Manila Briefings: Maritime Insecurity

 Today was our first day of briefings in Manila.  Our small team of two DND Public Affairs people, me, and a think tanker joined a group of Colonels/Navy Captains from the Canadian and other armed forces as well as civilians.  That group is from the Canadian Forces College as they run an extensive end-of-the-term trip.  The group hit Japan first and will be going to other places out here after they leave us.

We met with Canadian embassy folks as well as some Filipino officials.  Since the events were under Chatham House Rule, I can't attribute anything, but I will say the ambassador here is super sharp and not just because he has some Philly experience.

First, some basic stuff that is politically important:

• about 1 million Canadians are of Filipino descent, so there are significant ties.  Second largest source of foreign students for Canada
• federal/presidential system based on the American model but with single 6 year terms for the President.  That the entire upper layers of the govt come and go with Presidents is very American.
• Very much family dynastic politics.  President is Ferdinand Marcos Jr, VP is Sarah Duterte, daughter of previous president who was quote autocratic.  And these two dynasties do not like each other.  The next electionin 2028 will be .... interesting.
• seven times more water territory than land mass, 60% live on the coast, 36km of coastline, 25% of world's martime workforce
• most disaster prone country in the world--earthquakes, volcanoes, super typhoons. Oh my.  This has apparently led to some resiliency with whole of society responses when disaster strikes.
• population is about 3x Canada's 

Second, it is a great/sad example of the third order consequences of the Iran war.  The Philippines gets 90% or more of its energy from outside the country, so the oil crisis induced by Trump's war has made a big impact.  Not just making it more expensive to travel, making food hard to grow (fertilizer), etc, but their Navy and Coast Guard can't operate as much.  Which means China has far more latitude to mess around in the region. And Russia is now selling oil here.  So, well done, Donnie. Always the master strategist.  Oh and 2.5 million Filipinos are in harm's way in the Gulf.

Third, the Philippines has become the focal point of Canada's Indo-Pacific Strategy.  It has Canada's second largest embassy, mostly because it is the regional hub for various diplomatic admin stuff, but still.  It is now visited 4x a year or so by Canadian naval vessels (given how much stress the navy is under with their very old ships, this is a big deal).  

Fourth, much was made of like-mindedness.  Former colony, speaks English, democracy, trade, open society, both live near unreliable behemoth.  

Fifth, apparently Filipinos consume social media more than any other country, spending 8 hours a day, mostly via facebook--2+ fb accounts per person.  Lots of misinformation/disinformation from China and from the competing parties.

Sixth, Canada is quite visible and appreciated here.  One reason: Canada handed over a system that helps detect "dark vessels."  This is a system for monitoring illegal fishing, but, well, the Filipinos are using it for much better situational awareness of lots of folks in their waters.  A very big deal that was low cost but huge impact.   

Finally, the most significant thing I learned are about the third order consequences of the Iran war.  A second order consequence is increased oil prices for a very import dependent country.  Which then has the impact of limiting how much the Filipino armed forces can sail and fly, which means China has more room to play.  Not great.  Thanks, Trump.

Additional observations:

Any senior policy positions are occupied by retired senior military officers (I have no idea what effect this has, but as a civ-mil person, I couldn't help but notice).   It was explained that the military is most meritocratic part of society

The general military stance has shifted from fighting rebellions/terrorist groups (Abu Sayef) to territorial defense--China.  But one person said the South China Sea or the West Philippine Sea as they call it here is already lost.

 

More after another day of briefings! 

 

Mis/disinfo 

 

 

•  

  

The Massacre of Manila

I knew that Japan's occupation of the Philippines was brutal, but my education of World War II history tended to be focused on Europe and the Pacific sub campaign.  I got a clearer idea of what happened here in Manila 81 years ago when I was listening to the Unauthorized History of the Pacific War podcast episode on the Liberation of Manila.  So, I was keeping my eyes open for memorials of that horrific event and just happened to walk by one that, well, shook me quite a bit.

