The Code Pink Candidates

The idea expressed by Donald Trump that President Bush 43 "lied us into war" with Iraq is insane and repugnant, and should disqualify him from anything but the Green Party presidential contest.

To be fair, Trump might be the Code Kerry Candidate--since he was for the war before he was against it.

That's huge, is it not?

In what alternate world is Trump a conservative?

And for related yucks, Bernie Sanders cast two votes for the Clinton-era law that made regime change in Iraq and the development of democracy there our nation's official policy.

Feel the Bern!

UPDATE: Related via Instapundit.

To the Shores of South China Sea Islands

China is building Coast Guard ships essentially designed for small-scale amphibious warfare:

In 2014 China commissioned a new and exceptionally large (4,000 ton) patrol ship for its Coast Guard. That was just the beginning an even larger, 12,000 ton, patrol ship (CCG 3901) is nearing completion. While neither of these huge patrol vessels carriers much in the way of weapons both have surface and air search radars, a helicopter, boarding craft and space for several hundred people. These could be victims of some maritime disaster, or troops for some emergency in the South China Sea (like reinforcing the garrison of an artificial island). The 12,000 ton patrol ship apparently will have a 76mm gun, two smaller (30mm or so) autocannon and two heavy machine-guns.

Here we have another example of Chinese amphibious warfare capability that isn't officially an amphibious warfare capability. We shouldn't judge China by how we do the job.

And as Strategypage notes, the Chinese marines are poorly deployed for Taiwan scenarios. They are probably earmarked for the South China Sea.

This ship design is interesting since I had been working on idea along these lines for an article that I had to put on hold this winter as family matters unexpectedly took up a lot of my time and energy.

So I note this here so I can refer back to it later this year.

Red is a Color

Belarus has issued a new defense doctrine:

Belarus's president, Alexander Lukashenko, has approved an updated version of the country's military doctrine, its first update since 2001. ...

Lukashenko told Belarusian news agency BelTA that there are no conventional military threats to Belarus. The doctrine names no state actors as potential military threats but names both 'hybrid warfare' and 'colour revolutions' as threats, respectively implying Russia and the West are both potential adversaries.

It sounds like Belarus is far more worried about Anschluss with Russia than with any Western attempt to subvert Belarus. The threat of Little Green Men from Russia is very real while a "color revolution" (from the West) is far more likely to mean an astro-turfed Red revolt in favor of Putin's Russia.

Still, that color revolution part of the strategy might just be meant to keep the bear at bay as Belarus resumes ties with Western Europe:

Belarus's President Alexander Lukashenko has been dubbed "Europe's Last Dictator," and ties between Brussels and Minsk have been virtually frozen since a new series of sanctions were imposed in 2010.

But now, it appears, Lukashenko and his country will be welcomed back into the continent's fold as the European Union is set to lift sanctions, sources tell Kommersant. The measures had been imposed against Belarus in several stages from 2006 to 2010, with the toughest measures following a crackdown on mass protests after presidential elections in 2010.

Although notwithstanding Lukashenko's assertion, Russia could just road march their army into Belarus from the east and out of their bases already inside Belarus pretty easily. So I don't know why Russia would need to rely on Russian "hybrid" warfare. Who would intervene to stop the Russians?

NATO should pay attention to what happens in Belarus. It may be the most important territory in Europe today. Which is a get-out-of-jail-free card for Lukashenko, really.

What Did France Do?

Perhaps this news is all about the Lebanese government, but I suspect that France is resisting Saudi intentions regarding Syria:

Saudi Arabia has suspended a $3 billion aid package for the Lebanese army to buy French weapons, state news agency SPA reported on Friday.

But I'm suspicious that way.

UPDATE: Ah, that's what France did:

French President Francois Hollande on Friday said Ankara's escalating involvement in the Syrian conflict was creating a risk of war between Turkey and Russia.

I'll guess that France is opposing the Turkish-Saudi proposal to send ground troops into northern Syria. So Saudi Arabia retaliated.

UPDATE: It isn't just the French:

European diplomats have warned the Turkish government that it cannot count on the NATO support should the conflict with Russia escalate into an armed conflict, according to German media.

Ankara has called for a joint ground operation in Syria with its international allies, insisting it is the only way to stop the country's five-year war. Saudi Arabia has said it would be ready to take part in an international force to be deployed in Syria.

The Europeans have a point. If we haven't been eager to fight Assad over Syria, why would we be eager to fight Russia by letting Turkey initiate a war against Russia?

Which makes it all the more frustrating that we didn't support a pro-rebel buffer zone/no-fly zone inside Syria years ago that would have put Russia in the position of escalating and risking war if Moscow intervened in Syria after that.

Turkey needs their own coalition of the willing who will help them behind the scenes without invoking Article 5 of the NATO treaty should things get ugly in Syria.

And Turkey could attempt to intervene in a way that let's Russia know that escalation outside of Syria to include a general war against Turkey risks an Article 5 moment.

