See? This is the Problem

"Breaching" a line of ground forces with air attacks is pointless if no friendly ground force exploits that breach in the line to take ground.

That's nice:

France's defense ministry said on Wednesday that two Rafale jets had struck Islamic State targets alongside coalition planes near the northern Iraqi oil city of Kirkuk in an effort to breach the group's frontlines.

There is no mention of an allied ground forces attacking ISIL's line to take advantage of that breach.

So ISIL will fill the gap and the line will continue to hold.

The article also notes that France will send aircraft to Jordan. Let's hope Jordan provides a ground force that can take advantage of any attacks that those planes make in order to take ground in western Anbar province.

Using ground forces in concert with air power is the only way to apply effective military force to solve this problem.

UPDATE: That may have been a problem with the article focus and not the warfare:

In Iraq, the new offensive by Kurdish forces, known as the peshmerga, targeted areas in Diyala and Kirkuk provinces, said Jaber Yawer, a peshmerga spokesman. The IS extremists had seized the territory in their August offensive that saw them capture a third of Iraq.

But the article doesn't directly connect the Kurdish offensive in Iraq to the air strikes around Kirkuk. So I'm not sure if my criticism is justified or misplaced.

UPDATE: Ah, my worry is misplaced:

In the north Kurdish and Iraqi Army troops began a new offensive around Kirkuk. Using air support, Iraqi armor and artillery the Kurdish/Iraqi forces are pushing ISIL out of towns and villages in the area. The combination of air reconnaissance, air strikes and better equipped (the Kurds) and led (the Iraqis) fighters have been more than many ISIL groups can handle. There have been more ISIL surrenders and apparently a lot more ISIL men are deserting. This is what captured ISIL men are reporting, as well as foreign volunteers who return home and are identified by local police and questioned.

Do read the rest, which discusses the ISIL fight and which includes the detail that the Iraqi army has eroded to just a little over 100,000 troops (from pre-June levels of 205,000) and that 100,000 Shia militia have been accepted into service. That alone explains much of the passivity since much of the force has to hold the line before it can counter-attack.

There are police, too, which suffered similar problems, in the security role. And the Kurds in the north, of course. But the Iraqi manpower total shows why we have a struggle to find a core mobile ground force to exploit allied air power.

Trying to Put the Cart Before the Strong Horse

ISIL raced through northern Iraq in June in what was essentially a small ISIL strike force taking advantage of a rising up of Sunni Arabs living in northern Iraq. This followed a similar advance in Anbar during January. We clearly aren't going to ride a counter-uprising (another Awakening) to an easy defeat of ISIL.

We aren't finding Sunni Arabs in ISIL-occupied Iraq willing and capable of resisting ISIL:

Officials admit little success in wooing new Sunni allies, beyond their fitful efforts to arm and supply the tribes who were already fighting the Islamic State — and mostly losing. So far, distrust of the Baghdad government’s intentions and its ability to protect the tribes has won out.

“There is an opportunity for the government to work with the tribes, but the facts on the ground are that ISIS has infiltrated these communities and depleted their ability to go against it,” said Ahmed Ali, an Iraq analyst at the Institute for the Study of War. “Time is not on the Iraqi government’s side.”

ISIL is too powerful in the Sunni Arab regions that ISIL controls for the Iraqi Sunni Arabs to risk rising up absent powerful Iraqi government forces coming to their rescue.

Thus, the hope that Iraqi forces could sail back into their lost regions taken by ISIL on a wave of Sunni Arabs angry at ISIL cannot take place. Angry the Sunni Arabs may be at ISIL brutality. But the Sunni Arabs cannot risk rising up before liberation is at hand.

So now we have the task of mounting an offensive into ISIL-held territory to the north and west of Baghdad, with Sunni Arabs at best rising up once the frontline reaches them.

A lot is riding on our ability to train Iraqi and Kurdish brigades to advance on Mosul from the south and northeast and to advance on Fallujah and Ramadi from the east, bolstered by our air power.

And I'd still like to see Jordan advance into Anbar from the west, too.

