An online journal of commentary, analysis, and dignified rants on national security issues. Other posts on home life, annoying things, and a vast 'other' are clearly marked.
I live and write in Ann Arbor, Michigan. University of Michigan AB and MA from Eastern Michigan University. One term in the Michigan Army National Guard. Former American history instructor and retired nonpartisan research analyst. I write on Blogger and Substack. Various military and private journals have published my occasional articles on military subjects. See "My Published Works" on the TDR web version or under the mobile version drop-down menu for citations and links.
I have finally salvaged my pre-Blogger TDR archives and added them into Blogger. They are almost totally in the form of one giant post for each month. And the formatting strayed from the originals. Sorry.
But historians everywhere can rejoice that this treasure trove of my thoughts is restored to the world.
And for your own safety, don't click on any old Geocities links or any of their similar variations in my posts. Those sites have been taken over by bad and/or dangerous sites. Hover over links first!
I've heard that impeaching Trump is such a vital defense of our Constitution and republic that Speaker Pelosi may refuse to send the articles of impeachment they passed to the Senate. Got it.
I figured Pelosi's action demonstrates a lack of confidence in the charges. But wow. Who saw this coming? Trump may be "impeached forever" only in the minds of Democrats. Well, there is a difference of opinion on that, it seems.
Or is Pelosi taking the "maybe the horse will sing" strategy of hoping something happens to convince Republican Senators to convict? And then she transmits the articles of impeachment?
Is this an Impeachment on a Shelf (with thanks to this blog for the basic picture) watching and waiting to report on naughtiness?
New for 2019: Impeachment on a Shelf!
I don't see how the speaker could be waiting to see if the Democrats take the Senate in 2020 because I assume (wrongly?) that like any legislation that isn't passed (unpassed bills and resolutions), the articles of impeachment will expire when the current Congress ends and so it won't exist when a new (under that theory) Democrat-majority Senate is sworn in.
Still, Pelosi isn't an idiot. Or at least in her younger years she wasn't an idiot. One shouldn't underestimate her. I guess I can't judge.
Hmm, if Pelosi sends the articles to the Senate at the end of next year, would the requirements of holding the trial prevent a last-minute surge of court confirmations by the Senate? Just spitballing, here.
NOTE: I clarified the expired legislation sentence.
Understandably, the Russian press has taken interest in Siil 2018, running the headline “largest military exercise” frequently. For a country of fewer than 1.5 million people, these statistics and headlines are indeed impressive. Some Russian commentators have discussed the possibility that the Baltic States are preparing their own aggression against Russia, either literally or by simply conducting these exercises in regions with Russian-speaking populations.
However, how does a 15,000-strong exercise stack up against Russian military exercises? It should be noted that most of the 13,000 Estonians participating in Siil 2018 come from the Estonian reserves (Kaitseliit).
This is a recent article about a 2018 NATO exercise in Estonia. The whole purpose was to practice not being rapidly overrun while hoping for help from the rest of NATO in the face of overwhelming Russian numbers and weapons at the point of contact.
That is, while NATO is more powerful than Russia, most of NATO's power is far from the eastern frontiers of NATO where Russia can generate a short-term decisive advantage.
NATO exercises near the border with Russia reflect the alliance’s preparations for a large-scale military conflict, Russia’s chief military officer said in remarks published Wednesday.
Although to be fair, he is correct--NATO rightly worries about Russia initiating large-scale military operations with an invasion of NATO Baltic states.
China’s strongman leader can’t seem to catch a break. From the trade war with the United States to the crisis in Hong Kong to international criticism of his human rights record, President Xi Jinping suffered major setbacks in 2019, and his prospects for 2020 appear even worse.
Good. Couldn't happen to a slimier oppressive wannabe hegemon.
With the power to control all tasks comes the responsibility for all failures. Can Xi kill his way out of such a demand for accountability if it gains traction? Can he change course to avoid that?
Indeed, might the Chinese people suffering from poor economic prospects blame the foreigners for their problems and push a short and glorious war on a weakened Xi without the legitimacy to withstand the call to war?
As far as I'm concerned, Russia might be in as much danger as Taiwan given that Russia can't expect American and Japanese intervention on Russia's side.
I'd honestly prefer "China" as a geographic term rather than as a political entity. Of course, I prefer Europe that way. And I'd be happier with a looser federation in the United States of America than we've gotten over the last 60 years with a federal government that encroaches on more state and even local issues.
The government [of the Philippines] has decided to buy a weapon that could do some serious damage to Chinese forces in the South China Sea. The government wants to buy two batteries of the Indian PJ-10 BrahMos missiles for coastal defense. Each battery has two or three truck mounted launchers, each with two or three missiles and communications equipment. Each battery also has a mobile radar for detecting targets via normal radar or by detecting and locating ship radar.