Really, I think Turkey can handle Russia in a limited war over Syria and in the Black Sea. Maybe not win that war even if they win in Syria. But Turkey could bloody Russia's nose enough to dent Putin's bare-chested, Tiger-hunting image.

Tip to Instapundit.

UPDATE: Well that's interesting:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, under pressure at home over her open-door policy for refugees, said on Wednesday that it would be good for the people in Aleppo and the area around it to create "a kind of no fly zone" up to the Turkish border, reiterating comments she made on Monday.

The Germans may consider the risk of war if it halts the flow of Moslems at the source less of a risk to the chancellor's humanitarian reputation than a decision to keep refugees and migrants out.

UPDATE: The arms transfer deal was supposedly caused by Lebanon's failure to side with Saudi Arabia openly in the Saudi embassy incident.

I find it hard to believe that the Saudis would undermine an effort to bolster the Lebanese government against the pro-Iran Hezbollah over that more symbolic offense.

UPDATE: A very late update:

Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister said Saturday the kingdom will keep French military supplies previously intended for Lebanon under a $3 billion aid program, as Riyadh toughens its stance against Hezbollah.

Either this really is just about Lebanon or the Saudi pressure on France worked at least a bit.

Who Will Responsibly End the Libya War?

Smashing the dictator's regime in Libya and walking away to let the locals sort out the post-war without our "bad" influence did not work out in Libya. Now we wonder who will clean up the growing ISIL mess.

So Libya War 2.0 is on!

U.S. warplanes carried out air strikes early on Friday morning in the western Libyan city of Sabratha, where Islamic State militants operate, killing as many as 40 people.

A U.S. military spokesman said the attacks targeted a senior Tunisian militant linked to attacks in Tunisia last year.

Libya is a problem. Even if we get around to smashing ISIL in Iraq sometime this administration, ISIL is expanding in Libya to the point that we have been taking notice of Libya:

President Obama’s senior national security aides have been telling him, sometimes in public, that military action is urgently needed to stop the consolidation of a powerful new terrorist base. “It’s fair to say that we’re looking to take decisive military action,” said Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Yet the White House is again waffling: A meeting to consider options late last month ended without decisions. The hesi­ta­tion risks a repeat of the Iraq debacle.

Wait. What? The Iraq debacle?

I would like to remind the authors that we won the war in Iraq, an outcome that Vice President Biden boasted could be one of the great achievements of the Obama administration, until we walked away in 2011. The Iraq debacle flowed from that latter decision, I say.

But yes, staying out of post-war Libya was one lesson our left learned from the Iraq War. We caused jihadis to flock to Iraq, the left said, and if only we had stayed out after defeating Saddam, the locals would have worked out their differences. Yeah.

As an aside, Syria is another example of learning the wrong lessons from Iraq. In this case we decided a WMD-owning Baathist dictatorship shouldn't be removed in the hope that locals would solve the problem without us. Chemical weapons have been used, hundreds of thousands have died, more flock to Europe, and jihadis flocked to the country to set up their own caliphate and expand into Iraq and beyond. Oh, and they carried out mass slaughter in Paris. Bravo.

But back to the Libya debacle. We want somebody to do something, :

Western governments have discussed plans for a force, perhaps led by Italy, to protect the new regime, while trainers work with the army. Sirte, meanwhile, could be targeted with airstrikes.

Apparently, our air strike is not the start of something major to actually deal with the ISIL caliphate province.

Italy should surely be part of the solution since it is next door to Libya.

But lead the effort? I'm not sure they are up for that. I will say again that if France wants to take a decisive role in the war against ISIL, which struck Paris in November 2015, France should take the lead in Libya rather than become a slightly bigger junior partner in the war against ISIL in Iraq and Syria.

UPDATE: France should take note:

“It is clear that the priority in Washington now is taking whatever steps are convenient to tactically weaken ISIL over the course of the next year,” said Noah Bonsey, a Syria analyst with the International Crisis Group.

The political process to end the war is a lower priority, he said, and has made much less progress.

“If that political track doesn’t go anywhere, it is pretty clear that there is no backup plan,” he said.

Will France be the backup plan? For the glory of France and the defense of Paris?

Envy

China's ruler visited the country's top three media outfits to remind them that they must remain loyal to the Communist Party:

Chinese President Xi Jinping made a rare, high-profile tour of the country's top three state-run media outlets Friday, telling editors and reporters they must pledge absolute loyalty to the party and closely follow its leadership in "thought, politics and action."

In this country, the only television station President Obama would have to visit to demand such absolute loyalty to the Democratic Party is Fox News.

Xi must be very envious.