UPDATE: About the placement of that cart. But for that slaughtering thing that ISIL inflicts on the Sunni Arabs if they show signs of opposition, this would be a nice development:

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained Wednesday what the United States and its allies have to do to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, also known as ISIL).

"When the Sunni population rejects it, that's the defeat mechanism," Dempsey said at the Defense One Summit in Washington, D.C.

It's a bridge too far to assume that Sunni Arabs deep in ISIL territory will rise up and help Iraqi forces advance rather than counting on an Iraqi advance to make it safe for Sunni Arabs under ISIL control to rise up to complement the American (and allied)-supported Iraqi offensives.

And the Syria front is even more of a problem, cart-positioning-wise.

UPDATE: This is certainly necessary:

The United States plans to buy arms for Sunni tribesmen in Iraq including AK-47s, rocket-propelled grenades and mortar rounds to help bolster the battle against Islamic State militants in Anbar province, according to a Pentagon document prepared for Congress.

But it is not sufficient. Those tribes have to have some confidence that rising up against ISIL doesn't simply make them and their families targets for slaughter by ISIL.

Please Review Separation of Powers

The idea that Republican control of the next Congress (due to winning the Senate and holding the House) means they must "prove they can govern" is just nonsense.

I've noticed this theme since the election, and it annoys me.

What the election means is that Republicans must prove they can legislate.

That is, the branch that is responsible for passing legislation must--you know--pass legislation.

Which the executive branch can veto, recall, making even this power limited given that the Democrats still control that branch.

And the Republican-controlled Congress must make sure the executive branch--the actual branch that must execute the laws, otherwise called "governing"--must continue to govern rather than attempt to be a quasi-legislative branch through its power to promulgate administrative rules.

I know this is difficult to grok. I have friends who would look at me with a puzzled look when I would note that I did not work for the government--I worked for the legislature.

Explaining that really, I had no civil service protections and was as at-will as anyone in the private sector, was almost as tough a sell.

But the distinction is real. President Obama is charged with governing. Congress is charged with legislating. The two are not just competing versions of some blob-like apparatus that are really the same thing in function.

Keeping America In

One of the problems with complaining about NATO as an effective partner for mobilizing Europeans for the defense of Europe is that NATO is also important for keeping America in Europe for our own objectives.

Never forget that Europe is an asset, too.

We may be unhappy that Europeans won't mobilize their economic and technological power for effective military power as allies; but we'd be more unhappy if someone else hostile to us managed to harness that economic power, large population, and technology to create significant military power that could be used against us.

Nor should we forget that Europe is a power projection platform for our forces into an arc of crisis from West Africa to Central Asia.

So let's not talk so easily about why NATO is worthless.

Whether the threat is a proto-Soviet Union in the European Union, a revived and aggressive Russia, or demographic changes within Europe that threaten to nullify a still generally Western outlook, we need to defend Europe for our own reasons even if Europeans don't much feel like it.

Once Again, Why It is the "Long" War.

Strategypage has a good reminder of why we can't grow tired of fighting jihadis:

Moslems get motivated to do something about Islamic radicalism when the violence is literally next door. That's why terror attacks in the West are so popular. The infidels are being attacked, without any risk to those living in Moslem countries. Iraq changed all that, and during the course of that war (2004-7) the popularity of Islamic terrorism, in Moslem countries, declined sharply because the terrorists were killing so many Moslems. That, in the end, is what has killed, for a while, most Islamic terrorism in Iraq. Worldwide, al Qaeda never recovered the popularity (in the Moslem world) it enjoyed after September 11, 2001. It would also be nice if the Moslem world got their act together and expunged this malevolent tendency once and for all. The Arab Spring was supposed to help but so far it hasn’t. Change is coming but don't hold your breath waiting for it to suddenly appear.

We have to help that change take place and contain the jihadis who rise up with an eye on killing Americans until that change takes place.

Sadly, pushing that change even among those we hope are on our side is very difficult.

But what's the alternative? Hoping the jihadis won't notice us if we avoid eye contact?

