Geological Politics

America will work with Poland to exploit a new energy resource:

Global fuel giants are exploring Poland's shale gas deposits, which a recent US study pegged as having a potential 5.3 trillion cubic metres of natural gas which could last Poland some 300 years.

Given Poland's security worries and Russia's proximity, having energy supplies that could be exported to Ukraine and Germany to lessen Russia's leverage over those two countries would do wonders to improve Polish national as well as energy security.

The Anschluss Will Be a Foreclosure

Well, the Anschluss between Russia and Belorus that I've expected won't involve anything as obvious as tanks rolling into Minsk. Russia will just buy the place:

Vladimir Putin, Russia’s prime minister, flew to Minsk on Thursday to offer Belarus about $3bn in loans over three years from the Eurasian Economic Community, in return for undertaking economic reforms and privatising state companies – which could see Russia take controlling stakes in strategic assets such as oil refineries and pipelines.

A year and a half ago, Putin said that economic preferences for Belarus would require political integration. I wonder what elements of control Moscow extracted for these loans?

No need for Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia to be nervous at all, eh?

Are We There Yet?

This author has a point that the NATO war against Libya is doing reasonably well and that we shouldn't be too impatient to achieve victory. Let me comment on a number of things he says:

With each passing day, the regime grows weaker and the rebellion grows stronger. The rebel heartland in eastern Libya is militarily secure.

True enough. But the security is from NATO activity that has degraded loyalist offensive capabilities and the air umbrella that keeps the loyalists from massing. The rebels are surely better organized and armed by now, but the key in the security is the inability of the loyalists to attack.

If the Gaddafi regime believed it could control the rest of Libya, that hope has evaporated with the relief of Misurata. With the rebels’ training and organisation improving, and Nato’s continued engagement, Gaddafi’s forces will be unable to retake the operational initiative, struggling to retake lost territory or suppress new outbreaks of insurrection.

Failure to take Misrata is indeed a telling sign of weakness. And continued revolts south of Tripoli and near the Tunisian border are also signs that Khaddafi's grip is weak.

When it comes to Nato’s role, the precision with which its attacks are carried out tends to mask the extent to which it has degraded the regime’s capabilities. As of last Saturday, Nato claimed to have hit more than 860 targets, including 98 tanks, 72 artillery or rocket systems and around 40 armoured vehicles.

This doesn't impress me. In two months of air attacks, destroying 210 major pieces of equipment given all that Khaddafi started with is really nothing.

Equally important, the target list included more than 300 ammunition stores.

That could be significant. But if Khaddafi bought ammo the way his fellow dictator Saddam did, it might not be important at all. Saddam's ammo sustained insurgencies for years and we were on the ground to--in theory--control them.

Then there is the impact that repeated defeats, increasing casualty numbers and equipment losses will have on the morale of the regime’s troops and its foreign mercenaries, which has been ignored.

Yes, that is important. And it could be key. But if the mercenaries aren't dying in high numbers because the air campaign is fairly small, as long as they get paid, will they crack? And bad morale could be endured if there is nobody on the ground to exploit the poor morale. And does fear of losing bolster what defeat is degrading? Armed forces and countries can endure far more damaging air bombardments (as a British author should know) than we are inflicting on Libya and keep resisting.

The real danger, in short, is not of a protracted stalemate, but of a sudden regime collapse: as the campaign goes on, and the capability of Gaddafi’s dictatorship to intimidate the population is eroded, the true extent of support for him among the Libyan people will be exposed. If it turns out to be shallow, the regime could suffer an abrupt end.

True enough. Current trends do run against Khaddafi if given enough time to play out. But will NATO get the time? That seems uncertain given the author's words to buck up our will to continue the fight:

It is therefore essential not just that Nato retains its resolve, but that the coalition is prepared for a sudden crumbling of the regime’s forces, and that it puts the plans and resources in place to deal with the aftermath.

The loyalists could crumble. But so too could NATO. If we crumble, it doesn't matter if we got darned close to defeating Khaddafi. We'll lose.

