China Insists India Behave

The Chinese seem to be demanding India back down at the Doka La Pass, or else:

The China Daily editorial said the clock was ticking and that it seemed like a clash would be “an inevitable conclusion” between the two prominent Asian countries if India did pull back its troops from the disputed Doklam region.

I'm not saying war is inevitable.

I am saying that China seems willing to risk a war by insisting that India visibly back down from the border confrontation.

UPDATE: En garde:

India's military has increased operational readiness along the eastern Indian border with China, sources said, as neither side shows any sign of backing off from a face-off in a remote Himalayan region near their disputed frontier.

It's a move typical of activities later in the year, and is precautionary. But stuff happens when everybody takes precautionary actions.

UPDATE: India would lose a war with China. Although the Himalaya Mountains restrict the scope of a defeat, I think.

India's only chance if there is shooting is to win a border battle and end the crisis before it escalates to war. Which requires Chinese cooperation.

Indian air power is particularly bad. I did note that new fighter aircraft was the most important defense issue India faced in this last decade. It is still the most important defense issue India faces this decade and the decade is almost over. If you look up "clusterfuck" in a dictionary, a graph of India's declining fighter strength is the picture used to illustrate the concept.

UPDATE: India is working with Russia on a "5th generation" fighter. Forgive me if I don't hold a lot of hope for this as the great stealth hope for Indian air power. One, it is a frontal-only stealth plane unlike American all-around stealth aircraft. Two, it is a Russian plane, so who knows how good it is. And three, India's dysfunctional defense industry has to build it.

China is not overly worried, I dare say.

A better hope for the Indian navy is a re-do of their failed Tejas fighter that would use American Hornet engines.

China does have some reason to worry in the long run:

“I believe that the US is ready to help India modernise its military. India has been designated a major defence partner of the US. This is a strategic declaration that’s unique to India and the US. It places India on the same level that we have many of our treaty allies,” commander of the US Pacific Command or PACOM Admiral Harry Harris told PTI.

“This is important, and I believe that together we will be able to improve India’s military capabilities in significant and meaningful ways,” said Harris, who has been personally pushing for a strong India-US defence relationship.

This benefits India and benefits everyone else, including America, who would like to see China's military power diluted by having to face more powerful potential enemies.

Make the Donbas Putin's Bleeding Ulcer

This article arguing against arming Ukraine makes no sense.

So Ukraine is a deeply divided country? That justifies Russia's invasion? So what if Ukraine is divided? So is America. Does that justify a Canadian invasion to absorb liberal Americans who pine for their fantasy version of Canadian governance? Does Mexico have an opening to annex California just because liberal Californians are agitating for secession from the United States?

Ukraine isn't an "admirable" state? Since when does that mean you are open season for predatory nations? If being admirable is some defining feature of the international community, a lot of thug rulers will be sleeping uneasily from now on. Like Belarus. Is it okay if Russia advances west there?

The Russians consider Ukraine part of their country? Really? The Russians want it--after giving Ukraine away (in 1945, on paper, insisting it was independent (Ukraine is a founding member of the UN at Russia's insistence); and then after 1991 when the USSR fell apart and again in 1994 under the Budapest Memorandum that recognized Ukraine as independent within their then-drawn borders)--and we are supposed to go along with it? Is America allowed to open up that "54 40 or fight" demand? And what about all that "when in the course of human events" stuff that we used to justify defying a power that considered us part of their realm?

Giving Russia anti-tank weapons won't deter Russia because they have 20,000 tanks? The Russians do not have anywhere near 20,000 working modern tanks. The journey of a thousand burning Russian tanks starts with the first burnt out tank. Pity we didn't start that journey 42 months ago.

Russia is willing to lose troops (beyond our ability to help Ukraine kill them)? Bull. Russia is sensitive to casualties and doesn't admit to them. Russia suppresses that news rather than celebrate their heroes because Russians aren't eager to die for the conquest of Ukraine.

Ukraine is of peripheral interest to America? Bull. We have an interest in defying Russia's gambit to rebuild the empire; a moral duty to help defend their sovereignty under the UN Charter and the Budapest Memorandum; and a vital interest in preventing Russia's military from vaulting hundreds of miles to the eastern borders of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania.

The prior three rest on the notion that Russia can escalate at will and so resistance is futile. Bull. Ukraine has a higher interest in resisting Russian aggression than Russians have in conquering Ukrainian territory. That is the proper comparison and not one that equates America arming Ukraine with Russia dying to conquer Ukraine. If we help arm a Ukraine that wants to resist Russia, we can help make the price of Russian victory too much for Russia's people or Russia's finances to complete.

Arming Ukraine would play into Putin's narrative of a meddling America? So what? Putin is more than willing to lie about our alleged nefarious plots if we do nothing at all.

Help the Ukrainians send body bags back to Russia. That's the language Putin will understand.

The Russians are Screwing Up Their Actual Navy Needs

Russia's submarine fleet is in trouble:

The Russian navy — already badly depleted since the collapse of the Soviet Union — can’t quickly replace most of its existing nuclear submarine fleet, which is approaching the end of its collective lifespan. The outcome will likely mean a shrinking of the Russian nuclear submarine force in the years ahead.

This is a serious problem for Russia whose naval needs center around nuclear submarines. Russia needs ballistic missile nuclear submarines (SSBNs) for a survivable nuclear deterrent and nuclear attack submarines (SSNs) to protect the SSBNs in bastions close to Russia.

Cruise missile subs are a luxury Russia can ill afford with the shrinkage in their SSNs and SSBNs.

And large surface ships are pointless.

Add to a core of nuclear-powered subs a force of small surface combatants as a coastal defense force and the Russian navy is complete as far as Russia's defense needs go, which must emphasize ground forces and air power to support ground troops for the defense of Russia's long border.

Yet the Russians can't manage to maintain the strength of their key naval force.

This Makes Sense So It Won't Happen

I like the idea of separating accounting for research and development from buying the actual weapons or systems.

A new weapon system rolls in R & D into the weapons buy, making it look like actually building the weapons is really expensive.

In reality, the R & D are sunk costs and the purchase should start with a clean slate financially.

Otherwise we get the odd situation of a weapon being cancelled because it is too expensive but then using the technology from that cancelled weapon in a new system that magically comes in under budget (because it had access to that technology).

But we have to wait years for the new weapons now in a different form. Why not just figure out the cost of the first weapon as build-only and see if it is affordable?

Dim the Lights and Squint and the NYT Makes Sense

Blaming Trump for failing to make Russia pay a price for invading Ukraine and meddling in our election fails to note that yes, those things happened under Obama and nobody seems to notice.

It's almost as if Putin expected "flexibility" from America under Obama in the face of Russian actions.

And you have to forget that America is seriously considering sending needed anti-tank weapons to Ukraine now instead of just non-lethal equipment (although Obama training was valuable)

Funny too that if you really want to focus on making Russia pay a price, and so Trump is the legitimate target of criticism, why doesn't anybody condemn Obama for that whole 2009 "reset" and cancellation of Bush plans for missile defenses in Europe despite Russia invading Georgia in August 2008 under Bush 43?

Wasn't that letting Russia off the hook?

Of Eggs and Martyrs and Omelets and Caliphates

The survival of socialism even after the defeat of the champion of socialism, the Soviet Union, should remind us that defeating the jihadis won't kill the idea of jihad.

But we should also not forget the benefits of defeating the champions of an odious ideology that would kill to put you in paradise on Earth against your will, even if the odious ideology lives on in people too stupid to benefit from a beating with the clue bat.

We are better off with socialism or Islamism that doesn't have a champion who will try to kill us to make their ideology real. It is sad if people live under those regimes, but not our problem, really.

Opportunity in Crisis?

