Recommended Reading (2009-12-19)

– Christopher Hitchens examines the growing wave of subtle proselytizing in the military. I don’t (nor does he claim to) know just how widespread it is, but the signs are alarming on a number of levels. The most pressing is practicality. It really doesn’t make sense to alienate local allies in-theater nor to ostracize fellow servicemen for any reason at all. It undermines efficacy and damages our reputation. And that’s before starting in on the Constitutional issues it raises.

– Interesting bracket-style comparison of camouflage patterns at ITS Tactical.  Do yourself a favor; check them out and vote. My money’s on Mirage or desert MARPAT.

– British Home Secretary Alan Johnson is apparently creating an “army of private police.” From what I can tell, the ‘civilian’ police are actually government employees (the article lists dog wardens, park keepers, and security guards) who have been granted powers of arrest and so on. Definitely somewhat troubling, but it’s not the deputization of private citizens, as it would seem at first glance. Though that, of course, is the next step.

– John Robb has a new word for everyone’s lexicon. Behold the Darknet (not to be confused with the seamy underbelly of the internet, Freenet).

Clausewitz Lives?

For all the debate surrounding the applicability of Sun Tzu and Clausewitz to modern war, it’s fairly well-established that much of Clausewitz’s On War is the product of his age. Sun Tzu is perhaps better read, even by Western armies, if not for the sole purpose that it often serves as the guide for their enemies (not to oversimplify or state a categorical, but this is at least the assumption). At a strategic level, there is certainly some utility to be found, but the image one gets of Clausewitz’s writing is that of a relentless forward-only-advancing army, with no guile or subtlety to deploy.

It was for all these reasons that I was dismayed to hear Brigadier General Larry Nicholson of the 2nd MEB refer to Marjah, Afghanistan as the “enemy center of gravity” (about 1:20 in the clip). Marja is a “stronghold” of sorts, where insurgents stockpile weapons and have built defenses. Granted, General Nicholson was paraphrasing Afghans (whose most frequent asked question is, “when are the Marines leaving?”), but the fact remains that he’s employing Clausewitzian terminology to describe a decidedly un-Clausewitzian conflict.

You don’t hit the enemy where’s he strongest; nor do you hit him where he’s weakest. You attack where the enemy does not defend; you defend where the enemy does not attack. You avoid cities at all cost (this is not entirely applicable to Afghanistan, but it’s a strong general principle). If the Imperial German Army was wise enough to bypass Liège and Namur, you’d think the 2nd MEB could do the same. Obviously the parallels aren’t exact, but they’re there. If Marjah is what they’re defending, Marjah is what we don’t attack.

Recommended Reading (2009-12-16)

The newly-launched Iranian Sajjil-2 throws everyone into a tizzy.

– Quantifiable terror probabilities are what the University of Maryland’s Minorities at Risk project seeks to define. If history is anything like the stock market, though, past performance does not guarantee future results. History merely rhymes.

– I’m pretty sure at this point anyone who wants to get close to Berlusconi in any way must have mental problems. Well-wishers and assaulters alike.

– Seth Cropsey argues that a breakup of Pakistan may be imminent. The army is the glue that binds the country together, he writes, and thus the increasing religiosity put in place by Zia ul-Haq has led to a fracture of that one formerly unifying body. I do like the characterization of the Pakistani Army before Zia: “Officer clubs served liquor. Religion and ethnicity were not proper subjects of discussion. Muslim society was something that existed outside the military.” Between ethnicity and a Sunni-Shiite split in the Army, things don’t bode so well. The country is close to majority Punjabi, but in the long that may just mean everyone else feels oppressed.

– Even the Chinese understand the green benefits of going massively nuclear for power. The New York Times continues to believe that cheap plastic toys means a Chernobyl waiting to happen. Again, in a high-tech field the West is falling behind thanks to idiot environmental movements that can’t see the forest or the trees.

Recommended Reading (2009-12-15)

Fighting off the effects of jetlag and a bad cold/allergy at the same time, so this will be a short one.

– Look, I try to keep politics out of this as much as possible. But Jesus H. Christ. Joe Lieberman has GOT to go.

– For all those disaffected third party voters: the Modern Whig Party? According to Andrew Dubbins, a “Republican head with a Democratic heart.”

– Toby Young in The Telegraph: when we look back on this decade (unfortunately named by him as “the Noughties”), we will have seen a human desire for mass destruction and devastation. Apocalypse frenzy. This could either be a resurgent nihilism (not the ‘wannabe kind’), or simply humanity coming to terms with the next century. Is it really Roland Emmerich, and not Zach Braff, who is the voice of this generation? (Note: if those are the only two choices, then I hope the answer is yes).

– Flanders and Wallonia: the Velvet Divorce redux? The Weekly Standard thinks so. Wallonia as Britain sans Thatcher, Charleroi as “their Detroit.”

Recommended Reading (2009-12-13) – SUNDAY Edition

God, do I love maps. From Strange Maps: the new Turkish empire?

– A whole generation of French and Low Countries children are coming to terms with their fathers being Nazis. How widespread is this still? Aside from the rapes that occur in a lot of developing world conflicts, I think maybe the last time this happened on any kind of scale was Vietnam. But willingly?

– I think one of the most amazing things about the relative coherence of such a massive country as China is just how many ethnicities it manages to contain. China Hush has ‘family portraits’ of all 56 ethnic groups in the country. But why Russians?

– Russia and India are jointly developing a 5th generation fighter. This certainly took many by surprise, but this kind of thing always reminds me of Charlie Wilson’s take on India: “He considered them hypocrites, professing neutrality while firmly ensconced in the Soviet camp for decades.” Old habits die hard?