The question is, what could cause NATO's will to fight to crumble? Waves of refugees reaching Italy? A major mistake in bombing that kills Libyan civilians in large numbers? A Libyan air or missile strike on a major NATO warship? Rebel atrocities that make siding with them too difficult to justify? A Greek default?

Or might a UN General Assembly effort to impose a ceasefire backed by the African Union, Russia, and China be too much for the coalition fighting Libya to resist?

Heck, perhaps the loyalists are hoarding a mobile force in the hopes that a good sand storm will ground NATO air power for a few days and allow the loyalists to either make a major effort to take Misrata or try to dash through Ajdabiya to make another grab for Benghazi.

Are we winning? Yes, I'll grant that. But winning at the moment is not the same as having won. I feel the same about Iraq and Afghanistan. A lot of factors are involved in judging that we are winning, and if some of those factors change, the calculation could change the judgment very quickly. So while time may be on our side (if trends remain the same), time is also the only factor that gives hope to the loyalists that they could emerge victorious. President Obama himself acknowledges this:

"I absolutely agree that given the progress that has been made over the last several weeks that Gaddafi and his regime need to understand that there will not be a let-up in the pressure that we are applying.

"I believe that we have built enough momentum that as long as we sustain the course that we are on that he is ultimately going to step down," he added. [emphasis added]

That's the key, eh? As long as we can sustain the course, we'll win.

But how long can we sustain the course?

UPDATE: Again, President Obama notes the problem of not having a ground component:

"Once you rule out ground forces, then there are going to be some inherent limitations to our air strike operation," Obama said, adding however that the aerial bombardment would eventually force out the Libyan strongman.

And a senior NATO official says:

NATO must "speed up the systematic destruction of Tripoli's military machine with the goal of neutralising Kadhafi's forces for good," the official said, adding allies hoped Kadhafi would fall by late June or early July.

In defense of the lack of Western ground forces early in the war no matter how much more miltiarily effective that would have been, I will concede we'd have taken a propaganda hit as many--Westerners and rebels--would have accused the West of stealing the rebellion from an inevitably victorious rebel army. Only now, after the rebels proved themselves incapable of winning and after many more thousands of civilian casualties, would Western ground intervention be more acceptable

Meanwhile, other nations try to end the fighting. Turks, South Africans, Egyptians, and the African Union all want to end the fighting, perhaps with Khaddafi departing. But who knows if that would be the key demand? Russia says NATO is going beyond UN authorization. Might not a ceasefire that splits Libya seem acceptable to many who want the fighting stopped?

And Khaddafi still fights on seeking ways to fight away from NATO power:

A rebel commander in southeast Libya, Ahmed Alzway, said rebel fighters fought off a Sudanese mercenary force 18 miles (30 kilometers) west of the southeast oasis of Kufra. The rebel force pursued, dislodging the Sudanese fighters from a fortified position further out in the desert, Alzway said.

Also interesing:

Tornado and Typhoon jets also destroyed a radar station in the coastal city of Brega during the Tuesday night raid.

Brega (Burayqah) is near the coastal frontline west of Ajdabiya. I don't know if what was destroyed was an air defense or sea search radar, but either way it would be useful to destroy if the British plan to send their helicopter carrier closer to shore to use their embarked Apache attack helicopters to support the rebels ashore.

The war goes on.

Almost an Ally

Pakistan has taken a good step:

Pakistan has returned to the United States wreckage of a U.S. helicopter destroyed during the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, a Pentagon official told Reuters on Tuesday, but the gesture was expected to do little to improve strained ties.

But it was a tiny and insignificant step. They are still playing games with us:

But bits of the helicopter, including the tail section, remained behind and the United States demanded that Pakistan return them to U.S. custody.

So the Chinese could still get a close look at our technology.

This is no way for Pakistan to convince Congress to keep the money spigot open to them.

Death or Glory?

North Korean threats against South Korea, Japan, and America aren't generating the goodies that Pyongyang once achieved with those threats. Actually behaving and halting nuclear and missile work to promote aid, investment, and trade seems to be out of the question for the Pillsbury Nuke Boy.

So it is off to China (for the third time in the last year) for help:

South Korea's Yonhap news agency said Kim was in Beijing "apparently for a summit meeting" with Chinese President Hu Jintao, who received Kim on both his visits last year.

