It's nice to have extra time with the kids over break.
Mister was enjoying football, and time to play with his XBox and computer chess; but Lamb and I managed to bake cookies and make home-made chocolate-covered potato chips.
We used chocolate Easter bunnies for the dip.
Yes, from last Easter. They were fine.
Anyway, the cookies are good (and Lamb used some of the molten chocolate on a portion of the cookies. Mmmm.
And the chip treats are actually pretty good, too. That's something I'll make again. Although I have a Trader Joe's nearby that sells reasonably priced bags of them. But they have a higher ratio of chocolate-to-chip than I'd prefer.
On the down side, home-made treat-wise, Lamb might be getting a little tired of the mustard pretzels we've been making. So that might be a flash-in-the-pan treat. Surely there's another use for ground mustard--though I have no clue right now as to what that might be.
Tomorrow, I'll have to finally wrap presents. Which is pretty good considering I only mailed Christmas cards on Thursday.
And I'm starting to think one card I mailed won't make it to its destination. I attached triple postage but it was kind of heavy. I half expected to see it come back by now. We'll see.
Anyway. It's good to have time. That's really more valuable than anything else. And that's what I've chosen to have. So it's all good. :-)
Monday, December 23, 2013
Common Ground
Rouhani of Iran wants better relations with the West despite Ahmadinejad's tenure.
I'm not sure how we can bridge the gap when we say we don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons capabilities and Iran denies having any intention of getting nuclear weapons.
But Rouhani clearly has a common bond with President Obama--they both blame their foreign policy problems on their predecessor:
Yeah, our president can totally understand Rouhani on this issue. I see the basis of a beautiful friendship.
I'm not sure how we can bridge the gap when we say we don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons capabilities and Iran denies having any intention of getting nuclear weapons.
But Rouhani clearly has a common bond with President Obama--they both blame their foreign policy problems on their predecessor:
"We are striving to avoid new burdens on relations between Iran and the United States and also to remove the tensions that we have inherited," said Rouhani, who has promised to reduce Tehran's isolation and to win an easing of sanctions.
Yeah, our president can totally understand Rouhani on this issue. I see the basis of a beautiful friendship.
With Us and Against Us
Syria seems to be trying to pull off a triple somersault in foreign affairs. From pariah Axis of Evil wannabe to America's peace partner and aspiring member of the Coalition of the Willing to fight al Qaeda.
I thought it was pretty impressive when Syria morphed from chemical weapons-using tyrant who killed his own people, Iraqis, and our troops in the service of Iran and who played footsie with North Korean nuclear efforts into Kerry's peace partner to get rid of chemical weapons (for long enough to defeat rebels).
But now Assad aspires to full ally status:
Wow! The backer of Hezbollah, Hamas, and al Qaeda in Iraq during the Iraq War actually applied for membership in the Coalition of the Willing to fight jihadi terrorists!
Ponder that.
Syria refused all efforts we made to flip them prior to the Iraq War, preferring their status as loyal lap dog of the Persians.
But after slaughtering their own people and actually using chemical weapons on their own people, the Assad regime is leveraging the promise to stop killing their own people after they've beaten down the rebels (who Assad says are all al Qaeda) and getting rid of chemicals weapons stocks into becoming our ally in the war on terror!
Yeah, stupid, simplistic, cowboy George W. Bush. With us or against us, indeed.
And John Kerry will call this a triumph of nuance. And proudly accept a Nobel Peace Prize for this whole stupid, exercise.
All I want for Christmas is a foreign policy that doesn't suck quite as bad as it does. I've been good. Pretty much. Is this too much to ask?
I thought it was pretty impressive when Syria morphed from chemical weapons-using tyrant who killed his own people, Iraqis, and our troops in the service of Iran and who played footsie with North Korean nuclear efforts into Kerry's peace partner to get rid of chemical weapons (for long enough to defeat rebels).
But now Assad aspires to full ally status:
[Syria's deputy foreign minister Faisal] Muqdad urged the world to press Saudi Arabia to halt its support for the rebels, to prevent what he said was "another 11 September incident".
"I think that if the world wants to avoid another 11 September incident, they must start telling Saudi Arabia 'enough is enough'," he said, referring to Al-Qaeda's 2001 attacks on the US.
Wow! The backer of Hezbollah, Hamas, and al Qaeda in Iraq during the Iraq War actually applied for membership in the Coalition of the Willing to fight jihadi terrorists!
Ponder that.
Syria refused all efforts we made to flip them prior to the Iraq War, preferring their status as loyal lap dog of the Persians.
But after slaughtering their own people and actually using chemical weapons on their own people, the Assad regime is leveraging the promise to stop killing their own people after they've beaten down the rebels (who Assad says are all al Qaeda) and getting rid of chemicals weapons stocks into becoming our ally in the war on terror!
Yeah, stupid, simplistic, cowboy George W. Bush. With us or against us, indeed.
And John Kerry will call this a triumph of nuance. And proudly accept a Nobel Peace Prize for this whole stupid, exercise.
All I want for Christmas is a foreign policy that doesn't suck quite as bad as it does. I've been good. Pretty much. Is this too much to ask?
Full Spectrum Amphibious Capabilities
China has substantial amphibious warfare assets, even though much of that capability resides in civilian assets. The notion that China's amphibious warfare capabilities consist of "a million-man swim" has always been a form of sticking one's head in the sand.
China's navy and army have a relatively small but modern amphibious warfare capability:
These ships would be very useful for seizing small islands in the East China Sea and the South China Sea.
Of course, our Marine deployment to Australia--backed by Marines in Guam and elsewhere--would contest such a campaign.
China's large-scale amphibious operation capabilities are also sizable, despite often dismissive characterization of China's capabilities:
That's the assault echelon of 24 divisions, of course. Plus whatever support units the additional shipping can carry.
And add in airborne capabilities.
An invasion of Taiwan could be accomplished with dry feet.
China's navy and army have a relatively small but modern amphibious warfare capability:
For the last decade China has been diligently building more amphibious ships. This was largely an effort to replace aging Cold War era relics while upgrading the amphibious fleet overall. Currently China has three LPDs (the U.S. has nine), 90 landing ships (LSMs and LSTs) and 160 landing craft. ...
Most of the smaller amphibious craft actually belong to the army and, until recently you could tell that because the army ships were painted blue, while the navy ones were gray. But now the army is also painting its ships gray so you will have to get a closer look to tell who owns what. That is even more difficult now that the army is building more large ships, like new one the army officially describes as a RO/RO (Roll On/Roll Off) ship but on closer examination it is an LSM that can carry a dozen vehicles and about two hundred troops. In other words a mechanized infantry company.
These ships would be very useful for seizing small islands in the East China Sea and the South China Sea.
Of course, our Marine deployment to Australia--backed by Marines in Guam and elsewhere--would contest such a campaign.
China's large-scale amphibious operation capabilities are also sizable, despite often dismissive characterization of China's capabilities:
China also keeps track of hundreds of commercial ferries and barges that can be mobilized by the military and used for amphibious operations against Taiwan. It is believed that there is sufficient lift for over 300 infantry and mechanized (tank and mechanized infantry) battalions. That’s about 24 divisions. There is additional shipping (mostly civilian) for moving support units.
That's the assault echelon of 24 divisions, of course. Plus whatever support units the additional shipping can carry.
And add in airborne capabilities.
An invasion of Taiwan could be accomplished with dry feet.
The Gentler Sex
Women may generally lack the upper body strength to be in the infantry, but apparently they are perfectly adequate for the post-fighting "round them up and execute them" phase.
Well, this is a "if only women were in charge there'd be no war" accusation buzz kill (tip to Instapundit):
Half a million Nazi women went east in the wake of the German offensive into Russia to help kill the "undesirables" who plagued the new living space that was conquered.
And they never faced justice.
Are we all equal or are women uniquely moral because they are the nurturers? Choose one.
