War On Terror News - Perspectives is for our original content. While our positions are based in our experiences, the news at the main site, and independent study, this is where we post the analysis of that news.
Medal of Honor
Their Stories in Their Words. Video Testimony of the events that *earned* them the Medal of Honor (*****)
An American Carol - Comedy
The best comedy of 2008 and perhaps the new millenium, sure to be a hit with Our Warriors. I was one of the first to see it at the theater and this was my review then: http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2008/10/movie-review--.html
It's available in Blu-Ray and it'll certainly be in my DVD collection. Finally, a great movie, patriotic, anti-Michael Moore, with actors of rational minds.
(*****)
LTG(ret) Michael DeLong: A General Speaks Out
Go Behind the Scenes at CentCom with the #2 General in charge of the Middle East Theater. He dispels myths and explains the decisions and personalities involved in the decisions made in the Who, What, Where, When and Why. When the SecDef needed an answer, this was the man he called.
Clearly, he was a Marine's Marine leading the US Military at times of Great Peril. He speaks frankly and writes in a manner without political aspiration. (*****)
Robin Moore, RIP: The Hunt for Bin Laden
There is perhaps no other civilian author that has searched so deeply and learned so much about the "Green Berets", which happens to be the title of his earlier book, on which John Wayne's movie was based.
Following the Invasion of Afghanistan, he went as quickly as he could get there and talked to the Men from the 5th Special Forces Group who were still there to hear the stories straight from the horses' mouths on how 200 Special Operations troops were able to rid the world of a tyranny and deal a deadly blow to the enemy Al-Qaeda Terrorists in the weeks following 9/11. (*****)
SSG David Bellavia: House To House
SSG Bellavia, Recipient of the Silver Star and recommended for the Medal of Honor takes us into the realities of Urban Combat. Another True Hero who will likely continue to lead this Nation forward as he continues to serve our Nation in new ways. (*****)
Marcus Luttrell: Lone Survivor
Marcus Luttrell, USN SeAL, and a true Hero takes the reader through his experiences including those that EARNED him the Navy Cross in Afghanistan. (*****)
Ace Of Spades: Why Language Matters In this article, Ace of Spades demonstrates how the writing style of "journalists" and other writers is purposely used to influence the electorate. He explains this far better than I have been able to do, but this is the foundation of why I could no longer be silent.
Go to War against the Nazis with SSG Smith of the 94th Infantry Division. Review: http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2010/04/everymans-war-vet.html.html
Free Shipping on Orders more than $200.00: code SHIP009
Snipers
Hunters
Amazon
Giftcards
Amazon
Combat Optical
Delta Bravo Sierra
Volume 1
For a few bucks more you can get a signed copy from the author himself! http://www.deltabravosierra.us/2011/02/10/a-word-about-the-new-book/comment-page-1/#comment-3383
Get your copy of this legendary cartoon now (or wait a few days for the signed copy!)
On the front pages of the international msm this past week:
Airman 1st Class Matthew R. Seidler, 24, of Westminster, Md. Tech. Sgt. Matthew S. Schwartz, 34, of Traverse City, Mich. Senior Airman Bryan R. Bell, 23, of Erie, Pa Staff Sgt. Jonathan M. Metzger, 32, of Indianapolis, Ind. Spc. Robert J. Tauteris Jr., 44, of Hamlet, Ind. Christopher A. Patterson, 20, of Aurora, Ill. Spc. Brian J. Leonhardt, 21, of Merrillville, Ind. Pfc. Dustin P. Napier, 20, of London, Ky Pfc. Michael W. Pyron, 30, of Hopewell, Va Pfc. Neil I. Turner, 21, of Tacoma, Wash
You might be excused if you missed the msm headlines on these Fallen American Heroes this past week.
Maybe you saw these stories on the front pages of the international msm:
I am *sure* you all saw this video as the top story of the broadcast media last week. It is an interview with a Security Chief in Marjah, on how things have changed since the Taleban has been thrown out - defeated.
No, you saw none of these on the international front pages, BUT I found them and posted these (and others) on War On Terror News.
What we all saw on the msm front page news, and as top story on the broadcast media, was a story about four Marines who filmed themselves doing something very stupid. Whether or not you agree with the act they did is not at issue for me, but the fact they recorded it? Yes, THAT was stupid, and I have to wonder how they ever thought such a film would not become 'news,' given the 24/7 insatiable appetite of our msm, who seem to salivate at every opportunity to show OUR Military in a bad light.
The BHO administration is at it again: renaming their actions, and world events, to further their own political agenda. Their latest efforts to deflect and defuse miltary analysts and commenters/critics' responses to their latest round of slashing of the US Military budgets - while their Troops are at war, and while their Veterans are returning from those wars - is to call their knife wielding abomination "strategic guidance."
Strategic guidance???? This fits the BHO MO perfectly, and is line with such things as his renaming the Global War on Terror some benign mumbo jumbo, which nobody I know bought into.
Since BHO went before the cameras for a press conference the other day at the Pentagon - something no other president in US history has done - flanked by 'supporting' Military personnel, I have watched as the media has dutifully repeated his words, and joined the chorus of calling these dangerous cuts something they are not! The DoD is working overtime to convince the public that there is "nothing to see (or worry about) here. Move along now!" but make no mistake. What BHO is set to have our Defense Dept do, has nothing to do with US National Defense needs, and is partisan, all politics, all the time. If that were not the case, why does he so often preface his announcements of Military issues with "I kept my promise'? Don't believe me? Do your own research. It wouldn't take you long to prove my point. Courtesy of the internet, there are lots of videos of his "I kept my promise.'...
Today from the DoD, as article as another Military leader is interviewed about the US 'strategic guidance':
Official: Strategic Guidance Recognizes U.S. NATO Commitments
By Donna Miles American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9, 2012 – As the United States implements new strategic guidance that increases its focus on Asia and the Pacific, it also needs to pursue “smart defense initiatives” as it continues to honor its NATO commitments, a senior defense official said today.
Budget constraints will demand new efficiencies and new approaches to collective defense, Julianne Smith, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Europe and NATO policy, told reporters at the Foreign Press Center here.
Smith joined Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Phillip Gordon in explaining how the new strategic guidance will impact defense in the European theater.
“The trans-Atlantic relationship remains an essential source of stability in an unpredictable world,” Gordon said, with Europe remaining the United States’ principal partner in promoting global and economic security.
“And so the strategy outlined last week reaffirms our commitment to European security,” he said, and continued commitment to the so-called Article 5 responsibility to aid any NATO ally in the event of an attack....
More here, if you must. "...reaffirms our commitment to [... ]security...' Really? As I said to a Veteran the other day, 'can these politicans be serious'? Same for some of the Military bigwigs I have seen and heard, as the Mouth In Chief shares oh so sincerely with the msm his vision of America's future. I understand very well that our Military leaders have to be seen to being in step with the MIC if they want to keep their jobs, but the politicians? Even those of us non-Military types, and with even one brain cell with which to read, know that now is not the time to be slashing Military or Defense budgets to the extent that BHO is planning. No.
War On Terror News can always be relied on to give the straight goods:
01/07/2012
The Latest Obama Purges of the Military
I am not a fan of politicians, but less so when they tell us how grateful we should be that they're about to put the big green weanie up our rears, without an ounce of lube. What does this statement mean?
