Russia/Ukraine conflict observations (from my Facebook page)

I find myself facing a bit of a moral quandary regarding the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. I don't have a personal "dog in the fight" beyond that of any other spectator. To the degree I can trace my family history, there seems to have been no one from what is now either country, and I have no modern attachments to anyone from either country beyond my modest financial support of a certain Russian vlogger I will not identify for his/her personal security. So my approach to analyzing what I can discover about the conflict is based upon my understanding of the principles and practices developed by Sun Tzu in his seminal work The Art Of War.

In my judgement, neither country is especially admirable from a US-type constitutional republic type of government viewpoint. Culturally, both countries seem to be only slightly less culturally, politically, and financially corrupt than China is and always has been. Let me take this opportunity to observe that there are any number of personally non-corrupt Russians, Ukrainians, and Chinese (Han or otherwise) individuals. But the cultures they all live in basically assume that, given the opportunity, people will act in what a modern American would regard as corrupt - morally, financially, what have you. The concept of (national) politics being downstream from (national) culture is an important aspect of this; none of these country's are especially culturally admirable despite each being remarkably culturally interesting. That individuals from these cultures are themselves notably admirable is a testament to their personal integrity, not a reflection of the cultural standards they rise above.

Recent case in point, via the Jeff Bezos blog, which I hope will give others insight into my observations on events now occurring in Ukraine:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/15/ukraine-facial-recognition-warfare/

Scary Story Time

How implausible is it that Russia possesses the capability to successfully imitate an Iranian submarine?
Diesel/electric boat presumably, something that puts out a mix of known Iranian boats drive and powerplant noises. Have it show up on US sonar technology initially somewhere in the south Atlantic. Finally goes silent west of the Azores maybe. Briefly heard for the last time due south of Cuba. Two to three days later a complex nuclear device detonates 100 miles due south of New Orleans, Louisiana. The resulting tsunami would stretch from Key West, Florida in an uninterrupted wall of water all the way to the north-eastern point of the Yucatan peninsula in Mexico. Cuba wouldn't actually cease to exist.

I sincerely doubt Iran has the capability to even approach pulling off a scenario like this, but I'm reasonably certain Russia does. 

I have heard others now describing what's happening in and around Ukraine as forcing Vladimir Putin into deploying tactical nukes in Ukraine, if only to have some expectation of surviving. At all, not just politically. According to that Fount of All Knowledge, Wikipedia, tactical nukes can range in explosive power between tens of kilotons to hundreds of kilotons and delivered by hand or, as noted above, torpedo. If two 500 KT tactical nuclear devices were situated approximately 200 feet from each other on a true east/west alignment and detonated simultaneously, the physics of the resulting mushroom cloud would make clear the number and thus the size of the devices involved to anyone 50 miles away or so. The point is, Ukraine might not be the most advantageous spot on the surface of the Earth for Vlad to pop off a nuke.

Plausibly pointing the finger of guilt at somebody else is a critical touch for long term success, but Vlad's almost 70, so maybe a Highly Important secondary consideration then.

To the extent any of these maunderings has any such thing, the point of all this is that, as the level of violence deemed acceptable ramps up, so too does the range at which inflicting that violence reach further. If Vladimir Putin decides that the end of Russia as an independent country is a possible result of the combat in Ukraine, then the potential target list expands beyond that country's borders. This is the point of the decision tree where things start to get messy.

A plausible story is essential to success. Obviously, the more plausible the better, but how much is enough? In how much time? Added to this, tactical nukes usually don't require National Command Authority for tactical release as prescribed by doctrine. Only Putin can decide if/when to detonate this weapon though, which circumstance already attracts too much attention as is. Presumably Russian bureaucratic lethargy is no worse then our own, so the mascarovka should mostly be in place. 

In order for a plausibly deniable story to exist the supporting elements have to be put in place which takes time even in bad fiction. If the Russian Navy needs 10 days to do their part, that means the Russian Army has to wander around Ukraine not winning anything for an extra week or so, at least. If that all starts to look a lot like losing, the device is already in place.  

Whither war now?

I posted the below as a comment to a Facebook posting by Stephen Michael Stirling and wish to preserve easier access to it for future reference and discussion. My intention is to inspire discussion of ways and means whereby this, and potential future, combat can be resolved in a positive and self-sustaining manner if possible.

