Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show digests the latest developments on the national and international scene. For instance, Brian and I consider the extraordinary success of the Houthis in disrupting maritime commerce through the Suez Canal and the Red Sea. Ironically, probably the biggest losers are the Egyptians, who profit from the fees paid by ships as they transit the Suez Canal. In any case, various navies, including our own, are effectively suppressing the firepower that the Houthis can bring to bear against container ships and the like, BUT the Houthis have nevertheless achieved their main goals: to deny the West access to the Red Sea and to garner more attention and Islamic acclaim for themselves. What's more, as I point out, it's not clear that even a high-tech superpower can lastingly disrupt the ability of the Houthis to be an international nuisance. Suffice it to say that the balance of power in asymmetrical warfare may be shifting, as we see in Ukraine.
In addition, Brian and I discuss the fallout from the Iowa caucuses, the threats and opportunities created by A.I., anomalous results in presidential polling, and other breaking stories.
When we get to This Day in History, we consider President Nixon's strong-arm tactics to achieve the Paris Peace Accords of 1973, as well as Winston Churchill's up-close-and-personal perspective on trench warfare in World War I.
Holy moly! That's an analytical lineup not to be missed!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I haven't listened to the broadcast yet but I think our ability to destroy the force which presented the worst ever threat to sea borne commerce and more, the Uboats , makes it likely we can defeat the Houthis. Our outstanding special forces make us well prepared for asymetrical warfare, I expect.
ReplyDeleteRAY TO JACK
ReplyDeleteI kind of like those Houthi "uniforms", especially the skirts and sandals. Believe our Department of Defense should consider designing something along those lines for our forces. Those Houthi dudes are out there making a fashion statement, and i think we should too.
Ray and Dr. Waddy et al from Jack: Ray: beware! You may give a faltering antiamerican left ideas for yet another variation of their customary hellish journey to a perfect world. If Houthis start crossing our welcoming southern border it will be politically incorrect and actionably heretic to profile them for their distinctive garb. They would march on Washington without opposition since our far leftist administration authorizes unlimited force within the US only against the existential threat - America itself. Houthi chic! Good gravy! Are they good musicians?
ReplyDeleteRAY TO JACK
DeleteAs I am sure you realize, I was just being sarcastic about the Houthi "uniforms". However, the origins of the Houthi "challenge" go back to Yemen's War with Egypt between 1962 and 1970. During that war, Egypt did use chemical weapons in support of the side they supported during the Yemen Civil War. Check it out, and a lot of this Houthi crap looks like old home week in the area.
RAY TO JACK
ReplyDeleteNumerous people have commented that for Islam, and the people who believe in that religion known as Muslims, WAR is a way of life. Think about it! In the 7th Century, Muslim Armies EXPLODED out of Arabia, and in just 100 years took over a HUGE amount of Real Estate by force. READ UP ON IT, and come to your own conclusions.
What is going on today with Hamas and Houthi, and countries like Iran is NO accident. After 9/11 that fool president of ours at the time, said Islam was a religion of peace, and that it was Muslim fanatics who did terrorism. To that, I say, BULLSHIT! Sadly, a vast majority of stupid people in this country of ours, ate his BS up.
