Tag: war

It appears the EU is experiencing a “come to Queen Cersei” moment with regards to the Iran nuclear deal, which is not a treaty and from which the God-Emperor clearly had the ability to withdraw unilaterally.

The European Union has rebuked Donald Trump over his move to break the Iran nuclear deal, telling the US president he does not have the power to unilaterally scrap the international agreement.

In a statement delivered on Tuesday night EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini said the US should reconsider its position, but that it was not within the power of the country’s president to end the accord.

Speaking in Rome the EU’s Ms Mogherini said Europe “regrets” Mr Trump’s new policy, but added: “As we have always said the nuclear deal is not a bilateral agreement and it is not in the hands of any single country to terminate it unilaterally.

“It has been unanimously endorsed by the UN security council resolution 2231, it is a key element of the global non-proliferation architecture, it is relevant in itself, but even more so in these times of encouraging symbols on the prospect of the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula.

“The nuclear deal with Iran is crucial for the security of the region, of Europe and of the entire region. As long as Iran continues to implement its nuclear-related commitments as it is doing so far the European union will remain committed to the continued, full, and effective implementation for the nuclear deal.”

President Trump didn’t “end the accord”. He simply took the USA out of the arrangement. The EU, or Cameroon, or the Vatican are welcome to continue abiding by whatever accord they want with regards to Iran. Of course, it doesn’t matter what they do.

This recent interview of military historian and Castalia House author Martin van Creveld by a French magazine is particularly interesting in light of the recent Israeli airstrike on Syria, to which Iran has threatened to respond. Read the whole thing there.

Can you give us an overview of the actual situation of the Israeli armed forces?

One could argue that, taking a grand strategic perspective and starting with the establishment of the State of Israel seventy years ago, some things have not changed very much. First, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) remain the armed organization of a democratic country, one in which it is the politicians who decide and the military which obeys. Second, the objective of the IDF was and remains to defend the country, a outrance if necessary, against any military threats that may confront it. Third, Israel remains in a state of war with several other Middle Eastern countries; nor is there any way in the world it can bring the conflict to an end by defeating them and compelling them to make peace against their will. Fourth, the occupation of the West Bank and the Golan Heights notwithstanding, Israel remains a small country with very little strategic depth. Fifth, the lack of strategic depth implies a heavy reliance on intelligence to detect threats before they materialize. Sixth, and for the same reason, Israeli military doctrine remains basically offensive, with a strong emphasis on destroying the opposing armed forces.

In its short history, the State of Israel often fought and won wars in which it was outnumbered and trapped: is this because of its only technological superiority or is there also a strategic and tactical factor? 

Starting in 1948 and ending with the 1973 war inclusive, the most important factor behind Israel’s victories has always been the quality of its troops. Both in terms of education—Israel, unlike its enemies, is not a third-world country but a first-world one with educational, technological and scientific facilities to match. And—which is more critical still—in terms of motivation and fighting morale.

After 1973, and especially the 1982 First Lebanon War, things began to change. Education, technical skills and scientific development continued to improve, turning this a nation of less than eight million people into a world center of military (and not just military) innovation. There are, however, some signs that, as some of its former enemies concluded peace with it and its own military superiority came to be taken for granted, motivation suffered. To this was added the need to combat terrorists in Gaza and the West Bank—the kind of operations that contribute nothing to overall fighting effectiveness and and even detract from it.

Can the logistic organization represent a decisive factor – militarily -?

Logistics, it has been said, is “that which, if you do not have enough of, the war will not be won as soon as.” As recently as the Second Lebanon War against Hezbollah in 2006, so heavy was expenditure of air-to-surface missiles and other precision-guided munitions that the IDF had to apply for US aid even as hostilities were going on. This situation which has its origins in budget constraints, may well recur.

Furthermore, in all its wars from 1948 on the IDF has enjoyed near-absolute command of the air. As a result, it was able to attack enemy lines of supply whereas the enemy was unable to do the same. The buildup of reliable and accurate surface-to-surface missiles in the hands of Hezbollah, Syria and Iran may very well change this situation, causing supply bases and ammunition dumps, as well as communications-junctions and even convoys on the move to come under attack. This scenario, which is not at all imaginary, is currently giving the General Staff a lot of headaches.

We know that the intelligence is the decisive element to ensure strength to Israeli Armed Forces: can you explain what is this strength?

Israeli technological, tactical and operational intelligence has always been very good. Two factors help account for this fact. First, there exists in Israel a large community of first-class experts (known as Mizrahanim, “Easterners” who know the countries of the Middle East, their language, culture, traditions, history, and so forth as well as anyone does. Many members of this community spend their periods of reserve duty with the IDF intelligence apparatus.

