Measuring Effectiveness

Fighting or shooting protesters continues around Syria. When you think about the Syrian armed forces and the prospect of how they could resist a Western intervention, contemplate the casualties the Syrians claim to have suffered:

Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdesi said this week that 3,000 members of the security forces had died in the uprising, which Damascus blames on terrorist gangs.

And recall that the Syrian insurgency (with a terror assist from al Qaeda and other jihadis--blowback's a bitch) is far weaker than the insurgencies and terror campaigns in Iraq were from 2004 through 2007.

Then let's compare security force casualties. In the worst year of the insurgency in Iraq, our casualties never reached a thousand in a year--against well-armed and well-funded thugs supported by Syria, Iran, and the Arab Sunni world that provided recruits for the suicide bombings.

Even if you want to compare the Iraqi security forces casualties to Syria's, Iraq suffered about 6,000 for the entire war.

The Syrian armed forces just aren't that good. They'd be more of a challenge than Libya's, but in a conventional clash the Syrian armed forces would be crushed by a decent Western intervention, whether led by the Turks or us. Not that I think we should. I'd be happy if we just armed the opposition. Oh, and don't forget that these high Syrian casualties are being suffered by the best trained and most loyal troops that Assad has.

Oh, and one more thing, as Detective Columbo would say. If you are still panicky about the killings of American forces by Afghan allies, recall that the armed resistance in Syria is largely made up of Syrian army deserters. Now that's a trust issue.

The Local Colossus

As Chinese military power rises, we can take some comfort that it will be a long time before China can think about projecting significant military force on a global scale the way we can. But for China's neighbors, there is no comfort from distance and they have to cope with Chinese military power now:

China's tough neighborhood has gotten just a little bit tougher for China, diplomatically and militarily, and Beijing ought to blame its own political blundering.

Consider South Korea and Vietnam, two of China's more militarily capable neighbors. During the Vietnam War, South Korean soldiers fought Hanoi's troops. Today, both countries regard that as very ancient history, and they increasingly act as de facto allies. This week, South Korea and Vietnam announced that they will strengthen bilateral defense cooperation and conduct a "strategic dialog" on defense issues. Defense cooperation includes senior officer training exchanges and defense industry collaboration. Shared senior officer training programs are a short policy step away from crafting shared defense plans.

So Vietnam and South Korea see a common interest in blocking China. If Burma (Myanmar) actually flips, it will make it much easier for India to project power into the South China Sea to support Vietnam.

But don't think that these regional developments lift the burden we have of watching China very carefully. Some isolationists like to speak of these developments as if they just happen and as if on their own they protect our interests. That is delusional thinking.

These countries around China's periphery can share worries and cooperate, but in the end they are very isolated from one another and can't apply much military power in support of another country facing Chinese power. China can, using interior lines, defeat them one at a time if they have to.

That's where we come in. Our power can link these separate local points of resistance to Chinese territorial ambitions and give them confidence that they can cooperate with other countries with less risk of being singled out and crushed by Chinese power.

Waiting For Failure

Turkey has gone from issuing an ultimatum to Assad to stop killing his people to wavering on even the more limited option of setting up safe zones along the border to keep refugees from flooding into Turkey and to provide an area where Assad opponents can find refuge:

Turkey stands at the forefront of calls for the ouster of Syrian President Bashar Assad, but there are an awful lot of red lines that it won't cross to realize that goal.

Like its Western allies, Turkey says it won't arm outgunned Syrian rebels, and has no plans to set up a buffer zone in neighboring Syria where civilians and army defectors can shelter and regroup.

The result? A stalemate in which diplomacy and ritual condemnations pale alongside the uninterrupted killing, and fears of wider, regional chaos preclude bolder action on the ground.

So Assad continues to kill. And lately his forces have been busy all across Syria:

The security forces have shifted most of their attention from Homs to other places like Deir Ezzor in the east, Daraa on the Jordan border and Idib near the Turkish border. With the help of Iran and Russia, Syria has managed to keep out most official foreign support for the rebels. The government strategy now appears to hunt down and kill as many of the most active rebels as possible. This will demoralize the large number of Syrians who oppose the Assad dictatorship, and convince people to submit to a government they oppose. Iranian advisors have pointed out how well this worked in Iran, where a large urban population, that opposed the religious dictatorship in Iraq, have been brutalized and terrorized into submission. Iran also advised that much be made of foreign agents (from Israel and the West, of course) stirring up the people. This gives rebellious Syrians a suitable excuse to accept a future amnesty and behave.