The Service Doth Protest Too Much

The Air Force keeps insisting that some of their best friends are in the Army and that providing support to ground forces is a high priority for the Air Force. Yet whenever the Air Force has to make a choice based on money that affects ground force missions, it seems that they choose not to support the ground forces. The A-10 has been in the news lately as a plane the Air Force has long wanted to scrap, but don't forget electronic warfare support:

Not long ago the air forces now proposed to retire half the EC-130H fleet in order to provide more money for F-35s and the new heavy bomber. Ground forces quickly came forward with a mountain of evidence about how useful the EC-130H was in fighting Islamic terrorists. Faced with that the air force is now seeking to replace the EC-130H with a smaller but similar (in capabilities) aircraft. Some orders for F-35s are being delayed and the new bomber will take longer to develop.

I wouldn't mind this Air Force anti-ground force bias if they'd simply concede the mission and the money for the mission to the Army, and truly "aim high."

UPDATE: And don't forget the A-10 that was recently saved from Air Force plans to retire the critically needed plane:

Previously, the Air Force planned to fully retire all 300 A-10s by 2018. Congressional and public opposition — and the fact that the Pentagon has recently deployed A-10s to battle Islamic State and to deter Russia — compelled the Air Force to bump back the twin-engine jet’s final flight [to 2022]. ...

But a planning document the Air Force published in mid-February reveals that 2022 is the flying branch’s deadline for the last A-10 retirement, not the first. In fact, according to the document, the first A-10s — those currently with the Air National Guard in Indiana and the Air Force Reserve in Kansas — will bow out as early as 2017.

The Air Force brass is a persistent bunch, you must admit.

The Most Intrusive Nuclear Inspections Ever!

In addition to a review of Iran's nuclear deal-financed wars, Strategypage describes a detail of Iran's nuclear program that doesn't get much coverage:

Even as the July 2015 treaty was being signed there was mounting evidence that Iran was already working to continue its nuclear weapons research program. Before and after July 2015 there were satellite photos available showing work performed at the underground nuclear facilities at a military base (Parchin) that was long suspected of housing a nuclear research facility. For a long time Iran never let UN (IAEA) inspectors near inspect this base. Yet recent satellite photos showed Iran “cleaning up” evidence that nuclear weapons research was going on there. One condition of the July 14 treaty was to let IAEA visit Parchin before the end of 2015. The facilities IAEA wanted to inspect were all destroyed or modified and much material removed before the inspectors finally arrived. Meanwhile there were new underground facilities being built that the inspectors were not allowed near.

Remember, there are Americans and Westerners who celebrate this simply awful deal that will only shield Iran from serious efforts to prevent them from getting long-range nuclear missiles.

Have a super sparkly reset! day.

Why Does Windows 10 Suck?

It is a common occurrence since I switched to Windows 10 on my pretty new computer for it to declare it is using too much memory and then just lock up.

The screen goes black and all I can do is power off the computer and restart.

In a bonus, unlike Windows 8 which would offer me the chance to reopen my last browsing session that unexpectedly ended, in Windows 10 I get no such option.

So this morning I lost my blogging queue. I know. Big loss to the world. But it is annoying to me.

Scheduled posts will continue, of course.

So thanks for the free Windows 10 upgrade!

UPDATE: Oh, and as long as I'm on the subject of Windows 10 sucking memory like a sponge, why does Internet Explorer now routinely have to shut down and reopen tabs because it has encountered a problem?

UPDATE: I will say something good about Windows Defender. I had clicked on a Yahoo! news story when a very real Adobe Flash update screen appeared. I looked at the address bar and the alphabet address did not inspire me with confidence, so I clicked away.

Moments later Windows Defender announced it had detected malware and was getting rid of it. So good on that.

Chimpanzees With Nukes

Behold, in all its self-destructive glory, how Russia is their own worst enemy. A true foreign plot against Russia would put exactly who is now ruling Russia into power to wreck the country.

But this isn't humorous. My pucker factor is truly rising as I contemplate how Putin and his idiot minions could plunge us into war.

But note this from Strategypage's tour of the clusterfuck that Russia has created for itself:

Russia can downplay this [economic mess] in the state controlled media but without all that foreign and Russian capital the economy cannot grow. Inflation and unemployment remain high and there is not much the government can do about it. Eventually the growing economic problems will overwhelm the nationalistic mass media campaign.

Why will the economic problems overwhelm the nationalism? Why wouldn't Putin ramp up the nationalism--perhaps not even intending a short but glorious war, but by going to the brink on the assumption that President Obama will back down first--to smother the economic discontent?

As I've noted before, sanctions are often irrelevant to international relations. If weak enough, the target shrugs it off or endures the pain.

But if the sanctions are--alone or in combination with low oil prices and stupidity--harsh enough to inflict real pain, the target may well think of sanctions not as an alternative to war but a part of a war being waged on them.

And if the sanctions are effectively a siege and a weapon of war, why would the Russians refrain from using kinetic means of war more to their advantage to fight back?

As Japan did on December 7, 1941, when the Japanese response to our oil embargo was to launch a wide-ranging war in Asia and the Pacific.

So the Russians could go to war--or risk war--to increase the power of nationalism to support the government in the face of economic problems that erode support for the government.

Barely sentient chimps with nukes, they seem these days. Have a super sparkly day.

