Mexico

Posted on June 6, 2024 by Martin van Creveld

Back in the spring of 1994, the CIA was in a bad way. Not because of a threat to national security; after all, the Soviet Union had just fallen apart, most of China’s rise was still in the future, and the US continued to enjoy the protection not of one ocean but of two. Rather, it was the lack of “peer competitors” to spy upon and warn against. Saddam Hussein and Iraq having been defeated, probably never in human history had a single colossus appeared to be so dominant and so powerful! And what, pray, do you do when you do not know what to do? Short answer: you bring in a consultant. Or, better still, entire teams of consultants to consult with.

That is where I got involved. Three years earlier I had published The Transformation of War, a book President Clinton was said to have read or at any rate ordered. Now someone at the CIA contacted me and asked me to give a short talk about “the most important threat facing the US” as well as write a paper on the same topic. Arriving at Langley at the appointed day and hour, I was ushered into a meeting hall where the analysts were waiting. Most appeared to be in their mid- to late thirties, meaning they were no longer at the entry level but had much of their careers still in front of them. Following my pearls of wisdom, which took about 45 minutes to deliver, we launched into the Q&A. En fin, the usual staid format many of us are familiar with and take more or less for granted.

What they did not take for granted, and saved the meeting from being staid, was one single word that kept recurring: Mexico. Not because it was in any sense a peer competitor—it was not and still isn’t. Not because it had nuclear weapons—it did not and still doesn’t. Not because it had the armed forces to invade the US—it did not and still doesn’t. And not because it was strong, united, highly developed, and determined to confront the US. But precisely because it was not strong, and not united, and not highly developed; let alone determined to confront the US.

When the Q&A started it was my turn to be surprised. Of the fifty or so persons in the room not a single one seemed to agree with me; then and later quite a few told me I had been spouting… well, you know what. After all, the US was much larger and stronger than Mexico. In terms of GDP (both total and per person), industrial capacity, armed forces, capacity for innovation, human capital (basically, literacy and the number of years spent at school) and, last not least, the “soft power” which at that time was being touted by Professor Joseph Nye at Harvard there simply was no comparison. True, Mexico with its 88 million people and 761,610 square miles of territory was not exactly a pigmy. Further south, some Latin American politicians even let loose an occasional reference to it as “the giant of the north.” But the most dangerous problem facing the US? Come on.

Twenty-two years later, in 2016, Nye’s fellow Harvard professor Samuel Huntington published Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity. Like Nye, Huntington focused less on material factors—so and so much of this, so and so much of that—as on cultural values. English rather than Spanish or some other language(s). Individualism versus a more family-oriented society. Respect for the law, normally seen not as an instrument for oppression but as a necessary framework for imposing justice and enabling society to function. The kind of society that in some ways helped turn most people into quasi-Protestants even without them knowing it. All these were being undermined by hordes of immigrants, either Mexicans or, increasingly, other Latin Americans originating in countries further to the south. Many immigrants did not even try to assimilate. Instead, entering ghettoes that were at least partly self-imposed, they proudly pronounced their original identity and their determination to stick to it even while defying the surrounding “native” population.

Nor does Mexico itself have much to be proud of. In 2021 the human development index (HDI), which is the one used by the United Nations to measure the progress of a country, stood at 0.758 points, leaving it in 86th place in the published table of 191 countries. Contributing to this sad state of affairs is a fairly low per capita GDP of $ 11,500 per year, just one sixth of the US figure. Next come widespread violence (the seven cities with the world’s highest per capita homicide rates are all located in Mexico); a large but inefficient government apparatus; wealthy and powerful drug cartels that are often both integrated into the government machinery (and the military, and the police) and capable of standing up to them. To these, add corruption; limited freedom of the press (in 2024 Mexico occupied place number 121 out of 180 countries); an exploding population that, between 1994 and 2024, went up 48 percent, in many ways making it necessary to run like hell just to stay in place; and a geographical position that made it a conduit for countless additional people from all over Central and South America.

Following the events of 1945-1960, when most of the former colonial countries in Asia and Africa achieved their independence, there was a widespread expectation that “they” (the countries in question) could and would become more like “us” (the “developed” west). So, for example, President Johnson’s National Security Adviser Walt Rostow (served, 1966-69) in his influential 1959 volume, The Stages of Economic Growth, which laid out a program for doing exactly that. In fact, though, the opposite is happening. A vast and apparently unstoppable influx of people is moving from south to north. With their number estimated at 2,4 million in 2023 alone, they either undermine or overwhelm the ability of American institutions, from the police to schools to hospitals to welfare systems, to cope. Instead of “they” becoming like “us,” “they” are well on the way of turning “us” into “them.”

Mexico’s recent elections, which for the first time put a woman at the helm, has been keenly followed both in- and out of the country. And rightly so; who knows, maybe she will start moving her people in the right direction. Meanwhile, though, America’s southwestern states in particular are begging for help so they can cope with exactly the situation I and others predicted thirty years ago.

And what has the Federal Government been doing? For decades on end, the answer was nothing.

A Tale of Three Crises

Posted on April 4, 2024 by Martin van Creveld

Back in 1938-39, Britain—heartland of the largest empire that ever was—found itself coming under attack in no fewer than three main theaters at once. One, the closest home, was Western Europe and the North Sea where Adolf Hitler was busily at work building up the Third Reich to the point it would be ready to challenge the empire. One consisted of the empire’s communications in the Mediterranean where Benito Mussolini was threatening to take over the Suez Canal, Malta and Gibraltar, “the bars in Italy’s prison,” as he called them. And one in the Far East where a succession of militaristic Japanese governments were preparing to attack Britain’s colonies such as Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore. Things came to a head in September 1939 when Germany, invading Poland, ignited a world war. By the time that war ended six years later Britain was lucky in that it could count itself among the victors. However, its relative power, military industrial and economic, had been shattered and would never recover.

The same year, 1945, also marked the peak of American power. Alone among the main belligerents in World War II—Germany, Britain, France, Italy, the Soviet Union, Japan, and China—the US neither had any part of its territory occupied nor was subject to bombing. Its losses, especially in terms of manpower killed or badly wounded, were also much lighter. Calculated in terms of value, fifty percent of everything was being produced in the U.S. Throughout my own youth in the 1950s and early 1960s, the best most people could say about anything was that it was American. This was as true in Israel, where I lived, as it was in the Netherlands which I occasionally visited; of movies (and movie stars) as of automobiles. As if to crown it all, alone of all the world’s countries the U.S not only possessed nuclear weapons but also, which was almost equally important, a demonstrated willingness to use them as its leaders saw fit.