It's an expensive weapon. But if one hits a Chinese vessel it will make a very big boom.
And in bonus territory, the Russians helped develop the missile. Which will no doubt cause a little friction between Moscow and Peking, too.
U.S. Army ground artillery units recently conducted a test in which they destroyed a mock air defense system based on targeting information from a U.S. Air Force F-35A Joint Strike Fighter. The tactic allowed the joint force to destroy a mock threat while allowing the F-35 to remain in its most stealthy mode and not reveal itself by engaging it directly. This is a concept of operations that could be extremely valuable for U.S. forces in a future large-scale conflict against an opponent with dense integrated air defense network and one that could easily expand to include other assets, including unmanned aircraft and new, longer-range artillery and tactical missile systems.
I will say that if the pilots are trained to do it, F-35s carrying nothing but air-to-air missiles could conduct close air support using Army ground weapons.
Although that just leads to the question of whether the Army could simply deploy small stealthy spotter drones to fire Army ground-based weapons. That would be a nice addition to a new Army Air Corps, eh?
"One of the threats seen in every [area of responsibility] ... coming towards a lot of our military installations are a variety of different drones," Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord said.
The Iranian attack on Saudi oil installations earlier this year highlights that low-altitude threat. Certainly the Russians have faced a number of small drone swarm attacks on their bases in Syria.
So, could we have artillery shells or air-dropped carrier shells that seed areas around an enemy air base with scores (or hundreds) of small flying drones that would cloud attack an enemy plane as it takes off, flying into engine intakes during vulnerable low-speed assent?
This was based on the worries of the Air Force about swarms of small drones being used to down an F-22 by flying into the air intake.
Bases can use ground-based weapons to defend the base. Although with my blog post suggestion active patrolling around the perimeter of an air base would be necessary.
Iran has gained overwhelming influence in Iraq since the 2003 US invasion brought down Saddam Huseein.
That is incorrect if you are assuming a cause-and-effect of the defeat of Saddam leading to Iranian overwhelming influence in Iraq.
Iran had influence in Iraq because the majority Shia in Iraq under the Sunni minority dictatorship had a reason to look to Shia Iran for support against Saddam. That influence was one of the motivations for Iraq to invade Iran in 1980.
As a larger neighbor with a religious connection, Iran has long had an opportunity to make inroads in Iraq.
We had an opportunity to expand our pre-2003 zero influence inside Iraq once we destroyed the Saddam regime. And we did that. Sadly, we left in 2011 in a premature mission-accomplished moment, leaving the field open for Iran.
And it got worse. When ISIL rose up in Iraq, Iran was granted the opportunity to expand their presence and influence even more to fight the renewed jihadi threat that rose in our absence.
Oh, and in our absence the Iraqi security forces deteriorated as officer loyalty to the prime minister took priority over military competence. Hence the collapse of the Iraqi security forces in northern Iraq and their defeat in the west.
So the overthrow of a hideously brutal dictator did not give Iran an edge in Iraq any more than the defeat of Hitler's Germany enabled the USSR to gain overwhelming influence in Europe despite the Soviet armies sitting on the Elbe and the strength of Soviet-backed "Euro-communist" parties in France and Italy. The difference was that America stayed in Europe to block the USSR while America left a new and still-vulnerable Iraq open to Iranian pressure.
The anti-corruption demonstrations have, since October 1st, left nearly 400 dead and over 18,000 injured. The protest is not just about corruption but also the Iranian efforts to control Iraq and exploit the corruption to do so. Protestors consider the current government crippled by politicians who are pro-Iran or have been bribed to do what Iran wants. Both the Iraqi and Iranian governments were caught by surprise at the size, ferocity and persistence of the protests. This eventually included the most senior Iraqi Shia clerics backing the protestors, which was a major embarrassment for the senior Iranian Shia clerics, who have been running Iran since the 1980s and had hoped to persuade their Iraqi colleagues to adopt the same system. The Iraqi Shia clerics considered the idea after the Sunni dictatorship and Saddam Hussein was overthrown in 2003, but gradually realized that this form of religious dictatorship wasn’t working in Iran and was definitely not going to work in Iraq. The Iraqi Shia clerics tried to explain to their Iranian peers that Iraqi Shia were eager to worship together with other Shia, including Iranians, but were generally opposed to Iranian politics or political control. A growing number of Iranian clergy understand and accept this. But the Shia clergy who still control the Iranian government refuse to accept that reality, despite the fact that a growing number of Iranians are out in the streets protesting the religious dictatorship running Iran into the ground. [emphasis added]
Can the Army have its own fixed-wing manned air force for ground support?
