This is Foolish

A regularly scheduled ICBM test at Vandenberg AFB that had been planned for this week has been delayed by DoD, ostensibly in an effort to lower the tension on the Korean peninsula.  This delay comes as northern Korea has moved ballistic missiles to its east coast.  At least one of those missiles has the range (if not known to have the accuracy) to hit sites in Guam, Japan, Alaska, and Hawaii.  It’s also important to note that the move is more an effort to conceal the missiles’ locations than an effort to get closer to any targets—the distance gained is trivial compared to the distances to be covered.

If this is the reason—tension management—it’s hard to see how it works.  Coming on the heels of last week’s decision by the Obama administration to reduce overflights of the Republic of Korea with nuclear-capable aircraft and to stop moving combat ships into nearby waters, also supposedly to lower tensions, this seems more likely to encourage Kim the Youngest by seeming to display timidity and weakness on our part.

Is the delay in order to arm and retarget what was a test article at Vandenberg?  This seems unlikely (and it would suggest ugly things about the flexibility of our missile force), as northern Korea wouldn’t seem worth the trouble or expense of using an increasingly scarce warhead, when that part of the peninsula has so little of targeting value beyond its army and missile launchers—and these are more promptly, efficiently, and cheaply destroyed with more conventional systems already in place or nearby.

Or is President Barack Obama setting us up for making another round of concessions, of paying another installment of tribute, to another generation of Mad Kims, as past administrations have done in response to other outbursts of verbose threats?

The dog is barking.  There’s no need to take it seriously.

It Appears to be Time

…to walk away from Afghanistan commercially, if not militarily.  Our commercial presence flows from the mission creep that has long infested our war there—a creep from the Bush doctrine of going anywhere there are terrorists and burning them, which in the Afghan implementation meant burning al Qaeda and the Taliban.  Period.  Full stop.  That mission, following the destruction of those two terrorist organizations as viable entities in Afghanistan, unfortunately quickly morphed into nation-building, an attempt to meld widely and wildly disparate tribes and clans into an actual, unified country.

Here is an example of the failure of that mission creep and of the foolishness of allowing it.  Tamerlane Global Services, Inc, provides contracting services for the US government and is exempt from Afghan taxation.  At the time of this incident, Tamerlane was in the middle of a legal dispute in a US Federal court with an Afghan firm, Global Hub Logistics, over mutual allegations of breach of contract.  Whether impatient with the proceedings or disinterested in an anticipated outcome, or some other reason, Global Hub complained to the Afghan government, and the latter manufactured a tax dispute against Tamerlane.

And then they snatched a Tamerlane employee off the street and threw him into jail.

Tamerlane and its employee are not alone in this abuse.

Afghan companies have begun turning to the Attorney General’s Office to resolve business quarrels through criminal investigations and arrests, rather than going to arbitration, mediation or commercial courts, attorneys here said.

It took the involvement of American Congressmen to get the Tamerlane employee released from gaol, and the employee never has been charged with any crime.  His employer and attorney, Kimberley Motley, said afterward,

There’s no legal basis for this at all.

The US has over 33,000 American contractors in Afghanistan at risk of this treatment: with the employer having a dispute with an Afghan company, and the dispute not going in a direction that suits the Afghan company, the latter bellyaches and the Afghan government grabs a likely looking employee and jails him.

Ward Scott, an American commercial lawyer in Kabul:

Our firm is increasingly getting calls from Western executives fearing, with good cause, the imminent arrest of their managers in Afghanistan over commercial disputes[.]

This misbehavior has to stop, and unfortunately, the most effective way to stop it seems to be to stop dealing with Afghanistan commercially in the first place.

More PRC Sea Grab

The People’s Republic of China is extending its sea grab nearly to the shores of Malaysia, some 1200 miles south of Shenzhen on the PRC’s southern coast.  Last week, the PLA Navy sent three of its heavily armed ships, together with its largest amphibious landing ship, to tool around James Shoal, which is roughly 75 miles from the Malaysian coast, well within the latter’s economic zone; although Brunei has an overlapping claim in the area.

