Shrugging at the Abyss

In Ramadi, protesters raised black jihadi flags, representing the extremist Al Qaeda offshoot that had dominated the city during the American occupation. “We are a group called Al Qaeda!” a man shouted from a stage in the protesters’ camp. “We will cut off heads and bring justice!” The crowd cheered.
...
She looked at me with tired eyes. “We are going into—how do you say it?” she said.

“The abyss?” a colleague offered.

“Yes—the abyss,” Edwar said. “Yes, yes, yes.”

And so, after so much by so many - that is where we find ourselves in mid-2014 in Iraq.

For this post at least, let's not look back at where we were, what was, and would-could have been - no - let's look at where we are. Facts on the ground have changed, leadership has changed, and the mood of the American people is at a different place.

A few basics first:
1. The Obama Administration has no desire to engage the US military in any foreign entanglements of significant size and duration. This is not a pacifist Presidency - it is a disentanglement one. It will avoid, retreat, and turn away. It does not care to think long term, and indeed, the true believers are ideologically incapable of seeing any long term positive outcome from foreign use of American military power in a decisive manner. It is as foreign to them as a fish is to beat-box.
2. Even if we had a President who decided to lead, it is too late for all that. The American people will not follow. If there is another large scale attack on the USA. the American people will only have time for the most punitive of expeditions - one that is exceptionally nasty, brutish, and short. This Administration will not have its name - we are talking about Obama & Kerry mind you - associated with something so kinetic as this. What would they do? Hard to say, but I doubt anything on order of what the American people would stomach. As a result, a few drone strikes perhaps, combined with a good squirt of ink and a swoosh away.
3. No one wants to die for lines drawn on a map by Brits and French over a century ago, not any more. It is their nature.

What was once the Most Dangerous Course-Of-Action just a decade ago - one that thousands of Americans and her allies died to avoid - has now become the most likely COA. What is that? Regional sectarian conflict starting with an Iraqi civil war including direct Iranian intervention from the Levant, to the Gulf States, eastern Saudi Arabia, down through to the Bab-el-Mandeb - with a few ethnic conflicts thrown in for good measure as it probably grows beyond a pure Sunni-Shia war. For Iraq - the once laughable Biden option of breaking the nation in to three parts seems inevitable. It isn't that Biden was right; at the time he was wrong - it is just that the calculus and facts on the ground have changed. With time, even Biden can be right.

In summary - everything that is being done on the ground right now makes the project of a united Iraq only an excuse for civil war. There will be a war if you want united Iraq or to break it in to parts - perhaps we should let them work it out for themselves as nations have done for thousands of years.

Europe has been at relative peace for decades largely for two reasons - it fought itself out in the 20th Century, and after round two, there was a massive amount of ethnic cleansing to finish out the years of blood letting. After the major migrations in Central Europe, there have been minor ones here and there as the process of dis-aggregation continues.

There are no longer Sudeten Germans. Polish towns now have Ukrainian names, and so on. In 2003, Serbs represented 95% Srebrenica's population.

We tried modern methods in the Middle East to create peace, perhaps it is best to let the old ways work themselves out. It is, after all, a local solution. This is not a radical concept;

... there’s a very good chance that a Middle East that was more politically segregated by ethnicity and faith might become a more stable and harmonious region in the long run.

Such segregation is an underappreciated part of Europe’s 20th-century transformation into a continent at peace. As Jerry Muller argued in Foreign Affairs in 2008, the brutal ethnic cleansing and forced migrations that accompanied and followed the two world wars ensured that “for the most part, each nation in Europe had its own state, and each state was made up almost exclusively of a single ethnic nationality,” which in turn sapped away some of the “ethnonational aspirations and aggression” that had contributed to imperialism, fascism and Hitler’s rise.

But this happened after the brutal ethnic cleansing that accompanied and followed two world wars. There’s no good reason to imagine that a redrawing of Middle Eastern borders could happen much more peacefully. Which is why American policy makers, quite sensibly, have preferred the problematic stability of current arrangements to the long-term promise of a Free Kurdistan or Baluchistan, a Greater Syria or Jordan, a Wahhabistan or Tripolitania.

If we do not have the desire to deploy hundreds of thousands of American men and women for force our will on a people who do not want it - then what can we do?

If this is our path - to let go - yet still try to spin things a desired way in the broadest sense, then here are some things to consider. Yes, it will cost blood, but it will be their blood by the barrel and ours by the thimble. It won't turn out perfect ... but when does it ever?

1. Kurds: Release the Kurdish people. Let them carve out their state in northern Iraq and eastern Syria. They deserve it, and will do more with it than anyone else. If they can take and hold Mosul, Kirkut, and Arbil from ISIS and afterwords kick all Arab Sunni out of the area as the Poles did with Germans in East Pomerania, then so be it. Let them draw their own lines. Let the Shia and Sunni of Iraq fight over the rest. If Iran moves in, so be it as well. It won't be long until the Arab v. Persian animosity breaks that in to bits once the holy cities are secure.
2. Israel: Let them do what they must. Anyone that even hints that the Golan is not part of Israel proper should be laughed at. They deserve defendable borders. The Palestinian Arabs have had decades to be helpful they are not. Which leads us to ...
3. Palestinians: They had their chance and they lost. After the bloodbath of the Great Sunni-Shia war, there will be plenty of places in Arab Muslim lands for them to live. If all Gaza is for them only a place to kill Jews from - then they don't deserve it. If the West Bank is just a Gaza-lite, then most of them need to be removed. Give them walking money and a map. There are approximately 4-million Palestinians in the Gaza and West Bank. Since WWII, about 1-million Jews were kicked out of Muslim countries, and even more Christians. They have found lives elsewhere, so can you. Heck, my ancestors were mostly kicked out of their nations of their birth ... so get on with it, you've got lots of company. If Sunni can do it to Shia, Arab to Kurd, Muslim to everyone - then the Jews can too.
4. Jordan: We should do what we can to help protect this nation that has tried more than others to survive and be left alone with bad neighbors. With few resources or holy sites, she might have a chance. As a logical place for expelled Palestinians to go, it may not survive the chaos. Sad. I like their king.
5. Afghanistan: If there is a Shia-Sunni war, it will come to AFG in spades. There you have Shia in the body of the persecuted Hazara. All bets off. Get out of the way and let them fight it out, again.
6. Refugees: Under no circumstances let tens of thousands of refugees from the Shia-Sunni war come to the USA. Help refugee camps in other nations - but keep them out of here. You want that war to come here? Bring them here.
7. Gulf States: Many, especially Kuwait and Bahrain, have significant Shia populations. Others like UAE and Qatar are mostly populated by foreign nationals. What happens when things go sideways? Who knows. Let them work it out.
8: Saudi Arabia: The oil rich parts of Saudi Arabia is also the home of the persecuted Shia tribes. Along with the Gulf States, don't expect it be be a solid anti-Persian block.

There are your eight ponderables. Ugly and nasty? Yes, but when the power that kept much of the post-WWII structure in place decides to retreat from its role - that is what happens.

You either are a global superpower that bends other to its will, or you are not. If not, then events will bend in different directions.