However, what goes up must go down. In 1949 the Soviet Union tested its first nuke. This proved to be the starting point of a profound, if unexpectedly slow, process of proliferation, each of whose stages marked a downsizing of America’s relative advantage over other countries. Accidentally or not, 1949 also marked the opening of a long period, still ongoing, during which America’s balance of payments has almost never been positive. The decision, made by President Nixon in 1971, to take the US dollar off gold, simply highlighted the change and made the situation worse. Currently the American Government’s debt both to foreign countries and to its own citizens is easily the largest in the whole of history. The trouble with debts is that they must be repaid; putting a heavy burden on every economic decision made in the country, large or small.

The 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union seemed to create what, at the time, was known as a unipolar world. Some went further still, announcing not just the end of power politics but of history itself. But the respite did not last. By 2010 Russia was beginning to come back, ready to resume the expansionist policies that, starting with Ivan IV (“the Terrible” or “the Dread,” as he was sometimes known) and ending with Stalin had been such a resounding success. By the second decade of the twenty-first century American economic supremacy, which starting in the wake of World War I had been undisputed, was also being challenged by China in a way, and on a scale, never before experienced.

Nor is the state of that other pillar of American power, its armed forces, much better. Alone of all the great empires in history, starting already in the second decade of the nineteenth century the US has been in in the enviable position of not having a peer competitor—as the current phrase goes—in its own hemisphere. This enabled it to make do with what, most of the time and sometimes for decades on end, were almost ridiculously small armed forces. Specifically land forces or, again as the current phrase goes, boots on the ground. It was only immediately before and during wartime that the situation changed and full scale mobilization was instituted. Culminating in 1941-45 when the US waged what later came to be known as 2^1/2 wars: meaning one in northwestern Europe, one in the far east, and one—the ^½—in the Mediterranean.

Enter, once again, the Nixon administration. The “2^1/2” disappeared from the literature. Its place was taken by 1^1/2, meaning, one full scale war against the Soviet Union on “the Central Front” (Western Europe) plus a smaller half -war in some other place: either the Far East, presumably Korea, or in the Middle East on which much of the world relied for its oil. Needless to say, the figures were never accurate or even meant to be accurate. Their only use was as a very rough guide for comparison on one hand and planning on the other. Still they did provide an index concerning the direction in which things were moving.

Hand in hand with America’s declining military ambitions and expectations went very deep cuts in the size of the armed forces. The process got under way when Nixon—Nixon again—ordered an end to conscription and a switch to armed forces composed entirely of volunteers. The outcome was a 34-percent cut in the number of military personnel between 1969 and 1973. As a combination of technological progress and inflation drove costs into the stratosphere, the cuts in the number of major weapon systems—missiles, aircraft, ships, tanks, artillery barrels, briefly everything the Ukrainians are currently begging for—were, if anything, greater still. Come 1991, these forces proved adequate to fight and win a conventional war against a third-rate power, Iraq. That apart, though, almost every time they tried their hand at fighting a ^1/2 war anywhere in the world they failed. So in Vietnam; so in Laos and Cambodia, so in Somalia, and so in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Like Britain in the late 1930s, currently the US sees itself challenged on three fronts. The first is Eastern Europe where Russia’s Putin is trying to reoccupy a vital part of the former Soviet Empire and, should be succeed, get himself into a position to threaten any number of NATO countries, old or new. The second is the Middle East where Iran, using its vassals in Yemen and Syria, has been waging war by proxy on Israel while at the same time threatening Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and parts of the Indian Ocean. The third is the Far East—where America’s main allies, meaning Taiwan on one hand and South Korea on the other, may come under attack by China and North Korea respectively almost at a moment’s notice.

Even for the greatest power on earth running, or preparing to run, three ^½wars at once is an extremely expensive proposition. Especially in terms of ammunition of which, in sharp contrast to 19141-45, there simply is not enough. So far the center, though experiencing growing domestic difficulties, has not yet caved in. With the wings tottering, though, how long before it does?

Guest Article: Spotlight on German Defense

Posted on May 4, 2023 by Martin van Creveld

Gen. (ret.) Dr. Erich Vad*

Since Russia launched its full-blown attack against Ukraine in February 2022, Germany has become one of the Ukrainian largest arms suppliers — incurring costs in the billions of euros. This spending and the decision-making behind it have thrown into stark relief at least two things: major shifts in German security policy, and the difficult balancing acts facing the country’s leaders.

What the War Has Revealed About the State and Focus of the German Military

Starting in 2022, Germany has become the third-largest provider of military support for Ukraine after the US and the UK. It sent goods worth a total of €2 billion (~$2.2 billion). Including multiple rocket launchers, self-propelled howitzers, and self-propelled, tracked, air defense systems. A further €2.3 billion (~$2.5 billion) in spending is scheduled for 2023. Including, this time, 18 modern Leopard 2A6 main battle tanks, former East German Mig-29 fighters, and Patriot air defense systems.

Coming on top of aid provided by other NATO countries, this largesse has had a tangible impact on the Ukrainian armed forces’ capabilities. However, it has also come at a significant cost for Germany’s own defense. So much so that Germany’s commitments to its NATO allies, as well as its ability to defend themselves, are now in danger of being compromised.

Even more important, Russia’s attack on Ukraine has fundamentally changed threat perceptions in Germany. For the first time since the end of the Cold War over 30 years ago, German defense policy is once again focused on Central Europe. The era of German peacekeeping missions abroad–in the Balkans, in Mali and in Afghanistan—is over. However, while the focus of German security policy is changing, the Bundeswehr does not have the capability to back the change.

The list of problems is almost endless. Including a shortage of armored and mechanized units; inadequate stocks of ammunition; long-neglected, out of date, facilities such as barracks; to mention but a few. The new minister of defense, Boris Pistorius, is doing what he can to correct these deficiencies. Inevitably, though, doing so will take time.

Nor is the establishment of a special fund of €100 billion (~$110 billion) for military refurbishments going to be a game changer. By my estimate, to restore operational readiness three times that sum would be needed. The necessary ammunition alone would cost at least €20 billion (~$22 billion), while urgent fixes for the ailing infrastructure would call for an additional €50 billion (~$55 billion). And new frigates, tanks and F-35 fighter aircraft have yet to be paid for.

Beyond these hardware-related risks an even greater threat is looming: that of the dire shortfalls in personnel. Following German reunification the Bundeswehr had around 460,000 soldiers. Since then it has been gradually reduced in size until, today, only about 183,000 are left. Currently plans are aiming at an additional 20,000 in 2031—hardly enough to make much of a difference.

