Oddities of Cultural and Historical Correctness.

King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile, two Spanish monarchs whose regal motto was Tanto monta, Isabel como Fernando, or They amount to the same, Isabella and Ferdinand, symbolizing their equality as monarchs, something further cemented by a prenuptial agreement to that effect. Among the successes of their unification of the Spanish crown and the accompanying unification of most of the Iberian peninsula under a single, Spanish, crown, was the launching of the Spanish Empire through the sponsorship of Christopher Columbus' endeavor.  Did we note that they were Spanish?

Denver has renamed Columbus Park "La Raza Park".

Because, as we know, Christopher Columbus was a racist colonizer.

La Raza, we're informed, is a name that has all positive connotations for Hispanics of all ethnicities.

It translates as "the race".

Now, in using that term, we need to be careful.  Many people if they called themselves "the race" would be using a term that would be, after all, racist.  Particularly if you were using a term associated with a racist colonial endeavor.

Christopher Columbus, as we know, was a racist colonizer.

He was working for the King and Queen of Spain. . . who were Hispanics. . . and whose Spanish conquest created . . . well. . . "the race".

So, Denver, in an effort to be culturally pure has taken away from a park the name of an Italian contractor with the Hispanic crown and renamed the park for the results of his work, in actual terms.

Things get complicated when you seek to be woke.

People On Wall Street Dressed Better Back In 1979

The MP

 

"Argonne-Meuse 1918," World War I. Artist: Lester G. Hornby. US Army Art Collection

On thought before conclusion.

The Triumph of Orthodoxy, a painting representing the triumph over iconoclasm in the East, a movement that truly smashed icons..

This is a follow-up item from one of our companion blogs.

Churches of the West: Churches of the West: On the morality of the Coronavirus: 

Churches of the West: On the morality of the Coronavirus Vaccines.

In what should put this matter to rest, the Vatican indicated that the vaccines are not morally objectionable.

Churches of the West: On the morality of the Coronavirus Vaccines.: This is something that you have to be pretty attuned, I think, to the Catholic world to pick up on, and to appreciate.  There's been som...

For most rank and file orthodox Catholics this will in fact be the end of this debate, but my prediction is that for some it will not for some Rad Trads who have headed off in the Dr. Taylor Marshall/Patrick Coffin direction.  

Indeed, while I'm not following either of them, I'm skeptical that they'll accord Pope Francis the respect and authority here which loyal Catholics should.

I don't post much on these topics here and they're really only of interest to those in the Catholic, and perhaps Orthodox, world, but there's a certain segment of Rad Trads that have become so dedicated in their opposition to Pope Francis that they ironically have started to resemble the most anti Catholic Protestants in some odd ways, without realizing it.

Fr. Charles Coughlin at an economic conference.  Coughlin went from a radio personality on moral and social issues to a diehard opponent of Franklin Roosevelt whose memory is now associated with a sympathy for fascism.  He was ultimately silenced by his Bishop.  While its to Coughlin's credit that he obeyed his superior's orders, his reputation continues to be a haunting spectre in some spheres that still taints the Church, unfairly.

They are also adopting, in some instances, political and scientific views that really ought to stop and give a person pause.  This sort of thing has happened before and usually ends up with Papal correction and then ultimately the movement being forgotten, or an unfortunate example that we wish we could all in fact forget.

Which gets to the interesting topic of analysis and nuance.

It's perfectly possible to be extremely orthodox and not a Pope Francis fan, without being disrespectful to him or his office or, moreover, assert that he must be wrong on whatever he's saying because he's Pope Francis.

UCLA Berkeley students at an America First rally in 1940.

Likewise, it's possible to be very conservative socially and politically without believing that the recent election was stolen or that any effort is worth it to retain the current sitting President.  By the same token, a person can believe that the President Elect is in fact the President Elect, support him as such, while not feel that he personally isn't in need of serious correction in some areas.

The world doesn't divide into all good and all evil, and very few people have actions that are universally one or the other. And endorsing something that we'd normally regard as wrong, because our opponent has endorsed it, should cause us serious pause.   So should leaping to conclusions about causes and origins, and motivations.

We all agree that the World War One was horrific.  Few, at any point, would have maintained that the 1918 Flu was a German plot, however.  Patrick Coffin likes to call SARS-CoV-2, or as most call it COVID 19, the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) Flu, or words to that effect.  There's no reason on earth that the Chinese would have unleashed this intentionally on anyone, let alone themselves, but some tend to insist upon that.

More extreme, Coffin's given voice to at least one person who has maintained, although he has stopped short of endorsing it himself, that the pandemic was unleashed in league with the Chinese by Bill Gates and his associates as part of an effort to achieve something, although what that would be is pretty unclear.  As I don't listen to Coffin, I might know the answer to that if I followed up on it.

Dr. Taylor Marshall, who has made a name for himself as a highly traditional Catholic, beyond that which most conventional orthodox Catholics would be regarded as, has spent some time post election on the various wild ways in which Donald Trump could still be elected President.  Never mind that Marshall is highly educated, holding a doctorate, and should have realized that these theories were absurd and that it was immediately clear that the focus for Catholics should be our moral views in regard to the upcoming administration.