#WhyRussiaCan'tHaveNiceThings

UPDATE: If you sense utter contempt for the Russians, you're right.

I had hoped that post-Soviet Russia would join the West after discarding communism as the failure it is. While NATO has moved east at the request of the former outposts of the Soviet empire, NATO has disarmed and has not moved its forces east. NATO posed no military threat to Russia. Period. Despite loud Russian accusations about the NATO threat.

Really, this loud posturing against a weak NATO threat seems more about concealing Russia's appeasement of a growing China that looms over Russia's weakly held Far East.

And while Russia's complaint that the West is seeking a "color revolution" in Russia is ludicrous--sorry Russia, we really didn't think much about you until you invaded Crimea--if Russia's autocrats are threatened by popular sentiment for freedom, you have to concede that the very existence of a democratic West is a threat to autocratic Russia which has people who would rather not live without freedom.

And they have nukes. So flinging poo is the least of our problems with these people. I keep some hope that when the last Soviets die out that Russia will behave like a normal country. I wonder if that is a futile hope. Russians may be their own worst enemy.

The Burning Sensation Means the Hopeandchange is Working?

Cherish this sign of our newfound respect in the world after George W. Bush, according to the Democrats, wrecked our reputation:

"This [NATO] ministerial marks the beginning of a new stage in the coalition campaign to defeat ISIL," [American Secretary of Defense] Carter said, using a common acronym for the militants. He suggested that countries not answering his call to do more may regret their choice when the struggle is over.

"We will all look back after victory and remember who participated in the fight," he said. [Emphasis added]

Recall that George W. Bush gathered a (much mocked by the Left) "coalition of the willing" to destroy the Saddam regime and help stabilize Iraq.

Remember how Bush wrecked our standing in the world? How he alienated allies and how President Obama's mere existence would restore our esteem and alliances?

And now with hope and change, we have to threaten our treaty allies to help us fight enemies with cartoon levels of evil in Iraq and Syria.

Yet apparently, our resolve and threats aren't enough to keep Saudi Arabia from forming their own coalition:

Armed forces from around 20 countries were gathering in northern Saudi Arabia Sunday for "the most important" military manoeuvre ever staged in the region, the official news agency SPA reported.

The "Thunder of the North" exercise involving ground, air, and naval forces sends a "clear message" that Riyadh and its allies "stand united in confronting all challenges and preserving peace and stability in the region", SPA said.

Although to be fair, I remember expressing hope that the Bush administration would remember who participated in that Iraq War 1.0 and who didn't. So good on that part, anyway.

May these prodded allies refrain from pointing out (too much) that we blew the victory that now requires a new stage in the campaign to re-defeat jihadis in Iraq War 2.0. But maybe that's what the parallel coalition is for.

The Long March to High Per Capita GDP

This is a very interesting article on China's economy. China may yet become rich. But it has obstacles in the way.

It's long but worth it to consider how China will move forward:

It is perfectly possible, perhaps even likely, that China will become a high-income country one day. But the path ahead looks very bumpy. The huge imbalances built up in the past are becoming binding constraints today. Many countries have looked very impressive until they ceased to be—or, to recall once again Herb Stein’s immortal wisdom: “If something can’t go on forever, it won’t.” The next stage for China’s economy is a conundrum. Its resolution will shape the world.

And there is a bonus reference to the Lewis Turning Point, which I relied on in my amateur economics without realizing it had a term for it.

China could pass us by but their opportunity might be fleeting, I've written.

And if only parts of China make the transition to a modern high GDP-per-capita country, could "China" become a geographic rather than a political term?

And might China go to war to prevent that fragmentation from occurring and keep the Chinese Communist Party in control of all of China?

Why yes, my pucker factor is a little high, lately.

What Goes Around Comes Around

Democrats have screwed Republicans with raw power when they controlled Congress and they screw Congress from the White House by ignoring checks and balances. By all means, the Republicans should refuse to confirm any left wing candidate for the Supreme Court that the president may nominate--as is their Constitutional right to do.

But do it in a way that allows for the theoretical possibility that the Senate could confirm one of the president's nominees if the nominee is acceptable.

Smile. And remember how so many on the Left danced on Antonin Scalia's grave.

Do read all of Jonah's thoughts.

And let me add one: Hillary Clinton is ecstatic and would love it if the Republicans don't confirm a presidential nominee.

Not that this is a reason for Republicans to pass a bad nominee, but you must admit that a Republican refusal allows Hillary to go into Full Indignant Role in defense of the Obama administration to lessen the appeal from the left of Sanders; and it holds open the possibility that she could get that appointment in 2017 should she still believe she will win the presidency. So win-win for her.

UPDATE: Please enjoy the New York Times arguing that the Senate controlled by the other party has every right to decline to accept the nominee of a president for the Supreme Court.

Tip to The Corner.

UPDATE: Via Instapundit, Megan McArdle:

We can argue about who started this escalating tit-for-tat war over the court, but who cares? Both sides have been down in the trenches for some years now, and both sides fight dirty whenever they think it’s to their advantage. The stakes are too high to do otherwise.

