The Syrian Uprising: No foreign intervention when you've got no oil?

    Things are about to get really ugly in Syria.

    Uprisings in the Middle East sure were ugly last year but if we're talking Syria, I prefer to use the term civil war. Especially after I watched video coming out of the Syrian city of Homs last week where a father was carrying his dead baby down the street and trying to push brain back into the infant's skull. That's when I knew it was time to turn off the TV and go have a shower or something. Shelling civilians in dense urban areas is pretty much as dirty as war gets these days outside of someone busting out a nuke. The Syrian Army have surrounded the city with heavy armor and are shelling the metropolitan area indiscriminately with the usual array of Soviet era artillery, rockets and air burst mortars. Homs is no minor town either like say, Dera'a, that small provincial southern outpost where this whole Syrian mass protest movement got started back in March last year. No, Homs is a major industrial center and Syria's third largest city with a population of 800,000. It's now considered the capital of the insurrection and mixed up with all those civilians are some elements of the Free Syrian Army (more on them later) holed up in scattered houses with a bunch of sniper rifles and RPGs.

    The fun question is whether NATO or the Russians or even the Arab League will get involved to stop the shooting? And the short answer is no. For lots of reasons, not all of which are predicated on the fact that, unlike say Libya, Syria has no oil so there's nothing obvious for anyone to grab. That doesn't mean that Syria doesn't figure in to our global proxy resource war future. It's geography is pretty critical in Middle East strategic terms and that makes it important enough that Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Israel and the US all have a stake in how this mess plays out. That, paradoxically, means it's probably too risky for any foreign player to allow a rival power to get directly involved. That's really bad news if you're a Syrian protester dodging artillery fire. This war has long drawn out stalemate written all over it.

    Dictators shelling their own cities is a pretty good indicator that they are not going to go away nicely with a Learjet full of cash to some beachfront condo in Saudi Arabia like Yemen's Salah or Tunisia's Abidine Ben Ali did last year. Syria's dictator, Bashar Al-Assad, is different. He is one of those other kinds of dictators like Kim-Jong-Il; which is to say he's the son of a more famous and hardcore dictator who ran the country for decades, died and passed on dad's pocket police state to their dip shit "Participation Award" winning son. By shelling Homs and massacring thousands, Assad Junior is trying to prove he can be just as ruthless as his asshole father who leveled the Syrian city of Hama back in 1982 when the Muslim Brotherhood tried an uprising against Alawite power. That resulted in a scorched earth policy by the Syrian Army and at least 20,000 deaths; most of them civilians. Right now, it looks like Bashar al-Assad is trying to beat his dad's high score.

    Who knew that some humble fruit seller who torched himself in a market square in Tunisia last year could kick start an Arab Spring and shake up the entire Middle East where the citizens of six Arab countries could trade-in their ruthless dictators and exchange them for a whole new variety of oppressive bastards? Especially considering the strategic and resource rich nature of the real estate those demonstrators happen to be living on. The problem for the West right now is that the entire power structure of the Middle East has changed in the last year and, especially when you consider Egypt, none of those changes are in the West's favor. Having dictators on pay roll was a nice deal and made Egypt a client state costing a mere $2 billion a year to buy off Mubarak who kept Suez running smoothly and promised not to mess with Israel. That's all gone now. Libya is a mess right now too but at least the oil is trickling out. You could view these protest movements, initially at least, as organic uprisings against repressive regimes but considering we're dealing with the Middle East here, selective foreign intervention from the West was inevitable.

    However, the Syrian rebels can expect no intervention from the West this time around. Sure, on the surface you might say that's because Syria has no significant oil worth declaring a no fly zone over. But the reason why there will be no NATO 'no fly zone' over Syria is more complex and plays into the wider global proxy resource wars that will characterize the 21st century. If we really want to know what's going on in Syria, we have to go all the way back to the Cold War. Sure, that's only two decades ago but that's practically ancient history in today's techno sci fi dystopia.

    Syria signed a pact with the Soviet Union in 1956 after the Suez crisis when Egypt decided that they might actually own their own canal so the French, British and the Israelis invaded to tell them they didn't. They were all forced to withdraw however after the US and Russia got pissed at the strategic land grab by the former old world powers and decided to remind those old farts who the new and real superpowers on the planet were. Syria, under martial law at the time and terrified of an Israeli invasion, signed a pact with the Soviet Union. This was a nice deal for both parties. The commies got a foothold in the Levant, a base on the Syrian coast in the Mediterranean and the Syrians got some cool new Warsaw Pact tanks and artillery. Thing is, Syria, like a lot of Arab states is strongman country which means right up until 1970, every guy with an AK tried a power grab and successive mini coups meant the Syrian government kept changing every year.

    It was in this environment that Hafez al-Assad came to power in 1970 and organized Syria into a lock down security state mainly to make sure no more strongmen could come along to challenge his rule. Syria today has 57 different varieties of internal security forces making them the Heinz ketchup of desert police states. Like I mentioned earlier, the only serious challenge to his rule was from a bunch of Muslim Brotherhood who considered Assad and the Alawite sect he came from heretical to Islam. Assad surrounded the city of Hama and massacred everyone, to this day considered "the single deadliest act by any Arab government against its own people in the modern Middle East".

    Hafez al Assad died in 2000 after 30 years of strongman rule and the Syrian 'parliament' quickly rewrote the rule book so his 34 year old son could take over (previously you had to be 40 to become el presidente). Junior pulled one of those Saddam Hussein type Baath Party elections where no one runs against you and you amazingly wind up with 97.89% of the vote and call it unanimous victory. Which is democracy by desert standards I suppose. With a new guy in charge, a lot of Syrians were hoping for reform and an end to the "state of emergency" that had been in place since 1963. A bunch of small movements and political forums got started in private homes floating the idea of democratic elections. Bashar al-Assad thought about it for about a minute and then decided against it and instead went ahead with locking up everybody who dared voice a contrary opinion; a new desert strongman had arrived.

    Then came the Arab Spring last year and suddenly throwing out asshole dictators became fashionable in the Middle East. The protests started out as teenage graffiti on a wall in the southern farm town of Dera'a and as usual, just like Mubarak and Gaddafi in Egypt and Libya, the dictator gene kicked in and Assad sent in the army. That resulted in dead people which instead of serving as a warning like it might have done 20 years ago, this time it pissed off people right across the political and economic spectrum. The protests grew in size and quickly spread to other cities.

    And right now this fight is entering civil war territory which means it will get even more ugly. We're talking here Lebanon Civil War style ugly. All the ingredients are there especially when you consider the hodge podge ethnic make up of the country. Though 74% Sunni Arab, there a whole bunch of Alawites, Druze, Kurds, Armenians and Turks who could settle old scores if the traditional power structure falls apart. Even then, they'll probably be left to their own devices and no referee will come and break it all up. There are too many conflicting foreign parties involved for any of them to allow the other to scoop up the prize that is Damascus; the heart of pan Arab prestige and the oldest continuously inhabited city on the planet.

    Let's take a look at the complex web of foreign players with a stake in this mess.

    Russia

    The Russians have a naval base in Syria. A pretty important foreign base for them on the Mediterranean. With ties going back to the Cold War, Russia cannot allow their old ally to fall into the hands of the Western oligarchy. Down and out since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia is a wounded superpower with designs on regaining her stature. Watching the US run riot across the planet for the last two decades, gobbling up desert real estate wholesale sure has pissed them off. But there is a silver lining. Russia has all that resource rich land mass and with oil only going to increase in price, they're well positioned for the proxy resource war future.

