Just in Time to Be Blamed on Trump

American liberals spent the last 15 years or so praising socialist Venezuela under Axis of El Vil founder Hugo Chavez and then that mini-me Nicolás Maduro, but a liberal writer says the descent of Venezuela into autocracy, violence, and poverty is the fault of America rather than because of liberals who cried "hands off Venezuela" and of a liberal president who did nothing during his tenure?

Fascinating:

The void of U.S. leadership has been partly filled, at last, by the energetic new secretary general of the Organization of American States, Luis Almagro, who since taking office in 2015 has campaigned hard to bring pressure to bear on Maduro. But the OAS is unlikely to save Venezuela. Instead, a country that was once a close democratic ally of the United States, and the richest in Latin America, may be doomed to years more of violence and hunger — while a former superpower looks away. [emphasis added]

One, America is a former superpower? Seriously? Apparently you can smoke Trump Hysteria Condition.

Two, I'm so old that I remember that failing to lead and letting others take care of their neighborhood was considered the height of nuanced Smart diplomacy. "Leading from behind" ring a bell? Anyone?

But no, now America's refusal to do something about this long-telegraphed catastrophe is Trump's fault (in his nearly three-month old administration) despite 8 years of tolerance for the problem under Obama and nearly as long under Bush when liberals demanded that America keep our hands off fraternal socialist brother Hugo as he built his delicious socialist omelet.

Yeah, the name conspicuously absent in the article blaming America is "Obama."

Jackson Diehl does know who was president for the previous eight years, ending only this last January, during that void in U.S. leadership while Venezuela really began its steep spiral leading to chaos, right?

If I was Lord of news feeds, this would be considered "fake news."

UPDATE: The killing is so far limited:

At least 12 people were killed overnight during looting and violence in Venezuela’s capital amid a spiraling political crisis, authorities said Friday.

But there will be more of these:

Venezuela's opposition prepared to march in silence on Saturday to honor a dozen people killed in three weeks of protests demanding that the government of President Nicolas Maduro hold delayed elections and address a growing economic crisis.

Oddly enough, Maduro's government is inept even for socialist autocracies which usually lack everything but the means to violently control people:

Venezuela's National Police threw rocks at a peaceful demonstration Thursday, as inventories of tear gas seem to be running low in Venezuela, due to embargoes by materiel-producing countries and a decline in the price of oil, the commodity that brings in more than 90% of all hard currency.

On the bright side for the forces of el vil, swinging a baton aimed at heads is cheap.

UPDATE: Let's hope not:

After several days of violent protests, Venezuela's socialist government is struggling to keep order on the streets of Caracas. Amidst the chaos, a local woman known only as 'La Dama' was photographed putting herself between people and an armored truck.

Reminiscent of Tank Man who came to symbolize China's Tiananmen Square Massacre, La Dama could go down in history.

People do remember that ultimately the Chinese tanks crushed the demonstrators with perhaps thousands of civilian casualties; and that the communist government won, right?

Of course, that's real courage as opposed to the silliness over a statue of a girl posed in front of a statue of a bull.

UPDATE: More:

Venezuela cannot wake up from its socialist nightmare.

The Venezuelan opposition just staged a massive protest against the government, which the government repressed with military force, leading to at least three deaths, The New York Times reports. Detained opposition activists say the authorities tortured them, according to Reuters. Meanwhile, across the country, people are starving.

Venezuela, a beautiful, oil-rich country, once one of the wealthiest nations in the Southern Hemisphere, is only sinking further into economic devastation and chaotic, corrupt authoritarianism.

Never forget that when you want a government big enough to "give" you everything you think you need; you get a government big enough to give you tear gas, bullets, and batons when that government predictably fails to be your father and mother forever.

A Red Sports Car Would Be Cheaper

I didn't really get any sense of why a land power like Russia is apparently trying so hard to build a navy from this article.

Other than some banal observations on the utility of naval power and actually sending ships to sea, I didn't learn why Russia wants a navy. With the question of whether Russia is trying to revive a blue water navy capable of acting far from Russia's shores, this seems important to know. But could Russia's renewed drive to build a navy really a function of Putin liking naval uniforms?

My view is that Russia needs smaller ships to protect their coasts; ballistic missile submarines as a survivable nuclear deterrent; forces to protect those subs; and down the line in importance, ships for show-the-flag missions abroad.

Otherwise, a fleet is a pointless drain on limited Russian resources when they need ground and air forces to protect their extremely long border.

Of course, in addition to the fleet there are two other traditional sources of Russian weakness.

Is Russia so used to facing aggressive threats from the west that they can't adjust to the new reality that unless Russia provokes it, no Western European countries want to spend money on military power to confront Russia?

Pain and Response

Liberals crack me up.

The American flag is a symbol of our country and all Americans. Yet liberals like to complain that Republicans act like only they deserve to display the American flag.

So the Democrats haul out newly purchased flags every two years for elections while they harrumph that Republicans don't have a monopoly on patriotism.

Yet outside of election windows, this is the message our left gives us:

First we have some California college students who wanted to make the flag's presence at their student government meetings "optional." ...

“We don’t have to have this show and demonstration of patriotism everywhere in our society,” one student senate member, Itmar Waksman, told KOVR.

Another student told KOVR, “The flag to a lot of people represents capitalism, colonialism and the genocide of indigenous people, and this is why we don’t want the flag in meetings.”

Yeah, America's problem is that patriotism spread too widely.

Also, a lot of people are apparently stupid.

And:

Second, NBC baseball writer Craig Calcaterra was annoyed that the "political symbol" of the flag is present at sporting events.

Wait. What? I thought the official Democratic line is that Republicans don't have a monopoly on the American flag? Now the American flag is a political symbol at American sporting events?

Which recalls President Obama's reluctance when a candidate to wear a flag pin on his suit despite seeking to be elected president of America (and not head of the DNC).

Democrats would have a better chance of convincing me that Republicans don't have a monopoly on the American flag if Democrats didn't react to our flag the way vampires react to Holy Water and sunlight.

Code Dead

After 9/11 we got a color-coded terror alert system to let people know the level of the jihadi terrorist threat to our nation. We need a system that informs the world of our danger to jihadis.

