Category Archives: defense policy

I Disagree with Israel

Posted on by
Reply

Per a Wall Street Journal article centered on Israel’s revised war plans vis-à-vis Hamas, this appears to be at those plans’ core:

…a series of escalatory steps to gradually ratchet up pressure on Hamas now that talks to extend a seven-week cease-fire have stalled, plans that could lead to a resumption of hostilities in the 16-month war in the Gaza Strip.

The steps, supposedly:

• block the entry of goods and supplies into Gaza
• cut off electricity and water
• campaign of airstrikes and tactical raids against Hamas targets
• displace the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have used the cease-fire to return to their homes
• re-invade Gaza with far more military power than it has deployed so far in the conflict
• hold ground and effectively occupy territory while it attacks the remnants of Hamas

Even if it’s only something like that, gradual escalation, at its core, is a mistake: it gives the enemy time to adapt to the revising situation. Even if the escalatory pace is faster than the enemy’s OODA Loop, that leaves too much room for the enemy to catch up from the first, or first very few, response deficits. It’s necessary IMNSHO to apply maximum pressure at maximum pacing from the start. Leave no room at all for the enemy to adapt to the new and levels of violence and pacing of their application.

This is particularly the case when dealing with a terrorist entity whose avowed purpose in life is the extermination of Israel with no concern whatsoever for the cost to the civilians among whom these terrorists secrete themselves.

What Makes a Match?

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal article centered on the possibility of Germany acquiring its own nuclear weapons, the news writer had this remark:

[W]ith warheads in the low hundreds, neither the British nor the French arsenals are a match for Russia’s nearly 6,000 warheads.

This comparison is silly. How many targets does Russia face? How many targets in Russia do the UK or France, or potentially Germany, face, whether individually or together?

The match is whether the Europeans have enough warheads and delivery systems to survive an initial Russian attack targeted on those systems, to launch against targets in Russia (and Belorussia and Kaliningrad, since Russia has deployed tactical nuclear weapons there), to relaunch against targets necessitated by systems failures, and to launch again against additional targets in successive waves. Especially that last, since Russian doctrine, inherited from Soviet doctrine, specifies that nuclear war is winnable and that it will be won by successive waves of nuclear attacks rather than a single spasm of everything launched.

It may be that low hundreds are insufficient for that, but it’s unlikely that 6,000 are necessary.

“Gambling with World War III”

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump really screwed the pooch on this one. In a public Oval Office meeting with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump and his Vice President JD Vance ambushed Zelenskyy and blew up any hope of a peace that serves the Ukrainian people.

Trump repeatedly berated the Ukrainian leader as “not ready for peace,” for having “disrespected” the United States and for “gambling with World War III.”

No. It’s those who back down in the face of Putin’s threats who are gambling with WWIII. It is ex-President Joe Biden (D), too many European government managers, and now Trump who repeatedly accede to Putin’s demands lest he strike at them, thereby giving credence to his threats. Never mind that every time one of those politicians dipped a toe over a Putin red line—authorizing transfers of weapons to which Putin objected, authorizing attacks inside Russia, and so on—Putin…didn’t strike.

It’s Vance’s timidity in rejecting Zelenskyy’s offer for him to go to the Ukrainian front, to go to places like Bucha, Staryi Bykiv, Zabuchchya, Vorzel, the Kharkiv region, and I add, in no particular order, places like Bakhmut, Mariupol (surely Putin would let him in if there’s really nothing to see there), Odesa, Kakhovka Dam on the Dnieper River, Berdiansk (again Putin would let him visit—wouldn’t he?), and any of the plethora of hospitals, schools, apartment buildings that the barbarian has deliberately attacked. Vance hid behind the claim that such tours are just propaganda events. He could have, instead, agreed to the visits on condition that he go unannounced with no notice of any particular places, and on arrival he go wherever he chose to go on the spur of the moment, a stipulation to which Zelenskyy would have agreed readily. But no. Vance said no. Terrifying to have one’s world view challenged by facts. That’s gambling with WWIII.

Zelenskyy, however, has returned to his nation, where he routinely visits the front and the scenes of battle and of civilian carnage. And, unfortunately, he returned empty handed courtesy of the hysteria and timidity of Trump and Vance.

Which raises the question: with this steady backing away in front of Putin by Trump and by central and western Europe (yes, yes, Europe’s other nations natter on about supporting Ukraine, but so far only with words and a trickle of materiel), and so after Russia has gained control over the bulk of Europe from those backings away, when Putin threatens us if we don’t accede to his demands, what will Trump do then, with no nation left to support us? Will he surrender us to the barbarian, too, as he’s demanding Zelenskyy surrender his nation to the barbarian at the outset of this shameful chain? That, too, is Trump gambling with WWIII.

That’s OK

Posted on by
1

What sort of officer does our military establishment really need?

If President Trump and Elon Musk are serious about efficiency at the Pentagon, they might start by reforming SkillBridge. The program began as a well-intentioned effort to reduce veteran unemployment but now pays promising officers to leave the military for careers in investment banking and consulting.

The article’s authors expanded on this:

Junior officers are most likely to separate from the military after five or 10 years, after they have fulfilled their service requirements but before they feel the pull of a generous pension that begins vesting after 20 years. By providing an off-ramp into high-paying corporate jobs during this critical window, SkillBridge gives motivated officers an incentive to leave when they might otherwise have stayed.

The authors’ concerns are, for the most part, valid: the junior officers involved in operations and operations support—loggies and transporters—are the ones on the line, in contact or near contact with the enemy forces, and they’re the ones making the real-time tactical decisions necessary to execute their units’ larger orders regarding that battle and the environment surrounding that battle. These are the ones our military most needs in this context.

The authors concerns, though, are overbroad. While our military branches need some money manager officers, they don’t necessarily need “consultant” officers. What they do need, far more and in sufficient numbers, is what they can least afford to lose: those warfighting and direct warfighting support officers.

Europe’s Role in Europe

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal article centered on the EU’s dismay over being dismissed from peace talks among Ukraine, Russia, and the US, there was this bit near the end:

Ukraine’s army today is larger and more capable than the German, French, Italian, and British armies combined. Alongside Russia’s, it is also the only military in the world with a wealth of experience in large-scale modern warfare against a near-peer enemy.

That’s how worthless NATO has become, particularly including those western European nation members. Sure, those nations are nattering on about increasing defense spending. French European Affairs Minister Benjamin Haddad:

The message is clear: it’s time to take our responsibilities, to safeguard our own security.

Well, NSS.

However.

Germany, not atypically, has made those commitments before, and then welched on them. And even those western European nations who did consent to send weapons and money to Ukraine held back on them until the US first sent weapons and money to Ukraine, so timid they have been to act on their own initiative.

It’s time for the US to stand up a separate mutual defense arrangement centered on the eastern European Three Seas Initiative nations—nations which directly front Russia and still remember the devastation caused by the barbarian’s jackboots on their necks. Those nations, too, already are at the European forefront in material and financial support, on a per-GDP basis, for Ukraine’s fight for its existence. And then for us to walk away from NATO, which has been shown to be three years, at least, past its Use By date.