Apollo. I have memories of eagerly watching them on TV, but I honestly don't remember which ones. Some of my prized childhood toys were Billy Blast-off and Major Matt Mason. When I was little I eagerly looked forward to the far future of 2001 and imagined the kind of space program we'd have if 2001 A Space Odyssey had any predictive power at all. Alas it did not and our Apollo program turned out to be a dead end. Sure, the program helped spur technology that we take for granted on Earth, but the failure to keep going in space has always been a disappointment to me.
Reality bites (translation). But will their experience triumph over their beliefs? Tip to Instapundit.
Yeah, my experience is that Canadians are oddly obsessed with America. What with the poutine, hockey, and odd "bacon," Canada can seem like an alternate America in a multi-verse only slightly "off" from America Prime south of the border.
Will North Koreans notice that while the man was free to leave South Korea to live in North Korea, that the man will never be free to move out of North Korea? Perhaps that simple difference should be noted.
This is nice, and I mentioned it before, but fog and smoke will always be a problem for the anti-small boat mission. And I wonder if ablative or reflective material on the target would slow down or defeat the laser weapon.
While I am very interested in the Close Combat Lethality Task Force coming up with ideas to make infantry more effective (and I had some thoughts here on the USNI Blog to change training to reflect advances in firearms technology), I wonder if the high pay recommended will worsen the already great "force protection" imperative that makes commanders and their civilian leaders leery of risking infantry in combat. The whole purpose of infantry is to fight, after all.
Sweden, which amazingly for such a small country has its own ability to build advanced fighter aircraft, will join with the British to design and build a new fighter plane.
I'm not optimistic that Sudan can be a success in Arab Spring 2.0, but perhaps this is a good first step. Or it is just a means to calmly install a new ruling group. We'll see what the transition team provides--if even the second phase of the transition is allowed to take place.
Yes, Trump threw money and dirt at Clinton in 2016 and will do so again against his 2020 opponent. But the authors might have bolstered their credibility if they noted that Clinton threw much more dirt and money (twice as much, if memory serves me) at Trump in 2016. Implying that Trump had a money or dirt edge is incorrect.
So we should count on a small number of "Chinese nationalists who preach autarky, generals who advocate militarism, CEOs who favor protectionism" not driving Chinese foreign policy? The idea put forward that we are thwarting their rise is nonsense. We've enabled it. What we are trying to thwart is China's attempt to use their rise to threaten neighbors who are our friends and allies. We are not to blame for causing Chinese actions in that area. That so-called militant minority doesn't have to get everything its way to drive threats to us and our allies and friends.
So is nullification just as fun when everyone does it?
ISIL's evil lives on in the form of explosive booby traps in buildings and even the rubble in Iraqi cities, which will take years to clear and allow people to go home.
I just don't see the diplomatic talks with the Taliban producing a real peace deal. I have no idea what we think they will accomplish. We can't trust the Taliban, the foreign jihadis, or the Pakistanis. And that's on top of the Russians, Iranians, and the corruption that afflicts all of the country including our allies there. All I know is that we don't want a jihadi sanctuary there again (remember 9/11?) and I am grateful that few American or coalition troops die supporting our side's fight against the various enemies of Afghanistan who would also threaten the West.
Great progress has been made in dramatically reducing poverty and hunger around the world despite the so-called scourge of global warming; yet somehow some UN apparatchiki say global warming will get in the way of reducing those problems even more.
Listen you haters, the Hope and Change made all this perfectly acceptable.
If an American soldier commits a crime for many in the global Left it is an indictment of the soldier, the military, the United States, and the very mission that put that soldier in a foreign land; but a humanitarian can rape little kids with little worry that any broader harsh judgments will be made. Even if he is innocent as he proclaims, the predator problem exists in both UN peacekeeping and humanitarian missions.
Yeah, that's pretty much the situation I found myself in.
I do often say you should check the "definitions" section of any "fact" you think is solid.
If California finds it so important to pay for illegal immigrant health care, they should be free to enjoy the cost and results. It isn't all of them, but having set the precedent how can California refuse to pay for all of them?
Given that I am worried that the European Union will cripple NATO if the EU gets more power and tries to build its own imperial armed forces, and given that Von der Leyen presided over the near-complete de-fanging of the German military, I'm fully behind Von der Leyen getting the top job in the European Union.
I don't think there is any chance this UN "process" brings peace to Syria--unless it is just a means to legitimize Assad's victory over the desert he created to crush his enemies.
The wrong people are slapping COEXIST bumper stickers on their cars.
Wow, Nazis are everywhere! Tip to Instapundit.
Speaking of Von der Leyen, who wants to sit in the EU throne, she thinks that Brexit could be delayed a third time. As a proper EU autocrat-in-waiting, I'm sure she believes that the will of the British people expressed in the Brexit vote can be delayed forever.
The new AC-130J gunship is in action.
Membership in NATO and the EU require a certain commitment to rule of law. Romania is fighting to destroy the killer of rule of law--corruption--but the fight is far from over.
Initially the cannon fodder of the Iran-Iraq War, the Basij were made the street-level force of thugs who would break heads in case of domestic insurrection. And the Basij have expanded their portfolio into a more general effort to watch and control society to keep threats to the Shia Islamist regime from growing.
If Secretary Acosta goes (and I don't feel I know enough to judge his actions), a lot more people better be on the list. Yeah, it will be inconvenient. On the other hand, it is just an inconvenience because he was shielded from consequences until after his "sell by" date.
It would me amazing if there isn't voter fraud given the opportunities left in the registration system that allow for fraud. Sadly, it will be claimed that Non-Existent-Americans are deprived of voting rights if the system is cleaned out.
If Putin is willing to talk to Ukraine's new President Zelenskiy about the Donbas (but not Crimea!), it must mean the Russians are truly losing that so-called brilliantly conceived "frozen" conflict. And they did talk on the phone.
So these are basically potential truck bombs that serve a light lunch before detonation?
I've long suspected that a good portion of student loan debt consists of paying for beer and pizza decades after consumption. Tip to Instapundit.
Pay is not the only issue between the US men's and women's national soccer teams. Risk is also part of the differences and that must be considered when judging "equality."
Russia has improved their fires request capability--but is still a decade and a half behind America.
Yeah, when I was in the service, a lot of attention was paid to using chemical weapons protective gear.
The money to cut Turkey out of the F-35 production and maintenance system should probably come out of the State Department budget.
Good luck India.
First they came for the Republicans, but I said nothing because I'm not a Republican. Welcome to the party, pal. Enjoy your rules.
I did not notice that Twitter had a global outage.
Since I discovered this racket when I worked for the Michigan state legislature, it has always outraged me that while statutory penalties for violations of the law may be fairly small, the real penalties are the court costs and fees levied on top of that in a secret sanction that is not easy to see until you run afoul of the law and find yourself in jail because you can't pay. Why that isn't unconstitutional is beyond me. It is definitely morally wrong. The idea that you have to pay to use the court system to defend yourself is an outrage under either situation, and poor people are screwed. Courts are a basic function of the state and should be funded with general tax revenue rather than relying on oppressive "costs and fees" imposed on people brought into the system. Yes, this isn't as bad as billing a family for the cost of the bullet used to murder your loved one. But it is in the same general category. It should be stopped. The bail aspect is new to me. I'm not sure what I think of it, but I sure can see that illegal aliens who skip out on hearings are treated with far more care and compassion than poor citizens accused of crimes. Tip to Instapundit.
The real hockey stick graph relevant to our lives. Tip to Instapundit.
Badassery at sea.
He has a point. Also, it's soccer.
The United States is a maritime power, with the Indo-Pacific region the place where maritime interests are most in need of defense. And space power is increasingly needed to exercise sea control.
A parasitic army with a dying country as its host. And they have nukes and nuclear know-how for sale. Have a super sparkly day.
The robotic battlefield will take a little longer. Although base perimeter and route security missions seem more likely in the near term.
If you are on the correct team, you can get away with the most vile acts.
The Bastille Day military parade. Macron is such a fascist. The tides shift swiftly in American liberal thought for the president of what was recently the Republic of Nuanced Sophistication.
It sure looks like the will of the British people expressed in the Brexit referendum will be denied on the odd grounds that it can take place only on the terms that Remainers and the EU approve. One can argue against whether a referendum was the right way to decide the question, but the question was nonetheless put to the people on the understanding that its result would be the final outcome. Yet here we are.
Trump should not have told "the Squad" of four hard-left Congressional representatives to go back to their place of origin. That was ugly. They are American citizens. He should have just stuck to the truth that they are morons.
Sunday, July 14, 2019
Davids and Goliath
Hong Kong and Taiwan find they have much in common as Hong Kong clings to dwindling freedom with an expiration date and as Taiwan has built a free country under constant threat of having China crush that freedom.
Perhaps this is significant:
China is massive and dictatorial while Taiwan and Hong Kong are free and claimed by China.
It may be that the only way for Taiwan and Hong Kong to retain their freedom is to end the dictatorship in Peking and hope that the Chinese people won't then want to destroy democracy.
As I wrote eight years ago:
And at least now with Hong Kong pro-democracy activist ties, perhaps Taiwan has an ally already within China to achieve this.
Perhaps this is significant:
China’s influence over both Hong Kong and Taiwan has steadily spread from their economies into their political systems, and Beijing has promoted the “one country, two systems” model it uses to administer Hong Kong as its favored system, were Taiwan to submit to peaceful unification. But as Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing government ignores the demands of peaceful protesters, and China’s continuing encroachment on “one country, two systems” there discredits the notion that it would offer any degree of autonomy for Taiwan, demonstrators in Hong Kong are looking more and more to Taiwan, and a sense of solidarity is growing between the two. That is likely to be a major source of concern for Beijing (and, indeed, Chinese state media have warned the two sides against cooperating).
China is massive and dictatorial while Taiwan and Hong Kong are free and claimed by China.
It may be that the only way for Taiwan and Hong Kong to retain their freedom is to end the dictatorship in Peking and hope that the Chinese people won't then want to destroy democracy.
As I wrote eight years ago:
So if Taiwan can't in the long run build a sufficient military with their much smaller economy and Taiwan also wishes to maintain their de facto independence, another method of protecting themselves must be found.
Nuclear weapons are one answer, of course. Taiwan could build them. But that is risky if China decides that a preemptive nuclear strike is the only way to disarm Taiwan of those weapons.
Another way is to affect China's desire for Taiwan. If China stops wanting to take Taiwan, then the balance doesn't matter nearly as much. As unlikely as this may seem, when you rule out any other option of defending your island democracy, what is left is the only option. Yes, provoking regime change in Peking could be the only way out of the losing race Taiwan is in.
And at least now with Hong Kong pro-democracy activist ties, perhaps Taiwan has an ally already within China to achieve this.
Saturday, July 13, 2019
An Idea Close to My Heart
In writing about converting warships for other purposes, this author advocates using Nimitz class carriers as amphibious warfare assets:
Five years ago I suggested something a little more comprehensive by advocating building more Ford class carriers to serve as both strike carriers and as amphibious warfare ships to replace the smaller Navy amphibs that are being tasked as reserve light carriers.
If you add up all our big deck carriers and big deck amphibs, I figured you could get more capacity with a smaller total number of Ford hulls--some optimized for strike and others as amphibs--that would add flexibility to the fleet by being usable in their non-primary role, depending on the missions the Navy has to achieve at the moment.
I tried getting an article on that subject published last year but it was rejected. I'll try again.
Certainly, using a Nimitz hull that would otherwise be retired would be a good way to test the proposal.
Oddly for an Army guy, I seem to be big on converting warships, like this proposal and this one (membership required), both published.
It seems odd that the author of the initial article didn't cite World War II APDs (small armed amphibious transports) converted from old destroyers and destroyer escorts as a massive example of repurposing warships, which was the basis of that second proposal behind a pay wall.
Alternatively, since the Nimitz-class carriers have large flight decks and hangars plus accommodations for thousands of personnel, the Navy could repurpose these vessels into amphibious assault ships (LHA). Much larger and faster than an America-class LHA, a repurposed, nuclear powered Nimitz would carry, when compared to current or planned amphibious assault ships, more Marines and more of that Service’s types of aircraft (F-35B, CH-53, and MV-22). From a budgetary perspective, the Navy would realize savings from not having to build new amphibious assault ships, and the Marine Corps would have use of the ultimate LHA.
