Prescient (Or Not?)

Russia is still contending with the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Russia can meddle in Ukraine at the margins, but threats to fully invade and occupy a country of more than 44 million people aren’t credible.  That big a move would cost too many Russian lives and too many rubles for a chronically weak – and weakening – Russian economy.  In recent months, Belarus provided the latest example of the post-Soviet demand for fundamental change and the need to shoot people to keep protests under control.  In the most recent presidential election in Moldova, a Harvard-educated economist toppled a pro-Kremlin incumbent.  Last year, Turkey’s backing for Azerbaijan dealt a humiliating defeat to Russian ally Armenia in a region that Russia once dominated.  Beijing is increasingly competing for influence with Moscow among the former Soviet Central Asian states.
—     Ian Bremmer
From his opinion piece:  “The Risk Report: What game is Putin playing?“
Appearing in:  Time Magazine;  dtd:  21/28 June 2021
[It seems the “threat” of invasion was a little more “credible” than Mr. Bremmer believed (the editorial was from 2021).  IF the West continues to support Ukraine and IF Putin doesn’t resort to tactical nukes, it appears Mr. Bremmer will ultimately be proven correct that Russia bit off it bit more than it could chew (let alone conquer).    —    KMAB]
.
On This Day In:
2021	Or Faith In A Creator…
	It Seemed The Taste Was Not So Sweet
2020	Nearer My God To Thee, By George
	I’ve Got To Keep Working On It
2019	Laugh With Me
2018	Both Sides, Mr. President?
2017	Republicans Better Wake Up
2016	Truth Telling
2015	To Be Effective In The Modern World
2014	A Little Cover
2013	Binding
2012	Lift
2011	Another Good Movie, Another Excellent Book
	miSFits
	I’m Just Not Sure

Read Full Post »

Particularly Peaceful Neighbors

Make happy those who are near, and those who are far will come.
—     Chinese Proverb
[Hopefully, this is what China advised Putin before he invaded Ukraine.  If they did, he should have listened to their advice.  (And, no, I don’t really think they said this to him.)    —    KMAB]
.
On This Day In:
2021	Thoughts
	It’s A Rich Man’s World
2020	Pax Et Justitia
2019	And Unlawful Orders From A President
2018	Instinct For Presence
2017	Hard Enough
2016	Jumps
2015	One View Of Failure
2014	We Speak For Earth
2013	Inward Urgency
2012	Delayed Reviews
	Fulfilling My Duty
2011	Interference

Read Full Post »

Putin’s Objective In Ukraine?

Management by objective works – if you know the objectives.  Ninety percent of the time you don’t.
—     Peter Drucker
.
On This Day In:
2022	Putin’s Objective In Ukraine?
2021	It’s 12 O’clock Somewhere
	The Way It Is
2020	And #IncompetentDonald Weakens It
2019	Morning Mirror
2018	Wondering About #45
2017	A Prayer For London
2016	Don’t Default
2015	Her Pilgrim Soul
2014	Three Observations
2013	Robbed Again
2012	Good Hearts
2011	Interesting Reading
	What Are You Lookin’ At?

Read Full Post »

Somebody Should Have Warned Putin About Ukraine

He who licks knives will soon cut his tongue.
—     Ukrainian proverb
We don’t even know how strong we are until we are forced to bring that hidden strength forward.
—     Isabel Allende
.
On This Day In:
2022	Somebody Should Have Warned Putin About Ukraine
2021	No Plan And Less Sand
	It Might Sound Strange
2020	Why #45 Is In The Dark
	180 Day Health / Weight Update (Mar 2020)
2019	Tonight I Am All Blacks
	In All Its Messy Complexity
2018	Danger = Opportunity
2017	True And Great
	Sand At The Beach
2016	There Is A Difference Between Dangerous And Frightening
2015	Always A Goal
2014	Standing Strong
2013	Shaken And Stirred
	The Bird With The Broken Wing
2012	Friends In High Places
2011	Objective Independence

Read Full Post »

Putin’s War On Ukraine: Choosing Lies

Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose and you allow him to make war at pleasure.
—     Abraham Lincoln
.
On This Day In:
2022	Putin’s War On Ukraine: Choosing Lies
2021	How Many Times
	I’m Breaking My Silence
2020	When Looking Around
2019	Except Dying
2018	History Will Judge Him Favorably
2017	Are You Confused?
2016	The Golden Mean
2015	To Infinity And Beyond
2014	Taken Back
2013	Windows Or Doors
2012	All Rise
2011	Vote Weight

