Houthi

An interesting article on the recent history and the players. I won't swear to it's completeness, of course -- I'm nowhere near knowledgeable about Yemen.

Twenty five years later

I rode the bus to work with no radio and no internet. I saw nobody to speak with except Matt in the 3'rd floor who saluted me with a cryptic "It's your fault!" and walked on. I didn't know what to make of that – Matt had a strange sense of humor sometimes. There weren't a lot of people around.

I logged into the desktop, and the news was ugly. BBC's website was sluggish, the NYT was a bare skeleton page. I turned on the radio and listened.

It was obviously a war.

We'd been a long time without a major war, especially one on US soil. That kind of mostly peace couldn't have lasted forever, but I'd hoped …

The next thing I thought of was our 8-year-old youngest son marching off to war. I'd be willing to go in his place, but I was already too old for that. And there'd be a few years yet – I had no illusions about wars being short; they typically aren't, though the hostilities ebb and flow. In the event, we were rich enough to be able to trade money for blood, and didn't need large armies. So far. That trade only works if the war is mostly "somewhere else."

The culprits were identified surprisingly quickly. Or better say, "The proximate enemy was identified surprisingly quickly."

In the next few days the University sponsored a gathering to "work through" the news and the emotions, and with typical failure of imagination completely forgot to add to the roster of speakers a pastor or chaplain, i.e. somebody who regularly tries to comfort people suffering loss and pain. I didn't find that one professor's "travelogue" particularly moving or useful.

That blind spot persists, I'm afraid. Twenty-five years later I still don't see that the powers-that-be have a good grasp of what a religious war entails. Realpolitik may work with the rich and powerful rulers in a region, but in the end even authoritarian rulers hold their tenure by sufferance, and if the imams denounce you as an infidel there will be a change one day.

And it is curious what faith our aggressively secular rulers have in the evangelistic power of Mammon and John Locke.

What if..

we had a world without nuclear weapons? Donald Sensing has a picture. Or 12.

Old vulnerabilties surfacing

About 17 years ago I was designing the SCADA (PVSS II) control/monitoring of an alignment check system. It had taken a bit longer than it should for me to translate the programming jargon, but I got the hang of the paradigm after a while.

Word on the street was that this same software was used by the big boys for power generation and distribution, ditto water, etc. And that the security on the installations was laughable--once you got into the network you could monkey at will. It might be hard to cause damage unless you knew the details of the system. But if you coordinated an arson attack with a water outage... Something as naive as "clicking the power off" button could cause temporary problems, but editing the reaction scripts would cause harder-to-find issues.

This was a few years after 9/11, and one would have expected a certain heightened awareness of vulnerabilities. Perhaps there was, and the details were kept quiet while people tried to fix them. Or perhaps there was, and the cans were quietly kicked down the road.

I gather from the news yesterday that some vulnerabilities still exist--not least to denial of service attacks on such service infrastructure.

Lands without government

One of the reasons for recognizing nations is to have a single point of contact for coordinating things like war and peace, contract disputes, handing over (or not) alleged criminals for trials for crimes done elsewhere...

The whole point is to have that encapsulation--a single entity that manages the big picture relations between the people of different areas. It reduces complexity and confusion.

Without that, if you want to arrange for an end to armed conflict between your people and another "nation," you have to find representatives of all the groups and get each of them to agree to a cease-fire separately.

If you can deal with a single government, that government has the responsibility of enforcing the agreement on its internal groups.

But when there's no central authority for an area from which hostilities flow, what choices do you have?

Cut a deal with the groups that will deal, and accept that the rest will keep attacking you? That may not work if the holdouts have enough power to inflict serious harm.

Arrange for somebody else to conquer the holdouts, and then negotiate with you on their behalf--putting in a government you can deal with?

Invade the area yourself, and destroy the holdouts, and keep them suppressed? That might get the non-holdouts cheesed off at you too, and get you into a bigger problem.

Do punitive invasions where you tear into the holdouts and their temporary allies, and then leave? See above.