******

Coming up on a full month of active combat between Russia and (reinforced) Ukraine, I think it is no longer deniable that neither country either possesses, or is willing to expend, the military assets necessary to militarily defeat the other. Discussion of that circumstance will no doubt go on for years, if not decades, and the potential for catastrophic misinterpretations of same will continue to exist for at least as long.

That noted, both sides can effectively maintain the current pace of infrastructure and population destruction essentially for ever (that timespan being measured in the endurance of those not actively fighting). Stipulating all that as true, now is the point in the conflict when active support efforts should begin to publicly bombard all parties with proposals structured to be at least minimally acceptable to both of the main combatants as well as their separate supporters internationally. Herewith my initial suggestion:

The Black Sea is a unique body of water in many ways. All countries directly bordering on the Black Sea to participate directly in a joint research project structured to maintain (or restore where technologically able) that body of water to known historic conditions. Additionally, there be created a joint search and rescue organization to monitor and support general maritime operations on the Black Sea and all connecting waterways. All direct bordering countries to jointly coordinate sponsorship or other diplomatic support efforts from other national or private parties by mutual negotiation between the directly involved parties.

******

Whose Lab seems a pertinent question here

The Al Fin Next Level blog is one that I have been following for 6+ years now, largely because the posts there cover a range of topics I often have at least some interest in and the posts themselves present a well-thought-out, balanced, and well sourced approach to the topic du jour. As witness, see: It Wouldn't Be the First Virus to Escape from a Laboratory 

Some Experts Believe the Virus May Have Escaped a Lab

Viruses in the same family as Wuhan Coronavirus are routinely collected and studied at minimal protection levels, making lab accidents and viral leaks more likely.

Ebright thinks that it is possible the COVID-19 pandemic started as an accidental release from a laboratory such as one of the two in Wuhan that are known to have been studying bat coronaviruses.

Except for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, two deadly viruses that have caused outbreaks in the past, coronaviruses have been studied at laboratories that are labelled as operating at a moderate biosafety level known as BSL-2, Ebright says. And, he says, bat coronaviruses have been studied at such labs in and around Wuhan, China, where the new coronavirus first emerged. “As a result,” Ebright says, “bat coronaviruses at Wuhan [Center for Disease Control] and Wuhan Institute of Virology routinely were collected and studied at BSL-2, which provides only minimal protections against infection of lab workers.” __ TheBulletin

Which, as any blogger strives for, brings us back around to the titular point of the post; precisely whose lab had this particular strain of coronavirus get out into the world?

Which brings this post to the website Veterans Today  Billed as "Serving the Clandestine Community since 2004" may provide some useful framing for the following story:

 https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/03/26/us-athlete-intelligence-officer-in-china-games-named-as-patient-zero-for-covid-debunking-trump-rhetoric-updating/

I can't figure out how to quote from the article directly; it's in English, but not in a coherent fashion, you'll have to go see for yourself.

At first glance, the article at Veterans Today appears to be a mash-up of someone's propaganda, or equally arguably someone's public relations efforts. Not being a professional in either, I decline to speculate. In any case, the article specifically identifies US Army Reserve Staff Sergeant Maatje Benassi as a US "intelligence officer" and "an armed diplomatic driver ... for General James Jones" who is further claimed to be assigned to US Army Intelligence. Given that Fort Meade is publicly acknowledged as the home of the US National Security Agency, a General Jones - a US Army Intelligence Officer specifically - being assigned duties proximate to the NSA doesn't seem particularly noteworthy, unless said General Jones isn't publicly identified to be in that assignment. Some cooberative linkagrey would seem the least effort required to retain even a fleeting grasp on 1st amendment claims. Also, it strikes me that an "armed diplomatic driver" would almost certainly be drawn from the ranks of active duty personnel, not a reservist (unless she were to be on active duty status at the time of posting to the position).

At the very least, this reporting verges uncomfortably close to doxxing absent the links to corroborate such claims.

