Self-Inflicted Wound

Nobody ever claimed Putin is a genius, I suppose.

Are you kidding me?

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday that Moscow's biggest concern over the crisis in Ukraine was that the former Soviet republic would join NATO.

Gosh! Why would Ukraine want to join NATO now? I mean, Russia only captured Crimea and stokes separatist violence in Ukraine's east. I mean, that Ukrainian talk of joining NATO just came out of nowhere, huh?

And by taking Crimea, Russia removed an impediment to Ukraine joining NATO by putting the Sevastopol naval base in Russian territory. If I understand the situation correctly, NATO does not allow member states to host bases of nations not in NATO. So Russia took care of that.

Consider, too, that European NATO nations have so little offensive military power that these nations needed significant American support just to carry out an air campaign against revolution-wracked Libya.

Yet Putin is worried that one day American missile defenses will be put in Ukraine? At best, such defenses would only make Russia's ability to nuke Europe a little less efficient.

But the truth is too difficult for Putin's ego to handle. The truth is that contrary to his nightmares of NATO plots to destroy Holy Mother Russia, NATO was content to not even think much about Russia as NATO nations continue to reduce their military capabilities down to their core employment role of being a uniformed civil service jobs program.

At a certain level of spending, European countries had some actual military power built on that base of pretend military power. But spending reductions are eliminating the actual military power to preserve the uniformed civil service. At this point, Poland might be the only exception to this trend.

So Putin gave Ukraine a reason to join NATO, allowed NATO to accept Ukraine into NATO, and prompted NATO members to worry about whether it is safe to keep cutting their military budgets. Oh, and Sweden and Finland have new reasons to ponder NATO membership. So, really, bravo, Mr. Putin. Well played. Truly awesome.

So what is Putin? Paranoid? You bet. Autocratic? Of course. Have an aversion to wearing shirts while hunting tigers? If Kremlin photo-ops are to be believed, yes.

But strategic super genius?



Well, we'll wait and see if we go back to business as usual with Russia.

And we'll wait and see if being the energy supplier of a far more powerful China is as good an idea as Putin thinks it is.

Unfortunately, I guess Putin only has to be less stupid than our side to look brilliant. We're the one that goes on about its self-proclaimed "smart diplomacy," after all.

So I can't rule out the history books speaking of Putin as a super genius.

I Don't Think That Word Means What He Thinks It Means

I don't understand why the notion that Iraq was a blunder permeates so much of the media. Even a slam against President Obama's policies has to include a ritual denunciation of the Iraq War to insulate the author from criticism, it seems.

Really? I even like the author's writings. But he had to frame his piece this way?

But the global stage hasn’t been a second-term refuge for President Obama; it’s been an arena of setbacks, crises and defeats. His foreign policy looked modestly successful when he was running for re-election. Now it stinks of failure.

Failure is a relative term, to be sure. His predecessor’s invasion of Iraq still looms as the largest American blunder of the post-Vietnam era.

The idea that the Iraq War was a blunder is ridiculous.

Let's not even go into what we could have chosen to accept by declining to destroy the Saddam regime.

And let's ignore whether Iraq would have looked more like Syria or Libya if we'd supported a revolt against Saddam rather than invading or if we'd totally withdrawn soon after the rapid victory over Saddam.

Heck, Syria gives us a bonus deal with a Baathist minority dictator that "eliminates" the dictator's chemical weapons yet allows the dictator to use chemical weapons that weren't part of the diplomatic deal! Say, just how many years of inspections would have been required to confirm that Assad did not have chemical weapons not part of the disarmament deal?

Let's just ponder that the post-(American) Iraq War Middle East was in good enough shape for President Obama to announce a pivot of interest and power to the Asia-Pacific region because we didn't need to worry about threats to our interests in the Middle East nearly as much, as the administration explained:

The overall strategic context in which the rebalance takes place is important. And let me start with that. We in the United States find ourselves in national defense at a moment of great transition.

After 11 years of conflict since September 11th, 2001, one war has ended, in Iraq. The other, in Afghanistan, has for sure not ended, but is transitioning to Afghan lead, and thanks to the superb effort of U.S., coalition, and Afghan forces, will wind down in coming years.

And while we've been focused on fighting insurgency in two places and terrorism world-wide, the world has not stood still. Our friends and enemies have not stood still. And technology has not stood still.

