Arrias: Marshall, Ike and Ukraine
On January 25th, 1942, USS Sargo (SS-186 (under the command of LtCmdr Tyrell Jacobs)) pulled into Surabaya, Indonesia after finishing a short war patrol, offloaded her remaining torpedoes, loaded 1 million rounds of small-arms ammunition, and headed to Mindanao, the Philippines to provide some ammunition to the US and the Philippine Armies. She then picked up 24 maintenance specialists from the B-17 wing and evacuated them from the Philippines. Jacobs, after three patrols in which he fired a great many torpedoes but sank no ships, turned over command, and ended the war working on, and significantly improving, US torpedoes.
As for his mission, Sargo was carrying ammunition as a consequence of the actions of one Army officer, Brigadier General Dwight Eisenhower.
In June 1941 Col. Eisenhower had been appointed as the Chief of Staff to the Third Army and he was in that post when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. On December 12th now Brigadier General Eisenhower received a call from Gen. George Marshall’s office to come to Washington, the General wanted to see him; Eisenhower headed to Washington; he never returned to Third Army.
When he arrived in Washington on the 14th (by train, his flight having been grounded) he went directly to the War Department building on Constitution Ave. Marshall met him and immediately began to talk about the situation in the Pacific and then, after giving Eisenhower a thorough rundown, he asked Eisenhower: What should be done?
Eisenhower asked for a few hours to think about it and Marshall agreed. Eisenhower went and sat a desk and began to chew on what he had just been told.
Marshall, of course, had already arrived at an answer; this was, in part, a test. When Eisenhower returned to Marshall’s office as the sun was going down, he handed him some typed up thoughts. The answer was, in a sense, two sided: on the one hand, Eisenhower said that it was impossible to get reinforcements to the Philippines in time to save US forces or Philippine allies. The Navy, the nation, did not have the combat power to fight through to the Philippines, we didn’t have the ships, nor did we have long range aircraft in an adequate numbers, or airfields, or a long list of men and supplies and ammunition.
At the same time, there was a need to make an effort because would-be allies, and the people of Asia – the Chinese, the people of the Philippines and Indonesia, would all be watching the US response.
As Eisenhower noted: “They may excuse failure but they will not excuse abandonment.”
Marshall had already arrived at the same conclusion. Every effort was made to get aid to the Philippines, but Marshall and Eisenhower knew what was going to happen. At the same time, Gen. MacArthur accused Washington and the War Department of sacrificing the army on Bataan. As historian Steven Ambrose noted, that was basically correct. Eisenhower’s effort was to draw out the fight as long as possible, but he and Marshall knew it was only going to end one way.
Indeed, his main focus became not the resupply of the Army but the building of US bases in Australia for the future offensives in the western Pacific. Bataan and Corregidor must be held to last as long as possible, but the real effort would take time to develop. (In one of the more curious footnotes, Eisenhower spot promoted a reserve Army Colonel, Patrick Hurley, to Major General, and sent him to Australia with $10 million in cash, to do what he could to get aid to the Philippines, as well as start to buy up land in Australia to build US Army bases. Interestingly, Hurley has previously been the Secretary of War under President Hoover.)
What has that got to do with today?
The key point is that key decision-makers need to be hard realists. Years after this event, Eisenhower said of Marshall that he had “an eye that seemed to me awfully cold.”
We need such an eye.
Consider where we now stand: a 2 year old stalemated war in Ukraine, a war in the Mid East that is over 4 months old, and worries that it will spread into Lebanon, a recidivist Iran fueling the Houthi army, and behind it all a power-hungry Chinese leadership with a China that is showing signs of economic strain that may undermine their global dreams just as they seem within reach, and this may make them more willing to gamble. Meanwhile, US power is stretched thin, our weapons lockers are almost empty and there is reason to doubt that we can both refill them to the appropriate level, while at the same time provide aid to Ukraine; though it would seem that Europe, with a collective GDP 10 times that of Russia should be able to provide the bulk of the aid to Ukraine. But the real troublemaker here is China. And it would seem that the only one who can deter China is the US. And isn’t that what we want to do: deter China?
Interestingly, Eisenhower also described what we need, at least in a general sense: “Ships! Ships! All we need is ships!… Also ammunition, anti-aircraft guns, tanks, airplanes…”
But to get there it would seem we need to make some hard choices. As Marshall and Eisenhower knew, those choices can be unpleasant. The problem of course is that failure to make hard choices early results in the need to make even harder choices later.
Copyright 2024 Arrias
Www,vicsocotra.com
Arrias: A Fairy Tale
Once upon a time there was a truly great nation, a nation that tried to bring peace around the world, that tried to improve everyone’s life, that worked very hard as a nation, and the people become fabulously rich.
But there were those inside the country who didn’t like things this way, they wanted more money, and especially more power. The nation spent too much time trying to make sure that power was spread out. This didn’t sit well with these few people, and they worked hard to undermine the country. And eventually, after several generations, their efforts bore fruit. Suddenly, odd things started to happen, truth seemed to stand on its head, what was obvious was denounced as a lie and even a crime. And what was false was enshrined.
Along with all this came greater and great concentration of power in the hands of a relatively small number of people, both inside the government and in a few key business. Things progressed so far that they were able to start to rig elections. They were so successful at both rigging elections and in control of certain pieces of the government that to challenge an election was said to commit treason.
But the people fought back. True, there were men and women who were elected to office who vowed to fight the concentration of power but when they ended up in the Capital, they found two things: the first, much of the real power had been taken from the elected officials and put in the hands of large bureaucracies that were overwhelmingly staffed by people who liked things that way: power in their hands, not the hands of elected officials who might change things. And the second thing they found was that being in the middle of things, being a key elected official in the Capital came with a lot of benefits: lots of connections, lots of praise, lots of honors, and lots and lots of money. All you needed to do was play along… And, for those who didn’t play along, there was a lot of the other stuff: disrespect, slander, lies, frivolous lawsuits that left you impoverished, and you could never get anything done.
