Taiwan Needs a Taiwan Model of Defense

The idea of Taiwan rejecting subs and relying on the Iranian model of deterring America fails by the simple fact that Taiwan is trying to deter China and not America from invading Taiwan.

Good Lord, control of Iran is not a core interest of America as controlling Taiwan is a self-proclaimed core interest of China. This is nonsense:

In developing a more asymmetric strategy, Taiwan would do well to study the Iranian example. Like Taiwan, Iran faces the challenge of deterring the United States, an objectively stronger military power — albeit one much farther from Iranian shores than China is from Taiwan’s — from using regional maritime and air superiority to impose its will. Iran has managed to change the U.S. and regional Arab military calculus primarily through the development and employment of asymmetric capabilities integrated with conventional military forces.

Urging Taiwan to mimic Iran's ability to deter an American attack neglects that Taiwan is an island rather than a large land mass with land lines of communication that America can't reach.

Urging Taiwan to mimic Iran's ability to deter an American attack neglects that Taiwan lacks the ability to interfere with the world's oil supplies as Iran possesses.

Urging Taiwan to mimic Iran's ability to deter an American attack neglects that China intends to absorb Taiwan while America just wants to prevent Iran from controlling the Persian Gulf.

How does urging Iran to be the template for Taiwan even make sense with those major differences?

When you consider this basic flaw for Iran as a template for Taiwan, it seems almost pointless to address the authors further.

But I will anyway. Much of my criticism would mirror my criticism of the Hezbollah model another author advocated for Taiwan.Why some people think democratic Taiwan should mimic the civilian-killing attitudes of terrorist actors is beyond me.

So let me just address the Iran-model article's dismissal of Taiwan's submarine program:

At a time when Taiwan needs deterrent capabilities and needs them now, a 10-plus-year wait for a few squadrons of F-35s or 5-10 submarines is far too long. Instead, development of a resilient, survivable force with the ability to asymmetrically counter-attack is Taiwan’s best option for deterrence as well as defense.

Given the time it has taken to agree to upgrade Taiwan's old F-16s, I doubt F-35s are on the table.

New F-16s would fit better. Honestly, I'm not convinced Taiwan is willing to invest in their national defense enough to risk the F-35 falling into Chinese hands if China conquers Taiwan.

And to be fair, if Taiwan had bought the subs early in this millennium when they first expressed an interest, they'd have them now.


As for the big notion in the article that Taiwanese subs don't help Taiwan, first let me note that subs are part of Iran's military. I guess Iran doesn't follow the so-called Iran Model.

Second, Taiwanese subs would be a major factor in an asymmetric defense that the author advocates.

Chinese ASW capabilities aren't very advanced, and are certainly less potent than China's anti-ship and anti-aircraft capabilities. So modern Taiwanese subs capable of interfering by using missiles, torpedoes, and mines, with Chinese sea trade and threatening Chinese surface ships participating in a Chinese blockade or amphibious assault would be a very potent threat capable of surviving and fighting for a longer period of time.

Without subs, Taiwan would be helpless to counter for long a serious Chinese effort at sea and in the air to blockade Taiwan.

With subs, Taiwan can inflict pain on China rather than just endure the pain, relying on America to break the blockade--with all the risks of a wider war that entails.

Don't forget the subs. They are a key Taiwanese deterrent.

And don't forget naval mines. Lots of them. They are an under-appreciated weapon that could be acquired pretty rapidly.

Staggering Stupidity

I just have no use for the international human rights industry as a moral force.

American-backed Syrians are in the process of liberating Raqqa from ISIL control. Naturally, this is a reason for "human rights" types to fret:

"We note in particular that the intensification of air strikes, which have paved the ground for an SDF advance in Raqqa, has resulted not only in staggering loss of civilian life, but has also led to 160,000 civilians fleeing their homes and becoming internally displaced," Paulo Pinheiro, chairman of the U.N. Commission of Inquiry told the Human Rights Council.

Pinheiro provided only the adjective and not a count for the casualties, it should be noted.

Implicitly, Pinheiro would be happier if ISIL remained "peacefully" in control of Raqqa rather than expose these Syrian people to the risks of being liberated.

Naturally, the barrel bombing, chemical warfare using, starvation-inducing, area bombardment Syrian government mirrored Pinheiro's complaint by slamming America's coalition for causing civilian casualties.

Pinheiro can take a hike. The French at least had the decency to refrain from complaining about America until well after the liberation of France from Nazi control.

The Air Force Secretary Aims High

The Secretary of the Air Force has ordered the Air Force to aim higher:

In many respects, the Air Force and the nation are at a critical crossroads. We realize, as do our potential adversaries, that space is interconnected to American life and to U.S. military success. The time is now to integrate, elevate, and normalize space in the Air Force and thus assure continued American dominance in this most critical domain. ...

