Weekend Data Dump

Nigeria continues to be a jihadi- and corruption-wracked country.

AOC doesn't really seem to care about making her carbon footprint smaller: “Living in the world as it is isn’t an argument against working towards a better future.” I didn't realize "the world" didn't have alternatives to jets, cars, and expensive apartments. I guess she won't voluntarily practice what she preaches until she can make all of us go first with her Green Leap Forward. When you're "the boss" I suppose you can do that. The last "mini"-new green deal failed miserably, but if we just commit to spending money a couple orders of magnitude greater, we'll save money (and the planet!) with volume! Honestly, as the last article suggests, there is room for the two sides to get together if the warmists accept the logic of their panic attacks to embrace nuclear energy which "deniers" can embrace based on economics. Is it really hard to accept that radically different motives can lead to a common objective?

The Germans have refused to extradite jihadis here out of fear the jihadi would be subject to our courts (which allow the death penalty); but the Germans and other Europeans would rather leave their own citizens who joined the jihad in Iraq and Syria--where they are subject to the death penalty--over there. I'm sure the Europeans would rather they remain imprisoned over there or executed by our allies. That way Europeans can still complain about Guantanamo Bay and the death penalty without facing the consequences of their position.

No. Way! On the bright side, the death toll is lower than what the enemy did to us.

Hamas "protests" at the border with Israel continue to oddly resemble an armed assault with human shields.

Russia is deploying missiles with conventional warheads that can strike the United States. As I've mentioned with our own proposals that blur the distinction between strategic nuclear and conventional weapons, this increases the risk that a target state will wrongly assume that incoming missiles are nuclear-armed and possibly launch on warning just in case more that can't be seen are also inbound. Have a super sparkly day.

You have to admire their embrace of science, eh?

I am not optimistic that North Korea will give up its nukes in the face of Trump's charm offensive (and squeezing sanctions as the "bad cop" aspect). But I have to admit that the past strategies based on bribing North Korea a little at a time have failed spectacularly from preventing North Korea from being on the cusp of being able to launch a nuclear weapon at the continental United States (and no disrespect to Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and our allies closer than that, but CONUS is obviously the heart of American power). So I'm willing to hope for the best rather than complain that the old strategies should be continued.

Grant me that this is funny.

While this is an interesting Iranian take on their views on European efforts to circumvent American sanctions on Iran, I must protest the notion that there are "moderates" in the Iranian leadership. "moderates" are merely Shia Islamist nutballs who have learned not to screech "Death to America!" in English, with spittle flying, and while on camera.

Well, this has been my experience, as I've occasionally mentioned on this blog. Liberals firmly believe they are tolerant but they are not--as a generalization that individuals can defy, of course. Not that I've ever argued that conservatives are more tolerant. But apparently I'm wrong about that: "The most judgmental partisans tend to be white, urban, older, highly educated, politically engaged, and politically segregated." Higher education isn't doing its job. Apparently it just empowers intolerant people to believe they are tolerant. And let me again lament the obstacles to dating in my urban, highly educated, politically engaged, and politically segregated city. But perhaps I've shared too much.

Is there enough attention paid to survey methodology? I only ask because several years ago I was approached to answer questions about problems in Washtenaw County. I said I really didn't see too much to complain about. Later, I thought of potential problems like opioid addiction and lack of blue collar employment opportunities. But at the time I was with my daughter at a carnival on a sunny summer day, and for me--at that moment--life was very good indeed as my daughter had fun and I enjoyed my time with her, helping her have fun. Was that really a good place to ask people about their perception of problems?

WTF? The World Wide Fund for Nature is paying militias that torture and kill Third World citizens in order to protect wild animals? Thank God WWF doesn't have WMD. Tip to the PJ Media Live Blog.

I think it is absolutely wrong to hope Bernie Sanders is nominated by the Democrats as their candidate for 2020. One, on principle I think you should want your opponent to nominate someone who, if they win, you can endure without fearing the worst. I've said it is a mistake to make national elections so important by making the federal government more powerful. Wanting the other side to be less trusted with that power is the other side of that coin. And two, he might win. Seriously people, ask Hillary Clinton and the media how good an idea it was to hope for and boost Trump in the Republican primary contest on the theory he'd be too awful to contemplate as president to win in 2016.

I had been looking forward to seeing Captain Marvel.  I know little of the comic books so having a minor character promoted does not offend me. But then the star openly belittled men. Who inconveniently are a large portion of the target audience (I thought). And then I read a review. And now liking the movie is apparently a test of whether you are a decent human. Screw that. So I'll wait until it arrives on Netflix.

The Canadian government helps you--and then, with the Risk-driven Tracking Database (RTD), weighs whether the type of help predicts your future criminality. Tip to Instapundit.

The party of microaggressions and dog whistles apparently thinks Representative Omar can't be accused of anti-Semitism unless there is a picture of her in a SS uniform. Perhaps there are good people on both sides of the question of whether Israel should exist. And now because of House Resolution 183 we know all hate matters. I eagerly await the Republican move to amend the presidential impeachment resolution to boldly state that the House stands against all forms of high crimes and misdemeanors.

2 + 2 = 5, eh?

I don't understand why Trump defends the continued suspension of large-scale military exercises in South Korea by saying they cost too much. Exercises are the way we make sure our defense spending isn't wasted on troops unprepared to use what we issue them at great cost to our country's finances. I was willing to suspend them last year to see if the opening with Kim could lead to something good. At this point, after North Korea has balked at actually de-nuclearizing, we have to remember that we need our large-scale exercises in South Korea. And North Korea is giving us a reason to resume them with South Korean forces. We can still talk, but North Korea should not think talking to weaken us is possible.

Sweden is not an example of socialism. I appreciate an article that distinguishes between government social welfare programs and socialism, in which the government owns the means of production. The former is more possible without the latter that crushes free market capitalism. The former has problems, too, but at least it doesn't combine with socialism to create real disaster. The problem for America is that if you put in place the policies of Venezuela thinking you are putting in place the policies of Sweden, you will still get the results of Venezuela. And if you put in place the policies of Sweden here, American liberals would scream bloody murder. Life is funny.

It is odd that Somalia has the best cell phone service in Africa, no?

I've long said that I don't worry about Russia rebuilding their navy because it sucks resources from land and air power; and because Russian naval efforts just give the European navies something to do. This report says that Europe has plenty of warships--if they'd just spend the money to send them to sea.

Is China's economy stumbling?

I really don't know why anonymous "analysts" are bashing the idea of the F-15X because it would have trouble surviving against advanced air defenses and aircraft. But we don't usually face such threat levels. And if the F-15X replaces aging F-15Cs on North American air defense duty, they aren't facing any advanced air defenses and they aren't facing advanced fighters. But hey, I'm just a free analyst blogging from Michigan.

From the "Well, Duh" files.

Oh please, the entire government is a system of sabotage.

I worry that the Russian plan to equip the Armata tank with a toilet is a sign that the Russians plan to operate in a chemical warfare environment that does not allow crews to get out for extended time. Which they would initiate. Of course, the Russians can't afford to buy the Armata.

Moldova remains corrupt and poor, unable to decide to join the West or let Putin return the empire to their sliver of former Soviet territory between Romania and Ukraine.

One thing I learned from the Obama-worshipping media was that opposing Obama's policies was racist. So treat her appropriately.

Golf takes skill but I don't think of it as a sport. I would think of it as a sport if the game was scored not on strokes but on time. What if instead of setting par on each hole based on shots to get the ball in the cup, you set par based on time to get the ball in the cup? And you carry your own clubs. A hole might be par at 10:00 minutes, or something. Then you'd have to run to find and hit the ball until you could putt it in. Now that would be a sport. The number of clubs used would be cut back a lot. Maybe golfers would carry them over the shoulder like arrows in a quiver. That could be awesome.

California is the laboratory of democracy idiocracy. Which is fine. As long as we avoid what they are doing to themselves rather than foist it on the rest of the country. Tip to Instapundit.

There is an expression in international relations that "the flag follows trade." (Although the original was the reverse.) That is, economic interest pulls in political interest. Is that what China is saying about Canada--and more broadly, others--in the Huawei issue? "China's foreign minister on Friday promised 'all necessary measures' to defend Chinese companies and citizens abroad amid legal clashes between tech giant Huawei and Washington."