Read Full Post »

Putin Invades Ukraine To Recreate The Old Soviet Union

Schoolboy days are no happier than the days of afterlife, but we look back upon them regretfully because we have forgotten our punishments at school and how we grieved when our marbles were lost and our kites destroyed – because we have forgotten all the sorrows and privations of the canonied ethic and remember only its orchard robberies, its wooden-sword pageants, and its fishing holidays.
—     Mark Twain
.
On This Day In:
2022	Putin Invades Ukraine To Recreate The Old Soviet Union
2021	Even If It’s A Nice View
	There’s A Calm Before The Storm
2020	First Steps – The (California) Primary Vote
	#IncompetentTrump Administration Faces A Pandemic
2019	Hearts Torn In Every Way
2018	Recently Seen On A T-shirt:
2017	Rhythmical Creation
2016	In The Beginning
2015	False Gods
2014	But Sometimes Careers Choose People
2013	Pretty Sure Of Uncertainty
2012	Face Reality
2011	Intelligent Luck

Read Full Post »

A Novel War

“2034: A Novel of the Next World War”  (2021©)  —  book review
The book subject to today’s review was written by Elliot Ackerman, James Stavridis Admiral USN (ret.).  Ackerman is a former White House Fellow and decorated Marine veteran.  Stavridis is, of course, best known as a four-star Admiral and former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.  Ackerman is a working journalist / opinion writer and both are authors of multiple books.  That’s pretty much their bonafides for writing a “future – history” about world war / combat.
This novel is set thirteen years in the future.  Putin is still in charge of Russia.  The U.S. has a female President from an Independent party.  And, we don’t really know much about anyone else in charge around the world.  We know China is pushing its claims in the northern Pacific, yet Taiwan remains an independent “nation” state.  India has somehow “resolved” the Pakistan issue in its favor, but we don’t know what that means for either India or Pakistan.  NATO is in disarray without strong U.S. leadership.  And, finally, Iran has had some success against Israel.  What isn’t exactly made clear, except Iran has somehow “freed” the Golan Heights.
Background:  The first third of this book was published as a special “full dedicated issue” recently in Wired magazine, which I subscribe to.  I have read EVERY issue of the magazine since inception back in 1993.  The company I worked for back in 2000 had all of the back issues on a shelf and I would “borrow” them one at a time, read cover to cover and then bring them back.  As far as I know, no one else EVER read any of them, as once I was hired, I kept the current ones on my desk and no one ever asked for them.  Shortly before leaving the company, I got a personal subscription and have continued reading them for the last 20 years.  Anyway, Wired‘s issue left you hanging with the promise of a future novel publication in March 2021.  My review is of the full publication.  This book was one of two I received as a birthday present from my wife.
And,…  This book is about a military conflict between China and the United States.  Supposedly, China is an ascending world power and the U.S. is a descending / failing world power.  China stages a confrontation in order to demonstrate its military superiority – and the world slips into war.
Is the book interesting?  Informative?  Entertaining?  Accurate – technologically, politically or militarily?  Is it worth the time to read it?  To be honest, the magazine promised more than the book delivered.  The answer to all five of those questions is mostly so-so…
It is a fast read at barely over 300 pages.  The problem is there isn’t much there – there.  I don’t know how much (if any) current military capability Ackerman has access to.  It is a given (to me) that Stavridis would have had nearly unlimited access (pre-retirement anyway).  The problem is, of course, the book would have had to be submitted to and cleared through State and DOD before it was published and neither agencies (nor the authors) would have been inclined to offer much useful information in a novel.
With nothing but the most general capabilities described we get a lot of implausible “magic” technology under the guise of “AI” (Artificial Intelligence) which seems to work perfectly and then not at all.  We get very poor strategic decisions / action by the U.S.; we get some oversimplification of other technologies (overseas internet cabling);  side tracks by Russia and Iran, which seem to have been added to make the conflict global rather than China vs. U.S.;  and then we get a couple of miracles at the end by India to conclude the novel / war.  That pretty much covers the “informative and accuracy” portion of this review.
What about interesting and entertaining?  Again, so-so…  There are five main characters: female American Admiral, male American fighter pilot, male American (Indian immigrant) NSC advisor, male Iranian officer (he ends up with various ranks), and the main Chinese (half-American) Admiral.  The story is told from each of their viewpoints.  (Yes, there are also another handful of secondary but important characters, but this is really about the big five.)
The problem I had was the number of characters made for a long, deep story which developed each character to the point where you cared about them without giving away too much plot / ending.  Unfortunately, this book is neither long nor deep, which meant you almost cared, but not quite.  And, again unfortunately, it was almost entirely predictable and therefore, while I finished feeling entertained, I didn’t feel satisfied – emotionally or intellectually.
Then is it worth your time, then?  Yes!  It raises the interesting question if military technology is useful if it is subject to (can be negated by) a less expensive counter-measure.  In this case, the apparent answer is that if the elephant is blinded, it is still an elephant and not easily overwhelmed.
Final recommendation:  moderate to strong.  This is not Tom Clancy or Sir John Hackett level political, military or strategy writing, but I did find it entertaining even if not informative or militarily consistent.  I’m grateful to have received it as a present, because I’d have waited for the paperback or a very reduced price before buying it myself.  So I got to read something almost literally hot off the presses…
Final disclaimer:  I purchased this book at normal / sale price and no compensation has been provided to me by anyone for my opinions in this review.
.
On This Day In:
2022	Understanding True Achievement
2021	Avoiding Corners
	Nobody Knows
	A Novel War
2020	First Buds
	To Fly
2019	What If Nobody Believes Them Either
2018	It’s About Heart Not Skill
2017	Winning So Much I’m Already Tired Of It (Not)
2016	Punishing Red Binge
2015	Bits In The Soup
2014	More Beef, Less Bull
2013	Where Are Your Mountains
2012	Spherical Knowledge Of Hamsters
2011	Taking Stock Over Time

