When the Mandate of Heaven is in Doubt

China is no stranger to protests against local government abuses. Sometimes I wonder if a particular cause will be the spark that dangerously erodes government legitimacy. Could the deaths of hundreds--including many elderly--on that sunk ferry be such an event?

The Chinese leadership sure isn't treating this like an ordinary accident:

China has pledged that there would be "no cover-up" of an investigation into the sinking of a cruise ship on the Yangtze River, which has left 75 people dead and over 370 missing, as angry families gathered near the rescue site to demand answers.

President Xi Jinping convened a special meeting of the ruling Communist Party's Politburo Standing Committee, the apex of power in the country, on Thursday to discuss the disaster, state news agency Xinhua said.

These aren't just any victims:

Rescuers searched on Tuesday for more than 400 people, many of them elderly Chinese tourists, missing after a cruise boat was hit by a freak tornado and capsized on the Yangtze River in what may become China's worst shipping disaster in nearly 70 years.

The loss of many elderly people seems likely to be a big deal in China. Will the government be blamed? And what leads from that? Will "mass incidents" grow from a localized rural problem to a national rejection of the Communist Party's authority?

I know, I have wondered about a lot of things triggering such a reaction, from the Arab Spring to the 2008 earthquake to SARS. Yet the Communist Party remains in control.

All I'll say in my defense is that the Chinese rulers apparently worry about this source of trouble, too.

Sometimes small things lead to big things. But sometimes not.

UPDATE: Oh, and it seemed appropriate to note this issue today, the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

UPDATE: Or there might be the Mandate of Economics:

As Robert Shiller, a professor of economics at Yale and the author of “Irrational Exuberance,” puts it, during a bubble “news of price increases spurs investor enthusiasm, which spreads by psychological contagion from person to person,” drawing in more and more investors, who buy simply because they believe that others will buy, at even higher prices, tomorrow.

That sounds a lot like China today. The market’s ascent has been propelled by a flood of new money, much of it from inexperienced investors.

Of course, I've been expecting China's boom run to end and potentially threaten the legitimacy of China's rulers. And that hasn't happened, either.

UPDATE: Related:

Most Chinese already know their government is full of corrupt and inefficient officials but too many details of this mess could trigger another major uprising. It’s happened before, many times, in Chinese history. In the mid-19th century the Taiping uprising killed over 20 million. This little known (outside China) conflict was one of the four mega-wars (the Napoleonic Wars, the Taiping Rebellion, World Wars I and II) which together accounted for over 70 percent of the 250 million war dead since 1800.

The Chinese are hiding bad data. We don't know if that means economic problems with global implications are about to become apparent.

Deny a First-Strike Incentive

One of the problems of a defense build-up against a stronger power is that the smaller power's new capabilities might provoke a preemptive strike. Vietnam needs to be careful under the darkening shadow of China's power.

Vietnam's Klub-equipped Kilo submarines are a dangerous combination for China:

China is making angru noises to the UN, Vietnam and Russia about the little publicized Russian sale of Klub submarine launched cruise missiles to Vietnam. China wasn’t happy about Russia selling Vietnam six Kilo class diesel electric submarines in 2009. Russia and Vietnam were quiet about the sale of 50 Klub missiles but the news eventually got out, in part because 28 of the Klub missiles have already been delivered, along with three of the Kilos. Another two Kilos are being delivered in 2015 and the last one will be completed in 2016 about the same time the rest of the Klub missiles arrive. Vietnam is one the many nations in the region threatened by Chinese claims to most of the South China Sea and given the long (over a thousand years) hostility between China and Vietnam, there is understandable fear that, even in defeat, Vietnam would use Klub missiles for one last attack on China.

While increasing the cost of aggression with these weapons is a good policy to deter aggression, the military capability that provides that increase in deterrence is counter-productive if the stronger power to be deterred has it within their capabilities to destroy or significantly degrade that smaller power's military capability:

Mind you, I'm not saying that Vietnam is provoking China by seeking effective weapons to deter or defeat China.

I'm just saying that to prevent such weapons from increasing the chance that China will strike first, Vietnam needs to protect the subs that are in port to deny China the incentive of striking first in a crisis.

For poorer countries, the investment to protect their assets is often a penny-wise but pound-foolish failure too easy to make. The shiny subs or aircraft look spectacular. The protected submarine or aircraft shelters are less sexy (as are the maintenance and logistics support to use the subs or planes for long, for that matter).