China has come to the conclusion that persuading Taiwan to be absorbed into the mainland government voluntarily isn't working. Taiwan may not be considering formal independence but the Chinese consider failure to make progress toward unification a potential trigger for war to force Taiwan into union.

Oh good, another problem rears its ugly head:

Recent developments have revived the so-called ‘Taiwan problem’ in regional and global security. These developments point to a coming crisis over Taiwan that would present a grave security challenge to the United States and its allies, including Australia. While attention is currently focused on the Korean peninsula on account of North Korea’s development of ballistic missiles capable of hitting the United States, the crisis over Taiwan is quietly brewing in the background. Indeed, it is over Taiwan that the United States and China could potentially come into direct conflict.

I speculated recently that America is preparing to strike North Korea in 2018 unless China deals with North Korea by then (based on connecting a few dots that may not be connected and may not even be dots, bolstered by a hunch). This sort-of ultimatum will count on Chinese economic interests compelling China to stand aside while America and our allies attack North Korea's nuclear infrastructure.

But I don't think China would be happy with the humiliation of America acting on China's border within their sphere of influence.

While I think China might have a problem invading North Korea with some embarrassment from that if they failed, I figured that China might think that is a better risk than letting America handle the problem. Heck, the Chinese might believe their military is fully capable of marching on Pyongyang and changing the regime and so is no risk at all.

Perhaps everyone thinks that stricter sanctions will have an effect and prevent North Korea from going nuclear and eliminate the need for America, South Korea, and Japan (plus others) to strike North Korea:

The United States could shortly broaden talks on a push for stronger U.N. sanctions on North Korea to include all 15 Security Council members, signaling a likely deal with China on new measures, diplomats said on Thursday.

Of course, then there is the issue of whether China would really like to maintain a nuclear-armed loose cannon pointed at America, Japan, and South Korea, rather than cooperate with North Korea's potential targets.

If a Taiwan crisis is brewing (and China has set the stage--and yes, I was wrong in my dot connecting then in regard to timing, although to be fair Russia showed my basic logic was solid by invading Georgia at that moment--and can pull off an invasion, I believe, even if it is costly in lives), could it explode on the eve of an American-led attack on North Korea?

Would that timing throw America into confusion and indecision, as our leaders try to decide whether to attack North Korea while letting Taiwan die, looking like a cynical superpower deal; shift forces already poised to strike North Korea to intervene in Taiwan, risking a wider war with China and perhaps inviting North Korean strikes to gain Chinese favor, and perhaps not even taking place in time to save Taiwan because we over-focused on our North Korea target and take too long to make the choice to save Taiwan; or perhaps after a delay as we weigh options and risks, we go after North Korea anyway, risking a victorious China in a Taiwan war demand our allies stand down against North Korea in the face of demonstrated Chinese power?

Of course, China might fail to conquer. Perhaps Taiwan is better than I think they are and China not as proficient as I fear they might be.

But even gaining a foothold on Taiwan would be a partial victory for China. If Taiwan can't throw the Chinese into the sea, a ceasefire in place just gives China a bridgehead for a future attack begun from the land rather than the more dangerous sea and air method of conquest. Russia's success in keeping footholds in Ukraine in 2014 could lead China to think they can get away with the same kind of quick territorial grab.

If there is a noticeable American-led build up to hit North Korea sometime in 2018 before North Korea has the capacity to hit North America, China would be able to mobilize for war with Taiwan partially explained by the need to cope with the American build up over North Korea. Heck, we might think China is mobilizing to take down North Korea in compliance with our sort-of ultimatum.

Have a super sparkly day.

Now Excuse Me While I Go Change My Underwear

The British SAS are testing out a helmet that surely scares the jihad out of anyone who faces the troops using it.

American SEALs and Delta Force operators have already used this. Never heard of it until now.

Am I safe in assuming it really doesn't harm peripheral vision?

So the Point is That it Doesn't Matter What We Do?

Let me get this straight. China and Russia will muck around in the Arctic Sea (where China has no territorial claims) unless America joins the Law of the Sea treaty (LOST)?

But if America joins it will be too late?

And China already claims far more in the South China Sea than LOST allows.

And China ignored a ruling against them and in favor of the Philippines under the LOST provisions in the South China Sea.

And after Ukraine you are going to argue that Russia can be stopped with a piece of paper when Ukraine had four of those friggin' things (USSR transfer of Crimea to the Ukraine; Russian acceptance of Crimea in Ukraine after USSR collapsed in 1991; the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Ukrainian territorial integrity; and the general UN stuff on not invading another member state, of which Ukraine is a founding member funny enough) before being invade in two places in 2014?

Maybe it is just my poor capacity for nuance that is responsible, but I get the impression that the status of America in or out of LOST has no effect at all on China's or Russia's ambitions; and that the best response is grey (and white) hulls.

I'm more worried about freedom of navigation at sea that LOST endangers by allowing states to wall off huge chunks of ocean that will soon become de facto territorial waters.

Really, America is well poised to extract resources in those waters that LOST supposedly lets us wall off. Why can't direct diplomacy with China keep them out as part of negotiations.

Maybe America should start drilling in South China Sea waters since we aren't in the treaty and so not bound to respect China's LOST claims.

Then we trade with China. They don't drill or mine in the Arctic and we don't do that in the South China Sea.

I don't see any benefit to signing a treaty that China and Russia will ignore and simply ensnare America in its web of rules.

The Restart of History in Europe

EUCOM will have the equipment for a full American heavy division in Europe by 2021:

The first armored brigade, division headquarters, division artillery, and fires brigade will be in Europe by the end of 2017. Additional equipment will continue to arrive through 2021 when there is expected to be enough equipment and ammunition to support a division-sized force.

This is on top of the airborne and Stryker brigades forward deployed plus a battalion task force and a rotational brigade committed to Europe.

Recall that notwithstanding the Russian whining about the NATO threat that it wasn't long ago that the Army had no tanks at all in Europe, so confident were we that peace had broken out all over Europe.

This isn't quite the corps I've long wanted in Europe (see my article which is third in the table of contents) in addition to heavy equipment in Poland in a REFORPOL concept (like the old REFORGER in Germany).

One, I don't know where the equipment is going. It might be Germany. It should be mostly in Poland with perhaps some in Slovakia.

But combined with the equipment, we will have 6-1/3 Army brigades in Europe for all practical purposes.

And I think we have a brigade's worth of Marine equipment in Norway.

I wonder if the British might join America in putting equipment in Poland? Might Germany, too, although they could road or rail their troops in rather than fly them in. Although if the Germans take the lead in crushing the Russian Kaliningrad enclave in case of war, just being based in Germany is probably just as close to the potential area of operations.

I don't want Russia to be our enemy. We have enough problems. So do the Russians. Perhaps our areas of cooperation are limited. But why be each other's biggest problem to the advantage of China and others?

But Russia gets a vote in this, too, and they keep voting the straight asshat ticket. So more American armor goes to Europe.

The Abrams TFV

The latest version of the Abrams main battle tank has a remote weapons station (RWS) on its turret.

I'd still like to see an infantry fighting vehicle version of the tank used as a support vehicle so heavy but still lighter Bradley Fighting Vehicles don't get lit up supporting the advance of the tanks.

Equip such a support vehicle with a smaller turret that houses a 40mm auto cannon and an anti-tank missile launcher plus give it two remote weapons stations.

Perhaps the tank fighting vehicle (TFV) could have a couple dismounts in it, mostly for scouting work.

And if the RWS could be operated by gunners in the rear using reachback technology as I argue here in Infantry Magazine, you could dismount the scouts without losing the onboard firepower.

Or you could have pure reachback for the TFV to operate the RWS with no dismounts, purely for mobile support, only bringing up infantry if the advance is stopped. I mean, if the tanks are held up by bad terrain (including cities), you will want the infantry dismounted anyway.