The above is bad enough? How can it get worse?
1. Suez Canal to Indus River: That should be the east and west boundaries of the major areas of the Sunni-Shia war. If it bleeds over either border, you can more than double the death toll - especially the Indus. That could quickly turn in to a Indo-Pak war ... one that in the stress of a broader conflict has a good chance to go nuclear. At that point, it just becomes a general war; Sunni-Shia was just the entering argument.
2. Central Asia: Start with a return to a fighting Chechnya and expand from there. From Turkmenistan to East Turkestan ... do they continue their slumber, or will a leader emerge to add them to the bearded army from Khurasan?
3. Turkey: Will they be happy with a Kurdish state? Will they try to move forces in? Will the Turkish Kurds decide to take advantage ... or more likely, will the Turks act thinking they may?

There are wildcards:
1. China: What will they do when Americans are not willing to expend blood and treasure to ensure the free flow of their oil at market prices?
2. Russia: While they move to nibble on the western fringes of the old Russian/Soviet Empire - what will they do if the Sunni-Shia chaos moves radicalized Islam further north?
3. India: See the Indus River. It isn't like they and Pakistan aren't ready for another round ... and with well over a hundred million Muslims inside their borders, the tinder is there is the heat from outside is enough to light it off.

Where we are looking better:
1. Fracking: True, our larger economy would be significantly impacted from the global economic cratering that would result from such a war, but we have enough North American petroleum that we would not have to rely on the Middle East for fuel.
2. Not Europe: Europe does not have our resources, and has open border to a huge wave of people escaping the carnage such a war would unleash. The Western European nations are already stressed by the millions of non-productive and non-assimilated Muslims already in their nations - the younger generations radicalized and violent in ways their parents and grandparents never were. Add a few million with thousands already radicalized on the sectarian battlefields? 2nd and 3rd order effects for European politics could lose many of the demons that Continent has kept locked away.

Where we are weakest:
1. Economics: It didn't stop WWI, but our global economy would react in unknown ways to such a disruption to the Middle East. In nations that still have not recovered from 2008, there is little room to absorb impact.
2. Debt: The USA and most Western nations are so saddled with debt that even if they managed to find the political will to change course, there is not enough treasure and time to rebuild and reorient. Who would lend the money?
3. Political leadership: If I were wanting to smash and grab on a global scale - now is the time to do it. The USA has signaled weakness for years now - there is no reason to expect an Obama Administration to become a Bush43 or even Truman any time soon. Each crisis emphasizes this fact. Europe is no better, and there are no other players on the globe with the appetite, ability, or institutional culture to do anything but try to keep the beast from breaking in their own front door.

There you go. One morning's pondering on where this Sunni-Shia conflict from Syria and Iraq can potentially bring us.

The above is the Miss Mary Darkcloud thinking. What is the best case? Best case, Syria and Iraq contain their conflicts to their own borders. Besides a few special operations forces in the holy cities in southern Iraq, the Iranians stick to being a meddler. The Shia in the Gulf Stated, Saudi Arabia, and other places follow old habits and do nothing more than march now and then - place a small bomb here and there. Turkey demurs as is her nature; Russia gets lucky; China keeps thinking about the Pacific and growing old.

The USA? We manage to get through this all without getting too many people killed.

All we sacrificed for last decade? That milk was spilled and what should have been won't be. It is what the American people wanted. It is what we got. As we old-line Southerners can tell you - it is no good to go around whistling Dixie.

Upon reflection

Not even the top of the hour news. In a way, I am still off the grid. I have yet to check email, read comments, listened to radio, tv, or written news since I stepped off the grid on 30 APR. Still haven't read a single web page until I brought up blogger. For some reason, I still wanted to say "hi" while mentally at least I am still unpolluted from the flotsam and jetsam of the last week.

There is something to be said about focusing on the immediate Task at Hand without the information flood we soak in - well that some of us soak in. As always, it is a little difficult to decouple for the first 24-hrs, but then it becomes a habit. This time around though something hit me at about day three - this is how most people live.

By the very fact you are reading this small, insignificant, slightly esoteric yet scatter-focused blog tells me that most of you are information sponges. You like to get up to speed on what is going on, and see other people's opinion so, if needed, you can argue with them or perhaps hone your own thoughts. If you are like that, you are in the minority.

Most don't. Their opinions are either of habit, tradition, or at the last minute - if at all. That is it. While off the grid I found myself having conversations with others off the grid - many of whom are long term off the grid types. Not having my usual topics at hand, as the information I have is days to a week old and therefor I am not comfortable with it and find other things to talk about. Interesting. Fortunately, I was too focused on the Task at Hand to have all that many "interesting" conversations, so my mind wandered on the new found perspective.

So, that is where I am. Just a few moments of clarity - nothing profound. Hopefully none of the below musing are OBE - but here are the top-two thoughts that are floating around in my nogg'n about my usual topics.

Politics:
---- Forgotten: Face it; almost everyone has forgotten what it is like to be ruled by absolute Democrat Power. The last time the Democrats had both the Executive and Legislative Branches was in 1994. If you assume that "political conscientiousness" begins at age 18, no one under the age of 32 has any clue what could come their way in '09 should a Democrat get elected. Remember the focus on 93-94: retroactive tax increases, gun prohibition, military "Gay Wars" (not that there is anything wrong with that), socialized health care? The time before that was the Carter Administration. Fewer still remember that. Also, remember that there would be a Clinton or and Obama appointing Federal Judges. Clinton is who she is - and Obama is even further to the Left from her. No, people have forgotten. Odds are, they will be reminded in spades.
---- Beginning of the next administration: Will be a zoo. If it is Senator Clinton (D-NY), there will be a reckoning you might only see in a Shakespeare Play. Richardson's head will be the first on a pike. Interesting to watch, until the dust settles and you see the Clinton phalanx pivoting in your direction. If Senator Obama (D-IL) gets the nod there will be a mad scramble as the Democrats try to get some structure in place. Obama is smart, but has no experience at all with dealing with administration - and has shown no interest in it. A lot of people will be trying to get in a position to have authority delegated to them so they can pursue their own agendas. Chaos for the first year, as when the afterglow ends all will see the everything-and-nothing that is there - and the far-Left agenda being pushed that would make Clinton look like her buddy Newt Gingrich. If McCain, well, I think it will be "The Murder of the Idiots" for the first quarter. McCain has somewhere an Idiots List of Republicans. They will not be fired nicely or cleanly and he will make enemies of even more - but when people see who is being thrown out of the Beltway, they will go, "Yea, that guy is an idiot..." and it will pass. I also think that a McCain Cabinet would be a surprising one in both the high level of talent and diverse political spectrum represented.

