Bibi, Iran’s nukes, and military force in a changed Middle East

Game change.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on the march. (Image: AFP via Der Spiegel)
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on the march. (Image: AFP via Der Spiegel)

New post up at Liberty Unyielding.  Enjoy!

About that new Navy readiness policy

State of unreadiness.

 

Make your bullet count...
Make your bullet count…

A piece by David Axe at War is Boring has been flying around the web.  Axe has done a nice job of translating the gobbledygook from this Navy slide presentation into English.  That said, we can add a little focus and precision to his commentary, and a couple of points about the implications of this move. Continue reading “About that new Navy readiness policy”

So…what should we be doing in foreign policy now?

Doing less with less.

The pessimism out there is palpable, and for good reason.  They’re all right.  Richard Fernandez: Olympus has fallen.  Bryan Preston: We are so screwed.  Stephen Green (VodkaPundit): Pastis in our timeNational Review: On Syria, from bad to worse.  Victor Davis Hanson: Putin – Saruman Come Alive.*  Peggy Noonan: Team Obama, people who know nothing – really nothing – about history.  Kori Schake (Foreign Policy): Obama speech remarkably – alarmingly – flabby.  Ann Coulter: Syrial losers.  Jackie Gingrich Cushman: Obama on Syria: Following from behind.  Hal G.P. Colebatch (American Spectator): Obama as Queeg: A few cruise missiles short in the leadership arsenal.

On it goes. Continue reading “So…what should we be doing in foreign policy now?”

Rock, hard place, Syria

Force depth: all gone.

Through his latest action, calling for a vote of Congress on a strike against the Assad regime – but not trying to make it happen quickly – Obama has crystallized the Syria dilemma to the fullest extent.

It is no longer necessary to predict that failure to make good on his promise about a “red line” will be fatal to American credibility.  The die is cast.  We have reached the limit of fate’s tolerance for indecision, and the verdict is in: Obama, and the West, couldn’t handle this one.

But hold that thought for a moment – call it the rock in this scenario – and let us consider the hard place, which has its own argument to make.  Those who have continued to press for a military response in Syria seem not to understand that the situation of the U.S. military is severely compromised, due to the very real effects of not spending on readiness.  We literally do not have the forces available to expand on any limited strikes we might undertake. Continue reading “Rock, hard place, Syria”

Just a reminder: Military readiness affects the viability of Syria operations too

Fading.

After U.S. officials agreed last week that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons on its people, politicians and pundits resumed making the case for a U.S. intervention in Syria.  And they speak as if the budget cuts affecting the Air Force and Navy won’t affect our ability to launch operations overseas.  Their heads apparently aren’t around that reality yet.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) suggested that enforcing a no-fly zone could be required.  He expressed concern that the administration would maneuver to delay action – and he is no doubt right.  Charles Krauthammer pointed out on Fox News’s Special Report that the president’s credibility is on the line, given his clear identification of chemical weapons use as a “red line” for the U.S. on the Syria crisis.  But no one mentioned the core limitation of military readiness.

You may or may not think it’s advisable for the U.S. to intervene in Syria, even with an operation of minimal scope.  But Continue reading “Just a reminder: Military readiness affects the viability of Syria operations too”