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 France. Show all posts
Showing posts with label France. Show all posts
Sunday, March 26, 2017
Saturday, February 11, 2017
Why its so important to defend President Trump's Executive Order dealing with refugees.
Last week during the Question and Answer segment of a speaking engagement, a young person asked me how I could be sure that I was on the correct side of any particular issue. No doubt at one time or another, most people have considered this question. When I was younger and knew very little of the world, I was very careful before pronouncing an opinion on political or international issues. Frankly put, I didn't want to look foolish. During my college days, if some group or another was protesting apartheid or speaking up on the issue of abortion, for instance, I would find the time to learn as much as I could before I put my credibility on the line by stating my opinion, and my audience was usually limited to my friends and family. Today when I listen to the various groups protesting President Donald Trump and his actions since his inauguration, I frequently hear Trump and his supporters referred to as "Nazis and Racists", with the President himself constantly being compared to Nazi Dictator Adolf Hitler. I'm willing to bet that the great majority of people using the term "Nazi" and making comparisons to Hitler, probably could not find Germany on a map, let alone accurately explain Hitler and his National Socialist movement. Regardless, the name-calling and bullying won't be ending anytime soon, so those of us who support President Trump had better prepare ourselves for the long-haul.
When President Trump took office, he immediately went to work following through on a number of his campaign promises. Anyone who followed the 2016 presidential election shouldn't be surprised by Trump's Executive Order temporarily halting immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations. Contrary to what is regularly written by the left-wing press, the order does not "ban" immigrants from any country. Instead, it temporarily freezes the process, to allow officials from the Department of Homeland Security to review and properly investigate each applicant. According to Trump's own language, the review must be completed within a four-month window. Actually, on two separate occasions, President Obama took the same action, albeit his effort included only two "Muslim-majority" nations. What were President Obama and now President Trump intending when issuing these orders?
We have been incredibly fortunate in that significant terror attacks in the United States over the last decade have only occurred about once a year. Europe, which is ground-zero for refugee resettlement, is basically at war with Muslim extremists. The French have felt the brunt of violence, with the United Kingdom and Germany not far behind. Terror-related deaths have also occurred in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain. Along with individual terrorist actions, Europeans have had to deal with rampant sexual assaults against women at public celebrations, including New Years. It seems that Muslim extremists have decided that any woman wearing what they consider to be revealing attire, is a justified target fro sexual assault. The terror attacks that fill the headlines of European newspapers are almost always directly tied to the refugee community. Why hasn't the United States suffered the same frequency of terror-related events? One reason is because we have just recently bought into the refugee "come-one, come-all" attitude that the left seems to believe is safe, intelligent policy. President Trump's Executive Order was intended to prevent some of what Europe has suffered. With so many refugees arriving on the borders of Hungary, Greece and Italy every day, it has been impossible for European law enforcement to adequately investigate each new arrival. President Trump enacted his Executive Order so that our law enforcement would have the time and resources to accomplish what the Europeans have so far failed to do- protect innocent civilians from terrorists who have been purposely seeded into refugee communities.
The fact that one court in Washington State and another in California have ruled against the President should come as no surprise. These activist, leftist judges believe that their authority overrides the Executive Branch, which flies directly in the face of the Constitution. If the President of the United States does not have the authority to control the border, then who does? If you speak to rank-and-file Border Patrol and Immigration Enforcement Officers, those who are most familiar with Immigration Law (yours truly has a bit of experience in that area as well), they will tell you that the President absolutely has the authority to take action limiting immigration. Interestingly enough, our Justice Department includes the existence of Immigration Courts, who are trained to interpret law relating to immigrants. Instead, we have the California-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ignoring the Constitution for the sole purpose of damaging a President whom they despise.
At the end of the day, those of us who call ourselves Conservatives must be more aggressive in support of our President and the policies for which he was elected. At the moment, the left is running rampant, destroying property, threatening people and bullying our society into hiding behind our locked doors. Their behavior, which has yet to be criticized by any national Democratic Party leader, is an attempt to overurn the results of the 2016 election through intimidation and fear. But they may have a surprise coming. Sixty-four million American citizens voted for Donald Trump, and groups within that block are beginning to mobilize, so that our voices may be heard. At times I almost regret not behaving in such a fashion when Obama was piling up twenty trillion dollars in debt, destroying our reputation internationally, and leaving wounded veterans to die on the streets. Hindsight is 20/20, as the cliche reminds us, so I'm going to focus on the future.
When President Trump took office, he immediately went to work following through on a number of his campaign promises. Anyone who followed the 2016 presidential election shouldn't be surprised by Trump's Executive Order temporarily halting immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations. Contrary to what is regularly written by the left-wing press, the order does not "ban" immigrants from any country. Instead, it temporarily freezes the process, to allow officials from the Department of Homeland Security to review and properly investigate each applicant. According to Trump's own language, the review must be completed within a four-month window. Actually, on two separate occasions, President Obama took the same action, albeit his effort included only two "Muslim-majority" nations. What were President Obama and now President Trump intending when issuing these orders?
We have been incredibly fortunate in that significant terror attacks in the United States over the last decade have only occurred about once a year. Europe, which is ground-zero for refugee resettlement, is basically at war with Muslim extremists. The French have felt the brunt of violence, with the United Kingdom and Germany not far behind. Terror-related deaths have also occurred in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain. Along with individual terrorist actions, Europeans have had to deal with rampant sexual assaults against women at public celebrations, including New Years. It seems that Muslim extremists have decided that any woman wearing what they consider to be revealing attire, is a justified target fro sexual assault. The terror attacks that fill the headlines of European newspapers are almost always directly tied to the refugee community. Why hasn't the United States suffered the same frequency of terror-related events? One reason is because we have just recently bought into the refugee "come-one, come-all" attitude that the left seems to believe is safe, intelligent policy. President Trump's Executive Order was intended to prevent some of what Europe has suffered. With so many refugees arriving on the borders of Hungary, Greece and Italy every day, it has been impossible for European law enforcement to adequately investigate each new arrival. President Trump enacted his Executive Order so that our law enforcement would have the time and resources to accomplish what the Europeans have so far failed to do- protect innocent civilians from terrorists who have been purposely seeded into refugee communities.
The fact that one court in Washington State and another in California have ruled against the President should come as no surprise. These activist, leftist judges believe that their authority overrides the Executive Branch, which flies directly in the face of the Constitution. If the President of the United States does not have the authority to control the border, then who does? If you speak to rank-and-file Border Patrol and Immigration Enforcement Officers, those who are most familiar with Immigration Law (yours truly has a bit of experience in that area as well), they will tell you that the President absolutely has the authority to take action limiting immigration. Interestingly enough, our Justice Department includes the existence of Immigration Courts, who are trained to interpret law relating to immigrants. Instead, we have the California-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ignoring the Constitution for the sole purpose of damaging a President whom they despise.
At the end of the day, those of us who call ourselves Conservatives must be more aggressive in support of our President and the policies for which he was elected. At the moment, the left is running rampant, destroying property, threatening people and bullying our society into hiding behind our locked doors. Their behavior, which has yet to be criticized by any national Democratic Party leader, is an attempt to overurn the results of the 2016 election through intimidation and fear. But they may have a surprise coming. Sixty-four million American citizens voted for Donald Trump, and groups within that block are beginning to mobilize, so that our voices may be heard. At times I almost regret not behaving in such a fashion when Obama was piling up twenty trillion dollars in debt, destroying our reputation internationally, and leaving wounded veterans to die on the streets. Hindsight is 20/20, as the cliche reminds us, so I'm going to focus on the future.
Thursday, December 22, 2016
The refugee issue underscores political division within the European Union.
Last Monday, December 19, less than one week before Christmas, an act of terror perpetrated at a Christmas market in Berlin, Germany, reminded us that the struggle against Islamic terrorism has not abated. In a scene rememisent of the terror attack in Nice, France last year, a large truck was driven into a cafe/market area which was packed with people enjoying the holiday festivities. Parents, spouses and children of the victims are left to answer the question, "why"? Everytime you turn on the news, one talking head after another is attempting to explain the motivations behind violence committed against civiliams; what a colossal waste of time. Regardless if its ISIS or Al Qaida, Boko Haram or Al Shabaab, Islamic terrorism has is intended to intimidate, frighten and murder Christians, Jews, and on the Indian subcontinent, Hindus. Terrorism for the sake of Islamic Extremism is not a recent development, but the frequency with which these groups are able to strike in Europe and the United States is disturbimg to say the least. No doubt Donald Trump appealed to many voters when he promised during the recent presidential campaign to aggressively combat ISIS. Over the next year, voters in France and Holland will have the opportunity to decide if the current batch of Prime Ministers and Presidents have been doing enough in response to these attacks. The refugee issue, which is directly related to concerns regarding terrorism, is presently the hot-button issue in Europe.
The continued presence of ISIS (and other Islamic extremist groups) in Syria has created a monumental refugee crisis. The Obama Administration has been useless with regards to ending the conflict or addressing the refugee crisis. The Syrian conflict has destroyed almost every urban community outside of Damascus, and the inhabitants have been forced to leave their homes. The European Union has responded to this development by opening its borders to hundreds of thousands of refugees. Not to be outdone, the Obama Administration agreed to resettle large numbers of refugees in the United States. The decision to create humdreds of thousands of new Europeans and Americans has been met with a great deal of opposition in both the United States and various nations in Europe. It has become obvious that ISIS and other terror groups have been planting operatives within the refugee population. The resettlement processes in Europe and the United States have no effective method of identifying the throngs of refugees who continue to show up on the borders of Italy, Hungary, Turkey, and Greece. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has led to campaign to open Europe's borders, is hoping against hope that the person who committed this most recent attack, won't in the end be identified as a recent refugee; I would advise her not to hold her breath.
The organizations and political leaders who argue for quick resettlement of the Syrian refugees are justifiably trying to avoid a human catastrophe. But the answer to this problem should never imclude comprimising the security of persons in North America and Europe. Settimg up quota systems to pressure European governments to quickly resettle thousands of people will only create another kind of human catastrophe. Another issue which seems to get swept under the carpet is the cost of resettlement. Barack Obama has left the American people with a twenty trillion dollar national debt. The EU is facing a major economic crisis in Italy, and France, the second largest economy in the EU, is dealing with a crippling unemployment problem. Many middle and lower income folks in Europe and America are asking the question, "just when did this become my problem?"
The permanent solution to the refugee crisis is to end the conflict in Syria. This goal could have been accomplished years ago if Obama would have had the courage to militarily combat ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Russia has stepped in, but will commit itself only as far as its proxy Bashar al-Assad is concerned. Regardless, one cannot escape the fact that Syrians should live in Syria; it's their home. A decided military effort achieved by a military coalition can only be achieved by a leader with great determination, courage, and influence. The conflicts in both Syria and Iraq can only have a military solution, but the good news is that a military solution is possible. Destroying ISIS and resolving the Syrian Civil War will end the refugee problem. Does Donald Trump have what it takes to forge a solution? He certainly believes he does; but for the rest of us, action will speak louder than Twitter.
The continued presence of ISIS (and other Islamic extremist groups) in Syria has created a monumental refugee crisis. The Obama Administration has been useless with regards to ending the conflict or addressing the refugee crisis. The Syrian conflict has destroyed almost every urban community outside of Damascus, and the inhabitants have been forced to leave their homes. The European Union has responded to this development by opening its borders to hundreds of thousands of refugees. Not to be outdone, the Obama Administration agreed to resettle large numbers of refugees in the United States. The decision to create humdreds of thousands of new Europeans and Americans has been met with a great deal of opposition in both the United States and various nations in Europe. It has become obvious that ISIS and other terror groups have been planting operatives within the refugee population. The resettlement processes in Europe and the United States have no effective method of identifying the throngs of refugees who continue to show up on the borders of Italy, Hungary, Turkey, and Greece. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has led to campaign to open Europe's borders, is hoping against hope that the person who committed this most recent attack, won't in the end be identified as a recent refugee; I would advise her not to hold her breath.
The organizations and political leaders who argue for quick resettlement of the Syrian refugees are justifiably trying to avoid a human catastrophe. But the answer to this problem should never imclude comprimising the security of persons in North America and Europe. Settimg up quota systems to pressure European governments to quickly resettle thousands of people will only create another kind of human catastrophe. Another issue which seems to get swept under the carpet is the cost of resettlement. Barack Obama has left the American people with a twenty trillion dollar national debt. The EU is facing a major economic crisis in Italy, and France, the second largest economy in the EU, is dealing with a crippling unemployment problem. Many middle and lower income folks in Europe and America are asking the question, "just when did this become my problem?"
