This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Foreign Policy

  • 67 Years Ago Today and the Continuing Nuclear Protest

    It was on this date in 1945 that Hiroshima was destroyed by a new weapon, a single bomb dropped by a B-29 named Enola Gay, named after the mother of the pilot, Colonel Paul Tibbets. In the years since, many have tried to make the point that dropping of the bombs was an unnecessary act, as they claim the Japanese home islands were on the verge of defeat and would have surrendered soon enough without dropping the bomb.

    There are several flaws in that argument. First, after nearly four years of all-out war, Americans were tired of war. The prospect of what would surely be at least another 12-18 months taking the Japanese home islands was not a palatable thought. Second–as alluded to in movies and elsewhere, the Allies won the war in Europe, but at a huge cost. America was nearly bankrupt, spending nearly 38 percent of GDP on defense, compared to less than 4 percent of GDP today. Third–the casualty estimates of Operation Downfall varied widely, but all agreed that there would be huge casualties, and most of those estimates were only for the first sixty days, and only one took into account Navy casualties. Iwo Jima and Okinawa that same year showed that taking of the Japanese home islands would be possibly far more devastating in terms of both allied and Japanese casualties than eariler estimates. Finally, when the Japanese were asked to surrender after the July 16th test of the Trinity device in New Mexico, the Japanese basically was that of “mokusatsu,” meaning to treat with silence or silent contempt–a nice way of them telling the Allies to shove it up their ass.

    A quick end to the war with the fewest casualties was needed, and the atomic bomb, rightly or wrongly, provided that end. It is said that all of the Purple Hearts made up for Operation Downfall have been given out to the casualties of every war and action the United States has been involved in over the past six and a half decades, and there are still Purple Hearts left.

    To that end, a semi-related story from WBIR-Knoxville about several protestors who broke into the Y-12 facility at Oak Ridge last week and threw what they claimed was human blood on the building. Way to go, G4S–great security job you’re doing there. I would suggest to those people that the bloodshed had the bomb NOT been dropped, and the deterrence it provided for several decades afterwards, saved far more blood than was shed on this day and three days later in 1945.

  • Tell Me Again Why We Should Support the Syrian Opposition . . .

    . . . when some of the major players are our enemies?

    Why do I say that? The Muslim Brotherhood has apparently set up shop there and raised a militia to fight against the Assad regime. They aren’t exactly friends to the West or western culture. And al Qaeda is apparently also there working behind the scenes with the Syrian opposition. I just don’t get it.

    And if the way Libya and Egypt have turned out are any indication, apparently neither does the Obama administration.

  • “I’ve Got a Bad Feeling About This . . . “

    Reuters is now reporting that the POTUS has formally approved US aid to Syrian rebels. Frankly, I’m not so sure that’s such a good idea.

    Yes, Assad is a bastard. But Iran’s and al Qaeda’s fingerprints seem to be all over the Syrian opposition. And given Syria’s suspected WMD program, a takeover by either would not be good news for US interests.

    Further, the possibility for a Syrian takeover by radical Islamic elements also can’t be dismissed. Events in Libya and Egypt have shown that quite clearly.

    Sometimes the devil you know really is better than the devil you don’t. I suspect this may be one of those times.

  • C’Mon, Army Times – At Least Get the Headline Right!

    As Reagan might have said: “There they (the media) go again.”

    Army Times recently had a headline that, to be blunt, appears to be BS. And it appears to be BS due to either slipshod reporting or a deliberate decision to misrepresent reality.

    The headline claims that extra costs associated with Pakistan’s closing the normal supply routes for Afghanistan last November are over $2 billion. However, that figure is not supported by the information in that article itself.

    The figure was apparently obtained by adding additional Army costs for higher than projected fuel prices AND the closure of the Pakistani supply lines to Afghanistan ($1.7B), plus additional USAF costs for airlift ($0.369B) and C17 engine maintenance ($0.137B).  The article doesn’t identify any additional Navy costs, or any others for the Army and USAF, that are associated with  Pakistan closing the Afghan supply lines.

    These three items total $2.206B – which is pretty close to the figure given in the headline.  I’d guess that’s where the number came from, and that someone didn’t add correctly and got $2.1B instead.