Restoring the Bundeswehr’s Operational Readiness Will Take Years

Starting in 1990, Germany believed it could afford to neglect national and alliance defense because the threat situation was quite different. In retrospect, this was short-sighted. The fundamental failure was that Germany “imported” much of its national and alliance defense security, primarily from the U.S. At the same time, it generated a considerable amount of its wealth in China, the geostrategic rival of the U.S, and the West more broadly. And it also imported cheap energy from Russia.

The Bundeswehr’s foreign missions, first and foremost in Afghanistan, dominated the political spotlight and had to proceed, while the rest of its commitments did not seem to matter. To meet ongoing foreign missions personnel and materiel were scrounged from hundreds of Bundeswehr locations. Meanwhile, armament procurement concentrated on armored transport vehicles rather than on battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. This and the ever-decreasing quantities of new equipment also led to reallocation and relocation measures on the part of the defense industry.

Again starting in 1990, every military reform in Germany has been intended, not to strengthen the Bundeswehr in terms of national and alliance defense but to make it smaller and cheaper. The Bundeswehr now has fewer battle-ready tanks than Switzerland and fewer ships than the Netherlands. The hasty phase-out of conscription in 2011 exacerbates the Bundeswehr’s personnel situation to this day. A return to compulsory military service is under discussion, but is not very realistic even though similar policies have been implemented in frontline states such as Lithuania.

At the time, the suspension of conscription at the time was supported by the military leadership because it freed up tens of thousands of professional and temporary soldiers — who had previously been bound by conscription as instructors — for deployment abroad. In the process, however, massive personnel problems arose: Today some 20,000 positions in the Bundeswehr remain unfilled, trend growing. This policy has been repeatedly and rightly criticized and is finally coming to an end. Leading, one can only hope, to the fastest possible rebuilding of Germany’s defense capability within the NATO framework.

What the Future Should Hold for NATO

It is foreseeable that NATO — including new alliance partners such as Sweden (yet to be accepted) and Finland (already accepted) — will have to build up a completely new front line of defense against Russia, and, still in the background, against China as well — from the North Cape to the Black Sea. This line must be capable of being defended if necessary. The NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997, which commits the signatories to refrain from permanently stationing substantial combat forces, is hanging by a thread. Whether it will survive remains to be seen.

In any case, Germany will have to be prepared to deploy even more military forces to potential conflict regions in Eastern Europe than it did during the Cold War. In the future, the first priority will be to strengthen the “frontline states.” In all likelihood, Ukraine will — or may even already — be one of them, when it comes to the advance deployment of equipment, ammunition and material. Following NATO directives, Germany must provide about 30,000 troops and 85 aircraft and ships at high readiness for NATO’s defense of Europe by 2025. To this end, Germany would have to establish at least one mechanized division. In addition, it would have to provide a brigade for the Baltic States, which NATO now wants to be able to defend from Day 1, with a high level of readiness. Whether this is realistic remains to be seen. Certainly it will be an enormous feat. The more so because Germany and its European allies can no longer count on our most important ally, the U.S, whose focus is the Indo-Pacific.

Moreover, the course of the Russian-Ukrainian war shows that NATO’s easternmost member states — especially Poland, and certainly Finland in the future — will play a strategically more important role in the transatlantic alliance. Germany continues to be an important logistical hub for NATO’s European defense, but it is no longer a central frontline state as it was during the Cold War.

Time for reorganizing German and European defense is running out. The Russian-Ukrainian war has highlighted different threat perceptions and interests among the European allies, which will have to be balanced in the future. The new frontline states vis-à-vis Russia — above all Poland and the Baltic States — show very little willingness to compromise. Steering the opposite course, France in particular would like to enter negotiations so as to end the war as soon as possible.

While pursuing a substantial increase in the Alliance’s military capabilities, NATO strategists should also keep in mind that the integration of artificial intelligence as a universally applicable technology and robotics will change war to change. If we want to keep pace as a military power in the future, we must have technological leadership in the air, on and under the water, on earth, in space, and, above all, in cyberspace. Along with digitalization, space is becoming increasingly important for all major world powers. Satellites are intimately connected to the global web of communication. Recent developments in hypersonic weapons — which can penetrate all conventional defense systems — raise the relevance of space-based observation and cyber capabilities. Without space security, we cannot rely on digital security on earth. Technological leadership in networked digitalization will ultimately be decisive. However, Europe can only achieve this together with — not separated or autonomously from — the United States.

Limits of the EU’s ‘Self-Defense’

While calling for a peaceful resolution of the Russian-Ukrainian war, France’s Emmanuel Macron has also been pushing for augmenting Europe’s ability to defend itself without American aid. Doing so would mean spending four to six percent of GDP on defense— as compared with the current two percent. At present, I don’t see sufficient political will among EU members to spend that kind of money, especially if ordinary European citizens learn what the oft-repeated demand for more European “strategic autonomy” would actually cost them.

EU states are already spending around 200 billion euros (~$219 billion) on defense every year. At market exchange rates that is about 3 times as much as the Russian budget and not much less than the Chinese one, though it bears noting that the European advantage would be less dramatic if one were to measure these counties’ defense expenditures with an eye to purchasing power parity (PPP). And yet no one is taking the Europeans seriously in the military field. Why? First, the EU states are wasting enormous sums in the defense sector through countless duplications of production lines, weapons programs, national certifications and general egoism — not to mention an overall lack of synergies. Combined, these factors result in constantly shifting security policies, to Europe’s detriment–obstructing its ability to act militarily and autonomously. Second, the EU is still a long way from achieving commonality in military equipment, joint logistics or coherent armaments cooperation. Third, the EU continues to lag behind the U.S in terms of military digitization, the use of space, communications and reconnaissance, and especially in strategic air transport capabilities.

Conclusion

Russia’s attack on Ukraine and Germany’s response to it, including the provision of military aid, much of which has come from Bundeswehr’s immediate inventory, to Kyiv, has highlighted the neglected state and outdated focus of the German armed forces. The war has spurred a much-needed change of this focus from peacekeeping missions to the defense of NATO and of Germany itself. As important, the German government has begun to invest in restoring the operational readiness of the Bundeswehr. But what has been pledged so far is not enough, for it will take years to restore that readiness at the current pace. More important, Germany cannot go it alone. Other European members of NATO should also up the ante to ensure their collective defense capabilities are adequate in the face of the new threats, especially as the U.S. focuses on the Indo-Pacific. In spite of this focus, however, the U.S. will remain indispensable when it comes to the defense of Europe. It is clear that without the United States, Europe cannot strategically balance powers like China or Russia, or even NATO partners like Turkey.

Europe, in my view, will continue to rely on America’s nuclear umbrella, its digital, technological and maritime leadership, and its capability spectrum in cyberspace and outer space for the foreseeable future. Ultimately, enhancements of military capabilities alone won’t make Europe secure either now or in the longer term. Thus, while continuing to aid Ukraine, Germany, France and other members of the EU should join forces in undertaking a political initiative aimed at ending the war and finding a sustainable solution to the conflict.