There are several places in the world where the nominal central government doesn't actually have effective control. One of them, insofar as control of military actions is concerned (and that probably extends into other fields as well), may well be Iran. That was their fall-back plan, anyway. I don't know who is talking to who about what, though I hope that secret (and no doubt face-saving) talks are underway about the uranium.

Interesting times

The Fourth as seen by Neptunus

I wasn't introduced to his work until after he died. His meditations on the celebration.

If I thought of this, so has someone else

How many shipping containers would 600 of this mix of drones fit in?

We've plenty of space in the country where you could buy land and build a barn to keep satellites from seeing anything out of the ordinary, well within range of air bases. Assembling enough people to manage the rapid unpacking and launches without having an informer in the group might be a problem, depending on the group doing the attacking.

Just destroying the aircraft on a few bases would be painfully expensive, though not crippling.

And there are plenty of infrastructure targets too, some fairly fragile. I gather there's redundancy for a lot of our capacity: if California is a bit messed up we've still got Texas and Louisiana. Still, oceans around us don't protect as well as they used to, unless we search everything coming in.

Saving face

One point I didn't make in my thoughts on negotiations with Iran was that if the IRGC was going to save face, we would have to lose face.

Negotiations

I commented back in March that the IRGC in Iran was probably going to be in the final state in Iran unless we were willing to go all out with boots on the ground (or the big bombs, I suppose).

I didn't think about what shape agreements would take. The Strait open goes without saying. The question is what about the uranium?

I don't see the IRGC being willing to publicly give it up. Supposing a faction had the power to do so, offering to would be an invitation for another faction to denounce and attack them, grabbing their territory and control of the uranium.

So face-saving would be built into the agreement. They'd agree to something lesser that in practice (and in secret) amounts to giving it up.

Except for weaseling. They would fake the records ("A GBU-57 ate my homework") and offer up half the uranium.

We'd have to rely a lot on intel, and by this time I'm not sure how many useful assets remain.

And, of course, nobody will explain what's really going on, leaving lots of room for nasty politicking.

Won or not done?

Althouse wrote: "The war is over. We won. Iran just won't admit it,"

I'm not sure that's true. I think we won the first phase (taking more hurt than we admitted but yes, winning), and now we're in the second phase--the seige. Remember seiges? We remember WWII as mostly kinetic, but in the Pacific we did some island hopping too; isolating Japanese outposts and waiting for them to wilt.

I assume that the mosaic land defense the Iranians planned was paralleled by a "mosaic" coastal capability as well, and that eradicating all their hidden coves and attack boats will take a while. No simple "decapitation" here. And some of those attack boats/mine layers will be genuine fishing boats, slightly repurposed.

In case you were wondering about drones

People are learning how to use and counter drones in battle. By now it's common knowledge that a truck is a drone (followed swiftly by artillary) magnet. This is for the foot soldier, though some is relevant for civilians caught in the middle.

---

My suspicion is that the vast open areas in the USA make us more vulnerable to drone attacks and assassinations than more congested countries, once an adversary manages to smuggle inventory in.

After Saturday comes Sunday

Is there a Muslim group that denounces the Little Satan that does not also hate the Great Satan?

It seems that it has been this way all my life.

Quasi-war

Perhaps my history books covering the era were defective, or my memory is, but somehow I missed the US quasi-war with France. Stuff like the XYZ affair got overshadowed by the War of 1812, I guess.

France had loaned us money for the Revolutionary War. In 1793 we found it inexpedient to keep paying (Louis was dead, and we were having trouble with the Brits), and the French Directorate got a bit upset with us and let loose privateers to seize ships. With customary brilliance Congress had sold off the last warships.

The Brits had us over a barrel--they had a bigger navy and were at war with France (and seizing some of our ships trading with France too) -- and the resulting Jay treaty left us nominally sort-of anti-French (not popularly, though).

We wound up losing about 2000 merchant ships by the time things wound down.

No declaration of war (the Supreme Court said that was OK) -- that set a bit of precedent. It made sense not to go all out; all we wanted to do was shoot up their corsairs until they quit bothering us. And get reimbursed for our loses, which didn't happen.