Five years ago I suggested something a little more comprehensive by advocating building more Ford class carriers to serve as both strike carriers and as amphibious warfare ships to replace the smaller Navy amphibs that are being tasked as reserve light carriers.
If you add up all our big deck carriers and big deck amphibs, I figured you could get more capacity with a smaller total number of Ford hulls--some optimized for strike and others as amphibs--that would add flexibility to the fleet by being usable in their non-primary role, depending on the missions the Navy has to achieve at the moment.
I tried getting an article on that subject published last year but it was rejected. I'll try again.
Certainly, using a Nimitz hull that would otherwise be retired would be a good way to test the proposal.
Oddly for an Army guy, I seem to be big on converting warships, like this proposal and this one (membership required), both published.
It seems odd that the author of the initial article didn't cite World War II APDs (small armed amphibious transports) converted from old destroyers and destroyer escorts as a massive example of repurposing warships, which was the basis of that second proposal behind a pay wall.
Two Birds With One Stone
Iraq fights jihadis and works against Iran; rather than being a threat to our Arab allies, and is trying to eject Iranian influence. With American backing the Iraqis can continue to do that.
Iraq continues to fight jihadis in Iraq:
Strategypage writes:
Yes, and back in the insurgency phase of Iraq War 1.0 from 2004 to 2008, Iran supported Shia gunmen while Iran's vassal state Syria funneled Sunni jihadi suicide bombers into Iraq to kill for al Qaeda. So the double threat has long been part of the plan to undermine Iraq.
Hopefully America and our coalition are still helping Iraq, unlike in 2012 when Iraq was left on their own only to see ISIL rise up beginning in January 2014.
Please note that Iraq is killing jihadis as a normal part of their security operations. Given how long Saddam Hussein plagued America and the region, it is far too easy to overlook this victory.
Note too that keeping the Iran-backed militias busy doing something of use (killing jihadis) prevents them from working against the Iraqi state, bleeds these guys, and exercises state control of them, which is needed if they are to be taken away from Iran which wants those militias as a Hezbollah-like Iranian proxy inside Iraq.
Iraq continues to fight jihadis in Iraq:
Iraq's security and paramilitary forces began Sunday a military operation along the border with Syria aimed at clearing the area of Islamic State group militants, the military said in a statement. ...
The military said the operation that began at sunrise was being carried out by Iraqi troops and members of the Popular Mobilization Forces that largely consist of Iran-backed militias.
Strategypage writes:
Iran is encountering more resistance in Iraq than expected. The Iraqis are openly hostile to Iranian influence and the Iranian attitude that they can do whatever they want in Iraq. What Iran wants right now it an Iraq too feeble to cause Iran any problems ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) has a similar attitude and that, oddly enough, has Iran and ISIL often, unofficially and inadvertently, working together to keep Iraq chaotic and mired in violence and corruption. This produces an Iraqi government less able to resist. While Iran and ISIL seem like separate problems, they are, in practice, intertwined. The Iraqis are growing more aggressive in curbing the Iran backed PMF (Popular Mobilization Force) militias and are now starting to shut down the pro-Iran ones.
Yes, and back in the insurgency phase of Iraq War 1.0 from 2004 to 2008, Iran supported Shia gunmen while Iran's vassal state Syria funneled Sunni jihadi suicide bombers into Iraq to kill for al Qaeda. So the double threat has long been part of the plan to undermine Iraq.
Hopefully America and our coalition are still helping Iraq, unlike in 2012 when Iraq was left on their own only to see ISIL rise up beginning in January 2014.
Please note that Iraq is killing jihadis as a normal part of their security operations. Given how long Saddam Hussein plagued America and the region, it is far too easy to overlook this victory.
Note too that keeping the Iran-backed militias busy doing something of use (killing jihadis) prevents them from working against the Iraqi state, bleeds these guys, and exercises state control of them, which is needed if they are to be taken away from Iran which wants those militias as a Hezbollah-like Iranian proxy inside Iraq.
Friday, July 12, 2019
Throw Them into the Sea
It annoyed me that it was possible to argue that Taiwan does not need tanks or even an army in order to stop a Chinese invasion by sea and air. This author gets that need:
I am fully on board the idea that Taiwan will need to counter-attack Chinese bridge- and air-heads:
Although as that first link in my quote explains in some detail, I don't think a Chinese invasion will come across the beaches in a replay of D-Day.
UPDATE: I'm not sure why this Chinese reaction is a problem--why would any American company sell weapons to China too?
Chinese planners expect that the earliest landing forces that do reach Taiwanese soil will have to fight without effective air-ground support. This is where Taiwan knows it can win: by using highly mobile forces to isolate and annihilate pockets of landing troops. While China would use its mainland missile forces to wreak havoc on fixed Taiwanese positions such as air bases and depots, it would struggle to target mobile Taiwanese forces. That's where these new tanks and stingers come in. And if the Chinese advance force can't get off the beaches, well, China has a big problem.
I am fully on board the idea that Taiwan will need to counter-attack Chinese bridge- and air-heads:
I don’t believe a crust defense can stop China off of Taiwan. Sizable forces will make it ashore through any gauntlet given the overwhelming Chinese naval, air, and economic advantage. Combined with the ability to choose the timing of invasion, Taiwan must defend in depth.
And if Taiwan’s ground forces can’t quickly crush the bridgeheads and airheads before the PLA gets organized, China will defeat Taiwan and crush their island democracy.
Although as that first link in my quote explains in some detail, I don't think a Chinese invasion will come across the beaches in a replay of D-Day.
UPDATE: I'm not sure why this Chinese reaction is a problem--why would any American company sell weapons to China too?
Waging War is Not a War Crime
My view is no, this Congressman did not commit war crimes when his unit fired artillery into Fallujah in 2004 during the Iraq War to help our troops recapture the city from al Qaeda terrorists.
Civilians die in war. That's only one reason it is Hell. And despite our efforts to isolate Fallujah in the fall of 2004 to get civilians out of the way before we recaptured the Iraqi city, when enemies fight among civilians it is unavoidable that civilians will die while killing the enemy. That alone is not and never has been a war crime.
We take more precautions to avoid civilian deaths than most would--and in contrast to those enemies in Fallujah who deliberately targeted civilians.
Tell me how many more American troops should have died if we could not use artillery to help win quickly?
Take into account that more civilians would have died in a long siege. Remember how false compassion works.
And that doesn't even factor in the civilians who would die every extra day that jihadis live to commit terrorism.
So take that question about an American war crime and shove it. If only our brutal enemies were judged as harshly as our own troops are.
UPDATE: More from Strategypage. The Houthi rebels continue to cheat on the UN deal to get humanitarian aid moving; the UAE pulled its forces out of the combat zone, making a goverment offensive against the rebels harder to pull off; the Saudis are determined not to let Iran retain a foothold in the region by letting the Houthi rebellion survive; and America wants an international escort force for Red Sea shipping traffic.
UPDATE: The UN is trying to get the Houthis to comply with the deal they signed to open Hodeida port for humanitarian aid that the Houthis don't steal or use to cover weapons smuggling.
Civilians die in war. That's only one reason it is Hell. And despite our efforts to isolate Fallujah in the fall of 2004 to get civilians out of the way before we recaptured the Iraqi city, when enemies fight among civilians it is unavoidable that civilians will die while killing the enemy. That alone is not and never has been a war crime.
We take more precautions to avoid civilian deaths than most would--and in contrast to those enemies in Fallujah who deliberately targeted civilians.
Tell me how many more American troops should have died if we could not use artillery to help win quickly?
Take into account that more civilians would have died in a long siege. Remember how false compassion works.
And that doesn't even factor in the civilians who would die every extra day that jihadis live to commit terrorism.
So take that question about an American war crime and shove it. If only our brutal enemies were judged as harshly as our own troops are.
UPDATE: More from Strategypage. The Houthi rebels continue to cheat on the UN deal to get humanitarian aid moving; the UAE pulled its forces out of the combat zone, making a goverment offensive against the rebels harder to pull off; the Saudis are determined not to let Iran retain a foothold in the region by letting the Houthi rebellion survive; and America wants an international escort force for Red Sea shipping traffic.
UPDATE: The UN is trying to get the Houthis to comply with the deal they signed to open Hodeida port for humanitarian aid that the Houthis don't steal or use to cover weapons smuggling.
Thursday, July 11, 2019
A Sigh of Relief in Eastern Syria
Britain and France will send more forces to Syria, which frees America to reduce our footprint in eastern Syria where our Kurdish allies could use support.
Our allies are coming through in a difficult region:
While I want to support our Kurdish friends in Syria, ultimately I think the Syrian Kurds and Assad need to come to an autonomy deal. That's the best the Kurds can get, leveraging Western support because Turkey opposes independence and eventually Assad--with Iranian and Russian backing--will be strong enough to bulldoze through opposition to Assad's return to eastern Syria.
A Western military presence in eastern Syria--which is useful to hunt ISIL, although that isn't the only mission given the Kurdish issue--will help give the Kurds such leverage a little longer to make a deal.
And allowing America to get out will forestall a Beirut Barracks (or Mogadishu) incident that would drive us from the region in apparent defeat because we are in an open-ended commitment without the willingness to suffer for the objective we set before us.
Our mismatch between what we want and what we will suffer is a tremendous incentive for enemies to kill Americans. I've worried about that. The decision by France and Britain will spare us from this dilemma.
UPDATE: The likely next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not eager to get out of Syria yet:
So there you go. For now.
UPDATE: Related information regarding Iran.
Our allies are coming through in a difficult region:
Britain has agreed to deploy additional special forces in Syria alongside France to allow the US to withdraw its ground troops from the ongoing fight against the remaining Isis forces in the country.
US officials briefed on Tuesday that Britain and France would contribute 10% to 15% more elite soldiers, although the exact numbers involved remain secret.
While I want to support our Kurdish friends in Syria, ultimately I think the Syrian Kurds and Assad need to come to an autonomy deal. That's the best the Kurds can get, leveraging Western support because Turkey opposes independence and eventually Assad--with Iranian and Russian backing--will be strong enough to bulldoze through opposition to Assad's return to eastern Syria.
A Western military presence in eastern Syria--which is useful to hunt ISIL, although that isn't the only mission given the Kurdish issue--will help give the Kurds such leverage a little longer to make a deal.
And allowing America to get out will forestall a Beirut Barracks (or Mogadishu) incident that would drive us from the region in apparent defeat because we are in an open-ended commitment without the willingness to suffer for the objective we set before us.
Our mismatch between what we want and what we will suffer is a tremendous incentive for enemies to kill Americans. I've worried about that. The decision by France and Britain will spare us from this dilemma.
UPDATE: The likely next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not eager to get out of Syria yet:
Pulling American troops prematurely from Afghanistan would be a "strategic mistake," the Army general nominated to be Joint Chiefs chairman told senators Thursday. Mark Milley also said the United States should keep a "modest number" of forces in Iraq and Syria for now to maintain stability.
So there you go. For now.
UPDATE: Related information regarding Iran.
Kazem Gharib Abadi's Right. Psychotic, But Absolutely Right
Sometimes the nutballs are accurate:
Mind you, Iran has been at war with America for about 40 years now, inflicting a lot of casualties on American forces. [UPDATE: And let's not forget about this act of war in our own capital.]
But as we abandoned the folly of thinking we could turn Iran into a responsible regional power via the awful 2015 Iran nuclear deal and replied to the warfare at long last with economic warfare instead of kinetics, I warned that Iran wouldn't see our sanctions as a peaceful measure:
Iran's low-level attacks on tankers and their shooting down of one of our drones are kinetic responses to losing against our economic warfare.
Those attacks may signal an Iranian willingness to attack more openly or persistently. Or Iran might know it can't win a war with America and the small attacks could be a desperate attempt to get the world to rescue Iran from American sanctions.
And guess what? Our non-kinetic offensive isn't over:
Never let it be said that we aren't transparent. Yet Russia is joining Iran in opposing America.
You'd think that links to Russia would turn Democrats against Iran given the recent (and sudden) anti-Russian fervor developed by Democrats.
