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 ISIS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ISIS. Show all posts
Sunday, March 26, 2017
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.
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
At the end of the day, it was just another Hillary Clinton speech, folks.
Last Thursday night, as I listened to Hillary Clinton's well-crafted and beautifully delivered acceptance speech, I couldn't help but consider the number of inspiring speeches that are born every four years during national convention week. Honestly, this year I didn't listen with much conviction to either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump's speech. Unlike so many these days, I don't look to political speeches to influence or entertain. From the number of Hollywood celebrities that were paraded across the stage, one can assume that the Democrats believe that voters can be influenced by entertainers. You can add that to the list of differences I have with Democrats; I don't give a rats ass how my favorite performers are going to vote.
During the evening, Clinton focused on the usual crowd-pleasing issues of her base. We heard about discrimination, inequality and the poor. You would think that as long as the Democrats had been around (and in power), they would have resolved some of these issues. No doubt the trouble has to do with the evil Republicans, whose interests are to discriminate against anyone who isn't white and male, and to make the poor even poorer. Not much new ground here. But Hillary Clinton did discuss the serious issue of terrorism, and the importance of strong national security. She acknowledged that the world has become a very dangerous place, which is ironic, given that the Obama Administration and Secretary of State Clinton are responsible in part for the mess we find ourselves in.
In 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped put together the New Start Missile Reduction Treaty with Vladimir Putin an Russia. If you google "New Start Treaty", you will find the usual dry but useful Wikipedia entry, and you will also find a decent number of commentaries on the Treaty. Not suprisingly, the folks on the right think its a disaster and the ones on the left couldn't be happier. In order to truly measure the positive versus the negative, its necessary to view the Treaty and its ramifications from a 2016 perspective. Most people seem to have come to the realization that Vladimir Putin is a snake and can't be trusted. The Obama Administration can argue that in 2010, he didn't seem to be such a bad guy. Don't fall for this line. The State Department and the Obama Administration was well aware with what and whom they were negotiating. Since Putin has become the Big Man on Campus in Russia, he has yet to direct his government to abide by any existing treaty. Sure, there are treaties in which the disagreements have been anticipated and par for the course, but there is no way that the Obama Administration can argue that Russia deserved to be trusted with our national security. Basically, the New Start Treaty did away with our last remaining Ballistic deterent, and what did we receive in return? The same NOTHING that we negotiated for with last year's Iranian Nuclear agreement. The treaty has been couched to look like an agreement between Europe and Iran, but with Secretary of State John Kerry practically sitting in the laps of the negotiators, there can be no denying the fact that our fingerprints are all over this monumentally dangerous pact.
During the 2008 election, then-candidate Barack Obama announced that once he took office, he would bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. At first, it appeared that possibly common sense had caused Obama to change his mind, but once the 2010 midterm elections looked in jeopardy, and it was time to shore up the leftist base, ordered the evacuation of U.S. troops to begin, and to continue without delay. There was a problem; we had an agreement with the Iraqi government that called for the U.S. military to train all branches of the Iraqi Security Forces. The Pentagon was very concerned with the growing level of violence in bordering Syria, which was complicated by the presence of a former Iraqi insurgency/terrorist group which had started calling itself "ISIS" (formerly "Al-Qaida of the Two Rivers" and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). Once U.S. personnel started to leave Iraq in droves, ISIS decided to return. The reasoned correctly that the recently reconstituted Iraqi Security Forces would be in no condition to defeat even a much smaller, battle-hardened ISIS conventional force. During the first major encounter outside Tikrit, the Iraqi troops abandoned their equipment and deserted the battlefield without firing a shot; ISIS was able to add the latest U.S. weaponry and ammunition to its arsenal. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave full support to President Obama's decision to abandon Iraq, which left it open to invasion from the same scum that were responsible for the death of thousands of young American men and women in uniform.
What has been discussed above is just a sample of the events that took place when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. She also presided over the State Department when the Arab Spring took us by complete surprise. The year before the Arab Spring (up to two years after) are an example of complete and utter failure on behalf the diplomatic arm of the greatest nation on Earth. You will find the Benghazi incident included in this time period. We repeatedly saw Secretary Clinton accepting full responsiblity for the terrible performance of her State Department, and then going into great detail to explain how it really was SOMEONE ELSE'S responsibility. I can assure you, I would have no problem defending my belief that Hillary was the worst Secretary of State of my lifetime. She likes to brag about her foreign policy experience; I'm waiting for someone from the left to explain to me what it is that she has accomplished which merits "bragging" (my quotations).
During her speech, Clinton also heaped praise on President Obama for all the positive initiatives that he introduced, which saved our nation from economic collapse. We will examine this brave statement, amongst others, later in the week.
