The road to Hell is trod by (reduced) Carbon Footprints

The linked article on “The Low-Carbon Economy” is distressing to me, as is anything with the potential to mess up my life.  Not being of the hair-shirted climate change self-flagellate persuasion, I have not bought into the “climate change” dogma prevalent today, and therefore look very closely at anything coming from “experts” (I’m sick of inverted commas already in the first paragraph) that has the potential to affect me.

The Economy is a nebulous phantasm at the best of times, as is anything which deals with abstracts. The abstracts here are trillions of units of fiat currencies, the default reserve currency still (at time of writing) the $US.  Whatever it is, billions and trillions of these notional credit instruments flash electronically around the globe daily, and somehow maintain everyone’s confidence that we know what we’re doing. 

2008 was the most recent time the wheels came off (or the bubble burst, choose your metaphor) but you can expect some sort of serious economic reverse roughly every decade.  I understand in general how this works, but one of the things I understand very definitely is that people supposedly much smarter than me use financial instruments of their own clever devising to manipulate these money flows for their own benefit.

This entire Sci-Am article is a study in rent-seeking, which sums up the entire Carbon Trading and Green Energy industries as far as I can tell.   As I’ve said many times before, a lot of these Greens are really Watermelons (Green on the outside, Red on the inside) and have ridden this bandwagon for all it’s worth as a means of wealth distribution from First to Third World countries.  An example:

Using green bonds and modified insurance portfolios
If the top financial layer includes big institutional investors and banks, then a second tier of untapped finance lies with insurance companies extending policies to the most vulnerable populations in the developing world.

Through the use of mobile phone-based services and micro-credit institutions, a great deal of insurance has already been extended to what Jim Roth of LeapFrog Investments calls the “emerging consumer.” Over the past eight years, the social investment fund has backed a portfolio of companies selling insurance products totaling $40 million, of which $33 million went to low-income consumers in Africa and Asia.

“It’s an optimistic story,” said Roth, noting that the vast majority of those consumers had never owned insurance before.

“A key difference is they have less money. So the kinds of insurance policies they can buy tend to have lower premiums and less benefits.”

Governments in the developing world are also now pooling their resources into sovereign insurance funds that make payouts for climate adaptation programs, said Fatima Kassam of the African Risk Capacity Insurance Co., a specialized agency of the African Union. Niger received a $25 million payout last year, having paid in with a $3 million premium. “Governments are coming together to change the model on disaster management,” said Kassam.

Let’s be clear about one thing to explain why I’m so bent about this sort of foolishness.  The “insurance” is for climate change adaptation/mitigation.  Since “climate change” can mean literally anything at all that weather/climate does, no traditional insurance company (i.e. one which intends to stay in business) would write policies like this. This is very thinly-disguised wealth transfer.

 

The problem is that despite quantitative easing and no physical standard for our notional currencies, “wealth” is a zero-sum game; the wealth has to come from someone.  I am NOT a redistributionist; “law and order Libertarian” is probably closer to the mark, so I object to beggaring ourselves to make African kleptocrats richer.   

Green energy policies in the UK dramatically raised electricity prices as subsidized (to the producers) wind projects were forced into the market. Although this is now easing, it took clawing back the policies that started it, and similar things have happened in other places too.  Coal is the big thing to hate these days (Obama leading the pack) but it has the advantage of being cheap and abundant.  It’s also dirty, but modern scrubbing tech cleans it up quite acceptably, at least as long as you don’t consider CO2 to be pollution. 

This is where activists end up eventually, when all of the low-hanging fruit has been picked.  Back in the 1960s and 70s pollution was a real problem, and people rightly took action to clean it up. With the sulfur dioxide (acid rain) dealt with in the 1980s, North America and Europe ran out of serious, widespread environmental pollution sources.  Coincidentally or not, this is right when Global Warming popped on the radar as the next apocalypse.  Note that we (and both ice caps) are still here, despite all of the doom-laden pronouncements from 1988 onward.  Beware the “green intentions” of any climate lobby, and follow the money to see why people are really doing what they're doing.

Katie, bar the door.

There has been so much happening and all of it at a fair rate of change that I have had a hard time coming up with a coherent idea for a post here, but I’ll take a stab at it today.
Right now Da’esh is on the cusp of taking Kobani (spelling varies), a Kurdish village on the border with Turkey. Turkey has voted to take military action against Da’esh, bur are sitting on the border watching Da’esh overrun the town while preventing Kurds on their side of the border from getting through with reinforcements and resupply.

