Pages

Monday, February 4, 2019

The Daily Threat

This blog avoids blatant political subjects for very good reasons.  However, today’s post is going to be as close to that line as possible because we need to address a national security threat that is being largely ignored and isn’t that what the military is supposed to do – protect our national security? 

So, let’s try venturing into uncharted territory for a few moments.  Let’s talk about threats to our national security and way of life.  In other words, pretty serious threats.  What are those threats?  China?  Russia?  NKorea?  Iran?  Sure, but think about it, which of those threats impact us (‘us’ being the average American) every day and in a significant way?  Well, none, really.  Yes, China is the major threat to the world’s safety and freedom but they don’t really impact us negatively on a daily basis, do they?  At least, not in a way we can readily discern.  Yes, Chinese financial manipulations may impact prices and whatnot but that’s not something any of us can specifically point out on a daily basis.  Iran is a nuisance that we hear about on the news but they have no real daily impact on us.  Same for NKorea.  Russia is a bit of a rogue actor but, again, aside from election influencing – which the US engages in routinely in other countries (remember Obama campaigning for and against various issues and people in Europe and Israel?) – they have no daily impact on us.

There is, however, one more threat that dwarfs all the others combined in terms of its daily impact on our lives.  It’s South and Central America (SCA).  SCA is a major exporter of drugs, crime, criminals, refugees, smuggling, illegal immigrants, money laundering, gang activity, murders, etc. and it all crosses our southern border and invades our homeland.  Relax, this is not a border wall post – this is a national security post. 

SCA is negatively impacting our daily lives in a major way.  Every state in the country and almost every city is negatively impacted on a daily basis.  Despite this, what are we focused on with our military, State Department, diplomacy, and other agencies?  We’re focused on Europe, China, Russia – everywhere but our own backyard.  If we want to stand up to the threat of China, we need to first get our southern flank straightened out so that we can safely and confidently focus further afield.

For too long, we’ve taken a hands-off approach to SCA out of some sort of misguided notion of letting them live their own lives.  Well, as my father used to say, your rights extend only until they bump up against someone else’s rights.  Now, the lives and rights of the people of SCA are impacting ours in a major, negative way and it’s time for the US to reengage.  We need to stop pretending that every other country is equal (Obama would have us believe superior) to the US.  They aren’t.  In the agglomerate, we have superior values, morals, actions, economy, military, resources, and results.  That’s not arrogance, it’s a simple statement of fact.  That’s true great power and with great power comes great responsibility – a responsibility that we’ve been abdicating out of misguided notions of international equality. 

We need to engage – not ham-handedly, not overbearingly, not dictatorially, but in a genuine effort to help other countries achieve stability and prosperity – note that I’m not calling for universal democracy.  I don’t care what government type a country has as long as it behaves itself as a responsible global contributor.  The Middle East, for example, is clearly not mature enough for democracy to work and we need to accept that a stable, benign, dictatorial government may be the best the region can hope for.  What we can’t accept is a country ruled by a dictator who dumps his criminals on the US (Cuba, for example) or demonizes the US and makes the US the focus of his country’s hatred (Hugo Chavez, for example) or sponsors terrorism (Iranian Ayatollah, for example).  Countries with that type of immature, evil, disruptive behavior forfeit their right to independent self-government and we need to step in.

China is extending its influence – and military basing efforts – into the Indian Ocean, Africa, and South America. Do we really want to have to deal with a Chinese military presence in our own southern backyard of SCA (recall the Cuban missile crisis?)?  The best way to prevent that is to make the United States a more attractive partner to SCA than China.  We can do this through significant social, medical, financial, infrastructure, and military projects with SCA countries but it has to be a continuous and substantial effort.  Note – and this is important – that I’m not calling for a ‘hearts and minds’ type of campaign.  As I’ve stated in the past, I have grave doubts about the efficacy of the entire concept - actually, I don’t have any doubts – it doesn’t work!.  What I’m calling for is the establishment of continuous interactions that are mutually beneficial.  If we can do that, the ‘hearts and minds’ will take care of itself.  I also don’t particularly care whether another country likes us – they just have to cooperate, behave, and recognize that we’re a reliable and desirable partner.

There’s another major aspect to this interaction, one that has never been attempted before, and that is to use the ratcheting stick approach as well as the carrot and in a significant way.  You don’t accede to the desires of a child, you dictate the rules of behavior and you do so until they grow up and demonstrate a desired level of maturity.  If the child doesn’t respond to the initial discipline you ratchet up the punishments and consequences.  So, too, with countries.  A country that is behaving badly needs to be disciplined and corrected – aggressively and decisively.  Now, that doesn’t mean war (neither does it rule it out!) every time a country takes an action that we disagree with.  What it means is that a country that demonstrates a pattern of actions that are irresponsible, evil, unethical, immoral, and, more to the point, anti-American, needs to be decisively corrected and the corrections need to continually ratchet up until the desired correction is achieved.

