Watch Your Back, General Wei Fenghe

China claimed that they will fight America over Taiwan. The threat is no doubt intended to make America hesitate before intervening. But the boastful resolve is not fully true.

Well that's clear enough:

China’s defense minister [General Wei Fenghe] warned Sunday that its military will “resolutely take action” to defend Beijing’s claims over self-ruled Taiwan and disputed South China Sea waters. ...

"China must be and will be reunified. We find no excuse not to do so. If anyone dares to split Taiwan from China, the Chinese military has no choice but to fight at all costs, at all costs, for national unity," Wei stressed.

China doesn't need to defeat America in order to conquer Taiwan. If the Chinese military advantage over Taiwan is high enough and if the time it takes for America to effectively intervene is long enough, China will capture Taiwan without having to fight America.

Of course, the general is wrong that China would fight for Taiwan "at all costs." That is a nationalistic position and not a Chinese Communist Party position that holds that no objective other than the maintenance of CCP control of China is worth fighting at all costs. Everything else is subordinate to that objective, and China will fight America or abandon Taiwan if it seems more likely to maintain CCP control in China.

And the timing to risk a confrontation with America over Taiwan may not be here despite the shiny new weapons that Wei has:

Xi may soon find that a perfect storm of agricultural problems, internal unhappiness, and his own chosen hard line on the trade war could undermine the domestic power he has worked so hard to consolidate.

If the Chinese military wants to fight America for Taiwan "at all costs" the Chinese Communist Party will have something to say about that.

A Different Form of a Threat

North Korea’s poverty since the USSR cut off the gravy train of aid led their rulers to focus their resources on nukes to deter invasion (and extort money from potential targets) and on the secret police to control the people and the largely defunded military. I coined the strategy “kooks, spooks, and nukes.”

America is going hard against the nuclear angle with sanctions, missile defenses, allied support, and offers of diplomacy. So the nukes part of the regime survival plan is shaky.

And about the secret police pillar:

The secret police have become more obviously corrupt, especially those along the Chinese border charged with making sure the border guards enforced the laws. The secret police were soon corrupted up there and that rot has infected more and more levels of supervisors. It has reached the point where deputy directors of the secret police have to be sent to the border to assess the damage and try to convince subordinates to obey the laws they enforce.

Corrupt spooks? Uh oh. The kooks are all by themselves with this trend.

And the people are not so much poor, exploited, and oppressed as they are poor, exploited, and cut adrift from any state support. How do the people adapt and act under these circumstances over time?

Perhaps the kooks can survive this as they have survived past problems post-Soviet subsidies. But the situation is quite new.

The Laser Goes to Sea

The Navy will get a friggin' laser:

The Pearl Harbor-based USS Preble will be the first destroyer to be equipped with a high-energy laser to counter surface craft and unmanned aerial systems, according to a published report, with the Navy planning to one day use the powerful light beams to defend against Chinese or Russian cruise missiles.

Rear Adm. Ronald Boxall, the Navy’s director of surface warfare, told Defense News that the Preble will be outfitted in 2021 with the High Energy Laser and Integrated Optical- dazzler With Surveillance system, or HELIOS.

I noted the plan to do this. Although Preble and not Truxton is getting the laser. So something changed from then.

And we've done this before as a test with Ponce in the Persian Gulf.

And keep in mind that a ship needs a lot of electricity to use these weapons.

I assume the Zumwalt-class will get these weapons, too.

Weekend Data Dump

The sainted international community can eff themselves. Tip to Instapundit. Will Peak Stupid never arrive?

The AMARC ("bone yard") explained.

Worst. homophobe. ever.

Strategypage looked at an Israeli response to kite and balloon incendiary bombs that apply to my air defense drone suggestion in Army magazine. One, ground troops might have a better ability to shoot down drones than I thought if the SMASH scope could work. Still, I worry that troops looking up to fight too much will be fatally distracted from the ground battle. In that case the use of drones flown by civilians to knock down the balloons and kites might have some lessons on how even an unarmed but ruggedized drone might knock down small enemy drones.

When fearful of war, appear eager?  Tip to Instapundit.

Oh good, the Ebola epidemic in Congo (Kinshasha version) is multiplied by ISIL which thinks the virus is a lovely weapon to spread terror.

Jim Acosta says that under Trump it is a dangerous time to “tell the truth.” So he wrote a book about that, had it published, an went on tour with Dan Rather. Wait. What? Meanwhile, the real war on journalism here. Tips to Instapundit.

Ukraine converted their 61st Separate Infantry Brigade into a Jager brigade designed to fight in the forests and swamps along the border with Belarus.

The Australian navy is stepping up in the South China Sea, with our Marines as a component. That's the main point of the article notwithstanding the highlighting of Chinese fishing boats (part of China's naval militia, most likely) shining lasers at Australian helicopter pilots while in the region.

Yes, the F-15 can still perform missions quite well that don't require stealth aircraft. Like I said.

It really isn't true that a high proportion of Americans couldn't pay an unexpected $400 bill. Silly me, I accepted the commonly held reports on that incorrect fact. The Gell-Mann Amnesia effect strikes again.

Don't put tactical nukes on our Trident missiles on our SSBNs. We need the big nukes for deterrence and shouldn't reduce their number for tactical nukes, we shouldn't count on an enemy thinking that a strategic weapon system like the Trident is only firing a tactical nuclear warhead rather than being the opening salvo of a strategic nuclear first strike, we shouldn't want to risk an enemy seeing where one of our few SSBNs is, and how on Earth could that tactical weapon be fired and hit its target in a timely enough fashion to get a tactical result? Of course, I'm not sure how many tactical nukes are needed given that they were designed to hit moving military targets before the age of precision weapons made that need obsolete. But I don't really have enough knowledge of this subject--including a number of other issues raised in that article--to really give a good answer to that part. But definitely don't put tactical nuclear warheads on our SSBNs, which are our safest nuclear deterrent.

I knew she was corrupt and inept, but now she is just deplorable.

Syrian WMD might set the region ablaze?  How is that possible? The stunning diplomatic genius of John Kerry guided by the wise President Obama ended that threat with the 2013 chemical weapons deal engineered by Putin’s Lavrov!

