US Navy helicopters destroy three Yemeni Houthi rebel boats that were threatening shipping.

 

USS Gravely. ABC News/CENTCOM.

US Navy helicopters have destroyed three Yemeni Houthi rebel boats that were threatening a merchant vessel. ABC News. A container ship, the Hangzhou, sent a distress signal after coming under attack by four Houthi boats. The boats had gunmen that were shooting at the vessel with small arms fire and were attempting to board the ship. Two helicopters, at least one from the USS Gravely and at least one for the carrier USS Eisenhower, arrived at the scene and attempted to discourage the gunmen. After coming under fire from the pirates the helicopters engaged and destroyed three of the four boats. The Houthi government said that ten fighters were killed in the incident. The Hangzhou had come under attack yesterday as well, being hit by an unknown object. 

My Comment:

This was yet another major attack against shipping in the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden area. The Houthis are really stepping up their attacks and it's only a matter of time that they succeed in sinking a ship. However, that day is not today as this attack failed pretty badly with no ship captured and three of the four Houthi boats destroyed. 

Indeed, the Houthis probably would have failed even if the US Navy hadn't arrived. Apparently the Hangzhou had a security team that was engaged with these pirates before the helicopters arrived. Depending on how well equipped and professional these guys were they could have fought back these raiders. 

The Houthis also made a pretty big mistake in attacking these helicopters, probably Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawks. Given that the attackers apparently only had small arms and nothing that could really threaten the helicopters, the right move would have been to withdraw. I don't know how heavily armed Seahawks are, but it was obviously better than what the guys in the boats had. Supposedly Seahawks have multiple machine guns that could have chewed up these boats pretty easily. Perhaps that's why the last boat survived, maybe they were smart enough to withdraw when the helicopters showed up?

I am not sure if this tactic was a good one for the Houthis. Boat attacks are going to be extremely vulnerable to helicopter attacks and unless those boats have either heavy weapons of their own or have weapons that can attack these ships directly, they are not going to accomplish much. The Houthis should probably just stick their drone and missile attacks. The fact that they even tried this makes me wonder if they are running out of those weapons. 

Speaking of running out of weapons, it sounds as if the USS Eisenhower and their task group is pulling out of the region. This is not surprising, the task force has been in the region for awhile now and probably needs to rest, rearm and recuperate. Given how intense the operations and threats have been in the region this is not a surprise. 

There are also rumors flying around on social media that the United States and allies are going to launch airstrikes against targets in Yemen. I haven't seen any traditional media reporting this so I think it's probably just a rumor. Indeed, I have said for awhile that striking the Houthis probably wouldn't accomplish much. It's pretty hard to take out a guy launching a drone swarm and even if you did, they are pretty expendable. 

However, this boat attack might be provide a better target. They had to have launched from a port and blowing it up might prevent further attacks in the future. However I am not sure how much of an impacts it would actually make. Without more knowledge of what these boats were it might not be something we could strike easily. I am guessing what we will see is more of the status quo unless something very severe happens, like a ship being destroyed... 

Ukraine shells Russian city of Belgorod, killing civilians.

 

Rescue workers in Belgorod evacuate the wounded. Russian government photo/AP.

Ukraine has shelled and bombed the Russian city of Belgorod, killing civilians. AP. At least 14 people, including 2 children, were killed in the attack and more than 100 were wounded, according to Russian government sources. Though Belgorod has come under attack before, most attacks were at night and did not kill many people. This time Ukraine used Czech supplied rockets and cluster munitions. The attack appears to be in response to widespread Russian attacks on Ukrainian targets yesterday in one of the largest strikes of the war. Ukraine has not acknowledged the attack on Russia. 

My Comment:

This is not the first time that Belgorod has come under attack. It is, unfortunately for them, one of the few places in Russia that can come under easy attack by Ukrainian forces. However, this attack was a lot more deadly than others because it happened during the day when people were out and about. 

This attack seems designed to attack civilians directly, which is, of course, a war crime. There did not appear to be any military targets in the city streets that were hit by these rockets and cluster munitions. Given that they are unguided rockets it's very possible they just missed whatever their target was, but I am not sure if we should give the Ukrainians the benefit of the doubt. After all, they have been shelling civilian areas in the former breakaway, now Russian, oblasts for years now. 

Of course, Russia launched their own major airstrikes which also killed civilians yesterday. The difference appears to be that they were at least hitting military targets and killed civilians by accident or incidentally. This attack appears more to be a terror attack specifically targeting civilians, unless, like I mentioned above, they missed their targets. Not that Russia is innocent from atrocities in this war, it just doesn't seem like their airstrikes yesterday are in that category. 

This incident is another reason why giving Ukraine cluster munitions was a mistake. I said at the time that I was worried that Ukraine would use them against civilians and that appears to be the case. I understand why it was done, cluster munitions were about the only weapons left for Ukraine, but the decision was a bad one. 

Searching on X shows that most pro-Ukraine accounts had two reactions to this attack. The more bloodthirsty ones are celebrating it, which isn't that surprising given how much they hate Russia and Russians. What is surprising is all the people claiming this is a false flag and that Russia attacked their own people. 

That, of course, makes zero sense. Most Russians were already onboard with the war against Ukraine and Russia has zero need to kill their own people to get them onboard. And one strike on civilians is unlikely to change anyone's mind during a war that has already had atrocities on both sides. Ukraine has the motive, means and opportunity to carry out this attack, so it just seems like desperation to me to claim it's a false flag. 

Some are claiming that this was Russian air defenses malfunctioning and hitting their own people. I find that to be slightly more plausible, but still extremely unlikely. The videos I have seen have shown multiple explosions with a delay between them, which does not seem like something that would happen with air defenses going astray. 

Either way, it's just another ugly incident in a war that has gone on for far too long. The Ukrainians would be wise to not waste weapons targeting civilians and should instead try to negotiate with the Russians for a settlement. Indeed, this attack likely hurt the cause as Russia will be slightly less likely to accept a peace deal after this incident... 

Nikki Haley flubs question on the Civil War.

 

Nikki Haley. The Hill/AP.

Nikki Haley flubbed a question about the Civil War during a town hall event. The Hill. Haley blamed the question on a "Democrat plant". When asked about the cause of the American Civil War, Haley failed to mention slavery. Haley said “Well, don’t come with an easy question, right? I mean, I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run, the freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do,”. The voter said it was astonishing that she didn't mention slavery, and Haley responded with "what do you want me to say about slavery?". Both Republicans and Democrats attacked Haley for the comment and many noted that it was an easy question regardless if it was a "trap" question. 

 

Hours after declining to do so, Nikki Haley said today that she believed slavery did, indeed, cause the Civil War. She suggested the person who asked her the question last night was a “Democratic plant." https://t.co/7ld6Bc9R4F

Watch the original exchange👇 pic.twitter.com/KbiPVDN8tt

— POLITICO (@politico) December 28, 2023

My Comment:

I've got mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, I dislike Haley and think she obviously flubbed the question. It should absolutely hurt her chances in 2024, as slim as they already are. On the other, blaming the Civil War on only slavery is wrong too. 

Though the origins of the Civil War are indeed related to slavery, but that's hardly the full story. The war was really more about the urban northern states imposing their will on the rural southern states and an effort to utterly destroy the economy of the South. Indeed, if the issue had been anything other than slavery, nobody would think that the North were the good guys. Luckily for them, it was indeed about slavery. The South was mad that an abolitionist was elected and they rebelled.

