AP Suppresses the Truth

For John, BLUF:  If we can't use correct terms we can not effectively communicate ideas.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Bipartisan House Coalition Urges AP to Change Stylebook Rule Advising Against ‘Terrorist’ Term for Hamas

Here is the sub-headline:

“The decision by the AP to avoid using terms such as ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorist’ due to their perceived politicization is deeply unsettling.”

From Legal Insurrection, by Blogger Stacey Matthews, 23 December 2023 at 06:00pm.

Here is the lede plus two:

For several decades now, the Associated Press Stylebook has become the gold standard among many mainstream media organizations for, among other things, guidance on terminology that they suggest journalists should either use or avoid using when covering stories.

Unfortunately, this has meant that these same outlets over the years have willingly subjected themselves to falling in line with the AP‘s politically motivated evolution on the use of words like “abortion,” “riots,” “man” and “woman,” and even “the,” an evolution that conveniently almost always seems to match up with whatever Democrats and their affiliated special interest groups happen to be calling for at any given time.

As Legal Insurrectionc reported in October, the AP was, per their Israel-Hamas Topical Guide, only allowing their reporters to refer to Hamas terrorists as “militants,” “fighters,” “attackers,” or “combatants” despite confirmed reports of the atrocities committed against 1,400 Israeli civilians, including kidnapping, torture, rape, murder, and the beheading of infants.

At the risk of appearing arrogant, I would posit that the Hamas strategy is to evoke an over reaction from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamib "Bibi" Netanyahu, thus garnering condemnation on the part of other nations, isolating Isreal on the international stage.  How would one provoke Bibi?  Through acts of depravity against the Israeli People.  In common parlance this is terrorism.

So, why is the AP (and others, like the BBC) avoiding words like "terror"?  I would say it is a way to clean up Hamas and make them more attractive to the West.  Change them from the ruthless fighters they are into peaceful people yearning ot be free and forced by circumstaances to kill their oppressors.  It is a much better sounding story.  Yes, it is a distortion of the truth, but for a "good cause".

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Avoiding the Term Terrorism

For John, BLUF:  To not properly name something is to not understand it.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Yes, Hamas is Legally, Morally, and Factually a Terrorist Organization

From Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks, by Jonathan Turley, 25 October 2023.

Here is the lede plus three:

Below is my column in the New York Post on the Associated Press guideline for reporters to avoid calling Hamas a terrorist organization.  Voice of America and other media outlets have made the same decision.  This is not about supporting the Palestinian cause.  It is about correctly describing a group that commits terrorist attacks as a terrorist organization.

Here is the column:

Confucius once said that “the beginning of wisdom is the ability to call things by their right names.” That does not appear to be the approach of the Associated Press this week after the media organization told its reporters not to call Hamas fighters “terrorists” after they massacred civilians, raped women, and took a couple hundred hostages from Israel on Oct. 7.

I urge you to read the whole thing.  And to contemplate the slippage in our national media as a source of solid information for our American Citizens and their decision making.

To deny that Hamas used terrorism on 7 October is to obscure the brilliance of their action.  They have pub Israel in an awkward poosition.  The brutality of of the attack demands a reaction, and a strong reaction.  However, too much of a reactioon would bring the condemnatioon of the world.  As it is, before Israel started its ground incursioon into Gaza, there were large demonstratioons on various US Ivy League Campuses in favor of, believe it or not, Hamas.♠ 

Since "war is the continuation of politics by other means"♥, a goal of Hamas is to garner world wide support for an independent Palestine on the land now making up israel.  To deny that this is terrorism is to fail to understand what is going on and to try and make it into something it is not.  Again quoting Carl von Clausewitz and On War.

The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish by that test the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature.

Name it and know it.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  While the Students may not realize it, by chanting "From the River to the Sea, Palestine must be free" they are calling for the elimination of Isrsel as a state and the death of the seven million Jews living there.  Not very attractive.
♥  Carl von Clausewitz, On War.

The Eye for the Long Term

For John, BLUF:  A lot of us go for the quip that captures the moment, but ignores the long run.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

It’s time to admit it:  Mitt Romney was right about Russia

From CNN, by Editor-at-large Chris Cillizza, 22 February 2022, 3:42 PM EST.

Here is the lede plus three:

A decade ago, Mitt Romney went on CNN and made a statement that was widely perceived as a major mistake.

“Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe,” Romney, who would be the Republican presidential nominee in the 2012 race against President Barack Obama, told Wolf Blitzer in March of that year.  “They — they fight every cause for the world’s worst actors.”

Obama and his team pounced on the comment, insisting that it showed Romney was hopelessly out of touch when it came to the threats facing the US.

In the third presidential debate between the two candidates in October 2012, Obama went directly after Romney for that remark.  “When you were asked, ‘What’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America,’ you said ‘Russia.’  Not al Qaeda; you said Russia,” Obama said.  “And, the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

That is the way it is with National Security, with Foreign Affairs.  There are the immediate threats and there are the long term threats, the threats that existed decades ago and will still exist decades from now.  We should remember that 400 years ago China was the world's largest economy and 500 and some years ago China had the biggist "Truasure Fleet", in numbers and in size of ships.  China dismantled that fleet and it is taking a long time to recover.

It is nice to see CNN admit this error of the moment, back a decade ago.

Regards  —  Cliff

President Putin's Options

For John, BLUF:  Some political leaders achieve success by not doing what is expected, rather by doing what is not expected.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Outlier: What if Putin’s Real Target isn’t Ukraine?

From The Cipher Briefby Mr Tim Willsey-Wiley,♠ 4 Febrruary 2022.