Syria needs to demoralize the opposition to win. Syria still doesn't have enough troops to hold all that ground they are operating over. We shall see where the opposition pops up again as Assad has to thin out forces to deal with other hot spots. Somebody will break and it is foolish to assume that the question of Assad's fall is "when" rather than the "if" it really is. Assad actually has a plan that can work--kill the opposition until they won't come out on the streets any more. The West strikes back by preventing the wife of Assad from shopping in their fashion districts:

European Union states are set to ban Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's wife Asma from travel to and shopping in the EU, diplomats said, cranking up pressure on his government to end a bloody crackdown on popular unrest.

I suppose I should be grateful that the EU didn't phase in the sanctions starting with just shoes and perfume, with the full wardrobe ban kicking in sometime in 2015.

Strategypage also notes that the rebels aren't getting help from Iraq's Kurds, that Russia has sent in special forces (but Russia denies that), that Iran and Russia continue to arm Assad, and that Iraq decided to block arms shipments to Syria.

We just aren't serious about fighting Assad. We are doing enough to reassure ourselves that we "care;" tell ourselves Assad's fall is inevitable, thus excusing our meager efforts; and in the end refuse to strike--let alone kill--the king we are limply slapping.

We count on luck to win, assuming there is no limit to what the Syrian protesters can endure as Assad continues to kill, wound, torture, and imprison resisters. I guess after Khaddafi we think we are on a winning streak.

Odyssey Dusk

The blowback from the Libya intervention continues, with lower ranking soldiers staging a coup against the democratic government:

The army has for weeks appealed to the government for better weapons to fight the northern Tuareg rebels, now bolstered by heavily armed ethnic allies who fought on Gaddafi's side last year but have returned to Mali.

Members of the newly formed National Committee for the Return of Democracy and the Restoration of the State (CNRDR) read a statement after heavy weapons fire rang out around the presidential palace in the capital Bamako throughout the night.

"The CNRDR ... has decided to assume its responsibilities by putting an end to the incompetent regime of Amadou Toumani Toure," said Lieutenant Amadou Konare, spokesman for the CNRDR.

Not that this means getting rid of Khaddafi was morally wrong. Stuff happens. But if this blowback had happened with Bush behind the wheel, I think you know that the nuance crowd would be bitterly complaining about how desperately we need "smart diplomacy" in the White House.

But perhaps France will intervene. Paris considers that their backyard and they haven't been shy in the past about sending in the Foreign Legion.

A "Denier" on Another Issue

I have never understood how authors could describe China-Taiwan relations as "thawing" or "warming" the last several years. China wants Taiwan, is arming up to do it, and is merely not talking about it the way they used to. How is that "warming?"

So it is nice to have a reminder that Peking's smile is just a way to lull Taiwan into a false sense of security:

When Taiwanese security personnel detained a suspected spy for China at a top secret military base last month, they may have had a sense of deja vu. ...

The cases show that China is seeking information about two systems that are integral to Taiwan's defenses and built with sensitive U.S. technology. A major breach could make Taiwan more vulnerable to Chinese attack.

For the people who believe in Taiwan Strait Warming, how can they explain this aggressive behavior seemingly linked to making it easier for China to take Taiwan by force?

Oh. Right:

Though relations between the two have warmed in recent years, Beijing has never recanted a vow to retake the island, by force if necessary.

China couldn't be clearer. They want Taiwan and will invade to do it, if they have to.

And in a week when "something" might be happening in China, Taiwan should stand on guard a little more alertly.

Twisted Logic

Silly Neanderthal Deniers! What light bulb ban? There is no "ban" on incandescent bulbs. If you don't want the wonders of twisty bulb illumination, you can have as many incandescent light bulbs as you want! You just have to make it yourself, you see.

Why would the media defend the light bulb law so blindly? I mean, it was done during the Bush administration so it would fit nicely with the "blame Bush" mentality they have.