Even in that context, Haley's answer was pretty terrible. Indeed, she had the "deer in the headlights" look on her face like she was totally unprepared for the question. Though you could argue that the role of government and freedom did have a role in the government, it's not a good answer. 

What is more disturbing for anyone who wants Haley to win is that this was an obviously easy question. Even if this was a plant from the Democrats (though it could easily have been from either party) she should have had an answer prepared. This was a layup for her and she absolutely failed at it. 

This shows that Haley isn't really prepared for the big stage. The whole point of town halls like this is to get questions the media doesn't always ask so you have to be prepared for questions like this. Could the guy have been a plant? Sure. Does it matter? Absolutely not. All she had to do was answer the question and she did not. 

What is hilarious to me is that Nikki Haley is the establishments best chance at beating Trump and she flubbed one could be the most establishment question she could ever get. The establishment will broker no explanation of the Civil War except slavery and that's why everyone is turning on her now. 

Will she recover from this? I am not sure. Haley angered the anti-Trump right and that's about the only group of people that like Haley in the first place. On the other hand, what other candidate are they going to coalesce around? Ron DeSantis has pretty much destroyed his political career and Chris Christie has the charisma of a toad. My guess is that she will stay in the race.  

The good news is that this probably means that Nikki Haley is not going to be Donald Trump's VP candidate now. That was probably a longshot in the first place, as Haley is pretty much the opposite of Trump regardless. But after this flub, I think Trump is sure to pick someone that isn't her. 

Pro-Hamas protesters block roads at JFK and LAX airports on one of the busiest travel days of the year.

 

Pro-Hamas protesters arrested at LAX. AP/KABC-TV.

Pro-Hamas protesters blocked roads at JFK and LAX airports in New York and Los Angeles on one of the busiest travel days of the year. AP. 62 people were arrested in both incidents. Travelers were forced to walk into the airports or take shuttles to make their flights. In LA, police accused the protesters of attacking both the police and the trapped motorists. The protests were quickly broken up by police. LAX alone had expected 215,000 travelers to travel to and from the airport. 

Port Authority Police arrest pro-Palestinian criminals blocking the street to JFK airport. pic.twitter.com/Zycsz22vAn

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) December 27, 2023

My Comment:

I consider these kinds of "protests" to be an act of violence. These people trapped a bunch of people in their cars and were preventing the movement of people. Under Wisconsin law I believe they would be guilty of false imprisonment, as the people trapped in their cars had to either risk walking in vehicle traffic or getting attacked by the protesters. If the statement of travelers being attacked at LAX are true, than that was not an unreasonable fear. Of course many of these pro-Hamas protests have been violent, with at least one person being killed. 

Thankfully, for once, the police broke up these protests fairly quickly. Many times the police end up protecting people blocking roads but in this case they actually enforced the law. Unfortunately, I don't see these people getting the long jail and prison sentences they deserve. Even when the police do their jobs the prosecutors will not. 

I think that blocking roads is, by far, completely counterproductive. It's going to push people that are pro-Israel to be more so and will push fence sitters in their favor. And even people that are supportive of Hamas will be annoyed enough that they might stop caring. Doing it on one of the busiest travel days in the year? I guarantee that anyone that was delayed by this now hate these people with the fire of a thousand suns. 

Indeed, I am amazed that these people aren't getting hurt or killed, either accidently or deliberately. Blocking a road seems extremely dangerous, especially in the first few seconds. And it also seems designed to annoy people as much as possible, to the point where violence is inevitable. Indeed, they would have a good argument for self defense, especially if the reports of the protesters attacking people at LAX are true. 

I also find their political argument to be nonsensical. There might be things to criticize about Israel's conduct in their war against Gaza, with this incident being the most notable, they are still not the bad guys no matter what they do to Hamas. Wanting Israel to not exist and supporting the actions of Hamas is simply beyond the pale. Blocking the road would do nothing to change my mind, but it would change my opinion of being mildly annoyed and baffled by the existence of these people, to wanting them to spend the rest of their lives in an 8 by 10 cell. 

I am not a big person for celebrating New Year's Eve but if I was, I'd be skipping it this year if I lived in a big city. Indeed, I am, at the very least, expecting major riots to break out in New York at the very least, possibly in other places as well. And there is a very real chance of a major terror attack in the name of Gaza happening on New Year's as well...

Iraq condemns US strikes on militants after an attack on US troops.

 

The damage left over from the strike. Reuters. 

Iraq has condemned an US airstrike on militants after an attack on US troops wounded three soldiers. Reuters. The Iran backed group Kataib Hezbollah said one of their soldiers was killed while 16 more were wounded in the strike near the city of Hila. The strike was in retaliation for a drone strike that had wounded three soldiers. Iraq also criticized Hezbollah for the attack but also criticized the United States. Kataib Hezbollah is under control of Iran's Quds force and was critical in getting Iraq's Prime Minster Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani and has had difficulty walking the line between their demands and the demands of the United States. America has 2500 troops in Iraq and 900 in Syria, deployed to fight ISIS. 

My Comment:

Airstrikes targeting Iranian backed militias are nothing new, we have been doing that since the war in Iraq began. And it's also not new that those militias are attacking US troops. Indeed, there were parts of the Iraq War where the Shia Muslims were a bigger problem than the Sunni Muslim groups. 

What is new is Iraq condemning these attacks. The United States usually has a free hand in Iraq but the Prime Minster is in a tough place. He needed the support of Iran and these militias to be elected in the first place and if he angers them he probably won't get a 2nd term. He could even risk another civil war. He condemned both sides which is about all he could do. 

It does seem that attacks from Iran against US forces and interests are increasing. The attack on US troops is one of dozens that have happened in Iraq and Syria. It's one of the few that actually resulted in US casualties but it was going to happen eventually. 

Iran is probably responsible for this attack. Kataib Hezbollah, like core Hezbollah, is an Iranian proxy and I'm assuming they were the ones that launched the attack. If they weren't then the Biden administration screwed up badly, but I think it's likely they were the ones to launch the drone. I am assuming it was one of Iran's numerous disposable suicide drones 

I do think that there will be further attacks on US troops in Iraq and Syria and I don't think this attack against Kataib Hezbollah will do much to stop them. Indeed, it might encourage more since they have revenge as a motivation. I also think it's a matter of time before one of our soldiers gets killed... 

I do have to wonder why we have troops in Iraq and Syria. ISIS is the supposed reason but ISIS hasn't been a threat for a few years now. All these troops seem to be accomplishing is drawing fire from these Iranian militias. I know Matt Gaetz released a bill demanding we pull troops out but that is probably dead on arrival. 

What I do know is that we are both deeply involved in the Israel-Gaza conflict and it has essentially devolved into a low scale war against Iran. And it's a war that we don't seem likely to win. A single airstrike against one of these militias isn't going to change much. It's not going to stop these attacks just like airstrikes on Yemen wouldn't stop the Houthi rebels either. Hopefully the war doesn't accelerate more than it already has... 

Israel kills a senior Iranian general in Syria...

 

File photo of General Sayyed Razi Mousavi and the former Quds force commander Qasem Soleimani. Fox News/Reuters.

Israel has killed a senior Iranian general who served as an advisor in Syria. Fox News. General Sayyed Razi Mousavi was responsible for coordinating the military alliance between Iran and Syria. Iran said Mousavi was killed by an Israeli missile as he was returning home from work. Iran condemned the attack and said Israel will suffer consequences for the attack. Israel has attacked Iranian forces in Syria before but this was the highest profile target they have hit since the beginning of the war with Gaza. 