Here is the lede plus three:

We have a long history of misreading Russian intentions.  The classic example was the judgement by the British Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) that Russia would not invade Czechoslovakia in 1968; based on a westernised view that it would not be in Moscow’s interests.  Similar misjudgements were made in the prelude to Putin’s annexation of the Crimea in 2014.

Vladimir Putin calculated this winter as the ideal time to confront the West over those parts of the former Soviet Union which he believes should still be in Moscow’s sphere of influence.  Winter inevitably puts Europe’s energy market under stress.  Meanwhile NATO has just made a humiliating and chaotic exit from Afghanistan led by a United States president who is struggling in the polls.

Having identified the best moment Putin followed up by mobilising an army of some 130,000 troops in midwinter, distributed in pockets along Ukraine’s borders with Russia and Belarus.  Putin never places great belief in diplomacy but he is willing to go through the motions because he does set store by assembling retrospective justification for any future action.  In the unlikely event of a major Western concession, he would be willing to stand down the army but the strong probability is that he will use it to facilitate a tangible political and military result.

The assumption of everyone in the West is that Ukraine is the target for either an invasion or an incursion. However, none of the options looks particularly good.  Yes, Russian troops could probably dash the 240 miles from Belarus to Kiev and seize the capital.x  But they would be unable to subjugate the whole of Ukraine, especially west of Kiev, and the invasion could lead to a long and costly insurgency.  Alternatively, Putin could try and capture Ukraine’s coast and the port of Odessa but it would leave a long strip of land to defend against future Ukrainian counter-attacks.

It is a short article and I save the two options the author suggests for your reading.

They are a couple of interesting options.

One wonders if he attended some course somewhere that taught about Australian Author Edward de Bono's Lateral Thinking.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Tim Willasey-Wilsey served for over 27 years in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He is now Visiting Professor of War Studies at King's College, London.

Slight of Hand

For John, BLUF:  Sometimes, when talking about the US Defense Budget, advocates will compare it to the rest of the descretionary budget, rather than the whole Federal budget.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

My vote? Cut Pentagon Bloat!

From an EMail from Peace Action, by Ms Lilly Dragnev, Friday, 28 May 2021.

Here is the letter I received:

Dear Cliff,

President Biden’s FY 2022 budget is scheduled to be released today.  In it, he is requesting $753 billion for the Pentagon, a $13 billion increase over Trump’s last budget!

The real work begins in Congress, however.  Soon the Congressional debate will begin about where to actually allocate our taxpayer dollars.  We need to take this moment to collectively call for their use on sorely underfunded human needs over more Pentagon bloat.  Today, I ask you to speak out against the billions of dollars allocated to the Pentagon year after year.  We have an opportunity to reallocate funds from the Pentagon into healthcare, infrastructure, education, racial justice, sustainable energy programs, and so much more.  Help us urge Congress to seize this important opportunity.

The U.S. spends more on its military than the next eleven countries combined.  Such consistently massive military budgets have been funding wars and overseas operations that disproportionately target and harm people of color around the world — all while simultaneously eating up funding for critical programs here at home, which then takes a greater toll on communities of color.

Even as we face a historic pandemic and another economic crisis, President Biden requested that nearly half of the budget be spent on the military-industrial complex.  He requested a whopping $13 billion more for the military than Trump did.  This increase alone is 33% greater than the entire Center for Disease Control budget! Clearly, our priorities, and certainly our true security, are misplaced.

Demand your members of Congress speak out and vote against ever-growing Pentagon spending by adding your name to this petition today!

With talk of life returning to normal, we need to remind those in charge that “normal” didn’t work for many communities — communities marginalized by the status quo of endless revenue streams toward the Pentagon and simultaneous cuts to the critical programs that could offer change.  Let’s make sure that the world we move toward as we rein in this pandemic is not one where few profit at the expense of many, but instead one in which Congress puts taxpayer dollars into the critical programs we need to help everyone thrive.

For peace and true security,

Lilly Dragnev
Peace Action

Budget numbers are tricky.  Here are the numbers from President Biden's Budget release.

ITEMS	MONIES (Billions)
Receipts	3,421
Outlays	6,550
Deficit	3,129
DISCRETIONARY
Defense	754
Non-Defense	913
MANDATORY
Social Security	1,186
Medicare	767
Medicade	518
Other	1,255
Net Interest	305

That is a lot of money.  And some of it may be optomistic.  Remember, we are talking billions of dollars.  Remember the late Senator Everett Dirksen, "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money."

This is what I wrote back to Ms Dragnev:

Lilly

Divert it for what? More domestic spying?  I hope not.  More mental health? Only if we find a program that works.  Homelessness?  I think we are avoiding the hard questions.  And, we need to agree on peace.  The idea that we will support Hamas and not Israel leaves open the question of then what?  I would propose Jewish Dakota.  Where else would they go?  Baring the Second Coming, they have to be somewhere, unless folks are advocating they be eliminated as a race.  The Corbynization of the Democratic Party is an embarrassment for those of us who had supported HHH or Shirley Chisholm or Jimmy Carter.

As for the Pentagon, we need to decide what we wish to do.  Is North Korea, nuclear armed, a threat to South Korea or Japan?  Do we care about Taiwan?  Should India be left to deal with Pakistan and China on its own?  What would that look like?  What about Ambazonia, or the larger danger of Islamification of Africa?

.

You can't rationally pick a defense budget until you have decided what it is that you wish to accomplish.  Strategy, per Colonel Arthur F Lykke, Jr, is matching ends ways and means.  I had Colonel Art Lykke as a Professor at Army War College.  I adapted his view to "Strategy is matching objectives, threats and opportunities in a resource constrained environment."  Either way, you need to nail down the objectives, the "ends".

Is there anything out there worth fighting for?