Why indeed are we still debating the merits of socialism? A system so delicate that it fails numerous times with high body counts because nobody ever finds the right people to run it and the exactly right formulation to make it work should be rejected out of hand. But instead people without the history to remember the failures repeatedly emerge to claim they are the right people with the right approach.I still recall the debates I had with a college student communist in the early 1980s who took advantage of my location working at an arcade to come in to debate before playing games. I had to stay there, of course. At one point I ticked off a list of countries that called themselves Marxist and asked him if it was just a coincidence that they were all Hell Holes. He thought a moment and said "yes." I literally threw my hands up and told him I didn't know how it is possible to discuss this with him if that is his view. And that was when the Soviet Union was around pretending to be a workers' paradise. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, the panty-flinging fangirls (and boys) persist.

I suspect that Pakistan is busy building and then blowing up a "baby milk" factory at the site of the Indian air strike. It doesn't have to be true to be useful.

Even if the current Algerian protests right now are "different" why is it relevant if they are still unlikely to harm the reelection of a zombie president-for-life?

Protests continue in France. I'm not sure what short of Macron's resignation would satisfy the protesters. So Macron stalls for time waiting for the protesters to tire of the weekly sparring.

It is increasingly obvious that recycling is an expensive endeavor that almost solely allows practitioners to feel better about themselves.

The best and freaking brightest.

I certainly want the Army to retain the lessons of the Iraq War counter-insurgency. But is the Army really trying to suppress that knowledge in a rush to prepare for conventional warfare against the Russians or Chinese? Because it should be fairly obvious that if, in the age of great power competition, the Army was still embracing COIN that it would be accused of preparing to fight the last war. Admit it, that is totally accurate. My view is that any good soldier makes a good counter-insurgent--as long as the officer corps retains the knowledge of how to do it. I'm still reading the Army study of the Iraq War. It is long and electronic, and I hate reading books on a screen.

The idea that Russian policy isn't expansionist in the west rests on the assumption that anything Russia attacks and takes that lies within the borders of the former Soviet Union doesn't count, doesn't it? That's the reality of arguing that Russia "just" wants a buffer zone to protect itself. What exactly is the logical end point of such an excuse? Still, the author is right that Russian goals haven't changed since 1991. What has changed is that Russia has recovered enough power since the collapse of the USSR that Russia can start acting on a longstanding goal.

Now THAT'S Resistance to a dangerous autocrat at great personal risk. American posers should take note.

ADDITION: Good Lord, is the state itself collapsing in Venezuela?

It's Always Something

Eric of Learning Curve in an email notes a history of the anti-war movement that I was not aware of. This part jumped out:

[N]: So you were a historian of antiwar movements–

[B]: And antiwar strategy and tactics. And I was a participant in the Vietnam antiwar movement. I’ve written and spoken about Kerry’s involvement. There’s a plan: always bring religious people in, plus some disgruntled soldiers, and racial minorities saying there is injustice (for instance, the Nation of Islam in World War II didn’t want to fight against what they referred to as another colored race, meaning Japan). That combination appealed to a broad spectrum.

In the beginning of the Afghanistan war, there were rumblings in the media: there were rocky mountains, the British had failed there, the weather would be bad, this could be trouble. And back when John Kennedy had sent troops at the beginning of Vietnam the antiwar movement did it this way (in Vietnam, the Socialists supported the Communist takeover””but you don’t put that on a flyer, do you?) During the Cuban missile crisis what you’d say is that Kennedy is all concerned about Cuba, but he’s ignoring what’s happening in Vietnam. Or in Berlin. Then when he’s in Vietnam, you talk about how he’s ignoring Cuba. Ted Kennedy now talks about North Korea.

[N]: So these are strategies for all situations.

[B]: Yes, it’s a rhetorical device. You go from one thing to another, to add negativity to the media and the academic world. Regular people don’t like war””who does?–we all hope a rumor of war is not true. And if we start hearing things to discourage us it feeds on that: “we can’t win anyway, and we should be doing something else that’s more important.”

I had observed this during the Iraq War but did not know the history of the planning to do it:

Some people will just never support the war we are in right now. I doesn't matter what the war is at the moment.

They will cover their opposition by saying they supported a past war that we won (or even a lost war) even when they opposed such wars at the time. Just listen to those who now claim that they supported the Gulf War or Afghanistan campaign or who even respect the soldiers who fought in Vietnam. It's just this war in Iraq they oppose.

They may even say that another problem is more severe and must be met first--possibly with force--before waging the war in question. North Korea and Iran spring to mind. But you can always be sure that if the issue they once said is more important comes up, there will be another problem that must be dealt with first.

Whether too hot or too cold, the question of a war to defend us is never just right.

They are perpetually Looking for Mr. Good War.

Which, as I predicted, they would find. In Libya of all places. Libya remains crippled by factions and jihadis since the 2011 civil war --that America led NATO into--which overthrew the Khadaffi regime (which killed Khadaffi in the process, not that I'm crying over his death). I ran across this old contrast between Obama's Libya War and the Iraq War. Just add a dash of Hopeandchange, and stir! Voila, "good" war!

Indeed, I had also predicted the "good" war in Afghanistan would go "bad." Funny enough, I even noted that dealing with nuclear-seeking Iran could become the reason to lose that once-good Afghanistan war!

Now, of course, Iran is the potential war to be resisted at all costs. Even though the issue is confronting Iran and not invading it to defeat the vile and aggressive nuclear-seeking mullah regime.

And that places in a new light a James Fallows pre-war piece on the potential problems of the Iraq War, which I discussed here regarding whether the Iraq War was an "enormous strategic blunder" as Fallows claimed, in support of Eric's email debate with Fallows on the Iraq War:

I honestly don't follow Fallows. But I did look at the two articles Fallows cites to justify his current view.

The first was published in the November issue of The Atlantic. Despite being cited as an example of why the war was a big error, it was actually just a collection of people discussing all the ways things could go horribly wrong. If you throw up enough potential problems it sounds bad. But that pre-war laundry list is not an argument for error.

Pro-war people who dismissed or downplayed potential problems in order to defeat an evil threat are condemned by our Left. But isn't this just the flip side of the people who throw out every conceivable problem to derail a war against a monster rather than to inform the public debate?

I have no idea if Fallows actively participated in such a movement regarding the Iraq War. But he was clearly part of it whether wittingly or unwittingly, it seems.

UPDATE: Trying to find disgruntled soldiers can be a problem, of course.

Well That Sucks

The Army is looking to expand the capabilities of divisions, corps, and even armies as the Army moves away from the COIN-focused brigade combat team organization:

[LTG Eric] Wesley noted that the organizational realignment needed would “probably be even a bigger problem than the materiel requirements" to create a force designed for multidomain operations.

“You will see us seek to build out echelons above brigade — the Division, the Corps, even potentially a field Army — to get into theater that can manage these theater problems that otherwise wouldn’t be achieved,” he added.

The Army will likely have to make trades across the active and reserve forces, Wesley said, “so we have the ability to have a force posture that can rapidly transition if necessary.”

I noted that Russian announcements of "new" divisions and armies signaled a focus on conventional war for Russia. Perhaps my suggestion in Military Review (starting on page 91) for how to organize our divisions and brigades across the active and National Guard brigades could be considered (This version corrects some editing errors that resulted from stripping my charts out of the published article). My proposal provided the framework for a major force expansion while increasing rotational capabilities while retaining big war focus. Recall that during the Iraq War we expanded the number of active force brigade combat teams to provide more rotation capacity.

This Army reorganization is part of the multi-domain operations (MDO) concept being developed. This is an expansion of a trend that saw the Army embrace combined arms operations with the separate branches of the Army fighting as one; to Air-Land Battle that integrated the Air Force into Army operations; and now to MDO where every service is integrated to support every other service in a seamless cross-domain campaign.

I worry that instead of working for synergy with other services that the concept will downgrade the Army--at least in the Pacific--into an anti-ship auxiliary for the Navy.

Cyber certainly must be integrated into our ground forces. But I hope we don't get so hung up on operating in cyber-space that we forget that a precision high explosive round is the best cyber-weapon that works against cyber operators who exist in the physical world.

I hope these changes are never needed and that nobody gets tempted to challenge us in a big war. It has been a long time since we've had fight-to-the death big power war. Let's not forget that even winning such a war requires death and destruction and the physical and mental crippling of even the survivors on a scale that is hard to imagine.

Have a super sparkly day.

From Conspiracies to Jihad?