Read Full Post »

Honorable Resignation And Syria

Defense Secretary James Mattis resigned today (20 December 2018) – effective 28 February 2019, to allow time for a replacement confirmation.   Secretary Mattis (Retired Marine Corps General) resigned due to differences with the policies of President Trump.  Below is Secretary Mattis’ resignation letter (and transcript below that).
Dear Mr. President:
I have been privileged to serve as our country’s 26th Secretary of Defense which has allowed me to serve alongside our men and women of the Department in defense of our citizens and our ideals.
I am proud of the progress that has been made over the past two years on some of the key goals articulated in our National Defense Strategy: putting the Department on a more sound budgetary footing, improving readiness and lethality in our forces, and reforming the Department’s business practices for greater performance.  Our troops continue to provide the capabilities needed to prevail in conflict and sustain strong U.S. global influence.
One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships.  While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies.  Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world.  Instead, we must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances.  NATO’s 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside us following the 9-11 attack on America.  The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof.
Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours.  It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model – gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions – to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies.  That is why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense.
My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues.  We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances.
Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.  The end date for my tenure is February 28, 2019, a date that should allow sufficient time for a successor to be nominated and confirmed as well as to make sure the Department’s interests are properly articulated and protected at upcoming events to include Congressional posture hearings and the NATO Defense Ministerial meeting in February.  Further, that a full transition to a new Secretary of Defense occurs well in advance of the transition of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September in order to ensure stability within the Department.
I pledge my full effort to a smooth transition that ensures the needs and interests of the 2.15 million Service Members and 732,079 DoD civilians receive undistracted attention of the Department at all times so that they can fulfill their critical, round-the-clock mission to protect the American people.
I very much appreciate this opportunity to serve the nation and our men and women in uniform.
[Whenever a high-ranking military officer disagrees so fundamentally with the policy, course of action or directions being given by the President (Commander-In_Chief), it is their duty to resign from their position and bring their objections to the American public.  This is an “honorable” resignation.
In our nation’s history, there have been senior officers objecting to their political commander who have acted contrary to lawful policy and direction (both Democratic and Republican) and who have stayed in post and attempted to ameliorate policy / directions they objected to.  Only historians can judge whether these officers acted with honor (or not).
President Assad rules Syria and wishes us to leave so he can continue to crush his opposition and remain in power indefinitely.  Putin wants us to leave Syria to increase Russian influence in the area and to gain access to “warm-water” ports in Syria.  Iran wants us to leave Syria in order to establish an arc of influence through Iraq to Syria (and the Mediterranean).  Turkey wants us to leave in order to crush the Syrian Kurds (and along with them, the Turkish Kurds).  The Turkish Kurds assisted us in Iraq and are now doing the same in Syria.  They want us to stay.  The Syrian Kurds want our help and want us to stay.  Israel and Saudi Arabia foolishly support President Trump because they feel he will support them.  Between Israel and Russia, Trump will support Russia.  Saudi Arabia is the enemy of Iran because Iran is not Arab and because Iran believes in the Shiite version of Islam while the Saudi’s believe in the Sunni version.  Trump supports Saudi Arabia over Iran (in theory), but he doesn’t seem to realize the long term effect of increasing Iranian influence in Syria will be to the detriment of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.
As for ISIS / ISIL, they are one of the factions seeking to over-throw Assad.  They are Muslim and Assad is Ba’ath.  Assad seeks to destroy ISIL because that’s what he does to all of his enemies.
If the U.S. abandons Syria and the Kurds, we will pay for this policy failure for decades and generations ALL around the world – not just in the Middle East.
I happen to agree with President Trump, that we should get our troops out of Afghanistan and reduce our military footprint in the Middle East – not just Syria.  In Afghanistan, as soon as possible.  In Syria, only after we have secured land for the Syrian Kurds and, after that, for as long as the Kurds need our protection from Russia, Turkey and Iran – and, of course, from Assad.  Unfortunately, this may mean decades…
Israel and Saudi Arabia will pay for supporting President Trump.  Sooner or later he will turn on them, too.   After all, Trump is a snake, they know he is a snake, and to quote candidate Trump’s campaign speech:  “You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in.”
Just sayin’…     —    kmab]
.
On This Day In:
2021	If You Do Nothing About Climate Change
	Standing By
2020	Each Over All
	Rollin’ Along
2019	And Integrity For Today’s Elected Republicans
2018	A Faulty Start, Too
	Honorable Resignation And Syria
2017	Beneath The Tree Of Wisdom
	The Republican Rape Of The American Middle Class
2016	Something Authentic Happened
2015	Back On The Bricks
	On, Rocinante!!
2014	Changing Frequently
2013	Trifles
2012	Simple, Ordinary And Wonderous
2011	Humane Writers

