Thursday, March 19, 2009

The New Enemy

Remember that our job in Iraq isn't over. We've done a lot just to destroy Saddam's regime, defeat Iran's attempt to subver the government, and defeat al Qaeda's attempt to set up shop in the country. But if Iraq is to emerge as a secure democracy and serve as an example to the people of the region suffering under autocratic misrule, we have much to do still:

Iraqis know they are in a position to show the way, to an era of better government, and the freedoms and prosperity that flows from that. Iraqis know they have problems with religion, tribalism and corruption. Iraqis know what they are up against. Do you?


Strategypage has been consistent in making this warming. They're right. Read it all.

Relative to the price we've paid to get this far, the price we need to pay to entrench rule of law should be one we'd gladly pay. But who knows if we will?

Live and Learn

I thought Israel fought much better against Hamas recently than they did against Hezbollah in 2006, but that Israel fell short of actually waging war by stopping the battle too soon.

It seems the Israelis now agree:

Israeli military and intelligence officials talk openly of "finishing" the military operations against Hamas. The January 18 ceasefire is considered just that, and it's expected that Hamas intransigence during any negotiations will result in a deadlock and the resumption of fighting. The second round is expected to be a death match, with no end until the Hamas leadership is captured or killed, and Hamas weapons (especially the thousands of rockers) captured or destroyed.


I wonder how smart diplomacy will play out over this.

Bloody Fools. The Whole Lot of Them

The Russians could have been our allies but instead they provoke a Cold War Lite by seeking security in geography (from Stratfor email):

Its core, the Moscow region, boasts no geographic barriers to invasion. Russia must thus expand its borders to create the largest possible buffer for its core, which requires forcibly incorporating legions of minorities who do not see themselves as Russian. The Russian government estimates that about 80 percent of Russia’s approximately 140 million people are actually ethnically Russian, but this number is somewhat suspect, as many minorities define themselves based on their use of the Russian language, just as many Hispanics in the United States define themselves by their use of English as their primary language. Thus, ironically, attaining security by creating a strategic buffer creates a new chronic security problem in the form of new populations hostile t o Moscow’s rule. The need to deal with the latter problem explains the development of Russia’s elite intelligence services, which are primarily designed for and tasked with monitoring the country’s multiethnic population.


And what price is Russia paying for this buffer? The Russians may have deluded themselves into thinking their recent bluster has halted NATO expansion, but they've only given NATO a reason to exist. Moscow achieved what may be only a temporary tactical victory at the price of strategic defeat.

Consider that NATO is no threat to Moscow. NATO's military couldn't march into Russia. It can barely support 30,000 or so semi-fighting troops in Afghanistan. Even as NATO expanded east, many in NATO debated whether the alliance was worth the effort. By the time of the Kosovo War in 1999, many wondered why NATO existed and argued that the fate of NATO hung on that war against Serbia.

And Europe is no fan of fighting in Afghanistan under the NATO banner. If European NATO countries had continued to see NATO as a body that drags Europe into wars it doesn't want to fight, NATO would not have lasted. The parallel European defense structure--a structure that America could not influence--would have eclipsed NATO.

If Russia had continued to behave like a developing ex-communist ally, NATO would have dissolved or atrophied. Instead, beginning with the 1999 march on Pristina airport after the Kosovo War to carve out a Russian occupation zone, and continuing through the Georgia Olympics War of 2008, with sabre rattling over the Baltic States, Ukraine, and European energy supplies thrown in as bonuses, Russia has given Europe a reason to keep NATO--with America in the lead--intact.

So all Russia has done with their so-called revival is alienate potential allies in NATO should the real threat to Russian territorial integrity--China--decide to act to reverse those unequal treaties that gave the far east to Russia.

But the fools in the Kremlin have figuratively stripped to the waist, strutted about, and convinced themselves that they're back!

