Some random thoughts and observations as January comes to a close.

- Mr. Obama sure has his priorities in order.  He blows off the largest gathering of world leaders in Paris to honor those killed during the Charlie Hebdo attacks, yet makes a beeline for Saudi Arabia to honor there new king.  At first, this seemed like some more Obama Administration miscalculations until I went to the gas pump on Sunday and filled up at $1.85.  I'm unconvinced Saudi Arabia is an active partner in combatting terrorism in the way that say the UK or even France are but by keeping their oil production up and prices low, they are helping to keep the Obama war machine turning.

-  Mr.  Obama then makes another speedy to trip to recognize the new PM of India.  Unlike events in Saudi Arabia, this actually does represent a paradigm shift for the US which has been at odds with New Delhi since the Cold War (and professing our continued support of Pakistan).  Alas it seems too little, too late as Russia has been involved with India since the days of the Soviet Union.  India has benefitted from Russian nuclear technology and now is on the cusp of receiving cheap Russian oil to help fuel an ever growing Indian economy.

- The challenge with deconstructing a given conspiracy theory is there is almost always a little truth to them.  Case in point, the conspiracy theorists have been labeling the Charlie Hebdo attacks as a "false flag" attack, meaning it was set deliberately to justify actions by other states usually leading towards war.  In this case, France had committed to sell two warships to Russia and was reducing their military which would mean fewer French troops and equipment would be available to support US led actions.  Now France is rethinking its drawdown.

- Speaking of the Charlie Hebdo attack, a renewed debate on guns has erupted on cyberspace.  The pro-gun side believes a well armed civilian populace would have prevented the massacre in Paris.  The gun-control side believes just the opposite that access to guns increases the likelihood for an even higher body county.  Now Interpol, the police agency consisting of countries with some of the most restrictive gun-control policies, has come out with a Hobson's choice; you either arm your citizens or impose martial law.  "Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem. One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security,” stated Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble.

- The US may need to figure which side of the argument it is on soon.  Our friends at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have in another demonstration of short-term thinking are shutting down 20 percent of the US coal-burning power plants.  Hooray!  Clean-air and less carbon emissions for all!  Except with coal accounting for 40 percent of US power production, and no new EPA approved plants coming on-line, this means our power grid is being constrained even more.  It won't take make much for either a physical or cyber attack on our power grids to put us down for the count.  But we will have cleaner air.

- The US poster-child for waging asymmetrical warfare (read, killing terrorists) is the aerial unmanned vehicle or simply drone.  These remotely piloted aircraft allow for the hunting and killing of terrorists in real-time.  They also present the illusion of conducting air warfare for less than using manned aircraft and without risking the lives of American pilots.  But time marches on and what was true just 10 years ago has greatly changed.  According to Gen. Mike Hostage, chief of the air service’s Air Combat Command, "Predators and Reapers are useless in a contested environment."  Whoops, isn't that exactly the kind of environment we DON'T want our pilots to fly in?  He goes on, "Today … I couldn’t put [a Predator or Reaper] into the Strait of Hormuz without having to put airplanes there to protect it."  Wait, you need to protect you unmanned aircraft with an manned aircraft?  Why yes, according to Gen Welsh who revealed that an F-22 — the planet’s most sophisticated stealth fighter — intercepted Iranian F-4 Phantom jets that were closing in on a U.S. Predator drone over the strait last March. In November 2012, Iranian Su-25 ground attack jets fired on, and missed, an American Predator over the strait. (Source:  Foreign Policy)

- Mr. Obama has instituted several changes to the US military during his tenure; allowing women in combat, allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly, and an increased focus on reducing sexual assault.  Any one of these would have be a major cultural shift for the US military, implementing all three while the US is still deploying troops to hostile areas has led to the lowest morale of the US military since Vietnam.  This is not to argue the merits of any of the decisions but to point out that in chasing the political side of the issue, the morale of the troops has suffered.  None of these issues are easy to implement, one need only look back on the history of race in the military.  To ask the military to sort through three major issues, while facing continued deployments as well as troop reductions, is just foolhardy.  If you are serious about these issues, then give the troops the time and support to change the culture.  Otherwise this is just politics and not about the troops.

- January is the month that US President's give their State of the Union address.  Mr. Obama said the U.S. was upholding 'the principle that bigger nations can't bully the small' by opposing what he called Russian president Vladimir Putin's aggression and supporting democracy in Ukraine (Source: Daily Mail).  Strong words from a president who has a military that  has been at war for 13 years, facing a drawdown, is going through major cultural changes, and flat out doesn't like their Commander-In-Chief (CINC). But now, according to the Daily Mail,  the Russians have claimed the speech showed how the United States believes it is 'number one' and is unable to be an equal.  The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Levrov reacted by saying, "Yesterday's speech by the president shows that at the centre of the U.S. philosophy is only one thing: "We are number one and everybody else has to respect that."

- The warmongering former POW and Senator, John McCain, now is pressuring Obama to increase troop presence, "American boots on the ground are necessary to defeat [the group] in Iraq and Syria." (Defense News).  Even McCain admits there is no coherent strategy for dealing with Daesh but he wants to add more troops?  A especially egregious recommendation from a Vietnam veteran, a war the defined the ridiculousness of quantifying military victory.

- The whole GOP/North Korea/Sony Pictures attack seems to have been forgotten.  However, now that the US is ramping up for the 2016 Presidential election, Iran is back on the front burner.  Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman (Calif.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is expressing support for legislation that would impose new sanctions on Iran if talks fail to reach a deal curbing its nuclear program (The Hill).  More troops for McCain plus more sanctions for Sherman seems to equal a future conflict with Iran?

- Finally, who will next lead the US through this chaos as the 45th President?  We've already heard enough about Hillary and Jeb, now we get other retreads such as Romeny, Biden, Christie and Rubio.  Elizabeth Warren is staying pat so far and as such, no other big name Democrats (other than Biden) are really coming out.  It is the Republicans to lose, I say that due to the sense of many people have had enough of Hillary.  She is tired and not nimble on her feet like her husband.  A prolonged campaign will invite too many opportunities for her to stumble and fall.  But if the Republicans front Jeb, the country may just turn off their electronic devices for the next election.

The blurring of current events

As 2014 winds down, the events of the world seem to be moving faster.  When things move faster, we sometimes see things as blurred rather than clearly.

Take for example all of the electrons that were needlessly during the Sony hacking story.  At first, Americans did not understand they were supposed to be upset that North Korea had hacked a the entertainment division of a Japanese corporation.  Americans were far more entertained by the scandalous content of the leaked emails rather than by how these emails had been obtained.  The likely culprit was North Korea since their president was insulted by his fictional assassination in the movie "The Interview".  The connection did not seem to resonant at first with the media and public.

Sony's Amy Pascal was far more fascinating to Americans.  She came off looking like a backstabbing phony insulting the very people who were making money for her division.  Things were looking bad so Sony Pictures had to lawyer-up in an attempt to stop the media from sharing everything the hackers had leaked.  At the same time, the FBI was the first government agency to announce that yes indeed, North Korea was to blame (albeit a week late).

But things began to take an interesting turn.  North Korea is not known for having a sophisticated cyber-warfare ability, even more telling was the fact that the servers used to hack Sony Pictures were not in North Korea at all but China.  When the White House asked China for their help in tracking down the hackers, they received a non-answer from Beijing.  A fair question is, why wasn't China a suspect especially given the number of cyber-attacks launched against the US (and the former "pivot towards Asia" strategy by the US)?

Strangely, had this been say China or Russia the calls for taking action would have been much louder.  If this were somehow or other a ruse to get the US and North Korea into some sort of a conflict, it has fizzled thus far (despite North Korea's threat to attack any theater showing "The Interview" in a 9/11 style attack).  Sony did pull "The Interview" at first but when their stars started to grouse, Sony released the movie via the Internet (from the reviews, probably just as well).

The story became blurs though as US headlines were grabbed by the assassination of NYPD officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu by a gunmen allegedly set on killing officers in retaliation for Eric Garner (who had been choked to death by a NYPD officer who was not indicted).  The situation between NYPD and Mayor de Blasio has deteriorated to the point where the officers attending the funeral for Officers Ramos and Liu turned their backs en masse on their mayor.  NYPD officers are now allegedly ignoring petty crimes for fear this might be a set-up for another assassination attempt.

Meanwhile other officers have been slain in Florida and an unsuccessful attempt in Durham, NC.  Police had already been vilified by shooting of Michael Brown (Ferguson, MO) and Tamir Rice (Cleveland, OH).  Distrust between the public and those sworn to protect them hasn't been this low since probably the Civil Rights era.