And so this for us is a time to look up, look around, and look forward at what the world will need from us next – to the security challenges that will define our future after Iraq and Afghanistan.

If Saddam had been left in power in 2003, we would have been trapped in the logic of dual containment of Iran and Iraq to protect the Persian Gulf, tied to defending Kuwait on the frontline and always worried that a modern-day Nazi-Soviet Pact between Iran and Iraq could have spoiled the notion that Saddam rather than our power contained and balanced Iran. Saudi Arabia feared Iran and Iraq. Syria was solidly in Iran's pocket and a power projection asset. And Jordan was friendly with Saddam out of fear.

Remember, the so-called blunder of Iraq was actually touted by Vice President Biden as potentially one of the great achievements (one of how many?) of the Obama presidency. But it was still moving forward on Bush-era momentum before hope and change could fubar the place and region into the mess it is.

If Iraq and the Middle East (and Europe) aren't looking that hot lately, maybe the focus should be on the man who promised smart diplomacy to restore our relations abroad yet who squandered the environments in Europe and the Middle East that promised to allow us an easy pivot to Asia and the Pacific.

For some, it is inconceivable that the Iraq War could have made the Middle East (or even just Iraq) better.

The Death and Martyrdom Issue

Silent and sudden death from above isn't the most inspirational topic for your young, wannabe jihadis sitting at his computer in his parent's basement:

In early 2013 the Afghan Taliban put out an appeal for help via the first issue of “Azan”, an online magazine similar to the earlier (2010) Inspire magazine based in Yemen. ...

Azan’s first issue was devoted almost entirely to the UAV problem. The terrible suffering of the Holy Warriors because of the relentless UAVs was described in great detail. The implication was that many clever ideas to counter the UAVs have failed and new and more effective ideas are desperately needed.

I'm just going to say that if I was in the CIA and wanted to demoralize jihadis and depress their recruiting, I'd want to put out a magazine exactly like this issue.

Let's wait and see if the next issue of Azan includes a letter to the editor explaining how red concentric circles with a circle in the middle painted on the roof of your SUV throws off the camera aim of loitering UAVs.

UPDATE: I ran across an old post of mine from early 2013 in response to young Pakistani boys saying our drone strikes on Pakistani jihadis inspired them to become jihadis:

Personally, rather than focus on goodness lessons, I'd show those boys video after video of missiles coming down on cross-haired jihadis while they are in convoys, jihadis having lunch, jihadis sleeping, jihadis sitting around the campfire discussing the best ways to slit Infidel throats, etc. Let's give them fear and futility lessons.

And collect DNA samples from each of them, explaining that this is the best way to identify the very scattered remains of jihadis caught by one of our drone strikes.

Heh. Can I call it, or what?

The Sound of One Hand Slapping Us Around

Apparently, Benghazi was the result of the Obama administration trying to prove their college dorm theory that it takes two sides to wage war.

We lost four people on the ground in Benghazi and handed our jihadi enemies a victory on the 11th anniversary of the original 9/11 attacks. Why?

I think we didn't respond because the administration just didn't think of America as being at war:

In a battle, you do what you can, when you can, with what you have available. Information and assets are never enough. But still, in battle, you must act. The basic problem is that the administration believes we've responsibly ended our war on terrorists and didn't even think that it was fighting a battle in Benghazi.

Well, what do you know?

In 2012, the Obama administration produced a draft National Intelligence Estimate that reached a surprising conclusion: al Qaeda was no longer a direct threat to America. That classified assessment, which has never before been publicly disclosed, was in keeping with the message coming from the White House. President Obama rode to re-election in 2012 partly on the success of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. At rallies and in press conferences, the president and top officials publicly said al Qaeda was on the run.

The intelligence community has vigorously disputed this view, apparently.

And events since that "finding" have proven the administration wrong: It only takes one side to fight a war, and the one side fighting prefers it that way.

Russia Abhors a Vacuum

I've always been a fan of pushing NATO as far east as we could. My view is that if we didn't move east, eventually Russia would move west.

Could we really have avoided conflict with Russia by having a buffer zone of neutrals between NATO and Russia?

A modern cordon sanitaire of the former Warsaw Pact nations would have provided a nice buffer between Russia and the West, while simultaneously reducing Russian paranoia regarding Western intentions. Instead, we brought our military alliance inside the borders of the old Soviet Union — although admittedly Moscow’s Baltic border had been illegally and ruthlessly set during Stalin’s brief alliance with Hitler.