The permanent solution to the refugee crisis is to end the conflict in Syria. This goal could have been accomplished years ago if Obama would have had the courage to militarily combat ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Russia has stepped in, but will commit itself only as far as its proxy Bashar al-Assad is concerned. Regardless, one cannot escape the fact that Syrians should live in Syria; it's their home. A decided military effort achieved by a military coalition can only be achieved by a leader with great determination, courage, and influence. The conflicts in both Syria and Iraq can only have a military solution, but the good news is that a military solution is possible. Destroying ISIS and resolving the Syrian Civil War will end the refugee problem. Does Donald Trump have what it takes to forge a solution? He certainly believes he does; but for the rest of us, action will speak louder than Twitter.
Thursday, May 26, 2016
U.S. media ignores voter fraud in Austrian presidential election.
The world has truly become such a small place. Last week, Austrians voted between an extreme conservative candidate and an extreme liberal candidate in the landlocked euro-zone nation's presidential election. Austrians vote for President in the same manner as the French. Anyone who wishes to contest the election and can afford the small entry fees, is welcome to run for president. If one candidate earns fifty percent or more of the vote, then that person is declared the president. If no one reaches the fifty percent mark, then the two candidates with the highest number of votes, run against each other in the second round, with the winner being declared president. Although the Freedom Party candidate had a substantial lead in votes, his total fell beneath fifty percent, which necessitated a second round of voting, between the Freedom Party candidate and the left-wing Green Party representative. The conservative Freedom Party candidate Norbert Hofer embarrassed the sitting government and mainstream politicians, by coming in first by such a large margin. Unfortunately for both Hofer and those of us who support free and fair elections, the result of the second round were far from open and fair. Aftee the day's voting was complete, conservative Freedom Party candidate Hofer was ahead of his opponent, Green Party candidate Alexander van der Billen, by less than one percent. Hofer had won every province in Austria but two; unfortunately for Hofer, one of the provinces he lost included the capital city of Vienna, which has a huge majority of Green party voters amongst its residents. Before Hofer could celebrate his razor-thin victory, 700,000 postal votes still had to becounted. Postal votes in Austria are similar to absentee votes in the United States; thry are mailed in early by folks who either will be out of country on election day, or just prefer to avoid the crowds. Another difference between postal voting in Austria and Absentee Voting in the United States is the ease in which fraud can impact on the postal vote's final tally. You see, postal votes are collected and processed by the current administration, which placed third in the election and was strongly supporting the Green Party candidate. Almost immediately discrepencies were observed with the postal vote count. In four separate polling locations, evidence was discovered which pointed to apparent fraud. The problem was so obvious that Hofer supporters were incensed and damanded an investigation. Why? Because the Green Party candidate managed to outpoll Hofer in postal votes by just enough margin to declare victory, which he quickly did.
Why should we care what happens in Austria? Because the conservative Freedom Party wasopenly calling for a refugee policy that was in contrast to the declared position of Germany and France. In fact, Hofer represents what the majority of Austrians, and probably the majority of French and Germans believe. Hofer points out the frightening reality that the current policy espoused by Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, which has no limitations, qualifications or boundaries, will no doubt greatly increase the number of refugees trying to find a home in Europe. Back in the day, when a nation fell under the authority of a despot, the people eventually rose up and returned Democracy to their lives. The American Revolutionary War is a good starting point. The colonists had no place of retreat to escape the tyranny of England and George II, so they showed tremendous courage and fought against their oppressor. Many young men died in the conflict, but the sacrifice was not in vain. Romania provides a good example from a more recent period. After four decades of eastern-European style Socialism, the people of Romania rose up against the security police, and dictator Nicoli Ceaucescu and his harridan wife were executed by a people's court. Democracy has returned to Romania. What we are experiencing in 2016 is quite different, at least in Africa and the Middle East. It's true that some groups rose up against Syrian despot Bashar al-Assad; but now those who are dissatisfied or have lost their homes, give their life savings to despicable smugglers, in the hope of being granted residency in what they believe are exceedingly wealthy, generous societies in Europe. The same situation flourishes in the poorest counties in the world, all mostly located in sub-Saharan Africa. Instead of encouraging people to leave the land of their birth, we should assist them in improving life at home. Sometimes this assistance comes in the form of military support, which is acceptable. Tyranny roots itself in deep by creating police states. Live by the sword, die by the sword, as the old saying goes.
The day after the postal votes in Austria were counted, it was obvious that the Green candidate, van der Billen, who along with the current Austrian government, supports the open policy on refugees that has been established by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, was somehow going to overcome Hofer's lead. It was also apparent that information coming from at least four voting precincts was very questionable. In one instance, van der Billen received more postal votes than the total number of postal votes that were actually submitted before the election. In fact, one federal employee admitted to fraud regarding the number of postal votes for the Green candidate. Sadly, the international press, including CNN, Reuters, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and NPR were quick to point out the liberal Green Party victory in Austria, because it demonstrated that the good Austrian people were not opposed to more refugees. Breitbart was the only news service in the U.S. who mentioned the irregularities. This decision by the international press to ignore voter fraud was instrumental in the current government in Vienna's decision to certify the vote and declare van der Billen as President. I believe this is the first time that the Green Party has won such a high elected position anywhere in the world. I was very disappointed that the Austrian Freedom Party didn't raise more hell. Norbert Hofer publicly thanked the voters, and promised that in the next election, these type of shenanigans would not occur, and the Freedom Party would win outright. I hope the Freedom Party has the opportunity to contest another election.
Why should we care what happens in Austria? Because the conservative Freedom Party wasopenly calling for a refugee policy that was in contrast to the declared position of Germany and France. In fact, Hofer represents what the majority of Austrians, and probably the majority of French and Germans believe. Hofer points out the frightening reality that the current policy espoused by Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, which has no limitations, qualifications or boundaries, will no doubt greatly increase the number of refugees trying to find a home in Europe. Back in the day, when a nation fell under the authority of a despot, the people eventually rose up and returned Democracy to their lives. The American Revolutionary War is a good starting point. The colonists had no place of retreat to escape the tyranny of England and George II, so they showed tremendous courage and fought against their oppressor. Many young men died in the conflict, but the sacrifice was not in vain. Romania provides a good example from a more recent period. After four decades of eastern-European style Socialism, the people of Romania rose up against the security police, and dictator Nicoli Ceaucescu and his harridan wife were executed by a people's court. Democracy has returned to Romania. What we are experiencing in 2016 is quite different, at least in Africa and the Middle East. It's true that some groups rose up against Syrian despot Bashar al-Assad; but now those who are dissatisfied or have lost their homes, give their life savings to despicable smugglers, in the hope of being granted residency in what they believe are exceedingly wealthy, generous societies in Europe. The same situation flourishes in the poorest counties in the world, all mostly located in sub-Saharan Africa. Instead of encouraging people to leave the land of their birth, we should assist them in improving life at home. Sometimes this assistance comes in the form of military support, which is acceptable. Tyranny roots itself in deep by creating police states. Live by the sword, die by the sword, as the old saying goes.
The day after the postal votes in Austria were counted, it was obvious that the Green candidate, van der Billen, who along with the current Austrian government, supports the open policy on refugees that has been established by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, was somehow going to overcome Hofer's lead. It was also apparent that information coming from at least four voting precincts was very questionable. In one instance, van der Billen received more postal votes than the total number of postal votes that were actually submitted before the election. In fact, one federal employee admitted to fraud regarding the number of postal votes for the Green candidate. Sadly, the international press, including CNN, Reuters, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and NPR were quick to point out the liberal Green Party victory in Austria, because it demonstrated that the good Austrian people were not opposed to more refugees. Breitbart was the only news service in the U.S. who mentioned the irregularities. This decision by the international press to ignore voter fraud was instrumental in the current government in Vienna's decision to certify the vote and declare van der Billen as President. I believe this is the first time that the Green Party has won such a high elected position anywhere in the world. I was very disappointed that the Austrian Freedom Party didn't raise more hell. Norbert Hofer publicly thanked the voters, and promised that in the next election, these type of shenanigans would not occur, and the Freedom Party would win outright. I hope the Freedom Party has the opportunity to contest another election.
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, January 6, 2016
True to form, Charlie Hebdo spits on us.
Link: French magazine Charlie Hebdo launches broadside at all religions.
On January 7, 2015, the offices of French left-wing satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo were attacked by a group of Muslim Extremists, who succeeded in killing eleven employees and injuring eleven more. Following this insane act of evil, the free world, from Tokyo to Valparaiso, raised the banner, "je suis Charlie" (I am Charlie), to send the message that we too were deeply wounded by this event. Over the next few weeks, the message kept growing, with "je suis Charlie" dominating social media. We embraced the people of Charlie Hebdo, and reminded them, that not everyone in the world is driven to propagate violence and fear through the use of mass murder. In the past, Charlie Hebdo, being a virulently atheist publication, had occasionally dumped all religions into one bucket. In the year since January 7, 2015, I can't identify even one instance of Christians planning, attacking and murdering persons of another religion. Surely the staff at Charlie Hebdo watches the news and stays up-to-date on current affairs. I expected a bit of change regarding the "lumping" of Christians into the same grouping as ISIS, Al-Qaida, and Boko Haram. I should have known better.
The latest edition of Charlie Hebdo (with an image of God on the cover, carrying an AK-47), again dumps Christians and Islamic terrorists into the same pot. Interestingly enough, Charlie Hebdo was unable to write a feature on ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Al Nusra, and Boko Haram alongside its Christian counterparts, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO CHRISTIAN COUNTERPARTS to these fanatical Islamic groups. According to Charlie Hebdo, Christians are just as responsible for Islamic terrorism as are ISIS and Al-Qaeda, just because they are not clever enough to be atheists, I assume. When was the last time an extremist Christian group committed an act of terror in Europe? When was the last time that a Christian group attempted to deprive someone of their free will? Charlie Hebdo will probably dig up old horror stories from the past, hoping to strike that sensitive Christian vein of guilt, but this time, I don't think they will reap their desired result.
By choosing to mark the anniversary last year's attacks with a nasty, elitist, ignorant rant about all religions, Charlie Hebdo has actually done us a favor. The magazine's fortunes had jumped dramatically immediately followed the incident, but in the last six months, the numbers have fallen back down to respectable, but no longer outstanding figures. I think the people of France are tired of the old, creaky, reactionary, elitist message of the left, and will move to unite under the banner of defending the Republic. The last time I checked, the French Republic was at war with Islamic terror, not Christianity. Hebdo's numbers will continue to fall until the only place you see it anymore is in litter boxes and lining the cages of canaries. I pray that nothing remotely similar to January 7, 2015, happens to Charlie Hebdo again, but if it does, I can tell you that this is one American whose response will be "je suis chretien" (I am a Christian).
On January 7, 2015, the offices of French left-wing satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo were attacked by a group of Muslim Extremists, who succeeded in killing eleven employees and injuring eleven more. Following this insane act of evil, the free world, from Tokyo to Valparaiso, raised the banner, "je suis Charlie" (I am Charlie), to send the message that we too were deeply wounded by this event. Over the next few weeks, the message kept growing, with "je suis Charlie" dominating social media. We embraced the people of Charlie Hebdo, and reminded them, that not everyone in the world is driven to propagate violence and fear through the use of mass murder. In the past, Charlie Hebdo, being a virulently atheist publication, had occasionally dumped all religions into one bucket. In the year since January 7, 2015, I can't identify even one instance of Christians planning, attacking and murdering persons of another religion. Surely the staff at Charlie Hebdo watches the news and stays up-to-date on current affairs. I expected a bit of change regarding the "lumping" of Christians into the same grouping as ISIS, Al-Qaida, and Boko Haram. I should have known better.
The latest edition of Charlie Hebdo (with an image of God on the cover, carrying an AK-47), again dumps Christians and Islamic terrorists into the same pot. Interestingly enough, Charlie Hebdo was unable to write a feature on ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Al Nusra, and Boko Haram alongside its Christian counterparts, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO CHRISTIAN COUNTERPARTS to these fanatical Islamic groups. According to Charlie Hebdo, Christians are just as responsible for Islamic terrorism as are ISIS and Al-Qaeda, just because they are not clever enough to be atheists, I assume. When was the last time an extremist Christian group committed an act of terror in Europe? When was the last time that a Christian group attempted to deprive someone of their free will? Charlie Hebdo will probably dig up old horror stories from the past, hoping to strike that sensitive Christian vein of guilt, but this time, I don't think they will reap their desired result.
