Tag Archives: war

Prosperity guardian; whose prosperity are we guarding?

Leave a reply

The Houtis, a Shia Islamic group, have been attacking ships in the Red Sea, hitting European ships, mostly carrying goods going between China and Europe. They use ballistic missiles plus cheap drones with great effect, targeted by an Iranian spotter ship in the Red Sea narrows, the Bab el Mandab. The US response is “Prosperity Guardian.” We’ve sent four missile destroyers. and the British one. These are arrayed along the entire coastline, too much coast for 5 ships to protect, and we try to shoot down drones and missiles. We manage to shoot down most of the missiles and and drones, but some always get through, and they mostly hit US and British targets. Recently the Maersk Detroit, a US flagged ship and 3 days ago, the British tanker, Marlin Luanda, shown below. It was carrying Russian naphtha headed for China. Some months ago, The Houtis kidnapped a British ship (Jewish owned) and took it to Yemen, as described previously.

British oil tanker, Marlin Luanda, on fire in the Gulf of Aden after being hit by an Iranian missile fired by Yemen’s Houthis. The tanker is hauling Russian naphtha, headed for China.

Iran supplies the missiles, and helps choose targets. According to Kissinger the aim of their attacks, and of the attacks on Israel, is to delegitimize Sunni Moslem countries like Egypt and Turkey that have made peace with Israel and the west. Whatever the motivation, Chinese and Russian ships are not targeted, but our ships are. We don’t attack the Iranian spotter for fear of starting a war. Instead we bomb Yemen, and protect ships carrying Chinese good and Russian oil. Currently 80% of the oil tanker transits of the Suez carry Russian oil (see below).

Most of the oil trade in the Suez is Russian — yellow line. Everyone else is shown in blue-black. It’s down to 0.5 ships per day, on average.

I don’t mind helping European countries get cheap Chinese goods, but I think the the main folks to pay should be the Europeans. We’re firing expensive anti-missiles and we’re showing the strengths and vulnerabilities to the Iranians, Chinese and Russians. Currently it’s our sailors who are at risk. The US trades with China too, but our China trade is not benefitted by ‘Prosperity guardian. Mostly our China trade avoids the Suez Canal, and comes around Africa to Savana or NY, or it comes across the Pacific, directly to Los Angeles. Our India trade most goes the same way. Some used to go through the Suez before the Houtis started attacking.

France and Japan have not joined prosperity guardian. Instead they have chosen to convoy their own flagged ships, even allowing the occasional stringer to tag along. Doing this, they use fewer ships, and it seems to work better than our approach. The picture at left shows a French courvair-escort escorting two French container ships. Note how much bigger the container ships are than the French warship. Should the Houtis’s missiles get too close to a French ship, I suspect that the French would retaliate hard. I think we should switch to following the French model and convoy-protect our shipping, plus whoever wants to tag along.

Map of Yemen and the Red Sea narrows.

Shipping, insurance rates have risen to about 1% of the cargo value. It’s now so expensive that no US cargo carrier will transit the area except when needed to supply our troops. At this point it’s worth asking, “Whose property are we guarding?” Also, is this really worth the lives of US sailors? If it is, why not hit the source of the problem — The Iranian spotter. The behavior of the French and Japanese makes sense to me. Biden’s behavior here does not.

Robert Buxbaum, February 6, 2024. Iran also funds and arms Hezbollah, a group that killed 3 US soldiers two months ago, and who killed several Kurdish allied troops in Syria just yesterday, and have shelled Israel intensely for months. IMHO, you want a few, well defended bases, not in harms way in Syria, but close enough to come back fast, in force.

Modern piracy and the gate of tears.

Leave a reply

Piracy is illegal throughout the world, but has become increasingly popular. Over the last 3 weeks, perhaps 15 ships have been attacked by pirates (or privateers) in the narrow entrance to the Red Sea between Yemen, Somalia, and Djibouti, the “Bab el Mandab,” In Arabic, this means “the gate of tears”. Most of the ships attacked are large commercial vessels operating between Europe and Asia. The US destroyer, Carney has been attacked as well. Three of the attacked ships have been boarded, and two have been successfully hijacked, the car-carrier Galaxy Leader was taken to South Yemen, while the MV Ruen a Bulgarian owned dry bulk (grain) ship was brought to Somalia. The last of the hijacked ships, the Strinda, was recaptured by the US and Japanese navy. The other ships were attacked, at a distance, by Iranian ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones, all fired from Yemen. All of these acts are defined as piracy under the UN Charter, Law of the Sea, UNCLOS. The punishment is 10+ years in prison, assuming you catch the pirate.

Bab al Mandab = Gate of tears, where the pirates operate.

All of these ships are European except for the Carney and a Chinese container ship flagged in, Hong Kong. You’d think that the European navies would protect their own ships here, but they do not. Neither did the Chinese navy, though they are stationed in Djibouti. It’s clear that Iran is organizing the attacks, and that they are using a spotter ship to help direct the missiles. My guess is that the European countries don’t want to annoy Iran here, nor do they like to use their $1 million missiles.

In theory, these attacks are in response to the Israel – Gaza war. The hijacked Galaxy Leader was registered in the UK, but owned by an Israeli Jew (see a video of the attack). Another ship that was attacked, the Strinda, was not directly associated with Israel, but was going to go to Israel at some point in the future. While it’s possible that the other attacked ships had Jewish or Israel connection, a simpler explanation is that this is economic terror. Israel-based Zim shipping has elected to avoid the straight and redirect around Africa instead, a much longer route that is sure to damage the shipper and Israel’s economy. I suppose that was an intent, but the damage is spreading.

Commercial vessel attacks in Bab al Mandab, chart from “What the Ship” video blog.