Adding at least the appearance of legitimacy to all of this is this article from October 25, 2019 by the US Department of Defense: https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/1998827/us-women-place-8th-despite-crash-in-50-mile-cycling-race/

A hit from behind on the final lap may have dashed the U.S. team's hopes for gold in women's cycling, but bruised ribs and a cracked helmet didn't stop Army Sgt. 1st Class Maatje Benassi from crossing the finish line.    Teammates from a trail vehicle rushed to her side to provide aid, but she refused medical care for the moment, jumping right back up on the bike. "My goal was to finish it. … I came this far, I trained this hard, I had to finish it," she said. "I was in a lot of pain, and my bike was rubbing, too. … Nothing went smooth, but I said, 'Forget it, I'm just going to finish.'" Benassi finished last among the 30 competitors from 11 nations who completed the road race.

 "But that's racing", she said. "You win some, you lose some". The Army Reserve noncommissioned officer from the 312th Observer-Controller-Trainer unit at Fort Meade, Maryland, said she won't let the setback keep her down. A few days later, she was back out training.

 It may seem trivial to non-service members, but getting the Sergeant's rank wrong is a prominent red flag regarding the factuality of everything that follows. Beyond that, is SFC Benassi's duty posting, A) correct, B) a matter of public knowledge, or did Jim W. Dean, managing editor of Veterans Today, just break operational security and subject SFC Benatti to career ending scrutiny via his deliberate doxxing of her?

It seems obvious to me that this story about the source of the COVID-19 coronavirus takes a plausible-seeming sports story from last October, associates it with nebulous claims of nefariousness (source of said claims not identified), and aligns the story presentation with known PRC/CCP propaganda that they aren't the source of this pandemic, the US Army is (there are two USAF LTC's and a US Navy Commander also mentioned in the DoD story, if infection was the objectivity why wouldn't they be included in the effort? Is veteranstoday.com officer-class snobbery showing through? Maybe PRC/CCP money is the easiest answer).

What makes this potentially something more than a moderately interesting blog post is the national security questions riddled throughout. Is this an example of PRC/CCP 4G warfare? How about "mere" collusion with a foreign power as an undeclared agent of influence? OTOH did what we know as COVID-19 get out of a lab at Fort Detrick, which is 40-odd miles northwest of Fort Meade? Not impossible, and neither is it seemingly implausible, which makes it all seem more likely as propaganda absent further facts to support such a claim.

US Army Chief of Staff General James C. McConville has the duty to his country and his fellow soldiers to investigate this matter as fully as possible, and to report his findings to the Commander-in-Chief. One direct way of starting such an inquiry is to poll the four women identified in the DoD story from last October (along with the unidentified teammates in the support vehicle) as to their physical health during the months of October and November, 2019, with medical records to support such recollections. A second line of inquiry needs to identify all of the possible means of "cross pollination" between Forts Detrick and Meade. This would be useful whether or not any member of the US team became infected with any disease. Finally, this investigation needs to happen as a matter of considerable urgency. In what I regard as on my Top 5 Worst Case Scenarios list, The USA and the PRC going Def Con 1 with each other is certainly in their somewhere. We absolutely want to know as certainly as we possibly can that we know why while we go all "duck and cover". On a different list is the names of those who get a traitors just rewards.

And you were lamenting just the other day about the lack of sports stories, weren't you? Personally, I'd rather go back to ignoring Jim Lampley.

History Matters

I've been flouncing around this idea for some time now; time to say something it seems.

Through much of the 1920's Germany was a battleground between numerous militant ideological groups, some of them actually German. Prominent among these were the groups generally lumped under the rubric "communist", who for the most part actually were an invading ideology from the not-quite-yet-established USSR. Countering this ideological invasion was a collection of mostly domestic German political factions, many of which were themselves socialist in nature, and the actual German government. The accepted history is that Adolph Hitler found employment with the German military intelligence establishment infiltrating many of these groups. By means obscure today, Hitler rose to legitimate political prominence by achieving control of one of these socialist political groups and "successfully negotiated" a merger with at least two others, resulting in the much-decried National Socialist Democratic Workers Party. And that's how arguably the raging flaming asshole of human history defeated an ideological invader and became a national hero. Briefly.

In related action, the leaders of the nascent USSR infiltrated their ideological invasion agents into the United States during the same time period. That invasion proved marginally more successful than in Germany in that no centralized opposition arose in the USA, but there can be no question that it occurred, as confirmed by the many former Soviet official documents that have become public knowledge in recent decades. The limited success these invasion agents achieved is of less modern importance than is the fact they developed many times their numbers of fellow believers and even more of those who achieve personal success by advancing arguments and beliefs long since disproved. This is an example of a successful change of a national political context.