Well, this is a "if only women were in charge there'd be no war" accusation buzz kill (tip to Instapundit):
Hitler’s Furies is an unsettling but significant contribution to our understanding of how nationalism, and specifically conceptions of loyalty, are normalized, reinforced, and regulated. By asking important questions about the pervasive culpability of Nazi women, Lower has highlighted a historical blind spot. And yet, the lens through which this book will no doubt be understood, that of “women’s history,” is a problematic one, as it suggests that the actions of half of the population exist in a separate sphere. Mass murder cannot occur without the broad participation of society. None of these women had to stand by as witnesses, serve as accomplices, or take the lives of others, but the vast majority of them did just that.
Half a million Nazi women went east in the wake of the German offensive into Russia to help kill the "undesirables" who plagued the new living space that was conquered.
And they never faced justice.
Are we all equal or are women uniquely moral because they are the nurturers? Choose one.
The War is Responsibly Ended. Long Live the War
I've long noted that one problem with securing Afghanistan is that no matter how much we pound down the jihadis in Afghanistan, the threat will loom as long as the jihadis have a safe haven in North Waziristan inside Pakistan. Is that about to change?
Mind you, we managed to pound down our enemies in Iraq despite limited safe havens in Iran and Syria for our enemies. But it does make things difficult and does increase the long-term threat. So I'm not saying it is necessary to defeat the jihadis inside Pakistan.
But it would sure help. Pakistan has long resisted going after the jihadis in North Waziristan, believing that they could keep some of their jihadis tame in the service of Pakistan. That's a fool's bargain, of course.
Have we convinced the Pakistanis to finally go after this sanctuary?
Is this tit-for-tat or the start of something serious?
Is this the Pakistani half of the operation against jihadis that we helped Afghans carry out in Regional Command East as a substitute for an American-led offensive in that part of Afghanistan?
I've gotten my hopes up over signs that Pakistan might actually rub some brain synapses together regarding their pet jihadis only to have them dashed again and again.
If this is real, I will enthusiastically tip my hat to the administration that understands that the war against these jihadis has to go on whether we are in the lead, or not.
But then, I'm a Detroit Lions fan, too. I'm hopeful that way.
Mind you, we managed to pound down our enemies in Iraq despite limited safe havens in Iran and Syria for our enemies. But it does make things difficult and does increase the long-term threat. So I'm not saying it is necessary to defeat the jihadis inside Pakistan.
But it would sure help. Pakistan has long resisted going after the jihadis in North Waziristan, believing that they could keep some of their jihadis tame in the service of Pakistan. That's a fool's bargain, of course.
Have we convinced the Pakistanis to finally go after this sanctuary?
Residents of Pakistan's ethnic Pashtun region of North Waziristan accused government troops on Monday of killing dozens of civilians during a military operation against Taliban insurgents.
The operation started just after a December 18 suicide bomb attack on a checkpoint in North Waziristan, a stronghold for al Qaeda-linked Taliban militants on Pakistan's mountainous border with Afghanistan.
Speculation that the army might launch a major offensive in the frontier tribal areas has been building as the government's attempts to engage the Pakistani Taliban in peace talks have floundered in recent months.
Is this tit-for-tat or the start of something serious?
Is this the Pakistani half of the operation against jihadis that we helped Afghans carry out in Regional Command East as a substitute for an American-led offensive in that part of Afghanistan?
I've gotten my hopes up over signs that Pakistan might actually rub some brain synapses together regarding their pet jihadis only to have them dashed again and again.
If this is real, I will enthusiastically tip my hat to the administration that understands that the war against these jihadis has to go on whether we are in the lead, or not.
But then, I'm a Detroit Lions fan, too. I'm hopeful that way.
Quietly Going for the Win
I tip my hat to the Obama administration for helping an ally win a war.
Colombia has been engaged in a decades-long war against insurgents and drug gangs that at times threatened to carve out parts of the country for the enemy and destabilize the urban areas the government officially controlled. We have helped them reach the point where the government is beating down the insurgents and Colombia is regaining some normalcy.
While we had a public aid effort, we also had a secret effort to supply intelligence and smart bomb kits to Colombia:
These new capabilities were certainly important. But don't underestimate the Colombian decision to finally, after decades of trying to win on the cheap, expand, train, and equip their ground forces to take on FARC and ELN.
We also agreed to try their drug criminals here to avoid stressing the Colombian justice system by exposing it to insurgent violence, blackmail, and bribery.
Kudos for not giving up on Colombia--or abandoning the assistance just because George W. Bush got it rolling.
Just when I think our administration is incapable of doing anything to advance our interests, they go and surprise me.
UPDATE: I was puzzled that intelligence and smart bombs would be something we'd keep secret. But then I forgot that some in Congress have a weakness for the South American communist revolutionaries and would have done what they could to lose that war despite Congressional approval of aid to beat the insurgents. I guess I'm surprised the administration didn't have more of those to screw it up, anyway.
Colombia has been engaged in a decades-long war against insurgents and drug gangs that at times threatened to carve out parts of the country for the enemy and destabilize the urban areas the government officially controlled. We have helped them reach the point where the government is beating down the insurgents and Colombia is regaining some normalcy.
While we had a public aid effort, we also had a secret effort to supply intelligence and smart bomb kits to Colombia:
The 50-year-old Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), once considered the best-funded insurgency in the world, is at its smallest and most vulnerable state in decades, due in part to a CIA covert action program that has helped Colombian forces kill at least two dozen rebel leaders, according to interviews with more than 30 former and current U.S. and Colombian officials.
The secret assistance, which also includes substantial eavesdropping help from the National Security Agency, is funded through a multibillion-dollar black budget. It is not a part of the public $9 billion package of mostly U.S. military aid called Plan Colombia, which began in 2000.
The previously undisclosed CIA program was authorized by President George W. Bush in the early 2000s and has continued under President Obama, according to U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic officials.
These new capabilities were certainly important. But don't underestimate the Colombian decision to finally, after decades of trying to win on the cheap, expand, train, and equip their ground forces to take on FARC and ELN.
We also agreed to try their drug criminals here to avoid stressing the Colombian justice system by exposing it to insurgent violence, blackmail, and bribery.
Kudos for not giving up on Colombia--or abandoning the assistance just because George W. Bush got it rolling.
Just when I think our administration is incapable of doing anything to advance our interests, they go and surprise me.
UPDATE: I was puzzled that intelligence and smart bombs would be something we'd keep secret. But then I forgot that some in Congress have a weakness for the South American communist revolutionaries and would have done what they could to lose that war despite Congressional approval of aid to beat the insurgents. I guess I'm surprised the administration didn't have more of those to screw it up, anyway.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Rules of Engagement
Strategypage discusses rules of engagement and casualties in Afghanistan.
Short story:
We are actually pretty careful, but enemy use of civilians as human shields and honest mistakes meant we could never be perfect. Our "abuse" of firepower was a successful enemy information operation.
More restrictive rules of engagement in 2009 didn't likely increase our casualties given other factors.
There were some incidents where Americans were denied fire support because of improperly implementing the new ROE.
The major impact was that we more often let the Taliban get away rather than risk making the choice between saving our troops in combat or risking civilian casualties.
Afghans became unhappy with us for letting Taliban get away to terrorize them another day.
But since we weren't getting as much bad publicity, it was considered a success in Washington, D.C.
The whole story is worth reading.
Short story:
We are actually pretty careful, but enemy use of civilians as human shields and honest mistakes meant we could never be perfect. Our "abuse" of firepower was a successful enemy information operation.
More restrictive rules of engagement in 2009 didn't likely increase our casualties given other factors.
There were some incidents where Americans were denied fire support because of improperly implementing the new ROE.
The major impact was that we more often let the Taliban get away rather than risk making the choice between saving our troops in combat or risking civilian casualties.
Afghans became unhappy with us for letting Taliban get away to terrorize them another day.
But since we weren't getting as much bad publicity, it was considered a success in Washington, D.C.
The whole story is worth reading.
No Mere Bits of Ribbon
Lamb was inducted into her school's Academic Society.
She got all "A"s.