I don't like Noam Chomsky's views.

That is, his political views.

But as whacky screwball as they are, and they're so far to the left they're in the Squirrel Nut Zipper category, he's notable for having supported his political enemies in academic positions as he thought they were good academics.  And that is what makes Chomsky a serious academic himself.

That sort of conduct is always somewhat rare.  But in the era we're now in its become absurdly rare. Indeed, it's becoming the culture of the country.

And countries with that culture fly apart.

December 21, 1620. The Mayflower Passengers Land.

 That is, exactly 400 years ago.

The landing was partially precipitated by the fact that the Mayflower had run out of beer, which was a more important matter than it might sound.  The English were overall used to drinking beer, but the reason was that beer, because of the way that it was made, was safe to drink. Running out of things to drink is bad anyway you look at it.

In modern times its become common to levy all sort of criticism and virtue signaling on this event, noting how "horrible" Europeans were for colonizing North America.  All of that views the world from was the comfortable late 20th and early 21st Century prospective which has only been shook up a little by the visitation of a plague upon is, something that people in the 17th Century regarded as one of life's norms.  It is true, of course, that the Mayflower passengers were essentially landing where they weren't invited to take land that wasn't theirs, but they didn't see it that way. And its important to remember that the native residents of the land that they were essentially if unknowingly invading viewed the world much differently than anyone in North America does today, through eyes that tended to regard their own tribes as "the people" with everyone else being some sort of alien people.

Indeed, the Mayflower passengers were only in possession of marginally technically superior implements than their unwilling hosts, who themselves were a more or less constant state of war, near war, or soon to be war, with their neighbors.  It's not true, as some have suggested as a reactionary counterfactual, that the Europeans were regarded as one more tribe. They were definitely different. But early on the technological advantage that's so often assumed to be there simply wasn't.  In warfare the natives were every bit the equals, and maybe the superiors in every sense to the new arrivals.

And none of this is to suggest the old grade school version of the "pilgrims" either. They were religious bigots whose situation was brought about by the fact that they couldn't get along at all with the Church of England or darned near anyone else.  They would have regarded Catholics, which all the British had been less than a century ago, as heretics and they didn't view the Church of England cheerfully.  They had adopted very rigorous concepts of Calvinism and regarded most people damned by God to Hell from the moment of their conception, a novelty that no  Christian had held before the Reformation.  Our concept of them and what they approved of and didn't approve of is accordingly massively off the mark.  They approved of piety, but because it was temporal proof of their predestination. As noted, unlike many who look back to them now as religious ancestors, they approved of alcohol as well.  They were also huge supporters of marital sex, which is something we don't associate their piety with.

They disapproved of most forms of entertainment, which was another thing that had gotten them in trouble in Europe.  They required church attendance on Sunday by law, but then that was also a legal norm in much of Europe. They'd approved of the Calvinist ban of sports on Sunday in England during the Cromwell era.

Not everyone on board the Mayflower was a member of their group by any means.  Indeed, the "pilgrim" passengers.  The ship held 102 passengers but some were just that, not religious dissenters.  Be that as it may, the puritans dominated the ship in culture and conduct, and as colonist.

Their journey was no doubt arduous, and coming in winter, risky in more ways than one.  One person died on the way, and another was born.

I personally have no known connection with them.  The first of my ancestors to set sail across the Atlantic for the New World left from Normandy, not Holland, and arrived in Quebec, not New England.  I'm completely comfortable with that.  But my much more American by ancestry wife has a demonstrated ancestral connection with the 102 passengers of the Mayflower but, as her curiosity on historical matters is much lower than mine, if I asked her right now who it was, she wouldn't recall, and wouldn't be interested in looking it up. Still, that means my two children likewise have ancestors who landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620.

And its important to note, that really was something, no matter how human or failed those people may have been.  I can't say, as I look around, that people are doing much better in any segment of human conduct today.

Some controversial topics for a new Biden Administration. The Space Force is stupid and ought to go.

Joe Biden will not, I'm sure, take advice from me.  I've offered him some already, but I doubt he's one of the 200 to 800 people who stop in here on any particular day.

Still, if he is. . . 

Star Trekesque emblem of the U.S. Space Force.

If you want to read an enthusiastic view of the Space Force read the Smithsonian's Air & Space magazine.  It's an excellent publication anyway and it loves the space force. The last issue had an article on the "black hat squadron" of the now one year old Space Force and what it does.

My view?

M'eh.

The Space Force was basically the Air Force's Space Command and it should revert to it.  The Space Force can't and won't be doing any real mission that Space Command was not, but it will have its own budget, its own seat at the Joint Chiefs, and its own bloated budget.  Given the habit of the current U.S. military, it won't share anything that it could in terms of obviously common items with the other services, and will have to have its own unique everything.

