Washington Times: Right Thinking on Grand Strategy

This article was originally published in the Washington Times on Wednesday, August 22 2018

In the pages of World Affairs from 2015, I wrote an article that condemned the then-contemporary strategic thinking as being anything but strategic. The American national security establishment’s obsession with counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency is going to come back to haunt us since great power conflict never ceases.

In fact, many of the same international relations problems of 1914 were revisited in 2014, and the article’s intent was that the centennial of World War I provided a good marker for our own reassessment. As I also pointed out, Russia had adopted a “Putin Doctrine” designed to modernize its military, increase the use of covert operations and espionage, utilize energy and economic intimidation, promote fear on its borders and project power into the Mediterranean, Atlantic and the Arctic.

It is in this light that one can analyze the recent decision by the American government to resurrect two concepts from the Cold War and proactively push NATO into the 21st century with a new benchmark.

The first of these is the reactivation of the United States Navy’s Second Fleet. It was deactivated in 2011 as part of a string of Obama-era decisions that mirrored Bill Clinton’s attempts to take a “holiday from history” in the 1990s. It took years to recover after the Clinton years, and it will take even more effort to do so from the Obama era.

In May 2018, Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. John Richardson stated, “Our National Defense Strategy makes clear that we’re back in an era of great power competition as the security environment continues to grow more challenging and complex That’s why today, we’re standing up Second Fleet to address these changes, particularly in the north Atlantic.” This decision is designed to send a clear message to Russia that the United States recognizes the serious strategic threat that Russia poses and is taking aggressive and concrete measures to ensure that both the Atlantic and the Arctic are not endangered. This is a clear response to Russian actions in the Baltic, the Arctic Circle, and off the east coast of the United States.

More importantly is the creation of NATO Joint Force Command for the Atlantic in Norfolk, Virginia.

Although this new Atlantic Command is portrayed as ensuring logistical and communication integrity among NATO, it is clear that it is designed to project power. Finally, a new American initiative titled the Four Thirties pushes NATO into the 21st century. The Four Thirties is a plan that by 2020 NATO should be able to get “30 battalions, 30 squadrons, and 30 ships ready for deployment in 30 days.”

From the 19th century onward, American strategic thinking has been dominated by navalism. This idea promoted by strategists like Alfred Thayer Mahan and adopted first by President Theodore Roosevelt understood that a great power’s ability to protect itself and project power could only be accomplished by the ability to project naval power. This attitude goes in and out of favor depending on whether or not a particular president understands this foundational argument such as Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush and Trump or whether they want to wish great power conflict away as Carter, Clinton and Obama.

The problem is that it often takes decades to repair the damage of the latter’s actions. It is important to note that two of the three NATO reforms are commands that should never have been deactivated. It was the short-sighted attitude of administration’s that failed to understand the very basics of international affairs and foreign policy.

Although we are now on the cusp of taking strategic naval thinking into space, a delayed move, it is heartening to know that sound decisions to counter potential great power aggression is going beyond rhetoric and into action.

• Lamont Colucci is associate professor of politics at Ripon College and author of “The National Security Doctrines of the American Presidency: How they Shape our Present and Future” (Praeger, 2012).

The Washington Times: How North Korea flouts international sanctions

View the article on WashingtonTimes.com


The Syrian civil war has dropped off of most people’s radar. When it does intrude, reports primarily concern themselves with tactical advances of one side (currently victory favors the Assad regime) or the other. Some reports highlight the human rights atrocities and the effect of the war on the civilian population.

A U.N. report was delivered to the U.N. Security Council on March 1, 2018, which has not been publicly released, but obtained by the author, highlights the military cooperation between North Korea and the other rogue regimes. Further, the report also highlights cyberwarfare (including attacking the U.N. panel of the report) designed to steal military secrets and conventional weapons sales.

It highlights four methods that North Korea uses to flout international sanctions: “exploiting global oil supply chains, complicit foreign nationals, offshore company registries and the international banking system.”

Although the relationship with the Assad regime in Syria over WMD (weapons of mass destruction) cooperation is the most critical, the report also illustrates the North Korean military relationship with Mozambique for conventional weapons and parts, as well as a murky military relationship between North Korea and Sudan, despite official Sudanese denials.

More disturbing is the relationship with the genocidal regime in Burma. This includes not only banned conventional weapons but ballistic missiles. The panel continues to be concerned about Angola, Uganda, Libya, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. These military deals emanate from North Korea’s governmental unit that engages in this, the Korea Mining Development Trading Corporation (KOMID).

The U.N. report makes clear that North Korea does not need to rely on foreign engines for its ballistic missile program, indicating the upward advance of its domestic arms capabilities.