Here’s an example that could have prevented untold years of war, thousands of deaths, and almost unlimited destruction:  Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.  Hussein was causing instability in the Middle East, upsetting world oil supply stability, sponsoring terrorism,  invading neighboring countries, and engaging in the development of weapons of mass destruction (yes, he used chemical weapons, we found biological weapons labs, and he was attempting to develop nuclear weapons – we’re not going to debate this) – more than enough bad behavior to justify action.  However, instead of the mass invasion that the US initiated and which led, ultimately and directly, to destabilization in the region and the rise of ISIS, we could have simply launched a single Tomahawk missile at his most likely location accompanied by a simple warning to those around him that if Iraq’s behavior did not immediately change we would continue to launch a single missile every day at our best guess as to his location until the desired behavior modification was achieved.  One of two results would eventually happen.

1. Hussein would be killed and then we’d tell his successor the same thing.

2. Those around Hussein would remove him for us to save their own lives and then we’d tell his successor the same thing.

Either way, we would have achieved the desired outcome without an invasion and none of the resulting decades long, region-wide, death and destruction.

Here’s a current example.  We want better behavior out of NKorea and Iran so we applied sanctions (and pallet loads of cash!).  They had an impact on the common people but didn’t actually change any state behaviors.  Now what?  The evil, irresponsible behavior continues and we have no further options.  Useless.  Pointless.  Worthless.

Instead, we could apply the same Tomahawk-a-day diplomacy and achieve guaranteed results.  Do this a couple of times and the rest of the world quickly learns not to cross the US.

Back to South/Central America … 

We need to engage continuously and actively on all levels.  We need to clearly define what we consider acceptable behavior.  We need to begin the ratcheting process where necessary.  If we do the first part (engagement) correctly, we should rarely have to resort to ratcheting.

We need to secure our southern flank in a positive, mutually beneficial manner.


__________________________

Feel free to comment but note that I am not going to allow this to degenerate into a pure political discussion.  There are international politics involved in this, certainly, and you’re free to comment on those but treat this as a national security issue rather than a partisan political issue.  Pure political comments will be deleted.

38 comments:

  1. Does Russia have the Tomahawk a day option in the Ukraine and the Baltics ?

    Iran is a good example of successful regime change, Pahlavi ruled for a long time, but here we are now and Bolton wants to put a Mossadegh back in power.

    As a thought experiment, take your post, replace US with
    China and the SCA countries with the South China sea countries, how would you as CONOPs see such a statement
    from the version of Chinese CONOPS ?

    Smedly Butler IV

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not quite sure what you're asking. If you're asking what my reaction would be to China using the method, it would be the same as every other method when put to evil use. It's wrong and needs to be stopped. Seems pretty straightforward. Maybe I'm missing your point.

      Delete
    2. Mr. Butler. With all respect, you are arguing that China, a communist totalitarian evil regime has moral equivalency to the US. Same for Russia. Pray tell what have those countries
      done for the world? They have killed hundreds of millions in genocides. Are you that naïve?

      Delete
    3. Let's stay respectful. Argue the idea, not the person.

      Delete
    4. It's a few years since I studied this and my knowledge of deterrence theory is a bit rusty but there are many, many problems with coercive decapitation as a tool of foreign policy. Historically the evidence suggests that it has been, at best, a partial success and I'm not aware of any situations where it has achieved everything that was intended.

      There is also the question of legality; launching cruise missiles (which is definitely an act of war) is legally dubious under US law and probably illegal under international law. It may even be a war crime. This may not bother you but it does throw up a number of issues, not least of which is that fact that pretty much anything the US can do Russia and China are also capable of and conducting cruise missile bombardments of countries who refuse to do what you want is likely to escalate, potentially quickly.

      Delete
    5. "my knowledge of deterrence theory "

      This has nothing to do with deterrence. Did you even read the post? If you did, you failed to grasp the concept. Come on. Think this through.

      The reason previous attempts have had mixed success is because they encompassed not only leadership decapitation but also nation building. The two should not be linked.

      Consider the case of NKorea. If we killed their dictator and left the rest of the country and government alone, there would be negative impact (probably an overall improvement for the people!). We would accomplish our goal of behavior modification without having to do the whole nation building bit.

      What I'm proposing is completely different than what's been tried before.

      "There is also the question of legality;"

      That's funny. You're not seriously bringing this up? You know we routinely launch Tomahawk attacks against various targets for a multitude of reasons, right? It's perfectly legal and routinely done.