Nearly a century of history later, we find ourselves targeted for ideological invasion by a different group of ideological activists. You know ... Muslims.

Human historical experience regarding ideological disagreement resolution doesn't offer much opportunity for a different process taking place this time, but one can always hope. And it is a process. A pattern of reinforcing incitements will continue to take place, many of them seemingly "obviously" unconnected (by those who don't take inspiration from them). And now that ideological conflict resolution process is blatantly occurring within the United States.

This promises to be a long, drawn out series of events dominated by more own-goals and blue-on-blue casualties than victims of actual attack, and that's not counting the casualties experienced by the ideological non-combatants of our attackers. There is no "enemy headquarters" to attack, the primary combatants make every effort to subvert our social and political structures against us, and there is as yet no widely adopted ideology specifically countering their beliefs for us to rally 'round.

Everything takes place in a context of events and beliefs. Hitler's "heroics" against communist invasion and domestic political success don't make him a good, or even arguably sane, man. People in similar-seeming circumstances to those from the "Good Hitler" days makes identifying with his actions and statements from then more understandable, but the cure for that is to improve the similar-seeming circumstances. New context leads to different beliefs resulting in different actions chosen. The trick for us today is to discover the means to arrange a new context for Muslims that makes their own "Good Hitler" ideological activists unacceptable to them. Good trick that, I agree, but it's what I've got so far.

Despicable He

Via R. S. McMain I learn the basic details of how President Obama has decided to treat American armed service personnel.

In a word: despicably.

First off, Pentagon ordered to freeze death benefits:

"Unfortunately, as a result of the shutdown, we do not have the legal authority to make death gratuity payments at this time," said Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Defense Department spokesman. "However, we are keeping a close eye on those survivors who have lost loved ones serving in the Department of Defense."

House lawmakers, though, are planning to vote Wednesday on a bill to restore funding for the payments. And Speaker John Boehner on Tuesday accused the Obama administration of needlessly withholding the money.

Boehner claimed a bill passed by Congress and signed by the president last week to pay America's troops should have given the Pentagon the latitude "to pay all kinds of bills, including this."

 Followed by this:

Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki is spelling out some of the dire consequences for veterans of a long-term government shutdown, with about 3.8 million veterans not getting a disability check next month if the shutdown continues into late October.

Shinseki says some 315,000 veterans and 202,000 surviving spouses and dependents would also see pension payments stopped ...

In some areas, like health care delivery, there are fewer adverse effects. Congress provided funding for VA's health services a year in advance, so veterans can continue getting care at hospitals and clinics.

As Commander-in-Chief, President Obama has direct and undeniable responsibility for these decisions being taken and implemented in this manner.

I remember some of my colleagues declaring "We won!" last November; I ask them now, is this what you thought we won?  And, we have over three more years in which to look forward to celebrating the further antics of Despicable He.

Would they were only coming to an actual theater rather than played out in the streets near us instead.

Shoot, or No Shoot?

I had a disturbing thought while at work last night; how to tell the difference between an Open Carry advocate and a Somali Shopping Mall Suicide Squad member?  Before the latter starts shooting of course, as that tends to be both a bit of a giveaway and way too late to be helpful.

The last few days revelations about the makeup of the terrorist squad (at least three US nationals, one Canadian and an as yet undetermined number of UK citizens) have been tentatively identified as active shooters in the days-long killing spree in and around the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya (scroll down here for numerous links to reports on this and the terror attack generally).  All of which puts paid to the single most difficult-to-overcome aspect of putting such a terror action into effect in a N. American setting; the vast majority of active jihadists can't blend into N. American society well enough (or for long enough) to put together such an operation.  Being able to match a few foreign jihadists with a native jihadist overcomes that obstacle and vastly simplifies the logistics of organizing such an attack.  If nothing else, the Westgate Mall attack proves the viability of that tactic.

Which brings me the long way around to the Open Carry activists who carry long guns at public venues.

Yes, if doing so was legal before the Kenya terror attack it is presumably still legal now.  And, No, I'm not accusing anybody of aiding any enemy to freedom (religious or otherwise).  I am asking if this particular method of raising public awareness about our rights and freedoms might not be better retired from active use, given the general visual similarity between the terrorists and the activists as they enter a business or other open-to-the-public locale.