"We’re also going to keep faith with those who serve" President Obama, 6 JAN 2012, as he announced new massive cuts to the military.
I've been hearing that line for months now, even as the Administration has ordered 49,000 US Soldiers into the unemployment lines, after tossing 10,000-100,000 Northrop-Grumman employees on the street who were building the F-22, and 20,000 National Guard Soldiers out of the service. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was the first I heard utter the phrase, even as he attempted to blame Congress for the cuts he had already requested, and ahead of the most recent cuts he announced. This came after cuts of $550 Billion by the same Administration. So when I hear this Administration tell me that they will "keep the faith" with Troops and Veterans, I know there's something bad coming down the pike.
The latest round brings us to $1.1+ Trillion in cuts to the Military, at the same time the Administration increased the Federal Debt to $15.3 Trillion. Yes, every part of government except the DoD and Veterans Administration budgets have ballooned. DoD budgets have not only been cut but misused. ...
[...]
The Obama Administration tells us that he plans to increase commitments in the Pacific, while at the same time cutting the number of Troops & Equipment available for these new commitments. It says we're going to rely on alliances for our security, and specifically mentions NATO, which has also cut its defenses significantly in the last decades, to the point that during the Libyan War, the US had to give them munitions to fight the "non-war" that Obama never consulted Congress for, though it was our munitions being launched from our ships and airplanes destroying Libyan buildings and TV stations, because they were "supporting the regime" in a dangerous manner...
Just in case that wasn't clear enough for anyone, WOTN revisits the issue of slashing Defense budgets - oooops, I mean 'strategic guidance' of course! - in this:
01/07/2012
As Politicians Abandon Our Troops & National Security
In 2008, candidate Obama told us he would make Afghanistan his top priority. In 2009, he told us he would listen to the Generals, that he would "fully support our Troops." In 2010, he told us the situation on the ground would shape his decisions on how many Troops to authorize the Generals to have to fight the enemy. In 2011, he told us he would "keep faith" with the Troops who have fought our Wars.
"We will back you up to the hilt, because you deserve the strategy, the clear mission, the defined goals and the equipment and support you need to get the job done." President Obama 10/26/2009, Florida
The situation in Afghanistan did NOT dictate the reduction of forces there. Not only did he not send the Troops General McChrystal, and General McKiernan before him, requested, but he announced the "drawdown" when he announced the half-stepping measures. As a result, General McChrystal & General Petraeus had only enough Troops to surge into Helmand and Kandahar, keeping only enough Troops in Paktika, Paktia, Jalalabad, and Khowst, to hope it wouldn't get worse.
General Allen has promised to use whatever resources the politicians allow him to fight for Victory. That means he is now pushing into the Eastern Provinces, while attempting to hold on to the Victories in the South. The War in Afghanistan has become its own version of the 1+1 policy of the Clinton Administration. That policy decision was also budget driven to decrease the size of the military to a point that the Nation would "be able to win one war, while holding another to a stalemate," until forces were available from the first war. General McChrystal, General Petraeus, & General Allen have been forced by politicians to fight the War in Afghanistan the same way, trying to win in one region of the country, while holding others to a stalemate.
And if this Nation, combined with our NATO allies, cannot win the War in Afghanistan alone, then we must abandon the myth that we could hold a second war to a stalemate long enough to win the first War in Afghanistan. And that is occuring before his cuts. The new policy can't be considered a 1+1 policy, but a +1 Defense posture. The Administration hopes that the military can fight to a stalemate long enough for someone to "end the war."...
WOTN also has video proof of BHO the candidate, who was singing a very different tune then as he aspired to the highest office in the land. Go! To some of us, it doesn't matter what words BHO or his minions spout. We know it is all about politics, and money. We know that slashing things like Military budgets speaks to those supporters to whom candidate Obama promised 'hope and change.'...We also know - because we pay attention - that yes, all budgets need to be cut in these austere times, as deficits and debtloads rise globally, a trillion here, another trillion there. We get that, but cutting Defence budgets to the point of insanity in such dangerous times, even if the 'Taleban is not our enemy'? There is NO 'splaining that away as a smart move.
In case you think that only Americans are being subjected to this insanity of ensuring National INsecurity, you should know that Canada has also been going full steam ahead with slashing critical budgets. Since Prime Minister Harper finally got his long-sought majority government this last election, the knives have been out as all federal departments were told to cut their budgets by 5% over a 3 year period..This week comes word that some of those departments have now been told to cut their budgets by 10% over a one year timeframe. Care to hazard a guess as to which departments have been given these 10% goals? I'll tell you: Defence, CSIS - the department whose mandate is supposedly Canada's Security - AND Foreign Affairs. Read more on this over at the CBC, where these details could be lost in a story whose main focus is the unions bellyaching about job loss. These cuts all the while the government is going to give a $5million private contract for an assessment of global threats! Hello? And yes, while Canadian Veterans are having to fight their government when they return from the sandbox, for benefits that they have earned in service to their country. THAT story another day. Again, though, politicians both side of the border (and in Britain, I might add) slashing Military and Defence budgets with apparently very little regard for a) their side of the contracts they made with our Troops and Veterans, not to mention our allies, and b) at a time when the threats are gaining momentum worldwide, slashing the very people trained to counteract such threats.
So if we believe that it is ALL about the money, and I do, (and BHO's constant election campaign promises, of course) it seems to me that there are many other places that budgets in America could be slashed, without jeopardising the US national security. Wouldn't you know it, that with very little internet searching (and a little help from my friends....) I found some funding projects, that should be cut to save the sadsack US economy that would have zero effect on national security.
Daily Caller has this list of what they call (and I have to agree) Top Ten Stupidest Government Spending items:
By Taylor Bigler - The Daily Caller 12/20/2011
As the fight over how to fix America’s overspending habit ended in a stalemate this year, the federal government spent billions of dollars in 2011 on some unusual projects. And according to a new report from Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, $6.5 billion of it was wasted.
The list includes more than $100,000 on a video game “preservation” center, $120 million in salaries to dead employees and $15.3 million for one of the infamous Bridges to Nowhere — all in a year when the federal deficit rose by nearly $2 trillion.
Coburn’s “Wastebook 2011″ report lists 100 of the most egregious spending boondoggles.
Here are the top 10 most ridiculous things the federal government paid for this year:
10. $764,825 for a study on how college students use cell phones and social media
The National Science Foundation awarded the University of Notre Dame this grant to study the mobile and social media habits of college freshmen. We can tell you exactly how college freshmen use mobile phones and social media: for 3 a.m. texts and phone calls to that girl in American History. We could have saved the government a lot of money. Just ask us.
9. $136,555 for teachers to retrace Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales in England
This grant, awarded to teachers from Kent State and Eastern Illinois Universities, allowed Middle English lit fanatics to take the trip outlined in Canterbury Tales. We’re betting £10 that the tour guides just make up half of the landmarks.
8. $55,660 on butter packaging
Kriemhild Dairy Farms received this chunk of change to package their grass-fed cow butter. The funding isn’t the only thing that’s too big: The butter itself is 85 percent fat.