As I've said before, wouldn't this though be a very interesting way to manipulate the US for if matters continue as they seem to be headed, martial law for at least New York is not inconceivable.  If martial law ends-up getting imposed, then it will escalate as more and more Americans become concerned of the probability of martial law being imposed across the nation.  What an awesome way to take our mind off of foreign matters.

While your mind gets blurred by that thought, an interesting thing happened on the way to the Christmas break.  Mr. Obama took the first steps to normalizing relations with Cuba.  (It has always puzzled me why once the Soviet Union fell that the US did not reach out to Cuba.)  At first, this looked like an excellent move to trump Russia's increased military activity in this hemisphere.  But then Mr. Obama announces that Iran has the opportunity to become "a successful regional power"?  WTF?

After the history the US has had with Iran (not to mention the US citizens being held hostage by Iran), now Mr. Obama wants to make nice and is even talking about a US embassy in Tehran?  Well if normalizing relations with Cuba was to be some kind of check on Russia, the overture to Iran has had just the opposite reaction from Moscow.  Russia may halt any bilateral cooperation in regards to Syria and Iran's nuclear program.

If you haven't started scratching you head and rubbing your eyes, then ponder for a moment that while Mr. Obama "celebrates" the end of the war in Afghanistan, the US has quietly been increasing troops in Eastern Europe (as part of the NATO rapid reaction force) and Western Africa (to deal with the ebola outbreak).  Russia has not pulled any of their forces out of Ukraine and are now fielding ballistic missiles mounted on rail cars.

My conclusion is we are being manipulated by information overload to avoid a clear understanding of what is going on.  We can't worry about things overseas if we are worried that our own police force may is out to get us (or vice versa).  We can't worry about a potential war with Russia if our minds are being occupied by salacious tales of our favorite celebrities by sent by movie studio executives.  And just in case you may still think we are going to war, then you won't be once you pay less than $2.00 per gallon at the pump (thanks to Saudi Arabia wanting to stick it to Russia's oil production).  Yes, speed does blur everything.

Do we still need nuclear forces?

I attended a retirement over the weekend of a close friend from the Army National Guard.  It gave me the occasion to chat with a senior Army officer and learn the Army Guard is facing the same reductions the Air Guard went through about 10 years ago.  All of this is part of the drawdowns being implemented by the White House and Department of Defense.

This morning the AFA Magazine Daily Update stated the Air Force Global Strike Command  (AFGSC) will add 848 airmen to its missile and bomber wings beginning this fall.

"We've been saying that the nuclear enterprise is the number one mission, and the Air Force is putting its money where its mouth is," said Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James. "We must show airmen that there's value in this mission by making the appropriate investments in people, weapon systems, and infrastructure." James said the Air Force "will continue to work to identify and rearrange funds to make important improvements within our missile and bomber force." AFGSC boss Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson said the changes being made in the nuclear enterprise are designed to empower airmen and ensure they have the resources they need for this priority mission.--AFA Magazine

At first glance, it would seem this is a long overdue re-investment in the nuclear forces highlighted by the recent cheating scandals of nuclear launch officers.  But the USAF is facing huge budget shortfalls right now and plans to eliminate 500 aircraft from its inventories.  The Air Force will reduce its end-strength from 503,000 to 483,000 in FY 2015 (Stars and Stripes).  Adding manpower to nuclear forces in this austere budgetary environment can't seem to be driven merely by a desire to finally recognize the "value" of a long neglected part of the Air Force. (Note:  the USAF is still flying UH-1s to support the nuclear forces.  How much "value" does the nuclear forces have if they are only worth of a 43 year old helicopter?)

A far more likely reason for this sudden re-investment in USAF nuclear forces is found in this article from the Washington Times.  According to the article, over a period of 10 days US airspace was incurred but Tu-95 bombers 16 times.  Earlier last week, a R-135 Rivet Joint was chased by a Russian fighter and forced into Swedish airspace without clearance (RT).  Then over the weekend, Russia claims its never chased away a US submarine (WSJ).  The reports said the fleet sent several vessels and an anti-submarine Il-38 aircraft to drive the submarine away.

Ever since Russia moved forces near Ukraine and annexed Crimea, the rhetoric between the US and Russia have taken a serious turn.  Obama tried to strike first by claiming Russia shot down MH-007 but in typical fashion, did not release any facts to support his allegation.  Putin struck back by saying the US is trying to turn the world against Russia.

It appears that Putin knows Obama is loathe to go into any kind of direct conflict.  Putin and Russian intelligence agencies had to have seen the recent cheating scandals by nuclear officers as a confirmation that the US was no longer serious about maintaining its nuclear weapons.  But this is not a new trend.

The weakening of US nuclear forces started 25 years ago when then Secretary of Defense Cheney as part of his 1990 budget postponed the buying of a new long range bomber and cut the "Star Wars" missile shield (Chicago Tribune).  Cheney and George H. Bush then ordered that long-range bombers and some long-range missiles end their 24-hour alert, and that several nuclear missile programs be canceled. Cheney then ordered the military today to put into effect President Bush's plan to eliminate about 2,400 short-range nuclear weapons on land and sea in Europe and Asia.  (NY Times)

All of this was done in the name of saving money and in seemed prudent with the imminent fall of the Soviet Union.  But what everyone pretended to forget was that though Soviet Union may have fallen, their nuclear inventory didn't go anywhere.

Bush and Cheney emphasized their reduction of nuclear weapons by aggressively emphasizing the use of conventional weapons in Desert Storm.  President Clinton continued the focus on small contingencies with conventional forces (Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo).  When George W. Bush and Cheney took office, they continued what Cheney and the first Bush had started to included the expanded use of contractors.  Nuclear forces were not part of the "Global War on Terror" and as such their facilities and equipment upgrades took a back seat to conventional forces.

One of side-effects of war, especially protracted ones like Iraq and Afghanistan, is on who gets promoted.  "War-fighters" with silver and bronze stars become the new golden children.  As they become senior officers and NCOs, they start to pick other war-fighters for promotions and assignments.  Those without the requisite combat time are passed over.  Nuclear personnel, especially those in the USAF, didn't stand a chance.

Despite running on a campaign promise of "bringing the troops home", President Obama has kept US military forces busy.  Taking a note out of President Clinton's playbook, Obama has preferred drone strikes as his way of dealing with contingencies.  The new found "value" of our nuclear forces comes as somewhat as a surprise given President Obama's position back in 2009.  In a speech at Prague, Czech Republic he said:

"The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War. No nuclear war was fought between the United States and the Soviet Union, but generations lived with the knowledge that their world could be erased in a single flash of light...So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. This goal will not be reached quickly - perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change.

First, the United States will take concrete steps toward a world without nuclear weapons.

To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: as long as these weapons exist, we will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies

To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia this year. President Medvedev and I began this process in London, and will seek a new agreement by the end of this year that is legally binding, and sufficiently bold. This will set the stage for further cuts, and we will seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor." (Arms Control.org)

No, it does not appear that the increase in airmen to the AFGSC wings is a signal of better times for the missile and bomb wings.  Rather, it appears to be a band aid fix to the increasing aggression of Russian forces.  Crimean was annexed and Ukraine is still under threat from Russia without any sign of US forces increasing their readiness posture (after 12 years of continuous operations and projected manpower cuts that may not even be possible).  Syria crossed the "red line" without so much as a drone strike.  It took weeks of repeated images of the atrocities being committed by ISIL before Obama authorize the use of airstrikes and resupply missions for the Iraq Yazidis.

Obama has to do something to show he and his predecessors haven't completely gutted our nuclear forces.  Putin took lessons learned from the failed Georgian campaign in 2008 and has modernized his conventional forces, including ditching the cumbersome Soviet era command and control system.  Russian assessments may show that after 12 years of continuous ops, Russian forces could defeat US forces in a limited conflict.  A weakened US nuclear deterrent does not help matters.  Russia upgraded its forces after the fall of the Soviet Union to compensate for the disastrous state of its conventional forces.  

The other problem is the state of the USAF.  The Air Force and Navy are the only two branches that can project power.  From what John Q. Public has been saying recently, the state of the airlift community may be even more toxic than that in the missile wings.  Obsequious officers only seeking their next promotion seemed to have become the norm in Air Mobility Command (AMC).  Airlift is the life blood for deployed US forces.  If it fails, then sending US forces anywhere becomes problematic.  The Navy then becomes the only service with a nuclear force and is the only means to project power.  Great for the USN, bad for the US.  If the US gets engaged in a conflict with Russian forces, it will only have to contend with the carrier strike force.  Russian attack subs and surface skimming missiles will give the US Navy much to worry about.