Please, the Outline of the Deal is Obvious

Ledeen comments on the speculation game over a potential nuclear agreement with Iran with the looming (what number is this one?) "deadline" of November 24th.

He thinks Iran is content to have no deal which leaves them with a nuke program, weakening sanctions, and a humiliated America still hanging around stalker-like, trying to catch the top mullah's eye at various negotiating venues.

I don't bother speculating on the potential details. The big picture has always been clear to me.

The Iranians will pretend not to have a nuclear weapons program; and we will pretend to believe them.

While I am not sure how many deadlines we've set for Iran, let's recall that first deadline that not only included Iran's nuclear program, but insisted that Iran stop fomenting violence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Good times. Good times. The Tennessee Pork Festival denial surely hurt Tehran.

Actual Islamophobia

To be fair, they are clinging to their god and guns:

A flood of anti-Shiite propaganda online and on satellite television is spreading bigotry and violence to countries which have so far had little experience of the sectarian hatred that has set the Middle East alight.

Shiite Muslims from Australia to Nigeria, from Britain to Indonesia, are increasingly the victims of intimidation and even violent attacks from fellow Muslims as hardline Sunni ideologies gain an ever more global reach.

Much like the "war on women," you have to look outside America for real Islamophobia.

Clearly, we're going to need more COEXIST bumper stickers.

Well That's Disturbing

After the recent attempt to seize a Pakistani frigate, is attacking navy ship now the latest jihadi fad?

This is disturbing:

Brig. Gen. Mohammed Samir said on his official Facebook page that an Egyptian naval vessel was attacked Wednesday and set ablaze by “terrorist elements” about 40 miles off the port of Damietta.

All four boats used by the assailants were destroyed after air and naval reinforcements were called in, Samir said, and 32 attackers were arrested.

The Egyptians have 8 sailors missing (being missing at sea is really bad, as you might imagine) and 5 injured.

Jihadis loaded up four boats with boarders and attacked an Egyptian vessel at sea? Why? Was it just for the killing or was it to capture the vessel and use it to ram a bigger ship? Or to sail into port and wreak havoc at the dock with all those terrorists?

Our Cole experience taught us that we need to be on guard in port. I hope we don't assume we are safe while underway.

The Crimean-Plus War

This article reviews a new book on the Russian and Ukrainian militaries as well as the crisis that began with the Crimea invasion.

Let me quote some of it, emphasizing some points in bold:

At the time of its creation, the Ukrainian military was considered the fourth most powerful conventional military force in the world, behind only the United States, Russia, and China. However, these forces were allowed to atrophy throughout the post-Soviet period[.] ... As a result, [1] by 2010 only 6,000 ground forces troops were being maintained in a state of constant combat readiness, while all other units would require at least a partial mobilization before being ready for battle. The air force was in a similar state of disarray, ... only 15 percent of all aircraft and helicopters were considered combat ready, and even these often lacked adequately trained crews. With a few exceptions, Navy ships rarely left port. Only four were considered combat ready. Air defense systems were unprepared, in part because of a ban on live exercises that was instituted in the aftermath of the accidental downing of a civilian aircraft during a 2001 exercise.

Furthermore, the lack of military reform meant that [2] Ukrainian forces were still based on the western side of the country, where they had been positioned in the Cold War period to defend against the NATO threat. ...

Lavrov emphasizes that Russian troops were stretched very thin during the first week of the invasion. In his analysis, Russian troops were not strong enough to prevail in an armed conflict against Ukrainian forces stationed in Crimea for the first week after the conflict began. [3] They remained vulnerable to a Ukrainian counterattack until March 13 when Russian motor rifle forces, equipped with heavy weapons, entered Crimea and reinforced the troops guarding the isthmus connecting Crimea to the mainland. ...