Today, we begin the process of standing up a new organization at the Pentagon that will be responsible for recruiting, training and equipping airmen involved in the space mission. The establishment of the deputy chief of staff for space operations is the next step toward ensuring that we maintain space superiority.

They are on the launch pad, at least. But space requires more than three stars for a leader.

I've long been a proponent of the Air Force aiming high to become the United States Aerospace Force to dominate the Earth-Moon system (a Space Navy can wait for inter-planetary missions).

So this new process for going to space is good. As far as it goes.

But the move to space has the related effect of reinforcing the Air Force's institutional inability to see the mud where ground troops hug the Earth waiting for fire support from the Air Force.

I mean, seriously, WTF?

Perhaps the space focus explains why the A-10 is still in danger despite Air Force claims to have found Jesus on the close air support mission.

So while it is good that the Air Force is shifting to space, it should be accompanied by the recreation of the Army Army Force tied to the Army. Send the A-10s, other CAS aircraft, ISR, and SAR (along with the funding) to the Army Air Force. And have the Marines remind the Army how it is done, given they've had this all along.

The United States Air Force needs to become the United States Aerospace Force.

Capabilities Open Options

This article notes that improved Chinese relations with Russia since 1985 allowed China to transition their military posture from absorbing a Russian invasion from the north to projecting power around their periphery. Since the collapse of the USSR, the power balance has shifted much more to China. The continued shift from that event could have more effects on Chinese military posture.

The Chinese are looking south to the seas without the threat of Russia looming over Chinese territorial integrity:

Appointing a naval officer to command a theater in unprecedented in PLA history, further confirming the shift of China’s military posture from continental defense to maritime security. Moreover, ADM Yuan’s position as commander of the Southern Theater Command indicates the relative importance of South China Sea in the eyes of the PLA, particularly as a suitable bastion for its growing SSBN force and as an ideal operational space for its expanding surface fleet.

But how much more does China need at sea other than a SSBN bastion?

At some point, with the balance of forces shifting more to China and with Chinese economic interests encompassing the interior of Asia, China may shift their increasingly offensive military posture to offense on land to the resource-rich and once Chinese north that is weakly held by Russia rather than at sea defended by America and our constellation of allies.

But until that change in posture, the Chinese can closely observe their potential land foe, eh?

The Cyber-Fight for THAAD

The American THAAD anti-missile system in South Korea has gotten its own cyber-defense unit to protect it from hackers:

In May 2017 the United States revealed that it had sent one of its few cyber protection teams to defend the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) battery sent to South Korea earlier and declared operational in April. ... To work properly the battery depends a lot of networks for quickly transmitting target and other data. Since China, Russia and North Korea all have excellent network hacking capabilities and have been hostile to the stationing of a THAAD battery in South Korea, it was expected that the THAAD networks would be subject to penetration and disruption attempts by foreign hackers.

Neither the THAAD nor the cyber protection teams have had any real combat experience. THAAD has been successful in tests but the army is still seeking a realistic way to test the effectiveness of the cyber protection teams.

Strategypage notes that creating cyber protection units is stymied by the need to hire contractors to make up for the lack of in-house talent.

This is normal for new systems. Very early in artillery introduction, artillery was provided by contractors because armies did not have the expertise.

Privatized warfare is normal. In time as the cyber capability matures, that expertise will reside in-house.

You Had One Job

The Air Force is our resident expert on dropping bombs and other explody devices from airplanes.

So how was this possible?

On Aug. 7, 2014, the United States kicks off air strikes against the brutal terrorists in Iraq, beginning attacks on its members in neighboring Syria the following month. But between August and November 2014, the Air Force saw between 11 and 19 percent of weapons either not have the intended effect or not detonate entirely, according to a briefing Air Force Major Brian Baker gave at the National Defense Industry Association’s Precision Strike Annual Review in March 2017.

The problem was that the Air Force in Afghanistan had been using bombs designed for close air support--using smaller amounts of explosives or air bursts using shrapnel--to avoid killing friendly troops nearby while precision killed the enemy.

When switched to Iraq to fight ISIL which in June had overrun Mosul and northern Iraq, the Air Force largely went after targets far from friendly troops with the same weapons when they would have been better targeted by larger bombs with bigger explosions.

I'm not even sure what to say.

Accept the Home Field Advantage

Japan is right to worry:

Concern is rising in Japan the Chinese military may be training for a future mission in the disputed Senkaku Islands, where Beijing has been dispatching coast guard ships at increasing frequency in recent years.

Quoting the Pentagon's 2017 survey of the Chinese military, Japanese newspaper Sankei Shimbun reported Thursday the People's Liberation Army could be training for a raid of outlying areas, including the Japan-administered Senkaku Islands, also claimed by China and Taiwan.

