Defining the Friends of Peace Activists

I know I added this comment to a post already, but I think it bears repeating on its own: Why aren't Western "peace activists" rushing to Mariupol to be "human shields" to halt Russian aggression against Ukraine?

Oh. Right.

The enemy of their enemy is their friend, I guess.

UPDATE: American troops will stand with our friends, as we deploy to Romania and Bulgaria and as we get a warm welcome in Poland. This is the kind of shield that matters.

UPDATE: And while I'm at it, let's get on REFORPOL (and post-Ukraine Crisis I'd like an actual heavy brigade on hand) and maybe sending Marine equipment to the Baltic States.

We were warned, you know.

What Are Our Yemen Brackets?

Yemen is looking butt ugly:

Yemen's top factions are squaring off for battle after months of skirmishes, turning respectively to neighboring Saudi Arabia and its regional rival Iran for help in what may become all-out war. ...

In a blow to U.S. counter-terrorism operations, Washington said on Saturday it had evacuated its remaining personnel, including about 100 special operations forces, because of the deteriorating security situation.

Now we're talking March madness.

Not that I blame the administration for Yemen. As I've said before, the place is pretty much always in civil war or on the verge of it breaking out.

What is disturbing is that President Obama knew so little of this place that he boasted about our effort there just 6 months ago as a model for action in Iraq.

The question is, what do we do now that it is an active problem? We don't want Iran to gain ground there (well, I won't speak to what the administration wants for its proto-partner, Iran) and we don't want jihadis to regain ground there.

UPDATE: More on Yemen (tip to Instapundit) where ISIL is attempting to up the body count even more.

Say, given that President Obama bizarrely blamed our overthrow of the evil dictator Saddam for ISIL's presence in Iraq, is our (once) model intervention in Yemen under this president the cause of ISIL's presence in Yemen?

UPDATE: Strategypage has more on the place.

And Austin Bay discusses our defeat there and withdrawal of our forces.

In theory, Iran can't afford to support all the allies that they have in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Gaza, Bahrain, and now Yemen. But they are on a mission from God, as Strategypage would put it, and so figure something will turn up.

While I doubt the direct intervention of God will save Iran from over-extending themselves, the odds of President Obama saving Iran by agreeing to a bad nuclear deal that also significantly eases Iran's financial problems are way higher than I'd like.

UPDATE: Saudi Arabia--long extremely cautious about using its military power--has conducted airstrikes in Yemen out of fear of Iranian influence:

Saudi Arabia bombed key military installations in Yemen on Thursday after announcing a broad regional coalition to oust Shiite rebels that forced the country's embattled president to flee. Some of the strikes hit positions in the country's capital, Sanaa, and flattened a number of homes near the international airport.

The airstrikes, which had the support of nine other countries, drew a strong reaction from Iran which called the operation an "invasion" and a "dangerous step" that will worsen the crisis in the country.

In the meantime, the White House--where Baghdad Bob has apparently found a new job--insists that everything is just swell in Yemen:

A White House spokesman said American efforts in Yemen are a "template that has succeeded," even as President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi was forced to flee the country by boat.

Just ... wow.

UPDATE: This is the latest front where Saudi Arabia is battling Iran for influence. I'm sure the Saudis are completely on board President Obama's Iran partnership project.

God's Work

Will the war on terror become a religious war? That would certainly be contrary to the administration notion that Islam has nothing to do with the terrorists we fight. But it could happen, anyway.

In the absence of effective state efforts, will a new Knights Templar emerge to fight terrorists trying to define Islam in their image?

ISIS has arisen to fill that gap [that developed in Iraq and Syria as the governments faltered], but something else will arise to push back against it, since states cannot. That something won’t be the Templars, exactly, but it will also not be a state. It will instead be new non-state networks to funnel money and fighters against ISIS.

There are already reports of Americans and other Westerners going to join the Kurdish militias; how long before the Christian communities in Iraq and other ethno-sectarian communities under assault begin to attract adherents as well?

The war against ISIS and radical Islam may not always be state versus non-state, but perhaps eventually non-state versus non-state. Popularized violence and popularized sovereignty; more efficient, certainly, to cut out the middleman. It would be the return of de Molay, at least for a while, until they don’t need him anymore.

Yeah, I've expected that for years should our state-led efforts falter (this quote is from 2006):

We face enemies who draw support from traditional states but do not rely on them. Waging war by private groups has been made more lethal by modern technology. Cheap and readily available weapons, modern communications gear (Internet and satellite phones), and WMD--from poison gas to Anthrax to dirty bombs to perhaps nuclear weapons--are no longer state monopolies. Warfare is being privatized by our enemies.

And if our Western governments fail to wage war effectively, will private Western warfare be far behind? Much as vigilantes arise when police and courts cannot provide security, will private groups strike back at whatever target they believe responsible for jihadis?