    It sure made me laugh when the Russians vetoed the Syrian resolution at the UN a couple of weeks back. The US media were so shocked while leaving out the fact that the US has vetoed every UN resolution aimed at Israel for the past thirty years. Protecting your client states via UN votes is par for the course in proxy warfare. What's really happening here is that we are entering Cold War Part II. As Russia's oil and gas reserves become more and more valuable, strategic containment of the West is key. Syria and Georgia are just the opening salvos.


    Iran

    Iran is a growing regional power and the West seeks to contain it. With Syria being it's main ally, destabilization in Syria is in the West's interest. A main conduit of Iranian arms to Shia proxy armies (Hizbollah, al-Qassam) in Southern Lebanon, Syria is the gateway for arms shipments to these groups. For this reason, Iran would like to keep Syria open for business and the current regime in power.

    China

    Along with Russia, they used their UN Security Council vote just to hamper the West's designs on the Middle East oilfields. In many ways, they did it for the lulz.

    Israel

     Obviously, Israel would like Syria destabilized but this is a risky game even for them. When Mubarak fell in Egypt, they lost a compliant dictator on their southern border. It remains to be seen if a new regime in Damascus would be compliant enough to settle the Golan Heights dispute. Strangely, you can throw Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other Sunni Arab US allies in the region in with Israel as they all fear the growing power of Iran. A weakened Syria plays to this interest.

    The U.S.

    The US would like to see Assad fall because it would push Russia out of the Levant and make it easy to consolidate all their gains in the Mesopotamian oil fields. Syria as a compliant democracy would be vastly weakened insofar as its ability to resist Western encroachment. It would also have the side benefits of knocking out an Iranian ally and cutting arms shipments to Hizbollah in Southern Lebanon.  All in all, a win win on the global chess board. Sure, the country might be left a mess and fall into faction on faction religious warfare but even that kind of chaos is preferable to a hardcore dictator who hates your guts and refuses to play ball. With Syria gone, the only domino left to fall will be Iran for total control of Middle East energy.


    So how does all this play out?

    Most likely it will come down to the Syrians themselves. It is certainly true that foreign special forces have been running around inside Syria, fomenting this along. It is also true that Assad's regime has received weapons shipments from Russia and Chinese 'moral support. Ultimately though, this whole war comes down to whether or not the Syrians can do this for themselves. And as usual, when the shooting starts (as it has) you can brush away that quaint idea that nonviolent protest ever changed any power structure in human history. No need to quote me Gandhi or MLK either. Those peaceful movements only worked because there were far more violent guys waiting in the wings if the peace and love fest didn't work out. So apart from suicidal protesters getting gunned down by the Syrian army, does this protest movement have a little more bite?

The Free Syrian Army and their wide variety of small arms.

    It does and it's called the Free Syrian Army. This army is composed mainly of defecting Syrian Army troops and is under the command of a Syrian air force colonel, Riad Mousa al-Asaad. They claim to be 40,000 strong but this figure is most likely inflated and more realistically in the 15,000 range. Composed mainly of conscript soldiers who either didn't show up for duty or refused to shoot at protesters (risky considering Bashar al-Assad is executing men who fail to pull the trigger on unarmed civilians), they are lightly armed with AKs and RPGs. Most of their operations have been interdiction strikes on Syrian Army supply trucks, hit and run stuff which is the best you can do when you've got no air support or heavy weapons. Only time will tell if the defections continue or if the Syrian Army itself, at least the hardcore element, sees Assad as the lesser of two evils; the other evil being total chaos like in Egypt after Mubarak fell.

   Either way, The Syrian Civil War stays ugly for some time and how it plays out will tell us a lot about the future of the Middle East. And the world.

     

Phase II: Why the US wants to attack Iran

  

   Looks like the US is playing musical chairs with its carrier groups in the Gulf of Oman.

   The USS Stennis Carrier Group moved to the Indian Ocean last week so the US could transit another carrier, the Abraham Lincoln, through the Straits of Hormuz just to remind the Iranians how screwed they'd be if the shooting starts. The carrier was escorted by the cruiser USS Cape St. George, two destroyers, the Royal Navy anti sub frigate HMS Argyll and even the French got an invite and sent along their own La Motte-Picquet anti sub frigate to fill out the international nature of the party. That's pretty interesting and those frigates show the West's concern at the Iranian submarine threat and the small chance that the Iranians might manage to land a torp in the nuke belly of a carrier. Sure, it's unlikely but the Chinese did manage to sneak a diesel powered sub into the middle of a carrier group during USN exercises off Taiwan in 2006. So nothing's impossible. Also, the USS Enterprise carrier group is on its way and due to arrive in the Gulf in March which is an interesting choice considering it's the oldest nuke carrier in the US fleet, secretly nicknamed the "Mobile Chernobyl" by sailors and due to be decommissioned later this year. Warships passing through the Strait are pretty typical moves but a combined US, UK and French flotilla is unusual and reeks of dick waving to show the pesky Persians what they might be dealing with if they try any 'funny stuff' like mining Hormuz and blocking world oil supply.

   Grab popcorn but don't microwave it just yet.

   I still say this war is way too scary to enter a shooting phase but that's only because I want to believe Western leaders are not insane. And I keep getting proved wrong on that point. This week's naval moves off the Iranian coast had me rummaging through my library for obligatory Sun Tzu quotes and the best I could come up with was  "Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate." The Euros came up with an extraordinary moment of their own this week by way of an oil embargo on Iranian oil purchases that won't take effect till June and is actually a subtle attempt to stop this war from entering the shooting phase. It's a move designed to appease the trigger happy US and Israel so they don't go straight to the bombers and risk setting the world on fire. Of course, the Israelis are still not happy and don't believe it'll stop that theater parity Shia nuke.

   Truth is, nothing is going to stop that nuke.

   Even if the US and Israel do conduct air strikes on Iran's 15 nuke sites, they still can't physically damage an idea. The Iranian nuke program is diversified enough that even a concerted bombing campaign can at best only delay it a few years. Nobody can put the nuclear genie back in the bottle anymore. So this week I got to thinking of this war in wider global proxy resource war terms and that's when things started making more sense.

   Iran is sitting on the fourth largest oil deposit on the planet and has huge reserves of natural gas and that's a sweet energy prize by any account. It's kind of like Inca gold and the Spanish Main in the 16th century... everybody wants a piece of the action. The fun thing about oil is that while it's in the ground, its value is theoretical but not actual. That's actually a plus. For example, when the West grabbed Iraqi oil, they didn't go in right away and start extracting spice like Hungry Hippos. That oil is fine where it is for now. It is control of the real estate above the deposit and a say in how and at what rate those reserves get extracted that really matters. And that's why the Green Zone in Baghdad houses the largest US embassy in the world even after the US pulled out combat troops. Sure, the US can let foreign competitors in to extract the spice and sub contract the work out to other nations, but so long as oil is a dollar based commodity, US economic hegemony of world energy remains intact.

   The interesting player here in all this is China. Though a long way from being a military superpower, its economic power is rising fast, so fast that the US and Europe fear the loss of traditional Western dominance of the global economy. The gaping weakness of the Chinese rise is energy supply. And without a credible naval fleet to protect the flow of spice, the weakness of China gets exposed... Chinese dependence on sea borne oil delivery and their susceptibility to a blockade sometime in our proxy resource war future. What the West really fears here in the global energy game of Risk, is Iran having unfettered control of its own huge energy reserves, selling those reserves outside the dollar to geopolitical rivals (China) and facilitating the rise of a pan Pacific hegemon that could contest Western dominance at some point later this century.

