CapitalistImperialistPig

 I have been reading Peter Turchin's War and Peace and War.  He open's with a look at how the Mongols easily swept through Russia and how Muscovy completely turned the table three centuries later.  One reason his analysis caught my eye is because it resonated with a favorite theme of mine: what is wrong with Libertarianism.  Thirteenth Century Russia was fragmented into tiny principalities and city states.  Even though they knew that cooperation was their best chance against the invasion, they were unable to unite.  Why?  The destruction of the Volga Bulgars in 1236 made it abundantly clear that the Mongols planned a systematic conquest; however, the Russians did not unite. Paradoxically, every principality, when taken individually, behaved in a completely rational manner. Each prince waited for others to unite and defeat the Mongols. Because each prince controlled only a small army, his contribution was not crucial to the common success. His potential...

North Korea claims fusion bomb test . That would be bad. UPDATE: Informed opinion doubts it, but might it have been a failed fusion bomb test? Or a partial success with limited fusion?

Obama has very good reasons not to like the idea of an occupation. The Iraq and Afghanistan occupation have been disasters. At least part of the reason is that those occupations were monumentally stupid. By contrast, the occupation of Japan and Germany after WW II were big successes. Bush's failure to plan for an occupation was one of his biggest blunders. The US started planning for the occupation of Germany and Japan right after Pearl Harbor. Of course Bush also made many other specific blunders, like disbanding the Iraqi army but allowing them to keep their weapons, producing a vast band the armed and unemployed. If Obama, or some future President, does decide to destroy ISIS, he needs to start planning now, and study the lessons of World War II and the American Civil War.

When I pointed out the danger of East-West escalation in Russia's decide to intervene militarily in Syria, more than one correspondent assured me that that couldn't happen. Now Turkey has shot down a Russian jet , and, apparently, killed the pilots.

The existence of a so-called Islamic State dedicated to terror has proved to be a rallying cry for terrorists around the world, as well as a source for terrorists, terrorism propaganda, and instruction. So the debate has begun over whether it's time to erase that state. There are many reasons why the US and Europe have hesitated, including the cost, especially in soldiers lives, and the manifest failure of regime change projects in Iraq, Syria and Libya. In addition, such a move would further upset the already disrupted Sunni-Shiite balance. Despite the risks, there is a growing feeling that some kind of strike back is needed, some way to show would be terrorists that their tactics are hurting their cause. Christopher Dickey has an article entitled After Paris, Is It Time to Roll on Raqqa, the ISIS Capital? It includes this quote: Thus a CIA veteran with long experience hunting Osama bin Laden and trying to outmaneuver ISIS, speaking privately, tells The Daily Beast, “Every...

Obama to world. I like Obama, but I really hate that kind of bullshit rhetoric. It wasn't an attack on "all humanity" it was an attack on France, intended to punish it for real or imagined deeds against Islam. One of the things wrong with Bush's idiotic wars was that they were waged under false pretenses - one of them being that we were trying to bring the blessings of liberty to Iraq and Afghanistan. Incoherent rationales lead to incoherent strategies which lead to disastrous results. As a result, Bush let the perpetrators (bin Laden and Saudi Arabia) escape while wading into the idiotic Sunni vs Shiite conflict with both feet. It appears that the Paris attacks were done in the name of ISIS, for actions against ISIS, and if so, the appropriate action is revenge against ISIS. We probably can't destroy it, but we could erase its geographic presence. If terrorist get the message that terror hurts their cause, they might hesitate. They will only be encouraged...

How far should France and the World go to repress the kind of terror we saw tonight? Would cutting off the head of ISIS, by destroying its territory utterly, help? Internally, how much civil liberty does one need to sacrifice? Of course we don't know any details yet, but allowing ISIS to exist and occupy territory may not be an option the world can still afford. Destroying the so-called Caliphate may take boots on the ground, and once that is done, then what? Recent history is not encouraging. What about purely internal measures? Again, the details of who the attackers were are crucial. The worst case might be that they were radicalized French citizens. Reputedly there are thousands of radicalized French Muslims already under surveillance. If the attackers are among them, or closely linked, mass roundups of suspicious characters might occur. If French Muslims cannot manage to control their most radical elements, then they are likely to suffer a more general repression.