The Pope hasn't gotten to this stage. Not yet, anyway. But the jihadis have been noticed.

This is just one reason it is so important for Western governments to wage the war on these jihadi scum and not try to pretend like the war is won or not even a war at all.

If it evolves into a war of parts of Western societies against parts of Islamic societies, we will have our clash of civilizations.

And then the Devil take the hindmost.

UPDATE: Via Instapundit.

2 + 2 = 5

If you want federal money, you'll have to accept the full doctrine of the Church of Global Warming.

That's nice:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency is making it tougher for governors to deny man-made climate change. Starting next year, the agency will approve disaster preparedness funds only for states whose governors approve hazard mitigation plans that address climate change.

So what if climate change is natural (as it was before man came along)? Die, faithless heretics!

As long as the money withheld is only for climate change issues, governors should proudly state they won't waste even "free" federal money for failing to bow to the pressure.

Also, keep in mind that this money pressure is being done by the same federal government that absolutely denies that the plain language of Obamacare denies federal money to states that don't set up their own exchanges.

Now go and emit no more.

UPDATE: Say, should states that receive federal money for military bases be required to accept that military power is a legitimate tool to resist our enemies?

Right Answer. Wrong Question

I don't think there is any question that China's navy is not as good as its hardware suggests. But let's not get carried away with dismissing China's navy.

This author has a point. But it is a point that can excuse passivity in the face of danger long past the time it is no longer true. And it may not matter in any likely war scenario.

So is China's navy a paper dragon that we over-estimate?

The history of the inter-war Italian navy, the Regia Marina, which faced a strategic outlook similar to the PLAN and was also confronted by technologically superior naval opponents, provides a great lesson in why overestimating your enemy’s capabilities is maybe just as dangerous as underestimating military power.

In short, miscalculating the fighting strengths of Mussolini’s navy prior to and during World War II diverted precious allied resources from dealing with more important military challenges[.]

No doubt, China's navy is not as good as their shiny new hardware indicates.

But how do we measure such a soft factor if we factor that observation into quantification of China's threat? And a judgment like that can linger on long after it is false.

Remember, there was a time before Pearl Harbor when we thought little of Japan's fleet. Poor eyesight and bad gunnery would cripple the Japanese. And their planes were just made of cheap scrap metal, so don't even worry about their air force. Sure, they're tough. But it would take a year to knock them down.

The key point is that China has the advantage of being right in the theater while we are far from it. Our fleet is spread out globally with only part at sea and all of their fleet is right there.

China has the advantage of initiating war and can ready a set-piece plan to strike us while we are least ready, and mobilize a larger fraction of their fleet to fight what we have forward deployed.

Even if our fleet is far better than China's, they could manage the opening blow when their detailed and practiced plan can be executed with mostly the friction of their own lack of training hindering the attack rather than adding in our counter-measures.

Japan's fleet in 1941 was both better than what we believed and had the benefit of striking the first blows against our less ready fleet available in the theater.

If China does the same, they could knock us back while they achieve their war objectives. That could be the South China Sea, Taiwan, Taiwanese islands in the strait, or Japanese islands in the East China Sea.

Japan certainly swept up more than that after knocking us back in 1941.

We can comfort ourselves that once we gather the rest of our fleet we can defeat the inferior Chinese fleet and supporting air power. But will we?

Yes, Japan counted on us not having the guts to do that. Yet we did drive them back. But China does not have a GDP just a tenth of ours. And Japan did not have nuclear weapons.

So yeah, China's fleet isn't as good as our fleet. I'm confident in saying that. But that shouldn't be the question.

The question is, is their fleet good enough to allow China to achieve their war objectives? On that question, I'm not as confident.

And since the author did not explain what we might do differently if we had a completely accurate picture of China's naval power, I'm not sure what the harm of over-estimating their power (if that is what is happening--is our Navy really not aware of our training and experience edge?) is to our national security.

What's Next? The USS Bergdahl?

Well that's nice:

The Navy will christen the newest amphibious transport dock ship, John P. Murtha (LPD 26), Saturday, March 21 during a 10:00 a.m. CDT ceremony at the Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss.

Nancy Pelosi was slated to deliver the principle address. Of course she did.

The LPD reportedly has a brig large enough to hold the entire Marine landing force that it can carry. Just in case.

This is wrong. It is an insult to make sailors and especially Marines serve on this ship.

UPDATE: Our Marines and sailors will suck it up and serve well, of course.

It's not like they are fragile little snowflakes requiring a trigger warning, the way our college students apparently are when faced with any unpleasant fact at all. [UPDATE: Link added, tip to Instapundit]

UPDATE: Hell, Bergdahl will get an aircraft carrier named after him.

Russian Diplomacy

Will the Russians please explain why it is so important for them to nuke Europe without wasting a few missiles that might fall to a thin missile defense screen not designed to defeat the Russians?