The European shippers have demanded that the US protect their ships, and perhaps Biden will agree. My sense is that Trump would have said no, or at least demand something in return. Personally, I see no reason to defend trade that doesn’t involve us, with no obvious payback. Yesterday, British Petroleum BP announced that it would avoid the Bab. Four major European container freight firms, MSC (Swiss), Maersk (Danish), Hapag-Lloyd (German) and CMA CGM (Italian, French). Currently Maersk supplies our troops, but has threatened to stop unless we defend their whole fleet. I consider this an offensive, a breech of contract. They European press seems to think it’s clever. We used to have a US company that supplied our troops, Landsea intermodal, but Maersk bought them out. Personally, I think it’s time to look for a company that doesn’t play these games.

As of two days ago, the economic damage has been minimal, except to Israel. Only 55 ships had diverted around Africa, or begun to. This is a small fraction of the 2,128 ships that have gone through the Bab since November 15. In the last day or so, European oil prices have started to rise, while ours fell. The thought is that Saudi oil will now flow to the US, not Europe. I think this is the beginning of a serious problem for Europe and that they should defend their own shipping. A few, million dollar missiles are a lot cheaper than the billions of loss to their economies that rerouting will cause. At present, Europe expects us to save them while they do little or nothing. I think we should say no. They think Biden will cave.

Robert Buxbaum, December 19, 2023. I’d like to call out my admiration for the “What the Ship” video blog, and Marine Link.

The Ukraine war could go for years. Don’t make a famine.

Leave a reply

Russia is a collapsing, corrupt state with no meaningful elections. It is also the biggest exporter of food, fertilizer, gas, and oil. Nearly 2 years ago, it invaded Ukraine, another collapsing, corrupt, food-exporting state with suspended elections.

Both countries are in the midst of demographic collapse, with Ukraine worse off. Ukraine was invaded though, and thus has the better claim to our support. Then again Russia has atomic bombs. It’s also the largest exporter of wheat (or was), while Ukraine is only the 5th largest (or was before the war). The other three big exporters are the US, Canada, and France. They have benefitted financially, but don’t have near enough output to make up for lost Russian and Ukrainian production.

Ukraine’s grain terminals in flames, Odessa..

Food and energy prices have gone up, world wide, and will probably continue to rise as the war stretches on. This could lead to a global famine and mass starvation, particularly in the poorest areas of Africa, the Mid East, and India. Unfortunately, the war is popular and patriotic, in Europe, Russia, Ukraine, and the US. It’s good business for our armaments industry, and for our recent mega-farmers (like Bill Gates). Also, for our political and spy class. They spend with little government oversight, and just recently misplaced $16 billion. Surely some of that lost money snuck back to the CIA and our politicians’ pockets. We’d have oversight, but “there’s a war on.”

As wars go, the death toll is low, a total of 354,000 dead and injured on both sides, as revealed by recently leaked documents. This is a small fraction of the countries population. Russia has lost 223,000 soldiers killed or wounded, 0.2% of the population, while the Ukrainians had lost 131,000. That’s 0.3%, many of them civilians. The death rate in the two countries during this time was 3.1 million people, 1.8% of the total, mostly from heart disease, accidents, and alcoholism.

The Ukrainian population. Lots of retirees, few kids, very few of military age. This is a disaster, not a country.

Even more destructive to Russia and Ukraine is the demographic collapse. The fertility rate in Russia is 1.5 child per woman, up fro 1.2 in 2000. For a stable population at low infant death, you need about 2.1 children per woman. Russia has had this low rate for a generation, at least 30 years. The net result is that we can expect that Russia’s population will drop by a third or so over the next generation, about 50 million. In Ukraine the fertility rate is even lower, 1.21 per woman, up from 1.1. It’s been this way for 30 years, the equivalent of killing off 1/2 of the population. Aside from leaving the countries full of old people, with no one to do the work, the demographic collapse is producing a cultural shift that virtually guarantees the breakup of Ukraine and the Russian federation. Europe also has this problem, but they have immigration, and that helps a little. Russia has no immigration, and recently resorted to kidnapping Ukrainian children.

The loss of Russian and Ukrainian exports means famine for the poor importers and food inflation for all.

The coming food and energy shortage is likely to lead to mass migration, I expect. Europe has stopped taking delivery of Russian food and energy, in solidarity with Ukraine. Meanwhile Russia has been destroying Ukrainian fields and food infrastructure. Russia ruined a dam last month, flooding Ukraine’s fields, and yesterday destroyed the grain terminals at the port of Odessa,. This was tit-for-tat since Ukraine destroyed a key bridge, and Crimea’s irrigation canal. What’s more, evidence suggests that Ukraine blew up the Nord Stream pipeline — a key source of finance for Russia and Germany. This sort of tit-for-tat escalated to WWI, fueled by a belief, on both sides, that they would win “decisively and quickly.”

The result of WWI is that Germany was the biggest loser, losing men and land, and suffering a killing famine in 1916. It militarized to prevent it happening again, leading to WWII. Germany is the biggest loser of this war, I’d say, aside from Ukraine. I fear it will militarize. Russia invaded Ukraine but claims a need to militarize. Biden’s promise that Ukraine’s will join NATO is a threat to Russia, as is our delivery of F16s, missiles and cluster bombs. We are killing Russians, and Putin doesn’t like it. Add to this, that Ukraine’s claim for independence rests mostly on its Nazi collaboration. For the good of everyone, maybe we can stop adding gasoline to this fire.

Ukraine deserves our support, I think, but that support need not go beyond small-ish arms, energy deliveries, and tariffs on Russian goods. I think we should Ukraine and Russia export food and energy. Even without WWIII, a world famine and a military Germany does no one any good.

Robert Buxbaum, July 20, 2023. When I was a teen, it was a given that war was bad. Now, for some reason, the kids are in for war, especially the more liberal classes. I find this absolutely bizarre.