My Comment:

This is a fairly major attack as General Mousavi was a fairly high ranking person in the Iranian command. His role as coordinating the military alliance between Iran and Syria is a huge one and his death will make that a lot more difficult. 

Still, it's not like Israel doesn't regularly hit targets in Syria. They have often killed Iran backed militants and soldiers working for Iran. They have been doing that for years, ever since the war in Syria began. Seeing this kind of attack is not surprising at all. It's the nature of the target that is somewhat surprising. 

Indeed, this kind of seems like the kind of thing that Iran will respond to. They did attempt to attack US forces in Iraq after General Soleimani was killed in an American airstrike. Mousavi wasn't as high profile as that but I could see some kind of response being launched against Israel because they killed him. 

Of course, Mousavi would probably have been the one to coordinate a response and since he is dead it will be slightly more difficult. Whoever his replacement will be might not be as competent or useful as Mousavi was. I guess it's also possible that Mousavi was kicked upstairs and was not really competent, but my guess is that whoever replaces him won't be as good. 

Given that Hezbollah involvement in the Gaza conflict is already increasing I am guessing that any response from Iran will probably come from Syria itself. I would not be surprised if we see some missile and drone attacks coming from Syria in the future. I doubt we will see an attack from Iran directly, that would be a huge escalation and one that doesn't seem justified on the Iranians part. 

To be fair though, I don't think any revenge attacks from Syria will be that bad. The militias in Syria and Iraq kinda of blew their weapons attacking US bases in each country. Those attacks were pretty bad but did not accomplish much and I don't know if Iran is making those militias a priority when the Houthis in Syria are offering them a lot more bang for their buck. 

Indeed, the Houthis have hurt Israel's economy by forcing their shipping to route around the Cape of Good Hope instead of the Red Sea. That's doing a lot more damage than a few drone and missile attacks from Syria ever could. Perhaps that is where the revenge for this killing will be? 

Oil tanker hit by drone strike off the coast of India.

 

File photo of the Chem Pluto. Times of Israel/Port of Hamburg website. 

An oil tanker has hit and damaged by a drone strike off the coast of India, in a major escalation on attacks on shipping. Times of Israel. Though it is unclear who is responsible for the attack, Israel has blamed Iran itself of launching it. Nobody was hurt in the attack but the ship was set on fire and took on some water before damage control teams saved the ship. The vessel supposedly has links to Israel and had loaded oil from Saudi Arabia when it started its journey. The attack on yet another ship, this time at high seas, is a major escalation and it seems very unlikely to have been launched by Houthi Rebels from Yemen given the location of the attack. The attacks on shipping have been linked to the war between Israel and Hamas. 

DRONE ATTACK ON MV CHEM PLUTO-Indian Coast Guard Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre,Mumbai received information regarding fire onboard MV Chem Pluto. The Merchant ship with 20 Indian &01 Vietnamese Crew was reportedly attacked by a suspected drone strike on aerial platform.(1/6) pic.twitter.com/CpioW9MfT9

— Indian Coast Guard (@IndiaCoastGuard) December 23, 2023

 My Comment:

This is a fairly large news story that does not seem to be getting the media attention it deserves, at least as of this writing. From what it looks like Iran itself has joined the attacks on shipping that the Houthis have been using for a while now. That's a huge escalation and it dramatically raises the stakes in this conflict. 

There is some question about who is responsible for this attack. Given the range involved it is unlikely to be the Houthi Rebels in Yemen. If this is a HESA Shahed 136 I don't think it would have the range to fly all the way from Western Yemen to the coast of India. That means it would have to have been launched from somewhere else. 

Supposedly some militia group in Iraq has taken credit for the attack but I don't know how credible those claims are since I have only seen them on social media, not on any news articles. Israel is blaming Iran with is predictable and possibly accurate. Given that Iran has given these drones to the Houthis and Iraqi militias even if they didn't directly order the strike, they did allow it to happen. 

It is also possible that the drone was launched from Iran directly. If so that means this is a serious escalation. In the past when drone attacks came from the Houthis or militias Iran had at least some plausible deniability when it comes to responsibility for these attacks, and in the case of the Houthis, a reasonable argument given how independent they are. If they did launch this attack though, that means they have joined the war directly and made an enemy of any country that uses these shipping routes, which is basically all of them. However, if they continue to limit the attacks on shipping that is linked to Israel, I don't expect Russia or China to have a major problem with what they are doing. 

I am not sure what the US reaction to this attack will be. Our response to the attacks off of Yemen have been anemic to say the least. So far Operation Prosperity Guardian has been a bust, all we are doing is deploying more ships. And those ships seem content to just take defensive operations and not launch attacks. 

If attacks are going to be spreading throughout the Indian Ocean then things could get ugly pretty fast. America only has so many ships and many of them, like the Littoral Combat Ships, aren't really useful in this mission. I am no expert but I am guessing that you need the Aegis Combat System equipped ships, our destroyers and cruisers, to counter these drones and also counter the threat of anti-ship missiles. Given the other threats globally, our Navy could get stretched thin very quickly. 

I also don't know how much we can do about these attacks. We obviously aren't going to stop the war between Israel and Hamas, even if we wanted to do such a thing. And there is no guarantee that ending the war would stop these attacks. I mentioned in the previous post that we should not underestimate the tenacity and equipment of the Houthis. That goes double for Iran. Though Iran is not as powerful as the United States Navy, they are powerful enough to inflict casualties on US forces if a war breaks out. And we also have to consider the threat of terrorism from Iran and their various assorted militias, like Hezbollah, which have sleeper cells inside the United States. 

The real problem is that we have no good solution right now. We could ignore these attacks but given how much money it will cost shipping to try and avoid this conflict I don't see that being viable, especially since most Middle East oil ships from this region. A full on conflict where we attack the people launching these drones and missiles also seems untenable given how dangerous such a war would be. The current apparent strategy, where we deploy a ton of ships to the region, isn't 100% effective and also probably isn't sustainable if the conflict engulfs all of the Indian Ocean. It's an absolute mess and I am glad that I am not the one in charge of dealing with this conflict. 

I also don't think the American public is prepared for this either. Though there has been media coverage of the attacks on shipping, it hasn't been extensive and what little reaction I have seen seems to either be laughing at the Houthis and Iranians for having outdated technology, which isn't accurate, or actually praising these attacks due to hatred of Israel. I don't think America expects or desires a major war but it's very possible we will get one. 

What I do know is that any war is more likely to hurt Joe Biden than help him. People note, correctly, that the world was a much more peaceful place before he got into office. There's also the disturbing fact that a lot of young people are going to be on the side of Iran and the Houthis if a war breaks out. Young people in this country have been brainwashed to hate Israel and will even praise its enemies even when they do something like attacking shipping or even killing US troops. And the warhawks that support Biden will be angry with him for not being more aggressive. It would be a tough position for even a competent president to be in, but Joe Biden is certainly not. 

No funding deal in congress for Ukraine this year, the Senate will take the issue up in 2024.

 

Senators McConnell and Schumer with Ukrainian President Zelensky. 