Regards  —  Cliff

Electric Cars Will Require Investment

For John, BLUF:  One wonders if the Eco-friendly have costed out their ideas?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Musk:  Electric Cars Will Require a Lot More Electric Power Than We Currently Have

From PJ Media, by Mr Bryan Preston, 1 December 2020.

Here is the lede plus several:

Tesla CEO Elon Musk says we’ll need more electricity to power cars like his.  A lot more.

Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk said on Tuesday that electricity consumption will double if the world’s car fleets are electrified, increasing the need to expand nuclear, solar, geothermal and wind energy generating sources.

Increasing the availability of sustainable energy is a major challenge as cars move from combustion engines to battery-driven electric motors, a shift which will take two decades, Musk said in a talk hosted by Berlin-based publisher Axel Springer.

There’s no unicorn energy source or free lunch.  Currently, electric cars are primarily powered by coal, natural gas, and nuclear.  Those are the sources we use to generate electricity, after all, according to the Energy Information Agency.  Renewables are growing but still account for less than 20% of U.S. electricity.

There’s no free lunch when it comes to renewable energy sources, which may not even be all that renewable.  Wind and sun are free, but the means of generating power from them are not.

I, for one, like the use of nuclear power.  While it requires care in setting up, it is a reliable and consistent source of power, and it is relatively ecofriendly.

As for the rush toward electric cars, I am hoping that we have a more indepth conversation about the future, and consider the long term, the unintended, consequences.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

It is Political Warfare Out There

For John, BLUF:  This is the view from a month ago.  It loos like the President is currently trying to make up for lost time.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

China is winning the coronavirus propaganda war

Here is the sub-headline:

Beijing deploys soft power as Europe and US fall short on solidarity.

From Politico, by Mr Matthew Karnitschnig, 18 March 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

Judging by the propaganda, this really is war.

And China is winning.

As Europe struggles to slow the spread of coronavirus and China begins to show signs that it has put the worst of the outbreak behind it, Beijing is engaging in a not-so-subtle PR campaign.

China’s main strategy is to show that the country that gave birth to the virus (and then covered it up for weeks, allowing it to spread across the globe unhindered) is on the front lines trying to save humanity, while the EU can’t get its act together and the world’s other superpower is busy pointing fingers.

Over the past few days, China has sent planeloads of masks, teams of doctors and even ventilators around the world to help battle the crisis.  Chinese billionaire Jack Ma donated one million masks and hundreds of thousands of testing kits to the U.S., with the first load arriving in Seattle on Monday.

China is engaged in political warfare.  There should be no doubt about it.  Here is an observation by an unknown commentator:

For Clausewitz, war is politics by other means.  For Sun-Tzu, politics is war by other means.

Clausewitz is, of course, Prussian War College Commandant Carl von Clausewitz, whose two hundred year old tome On War, based on his experiences fighting the French under Napoleon Bonaparte, has been studied for quite some time.  And, Sun-Tzu is the several thousand year old Chinese equivalent, but with a much shorter and more pithy book, The Art of War.

As someone said, there is a great deal to consider in this formulation, not least of which is the fundamentally divergent contexts that China and the West bring to this international competition.

We will survive the Coronavirus, but will we survive a Chinese effort against us.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Way Forward

For John, BLUF:  There seems to be a number of different views on at the way forward from here with regard to Winnie the Flu.  Fortunately, Heritage has stepped up to give us a first cut, one I like.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Heritage Coronavirus Commission Releases 5-Step Plan to Reopen America

From Pajama Media, by Opinion Writer Tyler O'Neil, 10 April 2020.

Here is the lede plus two:

On Thursday, the Heritage Foundation's National Coronavirus Recovery Commission met for the first time.  At the meeting, seventeen experts hammered out a general five-phase plan to "save lives and livelihoods" by defeating the coronavirus and jumpstarting the economy.  Vice President Mike Pence acknowledged the commission's work.

In order to slow the spread of the virus, President Donald Trump has urged Americans to stay home, practice social distancing, and avoid going into the office if their work is not "essential."  State and local leaders have issued various orders, and businesses have moved to remote work or laying off employees.  Unemployment has skyrocketed, Americans are having trouble paying rent, and millions are hoping America can reopen sooner rather than later.  President Trump originally said he hoped to reopen the country by Easter, but that seems too ambitious.

"Good public health policy is good economic policy, and vice versa," Kay Coles James, president of the Heritage Foundation, said in a statement.  "If the economy fails, there will be severe, long-term health consequences; and if the health care system fails, there will be severe, long-term economic consequences.  A nation decimated by the disease cannot have a functioning economy, and a catastrophic loss of jobs wreaks horrific damage on both mental and physical health."

Here are the five top level issues, per Heritage:

1. Regional reopening
2. Expand mitigation
3. Build the science
4. Launch an economic recovery
5. Prepare for future pandemics

It may seem obvious to you, but in our Nation's Capitol, with its usual degree of logrolling, this is a good way of getting most everyone on the same sheet of music.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Overreacting to Winnie the Flu

For John, BLUF:  Somewhere Doctor Fauci said that if it feels like you are overreacting, you are probably where you need to be.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Seattle’s Army-built field hospital is coming down without treating a single patient

From The Anchorage Daily News, by Reporter Joseph O'Sullivan (of The Seattle Times), 9 April 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

Even as some questions remain about the extent of the outbreak in Washington state, Gov. Jay Inslee Wednesday announced he would return to the federal government the field hospital recently assembled in Seattle’s CenturyLink Field Event Center to help the health care system cope with the new coronavirus.

With the USNS Comfort still stationed in New York, and the USNS Mercy in Los Angeles, Inslee's decision could mark the first return of hospital beds to the federal government during the pandemic from anywhere in the nation.

