Yin and Yang

In an era when China is throwing its weight around more, Peking's rulers would naturally like us to be more cooperative. China has room for optimism, it seems.

China is upset with America for our long-standing friendship with Japan and Taiwan, two states that China believes are in their sphere of influence. China is upset with our 2013 defense appropriation bill going to the President's desk for signature:

Two amendments to the $633 billion bill have drawn particular scorn from Beijing, which has unleashed a series of scathing articles and editorials in the state-run news media.

One provision in the bill says “the United States takes no position on the ultimate sovereignty of the Senkaku islands,” but endorses Japan’s administration of the fiercely disputed islands.

A commentary by Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency, called the amendment “a gross violation of China’s sovereign rights.” ...

The other provision of the bill that has angered China expresses congressional support for the sale of dozens of new F-16 C/D fighter jets to Taiwan. The amendment, offered by Rep. Kay Granger, a Texas Republican, refers to Taiwan as “our key strategic ally in the Pacific.” ...

“The U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, an inalienable part of China, are the most sensitive issue standing in the way of bilateral ties,” China Daily said. “Any mishandling of the issue could derail what is widely seen as the most important bilateral relationship in the world.”

But China has hope for the future despite present friction. You have to take the good with the bad. That is life:

Meanwhile, the reception for Senator Kerry’s nomination has been far less contentious across Greater China.

Greg Torode, the veteran foreign affairs columnist for The South China Morning Post in Hong Kong, wrote that Mr. Kerry has “forged a reputation as an intelligent pro-engagement pragmatist.”

Yes indeed, Senator Kerry has been studying for 8 years now to pass that "global test" to approve American military actions. Apparently, China is 50% of the test. And China has the answer key, it seems.

Yes indeed, Peking's rulers are confident that Kerry, for one, welcomes our new rising power overlords.



Kerry is no doubt sure he can be helpful to Peking for many years. It's the oozing gravitas, you know. It's the little blue pill for diplomatic types.

Forming the Line

Saudi Arabia is getting the ranks in line for possible confrontation with Iran:

The Gulf Cooperation Council said it will form a unified military command structure at a time when Iran poses a “very serious” security threat to the Middle East.

The six-member group will coordinate air, land, and marine forces under one structure, Bahrain’s Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid Bin Ahmed Al-Khalifa said today in a press conference after a meeting of GCC heads of state in Manama, the Bahraini capital. Iran’s nuclear program is a security threat to the region, he said.

No doubt, the Saudis will dominate the structure. It's best to have this in place before the shooting starts.

A Plot to Destroy Couldn't Be More Thorough

We're from the Government. And we're here to help. Mayhem ensues.

Huh:

Poor students have long trailed affluent peers in school performance, but from grade-school tests to college completion, the gaps are growing. With school success and earning prospects ever more entwined, the consequences carry far: education, a force meant to erode class barriers, appears to be fortifying them. ...

The growing role of class in academic success has taken experts by surprise since it follows decades of equal opportunity efforts and counters racial trends, where differences have narrowed. It adds to fears over recent evidence suggesting that low-income Americans have lower chances of upward mobility than counterparts in Canada and Western Europe.

Who'd have thought that putting policies in place that push tuition up far beyond the rate of general inflation can't be neutralized by simply loaning more money to the poor?

I thank goodness I went to college in an age when I could work enough hours to go to school and avoid taking "guaranteed" student loans from private lenders. Oh, I took a couple courses or so that I had no intention of passing to maintain full-time status, but I still made it through the University of Michigan on the long plan. I'd miss those graduation statistics within years of starting school that are supposed to be scary.

But I survived. I have my doubts that I could have become the first in my family to graduate with a four-year degree if I'd tried today.

But how do the students discussed in the article survive the compassion of a government and university that make them virtual indentured servants who have little hope of paying off loans they can never walk away from (the constant calls I get from idiots who have no idea the woman they are looking for doesn't actually live here attest to that problem) even if they graduate with a degree?

Oh, and the awful state of urban K-12 education is part of the problem. I shudder to think of whether I'd have even thought of college or been prepared for college if I'd gone to Detroit public schools rather than Catholic schools with teachers who actually taught me and expected me to learn.

A deliberate government policy of screwing over the poor couldn't be more effective, could it?

When History Attacks

China defends their aggressive stance on the Senkakus by appealing to history despite the long gap between China's claims and actual ownership. Be careful if China is establishing a Han version of the Brezhnev Doctrine.

China continues to lean forward in their newly resurrected dispute with Japan over islands north of Taiwan. Peking's justification should send shudders through the region:

China is continuing to send its vessels into waters around Japanese-held islands. Beijing says the territory has been Chinese since “ancient times.”

That's an interesting justification. What was once theirs will be theirs again?

So who needs to be worried about future Chinese claims based on the Old Han Doctrine?

There's Taiwan, of course. And most of the South China Sea.

But recall that much of the Korean peninsula was once owned by China.

Huge chunks of Russia's Far East were taken from China.

Mongolia was once within China's borders.

I think bits of Central Asia beyond their current border was once Chinese, including a small bit of Afghanistan.

Parts of India.

A good stretch of Vietnam stretching south into former South Vietnam.

Bits of Laos.