 

Germany's Secret Deal with Russia

This just was posted on the Daily Mail.  Wow!

Germany and Russia are working on a secret peace deal to end the conflict in Ukraine that would see Moscow's controversial annexation of Crimea officially recognised in exchange for a $1billion compensation package, it was claimed today.

Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin have reportedly been locked in talks that will primarily seek to ensure the Kremlin withdraws its support for rebels fighting for independence in eastern Ukraine.

Putin would also have to agree not to interfere with Ukraine's new trade relations with the European Union and offer Kiev a long-term contract for future gas supplies with Russian firm Gazprom.

Mr, Kerry's failure at diplomacy

Mr. Kerry was unable to negotiate a long-term cease fire between Israel and Hamas.  It's not surprising since Netanyahu sees this opportunity to break Hamas once and for all.  The casualties he is racking up is not by accident.  It is an attempt to destroy both Hamas members as well as their support infrastructure.  Mr. Kerry truly does not seem capable of understanding what the parties involved are doing nor their motivations.

Mr. Kerry performance while conducting negotiations is more of the topic today than the ongoing war.  Israel is the latest country to bristle at the US meddling in their affairs.  Obama, Rice and Kerry all mistook the US/Israeli relationship to mean Tel Aviv would take follow orders from the White House.  Israel may be an ally of the US but it has never been its puppet.  One only needs to look at the history of Israel to see how often they've acted unilaterally without waiting for US approval.

Here are some of the things the Israeli press had to say about the Secretary of State;

Maariv columnist Ben Caspit called Kerry 'an ongoing embarrassment, with the characteristics of a snowball.'

'The further he rolls, the greater the embarrassment,' Caspit said.

Israeli TV reporter Udi Segal ran a report citing government officials who framed Kerry as 'incapable of handling the most basic matters.'--Daily Mail

Obama has a vain streak in him that causes him to become enamored of blue-bloods with pedigrees.  His picks people from Ivy League schools thinking, as he possible does of himself, that they can master any task before them.  Unfortunately, the people he has picked tend to have that same snobby aloofness that does not get lost in translation.  Both Hillary and Kerry tend to lecture world leaders as though they are the only ones who have the intellect to understand the situation.  Unfortunately for them, almost always those they've face have intellects that were mored than a match for theirs.

The US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan to prevent al Qaeda from further attacking America.  Thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis (along with thousands of Americans and allies) died as a result of those wars.  Yet Kerry tried to lecture Israel on their excessive use of force against Hamas.  The hypocrisy of this elitist attitude is a big enough hurdle to overcome but then there is Kerry's bumbling demeanor.  He just is not up to the the task and the only one who could have done worse is Biden.  Kerry has not only failed to broker a cease fire, he has shown the world that the US has no control over Israel.

US hypocrisy is on full view this week.  In addition to the ham-fisted attempt at trying reach a ceasefire, apparently for all of the anti-Russian sentiment the US has been fanning sales to Russia are actually INCREASING.  According to an article appearing on McClatchy's website, U.S. Census Bureau foreign trade data show that exports rose 17 percent from March through May _ the most recent months for which the data is available _ compared with the previous three months, before sanctions were imposed.  Wait, what?  Isn't the US hellbent on forcing Russia to withdraw its troops via economic sanctions?  Did Hillary Clinton just get done telling the European Union to stop purchasing fuel from Gazprom?  

It appears the Russians may be stockpiling good in anticipation of eventually being cut-off from US suppliers.  Of course, Russia could cut-off the US from receiving rocket motors in the future (which powers all of the US launch vehicles now).  And Russia is in a position to cut the US completely off from accessing the international space station.  

More and more it seems the Obama administration is nothing but a paper tiger.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/07/28/234647/us-sales-to-russia-have-only-risen.html?sp=/99/117/#storylink=cpy

BRICS

The BRICS development bank would seem to be about dumping the dollar and creating an alternative to the IMF, European Union and Federal Reserve.  However, upon further examination BRICS is something far more interesting.

First let's look at the membership.  

Brazil has the seventh largest economy in the world and its economic reforms has the country on par with some of the fastest growing economies in the world.  Brazil has a huge supply of natural resources and contrary to what Juan Valdez would have you believe, is the world's largest producer of coffee.

Russia is the country with the largest land mass in the world.  The Russian economy is the ninth largest in the world.  Russia is one of the largest producers in the world of oil and natural gas.  Russia also has tremendous mineral and other natural resource reserves.

India is the tenth largest economy and like Brazil, has one of the fastest growing economies in the world.  Considered a newly industrialized country, much of India's wealth is based on hi-tech.  India has the second largest population in the world.

China is the second largest country (by land area) in the world.  China has the world's second largest economy both by gross domestic product (GDP) and purchasing power parity (PPP).  China's economy is primarily based on manufacturing and exporting goods but they are also a major importer.

South Africa is the smallest member of the BRICS.  South Africa is the 25th largest country by land area as well as the 25th largest by population.  Like India, South Africa is considered a newly industrialized country and has the world's 28th largest economy (but has the 2nd largest economy in Africa).  Most of South Africa's wealth comes from diamonds and gold but like Russia, it also has vast resources of other strategic minerals.

Given this first list, it would appear that BRICS is merely a collection of countries with fast growing economies.  Most has large land masses and large populations meaning a good supply of resources and large workforce.  But that's how things look through the eyes of an economist.  

The BRICS share one other thing in common, something that trumps even their economic power.  Russia has the second largest inventory of nuclear weapons.  China has the third.  India has the fourth.  While South Africa currently doesn't have any nuclear weapons, it is the only African nation to have successfully developed nuclear weapons.  Brazil is only BRICS member not to have nuclear weapons.  All of the nuclear weapons combined under BRICS outnumbers all of the nuclear weapons of the US, UK and France combined.

Conventional forces are not to be ignored either.  China has the world's largest standing army (funded by the second largest military budget).  Russia has the second largest combined military.  India has the fourth largest combined military.  According to Global Firepower.com, Brazil has the 14th largest military in the world.  South Africa has the 14th.

Granted the comparisons are not apples to apples since there are cast differences in technologies between countries.  But technology can only compensate so far over numerical advantages.  For example, regardless of the F-35 advantages in technology, there are only so many copies of it to go around.  The F-35 demonstrates an inherent weakness of advanced technology; when things break it takes longer to fix.  According to Defense-Aerospace.com, the F-35A experiences a critical failure after 4.5 flight hours requiring 12.1 hours to repair.  

Obama is determined to reduce the size of the US military.  He began with reducing the number of nuclear warheads and the followed by instituting sequestration.  The US military has been at war for 12 years without and opportunity to reset.  Readiness is diminishing and there is little in the way of budgets to update legacy systems.  The US is not alone.  The UK, France, Australia and New Zealand are also beginning to drawdown their militaries.

The conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine continue to make the US look unable and unwilling to back up political rhetoric.  BRICS then stands as an unspoken threat to the former might of Western economic and military power. 

The Fallacy of Blaming the Russians

After Malaysia Flight 17 was shot down, the world swung its finger of blame around and pointed it squarely at Russia and Vladmir Putin.  Led by the US, the blame game started with the notion that Flight 17 had been shotdown by a Russian SA-11.  Given the altitude and speed of the Boeing 777 at the time, the SA-11 made the most sense and is in the possession of the rebels in Ukraine.  The SA-11 is made in Russia and due the complexity of the guidance system, the rebels must've been trained by the Russians.  Ipso facto, it was Russia's fault.

But wait, has anyone actually seen pictures or videos of a SA-11 firing a missile?  Has a person, much less a location, been identified as the person responsible for launching the missile?  The Associated Press today released a story about the lack of evidence, so far, presented by the US in their case against Russia.

In countries like the US and UK, surveillance cameras are a constant part of our lives.  Therefore, we tend to think of the whole world as being constantly under surveillance.  Perceptions though can be misleading as was demonstrated yesterday when a US flag flying on the Brooklyn Bridge was taken down and replaced with a white flag by unknown person or persons.  Yes, in New York City on a major bridge and landmark an operation requiring specialized skill was executed without any a single image being captured.  The Brooklyn Bridge is under constant surveillance but apparently the unknown person or persons had already defeated the lens on the camera.  As I said, this required great skill and coordination.

My point in bringing up the white flag on the Brooklyn Bridge was to illustrate just how faulty our perception of constant surveillance can be.  The human minds looks to fit bits of divergent information into some type of coherent story.  Hence stage magicians are able to trick our eyes into believing they have somehow sawed a girl in half or made a skyscraper disappear.  Our minds have only certain pieces of information and as it races to make a conclusion, the trick works.