One day this one fellow, who wasn’t a politician but a business man, ran for office. He was a loud, brash man, who had made a lot of money in real estate and real estate development. Like many folks in that trade, he was loud and very rough around the edges. He ran for President against the ultimate insider, one who knew she was entitled to the job. One who in a previous administration had, just to show how powerful she was, started a war that left a smaller country devastated. She was very proud of that fact. She also oversaw the sale of the control of a great deal of uranium deposits to one of the nation’s enemies. She was hailed as “very smart” for this.
Anyway, they both ran for office. Everyone knew she was going to win. After all, they ran the system. But somehow, she lost. The Brash Man became President.
And there was wailing and cursing and gnashing of teeth.
The media, the once labeled “free press,” long since compromised by those in power, informed one and all that this Brash Man would destroy the country, that he would start wars, that he was beholden to other countries. And so, he cut taxes, cut government regulations, and kept the nation out of war. He was labeled as a traitor for this.
After 4 years it was time for another election. This time there would be no chances taken; after a great deal of chicanery, and the manipulation of a lab experiment to cripple much of the planet’s economies, steps were taken to ensure that there would never again be any question as to the outcome of any important election.
And there wasn’t. The Brash Man lost his re-election bid. He lost it to a man who had never been terribly smart, and never been terribly well liked nationally, and was known as someone, according to a previous boss, with an ability to take any situation and “foul it up.” The Brash Man had held campaign rallies with 50,000 people, the old man held rallies with less than 100; the old man won. If you questioned the results you were pilloried.
So now the old man was President.
And things started to go sideways. The economy immediately having problems. He tried to strangle the energy industry. He messed up overseas and the great nation looked incompetent trying to get its own people out of a far distant place. Just 13 months into his presidency one of the great nations that was an enemy, started a war by invading another country because it was no longer deterred. Then came another war. And rumors of a third war.
Meanwhile, because they hated the Brash Man, they pursued him in court, and brought all sorts of charges against him. To the rest of the world the once great nation looked like it was being run by a tin-pot dictator. But the people in charge didn’t care. They pursued the Brash Man.
But the Brash Man, he fought back. And he ran for office again. So, they came up with charges that would economically cripple him. And rigged the court proceedings so that he would be fiscally strapped by the court orders. Many in power were delighted, almost giddy with joy.
But, meanwhile, the sitting President was having problems – lots of them. He was old, and he was acting older than he was. True, he had never really been in charge, there were always people behind him pulling the strings. But even that was getting too hard. What to do, what to do?
And, at the same time there was someone else running for office, a woman who had been a very good governor of a conservative state. Now, interestingly, she had changed. She had turned into what was known as a real NeoCon. The NeoCons of the previous half decade had gone through metamorphoses and had fallen in love with the idea that the great country should be intervening overseas sort of “everywhere, all the time,” even as these same NeoCons mainly stopped worrying about what was happening at home in the Great Country; that domestic stuff was too hard and no fun. Let’s start a war!
And yet… The thing was, behind the old man who was President, behind all the media outlets and Hollywood producers, behind those certain big business and the politicians and the bureaucrats, behind all the people who liked the huge, ever growing, ever more hungry for power government, there were older academicians, politicians and businessmen who, in a manner akin to a large beehive, tried to run things. They were the ones who found young politicians to groom, academicians to promote and give tenure, lawyers to insert into state and city attorney offices. They were the ones who worked with certain unions and various civil action groups to protest this or that and cause trouble.
And they were the ones who really ran the elections, who made sure the vote count came out the way it was supposed to.
And they saw a problem with the old man – he really was incompetent, and his Vice President was worse. The thought of the VP being President even made them ill. What to do?
And then they saw a plan:
First, they knew they could not get the President to resign. He must lose. So, they began to place stories in their various media about how forgetful the President was, all his failings, all his problems. And they continued to attack the Brash Man.
And then they added the twist: they would provide stories that promoted the woman who had been governor, the NeoCon from the other party. It was true that they controlled the vote, anyone they wanted was going to win the election. But even in North Korea they made an effort to make the vote look right. It’s a balm for the masses, they have to think their vote means something. So, let the other party win – as long as they could get the Brash Man off the ticket and a new candidate who would not really challenge the inner power structure. Force the Brash man off the ticket, slide the former Governor in, then let her win. It would be “proof” the election system was still fair!
And they knew she would be unable – and would not be disposed anyway – to fight to unseat their tremendous hold on the reins of power inside the bureaucracy. She would be a foreign policy president and they would giver her the money to build a huge Navy and Army and a major slice of the country would be happy.
Meanwhile, they would bury the Brash Man under more law suits, and they would extend their real control into the various offices of the government, deeper and deeper.
And they would trumpet how the loss of the Old Man to the NeoCon governor was proof everything was still fair and okay.
And their power would grow…
Of course, this is just a fairy tale…
Copyright 2024 Vic Socotra
www.vicsocotra.com
Arrias: Putin, Xi, and the Pirate King
In the news this week, Alexei Navalny, the dissident Russian politician who was serving 30 years in an Arctic Gulag, died. Navalny was a longtime rival of Tsar Vlad, had campaigned against corruption – Putin’s corruption – and after returning to Russia in 2021, had been found guilty of “extremism” and “fraud” – what were clearly nonsense charges, and sentenced to 30 years in prison.
Navalny had been in Germany, where he had been taken for treatment after being poisoned (August 2020). It was later determined that he had been exposed to “novichok,” a nerve agent. The FSB (former KGB) was implicated in the attack, which probably consisted of putting the nerve again on his underwear, where it would be absorbed through the skin. He returned to Russia in January 2021 and was immediately arrested, brought to trial and convicted.
He had recently been moved to IK-3 penal colony (Polyarnyi Volk (Polar Wolf)) in Kharp, about 1,000 miles north-east of Moscow. He was 47. His death was, sadly in this troubled world, not a surprise, though his official cause of death has yet to be established. As Inspector Reynault would observe, they are probably working out whether he was shot trying to escape or it was suicide. Navalny was 47.
That Tsar Vlad would kill one of his opposition should surprise no one. He has a long history of such actions.
Some folks are using this as proof we must not deal with Russia, we must fight on, etc. He is evil and can’t be trusted.
Well, yes, he is evil and no, he can’t be trusted.