That's off the top of my head. Would China claim lands where their sailors stopped for tribute in the 16th century around the Indian Ocean shores of Africa (and into the Atlantic) and the Persian Gulf?

You never can tell what will become a Core Interest of China.

I'm Not Even Sure What the Objective Is

Rebels in Syria make gains, the regime security apparatus shakes, and Russia complicates Western intervention. Is post-Syria Assad approaching? Just what defines victory and who defines it?

Rebels are clearing a safe zone in the north along the Turkish border in the northwest:

In northwestern Syria, rebels said they had wrested control of the town of Harem, on the border with Turkey, after months of fighting. In October, a Reuters photographer traveled with the rebels as they came under attack from government warplanes and snipers. The photographer witnessed ferocious street battles and scenes of brutality, including what appeared to be at least one summary execution of a government loyalist by armed rebels.

Amateur video posted on the Internet on Tuesday showed rebel fighters strolling through a medieval citadel in the town, gazing up at its stone arches. Government fighters, who had used the fortress as a base, had apparently departed in a hurry, leaving their bedding, pots and pans, a boot, and a helmet behind.

And another general defected:

"I am Major General Abdul Aziz Jassem al-Shallal, chief of the military police in Syria, I declare my defection from the regime's army because of its deviation of its fundamental mission to protect the nation and transformation into gangs of killing and destruction," the general said in a video aired by Al Arabiya.

Rumors of chemical weapons use by Assad's forces are unconfirmed, but there does seem to be a growing worry that Assad is starting to think of chemical weapons as just another tool to win, notwithstanding pledges not to use them (not that Assad admits to even having chemical weapons). Could Assad think limited use as a signal to the rebels would be too little to trigger Western intervention yet enough to cow the rebels?

And remember, failure by the West to intervene under those circumstances would encourage Assad to use chemicals more.

Yet Western intervention risks confrontation with Russian forces on the ground with the Syrian government's military forces:

Russian military advisers are manning some of Syria's more sophisticated air defences – something that would complicate any future US-led intervention, the Guardian has learned.

The advisers have been deployed with new surface-to-air systems and upgrades of old systems, which Moscow has supplied to the Assad regime since the Syrian revolution broke out 21 months ago.

Considering the first thing we'd do for any intervention is suppress Syrian air defenses (which includes blowing up lots of them), we'd likely kill Russians. Russia's military isn't a threat and they are unlikely to risk nuclear war over Assad, but who's willing to risk that?

This is why I have suggested that Russia could shield a rump Assad regime by deploying marines and paratroopers to a smaller Syria while abandoning the rest of Syria to rebels.

I wonder if a variation of retreating to a core Syria while retaining Damascus could be an agreement with the rebels to create a loose Syria with Sunni and Kurd areas becoming largely autonomous while leaving Assad in charge of the central government nominally in charge of all of Syria but only really ruling Damascus plus his own base of power? Would getting their own local governance be enough for the rebels if it ends the slaughter? Can they agree to let Assad survive? What would the jihadis do?

Russia would retain their naval base (such as it is) and a listening post in Syria and fulfill their pledge to defend their SOB no matter what. Yet it ends the fighting that is poisoning Russian relations with the Arab world. And perhaps it gives the West a headache to cope with the jihadis in outer Syria.

Or is it just a fight to the death at this point?

Making Friends and Influencing People

While India wants better Western weapons and Western friendship as they watch China growing in power across the mountains and edging into the Indian Ocean, India also wants to retain the friendship of nuclear-armed Russia which shares a long border with China and is potentially a counter-weight to Chinese ambitions at India's expense.

India is buying more Russian weapons:

Russia and India signed weapons deals worth billions of dollars Monday as President Vladimir Putin sought to further boost ties with an old ally.

Putin and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh hailed cooperation between their countries as officials signed a $1.6 billion deal for 42 Sukhoi Su-30 fighter jets that will be license-built in India from Russian components and a $1.3 billion contract for the delivery of 71 Mil Mi-17 military helicopters.

"We agreed to further strengthen the traditions of close cooperation in the military and technical areas," Putin said after the signing.

If India and China fight, India would rather have Russia cut off arms supplies and support to China than to India. Staying a paying customer is key to that kind of friendship.

Let the Mockery Begin

It is easy to mock people who gather naked at a mountain waiting for aliens to save them from the end of the world, or people who think the end of the calendar signified doom, or that some hidden planet on the other side of the Sun is going to destroy Earth. Why don't we mock the people who use the color of science to predict doom? Why do we forget the last projection of doom when the new one comes out?

Seriously, people, the world is reasonably fine:

2012 has been a spectacular year in terms of net global prosperity, accompanied by less hunger, less disease, and less war than ever before. All of the gloom-and-doomers fears of “peak oil” and overpopulation and widespread famine and the like have all miraculously failed to materialize, and standards of living around the world continue to improve.

Limits of growth? Not so much. The population bomb? Fizzled. Starvation? Only when used as a weapon or from government incompetence or malice. AIDS? Individual tragedies and not a planet-emptying plague. Peak oil? Seriously? The exhaustion of any critical resource? Remember copper scares? Now it is helium. How long before someone suggest the death penalty for those like me who have a canister at home for my child's balloon toy? Yet we seem to do fine every time some resource is running out. A new ice age? That was so 1970s.