Turkey of course has a long violent history with the Kurds, but by their present actions they are ensuring that this continues. There are no simple solutions in that (and many other) part of the world, but if you want to move forward you have to change. Keeping the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” even under these circumstances is a sign of almost pathological hatred, and no good will come of it.
What I would do in Erdrogan’s place is push Da’esh out of a sizable chunk of the area contiguous with Iraqi Kurdistan and encourage as many Kurds as possible to move into it. This would give the Kurds what they want, rid Turkey of its’ more restive Kurdish population (non-violently) and put a stick in Assad’s spokes which Turkey is anxious to do. Looks win-win to me, certainly in relation to what they’re doing now.

The last seismic shift in boundaries in the region was WW1, this is the next one. There is no more “Syria” nor for that matter really any “Iraq”. The resulting vacuum (from failed revolution in the former and failed nation-building in the latter) will be filled by something, as Da’esh is doing right now. The one place where nation-building has a chance (few sure-things in this life) is with a self-identifying group, and the Kurds are one such. This sort of chaos doesn't have to benefit only the bad apples, but force will be required and eggs will be cracked for any such omelette. Mixed food metaphors, but you get the idea. I don’t see a good outcome to this as the will to take the action required is lacking in those who have the power and resources to make it happen.

Speaking of political will, we also have Ebola to deal with. Liberia is on the verge of total collapse, although with its’ recent history that was never too far off at the best of times. These local tragedies would be of scant concern for any other than humanitarian reasons were it not for a confluence of two features of modern life: air travel and Political Correctness.

It is abundantly clear that this is a deadly disease with a c. 40% mortality rate even if you get proper care, worse if you don’t. It’s no SARS in terms of transmission, but in the later stages of incubation all body fluids are vectors, and with fever, nausea and diarrhoea the main symptoms, there are many opportunities if you aren’t quarantined.

This is precisely what needs to be done: quarantine the region. That will be impossible to 100% enforce of course, but without an attempt it will spread everywhere. It has shown up so far in the USA, Spain and now Macedonia, and that’s just what I can remember with certainty right now. Screening measures are going into place but are easily spoofed by people taking standard anti-inflammatory meds or by people lying about their point of origin.

Some airlines have stopped going to these countries, but unless all of them do it won’t stop it. This is frightening enough, but it gets worse. Think panicked mass migration. "Katie, bar the door" indeed, but you won’t like what it would entail to do so. Positive enforcement of borders while ensuring zero entry of desperate and possibly sick people cannot end well and WOULD necessitate lethal force. The only thing which might dissuade someone facing something like Ebola from going where they think they’ll get better medical care is them knowing that they’ll be killed if they try it. What (Western) politician is willing to make THAT call?

Yeah, we’re screwed, but no change there. I may be laying in more emergency food supplies, but if I’m going to do so I’d best do it soon. Likely it won’t come to that here, but even if not I’d best lay in some ammo in case these Da’esh fanboys try to take a crack at us in our “bedrooms”.

Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse.

(It will be noted that the phrase I have used for the title didn't work out too well for the guy who originally said it, but I have more confidence in my prescriptions here.  We do this time know exactly who and what we're fighting.)

As the USA gears up at a glacial pace to do something about ISIL, Boko Haram has taken inspiration from ISIL's success of late and declared a caliphate of their own in northern Nigeria. This at first glance is alarming, (and certainly it is at the pointy end) but a closer examination of the circumstances of each shows much vulnerability for each group.

The irony of their success is that they have by acquiring property and infrastructure tied themselves down and made them easier to find and kill. Looking at the origin of these two caliphates, the essential ingredients in the constitution (making of, not document) of each is instability, diversity and incompetence.

Instability pretty much speaks for itself, as power of some sort will always fill a vacuum. Diversity was a factor as they both play on differences, mostly in religion to sow discord and divide to conquer. Incompetence is related to instability, but a competent military force can hold things together against insurgents even against a background of political instability, NATO forces in Afghanistan and French forces in Mali as recent examples.

Of possible options to salvage Nigeria, the only plausible one I see right now is a military coup. Ideal would be some sort of replacement of the current corrupt government with something else, but that's called colonialism and it's apparently a bad idea. The Nigerian Army has been starved for resources by a government (not unrealistically) afraid of letting it get too powerful. The irony of an armed takeover of much of a country which weakens its' army to prevent a military coup is not lost on me, but they may not be seeing it in that light right now.