The Space Force/Space Command really has a mission that's simply auxiliary to the Air Forces and therefore the creation of what essentially is a branch of the military that does nothing other than to deal with menacing Russian satellites and the potential militarization of space is really grossly overweighting that mission and massively trespassing on something the Air Force already does and does well.  The Air Force has been in space, frankly, in a militarized way since the launch of the first ballistic missiles that excited the atmosphere and so they've been at this a long, long time. If the Space Force having a seat at the Joint Chiefs makes sense, and its own very special budget, giving the Civil Air Patrol a seat there does as well.

Moreover both balkanization and mission inflation is a problem in the U.S. military as it is.  The Air Force itself was once, and rightly, part of the Army but has been busy trying to forget its ground support role ever since it became a separate service, which was a massive military mistake in the first place.  Double balkanization of a role that should have just remained with the Army is not help.

Moreover, this recalls the example of the Marine Corps, which I have another thread in the hopper on.  I'm not opposed to the Marine Corps by any means and I worry about its current direction towards a new role, but its hard not to recall that the Marine Corps is properly part of the Department of the Navy but since the Second World War its freakishly expanded into its own service in a way.  And its one that has developed the habit of never using anything, right down to boots, that other branches of the service do.

All these services, moreover, get a chair with the Joint Chiefs of Staff which now is starting to look as large as a high school graduating class.  The Army, Air Force, Space Force, Marine Corps, and the Navy all have seats at the Joint Chiefs and the National Guard gets its own as well.   

This is now way overdone.   The Marines ought to really revert fully to being part of the Department of the Navy.  If they can't do that, they're really just a second Army in disguise.  The Air Force ought to revert to being part of the Department of the Army.  I'm so so about the National Guard having a seat at the table, but I'd leave that alone for the time being.

At a bare minimum, the Space Force ought to go and on day one of the Biden Administration.  If I were he, I'd not only sign an executive order doing away with it immediately on day one, but I'd frankly reduce any officer in grade by one grade if they were foolish enough to go along with this silliness and I'd shift those enlisted men who volunteered for this transfer (and not all of them did) over to the Army rather than the Air Force.  They'd have their same jobs, but if they want to be playing musical services they can be in one that might, perhaps, have to call on them to be a "guardian" in the old fashioned way.

Monday Morning Repeats for the week of January 23, 2011

I'm going to run two of these this week.  Here's the first, which is one that has been a common theme here over the years:

When horses were a major economic factor.

And here's a second, which has been as well:

Some things don't change that much.

The appearance of some things in regard to my office actually has changed in recent years.  The little desk that once held my computer has been replaced by a century old "secretary" that my mom, and then me, inherited in turn.

Interestingly, it works quite a bit better than the little stand alone desk did for this purpose.

December 21, 1920. The Last War Savings Stamps of the Great War.

The last US War Saving Stamps, designed to help fund World War One as loans from the citizens to the government, were sold on this date in 1920. They matured on January 1, 1926.

KDKA in Pittsburg started regularly scheduled broadcasting, the first radio station in the United States to do so.

December 21, 1940. The 20s Pass

On this day in 1940 F. Scott Fitzgerald, chronicler of the 1920s, died at age 44.  

Fitzgerald was a brilliant writer and his writings came to virtually define the America of the 1920s.  He lived a troubled life, however, and was an alcoholic, a condition he attributed to having had recurring tuberculosis.  The direct cause of his death was a heart attack.

Elsewhere, the Greeks were fighting on in their country and the Italians were not doing well in North Africa, as the following collection of photographs of Italian prisoners of war demonstrates.

More on the war here:

Day 478 December 21, 1940

December 20, 1940. The world recoils.

 

"Behind this eight-foot concrete wall some 500,000 Jews will begin a new life in Warsaw's ghetto. By German decree, all Warsaw Jews are required to reside in the district, located in the central part of the conquered city. It surrounds more than 100 city blocks and closes off 200 streets and even street car lines."  New York World Telegram, December 20, 1940.

With the Christmas Season approaching, it was a grim day in many places where there were those who weren't acknowledging the message of the Price of Peace.  You can read more about that here.

Day 477 December 20, 1940

On this site we recall that already the Germans were butchering the Poles, and as can be seen from above, they were beginning a more systematic butchering of European's Jewish population.

The Germans also commenced the Liverpool Bitz, three days of horrific bombing of the city.

Post bombing photograph of Liverpool.

Even the Earth seemed to recoil against the violence. The first of two earthquakes occurred in New Hampshire.

December 20, 1920. Red Russia turns Redder.

Felix Dzerzkhinsky in Switzerland, 1918, with his wife and son.  The son was born in 1911 in prison where Sophia Dzerzkhinsky was a political prisoner.

On this day the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service was created as a special section of the Cheka.  Felix Dzerzhinkshy was at its head.

Dzerzhinkshy was a Pole of noble birth who was radicalized at some point in his early years and went on to a blood stained role in the early Soviet Union.  He died of a heart attack at age 59 in 1926.

Wars and Rumors of Wars

 A new series, cataloging current conflicts.

In posting this, I realize this could lead to a misimpression that the whole world is aflame.  Not so. We live in the most peaceful period in human history, bar none.

Still, some fighting is going on here and there.  We'll attempt to list conflicts as they come up. And by that, we mean conflicts.  Wars and near wars, as well as some pretty serious international shoving matches.

