Getting Ready

China is exercising their military near Taiwan:

Chinese jets and warships carried out exercises near Taiwan and into the Western Pacific on Thursday, as the self-ruled island's defense minister warned of a growing threat from its giant neighbor.

Democratic Taiwan is increasingly concerned over China's military designs, especially recent rounds of Chinese drills near Taiwan. Beijing has never renounced the use of force to take control of what it deems a wayward province.

China has two missions in a war with Taiwan. Getting ashore in force by air and sea assault; and delaying an American response long enough for China to get ashore in force. Achieve the latter and the cost of American intervention goes up, making it less likely America will intervene.

Remember, China doesn't have to defeat America in order to conquer Taiwan. China just has to keep the war a China-Taiwan fight long enough to defeat Taiwan. So delaying our intervention is a priority task for the Chinese military in plans to capture Taiwan.

Practicing large-scale operations is obviously one way to make the invasion threat more credible. One reason people tend to say China can't invade is that it would cost China too much to invade. Which is different than saying China "can't" invade.

My position has long been that China can invade and win if they are willing to endure the casualties. Exercises that make the PLA better will reduce casualties--and so perhaps drop the price China would have to pay to win below the no-go level.

And operating in the western Pacific puts China in the position to delay American forces approaching Taiwan.

Less obviously, if China makes these exercises--at the end of non-typhoon season--more routine while making them bigger and more comprehensive, China dulls Taiwanese reaction to such drills.

In time, those routine exercises can provide a cover for mobilizing forces for an actual "bolt from the blue" invasion that minimizes the time Taiwan and their primary allies America and Japan have to react to deter or defeat an invasion.

And if China wraps up their conquest by the end of April, an American-led counter-attack is the operation that could be thrown off by typhoons roaring through the area.

I really don't know why Russia doesn't prop up Taiwanese defenses. You'd think the Russians, who have a lot of former Chinese territory, would like the top priority of China's list of territories to be restored to Chinese authority to remain stuck on Taiwan as long as possible so Russia's Far East doesn't rise to the top of the list.

Putin Hasn't Lost. The Issue is Still in Doubt

As long as we don't let Russia get away with their aggression against Ukraine and threats to other neighbors, Putin's territorial conquests and foreign adventures can end up hurting Russia and Putin.

Yes, Putin's aggression in Ukraine and intervention in Syria, along with other acts intended to spread Russian influence (or blunt Western influence in Russia), haven't paid dividends to Russia:

Ever since the stunning Russian takeover of Crimea in early 2014, it has become popular to regard Russian President Vladimir Putin as some kind of geopolitical genius. The international media regularly depicts him as a James Bond-style supervillain, always a few steps ahead of his hapless Western opponents as he determines the fate of the world from the depths of his Kremlin lair. It is easy to imagine Putin taking personal pleasure in such hyperbole, seeing it as a reflection of Russia’s resurgence and his own prominent place in history. If he is honest with himself, however, there must also be moments when he reflects on the mounting costs of his Crimean conquest and regrets ever having given the fateful order to invade.

Not yet anyway. It depends on whether the West decides it has punished Russia enough and wants to get back to business as usual.

I suspect that if Russia had stopped with the seizure of Crimea that Russia could have gotten away with that lightning conquest against a country in chaos whose armed forces were temporarily neutralized by the street protests in Kiev that toppled the pro-Russian government.

The problem for Putin came with the follow-up low-level ongoing aggression against Ukraine's Donbas region that only partially worked and remains a source of tension in Western-Russian relations (not to mention Ukraine-Russian relations).

And of course, this should demonstrate the nonsense of painting Russia's subliminal war of necessity--against a country incapable of resistance--as a brilliant "hybrid" form of new warfare.

Russia would have been far better off if they could have pulled off a lightning conquest of the Donbas with Cold War-era tanks backed my Interior Ministry troops. But the Russians lacked the military to do that and so they used what they could while Western analysts claimed how brilliant Putin is.

And here they are. Russia hasn't won. Not yet anyway. And until they either win or retreat to restore ties to the West, Russia will endure pain.

The question is do we help Russia's enemies make sure that Russia doesn't manage to get a win out of their adventures.

Unity of Command Falters

It is great that 3rd Fleet is sending assets like the Carl Vinson carrier group into the Western Pacific to bolster our deployments. But it is insane to have separate lines of command for the 7th Fleet forces already there and 3rd Fleet elements sent into the same area:

The USN said that while deployed, the Carl Vinson CSG will remain under US 3rd Fleet command and control, including beyond the international dateline, which previously divided operational areas of responsibility for the 3rd and 7th fleets.

Isn't unity of command a thing?

Seriously, Don't Worry About McMaster

Questions about whether Islamist jihadis represent all of Islam and whether new National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster thinks the jihadis are part of Islam or not miss the point:

Mr. McMaster’s White House arrival was met with scorn from strategists and analysts who advocated linking Islam to groups such as the Islamic State. They view the teachings of the Sunni Salafi movement as the ideology driving the Islamic State, al Qaeda and other Islamist groups to justify mass killings.

Like Mr. Trump, they want to label the enemy as a way of framing the debate on how to destroy it. They maintain that the Islamic State, rather than being un-Islamic, is rooted in Muslim scholarship and cannot be separated from Islam.

Mr. McMaster, on the other hand, has stated that the “Islamic State is not Islam.” He does not like labels such as “radical Islam.”

Of course, jihadis don't represent all of Islam. The fact that most victims of these jihadi scum are Moslems should indicate that. Afghanistan's national security advisor said as much:

"It is inappropriate to associate terrorism with Islam, because it fails to understand, to appreciate, the sacrifices that the Muslims are making in order to defeat terrorism, and the suffering that the Muslims have had at the hands of the terrorists," he told participants of the Asian Security Conference, being held this year in New Delhi.

The jihadis represent a small--although distressingly large enough to sustain a widespread terror campaign and lately a proto-state--portion of Moslems. These jihadis wish to define Islam in their hate- and murder-filled vision.

And mind you, by the nature of Islam which in theory combines religious and governmental roles, a higher percentage of Moslems have beliefs that conflict with Western notions of individual freedom and the rejection of a state-established church. But that's a separate issue. The West moved beyond that and so too can the Moslem world, in time. Indeed, when you look at how Moslem states are organized, with governing and legislative bodies that reflect Western designs, they've already made progress on that change.

The jihadis obviously draw from Islamic scripture to defend their version of Islam. There can be no doubt of that. Whether or not they are theologically accurate in their vision of Islam is irrelevant. Religious power grows from the barrel of a gun in this case.

So if the jihadis win the civil war within Islam, then the jihadis will get to define all of Islam as their hateful brand and enforce it on people far less willing to kill and torture and terrorize to get their way.

Which is why American help in fighting, killing, and defeating the jihadis is so important. We need to help the majority of non-jihadi Moslems defend a version of Islam that doesn't seek to kill us all--Westerners and non-compliant Moslems alike.

I personally think that the jihadis should be called "radical Islamists." Not because it automatically means we will fight them. Mere word choice doesn't mean that. Indeed, McMaster led troops in Iraq to kill them and defeat them quite effectively.

And I certainly don't prefer that kind of wording to taint all Moslems. Indeed, I prefer to call the jihadis radical Islamists or some other such term in order to distinguish them from the majority of Moslems who are not jihadis or their fanboys.

Given that the jihadis themselves are the ones who claim to speak for all Moslems--whether those people currently agree with that position of authority--you'd think this would be a rational distinction we could all agree on using.