So, the real challenge with either of these situations is not crippling the respective caliphates; that is tactically dangerous for the operators and troops, but we know how to break things. The trap is the nation-building that was tried in Afghanistan and Iraq. Northern Iraq gives us the Kurds, who are this iteration's "Northern Alliance" and if we stay in long enough to remove the existential threat to them we'll have done enough, barring some residual SOF presence to help them with flare-ups.

Nigeria is another matter. They have all of the resources (natural, financial and human) to sort this themselves so I don't see a pressing need to put our guys on the line there. It occurs to me that this is an ideal situation for mercenaries. As stated, the Nigerians have a problem which requires a military solution, but are loathe to give the military the resources necessary, thus threatening the state. Executive Outcomes isn't around anymore, but I'm sure there's someone(s) else to fill that role for the government in Abuja if the latter are willing to pay.

By Christmas the Islamic State will be a thing of the past [update 14 Oct 14: maybe not], but of course the residue will remain troublesome. Boko Haram is more complex for the simple reason that less influential (powerful) parties care enough to get involved, leaving out the attitude of the Nigerian government and Armed Forces to foreigners doing the dirty work in their country. Regardless, three weeks of professional military operations with air support and intel could bring that caliphate crashing down too. It's just a question of "who" and "when".

Reaping the Wahhabi Whirlwind

Where do I even start with this?

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- The king of Saudi Arabia has warned that extremists could attack Europe and the U.S. if there is not a strong international response to terrorism after the Islamic State group seized a wide territory across Iraq and Syria.
While not mentioning any terrorist groups by name, King Abdullah's statement appeared aimed at drawing Washington and NATO forces into a wider fight against the Islamic State group and its supporters in the region. Saudi Arabia openly backs rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar Assad, but is concerned that the breakaway al Qaeda group could also turn those very same weapons on the kingdom.
"If neglected, I am certain that after a month they will reach Europe and, after another month, America," he said at a reception for foreign ambassadors Friday.

The Saudi royal family has done more than any other agency in the world to spread the Islamic vision (Wahhabi) which brainwashes and spawns tens of thousands of jihadi head-choppers the world over, so this is pretty rich, coming from them.  For any who don't know how this works, Saudi money pays for the Wahabbi missionaries and madrassas (religious boys' schools) to spread the fundamentalist strain of Arabian Islam to the corners of the planet.    

Things are pretty dire in the region  still, but it looks like we are now in a combined rollback ("our side") and consolidation (IS).  This is a bit of good news, as taking key infrastructure back from IS, especially revenue generating stuff like oilfields and refineries, is vital to any kind of a coherent strategy to smash them and limit their ability to hurt people.

Too bad the Americans don't have a strategy.  The question of how much blood and treasure to devote to this conflict is not a simple one, but it is mostly a question of materiel (mostly JDAMs and Hellfires) which as I mentioned earlier you can get the Saudis to pay for, likewise fuel costs and maintenance.   As for the rest of it, I have a strategy for dealing with this as I'm sure the Planning elements in the Pentagon do, so this is just political incompetence. Obama's mantra for his second term seems to be "No, We Can't."

Of course they may also be distracted by the widening war in eastern Ukraine, but really that's Europe's problem.  The NATO side of it (i.e. existing members) is getting attention to tell the Russians unequivocally where the buck stops, but Putin is exploiting the EU grey area that is Ukraine.  It's a stretch to say that IS and the proxy (and increasingly direct) war for "Novorossiya" are connected, but the IS situation is certainly a distraction to the US and to some extent for NATO.

I guess it would be too much to ask that the various regions sort their own issues out, at least as long as the USA retains the global capability it still has.  This "multipolar" world still have one pole that sticks up more than the others, but it could stand a bit taller still under (sensible) decisive leadership, though that also appears too much to ask. 

It's not paranoia if they ARE out to get you

t has not escaped my notice that I am a minority viewpoint in today's society. This doesn't make me doubt myself or my views, as they are based on observation of the world as it is, not as I think it should be.