Still, I look forward to seeing how people will get around the ban. Those 100 watt incandescent bulb are the heating element for the old-style Easy Bake ovens, remember. How long before some enterprising person starts selling 8-packs of "Toy Oven Heaters?"

Something Big Happened in Beijing?

Via Instapundit, is something serious going on in China?

If you play the odds, you'd say nothing.

If you command our forces in the Pacific, you cancel leaves.

You'd think this would be more prominently in the news, if true:

U.S. intelligence agencies monitoring China’s Internet say that from March 14 to Wednesday bloggers circulated alarming reports of tanks entering Beijing and shots being fired in the city as part of what is said to have been a high-level political battle among party leaders - and even a possible military coup.

The Internet discussions included photos posted online of tanks and other military vehicles moving around Beijing.

It's a dictatorship--a party dictatorship, to be sure, rather than one-man rule--so illusions of stability are only the quiet of control and fear felt strongly enough below to complete the illusion.

I ask again, did something happen in Peking?

But hey, as long as somebody reasonably enlightened takes control, what the problem? Right?

UPDATE: On the autocrat-crush that many of our elites have, it is good to remember that while Friedman is the face of that school girl crush, he isn't the only one. And it is a big mistake to draw too many conclusions (tip to Instapundit) from China's run of success.

I swear, I'd like to see China stumble even at the risk of short term economic pain here just to avoid the long-term pain of giving bozos here the excuse to emulate China's lack of democracy as a path to growth.

He's Had Three Strikes

At least several hundred thousand people marched in Basra at the call of that piece of breathing garbage, Moqtada al-Sadr, a three-time insurrectionist who will be a threat to peace and prosperity in Iraq until he is jailed or executed for his crimes against Iraqis and Coalition forces:

Up to a million followers of Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr took to the streets on Monday in a massive show of force before an Arab League summit which Iraq's long-oppressed Shi'ite majority view as their debut on the regional stage.

I think I've been warning about that Iranian-backed thug for eight years, at least, now. Yet still he walks free.

Hate is Not a Skill

One of the reasons that is supposed to stay our hand when contemplating what to do about Iran's nutball mullahs getting nuclear weapons is that an American strike will trigger a wave of terror masterminds spreading out in the West and wreaking havoc. I have been skeptical.

When Iran couldn't seem to work up a decent killing spree to counter Israel's covert war on Iranian nuclear facilities (and whether or not Israel is behind it, Iran thinks it is true), my skepticism continued.

Strategypage notes the image-reality mis-match:

While Quds has been active in many places (Gaza, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, South America, Arabian Peninsula and so on) its operatives are often amateurish and ineffective. When operatives are caught overseas, Iran demands its citizens back and just denies any terrorist activity. But the recent offensive against Israelis living outside Israel has apparently stretched Quds beyond the breaking point. Iran believes that Israeli agents are behind several murders of Iranian nuclear scientists and wants revenge. But Quds has not been able to deliver when it came to retribution. This is not surprising, as religious fanaticism is more prized among Quds Force recruits than other talents. Many Quds operatives are sharp, but all of them are Islamic radicals.

They want to kill. So I'm not suggesting we discount them. Heck, even the ummah idiot could get lucky. But the proper response is to seek them out and kill them--not cower in fear of what they might do.

And speaking of that, I don't understand Strategypage's caution about attacking Iran:

Israel and the U.S. keep feeding the media stories about an air strike on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities. Iran would welcome such an attack, as it would cripple growing opposition to the religious dictatorship that runs Iran, and only delay the nuclear weapons program.

I have no doubt that in the short run, an attack would have a rally-around-the-flag effect. But even that isn't a given since so many people are suffering under mullah mis-rule. Israel's attack on Syria's nuclear facility didn't prevent the uprising that is plaguing Bashar Assad.

Iran's mullah's also wouldn't be the first of our enemies to welcome an American attack. Both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein welcomed our attacks in the belief they would be ineffective--who cares if a bunch of their cannon fodder die (and they could dream of innocent civilians getting caught in the fire)?--and that they could provide an opportunity to boast of beating us by surviving. Those plans didn't work so well. So the simple fact that Iran's rulers would welcome an attack doesn't mean they are right to welcome an attack.