First the history: In February of 1945, the Americans and the Filipino allies (guerillas who had caused the Japanese many headaches) approached Manila.  The Japanese commander, Sanji Iwabuchi, did not do what MacArthur did in 1942, as the latter declared the city open as the Americans fled, to save it from harm.  No, the Japanese commander chose to destroy the city and those in it.  There is on excuse for what he did, but he chose to consider all Filipinos as helping the Americans, making all the civilians fair game.

To save on bullets and other ammunition, he ordered his troops to use fire and bayonets and other creative means to kill men, women, and children in the most barbaric violence possible.  This violence matched pretty much anything the Nazis did in cruelty even if it did not match the scale of the Holocaust. 

The memorial has multiple signs:

The text of the main description: The Central figure is a woman, quite large, dominant in size and proportion.  She is the motherland. She weeps as she holds an infant, the symbol of hope, but the infant is dead. It presents lost hope. The female figure on the right side is a victim of rape.  There is an infant clinging to her. On the left side is a man, still alive, looking confused and disoriented, despair on his face. The young boys are dead represnting the youth the country has lost.  The dead man lying portrays the elderly who were caught in the battle.  

 

 

 This second sign lists the sites of major atrocities.   

 

 

 

 

Nearby was a set of placards put up last year on the 80th anniversary, explaining what had happened.

The commander killed himself towards the end of the battle.  Two other Japanese commanders were tried for war crimes and executed.  After I went through this area, I hit a mall that had a bunch of Japanese restaurants, and, well, I wasn't quite sure how to feel about it.  I do remember that when I went to Tokyo on a junket of four Canadian academics organized and paid by the Embassy of Japan, one of the requests they made was to push Canada to mentor the new democracies of Southeast Asia.  Why?  Because the Japanese understood they could not due to history like this.  And, no, I didn't see this history of Manila discussed in any of the history museums I have visited in Japan.  

Today's Japanese are not responsible for the horrific crimes of their ancestors, but I wish they did a better job of teaching the past to the next generation--in this, the Germans are great role models.  

I had hoped to get to Corrigedor on this trip, but, well, post-divorce Steve has less extra cash for an expensive addition to this trip.  Grant money can't fund that.  I will be asking questions about relations between Japan and the Philippines in the next few days, and will report back about what I learn.


 

Manila, Day 1: Heat is Exhausting Edition

National park

 I am in Manila, capital of the Philippines, as the Canadian Department of National Defence is running a junket of experts or influencers or whatever I am to learn about the new headquarters they are standing up for a three star officer and to get a better understanding of the Indo-Pacific.

 

 

To be clear, the flight, hotel, and much of the food is on me and the other participant.  This has been the policy for quite some time, so I covered my expenses for similar trips to Latvia and Portugal.  For the trip long ago in 2007 to Afghanistan, that was on DND's dime.  They had a far greater incentive to share info (or conduct info ops) back then, resulting in multiple trips with larger groups.  I say this upfront as I have been clear to DND that their current policy selects against younger (and therefore more diverse) scholars as they tend to have less flexibility and resources in their grant funding.  This almost certainly had an impact on the attendance--two people.   I know I am lucky that I can do this kind of thing.  The other participant is from a Canadian think tank with mysterious funding.

UNESCO protected 
Cathedral

This policy may be changing given the flow of resources into DND, but I am skeptical.  I think fear of being accused by some folks in the media that the military is wasting money, running party trips, may deter a policy change.  Too bad as these trips are very, very helpful for getting very quick, extensive, expansive views of key Canadian missions.  My two books on Afghanistan (one with Dave)benefited greatly from having a brief (just one week) bit of ground experience, getting a sense of the geography, asking questions both in the formal briefings and in other encounters.  The Portugal and especially Latvia trips were similarly helpful in providing an opportunity to drink from the firehose--to learn a lot in very little time.  

Year of the Horse in 
Chinatown

We will be meeting with Canadian embassy folks, senior Filipino officials in the government and in their military, think tank folks, and more.  We will also be doing a bit of tourism together on Saturday--the American Manila Cemetery, the walled city, and a big mall.  We have Sunday free.  Monday, we meet with Filipino military education people and do some naval stuff in the afternoon: their coast guard, a Canadian ship that is here, and more.  I am frequently asked to comment on Canada's Indo-Pacific efforts, so I will be better informed to do so (while being aware that I am, yes, a tool for DND's info ops).