It is the relationship with Syria that is most concerning. There is history to this alliance dating back to the 1960s when North Korean pilots flew missions for the Syrian air force and when the elder Assad imported missiles and North Korean experts to assist in Syria’s weapons program. North Korean soldiers assisted Syria against Israel in the Yom Kippur War of 1973.

Syria leaped into nuclear weapons in the 21st century. As a result, in 2007 Israel destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor suspected of creating the means to produce nuclear weapons. Former CIA Director Mike Hayden stated that this Syrian reactor was an exact copy of one in North Korea. This North Korean/Syrian complicity is reinforced by the fact that at least 10 North Koreans were killed in that attack.

Currently, North Korea has shipped material for ballistic missile production and chemical weapons development. The report highlights 40 North Korean shipments from 2012 and 2017 to Syria’s Scientific Studies and Research Centre, the Syrian governmental organ that handles chemical weapons. The report also demonstrates North Korean personnel operating chemical weapons and missile facilities inside Syria. Interdicted shipments by U.N. member states confirm this pattern of behavior.

The report does not explain the geo-strategic situation. North Korea’s interest in the Assad regime is manifold: It seeks a partner in the Middle East to test weapons; it understands that a strong Assad regime can frustrate American foreign policy goals; American attention drawn to conflict in the Middle East weakens it position in East Asia; it provides desperately needed funds to a regime that has little else to trade or sell, and bolstering the Assad dictatorship hurts America’s ally Israel.

Syrian parliamentary speaker Hammouda Sabbagh stated, “The DPRK and Syria are in one trench against a common enemy The more terrorists that fall under the blows of the Syrian Arab Army, the faster the Zionist enemy, the United States and their agents in the region rush desperately to strike Syria, So the response to these attempts were qualitative and will be harsher and more qualitative if the enemy once again considers an attack on Syrian sovereignty.”

It is clear from the report that the much-touted sanctions regime is failing, providing a thin veil for U.N. member states like Russia and China that continue to assist North Korea’s trade exports in iron, coal, steel, silver, copper, zinc, nickel and imports of oil. It outlines elaborate efforts by North Korea and complicit partners to use false flags and documentation, evasive travel routes, transshipment and ship-to-ship transfers.

The U.N. report should be publicly and widely disseminated, but more importantly, it is the final nail in the vampire’s coffin of the 2013 agreement that the Assad regime abandon chemical weapons. It provides proof positive that rogue regimes such as North Korea, Syria, Iran, and now Burma, bolstered by Russia and China are the prime actors of instability dooming the world to further chaos and violence — this is state terrorism at its worst.

The Washington Times: Choosing favorites in ‘Star Wars’

On May 25, 1977, the original “Star Wars” movie, “A New Hope,” made its debut. It immediately had an impact that is hard to measure, especially on the generation that would, unfortunately, be called “X,” itself a seemingly sci-fi moniker.

Watching that film and the subsequent two sequels, there was no question whom one would root for. Everyone wanted the forces of the Republic to win, cast as science fiction versions of the American revolutionaries. The dark side, represented best by Darth Vader, was no British officer serving George the III, but a minion of the likes of Hitler or Stalin.

The Force has a good side and an evil side. The dark side represents violence, torture, repression, death — evil. The light side is attracted to order based on morality, ethics, courage and justice. The dark side is attracted to order based on power, treachery and greed.

It is, therefore, astounding to witness the rise in popularity of the dark side among the makers of the “Star Wars” movies and merchandising offshoots. There is a reason that the dark side’s foot soldiers are called “storm troopers,” and that young Darth Vader commits mass murder of children in Episode 3. This is a disturbing trend whose roots run far deeper than movie criticism. Now is the right time for consideration since on Dec. 14, “The Last Jedi” will hit the silver screens, arguably the most anticipated movie in years.

The effect on children is worth considering. We have Disney stores that give equal time to toys and costumes of the dark side; we have video game companies like Electronic Arts whose expected blockbuster game, Star Wars Battlefront II, forces players to take the role of a dark side champion, and a host of department stores that promote equally, if not more partiality given to the evil side, toys and games that enhance the “coolness” of Vader and the storm troopers.

As a father and a “Star Wars” fan who has watched this trend over time, the appropriate reaction can only be a reprise of the famous phrase, uttered by Obi-Wan Kenobi: “I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.” It is not something that can be accurately quantified, not in dollars and cents, not in psychological studies. The very fact that any sane person could venerate Darth Vader (before he recants at death), Emperor Palpatine (who gives Caligula a run for his money), or Grand Moff Tarkin (who kills every man, woman and child on an entire planet, regardless of the brilliant performance by Peter Cushing,), is beyond comprehension.