Then the TFV could move into a city or bad terrain accompanied by infantry with the Abrams held back for long-range fire support where they won't be vulnerable to shorter-range ambushes in close terrain.

The Israelis use their older Merkava main battle tanks for Namer (or Nemer) fighting vehicles. Yes, with the engine in front the Israeli tank has an advantage as a fighting vehicle over the rear-engine Abrams.

But I'm not trying to put too many troops in the Abrams TFV. I just want a survivable support vehicle that can keep up with the Abrams on the move and suppress infantry trying to kill the tanks.

We do have a lot of spare Abrams tanks not in the force structure that we could afford to modify. Why not try some out at the National Training Center to see if they can work in whatever configuration?

Remember, I call this a TFV and not an IFV that has exceptionally effective armor. Maybe the Abrams main battle tank could use a TFV in support more than it could use an IFV.

UPDATE: Strategypage has more on the newest up-gunned Namer, including that an American company is building them. So our industry has the ability to do this, even if our tanks are not a well suited as the Merkava for the conversion--unless we focus on using reachback for the RWS on an Abrams TFV.

Protecting Russian Interests

If America and Russia have some sort of agreement to basically partition Syria, leaving Assad in charge of a Core Syria in the west where Russia has naval and air bases while America is free to defeat ISIL, this move is consistent with that:

Russia's Defense Ministry announced a cease-fire for a third safe zone in war-torn Syria on Thursday, paving the way for the delivery of sorely needed humanitarian relief to rebel-held areas north of the city of Homs.

A fourth zone is planned under the agreement by Russia, Iran, and Turkey.

I guess it leaves Iran free to seek the expansion of their zone in Syria to the Iraqi border to get an overland supply route back to Iran; leaving America and our allies to cope with that. Russia won't mind if we are busy and they are not.

Turkey gets to keep their zone in the north, of course, as a buffer.

Assad stays in power--unless his supporters crack under the strain of casualties and war--but with a truncated state reliant on Iran and Russia to survive with rebels poised around his Core Syria.

America gets a free hand to fight ISIL in Syria.

And Russia, of course, gets their air and naval bases without the need to fight for formal Syria's borders.

Will Assad be content with that sort of deal or try to expand back to formal Syria's borders?

So Who Backs Down, Then?

Stratfor says that the confrontation over the Doka La Pass could lead to war because it is different than other confrontations--but won't because other objectives are higher than winning this territorial spat:

The area matters greatly to both countries, but not enough to outweigh the other issues they’re facing, and not enough to justify the costs of war.

Maybe. But does India really want to back down and risk Bhutan's allegiance and increase China's ability to mount an offensive into northeast India?

And does China wish to add one more defeat to their recent list when the Xi is trying to display dominance?

This situation is different, as Stratfor notes. I'm not sure why that doesn't alarm Stratfor more.

Both could both make decisions that lead to war if they are both comforted by the notion that the other side doesn't consider this issue worth the costs of war.

If India doesn't back down first, China might try to score a win believing it would be an isolated incident that India won't dare expand.

As an aside to this commentary, I don't want a China-India war over this or any other flash point.

I am, however, happy that China is increasingly focused inland to dilute their former focus seaward where our Navy and our allies are. And I am happy that India is increasingly aligning with America to contain Chinese ambitions. But I do not want war.

Aside from the sheer death and destruction that I don't wish on anyone, at this stage I assume India would lose a border war with China. The correlation of forces does not benefit India. Although perhaps Indian troops would prove better than the Chinese troops and prevail in a limited war. I don't know. I'd rather not risk it.

I'm not sure who those strategists who want war are or if the author of this piece is conflating what I want with the assumed desire for war.

Ultimately I'd like it if Chinese inland ambitions lead to tensions with Russia to get these two potential enemies worried about each other rather than America and our allies.

So yeah, contrary to that commentary's point of welcoming Chinese endeavors in South Asia, if it was up to me I'd resist Chinese efforts to make advances into South Asia economically in order to funnel Chinese inland ambitions toward Central Asia where friction with Russia would develop.

Make Afghanistan Adequate Again

The Trump administration needs to make a decision to win the Afghanistan campaign by committing American forces (with coalition support added, as well) to support the Afghan security forces while those local forces are still fighting.

Iraq was in worse shape than the Afghans are now when the Obama administration relaunched our efforts there in fall 2014 with Iraq War 2.0. Supporting coalition forces and capabilities enabled the Iraqis to fight through to the liberation of Mosul, with operations continuing against the remnants of ISIL.

Afghan security forces slowly losing ground without our full support on the level of Iraq, and we can restore the situation there if we commit to providing similar capabilities with our NATO and other partners:

The situation is grim, but scarcely hopeless if the U.S. acts decisively to give the Afghan forces the same kind of intense air support, forward deployed train and assist effort, and combat support that has worked well with Iraqi forces against ISIS and with the Kurdish and Arab forces the U.S. is supporting in northwest Syria. Polls also show that the Taliban and other insurgents lack any form of broad popularity and the SIGAR report notes that the official estimate is that insurgent gains are still limited[.]

Do we really want to wait for a major collapse like the Iraqis experienced in the first half of 2014 before we react?

We really don't want Afghanistan to become a terrorist sanctuary again. Let's prevent that while we have lots of Afghan forces in the field fighting the jihadis.

My goal for Afghanistan has never been high. I've just wanted a nominal central government with local forces keeping terrorists from setting up shop.

We can still get that if we provide the support that the Afghans can't provide.  But the Trump administration has to make that decision to act, or take the responsibility for allowing Afghanistan to become a terror haven--again.

Don't Let China See the Big Board!

I don't see inviting China to RIMPAC as signaling the loss of American influence in the Asia. But it is a mistake.

Well:

The late June 2017 confirmation from the Pentagon that the People's Republic of China (PRC) has been invited to participate in the 2018 Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise is a seminal event in the history of U.S.-PRC relations. It appears to establish a policy of permanent and uninterrupted RIMPAC invitations to the Chinese. Unfortunately, the invitation will someday be remembered as the formal beginning of the end of U.S. influence in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.

The argument is that the invitation should be based on good Chinese behavior and that inviting them now breaks that linkage.

The author has a point. But my opposition is on a more practical level: letting the Chinese watch our military close up just helps them believe they can figure out how to beat us:

We are officially in favor of these [mil-to-mil exchange] missions because we believe that if the Chinese see how powerful we are, they won't try to fight us.

This is a crock. The Chinese know we are technically more advanced. What they think is that we are too pampered to fight them. And seeing our nice barracks and PXs with Chanel No. 5 won't convince them that we are hard warriors able to absorb high casualties. Seeing our military up close will simply give them insights into fighting us or at least cause them to believe that they have insights into fighting us[.]

Keep the Chinese at arm's length. At least make them work to gain insights into our military.

Bring the Mountain to Mohammed

I'm generally in favor of forward deploying more troops in Europe given the importance of the continent to America.

I do think that in the short run, having practice deploying heavy brigades from the continental United States to Europe is very useful given that the skill has atrophied since the Cold War.

Cost isn't my major concern. It is the time to deploy that concerns me. So I'd like practice moving units across the Atlantic followed by permanent stationing and REFORPOL depots in Europe centered on Poland.

But this writer has a point about a problem with forward deployed units:

Forward-stationed brigades do not have access to [a National Training Center OpFor] capstone exercise and must send one to two battalions at a time to smaller training sites such as the Joint Multinational Training Center in Germany or Rodriguez Live Fire Complex in Korea.

He's probably right about the effect of not going to NTC. Although I seem to recall that nobody considered our V and VII Corps forward deployed in West Germany to be anything but our best heavy units during the Cold War. In the Persian Gulf War I recall that the Iraqis feared our VII Corps the most because it had trained to fight the First Team--the USSR's forces in East Germany.