By choosing to mark the anniversary last year's attacks with a nasty, elitist, ignorant rant about all religions, Charlie Hebdo has actually done us a favor. The magazine's fortunes had jumped dramatically immediately followed the incident, but in the last six months, the numbers have fallen back down to respectable, but no longer outstanding figures. I think the people of France are tired of the old, creaky, reactionary, elitist message of the left, and will move to unite under the banner of defending the Republic. The last time I checked, the French Republic was at war with Islamic terror, not Christianity. Hebdo's numbers will continue to fall until the only place you see it anymore is in litter boxes and lining the cages of canaries. I pray that nothing remotely similar to January 7, 2015, happens to Charlie Hebdo again, but if it does, I can tell you that this is one American whose response will be "je suis chretien" (I am a Christian).
Monday, December 14, 2015
French election results and other confusing things impacted by the threat of international terrorism.
Link: National Front shut out in French regional elections.
Not surprisingly, France's National Front (FN) was shut-out in the second-round of regional elections in France today, with the center-right coalition winning seven regions and the Socialists winning five. Most of the larger European dailies like the UK's Guardian and Independent, France's Le Monde and Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, are treating the elections results as a huge upset and a potentially fatal blow to the FN. Its always the same script come election time in France. The FN, with charismatic and energetic leader Marine Le Pen, storms out to a first-round victory, only to watch the other two political machines work together to keep the FN from finishing in front after the second and deciding vote. In the past we have seen the center-right commit suicide to deny the FN, and on Saturday the Socialists (PS) instructed two candidates to drop out in order to allow their voters to support the center-right and overcome the small lead that polls showed the FN enjoying. In this instance, the arrangement apparently denied the FN of control in two regions. The second-round of voting in France was preceded by a few weeks of non-stop media bashing of the FN and Marine Le Pen.
France has three political parties. Others will disagree. On the right, they will claim that the existence of a few other "to-the-right-of-center" parties increases the number. It doesn't; those parties end up endorsing the center-right anyways. The left will claim that France, like the United States, has become a nation of two political parties. Its highly unlikely that anyone on the left is prepared to recognize the FN as a major political party in France, at least not anytime soon. But the political realists all recognize that France has become a nation with three major political parties, and bunches and bunches of smaller, insignificant groups. A quick review of the results in the last few elections will demonstrate that, even though Francois Hollande and the PS now run the show in Paris, France has become more conservative than ever before. If the votes hold up as predicted, with 7.5 million votes for the center right, 5.8 million votes for the Socialists, and 5.7 million for the FN, we are dealing with 13.2 million votes for the combined right and far-right compared to 5.8 for the left. Somewhere in this mess is the remains of the once-proud French Communist Party, the Greens, and former President Giscard D'Estaing's United Democratic Front (UDF). So if France has become so Conservative, why are the Socialists in power and why has the FN been so easily neutralized? Its not difficult to understand. When France suffers through a terrorist attack, the FN naturally gets a boost in popularity. The opponents of the FN tackle this predictable development with two weapons: the French media, and the determination of the two established parties to protect their monopoly on the system. Once the FN spikes in the polls, the media starts up the fear machine. You might expect the media to highlight the FN's strong opposition to immigration and the housing of refugees, but the French people are understandably concerned with the issue of foreigners, so the media finds other ways to beat-up on Le Pen's group. The media onslaught always appeals to the average French person's historic sense of support for the oppressed. France is seen by many as the true beacon for those marginalized by the greed of the high-born elite and the politically corrupt. Its very easy to paint Marine Le Pen, who has very little political history, as the heartless fascist bigot who wants to subvert the traditional French nature to help those who are being oppressed and exploited. The fact the Marine has to permanently wear the legacy of her bigot buffoon of a father, who founded the FN, around her neck. In truth, the FN is much more than a cement wall built exclusively to keep poor people of color (and Jews) out of France. Its domestic agenda is in some ways more leftist than the PS.
For those who fear the FN, Sunday's news must have been welcome. The two mainstream parties continue to find ways to not only keep the FN marginalized, but to also keep the party of having any political representation at the regional level. The PS and the center-right are celebrating in Paris tonight, and the FN is left to decide what direction to proceed in its up-to-now unsuccessful attempts to find a seat at the political table. From my perspective, regardless of your politics, how can Sarkozy and Hollande feel justified that such a large percentage of French citizens are not entitled to either parliamentary or municipal representation? Hollande was able to chase away the wolves at the door this time by quickly deploying French bombers to Syria and playing tough guy. If, God forbid, France is obliged to suffer through another terror attack, will Hollande drop more bombs, and if so, will it ring hollow this time? And what of the FN? Can Le Pen keep her faithful energized in the face of repeated negative electoral results? Only time will tell.
Not surprisingly, France's National Front (FN) was shut-out in the second-round of regional elections in France today, with the center-right coalition winning seven regions and the Socialists winning five. Most of the larger European dailies like the UK's Guardian and Independent, France's Le Monde and Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, are treating the elections results as a huge upset and a potentially fatal blow to the FN. Its always the same script come election time in France. The FN, with charismatic and energetic leader Marine Le Pen, storms out to a first-round victory, only to watch the other two political machines work together to keep the FN from finishing in front after the second and deciding vote. In the past we have seen the center-right commit suicide to deny the FN, and on Saturday the Socialists (PS) instructed two candidates to drop out in order to allow their voters to support the center-right and overcome the small lead that polls showed the FN enjoying. In this instance, the arrangement apparently denied the FN of control in two regions. The second-round of voting in France was preceded by a few weeks of non-stop media bashing of the FN and Marine Le Pen.
France has three political parties. Others will disagree. On the right, they will claim that the existence of a few other "to-the-right-of-center" parties increases the number. It doesn't; those parties end up endorsing the center-right anyways. The left will claim that France, like the United States, has become a nation of two political parties. Its highly unlikely that anyone on the left is prepared to recognize the FN as a major political party in France, at least not anytime soon. But the political realists all recognize that France has become a nation with three major political parties, and bunches and bunches of smaller, insignificant groups. A quick review of the results in the last few elections will demonstrate that, even though Francois Hollande and the PS now run the show in Paris, France has become more conservative than ever before. If the votes hold up as predicted, with 7.5 million votes for the center right, 5.8 million votes for the Socialists, and 5.7 million for the FN, we are dealing with 13.2 million votes for the combined right and far-right compared to 5.8 for the left. Somewhere in this mess is the remains of the once-proud French Communist Party, the Greens, and former President Giscard D'Estaing's United Democratic Front (UDF). So if France has become so Conservative, why are the Socialists in power and why has the FN been so easily neutralized? Its not difficult to understand. When France suffers through a terrorist attack, the FN naturally gets a boost in popularity. The opponents of the FN tackle this predictable development with two weapons: the French media, and the determination of the two established parties to protect their monopoly on the system. Once the FN spikes in the polls, the media starts up the fear machine. You might expect the media to highlight the FN's strong opposition to immigration and the housing of refugees, but the French people are understandably concerned with the issue of foreigners, so the media finds other ways to beat-up on Le Pen's group. The media onslaught always appeals to the average French person's historic sense of support for the oppressed. France is seen by many as the true beacon for those marginalized by the greed of the high-born elite and the politically corrupt. Its very easy to paint Marine Le Pen, who has very little political history, as the heartless fascist bigot who wants to subvert the traditional French nature to help those who are being oppressed and exploited. The fact the Marine has to permanently wear the legacy of her bigot buffoon of a father, who founded the FN, around her neck. In truth, the FN is much more than a cement wall built exclusively to keep poor people of color (and Jews) out of France. Its domestic agenda is in some ways more leftist than the PS.
For those who fear the FN, Sunday's news must have been welcome. The two mainstream parties continue to find ways to not only keep the FN marginalized, but to also keep the party of having any political representation at the regional level. The PS and the center-right are celebrating in Paris tonight, and the FN is left to decide what direction to proceed in its up-to-now unsuccessful attempts to find a seat at the political table. From my perspective, regardless of your politics, how can Sarkozy and Hollande feel justified that such a large percentage of French citizens are not entitled to either parliamentary or municipal representation? Hollande was able to chase away the wolves at the door this time by quickly deploying French bombers to Syria and playing tough guy. If, God forbid, France is obliged to suffer through another terror attack, will Hollande drop more bombs, and if so, will it ring hollow this time? And what of the FN? Can Le Pen keep her faithful energized in the face of repeated negative electoral results? Only time will tell.
Sunday, November 22, 2015
The argument that we just need to show love to our adversaries continues to make the rounds.....
Link: Islam in Paris
Each time our society is faced with a tragedy involving persons who are willing to kill innocent people to make a political statement, we have to suffer through the occasional calls to "meet anger with compassion", and to "love your enemy". The attacks in Paris on November 13 were no different, as I continue to see determined posters spreading the message that we need to accept our part of the blame in this situation. Not surprisingly, persons who swing way off to the left of the political persuasion actually blame the French people for the terrorist attacks in Paris. You see, the Muslim immigrants, many who live in the Strasbourg Saint-Denis neighborhood and the 13th and 18th Arrondissements, have been obliged to struggle to find work while native Frenchmen and women have much greater access to the system. To continue the argument, those who arrive from North Africa or the Middle East as small children or infants, or were born to immigrant parents, have it worst of all, because they can't understand why they are denied the same opportunities as "white" French folks. The anger that leads young Muslim men to depart from Paris suburbs like Aubervilliers and Gennevilliers and find their way to Syria, so they can be trained with deadly weapons and ammunition and return to kill French civilians, is justified because of the tortuous life they were forced to live in France. This is just another phalange of "the West is always guilty" diatribe that never seems to go away. It doesn't take a PhD in World History or Sociology to know that different ethnics of our species have always fought each other, usually over territory but at times also over food, women, or just plain hatred for one another. The international disease of leftism, or Liberalism if you like, is obsessed with revisionism when it comes to our cultural and political history. This is the reason that 99% of grade school students in the United States believe that white Europeans invented slavery, even though African tribes were engaging in slavery centuries before the first European stepped foot in sub-Saharan Africa, as were native Americans and Asians. This is the same thought process that blames U.S. greed for 9-11 and endemic French racism for the Paris attacks.
I am here to announce that its OK to hate ISIS. Its not required to pour of newspapers and history books to try and create a scenario which in some way blames the United States for ISIS' existence. Actually, I'm sure someone has already done the job for you. But this issue really isn't that complicated. I always ask people whether or not they would have demanded "understanding" for the Nazis. That usually does the trick. ISIS is a special kind of nasty group that deserves absolutely no consideration, and anyone who knowingly aligns themselves with that type of ideology is my enemy and yours, and truly deserves what they get. In the past, its been easy for Americans to look across the ocean and express sympathy with people who claim to be representing just causes. But the world has become a much smaller place, and we are not allowed to sit safely on the sidelines anymore. This struggle is about freedom, and about the world you want to leave your children and grandchildren. The perpetrators of the Paris attacks were acting as representatives of the Islamic extremist group "The Islamic State", or ISIS, which has made the choice to use fear as its method of subjugating the people of the world. When ISIS releases a video of a poor prisoner being burned alive in a cage, the message has been carefully crafted and edited before it reached the international media. ISIS isn't concerned about the anger this scene creates, they are interested in the fear it provokes. If I learned one thing during my career, I learned that fear is a very effective weapon. ISIS is determined to drive us into our homes, bolted in behind heavy doors and suppressing our natural inclination to socialize and explore. They also have refined the art of distraction, and some within our own society continue to drink the "guilt" Kool-Aid. Everytime some tenured, Ivy League Professor distracts his classroom full of students with sad stories about U.S. imperialism and economic fascism being the root cause of international poverty and the rise of terrorism, ISIS wins. While this absurd debate rages within our own schools and water-cooler conversations, ISIS is able to grow stronger. One of the reasons this group is so much more dangerous than its predecessors is that ISIS functions in the 21st century. They utilize high-tech methods to recruit and raise money, and they have a growing conventional army fighting in both Iraq and Syria. ISIS is also patient and devious. They will use fear and distraction as long as these weapons remain useful. We can neutralize both right now.
Each time our society is faced with a tragedy involving persons who are willing to kill innocent people to make a political statement, we have to suffer through the occasional calls to "meet anger with compassion", and to "love your enemy". The attacks in Paris on November 13 were no different, as I continue to see determined posters spreading the message that we need to accept our part of the blame in this situation. Not surprisingly, persons who swing way off to the left of the political persuasion actually blame the French people for the terrorist attacks in Paris. You see, the Muslim immigrants, many who live in the Strasbourg Saint-Denis neighborhood and the 13th and 18th Arrondissements, have been obliged to struggle to find work while native Frenchmen and women have much greater access to the system. To continue the argument, those who arrive from North Africa or the Middle East as small children or infants, or were born to immigrant parents, have it worst of all, because they can't understand why they are denied the same opportunities as "white" French folks. The anger that leads young Muslim men to depart from Paris suburbs like Aubervilliers and Gennevilliers and find their way to Syria, so they can be trained with deadly weapons and ammunition and return to kill French civilians, is justified because of the tortuous life they were forced to live in France. This is just another phalange of "the West is always guilty" diatribe that never seems to go away. It doesn't take a PhD in World History or Sociology to know that different ethnics of our species have always fought each other, usually over territory but at times also over food, women, or just plain hatred for one another. The international disease of leftism, or Liberalism if you like, is obsessed with revisionism when it comes to our cultural and political history. This is the reason that 99% of grade school students in the United States believe that white Europeans invented slavery, even though African tribes were engaging in slavery centuries before the first European stepped foot in sub-Saharan Africa, as were native Americans and Asians. This is the same thought process that blames U.S. greed for 9-11 and endemic French racism for the Paris attacks.