      This policy is aimed at SCA not Russia or China. There is no danger for the US.

      Delete
    6. Peter, he means if we did that, we would ruin our reputation and put it in the same boat as Russia and China, if not worse and I do see his point. Some actions ruin reputations and this can be one of them.

      Delete
    7. " we would ruin our reputation"

      Oh good grief. Removing an evil tyrant is not going to ruin our reputation, it will enhance it.

      Delete
  2. Good Article.

    Now address the how? I can't think of one instance in the history of the US where we successfully did what you are proposing.

    Iran, Congo, Nicaragua, Angola, Libya, Vietnam, etc. all SCREAM outsiders cannot change an internal culture.

    To go further I can't think any instance in ALL of History where this worked. Even the former British Colonies have not turned out too well.

    Unfortunately the only cases I can think of are where the population was put back into the stone age and then they realized we better behave ourselves.

    SCA has 500 years of corruption baked into the culture of every institution. Look up the meaning of the word La Mordida in Mexican Culture.

    So back to HOW? If I have missed some instances in History please point them out so I can research them. I am worried about SCA also.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "all SCREAM outsiders cannot change an internal culture."

      Wow, you completely missed the main point. I see no need, no point, and no hope of changing cultures (that's, essentially, the hearts and minds approach which, as you note, has never worked). The point was to merely change behavior by the ruler/ruling faction. They don't have to change their culture, they just have to change their behavior (stop exporting criminals, stop supporting drug cartels, stop sponsoring terrorism, whatever).

      You also missed that this action is applied only to the ruler/ruling faction, NOT THE PEOPLE. Thus, there is no attempt whatsoever to win hearts and minds. Yes, one of ways we can influence behavior is to help the people (medical missions, infrastructure, ets.) but that is done to alter the ruling behavior not to change culture.

      The analogy is holding a gun the head of the leader of a criminal gang and saying, I know you're a criminal and that's not going to change but unless you stop robbing banks, I'll kill you. Either he stops robbing banks (you're changed the behavior) or he continues and you kill him and then repeat the process with whoever takes over the criminal gang from him.

      The overall process is, essentially, a business arrangement. You don't have to like us, we'd just like to be a more attractive business partner for you than China or anyone else. If we can do that, the rulers will alter their behavior on their own because it's in their own best interest. For those rulers whose behavior is already acceptable, we need to continue to make partnering with us overwhelmingly attractive - hence, the medical, infrastructure, etc. interactions. This is really pretty simple. It's just never been tried before on the scale and with the ratcheting that I'm proposing.

      It's a different situation but we kind of did this after WWII with Germany and Japan. We didn't attempt to change their culture - we just demanded that they behave and, while that was happening, we provided medical, infrastructure, and financial support. We demonstrated that we were a better long term partner than other options.

      "Now address the how?"

      I did. You utterly failed to understand it. Re-read the post, carefully, this time.

      Delete
    2. This course of action is banned by Executive orders 11905, 12036 and the famous 12333.

      "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

      Popping a few terrorist is not political. Bombing a country's leader is.

      Delete
    3. "This course of action is banned by Executive orders 11905, 12036 and the famous 12333."

      You really need to do your homework. EO 12333 was intended to ban political assassinations by the CIA and similar agencies. It does not apply to military actions.

      Further, the author of 12333, Reagan in 1981, then initiated the attack on Libya's Gaddafi in the 1986 Operation El Dorado Canyon, clearly demonstrating that 12333 does not apply to military operations.

      Finally, an executive order, if it were seen as an obstacle, can be changed by a mere … wait for it … executive order!

      Seriously, do your homework before you comment.

      Delete
  3. One thing I would comment on, is the whole democracy thing. I understand we should push it BUT it's how we've been trying to push it that really needs some fine tuning. Nobody wants to say this aloud BUT not everybody is ready for it and even like our established democracies, we see there's still plenty of stress, it's always a work in progress.

    For example, when we pushed the Palestinians to have elections, everybody knew that was a mistake, HAMAS won! Duh!!!! Same for Egypt, who else were they going to vote for than MB? The problem is USA diplomacy has pretty much turned democracy into having elections...well, that's not democracy without more parties, less corruption, somewhat free press, more less liberal economy,etc,etc,etc....I would say most of that is soft power, something USA I think, sadly, has moved away from.