It seems a virtual certainty that there will be an over reaction (or just an ordinary mistake) by somebody should there continue to be individual or small group efforts to demonstrate in support of 2ns Amendment rights by openly carrying rifles and/or shotguns at non-shooting related venues, particularly as people become familiar with the images of the terrorists entering the mall in Kenya with their weapons openly displayed in a non overtly threatening manner.  Just like OC activists are prone to do.  Even if its just the cops responding to a panic'd call of "terrorists like in Kenya", the outcome of that can't be good for convincing people to consider supporting 2A efforts themselves.  And if an actual gunfight breaks out ...?

A basic tenet of strategy is to use the tactic(s) that offer least potential advantage to the enemy while still advancing your own position.  It's time for Open Carry activists to employ a different tactic to demonstrate in support of 2nd Amendment rights, there's just too much potential advantage to be gained by the opposition (not to mention the actual enemy) from continuing to do so with rifles and shotguns.

Naval Gazing Power

Richard Fernandez has written a convincing description of why and how the Obama administration might be in the process of responding to the alleged chemical/biological attacks reported to have occurred in Syria recently:

The administration is appears convinced that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons against its own population, according to the NYT and may be moving to chastise it. The BBC however cautions that there may never be any evidence actually the chemical weapons violation. “UK Foreign Secretary William Hague warned that evidence could have been tampered with, degraded or destroyed in the five days since the attack.”
With the BBC innoculating the administration against future media accusations of ‘faked’ WMD evidence by declaring any proof imperceptible in advance, the NYT describes the administration’s possible game plan. “WASHINGTON — As President Obama weighs options for responding to a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria, his national security aides are studying the NATO air war in Kosovo as a possible blueprint for acting without a mandate from the United Nations.”

Wretchard then goes on to link a piece at medium.com by David Axe in which are described specific US Navy assets and capabilities well able to destroy-in-place any war-fighting assets the Syrian government might currently possess.

Which causes me to ask (again); why couldn't the US do essentially the exact same thing to the still-not-quite nuclear armed Iran too?

It isn't as though the Obama administration has any intent to actually invade either place (and what follows is key, so pay attention), nor is there any need to to achieve the strategic objective of denying development/usage of "weapons of mass destruction" to aggressor states (or anyone we don't happen to like all that much really).  There is no expectation of US troops occupying Syrian territory, only that US .mil air assets destroy Syrian offensive war-making facilities and equipment.  Entropy naturally follows as a result.

Why isn't doing the same exact thing to Iranian nuclear (and all the rest of the arsenal as long as we're about it) development and deployment facilities and equipment equally justifiable under the precise same political rationalizations evident in the Syrian situation?  Are we to believe that the Iranian pariah state is somehow magically more capable than is the regularly Russian-reinforced (or, at least, resupplied) Syrian military (not to mention the various other combatants rampaging about the Syrian territory and skies).

All of which is why I long ago decided that Iranian nukes are a strategic distraction, and worry over same a mark of advanced gullibility.  Not a tactical one note; destruction of Iranian capability is readily achievable, all of which effects the calculus of using a weapon, but nonetheless remains a minor strategic consideration.

Iran does not possess the capability to prevent the naval force described by Mr. Axe from doing to it what is apparently about to be variously gratefully received by the Syrians just any ol' day now.  Waiting for the Islamic Republic leadership to draw undeniable attention to themselves is an unconscionable failure by the American government, and has been for at least the last ten years.

OTOH, initiating the Iranian (Air) Campaign under cover of the public Syrian effort would be a bit brilliant, wouldn't it?  I know, never happen.

Dots

A modest Where's Waldo-type exercise:

• "... Dzhokhar and his brother were motivated by extremist Islamic beliefs ... he and his brother wanted to defend Islam from the U.S."

• "Rioters have lit fires and stoned emergency services in the suburbs of Stockholm for the third night in a row after a man was shot dead by police. ... Police in the deprived, largely immigrant suburb of Husby shot a man dead last week after he reportedly threatened to kill them with a machete." 

 

•  “All the signs indicated this is a terrorist attack. ... It’s obviously carefully planned.”... The attackers shouted "Allahu Akbar" (the Arabic expression meaning "God is Great"), according to Whitehall sources - BBC News.

Connect the dots and decide for yourself what - and where - the trend line points. 