Read Full Post »

No One Man

The continuing efforts by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. intelligence community are a useful reminder to Trump, Putin and the rest of the world.  Whatever the fallout from the Helsinki summit, no one man ultimately controls the enforcement of America’s laws or the defense of its national security.  And nothing Trump says or does will change that.
—    Brian Bennett
From the article:  “A Crisis Of His Own Making“
Appearing in:  Time Magazine;  Dtd:  30 July 2018
.
On This Day In:
2017	Strongly Convinced
2016	Me, Myself & I
2015	God, Give Us Men!
2014	Got Any Bezzy Mates?
2013	On Being A Nerd – Awesome
2012	Writers Write
2011	And History Has Proved This Correct
2010	Fascinating Discontinuity
	Tasted Bacon?

Read Full Post »

A Message To The “Wanna Be” Dictator On Leadership

An American president does not lead the free world by congratulating dictators on winning sham elections.
—    Republican Sen. John McCain
On Tuesday (20 March 2018), the senior GOP senator from Arizona criticized US President Donald Trump for congratulating Vladimir Putin on being reelected as president of Russia.
.
On This Day In:
2022	Seek Good
2021	Aging Well
	Now And Forever
2020	Always
2019	#45 Is More Of A Piddle Than A Puddle
2018	Found Out
	A Message To The “Wanna Be” Dictator On Leadership
2017	Still Waiting…
2016	Same Old, Same Old
2015	Shout!
2014	I Hear Voices
2013	Ethics And Standards
2012	Swing Higher
2011	Convicted For Life

Read Full Post »

