At the Start of Something.

Posted on October 7, 2024 by jsh54

Over the years, Iran has armed and helped organize “proxy” forces on the borders of Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthies in Yemen all are clients of Iran. The Iranian term for these groups is the “Axis of Resistance.” They are sometimes described in the Western media as Iran’s forward line of defense against Israel. In truth they are the “Axis of Aggression” and Iran’s forward line of attack against Israel.

On 7 October 2023, Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel.[1] Israel began a long, grinding conquest of Gaza. Soon after Hamas launched its attack, Hezbollah (“Party of God”) in Lebanon (and eventually the Houthies in Yemen) began supporting Hamas by their own missile attacks on northern Israel and shipping in the Red Sea. Sixty thousand people fled northern Israel in search of a place of greater safety. Israel did little in response to these attacks as it concentrated its effort on Gaza.

The Israeli are, apparently, masters of Sequence: first one thing, then the next thing. Suddenly, Israeli pummeled Hezbollah. (This may be a sign that the government regards matters as being well in hand in Gaza.) First, pagers previously distributed by Hezbollah to many of its members exploded. These had been chosen as a more secure communication device than cell phones, calls on which might easily be intercepted by Israel. The next day, walkie-talkies distributed as a back-up system to the pagers exploded. Israel’s intelligence service had compromised Hezbollah’s communications logistics.

Then Israel began bombing in a precise (but bloody) fashion. On the one hand, they hit many in the upper ranks of Hezbollah’s leadership. Apparently, they knew how to locate them. Among the dead were Hassan Nasrallah, the long-time leader of Hezbollah; Nabil Kaouk, a deputy of Nasrallah; and Ibrahim Akil, head of Hezbollah’s equivalent of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. These all come on top of earlier assassinations.[2]

On the other hand, Israeli jets pounded storage sites of Hezbollah’s missiles and rockets. American and Israeli sources claim that perhaps half of Hezbollah’s huge stockpile has been destroyed.[3] Then Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) invaded southern Lebanon. The government of Israel claims that this is a “limited” operation meant to clear southern Lebanon of Hezbollah troops and weapons. Only time will tell if this operation really is “limited” or if it portends something larger.

In response to the battering of Hezbollah, it’s patron-state Iran launched a large strike of 181 missiles at targets in Israel. Backed up by fire from U.S. Navy destroyers, Israel’s air defense system shot down most of the incoming missiles.

Is Hezbollah irreparably damaged or destroyed? Much of the discussion seems to report a consensus view that Hezbollah SHOULD be destroyed or, at least, forced out of its powerful position in Lebanon’s politics. It doesn’t really address the question of whether Hezbollah CAN be destroyed. Certainly, the huge damage done to its upper leadership will weaken and disorganize Hezbollah for some time. That weakness and disorganization will open more gaps for Israel to attack. Furthermore, in light of the history of other revolutionary movements, there is likely to be a great “rat hunt” inside Hezbollah for the Israeli agent or agents. In light of the history of other “rat hunts,” the person in charge of the hunt will almost certainly be an Israeli agent.[4] In light of the history of other organizations, such hunts tend to wreak havoc with the organization engaged in the “rat hunt.”[5] Deep distrust may lead to fragmentation, at least for a time.

However, Hezbollah is supposed to have around 100,000 fighting men that it can call up. That is a substantial base from which to recruit a new leadership hierarchy. Not to draw too close a parallel, but consider the American “War on Drugs.” For half a century now, we’ve devoted great resources to battling the “drug cartels.”[6] Huge loads of illegal drugs and the cash from their sale have been captured; many cartel members have been captured; many others have died in the fratricidal battles of the drug trade. In 2022, the United States suffered 73,838 deaths attributed to fentanyl.[7] People in the drug trade are like “dragon’s teeth.” Is it the same for Hezbollah?

[1] “Israel vows retaliation after Iranian attack,” The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 4.

[2] For lists of Hezbollah leaders believed to have been killed as of 30 September 2024, see: The Hezbollah leaders killed by Israel – who they were and the key players that remain | CNN and List of Hezbollah’s high-ranking figures killed by Israel | Al Bawaba. Among the others killed was Fateh al-Sharif, who led Hamas fighters in Lebanon and acted as co-ordinator of Hamas with Hezbollah. When not busy with those activities he worked as a school principal for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and as head of the teachers’ union. The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 9. During the Second World War, the British and the Czechs assassinated Reinhard Heydrich, while the Americans ambushed the plane they knew to be carrying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who had planned the Pearl Harbor attack.

[3] Either that’s a wild guess and they’re just blowing smoke or they’re right on the money because they knew the location and exact contents of the dumps. Given the evidence from Israel’s other attacks, it seems that Hezbollah has been riddled by Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad. See: The GWOT if Israel was in charge. | waroftheworldblog

[4] See: Peter Hart, The IRA and Its Enemies: Violence and Community in Cork, 1916-1923 (1988).

[5] David Wise, Molehunt: The Secret Search for Traitors That Shattered the C.I.A. (1992).

[6] Mark Bowden, Killing Pablo: The Hunt for the World’s Greatest Outlaw (2001).

[7] See: Fentanyl overdose deaths U.S. 1999-2022 | Statista

Remaking the Middle East 7 October 2024.