So don't worry about McMaster despite his statements on the words, which I don't think is as accommodating as his critics allege, anyway. He will work to kill and defeat the jihadis. And as I've written, I think killing and defeating the jihadis is the best way to undermine their ideology.

I don't think McMaster is going to be the problem in waging war on these jihadi monsters.

UPDATE: In regard to this civil war, explain to me again why Western leftists side with the Islamists so much? Tip to Instapundit. Indeed, the efforts made to blame the Orlando terror attack on conservatives rather than Islamism was just bizarre.

UPDATE: Eric at Learning Curve emails that McMaster in many ways tested out the COIN approach of the surge with his successful campaign at Tal Afar. So he is much more than a successful combat commander. I agree. But thought that simply pointing out his pointy stick background would get the point across that he will be just fine.

Unclear on the Concept: Free Germany Edition

Do the best and brightest of Germany's elites angle to run the sports ministries, and such? Because the German foreign minister truly hasn't a clue:

Sigmar Gabriel, whose Social Democratic Party is Chancellor Angela Merkel's junior coalition partner, said a decision by Germany to raise defense spending from around 1.3 percent of its gross domestic product today to NATO's target of 2 percent could cause angst elsewhere in Europe, given the country's militaristic past.

"This would be a defense supremacy, a military supremacy in Europe," he said during a visit to the Estonian capital of Tallinn. "I think our neighbors wouldn't like to see this in 10 to 15 years."

So the only thing stopping democratic Germany from rampaging through Europe again is their lack of a military to do so? Seriously? All that de-Nazification and decades of democracy and pacifism haven't made Germans a safe people who can be trusted with the means to defend themselves? That's his story?

Germany did have a capable military in the Cold War with the best European tank force without lighting latent fires of gaining living space. Why are Germans incapable of that now?

Let me repeat what I've advised Germans nervous about rebuilding their military power:

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.

Germany's military is insignificant and I wouldn't bet on it being able to control widespread riots by migrants in their cities.

I just don't see evidence that the Germans will get real about national defense. Their foreign minister's views on hard power don't inspire me.

And given the background of their defense minister who oversees the ramshackle German military, I have to ask just what ministries do the best and brightest of Germany seek to run?

Good Lord, how many European countries have diplomatic-military combinations that match the surrender duo America had for a while recently?

UPDATE: Seriously, what is wrong with the Germans?

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel on Thursday warned about the danger of a new arms race spiral with Russia and called on all sides to work to end the violence in eastern Ukraine as a first step towards broader disarmament efforts.

Germany is so far from being in an arms race that it is ridiculous to raise this issue. Race-wise, Germany needs to stop their chain-smoking habit, quit eating sausages, and perhaps scale back on their beer consumption before they can think of being in an arms walk, let alone a race.

What alternate reality do the Germans live in these days, anyway?

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid

A journalist who works for a French news agency and writes from Russia mockingly asks if this is the Russia we--the West--are so afraid of, after writing anecdotes of problems in Russia.

Yes, this is the Russia we are so afraid of.

A Russia with all those problems has rough parity in strategic nuclear weapons and even more tactical nukes.

A Russia that devotes so much effort to attacking Georgia and Ukraine to restore the empire despite all those problems.

A Russia that threatens other small nations who in no way are a threat to Russia.

A Russia that maintains the ability and loudly practices assaults on neighbors.

A Russia whose president has built a separate military force loyal to him personally.

A Russia that is trying to undermine the West.

A Russia that is destroying every day the fledgling democracy it acquired after the collapse of the Soviet Union

Yes, all those things mean we in the West have reason to be afraid.

Oh, America is far stronger than Russia. And Europe has the potential to be far stronger. So I'm not afraid that NATO will be invaded and occupied by the Russians.

But Russia could start clawing back land by conquering former people who want to remain free because Russia is close and America is far.

And Russia could regain strength that they lost to restore the position that the Soviet Union once had--a threat that could conquer important parts of NATO to defeat NATO.

Those are reasons to fear a Russia that would rather build a threat to the West than deal with all those problems the author writes about. So we know Russia's priorities under Putin.

Although to be fair to the author, perhaps it was just the New York Times that wrote the title who feels that way.

Or perhaps I really misunderstand and the editors are mocking the newly Russia-phobic Democrats.

Shall We Propose a New INF Treaty?

Stratfor notes that the 1987 INF treaty restricts the development and deployment of shorter range "theater" nukes that Russia really needs to deter a strengthening China that has theater missiles that can strike Russia.

Do read it all.

The issue is the SSC-8 cruise missile that Russia has based it in Kapustin Yar and one other unnamed location inside Russia.The range is unclear, so I don't know if the missiles there would pose a threat to the Chinese or Western Europe. And that's a test facility, so the unit may not remain there. Obviously I have no clue about the other site.

Under the INF treaty, Western Europe benefits from a lack of such Russian missiles aimed at them; and Russia benefits from a lack of such missiles based in Europe aimed at Russia.

On balance, I figured we should want to keep INF--if we can convince Russia to observe it.

One thing Stratfor raises that I hadn't considered was that a stronger China threatens American forces in the Pacific with these theater missiles (which I knew) that because of the treaty we can't build up in response (it hadn't occurred to me that we might want to respond in kind).

Perhaps America and Russia could revise the INF treaty to allow development of these missiles with a longer range than currently allowed to be useful for theater use (which Russia really needs to deter China) but not for intercontinental use; and focus the revised treaty to a limit on deploying such missiles only in Europe.

Sure, Russia and America could aim such theater weapons at each other given the nearness of Russia's Far East to America's Alaska, but the primary result would be to allow Russia and America to aim them at China.

Yet the lack of American bases in the western Pacific that makes them vulnerable to Chinese theater missiles also restricts where we can deploy our own theater missiles, no? Doesn't responding in kind to China by basing missiles on our few bases just increase China's need to hit them harder and early in a war?

On the whole, I think I'd rather keep the INF in some form. But if Russia insists it needs to escape the limits because of China, we have room to revise it, I think.

This would be an American-Russian agreement that I could live with. Even Democrats looking for Russkies under White House beds could get behind a nuclear weapons limit, no? Or have they gone full Doctor Strangelove on us?

And such a treaty would also be a nice point of friction between Russia and China. So bonus.

Weekend Data Dump

A Dutch frigate will join an American carrier strike group. Note that this is a benefit of NATO that allows America to work with allies despite different equipment. And the Dutch gain the logistical tail of our Navy that allows their ship to deploy on distant missions.

Then it isn't science:  "Science is facing a 'reproducibility crisis' where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests."

That science problem above is okay, because a lot of Americans believe science-like pronouncements--like microaggressions.  You know what you call aggressions so small that you need PhDs to tell you they exist? Nonexistent. Possibly fantasy. Or maybe projection. Mind you, sometimes people are rude. Sometimes they say bigoted things. And sometimes some people are just too damned sensitive for their own good.

The head of PACOM wants Army fires assets to be used in an anti-ship role. While I am not philosophically opposed to such a capability, given that the Army once had a coastal defense role; the Marines also had that role and are already meshed with the Navy. And the Navy has their own ground component, the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC). So I'd rather the Navy exploit opportunities with those organizations first, given the Army missions around the world with a small force. UPDATE: Ah, this is why there is sudden talk of Army coastal defense: ATACMS now has an anti-ship capability. But why can't the Navy or Marines buy these, too, if the Navy is eager to have this capability?