   That's why Iran is in the cross hairs.

   Their whole nuke program is symbolic of their determination not to play nice in the petro dollar chessgame and the question remains, will they get Tomahawked this year because of it?

   Let's get to the fun stuff.

   How would this war play out if the US does attack Iran? In a nutshell, really badly for Iran. Initially at least. The problem for the Iranians is their dated air defence system based mainly around the Soviet S-200 system. For perspective, Gaddafi fielded this against the US when Reagan bombed Libya in 1986 and even pre stealth F-111s managed to do serious damage for the loss of only one plane. These days, with modern EW jamming in the mix, the US and Israel will dominate the skies above Iran unopposed. Also, the US already knows where all these S-200 sites are which makes them really easy to target. Every time those fixed SAM radar antenna get switched on for maintenance or calibration it's like painting a big fat bulls eye on your air defense network. That goes for the more mobile Soviet Tor (SA-15) system too even if it can drive around, stop, find a target and drive off again. Strangely, the Iranians do have a fighter wing of Shah era US F-14 Tomcats which is pretty funny when you imagine some flailing Persian Top Gun Maverick trying to get a lock on a US bogey. In any possible strike scenario, Iran is pretty much defenseless against 5th generation Western tech. Along with the usual rain of Tomahawk missiles, air delivered bunker busters and the Israelis ruthlessly following up behind, Iran is going to wake up the morning after the raid with a serious hangover. And, I suppose, this is where we get to the the really interesting question.

   What will the Iranian response be?

   There are so many options it's hard to keep track. One option not often discussed is the concept of Iranian restraint. I've thought about this lately and it does have merits if you're an Iranian general. What happens if they do nothing? Sure, it's a long shot. But what happens if the Iranians let the world see reactors on fire, spewing radiation across the Persian landscape, broadcast pictures of dead babies to the world and try to play this out in the gladiatorial arena of world opinion? You just got sucker punched for a nuclear weapon you don't even have. In a social media world, the idea that Iran could play the wounded stoic here is a viable option and could be worth a try to make it clear who the real 'bad guys' are. Another reason why I like the idea from the point of view of their crazy theocracy is that getting bombed usually results in the "London Blitz effect". Getting bombed by external enemies rallys populations around whatever power structure happens to be in place and sure would hurt CIA funded opposition groups operating in Iran. All those Green revolution kids on the streets of Tehran getting whipped and shot by Basij thugs would suddenly swing rogue if an external enemy bombed their mom's house.

   Smart leaders in history like Churchill capitalized on stuff like that.

   The problem with politicians and the religious freaks who run countries these days is that they are rarely that smart. The Iranian theocracy is no different. So the question remains, do the Iranians go loud and bust out their myriad asymmetrical options and retaliate against the bombers once Natanz is burning? Who knows? Let's examine the Iranian options:

• Unleash a thousand speed boats and mine the Straits of Hormuz back to the Stone Age. Oil price hits $200 a barrel until US/Euro/Japanese minesweepers clear the Strait. It'll take two months to declare the all clear. Meanwhile, in the West, we cry like babies because feeding our car hurts, bread has doubled in price and nobody can afford a new flatscreen. 

• The Iranians launch their limited supply of Shahab IIIs against Israeli population centers. Tel Aviv gets hit and the Israelis launch a reciprocal strike on the civilian population of Tehran. The doomsday Iranian theocracy doesn't like it. Escalation possibilities ensue. A nuclear missile versus chemical missile war. Mass casualties happen on your TV. (Unlikely).

• The Iranians launch Chinese Silkworm missiles (and Shahab IIIs) across the Persian Gulf, hit Saudi oil installations like Ras Tanura and set the world economy on fire. The world enters a new paradigm of what the fuck? Oil hits $300 a barrel, food prices double and you wish you were a farmer who could grow his own food.

• The Iranians engage in proxy warfare and pressure Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon to bombard Tel Aviv with the thousands of missiles the Iranians have already supplied them with. The IDF responds with a massive attack on Southern Lebanon and attempts to rectify their 'defeat' in 2006. Thousands die but nobody cares in Western countries because food tastes nice.

• Iran activates their foreign asymmetrical "terrorist" cells in the US and Europe, they blow up stuff in Western cities and make already unruly citizens decry another bullshit war that didn't have to be. Meanwhile, Western countries turn into police states because everybody could be a terrorist. Oh wait, that's already happened.

• The Iranians do nothing, lament their dead babies and garner worldwide everyman support because they're just another victim of globalization and the ongoing corporate takeover of the world's real estate. Occupy Wall Street protesters finally start wrecking shit.

 

   What's most disturbing is that Western leaders seem prepared to play this casino game of chance. How will the Chinese and Russians react if Iran is burning? That's the real question in this whole cluster fuck. China is a major buyer of Iranian oil. Russia has provided enriched uranium and scientists to run the Iranian reactor at Bushehr since 2009. If Russian nationals die in that attack and if that destroyed reactor is spewing Fukushima levels of radiation across the landscape, what's next? The Russians may be happy to issue stern protests at the UN while secretly laughing to themselves as oil, Russia's main export, pushes beyond the $150 dollar a barrel mark; the mark that crashed the world economy in 2008. Since the Russians rely on oil exports to keep their economy flowing ($110 a barrel oil is the estimated minimum price to keep that former superpower economically growing and appease their restless but dwindling population), the Russians will benefit from the US and Israel's stupid war against Iran.

   China, on the other hand, will be pissed. With the just announced Euro embargo, the Chinese have already started demanding discounts on Iranian oil. If there's one thing you can say about the Chinese, they're smart as hell and playing the long game. 5000 years of contiguous history and Sun Tzu can't be wrong. They will see a Western attack on Iran as yet another chess move to block their economic growth and secretly take note of who their real enemy is. One billion people can't be wrong as they continue to conscript their cheap village labor into factories to supply American Wal Marts with cheap plastic goods. For now. Even if Iran is burning, China could be smart, like they've always been, and yet again play the waiting game. In the wake of a US/Israeli attack on Iran's nuke sites, China and Russia will supply the Iranians with military technology to prevent such an attack from ever happening again. It'll be a Rubicon moment in their eyes, the moment when the Western energy lust went a bridge too far. Hell, the Iranians might finally receive a shipment of the Russian S-300/400 SAM system that would make a repeat attack orders of magnitude more difficult for foreign air forces. But, of course, it'll take a year to train Iranian crews in the operation of that sophisticated 5th generation technology.

The Russian S-400 SAM system... The Iranian dream...

   Meanwhile, we're all living in Blade Runner.

   Let's face it, the US, the Euros, the Russians, the Chinese, India, Pakistan and the Israelis will eventually have to face the truth of what Oppenheimer unleashed in the New Mexican desert in 1945. This is what Oppenheimer said after the first nuke exploded on earth. It still gives me shivers... "We knew the world would not be the same. Few people laughed, few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." In the coming 21st century sci fi dystopia future world, every nation of consequence is going to have nukes. Does Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD philosophy) mean we upright apes get to escape our fate?

   No nation wants World War III right now.

   But then again, no nation ever wanted a World War ever and yet we dumb humans always manage to stumble into one. That's if  20th century history is anything to go by.

   2012 is starting to feel like 1912 all over again.

  

The War on Iran: Phase I

   In case you didn't notice, the War on Iran has already begun.