Perhaps as our pro-Western, anti-Russian mindset swings into action we are looking to blame Russia and are not looking for answers that contradict that mindset.  The SA-11 remains the most likely suspect, however we are basing that assumption without having actually seen the wreckage.  Another possibility is that instead of a SA-11 a fighter jet could have shot down Flight 17.  It seems unlikely that air defense radars would not have seen a fighter firing on a civilian airliner but that assumes they were looking.  We have already seen limitations in radar coverage with the still missing Malaysian Flight 370.

One nagging question remains unanswered, why shoot down a civilian airliner at all?  If the SA-11 was involved, it has a radar that is quite capable of identifying the flight path, altitude and transponder code (key components in aircraft identification by air defense units).  Flight 17 was flying at 33,000 feet which is well within the parameters of the SA-11 radars.  It is unlikely that Malaysian Flight 17 was mistaken for a military aircraft that had veered off course.

A fighter interceptor has the same ability to identify aircraft as an air defense unit with one noted addition.  Fighters can visually identify aircraft by flying close to the aircraft for a positive ID.  It is thus unlikely that Malaysian Flight 17 was shot down accident or even randomly.

If whoever shot down the airliner intended to hit that specific aircraft, the nagging question is why?  At any given time, there are dozens of airliners and smaller aircraft flying overhead.  If someone wanted to escalate war between Russian and the US or Europe, why fire on a Malaysian airliner?

An answer may lie in a bizarre story that keeps popping up.  The pro-Russian rebel commander was quoted by the press as saying "not all of the bodies were fresh".  He added that many of the bodies were drained of blood and reeked of decomposition.  Far-fetched and sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie but sometimes the most bizarre things cause people to do the unthinkable.  If the story is true, perhaps Malaysian Flight 17 was thought to be carrying some type of bio-weapon?  The Ukraine conflict serves as plausible deniability for the real group behind the shoot down.  Blame the Russians and get the US in a lather and no one looks for answers elsewhere.

Hilary Clinton (the as yet unannounced Presidential candidate for 2016) has jumped on the blame Russia bandwagon and encouraged the European Union to find alternatives to the dollar-dumping Russian natural gas firm Gazprom.  Her plea is supposedly based on the downing of Malaysian Flight 17 but the timing seems much more in line with the announcement by the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) of the creation of their own development bank based on the Chinese Yen.  The one-two punch of the creation of the BRICS development bank and the Russian-Chinese energy deal has pretty much nullified the effects of Western economic sanctions.

Winston Churchill once said, "I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."  His quote may not just apply to Russia anymore.

Has the White House's attention been turned once again?

SA-11 "Gadfly" (credit: Air Power Australia)

The SA-11 is the most likely suspect of the downing of the Malaysian 777 airliner as well as a AN-26.  The "Gadfly" or "Buk" in Russia, is a medium range surface-to-air (SAM) mobile system.  The Malaysian airliner was flying at an altitude of around 33,000 feet.  The AN-26 was flying around 22,000 feet.  Aircraft at those altitudes can only be brought down with radar guided, medium or long range systems.

The SA-11 has a built in radar which is normally used to guide the missile to the target, however the radar can also be used to acquire a target.  Typically they work in batteries with one radar serving as the target acquisition radar feeding coordinates to the other launchers that have their radars in stand-by mode.  The tactic gives aircraft less time to engage countermeasures.  Civilian airliners stand no chance against this system.

It seems fairly certain that the airliner was shot down intentionally, why still remains elusive.  It does make one wonder if Malaysian Flight 370 didn't meet a similar fate.

Taking a page from his old running mate, Senator McCain was quick to make an inflammatory statement.  Promising, "There will be Hell to pay" McCain seemed to be talking to no one but himself.  It has forced the State Department to remain silent on how many Americans were on board the Malaysian airliner.  For a retired Naval officer, especially one that go shot down, he should recognize a trap more than others.  Shooting down that airliner was calculated to elicit a response.  Team Obama has miscalculated foreign leaders too many times already to rush in as McCain would like.

Whether it is world events or just how the media likes to focus on the latest crisis, the White House seems squarely in reaction mode these days.  It was only two years ago that Mr. Obama and then Secretary of State Clinton formulated their China Containment Policy otherwise know as the "Pivot to Asia".  The policy recognize the growth of China and that if left unchecked, it could pose a major power imbalance in the region.

Obama and Clinton based their policy on the three-legged stool; Seoul, Tokyo and Washington.  Herein lies the biggest inherent weakness of the policy, Seoul and Tokyo don't like each other.  There is also much animosity between Tokyo and Beijing.  If the Washing becomes distracted, as it has in the last few months with Iraq, the three-legged stool topples over.

As I wrote about yesterday, China and Russia make a very powerful bloc (Brazil, India and South Africa see it and want in).  Russia needs China's economic power but China needs Russia's military might (at least for now).  Putin is ready-made to antagonize the United States and can keep a lightweight like Obama off-balance.  That's all China needs to grow and expand throughout Asia without the US meddling in their affairs.  Seoul and Tokyo pose no real threat as without the US, they will squabble amongst themselves.

Throw into all of this Netanyahu who is hellbent on wiping out Hamas and launching ground forces.  This could drag Egypt and Syria into the conflict as well, especially now the White House has seemingly turned their attentions (again!) elsewhere to Ukraine.  Iraq seems to be a lost cause that the US no longer is interested in.  Syria and Iran could end up squabbling over who gets what to rule which parts of Iraq.

So to Senator McCain, I politely say shut-up!  The United States is in a high stake poker match against Russia and our President looks like he can't even win at checkers.

Russia, BRICS and Disease

A Malaysian airliner carrying 295 people has crashed in east Ukraine on a flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, amid allegations it was shot down.--BBC News

Now comes the real question, if it was shot down then who did it? According to the BBC, the likely suspects are the pro-Russian separatists. However, it could just as easily have been the Ukrainians attempting to discredit Moscow.

While the US turned its myopic eyes to Iraq, the situation in Ukraine continued to escalate despite Mr. Obama's reliance on economic sanctions. Russia may no longer care about sanctions because of recent energy deal with China as well as the news about BRICS;

"The leaders of the Brics countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – have signed a treaty in the Brazilian city of Fortaleza to launch a Brics development bank.

The bank will rival the US- and European-led World Bank and its private lending affiliate, the International Finance Corporation, which have dominated development finance since the second world war. The Brics bank is positioned as a financial institution that will provide developing countries with alternative funding minus the punishing strings attached to World Bank lending, which strip recipient countries of the power to make their own policies. It also promises to make lending processes for developing countries faster, simpler and cheaper."--The Guardian

Russia has solidly partnered with China and though the other BRICS members may be small, Russia might be able to stem the effects of US imposed economic sanctions.  At least until a new US President gets elected.

News isn't looking much better elsewhere for Team Obama.  Reports are coming in that the US advisors in Iraq haven't really been able to do much and the violence there continues. Less we forget, the same thing is happening in Nigeria were many of the school girls that were kidnapped are still missing. US advisors have discovered that the Nigerians really don't have a system for receiving and disseminating intelligence that might help locate the missing girls.

And of course matters are really getting our of hand in the Gaza Strip. Many experts now see a ground war breaking out.

Finally there was the news that Assad was re-elected for another 7-year term even though there is much evidence that he used chemical weapons on his own troops.  So much for infamous "red-line".

But Mr. Obama may not have to worry too much about matters overseas as there is a major catastrophe brewing right here in the US.  Unlike the situations abroad, this one is silent yet has the potential of wiping out ten of thousands of Americans.

The illegal immigrants that have been flooding the southwest border from Central America and Mexico are all being housed tightly together, many on US military bases.  As fans of "The Walking Dead" already know, when you house a large group of strangers together (who are already suffering malnutrition, stress and undiagnosed illnesses) you run the risk of an epidemic.

The number of immigrants (mostly young kids) crossing the border is overwhelming the medical personnel's ability to screen the incoming.  Children are showing up and being housed before medical personnel get to see them, allowing the potential for communicable diseases to be introduced into the general population.  In turn, staff and visitors will also face exposure.  The diseases run the gamut antibiotic resistant TB to the more mundane (but equally deadly) flu.  As an example, the 1918 Flu Pandemic killed 3-5 percent of the world's population.