But let’s take a deep breath. Let’s list those leaders of nations who we can’t trust. Start with everybody’s favorite panda, Emperor Xi. How many people in concentration camps in China? At least a million, probably substantially more. How many have been through re-education camps in the last 10 years or so? Estimates vary, but multiple millions, some estimates run as high as 8 million.
China continues to grind down and destroy Tibet, a country that has been going through a slow, steady – literal – genocide for decades.
Hong Kong’s freedoms have been suppressed, standard freedoms of speech and press and religion don’t exist. Chinese companies, with the full knowledge of Beijing, push out fentanyl that killed nearly 100,000 Americans last year. Between 1979 and 2015, under Chinese government direction, there were an estimated 400 million forced abortions. The list is incomplete, but this is what Emperor Xi capable of.
Yet, we’re told we need to talk to Beijing, compromise, work with Beijing.
Iran feeds weapons into the Houthis and Hezbollah, while denying basic rights in their own country, under the direct supervision of the Ayatollah. Iran is in the process of becoming a nuclear power – if it hasn’t already. And is trying to throttle world trade.
And again, we have folks in communication with Tehran. Last summer we sent $6 billion to Tehran for the release of 5 Americans.
The point in all this is that, as much of a thug as Tsar Vlad is, and he is, we are dealing with other thugs around the world; it’s the nature of leaders of many countries from time immemorial. Which is not to say that we are necessarily doing a good job in our dealings, only that we are dealing.
But it also means we need to recognize that the first criteria that we should have for such actions is a clear understanding of US interests and whether dealing with various evil regimes is necessary to further our interests.
There are only two other practical options: one, we shut out everything and every one, button up the country, and talk to no one ever again. Obviously, that won’t work – for a whole host of reasons, buttoning up the border being high on the list of why we can’t…
The other option is to go to war with everyone we think is bad…
That isn’t going to work either.
We are left with the simple reality, one not commonly addressed by Washington in the last 33 years, that we need to understand our – US – interests and at the same time recognize that we are surrounded by many evil characters around the world. We don’t need to be their friends, but in many cases we need to deal with them.
It’s also a warning. As Gilbert and Sullivan’s Pirate King noted:
But many a king on a first class throne,
If he wants to call his crown his own,
Must manage somehow to get through
More dirty work than e’er I do.
Just so. Gilbert and Sullivan were able to make light of it but they touch a truth: the workings of many, indeed most, governments in history have been marked with all sorts of crimes against humanity in general and often their own people in particular. And under increasing stress the veneer of civilization is revealed to be quite thin; any government can find itself shedding civilization and embracing evil. The only thing that keeps a government from stripping away that veneer is a strict adherence to the law and to morals, to an understanding of duties and behaviors that come before the law. For the US, that means a strict adherence to the Constitution and to the Bill of Rights.
We need to deal with Putin, and Xi, and the Ayatollah and a host of other figures. But we need to first understand what US interests are, and we need to both maintain our morals and our Constitution, while remembering that the men we are dealing with have been, are, and will remain, evil; men who wish us ill, and they will contour to do so, no matter what nice words they say. We must deal with them from time to time; we must not become like them.
Copyright 2024 Arrias
www.vicsocotra.com
Arrias: Shake Up at Two Years
As I’m sure you know, two years into the war President Zelenskyy just dismissed his senior general and is calling for a new strategy. What might that mean?
Begin at the beginning: Russia invaded on as poor a net assessment of the enemy as can be imagined. It was as far off as Hannibal’s assessment of what would happen if he invaded the Italian peninsula. Russia – the Kremlin – believed that if they simply showed up the Ukrainian government would fold and they could install some sort of collaborationist or puppet regime.
Field Marshall Helmut von Moltke (the Elder) used to comment that “errors in tactics can be corrected in the next battle, errors in strategy can only be corrected in the next war,” and Russia started off this war with a truly strategic error. On top of that are a series of other issues that Russia continues to face: The Ukrainian army is fighting for its homeland against invaders (though there are elements of the Russian army that view the Donbas as part of Russia – doesn’t matter who is right, this is a question of belief and morale); Ukraine has the relative luxury of being able to declare martial law and fully mobilize; Russia cannot. Ukraine also has the benefit of shorter supply lines from the rear to the front lines.
And, Ukraine has NATO and the US backing it.
Add on top of that the numbers: Russia with a population just under 150 million, has not had a full mobilization, and had at the start of the war a healthier economy than Ukraine. Between the mobilization and its higher unemployment rate, Ukraine has, on a nominal population of 43 million (but closer to 33 million), raised an army of 880,000 – all of whom are, obviously, in Ukraine. Russia has not fully mobilized – they are practicing partial call-ups every 6 months, and has some 600,000 men committed to Ukraine, with about 400,000 actually inside Ukraine. Said differently, Ukraine has anywhere from 50% to 100% more troops on the battlefield than does Russia.
Some time in the spring of 2022, within several months of the start of the war – having withdrawn from the greater Kyiv area, Russia started to change the plan. Normally, this sort of thing leaves invading armies in tatters, veritably “changing horses in mid-stream” – which is what Moltke was saying. Russia still suffered losses where they had overextended themselves (around Kharkiv as well as west of the Dnepr River), but they started to fix that as well, and built defensive lines and exchanged tactics that didn’t work for simpler, more cautious tactics that took longer, but had lower risk of failure.
In November 2022 Russian decision-making began to reflect a goal of causing Ukrainian army casualties as at least as important an objective as taking terrain. Shortly after this was, I believe, the first time that Gen. Zaluzhnyi told President Zelenskyy he wanted to withdraw from Bakhmut, pointing out that the town was of no intrinsic military value; the request was denied.
The Russian army built defensive lines, as the Ukrainian army brought in newly trained troops and more advanced weaponry. The Russians withdrew from west of the Dnepr River, and in some places were pushed back (the Ukrainian counter-stroke around Kharkiv was a very well executed operation but they didn’t have the logistics or the total forces necessary to keep it going). By the time the Ukrainian army began its counterattack last summer, the Russian defensive positions were ready and the amount of terrain regained was very small, and the overall expense was quite large.