Navy:
---- We will have to run aground: The silence and vacuity of our present leadership makes me sigh and look around for gear adrift. SECNAV Winter made some noises for awhile and still does. Now and then you get one solid shot or comment by a 3 or 4-star; but then silence. We are soaking in a toxic stew of "Optimal Manning," "Transformation," and a wholesale abandonment of decades of Navy Best Practices that has left us with the Shipbuilding crisis we have now. The Air and Sub side are not as bad, but share some of the challenges - but to be honest, there are always challenges and I think their's are within the expected norm. We are top-heavy and suffer staff-bloat wallow. There are officers who had the right attitude, but about all who I personally know topped out at 2-Stars - some at 3-Stars. The rest are some great officers, but who is out there taking the lead? Who is the Fleet Advocate? There is a fair bit of CYA and cautious musings - but no leadership. Where are the balls? Why be a 4-Star if you are going to go meekly into Retirement and Consultantism? Who is willing to talk openly about the failure of the status quo and take action? Who will refocus? Please send links - I find so few. You know those times where everyone knows a ship is sick - its CO/XO/CMDCM are so dysfunctional that everyone knows something bad is going to happen? No one ever does anything until the CO is found in the rack with a YN3 (either sex will do), or the ship runs aground or collides with another ship in broad daylight - then there is action. Well, that is the direction we are heading. Ships will have to sink and/or hundreds of Sailors will have to die at sea in a few hours for there to be a cleaning. Maybe we will just drift to 212 instead of 313 and embrace our graceless decline - perhaps.
---- This is the high-water mark: There will be no more money for shipbuilding than we have right now. Fact. Fevered plans for DDGN or huge nuclear Battle Cruisers with hundreds of SM-3 in VLS are just that, fevered. That will get you to 200 ships faster than you can say "Sea-Swap." We are in a Land/Expeditionary period in our history and we need to build the ships to do that. LCS ain't it. DDGN ain't it. All SSN all of the time probably isn't it. Besides the bastard step-child NECC - I don't see any shift in focus of any measure since 2001 to reflect the new reality. We have an Army and USMC to build up and re-constitute. Less DDG-1000 and more MPF(F) - that is an interesting argument to make.

Diversity:
---- Makes my point for me: Brigadier General Jimmie C. Jackson Jr. and Rear Admiral George E. Mayer. I grew up with quite a few Jacksons and Mayers. The Jacksons were mostly good-ole-boys, and the balance of the Mayer's were the sons of nice Jewish parents from Long Island. Jackson and Mayers are not what you would consider Hispanic are they? Well, they are claiming it - and being recognized for it. I don't know BG Jackson's story, but I know RADM Mayer is from Puerto Rico. It doesn't matter - only someone whose mind is blind to nothing but mindless racism and Balkanized policy could defend what we have come to WRT "Diversity." We all know your racial classification is not career neutral. What these two gentlemen prove is that everything is nothing. There is no "there" there but tribalism and self-justification. Diversity Diktat is a cancer.
---- The Audacity of Regression: can we all agree that Sen. Obama (D-IL) is not the "post-racial" guide to healing? I still hear (especially off the grid) that he is that. He is the opposite of post-racial. An Obama administration won't heal anything as he won't be able to help but go back and pick at scars so close to healing. So close. Pick, pick. Ooze, ooze.

Demographics:
---- Fight or Die: What should a culture do to defend itself? Europe is faced with masses from countries like Egypt, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia who in the next couple decades, as they have two or more children to each European child, will simply have to go somewhere in order to be able to live. Their host countries cannot sustain them economically. If there isn't a pressure relief valve, those nations will explode on themselves and their neighbors. Lots of dying to do. If they emigrate, they will mostly go to Europe as it is easy and there are already beachheads established. Few assimilate. If a few million more of them wind up in Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Berlin, Lille, Brussels, London, Malmo, and others - those cities will no longer be European. Many of them are not already in large sections. At the edges, some of the second and third generation assimilates - but it is a minority. Millions more will just be too much to absorb. European culture will, therefor, cease to exist. Is that good? Do you stop mass migration and let parts of the world consume itself in violence and extremism, or do you let them in and let your culture die? Which do you do?
---- Good Turk - Bad Turk: There are Turks and there are Ottomans. Nowhere better is that described in these two articles. This one has the Turks yelling at their Ottoman leader who wants them to breed faster. This one tell the story of the Ottomans who cannot generations on become Germans. Plenty to chew on there - and in a way tells the story of the internal struggle going on in the old Byzantium heartland.

Media & Hollyweird:
---- McCain is on his own: Nothing shocking here, but when the Dems are done, the full furry of the MSM will fall on McCain - and he won't be ready for it. He will think he has friends. No, he doesn't. The thought of having both the Executive and Legislative Branches both with the Democrats will be too much - especially if Obama is the nom. Any opposition to Obama will be smeared with the racist brush. We have already seen it. On one is more afraid of being called racist than a member of the MSM. It will be ugly. I don't know what Team McCain is planning to get around it - but I hope they have a good one.
---- No "good" war movies: It won't happen. Just won't. Sure, there might be a minor or low-budget one or two - but I don't see a major studio effort being made that will reflect what is going on. Heck, a few of Michael Yon's stories would be a great frame for a balanced screen play - but who knows. Until there is some way not to give credit and victory to a Republican, you won't see a military movie about this war that puts the military in a positive light - unless we are the victim of a Neocon, Zionist plot by Haliburton.

Well, that is it, nothing new or shocking I guess. Time to join May of 2008. Thanks for sticking around.

Vote, or you'll get what you deserve

I wanted to put out another reminder to USNI members - you need to vote. Vote now if you can. You don't have to wait for your Naval History Corrected ballot or the one that will come with your next issue of Proceedings.

Vote online. To do so, you will need to use your Member Number to log in, if you need to locate this number, please call the Member Service Department 800.233.8764 or emailmember@usni.org.

Examine the issue by doing a search for USNI here, ID, or SJS's home. The issues are outlined well in both places.

I am in staunch opposition to turning USNI in to just another advocacy think tank. It will lose its independence and everything with a USNI stamp on it will be looked at as paid for spin supporting an approved agenda as defined by a select few.

That would be a huge loss. As the pro-Mission Statement so far have refused to defend their position, I have no other reason to believe otherwise. I am willing to be sold - but they are not getting my vote. They haven't even tried to earn it.

USNI and the issue of what it is and should be is not new. Give the below a read and ponder.

---

ANNUAL ADDRESS, 1888.

By Rear-Admiral S. B. Luce, U.S. Navy, President of the U.S. Naval Institute.

To the Officers and Members of the U.S. Naval Institute:

When notified, some weeks ago, of my election as President of the U. S. Naval Institute, my time was so much engrossed with other matters as to admit of a brief letter of acceptance only. But now, with more leisure, it seems proper that I should address you somewhat at length, more with a view to testifying my appreciation of the compliment implied by my election, than with the hope of contributing anything of value to the long list of essays which enrich the pages of the Quarterly.

On the establishment of the Newport Branch of the Institute, April 3, 1883, I took occasion to review the work of the Institute and to congratulate its officers, and the editors of the Quarterly, on the marked success of the enterprise. And now, looking back over the intervening years and noting the continued success which has marked its career, I find every reason for renewing those congratulations. But the Institute is of too recent growth to warrant much indulgence in retrospection. Let us look ahead.

The fundamental idea in the establishment of the Institute is "the advancement of professional and scientific knowledge in the Navy," and that purpose is being accomplished year by year in a praiseworthy manner. Hence, the efforts of those who originated the Naval Institute have been marked with success, and much credit is due to them and to their successors for the management of its affairs. Established now on a firm basis and with a paying subscription list, its future, in a literary point of view at least, has long ceased to be doubtful.