7. $606,000 for a study about online dating
Columbia University researchers received over a half-million dollars to study online dating. Maybe the Ivy League nerds who conducted this study should put down the lab coats and go to a bar — or at least the library....
Yes, there is more here. Really? Yes, really. Almost defies belief, doesn't it? Just those items taken off the gravy train would save a bundle, and their demise would leave more dollars free for the National Defense budget. One of my favourites from that list? $175,587 for a study on the link between cocaine and the mating habits of quail...No, you can't make this stuff up!
These may be a Top Ten, but there is no shortage of 'special' projects that Americans' tax dollars pay for, that apparently the feds deem so important that they would rather cut Military and Defense budgets than do away with such things as the mating habits for quails.
While reading for this column, I learned that earmarking as we know it, in its present form, was not always a seemingly obligatory sneaky way to add ridiculous pet projects onto important bills, and hope that nobody notices. Over at SwineList in a column called: Time to End Earmarks Once and For all, I found this bit of history:
[...] Even as federal power vastly expanded during the twentieth century, Congress did not earmark extensively until the 1980s. Instead, Congress would fund general grant programs and let federal and state agencies select individual recipients through a competitive process or formula. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees named specific projects only when they had been vetted and approved by authorizing committees. Members of Congress with local concerns would lobby the president and federal agencies for consideration. The process was aimed at preventing abuse and allocating resources on the basis of merit and need.
From 1991 until the enactment of the moratorium for the 112th Congress, earmarks steadily increased in frequency and size. A 2007 report from the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Inspector General found that between 1996 and 2005, DOT earmarks increased in number by 1,150 percent and in value by 314 percent. As vocal critics such as Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) have noted, earmarks have greased the skids for runaway spending and bad policy for decades. Politically powerful politicians in Washington began using earmarks as a currency to buy votes on bills that members would not otherwise vote for. The secrecy involved in this process invited the use of earmarks to fund wasteful projects, such as the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” that was included in the 2005 transportation bill.
Taxpayers were hopeful that this practice would come to an end with the passage of the earmark moratorium for the 112th Congress. Unfortunately, that hope was misplaced. Analysis of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by Citizens Against Government Waste identified 111 earmarks – 59 of which matched exact language from previous earmarks. A December 12, 2011 report produced by Sen. McCaskill’s office identified 115 earmarks worth $834 million in the NDAA. Twenty Republican freshmen who campaigned against earmarks were among the requesters....
Imagine that! This is a must read here for very enlightening facts on the practice of earmarking. The final paragraph on it says what needs to be done, but remains pessimistic that there is any political will to actually do something about the absurd projects being funded while serious matters - oh, like National Defense and the health of our Veterans - go on the Obama chopping block.
Robot dragons, video games, Christmas trees, snow cone machines, and chocolate.
This is not a Christmas wish list.
These are just some of the ways the federal government spent your tax dollars this year.
Over the past 12 months, Washington politicians argued, debated and lamented about how to reign in the federal government‘s out of control spending. All the while, Washington was on a shopping binge, spending money we do not have on things we do not need, like the $6.9 billion worth of examples provided in this report. The result: Instead of cutting wasteful spending, nearly $2.5 billion was added each day in 2011 to our national debt, which now exceeds $15 trillion....
You may well ask - or at least you should be asking - what sort of projects does your government see fit to fund, all the while making sure that the Military has to argue for every dime they get? Take a look:
1) Politicians Partying on the Taxpayer Dime – (Presidential Election Campaign Fund) $35.38 Million
2) Mangled Mango Effort Could Hurt Farmers It Meant to Help – (Pakistan) $30 Million
In 2009, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) undertook a four-year, $90 million effort to spur hiring and sales among Pakistani businesses. Two years later, the USAID Inspector General (USAID OIG) found ―no measurable increases in sales and employment....
You think I'm kidding? There is more:
5) Paying for Pancakes – (D.C) $765,828 Almost $800,000 of federal taxpayer funds went to subsidize ―pancakes for yuppies in the nation‘s capital. [That was paid to IHOP, and you really have to go read to find out why.
One of my personal favourites (but no surprise to me) is this one:
7) Dead Federal Employees Continue to Get Benefits Checks – (U.S. Office of Personnel Management) $120 Million
The federal government sent an average of $120 million in retirement and disability payments to deceased former federal employees every year for at least the past five years.
In a September 2011 report, the Inspector General (IG) for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management found that ―the amount of post-death improper payments is consistently $100-$150 million annually, totaling over $601 million in the last five years.
In one example the IG found, an annuitant‘s son cashed his dead father‘s checks for 37 years. The son‘s scheme, which cost taxpayers more than $500,000, was discovered in 2008, when he himself died. ―The improper payment was not recovered, the IG reported...
I am sure that most of my readers already know that the US pays millions in aid to China, and that is included in this list. To read the details is almost jawdropping. Really.
How about almost half a million dollars to this project?:
Our nation currently faces many challenges; a shortage of beer and pizza, however, is rarely cited as one of them. Still, a private developer received nearly half a million dollars in federal funds to build Mellow Mushroom Pizza Bakers, a nationwide pizza chain, in Arlington, Texas.
Okay, I have to ask, WTH are the feds smoking to think that this kind of funding is acceptable? Hello?
Another gem:
19) Children, Prisoners, and Others Who Don’t Own Homes Awarded Energy Efficient Home Improvement Tax Credits (Internal Revenue Service) – $1 Billion
As much as $1 billion or more in tax credits for energy efficient residential improvements109 are being claimed by individuals with no record of owning a home, including prisoners and underage children.
How about funding for a Magic Museum, or over $500,000 to make a documentary about, and I quote, How Rock and Roll Contributed to the Collapse of the Soviet Union. That's number 16 on the list. Oh the name of this movie? Rockin' the Kremlin. These projects are included in a 98 page pdf document, and the other examples are equally outrageous, unless of course you think that Rockin' the Kremlin, or TVs for rural Vietnamese villagers are more important than, let's say, funding the Troops, or ensuring the VA is adequately funded so it can function at optimal levels for our returning Wounded Warriors, for just one example.
These items listed here are just the tip of a very big iceberg, and I haven't even gone into to all the assinine 'green' projects that have been funded to the tune of millions of taxpayer dollars, before they go on to fail miserably. Every American should be screaming from the rooftops, and demanding accountability from every politician who snuffles up to what they see as a bottomless public trough. For the complete document, go here.
If that list is not enough, try here for another list of even more areas that could be cut to help the US money problems. That is Citizens Against Government Waste. Read these sites, bookmark them, start getting really angry, America.
Nobody denies that in these times that belt tightening is a must, on all levels of government. However, it seems to me that if BHO can stand at the Pentagon and say the Military and Defense budgets must be so drastically cut, he should first take a look at what America should be cutting, and yes, Americans should be demanding such a process be implemented before one more Military-designated dime, one more Troop, is chopped from the budget.
It is more than time for every American to start demanding their politicians get serious about solving the budgetary issues, and cut the budget to the bone, on items that do not directly impact the safety and security of ALL Americans - even those who don't eat pancakes. As this very short glimpse here shows, to continue funding absurd projects is NOT the way to address the bottom line.