 

 

I have no idea what pissed
these spuds off.

I got here two days early so that I could adjust to the time zone (12 hours difference) and the heat (oh my, the difference).  Yesterday, it was in the high 90s and quite humid.  It didn't feel that bad, but it ultimately kicked my butt in a big way.  I took the local equivalent of an uber out to Chinatown, found a good restaurant, and then walked to a market.  I then walked from there to the big national park with the intent to go to the National Museum.  Along the way, I found two big cathedrals and a memorial to the massacre of Manila in February-March of 1945 (see my next post).  I also stopped by a garden.  I was then so tired I decided to skip the museum for the day and hit a nicely air conditioned mall.  It was full of fun signs.  

Manila is definitely not a walking city--the sidewalks go from wide to thin to non-existent--the distances are quite large between various places, and the traffic is a bit intense.  My adventure today will focus on two spots that are close to each other--the aforementioned museum and the bay.  Much less ambition, hopefully less heat exhaustion.  I had a great conversation with one driver, and, yes, when each driver asks, I say I am Canadian ;)  Which I am, but I am playing down my American id, as so far, Trump is not so popular here. 

So far, the biggest surprise has been how each bank has a guard in front with a very serious pistol-gripped shotgun.  Just as I know I am getting close to an American embassy anywhere in the world, I know I am near a bank when I see one of those guys (haven't seen a woman holding down that job yet).  The other gendered thing is that I have seen plenty of men sitting on the sidewalk watching their phones but no women. 

The big Cathedral has been rebuilt seven times--destroyed by earthquakes six times and by American bombers in World War II.  More on the WWII destruction in my next post after breakfast.  And more on what I learn from the briefings and meetings over the next few days.

 

Seven Years of CDSN-Ing? Not Over Yet

 Yesterday, April fools day, the Canadian Defence and Security Network helped the Embassy of Türkiye hold an event about the future of NATO.  Türkiye is the host of the next NATO summit (if it happens, see my next post), and they wanted to have an event in Ottawa to help set up the forthcoming event.

This event happened precisely day after our seven year SSHRC Partnership Grant officially ended.  Seven years ago, the PG grant funded the creation and operation of the CDSN.  It is a seven year grant, so I wanted to mark the official end of it.  To be clear, this is not the end of the CDSN.  We have DND funding via a MINDS Collaborative Grant to continue operating until at least January 2027 and perhaps another 18 months beyond that.  Moreover, we are waiting for the news about CDSN 2.0: the Civil-Military Relations Network.  We couldn't simply ask to be renewed--the SSHRC requires any 2.0 of a PG to be different--bigger/narrower, more ambitious/more focused. The CMRN will include more partners from around the world (bigger/more ambitious) and focus on civilian control of the armed forces at a moment were politicization of the armed forces is a significant danger to many democracies (narrower/more focused).  The odds of getting this second PG grant are quite good given the reviews of the earlier stages we have received, given the moment we are in, and given that the SSHRC is apparently funding more of these projects.  

Back to the event, we got asked by the embassy to help organize this event as we did something similar last year for the Embassy of the Netherlands in advance of the NATO summit in The Hague.  The CDSN has done a great many things over the past seven years (see below) with helping embassies in Ottawa connect with Canadians one of the frequent but unanticipated efforts.  Our grant application didn't have anything proposed in this vein, but by creating a comprehensive, national network linking academic institutions with military and government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and firms and having great staff, we have developed a reputation for reliably facilitating these kinds of events.  The grant funds, among other things, two amazing staffers, Melissa Jennings and Sherry LaPlante, and a rotating team of graduate student assistants, so we have much capacity to do things that were beyond the scope of the original grant.  

