The Idiocy of Timetables in Armed Conflict

The recent sudden collapse of large swaths of territory in Iraq, falling under control of Islamist State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), is a testimony to the idiotic policy of the Obama Administration, idiotic for setting politically-motivated timetables for withdrawal from Iraq.  

Timetables like this in armed conflict are idiotic for several reasons.  First, it sends a message to the adversaries that all they have to do is simmer down, go into hibernation, regroup, and refortify until the magic date of withdrawal arrives.  Can you imagine a battle, like the won currently being waged by the Iraqi government in Tikrit against ISIS, being fought under the announced premise that the attacking government troops would simply declare victory at noon today and then retreat?   What kind of a battle plan is that?   Announcing when you are going to quit the battle?  That's like announcing to your opponent in a football game that you are going to put in your B team after the half.  What would your opponent do?  They would beef up their defense, prevent you from scoring, rest up on offense, and then bring in their crack offensive team after the halftime show -- and then decimate your B team.

So, timetable policies in armed conflicts are idiotic in that they basically reveal to your adversary your strategy.  You simply don't tip your hand like that in armed conflict!  This is Military Doctrine 101.  Don't reveal your strategy to your enemy!  It is foolish and childish.

Timetables like these are also foolish because you can only negotiate from a position of strength.  Only while you are in control of the situation -- i.e., have significant troops in country -- can you negotiate either with your adversary (if even possible) or, more importantly, with the team you are going to leave behind.  In the case of Iraq, the Maliki government and their military supporters -- on whom we spent billions to train and equip -- won't concede anything like a Status of Forces Agreement between us and them if they know we are planning to vacate anyway, based on politically motivated timetable.  They too, like our adversaries, will simply wait us out.  Once you've left the country and put them totally in control, you've lost your strength at the negotiating table.

A third reason why such timetables are idiotic is that they convey an overall message of weakness -- or fecklessness -- to our adversaries on the larger geopolitical stage.   We are seeing this in spades as Iran rushes in to fill the vacuum we've left behind in Iraq.  Broadcasting our strategy emboldens them to take action.  This message was clearly not lost on Russia, who after Obama's vacillation and phony red lines in Syria seized an opportunity to seize Crimea.  It probably won't be long before China grabs more territory, knowing that we will do nothing but wring our hands and complain at the UN, where they have veto. Taiwan is probably in the cross hairs already.

A fourth reason is that such weakness conveys a message to "allies" like Saudi Arabia and Eqypt that they cannot count on the US for current or future support, that they'll have to go it alone.  And where do you think the money for ISIS is coming from?  From Saudi Arabia!   This conflict, above all, is a larger Sunni-Shiite conflict that now threatens to embroil the whole region.  

In Syria it is essentially a Sunni-Shiite conflict.  Assad is an Alawite, an offshoot of Shiites.  His opponents are all Sunnis.   Hezbollah in Lebanon is supporting Assad.  Guess what religion they are.  That's right, they're Shiites!   Iran is supporting Assad in Syria.  Guess what religion they are.  Yep, you guessed it right again:  They are Shiites!   Guess what religion Maliki and his supporters are?   OK, this is getting tedious, but I sense you are getting the picture now.   The Sunni-Shiite conflict in Syria, with its 100,000+ civilian casualties and millions of refugees has spilled over into Iraq.

And within the Sunni ranks you have varying degrees of nastiness.  There are moderates like the Free Syrian Army (at least they are pretending to be moderates, perhaps like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt were pretending to be moderates once upon a time, at least until they came into power -- with our help).  And there are the nasty ones like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, who make Al-Qaeda look like moderates.

Anyway you look at it, setting a timetable in armed conflict is precisely not the thing to do.  The territory -- and more importantly the hearts and minds -- that we fought and died for in Iraq was not yet ready to be abandoned.  If we didn't like the Maliki government, we should have done something about it while we were there and had strength in negotiations.  But we foolishly announced a timetable for withdrawal and that set all of this mess in motion.

I have not seen in over 50 years of monitoring current events -- sort of a hobby of mine -- a US foreign policy so short sided, childish and downright foolish -- idiotic from almost any perspective.

Phil Robertson

In all the hoopla about Phil Robertson's remark concerning the bible's attitude toward homosexuality, few seem to have noticed that A&E's reaction is pure and simple one out of regard solely for their pocket book.  They do not want to get sued by some advocacy group.  It is not that they care about homosexuality per se, but that they just don't want to get sued.  However, they may stand to lose a lot more money if 'Duck Dynasty' moves to another station.

The intimidation and shakedown artists are hard at work, and they have companies like A&E and Lockheed Martin shaking in their boots.  The latter announced today that they are no longer going to donate money to the Boy Scouts of America over the BSA's policy of not allowing homosexuals to be counted among their adult leaders.   UPS did the same recently as well.  You can bet your bottom dollar that this is about the shakedown artists, the advocacy groups making the rounds and threatening law suits.