Despite the talk of a rising, rearmed, aggressive, Russia, the Russians are declining. A death rattle is not evidence of life.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Our Left's Backdoor Fantasies

The Left will soon lose one of their fantasy complaints--that we have a "backdoor draft" for our troops:

The Army this summer will start cutting back on use of the unpopular practice of holding troops beyond their enlistment dates and hopes to almost completely eliminate it in two years.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, though, that it may never be possible to completely get rid of the policy called "stop-loss," under which some 13,000 soldiers whose time is already up are still being forced to continue serving.

"I believe that when somebody's end date of service comes, to hold them against their will, if you will, is just not the right thing to do," he said, noting that officials will still retain the legal power to involuntarily extend soldiers' service if needed.

"I felt, particularly in these numbers, that it was breaking faith," Gates told a Pentagon news conference.

He said that he hoped any future use after 2011 would only be in "scores, not thousands."

Critics have called "stop-loss" a backdoor draft because it keeps troops in the military beyond the end of their enlistment or retirement dates. But the military has said it's a necessary tool to keep unit cohesion in times of war and to keep soldiers with certain skills needed in those units.



This was all about unit cohesion. Keeping key personnel in a unit that is deploying to a combat zone saves American lives by making sure the unit is more effective. Period.

And every soldier knows that their period of enlistment includes many years of reserve duty that can be turned into active duty at the discretion of the military. That's what stop-loss is. It is not extending service beyond the end of their enlistment. It is changing reserve duty (inlcuding retired reserve duty) to active duty. Do I blame soldiers for not liking stop loss? Hell no. And I hope we find we can do away with it because we can properly staff units that will deploy with personnel whose terms of active service won't end during the deployment overseas.

Do you really think that the Army, was forced to "draft" soldiers for lack of numbers? Recruiting and retention have been amazingly good during this war. And the stop-loss policy affected 13,000 soldiers this last year. The affected soldiers could be there another year or another month. Let's call it 6 months on average, so that is really the equivalent of 6,500 soldiers for a year. Are you really saying this was done for the sake of 6,500 bodies?

The people claiming this was a backdoor draft are idiots. Not that they aren't perfectly capable of dreaming up another mythical crime against humanity to chant about.

UPDATE: Secretary Gates explains it well:

It wasn't a violation of the enlistment contract. But I believe that when somebody's end date of service comes up, to hold them against their will, if you will, is just not the right thing to do. And so it has been a focus, for most of the time that I've been here. And I get regular reports on it. And all the arrows were pointing in the wrong direction for a long time.

But I just felt that there will always, probably always be a need to do this with a relatively small number of people who have special skills. But I would like to get it down to scores, not thousands.


Unfortunately, lives are theortetically at risk with this decision:

In addition, the Army will begin a number of incentive programs to encourage additional soldiers to voluntarily extend their enlistments and thus mitigate the impact this change may have on unit strength and unit cohesion.


So we'll ask needed soldiers to stay but won't make them stay. While this may be an acceptable risk for most Iraq-bound units where the environment is less threatening, this is not appropriate for units going to Mosul or Afghansitan where the threats are far higher.

War is certainly about weighing various risks. I don't see how ending stop loss is anything but a political decision when weighing the fairness to individual soldiers who are retained legally against the lives of others who will die without the stop-lossed soldiers.

Defeating Taiwan from Within

All the talk of the difficulty China would have invading Taiwan assumes that the Taiwanese resolutely resist with their available forces.

But what if Taiwan isn't willing to defend itself?

Consider the population as a whole:

China has claimed sovereignty over Taiwan since the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949. Beijing has vowed to bring the island under mainland rule, by force if necessary, but ties have improved vastly since China-friendly Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou came to power in May.

China has sought to win hearts in Taiwan, a strategy for eventual unification, by helping Ma honour a campaign pledge to revitalise his economy by letting in a daily maximum of 3,000 visitors from China.


After decades of living under the looming colossus on the mainland, is the false thaw that is a mere tactic for China making it too difficult for the Taiwanese to rapidly shift mental gears to a war footing?