During the evening, Clinton focused on the usual crowd-pleasing issues of her base. We heard about discrimination, inequality and the poor. You would think that as long as the Democrats had been around (and in power), they would have resolved some of these issues. No doubt the trouble has to do with the evil Republicans, whose interests are to discriminate against anyone who isn't white and male, and to make the poor even poorer. Not much new ground here. But Hillary Clinton did discuss the serious issue of terrorism, and the importance of strong national security. She acknowledged that the world has become a very dangerous place, which is ironic, given that the Obama Administration and Secretary of State Clinton are responsible in part for the mess we find ourselves in.
In 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped put together the New Start Missile Reduction Treaty with Vladimir Putin an Russia. If you google "New Start Treaty", you will find the usual dry but useful Wikipedia entry, and you will also find a decent number of commentaries on the Treaty. Not suprisingly, the folks on the right think its a disaster and the ones on the left couldn't be happier. In order to truly measure the positive versus the negative, its necessary to view the Treaty and its ramifications from a 2016 perspective. Most people seem to have come to the realization that Vladimir Putin is a snake and can't be trusted. The Obama Administration can argue that in 2010, he didn't seem to be such a bad guy. Don't fall for this line. The State Department and the Obama Administration was well aware with what and whom they were negotiating. Since Putin has become the Big Man on Campus in Russia, he has yet to direct his government to abide by any existing treaty. Sure, there are treaties in which the disagreements have been anticipated and par for the course, but there is no way that the Obama Administration can argue that Russia deserved to be trusted with our national security. Basically, the New Start Treaty did away with our last remaining Ballistic deterent, and what did we receive in return? The same NOTHING that we negotiated for with last year's Iranian Nuclear agreement. The treaty has been couched to look like an agreement between Europe and Iran, but with Secretary of State John Kerry practically sitting in the laps of the negotiators, there can be no denying the fact that our fingerprints are all over this monumentally dangerous pact.
During the 2008 election, then-candidate Barack Obama announced that once he took office, he would bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. At first, it appeared that possibly common sense had caused Obama to change his mind, but once the 2010 midterm elections looked in jeopardy, and it was time to shore up the leftist base, ordered the evacuation of U.S. troops to begin, and to continue without delay. There was a problem; we had an agreement with the Iraqi government that called for the U.S. military to train all branches of the Iraqi Security Forces. The Pentagon was very concerned with the growing level of violence in bordering Syria, which was complicated by the presence of a former Iraqi insurgency/terrorist group which had started calling itself "ISIS" (formerly "Al-Qaida of the Two Rivers" and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). Once U.S. personnel started to leave Iraq in droves, ISIS decided to return. The reasoned correctly that the recently reconstituted Iraqi Security Forces would be in no condition to defeat even a much smaller, battle-hardened ISIS conventional force. During the first major encounter outside Tikrit, the Iraqi troops abandoned their equipment and deserted the battlefield without firing a shot; ISIS was able to add the latest U.S. weaponry and ammunition to its arsenal. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave full support to President Obama's decision to abandon Iraq, which left it open to invasion from the same scum that were responsible for the death of thousands of young American men and women in uniform.
What has been discussed above is just a sample of the events that took place when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. She also presided over the State Department when the Arab Spring took us by complete surprise. The year before the Arab Spring (up to two years after) are an example of complete and utter failure on behalf the diplomatic arm of the greatest nation on Earth. You will find the Benghazi incident included in this time period. We repeatedly saw Secretary Clinton accepting full responsiblity for the terrible performance of her State Department, and then going into great detail to explain how it really was SOMEONE ELSE'S responsibility. I can assure you, I would have no problem defending my belief that Hillary was the worst Secretary of State of my lifetime. She likes to brag about her foreign policy experience; I'm waiting for someone from the left to explain to me what it is that she has accomplished which merits "bragging" (my quotations).
During her speech, Clinton also heaped praise on President Obama for all the positive initiatives that he introduced, which saved our nation from economic collapse. We will examine this brave statement, amongst others, later in the week.
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Dont be surprised if Russia's current strategy in Syria looks familiar.....