Global warming? Not so much and maybe good in small amounts.

Or at the local level we have periodic alarms about running out of landfill space in X number of years. Somehow we keep finding space to open new landfills. Huh. It's almost like nobody wants to open new landfills while we have many years of space left because it would be stupid to just let that new landfill sit there waiting for demand for years to come just to have 2X number of years left of landfill space to keep the panic mongers quiet.

It's always something that will end the world as we know it. And the solution is to trust in God, aliens, or the all-powerful federal (or UN) government to control our lives for our own good.

And damn us to Hell or just kill us if we stand in their way of "saving" us. It's always the pathetic Austrian promising to kill undesirables, isn't it?

I'm not saying ignore problems. Problems we'll always have. But the record suggest they are solvable. Work the problems, people. And mock the world-will-end crowds who keep gathering to tell us how to live our lives.

Get your own lives, nutballs. And leave the rest of us alone.

Tip to Instapundit for both articles.

The Last Hurrah

A year ago, or more, I expected a last American-led offensive in Regional Command East, which was the second part of the phased offensive our military planned for our surge troops. We carried out the first phase in Regional Command South, held the gains, but never mounted a similar operation in the east as our troop surge receded faster than the military wanted.

All through the winter and spring I watched for signs that an offensive in the east would take place during the summer. There was conflicting evidence all through that time. In the end, it is clear that whatever we did in the east, it was not American-led. We assisted the Afghans, but did not attempt to clear the region. This press briefing on operations from July to September 2012 makes it clear that the focus was assisting the Afghans in stepping forward ahead of our 2014 deadline for major counter-insurgency capabilities.

It is also interesting to see another round of press interest in how many battalions of Afghan troops are capable of operating without our supervision. That was a staple of the press during the Iraq War. I was frustrated then that the press didn't seem to understand that the Iraqis didn't have to be as good as our troops--they had to be good enough to beat their enemies. And they were. It seems we are repeating that comprehension issue. Granted, that doesn't mean that the Afghans will be able to win when we pull back after 2014. But remember that the fighting in Afghanistan has never been as intensive as it was in Iraq.

Although the Talban sanctuary in Pakistan is far more valuable than the sanctuaries in Syria were for the jihadis and Baathists or in Iran for the Shia Sadrists that resisted Iraqi security forces.

But back to the other hand, in theory we don't plan to bug out completely in Afghanistan as we did in Iraq. We shall see. Our fast pace of withdrawal doesn't fill me with confidence:

Despite internal Pentagon reports that indicate the Afghans will not be ready to take over combat operations in 2014, news accounts have the White House pushing for cutting the remaining 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan this coming year by another 20,000 to 30,000, with the likely goal of leaving fewer than 10,000 noncombat troops in place by the end of 2014. This is not just a race to the exit but a full-out sprint. And once again it’s a decision made against the best advice of the commanders in the field, who would like nothing more than to hold the current force levels constant through at least the 2013 fighting season.

And I have my doubts that 10,000 post-2014 is anything more than a symbolic force incapable of doing more than rolling over to their rifle if friendly local forces collapse around them.

This year was the last major effort of our ground forces. It wasn't the offensive I expected or we initially planned, but it was what we could do. You go to phase 2 with the army you have and not the army you planned to have.

We shall see if we've done enough to win, rather than provided a decent interval before defeat.

Um, Remember Pearl Harbor?

During the Cold War, if my memory serves me, we scattered our aircraft carrier home ports to limit the scope of damage of any enemy surprise attack. Pearl Harbor was strong in our memory. Does our Navy still remember that day of infamy?

Am I the only one who finds this picture disturbing rather than cool?

NORFOLK (Dec. 20, 2012) The aircraft carriers USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), USS Enterprise (CVN 65), USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), and USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) are in port at Naval Station Norfolk, Va., the world's largest naval station. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Ernest R. Scott)

How special. Five of our super carriers lined up in one port. Plus four of our amphibious carriers. Which in other countries' navies would be huge.

The world's largest target-rich environment, eh? I'd say I'm being unduly worried, but in a year when our enemies launched surprise attacks on our diplomatic outposts on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks and when our top military leaders insist that it is unreasonable to expect our military to be tethered to the defense of those outposts--even on September 11th--I don't think I worry enough.

Remember, they're called "surprise" attacks because we don't expect them.

Oh well. If I'm right about super carriers being a declining asset for sea control missions in war time, an enemy success at Norfolk might be as significant as wrecking our battleship row on December 7, 1941.

UPDATE: Thanks to Instapundit for the link.

The Insta-Prof wonders how well our ports are defended today. I don't know, but I know that on the morning of December 7, 1941, our Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor was defended by anti-submarine patrols, new radar, 231 Army aircraft, 250 Navy and Marine Corps planes, and Marine and Army ground garrisons (large enough for 226 Army personnel to die--Marine losses are lumped in with the Navy losses, totaling more than 3,000 dead). And the Japanese didn't have this weapon.

UPDATE: John M. emails that it at least looks like a torpedo net is strung out to protect the ships. He could be right. It would also protect against a Cole-type suicide boat attack, too, wouldn't it? Unless it was a boat without a propeller to foul in the net.