The Obama administration thought it inadequate and changed the Bush system.

I think the system needs to be changed again. But not to warn Americans about the terrorist threat to us.

No, we need an alert system that tells terrorists how pissed off we are and what they can expect from us. Let's split the difference between the 5-level Bush scale and the 3-level Obama scale, and have 4 levels of (our) threat.

Code Green is peacetime where if you catch our eye, we'll kill you when we get around to it. Death will come from the air. The British will participate, too.

Code Yellow is routine wartime. We'll look for you and you can expect a drone, special forces, or missile strike to regularly upset your training and mayhem schedule. Expect allies like the Canadians, Dutch, Poles, and Australians to participate as well.

Code Red is a state of intense desire to kill you, and you can expect a MOAB or lots of smaller bombs impacting in a short period of time. There could be lots of American special forces and regulars after you, too. The French might join in.

Code Dead is a state of American anger and resolve that will strain the capacity of jihadi paradise to scrape up the required virgins to meet the sudden need. For innocents, please leave a generous buffer zone around any jihadis you see. Measured in tens of kilometers, please. Also, while the French will participate, the Germans still won't take part.

So that's my suggestion. Enough of the focus on what our enemies can do to us. Let's focus on what we do to them.

Hold the Swagger

In 2014 I did not assume Ukraine was doomed in a conflict with Russia. The conventional wisdom did assume that.

Interesting:

Russia’s hybrid war against Ukraine is now entering its fourth year, but there was a time when few expected it to last even four weeks.

The virtually bloodless seizure of Crimea, which fell to Russian troops in early 2014 without a fight, led most observers to conclude that Ukraine was effectively defenseless and at Moscow’s mercy.

This was the consensus view in Moscow, where many of the bolder voices began speaking of celebrating the traditional May holidays in Kiev itself. Such swagger seemed perfectly reasonable; Ukraine was still reeling from months of anti-government protests that had spread chaos across the country before culminating in the flight of President Viktor Yanukovych and the collapse of his entire administration.

Before the war, I assumed Ukraine could resist--and had counter-offensive options if their military wasn't shot (yet it was from years of neglect and corruption and the immediate confusion of the change in government)--and that Russia would face problems in taking much Ukraine. I assumed Russian operations would be limited to taking a chunk of the east and Crimea.

And I called the Russian on their failure to quickly move into the Donbas region as they did in Crimea which gave Ukraine time to scrape together defenses in the east.

Even in mid-March I thought that Ukraine could resist in Crimea.

Also, in bonus territory, before the invasion I called any Russian operation to grab Crimea an opening to expand their role in the eastern Mediterranean region:

Pushing Russia away from the Black Sea--should Russia lose their bases in Crimea if Ukraine doesn't want them there any more--in the long run makes Russian operations in the Mediterranean much more difficult. That would make their help for Syria a bit more difficult and deprive Russia of some leverage in Egypt.

Russia is now directly fighting in Syria, updating their air and naval bases there; making plays for influence in Libya, Turkey, and Egypt; and sent their carrier on a photo op mission to Syrian waters.

I write this post not to claim prescience--I've certainly gotten things wrong.

But I do want to remind readers that I give you my analysis of events rather than just running with the herd.

I'm not willing to call this a Russian "quagmire," as the article says--absolving the West of doing anything--unless the West helps Ukraine send body bags back to Russia in larger numbers and gets the fight going inside Russian-occupied Ukraine rather than on the line of contact that only seems to work against Ukraine.

And about that hybrid war hype ...

The Last Refuge of the Scoundrel Maduro?

Will the mother of all protests in Venezuela lead to the mother of all distractions?

Venezuela's amazingly inept socialist strongman Nicolas Maduro has targeted America as his nation spins apart:

General Motors said Wednesday it has been forced to stop operating in Venezuela after one of its plants was illegally seized by local authorities.

The seizure, in the country's industrial hub of Valencia, comes amid a deepening economic and political crisis that has sparked weeks of deadly street protests.

Could Maduro take a desperate gamble to convince his people that the nearby Dutch island of Curacao is a safe haven for enemies of the state and the launching pad for an imminent American invasion that must be crushed to save the socialist paradise that Hugo Chavez passed down to Maduro to defend?

If you think you are doomed, a near-doomed gamble looks good by comparison.

UPDATE: Hmm:

With Venezuela’s capital girding for massive demonstrations Wednesday, President Nicolás Maduro is accusing the United States of trying to overthrow his leftist government.

In an address from the national palace in Caracas Tuesday evening, Maduro complained of “a State Department push” to “provoke an imperialist intervention” in the South American country, with pro- and anti-government demonstrations as a backdrop.

Protesters don't seem swayed by mere words to rally around Maduro. Will Maduro try something more dramatic to "prove" the American threat?

It's Just Plain Old Warfare

Stripping out the cyber-war, fake news, denials, and irregulars, Russia's aggression in Ukraine's Donbas is just plain old aggression. Stop trying to over-think this as an excuse to do nothing.

Don't forget the conventional warfare part of Russia's aggression against Ukraine!

[What] is often lost in the discussion of the technological innovation of Russian hybrid warfare is that a conventional line of effort resides just below the surface. The Donbas campaign of the Russo–Ukrainian War (2014–present) highlights this idea. The Donbas campaign showcases innovations in Russian land warfare through the actions of Russian land forces—working in conjunction with separatist land forces—throughout the campaign. Most notably, these innovations include the development of the battalion tactical group (BTG)—a formation that possesses the firepower to punch at the operational level of war—coupled with a reconnaissance-strike model not seen on contemporary battlefields. Furthermore, the BTG and reconnaissance-strike model work in tandem to create siege warfare opportunities for the Russian and separatist forces, allowing them to generate high levels of destruction while operating beneath the notice of the international community. [emphasis added]

As I understand it, one reason for the use of the BTG is that Russian brigades are not capable of being committed, requiring the Russians to tap brigades across the entire Russian expanse to pick out the acceptable troops in those brigades (the RUSI report link in the post is broken--UPDATE: I found the article on the Internet Wayback Machine):

Russia is compelled to bring in troops from all over Russia, compel draftees into becoming "contract" soldiers, putting troops from different units together to form battle groups for the Donbas, and even using Interior Ministry troops behind the lines to keep Russian troops from retreating.