Turkey may buy Russian S-400 air defense missiles. I'm worried enough about Turkey flipping to Russia--however unwise that may be--so Turkey reassuring NATO that Greece also has Russian missiles (the S-300) doesn't comfort me.

I'm perplexed. I keep hearing that Europe with its low birth rate needs immigrants--regardless of how well assimilated they can become--to work in Europe. Yet Italy, with one of the lowest birthrates in the world, has a crisis with a youth (18-25) unemployment rate of  36%. I'm surely too deficient in nuance to appreciate how all those things can be true at once.

Contrary to my complaint in the last weekend data dump, is America not backing the Tripoli government and excluding Hiftar and others in the east? I ask because the American AFRICOM commander said that the factions must be brought together. Is that new or am I just newly aware of that?

While I often annoyed at the French government, because I am not an inherently cruel man I would never wish this form of revenge on the French.

Russia is weaker than America. But Russia is stronger than their western neighbors who are our friends and allies. So Russia has the initial advantage until NATO can react. Moving American power to the region is the best way to make correcting that imbalance easier. I'm on board (see my article in that issue) with that notion.

CNN and the NYT don't root for any president? I suppose accepting Barack Obama as your personal Lord and Savior doesn't count as "rooting." Tip to Instapundit.

Every Republican is forced by reporters to reject the views of the reprehensible David Duke, who could never organize a rally sufficient to fill a phone booth (kids, ask your parents what that was); but no reporters will ever ask Democratic leaders to renounce a convicted terrorist, Rasmea Yousef Odeh, who along with other radicals and Maoists wants to organize a more aggressive women's march in opposition to Trump. Again, tip to Instapundit.

Famine threatens in South Sudan, Somalia, northern Nigeria, and Yemen. This has nothing to do with borders drawn by others. Not that the author claimed that. But it is a common complaint to shift blame. Somalia is an artificial state unofficially broken apart; Nigeria is a binary state that took a bloody civil war to hold together despite religious and tribal divisions that still support conflict; South Sudan was actually split from Sudan to correct one of those externally drawn borders; and Yemen was unified to correct another of those externally drawn borders. The author is still a partisan idiot, conflating a lack of compassion for failing to help (under the Obama administration) with Trump's executive order that rightly admits that the chaos in Yemen and South Sudan make people coming from there potential threats. Also, the author puts some of the blame for South Sudan in part on the failure of the UN to impose an arms embargo. Which is nonsense. Recall that a UN arms embargo just managed to screw Bosnian Moslems in the 1990s.

Recently, the news came out that American life expectancy dipped in 2015. It is just one year and is small, so may be a blip. But I do find it humorous that as Democrats defend Obamacare as such a wondrous thing, that the dip followed the introduction of Obamacare policies in 2014. A coincidence, I'm sure.

"The Resistance" is nothing like the Tea Party, even though Democrats like to compare their new movement to the Tea Party. (Tip to Instapundit.) Which is odd, considering how the Democrats demonized the Tea Party. Yes, the Tea Party was a revolt against debt and business as usual that focused on the Republican Party to reform it to slow down federal spending. The Resistance is only like the Tea Party in that they both focused on the Republican Party. So The Resistance is just another public face of the same old left-wing forces going back to at least MoveOn.org that demonize Republicans.

I hope the media points out the fake news from President Trump that we've spent $6 trillion dollars on the Middle East this century. The figure is utter nonsense. You'd have to assume that virtually all defense spending in that time was for the Middle East.

While our fossil fuel production has been key in dropping prices despite the relatively marginal amount, just the ability through fracking to keep supply higher than demand despite OPEC supply changes helps with the price. But the article also notes that this price relief does not mean we can walk away from the Middle East's problems. If our allies and trading partners lose access to that oil, they will crash and burn and we will suffer too.

The 50 Cent Army has come to the Obamacare Facebook page to defend the act.

As I noted in this recent post, don't root against Germany's Merkel given her rivals.

Hey, I don't live there. I say California should feel free to set up a single-payer system for health care.

Yes, I remember leading a small group of soldiers through land navigation to reach a destination, plus finding a spot on a map using grid coordinates and providing grid coordinates for a position on a map. It's a good skill to have just in case.

With America, China, Afghanistan, India, Russia, and even a good chunk of Pakistan's people upset with Pakistan's support of jihadis, explain to me again how that support advances Pakistani security?

In true Soviet-style "if you disagree with us you must be crazy" approach to dissent, Bill Nye wants science to explain why "deniers" don't think that the climate changers are right from trends, to causes, to solutions. Maybe it is because people like Bill Nye are on their side and really don't act like scientists who know what they talk about. Note that Nye bothered to brush up on Tucker Carlson's family size more than the science Carlson asked Nye about--to no avail. There is real science being conducted. But when Nye says our climate would be like it was in 1750 without human activity, that runs counter to the science I've read that says human emissions have only been great enough to affect the climate since 1950. Nye is exactly the sort of man who would make a great kangaroo court judge.

From the intersection of Echelon Above Reality and Good God You've Got to Be Kidding Me.

The Russians are working to regain influence in their old stomping grounds in the Balkans.

Yes, it is an odd dictator who responds to a flawed court ruling over an executive order by revising the order to conform to their concerns.

Oh good grief. The proper response to someone who says "ouch" in class is not to say "oops," but to glare, urge them to "bugger off" and continue your point. Truly, Putin must wonder how Russia lost the Cold War to America. To be fair, those types aren't the ones likely to join the pointy end of our stick. Tip to Instapundit.

A French artist emerged from a rock after a week? Big deal. An American journalist emerged from a bubble after 8 years. 'Merica.

China continues their strategy of talking to ASEAN nations to buy time for their unilateral efforts to exert control over the South China Sea continues.

Liberals are ragingly upset that Trump saluted a Navy SEAL who died in battle, with his widow at Trump's speech to Congress? I have one thing to say: the Khan Gold Star family at the Democratic National Convention in 2016. Democrats took the fallen soldier's parents on a week-long partisan ride. I didn't blog about it once out of respect to the soldier and out of respect for the loss by the family.

I'm a basically happy man and I am rarely bored. So I guess I'm not vulnerable to becoming an outrage junkie. And when you don't have real outrages, you just make them from nothing (tip to Instapundit).

American aircraft launched an air strike on al Qaeda in Yemen. And then there was another wave. And a third. Yet the January 29th ground raid that likely provided the intelligence for these strikes is called "botched" in that last article. Okey dokey.

People upset that the American presidency has become so powerful should reconsider their support for Congressional term limits. Congress is the only conceivable check on presidential power and if that is gutted by weakening the legislative branch, we'll make control of the presidency--as an elected autocrat--even more important. Which will make partisan divisions far worse.

There are problems in Middle Eastern culture that have held progress back. You can see the difference a changed culture makes by considering that Arabs in America have been successful by plugging into a Western culture that encourages progress.

Russia has offered the Libyans their help in unifying the western and eastern parts of Libya. Why we aren't trying to bring Hiftar into the government structure is beyond me. By all means, let the Russians succeed and return to Libya to support their position in the Black Sea-Eastern Mediterranean.

I've called feminists the women's auxiliary of liberalism. Apparently the feminists find that insufficiently left-wing as the feminists join ranks with the actual women's auxiliary to the communists. And the feminists say Trump has unsavory friends? Really? Tip to the Instapundit Borg.

A Strategypage overview of Afghanistan.