Disregarding the propaganda figures that pour out of both the Ukrainian and Russian armies on a daily basis, casualty estimates suggest the cost to the Ukrainians for the unsuccessful counter-attack was quite high. Russian losses were also high, but not as high as the Ukrainians. And the Russians benefitted by learning what parts of their lines were weak and are now reportedly strengthening and improving their defensive lines.
Russian forces have also – slowly – learned how to better protect ammo dumps and supply dumps, they have had some better successes in dispersing command posts (though some glaring failures as well) and both sides have improved their air defense responses and made the flight of manned aircraft over the battlefield a high risk event.
But, clearly, things are not where President Zelenskyy wants them. Upset over the failure of the summer counter-offensive, and the loss of several notable (but strategically unimportant) towns (Soledar, Bakhmut, Marinka) the possible loss of Avdiivka in the next few months, and also because of Zaluzhnyi’s public statement that the army needed another 450,000 – 500,000 soldiers, President Zelenskyy dismissed the General and replaced him with Gen Syrskyi, even as he has called for a “reboot” of their strategy and said that other personnel are going to be dismissed (he also dismissed the Veteran’s Affairs minister, and replaced the Defense Minister last September).
Which leaves them where?
The war remains one of attrition – and that means ammunition and soldiers. As part of the effort to overcome the Russian advantage in ammo (howitzer) production, Zelenskyy has made a point of saying Ukraine will expand drone production this year to 1 million drones, most being small “suicide” drones. Essentially they’re replacing artillery (155MM howitzers) with small drones; Russia is trying to keep up in this drone war. Both sides are also working on the use of various electronic warfare (EW) means to disable the enemy drones. It’s difficult to see beyond the deliberate efforts to hide various capabilities, but it appears the Ukrainians have a slight advantage in their drones, the Russians have a slight advantage in their EW systems.
Overall, the war continues to underline the capability of defensive systems. Whether it’s anti-tank systems (Javelin et al, followed by suicide drones), layered surface-to-air missiles systems, extremely dense mine fields, extremely tough bunkers and fighting positions, and the ever-present artillery support (on the order of 10,000 rounds per day for Russia, 2,000 rounds per day for Ukraine), this is a war that’s showcasing modern military technology that allows more rapid detection and targeting of moving troops, and the weaponry to accurately respond to that target task.
Accordingly, while the new Ukrainian CINC (Gen. Syrskyi) will try to develop new plans, while hoping to get new assets from NATO and the US, it will be difficult to manage any sort of rapid, elegant offensive that liberates eastern Ukraine. Remember too, that Syrskyi was in command of the Army, and this is a ground war. There is not much room for change. Further, the Russian tactic of very slow – ponderous – offensives that have killed tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers, and reduced to rubble very heavily fortified towns such as Soledar and Marinka, is not one that will be easily stopped. Zelenskyy will want to see some sort of success, and there may be an effort to put together a small offensive at some point along the line – perhaps at the northern end of the line, near the eastern town of Kupyansk – but at this point Ukraine, like the Russians, would have a difficult time exploiting any breakthrough.
As it now stands, the Russian tactic is slow, ugly, brutish, and working. At the same time, the Russians seem to have zero interest in improved relations with the West. The result is that this war is going to grind on, chewing up Ukrainians and Russians, and the Ukrainian countryside; there is little likelihood for any break-throughs by either side, and little chance, given the current leadership, that they will reach a negotiated settlement in the next 12 months.
Copyright 2024 Arrias
www.vicsocotra.com
Arrias: To Deter
There has been some interesting talk in the past week about deterrence and escalation and proportionality and I’m beginning to wonder if those words still mean what I thought they mean, like the word “secret” on the front page of a newspaper. But it’s important to review what they really mean because getting this wrong can have significant consequences.
First, deterrence. The idea is simple: to prevent hostile actions (while obviously protecting your national interests).
The key point is that deterrence takes place in the mind of the enemy. It doesn’t matter what you say or do, if the enemy doesn’t believe it will affect him all that much. Deterrence only exists when you have the capability to ensure that the cost to some possible enemy of doing some thing far outweighs any benefit he might accrue by that action; AND, you have the will to actually cause that harm; AND the enemy really does believe you will. Particularly with regard to nuclear weapons, it’s that third element that is so very important.
Consider the case if you lack that third element: You have the capability to do great damage and you have the will – you will strike if the enemy crosses some red line. But the enemy doesn’t believe you will do it; he thinks you won’t “pull the trigger,” and you know you will. Such a situation would invite a nuclear exchange. Said differently, loss of credibility is more than losing face; loss of credibility increases the risk of war.
Escalation is nothing more than two sides engaging in actions that prompt the other side to do more, to be more destructive.
Escalation is an interesting problem: the possibility of escalation, and some times escalation in fact, is necessary to establish that a deterrence posture is credible. If an enemy commits an act of violence against you, you can either respond to it or not. If you do not, he will in all likelihood commit another one. At some point you will find yourself either needing to appease – surrender, or respond. If you respond with a low level of violence, one that does not eliminate the benefits of the enemy’s earlier violence, the violence will continue. Only by escalating, making the response more destructive than his accrued benefits, more destructive than he is willing to accept, will you force him to consider stopping.
With nuclear weapons, that is, in a confrontation with a nuclear armed state, there is the concern of escalating too far and drawing a response from the enemy in the form of a nuclear weapon. That is obviously to be avoided and so, in dealing with the Soviet Union, and then Russia, the general understanding was that direct confrontations needed to be kept to a minimum and every effort was made to keep confrontations from escalating.
And then there is proportional response.
There are two different views on proportional response. The first is proportional response within the construct of the Law of War; within the law of war promotional response limits military actions to what is necessary to achieve the military objective, and any violence to civilians must reasonable – proportionate – to the military objectives.
Obviously, a very subjective evaluation is made here, but the idea is fairly clear.
But there’s a further shading: proportional response when the conflict is between two nuclear powers means that there are limits as to what you can do, if it were clear that actions beyond a certain threshold would bring the two nuclear powers into direct conflict. The US reticence to engage in certain actions in North Vietnam that might result in Soviet deaths, or the sinking of Soviet ships delivering weapons to Haiphong, were causes for a great deal of worry in Washington during the war.