And welcome The Politics Forums readers.

UPDATE: Welcome Darwin Central readers. As to what century I live in? Silly me. Like anyone would attack our Navy in a port in the 21st century. Unless I'm addressing someone who annoyingly insists that an error in our last century must be carried through every century (and decades, too) for the rest of time rather than writing off the first century as a 99-year anomaly.

UPDATE: Charles F. emails to remark that Enterprise is inactive and to be decommissioned. I knew that, but forgot. And it is likely that most of the ships there are present only for a short period. We plan on spreading some of the ships out,too, he notes.

Doug O. rejects my Pearl Harbor analogy. I appreciate his taking time to set our his reasons. Let me, in fairness, reproduce his entire email (since I annoyingly don't enable comments):

Using Pearl Harbor as an analogy is incorrect.

There is certainly a large percentage of our fleet concentrated in one place, but as for the base being in danger from anything short of a nuclear strike I would have to think not. The harbor is extremely well protected from attack from the sea, or should I say under the sea. There is not much of a reason for large conventional defenses since no other nation in the world can project power to our coastline. BTW, those are not anti-torpedo nets, but an anti-boat barrier that also acts as a containment system to stop oily waste from the ships from escaping into the ocean.

The crime committed at Pearl Harbor was not that the fleet was concentrated nor a lack of defenses, but the poor choices by the local army and navy commanders. The navy knew a carrier strike was a possibility. We had attacked Pearl before during exercises gaining complete surprise. Our carriers also staged raids on the Panama Canal, theoretically destroying it, as well. Adm. Kimmel and Gen. Short ignored that lesson and instead focused on defending against sabotage. Hence, the reason our planes were lined up neatly so they could be so easily destroyed from the air.

The commanders poor choices included not launching a search of the area, not having any fighters on standby alert nor bothering to listen to the radar operators who spotted the first Japanese attack wave. None of these errors are being replicated off our East Coast.

The US has a defensive early warning system around the country to spot air attacks and uses satellites to also keep an eye on the ocean. Plus the area is protected by Air Force and Naval Air Stations. The fleet is safe. That is unless a Bayliner armed with a tactical nuke sneaks inside, and if al Queda gains a nuke it is going right up the Potomac or into NY harbor.

I'm well aware that no fleet will be projected to our shores. I've yawned when the Russians sent a couple ship out our way. And it is helpful to note that the booms are not anti-torpedo nets. But it is helpful that Doug explicitly notes that the analogy isn't to be taken strictly to mean we should worry about a similar attack. But that wouldn't be a surprise, would it?

Arguing that our fleet is secure because it is well protected ignores that our fleet was well protected on paper in 1941. Saying only poor decisions allowed the Japanese to succeed implies that we will not make poor decisions in defending the fleet.

Remember, our commanders didn't sit down and think "I'm going to make a really bad decision about securing Pearl Harbor. Alice, take a memo ... " No, the decisions made sense based on their assumption about what the enemy could do and what they could not do. One of the poor decisions in 1941--in addition to the mistakes noted above--was failing to note the British success at Taranto a year earlier using aerial torpedoes and assuming Pearl Harbor was too shallow for the Japanese to use this weapon.

Look, I'm not expecting an enemy navy to approach our shores undetected and attack us. From that kind of threat, I agree we are safe. Even the Chinese would have trouble surviving a thousand miles from their coast for long in the face our our air and naval power--and they'd have trouble facing just the Japanese, for that matter. So I'm not arguing we should put up 24/7 combat air patrols or treat the bases as fortresses in case that happens.

But I assume we face enemies who can see how we defend--or don't--and figure out ways to get around our defenses.

Avoiding surprise is more than just preparing for every possible attack. It includes minimizing the impact of being surprised in case you haven't actually prepared for every possible method of attack. If we start getting bad habits like massing our high value naval assets, sloppiness in a lot of areas will likely proliferate. Bad habits can seem logical after years or decades of nothing bad happening. Then we're a few poor choices (in retrospect) from a disaster. A surprise disaster.

What if an enemy didn't need to destroy our carriers but just keep them in port for weeks or months beyond our normal reaction time to surge carriers in a crisis?

How long would it take to clear mines dropped by a merchant ship to block Norfolk? How long would it take to clear large civilian ships scuttled to do the same? Could someone hit the ships with persistent nerve agents? Just how long would it take to decontaminate a ship struck that way?

What happens in the combat theater while our ships sit in port unable to sortie?

We can be surprised. Or are we to assume no terrorists would dare attack us on the anniversary of 9/11 since we'd be ready for something that obvious?

Merry Christmas

Hey, Merry Christmas! Or happy whatever holiday it is you celebrate, of course.

I think Lamb is trying to take advantage of Santa. To the Mister and Lamb stockings hanging on my fire place, Lamb made field expedient stockings for her stuffed lion and another for--well, I forget who the really tiny one is for.

I suspect this is the last year of Santa belief. So I'm not actually worried about a slippery slope.

Home Improvement

Islamists in Mali continue their home redecorating project since they took control of northern Mali, destroying four mausoleums:

Since taking control of Timbuktu earlier this year, the Islamists have destroyed seven of the 16 mausoleums listed as world heritage sites. Some date back to the 14th century.

