They say old habits are hard to break; in many circumstances, I certainly agree. My career as an Intelligence Officer had just gotten off the ground when 9-11 turned everything upside down. No doubt espionage and intelligence collection would be more important than ever, and an essential part of the process has always been about understanding the target. Now that I'm retired, I get my details from the news, just like everyone else. But things have come a long way since my days as a rookie Intel Officer, and I can always find a treasure trove of useful information by switching from one news channel to the next. Having spent time in Europe, I am familiar with the various press agencies, and during the Nice terror attack of last July, my knowledge of French kept me watching the live news bulletins directly from France.
Aside from the horrific terrorist attack in Brussels on March 22, 2016, which killed thirty-two civilians, the last three prolific terror attacks on European soil took place in Nice, Berlin, and most recently in London. I have separated these three from the Brussels incident for a number of reasons. The terrorist group known to the west as ISIS has long made use of vehicular weapons. For years, Iraqis and Syrians have been victimized by car bombs which purposely target large public events, including holiday celebrations and funerals. ISIS will continue to use this method of delivering death because it's a basically simple way to cause a high number of casualties. Rigging a vehicle with explosives and attaching a detonator does not take a munitions expert, and it's just about impossible for security in some countries to disrupt this manner of attack. In Nice, Berlin and London, though, no explosives were used. The perpetrators used their vehicles as weapons, flooring the accelerator and running down civilians with no warning. In all three attacks, the perpetrator intended to exit the vehicle after coming to a halt, to continue their rampage with either handguns or knives. It's important to note that these three attacks were carried out by one person. No doubt, other persons either new of the attack beforehand and/or provided assistance, but the actual event itself was carried out by one individual. The perpetrators were not rank-and-file ISIS operatives, but rather Islamic Extremists who had made contact with like-minded persons through Social Media. For some time, law enforcement in the United States has been rightly concerned with the possibility of well-trained, terrorist sleeper cells embedded on our communities. The reality is, as we open our borders to refugees who have traveled directly from countries which are known to harbor large numbers of ISIS operatives and sympathizers, we increase the possibility of either type of attack.
Most police officers in the United Kingdom are unarmed, as are law enforcement personnel in a number of European countries. From my perspective, as long as the policy suited each respective country, then its a good thing to have fewer weapons on the streets. I assume that this policy is being reconsidered, given that Police Officers have certainly become targets, and they should have the right and the ability to defend themselves. The London attacker used a car and two knives to brutally kill four people. A society can go to extreme lengths when trying to create a weapons-free environment, but time and again we are reminded that a person who is intent on harming another person will always be able to find a weapon. Its much easier for the perpetrator to carefully choose what type of normally innocuous instrument to use as a weapon, but more difficult for the victim, when being attacked, to make a split-second decision on what to use for self-defense.
I chose to highlight the three vehicular attacks in Nice, Berlin and London, because they do not appear to be intricately-planned, resource-intensive attacks. ISIS was not directly responsible for any of the three vehicular attacks in question, although they do deserve total responsibility because of their efforts through Social Media to encourage these type of attacks. What is so frightening is that ISIS can claim responsibility and benefit from these heinous events, without actually having to utilize valuable, professional operatives, who are free to continue hiding in plain sight, until all the pieces come together to conduct a Brussels and Paris style attack, one that is heavy on resources and personnel. It may be too late for Europe, but it is essential that the United States government take all necessary precautions regarding the resettlement of refugees from areas of conflict. The Executive Order that has caused such an uproar, does nothing more than delay resettlement of refugees for three months. I believe National Security and the integrity of our international border are worth the effort.
Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts
Sunday, March 26, 2017
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
What to expect from the European political scene for 2016.
I was planning on writing about the U.S. primary and caucus battles that are presently unfolding, but after watching a few minutes of the circus that seems to be unfolding tonight in Nevada (and the Trump Show is certainly a circus), I thought it might be more interesting to take a look at the political scene on the other side of the pond. I am fascinated by the thought of exactly what kind of Europe will be waiting for Barack Obama's successor. Not surprisingly, the biggest story for the Europeans is the current health and future prognosis of the European Union. At a time when optimists were expecting a discussion on the admission of new members, instead questions are being raised regarding the long term financial viability of the Union, and the influx of what seems to be an endless stream of refugees from Syria. Before the refugee crisis exploded in the front page of all the European newspapers, people in Innsbruck and Rotterdam and Gdansk and Palermo and Munich were stressed out about the financial problems laid bare by another Greek bailout (if one never pays back a loan, but continues to borrow, shouldn't you drop the "loan" pretense and just call it "a gift?). Pathetic Greece can't get a break. Right after the embarrassment of another bailout dies down, Greece is forced to ask for even more money to deal with the refugee problem. With the Obama Administration about ready to close up shop, ISIS still killing folks in Syria, and refugees using whatever means at their disposal to get to a "favored" new home in Europe (Germany and France are favored locations, Poland and Hungary are not), are the political dynamics in Europe shifting?
I'm not sure exactly when it happened, but sometime within the last decade, German President Angela Merkel became the de facto leader of the EU. Whatever policy Merkel suggested, France, England, Italy and the rest were likely to follow. Interestingly enough, Merkel usually took her lead from the United States (see Ukraine and Syria), which meant that Barack Obama had a lot more power at his disposal than he realized. As for the Europeans themselves, the year started with most eyes focused on France and the apparent growth of Marine Le Pen's a National Front (NF). Given the recent problems that France has had with Islamic Extremists, there was real concern that the NF would begin to emerge as a powerful political force, if not a majority party. Actually, there was never really any cause for concern; France's bizarre electoral procedures can result in the party with the most overall votes, receiving no parliamentary representation. France remains ripe for a right-wing coup of sorts, regardless of the antiquated political system. One more terror arrack in Paris and I would expect Marine Le Pen to be carried to the Elysee Palace.
The specter of ISIS has also increased the strength of rightist parties in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Austria seems to always have a right-of-center government, and they make no bones sbout their determination to prevent criminal aliens from entering Austria. Poland and Hungary both have governments that lean heavily to the right. I'm never sure what to make of Itslian politics, but fortunately we have enough information to note that Europe has taken a hard jump to the right, which no doubt was greatly influenced by both the terror attacks in France and the growing refugee crisis. Vladimir Putin's sabre rattling also has the effect of increasing support for nationalist political movements. Whatever president takes office in 2017 will be dealing with a much more conservative, nationalistic, suspicious Europe, and for good reason. Does this imply that it would be better for a Republican to win the election? I don't necessarily think so. A couple of the candidates who are doing really well are not familiar to many voters. As for Donald Trump, I have no idea what craziness a Trump Presidency would bring to the White House. At the end of the day, it would appear that the Europesn political scene is s lot more predictable than ours.
I'm not sure exactly when it happened, but sometime within the last decade, German President Angela Merkel became the de facto leader of the EU. Whatever policy Merkel suggested, France, England, Italy and the rest were likely to follow. Interestingly enough, Merkel usually took her lead from the United States (see Ukraine and Syria), which meant that Barack Obama had a lot more power at his disposal than he realized. As for the Europeans themselves, the year started with most eyes focused on France and the apparent growth of Marine Le Pen's a National Front (NF). Given the recent problems that France has had with Islamic Extremists, there was real concern that the NF would begin to emerge as a powerful political force, if not a majority party. Actually, there was never really any cause for concern; France's bizarre electoral procedures can result in the party with the most overall votes, receiving no parliamentary representation. France remains ripe for a right-wing coup of sorts, regardless of the antiquated political system. One more terror arrack in Paris and I would expect Marine Le Pen to be carried to the Elysee Palace.
The specter of ISIS has also increased the strength of rightist parties in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Austria seems to always have a right-of-center government, and they make no bones sbout their determination to prevent criminal aliens from entering Austria. Poland and Hungary both have governments that lean heavily to the right. I'm never sure what to make of Itslian politics, but fortunately we have enough information to note that Europe has taken a hard jump to the right, which no doubt was greatly influenced by both the terror attacks in France and the growing refugee crisis. Vladimir Putin's sabre rattling also has the effect of increasing support for nationalist political movements. Whatever president takes office in 2017 will be dealing with a much more conservative, nationalistic, suspicious Europe, and for good reason. Does this imply that it would be better for a Republican to win the election? I don't necessarily think so. A couple of the candidates who are doing really well are not familiar to many voters. As for Donald Trump, I have no idea what craziness a Trump Presidency would bring to the White House. At the end of the day, it would appear that the Europesn political scene is s lot more predictable than ours.
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
Interest in the weapons and explosives used in Paris attacks draws attention to smuggling networks and European black market.
Link: Paris attacks raises the issue of weapons smuggling in Europe.
Following last Friday's horrendous terror attacks in Paris, the issue plastered on most of the front pages of all the European newspapers is the Syrian refugee crisis. Its a simple jump from Islamic extremists to the unknown factor of tens of thousands of basically unidentified Muslim refugees being resettled in Europe. No doubt the number of terrorists or potential terrorists within the refugee population is miniscule. Certainly its possible that ISIS or even Al -Qaida could hide operatives within the groups that arrived from Syria, but the sad reality is, these groups already have people who are willing to die for the cause. There is no need to move operatives into Europe within the refugee pipeline, when it is possible to just put them on a plane. Forging passports and related identity documents is a booming business. Be that as it may, the timing of these attacks has European leaders revisiting the idea of large resettlement schemes. ISIS carried out these attacks for a number of reasons. First and foremost, they are intent on spreading fear in our communities and giving people reason to conduct their lives as usual. ISIS dreams of the day that the towns roll up the streets at sundown, and parents stop sending their kids to school out of security concerns. ISIS is also determined to sow confusion, not only with the attacks in urban, residential areas, but also by encouraging the movement of large numbers of refugees into Europe. Its not a coincidence that this attack occurred as Europe and the United States were discussing the most humane method by which to address the refugee issue. These attacks have reintroduced the issue for debate in the various European capitals; many EU states are asking for clarification regarding the EU policy on refugees, while many in the poorer states are asking why it is their responsibility to pay taxes to house and feed these people who aren't even European. Confusion reigns in many corners, which gives ISIS another small victory. At the end of the day, if the discussion leads some states to refuse refugees, then the label "racist" will return to everyday conversation, and ISIS will have won a more substantial victory. ISIS realizes that they can't defeat us with the limited resources currently at their disposal. Their goal is to pit us against ourselves until they are able to confront us in a conventional military capacity.
