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.

Bash some heads together or be chopped separately

This past weekend has seen an unprecedented series of public demonstrations in France as an outpouring of solidarity and “don’t-tread-on-me” in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre.  World leaders (though notably no-one from the USA) lead the crowd, and the one in Paris was estimated at 2 million people, bigger than Liberation Day in WW2.  At the same time, the anti-Islamization marches in Germany continue, and may be gaining traction.  The latter is hard to be certain of, as the media is determined to tar all of these people as Nazis and supresses and distorts reports.  In these two events you see that Europe is approaching critical mass in terms of the threat of Islam to Western Civilization. 

The West has spent much time, blood and treasure of fighting amongst itself, but in the post WW2 period one could be excused (on casual reflection) of thinking that this internecine fighting is behind us.  I think that in the post-nationalism period the struggle has changed from being international to being a “civil war” in every Western country at the ideological level.  In other words, the West is wilfully destroying itself. 

Not all of it of course, but the self-loathing strain of “white guilt” progressivism is firmly entrenched in our university and media making it the default position of the latter.  The idea that anything done by white men is the worst thing ever seems to be the basis of it, and as such it encompasses everything from Marxists (the cultural variety) to radical feminists and many other sub-groups besides.  I run into this on a regular basis online, and have greatly curtailed my activities there (mostly to here) as these people are so thoroughly indoctrinated that they don’t even try to debate, just insult and belittle. 

How many of them are having second thoughts in the wake of the Paris attacks, and the ones before them in Ottawa and Sydney is anyone’s guess, but the hard core (who I estimate at c. 10% of the population) will cling to their “Écrasez l’infâme” attitude toward their own society no matter what.  They are, no matter what their actual proportion of the population, a minority and at some point, hopefully now or very soon, the majority who don’t feel like bowing down to these jihadis will accept that some heads need to be cracked to maintain what we have. 

Canada is overhauling its’ laws to deal more proactively with terrorist wannabes (we’re already arresting them) but France I’m sure already has what it needs to deal with them, including now the public and political will.  The EU overall needs to tighten up to track these guys (and girls) when they travel to Syria, etc. and either nab them before they go, or (better to my mind) let them go and revoke their passports as soon as they clear the EU.  Couple that with contributing military force to battle them wherever they went and we have most of a plan to manage this threat. 

People need to be (and are) arrested for supporting Salafist causes, and the net has to expand to Facebook etc. posts.  Post a message supporting Islamic State,  10 years in jail.  Conspire to support them, life.  Make it painful and you will weed out the lightweights, or at least muzzle them.  The intelligence services can track them (hopefully) when they go underground, and I’m sure (as much as I can be with no inside knowledge) that many a plot has been foiled already.   

Whatever laws are passed and whatever action is taken, it has to be balanced with not making life difficult for law-abiding citizens.  For routine investigation and enforcement this is very do-able, and the (let’s face it, pinprick) attacks those guys can make do not justify martial law.  That’s here; in France they have a much larger problem with extensive “no-go” areas in the banlieues of Paris and elsewhere, and  military reinforcements have been sent.  This is the tactical response required to the situation, and as long as the usual whiners shut up when the necessary “profiling” takes place and supporters are rolled up the problem is, as mentioned previously, manageable. 

Soluble?  No measures which would leave our societies recognizable as “free” could reduce the threat to zero, and even the alternatives (police/military state) aren’t 100% solutions.  “We” must decide that our way of life is worth defending and do so at all levels.  That will necessitate hating a bit less the society that allows you to publicly call for its’ downfall and (sometimes) replacement, if for no other reason than you’d rather not be lumped in with the jihadis who do the same.   You can and will be judged by the company you keep, even the virtual kind.   

I love it when a strategy comes together...

Bashar al-Assad, President of rump Syria, thinks that the Americans don't know what they're doing in the region. That's not explicitly what he said, but that's what this amounts to:

Asked whether coalition airstrikes are helping him, Assad said that the bombardments -- the Obama administration's preferred military tactic in the fight against the Islamic State -- aren't enough. "Troops on the ground that know the land and can react are essential," Assad told journalist Régis Le Sommier. "That is why there haven't been any tangible results in the two months of strikes led by the coalition. It isn't true that the strikes are helpful. They would of course have helped had they been serious and efficient."

Despite the wishful thinking of some in the West when he came on the scene to replace his father, Hafez al-Assad of "Hama rules" fame, Bashar (Opthamologist by training) is a chip off the old despotic block. I suspect that's more nurture than nature, but he has in any event survived in an environment which would have exposed and destroyed him for any weakness. In fact, the entire region is like that.

The Baath regime in Syria as in Iraq is bad news, but it was (pretty much) equal-opportunity bad news. Christians, Alawis and other non-Sunni minority groups survived as well as anyone could in Syria until things came apart in 2011. Being an enemy of the State was what would get you tortured and killed, and as brutal as that is it's something you could avoid, i.e. you weren't born into it.

Enter Da'esh/IS/ISIL/Al Queda/etc. The decendants of the Moslem Brotherhood old Hafez decimated in Hama, they are rabidly intolerant Sunni militias, so intolerant that most Sunnis don't want to live under them either. The non-Sunnis who remain have been forced to side with Assad in sheer self-preservation. In that case the "enemy of their enemy" is their only hope.

