This is a great video on the Russian perspective and strategy towards Eastern Europe.  The Russian incursion into Crimea and eastern Ukraine is without a doubt the most dangerous situation to cross the desk of the President Barack Obama since his election.  Skillful management could ease tensions and establish meaningful boundaries that allow both sides to resume normal relations.  Mismanagement can easily result in armed conflict on a scale not seen in decades.  So far the administration has been measured and gradual in its escalation of rhetoric and sanctions.  Time will tell.

GONE FISHIN'

Posting will be sparse, I have a new military adventure in progress . . .

Good times.

In the FATA and NWFP areas of Pakistan: tribes are awakening to the threat the Taliban pose to their way of life. Moderate Muslim clerics have backed the Pakistani Army offensive, and many tribes are forming militias to help fight the Taliban. Even once vocal supporters have turned against them following the bombing of a mosque.





In Lebanon: the March 14th Coalition appears to have won a decisive victory in the Lebanese elections. Analysts had been suggesting, and polls indicating, that a Hezbollah-Christian coalition was posied to sweep into power. But it now appears that the pro-western March 14th Coalition has won enough seats to remain in power.




We now have to work with the Pakistani military and intelligence services to capitalize on the recent turn in events and surging momentum against the Taliban. And the Lebanese now face the struggle of putting together a working government, hopefully with fewer assassinations and car bombings than last time . . .

Combined with the Congress Party's enormous success in India in recent elections there, things have been going pretty well for moderates throughout the world. (Aside from in Europe, but who cares about that socially stagnant place?)

Why China won't be more proactive in punishing North Korea

China has entered into a devils bargain with North Korea. Whenever you hear about the Chinese government doing this or that, I want you to think of one word: "Stability." The Chinese are obsessed with stability because they need continuous economic growth to have any chance at surviving their demographic transition to an elderly population. For this reason, China always takes the most cautious approach when it comes to anything. If the party thought they could transition to democracy tomorrow without destabilizing the country, they would do it. But they believe (probably correctly, at least for the next decade or so) a significant state hand in guiding business and politics is the only way to ensure that their economy is able to provide for their population.

So when it comes to North Korea, they prop up the regime not out of some brotherly support or commitment, but because a failed state bordering them is unacceptable. And a failed state is exactly what North Korea would be without Chinese aid. They look down on Kim Jong-il and his cronies, his state is a constant reminder of the failures of Maoist agricultural policies, something the Chinese themselves moved past decades ago. When the most recent nuke test was conducted, every market in the region save Japan took a hit. China wants that cash money, and the only reason that they tolerate Kim's shenanigans cutting into their bottom line, is because cutting him off would hurt them even more.

Now if China does have influence on North Korean behavior, we can pressure China into calming Kim's ass down or quietly getting rid of him altogether by convincing the world that only China can change North Korea's behavior (true, barring a VERY unlikely US military intervention) therefore China is responsible for North Korea, and must act to prevent instability in the region. Essentially, every time North Korea does something, start blaming China for not actively working to stop them. Kind of like how people blame the US every time Israel does something they don't like.

But I fear that especially now with a leadership transition taking place even China has far less influence in the region than they let on. The real reason for all the sabre rattling, is quite simply to help strengthen the leadership during the succession. Kim Jong-il now has a visible droop (see picture above) on his left side from the stroke. They're afraid that they might appear weak to the outside world, and more importantly, to their domestic audience. And in the middle of a transition to Kim Jong-un, this cannot stand.

China realizes that an open and reunified Korean peninsula is in everyone's interests. After all, who wants a potential nuclear conflict next door to them? But they don't really know how to make that happen, and neither do we. It will happen the day that the US and China finally come to the realization that only by working together can they accomplish all the things they want to in the coming century.

North Korea and the Bifurcated Force . . .

I spend most of my time talking about the Stability and Support side of my "divided force" structure. But the Katana side is important too. In addition to nuclear weapons that maintain the status quo of the international system, a dedicated strike force is needed to take down bad actors at what Kenneth Waltz calls the nation-state level of analysis.