The media meme was that the President wasn't reacting quickly enough, not doing enough.  And now it looks like the President overreacted.  Not only do we have this news flash.  Midweek Politico reported, the military hospital at the Javits Center and USNS Comfort, with a combined capacity of 2,500 beds, has 66 patients at the Javits Center and 44 patients aboard Comfort.

I don't actually think the President overreacted.  He did what made sense at the time, informed by the concerns of the various State Governors.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

China's Concerns Regarding Afghanistan

For John, BLUF:  The current Administration is working on pulling US forces out of Afghanistan, where we have sunk billions of dollars, but seem unable to bring democracy and (classic) liberalism.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

China's Strategic Assessment of Afghanistan

From War on the Rocks, by Academic Yun Sun,♠ 8 April 2020.

Here is the lede plus five:

With the U.S. troop withdrawal in sight, Afghanistan's future seems less certain than ever.  As a neighboring state with significant interests at stake, how does China view and prepare for Afghanistan's future?

Since 9/11, the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan has presented a dilemma for China.  On the one hand, Beijing instinctively sees American troops in China's "backyard" as a serious strategic threat.  However, China believes that it has benefited from the security that the United States has provided there, especially in terms of curtailing the growth and spread of anti-China terrorist groups.  The implication of this dilemma is that China wants the United States to withdraw — but only when the withdrawal is responsible and does not leave a chaotic power vacuum that would destabilize the region.  The reality, however, is that the American decision regarding Afghanistan will be made in Washington — not Beijing — and that China must react to whatever moves the United States makes going forward.

The United States and the Taliban signed a peace agreement in Doha on Feb. 29, 2020.  The agreement has been met with official optimism in the United States.  China, however, is less sanguine about the agreement.  Beijing has little confidence in the internal Afghan peace process.  Instead, China expects that the U.S.-brokered agreement will lead to more instability, and that the region eventually will have to seek multilateral alternatives — including U.N. peacekeeping operations — to escape the abyss.

China's Historical Posture Toward Afghanistan

China's fundamental interest in Afghanistan is stability.  Chaos in Afghanistan, from Beijing's perspective, stokes Islamic fundamentalism that threatens domestic security in China, particularly in Xinjiang.  If anything, China is not a revisionist power in Afghanistan.  Given the choice, China would prefer to see an Afghanistan with internal stability and a functional government that is preferably but not necessarily neutral among great powers.  Having witnessed the quagmire in which Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States were each entrapped, China has always been convinced that Afghanistan is the "graveyard of empires."  Traditionally, Beijing believed that it should avoid serious entanglement in Afghan affairs at all costs.

China's overall view of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan is a mixture of conflicting factors.  On the negative side, China saw the invasion as the United States establishing a foothold in the heart of the Eurasian continent that could then be used to contain China.  Beijing views the ongoing war with the Taliban as the United States "irresponsibly" destabilizing the country and rattling the region.  From the Chinese perspective, 9/11 and the ensuing war in Afghanistan fostered the radicalization of Muslims in the region and directly contributed to the unrest in China's northwest Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region.  But, on the positive side, the Chinese have viewed America's wars since 9/11 as the best thing that has happened to China since the end of the Cold War — a god-sent "window of strategic opportunity" that gave Beijing a decade to build its strength while Washington was distracted, bogged down, and spending trillions of dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  While the United States needed China's nominal support for its war on terror, China played up the terrorist threats in Xinjiang, using the global war on terror to justify its policy in the Uighur region.

On the one hand China is concerned about Muslim radicals meddling in China internal affairs, such as the Uighur community.  On the other hand, China is no encourager of freedom and democracy.  We can expect China to try and pull Afghanistan into its Belts and Roads initiative.  But, can they export their social credit system to the very decentralized "nation" of Afghanistan.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Yun Sun is the director of the China program and co-director of the East Asia program at the Stimson Center.

The Iran Mess Here at Home

For John, BLUF:  I have been reading The New Yorker since from around 1950—or at least reading the cartoons.  It was in the living room of the house behind ours, the DeHarts on Lincoln Street.  I think it would be fair to characterize Clara DeHart as the intellectual on South Lincoln Street.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Real Backstory of Why Trump Ordered the Killing of Suleimani Is Becoming More Clear

From The New Yorker, by Writer John Cassidy, 10 January 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

The Trump-Iran story continues to develop in alarming ways.  On Thursday, reports that Western governments believe Iranian military forces mistakenly shot down a Ukrainian passenger jet, killing a hundred and seventy-six passengers and crew members, produced a predictably divided reaction.  “Innocent civilians are now dead because they were caught in the middle of an unnecessary and unwanted military tit for tat,” Pete Buttigieg, the Democratic Presidential candidate, said, on Twitter, immediately drawing cries of outrage from Trump supporters who insisted that Iran was entirely responsible.  Iran’s government dismissed the reports as disinformation.  But, if it does turn out that the Iranian military made a terrible blunder amid the frightening escalation in long-running tensions between Tehran and the Trump Administration, it will be ever more imperative to get a full account, not only of that blunder but also of the escalation.

On that subject, more disturbing details are emerging by the day.  The picture we are getting is of the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and Vice-President Mike Pence both egging on an impetuous President to launch the January 2nd drone attack that killed the Iranian military commander Qassem Suleimani at Baghdad International Airport.  None of Trump’s other senior political or military advisers, meanwhile, appear to have urged restraint, despite the near-certainty that the move would inflame the entire Middle East and provoke reprisals.  Any deliberative policymaking process appears to have been replaced by a combination of belligerence, toadyism, and saluting the Commander-in-Chief.

