present in Iraq after this year to protect Iraq, this will just mean that Iraq's insufficient ground forces will be defeated and the invader will capture some nice air bases and shiny fighters on the ground (if they haven't flown off to Jordan for safety).

Air defense is a far lower priority for Iraq based on two points. One, our air power could quickly get to the scene to provide air defense for Iraq, if invaded, from airfields in Turkey, Jordan, the Gulf region, or our carriers.

Second, the experience of the Iran-Iraq War (or as I prefer to call it, the First Gulf War), where air-to-air combat between Iraqi and Iranian planes was very rare, indicates that Iraq is unlikely to be able to control their skies anytime soon without our help. Nor is Iran likely to be able to really exploit their ability to strike Iraqi targets.  Helicopters proved to be a very valuable asset for ground support and supply missions during the Iran-Iraq War. And Iraqi air power during that war was useful as a source of mobile firepower to strike Iranian forces quickly before ground force reinforcements could be brought to bear. But Iranian air power quickly spent its residual capabilities early in the war and spent the rest of the war as a force-in-being, representing a potential for a short surge of effort to support the ground war. I don't think that Iran's air force is in better shape now than it was 25 years ago. Syria's air force won't be much better (which is why they rely on surface-to-surface missiles).

So Iraq can count on us to sweep the skies of Iranian or Syrian planes if it comes to war, even if it takes us some days to enter the battle. And even if we don't intervene, I don't think Iranian or Syrian air power would be significant factors in a war. As long as Iraqi ground forces are heavied up to deal with Iranian or Syrian ground forces, Iraq will do well against either weakened army. Iraq's recon, transport, and light ground attack air elements will provide good support to their army and I doubt Iranian or Syrian fighters would have much luck sweeping those assets from the sky.

By all means, Iraq should pursue a modest air force. But they've got way bigger problems with their ground force readiness.

What Are the Terms of This Debate?

Much of the discussion of China assumes that China will surpass us in power and challenge our global dominance. Optimists believe China will evolve to be a responsible partner defending the global system we have built. This article argues that China is set for a fall:

[We] in the West see a China that by all measures is becoming stronger and stronger, not realizing that it is also becoming more and more brittle. The Soviet regime, when it fell, went out with a whimper. China’s will more likely go out with a bang. No regime can contain the grievances of a billion people for long.

I tend to think that their fall is more likely than our fall from dominance.

But when we speak of the fall of China, we have to define what that means. If the Chinese regime falls, does another regime rise in its place from the ashes? Whether free or not?

Or is "China" more of a geographic term than a political description?

And if the former, the fall of "China" could make all of the predictions about China's future come true:

In a country the size and complexity of a continent, many futures are possible.

We debate the future of "China" as if it is a country. Is that the right way to analyze China?

Supply and Demand

This article argues that Japan should work to turn Russia to a friend of Japan based on their mutual worries about China:

Relations between Japan and Russia have been at a low point since Nov. 1, when President Dmitry Medvedev defied Japan and became the first top Russian leader to visit one of the four northern islands claimed by Japan but held by Russia.

Japan should realize it has a good opportunity to mend ties with Moscow by taking advantage of the growing rift between Russia and China. Japan should explain to Russia the importance of strategically working together.

The author points to increasingly visible Russian worry about China and South Korean efforts that got Russia to issue statements against North Korea over the recent island bombardment as points to bolster the idea that Japan can get Russia to essentially flip.

The author says that Japanese leaders are too preoccupied with the Russian occupation (since 1945) of four northern islands that Japan wants returned.

The Japanese are missing an opportunity. They can be obsessed with the islands all they want. But at least look for ways to get them back with a little more subtlety than simply demanding them back.

Japan should seek better relations based on their mutual worry about China. This doesn't mean that Japan has to be a military ally against China. One, I don't want Japan to drag us into a war on behalf of Russia. Maybe we'd decide to help Russia in case of war with China, but that's a separate question.

Two, Japan has no nukes and China does. That makes it dangerous to be a belligerent in a war and reliant either on Russia or America risking a home city to provide extended deterrence to Japan in war against Chinese threats to use nukes.