Senate leadership in both parties admitted that there will be no funding deal for Ukraine this year and will take up the issue again in 2024. AFP. Senators Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer said that they would work to make a deal in 2024 and would take the issue up after the return to work on January 8th. Joe Biden had tried to make a deal happen by making support for Israel conditional on passing support for Ukraine, but that backfired as Republicans demanded major concessions on illegal immigration. However, even if a deal was made in the Senate it would be much more difficult to pass in the Republican controlled house, where new Speaker Mike Johnson is much more critical of additional funding for the war. Johnson demands more accountability and an actual strategy for the war before sending any funds. 

My Comment:

As expected there will be no new funding for Ukraine from the United States this year. Indeed, it was clear that was going to be the case for some time now. The Biden administration really stepped in it and have not been able to get a deal done, which is not at all surprising. 

Will a deal be made in 2024? It's possible but I think it's fairly unlikely at this point. The Republicans know that they have the Biden administration over a barrel here. Biden does not want a deal on immigration as his far left supporters are already infuriated with him and he is hemorrhaging support from young people in recent polls. A deal with the GOP on immigration will absolutely make that situation even worse for Biden. 

I have also said that basically everyone is looking for a way out of the Ukraine conflict ever since it was very clear that the summer offensive was an abject failure. A semi-phony fight about funding allows both Republicans and Democrats to blame each other when Ukraine eventually collapses. 

What should be even more concerning for Ukraine is that funding is not only drying up from the United States but it is also drying up from Europe. The Europeans too aren't keen on sending more money to a conflict that seems lost and even less so when they know that the Americans aren't going to send any money either. 

That's horrible news for Ukraine and good news for Russia (and for anyone that actually wants to see an end to this horrible war). The effects of this are already being seen on the battlefront with Ukrainian units shepherding their remaining vehicles and massively rationing their artillery. They know the gig is up and they have to make sure they have some kind of reserves for when the Russians come. 

And the Russians are coming. Putin knows that he's got the war won, he just needs to stick with it and win it in a way that does the least amount of damage to his country. I don't know if that means we will see a major offensive from Russia, Putin might just be content to keep up the pressure from probing attacks across the front instead of one major attack, but we will be seeing an uptick in the conflict once the ground freezes and the mud goes away. 

What really gets me is that Ukraine did have an advantage for awhile and could have made an attempt at a negotiated settlement. But then Bakhmut fell and they launched their idiotic summer offensive that chewed up so many men and equipment that they probably can't launch a major offensive again. If Putin feels like negotiating, and that's a huge if, they will get a dramatically worse deal than they would have gotten before. 

I do think that there needs to be a reckoning for the failure that is the Ukraine war in the United States. Not only was the war a stupid idea in the first place, we had no real beef with Russia, it was executed incredibly incompetently. I don't think there is a scenario where Ukraine could have won a decisive victory over Russia but they could have been done better than they did and that's mostly on the Biden administration. 

The real question now is if the war ends before the election in November. If Ukraine falls or settles the war on bad terms then I would hope that voters would punish Biden and his party for the failure. But I also would have thought that he and his party would have been punished severely by the voters for his failure in Afghanistan but that largely didn't happen. I would think that the failure in the Ukraine would be more dramatic but who understands what the voters do these days? I certainly don't. 

Either way though, America and our NATO allies are heading towards a huge loss of face. We did everything in the war except join it directly and it has exposed us. Our leadership, our weapons, our economy, all of them have been shown to be no where near as powerful as they were perceived to be. Indeed, that's why we heard rumblings of war in Venezuela and that's why a real war broke out in Israel. And it's also why the Houthi rebels in Yemen are shooting missiles at our destroyers in the Red Sea. America is no longer the world's biggest and most powerful power. 

US to announce Operation Prosperity Guardian, an effort to protect shipping from Houthi rebel attacks in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.

 

A Yemeni man tours the Galaxy Leader, a ship taken by Houthi Pirates. The Guardian/EPA.

The United States is expected to announce tomorrow the formation of Operation Prosperity Guardian, and effort to protect shipping from Houthi rebel attacks in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden off the shores of Yemen. The Guardian. Five big shipping companies have resolved to avoid the area after multiple incidents of drone, missile and gunman attacks targeting shipping in the region. Ships are routing through the Mediterranean and around the Cape of Good Hope in Africa to avoid the attacks. It is thought that several Middle Eastern partners have joined the United States, Britain and France in an effort to stop attacks on shipping. The United States is also attempted to convince China to join the operation as well. Both the Houthi Rebels and their Iranian handlers have made threats to US forces and vows to retaliate if certain red lines have been crossed. 

My Comment:

This announcement comes after US, British and French ships shot down drones and missiles that were targeting shipping in the region this weekend. The attacks against shipping appear to be intensifying, not slowing down, so it is no surprise that a task force is being formed. 

It's unclear what exactly will be happening in terms of deployment. Right now a bunch of destroyers are running around shooting down drones and missiles but I am not sure if we will be seeing any capital ships, like Aircraft Carriers, deployed to the region. There is an Amphibious Assault Ship in the Red Sea, and a carrier strike group is in the Persian Gulf but no big carriers are in the Red Sea or Gulf of Aden itself. If we do see one deployed then it will be a major step up in tensions. 

I am also wondering how much of an impact the Middle Eastern partners will have on the effort. Egypt and Saudi Arabia have reasonably powerful navies, though they mostly have frigates and corvettes, not destroyers. And they have a lot of smaller ships that could be useful in an defensive mission. But how well trained and effective will these crews be? I have no idea. 

The Middle Eastern countries have a lot riding on shipping continuing as well. Egypt alone is looking at billions of dollars of lost revenue if shipping through the Suez Canal ceases, and they ship their own products out of the Red Sea too. It's less important to the Saudis but they were going to be knee deep in this conflict regardless. 

The China question is an interesting one as well. China absolutely has an interest in shipping in the region and they also need the kind of experience for their naval crews that they could gain by joining this fleet. The problem is that relations with the United States are very cool right now and they may simply want to lie back and enjoy the mess that the Israel-Hamas conflict has caused for the United States. But then again, anti-piracy actions have made strange bedfellows before so I don't discount the possibility that they could join the conflict. 

The real question is how far the Houthis, and their Iranian masters, are willing to go. The attacks they have launched so far have been relatively minor. In theory they could launch a much larger attack that could potentially overwhelm the defenses of the Destroyers operating in the Red Sea. Indeed, the USS Carney has been so involved in this fight that I have already wondered if they are running low on anti-drone and missile weapons. The other US and allied ships in the region probably have reasonably full stocks but they could burn through that very fast if a major conflict blows up. 

Another question I have is if we will be taking offensive action against the Houthis. Presumably we know where these missiles are coming from and we could, in theory attack them. That might not go well because the Houthis are well equipped and could potentially shoot down our airplanes with anti-air missiles. Indeed, they have already shot down one of our MQ-9 Reaper drones. Cruise missiles are another option but, again, they could face anti-air weapons themselves. 

We shouldn't underestimate the Houthis and their defenses. The Saudis were banging their heads against the Houthis for a long time and they have a fairly advanced and efficient military. This wouldn't be like taking on the Iraqis in the Gulf Wars, it would be a lot closer to a near-peer fight. Closer, though not an actual one. We would probably still win, but I don't doubt that there would be losses, in aircraft, lives and possibly even ships. 