The concept of a cordon sanitaire was put into effect as the Little Entente, but failed, I should add. And I have no doubt that if NATO expansion had halted short of the Baltic states, Russia would have had a NATO border anyway as Russia retook what they lost.

But I will stand by the amazement that we extended NATO without extending military capabilities. I've mentioned that once or twice, at least.

But hey, we effed up.



We trusted the Russians not to be a military threat.

The West does understand that we effed up, don't we?

Where the War on Women is Real

Hashtag FreeHappyIranians?

Iranian authorities arrested on Monday at least six people who starred in a viral YouTube video that shows them dancing to Pharrell Williams' "Happy," according to multiple reports. ...

Negar Mortazavi, an Iranian freelance journalist based in Washington, D.C., told Mashable that she wasn't surprised the six people were arrested. When Mortazavi first saw the video, she thought it was dangerous to upload it online, considering its content. "Not wearing hijabs and dancing, boys and girls together — that's three big red flags," she said.

To be fair it's a war on men and women. But why feminists aren't a natural support base for the war on Islamist terror (and yes, this is about the Shia verson and not the Sunni version) has always been a mystery to me.

As American troops go to Chad to help the approved (and deserving, I'll admit) victims from Nigeria, the Iranian girls don't get the benefits of #BringBackOurGirls. It's a funny world.

#ArrestedUnhappyIranians.

Fragmenting from Behind

Libya is under threat of fragmenting under threat of Islamist influence. I only bring this up because opponents of the Iraq War said our military presence in Iraq following the defeat of Saddam's regime prevented Iraqis from quietly working out their differences without jihadis flooding into Iraq. Our military is not in Libya, needless to say, after our regime change operation in 2011 led to Khadaffi's death.

This could get ugly:

A revolt by a renegade general against Islamists who dominate Libya's politics threatened to spiral into an outright battle for power that could fragment the North African nation as the country's numerous armed militias on Monday started to line up behind the rival camps.

Gen. Khalifa Hifter, who lived for years in exile in the United States during the rule of autocrat Moammar Gadhafi, touts himself as a nationalist who is waging a war against terrorism to save Libya from Islamic extremists. His loyalists and allies in the past days attacked Islamist militias in the eastern city of Benghazi and on Sunday stormed the Islamist-led parliament in Tripoli.

You can tell that the Libya War of 2011 had nothing to do with the war on terror because the war has empowered jihadis in Libya.

It is even possible that this development and threat of fragmentation is superior to letting Islamists run fiefdoms or even dominate the nominal national government. I'm just noting that without us there, Libyans haven't peacefully worked out their differences.

Given that Europe was on board the war in order to keep Libyan refugees from flooding southern Europe, I wonder what the Europeans think about this development. Do they expect us to lead from behind again?

UPDATE: Strategy page has more:

Hiftar was once a general in Kaddafi’s army, but disagreed with the dictatorship and fled to the United States in 1990 with the help of the CIA. When the Libyan revolution broke out in 2011 Hiftar returned to Libya and joined the rebels. ... Sometime in 2013 Hiftar apparently began planning a new revolution.

One motivation for Hiftar was the growing strength of Islamic terrorist groups. Islamic conservatives, radicals and terrorists were well enough organized to prevent the GNC (General National Congress) from creating a new government that controlled the entire country. ...

The U.S., and some other Western countries, have taken the position that Hiftar is not carrying out a coup but is merely trying to get a working democracy established. This is something the GNC has obviously failed at. If Hiftar does get new elections and does not seek dictatorial power for himself, he will continue to have foreign support.

Well that's interesting. Perhaps the CIA is leading the response to the chaos in Libya that allowed jihadis to kill four Americans, including two CIA security contractors who charged to the sound of the guns that night.

The Limits of Nukes

I've gone on about this many times, so obviously I want to note it when someone else discusses it.

Nuclear deterrence has limits that do not allow you to neglect conventional military power:

In short, nukes can deter some things — but not the things allies fret about on a day-to-day basis. It’s doubtful U.S. leaders would pull the nuclear trigger over, say, the Senkaku Islands or China’s nine-dashed line in the South China Sea. It takes conventional armies, navies, and air forces to manage such controversies. Yet Asian allies see vital interests at stake in such struggles, even if Americans don’t. If the allies lose faith in U.S. military might, and conclude they cannot field forces strong enough to ward off Russia or China, then they may seek nuclear deterrents of their own. The kaleidoscope turns.