The initial invasion force in Iraq which destroyed the military capability of Iraq under Saddam Hussein consisted of the following main combat elements:



I MEF:

• 1st Marine Division (3 Heavy Brigades)
  
• 1st UK Division (1 Commando, 1 Air Assault, 1 Armoured Brigade)
  

V Corps:

• 3rd Infantry Division (3 Heavy Brigades)
  
• 101st Airborne Division (3 Air Assault Brigades)
• 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division
  

Other:

• Various Special Operations Task Forces
• 173rd Airborne Brigade

Note that all of these forces consist of either Heavy or Airborne/Air Assault BCTs in modern parlance, such is the composition of the Katana force. All told there are 7 Heavy Brigades and 6 Airborne/Commando/Air Assault Brigades. This force was sufficient for the initial invasion and the complete destruction of Iraqi military capability. They were utterly inappropriate and insufficient for the following stability and support operations.

North Korea is the largest, most dangerous, and most likely target for military invasion in the world today. While the posession of nuclear weapons makes such an act very risky, the low number of weapons combined with their inability to be mounted on ballistic missiles at this time presents a narrow window in which regime change might occur. Additionally, at 1.2 million, the military force is approximately 3.2X what the regime of Saddam Hussein was able to field at the time. Improvements in support and logisitcs would allow us to get away with a force 3x the size used in Iraq. So based solely on the invasion force needed to take down the Hussein-era military, I project that you would need somewhere in the neighborhood of 21 Heavy Brigades and 18 Forced Entry Capable Brigades would be required.

• The US Army has 19 Heavy Brigade Combat Teams and 10 Forced Entry Capable Brigades.
• The British could offer, at a stretch, 2 more of each.
  
• And with the Marine RCTs able to switch between Forced Entry or Heavy roles depending on equipment provided, we would reach the requisite number.
  
• And thats before you even begin to count South Korea's 20 Division Force (more equivalent to large Heavy BCTs).

So it could be done. I'm not advocating it, and the casualties amongst all forces and civilian populations would be worse than we can imagine. Additionally, it would require us to completely abandon all other global commitments. And we can expect to spend at least a decade trying to integrate a devestated penninsula back into the global community without upsetting the delicate balance of power in East Asia.

There is another card on the table, however, and that is China. If North Korean behavior grows threatening enough to affect that hyper-capitalist power's bottom line, even they will want to see them go. And they certainly DO have the manpower. Their force probably would only be able to play a minimal role in an invasion, but in the stability and support operations afterwards, China and South Korea would have the presence and the legitimacy to make a stable penninsula happen. The US would still be left with the difficult task of playing referee and getting China to accept a reunified Korea. But in this age of globalization, the prospect of a Korea that can be friendly to both China and the US isn't hard to imagine.

Additionally, this would essentially be the last major regime change the US could forseeably undertake. With the important possible exception of Myanmar, another place where cooperation with China would be key. Those two scenarios are perhaps the only currently forseeable times where the US will ever again be engaged in ground-based maneuver warfare. Maintaining a regime change force after those operations would be important both as a deterrent against rogue regimes and a hedge against any unforseen state-on-state conflict, but the force could be much smaller, enabling us to focus additional resources on "preventive medicine" in the form of soft power and the usage of the Wakizashi.

Why you should be a Political Scientist . . .

Here is something more relevant to my own personal background as a Political Science major:



This is a fascinating look at decision making in Iran that underlines a fundamental shift that has occurred in the fields of Political Science and International Relations over the last several decades. Namely, the reduction of complex interactions between individuals into mathematical models that can be used in a wider range of situations and scenarios. This model, produced by one of the core personalities of the Political Science community, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, is compelling. Not only for its intracacy but also for what I believe to be a correct interpretation of the various actors and influences on Iranian politics and the likely future outcomes.

So study Math kids, its everywhere.

The Global Commons

I liked Gates quote about the global commons, something along the lines of America's military mission being to insure access for all to the Sea, the Air, Space, and Cyberspace. These are the vital areas through which international commerce must travel.

Our mission is not so much about denying access as it is about ensuring it. Keeping the sea lanes open for freighters, the air safe for airline traffic, space secured for commercial and military use, and cyberspace access protected for individuals and corporations alike. This is outlined in the National Defense Strategy and a key component is cooperative military engagement to provide security. I think we are seeing the beginnings of this off the coast of Somalia, and I believe it will one day extend to aerospace and cyberspace as well.