Posted on October 7, 2024 by jsh54

It is a moment of great uncertainty in the Middle East. Many people fear the expansion of Israel’s war with Hamas and Hezbollah into a larger war involving Iran and the United States, one which has no certain outcome. For others, however, visions of sugar plums dance in their head.[1] A Saudi Arabian journalist[2] wrote that Israel’s deadly attacks had done so much damage to Hezbollah that “even if the group were to live on, it would most likely be a caricature of its former self.”[3] Lebanon may be able to free itself from the thirty-year death-grip of Hezbollah. A British journalist judged that, in spite of the Biden administration dragging on Israel’s coat, “Israel is likely to see the current moment as too good an opportunity to miss.”

Opportunity to do what? One answer is to strike at the nuclear weapons program that threatens the survival of Israel. Another answer is both more ambitious and ill-defined. An American journalist reported that “Many in Israel see a ‘once-in-a-generation chance’ to remake the Middle East to Israel’s advantage.” Naftali Bennett, a former Prime Minister of Israel, sees “the biggest opportunity in the past 50 years” to reshape the region.[4]

Reshape how? Destroy Hamas entirely? Destroy Hezbollah entirely or, at least as a significant force in regional conflicts? Gravely damage Iran’s nuclear program and force it to accept long-term international supervision? Topple the Islamist regime in Iran entirely in hopes of something better emerging? Forge an alliance with Saudi Arabia over the Iran conflict and relegate the Palestinian question to Israel alone? Redraw the map of the Middle East to unite all Kurds not under Turkish rule into a sovereign state? Redraw the map of the Middle East to assign the Sunni part of Iraq to Jordan? “Transfer”[5] the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank to the Shi’ite portion of a partitioned Iraq?

What does History tell us about once-in-a-generation opportunities?

In the early 19^th Century, “Nationalism” meant that all people speaking the same language and sharing the same culture should live in a single independent country. Germany were split into 30-plus states; Italy was split into half a dozen states; the Austrian Empire smooshed together people from many different latent-countries. Many people saw Nationalism as the wave of the future. Austria saw it as a death sentence. One of these Believers was the French Emperor Napoleon III, the nephew of the great Napoleon I. France should lead this remaking of the map of Europe.

Napoleon III started with Italy, concluding a secret deal with Count Camillo di Cavour, the prime minister of the Italian kingdom of Piedmont-Sardina.[6] If Cavour would provide a war with Austria, Napoleon II would furnish the French army to win it. Then, the Austrians would be expelled from Italy, and Italy would be “united” in a loose federation. Piedmont would expand to dominate northern Italy; central Italy’s small states would join together under a ruler to be supplied by France; the backward southern Italian kingdom of the Two Sicilies would join the confederation; and the Pope’s lands would be much reduced, but the Pope would become head of this loose confederation.

Cavour did what he said that he would: he provoked Austria into declaring war. Napoleon III did what he said that he would: his army thrashed the Austrians at Magenta and Solferino. Then the wheels came off, badly and at high speed. First, the French were appalled by the casualties suffered in battle and tried to crawfish on Piedmont by striking a deal with the Austrians. Second, Italian popular nationalism surged up on the enthusiasm of victories won by others. Popular revolts led to demands for the unification of all Italy north of the kingdom of Naples, regardless of promises made to Napoleon III. Third, then the Italian nationalist and republican adventurer Giusseppe Garibaldi led a small expedition (with or without the knowledge of Cavour?) against the kingdom of the Two Sicilies. The kingdom collapsed like a house of cards. Garibaldi led his army north toward Rome. Faced with the danger of a republican revolution overwhelming a monarchical revolution, the king of Piedmont met Garibaldi face to face. The great man surrendered to the little king, at the price of southern Italy being included in the new nation.

France hadn’t wanted a united Italian peninsula unified under a centralized government. The northern Italians hadn’t really wanted the inclusion of the backward Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in their new nation. Garibaldi hadn’t wanted a monarchy, but a unified and centralized republic. No one got exactly what they wanted.

Nor did they clearly foresee the long-term effects. The unification of Italy made the unification of Germany (against and without the Austrian empire) the next pressing question in European affairs. Nationalist victories in central Europe then accelerated the spread of nationalism into the great multi-national empires of eastern Europe and the Middle East. The Austrian, Russian, and Ottoman empires all succumbed during the First World War.

Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian statesman and leader of German unification, was a temperamentally conservative and cautious person. He spent a lot of time thinking about all the possible scenarios, but he didn’t go looking for “once-in-a-generation” chances.

Of course, other people are more time-bound and fixated on one outcome as the only possible outcome. That is, they feel a burning need to accomplish some great mission in their lifetime. Both Lenin and Hitler were that way.

[1] Marc Champion wrote in Bloomberg that the blows suffered by Iran offer a tempting chance for Israel to inflict serious harm on its avowed main enemy. Champion acknowledged that an Israeli attack would force Iran to choose between humiliation for the regime and a war with a surprising adversary and the possibility of American involvement.

[2] A place where speech is never free, but often inspired.

[3] Faisal Abbas, quoted in “Lebanon: Can Hezbollah survive the death of its leader?” The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 15.

[4] All quoted in “Israel vows retaliation after Iranian attack,” The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 4.

