What is it about John McCain?

Senators John McCain and Lyndsay Graham's New York Times Op Ed of the 29th of August "Stop Dithering and Confront ISIS" has a rather pointless "just do something" sense to it that belies the fact that McCain was a prisoner of war in a conflict based on the same sentiment. 

One again I re-iterate that Obama will go down in history as a great president  for resisting emotional appeals to do something in a hasty irrational manner.  There is no doubt that we have the military power to overwhelm ISIS, but without a sane and forceful local ally, such as the Kurds in Iraq, there is nothing to fill the power vacuum that our conquering creates and filling that void is 95% of the job!  Putting together an artificial  coalition isn't good enough.  You need a politically mature group and a well motivated militia to collaborate with in Syria.  Until your ally's grunts on the ground are willing to die for their movement, like ISIS fighters are willing to do, there is no sustainable end game.  Every other option ends with helicopters evacuating personnel from the top of our embassy.

Obama Again Tips the Scales Toward Caution on Syria

This video clip linked below from Obama's press conference yesterday is what makes him a great President, which is his unwillingness to commit our blood and treasure to a conflict without a sane and forceful ally on the ground. Syria, unlike Iraq, has no well developed political entity with a motivated militia, like the Kurds, that we can work with on the ground to police and govern after the initial assault and conquest.  Looking over Secretary of State John Kerry's video clip of last August where he drew the line in the sand that Assad crossed, one can observe all the emotional reasons that draw us to act and makes Obama's restraint all the more great and faithful to our Constitution.

Obama Again Tips the Scales Toward Caution on Syria 

ISIS Tightens Its Grip With Seizure of Air Base in Syria

"Recent military advances by ISIS in northern and eastern Syria have highlighted the lack of local military forces that can effectively battle the group, which President Obama last week called a “cancer” that must be eradicated from the Middle East."

Unlike in Iraq where there is a sane well organized opposition on the ground like the pesh merga Kurdish forces; it appears that Assad, distasteful as he may be requires help to contain ISIS because he is not up to it.  I believe that the Iran came to same conclusion when deciding to put Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon to help him out earlier this year. And so there you have it, in order to fight ISIS Obama is going to have to make nice to Iran and let Iran help Assad contain ISIS with their proxy ISIS, Hezbollah. Welcome to the middle east reality

U.S. General Says Raiding Syria Is Key to Halting ISIS

Airstrikes in Iraq Are Seen as Inadequate to Defeat a Foe That Crosses Borders is the start of a mindless escalation equivalent to Nixon's airstrikes into Cambodia during Vietnam war.  If Obama wants to fight ISIS in Syria he has to make a deal with the devil.  He needs Assad, Iran and Hezbolla to assist on the ground with our air support otherwise bombing Syria is useless.

Sane and Forceful

"Will the Ends, Will the Means" editorial by Thomas Friedman with the following comment from me:

Right on. It is apparent with the recent retaking of the Mosul Dam in Iraq where pesh merga Kurdish forces combined with U. S. Air Power that we are powerless to will an outcome without a sane political ally that effectively distributes economic as well as military aid such as found in Kurdistan. The neocon blowhards apparently do not understand there is no similar sane and forceful actor in Syria with which we can work with.

The U.S. needs sane actors in the Middle East

“Thus far, Mr. Obama’s military strategy in Iraq has greatly favored the Kurds over the Iraqi government, with all the airstrikes taking place in northern Iraq in general and in the Kurdish areas of Mount Sinjar, Erbil and Mosul in particular. One reason, defense officials said, is that military assessment teams sent to Iraq to gauge whether the Iraqi security forces are capable of countering ISIS sent back reports specifying which units could make the most of American help — in the form of airstrikes — and which units were lost causes.

The American assessment teams quickly identified Kurdish pesh merga fighters as capable of pushing back the Sunni militants if given help, defense officials said. In addition, certain Iraq commando units — including those that worked with the Kurdish fighters to take back the Mosul Dam — also received good reports from the assessment teams.”

The Kurdish are a sane actor in the Middle East.  Keep that in mind the next time a military blowhard like John McCain or even Hillary Clinton talks about having missed out in Syria.  Aid to any element in Syria would have leaked out to the wrong players just like our our armoured personnel carriers left to the Iraqi army were abandoned by terrified troops to be picked up by ISIS and used against them. Without a well developed and cohesive political structure such as within Iraq’s Kurdistan region there is nothing for us to work with.