There may be a link between criminality and belief in conspiracy theories. The article focuses on the latter as a predictor of the former (Tip to Instapundit):

People who buy into outrageous conspiracy theories — say, that no human has ever walked on the moon or the ancient pyramids were built by aliens — are more inclined to actively engage in anti-social behavior. ...

As such, the new study measured participants’ “belief in general notions of conspiracy” as well as how much they agreed with specific theories (“There was an official campaign by MI6 to assassinate Princess Diana”). Those inclined to believe the theories were “more accepting of everyday crime,” such as demanding a refund for no appropriate reason.

In addition, exposure to conspiracy theories was found to make people more apt to engage in low-level criminal activity.

But what about the reverse? Is this the explanation for the corruption (which is a form of criminality, of course) in Arab society where conspiracy theories run rampant and where corruption kills rule of law?

I've noted that Arabs who move to America manage to succeed here in contrast to their countries of origin that remain mired in poverty where there is no oil. If there is something to this cause and effect, the best weapon against jihadi recruitment that exploits the belief that the world is "out to get Islam" would be to help them build rule of law.

And it also means that online efforts to discourage young people from joining the jihad are largely wasted given their societies' ability to swamp the information war carried on by such online WebOps.

And for God's sake, don't think WebOps can replace LeadOps. I've long argued that the war on terror is essentially a holding action to protect the West from the collateral damage from the Islamic Civil War over who--the jihadis or the normal people who would rather not kill their way to a caliphate--gets to define what Islam is.

I have held since the Arab Spring that the movement at least expressed a desire to escape the trap of mullahs or autocrats (whose rule generates more support for jihadis)  running their societies in the hope that democracy was the answer. I emphasized repeatedly that rule of law and not mere voting had to be built up for the movement to succeed. I still hope the seeds of such a future were planted in 2011.

And even if the current wave of jihad peters out--as it has in the past--as Moslems tire of the body count in their own countries, without a victory over the factors that generate jihadis there will be a future revival in a future where WMD are more readily available to sub-state actors or even to poorer states that are taken over (or created) by jihadis. We will still need to help fight for rule of law instead of sighing in relief and turning away from this war for the soul of Islam.

Reforming a corrupt-conspiracy society takes time.

The Russian Circular Firing Squad

The Russians clearly fear their own people more than they fear the United States military. Putin should worry that his people don't need America to challenge him.

It isn't American military power alone that worries Russia's generals, it's the fear that American military power could empower Russia's people to challenge the Russian state:

What the generals and the Kremlin are really scared of, though, is ordinary Russians. They are afraid their own people will knife them in the back if the U.S. tries regime change.

The author makes a mistake in taking Kremlin boasts about the quality of their weapons and military at face value.

So I do think they fear our military rather than feel they have the threat we could theoretically (but in practice we have zero interest in invading Russia) pose checked. But the Russians are correct to worry that in their growing dictatorship that their own people will tire of being repressed, poor, and expected to be distracted by glorious "victories" abroad against Russia's enemies (but don't mention the Chinese!).

The Russian leadership in the military and the Kremlin could end that supposed threat from Russia's people by being less of a-holes to their own people, but instead the Russians decide to also be a-holes to NATO and America in particular (and also Sweden and Finland), in addition to attacking Georgia and Ukraine.

I am really puzzled that the Russian leadership is worried about the loyalties of their subjects even though after 1991 most non-Russians once in the USSR are no longer part of their country; yet the solution is to get buffer zones of non-Russians to protect Holy Mother Russia? How does that even make sense in their paranoid world view?

And if the Russian generals and the Kremlin are worried now about the loyalty of Russians, just wait until their people discover just how badly Putin is effing things up royally.

But perhaps that is why Russia wants to build the Berlin Cyber Wall around their country. Can't have people finding out from "wild" foreign news sources about how Putin is sabotaging Holy Mother Russia, eh? Given Russian paranoia, how long would it take for a lot of people to think Putin is part of a foreign plot?

#WhyRussiaCan'tHaveNiceThings

Never Again What War?

This is an interesting discussion of post-World War II Germany's views on its ability to fight.

It is more nuanced than my simple formulation:

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.

How does the more nuanced examination of the author's discussion of German military views fit with my portrayal?

As I read along, it added details that are interesting. But then the author went and ruined the ride:

In his 1999 work titled Social Theory of International Politics, [Wendt] states that the change in behaviour of allies and the relationship they have with an actor affects the actor’s identity. In other words, the method in which Germany’s allies treat the nation has affected the nation’s definition of itself. Germany’s non-military identity was partly a product of the negative connotation its neighbours attached to its military force during the Third Reich. With a change in political discourse and rhetoric, Germany was able to reinvent its identity and transform itself as a military might in a continent that houses three of the P5 nations and a strong inter-continental alliance called NATO. [emphasis added]

So rather than nuance, it is the fault of Germany's neighbors that Germany is still--after all these decades past their Nazi past--reluctant to carry out military operations within the Western alliance.

And saying that Germany is a "military might" within an alliance is so counter to the reality of a weak Germany that I have to further wonder about the author's grasp of nuance.

Germany went from having a military capable of fighting in defense of its border with East Germany alongside formidable military allies (NATO) to being willing to participate abroad with allies or the international community in military actions not associated with real fighting, while allowing their ability to fight in defense of NATO's frontier--or even Germany itself--to atrophy to the point of irrelevance.

But it is our fault and not Germany's. I really don't get nuance.

Say, at what point will the call by neighbors to actually have a real military affect Germany's definition of itself to the point that is has a military capable of fighting death cult enemies or stopping the Russians from moving west?

Simple minds would like to know what wars Germany is against.

The Rise of Japan

George Friedman looks at Japan's position in the North Korea crisis.

Other than an annoying reference to the Iraq stabilization mission being "a mess" (which is just an anti-war buzzword by our war-time left that ignores that while the post-war was absolutely messy, we overcame the various messes and achieved a victory that few recognize), the analysis focuses on a very real issue with the North Korea problem:

The major question that has emerged from the Hanoi talks is what Japan will do now. Japan is the world’s third-largest economy. It has a stable and homogeneous population, a substantial military force and an enormous capacity to increase that force. ...

The Hanoi talks subtly shift that guarantee. The new U.S. position is that it cannot accept a North Korean nuclear program that threatens the United States. Implicit in that position is that it can tolerate one that threatens Japan. The U.S. nuclear umbrella is notionally still there, but the United States’ reluctance to engage raises the question of whether North Korea will be deterred. So, the U.S. nuclear deterrent still guards Japan – but can the guardian be trusted?

Add in regional resentment for World War II in Asia, Chinese claims on Japanese territory, and Russian occupation of Japanese territory since World War II, and you have a Japan that has to figure out what to do.

This differing perception of the North Korea threat has long been a problem, as I discussed more than a dozen years ago. Our efforts to stop North Korea before they could threaten our homeland ran into problems with South Korea because Seoul was already under threat of destruction from conventional and chemical weapons. Eliminating North Korean nukes would not eliminate the North Korean threat to cripple South Korea. Acting forcefully to prevent North Korea from being a threat to America just made it more likely that South Korea would lose Seoul to protect Seattle.

And until Japan was under threat, they could hope to ignore the need to arm up and kill the goose that laid their economic golden egg. But intermediate-range North Korean nukes made Japan more eager to get America to roll back the threat even if it risks South Korea.

We had the best position in this because of our distance:

We are least under threat from North Korea so far and want to stop North Korea before it can threaten us directly with nukes. We have the advantage that we may be able to build defenses to stop a small attack from North Korea at short, medium, or long range. We have the advantage of having lots of nukes and so can hopefully deter Pyongyang in all but the most delusional state of mind. We don't mind if North Korea collapses since we won't have to pay for it directly. We can live with a conventional invasion of South Korea since we are getting out of the way and South Korea can largely handle it with our air and naval power in support of their army. We are working on blocking North Korean nuclear and missile exports (including intercepting ships at sea) and are cracking down on North Korea's criminal enterprises.

We can also afford to play harder ball than our South Korean and Japanese allies. So other players who fear collapse or war or small attacks close by have to play along with us than they might like since we can push things much farther without any really bad effects hitting us--at least compared to the rest of the five.

With North Korea on the cusp of long-range nukes, we have the most ability to live with North Korean nukes as long as the nukes are short-range and threaten only South Korea and Japan. South Korea may not see much difference in the threat from nukes, but Japan sure does and has direct experience with being a target.