Draining the swamp in the federal government will require ending the Obama practice of using law suit settlements to fund liberal groups.  I've read that another form of this scam was to have liberal groups sue the federal government which the Obama administration--having encouraged the suit because it agreed--then settled in favor of the liberal group. This is corruption, straight up. And a way to bypass Congressional power of appropriation and legislation to advance executive objectives. That has to stop.

Europe opened their borders to Moslem refugees. Yet despite the clamor from the American Left that the Trumptatorship has descended in America, the EU signals (without any intention of going through with it) opposition to letting in any who flee America lest they be put in camps: "The European Parliament passed a non-binding resolution calling on the European Commission to block U.S. citizen's visa-free travel to the EU."

In their best Crocodile Dundee accent, the Turks tell Trump, "That's not a wall. That's a wall."

Sweden has restored their Gotland Island garrison, reactivated coastal defenses, and now restores the draft. Although this appears to be only for the purpose of maintaining their too low paper strength rather than expanding their military.

Iran has lost a thousand men KIA in Syria so far? That is just Iranians? If so, the body count of the Shia foreign legion that Iran recruits and sends to be the shock troops for the Assad regime must be far larger. Or does that 1K include Iran-sponsored foreign recruits?

Strategypage looks at military innovations from the 20th century and those for this century.

I have no problem with Vice President Pence being punished under Indiana state law for risking state secrets because he used a private email account while governor as long as Hillary Clinton is punished under federal law for risking state secrets from setting up and using her private email server.

If Cul-de-sac Communists want to assault people on campus as they pretend they are in the vanguard of a revolution, perhaps they should be put in Gitmo for a bit to reflect on whether they really want to be unlawful combatants at war with America.  I don't really think that. But you have to admit that from their point of view, it makes sense. Tip to Instapundit.

There has been an apparent surge of Jewish cemetery vandalism and threats to Jewish targets. Which is awful. But I find it odd that Trump supporters are assumed by the press to be the guilty party when the Left and their Islamist allies have been the major forces of anti-Semitism these days.

Okay, this is really, really, really stupid. I guess all those beheading and atrocity videos that jihadis release online are just audition tapes. Tip to Instapundit.

Good grief, my American Express check took 11 and maybe even 12 days to make it to them. I know that isn't their fault, but come on. So they hit me with a late fee and interest. They did not remove that charge for being oddly two days late. One, I will pay over the phone from now on at the last minute. And two, I put that card away for the rest of the year. For one thing, I don't want to risk another ding in a short period despite my intentions that could get reported. So why take chances using the card? But just as important morale-wise, that protective measure will cost them much more than what they gained from the added charges I will pay. Mind you, I'll have gotten over this well before this posts. I don't cling to outrage like a precious possession. But how many decades have I been a customer, anyway? Sorry, this is just a personal rant. I always pay my bills in full and it really offends me to have added charges imposed. First World problem, of course!

Some Yale student radicals want their school to rename the Schwarzman Center because of the donor's financial support for Trump. Wait until those snow flakes find out who their entire school was named after! I suggest the school be renamed "Snow Flake U", the entire endowment be donated for reparations, and just cut to the chase on this slow descent into madness at SFU. Best and brightest, indeed.

Trade Follows the Flag--Or Else

Morocco has weaponized the migrant and refugee flow into Spanish territory:

On Monday, February 6, Morocco’s agriculture minister, Aziz Akhannouch, released a statement warning that any obstacles to his country’s agriculture and fishing exports to Europe could renew the “migration flows” that Rabat has “managed and maintained” with “sustained effort.”

If friendly Morocco could do this, is it really hard to imagine that Russia and Assad have weaponized migrant flows to harm Europe?

Note that this migrant crisis with Spain is also related to the Western Sahara issue that I recently noted. From the initial article:

The backdrop to the recent spikes in mass breakthroughs at the border are legal challenges to Rabat’s trade deals with the EU. A case is currently being heard at the Court of Justice of the European Union brought by the Polisario Front, which has been fighting Morocco’s annexation of Western Sahara for almost four decades.

It's more than a battle over trade policy. So Morocco is playing hardball.

I have no idea if the legal challenge puts Morocco's control of Western Sahara territory at risk, but Morocco doesn't seem like it is willing to take a chance.

And in related news, I'm reasonably sure these talks were basically about how many zeros would be on the German check:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel met with Egypt's president on Thursday to discuss ways of slowing migration to Europe.

At least Europeans don't deal in pallets full of cash.

The Long Rant

One month into his presidency, and Trump is already fueling jihadi terrorism?

Oh good grief:

Through carefully selected language and—for the most part—considered policy, the United States has worked to expose the lies and convince young Muslims drawn by the propaganda toward hate that they are welcome and appreciated in America.

That era appears to be over. President Donald Trump, in office for less than two months, has gutted the strategy used by Republicans and Democrats alike—out of ignorance, hubris or both—sending a new message from the White House, one that reinforces the jihadi extremists’ propaganda and increases the likelihood that more Americans will die in attacks.

Wow. In barely over a month Trump has totally undone the tremendous progress President Obama made (and bonus for now lumping in Bush 43 in that grand continuity of effort--once he was the Devil himself) to weaken and discredit the jihad?

Wait. What? The situation got worse under Obama?

People, we just finished 8 years of President Barack Hussein Obama with a culturally sensitive outreach to the Islamic world supercharged by his middle name and time living in Indonesia to disarm the nutballs.

You think I'm kidding? This is exactly what Obama believed and his fanboys (and girls) believed that rot!

And what did we get from that? Iraq War 2.0, with jihadis overrunning large parts of Iraq; plus jihadis rampaging through Syria and Iraq; with the Taliban reviving after what was apparently a pointless Obama troop surge in Afghanistan; with a Boko Haram killing fest that would not in fact bring back our girls despite a perfectly lovely First Lady hashtag campaign; with blood in the streets of European cities and homegrown terrorists radicalized by distant jihadis rather than calmed down by living in President Obama's America killing people here in America.

And a temporary suspension of some refugees from countries that President Obama had identified as problems is what will cause jihadi RAGE? How stupid are you to believe that?

In reality, the question isn't what anger Islamists. The question is what doesn't anger the Easily Excitable? Seriously, it's our fault?

Good Lord, people. Why do we hate us so much to think we provoke murderous rage for carrying out a perfectly normal government function?

It is not normal to feel RAGE and act on it over a suspension of travel from certain nations until we can sort out a better method of screening those who want to come to America.

I'd feel better if proto-Islamists were more worried about RAGE from the Western street over being blown up, shot, and beheaded by jihadi scum.

Nearly 15 years ago, I started blogging because the stupidity in the media about the new war was just unrelenting and I thought that I had to respond with some level of sanity and clarity.

Surely after all this time at war, reporters would gain the subject matter expertise to comment on events with a level of knowledge currently possessed only by the fashion and entertainment divisions of the media. But no. They remain clueless.

I have apparently failed. And it is tiring. Not that I pretend that this is some influential blog that is vital to the war effort. I blog for me, as I've noted before. So we'll see.

And yes, I'll stop calling you Shirley.

Perhaps it is my clarity and sanity that is lacking. But it seems like in the 16th year after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on our shores, new cohorts of clueless reporters continue to be churned out by our "journalism" schools.

And the Long War against jihadi terrorism (which is part of the Islamic Civil War over how Islam is to be defined) continues, with added new conventional threats in Europe and Asia to make things more interesting.