Oh FFS, it’s now Fort Sill! Who cares what it was 75 years ago? Even Saint Obama sent illegal minor  aliens there. Note the contrast in reporting and Democratic reaction now and then.

The Chinese are trying to crush freedom in Hong Kong 28 years earlier than scheduled.

Can China afford to spend money on defense and everything else it wants without budgetary limits?

Polling that shows Americans scarily favorable to socialism is a problem because most people don't understand the term. Socialism is really about the government controlling the means of production. And that will come with loss of freedom across a broader spectrum than just the economy. Yes, government-run programs like Medicare and Social Security are kind of socialism. If you squint. But they are really social welfare programs. Like actual socialist entities they are less efficient than private systems would be. But they really aren't socialism. If you think they are, by that logic our military is socialist. I think most people in America use "socialism" to mean "really liberal" in favor of more government spending and higher taxes. And wait until they get the news that Nazis were socialists too (just national socialists in contrast to the communist international socialists).

If the Russians did this in our elections, it would already be illegal.

Is it just me, or is the decision to use "older" F-35s as aggressor aircraft to train our pilots kind of odd given that the F-35 is barely operational within the American military? Given that the excuse is that it is too expensive to upgrade these new planes to the latest combat capabilities, does this say we pushed the plane into service before it was ready? If not, wouldn't we want every one built so far on combat duty? Not that eventually having some of those planes help train our pilots to face enemy fifth generation fighters, but it does seem odd to me.

Concerns about "homelessness" and "crime?" Sounds like a dog whistle for racists, if you ask me.

I'm still rather stunned that 36% of American don't think we should use force in response to an Iranian attack on America. Tip to Instapundit. Of course, the question ignores that Iran has been at war with America for 40 years now, with an American body count and a devastated American embassy in Tehran to prove it.

I celebrate their success. Because this is America and merit should rule. Although I think this should be like NHL playoff rules and they should keep going until one wins.

I remain conflicted about the idea that we should spread the Washington, D.C. bureaucracy out to the rest of the country. The hope among conservatives is that it would get the bureaucrats into "real" America. My fear is that the bureaucrats will infect "real" America into acting like the "swamp" back in D.C. If the saying "you stand where you sit" reflects reality then "real" Americans from the heartland working for the system will convert the locals into swamp creatures regardless of their geographic location. Again, don't try to control the federal government--reduce it in size and powers. The only winning move is not to play that game.

It is silly and offensive and downright stupid to say that Trump is forcing Mexico to build a new Berlin Wall to keep Mexicans out of America. Mexicans (and really, in this case, Central Americans) will be as free as anybody else in the world to enter America--or go anywhere else--through the "wall" if they want to apply for legal entry under our rules. Although it would help if Congress would end the law that encourages Central Americans to come here for asylum. You let me know when the Mexican refuses to let people leave Mexico to any other country according to that other country's immigration rules. Tip to Instapundit.

Note to the "turn it to 11" Resistance: Actual tyranny waging an actual war on journalists. And no, you morons, it didn't start with tweets slamming them for bias and inaccuracy.

I've mentioned that the anti-Trump fanatics resemble the anti-Obama fanatics. Instead of thinking Obama is a secret Moslem literally born in Kenya, the current group of nutballs on the left think Trump is a secret Nazi figuratively born in Russia. And now the fixation of the left on getting Trump's tax returns released mirrors those on the right who were fixated on getting Obama's birth certificate released. Just get a grip, people. This should be embarrassing. But they aren't.

Policies and not global warming burned California's forests.

It isn't that I'm against giving air crews a long arm to better evade capture if shot down, but isn't the addition of this firepower kind of odd when we are going to stealth fighters with stand-off weapons that should mean the planes are less likely to be shot down over enemy territory and require air crews to evade capture until rescued?

Why don't the suddenly anti-Russian Democrats wonder why Obama didn't do anything to stop Russian propaganda in our 2016 election? We should all rightly be upset with Russia for that interference. But Russia and the Soviets before them were doing that for decades and it really bugs me that the Democrats are so late to the issue.

No, America is not an empire. Sure, we aren't a nation--a collection of people with common language, ethnicity, and culture. That's because our people mostly come from nations around the world. But we are a state--a government that oversees our territory and people. With as much authority as any nation-state--a government with territory that basically coincided with their nation. And arguments in favor of claiming America is an empire rely on definitions that are twisted from the actual meaning of direct control of many nations brought under control of a single state by either force or submission--or even voluntarily. This idea never seems to go away. And at some point, won't America become a nation? How long does it take to say we have a common language and culture? While submerging the ethnicity into a soft pride instead of the Old World versions that defined the borders of the Other. Won't we become a nation at some point? Could we have passed that point already?

Unless folding our diplomats into EUCOM is about making sure our forces can cross European borders rapidly in a crisis in the east--which isn't mentioned in the article--I'm not really sure what the point is.

Has the destruction of our heroes with their statues and monuments gone far enough yet? Yeah, it's all fun and games until the wrong hero is shown to be a flawed human, if that is all it takes to erase the greatness of their achievement.

I honestly don't know why so many analysts are so eager to plunge the Army into urban combat in megacities.  Mega-cities, by their size, seem to be modern versions of castles or walled cities. Historically, you bypassed forces inside those places and starved them into submission rather than bloody your own forces storming them. I am fine on learning how to fight in mega-cities. But I want to know why we need to take any particular mega-city and if that particular mega-city needs to be taken to advance the objective of the campaign, what exactly in the city do we need to secure? Don't be so eager to enter those meat grinders. Ask questions first.

Pakistan has effed up, no doubt, by alienating America as Pakistan embraced jihadis.

I still don't understand how China's boycott of American soybeans hurts American farmers. I've read we are really efficient in this crop. Doesn't China's boycott just make China's soybean imports more expensive for them? And doesn't China's boycott just give non-Chinese customers who used to buy from whoever is now supplying China the chance to buy our cheaper soybeans? I'm assuming a constant global demand. And I assume nobody could rapidly enter the field to make our soybeans unneeded. This is way out of my lane, I admit. So maybe I am missing something obvious. But shouldn't China's boycott simply rearrange who sells to whom rather than mean our farmers can't sell their soybeans?