Frenemies

Can the China-Russia friendship last?

It isn't based on a solid foundation of common interests:

The old saying “politics makes strange bedfellows” is no obvious, alive and mystifying than in Russia and China. It works like this. Russia has long preyed on China and much of far eastern Russia has Chinese claims on it. Yet China is not currently pursuing those claims as it is on its Indian border and in the South China Sea. Russian nukes keeps China from being belligerent and Russian willingness to trade with China and share military technology keeps China friendly. The growing sanctions imposed on Russia because of attempts to rebuild the Russian Empire (in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine since 2014) has caused an economic crisis in Russia. China is the only major economic power willing to ignore the sanctions and work with Russia. That comes at a price; providing more military tech. China won’t need this tech for long as China will eventually pull ahead of Russia, as it has already done in some areas. But for the moment China is willing to make nice with Russia. At the same time the Russians know that this won’t last and are even now supplying weapons to nations that China is having territorial disputes with.

Well, the Nazi-Soviet pact didn't last very long. And the Nazis won the race for who would break the pact first and attack the other.

So it doesn't seem likely that this friendship can stand the test of time.Unless Russia thinks they are special and they are the one country that China won't pursue territorial claims against.

I'd give this new friendship to 2021, at least.

After that, all bets are off for what becomes an active Chinese "core interest."

Our State Department Becomes Perplexed

I've long felt the broad outline of a nuclear deal with Iran is obvious: Iran will pretend that they don't have nuclear weapons programs; and we will pretend to believe them. We are working hard on our part even though Iran is falling short on their end of the deal.

Fascinating (tip to Instapundit):

State Department spokesperson Marie Harf said she was “perplexed” by a New York Times story Tuesday on Iran’s 20 percent increase in nuclear fuel over the past 18 months.

Once again, I find myself nuance-deficient as Ms. Harf deigns to explain smart diplomacy:

Under the JPOA (Joint Plan of Action), Iran can fluctuate its numbers in terms of their stockpile. They can go up and down as long as at the end of fixed date they are back down below a number.

I see. Their numbers during the plan don't matter as long as at the very end the numbers are okay. My, that isn't a significant loophole, is it? Just how much can it fluctuate up without rattling our State Department?

And does this diplomatic reasoning apply to nuclear weapons, too?

If, by 2025, Iran is supposed to have zero nuclear weapons under any deal, if Iran builds 5 nuclear missiles in 2024 but uses them all to nuke Israeli cities, will Iran technically be in compliance in 2025 because they have zero nuclear weapons despite that "fluctuation" in 2024?

We're so screwed.

You Magnificant Bastard! You Read My Book!

General Odierno has hopefully killed the impulses that led us to repeated failures in replacing the Abrams and Bradley team with newer vehicles.

Yes!

"I think one of the problems we've had in the past is that we tried to build a perfect vehicle," he said. "The requirements are so high, and they were difficult to meet, and it ended up being over budget and sometimes we found we couldn't meet them."

Well, perhaps he read my 2002 article "Equipping the Objective Force" about the pursuit of that perfect vehicle--the Future Combat Systems (FCS):

Building the FCS, however, is a high-risk venture. The Army should not spend whatever it takes attempting to meld multiple revolutionary technologies into one vehicle for all missions. The FCS should be different from the Abrams and Bradley but must be designed with near-term technology that incorporates modular improvements if the Army is to turn “gee whiz” ideas into actual hardware. ... Barring successfully fielding exotic technologies to make the FCS work, the Army must consider how it will defeat future heavy systems if fighting actual enemies and not merely suppressing disorder becomes its mission once again. The tentative assumptions of 2001 will change by 2025. When they do, the Army will rue its failure today to accept that the wonder tank will not be built.

I'm reasonably sure the Army is at the ruing stage.

The Hillary Defense

Russia is invading Ukraine and has been since more than a year ago, but lacking a "smoking gun" the Russians continue to deny the obvious:

A separatist conflict in eastern Ukraine is revealing increasing evidence, but not yet conclusive legal proof, of Russian state involvement, senior United Nations human rights officials said on Monday.

"We are speaking about increasing inflow of (unofficial) fighters and increasing evidence that there are also some (Russian) servicemen involved in fighting," Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights Ivan Simonovic told a news conference in Geneva.