If you can, don't be there then.  In the mean time, make yourself as well prepared as you are able and that includes ready to win the aftermath too.  Jihad has always been an individual action and that's the level it will have to be defeated at ultimately.  The jihadist is always on desperate ground and must be responded to in that light.  Make ready ...

On Recent American Foreign Policy

Needs
More
5
Finger
Death
Punch

War! What Is It Good For?

We keep doing this military advisor disguise for our extra-constitutional military combat deployments.

At least it's a shorter supply line than Vietnam (for the history challenged, our involvement there began the same way). Which doesn't really make up for the lack of harbors, so everything has to be flown in this time.

Adapting Strategy

Weer'd Beard writes today about the Taliban's recent effort to promote jihad in the US by encouraging American Muslims to purchase weapons at gun shows and indiscriminately using them on the rest of the American populace. Weer'd easily disproves the validity of the information, but kind of surprisingly may have overlooked the general usefulness of the strategy as I pointed out in comments:

Another possibility might be a conscious effort to emulate the Brady’s and Joyce Foundation mouthpieces; make the (however erroneous) case of ease of access to firearms to their local audience and then cite any criminal use of firearms as an example of “jihad in America” to same. This “proves” the universal nature of Islam and Jihad, doesn’t it?

They’re misogynistic* (sp?) predators, but they’re not stupid. They are also reported to be well established in the UK university system, so access to modern western (US) political philosophy and policy tracts is readily available to jihadi supporters.

Weer'd Beard regularly posts on Joyce Foundation efforts to manipulate news reports of criminal use of firearms in his "gun death" series of posts. This gun show effort by Al Qaeda/Taliban leadership strikes me as being almost identical in both practice and intent; lie about the state of American gun ownership and manipulate crime news reports to destabilize American social and political structures so as to better advance an opposition alternate viewpoint. The strategy offers the minor possibility of changing US domestic law/policy as well as serving to validate leadership credentials within the Taliban/Al Qaeda organizational structure and the general Islamic populace outside the US.

EDIT: SAILORCURT reaches a similar conclusion by a different contextual structure. Well worth a read.

*Spelling errors corrected.

Now He Can Be Impeached

Per abc NEWS, Pres. Obama has used the War Powers Resolution as justification for US military involvement in Libya;

From the beginning of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. The military intervention started on March 19; Congress was notified on March 21.

With his letter to Congress yesterday rejecting Congress's authority for continuation of his military activities in (or only over) Libya, Mr. Obama treads blithely beyond the Constitution on the flimsiest of pretensions.

"Intermittent warfare" is still war, Mr. President, and war isn't defined by the number of troops your side loses. Drones and aeriel bombardment are fulltime implements of war whenever they are used on another country's real estate and people. Ask Congress for a war authorisation Pres. Obama (or better yet, declare "victory" and re-deploy the military assets elsewhere), or spend the rest of your life fleeing from the questions posed by the relatives of those lost to your own Vietnam when this debacle-in-the-building inevitably grows to a scale that rivals that failure of US leadership.

Osama (Officially) Bin Dead

If ABC and Yahoo both report it then it must be true. Not that I doubt the truth of the report really, it's the willingness to report the result with no supporting detail that bothers me.

One obvious point of uncertainty is who is going to be bilked out of the $25 million?

Osama Bin Ladin's remains should be formally interred beneath the lowest sub-foundation of the World Trade Center site and new construction begin atop his grave immediately after as conclusion of the ceremony.

Life As A David Weber Series

First George W. Bush took us through On Basilisk Station followed by The Honor Of The Queen (with metaphorical allowances for political structural distinctions), now Pres. Obama wants to get us into the now not-so-amusingly named The Short Victorious War. As metaphor's go this one is pretty jumbled up, but it makes for a blog post with leading questions, so there is that to recommend it.

Who is to take up the mantle of Honor Harrington for us?

Is Obama playing the role of Haven or the Terran Empire?

How likely is it the planet will transition into a Robert E. Howard series instead?

These and other real world intrusions into even the geekiest of lives demand answers!

What Border Violence?

Nice.

UTB/TSC Emergency Warning #5
The campus is closed and evening classes have been canceled today and Saturday, Nov. 6 because of gunfire taking place across the Rio Grande.

A fence is nice and all, but when your neighbor's troubles start shooting up your place as well that tends to make his business your business too. And when it comes to international border violations, the US Army and Marines do our business for us.