As for operating beneath the notice of the international community, that's just BS.

We know the Russians invaded Ukraine yet the West has chosen to ignore the blatant invasion. How on Earth are multiple battalions with hundreds of tanks directing massive and sophisticated firepower so subtle that we can't notice it?

And as much as I hope the Ukrainian lawsuit works, even the Ukrainians go along with the fiction by asserting that Russia is  "'sponsoring terrorism' by financing pro-Russian separatists and failing to stop military aid from seeping across the border into eastern Ukraine's Donbas region."

It's not only financing separatists--it's an invasion.

And it isn't "failing to stop military aid" from crossing the border like it is a problem to be solved by tougher border controls--it is a deliberate policy to send aid into the Donbas.

Face it, hybrid warfare is just Russia invading a country with conventional and special forces at the side of an astro-turfed secessionist movement while denying Russia is responsible, and the West going along with that fiction. The Russians could commit entire numbered armies to the fight with that kind of thinking on both sides.

And if the Russians could do that kind of large invasion, they would have. This "hybrid warfare" theory is just dressing up Russia's inability to do a fast smash and grab with overwhelming force.

Do you really think the Russians chose from ingenious thinking to stretch out the war in the Donbas this long and wouldn't have preferred to pull the bandage off fast if they could to avoid the Western sanctions that were imposed when it became embarrassing to ignore Russia's aggression any longer?

That's how Russia avoided sanctions over attacking Georgia in 2008 and cementing their control of that country's breakaway provinces. Heck, that's how Russia has gotten away with seizing Crimea with a direct attack bolstered by reinforcing troops, special forces, and astro-turf local rebels. Who talks about getting Russia to relinquish that conquest as the focus remains on Russian-occupied Donbas?

There is a full report at the first link. I'm so disgusted with the willingness of the West to go along with Russian fiction that I'm not inclined to read it (although I know I will eventually when I get a paper copy).

Training Eagles

American regulars will train Somali and African troops in Somalia.

The 101st Airborne Division will help locals and regional allies fight jihadis in Somalia:

A few dozen troops from the 101st Airborne Division in Ft. Campbell, Kentucky, arrived in Mogadishu on April 2 at the request of the Somali government, a U.S. military official told VOA.

The team is carrying out a train-and-equip mission that is expected to last through the end of September, according to the official.

This also helps our special forces who normally do jobs like that.

With special forces' direct action role in demand to fight terrorists, it is tougher to spare them for training. So regulars help the locals and help the special forces.

Of course, having our special forces do the training and advising makes the special forces better, too, in understanding the local environment and actors. So it shouldn't be an absolute substitution.

Turkey Starts Down a Dangerous Path

The Turkish opposition wasn't very happy with the process that gave Ergogan a narrow victory (51.4%) in the vote to give him pretty much dictatorial powers. But whether or not the vote is totally legitimate, that's the working theory Erdogan will go forward with. What will NATO do?

Yeah, the result is probably fishy:

Turkey's main opposition party urged the country's electoral board Monday to cancel the results of a landmark referendum that granted sweeping new powers to the nation's president, citing what it called substantial voting irregularities.

Bulent Tezcan, deputy chairman of the Republican People's Party, or CHP, cited numerous problems in Sunday's vote, which gave a narrow victory to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's long-time plans to greatly expand the powers of his office.

But urge too hard and that magical and broad "anti-coup" purge that has been going on will surge again, eh?

I've wondered if Erdogan might want to leave NATO--triangulating with NATO, Russia, and China to create maneuvering room--to chart a course for a new Ottoman Empire to serve as the real caliphate of Sunni Islam (under Turkish rule).

But with Erdogan heading into caliph territory, will NATO downgrade or expel Turkey?

I ask because NATO has become a club of democracies, using membership to push former Soviet vassals toward rule of law and real voting.

Can Turkey despite its important geographic position be allowed to set an example for going backwards on democracy and rule of law when we have enough problems keeping some of our new NATO allies on that path?

I imagine the actual path will more likely be pressure on Erdogan from NATO to stop what he is doing that Erdogan will finally meet with downgrades of alliance cooperation followed by a formal break.

UPDATE: The election in Turkey was close--and if there wasn't voter fraud, close for Erdogan's power grab. But what does it say that Turkish voters who live in Europe were more in favor of giving power to Erdogan than voters in Turkey itself?

These Turkish voters, living in some of Europe’s most liberal countries, overwhelming cast their ballots for Erdogan’s illiberal reforms of Turkish society. The results, from the state-run Anadolu Agency:

• Austria – 73.23% Yes, 26.77% No
• Belgium – 74.98% Yes, 25.02% No
• France – 64.85% Yes, 35.15% No
• Germany – 63.07% Yes, 36.93% No
• The Netherlands – 70.94% Yes, 29.06% No

Not only did these European Turks vote far more heavily in favor of Yes than their countrymen back home (the domestic vote was 51.18% Yes, 48.82% No), they also voted more heavily Yes than just about any other Turkish expatriate community. In the U.S. and U.K. Turks voted No by about 84% and 80%, respectively.

How is it possible for Turks living in liberal democracies to reject that democracy in their country of origin?

Does this say more about continental Europe than the Turkish residents? Tip to Instapundit.

Best Stand-Up Comedy Act, EVER!

This is comedy gold:

Yet amid all the hyperbole and hysteria, a basic point gets missed. Europe today is a genuine superpower and will likely remain one for decades to come. By most objective measures, it either rivals or surpasses the United States and China in its ability to project a full spectrum of global military, economic, and soft power. Europe consistently deploys military troops within and beyond its immediate neighborhood. It manipulates economic power with a skill and success unmatched by any other country or region. And its ability to employ “soft power” to persuade other countries to change their behavior is unique.

