Anatomy of a Failure

We’ve ceased our offense against Iran, while the same Regime controls the vital Strait of Hormuz. Our Gulf allies are increasingly at the mercy of this ruthless gang. Israel is off bombing Hezbollah in Lebanon, trying to salvage something from this fiasco. Our other allies in Europe and Asia wonder why they’re suffering from this mess when nobody asked them. Yet the Trump administration expects them to clean it up.

How did the most powerful nation on earth end up behind the eight-ball? By breaking every rule for success. Presumably, we had an objective. We had already bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities, putting that program back, maybe for years. We controlled the skies over that nation. Having already mowed their capabilities, there is no need to mow again now.

\What was present was an Iran in dire straits. Sanctions, mismanagement of water resources, and the economy had sparked mass protests. The vast majority of Iranians demanded change. Other than those directly benefiting from the Regime, support evaporated. The Mullahs had never been in a weaker position. What was here was the chance to free the people to form a government that didn’t threaten their neighbors.

The Trump administration took notice. The President told the Iranian protesters we had their back. No question what our goal was, toppling the Regime. We started sending our forces to the area. The head Mullah and many of the key players in his government were killed from the air.

In the meantime, the Iranian government slaughtered in excess of 40,000 protesters. The streets went quiet. This result shouldn’t surprise anyone. We’ve seen this movie many times before. Ruthless dictatorial governments use their monopoly of weapons to trounce unarmed protestors. No matter how bad the government is, it stays in power because nobody can shoot back. Cubans have lived at the subsistence level for decades. Does it even have an economy? Still, the communists persist.

Oil-rich Venezuela has followed the same path. When faced with losing power, there is no limit to the pain the absolute rulers will inflict on their defenseless citizenry. The picture of an unarmed Tiananmen Square protester standing in front of massive tanks illustrates the imbalance.

The only successful revolutions in history took place where armed people existed from the start, or military units refused to fire on the people, and changed sides. Imagine how poorly our forefathers would’ve fared if only the redcoats had arms. Instead, we turned them back at Lexington and Concord. To have a “shot heard round the world, ” you have to have a gun. The minutemen had guns and knew how to use them. The rest is history.

Other revolutions, such as the French and Russian, saw military units refuse to fire on the people and turn against their rulers. No matter how great the air superiority, only armed resistance on the ground can drive out the despots.

Continue reading

Mental Health Exercise

With the Strait of Hormuz under the control of the Iranian Regime, and Rockets and drones raining down on our friends, without a visible objective or strategy on our part, I’ve said all I can. I lost track of where the Trump administration wanted to go with its attack when it ruled out cooperation with the Kurds. Others had a similar response.

Wall Street Journal columnist Holman Jenkins Jr, a member of that paper’s editorial board, put it this way: “The moment that gave me pause was when the administration backed away from unleashing Iran’s Kurdish rebels. Yes, if U.S. goals were limited, a certain delicacy was appropriate here. But if the U.S. means to impose maximal stress on Iran’s ruling group, if the goal is to push the Regime to the wall, then throw everything at it, including the Kurds—at least everything short of a presumably unacceptable U.S. ground invasion.”

Why not? Not only could the Kurds provide an area for the Iranian opposition to gather, arm, train, and organize, but it would also give Iran’s Azerbaijanis (AZERIAS), to the north and east of the Kurdish areas, freedom from a regime repressing them. Bordering Azerbaijan, where their ethnic brothers and sisters reside, it would allow that nation to support their brethren. Azerbaijan is friendly with Israel, and is now being attacked with drones from Iran. Together, the Kurds and Azerbaijanis constitute over 25% of Iran’s present population. A good start to any revolt.

As I’ve said, maybe our administration, the Israelis, or both have something great up their sleeves. Given Trump’s performance on tariffs, confused aims are understandable, but this muddle is uncharacteristic of Israel. Maybe there is a winning master plan proving me happily foolish, but for now, I have to move on to something else for my mental health.

Continue reading

Remember the “Horns”

War is an awful business. Once started, all sorts of things can go wrong. That’s why no one should ever go into it lightly. Yet, there are circumstances where you come to the conclusion you have no real choice but to attack.

Before you move, those who studied war, from Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, to B.H. Liddell Hart cautioned that you need a clear objective—one that eliminates the problem or problems causing your decision to go to war. In the present case, the administration determined that as long as the mullahs ruled Iran, we faced intolerable threats, from nuclear war, attacks by Iran or its allies on others in the Mideast, or disruption of major trade routes.