    On the same theme, we just have to LET THE LOCALS FIGURE IT OUT! Something most Americans seem to have a hard time getting since we think we have it so great here, everybody else should want what we have AND DO IT THE WAY WE DO IT! WRONG!!! People need to figure out how and when they want to move forward. Most Europeans that I know love the multiparty system, from extreme right to extreme left parties to greenies and anarchists, they don't get our system and Im pretty sure wouldn't like our 2 party system, actually, I think a growing percentage of the US population would like more choices of party!!!! There's plenty of examples like this where we have to let other people decide how they move forward and at what PACE, we can give them advice and suggestions BUT I think we make a big mistake when we come down too "hard"....let them figure it out. Plus, we all know from personal experience, sometimes, you have to screw up to get the message and grow! Who knows? In a parallel universe, maybe we leave Saddam in a reduced capacity and let the Iraqis at some point to deal with him and THEN they become a democracy when they all rise to remove him from power, maybe that's also part of the growing lessons of a nation...when USA intervenes and removes bad leadership, aren't we taking away the chance for the locals to "grow up"?

    Tried to stay as much as possible away from US current politics and politicians....

    ReplyDelete
  4. According to a Pew survey done in 2018 nearly half of the SCA population (442 million) would like to live in the US. 72% of the Central American populations would like to and 41% intend to do so. The best most recent example of US success is Columbia and Peru. Armored vehicles were required for survival in Columbia. Not now. Venezuela's Maduro sealed his fate in Dec 2018
    when he announced that all oil sales would be in "Petros" not dollars. The OAS and other states no longer recognize the incompetent bus driver as leader. The US is leading on this issue. Hopefully our recent military buildup in Columbia will be ready to assist the hungry people of Venezuela and provide safe harbor to the 22,700 Cuban government personnel who must leave.
    If our best efforts do not succeed in SCA a wall on our border would greatly help. The recent elections in both Argentina
    and Brazil show that there is promise in SCA.
    The US navy is welcomed in every port in this hemisphere. I don't think China,Russia N.Korea or Iran has the same "likes"

    ReplyDelete
  5. I submit the missile-a-day approach to disloging Saddam from power wouldn't work. First, Saddam would use civilian shields to protect himself from attack, a technique that Iraq has used before. Second, Saddam remained in power after the Iran-Iraq War, the first Persian Gulf War and the decade of sanctions that followed. A missile-a-day would be just a pin prick to Iraq. Third, every day that goes without hitting the target would bring more pressure from other counties to cease the attack, especially if by accident, we killed a large number of civilians. Saddam would likely set up multiple traps for us to fall for.

    And, even if it did work, what's the plan for the day after? It's the same problem we had following our second war with Iraq (and Libya too). How do we clean up the mess afterwards? Iraq has no real experience with transferring power peacefully. In this instance, civil war could break out, much like what happened in Syria, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.

    There needs just cause to remove a foreign leader, one that is supported by a coalition of countries, and a plan for the aftermath, the US can't do this alone. And, any country with a decent military will likely require a ground invasion to dislodge its leader from power.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Saddam would use civilian shields to protect himself from attack"

      You don't grasp the concept, at all. If Saddam wants to stand behind civilians then we at him regardless. You can't let an evil person get their way by threatening innocents while they continue to kill innocents. We saw this play out with ISIS where the US refused to bomb oil convoys because they didn't want to risk killing "innocent" drivers. Because we refused to attack, we essentially funded ISIS for months while they massacred untold numbers of innocents.

      We shoot once, and kill him. If some innocents are killed, that's horrifically unfortunate but far preferable to endless atrocities.

      Once he realizes that human shields won't stop the attacks, he'll have no use for them.


      " A missile-a-day would be just a pin prick to Iraq. "

      That's the idea! It's the exact opposite of a massive invasion. We launch one missile a day. Very little collateral damage. If our intel is any good, we get him in the first few attempts. Far preferable to a war.

      "Third, every day that goes without hitting the target would bring more pressure from other counties to cease the attack, especially if by accident, we killed a large number of civilians."

      Who cares what other countries think? We act in our own best interests. One missile simply can't cause massive civilian deaths. How many fewer people would have died with this method than the invasion that we actually launched and the resulting rise of ISIS?

      "And, even if it did work, what's the plan for the day after?"

      That's the beauty of this approach. It doesn't destroy the existing government. It just kills the offending leader. The next guy steps up and either cooperates to an acceptable degree or faces the same fate. Sooner or later (sooner, I guarantee) we'll find a leader who is willing to cooperate.

      "How do we clean up the mess afterwards?"

      THERE IS NO MESS! One guy died. Civil war isn't going to break out because the army is still in control - just run by a different, more cooperative guy.

      Come on, this isn't really that complicated.

      Delete
    2. How do you know one missile would be enough? Saddam, or anyone else for matter, could be hiding in a bunker, building or some other structure requiring several missiles to ensure its destructuon. If you were being hunted like that, you'd want to be in a place that is least vulnerable to attack.