What makes the situation on the border so dangerous is the huge population.  Any outbreak would spread faster than medical personnel could diagnose and treat.  Anyone coming into contact with an infectious person, especially one that has not been diagnosed, could spread the disease beyond just the immigrant population.  We also need to think about all of the children that are being sent back.  What diseases had they been exposed to?  Will we create a pandemic back in their home country?

Events are overwhelming Team Obama and are happening faster than they can spin the story.  War is going to break out somewhere, be it Ukraine and Russia or Israel and Hamas and there is nothing this White House can do about it.  They may not even have any troops to send if a pandemic occurs.  Our military may be too sick to fight.

Update:  After I posted this the Twitter-verse was reporting that Israeli ground troops had been sent into Gaza.  And just for good measure, the White House was locked down due to a suspicious package.

Could World I and World War III be 100 years apart?

“In Ukraine, Russia’s recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe,” Obama said. “But this isn’t the Cold War. Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia right away.” Speaking to cadets and top Army leaders, Obama said the U.S.-led “mobilization of world opinion and international institutions served as a counterweight to Russian propaganda and Russian troops on the border and armed militias in ski masks.” President Obama in The Washington Post

I'm sorry Mr. President but your statements are too easily refuted.  World opinion has not been shaped in the manner which you claim.  Elections throughout Europe show people are fed-up with the notion of the European Union and are voting in far-right politicians at an unprecedented pace.  These nations are not planning to follow you or this country anywhere any time soon.  France sold 3 warships to Russia even though both former Sec Def Gates and current Sec Def Hagel begged them not to.  China signed a huge energy deal with Russia enabling Putin to continue on his quest.

If the President truly believes his attempts to mobilize world opinion have worked, he must not have read this account;

"Pro-Russian rebels downed a military helicopter in eastern Ukraine, killing 13 troops and a general, as an aide to President Vladimir Putin accused the U.S. of pushing the world toward war through proxies in Kiev."  Bloomberg

Two can play the propaganda game and what Mr. Obama forgets is the US doesn't have the reputation to being able to pull of the "good-guy" role anymore.  Many in countries ranging from Iraq and Iran to lesser known countries like Mali see the US as a hostile nation.  Putin is portraying his actions as protecting Russian speaking people, not invading sovereign nations or even attacking terrorists.

And while Mr. Obama claims that he is working through "multilateral actions" to thwart Russia's presence in Ukraine, the new Ukrainian president has a different interpretation of what that means;

"Poroshenko, 48, a billionaire who won the May 25 presidential election in the first round, said in an interview with Germany’s Bild newspaper that he intended to call on the United States for military supplies and training."  The Washington Post

While drawing parallels from the past is always fraught with error and faulty conclusions, one thing about Russia annexing Crimea is eerily reminiscent of something from exactly a hundred years ago next month.  The Great War or World War I started on July 28, 1914.  That was the date Archduke Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated serving as the trigger but the underlying problem was neo-imperialism.  Neo-imperialism was a period of unprecedented pursuit of overseas territorial acquisitions.  At this time, countries focused on building their empire with new technological advances and developments, making their country bigger through conquest, and exploiting their resources.

Obviously Russia fits the parallel but let's not forget the United States.  US overseas bases have been quietly built-up during the war on terror in Qatar, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, UAE, Djibouti, and Diego Garcia to name a few.  US drones can now be deployed through the most of the Middle East and the Horn of Africa.

Don't think the rest of the world might resent this presence?  Here is listing of all of the countries the US State Department has issued travel warnings for:  Iran, North Korea, Philippines, Kenya, Central African Republic, Ukraine, Nigeria, Syria, El Salvador, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of South Sudan, Chad, Colombia, Sudan, Burundi, Niger, Mali, Mauritania, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Algeria, Pakistan, Israel, Lebanon, Yemen, Mexico, Honduras, Venezuela, and Eritrea. (US State Department)

I did not include alerts which would have added Egypt, Thailand and Russia.  Brazil likely gets added once the World Cup starts and if there are clashes between protestors and police that make the news.

Humans like numbers and anniversaries.  The 100th anniversary of the start of the Great War may be a more than a coincidence.

Russia's Latest Way to Check Washington

When Russia was threatening to first take over Crimea, President Obama and his administration mistook the troop movements as the southern front of a larger military exercise.  The miscalculation left the United States unable to counter the Russians even if Washington had wanted to send troops.  Time, distance and space were all in Russia's favor.  They were closer, with more troops and knew what they wanted to do and when they were going to do it.

Being out maneuvered, President Obama then falls back to the old, but largely unsuccessful, method of economic sanctions.  He would isolate Russia from the rest of the world economically.  But that tactic takes time and has had a remarkably low success rate.  Iran and Iraq have faced years of economic sanctions.  Iran remains prosperous and had the Bushes not invaded Iraq, the Iraqi people would equally be prosperous.

Sanctions are tricky things.  Too harsh and you risk starving the very people you want to pressure their leaders.  Too little and the citizens aren't compelled to seek change.  And sometimes those that you are imposing sanctions on have ways of making your life difficult.

The Atlas V rockets that the US and NASA depend on for launching heavy payloads into orbit are powered by Russian RD-180 engines.  With Atlas slated to assume 56% of the launches through 2020, an RD-180 shortage would cause payload delivery delays despite options existing today to mitigate them (Aviation Week).  The immediate thorny issue is that Altas V has 38 launches on the manifest with only 16 RD-180s in the U.S. inventory, and supply is in question.  A shift of 22 missions would call for an increase in Delta IV production and even in doing so the backlog for this rocket would not be met until fiscal 2019, according to the Aviation Week article.

But Russia's real trump card is energy.  Europe needs Russian gas and oil.  Enforcing too restrictive of a sanction against Russia means a very cold Europe.  Russia needs to sell its energy and Putin is a far better statesman than Obama, especially when it comes to protecting national interests.  It should come as no surprised that Reuters is reporting the following;  " China and Russia signed a $400-billion gas supply deal on Wednesday, securing the world's top energy user a major source of cleaner fuel and opening up a new market for Moscow as it risks losing European customers over the Ukraine crisis."

Russia isn't cutting off Europe but the deal with China insures and departures by European countries will not have a great an impact on the Russian economy.  Europe will be hard-pressed to find alternative sources for gas and oil at the same price point as Russia.  We all love cheap energy.

China may have entered into a this deal in part to further complicate matters for the US.  Attorney General Holder has decided to indict five officers of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) on cyber-warfare charges.  It is doubtful that the officers will ever stand trial but Holder's actions have the US Navy more than a little concerned.  The Navy feels this will lead to a backlash from China that may be expressed on the waters of the Pacific.    Another potential miscalculation by Holder and his boss the President.

The lack of synchronization between the DOJ and DOD is jus the latest example of riffs between Obama and his administration.  In 2012, the Obama administration produced a draft National Intelligence Estimate that reached a surprising conclusion: al Qaeda was no longer a direct threat to America (The Daily Beast).  Senior intelligence officials would not go along with that assessment.  Obama used this assassination of bin Laden and the al Qaeda assessment to run on in 2012.  The White House continues to use these talking despite the information showing al Qaeda has increased operations, notably Libya (Benghazi), Nigeria (Boko Haram) and very likely Mali.

Not having access to those assessments, it's hard to know how much is fact and how much is bluster.  What is distressing is how the intelligence community and military under the Obama administration lack a focus.  They are being spread to thin with their attention diverted from everything including drawing down in Afghanistan to searching for the kidnapped girls in Nigeria.  All the while Russia and China continue to move forward with their agenda.

The Alliance is fracturing

In response to the situation in Nigeria, the Obama administration has sent 16 Special Forces troops (my guess?  Green Berets since they are there to "advise and train") plus they are going to use drones to help locate the missing school girls.  I fear its too little and too late.

"In recent days, the world has watched in horror as the Nigerian terror group Boko Haram kidnapped more than 250 schoolgirls and threatened to sell them into slavery. The U.S. military has discreetly sent aircraft over Nigeria, and dispatched 16 troops to the country, to try to find the girls."  Time

Hardly a response at all in Nigeria.  In the meantime, US/European solidarity in criticizing Russia's annexation of Crimea is beginning to show signs of fractures.