Russia denies Western accusations that it is backing pro-Russian rebels with arms and troops.

No "legal proof." I see the Russians have adopted the Hillary Clinton defense:

As I said last week, the Clintons’ favorite way to lie is by telling the truth selectively. There are a lot of benefits to this oh-so-lawyerly technique. It sounds more plausible. It frustrates journalists. It comes in handy when your lies are exposed or you’re asked about them under oath. The downside is that when you use the truth to tell lies, you embed implied confessions in the silences. “There’s no smoking gun” isn’t a denial, it’s a passive-aggressive way of saying, “You’ll never catch me!”

The most frustrating thing about the failure to CSI: Donbas Putin's involvement in Ukraine is that this isn't a legal case in a court of law. We know Russia is invading a founding member of the UN, Ukraine; providing missiles that shot down a civilian airliner; and acting like SOBs who need to be slowed down.

So rather than look for evidence that Judge Judy would accept, just help the Ukrainians send those non-existent Russians back to Moscow in body bags.

And if the Russians complain? Tell them it would be impossible for us to be helping Ukrainians kill Russians since--as is well known--no Russian soldiers are fighting in Ukraine.

UPDATE: The subliminal invasion resumes:

Ukrainian troops and pro-Russian separatists on Wednesday fought their first serious battles in months and Ukraine's defense minister said an attempt by rebels to take the eastern town of Maryinka had been thwarted.

I can hardly wait for the Minsk III ceasefire! Because we can't prove a damn thing, right?

Psychotic But Absolutely Right

The Russians want precise language for a new Libya resolution:

[Russia's Foreign Minister] Lavrov was cautious about any resolution that is proposed under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which allows the use of force to restore international peace and security.

"If such a proposal is made, we will have to write down in the most minute detail the mandate of such a mission under Chapter 7," Lavrov told a joint news conference after talks with Gentiloni.

"We don't want a repeat of the ambiguity that was used for gross abuse of the Libya resolution adopted in 2011."

Lavrov a point. He's psychotic. But absolutely right. The best way to stop illegal immigration is at the point of departure: Libya.

We did twist a no-fly zone resolution (among other shortcuts) into authorization for regime change.

So the Russian notion that European NATO, which had reason to worry about refugees from unrest in Libya to justify the 2011 mission, might apply force under a new UN Security Council resolution to unify Libya under acceptable central authority isn't exactly far-fetched.

Really, using military force against refugee-filled boats is no more a solution than a no-fly zone against Khadaffi's nearly non-existent air force threat to his own civilians was a solution. So why wouldn't Putin think the real goal is something that does make sense?

As an aside, it is funny that people looking to excuse Putin's hostility to the West will reach back to either Bush or even Bill Clinton for reasons it isn't Putin's fault, but they never cast blame on President Obama over this Libya bait and switch.

Mind you, I don't blame President Obama. This is all on Putin. But it is curious, no?

Bleeding from Behind

Remember, Assad doesn't have to control all of Syria to be an asset to Russia. But Assad's people do have to continue to die to be that asset.

Russia seems ready to back Assad to the end even if he can't hold Syria:

Russia may lower the profile of its presence in terms of the number of Russian citizens residing in Syria, but in terms of military aid and other support, "things will continue as usual."

"It is important for the Kremlin to demonstrate that it is a reliable ally and support the regime until it collapses," asserted Cohen.

I don't think the Russians will give up that easily when you consider their interests in the region:

"The Russians see the Eastern Mediterranean as an external tier of power projection away from its borders," extending into Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and Iran, said Cohen, adding that it protects its borders with a "forward defense" of sorts. Greece, Cyprus, Syria and Egypt are Russia's priorities in developing naval and military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean, he said.

Perhaps Russia will start thinking of a post-Syria Assad rather than a post-Assad Syria (as I thought could be an interim step as an alternative to thinking Iran could solve the problem there) that they can do something to support in order to keep their toe hold in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.

Iran has a similar outlook for what is important to hold.

Of course, years of civil war have strengthened the jihadis and weakened the  Assad regime. So what might have been possible years ago might not be possible now.

But Putin and the Iranian mullahs probably are willing to fight to the last pro-Assad Syrian to see if it might work.

UPDATE: Interesting:

Russia and Iran now appear willing to take the political hit at home for abandoning the Assads because less cash for the Assads means more money spent on the needs of Russian and Iranian civilians. Already Russia has pulled over a hundred technical advisors out of Syria.