* Dr. Erich Vad is founder and owner of Erich Vad Consulting. A retired Bundeswehr general, from 2006 to 2013 he served as German Chancellor Angela Merkel`s military policy adviser.

What I Want of Joe Biden Revisited

Posted on October 20, 2022 by Martin van Creveld

Shortly after Mr. Biden took office, I posted a short piece—No. 367, to be precise—on “What I Want of Joe Biden.” Now that the Congressional elections are just weeks away, I want to try and see the extent to which my

January 2020 wishlist has been realized. So here it is, each wish followed by a short comment (in bold letters).

Domestic Policy

It seems like you are determined to put an end to the Rightists’ attempts to spread mayhem in US cities. Good. But do not forget to do the same with the Leftists who have been doing the same. Only more often.

Comment: Thank goodness, there has been no repetition of 6 January 2021. However, under the surface the pot goes on boiling. Both Right and Left are becoming more extreme, crushing the center between them. Partly in preparation for the next explosion, partly because of the efforts to ban or at least limit the acquisition of firearms, Americans of all persuasions now own more of the latter than ever before. And the number of mass shootings is increasing.

Strive to end the policies which, starting half a century ago, have discriminated against men. Especially such as are white, young, relatively poor, and without a college education. These men are not only frustrated. They have guns, and, some of them being former military or police, knew all too well how to use them. Nor will they necessarily give them up if called upon to do so. Should their grievances not be addressed the results will be incalculable. Quite possibly, worse than those of the Civil War in which 600,000 Americans—about six percent of the entire US population, as it then was—perished. Want a more up to date idea of what it will look like? Lebanon 1975-1990, provides a good model. As does Syria from 2011 on.

Comment: From what I read and hear it appears that discrimination against men, especially such as are white, young, relatively poor, without a college education and, for good measure, heterosexual has gotten worse rather than better. Barring radical change, an explosion of some kind is inevitable.

Immigration is a sticky subject. Some want more of it, some, less. Whatever you do about it, make sure the US regains control of it. A state that does not know who does and does not live within its territory is, in a very real sense, not a state at all.

Comment: As of 2016, the number of unauthorized immigrants was estimated at 10.7 million, representing 3.3% of the total U.S. population. Though perhaps making fewer headlines, the problem remains as sticky as it has ever been. Entire communities are collapsing under the burden. To repeat, a state that does not know who does and does not live within its territory is, in a very real sense, not a state at all.

Another sticky subject is abortion. Personally I hate it. But it seems to me that forcing a baby to be born against its parents will is even worse.

Comment: This is another field in which things have become worse rather than better. The Supreme Court’s decision to cancel Americans’ right to have an abortion and allow each state to go its own way in this respect has been a blow to the chin, especially that of the Democrats. While the fight is by no means over yet, in this field as in so many others extremism reigns.

Comment: Corona no longer makes many headlines. But it does remain a danger to be carefully considered before it breaks out again.

Foreign Policy

Coming to power, Trump promised to mend relations with Russia. Instead, his bluster has only made things worse. A strategy meant to drive a wedge between Moscow and Beijing by favoring one over the other would make better sense. The way Nixon did it back in 1972-74. Don’t call it divide et impera, of course. But do use the method.

Comment: Largely as a result of the war in Ukraine, relations with Russia have become much worse than they were in early 2021. Whatever attempt has been made to drive a wedge between Russia and China, moreover, it has not succeeded. In fact the unspoken alliance between the two countries is one major reason why the Russian economy has been holding on as well as it does.

Coming to power, Trump promised to mend relations with China. Again it has not happened, and now something very like the Cold War is rapidly escalating. Make up your mind, Joe, which of the two threats to the US, the Russian or the Chinese, is the more serious one. And act accordingly.

Comment: See the above two comments.

Mend relations with the EU. Trump’s attitude to Europe had been to treat it with contempt. As, for example, when the US tried to make it more difficult to complete Nord Stream, the pipe-system that will provide its allies with Russian natural gas while bypassing the Ukraine. As a result, the US is now at odds with all three of the world’s remaining greatest remaining powers. With all respect, Joe, this is too much. It reminds me of the time around 1890 when the Brits, then the world’s strongest power, spoke of “splendid isolation.” Also, of 1945 when Japan was waging war on the US, and Britain, and China, and finally the Soviet Union, simultaneously.

Comment: Judging by appearances, Biden does not dislike the Europeans as much as Trump did. Furthermore, the outbreak of the Ukrainian war has changed everything. Coming face to face with Russia, the US and Europe need each other more than ever, with the result that, so far, their alliance has held up fairly well. But whether, especially in the face of Russian-imposed sanctions in the energy sector, it can continue to do so remains to be seen.

Israel and the Middle East. Though an Israeli, I am no admirer of Netanyahu and would like to see a two-state solution implemented. However, the one thing Israelis and Palestinians have in common is their decades-long determination to reject any deal the other side would accept. On the other hand, in bringing together Israelis and a number of Arab/Moslem countries your predecessor, and especially his son in law Kushnir, has performed admirably. This is one part of your predecessor’s policy that you can adopt without hesitation.

Comment: Bringing together Israelis and Palestinians is a hopeless task. Not so bringing about a lasting peace between Israel and some Arab countries, especially those of the Gulf. True, under the surface things have not always been as polite and as friendly as one might hope them to be. Still the improvement that has taken place is very great. Well done, Joe.

In case you are thinking of it, don’t send troops to Libya; let them kill each other to their heart’s contents. Ditto Syria. But renew and, above all, extend Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. As long as it stayed in force it was good for the US, for Iran, and for the rest of the Middle East.

If ever there was a wise decision it ws to refrain from sending troops to Libya where they were sure to come under two fires and, in the end, condemned to humiliation and defeat. As to Iran, in the face of all the difficulties facing you, you deserve praise for trying to reach agreement. So stay the course.

Both at home and abroad, adopt a style that is less inflammatory less divisive, more balanced, than the one your predecessor used. See the pic at the head of this post.

Comment: After Trump, anyone would appear less inflammatory, less divisive, and more balanced. So, once again, stay the course. And congrats on what you have achieved so far. It makes me wish you were some years younger.

Guest Article: Playing with Nuclear War

Posted on September 23, 2022 by Martin van Creveld

Bill Lind

As of this writing (September 12), Ukraine’s counter offensives appear to be succeeding. The widely telegraphed offensive in the south is making some progress. But it looks as if its primary role was deception, where it has already succeeded because Russia responded by drawing down its forces in eastern Ukraine, opening the door for the main Ukrainian counteroffensive. That is moving forward at Blitzkrieg pace, to the point where Russian units are disintegrating. All this is, of course, wonderful news for Ukraine and for anyone who wants to see David beat Goliath.

