Having wondered what on earth Gates' rationale or reasoning is concerning deep-sixing the F-22 I stumble upon thorough article in Air Force Magazine that dwells on that very subject. The skinny seems to be that Gates is on a mission to reconfigure military acquisitions away from hi-tech platforms geared toward a conventional war theatre and towards more practical implementations in keeping with the wars we are fighting today. In short, Gates seems to be of the opinion that the US military has overkill capabilities [in particular apparently the USAF] viz an unlikely to happen conventional war against a China or something which is taking away needed resources for fighting the asymmetric little bastards we are engaged with presently. It's not clear whether this is a difficult trade-off he makes because of budgetary pressures or whether he believes this is the proper way forward regardless - understandably, he couldn't really just come out and say he's compromising America's long term strategic viability in order to save some cash.

But I suppose it doesn't matter why he's doing it, it's done all the same and the question is if it's a flawed and dangerous plan how flawed and dangerous is it? One thing for sure, it's a dramatic departure from American strategic posture of last fifty years - Gates is sticking his neck out a long way on this one - and I get the feeling from article referenced above that this is his baby [senate armed services committee can intercede - but would they?] and he's nursing it apparently in shadow of skeptical scowls from Joint Chiefs.

For starters, arguing against hi-tech platforms may prove difficult since the JSF is a hi-tech weapons platform - its survivability is entirely based on highly evolved sensor and radar capabilities - it most decidedly will not have the advanced flight characteristics of the F-22, so it will be all about cutting edge electronic systems, in the plane itself and its armaments, if it is to outclass the technologies most likely to be pitted against it. Gates' argument here seems to be that the F-35 will be more practical, more adaptable, just as survivable as the F-22 - but at half the cost, which is what he said today in press conference would be the case. To me that seems to assume an awful lot, not only as concerns costs [Gates talked today about not developing an alternative engine, which apparently it originally was supposed to do, because of costs - they really want to keep the costs down on this thing, which makes me suspicious - they're fixated on cost because that's how they defend getting rid of the F-22 - if the F-35 ends up costing in the neighbourhood of the F-22, Gates is going to be in some trouble explaining that] but also as concerns potential capabilities against likely to emerge technologies.

The other problem that comes to mind is - China, Russia et al obviously make assumption now that US not concerned about being prepared for conventional confrontation with them - I mean, that conclusion would depend on certain other developments, the US still has the most powerful military in the world by a fairly wide margin - but certain potential hostiles can realistically draw conclusion that the US is pulling back as far as global strategic posture goes - so the important question here is: how does that affect their postures? In other words, you show weakness, are you asking for trouble? And the next question would be: does Gates view this as an unavoidable show of weakness if he could speak honestly, or does he he see it as the smart play? I'm troubled by the potential answer to both those questions, in the latter because I see too many somewhat tenuous assumptions needing to be made in support of it, but in the former probably more so if the sincere answer is 'yes'.

The other dynamic to watch here is that Gates is rather seriously invested in this policy course - in other words, he's highly motivated to believe he's right - which in turn means he's highly motivated to believe he's right regardless of whether or not he actually is. I worry about that.

addendum: just watched Northrup Gruman video on the F-35's EO-DAS situational awareness and targeting system - it seems pretty god damn impressive - and it's clear this is the reason why they believe it doesn't matter that the F-35 can't match the better performance specs of the F-22. Still, it assumes effective counter measures will not be developed by opponents - I imagine their thinking is that EO-DAS is open ended, ie can efficiently and effectively be upgraded to adapt to any new developments by enemy forces - in essence they're saying [gambling?] that sophisticated electronic and digital systems governing stealth, detection, tracking, targeting, missile guidance etc now trump speed and agility when it comes to fighter planes. I have no idea how true that is or may prove to be - guess [hope] they do - but even though the people working on this plane obviously have a much more thorough understanding of things it nevertheless feels like a lot of critical assumptions being made here - after all, ten years from now America's air capabilities will be to a large extent utterly dependent on the F-35, so if it proves less than promised, somebody's got some 'splainin' to do.

"War is cruelty; you cannot refine it."

Reading about Sherman's march links in my mind with interview recently watched of former KGB agent in '80s saying the Soviet plan was always to let America destroy itself by encouraging in their native pursuits an ever closer embrace of liberalism and lives of ease - he mentions with disdainful amusement several times in course of ten minute interview myopic American parents sitting dumbly in front of their TVs getting fat while college professors sympathetic to socialism indoctrinate a whole generation of the naive, pampered offspring of these torpid TV watchers with an enervating utopianism. Oddly and then not so oddly this got me to thinking of Afghanistan and the soft ambitions of COIN, a strategy which seems doomed, by dreaming of a war without war, to end up settling for a victory without victory, illusions to appease a discomfited polity. From that musing it was a rather short step into the memory of recent article in Washington Post suggesting that terrorist mastermind KSM indeed was broken by enhanced interrogation techniques and gave up much useful information, was happy to do so - Politico points out that this looks like the CIA striking back at the Obama administration's decision to prosecute the CIA over its war on terror practices, a decision that seems to have no purpose other than to mollify or maybe more accurately reward Obama's liberal base who, after a tough few weeks of health care waffling from Dear Leader, need reassuring that the enlightenment he promised them will not be sidetracked by inconvenient realities.

War is cruelty, you can't refine it. Sherman wanted to crush the South; former Union general McClellan, who looked poised to beat Lincoln in the coming election, wanted to make peace with the secessionists. Who was right? History has judged Sherman a hero and McClellan an indecisive fop - but if you could keep names and outcomes hidden and ask the America of today which policy seemed best my guess is most would choose McClellan's.