Of all the things I can say about Vladimir Putin, you'll never hear me accuse him of abandoning a winning strategy. Russia has no hesitation whatsoever in repeating tactics in Syria that have proven effective elsewhere, as on this occasion, Ukraine. Putin understands his opponent well, and can predict his next move. Unfortunately for us (the good guys/gals), Putin's opponent at present is Barack Obama and his State Department, under Secretary of State John Kerry. During the current conflict in Ukraine, Putin has used the tool of diplomacy to win engagement after engagement, without ever firing a shot. The entire situation in Ukraine would be a farce, if it weren't so tragic. Let's be frank, shall we? Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, a province of the Republic of Ukraine. To confuse the issue and distract, Putin created a separatist movement in eastern Ukraine. Even Putin was caught by suprise by how quickly the European powers and the United States (which calls the shots for NATO), immediately backed down to Russian aggression and begged for Russia and the separatists to negotiate. Why did Europe and the West fold so quickly? The answer lies with the Oval Office of the United States of America. After winning the 2008 presidential election, the European leaders fought over who was going to fete the first African-American President of the United States. It was a huge occasion in Paris, Berlin and London. Not only could Obama do no wrong socially, but he was given carte blanche with foreign policy as well. Since his inauguration, Obama has controled the foreign policy decisions of just about every European nation. Under normal circumstances, I would consider this development to be prudent, but not under President Obama, who will negotiate himself out of his own underwear, if he gets a chance. Obama seems to believe that showing any strength and momentum in foreign policy is somehow an embarrassment, or an innapropriate expression of aggression. Today is April 30, 2016- after almost eight years of Obama's foreign policy (including a first-term with the worst Secretary of State in memory, Hillary Clinton), terrorism is present on almost every continent, the number of nations either researching nuclear weapons or actually building them has doubled, and right-wing political movements are threatening to take over European governments in the next elections. The Obama Administration has had no proactive policy regarding ANY foreign policy issue. The war in Syria has been raging for over five years; why wasn't the U.S. State Department advising our allies in Europe (especially Turkey and Greece) about the likelihood of refugees? Not to mention the Arab Spring...why were our diplomats so woefully unprepared for the explosion of this political movement, Madame Secretary of State Clinton?
So we return to Syria, where Russian President Putin and his stoolies in Damascus and Teheran are able to implement their plan to use the ISIS emergency to further their efforts at political expansion. Iran has long dreamed of two, apparently impossible dreams: to be the strongest nation in the Persian Gulf region, and to possess atomic weapons. Thanks to two terms of Barack Obama, and both dreams are soon to be reality. Because Obama pulled troops out of Iraq before the Iraqi army was prepared to defend itself, ISIS marched in, swallowed up Mosul, Arbil and Tikrit, and threatened Baghdad. In come the Iranians, playing the role of "advisors" and "instructors", and several Shi'a militias take the field of battle and fight ISIS to a stalemate, until the Iraqi army is prepared to fight its own battles. The Iranians were given the opportunity to be the heroes, the brave soldiers who defeated ISIS. Currently, Iran has more resources at play in Iraq than the United States. Iran has also taken to the battlefield against ISIS in Syria. Iran has traditionally supported the quasi-political religious movement "Hezbollah" in Lebanon. Iranian volunteers are fighting ISIS in Syria as part of Hezbollah's military support for de facto Syrian President and Putin puppet Bashar al-Assad. Obama's unwillingness to get anywhere near U.S. troops on the ground is well-known to Putin and his Syrian and Iranian pigeons. Russia and Iran have moved into the vacuum created when the Obama Adminstration telegraphed its unwillingness to use the military for diplomatic obligations. And our enemies have taken full advantage.
Whenever new negotiations are announced regarding either Syria or Ukraine, you can rest assured the Russians are planning large-scale military operational activity, either by Russian proxies or by the Russian military itself. If a Republican president is elected this November, it will be interesting to see how much of the Obama approach to foreign policy is adopted, or left behind. As for the Democrats, lets not even consider the nightmare of a President Hillary or President Sanders.
So we return to Syria, where Russian President Putin and his stoolies in Damascus and Teheran are able to implement their plan to use the ISIS emergency to further their efforts at political expansion. Iran has long dreamed of two, apparently impossible dreams: to be the strongest nation in the Persian Gulf region, and to possess atomic weapons. Thanks to two terms of Barack Obama, and both dreams are soon to be reality. Because Obama pulled troops out of Iraq before the Iraqi army was prepared to defend itself, ISIS marched in, swallowed up Mosul, Arbil and Tikrit, and threatened Baghdad. In come the Iranians, playing the role of "advisors" and "instructors", and several Shi'a militias take the field of battle and fight ISIS to a stalemate, until the Iraqi army is prepared to fight its own battles. The Iranians were given the opportunity to be the heroes, the brave soldiers who defeated ISIS. Currently, Iran has more resources at play in Iraq than the United States. Iran has also taken to the battlefield against ISIS in Syria. Iran has traditionally supported the quasi-political religious movement "Hezbollah" in Lebanon. Iranian volunteers are fighting ISIS in Syria as part of Hezbollah's military support for de facto Syrian President and Putin puppet Bashar al-Assad. Obama's unwillingness to get anywhere near U.S. troops on the ground is well-known to Putin and his Syrian and Iranian pigeons. Russia and Iran have moved into the vacuum created when the Obama Adminstration telegraphed its unwillingness to use the military for diplomatic obligations. And our enemies have taken full advantage.