Is this a matter of Russia and Iran preparing to abandon Assad?

Or is it a bit of pressure to compel Assad to contract his realm to one that still benefits Russia and Iran without the price tag of futilely trying to maintain the fiction that Assad has authority over all of Syria's territory and will soon roll back rebel and jihadi gains?

UPDATE: Syrian officials are trying to bolster the morale of their troops:

Syria's defense minister has visited army units to the east of Homs city, state television reported on Thursday, in what appeared to be the latest in a series of morale-boosting trips by senior officials to military outposts.

There have been other visits to other places.

They need this boost since their enemies are inflicting defeats on them:

Islamic State group jihadists, emboldened by a string of battlefield victories, advanced Thursday to the gates of the Syrian city of Hasakeh after intense fighting with regime troops.

That city is in Syria's northeast, well beyond any core Syria that Assad might try to hold in the west.

Interestingly enough, the article also says that many thousands of Shia fighters sent by Iraq and Iran have arrived to help defend Damascus. From shock troops to leading Assad's offensives to the only reliable defenders of this high priority place? That doesn't say anything good about the steadiness of Assad's troops.

As I've said, Assad has many potential Dien Bien Phu defeats.

It's a Target-Rich Environment Out There

A private military company recently added air support to its capabilities for rent:

Bell Helicopter has sold its first 407GT light attack and armed reconnaissance platform to BBM Inc to perform a variety of security missions in the Middle East and Africa, it was announced on 27 May. ...

Located out of Reno, Nevada, BBM Inc describes itself as "spearheading [a] variety of capabilities to support a wide array of mission profiles in the Middle East, Africa, and around the world."

BBM Solutions provides various security services.

We're not to the point where private military companies have standing armies of companies, battalions, or even regiments ready for rent. But I do expect that to happen. The demand for military capabilities that nation-states cannot provide as they once did is clear.

At the very least, if the international legal system proves too much of an obstacle to formed standing armies (which country takes the lead in leasing land and amending local laws to allow a company to base such units in their territory?), such private military companies might go a good part of the way to that formed unit capability by providing the command and control backbone and heavy weapons and specialist capabilities (including armed helicopters and UAVs) to plug in local infantry companies (with contractor advisors embedded) to create hybrid mercenary/local infantry battalions.

I have thoughts on this trend (for only 99 cents!).

The Irresistable Pivot and the Immovable China?

China insists that the South China Sea is basically Chinese territory; while we back the international consensus that the body of water is international waters with limited territorial control based on legal islands (making new islands doesn't count) with exclusive economic zones allowed that do not infringe on the international status of the waters.

We carry out freedom of navigation missions by sea and air--as we just did with a P-8 recon plane--all over the world.

The South China Sea is no exception, as our defense secretary said:

“There should be no mistake: the United States will fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows, as we do all around the world,” Carter said at the U.S. military’s joint base at Pearl Harbor.

This is a problem:

China asserts sovereignty over 80 percent of the resource-rich sea, which includes some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, and has been aggressively staking its claims by building large artificial islands. The United States and its Asian allies have vigorously opposed China’s territorial moves. With no one backing down, the impasse has raised the specter of a localized military conflict.

And note that we aren't alone in challenging China's unilateral actions contrary to international law:

Australia’s Defense Minister Kevin Andrews, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal from Singapore, said Canberra had sent long-range maritime patrol aircraft over the South China Sea and Indian Ocean, and would continue to do so despite the potential for obstruction from China.

And combined with increased Chinese military power, this attitude is dangerous:

Beijing certainly was not expected to take the US government’s criticisms of its land reclamation operations sitting down and has hit back at the US criticism of its reclamation around the Nansha Islands in the South China Sea, saying “no one has the right to instruct China on what to do.”

If this is China's official position, we're going to have a real problem:

"If the United States' bottom line is that China has to halt its activities, then a U.S.-China war is inevitable in the South China Sea," said an editorial Monday in the Global Times, a nationalist tabloid owned by the ruling Communist Party’s official newspaper.

While we take no particular role on who should own the various islands that provide limited claims of control (the "what"), we do insist that the disputes be resolved peacefully and we insist that owners comply with international law that the bulk of the sea is international waters (two important "how" issues).

And we do consider our allies' ownership of many of those islands to fall under our defense treaties absent an agreement with China that gives the land away.