She also said that some in school (who did not make the Academic Society) disparaged the honor as just some ribbon.
Wrong, I told her. That's not jewelry That ribbon and medallion symbolizes achievement. You achieved. Be proud of it!
Athletes in the school are celebrated for their achievement. Do people say it is just a silly letter sewn on their jacket? Are the trophies dismissed as just plastic?
I told Lamb that it is sometimes said--wrongly--that soldiers will die for bits of cloth. But those medals don't inspire soldiers to risk death and injury. They recognize bravery (or stupidity that works or simple exhausted resolve to stand and fight) displayed by troops who fight for each other, for pride and acceptance or fear of shame, and occasionally for higher ideals (you can't rule that out).
Lamb is too young to really appreciate this angle (Hell, I barely do, being a rear-echelon reservist who never had to go to war). But I hope that simply because her dad gave her a military example of why I am proud and why she should be proud that she will absorb that she did achieve something important.
It doesn't matter that she doesn't really like school work. Who does? I didn't like school, either. But she did the work. She learned. She earned that bit of ribbon she wore around her neck.
I'm a lucky dad. Things can go wrong no matter how much you love your children and no matter how much you try to point them in the right direction. But so far my children are on the right track. With luck, by the time you let go, they don't need your grip to stay on that track.
She got all "A"s.
She also said that some in school (who did not make the Academic Society) disparaged the honor as just some ribbon.
Wrong, I told her. That's not jewelry That ribbon and medallion symbolizes achievement. You achieved. Be proud of it!
Athletes in the school are celebrated for their achievement. Do people say it is just a silly letter sewn on their jacket? Are the trophies dismissed as just plastic?
I told Lamb that it is sometimes said--wrongly--that soldiers will die for bits of cloth. But those medals don't inspire soldiers to risk death and injury. They recognize bravery (or stupidity that works or simple exhausted resolve to stand and fight) displayed by troops who fight for each other, for pride and acceptance or fear of shame, and occasionally for higher ideals (you can't rule that out).
Lamb is too young to really appreciate this angle (Hell, I barely do, being a rear-echelon reservist who never had to go to war). But I hope that simply because her dad gave her a military example of why I am proud and why she should be proud that she will absorb that she did achieve something important.
It doesn't matter that she doesn't really like school work. Who does? I didn't like school, either. But she did the work. She learned. She earned that bit of ribbon she wore around her neck.
I'm a lucky dad. Things can go wrong no matter how much you love your children and no matter how much you try to point them in the right direction. But so far my children are on the right track. With luck, by the time you let go, they don't need your grip to stay on that track.
Kill Assad With Kindness
Assad is waging a war of starvation--and straight killing, of course--against those who support the rebellion. We need to fight fire with water.
Brutality can win civil wars--assuming you can pay the price for turning your people into brutalizers. Hunger is just one way to brutalize:
Obviously, the weapon is more useful to Assad's forces. With fewer people and more resources, Assad is the one using the food weapon more effectively.
Remember, Assad didn't promise to stop killing--just to stop killing with chemical weapons. This was called "smart" diplomacy.
We need to get the UN Security Council to approve a resolution to alleviate hunger in Syria--on both sides. If Russia vetoes the resolution, so much the better. Declare we will send aid anyway and enjoy seeing Russia squirm over defending starvation as a weapon.
We should push food into Syria across the land borders and drop food to those people in the areas completely cut off from aid. With access to air bases in Turkey and Jordan, there's no reason we can't do this.
Escort the transport planes and insist that Syria keep their aircraft and helicopters grounded while we carry out the humanitarian missions.
I have no idea how much airlift we could allocate nor do I know how many people we could effectively feed by air drop.
But the morale effect of seeing NATO aircraft in the air dropping food rather than Syrian craft dropping barrel bombs would be significant.
An army marches on its stomach no more so than a rebellion. If the best we can do is become the pantry of the rebellion rather than the armory, we should at least do that.
And give the rebels hope. A rebellion needs that, too.
It's for the children, after all.
UPDATE: I'd arm the rebels, too, as I've written before. But that seems to be out of the question.
Kerry and his boss handed us foreign policy lemons and I'm just trying to make lemonade to get something out of this ridiculous diplomacy we've embarked on.
Brutality can win civil wars--assuming you can pay the price for turning your people into brutalizers. Hunger is just one way to brutalize:
In Syria food has become a major weapon for both sides. Because of that the UN and other NGOs (Non-governmental organizations) are finding it more difficult to get food and other supplies into Syria and then to the people who most desperately need it. Currently about 40 percent of the population are either refugees or in areas where food and medical care is not available on a regular basis. The UN has identified four million people as being in desperate need and over half a million of those people are completely cut off from aid, or anything from the government.
Obviously, the weapon is more useful to Assad's forces. With fewer people and more resources, Assad is the one using the food weapon more effectively.
Remember, Assad didn't promise to stop killing--just to stop killing with chemical weapons. This was called "smart" diplomacy.
We need to get the UN Security Council to approve a resolution to alleviate hunger in Syria--on both sides. If Russia vetoes the resolution, so much the better. Declare we will send aid anyway and enjoy seeing Russia squirm over defending starvation as a weapon.
We should push food into Syria across the land borders and drop food to those people in the areas completely cut off from aid. With access to air bases in Turkey and Jordan, there's no reason we can't do this.
Escort the transport planes and insist that Syria keep their aircraft and helicopters grounded while we carry out the humanitarian missions.
I have no idea how much airlift we could allocate nor do I know how many people we could effectively feed by air drop.
But the morale effect of seeing NATO aircraft in the air dropping food rather than Syrian craft dropping barrel bombs would be significant.
An army marches on its stomach no more so than a rebellion. If the best we can do is become the pantry of the rebellion rather than the armory, we should at least do that.
And give the rebels hope. A rebellion needs that, too.
It's for the children, after all.
UPDATE: I'd arm the rebels, too, as I've written before. But that seems to be out of the question.
Kerry and his boss handed us foreign policy lemons and I'm just trying to make lemonade to get something out of this ridiculous diplomacy we've embarked on.
A Long Journey Begins With the First Step
Strategypage again reminds us that the war on terror is a long war. But failure to fight the war despite it being long could make it a forever war.
Military action is at best a necessary holding action to protect ourselves until Moslem Arab society fixes itself. I have hope that the 2011 Arab Spring has broken the traditional choice of religion-based autocracy or religious dictatorship for Arab Moslems to live under. We can't expect immediate results and we shouldn't be discouraged so much that we go back to the old choice and hope Arabs choose the religion-based autocracy as the lesser of two evils. On that path lies nuclear jihad one day.
This is the problem:
Do read the rest.
It was very encouraging to me that in the Arab Spring, Arabs called for democracy as an alternative to mullahcracy or autocracy. They didn't have an understanding of "democracy" and what it entails, but at least they wanted something different and looked to the West.
It is up to us to help them both understand and reach democracy and all that it means. If they decide they don't want it--or if forces within states block it--that's another matter. But we should try to see how far they can take their aspiration for democracy.
Of course, this is why I wanted us to keep 25,000 troops in Iraq after 2011--including three combat brigades kept on bases for training and deterrence.
We should have stayed to get Iraqis used to compromise and haggling in politics, secure in the knowledge that American troops would prevent the use of violence to settle political differences. We could have helped cultivate rule of law. South Korea, Japan, Germany, and Italy are better for our long presence. (I guess these states are lucky we kept troops in place to confront an external threat and provided a bonus side effect.)
We made a mistake in not busting a gut to get to "yes" in our negotiations to keep troops in Iraq. The Iraqis realize they screwed up. But President Obama would never send troops back--even though just intelligence, special forces, and drones would be a great help, I think, out in Anbar.
Not that I assume Iraq is doomed because of our failure to stay. We didn't have help way back when (and even faced a hostile Britain looming over us in Canada), yet we worked it out over time. Iraq could, too. But the chances of failure in Iraq are higher because we are not there in any strength, and the price Iraqis pay in blood will be higher, too, even if it all works out.