      As for limited civilian casualties, during the first first Gulf War, two GBU-27 laser guided bombs destroyed an air raid shelter in Bagdad killing over 400 civilians. We misidentified the air raid shelter as a command and control center based photographic and signal intelligence. The first bomb created a hole for the second one to follow.


      And, how can we be sure the next guy would be more cooperative? There's no way to be certain of that, much less that a civil war wouldn't break out. Look what happened to Libya after Obama knocked off Gadaffi. Thousands were killed in the aftermath and the chaos allowed ISIS to move in and kill even more. Nearly 7 years later, they still lack a functioning central government.

      Delete
    3. "How do you know one missile would be enough?"

      Now you're simply being argumentative. I would normally delete this comment but it gives me the opportunity to explain another aspect of this. A one-a-day missile attack process is as much a psychological exercise as an actual attempt to kill. If the target chooses to cower down in deep bunker for the rest of his life, he's essentially neutered and we've likely achieved our goal. No followers are going to respect a leader who hides. Someone from his inner circle will replace him and do the job for us.

      This is as much about putting pressure on the targets followers as on the target. In short order, the followers will grow tired of being put at risk by being near the target and will opt to remove the target. Pyschology.

      And, there's nothing to prevent us from using a bunker buster bomb!

      "And, how can we be sure the next guy would be more cooperative?"

      I explicitly addressed this in the post. We repeat the process on the next guy until he either chooses to behave or is killed. It won't take many repetitions until we find a guy who values his own life enough to behave.

      Now, stop arguing and start thinking.

      Delete
    4. I'll try this again.

      I'm not trying to be argumentative. I simply doubt the viability of this strategy based on my earlier comments. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I cannot think of a single instance of such a strategy being used. Can you offer an instance where we tried your approach?

      As for followers growing tired of being attacked and overthrowing their leader, that has been disproven by Saddam Hussein. Saddam maintained control of Iraq for 12 years after suffering significant loses from the first Gulf War and the economic sanctions and no-fly zones that followed.

      But say we removed the first guy and are later forced to take out his replacement. The second guy is sure to learn from the first and take actions to deter our attacks. This could take the form of terrorist attacks against us or our allies, cyber attacks against our infrastructure, or intentionally sacrificing hundreds of civilians. We would then have to be prepared to escalate our attacks accordingly, which could draw others into the conflict and possibly lead to a regional war. Plus, there is always the chance that Congress could limit a president from escalating the attacks. Congress rebuffed Obama when he wanted, and rightly so, thump Syria for their use chemical weapons against civilians.

      Like I said earlier, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to point out what I see are limitations to such an approach being successful. We didn't take the missile-a-day approach to clean up Grenada in 1983 nor to remove Noriega from Panama in 1989, both were combined military operations.

      Delete
    5. If you want to comment, you really need to read and understand the post, first. For example,

      " I cannot think of a single instance of such a strategy being used."

      You're challenging me while ignoring that fact that the post says,

      "one that has never been attempted before"

      Read the post!

      " disproven by Saddam Hussein"

      Since we never tried this approach, Saddam's tenure doesn't disprove anything!

      "The second guy is sure to learn from the first and take actions to deter our attacks."

      A third world / third rate country/military has no realistic options to avoid such attacks. Therefore, it is far more likely that the next guy in line will, indeed, learn from the first and what he will learn is that he should modify his behavior enough to at least appease the US. This is simple stimulus-response behavior modification. It's elementary psychology. Any potential despot is going to prefer reigning in a few of his more egregious behaviors and staying alive than engaging in behaviors that will see him dead in a matter of days. And if the second guy doesn't heed the lesson, the next one will. Or the one after that. In short order, we'll find a guy who's amenable to good behavior.

      You're not only being argumentative, you're being willfully obtuse by ignoring what was actually said. Your comment was very low quality. I'm not looking for an echo chamber but I'm also not looking for a stupid chamber. I won't allow any further comments that are this poor.

      Delete
  6. Our choice of allies and their choice of us is largely a pragmatic matter, but not entirely. Foreign leaders certainly assess our common interests, divergent US interests, USA's recent treatment of our allies, and other practical metrics for the desirability of an alliance. However, they also consider longer-term US history, what it says about us, and especially what their population thinks it says about us and how that will alter public perception of an alliance.