But I'll go with his criticism of the problem of forward-deployed units. He's probably right.

First off, I'm fine with rotating units through Kuwait and South Korea. I think that is a sufficient model for defending our interests there given the strength of allies and the status of enemy threats.

But Europe is different. We need troops in central Europe and in a crisis we need them sooner rather than later. The gap in time between needing American heavy forces in Europe and having them in Europe is a valuable period of time for Russia.

I'd like other NATO allies to move to central Europe with us, too.

But the training problem remains, then. Forward units don't have access to the NTC in America.

So why not build a training center in central Europe that rivals the NTC? I think it would be great to have a center there for American and NATO allies to practice their craft against the best Russian-style heavy force ever created--our OpFor unit at NTC.

Make the Effort to Win, Okay?

Strategypage takes a tour of Afghanistan, including air power, the Russians and Iranians, the Pakistanis, and Heroin.

I don't understand why we'd fail to make the extra incremental effort to try to win this war given what we've sunk into it so far, given what happened on 9/11 when enemies ran freely there, and given the amount of effort it would take to re-secure the place if our enemies win again (seek Iraq, if we are lucky enough in Afghanistan not to have a complete collapse if we fail to make the effort in Afghanistan).

North Korea Recruits for America

North Korea solved the problem of a new South Korean president prone to reaching out to North Korea:

South Korean President Moon Jae-in vowed in the day after the [North Korean ICBM] test to deploy more interceptor missile launchers for the country’s controversial anti-missile defense system, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, more commonly known by its acronym, THAAD, it was a radical turnaround from his previous positions. North Korea had probably hoped to drive a wedge between the U.S. and South Korea through its missile tests and other provocations in the months following the election of a left-leaning government in South Korea. As of now, it looks like those ambitions have failed.

Not that South Korea is fully on board confronting North Korea. Elements in Seoul really want reconciliation in defiance of the reality of North Korea's hostility.

But North Korea's provocations likely mean that any outreach constituency will remain too weak to derail a strike campaign that I think is scheduled for 2018 unless China (or sheer good luck from anywhere) ends the threat posed by North Korean nukes.

In related news:

Speculation is rising in Japan that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe may visit North Korea in September, following an interview during which he expressed interest in undertaking the "political adventure of a lifetime."

I assume nobody actually believes Abe could score a diplomatic breakthrough by visiting.

But would such a visit show he made every effort to avoid a military strike campaign in 2018?

Would such a personal visit be necessary to set aside Japanese aversion to military action--even military action designed to prevent Japan from being nuked by North Korea?

The 1980s Called and We Just Answered

In 1987, when the Cold War raged and North Korea backed by the Soviet Union had an army that could have captured South Korea's capital Seoul (holding it was another matter of course), the United States decided it wanted its military headquarters in South Korea moved south from Seoul.

Fast forward thirty years, when the Cold War is won and the Soviet Union is no more, with a North Korean military rotting away and unlikely to get much past the DMZ. America has opened up a new base well south of Seoul:

Now, the $11 billion base [at Pyeongtaek] is beginning to look like the garrison that military planners envisaged decades ago.

The Eighth Army moved its headquarters here this month and there are about 25,000 people based here, including family members and contractors.

Now the base is safe from North Korean ground troops. North Korea will need to waste a nuke on it.

I assume it will also host THAAD and Patriot missile units.

Years ago we planned to move our combat units away from the DMZ so they wouldn't be easily targeted by the North Koreans. It made sense to have our forces in reserve. But now we promised to keep a combat brigade up there.

I guess the South Koreans weren't comfortable with America having the option of striking North Korea from the air behind a shield of South Korean troops who would face any immediate retaliation.

On the bright side, I'm sure the property we vacate in Seoul will be valuable real estate for civilian use.

Weekend Data Dump

A RAND report on following up the victory in Mosul with reconstruction and reconciliation. A major factor will be America staying in Iraq rather than leaving as we did in 2011, and keeping our allies with us to help Iraq. Hopefully we see problems developing and react before it gets too bad (and in January I was practically begging the Obama administration to intervene before it got really bad), as it did in June 2014. Mosul collapsed with an influx of jihadis at the end of 2004 when al Qaeda-held Fallujah was stormed that autumn; and Mosul was the center of the collapse in the north where Iraqi military units fell apart in the absence of good leadership in the units. Third time's the charm, eh?

Some commentators are bewildering. No American military victory is really a victory because it doesn't solve every problem for all time into the future; and no enemy is really beaten because no matter how badly we kick their asses it is really just part of their deep and sophisticated plan to achieve victory.

The commander of American air power in the Pacific said "the U.S. and its allies are prepared to use 'rapid, lethal and overwhelming force,' if necessary, against North Korea[.]" I noted that the British will send a warship to the Pacific next year, ostensibly to conduct a freedom of navigation operation in waters claimed by China. I later heard the ship will be their new aircraft carrier--or both--the wording is ambiguous. To me, sending even a single carrier for a FONOP seems like overkill. And it can't be both given that only one of their carriers will have an initial operating capacity in 2018. Now I wonder if the British will use that motive as cover to participate in a strike campaign against North Korea in 2018, should the Chinese ignore our offer to let them deal with the problem before that deadline and gain an economic benefit for saving America and our allies from having to do the job. Our UN ambassador said the time for talking is over. I think we are on a countdown to war in 2018 unless China does something concrete first to end the problem.

I imagine Japan will be with us on the strike campaign, given the popularity of expensive bomb shelters all of a sudden. Japan has a reason not be be nuked again. And America has a duty to prevent it a second time given our role the first time (regardless of the justification for the decision at the time).

Hillary Clinton's new book clearly indicates she has no idea "what happened" in 2016 if, after basing her campaign around her glorious lady bits as a call to arms for p***y hat-wearing women (and the men who obey them) everywhere to vote for her, she blames the failure of women haters to love her lady bits for her defeat. Will Hillary finally not accept that America doesn't like her? She lost to Trump in the general election. She nearly lost to that ancient socialist independent Bernie in the Democratic primary but for DNC contest rigging. And she lost again among Democrats in the 2008 primary to another man in what I'm sure was another case of lady bits hatred. Seriously, she should focus her hopes on Chelsea who isn't getting any younger, smarter, or electable on her own. But the book will be well received by her supporters who are eager to drink the same koolaid and have their existing opinion confirmed. They're with her, remember. And she wants them with her in 2020, too.

This self-identification nonsense is well beyond stupid if a woman who was not in fact raped can self-identify as a victim and have the media go along with the fiction. If this is how we play the game, I'm going to mention it to my wife Morgan Fairchild, whom I've slept with.

Now I know why Britain has having difficulty disentangling from the European Union: The EU cut off technical support for the word processing that Britain needs to draft the Brexit document.

The House IT proto-scandal is bad enough alone, but it also speaks to how economically illiterate the Democrats are. Consider that Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz was going to pay her Pakistani IT guy his $160,000 salary while he lived in Pakistan. Normally when you outsource to some IT guy in Pakistan because he does work Americans won't do, you pay him $16,000 to make the outsourcing profitable.

Europeans want to defend a borderless Europe that terrorists can take advantage of but don't have freedom of movement for the NATO forces that defend them.

I'm getting whiplash. It was tough enough to watch the media go from celebrating McCain the maverick who dissented from Republicans to condemning his sickly Hitler-like campaign against Obama in 2008. But now that McCain voted to kill the "skinny" repeal of Obamacare, the media is back to praising McCain's character and wisdom.