If a superpower is a political entity that can consistently project military, economic, and soft power transcontinentally with a reasonable chance of success, Europe surely qualifies. Its power, moreover, is likely to remain entrenched for at least another generation, regardless of the outcome of current European crises. In sum, Europe is the “invisible superpower” in contemporary world politics. Here’s why. [emphasis added]

Get a room. This is a full spectrum delusion.

I'd go through the piece to argue against it. But why bother? When has a European power projected significant military power in recent decades without the assistance of America's logistics machine? Even pounding on civil war-wracked Libya was embarrassingly reliant on America despite pretensions of showing that Europe could lead the show.

Seriously, on paper Europe has military power, but the numbers lie. And without military power, I don't believe any entity can rank high in actual--as opposed to potential--power.

This hope is nothing new. Even France's good--but small--operation in Mali inspired visions of Euro-power leading the West into the glorious future!

But in reality, Europeans are getting dangerously close because of their refusal to spend on defense to being suitable only as tribal auxiliaries for America.

The author is well educated and deploys many (many) charts, but the claim that Europe is an "invisible" power should lead the author to question whether he is astutely perceiving what others don't see or is just delusional (back to the original FP article):

Sixty years ago, when European leaders met to sign the Treaty of Rome, one of their shared goals was to strengthen Europe’s global position. They have succeeded and, looking forward, there is little reason to doubt they will continue to do so.

Yeah, I'm going with the latter. Remember, the author concludes by saying Europe will continue to succeed but started out saying that Europe still had some good decades left in it. Pick one.

Oh, and here's a fellow comedian arguing that when Britain leaves the European Union--superpower that it is!--that Argentina will have an opening to get the Falklands back!

All that stands between Britain and Argentina's wrath are the EU legions?? (Or is it the soft power?)

Stop! Please! You're killing me!! I think I'm going to burst my spleen!!!

As I wrote in this post on some questionable power projection measurements that ranked Europe high in the future:

I suspect that the EU is just primed to be the most healthy, educated, and well-governed non-factor in global power consideration the world has ever seen.

Europe has economic, scientific, and demographic power but lacks the military power to be more than a potential superpower that for now is more likely to be fought over as an objective than a force to fight--or stop--others.

UPDATE: This is related. This video headline says that American and European Union special forces are training African militaries. No, that is not is what happening. American and European forces are training African troops. The EU is doing nothing.

Yes, the European states are part of the EU, but you could by that logic say that NATO, United Nations, or even UNESCO troops are doing the training.

But if you want a myth of a rising EU power, such little things push the image. To be fair, it is just the headline that makes this error and not the text or video. But how many just see the headline and move on?

Be Proud of the West

The thing that horrifies me the most about the modern world is the willingness of so many Westerners to actually despise the West as much as any of our enemies.

Yeah, the rise of threats is an age-old problem that does not explain today's threat environment:

The problem, rather, is the West’s growing inability to agree on how it should be defined as a civilization. At the core of the deepening dysfunction in the West is the self-induced deconstruction of Western culture and, with it, the glue that for two centuries kept Europe and the United States at the center of the international system. The nation-state has been arguably the most enduring and successful idea that Western culture has produced. It offers a recipe to achieve security, economic growth, and individual freedom at levels unmatched in human history. This concept of a historically anchored and territorially defined national homeland, having absorbed the principles of liberal democracy, the right to private property and liberty bound by the rule of law, has been the core building block of the West’s global success and of whatever “order” has ever existed in the so-called international order. Since 1945 it has been the most successful Western “export” across the globe, with the surge of decolonization driven by the quintessentially American precept of the right to self-determination of peoples, a testimony to its enduring appeal. Though challenged by fascism, Nazism, and communism, the West emerged victorious, for when confronted with existential danger, it defaulted to shared, deeply held values and the fervent belief that what its culture and heritage represented were worth fighting, and if necessary even dying, to preserve. The West prevailed then because it was confident that on balance it offered the best set of ideas, values, and principles for others to emulate.

Why can't every Westerner value what the West has built, even if we try to improve on our failures or shortcomings? Are those flaws really sufficient to condemn the entire structure? Seriously?

When so many on the left asked "why do they (jihadis) hate us?" and answer their own question by saying we caused the hate, I asked instead "why do we hate us?"

Really, I don't blame our enemies for hating us. They are slime. Why wouldn't they hate us? But honestly, can't we in the West appreciate what we have and have the backbone to defend it?

Honestly, if we were a unified society proud of our achievements and what we represent, I really wouldn't worry about a bunch of pathetic cave dwellers who fantasize about destroying the West. We'd butcher them before lunch and be on with our lives.

But the sad fact is, many in the West would kneel before their beheaders and feel privileged to be killed by the jihadis.

And this confidence would help with dealing with the Russians, especially, as well as the Chinese, Iranians, and others who would defeat the West.

What is our major malfunction is failing to see our civilization is worth defending?

The Limits of Understanding

If I'm supposed to "understand" Russia's need for a buffer zone in the west (and so excuse aggression against Ukraine), why isn't it understandable that NATO would want a buffer in Ukraine against a Russian threat from the east over that same flat terrain?

I know, I know. It's probably some nuanced logic that is beyond my caveman comprehension.

I'm Sure There's Nuance in There Somewhere

It is common to argue against taking action to deal with a problem by claiming unanticipated "blowback" could harm other interests. This is a true enough caution, but should not be an excuse for inaction that could cause blowback, too. Is Turkey suffering blowback from the Western failure to address Syria's civil war?

Turkey is a problem:

Only a few years ago, Turkey seemed well-entrenched as a flourishing democracy and well on the way to joining the European Union. It has huge potential with Europe’s youngest population: 19 million of the 75 million people are ages 15 to 29.

Today, it stands accused of human rights abuses that have included imprisoning more than 45,000 people, among them the leaders and nine other legislators from the second-largest opposition party in parliament, for alleged links to Kurdish terrorists. ...

The once-vibrant media have seen their freedoms severely curtailed, with many of journalists jailed. The judiciary’s power has been eroded. Unemployment is at 10.7 percent and up to 25 percent among the young who embody the future.

A shift from America’s sphere of influence to Russia’s seems possible, and the prospects of joining the EU are stalled, if not dead.

