I've been reluctant to say there is a definite trend in our casualties in Iraq since we've had other lulls that ended with an escalation. Casualties have gone up and down with a general upward trend overall--a not unsurprising trend in a long war and not a reason to declare we are losing.
But lowering our casualties is important to maintaining support for the fight in Iraq. We will need to support Iraqi troops for quite a while until victory even when our troops aren't on point.
But looking at the killed in action numbers seems to show a real trend of late.
From March 2003 until October 2005, there have been ten periods when our KIA went down from the prior month. Five were one-month decreases followed by an increase the next month. Five were two-month decreases followed by increases.
Starting in November 2005 and continuing through February 2006, we've seen four straight months of declining KIA. March 2006 will likely continue that trend unless there is an unusual large-casualty event (like an AAV getting hit or a transport helicopter crashing). This will bring us to a record five straight months of killed in action declining over the prior month.
We shall see. I'm cautiously optimistic about the trend. Iraqis are becoming real partners and a real asset in the fight against the Islamists.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Taking Down Sadr?
The appearance that we may be gearing up for an attack on Iran over their nuclear program could just be a means of applying pressure on Iran over their meddling in Iraq:
Could we just be trying to scare Iran into backing off enough to take down their people inside Iraq? We are going to talk to the Iranians about Iraq.
As I've written, we just don't know when Iran will go nuclear. Perhaps our government has reason to believe we really do have a couple years to act against Iran .
And gearing up without striking now will make it easier to gain surprise when we actually do attack. Desensitize them to our actions, ya know?
Or we might be going soon. I just don't know.
UPDATE: Ok. I think we (the Iraqi government with our support) are getting ready to take down Sadr and related thugs. After years of just referring to them as "militias" we have taken the effort to define more precisely who we want put out of business. From Lieutenenat General Dempsey in Iraq:
When you take the time to refine your definitions it is because you think the distinctions are important. At the end of the day, the legitimate militias will remain and we will take down the extragovernmental armed groups.
The U.S. has told Iran that the Iraqi Shia militias being supported by Iran (the Sadr and Badr organizations) are going to get taken apart soon, and Iran is well advised to back off when this happens.
Could we just be trying to scare Iran into backing off enough to take down their people inside Iraq? We are going to talk to the Iranians about Iraq.
As I've written, we just don't know when Iran will go nuclear. Perhaps our government has reason to believe we really do have a couple years to act against Iran .
And gearing up without striking now will make it easier to gain surprise when we actually do attack. Desensitize them to our actions, ya know?
Or we might be going soon. I just don't know.
UPDATE: Ok. I think we (the Iraqi government with our support) are getting ready to take down Sadr and related thugs. After years of just referring to them as "militias" we have taken the effort to define more precisely who we want put out of business. From Lieutenenat General Dempsey in Iraq:
That militia problem or, as I've really chosen to start calling it now, the extragovernmental armed groups, to separate them from the legitimate or at least recognized militias -- that's something the new government's got to take on with some immediacy as soon as they get seated.
When you take the time to refine your definitions it is because you think the distinctions are important. At the end of the day, the legitimate militias will remain and we will take down the extragovernmental armed groups.
When You Strike a Shah, Kill Him
Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. We are considering what to do about them, including air strikes.
But remember that Iran may be pursuing nukes but they already have chemical and biological weapons:
I think we could take out enough of Iran's nuke program to set them back years. But we'd have to strike a whole lot more targets to keep the mullahs from striking back with poor-man's nukes. If the only thing we can do is set back Tehran's WMD programs several years, I'll take that over letting Iran go nuclear. But just wounding them is never more than a second-best option.
In the end, the only safe option is to remember that it's the regime, stupid. A regime as nuts and hostile as Iran under the mullahs will find ways to kill us even if they only have hatred and box cutters.
Regime change. Soon. I don't know how much time we have, and nobody really does when it comes right down to it. Our record of predicting when countries will go nuclear isn't encouraging.
But remember that Iran may be pursuing nukes but they already have chemical and biological weapons:
Iran's WMD programs are rightly viewed with concern given the theocratic regime's support for terrorists. Earlier this month, improved IEDs en route to insurgents in Iraq were captured at the Iranian border. Iran has also been a sponsor of terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas, PFLC-GC, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. This is a combination that is extremely dangerous, and this suspected combination was enough to topple Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003. Unlike Saddam Hussein's regime, Iran is open about its desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction – and its support for terrorism is also undisputed.
I think we could take out enough of Iran's nuke program to set them back years. But we'd have to strike a whole lot more targets to keep the mullahs from striking back with poor-man's nukes. If the only thing we can do is set back Tehran's WMD programs several years, I'll take that over letting Iran go nuclear. But just wounding them is never more than a second-best option.
In the end, the only safe option is to remember that it's the regime, stupid. A regime as nuts and hostile as Iran under the mullahs will find ways to kill us even if they only have hatred and box cutters.
Regime change. Soon. I don't know how much time we have, and nobody really does when it comes right down to it. Our record of predicting when countries will go nuclear isn't encouraging.
Dances With Wolves
Secretary Albright may very well be the worst Secretary of State this country has ever sent abroad to represent the interests of the United States.
She recently wrote something in the LA Times and I thought of commenting, but the sheer weariness of taking on this thankless job convinced me to just ignore her.
The Weekly Standard blog manfully stepped up, however, and you should read it here. The record of achievements of her foreign policy stewardship is enlightening.
My God, getting foreign policy advice from Madeleine Albright is like ... well, um ...
Well, I guess it is exactly like getting advice from Madeleine Albright, when you come right down to it.
She recently wrote something in the LA Times and I thought of commenting, but the sheer weariness of taking on this thankless job convinced me to just ignore her.
The Weekly Standard blog manfully stepped up, however, and you should read it here. The record of achievements of her foreign policy stewardship is enlightening.
My God, getting foreign policy advice from Madeleine Albright is like ... well, um ...
Well, I guess it is exactly like getting advice from Madeleine Albright, when you come right down to it.
Bastards!
I like to avoid swearing on this blog and I think I am 99.98% pure on this except for some mild forms.