The biggest known-unknown we have is what Iran will do. Iran could join the war on the side of the Houthis and if that happens it's going to be an absolute mess. Iran is a modern state with a decent military and could threaten US and allied naval assets in the region. They could also launch terror attacks throughout the world via Hezbollah, various militias and their own sleeper agents. It would probably be a major mistake for Iran to do so, so I am guessing they would not, but you never know what could happen these days. 

What really gets me is that America appears to be sleepwalking into a major conflict. The Houthis are no joke and could present a major challenge to our military and I would not be surprised if they manage to do a lot of damage in an attack. Sending a task force to the region could help but it's also possible that we could have a major issue on our hands. The media is covering it, but I just don't get the impression that the people in America have a war with Yemen on their radar right now... 

Fishing update...

 

Not much news worth covering today, so I figured I would write up about my fishing adventure today. In Northeast Wisconsin it's been too warm for ice fishing but too cold for shore fishing so I hadn't really planned on going fishing while I was on vacation. However, today was somewhat decent out, 45 degrees with lower wind, so I decided to go for awhile this afternoon. 

As you can see I managed to catch what is the biggest fish of the year for me. That's a Northern Pike and a fair sized one as well. I was, of course, fishing for Walleyes, but, of course, I didn't catch any of those. Instead I hooked this fish while using a fire-tiger rippin' rap at a warm water discharge near the mouth of the Fox River as it empties into Green Bay. 

It was a strange fight. Despite the size of the fish, it did not really fight that well, to the point where it didn't even pull any drag. It was more like fighting a big stick that occasionally shook its head. Pike can be good fighters so I was surprised that the 25 incher I caught earlier this year put up more of a fight then this one, epically since I was using a relatively light rod with only 6lbs test line.  It took me awhile to get him in and then I realized that landing him was going to be a problem. My net was big enough but it wasn't long enough for the elevated position I was in. A fellow fisherman had a longer net but it was way too small for it. I eventually had to walk it the rocks you can see behind me where a third fisherman helped me net it. 

Since I spent about five minutes fighting the fish and another five minutes landing him, unhooking him and getting my picture taken, I did not take a weight or measurement. Given the picture and the fact that my handspan is about 3.5 inches (my hands aren't big) I am guessing that this pike was about 35 inches and around 10 pounds, give or take a couple of inches and pounds either way. 

I don't think  this is a personal best as I caught some pretty nice fish when I went to Canada a couple of times when I was a kid. But it's certainly the biggest fish I caught in 2023 and rivals some of the big catfish I caught the last couple of years. And given how vague my memories are of when I fished in Canada, perhaps it IS the biggest Northern Pike I have ever caught. 

I was pretty surprised to catch it where I did. I have been fishing that stretch of the Fox River for a couple of years now and I haven't seen a single Northern Pike get caught. I assumed that it was either a Muskie, a big Walleye or even a big Flathead Catfish, not a Pike. I shouldn't have been too surprised though since Pike can be river fish too and I have caught them in other parts of the river. Plus, baitfish probably like the warm-water discharge where I was fishing, and I am sure they drew other fish to the are. 

I didn't have any luck afterwards and didn't stay long. My shoulder was a bit sore from trying to land the thing and my rhythm was thrown off by being excited. I was doing a very slow finesse rest and rip style retrieve and I was so keyed up I couldn't really do it anymore, though I might have had one more bite. The rain moved in and made it a moot point anyways, but still, considering that I thought for sure I was going to be skunked landing the biggest fish of the year has to be considered a success right?   

Israel accidently kills three Israeli hostages in Gaza.

 

The town of Khan Younis. AP. 

Israel accidently killed three of the hostages taken by Hamas in Gaza. AP. The hostages were killed in Shijaiyah, where there has been heavy fighting between Hamas and the Israelis. The hostages were incorrectly identified as a threat and shot and killed by Israeli soldiers. Hamas took around 240 hostages during their raid on October 7th, which started the war. 100 hostages were released in prisoner swaps and one was rescued early in the conflict but other than that Israel has not been successful in releasing hostages or recovering their bodies. Recovering the hostages remains a high priority for Israel. 

My Comment:

Tragic situation in Gaza and one that has to be very embarrassing for the IDF. The whole point of the war right now is to rescue the hostages and they failed about as bad as they could fail here. There is going to have to be a major reckoning as to why and how this happened and I would expect a few careers to end over it. 

I do wonder why the incident happened in the first place. You would think it would be easy to recognize a hostage compared to a Hamas fighter, but apparently not. To be fair, I don't think Hamas uses regular uniforms and it's possible the hostages were dressed like locals. 

I also wonder if the hostages were armed. There was no explanation as to how these men were out and about where the Israeli soldiers could find them. Perhaps they overpowered their guards during the fighting and came at the Israeli soldiers with a gun in their hands? If not, then this incident is a lot less forgivable. 

It's very possible that the IDF's rules of engagement are too loose. They don't seem to care about civilian casualties all that much, and to be fair I wouldn't either after what happened on the 7th of October. But if you are at the point where you are killing the very hostages you are trying to save then it might be time to tighten things up. This is not a thing that should be happening, I can understand blowing up civilians by accident but killing hostages you are trying to rescue? Not a good look to say the least. 

Between the heavy bombing by Israel and the fact that Hamas is a pretty awful terror group, I amazed that there are any hostages left to begin with. Indeed, I had thought that most of them had died after the cease fire fell apart. There was little reason to keep them at that point so I would have assumed that Hamas would have killed them. Apparently not. 

As for the war itself, Israel appears to be winning the war but losing the rest of the world. Even the White House is trying to get them to stop fighting. I think these criticisms are bizarre, there isn't a group of people on earth I have less sympathy for than Hamas and their supporters, and that includes the lions share of civilians in Gaza. 

Still, Israel is getting a reputation of being out of control in terms of their attacks and this incident will add fuel to that fire. The Israelis are going to be criticized for this, and rightly so, and they are going to lose a lot of face. Israel's enemies are probably thrilled with this as it makes them look bad. 

Regardless, Israel doesn't seem to care about their reputation anymore and to be honest, I don't blame them. The people that care a lot about what is happening in Gaza are people that hate Israel no matter what they do, so why pay them any mind? The only people they really have to worry about upsetting is Joe Biden and his handlers and so far Biden seems mildly perturbed at worst. As long as Israel doesn't do anything too outrageous they will still have a lot of support for this war. But I would caution them to tighten up their rules of engagement lest any more hostages get killed. 

Republicans in the House and Senate were not impressed by Zelensky's plea for more Ukraine Aid.

 

Zelensky at the US Capitol. Business Insider/Getty. 

Republicans in the House and Senate were not impressed by Ukrainian President Zelensky's plea for more aid. Business Insider. Zelensky met with Speaker of the House Johnson and several top Senators and begged for more funding and weapons. But it seems clear that aid is not forthcoming from the Republicans. Citing the border crisis and the unwillingness of the Biden administration to do something about it, with multiple GOP Senators saying that without a deal, no aid will be forthcoming. Speaker Johnson said that there were three priorities for any deal, border security here in the United States, clarity about Biden's strategy in Ukraine and an accounting on how US aid is being spent in Ukraine. 

My Comment:

Before I get into the meat of this post, I have to say that I have a great dislike for President Zelensky. I remember when he was elected that I had high hopes for the man. He had campaigned on ending the war in Donbass and was not as racist against Russians as other candidates were. Unfortunately he went back on his campaign promises and continued the war in the Donbass, which led up to the war. I am not going to be sad when he gets overthrown in a coup, which seems pretty likely now. I don't think I have ever been more disappointed in a foreign politician than I have in Zelensky. 