I am not a fan of politicians, but less so when they tell us how grateful we should be that they're about to put the big green weanie up our rears, without an ounce of lube. What does this statement mean?
"We’re also going to keep faith with those who serve" President Obama, 6 JAN 2012, as he announced new massive cuts to the military.
I've been hearing that line for months now, even as the Administration has ordered 49,000 US Soldiers into the unemployment lines, after tossing 10,000-100,000 Northrop-Grumman employees on the street who were building the F-22, and 20,000 National Guard Soldiers out of the service. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was the first I heard utter the phrase, even as he attempted to blame Congress for the cuts he had already requested, and ahead of the most recent cuts he announced. This came after cuts of $550 Billion by the same Administration. So when I hear this Administration tell me that they will "keep the faith" with Troops and Veterans, I know there's something bad coming down the pike.
The latest round brings us to $1.1+ Trillion in cuts to the Military, at the same time the Administration increased the Federal Debt to $15.3 Trillion. Yes, every part of government except the DoD and Veterans Administration budgets have ballooned. DoD budgets have not only been cut but misused.
In a recent conversation about the pending cuts to the number of Active Duty Troops, a reader asked, "but with the end of the War in Iraq, aren't these 'overflow' Soldiers unnecessary?" (I'm paraphrasing.) The base of the discussion is that the current Administration is cutting 49,000 Soldiers from the Active duty Army. The question is whether this is a responsible thing to do, while we continue our War in Afghanistan, or if the end of the War in Iraq, and the Administration's plan to "end" the War in Afghanistan means that these Troops are no longer needed and hence can be thrown into the unemployment lines.
Some would argue that these aren't wars at all, that the Administration calls them "Overseas Contingency Operations," but to the Troops on the Ground, getting shot at, political correctness does not translate into a change of reality. Nevertheless, we've been at war for 10 years, and one would think that we've increased the size of Our Military since the attacks of 9/11/01. And we did, by a little bit, sorta, but most of the increase in Troops serving every day of the week has been by activating units and members of the National Guard and Reserves. Other shortfalls in manning were filled by sending in Air Force or Navy Troops to back-fill the Army and Marines, in ground operations, in places that Navy and Air Force personnel wouldn't normally be assigned.
The POTUS has said he's going to ask for another $1.2 Trillion debt increase. That's $1200 Billion or $1,200,000 Million. It seems that Trillion is just such an unfathomable number that it seems imaginary to those who are being given the bill: the taxpayers. Unlike prior debt increases, Congress doesn't have to approve this one. All they have to do is not fly back to Washington and oppose it. Yeah, they agreed to that when they agreed to have the "Supercommittee" solve the spending crisis last year.
Hillary and others in the Administration have called these budget deficits the most dangerous National Security issue we face, but they just can't seem to figure out how to stop spending like drunken college kids on their parent's credit cards. Many politicians have been accused of "tax & spend" policies, but this Administration has preferred to spend first and tax later. They figure if the Nation is in enough financial crisis, the taxpayers will take their bitter medicine, that the opposition will approve higher taxes.
But how did we get to a $15 Trillion dollar Federal Debt? Partially, it was a $Billion or two at a time. During Reagan's years, after 200 years of Federal Debt, he was asking for increases of, on average, less than $110 Billion each. It was only in the 1980's that the Total Federal Debt exceeded $1 Trillion. As he re-built Our Military and bankrupted the Soviet Empire in the arms race, America attained the position of the most technologically advanced and best trained military in the world, capable of defeating the Communist Hordes that were threatening Europe. After 40 years of Communist Imperial expansion, the Cold War enemy lost ground to Freedom for the first time in Grenada. At the end of his 8 years, the Federal Debt stood at $2.85 Trillion. The tide had turned in El Salvador to democracy. Nicaragua's Communist Dictatorship was falling. And Americans found their pride again.
It had been a last choice to join the military in the 70's, but by the end of the 80's, Our Citizens looked at their Troops as a source of Pride, and with Respect. The spitting on Troops of the early 70's had ended.
In less than 3 years, the current Administration has asked for and received more debt in a single year than the entire first 213 years of the Nation. In fact, this Administration has asked for and received 3x as much in Debt than the first 200 years of the Nation took to build.
But Bush Sr., was bolder than Reagan. He asked for debt ceiling increases on average of $224 Billion at a time. In the first half of his Administration, we still had the Cold War going on, and as Soviet Empire crumbled, Saddam invaded Kuwait, which launched Desert Storm to expel the invaders of our ally. For the next 10 years, partisans would ask me why we didn't "finish the job" in Iraq. Saddam was still a thorn in our side, but the fact was that the mission in Desert Storm was to expel him from Kuwait, not to remove him from power. It took us 100 hours, with the Military that Reagan had re-built. There were 500,000 American Troops on the ground and on ships in the Persian Gulf.
Bush Sr then said it was time to cash in the "Peace Dividend," to cut our Military Spending and Force, since there was no apparent power in the world that could challenge Our Troops, and we were supposed to be entering a new period of World Peace. He significantly cut the number of Troops stationed in Europe, specifically those awaiting invasion through the Fulda Gap in Germany, from 250,000 to 125,000.
It turns out that it costs a LOT of money to give Military Bases to Municipalities and States. The Budgets under Clinton had to pay for the Hundreds of Millions of dollars to give them away, while simultaneously building new facilities for the bases the remaining Troops would be moved to. Clinton decided not to just cash in the "Peace Dividend" but to sell the Stock that was paying it. He cut the Military by another 20%, over what Bush Sr. had proposed.
That didn't mean smaller Defense Budgets. It meant fewer Troops and that Clerks were transferred to DoD Union Civilian Employees. It meant that cooks were contracted out. It meant that medical staff were hired as Civilians instead of recruited into the Officer Corps. It meant a lot of Union Construction projects and less Military Training. One of my friends at the time had gone over to the Officer side of the house. He couldn't even get the Army to buy camouflage face paint for his Troops in the field.
Clinton asked for increases in the debt ceiling of $451 Billion at a shot, on average. By the end of his Administration, the National Debt had doubled from the end of Reagan's era, to $5.95 Trillion. What had taken 213 years to borrow, had been doubled in just 12 years of Bush Sr. and Clinton, while the Defense Budget was squandered giving away the bases the Army needs to train and scrapping the ships the Navy needed to patrol the high seas. The debt would have accelerated quicker, but the American People elected an opposition Congress based on Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America," that promised and delivered in cutting spending, and protecting the Military from a further hollowing out.
We often hear that "Clinton balanced the budget," but it was the unwillingness of political opponents; Newt's Congress and the Clinton Administration to fund the other's pet projects, that slowed spending. Many confuse a balanced budget with lack of debt, but a balanced budget only means we are not going further in debt, not that the debt was paid off. At the end of the Clinton Administration, the National Debt was a bit more than a 1/3rd of what it is today, and twice what it was at the end of the Reagan Era. It was 6x as much as it had been when Carter had left office, but none had requested chunks of Trillion Dollar increases, not yet.
Bush Jr. would be challenged early in office. Clinton's term had left the economy spent. The dot.com bubble had just burst and Congressional mandates to extend home loans to those that couldn't afford them hadn't yet put the housing market on fire. In March 2001, just 2 months into his term, the Clinton Recession started. And just as the economy was recovering, Al-Qaeda attacked on 9/11/01. Clinton had spent his DoD money on Union Construction projects and giving away Military Bases. The Army didn't have Body Armor and didn't have Armored HumVees.