Does that mean that we should work with him? Well, that depends. In an ideal world where we all love each other and some rare zombie virus makes people turn nasty, no. In the real world where things are a lot greyer than that you don't work with a murderous sadistc regime unless of course they are less distasteful than the alternatives.The question: is Assad sufficiently less off-putting than Da'esh/Al-Queda/Nusra to be worth propping up?

I won't pretend that this is a simple decision, but I'll zoom out enough to try to put it in perspective. Until 2003, Iraq and Syria were "stable". Not Parliamentary-Rule-of-Law stable, but most people could go about their daily lives with little chance of violence which counts as stability in most parts of the world. Once the Americans broke Iraq (that is neither ideological nor debatable at this point) the whole region began to creak. The eventual result was the so-called "Arab Spring" which succeeded only in the place it began, in Tunisia. Egypt got the government it thought it wanted in the Muslim Brotherhood, but quickly realized that having the military run things was not so bad after all. Syria tried to reform but that only exposed how brittle the power structure was and of course it shattered.

Shit gets tribal pretty quickly in situations like that (civil war) and the surviving enclaves are the Alawis (Assad's "tribe") and the Kurds. The Syrian Kurds' only chance of survival is to amalgamate with the Iraqi Kurds and I have said before this is where I think we should put our efforts. Erdrogan and the Turkish government; in his/their effots to re-create the Ottoman empire has/have placed themselves in opposition to NATO's interests and should be booted out of the alliance. I mention this because the Turks are the single biggest impediment to carving out a stable safe-haven for people fleeing Da'esh.

The Iranians also have Kurdish issues, but they are a bit more pragmatic and are actively supporting their militias fighting Da'esh. Should we co-operate with them? How I work it out is that worst-case scenario, Iran spreads its' (Shia) "Islamic Republic" to parts of Iraq; that is still less miserable than Daesh/Al Queda. This would defacto split off Iraqi Kurdistan to join up with Rojava. In case you wonder why I think we should support that, go read this.

Are the Kurds perfect? Not by a long shot, but as far as I can tell they are better than all regional alternatives. My information is not based on personal experience, but by all accounts their internal tribal issues don't turn into oppressing other people which is all that I can ask of a group. The real litmus test is "would I take a trip there [Iraqi Kudistan]?". The answer in this case is "yes" because even as in infidel Westerner I would be as safe there anywhere other than home. Their proposed constitution looks pretty Socialist (not surprising, Kurdish Workers' Party and all) but Disestablishmentarianism is the law of the land making it unique in the region since Turkey has purged Ataturk.

Coming back to Assad, the Social Contract of the Rojava Cantons (linked above) recognises the "territorial integrity of Syria" which brings it in line with the rump Baath state. This is potential common ground, but there is no way the Cantons would let Assad back in control. What I don't know is what the Iranians would think about cutting loose their link to Hezbollah, inevitable if the current power structure is dissolved.

That could be grounds for some old-school "sphere of influence" talks between the US, Saudis and Iranians. The tradeoff could be recognition of defacto Iranian expansion into Iraq, sans "Sunni Triangle" in exchange for cutting the Levant loose. The Saudis would have cause to dislike this, but it wouldn't change much on the groud so it might not be a deal breaker. Hezbollah has bled a great deal for the Assad regime (really for Iran) so it's unlikely Iran would cut ties, but they would gain more Shia in Iraq than they'd lose in Lebanon so who knows?

The region (and many others) has a preference for backing "the Strong Horse". Assad's Syria was that in the immediate area for many years; it is so no longer, but it can still do a lot of damage. The Alawis are a fairly despised minority in the ME, but so are the Kurds, Christians, Yazidis, etc. I see common cause there, but there are a lot of Great and Regional Power interests to overcome before the underdogs can band together. Get rid of Assad and the Baath Party and we could work with non IS Syria against Da'esh and in spite of Erdrogan. I deduce Iran as the lynchpin of this, with Russia having some say, maybe just as an extraction plan for the Baath ruling elite.

There's your angle Obama; you still have a chance to actually earn that Nobel Peace Prize. Fat chance the USA does anything this coherently thought-out with an understanding of the region and history, but the regional players understand these things. Somebody will do something but it probably won't be us.

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”.

Beware the Ennui of the Legions

As the tide of war rises again in the Middle East, the military’s rank and file are mostly opposed to expanding the new mission in Iraq and Syria to include sending a large number of U.S. ground troops into combat, according to a Military Times survey of active-duty members.
On the surface, troops appear to support President Obama’s repeated vows not to let the U.S. military get “dragged into another ground war” in Iraq. Yet at the same time, the views of many service members are shaped by a deep ambivalence about this commander in chief and questions about his ability to lead the nation through a major war, according to the survey and interviews.
The reader survey asked more than 2,200 active-duty troops this question: “In your opinion, do you think the U.S. military should send a substantial number of combat troops to Iraq to support the Iraqi security forces?” Slightly more than 70 percent responded: “No.”
“It’s their country, it’s their business. I don’t think major ‘boots on the ground’ is the right answer,” said one Army infantry officer and prior-enlisted soldier who deployed to Iraq three times. He responded to the survey and an interview request but, like several other service members in this story, asked not to be named because he is not authorized to discuss high-level military policy.

