Posse Incitatus

The Never Trumpers' freatest fear: America succeeds

I believe it was almost exactly nine years ago that Rush Limbaugh caught grief for saying that he hoped Barack Obama failed in his goals.

He was broadly denounced as anti-American by progressives (which is always funny since they despise their country most of the time), but Limbaugh was on solid ground.

Obama's stated goals would cripple the country.  His actual policies did cripple it.

A few months ago I pointed out that Obama managed to drive the economy into an eight-year recession.  The growth he claimed was paid for by doubling the national debt.  The stock market rose only because the Federal Reserve was juicing it up.

(Speaking of which, maybe those corrections were the Fed unwinding its stake?  Food for thought.)

The Quisling Never Trumpers claim to be in the same position as Limbaugh in opposing Donald Trump's policies.  They argue that their stand is a principled one, based on what's good for America.

The problem with this argument is that their own words directly contradict it.

Jen Rubin, for example, has reversed herself on every single policy she held simply to oppose Trump.  Bret Stephens has done the same.

It is one thing to rethink a long-held belief.  This often requires years of thoughtful reflection as well as considerable debate.  The Never Trump traitors haven't done that.  They simply flip-flopped as soon as Trump acted.

In the process, they have also revealed that they don't really care about America's success.  Their own emotional state and social status is what it truly important to them.

For example, they warn that raising tariffs will cause a trade war and a global recession.  This is nonsense on stilts.  "Free trade" has crippled the middle class, destroyed the working class and made us increasingly dependent on global rivals for strategic materials.

Throughout history nations have protected key industries from foreign competition without causing commercial havoc.  It was only in the last three decades that "free trade" became an article of faith for the neocons and their progressive allies.

Similarly, restricting immigration used to be a core conservative principle.  Open borders is a radical departure from American policy and without precedent in human history.  No nation, no state or realm ever threw open its doors to anyone who wanted to come in - and then blessed them with full citizenship.  It's a recipe for national suicide.

Yet now the Benedict Arnold Right loves it and denounces actual border enforcement as racist.

The theme running through all their policies is fear and hatred.  Fear of losing status and hatred of the working classes that elected a blowhard from Queens to the White House.

Yet that blowhard is more competent than any of his Ivy League predecessors.  The economy is booming with more gains on the way.  American military might is being slowly restored.  Our enemies are alarmed and our people are more optimistic than they have been in 20 years.

This gets us to the real reason why the Never Trumpers are so angry:  America might actually become stronger.

And it will have happened without them.

Consider last week's opening with North Korea.  If this pans out, it would be a game-changer, a milestone is improving global security.  The US has made a single concession: long-overdue face-to-face talks with North Korea.

In return the Norks have pledged to cease nuclear tests and missile launches and claims they will allow military exercises with South Korea to proceed without incident.

The US holds all the cards in this deal.  If the Norks violate their pledges, they lose and the US military will resume its Doomsday Countdown on Little Rocket Man.  But if they do hold true, it will be the first time they ever kept their word.  That's pretty significant.

And yet the Never Trumpers are up in arms, supposedly because (it's hard not to laugh as I type this) it's an affront to democracy for a US president to sit down with a tin-pot dictator.

Yeah, I know.  Where do they get this stuff?

The real fear, though, is that Trump might actually solve the problem, just as they fear his tariff will work and his border enforcement will work.

That is their ultimate nightmare, their greatest fear:  that Orange Julius, whom they claim is ignorant, has a ten-second attention span, a witless baboon descending an escalator, that this guy will have exposed them as clueless idiots whose policies produced nothing but disaster.

It's one thing to be proven wrong, but it's another to be proven wrong by...Donald Trump!

That is why they are screaming their damn fool heads off over everything he does.

 

A Korean breakthrough and a necessary pardon

What is interesting to me about the lastest move in the North Korean standoff is how much the US gained for so little.

North Korea gains direct bilateral talks for the first time - a matter of some importance to them.

The US (and the world) in turn gains a moratorium on launches, bomb tests and a pledge not to interfere with US/South Korean military exercises. 

More importantly, no US sanctions are being lifted.  There are no pallets of cash headed to Pyongyang.