And we should try to help them--Iraqis and Arabs, generally. Or do you really want to say that Arabs aren't capable of wanting or carrying out democracy?
And if so, do you really want to endure endless war in a holding action against jihadis who will keep being spawned from a society that does not reform and modernize itself?
Military action is at best a necessary holding action to protect ourselves until Moslem Arab society fixes itself. I have hope that the 2011 Arab Spring has broken the traditional choice of religion-based autocracy or religious dictatorship for Arab Moslems to live under. We can't expect immediate results and we shouldn't be discouraged so much that we go back to the old choice and hope Arabs choose the religion-based autocracy as the lesser of two evils. On that path lies nuclear jihad one day.
This is the problem:
Because of this bloody history of brutal ruling techniques, many, inside and outside the Arab world, insist that Arabs cannot be ruled as a democracy. The Kurds and Shia Arabs of Iraq disagreed with this after 2003, as have many Sunni Arabs after 2011. But post-2003 Iraq was the first real Arab democracy in the region, and the continued brutal Sunni Arab resistance to this puts the new democracy to a harsh test. Every democracy is different, and the Iraqi government that was democratically elected in 2005 did indeed apply some traditional Arab solutions to the continued problems with dissident Sunni Arab terrorists. The democratic government in Iraq did use force, decisively and effectively against Shia rebels. But against the Sunni Arab rebels it took more American troops and an American brokered peace deal with the Sunni tribes. This involved promises to tribal and religious leaders and payments of cash and government jobs for Sunni Arabs. Al Qaeda was not interested in this kind of deal, but by 2007 al Qaeda was widely hated by all Iraqis and only tolerated by Sunni Arabs because al Qaeda suicide bomb attacks were seen as the only effective weapons the Sunnis had. But the Sunni Arabs were losing their war and once the majority of Sunni Arabs made their deals, al Qaeda had no place to hide. The Sunni Arabs understood that the alternative was annihilation, a fate that was rare, but not unknown in Arab history. That sort of end game is common elsewhere. Americans forget that during the American Revolution a third of the population still supported the king. At the end of the revolution, over five percent of the Americans, those loyalists who would not tolerate this new democracy, were killed or driven into exile. Large chunks of the pre-revolution American culture simply disappeared from what is now the United States. These people were not only gone, but largely disappeared from the historical record as well.
This reluctance to compromise, despite a Middle Eastern tradition of haggling at the market place, has led to many locals and foreigners believing that democracy does not work for the Arabs and no matter how many revolutions there are another dictator will arise. A similar situation arose after the American Revolution, when George Washington was proposed as king of the United States (which were not nearly as united as they are now.) Washington refused and backed giving democracy a try. It was rough going for several generations culminating in a bloody civil war. Not all new democracies stay democracies. But if people don't try, they'll never know how far they can take it. To most Iraqis, anything's better than Saddam Hussein and his brutal thugs but to some Saddam is still a hero, a hero worth killing and dying for.
Do read the rest.
It was very encouraging to me that in the Arab Spring, Arabs called for democracy as an alternative to mullahcracy or autocracy. They didn't have an understanding of "democracy" and what it entails, but at least they wanted something different and looked to the West.
It is up to us to help them both understand and reach democracy and all that it means. If they decide they don't want it--or if forces within states block it--that's another matter. But we should try to see how far they can take their aspiration for democracy.
Of course, this is why I wanted us to keep 25,000 troops in Iraq after 2011--including three combat brigades kept on bases for training and deterrence.
We should have stayed to get Iraqis used to compromise and haggling in politics, secure in the knowledge that American troops would prevent the use of violence to settle political differences. We could have helped cultivate rule of law. South Korea, Japan, Germany, and Italy are better for our long presence. (I guess these states are lucky we kept troops in place to confront an external threat and provided a bonus side effect.)
We made a mistake in not busting a gut to get to "yes" in our negotiations to keep troops in Iraq. The Iraqis realize they screwed up. But President Obama would never send troops back--even though just intelligence, special forces, and drones would be a great help, I think, out in Anbar.
Not that I assume Iraq is doomed because of our failure to stay. We didn't have help way back when (and even faced a hostile Britain looming over us in Canada), yet we worked it out over time. Iraq could, too. But the chances of failure in Iraq are higher because we are not there in any strength, and the price Iraqis pay in blood will be higher, too, even if it all works out.
And we should try to help them--Iraqis and Arabs, generally. Or do you really want to say that Arabs aren't capable of wanting or carrying out democracy?
And if so, do you really want to endure endless war in a holding action against jihadis who will keep being spawned from a society that does not reform and modernize itself?
When Mixing Electricity With Water is Good
Our Navy has an aversion to non-nuclear subs that approaches vampire fear of sunlight. But they have a point.
The reason our Navy likes nuclear subs is something I hadn't really thought about:
I never thought of the power angle. I don't know why this is the first time I'm reading about it.
I've always accepted that we need large boats given our geography. But we built large diesel-electrics in World War II. I've always wondered why at least some of our boats couldn't be non-nuclear to work in restricted, coastal waters. Australia builds big non-nuclear boats compared to the small craft Europeans build for coastal defense.
Sure, if we had even large conventional boats they wouldn't be strategically mobile. But surely there are some areas in the world that could use such quieter (and cheaper) boats, no?
No, it seems. Those modern diesel-electrics appear they can be quieter than nuclear boats in coastal waters only if they are simply hiding and not running their detection gear. If so, that makes their noise superiority over nuclear boats in that environment less than useful.
The post discusses how our Navy has been studying the newest non-nuclear boats to figure out how to find them with all the gear the nuclear boats can run all the time.
I will say that based on this angle, I can fully back the Navy's position that it does not want conventional boats. It's a good argument. I remain perplexed that I don't think I've ever read about this angle before.
It still bugs me that the Navy doesn't even want to know how to build these boats (like, for Taiwan) out of fear that the government would make them build non-nuclear boats as a cheaper alternative to nukes.
But I'm not sure whether I should be more bugged about the Navy or the government for that.
The reason our Navy likes nuclear subs is something I hadn't really thought about:
Modern diesel electric subs cost 60-85 percent less than nuclear subs and are known to be more difficult to detect in coastal waters and sometimes even on the high seas. Yet all major navies want the nukes. It’s all about energy and the fact that the nuclear boats have a lot more of it. Diesel-electric boats have enough food and fuel on board to stay at sea for about a thousand hours. And that assumes moving slowly (most of the time at a sluggish 10-15 kilometers an hour) and not using a lot of electronics all the time. Nukes don’t have that problem as they have years’ worth of nuclear fuel on board and can generate much more electricity than a diesel-electric boat. Being 3-4 times larger (in terms of displacement) than most diesel-electric boats the SSNs can carry a lot more electronics and run them all the time. This provides an enormous advantage because passive (not broadcasting) sensors are the perfect tool for detecting other ships or subs while you lie quietly below the surface. Those passive sensors work because they use a lot of computing power, which requires a lot of electricity which SSNs have no problem supplying.
I never thought of the power angle. I don't know why this is the first time I'm reading about it.
I've always accepted that we need large boats given our geography. But we built large diesel-electrics in World War II. I've always wondered why at least some of our boats couldn't be non-nuclear to work in restricted, coastal waters. Australia builds big non-nuclear boats compared to the small craft Europeans build for coastal defense.
Sure, if we had even large conventional boats they wouldn't be strategically mobile. But surely there are some areas in the world that could use such quieter (and cheaper) boats, no?
No, it seems. Those modern diesel-electrics appear they can be quieter than nuclear boats in coastal waters only if they are simply hiding and not running their detection gear. If so, that makes their noise superiority over nuclear boats in that environment less than useful.
The post discusses how our Navy has been studying the newest non-nuclear boats to figure out how to find them with all the gear the nuclear boats can run all the time.
I will say that based on this angle, I can fully back the Navy's position that it does not want conventional boats. It's a good argument. I remain perplexed that I don't think I've ever read about this angle before.
