Back to Business

Well, with the Russians getting all nostalgic for the Cold War, I guess it makes sense to take our nuclear forces more seriously again:

[The] nuclear mission has been underfunded and this has resulted in a shrinkage of billets for units and even those shrunken billets remain unfilled in many cases.

There is a shortage of security personnel. There is a shortage of maintenance people. There is a shortage of those who supervise the nuclear establishment and there is -- has been a very noticeable lack of nuclear expertise.

Over the years, the -- what has been the long-time practice during the Cold War and subsequent years of developing the theory and doctrine of deterrence has more or less disappeared not only from the Air Force schools, more generally from military schools, if -- the doctrine of deterrence has, to a large extent, been forgotten.

And we are dealing with a political condition -- as most of you know, the efficacy of the nuclear deterrent lies in the eyes of the beholder, and that influences both the -- those who are -- we are seeking to deter and more importantly, in a way, those whom we seek to protect.

Finally, with regard to our recommendations, we have a fair number of substantial recommendations for change in the Air Force. In particular, we have -- we recommend that the elements of the nuclear mission be brought together under a major command and that as a consequence that command will be able to interface with U.S. STRATCOM. We suggest that the Air Force Space Command be re-designated as Air Force STRAT and that it be held accountable for the efficacy of the nuclear mission.

Actually, this is hardly a response to Russia although the seriousness of the situation is highlighted by nuclear-armed Russia's recent mid-life crisis.

Let us hope that this new focus keeps nuclear war at bay. I'd rather have a world without nuclear weapons, given our conventional superiority. But if nukes are about, I'd rather we be able to deter as many people as possible from thinking they can take a shot at us and live to tell the tale.

Proof of Idiocy

I've long riduled the notion that fighting al Qaeda in Iraq was a distraction from fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan. One, al Qaeda decided that Iraq was their main front so fighting the jihadis there was only reacting to reality. And two, al Qaeda in Afghanistan was really al Qaeda in Pakistan, and it is folly to think we can fight as we wish there.

So for those who believe that we could have waged a larger war "in Afghanistan" to get bin Laden, which would mean a larger fight in Pakistan's frontier regions, explain how we could have done that given Pakistan's hostile reaction to our very small increase in cross-border attacks this year:

Since Aug. 13, there have been at least seven reported missile strikes as well as a raid by helicopter-borne U.S. commandos that Pakistani officials claim killed 15 civilians in tribally governed territory where the government has little control. The frontier region is considered a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri.

Pakistan's government and military have issued stiff protests to Washington over the recent rash of cross-border strikes, although the criticism appeared to be mostly rhetoric aimed at soothing domestic anger, given that Pakistan has few options for stronger action.

Domestic media have criticized the government for not reacting more strongly, even suggesting the public criticism is just lip service and that a secret deal has been reached with Pakistan's leadership allowing cross-border incursions.

Pakistan army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has denied that and vowed to protect the country's sovereignty "at all cost."

Are you seriously telling me that we could have embarked on a unilateral campaign in Pakistan at any time over the last five years without alienating Pakistan? When this limited operation is drawing such a reaction?

At long last, will you please stop listening to Leftist military advice? They haven't a clue, you know. Don't be distracted by their claims.

Losing in Afghanistan?

Violence is up in Afghanistan and growing numbers of people are saying we are losing there. Admiral Mullen says we are not winning.

I don't see that we are losing. Yes, violence is up. Yes, the enemy has gained sanctuaries inside Pakistan from which they strike us in Afghanistan. That is our real problem and Admiral Mullen recognizes this:

Mullen said he was "looking at a new, more comprehensive strategy for the region" that would cover both sides of the border, including Pakistan's tribal areas.

"These two nations are inextricably linked in a common insurgency that crosses the border between them," Mullen said.

"We can hunt down and kill extremists as they cross over the border from Pakistan ... but until we work more closely with the Pakistani government to eliminate the safe havens from which they operate, the enemy will only keep coming."

Yeah, for about a year I've written that we face a Taliban campaign that encompasses Afghanistan and Pakistan, and not an Afghanistan campaign.