So what is El Puto up to in Syria, and how dangerous is it? Some see it in terms comparable to the pushing and shoving that led up to WW I, and other see analogies to Hitler's series of probes that led to WW II. These might be exaggeration, but one thing that is not an exaggeration is that the catastrophe Putin could unleash on the world would dwarf those of the previous two World Wars. There is little doubt that he is now pushing the envelope, seeing how far the US can be pushed without striking back. With some reason, he suspects that Obama is tired of wars and the US military's repeated failure to deliver results. Or maybe he is just so impressed with the success of the Bush family's various escapades in the Middle East that he wants in on the game. In any case, it seems that we can expect an escalating series of provocations. Now what?

To the extent that we remember at all, Americans have only a dim idea how we got first got involved in Afghanistan. Something about the Soviet invasion, followed by the CIA and "Charlie Wilson's War." Husain Haqqani tells some more of the story in "Magnificent Delusions." After Army Chief Zia-ul-Hac overthrew the elected government of Pakistan and murdered the elected President, he faced rebellions in some provinces. When the British divied up the subcontinent, they had deliberately divided the Pashtun peoples, placing some of them in Pakistan and the rest in Afghanistan. This resulted in persistent demands for a united "Pashtunistan." Meanwhile, a somewhat leftist government had been elected in Afghanistan and adopted policies (land reform, rights for women) that offended large landowners and Islamic fundamentalists. Zia responded by training, funding, and supplying Islamist insurgents, creating an Afghan civil war. This war probably played a...

In the age of the internet, the business of war is even more damaging to reputation than ever. People don't like to see kids and hospitals blown up. The good news for Israel in this new Pew poll is that Americans remain solidly behind Israel, blaming Hamas more than Israel by a margin of 40% to 19%, with the rest going with "both" or don't know. The bad news is that those 18-29 reverse this, blaming Israel more by 29% - 21%. Blacks and Hispanics blame Israel more as well. Not sure what the comparable numbers look like in Europe, but rumors would seem to indicate that the numbers are worse for Israel there. For now, it looks like Israel has a comfortable margin of US support, but its margin for error is endangered. A recent Gallup poll had the maybe even worse news for Israel, with support looking solid only among Republicans, over fifties, and the most educated.

Yuval Diskin's interview linked below implies the Israeli public opinion pressured Netanyahu into invasion of Gaza. Putin's meddling in Ukraine has caused his popularity at home to skyrocket. George Bush got a big boost from his Iraq war. The Iraq-Iran war of the eighties consolidated Khomeini's grip on power in Iran. Wars are popular, especially at first, before the bills come due. The other side of this is that they are usually easier to get into than out of. Six year's later Obama is still struggling to extract himself from Bush's wars. Putin lately seems pretty unsure of his Ukrainian adventure, but any retreat now might collapse his power at home. Meanwhile Israel continues to ratchet up the bloodshed in Gaza, with very little sign the Hamas is about to collapse. Can Israel stop short of a reoccupation of Gaza that's likely to be much bloodier and more costly to it and it's reputation? TBD.

I am always a bit surprised how few of the people who ask that question have thought deeply about the answer. We have known the answer in some detail since Malthus and Darwin, and approximately from time immemorial. To put the tragic answer bluntly: we can't all just get along because resources are finite, and the population increases to exploit any increases in resources, and, finally, because we have evolved to live in a world where those things are true. We are fabulously lucky to live in an age when we no longer have to continue to reproduce like rabbits, and in many countries, we no longer do. In most countries, we are approaching sustainable reproduction rates. On the other hand, we still do have all those instincts that were developed to deal with the Malthusian world. Also, population will continue to increase for some decades, even if favorable trends in declining fertility continue. Worse news, however, is that ecological damage due to global warming is likely to di...