There's no rush to finish them off, of course, since the sainted international community figures that 9 mausoleums--and oh, the people living there, of course--can last until late next year when they plan to send a few thousand ECOWAS troops north to reconquer the France-sized region from the Islamists.

Whatever. What are the odds I'd ever go see the mausoleums even if they aren't destroyed? I'm sure that expanses of sun-baked clay and sand will be as much of a tourist draw as old buildings. Perhaps the Islamists will put in a lap pool, instead. Or perhaps ferns.

UPDATE: The cavalry has been authorized to begin training to start the process of considering a plan to prepare for the pre-conditions that establish the parameters of a multi-national force that will then charge to the north when the weather permits:

Aiming to reclaim the northern stretches of Mali from extremists, the United Nations Security Council on Thursday approved the deployment of African-led forces to the West African nation for a year. ...

U.N. peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous has said military operations are unlikely to begin until the fall, the Associated Press reported. A West African bloc of nations has already authorized 3,300 troops for the anticipated mission.

Prepare the RFP to buy the bugle in the new FY appropriations plan!

The French could have led an advance that would have scattered the jihadis to allow Tuaregs, ECOWAS, and Mali forces to garrison the major towns and begin the process of hunting foreign jihadis. But no. We get this.

Isn't multi-lateralism fun?

What Are the Russians Up To?

Russia's Putin comes bearing gifts to Cyprus. Naturally, I'm suspicious.

Russia will consider bailing out Cyprus according to President Putin:

We do not see it as comfortable for ourselves to meddle in this process. But, if... agreement is reached, we do not rule out the possibility to join in with the stabilization of Cyprus' financial (position)."

Russia, which has a base--a fixer-upper, to be sure, but Russia's only overseas base nonetheless--in Syria, is stiff-arming Assad's hopes of refuge in Russia:

Putin said after Friday's meeting that Russia isn't a defender of Syrian President Bashar Assad and wants to see a democratically elected government. But he maintained his stance that peace can only be achieved through an agreement that would ensure the protection of various religious and ethnic groups in Syria.

This from the same meeting.

Just as Putin denies he is a supporter of Assad, he is looking at Cyprus?

It may be just some hedging of bets. It may be Putin's way of encouraging Assad to fight to win rather than look for the exits so Russia can retain that naval base in Syria.

It may simply reflect the idea that Russia is willing to anger the Sunni Arab world by supporting Assad as long as Assad wins, but they are hardly going to anger the Sunni world and look weak by hosting a defeated Assad who can be a magnet for Sunni Arab anger for decades to come.

But if Russia really wants a base in the Mediterranean Sea should they lose their Syria base, wouldn't Cyprus make a nice replacement? Surely that would be easier to do than flipping a financially distressed NATO country, eh?

And maybe Russia has given up on persuading the rebels in Syria to continue the lease once Assad is gone.

Or maybe the Europeans are bargaining with Russia over Syria, and Putin hopes to get European concessions over the future of Syria and is willing to put up cash for Cyprus?

Or maybe Putin is just a generous man at heart who has a soft spot for the well being of Cyprus--the Greek half, anyway.

For that matter, what are the Europeans up to?

But as I said, I'm suspicious that way.

Washington Guts And Glory

Chuck Hagel is in trouble for the Secretary of Defense nomination. And that's a shame for some. This passes for bravery and wisdom in Washington these days (tip to Instapundit):

Hagel’s gutsy and prescient stand against his own party and President George W. Bush in the run-up to the Iraq invasion—and his criticism of the war’s management afterwards—all but cost him his political career, turning him from a possible GOP presidential contender into a pariah within his party.

As early as the spring of 2002, as stories began to circulate that Bush was intent on going to war with Iraq, Hagel, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, began warning against the overextension of U.S. power. "We can't just say, 'Let's go take Saddam Hussein out,'" he said at a luncheon in June 2002. "I suppose that militarily we could. But you'd better understand what's coming, if we do. We could inflame the Arab-Muslim world like nothing we've ever seen."

So this is why we should want Hagel as our Secretary of Defense? Let's examine his purported guts and prescience.

1. He opposed the war to overthrow Saddam in the spring of 2002.

2. He criticized the conduct of the war after it began.

3. He also said the war to overthrow Saddam, while we could do it militarily, would inflame the Arab-Muslim world "like nothing we've seen." That would overextend our power to cope, apparently.

That record qualifies Hagel to be Secretary of Defense?

On the first demonstration of guts, Hagel then went on to vote for the authorization to use force against Saddam's Iraq.

Politically Expedient: 1; Guts: 0.

On the second example, who in Washington wasn't criticising the war after about February 2004? It was a parlor game. Even Thomas Friedman switched sides. And part of Hagel's "prescience" was to oppose letting the surge unfold and urge a halt to the war before the surge could pay off.

Politically Expedient: 2; Guts: 0.

And in the other game: Conventional Wisdom: 1; Prescience: 0.

Finally, Hagel said that militarily we'd have an easy job but that the often-cited "Arab street" would explode in anti-American rage and that we'd be so busy putting out fires in the Arab-Muslim world that Iraq would be small potatoes.