Better Call Vlad

Raise your hand if you are shocked by this Syria development:

Russia and China on Tuesday vetoed a Western-backed UN resolution that would have imposed sanctions on Syria over chemical weapons use, as peace talks in Geneva showed no signs of progress on ending the nearly six-year war.

The Security Council resolution drafted by Britain, France and the United States won nine votes in favor while three countries opposed it -- China, Russia and Bolivia. Kazakhstan, Ethiopia and Egypt abstained.

Yeah, I never had and hope that Russia or China would allow any retribution against Assad for his use of chemical weapons.

Heck, I called this one on the day the chemical deal was announced, complete with my expectation that Syria would continue to use dual-use chemicals as weapons.

Nor do I have much hope that Russia or China would allow any retribution against the mullah-run Iranian government should we gather up the proof that Iran has violated the Iran deal. Russia and China are criminal defense attorneys for the usual suspects.

Ah, the Sainted International Community.

UPDATE: American-backed rebels who fight ISIL have cut off Raqqa's main lines of communication:

U.S.-backed Syrian militias cut the last main road out of Islamic State-held Raqqa on Monday, severing the highway between the group's de facto capital and its stronghold of Deir al-Zor province, a militia spokesman said.

Will ISIL make a renewed effort to take Deir al-Zor as an alternate capital?

And with the Russian- and Iranian-backed Assad forces pushing east, how will we react when Assad's forces come in contact with our anti-ISIL rebels?

So far, Russia has focused on non-ISIL rebels in the west while America led allies against ISIL in the east, as a de facto ally of Assad.

But what happens when the Assad forces come in contact with rebels who right now we only support to go after ISIL?

Do we let Assad butcher or arrest these rebels?

Or do we go back to the anti-Assad position we once had when then-President Obama said early in the revolt that Assad had to step down and when Secretary of State Kerry likened Assad to Genghis Khan and Hitler?

Rethinking Operating ... from the Sea

The Marines will forward deploy a Marine unit to the Pacific to practice using advanced technology to see if it allows the use of smaller Marine units to achieve missions:

The Marine Corps’ infantry battalion designated as the service’s experimental force is gearing up for a final evaluation before it deploys to Japan, Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Robert Neller said Thursday. ...

Last summer, the Marine Corps equipped 3/5 with high-tech equipment and semi-autonomous systems including small drones, robotic vehicles, off-road vehicles, “smart” digital tablets, wearable batteries and energy-generating gear. ...

Small units in the future fight must be ready to operate and fight in dispersed operations and in a more and highly-digitized battlespace than in a traditional, conventional war, officials have said.

This would allow the Marines (and the Navy that carries them) to disperse assets to achieve a common mission (or achieve multiple missions in the same time frame, of course) rather than going straight in with one task force and an entire MEU.

As the Army learned from similar deployments, some gee whiz stuff that looks good on paper isn't worth the effort in the field. I'm sure the Marines will learn a lot from this deployment.

Still a Last Stand?

It's a mixed message out of Mosul of ISIL fighting and running away.

ISIL forces under cover of night, rain, wind, and human shields launched a counter-attack:

Explosions and gun fire rang out across the city's southwestern districts in the early hours of Thursday. The fighting eased in the late morning, although a Reuters correspondent saw an air strike and rebel mortar fire.

A senior Iraqi officer said Islamic State staged its attack on units from the elite Counter Terrorism Service (CTS) when the storm and strong winds hampered air surveillance and on-the-ground visibility.

He said some militant fighters hid among displaced families to get close to the U.S.-trained troops.

There is no mention of the counter-attack gaining back any ground.

An ISIL leader has also admitted defeat in Iraq:

ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi issued a statement acknowledging the group’s defeat in Iraq, as he urged supporters to either hide or flee, Iraqi television network, Alsumaria, quoted local sources as saying.

If true, that is significant.

Even if not true, it might encourage more of this:

Iraqi Officers Find Islamic State Members Hidden Among Refugees Fleeing Mosul[.]

Iraqi forces are sifting refugees fleeing Mosul for ISIL fighters trying to escape.

I know that a lot of reporting has said the battle for western Mosul would be harder and last longer than the battle for eastern Mosul, but I didn't see the evidence for it.

I continue to see evidence for an easier or hard battle.

UPDATE: For what it is worth, we say that the battle is on schedule:

Iraqi security forces are progressing as planned in their battle to recapture Mosul from the Islamic State group but the fighting will get tougher as they approach the city center, a US general said Saturday.

So car bombs will be harder to use in narrow streets, too. Although I've noted that bomb houses could be used instead. Or suicide bombers on motorcycles or on foot.

So the fight could get tougher as the fight reaches the city center. Assuming there are many defenders left by the time they are squeezed that tight.

UPDATE: Iraqi forces are nearing the provincial government complex:

The complex, which houses the Nineveh Provincial Council and the Nineveh Governorate buildings, should be taken Monday, Lt. Colonel Abdel Amir al-Mohammadawi told Reuters.

I'm guessing this old map indicating the provincial headquarters shows the area:

That's pretty good progress if they take it as predicted.

Pretty soon the Iraqis will have another damaged bridge under control.

UPDATE: Yes, the Iraqis now have the western end of the second bridge from the south:

U.S.-backed Iraqi forces on Monday captured Mosul's al-Hurriya bridge, which leads to the Islamic State-held old city center from the south, a military media officer told Reuters.

And yes, ISIL forces are using bomb houses:

The jihadists are using snipers, mortars and bombs planted in streets and houses, [Iraqi lieutenant colonel] Mohammedawi said.

Perhaps it is just me, but the advance so far seems to be going pretty smoothly.

LeadOps

I've complained that efforts to defeat jihadis by persuading potential recruits to stay at home by delivering clever messages to them is a secondary front that should not undermine killing the jihadis and defeating them where they stand their ground.

Behold:

Since 2013 (when ISIL first appeared) the group has lost over 60,000 personnel to combat, disease, accidents and desertion. Most of the losses have been suffered in Syria, Iraq and Libya. It’s believed that ISIL currently has only about 12,000 fighters available, mostly in Syria and Iraq. There are a few thousand more in northern Libya, eastern Afghanistan and Egypt. In all five countries ISIL is under heavy attack and ISIL in late 2016 lost its only major Libyan base that, for a while, ISIL saw as a fallback if they were shut down in Syria and Iraq. ISIL is expected to suffer major losses in 2017, mainly in Syria and Iraq. The ISIL bases in Afghanistan are not safe and secure enough for ISIL to expand or carry out a lot of attacks.

At one time, ISIL in Iraq and Syria had an estimated 30,000 fighters. Now they have fewer than 12,000 there. And they are losing ground.

So much for the cherished liberal notion that fighting jihadis just creates more jihadis.

My position has always been that ineffective use of force creates more jihadis.

Launch night cruise missile strikes every several months is ineffective. That enrages potential recruits without giving them reason to fear for their choice on both their personal chance of survival and their chance to die for a glorious winning cause.

But strike them relentlessly, pursuing them without mercy until they are scattered and their pretense to greatness shattered? Yeah, that is what undermines their appeal:

I'd focus on killing jihadis and smashing up jihadi organizations and sanctuaries, but that's just me. Did we really have a RadioOps information war in World War II to persuade potential Nazis to turn away from Hitler? Or did we pound the Nazis into the ground and delegitimize their ideology with our victory and their defeat? WebOps, indeed. Sounds like it is more funding-magnet jargon than a real part of the war. Be the strong horse and they'll slink away into the shadows.