And what of Taiwan's rulers?

President Ma Ying-jeou's efforts to build a diverse communal coalition have taken a hit after an official was alleged to have called Taiwan's majority population "primitive" and suggested China should use force to seize the island.

The affair is a huge embarrassment to Ma, who has worked hard to unite Taiwan's fractious communal groups to support his ambitious China engagement program, despite continuing Chinese threats to take over democratic Taiwan by force.


This is merely an "embarrassment?" Say whatever you want about our current leaders, but "clinging to God and guns" pales in comparison to this sentiment.

If the Taiwanese people are too charmed to feel the need to resist an invasion and the leaders of Taiwan don't want to resist, how large and sophisticated would a Chinese invasion have to be?

I know it seems like I'm unreasonably convinced China will attack Taiwan when they haven't so far and seem to be on their best behavior. But I cannot imagine that China can become a true global power with a hostile Taiwan allied to America acting as a figurative stopper in the bottle for Chinese naval power projection. And every year the balance of power in the Taiwan Strait tilts toward China. Am I really unreasonable?

UPDATE: Thanks to The View from Taiwan for the link. We probably disagree on most things outside of bolstering Taiwan to resist China, but for on-the-scene commentary on Taiwan he is indispensable.

Just when I was beginning to lose hope for sanity, an emergency shipment of reality arrived. We'll see if the Taiwanese are in the mood for such reality.

Next Step: Happy Islamist Friends!

Mark Steyn notes this interview with Homeland Defense Secretary Napolitano. This is classic:

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.


"Man-caused" disasters. It's almost like terrorism is our fault for not having construction codes calling for blast resistant buildings. Now that's nuance.

God help us all, but we're really not that far from calling terrorists "happy Islamist friends" in the name of nuance.

Proof We Won in Iraq

I have a date in mind to declare as victory day in Iraq. But I want to wait until June before being bold enough to proclaim it, if justified. Victory in a war like this can only be determined looking backwards. Even June will only be useful for the narrow battlefield definition of victory. Years and decades will be needed to see if we really won.

Consider that the Persian Gulf War is seen as a quick win, with the signal even being the ejection of the Iraqi army from Kuwait. While a clear battlefield victory, the Iraq War of 2003 showed that the victory of 1991 was but a ceasefire in the war. A continuing pro-American Iraq will show we truly won the war begun in August 1990. An Iraq that inspires democracy in other parts of the Arab world, even if it takes decades to bear fruit, will show that Iraq was a successful battle in the larger battle against Islamo-fascism. Time will tell.

But we do have evidence to prove we won the military victory in Iraq:

The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.


How is this proof? Easy. Those on the left side of the aisle have a tendency, as a group, to disparage military service (certainly those on the right have a tendency, as a group, to disparage community organizing). These people on the left see our military personnel as victims. Victims of a society that left them no choice but to join the military; victims stuck in Iraq because they had no civilian options; and victims of war unlawfully waged.

As long as the soldiers were viewed as victims, liberals were willing to shower benefits on them. Recall the talk back when the Left-led attempt to retreat from Iraq was in full bloom. Then, no expense was too great for our poor victim soldiers sent to die in a Vietnam-on-the-Tigris.

But our troops turned out not to be defeated victims, but victorious soldiers, Marines, airmen, and sailors who won when the nuanced said they must fail. Stripped of victimhood, these victors who showed the Nuanced Americans they were wrong about Iraq became fair game for budget wars. And so the proposal to make them pay for the wounds they suffered while winning George W. Bush's hated war did not raise an eyebrow before it was released.

If this isn't proof enough, consider this:



Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/aig_outrage



See those Code Pink hags camera-whoring over the AIG bonuses? Code Pink used to protest the Iraq War. Now they're on to another cause. Perhaps they are just cleansing the pink palate before going on to protesting the Afghanistan War.

I'll still wait until June to determine if we won on November 27, 2008, but the signs of victory in Iraq continue to accumulate.