Remember, too, that Afghan forces are stronger and our forces are stronger. We're certainly not about to knock them down as long as the enemy has the Pakistan sanctuary. But the enemy isn't about to knock off the Afghan government, either. It is a higher level of stalemate, but if we can build up Afghanistan's government, economy, and military, eventually it will be able to fight the enemy.

So what is that "more comprehensive" strategy? It can't just be more Predator strikes in Pakistan:

The attacks have sparked an outcry from Pakistani leaders and may have complicated the challenges facing newly elected Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.

Given the Pakistani opposition to even limited American operations in Pakistan, will we directly cultivate the Pakistani tribes to wage what I've called a Lexington Campaign?

If not this, what will we be able to do?

What "Progressives" Do

Active in progressive causes. Other progressives believed he was innocent and just a victim of McCarthyism.

But he, in fact, by his own admission, spied for the Soviet Union:

In 1951, Morton Sobell was tried and convicted with Julius and Ethel Rosenberg on espionage charges. He served more than 18 years in Alcatraz and other federal prisons, traveled to Cuba and Vietnam after his release in 1969 and became an advocate for progressive causes.

Through it all, he maintained his innocence.

But on Thursday, Mr. Sobell, 91, dramatically reversed himself, shedding new light on a case that still fans smoldering political passions. In an interview, he admitted for the first time that he had been a Soviet spy.

And he implicated his fellow defendant Julius Rosenberg, in a conspiracy that delivered to the Soviets classified military and industrial information and what the American government described as the secret to the atomic bomb. ...

Mr. Sobell also concurred in what has become a consensus among historians: that Ethel Rosenberg, who was executed with her husband, was aware of Julius’s espionage, but did not actively participate. “She knew what he was doing,” he said, “but what was she guilty of? Of being Julius’s wife.”

So Sobell was guilty. Julius was guilty. And Ethel knew her husband was betraying America yet let him do it. She was not just "Julius's wife," she was guilty, too.

And yet defenders are unwilling to walk away from condemning America:

The revelations on Thursday “teach us what people will do to get a conviction,” said Bruce Craig, a historian and the former director of the National Coalition for History, a nonprofit educational organization. “They took somebody who they basically felt was guilty and by hook or crook they were going to get a jury to find him guilty.”

Of course, Sobell was guilty. So that has to take some of the sting away from the accusation.

Still, this attitude figures. Progressives don't find any problem with excusing any action that betrays America and condemning America no matter what.

But that's what progressives do, after all.

Why Afghanistan Will Become the Bad War

I've long held that our Left has expressed support for the Afghanistan War because they want to oppose the Iraq War without admitting they simply don't believe we should defend ourselves ever. When the Iraq War dwindles and the Afghanistan War is the only war we have, our Left will hate the Afghanistan War, too.

So if we send more troops to Afghanistan as we draw down in Iraq during the next year, our Left will turn on the war. And this habit of our enemies which is bolstered by the media will be the excuse our Left gives to bail on the troops there:

The enemy routinely exaggerates the number of civilian casualties as propaganda, just pure and simple. They use lies and deceit as an asymmetric strategy. They seek to wear away our partnership with the international community, with NATO and with the Afghan people. We must and we will defend ourselves, and we will continue to do so with restraint, discipline and within the full compliance of the laws of war.

Major General Schoesser has to know that when enemy claims come up against our military's defense of their actions as careful and lawful, our Left will believe the enemy every time.

Have a nice day.

Friends in Need

Russia has not exactly intimidated their neighbors. And we are stepping in to bolster these neighbors who want nothing to do with Russia.

We are sending people to Georgia to prepare Georgia for round two:

[The] Pentagon announced this week that it would send a team to examine the Georgian military's "legitimate needs." It did not say the U.S. would rebuild Georgia's forces, but said Georgia "should have the ability to defend itself and to deter renewed aggression." ...

Speaking to AP in Poti recently, Georgian Defense Minister David Kezerashvili said what Georgia needs is not restoration of lost tanks but an overhaul of its military, focusing on defensive weapons and training of officers for a defensive war.

If the Georgians are ready to defend their nation, we will help them arm and train to do that.

The Ukrainians, too, feel a little vulnerable near the Russians. We are trying to reassure them that they will not be alone if attacked:

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried pledged Friday that the United States would back Ukraine in a territorial dispute.