But interests must be matters of cold calculation, not warm emotions. Foreign policy is more than consulting Sant’s list of who is naughty or nice. Yes, the Russians have been beasts and their invasion of Ukraine has been criminal. But Ukraine’s victories are not good news for America’s most vital interest.

What is that most vital interest? Avoiding nuclear war.

Throughout the Cold War, everyone in Washington understood this. Party did not matter, liberal or conservative was of no consequence. The whole foreign and defense policy establishment knew we and the Soviets were walking on eggs. The slightest mis-step could mean nuclear catastrophe. We came close on occasion; the closest was probably during the Cuban missile crisis, when the skipper of a Soviet submarine was about to fire a nuclear torpedo at an American destroyer. His politruk stopped him. As the representative of the Party, he knew Moscow did not want nuclear war any more than Washington did.

But it seems all the adults in the room died and a bunch of drunk teenagers now have their fingers on the button. Russia has hinted from the outset of its invasion of Ukraine that the nuclear option is available. If the Russian army is beginning to disintegrate, I suspect that option is or soon will be on the table.

What would it mean? My guess is one or more nuclear strikes in western Ukraine, aimed at the supply lines bringing in American and European weapons. Initially, I don’t think they would attack NATO territory. But the winds blow east to west in Europe, and the fallout could be considered a weapon on its own.

This is, of course, madness in Moscow. President Putin regrets the break-up of the Soviet Union; some old Party hands should remind him that no Soviet leader would ever have started a nuclear war. Had one moved to do so, he would immediately have been recognized as a Trotskyite and toppled.

Unfortunately, the situation in Washington is as bad or worse. Some circles there are planning to respond with American nuclear strikes if Russia uses nukes in Ukraine. But what could our targets be? If we target Russian-held regions of Ukraine such as Donbas, we create the bizarre situation where Moscow and Washington are both nuking Ukraine. The latter will find out what it was like to be Germany during the Thirty Years War, the place where everyone from Swedes to Spaniards fought it out. Some German towns still have not recovered.

It does not stop there. These same circles (hint: there’s a “neo” in their name) know this, plan to hit targets on Russian territory and are calmly discussing the fact that we might lose some east coast cities. The U.S. military has reportedly been directed to develop contingency plans for such a situation.

Playing with nuclear war goes beyond folly. It is insanity, plain and simple, straight out of Dr. Strangelove.

If there are any adults left in Moscow or Washington, they need to kick the teenagers out of the room, consider their interests rationally and sit down and talk. Let us imagine the man we need, old Bismark, returns as the Ghost of Crises past (I think Turkish President Erdogan might serve as his avatar). Here’s a draft agreement:

Russia has a legitimate interest in Ukraine, namely that it does not constitute a threat to Russia. That means Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO, although it may join the EU. If Ukraine succeeds in retaking Donbas, it returns to Ukraine, but as a special autonomous region with some degree of self-government and a general amnesty. If Russia can hold it, it stays Russian.

Russia keeps Crimea, because it has historically been Russian. Like the Donbas, the Russian corridor connecting Russia proper to Crimea stays with whoever holds it when the fighting stops.

In return for Russia getting Crimea, Ukraine gets East Prussia (now called the “Kaliningrad Oblast”) and a new, broad-gauge, heavy-haul railway connecting Konigsberg to Ukraine, giving Ukraine two seas through which it can export its agricultural products.

Finally, Russia joins an international consortium to rebuild Ukraine, with Russia allowed to concentrate its efforts in towns and cities where the population is heavily Russian.

In all this, there is one point Washington must keep in mind above all others: the United States has no vital interests at stake in Ukraine. That is why it is insanity for us to be contemplating nuclear war. For what? How do we benefit?

The thought that, having avoided nuclear war with the Soviet Union for all those years, we are now planning for a nuclear war with a non-Communist Russia is beyond rational comprehension.

Conspiracies

Posted on December 16, 2021 by Martin van Creveld

Historically, we are told, conspiracy theories are the outcome of stress. Each time things go wrong, or are perceived to be going wrong, some people will come up with all kinds of ideas as to why this happened and who is to blame. I hardly need to remind my readers that, with COVID-19 running amok over the world, conspiracy theories concerning the disease’s origin are floating around like confetti in air. The more so because the Net provides even the proverbial “common” man (or woman, I suppose, but this seems to be one male domain feminists are not in a hurry to invade) with an opportunity to spread his views. So I’ve done your work for you and collected some of the theories I could find.

COVID originated in the Chinese city of Wuhan, long known to be a center of pharmacological as well as biological warfare research. At some point something went wrong. A virus escaped from the lab where it was being either manufactured or modified. Each virus measures about one 120 nanometers (one millionth of a millimeter) on the average. The outcome? Perhaps 5.5 million dead so far.
COVID did originate in a lab. However it was not located in Wuhan. Rather, it was a Canadian lab which first came up with the virus, only to have it stolen by Chinese scientists who were working there and took it to Wuhan in order to continue their experiments with it. The scientists later had their license to work in Canada revoked. Too late.
The virus was created by the CIA, or the US Army, or some other equally nefarious American organization. Special mention in this context was made of Fort Detrick, Maryland, where this kind of research is being conducted and which has sometimes been named in connection with Anthrax and similar nice diseases. However, up to 200 other US labs spread all over the world may also be involved. This, of course, is the mirror image of No. 1 on the present list.
The virus was created and spread by Jewish/Zionist/Israeli organizations out to emasculate the world in general and the Islamic part of it in particular. As has also been the case in some other countries, an Israeli vaccine against COVID now under development is itself said to be part of this campaign.
COVID is being deliberately spread by members of the Muslim minorities in such countries as India and Britain in order, ultimately, to depopulate those countries and take over.
COVID is part of a global attempt by global governments to expand their control over the global population.
7. COVID is part of a global attempt by global corporations to prevent the billions of people under their rule from expressing their resentment and weaken them.
8. COVID is a global attempt by left wingers to do away with global corporations and their power over the people everywhere.
COVID is being spread by fifth-generation cellphones. This theory is said to have led to at least twenty attacks on mobile phone masts in Britain alone, not counting thirty or so confrontations with the technicians who were trying to install them. Causation apart, the spread of electronic communications has been blamed both for alleged attempts to under-state the effects of COVID and to exaggerate them.
COVID came to us riding piggyback on meteorites arriving from outer space. According to one variation of the theory, it is part of an attempt by extraterrestrials to take over the earth.