Second, modern intelligence rests on electronics, especially various kinds of sensors and computers. As the famous Unit 8200 shows, these are fields where nobody excels the IDF. Nobody.

That said, it is important to add that Israeli top-level strategic and political intelligence is nowhere as good as it is on the lower levels. Starting at least as early as 1955, and reaching all the way to the present, IDF intelligence has often failed to predict some of the most important events. That included the 1967 war, the 1973 War, the 1987 Palestinian Uprising, the 1991 Gulf War, the “Arab Spring,” and the outbreak of the 2011 Syrian Civil War.

Compared to its actual friends, which are its strengths and weaknesses from a military point of view?

As I said, strengths include a well-educated and highly skilled society, excellent technology, and vast experience in fighting various enemies (though some of that experience is now dated). The chief weaknesses remain the country’s relatively small size and lack of strategic depth—Iran, for example, is eighty times as large as Israel. Perhaps most important of all, there is reason to think that motivation, though much higher than in the NATO countries, is no longer what it used to be.

If the situation between Israel and Iran (or Hezbollah in Lebanon) comes to a showdown, which could be the reactions of some States as Turkey, Syria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or USA?

Hard to say. Iran will use Syria as a forward base for fighting Israel. Assuming the regime stays, Saudi Arabia will probably retain its ties with Israel, at least unofficially. Ditto Egypt. Turkey will probably not engage in a shooting war with Israel, but it will support an anti-Israeli coalition in other ways while at the same time fighting the Syrians (and the Kurds). Russia will try to support Hezbollah and Syria, but without becoming deeply involved. The US on its part will support Israel and against Hezbollah, but without directly taking on the Russians.

In short, while Israel remains stronger than its enemies, its strategic position has weakened somewhat since it became the primary regional power in the 1980s. It cannot defeat Iran or Turkey the way it defeated Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, and its two primary non-nuclear advantages – air supremacy and troop quality – have declined over time. It is also aware that its regional monopoly on nuclear weapons has a time limit.

From the Game Theory perspective, this would tend to indicate that another Middle Eastern war is likely sooner rather than later, because the trends suggest the odds of Israeli success are greater now than they will be in the future, especially given the fact that an Israel-friendly US President is now in office following an Arab-friendly one. Of course, since people in general, and politicians in particular, are not logical, and have a natural tendency to want to put off until tomorrow things that can more profitably be addressed today, that does not mean logic will dictate events.

UPDATE: I checked with Martin to clarify what appeared to be a typo, and he confirmed that he did mean the US supporting Israel AGAINST Hezbollah.

A partial transcript of last night’s Darkstream, which addressed President Trump withdrawing the USA from the multilateral Iran nuclear treaty before discussing the anointment of the new Fake Opposition by The New York Times.

First of all is the big news of the day which is of course the fact that the God-Emperor has trashed the Iran nuke deal. Now I am not even going to attempt to try to figure out what this means, what the implications are, all that sort of thing. You know some people are saying, “Oh, Trump is doing this to go to war with Iran for Israel” other people are following Qanon and seeing this as being related to draining the global swamp, and so there’s a lot of stuff going on. There’s a lot of potential interpretations.

I’m not interested in getting into any of that because I don’t know, and so the important thing to keep in mind is that President Trump has earned our trust, and the important thing to keep in mind is that we don’t know what’s going on. We don’t know what’s really going on so don’t overreact, just wait and see. You know, we all remember when oh we’re going to war in Syria, oh we’re going to war on the Korean Peninsula, well, neither of those things happened and now neither of those things look even remotely likely to happen, so you know, for me, my gut instinct is that this is something that Obama pursued, this is something that the European Union was involved in, and therefore it’s probably a good thing that that the USA is pulled out of it.

So relax, kick back, watch the news, don’t overreact, see what happens. That, I think, is that is the correct way to look at it.

The President opts out.

President Donald Trump announced Tuesday the U.S. will pull out of the landmark nuclear accord with Iran, dealing a profound blow to U.S. allies and potentially deepening the president’s isolation on the world stage.

“The United States does not make empty threats,” he said in a televised address.

Trump’s decision means Iran’s government must now decide whether to follow the U.S. and withdraw or try to salvage what’s left of the deal. Iran has offered conflicting statements about what it may do — and the answer may depend on exactly how Trump exits the agreement.

Trump said he would move to re-impose all sanctions on Iran that had been lifted under the 2015 deal, not just the ones facing an immediate deadline. This had become known informally as the “nuclear option” because of the near-certainty that such a move would scuttle the deal.