The final chapter, by Vyacheslav Tseluyko, discusses how Ukraine can rebuild its armed forces to deal with the threat of a future full-scale Russian invasion. Given Ukraine’s limited resources, he suggests that it should prioritize [4] combat training and repairing and upgrading existing weaponry, rather than purchasing new hardware. It also needs to greatly reduce noncombatant positions, reinstitute the draft, and [5] reform the Navy to focus on a coastal defense mission. In terms of strategy, Tseluyko calls for a [6] defensive posture that focuses on protecting large population centers. This would entail preparing for urban warfare and stationing long-range defensive MLR and SAM missile systems in urban areas, combined with [7] creating guerrilla formations that could attack enemy rear areas in the event of an invasion. Tseluyko demonstrates that using these tactics can [8] increase the costs of a Russian invasion to unacceptable levels.

Let me go through those points.

One, it wasn't just that only 6,000 troops were combat ready. In the aftermath of the fall of the pro-Russian government, lines of authority were to confused and loyalties too uncertain to know if even the combat ready troops would fight for the new proto-government.

Two, even before the war, I noted that Ukraine's army was deployed poorly from Cold War circumstances.

Three, if that authority and loyalty problem in point one was settled, even 6,000 troops quickly used to counter-attack into Crimea would have worked to defeat the Russians or at least deny them a quick and easy victory.

Indeed, pre-war, when a looked at a Ukrainian reaction to a Russian invasion, I speculated that a rapid counter-attack into Crimea was the way to go while the invasion force was light.

Although I readily admitted that it was a paper exercise and that the state of Ukraine's armed forces likely wouldn't support such an offensive.

In retrospect, if the 6,000 ready troops were loyal, they should have been thrown into a counter-attack quickly. German experience against Soviet forces in World War II showed that it was best to counter-attack fast with whatever was available rather than mass forces but let the Russians dig in.

Four, in discussing whether we should arm the Ukrainians, I've said repeatedly that it is pointless to send big ticket items and that Ukraine has enough stuff that, if upgraded and used by trained troops, is enough to fight the Russians. New major weapons are a long-term issue not relevant to the next 5 months or 5 years. Anything we supply should fill gaps or support existing equipment.

I touched on rebuilding here and here, for example.

Five, while I didn't mention the navy much, I've written that a focus on the ability to launch missiles at Sevastopol naval base and lay mines is important to build. Those capabilities certainly support coastal defense, too.

Six, I emphasized defending urban areas, too, where light infantry could better absorb a Russian mechanized offensive.

Although I also wanted small regular units used in a mobile role to inflict casualties on the Russian spearheads forward of the main defensive line along the Dnieper River, with the idea of preserving the army to deny the Russians a quick, decisive victory.

In that post I also mentioned point seven by saying Ukraine could use irregulars to harass the Russian rear areas and point eight about the need to make Russia bleed in any invasion.

Many times I noted that Ukraine wanted to deny Russia "style points" by making Russian power look unstoppable. An ugly Russian victory with heavy Russian casualties would dent Russia's image of power even if Ukraine can't halt the much bigger and better Russian army.

So not too shabby from my figurative basement in my figurative pajamas.

Spoiling Attacks?

As signs of Russian invasion proliferate, I keep hearing news of artillery fire in Donetsk--which is rebel held. But nothing says the Ukrainians are doing the shelling.

There is more shooting in Ukraine's east, with Donetsk reportedly being shelled. But nobody says who is doing it:

Fresh volleys of artillery fire were heard across many parts of the separatist stronghold of Donetsk in eastern Ukraine on Sunday, a Ukrainian government statement said, after Kiev warned again of rebel preparations for a fresh offensive.

A Reuters witness in central Donetsk heard several dozen blasts of artillery fire, although it was unclear who had launched them or what was under attack.

Which is odd, since if I was in charge of Ukraine's defenses, I'd sure be using artillery fire to try to disrupt the looming offensive. Who else would shell targets in Donetsk?

And if I was in charge of US policy, I'd be providing the Ukrainians with intelligence on where to shoot.

UPDATE: From four days ago, but relevant. This speaks of a Russian objective of filling in and rounding out terrain gains to make a border that is less convoluted.

We shall see if that is all Russia wants. I once thought that Russia wouldn't try to take land in the east if they really had to fight for it, but they've lost 300 troops dead so far. So I don't know their pain threshold.