Ergo, if U.S. leaders want to simplify the geometry of deterrence — and keep Asia from descending into brutish, Hobbesian competition of all against all — then they must keep the number of nuclear-weapon states as compact as possible. By sustaining a credible nuclear deterrent in concert with unbeatable conventional forces, Washington can suppress U.S. allies’ incentive to burst through the nuclear barrier. Again: nuclear strategy is indivisible from strategy.

And a bonus for discussing how others' rational is not necessarily our rational. I touched on both aspects recently.

This Will Work Out Swell

China has a proposal to secure Asia:

China's president called Wednesday for the creation of a new Asian structure for security cooperation based on a regional group that includes Russia and Iran and excludes the United States.

Since I'm a helpful kind of guy, I suggest the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere."

In the People's Republic of China

To get rich is glorious; to obey is required.

Concentration Campus

It is odd that so many young people flock to our college campuses given that they are bastions of rape culture (contrary to general population trends--even with more reporting over the early years, I imagine) and racism (worse than Klan rallies even in the age of micro-aggression and dog whistle offenses).

You'd think that a generation of being run by the Left would have made universities open-minded centers of safe learning.

But that's not how it is working out.

First Things First

All this talk of not knowing what the end state in Syria should be as a reason to withhold support for those seeking to defeat Assad ignore that we have to avoid getting ahead of ourselves. First get rid of Assad and his regime.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dempsey put it well as he admits we are not doing enough to help the rebels win their war against Assad, in describing the nature of the war:

“I’ve heard it described as a succession of conflicts. You have the conflict that currently exists; then there’ll be the second conflict, which is kind of an internal conflict; and then there’ll be the third conflict against the terrorist organizations that are growing,” he said. “That’s probably right.”

1. Defeat Assad.

2. Figure out who replaces Assad.

3. Wipe out the jihadis who flocked to Syria to defeat Assad and who may have replaced Assad in the worst case outcome of the second conflict (which means you may have to repeat conflict two).

If we remain too focused on making sure the Damascus Chapter of the League of Women Voters emerges on top in conflict 3, we'll never win conflict 1.

By all means, look ahead a bit to strengthen the forces you want to win conflict 2 and to be prepared to assist conflict 3, but don't neglect to win conflict 1, right?

Bigger and Better?

So government-run health insurance to control the healthcare system isn't working as gloriously as expected (to say the least)?

That's okay. We can always go to government-run, single-payer healthcare systems. Which is what many on the left want, anyway.

Wait. What?

If our government has any obligation to fulfill its many promises on health care, it should be first and foremost to the men and women who served in our armed forces. But the scandal over hidden waiting lists at a growing number of veterans’ hospitals (seven so far) — wherein dozens of veterans died while waiting months for vital treatment, and the VA covered up the lengthy wait times — should make everyone wonder whether we can place our trust in a government-managed health-care system.

Yeah. No official death panel. But a death secret wait list.

Yet I'm sure that the relatively small veterans health system just has problems of scale, and if we expand it to cover the entire population everything will be just swell. They'll lose a little per patient. But they'll make it up in volume!

Tip to Instapundit.

My Plan Unfolds

Lamb told me that her middle school friends think that I look like a spy.

I think they may mean I look like a Secret Service agent. Which probably stems from my habit of standing at modified parade rest while I wait in the lobby for Lamb to exit school.

As long as the boys think that, my plan unfolds nicely.

I think I'll start wearing an ear piece and sun glasses indoors.

Bad Math

The notion that it makes sense to sacrifice 300 A-10 close air support aircraft to buy 30 F-35s is the worst sort of math that I can imagine.

Getting rid of the A-10 is "bullshit":

Think about it in perspective, we are talking about cutting the A-10 entirely here, another three hundred combat aircraft gone from the USAF's dwindling inventory, and these are the most cost effetive out of the entire lot. All for the equivalent of buying just 30 F-35s.

The Air Force has its priorities. Besides, the Air Force knows what will help the Army win ground wars more than those stupid ground pounders who fail to see the big picture.

Yeah, from 30,000 feet the math looks elegant. When you are sucking dust, it doesn't add up.

And you wonder why the Marine Corps has its own air force?

But what the Hell? We've been directed not to fight ground wars so what Army in the field is even going to need Air Force close air support?

The Medium Term Rule begins to bite.

Restoring Our Relations Abroad?