But militarily, we actually did have a problem in that it took us 5 years to break Baathist resistance and hold off the al Qaeda and Iranian terror offensives.

And the Arab street did not rise up in anti-American outrage against our invasion. In time, our fight in Iraq showed al Qaeda to be bloodthirsty brutes who lost the trust of much of the Arab-Muslim world. Our military was able to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, emerging as effective and experienced forces. The cost was relatively trivial--with the Iraq War direct costs about equal to what we spent in the 2009 stimulus at the stroke of a pen. If our power to cope is overextended, you might want to look at non-defense spending for that smoking gun.

Our running score? Conventional Wisdom: 3; Politically Expedient: 3; Guts: 0; and Prescience: 0.

Oh, and he switched parties in the depths of Bush 41's unpopularity and recently apologized for some old anti-gay slurs. So let's add two to the Politically Expedient category.

Or do his defenders want to argue that the anti-gay slur was gutsy? Let's just star that one.

Our final score? Conventional Wisdom: 3; Politically Expedient: 5; Guts: 0*; and Prescience: 0.

And maybe not final. After all, Hagel hasn't even been formally nominated yet. But I sense an approaching Pennsylvania Avenue express bus gathering speed.

Knowing Who Is Naughty or Nice

Hey parents, don't forget that NORAD will be on the job tracking Santa's sleigh ride overnight! It leaves an impression. It is in several languages.



No wonder everyone worries about our air power and ability to enforce no-fly zones.

Fight Them on the Beaches--And Everywhere Else

Taiwan's defense problems are far greater than they were when the Taiwan Strait was an insurmountable barrier to Chinese invasion. But Taiwan still needs to defeat the Chinese in battle to retain their independence. There is no cheap asymmetrical way to defeat China. Taiwan must raise the costs of invasion at every part of the combat spectrum, from invasion to resistance, to deter China.

This is a nice summary of issues today for the defense of Taiwan.

While it is true that Taiwan cannot match China in the air or at sea, I don't think it is wise for Taiwan to abandon those areas to the Chinese.

Air power--if it is made survivable--can at least complicate and thwart early Chinese airborne operations that might seek a bolt-from-the-blue invasion. Just surviving makes the Chinese worry about what Taiwan can do in the air. Bolstered by Taiwanese missiles (ballistic and cruise) that could take the offensive roles for operations against Chinese bases on the mainland, the aircraft could focus on air defense over Taiwan and the eastern approaches to the island, and limited critical strike missions against Chinese forces ashore on Taiwan.

Sea power cannot be used to control the Strait of Taiwan. The balance of air and naval power is too out of whack for that. We have to be cautious approaching as close to China as Taiwan starts out. So in the strait, Taiwan needs sea denial weapons like shore-based missiles, submarines, and small attack craft that can hug the western coast of Taiwan to hide from radar.

But Taiwan still needs basic sea control ships for the east to hold open their sea lines of communication. What good does it do Taiwan to create a successful "hedgehog" defense of Taiwan that absolutely deters Chinese invasion only to make it easy for China to simply blockade Taiwan and starve them into submission?

So yes, in some ways Taiwan needs asymmetrical methods to counter China's air power and sea power in the Taiwan Strait. But Taiwan needs force-on-force at sea off the east coast and in the air over Taiwan even if everyone knows that eventually the Taiwanese will lose control of the air through attrition alone. But Taiwan needs whatever time their air force can buy to deny China control of the air over Taiwan. We've shown what air supremacy means for enemy armies, haven't we?

And Taiwan absolutely needs force-on-force ground capabilities. Just because China is far bigger is no reason for despair. How much bigger was Russia than Finland in 1939?

Finland did not have a 100-mile wide anti-tank ditch. But they did have well trained and motivated troops who took advantage of their terrain to hold off the Russians for three months and inflict heavy casualties on the Russians.

Taiwan has the advantage of facing invaders who cannot retreat into the depths of Russia to regroup as the Russians could, and then keep coming. If Chinese invaders are forced back at their bridgeheads and airheads, they must surrender.

So Taiwan needs an army that is mobile with good command and control so that Taiwanese units can quickly react to Chinese invasion sites and quickly throw the Chinese back before the initial lighter forces can gain heavy weapons reinforcements and depth by marching out from invasion sites or drop zones.

And these ground units need ample air defense weapons to take up the slack as their air force is defeated.

While Taiwan is moving toward a volunteer army that is smaller but better, don't forget quantity. Taiwan will need lots of reservists who can at least conduct point defense of cities, towns, airports, ports, tranpsortation chokepoints, and military facilities, freeing the army brigades for conventional combat. Such forces will also be a latent threat for resistance in areas that the Chinese manage to seize or in the worst case if China conquers Taiwan.

If Taiwan's missile and air power can savage China's amphibious and air transport elements, the Chinese will have problems coming back for more even if they want to try.

And not only is it crucial for the Taiwanese to very rapidly counter-attack Chinese forces that make it to the island, it is very important for the Taiwanese to completely throw the Chinese off the island before a ceasefire. If China holds any territory on Taiwan at the end of hostilities, it will becomes a massive PLA army base that will finish the conquest of Taiwan in round 2.