The Arab coalition trying to pry Qatar away from Iran (the jihadi stuff is negotiable, I think) are willing to negotiate. Qatar's call to internationalize holy sites in Saudi Arabia is playing the Iranian card (See? We could be worse.) and Qatar will dump that demand in the negotiations.

I'm just going to note that the Europeans have spent the first six months of the Trump presidency worrying if he'd defend NATO Europe from Russian aggression; and Europe will apparently spend the rest of the year condemning America for putting sanctions on an energy pipeline project that will make Russia more able to blackmail Europe into complying with Russian wishes. Is this that nuance stuff I keep hearing I should have?

How long before citizen criminals sue sanctuary cities for failing to provide equality before the law because they are charged more harshly than aliens so the aliens can avoid deportation?  How can aliens fail to conclude that these local governments are fine with their crimes if the governments don't want to punish them? Tip to Instapundit.

So ... when does this policy start? From Instapundit.

As problematic as the actual science of global warming is, the response that global warmers advocate for is the bigger problem. Stop the panic. And if you wish to panic, order your own life as if the basis for your panic is true--no children, air travel, or personal vehicles; and stop buying new stuff when your old stuff still works. Oh, and move to a small home. Sorting your friggin' glass by color in front of your house so all the neighbors can see you does not make up for your annual ski vacation in Europe, eh?

I won't miss Katie Couric at Yahoo! News. I use Yahoo news everyday, but have zero interest in reading the opinions of any of their high-priced "names" who purport to explain the world to me. I'd rather the website use the money saved to restore the past functionality of being able to sort the world news by region, which was highly valued by me. And perhaps by others who value being able to look for the frontline news feeds rather than have some paid yahoo pretend to explain the news to me.

I have a low level of trust in the data that scientists use to show warming trends. How many other responsible bodies skew their temperature records up this way? And how many other ways are there to achieve the same thing? If enough tweak the data or the way it is collected (or simply adjust it the "right" way), our temperature records are nothing of the sort. And each one who does this might think "The science is settled because the rest of the data is rock solid, and I'd hate for my data set to be the one that 'deniers' seize on to attack global warming (and it might harm my career!). So I'll do some innocent fudging." Again, how many would it take thinking exactly that to wreck the data upon which the science is based?

It is not true that rogue states need nuclear weapons to deter American attack that aims for regime change. The simple fact is that America tolerates lots of rogue states, and only pursuing WMD puts a rogue state on our to-do list.

From Pet Rock to Tactical Assault Rock in only 42 years. Progress! I confess I purchased a Pet Rock as a gift. But remember I was a child.

Is the name of Apple's newest phone "The Amazing iPhone 7"? Because I'm getting sick of every commercial by every company calling it that. It makes me wonder what they are trying to obscure.

Moldova is vulnerable to a Russian amphibious invasion and the Moldovans don't seem motivated to make the effort to stop the Russians.

I expect better from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. A total of 2,800 troops is not a "massive" military exercise in Georgia. The text calls it a "major" exercise, which is more defensible as a characteristic of the effect on Georgia which is still a victim of creeping Russian aggression. "Massive" is a description of size and is clearly in error.

According to Democrats, racist whites are the reason Trump beat Clinton. But I scratch my head about this considering that in 2016 Hillary was not an African-American candidate; and considering that those same "racist" whites who voted for Trump in 2016 had largely voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.  I suspect that learning to accept the Democratic charge is the key to getting that nuance that I seem to lack.

Once again, it is called the Statue of Liberty and not the Statue of Unrestricted Immigration. I'm generally pro-immigration (and believe anyone has the potential to be an American), but the notion that our country can't seal off illegal immigration and can't set the terms and rate of legal immigration to benefit America by increasing the chances of immigrants becoming American rather than bringing Old World hatreds here is just nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

Related to the above, I'd be more prone to letting my basic disdain for our president rise to the surface if the press corps didn't make our president look positively presidential by their insane posturing. Seriously, these are the people that wanted Hillary Clinton president. So their judgment is of little value to me. If their plain reporting of the facts can't turn me against Trump, what they are doing now sure isn't going to make me anything but continuously grateful to Trump that he prevented Clinton from entering the Oval Office.

Also related, and the concept isn't original to me, but the Left disdains original intent for the Constitution but embraces it for a friggin' poem. Please remember that when the poem was written the rapidly expanding America was desperately short of labor. Today the unemployed and working poor already here get screwed by that competition on the bottom rung. I personally think that applicants for immigration here should get extra points if they are journalists. Let's see how the press corps enjoys that kind of competition.

If climate change is the new civil rights movement as Al Gore claims, then Mr. Gore's gargantuan electricity bill at his massive home makes Gore virtually a slave owner, eh? I'm not going to listen to any hectoring lectures on global warming from anyone who has a carbon footprint larger than mine. To Hell with these people. Tip to Instapundit.

When our buildings start falling over, our planes drop from the skies, and somebody thinks we should irrigate our crops with Gatorade, you'll know why that happened. God save us from the people who "care."

Jesus Christ you effing moron, there is a difference--a yuge one--between Trump firing staff (which involves returning to their upper class suburban lives) and Stalin purging staff (which involved prison, torture, and/or killing--not necessarily in that order).

Any talk of Trump drifting to war (or plotting war) against Iran neglects that Iran has been at war with America since the revolution and boasts of killing Americans. The same can be said of Syria which killed plenty of Americans in Iraq by funneling Sunni Arab jihadis into Iraq during the Iraq War. In some ways, Syria is just experiencing the blowback (as I noted they risked) of establishing rat lines from the Sunni world to Iraq when the Iraq terminus was shut off and Syria became the destination instead of the route.

India is apparently doing really well in cricket competition. I assume the woke will turn their morally superior gaze toward India to condemn them for culturally appropriating the British game. Because, stupidity.

Upon reflection, I think the "original intent" Left is correct that immigration to America should be set at the level it was in 1883 when Emma Lazarus wrote "The New Colossus" for the Statue of Liberty:  603,322. (page 5)

Go West Young Han

This author writes that we should get the Chinese pointed into Central Asia to promote Russian-Chinese tension as a way of deflecting Chinese power directed at America and our allies at sea. Join the club!

The title misleadingly says that we should strengthen China against Russia. Egad! Russia is weak enough in the Far East compared to China. Helping China is insane. China hardly needs help to be stronger than Russia and every dollar we might use to help that balance along would just allow China to divert a dollar they'd spend anyway to counter America--or India, of course.

But really, the author speaks of getting China involved inland. Which will bump up against Russian interests.

Welcome to the club I founded more than 12 years ago. (And I know I've used the title repeatedly over the years.)

We don't need to arm China. We need to point them.

Peace in Iraq Does Not Go Through Sadr

This article says that America and Saudi Arabia will work to reduce Iranian influence in Iraq:

As Iraqis celebrate Mosul’s liberation from the Islamic State (ISIS or IS), their country’s future is anything but certain. Although it is premature to conclude that the fight against IS in Iraq is over, the Trump administration’s approach to Iraq is likely to focus more on countering Iran’s influence in the Shi’ite-majority Arab country. Saudi Arabia will support Trump in this. Until recently, Riyadh avoided engaging the Shi’ite leadership in Baghdad based on the view that the post-2003 political order in Iraq has been entirely under Tehran’s thumb. Last month’s rare visit to Riyadh of Muqtada al-Sadr, a prominent Iraqi Shi’ite cleric who has called for the disbanding of Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, signaled how the kingdom too has a heightened interest in attempting to bring Iraq farther away from the Islamic Republic’s orbit of influence.

That's good. But the prominence of Moqtada al-Sadr as the apparent focus of Saudi outreach to Iraq is dangerous given that I believe that three-time insurrectionist and one-time (Really?) Iranian sock puppet is a danger to American interests in Iraq.