What have we been doing over the past seven years?  Well, we will put out the full and official final report this summer, but I can listicle:

• Five Summer Institutes that have helped to bridge the divides between the worlds of the academy, military, and government (it would have been six if not for the pandemic).
• Seven Podcast programs. We had planned on one and then in partnership with the Network for Strategic Analysis we started a podcast in French and then it exploded from there to creating our own podcast network
• Seven Capstones where we brought together the best speakers from our partners' events to network with each other and to help our partners extend their events beyond the time and place of the original conference or panel or whatever.
• Six Post-Docs: Linna Tam-Seto, Johanna Masse, Thomas Hughes, Ryan Atkinson, Manu Ramkumar, and Sanjida Amin.  They all brought much energy and intelligence and creativity to our events and activities.  Linna and Thomas are now co-hosts of our BattleRhythm podcast, and Manu is destined for podcast greatness if we get the next grant
• Annual Year Ahead Conferences helping those in the capital anticipate the events and dynamics in the near future.
• Several Book Workshops helping emerging scholars get feedback and publish their work.  
• About a dozen Undergraduate Excellence Scholars, which was an effort to encourage undergraduates from historically excluded communities to get more involved in defence and security. 
• A heap of surveys as we did both traditional surveys about Canadian attitudes about defence and security and survey experiments to assess, for instance, what forms of discrimination most greatly impact attitudes about the CAF. 
• Four research teams producing several books, heaps of articles, many papers on military personnel, security, operations, and civil-military relations. 
• and a whole lot more, including two MINDS Network Grants that expanded the areas of our research to include global health, supply chains, domestic operations, and climate security.

For the initial grant, we had to establish our objectives:

• Creating a coherent, world-class network. ✅
• Advancing the body of knowledge✅
• Tailoring research initiatives, directly informing policymaking✅
• Facilitating cross-sector information and data sharing✅
• Improving the defence and security literacy of Canadians✅
• Building the next generation of experts with an emphasis on equity, diversity, and inclusion.

As the✅'s indicate, I think we have achieved our objectives.  As Melissa put it in our first webpage, we sought to Research, Connect, and Amplify, and we did that in a big way.  We maintained our independence as we didn't receive any defence contractor money, and we consisitently spoke truth to power.  The best example of that might have been my op-ed calling for the firing of the Minister of National Defence in 2021 at the same time we had a grant application under review at the Department of National Defence.

 I am very grateful to the entire CDSN team and network.  I learned a lot, mentored a lot of students and emerging scholars, made a lot of new friends, got to travel a bunch, and I am pretty sure that the CDSN will be the most important thing I will have done in my career.  Some folks asked me about the Partnership Grant process, and when I told them about it and that I was working with the team to do it again, they noted that I must like this stuff.  Indeed, I do.  It has been a lot of work, but it has been incredibly meaningful. 

So, I hope to hear good news soon so that we can do this again for another seven years. 

 

ISA In Ohio? Yowza!

 I missed the last two meetings of the International Studies Association as I was in Berlin for a couple of winters.  So, I was eager to get back to the ISA and see lots of folks.  Alas, it was only partly successful as a combination of events/dynamics limited the attendees:

• those outside of the US avoiding Trump's border police
• those still trying to get here denied by flight challenges in Toronto and elsewhere
• Pete Hegseth's hostility to any kind of book learnin', limiting those who could come from the various professional military education institutions--the War Colleges and their ilk

Still, I got to see some dear friends and enjoy their company and surprisingly great food.  The convention center has a number of great spots near by, including great ice cream and bagels and ... booze.  

I was thrilled, as I always am, to see my written work in the wild: 
 

 

 

 

I participated on two roundtables.  The first was to recognize and honor Debbi Avant for her work in both international security and interdisciplinary stuff.   I was asked, I guess, to be on the roundtable since I went to grad school with her and then much later starting doing work that was inspired by hers.  I first talked about her impact on a young PhD program and a young PhD student.  She was one of the original PhD students at UCSD and through her efforts and her being a role model, helped to build a truly collaborative, fun, and very helpful environment.  For many grad school is pure misery.  For me and I think most of my peers at UCSD, we had a different experience--we had fun on the soccer fields, softball fields, beaches, and at Debbi's parties.  Oh, and in the classrooms as we didn't compete with each other, but instead gave each other much help.  