Of course soldiers (usually) go where they're told to go, but when a large majority of veteran combat troops don't want to do something it's worth looking closely at what you have planned and why.

Obama has authorized more action (e.g. airstrikes) but still has nothing approximating a realistic plan. Hitting the oil refineries was part of a plan/strategy, but you will never manage to kill all of the jihadis so you'd better have an end-state in mind.

I have one of course, but it involves carving out enclaves and like-minded people who will defend themselves, and then giving them the means to do so themselves.

A Kurdish/Christian/Yazidi/Assyrian/etc. enclave in northern Iraq and NE Syria is do-able and a solid and largely self-supporting nucleus is in place, so there's where I'd start. This needs to be consolidated and expanded to its' natural limits i.e. what can be held with the consent of the population.

This is NOT empire building, it's closer to ethnic self-determination with the wrinkle that the "ethnicity" in common is being an oppressed minority. Underdogs unite! These are the people we should be protecting, and although no-one's perfect they are the best of the neighborhood as far as we're concerned.

I've seen some other commentary about the current activity uniting the previously estranged jihadi factions against us, and to that I give a resounding "so what?" and not in the determine-all-likely-outcomes sense. If they get upset with us, well, they already want us to convert or die, so BFD. Keeping them divided is useful tactically but not a big-picture problem since it doesn't change the net effect. Besides, radical Islam (or anything else) is a race to the bottom as they fractionate into more-and-more volatile groups, Daesh being the ne plus ultra of violent misanthropy at present.

So, in bullet points, the broad strokes of what I would do if given control of the coalition a la Ferdianand Foch during the Germans' last throw of the dice in March 1918:

• Bring in two US Heavy brigades (of volunteers), one each for Iraq and Syria, coordinate these with the Peshmerga etc. in each Kurdish area
• Reach out to all non-Salafist elements in the contiguous or nearly-contiguous areas;
• Develop a plan for how much territory needs to be secured to make a self-sufficient state, and;
• As soon as this end-state is achieved, all non-local troops are shifted home.

No notice is to be taken of the internal Iraq/Syria border when making these plans. Iran can be told to stuff it as can Assad, but I'd leave it to the locals to replace him if they can. Border establishing yes, but NO MORE NATION BUILDING.

Support your friends, thwart (or worse) your enemies, and keep the troops motivated. Professional soldiers like to fight, at least enough to say they've done so, and a quick decisive gloves-off war is just what most of them are looking for. "In-and-out clever" is how to do it, and doing it right will help a lot of people. Not least of all, your soldiers who are relying on their government to not put them in harm's way without a damned good reason.

   

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".

A new Thirty-Years War?

I stole this from Jerry Pournelle's mail bag at Chaos Manor. Put aside some time and read it, I found it enlightning, albeit it asks some more questions.