[5] At the end of and after the Second World War, many ethnic Germans fled the advancing Red Army or were driven out of places like Poland and the Czech Sudetenland. These and other population movements were sometimes referred to as population “transfers.”

[6] Derek Beales and Eugenio Biagini, The Risorgimento and the Unification of Italy (2003). It’s an update of an earlier work. But, if you have the time, there are a series of classic older books by Denis Mack Smith.

Movies About War at Sea: Bear With Me Here.

Posted on September 26, 2024 by jsh54

C.S. Forester (1899-1966)[1] was rejected when he volunteered for military service during the First World War.[2] He tried med school, but left without the MD. He tried writing. This time he got what he wanted. Forester discovered “write fast, send it off, and start something new—you’ll learn as you go.” In 1922 he started a relationship with Methuen publishers that led to four popular history books.[3] In 1924, he published two little noticed novels; in 1926 he hit pay-dirt with Payment Deferred; in 1927 he wrote two more little-noticed novels, and a third in 1928; in 1929 he hit pay-dirt again with Brown on Resolution; in 1930 and 1931 he wrote two more little-noticed novels; then in 1932 and 1933 he wrote two successful historical novels, Death to the French,[4] and The Gun.[5] Then, suddenly, he was successful. He got a contract to spend a quarter of each year in Hollywood working on screen-plays. In 1935, “Brown on Resolution” became a movie[6]; he published both the still highly-regarded The General and The African Queen (and the soon-forgotten The Pursued). In 1937 and 1938 he published the first three novels in the “Horatio Hornblower” series.[7] These books launched a string of a dozen works that dominated his later career. Not knowing this in advance, in 1940 he wrote To the Indies, about Spanish conquistadors.

Then the Second World War came. He had missed “doing his bit” in the first war; he wasn’t going to miss it this time. He couldn’t soldier, but he could write. By 1938, he had created a series of British characters who were stolid, courageous, undeterred by adversity, and inventive about overcoming it. He had mastered the action scene.[8] The British Ministry of Information sent him to America. “You’ve been there, you know them, make us sympathetic, eh what?”[9]

So he moved to the United States. Lippity-lippity quick like a bunny, he wrote another novel about war in the Age of Fighting Sail. This time, the Hero-Captain was an American during the War of 1812.[10] It turns into a story of Anglo-American friendship developing in wartime. Timely, huh? Appearing in Summer 1941, it was a huge hit with critics and readers. He wrote a magazine story about Americans flying in the RAF while the United States remained neutral. It got made into a successful movie.[11] He wrote a magazine story about Commando raids on occupied Europe. It got made into a movie.[12] In 1942-1943, the Royal Navy took him along on missions. A trip on H.M.S. Penelope during a convoy to Malta resulted in the trim little fact-based novel The Ship (1943).[13]

After the war he stayed in America. He continued the Hornblower series to completion.[14] He also wrote a bunch of other stuff. In part, he wrote a different kind of fiction. The Sky and the Forest (1948) seems to me like the inspiration for Chinua Achebe, Things Fall Apart (1958). Or perhaps Achebe just reacted against the White man’s view of Africa, like he did with Joseph Conrad and Joyce Cary. But that’s just me. Randall and the River of Time (1951) is a bit of a head-scratcher, but it seems to me a riff on Ecclesiastes 9: 11-12. In part, the cobbler returned to his last, writing The Naval War of 1812/The Age of Fighting Sail (1957) about the naval side of the War of 1812; and Hunting the Bismarck/The Last Nine Days of the Bismarck/Sink the Bismarck (1959).[15]

Among that “other stuff” is The Good Shephard (1955). The book brings together The Captain from Connecticut and The Ship. That is, it is the story of an American Captain commanding the escort vessels of a convoy crossing the Atlantic in the face of ferocious U-boat attacks early in 1942. From this novel came the movie “Greyhound.”

[1] I think that I had read all his “Hornblower” books by the time he died. I was then twelve years old.

[2] Only a serious medical problem would get you rejected by the British Army in 1917-1918.

[3] Victor Emmanuel II (1922); Napoleon and His Court (1922); Josephine, Napoleon’s Empress (1925); Victor Emmanuel II and the Union of Italy (1927); Louis XIV, King of France and Navarre (1928).

[4] OK, this has a funny side to it. In America, it was titled Rifleman Dodd and its central character is Rifleman Matthew Dodd. He is a soldier in the 95^th Regiment of Foot who becomes separated from his unit during Sir Arthur Wellesley’s retreat to the Lines of Torres Vedras. There is also a Rifleman Matthew Dodd who becomes separated from his unit in the 95^th Regiment of Foot during Sir John Moore’s retreat to Coruna. He appears in Bernard Cornwell, Sharpe’s Escape (2004). Not an accident.

[5] Very loosely adapted as “The Pride and the Passion” (dir. Stanley Kramer, 1957). Interesting back-story.

[6] Forever England 1935 John Mills (youtube.com). Later remade as “Sailor of the King” (dir. Roy Boulting, 1953) Sailor Of The King 1953 (youtube.com)

[7] The Happy Return/Beat to Quarters (1937); A Ship of the Line and Flying Colours (both 1938). Warner Brothers bought all three. “Captain Horatio Hornblower” (dir. Raoul Walsh, 1951) tried to squeeze all three into one movie.