The primary cause of all this is an attempt by the left to force moral relativism down the throats of every American, combined with a dogma called Red Puritanism, in which there are no absolute goods except for the laundry list they have created: multiculturalism, tolerance, atheism, socialist realism, skepticism, activist science, anti-Western ideology (extra piety points for being anti-American) and collective white guilt. There are no immutable goals except for those prescribed by their dogma: ending white privilege, destruction of conservatism, the cult of victimization, a reduction of American military power, and the glorification of anything that shocks.

One can anticipate four criticisms of this analysis. The first is that I am overreacting to a pop culture science fiction movie. Americans in this camp should realize the power of epics, storytelling, legends, myths and language. “Star Wars” changed all of this from 1977 onward and continues today with the release of the newest film.

Second is that only a political scientist or historian would read so deeply into a movie. Perhaps, but perhaps not. The “Star Wars” franchise has millions of followers, generates billions of dollars, and consumes untold hours of conversations and, dare one say, heated arguments. It has the lasting power of a story like “The Lord of the Rings” upon the Western, especially American, psyche. It is debated and discussed more than any other fictional story among large sectors of the population, perhaps more than any current debate or issue in politics today.

Third is the idea that moralizing against “Star Wars” is antithetical to free choice because no one is forced to root for Team Vader. This is reasonable if you embrace the relativistic argument that one can be as easily attracted to Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or militarist Japan as to America in World War II or the Cold War. Only as a historical parallel can this argument make sense, but it falls under its own intellectual weight.

Finally, one can argue over which ideas filmmaker George Lucas is attempting to promote. Whatever his politics (reportedly anti-Nixon, anti-Republican and anti-conservative), they are not as relevant as the impact of the films’ cultural phenomena.

One does not need to lapse into hysteria to raise these concerns, nor is there any solution that could or should be mandated by government or the entertainment industry. However, that should not stop those who prefer the virtues of the Force to the dark side from asking Americans to reflect on the effects of their silver screen infatuation.


View the article on WashingtonTimes.com

The Washington Times: Assessing Chinese imperialism

View the article on WashingtonTimes.com


If you have not heard of One Belt, One Road you are missing what could be the landmark tale of this entire century. It is a saga of China’s grand strategy that could threaten American interests at every level.

Begun in 2013 as an initiative by President Xi Jinping, One Belt, One Road (OBOR) has received a tremendous amount of attention. The program has been primarily aimed toward what appears to be a massive economic endeavor. Divided along a land-based route titled the Silk Road Economic Belt (SREB) and a sea-based route, the Maritime Silk Road (MSR), it is an overt attempt by China to enter the 21st century as a global power. The debate among many Western circles is whether or not this titanic economic venture has militaristic and imperialistic overtones.

This is a surprising question since the historical Silk Road was all of the above. Started by the Han dynasty, the Silk Road was used to knit together an economic and military power, creating what some historians dub the Pax Sinica, fielding an army of over a million and extending into East and South Asia. It seems a dubious proposition to compartmentalize Chinese objectives, and the real question is not whether China will use the One Belt, One Road project for political and military influence, but how.

The OBOR project could be the largest diplomatic, military, economic initiative of the modern age. It is exactly in line with contemporary Chinese strategic statements that desire a “harmonious world” system by taking advantage of a period of “strategic opportunity.” Driven by nationalistic chauvinism, a climate of resource unpredictability, the endorsement of the “First Island Chain” policy fits the goals of OBOR completely. It is where the PRC seeks to initially dominate East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia and beyond. Chinese foreign policy is the textbook example of international relations realism and to expect China to compartmentalize its goals would be foolish, dangerous and childish.

OBOR can become the umbrella for every major Chinese strategic goal worldwide under the guise of an economic development plan that can coerce or cajole many of their third world interests.

This should be of special concern as the United States is questioning its commitment to various free trade regimes that were also designed not only for economic benefits but also for American grand strategy imperatives.

OBOR would eventually engulf over 60 countries and 65 percent of the world’s population with costs ranging from “low ball” estimates of $900 billion to highs of eight trillion dollars. It is not only foreign investment, but Chinese bank credits, and aid packages that are often under the auspices of the Chinese-dominated Asian Infrastructure and Investment bank. The land route envisioned stretches from Singapore to Madrid, Spain. The sea route extends from Dar es Salaam in Tanzania, to Jakarta, Indonesia, toward ultimately the port of Piraeus near Athens.

None of this is happening in a strategic vacuum, China’s $147 billion military budget, focused heavily on the American targeted anti-access/area-denial strategy, the deployment of its first aircraft carrier, the new naval base on Hainan island, a massive increase in land-to-sea ballistic missiles, massive investment in modernizing China’s strategic nuclear arsenal, arms and missile technology proliferation, anti-satellite missiles, space weapon research, and the continued use of the North Korean regime as a bargaining chip, let alone her exhaustively chronicled actions in the South China Sea. It is no wonder there is concern among China’s neighbors, specifically Japan and India attempting to create alternative land and sea routes.

