A 'Short' War

The current war with Iran started on the last day of February.  After an intense bombing campaign of six weeks, the war entered a ceasefire, which was supposed to last one week and give Iran time to negotiate an end of the hostilities on terms acceptable to the United States.  Iran blockaded the Strait of Hormuz.  The US responded by also blockading the Strait of Hormuz.  Now, two months later, the ceasefire is still active, though it is interrupted by potshots in both directions.  President Trump has insisted that talks are ongoing and a deal is close.  Iran is mum on the subject.

Trump was hoping for a short war, a quick smackdown that brought Iran to heel and ended its quest for a nuclear bomb.  Not so long ago, George W Bush wanted a short war with Afghanistan, a quick smackdown that resulted in the extraction of Osama bin Laden and his brethren.  That didn't go so well.  The problem is that the opponent is not a rational actor.  A rational leader would act to preserve the nation.  The Mullah's are religious fanatics who believe that death will lead them to paradise while compromise with the infidel will lead them to hell.  Moreover, they know that Trump has a time limit.  This is a country that has slaughtered tens of thousands of its citizens and hardly care if the US would kill an equal number or more.  Just like Afghanistan, they only have to wait until the US loses will and retreats.  Without an army on the ground, the only option is to flatten the infrastructure.  Of course, that will hurt civilians, which is why it hasn't already been done.

What to do?  First, no ceasefires unless the other side requests it.  Furthermore, the time limit must be respected.  Either we do a deal in a week or the bombing resumes.  During the Mexican-American War, the United States repeatedly granted ceasefires after winning a big victory.  The result: Santa Anna spent the time rebuilding his army and fortifying his position to fight again.  What does one suppose Iran is doing at the moment?  Certainly not engaging in peace talks that will bear fruit.  No, this is just a delay.

Next, you can't bomb them into peace.  In the Vietnam War, the Viet Cong were willing to suffer massive casualties and knew, in the end, the US would tire of killing them before it could achieve victory; they were right.  Iran is likewise willing to suffer casualties.  They cannot be bombed into submission.  Try a different tact.

Regime change is required.  As mentioned, the mullahs are religious fanatics who are going to be very difficult to bring to peace talks.  Iran's next-door neighbor is Afghanistan, where the Taliban beat the United States by waiting 20 years.  You think Iran didn't learn a lesson from that?  And there was regime change in Afghanistan.  Can the Shah's son be installed in Iran?  Probably not.  Can a civil war be triggered?  Maybe.  During World War II, the US dropped single-shot pistols on France to arm the resistance.  Reportedly, efforts to arm Iranian resistance by way of the Kurds failed; the Kurds kept the guns for themselves.  Drop some care packages with grenades and pistols, weapons that would be superfluous to the IRGC but a godsend for rebellious Iranians.

It is time to capture and fortify Kharg Island.  Reportedly a major hub for Iranian oil exports, it would make a fine US base, our Guantanamo in the Persian Gulf.  The island would immediately become a bargaining chip if negotiations happen.  Additionally, an island can be defended by the navy, which can easily prevent Iranian troops from landing and retaking it.  Between capturing this oil depot and blockading oil shipments in general, Iran will starve for money.  However, Iran has foreign benefactors who will likely channel enough money to keep the country afloat until America surrenders.

Okay, last idea: the bust the place up strategy.  Years ago, during one of President Bush's nation building fiascos, R Emmett Tyrell suggested this tactic.  Since you can't build a nation, tear down the offending one.  He likened it to a barroom brawl where all the tables are busted the mirror over the bar shattered, the bottles broken, and so forth.  Afterwards, those who caused the destruction depart and the bar owner is left to clean up the mess.  It could be a long time before the bar reopens for business.  It might even go under.  Some call this the Bomb 'em to the Stone Age technique.  However, this one will result in huge waves of refugees and, knowing Europe, they will accept them all and hasten the formation of Eurostan.

Unless Trump has some aces up his sleeve, this looks like a stalemate.  Sure, on the one hand, the Iranian nuclear threat has been crippled and continued vigilance will keep it that way.  On the other, the US is once again stuck in an ongoing Middle East conflict with no clear path to exit.