It is to be noted that the success of the Board of Control is due to individual exertion—exertion carried on oftentimes against great odds, bringing the authors of the enterprise to the very verge of despair. They have succeeded, nevertheless.

Opposition sometimes proves a wholesome stimulant. It seems to confirm men of character in their opinions when those opinions are founded in reason, and renders them more determined in the prosecution of their plans. At the same time it causes them to be more circumspect in the prosecution of those plans, and to elaborate them more maturely and on broader and deeper foundations, where otherwise they might have been superficial and ephemeral. Hence, it may, and often does, occur that an open and an outspoken opponent proves in the end to be no small factor in the successful development of an enterprise. It is true, the value of this opposition is not always apparent—like those blessings so thoroughly disguised as to be wholly indiscernible by ordinary methods of examination—while there are occasions when opposition may easily prove fatal to the best laid schemes, let their merit be what it may.

The history of the Institute only adds one more to the many proofs that if the germs of the plan are endued with vitality, the plan itself may be pushed through the most formidable opposition to ultimate success. The Naval Academy itself is a marked example of this passing through a "sea of troubles" only to emerge with the crown of victory. These are lessons to be taken to heart.

But opposition is not always necessary to a healthy development. Indeed, it may retard or stifle growth, or even destroy the living germ. The Navy can furnish abundant illustrations of this. And this suggests the pertinent question. Are we not, as a body, wanting in discipline—that discipline which subordinates the individual to the body corporate, the part to the whole, and closes the mouth of opposition to lawfully constituted authority?

If a few undertake to build up, there are never wanting those who are ready to pull down—apparently from a sheer love of pulling down. The personal element, moreover, is such a strong feature of the work of destruction, that it is sufficient to know that A is endeavoring to achieve something for his profession, in order to incite B to oppose him. Both the principle on which A is working and the manifest advantage of his work are lost sight of in the naked fact that A is the active agent. That one fact is enough to arouse the most determined hostility of B. Like blind Samson he will pull down the pillars of the house though it involve his own destruction. This introduction of the personal element in our official relations, whether it has its origin in "envy, hatred, malice, and all un-charitableness," or is born of a conscientious sense of right regarded with a strabismic sense of sight, it yet exists; and in

England, if not in our own country, its evil influence has been so far conceded, that the popular judgment would exclude a naval officer from presiding over the destinies of the Navy, and this notwithstanding the history of such great naval administrators as Admirals Lord Anson, Lord Hawk, the Earl of St. Vincent, and Lord Barham.

But the jealousies which prevent our officers from working in harmony for the common good, however inimical to progress, are not the evidences of a want of discipline such as has been hinted of. It is rather the interference of irresponsible parties with the measures of the Government. It is not wholly unknown to the annals of our history that an officer has on his own responsibility procured the introduction of a bill in Congress which, if passed, would affect the entire personnel of the service. It matters not how the provisions of the bill may interfere with others or with the policy of the Government—in this case the Navy Department; and though the great mass of such bills are predestined to those great catacombs of dead hopes, the document rooms of the Capitol, yet the mere fact of its introduction is evidence of an interested party working on independent lines, and not in concert with, indeed often in defiance of, the Department. This is in itself bad enough as an exhibition of lax discipline, but the worst phase is when officers set themselves to work avowedly to defeat the measures of the administration before Congress when those measures do not happen to be in accord with their individual opinions. Certainly no profession, as a whole, can hope to achieve an enviable distinction under such disturbing influences as these. It is like the house divided against itself, or an organism carrying within itself the seeds of its own destruction.

In justice let it be said as a class we are not responsible for this state of affairs. It is due entirely to the peculiar system under which we exist, or, in plain terms, to the absence of a proper form of naval administration by which the Navy may be held together and its policy shaped. There being no directive force to guide the affairs of the Navy—no head, no leader, every one is, in a measure, compelled to act for himself. As there is "no fraternity without a common father," so there can be no following without leadership. The absence of headship loosens the ties of membership and forces into existence independent action. This leads to self assertion and individualism, and individualism leads to anarchy. I do not say we have reached the ultimate stage; I say we are on the road which leads to it. This may not have a pleasing sound, but it is true.

Bad as this is in times of profound peace, it would be simply intolerable in time of war. Indeed, it would be an impossible condition in war. We present to the world, then, the extraordinary spectacle of having a war marine under an organization confessedly unfit for war; and yet we are called a practical people! How this utter disregard of business principles entails enormous expenditures and make-shift expedients is well known. Says Mr. Secretary Welles, writing of the condition of the Navy in March, 1861: "There were no men to man our ships, nor were the few ships at our yards in a condition to be put into immediate service."

The Virginius affair threw us into a panic and cost the country five millions of dollars. Mr. Welles attributed the low condition in which he found the Navy at the breaking out of the Rebellion, to the "disunion element" which had for previous years shaped public policy. It is only at a comparatively recent date that we have come to discover that the "disunion element" is in the Navy Department, though not in the sense in which he used the words. In a recent official document it was shown that since 1868 about seventy millions of dollars has been thrown away upon the Navy. But it is not a waste of public funds alone that is chargeable to our present defective system. The evil at the head permeates the entire body, relaxing, as already shown, the restraints of discipline and leading to a prodigal waste of vital forces.

Now the corner stone of the Institute is the "advancement of professional knowledge in the Navy," but what is the use of knowledge if it cannot be applied? It is the application of knowledge that makes it valuable. We may go on ad infinitum publishing admirable essays, and much important information may be disseminated throughout the service, and many excellent and thoroughly practical suggestions may be spread over the pages of our Quarterly, but what substantial good do they do to the profession? How do they contribute to the progress of the Navy as a body? Let us take any one of the prize essays, for example, and consider for a moment its practical utility in affecting the Navy.

Outside its own special sphere, there is no subject of such vital importance to the Navy as our merchant service. The prize essay for 1882 was entitled "Our Merchant Marine; the Cause of Its

Decline and the Means to be Taken for Its Revival." Let us now suppose that from the eleven essays presented to the judges of award there had been deduced a sound and practicable solution of the question, what should have been done with the paper? To whom should it have been presented with any hope of its receiving consideration? There is no one. You have fired your gun, but the shell has burst harmlessly in the air.

For a simpler illustration let us take the prize essay of 1886, "What Changes in Organization and Drill are Necessary to Sail and Fight Most Effectively our War Ships of the Latest Type?" and suppose, moreover, that the essay receiving the prize is a complete solution of the question—what comes of it? Nothing.

The question for the Institute to ask of itself, then, is: Can we continue forever to disseminate useful knowledge without a hope of substantial benefits to result there from? If we are to be known by our fruits, we must be able to show them. It is idle to go on sowing with never a hope of reaping. There must come a time when, in answer to the question, "What has the Institute accomplished?" we can point to reforms and progressive steps which will keep the profession abreast, if not in advance, of the nautical world in the great march of events. Hence there must be some power with which the Institute can feel itself in sympathy—a power that will have the eye to see, the ear to hear, and the understanding to act, and that power must be a controlling power. It must be at the head and must dominate the members. Then may we look for steady progress according to some recognized system. For no one at all familiar with our history will be deceived for one moment by an occasional spasmodic effort at rehabilitation under present conditions. How are we to attain this end?