We're only going to try to catch these, fwiw, as they come up.  I'm not going to try to list every pending conflict, near conflict and the like.

September 29, 2020

Azerbaijan v Armenia.

Azerbaijan and Armenia are fighting over Nagorno-Karabakh, which has long been a bone of contention between them.  Turkey is pledging support for Azerbaijan, with that country being a Turkic one culturally.

This outbreak of fighting comes just about one century after the Turkish Armenian War, which we mentioned just the other day.

What it's about:  Essentially this is a long running ethnic war.  And by long running, we mean really long running, dating back 700 or more years and involving the expansion of the Turkic Muslim population into the Christian lands to their West.  Armenia lost lands in that struggle and is substantially smaller than it was 700 years ago, but it managed to not disappear, as opposed to what occured in Anatolia.  Nagorno-Karabakh is a mountainous Armenian ethnic enclave inside of Azerbaijan.

Who else is involved:  Turkey, predictably, in support of Azerbaijan.  Russia is attempting to broker a peace.

What are the combatants like: I don't really know, but given the locality, both are heirs to Soviet arms and tactics.  Azerbaijan may have some backdoor military aid and advice from Turkey.

Good guys and bad guys?:  This one really depends on your prospective.

China v. India

China and India have been engaging in border skirmishes over their border in the Himalayas. The skirmishes have been unique as they've been hand to hand.  Both countries have adopted the policy of not arming their soldiers on their border out of the fear it will lead to shooting incidents.  The fighting has been severe enough, however, that lives have been lost.  In response China was going to arm their troops with poles, butthe Indians indicated they'd reciprocate by issuing firearms to their troops, so the Chinese did not carry their threat out.

What it's about:  The Indian border with its northern neighbors has never been well defined as the region is largely inaccessible and it largely didn't matter until recent times.  Part of what makes it matter is Chinese aggression, which made China a neighbor of India after its 1950s invasion of Tibet.

Who else is involved:  Nobody, but India has similar problems in regard to its border with Pakistan

What are the combatants like: Both countries have large and modern militaries.

Good guys and bad guys?:  The Chinese are behaving like a 19th Century imperial power and have become international bullies.  Additionally, China shouldn't even be in the area and only is due to illegally occupying Tibet.

North Korea v. South Korea

This entry would seem to violate my comment above about not cataloging every conflict going on in the world, as this one has been going on for seventy years.

But for sixty six of those years its smoldered under an armistice that brought an end to the open fighting but didn't completely stop the hostilities.  From time to time, there's violence, and there was some last week with North Korean soldiers shot and killed a South Korean man who was making a deluded attempt to defect to North Korea.  North Korea is a disaster so why that individual, a South Korean official, would attempt that is beyond me, but he did.

Apparently the North Koreans shot the man as a Coronavirus precaution and then burned his body.  The North Korean government then took the unusual step of apologizing for the incident, and then the South took the unnecessary one of also apologizing for failing to look after its own citizen better, although seeing a real South Korean failure here is hard to do.

What it's about:  As a result of the end of World War Two the US occupied the southern part of the Korean peninsula and the USSR the northern half.  The two halves were supposed to unite under a democratically elected government but didn't, leaving the northern half a Stalinist state that attempted to unite the country by force by way of a 1950 invasion of the south.  That failed, and the subsequent United Nations intervention nearly united the country under the southern government until the Chinese intervened. Ultimately an armistice placed the two halves nearly back where they had started, but left them with a lingering state of conflict which has never resolved.

Who else is involved:  For years following the Korean Conflict the United States remained as a deterrent to northern invasion.  The US still remains in the country today but with the southern government having evolved into being a full democratic one and the south a modern country.

The  north is propped up by China and receives assistance, to a lesser degree, from Russia.

What are the combatants like: South Korea's military is highly modern.  North Korea's is less so, but its  military is large and has some modern weapons.  As an Army of conscripts inside a controlled state, it's really hard to judge the loyalty of North Korea's soldiers.

Good guys and bad guys?: North Korea is run by Stalinist bullies who should step down in the interest of their country and humanity.

October 4, 2020

Azerbaijan v Armenia Update

Protests broke out in Hollywood, California yesterday as Armenian Americans, of which California has the largest number, gathered in front of news outlets to demand coverage of the fighting between the two countries. Protestors also blocked California state highway 101.

At this point, I guess I'll give my opinion on this conflict.

Armenians have occupied the region they are in since time immemorial. The Armenian kingdom was the first nation in the world to adopt Christianity as its official religion, with adoption of Christianity as the Armenian religion coming in the year 301.  Christianity itself was present in the country as early as 40AD, which isn't too surprising as Christianity spread miraculously fast after the Resurrection.  That would mean, that Christianity arrived in Armenia just seven years after that event.