I don't think that the problem is that the American headquarters in South Korea is moving south, thus separating American and ROK command elements; but that the South Koreans are keeping their command element in Seoul. There's a reason we moved south. It applies to ROK headquarters, too.

I thought it was bad enough that so many journalists are really Democrat activists. How many are actually communist/anarchist Antifa scum?

I mentioned an expanded program to get countries to switch from Russian/Chinese weapons to American or Western weapons in a data dump a while ago. This article looks at the ERIP rearming program for former Warsaw Pact countries equipped by the Soviet Union and now in NATO, which was accelerated after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

This author thinks that the Navy-Coast Guard partnership must be restored in an age of great power competition. The Coast Guard used to be a reserve combat force rather than a mostly law enforcement agency.

Yeah, I don't kneel before the false gods of multi-colored recycling bins. It would be more accurate to label the plastics bin the "Ship to Asia and dump in their rivers" bin. Tip to Instapundit.

An Ass-Kicking That Came Out of Nowhere

I’ve long mocked the notion put forth by the American left that after 9/11 we fell into the jihadi trap by sending our military into Afghanistan where we drove surviving al Qaeda into Pakistan and overthrew their Taliban host government, creating a friendly government that helps us kill jihadis.

This is old but I guess I missed it:

“Then [9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed] looked at me and said, ‘How was I supposed to know that cowboy George Bush would announce he wanted us ‘dead or alive’ and then invade Afghanistan to hunt us down?’” Mitchell writes. “KSM explained that if the United States had treated 9/11 like a law enforcement matter, he would have had time to launch a second wave of attacks.” He was not able to do so because al-Qaeda was stunned “by the ferocity and swiftness of George W. Bush’s response.”

Yeah, nobody ever plans to get their ass kicked.

But for some Americans, no enemy debacle is too bad to prevent them from glorifying it as brilliant; and no American victory is too great to prevent a tale of defeat from being spun.

I really don’t know how I missed that the first time around.

The 21st Century German Question

What the Hell is wrong with Germany?

While our foes like China, North Korea, and Iran hope to wait out Trump to get better relations with America, our German ally doesn't even try to pretend that Trump is the actual problem rather than America:

In other words, in the calculus of the supposedly sober and judicious Merkel, the democracy that saved Europe twice from a carnivorous Germany — and Germany once from itself and once from becoming a Soviet vassal — is now similar to the world’s two largest authoritarian dictatorships, nations that not so long ago murdered respectively 30 million and 70 million of their own citizens.

We saved Europe from them twice, saved Germany from being an international pariah forever more after World War II, saved West Germany from Soviet conquest, and advocated for reuniting Germany after leading the Western defeat of the USSR.

And this is what America gets in return? All because Merkel peddles the insane notion that the growing European Union is the cause of Europe's prosperity and peace since 1945?  Just ... wow.

And it gets worse. Even as Germany oddly condemns and rejects America despite even Trump's strong defense of the trans-Atlantic alliance (without Germany also rejecting our protection within NATO), Germany proclaims that they can't be trusted with a military. That is our 21st century German question's oddest paradox.

It would almost be cosmic justice if the militarily weak Germany fell under Russia's dominance if not control, given the bizarre hostility that Germany directs toward America (and this is longstanding and not based on Trump).

Unfortunately, actual European friends and allies would be hurt in the process of inflicting that cosmic justice. And an aggressive Russia would be strengthened.

Plus, we have a deep interest in making sure that Europe isn't controlled by a hostile power:

It is easy to forget--and this was a useful reminder to me--that Europe with its autocracies and monarchies was not fully part of a free West (although obviously part of the Western tradition) until we rebuilt Western Europe in that template after World War II. And NATO expansion after defeating the Soviet Union was more explicit in demanding democracy and rule of law for new members.

We really do need Europe in our team. Which is one reason I am a firm supporters of America's leading role in NATO and do not think the alliance is obsolete.

But Europe does have a role in keeping America in Europe by remaining worthy of defending--as we designed it to be. Which is why I so vocally despise the European Union.

Which is why we can't walk away from Europe in disgust as Germany--the strongest economic power in Europe and the natural leader of a united EU despite France's pretensions that it can lead Germany from behind--leads the anti-American faction in Europe.

The Russians have a longstanding fear of German invasion, and given Russia's boundless paranoia it is not hard to imagine Russia itching for the day when they can end that threat forever no matter how weak Germany's military is.

And if the Germans are as dangerous as the Germans claim to be, maybe America, Russia, Britain, and France will one day take the Germans at their word and deal with the threat.*

Is it the only way to be sure? Because nearly 75 years of nurturing and protecting a prosperous German democracy just doesn't seem to be building the nation we hoped to have as an ally.

UPDATE: I've often asked what the Hell happened to Germany, given their refusal to shoulder the defense burden of Europe that their economic heft should require. But the German military--what little there is and regardless of how poorly funded the rump force is--has good people in its ranks. 

*I kid, of course. I'm just saying that Germany's position on America and NATO does have logical conclusions that the Germans shouldn't want to encourage.

The Rising Sun of Democracy This Time

Japan's military footprint in Asia is expanding, much to China's annoyance.

This is good for freedom in Asia:

Japan is continuing to enhance its security presence in Asia and the western Pacific, as the government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe seeks to continue defense posture reforms and counter China’s military activities in the region.

The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, or JMSDF, continues to send its ships on cruises and port visits throughout the region, and it conducts bilateral and multilateral exercises with allies and partners. The force also is continuing efforts to bolster the capabilities of Asia’s weaker forces to safeguard their respective maritime interests. ...

Koh told Defense News that China is unlikely to see Japan’s increasing presence in the South China Sea as a welcome move, given that Beijing previously criticizing Japan for what it sees as direct interference in South China Sea disputes by building up the maritime security capacity of China’s rival claimants.

He added that as Japan works alongside other powers such as India and the U.S. to form a united front against Chinese influence in the region, Beijing is likely to specifically take issue with their deployed warships and multilateral naval exercises.

Japan's current growing posture was telegraphed more than a decade ago, of course.

Getting Tanker War-like

It seems that Iran has escalated in the Gulf oil export theater:

Iran dismissed as "baseless" Friday US accusations that it carried out twin attacks that left two tankers ablaze in the Gulf of Oman, escalating tensions across the region and sending world oil prices soaring.