    Let's not beat around the bush, the US was an imperial power for a significant length of time. That largely changed at the end of WW2, but people who want to still view us as unapologetic imperialists can find good excuses to do so, and need little exaggeration. I do *not* see the current USA as an imperialist power, but many in SCA do. The kinds of intervention you're advocating look all too similar to the current and recent past cases of intervention; the drug war, arming various rebels, sanctions for unfavorable policies, and even linking (some) critical aid to favorable policies. A lot of SCA people and several SCA leaders are disconnected enough from that history to be willing to play ball if we present a good choice, but many aren't, and even the former are likely to prefer China if they can offer the same benefits as we can.

    All in all, playing "hardball" as you seem to be advocating doesn't really appeal to me. I don't think it is particularly effective (though it isn't entirely impotent), I don't think it builds the kind of stable alliances we need, and in fact I think it makes building those kinds of alliances even harder because we will be seen by neutral countries with a bad history of interactions with the US - the kind we need to engage with the most - as exerting undue, undesired influence. Of course I want us to have that influence, but they just don't, and if we push hard then they're more likely to push back than to acquiesce.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not looking for everyone to love us. I couldn't care less whether they do or not. Re-read the post. This is a behavior modification exercise. We want SCA to stop what we consider actions that threaten our national security. Once we've achieved that, then we can worry about making everyone love us.

      "playing "hardball" as you seem to be advocating doesn't really appeal to me."

      Who cares? The question isn't whether it appeals to you, the question is will it work and the answer is undoubtedly. It's simple pleasure-pain behavior modification. We reward good behaviors and punish bad.

      Ideally, a massive and continuous positive interaction will, over time, take care of the "liking" part that you seem so worried about but, for now, we just need to stop the SCA behaviors that are damaging our country.

      "arming various rebels"

      That's all your idea. I never said it and absolutely don't advocate it.

      "even linking (some) critical aid to favorable policies"

      That's all your idea. I never said that and wouldn't advocate it. The aid part needs to continue regardless. Withholding aid is counterproductive because the aid is for the benefit of the people not the leaders. It's the leader's behavior we want to change.

      Delete
  7. A lot of folks have addressed whether a Tomahawk-a-day strategy would have been an effective political strategy, but would those missiles have even landed? Iraq's air defenses obviously aren't as good as say Russia's, but they had 850 SAM launchers and Mig-29 fighters, while the Tomahawk is subsonic and non-stealthy. A single missile a day, fired at a target deep within Iraq seems like it would be very feasible to intercept. Getting a missile through consistently would require a sustained high-effort campaign to destroy Iraq's air defenses, like we actually did perform in support of the invasion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's highly unlikely that a third rate military like Iraq's at the time, would be able to stop a missile. As you recall, Iraq was unable to stop any Tomahawk missiles during Desert Storm. Along the same line, the Coalition was unable to stop the SCUD missiles despite a massive military presence. Fortunately, the SCUD missiles were wildly in accurate.

      Syria, you recall, was unable to stop even one Tomahawk during the recent attack on the airbase involved in chemical weapons despite having a Russian backed air defense system.

      Delete
    2. " A single missile ... would be very feasible to intercept."

      It's not but this also illustrates why the US needs a modern, supersonic, stealthy cruise missile replacement for the venerable Tomahawk.

      Delete
  8. Might I point out that "hearts and minds" was a concept by Gerald Templer for the Malayan Emergency and it was a successful COIN which was how it became a template for COIN operations? So saying it never works would not explain why it became so popular. It became popular because it was successful.

    Unfortunately, these days, it's used as a catchphrase without the people using it having a clue as to what it really means or how it works, hence the mass failures.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. Templer had very limited and mixed success. Families were uprooted and forcibly transported to relocation villages, food was used as a weapon, etc. The military learned how to conduct guerilla warfare of their own - this was likely the main contributor to the limited success. The civil war lasted decades.

      Hearts and minds became popular because it was an appealing theory and offered the fantasy of an easy way out instead of ruthless suppression of the insurgency.

      Might I point out that hearts and minds is not part of the premise of this post.

      Delete
    2. A bit of nuance here, given that I am Malaysian and I had family members who served and were wounded in the line of duty in the first Emergency. Calling the Malayan Emergency a civil war that lasted for decades is overstating things - it's a bit hard to have a civil war when Bintang Tiga could only get limited Chinese support, and practically zero support from the Malays, given that godless Communism is anathema to the Muslim Malay population. Cutterback in "Conflict and violence in Singapore and Malaysia 1945–83" (1985) makes the argument that Templer was quite sucessful, in that Bintang Tiga took severe casualties (estimated 2/3rds of their strength gone) and incidents and injuries per month saw a sharp downtick. The Malaysian perspective on Templer is that he was successful in his time, and he left the playbook that the Malaysian security forces later used in the second emergency.