   You won't hear that said on TV yet though. At least not on US news networks. Those corporate shills need major fireworks before it becomes profitable to switch from diversions to 24hr news coverage of burning nuke sites and Iranian radiation warnings interspersed with commercial breaks for Viagra and Wal Mart. Right now, the biggest military operation of the decade is still in Phase I. And the corporate media and all the sleazy oligarchy that stand to profit know it's probably best to instead run 24hr news coverage of the Republican primaries where the US gets to choose which corporate spokesman the Republicans are going to run against Democratic corporate spokesman Obama. That's democracy these days folks. You know, that thing the US brought to Iraq via heavy armor.

   Next up, Iran. All for WMD nukes they don't even have yet. Reruns of bullshit wars like Iraq would be really boring if the Iran attack wasn't so goddam scary in the first place. But, no matter, 2012 is an election year and nothing gets presidents re elected and clears the streets of protesters like a brand spanking new war. This war is becoming viable to the US and only one Republican presidential candidate of nine is even against the idea.

   Sure, I've written before of the possible repercussions of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuke sites and theorized why Israel wants this Iranian strike beyond preventing the Persians from achieving "theater parity" with the Israelis on the nuke front. I've said before the US have been trying to keep the Israelis reined in as far as launching the Iranian air strike solo goes but, it seems, with developments last month and with the way things are panning out in the region, it looks like the Israelis are going to be able to get the US to do the job for them. Or, at the very least, with them.

   In the wider context of the whole region, it's not just the Israelis who fear a rising Iran. The Saudis too and Sunni Arabs in general fear the growing power and influence of the Shia. They're sitting on the fourth largest oil deposit on the planet and have an ocean of natural gas on tap too. Their support of the Bahrainis versus the Saudis last year (when the Saudis began to fear a homegrown Arab Spring in their shitty Orwellian police state petro kingdom) had crown Prince Abdullah begging the US to bomb Iran for them. Just last week, the Saudis inked a deal for another 30 billion of US military tech. Also, Iranian support and arms sales to Shia terrorist organisation Hizbollah in Southern Lebanon pisses off the Israelis and they want that whole region neutralized. A war with Iran will pull an IDF tank rush into Southern Lebanon under a perfectly legit umbrella when pulled under the context of a wider regional war. As a fun side note, you know things are heating up in the region when you have a potential war that makes the Saudis and Israelis allies against a common enemy.

Note the ring of US bases and total encirclement of Iran

   Phase I:

   Phase I of any war is the infiltration phase. The recon phase. The phase where you do precision strategic damage and eliminate those targets you can't hit from the air. Special forces stuff. Assassination squads and the like. That's why five Iranian scientists and physicists have died in mysterious explosions since November 2007. The latest death of a scientist came on January 11. Next up, you break out the cyber warfare and deploy the Stuxnet computer worm that delays Iran's centrifuges and disrupts their uranium enrichment at Natanz. This extended Phase I bought time last year to bulk up Western defensive assets in 'theater'. Also, Phase I involved the deployment of drones and ever present spy satellites over the target area and bought more time to gather more intel. The recent Iranian grounding of a classified US RQ-17 stealth drone sure had the CIA and Western military think tanks scratching their heads on the state of Iranian jamming technology.

   Hence the targeted killings of Iranian 'brainy' people. Holy shit, that sounds a lot like "terrorism". I'd sure be terrified if I were an Iranian scientist right now. Of course, you won't hear that in Western media. "Targeted assassination" these days has become a less terrifying euphemism for the media to report in the West. Is not language itself amazing? You can hide any intention in there. But let's face it, if a foreign entity blows up people on the streets of New York or Jerusalem, it's automatic terrorism as far as the media is concerned.

   The interesting thing about Phase I is that it is reaching its conclusion. The final stage began in October when Western countries began running psy-ops against their own public and preparing them  for a shooting war in Iran by way of the corporate controlled media. It began with some elaborate media story about Iranian agents plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington but it didn't exactly fly with the public. Even the plebs are getting wise to the machinations of the plutocracy and the whole scheme just sounded like more WMD bullshit. The media then ran stories throughout November 2011 alluding to some amorphous fact that Iran has a bunch of ICBMs ready to rain down mega death on Western capitals. As if that is ever an option for Iran; launching nukes and inviting the West to glass 4000 years of Persian history back to the Stone Age.


   Of course, the Iranians are aware of Phase I and have indulged in some blustering sabre rattling of their own. This came to a crux over the holiday period when targeted Western sanctions against Iran's central bank caused a 10% drop in their currency in a single day. That kind of action hurts but the real question on the table is if the West is prepared to go through with its threat of an oil embargo on Iran. Since 70% of the Iranian economy is based on oil exports, that's the kind of action that would really hurt. Sure, Russia and China would veto any such action if it came to a vote at the UN but that might not matter. The USS Stennis carrier group offshore right now could easily enforce the blockade. The real question is if the West hates Iran enough to take their oil off the market thus causing a spike in oil prices and inhibiting the 'recovery' in fragile Western economies. Yes, the Saudis claim they could make up the shortfall but that is most likely bullshit considering the dirty little secret of the Middle East is that Saudi oil fields are past peak output and getting pumped full of seawater to keep the spice flowing to the top of their wells.

   What has been holding Phase II of this war back (the actual US/Israeli air strike on Iran's 15 nuke sites) so far has been the spider tree of Iranian response strategies. Sure, Iran has no air force capable of retaliating against the encircling US bases in the region or against Israeli population centers. Iran has so many options though, it makes Western war planners shit bricks. However, most of these are asymmetrical and involve proxy armies in Southern Lebanon or disruption of oil traffic in the narrow Straits of Hormuz. (I'll talk about those next week). More interesting right now is Iran's long and medium range missile technology (Shabab 3's and 4's) that are within range of Tel Aviv.

   Israel has always been pretty touchy about civilian casualties (given their small population and tight geography which makes targeting easier) so limiting the damage of an Iranian missile strike is key. Sure, the idea that bringing Tel Aviv under an impenetrable missile defence would be nice but, realistically, that's impossible. Even the latest advances in anti missile tech really only inhibit enemy war planners; that is, they force the enemy to put more missiles and decoys on any given target to assure destruction. They never bring you under a safety umbrella.

   Israel has not completed the formation of its four-echelon missile defense system yet. It will adopt counter-missiles of its (exo-atmospheric) echelon, which allow a second attempt to intercept a ballistic missile warhead, no sooner than 2013. The defense's third echelon - David's Sling - is still in the R&D phase. This reduces the efficacy of Israel's national missile defense, even if it is potentially strengthened by American ground-based THAAD and sea-based Aegis systems. But by 2013, Iran may have a viable war head and once that happens, theater parity is achieved on the nuke front and Iran becomes another North Korea.

   That is, non attackable.

   This is abhorrent to Western military planners and why Phase II, the actual air assault, could come this year. One interesting but quiet development was this week's deployment of US Air Force personnel to Israel ostensibly to run exercises that "simulate the interception of missile salvos against Israel. The American systems will work in conjunction with Israel’s missile defense systems – the Arrow, Patriot and Iron Dome." That right there is Phase II planning aimed at mitigating the possible Iranian response to a large scale joint US and Israeli strike against Iran.

   I've written about the Israeli strike before but next week I'll talk about Phase II and how that analysis changes with the US fully engaged. Stay tuned, deploy popcorn.

   2012 could get interesting fast.

Top Ten war movies on my hard drive.

   Time for some fun Holiday stuff.