Let's be careful out there. In desperation the Iranians might lash out stupidly and spark a military clash we don't want and they can't win.
UPDATE: Britain recently seized an Iranian tanker suspected of breaking sanctions, and Iran attempted to retaliate:
Be careful out there.
UPDATE: The British seem to be claiming only that the Iranians attempted to "impede" the ship--not take it.
UPDATE: The British won't escort all their civilian tankers in the region:
Well that's darn sporting of the British.
UPDATE: Related information on Iran.
Iran's representative to international organizations in Vienna, Kazem Gharib Abadi, told a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency Wednesday U.S. actions ... that the "costly" consequences of American sanctions mean "they should be seen as weapons of warfare."
Mind you, Iran has been at war with America for about 40 years now, inflicting a lot of casualties on American forces. [UPDATE: And let's not forget about this act of war in our own capital.]
But as we abandoned the folly of thinking we could turn Iran into a responsible regional power via the awful 2015 Iran nuclear deal and replied to the warfare at long last with economic warfare instead of kinetics, I warned that Iran wouldn't see our sanctions as a peaceful measure:
As I've said, while economic sanctions are considered an alternative to war, if sanctions are really effective the target of the sanctions will see them as little different than kinetic attacks and may consider kinetics in response.
Iran's low-level attacks on tankers and their shooting down of one of our drones are kinetic responses to losing against our economic warfare.
Those attacks may signal an Iranian willingness to attack more openly or persistently. Or Iran might know it can't win a war with America and the small attacks could be a desperate attempt to get the world to rescue Iran from American sanctions.
And guess what? Our non-kinetic offensive isn't over:
"Iran has long been secretly 'enriching,' in total violation of the terrible 150 Billion Dollar deal made by John Kerry and the Obama Administration. Remember, that deal was to expire in a short number of years. Sanctions will soon be increased, substantially!" Trump said on Twitter.
Never let it be said that we aren't transparent. Yet Russia is joining Iran in opposing America.
You'd think that links to Russia would turn Democrats against Iran given the recent (and sudden) anti-Russian fervor developed by Democrats.
Let's be careful out there. In desperation the Iranians might lash out stupidly and spark a military clash we don't want and they can't win.
UPDATE: Britain recently seized an Iranian tanker suspected of breaking sanctions, and Iran attempted to retaliate:
Five Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps gunboats tried to seize a British oil tanker in the Persian Gulf Wednesday but backed off after a British warship approached, a senior U.S. defense official told Fox News.
The British warship was said to have been less than 5 miles behind the tanker but soon intercepted the Iranian boats and threatened to open fire. A manned U.S. reconnaissance aircraft was above as well, the official said, adding that Iranian forces left without opening fire.
Be careful out there.
UPDATE: The British seem to be claiming only that the Iranians attempted to "impede" the ship--not take it.
UPDATE: The British won't escort all their civilian tankers in the region:
Britain does not intend to escort every British-flagged merchant vessel through the Strait of Hormuz, a security source said on Thursday, after a Royal Navy warship had to stop three Iranian vessels from blocking the passage of a BP-operated tanker.
Well that's darn sporting of the British.
UPDATE: Related information on Iran.
Wednesday, July 10, 2019
The Triumph of the Baghdadi Will for Plan B
Strategypage looks at the dominance of Sunni Arabs from Baghdad in Iraq. Purging them from Iraqi public office was a necessary measure to break their centuries-long hold on power and vigilance is needed to keep them from conspiring to return to power in a Plan B relying on Sunni Islamist fanaticism.
One, those who criticize "disbanding" the Iraqi army after the defeat of Saddam in 2003 are wrong:
I'm sad to say that the Army's official history was written by people who believe that criticism.
I'll add that in May 2003 the order was a formality because the army had dissolved and gone home during the invasion. But it was a necessary formality. I defended that decision again and again over the course of the war in the face of criticism.
Yes, there were risks to starting over. And the difficulty of training officers and senior NCOs to staff and effective army was the main risk of that course. And the five-year war against small but well-organized and -equipped insurgencies and terror campaigns was the result. But by 2008 it worked.
And there would have been risks if the determined Sunni officers had been retained in the security forces or government, with the most obvious being how we'd get the majority Shia and Kurds to accept continued rule by Sunni Arabs? We might have traded an insurgency by 20% of the population for an insurgency by 80%.
And I pointed out a major flaw in that line of thinking following the spring 2004 joint offensive by the Baathists/al Qaeda and the Iran-backed Shia death squads. My archives from that period are dead now, having been on the old Yahoo!Geocities site (and archive sites subsequently died), but here's my commentary--complete with typos--in 2006:
Those Sunnis provided the leadership of al Qaeda in Iraq and ISIL as a means for the Sunni Arabs to regain control of Iraq in a Plan B in case of being overthrown, which was one result of Saddam's defeat in 1991 (back to Strategypage):
But as noted, that Plan B was defeated by 2008. And of course, there are Sunnis who still want to run Iraq, as the rise of ISIL in 2014 showed most recently until they were defeated by 2017:
We need to stay in Iraq (because we won, don't forget) to help Iraqis move past that history of domination and abuse by a determined and armed minority, which Iran tries to encourage and exploit for their own efforts to dominate Iraq. The ISIL and Iranian presence in Iraq is a strange mutual admiration society in action that we must fight.
One, those who criticize "disbanding" the Iraqi army after the defeat of Saddam in 2003 are wrong:
Because of this misconception about the Baghdadi Sunnis many foreigners remained highly critical of the in May 2003 American decision to dissolve the former Iraqi Army. That was done because of its ties to Saddam Hussein and his regime. The 400,000 strong-army was not formally discharged, but essentially just told to go home. Many of these troops went home with their weapons. And some of them, especially officers, were soon identified as leaders in the growing anti-government violence. While it was pointed out that that retaining the army was like "keeping the Nazis in power," that was exactly the point of many critics who wanted to again rule Iraq via the most capable locals. No one would admit that view, but that is what it came down to.
I'm sad to say that the Army's official history was written by people who believe that criticism.
I'll add that in May 2003 the order was a formality because the army had dissolved and gone home during the invasion. But it was a necessary formality. I defended that decision again and again over the course of the war in the face of criticism.
Yes, there were risks to starting over. And the difficulty of training officers and senior NCOs to staff and effective army was the main risk of that course. And the five-year war against small but well-organized and -equipped insurgencies and terror campaigns was the result. But by 2008 it worked.
And there would have been risks if the determined Sunni officers had been retained in the security forces or government, with the most obvious being how we'd get the majority Shia and Kurds to accept continued rule by Sunni Arabs? We might have traded an insurgency by 20% of the population for an insurgency by 80%.
And I pointed out a major flaw in that line of thinking following the spring 2004 joint offensive by the Baathists/al Qaeda and the Iran-backed Shia death squads. My archives from that period are dead now, having been on the old Yahoo!Geocities site (and archive sites subsequently died), but here's my commentary--complete with typos--in 2006:
How could we appeal to Shias if we had kept the Baathist government machinery in place? How could we keep the Baathist military intact when it was not trustworthy and the insturment of oppressing and slaughering the Kurds and Shias?
How much worse would spring 2004 have been if the Shias had been alienated from us by these policies in "the plan" just as the enemy counter-offensive began? Baathist-run agencies would have openly delcared for the insurgents and Shias would have rallied to Sadr. It would have been a revolt on the order of the Sepoy Mutiny (at the time, because it was not a wide revolt, I wrote that people should calm down because it was not the Sepoy Mutiny of 2004).
Those Sunnis provided the leadership of al Qaeda in Iraq and ISIL as a means for the Sunni Arabs to regain control of Iraq in a Plan B in case of being overthrown, which was one result of Saddam's defeat in 1991 (back to Strategypage):
Between 1991 and 2003 Saddam and his Baghdadi Sunnis prepared for that worst case [of being overthrown]. This involved Saddam making amends to the non-Baghdadi Iraqi Sunni Arabs after 1991. Most of these Sunnis were tribal and most of those were Bedouin, who had always been looked down on by the Baghdadis. To make this work Saddam not only shared the oil wealth with the tribal Sunni Arabs but suddenly because religious. For all his adult life Saddam was a very public secular Arab, openly consuming alcohol while encouraging Iraqi women to be more “modern” (no veils and allowing Western attire). The tribal Sunnis were, like the Bedouins who dominated and ran Saudi Arabia, favored a more Islamic and traditional lifestyle, Saddam publically agreed and Saddam enshrined that as the official (but not always followed in private) law. The Sunni tribal leaders, now wealthy because they had some of the oil wealth, and flattered that the haughty Baghdadi Sunnis finally accepted the ancient wisdom of the Bedouin, became part of the larger Sunni Arab coalition, that now comprised about 20 percent of the population.
Saddam has noted the inspirational power of calling for Arabs to “defend Islam” with fanatic armed resistance and terrorism and using that was the essence of Plan B.
But as noted, that Plan B was defeated by 2008. And of course, there are Sunnis who still want to run Iraq, as the rise of ISIL in 2014 showed most recently until they were defeated by 2017:
Then 2008 repeated itself by 2017 and the Baghdadi Sunni Islamic terrorists were once again in stealth mode, preparing to revive Plan B when the opportunity presented itself. It may take generations for the Baghdadis to lose their zeal for regaining their control over Baghdad and the rest of Iraq. That’s how things work in the Middle East, where grudges remain volatile and lethal for centuries.
We need to stay in Iraq (because we won, don't forget) to help Iraqis move past that history of domination and abuse by a determined and armed minority, which Iran tries to encourage and exploit for their own efforts to dominate Iraq. The ISIL and Iranian presence in Iraq is a strange mutual admiration society in action that we must fight.
An Enduring Presence in African Waters?
The United States Navy is putting assets in the Gulf of Guinea:
A Coast Guard ship was the first in 2019.
The Gulf of Guinea was one place I thought The AFRICOM Queen modularized auxiliary cruiser (in Military Review) could be useful as a power projection platform in the absence of high-end Navy assets.
Although by deploying a Coast Guard ship and an expeditionary fast transport, the Navy is managing that. For now, anyway. My suggestion could remain on station, longer and adapt for new missions.
As I've said, I think the unofficial motto of AFRICOM is "Thank God for SOUTHCOM."
The U.S. Navy has dispatched a second ship, the USNS Carson City, this year to the Gulf of Guinea on West Africa's southern coast to help deal with security needs, including piracy.
The Military Sealift Command Spearhead-class expeditionary fast transport ship departed Rota, Spain, on Tuesday, the U.S. Navy said in a news release.
A Coast Guard ship was the first in 2019.
The Gulf of Guinea was one place I thought The AFRICOM Queen modularized auxiliary cruiser (in Military Review) could be useful as a power projection platform in the absence of high-end Navy assets.
Although by deploying a Coast Guard ship and an expeditionary fast transport, the Navy is managing that. For now, anyway. My suggestion could remain on station, longer and adapt for new missions.
As I've said, I think the unofficial motto of AFRICOM is "Thank God for SOUTHCOM."
Tuesday, July 09, 2019
Power to the People
The American versus Chinese demographic trends may decide who is the dominant superpower.
Yes:
This is what I've been saying, although our reproduction rate is lower than when I wrote this eight years ago (but China may have already peaked):
Don't count America out. The Soviets, the Japanese, and the European Union all thought they would be the ones to dethrone America. China could join the list of failures.
UPDATE: Of course, not all the people are reliable. And China got a reminder that sometimes the people you rule aren't happy with the form of your rule:
Hong Kong protesters seem to have killed the proposal to allow for extradition to mainland China where the judges are more reliable from Peking's point of view.
I'm not terribly optimistic that the people of Hong Kong can be a vanguard of freedom before China snuffs out that flame of liberty. But you never know.
UPDATE: Thoughts on China and Hong Kong.
Yes:
For four decades, China has carried out one of the longest, fastest and biggest economic transformations in history. Integral to China's miracle has been its 1-child policy, which has constrained the size of its bulging population. But demographic experts say that, even though 2 children per family are now permitted, the policy has baked in a dire mid-century future for China.
So dramatic are the unfolding trends that they will swamp geopolitics and make China's rise much less certain, argues Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographic expert at the American Enterprise Institute.