Russia's ambassador to Denmark said Saturday that the NATO country's navy could be targeted by nuclear missiles if it joins the Western alliance's anti-missile shield.

It isn't enough to sink a warship with a barrage of conventional anti-ship missiles. No, Russia threatens to make a temporary crater in the ocean to do the job.

#whyrussiacanthavenicethings

UPDATE: Some reaction:

"Neither Romania nor Britain will be intimidated by threats to its alliance or its members," [British] Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said Monday during a one-day visit.

And ponder the Russian logic as expressed by the Russian ambassador to Denmark:

"I do not think Danes fully understand the consequences of what happens if Denmark joins the U.S.-led missile defense. If this happens, Danish warships become targets for Russian nuclear missiles," Vanin was quoted as saying by the newspaper Jyllands-Posten on Saturday.

Should Danes join "we risk considering each other as enemies," he added.

Consider the logic: Denmark and any other country in NATO that is not part of the missile defense system are not now a target for Russian nuclear missiles.

But if a country joins the missile defense system (and remember that NATO nations that don't host the system are still defended by it), then and only then does Russia consider them a target for Russian nuclear missiles.

And these guys are good at chess?

Their insanity is just effing amazing. And dangerous, of course.

UPDATE: To be fair, it isn't just Denmark. Russia wants the ability to nuke everybody:

Russia on Tuesday warned the United States against sending a ballistic missile defence system to South Korea, saying it could threaten regional security.

Of course, the appeasing Russians might have little choice but to ask how high when the Chinese tell them to jump and complain about the THAAD missiles China is upset about.

UPDATE: Related:

Russia increased tension over NATO nuclear missiles Tuesday with a demand that the United States remove all non-strategic nuclear weapons from Europe.

The proper response is a physical impossibility, of course.

Sadly, that response seems restricted to our allies:

President Barack Obama reportedly will not meet with NATO's new secretary general when he is in Washington this week, despite requests from the alliance chief's staff for a get-together.

I just thank God that President Obama is restoring our relations with the rest of the world each and every day.

Escape from Detroit

Southwest Detroit is getting as bad as Mexico for violence.

Yeah, I grew up there.

It wasn't that bad while I was growing up--a drug raid, high-speed police chase, knowing a couple kids who were murdered, a middle-of-the night gun fight, a Molotov Cocktail incident, Nazi-Communist tensions, and being stopped by police for no reason  (and once for reason--and one successful evasion--I admit), and some other encounters with the shadier side of life sounds bad in one sentence, but it was at least spread out over nearly two decades.

But it was clear which way the area was going as time passed. And it was bad enough to develop "situational awareness" skills that have stuck with me.

And you wonder why I stayed in Ann Arbor after I came here to go to school?

Tip to Instapundit.

Stand Your Ground, Japan

Japan needs to stop dicking around and plant their forces on key Senkaku islands.

China is improving their ability to grab islands in the East China Sea that Japan formally owns:

China has responded to Japanese efforts to defend the Senkaku Islands by building a helicopter base on a Chinese island 335 kilometers from the Senkakus, This is within range of transport helicopters that could bring in troops and weapons in under two hours. This is seen as a response to the Japanese decision in late 2014 to purchase 17 American MV-22 transports. This the Japanese did to defend the Senkaku Islands from possible surprise Chinese attack. The V-22s are faster than helicopters but Japanese territory is about a hundred kilometers farther away than Chinese land. So given sufficient warning the Chinese and Japanese occupation forces would arrive on the Senkakus at the same time.

I said that preparing for a race with China to the islands is foolish.

Let's Make a Deal

I see that we are hoping to get Iran to release captive Americans in exchange for our pledge to believe Iran's pledge that they don't want nuclear weapons.

The talks over Iran's nuclear future will go on:

France was demanding more stringent restrictions on the Iranians under any deal than the other Western delegations, officials said.

A European negotiator said the six power group - the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China - was generally unified but voiced concern that the Obama administration was under pressure due to concerns Republican-led Congress might wreck any agreement.

Thank you, France. The Obama administration is so eager for a deal that they are apparently willing to agree to just about anything at this point.

But if we can't get Iran to agree to terms that require them to prove they have no nuclear weapons program, the administration will accept lovely parting gifts, instead:

U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday called on Iran's government to immediately release three detained Americans - Saeed Abedini, Amir Hekmati and Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian - and to help find Robert Levinson, an American who disappeared in Iran eight years ago, the White House said.

Give us Americans and we give you nukes. What's one more bad trade, eh?

But don't think the Obama administration can't be tough! Oh, no!

Following Obama’s warning that the United States would “reassess” its relationship with Israel, the administration is not only reconsidering the diplomatic cover it has long given Israel at the United Nations but is also looking at a range of other possibilities to put pressure on its historically close ally, U.S. officials said.