WebOps are fine on the margins. But never be confused that such efforts can be decisive.

Fill our jihadi enemies with lead and they stop being a threat, both to Westerners and Moslems who are then more safe from jihadi violence, which enables them to win the Islamic Civil War on how to define Islam.

The PLAN Boat

The Love Boat, she ain't:

A new Chinese cruise ship has embarked on its maiden voyage to the disputed Paracel Islands in the South China Sea, state news agency Xinhua said on Friday, the latest effort by Beijing to bolster its claims in the strategic waterway.

This is so familiar ...

Land, historically ours

Come Aboard. We're requesting you.

And Land, life's sweetest reward.

Let it go, it floats back to us.

The PLAN Boat soon will be making another run

The PLAN Boat promises something from everyone

Set course for the Paracels,

Your mind on a new conquest.

And land won't be yours anymore

It's our naval base on a friendly shore.

Its LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND! It's OURRRRRRRRRRRRRS! (hey-ah!)

Yeah, the PLAN Boat soon will be making another run

The PLAN Boat promises something from everyone

Set course for Senkakus,

Your mind on a new conquest.

And land won't be yours anymore

It's our naval base on a friendly shore.

It's LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND! It's OURRRRRRRRRRRRRS! It's

OURRRRRRRRRRRRRS!

It's the PLAN Boat-ah! It's the PLAN Boat-ah! ...

It's OURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRS!!!!!!

Source for original lyrics.

UPDATE: Related news as China's mind is on a new conquest:

The members of the Japanese Ground Self Defense Force’s Western Area Infantry Regiment training in California are part of a fledgling force that will become the JGSDF first Amphibious Ready Deployment Brigade. That unit is tasked with creating a credible, ready force to conduct amphibious operations and defend its islands by next year.

“My challenge, I think, we are facing is the newly establishment of Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade in March 2018, and we don’t have much time,” Maj. Gen. Shigeo Kaida, the Western Army’s deputy chief of staff for operations, said in response to a question during a press conference Saturday that kicked off a three-day Iron Fist amphibious exercise.

Yes, a sense of urgency is called for. The PLAN Boat could soon make another run.

BundesNowhere

The German military is in lousy shape:

The consequences of [former defense minister] Guttenberg's "realignment," the graphics make clear, are hollow structures and a military that is slowly wearing out. There is a huge need for new, modern equipment. According to protocol, the army is supposed to have at least 70 percent of large pieces of equipment, such as tanks and armored vehicles, available during operations. In reality, though, it is often much less than that. Other systems, such as night-vision goggles, are often missing completely.

The need for a unit that just wants to train to borrow heavily from other units is outrageous. Do read it all.

But Germany just doesn't value defense. America has a secretary of defense who is a former general and combat veteran whose nickname is "Mad Dog." This is an appointment that speaks to taking defense seriously.

Germany's current minister of defense was a medical doctor who previously served as the Minister of Family Affairs and Youth and the Minister of Labor and Social Affairs. Well.

No offense to Minister von der Leyen, but she's a Fluffy Kitten.

This difference in defense leadership demonstrates the contrast between America and Germany about the priority of national defense. We care about it and the Germans don't.

And yes, I understand that when the Germans were led by a mass-murdering, empire-building maniac Austrian national socialist corporal, they did a lot of harm to Europe. And so the Germans want to avoid doing that again.

Kudos on that attitude. Sincerely. But I will remind the Germans of this simple rule of thumb on that issue:

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.

And in bonus stupid territory, the German Left, in a classic cut off your own nose to spite your face attitude, is resisting an increase in already ludicrously low defense spending as a symbol of resisting President Trump who wants them to do more for their own defense.

I don't think that the Europeans have as secure a grasp of sophisticated nuance as American liberals like to claim.

UPDATE: Germany is so far gone that they don't even want the ability to shoot down enemy attackers?

Germany's defense ministry on Tuesday told lawmakers it would not complete a contract with European weapons maker MBDA for a multi-billion euro missile defense system during the current legislative period as planned, ministry sources said.

I'm sure if the launch button was in Brussels, they'd be building like crazy, right?

The Force of Trump Hysteria Condition is Strong in This One

President Trump, a month into his presidency, is the "war president" who will "usher in a new age of militarism?"

Huh:

There's a facile contention that President Trump — hostile to free trade pacts and skeptical of grand military alliances — is an isolationist, an advocate of American retreat and retrenchment on the global stage. This is not quite true: As Cambridge historian Stephen Wertheim noted earlier this month, "Trump isn't an isolationist. He is a militarist, something far worse."

Funny, I thought the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans, and jihadis everywhere had already ushered in a new age of aggressive militarism.

So President Obama, who was the first president to be at war for his entire two terms wasn't a war president? Trump is new?

Actually, I agree that President Obama was not a "war" president. From the beginning, he never acted like he felt that he led us at war. Being at war implies trying to achieve a victory with armed forces using organized violence in pursuit of military objectives.

President Obama seemed like he thought the war was an unfortunate distraction from domestic policies.

President Obama may be more accurately called a "killing president"--just using military force to buy time while he tried to transform America until he left office to write his memoir.

Perhaps Trump will match Obama's record of America fighting our enemies. Our enemies are persistent, after all. War or peace isn't a choice up to us only.

It would be nice if we acted like we are in a war--hot or cold, or something in between--in response to our enemies' militarization of their policies in order to gain an American victory.

This is actually the second time I read something really stupid from that author. Good Lord.

Dialing Up the Outrage to 12

So Democrats are upset that Jeff Sessions talked to a Russian ambassador when then-Senator Sessions had a foreign policy lane? Pray tell, did the Russian ambassador promise to pass along any message to Putin?



Democrats are funny people. Turning the outrage dial to 11 over every little thing is insufficient, so now I guess they will twist it all the way to 12.

Or maybe their memories really just aren't that good.

I don't know why Sessions didn't just tell senators that he talked to Russians as part of his job--as the senators surely know--rather than just saying he didn't talk to any as a Trump surrogate.

One "meeting" appeared to be talking at a party.

But this, as much as I can tell--unless Sessions promised Putin more "flexibility" after the election--is just silly. Silly beyond 11.

UPDATE: Remember how nobody cared that Hillary Clinton's closest aide was tight with Islamists? (Tip to Instapundit)

UPDATE: There just isn't anything there but Democratic refusal to accept the election result.

And bonus for recalling a time a Democratic Senator worked with the Russians (when they were far more dangerous Soviets) to sway a presidential election:

Among the promises Kennedy made the Soviets was he that would ensure that the television networks gave the Soviet leader primetime slots to speak directly to the American people, thus undermining Reagan's framing of the sinister nature of the USSR. Event then, the Democrats had the power to collude with the legacy media. Kennedy also promised to help Andropov penetrate the American message with his Soviet agitprop.

That's right, folks. Even 30 years ago, Democrat senators were colluding with America's enemies to bring down Republicans.

Saint Kennedy will never be rebuked by Democrats for that--or anything else.

But wait! You also get a chance to remember this when liberals say that American support for dissidents against a thug regime (like in Iran) will just cause people in that country to rally around the thug regime in reaction to outside support. Why didn't Kennedy naturally rally around the flag to oppose the Soviets?

Again, I have trouble with the sudden appearance in Democratic ranks of anti-Russian fervor.

That fervor has one source only. Democrats will love or hate our enemies depending on whether it gets them the White House.