More after the jump… Continue reading

Recommended Reading (2009-12-12)

I found this self-identified map of Major League Baseball loyalties at Common Census:

Bears more than a little resemblance to the “United Countries of Baseball,” doesn’t it? Aside from just being nice to look at, the self-identification going on right now is very interesting. Where do people’s loyalties lie? Savannah-ite, Georgian, Southerner, or American? Etcetera. The metro area loyalties map is here.

– More on Robert Kaplan and the PLAN at The Coming Anarchy. Mao Zedong, meet Alfred Thayer Mahan.

– Johann Hari on how “Our Leaders are Staging a Scam.” Specifically, in Copenhagen. Does this whole charade of doing as little as possible so we don’t have to change strike anyone else as a behavioral version of the ‘Red Queen‘ hypothesis? It takes all our effort to not do anything at all.

– “Backwards Southerners, Frigid Northerners“: the real divide in Germany is not east-west, after all.

Why They Fight

They hate us because we don’t know why they hate us.” The perceived ignorance of Americans as to the wider world around them was often cited as a compelling reason for the mass murder of several thousand citizens on September 11, 2001. Low scores on math and science, and the inability of two-thirds of Americans between eighteen and twenty-four years old to locate Iraq on a map in 2006 merely perpetuated this claim; that somehow American geographical ignorance is responsible for jihadists and regional strife around the world.

This is of course not the only suggested explanation for conflict in the developing world. Essentially, all the arguments put forth can be summarized as pertaining to ‘greed’, or monetary and personal gain, and ‘grievance’, i.e., ideological and cultural clashes. Abridging the vast array of motives to these two is oversimplifying the matter to begin with; further choosing one of the two as the sole factor would be downright spurious. Complicating matters is the tendency to use the ‘pre-modern’ character of third world conflicts to build an intellectual bridge back to the very beginning of history. Continue reading

Recommended Reading (2009-12-11)

– Not just war, but now intelligence too continues to be outsourced.  Is anyone still surprised by this?

– Patrick Porter’s Military Orientalism: Eastern War through Western Eyes. Started it last night, and I’ll be sure to give a full review, but even after 20 pages… wow. He really knows his stuff. “Not whether culture matters, but how it matters.” We do risk over-relying on cultural expectations to give us one monolithic picture of ‘the East’; hopefully this will change that. And he specifically says he doesn’t mean Orientalism in a Saidian way, i.e. the West is not full of evil and horrible portents for everyone else in the world. Definitely worth a look.

– Obama’s making friends in unlikely places. The split in support between Democrats and Republicans alike is growing more and more pronounced as a split between foreign and domestic policy. The more we become afraid of muscular liberal interventionism, the more I drift away from the DNC.

– Hitchens doesn’t care much for the surge. “We’re being played for suckers by the Pakistani elite.” Alternative: end the ‘War on Drugs’. I like this man more and more every day.

– Libya: the emergence of the ‘state as protection racket‘.

The Coming Naval War with China?

There’s a new article making the usual rounds, from the Q1 2010 issue of Orbis. James Kraska’s “How the United States Lost the Naval War of 2015” [abstract only] is definitely an interesting read; it’s one of those future/alternate histories examining, essentially, how we might get there.

Kraska hypothesizes a Chinese missile attack on the USS George Washington while “conducting routine patrols” off of China’s coast. China immediately denies all responsibility and in fact aids in the rescue of several hundred sailors, out of the original complement of 4,000. In addition to the international perception of China as uninvolved (much less the aggressor), the United States is blamed for the ecological disaster caused by the George Washington‘s nuclear propulsion system.

China’s ability to conduct such an operation is chalked up to a combination of naval spending cuts, the reassignment of “an entire generation” of officers to COIN and conventional desert warfare in the Middle East and central Asia, and “the environmentalists in charge of strategic U.S. oceans policy.”

‘Ridiculous’ is certainly the first word that comes to mind, and commentators like Thomas Ricks certainly don’t disagree, but there’s a small point to extract from Kraska’s article. His assumption that the increasing budget and growing naval aviation programs of the PLAN will directly challenge the USN for control of East Asia is a little much. He’s right on the nose, however, with the specter of asymmetrical naval warfare.

Robert Kaplan wrote an article for the Atlantic Monthly a few years back, “How We Would Fight China.” It covers a lot of this in great detail. The psychological impact of asymmetry at sea is particularly telling – Kaplan notes that “the effect of a single Chinese cruise missile hitting a U.S. carrier…would be politically and psychologically catastrophic, akin to al-Qaeda’s attacks on the twin towers.” It’s hard to talk about China without getting melodramatic, apparently.

Perhaps the greatest lesson to take away from all this would be: do we still need carriers at all?

Recommended Reading (2009-12-09)

– McChrystal-mania? Fred Kaplan reads too much into his admission of imperfection (“There is much in Afghanistan that I do not understand”).  A crazy, crazy man getting one meal and four hours of sleep a night. Oh, and he bridged the usual discord between QRF and the JSOC.

– The private sector officially surpasses NASA in relevance. Not that surprising, in the end. When will humanity make a concerted effort towards the stars? Even just the United States taking some initiative would be fine.

– Afghanistan and Al Anbar are not the same thing. Thank you, Carter and Jerry, for clearing that up.

– David Engerman calls for a modern ‘Sovietology’ in Foreign Affairs “Jihadology.” Sounds pretty narrow at first, but gets more compelling. “Instead of lurching from one perceived threat to the next, U.S. policymakers should make a deep investment in knowing the whole world.” This is decidedly true, but then again, how relevant will Islamic fundamentalism be twenty years down the line? The Soviet system was an influence – at the least a factor in – a number of political systems throughout the world. This may be more locally confined. But, if Engerman really does mean to reassert the primacy of culture over politics, there’s definitely an argument to be made.