If we want to stop this before the next Pyrrhic victory, the answer is not to whine about how awful the other party is; it’s to lower the stakes. Far too many people on every side want to do an end run around the legislation process by getting unelected judges to declare their particular concerns beyond the reach of legislators. Why bother tediously lobbying senators and representatives, when you can simply win the White House, appoint a few judges, and get them to transform your most ardent desires into untouchable rights?

Yes, this is something I've gone on about forever. Not everything is a federal issue and elevating every damn thing to this level makes it extremely important to control whatever federal centers of power control the outcome of the national debate.

You want less divisive political culture? Then stop making every issue--no matter how important it is to you--a federal issue.

UPDATE: Ignore Democrats with their new-found respect for deference to the president's choice:

It’s hard to swallow demands for deference from a party that for seven years has cheered Obama’s serial constitutional depredations: his rewriting the immigration laws by executive order (stayed by the courts); his reordering the energy economy by regulation (stayed by the courts); his enacting the nuclear deal with Iran, the most important treaty of this generation, without the required two-thirds of the Senate (by declaring it an executive agreement).

Minority Leader Harry Reid complains about the Senate violating precedent if it refuses a lame-duck nominee. This is rich. It is Reid who just two years ago overthrew all precedent by abolishing the filibuster for most judicial and high executive appointments. In the name of what grand constitutional principle did Reid resort to a parliamentary maneuver so precedent-shattering that it was called the nuclear option? None. He did it in order to pack the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia with liberals who would reliably deflect challenges to Obamacare.

Do read it all, as the expression goes.

Hold the line. If Seate Republicans won't hold here, where will they?

UPDATE: Related.

And of course, the Left likes to demonize and dehumanize decent people.

A Global Probe

Enemies are testing our resolve around the globe and finding it lacking (tip to Instapundit):

Revisionist powers are on the move. ‎From eastern Ukraine and the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea, large rivals of the United States are modernizing their military forces, grabbing strategic real estate, and threatening vulnerable U.S. allies. Their goal is not just to assert hegemony over their neighborhoods but to rearrange the global security order as we have known it since the end of the Second World War.

We first wrote about these emerging dynamics in 2010, and then in TAI in 2011.

Yes, a year and a half ago I warned of the approaching predators--which I predicted in 2009:

Saying that foreign policy is a distant second in priorities for this administration might seem an odd thing to say for a president who has traveled abroad so much already.

But it makes sense if you think of the trips abroad as efforts to disengage from foes and retreat a bit by giving our foes what they want in order to buy time to pass domestic legislation.

Understand that when you retreat, it takes a while for an enemy to pursue you and fill the vacuum. And that time it takes for the enemy to re-engage will surely be much quieter.

And if you want to, you can argue that the period of quiet while the enemy approaches is actually "peace." It isn't peace, but you can pretend for a while that it is so you can focus on domestic issues.

And boy did the president's fans pretend for a while. Allow me to quote the best-case scenario put forward (in the same month as my warning):

On foreign policy, the goal has been to prevent chronic problems from becoming attention-absorbing crises. To ensure that low-level trade conflicts with China don't poison the broader bilateral relationship, the administration has picked its fights carefully. To avoid pointless confrontation with Moscow, the White House pledged to "reset" U.S.-Russian relations. Obama signaled a willingness to talk directly with Iran about its nuclear program. It limited administration criticism of the country's disputed presidential election last summer and the government crackdown that followed.

With considerable luck, the strategy has so far proven a success.

Luck! A success!! After 10 whole months there was no disaster!!! Behold the awesome power of Hope and Change!

Although to be fair, that author did say that future years wouldn't be so simple. Little did he guess. If only the obscure connection between initial okay and later disaster had been identified (coughobamacough).

And so here we are, with the barbarians massing at the walls, still wanting more after 7 years of advances at our expense. Who could imagine that outcome, eh?

So yeah, if you feel your Pucker Factor redlining lately, it's understandable. And predictable.

From the Conflict That Militarized Without Us

The Syria conflict that we didn't want to militarize by getting decisively involved in continues to rage.

Assad's forces, spearheaded by Iran's Shia foreign legion and Hezbollah and supported by Russia airpower, continues to make gains around Aleppo:

The Syrian army has retaken [the village of al-Tamura ] that overlooks major rebel-held towns around Aleppo, state television said on Saturday, part of a government campaign to encircle and recaptured insurgent areas of the major northern city.

I freely admit this puzzles me. I figured the offensive in the north was all about rescuing besieged Assad supporters up there rather than an effort to seriously take and hold territory.

I continue to believe that if Assad captures Aleppo that he doesn't have the troops to hold the city and territory around it. Especially once the pro-Assad foreign shock troops who still have the stomach to fight move on to another sector of the war.