As for the meeting, I am not surprised that Zelensky didn't find what he was looking for. My main theory is that both Republicans and Democrats know the gig is up in Ukraine and are looking for an exit. I generally believe that the border issue is just an excuse, both sides could pass Ukraine funding without the border but nobody is even trying. I think that both parties realize that if the border security issue holds up the funding they can both blame the other side for the failures of Ukraine, even though it's clear already that they are going to lose the war. 

That's not the only possibility. I have heard other theories that this is all to induce pressure on Zelensky himself. Either for him to step down, or to actually listen to the Americans and switch to a defensive war. I tend to disagree with this interpretation as the Biden administration has been very positive on Zelensky throughout the war and have overlooked some of his very obvious flaws and at least a couple of huge mistakes, the battles of Bakhmut and Adviika being the biggest examples. 

Another theory is that the Democrats and Biden are just incompetent. They absolutely could have parceled out the Ukraine, Border and Israel bills but they did not because they are dumb. This theory is tempting because the Democrats do indeed do some very dumb things, but it also plays to my prejudices against them. Of the three options I still think the first one is the most likely. 

I don't think there will be an 11th hour deal. Remember, Congress goes on recess on the 15th of December and I don't think a deal will get done in just two days. The parties are too far apart and I don't see the White House or the Democrats making the concessions on border security anytime soon. My guess is that if Ukraine were to get more aid, it won't happen this year. 

As for the war itself, it seems like Russia is continuing to probe the enemy lines and they are working up to a slow grinding offensive. Not much movement is likely to happen until the ground freezes and armor can move again, but even then, why rush things? Ukraine is not likely to survive long term even with US aid, they simply don't have the manpower anymore.

The real question is if they can successfully change course into a defensive posture. They do not have much time to actually build a defense in depth and it's one of the reasons why they have had to hang on to Adviika for so long, there isn't much in terms of defenses behind the city. If they can they could probably hold on for awhile yet, but it's not outside of the realm of possibility that we could see a major collapse either...  

Editor's note: Winter vacation.

 

Tomorrow, I start my winter vacation. I will be off for 13 days and may be posting infrequently and at odd times. I don't have too many specific plans, other than getting my car a brake job, but I should mostly be around. I make take a day trip or something, but I didn't think travel would be a great idea since I have a car repair and just bought an expensive computer. 

This vacation is very needed, I have been working pretty much non-stop since my last vacation in September. I've worked so many overtime shifts this year I have made dramatically more money but it has taken a lot out of me. I might take the first few days off and just do nothing! I certainly need the rest! 

Russian President Vladimir Putin is running again in 2024.

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin. Fox News/AFP.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced that he is again running for the office of President in 2024. Fox News. Putin made the announcement at an awards ceremony for veterans, where soldiers and others begged him to run. Putin is 71 and has been in power in Russia, as either President or Prime Minster, since 1999. Putin is widely expected to win, in his last election he got 76% of the vote in 2018 and has an approval rate of 82%. Voting will take over three days in March and will be opened in recently annexed regions in what was Ukraine. It is unclear who will face him, though several people have mentioned possibly running. 

My Comment:

This is not at all surprising. Given how Putin and Russia feel about the Ukraine war, it would be crazy if Putin had decided to step down and let someone else run it during the end-game. Putin feels that the Ukraine war is an existential threat to Russia and the Russian people and must be won if there is a future for either of them, so I don't think he trusts anyone else to manage the conflict. 

It's also not surprising that under these circumstances the Russian people feel the same way and will support another term for Putin. They know that it's probably a bad idea to change presidents in the middle of a major war and I doubt that they want to get rid of them, no matter how much the CIA wishes it was true. 

Putin has been an effective leader for Russia. Not only did he fix the economy in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union, he has stood up for Russian interests and made Russia one of the most powerful countries in the world. He essentially won the economic and political wars over Ukraine already, now he is just waiting for the battlefield victory as well. 

Will the elections be fair? Probably not. But not significantly worse than the United States. We can't complain about Putin jailing political opponents and the possibility of voter fraud when Biden's doing the same thing to Trump and we can't even mention voter fraud in polite company anymore despite the fact that it happens in every election now. 

Still, it's possible that Putin won't get elected. He is, after all, 71, which isn't as old as Joe Biden or Donald Trump, but old regardless. He also has a lot of enemies, both foreign and domestic and is in a high stress job. I don't doubt that Putin would win an election, but it's possible he won't make it to election day. 

US announces military exercises with Guyana after Venezuela prepares to annex much of the country.

 

The Essequibo river in Guyana. CBS News. 

The United States has announced military exercises with Guyana after Venezuela prepares to annex much of the country. CBS News. The exercises will involve flights over Guyana's territory and is meant to deter any attack from Venezuela. Venezuela just voted to annex the Essequibo region of Guyana, which they have claimed for years. However, large oil discoveries have been found and Venezuela wants access to them. Guyana is trying to use diplomacy to prevent a war and is hoping the United States and other regional partners, most notably Brazil, will deter Venezuela. 

My Comment:

Given that tensions have been high for a couple of weeks now, it's kind of amazing that there has been little reaction from the United States until now. It just goes to show how out to lunch the Biden administration is. 

Will this exercise intimidate Venezuela? Probably not. They know that Biden is a weak president and that America is way too distracted by the wars in Ukraine and Israel, not to mention domestic issues, to get involved in a major war in South America right now. A few planes flying over will not do much at all. 

And I don't think this is the kind of war where air power is going to dominate. The war, if it happens, would take deep in the Amazon jungle. It will be small infantry units infiltrating and attacking other small infantry units. In short, it will be Vietnam 2.0 and it will be the kind of war where close air support will be less important. 

Guyana has other allies though. They are a commonwealth country so they could find some support for the United Kingdom, though their military is in pretty shoddy condition right now. They would also get help from France, since French Guiana is sovereign French territory located near Guyana. Local powers, like Brazil and Suriname, might get involved as well.  

Even still, the war would be a messy one. Unless jets attack Venezuela directly, it's going to be long slog of an infantry war. I don't see a quick victory for either side and I expect there to be a lot of violence. Perhaps a large Linebacker-style Vietnam bombing campaign would end the war quicker but I don't see that happening. 

What is funny to me is that this war will likely cause some headaches for people. Venezuela has always been popular country among leftists since it was a leftist country that stood up to the United States. But now they are launching a war of conquest against a much weaker country pretty much explicitly for oil. That's the same attack these Venezuela supporters used against George Bush during the Iraq War. My guess is that they will probably ignore it unless the United States joins the war. 

So are we going to join the war? I don't know. If we do it will be in a limited fashion, with airstrikes and intelligence support. I can't see US troops on the ground in Guyana, though I wouldn't be surprised to see Brazilin troops there. And there is still a chance that diplomacy could prevail. But at this point I would be more surprised if there wasn't a war than if there is.  

No deal made on Ukraine funding in the US Senate.

 

Joe Biden has demanded funding for Ukraine. Fox News/AP.

No deal has been made on funding the wars in Ukraine and Israel due to Republicans demanding a deal on border controls on the border with Mexico. Fox News. Joe Biden had demanded $106 billion for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, along with other security concerns, but Republicans in the Senate have blocked it due to no deal being offered on immigration. The vote was 49-51, but they did not reach the 60 vote threshold. Independent Senator Bernie Sanders joined the Republicans in opposing the bill due to funding the Israel-Hamas war. 