This series of unfortunate events in Iran follows an apparent Iranian attack (tip to Instapundit) on Gulf tankers in May:

As the strategic port of Shahid Rajaee, north of the Strait of Hormuz, was still dealing with the effects of a huge fire that caused serious destruction, Iranian media reported that six Iranian ships were ablaze in several ports in the southern part of the country.

America believes Iran attacked the two additional tankers. Iran denied laying mines in the Gulf in the 1980s “tanker war” even after we captured the ship laying mines. So Iranian denials now don’t mean much to me.

So now we have minor attacks on tankers—by error or intent, followed by retaliation, followed by serious attacks on two tankers. And throw in a drone strike on a Saudi pipeline that inflicted minor damage.

I’ve been warning for a while that we could get another tanker war.

UPDATE: Add a cruise missile attack on a Saudi airport.

UPDATE: Iran’s actions make it harder for them to prove to Europeans that we are wrong about Iran’s aggression.

To play the victim role Iran needs to act less predatory. The fact that Iran is launching shots across the bow shows how much sanctions are squeezing Iran.

Will Iran lash out overtly and spark combat?

Also, it is possible that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are launching the attacks while Iran’s Navy is trying to cope with the attacks—like trying to remove an unexplored limpet mine from a tanker. Although I’m not sure from news just whose assets are doing what.

If it comes to open shooting we should focus on the Revolutionary Guards.

UPDATE: A “drive by” mortar attack on a base US forces use in Iraq is no doubt traceable back to Iran’s pet militias in Iraq.

UPDATE: I read that Revolutionary Guards removed the mine. So maybe they were trying to remove evidence. Or maybe the Guards have factions of varying jihadi fanaticism.

UPDATE: And again, Iran has been at war with America a long time.

NOTE: I took some updates to a past post on tanker attack events and adapted them here for convenience.

Happy Birthday United States Army

Happy birthday United States Army--defending America even before America was a country.

This was my introduction to the Army at Fort Leonard Wood in the summer of 1988.

Image Versus Substance

So people are upset Trump will meet with Putin?

Trump, whose presidential campaign has been the subject of several wide-ranging probes into potential ties to Moscow, has been criticized by some for not taking a firmer stand against Russian aggression.

This betrays Ukraine?

I can only dream that Democrats and the media would have been as eager to oppose the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

And where were they in 2009 with that Russia “reset” so soon after Russia pounded Georgia? Why the restraint in the face of Russian aggression against Ukraine?

Now they are blood and guts anti-Russian neo-Cold Warriors? Please spare me the faux outrage.

I certainly hope the optics are better than the last imagery debacle. But it was an image debacle and not a substantive debacle.

Is rotating more American troops to Poland substantive enough of an image to satisfy the neo-colds?

Look, we need to oppose Russian aggression; but we also need to pry Russia away from their growing vassal status under Chinese domination. We flipped China against the USSR in the Cold War. We need to flip Russia today.

If speaking softly while carrying a big stick can do that, why not try?

Let's Just Try to Be Friends--and Worry About Adding Benefits Later

Are harsh American words over the S-400 issue playing into Erdogan's hands? Oh please, the idea that Erdogan's policies rise or fall on our words is nonsense. What's the alternative? Acting like there is no problem and hoping Erdogan comes to his senses? Erdogan is no partner. And we can't even be friends with benefits at this stage.

It is common for American critics of American policy to deny agency to other countries. In that view, countries look closely at what we do or don't do and then decide on a policy. Which brings us to American policy on Turkey:

Americans don’t understand that all their tough talk about leveling sanctions against Turkey if the Russian arms sale goes through only plays into Turkish leaders’ hands politically, a panel of experts said Wednesday.

Speaking at a forum on Ankara-Washington relations hosted by the Hudson Institute in Washington, Hudson fellow Blaise Misztal said that, to President Tayyip Erdogan and his political coalition partners, “sanctions and kicking you out of NATO is a winning policy” because it fuels long-standing and growing anti-Americanism in their nationalist-leaning array of parties.

Since 2014, and particularly after a failed coup attempt in 2016 that many Turks believe was known in Washington before it was launched, Erdogan “is becoming closer to [Vladimir] Putin, [Bashir al] Assad, Iran and China” to burnish his nationalist credentials, Misztal said.

I really think a lot of knowledge of the other state leads those experts to wrongly think they know exactly why their policies are constantly trimming and tacking to reflect our decisions and statements (or non-decisions or lack of statements). This dismissal of their agency--their ability to make decisions on their own--is a common flaw in analysis. Heck, I do it too much I'm sure when I worry signs of our weakness can encourage other leaders to take advantage of us. There is some truth that foreign leaders react to and take into consideration our power and interests. But it is not the only factor. And states can find excuses for why our power and interests don't really matter.

And this charge about our tough talk ignores that Bush was quiet with Turkey despite lack of support on Iraq in 2003 which was an early signal of the rise of the Islamists who were supplanting the Ataturk legacy of a secular Turkish government; and ignores that Obama courted Erdogan as an example of a "tame" Islamist who would forge an example of a pro-Western and Islamist state (which means I find it nearly impossible to believe that Obama knew anything about a coup attempt in Turkey or would have supported it. Remember, Obama thought he could turn Shia Islamist Iran into a regional partner via the Iran nuclear deal! Does it really make sense he'd take action against Erdogan?).

The fact is that it has fallen on Trump to deal with a Turkey under Erdogan who is rejecting America, NATO and the West in favor setting a neo-Ottoman path as an independent Middle Eastern power that courts Russia as a counter-force against their once-allies.

In theory, I'm fine with the idea that we should speak softly and carry a big stick. But I think we are doing that. If we can't say "boo" to Erdogan out of fear of driving him away, the end result is that Turkey gets the F-35 and deep knowledge of NATO defenses as a valuable asset to trade to Russia or China in support of restoring Ottoman glory days (as Erdogan sees it).

Selling F-35s to Erdogan's Turkey and pretending there is no problem with his foreign and domestic policies; and pretending there is no need to say or do anything against Erdogan isn't going to save Turkey for NATO and the West.

Only Turks can do that and we have no excuse for giving in to Erdogan and letting Erdogan strut as the strong man standing up to NATO and America successfully.