    However, not all of these increased costs are due to the Pakistani supply line closure.  The Army buys one helluva lot of fuel; it uses a lot of that fuel in places outside of Afghanistan.  And as I recall, fuel costs spiked worldwide recently – to nearly $4/gallon in the US – which I’m sure was far more than originally projected.  The closure of the supply lines in Pakistan had nothing to do with that part of the Army’s increased costs included above.  And the USAF clearly states that only part of their costs for additional airlift and C17 maintenance are due to the supply line closure.  Calling all of those cost increases the result of closing those Pakistani supply lines is therefore bogus.

    Bottom line:  very shoddy work, Army Times.  I have little doubt that Pannetta’s estimate of an extra cost of $100M/month last month was low.  But based on what’s presented in the article, your estimate doesn’t appear to be any more accurate.

  • Remembering Iran . . . .

    On the day we celebrate our freedom, perhaps it’s apropos to remember just how fleeting freedom can be.

    A recent news headline indicates “concern democracy will be fleeting in Egypt” after the recent takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood.  IMO, there is damn good reason to be concerned.

    Many TAH readers might be too young to remember the details – but the Iranian Revolution did not begin with the pro-American Shah leaving Iran in early 1979 and Khomeini’s subsequent return.  Rather, the Iranian Revolution derived from what had been an “under the radar” anti-Western Islamist opposition movement for years – a movement which objected to the Shah’s modernization efforts as being “against Islam”.  In Khomeini, it had a charismatic (if exiled) leader, and also had democratic allies within Iranian society. In late 1978, those directing the Iranian Revolution made a play for power by disrupting Iran’s society through public demonstrations. The attempt was successful, and the Shah was forced to depart. Khomeini then returned.

    However, the Iranian Revolution did not immediately install Khomeini as a theocratic dictator on his return to Iran.  The Iranian military at first opposed giving Khomeini and his allies political control of Iran.  After a brief struggle the Iranian military relented, and an interim government was formed.  Elections were soon held and a regime led by democracy advocate Mehdi Bazargani was installed.  Hardline Khomeini supporters subsequently isolated Bazargani, neutralized him politically, and then systematically eliminated all non-radical elements from the “Revolution”.  Within a few months, they’d succeeded – and had also pushed through a new constitution making Iran effectively a theocracy.

    We’re still feeling the effects 33 years later.

    Fast forward 33 years.  In Egypt, we’ve seen a long-term, anti-Western Islamist opposition movement – the Muslim Brotherhood – oppose a pro-American government for years. The Muslim Brotherhood finally took to the streets and forced a longstanding US ally from power.  The Egyptian military at first opposed giving control to the Islamists.  However, after a brief period of unsettled violence, an interim government was formed. Elections were held; and the Muslim Brotherhood has now been elected elected to lead the Egyptian government.  It is now in the process of installing it’s own leadership as the Egyptian government. And that leadership is also calling for the return of the charismatic mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing, Omar Abdel Rahman – who is currently in a US prison for that crime.

    I swear I’ve seen this film before.  And in terms of the United States’ interests and national security, it kinda sucked the first time around.

  • Here We Go Again – Part III?

    Well, now we have a couple of US Senators urging that we “do something” regarding Syria. Specifically, they’re Senators McCain and Lieberman.

    Lieberman has indicated he thinks we’re getting closer to “stopping the bloodshed” in Syria, but that we’re “moving too slowly.” And McCain is “embarrassed” by the lack of “US leadership” regarding the situation in Syria.

    Lieberman’s stance doesn’t surprise me. IMO, Lieberman’s relatively liberal regarding social matters. I’d expect him to cry out, “We gotta do something now!” – which is essentially what he’s done.

    But McCain? To some extent, his stance here does. He’s seen “up close and personal” what can happen when the US intervenes somewhere without first figuring out precisely what we want to accomplish and how we intend to accomplish it. That type of error by US national leadership during Vietnam cost McCain several years of his life spent as a “guest” in the Hanoi Hilton.

    Will all due respect to each: gentlemen, IMO you’re not exactly helping here. No case has yet been made that US intervention in Syria is in the US national interest. I don’t think the Obama administration has yet figured out who the players are, much less we want to accomplish by such an intervention. And I haven’t seen anything presented to the American public that lays out the benefits and potential costs of such an intervention.

    All I’ve seen is cries of, “This is bad! We gotta do something!” But I haven’t seen that “something” defined – or an explanation of why it matters enough to the US to risk getting involved.

    Bad stuff happens in the world all the time. People are mistreated by their own governments routinely all over the world – just look at Darfur, Rwanda, Zaire, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, and any number of other countries. But that should never be the criteria for US intervention, particularly intervention that risks military involvement.