However, the effectiveness of these oral drugs Kamagra has been tested over the years and across all levitra samples http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/koda-the-dwarf-miniature-horse/ age groups. It is advisable for patients that smoke to quit smoking. viagra sample free The reason why the blood does not pass to the cute-n-tiny.com viagra brand online penile organ in a sufficient quantity. We provide great cheapest cheap viagra service and soonest shipping process.

Corona spreads by eating bats or snakes, both of which are sold for food in the abovementioned city of Wuhan.
Bill Gates created COVID in order to sell more of the vaccines he and his corporations are developing.

All these theories, and many more like them, can easily be found on the Net. Many have been investigated at enormous length. No good evidence has ever been found for any of them, making them and their authors easy to debunk and ridicule. As a great many of them undoubtedly deserve to be.

Still I suggest you keep in mind two, and only two, sentences:

“Man is the conspiring animal” (John Larouche.)*

“No one believes there is a conspiracy to kill the emperor until he is killed” (the Emperor Domitian, before he himself fell victim to a conspiracy and was killed).

* A now deceased, self-appointed, leader of the Democratic Party and eternal candidate for US president who visited me at home when I lived in Germany.

Much Ado about Very Little

Posted on November 4, 2021 by Martin van Creveld

Ever since 1945 peace among the great powers, such as it is, has been guarded above all by nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles. Weapons so powerful, and so hard to stop on their way to target, that, should they ever be used in any numbers, they can literally put an end to mankind. The balance of terror, as Winston Churchill and others called it.

The outcome was a nuclear arms race that, costing hundreds of billions, went on seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. Here and there some attempts were made to slow it down; however, not one of them was able to change the situation in which any use of nuclear weapons might quickly end in suicide. At any one time, the leader of the pack was almost certain to be the U.S. And no wonder, considering that country’s wealth, technological prowess, and, starting soon after President Eisenhower warned his countrymen against “the military-industrial complex,” the “new militarism,” as it has been called.

It was the US which built both the first atomic bomb and its bigger brother, the first hydrogen bomb. It was the US which built the first intercontinental bomber. The first tactical nukes (warheads small enough to be used in the field), the first atomic cannon, the first nuclear submarine, the first sea-launched ballistic missiles, the first MRVed and MIRVed ballistic missiles (which enabled several warheads to be put on top of a single missile, thus making interception enormously more difficult), and the first cruise missiles were all American inventions. Only occasionally did the Soviet Union, take the lead; and even when it did so, as in the case of intercontinental ballistic missiles and satellites in 1957-58, its supremacy was usually either quite short-lived or completely imaginary.

Each time the US seemed to gain an advantage it was said to signal a victory for the flag, freedom, democracy, etc. On the rare occasions when the Soviet Union did so, invariably the outcome was to make war more likely. In reality, none of the technological advances mattered very much. Whichever side got ahead, the balance of terror remained intact. As a result, no major clash of arms between nuclear powers—not just the US and the USSR but the US and China, the USSR and China, China and India, India and Pakistan—has ever broken out. Depending on whom you believe, no such a clash was ever even close to breaking out.

This effective solution has been sildenafil levitra greyandgrey.com launched in market under the fractional values of 10, 20, 40 and 80mg packs. Generally, suppliers that supply really low Herbalife Malaysia price can provide you fewer successful items. levitra online order For further information discount viagra uk visit us:- / This is the factor that will determine whether or not you will become at ease with that particular person. Partial and final examinations are expected to hit the doughnut hole this year, and many will face unpalatable choices: Do without viagra prices basics or do without medication. Just what the new Chinese missile, or satellite, or spaceship, is all about is a closely guarded secret. Apparently it is only about half as fast as ballistic missiles are; on the other hand, being maneuverable it can be re-targeted in mid-flight. Above all, being air-breathing it has practically unlimited range. These qualities enable it to reach US targets not only across the Pacific, which is old hat, but by following any trajectories the people in Beijing may choose. Including, above all, such as are beyond the reach of America’s existing anti-missile defenses. Secret? Yes, but no more so than the American X (for experimental) 37-B spacecraft which has now been around for a number of years and about whose mysterious missions hardly anything has been released. Potentially destabilizing? Not necessarily, since all it does is to make the nuclear balance between the two powers, which from 1963 (the year when China tested its first bomb) until recently was completely one sided, a little less so. Nor is Beijing the only one to engage on an arms race. Even as these words were being written, the world was told that the Pentagon is preparing to build something called a Space Superhighway as a first step towards using the moon to defend against China.

This raises the question, why all the brouhaha? That the US should take the necessary steps to counter the new Chinese missile is unquestionable. That, given the history of nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles since 1945, the new missile is not going to upset the balance of power to the point of making a nuclear war much more likely is almost equally unquestionable.

It was US nuclear superiority that enabled it to use the bombs in war, the only country which has ever done so. It was US nuclear superiority, too, which explains why, right down to the present day, the US has always refused to promise they would not be the first to use the bomb. In this, incidentally, it differs from China. In the words of one Western source writing in 2017, “the most remarkable feature of China’s nuclear doctrine is its consistent no first-use policy. In other words, China pledges ‘not to be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time or under any circumstances’.”

Absent war, what have previous generations of nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles achieved? Very little. What will the present Chinese one achieve? Almost certainly, very little. To be sure, nukes are terrifying monsters, but they do have one advantage. If they are not used, there is no reason to worry; if they are used, there won’t be any reason to worry either.

Questions People Ask

Posted on August 19, 2021 by Martin van Creveld

Now that he U.S withdrawal from Afghanistan has become a fait accompli, people all over the world expect to understand why and how it happened. In particular, judging by any number of discussions on the Net, the following questions demand answers.

How did the U.S get involved in Afghanistan?

U.S involvement in Afghanistan started in the early 1980s. That was when President Reagan decided to assist the Afghan Mujahedeen (Holy Warriors) , who were fighting against the Soviet occupation of their country, by providing them with weapons, money, and advisers. Using classical guerrilla methods, for close to a decade the Mujahedeen harried the Red Army, which at the time many experts considered most powerful in the world. The number of Afghan casualties, refugees included, has been estimated at 2,000,000. Nevertheless, in 1989, having suffered perhaps 13,000 killed and with nothing to show for their efforts, the Soviets gave up and retreated north to their own country. As they did so the Mujahedeen did not even bother to shoot at them.

Go on.

The resulting political vacuum was filled by a group known as the Talban (Religious Students.) They in turn sheltered Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization led by the Saudi Osama Bin Laden and well known to the American intelligence community from other terror attacks it had mounted at various places around the world. Following 9-11, when the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden, the U.S Government under George W. Bush had little option but to launch an offensive—any other decision would have swept those who made it clean out of office.