Sure, maybe we'd launch ineffective attacks that would strengthen the mullahs, for a while anyway and maybe long enough to get nukes. Which is why I think any attack on Iran has to be made with the commitment to change the regime. Attacking means we are fully committed to war with Iran and one way or the other we have to end that war with a new Iranian government.

But even worst case, I'd rather delay Iran going nuclear at the price of rallying the Iranian people to the mullahs than see Iran go nuclear with a majority of people angry at their own government. How much more hate for us do the Iranians need to hurt us? As I've asked many times, will you really feel some satisfaction that Iran's people are mostly really, really sad that Charleston gets nuked if Iran decides that a container-nuke on a ship is just the ticket to bringing down the Great Satan--or just driving us from the Middle East? Hmmm?

Focus on what we can do to them, eh? I'd rather help the Iranians overthrow their regime without having to attack Iran. But after many years, it doesn't seem like our covert arms have made any progress on that front. I hope I'm wrong. But if we can't help the Iranian people bring down their nuts, I'd rather attack Iran than see the mullahs get nukes sooner.

Just because all our choices are bad doesn't mean there aren't better choices and worse choices.

I'm Good, Then

I rarely use Facebook, so I guess I'm OK.

Although obviously I'm not in (or even near, I must admit) the main demographic in question.

If you examined my cave drawings and stone carvings you might find similar bad results, I'll admit.

Good Grief, Get a Room

In the history of brown-nosing your boss, I don't think we've seen a level of nasal penetration this deep in 500 years:

Vice President Joe Biden on Monday lauded President Obama for his leadership in the mission to take out Osama bin Laden last May, telling donors at a New Jersey fundraiser that you could not find a "more audacious plan" if you went back in history 500 years.

The president did a good thing in ordering the mission. But please.

Seriously, President Obama should muzzle their man lest it give al Qaeda ideas that their grand plot to destroy America by elevating Biden to the big chair really does have merit.

UPDATE: Lest you think I'm horribly biased against the vice president, he made a drinking joke here. Get your mind out of the gutter.

Still Getting Ready to Rumble

I've worried that we are effectively halting the war in Afghanistan by avoiding combat. This is encouraging:

With the Afghanistan war's endgame approaching, the Army's storied 1st Infantry Division is preparing to take command in the eastern provinces, where the strategy calls for a renewed push this year even as U.S. and allied forces draw down in less violent parts of the country. ...

Mayville will lead five U.S. ground combat brigades, plus one Polish brigade, one French brigade and one U.S. Army combat aviation brigade. In all he'll command about 30,000 troops, although it is possible he will lose some during the course of the year. Details of the 2012 U.S. drawdown plan have not yet been announced.

I'd have thought we'd have more of our remaining 90,000 (dropping to 68,000 by the end of summer) in RCE. And since we don't, I'm more than a little surprised that the command might lose some troops from losing the latest surge increment.

First Infantry will take over the east in April. Perhaps rather than switch commands in the middle of an offensive, we are waiting until April. And perhaps the faster-than-desired recovery of the last surge is delaying the attack.

But the fact that the military is still preparing to hammer the enemy in Regional Command East is encouraging that we aren't letting the recent panic-fest affect our strategy.

Have no doubt, our troops are up to the task:

For three days, the enemy relentlessly attacked Observation Post Shal in Afghanistan’s Kunar province.

And for three days, Cpl. Michael A. Moynihan led his fellow soldiers in a fierce defense of their OP, directing attacks and providing covering fire even though it exposed him to the intense enemy barrage. A mortar hit his position and knocked him unconscious; after he came to, Moynihan continued to lead the fight.

For his actions Oct. 11-13, Moynihan was awarded the Silver Star, the third-highest award for valor.

That's some damn fine soldiering. That's the United States Army.

Deterrence and Nuts

Hey, on this 30th anniversary of the Falklands War, would it be out of line to wonder why non-nuclear Argentina dared to attack nuclear-armed Great Britain?

Oh, and on another subject altogether, we really plan on deterring Iran once they get nukes?

Of course, Argentinians might very well be world-class crazies compared to the sane and sober mullahs in charge of Iran.

I still remember being in a political science class that year at the University of Michigan and hearing some guy who styled himself an expert explain that Britain couldn't possibly get a 3:1 ratio--which everyone knows you need to prevail in an attack--so couldn't dislodge the Argentinians.