We won't like a world where the likes of Russia, China, and any smaller powers that want to act likewise have free rein:

It is the various U.S. Navy fleets and numbered air forces that are the ultimate guarantor of stability in the key theaters of the globe. The U.S. Seventh Fleet, because it can easily defeat any rival, keeps the peace of East Asia. The spectacular Asian economic boom that commenced in the late Cold War decades is simply impossible to even imagine without the security provided by the U.S. military. Take away the Seventh Fleet and the chances of China and Japan going to war increase dramatically, roiling financial markets in the process. It is the Seventh Fleet that still stands in the way of China being able to Finlandize South Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. Wide stretches of the Middle East may be in chaos or semi-chaos, but it is U.S. air and sea power that helps prevent a Persian Gulf war between Iran and Saudi Arabia and provides ultimately for the security of Israel and Jordan. As for Europe, without U.S. military power Russia is more dominant than the European Union on the Continent, and the independence of the Baltic states, Poland and Romania is crushed or dramatically diluted. Geography certainly matters, and Europe's freedom survives best because of the geographical breadth of the U.S. military.

And yet our military has yet to get a Nobel Peace Prize for its accomplishments let alone its potential.

Stupid Is as Stupid Votes

I missed a story about the Crimea vote charade from The Onion a couple months ago. It bears repeating since it also applies to the votes in eastern Ukraine that purport to show (contrary to opinion polls) that residents want to leave Ukraine and join Russia.

The humor hurts because it is true:

“Yesterday was a historic day for Crimea. Our people had a say in their future, and our voices were heard loud and clear, which is extremely special given that it won’t happen again for who knows how long.”

On that same day, I remarked:

And let's wrap our heads around the idiocy of Crimeans begging to go into Putin's Russia. Did nobody point out that when the opportunity presented itself between 1989 and 1992 that everybody who could manage it escaped from the then-Soviet Union's loving grip?

While some Crimeans and Ukrainians in the east are surely so dumb that they want to live in Putin's autocratic state, why can't they just move to Russia rather than drag down their more intelligent brethren with them?

Some people really are just too stupid to be free. I'm reasonably sure that Ukraine's loss of Crimea to Putin-adoring Russia resulted in the average IQ of both countries going up.

Why Pretend When God is So Obviously On Your Side?

Iran's contempt for America may well save us from a bad nuclear deal.

Iran has set "red lines" that they will defend in the nuclear negotiations.

Three days of negotiations in the fourth round of Geneva discussions ended Friday in arguments and confrontations when the Iranian team presented their country’s new “red lines,” diminishing any hope by the Obama administration to claim victory in its approach to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, according to reports from Iran.

The wording is perhaps revealing by saying that the Obama administration cannot "claim" a victory in talks rather than writing that the administration cannot "achieve" a victory.

That's been my worry all along:

Well of course a deal is possible! Duh. All Iran has to do is pretend to end their drive for nuclear weapons and all we have to do is pretend to believe Iran. Simple, no?

Iran's "red line?"

• The expansion of Iranian nuclear research and development.

• The acceptance of Iran’s need for enrichment on a level that feeds the need of the country (the country has over 19,000 centrifuges, far more than is needed for peaceful nuclear purposes, and would like to expand).

• The preservation of the Arak heavy-water plant (the plant once operational could produce plutonium and serve the ruling clerics with a second path to nuclear weapons).

• No interference or limitation to the country’s military and defensive measures (the Islamic regime is under U.N. sanctions for developing ballistic missiles and it currently holds the largest missile stockpile in the Middle East with ranges capable of reaching as far as Europe).

• The removal of all sanctions at once as opposed to step-by-step relief (the U.N. resolutions and sanctions in place are the results of efforts by several U.S. administrations and over a decade of negotiations).

Is that all? Because what is left for Iran to give up? Commemorative coffee mugs and key chains to celebrate going nuclear?

The Iranian negotiator, Shariatmadari, who read out these "red lines" also said "These (red) lines, which the enemy had never expected to see, at first caused their disbelief and then their anger to the level of shouts and arguments."

"Enemy?" That's not terribly partner-like, is it? Aren't we just friends they haven't made yet?

And note that by calling their terms "red lines" the Iranians are just adding insult to injury by reminding the world of President Obama's red line over Iran's ally Assad using chemical weapons--which Syria is still using when we are perhaps just months away from completing the chemical deal with Assad.