There are many areas of special military concern regarding One Belt, One Road. Number one among these is China’s first major military outpost in Djibouti, Africa. This is linked to their lease on port facilities in Darwin, Australia, the naval facility at Gwadar Pakistan, the training of Special Forces in Kazakhstan, recent activity in Sri Lanka and Chinese economic and military activity in Afghanistan. It is more than curious that Frontier Services Group, formerly Blackwater, has received a contract by the Chinese government to set up a base in Yunnan province to train security personnel for OBOR related endeavors.

One Belt, One Road is not limited to Terra Firma as China is attempting to create a rival to U.S.-dominated GPS with its own BDS alternative that would link to OBOR’s routes.

Finally, Chinese military doctrine is keeping pace by indicating that China’s military will reserve the right to intervene where and when future OBOR assets are threatened.

It would be comical to think that China would not use the massive presence of Chinese citizens and infrastructure and utilize this for intelligence gathering, covert operations, Special Forces insertion, and eventually overt military activity. One Belt, One Road gives the world a glimpse of an alternate future where the Pax Americana is no more, and America retreats from the scene. Americans cannot claim to be taken by surprise and must react with the dynamism, innovation, and power that the world associates with the American spirit. If, however, we choose to isolate ourselves, ignore OBOR, or lead from behind, the Chinese will not only achieve their economic and military dominance, but may fill in the vacuum left by the apathetic United States and be well on their way to one day dictating to us, terms of negotiation on every and all fronts.

The Washington Times: Subverting the role of the treaty in American diplomacy

View the article on WashingtonTimes.com


It is ironic that the contemporary discussion concerning American diplomacy should focus on the Paris Climate Accord. Students of history will appreciate that in 1778 that the first grand diplomatic debate of our country, the Treaty of Amity and Commerce, centered on France and is considered the first cornerstone treaty in American history.

It is important to hearken back to those initial debates because these ghosts haunt our decisions today. The American Congress was concerned about such a treaty, even in that desperate year of 1778 because they knew that America’s word had to be binding, and that future American foreign policy would henceforward be governed by any such treaty. It is not an accident of history that during the only two World Wars, the focus of American military policy was the defense and liberation of our oldest ally, France.

It is in this vein that we should reject President Obama’s penchant for actively subverting the treaty process and engaging in dangerous executive agreements that distort the constitutional requirements of Senate approval. This is not to reject altogether the use of executive agreements: Diplomacy is fluid and the expediency of any given time may require the president to utilize executive agreements to protect and promote American vital interests.

However, when such diplomacy is potentially multipresidential as is the case of the Iran deal (formally known as Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA), or multigenerational as is the case with the Paris Climate Accords, then it is clear from any originalist argument that this is what the Founders wanted. Further, treaties create stability and credibility that no executive agreement can ever come near.

Although international relations between nations require both treaties and executive agreements, treaties signal the intent of longevity. They hold any single president and Congress accountable to the past whereby a prior Congress and president spent months, or years, debating the merits of binding American foreign policy down a specific path. They negate the vagaries of any given lapse of judgment and force the American government to do something it often does poorly — look at American interests from a long-term strategic objective. NATO, the Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty, and the mutual security treaties with South Korea and Japan are all clear examples. These treaties, from Presidents Truman to Trump, continue to govern American foreign policy and have created the strongest alliance of western democracies in world history.

In contrast, Mr. Obama engaged in dangerous adventurism through executive decisions designed to subvert the authority of the Senate and the American people. If the Iran deal and the Paris Accords were as important as the previous administration claimed and were the lynchpin of the Obama diplomatic legacy, then why were they not crafted as treaties, sent to the Senate and by that action, allowed the constitutionally proper voice of the American people to be heard?

Concerning the Iran deal, former Secretary of State John Kerry stunned many when he admitted that the reason it was not submitted as a treaty was that the administration knew it would not pass. He also stated, “We’ve been clear from the beginning. We’re not negotiating a ‘legally binding plan.’ We’re negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement.” An administration known for its mental gymnastics receives another gold medal. It has been claimed that one of the reasons the Obama administration engaged in this was for expediency. The Obama administration cited a variety of treaties that the Senate has refused to ratify, notably the Law of the Sea Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

In both cases, it is highly questionable if these are advantageous to the United States. But here is the point: The Founders intended bad treaties to be defeated, and they intended that long-lasting diplomacy would be based on treaties and not fiat. Both the Paris Accords and the Iran deal should be required to pass the test for treaties: They commit multiple presidential administrations, they are multigenerational, and they will require America to be a credible partner, even if others are not. America has always rejected the full force of European realism. Every nation knows that if America commits, America keeps its word, but that commitment must be made in a procedurally and constitutionally sound manner.