Ray, Dr. Waddy et al from Jack: Had large Muslim armies not been stopped at the Battle of Tours in the AD 700s and at Vienna in , I believe the 17th century, they might have invested Europe. Christianity would have been subordinated at least and possibly widely oppressed. The Reformation and Enlightenment would not have occurred. The fate of Sancta Sophia when Constantinople fell would have been presumptuously visited upon any Christian church deemed deserving.Imagine Notre Dame with minarets! Or, imagine the Kaaba turned to a crucifix! Islam was spread with irresistable ferocity into multitudinous probably unwilling cultures a century after its founding and oppressed or posed a profound threat to, Europe into close upon the 20th century. These are either facts or reasonable conjectures from history. Today, a significant faction of Islam openly advocates the very extermination of Jews and Judaism. Of course this not the full story of Islam, an Abrahamic religion which affords solace, spiritual guidance, structure, a firmly enforced intolerance of criminality unknown in the West and positive living leading to earned redemption to hundreds of millions. In our middle ages it was a fount of very high civilization, eclipsing Europe and equaled only by China. So, is Islam a religion of peace? Certainly it advocates and practices it in many settings, yesterday and today but it also inspires , motivates and enables much murderous antipathy today and did historically. It would benefit, I think, from a reformation similar to the one which tempered sometimes terribly cruel Christianity . Personally I would not generalize on Islam as being comprehensively of one or the other way but I think it must be fully acknowedged that it does have a very significant unpeaceful aspect.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Re: the Newsmaker broadcast: What word can be used to characterize the mind of Churchill? "Expansive" perhaps, "sublime" I'd venture. He was thrilled by the drama of war but lamented the horror of it. He commented wisely on it being sometimes preferable to "the cold light of the execution yard" which so terribly plagued the 20th century. Imagine being a man who was of profound historical importance and who also displayed vast appreciation of it in Nobel Prize winning writing. I think Churchill recognized an often repeated mistaken tendency of modern nations to fight as if the previous war had recurred. His early unheeded warnings of the swiftly developing puissance of air power and of Germany's accelerated development of it are well known. No more lumbering Zeppelins and cloth and wood Gotha bombers dropping explosives willy nilly; he creditably and courageously predicted what was in store. In doing so he saved England's bacon at the penultimate moment. Having been one of the progenitors of the tank he was probably well aware of how much it had advanced between the wars and may have seen therein the possibility that trench warfare would not be repeated, that swift movement would be decisive. It was remarkable how his return to Admiralty was celebrated by the Navy despite his infamous departure in WWI. Oh yes, he was also one of the greatest orators ever and may have been the salient factor in maintaining redeeming British morale. He honestly believed that England could win.Had he adopted the understandable revulsion for war engendered by the incalculably unexpected and catastrophic Great War he probably would not have had the stamina and the certainty to prosecute the war and Lord Halifax might well have turned England over to the hellhound boche.
ReplyDeleteAbove when I say " . . . vast appreciation of it,"I meant "vast appreciation of history "
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Dang! I always liked Bill O'Reilly but for him to scoff that Russia would not be threatened by Ukrainian ascension to Nato is probably unsuppoertable. Absolutely compelling historic, geographic, military and emotional factors make the very idea of such an alliance ANATHEMA to Russia; its realization would never be tolerated by them;. never!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack:Populism, manifested in Maga, is here to stay, I think. The cat is out of the bag. The antiamerican left kept pushing and pushing and now an America finally aroused by counterintuitive and presumptuous radical outrages is pushing back with ever greater determination. In '88, Bush I successfully portrayed himself as a conservative when he was actually uncomfortable with conservative verities. Of course he was helped by the visible arrogance and the disgusting lack of respect for a WWII hero gleefully (yes!) asserted by his criminal loving opponent Dukakis. Today, a deceptive rino would be helped by the increasingly vicious contempt you predicted displayed by Biden for DJT and Maga which would be redirected to any other GOP nominee.But he or she would have to go to great effort to convince a wary America repeatedly burned by apologetic conservatives. I don't think it will happen; Trump has a hard road ahead and Maga reveres him for his willingness to endure it. He'll be the nominee in the end.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: I think pretty soon rinos or those perceived as such will have no place to go. Surely they would not be as craven as to cozy up to Schumer, Jeffries or AOC? Third party consisting of moderates; with what convictions pray, would they seek support? I think they would get carved up by both sides.
ReplyDeleteThe culture war is here to stay until one side marginalizes the other for good.
ReplyDeleteThe Left marginalized The Right a long time ago. Actually, the culture on both sides tends to stink mightily. This is a war over different brands of bull shit.
DeleteJack, what would "defeating the Houthis" look like, pray tell? If it's suppressing their capacity to launch drones and missiles, maybe. If it's anything more ambitious, that would take boots on the ground, which I suspect will never happen. Look how much luck the Saudis have had "defeating the Houthis"...
