Weekend Data Dump

The Saudi coalition in Yemen continues to kill and capture international jihadi terrorists hiding in Yemen.

Actual brave Resistance to tyranny. American feminists, please take note of women removing their hijabs in mullah-run Iran, and tear down your wall that stops intersectionality from applying there and getting you to give a damn.

The United States and Europeans promised more help for the latest Ebola crisis in Congo. It's a scary world out there.

Even if Trump had tactical reasons for telling, via tweets, four far-left fanatical morons in Congress to go back to their home countries (all are American and only one was naturalized), it was still wrong. I don't think the comment in context was racist. It simply reflects that he is a nativist--which at some level isn't a problem if it doesn't include hatred of non-natives, because shouldn't we prioritize people already here legally, whether citizen or not? And Trump is kind of an equal opportunity jerk. I'd be willing to condemn the tweets if the reaction wasn't so overblown and if the media ever called the left on their outrages. Antifa? Hollywood and media sexual abuse? Nation of Islam? Epstein? Excuses for jihadi barbarism? And more people see the outrage theater as politically motivated charges. Remember that the far-left is so far gone that Pelosi is considered a fellow traveler of Trump on the "squad" issue. So in addition to the comment being wrong, it was stupid to interfere with the circular firing squad taking place in Democratic ranks. And you have to consider that part of this kerfuffle is the assumption that opposing anybody of a different race or ethnicity must be solely based on their race or ethnicity. You should consider the possibility that people oppose far-left fanatical morons because they are far-left fanatical morons. Remember too that it is absolutely normal to be repulsed by Omar's politics and incomprehensible ingratitude for the opportunities America gave her. She's free to stay here and speak up (as the live press conference broadcast shows, she and the rest are hardly "silenced") and I am free to think she (and the other members of the "squad"--although one is a late addition out of nowhere, and I'm not familiar with her) is an odious person proposing horrible policies.

Sure, our European allies support the Iran nuclear deal. They want trade with Iran and understand they are way down the list for who Iran might target with nukes. So their support is no reason to question our rejection of the awful deal that shields Iran's drive for nukes rather than stop it. Remember, our foes China and Russia also support the deal.

Gosh, I wonder why I stayed in Ann Arbor after I left Detroit to go to school here?  For about forty years I've heard about how this time for sure Detroit is "back" and recovering. One day that will be true, but for now I have little interest in visiting--let alone living in--the city of my childhood.

Stratfor discussion of Iran's nuclear path and related issues.

Options on the use of private military contractors (mercenaries) for American foreign policy objectives. Well, you could see my collection of posts on this subject for only 99 cents for some background discussion of the topic. It was supposed to be the first of a series but that didn't work out. Or you could  just buy a copy to support The Dignified Rant, I suppose.

I still don't know how it is constitutional for a state government to grant people of other states to decide their presidential votes. If that is legal, why couldn't a state grant their vote to whatever their governor wants? Or whoever Brad (or Susan) in some think tank wants? Or who the French want?

This makes me wonder if California tilts nearly as left as its voting record indicates.

And yeah, while Trump is kind of a jerk, if Democrats make me choose between socialism and Trump, there is no choice: four more years.

Brown people protesting corrupt and inept American executive tear gassed. Alert AOC.

We asked the Dutch to help escort shipping in the Persian Gulf.

I'm sorry, but if we give up the Diego Garcia base because of a "morally compelling resolution" by the UN General Assembly, neither America nor Britain deserve to pretend to be powers with global reach. Spare me the "if we don't abide by rules others won't" BS. Others violate rules all the time and nobody seems to care. India had best re-think its position under the circumstances. And seriously, how does a non-binding resolution include an "ultimatum" with a deadline? Somebody is seriously unclear about definitions. Honestly, I think all this is about Mauritius angling for a larger payment. Which is fine.

I have only a light familiarity with Jordan Peterson--who seems fine, by the way, notwithstanding the odd demonization of him by the left. But I knew enough to know that a prominent columnist completely misrepresented Peterson's position on gender pronouns. The columnist recently said that Peterson would not use a requested pronoun when referring to someone. That is not accurate. Peterson has said he would not allow the state to compel him to use a certain pronoun. That's way different.

Israel, the Palestinians, and Iran.

San Antonio-class amphibious warfare ships will get upgrades to operate in a higher threat environment.

The Army's M109A7 will get longer reach with a longer gun and rocket-assisted projectiles. Against smaller and less capable enemies, we could rely on air power to deliver the strikes. We can't assume that in a world of great power competition and so artillery is more important for providing timely fire support.

Democrats should ask for people's votes but shouldn't share with those people what the Democrats would do with the power those votes will give Democrats? Huh.

I hope Turkey really likes their S-400 missiles purchased from Russia; because the price Turkey will pay for buying those air defense missiles goes way beyond the purchase price. Good. We can't trust Erdogan one bit. I hope we have back-up sites for Incirlik air base already warmed up. Although as we drop the hammer on the F-35 sale and production role, Trump tries to play the "good cop" role.

Can we use "sails" to drag space debris down so it burns up in the atmosphere (tip to Instapundit)?  Given the high cost of putting mass in orbit, I'd rather figure out how to gather it and re-use it, somehow melting it down and reusing the raw materials. But clearing out orbital space is probably important enough to do it however we can.

Domestic terrorism. The hysterical incitement needs to stop. It is possible to argue against policies you don't like even if the policy actually isn't Nazi-like. Really. You can.

This is obviously in error. I've been assure that the Iraq War has caused Islamist hatred of the West.

Jesus effing Christ, our budget deficit will hit $1 trillion this fiscal year. We are so screwed at the next recession. This is the time we should be cutting the deficit. But no. Complete bi-partisan governmental failure. The only bipartisanship is in spending.

Oh, and despite claims that the big Trump tax cut is causing our deficits, federal revenue has continued to climb. Spending is the problem.

It is insane to treat e-cigarettes the same as cigarettes given that the latter is far worse than the former alternative to smoking. So people will be pushed away from e-cigarettes and to cigarettes? How does this make sense at all?

Ground-based American defenses against drone swarms. While that may work to defend bases, I think eventually we'll need air superiority drones to defeat attacking drone swarms over our forward troops, as I wrote about in Army magazine.

I wouldn't laugh at this development so much if those who did it (and do it) didn't cop an air of moral superiority over those who don't worship the curbside bins.

The Hope and Change makes everything okay! Do you think I'm kidding about that magical transformative power? Here's the evidence (tip to Instapundit).

If Algerian protesters can achieve democracy in a country that soured on jihadis from a bloody insurgency in the 1990s, the Arab Spring gets added life.