All that the Obama administration achieved did not enhance American interests, but was a series of calculated moves to shore up the administration’s political base. The Obama administration knew full well that any executive agreement made by any president could be overturned by any future one. Now the situation has been muddied, in part because many of our allies do not fully understand American history, political culture or constitutional law. The United States specifically avoided ad hoc diplomacy during our formative years. Rather, it engaged in hard-nosed diplomacy and only made international agreements after much soul-searching and debate. Foreign policy’s No. 1 currency is credibility. Lose that, and it takes generations for it to return.

The Washington Times: Invoking the roots of Western civilization

View the article on WashingtonTimes.com


There has been much analysis made of President Trump’s June 6 speech in Warsaw. Left-wing commentators have expressed sentiments indicating that the speech was “without substance,” “bland” and “lacking” in a laundry list of policy priorities. Conservative commentators have focused on its emphasis on Western civilization and confirmation of NATO. What seems to be missed is how much the speech returns the American conservative movement and the Republican Party to its foreign policy and philosophical roots.

First, from the post-World War II period onward, reaching maturation under the administration of President Dwight Eisenhower, both the Republican Party and the conservative movement championed the plight of Eastern Europe, often focusing on Poland especially in 1953 and 1956. It was here that the Republican Party’s stance advocating that democracy, human rights and American national interests were intertwined, ever more uncomfortable with the policy of containment and seeking an alternative. This alternative became known as “rollback” and liberation. Though this policy would have difficulty in becoming airborne, it would become the central heart of President Ronald Reagan’s attitude toward the philosophy of communism and the Soviet state. Again, Poland was the epicenter of this thinking. It is, therefore, fitting that a Republican president returns to a place that helped to define the entire party and movement.

Second, both the party and movement have continuously warned against the ideological power of extremism and the need for America to champion the counter-attack. It was the conservative movement’s anti-communism that created the cement for a coalition that would become the modern Republican Party. It is now that same philosophy that makes the unambiguous case against Islamic extremism.

Third, the speech warned about Russian power and expansionism. This may seem obvious in a country like Poland, but it was the conservative movement that recognized quickly that FDR’s attempt at a grand alliance, would fail. It would fail not only because of communist aggression, but also Russian imperialism. The Republican Party was often castigated by the left and many in the Democratic Party for being overly anti-Russian. This liberal attitude of appeasement toward the Soviets was as equally entrenched as the Republican Party’s warning over Soviet and Russian adventurism. It is, therefore, a laughable tragedy that the liberal movement wishes to engage in Soviet-style revisionist history by treating any warnings about Russia as its own. It is perhaps the most cynical and hypocritical attempt in the entire life of the modern liberal movement.

Fourth, Mr. Trump issued a caution against the ravages of a big government and big bureaucracy. One can’t bemoan the totalitarian and authoritarian horrors of dictatorship and then embrace the “road to serfdom” at the same time. The Poles know full well that the small horrors of a bloated bureaucracy and unreasonable regulations may not be as horrific as the gulag, but they stem from the same attitude. It was this warning made most famously by Reagan that also built another pillar of modern American conservatism.

Fifth was the president’s emphasis on God and faith, and how they are intertwined with freedom and vitality. It was faith that saved Eastern Europe from being erased by communism, and it has been the conservative movement and Republican Party that continues to be the champion of traditional religion in the naked public square.

Lastly was the emphasis on Western civilization and Atlanticism. This concept has been written and spoken of consistently. However, it has been the conservative movement and the Republican Party that has never shied away from the pride of knowing the superiority of Western values and civilization, and its translation into practical policies such as NATO. This championship of Western values on the international stage for the Republican Party began with President Theodore Roosevelt and has continued ever since. In an age when one side of the American political coin has embraced multicultural relativism, it is the other that emphasizes that at the core of all the benefits we enjoy, as Russell Kirk illustrated, is the inheritance from Athens, Rome, Jerusalem, London and Philadelphia.

The Washington Times: Forging a strategy for North Korea

View the article on WashingtonTimes.com


If one consults the great strategists of the human experience such as Karl Von Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, or B.H. Liddell Hart the goal of strategy never changes: it is the application of power in order to attain a clear objective, which in the case for grand strategy could be multi-generational.

The United States has lacked a clear grand strategy regarding North Korea since 1953, and the current crises illustrate this exponentially. It is clear that the West, the United States, in particular, have multitudes of “Korea experts” who focus on very specific issues. Some of these experts focus on human rights, others on economic conditions, espionage, missiles and nuclear weapons. However, rather than becoming enveloped in the black hole of the cause celebre of the day, it is worth considering consulting strategy.

What is our strategy for North Korea? This is a meaningless question without answering what our clear objective is. If our objective is merely to retard the growth of the communist regime’s nuclear and missile capability, this might for a short time, be achieved by a new round of negotiations, greater pressure from China, and additional sanctions. We will eventually wake up one day to a fully nuclearized Korean peninsula, but we will have assuaged our guilt long enough to get through two or three of presidential administrations.