Funny enough, South Korea and Japan might find they can live with this situation since an America immune to North Korean nukes is more willing to deter North Korean use of nukes against Japan and South Korea by threatening nuclear use against North Korea.

And while I do worry a lot about whether North Korea can restrain itself from using nukes out of fear of losing them, we wouldn't face the worst consequences of that failure if North Korea lacks long-range nukes.

So what does Japan do according to Friedman?

The Japanese public is on the whole comfortable with its postwar strategy [of limited military power and reliance on American power]. But with the rise of China, North Korean nuclear weapons and a potentially aggressive Russia, it cannot remain so for long. As the U.S. puts pressure on its allies to carry their own burdens, the Japanese strategy is becoming increasingly untenable. It cannot undergo a serious shift until the public does, and that means there will be an internal political crisis over the matter. But public opinion is already shifting, and the Japanese will face their reality.

Japan will rearm. You'd think that this prospect would be enough to push China to reverse North Korea's nuclear program completely. But so far it has not. I can understand why Russia wouldn't mind a rearmed Japan since China is a bigger threat to Russian territory and most of Japan's defenses would be to resist the rising China.

Of course, I was completely wrong in that old post about my hopes that North Korea would collapse under our pressure, making the differing objectives irrelevant. But our pressure has not been consistent. Is it now consistent enough and harsh enough to make Kim worry enough to cave to denuclearization? Or to agree to abandon the ability to threaten the continental United States?

And how fast will that Japanese opinion take to shift when we are safe behind a thin shield and a deal that stops North Korea from developing ICBMs?

The People's Liberation Company?

China is turning to private military contractors for security for their expanding trade empire:

Over the past 15 years, the Chinese private security industry has modernized the services offered to clients, who remain mostly Chinese. Until 2014, these firms were all funded and manned by Chinese nationals. The emergence of Frontier Services Group (FSG) has seen a radical change. Headed by Erik Prince, a former Navy SEAL and founder of Blackwater, this Hong Kong-based company is the first Chinese-funded, American-operated private security group. The organization, previously known as DVN (Holdings) Limited, was originally an aviation and logistics company providing additional security and training services. Its corporate structure is unique in China. Many of its senior management, including Prince as chairman, are non-Chinese – specifically retired American military specialists. With Chinese backing, Prince stated that he could ‘pursue [his] vision for Africa and globally in a transparent manner and with the most respected partners’. Indeed, many of his firm’s clients are Chinese private companies or state-owned enterprises with interests in infrastructure, oil and gas, and mining in Africa.

This is an interesting development when you consider that the Chinese Communist Party struggles to make sure their security power is loyal to the party rather than to even China--let alone to a private entity.

Are these Chiense private security entities an alternative to Chinese military power in a version of Britain's East India Company military power or the wedge to transition to Chinese security forces--whether by plan or because of an incident that involves company troops killing local civilians that provide a local and Chinese excuse to replace the private security companies with Chinese units?


And of course the involvement of Prince in the Chinese efforts highlights why I've been firmly against subcontracting the Afghan campaign to a private security contractor (mercenary) company even if using them for support is often beneficial (and a trend reaching back to historical practice). How do you make sure a company is loyal to America rather than their bottom line?

I discuss a lot of that trend in this older short monograph (and only 99 cents!).

Speak Softly and Carry a Big Wedge

The United States should not discuss problems with "China and Russia" to avoid pushing that unlikely alliance closer.

Yes, America has problems with China and Russia. But talk about them separately. We don't want to make them think they are allies:

Recently, distinguished analysts argued that the United States should drive a wedge in the Chinese-Russian entente, bringing Moscow over to Washington’s side in its emerging great-power conflict with Beijing.

But according to a recent study, it is shared apprehension about Washington that is bringing Beijing and Moscow together.

This is precisely why Chinese-Russian cooperation isn't worth getting too worked up over. If Trump attempts to marginalize both these former Cold War allies, the United States could inadvertently help cement their common cause, jeopardizing its global position.

We can't turn China into an ally against Russia. We did that in the latter part of the Cold War. But that was when China was weak and the then-Soviet Union posed a real threat to China. Now China is far stronger than Russia in the Far East and economically. Assuming Russia's nukes still work, Russia still has a large nuclear advantage over China.

Besides, because China is our major concern and because Europe is perfectly capable of building a defense force capable of containing Russia, it makes no sense to strengthen China in a renewed alliance against Russia.

And even if it makes sense for NATO and Russia to have a unified position opposing China, Russia is certainly not going to respond to any overtures to turn against China (back to the first link):

For many in Russia, China is an attractive export market and a source of cheap credit, large-scale investment, and advanced technologies. Others fear China will dominate Russia politically and economically, beginning with its expanding border presence and investment in Siberia and other remote far eastern territories.

As I've noted, Russia's hostility to NATO makes more sense if you see it as disguising their appeasement of the far stronger China to protect Russia's Far East from China's claims to reverse the last reminders of a "century of humiliation."

And worse for Russia, while detente with NATO would allow Russia to consider their European territory as a safe rear area when confronting China, NATO will be of no help against China directly. Despite their paranoia, Russians surely recognize that a NATO that has been reluctant to defend new NATO states in the east will not extend its defensive shield all the way to the Amur River.

So oppose China. And oppose Russia. But don't publicly talk like they are allies. Instead work quietly to sow divisions in a Chinese-Russian relationship that has a lot of problems to overcome before being an alliance that can harm America and our allies.

With luck and quiet work, they'll be happy to glare at each other as the more dangerous close threat as they have in the past.

The Facade of Sparta

Is the UAE really "little Sparta?"

Under the leadership of Abu Dhabi’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Zayed, the UAE embarked on the rapid modernization and expansion of its army. It first pursued an “Emiratization” of its armed forces by developing and promoting Emirati officers, strategists, pilots, and technicians – restricting foreign nationals to advisory roles.

Abu Dhabi then boosted its military spending, buying up advanced systems and technologies from around the world, including a fleet of 72 F-16s, French Mirage 2000 jets, Patriot-3 missile systems, and Lockheed Martin’s THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) missile-defense systems.

Defense spending is basically $20 billion per year. Which is a lot for a small country.

I won't get bogged down in the details of whether the UAE is really like ancient Sparta. Let's just accept that is shorthand for being a small but militarily powerful and modern state--especially since being called "little Israel" just won't make the cut.

But of course I'll also just glide right past the description of the war in Yemen which seems more like accepting Iranian propaganda.

As for the UAE, it has built up credible air/missile defenses and special forces. But it is tiny. Sparta was a superpower within the Greek-world system.

Despite the UAE's population of nearly 10 million people, fewer than 12% are Emirate while the rest are immigrants or guest workers. And it is a collection of 7 semi-autonomous emirates that in some cases have their own armed forces. The UAE can punch above its weight but have no doubt that it needs allies with ground forces to really hold their home ground despite the "Emiratization" of their military.

Certainly, the UAE is a well-defended forward position capable of shielding allies--most notably America, but including Saudi Arabia and possibly Egypt--moving in rapidly to help hold the ground. And short of that scenario, the UAE does remain a capable diplomatic and military partner within their limitations.

Understand the limits of the comparison.

The Carrier's Day is Over, With a Caveat

Is the Pentagon souring on aircraft carriers as the central asset of our fleet?

I found it interesting that Truman will be retired at its half-way point rather than spend the money to refuel and update her:

Amidst rising anxiety over whether the US Navy’s thousand-foot-long flagships could evade Chinese missiles in a future war, the Pentagon has decided to cut the aircraft carrier fleet from 11 today to 10.

By retiring the Nimitz-class supercarrier USS Truman at least two decades early, rather than refueling its nuclear reactor core in 2024 as planned, the military would save tens of billions on overhaul and operations costs that it could invest in other priorities. But the proposal, part of the 2020-2024 budget plan due out mid-March, is sure to inspire outrage on Capitol Hill.

And then I read this article:

Last year, then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis and his staff had a bitter argument with U.S. Navy leadership over an issue that cuts to the very core of America’s maritime force: the future of the aircraft carrier.

The bruising debate over the most tangible symbol of U.S. military dominance pitted die-hard carrier advocates—who believe the flattop and its tactical aircraft are key to projecting power —against those who, like Mattis, believe that the days of the carrier are over as Russia and China develop long-range missiles and sophisticated overhead satellites.