Lone Ranger a Dud

This movie was a waste of time and money.  Although the cinematography was good and the sporadic laughs OK, the whole tenor of the movie was pathetic.  Simply put, it was another Johnny Depp, Anti-Capitalist, Anti-American rant!  I am beginning to become Anti-Johnny Depp.   Why doesn't he grow up and get a life?

It was too long and too tedious.  All the villains were in cahoots with the big bad railroad men.  The Comanches were portrayed as lily pure and innocent -- one should read about the real atrocities of the Comanches towards other tribes, not to mention against Euro-Americans.

I hope Disney loses money on this.  They deserve to lose money.

If Depp is so Anti-American, why does he insist on keep asking Americans to open their wallets to him?

Snowden the Useful Idiot

Edward Snowden, the disloyal and leaky IT guy is probably just an idiot who didn't even understand 1/10th of what he thought he was leaking.  Yes, the NSA probably knows who you are calling and the duration of your calls.  That is as alarming as the US Postal Service knowing the addressee of your letters and how much your letters weigh.  Big deal!!  Yet he is turning out to be a very useful idiot in the hands of anti-American countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, and Cuba.  No doubt they see this guy as a useful propaganda tool in the Americas to further their perennial bashing of their perennial villian, the Estados Unidos.

In those countries he may even be offered a job doing cyber war against the US, although he may be hard put to the test on the DOS machines that are probably state of the art in those countries.  However, he probably knows how to install new versions of Microsoft Word and will probably be hailed as a genius.  I wonder if they will let him near their "real" computers, given his reputation as a leaker.  He may just discover that he didn't have it so bad in the old US of A.  And at least his family will be able to visit him there -- while his new masters eavesdrop of his conversations with them.  I wonder if he'll protest that.  Well, not too loudly perhaps!

The real test comes when he has to show loyalty to his new masters.   If he has a change of heart and decides to return to the US, will they let him?  Cuba might not.  Getting into Cuba is one thing, getting out is quite another.  I suspect that Cuba is not high on his list of candidate asylum hosts.

They don't take too kindly to disloyal folks in those countries.  Still, he may be very useful to them and he may enjoy some minor celebrity status.  However, I suspect that before too long, they will realize that he can't really contribute much to their struggling economies, that he is just another mouth for the state to feed.
But, as a propaganda tool, he may well turn out to be a useful idiot, one who can reinforce their masses in their ignorance to keep thinking of the US as the devil.  That will help them stay in power, which is probably all they want anyway.

Mark Steyn: Egyptian Observer Par Excellence

Ah, the inimitable Mark Steyn on Egypt:  

In February, the government advised the people to eat less and cut back the food subsidy to about 400 calories a day — which even Nanny Bloomberg might balk at. Amidst all the good news of the Morsi era — the collapse of Western tourism, the ethnic cleansing of Copts, the attacks on the Israeli embassy, sexual assaults on uncovered women, death for apostasy, etc. — amidst all these Morsi-era success stories, even a Muslim Brother has to eat occasionally. Egyptians learned the hard way that, whatever their cultural preferences, full-strength Islam comes at a price. 

Another choice quote about America's pathetic Egyptian foreign policy:  "We sank billions into Mubarak’s Swiss bank accounts, and got nothing in return other than Mohammed Atta flying through the office window."

For the complete story, go here:  NRO

White Hours Tours and Trips to Africa

How is it that sequestration means that the White House tours are not affordable yet that $100 million dollar trips for the Obamas to Africa are affordable?  I think the answer is the same in both:  Whatever benefits the Obamas.  To close the White House to tours is to remove the annoying inconvenience of all these strangers traipsing through their house.  To take an expensive trip to Africa on the taxpayer's dime is of obvious benefit to the Obama family.

America has never before seen such a self-centered, narcissistic president.

Covering Up the Cover Up

Now that ABC news is reporting on the cover-up, the Kool aid drinkers might start waking up.  This is much worse than Watergate.  Here's a video that will help you see the context.  Even before Susan Rice made her rounds of all the talk shows -- gee, I wonder who asked her to do it -- and spread her disinformation, many of us already connected the dots on Benghazi.  It was very clear to any discerning observer of the facts that this attack on the consulate was not a spontaneous event.  Susan Rice lied about the "best intelligence we have to date" pointing towards a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim video.

See my previous posts from last September when this thing first broke:
"Whistling Past the Graveyard" and "Amateur Hour".

The White House needs to be held to account.  They are now covering up the cover up.  The problem with lying, however, is that you have to remember the lies you previously told.  The truth is easy to remember.  But sometimes lies have to be supported by other lies until you have a very fragile web of lies.  That's where we are on Benghazi right now.  On Monday the president lied again about his previous lies.  He said again, like he did in the debates, that he acknowledged that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack the day after the attack.  If you look at the transcript of his remarks you can see that he said no such thing on Sept. 12.  Moreover, if he thought it was a terror attack -- i.e., what he thought the best intelligence has indicated -- then why did he send Susan Rice to make the rounds of the Sunday talks shows almost a week later?  He is getting tangled in his own web of lies.  My guess is that Valerie Jarrett is behind all of this.