We have an Erdogan problem and not an S-400/F-35 problem.

We need to deny Turkey the F-35 regardless of the ultimate S-400 purchase decision, and move to minimize NATO contacts with Turkey--quietly--to reduce the losses that come from Turkish Islamization and outreach to Russia under Erdogan. In time, pro-Western forces may regain influence in Turkey and allow those conduits to be opened again.

Remember, the physical distance from Russia since NATO won the Cold War (and the Russian military weakness that followed) that allows Turkey to reach out to Russia more safely despite a history of warfare between the two means that we can stiff-arm Turkey while it goes Islamist without worrying we make Turkey vulnerable to an invasion by Russia.

It's time to quietly stop thinking of Turkey as an allied partner and instead try to remain friends. Maybe benefits can follow some day and a new partnership with a more reliable and more Western-oriented Turkey can be built. Being nice to Erdogan is no way to do that.

At this point, maybe America and Turkey need to take a break in our relationship. 

Assad's Path to Now

Syria's pre-civil war military of 450,000 mostly conscript army has gone down to a 100,000 professional force of mostly technical specialists:

Before the war began in 2011 the Syrian forces had 450,000 personnel, although 77 percent of them were short term conscripts. When the Russians showed up Syria was depending mainly on Iranian mercenaries for combat troops. About 70 percent of the Syrian military manpower had disappeared (dead, badly wounded, deserted or refused to extend their conscript service). The Russians emphasized rebuilding the technical services first, especially air power, artillery and logistics. Currently, the Syrian armed forces have about 100,000 personnel, few of them conscripts.

I'd add tanks to the list of "technical" services. These services aren't the casualty intensive elements of an army. The Syrians on Assad's side have had enough of that.

Syrian conscripts now go to militias that defend their home areas and aren't required to advance against enemy-held territory.

Ever since Syrians stopped being willing to die for Assad, Iran has provided the infantry cannon fodder via Hezbollah and a Shia foreign legion imported to fight and die. But lack of money because of the sanctions on Iran are harming that capability. Both sources of shock troops for Assad are thus much reduced.

As I noted a while ago, the Syria army evolved into something that looks more like an advise and assist force. Combined with a willingness to kill (and imprison and torture, of course) as many civilians as you need to, this has worked to regain control of most of western Syria.

Contrast this approach to warfare and building a military with the American policy of avoiding killing civilians combined with putting allied foot soldiers into battle first while we provide the technical specialists and only later train the allies to take care of the technical services.

While that approach has worked in Iraq (which had a tradition of having technical specialists) we are having problems in Afghanistan as the air force saga demonstrates.

And to be clear, I'm not suggesting by that warfighting contrast that we should adopt the "kill them all and let Allah sort them out" approach to civil war that Assad and Putin bring to the table. Although to be fair, as a minority government, terror might have been the only way for Assad to win with such a poor demographic hand going in to the fight.

Idlib in the northwest remains under Turkish-backed jihadi control and much of the northeast is under Kurdish control backed by the American coalition that helped them defeat ISIL.

Assad is now in a slow offensive in Idlib. And I assume at some point Assad and the Kurds will cut a deal over Kurdish autonomy within Syria.

Peering Over the Nine-Dashed Wall at Sea

China claims the bulk of the South China Sea in defiance of international law. America will sell drones to four states with competing claims so they can keep tabs on what China is doing there:

The Pentagon announced on [May 31st] it would sell 34 ScanEagle drones, made by Boeing Co. to the governments of Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam for a total of $47 million.

China claims almost all of the strategic South China Sea and frequently lambastes the United States and its allies over naval operations near Chinese-occupied islands. Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam have competing claims.

Surveillance drones don't stop China. But they do make sure China can't hide or deny what it is doing as effectively.

The Great White International North

Canada does not own the international waters of the Northwest Passage, doesn't even act like they can defend their claims, and should admit reality to get assistance in defending the international status of the waters.

About those Canadian claims:

American Secretary of State Mike Pompeo may be the most unpopular U.S. diplomat in Canada in many a generation, and his diplomatic language more suitable for the alley than for high-level matters of state, but he is surely correct in reminding Canada that the so-called Northwest Passage (there are actually two routes through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago) is an international waterway. And Canada, as a trading and maritime nation, ought to recognize that, and work with the United States to establish a long-term solution for how the passage is to be used.

Yet it has been clear that Canada has no interest in having a military able to defend that claim.

And given the lack of Canada's ability to defend even wrong territorial claims, it seems to me that Canada should accept the international standard on waters connecting navigable bodies of water; and get American help to hold off other states like Russia that make Arctic claims and might actually do what it takes to defend those claims at Canada's expense.

That said, I'd be happier if Pompeo was gentler with an ally. Canada isn't China and the Northwest Passage isn't the South China Sea.

Just Say Nyet to Russian "Help"

Why on Earth would Japan want to let Russia muck around in the Iran issue?

On Monday, U.S. President Donald Trump welcomed Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's help in dealing with Iran, after Japanese broadcaster NHK reported that Abe was considering a trip to Tehran as early as mid-June.

"Traditionally Japan has had friendly ties with Iran," a Japanese Foreign Ministry official told a media briefing after the meeting of the four ministers.

"There were comments from the Japanese side that Japan aims to play a role by taking advantage of such ties. The Russian side made a very positive comment in response," the official said.

Russia wouldn't cry if Iran, which stages "death to America" rallies, got nuclear weapons.

I'm happy to have Japan's help. But don't let Russia's stated support for Japan's effort evolve into actual Russian involvement.

Good grief, don't ever let Russia inside any issue to "help" us.

UPDATE: I’m sure Russia would help Iran in this area.

UPDATE: Huh. Is this a tit for Iran’s tat for attacking Gulf tankers recently?

As the strategic port of Shahid Rajaee, north of the Strait of Hormuz, was still dealing with the effects of a huge fire that caused serious destruction, Iranian media reported that six Iranian ships were ablaze in several ports in the southern part of the country.

I doubt this the kind of help Russia was offering. Tip to InstaPundit.

UPDATE: Iran remains active in the new tanker war, it seems.

UPDATE: America believes Iran attacked the tankers.