Impoverished North Korea has been scouring the world for food aid and analysts say Kim is keen to ensure China's support for his youngest son to eventually take over the family dynasty that has ruled the North since its founding.

Kim will also want diplomatic support from China, his country's sole major supporter, said Cai Jian, a professor of Korean studies at Fudan University in Shanghai.

"It's unlikely, but not out of question, that a national leader would directly stretch out his hand for economic aid," said Cai.

"So I would think that what he's seeking is more diplomatic and political support. For example, in dealing with South Korea and the United States," he said.

So Kim Jong-Il won't ask for goodies from China and only wants support against countries that won't provide goodies without progress on security issues? What's left?

I worry that with threats to South Korea not working and North Korean efforts to salvage their economy failing, that at some point the North Koreans will try to extort money from China instead of from the West which isn't playing that game now. The North Korean threat could take advantage of China's fears of losing their buffer state ally by telling China that Pyongyang is so desperate that they see no other option than to roll the dice and attack South Korea to conquer or die.

Then China would have a choice: provide aid or risk North Korea carrying out the threat and probably getting defeated and possibly experiencing regime or state collapse.

UPDATE: Huh:

"North Korea is now focusing its energies on economic development, and really needs a stable environment around it," Kim told Chinese President Hu Jintao, according to China's official Xinhua news agency.

"We hope there will be an easing on the Korean peninsula, are adhering to the goal of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, and advocate restarting the six-party talks. We have always maintained sincerity about improving relations between north and south."

That's an awfully pacifistic statement for such a belligerent despot. I wonder if Kim Jong-Il did try to get Chinese backing for a military solution and got told to sit down and shut up in no uncertain terms?

Selecting New Voters

Dennis Kucinich may shop for another district willing to elect him with his district on the redistricting chopping block:

Ohio's congressional delegation is shrinking; Washington state's is growing. So with the prospect of losing his congressional seat to redistricting, Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich is exploring a House run in Washington, far away from Cleveland, the city he was once the mayor of. “My district appears to be on the block, so I am looking at options, and I am not limiting those options to Ohio,” Kucinich told the New York Times.

His constituency is left-wing nutball, and spans the country. So it doesn't really matter what piece of real estate he technically represents. Quite honestly, he'd represent Uranus just as readily as any place on our orbital plane.

The man is just not of this world.

Responsibility to Control

The Libya War is raising the issue of the responsibility to protect. That is, the responsibility of the world community to intervene within a state when it attacks its own citizens or even fails to protect its own citizens from violence or even natural disasters:

The doctrine of “responsibility to protect” (R2P) holds that when a sovereign state fails to prevent atrocities, foreign governments may intervene to stop them. Human-rights advocates say it saves lives. Sceptics see it as too easily misused to be useful: a cover for imperialism, or even an incentive to kill (because even if a massacre is not looming, an unscrupulous warlord might be tempted to engineer one against his own people to spur outside support).

Previous uses of R2P have been solo ventures. In 2008 Russia used it to justify attacking Georgia, and France cited it after the cyclone in Myanmar, implying that humanitarian aid might have to be brought in by force if the regime persisted in stonewalling (it backed down). But before this year, no mission had been authorised by the UN Security Council that so explicitly cited the new principle.

One problem is that this is outside the norm of states controlling what goes on inside their own country. R2P can seem like a humanitarian idea, but Iraq could have been justified by R2P if it hadn't been justified by our national interests. And like it or not, it does run contrary to centuries of practice in our international system.

I think we'd be better off insisting on a doctrine that works within the existing system and which would allow us to deal with a number of problems that otherwise are protected by the system: R2C.

That is, "responsibility to control (R2C)." How many places in the world are in theory under the control of a sovereign member of the international system but is in practice outside of any national control and simply a haven for terrorists or criminals?

Under R2C, if you don't control your territory to prevent it from being used as a haven for terrorists, criminal gangs, or pirates, other countries gain the right to police that area. I called it the Lexington Rule:

One of the problems with dealing with non-state actors is that they have enough power to defy the state government that has the responsibility for policing that piece of territory. So when a country goes after the non-state actor exercising the power of a state to wage war, the country runs afoul of the Westphalian assumptions because the country is attacking the formal territory of some state government even if that government does not control the territory. The Hizbollah War is a case in point.