37mm Mouth

Hugo Chavez isn't reacting to the era of hope the way he's supposed to:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Tuesday that he is preparing plenty of verbal "artillery" for his first encounter with President Barack Obama at an upcoming summit.

Chavez — long a fierce critic of Washington — said he expects that the future of U.S. relations with Latin America will begin to take shape at April's summit of leaders from across the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago.

"Our artillery is being prepared. There's going to be good artillery," Chavez said during a televised Cabinet meeting.


Keep this schtick up, Hugo buddy, and you won't get a classic movies DVD set.

Just keep chanting "la esperanza y el cambio" and all will become clear to you.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Birds Gotta Sing

The good war is now bad (Thanks to Mad Minerva for the heads up):

It was probably inevitable that the American left would turn sharply against the war in Afghanistan the moment it was politically opportune. Still, the speed with which it has done so has been breathtaking.

Time was when the received bipartisan and trans-Atlantic wisdom about Afghanistan was that it was the necessary war, the good war, the no-choice-but-to-fight and can't-afford-to-lose war, and that not least of everything that made the invasion and occupation of Iraq such arrant folly was that it distracted us from "finishing the job" in the place where the attacks of 9/11 were conceived and planned.


I've been calling this change for years. When the only war we have is Afghanistan, the Left will protest the only war they have to protest, no matter what they need to do to justify their switch.

This development, on the bright side, is probably the best confirmation of all that we've essentially won in Iraq. Being pro-war on Afghanistan was always about pretending to be willing to defend our nation despite opposing the Iraq War. Now, what's the point of getting too worked up over Iraq when our casualties are dropping and Iraq is safer and more optimistic about their future?

And when our combat brigades are on way out, anyway, having held off the enemy onslaughts that tried to trigger civil war in Iraq, the Left doesn't get the same harangue for the buck. Hand puppets aren't cheap, ya know.

President Obama will have far more support for the war in Iraq from the conservative side of the aisle than the Left. Many liberals supported President Clinton's Balkan and Middle East adventures. We shall see how they hold up to being hammered from the Left for being pro-war.

The Buchanan Right will surely oppose the fight in Afghanistan. They were not quite muted during the Bush presidency and will see no need to hold back criticism now. But they will be marginalized by our media as they always have been.

The key will be how our Left protests the Afghanistan War, how the press covers the war (and this isn't encouraging) and protests, and how Democrats and liberals who backed President Obama respond to both.

Oh, and of course how President Obama reacts to all of this. He must command and not lead a late night college bull session on the course of the war. One thing I was always frustrated about in President Bush was his failure to hammer the need to fight all the time. He made better decisions than conventional wisdom credits him--enough to win in Iraq and more--but his oratory was only occasionally adequate. President Obama, at least, should have the oratory down.

A Sign!

Canadian leftists protested President Bush when he went to Calgary to give a speech. Their chants and strange beliefs were little different from our own Left's views:

"He is a war criminal who fought an illegal war, and there are some who say he was never elected democratically, so there are some who say he should be arrested as soon as he comes here," said a woman dressed as a Guantanamo Bay prisoner, who called herself Ivana Nomobush.


But the Canadians did add a bizarre twist:

She had brought with her a makeshift "shoe cannon" that catapulted footwear, but complained that security personnel were not letting her use it.

The shoe theme is an homage to Iraqi reporter Muntazer al-Zaidi, who was sentenced last week to three years in prison for hurling his shoes at Bush in December.


What's with the strange shoe fetish? It is strangely familiar...

No, not the al-Zaidi thing. I'm sure that seemed clever at the late-night, bong-fueled strategy session. No, I'm thinking pure comedy gold:



Gather shoes in a bundle! Follow the shoe!