Armenia, in the ancient, and modern, world has often been part of somebody else's empire. The Armenians are victims of their geographic location in that their land lies between the Caspian and Black Seas, so its the pathway to the Middle East for invaders. They became autonomous, if not fully independent, in 451.  The region fell to Islamic conquerors early in the Islamic armed expansion, but the region itself resisted Islam enormously and retained its Christian identity.  Following that it was briefly part of the Byzantine Empire, and then fell to the Seljuk Turks, who were driven out in the 1100s.  It fell to the Mongols in 1230, and and endless string of invaders from the east therefore.  It's unfortunate association with the Turks returned in 16th Century, following the Ottoman invasion of Anatolia.  As the Ottoman Empire began to collapse in the early 20th Century, Armenians became a victim of Turkish atrocities.

Armenia was supposed to be given independence following the fall of Ottoman Empire and its entering into a peace treaty with the Allies.  It's borders were drawn by Woodrow Wilson, even though the United States had never entered the war against the Ottomans.  The Allies proved, however, to tired to carry on what seemed to them to be a sideshow with the Turks, and abandoned the country allowing the Young Turks to form a new Turkish nation.  One of the first things that country did was to invade Armenia in a border dispute.

This story was complicated by the fact that the Russian Empire also had expanded into Armenian territory so, by the 20th Century, Armenians were split between two empires, and two empires that did not get along.  World War One, therefore, not only brought terrible atrocities to Armenia, but opportunity as well. The Armenians did not get a state with the border promised to them in the peace treaty, but they did get a state briefly.  Turkish armed action against them combined with Communist subterfuge and Soviet invasion brought that to an end in 1921.  

A small Armenia regained its independence with the fall of the Soviet Union.

Azerbaijan is a country populated by the Azerbaijani Turks.  They came into the area during the period of time of the Muslim armed expansion.  The region itself, in vast antiquity, was populated by Albanians, something that's difficult to imagine given the tiny region occupied by Albania, quite some distance away, today.  Historical evidence indicates that they originally occupied a region in Iran, and are culturally related to the Turks (obviously) but they share the odd invaders history such as other invading people's, such as the English, in that modern genetic evidence suggests that modern Azerbaijanis may have a culture, and religion, derived from the invaders, but most of their DNA is from the invaded.  I.e., they're pretty closely related, genetically, to Armenians and Georgians.

During the rise of modern Turkey the Turks briefly dreamed of uniting Azerbaijan, and other Turkic people to Turkeys' north and east, to a greater Turkey, but British intervention, and the ultimate success of the USSR in that region, put an end to that, at least for the time.  

When the Soviet Union collapsed it left opportunities for all of these people to regain statehood, or acquire it for the first time.  Most ethnic boundaries in the Soviet Union were a mess anyhow, as the Soviets were heirs to the Russian Empire in that fashion, which never had neat ethnological boundaries and which further had no need of them.  Compounding that, the Soviets had encouraged Russian immigration everywhere in its territory as a bulwark against ethnic movements.  This left a situation in regard to Armenia and Azerbaijan in which there exists Nagorno-Karabakh.  Azerbaijan may be over 90% Azerbaijani in ethnicity, but Nagorno-Karabakh is overwhelmingly Armenian.

It ought to belong to Armenia.

In a brief war after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Armenians took it against all odds.  And they deserve to keep it.  They occupy a rump state in comparison to their former domains and didn't receive what they were promised and deserved after World War One. They have no reason to trust the Turks at all, and at this point the Islamist government of Turkey can't be depended upon not to hold old imperial expansionist dreams from the Turkish revolutionary period. The fact, moreover, that Turkey is allowing Syrian mercenaries to enter the fray is a bad sign.

My prediction is, however, that the Armenians will be abandoned once again.

Part of this is compounded, we'd note, by the fact that Armenia is completely landlocked.  It's receiving some aid from Iran, which is ironic but Iran doesn't get along well with Turkey, which is also ironic.  It also receives assistance from Russia, which views the country as part of its old empire as it also does Azerbaijan, but as Russia also views itself as the defender of Christian Orthodoxy, its sympathies are with Armenia. All that assistance, however, is fairly minor  It would take the introduction of very significant weaponry, particularly antiaircraft weapons, to really put Azerbaijan and Turkey on their heels.  Azerbaijan, for its part, receives aid, as previously noted, from Turkey, but it also receives it to some degree from Israel.  There's no good excuse for that whatsoever, although we'd note that Israel and Turkey have traditionally had close relations and the realpolitik element of keeping the Turks away from the Iranians, which ancient antipathy plays into anyway, may serve that as much as anything else.

Western powers could do something but it would mostly be something economic.  No western power would want to send a military mission to Armenia in a time of war, and for that matter, it'd have to cross a neighboring power that wouldn't allow for it.  Economic sanctions against Turkey are in order.  Russia, for its part, probably won't let Armenia lose, but it won't guaranty that it wins in Nagorno-Karabakh either.

October 6, 2020

Azerbaijan v Armenia Update

NATO called  upon NATO member ally to work to mediate the dispute, a thing which is ironic in some ways as Turkey is Azerbaijan's ally in the conflict.  NATO, in doing so, noted Turkey's "regional influence".  Iran stated it is working to mediate the conflict.

October 9, 2020

Azerbaijan v Armenia Update

Armenia called upon NATO to investigate Turkey's role in the conflict. The US, Iran, and France, called upon the warring sides to stop fighting.