China won’t invade Taiwan, perhaps Vietnam

1 Reply

For 2000 years Chinese rulers have either fixed the problems caused by their predecessors, or become the absolute ruler who brings new problems and a war. Eighteen times over the last 2000 years, the absolute ruler has chosen is to invade Vietnam. Chairman Xi Jinping took full power over China five years ago, and as I predicted then, purged the party of all other competent leaders, including his predecessor, Hu. He now has to do something, and that’s typically a war. Xi talks like he’d like to invade Taiwan, but I believe he’ll invade Vietnam instead, as so many others did before him. Taiwan (Formosa) is separated from mainland China by 100 miles of open sea. There’s been only two successful, modern invasions; by the Qing Chinese in 1683 with the help of the Dutch fleet, and in 1895 by Japan against the 5 month old Republic of Taiwan. Vietnam is much easer to invade: you just have to walk in.

Chiang KaiShek with Roosevelt and Churchill. He took power after WWII.Taiwan is now a Republic

Here’s my brief summary of 60 years of cyclical Chinese history: In the last decade of his life, 1966-76, Mao Zedung brought a horrible cultural revolution, killing 100 million or so by violence and famine, targeting anyone who might disagree with him. He was followed by Hua Kuofeng, Hu Yaobang, and Zhao Ziyang. They removed “the Gang of Four” and brought reform, toleration, and some rapprochement with the west. Hu also returned some autonomy to Tibet. Deng Xiaoping followed, put Zhao under house arrest, removed Hua and Hu (only recently buried), absorbed Tibet, invaded Vietnam, instituted a brutal on-child policy with, forced abortions and sterilizations, and put down the Tiananmen uprising 1989 -an uprising caused by the removal of Hu. Deng was followed by Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao who exited Vietnam, lightened the one-child policy, and brought back some measure of freedom. This lead to Xi Jinping who appears to be in the mold of Mao and Deng. He’s removed Hu publicly during a communist party meeting, has taken absolute control, arrested China’s business innovators, and (likely) caused a pandemic by unsafe research at the Wuhan bio-research facility. His response to the pandemic is worthy of Mao: he welded people into their homes. Xi now needs a war to unify the country, and talks like he’ll invade Taiwan. Xi might do it; he has increased military spending by 2.5 times, to double that of the EU (equal to US spending). His army is likely to be used somewhere soon. But where?

At first glance, it makes some sense to think he’ll invade Taiwan. He has the same justification as Deng had for Vietnam, “to punish the wayward province.” Taiwan is small, 23 million people, and very rich (GDP = $1.3T, 10-15% of China). It’s especially rich in high-tech areas that Xi seems to want, and China ruled the island (Formosa) for 212 years between 1683 and its brief independence in 1895. I expect that Xi will invade Vietnam though, for many of the same reasons that Deng did: it’s easier, and the invasion won’t destroy US trade. Vietnam will not be super easy to conquer, of course, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine looks like it will go on for years, but Xi has 100 million men of military age. Driving these men into Vietnam is a lot easier than an amphibious invasion. Vietnam now, as then, has few friends -perhaps only India -while Taiwan has many (The US and Japan, primarily), and they have naval breakwaters that would make an amphibious landing difficult. Vietnam is only about half as rich as Taiwan (GDP = $650 B), but it has two things China needs more than technology: oil and food.

The Japanese invasion of independent Taiwan, The Republic of Formosa, in 1895. It took 5 months despite lopsided advantages. Plus 7 years to pacify the population.

Japan’s invasion of the Republic of Formosa in 1895 would have to be the model for a Chinese invasion today, assuming that’s the route Xi would take. Japan used a small force of 20,000 highly trained men, and a surprise landing at two sites. The formosan army of 75,000 was hardly armed, but it still took the Japanese 5 months to defeat them. It took another 7 years to pacify the population. Taiwan today is a lot better prepared than it was, with modern missiles and drones, a well-trained army of 500,000, and an active navy. Japan, Philippines, and the US would likely try to resupply Taiwan, and would have to be blockaded to prevent delivery. This is not so easy, since the nearest Japanese island is closer to Taiwan than Taiwan is to mainland China, and the Philippines is not far either. Then there are the sanctions that would follow an invasion of Taiwan, but not an invasion of Vietnam: the freezing of assets and the closing of markets. Susch sanctions have been tough on Russia but they would be devastating to China since China imports most of its oil and half of its food, much of it by sea. Whatever Xi gets from invading Taiwan will not match these losses, and I think Xi know it.

China’s new military bases are located around Vietnam, not around Taiwan

I suspect that Xi has already concluded that Vietnam is the smart place to invade. Supporting this view is a look at his preparations. Xi has not built the landing fleet that he’d need for Taiwan, but has instead militarized Hainan Island, plus four other, newly constructed, illegal islands in the South China Sea. These islands surround Vietnam, and are well suited to cut off the country from western aid. They are too far south to be effective in an action against Taiwan. You can tell a lot about what a person will do from what he has done, and what Xi has done is to prepare for an invasion of Vietnam.

Robert Buxbaum, April 27, 2023.

Ukraine looks like Vietnam or the beginnings of WWI

1 Reply

The press and our Russian experts claim we’re helping in Ukraine, protecting it from a Russian invasion. I suspect they are wrong, and that our help and protection will prove to be as deadly to all as in the Vietnam war. I’m also uncomfortable with their presentation their framing of Putin as an out of touch autocrat. Putin has popular support, and acts with a strong sense of history, as I see it, just not our version of history. In the Russian version, it was Russia that stopped the Nazis — of Germany and Ukraine. We are not the heroes of WWII in their telling; I doubt we’ll be the heroes of this conflict either.

We have a habit of seeing ourselves as saving heroes as we enter other people’s conflicts. It is how we got into Vietnam, to save the South from the North. It’s also how Europe got into WWI: Russia was saving Serbia, Germany was saving Austria, etc (see cartoon below). We meddle our way, and leave much later than we planned. The result, as in Vietnam and Afghanistan is far more death and destruction than if we’d minded our own business. And US war-dead too. In Vietnam 58,000 US deaths. In Afghanistan 2,400 US dead. and no obvious accomplishment. As Henry Kissinger famously commented: “It’s dangerous to be America’s enemy, but deadly to be America’s friend.”