It still bugs me that the Navy doesn't even want to know how to build these boats (like, for Taiwan) out of fear that the government would make them build non-nuclear boats as a cheaper alternative to nukes.
But I'm not sure whether I should be more bugged about the Navy or the government for that.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Still Voting "Present," I See
Instapundit notes a rather revealing line from President Obama as he discusses the start of the Obamacare website:
The president is in charge. So a lot of people share the screw up with him. Obviously.
Tell me you don't think that our president will be sitting around in pajamas over the holiday season, sipping hot chocolate, and talking about health insurance.
He continued: “The fact is it didn’t happen in the first month, first six weeks, in a way that was at all acceptable. And since I’m in charge, obviously we screwed it up.”
The president is in charge. So a lot of people share the screw up with him. Obviously.
Tell me you don't think that our president will be sitting around in pajamas over the holiday season, sipping hot chocolate, and talking about health insurance.
Missing the Point
I know the whole Duck Dynasty kerfuffle isn't a First Amendment issue. It's more important than that. It's a tolerance issue and who is afforded tolerance. Which is a war issue, really.
Sure, A & E's suspension of Phil Robertson is not a violation of free speech. The government didn't compel Robertson's silence nor did it force A & E to fire Robertson.
The issue is one of tolerance of alien views and the mistake that tolerance means one has to embrace views or even lifestyles you disagree with rather than--well--tolerate them as something allowed even if you withhold approval.
I defended the Iraq War--a lot, even when it seemed like I shared little company on this issue--in these posts over the years. I was horrified at many of the ill-informed views on the war and shocked at the lack of knowledge in our press corps on reporting on the war. I never called for the firing of any person who had views I disagreed with. Not even over a question of war and victory.
No, while I argued against or even mocked those views on occasion, I tolerated their right to hold their views. I didn't insist they embrace my views on history, the military, and the course of the war. I didn't insist that they had to go because they did not.
Think about this issue. A & E said that it had gay employees offended that Robertson did not approve of homosexuality based on the Bible.
One, Robertson clearly shares a Bible-based opinion on the issue of gay marriage with President Obama that until the last year or so the president held (when he "evolved" on the issue).
Two, Robertson seemed to tolerate their acts (and other behavior of heterosexuals, too), saying it was up to God to judge them and not him to punish. And Robertson clearly tolerated gay and promiscuous heterosexuals who worked on producing his show, even as he did not embrace or even like those acts very much. That is tolerance by him even if you embrace--as you are free to do--what Robertson disagrees with but refuses to punish.
Did Robertson ever tell A & E that he wouldn't work with production staff who didn't agree with his Bible-based views? Heck, I bet plenty of the staff doesn't even like ducks--or thought much about them until their paycheck relied on their appeal.
Look, I really don't care much about the issue. I've never even watched the show. I don't have a duck in this fight. I simply can't care about or write about everything, even if I have an opinion. I can understand why gay and lesbian people would want the right to marry. If asked, I'd say marriage is a traditional heterosexual convention with a long history in our society. If asked to vote on allowing it, I'd vote no on that basis. Yet I'd certainly not treat a gay or lesbian person with anything but respect as a person.
And I freely admit that if I had a close relative or friend for whom this was an important issue, I would probably think (and vote) differently based on that aspect alone.
But if society favors gay marriage even if I don't? Have at it. I won't argue against it. I will tolerate it. I think our society will survive it if the majority accepts it. Who am I to deny anyone the joys of marriage, marital breakdown, and divorce (as I did) if society really wants to extend that privilege beyond heterosexual adults?
What really inspired me to comment at all on this is actually related to the war on terror, believe it or not.
What gets me about the outrage is that Phil Robertson could have gotten absolution from those confused on the distinction between tolerance and embrace for his views on homosexuality if Robertson had done one simple thing--converted to Islam:
Islam is not, to put it gently, LGBT-friendly.
That's what is puzzling to me. You'd think that feminists like Code Pink and LGBT groups would be natural allies in the war on Islamist terrorism and resistance to the society that spawns those terrorists who would have to "evolve" many centuries just to reach the unacceptable state of tolerance that Phil Robertson displays.
Our Western civilization is worthy of defense against violent fanatics who would destroy it all, even if you disagree with individual parts of our society.
UPDATE: More on the non-war tolerance angle:
Robertson is free to believe I will be judged harshly when I meet my Maker. Not for that bestiality thing he mentions, I hasten to add. I'm divorced. Which is verboten in my religion, after all. And I've had relations with women not my wife, as the expression goes, without attempting to bring a life into this world. Perhaps I will be judged harshly in the next world for these failings. But as long as Robertson is content to treat me well enough and leave it to God to do the judging, who am I to insist his view on sin be the same as mine? Or be the same as someone else's?
And if Robertson's views are so unacceptable, why--if I may return to the point of even commenting on this issue at all--isn't the left the most animated combatant in the coalition of the willing waging war on radical Islam?
Heck, in this day and age, isn't Robertson being "courageous" for stating his beliefs?
UPDATE: I would like to add that some of the things Robertson said in other places about homosexuals are repulsive. But my point isn't to make him a poster boy for freedom of speech or even tolerance (although for some, that should add to his appeal, no?). It's to wonder why the religion of peace seems immune to these bouts of outrage.
Sure, A & E's suspension of Phil Robertson is not a violation of free speech. The government didn't compel Robertson's silence nor did it force A & E to fire Robertson.
The issue is one of tolerance of alien views and the mistake that tolerance means one has to embrace views or even lifestyles you disagree with rather than--well--tolerate them as something allowed even if you withhold approval.
I defended the Iraq War--a lot, even when it seemed like I shared little company on this issue--in these posts over the years. I was horrified at many of the ill-informed views on the war and shocked at the lack of knowledge in our press corps on reporting on the war. I never called for the firing of any person who had views I disagreed with. Not even over a question of war and victory.
No, while I argued against or even mocked those views on occasion, I tolerated their right to hold their views. I didn't insist they embrace my views on history, the military, and the course of the war. I didn't insist that they had to go because they did not.
Think about this issue. A & E said that it had gay employees offended that Robertson did not approve of homosexuality based on the Bible.
One, Robertson clearly shares a Bible-based opinion on the issue of gay marriage with President Obama that until the last year or so the president held (when he "evolved" on the issue).
Two, Robertson seemed to tolerate their acts (and other behavior of heterosexuals, too), saying it was up to God to judge them and not him to punish. And Robertson clearly tolerated gay and promiscuous heterosexuals who worked on producing his show, even as he did not embrace or even like those acts very much. That is tolerance by him even if you embrace--as you are free to do--what Robertson disagrees with but refuses to punish.
Did Robertson ever tell A & E that he wouldn't work with production staff who didn't agree with his Bible-based views? Heck, I bet plenty of the staff doesn't even like ducks--or thought much about them until their paycheck relied on their appeal.
Look, I really don't care much about the issue. I've never even watched the show. I don't have a duck in this fight. I simply can't care about or write about everything, even if I have an opinion. I can understand why gay and lesbian people would want the right to marry. If asked, I'd say marriage is a traditional heterosexual convention with a long history in our society. If asked to vote on allowing it, I'd vote no on that basis. Yet I'd certainly not treat a gay or lesbian person with anything but respect as a person.
And I freely admit that if I had a close relative or friend for whom this was an important issue, I would probably think (and vote) differently based on that aspect alone.
But if society favors gay marriage even if I don't? Have at it. I won't argue against it. I will tolerate it. I think our society will survive it if the majority accepts it. Who am I to deny anyone the joys of marriage, marital breakdown, and divorce (as I did) if society really wants to extend that privilege beyond heterosexual adults?
What really inspired me to comment at all on this is actually related to the war on terror, believe it or not.
What gets me about the outrage is that Phil Robertson could have gotten absolution from those confused on the distinction between tolerance and embrace for his views on homosexuality if Robertson had done one simple thing--converted to Islam:
Cat Stevens Gets into Hall of Fame After All.“He called for the death of Salman Rushdie, but the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame calls his conversion to Islam ‘courageous.’”