Just sayin'.


Via Instapundit.

Sheet Music Distribution

Robert Stacy McCain expands on an initial RedState report concerning an unprecedented conference being held in Israel throughout this week (27-31 Dec). All Israeli Ambassadors, Consuls General and Heads of Mission have been ordered to attend, something which has never occurred in the country's all too turbulent history. RedState poster Kenny Solomon makes it plain he believes this to be a precursor to Israel taking overt (and presumably military) action in the near future - probably in the general direction of Iran.

Given who all else is known to be invited, I'm not so sure just how highly that legitimate concern is actually going to rank on the itinerary. The presence of Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer (head of the country's central bank) makes me fairly confident that concern over the reliability of the US$ as the benchmark currency has to be in the low single digit section of the topic priority list. While Israel's reliance on US aid financing (not to mention civilian investment) is likely part of Mr Fischer's presentation, the precise nature and degree of dependency all three of Israel's cross-border neighbors, not to mention at least 6 other arms-length regional powers, have on US financial support has to be of even greater importance. None of the 9 or 10 other countries (I potentially include Gaza in amongst this number) involved is led by especially stable political regimes. The question of just how likely any (or what association of them) might be willing to seriously consider the short victorious war option will be greatly influenced by their separate and shared financial condition, should the US$ indeed go TU in the near-term.

Whatever comes under discussion, I think it most unlikely that anything is being actually scheduled for unilateral action by Israel's leaders. Were that the case, we'd be seeing a great many more El Al flights in-bound to Ben Gurion, with a noticeable passenger compliment of people in the age 20 to 50 range, than we do so far.

The Israelis are worried enough to start getting their ducks all in a row; that ought to be worrisome enough for the rest of us all on it's own. Let's hope at least some of Pres. Obama's Hawaii vacation briefings cover this development with greater confidence of accuracy then I can offer.

The war's not over yet it seems

It appears that the enemy isn't willing to just roll over and wait for us to give up all on our own.

ABC News link
Fox News link

I thought the following from the Fox report telling:

Passenger Syed Jafri, a U.S. citizen who had flown from the United Arab Emirates, said the incident occurred during the plane's descent. Jafri said he was seated three rows behind the passenger and said he saw a glow, and noticed a smoke smell. Then, he said, "a young man behind me jumped on him."

If "young man" is never publicly identified, he's likely an air marshal; either way, well done you. [Update 12/26: per CBS News, the gentleman in question is Mr. Jasper Schuringa from Holland. And again I say, "Well done, Sir."]

I suppose the pressing question of the moment has to be, is this a one-off, or only part of an al qaeda-trademark multiple attack operation?

h/t to Fire Andrea Mitchel blog, via The Other McCain/Hot Blogs sidebar

Update ~ 30 min later: Drudge is linking Bloomberg.com saying in headline; Obama Orders Heightened Security After Disturbance on Plane, which seems a small but significant escalation of response from earlier. Or, at least as likely, an example of how early information is often wrong in ways both small and large. As is usual with circumstance of this nature, cautious patience is the smartest option.

Update part deux: In related news, these guys obviously don't spend much effort reading the more conservative portions of the US blogosphere apparently. Way to stiff'n a politically snivelly lip there fellas. Hold tight Pfc. Bergdahl.

You think you fear change?

For an extraordinary look at the professional military culture extant in the US today, read this Abu Muqawama post and comment thread in its entirety. Pack a lunch (or a substantial snack and a drink), the comment thread covers six days of well-considered point and rebuttal by a broad collection of (mostly) very experienced (and also mostly) currently - or very recently - serving officer and senior enlisted Soldiers and Marines from both the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns.

For my own part, I would council avoidance of using the Merchant Marine as an ancillary force model, better I think to adapt the US Coast Guards dual civil authority arrangement to an infantry soldier's environment.

As to the training quandary I seriously suggest that this might be better dealt with by revamping the basic terms of military enlistment. By making the basic period of enlistment a full 6 years of active duty with the award of a university AA/AS degree as a result of the training and professional education a service member receives (and the realistic possibility of a bachelors degree being achievable on his/her own time) as well as a bachelors degree being the result of a re-enlistment for an additional 6 years. The US military gains the added time in service to achieve the expanded education and training modern military mission variety and equipment mix demands while enlistees recieve the advanced education and experience they hope to attain from military service. At the end of the 12 years the option to continue career military, transfer to the ancillary force or pursue civilian opportunities will have to be chosen between - by both parties (there being no guarantee that the service will require quite as many relatively age'd infantry in the strategic mix).