I have yet to hear a commentator or newscaster opine about the origins of the weapons and explosives used in the Friday evening attacks. I have seen some thoughtful editorials on the subject, especially in the French press. Given the strict weapons laws in place in the EU, how were these eight monsters able to arm themselves with Kalashnikovs and AK47s? As for the suicide vests, any person with the proper training could probably find the parts and ingredients necessary to construct such a device at the local Walmart or Auchan, but my instincts tell me that the forensics people will determine that the origin of the parts and explosives used to build the suicide vests to be Syria. The sad truth is that it is quite simple to smuggle just about anything through Europe. The smuggling networks that exist in Europe are amazingly intricate and business-like. Again, I will rely on my instincts when I say that the weapons used in these attacks probably made their way through the Balkans. During the time that I spent in Kosovo in early 2000, I discovered that the people of Kosovo are tremendously honest, kind and hard-working. Unfortunately, it is also the lynchpin location for the largest smuggling operations that feed Europe. The Black Market dominates much of the economy of Kosovo, and probably of neighboring states as well. When considering the issue of smuggling, most people consider the illegal transportation of goods such as alcohol and cigarettes. Well, underneath the boxes of cigarettes are crates of weapons and ammunition. It is a simple issue of supply and demand. If people are willing to pay enough money, then these networks will find a way to smuggle the requested items. We live in a world were women are still transported illegally across borders for the sex business; sneaking weapons into a country shouldn't be that difficult. As for the suicide vests, I'm sure that the perpetrators were able to request/order exactly what they needed in the way of explosives. The detailed and professional nature of organized smuggling in Europe should make it easier for European law enforcement agencies to disrupt the movement of illegal weapons into Europe. The French police have started really focusing on this issue, which will hopefully result in one-less option for terrorists in their effort to obtain weapons.
Following last Friday's horrendous terror attacks in Paris, the issue plastered on most of the front pages of all the European newspapers is the Syrian refugee crisis. Its a simple jump from Islamic extremists to the unknown factor of tens of thousands of basically unidentified Muslim refugees being resettled in Europe. No doubt the number of terrorists or potential terrorists within the refugee population is miniscule. Certainly its possible that ISIS or even Al -Qaida could hide operatives within the groups that arrived from Syria, but the sad reality is, these groups already have people who are willing to die for the cause. There is no need to move operatives into Europe within the refugee pipeline, when it is possible to just put them on a plane. Forging passports and related identity documents is a booming business. Be that as it may, the timing of these attacks has European leaders revisiting the idea of large resettlement schemes. ISIS carried out these attacks for a number of reasons. First and foremost, they are intent on spreading fear in our communities and giving people reason to conduct their lives as usual. ISIS dreams of the day that the towns roll up the streets at sundown, and parents stop sending their kids to school out of security concerns. ISIS is also determined to sow confusion, not only with the attacks in urban, residential areas, but also by encouraging the movement of large numbers of refugees into Europe. Its not a coincidence that this attack occurred as Europe and the United States were discussing the most humane method by which to address the refugee issue. These attacks have reintroduced the issue for debate in the various European capitals; many EU states are asking for clarification regarding the EU policy on refugees, while many in the poorer states are asking why it is their responsibility to pay taxes to house and feed these people who aren't even European. Confusion reigns in many corners, which gives ISIS another small victory. At the end of the day, if the discussion leads some states to refuse refugees, then the label "racist" will return to everyday conversation, and ISIS will have won a more substantial victory. ISIS realizes that they can't defeat us with the limited resources currently at their disposal. Their goal is to pit us against ourselves until they are able to confront us in a conventional military capacity.
I have yet to hear a commentator or newscaster opine about the origins of the weapons and explosives used in the Friday evening attacks. I have seen some thoughtful editorials on the subject, especially in the French press. Given the strict weapons laws in place in the EU, how were these eight monsters able to arm themselves with Kalashnikovs and AK47s? As for the suicide vests, any person with the proper training could probably find the parts and ingredients necessary to construct such a device at the local Walmart or Auchan, but my instincts tell me that the forensics people will determine that the origin of the parts and explosives used to build the suicide vests to be Syria. The sad truth is that it is quite simple to smuggle just about anything through Europe. The smuggling networks that exist in Europe are amazingly intricate and business-like. Again, I will rely on my instincts when I say that the weapons used in these attacks probably made their way through the Balkans. During the time that I spent in Kosovo in early 2000, I discovered that the people of Kosovo are tremendously honest, kind and hard-working. Unfortunately, it is also the lynchpin location for the largest smuggling operations that feed Europe. The Black Market dominates much of the economy of Kosovo, and probably of neighboring states as well. When considering the issue of smuggling, most people consider the illegal transportation of goods such as alcohol and cigarettes. Well, underneath the boxes of cigarettes are crates of weapons and ammunition. It is a simple issue of supply and demand. If people are willing to pay enough money, then these networks will find a way to smuggle the requested items. We live in a world were women are still transported illegally across borders for the sex business; sneaking weapons into a country shouldn't be that difficult. As for the suicide vests, I'm sure that the perpetrators were able to request/order exactly what they needed in the way of explosives. The detailed and professional nature of organized smuggling in Europe should make it easier for European law enforcement agencies to disrupt the movement of illegal weapons into Europe. The French police have started really focusing on this issue, which will hopefully result in one-less option for terrorists in their effort to obtain weapons.
Monday, November 16, 2015
The world is in need of leader in the fight to destroy ISIS; is it time to reconsider Vladimir Putin?
Link: Number of victims of Paris terror attack continues to grow.
On, Friday, November 13, in Paris, the terror group ISIS carried out an organized, well-supplied attack outside the Stade de France and also at a handful of restaurants and bars. The first sign of trouble was an explosion that took place outside the Stade de France, during an international "friendly" soccer match between Germany and France. The terrorist attempted to gain entry to the stadium, and after being refused, exploded his suicide vest. This started the contagion of violence that moved to the 11 Arrondissement and a cluster of restaurants and bars. The terrorists also forced their way into a heavy metal concert, shooting people at random. Three of the four who forced their way into the concert also detonated suicide vests; the fourth had a vest as well, but it didn't detonate until after he had been shot by French police. It has been reported by multiple witnesses that the terrorists claimed that the attacks were in response to French policy in Syria. Following the January 7 terrorist attack at the offices of French political magazine Charlie Hebdo, the French government instituted measures which were designed to disrupt any further terrorist attacks. The presence of police and the military at French Airports, Ports, and public places was increased, as were efforts to collect human intelligence. Working closely with the United States other European nations, France also keep a close eye on the trafficking of weapons, especially the black market transport network which effectively can deliver automatic weapons from eastern Europe to France in a matter of days. French authorities were also very interested in the number of young Arab-French men and women who had recently travelled to Syria. But the increased law enforcement and intelligence efforts were unable to prevent Friday's tragedy. Its apparent that ISIS has the capacity to plan and carry out relatively simple but well-staged attacks on multiple urban locations. The weapons used were the well-known Kalashnikovs and AK-47s, and the suicide vests did not require a great deal of know-how to make. It likely that at least some of the perpetrators of these attacks had recently visited Syria, and were probably received weapons and explosives instruction at the hands of ISIS.
With this attack, ISIS has demonstrated its ability and willingness to conduct attacks in public places, regardless of the casualties. Every city in Europe is a potential target, and security measures will have to be increased. ISIS has particular goals in mind by conducting these attacks, and will use this event to learn how to be more effective in an urban environment. It is no secret that Islamic extremists are bound and determined to impact the western, "Christian" way of life. The aim is to disrupt the transportation systems that keep our society functioning. Vehicles and planes are necessary for personal and business purposes, and any success in shutting the roads and airports can cause havoc with everyday lives. The bad guys also get a kick out of creating enough fear in the minds of families that children are kept home from schools and streets are deserted by sundown. When we enjoy ourselves publicly, in places like parks, beaches and sporting events, it is a celebration of our freedom, the ability to laugh and share in each other's good company in safety. Scenes such as I have just described can be observed at any time of the year in many different places, from Tokyo to Adelaide to Durban, up to Rome and Paris, and over to the Americas. There are parts of our world where you rarely see moments of public celebration, unless its male-only political rallies.
North America and South America are different in many ways, as are Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. But its time we focused on what we have in common. Each and every one of us needs to ask ourselves that all-important question, "just how important is my freedom?" If you turn on the TV or radio, and find a news channel, you will find that everyone seems to agree on the danger posed by ISIS. Is the Islamic State for the Caliphate movement more dangerous that National Socialism (Nazis?). Absolutely; this Islamic extremist organization has created a force which can engage our military in conventional warfare, while at the same time they are refining, improving and engaging in the old, horrendous methods of traditional terrorism. In mid-1941, the entire world except the Americas (excluding Canada, who was already at war, standing side by side with Britain) were engaged in a titanic struggle to overcome expansionist fascist regimes in Germany, Italy and Japan. Once the United States entered the war, the balance began to tilt in the direction of the righteous. We have this history of coming together, once we recognize the mutual threat. Why is it so difficult for us to come together today? Why hasn't a leader from Europe, Africa, the Americas, or Asia made a speech at the United Nations, calling for a military coalition of all freedom loving nations, to work together and eliminate this evil from the face of the earth? If a united military force, including the armies and air forces of the United States, the EU, Russia, China, Japan, India, and whoever else was able, surrounded the forces of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, and just obliterated them, it would be such a great step forward for the cause of freedom in our culture and society today. Why has it been so difficult to find a leader to take that walk to the podium, and point the world in the right direction? Actually, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been on a bit of a campaign to become just such an international leader, not only rehabilitating Russia's image, but the image of Russia's ally Iran at the same time. I have been very critical of Putin in recent months, holding out hope that maybe Barack Obama would step up to the plate and answer the call of history. That hasn't happened; is it time that I give Putin a chance?