History Will Judge Harshly

Andrew McCabe was the Deputy Director of the FBI under Director James Comey.  Director Comey was fired by President Trump, who then appointed McCabe to replace Comey as Director.  Comey refused to “pledge” his loyalty to Trump and when McCabe supported Comey’s statements in Congressional testimony, Trump subsequently forced McCabe from his position, too.  McCabe “fell on his sword” to protect the FBI after an Inspector General’s report of improper handling of the Hilary Clinton’s e-mail investigation during the 2016 Presidential campaign.  The result of the “improper handling” was to the benefit of Trump and hurt Clinton’s campaign.  I am not aware of any evidence this effect was intentional by Comey, McCabe or the FBI.
I have heard some Republican supporters / Conservative analysts offering up the suggestion Attorney General Jeff Session fired McCabe in order to maintain his own (Session’s) position and thereby “protect” Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller.  In essence, Session has fired a man with over 20 years of distinguished FBI service for personal and political reasons to punish McCabe and satisfy President Trump’s vindictive personality.  Session is himself a pitiable (if not tragic) figure in this drama because he has been subject to Trump’s “personality” and diminution, but that still (in my opinion) does not justify his actions in this matter.
My reaction to the Session’s firing of Andrew McCabe from the FBI at 10PM on a Friday night less than two days before his scheduled retirement can be summarized by a few quotes from the movie “Judgment At Nuremberg”  (1961)…  (in these quotes Janning represents Session and McCabe is the “one” man.)
Judge Dan Haywood:  Janning, to be sure, is a tragic figure.  We believe he loathed the evil he did.  But compassion for the present torture of his soul must not beget forgetfulness of the torture and death of millions by the government of which he was a part.  Janning’s record and his fate illuminate the most shattering truth that has emerged from this trial.  If he and the other defendants were all depraved perverts – if the leaders of the Third Reich were sadistic monsters and maniacs – these events would have no more moral significance than an earthquake or other natural catastrophes.  But this trial has shown that under the stress of a national crisis, men – even able and extraordinary men – can delude themselves into the commission of crimes and atrocities so vast and heinous as to stagger the imagination.  No one who has sat through this trial can ever forget.  The sterilization of men because of their political beliefs…  The murder of children…  How easily that can happen!  There are those in our country today, too, who speak of the “protection” of the country.  Of “survival”.  The answer to that is: survival as what?  A country isn’t a rock.  And it isn’t an extension of one’s self.  It’s what it stands for, when standing for something is the most difficult!  Before the people of the world – let it now be noted in our decision here that this is what we stand for:  justice, truth… and the value of a single human being!
Later in the movie…
Ernst Janning:  Judge Haywood…  the reason I asked you to come:  Those people, those millions of people…  I never knew it would come to that.  You must believe it, You must believe it!
Judge Dan Haywood:  Herr Janning, it “came to that” the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent.
Also:
The following is the reaction of the former head of the CIA to President Trump’s mocking Tweet about this firing:
Former CIA Director John O. Brennan’s reaction to Trump’s mocking of McCabe firing.
History will be a harsh judge of Trump and those in Congress who protect his Administration by trying to halt an unhindered and complete investigation of Russian interference in our last Presidential election and Trump and his campaign’s collusion with Russia in their efforts to get him elected and undermine our country.
America will triumph over Donald Trump and Vladimir Putkin.
Please do not take anything above as a defense of AG Session.  I did not like him as a Senator and did not support his nomination to Attorney General because I did not (and do not) believe Session is able to defend the laws of the United States independent of his own opinions – particularly laws supporting Civil Rights or Equal Justice under the law.  I also believe he knew early on that the Trump campaign was involved with Russia.  I am not (yet) convinced Session was personally involved in the collusion with Russia, but I feel it is highly probable based on his “selective memory” and failures to recall (29 times) during his testimony before Congress.
.
On This Day In:
2022	42
2021	Blessings Larger Than Life
	Tomorrow She Sails
2020	The Sun Came Out
	Not A Wink On Guard
2019	The Importance Of A Deadline
	Chaos Is Not Really A New Remedy
2018	History Will Judge Harshly
	Father Time, Perhaps?
2017	Odds Are
2016	Prayer, Too
2015	History, n.
2014	See It Sometime
2013	Precious Friend
2012	It Couldn’t Be Done
	Feeling Surrounded?
2011	Surprise!

Read Full Post »

In Time

Russia has acquired territory but lost credibility.  Putin has bought himself a pile of problems at the cost of the international ties Russia needs to prosper.  He has betrayed Russia’s best resource —  its people — who will eventually realize his rhetoric is nothing more than a fantasy inside a delusion wrapped in a tissue of lies.
—    Madeleine Albright (describing Vladimir Putin)
Former U.S. Secretary of State
Quoted in:  Time Magazine;  5 May 2014 issue;  “The 100 Most Influential People“
[Ms. Albright obviously playing off of Winston Churchill’s famous quote describing Russia:  “Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.”    —    kmab]
.
On This Day In:
2022	Defeated: So Far (Anyway)
2021	Elections Have Consequences
	It’s Cold Way Down There
2020	Fearless Security
2019	I Prefer A Neat Single Malt
2018	Seeking Finer Fruits
2017	Something That Is Absolute
2016	Animate And Encourage
	Out Of Time
2015	In Time
2014	Robust Interconnectivity
2013	What Have We Here?
2012	Tributaries And Eddies
	An Honest Politician
2011	Penultimate

Read Full Post »