UPDATE: The road to Russia is littered with Democratic lobbyists.

And why have so many American leftists been paid by Russian television propaganda arm RT?

[The] Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group has learned that a host of liberal American political activists and journalists have much more than occasional meetings with RT. Many of them in fact draw regular paychecks from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s flagship TV network.

It’s rarely reported in the U.S. news media, but many of the liberal activists and journalists who participate in RT programming openly bash the United States and defend Russia.

The American “star” at the Dec. 10, 2015, RT celebration was Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein.

Funny, I'd been meaning to search YouTube to see who besides Stein had been a regular there. I assumed she was not alone. (The Greens are just socialists who like to recycle, for those unfamiliar with our politics.)

One last comment on this non-issue. I assume every Democrat is relieved that Hillary didn't win the election. After all, how many times did our Madam Secretary of State meet with Russian diplomats, eh?

Tips to Instapundit.

Should He Stay or Should He Go Now?

I keep hearing that the defeat of ISIL will be a boon to Assad by eliminating the largest component of the resistance to Assad. I don't buy that notion.

One, as I've noted, ISIL is an enemy of the non-nutball resistance:

The biggest surviving rebel stronghold in northern Syria is falling under the control of al-Qaeda-linked extremists amid a surge of rebel infighting that threatens to vanquish what is left of the moderate rebellion.

The ascent of the extremists in the northwestern province of Idlib coincides with a suspension of aid to moderate rebel groups by their international allies.

Their international allies have suspended aid to compel them to unite.

So the defeat of ISIL gets rid of a potent enemy of the "moderate" rebels as much as it gets rid of an enemy of Assad. And recall that the Assad regime and its allies spend relatively little of their time fighting ISIL.

As the article notes above, the jihadis have turned on the other rebels as the moderate rebels (but not the jihadis) take part in so-called peace talks sponsored by the Russians. The jihadis have less reason to think of the moderates as co-belligerents against Assad if those rebels are willing to talk to Assad and leave the jihadis to face Assad and his Russian bombers.

Which is exactly the purpose of a Russian "ceasefire." Which I also mentioned earlier. (It makes me feel better that I just give my own opinions when I see that I basically redo a post after forgetting I wrote it.)

Two, ISIL and other jihadis are a great boost to Assad by allowing him to pretend in propaganda--both domestically and internationally--that the entire resistance is tainted by the jihadis.

Three, if the jihadis are defeated, many of the fighters who aren't really jihadis will migrate to other rebels if those rebels seem credible. One reason the jihadis gained recruits is because they are more effective.

And four, if we manage to build up a better class of rebels in the fight against ISIL, they can continue the fight--gaining fighters who defect from the jihadi groups--against Assad with fewer problems when ISIL is finally defeated.

Of course, for any of that to work we have to think of Assad as the enemy and ultimate target. Under President Obama, Assad went from foe who we might have bombed to partner in a faux chemical weapons deal to a quasi-ally opposed to ISIL in Syria.

It is tempting to just accept Assad to end the bloodshed and pretend that we have stability and quiet when in fact Assad will just be quietly crushing resistance to him.

But if Assad wins this clash, the deaths will have been for nothing. And the fight against his Alawite-led minority regime (him or his successor) will begin again in a generation perhaps.

And in the meantime, Assad will seek revenge against America and others who struck him but did not kill him.

Yes indeed, if Assad goes, there will be trouble. And if he stays it will be double.

What will Trump decide on this key question?

UPDATE: Pro-Assad forces have captured Palmyra from ISIL.

UPDATE: Hezbollah ground forces were key in the attack, it seems.

UPDATE: The Russians beg to differ, claiming their advisors, planes, and special forces were "decisive."

One thing we know for sure, the Syrian armed forces certainly weren't the key force.

And I don't buy the Russia-claimed body count for the battle of over a thousand ISIL KIA/WIA.

When Failure is Literally Not an Option

It seems virtually impossible to deem Iran not in compliance with the nuclear deal.

Iran has a legalized system for buying Uranium ore. And we're all getting used to it as routine:

Iran plans to buy 950 tonnes of uranium ore from Kazakhstan over three years and expects to get Russian help in producing nuclear fuel, its top nuclear official said in remarks published on Saturday.

The acquisition would not violate Iran's landmark 2015 deal with world powers over its disputed nuclear program as the deal did not set limits on the Islamic Republic's supplies of uranium ore.

Which I tend to think is designed to supply North Korea with the raw materials (mentioned somewhere in this data dump) to build nukes for Iran.

This is only the most obvious way that Iran can be technically in compliance with that horrible Kerry-authored nuclear deal with Iran without leaving the path to nuclear weapons.

The other way to be in apparent technical compliance is to further limit the scope of the deal's enforcement gaze even within Iran to only sites approved by Iran:

"Iran has not conducted any uranium enrichment or related research and development activities" at its Fordo nuclear plant, the IAEA added. [emphasis added]

Remember, we don't inspect Iran. The IAEA does. And if we point the IAEA at particular locations, we risk revealing sources and methods. Worst of all, the IAEA can only inspect in approved locations. Like the Fordo plant.

So the correct assessment is that the IAEA hasn't seen any prohibited activities in the narrow range of areas they are allowed to look. Which is a different thing altogether, you must admit.

Oh, and what the Hell does this part from that first article even mean?

The report by the Iranian Students' News Agency ISNA comes a day after the U.N. atomic watchdog said Iran's official stock of enriched uranium had fallen by half after large amounts stuck in pipes was recategorised as unrecoverable under a process agreed with the major powers. [emphasis added]

Uranium ore is stuck in pipes? Like dropping your wedding band down the sink drain? Oh well? Write it off? It is unrecoverable? Really?

Did the uranium ore just disappear the way socks vanish from dryers?

The agreement process allows this?

Remember, the public deal itself is only part of the deal. Even apart from initial secret side deals, the process to carry it out has to be agreed to by all the parties, including Iran and their friends.

What's next? The IAEA lets Iran write off some more uranium because the dog ate it?

How could Iran not be in technical compliance with the deal the way it is run?

Have a super sparkly day.

UPDATE: The Trump administration should release the text of all the parts of the deal. (What is public is bad enough.) You can only imagine how bad the material we haven't seen is given the Iranian reaction to the possibility that they might become public:

Senior Iranian officials are warning the Trump administration about disclosing secret agreements related to the nuclear deal that have long been hidden from the public by the Obama administration, according to recent comments that prompted pushback from senior sources on Capitol Hill.

If the deal is so great for America, why didn't the Senate get to vote on this treaty-like deal? And why can't we see all of it?

And remember all the experts and journalists organized by Obama's Rasputin, Ben Rhodes, to praise the deal didn't have all the documents to make that judgment.

Chinese Burn

We may try to fight jihadis in Somalia more than we have. That will help keep regional allies in the fight, I should hope. Let's hope our new Chinese neighbors, in their first overseas base, don't try to throw obstacles in our path.

East African states, especially Ethiopia, Kenya, Burundi, and Uganda, have helped under the African Union banner to keep Somalia from being a jihadi caliphate even though their presence has not helped Somalians build a state capable of resisting jihadis.

These regional states get tired of their efforts, and periodically back off to lessen the burden. So helping more could keep them on the firing line, I should think. We may do that:

The Pentagon wants to expand the military's ability to battle al-Qaida-linked militants in Somalia, potentially putting U.S. forces closer to the fight against a stubborn extremist group that has plotted attacks against America, senior U.S. officials said.