The problem is that the carrier is the key to projecting power. And Mattis was right that the days of the carrier are over with opponents like Russia and China with a surveillance-strike network.

I have long been in the "Mattis" camp on this--dating back to the late 1990s as I note in this post--despite the fact that I cherish the role the carriers played in World War II and what they have done in the decades since then.

The key is appreciating the often-overlooked distinction between "power projection" and "sea control"as I described here:

The debate over the survivability of our large aircraft carriers is not a simple debate over whether they are more useful than they are vulnerable and expensive. They are both--depending on the mission.

Against enemies without the anti-ship capabilities that states like China (and Russia to a much lesser extent) are building, the carrier is a vital asset. But the carrier's days are truly over if they have to face such capabilities. In that case it would be far better to have land-based air and missile power backing up dispersed surface- and submarine-carried anti-ship missiles (or rail guns).

If the Mattis position reflects wider thinking and leads to the phasing out of American carriers as the central asset in the sea control mission, I'm all for it, as I wrote in that apples and oranges post:

I wouldn't mothball our existing carriers. But I'd phase them out over decades and use the money saved for other naval platforms. They are platform-centric kings in an increasingly network-centric world. And look to alternatives to providing sea-based air power.

If we still find we need sea-based aviation for power projection missions, the rise of precision weapons means that the smaller (than super carriers) Marine amphibious ships that carry F-35Bs will be able to handle the lower sortie rates that precision allows for destroying targets ashore.

The Best Counter-Terrorism is Counter-Insurgency

Will the United States commit to pulling out of Afghanistan within 3-5 years?

It is certainly possible that by the time we leave that financial support (and private military contractors) would be enough to enable the government to withstand the Taliban.

But I don't think we should risk it. The very fact that we have to wonder if the government could hold should tell us all we need to know about a peace plan with the Taliban.

And the idea that we could carry out counter-terrorism operations if the Afghan government can't hold is plain wrong:

“The idea of scaling down to a small CT-only mission has long been discussed in the U.S. government,” [Laurel Miller, a top State Department official working on Afghanistan and Pakistan policy during the Obama and Trump administrations,] said. But, she said, “if you stop backing up Afghan forces in their main fight, you can’t very well keep working on your narrower priorities in isolation with Afghanistan falling apart around you.”

I recently brought that issue up:

Effective counter-terrorism requires the pinpoint information that a large network of non-special forces can provide--in the initial Afghanistan campaign to overthrow the Taliban regime it was local allies; in Afghanistan and Iraq when our allies ran the government you needed the friendly troops (American, coalition, and Iraqi) to provide the information needed for the counter-terror special forces missions to go after the enemy insurgents and terrorists.

Otherwise "counter-terrorism" is just a euphemism for using air power (planes and missiles) directed by aerial recon against targets in a sanctuary.

How do we target terrorists if we don't have allies controlling the ground where the terrorists live and plot?

What Did Putin and Netanyahu Agree To?

So how far-reaching is the agenda of this meeting to get all foreign forces out of Syria?

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that Israel and Russia are to form a joint team to examine the withdrawal of foreign forces from Syria.

Israel is seeking the removal of Iranian forces and has vowed to keep its main enemy from entrenching itself militarily in the neighbouring country.

Netanyahu met Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday in Moscow to discuss Iran's presence in Syria.

"I made it unequivocally clear that Israel will not allow the military entrenchment of Iran in Syria, and I also made it unequivocally clear that we would continue to take military action against it," Netanyahu told his cabinet.

I have long expected Israel to strike the terror proto-state Hezbollah with its light infantry army (and missile and rocket arsenal aimed at Israel) hard with a major multi-division ground raid into Lebanon while the terror organization is still heavily engaged in Syria on behalf of Assad. And lately I've been connecting more dots to paint that picture.

Is this meeting a sign of a Russian green light for Israel to go into Lebanon to target Iran's primary foreign proxy force there?

Would Russia stand aside if Israel also hammered Hezbollah in Syria in that campaign?

And would Assad quietly welcome an Israeli operation that cripples Iran's influence in Syria now that the rebellion has been crippled? If so, Assad needs to add his quiet assent quickly before Iran sinks its claws too deeply to be removed easily as Lebanon's experience with Hezbollah shows (and why we can't let up on pressure for Iraq to defeat and disband the pro-Iran militias there before it is too late):

Iranian military advisers in Syria are reportedly forming a new militia in the country under their supervision with the aim of boosting an Iranian agenda in the region, a rights group said in a recent report.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a war monitor that has researchers across Syria, said in a recent report that Iran has recruited at least 1,200 militiamen from different parts of Syria to form the new military force.

Past Iranian efforts were different by focusing on local defense forces in the context of the civil war. By recruiting across Syria, Iran can hope to have a post-civil war offensive force not tied to self defense and not controlled by Assad. So that is very different. Different enough to be a threat to Assad.

Mind you, that joint Russian-Israeli focus would include America and our allies as "foreign forces." As long as the Syrian Kurds and Assad can come to an agreement on local autonomy, we have no reason to remain on the ground in eastern Syria if Iran is ejected, too. We could count on locals to control the ground to deny ISIL safe haven and identify targets for our air power if such a threat does regenerate.

Well, assuming that an isolated Turkey is contained and blocked from going after the Syrian Kurds.

UPDATE: Well that's interesting:

The U.S. military has deployed its most advanced air and missile defense system to Israel for the first time, U.S. and Israeli military officials said on Monday.

That would be THAAD, which is useful for shooting down longer-ranged ballistic missiles (but not ICBMs). Like something launched from Iran, for example.

That would be a useful asset and deterrent to prevent Iran from intervening in a war between Israel and Hezbollah by firing missiles at Israel.

The Cat is Skinned Another Way

A Chinese 76mm cannon has a capability that I've discussed in relation to whether there is an alternative to passive armor for armored fighting vehicle.

This is interesting:

The PJ26 can fire single rounds at surface targets as quickly or slowly as desired. Smaller caliber versions (30-40mm) used as anti-aircraft or IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) weapons could disable a tank with AHEAD ammo by shredding all external sensors and fire control system components. The tank crew would survive but they would be unable to use their main gun because the fire control system was destroyed.

I keep reading that active protection systems (APS) might allow us to build armored vehicles without heavy passive armor, thus making our tanks strategically mobile without sacrificing protection (or lethality).

I am skeptical that APS can be anything but a layer of defense. Long ago I wrote of a vehicle that relies on APS:

The problem is, what if an enemy fires something too heavy to be stopped by the passive armor yet too numerous to be stopped by limited APS capacity?

What if the enemy uses 30mm chain guns firing high velocity rounds to spray the FCS with penetrating ammo? With no heavy Abrams-like armor to defeat, why would an enemy bother with 125mm cannons?

Heck, why couldn't you use a carrier round for the big cannons that detects the target as the round approaches and releases dozens of submunitions outside the range of the APS that blanket the FCS and overwhelm the APS while still packing a punch to penetrate the thin legacy armor?

Or maybe enemy infantry just fires RPGs in volleys.

Or perhaps the enemy just goes for mission kills by using weapons that only aim to shred the tracks or wheels, or knock out the vehicle's sensors, defanging the target for the duration of the battle.[emphasis added]

That's what the AHEAD round does. Which means that we need passive--and thus heavy--armor to protect our fighting vehicles.

Unless we are going to mass produce semi-disposable light fighting vehicles as an alternative to survivable vehicles.

Weekend Data Dump

The F-35 seems to be a really good plane. If the simulations and exercise parameters are accurate. And if the plane can't be hacked. So a conditional thumbs up.

There are more hate crime hoaxes than who thinks? As Jonah writes, you don't need to concoct hate crimes in a truly hate-based society. If you lived in a hate-society the hate crimes would be all around you and the media could afford to skip a claim as suspicious as Smollett's was confident that another one with more credibility would come along any day. Which is related to my bewilderment at the whole "micro-aggressions" thing. You only drone on about that if actual aggression is relatively rare. Can we not celebrate this progress rather than building ever more precise aggression detectors to feed to an ever more hair-trigger Twitter/media mob?

Capitalism isn't the same thing as cronyism or corporatism.  Yes, "capitalism" is really shorthand for "free market capitalism" rather than big companies backed by or controlled by the state.  Last week I noted that "socialism" is not the same thing as popular spending programs--those are really expansive welfare state programs and not socialism. Socialism is state ownership of the means of production--which is far closer to cronyism or corporatism than capitalism is. This is similar to how "democracy" isn't just free elections, it must include "rule of law" to avoid the tyranny of the majority. If we are to have a debate, understand the terms. As always, check the "definitions" section.