The key then is to understand that deterrence between the two nuclear powers, such as the US and Russia, is a different problem than between the US and Iran.
It is, in fact, a different problem between a smaller nuclear power (with a few weapons) and one with a large arsenal: Russia or China. Which isn’t to say that you can’t confront Russia or China, you can, and often should. But it requires different tactics.
Said differently, with the exception of Russia and China, once shooting starts, escalation is how you get the “genie back in the bottle.” Responding in a “proportional” manner to an attack by Iranian proxies by attacking those proxies (and in fact informing the world ahead of time so that they could get their people out of the camps) leaves the Iranians not only untouched, it allows them the opportunity to escalate the level of violence to whatever level they choose. Proportional response grants the enemy the initiative; Iran now has the option to dial up or dial down the violence as it chooses.
Policy makers in Washington will undoubtedly respond that the US has sent a signal to Iran, and the choice Iran has to make is whether to stop or continue.
But from the Iranian perspective no damage has been done to Iran, little damage has been done to their proxies (casualties in double digits), and they lost a few rockets and a few small buildings.
Have the waters of the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, the North Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf been once again returned to a peacetime, freedom of navigation condition?
Has Tehran received any meaningful message as to the cost of continued aggression against the US or its allies?
Has Tehran received any signal at all that would make them think twice about further pursuit of a nuclear arsenal?
Have other bad actors – China, Russia, North Korea – seen anything in these actions that would lead them to pause before considering aggressive behavior?
The answer to each of the above is “no.” And the consequences of that are likely to come back to haunt us. Indeed, by failing to act decisively to put Iran back on its heels, and restore freedom of navigation, but leaving our ships and our sailors at risk in the Red Sea, and accepting the economic costs in the Red Sea as we continue “shooting arrows, not Indians,” we are setting ourselves up for an eventual failure – one of our ships hit by a Houthi missile, a spike in economic impact, and a resultant further loss of credibility.
Of even greater concern is that we are sending the signal to our enemies that we are hesitant to act decisively. And that is likely to mean that they will act decisively.
Copyright 2024 Arrias
www.vicsocotra.com
Arrias and His Muse: Wide Awake
Author’s Note: And the Muse appeared in my morning in Tidewater- it would make a good start for a Neil Simon play…
– Arrias
Wide Awake
It all started with a very strange dream,
But no beautiful maiden and a dragon,
Just me and an old Navy buddy,
Cans of caviar and a station wagon.
And now I’m so very tired,
My back hurts, my leg is damp,
I think the puppy wet the bed,
Now my right leg has a cramp.
It’s still very, very dark,
The morning paper is 2 hours away,
Walk the puppies, give them food,
3 hours ‘till break of day!
Sheets are in the washer, shave and shower,
Read my e-mails with a mug of tea,
Dressed and ready for Church,
All by half-past three!
If only I had a good excuse,
Out ragin’ in the Hood!
Me with old Navy buddies, But…
Was just another Saturday night in the wood!
And now it’s very early Sunday,
No wild stories did I make,
I’m without any outrageous excuses,
I’m just tired and wide awake!
Copyright 2024 Arrias
www.vicsocotra.com
Arrias: Are You Willing To Pay The Bill?
Now 3 Americans have been killed in Syria. Now what?
Before answering that, ask yourself how many lives this is worth. And by that, I don’t mean American lives, I mean Yemeni and Iranian lives. As strange as it may seem (or perhaps not so strange), the American population seems ready to see Americans come home in caskets.
But there is always this gasp of horror when it is learned that US forces killed “another 500 enemy troops” in some engagement, never mind when it turns out that a Mk-83 – 1,000lb bomb “went long” and hit a home.
So, ask yourself this question: what will the Houthis (and the Iranians) do if they manage to hit one of the US Navy ships in the Red Sea? Are they going to stop? No, the killing doesn’t bother them.
But the killing bothers us.
So, we – the entire nation – now find ourselves back at the basics: what are we trying to achieve? What is the goal of the US presence in Syria? In Iraq? In all the other countries where we have folks? There needs to be a clear goal that we are trying to achieve in each of those places. And we need to answer the question: How much are we willing to pay? Once again we have the very simple – and very accurate – explanation of strategy from a master practitioner – Frederick the Great – that a strategy is the bridge the connects assets to a goal.
That means you need to clearly define the goal. And you also need to identify what assets you are willing to commit to achieving that goal.
Here is where we continually fail, because we have a long-standing policy failure: we have adopted as policy the glaring problem of kindness. The great “philosopher of war,” Carl von Clausewitz, stated it clearly:
Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed: war is such a dangerous business that the mistakes which come from kindness are the very worst. The maximum use of force is in no way incompatible with the simultaneous use of the intellect. If one side uses force without compunction, undeterred by the bloodshed it involves, while the other side refrains, the first will gain the upper hand. That side will force the other to follow suit; each will drive its opponent toward extremes, and the only limiting factors are the counterpoises inherent in war.
To introduce the principle of moderation into the theory of war itself would always lead to logical absurdity.
This comes out on these wonderful strikes that have been flown against the Houthis to destroy their missiles. Don’t get me wrong, nothing wrong with destroying missiles. But it won’t end anything.
We have, over the last 30 years or so taken a weird twisted view of warfare that the “breaking of toys” is a sufficient action. Thus, we had tomahawk cruise missies fired into this or that country – at 0100 local, when the buildings were empty, to demonstrate our resolve. How many times have we killed the janitors but left the generals and colonels untouched?
War is an unpleasant business. And if you are not prepared to be unpleasant, if you are not prepared to kill a lot of your enemy, don’t participate. Don’t think that you can participate and not kill anybody, or just kill the few “really bad people.” War in the end is about killing the enemy. War is about being very violent, and making the enemy understand that you have the means and the will to inflict all the punishment on him that is necessary to get him to stop doing what he is doing. Our inability to grasp that is why we don’t have a better won-lost record in the last 50 years.
And what that really speaks to is that we shouldn’t be involved in wars when we don’t really need to be. The folks who wrote the nation’s operators’ manual – the Constitution – understood this when they said that only Congress can declare war.
