They Missed Lessons...

Which is not surprising. For decades what passed in the West for military science was the ability to create bogus pseudo-military narratives saturated with relevant and not quotes from classic military thinkers--Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Delbruck, Mahan et al--in attempts to apply expired lessons of the past to modernity, or explain "tactics" in terms of what many professionals came to regard as a military porn. Some people from Cuban "think-tank" lacking understanding of real operational and strategic (I omit tactics here) dimension of the conflict between Russia in the West start their Cuba's "regime change" with a broadside of illiterate BS:

Carl von Clausewitz, the XIX Century Prussian military strategist, wrote that “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy is predicated on raw power and blackmail - and if needed murders and kidnappings both inside and outside Russia. His massive military buildup on Ukraine’s border and his threat to deploy troops “and infrastructure” in Cuba and Venezuela are aimed to force the Biden Administration and America’s allies to submit to his will. Comparisons with the 1962 October Missile Crisis that brought humanity to the brink of nuclear war are deceiving. Putin is no Nikita Khrushchev and Joe Biden is no John Kennedy.

I have no idea why these two Cuban ex-pats bring Cuban missile crisis here at all, not to mention the fact that they give a wrong representation of this crisis to start with. It was about US Jupiter ballistic missiles in Turkey which precipitated Cuban Missile Crisis which the authors of this piece forget. It is not surprising, considering a hysterical and strategically illiterate manifesto these people provided. Apart from the obvious lack of any touch with the reality in regards to Ukraine (I have no idea how some Ph.D. in Cuban History can have any ideas about the reality there), those people make two major, in fact gaping, mistakes. They state that: 

Washington’s messy withdrawal from Afghanistan sent a message of weakness to America’s enemies that animated both Russia and China into a more aggressive posture in Ukraine, and Taiwan respectively.

I understand these two dudes (as well as their org) have an agenda to push but, come on, not by spewing an obvious BS which doesn't even pass the smell test in terms of proper timing. Do I need to remind these two "experts" (a euphemism for grant-abusers in all kinds of US ethnic agenda "think-tanks") events of 2008 or 2014, how about events of 2015. What about events of March 1, 2018, what about other events which provide an easily recognizable pattern of Russians knowing exactly what the US is militarily and economically. But I am sure, while pulling Clausewitz' abused quote about war (do these two "experts" even know the Deng Xiaoping's version of this dictum?), they call for shutting down of Nord Stream 2. Sure, let the US do this, I will need a bucket of pop-corn. Of course, our two strategic "thinkers" arrive, inevitably, to this conclusion:  

A weak America makes for a more dangerous and uncertain world because it encourages international aggression. Americans will support these and similar efforts that should not be a partisan issue.

I think these two agenda-pushers should ask another 100% USDA approved neocon and "strategic thinker" from their neck of the woods, Senator Marco Rubio. While this Senator, still reeling from the death of his and other GOP legislators' main benefactor Sheldon Adelson, tries to present (so cute) a threatening posture towards Russia, even this neocon can contradict these two "academics" and I quote: 

My entire life, I've been an unabashed believer in American exceptionalism and consistent evangelist of the American Dream. But when I ran for president, I learned that many Americans did not share my optimism. 

American Affairs, Common Good Capitalism: An Interview With Marco Rubio. Spring 2020, page 3.  

Oh boy, there is nothing more inspiring than America's ethnic lobbies ranging from AIPAC to Eastern European, to Latino to what have you, who push their own agendas most of which are not only in any way beneficial to the interests of the majority of Americans but more often than not run counter to them and are in the foundation of the present America's geopolitical and economic conundrum, especially when these agendas are pushed by people who are either ill-equipped or altogether are utterly unqualified for offering their advice on any geopolitical and military matter, especially in modern warfare paradigm. This piece by two Cuban "academics" is an exhibit A of utterly illiterate people in modern geopolitics offering their sophomoric thoughts. Especially when not understanding military-technological capabilities of Russia to counter-threat the US even without the use of Cuba.

In related news, on 20 January the session of State Duma will start with the address by the Iranian President Ebrakhim Raisi (in Russian), who will be in Moscow on personal invitation of Vladimir Putin. After that, Raisi will meet leaders of Islamic Ummah of Russia which is predominantly... Sunni. Time for a pop-corn. I should continue with my videos probably tomorrow.

Trump--The Iran Conqueror.

Larry C Johnson, formerly of CIA analytical org fame, posted today a good review of how Trump is owned by war-mongers he surrounded himself with. Larry gives the spread on four possible scenarios for escalation, but that is not what catches the eye in his excellent piece. This is what we should consider strongly:

If you listen to the neo-con crowd that are certain we can bomb Iran into submission. That is a fantasy and is based on a lie. From what I am hearing from knowledgeable sources no one on the Joint Chiefs of Staff at DOD are advising caution. We are in an old fashioned dick measuring contest. Pride is supplanting reason. This is a dangerous time and the future of Trump's Presidency and possibly that of America hang in the balance in my view. 

I totally get it why JCS wouldn't caution Trump on the possible war with Iran. As was noted before, both Bolton and Pompeo treat Pentagon as own fiefdom and it is only natural to assume that any voices of dissent would and are being suppressed. Plus, let's be honest, look at the list of wars Pentagon flushed down the toilet and one may get the idea why US would want to strike Iran. It is more than just pride, albeit this is also a major factor, but it is general America's obsession with nations which refuse to bow to US pressure and foundation of that is not just pride but exceptionalism and, in Iran's particular case, Israeli and Saudi influences--both are terrified by Iran's emergence as regional superpower.

Larry also makes a good point, which I also make for a number of years now:

There is a dangerous delusion within the Trump National Security team. They believe we are so dominant that Iran will not dare fight us. I prefer to rely on the sage counsel of Colonel Patrick Lang--the Iranians are not afraid to fight us and, if backed into a corner, will do so. 

There is one mistake though in this statement--it is not just Trump National Security team. This American ailment of thinking itself as a preeminent military power in history (recall, Obama's "the finest fighting force in history") is rooted in WW II and a gross misconception about real driving forces behind demolition of Wehrmacht (a real finest fighting force) at the peak of its might. Patton's Syndrome, reinforced by Hollywood, is a very dangerous thing, it is also very American thing. That is what Atkinson wrote:

As Rick Atkinson admitted in 1995, he could see in Patton: "the creeping arrogance, the hubris, which would costs the American Army so dearly in Vietnam. Summing up the achievements of his troops in crushing the German counterattack of December 1944, Patton with pardonable pride claims to have "moved farther and faster and engaged more divisions in less time than any other army in the history of the United States--possibly in the history of the world... No country can stand against such an Army." 

When this kind of things are at play--it is not a pride but ignorance which drives the war. Ignorance and huge insecurity against the background of the "impressive" list of lost wars. And then, of course, the question--WHO in Pentagon? As Andrew Bacevich put it bluntly in his symptomatically titled piece The Decline of Our Nation’s Generals:

It is small wonder that so few observers pay serious attention to what senior military officers have to say. What they say is mostly drivel. 

So, Mr. MAGA, or, rather, MIGA is free to follow the advice of his "team". He may get, in the end, his own Vietnam, or something even worse than that, and this, as we all know, is not conducive for the second term, as LBJ, should he be alive today, would testify to. That is, of course, if the United States will continue to exist as it exists today after Iran's "adventure". Considering utter inability of US political and military class to learn simplest things in geopolitics and war, one then, will be forced to ask what really have Trump conquered once missiles start to fly.