If the EU's Tusk is for "delaying" Brexit, that clearly means a delay is a tool to undermining Brexit. Britain must run from that proto-imperial embrace as fast as they can.

Blockchain technology can be hacked. I am not shocked one bit. It is harder to hack, of course. so it isn't useless. But it is not sufficient alone to be secure. It was devised by people. So people can defeat it.

If air defense missiles are effective against attacking planes and missiles to offer ships serious protection, torpedoes that don't face effective counter-measures will remain an effective anti-ship weapon. The failure of ATTDS (TSW/CAT) makes my case for a missile/rocket-delivered anti-ship torpedo stronger.

Chinese imports of American soybeans have skyrocketed.  As I said early in the dispute when China stopped buying them from America, I didn't understand why this was more than a short-term disruption as China bought other nations' soybeans and then the customers who used to buy the soybeans of other nations turned to American soybeans as a replacement. And now apparently it makes sense for a huge buyer like China to buy from a huge producer like America. And doesn't an increase in Chinese purchases over pre-dispute levels just move around the existing trade routes rather than represent an increase in demand for soybeans?

There is no evidence of Trump-Russian collusion to influence the 2016 election. Duh. But will Democrats accept that there was no  crime or will they insist that after 2-1/2 years of looking that our counter-intelligence and law enforcement agencies are too incompetent to have found evidence?

The B-52 will get new engines to keep them flying to mid-century as bomb trucks.

I think this analyst over-estimates China's long-term economic strength but one should consider contrary views, eh?

A frightening window into the future? A frightening window into China's present, I'd say.


Tip to the PJ Media Live Blog.

Government at work: First require schools to have equal opportunities for female athletes in female sports programs, which often require cutbacks in male sports programs in order to maintain parity. Second, allow men who have become women to compete in female sporting events, in which female athletes who were born female are at a severe disadvantage in competing. No doubt there will be a third step that requires more government regulation and spending. I have no dog in either fight individually, but the combination is most enlightening, no? Tip to Instapundit.

United States Navy ships transited the Taiwan Strait, annoying China. On the eve of the Vietnam summit between Trump and Kim, I'm sure this was a symbolic statement that America will not throw Taiwan under the bus to get China's cooperation on North Korea.

Some scientists now claim that proof for human-caused global warming has hit the "gold standard" of certainty. I'm confused. Haven't the scientists been claiming for 30 years that there is a "consensus" that the "science is settled?" Were they lying the last three decades about their certainty? Or just wrong? And either way, why is this claim more credible? And even if they are correct about the science (and yes, I could be persuaded on that, although thus far I am not), why are their state-centric solutions the answer?

The Iraqis don't want Shia but Persian Iranian influence in their country. This is good. Shia Arab Iraqis feel more Arab than Shia. But what I don't understand is why this development has taken so long: "the Saudis are building a new border crossing and restoring major access for the first time since 1990[.]" What is wrong with the Saudis? When their objective should be to cultivate Iraq's pan-Arab feelings at the expense of pan-Shia feeling that Iran wants, why has it taken 16 Goddamn years to restore access to build Arab solidarity? Could America get a little bloody help here?

Russian threats are now sadly pathetic. And Kiselyov is a panty-throwing Putin fanboy.

I am actually overjoyed that Trump's talking to Kim has led Democrats to insist on complete and verifiable North Korean denuclearization. Democrats didn't require verification in the 1990s for Clinton's deal with North Korea, for Iraqi WMDs from 1991 to 2003, for Syria (in regard to chemical weapons) in the double-oughts, or for Iran in 2015 when Iran wasn't even required to concede that they ever had a nuclear weapons program. I am an optimist, aren't I?

Preparing to fight the last war: "Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) will sign a measure to award his state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, moving a countrywide coalition one step closer to circumventing the Electoral College." I really hope Trump wins the popular vote in 2020 while Colorado votes for whatever Democrat is tossed out of their socialist pep rally primary knife fight. Honestly, politicians are sometimes shockingly stupid. It will serve them right to negate their own voters' intent. We don't actually know what our popular vote is to any degree of certainty because all we need to know is whether the results in each state are confidently known sufficiently to allocate that state's electoral votes. We don't bother counting every vote. We don't need to. But if popular vote is important, the incentive to cheat and to tie up our election process with post-election legal challenges will skyrocket. This is so mind numbingly stupid that I'm frankly shocked it is taking this long to take off given the generally inferior state of our political class. Still, this is just electoral masturbation until states with 270 electoral votes have passed the same measure.

Personally, I feel that 300,000 dead Union soldiers is all the reparations the US government needs to pay (an idea getting traction in the Democratic party presidential candidate race) for tolerating the evil of slavery. Maybe ending it where it still exists would be a better path for such energies.

Is TDS a real mental health condition (tip to Instapundit)? My term Trump Hysteria Condition didn't catch on. I don't know if TDS/THC is a mental health condition, but I will say that the people who think Trump is a secret Nazi figuratively born in Russia are as alienated from reality as the people who thought Obama was a secret Moslem literally born in Kenya. I'd rather just call it "stupidity" to avoid having to pay for treating it through my tax dollars.

It is interesting that the Army believes Russia's army development will peak in 2028 while China's will peak in about 2030. Russia's rise seems like a "dead cat bounce" given the general decline there. I'll have to keep my eye out for any publicly released study that explains how those dates were calculated. I'm behind on my email notifications, so perhaps I should catch up. Also, I hope we don't have a war between any of the top powers. Reading Antony Beevor's book on World War II reminded me of how horrible World War II was notwithstanding its designation as the "good war." It is easy to forget how unimaginably horrible it was from such a distance in time and a hazy "Band of Brothers" view.

I'm always in favor of narrowing the scope of executive administrative rules authority. I worked on this issue for the state legislature, and while it is a necessary authority to grant it requires effective legislative oversight to avoid the executive simply becoming an independent quasi-legislative body.

Honestly, she deserves to be deported just for stupidity.

Shades of Force Z: European navies are ill-equipped to survive in Asian waters against aerial threats. Why Asia is specified is beyond me. Asian warships with air defense capabilities superior to European ships have no effect on the air threat European ships would face there. Better to look at the threat in the European environment, eh?

Ukraine has lost 3,000 troops since Russia invaded Ukraine 5 years ago. The Ukrainians estimate the enemy has lost about the same amount with Russian losses over half of those casualties. Add about 7,000 dead civilians to the total.

If the enemy knows your tactical rules for "swarming" when command and control communications are cut off, they will exploit those rules to kill you. I find this proposal silly. Although I am not familiar with that particular 2000 monograph (if I ever was I've forgotten it), the highlighted suggestion that the Army create "platoon-like pods joined in company-like clusters" sounds too much like a clusterf**k. And the basis of the article runs counter to a major foundation of the old monograph, which says "swarming clearly depends upon robust information flows." I don't think much of Arquilla's formulation of warfare.

False patriotism Resistance is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Clearly, saving himself was the intent of Cohen's testimony. Cohen wasn't trying to harm Trump--because he didn't. Tips to Instapundit.

A GAO report on China's Confucius Institutes on our campuses. I don't think we should allow them. China will use these to shape acceptable ideas about China inside the United States. This both helps China's foreign policy and lightens the load on their domestic censors by reducing problematic material generated abroad. And as bases for espionage they are convenient.

Ukraine's battle against corruption took a hit. Or perhaps rule of law was actually reinforced. It's hard to say. We'll see if a new law that avoids the problems that led the judiciary to strike it down is enacted.

We walked away from the meeting with Kim Jong Un rather than give in to their demands for sanctions relief.  Good. North Korea needs to learn that the old methods don't work any more. Amazingly the story says Trump didn't get a triumph he needs to counter domestic news and developments. WTF? If that is the lens for viewing everything, shouldn't Trump get credit for refusing a bad deal to get a good news story? People, North Korea is a self-contained story and it would be good for America to get a good deal and bad for America to get a bad deal. Honestly, I was happy Obama ignored North Korea because I worried he would accept a bad deal (see Syria or Iran) and I worried that even Bush 43 would be tempted to cave for a bad deal to get the raving loonies here at home off his back.