If however there is a real grand strategy then the only objective is the elimination of the North Korean regime and ultimate reunification with the South. If this is the objective, then unlike the poorly conceived Iran deal, there must be the linkages that many of our diplomats and subject matter experts dread. In other words, there can be no strategy that addresses the North Korean issue unless missile technology and nuclear arms are on an equal footing with human rights atrocities, economic privation, state-sponsored terrorism, narcotic trafficking, cybercrimes, counterfeiting, and arms proliferation.

This comprehensive approach leads only to one conclusion: the communist-red dynasty of the Kim family and its supporters must be ended. To achieve it, one must involve a methodical approach that integrates diplomacy, military precision, covert operations, sanctions, and a clear understanding that removal of the dynasty is merely one of the beginning acts (though not the first) in a drama that will ensure the least American casualties and burden as well as the health and transition for the Korean people.

Although some analysts have speculated on the existence and content of OPLAN 5029, a plan developed to deal with the extinction of the North Korean regime, the basic conceptional outline of any such a strategy would be based on the following parameters: First, critical allies, not a grand coalition, would be brought to make common cause to remove the Kim regime. The first use of military force would need to be massive: The attack must utilize stealth technology and cruise missile military platforms via preemption to destroy counterforce North Korean weaponry, command and control centers and WMD sites while similar attacks are occurring via covert (cyber and kinetic) operations.

The focus will quickly be on the Kim regime and its supporters. China will be assured that no western forces will permanently base themselves north of the 38th parallel but that the annihilation of the regime is non-negotiable. Following the attack, allied forces must quickly use specialized units to seize and liberate the concentration camps to avoid the mass murder that may follow any sudden collapse. These are camps whose very existence mocks the very existence of organizations such as the United Nations who have done nothing to stop an atrocity that many thought died with the Nazis, Soviets and Khmer Rouge.

Once the initial fighting has ceased, law, order, basic services, food and medical care which was already prepositioned in advance would deploy rapidly. The allied forces should force the hand of the United Nations to engage in something of use, and this could become their single most important activity in the 21st century. The North Korean population is around 25 million; military analysts assume that such a population will require an occupation force of 500,000 that will transition to peacemaking and stabilization.

Although the bulk of this can come from South Korea, there must be healthy contributions from countries such as the United States, Australia, Great Britain and possibly other NATO allies. Asian nations outside of Korea should be avoided for this particular task. The issue of North Korean refugees is not a simple or easy one, but the quicker stabilization can be brought to bear, the quicker this problem can be handled.

China will play a key role here, and the international community will need to assist them in this task. Ultimately, North Korea will evaporate as did East Germany and slowly be integrated into the Republic of Korea, though the process will make the German experience look easy. Throughout this process, counter-insurgency, PSYOP, counter-terrorism will be significant.

American leadership will be critical, and the president should make it clear to the American people that just as this was the only way to ultimately prevent the vaporization of San Francisco and Milwaukee, there is no quick exit. We have been there for 64 years enforcing an unworkable status quo; we can be there for a few decades more to bring an end to the worst regime on earth and solve our national security problem at the same time.

The issue must be taken out of the hands of technocrats or those who view the idea of diplomacy as more important than the objective. North Korea requires strategists, who like President Reagan knew that the only solution to the Soviet problem was the ending of the Soviet regime. The existence of the Kim regime and its actions is inimical to the security and values of the United States and is an abomination against both God and man.

The Washington Times: Imperial dreams

View the article on WashingtonTimes.com


Historically, the West has faced an existential threat from both the Persian and Russian empires. The Persian Empire was fueled by the expansionist dreams of Darius and Xerxes, foiled only by the heroism of the Greeks, led by men like Themistocles. In the 20th century, Russian imperial aspirations under the Soviet sword, attempted to conquer and intimidate Europe and endanger the existence of American civilization.

Today, the Persians have transformed their geopolitical imperative into a Shiite crusade to dominate the Shia crescent stretching from the Persian Gulf in the south to the Mediterranean in the northwest; the Russians launch invasions against their neighbors while engaging in adventurism in the Middle East. Since 2008, Russian foreign policy has been a servant to the Putin Doctrine, which is primarily devoted to creating a wedge within NATO, reducing the western enthusiasm for an anti-ballistic missile system, engaging in coercive diplomacy utilizing energy, and using the old Soviet method of arms control and reduction agreements to achieve Russian national interests.

This doctrine aims to reassert Russian regional hegemony, combining 19th-century czarist policies as well as old Soviet grand strategy to justify a return to an imperial path. This is backed by a massive military modernization campaign, including in the upgrading of nuclear weapons, as demonstrated by Russia’s Syrian military campaign. Naturally, the next level is combining the Shiite crusade and the ambitions of the Russian bear: Russia’s use of a military base in Iran.