On, Friday, November 13, in Paris, the terror group ISIS carried out an organized, well-supplied attack outside the Stade de France and also at a handful of restaurants and bars. The first sign of trouble was an explosion that took place outside the Stade de France, during an international "friendly" soccer match between Germany and France. The terrorist attempted to gain entry to the stadium, and after being refused, exploded his suicide vest. This started the contagion of violence that moved to the 11 Arrondissement and a cluster of restaurants and bars. The terrorists also forced their way into a heavy metal concert, shooting people at random. Three of the four who forced their way into the concert also detonated suicide vests; the fourth had a vest as well, but it didn't detonate until after he had been shot by French police. It has been reported by multiple witnesses that the terrorists claimed that the attacks were in response to French policy in Syria. Following the January 7 terrorist attack at the offices of French political magazine Charlie Hebdo, the French government instituted measures which were designed to disrupt any further terrorist attacks. The presence of police and the military at French Airports, Ports, and public places was increased, as were efforts to collect human intelligence. Working closely with the United States other European nations, France also keep a close eye on the trafficking of weapons, especially the black market transport network which effectively can deliver automatic weapons from eastern Europe to France in a matter of days. French authorities were also very interested in the number of young Arab-French men and women who had recently travelled to Syria. But the increased law enforcement and intelligence efforts were unable to prevent Friday's tragedy. Its apparent that ISIS has the capacity to plan and carry out relatively simple but well-staged attacks on multiple urban locations. The weapons used were the well-known Kalashnikovs and AK-47s, and the suicide vests did not require a great deal of know-how to make. It likely that at least some of the perpetrators of these attacks had recently visited Syria, and were probably received weapons and explosives instruction at the hands of ISIS.
With this attack, ISIS has demonstrated its ability and willingness to conduct attacks in public places, regardless of the casualties. Every city in Europe is a potential target, and security measures will have to be increased. ISIS has particular goals in mind by conducting these attacks, and will use this event to learn how to be more effective in an urban environment. It is no secret that Islamic extremists are bound and determined to impact the western, "Christian" way of life. The aim is to disrupt the transportation systems that keep our society functioning. Vehicles and planes are necessary for personal and business purposes, and any success in shutting the roads and airports can cause havoc with everyday lives. The bad guys also get a kick out of creating enough fear in the minds of families that children are kept home from schools and streets are deserted by sundown. When we enjoy ourselves publicly, in places like parks, beaches and sporting events, it is a celebration of our freedom, the ability to laugh and share in each other's good company in safety. Scenes such as I have just described can be observed at any time of the year in many different places, from Tokyo to Adelaide to Durban, up to Rome and Paris, and over to the Americas. There are parts of our world where you rarely see moments of public celebration, unless its male-only political rallies.
North America and South America are different in many ways, as are Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. But its time we focused on what we have in common. Each and every one of us needs to ask ourselves that all-important question, "just how important is my freedom?" If you turn on the TV or radio, and find a news channel, you will find that everyone seems to agree on the danger posed by ISIS. Is the Islamic State for the Caliphate movement more dangerous that National Socialism (Nazis?). Absolutely; this Islamic extremist organization has created a force which can engage our military in conventional warfare, while at the same time they are refining, improving and engaging in the old, horrendous methods of traditional terrorism. In mid-1941, the entire world except the Americas (excluding Canada, who was already at war, standing side by side with Britain) were engaged in a titanic struggle to overcome expansionist fascist regimes in Germany, Italy and Japan. Once the United States entered the war, the balance began to tilt in the direction of the righteous. We have this history of coming together, once we recognize the mutual threat. Why is it so difficult for us to come together today? Why hasn't a leader from Europe, Africa, the Americas, or Asia made a speech at the United Nations, calling for a military coalition of all freedom loving nations, to work together and eliminate this evil from the face of the earth? If a united military force, including the armies and air forces of the United States, the EU, Russia, China, Japan, India, and whoever else was able, surrounded the forces of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, and just obliterated them, it would be such a great step forward for the cause of freedom in our culture and society today. Why has it been so difficult to find a leader to take that walk to the podium, and point the world in the right direction? Actually, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been on a bit of a campaign to become just such an international leader, not only rehabilitating Russia's image, but the image of Russia's ally Iran at the same time. I have been very critical of Putin in recent months, holding out hope that maybe Barack Obama would step up to the plate and answer the call of history. That hasn't happened; is it time that I give Putin a chance?
Friday, September 18, 2015
The world needs a leader to stand up to ISIS; can Putin fill the role?
Link: Putin using media and military to make headlines in Syria.
Over the last two years, the world has become a much more dangerous place. Russia seems intent on presiding over the dismemberment of Ukraine, Libya has become a magnet for jihadist groups, Iran, arguably the world's foremost exporter of terrorism, has been given open access to purchase modern military equipment, and ISIS seems unstoppable as it racks up battlefield victories in Iraq and Syria. What the international situation calls for is the arrival on the scene of a true leader. Barack Obama does not have the courage or the conviction to be that leader, and the various European Heads of State are permanently frozen in "surrender" mode. Whose left? What about Vladimir Putin? Sure, I'm disturbed by Russian aggression in Ukraine, but the situation in Donbas and Crimea does not present a current threat to world peace. Let's take a serious look at the danger posed by the continued existence of the Islamic State for Iraq and al-Sham, or the Islamic State for a Caliphate in the Levant, or ISIS/ISIL, or whatever name suits you. Simply put, this Islamic Extremist Organization is about Death.
ISIS claims to be singularly focused on the creation of a new Islamic Caliphate. The most recent Caliph was embodied in the form of the last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. What is a Caliph? A Caliph is the spiritual leader of the Islamic World, and the Caliphate is intended to be whatever geographical area that accepts his total authority. At times, ISIS has claimed to be only interested in Syria, but that interest was expanded to include Iraq, upon the ill-timed withdrawal of U.S. troops. Now we here the area of interest has expanded to include "The Levant" which is a colonial term used to describe Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, and Jordan. The reality is, ISIS is a plague with world domination goals. The organization has spread to Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, Europe and the United States. Quite a reach for a group only interested in The Levant. As for its Modus Operandi, ISIS flourishes through the spread of tyranny, domination and mass murder. The tools most frequently utilized are terror and fear. Its ability to spread to so many disparate communities, including the Philippines and Kenya, allows ISIS to spread its message like a virus. How are they able to convince so many young people to join? ISIS provides the one thing missing in the lives of young people from the poorest corners of the earth: hope. For the individual, ISIS provides sustenance, and in many instances, a little money to send home. And at the end of the day, anyone who dies in pursuit of the Caliphate, will most certainly qualify as a martyr. For the hundreds of thousands of unemployed, hungry young men in places like Cairo, Nairobi, Damascus, Sana'a, the Balkans, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, and Libya, ISIS puts a gun in their hands and gives them not only something to do, but something powerful to belong to.
Again, anyone one of a dozen nations, if properly motivated and mobilized, could defeat ISIS on the present battlefields of Iraq and Syria. Even with their F5s and stolen Iraqi Migs, I believe the Iranians could vanquish ISIS. In fact, a coalition of Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. and Kuwait could probably get the job done as well. Ideally, the United Nations would sponsor the creation of an international military coalition to destroy ISIS. There was a day when the President of United States would ideally fit into the role of political leader of this coalition, given the amount of diplomatic relationships and influence the United States enjoys. But it doesn't appear that our current President is up for the job. Just when it appeared that no one was willing to take the job, Vladimir Putin announces that Russia has decided to aggressively re-engage in Syria, in opposition to ISIS. Vlad puts his money where his mouth is; Russian heavy tanks, artillery, and necessary troop-support equipment has started to arrive in Latakia, on Syria's northwestern coast. If the Russians so chose, a dedicated offensive campaign against ISIS, that utilizes whatever resources are necessary (and with the "no troops on the ground" assistance from the U.S. and Europe), would eventually crush ISIS. But the elephant-sized question in the room, is can we allow Putin to become that leader of an international coalition to defeat the worst of the bad guys, when in the first paragraph, we identified Putin as one of the (lesser) bad guys?
In every post on this blog that focuses on Ukraine, I have made my pro-Ukrainian stance obvious. I'm not Ukrainian, nor do I have any close Ukrainian friends. I support Ukraine simply because they are a nation attempting to become more free and democratic, that has been invaded by its more powerful neighbor. I will continue to support Ukraine, but I'm willing to avert my gaze for a period of time, if it will encourage Putin to dive head-first into the battle to defeat ISIS. I recognize this evil organization for what it is, and what it has the potential to accomplish. The time to smash ISIS is now, when it is still basically in its infant state. Can you imagine the kind of conflicts that are raging in Iraq and Syria, also happening in South Africa, Argentina, and Thailand? Unfortunately, its not as far-fetched as it was a year ago. Someone with international influence has to stand up and build a coalition to destroy ISIS, and it needs to happen now. Since no one else wants it, as far as I'm concerned, Putin has my total support to assume the job.
Over the last two years, the world has become a much more dangerous place. Russia seems intent on presiding over the dismemberment of Ukraine, Libya has become a magnet for jihadist groups, Iran, arguably the world's foremost exporter of terrorism, has been given open access to purchase modern military equipment, and ISIS seems unstoppable as it racks up battlefield victories in Iraq and Syria. What the international situation calls for is the arrival on the scene of a true leader. Barack Obama does not have the courage or the conviction to be that leader, and the various European Heads of State are permanently frozen in "surrender" mode. Whose left? What about Vladimir Putin? Sure, I'm disturbed by Russian aggression in Ukraine, but the situation in Donbas and Crimea does not present a current threat to world peace. Let's take a serious look at the danger posed by the continued existence of the Islamic State for Iraq and al-Sham, or the Islamic State for a Caliphate in the Levant, or ISIS/ISIL, or whatever name suits you. Simply put, this Islamic Extremist Organization is about Death.