It was great to see Hendrik again and 
especially hear him talk about his former
his former office mate 

In her work, Debbi really did break a lot of ground and gave us a path to follow.  She applied principal-agent theory to civil-military relations before anyone else, she engaged in comparative analysis to see how democratic institutions shaped civil-military dynamics, and contradicted conventional wisdoms about warriors being out of control.  My work on civil-military relations for the past nearly 20 years followed from hers in many ways, and so my debts to her are many.  I made sure to give her thanks and recognize her contributions.  The other contributors at the roundtable testified to her great spirit and intellect.  My only regret is that I didn't bring down cookies I had made for the poker game down from my room, as she used her baking to bring people together long before I combined baking and international relations.  I look forward to her forthcoming cookbook.

My other roundtable was on public engagement.  I thought we had settled this--that most of us should be doing public engagement.  The panel was, of course, as much as on how as on should.  I did raise a few things: that in today's corrupted info environment, we have more of an obligation to spread knowledge; that our VORPs are mostly positive, and that our grants require know
ledge mobilization strategies.  I talked about the good (it can be fun, it can give you access, it can help citations), the bad ( you can be wrong in public, backlashes are common), and the ugly (where to publish stuff when all the bars seem to have Nazis).  The panelists--Elizabeth Meehan, Dani Gilbert, Dan Drezner, Naaz Barma, and Kathy Perry--all had sharp contributions, and the Q&A went well.

I also attended the panel celebrating the life and mourning the loss of Brandon Valeriano.  Folks told funny stories, reported on his many important contributions, and how tragic it was to lose him just as he was getting his dream job.  We took some photos so that his family could see how much love there was for their big guy.

 Our civ-mil hangout was a success.  We had about a dozen people hanging out in a bar.  We connected emerging scholars with, ahem, senior ones.

 

 

 

 

 

An old tradition returned: ISA poker!  We had a good time although folks had a nasty tendency to call my bluffs but not call me when I had great cards.  It was not the same as we missed Brandon, and some of our other regulars couldn't make it.  We talked much of recruiting a new generation. It turns out that the biggest deterrent to new players may have been .... me.  I guess I was always worried about the game getting too big.  This time, we finagled a "parlor room" that was perfect for the game.  Something we will try in the future.

 

 

I had visited Columbus a few times when I was at Oberlin long ago, but only to play ultimate.  So, I enjoyed wandering the neighborhood near the convention center, taking pics of murals while looking for great ice cream, bagels, and other food.  

I am glad I made it back to this conference.  I know that I have only a handful of these left, so I am treasuring each one and expressing my thanks along the way.  My friends are starting to retire, and that is not far away for me.  So, to all I chatted with this week, thanks for making this place special and making me welcome in this strange discipline of ours.
 

Yoda Was Right

 I don't remember all of my dreams, but last night, I had one that stuck with me.  I was at some kind of event where the media* were egging on a crowd, using fear to get the
m more and more angry.  I popped out of a car, ran over, and started to try to jolly the crowd out of their fearful and angry mood.  Both within the dream and after I woke up, I thought about fear and anger, the moment, we are in and two bits of pop culture.

The first bit was, of course, Yoda instructing Luke that fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.  The second bit was in Ghostbusters (the second one, I think) where a toxic slime was getting increasingly powerful and nasty from the hate pulsing through NY, and they used humor and laughter to fight it.

The moment we are in is full of anger and is outraging.  Trump and the "populists" around the world have used fear, anger, and resentment to direct hate at the vulnerable (not just trans people, but they are the poster people for this dynamic these days) to get into power and deflect blame for their failures.  So much of what Trump and his people have done has been cruel and has inflicted much suffering in the US and around the world with Iranian kids being the latest to pay the price.  

Watching all of this unnecessary pain and suffering--the kids sent to American concentration camps or killed by American and Israeli bombs--causes a backlash of hate and anger. But I don't think anger is going to get us out of this.

One of the best ways to fight the bullying, the posturing, the Pete Hegsething is to mock them, make fun of them, to use satire, parody, and any other comic device to make clear that these poseurs are beneath contempt.  Laughter may not always be the best medicine, but when punching up, it causes less collateral damage and mostly does not empower the worst people.  

