Don't Take Our Eye Off the European Ball

After fighting in Europe through two world wars and a long Cold War, do we seriously think that it would be cost effective to withdraw the pitifully small force we currently plan to retain in Europe?

The U.S. 1st Armored Division lowered its flag this month in a ceremony that signaled the quiet return home of a unit whose tanks first rumbled onto the continent through Italy during World War II.

The Wiesbaden casing of colors ceremony also marked a milestone in the ongoing transformation of the American military. The sending off of the last division deployed in Europe at the height of the Cold War symbolizes the shift in favor of smaller, lighter units that planners say are better poised to meet today's threats.

But the question now being raised is whether the Army's plan to keep some 37,000 soldiers in Europe will survive growing budgetary pressures in Washington. There are increasing concerns in the U.S. Congress that the United States is footing too much of the bill for European defense at a time when some European countries have reduced defense spending.

"An alliance that is so dependent on one ceases to function properly," said Heather Connelly, director of the Europe program for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "You are probably going to see more questions from Congress about getting that balance right."

U.S. troop strength in Europe peaked in 1962 at nearly 277,000 soldiers and was still at around 213,000 in 1989. Current plans call for reducing troops from about 42,000 today to the 37,000 by 2015.

Europe is still the most valuable real estate in the world outside of America in terms of economic, military (mostly latent these days, admittedly), and technological strength. Germany is straying from the West to secure Russian energy supplies. Russia is asserting itself again and pining for former imperial lands. NATO countries are seeking defense guarantees outside of the NATO structure as NATO is seen as less than reliable. Economic difficulties could break down the pan-European feelings of solidarity and reignite old rivalries that gave the continent a bloody history of wars before the Pax Americana. And Europe remains a valuable power projection point for American intervention in an arc of crisis from Morocco to Afghanistan, and a source of military assistance for such missions (less than we'd like but more than we'd have without them). Even Libya, as much as I worry that we won't win with our current strategy, shows that we can leverage Europe's atrophied military power. Does anybody think European NATO countries could do what they've done without our initial combat missions to suppress Libyan air defenses and our continued support roles?

How is it possible to argue we should abandon NATO and Europe to save paltry sums compared to what we've invested over the last century to keep the continent from being controlled by a hostile power? Do we really value so little what we achieved at such a high cost in blood and treasure that we'd walk away now after we've won and spread democracy through the former Soviet lands we've expanded into, and need only maintain a relatively small force to secure what we've achieved?

I'm not happy with our current plans for the Army in Europe (three combat brigades) and believe we are justified in keeping five brigades and a corps headquarters there to command them. Here's a more recent justification for the Army's presence in Europe.

Amateurs

So it isn't the end of the world today:

The May 21 doomsday message was sent far and wide via broadcasts and web sites by Camping, an 89-year-old retired civil engineer who has built a multi-million-dollar nonprofit ministry based on his apocalyptic prediction. According to Camping, the destruction was to have begun its worldwide march as it became 6 p.m. in the various time zones.

So the guy is nuts and those who believed his purportedly Bible-based prediction of doomsday are foolish. Begin the mocking of the rubes, by all means.

The real pros make predictions far into the future--well beyond when they can be called to account--based on computer models, admit no short-term trends as falsifying the prediction, and blame a few degrees of projected warming for the real Apocalypse that we will experience. These guys will be collecting grants for the rest of their natural lives. That's the way to play the game.

Of course, both groups think that our appropriate response to predicted doom is to give up all our worldly goods and lifestyle to prepare for the end. But other than peddling carbon credits versus repenting sin, I'm not sure there is much difference.

UPDATE: Heh. Although posting that right at 6:00 p.m. might have been a little eager, hmm?

UPDATE: Yeah, the left has their own doomsday prophets. They just don't think there is a god involved.

Applying the Freedom Agenda

As President Obama learns to appreciate the freedom agenda in the Middle East where he now backs the aspirations of Moslems for freedom from their rulers, perhaps he could decide to defend it a little more vigorously where it already exists:

While the U.S. has committed itself to providing Taiwan the means to defend against a Chinese attack -- something the mainland has threatened if the island moves to make its de facto independence permanent -- it knows that doing so would undermine its ability to improve ties with China and to secure Chinese help on pressing issues such as North Korean nuclear proliferation.