So please explain how America joining the Law of the Sea treaty will have more effect on China, which signed the treaty yet does not abide by it, than our freedom of navigation exercises?

If China won't let anyone--or any treaty--tell them what to do, why pretend one more document signed with China will solve the problem of China?

We can't let China get away with their unilateral claims.

But we don't want to go to war with China over this.

Yet we need to support our allies in their claims and holdings to keep our allies.

But we also don't want a smaller ally to drag us into a war with China.

Needless to say, this is all delicate.

Thank God we have John Kerry as our Secretary of State!

We All Mourn

Even in our hyper-partisan and class-resentment world, it should go without saying that Vice President Biden and his family have my deepest sympathy in this time of tragedy, which wealth and power provide no immunity from.

Work the Problem, Okay?

The Obama administration is fighting hammer and tong to keep the Bush-era Patriot Act alive:

The legal authority for U.S. spy agencies' collection of Americans' phone records and other data expired at midnight on Sunday after the Senate failed to pass legislation extending their powers.

When the breathless reports of the program came out during the Bush years, I wasn't overly concerned about the collection of meta-data (time, location, and duration of calls but not the content of the calls). The Left went ballistic over it.

So I'm enjoying the spectacle, a bit.

Not that it isn't possible to disagree with the policy, but it is not unconstitutional. I recognized that what was legal when the meta-data was in a file cabinet on a 3 x 5 card is far less significant than meta-data in digital form that is searchable.

So we can make changes to a constitutionally allowed collection to account for this effect of technology without wasting time on whether the basic practice is constitutional, as Rand Paul (whose only saving grace is he isn't as bad as his dad) is doing.

I felt the same about waterboarding. I don't think it is torture. But if we decide to accept the risks, we can limit it further than we did or even ban it without having a pointless debate about whether it is torture.

Anyway, I'm certainly on board an effort to deal with the meta-data issue in light of technology changes to keep a legal collection from being abused by a government that is prone to pushing the boundaries of legality too far (and this isn't an attack on the Obama administration in particular).

The debate on whether the meta-data program is constitutional is pointless--the courts have said it is allowable. And I'm not going to change my position just because the Obama administration defends the Bush-era program.

It should be possible to come to an agreement on this issue and others that have put post-9/11 laws in question. Statutes are amended all the time without rushing right to the constitutionality issue.

Practice Run

Cuba has promised not to support terrorism. And we are pretending to believe them. This should be good practice for an Iran nuclear deal.

It's reset with Cuba!

State Department officials said they conducted a thorough review to back their recommendation to remove Cuba from the list and received assurances from the Cuban government they wouldn't support terrorist activity in the future. Officials cited Cuban President Raúl Castro’s condemnation of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris earlier this year as an example of the government’s stance against terror operations.

Ah, Cuba pretends not to being a sponsor of terrorism; and we pretend to believe them!

Look, I don't consider being on our terror sponsor list as a proxy for being our enemies list. You can be an enemy that doesn't support terrorism.

But getting off the list sure is looking like a proxy for the good guys list in this case.

But more to the point, this is a good practice run for concluding a nuclear deal with Iran. I've long said the outline of a deal is clear: Iran pretends not to want nuclear weapons; and we pretend to believe them.

Tip to Instapundit.

#GetNuking

I can hardly wait for diplomats to sit around with bottled waters to talk about Iran getting nuclear weapons!

We say we and our European allies want sanctions to "snap back" into place if Iran violates any nuclear deal that lifted sanctions in the first place. Iran does not want that. The Russians and Chinese don't like that.

But we've found a way around that impasse?

As part of the new agreement on sanctions snapback, suspected breaches by Iran would be taken up by a dispute-resolution panel, likely including the six powers and Iran, which would assess the allegations and come up with a non-binding opinion, the officials said.

A "dispute-resolution panel" that includes the major powers? That doesn't sound good.

Let's see:

If Iran was found to be in non-compliance with the terms of the deal, then U.N. sanctions would be restored. ...

It was unclear exactly how the snapback mechanism would function, and the officials did not discuss the precise details. It was also unclear how the proposal would protect the United States and other permanent Council members from a possible Chinese or Russian veto on sanctions restoration.

The sanctions snap back if the Iranians are found in non-compliance by ... who?

A panel that includes Russia, China, and Iran, too? Isn't this just a delegated veto power separate from a Security Council veto?