This is a very different dynamic from past negotiations, which required "humanitarian assistance" as a price for even beginning the otherwise useless talks.

Nothing may come of the dialog, but it certainly dispels the notion that his unconventional approach to diplomacy has done more harm than good. 

Of course, on cue the Quisling Never Trumpers have been howling that merely meeting with Little Rocket Man is a disaster of the first order and a huge concession.  As usual, they're full of shit.  Logic dictates that when the same approach has been tried multiple times without failure, you change your approach.

Yet the only tactic in the Never Trumper playbook seems to be:  fail harder.

People puzzling about how generals during World War I could continue to make bloody and fruitless frontal assaults despite hideous losses need look no further than these supposed military experts and strategic thinkers who have botched every job they've been given but still claim the mantle of authority and expertise.

The Trump Whitehouse contains some deep thinkers and it is perhaps no accident that despite superficial drama among civilian advisors, the core team of retired generals remains intact.

This, by the way, may also explain the full and unconditional pardon given to former Navy Sailor Kristian Saucier for a minor breach of security protocols relating to his nuclear submarine.

Saucier's transgressions were insignificant when compared to the massive security breach cause by Hillary Clinton - a crime made even more glaring by the FBI's decision not to even conduct a damage assessment.

The message was blatantly obvious:  Laws are for the little people.

This environment is toxic to both morale and military discipline since it teaches senior commanders that the core value for advancement is butt-kissing rather than competence.  If anyone wonders how it can be that two US warships had crews incapable of conducting basic navigation, this is your answer.

Far from being erratic or ill-tempered, Donald Trump is systematically rebuilding American might.  His armed forces are becoming more advanced, better trained and morale is rapidly recovering from years of abuse at the hands of Obama appointees.  This pardon is a clear signal to the enlisted ranks:  The commander-in-chief has your back.

On the economic front, Trump has taken decisive action to protect key strategic materials and for the first time in years, labor force participation rates are increasing.  Job creation is exploding and the new fear is that the economy may be expanding too fast.  It's a wonderful problem to have.

The Korean gambit may fail, but what sets it apart from previous efforts is the explicit threat of force that has never been employed before.  Unlike previous administrations, Trump has made it clear that he will denuclearize North Korea one way or the other.  The only alternative to military action will be a nuclear arms race including Japan and South Korea, which would be a strategic disaster for North Korean's patron China.

This is perhaps why the offer has been made and why the talks may bear fruit.  China is in a position to guarantee North Korean independence.  A formal treaty ending the war coupled with a Chinese security pact would provide better security and stability than anything Pyongyang can produce on its own.

It is therefore in China's interest that North Korea make a deal.  This too is a new development.

Here's to hoping the talks bear fruit. 

 

Obama's broken Navy

Barack Obama left a number of legacies the media doesn't want to talk about.

The destruction of Libya in an elective war without Congressional authorization is one.

The alarming deterioration of our Pacific Fleet is another.

The recent deadly collisions were years in the making.  They required a combination of dwindling forces, high operational tempos, and a command environment where the top leadership wanted to hear nothing but good news.

As a result, 17 sailors are dead and two badly-needed ships are sidelined for repairs.

Let there be more mistake - this is Obama's Navy.  He was utterly uninterested in readiness problems - his focus was on social engineering and virtue-signalling.

It got little attention outside of military circles, but Obama's Navy was obsessed with diversity issues, to the point of trying to abolish the traditional career field names. 

Presumably this was because women are such fragile flowers that the mere title of "sonarman" would cause them to refuse to sign up.

The "ratings" system was as old as the Navy itself, but of course traditions are anathema to progressives, so they had to go in the name of equality - the morale and fighting spirit of the sailors be damned.

It was only after Trump's election that the Navy leadership bowed to overwhelming opposition and changed course.

The same callous mentality that upends 241 years of professional pride thinks nothing of telling ships to ignore the collapsing morale and seamanship of their crews.  It also promotes people who tell leadership what it wants to hear - and punishes those that warn of problems ahead.

The commanders of the warships in question are now facing rightly charges of negligent homicide, but they should not be the only ones.  A number of flag officers are resigning in disgrace, but I think they should also be put on trial, since they were the ones ultimately responsible for the care and well-being of those ships.