These hints of ideas, glimmers of impressions, all tumbled together this morning as if by design - and as I wondered about whether it was just a case of me needing another cup of tea I opened a further page and read in the London Times that evidence has surfaced which seems to prove that the release of the Lockerbie bomber, jihadist trailblazer who had served a mere eight years of a life term, was indeed all about securing an oil deal with Libya. Pondering the future of the West one is left nursing a disquieting sense of unease.

["You're not under the impression I hope that this is the first time the West, as you like to say, has abandoned principles and the common weal for the sake of making money?""No, no, of course not. But the context is troubling, and context sometimes is everything."]

These questions continue to bother concerning the F-22 debate:

Why did mainstream media do such a poor job of analysing all sides of arguments for and against? Was it laziness on part of reporters - there was a gov't line which they simply accepted as true because they couldn't be bothered looking into the details - or maybe because advocates of F-35 had done such a good job of denigrating the F-22 that nobody bothered to question it? Did editors kill analysis 'cause they figured it was all too technical for most readers? Is this just more evidence of press bias favouring anything Obama wants to do?

Since from what I can see the F-35 quite clearly cannot substitute for the F-22 - it's not fast enough, it's not mobile enough, it's not stealthy enough - in face of evolving Russian/Chinese advancements in realm of denial of access technologies - better radar arrays, better targeting capabilities, long range SAMs - [not to mention improved Su-35] all developed in last twenty years in dire effort to counter marked US advantage in stealth technology - if all that is true and it does seem to be true, how does one possibly justify killing off the F-22? The only thing I can think of is that US military savants predict that regardless of current F-22 advantages over competitors continuing improvements in Russian/Chinese denial of access technology will negate those advantages within ten years thus rendering the F-22 too much money for too little ultimate gain. That may be a convincing argument - I dunno since no one to my knowledge ever made it - possibly Gates did in some speech I never read about - but all Obama ever said and all the MSM ever reported was that the F-22 was a relic of cold war thinking and the F-35 a more than capable replacement, two statements which are simply not accurate.

So I don't get it, some pieces of the puzzle have to be missing because otherwise it appears to me that Gates, who doesn't give any indication he's doing it under pressure from Obama, in tearing down the F-22 tears down one of the pillars of American power projection, domination of the airspace. Possibly it's a cunning decision based on sound judgments concerning the likely contours of a future battlefield, that air dominance is no longer an advantage America can count on given emerging technologies - that may make sense, it just troubles me that that is the only argument that seems to make sense and I never heard anyone make it! And, as I said before, it may be true that they have a justifiable confidence in their ability to jam Russian radar which would certainly mitigate some of the shortcomings of the F-35 - but again, I did not see that argument being made.

addendum: a quick look across net seems to suggest that Gates' prime objection to the F-22 is that it is of no use in the wars being fought now and I suppose by extension the wars most likely to be fought in the near future - which seems like an absolutely idiotic rationale - an argument so dumb that one has to believe there's more to it than that - hell, if all you're concerned about are present conflicts then current set of planes are fine, maybe add a few more attack helicopters and A-10s - and since the F-35 isn't even flying yet and won't be for another 3 years at best how does that make it relevant - why not just continue to build upgraded versions of F-15s and 16s? [there's a contradiction in F-35 reasoning here: logically one must believe future wars will not be like current wars in order to justify it ie you must assume countermeasures that make the F-35 a better option than an F-15 - but then you're entering denial of access technology that applies to conflicts the F-22 is better suited for than the F-35 - in other words the same reasoning that leads you to believe an F-35 is better than an F-15 also leads you to conclude the F-22 is better than the F-35]. The Navy can stop spending money altogether because god knows how long it will before the new LCS or Zumwalt class destroyer ever see action. Also tied to this weak rationale is USAF claim, which appears to be a directive from Gates, that 187 F-22s is a number within risk parameters - but Gates refuses to let anyone define what that 'risk' is - war with Iran? with China? a world war? Who the fuck knows! but rest assured we're within acceptable parameters of it whatever it is. The more you stare at this puzzle the less sense it makes.

Yes, of course, Gates could be simplifying his argument for public consumption - maybe a more convincing argument is reserved for beating down disgruntled USAF officers. Maybe it's all just an unavoidable result of budget concerns - but if that's the case, we should be having a thorough debate about the long term strategic consequences of such because China is definitely preparing for a war where air dominance is going to matter - so somebody's wrong here and it better not be us.

Apparently the guy, Carlo Kopp, who writes the blog I was referencing in my newest take on the F-22 is well known in the business and much hated by fans of the F-35 [entirely missing from the MSM discussion of the F-22 issue was the existence of two professional and well informed camps arguing with some passion the pros and cons - judging from MSM coverage one came away with the impression that the only points in favour of the Raptor were the number of people the program employed] . He's just reviewed the latest version of the Su-35 and the take away paragraph is:

In strategic terms the Su-35S is a game changer, as it robustly outclasses all competing Western fighter aircraft other than the F-22A Raptor. Deployed in significant numbers it is capable of changing the balance of power in any region where this occurs. This reality does not appear to be widely understood in most Western air forces, or DoD bureaucracies.

In a region the Taliban have lorded over for six years, and where they remain a menacing presence, American officers say their troops alone are not enough to reassure Afghans. Something is missing that has left even the recently appointed district governor feeling dismayed. “I don’t get any support from the government,” said the governor, Massoud Ahmad Rassouli Balouch.

Governor Massoud has no body of advisers to help run the area, no doctors to provide health care, no teachers, no professionals to do much of anything. About all he says he does have are police officers who steal and a small group of Afghan soldiers who say they are here for “vacation.” NY Times.

Here it seems to me is revealed typical flaw of COIN - an assumption is being made that Afghans want gov't involvement, would welcome it, are desirous enough of the ostensible benefits accruing thereof to fight for such a thing - but a centralizing gov't intervention is in many ways antithetical to tribal needs and desires and Afghanistan remains very much a tribal society, and so potentially assumptions like the one above render COIN from the get go a failure waiting to happen.

