Use Nuclear Weapons on Terrorists?

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday the Russian missiles used to combat terrorists in Syria could be fitted with nuclear warheads, the Russian government-funded news agency RT reports.

He’s not talking to the terrorists in Syria, though. He’s talking to Poland, the Baltic States, and eastern European nations generally.

And to us.

Naturally, this is not necessary when fighting terrorists and, I hope, will never be needed,” Putin said of the possibility. “But overall, this speaks to our significant progress in terms of improving weaponry and equipment being supplied to the Russian army and navy.

Hmm….

Say We Had

The US-led coalition fighting the extremist group Islamic State denied Monday it carried out deadly airstrikes against a Syrian government military base.

The regime of President Bashar al-Assad said coalition warplanes carried out an air raid on Sunday in the eastern province of Deir Ezzour that killed three Syrian soldiers and wounded 13 others, and destroyed several combat vehicles and an arms depot.

Our special envoy to the coalition, Brett McGurk, was fast of the mark to deny the strike. He was desperate to insist that coalition strikes had occurred kilometers away, we couldn’t possibly have struck a Syrian military base.

Why? Hasn’t our President said the Syrian government must go? Haven’t he and our Secretary of State guy said al Assad must go? Given those demands, wouldn’t a strike on the Syrian government’s military bases—all of them, not just one—be an entirely appropriate activity by the coalition?

What, exactly, would have been the downside of such a strike, had it actually occurred?

Language

Does Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speak the same language the rest of us Americans do? Does anyone on the Left?

Asked about the terms “radical Islamist” and “radical form of Islam,” she, like her Left constituents and supporters, says you can’t use those terms. On ABC‘s This Week Sunday, she said,

I don’t want to do that [use those terms] because, No. 1, it doesn’t do justice to the vast numbers of Muslims in our own country and around the world who are peaceful people[.]

In what way does it do anything to “vast numbers of Muslims…who are peaceful?” In the American version of English, those modifiers—by definition—limit the ones being discussed in those terms to a carefully restricted subset of Muslims. Those modifiers explicitly exclude “vast numbers of Muslims” from the characterization.

It seems part of the problem with trying to reach agreements with anyone from the Left is that they don’t even speak the same language. They appear to have napped through their grammar school lessons.

Speeding Up

John Kerry, the guy presently sitting in the Secretary of State’s chair, is in the Middle East, talking about speeding up the talking about what to do about al-Assad and the Daesh.

The goal is to accelerate everything.

Everything helps move everything else. If we can get a cease-fire, if we can get a political process, that greatly facilitates what we can then talk to Russians and others about in terms of coordination to go after Daesh[.]

An aside: why on earth would we want a cease fire with murderous thugs, whether Bashar al-Assad, as Kerry is going on about above, or with the Daesh?

Here’s the meat of the thing, though:

He said efforts to speed up the diplomacy and military action already were under way before coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday, claimed by Islamic State, killed 130 people.

“Are we all talking about things that might be able to augment it, move faster? You better believe it,” Mr Kerry said.

This is nonsense. The way to move things faster is to do the things promptly. We should talk to those we want to join us in the actions to destroy al-Assad and the Daesh and lay out what those actions need to be. We should give those we want to join us a reasonable, brief period of time to understand those actions and determine their capacity to take part—a capacity we already know because, of course, we have alert embassies in those nations.

And then we should act. Those others can join us or not, but it’s…suboptimal…to wait on those others and their dithering. Al-Assad and the Daesh only benefit from delay.

Again: the way to move things faster is to move them faster, and with less intervening talk. Full stop.

Moving in the Right Direction

For 13 years the countries of Southeast Asia have tried building a framework with China to resolve their territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

That plan has been eclipsed in part, officials at high-level talks in Malaysia this weekend acknowledged, in favor of a blunter strategy for dealing with China: strengthening alliances between countries anxious about Beijing’s increasingly assertive behavior.

This also runs counter to the People’s Republic of China’s strongly stated and often repeated preference for dealing with each of the South China Sea nations in strictly bilateral talks—one-on-one talks that the PRC could easily dominate.

Events like Vietnam and the Republic of the Philippines moving outside ASEAN to deal directly with each other and with other interested parties are intended to give those with disputes with the PRC’s sea grab a more powerful position from which to answer the PRC’s aggressions.

These budding arrangements also surround the signing of a new US-ASEAN strategic partnership, an arrangement that is intended to guide interactions between the two over the next five years and to

deepen the relationship as well as priority areas for cooperation not just between the two sides, but also on regional, global and transnational issues.

Whatever that means.

It’s good that the South China Sea nations are beginning to band together in order to better address the PRC’s acquisitiveness. That their moves don’t involve the US, despite President Barack Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” is…instructive.