That'll teach you to elect someone The One doesn't like. And that's saying a lot since we seem to like Iran's rulers and are growing downright fond of Assad these days.

Let me just say that if the administration is going to sign a deal with Iran that gives Iran nuclear weapons one day, deterrence becomes more important. And if Iran can be deterred (a big "if" for a country on a mission from God), extended deterrence is not served by throwing your ally under the bus.

And speaking of Iran's nuclear program, I've long said that Iran has likely dispersed elements of their nuclear program abroad to protect them from American attack.

Iran has worked with North Korea on missiles and nukes--and North Korea claims to have nuclear missiles (they might not be able to put a nuclear warhead on a missile yet, but they are making progress on that). So Iran might buy nukes from North Korea to bridge that "breakout" gap--the time it would take Iran to violate agreements and enrich enough Uranium for a warhead--we think is so critical to stopping Iran.

And closer to home, Syria--Iran's client state--already attempted to build a nuclear reactor with North Korean help (Israel destroyed it in 2007). And a German magazine thinks Syria still has a nuclear program:

Now, secret information obtained by SPIEGEL indicates that the world is once again being misled by Assad. Syria's dictator has not given up his dream of an atomic weapon and has apparently built a new nuclear facility at a secret location. It is an extremely unsettling piece of news.

Unsettling? I'll say! What if those "treasonous" Republicans use this information to cast doubt on the wisdom of President Obama's effort to get a Nobel Peace Prize nuclear deal with Iran?

This could be part of Iran's nuclear program. Which is even more unsettling. Or should be.

Like I've said, the outline of a deal is clear: Iran will pretend to not want nuclear weapons; and we will pretend to believe them.

And in a perfect Obama/Kerry world, the Nobel Peace Prize people will pretend the deal advances world peace and our press corps will believe Iran released American captives in an effort to "reset" our relations without getting any American concessions on the deal!

The deal won't ensure that Iran doesn't have nuclear programs on their soil. It won't cover Iranian programs in other countries friendly to Iran. And it won't prevent Iran from purchasing nukes to deter attack while Iran breaks out of any paper restrictions to gain the ability to build their own nukes.

And if Iran then nukes Israel? Well, let that be a lesson to the next American ally that selects a leader we don't like. Sometimes you have to break a few eggs for the deal of the century.

Have a super sparkly deal!

UPDATE: When Iran goes nuclear, we will legitimately be able to tell the mullahs "you didn't build that" without extensive help from the American government.

UPDATE: Speaking of drooling idiocy:

Iran takes comfort in the fact that members of the coalition (Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, United States) they are negotiating with are divided with growing willingness among many coalition members to trust Iranian pledges to abide by any treaty. Many in the West (and the Arab world) don’t trust Iran and demand a deal with strict monitoring. Iran rules this out as a violation of their sovereignty, an affront to their honor and so on.

The Iranian religious dictatorship sees these negotiations as crucial to its survival. In part that is because most Iranians have decided that the ruling clerics and their Islamic Republic are a failure. This can be seen in the plunging birthrate, growing number of drug addicts and the many small protests against the rule of religious zealots. Young Iranians feel like prisoners serving life sentences in a nightmarish jail run by unpredictable religious fanatics who are also corrupt and unable to manage the economy. The sanctions have made this worse and while the damage has been controlled it is draining Iran’s limited cash reserves.

On the bright side, not everyone on "our" side is on board with the Full Monty of pretending to believe the Iranians. I assume I can thank France for holding the line on this issue.

Punish the Israelis (who don't want to be nuked by Iran) and reward the Iranians (who want to nuke Israel). Smart diplomacy in action.

UPDATE: Yes, the French are standing between Kerry and a lovely signing ceremony in Geneva:

"We have not yet reached the finish line but make no mistake we have the opportunity to try to get this right," Kerry said. "It is a matter of political will and tough decision making. ...

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said his country wanted an agreement that was sufficiently robust to guarantee Tehran could not acquire an atomic bomb.

There are two tough decisions standing in the way: convincing Iran to humiliate themselves by even pretending to bend to our demands that they halt nuclear weapon work; and convincing France to trust us to keep Iran from going nuclear under whatever deal we can convince Iran to sign.

UPDATE: We can't deter Iran's client, Syria, from using chemical weapons:

The United States is deeply disturbed by reports that Syrian government forces attacked the town of Sarmin using chlorine as a weapon on Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement on Thursday.

Yeah, they're disturbed that this might cast doubt on their plans to make Iran our regional partner through a dubious nuclear agreement.

Even if this is false, other events have been confirmed to our satisfaction. Yet Assad rolls on--despite the grand deal with Assad that purportedly ended his chemical weapons arsenal.

How do we deter Iran itself from using nuclear weapons if we look the other way about chemical weapons for our partner against ISIL, Assad?

Mariupol: Gateway to Osypenko

I don't mean to pick on this author since I've read this numerous times over the past months, but I don't understand why it keeps getting repeated.