Related: McChrystal has just released new directives concerning troop behaviour, ie respecting Muslim culture etc etc - but to me that reveals a fundamental contradiction - without a change in underlying culture, how can COIN possibly work?

News coming out that NASA may scratch or put on hold any plans to return to the moon because of budget constraints? The day China, with Russian help, put a man on the moon while America sits back doing nothing because of a lack of money will mark the end of the American empire, maybe not quite as a matter of fact, but definitely as an expression of a psychological, a cultural reality.

Obama allowed that idiot Pelosi to conjure up an 800 billion dollar stimulus that is mostly nonsensical goo and foist it on an ignorant public and yet we can't come up with 60 billion needed to head back to the moon? That really pisses me off - the ascension of weak kneed liberalism that thinks it wrong to spend so much money on such a venture when so many people are in need. Can just picture some little pissant sitting before his laptop waxing all sentimental about how the world is going to be a more humane and enlightened place now that the Obama is here - maybe he can take a minute between tears to google Apollo Guidance Computer - yeah, try that on for size ya greasy little miscreant. Bastards.

Anyway... some good might come of this - talk of solving budget problems by contracting out NASA specific tasks to private companies - that might actually prove to be an interesting development. But if the day came where American private enterprise was carrying much of the space exploration load watch the rest of the world attempt to enact laws to restrict such a thing.

I'll say one thing though, if these budget problems stem from keeping that space station viable, I would drop that thing into the ocean so gad damn quickly - blow it up! Whatever it had to teach us about living in space has no doubt been learned - it's nothing more now than an expensive symbol honouring a hollow ideal.

After reading a blog by a retired Australian air force officer and now academic that reviewed the F-22 vs the F-35 argument in a highly technical and seemingly thorough way I've returned to my original position on the Raptor - namely, killing the thing off makes no sense. The only mitigating factor I can think of is potential development of stealthy, sophisticated, jet powered, high performance UCAVs - I guess something like that, especially if they're a lot cheaper to produce, could make sense of curtailing F-22 production - and maybe a belief that we can stay one step ahead of the Russians and Chinese as far as radar jamming technologies go - otherwise, I don't get it.

Things that struck me:

- the notion that Gates is a smart and reasonable guy and you should trust his judgement is compromised somewhat when you realise this is Rumsfeld's policy, he's the the one who wanted to drastically cut F-22 production and ramp up F-35, Gates is just following through on that decision. So contrary to popular belief this is not a Gates initiative, it's a Rumsfeld initiative, and last time I looked Rummy's reputation leaves something to be desired.

- the idea that the F-22 can't do CAS or manage a ground attack role is not accurate - it can, and with further upgrades and borrowing certain systems from the F-35 its abilities in that role increase without losing its other capabilities. Now, it can't match the F-35 in this ground attack role, but it can do well enough to justify cutting some F-35 production in order to add F-22s. On the other hand, there's no modification you can make on the F-35 that will allow it to do what the Raptor can do. In short, it seems the F-22 is a much more versatile plane.

- closely tied to last point is 'cost'. Originally it was thought the F-35 was going to be much cheaper to produce and this was a big selling point for it over the Raptor - but it no longer looks like that's going to be the case, it's looking like in the end there may be only a 20-30 million dollar difference per unit between the two, which is not that much all told. When you add in that the F-22 can sort of do what the F-35 can do but the F-35 can't at all do what the F-22 can do, well then I think you've got a problem.

- as a fighter jet, the F-35 will not be in the same league as the F-22. As far as flight performance goes, it will be about the equal of an F-16 - it would lose to a SU-30 in a dogfight. Its air dominance role is all about its advanced radar system - but if Russia and China develop an F-22 like 5th generation fighter, it will be toast, it won't possess the performance parameters to survive. It's primarily a CAS, ground attack plane - it cannot replace the F-22 as a long range, deep penetration, air dominance strike fighter.

- Russian aero-space expertise joined to Chinese money is a lethal combination. There are rumours that China and Russia are collaborating on both the new S-400 air defense system and a 5th generation fighter. We tend to think of the F-22 as having nothing to oppose it because we assume Russia doesn't have the financial and institutional resources to keep up but Russia still has plenty of expertise in the field and you mate that talent with Chinese money and suddenly maybe the F-22 doesn't look so unique. Remember, when the US developed its 'teen' series of jets it left the Soviet Union in the dust as far as air dominance went, but Soviets went back to the drawing board and produced new versions of MiGs and SUs that were at least as good and possibly better than American counterparts - that development is what led to building the F-22. Russia can not match what the Soviet Union was capable of - but with China as a partner, such wouldn't be the case - in fact with growing support from Russian technology China is putting together a force that may equal what America originally feared from the Soviets, ie the cold war may be over but that does not mean weapon systems originating from that era are now irrelevant. In short, it may prove quite naive to act as if Russia, with Chinese money, or China itself backward engineering from Russian technology, cannot produce something the equal of the F-22 - and rest assured, if they do manage this, they won't be stopping production at 187 planes.

- Obama, in canceling the F-22, called it a relic of the cold war, but the writer of the blog makes a convincing argument that the way things are going the F-35 is more likely to prove the relic than the Raptor.

- unless Gates has some tricks up his sleeve, terminating the F-22 essentially cedes air dominance to China in the event of a major conflict in the Pacific rim, assuming the continuing saturation of advanced Russian air defense and fighter technology by the PLA. Is this like inviting China to dramatically expand its circle of influence? Are we asking for trouble? Australia and Japan want the F-22, especially if the US is not going to build anymore, because they see the F-22 as vital in countering Chinese actions - but a 1998 law forbids foreign sales. Think you have to think hard about repealing that law.