   I've gotten a lot of emails from readers of this blog over the past year (Holy Shit! This blog is a year old already!) requesting articles on 'this war' or 'that world event' which, I must say, I really do appreciate. People requesting articles makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside so thank you all for that. One of the most common questions I get asked is what kind of stuff I watch or read. So I thought I'd do movies since the 'holiday season' is here and there'll be good stuff on TV to sit down and feel fat and satiated over. Ain't First world problems grand?

   Naturally, I'm talking war movies here.

   The thing about war movies is that you can probably really only enjoy them if you've never actually been in a war. So long as it remains theoretical, war is entertainment. In many ways movies are the lingua franca of our time, the place where ideas get disseminated into the global culture and the  Zeitgeist gets measured by box office tickets sold. Movies today are a lot like how the Romans amused themselves in the amphitheaters only today, nobody really dies, they don't give out free bread and instead charge you a day's salary for the popcorn and sugar water at the in house feeding station. Seven bucks for popcorn! What the fuck?

  In writing this movie post, I was thinking of scanning my memory and coming up with some default list of war movies that "the critics" would agree with to make myself sound all erudite and intelligent. But then I'd be bullshitting you. So I came up with a novel strategy. You see, I moved house a while back and had no Internet or TV for a whole five days. To entertain myself, all I had were movies I'd stored on my external drives. And I said to myself, these must be the movies I really like and not the ones I should like since those on my drives were the ones I'd deemed worthy of digital storage. So I used that criteria to compile this list...

  Sure, I'm probably leaving out a whole bunch of great movies and your favorite war movie but what the hell. Here, in no particular order, are the war movies I re watch when I find myself getting philosophical at 3AM and need to remind myself how fortunate I am not to have been born in the wrong place at the wrong time and conscripted as a foot soldier into some general or politician's pocket shooting war.

   WATERLOO

  

   Seriously, they don't make them like this anymore. Made in 1970, before today's CGI (where today they hire fifty extras to run around in the foreground while bulking out the background with 50,000 pixelated enemy formations), this is a movie that truly 'spared no expense' and hired real actual men to act out the pew-pew. And it sure does show on screen. You get to see thousands of guys dressed in period costume run around that Belgian field re enacting one of the most decisive battles of all time. It really puts you there. Muskets, line formations, cavalry attacks, infantry squares, the whiff of grapeshot, cannon balls, it's all just brilliantly rendered by actual men. Wide shots reveal huge line infantry ranks while you can almost hear producer Dino De Laurentis shitting bricks in the background wondering if this production was going to pay off. Rod Steiger plays the titular little man with the emperor complex and Orson Welles shows up as "the unavoidable" Louis XVIII, the last French monarch to die without being king. Watch this if you want to see 50,000 extras in full period costume run around on screen for real!

   A BRIDGE TOO FAR

   This is classic stuff. Made by seventies era logic, a different time when WWII was still fresh in the Zeitgeist's memory. As a kid back then, all the comic books were still WWII based; Victor, Warlord and Commando. The WWII generation were entering their golden years (we survived the war but we're going to die anyway...argh!) So war movies as retrospective were popular. And it was a time when it was still possible to make an epic movie with a shitload of Hollywood stars who took a pay cut to make something huge possible. Check out that cast list! Directed by Richard Attenborough, it was all for a movie about a 'little' operation called Market Garden; Montgomery's 1944 dick waving attempt to end the war fast and prove he had balls and could be as unpredictable and foxy as the great man in the desert himself, Rommel. In the end, Montgomery's gambit failed. Maybe it should have been planned by my favourite British general of WWII, Richard O'Connor. The idea that you could para drop 30,000 men behind German lines, capture bridges and clear the way for an armor thrust into the heart of Nazi Germany to end the war quickly was pure hubris built on the Allied success at Normandy and the capture of Paris. Here, in 1944 on the Western Front, the Wehrmacht proved it still had teeth! The scene with Robert Redford rowing across a Dutch canal under enemy mortar fire stands out. "Holy Mary...mother of God..." Brilliant war movie stuff!

   SAVING PRIVATE RYAN

   Before you think I only watch '70s war movies, let me throw Spielberg's amazing movie into the mix. I remember watching this in a Santa Monica theater in the '90s and it was like all my stupid fascination with men killing each other got thrown against the fire of visceral reality. War is fucking horrible. And that's why it sells tickets. Because we humans love it. From the nail biting 20 minute Normandy opening sequence, on through the accurate representation of WWII equipment (that Tiger tank looked really real!), you cannot escape this movie if you want to get your war on. It's a total experience. It really does put to rest that movie trope where, after guns get fired, people handily die neatly so the main characters can move on with the rest of the plot. That's the shitty thing about war movies generally. They always leave out the awkward wounded, that sad fact that after an engagement you're left with say 20 dead but 60 more wounded screaming in pain and calling out for their mom. Fucking reality, how does it work? This movie doesn't flinch when it comes to examining the ugly truth of pulling the trigger on a live human. Men die and it's ugly. War is the worst thing about our species. And, worse still, sometimes it's justified.

   APOCALYPSE NOW

   'Nam. The jungle. Napalm. A soundtrack by The Doors. A script by John Milius based on Conrad's Heart of Darkness. And directed by Coppola who remortgaged his house to get it finished after the studios pulled funding after the whole production turned into a cluster fuck in the Philippine jungle. This is the Vietnam war movie for me. Hell, they even made a movie about the war zone making the movie became! But how can you not like the end product? One of those rare auteur movies that don't get made anymore because everything that gets green lit in Hollywood these days has to pass through shitloads of corporate fucktards who run market analytics and get back to you on Thursday.

  Marlon Brando showed up on set 100lbs overweight after cashing the million dollar check Coppola wrote him, so Coppola had to improvise on the fly, filming the final Col. Kurtz scenes in close ups and shadow. He made it work! It's an artistic vision, a philosophical journey and damn tour de force film making. The newly released Redux version adds a good fortyish minutes to the original and highlights French history of meddling in Indo China by way of a dinner conversation and a sensuous opium smoking lady. If you're partial to the 'herb', there's no better war movie to sink your mind into and become one with the screwed up violent nature of us upright apes.

   THE LONGEST DAY

   The definitive D-Day movie. Hands down the best. Based on Cornelius Ryan's book (again) with a slew of military consultants on hand who actually participated in the landings, this is the movie to see if you've got three hours to sink into epic war. Again, the cast list is a who's who of Hollywood at the time and all actors took a pay cut so it could get made. One of my favorite aspects of this movie is the accurate rendering of all participants (the Germans are not portrayed as mindless goose stepping Hitler lovers and speak actual German with subtitled English) and so too is the role of the French Resistance (not brain dead frog surrender monkeys with a penchant for wine and running away) like the American Right liked to portray when they came up with "Freedom Fries" in the cafeteria, this movie is detailed and accurate. Sure, there are some hokey bits with John Wayne showing up but we're talking early 60s here so we've got to forgive the iconophry and get with the program.

   This is strict by the book narrative and it works. It's pure war movie goodness.

  

   THE THIN RED LINE

   Yeah sure, that choice is going to throw some of you. Sure, the hill assault scene is amazing. But you know what? This whole war movie sticks with you. Sure Terence Malick is the kind of director that gets accused of masturbating onto film but I "get it". It's art. It's war. Sometimes they meet like the WWI poetry of Siegfried Sassoon. Who doesn't realize the thin line between life and death more than a soldier in war? That's the question that gets asked here. The philosophical wonderings are sweet. In a way, they capture what soldiers really think (at least in the eyes of an artist). Plenty of people think it's not a great war movie but I re watched it recently, and, as I get older, I really can connect with the life and death philosophy of war that Malick here tries to explore. It's a superior war movie and you should like it.