By: David P. Goldman
A one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is upon us. It won’t arrive by Naftali Bennett’s proposal <http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/181501#.U6dRlvmwJcQ> to annex the West Bank’s Area C, or through the efforts of BDS campaigners and Jewish Voice for Peace <http://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/> to alter the Jewish state. But it will happen, sooner rather than later, as the states on Israel’s borders disintegrate and other regional players annex whatever they can. As that happens, Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria is becoming inevitable.
Last week’s rocket attacks from Gaza failed to inflict many casualties in Israel—but they administered a mortal wound to Palestinian self-governance. Hamas launched its deepest strikes ever into Israel after the IDF cracked down on its West Bank operations following the murder last month of three Israeli boys, arresting nearly 900 members of Hamas <https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/12643-israel-has-arrested-896-palestinians-since-12-june> and other terrorist groups. Humiliated in the territories, and unable to pay its 44,000 Gaza employees <http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-decides-to-go-for-broke/> , Hamas acted from weakness, gambling that missile attacks would elicit a new Intifada on the West Bank. Although Fatah militias joined in the rocket attacks from Gaza, for now the Palestinian organizations are in their worst disarray in 20 years.
The settlers of Judea and Samaria have stood in the cross-hairs of Western diplomacy for two decades, during which the word “settler” has become a term of the highest international opprobrium. Yet the past decade of spiraling conflicts in the Middle East have revealed that what is settled in the region is far less significant than what is unsettled. Iran’s intervention into the Syrian civil conflict has drawn the Sunni powers into a war of attrition that already has displaced more than 10 million people, mostly Sunnis, and put many more at risk. The settled, traditional, tribal life of the Levant has been shattered. Never before in the history of the region have so many young men had so little hope, so few communal ties, and so many reasons to take up arms.
<http://cdn1.tabletmag.com/wp-content/files_mf/population1524.png>
Source: U.N. World Population Prospects <http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/panel_indicators.htm>
As a result, the central premise of Western diplomacy in the region has been pulled inside-out, namely that a resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue was the key to long-term stability in the Middle East. Now the whole of the surrounding region has become one big refugee crisis. Yet the seemingly spontaneous emergence of irregular armies like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) now rampaging through northern Mesopotamia should be no surprise. The misnamed Arab Spring of 2011 began with an incipient food crisis in Egypt <http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB02Ak01.html> and a water crisis in Syria <http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC29Ak02.html> . Subsidies from the Gulf States keep Egypt on life support. In Syria and Iraq, though, displaced populations become foraging armies that loot available resources, particularly oil, and divert the proceeds into armaments that allow the irregulars to keep foraging. ISIS is selling $800 million a year of Syrian oil to Turkey, according to one estimate <http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/business/2014/06/turkey-syria-isis-selling-smuggled-oil.html> , as well as selling electricity from captured power plants back to the Assad government. On June 11 it seized the Bajii power plant oil refinery <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/world/middleeast/the-militants-moving-in-on-syria-and-iraq.html?hp&_r=1> in northern Iraq, the country’s largest.
The region has seen nothing like it since the Mongol invasion of the 13th century. Perpetual war has turned into a snowball that accumulates people and resources as it rolls downhill and strips the ground bare of sustenance. Those who are left shiver in tents in refugee camps, and their young men go off to the war. There is nothing new about this way of waging war; it was invented in the West during the Thirty Years War by the imperial general Albrecht von Wallenstein, and it caused the death of nearly half the population of Central Europe between 1618 and 1648.
As a result of this spiraling warfare, four Arab states—Libya, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq—have effectively ceased to exist. Lebanon, once a Christian majority country, became a Shia country during the past two decades under the increased domination of Hezbollah. Nearly 2 million Syrian Sunnis have taken refuge in Lebanon, as Israeli analyst Pinhas Inbari <http://jcpa.org/article/syrian-war-is-reshaping-the-region/> observes, and comprise almost half of Lebanon’s total population of 4 million, shifting the demographic balance to the Sunnis—while the mass Sunni exodus tilts the balance of power in Syria toward the Alawites and other religious minorities, who are largely allied with Iran. Jordan, meanwhile, has taken in a million Syrian Sunnis, making Palestinians a minority inside Jordan for the first time in a generation. A region that struggled to find sustenance for its people before 2011 has now been flooded with millions of refugees without resources or means of support. They are living for the most part on largesse from the Gulf States, and their young men are prospective cannon fodder.
The remaining states in the region—Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran—will alternately support and suppress the new irregular armies as their interests require. Where does ISIS get its support, apart from oil hijacking in Syria and bank robberies in Mosul <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/12/isis-just-stole-425-million-and-became-the-worlds-richest-terrorist-group/> ? There are allegations that ISIS receives support from Turkey <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/17/pipes-turkeys-support-for-isis/> , the Sunni Gulf States <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html> , and Iran <http://jcpa.org/article/isis-irans-instrument-regional-hegemony/> . Pinhas Inbari <http://jcpa.org/article/isis-irans-instrument-regional-hegemony/> claims that Shiite Iran is funding Sunni extremists “to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.” There are equally credible reports that each of these powers wants to stop ISIS. Saudi Arabia fears <http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/05/isis-saudi-arabia-qaeda-terrorism-syria.html> that Sunni extremists might overthrow the monarchy. Turkey fears that the depredations of ISIS on its border will trigger the formation of an independent Kurdish state, which it has opposed vehemently for decades. Iran views ISIS as a Sunni competitor for influence in the region.
To some extent, I believe, all these reports are true. The mess in the Middle East brings to mind the machinations around Swedish intervention in the Thirty Years War between 1627 and 1635, when France’s Cardinal Richelieu paid Sweden’s King Gustavus Adolphus to intervene on the Protestant side in order to weaken France’s Catholic rival Austria. At different times, Protestant Saxony and Catholic Bavaria allied with France, Austria, and each other, respectively. France and Sweden began as allies, briefly became enemies, and then were allies again. Looming over this snake-pit of religious, dynastic, and national rivalries was the figure of Albrecht von Wallenstein, the Austrian generalissimo who twice saved the Empire from defeat at the hands of the Protestants. Wallenstein, commanding a polyglot mercenary army with no national or religious loyalty, played both sides, and Austria had him murdered in 1634.
There is more than coincidence to the parallels between the Middle East today and 17th-century Europe. Iran’s intervention into Syria’s civil conflict inaugurated a new kind of war in the region, the sort that Richelieu practiced in the 1620s. Iran’s war objectives are not national or territorial in the usual sense; rather, the objective is the war itself, that is, the uprooting and destruction of potentially hostile populations. With a third of Syria’s population displaced and several million expelled, the Assad regime has sought to change Syria’s demographics to make the country more congenial to Shiite rule. That in turn elicits a new kind of existential desperation from the Saudis, who are fighting for not only the survival of their sclerotic and corrupt monarchy, but also for the continuation of Sunni life around them. Today Iraq’s Sunnis, including elements of Saddam Hussein’s mainly Sunni army and the 100,000 strong “Sons of Iraq” force hired by then-U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus during the 2007-2008 surge, are making common cause with ISIS. Tomorrow they might be shooting at each other. The expectation that the waves of sectarian and tribal violence that have caused national borders to crumble across the Middle East will die down in 30 years may be both incredibly grim and wildly optimistic.
***
In the background of the region’s disrupted demographics, a great demographic change overshadows the actions of all the contenders. That is decline of Muslim fertility, and the unexpected rise in Jewish fertility. The fall in Muslim birth rate is most extreme in Iran and Turkey, with different but related consequences. When Ayatollah Khomeini took power in 1979, the average Iranian woman had seven children; today the total fertility rate has fallen to just 1.6 children, the sharpest drop in demographic history. Iran still has a young population, but it has no children to succeed them. By mid-century Iran will have a higher proportion of elderly dependents than Europe, an impossible and unprecedented burden for a poor country. Iran’s sudden aging will be followed by Turkey, Algeria, and Tunisia.
<http://cdn1.tabletmag.com/wp-content/files_mf/popover65.png>
Source: U.N. World Population Prospects <http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/panel_indicators.htm>
Iran’s disappearing fertility is in a sense the Shah’s revenge. Iran is the most literate Muslim country, thanks in large part to an ambitious literacy campaign introduced by the Shah in the early 1970s. As I showed in my book How Civilizations Die (and Why Islam Is Dying, Too), literacy is the best predictor of fertility in the Muslim world: Muslim women who attend high school and university marry late or not at all and have fewer children. This has grave strategic implications, as Iran’s leaders unabashedly discuss.
Between 2005 and 2020, Iran’s population aged 15 to 24, that is, its pool of potential army recruits, will have fallen by nearly half. To put this in perspective, Pakistan’s military-age population will have risen by about half. In 2000, Iran had half the military-age men of its eastern Sunni neighbor; by 2020 it will have one-fourth as many. Iran’s bulge generation of youth born in the 1980s is likely to be its last, and its window for asserting Shiite power in the region will close within a decade.
The Obama Administration wants to contain Iranian aggression by accommodating Iran’s ambitions to become a regional power. As the president told <http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-03-02/obama-to-israel-time-is-running-out> Bloomberg’s Jeffrey Goldberg in March, “What I’ll say is that if you look at Iranian behavior, they are strategic, and they’re not impulsive. They have a worldview, and they see their interests, and they respond to costs and benefits. And that isn’t to say that they aren’t a theocracy that embraces all kinds of ideas that I find abhorrent, but they’re not North Korea. They are a large, powerful country that sees itself as an important player on the world stage, and I do not think has a suicide wish, and can respond to incentives.” Any deal with Iran is therefore a good deal from Obama’s point of view. But that is precisely wrong: Iran does not have a suicide wish, but it knows that it is dying, and has nothing to lose by rolling the dice today.