Exhibit A:  Two weeks ago, three Russian navy ships - the 6,900-tonne destroyer Vice Admiral Kulakov and tankers Duban and Sergey Osipov - docked at Ceuta, less than 50miles across the Mediterranean from Gibraltar.  Spain is a NATO member nation which implies a support against the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine.  However, Spain has had a beef with the UK using the straights of Gibraltar which the British have controlled since 1713.  Old rivalries die hard.  (Read more here)

Exhibit B:  France (which is not a NATO member) is proceeding with the sale of two military ships to Russia despite the US calling the sale "ill-advised". "To critics, the 1.2 billion euro, or more than $1.6 billion, deal that France struck with Russia has emerged as a classic instance in which a European nation has elevated its business dealings with Moscow over exhortations by the United States to take a firm line on Russian meddling in Ukraine."  N.Y. Times

Exhibit C:  The Spanish and French aren't the only ones who are letting money compromise their resiliency.  Apparently, the US (which is a big NATO member) is interested on only enforcing certain sanctions against Russia.  "The U.S. State Department has issued shipping licenses for two commercial telecommunications satellites preparing for launch this year aboard Russian Proton rockets from Russia’s Baikonur Cosmodrome, industry officials said." Space News

What happened to the great NATO alliance?

After Word War II, Europe was divided between west and east.  The West of course were the free European countries, the East were occupied by the Soviet Union.  To prevent further western advancement by the Soviet Union, NATO was created.  It could never really stop the Soviet Union, mainly delay it until the US could mobilize all of its forces.  When the Soviet Union fell, NATO's future began to get questioned.  NATO found a new role in the war on terror running things in Afghanistan as well as directing the air campaign over Libya during the Arab Spring.  However, these actions made it even more apparent that a self-proteciont alliance had probably outlived its usefulness.

Most of the NATO member nations are spending less and less on their militaries.  In the meantime, Russia has increased its spending and is now more on parity with NATO then it has been in years.

Europe is also facing a financial crisis that the European Union has exacerbated rather than solve.  The US is no longer seen as the financial superpower that can help Europe so more countries are turning to Russia and China.  Like the old European courts, today's governments may say one thing but are busy doing quite the opposite.  In this case, public support for economic sanctions against Russia while privately cutting deals to make money.  No wonder Putin looks so smug!

According to an article in the Moscow Times, "A number of European countries are heavily dependent on Russia for their energy needs, and others simply want to continue business-as-usual and not let the events in Ukraine get in the way of making profits." Moscow Times   Which is exactly why the call for crippling sanctions in the same article is not going to happen.

Firs Syria, then Crimea and now Nigeria.  Where happened?

Mark Thompson of Time wrote, "In recent weeks, Russian President Vladimir Putin has unilaterally redrawn Europe’s post-World War II borders by snatching Crimea from Ukraine. Since that deft move, he has acted as a Slavic Geppetto in eastern Ukraine, sowing enough discord in the former Soviet state to keep it off balance, unable to puncture Moscow’s sphere of influence. Beyond dispatching small, tripwire forces to nearby NATO nations, the U.S. military has remained at parade rest."  

Many say after 10 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans are tired and don't want to get involved anymore.  I doubt that is the case since the American public was never asked to sacrifice anything during the war.  A more likely answer can be found in this quote from President Obama, “Why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force after we’ve just gone through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget?” (Time)  If he truly believes that, then why did he declare the use of chemical weapons in Syria to be a "red line" and then proceeded to do nothing about it?  The President appears afraid to confront anyone, especially Putin, and tries to use rhetoric about budgets to disguise his fears.

Not to be outdone, General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was quoted as saying, "As I look forward and think about the need to rebalance the use of military power, I think we will need less direct action because it is the most costly, disruptive and controversial use of American power,” (Time)  That might sound better if Russia didn't just place 40,000 troops into Crimea while the President sat and watched.  And not to diminish one iota the plight of the Nigerian school children but President Asad has massacred 150,000 people since he crossed Mr. Obama's "red line" and suffered not a scratch.

The United States is rapidly turning into an isolationist state once again.  The US did not want to get involved in either World War I or World War II.  The public want the US to stay out.  Both times, isolationist policies prevented the US from becoming involved until it was almost too late.  In neither case did the US suffer any casualties on the homeland (remember Hawaii was not part of the United States when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor).  The short term decision not to become involved in Syria or Crimea may be expedient to the current White House but what about long-term?  Will the next administration but forced into a conflict because we appear not to be willing to do so today?

A brief history of Africa and US Involvement

I wrote my previous blog in response to the Boko Haram kidnapping and focused my analysis on that particular group and Nigeria.  However, it is becoming apparent to me the more that  I read that this is much more than just about oil and Washington power games.  What is happening in Nigeria is a microcosm of African history.

The modern map of Africa is the legacy of European colonization beginning in the 15th Century by the Spanish and Portuguese.  Both of these European colonial powers started with the coastal areas of the African continent looking to expand their trade routes.

War with the English and French weakened the Spanish and Portuguese empires.  By the 17th Century, the Dutch, English and French had increased the colonization of Africa.  The Ottomans, Germans and Belgians would also colonize parts of Africa as each European power sought to have a stake in Africa's natural resources and slave trade.

World War I disrupted much of the European power base that had colonized the African continent.  After World War II, the European empires had been replaced by the United States and Soviet Union.  The new superpowers were even more dependent on the natural resources of Africa (strategic minerals were even more rarer and valuable than diamonds and gold).  Unlike the European empires though, the United States and Soviet Union used their allies (proxies) to protect their interests in Africa.  As African nations "won" independence from their European colonial powers, the governments were often puppets of either the US or Soviet Union.  Often though the emancipation of a particular African country meant little as a European corporation (such as Royal Dutch Shell) continue to own or control all of the mineral rights of the former colony.

More recently, the so-called "Arab Spring" was widely supported by the United States and Europe and saw many long-standing governments overthrown by pro-Western (or at least that's what the West hoped) opposition governments.  Let's look at just two examples.

Libya was ruled by Muammar Qaddafi for 41 years.  By all accounts, he was an absolute tyrant, mass murderer, rapist and terrorist.  Yet even a broken clock is right twice a day.  Libya was a former Italian colony and under Qaddafi the country became wealthy.  At its height, it produced over 2% of the worlds oil production (which Qaddafi insured no outside powers controlled).  He used to wealth from nationalized oil to improve social programs in Libya.  We hear about the negatives from the Western press but to many in Libya and North Africans, Qaddafi was the epitome of an anti-imperialist throwing off the shackles of the European colonial powers.  This last point is particularly important as the military operation against Libya was carried out by Europe (!) with France (?) taking the lead.  Former French President Sarkozy was not about to be left without France having a cut of Libya's vast oil.

The other case to look at is Egypt.  Former Egyptian President Mubarak became president after the assassination of Anwar Sadat.  In a sense, he was the legacy of the Camp David Peace Accords.  As such, he maintained the peace between Israel and Egypt and was a stabilizing force in the region.  As Sadat's heir, he was also a great ally of the United States making him of of the few pro-West Arab leaders.

Mubarak though also had his dark side and like Qaddafi, committed many atrocities (torture, rape, murder) on any Egyptian that opposed him or his policies.  The US turned a blind eye to these abuses because Mubarak was pro-West at a time when the US was becoming more actively involved (Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom although Mubarak was against the latter).  The State Security Investigations Service (SSI) or secret police, were perhaps what the US found most valuable in the war on terror.  Egypt was were the US sent suspected terrorists under the "extraordinary rendition" practice of the Bush and Obama administration.  As the American public grew increasingly uncomfortable with US "interrogation techniques", the Bush Administration decided to basically use a third-party to carry our interrogations.  The same techniques the the SSI used on terrorists are what ultimately caused the Arab Spring to spread to Egypt.

Although neither Qaddafi or Mubarak were saints, they did represent stability in their respective countries.  Once they were ousted, both countries were plunged into civil chaos.  In North Africa and the Middle East, the answer to civil chaos is almost always more atrocities and human rights abuses.

Africans view US and European involvement as part of the problem, not the solution.  Take Somalia as an example.

In 1992, the US lead United Task Force (UNITAF) was charged with carrying out United Nations Security Council Resolution 794 to create a protected environment for conducting humanitarian operations in the southern half of the country.  This was followed in March 1993 by UN Security Council Resolution 819 (United Nations Operation in Somalia II  or UNOSOM II) to extend intervention in Somalia.  UNOSOM II was supposed to, as did UNOSOM I, were to create a secure environment in an increasingly lawless area so that humanitarian operations could be conducted.

Mohamed Farrah Aidid, along with other armed opposition groups, drove out former President Mohamed Siad Barre's regime from Somalia's capital Mogadishu during the Somali Civil War that broke out in the early 1990s.  Thus was launched Operation Gothic Serpent was an operation conducted by the US Army Rangers and Delta Force with the primary mission of capturing Aidid and two of his lieutenants.  This would lead to the Battle of Mogadishu, also know as Blackhawk Down.

