Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

Archive for the ‘Stragety’ Category

More on the bear

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 13, 2007

czar-nicholas-ii.jpg

I’ve been following the New Russian Bellicosity for a while now. Instapundit points to this good, but too short, Strategy Page article that tells it like it is. In other words, he sees it the way I do (emphasis added):

The really bad news is, most Russians are still not aware of how screwed up their Soviet era military was. There are two reasons for this. First, Russians take for granted how their armed forces operates. Russians complain about the brutality and incompetence in the military, but that’s all they’ve ever known. Second, Russians remember fondly that their ramshackle armed forces defeated the Germans during World War II. What the Russians play down is how much the Germans lost World War II in Russia, rather than being beaten. The Germans made a lot of serious mistakes during the war, while the Russians got their act together. What Russians fail to realize is that the Soviet Union was an accidental, and largely imaginary, superpower. Russia has long employed large scale deception, and the Soviet Union continued this on a sustained basis. Military weaknesses (poor training and readiness) were hidden, and strengths (sheer number of weapons and troops) emphasized. But as was seen many times (from Budapest in 1956, to Chechnya in 1994), the Soviet military system produced little in the way of real military power. Soviet weapons, as impressive as they appeared to be, always came out a distant second when they were used against Western ones. The main thing that kept the Soviet military reputation going was the need of Western militaries to make the Soviet Union look strong, in order to justify high Western military budgets.

The one effective weapon the Soviets did have were their nuclear armed ballistic missiles. Better maintained than the rest of the military, enough of this missile fleet would work, if used, to devastate Western nations. Russia still has a large part of that nuclear arsenal. But that does not make Russians feel like a superpower. That’s because Russia no longer has the huge fleet, air force and army. And that’s because this huge force was all an expensive illusion, which was disbanded in the 1990s, once it was obvious what a waste it all was. But the big thing that’s missing is the size of the Soviet Union. Over half the population of the Soviet Union were not Russian, and did not want to be part of the Soviet Union. Most of these people got their wish in 1991, when the Soviet Union came apart. Many Russians want to undo that, but they cannot. It took Russia over four centuries to build that empire, and the inept Soviet Bureaucrats a few weeks to lose it all. An increasing number of Russians want it back, but are unwilling to confront how they lost it in the first place, or why rebuilding the empire is an uncertain and dangerous enterprise. This is all very dangerous stuff.

A lot of people will disagree with the “Germany beat itself” suggestion, but not all — especially German historians. But his overall point is hard to refute.

It seems likely that Putin’s recent tough talk is opportunistic — he is aware of Bush’s political weakness and international-pariah status and wants to see what he can get. But Condi Rice seems up to handling the delicate psychological game needed to keep the Bear from doing something stupid. And, revealingly, Europe is not responding to Russian scare tactics the way it did in the old days — in some cases, far from it. This gives reason to hope. Isn’t that a nice change?

Posted in Euroids, Stragety | 1 Comment »

Back off, Ivan

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 1, 2007

The Russians are going nuts, their pronouncements and threats sounding increasingly like the protests of the weak and desperate, not the confidence of the strong. They may be mostly for domestic consumption. But the weak and desperate can be mighty dangerous, especially when they have a demonstrated history of success with cultivating self-hating westerners by using the wedge between them and their own institutions and leadership — easy these days given the loathing of George W. Bush. This experience Russia has.politburo.jpg

Yet Condi parries nicely:

Russian attitudes are locked in the past, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday, adding that the United States is perplexed by the current fracas with Russia over a planned U.S. missile system in Europe.

“We want a 21st Century partnership with Russia, but at times, Russia seems to think and act in the zero-sum terms of another era,” Rice said, referring to the suspicions and territorial ambitions of the Cold War.

I think that’s well said. She is not backing off, but she is inviting the Russians to “man up” and move on. It won’t be that easy, but I think her tone is the right one.

UPDATE:   Vladimir Putin’s demonstrates how to win friends and influence people.

Posted in Euroids, Stragety | 7 Comments »

Estonia is under attack

Posted by Ron Coleman on May 16, 2007

By Russia, via Internet.  A matter for NATO?

Posted in Euroids, Stragety | Leave a Comment »

The USSR and the Six Day War

Posted by Ron Coleman on May 16, 2007

The Jerusalem Post reports:

In a new book that “totally contradicts everything that has been accepted to this day” about the Six Day War, two Israeli authors claim that the conflict was deliberately engineered by the Soviet Union to create the conditions in which Israel’s nuclear program could be destroyed.Having received information about Israel’s progress towards nuclear arms, the Soviets aimed to draw Israel into a confrontation in which their counterstrike would include a joint Egyptian-Soviet bombing of the reactor at Dimona. They had also geared up for a naval landing on Israel’s beaches.