Remember, the Syrian forces aren't that good if this can happen:

An ambush by Syrian rebels on pro-regime forces near Damascus this week killed 76 fighters, a monitor said Saturday, in one of the deadliest attacks of its kind since the conflict began.

Militants from the powerful Jaish al-Islam (Army of Islam) rebel group opened fire last Sunday on around 240 government forces that were preparing to storm the opposition stronghold of Eastern Ghouta, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

It is unclear what type of forces these were. The story leaves me to conclude that they aren't foreigners but doesn't say they are army. They are likely Syrian self-defense militias, because the article says the families are from Latakia--a stronghold of the regime's support.

But the important thing is the scale of the ambush. In our years in Iraq we never experienced anything that bad. That could be the casualty rate for a two-week period--at the height of the surge offensive--and many months were far less than that.

If Assad's enemies can adapt from holding ground they've stood on for years to go down the escalation ladder to insurgency, they can continue the fight and put more stress on the already shaken Syrian army that has taken huge (excuse the term) casualties already in this war, and which will need to stretch out even more to hold these gains.

So talk of Assad winning is way premature:

Kerry, who has prided himself on his close relationship with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, then called on Moscow to “join in the effort to bring about an immediate ceasefire and … full humanitarian access” to more than half a million Syrians under siege, primarily by forces supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Kerry will make one more effort to shame Russia into stopping the bombardment when he meets with Lavrov again on the sidelines of this week’s Munich Security Conference.

It seems unlikely that the Russians will comply. Fred Hof, a former State Department official who sought to organize moderate forces opposed to Assad during President Barack Obama’s first term, said Tuesday that “the prospect of a Russian-supported regime military victory in northwest Syria are quite good.”

Speaking at an event at the Atlantic Council, Hof predicted that the Russia-Iran-Assad coalition would next turn its attention to southwest Syria, triggering another mass civilian exodus toward Jordan, which is already struggling to deal with tens of thousands of Syrian refugees.

Sure, Assad is winning now in the northwest with foreign shock troops to spearhead the advance. But if Assad wants to turn to the southwest, those shock troops will go, leaving Assad's less than resolute second-raters to hold the gains. Even with Russian air power, these guys will take casualties as the rebels (and terrorists) recover from the pounding.

And allow me in an aside to laugh that Secretary of State Kerry takes pride in close relations with Russia's Lavrov. If I was Lavrov, I'd take every call from Kerry ASAP considering I manage to take Kerry's lunch money and give him a diplomatic wedgy every time they match wits!

God help us all, but they really think this is smart diplomacy.

And they think this is deep thinking:

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is "deluded" if he thinks there is a military solution to the war in Syria, nearly five years into a brutal conflict that has killed more than 260,000 people, a US official said.

In an abstract sense, yes, a military solution will not solve the problem of most Syrians hating the Assad regime.

But a military response is the first and most important element of achieving that broader settlement. If Assad's forces can hammer the rebels enough to break their morale to resist before the government forces and their minority of supporters break, you are damned right that a military solution will solve the problem--for a generation, anyway as the people who hate Assad are too broken to fight on.

And trust me, that will be enough of a victory for Assad and Russia, notwithstanding the failure to have a total resolution of the basis of the conflict. The White House is deluded if they think otherwise.

The Turks suffer no similar delusion about the worthlessness of military power to shape outcomes.

UPDATE: "A mini world war rages in the fields of Aleppo":

Russian warplanes are bombing from the sky. Iraqi and Lebanese militias aided by Iranian advisers are advancing on the ground. An assortment of Syrian rebels backed by the United States, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are fighting to hold them back. Kurdish forces allied both to Washington and Moscow are taking advantage of the chaos to extend Kurdish territories. The Islamic State has snatched a couple of small villages, while all the focus was on the other groups.

I just thank God we didn't militarize the conflict by trying to decisively intervene against Assad four years ago.

UPDATE: And of course, behold the strategery--and the left-wing media's refusal to report on the stupid:

With refugees destabilizing the European Union, the Turks writing off the value of NATO, the Kurds considering a shift to Russia rather than the U.S., ISIS quietly rejoicing as its enemies turn against one another, the Sunni Gulf powers taking more risks and increasing their distance from the U.S., the situation in the Middle East is growing more dire and more dangerous by the week. ...

Fortunately for President Obama’s short-term peace of mind, but tragically from the standpoint of Middle East peace, the plight of the Syrians and the President’s historical standing, the press is sticking to its standard “don’t connect the dots” approach when it comes to reporting on President Obama’s failures in office.

This diplomacy smarts all right.

UPDATE: Not that I'd ever argue that the anti-Assad forces holding Aleppo are good guys. But I wanted us to get rid of Assad by supporting the rebels years ago, which could have preempted the rise of ISIL and put us in the position of now focusing on jihadis without the side effect of keeping the butcher Assad regime in power.

We're From the Kremlin. And We're Here to Help

Belarus accepts financial help from Russia:

President Alexander Lukashenko said Monday that he has secured Russian President Vladimir Putin's promise to help shore up the Belarusian economy, which has suffered from recession in Russia, its main export market.