This is what I've been saying, although our reproduction rate is lower than when I wrote this eight years ago (but China may have already peaked):
China's population is estimated to peak in about 2030 at 1.393 billion. By 2100, China will decline to 0.941 billion people. America, at a Census Bureau middle projection will tip the scales at 0.571 billion. At the high end projection, we'll have 1.182 billion people. Note that the projection made 11 years ago for today's population was 302,300,000 and the high end was given as 314,846,00. We are actually at 311,308,000, so we are closer to the high end prediction than the middle projection.
With all the caveats about projecting that far into the future, we could have from 60% of China's population to more people than China! Will China have twice the GDP per-capita as America then? With a population older than our population? Because if not, China's lead in gross GDP will not last and we will regain that title well before 2100 rolls around (unless India is the one to surpass us in gross GDP).
Don't count America out. The Soviets, the Japanese, and the European Union all thought they would be the ones to dethrone America. China could join the list of failures.
UPDATE: Of course, not all the people are reliable. And China got a reminder that sometimes the people you rule aren't happy with the form of your rule:
While Hong Kong was an enormous economic asset, the Chinese government saw the pro-democracy attitudes to the Hong Kong residents as a threat. Over the last five weeks, the government received another reminder of how important freedom is to those who see it threatened.
The current round of popular protests began on June 4th when Hong Kong was the only place in China were thousands of people could gather to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Hong Kong is the only place in China where you can do a lot of things.
Hong Kong protesters seem to have killed the proposal to allow for extradition to mainland China where the judges are more reliable from Peking's point of view.
I'm not terribly optimistic that the people of Hong Kong can be a vanguard of freedom before China snuffs out that flame of liberty. But you never know.
UPDATE: Thoughts on China and Hong Kong.
Gateway to the Bay of Bengal?
China does not want enemies to come close to their claimed South China Sea territory. And it is a convenient jumping off position for points west.
Well, it was convenient to believe China's lie at the time:
This would be a good time to review how we might break the Chinese kill chain for those anti-ship ballistic missiles.
And of course, taking the man-made structures and islands goes to the source.
I would be remiss if I didn't note that Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles in the South China Sea can go west against India as well as east against America. If China wants to threaten America, such missiles on the Chinese mainland are a bigger threat to U.S. forces.
To the west in the Indian Ocean you have China reliant on Middle East oil and access to African raw materials. And the sea trade routes to Europe draw Chinese attention this way. Indeed, China's first overseas military base is in Djibouti, at the Horn of Africa. And China has claims on Indian territory.
China's attention is clearly pulled west.
Because war against America would be a far more serious affair for China, I imagine India has more to worry about this Chinese missile development than America does.
Well, it was convenient to believe China's lie at the time:
China's military conducted a flight test of an anti-ship ballistic missile in the contentious South China Sea last weekend in violation of a pledge four years ago by President Xi Jinping not to militarize the waterway.
"Of course the Pentagon was aware of the Chinese missile launch from the man-made structures in the South China Sea near the Spratly Islands," Lt. Col. Dave Eastburn, a Pentagon spokesman, told the Washington Free Beacon.
"What's truly disturbing about this act is that it's in direct contradiction to President Xi's statement in the Rose Garden in 2015 when he pledged to the U.S., the Asia-Pacific region, and the world, that he would not militarize those man-made outposts," Eastburn stated, referring to Chinese leader Xi Jinping.
This would be a good time to review how we might break the Chinese kill chain for those anti-ship ballistic missiles.
And of course, taking the man-made structures and islands goes to the source.
I would be remiss if I didn't note that Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles in the South China Sea can go west against India as well as east against America. If China wants to threaten America, such missiles on the Chinese mainland are a bigger threat to U.S. forces.
To the west in the Indian Ocean you have China reliant on Middle East oil and access to African raw materials. And the sea trade routes to Europe draw Chinese attention this way. Indeed, China's first overseas military base is in Djibouti, at the Horn of Africa. And China has claims on Indian territory.
China's attention is clearly pulled west.
Because war against America would be a far more serious affair for China, I imagine India has more to worry about this Chinese missile development than America does.
Monday, July 08, 2019
Reversing 1911
I didn't take Erdogan's threat regarding Libya as meaning a Turkish expeditionary force, but who knows?
I doubt Turkey wants a new war so far away given the problems with Syria and the Kurds in the region that demand military attention. Although it is possible that, post coup/purge, Erdogan might want to send suspect commanders as far away as possible.
And recall that Turkey issued Assad an ultimatum way back when and didn't make good on it.
Still, if Erdogan wants to restore control or influence in Libya which the Ottoman Empire once formally ruled (until 1911 when Italy took the place from Turkey), he can be comforted that we had our modern Tripolitan War in 2011.
Last week, though his military forces are deeply engaged in next-door Syria's ruinous civil war, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened to launch a military campaign in another former Turkish Ottoman Empire colonial possession: Libya.
I doubt Turkey wants a new war so far away given the problems with Syria and the Kurds in the region that demand military attention. Although it is possible that, post coup/purge, Erdogan might want to send suspect commanders as far away as possible.
And recall that Turkey issued Assad an ultimatum way back when and didn't make good on it.
Still, if Erdogan wants to restore control or influence in Libya which the Ottoman Empire once formally ruled (until 1911 when Italy took the place from Turkey), he can be comforted that we had our modern Tripolitan War in 2011.
Putin Has Huge ... Tracts of Land
Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who:
Yeah, five years of mild punishment for breaking the long peace in Europe by invading a sovereign European state and seizing parts of its territory is more than enough punishment, eh?
Explain to me again why a politically unified Europe under the European Union is necessary to resist Russia. Face it, two imperial entities would get along just fine.
On the bright side, Putin is losing support in Russia:
Wait until more Russians figure out that Putin is effing up royally.
Will Europe ease Putin's problems? If the current Europe is willing to rehabilitate Russia in the Council of Europe, imagine what an imperial Europe with a strong EU central authority will have in common with the rump Russian empire.
The Council of Europe, responding to Russia threatening to quit the organization, recently agree to restore Russian ability to vote on Council of Europe resolutions and participate in debates. These rights had been suspended in 2014 because of the Russian attack on Ukraine, which is still underway.
Yeah, five years of mild punishment for breaking the long peace in Europe by invading a sovereign European state and seizing parts of its territory is more than enough punishment, eh?
Explain to me again why a politically unified Europe under the European Union is necessary to resist Russia. Face it, two imperial entities would get along just fine.
On the bright side, Putin is losing support in Russia:
The current government, run by Vladimir Putin and his KGB cronies, is visibly losing its popular support. Despite the restoration of the many police state aspects of the old Soviet Union, and a constant diet of “we are at war with NATO” propaganda, a growing number of Russians are visibly blaming Putin and his policies for a growing list of problems. Worse are the Russians who are defying new laws against public demonstrations. Because of declining support in opinion polls using police state tactics on critics has now makes the problem worse rather than burying it for a while. This is how the Soviet Union collapsed 1991, as did the communist governments in East Europe in 1989. Sacrificing good relations with the West for an alliance including traditional enemies like Iran, Turkey and China does not leave most Russians feeling better. That’s especially true as the economy keeps getting worse and living standards decline visibly every year since 2014. That was the year Putin sought to forcibly make Ukraine pro-Russian.
Wait until more Russians figure out that Putin is effing up royally.
Will Europe ease Putin's problems? If the current Europe is willing to rehabilitate Russia in the Council of Europe, imagine what an imperial Europe with a strong EU central authority will have in common with the rump Russian empire.
Sunday, July 07, 2019
Weekend Data Dump
Many Russians miss their empire and that has driven Russian paranoia and hostility toward the West: "In the west the EU and NATO were offering cooperation, not domination and Russia leaders chose to interpret that as a conspiracy to destroy Russia, a nation where paranoia is easier to sell than progress." It is funny, in college I had a teaching assistant who just about turned purple with rage when I called the USSR the "Russian empire." Somehow conquering people in contiguous land and not overseas somehow didn't count, I guess. But Russian leaders want their "not an empire" back. Or at least they want to rally their people by pretending to reclaim their empire.
Lessons from World War II in the Pacific on multi-domain operations. I drew my own lessons from the Guadalcanal campaign in this Land Warfare Paper.
Good grief people, having some American military assets in Washington, D.C. on our Independence Day which was won by force of arms is not a symbol of potential tyranny and mass slaughter. Do liberals really think that the American military will participate in a plot to impose a Trump dictatorship--a coup which too many "liberals" earnestly called for after Trump was elected? I drove an Army truck in a parade once. Was I part of Bill Clinton's effort to be a dictator? Democrats like to protest that Republicans don't own the flag, yet now Democrats are protesting the Fourth of July! Stop reacting to the American flag the way vampires react to sunlight and Holy Water! Get an effing grip. Just ... stop. Or soon we'll be hunting down the man responsible for this racist display (tip to Instapundit):
And let me know when our national celebration gets this sophisticated and nuanced, okay? At long last will the people predicting on a daily basis the Trumptatorship get just a little embarrassed for their turn-the-dial-to-11 hysteria?
American oil output set a record in April. Good. It doesn't mean we don't need to care about the security of Persian Gulf oil exports because we rely on trade with countries who do rely on that oil. But it does mean that our military efforts won't be hindered by lack of fuel if someone tries to shut off that oil as a weapon against America. Tip to Instapundit.
Democrats on the American economy: 2017--Trump will wreck the economy; 2018--the good economy is really Obama's work; 2019: Trump's economy is so bad underneath the statistics that we have to put a Democrat in the White House. Got it.
The noble objective of helping people flee persecution has been expanded to include simply fleeing crime or poverty. There are no limits to who we have to accept under those definitions. The end point of that is that we will no longer be a refuge for anybody.
Why yes, that is a valuable capability that is spreading throughout the American military.
A war on a journalist. Alert Acosta. And the Trump administration defends press access. Alert Acosta.
Strategypage's mid-year update on global wars. The world continues to benefit from the fall of the Soviet Union, which had stoked widespread violence around the world.
How to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Tip to Instapundit.
Sometimes I am in awe of my ability to alienate people. Given how the Democrats are behaving insanely and given that on policy I'm broadly supportive of what Trump has done (and failed to do, like his supposed desire to kill NATO, an alliance I strongly support and never worried he'd pull out of, if only because of Republican and military opposition), I don't think I have a choice but to vote for Trump in 2020. Which alienates people who bizarrely see him as a secret Nazi figuratively born in Russia. Yet I dislike Trump and find his style and character problematic. Nor do I think he is playing 3D chess in policy. Which alienates people who have gone all-in on defending every aspect of Trump. Why is it so difficult to support Trump policies while recognizing Trump is a highly flawed vessel to achieve them? I'm willing to tolerate--not celebrate--the latter to get the former. But I want a smaller federal government rather than wanting my side in charge of the ever-expanding federal state. I thought Democrats could join me in that position after Trump's election put him in charge of the powers Democrats wanted a president they like to have. But no, the Democrats have just doubled down on their religious intensity toward politics to grasp that power again. Yeah, despite my long history of despising Trump, his vile and rabid "turn it to 11" opponents make it easy to back his reelection.
Oops.
It doesn't make sense? We did evolve to keep track of time that way. So there's that. If only we actually had that theoretical problem.
Nike is dead to me.
Well that's totally sane: "'If the U.S. attacks us, only half an hour will remain of Israel's lifespan,' Mojtaba Zolnour, the chairman of the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy commission said on Monday, according to Mehr." One, Iran will attack a completely different country than the one that attacked it? Two, only nukes could achieve that objective, and I thought Iran didn't even have a nuclear weapons program--if you believe the Obama administration's Iran nuclear deal.
American forces carried out a strike on al Qaeda forces in northwest Syria. No word on what was used to attack the enemy.
The Saudi royal family takes internal security very seriously. Still, their long ill treatment of their Shia minority is an own goal that gives Iran an opening to foment violence.
Just a reminder that the 2015 Iran nuclear deal isn't so much a treaty as it is a common document that everyone in the room picked up and took home. As I noted when this became known, bravo State Department. Very impressive. So who is violating international norms? Someone who pretends some farcical document is a sacred international document; or someone who refuses to act like it is?