European aggression in WWII started with the good intention of preventing aggression. It got out of hand, as I fear our good intentions will in Ukraine.

The US troops we’ve sent to Ukraine are not called soldiers. They are “fighting advisors” sent to help the Ukrainians use our weapons. In WWI and Vietnam, fighting advisors are called invaders; it’s how we got drawn into Vietnam. The Russians claimed to send advisors when they entered the Crimea and later the Dundas. We called it an invasion. We can’t be that blind to our own words. Sooner or later, the advisors will start killing each other– something we’ll call an unprovoked attack. Our high tech aid including anti-tank missiles are reported to have killed some 10,000 Russians so far. We don’t seem to think the Russians will mind, or that they’ll give up as the body count mounts. In Vietnam, the more we killed with our high-tech weapons, the more the Vietnamese on both sides called us the villains, and the more Vietnamese joined the fight against us. That’s the future I fear for Ukraine, or worse. The conflict in WWI spiraled quickly beyond the borders of Serbia to include the whole world, and continued through WWII.

Our approach to diplomacy is counterproductive too, in my opinion, and similar to Vietnam too. We call Putin a terrorist, a madman and a narcissist, and then we begin talks with him to end the war. Biden has asked to have Putin removed by assassination.Does he think this will help, or if Putin is removed his successor will be a friend of the US? We demonized Ho Chi Minh, and propped up our favored, corrupt leaders. Minh was popular, as is Putin, and both have valid reasons for opposing us. Putin worries about the expansion of NATO. It’s not an illegitimate worry given Russian history of repeated invasions from the west.

Our desire to remove Russian leadership is a long-standing mistake. It does not lead to peace, or good negotiation, nor even peaceful co-existence.

Russia has been invaded many times. US schools mention Napoleon’s invasion in 1812 and the German’s in 1941, but there are more. They were invaded by the Germans in WWI too, and by the Ukrainian Cossacks in the days of Khmelnytsky, 1646-57. Before that the Polish Lithuanians, 1609-1618, the Swedes, 1701-1709, and in the early days, it was Tartars, Mongols, who invaded and ruled Russia from about 1225 til they joined with the Russian Tzars about 1650. Add to that, our help in the war of the Whites vs the Reds (1917-23) that produced Ukrainian independence — I talk about the relevance here. With a history like that, Russia has every reason to worry about NATO expansion. We should be cognizant of this and stop calling Putin a madman. Let’s accept the Russian version of history, and the sitting ruler of Russia.

Some cite the Budapest memorandum that lead to the removal of “Ukrainian” nuclear weapons –– read it here. It’s short, only 1 page, and deliberately vague. it was signed by Putin’s predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, for the Russian Federation, along with representatives for Ukraine, The US, and The UK. The missiles were not Ukrainian, they were Soviet, and pointed at us. As a result of that agreement, they were dismantled and moved into Russia. There is no sense that this is an invitation for us to protect Ukraine against Russia. The co-signers sort-of agree to protect Ukraine from outsiders (Germany, Turkey,..?), but that’s not clear. We commit ourselves to peace in the region, and can claim that Russia violated the peace first, but there’s no invitation for us to violate it second. Until recently, the UK provided no military aid. China and most of the EU still trades with Russia; if they see a villainy, it’s not enough to stop trade.

Robert McNamara was Secretary of Defense under Kennedy and Johnson, and a key “Whiz Kid” pushing for war in Vietnam. Years later, he decided Vietnam was a mistake. A sad cartoon: the veterans are walking past the grave monument for the 58,000 US dead. I worry we’ll have a similar cartoon after this war.

In my opinion, our best course is to reduce our military aid to providing only basics: bullets, blankets, food… We should reopen discussions with Putin, not demonize him, or try to remove him. Ukraine will likely fight on even without our high-tech weapons. Perhaps they’ll buy from Europe, or from independent dealers. The death rate on both sides will be lower and peace will come quicker without us. Crimea might remain Ukrainian or Russian, but that will not be our decision. We’ve done enough damage for now. It took many years after the end of the Vietnam war for the instigators admit is was a mistake.

Robert Buxbaum April 3, 2022. Much of my thinking about Vietnam comes from Francis Fitzgerald’s wonderful book “Fire in the Lake”. I see it all happening again here. Also worth reading is this 2014 letter by Henry Kissinger about how to negotiate a peace: “Damning Putin is not a foreign policy; it’s an alibi for the lack of one.” It’s a nice insight. He seems to understand diplomacy about as well as anyone.

The claim that Ukrainians are Nazis is also Ukraine’s claim to statehood.

4 Replies

Recently Putin claimed he was going into Ukraine to fight Nazis. Twitter makes fun of this, but also shows many pictures of these Nazis. Under the hashtag #AzovBattalion, you’ll see many pictures of white boys with swastikas and Ukraine flags (see below). Perhaps these pictures are just Russian propaganda: According to our media there are no Nazis to speak of, and besides, the president of Ukraine is a Jew. Still, the pictures look real, and based on Ukraine history, there is quite a bit reason to think they are not an aberration. Still, to the extent that they represent Ukraine, these individuals are a major basis of Ukraine’s claim for independence. They are also a good reason to leave Ukraine out of NATO, IMHO.

Let’s go back to the late days of the Tartars and the early days of the Cossacks, about 1600. There is a painting, below depicting Cossacks of those days writing a letter to The Sultan (original in the Kharkov museum). They do not seem the most savory of people, but they do seem independent and egalitarian. The letter is not written by a noble, but by a committee of pirates, and not everyone is happy about it.

Zaporozhian Cossacks write a letter to the sultan. These are the people who Putin claims should be loyal to Russia, but they have a long history of behaving otherwise. I like the scribe. A couple of people at left seem unhappy.