POTUSeless

Honestly I don't know where to turn right now, the world is spinning out in so many places. It is of course of no import to the grand scheme whether I'm tracking everything or not, but it is a big deal (it turns out) when the USA can't do it.

I am profoundly unimpressed with the current POTUS, but it is not a partisan or ideological attack I make when I say that he is worse-than useless in his current job. "Worse-than" for a number of reasons, but particularly since leadership of the (still) most powerful nation in the world is a zero-sum game, i.e. if he's occupying the top position nobody more capable can be.

The USA has a number of internal problems, being deeply indebted (mostly to their greatest strategic rival) being one of them, but their ability to project power is still unrivalled. Things would certainly be different on the foreign policy front were G.W. Bush still in charge, but since that can't happen (even if it were advisable and I don't suggest that) would things be any better around the world had Romney won the last Presidential election?

Let's start by enumerating the bigger strategic threats to the US and various other distractions, in descending order.

Threat #3: China's encroachment in the South China Sea and environs

In the big picture this is hugely destabilizing to world trade and the economic development of countries in the region. It is also something only the US Navy can be an effective counterweight to. There was a "pivot to Asia" bruited about recently, but again just saying something doesn't make it true. The Chinese aren't playing around here, and if you want to stop them you’d better be prepared to park a carrier task force over the Spratleys or Paracells, etc. in support of the most legitimate national claim under international law. And use it if push comes to shove.

I rank this one in last place for strategic threats, but it approaches zero if you decide to let the Chinese run the area. There are hundreds of millions of people on that region who would rather that didn't happen, for whatever that's worth.

Threat #2: The Islamic State, formerly Sunni Iraq and eastern Syria

ISIS/L has metastasized into a regional jihadist vortex, drawing in violent Muslim extremists from around the region and increasingly around the globe. They are firewalled in the north by the Kurds and nervously watched from all other points of the compass, the Shia government of rump Iraq and Iran doing the closest thing to heavy lifting right now.

The US didn't want to get involved in Syria, and I don't fault that since we are seeing with the looting of military stores in Mosul a Salafist organization with American military equipment, something widely predicted should the US arm the Syrian rebels. Turns out it happened anyway since the US backed the wrong horse (Maliki) in Iraq.

No however is the time to start whacking those jihadi moles. It's not a free-fire zone but the next best thing which is a great chance to kill a whole lot of assholes the world could really do without. This would be light on boots on the ground but could be used judiciously in support of limited goals, e.g. securing the Jordanian and Kurdish border areas. You support the outposts of civilization in the region but learn the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan and eschew the nation-building part of it. Killing them there prevents them from coming here.