Assisting the Somalis, perhaps by going on missions, plus direct special forces and strike missions are possible, with naval and air forces in the region plus forces on the ground in Djibouti.

The Chinese will be able to observe our actions more intimately, soon:

China is constructing its first overseas military base [in Djibouti] — just a few miles from Camp Lemonnier, one of the Pentagon’s largest and most important foreign installations.

With increasing tensions over China’s island-building efforts in the South China Sea, American strategists worry that a naval port so close to Camp Lemonnier could provide a front-row seat to the staging ground for American counterterror operations in the Arabian Peninsula and North Africa.

I'm not real comfortable with the Chinese being able to watch over us so continuously. Who knows what they might learn from us or who they'll tip off just to take a shot at us.

China could see this first base as an opportunity to score points:

“The facility in Djibouti is a very interesting lens through which to view China’s growing capabilities and ambitions,” said Andrew S. Erickson, an expert at China’s maritime transformation at the Naval War College and the editor of the book “Chinese Naval Shipbuilding.”

“Not only will it give them a huge shot in the arm in terms of naval logistics, but it will also strengthen China’s image at home and abroad.”

AFRICOM should create a power projection platform that can avoid prying eyes by equipping a Modularized Auxiliary Cruiser for drones, land attack missiles, and special forces capable of moving around and avoiding wandering Chinese observers on land.

She'll burn us bad. She'll flaunt her flame. She'll make us remember, remember her name.

Unless we take precautions, of course.

As a side note, contrary to the Times article I don't believe we aim our nuclear weapons at anybody in particular these days, so saying America and China point nukes at each other over-states the relationship tension by implying a similarity to US-USSR nuclear tensions in the Cold War.

The EUCOM MAC/DACCC

Moving NATO command and control assets forward to use air power is an important capability. Meet the redeployable DACCC that does this:

For NATO’s air assets during deployed operations, this capability is provided by the Deployable Air Command and Control Centre (DACCC). ...

The DACCC consists of ten shipping containers, 360 tonnes of support equipment, seven antenna systems, and a team of multinational operators. These operators are aircraft controllers responsible for controlling air missions, including surface to air missiles, or fighter allocators. Together the team controls the aircraft taking part in the mission; for fighter jets this includes identifying and responding to targets that pose a threat to NATO.

Sure, this can be airlifted, driven, or shipped forward to an air base.

But it could also be mounted on a Modularized Auxiliary Cruiser (with a helicopter landing pad part of it, of course) and made mobile to move off the coast near our forward air bases to do the job, couldn't it?

And in peacetime, by moving around to potential hotspots, the staff of the DACCC could gain familiarity with the various theaters the staff might need to operate in during wartime.

And as I noted in that concept, the Modularized Auxiliary Cruiser could certainly offload the modules to operate on land.

So we could have a EUCOM Queen, too.

Battle is Joined

Iraqi forces have captured both ends of the southern-most disabled bridges in Mosul and seem to be reaching a line of resistance as Iraqi forces punch into western Mosul.

Iraq has a bridge site withing Mosul:

Iraqi forces battling the Islamic State group in west Mosul reached the city's southernmost bridge Monday, a key step in efforts to defeat the jihadists in their stronghold, a spokesman said.

The move, a little more than a week into a major push on Mosul's west bank, could allow Iraqi forces to extend a floating bridge between the city's two halves and pile pressure on the jihadists.

The article says the Iraqis will erect a ribbon bridge (like this) to span the Tigris River.

But the Iraqis don't need the bridge site to do that. They just need control of two banks of the Tigris River. Indeed, I'd think the structure of the damaged bridge would interfere with a ribbon bridge.

If that is what is needed, the Iraqis could have bridged the river south of the city.

It makes more sense to me to span the gap in the damaged bridge. And if the bridge is too damaged for that, doesn't the damaged bridge get in the way of a ribbon bridge?

We'll see what the Iraqis do.

Meanwhile on the western edge of the city, Iraqi troops seem to have reached a line of resistance:

Iraqi forces advanced quickly in the early stages of the offensive to recapture Mosul's western half, retaking the airport and piercing Islamic State defenses around the city within days.

Now they are encountering tougher resistance as they push into residential districts where as many as 750,000 civilians are essentially trapped.

The story says that the Iraqi security forces are running into more foreign-born jihadis, who are more likely to fight to the death.

Does this mean they were saved for the battle in the west? Or does it mean that more Iraqi ISIL fighters are slipping away to escape?

UPDATE: New information this morning (I wrote this post yesterday, actually).

Units of the Iraqi 9th Armored Division have eyes on the last road out of Mosul in the northwest, which means they can interdict the route with direct fire:

The army's 9th Armored Division was within a kilometer of Mosul's Syria Gate, the city's northwestern entrance, a general from the unit told Reuters by telephone.

"We effectively control the road, it is in our sight," he said.

So ISIL is using more suicide vehicles--armored to resist Iraqi fire--now? I guess that means that all the streets aren't too narrow for vehicles. If ISIL can use vehicles, so can the Iraqi security forces.

Iraqi forces are still advancing:

"The provincial council and the governorate building are within the firing range of the Rapid Response forces," a media officer with the elite Interior Ministry units told Reuters, referring to within machinegun range or about 400 meters (1,300 feet).

Taking those buildings would help Iraqi forces attack the militants in the nearby old city center and would be of symbolic significance in terms of restoring state authority over the city.

U.S.-trained Counter-Terrorism Service (CTS) units battled Islamic State sniper and mortar fire as they moved eastwards through Wadi al-Hajar district to link up with Rapid Response and Federal Police deployed by the riverside, in a move that would seal off all southern access to the city.

Resistance doesn't seem stiff. (I know, I'm at the blunt end of the computer and not at the pointy end of the stick--easy for me to say.) Have Iraqi force reached the ISIL main line of resistance?

And also from that article, Iraqi engineers are repairing that southern bridge rather than putting a new temporary bridge across the Tigris River:

Military engineers started repairing the city's southernmost bridge that Rapid Response captured on Monday.

Finally, if ISIL leadership is fleeing, resistance in western Mosul won't prove more difficult than the battle for the eastern bank of the city:

The commander of Iraq's Federal Police has said ISIS militants in western Mosul are looking to cut and run from their defense of the group's last remaining stronghold in the country.

Lt. Gen. Raid Shakir Jaudat said the militants were increasingly cut off from each other and that their leaders were fleeing the remaining pockets of militant control.

I'm reading mixed messages on whether the battle is tougher or harder than the earlier phase for the east.

It just doesn't seem harder to me at this point, overall. (Again, with all due respect to the forces pushing through that resistance.)

Absent leadership, that doesn't mean that the ISIL foreign fighters won't try to fight to the bitter end. But lack of leadership does mean that it is more of dying in place than successfully defending.

Note that the CNN map in that article doesn't show Iraqi gains. It's kind of worthless.

UPDATE: Iraqi forces operating near the river and further west in the Wadi Hajar district  continue efforts to link up:

Iraq's special forces pushed into the Wadi Hajar district in western Mosul and retook the area from the Islamic State group Friday, according to Brig. Gen. Yahya Rasool, spokesman of the Joint Military Operations.

Special forces Brig. Gen. Haider al-Obeidi said clearing operations were ongoing in the area and his forces were close to linking up with the militarized federal police forces who were pushing up along the western bank of the Tigris river.

This is the district:



Link up and the airport already captured is shielded from direct fire and observation, making it safer to use as a staging ground.