I am here to announce that its OK to hate ISIS. Its not required to pour of newspapers and history books to try and create a scenario which in some way blames the United States for ISIS' existence. Actually, I'm sure someone has already done the job for you. But this issue really isn't that complicated. I always ask people whether or not they would have demanded "understanding" for the Nazis. That usually does the trick. ISIS is a special kind of nasty group that deserves absolutely no consideration, and anyone who knowingly aligns themselves with that type of ideology is my enemy and yours, and truly deserves what they get. In the past, its been easy for Americans to look across the ocean and express sympathy with people who claim to be representing just causes. But the world has become a much smaller place, and we are not allowed to sit safely on the sidelines anymore. This struggle is about freedom, and about the world you want to leave your children and grandchildren. The perpetrators of the Paris attacks were acting as representatives of the Islamic extremist group "The Islamic State", or ISIS, which has made the choice to use fear as its method of subjugating the people of the world. When ISIS releases a video of a poor prisoner being burned alive in a cage, the message has been carefully crafted and edited before it reached the international media. ISIS isn't concerned about the anger this scene creates, they are interested in the fear it provokes. If I learned one thing during my career, I learned that fear is a very effective weapon. ISIS is determined to drive us into our homes, bolted in behind heavy doors and suppressing our natural inclination to socialize and explore. They also have refined the art of distraction, and some within our own society continue to drink the "guilt" Kool-Aid. Everytime some tenured, Ivy League Professor distracts his classroom full of students with sad stories about U.S. imperialism and economic fascism being the root cause of international poverty and the rise of terrorism, ISIS wins. While this absurd debate rages within our own schools and water-cooler conversations, ISIS is able to grow stronger. One of the reasons this group is so much more dangerous than its predecessors is that ISIS functions in the 21st century. They utilize high-tech methods to recruit and raise money, and they have a growing conventional army fighting in both Iraq and Syria. ISIS is also patient and devious. They will use fear and distraction as long as these weapons remain useful. We can neutralize both right now.
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?
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Greece re-elects Tsirpas, who is now obliged to implement the exact austerity reforms that he swore to oppose in his first successful presidential election.
Link: Tsirpas wins with almost the same exact plurality.
Do you remember the days, when to discuss Greece meant to recall a fantastic cruise in the Mediterranean, or a month of sun-soaked relaxation on a Mykonos beach? In the 19th century, the English upper class believed that for a young person to have a fully rounded education, then a trip to study the classics and ruins in both Greece and Italy was a requirement. Personally, I enjoy reading about Greece's more modern history, including the 1821-1832 war for independence against the Ottoman Empire, or the valiant guerilla war against the Nazis in World War II. Today's younger generations no longer have to be instructed about Greece in a classroom, because Greece is frequently the subject of an international news story. Unfortunately, the news stories are not documentaries about Plato or Ancient Sparta. For roughly the past decade, the newsworthy events generated in Hellas have been dominated by economic news. In particular, the rest of Europe has become very interested in the state of the Greek economy. Greek is a member of the EU, which appears to be validating the old cliché that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link (somewhere deep in Les Invalides, Napoleon just rolled over). The brilliant minds that constitute the European Commission's Economic and Financial Affairs Office (Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs) keep a close eye on the economies of all the member states. The Greek economy was not very strong when the EU offered Athens membership, but the belief was the Greek system would be reformed, modernized and improved by its association with its fellow EU states. But the last ten years, played out in the European Press almost like a soap opera, has been one Greek economic crisis after another. The evolution of the original crisis, which was addressed with a fat loan from the EU, should have been an indication to the Economic and Financial Affairs folks that Greece was going to be a problem that would refuse to go away. The timeline will include an additional loan, mass demonstrations by the Greek people, protesting both their government and the EU who provided the loans, and the possibility that Greece may become the first country to join and depart the EU.
The actual issue isn't complicated. The Greece government, which is the nation's largest employer, continues to grow in all directions. Greeks are living longer, and each decade another generation enters the rolls of pension-collectors. The Greek government only takes in so much in taxes (income tax, tariffs, transaction fees, tourist taxes, etc.). With the growing number of pensioners, and the continual growth of social programs, migrants, etc., the Greek government runs a huge deficit. Every year, the government spends more money than it takes in. To make matters worse, the Greek economy is in dire need of reform. The Unions are all-powerful, and they fight tooth-and-nail any attempt to modernize equipment or processes, for fear that it will result in a smaller workforce (which is probably true, but the profit made should be put into enlarging the business, which creates jobs as well). The cycle is repetitive. The Greek government is under-water and can't pay its pensioners, so it asks for help from the EU. The EU responds with a loan offer, tied to a requirement for reform. The Greek people go ape-shit, calling the German members of the negotiating team "Nazis", and pressure their government to initially refuse the offer. Cooler heads eventually prevail, and the reform package is accepted. The bailout cash arrives, but the Greeks do not effectively implement the reforms as required, which sets us up for the second-running of the cycle. The unreformed Greek economy (again) is unable to meet its obligations, so again a request for assistance arrives at the EU. Another loan package is put together, along with another requirement for austerity and reforms to the Greek economic system. More demonstrations, cars burned, governments toppled, but in the end, a deal is reached. The money is delivered, but the austerity and reforms and other requirements related to the repayment of the loan are put aside. Believe it or not, there was a round three of this absurd game. It would have saved everyone so much money and time, if the EU would have just written a check to the Greeks each time they needed money. The reforms, which are the only way the Greek economy will evolve and grow to function successfully alongside its EU neighbors, seem impossible for the Greek people to accept.
Current Greek President Alexis Tsirpas, was elected last year on a platform of intransigence and opposition to the EU. But once he took office, he got a lesson in reality. Greece had two options: either agree to the conditions set by the EU and receive ANOTHER loan, or leave the EU. If Greece leaves the EU, then access is lost to a number of other programs and initiatives that have been very helpful. Also, Greece would lose access to the financial support that has actually kept Greece from complete economic collapse over the past decade. Regarding membership in the EU, some of the wealthier countries like France and Germany, probably end up losing money at the end of the every year, but the idea of a European Federation means so much, that they are willing to give a little. On the other side, countries like Greece (and Italy, sad to say), have really become dependent on the EU to keep them from total economic collapse. What is most interesting is that the countries who truly embrace socialist-style economics (Italy, Greece, Serbia) are a complete economic mess, while free-market economies like Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, and France, never have to ask for a hand-out.
After taking office and realizing that he had no choice, Tsirpas accepted the deal offered by the EU. He faced an almost immediate rebellion in his own party, and his popularity numbers went into free-fall. But Tsirpas is one smooth operator (he reminds me of a young George Papandreou), and he decided to call new elections to answer calls for his resignation. If Tsirpas had agreed to immediate presidential elections, or at least stuck to a reasonable timetable, he would probably have still lost. But he scheduled the election after the people had digested the issue of reforms, and gave his astute political machine time to rebuild his image, as the young Greek warrior who stood up to the German Harridan Angela Merkel. One thing no one can deny: the Greek people love their drama!
Do you remember the days, when to discuss Greece meant to recall a fantastic cruise in the Mediterranean, or a month of sun-soaked relaxation on a Mykonos beach? In the 19th century, the English upper class believed that for a young person to have a fully rounded education, then a trip to study the classics and ruins in both Greece and Italy was a requirement. Personally, I enjoy reading about Greece's more modern history, including the 1821-1832 war for independence against the Ottoman Empire, or the valiant guerilla war against the Nazis in World War II. Today's younger generations no longer have to be instructed about Greece in a classroom, because Greece is frequently the subject of an international news story. Unfortunately, the news stories are not documentaries about Plato or Ancient Sparta. For roughly the past decade, the newsworthy events generated in Hellas have been dominated by economic news. In particular, the rest of Europe has become very interested in the state of the Greek economy. Greek is a member of the EU, which appears to be validating the old cliché that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link (somewhere deep in Les Invalides, Napoleon just rolled over). The brilliant minds that constitute the European Commission's Economic and Financial Affairs Office (Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs) keep a close eye on the economies of all the member states. The Greek economy was not very strong when the EU offered Athens membership, but the belief was the Greek system would be reformed, modernized and improved by its association with its fellow EU states. But the last ten years, played out in the European Press almost like a soap opera, has been one Greek economic crisis after another. The evolution of the original crisis, which was addressed with a fat loan from the EU, should have been an indication to the Economic and Financial Affairs folks that Greece was going to be a problem that would refuse to go away. The timeline will include an additional loan, mass demonstrations by the Greek people, protesting both their government and the EU who provided the loans, and the possibility that Greece may become the first country to join and depart the EU.
The actual issue isn't complicated. The Greece government, which is the nation's largest employer, continues to grow in all directions. Greeks are living longer, and each decade another generation enters the rolls of pension-collectors. The Greek government only takes in so much in taxes (income tax, tariffs, transaction fees, tourist taxes, etc.). With the growing number of pensioners, and the continual growth of social programs, migrants, etc., the Greek government runs a huge deficit. Every year, the government spends more money than it takes in. To make matters worse, the Greek economy is in dire need of reform. The Unions are all-powerful, and they fight tooth-and-nail any attempt to modernize equipment or processes, for fear that it will result in a smaller workforce (which is probably true, but the profit made should be put into enlarging the business, which creates jobs as well). The cycle is repetitive. The Greek government is under-water and can't pay its pensioners, so it asks for help from the EU. The EU responds with a loan offer, tied to a requirement for reform. The Greek people go ape-shit, calling the German members of the negotiating team "Nazis", and pressure their government to initially refuse the offer. Cooler heads eventually prevail, and the reform package is accepted. The bailout cash arrives, but the Greeks do not effectively implement the reforms as required, which sets us up for the second-running of the cycle. The unreformed Greek economy (again) is unable to meet its obligations, so again a request for assistance arrives at the EU. Another loan package is put together, along with another requirement for austerity and reforms to the Greek economic system. More demonstrations, cars burned, governments toppled, but in the end, a deal is reached. The money is delivered, but the austerity and reforms and other requirements related to the repayment of the loan are put aside. Believe it or not, there was a round three of this absurd game. It would have saved everyone so much money and time, if the EU would have just written a check to the Greeks each time they needed money. The reforms, which are the only way the Greek economy will evolve and grow to function successfully alongside its EU neighbors, seem impossible for the Greek people to accept.
Current Greek President Alexis Tsirpas, was elected last year on a platform of intransigence and opposition to the EU. But once he took office, he got a lesson in reality. Greece had two options: either agree to the conditions set by the EU and receive ANOTHER loan, or leave the EU. If Greece leaves the EU, then access is lost to a number of other programs and initiatives that have been very helpful. Also, Greece would lose access to the financial support that has actually kept Greece from complete economic collapse over the past decade. Regarding membership in the EU, some of the wealthier countries like France and Germany, probably end up losing money at the end of the every year, but the idea of a European Federation means so much, that they are willing to give a little. On the other side, countries like Greece (and Italy, sad to say), have really become dependent on the EU to keep them from total economic collapse. What is most interesting is that the countries who truly embrace socialist-style economics (Italy, Greece, Serbia) are a complete economic mess, while free-market economies like Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, and France, never have to ask for a hand-out.
After taking office and realizing that he had no choice, Tsirpas accepted the deal offered by the EU. He faced an almost immediate rebellion in his own party, and his popularity numbers went into free-fall. But Tsirpas is one smooth operator (he reminds me of a young George Papandreou), and he decided to call new elections to answer calls for his resignation. If Tsirpas had agreed to immediate presidential elections, or at least stuck to a reasonable timetable, he would probably have still lost. But he scheduled the election after the people had digested the issue of reforms, and gave his astute political machine time to rebuild his image, as the young Greek warrior who stood up to the German Harridan Angela Merkel. One thing no one can deny: the Greek people love their drama!
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Conservative factions in Ukraine increasing pressure on Poroshenko.
Link: Violence between right-wing protesters and police outside Kiev Parliament.