Really?

Mariupol lies on the land approaches to the isthmus linking Crimea to the Ukrainian mainland. If the rebels did capture the city, Russia would win an unofficial land route to a piece of real estate that, a year after its annexation, it’s still having trouble supplying.

If Russia's hand puppets take Mariupol, there is still well over 100 miles of land between that city and Crimea over the north shore of the Sea of Azov.

The Russians would need to drive on and capture the road junction of Melitopol and then advance southwest to Novoolekisiyivka.

Is there really no appreciation of the geography? Is there an assumption that if Mariupol falls then the Ukrainians can't resist at any point farther west?

Russia would be better off building an actual bridge at the Strait of Kerch if they want a bridge  to Crimea.

I look at a map and I just don't get it.

UPDATE: I don't go for everything in this article--and think that it should have noted that the Russians grabbed Debaltseve after the latest ceasefire--but at least the author recognizes the distance from Mariupol to Crimea:

Meanwhile the Ukrainian military, deeply battered and overextended, has virtually no means of stopping Russian armor should the insurgents go back on the offensive. Possible, or even likely, goals of a future insurgent offensive include the Black Sea port city of Mariupol, and perhaps to go as far as to establish a land corridor connecting the Russian mainland and the Crimean peninsula.

Not that it wouldn't be a good thing for Russia to capture Mariupol. But it isn't the same thing as getting a land bridge.

UPDATE: And speaking of Crimea:

Germany's goal remains to restore the Crimean Peninsula to Ukraine, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Monday, a year after Crimea's annexation by Russian forces.

Speaking after talks in Berlin with Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko, Merkel said the March 19, 2014, annexation of the peninsula was a violation of international law that "called the peaceful order in Europe into question."

It sometimes seems that the West is in such a hurry to get Russia to actually obey a ceasefire in the Donbas that their original conquest is being forgotten. So I appreciate Germany's statement.

UPDATE: And speaking of drooling idiocy:

Stephen M. Walt is apparently trying to clinch his case: that President Ronald Reagan's supposedly illegal war in Nicaragua established a precedent, which, some 35 years later, Russia's Vladimir Putin simply followed by invading Ukraine.

Yes. The force (of appeasement) is strong in this one.

I'm not here to relitigate the effort to resist the USSR's attempt to penetrate Latin America in Nicaragua (and which helps explain lingering Russian interest in Venezuela). Nor do I wish to even address Walt--who I have no respect for as an analyst.

I would like to note that the Soviets made an effort in this region in order to defeat us in Europe.

By gaining allies and bases in the Caribbean--whether in Nicaragua, Cuba, or Grenada--the Soviets could interfere with (delay or sink) our shipping of American Army heavy forces through Gulf ports to Europe to resist a Soviet invasion of NATO country West Germany; and could interfere with our use of the Panama Canal to shift Pacific fleet ships to the Atlantic to help get convoys of troops and supplies from America and Canada to NATO Europe.

And it would tie down our forces while we secured the sea lines of communication that otherwise might go to Europe earlier.

UPDATE: And speaking of drooling idiocy, why aren't European "peace activists" rushing to Mariupol to be "human shields" to halt Russian aggression?

Oh. Right.

The Solution to Violent Extremism Begins With a Drone Orbiting Your Community

I'm not as upset about this State Department campaign as you might think. It's the State Department. Let them say "nice doggie" while we reach for a rock.

Ultimately, Moslem communities do need to reject Islamism in their communities if we are to win this Long War.

But jihadis are too strong for most Moslems to reject--out of fear or sympathy.

The problem with this approach is if it reflects government-wide policy rather than State Department programs as part of a government-wide approach.

The solution surely ends in communities rejecting jihad and jihadis.

But before we get to that point, the solution begins with drones orbiting those communities and killing jihadis.

Just don't let the Department of Defense be infected with this community dialog nonsense.

WAY Different Than Gulags

No, Hillary wants Cool-ags!

No word on whether the fun camps will be on ice floes.

Upon hearing this, Putin returned Hillary's "reset" button, saying he's way ahead of her.

Tip to Instapundit.

UPDATE: The slogan is clear, as I commented at Instapundit: "Arbeit Macht Fun!"

Or perhaps a pop reference is better. If it's called the Hotel Hillary Clinton, they could say "you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave."

The opportunities for mockery is unlimited. What about a Dave and Buster's parody with Bill and Hillary's adult arcade?

Europe is Weak

Europe is weak militarily and so is this argument that European military might is reviving.

While I thank France for their role in Iraq, this is just nonsense:

When the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army General Martin Dempsey, visited the carrier with his French counterpart last week, French officials said that as many as 15 Rafale fighter jets take off from the de Gaulle each day to conduct combat missions.

That is a "significant enhancement" of France's role. Fifteen planes is a rounding error when counting our air power.