"The United States, and I daresay Europe as well, support Ukraine's independence, its freedom, its democracy, its right to chose its own future," Fried told reporters after a meeting with his Ukrainian counterpart.

"Our support for Ukraine has only increased as the result of pressure and will only increase if there is pressure from other places," Fried said. "I hope that no one puts Ukraine's territorial integrity into question."

The Russians have created foes where they had potential friends. We need to back them so that Russia is stymied right off the bat in their imperial restoration project. Knock them back and maybe the Russians will come to their senses and put someone in charge who isn't in need of intense psychological counseling to get over their depression about their loss of empire.

Thinking About the War

Progress in winning the war in Iraq is showing up in opinion polls:

Americans are fairly evenly divided as to how history will judge the U.S. mission in Iraq. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that 37% now believe it will be considered a success in the long-term while 41% expect it will be seen as a failure. Twenty percent (20%) are not sure (demographic crosstabs are available for Premium Members).

These figures reflect a stunning turnaround over the past year or so. During the summer of 2007, only 27% believed that history would deem the Iraq mission a success while 56% held the opposite view.

Few Americans are eager for us to lose the war in Iraq. Much of the opposition to the war was based on fearing we would not win and worrying about the cost. Once it is won, those objections will fall away and the only opposition left will be those who think we deserve to lose or believe it would be good in the long run to be humbled by a loss.

You probably didn't hear about this poll in the papers or television news.

Can we at least stop our reporters from calling the Iraq War the "increasingly unpopular war" at long last?

Signs of Life

The Pillsbury Nuke Boy lives:

The South Korean government has confirmed that Kim suffered a stroke but said he is recovering and remains in control of the country. South Korea's National Intelligence Service and the Unification Ministry said they could not comment on the Chosun Ilbo report.

South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted an unnamed government official on Friday as saying the government understands Kim has recovered enough to brush his teeth on his own.

My first thought was that the Dear Leader brushes his own teeth? Horrors! Just what do those Joy Brigade lasses do, anyway?

Of course, he's not really recovered until he can comb his bouffant hairdo on his own.

Irony Lessons

The Russians hoped their display of power over Georgia would cow their neighbors into passive submission to Moscow. Russia's weight in their near abroad would be displayed and Moscow would be on the way to restoring their empire.

So when France's Sarkozy goes to Russia where they will discuss getting Russia out of Georgian territory (except for the separatist regions that Moscow continues to control), this is kind of funny:

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, a champion judoka, could soon be flooring France's Nicolas Sarkozy with some of his famous throws after agreeing to pass on some of his black belt skills to the French president.

Judo uses the weight of your opponents attacks against the attacker himself. By throwing and tripping, you use minimal force to redirect your enemies much larger expenditure of force in a way that hurts the attacker.

Which is kind of funny when you consider that Moscow's display of force against Georgia has been used to strengthen all those neighbors who were supposed to be scared into cooperation with Moscow. Georgia strengthens ties with America. Ukraine and Georgia are eager for NATO membership. The Baltic States support Georgia. The Poles agree to American ballistic missile defenses on their soil with the Czechs agreeing to the radar component. China and central Asian ex-Soviet republics won't back annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Foreign investors are worried about their money in Russia. Even Western Europe is dragged along reluctantly to put at least some pressure on Moscow over the crisis in Georgia despite reliance on Russian natural gas and oil.

Russia's exertion against Georgia has been used against Moscow, and Moscow will find their neighbors less pliant than they were prior to the Olympics.

So just who needs lessons?

International Relations 101

The Left knows nothing about military or international affairs. Why we'd listen to them on anything involving national defense is beyond me.

Exhibit 10,507:

ABC News blares the headline: "GOV. SARAH PALIN WARNS WAR MAY BE NECESSARY IF RUSSIA INVADES ANOTHER COUNTRY", and lefty bloggers are acting as if Palin were Dr. Strangelove in high heels.

Sigh.

OK, let's go over this slowly.

1. Allies defend their allies.
2. So if Georgia is our ally, we would consider defending them.
3. NATO is a military alliance.
4. America is a member of NATO.
5. If Georgia joined NATO, that would make Georgia an ally of America.