From 1250 to the mid 1700s, Southern Ukraine was ruled, to a greater or lesser extent, by the Crimean Tartars, a group of horse-riding Mongols who nominally served the great Khan. Moscow paid dues to them, and in 1571 the Tartar ruler,  Devlet I Giray burnt Moscow to collect his dues. The early Cossacks were Black-sea pirates, and enemies of the Tartars. Around 1600, the Cossacks and Tartars realized they had a lot in common (alcoholism, pederasty…) and formed an alliance. Mainly this was against the Poles and Jews. A famous result of this alliance was the Khmelnytsky Uprising (about 1650). Khmelnytsky was the “Hetman” (Head man?), the elected, temporary ruler for the uprising. He has become a symbol of Ukrainian independence, but he was also a brutal murderer of virtually all the Jews and Catholics. Today, he graces Ukraine’s $5 bill, and sits atop a statue in Kyiv’s central square. This elevation of Khmelnytsky is no small insult to Jews, Catholics, and civilization.

Ukrainian Republic passport, 1919.

 In 1654, via the Pereyaslav Agreement, Khmelnytsky’s Tartar-Cossacks formed an allegiance with the Tsar while retaining autonomy in Ukraine. This autonomy eroded over the years, and ended with Bolshevik rule in the early 20th century. After WWI, Ukrainians briefly tried for independence, forming the Ukraine Peoples Republic and the Ukraine Democratic republic, from 1917 to 1921. The head of the Republic was called hetman, an elected leader but also a throwback to a mass-murderer.

Stalin punished the Cossack remnant before WWIi, and when the Germans invaded in 1939, many of the remaining Ukrainians supported the Nazi invasion, and provided some of the most brutal murders of Jews; the murderers of Baba Year, for example. Putin recalls this collaboration when he calls the Ukrainians Nazis, and I suspect that he’s more right than our press will admit. These #azovbattalion pictures don’t look faked. On the other hand, the autonomy of the Ukrainians and Cossacks, and their attempts at independence provide historical backing for Ukraine’s claim to independence. Putting this another way, the more you accept that Ukraine is full of Nazi sympathizers, the more you should accept them as a distinct society from Russia.

Ukrainians of the Azov Battalion with a statue of Khmelnytsky, or some other murderer.

As an idea of how the war might go, I should mention another group of Tartar-Cossacks. These were Moslems who operated between the Don and Volga Rivers in what is known as Chechnya. Chechnya fought Russia in a long, bloody, unsuccessful struggle, that is only recently ended. Russia may win in Ukraine, but it is not likely to win easily or cheaply if Chechnya is any model.

Robert Buxbaum, Mar. 2, 2022

The British Exit from Afghanistan, and ours

3 Replies

As bad as our exit from Afghanistan has been, the slow British exit in the 1840s to 1920 was worse. While we lost a lot of stuff and left hundreds of Americans and contractors behind, the British, in their first try at leaving, lost a whole army including thousands of civilians. Then they returned and left repeatedly for 80 years, having to fight against their own weapons and people that they had trained. We did many of the same things the Brits did, like trusting our security to folks we’d been trying to kill, but we have not lost anywhere near as many people (yet) and we have not returned (yet). What follows is a look at the British exit, based mostly on Wikipedia articles: “The First Afghan War“, and the retreat from Kabul, 1842, and the biographies of Shah Shujah and Akbar Khan, pictures below.

Akbar Khan. The British tried to kill him, then negotiated with him. Sketch by Vincent Eyre
Britain’s Puppet King, Shah Shujah, Sketch by Vincent Eyre.

The British went into Afghanistan, as we did, to create a more stable and western-friendly government. Their first act was to remove the king, Mohammed Khan, and install a more pliant leader, Sultan Shujah. Mohammed was part of the Khanate, that is the Moguls (Mongols), a deadly violent group who the British were fighting in India. We did the same when we entered Afghanistan. We removed the elected president, Burhanuddin Rabbani, a “radical Moslem” associated with the Taliban leader, Mohammed Omar, an even more radical moslem. Omar was associated Osama bin Laden who’d attacked the US on 9-11. We replaced these, long-bearded Moslems with Hamid Karzai, a moderate Moslem: short beard, reasonably popular, US-friendly, elected in Bonn, Germany. The problem with Shah Shujah and Hamid Karzai is neither one had legitimacy in the eyes of the people, nor respect from the army, either. In part that’s because we put them in power and kept them there, in part that’s because we never let them lead in war or diplomacy. Our follow-on leader, Ashraf Ghani, had no beard, and even less legitimacy and respect. The Afghan army left Ghani as soon as we started leaving; they’d done the same to Shah Shujah when the British left in 1842.

William Macnaughten, the British Envoy, prison sketch by Vincent Eyre, the same fellow who sketched Akbar and Shujah above.

Shah Shujah had a habit of mutilating those who worked for him whenever he got upset. All of Shujah’s servants were missing ears or noses or testicles. Strangely, this seems to have given him more legitimacy than Ghani had. Perhaps if we allowed our leaders to lead, or at least mutilate, the army would have stayed loyal. Then again, maybe nothing would have prevented the puppet from collapsing when the puppet-master left. Both we and the Brits relied on our own troops to keep the peace, along with payoffs and occasional assassinations (we call those airstrikes). It worked for a time, but did not build loyalty or love.

Among those the British paid off and occasionally tried to kill was Akbar Khan, the son of imprisoned Mohammed Khan. Eventually, the British felt they needed Akbar’s help to protect their exit, as he controlled the hills around Kabul including the old Silk Road that the British hoped to travel. Similarly, in the end, we found we needed Taliban help to clear the road to the airport. We didn’t quite get the help, nor did the Brits.

On December 23, 1841, the British envoy, William Macnaughten, visited Akbar Khan and proposed that he would hand over Shah Shujah and make him king in return for safe passage for 16,500 people under General Keith Elphinstone on a journey from Kabul to fort Jalalabad: 93 miles due east. Akbar agreed, but had Macnoughton arrested and later killed. His body was hung in the bazaar. Akbar seems to have figured that anyone willing to betray his old friend would be likely to betray him as well.