I've Got Good News and Bad News

The current financial crisis, while painful for us and for individual Western governments, could be fatal to the autocrats in Russia, China, Venezuela, and Iran:


The Great Depression fed dangerous new autocratic ideologies like fascism and communism; a second Great Depression could destroy them. While the economic crisis will cause untold human suffering in these and other countries, it is quite possible that, on the other side of it, we will see the end of that distinctive phenomenon of the late 1990s and early 21st century: the growth autocracy. And that, at least, would bring some light to a financial dark age.


While it is difficult not to be happy with this possible development, remember that the autocracies may not go down willingly. Will such regimes seek to bolster their stability by provoking a foreign conflict?

And nuclear-armed regimes in a death throe could be particularly dangerous.

Run for the Border

I was going to post something about the Obama administration undermining Mexico by reducing aid to fight the drug cartels. With a different title, naturally.

But this article gives me pause about what I read:

The U.S. government is working on an integrated plan to address Mexico's escalating war with drug traffickers and could complete work on the initiative as early as this week, a top U.S. military official said on Tuesday.

Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, who oversees U.S. military interests on both sides of the U.S.-Mexican border as the head of Northern Command, told the Senate that the plan would likely involve all agencies of government including law enforcement and the military.


So, good. I'll give the president the benefit of the doubt on this. Good for him. This could be a serious and expensive problem if we don't help now when the problem is solvable at a more manageable price.

Business Before Pleasure

The Russians plan to upgrade their military and blame the grave threat of NATO to justify their move:

The Kremlin has fiercely opposed NATO's plans to put Ukraine and Georgia on a track to membership. Russian officials have voiced hope that the Obama administration would drop the alliance's expansion plans and also cancel the previous administration's plan to deploy missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech republic.

Russia's windfall oil wealth over the last decade allowed the Kremlin to nearly quadruple its defense spending and start upgrading aging arsenals. The financial crisis has raised doubts about the government's ability to meet the military modernization goals, but Medvedev pledged that weapons orders won't be cut.

Military officials have said the government budgeted 1.5 trillion rubles ($43 billion) for weapons purchases this year, about 25 percent of it to be spent on upgrading the nation's aging, Soviet-era nuclear force.

"Let me mention the top priorities. The main one is a qualitative increase in the troops readiness, primarily of strategic nuclear forces. They must guarantee the fulfillment of all tasks of ensuring Russia's security," Medvedev said.

The military has said it will use the money to put more than 10 new intercontinental ballistic missiles on duty by year's end — a much faster pace of deployment than in previous years. It also intends to complete tests of the Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile and put it into service by the year's end.

Russian leaders have boasted of the submarine-launched missile's capability to penetrate missile defenses and have described it as the core of the military's future nuclear arsenal. But the Bulava has failed in five of its 10 test launches. Some experts blamed the failures on manufacturing flaws.

Medvedev encouraged the military Tuesday to focus more on new weapons purchases than repairs of the existing arsenals, saying that new orders were essential for keeping the nation's military industries afloat during the financial crisis.


The idea that NATO is a threat to Russia when the entire non-United States NATO can't put together the small NATO Response Force is laughable.

Of course, Medvedev's remarks about focusing on new purchases gives the game away. This isn't so much about defense as preserving the defense industry.

The Weekly Standard explains:

The fortunes of the Russian defense industrial sector at present make AIG and Bank of America look like the financial picture of health. The Russian industrial conglomerate umbrella company, Rostekhnologia (ROT) that has monopoly control over the entirety of the nation's defense industry is headed by Sergei Chemezov. He is also a life-long--and perhaps the number one--FOV (Friend of Vladimir Putin) in the Russian government, the two having first befriended one another when they served together in the former East German Democratic Republic (GDR) as KGB officers during the waning days of the Cold War. ...

A long-time Moscow colleague who has analyzed Russia's defense industry for the last three decades commented this month on these consequences of the Russian government's many years of post-Soviet, chronic neglect of the need for technology investment in the defense sector. "Very simply," he said, "we are now moving to the point where there will be no Russian defense industry that is on par with the front-line nations of the west that have a sizeable industry, and in some sectors or technologies Russian industry will even be inferior to Chinese industry."