This is a complex and specialized subject and without the comprehension an expert can bring to it it's hard to feel confidence in one's opinion - still, I've never trusted this animus against the F-22 - something has always seemed off about it. For instance, Australia has just purchased 6 billion worth of F-18 Super Hornets to fill gap left by delayed F-35 - but from what I read the Super Hornet is no match for the Flanker, the plane it would most likely have to go against - so why spend 6 billion now? Is it possible they believe the F-35 is not going to live up to advance billing which will lead to a revival of the F-22, the plane they really want, and they feel the US, to counter fear amongst its Pacific Rim allies, will have to eventually allow foreign sales? From what I've read, the F-35 will nicely fill a role with the US military replacing aging F-15s, 16s, and 18s - especially when used in conjunction with the F-22, one can certainly grant it a prodigious lethality as a close range ground attack weapons platform - but deep penetration fighter it ain't, and should Russia successfully upgrade the SU-35 into something F-22-like in performance attributes with an Active Radar Array one might have to doubt its abilities as an air dominance fighter in any arena - and therefore I don't see it at all satisfying the needs of Japan and Australia, not in the shadow of a partnership between China and Russia and the advent of an inundation of Russian aerospace technology into the Pacific Rim.

What's up with Russia dithering on its sale of the S-300 air defense system to Iran? They've signed the contract but continue to delay and supposedly just recently assured Israel they're open to reneging on the deal for the sake of promoting stability in the region. Now, I don't believe that for a second - but the fact remains they've put things on hold. Sounds like they're trying to apply pressure to someone, leverage their position - but as regards whom, Tehran or Washington? They're after something, and I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with anyone's interests but their own. Hell, maybe they're trying to encourage Israel to attack Iran - would certainly drive up the price of oil. Certainly, deployment of the latest versions of the S-300 would make a difficult mission nearly impossible if you plan on using F-16s - although possibly Israel believes it can sufficiently jam the system.

"... conservatives espouse and at times clamour for their god because they tend to be hard-bitten realists if not outright cynics, they don't trust the citizenry and therefore want to see them controlled and religion is a wonderful inhibitor... liberals come across as more open minded and therefore willing to abide a godless universe because they're naive idealists and believe people are ultimately good and amenable to sweet reason... and so it is you see that what seems flawed in the one is actually an expression of a practical cunning whereas what seems refined and astute in the other is actually the reflection of a foolish vanity... which is not to suggest I'm ready to start pandering to the false piety of the fallen... but neither am I about to congratulate myself for being clever enough to abjure those cloistered souls..."

Apropos of me recently commenting with grave concern on the demographic disaster descending on Europe in the form of Muslim migration and how disconcerting it is that few outside of the loony fascist fringe seem to share my concern or feel even the need to wonder if there may be a reason for concern, an intellectual [granted, of a conservative bent] named Christopher Caldwell has just published an apparently perspicacious though I take it somewhat downcast book on the subject. I've scanned a sample of first chapter and his thinking definitely seems in keeping with mine. Maybe I'll buy a copy, sit in a Starbucks with cover conspicuously showing, and count how many flaming liberals cast a furtive glance my way wondering if possibly I'm a bad person.

"The proliferation of Obama’s gaffes and non sequiturs on health care has exceeded the allowable limit. He has failed repeatedly to explain how the government will provide more (health care) for less (money). He has failed to explain why increased demand for medical services without a concomitant increase in supply won’t lead to rationing by government bureaucrats as opposed to the market. And he has failed to explain why a Medicare-like model is desirable when Medicare itself is going broke.

The public is left with one of two unsettling conclusions: Either the president doesn’t understand the health-insurance reform plans working their way through Congress, or he understands both the plans and the implications and is being untruthful about the impact." Caroline Baum, Bloomberg.

Exactly - Obama isn't making any sense because he's trying to defend a lie.

What if a newly empowered Afghan electorate demands peace talks with the Taliban? I've read that such is playing a role in coming elections - certainly, Afghans in general like neither the Taliban or the Americans and would probably welcome the illusion of peace. My guess is the Taliban would welcome such an initiative knowing full well they could simply walk away from any agreement once the Americans were gone. But what would the US position be? One tends to assume they would oppose talks - but think about it, a peace agreement would give cover to a US retreat, a retreat that they could pretend or sell as something else - the US could behind the scenes encourage an Afghan gov't talking peace with the Taliban even if they believed those talks to be a ruse - it's a possibility. I certainly believe that Obama now regrets the commitment he made to Afghanistan in the election and would like nothing better than a convenient excuse to cover a withdrawal - but would I, despite my disdain for Obama's shallow machinations, think that a good thing? Given my growing scepticism re the Afghan war and the what I think may be dubious assumptions governing COIN operations in general I'm guessing my opinion would be... I'd accept the outcome, but not feel comfortable with how we got there - I'd worry that the how could come back to haunt in an unpleasant way.

If the approach in Afghanistan is going to remain COIN centric then I have my doubts concerning the good that can be accomplished - in which case I suppose catch the first train out if you can. There's a lot that makes sense about COIN as a tactic - but as a long term strategy? I'm dubious - I think there's much wishful thinking underlying it - and the fact, as Bing West recently wrote about, that it's being sold to the public as a 'non-kinetic solution' to war is an approach fraught with downside. Look what just happened in Iraq this morning - seven bombs gone off, a hundred people dead - it's not at all misplaced to view that as a rather brutal commentary on the long term viability of a tactic like COIN. I would certainly like to be proved wrong - I definitely fear the consequences of being chased from Afghanistan with tail between legs - but if they're going to remain committed to the narrow confines of what ultimately is a relatively limited counter insurgency operation, and I see nothing to suggest otherwise, certainly not with Obama calling the shots, then it's hard to be optimistic.