Collusion and obstruction of justice. In Canada. But the socks! Say it ain't so! Tip to Instapundit. Seriously, that is not how rule of law is supposed to work: "The rules need to be rules—not for the people we despise, but for ourselves. For myself. For you. Or else we have no souls." Americans should certainly take to heart another warning that pre-dates this scandal: "A government that considers the scale of its spending to be proof of its virtue is an easy mark for hucksters and worse.” Indeed.

In the past Juan Williams has sounded more reasonable in his slots on Fox News as a liberal perspective. He has stopped doing that. But I suspect he is just turning up his Team Resistance dial to 11 in order to make what is essentially a (good) entertainment show more compelling viewing by being a foil for the more conservative panelists.

Is it my imagination or did the Democrats in the Cohen hearing treat AOC and Tlaib as the eager cannon fodder so that if this process backfires on the Democrats those new idealistic representatives leading the charge will be the ones who stepped on the mines? And if the attack works they can be put in the shadows while the reps with seniority take over the process. Also, I think the best way to describe the hearing is "Resistance Pornography."

Why Western feminists aren't the most hard core anti-Islamists is beyond me. Tip to the PJM Live Blog.

I have never donated money to a political candidate. But I like the cut of this man's jib and have thought for a while (just elected last year, of course) that he would make a good candidate for my first contribution.  Again, tip to the Live Blog.

Well, it took a while for Hugo and Maduro to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs for Venezuela, too.

Turkey will buy Russian S-400 air defense missiles. If this is a "done deal" as the Turks say, our F-35 sale should be a dead deal. I wouldn't eject Turkey from NATO, in the hope that we can coax a post-Erdogan Turkey back. But I would quietly cut Turkey off from critical information and decision-making processes. If we announce a new base that would essentially replace Incirlik, that would be a sign we are doing that. And for God's sake, we already pulled nuclear warheads out of Turkey, right? Erdogan is not to be trusted.

Belarus sits between NATO and Russia, providing Russia with key military installations and a buffer zone in the west. If Russia ever engineers an Anschluss with Belarus, that territory will also be a jumping off point to attack Poland and Lithuania as well as extending Ukraine's flank. And such a union might be a way around term limits for Putin. Which is why I think Belarus could be the most important territory in Europe today.

Apparently, the Saudis have managed to pull Pakistan firmly to the Arab side of the Iran-Arab conflict. You'll need to scroll down to February 18th.

I should say that even allies that have committed troops to theaters where we fight but not allowed them to fight do actually perform useful work in training local forces. But it still is frustrating that our allies often won't fight alongside us.

Twenty-six more "good jihadis" in Somalia, courtesy of the US armed forces.

Could we have a media that reports on war issues that is between our own reflexively anti-American media and India's jingoistic media that wants Pakistani blood? America could use a little more of the latter and India a lot more of the former, I think.

As a follow-up to my post on James Fallows' 2002 and 2004 articles that he cited in defense of his contention that the Iraq War was an "enormous strategic blunder," I will say that in 2002, it was fully justifiable to explore what could go wrong. Any or all of them could have been accurate speculations. And in 2004, we were having serious problems in Iraq. But the post was long enough without adding these issues. While I always had confidence we were following COIN 101 most broadly (pushing locals to carry more of the burden so we could reduce our scope and scale of military power), we did make mistakes--that we eventually overcame. I worried about the outcome only twice--in the spring and summer of 2004 when the Iranian-al Qaeda offensives took place; and from summer 2006 to summer 2007, after the sectarian bloodletting took off and before the early effect of the Surge offensive (and associated Awakening) became initially evident. Really, judging the outcome of the war should require evidence much more recent than 2004, eh?

How much longer will it be before Democratic leadership favors fourth trimester abortion? Reasonable people can disagree on the issue in practice, but shouldn't some things be out of bounds?

At some point we need to restart the full exercises in South Korea rather than let North Korea stall for time. Apparently we aren't at that point yet.

U.S.-backed forces in Syria are taking out the last territory of ISIL there. This is good. It is a victory. But as many people add, this doesn't mean the job is done. I wish more people had agreed with this position after al Qaeda was defeated in Iraq when we left in 2011 rather than defend the victory.

Iran protested Britain's designation of Iran's little proxy fiend Hezbollah as a terrorist organization by arguing the terror group reflects the will of a lot of the Lebanese people. Well, perhaps the will of too many of Lebanon's people is to support terrorism, eh?

India and Pakistan are "the only two rivals in the world to be both neighbors and nuclear states?" What about India and China? Heck, what about China and Russia?  Even if you want to assume that today's relationship isn't a weak, fearful Russia appeasing a strengthening China, there was that whole Soviet-China rivalry, with a small border war years after China first detonated a nuclear device. And you don't count America and Russia with the Bering Strait distance between the two not quite 4 kilometers? Not to be mean. I've sometimes overlooked what I damn well knew was true but for whatever reason forgot in a particular moment. Stuff happens. But the record should be clear.

I hope this is sarcasm because if not it is criminally stupid. I have no idea who that guy is.

Unrest continues in France with the "yellow vests." The government says the protests are shrinking--but they'd have an interest in advancing that narrative to shrink the protests. Also, injuries from "non-lethal" weapons. The problem is that "non-lethal" weapons can still injure and kill. The key is to only use them in circumstances that justify live ammo. In that case they are far less lethal. If you use them with a lower threshold than live ammo use, the non-lethal weapons over the long run will cause a bunch of casualties, including deaths. Protesters are using their own form of "non-lethal" weapons that could harm police.

Protests and casualties in Algeria over the planned reelection for a fifth term of a virtual President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, who hasn't been seen in quite a while and who at best is completely crippled and unable to rule. Voting without rule of law is a terrible thing to see.

China's new dystopia spreads its wings: China is now using its horrible "social credit score" system to deny 23 million people the ability to travel. With any luck this has built into it collateral damage on the Chinese Communist Party as corruption undermines the system and people in the cheap seats see how the wealthy and influential get a good score from the people in charge no matter what they do to violate the social credit rules. I'm sure the Green New Deal people who like "lists" of enemies could find a use for this system here to phase in the total ban on air travel, starting with "deniers" I'm sure (the article is satire but the tweet is not). Tips to Instapundit.

Strategypage looks at the F-21--the designation for the latest version of the F-16 being offered to India. As I noted in last week's data dump: "Lockheed Martin (I own a tiny amount of their stock, I should note) is offering India an updated F-16 with a marketing spin by calling it the F-21. In 2011 I called a fighter choice the most important defense decision India will make this decade. We're running out of this decade." India doesn't have much time left to make the most important defense (weapon) decision of this decade in this decade. We'll see if a near-war with Pakistan gives India a sense of urgency. If not, China will continue to smile at India's crippling defense procurement dysfunction. [UPDATE: More on the "wobbly" process.]

Oh please, of course the Labor Party wants a new vote on Brexit--because they lost the first one. So now their demand that the vote be final is non-operative.

Will He Stay or Will He Go Now? If He Stays There Will Be Trouble

I never assumed a call for Maduro to leave power would topple him:

The Maduro regime is authoritarian, militarized, and ready to kill civilians to maintain power.

Socialist autocrats are generally willing to spill blood to stay in power in defiance of such calls.

My question is what will Brazil and Colombia do? Will we provide logistics support if they act while keeping our military ready to defend diplomatic facilities against Maduro's retaliation?

If this scenario takes place, will this be hailed as an example of "leading from behind?" Or will Maduro kill his way to staying in power? Heck, will Maduro cave in to pressure and hop on a Russian plane to Moscow?

I just don't know. But I did not assume this would be easy. Yet the alternative of looking away as Maduro clings to power illegally hardly seems a better policy.

The authors cite Obama's toothless call for Assad to step aside on the assumption Assad was doomed. That is relevant.

But they oddly cite Bush's "mission accomplishment" speech although that speech following major combat operations that actually toppled Saddam's regime and so has nothing to do with the issue at hand of pressuring a tyrant to leave.

Equally oddly, the authors do not mention the hopes the Obama administration had that the 2011 Libya operation would be over quickly--or that at least America's role would be over quickly after kicking the door down, leaving Europeans to go the rest of the way. That would be a good example, no?

But the authors only mention Libya in passing to slam Trump on the assumption that this might be his "blood for oil" war. Amazing.

I find it almost humorous that the authors want the UN to solve the problem:

The United Nations Security Council should oversee such a solution. Chapter VII of the UN Charter gives the Security Council the mandate to “determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression” and to take actions to “restore international peace and security.”