I explained what went into that 3:1 calculation (it isn't just comparing numbers) and assured him that if the British got their troops ashore they'd trounce the Argentinians.

Of course, I'll admit that given British weakness in carrier air power I expected the liberation of the Falklands to be a two-stage process with the conquest of West Falkland Island the first step in order to be able to base Harrier jets, helicopters, and air defense missiles ashore for the final assault on East Falkland Island and Stanley.

Although my concerns were borne out by the casualties the British fleet endured to make the assault on East Falkland under the gun of Argentinian aircraft flying from the mainland.

UPDATE: So Iran is rational enough to deter if they get nukes but is irrational enough to strike a country not involved in attacking them?

Those nuts shouldn't be allowed to run with scissors let alone have nuclear weapons.

A Splendid Little Kinetic Action

A British look at the NATO-led intervention in Libya's civil war last year.

It is interesting, including the notation of the fact I mentioned once or twice that we took the UNSC resolution authorizing us to protect Libyan civilians and twisted it into regime change. Mind you, as a card-carrying knuckle-dragger I found some amusement in that. But why the defenders of the sainted-international community aren't outraged by President Obama's ploy remains beyond my limited capacity to understand nuance.

But this is really fascinating:

Regardless of the military successes of the campaign – helping depose Qadhafi at little civilian cost – Libya provides little in the way of a widely applicable model. It is important to bear this in mind as the unfolding crisis in Syria rumbles on, or new ones develop. [emphasis added]

In what Euro-fantasy world do you have to live in to believe Khaddafi was deposed at little civilian cost? Estimates are that perhaps 30,000 civilians at the top estimate died in the civil war.

It is fascinating that the authors really believe that if the coalition didn't kill many, then effectively nobody died.

I will admit that this point is right:

Perhaps the most crucial aspect of military diplomacy was the evident need to avoid civilian casualties at all costs. The operation was in pursuit of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 that was designed wholly to protect Libyan civilians. Nothing could have derailed the operation so quickly in the minds of a non-committal public at home, and of Libyans themselves, than civilian casualties among those the operation was explicitly mandated to help. Not least, with NATO unity in such a shaky state, one or two nasty mistakes, of the sort that occurred in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, could have split the Alliance wide apart.

Indeed, I kept expecting such a nasty mistake to occur and split apart the alliance. I at least expected Khaddafi to be better at manufacturing a good fake atrocity if he couldn't actually trick NATO into hitting a civilian target. A better class of dictator could have pulled either off.

Have no doubt, that civilians who died after the first month because NATO wouldn't land a division in Tripoli to chase Khaddafi out of office, thus ensuring a longer war, died just as much as if NATO collateral damage had killed them in a shorter intervention. If this is "responsibility to protect," God help us all when the sainted international community arrives and says they are here to help.

But in Euro-world, the only thing that counts is that nothing can be pinned on them. Fascinating.

Now It Will Count

An estimated 8,000 to 10,000 Syrians have died in violence over the last year. This is a rare event in that violence:

Rebels fought government forces in Damascus on Monday, in the most violent gun battles the Syrian capital has seen since the start of the year-long revolt against President Bashar al-Assad, opposition activists said.

During the Iraq War, casualties from 2003 to 2008 (when I judge the war was essentially won)were about 120,000, or 20,000 per year. That average is high due to the worst years of 2006 and 2007 when Syria and Iran made a major effort to ignite a full-flown civil war. In the first two years of the war, fewer than 12,000 civilians died each year. Since 2009, Iraq's casualties have been half the rate against the much weakened enemies. And I'm not sure how much of that is now criminal activity opposed to warfare. For the victims that is irrelevant, of course. But it is obviously a real distinction to make.

So the scale of civilian deaths in Syria and Iraq isn't that different for the first year of the fight. Although don't ever forget that the civilian deaths in Syria are caused by Syrian security forces while in Iraq it was the insurgents/terrorist side inflicting the casualties. Even figures for casualties "directly" caused by Coalition forces--small as they were--neglect to mention that the responsibility would largely lie with the insurgents who fought dressed as civilians. We are allowed to shoot at enemies even when they hide among civilians. That is not a violation of international law while hiding among civilians is.