But Japan could do what they did for us in the Korean War when Japanese factories were important to supplying our troops during the war--provide supplies to Russia in time of war. Russia's land line of communication back to European Russia is long and fragile. Russia will need every bit of that transportation link for military forces and supplies. Let Japan offer to supply civilian and dual-use supplies to Russia's Far East in time of war. A supply deal would give Japan good leverage to get back their northern islands by threatening to interrupt such supplies.

This approach could take time, obviously. And there ideally won't be a Russo-Chinese War in the future to trigger that particular opportunity. But even an extended period during which Russia sees Japan as a potential friend and ally (and supply source, more to the point) rather than a potential foe will loosen Russia's determination to hold those minor fruits of World War II. Maybe that could lead to a version of the US-British destroyers for bases deal while the US was a neutral in World War II where Japan gets the islands back on 99-year rent-free leases with an option to buy at the end of the lease period.

Russia needs a solid supply line for their Far East in time of war that doesn't slow down the transfer of military forces east that Russia would desperately need in a war. Japan is well positioned to send those supplies to Russia--possibly convoying them through the Sea of Japan up to Russian territorial waters with their own naval and air forces--and still avoid becoming a belligerent in a hypothetical Russo-Chinese War. If Japan makes sure their supplies aren't blatantly military, Japan's alliance with America would tend to blunt Chinese reactions.

Played right, a Japanese opening to Russia could earn Japan their northern islands back.

Good Question

This is an excellent question:

While Chinese President Hu flaunted his country's power during his Western tour, his No. 2 economy raked in billions in Western aid. That's right. We're still subsidizing China. Why?

I have no problem helping people who need it. But if the Chinese prefer to spend their cash on DF-21s and aircraft carriers instead of whatever the West funds with this aid, who are we to interfere with their priorities?

If China doesn't want to fund these items, let them deal with the domestic consequences. We can't stop China from arming up (and they have legitimate defense needs, no doubt, even if it is natural that we worry that the capabilities they seek for defense can be used for offense), but why help them pay for it?

Defending the Connection

Well, I seem to have gotten my son's computer connected to my home wireless network. On Friday, it seemed like an epic fail for the new adapter designed for Windows 7 after I abandoned the sputtering and then failed connection of the older adapter I first got to work even though it was configured for Vista, at max.

The adapter program loaded nicely, seemed to connect his wireless adapter to my router--but would not recognize my network. Nor could I get my network to recognize his computer, as it once had. Online help with Cisco said I might have to reconfigure my router and suggested I call their toll-free help line. So that's what I planned to do today. I double checked to make sure my router had up-to-date software (it did), so I wasn't sure what they could to to help, but that was my last hope before trying to split my wire and directly connect my son't computer.

But on Sunday, for kicks, my son plugged in his wireless adapter and--simultaneously to me noticing that my network was recognizing a new computer--he said that he was connected. It worked all day when he used it, and he didn't even want to shut down his computer lest he lose the connection. I'm not in that school of thought.

So this morning I tested his computer and it connected no problem! whew. Perhaps like many programs it just needed the computers to shut down and restart to work, although nothing prompted me to do that. I used to assume you had to shut down a computer and reboot. Now I don't assume that. I guess I'm wrong. so for now I don't need to use that 800 number the online chat guy gave me. I stored it away just in case.

Still, my cordless phone remains a weak point. It interrupts the wireless network whether we're talking the Wii or Mister's computer. So last night I ordered a new phone (and I was in the market for a new one since my existing one has really poor voice quality--I guess cheap phones will do that) that boasts both good voice quality and a comment that said it didn't interfere with his home wireless network. Sold!

I'm feeling so good I may try to use the old adapter to see if I can get Lamb's computer hooked up to the network, even though I don't think that the 7-year-old computer has the communications hardware needed to do that. She's still on XP, so more vulnerable to web mischief. But then again, her online destinations are very limited to reputable companies. And also on the other hand, I'm pleased as punch that my daughter is so hyped up on the air-dry modeling clay kit I got her (I just bought her 5 more pounds, plus glaze) that it distracts her even from her new Wii games. I might just try to connect her computer and if successful, hold off telling her I was successful.

Bottom line? I remain nominally still in charge of my technology world. I've got that going for me, eh?

No 'There' There

So after serious attempts by the House to defund the Iraq War in 2007, an article can argue that Congress shows too much deference to the military?