It occurs to me that if Obama drops the public option from his healthcare reform, thereby sorely pissing off the uber left, that this will be a scenario I mused on long before he ascended to the throne - ie, what happens when, in order to do the right thing, he has to go against the wishes of the bleeding hearts that are largely responsible for his rise to the top? Namely, will he be able to go through with it, will he be able to feel comfortable not being popular amongst that ilk - and if he does go through with it, will that represent him moving seamlessly to the centre much in the manner of Clinton or will pangs of guilt and remorse [and not being so cravenly adored] subsequently drive him even further leftward? Of course I was more concerned with how such a dynamic might adversely impact foreign policy decisions - but this should work - after all, no less a person than Howard Dean has gone on record several times as saying that healthcare reform would be meaningless without a public option - most, all on the uber left share that sentiment.

"... what the fuck is the Prime Minister doing apologizing to the aboriginal community for the predicament they find themselves in? Why is he saying it's to the shame of all Canadians that such a sad state of affairs exists?... White guilt has caused us to create a caretaker system that didn't rob them of their dignity as the flaming liberals like to cry but rather fostered the illusion that their culture had any dignity left to lose... in essence, allowed them to pretend and act as if history never happened... people who allow empty illusions to govern their lives usually come to grief... I guess you could contend that history gave them a raw deal, but history gave a lot of people raw deals... I imagine there are plenty worse fates in the universe than having your stagnant, less than dynamic, somewhat retrograde and possibly not tenable no matter what culture turned into an afterthought by the glories of Western European culture... but hey, they insist on pretending that didn't happen, so be it... just don't see why the consequences of such a dysfunctional point of view should be any concern of mine..."

The problem with health care, whether you're talking the US, Canada, wherever, is that it's at the mercy of these three forces which, when taken separately, are flawed and tough to deal with, but when lumped together are a disaster: one, the somewhat modern notion people have that health care is a right owed to them by government; two, inexorably rising costs that are about several things but all of which eventually come down to the dynamic of constantly improving technology and the benefits people unreasonably expect to enjoy thereof; three, systems which hide from the consumer the true costs of those benefits, thereby creating an irrational, dysfunctional marketplace. There is no such thing as a 'great' healthcare system anywhere in the world - well, I guess there is if you're a rich American who can afford to buy the best doctors in the best hospitals, but that just points out why there's no such thing as a 'great' healthcare system, no country could possibly afford it - so what you're left with in reality are varying degrees of adequate and bad - and all representing an onerous public liability that is just going to get worse given continuing obeisance to the three forces.

My problem with Obama's plan, aside from the fact it doesn't address any of the negatives stated above, is twofold. One, it's so obviously about rigging together a system that serves the political interests of liberals - now, he may have overreached and end up doing the exact opposite, but that doesn't change the fact that he's pushing healthcare for the very same reason Bush [or Cheney or Rove] pushed war with Iraq - it's all about political power. If democrats really cared about improving the efficiency of the system and limiting the burden on the economy healthcare inevitably creates they would have proceeded in a deliberate and thoughtful manner that was as bipartisan as could possibly be - they didn't do that and the reason is 'cause it was always about politics. Two, America is dangerously over-leveraged - personal debt, the debt of private companies, the public debt of government, all are eating away like a cancer on the well-being of the state and this is absolutely no time to be spending billions upon billions of dollars to remake healthcare and then outright lying to people about how in the end it will actually save money - save money and improve quality of service - it's practically farcical - it's definitely ill-advised

Obama's focus should be primarily on the economy [his claim that healthcare reform is about the economy is pure nonsense - in a somewhat perfect world armed with a somewhat perfect plan that may be true, but neither is in play here] and to a lesser extent, but with no less a degree of seriousness, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. I have no doubt America's healthcare system needs a rethink since I'm pretty sure every healthcare system in the world could use a rethink - but now is not the time, nor is the manner they are going about it the way. That Obama's administration has obviously made the decision that they feel they have the political capital now and are gonna push this through no matter what is every bit as reckless as Bush romping into Iraq without any plan whatsoever as how to get out - which possibly seems like a tenuous or frivolous connection to make but I do so to point out that liberals, by so cavalierly turning a blind eye to the true nature of their agenda, make manifest, much in the manner of their nemesis Dubbya, what a ridiculous charade of vanity politics tends to be.

[see 'ol V.D. Davis seems to share all my opinions on this issue: that Obama is acting in a way that is very Bush-like, that healthcare reform is all about establishing a liberal hegemony in American politics that could last a generation and that regardless of those legitimate complaints the economy and the finances of the government are simply in no condition to handle the added costs of carrying out such an extreme agenda]

"... God is for the weak... anyone who feels the need to bind up his life in the gauze of religious affirmation is merely making a show of how badly the world has beaten him down... oddly enough, I suspect that the same is also true for the godless... people and their fancies are a terrible conundrum, for sure..."

My Afghan strategy in brief: continuing to spend time and resources attempting to modify Afghan society [a kind word], whether in its cultural, political or military manifestations, is stupid, a waste of effort.

Consequences of above determination: let them have at it. If the Afghan army [another kind word] is still incapable of defending itself, too bad. If they can't fight for what they believe in maybe that's because they don't believe in anything worth fighting for. Either way, we can't do it for them.

Consequences of the consequences: retreat looks bad, even if it makes sense - the short term upside of getting the fuck out may not be worth the long term downside of just getting the fuck out - so maybe a retreat that isn't really a retreat? Annex a part of Afghanistan [hell, we've earned it - some prize!] for purposes of maintaining a large military base, stop all COIN operations [COIN is a waste of time if you can't change underlying culture] and from this bastion we continue to 'support' anything worth supporting and Predator the crap out of anyone that pisses us off. Concurrent with that, figure out some way to seal the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan [oh, boy] which is the only way to lop off the head of the Taliban serpent [I guess though if you could do that the first part would be unnecessary? No, I wouldn't say that...].

Or you could just get the fuck out.