A last comment on "the tweets." Why didn't Speaker Pelosi introduce the condemning resolution as a general condemnation of bigotry without naming Trump--exactly the way Democrats amended a resolution condemning Omar for antisemitism into a bland condemnation of all forms of bigotry without naming Omar. Still, I do wish Trump would stop making it harder to support him. He doesn't lose my support given the state of the turn-it-to-11 opposition (they have a 40-year record of unfairly calling any Republican a racist or whatever) and given how Trump's opponents unfairly tag Trump supporters as deplorable people. But Lord, Trump does make my life more difficult. Although to be fair, he's just bouncing the rubble.

Racist xenophobes!

This writer doesn't think a no-deal Brexit would be Armageddon. And even if there are serious problems to overcome, rule of law requires a no-deal Brexit rather than allowing the EU and Remainers to gut democracy by delaying it until it fades away contrary to the referendum that was sold as settling the question for all time. Just look at how far Europe is willing to go to preserve trade with Iran. Do you really think the continent won't ultimately work harder to preserve trade with the far more important Britain?

Tim Horton's (pbuth) new shakes are revolting and unworthy of the name "shake." I think they are just iced cappuccinos without coffee. Shame on them. And my local Tim's doesn't have poutine!

Iran has seized a UAE tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, ending the question of whether the Iranians had rescued or taken the ship. Iran claims the ship was "smuggling" oil. If the ship was doing that, Iran would approve.

While there is a lot of speculation that I have no position on, I would like a final conclusion on what happened in the Imran Awan House of Representatives IT scandal. Tip to Instapundit.

Musical chairs in Thailand. I'm not thrilled with the generals there.

American sanctions and pressure are weakening Iran. Here's an indication. So questions of whether sanctions and the "maximum pressure" policy are "working" require you to discount that objective as a success in favor of assuming only bigger objectives are worth a policy that rejects making Iran stronger. That said, sure, we don't yet know if the Trump policy is a failure or success.

A Canadian senator accidentally revealed the locations of 150 American B61 nuclear bombs in Europe. That's unfortunate, but I doubt the Russians were unaware of their location. I think the important thing revealed is that America still has nuclear bombs at the Incirlik air base in Turkey!  Given Erdogan's growing hostility and especially since we just expelled Turkey from the F-35 program (or initiated expulsion, I guess), why would we leave nukes within reach of Erdogan who might seize them (even if he can't use them in the short run) in retaliation and go fully rogue? I know I have mentioned many times during the F-35/S-400 crisis that I hope we have pulled our nukes out of Turkey. Apparently that has not happened.

I'm rather shocked that an article exposing myths of the greatness of the Iran nuclear deal made it into The Atlantic.

Yes, I've mentioned more than a couple times that Russian theater nuclear weapons are really needed to face the Chinese threat--both nuclear and conventional.

Actual concentration camps for Moslems that separate parents from children. But I'm sure that Google's economic ties to China have nothing to do with the surveillance state built there. I'm sure the sainted international community will spring into action. Any moment now. Yep.

Huh. Apparently it's a British thing and not about us.

The House of Representatives continues to side with Iran by voting to halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which is battling Iran in Yemen. I eagerly await the collusion reporting.

Let's hope Americans list Colorado State University as a place to avoid. Tip to Instapundit.

We say that Boxer shot down an Iranian drone that got to close to the ship while Iran denies losing any drone. Somebody lost a drone.

So tyranny is acceptable if it provides the illusion of diversity? Of course, free America ultimately did far better without the tyranny part. Sometimes I think the diversity crowd just wants the tyranny part--as long as they are in charge.

Don't be silly dahling, it is better to look good than to feel good. I think California should be free to be a a laboratory of democracy and enjoy the results--good and hard.

North Korea is evolving and it doesn't look very good for North Korea's regime. But that has been true for three decades now, without threatening the regime (or state itself).

Precision 40mm grenades show how precision is going down the food chain to the grunts. This trend will have a revolutionary effect on infantry combat, as I wrote about on the USNI Blog.

China tested their anti-ship ballistic missiles. Which can threaten American warships in the western Pacific. As well as those of our allies. Less obvious, they are threats to India's navy and to Russia's Pacific warships (assuming they can go to sea, of course).  Reviewing my old post on breaking the DF-21 kill chain might be helpful.

I don't think much of Russia's blue water capabilities, but given our inability to escort merchant ships across the Atlantic in case of war in Europe, restoring Iceland's ability to shield the trans-Altantic sea lines of communication is important.

Why the Russian S-400 is a threat to the F-35 if Turkey has both. While in theory we might be able to solve that problem by isolating the plane from the missile, that narrow technical solution would ignore the fact that we have an Erdogan crisis and not an S-400 crisis.

The Taliban killed 25 Afghan commandos in a recent ambush. That does not speak well of the effort to double Afghan special forces without diluting the quality, as I worried about. Generally only poor quality troops or troops just under poor commanders get killed in large numbers like that without exacting a far higher toll on the enemy.

Huh.  Tip to Instapundit.

And Iran seized a British tanker in the Strait of Hormuz.

Boeing has some serious quality control problems that affect our military, too.

Perhaps a review of Israeli attack options to deal with Iran's nuclear infrastructure is in order. The Arab world is more aligned against Iran now, as is America.

A hostile militia has free rein in Portland. Imagine the problems Iraq has with Iranian-controlled militias.

Chinese and Vietnamese coast guard vessels are in a standoff in the South China Sea over Chinese oil exploration in disputed waters.

Well that's a fascinating way to pick statistics to prove global warming heat wave intensification, isn't it? Again, weather is climate when it is hot out today; but weather is still weather when it is cold out today. Tip to Instapundit.

The United States is reestablishing an air base in Saudi Arabia at Prince Sultan Air Base. There will be Patriot air defense missiles and a small number of fighter aircraft. It seems a small deployment--just 500 personnel--with more significance as a place for rapid reinforcement in a crisis.

I'd like to say there is no way he can get away with this. But it is Chicago, after all.

Prosperity, FUD, secrecy, corruption, and terror.

How corruption is harming Africans.

Ukrainians are sick of corruption. Their votes will reflect this. Will those they vote for act on it? This is critical if Ukraine is to defeat Russia.

If the hack is real, I'd expect to hear nothing but silence coming out of the Russian government. But the Russians would know that, right? So shouldn't there be loud denials to throw us off the truth? But one can hope. Tip to Instapundit.

Freedom of Navigation Recruiting Office

Iran's actions in the Persian Gulf are too weak to hurt the West but strong enough to scare the West into action. The Coalition of the Skittish could be the result.

Ouchy:

Recent seizures and attacks aimed at oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz will raise insurance rates for shipping companies and, if unchecked, reduce tanker traffic in the vital waterway, according to energy experts.

Iran on Friday seized a British-flagged oil tanker and a second Liberian-flagged ship was briefly detained. The events occurred in a passageway that carries one-fifth of the world's crude exports.