So what if we modify our rules of recognition? Let's split our recognition. We recognize a government that holds a UN seat and borrows money and is responsible for its actions, as we do now. Right now it is all or nothing. You are recognized or not and if you do you are given credit for controlling everything within the lines on the map indicating your country. The government has legal responsibility to control their territory, but in practice there is no way to compel them to do so and yet international law prevents others from trying to install some level of control--or at least to destroy threats gathering in those areas beyond government control.

But as part of this recognition, we also declare the boundaries of these recognized governments that reflect effective control and not just legal fictions based on lines on maps. For most countries, we'd use the formal boundaries. Germany controls their territory. But not all countries are in this situation.

Where a country's government does not or cannot control all their territory, we should declare areas "free of control" by a national government and therefore deprive the non-state actor from hiding behind the nominal legal government when they are attacked on their de facto territory that the non-state actor rules.

Not that the United Nations would ever sanction this idea. But I think R2C would do more to further world peace than R2P.

What Could Go Wrong?

This experiment is going to be interesting to follow and I'm glad I'm far away:

The Supreme Court ordered California on Monday to release tens of thousands of its prisoners to relieve overcrowding, saying that "needless suffering and death" had resulted from putting too many inmates into facilities that cannot hold them in decent conditions.

Of course, with the overcrowding, there has already been an effect. Judges know that there is no room and so I'm sure have been using whatever discretion that they have to reduce sentences or divert defendants to alternatives. And prosecutors have used their discretion to reduce charges against defendants or not to bring cases to trial. And I have no doubt that police departments know who it is pointless to arrest and perhaps whole categories of crimes are now in practice decriminalized.

Criminology majors everywhere are rejoicing.

Wants Versus Needs

Taiwan definitely needs new F-16 fighters and submarines. President Ma even says so, repeatedly:

Taiwan on Sunday said it was still pursuing its bid to buy eight submarines and dozens of F-16 fighters from the United States despite warming relations with former arch-rival China.

The Taipei-based China Times reported Sunday that Taiwan had decided to accept a US proposal of just four conventional submarines to help expedite the arms deal which has been in limbo since 2001.

Taiwan has two in operation and two museum pieces barely fit for training purposes in port. On the surface, a request for four puts Taiwan up on what they have and no more than equal to what they had. But of course, China's navy is now far more powerful meaning that getting more submarines is necessary for Taiwan's defense. Especially if half the subs are knocked out in port by some of those missiles that the Chinese bizarrely deny are pointed at Taiwan (tip to Mad Minerva). So having eight may merely guarantee that three or four can be at sea at any one time to actually fight.

The View from Taiwan in that post also rightly wonders if Ma really wants those weapons despite his requests. I must say that when I heard Ma recently bringing up the issue of America selling him fighter planes and subs, I wondered that, too. Specifically, I wondered if he really wants submarines since we don't make conventional submarines. I know we are supposed to figure out how to find a builder since countries that build them are too afraid of angering China to sell Taiwan any subs, but I don't see that happening. Why not just ask about the F-16s which we do build and see if Taiwan can get Russia to sell Taiwan subs,an option I've mentioned before.

The reason could be that Ma wants to tie something he doesn't want but can get from America (F-16s) with something he neither wants nor can get from America (subs), and so ensure he gets neither planes nor subs. The fact that Taiwan needs both is not relevant, apparently.

Would You Believe ... October 21st?

Epic Apocalypse Fail:

California preacher Harold Camping said Monday his prophecy that the world would end was off by five months because Judgment Day actually will come on Oct. 21.

There's film:

No, It Was a Good Weekend

This is really a strange way to look at things:

Harold Camping's recent admission that he's "flabbergasted" the world didn't end last weekend sounds somewhat pitiful.

"It has been a really tough weekend," Camping said Sunday, after emerging from his Alameda, California home for the first time to talk to a reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle. ...