Armenians from Lebanon's large Armenian community have been leaving Lebanon to volunteer for the Armenian forces.

Mali v. Mali

Mali is one of France's unstable former colonies in which she retains an interest.  Intertribal strife that breaks out in open fighting has been going on in the country for some time.  Additionally, Islamic extremist are present in the country.

The country recently experienced a coup in which the army seized control of the country and deposed its elected leadership, claiming it did it due to alleged election irregularities.  It was the second coup in eight years.

Members of the military committee formed to rule Mali following the August coup.

This week Islamist extremist released a French aid worker who had been held for nearly four years and a politician.

France has a military mission to Mali, like it does to many of its former colonies.  It's mission to that country is designed to fight offshoots of Al Qaeda in the country.   France has announced that it has no intention to withdraw.

October 10, 2020

Mali v. Mali, update

Islamic terrorist announced that they had killed a Swiss prisoner a month ago.

October 12, 2020

Azerbaijan v Armenia Update

Kim Kardashian West pledged $1,000,000 for Armenian relief.

A ceasefire between the warring parties does not appear to be holding.

October 27, 2020

Israel v Hamas

Earlier this week Israeli aircraft struck targets in Gaza in retaliation for Hamas balloon bomb strikes.

Hamas is a Sunni Islamist fundamentalist Palestinian nationalist organization with a military wing basically dedicated to the destruction of Israel.  The timing of its attack, perhaps purely coincidentally, comes at the same time that a selection of regional states have been entering into peace treaties with Israel and recognizing its legitimacy.

Israel's struggle against Hamas has been long term, and this is only the most recent expression of it.

Syria v Syria

Russia broke a truce that it is one of the parties monitoring, along with Turkey, by launching airstrikes against the Islamist fundamentalist militia Faylaq al-Sham.

This is one of those regional conflict stories that can rapidly get hopelessly confusing.  Basically, Putin's Russia, for reasons of realpolitik, old Soviet ties, and opportunity, are supporters of the Baathist Syrian regime along with Iran.  Ideologically this makes no sense whatsoever, but it's not about ideals. 

Syria is now in year nine of a civil war which pit various forces, many of them hard corps Islamist, against their secular, and facistic, regime.  The noted group attacked by Russian aircraft the other day is an amalgamation of nineteen different Islamist groups.

Russia and Turkey brokered a cease fire in the region, but obviously Russia doesn't mind making use of opportunities when they present themselves.  The targets it hit were training grounds for the noted group.

The Baath regime in the country has effectively won the war, which it was obvious that it was going to do. The more surprising fact is that some militia groups have hung on for the time being.  Russia is working towards ending that in at least some ways.

November 7, 2020

Ethiopia v. the Ethiopian region of Tigray

Ethiopia is slipping into civil war as the central government seeks to control an increasingly independently acting Tigray, a large region in the country which is maintaining its own military structure.  Yesterday the Ethiopian government hit Tigray's military infrastructure with air strikes.

Ethiopia has struggled to be stable ever since the fall of its ancient monarchy to Communism in 1974. The nation has emerged from that episode but it has not been stable.  The current government started with promise and the backing of the political forces in Tigray its now fighting, so obviously a new period of unrest is starting.

What it's about:  The main political party in Tigray has been the dominant party in post Communist Ethiopia and feels threatened by the current government which it views as trying to built a more unitary state. Tigray is a powerful and large area of Ethiopia and doesn't want its power diminished. Also, the current government removed members of the party last year which it resents.

The region held an election in defiance of the central government, which ordered national elections postponed due to the Coronavirus Pandemic.

Who else is involved:  Nobody.

What are the combatants like: Ethiopia has a small military and Tigray's militia, which is likely comprised of local units of the central military, won't be large either. They'll be roughly equally armed and equipped, but the central government will have an advantage in a conventional war.

Good guys and bad guys?:  Hard to say, but it's hard to argue that a separatist movement that's upset in these conditions has the high side of the argument.

November 10, 2020

Azerbaijan v Armenia Update

Russia has brokered a new ceasefire.

Cont:

And as details of the deal emerge, it's clear that Armenia lost the conflict.

Azerbaijan will keep the territory it acquired in the war.  Armenia will quickly withdraw from more of it.  In the center, a Russian peacekeeping force of 2,000 men will operate to secure the area from further Azerbaijani aggression, as they won't wish to enter into a war with Russia, but the deal could hardly be described as a great one for Armenia which is losing over 50% of the territory it held in the disputed region before the war commenced.

November 12, 2020

United States v. Peoples Republic of China.

This one really doesn't belong here, as there's no shooting war (um, yet?), but China presents a problem for the world and this thread given its aggressive bullying nature that puts it in the category of something resembling a 19th Century imperial power.

The United States just banned Americans from investing in companies that are involved in PRC Chinese military technology.  This move is long overdue.

It's worth noting that the Department of Defense is flat out now preparing for war with China, regarding the strategic risk as fairly high.  The Marine Corps is specifically restructuring itself to revive its 1900 to 1960 type role featuring amphibious assault.  It never abandoned it, but its now the focus once again.