The Army has drones and helicopters for ground support. But it can't have manned fixed-wing aircraft. Is that prohibition really a "unicorn" that does not exist?
With the expectation that the fight against violent extremists will continue for a generation, the United States continues to rely heavily on airpower to provide an asymmetric advantage. With ground forces far more distributed globally than air forces, the Army should clearly provide its own fixed-wing attack aircraft to support far-flung operations. Except that they can’t. Hamstrung by a misinterpretation of agreements dating back to 1948, the Department of Defense believes that the Army agreed not to procure fixed-wing combat aircraft and can’t arm those they do have. It turns out that’s not true — such an agreement was never codified in writing. What they did agree to was to not duplicate a function assigned to the Air Force. It’s long past time to slay this unicorn and erase a completely artificial line that hampers airpower options to the detriment of servicemen and women worldwide. The Army may be the best candidate for a light attack capability that is not an Air Force priority. Let the Army have an airpower capability appropriate to the mission.
Well, everyone acts like the unicorn is real, so it is real for all practical purposes. But the article is an interesting discussion of Army-Air Force divisions on close air support.
The Army would train warrant officers to fly the planes and the Air Force could reassign scarce officer pilots from close air support aircraft to the planes the Air Force wants to fly.
This technology can be built today with technology that is not developmental to deliver any human being from any place on planet Earth to any other place in less than an hour.
The article authors reacts:
Kwast’s comment is only one of several curious comments made by military leadership lately and they do seem to claim that we could be on the precipice of a great leap in transportation technology.
Well, I think this is an engineering issue. We can dump a payload anywhere on the planet in a half hour with a ballistic missile. This isn't a great leap in transportation technology. The issue is surviving the landing. Which is sort of a transportation technology, I admit.
The spacecraft/rocket combo can lift 110 tons of cargo into low earth orbit. That’s more tonnage than the U.S. Air Force’s C-17 Globemaster III transport. SpaceX believes the rocket, in addition to sending cargo into space, could serve in the “point-to-point” space transport role, transporting people and cargo between any two points on Earth.
Point-to-point starship would pretty much act like a ballistic missile: once launched, it would accelerate into low-earth orbit and then rocket towards a faraway landing pad.
In 1956, the Army Ballistic Missile Agency — under Von Braun’s direction — proposed to loft an 18-man troop capsule into space with a Jupiter rocket. ...
In theory, [with a 1963 ICARUS proposal] 1,200 Marines would board the 20-story rocket and blast off from Vandenberg Air Force Base or Cape Canaveral. They’d soar 120 miles into space, and land at their destinations in Asia, Africa or Europe within an hour.
I don't see much use for such an expensive way to send such a small number of troops. Even if the engineering means the troops don't get turned into paste on landing.
Allies have delivered on NATO's Readiness Initiative, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced in his press conference after the 3-4 December meeting of alliance heads of state and government in London. The initiative was launched during NATO's 11-12 July 2018 summit in Brussels with the aim of making available 30 naval combatants, 30 kinetic air squadrons, and 30 mechanised battalions deployable within 30 days by 2020, totalling 25,000 troops and 300 aircraft.
This is really pretty sad for such a wealthy military alliance and Russia should be embarrassed to claim the alliance is a threat.
Thirty separate battalions are not a real force unless organized in brigades, divisions, and corps with the support such echelons bring the tips of the spear.
And thirty days gives Russia plenty of time to cause trouble, dig in, and dare NATO to reverse Russian gains backed by nukes.
America doesn't have anything like NATO in Asia to resist China. We can't get that with the variety of countries there and their inability to mass resources at a single point of contact. So our policy is "pluralism."
In practice, this means that the U.S. will help the countries of the Indo-Pacific balance against a rising China that is increasingly trying to narrow the range of choices available to them through the use of political influence campaigns, economic pressures and geopolitical coercion. Beijing’s efforts to weaken U.S. alliances, its financing of pro-China politicians in countries throughout the region, its creeping expansion of naval influence in the South China Sea, its ongoing military buildup, and its use of loans and investments — as well as economic punishments such as selective embargoes — are all part of this project.
For Washington, maintaining the balance will require individualized relationships with a diverse set of partners: Democratic treaty allies such as Japan and Australia, emerging democratic partners such as India, and authoritarian regimes — Vietnam, Singapore — that do not share America’s preference for liberal politics at home but do want to preserve their freedom of action in a crowded region.