Really, Mr Cassidy is supporting Mayor Pete Buttigieg's contention that President Trump is responsible for the downing of the Ukranian airliner on takeoff from Tehran?  Is he willing to take it to the next step, which is, as Senator Warren suggests, that the President ordered the attack on Major General Suleimani because of the Impeachment action, a sort of Wag the Dog scenario.  Is Speaker Pelosi ultimately responsible for this?

But, more fundamental is the question of if the attack on Major General Suleimani was "an unnecessary and unwanted military tit for tat"? History tells us that this kind of targeting is not unknown:

• There was the British assisted attack (Operation Anthropoid) on Nazi SS-Gruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich, the leader of the Einsatzgruppen killing groups and the Chairman of the January 1942 Wannsee Conference, which gave us the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question"; the rounding up of all Jews in Germany and German occupied Europe, with deportation and genocide to follow.  From our perspective, a very bad person.
• There was the shootdown of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who, as Japanese Pacific commander-in-chief commanded both the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Midway.  Operation VENGEANCE, based on highly classified intelligence,♠ resulted in 339th Fighter Squadron P-38s being sent to intercept the Admiral's aircraft over Bougainville Island.♥

Notwithstanding the hagiography to be found in leading US newspapers and media outlets, General Saleimani was in fact an enemy of the United States and a very effective one.  The Iranian catch phrase, "Death to America" is a phrase from Iran familiar in the US.  Here is a Wall Street Journal article, "The Sinister Genius of Qassem Soleimani."  The sub-headline is "The Iranian commander harnessed both Shiite extremists and Sunni radicals, even as he built a 'foreign legion' to project Iran's power."  We are talking about a genius, a genius who kept us hopping for two decades.  We have heard the line about him being responsible for 600 American dead.  The real issue is the thousands of Iraqis who died because of General Suleimani's genius for irregular warfare.  Taking him off the table only makes sense.

"Why now" asks Senator Warren and others.  Why now is that it is time to put a stake in the ground over the increasing escalation of actions by Iran over the last nine months:

• 7 May — United Arab Emirates claims four commercial ships “were subjected to sabotage operations.”
• 13 June — Two oil tankers near strategic Strait of Hormuz hit, leaving one ablaze and adrift as 44 sailors are evacuated from both vessels.
• 20 June — Iran’s Revolutionary Guard shoots down a U.S. military surveillance drone.  President Trump lets it pass.
• 1 July — Iran follows through on a threat to exceed the limit set by the nuclear deal on its stockpile of low-enriched uranium, which is used for civilian applications
• 14 Sept. — A drone attack on Saudi oil facilities temporarily cuts off half the oil supplies of the world’s largest producer, causing a spike in prices.
• November — Protests break out in some 100 cities and towns in Iran after authorities raise the price of gasoline.  Scale of protests and resulting crackdown hard to determine as authorities shut down internet for several days.  Amnesty International estimates more than 300 people killed.
• 27 Dec. — A US contractor is killed and several American and Iraqi troops are wounded in rocket attack on a base in northern Iraq.  US blames the attack on Kataeb Hezbollah, one of several Iran-backed militias operating in Iraq.
• 29 Dec. — US hits Kataeb Hezbollah positions in Iraq and Syria, killing at least 25 fighters and bringing vows of revenge.
• 31 Dec. — Hundreds of Iran-backed militiamen their supporters barge through an outer barrier of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and hold two days of violent protests, smashing windows, setting fires and hurling rocks.

I will admit there is a down side.  Per The Daily Mail, out of the UK, "Protesters in Tehran clash with riot police as they demand the Ayatollah RESIGNS and call for regime change after Iran finally admits to shooting down jet and killing 176 people."  I blame President Trump.  Heck, protestors were even avoiding stepping on the US and Israeli flags.  And, to stir up the problem, President Trump even tweeted out a greeting to the protestors ("To the brave and suffering people of Iran:  I have stood with you since the beginning of my presidency and my government will continue to stand with you.  We are following your protests closely.  Your courage is inspiring").  The Democrat Presidential Candidates?  Crickets.

Did it make us safer?  Yes.

There has been questions as to if the President has done the appropriate notices to the US Congress.  I think that the answer is yes, both in terms of the law and in terms of precedent, set by those who occupied the Oval Office before him.

Opponents of the President have asserted that he, and his Administration, has no strategy.  It appears to me to be restraint, but responses to attacks targeting Americans and killing them.  We will support our allies, but at the same time, scale down our deployments in the Middle and Near East. 

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  The British were very concerned about the use of ULTRA signals intelligence for this particular raid.  It caused tension in the ULTRA intelligence sharing arrangement.
♥  There has been some controversy in the award of credit for shooting down Admiral Yamamoto's aircraft.  This Blogger was part of a three member panel that reviewed the evidence back in the mid-1980s.

Cooking With Gas

For John, BLUF:  In my mind the expression Cooking with Gas emerges from my childhood, when it signified that one was now on the right path to success.  Apparently no longer.  That said, this might make the people of North Andover happy.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

No more fire in the kitchen:  Cities are banning natural gas in homes to save the planet

From USA Today, by Ma Elizabeth Weise, 10 November 2019.

Here is the lede plus six:

Fix global warming or cook dinner on a gas stove?

That’s the choice for people in 13 cities and one county in California that have enacted new zoning codes encouraging or requiring all-electric new construction.

The codes, most of them passed since June, are meant to keep builders from running natural gas lines to new homes and apartments, with an eye toward creating fewer legacy gas hookups as the nation shifts to carbon-neutral energy sources.

For proponents, it's a change that must be made to fight climate change. For natural gas companies, it's a threat to their existence.  And for some cooks who love to prepare food with flame, it's an unthinkable loss.