Would Turkey be under such a threat to rule of law and in danger of abandoning its alliance with the West if the Syrian civil war hadn't been raging on Turkey's border for over 5 years with jihadis flocking to the region to establish and defend their caliphate, Russians and Iranians dug in to the south, and refugees flooding Europe and Turkey?

All I know is that I remain grateful for the wisdom of the Obama administration which did not want to risk "further militarizing" the conflict by providing decisive aid to rebels about 500,000 or so dead ago.

Ah Spring! When a Young Leftist's Fancy Turns to Protest

We killed a lot of terrorists in Afghanistan with that MOAB strike. What part of that is bad?

Leftist outrage that seems to be building over the April MOAB strike on terrorists in Afghanistan (because Trump) is amusing given the sound of crickets that followed the January B-2 strike against terrorists in Libya (because Obama).

Apparently it is too mean. Or something.

Say? How's that #BringBackOurGirls campaign going?

Nigeria held rallies in major cities Thursday to mark three years since the mass abduction of 276 schoolgirls by Boko Haram extremists.

Spearheading the rallies was the Bring Back Our Girls movement, which has been urging the government of President Muhammadu Buhari to ramp up efforts to free the 195 girls still believed held by the radical Islamic group.

The MOAB is a legal weapon lawfully employed. What's the problem?

The Mother of All Bunnies

Given the amount of press interest in the White House Easter Egg Roll today and the odd interest in looking for problems, you'd think this was another MOAB--the Mother Of All Bunnies.

Of course, the formal name is Media Over-Analysis Bureau. But the nickname is likely to stick.

As Mara Liasson so aptly put it with tongue firmly in cheek, today Donald Trump became president (bravo!).

Get a grip people. The event was fine.

An Odd Pivot to Asia

I find this assessment of Russia's failure to bolster their Asia front fascinating:

Over the last five years, Russia has been trying to achieve two strategic goals: A “Pivot to Asia” (away from Europe) and a renewed focus on post-soviet integration with its Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). Both of those aspirations are rooted in the desire to break away from dependence on Europe, while reasserting its influence in what Russia refers to as its “near-abroad.” The “Pivot” was supposed to bring Russia closer to new Asian markets and energy consumers, and the EEU is conceived to counter European influence through creating a “Eurasian alternative” to the EU in the post-soviet space.

It is an odd pivot to Asia that features a Russian invasion of Ukraine (in violation of the UN charter, the Budapest Memorandum, and the agreement dissolving the Soviet Union) and occupation of part of that state's territory plus vocal hostility to NATO and the non-NATO states of Finland and Sweden.

The Central Asian states of the EEU have reason to worry that being an ex-Soviet state like Ukraine is just a temporary loss as far as Russia is concerned, to be remedied when a revival of Russian power and opportunity bring those ex-Soviet states back into the empire.

Not that Russia doesn't need a pivot to Asia to succeed soon. I've noted on a number of occasions that the expiration of a 20-year pact suspending China's land claims against Russia in Asia will take place at the start of the next decade.

If Russia has to face a China that rediscovers a "core interest" of recovering lost Asian territory, the Russians might want to end their pointless hostility to NATO and America.

Of course, the situation is very different than a failed pivot to Asia if Russia has decided it cannot match China despite the 20-year pause in Chinese claims, with a policy that is more like this:

Today, Russia's ties with Asia are centred on China in multiple areas, including geopolitics, security and defence cooperation, trade, arms sales, and energy exports. Russia has resumed exports of advanced arms to China. The existing and planned oil and gas pipelines are mostly bound for China – Russia is now China's largest supplier of crude oil. Joint naval exercises have been tailored first and foremost to meet Beijing's strategic needs. The unintended consequence of ever closer relations with China has been a reduction in Russia's capacity to establish deeper ties with other Asian states. In effect, Moscow's policy of turning to the East has been crippled.

Russia's acquiescence to Chinese pre-eminence has been even more conspicuous in Central Asia.

If Russia has truly resigned itself to this unequal relationship, Russian efforts to conceal their appeasement of China with hostility to the (so far) weak European NATO states will continue.

It's an odd pivot to Asia that simultaneously stokes tension in Europe.

But if Russia needs to oppose the West--even at the risk of creating the threat Moscow pretends threatens them--to pretend it hasn't bent the knee to China, it makes more sense.

A Tale of Two United Flights

What does it say about Americans today that when al Qaeda jihadis took over a plane in 2001, passenger Todd Beamer organized a counterattack begun with his command "Let's roll," but in 2017, passengers sat in their seats and filmed a police attack on an innocent passenger who was dragged off the plane?

In our history, the passengers of United Flight 93 prevented the plane from being used in a terror strike although it failed to save the passengers.

What if the passengers of United Flight 3411 had gotten out of their seats and simply sat in the aisle between the passenger selected for assault and the front exit?

I'd like to think that if the passengers in 2001 had the phones of 2017 we wouldn't simply have a lot of videos of the plane ramming the Capitol Building and the memorable line "Let's film."

Let's hope that terrorists don't think American airline passengers are again an easy target.

Killing is Secondary for Gas

This author says that the reason chemical weapons were banned is because they don't work. That is wrong:

Why, in other words, do we ban chemical weapons, but not equally deadly weapons like machine guns that rip through bodies and barrel bombs that tear them apart?

One answer is that while gas attacks are terrifying, the weapon has proved to be militarily ineffective. After Ypres, the allies provided masks to their front-line troops, who stood in their trenches killing onrushing Germans as clouds of gas enveloped their legs. That was true even as both sides climbed the escalatory ladder, introducing increasingly lethal chemicals (phosgene and mustard gas), that were then matched by increasingly effective countermeasures. The weapon also proved difficult to control. In several well-documented instances, gasses deployed by front-line troops blew back onto their own trenches—giving a literalist tinge to the term “blowback,” now used to describe the unintended consequences of an intelligence operation.

Look, gas wasn't enough to break the stalemate on the World War I western front because of factors that chemical warfare could not overcome. A few machine guns surviving would still inflict massive casualties on the attacker. And logistics for mass armies advancing was tough to sustain. Command and control wasn't that good. And defensive reserves were usually close by. Indeed, eventually the front line trenches were just a trip wire with the main line to the rear. Too many troops on a small front made moving the front tough even with the more effective weapons pounding the enemy.