If these were normal times, with clear-eyed American patriots controlling American national security, this would have raised alarm bells so loud that it would overtake what passes for news in much of the media. Until Iran balked on Monday, Russian warplanes systematically flew out of Hamadan air base in western Iran and included the TU-22M3, the Backfire strategic bomber of Cold War infamy, and the SU-34 Fullback strike fighter. Not only did this reduce Russia’s aviation mission time by about 60 percent, but it allowed Russian warplanes to carry larger payloads. Another advantage for them was the ability to strike American regional assets and personnel if they so chose, and it enabled Russian intelligence a further foothold. It provided a signal to the region and the world that Russian grand strategy is transforming from the propaganda of the early Putin years (ignored by many Kremlinologists as meaningless bluster) to the reality of the Putin consolidation.

There is a cottage industry, especially among American intellectuals, to dismiss Russian power and ambition. One needs only to spend time studying Russian and Soviet military history and privation to clear away these absurdities. This is almost equal to those that don’t understand the volatile mixing of Persian grand strategy with Shia crusading theology. We must also remember that Russian military missions are indiscriminate in who they kill, often targeting civilians and those groups backed by the United States. Human Rights Watch has recently accused them of using incendiary bombs.

The Russian Black Sea fleet, combined with Russian ground forces in Syria, assisted by Russian warplanes in and out of Iran, have created an entirely new calculus in Syria. Although this is not good news for the Islamic State (ISIS), it is equally bad for American interests in the region. We may trade the murderous nature of ISIS for the vicious expansionist militarism of Iran with Russian backing.

One cannot divorce this occurrence from the Iranian nuclear deal, with Iran being the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism, the most important threat to Israel, the key player in destabilizing Lebanon, and the prime mover of Hezbollah. This Machiavellian alliance is one of the most disturbing developments in international affairs in this decade. It marks the beginning of mutual imperial dreams for two potential adversaries of the United States.

The Washington Times: A lie, a strike and a foul

View the article on WashingtonTimes.com


Americans witnessed the Democratic Party on display last week with scant attention paid to national security and foreign policy. Though some in the media focused their attention on the shouting during the moment of silence for law enforcement, and the backs being turned on Gen. John Allen, the real story is what was said and not said concerning international affairs. If America’s pastime is still baseball, we witnessed a Pete Rose-level lie, a George McBride-style (.218 lifetime batting average) at bat, and a foul as grim as the curse of the Billy Goat.

The lie: the 2016 Democratic platform reads in part like a Reaganesque manifesto. It advocates bold American leadership, strength and military primacy. In a statement so audacious in its falsehood, the platform claims, “We cannot walk away from our position of global leadership and allow other countries to make decisions about our lives, jobs, and safety.” Thus, the architects of leading from behind now wish the American people to suddenly believe that they favor a principled and robust use of American power. One hesitates to discuss Nazi propaganda techniques, but if there ever was a big lie this election season, here it is. The laundry list of fabrications is immense: claiming Democrats defeated terrorism, pushed for reform in Cuba before normalization, supported both a strong defense budget and keeping faith with veterans, and were proactive in international relations.

The platform is bolder when talking about the future: implying that what is stopping ISIS’ defeat is the Authorization of the Use of Military Force, promising to end Bashar Assad’s rule of Syria and forge a secure future for Afghanistan, pledging military action if Iran attempts a nuclear breakout and to stand up to Russian aggression, and claiming that both NATO and Israel are vital to the United States.

This would all be an outstanding blueprint for foreign policy if anything remotely resembled this during the Bill Clinton era with Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright as secretary of State, or the Obama years when Hillary ran State. If Bill Clinton took a holiday from history, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton turned the holiday into a rout.

The strike: If the lie was the platform, the strike was Mr. Obama’s speech. There was no mention of Israel, Russia or Ukraine. Some may think the oratory was well done, but the president made almost no attempt to address the grave national security threats the country faces. He could not list a single major foreign policy accomplishment that related to Mrs. Clinton except that they “pounded [ISIS] without mercy,” killed Osama bin Laden, brought troops home, and opened up Cuba. The first is untrue, the second is due to President George W. Bush, and the remaining two are a disaster — swing, batter, batter, swing.

The foul: Hillary’s time to shine illustrated the vacuum in the area that the platform contends is her great strength. She claimed the experience of steady leadership and a strategy to defeat ISIS — a strategy that does not deviate one notch from Mr. Obama’s. She could not point to a single accomplishment in her one role as an executive, and that executive position was in foreign policy. The emerging achievement is her advocacy of the Iran deal, which is the only context when Israel is mentioned, and nothing said about Ukraine. The foul ball is an attempt to dress up the worst tenure as secretary of State in possibly a century.