Kipling was stationed in India, near the Afghan border. His view of the locals is rather gruesome.

General Elphinstone left Kabulon January 5, 1842 with 4,500 armed soldiers, several cannon, and 12,000+ unarmed civilians. The going was slow and supplies didn’t arrive. Five days later, January 10, allies of Akbar attacked in the hills and killed or captured most of the group. Akbar invited Elphinstone to tea the next day and announced that the group was now his prisoner. He offered safe passage for the women and children, but demanded payment. The alternative was that they freeze in the hills. Elphinstone, at first refused, then ransomed himself and others, in all nine people. The rest of the group were shot, stabbed, taken by the Afghanis to be wives, or stripped of clothing and left to freeze. Younger children were raised as Afghanis, only identified as British sixty or more years later– the British liked to pretend they had not left them. Of the rest, only two survived. One soldier, William Brydon made it to Jalalabad, January 13, 1842. Elphinstone died in captivity in Kabul, April, 1842. According to Kipling’s poem, the Afghanis mutilated British bodies. More likely it was animals.

Hamid Karzai, American supported President, now under house arrest.

The British re-invaded Kabul several times after that, each time hoping to free captives and show who’s boss. There followed a second Anglo Afghan war (1878-80) and third (1919-20), and arguably a fourth (2001-21). Our exit isn’t as bad, at least not yet. We’ve left behind 200-300 Americans plus hundreds of helicopters, trucks, and high-tech weapons. The Taliban are now in charge, folks we’d tried to kill, all of them were associated with Omar, and several with Osama bin Laden, too. Our security forces have been shot, the embassy translator is scheduled to be beheaded, the new government includes several senior members who had been detained at Guantánamo Bay, released to Qatar in a prisoner swap for Bowe Bergdahl in 2014. Hamid Karzai is in captivity, and we’ve taken 100,000 Afghanis who may not integrate well into US society. But at lest there is no sign we’re going back, not for Karzai, or the Americans, or for anyone else. It’s very bad, but it could be worse. Biden calls it a success. Compared to the British exit, it is so far.

Robert Buxbaum, Sept. 5, 2021. IMHO beards are associated with commitment.

Wilsonian Obama vs the Trump Doctrine

2 Replies

As best I see it, Obama’s approach to world peace was a version of Woodrow Wilson’s: he consistently supported left-leaning, popular groups and governments, even when they were anti-American over pro-American kings, generals, and dictators. Obama heaped money and praise on elected leaders of Iran and the Palestinian Authority, while condemning Israel, and encouraging Democrats to walk out of a speech its PM. He then sent a statement to be read on the floor of congress that the Israeli PM  had nothing to say. Similarly, Obama refused to negotiate with Kim Jung Un of North Korea, a dictator in his eyes, but he had no problem with Raul Castro. Leftists, in his view, were for the masses, and thus democratic. Such democrats were on the side of the angels in his view, though Castro’s Cuba was not exactly free.

The co-head of the Democratic Party wears a shirt that reads "I don't believe in borders." It's a Moslem Brotherhood slogan. They do not believe in borders between Gaza and Israel, but do believe in them between Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

The co-head of the Democratic Party wears a shirt that reads “I don’t believe in borders.” It’s a globalist slogan, a Moslem Brotherhood slogan. The Trump doctrine requires boundaries between ‘turf.”

One of the most popular, if violent groups on the world stage was (is) the Moslem Brotherhood. A few months after becoming president, he gave his first foreign speech at Cairo University,  making the Wilsonian request to include the Brotherhood here and in all further negotiations. The Moslem Brotherhood was anti-American and left leaning, and they favored elections. On the other hand, they had assassinated Egyptian president Anwar el-Sadat and Egyptian prime minister Mohammad Pasha just a few years previous. They had also tried to overthrow the government of Egypt and Jordan by force, and had tried to assassinate Egyptian president Nasser and Jordan’s kings Abdullah and Hussein, unsuccessfully. Including the Brotherhood was symptomatic of a general problem of Wilsonian diplomacy; it provides no good way to tell the good guys from the bad without putting them in power. Some hints: the Brotherhood afforded no rights to women or gays; they had no clear distinctions from Hezbollah, Hamas, or Al Qaeda; and they were anti-American and anti Israel to the extent that they shouted death to both.

Even though the Moslem Brotherhood was Sunni-Moslem, a fair number in the mid-east cane to claim that Obama had included them because he was a Shiite Moslem, and just using them to overthrow more-stable Sunni governments of Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Here’s a bit from an Iraqi MP, and from Saudi TV making this claim. Here too is a joke about Sunni and Shia to help you keep the two groups straight. Whatever his motivation, the outcome was the so-called Arab Spring (2011) uprisings that overthrew pro-American regimes in Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia and Turkey. It also brought the end of a free press in Turkey, and trouble for pro-American regimes in Bahrain, UAE, and Saudi Arabia. After the Brotherhood murdered the American ambassador in Libya and his (few) US guards, Obama blamed the death on some Jewish film-makers. My sense is that Obama was unwilling to believe that a fellow leftist of the Brotherhood would lie to him and murder our ambassador just to get at billions of dollars of Libya’s oil.

Trump, his daughter, el Sisi, and the King of Saudi Arabia. No Emir of Qatar.

Trump, Melania, the King of Saudi Arabia, and  el-Sisi of Egypt at a meeting in Riyadh with other friendly leaders; no Emir of Qatar, no Muslim Brotherhood.

Wilson lived to see the Mid-east parts of his 14 points lead to disaster in country after country (those were points V, XI, and XII for the Woody Woo fans). Obama similarly backed Kurdish and Hezbollah “moderates” only to see them turn sides and fight one another, or fight against our ally Turkey, or join together and form ISIS. He backed Palestinians in Gaza too, and saw them murder gays and suspected traitors on TV. He supported “moderate” Turkey, and found his Turkish allies killing his Kurds. Obama fueled a murderous tribal war, like Wilson had done, based on the best of intentions, and an American naiveté about how the world works.