The Kurds have aspirations for a nation state of their own.  There is no possibility of using their resources to unify Iraq in the same manner as this past weekend’s routing of ISIS at the Mosul Dam.  It’s doubtful that they would be interested in expanding their territory very much into Arab, whether Shia or Sunni, sections of Iraq for them to police and protect.

What is the Cost of War?

Paul Krugman's editorial in the New York Times makes the observation "that modern war is very, very expensive. For example, by any estimate the eventual costs (including things like veterans’ care) of the Iraq war will end up being well over $1 trillion, that is, many times Iraq’s entire G.D.P." One trillion is a gross underestimate. Which brings me to a question. What is the cost of war?  Except for World War II's positive effect for the American economy, there is no other instance in the past century where a war was beneficial. Vietnam caused the decade long recession of the 1970's and W's unilateral invasion of Iraq had much to do with the Great Recession.  Wars which do not develop future markets are failed investments that an economy absorbs with great pain. 

Iraq's last Chance

Iraq is too broken to be turned around so that Mr. Khedery's assessment of "ultimately no" is correct. Given this conclusion, we have no choice but to salvage what is good in the region and support the Kurdish quest for an independent state. They are the only people with a cohesive ideal and leadership that properly distributes economic and military aid for maximum benefit. Baghdad on the other hand is in an unfortunate and poisonous state where everyone is looking out for their own. Outside assistance to such a state is counter productive. We have to leave the rest of Iraq alone.

Syria does not have an Island of Sanity

"Facing Both ISIS and Army, Syrian Rebels Fear Demise is Near" is not a case of Obama's ineffectiveness.  The Syrian Rebels facing extinction in Aleppo, Syria were never capable, unlike the Kurds in Kurdistan, Iraq, of receiving economic and military aid so that it wouldn't leak out and be used against them.

There is No Going Back to How it Was

“In a Town Hollowed Out by Jihadists, There is No Going Back to How it Was” New York Times article by Azam Ahmed is prophetic for both Syria and Iraq in the following sense: What motivates an Army to fight?  Looking at the map it appears that the town of Mahmour in Iraq that was just liberated from ISIS by the Kurds’ Pesh Merga militia is not in Kurdistan.  Unless the Kurds plan on expanding their region for their people, it is difficult to see their motivation for remaining. So now what?

The Kurds are the only cohesive group in the middle east with a common aspiration for self rule with a well developed regional government and militia, a Switzerland in the middle of a warring Europe.  They deserve our full support because they can use it effectively to maintain their island of stability where economic and military aid goes to where it will do the most good because of their dream for a nation state.  What is Baghdad’s dream?  It is difficult to imagine a Shia Militia from the south invading the north to reclaim and police Mosul and the Tigris river from ISIS. But even if it was mounted and succeeded, what would be the militia’s motivation for staying and policing an openly hostile Sunnis population?  Think of it as an occupying force similar to the white police in Ferguson, Missouri maintaining law and order with armored vehicles against a black population.

Too many nuclear weapons

John Oliver's "Last Week Tonight" Nuclear Weapons spot was dead on brilliant, funny and ultimately scary. Command and Control describes incidents in detail, but who knew about the drunkards and morons in charge of these weapons?  Humanity is playing a form of Russian Roulette.

Let's not add to Egypt's arsenal

Was my blog post of 17 July. Today in the New York Times  article on the Jhadist routing the Kurds we see "even the pesh merga are not up to the fight with ISIS. Kurdish officials have complained of a lack of ammunition and begged American diplomats for more weapons. But the United States, so far, has held off on significant arms shipments to the Kurds, fearing that it could undermine the central government in Baghdad. Now, the Kurds have been battling a group of militants from ISIS who are using powerful American weapons they took from the battlefield, left by the Iraqi Army. “They are literally outgunned by an ISIS that is fighting with hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. military equipment seized from the Iraqi Army who abandoned it,” Mr. Khedery said."

1st observation is that there must be some Bathist Sunni elements teaching ISIS how to use these armored carriers

2nd what will keep these same weapons we supply Egypt from being turned around and used against us when General Sisi's regime blows up?

Iraq Agrees to Help Kurds Battle Sunni Extremists

Air force is useless in a battle against a rebel terrorist group like ISIS.  The Kurds need money and arms to supply their home grown "Pesh Merga" security force with a cohesive motive force that is leagues ahead of Baghdad's politicized army.  Forget a unified Iraq and let the Kurds support themselves with sale of oil going directly to them.