It is very puzzling that the media that is "raising questions" (not saying that, Heavens no! Just wondering ...) about Biden's racial views now didn't find anything to quibble with when Obama had Biden as his vice president. I guess Obama didn't notice Biden's racism any more than Obama noticed Hillary Clinton's non-State Department email address. Fortunately he can discover such things in the news.
Austin, Texas sees San Francisco's homeless addict problem and says "Hold my (craft) beer."
Bad Orange Man goes back in time to abuse migrant children. I know, I know, the Hope and Change made it all cool. But I guess a lot of things become bad once stripped of the Hope and Change.
I have no problem talking to thug dictators. Liberals once defended this by saying "you make peace with your enemies."But no more. I have a problem with talking to thug dictators in order to grant them concessions that only benefit the thug dictators. So who talks to thug dictators matters and why we would talk to thug dictators matters. I did not trust Obama talking to thug dictators because I feared the point was to offer concessions. That said, while leaders who talk to thug dictators may have an excuse to downplay their thuggish dictator ways, there is little excuse for this kind of excuse making for thug dictators. Just as you can defend what Trump does without defending the totality of Trump, you can defend talking to a thug ruler without defending the totality of the thug ruler. It's not that hard. Try it.
Good Lord, on the issue of foreign policy I normally think Fareed Zakaria couldn't find his own buttocks with both hands and a GPS signal, but he's basically right about dealing with illegal immigration. Stripped of the required attacks on Trump (which I guess I just did with my insult against Zakaria), we do need to restrict the ability of foreigners to claim asylum and--assuming we can control access to America by those claiming asylum--allocate the resources to process that reduced flow promptly. Just ... wow.
Science! Nobody would say vaping is better than not vaping; but arguing that vaping is just as bad as smoking tobacco is just blindly ideological.
Radar that learns.
Iran threatens to enrich Uranium to levels that could be used for nuclear weapons. Which is odd considering that Iran denies--and Obama went along with that fiction--ever having a nuclear weapons program.
I'd have no problem agreeing with liberals that debates should be based on "facts" if liberals didn't (tip to Instapundit) wrongly think that they own the monopoly on facts. Like this. And right before July Fourth. Liberals are wont to bitterly complain that Republicans "don't own the flag." But with examples like the one in the second link, they demonstrate that Trump is simply filling a vacuum.
Please God, let this be a smuggling issue and not a food court issue.
The Army is preparing to fight underground. Which is necessary in cities with underground passages and sewers. But I'd rather leave that battlefield to robots. I think that in open warfare the Army needs to go underground, too, given the heavy firepower that can be accurately and quickly directed at our troops. Being under armor or under heavy constructed shelters--if you can't constantly move--may be the only way to survive on such a battlefield. What are we doing with rapid organic engineering support to make sure we can do that?
Science! From the field of Obviousology.
A Russian deep sea espionage submarine (offensive and defensive) had a wee bit of a problem at sea. But the details are a Russian state secret (well, sure, it's not as if it is a "research" sub).
Well that's inconvenient.
If Nazism is such a huge problem in modern America, why do so many apparent Nazis settle for dog whistle-type symbols like obscure frogs or Betsy Ross flags when they could just go full Nazi openly? Much like micro-aggressions popped up as a thing once actual aggression receded, I think we now have micro-Nazi problems.
I find it almost cute that Europeans call soccer "football."
Russia's poodle parliament made Putin an honest man by formally getting out of the INF treaty, rather than just letting Putin cheat on it while America participated. So now both sides say it is dead.
Heh. Bravo.
It just came to me that I haven't been getting my OSAC email updates, which I've had for ages. I've been struggling lately with my email news flow and so its absence was lost in the noise of failing to read what I have been getting. I signed up again here. Sadly, instead of being convenient emails the process requires logging in each time to say their information. Bleh.
The American sale of 66 new F-16 fighters to Taiwan is proceeding. Good. Although I'll say again that I would not sell F-35s to Taiwan until Taiwan demonstrates a greater commitment to spending on their defense. I do not want intact F-35s falling into Chinese hands if Taiwan can't defend their island democracy from invasion.
It looks like we will secure critical parts of our electric grid with analog equipment that defies efforts to hack them. Because they aren't connected to the Internet. Interesting. Now do voting.
The situation on the ground overall in Libya:
The idea that the Betsy Ross flag is bad because some small number of white supremacists have allegedly adopted it (and I suspect this is not really true) is insane. Why don't the good reasons for respecting that flag by the other 300 million of us swamp that bad reason? Why let a tiny group determine the value of something for everybody? Embrace that flag proudly as a symbol of our liberty and democracy, and maybe the lunatic fringe that wants it to be a symbol of racism will discard it in embarrassment of its accepted meaning. Don't give the nutballs that kind of power! And no, I'm not sure if by "nutballs" I mean the alleged racist fans of that flag or the left-wing nuts claiming the flag is a symbol of hate.
Yeah, never truncate the words unless you are determined to cherry pick to prove the opposite of the real meaning.
The Nigerian military is getting hammered because Boko Haram jihadis are able to mass and overwhelm security force garrisons. I've long spoke of the need to atomize insurgents.
Western European prisons are scarily too much like jihadi breeding grounds. The leaders need to be separated from the rest or the inmates need to be held in prison until they are too old to wage jihad on the outside.
America is not leaving NATO. But it is perhaps useful if idiots raise the issue enough to get European NATO states to rebuild their military forces, as they agreed to do during the Obama administration.
The Russians surely tried to sow chaos in America by intervening in our election in 2016. That was standard operating procedure for Russia and the Soviet Union before it. And with Democratic Resistance cooperation, boy is that still working. But the Mueller report in its zeal to prove collusion, actually way overstates Russian competence and actions in 2016. Which makes the inability of this 2-year conviction machine to actually convict anyone of collusion--whatever that is--pretty damning of the entire premise that established the whole process. Look, Obama did nothing to try to stop Russian meddling in 2016. So tell me if you think Obama was justified in doing nothing because the Russian effort was pretty amateurish and small; or whether Obama should be condemned and vilified for failing to do anything about a massive and sophisticated effort to undermine our democracy? And will somebody please tell Biden who was in charge in 2016? As I've thought from the beginning, Russians who could read or polling data just as easily as our people assumed Hillary Clinton would win and they wanted to damage her assumed presidency while undermining the image of our democracy. Which is bad enough to justify our attention. All the rest is BS. Tips to Instapundit.
Sanity prevails.
Venezuela's inept socialist thug rulers weren't satisfied with just wrecking their country through stupidity and malice, and killed thousands. Hollywood condemnation in 3, 2, 1---abort, abort, abort!
I certainly hope we can get all this in a frigate for $800 million. We'll see if cost overruns don't apply to this class of ship. The bad news from the article is that we don't have any more Perry class frigates lying around that could be adapted to my armed amphibious transport concept that I raised in this Proceedings article (membership required). Maybe we could buy some allied frigates being retired to try out the idea.
I think the chance of America using nuclear weapons on Iran is virtually zero despite what these atomic "scientists" say; and defeating Iran will not require half a million troops--occupying Iran would require forces on that order. Actually, occupying Iran would require far more than half a million total troops (although American forces don't have to be all of them). And I think there is virtually no chance of America invading and occupying Iran. Any conventional campaign would center on capturing off-shore Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf and destroying Iranian military assets such as aircraft, naval craft, and missiles, on the mainland. Talk of nukes seems more intended to help Iran win its confrontation with America by making it seem like any military response to Iranian actions is too expensive or horrible to contemplate. Unless, Iran uses nukes, and then all bets are off. But Iran denies ever having a nuclear weapons program and the Obama administration believed that, right? The article seems to be the product of extreme Trump Hysteria Condition and is worth exactly zero in the debate on what to do about Iran. Please tell me that our atomic scientists aren't that blinded by ideology and that this is just the result of their bulletin being run by nutjob Resistance fighters.
Actual colonization and oppression of Moslems outside of a Moslem-majority country. Discuss among yourselves.
Ukrainians have snatched a separatists in an operation in Russian-occupied Donbas who may have been involved in shooting down the Malaysian airliner on Flight MH17, with the loss of all aboard, over the region early in the war.
Tridents and other nukes. I still don't like the low-yield "signal" nuclear warhead for our Trident submarines. Yes, the theory is that if we stop a small nuclear attack with missile defenses we could reply with a low-yield nuke rather than a big one as a form of demanding talks before we seriously strike. But what if the new small nuke doesn't work? Won't that call into question our entire submarine-based nuclear deterrent? Better to strike with a small air-delivered nuke, I think, if the target is someone like North Korea or Iran.
Oh, and President Trump's Fourth of July speech was just fine and not political. And despite this face plant, I fear we have yet to reach Peak Stupid. Tip to Instapundit.
And just a reminder that America really is the greatest country in the world. Hating America requires you to have just a little knowledge of only the bad things we've done in history, combined with massive ignorance that the rest of the world has been and often still is far worse. If my view isn't true, why do we have problems keeping people out? It is sad that polls show Democrats are far less likely to express pride in America. I have always been patriotic because my love of country doesn't depend on who sits in the White House. This is madness and surely a sign our federal government is too big and too powerful.
Fifty years of imminent doom. Their mental health issues bore me.
Yes, at this point America is not waging an "endless war"--we are simply standing guard in a dangerous world.
How do you know when weather is actually climate? When it is warmer than usual! That rule of thumb never fails.
If you have to ask "why the difference" you really haven't been paying attention.
Good God, but did Marianne Williamson just demonstrate she is the most lucid candidate in the Democratic primary when she warned that America could have an election without real choice? "It's kind of like countries like Iran, where you can vote for whoever you want, among the people that they tell you it's OK to vote for. And that's the kind of country that we're living in today." Oh, I'm not talking about the premise of the question concerning the state of American elections. We almost had Bernie versus Trump in 2016, for Pete's sake. And we did get Trump. You can't say we didn't have a choice far from accepted norms. But she actually recognizes that Iran is not a democracy despite the facade that so many Democrats see as genuine. I'm going to go to a darkened quiet room and weep in despair for the once great party that has descended to this level.
"The world" continues to condemn the Saudi-led effort to defeat Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen because "thousands" have died in the civil war; yet the world continues to yawn and look away at the hundreds of thousands who died in the ongoing Syrian civil war (or "multi-war" as I called it at its peak of diverse actors). The world is funny that way.
I'm not saying I wouldn't appreciate a trip through the Taiwan Strait by a German warship (if the Germans decide they can and should do it) as a signal to China, but I'd much prefer that Germany have the ability to send 30 warships into the Baltic Sea in a crisis to face Russia.
South Korea's submarine force is getting larger and more capable. They should help Taiwan with their submarine program but probably won't to avoid offending China.
Lessons from World War II in the Pacific on multi-domain operations. I drew my own lessons from the Guadalcanal campaign in this Land Warfare Paper.
Good grief people, having some American military assets in Washington, D.C. on our Independence Day which was won by force of arms is not a symbol of potential tyranny and mass slaughter. Do liberals really think that the American military will participate in a plot to impose a Trump dictatorship--a coup which too many "liberals" earnestly called for after Trump was elected? I drove an Army truck in a parade once. Was I part of Bill Clinton's effort to be a dictator? Democrats like to protest that Republicans don't own the flag, yet now Democrats are protesting the Fourth of July! Stop reacting to the American flag the way vampires react to sunlight and Holy Water! Get an effing grip. Just ... stop. Or soon we'll be hunting down the man responsible for this racist display (tip to Instapundit):
And let me know when our national celebration gets this sophisticated and nuanced, okay? At long last will the people predicting on a daily basis the Trumptatorship get just a little embarrassed for their turn-the-dial-to-11 hysteria?
American oil output set a record in April. Good. It doesn't mean we don't need to care about the security of Persian Gulf oil exports because we rely on trade with countries who do rely on that oil. But it does mean that our military efforts won't be hindered by lack of fuel if someone tries to shut off that oil as a weapon against America. Tip to Instapundit.
Democrats on the American economy: 2017--Trump will wreck the economy; 2018--the good economy is really Obama's work; 2019: Trump's economy is so bad underneath the statistics that we have to put a Democrat in the White House. Got it.
The noble objective of helping people flee persecution has been expanded to include simply fleeing crime or poverty. There are no limits to who we have to accept under those definitions. The end point of that is that we will no longer be a refuge for anybody.