Winning in Iran

I don't see the point of talking about "unconditional surrender"--we can't enforce that without boots on the ground and everybody knows we can't do that (Data republican has numbers).

My record at prediction isn't good, so don't take this as prophecy, but at a guess, since politics is the art of the possible and Iran's mullahs invested the IRCG with a lot of their enforcement power, then if there is "regime change" the IRCG will play some role. Who has the arms and organization to stamp them out?

That would imply that the new government wouldn't be entirely satisfactory to us, since it would include a faction that still wants regional domination (and maybe to "immanentize the eschaton" too), and not be altogether stable either.

That's almost certainly still better than the previous situation. We can't command nice clear-cut victories and transformations all the time; or even most of the time. Even World War II -- we had lots of boots on the ground and "unconditional surrenders," and we still had to make some very messy compromises at the end of it: not least with the USSR, but also with the Germans and Japanese.

I sometimes think it's safer to fight for interests rather than ideals. Interests you can compromise, if the matter is not existential: "We need X but the price is too high so we'll settle for Y, at least for the next decade"; but ideals sometimes demand more dedication.

Iranian agents

For decades I have heard dark warnings that Iran has sleeper cells in the USA waiting for the word to do something.(*) I guess now we find out how many are ready. Or perhaps, how many are prepared to act before they discover whether their erstwhile paymasters are still in business.

(*) Not with hard evidence, just with "It's obvious that they would." And it is obvious that they'd want to try, but I'm not expert on how supply, command, and control would work on a decades-long insertion. It's probably way cheaper to fund existing networks than to create your own; though you lose the "control" part.

Privateers

Grim's sense is that privateers could work better than the more bureaucratic armed forces. He has far more experience with the bureaucratic armed forces than I, but I worry about a few details.

To whom do the privateers owe primary allegiance? Their organization or the country for whom they are fighting? With just a smidgeon of corruption and media connivance (you tell me if that exists in this country) it wouldn't be hard for a cartel to get approval and funding to attack their rivals.

Even with an organization with less disreputable initial aims than a cartel, mission creep can turn it into a public menace.

Going further, what would privateering look like in an era of drones? Drones can be carried and controlled in a truck as easily as in a boat--probably more so. Inconvenient prosecutors or judges might have to hide. Organizations do go rogue sometimes.

And as the cited Sal Mercogliano video notes, it isn't as though the US has a small navy anymore: 2nd largest in the world (Sal says 1st, but that's the Chinese). Recent events show that bureaucracies don't have to slow it down that much.

The law might have one useful side effect--it could force Congress to decide what sort of relationship we have with hostile non-state armed organizations. Is it a war, or something else--and when do we know we've won?

Venezuela ignorance

I don't think I know yet what's going on with Maduro. The reason I've heard for the strike is that Maduro is simultaneously head of an organized crime syndicate and illegitimate dictator of Venezuela, and that in his capacity as the former we've captured him and removed his from the latter position.

The attacks on the drug boats (is anybody still thinking they're fishing boats?) were, in this view, attacks on a non-state hostile actor. I gather that there's actually a fair bit of analysis on the subject of war against non-state actors, but I'm nowhere near expert enough to comment on that aspect.

An alternative interpretation, not based on official pronouncement ("Believe nothing until it has been officially denied"), is that Venezuela's ties with Iran are the key. I've run across rumors that Venezuela has been transporting people and munitions into the US on Iran's behalf. The "transport" part of that is plausible whether Maduro is a drug lord or an Iran ally; the "on Iran's behalf" isn't proven.

But if that was the reason, why not say so? The usual claim is "that compromises sources," but unless the sources were very high up in Iran I'd think this and the nuke facility strikes would be enough for them to try to clean house anyway.

I don't understand what the indictment is for. If Maduro is subject to US laws (e.g. possession of machine guns), then by symmetry I am subject to British law regarding what type of knife I'm allowed to have and to Saudi law for expressing my judgment that Muhammad was a false prophet.