      It should also be noted that the Chin Peng's insurgency had two phases: the first was the Malayan Emergency in 1946-1960, and then the Communist Insurgency in Malaysia from 1968 to 1989. It's important to note that he kicked off round two because of influence/promises of support from Deng Xiaoping, who suggested that Malaysia was ripe for revolution. (And then in 1974, the PRC establishes diplomatic relations with Malaysia and then does a public about face from the idea of supporting communist revolution. PRC two-facedness, go figure.)

      So, coming back to relevancy with the post, as we see with Bintang Tiga round two, one should not underestimate the Chinese capacity for shitstirring. They urged on Chin Peng to resume his insurgency after he called it quits the first time, promising him support and funding. As we see in South America and Southeast Asia, China is already making moves to coopt local governments into turning their nations into Chinese client states - as another malaysian example, consider former Prime Minister Najib bin Razak, who promised China lots of concessions and infrastructure projects if China would stall the US DoJ investigation into 1MDB and Najib's embezzling. If they can't coopt the government, then they'll definitely support shitstirring efforts.

      The way to counter that, IMO, is that American engagement in South America in whatever avenue - economic, humanitarian, military, diplomatic- needs to be more thorough, more in depth, and above all, it needs to be consistent and persistent. The problem the US has is that US foreign policy changes every few years, with every administration, and it seems longterm thinking is anathema to the workings of the State Department. One day the US ignores a US-aligned dictactor's local antics because the US wants him as an anticommunist strongman, the next day the US is forcing said dictator out because of human rights issues. Nobody likes China, but they know where they stand with China, because China is consistent and plays the long game.

      Delete
  9. Here's an oopsy. Hard to imagine this slipper by.

    https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/02/05/watchdog-navy-bought-too-many-helicopters/

    ReplyDelete
  10. One thing that is often lost in argument is that Latin American countries are the best trading partners the U.S. has, Latins spend about $0.51 of every dollar on U.S. goods and services.

    I also note that Russia is a neighbor; we have more interest in economic cooperation with, particularly in developing and protecting Artic resources, than we ever will with the rest of *continental* Europe combined.

    Finally, the two Koreas will inevitably reunite and when they do Korea will inevitably move closer to China because it is in their economic interest to do so, for the same reason that Iran and Iraq are economically joined at the hip.

    GAB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One thing that is often lost in argument is that Latin American countries are the best trading partners the U.S. has, Latins spend about $0.51 of every dollar on U.S. goods and services.

      I also note that Russia is a neighbor; we have more interest in economic cooperation with them, particularly in developing and protecting Artic resources, than we ever will with the rest of *continental* Europe combined.

      Finally, the two Koreas will inevitably reunite and when they do Korea will inevitably move closer to China because it is in their economic interest to do so, for the same reason that Iran and Iraq are economically joined at the hip.

      GAB

      Delete
  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2014%E2%80%93present)

    Isn't this an example of the consequences of your proposed course of action? If this was on the US southern border, how in God's name is this an improvement of the situation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you have any understanding, whatsoever, of how the Libyan unrest began? Clearly not. At the very least, go back and read a Wiki account. You'll see that Gaddafi, himself, initiated unrest that led to his ouster and death and eventual civil war. Do your homework before commenting.

      Delete
  12. I'm not sure how much you've read of the Defense Issues blog, but some of what you're suggesting with regards to the "Tomahawk-a-day" approach has actually been tried before, but with terrorist organizations as the targets rather than the heads of rogue states, and with the killings carried out by drones instead of Tomahawk cruise missiles (which are also drones in a sense). Let me quote Picard578 from that blog:

    Even when drones do kill terrorist leaders, they leave terrorist cells intact. University of Chicago study has shown that, in 300 leadership assassination attempts, it worked in only 17% of cases. In many cases, terrorist cells whose leaders have not been assassinated actually declined faster than those whose leaders have been assassinated. Leaders aren’t unreplaceable either (no one is): an estimated 10 people have been described by CIA as “Al-Qaeda’s No.3 official” in past decade.

    The rest of the article can be found here:

    https://defenseissues.net/2013/05/25/on-drones/

    That blog entry also contains a link to a Vietnam veteran's view on just how much collateral damage that so-called precision weapons can cause.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So in light of the similar methods to "Tomahawk-a-day" being used to try and decapitate terrorist organizations, I would argue that governments of rogue states are also likely to be resistant to strikes of this nature. Furthermore, accurate decapitation strikes also require accurate intelligence and targeting, or otherwise you end up killing the wrong people for nothing gained, which leads into something else Picard578 has covered, that being the ineffectiveness of strategic bombing (or bombing to kill civilians and enemy infrastructure with the goal of ending a conflict):

      Strategic bombing – any kind of it, but especially terror bombing carried out from World War II until today (drones!) – has negligible military impact. However, it helps motivate civilian populace to fight harder and longer against enemy carrying out bombing. . . . Bombing on its own was never effective; it must be used in support of and concurrently with ground offensive. Bombing on its own cannot ensure fulfillment of either military and especially not fulfillment of political goals. War by precision firepower can easily become killing without purpose. It is important to always keep in mind nature of war as fulfillment of political goals by military means, as defined by von Clausewitz; in that sense, anything that does not further that goal is a waste of time and resources; and strategic bombing has never proven to be anything else.