In a section on China's amphibious capabilities, the report from the U.S. Department of Defense states the "PLA Army focuses its amphibious efforts on a Taiwan invasion while the PLA Navy Marine Corps focuses on small island seizures in the South China Sea, with a potential emerging mission in the Senkakus."

Japan needs to dig in on their islands to defend them rather than hope they can win a race with the Chinese to plant troops on the ground.

Because if China wins the race, will Japan eject the Chinese when China makes nuclear threats to hold what the Chinese take?

Guilt Requires Atonement and Not Abdication

If it was really guilt for their Nazi past rather than a convenient excuse to avoid spending on defense, you'd think the Germans would be eager to defend the free West.

Is this nonsense excuse for Germany to rely on others for defense incapable of being killed?

Modern Germany, says Sheehan, "thinks of its military very much the way most states think of their police force".

What he calls a "persistent distrust of military institutions," he adds, "continues to be strong, and in some ways has become stronger".

Underlying all this is the enduring memory of the horrors of World War Two - not only the shame of Nazi crimes but also the devastation inflicted on civilians.

Let me (again) apply the clue bat:

I keep reading that the Germans hate their militaristic past so much that they don't want to fight.

Let's try applying the clue bat to Germany's collective skull on this issue.

Conquering and setting up death camps under the shield of a powerful military? That's bad. By all means, don't do that.

Having a military capable of fighting death cult enemies or stopping the Russians from moving west? Well, that's a good thing. Try doing that.

Why do people essentially justifying Germany's refusal to shoulder their share of the burden of defending the West go back to Nazi Germany as the alternative to Germany's conveniently low-cost pacifism?

Consider that the Cold War West German military was formidable. Even in 1995 (which is the oldest Military Balance I have), Germany spend 2.2% of its GDP on defense.

Germany had an army of over 250,000 with nearly 3,000 tanks in 3 airborne, 9 tank, 10 mechanized infantry, and 1 mountain brigades. Plus odds and ends.

The German navy had 17 submarines, 14 principal surface combatants, and 36 smaller vessels and 40 mine warfare ships. And the navy had 54 fighter planes.

The air force had just under 500 combat aircraft!

And this is after being drawn down from Cold War levels! Guilt from World War II didn't stop Germany from having a good military then. Why now?

Today, the British would call the police if the German army was reported to have landed on the Dover coastal region.

Envisioning a German military capable of fighting in defense of NATO and the West does not need to go back to Nazi Germany.

Seriously, are people worried that after 60 years of being part of the democratic and free West that Germany is in danger of getting aggressive imperial ambitions again with a side trip of genocide?

Just go back 20 years to a democratic Germany that still had a sizable military even if it didn't reach Cold War levels. NATO defenses would be good if Germany built the force structure of the mid-1990s.

Just stop the Nazi excuses for refusing to help defend the West.

How Sad is Russia's Nuclear Deterrent Force?

Hmmm:

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that elements of a U.S. anti-missile system in Alaska and South Korea were a challenge to Russia and that Moscow had no choice but to build up its own forces in response.

We have a thin missile defense force and Russia has a massive offensive nuclear force.

If America's missile defenses are a challenge to Russia, should we question whether Russia really has an effective missile force in reality as opposed to on paper?

The only way America's missile defenses are a challenge is if Russia's nuclear missile force is a Potemkin Deterrent with few missiles in working order.

Much of Russia's conventional military is a wreck, with only pockets of excellence backed by a narrow slice of adequate. Should I assume that Russia's nuclear force is any different despite the importance of getting that part right to make up for the weakness of the conventional military (especially compared to the long land borders of Russia)?

Or is it possible that Russia, which is in the midst of a policy of appeasement to China obscured by provoking tensions with NATO that is no threat, needs a convenient--if flimsy--excuse to build up forces in the Far East that otherwise would look uncomfortably anti-Chinese.

So what is going on?

Weekend Data Dump

Ah, Harvard. Basically, this is why I quit the American Historical Association back in 1991. Most in the profession just don't do history very well, it seems. Best and brightest, indeed.

I have no problem if blue states want to cripple their economies by adhering to Paris climate agreement standards. Enjoy! (But can Connecticut afford to do this?) I'm sure German automakers and Russian oil oligarchs will send a few bucks their way to encourage those states. And I'm sure that states that don't secede from American policy on this issue will do just fine. The states interested in upholding the Paris agreement have a quarter of America's GDP. America has a quarter of the global GDP. So if these states abide by their share of America's theoretical commitment to contributing to the agreement through 2030 (and if the rest of the world goes along with their own commitments--some of whom "committed" to emitting more and more CO2 for a while, recall), then those states will have the planet-saving effect by 2100 of preventing the planet from warming 0.003125 degrees Celsius (the entire world under those conditions would prevent .05 degrees Celsius warming, which means America would have responsibility for about .0125 degrees C (actually more since America is expected to do more than China and India who do nothing positive, but let's keep it simple). So states with a quarter of America's GDP would be expected to cover a quarter of that, or 0.003125 degrees Celsius of planet saving. Yay!