General Shinseki had cut out Armored Personnel Carriers and bought Chinese made Black Berets, for everyone, times two. Even the Army's boots were of Viet Nam style. General Shinseki had decided against modern boots of the same cost. Instead, he had changed the shade of Army dress uniforms, so slightly that only if two were side by side could anyone tell the difference. It was the Troops responsibility to buy the new shade, to the tune of Hundreds of Dollars, per Soldier. After he demoralized the Army and retired, the current Administration appointed him as Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, where he has pressed for and gotten approval of Veterans to pay for their own Combat Injuries, more and more.
So, when we went to war in Afghanistan, there weren't enough cargo planes to get the Troops and Equipment there. There were less than 100 Armored HumVees in the entire Army. There were less than 1000 sets of Body Armor. And training ammunition for the range was at a premium. It all had to be bought. Often, equipment had to be bought, after it was designed for the first time.
The Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq not only presented new challenges, such as counter-IED protective measures, but also old ones, such as how to avoid friendly fire. In the first two years of the War in Afghanistan, we had killed more of Our Own Troops, by accident, than the enemy had killed of Our Troops. Nevermind that 'friendly fire' incidents were down significantly from previous wars, they were the biggest percentage of losses, and the people wanted it fixed.
The solutions cost a LOT of money. Blue Force Tracker integrated GPS mapping technology, satellite text messaging, and showed Commanders and units on the ground where all other friendly forces on the battlefield were. It costs tens of thousands of dollars per unit, down to 4 man teams. To Armor those HumVees, a better engine, better transmission, better brakes, and better shocks had to be designed and built to get the old steeds up the hills with 5x the weight and fewer Troops. It cost Billions.
But while the Armored HumVees were very effective against bullets, Troops were still sometimes killed or injured by the most powerful of IED's. The Iranians were even pumping EFP's (exposively formed projectiles) into Iraq as fast as they could produce them. For the heavy IED's, the MRAP was designed and delivered in record time, at a cost of hundreds of thousands per vehicle. External, specialized Armor, was bought and hung on it, in order to counter the more deadly EFP's. Specialized equipment was designed and installed to counter the primary means of detonation being used in Iraq.
And the American people were in an outrage that the Troops didn't have 30 lbs of body armor on. American factories cranked it up to full capacity and still couldn't field body armor fast enough to make up for years of neglect to equip our Troops. At thousands of dollars a piece, the new stuff became outdated as fast as it was produced, and Congressmen pressed for new camouflage patterns quicker than the old could be fielded. The Army went from BDU's to DCU's to ACU's to Multi-cams, which look a lot like the old BDU's, in just a few years. The Navy got their very own urban digital uniforms, which blend in very well with water and hence can't be used while at sea. Representative Jack Murtha, who demanded the Army purchase new uniforms, eventually got an Award from the Obama Appointee to head up the Navy.
To pay for this equipment, Planes, Jets, Body Armor, Blue Force Trackers, Armored HumVees, then MRAP's, that wasn't bought on Clinton's watch, as well as coax the political opposition in Congress into compliance, with pork spending, cost a LOT of money. Though the DoD Budget wasn't increased dramatically, Bush Jr. went to Congress asking on average for $766 Billion increases in the Debt Ceiling. The increases in Spending were smaller than in previous wars, under Roosevelt, under Truman, under JFK, and under Johnson, and even less than they had been under Reagan, in winning the Cold War. We've fought two wars for 10 years, on less money than any of those, in real terms, and with far fewer Troops. As a percentage of GDP, we were only spending 4.3% at the peak of the wars, on National Defense, compared to north of 6% to maintain the peace in the 80's.
Nevertheless, the National Debt nearly doubled under Bush Jr. from what Clinton had finished with. Junior's last Fiscal Budget was a record deficit. Almost a Half Trillion dollar shortfall. Now, some will blame Junior for the 2009 deficit, but all of the money spent in 2009 was approved by Obama. Nancy Pelosi controlled the House in 2008 and Harry Reid controlled the Senate. The junior Senator from Illinois made a special trip to the White House, taking time out from the Everlasting Campaign, to campaign for the TARP bill, spending $787 Billion tax dollars to bail out the banks, and directly benefiting Obama's biggest fundraiser, Warren Buffett. He stayed there until Harry Reid told him he was too young to be at the table. Without that $787 Billion extra, the 2009 Deficit would not have reached $1 Trillion for the first time ever. Without TARP, the budget deficit of 2009 would not have tripled Bush's record deficit of 2008.
But TARP wasn't Obama's last addition to the 2009 deficit. There was also the UAW Bailout bill and the Pork Stimulus Bill, which put signs up everywhere to advertise it, and without which, unemployment would have been 8%, and there was the Cash for Clunkers program, which fueled the Japanese Car Factories. While the "cash for clunkers" program pumped up sales of Japanese cars, it was the Tsunami which shut them down, and in turn pumped up US sales. The UAW bailout bill took the Big 3 from the owners, and sold Chrysler to the Italians and gave Government Motors to the Unions. Only Ford survived it, by not taking the money.
The Budgets of nearly every department of government saw double or triple digit percentage increases. The two parts that did not see increases: the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
The Trillion Dollar Deficits didn't get there on increases to the DoD Budget, but rather despite cuts to it, while increasing nearly every other budget, including that of the Department of Treasury and the IRS to the tune of 300%. The Fox history of debt increases attributes the debt of 2009 to Bush, but it should be on Obama's record.
In less than 3 years, even by Fox standards, Obama has requested and gotten increases in the debt equal to 16 years of both Clinton and Bush Jr., greater than all debt accumulated in the first 213 years of our Nation, including the Civil War, two World Wars, the Korean War, the Viet Nam War, two wars with Britain, one with Spain, and the War with Mexico, plus lesser wars in Latin America, the Caribbean, twice against Islamists and one against Pirates, as well as the Cold War against the expansion of the Soviet Empire. Obama has increased the Debt in 3 years, by 50% of what it was when he was elected.
Opposition parties in control of various parts of government do one of two things: they buy off the other party by supporting spending on the opposition's pet projects, as we seem to see today, or they compromise on cuts to their own pet projects as we see in the Gingrich-Clinton era. In both the Bush Jr.-Reid era and the Obama-Reid-Boehner era, we're seeing spending rise to get the spending the other wants, but the Trillion Dollar Deficits didn't get here, until we had a party in absolute power under Obama-Reid-Pelosi, and they quickly tripled the record deficit of the year before.
Did you hear the news? The Income gap between the rich and poor has widened. The Organization of Economically Developed Countries came out with their list based on 2008 incomes and it "isn't pretty" for the United States. Now, I've seen how some of the rest of the world lives, and I've seen how those "below the poverty line" in the United States live, so I was curious what it actually meant. I'll get to their recommendations to "fixing it," later.