But when I read that the Russians gave Saddam our war plans and force dispositions on the eve of the Iraq War, I can only respond with hoping that when those motherfuckers in Moscow find their nuts in a vise when the Chinese finally dismember that alcohol-addled Third World-state-with-nukes that we let them just die. I wouldn't risk the life of one West Virginian grenadier to save that damn country.
They want to be our enemy to remind them of their glory days, do they? Lots of luck, Ivan, with your new friends in Iran and China when they decide they have no more use for you. Enjoy your future with nothing east of the Ural Mountains and nothing south of the Don River.
Die. With festering boils, die. I am so furious at those bastards helped our enemy that I can hardly write straight.
UPDATE: Oh, and explain to me again why we should expect the Russians will help us out with Iran? Putin would never dream of screwing us over, now would he?
ANOTHER UPDATE: The Weekly standard blog has a more thoughtful post on how Putin's Russia has acted like an enemy-wannabe:
I don't trust Putin one bit. Not one damn bit. I admire the Russian people in many ways. But the people in charge of the Russians are leading them to ruin in a misguided effort to regain their glory days of the Soviet Union. Until Putin's generation has passed from the scene I wouldn't give that regime the time of day.
But when I read that the Russians gave Saddam our war plans and force dispositions on the eve of the Iraq War, I can only respond with hoping that when those motherfuckers in Moscow find their nuts in a vise when the Chinese finally dismember that alcohol-addled Third World-state-with-nukes that we let them just die. I wouldn't risk the life of one West Virginian grenadier to save that damn country.
They want to be our enemy to remind them of their glory days, do they? Lots of luck, Ivan, with your new friends in Iran and China when they decide they have no more use for you. Enjoy your future with nothing east of the Ural Mountains and nothing south of the Don River.
Die. With festering boils, die. I am so furious at those bastards helped our enemy that I can hardly write straight.
UPDATE: Oh, and explain to me again why we should expect the Russians will help us out with Iran? Putin would never dream of screwing us over, now would he?
ANOTHER UPDATE: The Weekly standard blog has a more thoughtful post on how Putin's Russia has acted like an enemy-wannabe:
Ronald Reagan’s famous aphorism about dealing with the Soviets was “Trust but Verify.” Perhaps it needs updating.
“Don’t Trust.”
I don't trust Putin one bit. Not one damn bit. I admire the Russian people in many ways. But the people in charge of the Russians are leading them to ruin in a misguided effort to regain their glory days of the Soviet Union. Until Putin's generation has passed from the scene I wouldn't give that regime the time of day.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Back Among Friends?
British and American special forces rescued three "Western" hostages in Iraq. The fourth, an American, was murdered by the enemy.
But those released and their "anti-war" friends don't really feel rescued, it seems. Mark Steyn writes:
I'm glad no soldier died getting those three away from their buddies. I'm just grateful the three didn't resist being freed. And I wonder if they'll go back if they are so damned sure the thugs that housed them are such great guys?
As I wrote before:
Just kill the damn dots.
But those released and their "anti-war" friends don't really feel rescued, it seems. Mark Steyn writes:
If you go to their website you'll notice the headline reads: "CELEBRATE THE PEACEMAKERS' RELEASE"
They weren't "released/" They were "rescued" by brave British-US Special Forces risking their lives. If you'd waited for their "release." you'd be celebrating over their corpses and severed heads.
The stunted morality of these Christian "Peacemakers" is apparently boundless. They evidently didn't grasp the lesson of their long capture and the murder of their comrade - that, even if you spend weeks on end with them and even if you agree with them, the jihadists still decline to acknowledge even the most basic common humanity. Even though you're objectively on their side, to the jihad you're still "the other". The late Mr. Fox didn't need to acquire Stockholm Syndrome: he was already on the "insurgents''' side. But they killed him anyway.
That's what it boils down to, every time.
I'm glad no soldier died getting those three away from their buddies. I'm just grateful the three didn't resist being freed. And I wonder if they'll go back if they are so damned sure the thugs that housed them are such great guys?
As I wrote before:
We indeed have traveled a long way since 9-11. Too many people are back to 9-10. They hate us, people. All of us. Not just the current administration. Not just the Red State citizens. Owning a bongo and tie-dyed shirts won’t save you. Nor will spouting sympathy for their cause. We’re all targets and they’ll dance over our graves if we let them.
Stop debating to the point of paralysis over what dots should have been connected and what dots existed. The dots keep killing us in the most gruesome manner they can come up with. Just kill the freaking dots! We are at war and we must win.
Just kill the damn dots.
Who's Side Are They On?
Winds of Change notes the single-minded determination of our press to describe a civil war in Iraq:
We certainly want to calm Iraq down as much as possible but let's not get carried away with the panic attacks, eh?
Well, hey, I've done my part in the spirit of Trent Telenko's question. Starting with this post which coined the term "pressed up beyond all recognition." A variation in far politer terms of the military term FUBAR, of course.
So what we are seeing our press describe in Iraq can only be understood as a PUBAR.
Oh. And the question in my title is purely rhetorical. Every day that question is asked and answered by our esteemed members of the press corps. They may not be against us, but they sure aren't for us. And funny enoough, the simultaneously count on America to win so they can continue to pretend they are above mere national identity. What other country would tolerate such an attitude?
The members of the press corps--with few exceptions--are part of that noble self-elevated minority known as Journalistic-Americans who proudly value loyalty to their own over loyalty to their country.
It is a wonder that the Blogosphere hasn’t picked up on the latest media “Frame” on the war in Iraq – that Iraq is in purportedly in the middle of a civil war - and taken it apart like the propaganda it is.
What is going on in Iraq today is a losing terrorist campaign hyped by media spin as a civil war because the public no longer believes their prior “frame” that we were losing to the terrorists . This is easily proven with a simple comparison with Bosnia Herzegovina’s real civil war in the early-to-mid 1990s. Today there are 26 million Iraqis, according to the CIA’s Fact Book. There are four million Bosnians of whom about half (two million) are Muslim.
Bosnia Herzegovina’s Muslim population lost 200,000 dead in four years from 1992-1995’s civil war with the Serbs. That averages about 50,000 dead a year of two million Muslims, about one killed per forty people per year.