Why yes, that is a valuable capability that is spreading throughout the American military.
A war on a journalist. Alert Acosta. And the Trump administration defends press access. Alert Acosta.
Strategypage's mid-year update on global wars. The world continues to benefit from the fall of the Soviet Union, which had stoked widespread violence around the world.
How to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Tip to Instapundit.
Sometimes I am in awe of my ability to alienate people. Given how the Democrats are behaving insanely and given that on policy I'm broadly supportive of what Trump has done (and failed to do, like his supposed desire to kill NATO, an alliance I strongly support and never worried he'd pull out of, if only because of Republican and military opposition), I don't think I have a choice but to vote for Trump in 2020. Which alienates people who bizarrely see him as a secret Nazi figuratively born in Russia. Yet I dislike Trump and find his style and character problematic. Nor do I think he is playing 3D chess in policy. Which alienates people who have gone all-in on defending every aspect of Trump. Why is it so difficult to support Trump policies while recognizing Trump is a highly flawed vessel to achieve them? I'm willing to tolerate--not celebrate--the latter to get the former. But I want a smaller federal government rather than wanting my side in charge of the ever-expanding federal state. I thought Democrats could join me in that position after Trump's election put him in charge of the powers Democrats wanted a president they like to have. But no, the Democrats have just doubled down on their religious intensity toward politics to grasp that power again. Yeah, despite my long history of despising Trump, his vile and rabid "turn it to 11" opponents make it easy to back his reelection.
Oops.
It doesn't make sense? We did evolve to keep track of time that way. So there's that. If only we actually had that theoretical problem.
Nike is dead to me.
Well that's totally sane: "'If the U.S. attacks us, only half an hour will remain of Israel's lifespan,' Mojtaba Zolnour, the chairman of the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy commission said on Monday, according to Mehr." One, Iran will attack a completely different country than the one that attacked it? Two, only nukes could achieve that objective, and I thought Iran didn't even have a nuclear weapons program--if you believe the Obama administration's Iran nuclear deal.
American forces carried out a strike on al Qaeda forces in northwest Syria. No word on what was used to attack the enemy.
The Saudi royal family takes internal security very seriously. Still, their long ill treatment of their Shia minority is an own goal that gives Iran an opening to foment violence.
Just a reminder that the 2015 Iran nuclear deal isn't so much a treaty as it is a common document that everyone in the room picked up and took home. As I noted when this became known, bravo State Department. Very impressive. So who is violating international norms? Someone who pretends some farcical document is a sacred international document; or someone who refuses to act like it is?
It is very puzzling that the media that is "raising questions" (not saying that, Heavens no! Just wondering ...) about Biden's racial views now didn't find anything to quibble with when Obama had Biden as his vice president. I guess Obama didn't notice Biden's racism any more than Obama noticed Hillary Clinton's non-State Department email address. Fortunately he can discover such things in the news.
Austin, Texas sees San Francisco's homeless addict problem and says "Hold my (craft) beer."
Bad Orange Man goes back in time to abuse migrant children. I know, I know, the Hope and Change made it all cool. But I guess a lot of things become bad once stripped of the Hope and Change.
I have no problem talking to thug dictators. Liberals once defended this by saying "you make peace with your enemies."But no more. I have a problem with talking to thug dictators in order to grant them concessions that only benefit the thug dictators. So who talks to thug dictators matters and why we would talk to thug dictators matters. I did not trust Obama talking to thug dictators because I feared the point was to offer concessions. That said, while leaders who talk to thug dictators may have an excuse to downplay their thuggish dictator ways, there is little excuse for this kind of excuse making for thug dictators. Just as you can defend what Trump does without defending the totality of Trump, you can defend talking to a thug ruler without defending the totality of the thug ruler. It's not that hard. Try it.
Good Lord, on the issue of foreign policy I normally think Fareed Zakaria couldn't find his own buttocks with both hands and a GPS signal, but he's basically right about dealing with illegal immigration. Stripped of the required attacks on Trump (which I guess I just did with my insult against Zakaria), we do need to restrict the ability of foreigners to claim asylum and--assuming we can control access to America by those claiming asylum--allocate the resources to process that reduced flow promptly. Just ... wow.
Science! Nobody would say vaping is better than not vaping; but arguing that vaping is just as bad as smoking tobacco is just blindly ideological.
Radar that learns.
Iran threatens to enrich Uranium to levels that could be used for nuclear weapons. Which is odd considering that Iran denies--and Obama went along with that fiction--ever having a nuclear weapons program.
I'd have no problem agreeing with liberals that debates should be based on "facts" if liberals didn't (tip to Instapundit) wrongly think that they own the monopoly on facts. Like this. And right before July Fourth. Liberals are wont to bitterly complain that Republicans "don't own the flag." But with examples like the one in the second link, they demonstrate that Trump is simply filling a vacuum.
Please God, let this be a smuggling issue and not a food court issue.
The Army is preparing to fight underground. Which is necessary in cities with underground passages and sewers. But I'd rather leave that battlefield to robots. I think that in open warfare the Army needs to go underground, too, given the heavy firepower that can be accurately and quickly directed at our troops. Being under armor or under heavy constructed shelters--if you can't constantly move--may be the only way to survive on such a battlefield. What are we doing with rapid organic engineering support to make sure we can do that?
Science! From the field of Obviousology.
A Russian deep sea espionage submarine (offensive and defensive) had a wee bit of a problem at sea. But the details are a Russian state secret (well, sure, it's not as if it is a "research" sub).
Well that's inconvenient.
If Nazism is such a huge problem in modern America, why do so many apparent Nazis settle for dog whistle-type symbols like obscure frogs or Betsy Ross flags when they could just go full Nazi openly? Much like micro-aggressions popped up as a thing once actual aggression receded, I think we now have micro-Nazi problems.
I find it almost cute that Europeans call soccer "football."
Russia's poodle parliament made Putin an honest man by formally getting out of the INF treaty, rather than just letting Putin cheat on it while America participated. So now both sides say it is dead.
Heh. Bravo.
It just came to me that I haven't been getting my OSAC email updates, which I've had for ages. I've been struggling lately with my email news flow and so its absence was lost in the noise of failing to read what I have been getting. I signed up again here. Sadly, instead of being convenient emails the process requires logging in each time to say their information. Bleh.
The American sale of 66 new F-16 fighters to Taiwan is proceeding. Good. Although I'll say again that I would not sell F-35s to Taiwan until Taiwan demonstrates a greater commitment to spending on their defense. I do not want intact F-35s falling into Chinese hands if Taiwan can't defend their island democracy from invasion.
It looks like we will secure critical parts of our electric grid with analog equipment that defies efforts to hack them. Because they aren't connected to the Internet. Interesting. Now do voting.
The situation on the ground overall in Libya:
The idea that the Betsy Ross flag is bad because some small number of white supremacists have allegedly adopted it (and I suspect this is not really true) is insane. Why don't the good reasons for respecting that flag by the other 300 million of us swamp that bad reason? Why let a tiny group determine the value of something for everybody? Embrace that flag proudly as a symbol of our liberty and democracy, and maybe the lunatic fringe that wants it to be a symbol of racism will discard it in embarrassment of its accepted meaning. Don't give the nutballs that kind of power! And no, I'm not sure if by "nutballs" I mean the alleged racist fans of that flag or the left-wing nuts claiming the flag is a symbol of hate.
Yeah, never truncate the words unless you are determined to cherry pick to prove the opposite of the real meaning.
The Nigerian military is getting hammered because Boko Haram jihadis are able to mass and overwhelm security force garrisons. I've long spoke of the need to atomize insurgents.
Western European prisons are scarily too much like jihadi breeding grounds. The leaders need to be separated from the rest or the inmates need to be held in prison until they are too old to wage jihad on the outside.
America is not leaving NATO. But it is perhaps useful if idiots raise the issue enough to get European NATO states to rebuild their military forces, as they agreed to do during the Obama administration.
The Russians surely tried to sow chaos in America by intervening in our election in 2016. That was standard operating procedure for Russia and the Soviet Union before it. And with Democratic Resistance cooperation, boy is that still working. But the Mueller report in its zeal to prove collusion, actually way overstates Russian competence and actions in 2016. Which makes the inability of this 2-year conviction machine to actually convict anyone of collusion--whatever that is--pretty damning of the entire premise that established the whole process. Look, Obama did nothing to try to stop Russian meddling in 2016. So tell me if you think Obama was justified in doing nothing because the Russian effort was pretty amateurish and small; or whether Obama should be condemned and vilified for failing to do anything about a massive and sophisticated effort to undermine our democracy? And will somebody please tell Biden who was in charge in 2016? As I've thought from the beginning, Russians who could read or polling data just as easily as our people assumed Hillary Clinton would win and they wanted to damage her assumed presidency while undermining the image of our democracy. Which is bad enough to justify our attention. All the rest is BS. Tips to Instapundit.
Sanity prevails.
Venezuela's inept socialist thug rulers weren't satisfied with just wrecking their country through stupidity and malice, and killed thousands. Hollywood condemnation in 3, 2, 1---abort, abort, abort!
I certainly hope we can get all this in a frigate for $800 million. We'll see if cost overruns don't apply to this class of ship. The bad news from the article is that we don't have any more Perry class frigates lying around that could be adapted to my armed amphibious transport concept that I raised in this Proceedings article (membership required). Maybe we could buy some allied frigates being retired to try out the idea.
I think the chance of America using nuclear weapons on Iran is virtually zero despite what these atomic "scientists" say; and defeating Iran will not require half a million troops--occupying Iran would require forces on that order. Actually, occupying Iran would require far more than half a million total troops (although American forces don't have to be all of them). And I think there is virtually no chance of America invading and occupying Iran. Any conventional campaign would center on capturing off-shore Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf and destroying Iranian military assets such as aircraft, naval craft, and missiles, on the mainland. Talk of nukes seems more intended to help Iran win its confrontation with America by making it seem like any military response to Iranian actions is too expensive or horrible to contemplate. Unless, Iran uses nukes, and then all bets are off. But Iran denies ever having a nuclear weapons program and the Obama administration believed that, right? The article seems to be the product of extreme Trump Hysteria Condition and is worth exactly zero in the debate on what to do about Iran. Please tell me that our atomic scientists aren't that blinded by ideology and that this is just the result of their bulletin being run by nutjob Resistance fighters.
Actual colonization and oppression of Moslems outside of a Moslem-majority country. Discuss among yourselves.
Ukrainians have snatched a separatists in an operation in Russian-occupied Donbas who may have been involved in shooting down the Malaysian airliner on Flight MH17, with the loss of all aboard, over the region early in the war.
Tridents and other nukes. I still don't like the low-yield "signal" nuclear warhead for our Trident submarines. Yes, the theory is that if we stop a small nuclear attack with missile defenses we could reply with a low-yield nuke rather than a big one as a form of demanding talks before we seriously strike. But what if the new small nuke doesn't work? Won't that call into question our entire submarine-based nuclear deterrent? Better to strike with a small air-delivered nuke, I think, if the target is someone like North Korea or Iran.
Oh, and President Trump's Fourth of July speech was just fine and not political. And despite this face plant, I fear we have yet to reach Peak Stupid. Tip to Instapundit.
And just a reminder that America really is the greatest country in the world. Hating America requires you to have just a little knowledge of only the bad things we've done in history, combined with massive ignorance that the rest of the world has been and often still is far worse. If my view isn't true, why do we have problems keeping people out? It is sad that polls show Democrats are far less likely to express pride in America. I have always been patriotic because my love of country doesn't depend on who sits in the White House. This is madness and surely a sign our federal government is too big and too powerful.
Fifty years of imminent doom. Their mental health issues bore me.
Yes, at this point America is not waging an "endless war"--we are simply standing guard in a dangerous world.
How do you know when weather is actually climate? When it is warmer than usual! That rule of thumb never fails.
If you have to ask "why the difference" you really haven't been paying attention.