And that means that issues need to be debated and then Our Representatives get to vote… People can protest, picket, write their Congressman. And then, if we really – REALLY – need to go to war, we are quite prepared to pay the butcher’s bill.
But that is what we need to understand – war means killing. And if you want the other guy to stop doing what he is doing, the odds are that you will need to kill a lot of people.
So, don’t get involved unless you NEED to. And that means it should be discussed by Congress, not decided by some General or by some fellow working on the President’s staff. Congress needs to debate and Congress needs to vote on it.
Copyright 2024 Arrias
www.vicsocotra.com
Arrias and His Muse: Trenches
Author’s Note: Reading lots of reports and blogs, trying to understand it all, then dreams of poor bastards in the trenches…
– Arrias
Two years of war in the cold and mud,
Two years, no end in sight.
Two years and more they’ve fought and died,
Sometimes it’s not clear who’s wrong, who’s right.
Mostly they fight for survival,
Just hold this piece of ground,
Day in, day out, no rest,
Artillery continues to pound.
Politicians argue, “Must not quit,”
As they dance their elaborate ballet,
Talk of next month or next year,
In the trenches – just worry about today.
Live through this afternoon,
Live through this damned barrage,
Let tomorrow take care of tomorrow,
That future is just a mirage.
Just make it through the next 15 minutes,
Then a cup of coffee with your pal,
Then a nap in this cold, damp trench,
That’s the limit of rationale.
Fighting for the man beside you,
For a cup of coffee and a warm cot,
The rest of the world is too far away,
And has mostly been forgot.
That world is just a fantasy,
The trenches are all that’s real,
The war may last forever,
And this land may never heal.
Copyright 2024 Arrias
www.vicsocotra.com
Arrias: Strategic Vision in Wonderland
Alice: “Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?”
The Cheshire Cat: “That depends a good deal on where you want to get to.”
Alice: “I don’t much care where.”
The Cheshire Cat: “Then it doesn’t matter which way you go.”
From 1775 to 1783 the 13 Colonies were just trying to be free of England. It was a simple enough vision: independence.
Following the war the vision shifted to anther very basic vision: just staying “afloat,” trying to make some sort of nation function as a nation.
We created a Constitution – a remarkable feat, and a document that was the envy of the world for 220 years – and still is if you want the root explanation of why millions of people are trying to get into the US and not so much anywhere else. (How many people tried to sneak into China last year?)
Then we had to fight for our survival again. And then we had a goal of taming this great continent – and that vision truly did override a whole list of other considerations.
We also struggled – and finally succeeded – in ending slavery.
With the closing of the frontiers in the 1890s our vision changed, perhaps the most successful changes in focus any nation has ever executed, without some great geopolitical catalyst to push it. Massive change in just a decade straddling the turn of the last century – led by perhaps the most energetic, and perhaps smartest, of our presidents. The US assumed a new vision, America taking a leadership role on the world stage.
And we did. And that role was critical in the next great goals or visions: Win World War I, then prepare for – and win – the next Great War (from a strategic perspective everyone who was thinking about it knew WWII was coming) and we reached that goal, we achieved those visions.
Then came two great visions: first, the vision of a world free from communism (really, the USSR), and the space race. Again, both visions were achieved.
In each case the grand vision “percolated down” to the individual and was transformed into something that was personal – everyone saw, at least to some small extent, that they were part of this great challenge, this great adventure.
What is the lesson learned? Simply, the United States has benefited for most of its existence with an obvious grand goal in mind, and that goal has provided enough focus that other problems – and some have been severe – have been overcome or pushed aside.
Then the Soviet Union went away and the space race had not only been won, what remained was boring to most people, except when there was a tragedy.
But since the USSR broke up the US has lived in a strategic vacuum. The nation has no clear goal, no electrifying vision, poor leadership, and a distinct lack of visionaries in Washington. During the 90s there was a seeming lack of any effort to construct a meaningful grand vision and hence grand strategy to achieve that vision. Arguments among the doyens of US foreign policy seemed to focus on whether in fact history had ended, that “liberal Government” – legislatures and market economies – were now the accepted forms of government. Everything else was given short shrift.
And since the end of the Cold War the US has had no great vision. The 1990s, a strategic vacuum, was followed by 2001- and 20-years- chasing terrorism and trying to bring peace to the Mid-East.
In short, since 1990, with a few minor exceptions, the US has been reacting, not acting, following the violent and chaotic events caused by civilizations grinding against each other, never staking out any great vision, never charting an independent course; always following world events, never leading them..
And so here we are, having left Afghanistan, we watch central Asia deteriorate. Time-late efforts at deterrence failed in Ukraine, and 2 years later we are watching war rip apart that country, and we still have no plan, because we have no clear goal. Our leadership has made a point of saying that it’s up to Kiev, we are with them to the end. That’s not leading; we’re following them. Those are the words of a second-tier nation, not a great power, and certainly not a superpower.
Israel, once one of our closest allies, finds itself in an existential struggle and we find ourselves giving them weapons on one hand and confusing advice on the other.
China keeps expanding (as it has for 30 years) and we find it difficult to marshal the gumption to kick start our industries to deter her aggression.
A rag-tag group of terrorists, backed by Iran, upset global maritime trade, we find ourselves in another war, and again reacting, not acting.
It might help if we asked why should we care? Like Alice, we don’t seem to care where we are going. So, like Alice we’ll be led by events, not lead them. We will be a re-actor, not an actor.
Where does that leave us?
In the short term it means that we are going to find ourselves responding to events and that means almost assuredly we will be surprised.
But more to the point, it’s going to mean that getting out of any of these situations is going to take longer, be more expensive, and will probably be much more destructive.
Is there a way out? Sure. We need to begin a national dialogue about what is next for this country, a goal that’s worthy of a great nation and a great people, a goal outside ourselves, a grand goal. Begin by asking a simple question: What do we want?
Or we cannot care, we can continue inside the strategic vacuum.
Problem is, the rest of the world will fill that vacuum. And we probably won’t like how it’s filled.
Copyright 2024 Arrias
www.vicsocotra.com
Arrias & Vic on the Rails: Night Train to Nairobi
On the midnight train to Nairobi
I met a red haired English girl,
Bright blue eyes and fair of face,
She gave my heart a whirl.