In the Cold War NATO was mostly a club of democracies and had the focal point of West Germany where most member states could focus their defense planning efforts in order to hold that key terrain between the Elbe River and Rhine River.
Asia has a variety of countries and no focal point for defense. So an Asian NATO makes no sense from a purely military point of view.
The idea that the neighbors of China will band together to oppose China is the wrong issue because without America they cannot really resist China with interior lines that can pick off one member of that hypothetical coalition without much of the rest being able to intervene. India and Japan have significant power. But their ability to project that power much beyond their own backyard is limited. Banding together isn't that important, practically speaking. ...
America's military power and geographic reach are the factor that can weave the separate power capabilities of nations around the perimeter of China into an effective proto-alliance.
Our absence from the region will allow China to divide and conquer.
The author in the first link notes that the policy I think makes sense on a military basis rests on traditional American policies of denying important concentrations of power to any single foe, self-determination by other countries, and tolerance for divergence from our ideals within the "alliance" in support of the bigger objective.
We have a new label for a policy that has always made sense. Let's see if we can implement it.
With telling embarrassment, Iran is rowing back comments made by an adviser to the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The problem? The adviser inadvertently admitted that Iran values Lebanon only as its puppet.
Speaking on Monday, retired Gen. Morteza Qorbani told an Iranian news outlet that Iran did not need to use ballistic missiles in Iran to effectively attack Israel. Instead, Qorbani said, if "the Zionist regime makes the smallest mistake toward Iran, we will reduce Tel Aviv to ashes from Lebanon."
That sparked quick pushback in Lebanon, even from Iran's allies there.
Israel believes Iran is moving short range (under 1,000 kilometers) ballistic missiles into Iraq and concealing them in areas where pro-Iran militias are dominant. These would be used in the event of a war with Israel, along with rockets and missiles already in Lebanon and Gaza.
Okay, that has the range to hit Israel. I was skeptical that anything big enough to hit Israel from Iraq could be hidden for long. Perhaps the question is open about how well hidden they are.
Yes, any physical barrier can be breached. If you are truly determined. The point of a barrier is one, to deter the less determined; and two, for the determined, to impose delay with the barrier and allow friendly forces time to react. That's was true with the Great Wall of China and it remains true today.
Thanks, but no. Hard pass, actually. Although the Army and Customs already have a full set.
Global warming crisis advocates like to assert that global warming is causing unrest. But perhaps it is more accurate to say that expensive (and pointless) Green policies are causing unrest. Wait to all those leftist 99-percenter types find out that Green policies enrich the already wealthy and pull up the drawbridges to keep the peasantry out of the castles. Tip to Instapundit.
Although I don't think it is fair to say reporters lied about the Steele Dossier. What they did is rely on sources who were not trustworthy. And the reporters wanted to believe what they were told was true. In a sane world the reporters would stiff-arm those like-minded sources forever. That's a different subset problem of the "fake news" issue.
When Biden's son married his brother's widow and then cheated on her--with a stripper he got pregnant--while cashing in on his dad's position as vice president with questionable business deals (all allegedly, I suppose), I don't want to hear one more damn word about red state white trash. Biden's family is a promo for the Jerry Springer show. Our elites are not smarter and more honorable.
Russia doesn't want peace with Ukraine. Russia wants chaos in Ukraine. Personally, I think it will come to the point when Ukraine needs to challenge Russia's lies that it isn't fighting inside the Donbas and launch an offensive to defeat the so-called separatists there. Would Russia risk exposing their role by fighting or step aside and let the increasingly shaky rebels get defeated?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it is because the Europeans don't want to let sick murdering bastards into their countries. But I'm just a flyover country hick so what do I know? And to be clear, I'm sure the resistance is because Trump wants those countries to take the loons back. Honestly, I don't blame the Europeans for resisting his pleas. Remember, too, that these are the same countries that condemn America for Guantanamo Bay. But apparently those countries would rather the sick murdering bastards remain where they are, under our control ... forever.
OMG! I think I've seen the first sign that we may be getting close to or have arrived at Peak Stupid! Could it be? And remember, New York paid for their suit with taxpayer money and Exxon had to defend itself with customer money. That would be us. Because it takes a village to file a frivolous lawsuit that costs the people launching the suit exactly nothing (and keeps them on the government payroll, of course). By Trump-era Democratic logic, isn't that just a big illegal campaign finance donation to their reelection campaigns?
Interesting essay on evolving energy geopolitics. I'll emphasize that American energy independence will not erase the need for America to be engaged in energy security given our dependence on healthy trading and alliance partners. The major impact of our energy independence is in a big shooting war because we will not have to spend military resources to secure long energy lines of supply back to America. Which is nice, to be sure. But it isn't the entire picture of the problem.