If the best attempt by the Democrats is to steal the foreign policy of Ronald Reagan and cynically claim it is their own — aside from it being an act of Mephistophelian magnitude — is a breach of the public trust on a colossal scale.

The Washington Times: Rescuing the lost generations

View the article on WashingtonTimes.com


Conservatives in particular have a penchant for viewing Millennials as overgrown adolescents: narcissistic, entitled, dimwitted, lazy and willing to expand their horizons only when it involves a trip to a cannabis store in Colorado. The generation prior — “X” — is noteworthy for overly individualistic, poor team players, self-reliant and cynical behaviors. If conservatives wish to break through to Millennials and Gen Xers, they should emphasize national security and foreign policy.

According to the Pew Research Center, two-thirds of Millennials say that relying too much on military force to defeat terrorism will create hatred that leads to more terrorism. The only threat that Millennials have a greater fear of is global warming. Millennials are the least likely to support unilateral decisions in foreign policy and intervention and least likely to see Chinese power as a critical threat.

Whereas about half of Gen Xers believe that the United States is “the greatest country in the world,” only 32 percent of Millennials do. Finally, in 1994 the number of 18- to 29-year-olds who identified as Republicans was 47 percent, compared to 2014 with only 35 percent.

This is all quite dire for conservatism and the Republican Party — and dire for the 2016 election.

Millennials are sometimes called the generation that “makes no sense” owing to their contradictory views. Seven in 10 Millennials support government guarantees for housing, health insurance and income, yet only 32 percent reported that they preferred a government-managed economy, compared to 64 percent who supported a free market over a state-managed market. Six in 10 want to live in a society that distributes wealth based on achievement, even at the expense of unequal outcomes. Sixty-four percent of Millennials have a positive view of competition and profit. More than half reported that they would like to start their own businesses. Finally, while only 16 percent of those surveyed could accurately define socialism, 42 percent reported preferring socialism to capitalism.

However, conservatives should remember who has been “educating” them. Recently, liberal New York Times columnist Nick Kristoff, added to the old chorus that has “outed” education, especially higher education, for being extremely left-wing. The hate mail that Mr. Kristoff has received is the exact proof of the liberal intolerance that has indoctrinated almost three generations of young Americans.

Since Millennials and even some Gen Xers are all over the map on domestic and social policies, they need to be confronted on culture and national security. It is telling that religion may be the first key to unlocking this potential: 86 percent of Millennials state they believe in God, as do 79 percent of Gen Xers. While 45 percent of the country believes it is appropriate to engage in nation-building, 53 percent of Millennials and 46 percent of Gen Xers do, with over 60 percent of Millennials supporting “liberal intervention scenarios.” There is no more conservative opinion on foreign policy than that expressed by presidents like Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, who combined the muscularity of American hard power with the north star of American values. In contrast, Barack Obama has represented pseudo-realist declinism, that neither embraces power nor idealism. In general, the young love America: 70 percent of Millennials and 86 percent of Gen Xers still call themselves very patriotic (though older generations are at 90 percent plus). Millennials are the most pro-free trade with a whopping 63 percent calling it a “good thing.” If there is an antidote to their misunderstood love affair with socialism (and Bernie Sanders), this is it.

Conservatives must understand that culture drives politics. Either conservatives seize the initiative, or they are reactive, cynical and dead.

The best conduit for conversion is national security. Millennials and Gen Xers can be told the truth to form a permanent block not only for conservatism, but for the Republican Party. The call should go out about how wrong leftists are about national security.

They are wrong on defense. It always costs more in lives, both military and civilian, to short cut defense and wait for a crisis to build.

They are wrong on relegating terrorism to a crime. It was the conservatives who pursued it as a war and attempted to forestall al Qaeda, the Islamic State and the Syrian civil war.

They are wrong on geopolitics and trade.

They are wrong on diplomacy. Diplomacy is about advancing the interests of the American people.

They are wrong on values, and conservatives need to reverse relativistic indoctrination. It was liberal appeasement that created millions of dead in the genocides of the Nazis and the communists. It was liberal inaction that brought about the death of almost one-fourth of the population in Cambodia. And it is liberal cowardice that accounts for 470,000 deaths in Syria.

If conservatives want to attract the young, they must end the mindless debate among the international-relations realists, the liberals, the establishment, the grass roots and the tea party.

The attempt by the left to take over the political culture of the youth started in the late 1960s. It then moved on to the Gen Xers, where the first ideas in higher education about micro-aggressions, safe spaces and free speech zones had their genesis. Conservatives ceded the ground as they did in much of culture, arts and letters. In doing so, they paid the price 10 times over. They now have an unusual opportunity to reverse it, but only with an aggressive attack that uses both the truth of our predicament and the heroic history of the American tradition.