Natural gas is a fossil fuel, mostly methane, and produces 33% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.  Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas causing climate change.

“There’s no pathway to stabilizing the climate without phasing gas out of our homes and buildings.  This is a must-do for the climate and a livable planet,” said Rachel Golden of the Sierra Club’s building electrification campaign.

These new building codes come as local governments work to speed the transition from natural gas and other fossil fuels and toward the use of electricity from renewables, said Robert Jackson, a professor of energy and the environment at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California.

We have not gotten to the stage where households are being forced to convert away from gas for cooking, but it does mean developers are being incentivized to switch to electric.

I wish the article had talked to the question of alternative electricity generation being brought on line to meet the deficit as gas goes away.  Is anyone doing any forward planning?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Wither the US in Afghanistan?

For John, BLUF:  What are we going to do about our nearly two decade engagement in Afghanistan, an engagement costing us billions of dollars and hundreds of US lives, Military and civilian?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here are conflicting views on Afghanistan; should we stay or should we go.

The first submission is from Professor Andrew J Bacevich, writing for The LA Times, 10 September 2019.  Professor Bacevich is a retired US Army Colonel.

Trump’s Afghanistan ‘peace’ will be Vietnam all over again:  A mess America leaves behind

Here is the second submission, from two Afghan tour Army Officer Kevin Carroll, a Lawyer and previously senior counselor to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly.  His opinion piece appeared in The Washington Examiner on 11 September 2019.

In canceling on the Taliban, Trump dodged a bullet aimed at his legacy

Here is the introduction to the Bacevich article:

On the day that Saigon fell, and the conflict that the Vietnamese call the American War ended, I was a captain in the U.S. Army attending a course at Ft. Knox, Ky.  One of my classmates — let’s call him Nguyen — was a captain in the Army of the Republic of Vietnam.  I wanted at least to acknowledge the magnitude of the disaster that had occurred.

“I’m sorry about what happened to your country,” I told him.

In my dim recollection, he didn’t even bother to reply.  He simply looked at me with an expression both distressed and mournful.

Our encounter lasted no more than a handful of seconds.  Today I recall my presumptuous apology with a profound sense of embarrassment and even shame.  Worse still was my failure — inability? refusal? — to acknowledge the context:  The United States had, over years, inflicted horrendous harm on the people of South Vietnam.

It’s a wonder Capt.  Nguyen didn’t spit in my eye.

Our war in Indochina — the conflict we call the Vietnam War — officially ended in January 1973 with the signing in Paris of an “Agreement Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam.”  Under the terms of that fraudulent pact, American prisoners of war were freed and the last U.S. combat troops left for home.  Primary responsibility for securing the Republic of Vietnam thereby fell to ARVN.

Meanwhile, despite a nominal cessation of hostilities, approximately 150,000 North Vietnamese regulars still occupied a large swath of South Vietnamese territory.  In effect, our message to our enemy and our ally was this:  We’re outta here; you guys sort this out.  In a bit more than two years, that sorting-out process would extinguish the Republic of Vietnam.

And so again today.  At the end of the 17th year of what Americans commonly call the Afghanistan War — one wonders what name Afghans will eventually assign it — U.S. military forces are moving on.  However we might define Washington’s evolving purposes in its Afghanistan War — “nation building,” “democratization,” “pacification”— the likelihood of mission accomplishment is nil.  As in the early 1970s, so in 2019, rather than admitting failure, the Pentagon is changing the subject and once again turning its attention to “real soldiering,” which means refocusing on Russia and China.

Here is Mr Carroll's first six paragraphs:

President Trump’s secret plan to meet the Taliban at Camp David, to negotiate the withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan, shows his misunderstanding of our enemy’s character and dangers they pose to the United States.

I was an Army veteran and junior associate at a Wall Street law firm on Sept. 11, 2001.  Like most New Yorkers, I lost friends that day.  Fortunately, I held a reserve commission, so I could simply volunteer for duty, and I did so on Sept. 12.  I served twice, briefly, in Afghanistan, although I never fired a shot in anger.

No veteran should purport to represent the views of all who served, and none ought to presume to speak for the fallen.  Yet Saturday’s news gave me, and many Americans of all backgrounds, pause at how confused we have become.

It is not wrong to pursue peace with enemies; American diplomats coolly negotiated with communists from North Korea and North Vietnam in Panmunjom and Paris.  But for Trump to invite the Taliban to Camp David was a mistake — as if Chamberlain had invited Hitler to Chequers.

Any veteran can tell you about the Taliban’s depravity.  Around the time of my second tour, the Taliban bombed a nearby girls' school, disfiguring its students by throwing acid in their faces; they wired a baby donkey with explosives, to lure the children of a local police official from their home and kill them; elsewhere, they attacked new mothers, their babies, and staff at a maternity clinic.

These are not traditional military enemies.  To invite such people to the weekend family home of presidents since Franklin Roosevelt, in an admitted attempt to obtain a political goal before an upcoming domestic election, is just a bad idea — in poor taste, to put it mildly.

I see both sides of this issue and don't like any of the answers, especially because it is bigger than Afghanistan.  There is Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI, which runs a lot of what happens in Afghanistan.  Will that change.  Then there is the Whabbi branch of Islam in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.  What are their longer terms goals?  We need to know more.

Regards  —  Cliff

The State of the Union

For John, BLUF:  I give kudos to the Democrats for strategic thinking in this instance.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Breaking:  Pelosi Asks Trump To Postpone SOTU Until Gov’t Reopens

Here is the sub-headline:

Update:  Dems Planned Move For “Months”?

From Hot Air, by Cap't Ed Morrissey, 16 January 2019.