ReplyDeleteRay, don't worry -- soon all men in the U.S. military will be wearing skirts. The good news is that most of these men will have vaginas, so traditionalists need not be alarmed.
Ray, I wouldn't say Islam is fundamentally violent or peaceful, but I would say that the Houthis have always been bad news and the Saudis were right to see them as a threat.
Jack is right that all us Westerners came perilously close to speaking Arabic, at least in religious contexts.
Jack, I dunno what views Churchill had on the likely nature of the fighting in WWII, but if he predicted a major role for the heavy bomber he was merely parroting a popular refrain in the 20s and 30s that turned out to be largely overblown.
Agreed: the idea that Ukraine's dalliances with the West and NATO, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, are unconnected is absurd beyond belief.
Jack, many of the RINOs in the electorate have already jumped ship. RINO politicians are gradually following them...either going underground and mouthing MAGA platitudes while they privately scoff, or retiring when it becomes clear they can't win. Of course, some will hold out for the day when Trump departs the scene. Will "normalcy" return then? It seems unlikely. The cultural changes on the right seem profound and permanent.
Whoever said it, I agree: the polarization of America is leading, maybe not inexorably but very, very probably, to the obliteration, or at least the comprehensive oppression, of one side by the other. I fully expect it within twenty years max.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Re: Churchill: " Darest thou with thine frozen admonitions" make light of this sublime figure!? Despite the wide recognition of the potential of the heavy bomber you have noted, Britain's air defenses were woefully inadequate until the late 30's despite Churchill's impertinent hectoring before Britain's almost too late "about face". The Germans never developed a true heavy bomber but they did for Coventry and London quite well with the swarms they had, including the detestable Stuka dive bomber which came in range after France fell (its very hard to think of such treasured places being ravaged so, notwithstanding the human horror of bombing). And yes, the almost universal expectation on both sides that massive bombing would break civilian or leadership morale decisively was not realized until perhaps very late in Germany and Japan. The heavy bombering of Romanian oilfields and German synthetic oil plants made it almost impossible for the boche to fully utilize their monstrous King Tiger tanks in 1944, simply for lack of fuel. Their 1944 Ardennes offensive might otherwise have penetrated much further and immolated far more Sherman(medium tanks at best) "matchbox" American tanks before their inevitable destruction by dominant allied air power (the terrifying P47 "Jabo" especially).I have taken a cursory look but cannot find any reference to my beloved Churchill having opined on the heavy bomber per se. His WWI experience included typically energetic and creditable tenure as Minister of Munitions and I think that may have given his opinions on armament and the time and capacity it takes to produce it, considerable credibility.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack:For those countries engaged in Red Sea commerce, defeating the Houthis perhaps need consist in no more than stopping their missiles or any small boats they might use. That done, let them stew in their own juices, which is probably likely in Yemen's sultry clime. The Saudis have them on their border with the "empty quarter" between their populated areas. That may well make ground action too difficult for them both. What! You dare to suggest that males have not ALWAYS possessed that physical attribute you referred to? Presumptuous and heretical it is to suggest ANY difference between the so called "genders" (I use the term only for want of a better, since it suggests distinctive and now fully discredited categories). Hmm, what might be approvable now? I know: "monaurals" and may any dissent be denounced to the neo Inquisition!
ReplyDeleteThat's fair, Jack. All I know of Churchill's views of the likely character of WWII were that he expected it to happen (soon), and he thought the Brits had better get busy getting ready for it. Of course, he wasn't alone in those assumptions, and in fact there was a massive arms buildup before September 1939 that Churchill himself had essentially no role in.
ReplyDeleteSuppressing the ability of the Houthis to harass Red Sea shipping is certainly the goal, but I think the key word will be "suppress" rather than eliminate. Basically, my view is that the Houthis can make a nuisance of themselves indefinitely -- unless we support a force capable of defeating them on the ground.