This is really hard to believe, but the authors claim to have first-hand testimony from former Soviet officers and officials as well as documentary evidence.

Could the Soviets have thought this would not have resulted in a U.S. response?  I am sure it’s addressed in the book, though it is not in the Jerusalem Post article.  Perhaps they thought Vietnam was too big of a distraction, and that a swift victory by their side would make it a fait accompli.   Perhaps Brezhnev was sloshed.  It’s a chilling thought, though.

Posted in Past is prologue, Stragety | 2 Comments »

“Old fashioned police work”

Posted by Ron Coleman on May 12, 2007

Threat Level is a Wired blog. It wrote on Friday about the “official deadline for cable modem companies, DSL providers, broadband over powerline, satellite internet companies and some universities to finish wiring up their networks with FBI-friendly surveillance gear, to comply with the FCC’s expanded interpretation of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.”

Threat Level’s Kevin Poulson thinks this is a terrible thing:

It’s worth noting that the new requirements don’t alter the legal standards for law enforcement to win court orders for internet wiretaps. Fans of CALEA expansion argue that it therefore won’t increase the number of Americans under surveillance.That’s wrong, of course. Making surveillance easier and faster gives law enforcement agencies of all stripes more reason to eschew old-fashioned police work in favor of spying.

“Old-fashioned police work”? Yes, capital idea. While Al Qaeda plots the next mass murder in America using wikis, IM, email, SMS texting, secure intranets, FTP, encrypted file-sharing or whatever we find out next time was the new thing latest thing, let’s limit our ability to protect ourselves by freezing law enforcement technology at, say, 1875’s level of technology. Is that old fashioned enough? Fingerprints? No problem. Also footprints, all that stuff you find in Sherlock Holmes. Magnifying glasses are fine. Yes, and throw in a little racial profiling and of course plenty of up-to-the-minute phrenology.

The utterly comical aspect of this is the concept that there is some distinction between old fashioned police work and what Poulson calls spying. What could be more old fashioned than surveillance? But he’s right, let’s do it the old-fashioned way. I’m not so sure he’s going to like it, and I don’t think I dont. But if we’re going to put law enforcement on a fast track to the past, it might just might be the ticket to balance such an absurd and suicidal policy.

UDPATE:    Like I said.

Posted in Futurama, Stragety | 8 Comments »

Sticking out your neck

Posted by Ron Coleman on May 2, 2007

Big day for being wrong. Ara Rubyan says he was wrong, too — wrong in predicting that the President would not go through with his veto threat. He then more than makes up for it with this very reasonable, moderate and yet politically astute post: What The Dems Should Do Next.

But you know, Ara, being wrong is no crime. Sometimes you stick your neck out and you get to be historically right. Sometimes, true, the price of doing that is a broken neck; and understandably not everyone is up for that. Hitchens (via Hydralisk):

So one day we’ll all see just how right you all were about Iraq?
No, I don’t think the argument will stop, perhaps forever. But when it does become the property of historians rather than propagandists and journalists, it’ll become plainer than it is to most people now that it was just. Most of what went wrong with it was that it was put off too long. What a lot of people wish is that the thing could have been skipped.

And we can understand how the nihilist left would rather that the Saddam problem all just went away — and can convince itself, as it always has with its powerful appetite for myth (no matter how inconsistent with other myths in the treasury), that it just would have gone away, anyway, if only we would have sent more unicorns. And too the fascist-friendly right; it’s not that Pat Buchanan is anything but a realist about the containability of Saddam Hussein; he just didn’t consider the bad outcome from letting Saddam fester all that bad.

But how do we understand people of evident good faith who say they believe the Saddam problem, and the WMD’s that everyone knew he had, was despite that not really “our problem” — “our” meaning America the hegemon — at all? Could they actually be stupid? Possibly, but I don’t think so. Is there a fine point of strategic vision, some twist of James Baker / Cyrus Vance type “realism” that explains it? It claims to constantly; yet I have never heard an actual rational explanation, but merely self-delusion and self-congratulation from that camp. They merely go home with their Nobels and leave the problems for the next guy.

So are politics, and political ambition, and the lust for power, and cynicism, really that corrosive — so much so that, as Hitchens says, people with power and responsibility would rather just stick those necks and what’s on them deep into holes along the beach despite the solemn seriousness of their obligations, and vote as the Senate and the House did for a policy as utterly bad for long run foreign policy as the vote to capitulate in Iraq?

They are, they are.

Posted in O Mores!, Orient, Stragety | 8 Comments »

Boots on the ground

Posted by Ron Coleman on May 2, 2007

Everyone talks about the military as if they had the slightest idea of what they were talking about. In that regard it is like religion, I suppose; both invite commentary from everyone yet both actually require sophistication and education to understand. Okay, religion and the Yankees. And welding. Man, why does everyone always have to bother me with their opinions about welding?