So, is it the NATO threat or a Friend of Putin's bank account in peril?

About That Foot in the Door

Mainland tour groups are starting to flood into Taiwan. This is poetically fitting:

The 1,600 Amway workers were the first batch of over 12,000 Chinese Amway employees expected to visit Taiwan on nine separate cruises between March 16 and May 10, on incentive sightseeing tours arranged by Chinese Amway (China) Co., Limited for its outstanding workers.

This will be the largest ever contingent from China to visit Taiwan since last June, when Taiwan increased its daily quota of Chinese tourists to 3,000.

To expedite entry procedures at the Keelung Harbor for the Amway groups, five officials with Keelung's Boarder Affairs Corps under the National Immigration Agency went to Shanghai over the weekend where they boarded the cruise ship, Legend of the Seas, to check the travel documents of the passengers heading for Taiwan.

Upon arrival in Keelung, the 1,600 Chinese Amway workers boarded 40 tourism buses that took them to Taipei City, where they were scheduled to visit the famous National Palace Museum and the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall and then go shopping in the upscale Hsinyi District.

Before returning to the Legend of the Seas for the night, they are scheduled to visit the Keelung night market, where they will sample typical Taiwanese snacks and spend coupons given to them by Amway Taiwan.

The tourists are expected to go on sightseeing tours to Hualien Harbor in eastern Taiwan Tuesday and to Taichung Harbor in central Taiwan Wednesday.


Does anybody not know that you should never let Amway salesmen in your house lest they never leave?

Expedited movement of 3,000 tourists per day in organized groups to the capital and to Taiwanese ports are being practiced. If the tour groups stop being Amway and senior citizen groups and suddenly consist of sports teams whose members are unusually quiet and fit, with short hair cuts, I'd be suspicious. If Taiwan had to allow tourists, couldn't it be done on an individual basis to minimize the chance that Peking will ship over special forces troops in civilian clothes?

That Amway tour would be a convenient itinerary for assault troops, no? Imagine several days of such tour groups arriving, sporting short hair cuts and suspiciously almost all male, spreading out across key Taiwanese ports and Taepei? Nine thousand men would be about 20 light infantry battalions. If the PLA stocks warehouses on Taiwan with weapons and equipment, the first wave suddenly materializes. If they can hold the ports long enough, other hidden invaders could land quickly.

So just what could China do with a first wave on the ground before the first Taiwanese orders to resist a Chinese attack are even given?

Dispatching the Navy

So what is that Axis of El Vil freak show up to?

President Hugo Chavez on Sunday dispatched the navy to Venezuela's seaports, warning that state governors who challenge a new law bringing transportation hubs under federal control could end up in prison.

Speaking during his weekly television and radio program, Chavez ordered naval vessels to seize control this week of Port Cabello in Carabobo state and Maracaibo Port in Zulia state — two of Venezuela's largest seaports.


We and the Dutch might want to discuss the issue of joint training in their Dutch West Indies colonies near Venezuela.

Monday, March 16, 2009

A Symptom of the Problem

Our supply line to Afghanistan through Pakistan was attacked again:

Up to 50 militants attacked a terminal for trucks carrying supplies to U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan early Monday, in the second such assault in northwest Pakistan in two days.


Not that these attacks are in themselves terribly significant:

U.S. and NATO officials insist the attacks have little impact on their operations, but are looking at ways to bring more supplies into Afghanistan through Central Asia.


True. I've said as much in the past. But if the occasional attacks have little impact themselves, the problem they represent is potentially of decisive impact. If not, why look for alternative supply lines--through Russia and Iran?

The attacks are important because they hint of the instability in Pakistan that could lead to the complete cut off of this vital line of supply. The state could collapse. Or the government might seek to avoid collapse by seeking jihadi support through a policy that ends Pakistan's alliance with America.