[8] Of course the battles are well done, but the towing-off of the dismasted flagship in Ship of the Line is memorable.

[9] Lynne Olson, Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941 (2013) casts some light on the British information/influence operations.

[10] Captain from Connecticut (1941).

[11] “Eagle Squadron,” (dir. Arthur Lubin, 1942).

[12] “Commandos Strike at Dawn” (dir. John Farrow, 1942). Filmed on Vancouver Island because of the close resemblance to Norway. HA!

[13] On the background and significance for this convoy, see My Weekly Reader 14 June 2021. | waroftheworldblog

[14] Commodore Hornblower (1945); Lord Hornblower (1946); Mr. Midshipman Hornblower (1950); Lieutenant Hornblower (1952); Hornblower and the Atropos (1953); Hornblower and the Hotspur (1962).

[15] See: “Sink the Bismarck!” (dir. Lewis Gilbert, 1960). Sink the Bismarck! 1960 Film in English Full HD, Kenneth More, Dana Wynter, Carl Möhner (youtube.com) Gilbert seems unknown now, but he directed a bunch of interesting stuff. Started with a short documentary on how cod liver oil is made. Lesson for all young people there. That same year, the country-western singer Johnny Horton came out with a song “Sink the Bismark!” (1960). American theaters often ran the song as part of the trailer for the movie. Sink The Bismarck (youtube.com)

Movies About War at Sea” Greyhound.”

Posted on September 25, 2024 by jsh54

In 1939, Germany won the “Battle of Poland.” In early 1940 Germany won the “Battle of France.”[1] A German invasion of Britain required control of the air over the English Channel. The British won the “Battle of Britain.”[2] Then began the “Battle of the Atlantic.” Britain imported much of its food and raw materials; it would have to send forces to its far-flung battle fronts by sea; no Britain as a base, no cross-Channel attack in 1944 or any other year. To stay in the war, Britain had to control the shipping lanes of the world. Hitler ordered his navy to strangle Britain through submarine warfare. The critical phase of the “Battle of the Atlantic” ran from 1940 to 1943. All the while, Britain’s survival hung by a thread.[3]

At first, the Royal Navy had only the help of the small navies of the Commonwealth countries and a few Polish and Free French ships. After Pearl Harbor, the United States Navy joined the fight. “Greyhound” (dir. Aaron Schneider, 2020) provides an absorbing account of the problems of convoy escorts during the critical stage of the “Battle of the Atlantic.”[4] The movie tracks a 37-ship convoy bound for Britain.[5] What do we learn?

First, on either end of the voyage, the convoy is also protected by aircraft, armed with depth charges and searching a much greater area than can the escort vessels. In between is the “Mid-Atlantic Gap” when the convoy is out of range of air cover.[6] Then the convoy has only the escort vessels. The German U-boats loved this “Black Hole.”

Second, modern science helped arm the escort vessels. “High Frequency Direction Finding” (HFDF or “Huff-Duff”) could locate the source of the long-distance radio messages used by the U-boats to communicate with their bases. ASDIC (now called Sonar for Sound Navigation and Ranging) allowed the escort vessels to locate U-boats at closer range. Attacks on submarines used depth charges whose water-pressure sensitive triggers caused them to explode at pre-set depths.

Third, the U-boats still had advantages. On the one hand, ASDIC could tell location, but not depth and depth charges had to explode within 20 feet to damage a submarine; when on the surface they had a high speed through the water and a very low silhouette that made them hard to see. Surface night attacks were common. Get a ship burning and it illuminated other targets. On the other hand, the Germans subs took up a picket line across likely convoy routes, then converged on sighted convoys to attack in “wolf packs” that could swarm the escort vessels.

Fourth, Captain Ernest Krause (Tom Hanks), the commander of the U.S.S. “Keeling,” represents the whole US war-effort in the early period after Pearl Harbor. The Americans would exert an ever-increasing weight in the Anglo-American alliance as time went by, but the British had been at war for two years already. Krause relies on his long years of service in a highly-trained and unforgiving Navy and upon an imposing personal sense of duty to cross his own “mid-Atlantic gap.”

Fifth, words like “success” and “victory” had only a relative meaning. Six of the merchant ships and one of the escort vessels are sunk by the Germans, and the “Keeling” is damaged. Still, 31 merchantmen and three escorts survive. It was a “tonnage war” and much more got through than was lost. As Krause, exhausted by 52 straight hours on the bridge managing the complex battle trudges toward his cabin, he hears the crews of the merchant ships cheering.

[1] An umbrella term for conquering Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France, and driving the British Expeditionary force off the Continent at Dunkirk.

[2] See “The Battle of Britain” (dir. Guy Hamilton, 1969). It is historically accurate and the flying scenes are thrilling. Based on Derek Wood and Derek Dempster, The Narrow Margin. The Battle Of Britain (1969) (youtube.com)

[3] There are a host of good books on this subject, but one might start with Samuel Eliot Morison, The Battle of the Atlantic, September 1939—May 1943 (1947), a volume in Professor/Admiral Morison’s Official History of U.S. Naval Operations in World War II. Morison knew the sea and how to write readable history.

