Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Military Page 7 of 11

This Concern About Trump Forcing the US Military to Commit War Crimes Is Beyond Farcical

By

On March 4, 2016

Comments

Look. When Iraq was invaded, the US Army committed the exact same war crime for which most Nazis were hung at Nuremburg. The US attacked a country which offered the US no threat.

The only defenses are the “Good German” defense and the “We didn’t know” argument (really the “I couldn’t be bothered to actually pay attention” argument). Or, perhaps, the “They keep us in a cage and feed us propaganda argument.”

But Iraq was a war crime. Once in Iraq, the US military deliberately targeted civilians, engaged in torture, and so on.

(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing, and want more of it, please consider donating.)

Are people seriously wringing their hands about the prospect of Trump “making” the US military commit torture, and killing the families of its enemies, as if the US has not already done both?

Oh yes, hitting all those weddings and funerals with drones wasn’t “meant” to kill civilian members of the family. No, sir. It just happened to.

Over and over and over again.

Trump is only tearing off the pretense. If the US military revolts against his orders, it will not be because of what he is ordering, but because he does not leave them a fig-leaf pretense of honor, and because internal factions want to take him down, not because they give one fig about committing war crimes.

Trump’s crime is his refusal to veil his monstrosity with hypocrisy.

 

Guardian Pushes for Western Countries Involvement in Invasion of Syria

By

On February 15, 2016

Comments

So, Michael Clarke in the Guardian writes that the Saudi Arabian threat to invade Syria isn’t credible (it isn’t, if acting alone, but Saudi Arabia claims Turkey is onside, and Turkey is a credible threat.)

He then goes on as follows:

Militarily, the Saudi threat issued at Munich has to be made credible. If a ceasefire does not materialise soon, the Russians, Iranians and Assad himself have no incentives to quit while they are ahead. Only the possibility of Arab ground forces, from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the UAE, heavily backed by western logistics and intelligence, air power and technical specialists, could force Assad and his backers to make a strategic choice in favour of cessation. Only the US could make that work for the Saudis and others – and only Britain could bring along other significant European allies.

So, he wants America involved in this invasion in a big, visible way, along with Europe.

The sheer crazy here is awe-inspiring. Clarke believes that a “vengeful Assad” would be a huge problem for the West if he reconstitutes Syria.

Big enough to risk nuclear war?

Why?

It’s a small country, destroyed by war, run by a pragmatist. I suppose it is possible Assad could sponsor terrorism, but he’s unlikely to risk anything truly large that would entail risking his own life in retaliation, nor could he expect Russia to defend him if he was truly sponsoring terrorism.

There is nothing in Syria, and never was, that was worth a war there, at least not for the West. Destabilizing Syria has caused nothing but headaches for the West, including the current refugee crisis, which is likely to seen, historically, as one of the causes of the EU either breaking up or becoming a largely toothless and ceremonial organization.  (The main cause will be that the EU cripples its own members economically.)

(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year.  If you value my writing, and want more of it, please consider donating.)

I am shocked at the level of political thinking which the Guardian considers worth publishing. Truly shocked, not just rhetorically. Insane NeoCon warmongering is one thing when you’re dealing with countries like Iraq and Libya, it is another when you are dealing with a country where one of the world’s great nuclear powers is currently fighting.

Stupidity like this could get a lot of people very dead, and not just Middle Eastern people the West doesn’t care about.

Nothing in Syria is worth risking a war with Russia over. Nothing.

 

 

Saudi Arabia & Turkey to Invade Syria?

By

On February 15, 2016

Comments

It’s hard for me to credit anyone for being so careless, but the Independent reports that:

Saudi Arabia is sending troops and fighter jets to Turkey’s Incirlik military base ahead of a possible ground invasion of Syria.

…

“At every coalition meeting we have always emphasised the need for an extensive result-oriented strategy in the fight against the Daesh terrorist group.

“If we have such a strategy, then Turkey and Saudi Arabia may launch an operation from the land.”