Evidently, the average income of the top 10% of Americans is $114,000/year. Now, I'm not sure how this works, but according to the CIA, 30% of Americans are in the top 10% of income earners, while only 2% are in the bottom 10% making $7,800/year. But if one goes with OECD data, that puts the average income at $60,900/year. That's not bad for an economy that produces $47,200/year in actual goods (GDP per capita). Of course, if we only count the workforce, we produce $95,257/year in actual value, and that is pretty impressive. But the disparity between the top 10% and the bottom 10%, according to the OECD is 14.6x.
The OECD didn't make it easy to find the data, and they didn't examine disparities in places like China or North Korea, but it appears even the CIA finds that information difficult. Still, the OECD did find some "shining examples" of places that do it better, like Download OECD-France Inequality, Download OECD-ItalyInequality, & Download OECD-Spain Inequality. Since these are in the top 10% of economic powers, perhaps we should do what they are doing to alleviate this disparity. France has a disparity of the top 10% and bottom 10% of only 7x while Spain is at 10.9 and Italy is at 10.1.
How could they possibly achieve such numbers? The Average income (using the same formula above) is $42,574 in France, $33,106 in Italy, and $25,349 in Spain. While OECD didn't give the data to figure out what the bottom 10% in the US earn per hour, it works out to $8.49/hr in France, $3.40/hr in Italy, and $3.24/hr in Spain. The French produce $73,158/workforce member, while the Italians produce $71,245 and Spaniards produce $59,290.
We can reduce the disparity in income here too, if we did what they did. According to the CIA, the US tax burden is 14.7% as opposed to France 48.4%, Italy 46.7% and Spain 35.7%. Take a look at your gross income on your paystub. Are you willing to take half of that so we can all make the same amount?
A while back, I created a map overlay demonstrating the worldwide threats, with a focus on Islamism but also including secular and Communist regimes that ideologically or violently oppose us. The world has changed since then. Reluctant allies have distanced themselves in the last 3 years. Lasting allies have fallen. Old enemies have fallen to new enemies. And my current picture editor isn't as good as the one I had then.
There is one small speck of good change in the world. The Sudan split into two nations, helping to decrease the mass genocide of Islamists killing Christians and Animists in the newest Nation of South Sudan. The South Sudanese have an uphill battle to establish their new government and this success began its path years ago. North Sudan remains Islamist, in greater concentration.
Unfortunately, Islamism has spread dramatically in the last year, both in its violent attacks and in its takeovers of governments. Tunisia was the first to fall, followed by Egypt, while the Islamist party of Turkey retained its power. Some have hailed these as successes for democracy, but it is a failure of US Foreign Policy and a blow to Freedom.
The Obama Administration's response to seeing mass protests against an old ally was precisely as was the Carter Administration's. Both in Tehran 1978 and Cairo 2011, the Administration urged a Military Coup against an allied leader. The difference is that the Egyptian Generals were actually able to hold the reins of power for a short period of time, while the Iranian Generals had never really taken the concept as reasonable. In both cases, the protestors were a mix of those supporting Freedom and Democracy and those supporting Islamism. Forces for Democracy outnumbered forces for Islamism, but the Islamists were better organized.
Few would deny that China's red star is rising in the world. In recent years, China has completed the Yellow River Dam, became the largest foreign debt holder of the US Government, and taken over shelf space in American Stores. Relations between the US and China during the Cold War were a chilly alliance of convenience aimed at developing fear that China would capitalize on any US-Soviet confrontation, by taking over the undefended scraps of the Soviet's soft undefended underbelly.
In decades past, the Chinese had one primary military asset, that could not be ignored: A Billion People they could throw at a regional threat. And they demonstrated how effective that could be in the Korean War. When Americans pushed the North Korean Army to the Northern reaches of the Korean Peninsula, the Chinese sent their hordes over the frozen Yalu River to force a standstill that protected Communism's southern flank in Asia.
The parallels to Task Force Smith can not be ignored today. Following WWII, President Truman had so slashed the military that North Korea (along with the Soviets and Chinese Communists) felt emboldened to take the rest of Korea by force. The most that could be mustered to stop the invasion was a small task force, ill-equipped with outdated arms. The United States alone lost 38,516 Troops alone in a war often forgotten, while more than 778,000 Allied Troops, 2.5 Million civilians, and more than 1.1 Million North Korean, Chinese, and Soviet Troops died in the war that has not been ended officially, and ended in a stalemate of lines in the same place it started.
Politicians are often labeled Hawks or Doves, preferring calls for "negotiations" and/or diplomacy to resolve conflicts, or a strong National Defense and expressed willingness to use those forces to reduce threats to National Security, and deter misbehavors from acting on their desires.
The same parties known as Doves, focus on domestic spending programs, while the party of Hawks has traditionally protected the DoD budget from unacceptable cuts. The Doves seem to envy the DoD budget, seeing it as money they could use instead to buy Chinese Solar Panels, Chinese made Black Berets, to build Turtle Tunnels, and Multi-Million dollar Monkey Pagodas so 7 monkeys can live in captivated style. The Doves may claim to be "strong on Defense" but even "The One" who campaigned to place Afghanistan as his top priority, to put diplomacy ahead of the use of force, has done the opposite.
But does the party of diplomacy live up to its slogans? Have Our Alliances been strengthened and Our Enemies weakened during the era of purported Diplomacy? Is America more respected now than it was 4 years ago? Are we safer? Have our enemies fled the field of battle to negotiate peace and reconciliation? Or are old allies turning to alliances and friendships with our old enemies?
The NATO operation in Libya has been causing questions from the very beginning, but in reviewing the most recent NATO Briefing on the operation and recent comments by SecDef Gates, SecState Clinton, and high level officials of NATO itself, one must ask what is the future of NATO and is its present form within the constraints of its mandate, or is it being transformed into something new. This is not the first time NATO has been used in a manner different than its mandate, but it is far different to use an existing infrastructure on a voluntary basis and to infer a requirement that individual members act in a non-defensive operation.
Before one can answer the question of Libyan Operations being within the mandate of NATO, one must first realize what NATO was created for and how that mission can continue. NATO was created as a defense to the Soviet Empire, following the Cold War. In a nutshell, signatories agree that "an attack on one member is an attack on all members," and hence all members must participate in the military response to the aggressor. The NATO Charter did not specifically say if the Soviet Union attacked, all would respond, nor did it state that if one member decided war was necessary, that all must join.
"...War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. " John Stuart Mill
Our Nation, or rather Our Military, has been at war for nearly a decade. In reality, we have been fighting for nearly a decade, though we have been at war for far longer. For decades, we ignored the attacks of the enemy, we ignored the declarations of war of the enemy. They were far off and easily forgotten, by all but the families of the affected. We ignored the senseless murder of far off civilians oppressed by the same enemy.
Those that desire to oppress, to expand their own power and ideology, are not of the same mind, but often their greed brings them to ally themselves of fellow oppressors, even of diabolically opposing ideologies. The ideologies of similarity often finds itself in opposition to would be allies, as did the national Socialism of the Nazi Empire to the Communistic Socialism of the Soviet Empire. Democratically elected politicians find value in distorting the realities of "allies" and "enemies" to rally the people to a cause or away from an action.