Camping's PR aide, Tom Evans, told the L.A. Times that the group is "disappointed" that 200 million true believers weren't lifted up to heaven on Saturday while everyone else suffered and eventually died as a series of earthquakes and famine destroyed the Earth.

Really? We didn't have massive death and destruction over the weekend and that is a tough weekend? Now, that attitude is flabbergasting.

Sure, the end of the world would have meant I didn't face the disappointment of my son failing to appreciate Monty Python and the Holy Grail at all.

But I would have missed taking Lamb out to the park to fly her new kite. Actually, I'd been forgetting to buy a new kite with the old one barely hanging on to life. And then I found two kites in my closet that I clearly bought some time in the last year. Lamb was thrilled. So I put it together and dad and daughter walked to the park where we got it in the air and soaring without having to run to keep the kite airborne! I think the wind was getting a bit strong because while it would fly right for a while, eventually it dove down to the ground. I think Lamb enjoyed it when I tucked my head and covered my head with my arms whenever it dove at my general direction.

And Lamb hit the swings for a bit, too. It was grand.

I'd have missed that. And I'm a little angry at the people hoping for the end of the world. They really expected only 200 million on the planet to ascend to Heaven? Really? How many children were judged too evil for salvation? What type of religious person condemns children to death and damnation?

I don't pretend to know what God has in store for our world or for me and my family. And neither does Camping. He should be ashamed to pretend to know God's will for us--or his standards of judgment.

Spearhead

The coastal front of the Libyan civil war has been pretty quiet lately. Loyalists seem content to hold just west of Ajdabiya well forward of Sirte and holding key oil installations while focusing on rebel-held areas south of Tripoli and trying to do something about Misrata. Rebels seem content to train and organize (I assume) rather than fling their recruits or scarce trained manpower against the loyalist front.

This development indicates to me that the coastal front will become active:

France plans to deploy attack helicopters in Libya, the first to be used in the coalition against Muammar Gaddafi's forces, a French newspaper reported on Monday.

Twelve helicopters were shipped out to Libya on French battleship Tonnerre on May 17, daily Le Figaro reported, to help break a military stalemate three months into an uprising against Gaddafi's four-decade rule. ...

According to Le Figaro's source, French special forces, who have been operating in Libya to help identify targets for NATO planes since the start of air strikes, could now be reinforced and deployed to guide helicopter attacks.

Let me digress for a moment. Tonnerre is not a "battleship." It is a an amphibious warfare ship capable of carrying helicopters. A "battleship" is not just another name for a "warship"--the generic word for navy combat vessels. A "battleship" is a very specific type of warship that we were the last to use. Editors please take note.

Anyway.

With French special forces on the ground to spot targets for those French attack helicopters, this team could spearhead an advance by newly organized and equipped rebel troops, along with the usual air support. British, French, and Italian advisers are doing the organizing, I assume. And planning the offensive. Egyptian special forces could provide advisers at the unit level on the rebel side.

I've long wondered what army would be found to drive into the loyalist areas and make Khaddafi "go." We may have an answer soon.

UPDATE: The British, too, will add attack helicopters from the naval task force I mentioned a while ago. The article says:

French Defence Minister Gerard Longuet said separately that London would deploy helicopters aboard its HMS Ocean aircraft carrier as soon as possible.

Perhaps recent NATO attention to striking Libyan naval assets was to pave the way for the French and British to move their amphibious carriers closer to the coast to launch missions without basing the helicopters ashore.

With a battalion of British marines in the task force, too, could the British and French be thinking about putting a multi-national brigade task force ashore to help the drive west?

The article also writes about more intense NATO air attacks on Tripoli:

An AFP journalist said the raids lasting more than half an hour began at around 1:00 am when powerful blasts were heard in the sector around Kadhafi's Bab al-Aziziya residence.

More than 15 strong blasts were heard in the neighbourhood, with the sound of warplanes roaring overhead.

Intensifying air attacks on Tripoli is risky since it provides more chances for something to go wrong on the propaganda front. One bad hit or loyalist success in portraying high collateral damage with good visuals could be fatal to the NATO air campaign.