China sees the F-16 issue "as an opportunity to pressure America into downgrading the U.S. commitment to Taiwan," said Rupert Hammond-Chambers, head of a U.S.-Taiwan business group whose members include arms manufacturers. "If they can pressure America into saying no or not saying yes, U.S. policy will have taken a big step toward China's position on arms sales."

For the time being, the Obama administration is addressing the Taiwan defense dilemma by deciding not to decide. Mindful of Beijing's incensed reaction to its early 2010 approval of a $6.4 billion Taiwan arms package, it has shown no interest in a reprise. ...

A senior Taiwanese legislative aide privy to negotiations on the F-16s says that despite support from the Pentagon, opposition to the sale of the advanced F-16s is coming from the State Department, which remains concerned that it would anger China.

Taiwan is already free. It is easier to defend what we have than it is to promote it where it is absent.

If it is possible for our Navy to operate from a bastion just east of Taiwan, Taiwan needs those planes and upgrades to their existing early model F-16s in order to keep Chinese planes from reaching our ships.

The Enemies Within

Iraq's major threats are mostly internal despite shortcomings in Iraqi conventional warfighting capabilities that will take years to remedy. These internal threats are what our troops can most effectively counter after this year ends if our presence is extended:

But the major and more politically sensitive area of concern is the US military's role in keeping tensions from erupting along the disputed boundaries between the Kurdish-controlled north and central Iraq. In those flash-point areas, US soldiers have served as a buffer between the Kurdish peshmerga forces and Iraqi government soldiers.

"Let's be clear – the reason we should stay is to keep the Iraqis from fighting each other, particularly the Kurds and the Arabs," says Peter Mansoor, a former executive officer to Gen. David Petraeus and a professor of military history at Ohio State University. "We can couch it in whatever terms we want to but ... they need us to protect them from themselves," he said in a telephone interview.

While the Kurdish-Arab divide is the most obvious internal flashpoint, it isn't as critical now as it was during the major insurgency fighting when Kurdish troops were amongst the best troops Iraq had to offer. Then, a break would have been a tremendous blow to defeating the Syrian- and Iranian-sponsored insurgents and terrorists.

But without a robust insurgency to fight, Iraq could easily survive the loss of Kurdish regions that separate in a peaceful manner. Heck, during the 1990s the Kurdish regions were effectively lost anyway, right?

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be foolish for the Kurds to seek independence since they'd be landlocked with two states--Iran and Turkey--hostile to them. The only outlet to the world would be through Iraq, so why not stay within Iraq and have the support of the entire Iraqi state as well? Sure, negotiate self-governing and border issues, but the Kurds might invite partition by Turkey and Iran if they are on their own.

So the Kurdish-Arab split could be a major crisis if it breaks out into open warfare, but it wouldn't destroy Iraq. I think keeping American troops in Iraq to keep the split from becoming a civil war is the right thing to do, but there are other things we need to do that are more important.

Generally, keeping political disagreements in the political arena rather than tempting factions to resort to arms without our presence is important. Most specifically, staying to keep that scumbag Moqtada al Sadr in check is our main job. I've long considered him the biggest threat to our success because in theory he can appeal to the majority Shias. As bad as the death toll from the Sunni Arab-based violence was, I never doubted we would beat this minority-based threats.

Sadr is already resorting to violence and can be expected to use that tool more--as he has in three previous military conflicts with US and/or Iraqi forces. And as bad as seeing political violence break out in Iraq would be, Sadr provides an opening for Iranian intervention within Iraq to either seize control of the Iraqi state as a whole (apart from the Kurdish regions which would then declare independence) or just the southern Basra region. Using Sadr, Iran could astro-turf an uprising and claim to be rescuing the Shias of Iraq from American and Jewish plots.

Iraq needs us to keep our military in Iraq. I can understand the desire of many Iraqis to stand on their own and watch our troops leave, but there are Iraqis who need us to leave to end Iraq's still-fragile democratic path. We need the Germans, Japanese, Italians, and South Koreans to explain to Iraqis that the presence of American troops protects freedom rather than reflect lack of freedom. Would any Iraqis really say that they wouldn't one day want to achieve what these "occupied" countries have with American forces still on their soil?

Really, Iraq, just ask us to stay. We'll say yes. How could we reply otherwise when even President Obama cites your democratic path as an example for others in the Middle East?

Not War-War

I'm no fan of the war powers act, since I think it is just a weaselly way for Congress to avoid having to exercise their own power of the purse to stop military actions initiated by the president that they think are wrong. Just automatically ending military action initiated by the president under his own powers as commander in chief is wrong, in my non-lawyer opinion.