This it could be said is the difference between a conservative and other people, and indeed, this article makes that point:

Traditional conservatism, or what’s better called Toryism, is not about hiding from the scary outside world. It’s a worldview that, as A. J. P. Taylor described it, “rests on doubt in human nature; it distrusts improvement, clings to traditional institutions, prefers the past to the future.” Conservatism isn’t defined by gun-nuttery or rabid fundamentalism. It’s about prudence in the face of progressive utopianism and revolutionary fervor. When the conservative looks into the mirror, he sees a broken, fallible man capable of good, but never perfect, things. Liberals and government apparatchiks in the media don’t see him that way. Progressivism seeks to crush human nature and the idea that man isn’t meant for greatness. A progressive’s reflection never shows humility, only a hubristic belief in fixing all the world’s wrongs. For the left, right-wingers, including social conservatives, are ignorant troglodytes in need of forced enlightenment.

It continues to draw disturbing parallels between past purges of "undesirable" elements of society by various "progressive" regimes of the past and the thought-crime policing which is going on today, but you can read it there.

I'd like to say that I think the author is off his rocker/meds but I really can't. We're not at Reign of Terror level yet, but having unfashionable (but harmless) ideas can cost you your job, no small thing in today's economy. Of course this is a small price to pay for a better world, right?

The word utopia means literally "no place" since perfection cannot exist in human affairs. Make things better? Certainly better, but perfect? No. That is my troglodyteist conservativeness speaking of course, because after a certain point the quest for "equality" becomes a zero-sum game. More women in the workplace equals less men in it; not a misogynist rant, simple math. Should we hobble the potential of 50% of the population to maintain someone's advantage? I'd say no, take all the best and brightest. Well, then that disadvantages the dim and useless.

It's easy to see how equality of outcome is completely separate from equality of opportunity, as with true equality of opportunity the cream will rise to the top of whatever you're looking at. If you game the opportunity, making it "more equal" for some, it descends into farce with manifold unintended consequences. Quotas and "affirmative action" undermine any confidence in the products of a system, as you can never be sure of the quality of any member of the preferred groups. Were I a black neurosurgeon I would really resent this. Meritocracy is problematic for those who don't make the cut, but I bloody well want my doctors and engineers selected by that process.

Freedom of speech is if not dead at least gravely wounded, mainly because if you don't toe the line you'll be shouted down. Nobody debates any more as they are either too certain that they know everything or afraid to state their real views in public. None of this is new under the sun, and Voltaire would likely recognize the constraints of the current regime, having had his run-ins with l'ancien. That's progress for you.

Status of Farces

If Syria wasn't enough proof that there's no pleasing the Arab world, we have this:

Iraq's military is awaiting President Obama's decision on air strikes.
On Wednesday, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen Martin Dempsey, warned that the US military still lacked sufficient intelligence to take action. He told a congressional hearing that pilots would have difficulty knowing who they were attacking from the air.

Asked if the intervention might come too late, Gen Dempsey said: "There is very little that could have been done to overcome the degree to which the government of Iraq has failed its people. That is what has caused this problem." 

ISIS has exploited deep resentment among Iraq's minority Sunni Arabs, who have long accused Mr Maliki of discriminating against them and monopolising power.

A spokesman for Mr Maliki's Dawa party, Zuhair al-Nahar, said the prime minister had met Sunni Arab and Kurdish leaders and that they had "come out in a united stand".
"My message from all the leaders in Iraq is that they feel abandoned, that they want America, Europe, the UN, to take immediate action to rectify the military situation," he told the BBC.

Context is important here.  Al-Maliki is of course the man the US propped up (before Iran took that over) as leader of Iraq, and the same man, likely under Iranian influence, who refused to ratify a Status of Forces agreement which would maintain a US military presence in Iraq.  When you sow the wind...

The situation in Iraq is immediately dire, but as shown in advance of the Anbar Awakening, Salafist groups like Al-Queda rapidly wear out their welcome through oppressive lifestyle rules backed up by summary maimings, executions and overall thuggish behaviour.  From all accounts this current version, ISIS/L is the worst of the worst of that ilk, but with a bunch of temporary allies who will likely splinter away before too long.

ISIS' recent successes are clear evidence of the superiority of morale in warfare.  While it may not be the 3-1 vs materiel of Napoleon's aphorism, the wholesale collapse of Iraqi Army forces shows that it is a factor.  In fact, all other things being even approximately equal, it is the dominant factor.  No amount or quality of armaments will win the day for you if you cut and run.

Where things are relatively equal, good troops will hold their ground and sharp commanders will exploit opportunities, as the Kurds have done in Kirkuk.  I have no dog in this fight, but as I've said before, if "we" should support anyone there it should be the Kurds.  The Kurdistan can of worms is already open, particularly since the Syrian civil war.  They and the Turks seem to be approaching some sort of stability, and overall look to be building a decent sort of country. 