Democrats announce a Resistance Summer. Yawn. Even the Taliban have a greater sense of urgency given they announced a Spring Offensive weeks ago.

The Democratic Party has problems. Really, only the friendly mass media conceals the decline by shrilly amplifying Democratic policies (and anger management issues).

While I am sure that many on the left are sure Trump somehow inspired the Manchester terror attack, it looks like the bomber began his planning a year earlier. During the Obama administration. When hope and change ruled. When the world loved our president. Before any "Moslem ban" (no, it isn't) was issued. When--oh, you get the point. The jihadis hate all of us, people. Even those who shop at Whole Foods and proudly sport a COEXIST bumper sticker on their Prius.

You know, this is one of the best things I read this month. Despite the loud voices of mindless rage that the online world pours out, most people are just decent sorts living their lives without being defined by Twitter mob outrage. We all need that reminder, I think.

I'm not hostile to an administrative state if it remains within its proper role. But it is about time the federal administrative rules process is clubbed into submission.  A bureaucracy delegated to write rules to implement statutes is necessary to prevent statutes from becoming unwieldy in technical details. But legislative deference to policy experts in the bureaucracy requires reciprocal deference from those experts and the executive branch to the language and intent of statutes that guide the rules, rather than using the rules process to create wholly new quasi-statutes. I was an APA guy in my career and never understood why the state legislature threw away its ability to provide oversight to the rule-making process without a fight.

I will say that France and Europe are stepping up to police an admittedly smaller front in the war on terror in Mali and the surrounding regions. Best to nip this stuff in the bud. We help, too, of course.

Wait, so it is okay for a New York City millionaire to slam the media and undermine its credibility? Duly noted.

While there is much talk of the new Russian Armata tank design, Russia is far more likely to have upgraded older models like this new version of the T-72. And affording many of those could be a problem.

What's the matter with Portland, Oregon?

A reminder that "green on blue" attacks on Western troops by Afghan troops is usually an anger management issue arising from the society. Green on green (Afghan troops killing other Afghan troops) attacks just don't get the same publicity. And I'd bet good money that there are a lot of "red on red" attacks we never hear about.

Yeah, this has long scared the heck our of me. I've always kept eyes on my children when they are in the water rather than lie back and close my eyes. I've never really accepted the view of a beautiful coast--it's a big bad waiting to kill. Even the smaller cement version.

Dissent is not the highest form of Islam. This is not a normal reaction. Why liberals aren't the biggest cheerleaders for the war against jihadi terrorists and ideology is beyond me. But no, worry that theocracy is around the corner here in America under Trump. That's normal to worry about.

If "democracy dies in darkness," it is just as true that staring at the sun for so long blinds you. Sure, discussing Trump to the exclusion of almost anything else rather than policies drives ratings. But when journalistic bias converges with political bias, the results can't be good for democracy.

The Left: "Violent eliminationist rhetoric--as we define it--promotes assassinations." Oh, it's directed at Trump? Never mind. That's not how they define it, of course. This is where the expression "false patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" applies. And as long as we're at that post, I guess the Left will have to start saying "dissent assassination porn is the highest form of patriotism the Resistance."

"America is no longer a force for stability in the Gulf[.]" If you define "stability" as refusing to stop Iranian aggression and terrorism, and going along with Iran's nuclear ambitions, then yeah, America is no longer a force for stability in the Gulf. What we are now is a force for defeating Iran. That's what editors with a functioning brain stem would call it. That is something that will promote stability in the Gulf. But no, the editors have proclaimed that Obama gave us stability for our time in the Gulf. My how The Economist has fallen.

After 7 months of leaks that Trump was under investigation for Russia "collusion" (is that like offering "flexibility," perchance?), Comey said Trump was not actually under investigation. Suddenly there is a new leak that now--really--Trump is under investigation for obstruction of justice despite no underlying crime. This is banana republic stuff.

Okay, that was seriously odd. If the objective was to show the cabinet backing rather than backstabbing the president, there had to have been a better way to show a united front. Unless I'm missing some important context. Which is possible, all things considered. (Later: I finally listened to the entire clip rather than relying on the story. Yeah, there is context. First full cabinet meeting after finally making it through Democratic blockage in Senate. So there was a ceremonial aspect to this. And Trump started by praising his cabinet members. Nor did Trump "invite" his cabinet to compliment him. The oddness disappeared. Shame on me for accepting the framing of the issue. Why did I trust a HuffPost author--Igor Bobic--to interpret for me? Big mistake. How many people took the time to watch the video rather than just accept Bobic's slant?)

Terrorism motives die in darkness. Or in relentless spin, I suppose.