Says the highest official authority, in regard to our need of naval administrators to shape our naval policy, "At the top of the system there should be wise general direction." With regard to the office of Secretary of the Navy: "The Secretary may at once be eliminated from the problem: a civilian, not skilled in the art of war, nor having any technical knowledge with reference to its implements, having no personal staff, his separate office consisting of but one stenographer, one clerk, and three messengers, all the other force having general clerical work." Of the Chiefs of Bureaus: "The inevitable result of throwing large executive duties upon any man is to disqualify him for council. At the present time this function is not performed at all." "Thus it happens, as it has happened for the last twenty years, that the Department drifts along, doing without consideration whatever is done and with no intelligent guidance in any direction."

The vicious system which has so long usurped the place of a naval administration was so forcibly presented in the Report of '85 as to draw from the Chief Executive the remark that "the conviction is forced upon us with the certainty of mathematical demonstration that before we proceed further in the restoration of a Navy we need a thoroughly reorganized Navy Department." This was in 1885.

What has been done since? A bill was drawn up containing the leading features of such a form of naval government as was shown to be consistent with the principles laid down. The Report of 1886 says of it, "A bill embodying the substantial points awaits action upon the House calendar," and there it remains. Now it is not susceptible of proof, but the probabilities are that the bill was killed by influences not entirely foreign to the Navy itself I would not be understood as saying that the bill would have been favorably considered by the House even had it received the approval of the Navy at large. Far from it. The Navy might have been unanimous for the bill and still it might not have reached a second reading. But naval officers, like members of other professions, have friends in both houses of Congress, and they can make their own personal representations to those friends; and whereas it is difficult to procure the passage of any bill, it is comparatively easy to defeat one, whatsoever merit it may possess.

Here then is a forcible illustration—one which would be startling but for its being so common—of the measures of the administration being opposed, and as we believe successfully, by those whose loyalty it should be able to claim. But here again comes in the excuse, that the individuals are not so much to blame as the system under which they hold their official existence. Each one sets himself up for a judge of what is right and proper, without reflecting that allegiance is due to constituted authority, whether the acts of that authority are in accordance with their own views or not.

Moreover, views on the subject of naval administration are sometimes expressed in such an off-hand manner as to suggest much caution in accepting them. While some officers have made a careful study of the subject, others have given it but a passing thought. And yet the latter class will have no hesitation in the wholesale condemnation of the "bureau system," and bureaucracy in general, of a Board of Admiralty, or any other kind of board; an autocracy, or "one man power" in any form. Yet they do not hesitate to express their views, crude as they may be, to members of Congress. There are very few indeed who, without previous study, can draw up a sound, comprehensive form of naval government that will suit our condition, meet our present wants, and at the same time be unassailable on any just grounds.

It is just here that the Institute might render important service to the profession by enlightening the public mind of the Navy on this subject, through the medium of essays and frequent discussions. I am aware that there has already appeared in the pages of the Proceedings a paper touching on reorganization. But the discussion which ensued embraced the entire personnel of the Navy, leaving little time or room for a critical examination of any one of the integral parts. If we limit the essay and discussion to one particular branch, and select at the outset the most important, we shall probably obtain a consensus of opinion as to what is really needed. Beginning at the top, therefore, it is believed that if an essay on the subject of "The Best Form of Naval Administration" was called for, the Institute would have the opportunity of disseminating throughout the service some useful information on the most important question which now concerns our profession. That such a discussion may lead to the first and most important step in the process of the rehabilitation of the U.S. Navy (the reorganization of our Navy Department), is not such a remote possibility as might at first glance be supposed. If the efforts of naval officers could bring about a reorganization in 1842, there seems to be no good reason why they should not accomplish the same in 1888.

In both instances the initiative has been taken by the Department itself, with the great advantage, in favor of the present generation, of having such a medium of communication as the Institute's Quarterly. But while it is true that the Department took the initiative in 1840 in bringing about a reorganization, and that naval officers were largely instrumental in influencing action by which the bureau system was introduced, yet it should be distinctly understood that the Department was not remodeled wholly in accordance with the views of those who had been most active in bringing it about; and forty years of sad experience has shown that they were right.

The question then is: Shall the Institute endeavor, through its pages, so to influence and guide opinion in the Navy that we may, as a body, second the efforts of the Navy Department, and exert ourselves to bring about a correction of the error committed in 1842? It would be "a consummation devoutly to be wished," and if the Institute will take the lead and carry us on to victory, it will accomplish a reform of which its members may well feel proud.

It is scarcely necessary to add that even an ideal form of naval administration is not a sovereign cure of all ills. In the palmy days of the Board of Commissioners, four fine ships of the line rotted away upon the stocks simply because Congress would not give the money to finish them, and of the twelve laid down in 1815-18 only four ever got to sea. The settled policy of our national legislature, covered by a period of over a century, shows that war must be imminent and immediate before preparations to meet it are undertaken. But under the old regime, naval affairs were administered with wisdom and economy, the military character of the profession was maintained and discipline kept up; and that is all we can hope to regain.

The question I submit to the Board of Control is, Shall this great work be undertaken?

---

UPDATE: SJS has a post you should read.

So, let there be a cleaning

It’s a month out, and it looks like everyone is laying their cards on the table. It isn’t like we have any choice. Events are such that it is time to say what needs to be said. First of all, let me put out my entering argument: the present Republican leadership has proved nothing but it is not worthy to hold power. It has become part of the corrupt DC machine it was voted into power to control. I wish the Democrats provided a viable option (they do in isolated local contests and in individual places, but all they seem to be driven towards at a national level is power. But I am not concerned with Democrats. I want to focus on the Republicans.

The Senate. Senator Frist (R-TN) jumped the shark a while ago, but if there was any doubt it is gone now. He just proved he does not have an understanding of the Long War. How he thinks he is Presidential material, I don’t know. And don’t get me started with my Senator, Senator Martinez (R-FL). I want my money back from him. My father-in-law was right when he described him as an “Opportunistic, party switching trial lawyer. Only a Republican because he made the calculation that is what he needed to advance in politics.” Between Taliban lov’n and immigration back-stabbing, I will vote for anyone to the right of Senator Nelson (D-FL) who runs against him of any party. Heck, a Libertarian protest vote may be in my future in four years.

I know what I will get with the Democrats: high taxes, victim-mongering politics, gun grabs, goofy leftist ideas, PC nightmares, open borders, and huge pork laden spending. What is it this Senate leadership is offering from the Republican side of the aisle that is any different? They have quit tax reform. They are only avoiding amnesty for illegals under duress. They have given up on judges and UN ambassadors. They spend like Democrats. About the only thing they are OK on is gun laws. They aren’t making things worse. Now they want us to talk to the Taliban? Bring that fox in the hen house? What have I been spending the last half decade doing, if not keeping the Taliban out of power.