Closer to home, at the very end of Obama’s presidency, he ended the registry of the National Security Entry-Exit System (NSEERS) intended to track terrorists. He closed this border program because it was racist in his view. Most of the illegals caught were Moslems or brown-skinned. Republicans seem to agree that a border-security program like this is problematic, especially where children are involved, but they claim it is better than letting in terrorists, or criminals, or the occasional human trafficker. Lacking anyone with a better answer, they elected Donald Trump, a man who claimed he’d bring peace by building a wall.

Trump made his first mideast speech in Saudi Arabia, but unlike Obama, he invited only pro-American, authoritarian leaders. He left out the Muslim Brotherhood and the rulers of any “republican” government that chanted “Death to America.” Trump announced that the US will not dictate how leaders should run their countries, or how people in these countries should live. Instead, we would be a friend to our friends, and that we would mediate disputes where necessary and helpful. There was also a threat against “bad guys” understood to be the enemies of America.

This “Trump doctrine” seems (to me) to have been borrowed from Charles (Lucky) Luciano, a New York mob boss who kept peace between the various mob families of New York and New Jersey by keeping the territories separate and clear (similar to Trump’s wall). Luciano allowed the various family heads to do what they wanted on their own turf, and offered to mediate disputes (see the similarity?). He also treated to hit those who hit him, and he took no guff. So far, Trump’s version of this seems to be working. The mideast is far calmer than when Obama was president, perhaps because its leaders understand Trump better, and Trump may have negotiated an end to the Korean war. Wilsonian Democrats (Obama) claimed that you can’t negotiate with a murderous thug like Kim Jung Un, but Trump has no problem — they both like walls. Besides, Trump points out that the alternative is nuclear war.

I suspect that Trump is hated by the Europeans is the comparison with Obama. Obama spent our money liberally, on them and on their issues, while Trump does not. A thought: if the Europeans think a president is spending enough, he's spending too much.

Obama spent our money liberally on the Europeans while Trump does not. A thought: if the Europeans think you spend enough, you’re spending too much.

How does Trump hit back? For one, he refuses to serve as free protector for those who can defend themselves. Trump has threatened Germany saying they must pay for their own defense, and has cut funding to the UN Human Rights commission and the Paris climate council, groups he considers pointless or worse. More recently, he ended Obama’s constraints on natural gas exploration and exports. In 2017 US gas exports rose by $4B, a factor of four from 2016, dramatically lowering the price of natural gas on the open market. Several oil nations were hit by this including Qatar the main gas exporter in 2014 (Russia is now) and a main funder of Al Jazeera, and of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas.

Robert Buxbaum, June 26, 2018. I’ve never understood why people expect Marxist leaders to be peaceful. Marx himself claims that the mode of production determines a country’s social, political and intellectual life. A leader hoping to control the latter must control the former with a war-like ferocity if he’s to be a Marxist, and even the most milk-toast Marxists have done so.

Cornwallis attacks. Washington goes to Princeton.

1 Reply

In the previous post, I asked what you would do as a general (Cornwallis), December 27, 1776. You command 30,000 troops, some 12,000 at Princeton of at total 50,000 against Washington’s 3500. Washington is camped 12 miles to the south just outside of Trenton with a majority of his men scheduled to leave in three days when their enlistments expire.

In fact, what Cornwallis did, is what every commenter recommended. He attacked at Trenton, and lost New Jersey. Cornwallis left 2-3000 troops at Princeton and marched south. Despite fallen trees, swollen rivers, destroyed bridges — all courtesy of Washington’s men –Cornwallis reached Trenton and attacked. By the time he got there, 2000 of Washington’s men had left, partially replaced by untrained militia. After a skirmish, Washington set up 400 militia to keep the fires burning, and without telling them where he was going “Fall back if the British attack”, he took the rest of his forces east, across frozen fields and swampland, then north to Princeton along the Quaker-bridge road. He later said the reason was to avoid looking like a retreat.

He split his forces just outside of Princeton, and a detachment, led by Hugh Mercer and 350  regulars had the first battle as they ran into the 17th and 55th British regiments as they prepared to escort supplies to Trenton. The British commander, Lt.colonel Mawhood, seeing how few men he faced, sent the 55th and most of the supplies back to Princeton, and led his men to shoot at the Americans from behind a fence. Mercer’s men fired back with rifles and cannon, doing little. Then, the trained British did what their training demanded: they rose up and charged the rebels with fixed bayonets. Mercer, having no bayonets, called “Retreat!” before being stabbed repeatedly, see painting. Mawhood’s men seized the cannon, turned it on the fleeing remnants of Mercer’s men.

General Mercer defeated at Princeton, as Washington shows up.

General Mercer defeated at Princeton, as Washington shows up.

It looked like a British victory, but then General Nathaniel Greene (the fighting Quaker) showed up with several hundred Pennsylvania militiamen. The militiamen had never seen battle, and many fled, after shooting into the British lines with rifles and another cannon and grape-shot. At this point it looked like a draw, but then, Washington himself joined the battle with two brigades of regulars: Hitchcock’s 253 New Englanders and Hand’s 200 Pennsylvania riflemen.

Washington managed to rally the fleeing Pennsylvanians; “Parade with us, my brave fellows! There is but a handful of the enemy and we will have them directly!” And Mawhood, now without most of his officers, ordered a last bayonet charge and fled down the Post Road to Trenton. Washington rode after for a bit “It’s a fine fox chase, my boys!”