Here is the key Constitutional passage from Wikipedia:

The address fulfills rules in Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, requiring the President to periodically "give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

For a long time the State of the Union was sent as a written document.  President after President did it the way G Washington did it.  Then came along Woodrow Wilson, who decided to do it in person.  I don't see that as a permanent change.

My solution is for the President to write up the State of the Union and mail it off to the Speaker of the House and Senate President.  Then he should sit down and do a live broadcast, from behind the Resolute Desk, in the Oval Office.

My wife favors the letter route, but thinks he should then go to the Senate Chamber and deliver the message live to the Senators, given that a majority might actually listen to and appreciate his message.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

UPDATE:  This seems to have disappeared and is being resurrected.

Regards  —  Cliff

Clueless at Politico

For John, BLUF:  General Robert E Lee had a pre-Civil War mindset, in which his ultimate loyalty was to his home state of Virginia, rather than the Federal United States of America.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Trump praises Robert E. Lee during Ohio rally

From Politico, by Writer Brent D Griffiths, 12 October 2018.

However, here is the rest of the story:

President Trump, rightly, praises the Generalship of Robert E Lee.
But, it is a setup.
It is so the President can then heap even more praise on Ohioan Ulysses S Grant, as the general President Lincoln picks to lead the Army of the Potomac in defeating the genius, Lee.

I guess that a balanced approach to history is no longer an American virtue.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Trump's World, and We Live In It

For John, BLUF:  Folks can denigrate the President all they want, but he is still the President.  Perhaps more can be accomplished by working with him, rather than just putting him down.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

TRUMP AND THE END OF SMUGNESS

From War on the Rocks, an on-line Magazine on National security, by senior fellow and director of the Asia program at Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, Devin T Stewart, 11 October 2018.

Here is the lede plus two:

Like most Democrats, I reacted to the stunning 2016 election of Donald Trump with a combination of confusion and dread.  After all, Hillary Clinton was the favorite and, to Democrats like me, a Trump victory seemed to portend certain economic disaster, nuclear war, and pretty much the end of America as we knew it.

But now nearly two years into his administration, Trump has presided over a “winning streak” that includes a booming economy and stock market, an unemployment level at a nearly 50-year low, two Supreme Court appointments, no new foreign wars or domestic terrorist attacks emanating from abroad, a significant degree of progress on trade relations with Canada and Mexico, a “needed reset” on the China relationship, and the prospect of peace on the Korean Peninsula.

Perhaps it is time that even his opponents reconsider Trump.  Does Trump have a strategy that we can describe? Is Trump a return of Richard Nixon, of Ronald Reagan, or of something else entirely?  After several months of watching the news without gaining any answers, I finally canceled my cable subscription and sought out other sources.  I found some insights in unexpected places.

You will have to read the article to find the places Mr Steward rummaged around.  The magazine is free on line.

Here is the author's conclusions.  It is a call to recognize him, and his approach, for who he is and what it is.  The world President Trump inherited is not the world of 1990 and perhaps the approaches of 1990 no longer apply.

This essay was an attempt to put concepts to Trump’s actions, to describe Trump in a new way.  Critics may argue that in fact Trump is a narcissistic megalomaniac who likes strongmen, but no one can actually know what he is thinking. They should give up on the efforts at amateur psychoanalysis.  If the political opposition wants to gain any ground, it needs to look for patterns in Trump’s actions and understand what it’s up against.  Most of all, Trump’s opponents should stop their condescending attitude.  Put up against Trump’s growing string of successes, such an attitude will ring increasingly hollow.  For now at least, the era of smugness is over.

I wish the era of smugness was over.  There are too many important issues we all need to be engaged on.

As an aside, you can get WOTR delivered to your in-basket daily.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Responses to Provocations

For John, BLUF:  It is like when you are young and your younger sibling is trying to provoke you.  You want to slug the dear, but that might not be the proper response.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here's How U.S.-North Korea Crises Typically End

From The Atlantic, by Reporter Uri Friedman, 7 February 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

How will the standoff over North Korea's nuclear weapons end?  Will Kim Jong Un buckle under pressure and roll back his nuclear program, or will he press forward in completing an arsenal that can threaten the whole world?  Will Donald Trump make good on his threats to take military action against the North, or will he focus on deterring Kim from ever using his nukes?

It's impossible to answer these questions with certainty.  But it's possible to find clues in the historical record.  And history suggests that the current crisis is unlikely to devolve into fighting—that the more probable outcome is one or both leaders backing down and reaching a compromise.

Long before North Korea was antagonizing America with missile and nuclear tests, it was seizing American spy ships, downing American planes, and hacking American soldiers to death.  In 2007, the Congressional Research Service catalogued well over 100 North Korean provocations against the United States and its allies over the previous 57 years, ranging in severity from the digging of a cross-border tunnel to the invasion of South Korea in 1950.  That invasion sparked a three-year war that left millions dead. Since then, however—from the bombing of a South Korean airplane in 1987 to the more recent sinking of a South Korean warship and shelling of a South Korean island in the same year—no North Korean provocation has resulted in a major military conflict.

There is the long history, at the link embedded above, to the shorter history in the article, but here is the article's conclusion:

Donald Trump has argued that episodes such as the Pueblo and EC-121 crises have led the Kim regime to interpret "America's past restraint as weakness"—and that it "would be a fatal miscalculation" for Kim to draw the same conclusions this time around.  But Trump nonetheless confronts the same conundrum that Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton all confronted well before North Korea had nuclear weapons.  To paraphrase Henry Kissinger, the least-risky military options are insufficient to meet the challenge from North Korea and the sufficient military options are very risky.  And even if the military plans are limited, the planners must be prepared for unlimited war on the Korean peninsula.  Since the horror of the Korean War, no U.S. leader has been willing to assume those risks. Not yet, at least.