We dined on sole and a fine white wine,
To the clicking of the rail’s refrains,
Bathed in brilliant Moonlight,
As we rolled across Africa’s plains.
She talked about her life in Nairobi,
I talked about life at sea,
How she had come there from Essex,
All the way to just meet me…
She was returning from Malindi,
Christmas with her friends,
Back to Nairobi to teach expat kids,
And whatever else that portends.
She made recommendations of things to see,
The time together had been… sublime,
We said goodbye in Nairobi station,
Things to see if I had the time.
But I was headed north, I could not stop,
Nanyuki was where I was bound,
She wished me luck and hoped we’d meet,
“Maybe I’ll see you around.”
Off she went into the crowd,
That teeming mass of humanity,
Decades later I can see her still…
I remember you, sweet Natalie.
10 June 1979
Night Train to Nairobi
The word was out and it was all over the ship, from Flag Mess to the third butter-cutter. The port visit to Australia was cancelled; some damned fool in the National Command Authority had taken it in his head that the deteriorating situation in Iran required our presence in the Gulf of Aden more than a presence with the fair ladies of Perth, West Australia. It was an obvious case of misplaced priorities. The gloom onboard was thick enough to stop a Land Rover. We now had to gird our loins for another thirty days- at least- on the bounding main. And in the same place, talking about Oman and the Russian anchorages in the Red Sea, as well as the various flavors of warring factions who infest the blasted desert of the immediate neighborhood. In the day, we just called them “ragheads,” but that is insensitive, and we have evolved.
I suppose we had done too good a job of impressing the white-robed Saudis when they came out to see our then-35-year old aircraft carrier, salving their collective jitters at the specter of the militant hard edged Shias rising in Iran across the Gulf.
Our immediate local reaction was that there was absolutely no reason to conserve anything in Africa: neither money, nor sleep, nor precious bodily fluids. We had 72 hours left ashore, and no prospects of liberty before we hit Subic Bay again in the Philippines at some point in the distant future. Accordingly, Jambo and I immediately booked passage on the celebrated Night Train to Nairobi, with reservations at the legendary New Stanley Hotel. Return passage was assured with first-class airline tickets. Once the travel agent at the hotel lifted that large sum of shillings from our wallets, there was nothing left to do but watch the rain, the girl from Spain, and the gin and tonics on the plain.
We drank by the pool watching the drenching of the hotel grounds. The Spanish girl did not put her robe back on, rain or no, and there were six Marines and elements of three squadrons and two departments watching her throw darts. It was delicious to do nothing at all. All we had to do was kill time. We watched the enormous spiders walk around their parachute-sized webs, disconcerting for someone awakening after a long evening. One guy looked up from his drink and saw one of the monsters crouched on the window behind the bar. He jumped about a foot, very much as I did when I saw the huge pink snakes slithering over the sink that morning.
The beauty of the Night Train was that it did not leave Mombasa station till 1900. We were fabulously toasted by the time it came to pack and leave Nyali Beach on Mombasa’s coast for the station. We passed the last moments getting smashed with some Brits who flew the 707s of Pelican Airways into Rwanda. Fascinating bunch of people. One of the engineers had just returned from a local garage to fix a piece of the hydraulic system. Perhaps it was not fixed to Royal Air Force standards, but it would get them airborne for their two hops the next day. For reference, there are no roads to Rwanda, and everything from matches to petroleum must be flown in. Sometimes on the same flight. There is money to be made in a place where the gas lines are two days long. Also, there is a profit to be had in ferrying bridges, military gear and weapons into Uganda. Idi Amin Dada had just ordered the British Ambassador to crawl to him on hands and knees to secure the release of a British national prisoner of the state.
Much of what the aircrew said was fantastic. Tales of war in the bush, Tanzanian guerrillas against Idi’s troops. A war that, contrary to what we read in Western media, was very much still on. This morning the headlines of Kenya’s state newspaper The Nation shouted that fifty civilians had been slaughtered on a train trying to get out of the north. There were many Ugandan refugees in Kenya, and the OpEd page decried the loss of tourism entailed by the bad publicity.
The Brits were having a marvelous time, and I began to understand that some of the cargo they carried was weapons. They were an outfit that could have fit well into the old Air America organization- a cut-out for covert supply in a region where Her Majesty’s government might desire plausible deniability. I had the suspicion that Mrs.Thatcher was going to make Idi pay for the humiliation of her diplomat. We were working on a plan to accompany the Brits on the shuttle the next day down to Kilgali when Jambo’s wristwatch chimed that it was time to be on our way. We cruised out of the hotel and discovered the rain had let up. We negotiated a fare with a cabbie out front for the ride down to the rail station. It was outrageous; they wanted five shillings a kilometer, and it seemed like every place you wanted to go was about fifty kilometers away. The hell with it, we said. After all we were headed for action and excitement. We agreed on 65 shillings and off we bombed in the back of a red diesel Mercedes, honking like a wild beast in search of its mate. We scared pedestrians for about twenty minutes and roared up to a covered wrought-iron archway in front of a ramshackle white building. We hopped out, paid our bandit, and walked to the gate. We were instantly surrounded by beggars, hangers-on, and fellow travelers. I had a bad feeling for a moment, but it vanished the moment the kind Black man waved us through. “Don’t worry ‘bout your tickets. You show ‘em on train. Come on ahead.” He smiled and nodded as we walked past into another time altogether.
The train waited on the siding next to a long platform under an iron-supported old wooden roof. Cracked cement was under foot. The vegetation gave off a delicious perfume, and the wet dirt and dark people scattered along the platform echoed Bogart and a hundred Hollywood sets, beckoning mystery and intrigue. We adjourned to the little open-air bar halfway down the platform to discuss the adventure to come. We ordered Tusker lagers and ogled the European women grouped at the end of the counter. Only one guy with them. The situation called out for intervention, but the moment passed without issue. We drank till it was time to depart. We flowed out to the train and found our car. Climbing up the steps we entered the era of British East African Rail. Our compartment was huge; a big vinyl bench and another ready to fold down above. We were almost settled when we realized we were under-resourced. I raced from the train to buy more beer. When I got back, Jambo was standing outside the car and laughing. “Hey, Vic! There’s dozens of women on the train!” We’ve died and gone to heaven…
While stood exploring our good fortune, we were approached by a Kenyan man in worn trousers and white shirt. He had a solemn and erect sort of dignity. I have been panhandled all over the world, but this man had them all beat.