To really be effective, the air attacks should have a ground component to exploit the damage done by the raids, otherwise the loyalists can recover from whatever damage the raids achieve.

I still think it is a race between the collapse of the loyalist will to fight and the NATO will to fight. NATO actions seem like they could accelerate both "clocks" for making resolution one way or the other take place faster.

Also, whatever happened to that precision weapons shortage that NATO was facing that I read about fairly early in the war? Are factories rushing them to the planes as fast as they are produced? Did the Europeans have war reserve stocks that they broke open? Did we manage to supply weapons they can use on their planes?

Or is the planned use of attack helicopters with their own precision weapons not part of a deeper plan to spearhead a rebel offensive but just a way to preserve aircraft precision weapons for deep targets? That is, might the French sail off of Ajdabiya to support the rebels instead of using aircraft around the city and the British sail off of Misrata to support rebels there?

UPDATE: The British say they are still in the pondering stage and have made no decision to use attack helicopters. Although Strategypage says France and Britain will use a dozen attack helicopters each off of their amphibious ships. Strategypage also writes that the Moslem world is turning more against Khaddafi, citing Turkey in particular. And I should note that Strategypage still thinks Khaddafi will lose this war.

Again, I'll agree that the competing existing vectors favor NATO victory. But I don't have high confidence that the trends will remain constant long enough for NATO to win unless we get lucky. I think the chances of the NATO vectors changing for the worse are greater the longer the war is unresolved.

Unclear on the Concept

Even after letting numerous American deadlines for Iran to halt nuclear weapons programs pass by with no action, after seeing Khaddafi and Assad remain in office when they "had to go" (admittedly without set deadlines), and after seeing no budget for this fiscal year approved anywhere near the beginning of this fiscal year, May 2011 has been a particularly cruel month for deadlines that apparently mean nothing.

First we had the debt ceiling deadline that would strike us down on May 16th. That's run out to August 2nd, now.

Then we had the May 20th deadline to end American participation in the Libya War under the war powers act. The war goes on and nobody will do anything about it. I happen to think the law stinks and figure if it is to be declared unconstitutional, the time when a very liberal president wants to ignore it will be the time it happens.

And of course, May 21st was supposed to be the end of the world and yet here we are. I'll cite nothing online to support that statement.

I'm perhaps thinking that someone (pehaps it is me) is unclear on the concept of what a "deadline" entails.

God, What an Idiot

Thank goodness she's on their side.

I hadn't realized that Cynthia McKinney, former United States Representative (D-Bizarro World) was still up and around. Apparently she's on her rogue support tour, standing up for Khaddafi and traveling to Iran to bolster those nutjobs, too.

Every two years we entrust only 435 people to vote on legislation in the House of Representatives. She was one of them. Of course, so is Nancy Pelosi. And good grief, Reid is one of only 100 Senators.

What the heck, even idiots need representation. Are we a great country, or what?

Unable to Kill Outside of the Box

Gosh, remember a decade ago when exciting, nimble "4th generation" networked terrorists would run rings around our security bureaucracies unable to react quickly enough to the terrorists' flat organization able to innovate on the move and attack at our points of vulnerability before we could possibly hope to identify those points let alone defend them?

Well, let's see how al Qaeda Prime's former Number 1 waged his ominous "netwar":

The computer files hauled from his hideout in Pakistan have provided intelligence officials with an unparalleled glimpse into the mind of al-Qaida's founder. But perhaps most surprising about the first two attack scenarios to surface in those documents is just how predictable they were.

He hoped to attack trains, just as terrorists had done in Mumbai, India, and Madrid. He retained his fascination with attacking airplanes. And, according to U.S. officials and a law enforcement bulletin Friday, he wanted to hijack oil tankers and blow them up at sea. ...

"This is nothing new," said Christopher Davidson, a professor of Middle East politics at Durham University in northern England. "This is just confirmation of what most security and terror analysts had guessed."

In short, bin Laden wanted to attack just where the U.S. figured he would.

Too many in the West puff up our terrorist enemies by constructing elaborate theories about how brilliant they really are. In reality, they are just paperwork-pushing bureaucrats with blood directly on their hands.