And what's with the non-binding part of that panel? How do sanctions snap back if the panel doesn't declare Iran in non-compliance with their non-binding opinion?

Are we allowed to reimpose global sanctions unilaterally regardless of the opinion? Or anyone?

This dispute-resolution panel sounds just swell: Wear suits. Drink bottled water. Talk about Iran getting nuclear weapons.

Say, speaking of health insurance, do all of the Obamacare health insurance policies cover radiation sickness? Surely our best and brightest wouldn't have put in free birth control but left this out, right?

Policy Wonks With Anger Management Issues?

I find it hard to believe that there are analysts arguing that a windfall of $100 billion for Iran after lifting sanctions will have no effect on Iran's aggressive foreign policy because every penny has to be committed to an Iranian economic stimulus program.

Will the stupid not die?

Within months of financial sanctions being lifted, Iran will be able to collect debts from overseas banks that may exceed $100 billion, mostly from oil importers whose payments have been blocked, diplomats and analysts said.

But with the budget strained by last year's heavy fall in oil prices, and public expectations of improved socio-economic conditions in the event of a deal, the authorities will face pressure to invest new funds at home.

This is worse even than the farcical administration notion that Iranian support for mayhem won't increase "dramatically" with the lifting of sanctions.

This idea that Iran is committed to nation-building at home rather than abroad is still stupid. Iran's rulers are not domestic policy wonks with unfortunate anger management issues that can distract them.

Repeating the stupid doesn't make it less stupid.

I know that's how our left thinks, but let's not get carried away with mirror-imaging our foes.

And really, the Iranians under the mullahs are our foes.

So Who Learned an Important Lesson?

The Army is preparing for conventional war again. Which is good. The Army says no enemy will make the mistake of allowing us to build up forces before we strike when ready as we did in two wars against Saddam Hussein (1991 and 2003). The Army might want to share this knowledge with the White House.

I noted the Army's renewed focus on conventional warfare training.

This is an interesting lesson from that article:

"No enemy today would be stupid enough to allow us months and months to build up forces," as was the case in Desert Storm, he said.

He has a point. But we sure seem to be assuming an enemy that stupid as we prepare our perfect plan to defeat ISIL:

We're gearing up for our long-awaited "final offensive" to smash ISIL and seem to expect that ISIL will just sit and patiently wait for the killing blow to fall rather than try to seize the initiative and win victories that might preempt our offensive.

Time is the most precious asset one can give an enemy. We assume our enemies won't grant us this asset. Why do we assume we can afford to give it to our enemies?

Perhaps the Army could prepare a PowerPoint presentation for the White House.

UPDATE: More on the ISIL VBIEDs (Or SVBIEDs--with the S standing for "suicide"):

The jihadists used about 30 explosives-rigged vehicles in the Iraqi city of Ramadi this month, blasting their way through positions government and allied fighters had managed to hold for more than a year. ...

The jihadists used about 30 explosives-rigged vehicles in the Iraqi city of Ramadi this month, blasting their way through positions government and allied fighters had managed to hold for more than a year.

What I find most horrible about this more than the Iraqi rout is that ISIL was left unmolested and allowed to build this phalanx of truck bombs and then move them to the front and use them on the Iraqi defenders despite our absolute aerial supremacy.

Which shows that we have to seize the initiative and make ISIL react to our side rather than granting ISIL the precious commodity of time to carry out their plans against us.

[If this seems oddly familiar, I added this as an update to an earlier post and it seems relevant here, too. Also, I fixed a link.]

UPDATE: Also, by giving ISIL time in their bastions in the Baghdad belts, we give them the opportunity to soften up Baghdad the way they softened up Ramadi and Mosul before that:

The ability of extremists to target heavily secured buildings in the heart of the capital brutally underscored the city's lingering vulnerability. The IS group has been able to carry out regular attacks in and around Baghdad, mainly targeting the security forces and the country's Shiite majority, while battling Iraqi forces on multiple fronts elsewhere in the country.

I don't expect ISIL can take Baghdad. There are too many Shia who would resist in their areas. Although the Shia counter-attack would push even more Sunni Arabs out of the capital in the process of fighting ISIL.

At the least, because we are taking our sweet time setting up the perfect killing blow, we could see an ISIL "thunder run" through parts of Baghdad (as we executed in 2003) that undermines the national government's authority.