Duck and cover, Belarussians. You're a slight name change from being a Russian province (again). Don't let the Russians buy your country. Their collection agency is exceptionally well armed.

Both NATO and Ukraine have a lot of interest in keeping Belarus out of Russia's firm grip in a new Anschluss.

Smart Diplomacy

We lost over 4,600 troops to free Iraq in 2003 and turned it from a Saddam-controlled Soviet-armed enemy that supported terror and was aggressive to neighbors into an ally in the war against terrorists. And then we walked away in 2011.

In our absence, Iran gained influence in Iraq through pro-Iran Shia proxies.

And now Russia regains a foothold there:

Russia is ready to sell civil airliners to Iraq and keep providing it with military aid to fight Islamic State, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said on Thursday, accompanied on a trip to Baghdad by the biggest Russian delegation in years.

The mission by nearly 100 government and business officials was part of a drive by Moscow to strengthen commercial and security ties with Iraq, potentially eroding U.S. influence in one of the world's most critical regions.

Even though we've re-started our part in the war that never really was "responsibly ended" (and are getting better with our limited air power commitment), it's almost like Iraq doesn't want to risk counting on us to stick around even if we get around to destroying ISIL.

The Smart Diplomacy is really starting to burn. Could we stop that? Now? Please?

UPDATE: A small success:

The three Americans who were abducted in Baghdad last month have been freed, the State Department said Tuesday, and Iraqi officials said they have been handed over to the U.S. Embassy in good health.

But who got them released? Was it our effort? Or did the Russians help? Or did Iran tell its proxies not to get too aggressive until all the Western checks clear?

Some Damn Fool Thing Near the Balkans

There have been a lot of wars fought between Russia and Turkey. We could see another one.

I've noted that the Russia-Turkey tension over Syria has raised my pucker factor considerably.

As of the moment, Turkey denies having "security forces" inside Syria.

Although it may depend on how the Turks define that term. If Turkey plans to send troops into Syria, I'd expect special forces-type forces (perhaps intelligence agency people for definition purposes) to be sent in first.

Have no doubt that Turkey is leaning forward on the question of sending troops into Syria:

Turkey will not allow the northern Syrian town of Azaz to fall into the hands of a Kurdish militia and its fighters will face the "harshest reaction" if they approach it again, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said on Monday.

A major offensive supported by Russian bombing and Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias has brought the Syrian army to within 25 km (15 miles) of the Turkish border.

So these advancing forces are within artillery range of Turkish guns inside Turkey:

"Starting from February 13, Turkish artillery concentrated in border areas is carrying out massive strikes on Syrian towns recently freed from terrorists by regime forces and Kurdish militia," a statement by the Russian foreign ministry said.

While drones or aircraft could be spotting for the artillery, so could forward observers on the ground.

The Turks are not happy with the Iranians and and their Iraqi foreign legion fighting there. And they really aren't happy about the Russian support for the Kurdish offensive.

On the other hand, I imagine America and NATO officials are trying to restrain the Turks to avoid making this a Russia-NATO fight.

As I've said, Russia is outgunned overall. But Russia can concentrate power against weakness in the most eastern portions of NATO.

And Russia has lots of nukes. So there is that.

Oh, and here's another lovely bit of potential friction between Turkey and Russia:

Two years after Russia seized Crimea from Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin touts the move as a historic achievement, looking on with a satisfied smile from countless billboards across the peninsula. However, overwhelming opposition from the Muslim Tatar ethnic minority puts a crack in this picture of unanimous support, as evidenced in interviews with more than two dozen Tatars across Crimea. And the resistance appears to be growing.

Turkey isn't mentioned at all. But the Turks could try to exploit this budding resistance by Moslem residents of Crimea who have no love for the Russians. Who are the Russians, who claim special privilege to "protect" ethnic Russians (or just those who speak Russian) everywhere, to complain about this urge to protect?

So a Russian-Turkish war over Syria would quickly spread to the sea from the eastern Mediterranean up to the Black Sea, and into Europe in Crimea where another conflict simmers between Ukraine and Russia.

UPDATE: If fighting between Turkish and Russian forces breaks out, NATO ships will be right in the middle of it:

With more than a million migrants having reached Europe in the last year and many more on the way, NATO stepped into the crisis for the first time on Thursday, saying it would deploy ships to the Aegean Sea in an attempt to stop smugglers. ...

Officials said three NATO vessels, from Canada, Germany and Turkey, were being deployed to the Aegean Sea under the command of Jörg Klein, a German rear admiral.

I'm sure the Russians would leave these NATO--including one Turkish vessel--warships alone, knowing they are on a migrant mission and not a threat to Russia's Mediterranean squadron, right?

UPDATE: Why the rise of Syria's Kurds is such a sore spot with Turkey:

The civil war is escalating in southeastern Turkey, with the government pledging to stamp out militant Kurds. Young Kurds, who used to hurl stones and Molotov cocktails, are now fighting on the front lines in several cities.