Oxford will let female students take their history exams home to answer. Just the women. All Oxford did is cheapen the value of a first-class degree for all women who have them--even those who don't need to take them home to complete. Do these people think these things through? Best and brightest, indeed. Tip to Instapundit.

Even if liberals achieved their dream of banning and confiscating all firearms from even law-abiding Americans, criminals and terrorists would still be able to get weapons. Or will liberals suddenly be in favor of tight controls of our land borders to prevent the influx of illegal guns for criminals and terrorists? Remember, criminals and terrorists are by definition willing to break laws for the purpose of thievery and murder. So violating gun laws is a minor factor.

Your political opponents are not evil. A Bernie Sanders and Rachel Maddow fan shot Republican Representative Scalise who is in rough shape and wounded 4 others (including 2 police) while Republicans were preparing for the Congressional baseball game. Given how Democrats react to any attack regardless of the facts by blaming Republicans, I should be blaming hate-filled Democratic and MSNBC rhetoric that has been flooding our society the last 7 months with a "climate of hate"--when it hasn't actually justified violence. But I won't. Just as the vast overwhelming majority of Republicans don't commit crimes because of over-the-top rhetoric (and just as the overwhelming majority of legal gun owners don't commit gun crimes), I can't in good conscience blame the violent and criminal choice of one rabid leftist on all liberals who have ignorantly flung the charge of "Nazi!" at Trump and Republicans. Yes, I think we make a mistake in thinking that the very visible media and Twitter hate truly reflect all of America in regard to the threat of political violence. But I will blame liberals for raising the war on civil discourse (through political language and refusal to restrain their "Antifa" storm troopers) to levels that make it impossible for them to even talk to their political opponents. Yes, the overwhelming majority of even the intolerant left aren't willing to resort to violence. But the intolerant left is figuratively killing debate by defining their opponents as evil.  Killing political debate is dangerous because if politics and rule of law for resolving politics are crippled, actual wide scale violence will be how differences are settled. That outcome will make Putin smile. Just stop. Your political opponents are not evil.

In related thoughts, you will struggle to find political insults or demonization of political opponents on The Dignified Rant (I'd say you absolutely won't find that, but your definitions may vary; and perhaps I had a bad day or two where I slipped up that I don't remember). In part that is because this is a defense and foreign affairs blog, to be sure. But in the Obama era, despite my conviction that he was a poor president, I did not ever resort to violence-friendly rhetoric. I worked from the assumption that President Obama was largely wrong and unjustifiably arrogant--but not evil. And consider that I've never been shy about the need to kill our actual foreign enemies. So it isn't some general thing. I'm fully capable of distinguishing between foreign enemies and domestic opponents.

Sure, the UAE may want to leverage the Saudi-led dispute with Qatar to get America to move our base from Qatar to the UAE, but I don't believe that is a major cause of the dispute revolving around Qatar ties to Iran and Islamists.  Besides, in a carrot-and-sticks approach to Qatar, America should hardly walk away from Qatar if the purpose of the pressure is to redirect Qatar away from Iran and Islamists a bit more rather than push Qatar fully into Iran's arms. Say, here's a carrot now. How nice we get to be the "good cop" in the good cop/bad cop routine. (Funny, I originally wrote that as "good cop/bad coup". My typo might have been more accurate.)

Otto Warmbier was released by North Korea. Warmbier didn't deserve to be imprisoned for the BS charges he was convicted of violating. But let's not forget that gulag tourists like Warmbier function as props to an evil regime that their hard currency hands over to the gulag. Warmbier apparently thought it would be an adventure to see close up--totally safe as the tour group promised--a regime that abuses its people. The regime turned on him despite the promise. Then it was no longer fun and games. I hope Warmbier recovers from the ordeal and health crisis that sent him into a coma while imprisoned. But I hope others who would finance the gulag with a UN seat learn a lesson from this episode.

Michigan resident James McCloughan will receive the Medal of Honor for his actions in battle in the Vietnam War. Render hand salute.

It is good that President Obama's opening to Cuba has been reversed (in part). It shocked me that supporters of President Obama's opening to Cuba said that since the American isolation of Cuba "hadn't worked" we had to give it up. One, so tenacious evil is to be given credit for being so tenacious? And two, it is wrong to say the isolation did not work. It weakened Cuba and prevented it from being a bigger threat--while also refusing to openly side with that evil. The idea that the measure of success for isolation was compelling Cuba to be a free democracy was always a false standard, although a free democratic Cuba has always been the ultimate goal. And it really annoyed me that just as Venezuela (picking up from the former Soviet Union) was faltering in its subsidy for Cuba that President Obama had taken on that role. No more.

Ordinary Democrats should reconsider leaning forward in Le Resistance. Sure, prominent entertainers and news people are doing it, but for them it is "marketing" their popularity and not "resisting" a dictatorship. Consequences are for the little people, remember.