What happens in Afghanistan if Iraq goes south? I ask in response to article by one of the Kagans that references Iraq quite often as a baseline and guide to COIN operations in Afghanistan and another addition by Ricks to his ongoing 'The Unravelling of Iraq' series where he quotes one of the most influential Iraqi mayors as saying civil war still the most likely outcome of the Iraq experiment.

Assuming Obama can't go small in Afghanistan - or withdraw outright - and therefore will promote some policy that guarantees American COIN operations there for at least another five years - what will it mean to the credibility of those operations should Iraq unwind in the meantime? The implications would be quite damaging, right? The conclusion one would be inclined to draw is that unless you change the underlying culture of an environment any good wrought by COIN risks becoming in the end merely cosmetic.

Don't believe I've read anyone speculating on the consequences of this scenario - which, seeing as how it's hardly a far-fetched notion, seems odd.

Interesting - I hadn't paid much attention to the three 'hikers' who while in Kurdish regions of Iraq accidentally crossed border into Iran and are now held prisoner there. Turns out they're all Jewish - but of the fervently anti-Zionist, anti-Israel branch of the chosen tree - one of the unfortunate fellows apparently has a picture on his blog of a black woman standing on a street in Tel Aviv with a menacing chap standing behind her sporting an Afrikaner proto swastika and a caption reading 'Neo Nazis in Israel', a none so subtle reference to a putative Zionist apartheid state. Not surprisingly, I guess, the three were not simple hikers but rather left wing activists contributing with some avidity to various new media espousing the uberleft point of view. And now they're guests of the enlightened and free thinking Persians, with whom they will no doubt be encouraged to share their opinions on the reviled Jewish state, maybe over tea.

Not that I wish them harm - that would be beneath contempt - but it's hard not to be struck by the irony of it all. How will A--- exploit this windfall? A very public display of compassion and leniency as the hapless travelers are sent off with a round of smiles and kind words and all in agreement with the fact that Israel and any American government that supports it are indeed evil things and enemies not only of Islam but common decency everywhere? Or will A--- hold them in reserve, imprisoned as spies, letting it be known that should Israel choose to attack Iran the three will meet a gruesome end? Tough choice - my guess would be the latter as it may work to arouse the angst of the anti-war left in the US and in turn leave Obama in an increasingly difficult position viz Israel.

News that by 2050 Europe will be 20% Muslim had me reaching for the classic Seinfeld tag "not that there's anything wrong with that" - apt because while we're obviously not comfortable with the idea we for some reason feel compelled by shame, false propriety, political correctness, cowardice or something worse to avoid admitting as much.

Unlike homosexuality, though, which probably doesn't represent a threat to Western civilization [shame on you] we would be engaging in some serious issue avoidance if we try to fool ourselves into thinking that a 20% Muslim demographic in Europe is no big deal.

In an article that makes me think sometimes I actually have a clue what I'm talking about, former Air Force chief of staff McPeak offers my argument viz the F-22 - ie, that opponents of the Raptor make an odd claim when they argue that because it doesn't have a peer amongst potential enemies it therefore has no purpose - but McPeak states, as I did, that that's the very reason you want the F-22, that that apparent irrelevance is actually a manifestation of success, that the F-22 guarantees American air superiority for generations to come because it has no rivals, it inhibits, forestalls attempts by potential rivals to try and catch up and therefore makes the US military virtually unbeatable in any large scale, conventional war - in essence McPeak is saying opponents of the F-22 are entirely missing the point - unless they absurdly mean to argue that highly mechanized conventional war is as antiquated as the cavalry charge.

Look, possibly there are shortcomings to the Raptor that I know nothing about that make it less attractive than would seem, possibly there are emerging technologies that call into question its value - but if not, and this plane can do what they say it can do, it makes no sense to me to cut it so short of the numbers the air force says it optimally needs, or, failing that, to find some way to sell them to our closest allies. Hell, congress just ok'd what, 700 million for a bunch of Gulfstreams to carry members hither and thither? - 700 million would buy you another five or six F-22s - which doesn't really address the issue, but the point being this gov't seems to have no problem throwing billions of dollars around, and yet to further fund the F-22 would represent a grievous waste of taxpayer money, as Obama suggested when the program was cut? Doesn't add up.

Wow. Krugman's op-ed in the NY Times today actually tries to make the point that if you oppose Obama's health care reforms you're a racist - of course his convoluted and strained argument doesn't explicitly make that claim, but in essence that is the conclusion one is forced to draw. The frightening thing is, I don't think this is just some harebrained idea he desperately concocted in order to defend his cherished liberal agenda - I think he actually believes it to be true - although I imagine that fanatics will dress their ideals up in gaudy illusions so as to hide the emptiness inside.

This will all come as something of a shock to Harvard whose new Dean of Medicine wrote a rather brilliant essay 10 years ago criticising Hillary's health care proposals, criticisms which Greg Mankiw, another Harvard professor, has pointed out are very much germane to current debate. Does Harvard know it has become a refuge for racists and crackpots?

Rumblings that McChrystal's soon to be released review of Afghan policy is being downplayed by Obama officials because it concludes more troops are needed and they don't have any interest in hearing that. Believe I predicted this when a month or so ago news came out that McChrystal was overseeing yet another review, believe I said that they'd keep making him jump through review hoops until he came up with a plan that fit their agenda.

I don't recall anyone in the press, the commentariat, the intelligentsia - other than myself of course [you're not a member of any of those groups - indulge a lie to hear a truth] I don't recall anyone during the primary or presidential campaigns saying, like I did, that Obama's 'get tough' rhetoric on Afghanistan was a ruse, was phony, was politics at it's most cynical. In fact I remember being barred from the comments section of one prominent left wing blog for having the unmitigated gall to suggest that Obama was anything less than sincere.