In any event, President Trump and Secretary of Defense James Mattis have their work cut out for them.  They have eight long years of neglect to correct - and very little time to do it.

Godspeed.

 

 

 

 

Sixteen years later

I forgot today was September 11th.

I got up, went through my usual morning routine and then the import of the day hit me.

I found myself not wanting to remember the clear sky, the unreal atmosphere.  I wanted to forget it all.

It's an old cliche to say today was the day everything changed.  The new cliche is that today was the day nothing changed.

Both are false.

The West has accustomed itself to terrorist attacks quite well.  They're the background noise between social justice campaigns to normalize self-castration and punish observant Christians.

In fact, progressives have decided to create their own militant wing to terrorize their political enemies.  I guess they, too are tired of outsourcing.

As to what the next year holds, who knows?  A shooting war with Korea would dwarf all other matters.

All of which is why today's significance slipped my mind.

The myth of Chinese strategic genius

Last week I took a brief look at the likelihood of open warfare returning to the Korean peninsula and referenced China's unearned reputation for grand strategy.  I think the topic bears further, more detailed examination.

To begin with, we must understand that for almost its entire history, China has been almost entirely uninterested in the world around it.  China's focus has been almost entirely internal.  Sun Tzu's masterful treatise on war dates from the time before China was unified and is essentially a guide for how to win what would be a civil war today.

When threatened by an external power, China has either tried to fence it off (the Great Wall) or simply absorb the invasion. 

This is how China handled both the Mongols and the Manchurians.  The former never managed to conquer the entire Chinese state while the latter did - and ran it into the ground.  In both cases, these what started as foreign policy eventually became a domestic issue.  The end of the Manchu (or Qing) dynasty was the story of the last century - the revolution of 1911, the era of warlords, the rise of the Kuomintang and the emergence of Chairman Mao and his communists.

At no point in the last two centuries can one point to deft Chinese diplomacy averting conflict or achieving strategic goals.  In fact, China's diplomatic efforts have been consistently short-sighed and often counterproductive.

That's why when I read about how China's goals are served by Lil' Kim's nuclear tantrum, I have wonder what these analysts are smoking. 

Let us assume that China's goal is to drive the US from the western Pacific.  What would be the easiest way to do that?

The obvious answer is to remove military tension from Korea.  The US has been trying to reduce its overseas military commitments for thirty years.  A non-nuclear and non-militant North Korea would give the US the perfect excuse to remove the last of its forces.

A quiescent Korea would also remove the incentive of Japan to expand its own defenses.

Thus if China is actually aiding and abetting Kim's drive to build ICBMs, it is achieving the exact opposite of its stated goal.

South Korea has been undergoing a steady and wide-ranging modernization of its military.  It now possesses a missile defense system which undermines China's own nuclear deterrent.

More alarming still from the Chinese perspective, Japan is now throwing aside its post-World War II policy of pacifism and undertaking a massive rearmament program.  It's latest "destroyer" is in fact a fleet aircraft carrier with formidable power projection capabilities.  Japan is even contemplating something unthinkable not the long ago:  Building its own nuclear arsenal.

This is an unmitigated disaster for Chinese strategic ambitions.  Even if North Korea's nuclear blackmail forces a South Korean capitulation, the predicted result would be a far more dangerous Japan.

We must recall that Japan is far more strategically secure than South Korea.  Seoul is literally under Kim's guns; Japan is much farther removed.  To convincingly menace Japan with conventional forces would require a naval investment that would take a decade or more to pay off.  To do so using nuclear weapons will only convince Japan to reply in kind.  Given Japan's first-rate tech and science community, nuclear weapons could be developed in short order - assuming the US didn't simply hand over the blueprints.

All of this is painfully obvious, so why is China tolerating this behavior?

The answer isn't that they are playing "go" or three-dimensional chess, it is that China's foreign policy is one of malign neglect driven primarily by internal politics.

Consider the ultimate instrument of Chinese national power, the People's Liberation Army.  This outfit is still organized on Stalinist lines and despite propaganda, it is almost entirely focused on internal security.  Its generals rise and fall based on political patronage, not ability.

The PLA is also a key economic player, with its own enterprises.  China's political and economic systems are remarkably corrupt and this extends into the military.