A sensible American foreign policy would have them helping people who like them, particularly as countries like that are in short supply these days.  With that fantasy out of the way, what will Obama decide to do?  Leaving aside the internal constitutionality of the President unilaterally committing military forces to foreign wars (since that seems to be the defacto situation), This is NOT Syria, and there is a side to back.  As the Kurds are also looking after refugees from Mosul, helping them also has a humanitarian dimension.  I don't know what Obama's dithering will eventaully produce, but American forces would have secure bases in Iraqi Kurdistan.  I'd start with A-10s and Apaches with associated FACs (Forward Air Controllers) and develop the situation from there.  The time for that to start was last week but it's not too late to make a difference.

As for the "rest" of Iraq, Gotterdammerung approaches.  The Sunni minority is for the moment aligned, will they or nil they, with ISIS.  This at least is the perception of the Shia majority, and perception is reality in situations like this.  At this point the only real question is the magnitude of the bloodbath.  There is not anything realistic the international community can do to prevent that, but mitigation is certainly possible.

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, but at least a less-pressing threat; here I refer to Iran.  The US is talking to them, a good thing in general, but why do I just know that the US will not manage to improve the overall situation through these contacts and common interests?  I'd like to blame this on the hardliners in the Iranian government, but...

No-one can say what things would look like in the region had the US not overthrown Saddam Hussein, but without doubt Syria was at least an indirect result of that action.  The current Iraq situation is 100% due to the situation in Syria, including the fact that ISIS had run up against too much opposition in Syria.  The low-hanging fruit of the disgruntled Sunni minority in Iraq beckoned, and since nature abhors a power vacuum, in they swept. 

As mentioned earlier, the current ISIS/Baath/Sunni coalition likely has a short half-life, I'll go with my gut and say that it'll start to crack within the next month even without external intervention.  This will be affected of course by countervailing influences of a sectarian civil war with the Shia, so moderate (reasonable) Sunnis are between a rock and a hard place for sure.  What suggests itself to me from this is to carve out a safe area contiguous with the Kurdish area for Sunni refugees.  The Kurds are the linchpin of any kind of security/stability in the region and hopefully that is realized (not rocket science; I came up with it after all) and more importantly, acted on.

 

BFFs no more, Pakistan

First I have to laugh at the ironic black humour of this:

One of the participants of the rally, Abdullah Ismail, passed away after he was taken to Mayo Hospital. Witnesses said he had complained of feeling unwell from the smoke from US flags burnt at the rally.

That's out of sequence in the linked article with the below, but ya gotta lead with something like that. The "meat" follows:

Hafiz Saeed alleged that the film, Innocence of Muslims, had been produced with the backing of US establishment. He said the director, the producer and all those involved in the production and release of the movie must be hanged publicly. “The US must make a law against blasphemy – or we will not let the US consulates in Pakistan function,” he said.

As dismal as we are at responding to the threat of Islam, I don't see that happening any time soon. Also, as things are at the moment (protests and embassy assaults all over the "Muslim" world) I think this is an easy "either/or" choice.

He said a resolution condemning the movie in the parliament was not enough. Instead, President Asif Ali Zardari must announce jihad against countries like the US that supported attacks on Islam. The Organisation of Islamic Countries Conference should announce a boycott of US goods. Ijazul Haq, the PML-Z chief, said the people had shown their loyalty to Islam. He said the government leader’s silence was shameful. He said no one had dared commit blasphemy during his father Ziaul Haq’s rule.

There we are (emphasis mine), the "j" word which useful idiots in the West refuse to understand. My response to that: "Fucking bring it, assholes." I encourage everyone in Pakistan who isn't an idiot to get the hell out if you can before these guys get their way, because I don't see things improving even if all of us infidels pack up and let the region fall (completely) apart.

It's late, but nonetheless still diplomatic triage/cost-benefit time. Afghanistan: FUBAR, leave now. Pakistan: circling the drain, leave soonest. Egypt: c. 70M people who don't like us, tread carefully with essential staff only. Libya: either "you broke it you bought it" or (my advice) write it off after busting the heads of the people who killed the US Ambassador. Tunisia: we can and should help them smack down the Salafists as there are enough people there who don't want them.

