Better Kind of Politics My Ass

I really enjoyed the Saddleback discussions, and I thought Obama came ahead big time. McCain was the commensurate politician, he had a answer for everything, made his talking points, told anecdotes in typical cookie cutter politico fashion... The pundits loved him for it...why not, he did exactly as the conventional wisdom said he should, but it left me unimpressed. Obama on the other hand was thoughtful, honest, and in particular on the when does life begin question, appropriately humble. He really did look like a different kind of leader... one who would base polices on what makes sense, that he'd actually think about these issues.... while McCain would be the typical pandering-to-wherever-the-votes-are politician.

It actually put me in a dilemma where I'd have to choose between voting for my issues (McCain) and voting for a better way to run government (Obama).


But now today, in spite of Obama's repeated statements about not taking political cheap shots, he's latching on to this thing about McCain not knowing how many condos he has in his investment portfolio to score cheap political points by painting McCain as out of touch with the common voter.

Hypocrisy. Gotta love it.

Deciphering the Russian Strategy

I think the strategic goal of the Russian invasion of Georgia is to undermine the effectiveness of the NATO alliance. I'll admit this is very thin at this opening juncture, but, the theory fits the facts on the ground and seems to make sense.

Let's start with the Russian's operational goals in Georgia. We know that despite two ceasefire agreements, the Russians continue to destroy military facilities and civilian infrastructure, and they have declared their intention to continue these "security operations" until Monday. The scope of these operations is clearly much, much greater than is necessary for the security of the people of S. Ossetia, in whose name the invasion was purportedly launched. They are trying to destroy as much of Georgia's military capability as they can, cripple their economy, and generally destroy as much as possible.

We also know that the Russians have moved irregular "volunteer" forces into Georgia, and that rebel militias in Abkhazia and S. Ossetia have been causing trouble both inside and outside of their respective provinces. This suggests that there will continue to be violence in Georgia long after the Russian army has left. The destruction of Georgia's military will give these irregulars a wide berth to cause trouble. Georgia is about to become another Iraq--a weak, discredited government will be fighting an insurgency in its borders. They're going to need help.

We've already committed to a humanitarian and reconstruction mission. We've said we don't expect this to be an operation involving military force, but this is naive. There have already least two instances of these irregulars interfering with humanitarian aid convoys. Unless we want another Mogadishu on our hands, we will need to support our humanitarian effort with military force. We can also fully expect attacks by irregulars against civilian infrastructure that Georgia is attempting to rebuild. Oh, and another thing---Russia has absolutely no intention of honoring its word to turn the rebel provinces over to international peacekeepers. They continued to sent in fresh reinforcements to both provinces after the first ceasefire agreement; not to mention they have pretty much announced their intentions in the media. We can expect these provinces to act as a safe haven for rebel forces to operate out of and retreat to--an area where the victorious "sweep and hold" counterinsurgency strategy cannot be implemented.

Russia has essentially handed the US a lose-lose situation. We are already stretched too thin to get involved in another insurgency. So we can either underestimate the commitment involved in Georgia and wear our military down to the point that we can't back up our obligations to NATO; or, we do nothing and allow Georgia to collapse, in which case NATO and Eastern Europe won't be looking to us for help either. If Western Europe decided to pull their weight in Georgia, this situation could be avoided, but the Russians are gambling on them being too timid to do so. It's a pretty safe bet given their track record.

Did I Mention I Love These Guys?

Another Gem from Information Dissemnation:

With the Navy being given the green light, we are about to observe the first major US Navy operation since the 2005 Tsunami. That may not sound like much to those not familiar with that story, but it is. These events will further shape the way we look at military power strategically.

For the second time in the 21st century, the United States is about to exercise military power in a major way other than war, but instead of confronting the challenge of a natural disaster, this time the confrontation is with a military power exercising political control. Is this a military mission? In the 21st century, yes.

But not in your traditional way. This is the perfect example why military strategy is incomplete when it focuses only on the duties of conducting war. This is not a peacekeeping mission, peacekeeping is what nations do when the UN asks them to fill space between wars. This scenario, the full spectrum multi-agency option other than war, logistically supported by the tools of war, is what we mean when we use the world peacemaking in 21st century strategy.

This is the black dot in the white side of the Yin Yang. This will be interesting.

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/08/all-ahead-slow.html

Black Sea Missile Battle?

Found a great naval blog, http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/. They're passing on a story from the Ukrainian press about the details of the naval battle reported some days ago, when a Georgian missile boat was reported sunk. Here's the account:

We took up station guarding the opposed landing on the Abkhaz shore when all of a sudden four high speed targets were detected. We sent out an IFF signal and the targets didn't react. Receiving a command from the flagship, we got into formation and right at that moment the unidentified targets opened fire on the ship formation and flagship. The cruiser was damaged and a small fire broke out aboard. Then, fearing for seaworthyness, the flagship withdrew from the firing area." - the sailor said.

"Right then the small missile boats clearly fired," the participant continued. "Taking up position, our MRK launched a "Malakhit" (SS-N-9) anti-surface missile, which literally cut the lead ship, the "Tbilisi" to ribbons. After that, fire was shifted to the rest of the Georgian ships. Another ship was damaged, we couldn't finish it off, allowing it to leave the scene under its own power.

Three interesting items of note there. First of all, that could not have been the Tblisi, and I can prove it. Here she is, burning at port:




And here she is on her better days:


Georgia has no other boats of that class, so it's definitely her. So, the unfortunate implication is that the boat this sailor believes he sunk was actually Georgia's only other (and much more powerful) missile boat, the Dioskuria. Damn. (Or, there were no Georgian missile boats there at all.)

Item two: Apparently the mighty Moskva was hit in this fight and had to withdraw. Did the infamous Exocet strike again? Or were the Russian ships just incapable of keeping the Georgian gunboats at a safe distance and got shelled? In any case, the Slava-class design "is said to be marred by large quantities of flammable material and poor damage-control capabilities," so a small amount of damage might take it out of the fight. I'd hate to be on board if those Sandboxes started cooking off...



Thirdly, as far as I'm aware, this is the first time the SS-N-9 Siren was used in combat. If only one was fired, then it's 1/1.... but I suspect they fired several and mostly missed. They might have been too close for it to be as effective as it could have been.

EDIT:
I just wanted to follow up on this post since I recently installed SiteMeter and noticed this article is still getting hits. The best evidence now suggests the ship sunk in the skirmish was a gunboat; not either of the missile boats Tblisi or Dioskiria. The Dio was towed out to sea from Poti and scuttled.

More here.

How do you say "dumbass" in French or German?

You would think that after WWII, everyone would have learned that appeasement is bad foreign policy. Well, I guess being on the wrong side of that war prevented Germany from learning that lesson. I have no idea what France's excuse is.

Why do I say this? Well, France and Germany opposed Georgia's entry into NATO because they were fearful of angering Russia. If Georgia had been a NATO member, Russia would have been deterred from invading Georgia. There would not be a shooting war going on now, 2000+ people would still be alive, and the US and EU wouldn't have to put the pieces back together when it's all over.

The lesson here is obvious, and it's a lesson we all should have learned long ago. When you're dealing with a bully, show strength, not weakness. Bullies love to act when they know they can get away with it.