My experience at the fall's No Kings protest was one of joy and community and laughter, as people had funny signs, mocking the autocrats and the haters.  Yes, we need to be serious about the stakes here, and those planning protests must be deliberate and careful as any violence will be used as an excuse to escalate.  But, as those on the side of light always argue, let's not give into the hate.  Sure, Stephen Miller is contemptible and should be punished and ostracized, but let's not become him.  

Of course, if I am wrong, Yoda also said: best teacher failure is. 

 

* I don't blame the legit media although the dynamic of where it bleeds, it leads does create more fear--that there is actually less crime than people think and less crime than there used to be.  

Demanding Answers, Avoiding Responsibilty: the Canadian Parliamentarians Always Disappoint

 Canada has a base in Kuwait, a legacy of the counter-ISIS mission and part of a program having spots around the world facilitating potential operations.  It got hit by Iranian missiles, and opposition parliamentarians are outraged that they were not told.  Fun grandstanding, sure.  But what's going on here?

Yes, the government may have chosen to hide the attack because they didn't want criticism of their crappy stance on Iran and that the US risked its allies without notifying/consulting them.  But perhaps there may have been a reason to keep stuff classified--that telling the public about the attack also tells Iran how accurate their targeting was and maybe to try again.

In a mature democracy (or even one that is in rapid decline), there is a way out of this conundrum: that some members of the legislature, let's say the defence committee or the opposition leaders, have security clearances so that they can be informed when secret stuff happens.  No, they can't then release that info to the public, but they can talk about the generalities so that the public can be informed of the basic idea. 

See how Senator Chris Murphy does it:

I was in a 2 hour briefing today on the Iran War. All the briefings are closed, because Trump can't defend this war in public. I obviously can't disclose classified info, but you deserve to know how incoherent and incomplete these war plans are. 1/ Here's what I can share:

— Chris Murphy (@chrismurphyct.bsky.social) March 10, 2026 at 10:03 PM

And even if the stuff is so secret that the legislators can't talk about it, their ability to know can be a key constraint on government.  Dave, Phil, and I wrote a fairly recent book about exactly this stuff.  I initiated the project because I was stunned by the deliberate ignorance of Canadian members of parliament--that they would prefer to know less and talk more than know more and have to be responsible.  Canadian MPs will say that this is way it is done in Westminster governments, and now Dave, Phil, and I have the receipts to say: bushwah.  Nope, the Aussies and Brits have managed to find ways to actually engage in oversight (that is, they know what the military has done, not that they have a say in what they do, for those who interpret the word oversight differently).  

But for MPs, it is more fun to blast the government for covering things up than actually knowing stuff.  A long running story in Canadian politics has been that the opposition leader, Pierre Poilievre, has refused to be cleared.  My bluesky followers suspect that PP has skeletons that a clearance process would reveal, but the answer is more obvious and direct: he does not want the responsibility of knowing stuff.  He'd rather be ignorant and wrong than have to be careful about his criticism of government.  As Murphy shows above and plenty of opposition legislators around the world know quite well, you can be informed and still provide trenchant, on-target, critical criticisms of the government the day and yet not violate secrecy of the info one has received.

So, I have no sympathy for whiny Conservatives on this.  I also think that the Liberals, like all Canadian parties in power, treat the public like kids and not adults.  When pushed on this, Carney said: “I’m not the only spokesperson for the government, but I’ll just confirm that members of the Canadian Forces are all safe and sound,” said Carney.

 Sorry, sir, but, yes, that actually is a key part of the job.  The best way to fight disinformation is to be as transparent as possible.  The best way to de-fang opposition criticisms is to be ahead of the story and tell the public as much as you can.  Don't act like your job does not include informing the public.  You are not a central banker anymore.

I post this because the Canadian public (and others, most democracies have largely ignorant legislatures) should know that the opposition MPs are playing a game, a dumb game that helps to reduce trust in government (abetting the far right populists), as they could know but choose not to.   