Threat # 1: The Border

Central America is coming apart and people in desperation are sending their children north to the US in belief (well-founded if not technically accurate) that they won't be deported. Obama is trying hard to bury his head in the sand over this one, but with 350,000+ immigration cases backed up in US courts and upwards of 60K unaccompanied minors this year alone fetching up along the Rio Grande things are well out of hand.

Bleeding hearts who would abolish the border (another pesky "social construct" to be wiped out no doubt) have zero grasp of basic math, but let me put this in the starkest terms I can. There are TOO MANY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. Specifically, there are too many people in the world with lower standards of living than we (working and middle class Westerners) have, about 5 Billion of them. They can't all come to the developed countries or those countries will cease to function as developed countries, and the whole world will look like Nigeria (failing state) or worse.  Think the L.A. from Elysium without the space habitat.

What to do? Start with enforcing the immigration laws already on the books. Then, dismantle the "War on Drugs" and send all those resources into Central America to clean out the root causes of the panic immigration. Bugger going after the drug distribution networks, just shoot-on-sight anyone on the streets with a gun. Go after the guns and kill with extreme prejudice any of the gang-bangers who want to fight it out. The US can put together intelligence cells to track insurgent groups better than anyone else, and I can make a case that stabilizing Central America (and ceasing to fuck with Mexico) would do more for the medium to long-term security of the US than the Middle East, possibly even China..

Distractions

1. Ukraine is setting into a counter-insurgency phase and at the moment (some rumours aside) the Russians have backed off. As I hypothesized a while back, Putin has taken the low-hanging fruit (Crimea) but realizes that the Donbas is more trouble than it's worth. This keeps things on NATO's radar, but it is now mostly a European problem.
2. Africa. There is a persistent Ebola (variant) outbreak in West Africa which deserves having an eye kept on it, and the continent is still awash in jihadi groups (AQIM, and Boko Haram the most visible) who need pruning.
3. Afghan elections/final drawdown/status of forces. Karzai's out, but the squabbling commences over alleged fraud and run-offs.

The big and the small all require leadership, the sort that believes in what they're doing. Since Obama only objective was to dismantle US power projection he's largely managed that, but it doesn't really get troops or the population rallying around the flag for some dirty work overseas, or even in your own back yard.  Romney is looking prescient for his attitude toward Russia, even if I disagree on the threat Russia really presents to us.  More of a mystery is domestic politics, but we know Romney knos how to run things so I really think he was the President the US needed, but instead they got the one they deserve.  Do better next time America, for you own sake as well as the world.

 

Don't Look a Gift Airstrike in the Targeting Package

There is always a time when it is better to keep your mouth shut, and for the Americans this is one of those times.

Prime Minister Nouri Maliki of Iraq has told the BBC he supports an air strike on Islamist militants at a border crossing between Iraq and Syria.

Military and rebel sources say the strike took place inside Iraq, at the Qaim crossing, although Mr Maliki said it was carried out on the Syrian side.

I didn't find it in a quick look on the interwebs, but the US government has actually complained about Syria hitting ISIL/S  positions in Iraq, although it seems that it was a border position so it may or may not have been in Iraq proper.  Regardless, it doesn't mean that you have to (or want to) take sides with either Assad or Iran, but like it or not ISIL is by far the greater threat to all concerned. 

There was another interesting article (not surprising) about how cheap it is to mount a terrorist attack.  This was written in the context of ISIL having millions of dollars in cash (at least $82M) and the potential mayhem which could be financed with that.  Certainly this is of interest to pretty much everyone, and anything which attrits ISIL strength and resources is a step to the good.

What is not widely considered in this situation is that the US has other tools to use against trans-national entities, particularly the financial system.  I understand bombs and operations, but I confess ignorance as to the intricacies of tracking money movements, it suffices for me to know that unless you're moving bags of cash via courier computers can track you.

The "so what?" of this is that while America has a hard time picking a dog in this fight, they should walk softly and carry the big stick.  Time will come to start swinging said stick, but until then they should work in the background (as I hope that they are) throttling cashflows out of ISIL Iraq and let the local players sort each other out.

This approach pre-supposes a coherent foreign policy from the USA, and I haven't seen anything like that, at least not a functional one, during this administration.  Were I running the show, I'd backchannel Iran and set some Lines of Control, e.g. no Iranians west of X, no Americans east of X.  With some ground rules, you don't have to co-ordinate with your "enemies" and risk of escalation/expansion is greatly reduced.

Whatever.  Iraq looks to be devolving into provinces, but with the Ottomans no more whose provinces exactly is the question.  The obvious answer for rump Iraq (Shia) is Iran (most of the way there already), the Sunni area most likely a dysfunctional no-go area for the time being, but Kurdistan looks like it might just make it.  They already have trading relations with Israel (oil), which gives them the better part of an alliance with the most-effective and tech-savvy military in the region, and tourism and investment are both looking good.  The Kurds not being Arabs and having been kicked around by both Arabs and Persians have much in common with Israel, and there is some hope there.

It's an ill wind as blows no-one some good (as they say) so (mixed metaphor alert) let's hope someone makes lemonade from this mess.

Poles getting the shaft?