Iran denied laying mines in the Gulf in the 1980s “tanker war” even after we captured the ship laying mines. So Iranian denials now don’t mean much to me.

UPDATE: I’ve been warning for a while that we could get another tanker war.

Rank the Threats By Power and Not Volume

Sure America and Russia should want better relations. We do have a common problem of China that should help smooth things out. right?

America is willing to be nice to Russia, as our post-Cold War policies that reached out to Russia and de-fanged our Europe-based military attest.

Yes we expanded NATO east because the former Soviet vassal states freely chose that out of fear Russia would (again) expand west.

Despite what Putin may claim, an expanded NATO is not a threat to Russia and Russia should not threaten NATO and create the threat the Russians fear. We clearly have other missions for our military in both Asia and the Middle East and would prefer not to have a pointless conflict with Russia in Europe.

The question is whether the Russians will benefit from beatings by the Reality Stick and agree. Sadly, Democrats with their white hot anger from being recent converts to the struggle against Russia complicate the effort to focus on the main threat China while containing Russia and trying to split them off from China which is a threat to Russia's Far East.

Russians are being a-holes, no doubt. But they aren't particularly powerful a-holes short of nuclear warfare. A little perspective please--until the Russians get some, too.

Stop Trying to Build a Road Map to the Future--Build a New Tank.

I was afraid the last time the Army wanted to replace the Abrams tank with some 19-ton wonder "tank" FCS that isn't really a tank (see pp. 28-33 in that 2002 Military Review issue)--lethal, able to deploy on airplanes, and somehow still survivable.

A generation later after that utter failure to build a wonder tank, through a conventional and COIN campaign in Iraq that showed the value of the tank in both types of a fight, the updated Abrams tank still works and the urge to replace it with something other than a tank persists:

While tanks have been declared obsolete many times since their first use in the Battle of the Somme in 1916, the latest high-tech upgrades to the legendary M1 Abrams make it more reliable, effective and lethal, allowing the Abrams to be a key asset in the land portion of the evolving multidomain battle. It can’t fly. It can’t swim. It doesn’t fight cyberbattles or knock out satellites, but it is an essential piece of the multidomain fighting force.

The improved Abrams, the M1A2C, moves toward the Army’s expectations for the next-generation combat vehicle by having improved crew protection and mobility, but it lacks the option of autonomous operation, alternative fuel and directed energy weaponry capabilities being studied by the cross-functional team trying to set a road map to the future.

The next tank may not even be a tank-looking and tank-acting vehicle.

We're running out time to play these stupid wishing games. The Abrams is still good but it will soon reach the limits of improvement to the basic design.

Until we can mass produce crew-less vehicles that are considered expendable in combat and so are light and cheap, the heavy and well protected tank is still the way to bet for survivable, mobile, killing machines. We simply can't have all that and be air mobile in large numbers, too.*

I don't even want to raise the issue of friggin' laser (or whatever) main weapons and alternative fuels. Just ... stop.

Look, if we need an armored vehicle that bridges the gap between leg infantry and Abrams/Bradley teams, that's fine. But don't try to bridge the gap with a vehicle that is also going to replace the Abrams and Bradley. If the design compromises between the two, we will get a vehicle too heavy to be airlifted yet too light to survive on the battlefield.

Design a new heavy tank that looks like a tank and acts like a tank before the tanks we have no longer work. One day the tank will be obsolete. I don't see the evidence for thinking that day has arrived.

Stop trying to build a road map to the future and build a new tank.

*And even if the Army could build a tank light enough to be airlifted in large numbers to a distant battlefield, raise your hand if you think the Air Force will ever have enough airlift to do that? You ... over on the right ... put your damn hand down.

UPDATE: This author is singing to the choir here at TDR. Although I wonder how much longer the basic design can be updated.

Predictions are Hard--Especially About Future Wars

I wouldn't say that America has exactly ignored the rise of China and the emergence of a hostile Russia since 9/11. We had to win the war we found ourselves in against jihadis.

I don't think we could have simply shrugged off 9/11 and let jihadis score a win and perhaps engineer an Arab Winter of jihadi gains across the Arab world disillusioned with their poverty and autocracy and excited by the prospects of the suddenly "strong horse" Islamists providing solutions to their problems.

So yeah, we allocated less effort against China in particular over the last two decades. But as long as we expend the effort to keep the Iraqi and Afghan forces that currently fight the jihadis with our help in the fight, we can afford to refocus on great power competition.

Sure, we could be preparing for conventional war when we will still need to fight insurgents and terrorists. I concur with the idea raised that good soldiers provide the flexibility for any mission. So I think we can do both.

But even if we can't do both, I think we need to prepare for the war we can least afford to lose. We can adapt with good soldiers to lesser threats that can't dramatically harm us even if we start to lose.

As the author summarizes, reflecting my view above:

The military, it seems, has a weird situation on its hands. It is obviously intent on shifting its focus to great-power competition with China and Russia, as it should. Much more is at stake in a war with either country, and while losing to a Middle Eastern insurgency would be bad, losing to China or Russia would be much, much worse.

Also, we should not assume that absent a war against jihadis since 9/11 that the American people--or our allies--would have supported a real focus on confronting increasingly hostile China and Russia in this century.

Work the problem. Don't assume a perfect policy in the past would have spared us the fight against jihadis or prevented the gains China and Russia have made.

It is a good article. I'm not so much criticizing it as using it as a jumping off point. Do read it all.

Strategery is hard. As is predicting the future.

Weekend Data Dump

The Army continues to bolster its capabilities in eastern NATO.

The national debt continues to rise as the deficit surges despite increases in government revenue. Why? Spending greatly outpaces revenue. Don't blame tax cuts for our deficit and debt. Recovering from this debt if we let it reach crisis proportions will crush the middle class as the government promotes inflation to get rid of the debt that way. The poor have nothing to lose and the rich have ways to avoid the impact of inflation.

What is wrong with these people?

If elections don't matter because rule of law is considered inconvenient to the rulers, dissatisfied people will resort to other methods to register their displeasure with the rulers. Don't think rule of law can't fail here. And there must be punishment for those who tried to subvert it. Tip to Instapundit.

A "Google Earth on steroids" would be outstanding for not only general training but for mission rehearsal given the speed of adding new material possible. I can't even count the number of times that I've consulted satellite maps on Google to familiarize myself with a new route or destination. And nobody was trying to kill me.