UPDATE: Reports Monday of shelling at the airport--Ukrainian held--which I assume is the first target for Russia.

Way More Than Twenty

This article writes about more than 20 countries that don't have militaries.

That's interesting. But it is a simplistic exercise based on a CIA list of countries without formal "militaries."

Actually, if you define a "military" is one capable of fighting conventional combat against other regular militaries, most countries don't have militaries.

Most "militaries" are simply capable of beating down unarmed civilians. So at best they are riot police.

Writing about those nations would be an interesting article.

Their's Is But to Do and Die?

I know that people keep saying that the Alawites are too afraid of the jihadis to stop backing Assad, but some are already doing that. And sometimes people just give up.

Assad's base of support is starting to visibly go wobbly on him:

Analysts, activists and local media speak about intensified efforts in regime-held areas to arrest the increasing numbers of men who avoid service in the military and its supporting units, such as the National Defense Force, a local-volunteer force consisting mainly of Alawites. They say the regime efforts are to compensate for huge losses in manpower and to escalate attacks on rebel areas.

As many as 5,000 men in Tartus alone had reportedly failed to report for military duty by January of this year, while activists and analysts have noticed a trend of Alawites moving abroad.

“I’m getting a sense from a number of sources and anecdotal evidence that people on the regime side are looking for asylum, to get out of Syria and go abroad,” said Yezid Sayigh, a senior associate at the Beirut-based Carnegie Middle East Center.

Louay Hussein, the Alawite activist who lives in Damascus, said more of his Alawite friends, including a family of six, began last year to relocate to Europe and Arab countries.

“Alawites feel they have to choose the regime, no matter how badly they hate it. So with this choice, many want to leave,” he said.

That's one problem with the idea that Alawites have no choice but to support Assad. The alternative isn't only to accept defeat by the jihadis and suffer under their rule and potential mass slaughter. A third choice of fleeing is there.

Right now the elites with money are heading for the exits in some small numbers. More could follow.

And if the foot soldier class--already growing unwilling to serve because of the tremendous casualties--sees the leadership wavering--they will stop fighting for them and seek to escape to Lebanon, Cyprus, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, or even Israel.

Or maybe the Alawites pull back into their local areas and hang on for dear life.

Some may even just be so tired that they give up, figuring that they will either die fighting for a losing cause or die at the hands of jihadi victors.

Let me just add that if we'd spent the last three years supporting the non-jihadi rebels it would be easier for Alawites to switch sides rather than flee. But no, we stayed out because we wouldn't want to "militarize" the conflict, as Hillary Clinton put it when she was Secretary of State.

(Note that the video in that post was removed--I imagine Clinton's people have been busy. But they missed this one.)

The one place where we have managed to support the rebels--along with the Jordanians--is the one place where non-jihadis are still holding out:

With moderate rebels facing defeat by al Qaeda in Syria's north, groups holding a corner of the south are seeking a higher profile and more help, as the last Western-backed forces holding out against both President Bashar al-Assad and the jihadists.

The southern rebels, described by Western officials as the best organised of the mainstream opposition, say they are the last hope for a revolution hijacked by jihadists. In recent days they have laid out a transition plan for a Syria without Assad, taking on a political role that in the past they left to others.

Although to be fair to the Obama administration, Turkey has been less than helpful in the north (the administration's faith in increasingly Islamist Turkey as an ally is another matter, of course).

Interestingly enough, the rebels in the south call themselves the "Southern Front."

If Alawites head south, this might be the humanitarian safety zone that they can seek.

I just don't assume that the Alawites have no choice but to fight and die for Assad.

Heck, the way we've gotten a reputation for screwing friends and helping enemies, maybe if we announced we would like to see Assad survive, that policy statement would be the thing to push the Alawites into despair and flight.

Lesson in Feminism

It's wrong for a man to wear a shirt with bullet-bra'd cartoon women on it (tip to Instapundit). But if an actual woman wants to wear a bullet bra it is wrong to judge her for defining her sexuality.

Got it.

