War Actually Does Solve Problems

The slogan, “War never solved anything,” and the hidden agenda behind the slogan, need to be clear to everyone.  Democrats need those big bucks for domestic spending to buy votes.  Military spending is easier to cut if the military looks ineffective.  So Democrats adopt policies that limit air strike targeting, and rules of engagement generally, that render US military force ineffective.  At that point, Democrats argue that "war never solved anything," so we might as well spend the money domestically.

The problem right now is the same problem we had in Vietnam. Since World War II, Democrats seem to intentionally mess up running wars. They try half measures that prolong the conflict until everybody wants to give up and go home. Democrats' motivation is to increase domestic spending over the long term. If military efforts are seen as ineffectual, it's easier to cut military budgets and use the money to buy votes domestically. Lyndon Johnson prolonged the Vietnam War by refusing to use US air power to shut down North Vietnam's seaports. Barack Obama is prolonging the ISIS conflict by also refusing to use US air power effectively. Obama has refused to hit oil production, transportation targets and infrastructure targets that are crucial to ISIS funding and operations. ISIS makes a million dollars a day selling oil. ISIS is moving men and supplies over open desert highways. ISIS has vehicle maintenance and bomb factories in civilian neighborhoods the US refuses to destroy.

War actually does solve problems very well.  War solved the world's Hitler problem.  War solved the Imperial Japan problem.  Through history, war solved the American Colonies' British problem, as well as Rome's Carthage problem.  War is the only solution to the ISIS problem.  

The slogan is absurd.  The only reason for it is to excuse poor military performance followed by budgets which shift spending to domestic investments in crony capitalism and programs encouraging government dependence.  If you're dependent on the government, you have to vote for the Democrats, or the gravy train is over. Quite easily done.

Kurds Get Close Air Support, Promise of Direct US Aid

 Kurdish forces, along with ethnic allies, recently seized the town of Sinjar in a 48 hour battle.  Very efficiently done.  The report I read says that the vast majority of ISIS casualties were the result of coalition air strikes.  The results described mean that someone was calling in close air support very effectively.  It could be US, Canadian or British Special Forces.  It could be Peshmerga trained to do the job for themselves.  But the big difference from earlier battles is how close the air support is.  Previously, we were hitting ISIS targets that were a distance away from any ground contact with friendly forces.  We wanted to avoid "friendly fire" accidents like the one reported December 17, where 10 Iraqi Army soldiers were reported killed by a coalition air strike near Fallujah.  There seems to have been much tighter coordination with the Peshmerga.

The other part of the announcement is also startling.  It seems to say the US is going to deliver a lot of heavy equipment directly to Iraqi Kurdistan.  Up to now, US policy was that all arms deliveries had to be physically delivered or at least authorized by the Baghdad government.  The quoted statement does not seem to have any such qualification.  However, Secretary of State Ash Carter included enough obscurity in his statement that it will not be taken as a new beginning for US military aid policy until the weapons actually are delivered in Erbil.

Article I reacted to:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/islamic-state-routed-in-iraq-battle-u-s-officials-say-1450404452#lf_comment=431282008

(Subscription may be required)

ISIS Is Nothing Like The Cold War

A recent Real Clear Politics article says fighting ISIS is another Cold War.  This analysis is completely wrong.  While the effort against Islamic terrorists may take years, this is not the time to settle in for a long siege of ISIS. The one thing that makes ISIS superior to other Islamic terrorists is that ISIS controls territory and proclaims their territory the restored caliphate. But unlike our Cold War opponents, ISIS is vulnerable because ISIS has an address that's not protected by nuclear weapons. ISIS has almost no air defense other than deploying civilian shields, which is a war crime. ISIS makes a million dollars a day from oil sales. All ISIS military and economic activity takes place in wide open desert. ISIS has just occupied Sirte, Libya, Muammar Gadaffi's home town. ISIS is shipping in troops and supplies by sea. As long as the US allows ISIS to hold territory, ISIS can claim divine intervention has given them victory of the so-called super power crusader country.

This is not rocket science. Henry Kissinger's diplomacy is not required. The way to stop ISIS is to destroy their assets, especially any transportation assets.

There is no way ISIS should be able to move men and supplies between Raqqa and Mosul over open desert roads against US air dominance. There is no way ISIS should be able to move its oil from oil fields to market by truck in the face of competent air attacks. There is no way ISIS oil fields should still be in operation given what one well planned air attack can do to a defenseless oil field. There is no way that ISIS should be able to move men and supplies through the Mediterranean Sea to Sirte, Libya, without a navy.

Even after budget sequesters, the US military can do the job as long as the White House lets them do it. And that's the point. The only reason we need patience is because the White House isn't trying to win and maybe doesn't even want to win. The White House isn't allowing our pilots to do the job. The White House is just trying to play out the clock to the end of the term in January, 2017. Mr. Cannon is probably right that problems with Islamic terrorists will continue for a long time. But there is no reason to slow walk the destruction of ISIS.

Article I was reacting to:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/12/20/combating_isis_another_cold_war_129091.html

Lifting US Oil Export Ban: Big Foreign Policy Win!

Many people think that lifting the US oil export ban was a hollow victory for Republicans in the Omnibus spending bill this year.  It looks hollow now, but it’s a big foreign policy win for the future.

Three of our most dangerous enemies, Russia, Iran and ISIS, finance their military and terrorist operations with oil sales.  Russia and Iran need a crude oil price of about $100 a barrel to maintain spending at current levels.  ISIS needs about $80 a barrel to be able to sell its smuggled oil at an attractive discount.  With European benchmark crude selling for about $37 a barrel, all three are really hurting financially.

In the US, most oil production uses ever improving fracking technology. Fracking injects a solution of water, sand and secret ingredients under pressure to fracture rock formations that contain oil and natural gas.  Fracking technology can ramp up production much more quickly than ordinary drilling.  When the price of oil is low, you stop injecting.  When the price goes up, you resume injecting.  Break even for US fracking operations is somewhere between $45 and $60 a barrel.

Lifting the US oil export ban means that Russia, Iran and ISIS will not see an oil price above $60 in the next 5-10 years.  They will be financially incapable of continuing their aggressive violent strategies.  The last time oil prices were this low, inflation in Russia topped 80% a year, Russia defaulted on its government bonds and Boris Yeltsin was forced out of power.  Prolonged financial difficulty may destabilize three of our most dangerous enemies, based on a concession the Democrats didn’t think was worth anything.