For that small sample we're 1 for 5 and I could keep going but things don't get a lot brighter with the trouble spots of Asia and the Mid East. The upshot is that "we" have limited resources and should spend them defending our actual interests and friends (e.g. Israel, Tunisia) and let the rest of them do whatever they want within their own borders, much as is happening in Syria right now.

Some people wring their hands (when they are actually paying attention) and think we should intervene there a la Libya. I say: take a look at how well that's worked out (and Iraq, and Afghanistan) and tell me again that we should take sides in this thing. Turkey, Iran and Saudi are all players in that region, I say leave them to it. Hell, those three are players in Iraq too so leave them to it. Afghanistan has China, Iran, India, Pakistan and Russia to tug at it, so why are we dragging things out.

When I was in Afghanistan five years ago these "Green on Blue" killings were essentially unheard of, now there's at least one a month. When it's at the point when you suspend training with the host nation because you're afraid they'll kill your trainers you're long past doing any good.

Back to Pakistan, where I began this. While there are elements of Pakistani society which are not inimical to our own, if we have to choose between them and, say, their great rival India, we can and should work with the latter. India is a bulwark against both radical Islam and China growing unchecked, both of which are in our interests.

Undoubtedly the Chinese would see this differently, but China shares the first problem, so all of us getting along is a plan if we can swing it. I encourage you to read "The Clash of Civilizations" by Samuel Huntington if you haven't already for a bit more in-depth realpolitik than you will get in a few posts here. There is both the original article from 1993 and the book, both worth your time.

The enemy of the friend of my enemy is my friend, right?

Right at the top of this blog is my rationale for its' existence, and here is a classic case of refusing to learn from history:

On his campaign website, Romney criticizes Obama for reaching out to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the past but stops short of calling for any direct action to force Assad from power such as directly arming the opposition, as his surrogates like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) are demanding, or establishing "safe zones" for the Syrian opposition, as many of his campaign's foreign policy advisors are calling for.

Romney's official position (or lack thereof) makes more sense to me than McCain's idea since we've been down this road before and McCain should know better. I have yet to see any realistic assessment of what may come out of Syria's "civil war" that will be a distinct improvement for the USA or anyone else whose interests jive with mine. I am reminded of a similar situation in the 1980s when it was decided (in concert with the Saudis) to arm people resisting someone we didn't like, and that has been biting the West in the ass ever since.

Yes, Afghanistan. Syria is a train wreck mishmash of people who don't get along, and a lot of them don't like "us" either. The CIA is involved again, oh happy day, "vetting" who they give weapons to. Assad is using attack helicopters now; will the CIA decide to hand out some Stingers again to help the rebels?

More recent and likely more analogous is Iraq. The Yanks didn't like Saddam (not much to like, for sure) so they regime-changed his ass. Let's look at how that worked out: nearly 40,000 Coalition (mostly American) casualties (Blood) and somewhere around $2 Trillion in financial cost (Treasure). This makes no mention of Iraqi casualties, the "cleansing" of the few remaining Christians in Baghdad, internal and external displacement of Sunnis and widespread destruction of infrastructure. All of that got the Americans none of the oil revenue (enter: China) that might have underwritten giving the Iraqis a "better" government.

Yes, it would be nice to put a stick in the spokes of Iran and by extension Hezbollah by removing Bashar & Co. but would it be worth it in the long term? Doing things half-arsed gives you Libya as it is post-NATO intervention, the full monty gives you Iraq or Afghanistan.

In the bigger picture it's not much of the Americans' concern, as there are plenty of regional powers (esp. Turkey) capable of setting up the "safe areas" or putting the coup de grace to the Assad dynasty. Supporting America's friends at this time is a better use of resources than fighting on behalf of someone who has a better-than-average chance of turning on you later on.

There are plenty of capable friendly-ish countries (Turkey, Israel and to a lesser extent Saudi and Jordan) with skin in this game. Playing this one cagey is appropriate, but Romney needs to be as clear as the circumstances permit about what he is prepared to do about it. After that be prepared to be flexible 'cause things can always change...

Allies of Inconvenience

I read yesterday about the Tuareg in northern Mali splitting with the al-Queda shitheads who have hijacked their independence campaign, but I can't find the article online so you'll have to take my word for it. It should be easy to verify if you take the time, but in any event events with the Caliphate Clowns are following their now historical pattern.