[4] Other Good-to-Great movies on this subject include: “San Demetrio London” (dir. Charles Frend, 1943); “The Enemy Below” (dir. Dick Powell, 1957) The Enemy Below 1957 (youtube.com); “The Cruel Sea” (dir. Charles Frend, 1953); and, from the German side, “Das Boot” (dir. Wolfgang Peterson, 1981). There’s a documentary as well: “U-Boats vs. Allies” U-Boats vs Allies – WWII: Witness to War – S01 EP3 – History Documentary (youtube.com)

[5] East-bound convoys had an “HX” designation (originally for leaving Halifax, Nova Scotia).

[6] Both the RAF and the USAAF prioritized strategic bombing of Germany in allocating long-range aircraft, stinting convoy protection. Eire remained resolutely neutral and denied Britain the use of ports and airfields in Western Ireland that would have greatly eased the situation. Had Britain fallen to Hitler,…

“The System Is Blinking Red” 2.

Posted on September 24, 2024 by jsh54

The Armed Services Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate created a “Commission on the National Defense Strategy.” Eight people were appointed to the Commission by both parties in both committees. The Commission examined both the current and foreseeable threat environment facing the United States and the military preparedness of the United States to address that environment. The study makes grim reading.[1]

First, the threat environment is familiar. In first place is China; in second place is Russia; and in third and fourth places are Iran and North Korea. All are aggressive tyrannies. All devote a much larger share of their national resources to the military than does the United States. All have grown closer to each other—formal or informal allies—over the last few years. All are deeply aggrieved with the “rules-based order” fostered by the United States after the Cold War. “The good old rule sufficeth them, the simple plan, That they should take who have the power, and they should keep who can.”[2] One is already fully at war, one is using its proxies in war, and the others are using military power in an attempt to intimidate their neighbors, who are American allies. In short, “the United States faces the most challenging and most dangerous international security environment since World War II. It faces peer and near-peer competitors for the first time since the end of the Cold War.” Once upon a time, such actions would have met a powerful American response as a matter of policy.[3]

Now, “[the] consequences of an all-out war with a peer or near peer would be devastating. Such a war would not only yield massive personnel and military costs but would also likely feature cyberattacks on U.S. critical infrastructure and a global economic recession from disruptions to supply chains, manufacturing, and trade.”

Why is this? The Commission finds American power much reduced and hobbled, all by our own doing. First, “The Commission finds that DoD’s business practices, byzantine research and development (R&D) and procurement systems, reliance on decades-old military hardware, and culture of risk avoidance reflect an era of uncontested military dominance.” As a result, “the U.S. military lacks both the capabilities and the capacity required to be confident it can deter and prevail in combat.”

Second, “the U.S. defense industrial base (DIB) is unable to meet the equipment, technology, and munitions needs of the United States and its allies and partners. A protracted conflict, especially in multiple theaters, would require much greater capacity to produce, maintain, and replenish weapons and munitions.”

Third, “today’s [DoD workforce and all-volunteer force ] is the smallest force in generations. It is stressed to maintain readiness today and is not sufficient to meet the needs of strategic global competition and multi-theater war.” “Recent recruitment shortfalls [for the all-volunteer force] have decreased the size of the Army, Air Force, and Navy.”

Fourth, we aren’t spending on–or raising money for–defense the way we used to when we were conscious of danger. On the one hand, defense spending as a share of GDP has roller-coastered: in 1965, 6.9 percent; in 1967, 8.6 percent; in 1979, 4.9 percent; in 1983, 6.8 percent; in 1999, 2.9 percent; in 2010, 4.7 percent; and in 2025 it is projected that the US will spend 3 percent. On the other hand, “Defense spending in the Cold War relied on top marginal income tax rates above 70 percent and corporate tax rates averaging 50 percent.”

The Commission concludes that “The lack of preparedness to meet the challenges to U.S. national security is the result of many years of failure to recognize the changing threats and to transform the U.S. national security structure and has been exacerbated by the 2011 Budget Control Act, repeated continuing resolutions, and inflexible government systems. The United States is still failing to act with the urgency required, across administrations and without regard to governing party.”

It offers a series of urgent recommendations that are well worth considering. But not for too long. Our enemies can see all these things. They may not wait.

[1] See: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/nds_commission_final_report.pdf The Report was brought to my attention by Walter Russell Mead, “U.S. Shrugs as World War II Approaches,” WSJ, 17 September 2024.

[2] William Wordsworth, “Rob Roy’s Grave.”

[3] Bing Videos

“The System Is Blinking Red” 1.

Posted on September 24, 2024 by jsh54

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is required to report on the state of public finances.[1] The CBO offers credible long-term projections. They project an average annual growth of 2 percent.[2]

In 2001, U.S. government debt held by the public was $3.3 trillion dollars, amounting to 33 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Adjusted for inflation, that would be $5.93 trillion in 2024 dollars.

In 2024, U.S. government debt held by the public is $28 trillion, amounting to 99 percent of GDP. So the debt has multiplied almost five-fold in real terms, while it has tripled as a share of GDP. The national debt is growing faster than is the American economy.

In 2035, U.S. government debt held by the public is projected to surpass $50 trillion, amounting to 122 percent of GDP. By 2054, U.S. government debt held by the public is projected to surpass $50 trillion, amounting to 166 percent of GDP. To further complicate matters, the “reserves” of Social Security are forecast to run out by 2033; the “reserves” of Medicare are forecast to run out by 2036. Then the federal government will assume responsibility for making up any difference between assets and obligations.

From the mid-Seventies to today, interest payments on the national debt averaged 2.1 percent of GDP. In 2024 it is 3.1 percent of GDP. In 2033 it will hit 4.1 percent of GDP. This latter figure is highly optimistic because it assumes that the Trump administration tax cuts of 2017 will expire in 2025. There is virtually no chance that this will happen. The interest payment on the debt is growing as a share of GDP.

Why does this ballooning debt matter? The United States government has been cutting taxes and increasing spending for a long time now. Nothing bad has happened. Yet. Many people may assume that creditors will go on lending the government of the United States whatever it needs to fill the deficit. This is not necessarily so. While vast, the pool of global savings available to be borrowed by the United States is not infinite. As the debt grows in tandem with America’s unwillingness to accept fiscal discipline, lenders may conclude that there is a mounting risk of at least partial default. Rather than stopping lending at all, they may demand a “risk premium” in the form of higher interest rates.[3] The point of the higher interest rates is for the investor to recover as much of his/her capital as possible before anything goes wrong. Higher interest payments will crowd-out other spending categories from the budget.

This began as problem-solving or vote-buying in an earlier time. People in both parties now are used to the government giving them things without any immediate cost. Politicians who argue for austerity—lower spending, higher taxes—will lose elections. Many people think that this is pathological. Hard to be puritanical when Puritanism is culturally discredited.

[1] William A. Galston, “A U.S. National Debt Crisis Is Coming,” WSJ, 18 September 2024. Sources: Part 1 of Answers to Questions for the Record Following a Hearing on An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2024 to 2034 (cbo.gov) and Part 2 of Answers to Questions for the Record Following a Hearing on An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2024 to 2034 (cbo.gov)

[2] By my own calculation, the American GDP grew by 58 percent between 2001 and 2023. That averages at 2.5 percent per year. However, the turn against globalization could slow growth everywhere. GDP (constant 2015 US$) – United States | Data (worldbank.org)

[3] See: Risk premium – Wikipedia

What Should You Read?

Posted on September 14, 2024 by jsh54

The basic problem.

“Groupthink is becoming a national philosophy. ‘Groupthink’ being a coinage — and, admittedly, a loaded one — a working definition is in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity — it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity — an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well.”–William Hollingsworth Whyte, Jr., “Groupthink,” Fortune, March 1952.

“Whyte derided the notion he argued was held by a trained elite of Washington’s ‘social engineers.’”—William Safire, NYT, 8 August 2004.

James Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (1998). Here’s an example NOT drawn from the book: The post-unification government of Italy paid shipping companies to subsidize the passage to America of people from southern Italy and—especially—Sicily—because they were backward and wouldn’t get with the modernizing program.

James Scott, Weapons of the Weak (1985). Basically, “Puttin’ on ole Massa.”

Beloved by academics, these books deal with the relationship between educated elites and—for the most part–backward peasants in developing countries. Do they also apply to the politics of developed countries?

The Economy.

The “Washington Consensus.”

Brief description. Washington Consensus (archive.org)

Mark Reutter, Making Steel: Sparrows Point and the Rise and Ruin of American Industrial Might (2004). Academic book, 500 pages, so it’s OK to just read the summaries.

Making Steel: Sparrows Point and the Rise and Ruin of American Industrial Might – Mark Reutter – Google Books

Congress.

Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track (2006). Couple of hard-headed, highly-experienced scholar-journalists.

9/11 (2001).

Report of the 9/11 Commission. A major disaster owes as much to all-government failure as it does to foreign malevolence.

The Invasion of Iraq (2003).

Robert Draper, To Start a War: How the Bush Administration Took America Into Iraq (2020). Much better documented (and less vitriolic) that Seymour Hersh, Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib (2004). Which doesn’t mean that Hersh was wrong.

Thomas Ricks, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2002-2006 (2007). Especially the second half of the book, which deals with the occupation policies, the insurgency, and the early efforts to counter the insurgency. If all you’ve got is a hammer, everything becomes a nail.

The Generals.

Thomas Ricks, The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today (2012). At least in this branch of the federal government (and maybe in all of them), there is no accountability for failure. Wasn’t always so.

The housing bubble and the financial crisis (2007-2008).

Greg Zuckerman, The Greatest Trade Ever (2009). About John Paulson.

Michael Lewis, The Big Short (2010).

Point of both books is that it was perfectly possible to see the housing bubble and foresee the collapse of the bubble IF you were willing to work hard and didn’t automatically believe everything that you were told. Apparently, these traits are uncommon among highly-paid people on Wall Street. Or maybe they were/are and they just figured they’d stick the government for a bail-out.

Oxycontin.

Beth Macy, Dopesick (2018). The devastating impact of Oxy in Appalachia.

Patrick Radden Keefe, Empire of Pain (2021). The Sacklers.

A pharmaceutical company developed it; doctors recommended it; federal regulators said it was OK. Same as with Covid vaccines. Try overlaying a map of opioid addiction with a map of later Covid vaccine resistance. And the “core” Trump vote.

The Russia “collusion” hoax.

Michael Horowitz, Report on Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation (2019).

120919-examination.pdf (justice.gov)

John H. Durham, Report on Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns (2023).

Investigators found “no documentary or testimonial evidence” of a conspiracy. They did find a host of inexplicable “errors” made by highly experienced investigators which all tended in the same direction.

A Bartlett’s of Tacitus Quotes.

Of the German tribes beyond the frontiers of the Roman Empire: “good habits are here more effectual than good laws elsewhere.”

“The more corrupt the state, the more laws.”

“It is the rare fortune of these days that one may think what one likes and say what one thinks.”

“Step by step they were led to things which dispose to vice, the lounge, the bath, the elegant banquet. All this in their ignorance they called civilisation, when it was but a part of their servitude.”

“The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.”

“It belongs to human nature to hate those you have injured.”

The Last War of Netanyahu.

Posted on September 5, 2024 by jsh54

In less than a week it will be the twenty-third anniversary of 9/11. The memory of that attack by terrorists seems to be turning to empty tradition with the passage of time. Yet, 9/11 sparked the “Forever Wars” (only recently concluded) and the “USA Patriot Act,” and some really bad country music. One of the most remarkable things is how totally Americans have lost understanding of how a democracy may react to being blind-sided by “evil doers.”

Writing on 2 August 2024, WSJ foreign affairs columnist Walter Russell Mead saw Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu successfully threading the needle.[1] Mead believes that in the waning days of the Biden administration, its foreign policy team[2] hopes to prevent an expanded war in the Middle East. Such a war would encompass a full-scale Hezbollah-Israel war and even war between Israel and Iran. They fear that the United States would be drawn into such a conflict. So, they are pushing hard for a cease-fire in Gaza and urging restraint on Israel.

Mead also believes that Hamas, Turkey, and Iran hope to “bamboozle” the Biden administration into supporting a peace process that runs from a cease-fire to the creation of a Palestinian state in all but name, one in which Hamas holds the real power. This effort might succeed because the “two-state solution” remains the goal of the Biden foreign policy team.

Recently, Israeli forces have killed Mohammed Deif (Hamas military commander); Fuad Shakr (Hezbollah military commander); and Ismail Haniyeh[3] (Hamas political leader). These attacks threaten to stall efforts at a cease-fire in Gaza and to bring on the larger war with Iran. Hence, Biden’s people are frustrated (or perhaps furious) with the actions of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Mead sees these killings as reassuring the Israeli public, which generally hates Hamas and Hezbollah. The killings also give notice to the Gulf states that Israel remains a tough and skillful opponent. The Gulf states are caught between Arab solidarity and a fear of Iran. Signs of Israel buckling at the knees might send them scurrying to make nice with Iran. The killings may have a deterrent effect.

Striking enemies when they rear their head may not be enough to bring Israel security over the long run. Kamala Harris has no long-standing ties to Israel comparable to those which have long influenced the Democratic party. The gory war to the knife in Gaza has appalled many people. The division between supporters and critics of Israel now runs through the Democratic party. A President Harris might prefer to hold Israel at arm’s length going forward. With Iran close to breaking through to making nuclear weapons, a Harris administration might want to put all its efforts into achieving a last-minute return to the Obama administration’s agreement with Iran.

Mead wrote all this a month before Hamas killed six Israeli prisoners to prevent their rescue by Israeli troops. The explosion of fury in a large part of Israel’s public has challenged Netanyahu’s policy and tenuous grip on power. He refuses—so far–to give in. His campaign to destroy Hamas grinds forward. It brings Israeli troops ever closer to the remaining prisoners. There may be more executions to come. If so, there will be more massive demonstrations in the streets of Tel Aviv. Perhaps this will be the final crisis for Netanyahu. But not for Israel.

[1] Walter Russell Mead, “Israel Brings Deterrence Back to the War on Terror,” WSJ, 2 August 2024.

[2] Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, CIA Director William Burns.

[3] Mohammed Deif – Wikipedia; Fuad Shukr – Wikipedia; Ismail Haniyeh – Wikipedia

Here It Comes.

Posted on August 29, 2024 by jsh54

Zionism is a political movement that arose in the late 19^th and early 20^th Centuries. Its’ goal was to create a majority-Jewish democratic nation-state in the area once belonging to the Jewish kingdoms of the Ancient Near East. It would attract all those Jews living under persecution in many different states. Later, Zionism split into Labor Zionism and Revisionist Zionism. Labor Zionism channeled Eastern European socialism. The Labor Party dominated the politics of Israel from 1948 to 1977. In terms of relations with the Palestinians, by the early 1970s Labor Zionism had come to favor giving up the Arab territories conquered in the 1967 war. Labor became the “peace party.” Revisionist Zionism developed later than did Labor Zionism. It insisted upon both the necessity for a strong military and the goal of taking territory on both sides of the Jordan River. The Likud Party is the political expression of Revisionist Zionism. It has dominated Israel’s politics since 1977. Later, Revisionism abandoned claims to the East Bank of the Jordan while maintaining the claim to the West Bank. Since 1967, the Arab presence in the West Bank has been much eroded, especially through Jewish settlements and military control.[1] Benjamin Netanyahu leads Likud.