What it's about:  China is an aggressive, and brutal, imperial power that is bent on expanding its influence in any fashion possible.  It's military was primitive until the First Gulf War, at which time its observation of the conflict lead it to the conclusion that it could no longer just rely on a massive military alone.  Additionally, it's become increasingly aggressive as a naval power in recent years.

Who else is involved:  Most of the nations that border China, either by land or sea, are concerned about it, and some have fairly hostile relations with China, creating some ironic situations.  For example, the United States has in recent years started to favor Vietnam, which has a very hostile relationship with its northern neighbor.  Taiwan, which of course is technically part of China but not under the Chinese government as it was the last refuge of the Chinese Nationalist government, is effectively an independent state but has been increasingly threatened by the PRC.  Hong Kong is part of China but the former British Colony has effectively had its "special relationship" which allowed it to have its own government for a prolonged anticipated period of time following reunification with the PRC has seen that massively erode leading to a huge amount of strife there.

It should be noted that Taiwan and the PRC are sometimes claimed to be "technically at war", but they are not, as they were never at war.  Taiwan is the surviving political entity of the Republic of China, with there being some irony in that in that the island itself is not one native to the Chinese but rather its own ethnic groups, although the Chinese have had a presence there for centuries. The island was ruled by the Chinese periodically and then by the Japanese from 1895 to 1945.  It reverted to the Republic of China in 1945 and then was the last refuge of the Nationalist Chinese government following their defeat in the Chinese Civil War.  As a civil war is, technically, not a legal war, the Chinese Communist and the Chinese Nationalist were not therefore in a legal war.  The Republic of China was recognized as the legal Chinese government for some time thereafter, with that definitely changing when the United States recognized the Communist government in 1971, after which the Nationalist government lost its seat at the United Nations.  Following that, and the death of Chiang Kai Shek, the Taiwanese government has taken the position of de facto independence from China and is governed currently by a political party that takes that position, without formerly declaring it.  Taiwan some time ago unilaterally declared hostilities to be over.

Flag of Vietnam.

Flag of Taiwan, the former flag of Nationalist China, or the current one, depending upon how you view it.  Taiwan still styles itself the Republic of China.

Flag of Hong Kong.

What are the combatants like: The United States has the most advanced military in the world.  Taiwan's is advanced but small. Vietnam's is good.  China's is good and getting better, but probably not as adept at sea as military commentators might sometimes suggest.

Good guys and bad guys?:  Everyone but China.

Morocco v Polisario Front

Fighting has broken out in Morocco resulting in at least a temporary end to a thirty year truce with the Polisario Front..  The cause of the fighting was the opening of a highway to Mauritania that runs through territory occupied by the Polisario Front, a group that seeks independence from Morocco in the Western Morocco region of Morocco.  The people living in the eastern portion of the Western Morocco are the Sahrawi and they are ethnically distinct from Moroccans.  The effect of the truce was to effectively make their region a state and it has acquired some recognition and quasi recognition from the United Nations.

As a result of Morocco's action, the Polisario Front declared war upon Morocco.

What it's about:  The immediate cause of the fighting was the opening of a road that had been blocked by the Sahrawi forces which was a source of complaints in the region. The bigger issue is whether the eastern Moroccan desert region of Western Morocco should be its own state.

The area was not part of the the Kingdom of Morocco until 1975 and remained a province of Spain up until that time.  The Kingdom, on the other hand, had been French Morocco.  In 1975, after a civilian unarmed invasion, the Kingdom of Morocco invaded the country in a move that Spain did not oppose.

Who else is involved:  Algeria supplies weapons to the Polisario Front even though Algeria has its own internal problems that have resulted in fighting in the past.

What are the combatants like: Morocco has a good modern army.  The Polisario Front has an army that even includes armor, but it can't be compared to Morocco's.  Having said that, Morocco was not able to defeat it prior to the truce.

Good guys and bad guys?:  Hard to say. The United Nations takes the position that the Sahrawi are entitled to self determination, which is hard to argue with.  And Morocco took the region without weighing in the views of all of the people living there.

Iraq v ISIL

We don't hear much about this war anymore, even though we have approximately 3,000 troops still committed to Iraq.

Generally, the story here is that not much of a war remains, but the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the terrorist group that at one time appeared on the verge of establishing a radical Islamic state in Iraq, does remain as a guerilla combatant.  Much reduced due to earlier fighting, they are not on the verge of anything right now, but they have not completely disappeared.

What it's about:  ISIL is a radical offshoot of Al Qaeda, which says something, which sought to impose an Islamic caliphate starting in Iraq that would rule according to the strictest Sunni interpretations of the Koran.  Iraq's government is Shiia dominated and parliamentarian in nature and it seeks to preserve itself.

Who else is involved:  The United States created the current Iraqi government following its defeat of the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein but, over time, the Iraqi government, dominated by Shiia's, has become an Iranian ally.  This puts us at odds with the government even while supporting it.

To the north, regions of the country are the sole bastions of Kurdish independence, something the Iraqi government opposes.