The announcement by Ukrainian officials of a ceasefire with separatists has resulted in angry demonstrations from conservative and right-wing protesters outside of Parliament in the capital city of Kiev. The conservative political groups in Ukraine have traditionally been strong, and the crisis in the east of the country has only added to their influence. Ukrainians living in the west of the country are particularly incensed with the lack of progress in combatting the separatists, and the shaky coalition that President Petro Poroshenko requires to stay in power is under great pressure. Conservative Ukrainians were not satisfied with the provisions of the "Minsk II" agreement, which really never got off the ground, because the separatists began violating the agreement almost as soon as it was announced. Some of the more controversial provisions of "Minsk II" never saw the light if day, until now, when they were repeated as part of the new ceasefire agreement, scheduled to begin on Tuesday, September 1. The Ukrainian right-wing objects to the agreement for declaring a "special status" for the disputed areas, and also for introducing the idea of autonomy to the negotiations. On the other hand, the government claims that the ceasefire agreement only calls for the decentralization of authority, designed to give more power to local government. In reality, the demonstrations in Kiev were coming, sooner or later, as Conservative Ukrainians grow more dissatisfied everyday with the current situation in the east. The number of Ukrainian troops in the east is almost matched by the number of volunteers, who have picked up weapons and transported themselves to the front line, "to fight for the freedom and integrity of Ukraine", as one protester explained. Poroshenko and his EU puppet masters must understand that this outpouring of rejection is not only in response to this latest ceasefire agreement, but also a message that the people of Ukraine do not believe in any more treaties with the separatists.
Since the genesis of this crisis, every agreement with the Russian-backed separatists has been violated by the rebels. Actually, the modus operandi of this movement mirrors typical fascist behavior. Violate every agreement, but continue to sign them, as long as the enemy is stupid enough to continue negotiating under the pretense of "good faith". While the separatists continually violate agreements, the Russians keep lying about the involvement of the Russian military and use of Russian equipment. The obscene fact that even after the overwhelming amount of evidence, the Russian government and the separatists still refuse to admit that a Russian "Buk" missile destroyed Malaysian Airlines flight 17 (MH17), killing all 298 on board. in July 2015, a draft resolution to set up an international tribunal into the MH17 air disaster was put before the United Nations Security Council. Malaysia had requested a tribunal to take place, but the proposal was blocked by a Russian veto. It was the only nation on the 15-member UN Security Council to oppose the request. There can be only one reason why the Russian government would oppose an investigation by the world's leading experts on the subject: to hide its complicity. We don't believe the Russians themselves fired at the airliner. We are convinced that the basically untrained separatist volunteers who were manning the Buk missile launcher, mistook the airliner for a large Ukrainian Air Force cargo plane, a hypothesis which is supported by evidence, including recorded cell phone conversations from one separatist unit to another.
The citizens of Ukraine who are opposed to the current agreement stood by Poroshenko for some time. He was a sympathetic figure, attempting to do his best to appease the European and U.S. governments, and also continuing to look strong in the face of Russian aggression first in Crimea, and then in Donbas. Poroshenko was forced to walk a tricky tight rope. From his perspective, Ukraine would be lost without the steadfast support of Europe and the United States; therefore, if France, Germany and the Obama Administration advised compromise, then Poroshenko would compromise. Hollande, Merkel and Obama told Poroshenko that the Russians would eventually be obliged to back down, because the sanctions regime was going to cripple the Russian economy. As we predicted last year on this blog, Putin never had any intention of backing down because of the sanctions. He understood as we did; that the Russian people take particular offense at that type of punishment. The Russians are made of tougher stuff than that. They won't be made to compromise because a few items disappear off the shelves and everyone has to tighten their belt a bit. So the sanctions have failed, and Poroshenko has authorized negotiators in Minsk to compromise with the separatists and Russians, as directed by the Europeans and Americans. What was the result? Two agreements that were violated by the separatists before the paint was dry. In the last year, the separatists have expanded the territory under their control, to include the strategic town of Debaltseve. There has been no offensive activity on the part of the Ukrainian Army, not really.
So its clear why most Ukrainians have lost faith in Poroshenko and why demonstrators were protesting in Kiev. Its not just for this terrible agreement, but for the previous two which were violated, and for the failed sanctions regime, which was supposed to force Russia to compromise. Putin is winning this chess game hands down, because Europe and the United States are too frightened to allow Ukraine to take any Russian pieces. Earlier this year, we called for the United States to begin providing weapons to the Ukrainian Army, including F16s and Abrams tanks if necessary. The Ukrainian people have no love-lost for the Russians, and they have already watched Putin steal the Crimea right from under their nose. They are anxious to settle this issue on the battlefield, but the Obama Administration has hamstrung the Ukrainian Armed Forces by refusing to sell them weapons and equipment. Why don't the Ukrainians just go to someone else to get weapons? Because everyone else who is not in Russia's orbit, is following the lead of the United States. Its a tremendously depressing situation. Poroshenko would probably like to be more militarily aggressive, but to be so would probably cost him the support of France, Germany and the United States. We expect the Ukrainian people to bring about another change in government, which may result in full deployment of the Ukrainian military to eastern Ukraine for the purpose of ending the illegal separatist movement. But if the Russian military becomes directly involved, the Ukrainians will be hard-pressed to keep up, without an influx of new equipment and supplies. The end of this drama will probably result in a new Ukraine, minus the industrial southwest. And Putin will be man of the year in Sevastopol and Donetsk.
The announcement by Ukrainian officials of a ceasefire with separatists has resulted in angry demonstrations from conservative and right-wing protesters outside of Parliament in the capital city of Kiev. The conservative political groups in Ukraine have traditionally been strong, and the crisis in the east of the country has only added to their influence. Ukrainians living in the west of the country are particularly incensed with the lack of progress in combatting the separatists, and the shaky coalition that President Petro Poroshenko requires to stay in power is under great pressure. Conservative Ukrainians were not satisfied with the provisions of the "Minsk II" agreement, which really never got off the ground, because the separatists began violating the agreement almost as soon as it was announced. Some of the more controversial provisions of "Minsk II" never saw the light if day, until now, when they were repeated as part of the new ceasefire agreement, scheduled to begin on Tuesday, September 1. The Ukrainian right-wing objects to the agreement for declaring a "special status" for the disputed areas, and also for introducing the idea of autonomy to the negotiations. On the other hand, the government claims that the ceasefire agreement only calls for the decentralization of authority, designed to give more power to local government. In reality, the demonstrations in Kiev were coming, sooner or later, as Conservative Ukrainians grow more dissatisfied everyday with the current situation in the east. The number of Ukrainian troops in the east is almost matched by the number of volunteers, who have picked up weapons and transported themselves to the front line, "to fight for the freedom and integrity of Ukraine", as one protester explained. Poroshenko and his EU puppet masters must understand that this outpouring of rejection is not only in response to this latest ceasefire agreement, but also a message that the people of Ukraine do not believe in any more treaties with the separatists.
Since the genesis of this crisis, every agreement with the Russian-backed separatists has been violated by the rebels. Actually, the modus operandi of this movement mirrors typical fascist behavior. Violate every agreement, but continue to sign them, as long as the enemy is stupid enough to continue negotiating under the pretense of "good faith". While the separatists continually violate agreements, the Russians keep lying about the involvement of the Russian military and use of Russian equipment. The obscene fact that even after the overwhelming amount of evidence, the Russian government and the separatists still refuse to admit that a Russian "Buk" missile destroyed Malaysian Airlines flight 17 (MH17), killing all 298 on board. in July 2015, a draft resolution to set up an international tribunal into the MH17 air disaster was put before the United Nations Security Council. Malaysia had requested a tribunal to take place, but the proposal was blocked by a Russian veto. It was the only nation on the 15-member UN Security Council to oppose the request. There can be only one reason why the Russian government would oppose an investigation by the world's leading experts on the subject: to hide its complicity. We don't believe the Russians themselves fired at the airliner. We are convinced that the basically untrained separatist volunteers who were manning the Buk missile launcher, mistook the airliner for a large Ukrainian Air Force cargo plane, a hypothesis which is supported by evidence, including recorded cell phone conversations from one separatist unit to another.
The citizens of Ukraine who are opposed to the current agreement stood by Poroshenko for some time. He was a sympathetic figure, attempting to do his best to appease the European and U.S. governments, and also continuing to look strong in the face of Russian aggression first in Crimea, and then in Donbas. Poroshenko was forced to walk a tricky tight rope. From his perspective, Ukraine would be lost without the steadfast support of Europe and the United States; therefore, if France, Germany and the Obama Administration advised compromise, then Poroshenko would compromise. Hollande, Merkel and Obama told Poroshenko that the Russians would eventually be obliged to back down, because the sanctions regime was going to cripple the Russian economy. As we predicted last year on this blog, Putin never had any intention of backing down because of the sanctions. He understood as we did; that the Russian people take particular offense at that type of punishment. The Russians are made of tougher stuff than that. They won't be made to compromise because a few items disappear off the shelves and everyone has to tighten their belt a bit. So the sanctions have failed, and Poroshenko has authorized negotiators in Minsk to compromise with the separatists and Russians, as directed by the Europeans and Americans. What was the result? Two agreements that were violated by the separatists before the paint was dry. In the last year, the separatists have expanded the territory under their control, to include the strategic town of Debaltseve. There has been no offensive activity on the part of the Ukrainian Army, not really.
So its clear why most Ukrainians have lost faith in Poroshenko and why demonstrators were protesting in Kiev. Its not just for this terrible agreement, but for the previous two which were violated, and for the failed sanctions regime, which was supposed to force Russia to compromise. Putin is winning this chess game hands down, because Europe and the United States are too frightened to allow Ukraine to take any Russian pieces. Earlier this year, we called for the United States to begin providing weapons to the Ukrainian Army, including F16s and Abrams tanks if necessary. The Ukrainian people have no love-lost for the Russians, and they have already watched Putin steal the Crimea right from under their nose. They are anxious to settle this issue on the battlefield, but the Obama Administration has hamstrung the Ukrainian Armed Forces by refusing to sell them weapons and equipment. Why don't the Ukrainians just go to someone else to get weapons? Because everyone else who is not in Russia's orbit, is following the lead of the United States. Its a tremendously depressing situation. Poroshenko would probably like to be more militarily aggressive, but to be so would probably cost him the support of France, Germany and the United States. We expect the Ukrainian people to bring about another change in government, which may result in full deployment of the Ukrainian military to eastern Ukraine for the purpose of ending the illegal separatist movement. But if the Russian military becomes directly involved, the Ukrainians will be hard-pressed to keep up, without an influx of new equipment and supplies. The end of this drama will probably result in a new Ukraine, minus the industrial southwest. And Putin will be man of the year in Sevastopol and Donetsk.
Friday, August 28, 2015
Ukraine and Russian- backed Donbas separatists are negotiating a complete ceasefire to begin on September 1.
Link: Cease fire in Ukraine planned for 1 September.
Here we go again. For the third time in the past two years, France and Germany have assisted in the crafting of a ceasefire agreement between Ukraine and Russian-backed Donbas separatists. According to negotiators, the ceasefire is a blanket agreement in which both sides unilaterally agree to end the discharge of weapons in eastern Ukraine on September 1, 2015. Up until the very minute of the announcement of the intended ceasefire, separatist forces had escalated attacks against Ukrainian troops, killing two soldiers less than ten miles outside of the strategic port city of Mariupol. This attack comes one week after a separatist artillery barrage killed three civilians in a suburb of Mariupol. On August 10, a separatist combined arms assault east of the Donetsk-Mariupol highway, in conjunction with an increase in separatist shelling of Ukrainian-held areas outside Mariupol, indicate that the Russian-backed separatists have set the table nicely for this most recent negotiated ceasefire. You see, each time the negotiators reach the more difficult issues at hand, the separatists increase offensive activity, as a means of influencing the diplomatic proceedings. By raising the level of military activity, the separatists are sending the clear message that they are nowhere near backing down, and it would be in Kiev's best interest to compromise. You would think that after two ceasefires that were violated by the separatists almost immediately, that the Ukrainians and their European allies would be reticent to enter into another agreement. But Poroshenko has absolutely no wiggle room. Basically, he has to do what is told. Without the support of France, Germany, and the United States, Poroshenko knows that Ukraine would be invaded by Russia in the blink of an eye. The real question, which has been asked so many time over the past few decades and has never received an adequate explanation, is why the leaders of Europe are so intent on placating aggressive dictators who are fully intent on expansionist enterprises?