Still, we're only talking rumblings at the moment - if the generals push and Gates backs them who knows how this plays out. Fact is though, if retreating from Afghanistan didn't look like retreating from Afghanistan and therefore involve all the negatives that come with that I believe I'm at the point of saying 'you're either all in - or you're out'. I seriously doubt all in is an option anyone's considering - which is probably a good thing 'cause when I say all in I essentially mean large scale incursions into Pakistan for the purposes of burning the tribal regions to the ground.

Of course, retreat is a scenario Obama himself has set up. He had two options when he came into office: go big or go small - he chose a safe middle ground, no doubt to preserve the appearances of a campaign promise while avoiding the risks of seriously escalating the war. Possibly he's about to pay the consequences for that dissembling cowardice. If things go south in Afghanistan, he won't be able to blame this one on Bush, although he'll no doubt try - he owns it now.

Obama's terrorism chief, head, czar - whatever - quoted as saying this while talking aQ in troubled Horn of Africa:

"Portraying this as a 'global' war risks reinforcing the very image that al Qaeda seeks to project of itself -- that it is a highly organized, global entity capable of replacing sovereign nations with a global caliphate," he said. "And nothing could be further from the truth."

This is a flawed argument, no? Does aQ really care about projecting such an image? Isn't this an assumption that serves the PR aims of the Obama administration but has a tenuous connection to reality? Not that aQ isn't interested in making big news, but what does that really have to do with the way they are perceived by the world or America? And wouldn't they feel or believe that a Muslim resurgence speaks for itself, is self evident - wouldn't an Islamist see such a thing as inevitable and therefore, again, why then would they care about what the world or America thinks of it's capabilities and how would such negatively impact recruitment? My guess would be recruitment had much more to do with how indigenous populations viewed aQ, not what America thinks of it - and that that indigenous view would be conditioned by the parameters of Muslim culture and what it thinks about, fears about the West in general, although no doubt America in particular.

Now it's true aQ's reputation on the the Arab street may be in decline - but even if that's true I'm not sure you can make any definitive statements about how significant that is or more importantly how long term it may be, ie if aQ does something dramatic tomorrow would the Arab street really not care? Seems very unlikely.

As for troubles brewing with Islamists in Somalia, I reiterate my Col Kurtz solution - nuke 'em. The country is hopeless, irredeemable, and so from a cost/benefit analysis standpoint the nuclear option makes the most sense. I'm just saying - I'm not entirely sold on the idea. Still, all this talk I hear coming from the Obama camp about investing in the country etc etc sounds to me like people who made a career for themselves by claiming that everything Bush did was wrong and now want to prove it by walking us straight into the biggest shit hole in the world.

"... what are my political beliefs?... I hold to only one law of politics... that the fervor of a political sympathy is directly proportional to the level of presumption governing the ideals of that sympathy... this law generally accounts for the absurdity evinced when advocates of a particular ideology are confounded by the failure of opposing ideologies to understand what absolute fucking idiots they are... and of course the vice versa..."

CBO predicts that within a generation one of every three dollars contributing to the GDP will be going to healthcare? That given current trends, by 2050 the debt will be running at 400% of GDP? That doesn't sound good.

Here's my healthcare solution: let people who can't afford to live, die. Seriously. We tolerate the rich getting better everything now - except when it comes to healthcare. Why? I don't have a right to the same quality of lawyer as a rich person should I be charged with a crime, why should I have a right to the same quality of doctor? You can't afford the consequences of sitting around on your ass 24/7 eating potato chips and pizza - then don't do it.

Cruelty is a great motivator.

[to the overlords reading this post and jotting down my name in the Big Book of Bad People: at least half of the above was said in jest - well, maybe not quite half]

"If the emergence of an American elite able to cement a strong national identity and coherent national interest is unlikely, what options remain for a country now irreversibly multicultural? Huntington saw the choice as either imperialism or liberal cosmopolitanism, both of which would erode what is unique about America. Imperialism seems an unlikely choice since the Iraq War, an experience few Americans in or out of the military will want to repeat anytime soon.

What seems more likely is the entrenchment and expansion of a worldly, cosmopolitan elite, increasingly multicultural and transnational, that bears little connection to the WASP establishments of the twentieth century, the cold warriors, or even the Bush administration. American foreign policy will necessarily become less ambitious, more a product of horse-trading between ethnic groups. Messianism, in either its Protestant or neoconservative variants, will be part of America’s past, not its future. Americans will not conceive of themselves as orchestrators of a benevolent global hegemony, or as agents of an indispensable nation. Schlesinger, for one, exaggerated the extent of the fall when he averred that a foreign policy based on “careful balancing of ethnic constituencies” was suitable only for secondary powers, like the late Austrian-Hungarian Empire. But he exaggerated only slightly.

As I have noted, George F. Kennan, patron saint of both foreign policy realists and many paleoconservatives, spent the long second half of his career urging a greater sense of humility abroad. The rethinking of global commitments, the readiness to modify the go-go economy that seems to require them—these have become a refrain of some of Kennan’s heirs. So here is a second paradox, which parallels the irony that neoconservatives support an immigration policy that undermines their own political base. The realists and America-Firsters will find their foreign policy aspirations at least partially satisfied via the unlikely avenues of immigration and multiculturalism. The paleoconservatives, losers in the immigration wars, will end up winners of an important consolation prize: the foreign policy of what remains of their cherished republic." Scott McConnell, World Affairs Journal.

These thoughts converge with my concerns re Obama's foreign policy inclinations - I had never really considered the impact of the modern phenomenon of multi-culturalism on foreign policy, although now, on reflection, the connections and dangers seem obvious. It brings to mind something I'd entirely forgotten - how, on the morning of 9/11 when I went in to work, it shocked me that all, and I mean all of my co-workers who were not of western European decent either openly or with thinly veiled secrecy cheered what had happened. I remember getting into a violent argument with one fella, from Chile I believe, who was practically giddy with excitement that someone had finally stuck it to those bastard Americans. Also curious, of my caucasian, western European cohorts, I believe I was the only one - maybe one other guy - who had the slightest idea of just how far reaching the implications of what had just happened were. Very strange.