Although I must admit that given that President Obama prematurely left Iraq only to find the war really wasn't over, perhaps France in 2003 was less cheese-eating surrender monkey and more prescient about our future leadership. They saved their main effort for now, eh?

Hell, we were late to the game in 1917 and 1941, so what the Hell. Fair is fair (but France was late to our Revolution, too, so we're even now?).

Then the author draws a broader lesson from this factoid. The commitment of France's single aircraft carrier is a sign of the resurgent European military might?

But the characterization of Europe as irrevocably pacifist or weak is more cartoon than reality. In fact, with so many European countries being willing to make meaningful military contributions in the fight against ISIS, we seem to be witnessing a new, more muscular European security leadership. This trend has unfolded quietly during the past several years, with new signs of willingness in Europe to take risks and act decisively. Four years ago this month, France and the United Kingdom joined the United States to lead the charge to impose a no-fly zone in Libya, and many other European countries (such as Denmark, the Netherlands, and Italy) made vital contributions to the campaign. In 2013, the French led the effort to stem the unraveling of Mali, keeping the fragile country out of extremists' hands. And today, in Afghanistan, roughly 5,000 European troops maintain a presence to help train, advise, and assist the Afghan government.

Are you kidding me? I'll admit that Europe is hardly irrevocably pacifist. If they were, proponents of the European Union wouldn't be so sure that only the EU can keep those bloody European peasants from forcing their wise leaders into war amongst themselves.

But Europeans are militarily weak despite their economic strength. They spend rather a bit in gross terms on their armed forces, it is true, but they are mostly uniformed civil servants unable to project any real military power.

If the examples the author gives are the best he can come up with, he should give this argument a quick burial right now rather than embarrass himself by defending it further.

Europe's contribution to the ISIL fight is minuscule when compared to our efforts.

I salute France's decisive effort in Mali, but it was a tiny commitment of forces that spoke more of the enemy weakness than French military strength. France showed resolve and skill, but let's not get carried away in inflating it as a symbol of European military power.

And they still needed our logistics help.

Europe's role in Libya was relatively small, too, relying on our initial suppression of Libyan air defenses, our command and control capabilities, and even relying on our resupply of weapons when the war dragged on.

Denmark and the Netherlands had a tiny role, and Italy's "vital" contribution consisted of their geography. They let NATO planes use their air bases.

And about that European "presence" in Afghanistan. That is a carefully chosen word. They provided few troops to actually fight--hence the American nickname for the allied troop presence known as ISAF--I Saw Americans Fight.

I'm grateful for their assistance to train and advise. But that is a limited role that does not speak to real military power.

The author even mentions many of these problems yet still believes that Europe is reviving their military power!

Look, I'm grateful that Europe is helping us against ISIL in Iraq, but the role that is celebrated today is smaller than it was in 2003 (when we allegedly were "unilateral"), which was smaller than the European help in 1991.

Europeans are having trouble getting countries to provide continent-shared capabilities in narrow areas!

Good grief, people, the two strongest European military powers in NATO--Britain and France--are so reduced in strength that they share the single French carrier!

Europe is weak militarily. Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

(Although this delusion is slightly less absurd than the idea that military power isn't necessary to be a great power.)

Sadly for us, their economic, demographic, and technological strength that make them a potential military power means that even when Europe can't help us much in war, we must take care that Europe is not lost to us as an ally.

Just a little help for us now is better than a lot of harm against us in the future.

This is a Torture Problem

Let's look at a real torture problem.

Please remember that the rampant "torture" accusations against America rely on small numbers of cases where we had terrorist prisoners we knew had information that could save American lives from terrorism. The methods were very harsh in some cases but arguably did not rise to the level of "torture."

Also, despite all the hyperventilating about Abu Ghraib (which reflected poorly on us, no doubt), that was a case of humiliation of prisoners more akin to bad fraternity hazing practices than torture.

And even if you think there is no reason to use the methods we used, you don't need to insist they are torture to argue we should not use them.

But let's look at what happens when a country is actually engaged in torture:

Nearly 13,000 Syrians, including 108 children, have been tortured to death in government prisons since the uprising began in March 2011, a monitoring group [the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights] said Friday.

This doesn't count over 20,000 who have "disappeared" in government custody.

The Assad regime that has done this is somebody who many nuanced thinkers here believe should be our partner against ISIL.

This continues to affect our Syria policy, where we seek not to overthrow our proto-partner Assad, but to pressure him into a power-sharing deal.

Obviously, it is time to quote our court jester:

"We have to negotiate in the end," Kerry said. "We've always been willing to negotiate in the context of the Geneva I process," he added, referring to a 2012 conference which called for a negotiated transition to end the conflict.

Cue the evolution in thinking:



How long before Kerry is shaking Assad's hand? Not long, it seems.