So… they will claim that they are fighting ISIS, which is, by this point, I suppose, traditional. Turkey is already shelling Kurdish positions in northern Syria.

Of course, Saudi Arabia is not credible on this (at least with regards to a large commitment), with their involvement in Yemen, especially as they are also considering invading that country.  But Turkey is. I hope this is just bluster, intended to sway negotiations.

If it isn’t, this is a fiasco, a catastrophe, waiting to happen. Unlike the other foreign forces with boots on the ground (Iraq, Iran, Hezbollah, Russia), these forces would obviously not be invited by the Syrian government.

Syrian forces, backed by Russian airpower, are now fighting quite close to the Turkish border. Their aim has been to close that border so that various rebels (including ISIS) can’t receive supplies from Turkey.

It should be pointed out that if Daesh/ISIS has a government ally in the world, it is Turkey. As for Saudi Arabia, well, Daesh’s theology is a very close descendant of their branch of Islam.

Perhaps more to the point, all those armies tromping around in a rather small country risks war between Russia/Syria/Hezbollah and Saudi Arabia/Turkey.

Russian supply lines to Syria are not the best, to put it mildly. Turkey can close the direct sea route from Sevastopol, and alternative routes require going through some dangerous territory.

I wonder what Russia would do in such a situation. The Turkish military is very large and right on the border. A Turkish attack on Syria can’t be considered an existential threat to Russia, so Russian nuclear doctrine doesn’t call for use of battlefield nukes, but… I get twitchy when a NATO member goes up against Russia, and Turkey is a member of NATO.

Russia created “facts on the ground,” which have led to a realization that Assad will probably survive and that the rebels are doomed.

It seems those who wanted Assad gone the most now want to create their own “counter-facts” on the ground. Either they get rid of Assad in peace deals (assuming they avoid outright conflict), or they divide up Syria, with Turkey getting a good chunk of it.

That’s the plan. If they do invade, I find myself almost hoping the plan “works,” because if it doesn’t “work” that will most likely be because of general war between the powers.

(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year.  If you value my writing, and want more of it, please consider donating.)

This is an absolute catastrophe waiting to happen. I find it unlikely this could be done without the US’s approval, and, given Obama’s recent statement about how Russia should stop hitting “moderate” opposition targets in Syria, I can only assume he’s greenlighted this.

Were I in the White House, I’d be telling Saudi Arabia and Turkey not to. If they insisted on doing it anyway, I’d go public with a warning not to, and a UN Security Council motion with the US voting against Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

And let’s be perfectly, brutally frank here: If they want to do this, I’d tell Turkey that NATO’s “an attack on one is an attack on all” principle will not apply here. You do this, we’re not getting into a nuclear war for you. This is not self-defense.

As for Saudi Arabia, I’d have a pointed conversation about the price of oil and their budget. However, as much as they think the price of oil will increase if there is a war in Syria, their economy is still in bad shape, and the US could total it tomorrow if they chose to–simply through Treasury sanctions. Likewise, an end to parts and ammunition for their military would curtail them.

These are stern, even radical steps. Avoiding a war with Russia justifies them. There is nothing in Syria worth the risk of having all these armies stomping around, especially after Turkey has already shot down one Russian plane.

Free and Prosperous Societies Occur Only When the Basis of Power Is the People

By

On January 5, 2016

Comments

Any apparent exception will end quickly, and is usually a legacy from a time when the people were needed.

Franchise tracks the dominant military arm pretty close to exactly. The Swiss are free because of their fights in Pike formations.  Most of Dark Ages and Medieval Europe’s were not free, because the dominant military arm was cavalry. As the dominant military arm moves to infantry, the franchise and freedom expand.

When a society becomes militarily mass-mobilized, all the men get the vote. When a society is militarily mass-mobilized and it’s industrialized, all the women get the vote because they are needed to run the industry while the men are away fighting.

Militarily mass-mobilized societies require that the citizens be healthy enough to fight. In WWI, the British were aghast at the number of men who were ineligible for the draft because their health was too weak, or they were too short, and so on. They did something about it.

