Uncategorized

Apocalyptic Fears

There’s a thread over at Charles Johnson’s site about this article in the LA Times.

As I point out in his comments section, I think that the concern over nuclear winter is overblown. That theory has been pretty throughly discredited, at least as originally propounded by Sagan et al. No one really knows what the effects of a massive nuclear war would be, but if it’s unlikely that a Soviet-US exchange would cause one, it’s hard to see how Israel alone could. However, Israel is certainly capable of making glowing parking lots out of places like Baghdad, Riyadh and even Mecca.

To the commentator who suggested that the West Bank itself might be a nuclear target, there are a number of reasons that this would be unlikely. The Israelis wants that territory for itself, and won’t want to have to clean up a radioactive mess. They’d prefer to keep everything intact.

Which brings up a disconcerting thought. Have they developed a neutron bomb?

These posts are getting depressing. I’ll try to shift the subject back to space a little later today.

War Commentary

National Palestinian Radio

I just heard an infuriating broadcast on Morning All Things Considered (a program that was particularly woefully mistitled this morning–it should have been One Side Considered) on the situation in Israel and the West Bank. It was shockingly blatant anti-Israeli propaganda, even for them.

First, they give a run down of the news–Israel is still ignoring the U.S. calls to withdraw, except for a couple villages (which are not really part of a withdrawal, but just going through the motions to try to assuage world opinion). They are still holding the major cities, and “claiming” to have found rockets close to Jerusalem.

But the worst part was when they reported that there was a firefight on the Church of the Nativity. The reportage is that the Israelis have fired on it. The Israeli’s “claimed” to have been fired on first (but who can believe those lying Jews, I suppose one is to infer from the way they say it). They report anger from the Holy See, with a quote from some representative, who describes the attack as “barbaric,” and there is “no excuse.”

Absolutely no mention is made of the fact that armed Palestinian terrorists have been holed up there for days, possibly with hostages. Not just no criticism–no mention. If one only heard the report, and had no other knowledge, one would assume that the Israelis simply attacked one of the holiest Christian sites, with no true provocation.

Where is the condemnation, where is the outrage, at the Palestinians for taking over the Church in the first place? I’ve heard absolutely none, including from the Holy See.

Then, after the “news,” they of course have the obligatory, unbalanced interview with Peter Jennings’ ex-girlfriend, Hanan Ashrawi. They pitch a bunch of softballs at her, asking how terrible it is, expressing sympathy, asking if it’s true that she’s depressed and without hope, as she goes through her litany about Israeli “terrorism” and “war crimes,” how the Palestinian Authority is being dismantled and how the world simply stands by while Israel is not held accountable.

They don’t, of course, sully the moment by asking any unpleasant questions concerning Palestinian, or Palestinian Authority accountability for murders of Israeli civilians, or about the weapons caches being found. Again, if one heard only this broadcast, one would never know that prior to the incursion, Israel had been plagued by waves of murder bombers. No, it’s just the innocent Palestinian people being oppressed by the Evil Jews.

Disgusting.

Uncategorized

Stonewall Saddam? I Don’t Think So

In a commentary on my post yesterday about the world war in which we find ourselves (if, unlike the dominant media, we’re sufficiently perspicacious), fellow blogger Rich Hailey points out that the technological asymmetry between the West (and particularly the U.S.) and the Arab powers may not be as advantageous to us as we hope, by comparing the situation to the War Between The States, in which the North, a burgeoning industrial power, had fits defeating the South, a confederacy of rural, agrarian states.

I find the analogy extremely strained.

He points out having Lincoln as the difference, but there are many differences. The South had technology available to them, and knew how to use it–they even ramped up their own industrial production. Their problem was that they didn’t have a navy with which to defeat the northern blockade, and after the Emancipation Proclamation, they could no longer hope for Britain as an ally.

But the main reason they put up such a good fight for so long was not because of fanatical bravery and devotion to their cause (though they had that in abundance)–it was vastly superior generalship, until Grant was put in charge. And while the South had some brilliant generals, this is more of a commentary on the poor quality of those of the Union, most notably McClellan, who threw away opportunity after opportunity to follow up a battlefield victory with the destruction of Lee’s army, instead always failing to follow through and pursue.

Somehow, at least based on what we’ve seen from Iraq in the Gulf War, and more recently in Afghanistan, I suspect that we’ll also have an asymmetry in military leadership, as well as in technological and industrial resources. Except, this time, unlike the Union, it will vastly favor the U.S. government.

The Arabs have shown themselves to occasionally be very good at tactics (e.g., hijacking airliners and crashing them into buildings), and blunderingly idiotic at strategy. It’s possible they’ll learn, but based on the rhetoric coming out of the region, it seems unlikely.

Uncategorized

Stonewall Saddam? I Don’t Think So

In a commentary on my post yesterday about the world war in which we find ourselves (if, unlike the dominant media, we’re sufficiently perspicacious), fellow blogger Rich Hailey points out that the technological asymmetry between the West (and particularly the U.S.) and the Arab powers may not be as advantageous to us as we hope, by comparing the situation to the War Between The States, in which the North, a burgeoning industrial power, had fits defeating the South, a confederacy of rural, agrarian states.

I find the analogy extremely strained.