Since the swift U.S.-led victory in Operation Desert Storm, Congress largely has shown deference to Pentagon decisions on budgets, weapon programs and war plans — a trend accelerated by the 9/11 attacks, defense experts say.

I just addressed the weapons procurement side of the issue in a comment. And wondered what planet someone has to be on to think that the Pentagon wastes a trillion dollars per year!

A lot of big weapons have been curtailed or cancelled in the last twenty years, contrary to the thrust of the article.

FCS? Scrapped. Crusader? Cancelled. New Army armed scout helo? Cancelled. Future soldier ensemble? Gone. F-22? Short production run. B-2? Short production run. EFV? Bye. Big "destroyer?" Stopped at three hulls. Seawolf sub? Production stopped at less than a handful for cheaper replacement for LA class. That's off the top of my head.

Also, per a comment, a trillion dollars a year in wasted Pentagon spending? Seriously? Better recount the zeroes, son. I hope the commenter asserting that bit of fantasy isn't a Congressional staffer.

I didn't even take on the issue of whether Congress should be dictating military strategy. And Congress did tell the military who to target in two wars, right? It isn't like the Pentagon just picked Afghanistan and Iraq for no logical reason.

Nor did I address weapons that the Pentagon doesn't want but that Congress tells them to buy.

Heck, let's recall a US Senator basically calling Petraeus a liar in his testimony in 2007, Senator Boxer's pettiness of putting a general "in his place" for calling her "ma'am" instead of "senator" (calling a civilian woman or female officer "ma'am" is a natural thing for a soldier to do), or other members of Congress calling our troops war criminals. Yeah, I'm choking on the friggin' deference.

Obviously, when at war, our military's views on their area of expertise get more weight. But our military obeys civilian orders, in the end. And if procurement is the evidence for Congressional weakness, why are so many of our weapons left over from the Cold War?

Sometimes I just shake my head in bewilderment at what I read about defense and war issues.

An Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier

The Japanese are apparently committed to the F-35 as the backbone of their air defense:

Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara said Tuesday that Japan and the United States have reached a confidentiality agreement on the F-35 fighter jet, which is highly likely to become the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force's main next- generation fighter replacing its outdated F-4 fleet.

According to Maehara, he and U.S. Ambassador to Japan John Roos exchanged documents on the security of confidential information on the F-35 fifth-generation multirole fighter system.

While other planes could be chosen to replace their old Phantoms, the F-35 makes the most sense, in my opinion. While expensive, it is good. Japan is also used to buying expensive stuff. And it would ease logistics to fly what we will fly.

Japan equipped with this plane will be better able to hold the door open in the face of Chinese attacks so that our reinforcements can flow into the western Pacific region if we are called on to fulfill our treaty obligations to allies in the region.

The Technology Formerly Called Stealth

If this is true, we don't have a lot to worry about if the Chinese get their J-20 flying:

Chinese officials recently unveiled a new, high-tech stealth fighter that could pose a significant threat to American air superiority — and some of its technology, it turns out, may well have come from the U.S. itself.

Balkan military officials and other experts have told The Associated Press that in all probability the Chinese gleaned some of their technological know-how from an American F-117 Nighthawk that was shot down over Serbia in 1999.

Apparently, the Chinese went around buying up pieces of the wreckage. At the time, I was upset that we didn't drop a daisy cutter on the wreckage to keep it secret.

Still, we did retire the plane. And I believe I read on Strategypage that the stealth technology was too old to work against modern detection systems. Clearly, it wasn't worth it to try and update the small number of  F-117s that we built.

So if the Chinese are copying that technology rather than learning from it to build something better along with more recent technology (Bought from Russia? Stolen from us?), it is just a propaganda weapon.

One day, China will catch up to our technology levels in combat aircraft. Heck, there was a time--before the F-15, F-16, and F-18--when Soviet planes were more than a match for ours in terms of performance design (apart from our superior training and support services, of course).

But the J-20 prototype unveiled is not the sign that this day has arrived.

Suicide Bomber in Moscow

From Moscow early today:

At least 31 people were killed and more than 100 injured on Monday in a suicide bombing at Russia's biggest airport, Russian news agencies reported.

The Russians will round up the usual Chechen suspects, I assume. My sympathies go out to the Russians.

Yet another reminder that the fight against jihadis isn't just America's war.