"When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice--is often the means of their regeneration." John Stuart Mill
It is understandable that not everyone understands the reason we cover the news we do, or how drug violence in Mexico, nationalization of grocery stores in Venezuela, "bank robberies" in Baghdad, and protests in Syria or Cairo can possibly related. Others believe there is a nefarious, secret council that is not only plotting, but implementing a plan to take over the world. How does the average citizen come to conclusions of what is real, what is connected, and what is overreaching the bounds of reasonable conclusion, i.e. nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
Let's be frank, but not paranoid, there are individuals which conspire to advance their power. They're often called political parties, and while they will avoid the term conspire, their means are to increase their group and personal power through conspiring together with a common theme and goal. But to think that political opponents are nothing more than puppets to a small group of secret power mongers would ignore the fact that other groups also vie for that same power.
The world is in fact at a key point in history. After decades, centuries even, of oppression, the people of the Middle East are rising up and demanding change. But not every participant in the protests has the same ideals of what government should be. Not every protest is led by people of the same ideals, and not every person holding a sign understands who they are following. It is puzzling how the Administration in Washington is choosing whom to back and who to attempt to ignore.
From Wisconsin to Washington to Tunis, Cairo, Tripoli, Damascus, Athens, and London, there is a growing discontent of citizens with their own governments. The commonality is that large groups of individuals are organizing protests against the government, but the demands of change are far from universal. And there is no standard of peaceable assembly or violent overthrow, nor have governments reacted in the same manner to discontent of their populations.
While I would hold that the underlying worldwide economic downturn is a primary factor in convincing people to speak out, this factor has not received attention as an international factor, but rather as a side issue on the local stages. The spark in Tunisia was a non-permitted fruit cart seized by a low-level government official. It convinced the owner to set himself on fire, and the people to turn out in large numbers to demand the resignation of a President who probably never heard of the fruit cart owner or the official that seized the cart, until the former permanently disfigured himself, over a hundred dollars worth of goods.
(As in significant points, not overall significance.) It is a positive thing that the No-Fly zone has been implemented. It is a negative that it took so long and has exposed lies and a lack of leadership in our political spectrum. For a month, the US Administration dithered saying it wouldn't be so simple to institute the move. During that month, Qaddaffi was able to turn the rebels back from the gates of Tripoli to their base in Benghazi. The no-fly zone should have been implemented when Qaddafi was shooting protestors from his aircraft.
The French and the Brits have led in the political spectrum, and they have joined together behind the US in the military operations. The Arab League claimed to support the concept, until it was implemented, because by the time it was implemented, it took more than just taking out Libyan aircraft to get the field of battle level again. Had it been implemented when it should have, it could have been a true no-fly zone, instead of what has been implemented: an air support campaign for the rebels.
A level playing field on the battlefield means the war lasts longer and that more people die. When this started, the rebels had the initiative and the popular support. Qaddaffi had the munitions, the airpower, and the armored vehicles. If this devolves into two forces of equal capabilities, many more will die over a longer period of time, than if overwhelming force was used quickly and completely.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the No-Fly Zone is where the POTUS received authority for it. He didn't even consult Congress, much less receive authorization to commit acts of war against a sovereign nation. He submitted to the United Nations, from the beginning stating that the move would need their approval. Combined, this submission to the UN and ignoring the Constitutional Authority (Congress) for the acts of war, is very detrimental to the Constitution and US sovereignity.
"Humans have a basic need to convert others to their cause."
An educated friend explained that to me when I was telling him about another that was trying to convince me to become a vegetarian. He holds true for politics, for causes, for religion (even Atheism), and for ideologies. It validates their beliefs, if they can convince others to take it up. Religion is the most obvious we think of when it comes to conversions, but politics & ideology is equally if not more dogmatic.
Islamism, is a political ideology that preys upon a religion, and attempts to convert the "believers" to it, before oppressing them with it. There are many types of islamists and they don't agree on how best to achieve their common goal: a worldwide Islamist Caliphate. In Current Affairs, we see the rise of islamism in previously democratic nations of the Middle East. But, our own political leaders are downplaying the dangers of islamism as they focus on the means rather than the goals, in many of these efforts.
The most obvious of islamists, and the ones that are condemned most widely, are terrorists. Al-Qaeda is the most known of these and the Taliban are their junior partners. Islamist Terrorists are willing to kill anyone in order to further their goals of Islamist Emirates in the Caliphate (Islamist Empire). Strangely, Western Politicians are now suggesting negotiations with the Taliban, despite their knowledge that the Taliban desire to oppress women, and their continued attacks on Afghan & Paki Citizens and Politicians.
When General McChrystal asked for more Troops, Our European Allies supported him. When Persians risked life and limb to protest their dictator's theft of an election, the POTUS was silent. When Egyptians protested in Tahir Square, the US Government was caught off guard, but cheered El Baradei on and then convinced the Egyptian Military to throw out Mubarak and to open the politics of Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood. And weeks into the Libyan Rebellion, the most we get out of the POTUS is lukewarm talk.
The Official Policy of the United States is and has been for decades that we "don't negotiate with terrorists." It's a great policy, so long as its practiced. It can be difficult for the families of hostages, who really don't care as much about the long term effects, as they do about getting their loved one back. For them, it doesn't matter who spends how much to whom, as long as their loved one walks away, as soon, and as unharmed as possible.
The problem is that if hostage takers get their way, it gives them an incentive to take more hostages. Conversely, if the bad guys realize that hostage taking is a losing proposition, they'll decide against the practice.
I propose (and others have in the past) a policy of Pax Americana. (Pax Britanica for our pals in Britain, and other names for other Nations with the stomach for it.) The policy is simply: if you're stupid enough to attack American Citizens, we will hunt you down and deliver justice to you. Sure, we'll activate the professional Hostage Negotiators, whose job it will be to keep you busy long enough for us to send in an HRT. They will negotiate to the very second that the front door, back door, window, or wall of your lair explodes in their ear.
As we have witnessed the popular protests in Tunisia, Egypt, & Elsewhere, many have expressed jubilance for the will of the people overcoming the rulers of people. In fact, these protests and their results have sparked protests wide and varied against monarchs, Presidents, and dictators elsewhere. Not only is it too early to know the results in Egypt, but its too early to cheer on these other protests, and not all protests are to be cheered as "the will of the people."
Italy is already having issues. They've had to ask the European Union for help to handle the flood of refugees from Tunisia. Why isn't the MSM covering this? They can claim that there's bigger things afoot, but they equally don't want to admit things are worse now than before they cheered the protests that sparke all others. They prefer covering the anti-Berlusconi protests than the aftermath of the Tunisian protests.
Lacking US leadership, the world is devolving into turmoil. The is an old saying that I'll butcher but goes something like: "When a butterfly flaps its wings in asia, Florida feels a hurricane." It is designed to demonstrate figuratively that small events around the world have seemingly unconnected but serious effects globally.
When the US economy took a downturn, it wasn't an isolated event, but the impact of a global economic downturn. Political slogans blamed the President, but the reality is the recession had been staved off for years, despite international unemployment rates in 2004 that were higher than the US has seen in years.
The Democracy Tide peaked in 2009 when hundreds of thousands of Persians peacefully risked death to protest the tyranny of Iranian Islamism, in the wake of a patently fraudulent election there. Iran had to recall its Hamas thugs in order to put it down, violently, protests that even the Iranian Revolutionary Guard would not stop. Democracy had seen 8 years of American leadership willing to protect the will of the people and to stand up against tyranny. In 2009, there was not even a weak condemnation of the brutal tyrannical violence against peaceful protesters.