Just no. Let's not admit that kind of precedent.

I really really do not want us to be responsible for running Venezuela. Probably a fair bit of house-cleaning is going to be required to get the presumed gangsters/Iranian partisans out of the positions they've been stuffed in--but I don't think we're the best people to winkle them out.

I wonder how brittle our PowersThatBe think the regime is?

Vanity

I have neglected some classical literature. The Vanity of Human Wishes by Samuel Johnson was suggeted to me. I'd not read anything by him that I can recall; I needed to remedy that.

But some great lines: "How Nations sink, by darling Schemes oppres’d," sounds very timely. Or "When Statutes glean the Refuse of the Sword" In context I don't believe Johnson was right. He thought the poor were less likely targets, but as Sowell quoted a sixteenth century German bishop as saying "The poor are a gold mine." Those statutes Johnson mentions don't glean much from any one of the poor, but there are so many that the income is large.

War and consequences: "And mortgag’d States their Grandsires Wreaths regret From Age to Age in everlasting Debt"

And about beauty: "Ye Nymphs of rosy Lips and radiant Eyes, Whom Pleasure keeps too busy to be wise," ... "What Care, what Rules your heedless Charms shall save, Each Nymph your Rival, and each Youth your Slave? An envious Breast with certain Mischief glows, And Slaves, the Maxim tells, are always Foes."

And I see where Austin got the phrase "Pride and Prejudice."

Defense

I was reading about Charlie Kirk over at Althouse (retired law professor specializing in "cruel neutrality"), and noticed that many of her commenters urged us all to "buy a gun."

Nothing wrong with that, but why? To defend yourself against the "Antifa" blackshirts? OK, fine, but who are they?

If I read the numbers right, there's more than enough firepower in honest hands to obliterate the Outfit, the Tren de Aragua, the Gangster Disciples, the Somali Outlaws, the Wah Ching, and all their related ilk (plausible candidates for "hostis humani generis" and outlawry)--in standup battles. But in practice, the gangs survive though secrecy and intimidation and connections with law enforcement.

Who's going to identify them for you? "I'm from Antifa and I'm here to kill you. Go get your gun." Sure. Or were you thinking of trying to track them to their lairs and attack them? You'll find them better defended than you hope. And where they are street enforcers for political groups, they will have some outside support as well. The bombers from the 70's were funded by rich lawyers (and occasional bank robbery). Remember the Klan.

And if you're worried about being surprised, some body armor might be handier than a rifle. (sniper?) And buddies with you could be even more useful--gangsters seem to prefer "defeat in detail."

I'm not talking about street crime here, or subway crime. That you can sometimes have an impact on, provided you're prepared and alert. I just don't see firearms as magical defenses against this kind of violence.

Cargo and kinetic interdiction

I wonder what would have been different with Trump's announcement if that Tren de Aragua fast boat had been carrying some Iraniam passengers.

It seems as though a major principle of international law is encapulation: The relevant entities are sovereign states responsible for the activities of the subjects in their physical domain, and to some extent those which travel as well. Nothing else has the firepower of the state, both to repel outsiders and control their own.

That latter is not universally true now, if it ever was. Bandits too powerful for kings to deal with crop up all through history. Sometimes they wind up setting up states of their own, or even overthrowing the king.

So how ought a nation deal with a hostile non-governmental power? Declare them terrorists/outlaw/enemies and kill them wherever you find them, just as you would with a traditional enemy state? -- no matter what state they are nominally subject to?

That sort of piggy-backs on the framework we use, though in the absence of a transparent hierarchy it's hard to know who to trust if you want to work out a peace deal. Is Jose or Abdul the one you should deal with, if either? What do you do if Hess drops in and offers a deal?

And turnabout is fair play--suppose Canada decided that the Gangster Disciples were a terrorist group and enemy of all mankind, and started to do something about it. The Chicago establishment would have a cow at the attacks on their people, and the Washington crowd would be deeply insulted and angry at the insinuation that they were incapable of dealing with crime and that they didn't properly appreciate its hazard to others.