Part of the problem is that China possesses no great martial tradition.  Historically soldiers have been considered low-status individuals, essentially bandits with uniforms.  Military careers carry none of the prestige that they do in Western countries.  Japan and India both had a strong historic (and respected) soldierly class and they have used this to build a modern military culture of efficiency.   That simply doesn't exist in China.

This article - which is ostensibly about China's leader strengthening his internal position - contains a key passage explaining some of the problems the PLA faces:

The Political Work Department used to be headed by Xu Caihou, who along with a fellow former vice-chairman of the military commission, Guo Boxiong, was accused of taking bribes in exchange for promotions. Guo was jailed for life last year, while Xu died of cancer in 2015 before he could face trial.[Emphasis added.]

This is a level of corruption far beyond anything seen even in the most decadent Western military establishments.   Part of the reason for this is that the generals are also politicians, filling key seats in the Communist Party hierarchy.

(Cynics might suggest the charges are trumped-up, but even fake charges need to be plausible.  These particular leaders might not have sold promotions, but it clearly is a problem.)

Xi Jinping is a lot more worried about a coup sponsored by his enemies than he is about a foreign invasion, and he and those around him apportion their effort accordingly.

Thus China's lack of sensible policy is the result of a distracted and inexperienced foreign policy establishment fumbling its way forward while constantly watching their backs.  Anyone expecting Chinese diplomacy to somehow pull off a strategic miracle in Korea is expecting something that has never happened before and is unlikely to happen now.

The end of the Korean truce

It is increasingly likely that either Kim Jong Un will be deposed or military action will have to be taken against his Hermit Kingdom.

It is worth reminding people that the Korean War never ended; it has simply been in a state of suspended animation since 1953.  There have been countless infractions and provocations from the North, but South Korea and the United States have tolerated them as the price to maintain peace.

The fear was always that Seoul and its environs would be subjected to a massive conventional bombardment if hostilities recommenced.  For a quarter-century, the US accepted this and did nothing while the North Korean nuclear enterprise moved forward.

As I said before, there are now no good options.  South Korea faces a stark choice:  Submit to the North's yoke or accept the risks inherent in military action. 

There some in the strategy business who insist Kim can be contained.  They point to the Cold War standoff with the Soviet Union as proof.

What they forget is how dangerous things were and how close we came to a nuclear conflagration.  It is ironic that the same people urging an American "nuclear freeze" are now totally fine with a third-generation cult of personality dictator having the most dangerous weapons in the world.

The South Koreans have to know that if Kim obtains a strategic-range nuclear weapon, the West will desert them.   The American people in their current state are unlikely to risk nuclear war over South Korea.  Indeed, the "containment crowd" would probably urge we cut them loose at the first serious threat.

Trump's people know this as well.  The best time to have taken out North Korea's nuclear capability was 25 years ago, when China was far weaker and Russia was a basket case.   That moment passed, though not without Bill Clinton promising that today's dilemma would never come.

The exact method of the strike is not clear, but China is slowly beginning to understand that Trump is no mere saber-rattler.  Some folks have asked why we haven't already struck, but such things take time and meticulous planning.  Plus there is South Korea to consider.

Given that their new defense minister has openly discussed having American tactical nuclear weapons redeployed to his nation, their willingness to risk war is clearly on the rise.

The key of course is China.  One thing I've noticed over the years is this strange and utterly misplaced confidence that China's leadership knows what it is doing and is moving as part of a long and careful plan.

The Chinese, we are told, are a wise people with a long historic memory.  The land of Sun Tzu surely are wise beyond Western comprehension.

Of course, if this were true, China would have colonized Europe rather than the other way around.  Indeed, China's foreign policy has historically been entirely focused on internal politics. 

The skillset needed to be a successful Chinese strategist is entirely focused on defeating internal opponents.  China is very new to great power politics and there is no reason to suppose that their corrupt, kleptocratic elites are any more insightful or talented than ours.

History moves in cycles.  Each hundred years or so, the international order collapses in a wave of war and unrest.  We're running overdue on the next reset.

If we're lucky, it will be a modest, and well-managed affair, with only minimal carnage.

I wouldn't bet it, though.