But given how this law is a favorite of progressives, I am taking special delight in who is driving a stake into this undead thing:

In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.

“Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.”

And it is even funnier that the Obama administration's view on the act apparently changed over the last 60 days:

From the beginning of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. The military intervention started on March 19; Congress was notified on March 21. Those 60 days expire today.

Clearly, the administration thought they'd have this war wrapped up by now. But it isn't. So now it isn't a war-war.

Problem solved.

Extreme Weather

Naturally, I blame global warming.

Precise But Not Fast

It was three weeks ago that I noted that NATO stopped Khaddafi forces from mining Misrata's harbor. NATO finally bombed Libyan naval units in port, citing Libyan efforts to mine the port:

"Overnight, NATO aircraft hit pro-Kadhafi warships, striking eight vessels," it added.

"Given the escalating use of naval assets, NATO had no choice but to take decisive action to protect the civilian population of Libya and NATO forces at sea," said Rear Admiral Russell Harding, deputy head of the NATO-led air war.

Did it really take three weeks of negotiating within NATO for the alliance to agree to take out Libyan naval assets?

Like Norway Without the Ice?

I recently looked at an old book (Battle for the Fiords: Nato's Forward Maritime Strategy in Action) I have on the shelves about how NATO planned to use the shield of Norway's mountains to operate aircraft carriers in Norwegian waters closer to the Soviet bases on the Kola Peninsula where we could hit the Soviet military units at home and strike Soviet amphibious assets trying to outflank NATO land defenses in northern Norway.

After Norway started to feel out on a limb in the late 1970s as Soviet power pushed NATO's forward line of defense back to the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom gap well south of Norway, demonstrating that we could include Norway in our defensive perimeter was important.

http://lindberg-work.com/lindberg/madson/romundstad/index.html

So it occurred to me that maybe our Navy could operate closer to China behind the shield of Taiwan's mountains, which conveniently loom over the eastern coast the length of Taiwan:

http://reference.findtarget.com/search/Outline%20of%20Taiwan/

Technology has changed, and maybe we couldn't hide from sensors today the way we could twenty years ago. But the geography of Taiwan feeling like they are forward of our defense perimeter being pushed back by growing Chinese military strength is very similar to Norway's position back then. Norway at least had the formal pledge of NATO to come to their defense, so Taiwan is even more alone psychologically.

Yet the United States Navy would be in a better position east of Taiwan than west of Norway. Taiwan has better air defenses capable of detecting and shooting at any aircraft flying over Taiwan to reach our fleet; and a navy capable of holding the northern and southern routes around the island against Chinese ships and subs seeking out our ships. Norway's armed forces were not nearly as formidable and had to face an overland Soviet invasion, too. China's fleet isn't as formidable as the Soviet Northern Fleet then, I should add.

To aid the defense of our forward deployed ships, we could airlift air defense systems into eastern Taiwan to help bolster fleet defenses by pushing our anti-aircraft missile envelop further west. Chinese satellites might be able to spot our ships, but the Taiwanese mountains would surely provide a shield against targeting our ships with enough accuracy to shoot at them with conventional anti-ship missiles unless the planes fly over the mountains. Indeed, even the DF-21 using satellite targeting could face additional obstacles if we put ABM systems ashore in eastern Taiwan to bolster ship-based Aegis anti-missile systems.

If we can operate our carriers in a forward secure bastion with ship- and land-based air defenses and with the Taiwanese navy and American subs guarding the northern and southern flanks, our carriers would be within easy range to strike Chinese fleet and transport elements in the Taiwan Strait and provide air support against any Chinese ground units that make it ashore.

This would, if feasible, blunt much of China's efforts to push our fleet east and buy time for China to conquer Taiwan before we can advance closer to China under a barrage of PLA missiles and long-range aircraft with enough strength to intervene in a China-Taiwan war.

I'm assuming that this is something that the people paid to think about these things have in plan form already. (UPDATE: Unless they've thought about it and rejected it, of course.)

The Road Not Taken

We aren't happy with Pakistan's threat to our supply line into Afghanistan. So we continue to seek alternatives:

The Army keeps 45 days worth of fuel on the ground in Afghanistan so that operations can withstand severe disruptions to its supply lines, Stevenson said.

If the southern routes were shut down, the U.S. would increase its use of airdrops and flow more in from the north. However, that route takes much longer and is more expensive, Stevenson said.