Now stay with me here, because I know for some who don't understand anything about international relations, that this leap in logic will be difficult.

So, if Georgia joins NATO, a military alliance with all the consequences that you'd expect from an "alliance," which is an alliance that America already belongs to, then if Russia attacked Georgia, ... then?

Come on! SAY IT!! SAAAY IT!!



That's right, you know the answer. Don't be shy. If America and Georgia are members of the same military alliance and Russia attacks Georgia, then America would logically consider defending Georgia--which would mean we'd be at war with Russia.

Debate Georgian membership in NATO, by all means. But get a clue about what joining NATO means.

And don't forget that Russia has to contemplate war with America if they invade Georgia again. And if you don't believe we could deter Russia, don't even talk to me about our ability to deter Iran.

On the other hand, maybe I'm being unfair to the intellect of our Leftists. Maybe our Left is just reflecting how little alliances mean to them and that they really are shocked about the idea that we'd defend friends we're pledged to help.

That's another problem altogether, of course, but not a reasoning issue.

Where's bin Waldo?

We haven't found Osama bin Laden. We think he is somewhere in Pakistan's frontier area. We have no real evidence that he is there, however.

We kind of assume he is there. And we keep looking from afar.

Why do we assume this? I'd think that after seven years we'd have gotten a solid lead. Maybe taken a shot even if we missed. But apparently we've had nothing.

So what if Osama is long gone from Pakistan? Doesn't that make far more sense than assuming that a tall Arab has managed to disguise himself and move around inside Pakistan?

Maybe he really is dead.

Maybe he's in Iran.

Heck, maybe he's in Russia. Maybe the Russians decided to store Osama away in case they need him.

These days I wouldn't put anything past those paranoid freaks.

That's a fanciful speculation, I admit. But the point is, why assume Osama is successfully hiding inside Pakistan's tribal areas?

UPDATE: I meant to link to this article as prompting my speculation:

Frustrated by repeated dead ends in the search for Osama bin Laden, U.S. and Pakistani officials said they are questioning long-held assumptions about their strategy and are shifting tactics to intensify the use of the unmanned but lethal Predator drone spy plane in the mountains of western Pakistan. ...

Today, seven years after he masterminded the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, bin Laden is believed to wear disguises routinely and takes extreme care to avoid electronic communications, relying on human couriers to pass messages, officials said.

The article speaks of critical resources being denied to the hunt, but the reaction of Pakistan to our slightly more aggressive posture in the border region should show that this argument is and always has been ridiculous.

Further, we really don't know if bin Laden is in the area. We "believe" he is.

I say we double the reward for Osama to $50 million. And then announce the reward will drop $5 million on the first of every month until it reaches $5 million. Then it will remain there. Oh, and we'll announce that the reward is only available for his corpse.

We'd get a burst of interest by associates of bin Laden in cashing in as well as a deadline for the big pay off. And we'd reduce his stature by lowering the reward.

At War

We remain at war.

Remember why.



From: http://nymag.com/news/articles/wtc/gallery/

And here:



From.

And the crew and passengers on United Flight 93 who fought back on that first day and died at Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Remember the anger you felt that day.

Remember that anger and focus it on killing our jihadi enemies and those who would help them.

Don't let time diminish that anger. We can't afford that luxury yet.

Don't forget that we are at war against scum who celebrate 9/11 and would do it again and again if their sick version of their god would grant them that privilege.

We are at war and we have many jihadi enemies left to kill. Let's get on with it.

Never forget.

Buh Bye

Kim Jong-Il's absence from public view is prompting speculation of what comes next:

The identity of the next leader of North Korea and the security of his hold on power are emerging as topics of intense speculation in defense ministries and intelligence headquarters around the world after reports suggesting that the Hermit Kingdom's leader, Kim Jong Il, has suffered a stroke.

It isn't just Kim's status, of course, that fuels speculation. North Korea is teetering on the edge whether or not the daring porcupine's hand is on the helm guiding the ship of state.

Of course, an orderly succession is hardly guaranteed. Will it be a status quo successor? Will it be a pro-Chinese successor who wants to try the China model? Or will there be a collapse?

And remember, a collapse can be either a regime collapse or a nation collapse.