SALVADOR

   Not exactly a full on war movie I know. But I'm throwing it into the mix because I love it so much and fuck everything. James Woods as the gonzo journalist in an impossible war zone is my fantasy alter ego. If only I had the balls to sneak into Syria right now. Oliver Stone wrote the script, directed the movie and I suppose it should be mixed up with 'Platoon' and 'JFK' which means I'm tipping my hat to those movies too. But Salvador is my favorite Oliver Stone movie. Gringos meddling in South America has never led to anything good (just ask Cortez) but this gritty movie highlights that in spades. The harrowing scene at the end where border control seizes his newly acquired wife wrecks my head every time I watch it. It's as relevant today for all nationalities where 'small people' get caught up in global chessgame proxy resource wars. After we wreck your country because we don't like your government, don't show up on our border as a refugee. You'll get called an 'illegal alien'.

FULL METAL JACKET

Can you leave Stanley Kubrick out of any favorite movie list? Probably not possible. Sure, who doesn't love Dr Strangelove or Barry Lyndon? But Kubrick knocked it out of the park in this study of how ordinary men get mind fucked into being 'soldiers'. This movie is the ultimate meditation on war. Young kids plucked from adolescence and transported into a reality devised by old men. Old men that run countries and see war as a solution. The hierarchy of human affairs is on display here against the background of the Vietnam War. This movie is ugly, visceral and somehow quiet. It's kind of like war itself.

GALLIPOLI

I love Australia. And I love Peter Weir. This is probably the greatest 'anti war' movie ever made. Seriously. And it was all Churchill's fault when he was  'First Lord of the Admiralty".  Chucking the ANZACs against the Turks, hoping to open up a new "Southern Front" versus German allies sounded like a good idea, but in practice, it turned out to be one of the worst ideas in military history. Those guys got bogged down into one of the worst impossible situations in military history. But the Aussies and New Zealanders were thrown against the problem nonetheless. The ANZACs have always been great fighters as far the the British Empire went but this was not their finest hour. Why? Because Churchill fucked up. He wasted divisions in an amphibious assault that got bogged down on a beach and a rocky coastline versus machine guns. This movie not only shows the futility of that operation but also the totality itself. Young men seek adventure. And old men equip them with weapons and point to an enemy and say that is where adventure is.

MASTER AND COMMANDER

  Do you have an interest in the Age of Sail? Sure you do. This movie depicts it brilliantly. There was a time before our Facebooky, Twiterized world when shit was really real. That means you getting pressganged onto a Royal Navy ship in the 18th century. That sure was a scary time. (By that logic I suppose, when was there a time in human history that wasn't scary). Still, if you want to know how the British built their empire, this movie approaches it. Sea power. A dominant navy. The world got explored by wooden Euro ships and this movie captures that idea. Rival Euro powers killing each other for golden trinkets stolen from foreign shores? Sure. But this movie has more. It recognizes science too and how warfare and enemies propel us forward as a species. The British gave birth to a Darwin in the wake of conquest. In a way, the US landed on the moon to beat the Russians. We humans are propelled forward by conflict. It's ugly. We're sad. But it is.

   Oh yeah, and there are great cannon battles on roiling sea. Do you aim at sail or hull? This movie puts you there and makes you realize how lucky you are not to be a crew member. Your life today is basically the dream of every sailor. Food, clothing and shelter are today things we take for granted. There was a time when your life now was the dream of the ages. Even if you're poor as fuck, these days the life of a poor man is so much better than a poor man's life in the past. These days, the poorest pleb has a better diet than the King of England in 1750. The modern world scares the shit out of me but you know what, the visceral reality of the past and this Royal Navy movie scares me even more. I got born in the perfect zone! A rare 1980s incarnation which will be seen by future historians as the perfect war free zone in comparison to the global proxy resource wars that will come later in the 21st century.

KELLY'S HEROES

    I'm throwing this movie into the mix and yeah, I know it has no place here. But you know what, it's probably my favorite war movie. Yeah sure, that's horrible. Why? Because it's war as comedy. War as something other than tragedy. That's so wrong. And yet I love it. I remember watching it as a kid and crying buckets when it ended. The camaraderie. Soldiers in war. The idea that being shot at binds you together as men. Roman legions operated off this principle. All soldiers do. And as a kid, this movie made my child's brain realize that. Sure, there's something wrong with us as humans if we organize ourselves into armies and make it an industry and devise elaborate ways of killing each other. But in my child's brain, there was something in this movie that appealed to that dark side of my brain.

    War as comedy. War as binding men together for a common goal. Sure, I'm bullshitting here but tell me you don't love this movie. Oddball coming out of the tunnel in a Sherman tank gunning down Nazis, Don Rickles weighing up the price of gold and that classic scene where Eastwood, Oddball and Telly Savalas confront a Tiger Tank with Sergio Leone music. War is terrible. But for some reason this movie turned war into fun. For whatever reason, my ten your old brain cried when it ended. WW II was probably the last 'good war'. War will never be so simple again. The bad guys will never be so easy to define in our proxy resource war future. This movie, for me, harks back to a time when war was worth it.

  Anyway, that's my mind dump on war movies.


  

Kim Jong Il: Crazy like a Fox!

  2011 has been a pretty shitty year for dictators who like holding on to power and not dying.

  Dictator expiration dates this year started in Ivory Coast and spread to Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Libya and Yemen. That left Laurent Gbagbo and Mubarak locked up awaiting war crimes trials, Abidine Ben Ali and Saleh looking for beach front property in Saudi Arabia and Gadaffi dead. Assad is barely holding on in Syria and that is probably why it's the only civil uprising I haven't written about this year. Probably because it's been the least likely to succeed.

   The death of Kim Jong Il on Sunday at the age of 69 means he's the only dictator to lose power this year due to "natural causes". That's pretty funny when you think about it. But seeing all these tongue in cheek obituaries of the Korean leader on the likes of CNN or Fox News, hinting at the fact that he was a crazy mother fucker, mental or certifiably insane, well, that kind of bullshit wasn't so funny to me and did bother me a little more than watching any US news network usually bothers me.

   Why? Because Kim Jong IL was crazy like a fox.

   Sure, Kim Jong Il had a fucked up hairdo and got wasted on Hennessy XO and ate caviar while his country starved but that's not really how you judge a dictator these days. Most men have foibles and eccentricities, hell, I'm a walking nightmare myself and wouldn't stand up to too much scrutiny if some media outfit stuck cameras in my face but that's not how you judge dictators in our current sci-fi dystopia. No, these days, and probably always, at least going back as far as the Greek city-states and their occasional 'tyrant' rulers, the general rule is that bat shit insane rulers get judged on one thing and one thing only.

   How long do they manage to stay in power?

   Thing is, crazy people don't stay in power very long. Just like Roman emperor Caligula, it doesn't take more than a few years of crazy shit (making your horse a general, constantly banging your sister) before the army gets sick enough of your shit to stab you to death in your sleep. By this logic alone, the only thing that really matters when you talk about dictatorships is longevity and by this accounting we can say one thing about Kim Jong Il...

   He was not fucking crazy.

   In fact, from a maintaining power perspective, the guy was smart as hell.