Islam is not, to put it gently, LGBT-friendly.
That's what is puzzling to me. You'd think that feminists like Code Pink and LGBT groups would be natural allies in the war on Islamist terrorism and resistance to the society that spawns those terrorists who would have to "evolve" many centuries just to reach the unacceptable state of tolerance that Phil Robertson displays.
Our Western civilization is worthy of defense against violent fanatics who would destroy it all, even if you disagree with individual parts of our society.
UPDATE: More on the non-war tolerance angle:
Liberals love free expression so long as you freely express things they agree with. Particularly when it comes to homosexuality, there’s zero tolerance for dissent of any kind.
Now, I don’t agree with Robertson’s take on homosexuality. Heck, I don’t even like duck hunting. But I also don’t care. What I object to is the insinuation that I have to.
Robertson is free to believe I will be judged harshly when I meet my Maker. Not for that bestiality thing he mentions, I hasten to add. I'm divorced. Which is verboten in my religion, after all. And I've had relations with women not my wife, as the expression goes, without attempting to bring a life into this world. Perhaps I will be judged harshly in the next world for these failings. But as long as Robertson is content to treat me well enough and leave it to God to do the judging, who am I to insist his view on sin be the same as mine? Or be the same as someone else's?
And if Robertson's views are so unacceptable, why--if I may return to the point of even commenting on this issue at all--isn't the left the most animated combatant in the coalition of the willing waging war on radical Islam?
Heck, in this day and age, isn't Robertson being "courageous" for stating his beliefs?
UPDATE: I would like to add that some of the things Robertson said in other places about homosexuals are repulsive. But my point isn't to make him a poster boy for freedom of speech or even tolerance (although for some, that should add to his appeal, no?). It's to wonder why the religion of peace seems immune to these bouts of outrage.
The Risk of Being Hit By Israel
People keep talking about the risk and possibility of Israel striking Iran's nuclear facilities and what Iran would do in response. Ponder what Iran would face if Israel strikes, and Iran retaliates but provokes further successful Israeli action against Iranian economic targets.
People keep saying Israel can't launch a strike on Iran and hope to succeed. These people underestimate the Israelis:
I've done my own calculations based on the premise that Israel would need 100 strike aircraft to carry out an effective strike on Iran. This premise has led a number of analysts to conclude that Israel can't strike Iran.
But by thinking outside the box, Israel can get to a 100-plane-equivalent strike, I think.
Let me add another option based on Israeli-Saudi shared alarm at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran in the absence of serious American efforts to halt Iran.
What if Israeli pilots quietly go to Saudi Arabia to fly Saudi F-15s on a short flight across the Gulf? Israeli F-15 pilots could use simulators to gain experience with the Saudi cockpit layout. That option could reduce by a considerable amount the number of planes Israel needs to launch from Israel itself, reducing the launch signature that would telegraph the strike to Iran.
Assuming Israel strikes Iran successfully, setting back Iran's program a significant amount, wouldn't Iran retaliate with missiles and terrorists? That's the standard excuse to do nothing.
What if Israel makes it known that Iranian missile strikes on Israel would lead to an Israel air and missile campaign against Iran's oil export facilities at Kharg Island?
Remember that Iran is in a difficult position if Israel pulls off a successful air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and holds out the certainty of a strike on Kharg if Iran retaliates.
Obviously there's the economic price Iran could pay--pretty important given the need to bolster Assad's forces and base of support in that war.
Less obviously, Iran has spent a couple decades unveiling advanced super weapons (that don't exist) to show their people that Iran is tough--and that's why powerful America is held at bay.
If little (but equally evil, naturally) Israel manages to strike Iran despite all those super weapons, what will Iran's people think of their rulers and their boasts?
And if Iran retaliates and sees a number of their ballistic missiles shot down by Israeli anti-missile defenses, what will Iran's people think of their rulers and their boasts?
And if Israel then smashes up Kharg Island--something Iraq never managed to shut down for long in the Iran-Iraq War--despite the Iranians now being on guard after the first strikes and Iran's retaliation, what will Iran's people think of their rulers and their boasts?
Iran might strike back. After all, just to sit and take it despite all their boasts of super weapons would be hard for the mullah's base of support to take. But that might be better if they can come up with a good excuse than courting further military disasters.
And I don't assume Iran could unleash the sleeper cells to go on a rampage of terrorism.
I'm just saying that Iran's ability to retaliate with missiles or terrorism isn't a slam dunk for either deterring Israel or being effective as an attack or as a means of bolstering public support for the regime.
People keep saying Israel can't launch a strike on Iran and hope to succeed. These people underestimate the Israelis:
American analysts are divided on Israel’s ability to take effective military action. However, history shows that Israel’s military capabilities are typically underestimated. The Israel Defense Forces keep finding creative ways to deceive and cripple their targets by leveraging their qualitative advantages in manners that confound not only skeptical observers but also, and more important, Israel’s enemies.
I've done my own calculations based on the premise that Israel would need 100 strike aircraft to carry out an effective strike on Iran. This premise has led a number of analysts to conclude that Israel can't strike Iran.
But by thinking outside the box, Israel can get to a 100-plane-equivalent strike, I think.
Let me add another option based on Israeli-Saudi shared alarm at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran in the absence of serious American efforts to halt Iran.
What if Israeli pilots quietly go to Saudi Arabia to fly Saudi F-15s on a short flight across the Gulf? Israeli F-15 pilots could use simulators to gain experience with the Saudi cockpit layout. That option could reduce by a considerable amount the number of planes Israel needs to launch from Israel itself, reducing the launch signature that would telegraph the strike to Iran.
Assuming Israel strikes Iran successfully, setting back Iran's program a significant amount, wouldn't Iran retaliate with missiles and terrorists? That's the standard excuse to do nothing.
What if Israel makes it known that Iranian missile strikes on Israel would lead to an Israel air and missile campaign against Iran's oil export facilities at Kharg Island?
Remember that Iran is in a difficult position if Israel pulls off a successful air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and holds out the certainty of a strike on Kharg if Iran retaliates.
Obviously there's the economic price Iran could pay--pretty important given the need to bolster Assad's forces and base of support in that war.
Less obviously, Iran has spent a couple decades unveiling advanced super weapons (that don't exist) to show their people that Iran is tough--and that's why powerful America is held at bay.
If little (but equally evil, naturally) Israel manages to strike Iran despite all those super weapons, what will Iran's people think of their rulers and their boasts?
And if Iran retaliates and sees a number of their ballistic missiles shot down by Israeli anti-missile defenses, what will Iran's people think of their rulers and their boasts?
And if Israel then smashes up Kharg Island--something Iraq never managed to shut down for long in the Iran-Iraq War--despite the Iranians now being on guard after the first strikes and Iran's retaliation, what will Iran's people think of their rulers and their boasts?
Iran might strike back. After all, just to sit and take it despite all their boasts of super weapons would be hard for the mullah's base of support to take. But that might be better if they can come up with a good excuse than courting further military disasters.
And I don't assume Iran could unleash the sleeper cells to go on a rampage of terrorism.
I'm just saying that Iran's ability to retaliate with missiles or terrorism isn't a slam dunk for either deterring Israel or being effective as an attack or as a means of bolstering public support for the regime.
No Friendly Fire, Here
Amazingly--although I had to check my credit card log to make sure--I was not in the blast radius of the Target credit/debit card theft explosion.
I was in Target in that period. And in years past I would have been in there multiple times for Christmas shopping, with credit card in hand. This year, for whatever reason, I had not bought anything. I guess I haven't been in the mood for beef jerky lately (their prices are good).
Oh, I went in once looking for something in particular (Kazoozles, if you must know). But when I didn't find it I set down something else I had because I didn't want to stand in line when I hadn't gotten what I came in to get.
So near miss.
I did go yesterday for a gift I wanted from there--and had been meaning to get for several weeks now! And paid cash. So I missed the 10% discount that Target is offering this weekend to keep customers from fleeing.