I’m not going to pretend to try to understand all of the implications, but anything that the EU and Obama supported cannot have been a good thing. And, as always, I would caution against making any assumptions about the God-Emperor’s intentions or objectives.

The man has earned our trust, repeatedly. Relax, wait, and see.

This is an informative article on the unique structure of the IDF, which explains both the apparent indiscipline of the IDF with regards to the Gaza protests as well as the underperformance of the IDF in the 2006 war with Hezbollah.

There are no career ground force sergeants except as technicians. Unless the system has changed very recently, the IDF ground forces typically do not have career NCOs in the LINE of the combat arms. This is a structural tradition that derives originally from the Russian tsar’s army and which came to Palestine through Russian and Polish Zionist immigrants. This tradition of organization passed through the Hagenah into the IDF. The IDF “line” conscripts what amount to yearly classes of recruits and selects from them more promising soldiers who are given NCO level command responsibilities as; infantry leaders, tank commanders, artillery gun captains, etc. The IDF does have career NCOs but they are typically found in jobs of a more technical nature rather than junior combat command at the squad or platoon (section) level.

As a result, junior officers (company grade) are required to perform duties that in more traditionally organized armies would be performed by sergeants. Leading a small combat or reconnaissance patrol would be an example. As a result, a non-reserve infantry or tank company in the field consists of people who are all about the same age (19-22) and commanded by a captain in his mid-20s. What is missing in this scene is the voice of grown up counsel provided by sergeants in their 30s and 40s telling these young people what it is that would be wise to do based on real experience and mature judgment. In contrast a 22 year old American platoon leader would have a mature platoon sergeant as his assistant and counselor.

As a result of this system of manning, the IDF’s ground force is more unpredictable and volatile at the tactical (company) level than might be the case otherwise. The national government has a hard time knowing whether or not specific policies will be followed in the field.

To put this problem into perspective, if you’ve seen Band of Brothers, then you have some idea of the importance of the role that sergeants play in an infantry company. It was the sergeants’ revolt that led to Easy Company being led into battle by Dick Winters instead of Herbert Sobel, and it was Sgt. Carwood Lipton (played by Donnie Wahlberg) who was credited by Winters’s eventual replacement, Ronald Speirs, for holding Easy Company together.

If I were an IDF strategist, I would look very long and hard at figuring out how to get some seasoned veterans salting the smaller tactical units. The principle of having experienced veterans advising young officers has been a fundamental one of successful military organizations since Rome’s battle-hardened centurions were advising young patrician tribunes embarking upon the cursum honorum.

I expect Q will be addressing this soon.

DEVELOPING: Military C-130 plane crashes at @fly_SAV  in Savannah, GA

A lot of military aircraft going down recently. I wonder what the odds are of them all being random events.

Especially not to the God-Emperor’s Warmaster:

Secretary of Defense James Mattis explained Thursday why he directed a strike that reportedly killed hundreds of Russian mercenaries in Syria back in February.

Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the U.S. has a deconfliction line with Russia to ensure that the two countries can communicate in order to avoid direct conflict with one another in Syria. He said that a group of “irregular forces” were in conflict with U.S. forces, and once it was ascertained that those forces were not Russian regulars, Mattis directed a counterattack.

“The Russian high command in Syria assured us it was not their people, and my direction to the chairman was for the force, then, to be annihilated,” Mattis said. “And it was.”

It never pays to play tricksy word games with a warrior. Be direct. Be honest. And learn to understand when you are defeated and behave accordingly, lest you be destroyed.

Morrisey isn’t sad anymore. He’s hopping mad over the debased state of Londonistan and its Pakistani mayor:

The former Smiths frontman lashed out at the Mayor of London in an interview discussing his views on racism, violence and the capital. And Morrissey stated that London “is debased” and that “civilisation is over”.

Going on a rampage against Mr Khan, he added: “The Mayor of London tells us about ‘Neighborhood policin’ – what is ‘policin’? He tells us London is an ‘amazin’ city. What is ‘amazin’? This is the Mayor of London! And he cannot talk properly! I saw an interview where he was discussing mental health, and he repeatedly said ‘men’el’…he could not say the words ‘mental health’. The Mayor of London!”

Morrissey, 58, also went on claiming that “we now live in the Age of Atrocity” because of the way authorities have been dealing with acid attacks in London.

Speaking to interviewer John Riggers via his new website Morrissey Central, the singer said: “London is second only to Bangladesh for acid attacks. All of the attacks are non-white, and so they cannot be truthfully addressed by the British government or the Met Police or the BBC because of political correctness.

You know a nation is in trouble when its pop music stars are more intelligent, articulate and aware of historical actions and their consequences than its political class.