You know, I wouldn't wear a shirt like that. Indeed, my daughter brought a refrigerator magnet from Las Vegas back for me that featured a bullet bra-wearing woman. She thought it was funny.

When she later noticed it was on the side of the refrigerator I explained that while it was funny, I didn't think it was really appropriate for the front.

But come on. The man put a friggin' robot on a friggin' comet. For feminists, one of whose leading members once proudly proclaimed to the approval of the rank and file that she'd service the president orally if he kept abortion legal, the outrage over a shirt is a bit much.

Feminism isn't about gender equality any more. Face it, feminists are just the Women's Auxiliary of the Democratic Party, these days--at best.

UPDATE: Related, via Instapundit.

Venezuela Tackles the Symptoms

Venezuela's Maduro--the gray inept successor to the equally inept but somehow viewed as charismatic Hugo Chavez--is cracking down on the black market:

Authorities mostly turned a blind eye to the informal commerce, but late last month Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro went on TV to decree a ban on street sales of coffee, eggs, shampoo and some 50 other “regulated” items whose prices­ are capped by the government. He ordered the National Guard to police market stalls for such items as mayonnaise and powdered milk, and threatened to prosecute recidivist violators.

Remember that Hugo wanted to replace Cuba as the lion of the downtrodden in Latin America, to lead the Axis of El Vil.

With Venezuela getting poorer and more authoritarian, that result is on the way.

I know. It's hard to believe that things could be working out so badly in this oil-rich nation when the economic system was designed by this man:

Even the parrot was trying to pretend it was elsewhere.

I'm just saying that if we were plotting against Venezuela the way those leftist fools insist, our entire plot would be to put Hugo and then Maduro in power.

The Russians Really Are Coming

The signs point to a Russian offensive in Donbas. Now that Russian propagandists are dismissing the notion, I think we can say the attack is imminent.

It sure seems like H-Hour is approaching in eastern Ukraine.

This analysis pretty much confirms that:

The amount of military hardware being moved into the war-torn region is insufficient for a major operation, which would probably not be launched during Ukraine's harsh winter, experts told AFP.

Instead, the deployments may be designed to deter Ukraine from launching a bid to reclaim the territories or send a message to a domestic audience in Russia.

"There is a positional war of attrition going on. Any large-scale offensives are highly unlikely," said Pavel Felgenhauer, an independent military analyst based in Moscow.

"For a major operation, you need thousands of tanks. There are a lot less than that -- and mainly just artillery."

Call me overly suspicious, but I don't trust any Moscow-based analyst.

Seriously, a major operation is only possible with thousands of tanks? Really?

Did Putin take Crimea with thousands of tanks?

Did he seize half of Donbas with thousands of tanks?

I'm pretty sure we conquered Iraq in 2003 with fewer than 500 American and British tanks.

And we have fewer than a thousand tanks in our active Army today. (Although more are in National Guard reserve units, with the Marines, or in storage.)

Are we incapable of major operations?

Or is an operation only "major" if it makes it to Berlin?

So what kind of nonsense is this posing as "independent" military analysis? Perhaps I'm wrong to call this guy a propagandist for Putin. But when the analysis is complete and utter BS, I'll go with that interpretation.

Let's hope the Ukrainians really are ready:

Ukraine is ready to defend itself against attack amid reports that Russia had again sent columns of troops and military hardware across their shared border, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said Friday.

“There are no grounds for panic,” Poroshenko said at a meeting in Kiev with heads of security and law enforcement forces, according to the statement posted on the official presidential website. “In two recent months, we have elaborated and implemented serious steps on the preparation of our armed forces and other units to defend Ukraine."

Ukraine can't really stop Russia if it commits to a major operation. But if Ukrainians send a lot of Russian boys back home in body bags, they may limit the scope of the operation and buy time to build an army capable of stopping Russia:

"Building an army, which is capable of stopping aggression from Russia, is the number one task," [Prime Minister] Yatseniuk told journalists.

With reality-denying analysis coming out of Russia, I have to believe Russia will renew the mobile war very soon. The only real question is the scope of conquest. The Donetsk airport will be just the start.