Oh well. I count myself lucky to have avoided the theft and won't complain I missed the marketing response.
And yes, this is really a pain to the many people affected. I once had a card compromised that I almost always use exclusively for online purchases just to minimize the scope of the problem of theft--if I'm hit it will likely just be one card affected. While I never had to pay for any of the thousands in charges made on the card and received a replacement card within a couple days, I did have to monitor and report bad charges for a couple months until they petered out.
And it was insulting to be given the cautionary tips on using credit cards. Honestly, short of not using them at all, I'm not sure how I could be more careful.
I check my card statements every month and compare them to my log of charges.
During one period of time when that card had the feature that allows you to pass it in front of a reader to use it, I never took it out of my home to avoid mobile reader scams.
I refuse to accept a debit card capability for my ATM card.
I actually look for skimmers on ATMs and gas pumps.
And I refuse to use online banking or online bill paying.
Indeed, when I received a call to notify me of potentially fraudulent use of my card, I double checked with the number I had rather than rely on the phone number the caller left on my answering machine to use--just in case they were part of some fraud.
Yet I was being lectured on careful credit card use.
But I love the convenience of using credit cards rather than carrying cash for routine purchases. Should I just use cash, now? Has it reached that point?
I was in Target in that period. And in years past I would have been in there multiple times for Christmas shopping, with credit card in hand. This year, for whatever reason, I had not bought anything. I guess I haven't been in the mood for beef jerky lately (their prices are good).
Oh, I went in once looking for something in particular (Kazoozles, if you must know). But when I didn't find it I set down something else I had because I didn't want to stand in line when I hadn't gotten what I came in to get.
So near miss.
I did go yesterday for a gift I wanted from there--and had been meaning to get for several weeks now! And paid cash. So I missed the 10% discount that Target is offering this weekend to keep customers from fleeing.
Oh well. I count myself lucky to have avoided the theft and won't complain I missed the marketing response.
And yes, this is really a pain to the many people affected. I once had a card compromised that I almost always use exclusively for online purchases just to minimize the scope of the problem of theft--if I'm hit it will likely just be one card affected. While I never had to pay for any of the thousands in charges made on the card and received a replacement card within a couple days, I did have to monitor and report bad charges for a couple months until they petered out.
And it was insulting to be given the cautionary tips on using credit cards. Honestly, short of not using them at all, I'm not sure how I could be more careful.
I check my card statements every month and compare them to my log of charges.
During one period of time when that card had the feature that allows you to pass it in front of a reader to use it, I never took it out of my home to avoid mobile reader scams.
I refuse to accept a debit card capability for my ATM card.
I actually look for skimmers on ATMs and gas pumps.
And I refuse to use online banking or online bill paying.
Indeed, when I received a call to notify me of potentially fraudulent use of my card, I double checked with the number I had rather than rely on the phone number the caller left on my answering machine to use--just in case they were part of some fraud.
Yet I was being lectured on careful credit card use.
But I love the convenience of using credit cards rather than carrying cash for routine purchases. Should I just use cash, now? Has it reached that point?
I Stand Corrected
Yesterday I mocked an EU high commissioner's boast that Europe is now a provider of security rather than a consumer of security provided by others. I stand corrected.
Yes, after decades of relying on American military power to defend Europe, Europe is definitely providing security to others. To China, actually:
Well that's just effing great.
So by all means, Europe Union, rationalize your national-based defense industries. I'm sure you can pass the savings on to your Chinese customers.
Meanwhile, the EU isn't getting its own armed forces apart from national forces earmarked to the EU any time soon:
And PLA capabilities, which is just dandy, of course. What the heck, Europe no longer needs to be a consumer of security we provide!
I think this is called sophisticated, nuanced diplomacy.
UPDATE: And China's space program has gotten a lot of help from Europe, including building their GPS network that is essential for cheap precision weapons and navigation.
Although I'm sad to say we played a role in this dual-use angle, too. I'll only say that at least in the 1980s, we were counting on China to absorb Soviet power that would otherwise be focused on us.
UPDATE: Israel is involved, too. After some past transfers involving the cancelled Lavi fighter project and airborne early warning and control technology (Phalcon, I think?), I would have thought that Israel wouldn't have even tried to push the envelope on understandings with us.
What the heck. The Europeans and Israelis have all the confidence in the world that we can win even if China is stronger because of their help. I mean what's the worst that can happen? More American troops die? Big picture, people! Big picture!
Yes, after decades of relying on American military power to defend Europe, Europe is definitely providing security to others. To China, actually:
If the People's Liberation Army went to war tomorrow, it would field an arsenal bristling with hardware from some of America's closest allies: Germany, France and Britain.
Most of China's advanced surface warships are powered by German and French-designed diesel engines. Chinese destroyers have French sonar, anti-submarine-warfare helicopters and surface-to-air missiles.
Above the battlefield, British jet engines drive PLA fighter bombers and anti-ship strike aircraft. The latest Chinese surveillance aircraft are fitted with British airborne early warning radars. Some of China's best attack and transport helicopters rely on designs from Eurocopter, a subsidiary of pan-European aerospace and defense giant EADS.
But perhaps the most strategic item obtained by China on its European shopping spree is below the waterline: the German-engineered diesels inside its submarines.
Well that's just effing great.
So by all means, Europe Union, rationalize your national-based defense industries. I'm sure you can pass the savings on to your Chinese customers.
Meanwhile, the EU isn't getting its own armed forces apart from national forces earmarked to the EU any time soon:
British Prime Minister David Cameron scoffed at the notion that the EU should have its own military capabilities.
"It makes sense for nation states to cooperate over matters of defence to keep us all safer... but it is not right for the EU to have capabilities, armies, air forces and the rest of it," Cameron said.
"We have to get that demarcation correct between cooperation which is right, but EU capabilities which is wrong," he said.
And PLA capabilities, which is just dandy, of course. What the heck, Europe no longer needs to be a consumer of security we provide!
I think this is called sophisticated, nuanced diplomacy.
UPDATE: And China's space program has gotten a lot of help from Europe, including building their GPS network that is essential for cheap precision weapons and navigation.
Although I'm sad to say we played a role in this dual-use angle, too. I'll only say that at least in the 1980s, we were counting on China to absorb Soviet power that would otherwise be focused on us.
UPDATE: Israel is involved, too. After some past transfers involving the cancelled Lavi fighter project and airborne early warning and control technology (Phalcon, I think?), I would have thought that Israel wouldn't have even tried to push the envelope on understandings with us.
What the heck. The Europeans and Israelis have all the confidence in the world that we can win even if China is stronger because of their help. I mean what's the worst that can happen? More American troops die? Big picture, people! Big picture!
It Makes a Difference, Now
We aren't taking chances with our diplomatic facilities, at this point. Hopefully our Marines enjoy their stay in South Sudan.
We have dispatched additional Marine security to South Sudan:
I assume this means Marines since they have both duty for regular security and have rapid reaction forces designed to reinforce diplomatic facilities.
I also assume this is related:
One is in critical condition, it is said. The aircraft involved were V-22 Ospreys, the helicopter/plane craft that is mostly used by our Marines (but I think Army special forces use them, too, if memory serves me).
UPDATE: Here's a story on one of those FAST (Fleet Antiterroristm Security Team) platoons in action a year ago.
We have dispatched additional Marine security to South Sudan:
President Barack Obama said on Friday the United States has deployed 45 military personnel to volatile South Sudan to protect the embassy and U.S. government employees there.
I assume this means Marines since they have both duty for regular security and have rapid reaction forces designed to reinforce diplomatic facilities.
I also assume this is related:
Rebel fire hit two U.S. military aircraft responding to the outbreak in violence in South Sudan on Saturday, wounding three U.S. service members and heavily damaging at least one of the aircraft, officials said.
One is in critical condition, it is said. The aircraft involved were V-22 Ospreys, the helicopter/plane craft that is mostly used by our Marines (but I think Army special forces use them, too, if memory serves me).