In case we haven't yet had our fill of Asian war, Iran has made a threat that can hardly be less than mortal. A senior Iranian official on Tuesday delivered a sharp threat in response to economic sanctions being readied by the United States, saying his country would retaliate against any crackdown by blocking all oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for transporting about one-fifth of the world’s oil supply. The declaration by Iran’s first vice president, Mohammad-Reza Rahimi, came as President Obama prepares to sign legislation that, if fully implemented, could substantially reduce Iran’s oil revenue in a bid to deter it from pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Prior to the latest move, the administration had been laying the groundwork to attempt to cut off Iran from global energy markets without raising the price of gasoline or alienating some of Washington’s closest allies. Apparently fearful of the expanded sanctions’ possible impact on the already...

Another terrorist attack in India , and it's once again plausible that the trail leads back to Pakistan.  What are India's options? The trouble with low level conflict between nuclear powers is that it's very hard to respond openly without provoking nuclear war.  If India thought that it could take out most of the Pakistani nuclear deterrent in a first strike, it might be an option, but the cost would be certain to be very high, even if fully successful.  Does India have any useful economic weapons?  I wonder.

Since I'm pretty sure Obama, or at least Hillary, must read this blog, some principles of intervention: 1)If you intervene in a civil war, pick a side. 2)Make sure that side wins. 3)Quickly. That is all.

It was pretty clear at this late date that denying Gaddafi the skies would not cut it. It seems that that lesson was well appreciated. From Karim Fahim's article in The New York Times : The attack seemed to have come out of clear skies onto a field of wildflowers. Littered across the landscape, some 30 miles south of Benghazi, the detritus of the allied airstrikes on Saturday and Sunday morning offered a panorama of destruction: tanks, charred and battered, their turrets blasted clean off, one with a body still caught in its remnants; a small Toyota truck with its roof torn away; a tank transporter still on fire. But it did not end there. Full-scale war from the air.

Andrew Sullivan was a big supporter of our war on Iraq. Libya, not so much. Under the headline Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb he quotes (blogger) Talleyrand: Several European nations, the United States and a few token others have decided to intervene militarily in a civil war on the losing side, and just at the moment when these forces were on the verge of defeat. The timing, indeed, was bizarre.

...in comedy, is everything. It's also pretty critical in revolutions. The first thing a revolution does is force people to choose sides. You may hate the current oppressive leader, but if he looks likely to win, the incentive to line up with, rather than against, him is large. By waiting until Gaddafi was on the very brink of victory, the West may have ensured that every doubter has already lined up on his side in irrevocable fashion. This could produce the worst possible result - Gaddafi triumphant, with a convincing case that much of the whole kerfluffle was a foreign plot. The West had better figure out how to keep Gaddafi from crushing Benghazi.

I visited the sites of the revolutionary war battles of Lexington and Concord this summer, and was reminded of the old joke about the great game master arranging the terms of the war: OK, you Brits will wear red, march in close formation, and use short range guns. Americans, you wear camouflage, hide behind trees, and use long range rifles. Ready, set, go! So why don't the guerrillas usually win? Because it was discovered long ago that there is another side to the asymmetry. The more powerful force uses its superior firepower to destroy the means of sustenance of the population in which the guerrillas live. Thus Sherman broke the back of Southern resistance in the American Civil War by creating a swath of destruction across the South. Collective punishment is a war crime, but war is always collective punishment. Meanwhile, the world puts up with terrorism mainly sponsored by weak countries. A vast armada is deployed in a mainly futile effort to suppress piracy based in Somalia, b...

So a scruffy looking guy walks into the diner, opens up his red and black plaid jacket, and reveals several sticks of dynamite strapped to his chest. He holds up his hand to show the spring loaded detonator, walks over to the counter, picks up the salt shaker and throws it, hitting the waiter. "Give me a cup of coffee," he says, "and one of those cinnamon thingies." It seems like a small price to pay, so the staff accomodates him. Unfortunately, he moves into a booth and starts tinkering to build a more powerful bomb - a nuke - while continuing to be obnoxious and extorting free food. Such is the situation South Korea finds itself in. At the moment, the crazy guy's capability is pretty much limited to blowing up Korea, but he has his sights on the world, and Japan, at least, is very much at risk. If the South, and the world, fail to respond, the bad behavior will continue and likely escalate, if world history is any guide, and any response risks catastrophe. At ...