"If this kind of problem continues, you might see people start to shy away from the (Persian) Gulf or try to reflag — not be a British tanker," said energy economist Michael Lynch.

So Iran could force insurance rates up. Ooh. Scary.

But Iran's actions that fall short of closing the Strait of Hormuz and actually hurting oil customers are making the case for protecting Gulf traffic just in case Iran escalates:

Some 100 envoys took part in the briefing by Brian Hook, who outlined the Trump administration's initiative for maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz.

Mr Hook said tensions had risen sharply and necessitated the need for a "coalition" of navies to protect their ships through the strait.

His words were underlined by the seizure of the British-flagged Stena Impero in the Gulf.

And worse for Iran, it seems clear that while Iran is willing to start to take Vienna it is unwilling to take Vienna:

As tensions in the Persian Gulf continued to ramp up on Friday afternoon amid news that Iran had seized a British oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Army Lt. Gen. Robert Ashley, concluded that Iran does not want to start a war with the U.S. or its allies.

Iran is willing to inflict difficulties without inflicting real pain and risking war that could devastate Iran's economy.

How great is that for the envoys to know that Iran is unlikely to fight an international armada that will lower insurance rates and operating costs for their oil imports?

And that America is backing them in case Iran does get effectively aggressive?

Thanks Iran! You could have played pure victim or potential destroyer of the West. But instead Iran decided to inflict a small harm on the Coalition of the Skittish.

UPDATE: The British navy failed to prevent the latest Iranian seizure, and Europe remains stuck between action and fear:

The audio, released by maritime security risk firm Dryad Global, shows how the British navy was unable to prevent the ship's seizure by Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces on Friday. The seizure has prompted condemnation from the U.K. and its European allies as they continue to call for a de-escalation of tensions in the critical waterway.

A choice must be made.

UPDATE: Britain can hold as many emergency security sessions as it wants, but the Royal Navy is too small to protect British shipping in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. Short of nuking Iran, British military options are limited without joining a coalition led by America to protect shipping.

UPDATE: Assuming even a shrunken British military is capable much longer of fighting anything other than "racist toxic masculinity." Sigh, the Thin Woke Line.

UPDATE: The choosing is starting to happen.

France:

France says it's working with its European partners on an observation mission to ensure maritime security in the Persian Gulf, where tensions have climbed with Iran's seizure last week of a U.K.-flagged oil tanker.

Britain:

Escalating against Iran, Britain's foreign secretary on Monday announced that Britain will establish "a European-led maritime protection mission to support safe passage" of tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

Still, both are just as the "starting to take Vienna" point.

UPDATE: More (via Instapundit with more information there):

The Trump administration's new Pentagon chief says he aims to ensure a U.S. naval presence in the Persian Gulf that would deter Iran from threatening to stop or seize any American commercial ship.

If the Europeans want their ships protected, they'll need to step up rather than count on America to do it alone while looking the other way while Europeans trade with Iran.

Is CENTCOM a Shield or Sword?

I'm certainly willing to entertain the notion of drawing down in CENTCOM or even leaving the region, as this author raises:

I propose America consider moving back to the Cold War-era model of one or two major facilities, with the likeliest candidates for retention being al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar and West al-Mubarak Air Base in Kuwait, which is currently under construction and due to open in 2023. Though not as robust as a seaport, each base could facilitate the reintroduction of additional American forces, should the need arise.

I'd also like a port--like Duqm, Oman--since no airfields are sufficient for the logistics and our Navy would need a safe harbor.

We can't be strong everywhere and changing circumstances should allow for changes in deployments. Our military presence has gone up and down as threats have waxed and waned (see Iraq and Afghanistan).

And yes, we can return to places we leave (see Europe where we are rebuilding our military presence).

Still, my worry is that leaving could provoke problems that require an even bigger return (see Iraq from 2011 to 2014), or allow others who aren't friends to fill the vacuum.

That said, nothing should be written in stone. Although the one thing not discussed is whether the question should be whether our air-land focus on the Middle East itself to prevent threats from emerging from the Middle East should actually be changed to an air-sea focus on the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean to face external threats to the region.

If we can support the governments in Iraq and Afghanistan who now work with us to kill jihadis rather than being run by people who support terrorism, the switch to the latter mission is a no-brainer, with only the timing the issue.

Stop Pretending We Don't Need Big, Heavy Vehicles

The Army continues to have problems turning the Stryker into a Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

The Army is upgunning (with an actual cannon and anti-tank missiles) and up-armoring the wheeled Stryker armored personnel carrier a bit. But it really needs an active protection system to face tanks in conventional combat and have hope of surviving. That isn't working out:

In mid-2019 the U.S. Army confirmed that it is officially “still looking” for a suitable APS (Active Protection System) for its Stryker wheeled armored vehicles. Tests of lightweight versions the Israeli Trophy and the similar German ADS (Active Defense System) revealed problems with both systems when used on Stryker. The Trophy and ADS developers are seeking to address the problems encountered with Stryker which is, compared to heavier tracked armored vehicles like the M2 IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) and M1 tank, less able to carry the extra weight of an APS and supply the electrical power required.

I meant to bring this issue up a bit ago:

“Unfortunately for Stryker, we have not found a system that is suitable for the platform,” Col. Glenn Dean, Stryker project manager told Defense News, said in a June 7 interview.

The Army has found interim APS for both its Abrams tank and Bradley infantry fighting vehicle but has struggled to find one for the Stryker. The service moved quickly to field combat vehicle protection against rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank-guided missiles while it develops a future system.

Trying to make the light Stryker capable of surviving against heavy cannon-armed tanks is another example of the Army hearing the siren song of achieving strategic mobility with tactical survivability. Heavy passive armor is the traditional means of protecting armored vehicles but heavy armor rules out strategic mobility (read that as airlift).

As if the Air Force has the lift to carry significant light armor to an overseas theater even if the Army could successfully solve those contradictory objectives with APS that works (and there is more than one way to skin a cat even if APS works).

In my view, the Army is making a mistake trying to turn a Stryker into a Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

We should reduce the number of Stryker brigades we have and turn a couple into actual armored cavalry regiments with actual heavy fighting vehicles and tanks (and artillery, air defense, engineers, helicopters, drones, and all the rest, of course).

The Mid-Empire Crisis Continues

Oh thank God! Putin really wants his little red sports car out of the shop:

[The] Kremlin seems to view aircraft carriers as an important contributor to national prestige. The Russian navy took great pains to get Kuznetsov into position to support operations in Syria, and despite the embarrassment associated with that, has now pushed the carrier into a major refit.

It really makes no sense for Russia to have aircraft carriers or even a blue water surface fleet.

But Putin seems to want the ship yet I fear that Russia will scrap the ship in the face of problems refitting it.

I say Russia should refit that glorious sailing tribute to Putin's manly bare chest and Holy Mother Russia! And then build a bigger one! Hell, build a bunch!