They come in, ban everything even remotely fun, smash anything that looks like someone put some effort into making it (idolatry!) and piss everyone off. This was done in Afghanistan (Taliban) Iraq (al Queda) and to some extent wherever the Islamic hardcases reach critical mass (Saudi does a reasonable approximation). The program doesn't stop with that however.

In comes the "pissing everyone off" part, and the Tuareg have now realized what sort of tiger they were riding. The Tuareg are too tough to be "eaten" by the likes of al-Queda (much better men have tried), and the refugees streaming away from the jihadis are also doing their approval polls with their feet. Conditions are being set for the one thing that weakens any sort of insurgency: it gets too strong and concentrated for its' own good.

If you lose your ability to "swim as a fish in the sea of the people" (Mao) the big guns can take you out. The Tuareg rapprochement with the international community and the southern Malians vis a vis their autonomy expectations ("like Quebec" seems to be the new version) sets the stage for somebody (USA?) to come in and kick some al-Queda ass.

The tag "unintended consequences" alludes to the position the Tuareg now find themselves in, but more so to the less proximate cause of the current Mali shenanigans, the West's regime change in Libya. The Tuareg are bandits and have been completely outgunned by the jihads loading up in Libya and rolling over the border to set up another "Islamic Republic". If we now need to go in there and kill the latter we have no one to blame but ourselves.

The Libyan Army's arsenal has scattered to the four winds, mostly ending up moving through North Africa to various Salafist organizations. Mali, Egypt, and Gaza, possibly Tunisia and Algeria too will have a lot more guns and bombs, maybe even missiles. I know what needs to be done here and I'm sure I'm not alone, but we'll see who steps in.

Declaration of War, the Short Form

For years now (predating this blog even) I have railed against the Americans' lack of sense vis a vis National or Strategic interest. This is manifest from everything they have done in the last 20 years. I say that time period, as during the preceding 40 years you could argue that the questionable regimes they propped up or overthrew were within the overall strategic design of containing Communism. When that collapsed under the weight of it's own inefficiency the Yanks started looking around for causes to replace it.

In fact the rot started before that, at the time slightly disguised as a way to stick it to the Soviets. The lack of consideration for unintended future consequences in shipping hundreds of millions of $ worth of cash and weapons to a barely (if at all) civilized group of raiders in Central Asia was truly breathtaking, but at least it was in the context of containing the Red Menace. Replacing them with the Green one wasn't the plan of course, but...

The article in The Atlantic which I linked to addresses the lack of long-term thinking that goes into the way America (and NATO by extension) fights these days. This is certainly fair, but I think it misses the bigger picture. Instead of planning as if you'll still be there in five years, ask yourself why wherever/whatever it is would be worth, in blood and treasure, getting locked up in it for years on end.

Let's imagine that the Americans broke Afghanistan's government ten years ago, laid a beating on Bin Laden's goons and then let the locals sort each other out. The whole thing as far as we're concerned would be over by spring 2002, mission (actually!) accomplished. Instead, we're here over ten years later staring down the barrel of the whole place doing exactly what I've said we should have let it do in the first place when NATO finally pulls the plug after 12-13 years in 2014 or so.

It's not a tactical problem, it's a strategic one. The trick lies in finding places that we might be able to help, not failed basket case states that will act as nationbuilding tar pits. Afghanistan? Fucked. Kosovo? Shouldn't have gotten involved, it was another "stick-it-to-the-Slavs" exercise which should have died out when Yeltsin came in. Iraq? I think we all know how big a mistake that was by now. Libya? Sure Qaddafi was a dick, but a bit of pragmatism in our foreign policy would have been in order there in view of what has happened. That one at least I am willing to wait out a bit before passing judgement, but my crystal ball has Tripolitania and Cyrenaica (at least) making a comeback...

What you want is a basically sound country with a bad government; that's a simple fix. Note however that "simple" and "easy" are not the same word; if it was easy the people would do it them selves. My example for this is Zimbabwe, albeit fixing it would require some old-school colonial-style administration while you build them a functioning government. South Sudan is another possibility, but the grand prize is Iran.

You may have noted that whenever I mention attacking Iran, it's always the Revolutionary Guard and other bulwarks of the Islamic regime, not the country itself. We can get on just fine if we clear the decks for them to have a more reasonable crew in charge of the place. There would be nary a boot on the ground, save some operators making contact with the opposition, certainly no "ground troops".

This is how I would do things, but I don't set policy for anyone. What I can say is that whatever I did I would assume that my kids would be dealing with it after I'm gone, and pick my battles accordingly.