ISIS claims to be singularly focused on the creation of a new Islamic Caliphate. The most recent Caliph was embodied in the form of the last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. What is a Caliph? A Caliph is the spiritual leader of the Islamic World, and the Caliphate is intended to be whatever geographical area that accepts his total authority. At times, ISIS has claimed to be only interested in Syria, but that interest was expanded to include Iraq, upon the ill-timed withdrawal of U.S. troops. Now we here the area of interest has expanded to include "The Levant" which is a colonial term used to describe Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, and Jordan. The reality is, ISIS is a plague with world domination goals. The organization has spread to Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, Europe and the United States. Quite a reach for a group only interested in The Levant. As for its Modus Operandi, ISIS flourishes through the spread of tyranny, domination and mass murder. The tools most frequently utilized are terror and fear. Its ability to spread to so many disparate communities, including the Philippines and Kenya, allows ISIS to spread its message like a virus. How are they able to convince so many young people to join? ISIS provides the one thing missing in the lives of young people from the poorest corners of the earth: hope. For the individual, ISIS provides sustenance, and in many instances, a little money to send home. And at the end of the day, anyone who dies in pursuit of the Caliphate, will most certainly qualify as a martyr. For the hundreds of thousands of unemployed, hungry young men in places like Cairo, Nairobi, Damascus, Sana'a, the Balkans, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, and Libya, ISIS puts a gun in their hands and gives them not only something to do, but something powerful to belong to.
Again, anyone one of a dozen nations, if properly motivated and mobilized, could defeat ISIS on the present battlefields of Iraq and Syria. Even with their F5s and stolen Iraqi Migs, I believe the Iranians could vanquish ISIS. In fact, a coalition of Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. and Kuwait could probably get the job done as well. Ideally, the United Nations would sponsor the creation of an international military coalition to destroy ISIS. There was a day when the President of United States would ideally fit into the role of political leader of this coalition, given the amount of diplomatic relationships and influence the United States enjoys. But it doesn't appear that our current President is up for the job. Just when it appeared that no one was willing to take the job, Vladimir Putin announces that Russia has decided to aggressively re-engage in Syria, in opposition to ISIS. Vlad puts his money where his mouth is; Russian heavy tanks, artillery, and necessary troop-support equipment has started to arrive in Latakia, on Syria's northwestern coast. If the Russians so chose, a dedicated offensive campaign against ISIS, that utilizes whatever resources are necessary (and with the "no troops on the ground" assistance from the U.S. and Europe), would eventually crush ISIS. But the elephant-sized question in the room, is can we allow Putin to become that leader of an international coalition to defeat the worst of the bad guys, when in the first paragraph, we identified Putin as one of the (lesser) bad guys?
In every post on this blog that focuses on Ukraine, I have made my pro-Ukrainian stance obvious. I'm not Ukrainian, nor do I have any close Ukrainian friends. I support Ukraine simply because they are a nation attempting to become more free and democratic, that has been invaded by its more powerful neighbor. I will continue to support Ukraine, but I'm willing to avert my gaze for a period of time, if it will encourage Putin to dive head-first into the battle to defeat ISIS. I recognize this evil organization for what it is, and what it has the potential to accomplish. The time to smash ISIS is now, when it is still basically in its infant state. Can you imagine the kind of conflicts that are raging in Iraq and Syria, also happening in South Africa, Argentina, and Thailand? Unfortunately, its not as far-fetched as it was a year ago. Someone with international influence has to stand up and build a coalition to destroy ISIS, and it needs to happen now. Since no one else wants it, as far as I'm concerned, Putin has my total support to assume the job.
Monday, September 7, 2015
The migrant crisis becomes an international problem.
Link: Austria welcomes new migrants from Syria.
At times I am tempted to avoid posting on certain issues for fear of alienating my audience. We all have strong opinions about particular issues, but some subjects can be more emotionally charged than others. The heartbreaking photo of the three-year old Syrian boy who drowned trying to reach Europe, and washed up on the shore in Greece, has really energized the western media. The horrible reality is that young children die unnecessarily everyday, some by starvation in Ethiopia and Bangladesh, others as victims of war in Afghanistan, Syria and Nigeria. The immediate response to this particular photo will be typically knee-jerk and focus on a quick-fix for the symptom, without addressing the root problem. Because this young boy, who was traveling with his family from war-torn Syria to an unknown future in Europe, drowned and has his picture taken, all the major governments in Europe met to discuss their particular response to the issue of undocumented migrants, and the only question the media wanted answered was, "how many of these people are you willing to accept responsibility for and allow into your country?" In reality, what the activist European and American press wanted was an announcement that the European Union intended to establish a blanket policy for accepting all applicants for Asylum and Amnesty, no questions asked. Would this provide an answer to the growing number of migrants from the Middle East, Africa, the Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia who are looking for a new place to live? Yes, but at the same time it would bankrupt the EU and destabilize the cultural balance and identity of its member states. Anyone who seriously wants to address this problem must address not only the symptom, but also the root cause. These people come from somewhere; why are they leaving?
I live in Texas, therefore I am very familiar with the issue of undocumented migrants/immigrants. The term has changed over the years, as liberals decided that the terms "illegal" and "alien" were too harsh to use when discussing human beings. Again, just another distraction from facing the actual root of the problem. The United States of America, through a variety of mechanisms, financially supports the United States of Mexico. We accept their unemployed, and we provide a market for the narco-trafficking that has made Mexico its super highway. The Mexican nationals who live illegally in Mexico return a staggering amount of money back to Mexico to support family. This financial windfall has become a pillar of the current Mexican economic system. Simply put, roughly five to ten percent of Mexicans control the wealth of Mexico; it has always been this way, and the average Mexican has no reason to believe that it will ever change. Mexico is a wealthy country; although its petroleum deposits have started to dry up (all the easy stuff has been pumped out; only the hard-to-reach deposits remain), Mexico continues to have a tremendously bountiful agricultural sector, not to mention car-manufacturing and a growing textiles and high-tech industry. The government keeps a tight control over much of the economy, which allows a small percentage of Mexican families, utilizing endemic corruption, to steal much of the nation's wealth. The under-and-unemployed just cross the northern border into the United States to find work and create a life for their families. Mexico is in need of a real revolution, to rebuild the government so it works for the people, not vice-versa. The people need to become so desperate, that they take the issue into their own hands, and drag the thieves, corrupt politicians and narco-traffickers into the streets, and distribute a bit of mob justice. But this will never happen as long as the United States is willing to accept, feed and house the struggling Mexican under-and-unemployed, before they have reached the necessary point of desperation. This is a lesson that some in the United States are beginning to learn (thanks, Donald Trump), but I just don't see Europe ever having the courage to take the steps necessary to defend itself. Until the migrant believes that Europe offers no sanctuary, then the numbers will continue to grow.
In reality, it may be too late for the United States. President Obama will no doubt use Executive Action to sign an Amnesty Bill into law that provides a path to citizenship for at least twenty million Mexican nationals living illegally in the United States. Mind you, Obama isn't interested in providing a path to Legal Permanent Residency, his intent is to create citizens and new voters for his Democratic Party. But that is a story for another day. When we speak of addressing the genesis of the migrant problem in Europe, we must examine the circumstances that created this particular flow of refugees. The war in Syria, which has been raging for more than five years, has been displacing hundreds of thousands of people. Europe and the United States have welcomed many of these refugees already, and Turkey is already dealing with a refugee crisis. But the migrants aren't only coming from Syria. The majority actually come from Africa, and pay to be ferried across the Mediterranean in all sorts of dangerous, unseaworthy craft. Many are hopeful of finding a home and a steady job so they can support their immediate family, and eventually send for the rest. South Africa has been dealing with a refugee crisis since the end of apartheid; Nigerians, Ghanians, Zimbabweans, Congolese, all headed to South Africa, convinced that a good job and a new life awaited. Australia has been dealing with refugees from Southeast Asia since the end of the Vietnam War. The reality is, the prosperous western nations of the world do not have enough wealth to support its refugees. The math just doesn't add up, which is very frustrating, because the planet is nowhere near reaching the limit of its ability to support the human population.
Accepting the refugees as new European citizens will only guarantee an increased number of refugees. Europe's generosity is actually to blame for the direction of many of these refugees to begin with. Europe has always been willing to take Turks, Somalis, Algerians, Albanians, Palestinians, and others who are fleeing conflict, searching for the opportunity for a new life. But the problem has become so big that the only solution is to deal with it at its source. Syria is in upheaval because of the spread of ISIS; the Iraqi Refugees, especially from the north, are also beginning to make their presence felt. Since the entire world acknowledges what a horrific threat ISIS is to free people everywhere, then why hasn't some European or United States statesman risen to the occasion, and led an allied military campaign to destroy this human pestilence? Its not as if ISIS is willing to confine their expansion to the Levant; they have created cells as far away as South America, Canada, and The Philippines. Their stated goal is our destruction, so why haven't we solved the Syrian/Iraqi refugee crisis and the ISIS threat with a united military effort? In Africa, the refugee problem stems from what appears to be an inability for an African government to function outside the boundaries of institutionalized corruption. Even humanitarian aid has a habit of ending up in the hands of one smuggler or another. Since the end of apartheid, the ANC has started to follow in the footsteps of the Mugabes and Mobutus, with government ministers using public funds as a private bank account. If a nation does not have the resources to support economic growth, stagnation and recession occur, and the people will have no jobs. We can't invade Africa and force corrupt-free governments on the continent; it must be something that is decided at home. The same is true for Mexico. I have often heard that the United States should just invade Mexico, use the military to root out the narco-traffickers, and make Mexico work for the Mexican people once again. But its not our place; the people of Mexico have to decide when the time has arrived for a political sea-change, even though it does impact our national security when terrorists are able to utilize the same undocumented immigrant pipeline to enter the United States as the Mexican worker.