Just stop teasing us!

Berlin Airlift (East)

Could America take a page from our confrontation with the USSR to deny China a win against our ally the Philippines in the South China Sea?

President Duterte has abandoned his outreach to China to check China's territorial claims against the Philippines, and now wants American military help in the face of low-level Chinese aggression:

The sinking of a Philippine fishing boat by a Chinese trawler on June 9 appears to be the spark that has escalated tensions over the disputed South China Sea territories, and spurred Duterte's sudden recall of the defense treaty. Beijing claimed the event to be an accident.

During an interview with Philippine television evangelist Pastor Apollo Quiboloy, Duterte said “I’m calling now (sic) America. I’m invoking the RP-US pact. I would like America to gather all their Seventh Fleet in front of China. I’m asking them now. And I will join them.”

I missed the news of that sinking which is part of China's ongoing effort to squeeze the Philippines out of their island outposts, but the seagoing Chinese militia that carried out the hit is on my radar.

One response would be for the Philippines to be strong enough to fight a small war with China, which would compel China to escalate to win--but risk war with America. America would certainly be able to support the Philippines without getting directly involved.

But there is a risk of escalation to full great power war with such a reply to China's sinking of that Filipino fishing boat.

So what if instead of using force we support the Philippines with an airlift to the outposts that China is besieging in the South China Sea?

We could airlift Filipino troops, supplies, and building materials to fortify the outposts against Chinese threats via their naval militia that rams and harasses the ships of the Philippines operating in what international law says are Manila's territorial waters.

Would China try to shoot down our helicopters in this Berlin Airlift in the South China Sea and risk war with America?

UPDATE: China's naval militia doesn't have an anti-air capability, remember.

UPDATE: Related information.

The Technology Rooster Crows Again

Once again air power advocates are trying to sell the notion that air power can win wars with ground forces mere forward observers.

So a revival of great power competition means that the old air power-centric Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) was right all along? And the 1995 Deliberate Force operation was an early test proving the concept?

The RMA gained additional standing from Operation Deliberate Force, the NATO air campaign in Bosnia, in 1995. The 11-day action consisted almost entirely of airpower and imposed a cease fire on the Serb aggressors in the Yugoslav civil war.

The 11-day action was almost entirely airpower? I don't think so, as I wrote in this post originally written (but not accepted for publication) during the 1999 Operation Allied Force over the same area:

The seventh lesson [of an Air University study] is the most important yet is ill remembered. In May 1995, Croatia captured western Slavonia from the Croatian Serbs. Operation Storm, in which the Croatians took the Serb Krajina region of Croatia, followed starting in late July and relieved the Moslem Bihac Pocket in western Bosnia. In conjunction with the Croatian offensive, Bosnia too scored victories over the Bosnian Serbs as Deliberate Force delivered its signal. By mid-September 1995, the Croatians had regained their land and the Bosnian Serbs had the 70% of Bosnia they controlled reduced to 51 percent. Accepting NATO's peace plan that coincidentally allocated them 51% of Bosnia simply required the Bosnian Serbs to concede reality. Air power advocates seem to imply that the Bosnian and Croatian attacks were successful because of the NATO airstrikes. ...

In 1995, air power was the only military means acceptable to NATO countries. Croatia's forgotten army was decisive in that war. [emphasis added]

The "seem" part of the claim is long gone, I guess. The non-American ground offensive is truly forgotten.

Claiming air power won the 1995 campaign is kind of like noticing that the sun rises when the rooster crows, and concluding the rooster caused the sun to rise.

I once celebrated the Air Force embrace of supporting Army combat operations. Ground forces need a good Air Force in order to win, and we have a good Air Force. Ground support is useful and air support is vital. But air power can't do it all.

Sadly, it may be that a separate Space Force, by denying the Air Force an outlet higher, will lead the Air Force to look down and resume its campaign to claim it can win wars virtually alone instead of supporting the ground forces.

So here we are in 2019 and the limited 1995 NATO air campaign led by America is remembered as an early indicator of how air power can deliver victory. That judgment requires ignoring the Croatian ground offensive (planned by retired American officers) and to a lesser extent ignoring the Bosnian land gains.

New technology is supposedly bringing the decades-long "victory through air power alone" claim to the real world. I don't think so.

The Remnant of a Multi-War Drags On

Iran's Syria's [oops] multi-war--a civil war of multiple factions and multiple foreign actors fighting for conflicting, parallel, and overlapping objectives--lingers on in Idlib province.

Assad's offensive against the last rebel/terrorist stronghold in Idlib is kind of flailing:

Two months of intensive airstrikes by Syrian government forces and their Russian allies, coupled with a fierce ground assault on rebel-controlled Idlib province, have killed hundreds of people and caused massive displacement while achieving little to no gain for President Bashar Assad.

Why?

Crucially, Iran-backed fighters, including members of Lebanon's Hezbollah group whose participation has been key in previous battles, have not joined fight for Idlib[.] ...

Spearheading the offensive on Idlib and northern parts of the central province of Hama is the government's elite Tiger Force led by Brig. Gen. Suheil al-Hassan, a Russian-backed Syrian officer who took credit for some of the biggest government victories in the eight-year conflict.

But he has not succeeded in breaking Idlib's defenses and remains deadlocked. According to opposition activists, elite forces from the Republican Guards and the Fourth Division led by Assad's younger brother, Maher, have recently started taking part in the offensive.

Iran is not allowing its shock troops--Hezbollah and the Shia foreign legion--to participate. And without them, Assad has to rely on his few remaining mobile forces.

As I've noted, the central state in Syria has eroded under pressure of waging the war, and Assad's ground forces are mostly strategically immobile and only useful for defending their own areas. As I noted in this post:

This reflects my comments that the bulk of Syria's forces are strategically static local defense forces. That is why the Tiger Force (as well as other select conventional units--from the very beginning--of what is really a zombie army) and the relatively small force of Hezbollah and Shia foreign legion fighters brought in by Iran are key offensive forces.

So the defeat of rebels around the country does not free up that many troops to concentrate on the remaining rebels.

This is not to say that Assad has lost his war. Of course Assad won. Losing would have been him hanging dead from a lamp post. Or maybe sitting in exile in Russian-occupied Crimea. All these arguments are just about why the price paid for Assad's win was high and why Assad's problems aren't over. I said that. That's valid. But yeah, Assad won.

Isn't This What Being at War Means?

So if Russia or China attacks America or one of our allies in one theater, we are supposed to simply fight only in the theater of war that Russia or China has chosen? What's up with that?

Um, okay:

Rather than confronting China and Russia where the fighting would be toughest, the thinking goes, the U.S. would broaden the conflict into areas where it has the advantage, eventually inflicting enough pain that the enemy yields.