My strategic advice to the President♠ is to stick with deterrence and sanctions, but to be ready to support South Korea in any response needed to a provocation.  If Kim Jung-un attacks the US or Japan then we should go with a proportional response led by the US.

Regards  —  Cliff
-2, Sun 4.10

♠  Worth what he paid for it.

The Foreign Policy War Within

For John, BLUF:  Is this not the "Deep State" at work?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Secret Message in Trump’s National Security Strategy

This is from World Politics Review and Ms Frida Ghitis, on 21 December 21, 2017.

Here is the lede plus one:

This week, U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled his National Security Strategy in a speech that touted the new agenda while at the same time contradicting key elements of the very strategy he was outlining.  Among many policy professionals, the document produced an array of opinions, from alarm by those who pointed to sharp departures from traditional positions, to relief that it proposes a rather traditional conservative philosophy on national security.  There is an explanation for the conflicting views by observers and the verbal self-punching by the president:  The National Security Strategy thinly conceals an important secret about foreign policy in the age of Trump.

If you read it carefully, you’ll find the message the authors—people who have distinguished careers in national security—slipped into the pages.  It says, “We’re still here.  We still know what matters.  We understand the country’s security risks and strategic priorities. And we know how to operate under this president.”

This reminds me of the line from Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds, the InstaPundit.  “If you want more Trump, this is how you get more Trump.”

If the National Security Advisor H R McMaster was hoping to use the NSS to guide the President in certain directions, then this exposes him as a manipulator, and that is not good.  It will make “guiding” that much harder.

If this was just the “Deep State" showing how smart they are, then this makes them look like they have overreached.

Writing an article like this makes the Reporter, Ms Frida Ghitis, look very bright and well connected, but it just sets us up for more conflict between the President and those who are resisting his agenda.  Unless the writer expects the President to fall from office before Teresa May, this is poor form.

Then there is this final paragraph:

While the Trump administration is decidedly sui generis, unlike any administration in recent memory, its National Security Strategy is far from a departure.  That, however, does not mean that Trump’s strategy will hew close to what the document actually outlines.  Instead, it suggests that there are two main streams of thought within the administration.  Of course, it is the president himself who espouses views out of the mainstream and ultimately sets policy.  But the authors of this new strategy, and the people who work for them, have reminded us that they did not subsume their principles and their ideals to their current boss.  They are still there, they have whispered in this document, doing what they can to keep the ship of state afloat.

I always thought the idea was that if you couldn’t support your boss you resigned, rather than trying to undermine him. If these folks really had principles they would be gone. I guess that is just quaint in this day and age.

Regards  —  Cliff

Impeachment the New Normal?

For John, BLUF:  This is how divorce begin.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

NORMALIZING IMPEACHMENT

Posted at Power Line Blog on 22 December 2017, by Mr Paul Mirengoff..

This is how the Post ends:

In a two-term presidency, it’s normal now for the House to be in control of the opposing party for a spell.  Thus, again assuming Democrats wouldn’t pay a perceived political price for impeaching Trump, impeachment proceedings might well become the norm.

Such an America wouldn’t exactly be a banana republic.  That requires actual coups, not serial unsuccessful use of a procedure provided for by the Constitution.  But an America where impeachment becomes the norm, with all of the attendant wasted motion and ugliness, would be a farcical Republic, and the bad blood generated by serial impeachments might lead to tragedy.

JOHN adds:  I don’t think there is any doubt that the Democrats will impeach the president if they win a majority in the House next November, even if it is by a single vote, and even though they don’t have remotely plausible grounds.  I agree wholeheartedly with Paul’s view of the dangerous direction in which we are heading, but the Democrats are too far gone in hate and lust for power to care.  Politically, we are living in sad times.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Afghanistan?

For John, BLUF:  This is costing us lives and hundreds of millions.  Is it worth it?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

It's Your Forever War Now, Mr. Trump

The author of this article is Georgetown Law Professor Phillip Carter and it is published by Slate.

It is about Afghanistan.

And, it is about strategy.  As framed by Phil it is matching Ends, Ways and Means.

I think that the Ends, Ways and Means construct doesn't quite capture it.  I prefer "Matching Objectives, Threats and Opportunities in a Logistically constrained environment."

I do like the Leon Trotsky quote.

According to legend, Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky famously said that “you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

So it is with Afghanistan and the Trump administration, which is reportedly considering a recommitment to the 16-year-old war in Afghanistan, as well as the deployment of 3,500 more U.S. troops.  None of this squares with President Donald Trump’s campaign pledge of an “America First” foreign policy, nor with his healthy skepticism of how America’s long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were managed under Presidents Bush and Obama.  No matter.  The Afghanistan conflict grinds on, and although Trump may not be interested in the details of this war, the war is interested in Trump.

We, as a nation, need to think about Afghanistan, and we need to think about the willingness of certain Islamic groups to use force (e.g., Terrorism) to achieve their goals.

This means that we need to understand how Islam functions and Islam evolves.  Islam is not us, in the sense that Islam is a different socio-political milieu from our own Western World.  Not that Muslims can't be part of our milieu, but an Islamic tribal society does not fit easily into our way of doing business.

If anyone is interested in this, I recommend they read this short article at The Strategy Bridge by Dr Janet Breslin-Smith.

A Response to "U.S. Strategy for al Qaeda and ISIS: It’s Groundhog Day"

My favorite sentence is:

My argument comes down to this:  we cannot do for anyone what they cannot do for themselves.

To be fair, Janet has been thinking about this for a while and she sees problems in Middle Eastern Muslim Societies.  These are problems that we can not fix.  They must fix them themselves.

Regards  —  Cliff