Now that I think about it, isn't the preening faux "Resistance" against Trump culturally appropriating French resistance to actual dangerous Nazis in World War II?

Hackers tried to influence the 2015 Canadian election but failed. Wait. What? So the hackers weren't trying to get that one-man boy band Justin Trudeau elected?  Go figure.

An Iranian missile-armed ship harassed 3 US ships in the Strait of Hormuz. This is far more dangerous than speed boats flitting around our ships.  Because the Iranian missiles could inflict serious damage on our ships, our ships need to have a lower threshold for shooting first to prevent the Iranian ship from taking a shot at us. We can't afford to be lulled into passivity that gives Iran a chance at shooting first with deadly effect.

At the Interesting Part

An American F-18 Super Hornet shot down a Syrian Su-22 that had bombed militias backed by the United States in eastern Syria:

The U.S.-led coalition headquarters in Iraq said in a written statement that a U.S. F-18 Super Hornet shot down a Syrian government SU-22 after it dropped bombs near the U.S. partner forces, known as the Syrian Democratic Forces. The shootdown was near the Syrian town of Tabqa.

The U.S. military statement said it acted in "collective self defense" of its partner forces and that the U.S. did not seek a fight with the Syrian government or its Russian supporters.

I did say that determining who takes over in eastern Syria when ISIL is defeated would be the interesting part.

UPDATE: In related interesting news, the Iranians fired "several" ballistic missile into Syria from Iran in retaliation for the June 7th ISIL bombings in Iran.

I'm guessing Iran considers their strikes on target if the missiles landed in Syria.

It will really get interesting if Iran fires missiles at US or allied forces in Syria.

The Russian Threat

Russia doesn't have the military power to be a threat to everyone along their western borders at the same time, but they do have options to be threats on a narrow front along a wider region.

The Romanian ambassador to the United States notes the linkage between the conquest of Crimea and Russia's operations in Syria and the eastern Mediterranean Sea:

Crimea is being used more and more as a platform for power projection in the Black Sea. And even further, in the eastern Mediterranean, with certain ramifications toward Syria.

I've said that the Russian conquest of Crimea made power projection to Syria and the eastern Mediterranean Sea more effective and that the operation in Syria to defend bases in that country justify the conquest of Crimea:

Russia is beefing up their bases in Russian-occupied Crimea. This will allow Russia to exert power and influence against Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, and Georgia. I'd throw in Turkey, too, but Turkey might be bending to Russian power as a favor to a fellow autocrat as Turkey dismantles rule of law, which would then allow Russia to exert power and influence in the eastern Mediterranean in concert with bases in Syria.

Indeed, I highlighted the linkage before Russia invaded Crimea:

Pushing Russia away from the Black Sea--should Russia lose their bases in Crimea if Ukraine doesn't want them there any more--in the long run makes Russian operations in the Mediterranean much more difficult. That would make their help for Syria a bit more difficult and deprive Russia of some leverage in Egypt.

They are not separate issues even if I don't suspect the operations are part of a coherent single policy.

Just a fact of geography that leads Russia to push forward a defense screen to guard Russia from the southwest direction.

So I'd watch Turkey very closely to see if they are wobbly on NATO.

Romania is of course key to bolstering NATO operations in the Black Sea and keeping Russia from pushing through Ukraine to the gates of NATO in the Balkans.

Romania is committed to maintaining the NATO 2% of GDP defense spending goal.

Annihilate and Humiliate the Jihadi Losers

Because the only good jihadi is a dead jihadi, this is good news:

The U.S. is accelerating its fight against the Islamic State and radical Islamism. In his first interview as secretary of defense, James Mattis outlined the United States’ strategy. Mattis’ words carry weight because he is one of the few subordinates U.S. President Donald Trump seems to trust implicitly and to whom Trump has delegated significant responsibility. In the interview, Mattis said the war of attrition – pushing enemies out of their locations rather than destroying them completely – failed to produce the desired outcome. The U.S. will now fight a war of annihilation and humiliation against the enemy, which is not just IS but radical Islamism in general. Mattis expects the war to be a long fight, but he also expects to win.

I mentioned my agreement with focusing on what we do to enemies rather than worrying about what they do to us.

Mind you, this is no excuse to ignore collateral damage to civilians. We must always vocally contrast our care to avoid civilian deaths (while we ruthlessly and relentlessly go after jihadis) with our enemies' eagerness to kill civilians.

And the humiliation aspect is no mistake. No, we didn't humiliate the Germans after World War II. But we did annihilate and humiliate the Nazis who led Germans to ruin.

There is no reason we can't make the same distinction between Moslems and jihadis (not just ISIL), especially given that so many Moslem states are on our side to fight the jihadis--an advantage we did not have as we fought German armies across Africa, Italy, France, Belgium, and Germany itself.