The theory of horizontal escalation thus holds that the U.S. can wage a war on its terms rather than the enemy’s — and that it can achieve victory without paying the price of a more direct approach. Unfortunately, this theory is too good to be true: Horizontal escalation ultimately stumbles on several key problems.

I just don't buy the three reasons this kind of "horizontal escalation" is automatically a bad idea.

We may have reasons of our own not to wage war outside of the immediate theater our enemy chooses, but the idea that we should of course go along with the scope and scale of war that our enemy chose for their own advantage is insane. Attacking an enemy's weakest point is kind of War 101.

But sure, being able to fight away from the enemy's chosen theater does not allow us to ignore dealing with and fighting the enemy at the point of their attack. If I may be so bold, duh.

Maybe the knowledge that we will wage war if attacked at any point will deter a potential enemy from thinking they can enjoy a short and glorious war in a theater they alone get to define.

If a country goes to war with America, they go to war with America. Everywhere.

UPDATE: The more I reflect on the article the more ridiculous it seems.

How is it possible to think that Russia could declare war on America's European Command (EUCOM) alone and every other American command just sits out the fight? Or that we should go along with that narrow fight that Russia chose?

Don't we in part try to deter attacks by gathering allies to defend eastern NATO? Yet not even all of America's military power is supposed to fight Russia if Russia attacks eastern NATO?

So Will It Be a Pounding or a Crushing?

Hezbollah threatens Israel and Israel responds in kind. Whose threat is greater?

Hezbollah wants Israel to know that it is better armed and still has Iran's arm firmly up its nether regions moving their lips and arms, and Israel says not so fast:

Israel's prime minister says it will deliver a "crushing" strike against Hezbollah if the Lebanese militant group attempts to attack. ...

In an interview Friday, Nasrallah boasted that his group is much stronger than during the 2006 war and is capable of striking anywhere in Israel. Pointing to a map, Nasrallah identified a list of targets he said his group could strike, saying "in all fields, the resistance has developed in quantity and quality."

Although Hezbollah does have a point about all their rockets aimed at Israel--Iron Dome will run out of anti-rockets long before Hezbollah runs out of rockets. And it is even worse now that Hezbollah has a sizable precision rocket force.

So while Israel can pound Hezbollah from the air, they can only crush Hezbollah in time to turn off the rocket spigot with a ground campaign that seizes the launching sites.

And even that is just a short-term effort that will allow Hezbollah to rapidly rebuild their arsenal.

Which makes me think, as I have for nearly a decade now, that Israel will drive deep into Lebanon in a multi-division ground raid to seriously tear up Hezbollah fighters, rear echelon personnel, and infrastructure.

After all, why shouldn't Israel do that? Lebanon's formal government seems unwilling or unable to rein in Hezbollah. If Lebanon's parliament wants to defend two Hezbollah lawmakers sanctioned by the U.S. in that parliament, Lebanon places itself in the path of a war against Iran's proxy force in Lebanon.

But I've been expecting a big Israeli ground operation for some time now. So there's that.

Shooting to Kill

The technology for training infantry with weapons simulators has gotten very effective. The technology will make the weapons themselves more effective.

I just missed this training revolution, although I remember a mechanical system limited to making sure you were using the iron sights correctly:

Since the 1990s the military has increasingly adopted EFS (Electronic Firearms Simulators) to not only augment use of the traditional firing range but also to provide training that was previously unavailable to many troops. ... While crude by current standards these early firing range systems were revolutionary because they made it much cheaper to provide a lot more firearms training. This made it easier for troops whose main job was ground combat to become more deadly with their firearms.

As the technology improved, the usefulness expanded beyond marksmanship. But the marksmanship skills greatly improved with the technology.

The technology is also improving for the weapons themselves, and one day, as I wrote on the USNI Blog, all that marksmanship training will be unnecessary because the ability to hit the target will be embedded within the weapon itself:

The U.S. Marine Corps proudly says every Marine is a rifleman. But what happens if even enemy insurgents and militia fighters are just as accurate? New technologies are hastening that day of reckoning. Marines must cope by developing new training priorities, technology, and tactics to maintain their competitive advantage.

Science Fiction author Arthur C. Clarke in a 1973 publication coined a “Third Law” regarding technology that states, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”[1] The “magic BB” of military lore—the seemingly random but deadly single shot that comes out of nowhere—is about to be based on technology.

The skill level needed to be a marksman will drop, with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) already attempting to develop a sight that shows where the operator should aim.[2] That was an early prototype too bulky and primitive to be used by infantry. But the path is clear.

The technology to assist shooters has reached the point where it has entered the civilian market. The TrackingPoint rifle introduced in 2013 goes beyond aim assistance, refusing to discharge the weapon when the trigger is pulled until the weapon is aimed to strike the target after factoring in variables that require aiming at a point other than center-of-mass.[3] Such weapons have been pitched to the Marine Corps and Army.[4]

The pairing of simple bullets with smart sights and automatic firing protocols must change the way Marines prepare for infantry combat. Dumb-but-controlled (DBC) firing employed by even ill-trained forces will revolutionize infantry combat.

When the smart weapon itself provides the accuracy, training time for American troops once devoted to shooting will need to be used for tactical proficiency because enemies will eventually be equipped with smart rifles.

The Real Diplomatic Vandalism is Appeasement

The British will agree to their own solo mini Iran deal over the Iranian tanker they seized at Gibraltar for breaking sanctions on oil shipments to Syria.

Iran will pretend that the oil isn't going to Syria; and Britain will pretend to believe Iran:

Britain will facilitate the release of a seized Iranian tanker if Iran can provide guarantees the vessel would not breach European sanctions on oil shipments to Syria, Britain's top diplomat said late Saturday.

This is rather similar to the Obama administration's approach to a nuclear deal with Iran:

I don't bother speculating on the potential details. The big picture has always been clear to me.

The Iranians will pretend not to have a nuclear weapons program; and we will pretend to believe them.

Which makes sense, given that the ex-British ambassador to the United States believed the actual awful Iran nuclear deal was a good deal.

In one 2018 cable published by the Mail on Sunday, U.K. ambassador Kim Darroch says President Donald Trump pulled out of an international nuclear deal with Iran as an act of "diplomatic vandalism" to spite his predecessor, Barack Obama.

So that diplomat believes the Iran nuclear deal provided disarmament for our time? Huh.

The man has a point though, because lacking Senate approval it was not a treaty committing America to the deal, and really was simply Obama's (or just Kerry's?) deal. The 2015 Iran nuclear deal isn't so much a treaty as it is a common document that everyone in the room picked up and took home. As I noted when this became known, bravo State Department. Very impressive.

The deal was awful, as was obvious from reading it. Which didn't include the non-public "side deals" with the IAEA.

Nor does the deal include the American concessions not related to nukes.