   From the moment his bigger and greater and much beloved daddy (the father of modern North Korea) Kim Il Sung died in 1994, people wondered if Kim Jong JR could pull off his father's job and fill daddy's shoes. That's never been an easy job for less gifted sons and in 1994 that job was getting even more difficult for North Korea and Kim Jong JR in particular.

   A lot of people don't realize that North Korea wasn't always totally screwed up.

   In fact, during the Cold War and in the years after the Korean War, the North was actually more prosperous than the South. Not because they were churning out cool stuff or selling anything on the world market but simply because they had a superpower friend in the Soviet Union who supplied them with mega tonnages of grain from the Ukrainian steppe and filled out the North's army with the latest Warsaw Pact military equipment. China too, with their baby brother commie neighbor next door still hadn't turned into the hyper capitalist police state it is today. They too had a policy of making sure that their  commie Southern neighbor had enough food to feed everybody and nothing tarnished communism's "good name" around the world.  Kim Jong's daddy presided over all this while experimenting with his very own little Orwellian pocket country and cast himself as the cult leader of his own totalitarian police state. Seems he read Nineteen-Eighty Four as an operational tech manual and missed the idea that it was supposed to be fiction.

Kim Il Sung: Still worshipped by everyone.

   But this free ride was dying by the time Kim Jong Il got his chance to lead North Korea in 1994.

   The Soviet Union was gone now along with all that free food and monetary aid. China was turning free market and their sickly neighbor to the south was being seen as more and more of an embarrassment and liability. China to this day views NK like some famous movie star might view an awkward retarded brother who has a habit of masturbating in public and ruining famous older brother's PR. Sure, you can slap him around for doing it but that'll just draw more attention and get you in  trouble for child abuse. Your only choice is to sit there and enjoy your prosperity and fame while accepting the fact that your awkward brother occasionally jizzes on your leg.

   And that's been Kim Jong JR's leadership plan since the day he took power.

   Pretending he's crazy and jizzing on people.

   Kim Jong Il took power with a pretty shitty hand and managed to play bluff poker with it for 17 years. He threatened the South Korean capital with thousands of artillery pieces and pretended everyday he was just crazy enough to use them. The South responded with a policy of "Sunshine Diplomacy" which was basically a policy of giving Kim Jong lots of cash in return for him keeping his dick in his pants.

   To get his hands on some American dollars, Junior started work on a nuke and even played crazy enough to get the Americans, the Japanese and the South to help build him a $4.6 billion light water nuclear reactor in Kumho in 1994. This was seen by the West as a better deal than continuing to have the North  operating its two  existing gas-graphite reactors which were unstable but easier to breed plutonium from. Kim Jong IL played crazy and bagged the cash.

   Every time Kim Jong felt the Japanese were getting too big for their britches, he'd rustle up a missile 'Test" over the Sea of Japan and pretend it was 'necessary' which invariably made the Japs go screaming to the Yanks looking for them to do something about the crazy person next door. Usually, this meant another few million tonnes of food aid, energy supplies and a wagging finger hoping the crazy guy doesn't do it again. If the West didn't have such corporate controlled media, this whole strategy would be labeled 'appeasement' by Fox News. But instead the likes of CNN and Fox called Kim Jong Il crazy and threw their hands in the air and accepted the politician's line that there were no better options.

   Kim Jong Il played bluff and if he played crazy enough, there was always, from a Western point of view, the chance he might deliver in spades and press the big red button of win on Seoul. That'd be a lot of Star Craft games interrupted. For all his rich neighbors, it was easier to just pay the 'protection' money the 'crazy' guy demanded.

   Where things got interesting was when North Korea went through with an actual nuke test in 2006. They finally broke into the fission club even though Kim Jong had signed the NPT. Sure, seismic readings indicated the underground test was a failure on the Richter Scale and the expected kilo tonnage was below yield and only a partial chain reaction. But it still made everyone in the region shudder and food and monetary aid finally dried up. It was a bridge too far. Carrots weren't worth it anymore for his neighbors. Kim Jong Il knew his country was dying and he needed more aid and cash if he wanted to pass off the goodies to his son. At home, he was forced now to rely on the cult of personality state he'd inherited from his father and total lock down of information from the outside was key. The huge Army and security apparatus meant that information on the State was in lock down even when the people starved.

   Sure Kim Jong would up the stakes every now and again and sink a SK Destroyer, shell a disputed SK Island and threaten madness on Seoul but Kim Jong always had survival in mind and was never interested in an actual shooting war. An Apocalypse on the Korean Peninsula was never his goal. It was a war he knew he could never win.

  

   Despite the mega casualties, he knew South Korea would always win a war with the North. The US and SK would lay waste the North in a month. And that's where China would come in. That's why they never wanted this war to happen either and preferred North Korea as some kind of metaphorical buffer zone against the West. After the initial flurry of steel rain on Seoul, the usual disruption and loss of life  would ensue. There would be street battles in Seoul between SK troops and the North's special forces who might infiltrate the capital through tunnel networks under the DMZ. Still, without modern armor this force would always be a symbolic force so Kim Jong could feel good about being the mighty leader of his brainwashed zombie population in Pyongyang. The battle of 1970s Warsaw Pact equipment versus modern laser guided and night vision equipment would stand no chance and the counter attack would be merciless.

   Kim Jong Il never had any illusions he could win this war.


  The US and South Koreans would begin a co ordinated air campaign after the initial NK artillery barrage on Seoul, targeting North Korean radar sites initially and also going after as much of that arty North of Seoul as they could. I can see that being a turkey shoot of epic proportions for the US and South Korean pilots. That along with counter battery fire from the US and SK in the South would lay waste the North's artillery to a manageable level (mobile potshots from self propelled arty hiding under bridges and in tunnels excepted). Interestingly, this might be the time North Korea decides to break out the chemical or biological weaponry and lay down a plague on Seoul.


    You see how the crazy never ends?

   Any actual shooting war on the Korean peninsula would lead to regime change and if the current elite in Pyongyang are interested in anything, it is self preservation. That's why the political elite will probably go along with this power transition to Kim Jong -un. At least for the time being. They'll wait and see if he's their kind of crazy. The kind that can maintain the status quo and power structure in North Korea for another 30 years. In many ways, that's a special kind of calculated crazy that keeps the elite in power, the people starved, afraid, dependent and the state itself in control of all information.

   Shit's so scary these days, the real crazy question in all of this is if North Korea is the past or the future of our crazy species.

  

Drone Warfare: How UAVs are changing the 'rules' of 21st century conflict.

    Warfare is taking a new turn in the 21st Century.

    If there's one weapon that proves we're living today in some kind of dystopian future sci fi novel it must be the existence and increasing capabilities of unmanned attack drones. The deaths of 24 Pakistani soldiers at the hands of NATO last week and the resulting diplomatic shitstorm shines a big fat xenon flashlight on how future proxy resource wars are going to play out.

    The future will be war by remote control.

    All those drones you read about hitting targets in Pakistan or Yemen or whatever other strategic desert the US gets interested in these days are piloted remotely by US Air Force personnel operating from air conditioned rooms on the far side of the planet from the target zone. How sci fi is that? The base of operations is Creech Air Force base just outside Las Vegas in the Nevadan desert. From here pilot commands get relayed around the globe by a network of military satellites and deliver precision death from the sky on the cheap. Drones can deliver a Hellfire missile for far less cost than a $350 million F-22 Raptor can. And target damage is the same no matter how that ordinance gets delivered. Pilot training is cheaper too with the added caveat of not risking a pilot's life in the process and, let's face it, with a whole generation of unsupervised 12 year old Xbox Live kids sitting home alone with an overworked mom and a dad who bailed to Reno with the babysitter, the US Air Force already has a built in supply of semi trained potential pilots on standby. That is, of course, if the Air Force brass don't mind their com channels filled with terms like homo, faggot and fuck this lag.