If the civil strife in post-liberation Iraq matched that of real civil war in Bosnia ten years ago, there would be 650,000 Iraqi fatalities per year – say 1800 dead Iraqis a day from “sectarian strife” to match the average death rate of Bosnia Herzegovina’s civil war.
We certainly want to calm Iraq down as much as possible but let's not get carried away with the panic attacks, eh?
Well, hey, I've done my part in the spirit of Trent Telenko's question. Starting with this post which coined the term "pressed up beyond all recognition." A variation in far politer terms of the military term FUBAR, of course.
So what we are seeing our press describe in Iraq can only be understood as a PUBAR.
Oh. And the question in my title is purely rhetorical. Every day that question is asked and answered by our esteemed members of the press corps. They may not be against us, but they sure aren't for us. And funny enoough, the simultaneously count on America to win so they can continue to pretend they are above mere national identity. What other country would tolerate such an attitude?
The members of the press corps--with few exceptions--are part of that noble self-elevated minority known as Journalistic-Americans who proudly value loyalty to their own over loyalty to their country.
Molecules
I've updated my post on the two large enemy attacks initiated recently.
I think it is important to answer the question of why the enemy would make such attacks.
I think it is important to answer the question of why the enemy would make such attacks.
Operational Competence
Strategypage notes the current status of the Iraqi army:
I would like to point out that in 1980 when Iraq invaded Iran, the Iraqi army was not capable of coordinating more than a brigade in a single operation. Four Iraqi divisions made the initial invasion of Khuzestan but the various brigades acted on their own. So even now when the Iraqi military is still developing as a de-Baathified force, it has surpassed one measure of competence of the pre-Gulf Wars (1980-1988, 1990-1991, and 2003) Iraqi army.
We have a lot more work to do build an army to suppress the enemy and then change that army to one capable of defending Iraq's borders, but we are making progress.
About 75 of the Iraqi Army's battalions are more or less capable of conducting operations without excessive oversight, though still needing logistical, heavy weapons, and other technical support. Maybe 8-10 brigade headquarters are up to coordinating multi-battalion operations. But only one or two of the ten or so divisions are good enough to conduct large scale operations. The main problem is the lack of trained and experienced senior officers.
I would like to point out that in 1980 when Iraq invaded Iran, the Iraqi army was not capable of coordinating more than a brigade in a single operation. Four Iraqi divisions made the initial invasion of Khuzestan but the various brigades acted on their own. So even now when the Iraqi military is still developing as a de-Baathified force, it has surpassed one measure of competence of the pre-Gulf Wars (1980-1988, 1990-1991, and 2003) Iraqi army.
We have a lot more work to do build an army to suppress the enemy and then change that army to one capable of defending Iraq's borders, but we are making progress.
No, The Key is What China Wants
Is this man serious? Tom Plate (via Real Clear Politics) says we can have good relations with China if only we will stop rattling sabers and act nice. If we don't, China will react accordingly and become our enemy; and we will go back to the primitive days of the Cold War:
All our fault you see. Plate thinks that how China proceeds depends on what we do. That's the problem with so many experts. They see their subject of expertise as simply a reactive vessel to be shaped by either our soothing words and giving policies or our harsh words and defensive preparations.
Let's ignore that we were quite giving under the Clinton administration yet this did not stop China from continuing to occupy and oppress Tibet; support and prop up North Korea; whip up xenophobia against Japan; aid Pakistan's quest for nuclear missiles; provide aid to Iraq by building their communications network; make deals with and offer support to rogue regimes from Iran to Sudan to Zimbabwe to Venezuela; erode Hong Kong freedoms; bully nations with competing claims in the South China Sea; steal American nuclear and scientific secrets; points more and more missiles at Taiwan; builds up power designed to deter us from fighting on Taiwan's side; and let's not forget knocking down an EP-3 of ours near Hainan Island as part of aggressive patrolling of international waters to discourage our lawful flights.
People seriously overestimate the impact of foreign actions on the foreign policy of any given nation. Iran is a clear threat to us yet opponents of action prefer to look to their own domestic political concerns first. And if our so-called experts think that the Chinese leadership wakes up each morning wondering whether we will make nice to them as the basis for their policies, they are sadly mistaken.
And even if these experts are right and that actions determine foreign decisions, don't the actions of China give us the right to react a little bit defensively and worry just a little? Why are we expected to just stay calm in the face of foreign actions but other countries are perfectly justivied in reacting with alarm to our actions?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Some experts rise to a magical echelon above reality where they think their knowledge of the subject nation is so deep that they can actually say what they are thinking. That they can predict actions. Actually, all they are doing is bolstering political preferences with their knowledge--not using their knowledge to form their opinions. As Doctor Plate says:
China has done nothing since 1996 (and 5 of those years were the magical years of "strategic partner" don't forget) to change Professor Plate's opinion about the wisdom of engaging China?
That's friggin' amazing. I guess he learned everything he needs to know about China in kindergarten.
David Shambaugh of George Washington University, is one of America's most level-headed China experts. He is perhaps most famous for emphasizing that if we wish to make the Chinese into our enemy, they will become one.
Like it or not, he notes, the new power balance in Asia has been shifting from Tokyo toward Beijing — and away from Washington. This shift is not complete and it needn't become total or alarming. America still has a huge and vital role to play in Asia unless it misplays its cards, creates an enemy out of China and in the process alienates much of the rest of Asia.
The key for us in the United States is to begin the process of serious and sustained public debate over what is an optimal Chinese-American relationship. Rather than seeking to enlist Asians in a China-hedging coalition, our national government needs to enlist the American people in a huge and historic national effort to understand how to maximize the harmony and minimize the friction.
Public diplomacy — for the all-important China question — best begins at home, not abroad. We have to convince ourselves of what our vision is before we can convince anyone else of what their vision ought to be.
All our fault you see. Plate thinks that how China proceeds depends on what we do. That's the problem with so many experts. They see their subject of expertise as simply a reactive vessel to be shaped by either our soothing words and giving policies or our harsh words and defensive preparations.
Let's ignore that we were quite giving under the Clinton administration yet this did not stop China from continuing to occupy and oppress Tibet; support and prop up North Korea; whip up xenophobia against Japan; aid Pakistan's quest for nuclear missiles; provide aid to Iraq by building their communications network; make deals with and offer support to rogue regimes from Iran to Sudan to Zimbabwe to Venezuela; erode Hong Kong freedoms; bully nations with competing claims in the South China Sea; steal American nuclear and scientific secrets; points more and more missiles at Taiwan; builds up power designed to deter us from fighting on Taiwan's side; and let's not forget knocking down an EP-3 of ours near Hainan Island as part of aggressive patrolling of international waters to discourage our lawful flights.
People seriously overestimate the impact of foreign actions on the foreign policy of any given nation. Iran is a clear threat to us yet opponents of action prefer to look to their own domestic political concerns first. And if our so-called experts think that the Chinese leadership wakes up each morning wondering whether we will make nice to them as the basis for their policies, they are sadly mistaken.
And even if these experts are right and that actions determine foreign decisions, don't the actions of China give us the right to react a little bit defensively and worry just a little? Why are we expected to just stay calm in the face of foreign actions but other countries are perfectly justivied in reacting with alarm to our actions?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Some experts rise to a magical echelon above reality where they think their knowledge of the subject nation is so deep that they can actually say what they are thinking. That they can predict actions. Actually, all they are doing is bolstering political preferences with their knowledge--not using their knowledge to form their opinions. As Doctor Plate says:
This column, for a decade now, has advocated the maximum degree of engagement with China.
China has done nothing since 1996 (and 5 of those years were the magical years of "strategic partner" don't forget) to change Professor Plate's opinion about the wisdom of engaging China?
That's friggin' amazing. I guess he learned everything he needs to know about China in kindergarten.
The Enemy of My Nuclear-Armed Enemy
Whenever we contemplate action against a threat to our security that exists in a Moslem nation, opponents of action assert the "Moslem street" will rise up and make our life hell. Islamists will take over friendly countries and blood will flow. Or something.
I don't understand this thinking. This mythical street did not rise up over the Persian Gulf War, sanctions and no-fly zones, Operation Desert Fox, Afghanistan, or the Iraq War.
But Moslems worldwide will be sympathetic to Persian Shia Iran's nuclear ambitions? I doubt that very much. So hints of support by Arab states who have felt Iranian pressure and fear the fallout of a nuclear Iran should be instructive:
This voicing of concern by Iran's neighbors is certainly louder than the support of neighboring Arab states against Iraq in 2002 and 2003--and those countries supported our war against Iraq.
We will have Arab support for action against Iran. These Arab states may not be proud of it, but they want to avoid a nuclear-armed Iran even more.
I don't understand this thinking. This mythical street did not rise up over the Persian Gulf War, sanctions and no-fly zones, Operation Desert Fox, Afghanistan, or the Iraq War.
But Moslems worldwide will be sympathetic to Persian Shia Iran's nuclear ambitions? I doubt that very much. So hints of support by Arab states who have felt Iranian pressure and fear the fallout of a nuclear Iran should be instructive:
This tiny Gulf country is increasingly nervous — as are some of its neighbors — about Iran's controversial nuclear program, right across the water. But heading into a key summit, Arab leaders are divided, and publicly squabbling, over how to defuse a crisis that has caused the West to haul Iran before the U.N. Security Council.
Countries close to Iran, including Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, have focused on safety issues, the threat of a possible regional arms race and the possibility that a crisis with the West could spill onto other nations. Iran's nuclear program "still poses a big worry," Sheik Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nayyan, the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates, said this month.
This voicing of concern by Iran's neighbors is certainly louder than the support of neighboring Arab states against Iraq in 2002 and 2003--and those countries supported our war against Iraq.
We will have Arab support for action against Iran. These Arab states may not be proud of it, but they want to avoid a nuclear-armed Iran even more.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Empire at Risk
When the Soviet Union broke up, first losing Eastern Europe in 1989 and then the USSR itself in 1991, one of the largest empires in the world was mostly ended. The fact that the empire was contiguous rather than overseas as the British and French empires were before they lost their empires has obscured the fact the the Soviet Union was in fact an empire.
But part of the old Soviet (and before then, Czarist Russian) empire survives today: the Far East beyond the Ural Mountains. Part of this territory near the Pacific was taken from the Chinese as the Russians advanced east in what the Chinese call "unequal treaties" in the mid-19th century. This wide stretch of territory is sparsely populated by Russians, rich in natural resources, and ill-defended by Russia.
Well, trends are underway that may break apart the rump empire even more (via Real Clear Politics):
Russia has been playing with fire to buy time for Russia to recover from the collapse of the Soviet Union. Time is running out and Russia has not restored their former power to be able to stand up to Chinese growing power and ambitions. Russia can either go nuclear or surrender. As I've written, if the Russians think they can protect their frontier with China by arming China they are suffering from borderline insanity.
And an interesting little tidbit in the article states that in May 2005, Putin agreed to give 120 square kilometers of land back to China. The long-standing border dispute is settled according to the article. But I doubt it. China established two things by this small transaction. One, if this small chunk of land is really Chinese territory, in theory the rest of the Far Eastern territory that Russia took from China is no less Chinese. Second, the Chinese established that Russia can be forced to cede territory to them. This will not be the last time that land changes hands along the Russian-Chinese border. Count on that.
Rejoin the West, Russia. You are being played for fools by China out of misplaced pride in what you thought you had under a communist dictatorship.
UPDATE: Mad Minerva wonders if the Russians are being foolish in siding with China and links to this post discussing it in relation to Central Asia. I still say we need to shovel the snow north in Asia.
But part of the old Soviet (and before then, Czarist Russian) empire survives today: the Far East beyond the Ural Mountains. Part of this territory near the Pacific was taken from the Chinese as the Russians advanced east in what the Chinese call "unequal treaties" in the mid-19th century. This wide stretch of territory is sparsely populated by Russians, rich in natural resources, and ill-defended by Russia.
Well, trends are underway that may break apart the rump empire even more (via Real Clear Politics):
Vladimir Putin, like Russia's double-headed imperial eagle, has two faces. Both have lately been very much in evidence. At a meeting of G8 energy ministers in Moscow last week, the Russian president showed his Western visage, presenting Russia as a reliable energy partner and playing the superpower alongside the big hitters of the democratic, industrialized world. This week he travels to Beijing to cement a growing partnership with Asia's other booming authoritarian-capitalist country, China. There he will sign deals on oil pipelines, sales of sophisticated weaponry and nuclear reactors, and security accords reminiscent of the old days of Sino-Soviet entente.
Putin clearly relishes his—and Russia's—newfound clout. But his visit to China raises an interesting question: which of the two nations, in fact, is the real superpower? On the surface, Russia seems to take the laurel, playing an energy-hungry East and West to its advantage. Awash in oil money, Moscow has recently been asserting itself as never before in the post-Soviet era—involving itself in Iran and the Middle East, wielding oil and natural gas as a political weapon against its neighbors in Eastern (and Western) Europe and reasserting control over its near abroad from Belarus to Uzbekistan.
Yet for all its new bullishness, Moscow looks East with a fearful eye. The reality is that China is rising as a military power—thanks in large part to the $5 billion of high-tech Russian arms it buys every year. And long ago it surpassed Russia economically. Yes, Russia may be sloshing with petrodollars. But China's surplus of trade capital is even bigger—to the point that Chinese investment threatens to swamp Russia's dysfunctional economy, particularly in its impoverished but strategically critical Far East. Western G8 members may have objected, fruitlessly, to Putin's inviting China to the Moscow summit. But in truth, it's China—the world's fourth largest economy, with Russia just ahead of Mexico in 12th place—that has the greater claim to a place at the top table. "Russia is shifting from being a junior partner of the United States to a junior partner of China," says Dmitry Trenin, director of Moscow's Carnegie Fund.
Nowhere is China's growing dominance more evident than in Siberia, a vast land far larger than China itself but inhabited by a mere 30 million Russians. Chinese goods are everywhere. In Novosibirsk, the owner of a new hotel can't think of a single thing in the place that isn't from China, from the electric sockets to the beds and furniture. The town's citizens will soon ride to work on Chinese buses; in the markets of Khabarovsk bargain-hungry Russian babush-kas even know the Chinese names for the vegetables they buy from Chinese traders. "Everything we have comes from China—our dishes, leather goods, even the meat we eat is from China," complains Vyacheslav Ilyukhin, head of the Building Department at Novosobirsk's city hall. "Siberia is becoming Chinese."
Russia has been playing with fire to buy time for Russia to recover from the collapse of the Soviet Union. Time is running out and Russia has not restored their former power to be able to stand up to Chinese growing power and ambitions. Russia can either go nuclear or surrender. As I've written, if the Russians think they can protect their frontier with China by arming China they are suffering from borderline insanity.
And an interesting little tidbit in the article states that in May 2005, Putin agreed to give 120 square kilometers of land back to China. The long-standing border dispute is settled according to the article. But I doubt it. China established two things by this small transaction. One, if this small chunk of land is really Chinese territory, in theory the rest of the Far Eastern territory that Russia took from China is no less Chinese. Second, the Chinese established that Russia can be forced to cede territory to them. This will not be the last time that land changes hands along the Russian-Chinese border. Count on that.
Rejoin the West, Russia. You are being played for fools by China out of misplaced pride in what you thought you had under a communist dictatorship.
UPDATE: Mad Minerva wonders if the Russians are being foolish in siding with China and links to this post discussing it in relation to Central Asia. I still say we need to shovel the snow north in Asia.
Staying in Iraq
The President stated that our troops will be in Iraq well past his administration ends at the end of 2008:
While there is some buzz about this statement I don't understand why stating the obvious should be earth shaking. But since reporters who don't know anything about military history or war are asking the questions, I don't expect much better. Because the concept is new to them they think they've discovered something profound.
Here's what I wrote about the subject in November (and I'm sure I've written before on it since I've assumed this progression for a long time):
I go into the progression in more detail. In time, our troops will be in garrison in Iraq the way they are in Germany, Italy, and Japan today. Even in South Korea we are just a garrison force that is not in active combat.
So we can be in Iraq for years. Not fighting. Just protecting. And once the Iraqi armed forces are capable of defeating the Iranians, we can draw down even more or completely.
Asked if there would come a day when there would be no more U.S. forces in Iraq, Bush said, "That, of course, is an objective. And that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq."
Pressed on whether that meant a complete withdrawal would not happen during his presidency, Bush said, "I can only tell you that I will make decisions on force levels based upon what the commanders on the ground say."
While there is some buzz about this statement I don't understand why stating the obvious should be earth shaking. But since reporters who don't know anything about military history or war are asking the questions, I don't expect much better. Because the concept is new to them they think they've discovered something profound.
Here's what I wrote about the subject in November (and I'm sure I've written before on it since I've assumed this progression for a long time):
America will be in Iraq a long time to ensure success. But as new missions become primary, our presence will evolve in numbers and nature. These changes in missions will overlap and many will go on at the same time, though with evolving priorities.
I go into the progression in more detail. In time, our troops will be in garrison in Iraq the way they are in Germany, Italy, and Japan today. Even in South Korea we are just a garrison force that is not in active combat.
So we can be in Iraq for years. Not fighting. Just protecting. And once the Iraqi armed forces are capable of defeating the Iranians, we can draw down even more or completely.
Storm Warnings
As a democracy with the need to justify our actions, we are not likely to attack a country out of the blue to gain surprise.
There are military signs that may be visible before we hit Iran. I know, I thought I saw some signs before in the fall, so I may be reading nothing. But it feels like we are closer to a confrontation.
Consider that a report that two American Rangers were killed in Iraq makes me wonder why Rangers are there. Rangers are generally given strategic missions--like I noted here in explaining different ways to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. They aren't just another infantry unit to be rotated through Iraq for counter-insurgency missions.
Added to the presence in Iraq of a special unit for dealing with weapons of mass destruction and I have to wonder about what is coming.
Oh, and we moved AC-130 gunships into Iraq.
And though Ignatius believes that Iranian-United States talks are a sign of hope that conflict may be avoided, I think he misses the point in a major way. Iran is only willing to talk to buy time to go nuclear. They will never talk to actually give up nuclear weapons ambitions. Does Ignatius seriously think we have concluded that Iran might yet negotiate away nuclear weapons?
So talking to Iran is only our way of clearing the decks and preparing an argument that we gave the mullahs a last chance to settle this issue peacefully. The only date we are seeking is what H-Hour will be.
There are military signs that may be visible before we hit Iran. I know, I thought I saw some signs before in the fall, so I may be reading nothing. But it feels like we are closer to a confrontation.
Consider that a report that two American Rangers were killed in Iraq makes me wonder why Rangers are there. Rangers are generally given strategic missions--like I noted here in explaining different ways to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. They aren't just another infantry unit to be rotated through Iraq for counter-insurgency missions.
Added to the presence in Iraq of a special unit for dealing with weapons of mass destruction and I have to wonder about what is coming.
Oh, and we moved AC-130 gunships into Iraq.
And though Ignatius believes that Iranian-United States talks are a sign of hope that conflict may be avoided, I think he misses the point in a major way. Iran is only willing to talk to buy time to go nuclear. They will never talk to actually give up nuclear weapons ambitions. Does Ignatius seriously think we have concluded that Iran might yet negotiate away nuclear weapons?
So talking to Iran is only our way of clearing the decks and preparing an argument that we gave the mullahs a last chance to settle this issue peacefully. The only date we are seeking is what H-Hour will be.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Well, We at Least Know the Color
The mini-me Soviet Union called Belorus ("White Russia") appears (via Instapundit) on the verge of either a government ordered slaughter or another well-deserved loss for Putin if the people can shame the state security forces into backing down and refusing to defend the last communist regime in Europe.
But at least we know that it should be called the "White Revolution" if it breaks out.
I wish them luck. They will need it.
But at least we know that it should be called the "White Revolution" if it breaks out.
I wish them luck. They will need it.
FascUNating
Well (via Weekly Standard), look who wants a unilateral military action despite the refusal of the United Nations to call for action in the face of a bloodthirsty oil-exporting dictator who slaughters his own citizens? I mean, if they follow their train of logic to the clear destination of their complaints, that is what they are calling for.
Do the editors of The New York Times not even see the connection between what they say they want regarding Sudan and Darfur and what they say was wrong regarding Iraq and the Shias/Kurds? Could they simply be pleading for the vaunted international community to define action over Darfur as morally just so that the editors can sleep well at night knowing they aren't cowboy unilateralists for wanting action? Or are they incapable of judging right from wrong without the wisdom of Kofi Annan and his band of thugs with UN seats?
I will concede that the linear thinking capacity of the Times editorial board may actually be poor enough to miss the connection.
Do the editors of The New York Times not even see the connection between what they say they want regarding Sudan and Darfur and what they say was wrong regarding Iraq and the Shias/Kurds? Could they simply be pleading for the vaunted international community to define action over Darfur as morally just so that the editors can sleep well at night knowing they aren't cowboy unilateralists for wanting action? Or are they incapable of judging right from wrong without the wisdom of Kofi Annan and his band of thugs with UN seats?
I will concede that the linear thinking capacity of the Times editorial board may actually be poor enough to miss the connection.
His Biggest and Last Mistake
The Pillsbury Nuke Boy threatened America with a nuclear strike:
Amazingly, the North Koreans claim they want nukes to deter us. Because if you will recall, in the long years we've had nukes and Pyongyang did not, we've been lobbing a few atomic warheads across the DMZ every week just to shake things up and keep the North Koreans down.
If North Korea ever does strike us, it will be their biggest and last mistake. We will tell the South Koreans to take five steps back from the DMZ, face south on the ground with their ears plugged and mouth open, and stay there for about a half hour.
Then we will pave North Korea in glass from the Yellow Sea to the Sea of Japan.
Actually, we wouldn't do that. We wouldn't slaughter civilians even if North Korea nukes one of our cities and murders millions. But we would respond with nuclear weapons. We'd have to. As I've said, if we are ever hit with atomic weapons and fail to respond with atomic weapons, deterrence dies and we've declared open season on our cities.
The question is, how would we use nukes? It depends on whether the North Koreans hit us with an isolated strike or combine it with an invasion of South Korea.
If the latter, we'd hit lots of North Korean military targets in the region between Seoul and Pyongyang to rip apart the rear areas that support the invasion. And we'd hit any suspected nuclear facilities.
If the former, we might hit a small number of targets just north of the DMZ near Seoul to cripple a North Korean offensive option. Plus any nuclear facilities, of course. And then we should announce to the world that we will destroy a North Korean military unit at random until the North Korean military delivers Kim Jong Il dead or alive to a US base and announces a North Korean surrender.
We are dealing with Grade A nutcases in Pyongyang. God knows if they are serious in these threats. Or whether they are just feeling like nobody is paying any attention to them lately.
But with threats that can only lead to their destruction as a political entity, one must wonder if North Korea even has nukes. As I've said, they should smoke 'em if they've got them.
North Korea suggested Tuesday it had the ability to launch a pre-emptive attack on the United States, according to the North's official news agency. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said the North had built atomic weapons to counter the U.S. nuclear threat.
"As we declared, our strong revolutionary might put in place all measures to counter possible U.S. pre-emptive strike," the spokesman said, according to the Korean Central News Agency. "Pre-emptive strike is not the monopoly of the United States."
Last week, the communist country warned that it had the right to launch a pre-emptive strike, saying it would strengthen its war footing before joint South Korea-U.S. military exercises scheduled for this weekend.
Amazingly, the North Koreans claim they want nukes to deter us. Because if you will recall, in the long years we've had nukes and Pyongyang did not, we've been lobbing a few atomic warheads across the DMZ every week just to shake things up and keep the North Koreans down.
If North Korea ever does strike us, it will be their biggest and last mistake. We will tell the South Koreans to take five steps back from the DMZ, face south on the ground with their ears plugged and mouth open, and stay there for about a half hour.
Then we will pave North Korea in glass from the Yellow Sea to the Sea of Japan.
Actually, we wouldn't do that. We wouldn't slaughter civilians even if North Korea nukes one of our cities and murders millions. But we would respond with nuclear weapons. We'd have to. As I've said, if we are ever hit with atomic weapons and fail to respond with atomic weapons, deterrence dies and we've declared open season on our cities.