What are the combatants like: ISIL is a guerilla and terrorist force at this point.  Iraq has a well equipped modern army but internal strife make its overall fighting qualities doubtful.

Good guys and bad guys?:  None of this has turned out the way the UW would have wanted when it first went to war with Iraq, but suffice it to say an ISIL victory, which is now unlikely, would be a disaster.  A totally Iranian dominated Iraq would be as well.

Afghanistan v The Taliban

The long Afghani war brought about by the destabilization of the country under Communism in the 1970s continues on.

The country fell to the Taliban, a radical Islamic group, following the departure of the Soviet Union.  That lead to a civil war in which the United States intervened following the September 11, 2001 attacks as the Taliban was harboring Al Qaeda.  Massive strategic blunders caused by the tactical blundering of Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld meant that a war that could have been rapidly won was not, allowing the war to devolve into a long guerilla war.  A US focus on Iraq also diverted much needed attention from the region.  Under President Barack Obama a "surge" recaptured much lost ground, but since then a gradual draw down of American forces, now only 5,000 in number, leave the situation in the country uncertain.

What it's about:  The root of the war is found in a 1970s Communist take over in the country which lead to a guerilla war that ultimately expelled the Soviets but which did not leave a government in place.  The Taliban filled the gap and imposed a brutal theocratic regime.  It in turn harbored Al Qaeda which ultimately lead to American intervention.  The destruction of the political culture in the country has made restoring a civil government extremely difficult.

Who else is involved:  The United States remains involved.  NATO had a significant military mission but presently its remaining non US contingent is largely committed to training.

What are the combatants like: Afghanistan has a western trained and equipped army, but its internal problems make its fighting qualities doubtful.  Al Qaeda is a guerilla force.

Good guys and bad guys?:  The Afghan government is undoubtedly the "good guys" in this fight and if it falls it will be a Western disaster.

November 30, 2020

Ethiopia v. the Ethiopian region of Tigray Update

Ethiopian forces appear to have taken the capitol of the Tigray region.

The conflict seems to have spilled over into neighboring Eritrea which claims to have sent troops into Tigray at the invitation of Ethiopia, which the Ethiopian government denies.  Tigray admitted targeting Eritrea's capitol in rocket attacks recently and explosions were heard in the city yesterday.

Flag of Eritrea.

Eritrea has been independent from Ethiopia since 1993.  By getting involved in the Ethiopian war its drawing itself closer to the government of a country that's presently not tolerating regional dissent which may prove to be a dangerous move.

Morocco v Polisario Front Update.

The United States has recognized Moroccan claims to the Western Sahara.

This comes, oddly enough, as a byproduct of Moocco agreeing to normalize its relations with Israel, which were announced this past Thursday. Recognition of the Moroccan territorial claim was part of the negotiated deal.

December 20, 2020

Russia v. United States (amongst others), Cyber Warfare

It may seem odd, or not, to see this listed here.  The United States and the Russian Federation are not in a shooting war, but for years and years Russia has been engaged in a cyber campaign against the west.

This past week news developed of a huge cyber attack on U.S. agencies which it is believed it will take years to address.  The attack is truly in the nature of a disaster for the United States.  Earlier this week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attributed the attack to Russia.  In response, so far, the US has closed some consulates in Russia.

President Trump, in news that's almost become blasé, later discounted the source of the attacks, Russia, and blamed it on China, and then went on to proclaim that the "fake news industry" was making the attacks out to be much worse than they really are.  At this point in his waning days as President the purpose of the President taking such steps is hard to discern but it adds to the speculation that Russia has something on him.  Indeed, it's so odd that, outside of perhaps just his clear admiration for Boris Putin, it's very difficult to grasp.

What it's about:  What Russia's goals are remain difficult to discern. After the fall of the Soviet Union there was real hope that Russia would join the Western family of nations but its clear that under Putin it will not, even though its in its economic and political advantage to do so.  Putin has created an autocratic government in his country that has echoes of earlier Russian autocratic regimes in numerous ways and this seems to be generally part of it.  At any rate, Russia is clearly hostile to the West.

Who else is involved:  Nearly every Western nation is similarly situated to the United States in this matter.

What are the combatants like: This category doesn't really fit here in the conventional sense as the parties aren't real combatants.

Having said that, it's highly obvious that the Russians have excellent resources in this area.  The West does as well, but has restrained itself from using them and is likely to continue to do so.  It's extremely difficult to tell where this is going.

One thing to remember, however, is that Russia is in the position of going its own on these matters.  That may be part of its basis for attacking other countries in this fashion.  The nation has economic problems and a modern economy tied to petroleum, which is proving problematic as a future economic base. Attacks of this type keep its neighbors who do not engage in them off balance.  Having said that, however, the economies of the western nations are much more advanced than the Russian one and the populations of those nations dwarf Russia.  Even the US alone has a population twice the size of Russia's.

There seems to be low risk that the western nations will reciprocate, but the Russian strategy is risky as the potential cost benefit ratio to it are poor should they start to.

Good guys and bad guys?:  These actions are essentially unprovoked and only serve Russian short term interest.  They're ultimately risky to Russia itself.