But in Iraq, the bulk of the killings took place in and around Baghdad where the press could see the carnage and hear the explosions. I have to believe that the fact that most of the violence in Syria takes place away from the capital diminishes the impression of violence through the few reporters allowed in Syria.

But if the rebels manage to make Damascus a battleground, expect the images of civil war to become more real to the reporters who cover the fight and viewers who follow the reports. Yes, getting videos out matters. But the reporters and their editors set the tone of coverage, so affecting them is important.

UPDATE: Strategypage notes casualties in Iraq:

The Iraqi government recently announced that, by its count, 69,263 Iraqis were killed and 239,133 wounded in terrorist actions between April 2004 and the end of 2011. The bloodiest year was 2006, which accounted for 30 percent of all the deaths. About a third of all deaths occurred in Baghdad. The Iraqi figures were compiled by the Health Ministry and the National Security Council.

Perhaps add 15,000 for the period before Iraq's count. So that is 84,000. We figure 100,000 Iraqi "civilians" died--apparently a third were enemy fighters (who obviously dressed as civilians). So our estimate would be 67,000 civilians dead. Which is bad enough. But it is nowhere near the reports greeted eagerly by the Global Left that a million died. Or 600,000. Or some other ridiculous number. Coalition and Iraqi security losses add in about another 11,000.

The civilian death toll in Syria could be very similar to the Iraq toll. Especially compared to the early years of Iraq before the Samarra bombing in February 2006 that signalled the escalation of sectarian killing.

Note also that a third of the deaths were in Baghdad. Add in the Baghdad belt around the city and I imagine the number jumps up quite a bit.

As Strategypage says:

There was a tendency to exaggerate losses, as most data was released for media impact. The real numbers, as is often the case, are lower and less newsworthy.

Of course, the death rate in Syria is not going to be clear since the tendency to exaggerate losses is surely present here, too.

Somebody is Reality-Challenged

President Obama blames Fox News for his woes with white males:

President Barack Obama blamed Fox News for his political woes in a private meeting with labor leaders in 2010, saying he was “losing white males” who tune into the cable outlet and “hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7,” according to journalist David Corn’s new book, “Showdown.”

Well, according to Corn. So make of it what you will, I suppose.

Yet we also hear that al Qaeda hates Fox News, too--uniquely among the American networks--and that Osama bin Laden wanted to kill President Obama (and General Petraeus).

I'm just a simple, unfrozen caveman-blogger, so perhaps I'm just too frightened by the whole media scene to appreciate the nuance of it all. But if Fox is spewing "Obama is a Muslim 24/7" might not al Qaeda have a good thought or two for our president?

Of course, one man was isolated in a bubble created by adoring followers whose religious fervor for him and his goals twisted his grasp of reality, and unduly concerned with his image on TV. The other died in Abbottabad at the hands of SEAL Team 6, of course.

Tip to Instapundit for both articles.

404 Them All--For Now

I have no problem if the White House is getting news outlets to erase stories. She's a target, sad to say. Keep her safe.

Once she's home, I imagine the stories will return.

Now, the question of the wisdom of letting her go there is another thing altogether. But who expects any decisions from the White House to be good these days?

UPDATE: Not that there aren't issues related to the judgment of the White House, the supine posture of our press corps for their president, the spending for fun in an age when more Americans are hurting, and the depth of the White House commitment to the 99% as they frequently drone on about.

With a First Daughter back home, these are all stories that should not be 404'd.

Welcome to the 21st Century

Enjoy that next generation iPad. We've got your 5G tuberculosis right here:

The WHO has convened a special meeting on Wednesday to discuss whether the emergence of TB strains that seem to be resistant to all known medicines merits a new class definition of "totally drug-resistant TB", or TDR-TB.

I've just about accepted that my childhood vision of space colonies and flying cars wouldn't arrive in the fantastical far-off year of 2000, but this is ridiculous.

The Neinty-Nein Percent

Why can't we be more like Europeans for income equality? Because it might not be what you think it would be?

But They Care

Some on the Left have gone around the bend and are nuts. Others aren't that far behind. Both via Instapundit.

But they care. Oh, they care:



About what, I have no idea.

I love this clip.