Late in the last century, I tried to get an article published that focused on the need (and ability) to kill "the new warrior class" of fanatics identified early in the 1990shttp://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/Articles/1994/peters.htm. I even quoted Osama bin Laden before he made his name on September 11, 2001.

So let's get to serious killing. The war will be long enough as it is.

I think I should dig out that old article manuscript. It might have a more receptive audience these days.

So Puerto Rico Decided to Remain in the Dictatorship?

Isn't the fact that Puerto Rico has repeatedly refused to seek independence from America proof that America isn't the awful place that so many American liberals claim it is?

All over Europe, separatists strain to escape their national rulers. But here? When push comes to shove, there isn't a whole lot of interest in really "escaping":

Puerto Rico's referendum on statehood delivered a lackluster turnout Sunday, with almost four fifths of voters deciding not to cast a ballot, though those who did unanimously backed the territory becoming a US state.

A weak turnout had been predicted, given the call by opposition parties -- which supported the status quo -- for a boycott of the non-binding vote.

Even on the eve of the Trumptatorship, Puerto Ricans think staying in America is just fine.

And if they ever decide to leave, American troops won't be sent as little green men to persuade them to stay. We'd wish them well and concluded trade and travel deals as we do with any other foreign state.

Maybe liberal Californians still in a panic about Trump will migrate in large numbers to Puerto Rico in time to lead their ignorant Caribbean brethren into exiting America in the next referendum.

The Return of Heavy Forces

In an effort to get ready for potential high intensity combat, the Army is adding heavy brigades at the expense of lighter units:

The U.S. Army is planning to move pre-positioned stock stationed in South Korea back to the continental United States in order to outfit an armored brigade combat team, according to Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley.

The move is part of a bigger effort to rebalance brigade combat teams to emphasize the need for heavy, armored BCTs over lighter infantry BCTs. The Army is converting an infantry brigade combat team to create a 15th armored brigade combat team and will build the 16th using the pre-positioned stock from South Korea.

This is good. I agree.

But is taking the equipment from unit set stockpiles in South Korea the best idea?

I know that North Korea's army is rotting away, but are we so confident that South Korea can handle the north with just American air and missile support?

But I guess our stockpiles of weapons are so thin that the Army needs the equipment already in place if it wants a heavy brigade soon rather than scraping up equipment from stockpiles not in unit sets. That's disturbing.

But perhaps the pre-positioned unit set in South Korea will be rebuilt when money is available.

Are the Israelis Sure They Want to Run With This Criticism?

Some Israeli officers think that America's emphasis on defeating the ISIL caliphate is counter-productive?

Sure, if America thinks the defeat of ISIL is the end of the war against jihadis begun after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks by al Qaeda.

But why is focusing on the one group of jihadis with a proto-state counter-productive?

Is Israel really enjoying the jihadi proto-states of Hamas-run Gaza and Hezbollah-run southern Lebanon?

Is Israel really enjoying the mullah-run Shia jihadi state of Iran that has nuclear weapons within its reach?

Is scattering jihadis so they are more of an intelligence and police power really counter-productive?

Hell, if so, maybe Israel should reconsider their very existence as a state that gathers Jews into one territory. Maybe Israel would be stronger and harder to defeat if Jews were scattered in separate countries across the globe.

Yeah, the notion sounds stupid when you put it that way.

(Although if Iran gets nukes, the advice might be better. Might the Israeli settler movement reconsider their role in that environment?)

Crush ISIL. Jihadi sanctuaries are bad. And then continue the war.

Do Not Become Confused

President Duterte's flirtation with China seems to be ending as the Philippines realizes how bad an idea that really is:

Chinese efforts to buy the cooperation of the Philippines in the South China Sea dispute have failed as Filipinos realized that there was little gain in the long run by giving in to Chinese demands. Although China became the largest trading partner with the Philippines this year most Filipinos did the math and realized the Chinese dictatorship could turn that around without warning. It now seemed that the Americans were a better long-term ally because the Americans have no old territorial claims in the neighborhood, are a democracy and have a long history of good behavior.

Luckily, no damage has been done during the period of confusion.

From the Duh Files

I don't understand why people seem so puzzled about the purpose of the fake suicide vests worn by the London terrorists who used a van to run down people and then dismounted to stab people.

Was it to deter police from shooting them? Hardly. The vests would encourage police to shoot them before they could detonate in a crowd.

Was it to take hostages? Maybe. But the terrorists didn't act like they were out to grab people and retreat to some covered area to hold them. What evidence is there for this scenario other than the assumption that this is what the vests were for?

Was it to create maximum fear? Running people down and stabbing them seemed to be enough for that. That's a lot of effort that will get you shot by the police even at the risk of killing a single hostage to avoid an explosion that kills many, isn't it?