The House. The house from a policy standpoint has been much better than the Senate, but the leadership has lost its way in its response to ethical/moral problems from William Jefferson (D-LA) to Mark Foley (R-FL). Their leadership is terrible, tainted by corruption, and will not change. I expect moral-equivalency and tolerance of pederasty by Democrats, but I will not support those people with my cash and vote if I have a better vote.

This is the first election cycle since I was 18 I have not sent money to any party or candidate – and I won’t. There is a cancer in the Republican Party and it is in the leadership – in power for too long and corrupted by it. The Bush Administration will be gone in a little more than two years. Much to McCain’s chagrin, the next Republican nominee will have zilch, zero, nada, nil, zed, to do with the present Administration, Senate or Congress. It will come from the States, a Governor (BTW, I’m not telling – but I already have picked my horse for ’08). That leadership change will be solved. D or R, the new Administration in ’08 will be fresh. Oh, if the Dems pick a Senator, he/she will not win.

Back to the Republicans. There is only one way to fix the Legislative Republican leadership problem; get a new leadership. Being that they refuse to police themselves, there is only one way to get rid of the present leadership – they must be defeated.

So, let slip the Moonbats of Mayhem. I know what I will get with a Dem House and Senate. They will open hearings against everyone but the Bush Twins. The tax cuts that helped us recover from the 2000-2003 downturn will not be made permanent. New gun laws will be put forward (that GWB will veto). PC Diktat will be at the front. Immigration policy will be towards amnesty or nothing (GWB will not veto). Judges and other appointments will be blocked (unless one of them dies, has a stroke, or goes into a coma – no more SCUS judges will step down in the next two years – so don’t worry about that). Republicans will be humbled and shamed. The next two years will be full of divisive acrimony and the economy, already looking to cool a bit, will stagger through ’07 and mellow through ’08.

As for my line of work, ’06 will embolden an already encouraged Islamists surge, but that will happen anyway with the leaders in the CINC’s own party putting out Weak Sister messages. Pakistan has already switched sides 49/51, and is one bullet away from going all Taliban support out of their blind hatred of India (why they think India will ever be a major influence over 99.99% Muslim AF is beyond me – but they worry about it). Frist wants to surrender to the Taliban – or at least that is how they read this. They smell weakness and it makes them more aggressive. From a military perspective, I know we can win IQ and AF – but the military if secondary to the political. If you bring in the Taliban, within 4 years – most likely much less time – you will loose AF. If that happens, no matter what we do, IQ will be lost. OBL is right, in his part of the world; the only thing many care about is going with the strong horse. If IQ falls apart, the best thing we could do is try to help the Kurds hold onto the freedom they have rightly earned – but how you get the Turks to buy into that – I have no idea.

The political side of the POL/MIL effort is starting to look a lot like the Elector of Bavaria at Blenheim. When your political leaders leave the field, you cannot win. All you can do is what the leaders of the Czechoslovakian military in Siberia did after WWI – try to get home with as few losses of you people as possible.

How do you prevent a meltdown like the above? You have to make sure we have the political top-cover to fight the Long War to win. To win the Long War early, ’08 is a must win. Have the Republicans hold the House and Senate with a bare majority with the present leadership they have – and in ’08 the Republican base will be so demoralized that the Dems will sweep it all with a Nutroot candidate that will lead to a massive expansion of Islamists power and influence.

Let the Dems win in ’06. They don’t deserve to win – but the Republicans deserve to loose. Let them run wild for two years and then give the American people a choice in ’08.

There, I have babbled all over the map. Executive summary: pruned, it will grow again.

What I do in the voting booth is my business, but I do not check all “R” by default, nor will I check all “D” in a hissy-fit. What I am though is a Florida voter – and what I have to deal with is not uncommon. In a National sense, look what the Republican’s are offering me. Senate: Sen, Nelson (D-FL) drives me nuts and does not represent my views on anything but space flight and the joy of orange juice – but look who is running against him, Rep. Harris (R-FL). GMAFB. I think I will write in my wife or favorite Hooters waitress.

House: Because of the nightmare scam of districting, the incumbent protection racket has ensured that my district is so Republican that the Dems don’t run a serious, viable candidate. No choices.

There we have it: joke choice and no choice. The only reason I am voting is to support Crist for Governor and some local races that have some good people trying to do good things.

Thankfully, I have found over the last few days I have had this in draft that I am not alone. Though I don’t agree with all the points of all these people, The Commissar put out yesterday what his regular readers have known for the better part of a year+. Ace, Michelle, Allah, and Rusty’s Ven diagram overlap mine more often then not.

The Republicans decided on these leaders; they have been measured and found wanting. The Dems do offer something this election cycle: a chance to get rid of the Republican leadership. Sometimes, even the ones you love need a swift kick in the a55. The Republic will survive 24 months of Dem power in Congress.

So, let there be a cleaning - again ...

What 'ya say I do one of my favorite things - quote myself.

From OCT 2006.

The Republicans decided on these leaders; they have been measured and found wanting. The Dems do offer something this election cycle: a chance to get rid of the Republican leadership. Sometimes, even the ones you love need a swift kick in the a55. The Republic will survive 24 months of Dem power in Congress.
...
I know what I will get with the Democrats: high taxes, victim-mongering politics, gun grabs, goofy leftist ideas, PC nightmares, open borders, and huge pork laden spending.

Well, here we are four years later. I was mostly right.

So, let slip the Moonbats of Mayhem. I know what I will get with a Dem House and Senate. They will open hearings against everyone but the Bush Twins. The tax cuts that helped us recover from the 2000-2003 downturn will not be made permanent. New gun laws will be put forward (that GWB will veto). PC Diktat will be at the front. Immigration policy will be towards amnesty or nothing (GWB will not veto). Judges and other appointments will be blocked (unless one of them dies, has a stroke, or goes into a coma – no more SCUS judges will step down in the next two years – so don’t worry about that). Republicans will be humbled and shamed. The next two years will be full of divisive acrimony and the economy, already looking to cool a bit, will stagger through ’07 and mellow through ’08.

So, there I was in '06 calling for a defeat for the Republicans ... and I am glad for it. Now it is time for a purging of the Democrats. Purge them hard - they had a chance to send the Republicans into the wilderness for decades and blew it. They were worse than even I thought, the power hungry twits.

A warning for the Republicans though - they still have too many of the people who were a problem four years ago in power. There must be a change in leadership at the top. If after these elections Republicans think it will be back to "DC normal" with them in the Majority - they are wrong.

If they are taking any type of advice from Trent Lott's lobbing firm or any of the old Republican establishment- then they will be destroyed in 2012 as the American public does not like Republicans - they are just hoping they will be better. If they follow through, then maybe they will be liked. The American public will need proof though; as does the Republican base. I am very suspicious that old DC will try to strangle anything new. We'll see. We'll see.

So, what are my predictions? Two weeks ago I was thinking 47 Republican gains in the House and 7 in the Senate as I didn't believe the hype. Today though? I just don't know. This is a very different election ... extremely different with a lot of jello moving on the plate.