So who is "vandalising" diplomacy and violating international norms? Someone who pretends some farcical document is a sacred international document; or someone who refuses to act like it is?

UPDATE: On the nuclear pretending, I was assured that this is impossible because Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program.

UPDATE: Well what do you know?

According to one current and one former U.S. government official speaking on the condition of anonymity, Darroch repeatedly leaked classified U.S. intelligence information, including highly classified information, to a journalist for a U.S.-based media outlet. The sources are consolidated by the reaction my related inquiries have received from other government officials. ...

One of the sources said that the ambassador repeatedly transmitted highly classified U.S. originator-control intelligence information to the journalist. ORCON intelligence, as it's called in the intelligence world, is closely held and carefully distributed.

Perhaps Darroch can get a posting to Tehran where he will find his host more agreeable.

Tip to Instapundit.

UPDATE: Kneel Britannia:

The BBC has agreed to conditions set by the Islamic Republic of Iran to not share reporting materials it gathers in Iran with its Persian-language channel, BBC Persian, an internal email obtained by HuffPost reveals. The agreement represents a capitulation to a government that has been hostile to press freedom. The Iranian government routinely shuts down media organizations critical of the regime and imprisons, tortures and executes journalists.

To be fair, as long as Britain achieves peace for our time, this is totally cool, right?

Although in dictator appeasement, the BBC is simply catching up with CNN, I guess.

UPDATE: Did Iran seize a tanker that has gone silent? Or did Iran rescue it? Or something not related to Iran?

Why don't we have drones circling it to find out? Or do we? It sure sounds like we don't have eyes on the ship.

You Enter War to Win, Not to Exit After Defined Losses

This veteran has done more for our country than I ever have or will, but he is wrong to focus on getting an "exit strategy" in case of a war with Iran. Always focus on victory and what is needed to get that (and deciding if we are willing to pay the likely price).

That veteran attacks Trump for rejecting an exit strategy in regard to our long conflict with Iran should it escalate to open warfare:

In complete ignorance to the lessons paid for in blood from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, [Trump] said, “You’re not going to need an exit strategy. . . . I don’t need exit strategies.”

At worst, this is an admission of malfeasance by our country’s commander in chief. At best, it’s a statement ignoring the lessons of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — something we cannot afford.

One can debate the wisdom of war with Iran--which Iran has been waging against America since their Shia Islamist revolution four decades ago--but rejecting an "exit strategy" is neither malfeasance nor a disregard of the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I have a long history of rejecting "exit strategies" as ill-disguised calls to begin a war with a publicly revealed failure point that would trigger our retreat:

You know my view on the folly of "exit strategies." Long before I blogged I was frustrated with the idiocy of the concept:

Not wanting to repeat our experience in Vietnam, many speak of needing an "exit strategy" before committing troops. Such an approach seeks to minimize our losses under the assumption that we will at some point lose, so we had better know when to cut our losses and get out. It also assumes that the situation allows for an exit and that our enemy will allow it. [emphasis added and changed from the original post]

Sadly, we face enemies with such a fanatical level of hatred and determination to kill that the war drags on. That's not our fault. If the jihadis stopped wanting to kill us, we'd go home the next day. Indeed, in Iraq we tried going home before that and found we had to go back to wage Iraq War 2.0. It's not our fault our enemies in Afghanistan are so evil and persistent. Really, they don't hate us because we fight them over there. Which is a reason to win and not walk away from Afghanistan.

As for not achieving objectives, of course we have.

In Afghanistan we defeated the Taliban government that hosted al Qaeda and wrecked the terror sanctuary that bred 9/11. And we built an imperfect ally that is out there every day killing jihadis so we don't have to. It is a success that our role is far more limited to supporting these allies on the ground than it was when we had 100,000 Americans on the ground in direct combat. Sadly, sanctuaries in Pakistan and (to a lesser extent) Iran limit how much we can win the war. Are we to abandon what we achieved and go home--only to find we have to go back and fight Afghanistan War 2.0 when we find things really can be much, much worse?

In Iraq we defeated Saddam who made Iraq a conventional threat to the region (remember the Persian Gulf War?), who supported terrorism, who abused and murdered his own people, who tried to kill a former American president, and who was a WMD threat. We created an imperfect democratic ally that struggles with rule of law; and which fights at our side to kill jihadis rather than recruiting and training terrorists. Indeed, like the author of the article fails to do, we can't seem to recognize the evidence of our victory when we are looking at the evidence!

Any enemy would consider it a precious gift to know what exactly would convince us to exit, would they not?

And I'm not the only one to notice that we really aren't in "endless wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan any more. What we are doing is committing troops and money (and yes, occasional casualties) to defend what we achieved. All without "exit strategies." Let's keep it that way.

If we counted our troop deaths (from training and sometimes terrorism) in Japan, South Korea, Germany, and Italy after the major combat ended, it would look like our "endless wars" in those places continue to this day. Let's pay the price to defend our gains to make the higher prices we paid to win them not go to waste.

Weekend Data Dump

Apollo. I have memories of eagerly watching them on TV, but I honestly don't remember which ones. Some of my prized childhood toys were Billy Blast-off and Major Matt Mason. When I was little I eagerly looked forward to the far future of 2001 and imagined the kind of space program we'd have if 2001 A Space Odyssey had any predictive power at all. Alas it did not and our Apollo program turned out to be a dead end. Sure, the program helped spur technology that we take for granted on Earth, but the failure to keep going in space has always been a disappointment to me.

Reality bites (translation). But will their experience triumph over their beliefs?  Tip to Instapundit.

Yeah, my experience is that Canadians are oddly obsessed with America. What with the poutine, hockey, and odd "bacon," Canada can seem like an alternate America in a multi-verse only slightly "off" from America Prime south of the border.

Will North Koreans notice that while the man was free to leave South Korea to live in North Korea, that the man will never be free to move out of North Korea? Perhaps that simple difference should be noted.

This is nice, and I mentioned it before, but fog and smoke will always be a problem for the anti-small boat mission. And I wonder if ablative or reflective material on the target would slow down or defeat the laser weapon.

While I am very interested in the Close Combat Lethality Task Force coming up with ideas to make infantry more effective (and I had some thoughts here on the USNI Blog to change training to reflect advances in firearms technology), I wonder if the high pay recommended will worsen the already great "force protection" imperative that makes commanders and their civilian leaders leery of risking infantry in combat. The whole purpose of infantry is to fight, after all.

Sweden, which amazingly for such a small country has its own ability to build advanced fighter aircraft, will join with the British to design and build a new fighter plane.

I'm not optimistic that Sudan can be a success in Arab Spring 2.0, but perhaps this is a good first step. Or it is just a means to calmly install a new ruling group. We'll see what the transition team provides--if even the second phase of the transition is allowed to take place.