We announce we will send $70 million in non-lethal aid to some rebels.

Given our odd thinking about Assad, I assume this aid consists of body bags, do-it-yourself will kits, and prosthetic limbs for the victims of Assad's actual torture campaign.

God, our leaders suck.

France may save us from ourselves, funny enough. And even Assad has disdain for participating in Kerry-sponsored talks.

Fighting Jihadis is a Business Opportunity, Too

Nigeria's large but corrupt army needs private soldiers to effectively fight Boko Haram:

Nigeria has brought in hundreds of mercenaries from South Africa and the former Soviet Union to give its offensive against Boko Haram a shot in the arm before a March 28 election, according to regional security, defense and diplomatic sources.

This is not a surprising development.

So This is My Formal Apology to the ACLU

My respect for the ACLU grows every year.

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it and I'll arrest you for saying it.

Europe will prosecute you for "hate" speech (and define what "hate" means), but outside of college campuses, we don't do that. The author above thinks it is awful that free speech here is so "restrictive and repressive" because we don't define and ban such speech.

Dear God, please get the woman a dictionary.

When I was younger, I reflexively disliked the ACLU. Yes, I grudgingly admitted, Nazis had a right to free speech. And yes, popular speech doesn't need constitutional protections--only unpopular speech needs that.

But it seemed distasteful to defend them. So while in theory I could not complain about ACLU efforts to defend such scum, I found it difficult to applaud the ACLU.

I could not have been more wrong.

Failure to defend very unpopular speech leads to more and more things being deemed wrong and subject to forceful suppression. The ACLU was absolutely right to defend Nazis, as repulsive as those Hitler-worshiping creatures are.

Funny enough, maybe there is a connection between declaring certain thoughts hateful and pushing people to the most hateful part of the spectrum of that type of thinking:

At a time when racism, fascism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, and Islamophobia are surging in Europe, it is now more important than ever for the United States to finally fulfill its international human rights obligations and enact a law against all forms of hate speech.

Of course, you have to trust the author's definition of all those bad things. But given she thinks all those things are surging in Europe, shouldn't she consider it odd that she says we need the hate laws that Europe has in order to prevent the hate that Europe has from growing here?

Actually, when you read the article, it is such a wonderful cliche of ultra-left Bizarro World orthodoxy that I had to check to see if it was from The Onion. In many ways, it is actually quite funny. Indeed, if it is satire, it is very funny and well constructed.

But just in case this is a serious argument against free speech as practiced in America, let me say that the author is an idiot and the arguments against free speech are nonsense and dangerous to all of us.

And I'll keep the ACLU number handy, I suppose. I apologize for tolerating rather than embracing them for so many years.

I'm assuming the ACLU is still a free speech purist organization that hasn't been absorbed into the ulta-left collectivist Borg, of course, as so many groups do drift. So my apology is conditional.

Tip to Instapundit.

UPDATE: A late update on ACLU staff layoffs, via Instapundit, who writes, "What I hear is that they’ve moved too far left, too fast, and it’s hurt their donations."

So my condition may not have been fulfilled. I'm (still!) wise beyond my years.

I Love It When a Plan Comes Together

As we worry about Iran's efforts to entrench their influence in Iraq by sponsoring Iraqi Shia militias, I noted that using these militias as shock troops against ISIL could kill two birds with one stone. So far, so good.

The militias Iran has formed to spearhead the assault on Tikrit have been enduring rather heavy casualties:

After two days of little activity on the battlefield, Iraq’s interior minister, Mohammed al-Ghabban, confirmed Monday that the offensive has “temporarily stopped.” The steady flow of coffins arriving in Iraq’s Shiite holy city of Najaf suggests a reason for the pause; cemetery workers say as many as 60 war dead have been arriving each day....

The cemetery’s reception office has recorded 127 battlefield deaths since the start of the Tikrit offensive at the beginning of the month. But that does not include numbers for the largest Shiite militias — the Badr Organization, Asaib Ahl al-Haq and Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s Peace Brigades — which record their figures separately. ...

“Between all the main four washing stations, it’s now around 40 to 60 martyrs from Tikrit a day,” said one manager, Fadl al-Zubaidi. Just a smattering are from the army, he said; most victims are Shiite volunteers or members of the Shiite militias that are spearheading the fight.

The article says this does not bode well for the more complicated task of taking Mosul. I disagree.

The Tikrit offensive has 20,000 Shia militia backed by 4,000 Iraqi troops. The Iranian-led Iraqi militias are using Pasdaran "scream and leap" approaches from the Iran-Iraq War, it seems. We are attempting to train Iraqi regulars to fight with our air power. That's a big difference.

As I've noted about Iran's Syria efforts, our CIA would do well to put out propaganda praising the efforts of these militias, thanking Iran for leading them, and defending the glories of heavy casualties in the name of Allah.