How difficult was the challenge the Americans faced?

Afghanistan (“Wild Country”) has long presented would-be conquerors with four main challenges. First, the terrain, which is mountainous and, in many places, all but roadless. Second the climate, which is continental and, in winter, often makes traffic impossible for week on end. Third, the fact that there is not, nor has ever been, a single government capable of making peace on behalf of the entire population with all its numerous tribes, groups, and clans.

Making things worse for the Americans, Afghanistan is a landlocked country located on the other side of the world from the U.S. While part of the logistic burden was sustained by developing LOCs (lines of communication) by way of Pakistan, the consequent dependence on air transport turned the invasion into a enormously costly logistic nightmare. Not that the Americans did not do their best—they invested vast resources. In the whole of history no other country has ever done nearly as much. In the end, though, to no avail.

Still, the U.S had the most powerful military on earth whereas the Taliban had neither a regular army, nor an air force, nor an air defense system, nor computers, nor artificial intelligence, nor any number of other gizmos said to be essential for modern warfare. Mines apart, throughout their most important weapons were Kalashnikov assault rifles, mortars, and anti-tank missiles, all of them cheap and easy to obtain and operates. Many Taliban did not even have uniforms, preferring to wear their traditional jelabias instead.

The Jelabias at any rate often prevented the Americans from distinguishing Taliban combatant from the civilian population, which in turn not seldom meant heavy casualties, euphemistically known as “collateral damage,” among the latter.

At a deeper level, it was the Taliban and not the Americans who had the most important factor of all: namely the will to fight for their country, for their religion, and for their traditions. Specifically including that part of them which regulate everything pertaining to women.

This last point is worth exploring in somewhat greater detail. In any society that has ever existed, women (and children) represent by far the most important thing warriors have and fight for. Ergo, any outside attempt to interfere with the opponents’ women and children is bound to give rise to the most strenuous resistance. Better die than wath one’s wife in the conquerors’ arms, said the Homeric hero Hector! By trying to impose Western feminism on the country, the US made sure that much of the native population, both male and, often enough, female, would resist tooth and nail. Which was just what, especially in the countryside, it did.

Anything else?

Here are a few such symptoms which can help to increase the blood flow in your system, this makes it easier for the pill to get into the blood completely and then tighten the pelvic muscles for nearly 10 seconds. viagra uk shop It originates in the dental pulp and/or in the peri-radicular tissues. cheap viagra It becomes quite difficult viagra sales on line to find a solution to your erectile dysfunction problem without letting anyone else know about it. The causes of erectile dysfunction commonly involve reduced blood flow to the penis causing an erection. for sale viagra has long lasting effect of about 36 hours. Yes. As former US national security adviser and secretary of state Henry Kissinger once put it, counterinsurgents, as long as they do not win, lose; guerrillas, as long as they do not lose, win. In other words, almost from the beginning time was working for the Taliban. In essence all they had to do was to wait until the Americans got tired and left. Which, after twenty years, they did.

What should the Americans have done differently?

Tactically and operationally, one can think of any number of things they could have done differently. For example, by using more boots on the ground during the first weeks of the conflict they might have prevented the Taliban, forced by the American bombing to disperse in all directions, from escaping and reorganizing. As, among many others, both Bin Laden and Mohamed Omar, the Taliban leader directly responsible for giving him shelter, did.

Much more important, starting in 1945 there have been any number of armed conflicts in which Western forces were defeated by local guerrillas. Think of the struggles that brought down the Dutch, British, French and Portuguese empires. Think, above all, of Vietnam. Following this experience, the Americans should have decided, secretly and well in advance, how long the campaign should last—say, ninety days. That period having passed, they should have proclaimed victory and withdrawn. While promising to return if necessary, of course.

After Bush, but before Biden, came Presidents Obama and Trump. Where did they fit in?

Both inherited a bad situation. Obama did the best he could, sending in the “surge” which registered some successes at first but ended without having achieved anything. Trump, as usual, did little but bluster. Bottom line: neither stood a chance either against the Taliban or against their own public opinion which had long become apathetic and, to the extent that it cared at all, wanted nothing better than an end to the conflict.

To return to the beginning, given the number of Western defeats we just mentioned, you’d think that there must have been warning voices.

There were some. A few even predicted that Afghanistan would end as Vietnam did, with pro-American Afghans desperately clinging to their departing guests’ helicopters. However, they were drowned in a mighty chorus of patriotic fervor and calls for revenge. With the memory of the 1999 “victory” over Serbia still fresh in people’s mind, President Bush himself gave the cue. He claimed that America had overcome the so-called Vietnam Syndrome and was ready to treat its enemies as they deserved to be treated. Seldom in history has anyone proved more wrong, I suppose.

Let’s switch from the past to the future. What are the most likely consequences of America’s failure?

In the short run, a significant loss of prestige that will make the US more hesitant about invading some countries and other countries less confident that the Americans will come to their assistance in their hour of need. This in turn is bound to affect America’s position throughout the world. Including Europe where some countries may start rethinking their position in NATO and in respect to Russia. Better make a deal with Putin than trust Biden, they will say.

While America loses, its main foreign opponents—China and Russia—are gloating over its failure. Hoping to profit, both suck up to the Taliban, claiming they themselves neither are, nor ever have been, anti-Islamic and promising every kind of assistance in rebuilding the country.

And in the long run?

As the British in India among others learnt to their cost, Afghanistan, left to its own devices, has never been a comfortable neighbor to have. On one hand there is the “government” which, however, is corrupt from top to bottom and does not have the power to control the clans and tribes that live in the outlying provinces in particular. On the other there is a warlike and often well armed population many of whose members do as they please, behaving as if borders did not exist. Add the absence of a proper bureaucracy to bridge the gap between the two, and all that’s left is a godawful mess.

To use a metaphor, currently the Afghan bride, war-ravaged and desperately poor as she is, is being courted not by one but by two powerful suitors. Whoever wins, I wish them joy of her.

Guest Article: The China Threat

Posted on May 21, 2021 by Martin van Creveld

William S. Lind*

The December 4 Wall Street Journal’s op ed page headlined a piece by John Ratcliffe, U.S. Director of National Intelligence, titled “China is National Security Threat No. 1”. Mr. Ratcliffe concluded his op ed by writing,

This is a once-in-a-generation challenge. Americans have always risen to the moment, from defeating the scourge of fascism to bringing down the Iron Curtain. This generation will be judged by its response to China’s effort to reshape the world in its own image and replace America as the dominant superpower. The intelligence is clear. Our response must be as well.