It's heart-warming to see those in need receive succor. I'm pleased that the various European governments have made the decision to address the migrant crisis this week. But what about next week, and next month? What about next year, when we may be dealing with hundreds of thousands? The total lack of shame on behalf of the wealthy Arab nations as they refuse to accept refugees, is very telling. They understand that once the spigot has been turned on, its difficult to shut off. Again, I argue, wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest if we destroyed ISIS together, while it is in its infancy, and bring some relief to the people who have yet to become refugees, and also give the current migrants a place to return to?
At times I am tempted to avoid posting on certain issues for fear of alienating my audience. We all have strong opinions about particular issues, but some subjects can be more emotionally charged than others. The heartbreaking photo of the three-year old Syrian boy who drowned trying to reach Europe, and washed up on the shore in Greece, has really energized the western media. The horrible reality is that young children die unnecessarily everyday, some by starvation in Ethiopia and Bangladesh, others as victims of war in Afghanistan, Syria and Nigeria. The immediate response to this particular photo will be typically knee-jerk and focus on a quick-fix for the symptom, without addressing the root problem. Because this young boy, who was traveling with his family from war-torn Syria to an unknown future in Europe, drowned and has his picture taken, all the major governments in Europe met to discuss their particular response to the issue of undocumented migrants, and the only question the media wanted answered was, "how many of these people are you willing to accept responsibility for and allow into your country?" In reality, what the activist European and American press wanted was an announcement that the European Union intended to establish a blanket policy for accepting all applicants for Asylum and Amnesty, no questions asked. Would this provide an answer to the growing number of migrants from the Middle East, Africa, the Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia who are looking for a new place to live? Yes, but at the same time it would bankrupt the EU and destabilize the cultural balance and identity of its member states. Anyone who seriously wants to address this problem must address not only the symptom, but also the root cause. These people come from somewhere; why are they leaving?
I live in Texas, therefore I am very familiar with the issue of undocumented migrants/immigrants. The term has changed over the years, as liberals decided that the terms "illegal" and "alien" were too harsh to use when discussing human beings. Again, just another distraction from facing the actual root of the problem. The United States of America, through a variety of mechanisms, financially supports the United States of Mexico. We accept their unemployed, and we provide a market for the narco-trafficking that has made Mexico its super highway. The Mexican nationals who live illegally in Mexico return a staggering amount of money back to Mexico to support family. This financial windfall has become a pillar of the current Mexican economic system. Simply put, roughly five to ten percent of Mexicans control the wealth of Mexico; it has always been this way, and the average Mexican has no reason to believe that it will ever change. Mexico is a wealthy country; although its petroleum deposits have started to dry up (all the easy stuff has been pumped out; only the hard-to-reach deposits remain), Mexico continues to have a tremendously bountiful agricultural sector, not to mention car-manufacturing and a growing textiles and high-tech industry. The government keeps a tight control over much of the economy, which allows a small percentage of Mexican families, utilizing endemic corruption, to steal much of the nation's wealth. The under-and-unemployed just cross the northern border into the United States to find work and create a life for their families. Mexico is in need of a real revolution, to rebuild the government so it works for the people, not vice-versa. The people need to become so desperate, that they take the issue into their own hands, and drag the thieves, corrupt politicians and narco-traffickers into the streets, and distribute a bit of mob justice. But this will never happen as long as the United States is willing to accept, feed and house the struggling Mexican under-and-unemployed, before they have reached the necessary point of desperation. This is a lesson that some in the United States are beginning to learn (thanks, Donald Trump), but I just don't see Europe ever having the courage to take the steps necessary to defend itself. Until the migrant believes that Europe offers no sanctuary, then the numbers will continue to grow.
In reality, it may be too late for the United States. President Obama will no doubt use Executive Action to sign an Amnesty Bill into law that provides a path to citizenship for at least twenty million Mexican nationals living illegally in the United States. Mind you, Obama isn't interested in providing a path to Legal Permanent Residency, his intent is to create citizens and new voters for his Democratic Party. But that is a story for another day. When we speak of addressing the genesis of the migrant problem in Europe, we must examine the circumstances that created this particular flow of refugees. The war in Syria, which has been raging for more than five years, has been displacing hundreds of thousands of people. Europe and the United States have welcomed many of these refugees already, and Turkey is already dealing with a refugee crisis. But the migrants aren't only coming from Syria. The majority actually come from Africa, and pay to be ferried across the Mediterranean in all sorts of dangerous, unseaworthy craft. Many are hopeful of finding a home and a steady job so they can support their immediate family, and eventually send for the rest. South Africa has been dealing with a refugee crisis since the end of apartheid; Nigerians, Ghanians, Zimbabweans, Congolese, all headed to South Africa, convinced that a good job and a new life awaited. Australia has been dealing with refugees from Southeast Asia since the end of the Vietnam War. The reality is, the prosperous western nations of the world do not have enough wealth to support its refugees. The math just doesn't add up, which is very frustrating, because the planet is nowhere near reaching the limit of its ability to support the human population.
Accepting the refugees as new European citizens will only guarantee an increased number of refugees. Europe's generosity is actually to blame for the direction of many of these refugees to begin with. Europe has always been willing to take Turks, Somalis, Algerians, Albanians, Palestinians, and others who are fleeing conflict, searching for the opportunity for a new life. But the problem has become so big that the only solution is to deal with it at its source. Syria is in upheaval because of the spread of ISIS; the Iraqi Refugees, especially from the north, are also beginning to make their presence felt. Since the entire world acknowledges what a horrific threat ISIS is to free people everywhere, then why hasn't some European or United States statesman risen to the occasion, and led an allied military campaign to destroy this human pestilence? Its not as if ISIS is willing to confine their expansion to the Levant; they have created cells as far away as South America, Canada, and The Philippines. Their stated goal is our destruction, so why haven't we solved the Syrian/Iraqi refugee crisis and the ISIS threat with a united military effort? In Africa, the refugee problem stems from what appears to be an inability for an African government to function outside the boundaries of institutionalized corruption. Even humanitarian aid has a habit of ending up in the hands of one smuggler or another. Since the end of apartheid, the ANC has started to follow in the footsteps of the Mugabes and Mobutus, with government ministers using public funds as a private bank account. If a nation does not have the resources to support economic growth, stagnation and recession occur, and the people will have no jobs. We can't invade Africa and force corrupt-free governments on the continent; it must be something that is decided at home. The same is true for Mexico. I have often heard that the United States should just invade Mexico, use the military to root out the narco-traffickers, and make Mexico work for the Mexican people once again. But its not our place; the people of Mexico have to decide when the time has arrived for a political sea-change, even though it does impact our national security when terrorists are able to utilize the same undocumented immigrant pipeline to enter the United States as the Mexican worker.
It's heart-warming to see those in need receive succor. I'm pleased that the various European governments have made the decision to address the migrant crisis this week. But what about next week, and next month? What about next year, when we may be dealing with hundreds of thousands? The total lack of shame on behalf of the wealthy Arab nations as they refuse to accept refugees, is very telling. They understand that once the spigot has been turned on, its difficult to shut off. Again, I argue, wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest if we destroyed ISIS together, while it is in its infancy, and bring some relief to the people who have yet to become refugees, and also give the current migrants a place to return to?
Monday, June 15, 2015
The United States has the finest Armed Forces in the world, and it has nothing to do with equipment or size.
Link: Wikipedia entry on United States Armed Forces.
I come from a military family. My father was enlisted career U.S. Army, and his choice of occupations took him to France in 1962, where he met and married my mother. For this reason I was raised in a bicultural household, and I am very proud of my heritage. Almost every country on the globe has a military of some sort, although a few of the more smaller states rely on larger and more prosperous neighbors for defensive purposes. Unless a war starts, most armies stay within their own national borders. For example, although Mexico declared itself at war with the bad guys in World War Two, the Mexican Armed Forces haven't been outside the borders of Mexico since 1846. Because the United States is a superpower and has been one since the advent of the 20th century, the U.S. military has found itself involved in numerous conflicts far from its own national boundaries. Just like my father, there were many young soldiers who met local girls while overseas and fell in love. This fact only added to the unique demographics of the United States of America.
I consider myself so fortunate to part of a military family. When members of the U.S. Armed Forces serve overseas, their families must live in foreign countries and adjust to languages and customs that are unfamiliar. The U.S. military community quickly turned this circumstance into an advantage. As a child, I spoke French before I spoke English, and before entering Middle School, I had a decent
comprehension of German. Even though we lived in our own neighborhood, we were surrounded by a larger city and had no choice but to become friends with our hosts. The American military schools were/are exceptional, and our community was always taking field trips to castles and historic sites, the likes of which don't exist in the United States because of Uncle Sam's relative youth. During the holidays, the military families would become one extended family, with so much generosity, compassion, and joy. At Christmastime, all the families joined together to decorate the community. Leagues were organized that allowed kids from the different communities to compete against each other in American football, softball, baseball and basketball. And we never forgot that the reason we were in Europe was because my father had a responsibility as a U.S. soldier to defend Europe from communism.
Since the end of the Civil War, the United States has rarely had its territorial integrity threatened.
From my perspective, only twice has our national survival been at stake; the Second World War and September 11, 2001. We have fought many wars because we believed that the cause was just and the sacrifice necessary. On two occasions, Vietnam and the second Iraq War, the decision to get involved was not universally supported by the American people. But our soldiers have been so well-trained and raised in good families, that they have always understood the absolute necessity to leave the politics back home. On two occasions during my career in the CIA, I was able to work with the U.S. Armed Forces. I am unable to provide details, but I will say that I was left with a tremendously positive impression. The United States continues to produce the world's FINEST young men and women, and my blog is not a U.S. Armed Forces recruitment site. My comment is simply the truth. Time and time again, our military proves that courage has a permanent home in the uniform of the United States Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy, and Coast Guard. Once I was fortunate enough to hear a presentation given by a survivor of the Bataan Death March in World War II. He challenged everyone to buy a world map, and draw a cross in every foreign location that has become the permanent home of a U.S. soldier. I still have my world map with all its crosses, and I still find myself making updates. Even though I like to consider myself a bit of a history buff, I continue to learn about young American soldiers making the ultimate sacrifice in unheard of places. I am convinced that as the ultimate melting pot of humanity, for a time we were welcoming the best, the brightest, and the bravest to our shores. So it should be no surprise that our troops have the intellect to recognize the importance of freedom, and the courage to fight to defend it.