Even if they have no effect on global warming and even if global warming really isn't a planet-threatening problem at all given our ingenuity, at least they'll be in unquestioned charge of everything and everybody. Which is nice from their point of view. Why the rest of us should go along is another issue altogether. Tip to Instapundit.

I didn't pay much attention to the Maria Butina case, but after reading this it is hard not to accept that she is a political prisoner convicted on trumped up charges. This was the result of hysteria rather than government orders, but will Russia see it that way? I have a bad feeling that Americans who make the error of going to Russia will be put at risk because of this case.

I have no idea if Trump is right that we should rip out the EMALS catapults that aren't working and go back to steam catapults on the new Ford-class carriers. But I do know that the Navy has screwed the pooch on the design of the EMALS which still doesn't work. Although if it worked, it would be much better than steam. Maybe Trump is going to order that reversion. Or maybe he's trying to catapult a sense of urgency into the Navy to get the stupid EMALS working better than the older steam system. But the issue deserves better treatment than to be treated as a petty "obsession" by the president. If the catapults don't work, we have very expensive helicopter carriers.

I don't care how much I'm supposed to panic. I'm just not going to panic.

And without the need to drop it from a plane, the same concept could be used for an autonomous ambulance to get troops from the front back to skilled medical attention. Tip to Instapundit.

Europeans didn't face the information war effort they feared from Russia to influence European elections. But now political Europe (the EU) worries that actual voters will have enough power in the European parliament to block EU policies to "ever closer union." No worries, every other time the EU faced problems with democracy they simply eliminated the chance that mere voters could harm their proto-imperial project. Tying those voters to Russia--or America!--will do the trick, no doubt.

This isn't new, but while I have little use for Wolf I will say that her book research experience is something that any honest writer lives in fear of happening to them. So a heart-felt "ouch."

How is it progressive to claim minorities are less capable than whites of perfectionism, a sense of urgency, "worship" of the written word, individualism, and objectivity? Isn't this a racist checklist for racial inferiority? But supposedly pro-minority people make the claim. Amazing. The individualism condemnation is most amazing in one way. So much for judging by the content of a person's character rather than by the color of their skin. How does a dream of equality described as "When we allow freedom to ring--when we let it ring from every city and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last, Free at last, Great God almighty, we are free at last.'" fit with the progressive group identity project that denies we should even be in the same room with different people and so capable of joining hands? Why don't we shun people who make some horrible "progressive" claims that could have come from the mouths of slave owners justifying holding humans in bondage?

College students are checking out far fewer physical books. Knowledge is crippled when students only use what is online--and they are using ebooks, as the article states--in order to learn. Because that is necessarily weighted toward modern sources despite the effort to digitize older works. The notion that those who came before us have nothing to offer us in wisdom is harmful. The idea that we can't learn from those who came before us to provide opportunities for success or to avoid failure is harmful. I guess you don't need to burn the books to keep people from seeing ideas you don't want them to see--just make what you want people to see easier to see and they won't bother with anything else. And if a book becomes "problematic" you can simply erase it or make it unreadable to the book readers. That is not a problem with physical books and the Mark I eyeballs. In a nation of people gaining weight we bizarrely give credibility to "food deserts." Shouldn't we worry about "knowledge deserts" where actual books are not consumed and digested?

This is an interesting article on the fate of Diego Garcia that is really tarnished by the bizarre need of so many writers to add in a slam against Trump despite Trump having nothing to do with the topic. What is freaking wrong with you people? Back to the subject, I assume that a lot of money rather than actual territory will ultimately change hands to resolve the dispute.

NATO is cooperating pretty closely with non-NATO Sweden. Sweden is rebuilding its defenses that virtually disappeared after the Cold War. Their renewed focus on Russia is good because NATO membership for Sweden should be based on what Sweden can add to NATO rather than solely on what NATO can do to defend Sweden.

I am always amused when people say that South Vietnam was not a "domino" that we had to hold to prevent other countries from falling because the first one fell. Conceptually, the domino theory is nothing more than the idea that success (by the enemy) encourages more success. And the defeat of South Vietnam carried Laos and Cambodia along with it. Nor does the objection consider the difference in reaction in the rest of South and Southeast Asia between the fall of South Vietnam in 1965 if we hadn't intervened and its fall in 1975 after we left.  The quibble is especially funny when you consider the results of Warsaw Pact Hungary opening its border in the summer of 1989, leading to the collapse of the Soviet empire in eastern Europe that year and which reached into the USSR itself two years later. That sequence should be in the encyclopedia for "Domino Theory" for the rest of time.

The headline that says protesters--who weren't even protesting America--set fire to our embassy in Honduras is fake news. in fact, protesters set fire to tires piled up against our embassy access gate--which was quickly extinguished. I assume "access gate" means at the perimeter fence and not even the embassy main door. Why make the incident seem like far greater rage and action than it was?

The ISIL adherents who killed 258 and wounded over 500 in Sri Lanka with multiple suicide bombings against churches and Christian targets were locals from well off families, and the attack was financed by a wealthy local. This is typical for murderous revolutionaries.

Socialism isn't an economic system designed to produce wealth, it is a political system designed to redistribute wealth. As such, wealth creation under socialism stagnates and then contracts. Which means that the politics of socialism becomes harsher as the group in charge must "distribute" more and more from the many--who will begin to resist, either actively or passively--to the minority in charge. Mass death is not far beyond that. Why socialism isn't universally reviled is beyond me.

Fighting Ebola seems like one of those things that the UN should do and can do if supported by the great powers.

The United States is punishing Cuba for backing Maduro. Even if we lose, we should make our foes pay for their victory rather than subsidize it.

May he rot in Hell. The bright spot is that the communist-loving SOB made it to Congress just as the Soviet Union collapsed.

Um, because we're the greatest country on Earth?

The affluent get more time to take the SAT because of "learning disabilities" than the poor. Tell me that the new adversity score won't get twisted to help the affluent, too. Tell me that the adversity score won't include coming from a school with high levels of SAT learning disability exemptions. Explain to me again why you are shocked that people voted for Trump.

Facepalm.