 

A Tale of Two Lousy Allies: the US and Israel in a War of Their Own Making

 Alliances are hard all the time.  But if the allies share common values and have shared interests, they can find ways to work together.  Watching the US-Israel war with Iran proceed, I can't help but think that those of us who have criticized NATO might have been a bit unfair.  Getting consensus among 30+ like-minded countries is hard, very hard, and the alliance has to have an opt-out for any mission (in Article V, the language is "each contributes as each deems necessary).  But when you have two increasingly autocratic countries both led by criminals (ok, to be fair, Netanyahu hasn't been convicted yet, right?) who are bad faith actors who don't believe in anything but staying in power, things get a bit trickier.

While we are not privy to the actual conversations between Trump's team and Netanyahu, we have had clues in the media---that Netanyahu pushed for this war now, and Trump went along with it.  This would not be the first time a country dragged another ally into a war, as that is one of two horns of the alliance dilemma with the other possibility being a country abandons its ally.  And drag may be a strong word since Trump probably did not have to be pushed hard given his previous attacks against Iran and Iranian interests (killing Solimani, last summer's bombing) and, of course, Trump hasn't thought through the consequences such as oil price spikes and much inflation back home. 

This gets to the larger question: if allies don't agree on the goal, how does an alliance work?  What does Israel want in this war?  It seems to be the destruction of Iran as a state, which means hitting any and all targets that might help fracture the state and destroy its capacity.  For the US?  Damned if I know since the various officials--Trump, Rubio, Hegseth--have all said multiple things.  If it was regime change, the US would want Iran to have infrastructure intact (water desalination, oil refineries) so that the new regime can manage.  If it is ending the missile threat, that too would suggest more limited attacks.  If it is to complete the Christian nationalist dream of ushering in the end of times, well, oh my, I guess that means killing anyone and everyone.

There were some reports that the US was displeased with Israel hitting oil refineries, which raises a big question: how much cooperation is there over targeting?  During the Kosovo campaign, NATO allies coordinated quite a bit over what to hit when?  Libya?  Same thing.  ISIS?  I think so.  Now, hard to tell.  That the Trump regime didn't prepare for or plan for Iran threatening the Strait of Hormuz tells us a lot about American preparation or lack thereof. 

Israel?  Perhaps the epitome of tactically sound, strategically incompetent.  The Israeli military is really good at hitting its targets, but how that relates to security I have no idea.  From my trip back in 2019, I go the impression that hitting hard is not just the key tactic but pretty much the only goal.  Restraint does not make sense for them since they have already priced in world opposition: everyone hates them, everyone is anti-semitic, so they might as well do what they want.  And that has worked really well for them--they have had long periods of peace and stability.*   Oh wait, it hasn't, but the learning curve seems to tilt towards simply escalating whenever they are hit.  It creates deterrence that lasts ... hours or days.  

So, the US has been a lousy but useful ally for Israel as Trump is unreliable and fickle.  Israel is a lousy ally for the US, helping get an all-too-willing US into a war that provides no real benefits to the American people (Americans hate Iran thanks to the hostage crisis, when folks used to sing bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, yet they still hate this war--great achievement by Team Trump).  The US is an even worse ally for, well, all of its allies.  It made all of the Mideast targets for Iranian attacks--why should Iran restrain itself when its very existence is at stake?  The US radically increased oil prices for its friends, which only helps Russia and other oil exporting places (Alberta?), and it has made the coalition/domestic political games of its European allies far more difficult.  

All of this was foreseeable, which is why American presidents have refrained from attacking Iran, even, yes, the ideological and dim Bushies.  But the Trump regime hates being told it can't do something, like a toddler, and is deliberately ignorant.  Which led to being very poorly prepared for the likely Iranian responses that came to fruition. 

 

* I keep putting off writing a post that puts a significant hunk of blame on the increase in anti-semitism around the world on Israel because, yes, yowza.  The Israeli stance of pricing in hate is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Yes, there is anti-semitism in the world, just like there is Islamophobia, and the actions of states that are seen as the homelands of such religions matter in exacerbating or ameliorating those pre-existing tendencies.  Israel will tell Jews to come home to Israel if they want to be safe, which is, alas, mighty rich given that Israel's actions have increased the danger to Jews outside of Israel and.... yes, to Jews inside of Israel.  We can identify anti-semites and hold them responsible for their own actions (say, most of the Trump regime) and still hold Israel responsible for pouring gasoline on these pre-existing fires.