Some 20 plus years afterwards, Somalia is still run by warlords and has no government.  To Africans, this is the result of failed European colonial policies as well as US intervention.  Critics of the US involvement in Somalia say it was more about protecting corporate interests in the region than about promoting humanitarian relief.  

I think it shows more how the US and Europe fail to grasp the long-term consequences of their actions. But it has also underlined the limits of U.S. influence and fed the narrative, common in Africa, that Washington only cares about Africa in times of crisis or insecurity.

Most know that the Global War on Terror was primarily focused on Iraq and Afghanistan.  What many don't realize is the US also has based Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) out of Camp Lemonnier (home to around 4,000 troops), Djibouti since 2003.  After negotiations between March and May 2001, the Djiboutian government allowed for the base's use by the U.S., providing for demining, humanitarian, and counter-terrorism efforts, and it now serves as the location from which U.S. and Coalition forces are operating in the Horn of Africa. On May 5th it was announced that the United States and Djibouti have signed a new 10-year lease on "a U.S. military base in the Horn of Africa nation" (Camp Lemonnier) that the White House called a critical part in fighting terrorism. (Voice of America)

In the event the US were to conduct major operations in African, it would need a theater command to direct its military forces.  In 2006, US Africa Command (USAFRICOM) was established.  It is headquartered at Kelley Barracks, Stuttgart, Germany. It is responsible for U.S. military operations and military relations with 53 African nations – an area of responsibility (AOR) covering all of Africa except Egypt, which is within the area of responsibility of theUnited States Central Command.  Yes, a major command responsible for Africa based out of Europe and one of the former colonial powers.  You can't make this stuff up.

In a Twitter discussion, Secretary of State John Kerry was admonished that “In choosing security over democracy in Ethiopia, U.S. will get neither”.  That perhaps best sums ups the US involvement in Africa.  The Washington Post goes on further;

"There is little doubt that America is increasingly concerned about the security climate in Africa. Two decades after Osama bin Laden left Sudan, ethnic conflicts and security vacuums are multiplying
in the region. Insurrections in Mali, Libya, Algeria and the Central African Republic, among other places, have sown worry that al-Qaeda affiliates or others bent on harm to Americans will be able to use Africa as a base.

In response, the Obama administration has greatly expanded its counterterrorism operations and partnerships over the past six years. In the process, it has often joined forces with anti-democratic or authoritarian regimes."--WP.  Oops, the same mistakes previous administrations have made in Central and South America is now being repeated by the nation's first Black President in his father's homeland.

Now this admittedly abridged history of the colonization of Africa and US involvement was to lead to a conclusion on my part.  Allow me to thread together everything I've written thus far.

Africa is the richest continent on the planet when it comes to natural resources.  Its huge population also represents a cheap labor force which has historically exploited as slaves but now as people displaced by war.  If Europe is no longer the colonial empire in control, and the end of the Soviet Union, who is left in control?  Certainly not any Africans.  Certainly not the United States as its recent actions seem to be in reaction to another power being in control.  

For the answer, one needs to travel to Egypt.  A very good friend of mine recently travelled to Egypt and discovered that all of the lands there have been bought by the Chinese.  He also noted a huge population of Chinese now living and working in Egypt.  Why?  Because China is buying all of Egypt's debt from the United States, which is why President Mohamed Morsi travelled to Beijing and not Washington on his first official visit outside Egypt (sorry Barack!).  

“Our relations with China will increase, because our new government has some doubts about the West,” said Mohamed Kadry Said, military analyst at the Cairo-based Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies--Global Post.  

In November 2010, an opinion poll released by the Pew Research Center showed 52 percent of Egyptians held a favorable view of China, while just 17 percent of Egyptians held a favorable view of the United States.  Just this week China has signed on to build a power station, a water desalination plant and a high-speed train line between Cairo and Egypt’s second city, Alexandria totaling around $500 million worth of investments.

It explains why former Secretary Clinton and President Obama wanted to "pivot" towards Asia.  China has the wealth to outbid the US in Africa and thus control its resources.  The only hope was to try to keep China in check with increasing US military presence in Asia and the creation of USAFRICOM.  The latter was created, in non-specific terms, to deal with threats in Africa.  Right now the only real threat is China.

This explains why Hillary Clinton didn't label Boko Haram a terrorist group.  They really didn't pose a threat to US interests and even now, the White House is stumbling over how to work the kidnapping in as a prelude to increased military actions in Nigeria.  It won't be a death knell for Hillary 2016 unless some other damaging information comes out.  Most likely this will be used as a way to openly increase US influence in Nigeria and prevent further expansion of China's influence on the African continent.

And perhaps this is the real reason the Obama Administration is seemingly unable to stop Russia.  It has decided China is the bigger threat and has diverted too many resources towards that end making it unfeasible to also engage Russia.  And Russia knows it.

Thoughts on Ukraine, the US officer corps, and Nevada

In May 2008, Russia invades Georgia.  The large, unwieldy Soviet style command and control of the Russian Army proved disastrous.  Russian troops were antiquated and ill-equipped for warfare in the 21st Century.  Mr. Putin spent the next  years changing the Russian army from its Cold War era posture to a lean, modern fighting force that quickly retook the Crimea.  Reports now are coming in that Russian troops in the Ukraine are wearing state-of-the-art body armor.  The armor is believed to have titanium and hard carbide boron ceramic chest and back plates.  If correct, these plates can deflect 5.56mm NATO round and means the Ukraine rifles won't be very effective.  Even the Russian grenade launchers and helmets have take such an order of magnitude leap that a former US general was quoted as saying, "The body armor is better than our body armor. They’re doing a lot of things right. I’m pretty amazed at it.”--Washington Times

As a result, Mr. Obama's foreign policy failures continue to mount.  Mr. Putin has thus far been unpersuaded by threats of isolating Russian on the world market.  Reclaiming Crimea, which was turned over by Khrushchev, is imperative in Mr. Putin's mind to reclaiming Russia's spot as a world power.  Thus far, he has achieved his goal and seems hellbent on keeping it.  In contrast, Mr. Obama's failed foreign policy continues with the assignment of the Ukraine situation falling to elder "statesman" VP Joe Biden.  Kerry out, Biden in and how did the vice president handle this passing of the torch?  By saying upon his arrival in the Ukraine, "Thank you for making me feel relevant again!" (Weekly Standard).  Mr. Biden, this is not about you or your lack of relevance, it's about preventing a potential war.

The state of the US military has to be emboldening Russia.  While Mr. Putin has increased spending over the last 6 years, Mr. Obama first imposed sequestration across the Department of Defense.  While wartime spending needed to be brought under control. the sequestration was a heavy-handed approach that has threatened modernization and has all of the Joint Chiefs scrambling to maintain relevancy.

It is against the backdrop of these events that I read with interest an article by William Lind in the American Conservative, "An Officer Corps That Can't Score".  In it, Lind sees the officer corps has become the land of careerists who seek to reinforce one another's beliefs without challenging the status quo.  He believes, and I agree, the officers are no longer learned professionals who read and study serious military history.  He also feels that there are just too many officers who are in-turn augmented by contractors (who are mostly just retired officers themselves).

The pathologies that flow from this are endless. Command tours are too short to accomplish anything, usually about 18 months, because behind each commander is a long line of fellow officers eagerly awaiting their lick at the ice-cream cone. Decisions are pulled up the chain because the chain is laden with surplus officers looking for something to do. Decisions are committee-consensus, lowest common denominator, which Boyd warned is usually the worst of all possible alternatives. Nothing can be changed or reformed because of the vast number of players defending their “rice bowls.” The only measurable product is entropy. 

 The second and third structural failings are related because both work to undermine moral courage and character, which the Prussian army defined as “eagerness to make decisions and take responsibility.” They are the “up or out” promotion system and “all or nothing” vesting for retirement at 20 years. “Up or out” means an officer must constantly curry favor for promotion because if he is not steadily promoted he must leave the service. “All or nothing” says that if “up or out” pushes him out before he has served 20 years, he leaves with no pension. (Most American officers are married with children.)--The American Conservative

The USAF is accused of being more of a corporation than a military organization at times so I tend to agree more with Lind than if I had been say in the Marine Corps.  Nonetheless, his observations are timely for a military that was for so long trained to fight the Soviet Union, only now to become engaged in a conflict with Russia that it is no longer able to contain.

When one lacks a curious mind, you become locked into reactive state without regard to causes or consequences.  In war, this means you lose.  In the civilian world, it's how over a month after the disappearance of Flight 370 no wreckage has been found.  It had to have crashed, no pilot would have dropped below radar coverage and landed somewhere?  It couldn't have crashed, otherwise our satellites and other systems would have detected the wreckage?  The truth is probably going to be a combination of the pilot intentionally avoiding detection and landing/crashing on an island somewhere.