The Covenant (2023)

Master Sergeant John Kinley (Jake Gyllenhaal) was in charge of a squad of men who scoured Afghanistan for weapons caches.  They might be operating as a checkpoint on a road, patrolling through towns, or even going to remote sites to investigate.  Of course, they needed an interpreter.  The last one having died, Kinley hired a new one, Ahmed (Dar Salim).  Their working relationship was soon strained as Ahmed frequently made decisions contrary to Kinley's instructions.  However, that this tended to achieve the stated goal kept Ahmed on the payroll.  That he saved the team from an ambush also added to his value.  During one interaction with a local source, the team learned of a weapons cache in the hinterlands.  They set out.  Though the operation went well initially, wave after wave of reinforcements attacked while the team awaited support.  Kinley and Ahmed found themselves separated alone in the Afghan wilderness and unable to call for support.  Could they get back to base before the Taliban found them?

The movie is told in three parts.  It starts with Kinley and his team operating in Afghanistan.  After the fight at the remote weapons store, it becomes a survival story with Kinley and Ahmed fleeing Taliban pursuit.  The final part sees Kinley trying to get a visa for Ahmed so he can be extracted from an increasingly hostile Afghanistan

The movie has some good action scenes and certainly has some tense moments, but it is mostly dull.  That the two main characters don't get along is important as far as the overall story but makes the pair less fun to watch.  Their conflict isn't the buddy cop humor arguments, but just oil and water not mixing.  Toward the end they have mutual respect and some light moments, but it's a long slog to get there.

Just okay.  Obviously, Guy Ritchie or Gyllenhaal fans should see it, but otherwise this is skip.

Courting War

During the Korean War, American pilots found themselves in dogfights with Soviet MIGs piloted by Russian pilots.  Of course, we pretended that such was not the case, because if it was, that would mean the US and the Soviet Union were at war.  That could get out of hand very quickly.  Likewise, we accepted the Chinese involvement in the war but did not attack China.  The only Chinese targets that were valid were those that crossed the Yalu River into Korea.  As with the Soviets, this was to prevent an escalation.  China was newly converted to the communist cause and viewed as a Soviet satellite.  An expanded war with China might lead to war with the Soviets.

When the US supported Afghanistan in the 1980s, we started by providing Russian weapons, so it wasn't obvious.  Sure, the Soviets knew, but there wasn't a smoking gun of M-16s.  In Reagan's second term, he opened the floodgates and sent clearly American weaponry, most notably the Stinger missile.  As we had shown restraint during Korea, the Soviets did so with Afghanistan.  There were many proxy wars during the Cold War, where the great powers fought for global supremacy in some unfortunate country's backyard.

Now consider Ukraine.  The US is openly sending money and materiel.  President Biden called for the removal of Putin, a statement that was walked back by Jenn Psaki shortly after.  US legislators - including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi - have visited Ukraine and declared support until 'victory.'  The Defense Department has posted a list of military support sent to Ukraine.  Now the news says that US Intel assisted in sinking the Russian cruiser.  The Russians can't pretend we aren't in this war.  Unlike previous clashes, this one is not some proxy war.  Where neither Stalin nor Truman were at threat in Korea, nor Reagan nor the various Soviet premiers at threat in Afghanistan, Putin is clearly in danger in this conflict.  This could be an existential threat to Putin.  And that should guide our actions.

According to the media over the last several years, Putin is a madman.  Worse, he's a madman with nuclear weapons.  We have spent decades appeasing the North Korean dictators lest they do something reckless with their nukes, but now we are undaunted by a dictator with an immense nuclear arsenal.  Putin has threatened nuclear escalation and still we poke the bear.  He's probably bluffing.  However, North Korea was probably bluffing too, but we didn't risk this kind of brinksmanship.

There are several possible explanations.  First, our leaders know that Russia will not escalate, either because we have contact in the Russian government who assure us that Putin would be deposed if he ordered a nuclear strike or we know their nuclear capacity has degraded to uselessness since the collapse of the Soviet Union, or something along these lines.  Second, our leaders have forgotten the risks.  It has been 30 years since the Cold War ended and the Cold Warriors are mostly gone.  This one is hard to swallow as President Biden himself was in Congress throughout the Afghan conflict and should know better.  Then again, Joe isn't all there these days.  Third and most cynical, the administration is in domestic freefall and needs a foreign conflict to dominate the news.  With rampant inflation, a stagnating economy, an uncontrolled border, and cratering poll numbers, there is reason to want the press to look outside the country for something to cover.