Good God, but did Marianne Williamson just demonstrate she is the most lucid candidate in the Democratic primary when she warned that America could have an election without real choice? "It's kind of like countries like Iran, where you can vote for whoever you want, among the people that they tell you it's OK to vote for. And that's the kind of country that we're living in today." Oh, I'm not talking about the premise of the question concerning the state of American elections. We almost had Bernie versus Trump in 2016, for Pete's sake. And we did get Trump. You can't say we didn't have a choice far from accepted norms. But she actually recognizes that Iran is not a democracy despite the facade that so many Democrats see as genuine. I'm going to go to a darkened quiet room and weep in despair for the once great party that has descended to this level.
"The world" continues to condemn the Saudi-led effort to defeat Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen because "thousands" have died in the civil war; yet the world continues to yawn and look away at the hundreds of thousands who died in the ongoing Syrian civil war (or "multi-war" as I called it at its peak of diverse actors). The world is funny that way.
I'm not saying I wouldn't appreciate a trip through the Taiwan Strait by a German warship (if the Germans decide they can and should do it) as a signal to China, but I'd much prefer that Germany have the ability to send 30 warships into the Baltic Sea in a crisis to face Russia.
South Korea's submarine force is getting larger and more capable. They should help Taiwan with their submarine program but probably won't to avoid offending China.
Squeezing Iran
Royal Marines seized an Iranian oil tanker and Iran bitterly complained. Well, payback is a bitch.
Thank you Britain:
Consider the British seizure of the tanker a bit of payback for this high seas piracy by Iran.
UPDATE: Iran attempted to retaliate:
Be careful out there.
UPDATE: The British seem to be claiming only that the Iranians attempted to "impede" the ship--not take it.
Thank you Britain:
Britain has been plunged into a diplomatic row with Iran after Royal Marines seized an Iranian oil tanker as it passed through the Strait of Gibraltar, in a move likely to further inflame tensions in the Gulf.
The Grace 1 super-tanker was boarded in the early hours of Thursday morning to prevent it from delivering a cargo of crude oil to Syria in defiance of EU sanctions, apparently following a request to the UK from the United States.
Consider the British seizure of the tanker a bit of payback for this high seas piracy by Iran.
UPDATE: Iran attempted to retaliate:
Five Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps gunboats tried to seize a British oil tanker in the Persian Gulf Wednesday but backed off after a British warship approached, a senior U.S. defense official told Fox News.
The British warship was said to have been less than 5 miles behind the tanker but soon intercepted the Iranian boats and threatened to open fire. A manned U.S. reconnaissance aircraft was above as well, the official said, adding that Iranian forces left without opening fire.
Be careful out there.
UPDATE: The British seem to be claiming only that the Iranians attempted to "impede" the ship--not take it.
Saturday, July 06, 2019
Robotic Death from Above
Having experienced massed drone attacks on their forces in Syria, the Russians are moving to give their own forces the ability to use drones to bomb their enemies.
Here we go:
If this capability does allow massed drone attacks, small American units at the tip of the spear will find organic ground-based air defenses overwhelmed.
Which means that my idea raised in Army magazine for air defense drone swarms to free forward combat units from being distracted from their main mission of closing with and destroying the enemy by needing to look over their shoulders to fight drone swarms might be more urgent.
Here we go:
Following in the footsteps of U.S. Marines and Special Forces, the Russian military is looking to outfit soldiers with small multi-rotor drones armed with explosives, the Russian Defense Ministry told Russian news site Izvestia.
“It is planned that the new flight vehicles will perform not only reconnaissance missions, but also strike targets with miniature bombs” the news site notes. The outlet doesn’t say exactly how big the drones will be, only that they will go to divisions and brigades of the ground and airborne forces as well as special operations forces and marines.
If this capability does allow massed drone attacks, small American units at the tip of the spear will find organic ground-based air defenses overwhelmed.
Which means that my idea raised in Army magazine for air defense drone swarms to free forward combat units from being distracted from their main mission of closing with and destroying the enemy by needing to look over their shoulders to fight drone swarms might be more urgent.
Smart Diplomacy
Investigators are (again) looking into chemical weapons use by Assad's forces:
Huh. Syria has used chemical weapons and is refusing access to inspectors, and Russia is running interference for their little pet psycho regime.
I'm so old I remember when the brain trust of Obama-Kerry worked with Russia's Lavrov(!) to eliminate Assad's chemical weapons arsenal with their glorious 2013 chemical weapons agreement.
By resting on the foundation that Assad would pretend to get rid of its chemical weapons and we would pretend to believe them, it created the template for the Iran nuclear deal of 2015.
But I'm sure the Iran nuclear deal would work much better if allowed to continue.
A new chemical weapons investigation team has started work on identifying the culprits behind alleged attacks in Syria, the head of the world's toxic arms watchdog said.
Member states of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) agreed one year ago to give The Hague-based body new powers to assign blame for attacks.
Syria has already blocked access to the chief of the so-called Identification and Investigation Team, while Moscow and Damascus have accused the Hague-based OPCW of becoming "politicised".
Huh. Syria has used chemical weapons and is refusing access to inspectors, and Russia is running interference for their little pet psycho regime.
I'm so old I remember when the brain trust of Obama-Kerry worked with Russia's Lavrov(!) to eliminate Assad's chemical weapons arsenal with their glorious 2013 chemical weapons agreement.
By resting on the foundation that Assad would pretend to get rid of its chemical weapons and we would pretend to believe them, it created the template for the Iran nuclear deal of 2015.
But I'm sure the Iran nuclear deal would work much better if allowed to continue.
Friday, July 05, 2019
You Just Know Putin Wants His Carrier to Put to Sea Again
Will Russia try to keep their carrier Kuznetsov in service? Let's hope so!
I've long been on board the hope that Russia will spend whatever is necessary to keep that ship in service:
At this point, what's one more Putin screw up?
Although I can't mock the Russians too much given our Ford problems. The weapons elevator, of all things?
Russia will be doing NATO and the U.S. Navy a huge favor if it decides to spend the money, repair-yard time, and human capital needed to overhaul the ski-jump-ramp carrier that is clearly an albatross of the Cold War era.
I've long been on board the hope that Russia will spend whatever is necessary to keep that ship in service:
As far as I'm concerned, the Roslyakovo accident should be regarded by Russians as a gift from God to avoid the expense of that useless red sports car.
What I hope is that Putin spares no expense in restoring the ship to its proper position of glory in the Russian fleet. Hell, build more!
At this point, what's one more Putin screw up?
Although I can't mock the Russians too much given our Ford problems. The weapons elevator, of all things?
"Europe" and the Definitions Section
In a move symbolic both in the intent of the European Union's imperial ambitions and the fragility of that empire, we have (via Instapundit) this Euro-elite news:
I have no idea if such a request is even in the realm of possibility. The new EU royalty surely has no interest in the old stock royalty moving in on their own territory. But it sure is symbolic as Heck.
This man understands the difference between geographic and political "Europe":
As I often say, always check the "definitions" section when discussing an issue. The words may not mean what you think they mean, intended only to fool you. "Europe" as the European Union sees the word is a case in point. "Europe" as a geographic expression where sovereign states are located is a source of allies; political "Europe" is an empire that, with the resources of Europe under its control, will be a foe if not an enemy of America.
This future EU empire may form despite the unrest that is flowing in its wake of "ever closer union," citizens be damned, but when it falls it will do real damage to Europe and the West.
We should not have a foreign policy that seeks to help the EU become the first successful imperial power that controls all of Europe west of Russia.
UPDATE: Europeans who want a politically unified Europe would dump NATO:
Trump isn't a threat to NATO. The European Union is a threat to NATO. America should oppose the creation of an EU empire.
UPDATE: And a common European army rather than a collection of national armies, which is the basis of NATO as an alliance of sovereign states, is a major goal for those with imperial ambitions for Brussels.
Remember, this isn't an issue of America leaving NATO. If the European Union builds its own military, it will starve NATO of forces making the alliance worthless as a fighting force. The North Atlantic Treaty would go on, but the military alliance of NATO could not continue if the EU is an imperial state with its own military outside of an atrophied NATO.
UPDATE: And let's have a hearty laugh at the idea of how a stronger EU will strengthen Europe's alliance with America:
The EU apparatchiki are siding with an aggressive, nuclear weapons-seeking, and violent religious dictatorship over fellow democracy America that helps defend Europe. Because of course they are.
The Monarchist Party of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia has sent a formal request to the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic to promote Archduke Karl von Habsburg as the next President of the European Commission.
I have no idea if such a request is even in the realm of possibility. The new EU royalty surely has no interest in the old stock royalty moving in on their own territory. But it sure is symbolic as Heck.
This man understands the difference between geographic and political "Europe":
We [Czechs] underestimated one thing which proved to be crucial. We underestimated that Europe itself has changed – from the historically evolved bundle of sovereign and independent countries to the very authoritative and centralistic empire called European Union. ...
The well-known ratchet effect functions in this field as well as in many others: every treaty or summit takes Europe closer to a centralised European state. This is almost inevitable because the main goal of the European political elites (and their fellow-travellers) is the dislocation of national sovereignty and the overcoming of the nation state. These people consider the sovereign nation-state an obsolete historical anachronism which should be defeated.
As I often say, always check the "definitions" section when discussing an issue. The words may not mean what you think they mean, intended only to fool you. "Europe" as the European Union sees the word is a case in point. "Europe" as a geographic expression where sovereign states are located is a source of allies; political "Europe" is an empire that, with the resources of Europe under its control, will be a foe if not an enemy of America.
This future EU empire may form despite the unrest that is flowing in its wake of "ever closer union," citizens be damned, but when it falls it will do real damage to Europe and the West.
We should not have a foreign policy that seeks to help the EU become the first successful imperial power that controls all of Europe west of Russia.
UPDATE: Europeans who want a politically unified Europe would dump NATO:
[Many] European politicians regard the creation of a European superstate as a welcome and necessary alternative to America’s long-standing global dominance. ...
A renewed attempt by the EU to develop its own defence capabilities could also severely undermine the West’s ability to deal with threats from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. The most likely outcome from any such initiative would be to persuade Washington to withdraw from the Nato alliance, thereby ending an alliance that has for seven decades proved vital to keeping the peace in Europe and the world beyond.
Trump isn't a threat to NATO. The European Union is a threat to NATO. America should oppose the creation of an EU empire.
UPDATE: And a common European army rather than a collection of national armies, which is the basis of NATO as an alliance of sovereign states, is a major goal for those with imperial ambitions for Brussels.
Remember, this isn't an issue of America leaving NATO. If the European Union builds its own military, it will starve NATO of forces making the alliance worthless as a fighting force. The North Atlantic Treaty would go on, but the military alliance of NATO could not continue if the EU is an imperial state with its own military outside of an atrophied NATO.
UPDATE: And let's have a hearty laugh at the idea of how a stronger EU will strengthen Europe's alliance with America:
The European Union says it is making some progress on its controversial barter-type system to trade with Tehran and get around U.S. sanctions as part of its efforts to keep the Iran nuclear deal alive.
The EU apparatchiki are siding with an aggressive, nuclear weapons-seeking, and violent religious dictatorship over fellow democracy America that helps defend Europe. Because of course they are.
Thursday, July 04, 2019
Moving Marines to the Fight
The Marines are dispersing Marines across the Pacific away from the former stronghold on Okinawa. But moving Marines remains a problem.
Avoiding growing Chinese striking power has propelled this move:
Having Marines stranded on dispersed islands unable to get to the fight is certainly a problem; although one different than being vulnerable to Chinese strikes. Dispersing Marines only addresses the vulnerability problem.
I have two suggestions on moving Marines. Either smaller armed amphibious transports as I described in Proceedings (sorry, membership required); or maybe larger modularized auxiliary cruisers as I suggested for AFRICOM in this Military Review article.
Avoiding growing Chinese striking power has propelled this move:
According to the Senate’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act, details of “alternative locations for basing” in places such as Alaska, Hawaii, the U.S., Japan and Oceania, among others, should be included in any recommendations or revisions to the planned redistribution of American forces across the Indo-Pacific.
The new assessment of the U.S. military’s force posture in the Pacific follows a call for a review of a plan to relocate Marines to Guam made by outgoing-Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Robert B. Neller during a May Senate hearing.
During that hearing, Neller expressed concerns about the availability of amphibious ships to move Marines to the fight.
Having Marines stranded on dispersed islands unable to get to the fight is certainly a problem; although one different than being vulnerable to Chinese strikes. Dispersing Marines only addresses the vulnerability problem.