    But the real question posed by unrestricted drone warfare is how drones change and re write the rulebook and ethics of modern warfare itself. Brookings Institution policy wonk PW Singer makes a chilling observation:

  

• IF armed unmanned drones are used against legitimate military targets in, say, Pakistan
• AND these drones are piloted out of the suburbs of Las Vegas, Nevada
• THEN is a Pakistani 'radical' car bomb in the Walmart parking lot outside that Air Force base in Las Vegas an act of terrorism... or a legitimate act of military retaliation?

    That right there my friends is one of the most interesting military questions of our time.

    Is the 'War on Terror' justifiable if you can remotely deal death from the skies on the other side of the planet and call it 'military action'? By that very logic, a Pakistani or Yemeni national chucking a grenade into an American Mall food court during the Christmas shopping season is a military strike and not terrorism. The only difference between terrorism and legitimate military action here seems to be the intended target. The brass at the Pentagon will say drone strikes only reign down on the bad guys and they're ever so sorry if their wives and children get vaporized because they were sitting next to them when the Hellfire missile 'eliminated their mountain dwelling'. By the same logic, any pissed off Pashtun with a beef against the US who plants a pipe bomb at a strip mall outside Creech AFB can say the target was USAF personnel and he's ever so sorry the blast took out some women and children shopping next door at JC Penney.

   Same difference morality wise, right?

   That's how drone warfare looses you the moral high ground. The new paradigm of 21st century US drone warfare makes all civilians targets and covert operations 'outside theater' on US soil by Middle East nationals legitimate acts of war.

   The other interesting thing about drone warfare is that it pits high tech versus low tech.

   High tech industrial economies versus low tech desert strongmen sitting on the oil everybody wants. Those on desert sands who don't play ball in the global energy chess game get called 'terrorists'. Those who go along with the program get called 'allies'. It's a global petro dollar game of Risk and it sure is fun to watch if you're a fan of how 21st century proxy resource wars are going to play out.

  Drone warfare offers high tech societies a future where they can minimize casualties by using machines. It's easy to see why Western war planners like the concept. In Western countries human casualties still matter. Volunteer armies are not easy to recruit. Sure, the current state of Western economies makes recruiting easier simply because there are a whole lot more people in search of a paycheck. But in the US right now the Army still buys air time on TV and runs commercials showing how cool it is to run around in foreign deserts dressed as a soldier and shoot 'enemies' while omitting the unfortunate fact that you might die while doing it. Not dying in a war has always been a key goal for every soldier. It's kind of important. Bodies coming home pine boxed from foreign shores always put a dent in the war aspirations of politicians. Kitchener's WWI "I Want You" posters were similar beguiling motifs back in 1914 but that was a different time, when throwing generations of young men onto the Somme didn't lose you street cred. Today, shit's different. Casualties matter more than ever in our corpo sci fi dystopia because everybody wants to live forever so they can continue buying cool new TVs.

    Let's face it, we're living in Blade Runner.

   The US is way ahead in drone technology but that doesn't mean there are not a whole bunch of other nations fast tracking their own remote machines to give their generals something new to play around with on their war planning desks. Drones are such a hot commodity right now and their worth so precious that the US won't sell them except to "trusted partners" (code speak for the UK and Israel). And even those sales are only previous generation stuff (unarmed Predator recon types) while the US keeps all the serious stuff (armed stealth drones) for themselves. When the US restricts arms sales, you know they're pretty serious about drone warfare and future tech.

     The standard vanilla US drone is the Predator MQ-1.

    Designed in the early nineties as an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, it didn't take the Air Force brass or the CIA long to figure out that fitting some AGM-114 Hellfire's on that baby could make it a pretty potent interdiction craft. The Predator family soon expanded into four variants, all rear prop driven and they've been used all over Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya and Iran though the US government refuses to acknowledge their attack role even though you can read about it in every newspaper every day.


    The fun part of this story is that the US just lost one of their top secret RQ-170 Stealth Drones over Iran this week. That sure must have pissed the CIA off and earned some X-Box kid at Creech AFB a sizable pay cut. I mean, that wreckage is liable to wind up in some Chinese science lab pretty soon just like the wreckage of the F-117 Stealth fighter that was shot down during the Kosovo War did, downed by the Serbs with a shitty Soviet SA-3 system that proved awesome back in 1999. The US responded by "accidentally" dropping five 2000lb JDAMS on the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade two months later but it still wasn't enough to prevent the wreckage boarding the fast train to China. The RQ-170 'wreckage' in Iran is probably bound for the same fate. [UPDATE] Iran just displayed the captured drone and it looks perfectly intact!



    The Iranians are claiming they jammed it and hacked the controls by way of a 'cyber attack' and I, like everyone else, thought that a bit of a stretch considering their whole nuke program got grounded last summer by a computer virus. But that intact drone footage sure seems like a 'controlled' landing to me. I'm sure the CIA are having a shit fit behind the scenes. They barely even acknowledge the existence of the RQ-170 Stealth Drone in the first place. To have one on display in Tehran and picked over by Iranian tech crews has fail written all over it from a US point of view.


 An RQ-170 was spotted in 2009 at a remote airfield in Kandahar, Afghanistan which is funny when you consider the Taliban have no radar to track it in the first place and rely on good old goat panic as an enemy early warning system. The RQ-170 was stationed in Afghanistan but obviously had bigger prey in mind. That Stealth Drone is the system that kept an eye in the sky on Bin Laden's house in next door Pakistan while the SEAL Team raided it and, incidently, where the US lost that 'Stealth Helicopter' that nobody even knew existed.

Iran's new perfectly intact wreckage!

    These latest developments in classified robotic warfare, projects like the RQ-170, are developed at the famed Skunk Works facility in the Californian desert. That top secret tech development center and the experimental aircraft rolling out of there bring up another fun question in all of this and that is the very nature of Air Power itself. The US Air Force branched out of the Army in 1947 after the strategic bombing program over the Reich proved so successful if you didn't give a shit about civilians. Hell, Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved that in spades when civilians were the actual target.

   However, in our current logic, this does tend to cause problems. Especially when you're fighting the smaller proxy resource wars the US finds itself engaged in on multiple fronts today. There was even one fun report by way of Wikileaks a while back, that revealed that British forces in Afghanistan had actually put in a request for the US to stop bombing by drone because they were missing their targets too often and killing civilians; acts which made the whole ground war over there more difficult since landing a bomb on a goat herder's mud shack and wiping out his whole family is likely to turn that goat herder into a fully committed IED laying enemy combatant pretty fast.

UPDATE 2013: Check out ARGUS. If they're showing you this on Nova (a PBS documentary), that means it's already old technology. With these drones now flying over US cities, say goodbye to that quaint idea known as privacy.

    The truth is, there is no stopping the robot future. No US politician and no sleazy defense contractor is going to sit back and let the Chinese or Russians catch up. We're on the fast track to robotic war. The scope and theater of this war is unlimited when you consider the retaliatory strike options on US soil from low tech guys with no access to RQ-170 stealth aircraft of their own but plenty of access to U-Haul trucks and fertilizer. No one knows what UAVs will unleash in the future.

    Only one thing is for sure about the future when it comes to us humans.

    There will be warfare there.