I come from a military family. My father was enlisted career U.S. Army, and his choice of occupations took him to France in 1962, where he met and married my mother. For this reason I was raised in a bicultural household, and I am very proud of my heritage. Almost every country on the globe has a military of some sort, although a few of the more smaller states rely on larger and more prosperous neighbors for defensive purposes. Unless a war starts, most armies stay within their own national borders. For example, although Mexico declared itself at war with the bad guys in World War Two, the Mexican Armed Forces haven't been outside the borders of Mexico since 1846. Because the United States is a superpower and has been one since the advent of the 20th century, the U.S. military has found itself involved in numerous conflicts far from its own national boundaries. Just like my father, there were many young soldiers who met local girls while overseas and fell in love. This fact only added to the unique demographics of the United States of America.
I consider myself so fortunate to part of a military family. When members of the U.S. Armed Forces serve overseas, their families must live in foreign countries and adjust to languages and customs that are unfamiliar. The U.S. military community quickly turned this circumstance into an advantage. As a child, I spoke French before I spoke English, and before entering Middle School, I had a decent
comprehension of German. Even though we lived in our own neighborhood, we were surrounded by a larger city and had no choice but to become friends with our hosts. The American military schools were/are exceptional, and our community was always taking field trips to castles and historic sites, the likes of which don't exist in the United States because of Uncle Sam's relative youth. During the holidays, the military families would become one extended family, with so much generosity, compassion, and joy. At Christmastime, all the families joined together to decorate the community. Leagues were organized that allowed kids from the different communities to compete against each other in American football, softball, baseball and basketball. And we never forgot that the reason we were in Europe was because my father had a responsibility as a U.S. soldier to defend Europe from communism.
Since the end of the Civil War, the United States has rarely had its territorial integrity threatened.
From my perspective, only twice has our national survival been at stake; the Second World War and September 11, 2001. We have fought many wars because we believed that the cause was just and the sacrifice necessary. On two occasions, Vietnam and the second Iraq War, the decision to get involved was not universally supported by the American people. But our soldiers have been so well-trained and raised in good families, that they have always understood the absolute necessity to leave the politics back home. On two occasions during my career in the CIA, I was able to work with the U.S. Armed Forces. I am unable to provide details, but I will say that I was left with a tremendously positive impression. The United States continues to produce the world's FINEST young men and women, and my blog is not a U.S. Armed Forces recruitment site. My comment is simply the truth. Time and time again, our military proves that courage has a permanent home in the uniform of the United States Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy, and Coast Guard. Once I was fortunate enough to hear a presentation given by a survivor of the Bataan Death March in World War II. He challenged everyone to buy a world map, and draw a cross in every foreign location that has become the permanent home of a U.S. soldier. I still have my world map with all its crosses, and I still find myself making updates. Even though I like to consider myself a bit of a history buff, I continue to learn about young American soldiers making the ultimate sacrifice in unheard of places. I am convinced that as the ultimate melting pot of humanity, for a time we were welcoming the best, the brightest, and the bravest to our shores. So it should be no surprise that our troops have the intellect to recognize the importance of freedom, and the courage to fight to defend it.
Monday, December 22, 2014
Is Mainland China Still A Communist Nation?
Links: A. China Moves Away From Reform
B. People's Liberation Army
We all have certain phrases and clichés that rub us the wrong way. One phrase which always brings out the red-ass in me is, "we must compromise with China because they are the world's biggest economy". Actually, a few variants exist on the same basic theme. Reading between the lines, the point is that since China has become so powerful economically, we must defer to China and ignore the distasteful laws and actions of the government in Beijing. The detention and execution of political reformers, religious intolerance as a rule, and hardline support for the likes of Kim Jung-Un in North Korea are three particular issues that I have with China, and if you give me about two minutes I can come up with five more. While the western world was attempting to peacefully evolve from the age of colonialism, China invaded Tibet and brutally murdered any and all local opposition. China continues to clamp down on even the slightest display of nationalism in Tibet, which is about as indigenous to China as Tahiti is to France. I'm not usually an apologist for Islamic "freedom fighters", but China has reacted brutally to expressions of Islamic identity in far western Chinese Provinces. I believe these examples are all indications that the Chinese government is just as reactionary and just as opposed to basic individual freedoms as they have always been.
The evolution of a Chinese middle class has done much to encourage people into believing that China isn't a Communist country anymore. How could they be, with such a large and powerful economy? China does have a growing middle class (growing SLOWLY), and also an elite class of highly placed party leaders who lead lives very different that the average rice grower out in the provinces. The Generals who sit in positions of power in the People's Liberation Army all lead very comfortable private lives as well. Their families also enjoy the benefits of luxury and influence. But this is how Communism has always betrayed itself. If you've managed to get through anything penned by Karl Marx (don't lie!), you know that the example must be set at the top, not at the bottom. Wealth should be evenly distributed, and equality should be the focus of all government domestic policy. But Communism has yet to follow through on this admirable but unrealistic plan. Have a look at the Soviet Union, Laos, Vietnam, and China, just for starters. The people in positions of authority (I thought the working class was the societal authority?) always live well, or at least better than most. In China today, I wouldn't be surprised if the growth of the middle class slows to a crawl, and the number of rich Chinese dramatically increases.
For the average citizen of China, the rules and regulations of Chinese society haven't changed in over sixty years. Well then, why do we see so many wealthy Chinese? Because someone found a way to game the system. When Europe and the United States opened up to China and embraced Chinese products, the increased flow of money allowed a select few to take advantage of newly discovered avenues to wealth. Chinese products have always been attractive to western consumers. Originally interest might have been influence by the sense of the exotic that Chinese products delivered. Quickly, though, it became about money. Chinese merchandise was always much cheaper than the competitor. Chinese businessmen who were fortunate enough to have a relative in the National Bank were able to take out loans and build large factories, duplicating European products at a fraction of the cost. These businessmen joined the wealthy list as well. But China is a country of more than one billion people, and the vast majority have always lived within the confines of a limited economy. The closest most Chinese will ever come to wealth is to wash dishes in an exclusive Shanghai restaurant.
The Chinese economy is a force to be reckoned with. I will argue that the United States, Japan, and Europe were instrumental in helping the Chinese economy transform so dramatically in a relatively short period of time. The Chinese needed open markets and favorable trade agreements, and the west obliged. In the 1970s, the argument was, "there are almost a billion Chinese, we MUST be supportive of their efforts to reform (expand) their economy". Along with the establishment of middle and upper classes, the Chinese government became flush with cash. Not just from favorable trade, but also from a streamlined tax system. The Chinese used the financial largesse to increase their influence diplomatically, especially through building projects in Africa (roads, dams, hospitals, etc.). The Chinese also enjoyed spending money in the United States, with enormous real estate ventures on both coasts. As far as I am concerned, the most important figure in this discussion is 1.2 trillion. That is the amount, in dollars, of U.S. debt that China currently owns (eight percent). How does a Communist country manage to own such a substantial amount of debt from the world's wealthiest nation? Forgive....I hate rhetorical questions as much as you.
I believe that China is a Communist country. A country-side tour, outside of Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Guangzhou, will remind the tourist that China continues to be more rural than urban. Subsistence farming is still the staple way of life for many Chinese families. It's my understanding that the educational system has improved dramatically in the past two decades, both by the number of schools and the quality of teachers. As the economy flexes, jobs are created, and China gives the appearance of a nation on the move. Allow me to share with you the reasons why China continues to be deeply embedded in Communism. The entire educational system is controlled by the government. Every Chinese government school textbook is pure propaganda. Once a student completes what we would consider "grade school", they must take a test to determine their aptitude for whatever direction that they would prefer (occupation/trade). Most young Chinese follow in their father's footsteps; its probably rarely by choice. I have had the pleasure of meeting many Chinese students who are studying at U.S. universities. The tuition for these foreign students is almost always paid for by the university. After a bit of research, I learned that these students were the children of Generals, Admirals and Governors. I would have been so thrilled to read, "rice farmer" under the space marked "parent occupation", but it was not to be. So anyone who thinks that China is "less" Communist because of the plethora of Chinese students studying at U.S. schools, think again. Chinese students almost always attend universities who have been selected for highly sensitive U.S. Department of Defense research projects. These students enter the United States with a server on their computer that can't be monitored, and links them directly to Beijing. This information has been detailed in one news article after another, yet left-wing academia continues to arm-wrestle for the opportunity to host Chinese students.
In the past, Communist nations have always spent disproportionately on their military budgets. I'm not exactly sure where China fits on a scale of military spending, but I do know that since the Nixon rapprochement with China in 1972, the Chinese have become steadily less reliant on outside sources for military equipment, and better at copying the best that the west has to offer. The Chinese have refined a particularly nasty little trick that a number of countries like to try. If a particular company has created a really useful mobile missile launcher (for example), the Chinese will invite the company reps to demonstrate the equipment in China. The reps will be wined and dined, and given the impression that the sale is basically a done-deal. Sometime while the equipment is in storage in China, the Chinese will take it apart down to the last screw, photograph and measure everything, then put the equipment back together. The next day, the company reps are abruptly dismissed with a curt, "not interested". Roughly one year down the road, the Chinese will introduce their own, "indigenous" mobile missile launcher. But China has not always played the game so smoothly. One reason why Taiwan has not been swallowed up by the mainland (yet), is because the Chinese Air Force could not guarantee control of the air. The Taiwanese pilots in their latest F16s were more than a match to waves of whatever the Chinese pilots were flying at the time. Another issue was naval. The Chinese navy did not possess a dependable method for transporting troops across the Taiwan Strait (sitting ducks for the Taiwan Air Force). But since the late 1970s the Chinese have made steady progress in all areas of military concern. Some people will ask why the Chinese don't just invade Taiwan and resolve the issue once and for all. I'm sure China could. When a country can turn to a population of over one billion, there can be no doubt that China could just drop a million troops on Taiwan and smoother the country into submission. But we are dealing with subtleties here. The Taiwanese military is no slouch. It's well-equipped and well-trained, and the navy includes three Daphne-class French submarines that are capable of housing a missile delivery system. The mainland Chinese are itching to take Taiwan, but they want to look good completing the job. So a few more military preparations appear to be in order.