The Saudis were wrong to stiff-arm the Iraqis after the overthrow of Saddam and I wrote that it was a mistake not to pull Iraq into the Arab fold over the Sunni-Shia divide rather than let Iran pull Iraq into the Shia fold over the Arab-Persian divide.

I thought the Arab world finally made that choice in 2007; I hoped the Iran threat would prompt that confrontation with reality; and I cheered a belated outreach in 2015. Yet still Iran burrows into Iraq. Because the Arab world has not been diligent in cultivating pan-Arab solidarity in the face of Iranian threats.

But Sadr is no avenue for peace in a belated pan-Arab outreach.

I do not believe Sadr will do anything but deliver Iraq to the pro-Iran forces that threaten democracy in Iraq.

Friendly Fire

The Air Force continues their plan to kill the A-10 even as they pretend to love the plane and the capabilities to support ground troops that the plane provides.

This seems about right:

According to several sources inside the Air Force, the service will push ahead with the light attack tests and eventually select one of the airframes for procurement. The acquisition of the selected OA-X will then be dragged out over years. In the meantime, the Air Force will request permission to divest increasing numbers of A-10s to free up funds to purchase the new aircraft, while using the justification that it makes the A-10 redundant. The A-10s will be sent to the boneyard where they will quickly be scrapped, thus ensuring they can never again be brought back into service. Once the A-10’s demise is a fait accompli, the light attack plane program will be quietly canceled. This may seem rather conspiracy-minded, but the Air Force has repeatedly attempted to rid itself of the A-10 and the close air support mission only to be thwarted by public pressure and congressional injunctions.

A year ago, the Air Force said they were planning a super awesome replacement for the A-10--the A-X2--and the OA-X would be an interim low-cost plane useful for the fights right now. I viewed the OA-X as a placeholder to kill the A-10 for good:

Little money will be spent on the super awesome A-X2; the A-10 will be retired and scrapped; the small OA-X force will be quietly sold off; and the multi-role F-35 (with expert pilots and support crews previously dedicated to close air support turned into multi-role air power crews, losing the experience built up over decades) will be touted as the ground support solution.

And the Air Force will proceed as they planned, paying little attention to ground force fire support needs.

I don't have any sources inside the Air Force. I just have their statements, doctrine, and history to go by.

Time is Also an Enemy

The Iraqis believe that the ISIL defenders in Tal Afar are primed to be defeated. That may very well be true, but it may also be a temporary effect of the Mosul defeat.

Let's hope so after the beating ISIL took trying to hold Mosul:

A senior Iraqi general predicted a relatively easy victory for his forces in the upcoming battle for the Islamic State haven of Tal Afar as up 2,000 fighters and their families there are "worn out and demoralised".

Less than one month after declaring victory in the city of Mosul, Iraqi forces are poised to attack Tal Afar, which is around 40 km to the west of Mosul, in what will be the next major battle against the militants.

"I don't expect it will be a fierce battle even though the enemy is surrounded," Major-General Najm al-Jabouri told Reuters in an interview.

It would help if the Iraqis turned on Tal Afar more quickly. Morale recovers.

I strongly believe that ISIL morale in Iraq was shaky after a number of defeats in Anbar, but that the time it took the Iraqis to turn on Mosul (fall 2016) gave ISIL the chance to restore their morale.

Warmbier Alive or Kim Jong-Un Dead?

Rosett has a point that the formalized language of outrage over North Korea's brutal,nuke-seeking regime is insufficient. Or at least pointless:

There is by now a formula to it so familiar it might even qualify as reassuring to Pyongyang. Our leaders condemn, protest, and with a diplomatic delicacy that sounds ever more hallucinatory, they declare in the face of obvious realities that what is happening must not happen, and they invite North Korea to mind its manners.

I especially like statements that what North Korea does is "unacceptable," when the sainted international community obviously accepts North Korea's status and path.

If I was writing a story of good versus evil about this issue, North Korea would of course be in the evil role.

My hero might give the North Koreans an ultimatum: In 24 hours (or whatever time period it would take North Korea to prepare a nuclear missile for launch minus 4 hours), America will begin a bombardment of Pyongyang and every other place where the elite might flee.

And the only way to stop the bombardment that will not end in time to save any member of the elite, is to hand over the corpse of Kim Jong-Un and then, within a week, have his replacement show up at the DMZ to negotiate the end of North Korea's nuclear weapons program, with trucks of nuclear equipment and bus loads of nuclear scientists and technicians in a convoy that will proceed to South Korea where they will reside forever.

Would anybody in North Korea bend before that threat and deliver the price of standing our bombers and missiles down?

Alas, in a story the ending is written to suit the author's taste. And I don't know if in reality I would write the ending or Kim Jong-Un would.

Pity. It would be a grand story.

Maybe the best thing to do when North Korea tests something is not say anything at all and make the North Koreans wonder why we aren't repeating the ritual but unconvincing denunciations.

Perhaps I'm on to something:

Nikki Haley, the US envoy to the United Nations, said there was "no point" in holding a fruitless emergency Security Council session, warning that another weak council resolution would be "worse than nothing" in light of the North's repeated violations.

Just stop reacting with words and focus on how to execute a strike campaign. We'll see if China would prefer that to dealing with their little pet psycho.

Divide and Conquer

Maduro had decided to go full dictatorship with a new body of hand-picked delegates who will formalize his dictatorial powers over the objections of the vast majority of people. But Maduro doesn't have the apparatus of absolute power--yet--to enforce that power over serious opposition.

After a sham election validating Maduro's absolute power grab, the government arrested two key opposition leaders.

Strategypage has more and wonders if the military would obey orders to shoot a massive march of unarmed people to topple Maduro.

If formalizing dictatorial powers doesn't cow the population, we are getting closer to the point where Maduro needs a foreign enemy to divide the opposition by pushing some to rally around Maduro; and to keep the military that might not fully defend Maduro busy with a foreign threat.

The Dutch might want to review their defense plans for their Caribbean islands .

Up-Gunned But Not Up-Marined

The Navy and Marine Corps exercised a reinforced amphibious ready group that combines a Marine reinforced battalion (a MEU) and its amphibious ships with surface warships that can protect and support the troops:

The U.S. Navy has put its up-gunned expeditionary strike group concept into practice within a realistic war-fighting scenario, with allied surface combatants joining an amphibious ready group, or ARG, and its embarked Marines for a major exercise off the coast of Australia.

The Bonhomme Richard ARG was joined by a surface action group, or SAG, made up of the U.S. destroyer Sterett and four Australian frigates at Exercise Talisman Saber 2017, which saw American and Australian forces carry out two major amphibious landings at Australia’s Shoalwater Bay Training Area.

The expeditionary strike group is getting close to the marine expeditionary battle force I mentioned back in 2000 (see article starting on p. 38) that added warships to an amphibious ready group. It was just a tangential reference with a mention of supporting ships for the ARG (the editors stripped out the graphic that I used to illustrate the concept in lieu of words to stay within the word limit of the contest). I filled in that hole by describing the force here (on my original site preserved here):

The Marine Expeditionary Battle Force (MEBF) itself is a force designed to get a Marine Expeditionary Brigade, including heavy firepower, into a battle quickly. The MEBF is built on the forward deployment of an Amphibious Ready Group's (ARG) Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) and Navy combat ships. The concept relies on sailing prepositioning ships (SPS) becoming an integral part of the ARG with the airlift power of the Air Force linking the whole brigade-sized unit across global distances. The vulnerability of prepositioning ships either anchored or sailing alone is reduced by having the protection of the warships of a Surface Action Group (SAG). The MEBF can put the Marine battalion landing team ashore as it would now, while unloading the equipment for the balance of a brigade from the SPS which will marry up with personnel carried to the theater from the United States or Okinawa by the Air Force.