Wonderful, the Children's Crusade is blessed. Now go and emit no more. I'm sorry she got fifteen minutes of fame let alone credit for a full year. God save us from the fanatics.
Let me clarify something about NATO. While the treaty says an attack on one member will be considered an attack on all members, the treaty also says that each member country can decide how it will react to that attack. So don't pretend that being attacked is like hitting a switch and watching every member race to the sound of the guns.
I'm not sure if Turkey is rebuilding their Ottoman-era influence in the former empire in the Arab world (but I'm not sure it was as great as Erdogan thinks it was), but it sure is annoying a lot of people.
This is an interesting article on the exercise Millennium Challenge 2002. I admit that I was wrong about the exercise. My impression was that complaints that the Red Team was hamstrung were overstated because the exercise was really intended to be more of a process exercise to test systems without nullifying that testing with Red victories. I should have been eager to join critics because I was a skeptic of Rumsfeld's view of the future military and I'm horrified that we send big ships into the Persian Gulf. But in fact the exercise was wrongly scripted and not a process exercise. On the bright side, despite the scripting the participants learned that the advanced tech ambitions were oversold.
Time magazine named Greta Thunberg her Marketing Hook Person of the Year. Whatever. What really annoys me is that the global warmers are using the child as a human shield to deflect criticism of her panicked message.
Last week the British people had to essentially re-vote their Brexit decision. That's not how rule of law works. That's not how it works at all. But that's how the EU sees democracy. Which is why Britain should be several years into their Brexit freedom rather than risk remaining in this proto-imperial body eager to ditch the prefix.
Well, no he won't. And he has achieved much despite the non-stop efforts to deny him his first. Still, it's hard not to see there's a point to the claim (made in jest?). Tip to Instapundit.
Just a note that politicians do things that benefit them. Bush 41 sold F-16s to Taiwan, with no small part of that a look at the political benefits of the contract, apart from the help to Taiwan. Bush 43 was accused by Democrats in the summer of 2003 of waging the Iraq War to benefit his reelection. Really. Obama had a "stimulus" in 2009 that wasn't a stimulus (there weren't actually shovel-ready infrastructure projects) as much as it was a reward to political constituencies in Democrat-leaning areas. Obama ordered a massive troop surge in Afghanistan yet did not follow through with the Pentagon's plans, getting through his reelection campaign with the aura of commander in chief glowing brightly. And let's recall the whole missile defense "flexibility" for quiet on the international stage bargain with Putin that Obama made. And even little things like the Cold War certificate that Bush 41 sent me or the certificate for Army service Bush 43 sent. So get over the fact that fighting Ukrainian corruption (which I've long wanted battled) and finding out if Biden is corrupt will also benefit Trump. A good economy will benefit Trump. Is that to be suspect, too? Actions have multiple consequences and when a government is as vast as our federal government is, it reaches a lot of areas. If you don't like that, shrink the size and scope of the federal government.
Dating in Ann Arbor is a challenge. One woman on a dating site I've used said she can't date conservatives because as a very liberal woman she want to share her good fortune with others. She seems like a lovely and perfectly nice woman, but she is confused. As a conservative I would not want to block her from sharing her wealth and knowledge with the less fortunate. She is free to write checks and give advice that worked for her to the poor. But that isn't what she means. She wants the government to take other people's wealth and give it to the less fortunate. That's different. Also, she apparently (but wrongly) thinks conservatives don't want the less fortunate to share in the wealth and knowledge we (although I'm not wealthy--I'm far from Bernie-level tax rates--I'm doing fine) have. On the contrary. But we--if I may be counted among conservatives and speak for all for a moment--think that setting the conditions to allow the less fortunate to do better is a superior method of spreading wealth than redistribution. It is better for the less fortunate if they are not condemned to dependency and poverty for generations and can instead take pride in their work and progress. The truly incapable should be helped, of course. So that's what I deal with here. But perhaps I've shared too much.
Far be it for me to stand up to defend the French, but I think blame in West Africa should properly go to jihadis, the ideology that supports jihad, and corrupt governments that leave openings for jihadists to gain support. The French are trying to stop the jihadis, after all. Would the West Africans prefer to deal with this on their own?
The Air Force is testing land-based intermediate-range missiles. Here's the official statement. Maybe Russia and China will want an arms limitation treaty that covers these now that we are competing. Although how do we count our sea-based stuff? We can hardly say they will continue to be exempt. But given that I'd rather have our ships carry anti-ship missiles than land-attack stuff, limits on sea-based intermediate missiles would allow us to refocus our fleet on ship-killing.