If Arabs believe (rightly) that Iran is willing to fight to the last Arab, that can't hurt us, right?

I don't mean to be callous about our ally Iraq's losses, but too many inside Iraq aren't our allies and if they kill each other off while discrediting Iran, I'm not going to cry crocodile tears over them.

UPDATE: The top Shia cleric in Iraq--no friend of Iran's--has noted the blood-letting at Tikrit:

"(The) leaders must have more professional and correct military planning in advancing to liberate areas that remain under control of the criminal IS," Sistani's spokesman Sheikh Abdul Mehdi Karbala'i said during a Friday sermon.

He also wants more Sunni Arab participation with Iraqi forces.

And on the Iran threat, retired General Petraeus is on that:

I think Iraq and the coalition forces are making considerable progress against the Islamic State. In fact, I would argue that the foremost threat to Iraq’s long-term stability and the broader regional equilibrium is not the Islamic State; rather, it is Shiite militias, many backed by — and some guided by — Iran.

While he recognized the need for motivated militias to halt the ISIL advance, he understands that they are dangerous in the long run. That was my position post-Mosul:

So militias are always a potential problem in the long run. But in the short run you have to survive.

I've long considered the Shia factions backed by Iran to be the biggest threat (see here and here for example).

UPDATE: Strategypage says that the Iraqis aren't suffering heavy casualties:

American advisors say most Iraqi troops are not yet ready to handle large-scale urban warfare. The militias are trained for a more primitive style of combat that means taking a lot more casualties to advance. Iran has trained these guys to think of this as a religious war, of Shia against fanatic Sunnis who see Shia as heretics to be murdered on sight. Iran has trained the militia to see this as a very personal battle in which death is martyrdom and as much a reward as victory. The problem is that ISIL trains their people the same way so the U.S. (and many Iraqi Army commanders) expects an epic bloodbath made even more horrific by mass murder of Sunni civilians. Neither has occurred. ISIL did not put that many gunmen into harm’s way and the Iranian advisors taught the militiamen to at least be careful, cautious and keep moving forward. Iran has supplied artillery (usually rocket launchers) and some armored vehicles (plus mechanics to get Iraqi ones operational) and this has turned the Tikrit Offensive into a slow, boring but relatively bloodless operation.

I admit that was my impression at first--both my expectation of heavy casualties and then my surprise that the news didn't indicate heavy casualties--until I read that Washington Post article about heavy Iraqi militia casualties. What gives?

The Song Remains the Same

I recently heard President Obama blame our invasion of Iraq in 2003 for ISIL's presence in Iraq. Give me a break.

Yeah, pity we got rid of that force for stability, Saddam Hussein. And if Bush didn't put enough troops in to win the post-war (demonstrably false since we did win after about 4 years of fighting insurgents and terrorists) , why didn't President Obama learn a lesson and bust a gut to keep forces in Iraq after 2011?

But let's review the history of jihadis in Iraq (again):

Our liberation of Iraq did not cause the jihadi problem in Iraq. Al Qaeda invaded Iraq after we destroyed Saddam's regime. Arguing that we caused the jihadis in Iraq is like arguing that our invasion of Italy in 1943 caused the Nazis to occupy Italy.

Further, before April 2003, the jihadis had an ally in Baghdad because America was their common enemy. Why would al Qaeda have invaded an ally? And before 2001, why would al Qaeda leave their Afghanistan sanctuary? And remember that Saddam Hussein hosted his own jihadi corps. Jihadis have thrived in Iraq since the mid-1990s. The nature of the jihadis has changed over time, but their presence is nothing new.

Funny enough, during the war the Left liked to deny that al Qaeda was in Iraq at all--in order to justify losing that war. Remember when the "real" war was in Afghanistan?

Regardless, we beat the jihadis (and Iran's hand puppets) in Iraq by the time President Obama came into office. As the situation in Iraq deteriorated after our president walked away from Iraq in 2011, I begged the administration on this blog to re-engage. But, no. And here we are.

And if our invasion caused jihadis to enter Iraq (not true, in any case), we stayed out of Syria.

Why are there so many more jihadis in Syria than there were in Iraq when we were there?

Why are there so many jihadis in Libya when we simply deposed the leader but kept our troops out?

Heck, why were there jihadis in Afghanistan prior to 9/11 long before we were there?

We do not cause jihadis. In a perfect world, we kill them wherever we find them. Even if they inconveniently go to Iraq.

After more than 6 years as president, Barack Obama has learned little.

Boooooobs

President Putin of Russia has reappeared, ending speculation about his absence:

Russian President Vladimir Putin reappeared on Monday after 10 unexplained days out of public view, laughing off the "gossip" over his health that had erupted during his absence.

With season 4 of Game of Thrones out, I think he was binge watching ("Vat is this "craven" thing Kerry accuse me of?").



Boooooooobs. I'm sure that's what Putin is thinking.