Agricultural societies tend towards the patriarchal, because much of the work requires men’s heavy muscles. Horticultural societies, where women can do the work, tend towards egalitarianism. Likewise, hunter-gatherer societies in climes where gathering provides most of the food, tend towards egalitarianism; the exception here is when the most valued food is gathered by the men. In traditional Eskimo society, for instance, where the men provided essentially all the meat and the women processed it, was not egalitarian.

Humans have three sources of power: military, productive, and (in modern societies) consumptive. Consumers are not useless in our society, but consumption is still the weakest leg of the tripod. The rich are happy to consume more, after all.

The conditions for widespread prosperity have faded. We no longer have mass-mobilized armies, but professional standing armies, and we are moving towards smaller armies with more robots, both autonomous and remote-guided.

Technological progress has made manufacturing far more efficient, and it requires far less people. The rest of the economy, unless it is required for manufacturing, now matters far less. Most service work is not highly valued and does not translate into military power, and extraction labor is a minor part of most economies.

The final source of power for ordinary individuals is simply the threat they pose to elites. As we move away from the mass-mobilized “just need a rifle” military, this fades as well. To the extent it still exists, it is being managed by the time-honored “oppression” method, with new technology allowing for a Panopticon State which would have made Orwell pine for the weak and limited surveillance of Big Brother.

This is not to say the commoners are entirely powerless. The full power of denial of area techniques shown in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere hasn’t been properly appreciated.  These strategies would have worked just fine in the First World. Drones are cheap, and, in principle, could be manufactured by ordinary technicians. These aren’t F-16’s; you can make them in your garage.

Still, mass mobilization warfare is no longer the model, factories are not begging for more workers, there exists no longer any large expanses of land needing to be conquered in the name of colonialism, administered, or farmed.

As for money, banks make it, not people. We may move to a world where we fully appreciate that money is made out of thin air and reclaim control of money for the public, but so far the movement has been in the other direction–printing more and more of it for rich people.

At this point, most people are superfluous. As such there is no reason for elites to allow them freedom, power, or prosperity.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Why Registering Drones with the Government Matters

By

On October 23, 2015

Comments

DroneSo, drones must now be registered with the Department of Transportation in the US.

Drones are a big part of the future of war. They are cheap, easy to make, and drones will be a chosen weapon of the weak and relatively poor. They are also going to become more and more effective. A drone whistling by at 45 miles an hour is very hard to hit by a person with a gun.

A lot of people focus on an “armed population,” but future wars will be fought more and more with robots: autonomous or guided (which is what a drone is).  These robots will eventually be more effective than human soldiers and can already do things humans can’t.

And they are cheap.

This is being done by the Department of Transport, presumably for safety reasons, but those who worry about the tracking and confiscation of guns, if they were really smart, would worry about the tracking and confiscation of drones.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Some Interesting Things About the Russian Coalition’s Syrian Campaign

By

On October 16, 2015

Comments

Notice that one of their major initial objectives is to seal the border with Turkey.

This is because Turkey is the major supply route for the various factions in Syria (and Iraq). And that is Turkish policy.

Note, also, just how effective Russian air support, backed by coalition ground forces, has been. Air power without decent boots is great for destruction and not much else, but it really is a force multiplier if you have the troops to exploit it. This is Russia giving its ally an air force, in the same way the US has so often done.

Finally, note that Russia has just given itself a major presence in the Middle East by becoming a strong ally of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and (downstream) Hezbollah. Don’t think they’ll forget who bailed them out on this.

I’ll have a longer guest post up on Russian strategy in historical context posted soon, I hope.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Is Russia About to Send a Thousand Troops to Syria?

By

On September 5, 2015

Comments

Perhaps:

Russia is building a military base in Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s heartland, according to American intelligence officials, in the clearest indication yet of deepening Russian support for the embattled regime of Bashar al-Assad.