The question is, how would we use nukes? It depends on whether the North Koreans hit us with an isolated strike or combine it with an invasion of South Korea.
If the latter, we'd hit lots of North Korean military targets in the region between Seoul and Pyongyang to rip apart the rear areas that support the invasion. And we'd hit any suspected nuclear facilities.
If the former, we might hit a small number of targets just north of the DMZ near Seoul to cripple a North Korean offensive option. Plus any nuclear facilities, of course. And then we should announce to the world that we will destroy a North Korean military unit at random until the North Korean military delivers Kim Jong Il dead or alive to a US base and announces a North Korean surrender.
We are dealing with Grade A nutcases in Pyongyang. God knows if they are serious in these threats. Or whether they are just feeling like nobody is paying any attention to them lately.
But with threats that can only lead to their destruction as a political entity, one must wonder if North Korea even has nukes. As I've said, they should smoke 'em if they've got them.
Somebody Is Lying
Our military is accused of murdering women and children. We say it was a fire fight in which a far smaller number of civilians were accidentally killed. Both versions agree there was a member of al Qaeda present.
Our enemies have slaughtered so many that it is not beyond them to do a little more. Our enemies lie about our actions so much that they could be lying here, too.
And on the other side, our troops are so well disciplined that such an atrocity would be surprising to me. But not out of the question, I admit.
But just as it was up to us to stop and punish the depravity of our enemies by destroying Saddam's regime; we are up to the task of policing and punishing our own if we find anybody guilty of crimes. Because we are better than our enemies.
I just wish the world cared as much about the hundreds of thousands Saddam killed under orders as they do about the perhaps dozens we may have killed against orders.
Our enemies have slaughtered so many that it is not beyond them to do a little more. Our enemies lie about our actions so much that they could be lying here, too.
And on the other side, our troops are so well disciplined that such an atrocity would be surprising to me. But not out of the question, I admit.
But just as it was up to us to stop and punish the depravity of our enemies by destroying Saddam's regime; we are up to the task of policing and punishing our own if we find anybody guilty of crimes. Because we are better than our enemies.
I just wish the world cared as much about the hundreds of thousands Saddam killed under orders as they do about the perhaps dozens we may have killed against orders.
Watch This
A company-sized enemy force massed to attack a court house in Iraq and jail to free a number of their comrades:
One of our aims in fighting the enemy has been to whittle them down so that inferior Iraqi forces will still be superior to them. I've called this atomizing the enemy. Keep the enemy is small groups and they can't overrun patrols or outposts.
So is this a trend or an unusual event? Is this an area turned over to Iraqi control that they could not control sufficiently?
Or is the target what prompted the extraordinary effort? Losing at least a quarter of their force (killed and wounded) is pretty heavy to pay and shows one reason why they don't do this too much.
With luck we can track down those who were busted out of prison and use them to round up or kill the attackers.
But just massing in this large of a force without getting smashed up beforre they could take the building and then chased down and killed by a reaction force is disturbing.
On the other hand, the article also notes that the annual Shia pilgrimmage was largely untouched by enemy attacks this year. That is a victory for the good guys quite clearly.
Like I say, watch this type of thing for signs the enemy is regrouping.
UPDATE: The enemy tried another big attack. But this time their two-platoon attack failed big time:
Even the earlier attack was an expensive "victory" for the enemy. The latest is hard to describe as anything but a major defeat for the enemy. Although NPR did its part this morning by only reporting a big attack and not mentioning the small matter of rounding up nearly the whole bunch. Just an oversight I'm sure.
It is interesting that the enemy is returning to tactics they largely abandoned early in the counter-insurgency after they got pasted time and again--even against support troops. That's why the enemy turned to IEDs so they'd be exposed to our forces less often. So why go back to a failed tactic?
Still, I'd prefer it if the enemy could not mass for attacks like this. But a few more like these and the enemy will be incapable again.
ANOTHER UPDATE: I guess I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue. A week ago I may have predicted this wave (well two so far) of large attacks when I wondered if the Iraqis really did break up a plot to attack the Green Zone and then noted the subsequent chatter on the enemy's nets:
And given that the Green Zone plot was of a conventional attack nature, it makes sense that there are a bunch of insurgents out there who were trained in conventional attacks. Could these be the people that were going to be part of the Green Zone attack and the enemy is using them up since they are there? Perhaps a use-'em-or-lose-'em move based on worries we will roll them up?
THIRD UPDATE: Strategypage says only 25 attackers were involved in the first attack. This is more reassuring than the company-sized attack. It makes the attack success in penetrating the defenses more impressive but also means a far higher percentage of the attackers died.
Perhaps 75 more were engaged in supporting operations to block a counter-attack and Strategypage is only talking about numbers in the assault element.
Let me conclude with this assessment:
Like they say, sometimes these attacks will succeed but usually it just results in a lopsided body count that we win. And I ask again, why is the enemy using tactics pretty much guaranteed to kill them off? Are they the remnants of the aborted Green Zone plot? Are new insurgent commanders in charge who don't remember the beating they took when they attacked like conventional forces early in the insurgency? If this continues, it may be a significant question to answer.
Insurgents stormed a jail around dawn Tuesday in the Sunni Muslim heartland north of Baghdad, killing 19 police and a courthouse guard in a prison break that freed dozens of prisoners and left 10 attackers dead, authorities said.
As many as 100 insurgents armed with automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades stormed the judicial compound in Muqdadiyah, about 60 miles northeast of the capital. The assault began after the attackers fired a mortar round into the police and court complex, said police Brig. Ali al-Jabouri.
At least 33 prisoners were freed in the jail break.
After burning the police station, the insurgents detonated roadside bombs as they fled, taking the bodies of many of their dead comrades with them, police said. At least 13 policemen and civilians and 15 gunmen were wounded.
One of our aims in fighting the enemy has been to whittle them down so that inferior Iraqi forces will still be superior to them. I've called this atomizing the enemy. Keep the enemy is small groups and they can't overrun patrols or outposts.
So is this a trend or an unusual event? Is this an area turned over to Iraqi control that they could not control sufficiently?
Or is the target what prompted the extraordinary effort? Losing at least a quarter of their force (killed and wounded) is pretty heavy to pay and shows one reason why they don't do this too much.