Most folks would find it easier to identify a Democracy than a Communist state. As Eric Cartman on South Park put it so eloquently: "Its the difference between smelling the sweet air of freedom or the stale air of repression". The Chinese government has shown no disposition towards religious tolerance, and in far western China, Muslims are being targeted by Chinese police and military solely for practicing Islam. Rumors abound in China that couples are only allowed to have one child, and lets hope that the newborn isn't a girl. The Chinese government has population controls, in that you must apply to live in certain areas (the Chinese have grown accustomed to many, many waiting lists). We have already demonstrated the tight grip the government has on all levels of education. As for students, the government likes to turn them into little spies, because they have the kind of valuable access that case officers would love to have. I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point. China continues to be a nation happily integrated at every level with Communist philosophy. Am I sure? Have you taken a peak at their electoral process lately?
B. People's Liberation Army
We all have certain phrases and clichés that rub us the wrong way. One phrase which always brings out the red-ass in me is, "we must compromise with China because they are the world's biggest economy". Actually, a few variants exist on the same basic theme. Reading between the lines, the point is that since China has become so powerful economically, we must defer to China and ignore the distasteful laws and actions of the government in Beijing. The detention and execution of political reformers, religious intolerance as a rule, and hardline support for the likes of Kim Jung-Un in North Korea are three particular issues that I have with China, and if you give me about two minutes I can come up with five more. While the western world was attempting to peacefully evolve from the age of colonialism, China invaded Tibet and brutally murdered any and all local opposition. China continues to clamp down on even the slightest display of nationalism in Tibet, which is about as indigenous to China as Tahiti is to France. I'm not usually an apologist for Islamic "freedom fighters", but China has reacted brutally to expressions of Islamic identity in far western Chinese Provinces. I believe these examples are all indications that the Chinese government is just as reactionary and just as opposed to basic individual freedoms as they have always been.
The evolution of a Chinese middle class has done much to encourage people into believing that China isn't a Communist country anymore. How could they be, with such a large and powerful economy? China does have a growing middle class (growing SLOWLY), and also an elite class of highly placed party leaders who lead lives very different that the average rice grower out in the provinces. The Generals who sit in positions of power in the People's Liberation Army all lead very comfortable private lives as well. Their families also enjoy the benefits of luxury and influence. But this is how Communism has always betrayed itself. If you've managed to get through anything penned by Karl Marx (don't lie!), you know that the example must be set at the top, not at the bottom. Wealth should be evenly distributed, and equality should be the focus of all government domestic policy. But Communism has yet to follow through on this admirable but unrealistic plan. Have a look at the Soviet Union, Laos, Vietnam, and China, just for starters. The people in positions of authority (I thought the working class was the societal authority?) always live well, or at least better than most. In China today, I wouldn't be surprised if the growth of the middle class slows to a crawl, and the number of rich Chinese dramatically increases.
For the average citizen of China, the rules and regulations of Chinese society haven't changed in over sixty years. Well then, why do we see so many wealthy Chinese? Because someone found a way to game the system. When Europe and the United States opened up to China and embraced Chinese products, the increased flow of money allowed a select few to take advantage of newly discovered avenues to wealth. Chinese products have always been attractive to western consumers. Originally interest might have been influence by the sense of the exotic that Chinese products delivered. Quickly, though, it became about money. Chinese merchandise was always much cheaper than the competitor. Chinese businessmen who were fortunate enough to have a relative in the National Bank were able to take out loans and build large factories, duplicating European products at a fraction of the cost. These businessmen joined the wealthy list as well. But China is a country of more than one billion people, and the vast majority have always lived within the confines of a limited economy. The closest most Chinese will ever come to wealth is to wash dishes in an exclusive Shanghai restaurant.
The Chinese economy is a force to be reckoned with. I will argue that the United States, Japan, and Europe were instrumental in helping the Chinese economy transform so dramatically in a relatively short period of time. The Chinese needed open markets and favorable trade agreements, and the west obliged. In the 1970s, the argument was, "there are almost a billion Chinese, we MUST be supportive of their efforts to reform (expand) their economy". Along with the establishment of middle and upper classes, the Chinese government became flush with cash. Not just from favorable trade, but also from a streamlined tax system. The Chinese used the financial largesse to increase their influence diplomatically, especially through building projects in Africa (roads, dams, hospitals, etc.). The Chinese also enjoyed spending money in the United States, with enormous real estate ventures on both coasts. As far as I am concerned, the most important figure in this discussion is 1.2 trillion. That is the amount, in dollars, of U.S. debt that China currently owns (eight percent). How does a Communist country manage to own such a substantial amount of debt from the world's wealthiest nation? Forgive....I hate rhetorical questions as much as you.
I believe that China is a Communist country. A country-side tour, outside of Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Guangzhou, will remind the tourist that China continues to be more rural than urban. Subsistence farming is still the staple way of life for many Chinese families. It's my understanding that the educational system has improved dramatically in the past two decades, both by the number of schools and the quality of teachers. As the economy flexes, jobs are created, and China gives the appearance of a nation on the move. Allow me to share with you the reasons why China continues to be deeply embedded in Communism. The entire educational system is controlled by the government. Every Chinese government school textbook is pure propaganda. Once a student completes what we would consider "grade school", they must take a test to determine their aptitude for whatever direction that they would prefer (occupation/trade). Most young Chinese follow in their father's footsteps; its probably rarely by choice. I have had the pleasure of meeting many Chinese students who are studying at U.S. universities. The tuition for these foreign students is almost always paid for by the university. After a bit of research, I learned that these students were the children of Generals, Admirals and Governors. I would have been so thrilled to read, "rice farmer" under the space marked "parent occupation", but it was not to be. So anyone who thinks that China is "less" Communist because of the plethora of Chinese students studying at U.S. schools, think again. Chinese students almost always attend universities who have been selected for highly sensitive U.S. Department of Defense research projects. These students enter the United States with a server on their computer that can't be monitored, and links them directly to Beijing. This information has been detailed in one news article after another, yet left-wing academia continues to arm-wrestle for the opportunity to host Chinese students.
In the past, Communist nations have always spent disproportionately on their military budgets. I'm not exactly sure where China fits on a scale of military spending, but I do know that since the Nixon rapprochement with China in 1972, the Chinese have become steadily less reliant on outside sources for military equipment, and better at copying the best that the west has to offer. The Chinese have refined a particularly nasty little trick that a number of countries like to try. If a particular company has created a really useful mobile missile launcher (for example), the Chinese will invite the company reps to demonstrate the equipment in China. The reps will be wined and dined, and given the impression that the sale is basically a done-deal. Sometime while the equipment is in storage in China, the Chinese will take it apart down to the last screw, photograph and measure everything, then put the equipment back together. The next day, the company reps are abruptly dismissed with a curt, "not interested". Roughly one year down the road, the Chinese will introduce their own, "indigenous" mobile missile launcher. But China has not always played the game so smoothly. One reason why Taiwan has not been swallowed up by the mainland (yet), is because the Chinese Air Force could not guarantee control of the air. The Taiwanese pilots in their latest F16s were more than a match to waves of whatever the Chinese pilots were flying at the time. Another issue was naval. The Chinese navy did not possess a dependable method for transporting troops across the Taiwan Strait (sitting ducks for the Taiwan Air Force). But since the late 1970s the Chinese have made steady progress in all areas of military concern. Some people will ask why the Chinese don't just invade Taiwan and resolve the issue once and for all. I'm sure China could. When a country can turn to a population of over one billion, there can be no doubt that China could just drop a million troops on Taiwan and smoother the country into submission. But we are dealing with subtleties here. The Taiwanese military is no slouch. It's well-equipped and well-trained, and the navy includes three Daphne-class French submarines that are capable of housing a missile delivery system. The mainland Chinese are itching to take Taiwan, but they want to look good completing the job. So a few more military preparations appear to be in order.
Most folks would find it easier to identify a Democracy than a Communist state. As Eric Cartman on South Park put it so eloquently: "Its the difference between smelling the sweet air of freedom or the stale air of repression". The Chinese government has shown no disposition towards religious tolerance, and in far western China, Muslims are being targeted by Chinese police and military solely for practicing Islam. Rumors abound in China that couples are only allowed to have one child, and lets hope that the newborn isn't a girl. The Chinese government has population controls, in that you must apply to live in certain areas (the Chinese have grown accustomed to many, many waiting lists). We have already demonstrated the tight grip the government has on all levels of education. As for students, the government likes to turn them into little spies, because they have the kind of valuable access that case officers would love to have. I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point. China continues to be a nation happily integrated at every level with Communist philosophy. Am I sure? Have you taken a peak at their electoral process lately?
Friday, November 14, 2014
Austria, The Islamic Extremist Hotspot Of Europe?
Links: A. Radical Islam in Austria is Growing
B. Austria's Radical Islam Problem
C. Austria Threatened by Islamic Aggression
(If you haven't taken the time to read the links, please stop now and do so. I have a terrible habit of writing on and on, and I probably lose a good number of readers who have other things to do. I am focusing on providing links to relevant bits of information so I don't feel the need to add another paragraph.)