I just have to wonder if the Poles would have this (realistic) attitude had Mitt Romney won the last US election:

Poland's Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski called his country's ties with the US "worthless", a Polish news magazine says, giving excerpts of a secretly recorded conversation.

Mr Sikorski called Poland's stance towards the US "downright harmful because it creates a false sense of security", according to the new leak.

He has not denied using such language.

According to the excerpts, Mr Sikorski told former Finance Minister Jacek Rostowski that "the Polish-US alliance isn't worth anything".

Using vulgar language, he compared Polish subservience to the US to giving oral sex. He also warned that such a stance would cause "conflict with the Germans, Russians".  

Poland of course has centuries of experience on the shit-end of the Russian stick and will be grateful for any meaningful support against that threat.  It is a sign of the dire state of US policy toward Russia (and NATO; hell. everywhere) that the Polish Foreign Minister holds this opinion, but twice-bitten, thrice shy.

I don't believe that Russia needs to be "contained", as they are no longer a threat to whatever Western Civilization is.  It could be in fact argued that they are a bulwark against what it's turning into, but I won't go down that rabbit hole.  Russia is a regional power with certain prerogatives and the Americans are hypocritical to treat them any other way.  That said, invading your neighbours to consolidate the "volk" and/or reconstitute your Cold War-era glacis of western-border satellite states is not on, but the two things need to be kept in their lanes.

Back to the central point, the Poles are on the front line of any Russian revanchment of the USSR and history suggests (screams, really) that this needs to be taken seriously.  I have talked before about having "lines" and any members of NATO are behind ours.  In this context it includes former Warsaw Pact countries and SSRs (Poland, the Baltic States, Czech Republic, Roumania, Bulgaria) who are most exposed to, and painfully familiar with, anything Russia might do.

The Poles' concern is a practical one hinging more on deterrence than anything else, and it wouldn't have come up during W's time in the White House.  As Mr Sikorsky notes, the current US policy/posture has virtually zero deterrence value while aggravating the Russians and Germans simultaneously.  The Germans need Russian gas too badly to kick up much of a fuss about anything not on their doorstep and "demonizing" Putin and the entire country over the latest activity in Ukraine isn't useful to getting relations back on track.

There is a lack of subtlety in North American diplomacy vis a vis Russia and I admit the situation is tricky.  The carrot and the stick both need to be used judiciously, and that means letting your allies KNOW that you have their back while at the same time letting the other side know (when appropriate) that there are benefits for "good" behaviour.

Russia is NOT a threat to us as world communism was.  They are a regional issue, and our friends there require assurance that we take it seriously, which involves concrete action and appropriate language.  It also might require a Striker Brigade moved to Poland.  Canada is doing what it can (short of pulling the stops out for a war) but the US is the big dog in the ring.  When your allies have lost faith in your willingness to back them up you can imagine what the opposition must think.  In any event, Poland learned the value of Western promises in 1939 when action was (is?) at best too little, too late. 

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.

 

Geopolitical whack-a-mole

I've let this languish for a while, but things are getting interesting again, so time to take a closer look.

Things are on "simmer" in the Ukraine with some signs that the Russians have decided that the low-hanging fruit has fallen (Crimea) and Donetsk has hit the point of diminishing returns.  Trends at this point look like Putin has withdrawn support, or at least most of it, from the militias in east Ukraine and will use them as a tacit bargaining chip with the new government.  In the meantime, NATO tries, still, to figure out what to do about the whole thing.

 Could be a good time for another "Reset" button; the US and Canada (especially Canada for some reason) are out of sync with our continental allies (and the French, not part of NATO) in terms of how to deal with Putin and Russia.  My prescription for the situation is to continue with the tripwire reassurance measures we are taking with our eastern NATO members, but cease the "containment" or expansion efforts into what Russia considers its' sphere of interest/near abroad. Russia these days should be a European problem, time for them to step up and shift some assets east.

Just as well that things are off the boil there, as things in both south-east Asia and the Mid-East are getting hotter.  China is really pushing its' egregious claims to the entire South China Sea+ and is not far from a shooting war with Vietnam over that oil rig in the Spratley Islands.  If there is a group who won't knuckle under to China in the region it's Vietnam; they've given their (much) bigger neighbour a bloody nose more than once and that's not the sort of thing China forgets.  That said, Japan remains the only regional power with a navy which can challenge the People's Liberation Army Navy, but only locally.  To really stand up to the PLAN the US Navy is essential to the regional players.

Pivot to Asia?  So far I don't see it or there'd be a couple of carrier groups cruising around the contested areas daring the Chinese to try something.

At this time of course arrives the whirlwind sown by the US when it knocked over Saddam Hussein.  ISIL, the Islamic State in the Levant, Al-Queda's bastard spawn from Syria, has routed the Iraqi army from Mosul, Tikrit and Falluja in the most embarrassing possible way and taken, at least temporarily those cities and some lesser ones beside.  The threatened march on Baghdad will be stopped, by Iran if need be, and this upsets almost every apple cart in the region, but it's an ill wind which doesn't blow anyone some good.  This exception, and the only probable (maybe even only possible) salvation for Mosul and northern Iraq are the Kurds. 