Smaller disruptions already frequently delay the delivery of supplies. For example, a sit-down strike in Karachi is keeping supply trucks from getting to the port, Stevenson said. He expects the strike to last a couple of days.

Of the supplies it delivers by land, the U.S. brings in 60 percent to Afghanistan from the north through Central Asia and the Baltic states and 40 percent from the south through Pakistan. There, supplies arrive in the port of Karachi and travel over land by contractor-driven trucks.

The goal is to increase supplies coming in from the north to 75 percent, Stevenson said. "We're not there yet."

Of course, much of the northern route goes through Russia. Reset or not, I'm not comfortable with that. Our efforts to get another route across the Black Sea that avoids Russia will diversify our supply routes.

Also, it is noteworthy that we don't rely on just-in-time delivery of key supplies and maintain at least some iron mountains in case we lose a supply route and need to switch emphasis to another.

Of course, I'd be happier still if we had a friendly government in Iran that allowed for a supply route that way.

Great, More Housing Vacancies

As if the housing bubble hasn't been bad enough for my home equity, I guess I can expect the value of my home to go down (unexpectedly!) even more after tomorrow's Rapture empties perhaps millions of housing units in America.

UPDATE: Thank you to Instapundit for the link. And if for some strange reason my house is unoccupied tomorrow evening, I've boobytrapped it--so keep your evil hands off of it.

UPDATE: Thanks to Megan McArdle for the link. In my wisdom, I bought at the peak of the housing market and now End Times conspire against me.

In Praise of Bombing

NATO thinks our bombing will break the Libyan regime:

"We have significantly degraded Gaddafi's war machine. And now we see results, the opposition has gained ground," Rasmussen told a news conference in the Slovak capital, Bratislava.

"I am confident that combination of strong military pressure and increased political pressure and support for the opposition will eventually lead to the collapse of the regime."

In time, I think he's right. But I also think that the combination of financial costs and loss of international support for the war effort as the war itself is seen as more of a cause of suffering than Khaddafi's checked forces will eventually lead to the collapse of the war effort. I just don't know which trend will eventually win out.

One nice thing about the Libya War is the demonstration that Western bombing isn't the automatic regime support mechanism that many in the West argue it is when a discussion of whether bombing Iran's nuclear infrastructure would help or not.

You've heard it before over the last decade or so that Iranian people who hate the mullah regime will rally around the flag if the mullah regime they hate is attacked by the West. I've questioned that assumption. Sure, it might happen. But why assume it when dissidents often welcome outside help?

So even if Khaddafi survives the Libya War because Western resolve is shakier than Libyan regime solidarity, the war will have defeated the idea that Western bombing actually saves a dictatorial regime by "tainting" the opposition to that regime.

Defining Mixed Emotions

I think this story pretty much replaces the joke that "mixed emotions" can be described as watching your mother-in-law drive off a cliff in your brand new car:

Ted Rall's cartoons and opinion pieces were all the rage when he was attacking George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and American soldiers.

But now that there's a man in the White House the press absolutely adore, the once syndicated polemicist claims he's having a hard time getting anyone to publish his work[.]

To be clear, Rall is the mother-in-law and cartoons criticizing the President are the new car.

Rall is a vile and disgusting man, as far as I'm concerned, who is so radical that he makes our president look like Ronald Reagan. So I can't work up any sympathy for the fact that Rall is having trouble selling his work even if his bile is turned against President Obama.

But this quote from Rall (forgive me) is a nice reminder of what most so-called "liberals" really are:

What's weird is that these cultish attitudes come from editors and publishers whose politics line up neatly with mine. They oppose the bailouts. They want us out of Afghanistan and Iraq. They disapprove of Obama's new war against Libya. They want Obama to renounce torture and Guantánamo.

Obama is the one they ought to be blackballing. He has been a terrible disappointment to the American left. He has forsaken liberals at every turn. Yet they continue to stand by him. Which means that, in effect, they are not liberals at all. They are militant Democrats. They are Obamabots.

So there you go. If the right person does something, it's ok--or at least not so bad that it inspires outrage and sends them into the streets in protest. It's just all about political power for them.

Gulf Shield

We are working very closely with Saudi Arabia to set up strong air and ground defenses to protect Saudi Arabia's oil infrastructure:

Despite their deepening political divide, the United States and Saudi Arabia are quietly expanding defense ties on a vast scale, led by a little-known project to develop an elite force to protect the kingdom's oil riches and future nuclear sites.