I have two suggestions on moving Marines. Either smaller armed amphibious transports as I described in Proceedings (sorry, membership required); or maybe larger modularized auxiliary cruisers as I suggested for AFRICOM in this Military Review article.
The Fruits of 1776
Happy birthday America!
The world would be far worse off without our country. But too many people act like we are the problem.
Oh well, more cake for the rest of us.
The world would be far worse off without our country. But too many people act like we are the problem.
Oh well, more cake for the rest of us.
Wednesday, July 03, 2019
Fighting Iran Inside Iraq
The Iraqi government is working to deny Iran independent military forces in Iraq:
Not all of the militias are tools of Iran. Not even most. But enough are to be a problem. By exerting control, eventually the pro-Iran militias can gradually be brought under control or disbanded.
Iraq needs American (and Arab world) support to resist the Iranian efforts to sustain their own military power in Iraq the way Iran has done in Lebanon and Syria.
UPDATE: Iran will resist this effort:
We must make a better effort to defeat the Iranian pressure. The more support we provide the less Iraq will be in "the middle."
Iraq's government moved Monday night to control powerful Iran-backed militias in the country, placing them under the full command of the Iraqi armed forces.
In a decree, Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi said offices of militias that continue to operate independently within or outside Iraqi cities will be closed and any armed faction working "openly or secretly" against the new guidelines will be considered illegitimate. He said the militias will be subject to the same regulations as the army.
Not all of the militias are tools of Iran. Not even most. But enough are to be a problem. By exerting control, eventually the pro-Iran militias can gradually be brought under control or disbanded.
Iraq needs American (and Arab world) support to resist the Iranian efforts to sustain their own military power in Iraq the way Iran has done in Lebanon and Syria.
UPDATE: Iran will resist this effort:
The Iraqi government's move this week to place Iranian-backed militias under the command of the armed forces is a political gamble by a prime minister increasingly caught in the middle of a dangerous rivalry between Iran and the U.S, the two main power brokers in Iraq.
We must make a better effort to defeat the Iranian pressure. The more support we provide the less Iraq will be in "the middle."
The Inland Navy?
Just how long of a range does the weapon have to be useful to the Navy when located in New Mexico?
Now if only the Navy could get the weapon out to sea, we'd be in business for true network-centric warfare as the Navy has long looked forward to achieving.
Somebody will get the rail gun on warships. I hope it is our side. Maybe next year. Just for testing, of course.
The U.S. Navy has quietly moved its experimental electromagnetic railgun to the U.S. Army's White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico and has been conducting new live-fire tests of the potentially game-changing weapon. This comes amid reports that the service could be finally getting close to mounting this railgun, or a derivative thereof, on a ship for at-sea testing in the Pacific Northwest.
On May 31, 2019, the Navy quietly revealed that it had sent from railgun from its original test site at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division (NSWC Dahlgren) in Virginia to White Sands, also known as WSMR. A detachment from the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Division (NSWC Port Hueneme) in California is now overseeing the testing in New Mexico.
Now if only the Navy could get the weapon out to sea, we'd be in business for true network-centric warfare as the Navy has long looked forward to achieving.
Somebody will get the rail gun on warships. I hope it is our side. Maybe next year. Just for testing, of course.
Tuesday, July 02, 2019
Crossing a Red Line
Hong Kong is in for a world of hurt, I suspect.
I have a bad feeling about this:
You don't challenge or defy China's communist rulers, you either defeat them or disappear.
Here's another story. The legislation is still sitting there, and the Hong Kong protesters know it.
Unless China has the ability to unleash the secret police to deal with this quietly and stall the anger until it fades, I assume China is in the process of planning and moving People's Armed Police to Hong Hong to end this pretense of freedom once and for all.
The economic hit of such a move against the prize economic jewel in China's crown pales in the face of the political hit that accepting such defiance could deliver to the ruling class's monopoly of power.
That said, I hope those in Hong Kong trying to defend their time-limited freedom win this battle--for all time.
I have a bad feeling about this:
Hong Kong police fired tear gas early on Tuesday to disperse hundreds of defiant protesters, some of whom had stormed and ransacked the city’s legislature hours earlier on the anniversary of the city’s 1997 return to Chinese rule.
Police arrived in a convoy of buses near midnight as about 1,000 protesters, furious at a proposed law that would allow extraditions to China, were gathered around the council building in the former British colony’s financial district in a direct challenge to authorities in Beijing.
You don't challenge or defy China's communist rulers, you either defeat them or disappear.
Here's another story. The legislation is still sitting there, and the Hong Kong protesters know it.
Unless China has the ability to unleash the secret police to deal with this quietly and stall the anger until it fades, I assume China is in the process of planning and moving People's Armed Police to Hong Hong to end this pretense of freedom once and for all.
The economic hit of such a move against the prize economic jewel in China's crown pales in the face of the political hit that accepting such defiance could deliver to the ruling class's monopoly of power.
That said, I hope those in Hong Kong trying to defend their time-limited freedom win this battle--for all time.
The Other Guys
Just as you have to consider Russian Interior Ministry troops when you define the totality of Russian ground forces, and not just count the army (and paratroopers), focusing on the vast reductions in China's army over the past couple decades misleads if you don't consider the People's Armed Police, which have been modernized.
China has modernized and refocused the People's Armed Police (PAP):
The PAP has more divisions in their Mobile Force than our active Army (10). Although obviously they are not going to be as good as our active divisions.
I've noted more than once that the PAP is a hidden army that can support the PLA army.
Not that America should have a national paramilitary force that could be used for internal security to match the PAP or Interior Ministry troops. I don't like that at all. But we should be aware of potential enemy forces that fall out of our usual framework of defining military power.
NOTE: Oh, and note that Putin also created the personally loyal (on paper anyway) National Guard which grabbed the best Interior troops plus paramilitaries.
China has modernized and refocused the People's Armed Police (PAP):
Between 2017 and 2018, the PAP was divested of almost all its lower-intensity law enforcement responsibilities. These previous missions included border defence, forestry and natural resource protection, firefighting and hydropower. Most of the units that fulfilled them have been transferred to other parts of the Chinese government. In their place, the PAP has gained responsibility for the Chinese Coast Guard (中国 海警局) and is now focused on three core missions – internal security, maritime security and supporting the PLA in times of war.
Other than the Coast Guard, the remaining PAP operational units are now divided between the Mobile Force and the Internal Security Force. The former comprises two corps-leader-grade formations created from 13 of the 14 ex-PLA divisions that transferred to the PAP in 1997, which form a strategic reserve of sorts; one corps covering northern and central China, including Beijing, whilst the other is responsible for eastern and southern China. The Internal Security Force has 32 regional commands, covering China’s provinces, cities and autonomous regions. Each of these has at least one mobile unit, and some key commands, such as Beijing and Xinjiang, have several more.
The PAP has more divisions in their Mobile Force than our active Army (10). Although obviously they are not going to be as good as our active divisions.
I've noted more than once that the PAP is a hidden army that can support the PLA army.
Not that America should have a national paramilitary force that could be used for internal security to match the PAP or Interior Ministry troops. I don't like that at all. But we should be aware of potential enemy forces that fall out of our usual framework of defining military power.
NOTE: Oh, and note that Putin also created the personally loyal (on paper anyway) National Guard which grabbed the best Interior troops plus paramilitaries.
Monday, July 01, 2019
Opportunities on the Southern Flank
Hopefully Russian vulnerabilities in the southwest will deter Russian aggression in the northwest.
NATO, Sweden, and Ukraine will participate in military exercises in the Black Sea region:
Sea Breeze 2019 serves to distract Russia from the main NATO front of the Baltic Sea, in my opinion. And it serves to threaten Russian forces in the Mediterranean Sea by posing a threat to Russian control of the Black Sea and use of Russian-occupied Crimea, which is the starting point of sustaining Russian forces based in Syria.
And if Russia goes to war with NATO over the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), Russia's ground forces will be stressed to cope with that level of a war. Which would give Ukraine a potential opportunity to regain territory in the Donbas and Crimea that Russia captured in 2014.
As long as Ukraine stands independent, short of nukes Russia poses no real military threat to southeastern NATO. So NATO assets in the area that wouldn't be sent north to the Baltic front can serve to pin Russian assets in place to defend Crimea and the Black Sea approaches to Russian territory in the eastern part of the sea.
NATO, Sweden, and Ukraine will participate in military exercises in the Black Sea region:
Sea Breeze 2019, which has been held annually since 1997, is a multinational maritime exercise with land, sea and air components. Its intent is to "build combined capability and capacity to ensure maritime regional security and foster stronger friendships among partnering nations," the Navy said in a statement this week.
Ukraine and the United States will host the 12-day event, meant to enhance interoperability and capabilities among participating forces. Field training exercises, with a focus on protecting critical infrastructure, force protection, and maritime security operations, will be performed.
Sea Breeze 2019 serves to distract Russia from the main NATO front of the Baltic Sea, in my opinion. And it serves to threaten Russian forces in the Mediterranean Sea by posing a threat to Russian control of the Black Sea and use of Russian-occupied Crimea, which is the starting point of sustaining Russian forces based in Syria.
And if Russia goes to war with NATO over the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), Russia's ground forces will be stressed to cope with that level of a war. Which would give Ukraine a potential opportunity to regain territory in the Donbas and Crimea that Russia captured in 2014.
As long as Ukraine stands independent, short of nukes Russia poses no real military threat to southeastern NATO. So NATO assets in the area that wouldn't be sent north to the Baltic front can serve to pin Russian assets in place to defend Crimea and the Black Sea approaches to Russian territory in the eastern part of the sea.
Teaching to the Test
The Army had a bullshit exercise in Romania that supports a bullshit concept.
On the surface this seems good:
That sounds like a challenge. Make our light armor face a "heavily armed enemy force."
But then there is this detail in the definitions section:
So "heavily armed" means BTR-80 APCs with less armament than the Strykers?
That is not a real world test given all the tanks that Russia fields even in their airborne formations.
But it is the threat level that we claim we need to prepare for:
But perhaps I'm being silly and we really can count on the Russians to be as sporting as our Romanian allies by bringing only APCs to a real fight against our Stryker brigade.
We'll be well prepared for that scenario.
On the surface this seems good:
Soldiers with the Army’s 2nd Cavalry Regiment began the almost 1,000-mile tactical road march back to Germany Wednesday, hours after battling Romanian “enemies” in an exercise aimed at testing NATO forces’ readiness in the Balkans and Black Sea region.
Exercise Saber Guardian was one of several planned this summer around the Black Sea, where tensions have risen in recent years after Russian naval buildup in the region and its annexation of the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in 2014.
In the scenario set for the exercise, a heavily armed enemy force attempted to cut off NATO communications around the Black Sea, and an allied unit had to quickly move into position to defend the area and prevent the attack.
That sounds like a challenge. Make our light armor face a "heavily armed enemy force."
But then there is this detail in the definitions section:
The 2nd Cavalry, known as the Dragoons, used Stryker armored vehicles to fight against the Romanian Army’s Soviet-era BTR-80 armored personnel carriers. Thanks to the Strykers’ superior firepower, the Americans neutralized the mock enemy’s home-turf advantage in the central Romanian hills – but not without a fight.
So "heavily armed" means BTR-80 APCs with less armament than the Strykers?
That is not a real world test given all the tanks that Russia fields even in their airborne formations.
But it is the threat level that we claim we need to prepare for:
American infantry will get a light tank able to outmatch Russian light tanks. Be still my heart.
Pray tell, given all the main battle tanks Russia has in the active force and in reserve, in what circumstances will our infantry brigades be facing off against Russian light armor only? Good grief, the Russians are giving heavy armor to their airborne forces!
You know what would outmatch Russian light tanks as well as outmatch their heavy armor? Our Abrams tanks that we have in abundance outside of the force structure. ...
In eastern Europe there are damn few scenarios where the Abrams isn't what American infantry need to avoid being slaughtered by Russian heavy armor and massed artillery fire.
But perhaps I'm being silly and we really can count on the Russians to be as sporting as our Romanian allies by bringing only APCs to a real fight against our Stryker brigade.
We'll be well prepared for that scenario.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