Don't wring your hands over the demise of the regime. It is a good thing. The regime deserves to die. Don't get confused and think that saving the regime is the right thing to do because of the possible effects of a collapse.

Just be ready to cope with the end.

Not Your Grandfather's Soviet Union

More discussion of why Russia did not win the war despite winning on the battlefield of Georgia.

Missing the Effing Point

Lord, give me strength.

I've often complained about the unhealthy obsession some of our diplomats and Nuanced Americans have for talking with thug dictators over results. These people forget that talks are rarely an end to themselves but should be focused on an objective.

So we find ourselves talking to the North Koreans because their psychopathic despot, Kim Jong-Il, wants nuclear weapons and has threatened South Korea with destruction. And he eyes our West Coast cities, too. We naturally want to get nukes away from Kim.

So now we hear rumors that Kim is ill and dying or possibly dead.

Given the situation, I'd say that Kim Jong-Il's death would be a good thing.

But I am neither a Nuanced American nor a diplomat. You see, if I was, I'd have this insight on the situation:

U.S. officials said privately they were concerned that Kim's apparently failing health jeopardized six-nation talks aimed at ridding North Korea of its nuclear weapons. The United States has been a wary partner in those talks, but their success is one of the Bush administration's signature foreign policy goals.

Do you have to be a knuckle-dragger like I am to understand that if you are in difficult talks with a nutball dictator to pry nuclear arms from his possession, that it is actually superior if the nutball dictator dies rather than hoping said nutball dictator lives a long and healthy life so you can negotiate with him to convince him to give up nuclear weapons?

And if you are telling me that denuclearization depends on Kim's and only Kim's good will, why would we make an agreement that relies on that one sickly thug despot?

Is this concept that hard to understand?

More for the Lost and Found Bin

The Russians have more material to plant evidence the next time they commit an act of aggression:

Russian forces seized U.S. military equipment during the recent fighting in Georgia in addition to five vehicles whose capture was reported earlier, the Pentagon said Monday.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Russian troops broke open two large shipping containers in the Georgian port of Poti and "pilfered" the contents. Sensitive communications and electronics equipment used by U.S. forces during a joint U.S.-Georgia military exercise prior to the Aug. 8 incursion had already been shipped out of the port, he added.

I wouldn't count on getting this stuff back. Russia finds it too useful.

A Degree of Difference

One of my main issues with our Left has been their blind refusal to recognize that brutal enemies are trying to kill us and their failure to understand that we don't deserve to be attacked by these barbarians.

Juan Cole, demonstrates this inability to distinguish good from evil:

John McCain announced that he was running for president to confront the "transcendent challenge" of the 21st century, "radical Islamic extremism," contrasting it with "stability, tolerance and democracy." But the values of his handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers. On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God's will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather
than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts. What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick.

Our Left can "understand" why our enemies want to blow us up and behead us. But they can't understand fellow Americans who aren't Leftists.

You don't have to like or approve of Palin to have the common sense to see the difference between non-Leftist Americans and jihadi head-loppers. But many on the Left really do have difficulty distinguishing the two.

Heck, I once had an angry Lefty emailer arguing I was more dangerous to America than al Qaeda because I was "over here" and al Qaeda was safely overseas. Leftists really think this way. Cole's statement is what Our Leftists pretend is nuanced, big-brained reasoning abilities, unhindered by any clingy tendencies toward God or guns.

Of course, Cole's question poses another: What is the difference between a raving idiot and this doctor professor of history? A degree.

Clearing Away the Debris

Russia will pull their forces out of Georgia, leaving forces only in the separatist enclaves that Russia recognized as independent:

Russia agreed on Monday to completely withdraw its troops from Georgia's heartland within a month, but there was no commitment to scale back its military presence in two Georgian separatist regions. ...

"As for recognition, for us that issue is closed. From the point of view of international law, for us two new states have appeared," Medvedev said, standing alongside Sarkozy.

Medvedev said the deal on Russian troops withdrawals was made possible after the EU, represented by rotating president France, offered guarantees that pro-Western Georgia would refrain from any use of force against its separatist regions.

Actually, I don't worry about the separatist regions. Good riddance. Georgia will find this unexpected favor by Moscow paves the way for their NATO membership.