The timing seems right. Thanks to mainly Israeli actions, we control the air over Iran. Sanctions and the Mullahs’ mismanagement have weakened the Iranian economy to a point where businesspeople have joined the young in longing for change.

Having determined that the mullahs in power pose an existential threat, anything short of regime change won’t solve the problems. The mullahs must go.

With the objective in place, what’s our strategy for success? We pay all those military people with all those medals and ribbons to show us the path to victory. Having studied the art of war all their lives, they should know what works and what to avoid.

I didn’t spend a lifetime in the military, but I did go to a military school, where our dedicated commandant taught the required military science courses. We studied what worked, or didn’t work, throughout the ages. Using your superior numbers or resources to overpower, frankly, is wasteful and may result in a “Pyrrhic victory,” named after the King who lost so much in winning that he couldn’t continue his war against the Romans.

Continue reading

Crisis-Real or Not

In my last post, I noted that the Democrats offered the same false diagnoses, leading them to propose policies that have failed in the past. Shortly after publishing, I learned of Paul Ehrlich’s passing. The Stanford biologist’s life encapsulates how misinformation underlies progressivism. Worse, these mostly highly educated people are aware of these falsehoods, but they work very hard to avoid the truth.

Paul Ehrlich may not be well known among today’s youth, but they may be contending with his effect. His book, “The Population Bomb,” written with his wife and published in 1968, sold millions of copies. The Author was a fixture on The Late Show.” Exposed to his frightening predictions of mass famine and the collapse of overpopulated societies, people worldwide changed their behavior, and some nations even adopted policies to restrict population growth.

Some found the idea of parenthood selfish and a threat to the planet. Many skipped the adventure of parenthood. As a result, many never became grandparents, and we have fewer cousins. Beyond individual decisions, some nations took stringent measures to curb population growth.

On the surface, his thesis seems plausible. If humans were allowed to breed like rabbits, they would soon outrun the planet’s ability to provide food and resources. The only possible outcome is a massive die-off.

This theory isn’t new. In 1798, Thomas Malthus observed that humans reproduced geometrically, while food resources grew only arithmetically, setting up a trap that could only lead to dire circumstances—his outwardly logical theory occurred during the Age of Reason and the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution.

Continue reading

Not The Change We Need

Don’t count on things getting better. When we’ve gone through a rough patch, we wish the next election would result in greater competence, but that’s hope over experience. The last election saw a voter revolt against the worst inflation in 40 years, wide-open borders, and the Afghan fiasco, which encouraged bad actors to start two ugly wars. The relatively solid economy and the absence of major fighting during Donald Trump’s first term fostered nostalgia.

Trump promised peace, safety, and prosperity in 2024. A little over one year in, we still have rising prices, albeit at a somewhat lower rate, violence on the streets in cities like Minneapolis, and an ever-widening war in the Middle East. Maybe we didn’t want wide open borders, letting in bad people, but we want the good contributing to our nation, treated humanely, not terrified and abruptly deported.

Given where we are, how is that election working out? More importantly, will the future election bring improvement? Plagued by high prices, poorly conceived international actions that have led to more bloodshed and increased costs, civil unrest, lawfare, executive orders that ignore Congress, and corruption, a change in leadership surely will lead to a different direction.

But will it? Everything we’re complaining about today has its roots in the prior Democratic administration: high prices, almost double-digit inflation. Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Gaza weren’t examples of international stability. The Black Lives Matter riots weren’t peaceful. Forgiving billions in student loans by executive order, the courts were Trump’s second home during the 2024 campaign, and if you wanted Biden’s attention, his son had a painting for you.

Yes, you can argue that the current Trump administration is worse in all these areas, but that is just because Trump exceeded them, not because he initiated them. Just as Trump followed and expanded on the Democrats’ path, there is no reason to believe the Democrats won’t build on and exceed the present administration in these areas. A continuing game of ” Can you top this?”

Instead of a fresh approach to our myriad of problems, the Democratic leaders with the loudest voices promise more of the same. From California to New York City, Newsome to Mandani, and all Blue spots in between, we hear the same old, same old. The rich are getting richer at the expense of the rest of us, and not “paying their fair share.” Corporations, you name the place, are price-gouging, and inequality is growing by leaps and bounds.

Given these diagnoses of our problems, the solutions have a familiar ring to them. Increase taxes on those nasty billionaires and millionaires’ ill-gotten gains. In California, increasing income taxes on the “rich” isn’t enough; we have to tax their accumulated wealth. Investigate companies whose prices have moved up significantly. Stronger price controls on things like rent in New York City. Hike up the minimum wage to give everyone a raise. Close the growing gap between the haves and have-nots by increasing transfer payments.

Continue reading