If the wave is what people think, then tomorrow will be very interesting to say the least. If the hype is what it is, then we are looking at 64 in the House and 8 in the Senate. Yes, that is a move of only 1 in the Senate than my baseline - but when you consider the huge up-hill climb structurally the Republicans came into 2010 with in the Senate - an 8 seat gain is almost unreal. If my inner Eeyore is totally out of synch - then it could be north of that in the House. I'm using Patrick Ishmael's cheat sheet to track the wave's magnitude.

There we go - that is my swag. The Republicans are on probation - they need to put up or shut up. It will be good to see if they do, and I don't think the conventional wisdom that a Republican House and/or Senate will be good for Obama as he will have someone to blame and point fingers at .... I don't think that will wash. That is all he has done the last two years, people are tuning it out.

One last note of warning - if you think you will get a rest from politics now that the election is over, you are sadly wrong. No ... 2012 will start right away and it will be nasty as can be as can be, as all the Democrats will have is what they have been pulling for the last year - the race card on anyone that opposes President Obama. With Reid and Pelosi off the front burner (Buddah Willing) - there will be one Democrat to fuss at - Obama. As you know, all opposition to his policies at its core is racist ... so .... stand by.

Oh, enjoy voter fraud talk through Thanksgiving. Thank the Democrats for that....

So, We Had an Election

Everyone should just let the system work out. There is a lot of emotion on all sides, but don’t assume the worst of your fellow neighbors.

There remains a lot of slop and imperfection in our voting system. If you are unhappy with what your state does, then change it. Florida did over the last two decades after the 2000 debacle, your state can too.

It appears that there was no big wave or endorsement of either side, but hopefully we’ll have an answer by the end of the week at latest … worst case by Christmas. What we will have is an incredibly divided government – as close to a 51/49-49/51 nation as you can get. That can be a feature or a bug, but what it isn’t is a mandate for anyone. That doesn’t mean someone won’t claim one, but there isn’t one.

Irrespective, neither side, especially in the House and Senate campaigns, ran on larger defense budgets or any real unified military related strategic direction. Sure, if I tilt my head a bit, I could see with the right people a naval emphasis if Trump should pull a rabbit out of a hat, but just barely and a lot of other cards would need to come out of the deck.

Should Biden’s apparent advantage as of noon on Wednesday hold, there are two things in the natsec arena we could see come to the front:

1. Neo-internationalists will come back to State and DOD to pick up where they left off. Pressure on NATO nations will lessen, approaches will be made to Iran and other projects well in work prior to 2016. Mindlessly obtuse agreements that would never by passed as a treaty in the Senate will be signed and rejoined that are to the advantage of everyone but the USA/West.

2. One of the central philosophical underpinnings of the Democratic Party will come again to his Pentagon; identity politics. To the great shame of the Trump administration, until the last few months very little was done to dismantle the diversity nomenklatura. The commissars have just been hunkered down, waiting for a better environment. In the absence of important things to work on – and a Biden administration is void of such and Congress will be focused on their own issues – a Biden Pentagon will focus on those things it can do by fiat. All the social tinkering that has been in mothballs for the last three years will come back with pent up energy.

Trump or Biden – what you need to watch centers on this; people are policy. 

Should Trump squeak in a “W,” there will be changes in the natsec senior leadership. Who moves where will inform where DOD will go in a variety of areas. This holds true for Biden as well. I am of the school that Biden will be a weak executive and much of administration policy will come from his cabinet. Watch who goes where and practice your Kreminology of who sits and travels where after a year – that will help. Either way, natsec and FP were not part of the election and won’t get top billing should Biden hold.

That leaves Congress. After this election, I see no bi-partisan critical mass for significantly larger defense budgets. I most certainly do not see a strong enough navalist caucus to do what needs to be done – a barfight for a larger Navy.

If navalists want a larger Navy, they will need to fight for a larger piece of what will probably be a smaller defense budget pie. This will not happen overnight. This is a long struggle that needs a fighting force built for extended conflict. There needs to be a cadre of elected and appointed officials, of both parties, who are willing to rip through decades of habits, adhesions, an accretions. Enemies will be made, nasty political games will be played once the effort is made to attack entrenched positions decades in the making. 

It is a battle that needs to be joined if you believe the next big war is on the other side of the Pacific.

Let’s see whose banners, if any, are brought on to the field. My skirmishers and I are waiting in the swamps for an allied army to show up, but so far the field of battle is bare except for intermittent reconnaissance parties on horseback.

Regardless of who wins, the republic will be fine. If you are angry about the results, then move your anger in to action to get people you like elected to office. Work for the rule of law and accountability in elections. Ask hard questions.

If you don’t give a damn about politics, but what is going to happen in our national security arena … then watch people.

People make policy. It seems simple, but it is true.

Iran & Saudi Arabia: A Festival of Proxies

Douglas Murray over at TheSpectator outlines what with each passing week starts to come more clearly in to view; the Sunni and Shia are not going to take a break in a rising spiral of escalation in their unending centuries of conflict. You will read "Iran" and "Saudi Arabia" but what you need to hear is "Shia" and "Sunni";

Some years ago, before the Arab ‘Spring’ ever sprung, I remember asking one top security official about the region. What, I wondered, was their single biggest fear? The answer was striking and precise: ‘That the region will clarify.’ That is a fear which now appears to be coming true.

Part of what is encouraging this is the fundamental internal weakness in the birth of most of the nations at the center of conflict of the latest phase, Iraq and Syria. Almost a century later the world continues to suffer from the awful Treaty of Versailles where the best and the brightest set the stage for generations of conflict;

The Middle East is not simply falling apart. It is taking a different shape, along very clear lines — far older ones than those the western powers rudely imposed on the region nearly a century ago. Across the whole continent those borders are in the process of cracking and breaking. But while that happens the region’s two most ambitious centres of power — the house of Saud and the Ayatollahs in Iran — find themselves fighting each other not just for influence but even, perhaps, for survival.
...
the first from al-Qa’eda’s Islamic State in Iraq and Syria [ISIS], the second from the Free Syrian army [FSA]. ‘You apostate infidels,’ says the first. ‘We’ve declared you to be “apostates”, you heretics. You don’t know Allah or His Prophet, you creature. What kind of Islam do you follow?’ To which the FSA fighter responds, ‘Why did you come here? Go fight Israel, brother.’ Only to be told, ‘Fighting apostates like you people takes precedence over fighting the Jews and the Christians. All imams concur on that.’

Combine the sloppy map making of Versailles along with built in sectarian and ethnic friction - there is no simple path to the way things were. In reality, there is probably no path at all.  The events of the last half decade lead me to believe that this will have to be resolved the old fashioned way, through blood and iron.

Feeding off their own apocalyptic traditions, the whole region is regressing to a Game of Thrones all-against-all free for all.

What is the non-Muslim world to do? At this stage of the game, probably the best thing is to contain and shape the edges. Support the least/worst - and accept good allies as opposed to trying to create perfect allies out of our own vanity.

The major Shia power is Iran. The major Sunni (Egyptians will have to pardon me for a bit) is Saudi Arabia. For the past few years, they have ratcheted up their proxy wars in Yemen, Syria and other places. The last week as see more fuel throw on the fire;

First, one man's execution spurred sectarian protests and violence in the Middle East. Now, it appears to have sparked a serious diplomatic rift.