The Chinese task force, which included a guided missile destroyer and two guided missile frigates, was fully capable of attacking and destroying any aircraft or submarines that it might have encountered.

This intrusion occurred on the same day other PRC naval vessels fired on Vietnamese fishing boats in Vietnamese waters elsewhere in the South China Sea, and it came on the heels of a January incident in which another PRC naval ship threatened a Japanese destroyer and helicopter that were patrolling Japanese waters in the East China Sea.  In that incident, the Chinese vessel locked onto the Japanese ship and helo with its targeting and guidance radar, preparatory to launching missiles at them.

The PRC previously had only “claimed” two-thirds of the South China Sea as its sovereign territory; however, with this intrusion, they’re plainly intending to seize all of it for themselves.

Malaysia, Brunei, and Vietnam, among others, are members of ASEAN.  Where was—and is—the United States, supposedly a friend of ASEAN and a friend of several of the individual ASEAN nations?  Not there.  Not anywhere to be found.

Is the PRC’s continued aggressive expansion a result of their read of the United States as a paper tiger?  Or are we just leading from behind again?  Or is President Barack Obama channeling Sallah?

  • Chinese.  Very dangerous.  You go first.

More “Muddled” Foreign Policy

Courtesy of The Wall Street Journal‘s transcript of President Barack Obama’s joint presser with the Palestinian Authority’s Mahmud Abbas, an affair which Obama carefully conducted beneath a banner of the terrorist Yasser Arafat,

we have these…remarks…from our President in answer to the questions “After you meet leaders from both sides, is there any chance to resume peace talks as soon as possible?   And do you think that the two-state solution is still valid in this policy of expanding settlements is continuing going on?”:

I think it’s important for us to work through this process, even if there are irritants on both sides.  The Israelis have concerns about rockets flying into their cities last night.  And it would be easy for them to say, you see, this is why we can’t have peace because we can’t afford to have our kids in beds sleeping and suddenly a rocket comes through the roof.  But my argument is even though both sides may have areas of strong disagreement, may be engaging in activities that the other side considers to be a breach of good faith, we have to push through those things to try to get to an agreement….

Let me get this straight.  Our President says that murderous acts of terrorism, blatant acts of war, are just “strong disagreements?”  Mere “breaches of good faith?”

And then he said this:

And those two states I think will be able to deal with each other the same way all states do.  I mean, the United States and Canada has arguments once in a while, but they’re not the nature of arguments that can’t be solved diplomatically.

So our good friend Canada is no better than the PA?  Just a bunch of thuggish, ungovernable terrorist wannabes?

Does it get any more incompetent than this?

Incoherent Foreign Policy

President Barack Obama has it.

Here’s an illustration of that incoherence, vis-à-vis Israel and Iran.

Vice President Joe Biden, on 4 March:

Let me make clear what that commitment is: it is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.  Period.  End of discussion.  Prevent—not contain—prevent….  Big nations can’t bluff….  And President Barack Obama is not bluffing.

Here’s Secretary of State John Kerry, on 5 March:

[Red] lines have been drawn before and they’ve been passed.  …  [President Obama] would like to see the P1+5 process and negotiation process be able to work and avoid any consideration of any kind of military action.  …we are prepared through P5+1 and negotiating process to engage in a serious proposal that they would make to prove their program is in fact a peaceful program.

Commander US CENTCOM, General James Mattis before the Senate Armed Services Committee, on 5 March, in answer to the question, “In your professional opinion, are the current diplomatic and economic efforts to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability—are they working?”

No, sir.

Then he testified that he was working on “other options” at Obama’s direction.

Obama knows he’s better than any of his expert advisers, but does he, or by extension do any of his advisors, have any idea of what he’s doing in this arena?