The U.S. also is in discussions with Saudi Arabia to create an air and missile defense system with far greater capability against the regional rival the Saudis fear most, Iran. And it is with Iran mainly in mind that the Saudis are pressing ahead with a historic $60 billion arms deal that will provide dozens of new U.S.-built F-15 combat aircraft likely to ensure Saudi air superiority over Iran for years.

Even if it is unlikely that Iran would strike Saudi Arabia out of the blue because of Iran's general conventional weakness, it would be helpful for Saudi Arabia to have this shield should America (or Israel) launch an air campaign to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure. If hit, it is likely that Iran would retaliate by trying to damage or interrupt oil flows moving through the Persian Gulf.

Saudi officials have said quietly that they wouldn't mind at all if we smashed up the Iranian nuclear facilities. Being able to defend their oil fields would be a great help if all else fails and we have to send in the missiles and planes to damage Iran's nuclear ambitions in an aerial campaign.

Still, given our problems with Iran who we once counted on as our policeman in the Gulf, I worry about arming up a monarchy. But we don't really have much of a choice, I suppose. Not as long as Iran is run by the mullahs, anyway.

Really, it is hard to think of any problem we have in the Middle East that wouldn't be better with Iran's mullah regime overthrown.

Too Convenient

Mexicans unwilling to face their own problems or too daunted by the scope of the task (or Americans eager to accept the blame) have an easy way out of fighting the drug cartels and corruption in Mexico that allows the cartels to flourish: blame America:

As one studies Mexico’s cartel war, it is not uncommon to hear Mexican politicians — and some people in the United States — claim that Mexico’s problems of violence and corruption stem largely from the country’s proximity to the United States. According to this narrative, the United States is the world’s largest illicit narcotics market, and the inexorable force of economic demand means that the countries supplying the demand, and those that are positioned between the source countries and the huge U.S. market, are trapped in a very bad position. Because of this market and the illicit trade it creates, billions of dollars worth of drugs flow northward through Mexico (or are produced there) and billions of dollars in cash flow back southward into Mexico.

You'd think that if proximity to America was the cause of Mexico's problems that Canada would be a corrupt narco-state. Yes, part of the argument is that Mexico lies between drug sources to the south and America; but still, you'd think that Canada would just have a smaller version of Mexico's problems, wouldn't you?

Change

On the surface, it seems as if President Obama's apparent embrace of the freedom agenda in the Middle East has been hedged with a pro-Palestinian gesture of insisting that peace must include going back to the pre-1967 war borders. Israel even protested this idea:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu headed for talks in Washington on Friday saying that U.S. President Barack Obama's vision of a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967 could leave Israel "indefensible."

"The viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel's existence," he said in a statement before flying to the United States for scheduled talks with Obama.

Responding to a major Obama speech on Thursday outlining Middle East strategy, Netanyahu said he expected Washington to let Israel keep major settlement blocs beyond the 1967 lines in the occupied West Bank, under any peace deal with Palestinians.

But what President Obama said includes that Israeli requirement:

He called for a deal resulting in two states, Israel and Palestine, sharing the border that existed before Israel captured the West Bank in the 1967 Middle East war.

It would include "mutually agreed land swaps," he said.

So it would be a peace treaty that includes land swaps that would obviously negate the idea that the boundary would be the pre-1967 border. How is this different than what Netanyahu said about keeping some land beyond the pre-1967 border? Israel has offered swaps of land for that objective before, after all.

A suspicious person would say that the Israelis agreed to protest in order to make President Obama's "concession" to the Palestinians seem genuine.

Now that would be nuanced!

What Happened in Abbottabad

I don't mind the victory lap that President Obama is taking over the bin Laden raid. It was a victory by our military. I hope he learns to like that feeling.

I haven't commented on all the information coming out of the government because at some level I trusted that we weren't revealing too much. Silly me. The Department of Defense thinks the loose lips were flapping:

SEC. GATES: Well, first of all, in my comments at Camp Lejeune, I didn't single anybody out. And, I mean, in a way, you all, every one of you, probably knows the answer to this question better than I do. And my--my concern is that there were too many people in too many places talking too much about this operation. And we had reached agreement that we would not talk about the operational details, and as I said at Camp Lejeune, that lasted about 15 hours.

And so I just -- I'm very concerned about this because we -- we want to retain the capability to carry out these kinds of operations in the future. And when so much detail is available, it makes that both more difficult and riskier.