    We should get involved in Syria if – and only if – doing so furthers US national interests and prospects for success are reasonable. If neither of those is true, we should leave well enough alone. Period. And I haven’t yet seen a good case made by the current POTUS or officials in his administration to support either.

    Santayana warned us what happens when we ignore history. And history shows us that foreign interventions started without due consideration – even those that start out with the best of intentions – often have a way of blowing up in our face.

    Make the case first, gentlemen. It’s always best to look before you leap.

    When you sow the wind, sometimes you indeed end up reaping the whirlwind.

  • Here We Go Again – Part II?

    I wrote about the possibility of US intervention in Syria recently. Well, it looks like it’s not only the CJCS who’s hinting at potential US intervention in Syria. Now we hear much the same from the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice.

    Earlier, Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the UN, said that Russia’s veto-wielding membership of the Security Council would not necessarily prevent international action. If the violence worsened and the peace plan proposed by Kofi Annan, the former UN secretary general, made no progress, some countries would consider whether to bypass Russian and Chinese opposition in the UN.

    “Some countries would consider whether to bypass Russian and Chinese opposition in the UN.” Hmmm. A public statement like that by the US Ambassador to the UN seems to me to be a reasonably clear signal. But then again, I’ve never been accused of being a diplomat.

    The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, also appears to have obliquely alluded to potential US intervention, albeit differently and of perhaps a different type. In the linked article, Clinton is quoted as saying that the US State Department has told the Russians “their policy (regarding Russian support for Syria) is going help to contribute to a civil war.” Yes, this could refer to Russia’s steadfast diplomatic support for the current Syrian government. But it could also refer to a change in policy on the part of the US – specifically, that the US will now provide diplomatic and/or material support to Syria’s rebel factions. That’s a different type of US involvement in Syria – but it still constitutes a US intervention. And US material support for one side of a war often has a way of ending up involving those wearing a uniform sooner or later.

    As I said previously: there may well be a good case to be made for US intervention in Syria. But to date, I’ve not seen that case made by the POTUS or his administration. And until that case is made, I’m reluctant as hell to support a US intervention there. Unless it’s shown to be in the US national interest to intervene in Syria – and that the expected cost of intervention is commensurate with the expected gain to US security – IMO we should leave well enough alone. Sometimes “the devil ye know” really is better than the devil ye don’t.

    As Vietnam showed, the time to have such a discussion is before we’re decisively involved in a foreign war. Not after.

  • That war thing

    Jeff sends us a link to Politico in which someone is trying to campaign using the troops once again.

    Gen. John Allen, Obama’s top commander in Afghanistan, said the idea that Obama is bucking his commanders, put forth by Romney and some other Republicans, simply isn’t true.

    “There is no daylight … between the commanders on the ground and the commander-in-chief,” Allen told reporters Sunday. “I was asked whether I could execute [Obama’s withdrawal] plan, and I told [him] that I can.”

    Really? What did they expect him to say? Did they think he’d pull a Stan McCrystal and let out a tirade of expletives about the president’s policy? Meanwhile, Old Trooper sends us a link to a Daily Beast article about CentCom Commander Gen. James Mattis planning for the next war.

    Mattis wanted to send a third aircraft-carrier group to the Persian Gulf earlier this year, The Daily Beast has exclusively learned, in what would have been a massive show of force at a time when Iranian military commanders were publicly threatening to sink American ships in the Strait of Hormuz. The four-star Marine Corps general and CentCom commander believed the display could have deterred Iran from further escalating tensions, according to U.S. military officials familiar with his thinking.

    But the president wanted to focus military resources on new priorities like China, and Mattis was told a third carrier group was not available to be deployed to the Gulf.

    It seems like not all of his commanders are in synch with the president as Politico and General Allen would have us believe. We’ve been at war with Iran since 1979 and we haven’t had a president willing to accept that reality. The Iranians have been supporting every one of our enemies materially over the past eleven years and they’ve made inroads into our backyard in South America. Between Obama’s worldview of a Chinese opponent and Mattis’ Islamic Republic scenario, which is more likely to explode first? Carrier group presence in the Persian/Arabian Gulf is more likely to deter a war with Iran than have an effect on China.

    But the Obama plan is less likely to cost as much in the short term as Mattis’.

    Well, except in American lives when the balloon inevitably goes up.