It takes a jihad to raze some villages. I'm sure that Cameroon will be inundated with "why do they hate us?" debates any moment now. Jihadis kill everyone yet tunnel-vision Western liberals think somehow America uniquely has earned their murderous ire.
With the Impeachment Show mini-series failing to convince anybody in Congress that this is more than a partisan show trial, I think the Senate should rapidly reject the charges when the process reaches them. Why risk undoing the sale that has already been made? If the Senate wants to look into other things in retaliation for the Democrats' obsession with the Great Orange Whale, do that apart from an impeachment trial.
Zimbabwe is not the "epicenter of the climate emergency." Zimbabwe is the epicenter of a corrupt government that has created an "economic crisis of spiralling inflation, unemployment, chronic fuel shortages, and the collapse of essential services" that has wrecked what was once a breadbasket of southern Africa and turned it into a fragile state vulnerable to any challenge that a healthy state could cope with. But no pampered Western teenager is campaigning against that problem.
Just when the yellow vest protests seem to be losing media attention, the French provide pension protesters. To be fair to the French the system is financially unsustainable.
The Pentagon is considering several options to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan, including one that would shift to a narrower counterterrorism mission, the top U.S. military officer told Congress on Wednesday.
Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not disclose any potential troop totals, but he agreed that leaving a minimal U.S. footprint in Afghanistan to battle terrorists is a potential move.
“We have multiple options, that's one of them,” he said. The U.S. currently has about 13,000 troops in Afghanistan. About 5,000 of them are doing counterterrorism missions. The remainder are part of a broader NATO mission to train, advise and assist the Afghan security forces.
Yet there seems to be stubborn thinking in our government that counter-terrorism is a job separate from counter-insurgency, so we can wage war with special forces and drones against terrorists who target us without paying attention to a wider war.
This is a mistake because counter-terrorism relies on counter-insurgency if we want more than a strategy of drive-by dronings, even though the special forces may kill disproportionately despite their small size compared to total forces involved[.]
We cannot carry out counter-terrorism missions to kill jihadis if the Afghan government collapses around our special forces and air bases. The Afghan security forces need to be conducting COIN to provide the in-depth security and the information to direct the counter-terrorism missions. So we need to be involved to keep the Afghan security forces out in the field fighting and defeating the enemy.
Aim for victory and end the search for some cheaper alternate way to define victory.
The Trump administration is expected to announce plans to withdraw around 4,000 troops from Afghanistan, according to US media, after peace talks resumed a week ago between the US and the Taliban.
Esper told reporters Monday that Austin Miller, the head of the NATO mission and US Forces Afghanistan, "is confident that he can go down to a lower number" of troops.
If the troops withdrawn aren't needed to carry out missions against the Taliban this is okay. Miller says--implicitly--that he can carry out his missions without them.
Is that true? Or is it only "true" because the mission is being redefined to counter-terrorism only.
With former German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen assuming the presidency of the European Commission, the European Union now has a new executive. Von der Leyen has promised to lead a “geopolitical” Commission, believing that Europe needs to be more assertive in its relations with other countries, and more hard-nosed in pursuing its own interests around the world, particularly vis-à-vis the other large powers.
Because the EU lacks an army or a central secret service, it must use economic policies to achieve its geopolitical aims. But the way Europe’s policy toolkit works in practice suggests that it is not well suited for exercising power abroad.
Sure, the EU military won't be anywhere close to the effectiveness of the American-led NATO (But a Europe without America is far more likely to be from being pushed out by the EU than by America pulling out. Good grief, Europe should react to that threat not by preparing for the day when America will pull out but by reining in the EU that is trying to push America out!), but if there is no military threat to Europe as Macron claims, who cares? Right?
And if there is and you have to break a few NATO Baltic state eggs, crushed by Moscow to restore them to the Russian empire, to make that lovely Brussels Omelet, who cares?
Ultimately, the EU thinks it only really needs an army with the capabilities of the typical Third World state that has a military that is nothing more than a glorified riot police force capable of defeating its own people (bloody peasants, get in line!), and little more.
Well, that’s very interesting. Because the the UK is essentially leaving Europe. So what does that do? Well, it leaves mainland Europe more open to the power of Germany, given that Spain, Italy and Greece have real systemic problems. And then there’s France which can’t get any economic reform done. So that leaves Germany as the most successful of the major powers on mainland Europe and leaving Europe in the hands of Germany – when the next generation of German leaders may not have the wisdom of the Kohls, the Schmidts, the Adenauers and even the Merkels, who had a deep deep knowledge of World War Two and memories of the Cold War – I think that leaves Britain at the mercy of a very disorganised, less united Europe over which Russia and China will be vying for influence.