Now, with respect to the SEALs, in my meeting with them the Thursday after the operation, they did express concern, not so much for themselves but for their families. And all I will say is that we have been taking a close look at that and we will do whatever is necessary.

ADM. MULLEN: We have, from my perspective, gotten to a point where we are close to jeopardizing this precious capability that we have, and we can't afford to do that. This fight isn't over, first of all. Secondly, when you now extend that to concern with individuals in the military and their families, from my perspective it is time to stop talking. And we have talked far too much about this. We need to move on. It's a story that, if we don't stop talking, it will never end. And it needs to.

The President needs to tell his people to just shut the eff up on this topic. What happened in Abbottabad should stay in Abbottabad.

What Price Will We Pay for Defense?

Strategypage has a basic reminder of why our defense budget matters:

While the dollar cost of war is good for a hot headline on a slow news day, the fact that the money saved lots of American lives, never seems to make it to the front page.

We pay the bill in cash or blood. Which one should it be?

Strategypage also shows that despite high absolute numbers, the burden of defense is far smaller than it used to be.

Reasonably Frightened Groups

How will China cope with these problems?

Lurking behind the façade are frightening structural problems

For the first time in more than two years, car sales in China declined in April, recording 1.55 million units, down 0.25 percent over last year against a forecast by the industry of 10 percent annual growth for 2011.

China could be facing a production glut of as many as 10 million cars by the end of this year, according to some estimates, because of the overcapacity built into the system. That is more than the total car production of Japan in 2009. It is at one with massive overinvestment in real estate. The country may have a property bubble approaching 30 percent of its housing. By one reckoning, there are 64.5 million flats with no electricity hookups, meaning they are empty – enough housing to accommodate 200 million people.

China has made real and amazing progress over the last 30 years. But they started from a very low point, have far to go before they get old, and rely on the very sources of their economic problems for their political stability. So far, the people are being targeted by the regime to keep them down to avoid facing the need for real economic reforms that would lessen unrest among the people but threaten the political elites or political reforms (that would then allow economic reforms) that would end the political elites' privileged position in the economy and sole possession of political authority.

I'd advise Tom Friedman to avert his eyes. I don't think "reasonably enlightened" means what he thinks it means. What are reasonably frightened Chinese elites willing to do to maintain their authority and privileges?

The Iraq Example

Wow. In his speech on the Middle East, President Obama lauded Iraq as an example of people choosing democracy!

I'd like to quibble with the President's statement that Iraq is a warning that changing a regime to create democracy is difficult and so only to be embarked on with careful thought, essentially. The fact is, regime change was easy. Rebuilding Iraq from Saddam's rule (not from our invasion of 2003, which avoided damaging infrastructure) would have been expensive but doable. Even Baathist resistance likely would have been ground out as 2004 proceeded.

The problems that made Iraq an expensive project were that Syria and Iran essentially declared war on the new Iraq and America. Iran armed and supported Shia thugs while Syria enabled al Qaeda to invade Iraq and hosted Iraqi Baathists. Worse, we let them get away with declaring war on us.

Still, having Iraq held up as an example of a better path is a great moment in American Middle East policy.

UPDATE: Funny, he doesn't look Neoconish.

When Near, Appear Far

China's military leader told us what we want to hear during his visit to America:

"Through my visits in the United States over the past couple days, I have been surprised by the sophistication of the U.S. military and its weapons and doctrines and so on," he said. "I can tell you that China does not have the capability to challenge the United States."

Bull. General Chen Bingde, chief of staff of the PLA, conveniently told us exactly the reason we justify military-to-military exchanges.

Remember, the best deception doesn't hide what you do from your enemy. That's too hard to do for very long. The best deception provides evidence to your enemy of what the enemy already believes (wrongly) is the reason for what they see you doing. Validate their preconceptions and you've won the deception war.

But while we eagerly listen to what the Chinese say about our military-to-military exchanges, I don't think the Chinese are learning what we are teaching them:

We are officially in favor of these missions because we believe that if the Chinese see how powerful we are, they won't try to fight us.

This is a crock. The Chinese know we are technically more advanced. What they think is that we are too pampered to fight them. And seeing our nice barracks and PXs with Chanel No. 5 won't convince them that we are hard warriors able to absorb high casualties. Seeing our military up close will simply give them insights into fighting us or at least cause them to believe that they have insights into fighting us[.]

Have no doubt that the Chinese military believes that if they challenge our military on ground of their own choosing that they will defeat us.