On September 1, the latest ceasefire (Minsk III?) will be implemented. Because the provisions contained within are so favorable to the separatists, it is likely that we won't see a violation for some time. You see, the new agreement calls for elections, and also mandates the establishment of a special self-management status for separatist-minded regions. What is so fascinating is that until Russia started expressing real annoyance at Ukraine's insistence on being an independent nation, there was no "eastern Ukraine separatist movement". For the past decade, Ukraine has tweaked Moscow's nose on a number of occasions, and the cozying up to NATO and the United States was probably the last straw (or was it the popular removal of a president who was acting as a Russian puppet?). Putin didn't try and create a nationalist, pro-Russian movement in Crimea; he just gauged the complete lack of spine amongst the European leaders and the United States. The annexation of Crimea was a marvelously orchestrated "fait d'accompli" on the part of Putin; but it did get the attention of the international community, so justification had to be created for the biting off of eastern Ukraine.
I'm sure the OSCE will deploy observers whenever elections take place in the disputed regions, and no doubt the separatists will hound and harass them so that it is impossible to validate the electoral process. Why will the separatists do this? Because they can. Even if the election observers were able to verify extensive electoral fraud, what would be the end result? Nothing. Probably within six months after the elections occur, the separatists will kick the military campaign back into gear, to swallow up the next piece of free Ukraine, which more than likely will include the city of Mariupol. We will repeat the same process, with Merkel and Hollande pressuring Poroshenko to agree to more demands. The only hope for a free and democratic Ukraine will be if the Ukrainian people rise up and remove Poroshenko, and replace him with someone who is willing to tell the west to go suck an egg. Unfortunately, this will create the military environment that Putin is waiting for: an under-equipped Ukrainian military facing off against the Russian Armed Forces. And the EU and the United States will stand back and say, "we tried to get the Ukrainians to negotiate, but they were determined to follow another course". My prognostication is probably way off base, but it doesn't take Henry Kissinger to see that Putin has manipulated this crisis in a manner that guarantees some level of success. God forbid that the European nations are ever faced with the decision to fight for their freedom, or become the slaves of a group like ISIS. I fear for the decision that will be made.
Here we go again. For the third time in the past two years, France and Germany have assisted in the crafting of a ceasefire agreement between Ukraine and Russian-backed Donbas separatists. According to negotiators, the ceasefire is a blanket agreement in which both sides unilaterally agree to end the discharge of weapons in eastern Ukraine on September 1, 2015. Up until the very minute of the announcement of the intended ceasefire, separatist forces had escalated attacks against Ukrainian troops, killing two soldiers less than ten miles outside of the strategic port city of Mariupol. This attack comes one week after a separatist artillery barrage killed three civilians in a suburb of Mariupol. On August 10, a separatist combined arms assault east of the Donetsk-Mariupol highway, in conjunction with an increase in separatist shelling of Ukrainian-held areas outside Mariupol, indicate that the Russian-backed separatists have set the table nicely for this most recent negotiated ceasefire. You see, each time the negotiators reach the more difficult issues at hand, the separatists increase offensive activity, as a means of influencing the diplomatic proceedings. By raising the level of military activity, the separatists are sending the clear message that they are nowhere near backing down, and it would be in Kiev's best interest to compromise. You would think that after two ceasefires that were violated by the separatists almost immediately, that the Ukrainians and their European allies would be reticent to enter into another agreement. But Poroshenko has absolutely no wiggle room. Basically, he has to do what is told. Without the support of France, Germany, and the United States, Poroshenko knows that Ukraine would be invaded by Russia in the blink of an eye. The real question, which has been asked so many time over the past few decades and has never received an adequate explanation, is why the leaders of Europe are so intent on placating aggressive dictators who are fully intent on expansionist enterprises?
On September 1, the latest ceasefire (Minsk III?) will be implemented. Because the provisions contained within are so favorable to the separatists, it is likely that we won't see a violation for some time. You see, the new agreement calls for elections, and also mandates the establishment of a special self-management status for separatist-minded regions. What is so fascinating is that until Russia started expressing real annoyance at Ukraine's insistence on being an independent nation, there was no "eastern Ukraine separatist movement". For the past decade, Ukraine has tweaked Moscow's nose on a number of occasions, and the cozying up to NATO and the United States was probably the last straw (or was it the popular removal of a president who was acting as a Russian puppet?). Putin didn't try and create a nationalist, pro-Russian movement in Crimea; he just gauged the complete lack of spine amongst the European leaders and the United States. The annexation of Crimea was a marvelously orchestrated "fait d'accompli" on the part of Putin; but it did get the attention of the international community, so justification had to be created for the biting off of eastern Ukraine.
I'm sure the OSCE will deploy observers whenever elections take place in the disputed regions, and no doubt the separatists will hound and harass them so that it is impossible to validate the electoral process. Why will the separatists do this? Because they can. Even if the election observers were able to verify extensive electoral fraud, what would be the end result? Nothing. Probably within six months after the elections occur, the separatists will kick the military campaign back into gear, to swallow up the next piece of free Ukraine, which more than likely will include the city of Mariupol. We will repeat the same process, with Merkel and Hollande pressuring Poroshenko to agree to more demands. The only hope for a free and democratic Ukraine will be if the Ukrainian people rise up and remove Poroshenko, and replace him with someone who is willing to tell the west to go suck an egg. Unfortunately, this will create the military environment that Putin is waiting for: an under-equipped Ukrainian military facing off against the Russian Armed Forces. And the EU and the United States will stand back and say, "we tried to get the Ukrainians to negotiate, but they were determined to follow another course". My prognostication is probably way off base, but it doesn't take Henry Kissinger to see that Putin has manipulated this crisis in a manner that guarantees some level of success. God forbid that the European nations are ever faced with the decision to fight for their freedom, or become the slaves of a group like ISIS. I fear for the decision that will be made.
Saturday, August 22, 2015
France, Germany pressure Kiev to grant autonomy to separatists, as conflict escalates.
Link: Poroshenko meets with Hollande, Merkel in Berlin.
Today, Ukrainian President Poroshenko traveled to Berlin for consultations with German Chancellor Merkel and French President Hollande to discuss the rapidly unravelling "Minsk II" accord. As anticipated, in recent days, separatist forces have launched numerous attacks against Ukrainian positions. On August 10, separatists used tanks and heavy artillery in an attack on Ukrainian forces 20 kilometers east of the Donetsk-Mariupol Highway, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) monitoring installations continue to track "Grad" multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) strikes along much of the frontline in Donetsk Oblast. On August 16, separatists launched an artillery barrage on the northeastern outskirts of Mariupol. It is widely suspected that the upturn in violence is an effort on the part of the separatists to influence Kiev, as negotiations continue in Minsk and now also in Berlin. The Russian-backed separatists hope that the more pessimistic the current military situation appears, the more likely that Kiev will be more flexible when it comes to negotiating the issue of autonomy for Donbas.
It is also widely accepted that both Hollande and Merkel will pressure Poroshenko to yield on the issue of autonomy for Donbas. Again, just another example of the complete lack of conviction and courage on the part of European leaders when faced with military aggression. If history has taught us anything, it is that a bully, regardless of the size of the playground, will continue to terrorize until he is confronted by a united opposition. Poroshenko has no choice but to follow the advice of his benefactors (I would include President Obama on this list, but I'm not really sure where he has been lately...probably putting the final touches on his Amnesty Executive Order Action); without the continued support of Europe and the United States, Ukraine would be totally occupied by the Russian Army by the end of next week. Back to the present: if Poroshenko grants autonomy to Donbas (without a plebiscite, mind you....shades of Austria, 1938), no doubt the separatists and Russia will control whatever elections come next, and those "elected" will uniformly support the annexation of Donbas by Russia. Remember this blog post from August 21, 2015: if Poroshenko approves any form of autonomy for sections of Eastern Ukraine, those areas will eventually be swallowed up by Russia, a la Crimea.
Why are the European leaders so reticent to militarily confront Putin? They must realize that this is a problem they will be forced to deal with sooner or later, and later will always be more difficult. If the EU decided to support Ukraine militarily, and German, Polish, French and Italian Air Forces enforced a no-fly zone over Ukraine, Putin would be obliged to either back off, or actually go to war. I don't believe the Russian Air Force is in any state of readiness to confront the combined Air resources of Europe and the United States. Also, why not "loan" Ukraine a few hundred LeClerc Heavy Battle Tanks, and maybe a few Leopard as well. This will be akin to the leaders of free and democratic Europe drawing a line in the dirt, and telling Putin, "you've gone far enough; don't cross this line". If I were Poroshenko, I would ask Hollande to imagine what it must have been like for France when Germany "stole" Alsace-Lorraine in 1871? Or remind Chancellor Merkel of Russia's stranglehold on East Germany. Allowing a foreign country to invade and occupy Ukrainian territory should be unacceptable not only to Poroshenko, but to the EU as well. Our position on this issue is not unique; many other blogs and learned analysts are warning that Russia will not stop its efforts at expansion with the annexation of Donbas, anymore than Putin quit with Crimea (which, considering how little it is mentioned by Hollande and Merkel, is obviously a Fait Accompli). When will they learn?
Today, Ukrainian President Poroshenko traveled to Berlin for consultations with German Chancellor Merkel and French President Hollande to discuss the rapidly unravelling "Minsk II" accord. As anticipated, in recent days, separatist forces have launched numerous attacks against Ukrainian positions. On August 10, separatists used tanks and heavy artillery in an attack on Ukrainian forces 20 kilometers east of the Donetsk-Mariupol Highway, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) monitoring installations continue to track "Grad" multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) strikes along much of the frontline in Donetsk Oblast. On August 16, separatists launched an artillery barrage on the northeastern outskirts of Mariupol. It is widely suspected that the upturn in violence is an effort on the part of the separatists to influence Kiev, as negotiations continue in Minsk and now also in Berlin. The Russian-backed separatists hope that the more pessimistic the current military situation appears, the more likely that Kiev will be more flexible when it comes to negotiating the issue of autonomy for Donbas.
It is also widely accepted that both Hollande and Merkel will pressure Poroshenko to yield on the issue of autonomy for Donbas. Again, just another example of the complete lack of conviction and courage on the part of European leaders when faced with military aggression. If history has taught us anything, it is that a bully, regardless of the size of the playground, will continue to terrorize until he is confronted by a united opposition. Poroshenko has no choice but to follow the advice of his benefactors (I would include President Obama on this list, but I'm not really sure where he has been lately...probably putting the final touches on his Amnesty Executive Order Action); without the continued support of Europe and the United States, Ukraine would be totally occupied by the Russian Army by the end of next week. Back to the present: if Poroshenko grants autonomy to Donbas (without a plebiscite, mind you....shades of Austria, 1938), no doubt the separatists and Russia will control whatever elections come next, and those "elected" will uniformly support the annexation of Donbas by Russia. Remember this blog post from August 21, 2015: if Poroshenko approves any form of autonomy for sections of Eastern Ukraine, those areas will eventually be swallowed up by Russia, a la Crimea.
Why are the European leaders so reticent to militarily confront Putin? They must realize that this is a problem they will be forced to deal with sooner or later, and later will always be more difficult. If the EU decided to support Ukraine militarily, and German, Polish, French and Italian Air Forces enforced a no-fly zone over Ukraine, Putin would be obliged to either back off, or actually go to war. I don't believe the Russian Air Force is in any state of readiness to confront the combined Air resources of Europe and the United States. Also, why not "loan" Ukraine a few hundred LeClerc Heavy Battle Tanks, and maybe a few Leopard as well. This will be akin to the leaders of free and democratic Europe drawing a line in the dirt, and telling Putin, "you've gone far enough; don't cross this line". If I were Poroshenko, I would ask Hollande to imagine what it must have been like for France when Germany "stole" Alsace-Lorraine in 1871? Or remind Chancellor Merkel of Russia's stranglehold on East Germany. Allowing a foreign country to invade and occupy Ukrainian territory should be unacceptable not only to Poroshenko, but to the EU as well. Our position on this issue is not unique; many other blogs and learned analysts are warning that Russia will not stop its efforts at expansion with the annexation of Donbas, anymore than Putin quit with Crimea (which, considering how little it is mentioned by Hollande and Merkel, is obviously a Fait Accompli). When will they learn?
Friday, August 14, 2015
Link: ISIS stakes its claim to Libya.