On the bright side, it has cost us nearly $600 billion so far. Can you really put a price tag on showing how much you truly care? Tip to Instapundit.

Disney threatens to boycott Georgia over their new abortion law. This isn't a fight I care to engage in on TDR. But isn't it kind of self-defeating for a company whose brand is still children's programming to be against more children--and against the people who have more children? I just don't get it.

United States Second Fleet is again online, and thickening. In case we need to fight for the North Atlantic so troops and supplies can flow freely from North America to Europe. We won't face a huge Russian naval threat, but 2nd Fleet won't be like its Cold War version, either.

The temperature data is being adjusted--to show global warming. Consistently. I have no doubt that in theory that data can be wrong and needs correcting. But I don't understand why the corrections only bolster the global warming crisis story. And I don't trust the activists who say all is normal, don't worry about it.

Iraq: doing the job that the French won't do? Iraq should make an industry out this.

Until there are just as many "Liberty Institutes" in China, we should do what we need to do to shut down China's Confuse Us Institutes located at our schools.

This facility in Texas (tip to Instapundit) will help undermine China's threats to withhold rare earths vital to our economy and defense. I've mentioned this issue for some time. Hopefully the search for alternative sources, stockpiling, and now this will soon make China's threat empty. And as it turns out, as I read later, the rare earth threat is collapsing.

Let's see, if the logic the American left has established works here, because Iranian Shia jihadi fanatics hate Trump and Americans on the left (and a small fraction of the right) hate Trump, Americans who hate Trump must support every horrible thing that Iranian Shia jihadi fanatics have ever done or want to do. I mean, I've been hearing that for a few years now. Oh, and the hatred of Jews, too. That seems to be the next big thing on the left here. Tip to Instapundit.

To say there is mutual mistrust between America and China is to ignore the several decades that America supported China's economic rise in the belief that economic progress would reduce China's aggressiveness. Yeah, that didn't work. So now the mistrust and hostility is belatedly "mutual."

I'm sure I've mentioned it before, but it bears repeating: Russia is using their combat in Ukraine and Syria to test out and improve their electronic warfare capabilities.

I mentioned in the last data dump that I could hardly blame Trump staffers if they wanted USS McCain out of sight during his visit to Japan. Given the eagerness of the press to make a saint of Senator McCain (in contrast to their demonization of him in 2008) for his feud with Trump. It should have been obvious though I didn't mention it that the military shouldn't be politicized in that way. So the military was right to point that out to whoever asked that.

Sudan is not looking very Arab Springy, what with all the shootings.

I am open to the notion that D-Day might have been possible in 1943. Germany surely was better prepared in 1944 than in 1943. Just as the Allies were better prepared in 1944. But would the Germans have sent an army to Tunisia to die if we had invaded France in 1943? Would Italy have remained in the war and not tied down German troops in Italy to hold that territory? Or would the lack of Allied divisions fighting in Italy made up for that? Would Germany have called off their Kursk offensive and moved their armor west to hit the May or June invasion force? How much longer would the Pacific War have lasted without early Army reinforcements? My experience with commercial board games says 1943 would not have worked. But that is not final evidence in my mind.

In related news, I can't believe that five years after Russia invaded Ukraine that Ukraine still has statues of Russian generals to pull down.

And when gun buyers have to use cash to purchase firearms, they will be charged with trying to evade scrutiny.

The burning sensation means it's working! Taiwan needs those tanks and missiles.

Social media should have warning labels on it. I'm content to have sat out the social media revolution. I remained a happy person during the Obama administration and continue my sanity and contentedness streak--unlike so many rabid opponents of Trump--in the current administration. As for the dumbing down part? Well, I believe I noted that I noticed that with so much to read online that I had lost the patience to really sit and read books, and had to retrain myself to do that. That was rather scary.

Bi-partisan gullibility to do Iran's work by trying to block arms sales to Saudi Arabia in Congress. Why does Congress prove so vulnerable to Iranian propaganda?

What is Russia's major malfunction, anyway?

We have to feed the guns.

The revolution in Venezuela is failing. Don't give up, however. But understand what the Venezuelan officer corps wants and fears. I wonder if we could offer sanctuary to the Venezuelan officer corps until a new government can decide which ones to keep in their military? The rest could be offered the chance to seek sanctuary in other countries if Venezuela considers them too tainted to trust.

Hey, these leftist rules are fun now that everybody plays by them, right? Tip to Instapundit. What I'm really looking forward to are occupational licensing sanctuary cities, which only seem to protect those already in the guilds from outsiders coming in to compete.

Be Careful Out There

Is China in the mood to give America a "bloody nose" in response to challenges by our military along with our allies to China's claims in the South China Sea and against Taiwan?

Well, this is certainly possible:

Given the further flouting of both international law and personal commitments, it is left to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of freedom of the seas to use its indispensable capabilities to block Beijing’s maritime aggression. Fortunately, British, French, Australian and other allies are joining in the U.S. Navy’s Freedom of Navigation Operations.

China wants to stop this multinational “ganging up” and probably is weighing whether to cause an incident directly against a U.S. Navy ship or aircraft, as one of its fighter jets did against an EP-3 reconnaissance aircraft in 2001, or to choose an allied target instead and complicate a U.S. response.

My impression is that the EP-3 collision was an accident in a mission to brush us back from international air space near China that China claims, but not intended to result in the loss of a Chinese fighter and the emergency landing of our EP-3 on Chinese territory (that allowed the Chinese to examine the plane close up for whatever the crew didn't wreck on the way down).

But I have worried for a while that China might try to use force against our ships conducting FONOPs in waters claimed by China:

We need to guard against the possibility that China will try to disable one of our warships as it makes a freedom of navigation patrol.

China forced our EP-3 plane to land in China back in 2001, recall. Let's not have one of our ships disabled with a propeller fouled in fishing nets and then set upon by Chinese coast guard vessels to tow it to port in a "rescue."

The need for American overwatch of American warships on FONOPs extends to our allies' ships conducting FONOPs.

The author points to China giving "bloody nose" messages to India in 1962 and to Vietnam in 1979.

But China got the bloody nose in 1979 as their invasion flailed against second line Vietnamese ground forces. We should make sure China goes 1:3 if they try that against America or our allies in the South China Sea, the East China Sea, or the Taiwan Strait.