Fourth generation warriors, indeed. How many times have we been told over the years that by attacking and destroying the Taliban regime in Afghanistan we fell for Osama bin Laden's "deep plan?" Instead, it looks an awful lot like we kicked his ass and left him under virtual house arrest unable to think--or kill--outside the box, until we killed him in that box.

We are the ones who are winning this war, as I wrote in the days immediately following 9/11--not helpless giants:

Intelligence and covert operations are the first line of active defense and the first echelon of attack. The aerial suicide attacks on our people and the symbols of our power took enormous amounts of time to carry out. This is one weakness of our enemy. While they may carry out small attacks using small arms or small bombs at a moment's notice, truly horrific attacks require time because they must be planned in the shadows to avoid detection. We must increase our ability to detect such preparations and make sure the information is interpreted to provide timely and specific warnings. Then, the people who need this information must actually get the warning in time to take actions.

More importantly, we must exploit the fact that these attacks take time to organize. Intelligence must track the enemy terror cells in order to strike the enemy and disrupt them by keeping them on the move and by killing or arresting their operatives. We must sow confusion and paranoia in their ranks to slow them down and get them to fight each other. Our ability to use so many weapons is one advantage of being a powerful state. We may be a large target but we are not a helpless giant. America can direct precise or massive force quickly and globally as needed. Keeping the initiative is crucial. This will compel our enemies to start their preparation from scratch again and again. Giving the enemy time to prepare only guarantees that eventually they will be ready and will strike.

Careers are made in the West by inflating our enemies' brilliance. Don't confuse these academic-created images of 10--feet tall terrorists with the reality that we fight--and kill or arrest--every day. Our enemies may be evil, murdering, bastards, but they aren't evil geniuses running rings around us.

Don't get me wrong, they can and do innovate. This doesn't mean we can assume we fight total idiots. But remember that we innovate, too. And our enemies have to fill out paperwork and file it.

Our enemies need to be killed and we can kill them. Let's get on with it.

I Don't Even Know You!

Let me be clear, my son is great. I'm very proud of Mister. But last night I put Monty Python and the Holy Grail in the Blu Ray player to share this movie with him.

He was completely bored and didn't like any of it. He didn't even bother to notice the jokes of the opening credits. And I let it run through the tale of Sir Robin! Nothing. The only hint of appreciation was when he recognized a line ("It's just a flesh wound ...") during the Black Knight scene from National Lampoon's European Vacation.

Yes, I replied! That was Eric Idle. He's in this movie.

What is wrong with kids these days? When I saw this movie at his age, I cried from laughing so hard. I still laugh even though I mostly know it by heart. I still notice new things in the background.

If we can't share Monty Python, I'm not sure I can even begin to think about paying for his college. One must draw the line, mustn't one?

Lest you think he's hooked on high brow PBS stuff, he actually laughs like a maniac with Married With Children. So there is that.

But a dad can only do so much to raise them right. I guess I can only hope he gets into a good crowd in his college dorm that can teach him--if through peer pressure and repetition if nothing else--that Monty Python is funny.

Hitting Them Where it Hurts

If this attack on a Pakistani base is the responsibility of the Taliban or other jihadis, it hits Pakistan where it really hurts:

Gunmen attacked Pakistan's naval aviation base on Sunday, starting fires, setting off explosions and fighting pitched gunbattles inside one of the country's most heavily guarded military installations. ...

Another spokesman said that one P-3C Orion, a maritime partrol aircraft, had been destroyed. "The attackers are still inside and intermittent firing is continuing."

Note that the base houses naval aviation. These are assets aimed at India--not at the Taliban.

This appears to be a message that the India-centric Pakistani military and government are meant to really listen to.

UPDATE: Pakistani forces have wiped out the attackers. But the headline of the article is just bone-headed:

"Pakistan retakes naval base after just six militants lay seige"

No, the Pakistanis did not "retake" the base. That implies the enemy took the base. Which itself is contradicted by the end of the headline which says the enemy "lay seige" to the base--which means isolating it and attacking or otherwised trying to pressure the defenders into surrendering.