But Iran's actions are welcome, as I also noted in that post where I worried we'd be willing to "claim" victory:

If we don't get a deal, I think it will be because Iran will save us by refusing such a framework. I really think that the Iranians may have such contempt for us that they won't even be willing to pretend to comply with the West's demands.

We've reached out and gone easy on Iran to make them think we can be their partner and perhaps even friend. But since Iran sees us as their enemy, going easy on Iran just raises their contempt for our power.

We recoil from war to prevent Iran from going nuclear. We'll get both, yet.

Selling Your Soul

One of the major reasons I wanted an American troop presence in Iraq after 2011 was something I droned on about for years before we won on the battlefield--to anchor a broader presence to help Iraqis create rule of law to bolster voting and create real democracy. Rule of law is important to building an effective military. Something Iraq is having trouble with. And that's how Ukraine's military has rotted to its present state.

Ukraine has a decent amount of troops and weapons not so different than the Russians. Yet Ukraine is unable to halt an invasion of eastern Ukraine, is unable to recapture Crimea, and might not be able to hold Kiev if the Russians pushed deep.

The question of whether Russia could pacify Ukraine is another question altogether. But that isn't primarily a question about Ukraine's military state.

Corruption (lack of rule of law) crippled Ukraine's military:

The Russian behemoth outmatches its smaller and weaker neighbor, intrinsically. But the gap did not have to be so stark. Nor did the task of confronting irregular separatist militias have to be so hard. At fault is what drove the Maidan protesters to the streets in the first place: corruption. Ukraine is a case study in one of the ways corruption threatens international security: it guts armies. It makes them useless for defending their borders and as allies. United States officials in their rush to aid the Ukrainian military should resist the temptation to turn a blind eye to lingering venality. Ukraine’s future depends on some tough love.

To give credit where credit is due, I droned on about it after first reading about it on Strategypage. But it is vital. And as a result, Iraq is having trouble clearing al Qaeda from their Anbar lairs.

Russia has symptoms of corruption too that hamstring their military. But not nearly to the degree of Ukraine. And Russia has the numbers and air power to make up for some of that failing. Plus some good troops to spearhead the operations.

Ukrainians responsible for the military sold their souls to get rich. Oddly enough, the Devil showed up in Crimea to collect--and keeps pointing to the contract in eastern Ukraine.

UPDATE: Strategypage has a timely post:

Islamic terrorist groups in Iraq have grown more powerful since U.S. troops left in 2011 and the reason why is rather too embarrassing for politicians or the media to touch. It got so bad that by 2013 Iraq was asking the U.S. for help. The U.S. sent some ammo and intel on the Islamic terrorists, as well as some advisors to report back on what had gone wrong since the Americans left in 2011. The problems were easy to find and came down to the fact that without the Americans to do the work Iraqis have been unable to operate the logistical (supply and maintenance) system required to keep most military equipment functional. As a result Iraqi security forces became much less effective. Thus the growing requests for American operated and maintained equipment.

Worse, the inability of the government to provide things like supplies, medical evacuation, and fire support when and where the troops need it; the inability to make sure troops are equipped (with the equipment maintained), paid, fed, and housed; the inability to use money allocated for training for actual training, all combines to undermine the solid achievement we did make while there--training the trigger pullers at the pointy end of the stick to fight. And fight they did when they had our support. Without that support, the Iraqi troops don't fight as hard or go AWOL rather than fight without the things they need to fight.

This is why I wanted to stay in Iraq. This is why I want to stay in Afghanistan. Heck, remember the Libya War? This is why we were needed by our European NATO allies to put even small allied air contingents into battle.

I swear, the best thing we could do for Ukraine's military after this crisis is over is to help pay for a logistics system for Ukraine's military provided by a private contractor--with a NATO-provided inspection cadre to make sure there is no skimming. This would make sure Ukraine uses what it has to maximum effect.

Get a Freaking Room

This isn't too surprising:

Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer treated former Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner to a very special sendoff for his book Stress Test Sunday. After praising Geithner for his success in “bringing the country back from the worst recession since the 1930s,” the longtime CBS fixture lobbed a series of “did you like the ice cream“-style questions to the longtime media favorite.

Yeah. Republicans get the "when did you stop beating your wife?" questions.

Democracts tend to get the "your visit to your beaten wife in the hospital just moments before she suddenly passed sure does show your devotion to her. Did you say anything special to her while you were alone in the room with her?" type of inquiry.