      You can read the rest of that article here:

      https://defenseissues.net/2012/10/07/strategic-bombing-from-douhet-to-drones/

      With the above quotes in mind, I believe the "Tomahawk-a-day" strategy is more likely to simply reshuffle a rogue state's leadership (assuming the right person is killed each time), or more likely to galvanize the rogue state's populace against the US (because they would likely see it as random strategic bombing like the German V2 attacks against England, most especially if civilians are caught up in the mix each time a Tomahawk hits). It's also no guarantee of future good behaviour from a rogue state either once the "ratcheting stick" is removed, because we haven't changed the underlying conditions and mindsets behind the misbehaviour. Even if "enough" (a term that in this context isn't really quantifiable) of a rogue state's leadership is killed, I doubt unconditional surrender or a US-friendly revolution would be the first thing to occur to the rogue state's government and its people being subjected to daily Tomahawk attacks; the state in question could just as easily dissolve into chaos and a humanitarian crisis for which the US would be blamed.

      I have some relevant books regarding the difficulties of changing rogue states for the better from which I could provide further quotes about this, if you're interested. But to put it simply, everything I've read about trying to change a nation-state's behaviour by subjecting its leadership to repeating decapitation strikes says it's unlikely to work.

      Delete
    2. You have a few misconceptions and equating anti-terrorism strikes to the Tomahawk plan is completely inappropriate - they have almost nothing in common. I'll explain.

      The key attribute of a terrorist organization is that the members are ALL fanatics. They all have one common goal and each is willing to die for it (in many cases, eager to die for it). Most of us would consider them to be insane.

      This is completely different for a country with a dictator who is behaving badly. The leadership group has no common goal beyond maintaining power and enjoying the fruits of luxury afforded by their power. The leadership group are not fanatics. They may be evil but they are pragmatic and will do whatever is necessary to stay alive and stay in power and if that means curtailing a particular behavior they will do so. The leadership group has no loyalty to the top guy. If the top guy's behavior threatens the group's power and enjoyment of luxury the group will turn on him and replace him.

      You have a few misconceptions:

      Dictators enjoy no popular mandate. The people do not support him. Killing him will not, in and of itself, trigger any backlash. It will, likely, trigger celebration!

      A Tomahawk attack plan will result in little undesirable collateral damage since a dictator is rarely going to be in the presence of common people. A dictator surrounds himself with his hand picked leadership group. Killing them as collateral damage is not a problem and will trigger no upheaval although it might well motivate the group to remove the top guy - which is kind of the point.

      Killing the leader will not trigger upheaval. The government will remain intact. The Army and police will remain intact. The daily life and infrastructure will remain intact. It will simply be someone else at the very top and the common people won't notice or care and might even benefit slightly.

      This plan is NOT an attempt to completely change a country's behavior from bad to good. That's unrealistic. This plan's goal is to put an end to, generally, one specific behavior that we simply can't tolerate - for example, stop building ballistic missiles. We're not going to suddenly make a country like us but we can stop a particularly objectionable behavior.

      This is not widespread, indiscriminate bombing. I don't know why you wandered down that path. This is precise, targeted strikes at the most opportune moment - when the leader is relatively isolated. Dictators tend to live isolated lives so as to avoid assassins.

      Each strike is accompanied by a simple message: stop the offending behavior and live or continue it and die. We don't do that with terrorists. We don't give them an option, we simply kill them. It wouldn't work even if we did because, as stated earlier, they're fanatics. They'd rather die than change their behavior.

      So, as you can see, the comparison between the Tomahawk plan and anti-terrorist strikes is invalid.

      Delete
  13. It should also be noted that "tomahawk" plan has worked well with one adversary--Gadaffi. The airstrike Reagan ordered that missed him but tragically killed a favorite daughter led to Gaddafi to some thinking and soul-searching. Over time he abandoned support of terrorism and was actually led him to rapprochement with the west.
    And as the post indicates, the "democracy everywhere" approach had negative effects in Libya. Not did it overthrow Gaddafi but also led to chaos, terrorism, and slavery in his place.

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.