In Libya, Parliament Convenes Amid Battles

This article in today's New York Times brings a thought.  Sisi of Egypt invades to grab oil revenue and becalm fundamental Islamists!  Its a classic authoritarian move.

British Citizens Flee Tripoli on Ship as 25 Libyans Are Reportedly Killed in Fighting

Libya, another country drawn up by Europeans,  is breaking apart as well.

Sunni Extremists in Iraq Seize 3 Towns From Kurds and Threaten Major Dam

"The Kurds, who have been longtime American allies, recently asked for military assistance from the United States to fight ISIS, American officials, determined to keep Iraq together as one country are reluctant" without Baghdad's approval. Seeing as how the Kurds are the only ones capable of using American intelligence and weaponry effectively in restraining ISIS makes it the usual throw our friends under the bus for a hopeless cause type move we are famous for.  Iraq is broken so support the Kurds because they are the sane ones in Iraq right now while the Shia and Sunnis are in a blood feud that we can not control.

When the Wind Don't Blow and the Sun Don't Shine

“The Economist’s” Buttonwood invented a new term called the DOG (Discount for Obnoxious Government) Factor and referred to Vladimir Putin’s capricious trampling of property rights and the rule of law as costing Russia approximately One Trillion Dollars in market value and creating a huge drag on its economy.  Noxious decisions are a drag on all economies and not just for Iran or Argentina mentioned as well in the editorial article. To stay away from partisan politics here in the U.S. by using our insane corporate tax policy that incentivises our companies to place capital abroad as an example of a noxious drag on our economy, let us instead examine Germany’s energy policy as an example.  That Germany counters its lower carbon emissions policy as well as devalues the country’s stock makes the decision doubly incomprehensible.

The monkey wrench to the system is Chancellor Angela Merkel’s emotional decision to shut down Germany’s nuclear power plants by 2020.  A decision that belies the country’s reputation for excellent engineering logic and execution.  That a government with such a talented population could come to such a hasty decision is difficult to comprehend inspite of the Fukushima nuclear disaster and Japan’s equally large engineering  talent. The breakdown in logic is that shutting down nuclear energy increases Germany’s carbon emissions and makes the country more beholden to carbon rich despots such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

Sun and Wind can not provide Germany’s energy needs.  Paul Joskow of MIT pointed out the costs of intermittency, the cost of on and off production when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine. These costs are huge, currently not calculated and require even more investment in gathering and storing such energy. Ultimately though, the biggest problem with sun and wind energy is that it is too dispersed.  For a world that wants to preserve its habitat with great swathes of natural parkland and concentrate populations in city islands, you need concentrated energy, nuclear being the best example.  Concentrated so that forests are not mowed down to grow ethanol for automobile fuel or migratory birds chopped to smithereens by wind farms. Sun and Wind are high acreage to energy production systems which are most susceptible to NIMBA (not in my backyard) syndrome which is certain as more wind and sun energy production is put in place. Merkel’s thought that these sources can provide Germany with a majority of its energy needs is a pipe dream.

Germany has sponsored much solar energy development with rich subsidies despite not having a sun drenched climate.  It was a minor acknowledgement at not an unbearable cost to their green movement and the goal of reducing carbon emissions.  But combining carbon emissions reduction with the elimination of nuclear energy production is impossible, if you understand the numbers.  The end result is a huge devaluation of an investment stock while throwing out the original goal of reducing carbon emissions which Germany is currently not doing by using coal to cover those intermittency gremlins of Dr. Joskow.  And those gremlins keep on pawing away at the need for natural gas to keep coming from Russia and a diminution of any geo-political decision making such as supporting Ukrainian sovereignty.  France on the other hand has energy independence, meets low carbon emissions goals and protects its natural beauty because it embraces nuclear energy. It has plenty of obnoxious policies holding its economy back, but its nuclear bet is not one of them.

Many Germans would argue that it is a matter of time before France suffers a catastrophe similar to that of Japan’s Fukushima disaster, but much has been learned so that it will be less likely. Inspite of Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island the record for nuclear energy is very good, similar to airline versus automobile travel when comparing direct deaths from atomic exposure to coal miner deaths.  Deaths from breathing impure air are difficult to calculate but make the case for carbon much worse. There are many years left before the 2020 limit that Germany has set for it’s nuclear energy plants and it would be logical for them to educate their innumerate “green” voters of the folly of this course taken by Merkel in the heat of Japan’s disaster.

Obama Expresses Confidence in C.I.A. Director

This is such a fucking example of how far Obama has gone to the dark side that I am just left with expletives.