Under Chapter VII of the UN charter when that provision requires someone else to enforce their decision. And in only two cases applied--in defense of South Korea and Kuwait--it was America that organized and led the enforcement measure. Will the authors accept Trump as the enforcing agent of the United Nations which embodies the sainted international community? (Now where did I put my deed to that bridge in Brooklyn?)

Of course, that suggestion is at the apex of lucidity by comparison to Russia's offer to "help" us resolve the Venezuela crisis. Russia offered to screw us over help us in Afghanistan peace talks, too. Just say no to Russian "help."

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is a lot to dislike about Trump as a person. But the opposition to him in and out of the media is so deranged in how it talks about Trump policy (and making stuff up about him as a person when that field is already bountiful without flights of fancy) that it makes it easy to support Trump rather than their side.

And that reflexive rejection of Trump should certainly not lead people to support Maduro just because Trump wants him to step down. It must be a terrible dilemma for Democrats to wonder whether they should support Maduro because Trump opposes him or to reject Maduro because the now-hated Russians support Maduro. I suspect the former will easily emerge on top.

Is that where this is heading? Will we fail to defeat and send into exile a socialist thug who will, even if temporarily ejected from office, return decades later to abuse his own people? I mean, will we do it again?

Nicaragua has been in a deep political crisis since President Daniel Ortega attempted social security reform last April, leading to massive protests. The ensuing chaos put the poor Central American nation in recession.

Ortega, a Cold War-era former guerrilla fighter elected in 2006, unleashed a government crackdown. Some 320 people were killed and more than 600 imprisoned, according to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

Honestly, there will be trouble whether Maduro stays or goes now. And I don't know which outcome would be worse in the long run. A clash is surely coming. Can we prevent the trouble from being double?

UPDATE: Nearly 600 Venezuelan security troops have defected from Maduro:

While CNN has not been able to verify the video, the scene is now a common one in Colombia, from a steady drip of Venezuelan soldiers that have given themselves over to Colombian immigration officials over the past week. As of Thursday, an astounding total of 567 had defected.

Will this trend escalate and doom Maduro?

Is This a 2020 Election Battlefield?

The difference between providing "more flexibility" to the Russians and "colluding with" the Russians:

In October of 2018, US Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) undertook a campaign to defuse information operations by a Russian operation identified in Justice Department filings as "Project Lakhta" seeking to influence or disrupt elections in the US. As Ars reported at the time, the measures being taken by USCYBERCOM—the military's joint network-defense command, based at Fort Meade, Maryland—included identifying, tracking the activities of, and directly messaging individuals in Russia involved in disinformation operations. But a February 26 report by The Washington Post's Ellen Nakashima indicates that USCYBERCOM's efforts went even further—including an attack on the Internet Research Agency, the organization at the heart of alleged Russian disinformation operations that "basically took the IRA offline," according to an unnamed US official.

In the second link, it notes that our operation did no real damage unlike a Molotov cocktail attack on the office, which highlights my contention that the best cyber-weapon is a JDAM landing on their office building.

Be Careful What You Wish For?

In the Army study of the Iraq War (volumes one and two) the Army says it is surprised that there weren't more Iraqi army capitulations during the invasion:

Although air strikes and the rapid coalition advance demoralized segments of the Iraqi military, widespread capitulations did not occur.

This is odd given that the Iraqi army simply dissolved during the invasion despite claims that we mistakenly "disbanded" the army after the war.

Perhaps this lack of capitulation is referring to surrenders of entire units. Which did not happen and which at the time did surprise me given the 1991 experience.

But I thought that was exactly our plan to avoid the need to guard and feed enemy POWs as we lunged for Baghdad. That is, we didn't want to be slowed down by taking prisoners. We simply wanted the Iraqi troops to go home and get our of our way.

I can't find a post directly on that, but it was something I learned after the invasion so it might be in my dead Yahoo Geocities site and thus beyond searching. I did say in this 2007 post, "Recall that we urged the Iraqi army to go home during the war so we wouldn't be tied down taking their surrender." So I've long thought this.

But perhaps I'll run across this issue again as I read further. Already I've noticed that the Army said it expected no large Iraqi units to be able to maneuver and fight yet later read that the lack of massed tank battles during the invasion was a surprise.

UPDATE: And reflecting a little more, it is surprising to read that the Army expected mass tank battles. Recall that the Army led with a single heavy division (3rd Infantry Division) out of Kuwait.

Before the war--and even after it started--I full expected to see another heavy division and an armored cavalry regiment come out of Jordan to link up with 3rd ID to form a full corps. We did not have that full heavy corps. How many tanks did the Army expect to face with just a single heavy division?

Note that the activity in Jordan that I noted at the time reflected special forces and separate National Guard infantry battalions (I don't remember how many) that then operated in western Iraq during the invasion.

Moving the Tonnage

The United States needs the Merchant Marine.

If the US hopes to move the goods and people in wartime, the US has to repair our Merchant Marine:

If the Merchant Marine is to meet its responsibilities of supporting U.S. military forces, then it is time to take three major steps toward a more self-reliant Merchant Marine. It must: promote more employment and training opportunities; change the way it operates with the military; and make long-term investments for the American maritime industry over the next ten years.

I think part of supporting US-flagged merchant ships could involve subsidizing ships the way we do with aircraft in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. If we had a pool of these subsidized ships that include container ships that are readied for easy conversion to auxiliary cruisers using systems housed in standard shipping containers, we'd have more ships for moving supplies and have some to spare for modularized auxiliary cruisers.

I described this idea for AFRICOM as a power projection platform in Military Review, but its roots are for a Navy asset.

Russia: We Have Met the Enemy, and He is Us*

Russia is not the superpower it pretends to be.

Putin is "struggling" to modernize his navy? The man is struggling with reality:

President Vladimir Putin calls improving the Russian navy’s combat capabilities a priority. ...

The navy’s problems stem largely, but not exclusively, from the Ukrainian sanctions. There are also problems, for different reasons, with new equipment for the army and air force.

The picture that emerges is that Russia’s armed forces are not as capable or modern as its annual Red Square military parades suggest and that its ability to project conventional force is more limited too. [emphasis added]

Russia does a lot of chest beating and poo flinging. I have said that Russia not "back" and that Russia can basically nuke us or send in the special forces. Between those two things Russian military power is limited. The so-called "hybrid" warfare that too many in the West build up as some magical capability is a reflection of that conventional force weakness.

Come on people, raise your hand if you think beginning year six of their subliminal war with Ukraine was all part of Putin's deep plan? Anyone? Bueller?

Who plans a stalemate that saps your forces, as I noted in this post, if they can avoid it?

In a timely post, Strategypage reviews the clusterf*ck of Russia's economy and foreign adventures, including the Donbas region where Russia has to replace worn out local rebels with their own troops despite not being able to afford the cash or casualties. The war has become the bleeding ulcer I wanted it to be from the beginning. Strategypage notes that it is amazing that the Russians think there is a Western plot to wreck Russia when the Russians do such a good job of that themselves.

And on top of that narrow failure, Russia managed to anger and awaken a sleeping NATO.

Really. Nice work. Bravo.

Exactly what evidence is there that Putin is some sort of strategic genius? Because I don't see it.

Not that Russia isn't a real danger to NATO. Because of geography, Russia can mass overwhelming force against weak border states in the West (both NATO and non-NATO) to achieve limited objectives quickly before NATO can mobilize and counter-attack. Russia can hope the threat of firing nukes to defend those ill-gotten gains will be sufficient to win the war.

But Russia is not in the same category of threats that China is .

And really, Putin cracks me up. Why is the navy a priority when any sentient being can see that a fleet is the last thing Russia needs to prioritize.

Russia could have joined the West after the Cold War. But no. Seriously, will nobody in Russia tell Putin he is effing up royally?

In a pre-publication addition, Strategypage notes:

It was bad enough when Russian staff officers and Defense Ministry analysts said it but now foreign nations are saying it too; Russia is weak and getting weaker both economically and militkarily. ... Prospects for improvement are dim and the government has resorted to the Iranian tactic of full time faking it. That means a continuous stream of press releases about new weapons and technologies that, at best, exist in small quantities and in most cases are still stuck in development. This works for a while but eventually becomes tragicomic and counterproductive.

#WhyRussiaCan'tHaveNiceThings

*Note