The anonymous officials say Russia has set up an air traffic control tower and transported prefabricated housing units for up to 1,000 personnel to an airfield serving the Syrian port city of Latakia.

Why would they do that?

Syria is already home to Russia’s only base outside the former Soviet Union – a naval station in Tartus.

The humorous part is that Russia is claiming that they want to expand their role to “fight terrorism” and “ISIL.” Everyone claims whatever they’re doing in Syria is to fight ISIL and terrorism, of course, including the Turks, who are bombing the Kurdish forces who are the only people to consistently win against ISIL.

Of course what Russia is really doing is supporting its interests, which don’t include allowing a loyal client state to be overthrown by Islamic forces which are hostile to Russia and supported by Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Or to lose a warm water port it cannot easily replace.

Or to be shown to let down a loyal ally.

Everyone else seems to think they have the right to bomb Syria in the guise of “bombing ISIL,” why not the Russians?

As for the morality of it, well, I see no “good” actors in Syria. However, it is a simple fact that Syria was a better place to live before the civil war and those who have encouraged that civil war either: a) shouldn’t have, or; b) should have applied the necessary force to end it quickly. (At which point, Syria would have probably become a failed state, like Libya.)

As anyone was unwilling to do either, and then rebuild properly (which, again, no one is willing to do), perhaps Assad, as nasty as he is, should have been left alone?

Just a thought.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Hizbollah’s Leader Says They Are Battling All Across Syria

By

On May 26, 2015

Comments

Nasrallah:

The leader of Lebanon’s Hezbollah has said his fighters would expand their presence in Syria, saying the group was engaged in an existential battle against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

Hassan Nasrallah acknowledged for the first time that his Shia group was fighting across all of Syria in support of President Bashar al-Assad’s government.

Picture of Hassan Nasrallah

Picture of Hassan Nasrallah

Years ago, I noted that Hizbollah needed to keep supply lines open to Iran, and thus had reason to support the Syrian government. That was a near-existential reason in itself.

And he called specifically on his fiercest critics in Lebanon to back his intervention across the border, warning that their support for Assad’s opponents would not save them from ISIL.

I think this is accurate. There is a weird idea that if ISIL conquers Syria it won’t move into Lebanon. Of course it will. ISIS is the Caliphate. As a matter of belief and ideology, their legitimacy is tied to expansion, and Lebanon is definitely part of the lands they consider as rightfully belonging to the Caliphate.

To not fight them will not save Lebanon if ISIL wins, and Lebanon is a heck of a lot easier of a target than Iran or Turkey. Thus, former prime minister, and leader of Lebanon’s anti-Hezbolla bloc, Saad Hariri’s criticism of Nasrallah’s speech and his movement’s intervention in Syria is nonsense:

“We in the Future Movement declare publicly that the Lebanese state and its institutions are legitimate and our choice and guarantee,” Hariri said in a statement. “Defending the land and the sovereignty and dignity (of Lebanon) is not Hezbollah’s responsibility.”

Well, I suppose the last part might be true. But it is laughable to suppose that the Lebanese army can guarantee Lebanon’s safety from an ISIL invasion. Lebanese who are old enough will remember how well the Lebanese army performed against the Israeli invasion. I am unaware of any particular reason to suppose they would do better enough this time to matter. (It is also true that Hezbollah is currently mostly fighting the Nusra front.)

These wars are also sharpening fighters throughout the Muslim world. They are becoming tougher and smarter. Hezbollah has already defeated the Israeli army twice, ISIL is fighting very well, and the same can be said of many other forces in the Muslim world. I will be frank: I believe that Western force’s edge now comes down mostly to military equipment, which means air power–open-field battle systems (i.e., shoot them before they are even in range of you) and surveillance systems.

I believe the Israeli military, especially, given its corruption due to being an occupying force whose primary job is to beat up, torture, and kill the effectively defenseless, is not even close to as good as quite a number of Muslim (non-state and ISIL) forces.

One really shouldn’t create the perfect Darwinian learning system for those one considers one’s enemies.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Page 7 of 11

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén