Tag Archives: war

ghost fleet

Leave a reply

I’m a sucker for hypothetical future war books. I don’t know why I find them so fun. Obviously I would not find it so fun if this actually happened.

From Amazon:

What will the next global conflict look like? Find out in this ripping, near-futuristic thriller.

The United States, China, and Russia eye each other across a twenty-first century version of the Cold War, which suddenly heats up at sea, on land, in the air, in outer space, and in cyberspace. The fighting involves everything from stealthy robotic–drone strikes to old warships from the navy’s “ghost fleet.” Fighter pilots unleash a Pearl Harbor–style attack; American veterans become low-tech insurgents; teenage hackers battle in digital playgrounds; Silicon Valley billionaires mobilize for cyber-war; and a serial killer carries out her own vendetta. Ultimately, victory will depend on blending the lessons of the past with the weapons of the future.

Ghost Fleet is a page-turning speculative thriller in the spirit of The Hunt for Red October. The debut novel by two leading experts on the cutting edge of national security, it is unique in that every trend and technology featured in the novel — no matter how sci-fi it may seem — is real, or could be soon.

The gold standard, for me, will always be Clancy’s 1986 Red Storm Rising, which was about a hypothetical U.S.-Soviet Union War. He tried to pull an encore of sorts in 2001 with The Bear and the Dragon, but it just wasn’t that great. A similar hypothetical U.S.-China war novel is 1999’s Dragon Strike, by Humphrey Hawksley, which was a little better than the Clancy version even though Clancy invented the genre (and you wonder if Clancy read Dragon Strike before he published his novel, or maybe had already written the novel and was annoyed someone beat him to the punch with similar subject matter).

One more future war novel I found interesting and thought provoking was Deep Sound Channel by Joe Buff. In that one, yet another German-led axis of evil arises. The novel focuses on the hypothetical use of nuclear weapons in fairly limited and tactical ways in naval and submarine warfare.

Maybe I like these books for the chance to put my petty everyday concerns and irritations in perspective.

Jeffrey Sachs vs. the CIA

Leave a reply

Jeffrey Sachs does not like the CIA.

The public has never really been told the true history of Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Starting in 1979, the CIA mobilized, recruited, trained, and armed Sunni young men to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The CIA recruited widely from Muslim populations (including in Europe) to form the Mujahideen, a multinational Sunni fighting force mobilized to oust the Soviet infidel from Afghanistan…

By promoting the core vision of a jihad to defend the lands of Islam (Dar al-Islam) from outsiders, the CIA produced a hardened fighting force of thousands of young men displaced from their homes and stoked for battle. It is this initial fighting force – and the ideology that motivated it – that today still forms the basis of the Sunni jihadist insurgencies, including ISIS. While the jihadists’ original target was the Soviet Union, today the “infidel” includes the US, Europe (notably France and the United Kingdom), and Russia…

Blowback against the US began in 1990 with the first Gulf War, when the US created and expanded its military bases in the Dar al-Islam, most notably in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s founding and holiest sites. This expanded US military presence was anathema to the core jihadist ideology that the CIA had done so much to foster.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say “violence is never the answer”. There are always bullies and thugs out there who will take advantage of you if they know you won’t defend yourself. But in the longer term, I think the answer to violence is always to find a way to de-escalate. People, particularly young men, need economic opportunity, and their legitimate grievances need to be identified and addressed. These are the root causes of most violence. After you figure out these two things, you can also think about how to alter any cultural norms that make violence seem okay, and limiting access to weapons. Finally, you can round up the remaining handful of hard core thugs and bullies if there are still some out there. All this is as true on the streets of an American city as it is in the Middle East. Note how both the “war on drugs” and the “war on terror” have gone about this in exactly the reverse order from what I just suggested – start with a violent military or law enforcement approach targeting a whole class of people, go after the weapons, and blame the culture. All this is great for business if you are part of the military-industrial or police-court-prison-industrial complex. If we address the root causes – legitimate grievances and lack of economic opportunity – at all, we tend to give them the least attention and funding.

Armor

Leave a reply

Remember when you read Starship Troopers, and found that it wasn’t quite the book you thought it would be? But then you decided even though it wasn’t the book you thought it would be, it was a pretty good book, maybe even better than you thought it was going to be, and you forgave it for not being the book you thought it was going to be. Well, when you start reading Armor, you think it is going to be the book that you thought Starship Troopers was going to be. About half way through, you decide it is not the book you thought Starship Troopers was going to be after all, but it is a good book in its own right, maybe better than the book you thought it was going to be, which was the book you thought Starship Troopers was going to be.

Then you read Enders Game, and The Forever War, and you thought, gee, there sure are a lot of books about fighting alien bugs, or bug aliens, or whatever. And they are all actually pretty good, even though none of them is exactly the book you thought Starship Troopers was going to be. And entertaining as all this is, you really, really hope there are no actual bug aliens out there.

 

November 2015 in Review

Leave a reply

What did I learn in November? Let’s start with the bad and then go to the good.

Negative stories (-10):

  • The World Economic Forum’s 2015 Global Risks Report came out. Some of the top risks are interstate conflict, water crisis, failure of climate change adaptation, unemployment and underemployment. Hmm, that “interstate conflict” items might be what we used to call “war”. And I think there might be one underway right now in the Middle East, which Jimmy Carter says we are getting all wrong. And it just might be caused by the other items on the list. And speaking of war, there is a new book on the Vietnam War aimed at the middle grades, but it seems pretty harsh for that age to me. (-2)
  • I noticed that Robert Costanza in 2014 issued an update to his seminal 1997 paper on ecosystem services. He now estimates their value at $125 trillion per year, compared to a world economy of $77 trillion per year. Each year we are using up about $4-20 trillion in value more than the Earth is able to replenish. The correct conclusion here is that we can’t live without ecosystem services any time soon with our current level of knowledge and wealth, and yet we are depleting the natural capital that produces them. We were all lucky enough to inherit an enormous trust fund of natural capital at birth, and we are spending it down like the spoiled trust fund babies we are. We are living it up, and we measure our wealth based on that lifestyle, but we don’t have a bank statement so we don’t actually know when that nest egg is going to run out. (-3)
  • This crop of presidential candidates is easy for comedians to make fun of. I enjoy it but think it may be a contrary indicator for the health of the country. (-1)
  • Bicycle helmets are not making U.S. bicycle riders any safer. This is why we need streets designed on the European model to be safe for driving, bicycling, and walking. It’s 100% known technology and there can be no excuses! (-2)
  • In current events, we had the awful, shocking terrorist attacks in Paris. I suggested that the long-term answer to violence caused by angry young men anywhere is to understand why they are angry, address their legitimate grievances, and give them productive work to do. Short term, we also have to detect and disrupt any plots involving nuclear or biological weapons, of course, because we can’t afford even one. (-2)

Positive stories (+9):

refugee cities

Leave a reply

This post makes a case for establishing cities for refugees rather than “camps”.

Second, the world now has 60 million refugees. That is a number roughly the size of six Belgiums, Hungarys, or Swedens. If they were to create their own country, it would be the size of France. In the face of such staggering numbers, commitments to take thousands or even tens of thousands of people will do almost nothing to alleviate the misery of millions.

Rather than conflating the issues of refugees and terrorism, politicians and policymakers should be addressing each separately. On the question of refugees, Western countries should take in as many as their populations can assimilate, demonstrating a willingness to make good on the universal values they profess for both moral and political reasons.

But the world also needs far bolder solutions than twentieth-century approaches like limited asylum quotas and “temporary” refugee camps. In particular, it is time to embrace the prospect not of camps but of cities – places where up to a million refugees of any particular nationality can live safely and learn how to build a better future.

This reminds me a little of Paul Romer’s “charter cities”. The idea was to create entirely new city states focused on economic growth that people from anywhere in the world could opt into, provided they agreed to certain norms of behavior. I find the idea compelling, although Romer’s attempts to realize it on the ground in Honduras ended up on the rocks. You can argue that Singapore developed somewhat along these lines, although it was not founded based on this ideology (in fact, it was not even founded voluntarily, but just sort of cast adrift.)

Most Dangerous

Leave a reply

Here’s a new book on the Vietnam War…for kids ages 10 and up?

a trailer full of corpses, its floor “streaked with blood and brains.” Arms and legs were falling off the rotting trunks, which made it difficult to count how many bodies were in the trailer. The stench was unbearable. So the bodies were hosed down and the trailer tipped to its side, letting, as one witness put it, a “rivulet of blood-colored water” flow outside. A delegation of American military officers passed by, stepping over the blood “to avoid ruining the shine on their boots.”

Age 10, really? I think everyone at some point does need to know that this stuff happened. Not just know it intellectually, but internalize it, try to come to terms with it, and realize it can’t happen again. I remember being shown a movie of piles of Holocaust victims being moved by bulldozer around 7th grade. I don’t remember my emotions at the time but I remember the image vividly 25+ years later. Still, age 10? I’m not sure, maybe high school would be soon enough.

Anyway, should we assume this stuff only happened in the past? In Afghanistan we are hearing about “military age males” and “enemy killed in action”. Maybe not on the enormous scale of the Vietnam era, but it is the same rhetoric nonetheless. And I don’t think most of us are internalizing it, struggling to come to terms with it, or asking what we should be doing to stop it from happening.

the best and the brightest

Leave a reply

The U.S. is sending “advisors” into Syria. This reminds me of David Halberstam’s The Best and the Brightest, where he describes the gradual escalation of the Vietnam war. A small force is sent. Then more are sent to protect the perimeter of that force. Then more are sent to patrol out from the perimeter. And so on until you have a president (Kennedy started it, Nixon ended it, but this book takes aim squarely at Lyndon Johnson) with an enormous amount of blood on his hands. Johnson has been judged kindly by history for his domestic programs and civil rights, but anybody who has read The Best and the Brightest might question that. Obama must have read The Best and the Brightest.

Jimmy Carter on Syria

Leave a reply

This Jimmy Carter op-ed in the New York Times is a bit eyebrow raising.

The Carter Center had been deeply involved in Syria since the early 1980s, and we shared our insights with top officials in Washington, seeking to preserve an opportunity for a political solution to the rapidly growing conflict. Despite our persistent but confidential protests, the early American position was that the first step in resolving the dispute had to be the removal of Mr. Assad from office. Those who knew him saw this as a fruitless demand, but it has been maintained for more than four years. In effect, our prerequisite for peace efforts has been an impossibility…

The involvement of Russia and Iran is essential. Mr. Assad’s only concession in four years of war was giving up chemical weapons, and he did so only under pressure from Russia and Iran. Similarly, he will not end the war by accepting concessions imposed by the West, but is likely to do so if urged by his allies.

Mr. Assad’s governing authority could then be ended in an orderly process, an acceptable government established in Syria, and a concerted effort could then be made to stamp out the threat of the Islamic State.

The needed concessions are not from the combatants in Syria, but from the proud nations that claim to want peace but refuse to cooperate with one another.

It’s eyebrow raising both because if it is right it makes U.S. foreign policy look pretty bumbling, and also because these statements are being made in public seemingly after many years of behind-the-scenes frustration.

I think back to the 1990 Gulf War. The Cold War was over and we still had faith in international institutions. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was a clear violation across sovereign borders. A coalition was formed and backed by the U.N. Security Council. As imperfect as all of this was, at least it had the feel of the rule of law. 15 years later, we have sovereign nations invading other sovereign nations, shadowy commando activity and drone assassinations across national borders from Europe to Africa to Asia. That hope we all felt when the wall fell in 1989 (well, maybe Jimmy Carter should ask his good friend Gorbachev how he felt at the time) seems to be receding further into history. And on top of the geopolitical instability we have more people, more weapons, climate change, and a shaky global economy.

Middle East spiral?

Leave a reply

Here’s a scenario of how the Syria war and larger Middle East instability could escalate into something much worse.

As in imperial Europe in the period leading up to the First World War, the collapse of an entire order in the Middle East is in process, while forces long held in check are being released. In response, the former superpowers of the Cold War era have once again mobilized, at least modestly, even though both are fearful of a spark that could push them into direct conflict. Each has entangling regional relationships that could easily exacerbate the fight: Russia with Syria, the US with Saudi Arabia and Israel, plus NATO obligations to Turkey. (The Russians have already probed Turkish airspace and the Turks recently shot down a drone coyly labeled of “unknown origin.”)

Imagine a scenario that pulls any of those allies deeper into the mess: some Iranian move in Syria, which prompts a response by Israel in the Golan Heights, which prompts a Russian move in relation to Turkey, which prompts a call to NATO for help… you get the picture. Or imagine another scenario: with nearly every candidate running for president in the United States growling about the chance to confront Putin, what would happen if the Russians accidentally shot down an American plane? Could Obama resist calls for retaliation?

As before World War I, the risk of setting something in motion that can’t be stopped does exist.

As I’ve said before, I don’t think any of this is Obama’s fault, but if it does ultimately lead to something very bad, the roots may be traced back to events that happened on his watch whether they were under his control or not (also, clearly, to direct actions taken by his predecessor), and his legacy could be the president who let the post-World War II and post-Cold War order slip away.