I've mentioned many times that chemical weapons are tough to use. And yes they are less effective at killing than other weapons.

But that does not mean gas isn't effective.

As the author writes but disregards until the very end of the article, gas attacks are terrifying. I've seen soldiers running from tear gas escaping from a "gas house" for training that leaked way more than expected. As troops ran to avoid the rolling cloud, I stayed where I was and put on my gas mask. Hey, I had it on my hip. But, of course, I knew it was just tear gas and not poison gas. Admittedly I stunk of tear gas after so I should have ran, too, I suppose.

And gas usage complicates the battlefield. Hit an enemy airbase with persistent chemicals and sortie rates plummet to clean up and operate in the lethal mess. Multiply that by hitting road intersections and logistics depots and bridges and headquarters.

Just the threat of chemical use requires vehicles and troops to button up. So vehicles slow down. More will roll into a ditch. Just using a screwdriver in full MOPP 4 is tough. And at least in my day, it was impossible to aim a rifle with the mask on. And there is no peripheral vision and hearing is impaired. And it is hot in the chemical suit! So you can die from non-chemical means more easily trying to survive and fight in a chemical environment even if no gas makes it past your filter or none  is absorbed through your skin through a rip in the suit you didn't notice.

Oh, and when I was in uniform, we spent a lot of training time on chemical warfare survival. That's time not spent on other military training.

Yes, well-trained troops can push down the fear. But even without panic, there is a price to pay to survive gas.

And how well trained and equipped are the civilian targets of Assad's chemical strikes?

Seriously, if chemical weapons weren't effective, there would have been no need to ban them. There is no ban on battleships. No ban on crossbows. No ban on propeller fighter aircraft. Nobody would waste their money and time training on chemical weapons any more than a modern soldier knows how to use a crossbow.

As for the dismissal of this argument by citing the Army's eagerness to get rid of battlefield nukes even though they would have been useful against the Soviets, is it really hard to understand why the Army would want to ban a class of weapon that the Soviets would have used to nuke our units, too?

And the willingness of Army officers to avoid undermining their civilian leaders who agreed to ban landmines is hardly relevant because in any case by the time that ban was imposed our Army was likely to be on offense so banning mines helped us! And we made an exception for the one place we would need them--in South Korea along the DMZ!

Fear is a weapon. Chemical warfare is a cloud of fear. That is effective if you have lots of chemical weapons and an enemy doesn't.

Weekend Data Dump

In case you missed it, size matters.

The driver in Sweden who used his truck for a terror attack was a "known wolf," naturally.

This article essentially claims that Marine Le Pen is insincere in defending gay rights and so the French LGBT community is wrong to back her in order to defend themselves against Islamist bigotry and attack. But you have to admit that Le Pen wouldn't have this opportunity if the conventional parties had shown any interest in stopping anti-gay violence by Islamists. And let's not speak of the history of America's Democratic Party (from founding by slave owners, to secession in defense of slavery, to segregation in response to the end of slavery) if you want to taint a current politician by pointing to the sins of past politicians in the same party. You have to admit, when many heterosexual couples don't bother to marry, gay marriage is a lower priority than gay survival. Not that I'm a fan of Le Pen--or any other French politician. I'm just saying that the failings of the conventional parties make room for someone like Le Pen.

Of course they do: "North Korea said on Saturday U.S. missile strikes against a Syrian airfield on Friday were 'an unforgivable act of aggression' that showed its decision to develop nuclear weapons was 'the right choice a million times over'." I've long said that North Korea will never give up their nukes and that any deal will be broken almost immediately.

Good Lord, return the drill sergeants! I didn't realize that drill sergeants aren't in Army AIT. They were newly returned when I was in AIT in 1989. Fort Gordon was known as "Fort Resort" without the drill sergeants.

I thought it was done orally, with Doritos. Who knew? Tip to Instapundit.

And in Yemen, more intense air strikes on jihadis continue.

Maduro's supporters plan to rule Venezuela "forever." Socialism kills freedom and ruins countries--even oil-rich states like Venezuela.

If we had governing elites who acted like they cared about doing what voters want, Russian propaganda designed to undermine American faith in democracy would fall on deaf ears. Rather than trying to block Russian propaganda in ways that would just undermine freedom of speech, our leaders should try to govern better.

I just want to remind you that the Russians were so afraid of Hillary Clinton becoming president (that's what Clinton and her fans say) that the Russians bet it all on having Trump stop her in the general election despite every poll showing him losing badly, rather than help Comrade Bernie Sanders beat Hillary in the primary when Clinton looked vulnerable to him.

"Will Mexico Get Half of Its Territory Back [from America]?" Mexico's territory? If the southwest isn't American, why does Mexico get it? When did Mexico get anointed as an indigenous nation rather than just another colony planted by a European state (Spain in Mexico's case)? Tip to Instapundit.

Apparently we won't be driving our way to a glorious solar-paved Green future. That was totally worth $4.3 million. Tip to Instapundit.

The jihadi assault on Christians in Egypt continues: "At least 43 people were killed in bomb attacks on two Egyptian Coptic churches on Palm Sunday that included the seat of the Coptic Pope, the latest assault on a religious minority increasingly targeted by Islamist militants." I'd call it Christianaphobia but the jihadis don't fear Christians--the jihadis just want the Christians dead.

Good enough for military work. Seventy percent now is better than 100% at some point in the future beyond when you need it. If you ever get it.

Russia denies there is proof Syria used chemical weapons this month. But Russia denies they have invaded Ukraine and denies their sock puppets shot down a Malaysian airliner over the Donbas. Whether or not Assad launched this particular Sarin strike--and he has motive--he has launched others that did not draw punishing responses. So you can hardly say America's strike on the suspected airbase from which the chemical strike was launched is wrong.

If New York state wants to spend the money and devalue the worth of their state's 4-year-degree graduates by making it easy for young people with no skin in the game to spend four years partying with "free" college instead of making them work for tuition or enter the world of work, who am I to oppose them? Enjoy.