I would not be surprised if down the road, Germany leans more in the direction of Moscow, because that’s the path of least resistance: take the second Nord stream gas pipeline from Russia, have an informal German-Russian Alliance. This is the fear – I’m not predicting it, it’s just a fear I have. And that would leave Britain relying even more on the United States. Because I think by being a member of the EU, with its Atlantic connection, allowed Britain to punch above its weight. I fear in the future that might not be the case.
Nor do I see Britain as key to blocking Germany. I think British power is diluted and harnessed to the political weight of the majority in the EU. And also, isn't that kind of an odd thing to worry about given Germany's long post-Hitler democracy. Is Germany really that suspect?
Indeed, if the non-German states in Europe fear Germany that much, without Britain in the EU won't that increase support in those European states for a stronger NATO that can constrain Germany? A stronger NATO is certainly good for America.
I just don't see the downside of Britain leaving the EU for Britain, America, or even Europeans themselves, if they value freedom.
Just keep NATO strong and we'll all be better off.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson's Conservative Party will win a resounding victory in Britain's election with a parliamentary majority of 86 seats, an exit poll showed on Thursday, empowering him to deliver Brexit on Jan. 31.
It should not have taken what is essentially a second Brexit vote, but this is what happened.
Normally the EU playbook is to insist on votes until they get the "right" outcome. I'm hoping Britain will end that ploy.
Turkey has run into problems with its ambitions in former colonial realms in the Arab Middle East. Namely that the former colonial subjects don't have fond memories of that caliphate. But there is always the seas where people don't live.
Turkey is seeking to rewrite the rules in the Eastern Mediterranean. Last week, the Turkish government signed a maritime agreement with one of Libya’s two aspiring governments that strengthens Turkey’s position in the region. While legally ambiguous and fraught with logistical challenges, the deal represents Turkey’s latest effort to assert its dominance in the Eastern Mediterranean, to capitalize on the region’s energy resources and to restore the regional influence it lost over a century ago when the Ottoman Empire fell.
America wants to work with Russia on Libya. This is kind of a favor to Europe given that Russia likes chaos in Libya and is more than happy to have its hand on the migrant spigot to pressure Europe to be more cooperative with Russian aggression.
As an aside, if we'd backed Hiftar for as long as I argued we should, the Russians wouldn't have had the opening to move in a year ago. Now we have to compete with the Russians.
Also, it will be interesting to see how Egypt--now with Mistral amphibious warships--will react to Turkey's ambitions in yet another region in the Arab world. The Saudis would subsidize Egypt to block the Saudi rival for influence.
And the Greeks, too, will have problems with this. Once a problem child of NATO, that membership will be even more important for Athens.
Quite simply, it makes no sense for U.S. taxpayers to subsidize the defense of nations capable of defending themselves. Shared interests will continue to justify military cooperation. However, the alliance as today constituted no longer serves American interests.
Trump's bombast is pushing European NATO members to contribute more to defending Europe and is reinforcing our troops in Europe. As I said before, Trump is actually strengthening NATO.
I didn't worry that Trump would kill NATO as so many liberals said despite never saying a kind word to say about NATO until Trump won in 2016. But if Trump did propose to get out of NATO, I would strenuously blog against that decision (ooh, scary--only slightly less powerful than a snarky tweet!).
Further, staying in NATO and keeping it strong keeps Europeans our allies capable of operating with our troops abroad in non-NATO missions where our interests overlap.
And Europe is a staging area for operating in an arc of crisis from West Africa to Afghanistan. Which I highlighted in this old Military Review article (see page 15) about maintaining a robust American Army presence in Europe.
Even a proper focus on China's growing threat requires America to maintain NATO so that we can minimize our footprint in Europe by maximizing Europe's ability to hold this secondary front with our help in the face of the smaller Russian threat.
And remember that during the Obama tenure the impulse (not from the
Obama administration, to clarify) to get out of NATO drove me to defend
NATO repeatedly (for example, here, here, here, and here).
Our objectives in Europe and beyond require resisting an autocracy like Russia under Putin or the proto-imperial European Union. NATO is the best tool we have.
A confidential trove of government documents obtained by The Washington Post reveals that senior U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.
I've long said that I never got a feel for the war given the lack of heavy press coverage on a daily basis. One week I'd read credible complaints and the next I'd read credible defenses of the war effort.
But I'm not sure this is as damning as the article says. If top civilian and military decision-makers understood the true situation, and the basic publicly available data was accurate, I'm not necessarily upset that the information was spun in public. That is part of the war effort to encourage our side, discourage the enemy, and refrain from acting as the enemy intelligence agency to identify our weaknesses.