We'd best be thinking hard about the fate of all those new troops in Afghanistan.

Greetings, Earthlings

Fareed Zakaria continues his letters to the Earthlings from whatever planet he lives on. the headline says it all:

Obama has made striking moves to fix U.S. foreign policy—and that has set off a chorus of criticism.


Yeah, keeping us safe since 9/11 and liberating 50 million people by destroying two of our enemies required fixing. And my survey of the world during the Bush administration certainly showed we had friends and allies contrary to the caricature of the nuanced about the effects of Bush's foreign policy.

"Fixing" our foreign policy seems to involve snubbing or slighting our allies (Brazil, Colombia, Britain, the Czech Republic, Poland, The Baltic states, Georgia, Ukraine, India, Pakistan, India, Taiwan, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan, to name a few I can think of off the top of my head) either with sloppiness or by reaching out to their enemies.

How is sucking up to enemies and throwing allies under the bus "fixing" our foreign policy?

In the Land of Zakaria, anything is possible.

Zakaria should really just get a room if it is going to be all leg tingles, all the time, in his analysis of the Obama presidency.

Huh

This polling must have been tough for ABC to publish. Well, at least they didn't have to report in back in the fall or anything:

Dramatic advances in public attitudes are sweeping Iraq, with declining violence, rising economic well-being and improved services lifting optimism, fueling confidence in public institutions and bolstering support for democracy.


Our self-proclaimd, nuanced Left, in their condemnation of liberating Iraqis from Saddam's tender mercies, always liked to assert that you can't impose democracy with force of arms.

But I guess force of arms can defend the opportunity for people to support democracy.

Perhaps that is thinking too nuanced for them.

Interesting Fact

This article on Indian-Chinese naval competition is fine. I certainly can't disagree that the Indian Ocean balance between India and China is significant and that India is our budding ally. But I think the land balance between the two should not be minimized.

The article backs its focus on the sea with this often-cited fact:

But with 75 percent of the earth's population living within 200 miles of the sea, the world's military future may well be dominated by naval (and air) forces operating over vast regions. And to a greater extent than the other armed services, navies exist to protect economic interests and the system in which these interests operate.


It is true enough, I suppose, to say that 75% of the earth's population live within 200 miles of the sea. I'd also like to point out that 100% of those people living within 200 miles of the sea live on land. That's an equally interesting fact, no? And to a greater extent than the other armed services, armies exist to protect (or conquer, if you will) the land, its resources, and the people on it. We do not control the seas in order to control the seas.

I'm certainly a strong supporter of having a strong Navy. We need the seas to get anywhere, practically speaking. (No slight to Canada or Mexico intended.) But always remember that for America, controlling the seas is for the purpose of maintaining access to the land at the distant end of those sea lines of communication we protect.

Reinforcing the Spooks

North Korea's conventional military probably couldn't defend their own territory let alone successfully invade South Korea. The northern regime downgraded the military in favor of a strategy of relying on spies to keep the people and army in line and nukes to keep foreign threats at bay. (Spooks and nukes.)

One of their few actual effective PDRK military assets has eroded away as it has been allocated to the spooks' assets:

While the North Korean special operations troops are grumbling, and not getting all the training resources (ammo and fuel) they need, they remain a highly motivated, and generally loyal, force. The government uses these troops to insure the loyalty of the other 85 percent of the military, and more and more elite troops are being used to assist the secret police in going after dissidents and corrupt officials. This is probably hurting the North Korean special operations forces more than anything else. The troops are getting a close look at the corruption and contradictions in North
Korea. The troops generally lived in closed bases and don't get out much. But now that they do, they see a North Korea that is unpleasant, and not as swell as their commanders told them it was. It turns out those letters they were getting from home were not exaggerating how bad things were. And the trend has been down for so long, it's hard to assure the troops that there's any way up.


Only a few thousand truly elite forces remain intact. That isn't much of an invasion threat. It remains to be seen if the special forces will help the spooks much for very long.