With winter approaching, conquering the rest of the Donbas and telling Ukrainians they can accept the loss or enjoy the cold without Russian energy seems rather likely.

Or maybe Putin will respond to the verbal scolding he received at the G20 meeting in Australia.

But given the "aides" that Putin brought with him, I doubt it.

Oh yeah, the Russians are coming. Ukraine may have to accept the loss of territory in the end, but that doesn't mean Ukraine shouldn't make Russia pay a price to deter future attacks.

And that price should include firing at Russia's Sevastopol naval base during Russia's eastern offensive.

UPDATE: Any outrage over Russia's creeping annexation of Abkhazia will surely be lost in the noise of renewed Russian land grabs in the Donbas region.

Rewiring That "Reset" Button

Russia says that they have a nuclear surprise for us. How reset-y.

That's nice:

The Russian Pravda has published an article titled "Russia Prepares Nuclear Surprise For NATO," citing a September 1, 2014 US State Department report that signaled US and Russia have reached parity in terms of deployed strategic nuclear weapons.

The backgrounder is here.

I assume that any surprise is ultimately going to be in theater nuclear weapons that threaten all of Europe (and are strategic to them) but which are outside of the weapons included in the New START treaty--something I complained about.

And note one reason given to pass the nuclear agreement was to maintain Russian cooperation on other issues. Hah!

Yes, at first I wasn't too worried. But my premises that France, Britain, and China would balance Russia's shorter-ranged nukes and that Russia couldn't afford to bolster their theater nukes may not hold true. And I hoped that the details of the early reports wouldn't be as bad as some painted them. I was willing to wait.

Also note that the article is from Business Insider--not Strategy Insider. They misread the backgrounder as saying we have over 700 bombers to Russia's 500+. That category clearly identifies deployed land-based strategic missiles, sub-based missiles, and long range bombers.

Someone familiar even in broad terms with our arsenals would know that neither side has anywhere near that many strategic bombers.

I'd rather live in a non-nuclear world. But we can hardly trust other countries not to cheat in any zero option.

We surely can't trust Putin.

Belarus Experiences the Clue Bat

Belarus is apparently worried that Putin is ruining their economic opportunities

Do tell, genius:

Belarus wants to strengthen its economic ties to the West and could even help it bypass Russia's ban on some Western foods by reprocessing EU products.

Belarus' Economy Minister Nikolai Snopkov made the statement in an interview with The Associated Press ahead of a Friday investment conference in London, saying that if the Ukrainian crisis continues, "it will drag Belarus to cooperate more with the Western countries."

Belarus has more to worry about that losing economic opportunities. Belarus is actually named like it is a part of Russia (White Russia).

Belarus is the target of the ultimate subliminal war what with integrating Belarus' military and economy with Russia's.

Up until now, Belarus has cooperated. Will Russia's open aggression getting closer to Minsk lead the Belarussians to really change course?

Will Putin let them?

Belarus better act before Putin finishes and consolidates his current conquests.

Things Fall Apart

Yemen could really make the headlines soon:

Nearly three years after Yemen ousted a decades-old dictatorship and began a political transition aimed at preventing civil war, the fragile nation is once again on the brink of disaster.

Fighting between Iran-backed Houthi rebels who control the capital, Sanaa, and Al-Qaeda-linked militants appears to be intensifying. In recent days, bombings and gun battles between the two groups and their allies have reportedly killed dozens in central Yemen. And the country’s political leadership is in tatters.

Under President Obama, the US has strengthened security ties to Yemen in order to go after Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which is seen as posing a threat to the US homeland. This includes US drone strikes, which have been stepped up since Houthi rebels stormed the capital in September and asserted control.

I don't spend a lot of time blogging about Yemen, as I've noted before. It is a country split between Shias and Sunnis and has actually been North Yemen and South Yemen in the recent past.

Indeed, it is so ugly that at one time Egypt sent an army to fight in that territory where they even used poison gas.