Well, anyway, if you want to understand a little about current debates in military policy — including the fundamental question of how many boots on (and off) the ground is enough — you might want to start here.

Posted in Stragety | Leave a Comment »

They’re your friends, Joe

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 26, 2007

Senator Lieberman swims upstream in the Senate:

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t withdraw combat troops from iraq and still say you’re going to fight Al Qaeda there. If you believe that there is no hope of winning in iraq or that the costs of victory there are not worth it, then you should be for complete withdrawal as soon as possible.

But politicians have it both ways all the time, Senator Joe. You have done it yourself, and these are the fellows who share your bed.

Thanks, though, for remembering why you’re still in the Senate.

UPDATE: Al says don’t get too excited — Joe wants to stay there.

Posted in Orient, Politics and Poker, Stragety | 1 Comment »

Thought control returns to Russia

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 24, 2007

I am waiting for Noam Chomsky to weigh in:

At their first meeting with journalists since taking over Russia’s largest independent radio news network, the managers had startling news of their own: from now on, they said, at least 50 percent of the reports about Russia must be “positive.”In addition, opposition leaders could not be mentioned on the air and the United States was to be portrayed as an enemy, journalists employed by the network, Russian News Service, say they were told by the new managers, who are allies of the Kremlin.

I don’t mean (merely) to be facetious — but isn’t the creeping re-fascification of Russia and genuine repression of dissent something left-wingers everywhere should be up in arms about? It’s not even fellow-traveling to ignore this, after all — Stalin is dead.

Is it just habit — one look at those Cyrillic letters and it’s okay?  Or is it, rather, the fact that the enemy of my enemy (the West) is, on the left, always my friend?  That would, of course, align well with the left-wing defeat wish in Iraq.  I wonder when Ambassador Pelosi is heading to Moscow?

Posted in Oppression, Politics and Poker, Stragety | 7 Comments »

W-M-Denial?

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 24, 2007

Craig Karpel sends along this article from the The Spectator of London which sort of tops off the alt-media take on the WMD issue: Namely that the residual evidence is strong for a meaningful WMD cache having been located in Iraq, and that it got off to Syria:

You may be tempted to dismiss this as yet another dodgy claim from a warmongering lackey of the world Zionist neocon conspiracy giving credence to yet another crank pushing US propaganda. If so, perhaps you might pause before throwing this article at the cat. Mr Gaubatz is not some marginal figure. He’s pretty well as near to the horse’s mouth as you can get.Having served for 12 years as an agent in the US Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations, Mr Gaubatz, a trained Arabic speaker, was hand-picked for postings in 2003, first in Saudi Arabia and then in Nasariyah in Iraq. His mission was to locate suspect WMD sites, discover threats against US forces in the area and find Saddam loyalists, and then send such intelligence to the Iraq Survey Group and other agencies.

Between March and July 2003, he says, he was taken to four sites in southern Iraq — two within Nasariyah, one 20 miles south and one near Basra — which, he was told by numerous Iraqi sources, contained biological and chemical weapons, material for a nuclear programme and UN-proscribed missiles. He was, he says, in no doubt whatever that this was true.

I have always been partial to the Syria theory. For all the cynical talk about that the “runup to war,” the process was in fact absurdly shlepped out, as anyone who was reading the agonized writings of Andrew Sullivan at the time will recall. The main thing that those of us who favored military action at the time were thinking was that given this amount of time, if there’s anywhere Saddam can stash this stuff, he’s certainly been given ample opportunity to do so.

And why was Syria never confronted with the circumstantial evidence that it connived with Iraq on WMD’s? This was before, after all, Nancy Pelosi had named herself ambassador plenipotentiary to Syria. But it is likely that “realist” Colin Powell and the related Bakeroids of State, not irrationally, warned against broadening any aspect of the conflict, including the diplomatic one. The evidence against Syria was not hard; and while many have gone to the gallows on less circumstantial evidence — motive, opportunity, all that stuff — the White House, it seems, did not have the guts, even during that high-water moment of support for its actions (I mean, they had Andrew on their side!), to press the moment.

And now?

The Republicans won’t touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralise the danger of Iraqi WMD. The Democrats won’t touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment.

Maybe. If the proof were that good, frankly, I believe the Republicans would have jumped on it, embarrassment or not; it would have been far preferable to their current state of humiliation — in the sense of the present political crisis — over the way the war has gone. For this reason, I have to believe something very big is missing from this story, and would certainly be interested in knowing if there has been any objective debunking or not.

UPDATE: Hmm. Actually, what’s the difference? Facts, shmacts!

Posted in Orient, Politics and Poker, Stragety | 18 Comments »