How's That Working Out?

North Korea either has nuclear weapons or has nuclear devices they will weaponize at some point. We had an agreement to prevent that.

North Korea's population is starving and literally stunted, but they've got nukes:

The United States and two key Asian allies discussed how to increase pressure on North Korea to halt its nuclear program and will urge China to help bring Pyongyang back to the negotiating table, officials said.

Pity that 1994 Agreed Framework two decades ago didn't work to keep North Korea non-nuclear.

North Korea is a tough problem. It is hard to be too forceful against North Korea because North Korea has the ability to inflict a lot of death and damage on Seoul with conventional firepower within range of South Korea's largest city.

And that is without using chemical weapons that North Korea has.

Further, we're a bit insulated from North Korean nukes with distance and missile defenses. Regional allies who perhaps rein us in a bit on dealing with Pyongyang are on the front line.

Also, as nuts as the North Korean regime is, there aren't dedicated Kimmists around the world ready to rally to North Korea's cause.

Oh sure, there are fanboys from wealthy families on college campuses (and faculty lounges, by now), but they aren't foot soldier types. They're trust fund communists.

So I do think that containment is the best policy until they collapse. As long as they are contained, their conventional military options will deteriorate.

Another problem is whether North Korea proliferates nuclear weapons or technology to produce them. Iran comes to mind:

An exiled Iranian opposition group said on Thursday a delegation of North Korean experts in nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles visited a military site near Tehran in April amid talks between world powers and Iran over its nuclear program.

That's a real problem (and it could be far worse, really) apart from the danger of a fairly pointless North Korean nuclear arsenal designed to deter an invasion we have no plans to initiate. Seriously, "nation-building" doesn't begin to describe what must be done to that corpse with a UN seat.

I had hoped the collapse would come before nuclear weapons, so we're getting darned close here, but as long as North Korea collapses, that's better than a preemptive strike on North Korea's nuclear facilities.

Pain Dominance is the Issue

The idea that it is a waste of time to provide Ukraine with lethal arms and the capacity to fight Russia because Russia has "escalation dominance" to win at any level of war Ukraine can manage is nonsense. The Russian people will not pay any price and bear any burden to win that war.

This is a Russian point of vulnerability:

Much as they may support Putin’s Ukraine policies, Russians don’t want to repeat the experience of suffering mass losses­ over a conflict in another country. Last year, one state-run poll found that two-thirds of Russians opposed sending troops into Ukraine, while barely more than a quarter of the population supported the idea.

Russia is unwilling to admit their losses of 200-250 killed in Ukraine so far.

As I've written before, Russia can be stopped if a lot more body bags carrying dead Russian soldiers head back to Russia.

Putin himself is willing to suffer more dead Russians to continue his subliminal war:

A Washington-based think tank on international affairs has released a scathing report on Russia's "direct military intervention" in eastern Ukraine, concluding that President Vladimir Putin has led his country into war and lied about it.

The report by the Atlantic Council also charges that Putin is using the decrease in hostilities that has followed a February cease-fire deal to reinforce Russian-backed rebels with troops and weaponry in order "to prepare for the next stage of fighting." ...

The results are what the authors call "irrefutable evidence" that the conflict in eastern Ukraine is "a Kremlin-manufactured war -- fueled by Russian-made military equipment, fought by Russian soldiers, and supported by Mr. Putin."

Russia will continue this war until he gets what he wants--or until the Russian people tire of the casualties. Make more Russian casualties and publicize the dead so the Russians know who is dying.

Who has pain dominance? Russians trying to conquer Ukrainian territory or Ukrainians defending Ukraine's territory and freedom?

Oh, and to add to Putin's pain, allow those Russian soldiers abandoned by their government in Ukraine's custody to relocate to the West (after thorough background checks, of course). And publicize it ahead of time and with leaflet drops of "safe passage" documents to encourage Russians in the next hand puppet offensive to surrender.

The Great Skedaddle?

So where does Assad's army finally hold the line?

Syrian army defenders folded quickly at their last city in Idlib province:

The Syrian army has pulled back from the northwestern city of Ariha after a coalition of insurgent groups seized the last city in Idlib province in northwestern Syria near the Turkish border that was still held by the government.

Assad is running out of buffer zone for his Alawite home turf:

The loss of Ariha would leave the insurgents in control of most of Idlib a region that borders Turkey and neighbors President Assad's heartland in Latakia province on the Mediterranean coast.