“Good evening, gentlemen.’ His face was indistinct in the darkness. “I hate to approach you in this fashion, but as it happens I am far from my home, and I am defeated. I have not the money to travel and I was hoping you could find it in you to help me.” He spoke in a curious precise English, the vowels round. His use of the word ‘defeated’ knocked me out. I dug out all the pennies and shilling coins in my pocket and handed them over. I have never been so easily separated from my money. It seemed like the tithe one should pay for the journey.
They turned the power on in the train and the compartment lights began to glow softly. We climbed aboard and hung out the window with everyone else. Good-byes were exchanged up and down the line. At last, and with no warning, the train began to creep up the track. We passed out of the lighted area and watched the children lining the roadbed to watch the train go by. We curved out of the switch-yard and through an area of coffee warehouses. I went back into our compartment and watched out the other window. Jim demonstrated how to turn on the fan. I played with the table the transformed itself into a sink. I drank more of my beer. The porter came by and brought down the upper bunk with a twist of a key shaped like a cold chisel. It was an old train; well kept up, but frayed on the edges. It had obviously been in service for some time. Jim left to explore. I watched a refinery slide by to our right. The flame from the excess tower lit the night, visible for miles. We left the city and entered the bush. It began to soak in. We would be passing by Mount Kilimanjaro in about six hours. Jambo returned and reported there was a target-rich environment. Many more women on the train. Things were looking up.
The porter stopped by again and inquired as to whether we would desire the first or second seating for dinner. I had a handle on the situation from my old Amtrak days; I asked for the second seating. The waiters would be in less of a hurry to get us cleared out. It was delicious to sit and drink coffee and look at the people. In the meantime I had another beer. At six-forty five we heard musical chimes advancing down the passageway. It was the porter with four tubular chimes. He banged them with a wooden mallet and it was music. It had a syncopated beat and a lilt that belied the limited range. His music grew loud as he passed the car and diminished as he moved forward. The first sitting filed dutifully aft. Among them were two very attractive Europeans I caught only the long red skirt in detail, but it was intriguing. Once, as I was packing to leave on an extended train trip, my mother inquired if I was taking any good clothes. I looked at her quizzically; I was still heavy into blue jeans for my all-purpose apparel. She looked at me with a smile. “You never know who you might want to meet on the train.”
Well, in 1975, the only people you meet on Amtrak are retirees, hippies, and sexual degenerates. But she was harking back to an era when you actually might meet an elegant someone on the night coach to New York. I had a feeling we had stumbled into the same era lingering on in Africa. Pity we hadn’t selected the first sitting, I thought.
We explored more of the train during the wait for chow. I continued my world travels with a trip to the head to offload processed beer, while Jambo, blue eyes flashing above his moustache, lurked the corridors for unattended women. I achieved success, Jim, not really. At length the musical porter make his rounds again and we headed for vittles.
The restaurant car was worth the price of admission alone. White ceiling, dark wood walls. Neat table settings. Tables for two on the left hand side of the aisle, parties of four on the right. We were seated with two African gentlemen. In the rear sat two older Americans, who Jambo informed me were two oceanographers from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ship Researcher, . currently anchored in the Mombasa roadstead. We did not talk to the Africans next to us. They were very demanding of the service staff, almost abusive. We, of course, were too drunk to care, and we kept our Ugly American masks off for use at a later date.
I was picking up some very weird vibes. There was an African gentleman in a camouflage bush jacket with cropped hair who kept giving me the fish eye. I hadn’t defiled anyone in his family, to my knowledge, so that left a series of possibilities. It was either political or racial, and I wasn’t sure that the two things weren’t the same thing in this neck of the veldt. Remember, there is a war going on in Uganda. Kenya is a member of the Organization of African Unity, of which not all members have the enlightened policy of racial tolerance exhibited by the Kenyan government.
I kept getting a mental picture of the British overlords sitting in the very same car, doing all the great colonial things we have come to hate in these late decades of Uhuru. And seeing these same masters blown to pieces around the smoking wreckage of a Land Rover in 1960. Maybe I was just projecting my American racism on situation I couldn’t understand. Any time you are outnumbered like this at home, you feel uneasy. Here it was the natural run of things. I had found most of the Kenyans very friendly, but still there was a nagging feeling….
Jambo and I thought the service first rate. We were catered to by a very dark man with a head shaved smooth as a bowling ball. His massive shoulders and neck erupted out of his dazzling white starched mess jacket. His collar was vast. His movements were graceful. I had the feeling I should take whatever he served me. We started with a fish course, very delicate, followed by a lamb curry. Our table mates were most demanding. Did we get better service because we were on the aisle? Tough question. I just enjoyed the food, and the rich Kenyan coffee was superb.
We lingered in the wood-paneled luxury after the rest of the diners began to file out. We asked if it would be all right if we had a drink after dinner. They assured us it would be. The porters began setting up for breakfast the next monring, and Jambo and I moved to a clear table with our drinks. Almost immediately, the oceanographers joined us. They were also bombed. We had a splendid conversation as we piled up more of the little airline bottles of gin. One was a grandmother and the other was a weather-beaten gent from Alabama who looked remarkably like Bear Bryant. We talked shop and travels. Jambo emphasized the travails of Carrier Aviation. They emphasized the joys of being paid overtime for duty at sea. I had to admit they had something there.
What they also had was a bottle of vodka burning a hole in their suitcase back in the compartment. We decided to go into close session with it and hope for a view of Kilimanjaro by moonlight. No small amount of urging was required once we found that immediately adjoining their compartment was the one occupied by our mysterious European ladies. The only note that clashed was the dude in the camouflage jacket who continued to eyeball us through our impromptu party. Maybe they keep Americans in a cage where he comes from.
Copyright 2024 Arrias & Vic Socotra
www.vicsocotra.com