With luck we can track down those who were busted out of prison and use them to round up or kill the attackers.
But just massing in this large of a force without getting smashed up beforre they could take the building and then chased down and killed by a reaction force is disturbing.
On the other hand, the article also notes that the annual Shia pilgrimmage was largely untouched by enemy attacks this year. That is a victory for the good guys quite clearly.
Like I say, watch this type of thing for signs the enemy is regrouping.
UPDATE: The enemy tried another big attack. But this time their two-platoon attack failed big time:
Insurgents attacked a police station Wednesday for a second day in a row, but U.S. and Iraqi forces captured 50 of them after a two-hour gunbattle.
About 60 gunmen attacked the police station in Madain, south of Baghdad, with rocket-propelled grenades and automatic rifles, said police Lt. Col. Falah al-Mohammadawi. U.S. troops and a special Iraqi police unit responded, catching the insurgents in crossfire, he said.
Four police were killed, including the commander of the special unit, and five were wounded, al-Mohammadawi said. None of the attackers died, and among the captives was a Syrian.
Even the earlier attack was an expensive "victory" for the enemy. The latest is hard to describe as anything but a major defeat for the enemy. Although NPR did its part this morning by only reporting a big attack and not mentioning the small matter of rounding up nearly the whole bunch. Just an oversight I'm sure.
It is interesting that the enemy is returning to tactics they largely abandoned early in the counter-insurgency after they got pasted time and again--even against support troops. That's why the enemy turned to IEDs so they'd be exposed to our forces less often. So why go back to a failed tactic?
Still, I'd prefer it if the enemy could not mass for attacks like this. But a few more like these and the enemy will be incapable again.
ANOTHER UPDATE: I guess I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue. A week ago I may have predicted this wave (well two so far) of large attacks when I wondered if the Iraqis really did break up a plot to attack the Green Zone and then noted the subsequent chatter on the enemy's nets:
With any luck the chatter is about the failure of the Green Zone attack. I hope that is what they planned and now the chatter is figuring out how to salvage something from this. Could we see a hasty attack out of fear of losing compromised assets? If so, we could have a jihadi television operation that fails in its military mission pretty soon.
And given that the Green Zone plot was of a conventional attack nature, it makes sense that there are a bunch of insurgents out there who were trained in conventional attacks. Could these be the people that were going to be part of the Green Zone attack and the enemy is using them up since they are there? Perhaps a use-'em-or-lose-'em move based on worries we will roll them up?
THIRD UPDATE: Strategypage says only 25 attackers were involved in the first attack. This is more reassuring than the company-sized attack. It makes the attack success in penetrating the defenses more impressive but also means a far higher percentage of the attackers died.
Perhaps 75 more were engaged in supporting operations to block a counter-attack and Strategypage is only talking about numbers in the assault element.
Let me conclude with this assessment:
Attacking a police station, to free your captured buddies, is a suicidal way to operate. It's reminiscent of Japanese tactics during World War II.
Like they say, sometimes these attacks will succeed but usually it just results in a lopsided body count that we win. And I ask again, why is the enemy using tactics pretty much guaranteed to kill them off? Are they the remnants of the aborted Green Zone plot? Are new insurgent commanders in charge who don't remember the beating they took when they attacked like conventional forces early in the insurgency? If this continues, it may be a significant question to answer.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Testing the Brave Talk
Wasn't it a little while ago that some critics of the war in Iraq were calling on the United States to withdraw forces from Iraq to the periphery but then be prepared to send troops back in if things got worse?
I mocked the idea at the time as simply a retreat with a tough retort shouted over the shoulder as the big skedaddle kicks in. Once out, nobody--certainly not those who call for a withdrawal--would support sending troops back in (even if it could work after letting the situation get worse in our absence).
Well look what happened after we decided to send in a task force (battalion-sized unit) from Kuwait into Iraq for a month or so. After dropping from 160,000 in December to the baseline 138,000 and then to 132,000 more recently, we will go up by fewer than 1,000 for a number of weeks. Yet the cries of panic over this move are clear:
Sending in one battalion for a month raises questions about eventually pulling a significant number of troops out this year? We went down a good amount and now go up a small percentage of the draw down and this is worrisome?
Ok, raise your hands if you think the Honorable Murtha and his friends would really support sending a hundred thousand or more back into Iraq if we pull out too soon, witness a deterioriation of the situation, and have to restore the situation? And given the representative's complaints about sending too few troops the first time, wouldn't he have to advocate several hundred thousand?
Now that really would be a profile in courage. Perhaps my history education is failing me, but I just can't seem to recall JFK's call to bear any burden to undermine the defense of our country.
I mocked the idea at the time as simply a retreat with a tough retort shouted over the shoulder as the big skedaddle kicks in. Once out, nobody--certainly not those who call for a withdrawal--would support sending troops back in (even if it could work after letting the situation get worse in our absence).
Well look what happened after we decided to send in a task force (battalion-sized unit) from Kuwait into Iraq for a month or so. After dropping from 160,000 in December to the baseline 138,000 and then to 132,000 more recently, we will go up by fewer than 1,000 for a number of weeks. Yet the cries of panic over this move are clear:
The deployment marks the first time US commanders have requested more troops since the February 22 bombing of a Shiite mosque ignited sectarian tensions in Iraq, and raises questions about prospects for significant troop cuts this year.
The mechanized infantry unit from the 2nd Brigade 1st Armored Division will deploy in the Baghdad area for 30 to 45 days to shore up security during the Arba-een holiday, said the official, who asked not to be identified.
Sending in one battalion for a month raises questions about eventually pulling a significant number of troops out this year? We went down a good amount and now go up a small percentage of the draw down and this is worrisome?
Ok, raise your hands if you think the Honorable Murtha and his friends would really support sending a hundred thousand or more back into Iraq if we pull out too soon, witness a deterioriation of the situation, and have to restore the situation? And given the representative's complaints about sending too few troops the first time, wouldn't he have to advocate several hundred thousand?
Now that really would be a profile in courage. Perhaps my history education is failing me, but I just can't seem to recall JFK's call to bear any burden to undermine the defense of our country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