The tide has turned against democracy and for communists and islamists, for tyranny.
Remember the outrage when Napolitano's Government Agents were ordered to sexually assault airline travelers? One man got his 15 minutes of fame when he voiced what we (most of us) all wanted to scream: "Don't touch my junk!" Remember the Thanksgiving Day call to protest? Travelers were bid to request agents to massage their genitals rather than remotely view their pornographic images.
The groping and pornographing of US citizens is no more effective nor Constitutional today than it was in November 2010.
In response, the Napolitano and DNC apologists suggested we Americans would simply get used to accepting pornography and sexual assault as the cost of air travel. The said they would stubbornly maintain their right to grope us. Personally, I expected the outrage over crimes committed by government agents could not suffer an enduring practice of the crimes. I expected that the government elitists would realize the error of their ways, even if only because of the outrage.
The question of what form of protest would be effective in reversing the practice produced few viable options. Those with the loudest voices sought exemptions from the new rules, and got them, while demonstrating that they really could care less about the common man and perhaps envying the TSA agents their view of cheerleaders and aspiring models. In the end, Gloria Allred and Janet Napolitano were correct: Americans got used to being sexually assaulted by the government.
Those I know in the world of politics are telling me that the War In Afghanistan will be a major issue in the 2012 campaign. The same people had predicted the tenor of the 2010 election results in 2008. In other words, there is good reason to believe they are correct. In most ways, it is a good thing that politics will refocus the Citizenry on Our Troops in Afghanistan. The question is what will be used as facts in the debate?
Two years is but a blink of an eye in politics. As Congress prepares to take their new offices and seats, politicians are deciding whether or not to challenge those that have yet to make their first Congressional votes. By the end of 2011, those challengers will be deciding which issues to campaign on. Politicians in Congress are settling on strategies to force votes on legislation to misconstrue their ideological opponents.
Let's resolve to expose the willing to the facts, the truth, as much of the story as can be told. Let's resolve to shape the 2012 debate with an educated electorate, immune from emotional propaganda. The only force that can defeat Our Troops is the body politic and they can do so only with the tacit approval of the Citizenry. If the issue is shaped by full knowledge of the ground truth, the political debate can rest on facts, not false slogans.
Recent events continue to demonstrate that we live in a dangerous world. No matter what we would like to believe, no matter what some would tell you, evil (or psychotics) do exist in this world and too often they attain the reins of power. Prophecies often fall short, such as the War to End all Wars (WWI) and the "Peace Dividend" (Fall of the Wall/Defeat of Communism/Cold War).
We have been at war for more than 9 years now, but it is not like the wars of centuries past. The Korean Peninsula continues to be a powderkeg threatening to explode 60 years after an armitice was signed. Our economy continues to be in shambles, as Europe's declines even faster and China's economy allows them a massive build-up in new military capabilities. Africa's numerous civil wars continue to the point that it's difficult to name 5 countries not at war in Africa.
Suicide is haram, a cardinal sin. The protection of civilians is required under not only International Law, but also Sharia Law. Killing women and children is considered particularly heinous according to Islam. Mohammed himself forbid these atrocities, so how is it that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda engage in these activities?
The answer is simple: The Taliban and al-Qaeda subvert and destroy Islam in their desire for absolute power and greed for wealth. The illiteracy of those they subject to their tyranny is an important tool in their means to control and terrorize entire populations.
During our own dark ages, those that subverted Christianity used illiteracy of Latin to maintain the Priests as the sole conduit of God's Word and today Islam is going through the same crisis. When only the Mullah can read the holy texts, he is empowered to preach only hate. When he preaches that sins should be committed, when he endorses the cardinal sin of suicide to terrorize by the murder of children, he is no holy man. He is a purveyor of Satan's ilk.
"Those that would trade a little liberty for a little security deserve neither."
The call has gone out for a mass aviation protest today, for fliers to "opt out" of pornographic screenings at airports on what has been called the busiest travel day of the year. The concept of the protest is to slow down the screenings by choosing to be groped rather than photographed, much to the chagrin of the chief executives of TSA and the White House, who are exempted from both.
I have ran security checkpoints in far more dangerous locations than a US Airport. I understand why VIPs get checked less than the less affluent, less famous. And I have a pretty good idea what to look for on the person that is potentially a threat. And I have been searched by some of the most successful security agents in the world, as well as received "special selected screening" by the TSA, even while traveling on orders of the US Government.
At no time was I groped, nor viewed/photographed naked personally or remotely. There are simply better, more efficient ways to check potential threats for dangerous items than physical groping and/or remote viewing pornography.
There has been great anticipation of the NATO Lisbon meeting and today, the expectations of calls for a Four Year Retreat from Afghanistan were confirmed. No doubt, there were other important decisions and alliance strategies made at Lisbon, but this one confirmed rumors and speculation about what the POTUS has long planned. It is not as bad as was his flawed and failed broken campaign promise of a 16 month hasty retreat from Iraq, but neither is it wise or "responsible" either. Let's face it, when the UN and NATO warn you're being too hasty to call for retreat, it's a bad sign.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon cautioned that the drawdown has to be guided by “realities not schedules.” NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the move would depend on the security situation in Afghanistan. Afghan President Hamid Karzai said the move was “irreversible.”
There is no doubt that our European Allies are war weary. Despite campaign promises otherwise, our allies have long questioned the President's commitment and resolve, while pulling out of Afghanistan. There have been other allies that have stepped up their Troop numbers, but some that have pulled out completely.
Sometimes, we have a tendency to oversimplify the enemies and threats we face.“Terrorists” are the enemy but is it Sunni terrorists or Shi’a terrorists?Which are the good guys and which are the bad guys?And are the Ba’athists Sunni or Shi’a?Aren’t we against monarchies?Aren’t our anti-Iranian policies really an anti-islamic policy?
Well, most of my articles have focused on only a few of our enemies: The Taliban, Al-Qaeda and Iran.I’ve made a few mentions of Ba’athists and I’ve defended the monarchy of Saudi Arabia.But what is it that ties these enemies together and what is it that allies us with a monarch?I’ve struggled to identify why we should support who in the world myself.The sad fact is that many times, we must simply support the lesser of many evils.
As much as it would be preferable to lump all of our enemies together and call them all terrorists, islamists, facists, or communists, such an oversimplification would lead to failure to overcome the threat.
SSgt Workman is featured in the Hall of Heroes and a book review on this from Marine Till Death that read it as it was written: http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2008/12/shadow-of-the-sword-by-jeremiah-workman-w-john-bruning.html
http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2008/12/ssgt-jeremiah-workman-navy-cross-usmc-iraq-marion-oh.html and links to prior articles.
Reads like an action novel, but gives insight into the way a Special Forces team operates. Go Along as an SF Medic turned Team Sergeant Trains and Fights in Afghanistan and the Invasion of Iraq.
Advertisements And Search
Subscribers
Sitemeter
Clicky
Stumble Upon: An easy recommendation to others to read:
Recent Comments