This is the graphic:

Not that my idea of adding warships to the ARG was unique. In my defense, in the earlier days of the Internet, information wasn't nearly as available and I was unaware of the Navy experiments with doing exactly that. But it made sense to me.

The part missing from the modern ESG is the equipment for reinforcing units. That at least was a unique contribution in my article:

One answer is steaming prepositioning ships. Taking the concept one step further, sailing with an amphibious ready group (ARG) will protect prepositioning squadrons. As ARGs rotate to homeports, prepositioning ships could unload weapons and vehicles for maintenance before sailing again. Such squadrons travelling with ARGs will allow the Marines to reinforce landings rapidly. Two battalions plus brigade assets either in the United States or on Okinawa could be combined with LAV variants and heavy equipment to support an embarked expeditionary unit. One battalion and brigade assets could be on immediate deployment notice while a reserve battalion would have longer to prepare for movement.

My idea was to get a full Marine brigade on the ground quickly with just a battalion forward deployed with the expeditionary battle force.

Big Enough to Cross an Ocean?

This author argues for smaller warships to get numbers for the Navy, using the 2,000 ton Russian Steregushchiy-class corvettes as an example. I sympathize with this view, and have long argued that the Navy needs to pick a number and then use the appropriated money to build a high-low mix to get it.

Yet while small ships, like Cyclones or smaller, are useful in the Persian Gulf, I don't believe that small ships like the Russians and a lot of our allies build are possible for the Navy because our ships pretty much have a minimum hull size just to be able to cross an ocean to the patrol area without the hull being pounded to pieces.

And a small ship really designed for coastal waters or enclosed small seas where they will be in combat maybe ten minutes sailing distance outside of their home port isn't appropriate for America.

What's an Order?

Why isn't a reasonably clear Tweet an order?

In regard to the president's transgender ban Tweet, one "senior officer" said:

"I hope our commander in chief understands that we don't transmit orders via Twitter, and that he can't, either," one said by telephone, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Why can't orders be sent by a Tweet?

So in person is okay? A letter is okay? Does it need special stationery or a wax seal? A radio call is okay? A phone call is okay? A telegram, perhaps, is okay? A video conference is okay? Is an email command an order? Is a text message? Or a direct message Tweet? If not, why not? Or is anything more modern than a telegraph too new fangled?

Why isn't a Tweet an order?

Is it a question of verifying the person giving the order? Why is that more of a problem than recognizing a voice or a signature?

When I got a letter in the mail ordering me to active duty for training, it didn't occur to me to think, "Hmm. Is this really valid? How do I know it is real?" No. I showed up where and when I was told to show up.

But in all the talk about this, nobody doubts the president Tweeted that order.

And I don't think anyone is questioning whether the order is lawful, given that allowing transgender troops is a policy less than a year old.

Is it the phrasing?

Can't be. When I was a soldier I was informed in no uncertain terms that phrasing didn't matter. An order was an order even if a superior officer or NCO phrased it as a request or even said it would be great if you did something in particular. If the superior chooses to be polite, that makes the order no less an order despite lacking the magic words "I order you to ..." in front of the direction; or "That's an order" or even "That's a direct order" after the direction given.

Heck, even if an order is incomplete, knowing the intent of the order is supposed to lead you to use initiative to carry it out rather than just stop when the order stops making sense and wait for another order.

Is it that there was no recipient and so by definition it isn't an order? A person giving the order has to give it to someone? That makes the most sense.

But that can't be it, either, even if as a general rule you need a recipient of the order. What if an officer in the midst of a bunch of pinned down soldiers not under his command points and yells out, "Somebody work around the flank and shoot that bastard!"

In that case, wouldn't the senior soldier in that group have the responsibility to carry out the order to "someone?"

So why wouldn't an order via Tweet require whoever has the authority to do what was ordered? Surely presidential Tweets are followed just like phones are answered, mail is opened, radio nets are monitored, and whatever else is used to communicate is answered, no?

I understand that the person who should carry out the order will need guidance on how to do it and there will be give and take on how the order is to be smoothly executed, given the size of the military and the need to write out policies and send them out. That takes time and effort.

Heck, I can even understand a reply of "Are you sure you want to do that, sir?"

But it is still a lawful order given by the commander in chief lawfully carrying out his powers, even if Tweeted, isn't it?

It's an interesting question, isn't it? But I don't see how the answer is anything but yes, a Tweet is an order.

Mega-Distraction

Should cities be the future battlefields?

Yes, cities are getting bigger. Big enough to add the prefix "mega" to many of them. So opportunities to fight in cities increase every year. The battle for Mosul shows how difficult it can be:

The battle for Mosul represents the future of warfare—and it wasn’t pretty for America’s allies. A ragtag army of a few thousand Islamic State fighters managed to hold the city for months against some 100,000 U.S.-backed Iraqi security forces. The ISIS fighters communicated via social media and were armed with crude explosive devices and drones available at Wal-Mart . In the end the rebel fighters were dislodged, but not before an estimated 7,000 people were killed and another 22,000 wounded.

U.S. commanders ought to imagine how they would handle a similar environment. Future American conflicts will not be waged in the caves or craggy mountaintops of Afghanistan, much less the open deserts of Iraq or the jungles of Vietnam. They will be fought in cities—dense, often overpopulated and full of obstacles: labyrinthine apartment blocks, concealed tunnels, panicking civilians. The enemy will be highly networked and integrated into his surroundings. America’s next war will be the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu on steroids.

If the Battle of Mogadishu on steroids is the template, our enemies won't long survive given that our kill ratio was as high as 25:1 in that battle.

While opportunities for battles in cities will grow, should the Army enter those cities? I think we should avoid them, and there are few reasons to violate that avoidance.

Liberating one of our own cities is surely a good reason to fight in a city. The war is going rather poorly if that is the case, you must admit.

But short of that, what are the reasons to take an enemy city rather than push past it to let the defenders wither on the vine while our army seeks to defeat the enemy army in the field?

I'm not persuaded that the Battle for Mosul is the model in that situation.

If an enemy army defends such a city, unlike ISIL it will be reliant on logistics and supplies that cannot be extracted from a civilian population and a local Wal-Mart (and no, explosives are not available at a Wal-Mart) the way ISIL could sustain itself. Bypass and seal off the city and let that army wither on the vine. It's their city, let them feed their own people left in it.

If we have to take an enemy city, try to do it fast the way we bounced Baghdad in 2003 with the Thunder Run by 3rd Infantry and the Marines to the east. Could we really afford to take 8 months to take an enemy-held city in the path of our army? Imagine the Allied offensive grinding to a halt for 8 months to carefully (to avoid friendly civilian casualties) take Paris in summer 1944 while the rest of the German army retreated east?

And why take that much care to avoid enemy civilians if the price of that care is to prolong enemy resistance and so tie down a lot of our troops that will have the effect of prolonging the war?

All things being equal, I'd rather avoid fighting in cities. If I have to, I'd rather just take the militarily significant portion and leave the rest. And overall, I'd rather get it over fast. (Consider whether there would be fewer casualties in a fast victory than in a prolonged battle that kills civilians at a lower rate--but for a much longer period of time.)

Granted, the Mosul model applies to liberating one of your own cities that an irregular enemy had more than two years to prepare for a siege. Like Mosul. But is that really the circumstance we will face in other potential city battles?

Mind you, we should prepare for them, although I wouldn't create combat brigades focused on city combat. The Marines who naturally prepare to assault defended shores might find assaulting a city where their boots don't get soaked a comparative joy. I'd make them the lead force for city combat.

But I'd also have an Army urban warfare school just as their are schools for cold weather, jungle warfare, armored warfare, airborne assault, and anything else, really.

And I'd prepare Army combat engineers to fight in cities so they can leverage Army units prepared when needed for urban combat led by officers and senior NCOs who have attended an urban warfare school.