Saudi Arabia's foreign minister said Sunday that his country is severing ties with Iran. Iranian diplomats in Saudi Arabia have 48 hours to leave the country, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told reporters.

The two countries have long been at odds, but Saudi Arabia's execution of Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr Saturday kicked off a new round of sparring between them that analysts say could mark a dangerous shift in an already volatile region.

"I think you're going to see a period of very harsh rhetoric, and the cutting of diplomatic ties comes at a very bad time. ... This is Saudi Arabia saying, 'The gloves are off,' " said Bobby Ghosh, a CNN global affairs analyst and managing editor of Quartz.
...
Three Sunni-led countries joined Saudi Arabia on Monday in severing or downgrading diplomatic ties with Iran, worsening a geopolitical conflict with sectarian dimensions in one of the world’s most volatile regions.

The diplomatic protests from the three countries — Bahrain, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates — came as Iran accused Saudi Arabia of using an attack on the Saudi Embassy in Tehran two days earlier as a pretext for diverting attention from its problems.

Back to TheSpectator article;

From the outset of the Syrian uprising, it was inevitable that Iran would weigh in on the side of its client in Damascus. Indeed, so desperate were the mullahs in Tehran to do everything they could to protect their own interests that they even put up with protests at home from people starved of basic supplies complaining about their own government pouring millions into Syria’s civil war.

But the next step was just as predictable. Saudi Arabia, which fears Iranian influence spreading any further than it has already throughout the region, began to back the opposition. Starting cautiously, in recent months that caution has retreated and Saudi is now supporting groups as close to al-Qa’eda-linked forces as to make little difference. Desperate measures, certainly. But for the Saudi leadership these are desperate times. Though it is a battle that has been brewing for decades.

Let's stop the review there. Let's talk about what we should do.

Contain in two ways.

We have two things to contain, first ourselves, then second their culture.

For ourselves, we need to be very clear headed about where our interests are and what the American people will support. We need to contain our desire, and the desire of others, to have the USA fix their problem for them.

Our interests are always to promote stability ... but the American people want stability on the cheap. If we cannot/willnot/shallnot have 19-yr old Americans on every street corner, then we will have to shape where we can and not let stupidity or ego cause us to do things that could lead to involvement in places no one wants it to go. 

We cannot force stability on the cheap, but we can help shape it. Shape it by supporting relatively modern forces like the Kurds, the Jordanian monarchy, the Egyptian military, and even relatively unsavory but better than the alternative strongmen like, yes, Assad. If we won't, then get out of the way of others who will do what needs to be done like the Russians.

War is a dark room. If you only step in a bit with one hand on the door and only one foot in - you can usually back out if needed. If you jump in screaming ... well ... that usually does not end well. Airstrikes and limited ground forces to support our allies doing the hard work on the ground? That is the right move. Combat brigades engaging as maneuver units? No, we tried that. Doesn't work with the numbers, ROE, and political support we have at home. Even if we did, it still would not work.

What is dangerous to our national interest are those sects who are not content with killing their neighbors, but want to kill internationally. That is the Islamic State and Al Qaeda. Those also happen to be Sunni. That doesn't make us Iran's ally, we just are fighting the same people. That is what the balance of our shaping needs to be. Kill the radical Sunni elements, and let the others fight for what is left.

That is fine for now, but what if the Sunni/Shia battle goes larger beyond the proxy wars already being fought? Well, what other cards does Iran have left to play? Iran has strong cards.

1. Eastern Saudi Arabia is Shia. That is also where their oil is.
2. The Gulf Arab states have huge Shia populations ruled by Sunni monarchs.
3. The Hazara of Afghanistan are Shia, surrounded by AFG and IS allies who hate them from both an ethnic and a religious point of view.

Let's go through a little Course of Action exercise. Red and Blue does not work all that well because depending on which proxy war we are looking at, good in one place is bad in another. So, let's make Sunni "Black" and Shia "Yellow."

Yellow Most Likely COA: A Proxy for all my Friends - Iran will huff and puff, but will be patient. It will remove the stops, what few are left, in agitating the Shia in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. It will keep the Saudi agitation to a slow boil, but will ratchet up hard on the her edges from Bahrain to Yemen. It will see which is the weakest and will reinforce agitation in those places, looking for a cheap victory. It will make the Saudis lose face and increase their paranoia until they do something stupid against their own Shia minority. At that point, it all falls apart in a great Shia uprising in the eastern oil provinces of the kingdom. While this is going on, they double down in Syria while building their ties with Russia and China. With a feckless Europe distracted by waves of hundreds of thousands of young Muslim men let loose among their people, and a distracted America in a waning phase of international involvement following a divisive election, this is their moment and they are going to take it.

Yellow Most Dangerous COA: Last Turban Standing - The Iranians start with the Most Likely COA, but either they lose patience with it, or the Saudis decide they don't want to play. In addition to the proxy wars, conventional forces are on the move. Some other external power or powers join in on the Saudi side, Turkey or perhaps Egypt. Arabian and Persian oil not being what it once was, there is no Western existential reason to get involved. America is self-sufficient, there are other ways for Europe to get oil. With a planning assumption that the Gulf States subdued and Oman compliant, there is no problem getting oil to China. The world economy is hit hard, but is not hit so hard as to motivate anyone to want to get involved. Result; they fight it out from the Transoxiana to the Nile. That is best case. Worse case, some major power outside the area gets involved, and/or the nuclear Jinn gets let out. Eventually, they bleed each other white. Only then may we find what Douglas Murray would like;

...perhaps the region is going to descend into a complex miasma of slaughter as surely as Europe did a century ago. Either way there will be a need for a Treaty of Westphalia-style solution — a redrawing of boundaries in a region where boundaries have been bursting for decades.

That would be a Muslim solution to a Muslim problem.

Ugly, but what other options are out there that have any chance of political support in the West? We are not going to build an army of millions to liberate a people who do not want liberation, and even if they had liberation, recent history shows they don't know what to do with it. We are not going to nuke the place from orbit just to be sure either.

Finally, did you think I forgot the other containment? That is containing the culture which is creating this conflict. The instability of that region's culture is being exported. As I have mentioned before, the mainstream politicians have a narrowing window to address this problem. If they don't, the people of the West will empower non-mainstream politicians to fix it when it is almost too late.

In small numbers, there is no significant issue with taking refugees from toxic cultures - but as Europe is seeing, Muslim immigrants in large numbers do not play well with others. They do not assimilate. They do not contribute. They will cause you to become something you don't want to be, but have to be.

In addition to closing borders, they need to be sent back. Invest billions to support nations like Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon with their refugee camps, but that is it. Those refugees we do take in should only be religious minorities that have no land to come back to ... or ... we could support the waring parties that do protect religious minorities, Assad and the Kurds, to take back territories that once belonged to religious minorities.

In summary, perhaps what we should do as Yellow and Black decide which COA they want, is to follow some sound advice - don't just do something, stand there.

Stand there on the edges, shield in one hand stabbing sword in another, but in general - stay out of the scrum.

A Muslim Treaty of Westphalia? Maybe. Perhaps a Battle of the North Inch would be better first.