In the judgement of the political scientist and Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Russell Mead, Benjamin Netanyahu is “a historic leader who has imposed his will on the great events of his time. Without approving all that he has done, Mead nevertheless sees “Bibi” as “a political genius who towers above his critics and rivals.”[2] Netanyahu is “unlike most of the mediocrities who hold office in countries around the world.”[3]

Since the Hamas attack in October 2023, Israel has been pounding Gaza into rubble. Netanyahu’s intention may be to make Gaza uninhabitable for a long stretch. This may force out the Palestinians.[4]

Now Israel has begun expanded operations in the West Bank.[5] In theory, these are directed only against pro-Hamas terrorists. Still, it is worth wondering if Netanyahu is beginning the same process on the West Bank that is nearing completion in Gaza.

This will be really awkward for the Democrats right now. The presidential election nears with Democratic supporters of Israel and of the Palestinians at daggers drawn. For the moment, the conflict is papered-over. A big new explosion in the West Bank could break this truce.

It will be much more awkward for the Palestinians. Under attack from Israel, they will have to choose between the Palestinian Authority, which hasn’t fought in a long while, and Hamas, which has shown itself ready to fight to the last Palestinian.

Then it is awkward for the United States. The Biden administration has failed to curtail Israel’s action in Gaza. Would it be able to contain the outrage generated by more pictures of buildings being leveled, bodies of children carried from the rubble, and families in flight? The gorge rises, even among those who recognize that at least half the blame falls on Hamas.

[1] See: Westbank_2010 (wikimedia.org)

[2] Walter Russell Mead, “Netanyahu’s Place in History,” WSJ, 27 August 2024.

[3] Mead’s columns over the last few years seem clear that he ranks Joe Biden among the mediocrities.

[4] Gazaedy. | waroftheworldblog

[5] Aaron Boxerman, Adam Rasgon, Raja Abdulrahim, and Thomas Fuller, “Israel Escalates Raids On West Bank Targets As Third Front Grows,” NYT, 29 August 2024.

The Gate of Tears.

Posted on August 28, 2024 by jsh54

Arabs on the oil-rich Persian Gulf don’t like to do real work. They hire lots of foreigners to do the hardest, dirtiest work. That still looks like a good opportunity to many people in developing countries.[1] East Africa sends many employment-seekers to the Gulf.

Getting there can be difficult, uncomfortable, and dangerous. The uncomfortable part comes in long trips. Much of these parts of the journey take place in the backs of trucks. Another part of the route is across the Red Sea from the Republic of Djibouti to Taiz Governorate (or province) in Yemen. Recently, a boatload of migrants capsized, leaving all aboard dead or missing.[2] In addition to the Yemeni captain and his deckhand, there were 25 Ethiopians. Ethiopia being land-locked, it was their first time at sea.

There is a good chance that they were coming out of the port of Obock in northeastern Djibouti, or perhaps Moulhoule 40 miles farther north.[3] Djibouti, the main port of the country of Djibouti,[4] is farther south. It is home to a whole bunch of foreign naval bases. They pay high rents to the crooked dictator of the country. So, too many prying eyes for a smuggling operation. Obock is better: remote from the main port, difficult to access by road,[5] and closer to Yemen.

Still, everyone knows that Obock is the port of departure for many African migrants trying to cross to the Arabian peninsula. The International Organization for Migration maintains a Transit Center there. The walls are festooned with murals warning of the dangers of both the sea-crossing and the trip in general.[6] The smugglers use a range of vessels. Some of them are fairly large, spending part of their working lives fishing well off-shore.[7] Others are much smaller, meant for in-shore fishing. One or two big outboard engines provide power.

The voyage could run up the coast of Djibouti, across to the Arabian peninsula in the area of the Bab-al-Mandab straits, and then up the coast of Yemen. This is something like 100 miles, Mean daytime temperatures run at 100 degrees. The chance of being accidentally run-down at night by a merchant ship on the Suez Canal-Indian Ocean route is very real.

Taiz Governorate is in the southwestern corner of Yemen. Much of the governorate is rocky highlands, but it also includes the port of Mocha on the Red Sea. Mocha long prospered from the coffee trade, but eventually lost out to competitors. Since 2015, a civil war between Houthis and the government has racked Yemen. Mocha has been fought over and damaged. Today, fishing and smuggling provide the chief mainstays of the economy.[8] Boat crews shift easily between those trades.

Many people live on a cliff’s edge that I cannot imagine.

[1] For the basics of this grim, fascinating story, see Migrant workers in the Gulf Cooperation Council region – Wikipedia

[2] Associated Press, “Boat Carrying Migrants Sinks,” WSJ, 26 August 2024. Ninety-one words.

[3] Obock provided a long-term base and home to the French adventurer Henri de Montfried. Henry de Monfreid – Wikipedia

[4] In pre-colonial times ruled by the Sheikh Djibouti.

[5] I kid you not. See: Djibouti Traffic Safety while traveling. – CountryReports

[6] For example, IOM murals in Obock, Djibouti | Murals at the International … | Flickr ; and IOM mural warning of the dangers | A mural at the Internatio… | Flickr

[7] One captured by the Djiboutian Coast Guard, is seen riding at anchor in Obock harbor: Smuggler boats in Obock, Djibouti | Five of the 60 boats cap… | Flickr

[8] See This Yemeni Town Went From Coffee King to Smuggler’s Haven (thedailybeast.com)