Yes, Trump threw money and dirt at Clinton in 2016 and will do so again against his 2020 opponent. But the authors might have bolstered their credibility if they noted that Clinton threw much more dirt and money (twice as much, if memory serves me) at Trump in 2016. Implying that Trump had a money or dirt edge is incorrect.

So we should count on a small number of "Chinese nationalists who preach autarky, generals who advocate militarism, CEOs who favor protectionism" not driving Chinese foreign policy? The idea put forward that we are thwarting their rise is nonsense. We've enabled it. What we are trying to thwart is China's attempt to use their rise to threaten neighbors who are our friends and allies. We are not to blame for causing Chinese actions in that area. That so-called militant minority doesn't have to get everything its way to drive threats to us and our allies and friends.

So is nullification just as fun when everyone does it?

ISIL's evil lives on in the form of explosive booby traps in buildings and even the rubble in Iraqi cities, which will take years to clear and allow people to go home.

I just don't see the diplomatic talks with the Taliban producing a real peace deal. I have no idea what we think they will accomplish. We can't trust the Taliban, the foreign jihadis, or the Pakistanis. And that's on top of the Russians, Iranians, and the corruption that afflicts all of the country including our allies there. All I know is that we don't want a jihadi sanctuary there again (remember 9/11?) and I am grateful that few American or coalition troops die supporting our side's fight against the various enemies of Afghanistan who would also threaten the West.

Great progress has been made in dramatically reducing poverty and hunger around the world despite the so-called scourge of global warming; yet somehow some UN apparatchiki say global warming will get in the way of reducing those problems even more.

Listen you haters, the Hope and Change made all this perfectly acceptable.

If an American soldier commits a crime for many in the global Left it is an indictment of the soldier, the military, the United States, and the very mission that put that soldier in a foreign land; but a humanitarian can rape little kids with little worry that any broader harsh judgments will be made. Even if he is innocent as he proclaims, the predator problem exists in both UN peacekeeping and humanitarian missions.

Yeah, that's pretty much the situation I found myself in.

I do often say you should check the "definitions" section of any "fact" you think is solid.

If California finds it so important to pay for illegal immigrant health care, they should be free to enjoy the cost and results. It isn't all of them, but having set the precedent how can California refuse to pay for all of them?

Given that I am worried that the European Union will cripple NATO if the EU gets more power and tries to build its own imperial armed forces, and given that Von der Leyen presided over the near-complete de-fanging of the German military,  I'm fully behind Von der Leyen getting the top job in the European Union.

I don't think there is any chance this UN "process" brings peace to Syria--unless it is just a means to legitimize Assad's victory over the desert he created to crush his enemies.

The wrong people are slapping COEXIST bumper stickers on their cars.

Wow, Nazis are everywhere! Tip to Instapundit.

Speaking of Von der Leyen, who wants to sit in the EU throne, she thinks that Brexit could be delayed a third time. As a proper EU autocrat-in-waiting, I'm sure she believes that the will of the British people expressed in the Brexit vote can be delayed forever.

The new AC-130J  gunship is in action.

Membership in NATO and the EU require a certain commitment to rule of law. Romania is fighting to destroy the killer of rule of law--corruption--but the fight is far from over.

Initially the cannon fodder of the Iran-Iraq War, the Basij were made the street-level force of thugs who would break heads in case of domestic insurrection. And the Basij have expanded their portfolio into a more general effort to watch and control society to keep threats to the Shia Islamist regime from growing.

If Secretary Acosta goes (and I don't feel I know enough to judge his actions), a lot more people better be on the list. Yeah, it will be inconvenient. On the other hand, it is just an inconvenience because he was shielded from consequences until after his "sell by" date.

It would me amazing if there isn't voter fraud given the opportunities left in the registration system that allow for fraud. Sadly, it will be claimed that Non-Existent-Americans are deprived of voting rights if the system is cleaned out.

If Putin is willing to talk to Ukraine's new President Zelenskiy about the Donbas (but not Crimea!), it must mean the Russians are truly losing that so-called brilliantly conceived "frozen" conflict. And they did talk on the phone.

So these are basically potential truck bombs that serve a light lunch before detonation?

I've long suspected that a good portion of student loan debt consists of paying for beer and pizza decades after consumption. Tip to Instapundit.

Pay is not the only issue between the US men's and women's national soccer teams. Risk is also part of the differences and that must be considered when judging "equality."

Russia has improved their fires request capability--but is still a decade and a half behind America.

Yeah, when I was in the service, a lot of attention was paid to using chemical weapons protective gear.

The money to cut Turkey out of the F-35 production and maintenance system should probably come out of the State Department budget.

Good luck India.

First they came for the Republicans, but I said nothing because I'm not a Republican. Welcome to the party, pal. Enjoy your rules.

I did not notice that Twitter had a global outage.

Since I discovered this racket when I worked for the Michigan state legislature, it has always outraged me that while statutory penalties for violations of the law may be fairly small, the real penalties are the court costs and fees levied on top of that in a secret sanction that is not easy to see until you run afoul of the law and find yourself in jail because you can't pay. Why that isn't unconstitutional is beyond me. It is definitely morally wrong. The idea that you have to pay to use the court system to defend yourself is an outrage under either situation, and poor people are screwed. Courts are a basic function of the state and should be funded with general tax revenue rather than relying on oppressive "costs and fees" imposed on people brought into the system. Yes, this isn't as bad as billing a family for the cost of the bullet used to murder your loved one. But it is in the same general category. It should be stopped. The bail aspect is new to me. I'm not sure what I think of it, but I sure can see that illegal aliens who skip out on hearings are treated with far more care and compassion than poor citizens accused of crimes. Tip to Instapundit.

The real hockey stick graph relevant to our lives.  Tip to Instapundit.

Badassery at sea.

He has a point. Also, it's soccer.

The United States is a maritime power, with the Indo-Pacific region the place where maritime interests are most in need of defense. And space power is increasingly needed to exercise sea control.

A parasitic army with a dying country as its host. And they have nukes and nuclear know-how for sale. Have a super sparkly day.

The robotic battlefield will take a little longer. Although base perimeter and route security missions seem more likely in the near term.

If you are on the correct team, you can get away with the most vile acts.

The Bastille Day military parade. Macron is such a fascist. The tides shift swiftly in American liberal thought for the president of what was recently the Republic of Nuanced Sophistication.

It sure looks like the will of the British people expressed in the Brexit referendum will be denied on the odd grounds that it can take place only on the terms that Remainers and the EU approve. One can argue against whether a referendum was the right way to decide the question, but the question was nonetheless put to the people on the understanding that its result would be the final outcome. Yet here we are.

Trump should not have told "the Squad" of four hard-left Congressional representatives to go back to their place of origin. That was ugly. They are American citizens. He should have just stuck to the truth that they are morons.