The enemy neither lay seige to the base nor captured it. The enemy penetrated the base and held out on a suicide mission until the Pakistanis re-secured the base. No wonder reporters can describe the enemy has "resurgent." Just making suicidal attacks with no hope of victory is enough to be declared "winning."

Yes, there was some sloppy security to allow the attackers to penetrate the perimeter of this base. But that's a far cry from saying the enemy is capable of defeating the Pakistani military.

Not Exactly Shock and Awe

China's missile arsenal pointed at Taiwan will increase next year:

The number of Chinese missiles targeted at Taiwan is likely to reach 1,800 next year, despite improving ties between the former arch-rivals, Taiwanese media said Friday.

I assume not all are precision weapons. Still, even if all of them are, they are not a decisive weapon alone. Chinese aircraft would need to be part of the offensive to really cripple the Taiwanese.

Remember that in the first 5 days of NATO's offensive against Libya's far weaker air defenses and air force assets, NATO fired 168 precision cruise missiles along with 222 strike sorties. Assuming that each plane sortie carried 4 precision weapons, we're talking only a little more than a thousand hits on Libyan targets. That was clearly survivable and Taiwan could fight through a Chinese missile barrage.

Or consider the Iraq War invasion:

The US Forces flew 37,000 missions during OIF, dropping 23,000 precision guided weapons (over 66% of the total ordnance dropped) and launching 750 cruise missiles.

So even close to 24,000 US precision weapons dropped mainly over the course of 3 or 4 weeks--I assume--until conventional Iraqi resistance collapsed did not prevent the Iraqis from deploying ground units and resisting our invasion.

The point is that Taiwan should not tremble and panic in the face of these weapons. Nor should Americans throw up our hands at the thought of trying to defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack. China will need far more than these missiles to inflict deep wounds and will face threats of their own to getting ashore on Taiwan for the killing blow.

Work the problem.

Take a Hike

The Russians already got the Obama administration to back down over the Bush missile defense plan, claiming wrongly that the missiles could hit Russian missiles heading for America.

So the Obama administration cancels that plan and puts in place a plan to add missile defenses to eastern Europe that don't defend American from missiles inbound from Iran but still protect Europe from Iranian missiles.

The Russians are still bitching:

Moscow has pressed for binding guarantees that a European missile shield would not weaken its nuclear arsenal, saying on Friday that the system now planned by the United States could threaten Russia's security after 2015.

Russia, not content that New START leaves Russia with no limits on theater range nuclear missiles, is apparently upset that the threadbare missiles defenses we plan for NATO to stop small numbers of Iranian missiles might force Russia to waste a number of nuclear missiles if Moscow should decide that Europe needs a good nuking to teach them manners.

Am I the only one disturbed that the Russians value so highly  their ability to nuke defenseless eastern European countries?

I do believe we should invite the Russians to take a hike along the Appalachian Trails. With themselves, of course. Vigorously.

Pressure

NATO continues to add pressure to loyalist forces that appears to be affecting morale in loyalist areas:

NATO widened its campaign to weaken Moammar Gadhafi's regime with airstrikes on desert command centers and sea patrols to intercept ships, the military alliance said Saturday, amid signs of growing public anger over fuel shortages in government-held territory.

This is good. The rebels aren't going to march in and defeat the loyalists--and neither is NATO--so defeating the loyalists requires their military assets to crack and either desert or defect. Having to face too many angry civilians could be one way to crack their morale. Repeated air attacks might also do it.

But NATO is in a race against time because pressure to halt the war short of Khaddafi's ouster are also apparent:

At the same time, however, NATO has come under increasing criticism that it is overstepping the U.N. Security Council's mandate, which provides for the protection of civilians but not for wider attacks. The Pan African Parliament, the legislative body of the African Union, plans an emergency session next week to discuss what it calls NATO's "military aggression."

This is one more part of the pressure to save Khaddafi, which includes divisions within NATO over goals, the UN Secretary General's push for a ceasefire, Russian and Chinese opposition to regime change, the cost to Europeans of waging a war that has not concluded quickly as expected, other opposition to the war (Brazil and Venezuela to name a couple South American notables). Add in that the Arab world is probably one big collateral damage incident from demanding an end to the war and I still don't know who will break first.