Finally, just the possibility that Taiwan could fight for 3 months should give China pause. After 3 months, Western powers were moving to intervene on the side of the Finns despite the ongoing war against Nazi Germany. With three months to ponder the pending destruction of a democratic country by a belligent China, surely America would intervene as would Japan and maybe South Korea, Vietnam, Singapore, and Australia who might conclude that they'd rather have a China held at the Taiwan line than closer to them with their appetite for more territory whetted by Taiwan.

Taiwan cannot abandon efforts to defeat Chinese forces in battle. The Taiwan Strait is no longer the ultimate trump card in preventing a Chinese invasion, but it still is one heck of an obstacle that small states around the world would love to have as they ponder larger, hostile neighbors.

Imagine the cost of trying to build such an obstacle if Taiwan was 100 miles further west. Isn't building a military capable of fighting for three months--which might be enough to defeat an invasion--a bargain by comparison?

And heck, if that seems too much, Taiwan might have to go nuclear. If China sees little need to help us halt North Korean and Iranian efforts, why whould we interfere with Taiwan's clear need to deter China form invading?

UPDATE: Thanks to Mad Minerva for the link.

UPDATE: Thanks to The View from Taiwan for the link.

Ready, Set

Lamb and I baked cookies for Santa yesterday. With plenty of frosting all around. I managed to keep some without frosting so Mister could enjoy them.

Lamb also made a pizza cookie with some of the dough. She seems to like that, lately.

Lamb also left instructions for Santa's arrival: cookies, milk, and carrots--and a towel to catch the carrot shreds that she still talks about (oh those messy reindeer). She also wants a water bowl. Lamb will be with her mom and brother Christmas Eve, so I said I'd send her a picture of the preparation.

And today I need to make up the gift tags and notes for my home and my Ex's home so the Santa handwriting will match.

I don't plan to eat the frosting cup that Lamb made up for Santa. Oh, it will be in the picture of what I set out for Santa that I said I'd email to Lamb. But unlike Lamb, I prefer at least some token cake or cookie under my frosting.

I like this time of year. On Friday when I went to the store for some shopping, the cashier remarked that I looked happy. Sure, it's Christmas. She said most men this time of year look grim. Huh.

Maybe it will be different in that gap between small children and small grandchildren. But for now, I like the holiday. Sure, there are Christmas wars and commercialization and creeping Santa-ism that seems to reach Halloween.

But just around me, it's just fine. I manage not to punch anyone for the last item on a shelf. The spirit of giving and the spirit of Christ's birthday seem OK.

And I even managed to mail cards by Thursday! Whew. Christmas actually snuck up on me this year.

I might not hit the mall today, however. I usually like to go shopping on Christmas Eve just to soak in the holiday. If I see something of interest, I'll buy. But I go with the security of knowing I'm really done with shopping. So no pressure. This is actually an evolution from my younger days when I actually needed to shop on Christmas Eve. That was a long time ago.

I'm good to go.

I hope all of you out there have as good a holiday--whatever it is--as I am having.

The Middle of Everywhere?

So what if China starts deploying forces in the Atlantic?

Fretting over Chinese interest in the Atlantic is pointless, despite "Wen Jiabao’s much-discussed stopover in the Azore Islands, which could represent the prelude to a Chinese naval presence in the Atlantic. As the U.S. Air Force radically scales back its presence in the islands, Beijing could fill the void." At the risk of getting what we wish, this seems right:

But suppose Beijing does multiply its out-of-area commitments. Rather than fret about an extraregional China, I say bring it on.

The more burdens Beijing shoulders outside the Far East, the more it must disperse finite physical power—diluting the military assets it can apply to any given contingency without leaving commitments elsewhere uncovered. It will have less military might to spare for adventures like grabbing parts of Southeast Asian states’ exclusive economic zones or mounting a challenge to the forward American presence in the Western Pacific.

Worrying about the Chinese taking over our Azores Islands air base is not on the horizon, for no other reason than we aren't actually abandoning the base:

Department of Defense officials announced today that Lajes Field will transition from an air base wing to an air base group with a reduction of more than 400 military personnel and 500 family members by the end of fiscal year 2014.

We don't need as much at the base since there are no threats in the Atlantic these days. That's all this is.

Besides, Portugal is a NATO member and even if we did withdraw altogether, without pulling out of NATO, Portugal could not invite a non-NATO military into their territory.

It just makes no sense for China to deploy to the Atlantic, except for intelligence gathering purposes.

Seriously, by going to the Atlantic, China puts their forces into the middle of a kill sack where 40% of our fleet will still be based and where the navies and air forces of our NATO allies--95% of which would never deploy to Asia to fight China in a war--would be allowed to participate in a war by fighting the Chinese fleet close to home.

China would just be diluting their naval resources and putting them up against otherwise uninvolved navies and air forces.

China may fancy itself the Middle Kingdom, but this is ridiculous. A Chinese Atlantic squadron would lead a short but exciting life.