Of course another, more sinister option brings us back to Russia.  What if there was a way to take over the controls of an aircraft and divert it somewhere or outright destroy it without leaving a trace?  It might just be enough incentive to convince and already iffy US President to stay home and mind his own business.

Speaking of which, apparently US federal agents aren't required to read history books either.  Attempting to takeover a Nevada ranch eerily resembled the Branch Davidian compound from 1995 yet they expected US citizens not to react?  Wisely they were pulled back (is Mr. Obama also failing on his domestic policies?).  I don't think the situation is over in Nevada but I also don't thinks this administration can handle both a domestic and international crisis at the same time.

Russia continues its Crimean campaign

All it took was one Malaysian airliner to disappear to shift American news media away from Crimea.  It certainly looks suspicious, however it can just as easily be some type of catastrophic design failure.  Regardless, more headlines are pouring out speculation on this rather than looking at all of the nasty options Mr. Putin has set into motion over he the weekend.

A little review is in order to properly set the magnitude of how much the United States does not understand Russia and Mr. Putin.

The “reset” with Russia had a brief, unhappy life. It began with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presenting her Russian counterpart with a mistranslated reset button reading “overcharged.” It ended with current Secretary of State John Kerry denying knowledge of the late, unlamented policy on “Meet the Press”: “Well, I don’t know what you mean by the reset.”-- Rich Lowry, New York Post 

Former Secretary of State (and 2016 Democratic Presidential hopeful) Hillary Clinton and President Obama crafted the notion of a "reset" for relations with Russia.  As we are now reminded, Russian may not be the former Soviet Union anymore but Mr. Putin's approach is not the much different from the Cold War days.

To protect Russian interests, he sent troops to Crimea when it looked like Ukraine would align with the EU.  The United States and Western Europe protested, with Mr. Obama coming out looking like a rank amateur going against a world-class heavyweight champ.

Mr. Obama looks weakest whenever he makes threats.  No one takes them seriously and to someone like Mr. Putin, it just stokes his ego.  Towards the end of last week, Mr. Obama threatened Russia with economic sanctions if he did anything.  Over the weekend, Mr Putin did the following;

1.Putin mocks the West and threatens to turn off gas supplies.  Rather than have direct talks with the new government in Kiev, Mr. Putin would take away Europe's cheap source of natural gas.  The Ukraine is one of the main transit routes for Russian gas and much of Europe depends heavily on the flow of natural gas.  Even though temps are warming up, a cut-off would adversely effect the European economy.--Telegraph

2.Russian troops storm military post in Crimea as U.S. sends warship to the Black Sea after talks between Obama and Putin break down  Russian troops stormed a Crimean command center in an act that seems to be in retaliation for the deployment of the US Destroyer Truxtun to the Black Sea.  While Washington is claiming this is just part of a routine exercise, Moscow claims this act escalates tensions.  There are now 30,000 Russian troops on the ground compared to a normal end-strength of around 11,000.--Daily Mail

3. Russia May Halt US Inspections Over Sanctions  Moscow sees the U.S. move as a reason to suspend U.S. inspections in Russia in line with the 2010 New START treaty on cutting U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals.--Associated Press

4.  Ukraine leaders vow not to cede land; Russia tightens grip on Crimea  Leaders of Ukraine vowed Sunday not to cede any part of their nation’s territory, even as Russia defended its virtual takeover of the disputed Crimean peninsula and signaled its willingness to act on the result of an upcoming secession vote there. LA Times

Besides the deployment of the USS Truxtun, the US has quietly deployed more assets into the region.

1.  USAF To Increase Military Presence in Lithuania, Poland Six F-15C Eagle fighter jets were deployed to the Lithuanian Air Force base in Siauliai, in the country’s north, Thursday, Lithuania’s Defense Ministry said in a statement.  On a related note, 12 F-16 fighter jets and 300 US troops are to be deployed to Poland March 10-11, Polish Defense Minister Tomasz Siemoniak said. The fighter jets will arrive at the military base in Lask, in central Poland.--Defense News

One has to wonder how the Russians how the Russians did it.  Military historians will tell you that the Soviet era military was large, ponderously large.  It would take forever to get somewhere but once it did it would utilize its huge mass to overwhelm the enemy (unless it happens to be some pesky Afghanis).

Under Mr.Putin, two things happened.  One was his unwavering passion to ascend Russia to its rightful place as the major world power.  Second was his vision that the old Soviet military model was not nimble and would not work in a 21st Century battlefield of rapid strikes.  Instead of the lumbering military that was ripe for committing fratricide during the invasion of Georgia in 2008, the forces in Crimea in 2014 are much more like US Rangers.  Contracted professionals, no draftees, and many of the troops are from the FSB (modern day KGB).  It is a lean force designed for rapid deployment but lacks the depth and heavy armor for prolonged war with a major power.  The Ukraine does not pose that type of challenge.  (see Putin has transformed Russian army into a lean, mean fighting machine).

Many are speculating that Russia's economy cannot sustain these expeditionary forces.  I suspect these estimates are optimistic.  Russian people are used to a much more austere lifestyle than the West.  Mr. Putin has sustained relationships with Syria, Iran and China that will be more than willing to pay for Russian expertise in nuclear technology.  Even the threat of European sanctions rings hollow.  The EU is having a hard enough time keeping its members in line.  The threat of gas prices shooting up will hurt them more in the short-run than Russian.

Mr. Putin has figured he can ignore Washington for another two years at least.  In the meantime, if he regains control of Crimea he also insures Russia's dominance in the Black Sea.

Crimea, Russia and the US since we last checked-in

World War III has not started and Russia seems content with holding their troops in position.  While all seems quite on the Crimean front, back home thinks have started to become quarrelsome to say the least.

Item:  House Intelligence Chair Mike Rogers (R-MI) summed the Ukraine crisis by saying “Putin is playing chess, and I think we’re playing marbles.” --Fox News

Item: Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee made the following statement upon receipt of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) for 2014, "Unfortunately, the product the process produced this time has more to do with politics than policy and is of little value to decision makers. For that reason, I will require the Department to re-write and re-submit a compliant report. In defiance of the law, this QDR provides no insight into what a moderate-to-low risk strategy would be, is clearly budget driven, and is shortsighted. It allows the President to duck the consequences of the deep defense cuts he has advocated and leaves us all wondering what the true future costs of those cuts will be."--Armed Services Committee

Item:  On Thursday President Obama orders sanctions in response to Russia's actions.  European allies are uncertain how far they are willing to support Mr. Obama (something to do with wanting to keep the flow of Russian oil, maybe?).  Immediately Mr. Obama follows this stern action with a phone call to Mr. Putin saying there was still a way to resolve this diplomatically (even though all other options are off the table anyway).  Further, the President thinks this stance is strong enough that he is still demands that Russia recognize the legitimacy of Ukraine (not bloody likely!).--Daily Mail

Item:  In the "I'm desperate enough to try anything" category, a Pentagon research team is studying the body language of Vladmir Putin.  "U.S. policymakers are seeking any advantage they can find as they try to anticipate Putin, who in the past week has ordered Russian troops into neighboring Ukraine and laid claim to the Crimea Peninsula. "--USA Today  I must be missing something here.  Putin has told everyone his goals (protect Russian interests) and has moved his troops into position to insure that goal is achieved.  This is not a poker game, we know what he wants and how he intends to do it.  I wonder if Mr. Putin has a research team studying our President's body language?

Meanwhile, things abroad have become more interesting.

Item:  Ukrainian President Yanukovych is in a Moscow hospital after a heat attack, listed in grave condition (no worries of testimony from that person!).--Daily Mail

Item:  The USS Truxtun, a US Navy guided-missile destroyer, passed through the Çanakkale Strait en route to the Black Sea on Friday for what the US Navy described as a "routine" deployment that was scheduled well before the crisis in Ukraine (no coincidence here or why not cancel the maneuvers?).--Today's Zaman

Item:  Leaders of both houses of Russia’s Parliament said on Friday that they would support a vote by Crimea to break away from Ukraine and become a new region of the Russian Federation, the first public signal that the Kremlin was backing the secessionist move that Ukraine, the United States and other countries have denounced as a violation of international law.--NY Times

Putin is in charge of this game.  Mr. Obama's only hope is if he has the guts to get Russia kicked off the G8.  Short of that, and given his stance against any military action, the sanctions aren't going to have any short term effect on Russia.