He points out having Lincoln as the difference, but there are many differences. The South had technology available to them, and knew how to use it–they even ramped up their own industrial production. Their problem was that they didn’t have a navy with which to defeat the northern blockade, and after the Emancipation Proclamation, they could no longer hope for Britain as an ally.

But the main reason they put up such a good fight for so long was not because of fanatical bravery and devotion to their cause (though they had that in abundance)–it was vastly superior generalship, until Grant was put in charge. And while the South had some brilliant generals, this is more of a commentary on the poor quality of those of the Union, most notably McClellan, who threw away opportunity after opportunity to follow up a battlefield victory with the destruction of Lee’s army, instead always failing to follow through and pursue.

Somehow, at least based on what we’ve seen from Iraq in the Gulf War, and more recently in Afghanistan, I suspect that we’ll also have an asymmetry in military leadership, as well as in technological and industrial resources. Except, this time, unlike the Union, it will vastly favor the U.S. government.

The Arabs have shown themselves to occasionally be very good at tactics (e.g., hijacking airliners and crashing them into buildings), and blunderingly idiotic at strategy. It’s possible they’ll learn, but based on the rhetoric coming out of the region, it seems unlikely.

Uncategorized

Stonewall Saddam? I Don’t Think So

In a commentary on my post yesterday about the world war in which we find ourselves (if, unlike the dominant media, we’re sufficiently perspicacious), fellow blogger Rich Hailey points out that the technological asymmetry between the West (and particularly the U.S.) and the Arab powers may not be as advantageous to us as we hope, by comparing the situation to the War Between The States, in which the North, a burgeoning industrial power, had fits defeating the South, a confederacy of rural, agrarian states.

I find the analogy extremely strained.

He points out having Lincoln as the difference, but there are many differences. The South had technology available to them, and knew how to use it–they even ramped up their own industrial production. Their problem was that they didn’t have a navy with which to defeat the northern blockade, and after the Emancipation Proclamation, they could no longer hope for Britain as an ally.

But the main reason they put up such a good fight for so long was not because of fanatical bravery and devotion to their cause (though they had that in abundance)–it was vastly superior generalship, until Grant was put in charge. And while the South had some brilliant generals, this is more of a commentary on the poor quality of those of the Union, most notably McClellan, who threw away opportunity after opportunity to follow up a battlefield victory with the destruction of Lee’s army, instead always failing to follow through and pursue.

Somehow, at least based on what we’ve seen from Iraq in the Gulf War, and more recently in Afghanistan, I suspect that we’ll also have an asymmetry in military leadership, as well as in technological and industrial resources. Except, this time, unlike the Union, it will vastly favor the U.S. government.

The Arabs have shown themselves to occasionally be very good at tactics (e.g., hijacking airliners and crashing them into buildings), and blunderingly idiotic at strategy. It’s possible they’ll learn, but based on the rhetoric coming out of the region, it seems unlikely.

War Commentary

Like It Will Make A Difference?

In an article in the Journal today, Fred Kagan warns that the U.S. military lacks resources for the war.

Without passing comment on his general thesis, I have to take exception to this comment:

“…the importance of our missions in Bosnia and Kosovo should be allowed to slip from view, either. One of the purposes our forces serve there is to protect Muslims from Serbian attack. A pullout would mean that Slavs would again begin harming Muslims. Considering the precipitous rise in tensions between the U.S. and the Muslim world, is this the time to run that particular risk?

What risk? They’ve shown no gratitude, or even recognition of what we’ve done for Muslims in the Balkans. If we need the troops to fight where there’s actually a threat to us, pull ’em out of there. Let the Europeans spend some of that money they’ve had to build welfare states because we’ve been defending them for sixty years, to clean up the mess in their own back yard.

[Monday 1:25PM PDT update]

Reader “Pouncer” suggests:

If, in fact, the US is short resources to fight a major war, the “first domino” to kick over among Axis of Evil adversaries should be–North Korea.

We keep some 30,000 troops tied up there enforcing a cease fire at the DMZ. We’ve done so for 50 years. A very strong ally with major strategic interest in keeping the North Koreans under control is trained, rested, and ready to act under U.S. guidance. (That would be, unlike Northern Alliance or Kurdis irregulars, the actual ARMY of the nation of South Korea.)

The army is often charged with making plans “to fight the last war.” To the extent that’s true, there must be libraries full of plans to topple North Korea–hundreds of scenarios already wargamed out. Picking one may be a challenge, but any of the best ten of a hundred is likely to be okay.

Kick over North Korea, free up 29,700 U.S. fighting men (assuming about 1% casuality rates). Demonstrate resolve. Take the spotlight off the Middle East. Show Mainland China that we can be serious when the mood strikes us…

Then move the focus back on Iraq. If, that is, such a place still exists by the time the Israelis get through.

That’s not a bad idea, except that they’re probably worried about China’s reaction. The last time we tried that, we ended up facing Chinese troops, and it’s not unthinkable that the same could happen again. Of course, the difference is that China is not as enamored with NK as it used to be, and Russia has very little love for it, so we might be able to pull it off.

It’s too bad that we’ve kept Japan toothless for so long–it would be a lot easier to let them do the job, as their contribution to the war. But I suspect that would reopen too many old wounds from the last time they invaded Korea, with less benign intent.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!