There are undoubtedly numerous good reasons for not doing anything like this - but let me be the first to point out that how much more difficult it is to lead men and women who are at least as well educated and experienced as yourself will most pointedly not be acknowledged in the decision-making process. The US military services have historically been a professional organisation for the officers after all. For all the undoubted changes in the various branch's in recent decades, that hasn't been one of them I'm certain.

And yes, I was junior enlisted once upon a time; does it show? :)

A Strategy Of Errors

Richard Fernandez describes the latest Islamist "strategy" in his most recent Pajamas Media article, Plan C. In the end, he correctly observes:

Somehow I don’t think so. Personally, I think al Qaeda should resort to enumerating their plans along the real number line, so that they will never run out designations for their successive and hare brained bloodthirsty schemes. Plan C will fail, along with all the rest because it is fundamentally the same plan as the first two. Terror, fanaticism and stupidity can be combined in exactly 3! ways, though the fact may escape them. Sooner or later, after all the combinations of mayhem have been endlessly repeated, either an exasperated world of infidels or sane members of the Muslim community will ask the obvious question: what can you do to us that we can’t do to you?

There really are a very limited number of options to select from once a specific means to an objective has been determined upon. Organisations like al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizb 'Allah and their numerous local off-shoots have peremptorily insisted upon pursuit of a combative engagement with their ideological competition. That being the case, they limit their options as Wretchard observes.

There is one additional component to the formula, which Robert Avrech examines at his blog Seraphic Secret:

For the first time in my life I can foresee the end of the Jewish state, not through war, but through incremental steps toward voluntary slavery.

In a notable departure from past al Qaeda strategy, Naji recommends "countless small operations" that render daily life unbearable, rather than a few spectacular attacks such as 9/11: The "infidel," leaving his home every morning, should be unsure whether he'll return in the evening.

Naji recommends kidnappings, the holding of hostages, the use of women and children as human shields, exhibition killings to terrorize the enemy, suicide bombings and countless gestures that make normal life impossible for the "infidel" and Muslim collaborators.

Once parallel societies are established throughout the world, they would exert pressure on non-Muslims to submit. Naji believes that, subjected to constant intimidation and fear of death, most non-Muslims (especially in the West) would submit: "The West has no stomach for a long fight."

For the complete article, please click here.

What Robert refers to of course is often summed up as "political will", the intellectual/emotional strength to continue to carry out an action that others, not operating under the same circumstances, provocatively condemn as "extreme" or "harsh". In practice, the phrase "political will" serves to restrict the acceptable options to those permissible to a political entity, a nation state or a corporation for example, and is thus a strategic limitation on possible response to provocation.

The Islamist terrorism strategy seeks to engage in the options available to an individual or small group (limited mainly by means and opportunity) while manipulating the constrained circumstances (in classic strategic terms, the climate) imposed upon nation states and other comparable societal entities by their pre-existing agreements and commitments that regulate their relations amongst themselves. This has been likened to the (possibly apocryphal) Chinese torture, "the death of a thousand cuts". I think such a characterisation lends more organisation and structure to the Islamist's efforts than history would support, but it does provide vivid illustration of the manner of altercation the Islamists claim they now seek to engage in. As opposed to being limited to (by the same resources and opportunity) as has been the case up to now.

Needless to say, this is not any form of "new strategy" being discussed, only a repackaging of previous faults as opportunities. Good marketing, I suppose, and as such deserving of an effective counter-propaganda campaign. Maybe the official effort will at least appear relevant this time.

The challenge of combating terrorism, as in criminal behavior generally, is that the best opportunity for counter action almost always lies in the hands of the individuals who happen to be present in the moments immediately prior to initiation of action. On the other hand, premptively authorising individuals to that extreme of behavior runs counter to every presumption and precept of government, whether elective or corporate. The Long War is both title and commentary, I'm afraid.

The greatest danger imposed by this state of affairs is that, eventually, some country will believe it's continued existence to be sufficiently threatened it will feel compelled to answer Wretchard's question. The survivors of that are always profoundly changed by the experience.