But as a matter of course, I'd try to keep the Army in the open and moving rather than bogged down in an 8-month campaign to take a city block by block.

Passivity is the Mark of Greatness?

America attacking North Korea plays into China's hands?

North Korea has the United States on a hook. If the US chooses not to attack North Korea, it appears weak, and China would look stronger. And if the US chooses to attack, it could be portrayed as a lawless aggressor.

In a full-scale attack, the US would likely take out North Korea’s nuclear program, and China would be spared that problem. China would then claim that it had been busy mediating and had nearly reached a deal when the American cowboys struck.

Really? I respect George Friedman but I don't know about that logic. How does China letting America solve the problem benefit China?

China claims to dominate (where it doesn't claim to own) the region. If China can't solve the nuclear crisis by ordering their client state that lies right on their border to disarm, doesn't that make China look weak?

If America has to do the job militarily rather than China, doesn't that make China look weak in their own neighborhood sphere of influence?

Doesn't an American strike on North Korea bolster America's reputation as an ally while showing that Chinese friendship won't protect you from America?

After so many decades of talking to North Korea and pleading with China to do something, will anyone believe a Chinese claim that they were moments away from a good deal when America jumped the gun and attacked?

And if the world--as opposed to the communist jokers here who already have their "Hands off North Korea!" signs printed--thinks an American attack on such a horrible regime to disarm it of nuclear weapons is a "cowboy" stunt of lawless aggression, the world can follow Anthony Scaramucci's "yoga" advice to Bannon.

If somebody doesn't resolve this problem,* I sincerely doubt there will be any wave of "human shields" from Europe eager to camp out in American cities within range of North Korean nuclear missiles to protect us.

If China's focus is on the geopolitical balance with America, I'd think a demonstration of Chinese military or diplomatic power to rein in a troublesome client would be better than having China watch America deal with China's client.

I think China ending North Korea's nuclear menace would help China convince American allies in the region to stop building expensive missile defenses that also harm China's conventional and nuclear missile arsenal.

*And as I've said, I think that as a bilateral matter we could deter North Korea if that state gets nukes. The problem is that North Korea will sell nukes to mullah-run Iran, which I don't think we can deter with any level of confidence. Destroy the mullah regime in Iran and I'll reconsider options on North Korea.

When Near, Appear Medium to Long Term

It is difficult to really hide what an entire army is doing. So it is best to convince an enemy that what they see is different from what is. That's why military exercises like Zapad 2017 are dangerous. If we see a safe exercise but Russia intends it as mobilization as a prelude to attack, we are in a world of hurt. So what am I to make of Israeli preparations to fight?

If I am to believe this, Israel is preparing for a conventional threat in 5-10 years:

Israel is enjoying a period of relative calm, but in five to ten years, its strategic environment will likely be significantly more complex and challenging than it is today. For that reason, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has, under the Gideon multi-year working plan, placed combat training and war readiness at the top of its agenda.

The IDF General Staff has identified the objective of attaining a good state of war readiness, and keeping this readiness high, as a crucial objective for Israel in the medium to long term.

And to add to the fun, Israel wants to deter potential enemies, including Hezbollah and Hamas.

Who is the medium to long term conventional threat?

Egypt? Jordan? Unlikely. They are allied to the West and have enemies in common with Israel.

Syria? If the multi-war is over by then, they'll still be recovering. And they were quiet on the conventional front even before that war.

Iraq? Too far and with too much American influence despite Iran's subversion.

Iran? They are a future nuclear but not a conventional threat.

Then we have Hezbollah and Hamas.

Israel can already handle Hamas on the ground as they have demonstrated already (and if they stay long enough to rip up infrastructure).

And then there is Hezbollah, bled by 2,000 KIA fighting for Assad and with a 100,000+ rocket arsenal in southern Lebanon and rear areas deep inside Lebanon.

Israel doesn't need to deter parasitic sub-state Hezbollah which doesn't care about the health of its Lebanon host body. Let Israel pound it! Why would Hezbollah care?

My view is that Israel would like to pound Hezbollah while it is still committed in Syria. That requires a military prepared for mobile warfare prepared to drive north all the way to Baalbek to really tear up Hezbollah infrastructure--from border fortifications and rockets to rear area office, production, and storage facilities--and kill Hezbollah gunmen and bureaucrats while the cream of Hezbollah's troops are in Syria.

And killing those Syria-based troops from the air while they rush back to Lebanon will add to the pain Hezbollah will endure.

If I wanted to rip Hezbollah a new one, I'd want them to think my preparations that can't be completely hidden are for the medium to long term, and that my intent is to deter conflict and sit on the defensive along the border.

But maybe that's just me.

UPDATE: If Lebanon deploys Land Border Regiments to the Israeli border as planned, they will not control Hezbollah there and simply serve as a shield against Israeli military action against Hezbollah.

So I don't like this idea right now.

On the other hand, if Israel rips apart Hezbollah and disperses Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and harms their ability to regenerate by ripping up rear areas all the way to the Bekaa Valley, the Lebanese government would have an opportunity to impose national control on the southern region.

That might have a chance of working. We know the UN won't work, after all.

Still Hoping for the Wonder Tank

I see the Army is still hoping to build the wonder tank. Which I think is futile (see page 28, and note I do not have a PhD as they wrongly credit me).

Let me just focus on one issue raised:

[The] real sort of holy grail of technologies that I’m trying to find on this thing is material, is the armor itself…. If we can discover a material that is significantly lighter in weight that gives you the same armor protection, that would be a real significant breakthrough.

Weight has always been a problem for the American Army. Tanks need armor to survive (and for the crews to survive, of course), which adds weight.

But because America has to ship tanks across an ocean (or two) to fight, heavy tanks are a logistics problem.

Which means that a light vehicle (airmobile even!) with the power and protection of a late-model M-1 Abrams is the tank of the Army's dreams.

So light armor would be the solution, right? I don't think so. As I concluded in that Military Review article, the wonder tank will not be built.

Consider what would happen if we developed armor with half the weight that would provide the same level of protection.

First of all, because of the need for all around protection, we'd add more armor to the sides and rear--and especially the top for defense against top-attack rounds. And mines would require thicker armor on the bottom.

And if enemies go to 140mm tank guns, maybe adding some more armor to the front would be a good idea. And more everywhere else, too.

So I wonder if we'd have any weight savings in the end.

But what if it was really a breakthrough and we have armor with a tenth of the weight?

One, I assume enemies will develop this, too. Enemies will still have the advantage of not needing to move their tanks by ship or (God forbid) air to the battlefield (assuming the Navy and Air Force continue to keep enemy armies an ocean away). So enemies will add on even more of this lighter armor rather than just accept the same protection but with lower weight.

So we'll need a bigger gun on our tanks to handle that thicker enemy armor. And the enemy will add bigger guns, too. So we'll need more protection and so will add more armor all around to protect against the bigger enemy weapons.

And if rail guns allow the Army to move beyond the recoil problem of guns bigger than 140mm? Hello, even thicker armor if enemies follow suit.

Well, unless we figure out a way to kill or disable a tank or its crew without putting a hole through all that armor protection. (Would it be possible to fire a round that hits--or even just gets close enough to the target--and generates enough of an EMP or just an electrical surge locally that it would fry the electronics or electrical system of the target? Just a non-engineer thought. That might be a stupid idea, I admit.)

Not that we shouldn't pursue lighter armor. If a continental enemy got it first, our tanks would be in a world of hurt by being heavy yet not protected to the same degree.

My guess is that the weight of the tank and infantry fighting vehicles won't go down by much even with a breakthrough in armor that everyone will eventually deploy.

Unless we go to full robotic tanks that are designed to be expendable, but which we mass produce.