Davids and Goliath

Hong Kong and Taiwan find they have much in common as Hong Kong clings to dwindling freedom with an expiration date and as Taiwan has built a free country under constant threat of having China crush that freedom.

Perhaps this is significant:

China’s influence over both Hong Kong and Taiwan has steadily spread from their economies into their political systems, and Beijing has promoted the “one country, two systems” model it uses to administer Hong Kong as its favored system, were Taiwan to submit to peaceful unification. But as Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing government ignores the demands of peaceful protesters, and China’s continuing encroachment on “one country, two systems” there discredits the notion that it would offer any degree of autonomy for Taiwan, demonstrators in Hong Kong are looking more and more to Taiwan, and a sense of solidarity is growing between the two. That is likely to be a major source of concern for Beijing (and, indeed, Chinese state media have warned the two sides against cooperating).

China is massive and dictatorial while Taiwan and Hong Kong are free and claimed by China.

It may be that the only way for Taiwan and Hong Kong to retain their freedom is to end the dictatorship in Peking and hope that the Chinese people won't then want to destroy democracy.

As I wrote eight years ago:

So if Taiwan can't in the long run build a sufficient military with their much smaller economy and Taiwan also wishes to maintain their de facto independence, another method of protecting themselves must be found.

Nuclear weapons are one answer, of course. Taiwan could build them. But that is risky if China decides that a preemptive nuclear strike is the only way to disarm Taiwan of those weapons.

Another way is to affect China's desire for Taiwan. If China stops wanting to take Taiwan, then the balance doesn't matter nearly as much. As unlikely as this may seem, when you rule out any other option of defending your island democracy, what is left is the only option. Yes, provoking regime change in Peking could be the only way out of the losing race Taiwan is in.

And at least now with Hong Kong pro-democracy activist ties, perhaps Taiwan has an ally already within China to achieve this.

An Idea Close to My Heart

In writing about converting warships for other purposes, this author advocates using Nimitz class carriers as amphibious warfare assets:

Alternatively, since the Nimitz-class carriers have large flight decks and hangars plus accommodations for thousands of personnel, the Navy could repurpose these vessels into amphibious assault ships (LHA). Much larger and faster than an America-class LHA, a repurposed, nuclear powered Nimitz would carry, when compared to current or planned amphibious assault ships, more Marines and more of that Service’s types of aircraft (F-35B, CH-53, and MV-22). From a budgetary perspective, the Navy would realize savings from not having to build new amphibious assault ships, and the Marine Corps would have use of the ultimate LHA.

Five years ago I suggested something a little more comprehensive by advocating building more Ford class carriers to serve as both strike carriers and as amphibious warfare ships to replace the smaller Navy amphibs that are being tasked as reserve light carriers. 

If you add up all our big deck carriers and big deck amphibs, I figured you could get more capacity with a smaller total number of Ford hulls--some optimized for strike and others as amphibs--that would add flexibility to the fleet by being usable in their non-primary role, depending on the missions the Navy has to achieve at the moment.

I tried getting an article on that subject published last year but it was rejected. I'll try again.

Certainly, using a Nimitz hull that would otherwise be retired would be a good way to test the proposal.

Oddly for an Army guy, I seem to be big on converting warships, like this proposal and this one (membership required), both published.

It seems odd that the author of the initial article didn't cite World War II APDs (small armed amphibious transports) converted from old destroyers and destroyer escorts as a massive example of repurposing warships, which was the basis of that second proposal behind a pay wall.

Two Birds With One Stone

Iraq fights jihadis and works against Iran; rather than being a threat to our Arab allies, and is trying to eject Iranian influence. With American backing the Iraqis can continue to do that.

Iraq continues to fight jihadis in Iraq:

Iraq's security and paramilitary forces began Sunday a military operation along the border with Syria aimed at clearing the area of Islamic State group militants, the military said in a statement. ...

The military said the operation that began at sunrise was being carried out by Iraqi troops and members of the Popular Mobilization Forces that largely consist of Iran-backed militias.

Strategypage writes:

Iran is encountering more resistance in Iraq than expected. The Iraqis are openly hostile to Iranian influence and the Iranian attitude that they can do whatever they want in Iraq. What Iran wants right now it an Iraq too feeble to cause Iran any problems ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) has a similar attitude and that, oddly enough, has Iran and ISIL often, unofficially and inadvertently, working together to keep Iraq chaotic and mired in violence and corruption. This produces an Iraqi government less able to resist. While Iran and ISIL seem like separate problems, they are, in practice, intertwined. The Iraqis are growing more aggressive in curbing the Iran backed PMF (Popular Mobilization Force) militias and are now starting to shut down the pro-Iran ones.

Yes, and back in the insurgency phase of Iraq War 1.0 from 2004 to 2008, Iran supported Shia gunmen while Iran's vassal state Syria funneled Sunni jihadi suicide bombers into Iraq to kill for al Qaeda. So the double threat has long been part of the plan to undermine Iraq.

Hopefully America and our coalition are still helping Iraq, unlike in 2012 when Iraq was left on their own only to see ISIL rise up beginning in January 2014.

Please note that Iraq is killing jihadis as a normal part of their security operations. Given how long Saddam Hussein plagued America and the region, it is far too easy to overlook this victory.

Note too that keeping the Iran-backed militias busy doing something of use (killing jihadis) prevents them from working against the Iraqi state, bleeds these guys, and exercises state control of them, which is needed if they are to be taken away from Iran which wants those militias as a Hezbollah-like Iranian proxy inside Iraq.

Throw Them into the Sea

It annoyed me that it was possible to argue that Taiwan does not need tanks or even an army in order to stop a Chinese invasion by sea and air. This author gets that need:

Chinese planners expect that the earliest landing forces that do reach Taiwanese soil will have to fight without effective air-ground support. This is where Taiwan knows it can win: by using highly mobile forces to isolate and annihilate pockets of landing troops. While China would use its mainland missile forces to wreak havoc on fixed Taiwanese positions such as air bases and depots, it would struggle to target mobile Taiwanese forces. That's where these new tanks and stingers come in. And if the Chinese advance force can't get off the beaches, well, China has a big problem.

I am fully on board the idea that Taiwan will need to counter-attack Chinese bridge- and air-heads:

I don’t believe a crust defense can stop China off of Taiwan. Sizable forces will make it ashore through any gauntlet given the overwhelming Chinese naval, air, and economic advantage. Combined with the ability to choose the timing of invasion, Taiwan must defend in depth.

And if Taiwan’s ground forces can’t quickly crush the bridgeheads and airheads before the PLA gets organized, China will defeat Taiwan and crush their island democracy.

Although as that first link in my quote explains in some detail, I don't think a Chinese invasion will come across the beaches in a replay of D-Day.

UPDATE: I'm not sure why this Chinese reaction is a problem--why would any American company sell weapons to China too?