Afghanistan

During the Spanish-American War (1898), the United States seized Guantanamo Bay.  A US Naval Station was established there soon after.  That station is still active.

As a result of World War II, the United States established bases throughout Europe and the Pacific, most especially in Germany and Japan.  76 years after the war's conclusion, the United States military maintains bases in England, Germany, Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, and Japan.  The areas have been peaceful since.  Germany and Japan are economic powerhouses and US allies.  Mostly.

The Korean War ended in an armistice in 1953, 68 years ago.  To this day, the United States maintains a considerable force in South Korea.  Though there have been skirmishes over the decades, peace has brought prosperity to South Korea.

In 2001, the ruling Taliban refused to hand over Al Qaeda terrorists who had plotted the 9/11 attack.  The United States overthrew the Taliban and spent 20 years, billions of dollars, and many American lives to better the condition of the region.  However, it seems that 20 years is too long a commitment for the United States.  No sooner did the United States begin its withdrawal than the Afghan government collapses and the Taliban filled that vacuum in an instant.

Though no fan of nation-building, the US withdrawal is a tactical blunder on the global stage.  This especially true on account of how badly it was done.  This is a huge signal of weakness to both our allies and our enemies.  In the wake of this, is China more or less likely to invade Taiwan and press its claims on the South China Sea?  Is Russia more or less likely to make further advances in Ukraine?  What happened in 2011 when the United States withdrew from Iraq?  ISIS happened, creating vast waves of refugees into Europe and a return to heavy fighting in Iraq and Syria.  No sooner has that been quelled than we repeat that failed strategy in a different place.  I'm sure it will work out well this time.

In 1975, Freshman Senator Joe Biden argued in favor of an immediate withdrawal from Vietnam as it was being overrun.  The Paris Peace Accords of 1973 were a casualty of Watergate.  With Nixon gone and Ford a literal President-Select (he had replaced Agnew by appointment), it was up to a Democratic Congress to hold the line.  Nope.  Joe Biden was also in favor of total withdrawal from Iraq.  And now Afghanistan.  His fingerprints are on several US military failures during his Washington tenure.

The Outpost (2019)

The story opens with a helicopter full of soldiers arriving at their new assignment at a remote outpost in Afghanistan.  Sergeant Clint Romesha (Scott Eastwood) is immediately aghast at the poor placement of the outpost.  It is in a deep valley with towering mountains all around.  He views it as indefensible.  Pot shots are a daily occurrence.  However, Captain Keating (Orlando Bloom) has a good relationship with the locals and manages to keep the conflict at a low simmer.  When his replacement arrives, the heat rises to a boil.  On October 3, 2009, hundreds of Taliban fighters attacked.  But for the tenacity of the soldiers and the arrival of air support, the base would surely have been overrun.

The story is told primarily from the views of Sgt. Romesha and Specialist Ty Carter (Caleb Landry Jones).  Romesha is a highly respected soldier who is competent and willing to speak his mind.  By contrast, Carter is a loner who has not bonded well with his fellow soldiers.  When the fight comes and Romesha repeatedly takes charge and presses the attack, that is expected.  When Carter repeatedly puts himself at risk to aid soldiers, one cannot help but admire him.  Caleb Landry Jones is amazing in the role, clearly the stand out performance.

All the soldiers are real and at least one played himself in this movie.  The Battle of Kamdesh resulted in the death of eight US soldiers and the abandonment of the outpost.  Both Romesha and Carter were awarded the Medal of Honor for their actions during the battle.

Highly recommended.

9/11 + 18

18 years after the war began, Trump appears to be looking for an out that doesn't include winning.  If we've spent 18 years fighting and haven't won, then maybe we should just quit.  Throw in the towel.  Have a meeting with the Taliban and threaten them with furious retaliation if they start hosting al Qaeda again.  Oh, that'll work just great.

 

Like his predecessors, Trump is unwilling to identify the enemy.  If you can't say what you are fighting, you can't win.  We've been fighting symptoms - Islamic terrorists - for years but haven't even thought to address the disease: Islam.  Islam is not a religion of peace.  Read a biography of Muhammad and there is no way you can view him as a peacemaker.  He was a warlord and conqueror.  The religion he founded calls for the subjugation of all non-Muslims and views martyrdom - death in the cause of Islam - as the most praiseworthy thing a Muslim can do.  Is it any wonder so many are willing to blow themselves up or fly planes into buildings?  This isn't some crazy misinterpretation.  This is the religion.