Silly East Portlanders! The compassionate left doesn't care about you!

Wow! Just weeks ago China was punishing South Korea for agreeing to deploy THAAD to shoot down North Korean missiles. Now China and South Korea have agreed on more sanctions against North Korea if North Korea tests nukes or long-range missiles again.

Yeah, my daughter got nailed by one of these third-party Amazon hackers, in retrospect. She used her allowance to buy a really cheap t-shirt (I even joked about not expecting a very good shirt at that price) that never showed up. Amazon quickly refunded her money with just an online report of the problem.

Trump has caused a rise in alcoholism in EPA employees? Actually, one staffer speculated that would happen. We'll see if the EPA alcoholism model is any better than the climate models. Tip to Instapundit.

Justice Ginsburg effed up. She trusted Hillary. And now the horse is unlikely to sing.

Trump is a pawn of Russia? Yeah, you let me know when Trump gets as flexible as Obama was for the Russians.

Nice week. Roof leak, my daughter's pet died, and I wrecked a tire in a pothole. But at least I wasn't dragged off a United flight!

I don't understand why press secretary Spicer is taking heat for his comments on Assad, noting that even someone as bad as Hitler didn't use chemical weapons. The statement is accurate notwithstanding Hitler's use of poison gas in an attempted genocide against Jews sent to death camps. You don't have to deny that Hitler never ordered the use of chemical weapons by his military to recognize that Hitler was a monster who used poison gas in an industrial-scale murder campaign. This strikes me as a fake controversy intended to claim a scalp from the Trump administration regardless of the reason. Or have we really gotten to the point where the most ignorant and sensitive people get to decide what is offensive?

For those "false flag" fans who think Assad surely had to know chemical weapons use would prompt an American retaliation, remember that Assad has gotten away with this for many years now. And two, remember that Assad may not share the Western revulsion we feel about chemical weapons as opposed to any other method to slaughter enemies.

I worry that Russia and Turkey could come to some sort of agreement that pries Turkey from NATO despite the long history of warfare between Russia and Turkey. Perhaps the post-Soviet geography that ended the friction of common land borders (via Russia itself or Bulgaria) makes such a shift possible. And maybe the common personalities of Erdogan and Putin make such a dramatic move more possible. To be sure, the issue of Syria and Iran divide them, but will those factors be constant?

This is an interesting article on the difficult position South Korea is in between their ally America and the local power China. I would add that South Korea has long been under threat from North Korean conventional and chemical weapons that could inflict tremendous damage on Seoul and kill many of its people. As Japan and America fall under the threat of North Korean missiles armed with nuclear warheads, South Korea has little incentive to risk Seoul by agreeing to a disarming campaign against North Korean nuclear facilities and weapons to prevent Japan and America from facing a similar threat.

Young leftist millennials aren't ignorant, they just think the delicious omelet is totally worth the broken eggs. Sometimes dissenters are just on the other side.

Ah, the sainted international community.

As long as they don't also use barbed wire with armed guards permitted to shoot to kill. Tip to Instapundit.

For what it's worth, I deleted my Facebook account. I don't like it and rarely use it, so why bother staying?

To stop terrorism, a Swedish newspaper advocates banning an entire category of threats in their cities without noting that the vast majority cause no harm and in fact do much good--cars. Tip to Instapundit. Just wait until those fine minds see what a fanatic can do on a crowded bus.

After Trump was elected, someone I know who never gave one thought about NATO asked in horror why I wasn't worried about the coming demise of the alliance. NATO will be fine, I replied. Trump openly backed NATO last week.

This author pushes back on the idea of partitioning Libya. He has a point. Times change. And in a world where borders matter, people adapt to even an "artificial" border to make them more real. But perhaps this question and the experience of South Sudan will end the blame-game on the West for drawing the borders of Africa that are a convenient scapegoat for problems.

How nice. A children's book promoting communism. Well, kids already believe a jolly man in a red suit and beard can just pass out free stuff. Although what's the excuse for adults who peddle this junk? I wonder how the death, oppression, and poverty part of the system is addressed in a child-friendly manner? Tip to Instapundit. If you want to explain what can go wrong with a system based on taking things from people who own them and giving them to others (in this case the people of the organization with the power to enforce), look at the United Airlines passenger assault. Also tip to Instapundit.

I'm not fully on board saying Trump is more willing to use force than Obama based on the Syria cruise missile strike. Obama attacked Libya; called Yemen his model war zone; launched Iraq War 2.0; sent troops after Kony in the Uganda region; escalated the war in Afghanistan; struck terrorists in Libya with a B-2 strike, and in Somalia and Pakistan; and otherwise set a record by being the first president to be at war for an entire two terms of office. Could we wait more than 2-1/2 months to judge Trump on this issue?

The liberal notion that all problems have to take a back seat to solving the Palestinian issue, after which everything else will fall into place because the Palestinian issue is so important to Arabs, took a major hit during the Obama administration. Arabs across the Middle East have shown that other issues really are a priority. And no issue highlights this more than Syria, whose ruler Bashar Assad in January 2011 claimed he was immune to Arab Spring unrest because the people backed his unswerving hostility to Israel. That was about half a million dead ago.

Russia needs to do what it takes to keep Belarus friendly. Belarus is perhaps the most important territory in Europe today, I think.

That MOAB strike in Afghanistan killed a bunch of ISIL members (estimated at nearly 100 now) also destroyed a lot of weapons. I recall that in the Persian Gulf War we dropped a daisy cutter bomb much smaller and some British special forces inside Iraq saw the mushroom cloud and sent out a message to the effect that America had dropped a nuke. It's gonna leave a mark. Perhaps this will discourage ISIL from trying to rebuild in Afghanistan as their provinces of Libya, Iraq, and Syria go down in flames.

It is an odd sports story about the first female football player accepted by a Division II or higher college that doesn't even mention the position of the player. Good for her and all that. Perhaps the reporter could have respected her enough as an athlete to say what position she plays, eh?