So I think of Yemen not so much as a front in the war on terror but as a local mess where locals will fight each other. Constantly. It is simply a place where al Qaeda jihadis can thrive and where we can try to kill them when the opportunity presents itself to keep them too off balance to attack us at home.

Yemen is getting worse. The Saudis will worry a lot. And the Iranians will rejoice.

We should worry about why those countries will worry and rejoice.

And we may have to send in Marines to evacuate our embassy.

UPDATE: More.

No Plan Survives Contact With the Enemies

Realizing we have many enemies in the "ISIL" campaign is a start.

I've noted that our air campaign against ISIL is pretty small; and that my main concerns within a war strategy that I broadly think is correct are that we haven't made the decision that we really have to overthrow Assad at the end of this war, and that I don't know if we have the determination to see this multi-year strategy through to the end. At least part of my concerns are being addressed.

First, the air campaign will get bigger:

Defending the U.S. strategy during a House of Representatives hearing, Hagel said, "As Iraqi forces build strength, the tempo and intensity of our coalition's air campaign will accelerate in tandem."

And Assad is finally on the agenda:

President Barack Obama wants his advisers to review the administration's Syria policy after determining it may not be possible to defeat Islamic State militants without removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, CNN reported on Wednesday.

And you need to cope with the problem I've noted repeatedly that Syrian rebels will migrate to the jihadis if the jihadis are seen as the only force capable of taking on Assad:

Western-backed “moderate” rebels fighting jihadists in Syria are refusing to do battle, giving up and even defecting for lack of weapons and other promised support, leaders have told The Telegraph. ...

The failure of the United States to supply substantial weapons despite offering the opposition moral backing in its war against President Bashar al-Assad has been a major rebel complaint since the start.

Arm and back the non-jihadis and they can resist the jihadi attacks and resist the appeal of the jihadis to foot soldiers as the only effective force capable of taking on Assad's forces.

Of course, I'll also say that our plan that sees decisive actions happening in 2015 relies on ISIL cooperating with our timetable.

No plan survives contact with the enemy, the saying goes. Especially when it takes you a while to realize you have multiple enemies and not just one.

UPDATE: Oh, and I meant to mention that Iran is our enemy, too, despite wishful thinking in the administration that we can leverage a common interest in defeating ISIL into a new strategic relationship.

UPDATE: Which means the pro-Iran militias in Iraq have to be defeated again:

... His militia is one of three small Iraqi Shi’ite armies, all backed by Iran, which together have become the most powerful military force in Iraq since the collapse of the national army in June.

Alongside Asaib Ahl al-Haq, there are the Badr Brigades, formed in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq War, and the younger and more secretive Kataib Hezbollah. The three militias have been instrumental in battling Islamic State (IS), the extremist movement from Islam’s rival Sunni sect.

The militias, and the men who run them, are key to Iran’s power and influence inside neighboring Iraq.

I will strongly dissent from the idea that the militias are the most powerful military force in Iraq. That's nonsense. But they are a threat to Iraq once ISIL is defeated.

Just as we defeated many threats during the Iraq War, we have many to re-defeat today.

Just Lie Back and Think of the Motherland

Putin is counting on Chinese money to save him from paying too high a price for his Ukraine adventures. So this is interesting:

Domestic Internet traffic traveling inside the borders of Russia has repeatedly been rerouted outside of the country under an unexplained series of events that degrades performance and could compromise the security of Russian communications.

The finding, reported Thursday in a blog post published by Internet monitoring service Dyn, underscores the fragility of the border gateway protocol (BGP), which forms the underpinning of the Internet's global routing system. In this case, domestic Russian traffic was repeatedly routed to routers operated by China Telecom, a firm with close ties to that country's government. When huge amounts of traffic are diverted to far-away regions before ultimately reaching their final destination, it increases the chances hackers with the ability to monitor the connections have monitored or even altered some of the communications.

When Russia embarks on a policy of appeasement to China so Putin can focus on a pointless confrontation with NATO, which has neither the interest nor military capabilities to threaten Russia, this is the type of behavior that Putin has to just take--and like.