The possibility of apocalyptic (for the region) sectarian civil war is a distinct one, as this could be "warre to the knife" between Sunni and Shia.  The evaporation of the (Shia) Iraqi army in the north has allowed the Peshmerga to roll into and occupy Kirkuk, and it's unlikely that Baghdad will get it back.  The Kurds will likely build their Kurdistan while the Sunni and Shia Arabs kill each other.  If however it is necessary for the US to support a reliable party in the area, the Kurds are the only game in town.

Obama is again talking, but you can't claim that "everything's on the table" and then instantly say that there will be no US troops on the ground.  ISIL has no chance to create a caliphate out of their recent gains, but they have done a lot of damage and won't go down without a fight.  This isn't time for half-measures.  This is time for Green Berets and smart-bombs, with the Peshmerga as the new Northern Alliance; you have problems, I offer solutions.  Now we see what kind of half-assery Obama can come up with for all of these situations.

You can do everything with bayonets, except sit on them.

Always on the lookout for the plausible, I saw this and pass it to you with little editorial as it is educated speculation already.

Staunton, April 28 – Many in Russia and the West have speculated that the combination of Vladimir Putin’s policies against Ukraine, Moscow’s increasing isolation internationally, and deteriorating economic conditions at home will eventually lead to a Maidan-style challenge to his rule.

That is possible, of course, but a man identified as a former FSB officer and speaking on condition of anonymity suggests that there may be another and more immediate threat to the Kremlin leader: a coup by the siloviki [power ministers] and groups allied with them who believe that Putin’s policies are hurting not only the country but their personal interests.

“Everyone understands that there is simply no reason to fight with the entire world in the name of some absurd historical principles,” he says, adding that “everyone understands that the Soviet phobia of the FSB that the American enemy is close and will soon attack has lost its significance.”

Instead, he says, they recognize that “war in the 21st century more typically takes the form of economic blockades and information propaganda rather than guns and military technology.”

 A game changer if it comes to pass, with effects to be felt far beyond the current Ukraine mess.  The one thing I am almost certain of is that the Americans would manage to fumble even that magnitude of an opportunity to get Russia back into the world and working with us as they should be.

Peninsular Peril

The votes have been cast (by those who didn't boycott the referendum) and Crimea has seceded from Ukraine and wants to go back to Russia. I regard this as a done deal as will any realistic observer, despite the protestations of illegitimacy from Western leaders.

That most people living there would prefer to go with Russia is obvious, even if the fact that Putin continues to gather Russians continues to elude people looking for motivation. It is known that Putin continues to use the immediate recognition of Kosovo after we'd bombed the Serbs out of there as licence to annex his own "self-determining" majority areas back to the Rodina, but not acknowledged by most of the media, let alone Western politicians.

So what? Sure, some people will be unhappy, and Ukraine is out some income from Sevastopol rental to the Russians, but what does that mean to anyone else? Ukraine has had a sequence of corrupt governments since independence from the USSR and I sure as shit don't want to get dragged into another war in Europe. Certainly not over an Anschluss like this, and I see the geopolitical cost to North America to be nil from the Crimea changing hands. The damage from puffing up and making vague threats of sanctions against Russia is potentially great.

A lot of people really didn't like G.W. Bush, but most of them were either lefties for whom realpolitik-clueless Obama can do no wrong, or people GW decided to take some action against, like, say, the late Saddam Hussein. One thing which definitively separates Bush II and Obama is that nobody who counts takes the latter seriously. Even in a no-win situation like the invasion of Georgia by Russia in 2008, Bush made a point of having American assets in the capital (Tbilisi) to present the Russians with an unspoken "red line". It must be noticed that as sub-optimal as things may have turned out for Georgia, the Russians took the hint and pulled most of the way back.

The lost Georgian territory is a lesson to them not to poke the bear, no matter if you're provoked. The lesson to us is (again) Talk - Action = Zero, Action - Talk = >Zero. I don't know what "we" would do if Russia had another crack at Georgia right now, but somebody had better be taking some proactive steps to dissuade Putin from cooking something up in Eastern Ukraine to take that also. After that? Belarus? The Baltic States?

The Balts have less to fear, and more potential European support than Ukraine due to ethnic/national/cultural connections to Europe vice Russia. I may have read The Clash of Civilizations too much, but birds of a feather do flock together and it makes sense to me to draw our lines along those natural fault lines.

I keep talking about action, so what should be done? In practice I don't see a lot of potential for the sort of thing that I think would send the right message, but if Europe still had any armies, it'd be a good time to start scheduling boots-on-the-ground joint exercises with what's left of Ukraine and put some bases in the Baltic States. Physical assets, preferably those which can shoot back, will do the job. Putin doesn't want a war as it's not in his interest to lose more than he'd gain. He will walk into as many places with a Russian majority population as he is permitted to, sanctions be damned.

Whatever. For my money, the next flashpoint is Donetsk, but it's not exactly crystal ball territory to come up with that. This is NOT a fait accompli but if Putin pushes for it he has enough support on the ground to pull it off in some fashion if there is no physical response from "our side". As long as Obama/Kerry are running the US show and the Europeans are beholden to Russia for their heating fuel, it's Putin's geographical and demographic prize to gain, and Ukraine's to lose.