If this story is true, a lot of foreign countries were roped into spying on Trump for the Obama administration. Which should be problematic for civil libertarians when you consider that this is outsourcing jobs that American's can't do. Also consider that if you really believe that the Russians were trying to get Trump elected with their very public propaganda effort on his behalf that the Russian intelligence services were apparently the only foreign intelligence services that believed Trump had a shot at winning the election (why risk being discovered by the new president doing this if they didn't think Trump would lose). Tip to Instapundit.

I don't remember seeing this back then, but it does fit in with my long-held complaint that it is a crime against language that "liberal minded" is viewed as a synonym for "open minded."

You know, one of the reasons that the American cruise missile strike on Assad in retaliation for Assad's use of chemical weapons on civilians is actually significant is that it cuts through the enemy strategy of committing aggression, denying they are committing aggression, and counting on the West doing nothing without a CSI: Tyrant investigation that makes it obvious to the most dense that the enemy is guilty.

The idea that those on the left are putting out that the Trump strike on Assad's air base was illegal because Congress did not approve the plan first is farcical. And pointing out that Obama asked Congress for permission after Assad crossed the red line on chemical weapons use in 2013 is even more farcical. Obama asked Congress for permission as a means of avoiding enforcing that red line. The subsequent chemical weapons deal brokered by Russia that hasn't stopped Assad from using chemical weapons was just the logical conclusion of that White House scramble. And if Obama truly valued Congressional approval, do you want to explain that whole 2011 Libya War thing?

Hamid Karzai is Exhibit A in why we should focus on the electoral process and rule of law rather than counting on a supposedly friendly strongman. Other Afghans don't seem to have a problem with the MOAB (although note the conspiracy theory junk that complicates our war--yeah, America really wants to be in Afghanistan. Dudes, get over yourselves).

This is shocking: "The explosives used in the attack on the bus of soccer team Borussia Dortmund may have come from supplies belonging to the German armed forces[.]" I'm shocked that the German armed forces have any explosives, frankly.

No, really, India, take your time. China will wait.

The idea that we won't know if Trump broke tax laws unless he releases his tax forms to the public, as a lot of whackjobs on the left are demanding, is really weird. Seriously, the IRS staff doesn't know this already and can only figure it out if the forms are crowd-sourced to the wisdom of liberal activists?

The silent ethnic cleansing. Well, it's probably the fault of those Christians leaving because of Islamophobia, or something. COEXIST!

Is the current North Korea crisis just a bunch of posturing when nobody will really do anything to solve the problem? If so, Japan is doing their part to make it seem like American-led pressure is a very real threat to North Korea: "Japan's National Security Council discussed how to evacuate its nearly 60,000 citizens from South Korea in the event of a crisis[.]"

Melania Trump is $3 million richer after a newspaper pays up over "fake news" about her. I know someone irate about "fake news" who totally believed that costly report.

And in Iraq, the offensive in Mosul has resumed. ISIL may have used chemical weapons on Iraqi troops a couple times in the last couple days.

The Curious Incident of the ROK in the Nuke-Time

Japan and South Korea have taken measures to protect their citizens in case of a military clash to stop North Korea's quest for nuclear missiles. Is South Korea's silence most significant?

As political scientist John Delury stated regarding the “pre-emptive strike” scheme for a March 10 report, “The role of a South Korean president, whether liberal or conservative, is to be the person who gently takes that option off the table. The South Korean president has to be saying, ‘If you take out their missile pad, they take out our capital.’ But that hasn’t been happening.”

Perhaps the decline of North Korea's military and a change of focus by South Korea to battlefields north of the DMZ make the South Koreans no longer believe that the only way to protect Seoul is to avoid angering North Korea, as I wrote 9 years ago:

If a crisis erupts on the Korean peninsula and the North Koreans fire even a warning barrage at Seoul, I expect the South Korean army to march north of the DMZ and carve out a no-launch zone in an arc around Seoul to protect their capital and home to a quarter of the population from North Korean artillery.

Maybe a new balance of power is why that warning to stand down hasn't been happening.

UPDATE: It appears we are more worried about North Korea lashing out in fear than in putting a lot of pressure on North Korea:

The United States, its allies and China are working together on a range of responses to North Korea's latest failed ballistic missile test, U.S. President Donald Trump's national security adviser said on Sunday, citing what he called an international consensus to act.

H.R. McMaster indicated that Trump was not considering military action for now.

I suppose if Trump is planning to lead a US-South Korea-Japan strike, that's the message he'd want out there, of course.

UPDATE: In light of the failure of the North Korean missile test and the lack of a nuclear test, the crisis seems to be abating.

Chinese pressure was likely the factor for the latter (assuming the test is postponed for other than technical reasons).

But given the expectations for a strike that were building up should the North Koreans have done something this weekend, the failure of the missile test was convenient for the Trump administration, no?

One Trump administration official declined to comment on a question of whether we had something to do with the missile failure. So did we do something? Was there an airborne (or maybe sub-carried if it surfaced) laser (or AESA-type beam) that could have struck the missile on launch without being detected?

Sure, there is some speculation out there that it might have been cyber interference, but if we did something I'm going to guess cyber is just the trendy plausible explanation put out to keep the real cause secret.

I did sketch out a layered anti-missile defense (that has only gotten better since that 2008 post) that included boost-phase counter-measures. Did we use one of those?

Putting pressure on North Korea would be served if they thought we were willing to strike if they did something and only the fact that they didn't do something (a successful missile test or a nuke test) held us off.

Sheer, wild-eyed, no-evidence speculation on my part, of course. I don't even think I believe we could pull something like this off. But I do have a good imagination.

UPDATE: US-ROK air exercises (regularly scheduled Max Thnder) will continue for the balance of this month.

UPDATE: Completely unrelated news:

The directed energy weapon is “rapidly moving” from the conceptual to the practical, he said in late March. [Air Force LTG Brad] Webb recently visited MIT Lincoln Labs to view its advancements, and saw Naval Sea Systems Command Dahlgren’s latest efforts to network all of the various components within the aircraft.

He was impressed by the improvements that had been made.

Could we have an early version of the airborne laser that we were willing to use on the North Koreans?

Probably not. The simplest explanation for the North Korean missile test failure is that the technology is not developed yet.

And it doesn't hurt to make enemies wonder, I suppose.