Hitting Your Target

As we mourn the Newtown, Connecticut ,massacre victims and debate gun control issues, we have the revolting spectacle of seeing that North Korea would consider the massacre a training opportunity for their children:

Even if one supports patriotic education of the younger generation, one is still likely to find such notions of slicing off one's own tongue, torture or execution to be much too disturbing and complicated to present to children. Yet the plots cited above are from comics published in Kkotpongori (Flower bud), a North Korean monthly magazine for kindergarden-aged children. The designated audience of the publication may be deduced by the types of logic puzzles included in each issue, such as: "Look at the pictures of a pig, a tractor and a bike. Which one moves faster?"

Welcome to the world of North Korean childhood. In this world, cartoons such as "Pencil artillery shells", by Cha Kye-ok, call on children to study well. Unlike in South Korea, where the same imperative is justified by intellectual fun and social success of the students, the North Korean educational paradigm suggests another lucrative objective: good students are better prepared for the defence of their country against invaders.

Yes, it takes a village.

The Beginning of Wisdom?

Was I too hasty in thinking that Pakistan was just giving up on the fight against the Taliban by pretending to have peace in our time?

Maybe I'm just not enough of a cynic when it comes to Pakistan, but this might be promising:

Pakistan's change of heart - if sustained - could open up several new tracks in the peace process, bring about a ceasefire with the Taliban, encourage a wider regional settlement and improve Islamabad's own fraught relations with Washington. Most significantly, a ceasefire and peace talks with the Taliban could dramatically improve the chances of survival for the weak Afghan government and army once Western forces leave.

Even the Afghans seem to think Pakistan is serious.

This may be an interesting test of whether our presence allowed Pakistan to double deal and remain confident we wouldn't let the Taliban emerge victorious; or whether our forces--at some level--remain essential to keep the Taliban from emerging victorious in Afghanistan by maintaining at least minimal Pakistani cooperation.

Or perhaps our aid interruption helped Pakistan's rulers rethink their resistance to helping us.

I've long hoped that Pakistan would realize they can't make a deal with the Devil and hope not to get burned. We certainly bought time with our military campaigns and training programs. Perhaps the horse actually learned to sing.

UPDATE: Pakistan wants peace?

"There was a time when we used to think we were the masters of Afghanistan. Now we just want them to be masters of themselves so we can concentrate on our own problems," said a senior Pakistani military officer stationed in South Waziristan, part of the tribal belt that hugs the Afghan border.

"Pakistan has the power to create the environment in which a grand reconciliation in Afghanistan can take place," he said, speaking in the gritty town of Wana, about 30 km (20 miles) from Afghanistan. "We have to rise to the challenge. And we are doing it, at the highest level possible."

I fear they want to save their pet Taliban in that peace, however. Reconciliation is fine, as long as it comes after the effective surrender of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Remember, the Anbar Awakening in Iraq was effectively the surrender of the Sunni Arabs who knew they could not win and decided to switch sides to save themselves.

Are we approaching the talks with the idea that the Taliban have the understanding that to save themselves they need to reconcile with the Afghan government? Or is reconciliation just another phase of defeating the government by getting true believing Taliban into the government?

I just can't shake my worry that the Pakistanis are still trying to make a deal with the devil to save their devil--and that we're willing to pretend this is peace.

Making the Foundation Without Straw

Egypt's Islamist-friendly constitution with provisions to buy off the army and its civilian supporters has been approved. Things will not go well with this foundation of law, but we should not walk away and guarantee it gets worse, faster:

A constitution drafted by an Islamist-dominated assembly was approved by a majority of Egyptians in a referendum, rival camps said on Sunday, after a vote the opposition said drove a wedge through the Arab world's most populous nation.

The Muslim Brotherhood, which propelled President Mohamed Mursi to power in a June election, said an unofficial tally showed 64 percent of voters backed the charter after two rounds of voting that ended with a final ballot on Saturday.

I'm not optimistic about the chances of rule of law in Egypt. Certainly not in the short run. But 36% rejected the thing. That is a base of support to press for rule of law. They deserve our support. And some of the majority may have simply voted for stability after the upheaval.

We'll have to fight for rule of law and stability with the constitution they have and not the constitution we wish they had.

Hopefully we become experts on the constitution to help Egyptians utilize whatever good parts there are as leverage for more rule of law. Hopefully Egyptians learn to dislike this constitution and press for a new and better one. Heck, our first try at a constitution didn't work out--although its problems were not of too much power in the hands of the central government.

And use our financial influence to restrain the Muslim Brotherhood government's actions to see if responsibility to govern will temper their Islamist urges over time.

And by all means, keep sending the shiny weapons they've ordered. But make sure the ammunition and consumables that are necessary for a war against Israel are kept at low levels. We don't have a problem with Egypt having the ability to wage a small war against Sudan, if that comes up. But we don't want the Egyptians to be able to send several corps into the Sinai.

Oh, and also remember that Pakistan, prior to the 1965 war, stockpiled ammunition that was supposed to be used for training in order to build up a war reserve that was then used to fight India. So if we are sending ammunition for training purposes, do make sure we have officers on site counting the rounds as they are fired rather than just filing paperwork claiming Egypt fired off the rounds.

This new constitution is surely a problem. Work the problem. God help us, but good luck to our future Secretary of State. We may yet lose the war for Egypt (friendly and reasonably free), but we should not stop fighting for a better Egypt than Mubarak left. We still might get something good enough.