Libya provides the most glaring example of the complete non-existence of proactive thinking on the part of the Obama Administration. As Qaddafi was close to recapturing Benghazi, David Cameron and allies, including Barack Obama, elected to use Tomahawk missiles to prevent the city from falling back under regime control. What was so wrong with regime control, anyway? Hadn't Qaddafi displayed an increasing willingness to open up his country and his economic system to change? Wasn't Libya a reasonably wealthy Arab country, where Libyans could still enjoy some modicum of quality of life? Well, we intervened, Qaddafi was intercepted moving from one location to another and executed, and we did.....nothing. Libya didn't descend into hell overnight. The people celebrated for a week or so, and various temporary governments were set up, usually compromised of academics and human rights activists. As of August, 2015, Libya has become a battlefield between so many different militias and jihadist factions that its not worth your while trying to separate them all. Towns change occupiers by the day, as two rival governments sit in separate former capital cities, each claiming administrative and diplomatic authority over what was once called the Islamic Republic of Libya. Why has the West been so reticent to get involved, especially after basically being the harbinger of Qaddafi's end? Obviously the United States maintained some modest presence in Benghazi, otherwise, how would a random gang of Islamic Extremists find a U.S. Ambassador and four Department of Defense employees to torture and murder? The real tragedy, is that the Administration was aware of the unstable nature of the situation in Benghazi, yet no exfil plan existed in emergency circumstances. To former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not having an exfil plan is a small issue; it only cost the life of five Americans. What should be a glaring gap in U.S. foreign policy is the complete lack of a coherent strategy to support democratic growth in Libya. We are supposed to support the good guys, remember? The ones who support freedom of religion, speech, and the establishment of a fair and all-inclusive Constitution? I see nothing happening in Libya that is not instigated by militias and jihadists. I don't see the French or the British anywhere, and I certainly don't see the United States. Barack Obama was in Africa last week, but he skipped over Libya and landed in Kenya. I hope he was able to visit some of the relatives he has living in the slums of Kibera.
Last week, a militia loyal to Al-Qaeda actually retook the town of Derna from ISIS, and according to the New Yorker (see link), executed the ISIS commander. What a choice for a dinner guest....ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Even with the temporary setback at Derna, ISIS has shown real strength in Libya, occupying Qaddafi's home town of Sirte and threatening Misrata. More importantly to western petroleum interests, ISIS is also making inroads in Libya's "Oil Crescent"; maybe ISIS will start exporting oil from Libya first, as opposed to Baiji in Iraq, what has been the popular concern. As the well-written and detail-heavy link explains, Libya has not been a functioning state since the death of Qaddafi, and today, any number of militias and extremist groups are having at each other, increasing the suffering of the average Libyan beyond belief. Do we have a plan to provide aid to the needy people of Libya? Absolutely not, because the country is thick with heavily armed teenagers with itchy trigger fingers. Nothing useful can be accomplished without force. In the past, the West has shown much more flexibility in these situations, deploying coalition forces to bring aid to the needy. But we have returned to the thought process that saving Libyan lives is not worth putting at risk any American or European soldiers. But the movers and shakers in DC, Paris, London and Den Hague may have to reconsider their position, as the complete breakdown in authority has allowed Libya to become the easiest transit route for African immigrants to reach Europe. Even though ISIS kills any African Christian it gets its hands on, they will continue to come, in even greater numbers. By this time next year, Italy will be facing a humanitarian crisis. We recognize this, but is anyone doing anything?
Egypt and Tunisia are well-aware of the reach of ISIS, and both North African countries have take concrete steps to militarize their borders with Libya. The Egyptians and Tunisians will be successful to a degree in keeping their beaches and tourist hotels safe, but they will also be enclosing all the African refugees and innocent Libyans. May God protect the Christians, homosexuals, open-minded students, pregnant and single women, and human rights activists of Libya, who will be soon become the hunted. How much responsibility does the West deserve for this development? Not much, except for those Tomahawk missiles, which for all practical purposes, removed one stable government in favor of a new political matrix, which has yet to fully show itself.
Libya provides the most glaring example of the complete non-existence of proactive thinking on the part of the Obama Administration. As Qaddafi was close to recapturing Benghazi, David Cameron and allies, including Barack Obama, elected to use Tomahawk missiles to prevent the city from falling back under regime control. What was so wrong with regime control, anyway? Hadn't Qaddafi displayed an increasing willingness to open up his country and his economic system to change? Wasn't Libya a reasonably wealthy Arab country, where Libyans could still enjoy some modicum of quality of life? Well, we intervened, Qaddafi was intercepted moving from one location to another and executed, and we did.....nothing. Libya didn't descend into hell overnight. The people celebrated for a week or so, and various temporary governments were set up, usually compromised of academics and human rights activists. As of August, 2015, Libya has become a battlefield between so many different militias and jihadist factions that its not worth your while trying to separate them all. Towns change occupiers by the day, as two rival governments sit in separate former capital cities, each claiming administrative and diplomatic authority over what was once called the Islamic Republic of Libya. Why has the West been so reticent to get involved, especially after basically being the harbinger of Qaddafi's end? Obviously the United States maintained some modest presence in Benghazi, otherwise, how would a random gang of Islamic Extremists find a U.S. Ambassador and four Department of Defense employees to torture and murder? The real tragedy, is that the Administration was aware of the unstable nature of the situation in Benghazi, yet no exfil plan existed in emergency circumstances. To former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not having an exfil plan is a small issue; it only cost the life of five Americans. What should be a glaring gap in U.S. foreign policy is the complete lack of a coherent strategy to support democratic growth in Libya. We are supposed to support the good guys, remember? The ones who support freedom of religion, speech, and the establishment of a fair and all-inclusive Constitution? I see nothing happening in Libya that is not instigated by militias and jihadists. I don't see the French or the British anywhere, and I certainly don't see the United States. Barack Obama was in Africa last week, but he skipped over Libya and landed in Kenya. I hope he was able to visit some of the relatives he has living in the slums of Kibera.
Last week, a militia loyal to Al-Qaeda actually retook the town of Derna from ISIS, and according to the New Yorker (see link), executed the ISIS commander. What a choice for a dinner guest....ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Even with the temporary setback at Derna, ISIS has shown real strength in Libya, occupying Qaddafi's home town of Sirte and threatening Misrata. More importantly to western petroleum interests, ISIS is also making inroads in Libya's "Oil Crescent"; maybe ISIS will start exporting oil from Libya first, as opposed to Baiji in Iraq, what has been the popular concern. As the well-written and detail-heavy link explains, Libya has not been a functioning state since the death of Qaddafi, and today, any number of militias and extremist groups are having at each other, increasing the suffering of the average Libyan beyond belief. Do we have a plan to provide aid to the needy people of Libya? Absolutely not, because the country is thick with heavily armed teenagers with itchy trigger fingers. Nothing useful can be accomplished without force. In the past, the West has shown much more flexibility in these situations, deploying coalition forces to bring aid to the needy. But we have returned to the thought process that saving Libyan lives is not worth putting at risk any American or European soldiers. But the movers and shakers in DC, Paris, London and Den Hague may have to reconsider their position, as the complete breakdown in authority has allowed Libya to become the easiest transit route for African immigrants to reach Europe. Even though ISIS kills any African Christian it gets its hands on, they will continue to come, in even greater numbers. By this time next year, Italy will be facing a humanitarian crisis. We recognize this, but is anyone doing anything?
Egypt and Tunisia are well-aware of the reach of ISIS, and both North African countries have take concrete steps to militarize their borders with Libya. The Egyptians and Tunisians will be successful to a degree in keeping their beaches and tourist hotels safe, but they will also be enclosing all the African refugees and innocent Libyans. May God protect the Christians, homosexuals, open-minded students, pregnant and single women, and human rights activists of Libya, who will be soon become the hunted. How much responsibility does the West deserve for this development? Not much, except for those Tomahawk missiles, which for all practical purposes, removed one stable government in favor of a new political matrix, which has yet to fully show itself.
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Spying in the 21st Century; counter-terrorism, diplomacy, and economic espionage.
Our world has changed dramatically in the last five decades. We have enjoyed a renaissance in technology, with the internet changing lives and medical research making discoveries to help people will illnesses and injuries live a more productive, happy life. Unfortunately the world has also become a much more dangerous place. Terrorism made its original rude introduction in the early 1960's, and then tapered off a bit, before that eventful day in September of 2001. Since then, the word, "terrorism" seems to be included in every newscast, and part of almost every travel advisory. When terrorists were almost exclusively focused on Israel, the battle lines were simple to demarcate. Today, we live in a world that is slowly being transformed by the actions of Islamic Extremists. The Obama Administration is determined to not label the bad guys as Muslim Extremists, for fear of appearing "Islam phobic", an unfortunate complication in the efforts to combat groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. At the moment, the United States is not technically at war, although our Air Force is heavily involved in the allied air coalition against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Another danger we face in the world today is the rebirth of nationalist and expansionist Russia. Although we support Ukraine diplomatically and have spearheaded the sanctions regime against Russia, our military has not been directly involved in that conflict. So are we at peace?
The answer is no, and we haven't been for sometime. You see, even when the soldiers are stateside and the diplomats are making nice with each other, another conflict is being waged in the shadows. All nations are involved in espionage in one form or another, and the more industrialized, populous states are constantly looking for new ways to improve the art. The United States is primarily interested in intelligence for national security purposes, which makes terrorism a priority target for the CIA, NSA, and the intelligence gathering apparati of the Departments of Defense and Justice. Next on the list is probably China, who has created a tremendously advanced and complicated network of spying, utilizing scholars, businessmen, and researchers to both collect on and occasionally subvert the United States in numerous ways. Russia is also a high-priority collecting target, especially since the arrival of Vladimir Putin and a return to cold-war type aggressive activities. The U.S. government remains highly interested in information regarding narcotics and counter-intelligence. A priority target that does not get its deserved share of attention is economics. The major economies of the world, even the ones who appear to be very closely aligned, are all in the business of collecting confidential information regarding economics and international business. In fact, it makes complete sense. The health of our nation's economy has to be included in national security concerns, and the Chinese in particular seem to be determined to outmaneuver everyone in this area.
Why are the Chinese so successful at espionage? The truth is, they haven't always been good at spying. But once China and the United States started regular bilateral relations, and Chinese university students and researchers were invited to the U.S. to study and do research, the Chinese saw an opportunity to exploit our openness to gather confidential and at times top secret information. The larger, more prestigious U.S. colleges seem to compete for visiting Chinese scholars. Unfortunately, many of these universities have received contracts from the Department of Defense to work on highly classified programs. On more than one occasion, Chinese students have been discovered in possession of internet connections that are active only between the Chinese mainland and the student's personal laptop. Our own experts have been unable to break into the conversation between the student and Beijing for a number of reasons, including the complexity/security firewalls of the program being used, and the opposition of the respective university's administration from what they perceive as being "action which will discourage future Chinese scholars from wanted to study here." Can you imagine a student having access to a lab computer, downloading classified information onto a disk, then returning to their dorm room to send the information to China, without us ever knowing exactly what was being transmitted?
Back to economic espionage. Its not just a war between China and the United States; the European nations are also interested in getting a "heads-up" on the intentions of our international companies and investors. For example, the European conglomerate "Airbus", which manufactures airliners with parts from a number of different EU countries, is in regular, fierce completion with Boeing for new airliner orders. The United States has economic rivalries in the Defense Industry as well. Germany, France, the UK, Russia, Italy and Spain all manufacture and export military hardware of one sort or another. Even South Africa goes head to head with the U.S., when it comes to anti-riot vehicles and helicopters. To have confidential information regarding a foreign competitor's progress on a competitive product can be invaluable, and nations have started training Intelligence Officers to be focused on the business community for the duration of their career. Many times these Intelligence Officers will utilize Businessman cover in order to gain access to confidential information. The United States and France wrote the book on this type of espionage, and they continue to this day to practice it more effectively than anyone else.
Espionage has evolved quite a bit in the last few years, let alone last five decades. So much intelligence collection has been directed towards force protection, other typical areas of interest have suffered. But the major powers still manage to cover all their bases and go after the terrorist target together. The joint intel ops that are becoming more and more commonplace just might be the precursor to something much more meaningful: an Intelligence Service that represents more than just one nation. I assume that the EU has already broken ground in that regard.
The answer is no, and we haven't been for sometime. You see, even when the soldiers are stateside and the diplomats are making nice with each other, another conflict is being waged in the shadows. All nations are involved in espionage in one form or another, and the more industrialized, populous states are constantly looking for new ways to improve the art. The United States is primarily interested in intelligence for national security purposes, which makes terrorism a priority target for the CIA, NSA, and the intelligence gathering apparati of the Departments of Defense and Justice. Next on the list is probably China, who has created a tremendously advanced and complicated network of spying, utilizing scholars, businessmen, and researchers to both collect on and occasionally subvert the United States in numerous ways. Russia is also a high-priority collecting target, especially since the arrival of Vladimir Putin and a return to cold-war type aggressive activities. The U.S. government remains highly interested in information regarding narcotics and counter-intelligence. A priority target that does not get its deserved share of attention is economics. The major economies of the world, even the ones who appear to be very closely aligned, are all in the business of collecting confidential information regarding economics and international business. In fact, it makes complete sense. The health of our nation's economy has to be included in national security concerns, and the Chinese in particular seem to be determined to outmaneuver everyone in this area.