Perhaps too much of that was done. But I'm not sure what the balance is between leveling with the American public and refusing to provide an enemy with useful information they can use to win the war. I think there was enough information to realize there were successes and failures in the war.
And I think the key issue is whether top leadership knew the correct information and whether it was using that information to make good decisions, or whether that top leadership was hiding behind spin to avoid making difficult decisions that could help the war effort. I don't know the answer to that question.
Truth be told, when we hit Afghanistan, my only goal was to wreck al Qaeda and not overthrow the Taliban. I did not foresee the success of of destroying the Taliban regime with our support for locals with money, special forces and CIA operators, and air power.
And since Afghan Moslems aren't really part of the main problem with Saudi-style Islamism, I was willing to rely on a policy that kept whatever friendly regime in power as long as it kept Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for terrorists again.
And after we hit Iraq, I was even less interested in nationbuilding in Afghanistan as long as we kept the place from being a terrorist haven. I didn't figure we'd spend the time necessary to have much of an impact on that tribal society nor did I think it was worth the effort. I was far more interested in the far more important question of winning in Iraq.
At that point we were doing better than I dared hope.
I've long noted that one problem with securing Afghanistan is that no matter how much we pound down the jihadis in Afghanistan, the threat will loom as long as the jihadis have a safe haven in North Waziristan inside Pakistan.
The Afghan Surge will take place this year. I am not convinced we need it or should risk it, but it will happen, beginning in 2009. Adding four more combat brigades will put us to seven, I think. We should know from our Iraq Surge experience that adding troops isn't as important as using them correctly for the current situation. ...
The end result in Afghanistan, if all goes well, will be a nominal national government that controls the capital region and reigns but does not rule local tribes and which actually helps the locals a bit rather than sucking resources from the locals, who in turn do not make trouble for the central government or allow their areas to be used by jihadis to plan attacks on the West. We press for reasonable economic opportunities, with bribes all around (I mean, foreign aid), to keep a fragile peace.
And we stick around this time, unlike after the Soviets left Afghanistan when we ignored the place, for a generation or two to see if we can move Afghanistan into the 19th century (hey, let's not get ahead of ourselves). ...
Remember, at this point our real "Afghanistan problem" lies in Pakistan. Even a successful surge in Afghanistan means a post-surge Afghanistan will face the Pakistan problem once again. Like I've argued, in these circumstances I think we can do well enough in Afghanistan without a surge. Which doesn't mean that a surge can't accomplish our minimal objectives a bit faster or even achieve more. But it also means that we risk more--lives, treasure, and national prestige--by trying to achieve more results with more effort.
Not that such a surge can't achieve real objectives, but it is risky and potentially raises our objectives in Afghansitan beyond what national security requires--a stable Afghanistan with a government that rules well but lightly and doesn't abuse its own population or serve as a base for jihadis to attack us.
And despite the damning interviews, we have not lost the war. We built up Afghan security forces from scratch. We've kept the place from being a launching pad to attack our country. And Afghan security forces on our side continue to fight and kill jihadis every day with our help. Despite years of saying that their casualty rate is unsustainable, Afghan forces keep sustaining it. I'm pretty sure the enemy casualty rate is worse. [UPDATE: This is what I was thinking about: six years ago there were worries about sustaining the casualty rate. They have. And the enemy loses more.]
Is the war any more unwinnable for us than it is for the Taliban and other jihadis?
No war is unwinnable. If losing is unacceptable we must continue to fight. Luckily, fighting the war means supporting Afghan forces who are doing the fighting, for the most part. We may rightly regret that we failed to win outright despite 2,400 dead, but we achieved something for that cost and the cost going forward for defending what we gained is minimal. Would we walk away only to find that, like we did with Iraq, that we had to re-enter the war to restore what we lost after walking away?
Remember, those interviews took place when we were doing most of the fighting and were suffering more deaths. Would those participants be in favor of walking away now?
If we can't win with what we are doing, work the problem and figure out how to win. If the revelations from the Washington Post can help us do that, this is great. Victory can die in darkness.
If the story is just an effort to relive the glories of The Pentagon Papers regarding the Vietnam War--noted in the Post article--to lose this war, that is horrible. Victory can die in partisanship, too.
UPDATE: I could put up with claims that the Afghanistan war proves we failed to learn the lessons of Vietnam except for the fact that we defeated the Viet Cong (and what was there was just astro-turfed North Vietnamese manning the units) before we left, and South Vietnam fell to a conventional North Vietnamese invasion after we cut defense aid below the level the military we built there needed to fight and refused to provide air support.