And those jihadi rebels appear to be exploiting their success:

A Syrian insurgent alliance which has captured the last government-held town in the northwestern Idlib province made further advances on Friday, a monitoring group and fighters said.

I've long thought that Assad didn't have the horses to hold so much territory. But I have my doubts that a military that has suffered so many casualties trying to hold so much of Syria the last three years has the fortitude--when Syria is just a zombie state--to pull back and try to hold a smaller perimeter--perhaps not even including Damascus.

Pity we didn't start arming and supporting non-jihadi rebels 3-1/2 years ago so there would be an alternative to jihadis sweeping through Assad's lines.

But back then, the administration didn't think it was wise to "militarize" the struggle against Assad.

Seriously.

I don't know. But it sure feels like the Syrian government defeats are coming more frequently and with less evidence of a will to fight by Assad's troops.

Is a major breakdown in Assad's security forces building? It sure feels that way.

I'd expect the Syrians still foolishly trying to fight for Aleppo to be looking nervously over their shoulders wondering about their supply lines now. If there is a first crack, I think a run south while they can by the Aleppo region forces is as good a place to look as any.

God help the Syrians if the Turks don't commit a multi-corps ground force to cope with a jihadi breakthrough and Assad collapse.

UPDATE: Syria has launched bombing raids at Aleppo:

Syrian army airstrikes killed at least 70 people, most of them civilians, and wounded scores in attacks Saturday in the northern province of Aleppo that struck civilian areas, including a packed market in a town held by the Islamic State group, activists said.

The deaths occurred in two separate incidents when helicopters dropped explosives-filled barrels.

Is this bombing an effort to hold in the region, knock back the enemy prior to retreating, or just revenge as part of one of the first two options?

UPDATE: Jihadis are on the offensive but the United States accuses Assad of supporting ISIL's attacks on other rebels.

Assad my count on America rescuing him by getting us to attack ISIL more and by rescuing Iran who can then support Assad more, but how long can Assad's forces bleed at the astounding rate they are dying?

"For every 100 soldiers lost by the regime, there are not 100 more coming in," the diplomat said.

That's a problem if Assad wants to hold the line somewhere.

UPDATE: ISIL's offensives in the northwest conveniently relieve rebel pressure on both Aleppo and Idlib province:

The Islamic State's attack against northern Aleppo also serves the interests of the Syrian government in two ways. First, it has forced Syrian rebels to delay an impending offensive against loyalist forces in the province. Over the past few months, the Aleppo front has been relatively quiet, and rebels in the region have been gearing up for an assault on government-held positions in and around the city. ...

Second, the Islamic State's push into Aleppo has prompted Jaish al-Fatah, the rebel group responsible for repeated victories against government forces in Idlib province, to reallocate a considerable number of its fighters to the Aleppo front to reinforce their beleaguered allies.

If Assad is cooperating with ISIL for this relief, it is a dangerous game given ISIL's advances elsewhere. Assad may be trying to draw to an inside straight to get American air power support against ISIL and a general deal that sees Assad as the lesser of two evils.

Full Spectrum Returning

During the Iraq War, unjustified worries about the Army "breaking" from the strain of war were often conflated with the real problem of the Army becoming "unbalanced." The Army didn't break and now it is restoring balance.

The Army got imbalanced by the needed focus on fighting counter-insurgency wars in Iraq (and later in Afghanistan after the Iraq War was momentarily won). Tank and artillery units lost their skills at conventional warfare as they were focused on fighting insurgents and terrorists. Infantry lost their big war skills, too, but the change was most dramatic with the big-ticket units.

The Army is still regaining balance:

For more than a decade, troops here have been schooled in counterinsurgency.

"Mission-specific" training, they call it: going house to house, busting down doors, rooting out terror cells, recognizing crude explosives.

Now, after a pair of mission-specific wars, an Army in transition aims to get back to the future.

The training needed to fight full-scale, more conventional battles has suffered, Army leaders contend. So Fort Riley is putting soldiers such as Staff Sgt.Gilbert Monroe back into big tanks and simulating wars on a scale grander than Iraq or Afghanistan.

While we don't want to lose institutional knowledge about counterinsurgency, unless our troops regain their edge in conventional fighting, we could find ourselves eating our words about Iraqi troops' lack of a will to fight should we come up short in the first battle of a conventional war.