Austria is one of the most beautiful countries in the world. The Austrian people are tremendously industrious; Austria is one of those places where manual labor (artisans) is considered admirable employment. In fact, Austrians have much more admiration for the glass worker, or carpenter, or skilled brick worker, than they do for a stock broker. For centuries the Austrians ruled a large percentage of the known world. In fact, the Austrian Empire (actually, the Austro-Hungarian Empire) was still with us as late as 1918. I realize for many young people, Austria is just a tiny, mountainous place populated with a handful of Germans (ouch!), but the history of Austria truly is magnificent. My close Austrian friend, Marco Scherer informs me that grade schools in Austria no longer teach Austrian history with a sense of pride. As it probably is in most European countries, young people in Austria are taught to be proud of their inclusion in a greater European community, the EU. Not counting Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Andorra and San Marino, Austria has Europe's smallest military. Austria, with a long tradition of prolific naval victories (Lepanto, Lissa, etc.), no longer has a navy (we have President Woodrow Wilson to thank for that alteration of geography). Well, at least in Europe, people don't have the inconvenience of border crossing checkpoints anymore. But is that a positive or negative development?
In 1938, Nazi Germany invaded Austria. The invasion was timed perfectly, to interfere with a planned referendum on Austrian autonomy. Obviously Hitler was concerned about the outcome of the referendum, otherwise why not let the vote take place and be welcomed as liberators? Well, the Nazi propaganda machine went into overdrive, producing reams of film showing the Viennese waving little Nazi flags and saluting hysterically as Hitler's motorcade sped by. Then the Nazis produced their own "plebiscite": those in favor of reunification with Germany accounted for over ninety percent of the votes cast. The truth is, the majority of Austrians did not support Hitler. But World War One had left Austrians believing that it was best to keep a low profile, and just "go with the flow". Millions of Austrian young men were drafted into the German Army, and died fighting for Hitler's psychotic vision. The Austrian Empire was dismembered following the First World War, and Austria was treated as a belligerent following the Second. The Austrian people have become as anti-war as you can imagine, and with good cause. Since the end of World War Two, Austria has strived to be a diplomatic leader in the cause of peace around the globe. Austria has also welcomed refugees from all over, and Austrian politicians have strongly supported the idea of a European government. The heir to the Austrian throne, Otto Von Habsburg, even served a term as a member of the European Parliament. The bottom line is: Austrians didn't want to piss anybody off. Peace was better for everyone, as Austria demonstrated by quickly recovering from the ravages of war to become one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Austria's immigration policy mirrored the generous and accepting nature of the Austrian people. Before long, Vienna was home to not one, but three large mosques.
The rest of the story requires no intimate detail. When a handful of mosques locate themselves in a European City, eventually one of them will start to spew hate (actually, Vienna is home to upwards of sixty mosques . . . how did that happen?). Most of the mosques in Vienna exist for the sole purpose of giving the Viennese Muslims a place to worship (132,000 Muslims live in Vienna; that means 2,200 worshippers per mosque). But some of the mosques in Vienna have spread the call of Islamic Fundamentalism. A number of the Imams at these mosques recruit young people to travel, train and kill on behalf of radicalism. A Salafi mosque exists in Vienna, and I'm sure more than just prayer and fellowship is going on inside. The mosque network in Vienna was allowed to develop roots to reach out and connect mosques from various other European communities. This facilitated fundraising, smuggling, weapons purchasing, and all kinds of nasty business. Then the Iranians and Hamas showed up, and gave everyone a lesson in Money Laundering 101. All sorts of money passed through Viennese Banks and on to other European cities. And we all know what the Iranians want: anything that has to do with nuclear reactor construction that can't be purchased on the open market. By the way, where is the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)? In Vienna, of course.
For the longest time, the Austrian government mirrored the attitude of the Austrian people and was very non-confrontational. I'm pleased to say that change is in the air. The Austrian people were not happy to learn that the jihadi message was becoming accessible to high school-age Austrians, and we all remember what great decisions we make at that age. Also, social media is making it easy for the extremist message to reach outside of the Muslim community. Within the last decade or so, Austria has elected either a right or a center-right government. Austrian law enforcement has started working very closely with both Interpol and the United States to monitor the activities of certain questionable groups. A recent round of jihadi apprehensions in rural areas is an example of current aggressive action taken by Austrian authorities. The Muslim extremists have long taken advantage of the good nature of the Austrian people, and Austria has developed the unfortunate reputation of being a safe haven for radicals. The Austrian government and Austrian law enforcement have taken direct and aggressive steps to end the recruitment of young Austrians and to disrupt the purchase and transport of illegal weapons. Money laundering has become a thing of the past, and the Iranians have gotten the message that they need to head back to the Trash-i-stans (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan) to find nuclear reactor parts on the cheap. I'm glad the air is getting clearer again in Austria. I was getting a little worried there for our friend, Heidi.
B. Austria's Radical Islam Problem
C. Austria Threatened by Islamic Aggression
(If you haven't taken the time to read the links, please stop now and do so. I have a terrible habit of writing on and on, and I probably lose a good number of readers who have other things to do. I am focusing on providing links to relevant bits of information so I don't feel the need to add another paragraph.)
Austria is one of the most beautiful countries in the world. The Austrian people are tremendously industrious; Austria is one of those places where manual labor (artisans) is considered admirable employment. In fact, Austrians have much more admiration for the glass worker, or carpenter, or skilled brick worker, than they do for a stock broker. For centuries the Austrians ruled a large percentage of the known world. In fact, the Austrian Empire (actually, the Austro-Hungarian Empire) was still with us as late as 1918. I realize for many young people, Austria is just a tiny, mountainous place populated with a handful of Germans (ouch!), but the history of Austria truly is magnificent. My close Austrian friend, Marco Scherer informs me that grade schools in Austria no longer teach Austrian history with a sense of pride. As it probably is in most European countries, young people in Austria are taught to be proud of their inclusion in a greater European community, the EU. Not counting Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Andorra and San Marino, Austria has Europe's smallest military. Austria, with a long tradition of prolific naval victories (Lepanto, Lissa, etc.), no longer has a navy (we have President Woodrow Wilson to thank for that alteration of geography). Well, at least in Europe, people don't have the inconvenience of border crossing checkpoints anymore. But is that a positive or negative development?
In 1938, Nazi Germany invaded Austria. The invasion was timed perfectly, to interfere with a planned referendum on Austrian autonomy. Obviously Hitler was concerned about the outcome of the referendum, otherwise why not let the vote take place and be welcomed as liberators? Well, the Nazi propaganda machine went into overdrive, producing reams of film showing the Viennese waving little Nazi flags and saluting hysterically as Hitler's motorcade sped by. Then the Nazis produced their own "plebiscite": those in favor of reunification with Germany accounted for over ninety percent of the votes cast. The truth is, the majority of Austrians did not support Hitler. But World War One had left Austrians believing that it was best to keep a low profile, and just "go with the flow". Millions of Austrian young men were drafted into the German Army, and died fighting for Hitler's psychotic vision. The Austrian Empire was dismembered following the First World War, and Austria was treated as a belligerent following the Second. The Austrian people have become as anti-war as you can imagine, and with good cause. Since the end of World War Two, Austria has strived to be a diplomatic leader in the cause of peace around the globe. Austria has also welcomed refugees from all over, and Austrian politicians have strongly supported the idea of a European government. The heir to the Austrian throne, Otto Von Habsburg, even served a term as a member of the European Parliament. The bottom line is: Austrians didn't want to piss anybody off. Peace was better for everyone, as Austria demonstrated by quickly recovering from the ravages of war to become one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Austria's immigration policy mirrored the generous and accepting nature of the Austrian people. Before long, Vienna was home to not one, but three large mosques.
The rest of the story requires no intimate detail. When a handful of mosques locate themselves in a European City, eventually one of them will start to spew hate (actually, Vienna is home to upwards of sixty mosques . . . how did that happen?). Most of the mosques in Vienna exist for the sole purpose of giving the Viennese Muslims a place to worship (132,000 Muslims live in Vienna; that means 2,200 worshippers per mosque). But some of the mosques in Vienna have spread the call of Islamic Fundamentalism. A number of the Imams at these mosques recruit young people to travel, train and kill on behalf of radicalism. A Salafi mosque exists in Vienna, and I'm sure more than just prayer and fellowship is going on inside. The mosque network in Vienna was allowed to develop roots to reach out and connect mosques from various other European communities. This facilitated fundraising, smuggling, weapons purchasing, and all kinds of nasty business. Then the Iranians and Hamas showed up, and gave everyone a lesson in Money Laundering 101. All sorts of money passed through Viennese Banks and on to other European cities. And we all know what the Iranians want: anything that has to do with nuclear reactor construction that can't be purchased on the open market. By the way, where is the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)? In Vienna, of course.
For the longest time, the Austrian government mirrored the attitude of the Austrian people and was very non-confrontational. I'm pleased to say that change is in the air. The Austrian people were not happy to learn that the jihadi message was becoming accessible to high school-age Austrians, and we all remember what great decisions we make at that age. Also, social media is making it easy for the extremist message to reach outside of the Muslim community. Within the last decade or so, Austria has elected either a right or a center-right government. Austrian law enforcement has started working very closely with both Interpol and the United States to monitor the activities of certain questionable groups. A recent round of jihadi apprehensions in rural areas is an example of current aggressive action taken by Austrian authorities. The Muslim extremists have long taken advantage of the good nature of the Austrian people, and Austria has developed the unfortunate reputation of being a safe haven for radicals. The Austrian government and Austrian law enforcement have taken direct and aggressive steps to end the recruitment of young Austrians and to disrupt the purchase and transport of illegal weapons. Money laundering has become a thing of the past, and the Iranians have gotten the message that they need to head back to the Trash-i-stans (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan) to find nuclear reactor parts on the cheap. I'm glad the air is getting clearer again in Austria. I was getting a little worried there for our friend, Heidi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)