Please, the sole purpose was to prevent large numbers of unarmed people from overwhelming the knife-wielding attackers because of a justifiable fear that getting close to the attackers to hit them with table legs or chairs or fists would get the terrorists to set off the bomb. This fake bomb was purely to buy the terrorists time before armed police arrive to stab as many people as they could.

I honestly couldn't believe this explanation didn't lead the speculations.

And if you keep reading that article, you find one man who experienced the attack quoted as saying exactly that. That charging the knife-armed jihadis would just get him killed in an explosion. Duh. But experts couldn't grasp that.

Stop trying so hard. Sometimes the obvious explanation is just fine.

It Seemed Like Such a Good Idea at the Time

The Chinese might want to consider whether their client state North Korea bows and scrapes to Peking because the North Koreans don't have much choice for now.

Oh, for decades it was all fun and games for China--oh how they laughed!--when North Korea threatened South Korea, Japan, and America with nuclear seas of fire. But now?

China is within striking distance of North Korea's nuclear-tipped missiles, a North Korean lecturer told a group of state officials about a week after the test of the midrange missile Hwasong-12.

The statement is an unusual expression of overt hostility from Pyongyang toward its most important economic partner.

On the one hand, the statement is just the obvious. China would be in the blast radius of a North Korean nuke moved by train and detonated on the North Korean side of the Yalu River.

But North Korea made the effort to make the ant-China statement.

So if China doesn't agree to do something about North Korea's nuclear ambitions (alone or with America and our allies), China might get nations like Japan and South Korea armed with both missile defenses and offensive nuclear missiles to hold off a North Korean nuclear threat plus a North Korea that feels free to threaten China when the North Koreans believe they can get away with it.

Bravo.

Why Russians Can Sleep at Night is Beyond Me

If China's drive to build economic links to Europe falter, China will be stuck making do with inroads to but not through Russia and Central Asia. Is Russia fine with that?

As I've argued, the Chinese economic drive to Europe is really a foreign policy problem for Russia:

But really, the Belt Road Initiative (aka Silk Road initiative) is a focus on the interior of Asia as a path to Europe. So really we are talking about Central Asia where former Soviet republics could lead to the Middle East and then to the Mediterranean and Europe; or through Russia for a path to Europe.

Which means China isn't a threat to American influence but a threat to Russian influence in Central Asia, Russian freedom of action, and even Russian dominance of their own sparsely populated but resource-rich Far East (of which large chunks were seized from China in the 19th century).

Really, if China is putting a lot of money into building trade routes to Europe, is China going to be happy with Russian military adventures in Europe and the Middle East that threaten Chinese trade?

Won't China attempt to exert more restraint over Russian aggressiveness in the west?

As alarming as this should be for Russia, these are problems caused by China simply going through Russia and former Russian territories in Central Asia to reach Europe.

What happens if China's vast expenditures of money to build those trade links falter upon reaching (non-Russian) Europe?

[It was once true that China needed European technology and Europe needed China's markets,] but it doesn't really apply any longer seeing as Chinese companies are buying the coveted technology from sources all over the globe and are busy extending their own know-how at home. At the same time, the Chinese market is losing its appeal to European companies since Beijing is still refusing foreign companies full access to its markets. Indeed, European Union countries severely curtailed investments in China over the past year.

What will China do when the money that China can ill-afford to squander on this One Belt One Road initiative leaves them sitting in Russia and Central Asia with no place to go to earn a return on that investment?

Right now, Russia exerts influence in their former Central Asian provinces through the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO):

The CSTO is merely a Russian policy tool employed in the post-Soviet space, lacking inherent value as a stand-alone body. Moscow allies that are constituent members of the CSTO cannot publicly support Russia since they are not immune to international pressure. Still, differences in opinion have proven insufficient to drastically alter foreign policy vectors or attitudes towards integration projects with Russia. CSTO member states are economically weak and as a consequence, remain dependent on the Kremlin – a fact that the latter will no doubt be all too aware of.

What happens when China enters these areas with money and large hopes to earn a return? Won't China try to earn profits from where they are rather than abandon their investments? Won't that come at Russia's expense?

Will these Central Asian states reliant on Russia find that China is a useful counter-weight to Russia and allow these states to separate their policies from Russia's objectives?

Heck, will Russia enduring Chinese pressure to make the Russia route pay off for China find it has larger worries in its own Far East than worrying about Chinese inroads in Central Asia?

And will Russia fight China to retain their influence and sovereignty in these areas of growing Chinese influence that will develop as One Belt One Road advances west but falls short of fully reaching the West in practical terms (which would eliminate a Greek nuclear option to avoid their debts)?

If it comes to that, Moscow will rue the day it decided to alienate NATO by treating NATO as a threat rather than a potential ally just to disguise Russian appeasement of China in the post-Soviet era of Russian weakness.