My Comment:

I have said for awhile now that the United States is looking for a way to get out of Ukraine and the gridlock in Congress appears to be an easy way to do so. Both sides can blame the other for not cutting a deal so neither of them have to take full blame for a Ukraine policy that has very obviously failed. 

How much of this is by design is unclear. Supposedly the classified briefing the Senate had today devolved into childish yelling and arguments because Republicans wanted to talk about the border. That kind makes me think there are enough people that still care about Ukraine, even though they are clearly losing, that they are willing to yell about it at least. Or it could just be both sides talking past each other. 

If a deal were to be made, it's going to die in the House, which is a lot more skeptical of the war in Ukraine. I really do think that Ukraine is out of luck and that they won't be getting any more funding this year. They may get some in 2024 if some kind of deal is made, but even then, I don't think it is very likely. 

Bernie Sanders voting against it because it included aid for Israel complicates things in the house. Sanders anti-Israel sentiment is a lot more common in the House and it would make it even more difficult to pass a bill. I think Sanders argument is ridiculous but it is popular on the left to hate Israel.

What is funny to me is that it's pretty obvious that if the Senate would just separate all these bills into much smaller ones and have a vote on each one I think all of them would pass. But instead they have these huge bundles that are a lot more hard to pass. It's more evidence that they actually don't want more funding for Ukraine (or Israel for that matter). 

Regardless, I don't think the funding will affect either the Ukraine war or the Israel war at this point. Ukraine's going to lose no matter what and Israel is going to win no matter what. The only difference this funding would make is how long each outcome will take. 

FBI Director again warns that the threat of terror attacks is extremely high.

 

FBI Director Christopher Wray. Fox News/Getty.

FBI Director Christopher Wray has again warned that the threat of terror attacks is extremely high. Fox News. Senator Lindsey Graham asked Wray about the threat matrix and Wray said the threat level was unprecedented. There have been times where the threat was higher from individual threats, but never a time where so many threats were elevated at exactly the same time. Graham asked if the situation was similar to the build up to 9/11 and Wray said it was. The statement comes after the FBI disrupted a "lone wolf" plot by a 16 year old in Las Vegas who has sworn allegiance to ISIS. 

My Comment:

More fallout from the Israel-Hamas war and I think that the threat is even higher than the last time that Wray made these statements. And I think he is absolutely right, the threat of terrorism is unreal right now. I am honestly surprised we haven't seen any large attacks yet. 

Part of that is the timing. It's only been a couple of months since the war began. Terror attacks usually take awhile to plan and execute and there might not have been enough time. But I think there is absolutely big terror attacks in the pipeline, the only question is how long it will take and how effective the intel agencies will be in disrupting them. Given that the FBI has moved away from terrorism to go after peaceful January 6th protesters, I am not very optimistic. 

The other major question I have is who would even launch these attacks? Many of the biggest terror groups have been destroyed. ISIS and al-Qaeda are still around but they don't have the funding and recruits they once had. And Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas are obviously focused on the war with Israel. I am struggling to think of another major terror group that could pull off a major attack. I guess it's possible that there is a group out there that we haven't heard of yet but that's not too likely. 

What the real threat is would probably lone wolf attackers, like the young man from Las Vegas that was arrested last week. It doesn't take much to plan that kind of attack. You don't even need a gun or a knife, if you have a car you can ram people and kill a large number of them. And these kinds of attacks are very hard to detect unless the terrorist is stupid enough to confess his plan. 

It's also possible that a smaller conspiracy could erupt as well. Normally someone talks in this kind of conspiracy and police can arrest them, but given how many threats there are right now it's possible, probable even, that a major case could fall through the cracks and a major attack could occur. This wouldn't be something directed and helped by a larger terror group, but an attack carried out and planned by a small group of people and could do a lot of damage. 

I'd also point out that it might not just be terror attacks launched by people angry about the war in Israel. Assassination and simple homicide could happen as well. Indeed, we have already seen a few murders on both sides and I wouldn't be terrible surprised if someone vocal about the war gets killed. 

There's a lot of risk across the board for US targets. Obviously, Jews are at a high risk due to Israel being involved in the war, but that really isn't the only target. Pretty much everyone could be at risk depending on where they are. 

I also don't think that radical Muslims are the only threat here. Obviously the FBI and media are hyping the threat from the right wing, which I think is mostly overblown. The far-right is pretty divided about Israel and are just as likely to support Hamas as they are Israel, but I don't see either group caring enough to kill a bunch of people. 

But I think there is a major threat from the left. The people on the far left are unhinged about the Israeli war and refuse to see any nuance in the conflict whatsoever. For them the Israelis are unhinged monsters that are eating babies and are basically Nazis. When you believe something as bizarre as that it's not a big leap to justify committing violence. The only thing is that leftist people usually don't have the spine to make an attack like that. 

Regardless, I think we are on borrowed time. I do think we will see a major terror attack soon. It might not be this month but I would be surprised if we didn't see a major terror attack over the winter. There are too many people too angry about the war in Israel for it to not happen.. 

The White House warns that they will be out of money for Ukraine by the end of the year if nothing is done.

 

An Ukrainian tank. BBC/Getty.

The White House has warned that they will be out of money for Ukraine by the end of the year if nothing is done in Congress to secure funding. BBC. They called for a deal in congress to secure funding for a war. However, new Speaker of the House Mike Johnson seemed skeptical of the idea a deal could be made, saying there wasn't enough transparency for the funding. $110 billion has already been allocated to Ukraine but most of that money and aid has been spent. Efforts to secure funding have stalled in congress because Republicans have made border security a requirement for any funding bill and Democrats have given no indication that they wan to compromise. 

The news comes a day after NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said NATO should expect bad news from the war in Ukraine. Politico. 

My Comment:

I'm not expecting any additional major funding for the Ukraine war from the United States in the short term. The Republican powers that be do care about Ukraine, but they understand that the war is getting less and less popular among their base and that if they don't try to do something on immigration they won't vote in 2024. 

For me this is a win win. If no deal is made we can at least stop funding this stupid war. If a deal is made, the war continues for a few more months and a lot of people will die for no good reason, but at least something will be done on illegal immigration. In a perfect world we would both stop funding the war and do something about the illegal immigrants, but this is not a perfect world and we should take victories where we can. 

I also think that this is an obvious off ramp to the war in Ukraine. It seems clear now that the powers that be understand they screwed up and screwed up badly by launching the war against Russia and that Ukraine cannot win the war at this point. They have begun the finger pointing phase. Right now they are blaming the Ukrainians themselves, though to be fair, defending Adviika and Bakhmut to the last man was obviously a mistake. 

But I think now they want others to blame and the failure of a deal being made in Congress. Both parties gain from this. Republicans can blame Democrats and Democrats can blame Republicans. Once the funding falls through they both say "Ukraine totally would have won the war if it only the other side hadn't blocked the funding!" I don't think anyone would buy it but it would help hide the fact that everyone has blame for the war in Ukraine. 

Honestly though, I think that the war is pretty much over in the first place. Ukraine's offensive this year was the equivalent of Stalingrad. After that battle Nazi Germany never really had a chance at winning the war. Ukraine still has a large army and is probably capable of limited attacks, but I don't think they are capable of launching another major offensive. 