 

The only way to win is to wipe out Islam.  That is an impossibility in the world today.  The West cannot do that.  In fact, the West is happily allowing Islam to migrate and takeover.  Charles Martel stopped the invasion of the Muslims into France but modern French leaders are inviting them in and paying welfare to have them.  This will not end well.

 

I said Trump's new plan wouldn't work and it hasn't.  Like his predecessors, he will not do what it would take to win.  The argument used to be that we fight over there so they don't show up here.  Well, they are showing up here because we've rolled out the red carpet to show how tolerant we are.  Fighting there just creates pressure for them to migrate to the West (see Syria).

 

"There is no substitute for victory."  Douglas MacArthur

 

Is it time to admit that we lost?  Is it time to cut and run?  So it seems.  But maybe we can spin it to look like a win.  Or at least a tie!

The Brand New Doomed Afghan Strategy

President Trump has outlined a plan for further extending America's longest war without providing a means for us to win without Afghan support.  The US didn't care a whit what the random Japanese thought about the war and did not make a plan that depended upon them supporting US troops.  The US did not work with the German government to defeat the Nazis.  In both of those cases - which took considerably less than 15 years - we flattened the enemies cities, invaded their territory with no local support, and imposed a new system of government on them while purging the proponents of the ideology that brought about the war.  Nazism was outlawed and Nazis were hunted like the criminals they are.  Imperialist policies were squeezed from the fabric of Japan to the point that their military has been purely defensive in nature since WWII.

 

What is the equivalent of Nazism in Afghanistan?  Islam.  Islam calls upon its followers to subdue or kill infidels.  Unlike Nazism, Islam is a religion and thus purging it is disallowed by American attitudes toward religious freedom, even a religion that calls upon its adherents to slay all Jews.  Dying while killing infidels is a guaranteed path to paradise.  If one is unwilling to practice forced conversion - which is what Muslims have done to conquered lands over the centuries - then the next best option is to install a dictator who will oppress the people.  A Hosni Mubarak or a Muammar Gaddafi are far preferable to the Mullahs of Iran or the anarchy of Afghanistan.

 

Trump's plan, though an improvement on Obama's, is no more likely to succeed.  If you don't fight the ideas that inspire the terrorists, you aren't fighting to win.  Even Turkey, the best example of a Westernized Islamic country, has suffered backsliding and is likely to de-Westernize in the coming years.  Islam is not compatible with Western values and never will be.  All these politicians who proclaim that Islam is a religion of peace and the terrorists and their ilk have been misinterpreting it for 14 centuries are delusional.  I'm willing to bet that Osama bin Laden the lifelong Muslim had a stronger understanding of Islam than George W. Bush the Methodist.

 

Winning requires tactics that no one will implement.  Therefore, we will not win.  We can only contain and suppress.

Valerie Plame Redux

Remember when Robert Novak mentioned Valerie Plame, wife of Joe Wilson, in an article.  This mention soon became a national scandal that put Scooter Libby in jail and painted the Bush Administration as bullying Wilson's wife to get revenge for his contrary report on Nigerian yellow cake.  As the story goes, Plame was a CIA agent and releasing her name made her a target.  Also, it's illegal to reveal the identity of an undercover agent.  Of course, she wasn't undercover and the law didn't apply.  Also, it was eventually revealed that Richard Armitage - not Scotter Libby - leaked her name to Novak.  But, as mentioned, that wasn't illegal and thus he was never prosecuted.  This faux scandal spawned a movie (Fair Game, 2010).  What we can glean from this is that the press takes it extremely seriously if a CIA agent is revealed, even if that agent is not covert.

 

Last week, the Obama Administration revealed the name of the Afghan CIA station chief, a person who is (was) covert.  Unlike Plame, this is a real leak.  Where is Patrick Fitzgerald?  Clearly, someone in the Obama Whitehouse needs to be jailed and the rest of the administration needs to be harassed.  What, the story is over already?  Didn't the Plame story go on for months and years?  Did someone at least get fired?  No?

 

It is good to see the press showing balance in how they treat a Republican administration vs. a Democrat administration.