The USA is not the only country heading for another civil war. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is apologizing to “the Windrush generation” when she should be apologizing to the British people for her predecessor’s failure to sink the ship and stop the invasion of their island at the start.

Sink the ships or fight a vicious war inside your borders. History clearly demonstrates that those are the two options. Western civilization isn’t over. But thanks to the historically epic foolishness of our parents and grandparents, we’re going to have to fight for it if we want to keep it.

A political breakup is inevitable. The only question is the level of violence that will be involved. So, working towards a peaceful one based on the Czechoslovakian model rather than a not-peaceful one based on the Yugoslavian model is highly desirable.

Divorce is hard, but it’s easier than cutting the brake lines on your wife’s car. It is long past time for an amicable divorce of the United States of America. There is simply no common ground with the Left anymore. We are now the couple screaming at each other all night, every night as the kids hide in their room.

We cannot come together, but we do not have to live like this. The history of the world is nations breaking up and redrawing their borders. If we want to avoid this political divide turning into a deadly one, we should do likewise.

Stop clinging to the past and acknowledge where we are as a country, not where you want us to be, not where things were when your grandpa was storming the beaches of Normandy. Where we truly are.

We are a nation hopelessly divided. We are more divided now than we have ever been in our history. And before you start screaming at me about the Civil War, keep in mind that bloody conflict was fought over one major issue. In those days, take ten families from New York and ten families from Alabama, put them all in a room, and you’d find they mostly had the same values (and bad accents).

Now, fast-forward to today and do that same thing. Those families have virtually nothing in common. We as a nation have polarized and separated from each other.

Anyone who thinks this is a radical idea has an extremely narrow view of history. If you don’t believe me, go try to book a plane ticket to Czechoslovakia, or look at a map of Europe from the year 1600, then look at one today. See any differences? Borders move. Countries split and change hands. They do this for a myriad of reasons. Ours would be a major cultural shift toward the left and half the country refusing to go along with tyranny.

The problem is that there is no “we as a nation”. The USA is a multinational empire. And like all such empires, the nations want to rule themselves, not be ruled over by other nations.

The US ambassador insists that the USA will not withdraw from Syria soon, contra the President’s previous statements. The objectives have officially evolved.

The US will not pull its troops out of Syria until its goals are accomplished there, ambassador to UN Nikki Haley said. This comes after Washington carried out airstrikes in Syria in response for an alleged chemical attack. US currently has over 2,000 troops in Syria and a number of contractors.

While it is America’s goals to see the troops come home, “we are not going to leave until we know we have accomplished those things,” she told Fox News Sunday.

Haley added the United States wants to ensure that chemical weapons are not used in a way that is of risk to US interests, the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) is defeated and Iran’s actions are monitored.

US officials were previously saying that their goal in Syria is just defeating ISIS. President Donald Trump said earlier that US would withdraw from Syria “soon”  and Washington would “let the other people take care of it now,” but no deadline for any such move has been announced.

That’s obviously not good. But then, if these rumors are true, the US will probably be withdrawing sooner rather than later, and there will be no more air strikes either.

It appears Russia was going to attack, and the U.S. was threatened into stopping the attack. This is probably the case. When this started, it was “going to be sustained, lasting days”. Then a large number of Russian planes took off, and suddenly America stopped attacking after only about an hour….

How do you go from “we are going to attack in waves, for days” to “an hour into the battle let’s call it quits”? And it is now confirmed that the Russian missile systems knocked out virtually ALL American cruise missiles, resulting in a totally failed missile attack. A few planes dropped bombs and then went home, with nothing returning. I think America quit because:

1. Russian defenses worked perfect, and America was watching its missiles go POOF on computer screens before they reached their targets, and
2. Russian war planes took off after the air defenses were very well proven, with confirmed destruction of practically all cruise missiles. That alone would not stop an American attack, but if any planes were carrying nukes it sure would, if it was proven Russian air defenses would escort those planes to their targets unscathed.

The big proof: the “days long attack” lasted about an hour. SOMETHING HAPPENED.

That’s not proof, let alone “big proof”. I haven’t seen any information that any Russian planes were launched anywhere, but we were told that Britain reports two hunter-killer subs were stalking one of its submarines carrying Tomahawk missiles, and that no missiles were launched from subs. In any event, the only way to determine who is telling the truth now is by watching to see what happens next. If there are more air strikes, that will be a strong indication that the Russians are seriously exaggerating. If there are not, that will be an indication, though less conclusive , that they are telling the truth now and the US has suffered a major blow to its military credibility.

It does seem a little strange that there should be so much sabre-rattling and posturing over a grand total of three targets in Syria, though. That offers minor support to the Russian account.