Why are the Chinese so successful at espionage? The truth is, they haven't always been good at spying. But once China and the United States started regular bilateral relations, and Chinese university students and researchers were invited to the U.S. to study and do research, the Chinese saw an opportunity to exploit our openness to gather confidential and at times top secret information. The larger, more prestigious U.S. colleges seem to compete for visiting Chinese scholars. Unfortunately, many of these universities have received contracts from the Department of Defense to work on highly classified programs. On more than one occasion, Chinese students have been discovered in possession of internet connections that are active only between the Chinese mainland and the student's personal laptop. Our own experts have been unable to break into the conversation between the student and Beijing for a number of reasons, including the complexity/security firewalls of the program being used, and the opposition of the respective university's administration from what they perceive as being "action which will discourage future Chinese scholars from wanted to study here." Can you imagine a student having access to a lab computer, downloading classified information onto a disk, then returning to their dorm room to send the information to China, without us ever knowing exactly what was being transmitted?
Back to economic espionage. Its not just a war between China and the United States; the European nations are also interested in getting a "heads-up" on the intentions of our international companies and investors. For example, the European conglomerate "Airbus", which manufactures airliners with parts from a number of different EU countries, is in regular, fierce completion with Boeing for new airliner orders. The United States has economic rivalries in the Defense Industry as well. Germany, France, the UK, Russia, Italy and Spain all manufacture and export military hardware of one sort or another. Even South Africa goes head to head with the U.S., when it comes to anti-riot vehicles and helicopters. To have confidential information regarding a foreign competitor's progress on a competitive product can be invaluable, and nations have started training Intelligence Officers to be focused on the business community for the duration of their career. Many times these Intelligence Officers will utilize Businessman cover in order to gain access to confidential information. The United States and France wrote the book on this type of espionage, and they continue to this day to practice it more effectively than anyone else.
Espionage has evolved quite a bit in the last few years, let alone last five decades. So much intelligence collection has been directed towards force protection, other typical areas of interest have suffered. But the major powers still manage to cover all their bases and go after the terrorist target together. The joint intel ops that are becoming more and more commonplace just might be the precursor to something much more meaningful: an Intelligence Service that represents more than just one nation. I assume that the EU has already broken ground in that regard.
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Ukrainian separatists pretend to abide by the Minsk Agreement by re-deploying certain forces.
Links: A. Calls for the implementation of the Minsk Agreement.
B. Right wing protests Poroshenko in Kiev.
Both Kiev and Moscow are very interested in giving the impression of support for the Minsk negotiations. The discussions, which include the Ukraine, France, Germany and Russia, evolved after the failure of the Minsk Protocol, a 5 September 2014 agreement to halt the war in the Donbas Region. The Minsk Protocol included twelve main points, but within the first few weeks, both sides had violated the agreement. By January 2015, it was acknowledged by all parties concerned that the Minsk Protocol was a failure, and that negotiators had to return to Minsk and begin again. On 11 February 2015, the leaders of Ukraine, Germany, France, and Russia agreed to a new package of measures which for all practical purposes, revived the Minsk Protocol. As opposed to the first agreement, it appears at this early stage that both parties are interested in at least giving the appearance of compliance. As an addendum to the Minsk II agreement, both parties (Ukraine and the Donbas separatists) agreed to a heavy weapons withdrawal that includes tanks and certain "previously excluded" lighter weapons. On June 21, monitors for the Organization for the Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) reported that both Ukrainian and separatist forces had begun removing the proscribed weapons from the front lines, even though the addendum had yet to be actually signed. Although the intention of the addendum was to reduce the intensity of the fighting in southeast Ukraine, the separatist almost immediately issued a declaration that they will retain armor around the key cities of Donetsk and Debaltseve. It is apparent that the separatist will utilize a well-worn strategy of continually moving heavy weapons and firepower from one location to the next, to give the impression that they are abiding by the agreement. In reality, as long as the armor and heavy firepower are present in Donbas, they can be maneuvered into position to fire on Ukrainian targets within a day's notice (and in most instances, less).
Not surprisingly, the separatists will agree to whatever particular parts of the agreement that suits their military and political objectives. While Ukrainian President Petro Poroschenko bends over backwards to demonstrate to his European supporters that he is willing to negotiate with the separatists (and the Russians), regardless of the continual violation of previous agreements and the brutal destruction of a civilian passenger airliner by an SA-11 missile fired by Russian Buk missile launcher, he faces mounting disapproval in his own capital. The Right Sector Movement (RSM), the political movement which led the demonstrations that eventually removed Poroschenko's successor, has become increasingly more active and vocal in their opposition to the manner in which Poroschenko is handling this crisis. Poroschenko must be very careful how he maneuvers around this pot-hole, because the RSM, which contributes volunteers to actively fight alongside the Ukrainian Army, is very popular in western Ukraine. One issue that receives a great deal of attention in Ukraine, is the fact that Poroschenko continues to refer to the crisis as an anti-terrorist action (!) as opposed to an actual war. Poroschenko has also been opposed to calls in Parliament (supported by RSM and the majority of Ukrainians) to institute and economic blockade of Donbas, and he does not support the various volunteer military units that have sprung up in support of the Ukrainian Army. All of these measures would be seen by the European "friends of Ukraine", as being inflammatory and not in the spirit of de-escalation, so its obvious from where Poroschenko is currently receiving his marching orders. And you can't blame Poroschenko for taking direction from the leaders of nations that haven't been to war in over five decades, at least not declared. He is being advised by honor graduates of the Neville Chamberlain "sacrifice anything and everyone for peace in our time" school of diplomacy. It should come as no surprise; this is how Europeans think in 2015. Considering the devastation of two World Wars, I certainly understand their wish to avoid aggravating the situation. But dangerous times call for courageous leadership. This is the time and place for the United States to act as the leader of the European delegation, and start dealing with Putin directly. Since the entire planet recognizes that he is calling the shots for the separatists, why to we continue to avoid dealing with him directly?
At present, we in the United States are without a President who is willing to utilize both our diplomatic and military resources appropriately and aggressively, in defense of international freedom and security. Since 2008, the United States has basically been adrift internationally, occasionally reacting to important events, but always the last one to show up at the party. The establishment of ISIS in Iraq is a direct result of the rash removal of U.S. forces in contrast to the phased-out, long-term withdrawal schedule preferred by the Pentagon. And Ukraine is obliged to cling to the coat tails of Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande because our government is preaching the same, defeatist diatribe as they are (and they're closer). If I could only remember the number of Democrats who have argued against long-term sanctions at one time or another (Cuba comes to mind); and now these same Democrats watch Vladimir Putin and the Russian people totally ignore the sanctions regime in-place against Russia, and call for.....continued sanctions! Putin will eventually swallow Ukraine piece-by piece. Why? Because its in his nature; he is a megalomaniac, and like true megalomaniacs, he won't stop until HE IS STOPPED. When we made the point in favor of aggressive and appropriate diplomatic and military action, we were recognizing that the United States and our European partners have the opportunity to persuade Putin to climb back into his box. We must show that we are determined to protect the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine, and this can be accomplished by providing all supplies and military equipment that the Ukrainian military requests. Would you like a chuckle? If the Iranian nuke treaty is approved, we will then be able to sell F16s and Abrams tanks to Iran, but no to Ukraine! We can also influence Putin's decision-making by returning U.S. military forces to Europe, but in new locations, possibly, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Romania? The threat of a missile-defense shield for eastern Europe is another issue that annoys Putin (and that we have sacrificed for absolutely no political gain). We have military options in dealing with both Putin and ISIS; now all we need is the motivation and the backbone.
2016 can't come fast enough.
B. Right wing protests Poroshenko in Kiev.
Both Kiev and Moscow are very interested in giving the impression of support for the Minsk negotiations. The discussions, which include the Ukraine, France, Germany and Russia, evolved after the failure of the Minsk Protocol, a 5 September 2014 agreement to halt the war in the Donbas Region. The Minsk Protocol included twelve main points, but within the first few weeks, both sides had violated the agreement. By January 2015, it was acknowledged by all parties concerned that the Minsk Protocol was a failure, and that negotiators had to return to Minsk and begin again. On 11 February 2015, the leaders of Ukraine, Germany, France, and Russia agreed to a new package of measures which for all practical purposes, revived the Minsk Protocol. As opposed to the first agreement, it appears at this early stage that both parties are interested in at least giving the appearance of compliance. As an addendum to the Minsk II agreement, both parties (Ukraine and the Donbas separatists) agreed to a heavy weapons withdrawal that includes tanks and certain "previously excluded" lighter weapons. On June 21, monitors for the Organization for the Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) reported that both Ukrainian and separatist forces had begun removing the proscribed weapons from the front lines, even though the addendum had yet to be actually signed. Although the intention of the addendum was to reduce the intensity of the fighting in southeast Ukraine, the separatist almost immediately issued a declaration that they will retain armor around the key cities of Donetsk and Debaltseve. It is apparent that the separatist will utilize a well-worn strategy of continually moving heavy weapons and firepower from one location to the next, to give the impression that they are abiding by the agreement. In reality, as long as the armor and heavy firepower are present in Donbas, they can be maneuvered into position to fire on Ukrainian targets within a day's notice (and in most instances, less).
Not surprisingly, the separatists will agree to whatever particular parts of the agreement that suits their military and political objectives. While Ukrainian President Petro Poroschenko bends over backwards to demonstrate to his European supporters that he is willing to negotiate with the separatists (and the Russians), regardless of the continual violation of previous agreements and the brutal destruction of a civilian passenger airliner by an SA-11 missile fired by Russian Buk missile launcher, he faces mounting disapproval in his own capital. The Right Sector Movement (RSM), the political movement which led the demonstrations that eventually removed Poroschenko's successor, has become increasingly more active and vocal in their opposition to the manner in which Poroschenko is handling this crisis. Poroschenko must be very careful how he maneuvers around this pot-hole, because the RSM, which contributes volunteers to actively fight alongside the Ukrainian Army, is very popular in western Ukraine. One issue that receives a great deal of attention in Ukraine, is the fact that Poroschenko continues to refer to the crisis as an anti-terrorist action (!) as opposed to an actual war. Poroschenko has also been opposed to calls in Parliament (supported by RSM and the majority of Ukrainians) to institute and economic blockade of Donbas, and he does not support the various volunteer military units that have sprung up in support of the Ukrainian Army. All of these measures would be seen by the European "friends of Ukraine", as being inflammatory and not in the spirit of de-escalation, so its obvious from where Poroschenko is currently receiving his marching orders. And you can't blame Poroschenko for taking direction from the leaders of nations that haven't been to war in over five decades, at least not declared. He is being advised by honor graduates of the Neville Chamberlain "sacrifice anything and everyone for peace in our time" school of diplomacy. It should come as no surprise; this is how Europeans think in 2015. Considering the devastation of two World Wars, I certainly understand their wish to avoid aggravating the situation. But dangerous times call for courageous leadership. This is the time and place for the United States to act as the leader of the European delegation, and start dealing with Putin directly. Since the entire planet recognizes that he is calling the shots for the separatists, why to we continue to avoid dealing with him directly?
At present, we in the United States are without a President who is willing to utilize both our diplomatic and military resources appropriately and aggressively, in defense of international freedom and security. Since 2008, the United States has basically been adrift internationally, occasionally reacting to important events, but always the last one to show up at the party. The establishment of ISIS in Iraq is a direct result of the rash removal of U.S. forces in contrast to the phased-out, long-term withdrawal schedule preferred by the Pentagon. And Ukraine is obliged to cling to the coat tails of Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande because our government is preaching the same, defeatist diatribe as they are (and they're closer). If I could only remember the number of Democrats who have argued against long-term sanctions at one time or another (Cuba comes to mind); and now these same Democrats watch Vladimir Putin and the Russian people totally ignore the sanctions regime in-place against Russia, and call for.....continued sanctions! Putin will eventually swallow Ukraine piece-by piece. Why? Because its in his nature; he is a megalomaniac, and like true megalomaniacs, he won't stop until HE IS STOPPED. When we made the point in favor of aggressive and appropriate diplomatic and military action, we were recognizing that the United States and our European partners have the opportunity to persuade Putin to climb back into his box. We must show that we are determined to protect the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine, and this can be accomplished by providing all supplies and military equipment that the Ukrainian military requests. Would you like a chuckle? If the Iranian nuke treaty is approved, we will then be able to sell F16s and Abrams tanks to Iran, but no to Ukraine! We can also influence Putin's decision-making by returning U.S. military forces to Europe, but in new locations, possibly, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Romania? The threat of a missile-defense shield for eastern Europe is another issue that annoys Putin (and that we have sacrificed for absolutely no political gain). We have military options in dealing with both Putin and ISIS; now all we need is the motivation and the backbone.
2016 can't come fast enough.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)