Turkey wouldn't be the first country to see a foreign threat as a convenient way to settle a domestic division. Much could be done in relative obscurity against internal Kurds while a high-profile conflict with Russia rages.

"Controversy" in Canada

Canada will end their tiny role in bombing ISIL in Iraq and Syria:

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Monday Canada would pull out six jets that have been bombing targets in Iraq and Syria, ending Canada's controversial combat role in the effort against Islamic State.

The West is screwed when it is "controversial" to bomb Medieval barbarians who actually proudly publicize how barbaric they are.

But no worries. Canada does have a use for those military bases not being used to project combat power to fighting ISIL--Canada will use them to house Moslem refugees from the chaos that jihadis are creating in the Middle East. (Tip to Instapundit, although I confess I have no idea what the site is and its level of credibility. So I'll keep an eye out for more.)

Sigh. Canada did stand up to fight and die in Afghanistan with us. So my criticism of the decision to pull out of the kinetics is muted out of respect for that.

Although why Canada shrinks from bombing from high altitude after going toe-to-toe with jihadis on the ground is beyond me.

And Canada will help against ISIL in other ways. They surely have the right to do what they think best.

But the notion that bombing terrorist scum is "controversial" is hard to take.

UPDATE: So after taking the high profile decision to reject the war on ISIL by withdrawing their F-18s from combat, the leftist Canadian government then sends in special forces?

Canada’s new plan to significantly boost the size of its special forces commitment in Iraq, give arms to the Kurds as well as provide more than $700 million in humanitarian aid has taken the sting out of the country’s decision to withdraw its fighter jets from coalition efforts against the Islamic State, politicians and military officers say.

This is incoherent. WTF, eh?

Another Dot. But a Big One, You Must Admit

After recapturing Ramadi, our focus is turning the Iraqi military north to recapture Mosul from ISIL at the expense of exploiting the Ramadi success to expand the war against ISIL to the rest of Anbar province. Or is it?

It makes no sense to turn on Mosul in the north when almost all of Anbar province  continues to be under ISIL control, which threatens Baghdad by leaving terrorists within range of the capital who can send in car bombs to the city.

Is our long training effort capable of turning to Mosul while keeping some pressure on ISIL in Anbar? Operations do continue in Anbar:

A statement broadcast on state television said the army, police and counter-terrorism forces had retaken several areas including the town of Husaiba al-Sharqiya, about 10 km (6 miles) east of Ramadi.

"(Our forces) also managed to open the road from Ramadi to Baghdad which passes through al-Khaldiya," the statement added, referring to a highway that links the city to the Habbaniya base where U.S.-led coalition forces are located.

Strategypage addresses the quiet effort going on to advance in Anbar and the improvements in training that the American-led effort has created in Iraqi units that has contributed to the apparent demoralization of ISIL fighters used to scaring Iraqi security forces into panic and retreat through simple "scream and leap" tactics. Do read it all, with bonus material on Iran's influx of money courtesy of the faux nuclear deal that has helped Iran undermine Iraq and the region.

As an aside, Strategypage again notes the problem of corruption and lack of rule of law in Iraq. Well before the surge was even needed, I hoped that military victory would lead to a more civilian presence to create a more fertile ground for real democracy by helping Iraqis achieve rule of law. I will repeat that hope for whenever we get around to defeating ISIL.

So this continued attention to Anbar is good. In this light, I'll mention (again) I've long hoped that Jordan would lead a mechanized assault from the west to complement Iraqi advances in the east of Anbar. The success in and around Ramadi makes me pine for this all over again.

Yet Jordan has not moved. Despite some indications that I thought might have been preparations for an offensive, nothing has happened.

Does this level of presidential interest mean Jordan's role will be finalized?

U.S. President Barack Obama will meet with Jordan's King Abdullah at the White House on Feb. 24, the White House said on Monday.

Will we turn north for the main effort to capture Mosul while Iraqi forces left in Anbar are helped by Jordan in a secondary effort to exploit the Ramadi success in Anbar, and thus protect Baghdad from a terror counter-attack on the city in response to the pending Mosul offensive?

Every other dot I've tried to connect on this issue has fallen short of creating the picture I've wanted to see since summer 2014. I didn't even bother blogging about recent news that the Czechs were sending large amounts of small arms ammo to Jordan. Perhaps it is for rebels. Perhaps for training.

But hope springs eternal. Now all I need is the change part.

UPDATE: And Kerry is involved, too--hopefully not to muck it up, but to hammer out diplomatic details that will be formalized in Washington, D.C., with the president:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will meet Jordan's King Abdullah over the weekend to discuss the situation in the Middle East[.]

We have a forward element of a division headquarters in Jordan already, I believe. So any military details don't need a high ranking visit from our military. But having the president and secretary of state go sure seems like a lot of attention. Perhaps it is all about the Southern Front rebels. But I like to think it is about a Jordanian mechanized offensive into western Anbar.