UPDATE: Here's a story on one of those FAST (Fleet Antiterroristm Security Team) platoons in action a year ago.
Friday, December 20, 2013
Thankfully, FDR Lacked Nuance
We had Assad in our grasp, and we are letting him get away with murder.
Assad was on the ropes. But we refused to help the rebels because we assumed that Assad was doomed and we needed to do nothing to dirty our hands to help that event along.
But Iran and Russia weren't so worried about working the problem. Now, with their help, Assad has consolidated his position in the west through a campaign of murder and starvation against his enemies and the people who support them.
And with jihadis becoming the most effective fighters at the expense of more secular rebels whose morale is hurt by our failure to help them, we refuse to help because we don't want to indirectly help jihadis.
And now we don't even want Assad to leave power out of fear of the jihadis:
The sad thing is that it isn't too late to defeat Assad. Assad has the edge in his corner of the country and jihadis are gaining strength at the expense of other rebels, but if we actually take a role in helping the more secular rebels even at the risk of aiding jihadis (who seem to be doing fine without our help), we can exploit Assad's still considerable problems (his own troops' casualties and morale, finances, and fear of loss in his base of support) and put the rebels on the path to victory again.
But that's not how our leaders think. They don't think of winning--just ending--wars. We did just enough to hurt Assad a bit without getting rid of him, ignoring that old advice of "when you strike a king, kill him."
The Russians are lucky that it didn't occur to President Franklin Roosevelt in 1941 that Hitler remaining in office was less of a threat for the West than a takeover of that country by Soviet communists.
The revolution in our policy is complete, it seems. How long before John Kerry is in a photo op shaking hands with Assad?
And how long before more American blood is on Assad's hands?
I feel sick. Syria has been a persistent enemy with lots of American blood on his hands. The Syria revolt fell in our lap like a gift from the gods. And here we are with Assad looking like he could survive.
Our foreign policy best and brightest could ef up a wet dream.
Assad was on the ropes. But we refused to help the rebels because we assumed that Assad was doomed and we needed to do nothing to dirty our hands to help that event along.
But Iran and Russia weren't so worried about working the problem. Now, with their help, Assad has consolidated his position in the west through a campaign of murder and starvation against his enemies and the people who support them.
And with jihadis becoming the most effective fighters at the expense of more secular rebels whose morale is hurt by our failure to help them, we refuse to help because we don't want to indirectly help jihadis.
And now we don't even want Assad to leave power out of fear of the jihadis:
"Not only in private meetings but also in public comments, the idea is occurring to some Western colleagues that ... Assad remaining in office is less of a threat for Syria than a takeover of the country by terrorists," Sergei Lavrov told RIA news agency in an interview published on Friday.
The sad thing is that it isn't too late to defeat Assad. Assad has the edge in his corner of the country and jihadis are gaining strength at the expense of other rebels, but if we actually take a role in helping the more secular rebels even at the risk of aiding jihadis (who seem to be doing fine without our help), we can exploit Assad's still considerable problems (his own troops' casualties and morale, finances, and fear of loss in his base of support) and put the rebels on the path to victory again.
But that's not how our leaders think. They don't think of winning--just ending--wars. We did just enough to hurt Assad a bit without getting rid of him, ignoring that old advice of "when you strike a king, kill him."
The Russians are lucky that it didn't occur to President Franklin Roosevelt in 1941 that Hitler remaining in office was less of a threat for the West than a takeover of that country by Soviet communists.
The revolution in our policy is complete, it seems. How long before John Kerry is in a photo op shaking hands with Assad?
And how long before more American blood is on Assad's hands?
I feel sick. Syria has been a persistent enemy with lots of American blood on his hands. The Syria revolt fell in our lap like a gift from the gods. And here we are with Assad looking like he could survive.
Our foreign policy best and brightest could ef up a wet dream.
Release the Ashton!
You have to love the sense of whimsy that the high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy and vice president of the European Commission displays.
Catherine Ashton says the European Union must have military power to preserve the European peace. Fair enough for a body without any real military power to its name. But saying is not being.
And she says that Europeans must stop their national competition in manufacturing which makes their spending inefficient. So which country goes first in giving up its favorite national arms manufacturer for the sake of efficiency?
I thought so.
But the really funny bit is where she tries to imply that Europe has made great strides in creating real military power. Check it out:
And no, I'm not speaking of the boasting about how a freaking leaders' meeting--the Holy of Holies for the bureaucracy in Brussels--is a clear signal of anything of the sort. That's shooting fish in a barrel, no?
A clear signal that defense is now top of the agenda in Europe would be increases in defense spending. It would be the priority of training soldiers rather than being willing to pretend that civil servants dressed alike are soldiers.
No, the lack of those signals clearly indicate that defense is nowhere near the top of Europe's agenda. It still lies somewhere below cheese subsidies but above (I hope!) perfume standards.
What I'm talking about is the first sentence--boasting that Europe has gone from "being a consumer of security (needing America to defend them against the Soviet threat) to becoming a (small) provider of security." That, my friends, is a hoot!
I can only assume they mean their embryonic EU Eurocorps that has yet to provide security to anyone in any significantly challenging environment. Talk to me when you can say Eurocorps commanded in Regionial Command East in Afghanistan.
Normally, boasting of such a defense transition would imply that the Europeans have armed up so much that they no longer need our help--now they can help others!
But the consumption/providing equation has two sides. What has happened--even as European military capacity has plummetted--is that the military threat to Europe evaporated into near nothingness with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Obviously, even a crappy defense structure no longer needs to worry about a non-existent invasion threat and can look abroad to tiny dragons in need of slaying. High fives all around the European Commission table!
I suspect the EU will have enough armed power to push around civilians. And maybe that's the only type of security the EU really cares to provide.
Ms. Ashton has quite the sense of humor. I want to party with that high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy and vice president of the European Commission , no doubt.
Catherine Ashton says the European Union must have military power to preserve the European peace. Fair enough for a body without any real military power to its name. But saying is not being.
And she says that Europeans must stop their national competition in manufacturing which makes their spending inefficient. So which country goes first in giving up its favorite national arms manufacturer for the sake of efficiency?
I thought so.
But the really funny bit is where she tries to imply that Europe has made great strides in creating real military power. Check it out:
Europe has come a long way, from being a consumer of security to becoming a provider of security. The meeting of EU leaders in Brussels this week sends a clear signal that defense is now top of the agenda in Europe.
And no, I'm not speaking of the boasting about how a freaking leaders' meeting--the Holy of Holies for the bureaucracy in Brussels--is a clear signal of anything of the sort. That's shooting fish in a barrel, no?
A clear signal that defense is now top of the agenda in Europe would be increases in defense spending. It would be the priority of training soldiers rather than being willing to pretend that civil servants dressed alike are soldiers.
No, the lack of those signals clearly indicate that defense is nowhere near the top of Europe's agenda. It still lies somewhere below cheese subsidies but above (I hope!) perfume standards.
What I'm talking about is the first sentence--boasting that Europe has gone from "being a consumer of security (needing America to defend them against the Soviet threat) to becoming a (small) provider of security." That, my friends, is a hoot!
I can only assume they mean their embryonic EU Eurocorps that has yet to provide security to anyone in any significantly challenging environment. Talk to me when you can say Eurocorps commanded in Regionial Command East in Afghanistan.
Normally, boasting of such a defense transition would imply that the Europeans have armed up so much that they no longer need our help--now they can help others!
But the consumption/providing equation has two sides. What has happened--even as European military capacity has plummetted--is that the military threat to Europe evaporated into near nothingness with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Obviously, even a crappy defense structure no longer needs to worry about a non-existent invasion threat and can look abroad to tiny dragons in need of slaying. High fives all around the European Commission table!
I suspect the EU will have enough armed power to push around civilians. And maybe that's the only type of security the EU really cares to provide.
Ms. Ashton has quite the sense of humor. I want to party with that high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy and vice president of the European Commission , no doubt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