I imagine that the main obstacle to Georgia's entry into NATO was the worry that the enclaves would spark a NATO-Russia war should Georgia attempt to retake them. Were I god of NATO, I'd insist that Georgia renounce the use of force to recover the provinces. Tbilisi doesn't have to accept or recognize Russia's actions, but they can't expect NATO, a defensive alliance, to go to war to retrieve people who want to leave Georgia.

So, freed of the obsession of regaining lost lands, Georgia can focus on building up their conventional defenses, their democracy, and their economy, as part of the NATO-defended West.

In a generation, the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia will be begging to rejoin Georgia and become part of the prosperous West.

Not the Real War They're Expecting

It seems that we will increase our efforts in Afghanistan in the new year. Our Left should be happy since they've spent several years telling us that this is where the real war on terror is.

Our current operations in Pakistan demonstrate the problem of relying on special forces and missile strikes to wage war in a hostile environment. Without the atomizing effect of lots of conventional forces (as our surge provided in Iraq), special forces raids cannot do more than disrupt the enemy who retain relatively large regeneration capability. They are, as the story below tells, just "shots in the dark." Persistent presence provides more and better intelligence to drive the strikes.

So our recent increase in activity across the border is puzzling:

In the last two weeks, the military has begun launching ground assaults in the Pakistani border provinces known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, American intelligence and military officials said. The region is believed by American and Pakistani intelligence to be hosting the leadership of Al Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden.

While American special forces and military contractors have conducted raids in Pakistan, such actions were rare and required Cabinet-level approval. In July, the leadership of Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was given the sole authority to approve ground assaults in Pakistan. Late last month, the American military began launching ground attacks in the country on a near daily basis, depending on local conditions and intelligence, according to a military official who requested anonymity.

The escalation in Pakistan is due in part to the incoming leader of Central Command, General David Petraeus, who has been credited with changing the course of the Iraq war and is said to have the full trust of President Bush. Before formally taking the reins at Central Command, General Petraeus began meeting in June with Pakistani political leaders to develop an effective strategy for combating Al Qaeda in the border provinces.

I suspected that the promotion of Petraeus would change things in the Taliban Campaign that straddles the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. I noted those June talks that seemed to telegraph a move into the tribal areas of Pakistan. But more raids into Pakistan without disrupting the Taliban and al Qaeda sanctuary will not win us anything, and just risk a Blackhawk Down bloody nose, surrounded by hostiles with few friendly force nearby to help.

And even three more American combat brigades don't give us the strength to invade and pacify the frontier region--even if Pakistani public opinion would tolerate that move. And I still worry about supplying more troops in Afghanistan. Just what are we going to do with more troops in Afghanistan? Remember that the Iraq surge was about new tactics for a changed situation and not just more troops doing the same thing.

Does General Petraeus have more in mind? Something more novel, with our forces in Pakistan being the anvil to Pakistan's tribal hammer, the way our surge in Baghdad was the hammer to Anbar's anvil?

Our Left likes to say the real war is along the Afghanistan border. They're going to get their war in 2009. I dare say they'll learn to hate that war as much as they hate the Iraq War.

Yawn

Russia wants to lash back for our Black Sea naval deployment to support Georgia.

So they're heading for our backyard:

Russia said on Monday it would send a heavily-armed nuclear-powered cruiser to the Caribbean for a joint naval exercise with Venezuela, its first major maneuvers on the United States' doorstep since the Cold War.

Russian officials denied the mission was in any way linked to a naval standoff with U.S warships in the Black Sea, but it will take place at a time of high tension between Moscow and Washington over the conflict in Georgia.

Russia has criticized the United States for sending a command ship and two other naval vessels to Georgia, on its southern border, to deliver aid and show support for President Mikheil Saakashvili after Moscow sent troops into Georgia.

Yeah. Wow. Russians training with the Venezuelans.

Once, during the Cold War, a Soviet force in the Carribbean Sea could have delayed our reinforcements to NATO Europe long enough to win the war there.

Today? Please. A Russian squadron in the Caribbean Sea would lead a short and exciting life in the face of our 4th Fleet and land-based air power.

So welcome to the Caribbean Sea. Enjoy your stay. I hope your ships don't break down or sink in a hurricane.