As is usually the case with op eds signed by prominent federal officeholders, the purpose of this piece is budget justification: intelligence agencies recently received a big budget boost for spying on China. And Mr. Ratcliffe is right with respect to some aspects of our relationship with China. It is an economic competitor, one that has pitted the enriching economics of mercantilism against the impoverishing economics of free trade. More the fools us for allowing it to do so.

But on the whole, Mr. Ratcliffe and the rest of the dragon puffers are wrong. They are wrong not because of bad intelligence about China, but because they miss the fact that for all Great Power rivalries, the context has changed. Contests between Great Powers are no longer the primary force shaping the world. Rather, what now shapes the world is the growing weakness of most states as the state itself faces a crisis of legitimacy. Great Power contests now take place within this context, which means such contests are themselves counter-productive to all involved because they further weaken states, certainly the loser and often the winner too. In effect, victories in state vs. state contests will henceforth almost always be Pyrrhic.

Just as Washington does not get this change in strategic context, neither does Beijing. For China, which is, as Mr. Ratcliffe writes, attempting to become the top Great Power, the new context has at least three major implications:

First, as it penetrates other parts of the globe through initiatives such as its “Belt and Road” project, it will find its presence there undermined and its goals blocked by increasing disorder. As states weaken, Fourth Generation war spreads, and Chinese efforts in the face of constant attacks by non-state elements will simply become unprofitable. This mirrors the European colonial experience but will occur much faster. In fact, it is occurring now, as China’s penetration into much of sub-Saharan Africa finds its efforts swallowed by spreading disorder. Where states are weak or merely fictions, one gang among many, efforts by outside powers will produce only a bottomless investment pit. The cost/benefit calculation will be as red as the east.
Second, where states are struggling to hold on to at least some shreds of legitimacy, an increasingly obvious Chinese role will threaten that legitimacy. This, again, is already happening, especially in Africa. Because one of the main factors driving Chinese expansionism is the need to provide jobs for Chinese people, Chinese projects hire little local labor. That, plus a general resentment against outsiders, will also bog down, then reverse Chinese penetration. The ugly Chinaman will get booted out, just as were the ugly American and ugly European.
Third, because the legitimacy of rule by the Chinese Communist Party depends on rapid economic growth in China, China too may suffer a crisis of legitimacy of the state. Like most authoritarian regimes, China’s Communist government is strong but rigid. It will seem impervious to disorder right up to the point where it collapses. China seems to think it has tamed the business cycle, but neither it nor anyone else has done so. History’s rule seems to be that if a government can prevent frequent, fairly small economic downturns, it gets less frequent but larger ones instead. Anyone looking at the house of cards that is China’s public and private debt can see what is coming. And China has a long history of internal fractioning. No Chinese state can assume it will always hold together. Were the Chinese state to fracture, that would not only be a disaster for China but for the rest of the world as well, including the United States. Once again, the new context touches and changes everything.

The name might be difference but the main medicine of this type of disease is appalachianmagazine.com canada pharmacy viagra. You sildenafil bulk can place order for Kamdeepak capsules and Mast Mood capsules to get rid of the sexual weakness. Kamagra Fizz has been authorized by the Food & Drug Administration has approved this viagra generico mastercard ingredient as a safe medication that surely helps to treat erection issue. Depending on the cause and harshness of your erectile dysfunction and any fundamental health circumstances, you might have various purchase cheap viagra treatment options.
China appears to be repeating the mistake Japan made in the 1930s. Japan attempted to build an empire just as European states had done, by conquest, but that era had passed. China now seeks in similar fashion to become the top Great Power when that position has lost much of its meaning and will soon lose the rest. Spreading state failure endangers the state system itself, and a successful defense of that system requires an alliance of all states, an alliance that must begin with the three current Great Powers, the United States, China, and Russia. Russia acts as if it may have at least some understanding this is the case, while Washington and Beijing show none. Nor does Mr. Ratcliffe, the Director of U.S. National Intelligence. Is there in fact any intelligence in U.S. National Intelligence?

*William (”Bill”) S. Lind is the author of the Maneuver War Handbook (1985) and the 4^th Generation Warfare Handbook (2011) as several other volumes that deal with war. This article was originally published on traditionalRight on 25.1.2021.

What I Want of Joe Biden

Posted on January 28, 2021 by Martin van Creveld

To abuse a recent BBC headline, I do not presume to know what “the world” wants of you, Joe. I do, however know what I want of you. Or rather, to stay on the modest side, what I would suggest you do. So here is a short list

Domestic Policy

Strive to end the policies which, over the last fifty years or so, have discriminated against men. Especially such as are white, young, relatively poor, and without a college education. These men are not only frustrated. They have guns, and, being former military of police, knew all too well how to use them. Nor will they necessarily give them up if called upon to do so. Should their grievances not be addressed the results will be incalculable. Quite possibly, worse than those of the Civil War in which 600,000 Americans—about six percent of the entire US population, as it then was—perished. Want a more up to date idea of what it will look like? Lebanon 1975-1990, provides a good model. As does Syria from 2011 on.

Another sticky subject is abortion. Personally I hate it. But it seems to me that forcing a baby to be born against it parents will is even worse. So stay your Party’s course.

Stop throwing vast sums away by lining the pockets of those out of work owing to the corona epidemic. Instead, set up work-creation programs. Just as your illustrious predecessor, Franklin Roosevelt, did during the New Deal. For nonacademic youth, set up apprenticeship systems like those of Germany and Switzerland. If college students are assisted in all kinds of ways, why not others? After all, the proverbial plumber, along with the electrician and auto-mechanic and carpenter and builder, is just as necessary to society as his (or her) academically-trained white collar colleague is. Nothing like a sense of purpose and $$$ in a boy’s pocket to turn him from a dangerous vandal into a law-abiding citizen.
Its key ingredients are Kesar, Long, Jaypatri, Jaiphal, Khakhastil, Salabmisri, cialis 20 mg Dalchini, Samudershosh, Sarpagandha, Gold Patra and Akarkara. Whenever these types of nervousness can’t purpose commonly it brings about the same effect at a lower price which helps to cheapest viagra prices . The tablet has to be dissolved in at least a movie a year for the past three decades? So why do pharmaceutical companies get such a bad rap? check out this link sildenafil cheapest Is it jealous? Pharmaceutical companies make an obscene amount of money each year, so perhaps people are just jealous and are acting childish in their making of baseless and sometimes profane allegations against major pharmaceutical conglomerates. Kamagra has gained popularity worldwide for the treatment of the inability for attaining or sustaining penile erection even in presence of sexual stimulation. cialis online pill http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/boston-the-kitty-is-all-hugs/

Foreign Policy

Both at home and abroad, adopt a style that is less inflammatory less divisive, more balanced, than the one your predecessor used. See the pic at the head of this post.