And this is pretty obvious if you have heard any of the news out of Ukraine. Zelenksy has been calling for defensive lines to finally be built and they are now shepherding their remaining armor very carefully. They finally understand that the time for offensive operations has long passed and are now preparing for the defensive war they should have been fighting since the start of the war. 

It's too late of course. Russia's limited winter offensive has already been more successful than Ukraine's summer offensive and they have a massive advantage in manpower and equipment. And unlike Ukraine they have factories pushing out new weapons every single day. Russia is not going to run out of weapons any time soon. 

Houthi rebels from Yemen launch drones and ballistic missiles at commercial shipping. Is a war looming?

 

File photo of the USS Carney. ABC News/AP.

Houthi rebels launched multiple ballistic missiles and drone attacks on commercial shipping in the Gulf of Aden. ABC News. The attack started in the morning with a ballistic missile being fired at bulk carrier, missing the ship. The USS Carney, a Arleigh Burke class Destroyer which has been involved in several incidents in the Gulf of Aden, responded to the attack and intercepted and destroyed a drone in the area. 30 minutes later the same ship was hit by a ballistic missile and the Carney responded again, shooting down another drone. Two additional bulk carriers were hit with ballistic missiles again and suffered minor casualties. The Carney shot done one more drone responding to that attack. The Houthis say the ships were targeted due to their connection to Israel and the Israel-Hamas war. The Houthis have stepped up attacks on both Israel and the Gulf of Aden, resorting to piracy in some cases, and have even taken a ship. 

My Comment:

These attacks are a major escalation in a conflict that is already in danger of starting another major war. These attacks mostly failed, with little damage being done and nobody getting killed, and that's probably the reason we aren't at war right now. 

The USS Carney has had a very busy cruise in the Gulf of Aden the last few months. It seems that they are the ones involved whenever there is a big story in the region. They have shot down missiles and drones and have responded to pirate attacks. And they were key in this story as well. I doubt any of the sailors on the ship were expecting such an eventful tour!

It's unclear how much damage this attack did. Most of the ships suffered minor damage at best but there were rumors that one of them was close to sinking. I think that fate was avoided though as if it had happened we would have heard about it by now. 

It's also unclear what exactly these ballistic missiles are. I know Iran has some anti-ship ballistic missiles but I didn't know they have given them to the Houthi rebels. Either way, I am not too impressed by their results. They have launched several of these missiles now and have not destroyed any ships. Perhaps though that is just good luck and the next attack could destroy a ship or kill someone. 

As for the drones, I'm not sure if these were recon drones trying to analyze the success or failures of the missile strikes, or if they were attack drones. The media seems to be going with the 2nd interpretation and it would make sense. But the drones have not proven effective as the USS Carney has become quite good at shooting them down, to the point where I am wondering if they are going to run out of anti-drone defenses. 

Given the result of these attacks and the various incidents of piracy on the open seas, I think that we are going to see a war with the Houthis sooner rather than later. Attacks on shipping is not something that is tolerating and the Gulf of Aden is a critical shipping route. If it is closed, shipping will have to route through the Mediterranean Sea and eventually around the Cape of Good hope in Africa. That's a huge delay and will cost companies millions, if not billions, of dollars. 

That's not something I can see lasting for long without retribution. I would not be surprised if we some kind of response from the United States military. I don't think we will be invading Yemen anytime soon, and if we did it would not go well, just ask the Saudis. But I would not be surprised if we see drone or airstrikes hitting Houthi leadership or missile launchers. 

And we should not underestimate the Houthis. They fought the Saudi government to a standstill in their war and are extremely well armed and well equipped for a rebel group. The Iranians have been giving them all their best technology and if we were to go to war with them it will probably not be as easy as it would be against a typical terror group. I think we would still beat them, but it's very possible we could face casualties. 

Iran is, of course, the elephant in the room. The Iranians have provided the Houthis with the modern weapons and equipment that have made them such a threat. And they are a proxy army for the Iranians, much like Hezbollah and the various militias that have been attacking US troops in Iraq and Syria. I don't think the Houthis would be doing these attacks if they weren't getting permission and support from Iran. 

The real fear that I have is that this will spiral out of control and we will end up in a war with Iran. Such a war would be a good distraction from the failures of the Biden administration and you know that the neocons in both parties would love to see a major war so their defense contractor supporters could get a big payday. 

I think for now we will probably avoid that. But a war with the Houthis at least seems pretty likely. The only way I think they avoid it is if they either stop launching attacks or if they keep having rather pathetic results. They could also run out of missiles fairly quickly at the rate they are using them. But if there is another attack and a ship gets sunk or someone gets hurt and/or killed then I think we will see a war. 

Does China have too many domestic problems to invade Taiwan?

 

The President of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen. The Guardian/Reuters.

The President of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen says that China has too many domestic problems to invade Taiwan. The Guardian. China considers Taiwan to be a rogue province and have not ruled out an invasion, though President Xi prefers to do so "peacefully".  Ing-wen said that Xi has too many internal problems, including the economy, and financial and political challenges. Intel agencies believe that China will not be ready to invade Taiwan until 2027.

My Comment:

This seems like wishful thinking from President Ing-wen, who will be leaving office soon regardless. Elections are in January and the President is term limited, so she will not be running again. Unless China invades in the next month or so, she won't be in charge when it happens.

There are two questions to answer here. Does China have the military capability to invade Taiwan? And if they do, is now the right time to do so? President Ing-wen certainly thinks the 2nd question's answer is no. But it's a moot question if China doesn't have the actual military power to invade. 

My guess is that China isn't quite ready for an invasion of Taiwan. China has never launched an amphibious invasion of this scale and it would be extremely difficult. Amphibious invasions are among the most difficult military operations period, and given that they would also have to defeat the US Navy and the navy of other allies like Japan and Australia, I don't think China is ready to pull it off. 

Will they be able to in a couple of years, or 2027 like the intel agencies predict? I am not sure. They are building up their fleet and large stockpiles of weapons, but I think it's going to be a lot rougher for them if they do decide to invade. They probably need more than what they will have even then, modern warfare is brutal. Just look at the Ukraine conflict, both Russia and Ukraine thought they were well prepared for modern warfare, and both ended up being pretty wrong. 

But I don't know if I agree that the timing is wrong for an invasion in terms of politics. Right now the United States is in the weakest position it has ever been and there is the distraction of the wars in Israel and Ukraine offering a major distractions. Our weapon supplies are low and we have had difficulty arming Taiwan. All of this could not be true by the time China is fully armed up for a conflict. 

As for China's domestics problems, I don't think their problems are any worse than anyone else. A couple of years ago when the pandemic was ravaging the country and the entire place was in lockdown, I would say it was for sure more important to deal with domestic problems than invading Taiwan. But now? 

The Chinese economy isn't doing the best, but nobody is right now. And they don't really have all that much in the way of civil unrest or potential revolutions, they have been very good at putting those down. I'm far from a China expert, so perhaps I am just missing something, but right now I don't just see it. 

And I also think that if China is having problems, a major war would be a way to deal with it. How true the political theory that countries start war to unite the country and distract against domestic problems? I am not sure, but it's certainly a trope. Given how important Taiwan is to China it may indeed unite Chinese people and could distract from China's problems or make the people more willing to deal with it, even though I think that any war with Taiwan would probably make them worse. 

Still, I am not convinced that China is actually that interested in an invasion. They are probably more interested in a political solution. All they really need is a pro-China faction to win in Taiwan and that is certainly a possibility.