James Peale, 1783. John Sullivan and his forces at Frog Hollow. Battle of Princeton

James Peale, 1783. John Sullivan and his forces at Frog Hollow. Battle of Princeton

The rest of the British along with Mawhood, met the rest of Washington’s men, lead by John Sullivan, at a place called Frog Hollow, near where Princeton Inn College (Forbes College) now stands. The Americans opened with grape-shot and the British put up little resistance. Those who did not surrender were chased into town, taking refuge in Nassau Hall, the central building of the university. Alexander Hamilton’s men (he’d been rejected by Princeton) took special enjoyment in shooting cannon into the building. A hole remains in the college walls and a cannonball supposedly decapitated a portrait of George II. About then the New Jersey militia broke in a door, and the British surrendered.

Washington had captured, killed, or destroyed most of three English regiments, took a wagon train of supplies, and left going north following a bit of looting. “Loyalists” were relieved of coins, liquor, shoes, blankets. They ate the breakfast prepared for the 40th, and were gone by 11 AM, heading north — to where?. Cornwallis returned before noon “in a most infernal sweat — running, puffing, blowing, and swearing.” His men looted the town again, but now what?

Was Washington headed to New Brunswick where a handful of British soldiers guarded Cornwallis’s supplies and a war chest of £70,000? He didn’t go directly, but perhaps by a circuitous route. Cornwallis went straight to New Brunswick and jealously guarded the place, its money and supplies. Washington meanwhile ran to safety in the Watchung Mountains outside Morristown. Cornwallis’s 17th claimed victory, having defeated a larger group, but Cornwallis gave up Princeton, Trenton, and the lives of the New Jersey loyalists. Rebels flocked to Washington. Loyalists were looted and chased. Hessians were shot in “a sort of continual hunting party.” Philip Freneau expressed the change thus:

When first Britannia sent her hostile crew; To these far shores, to ravage and subdue, 

We thought them gods, and almost seemed to say; No ball could pierce them, and no dagger slay.

Heavens! what a blunder—half our fears were vain; These hostile gods at length have quit the plain.

 

Robert Buxbaum. December 21, 2016. So now that you know what happened, what SHOULD Cornwallis have done? Clearly, it’s possible to do everything right militarily, and still lose. This is an essence of comedy. The British had a similar Pyrrhic victory at Bunker Hill. I suspect Cornwallis should have fortified Trenton with a smaller force; built a stockade wall, and distributed weapons to the loyalists there. That’s a change in British attitude, but it’s this dynamic of trust that works. The British retreat music, “the world turned upside down“, is a Christmas song.

Lessons of WWI: remove aristocrats and beards

2 Replies

Tzar Nicholas II and King George V.

Tzar Nicholas II and King George V, cousins and allies.

When I was a kid, Veterans day was called Armistice day. It marked the end of WWI. As many people died on all sides (there were many shifting alliances), it’s worthwhile asking what we’ve learned. The main thing, I think, is that aristocrats suck, both hereditary aristocrats, and the aristocrats of thought. Europe entered a world war for no big reason: small gains of land and status gains for a few aristocrats, generals, and thinkers at the top of society. These saw an opportunity to get medals and prove they could lead men in battle. The mass of Europeans cheered for war (see photo below, right) and followed them in battle. Millions were sent running at machine guns and poison gas. Most died, Those who survived returned home feeling less enthused about the ignorant, arrogant hereditary aristocrats, but still honored the generals and thinkers. They executed Tzar Nicolas of Russia and greatly reduce the power of the kings of England, Belgium, Turkey, Holland, and Austria. The thinkers inherited that power, but dropped the monarch’s face hair.

Emperor Franz Joseph

Emperor Franz Joseph II

mehmedv

Calif Mohammet V

Before WWI, virtually all of Europe was ruled by king; generally bearded kings who were believed to rule by divine right, as the will of God. The king generally had aid of a republican congress, a large aristocracy — counts, dukes, marchese, and earls, and the academic élite — professors and generals. All of these avoided association with the masses, except for show, all spent lavishly, and all maneuvered for power. By the end of WWI, no king in Europe retained real power, and the hereditary aristocrats discredited, power went to the intellectual aristocrats, where it resides today: generals, professors, newspapermen, novelists, generally mustached and modern. In 20 years or so, the new aristocrats would bring on WWII, in part because of a fear of war. Their wisdom proved to be little better than the old, but it is hard to say it was worse. The main lessons learned: avoid beards and aristocrats.

Brittains unified and cheering for the start of WWI

Britains unified and cheering for the start of WWI

In his book, “Diplomacy”, Henry Kissinger draws a few more lessons from the Great War. A major one is that balance of power works: it worked for the 100 years until WWI. Another lesson he draws: don’t let mutual defense treaties kick in until an actual invasion has begun: until troops actually cross the border. He blames hair trigger treaties for much of the trouble of WWI. His book is a good read, though, if only as a background his diplomatic approaches.

I write about WWI because of today is Veterans day, and also because two days ago we elected Donald Trump president of the US in a bitterly divisive election. Trump claims he wants “to drain the swamp,” a claim I take to mean that he intends to diminish the power of the intellectual aristocracy, the generals, writers, professors and politicians who think together, vacation together, club together, and control what it means to be educated. The Washington Post calls this removal a threat to western civilization; it removes the intelligentsia, and replaces it with racist boobs, or so they see Trump’s crew. There were anti election demonstrations in Boston, New York, Oakland, Austin, and Detroit. Upon election news a movement was started to impeach Trump, or get him to step down on claims that he stole the election. Officials of Hampshire college lowered the flag to half mast as a sign of mourning for our democracy. These acts of dissent are as heartfelt a reaction as the widespread approval that greeted WWI. I can hope the outcome is better.

For what it’s worth, I do not believe the supporters of Trump are as angry, or as stupid as portrayed: half a basketball of deplorables and irredeemables, the other half needing re-education (to borrow from Ms Clinton). These are the people who fight our wars, and I suspect we’ll be somewhat better off for giving them a voice. As for veterans day, honor the poor blokes who fought for our folly.

Robert E. Buxbaum, November 10, 2016.