I guess, in thinking back on it, I realise it wasn't so much the events of 9/11 that turned me from a disinterested moderate into a something that was more sympathetic to a conservative view of things - it wasn't so much the actual attacks but rather the disturbing and somewhat bizarre reaction to those attacks by the people around me, people who suddenly seemed like unwelcome strangers.

Interesting - why have A--- and Khamenei not attempted a more conciliatory tone with the opposition in Iran? The conciliation doesn't have to be real, but there can be benefits to at least appearing to be generous. It's as if they're trying to provoke the opposition. Rafsanjani has been making the argument, so I read, that if Khamenei remains unyielding the reform movement could get out of hand and bring about changes or calls thereof that no one has an interest in seeing [which I've been arguing all along - ie that there's a logical inconsistency binding the leaders of the reform movement to the movement itself].

Is it possible A--- and K are trying to incite this dangerous radicalism, or at least intimations of such, within the reform movement for the purposes of discrediting it? Could simply be a reflection of them having no idea how to proceed, caught unawares as they seemingly were by the protests - but certainly the possibility of a 'master plan' exists.

Jordan rejects Obama's astoundingly naive call for Arab nations to make good will gestures towards Israel in order to facilitate peace negotiations. Ok, this has to stop - it's part of Arab culture to hate Jews, to believe Israel is evil, to believe it must be laid low, not necessarily destroyed as Iran, when it gets excited, likes to imagine happening, but at least diminished in some significant way. You can't change that - well, you can, but not simply by asking for it. All Arab leaders are beholden to this culture, some because they share the sentiment, the rest because they know they're doomed if they don't - and so, short of some climactic, epoch making war that fundamentally changes this dynamic, there can never be peace in the Mideast. The most you can hope for is all these fucking assholes merely tolerating each other and that can only happen if Israel is strong and the Arabs accept that Israel's strength renders all possible alternatives to that not worth the pursuit - but even that modest accommodation is a big fucking 'if'.

So let's stop all this nonsense. Obama, your power is entirely rhetorical, it ain't real [although in some ways it's all too real] - time to dismount the fucking high horse and get your fucking hands dirty - or just give the job to Hillary. I know you had this, in your mind, great plan to shit on Israel and get all the Muslims on your side because, gosh, you're just such a special fucking prick - but that was lunacy, the Jews knew it was lunacy and they tried to tell you that, but I guess in the end it's not that easy to tell the leader of the free world that he's fucking crazy - ok, water under the bridge - it's all out in the open now so let's try and move on like adults who have a modicum of a clue as to what the fuck they're doing!! Jesus. It's fucking depressing.

[or as an essayist on Foreign Policy website wrote, awkwardly employing no profanities whatsoever - possibly it was the writer's first attempt at a true academic style:

"I had always believed that there were moderates within Fatah -- like Natsheh -- who supported peace negotiations and sought reconciliation with Israel. Even with the ascendance of Hamas, one could always point to a "peace constituency" among the Palestinians. But when people like Rafik Natsheh start denying Israel's right to exist, it's a sign that the Palestinian political center has shifted. Moderates still exist and the PA continues to take some positive steps -- such as removing militant preachers from West Bank mosques and cooperating with Israel on security matters -- but its actions seem more focused on preventing Hamas inroads than promoting peace with Israel. Indeed, recent reports indicate that the PA is currently naming streets in the West Bank after terrorists.

Sixteen years after the Oslo Accords -- and following repeated claims of Oslo's death -- Natsheh's comments confirm the end of that peace process. For years, Washington has placed its hopes in Mahmoud Abbas, the PA president who also serves as Fatah's leader. But in the absence of any denial coming from Abbas, the comments of Natsheh -- a close associate of Abbas -- stand as Fatah's official position. Today, Fatah may be better than Hamas, but the organization is clearly no panacea. Based on Fatah's disposition toward Israel, it is all but assured that a Palestinian national unity government will not advance negotiations. The sooner the Obama administration recognizes Fatah's shortcomings, the sooner it can start developing a new paradigm for Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking."]

Afghan farmers sow seeds by scattering them randomly about, known as broadcasting. The civilized way to do it of course is to plant crops in rows, thereby improving efficiency and productivity. In the West we've been farming this way for I imagine many centuries. Obviously, the needs that drove us to refine our agricultural habits are not relevant or operative in Afghanistan. The US military is trying to educate Afghan farmers on the proper way to manage crops, but a troubling fact remains: how can we ever win a war in a country governed by such a culture without utterly destroying that culture and raising up a new?

This is what bothers me about counterinsurgency styled war - if the insurgency is feeding off a culture you cannot or will not change then no matter how 'population centric' your strategy is, the key factor in COIN operations, the viability of the strategy none the less remains dubious in the long term. See for example a leaked memo by a high ranking American officer in Iraq that coherently lays out in point form how despite the best efforts of US forces Iraqi military and political cultures remain lazy, corrupt, incompetent, making a continued American presence in Iraq a zero sum game. In short, COIN operations were successful in Iraq - but to what end?

I worry that the proponents of COIN are cultivating a dangerous illusion, one that believes that 'war is so last century' and that, while acknowledging the need for military power, imagines that a more rational use of such makes the world a better place. I worry that COIN eventually devolves into a species of appeasement and pacifism but that because on the surface it still retains the trappings of military power no one notices until it's too late.

The key to empire is military vigour - once that's gone the empire quickly follows - but isn't that vigour a reflection of the culture sustaining it? I sense a cultural stalking horse in all this hyping of COIN [you going to blame this on Obama too? No - but I do think he's potentially a prime example of what I mean]; I sense perspective shifting in a direction that people think is enlightened but in the end will prove delusional.