Whenever new negotiations are announced regarding either Syria or Ukraine, you can rest assured the Russians are planning large-scale military operational activity, either by Russian proxies or by the Russian military itself. If a Republican president is elected this November, it will be interesting to see how much of the Obama approach to foreign policy is adopted, or left behind. As for the Democrats, lets not even consider the nightmare of a President Hillary or President Sanders.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Current political situation in Iraq may result in the fall of Prime Minister al-Albadi
The current Iraqi political mess appears to be more focused and organized than in the past. A rump parallel paliament, determined to increase Iranian influence in Baghdad, continues to challenge the authority of the Council of Representatives. The Iraqi Constitution is written to provide a checks and balances system that is similar to the U.S. Constitution, but Iraqi politics really is about who has the most supporters and authority with the militias. Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has managed to fight off a number of efforts to remove him from office. When the war against ISIS goes badly, the various political groups lay-off the anti-Abadi campaign, for fear that if Abadi falls and ISIS takes comtrol of Baghdad, then the Iranians may not be so willing to interfere in Iraqi politics. But when the military situation is positive, as appears to be the case currently, the effort to remove Abadi and install an Iranian puppet regime. As long as ISIS constitues a real threat to Iraq, the Iranians will not commit themselves militarily. Currently the Iranians are content to have operatives on the ground in every province, and to to keep advisors in place with the various Shia militias. The recent successes on the battlefield have emboldened the pro-Iranian elements to attempt a coup and install a pro-Iranian government while the military situation is positive. Teheran is a bit more pragmatic than its Shia supporters in Iraq, and will no doubt wait for what it considers to be an ideal environment before commiting regular forces to the conflict in Iraq.
Given the equities involved, why haven't the Iranians moved into Iraqi full-force and push ISIS out of Iraq? Such an effort would certainly increase the public support for Iran and embarrass the United States, which has been supporting the Abadi Administration with military aid and U.S. Special Forces. No doubt Iran is determined to control Iraq, and the Iranians would welcome the opportunity to play the role of "liberators", but the Iranian military is not up to the task of providing military support and troops to the Hezbollah-supported effort in Syria. Iran has a long history of supporting Hezbollah and the de facto president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad. The situation could change dramatically within the next month. If the Russian effort to prop-up Bashar al-Assad is successful, and the Iranian troops who have been fighting on the Syrian front are welcomed home as victors, the pressure would be on Teheran to follow up the victory in Syria with a successful campaign against ISIS in Iraq. As things stand, Teheran does not appear to be ready to commit regular military elements into Iraq, especially when Iran has ongoing commitments in Syria and Yemen. Don't expect to see an increase in Iranian military activity while the conflict in Syria continues. Teheran loves a military parade, but when it comes to commiting resources in a foreign conflict, the Iranians will be patient and wait until the situation either deteriorates further, or an armistace or ceasefire manages to take hold. Another variable in the mix is the U.S. political season. The Iranians will want to know who sits in the Oval Office before embarking on a full-scale military effort in Iraq. The Iranians do not want a confrontation with the United States, especially given the freedom they have to basically act unilaterally in the region. The Iranians will be content to continue its efforts in supporting Hezbollah in Syria, and by providing advisors and military specialists to the Shia militias in Iraq. So much will depend on who sits in the White House in 2017.
Given the equities involved, why haven't the Iranians moved into Iraqi full-force and push ISIS out of Iraq? Such an effort would certainly increase the public support for Iran and embarrass the United States, which has been supporting the Abadi Administration with military aid and U.S. Special Forces. No doubt Iran is determined to control Iraq, and the Iranians would welcome the opportunity to play the role of "liberators", but the Iranian military is not up to the task of providing military support and troops to the Hezbollah-supported effort in Syria. Iran has a long history of supporting Hezbollah and the de facto president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad. The situation could change dramatically within the next month. If the Russian effort to prop-up Bashar al-Assad is successful, and the Iranian troops who have been fighting on the Syrian front are welcomed home as victors, the pressure would be on Teheran to follow up the victory in Syria with a successful campaign against ISIS in Iraq. As things stand, Teheran does not appear to be ready to commit regular military elements into Iraq, especially when Iran has ongoing commitments in Syria and Yemen. Don't expect to see an increase in Iranian military activity while the conflict in Syria continues. Teheran loves a military parade, but when it comes to commiting resources in a foreign conflict, the Iranians will be patient and wait until the situation either deteriorates further, or an armistace or ceasefire manages to take hold. Another variable in the mix is the U.S. political season. The Iranians will want to know who sits in the Oval Office before embarking on a full-scale military effort in Iraq. The Iranians do not want a confrontation with the United States, especially given the freedom they have to basically act unilaterally in the region. The Iranians will be content to continue its efforts in supporting Hezbollah in Syria, and by providing advisors and military specialists to the Shia militias in Iraq. So much will depend on who sits in the White House in 2017.
Sunday, April 3, 2016
The media is driving this election season right off a cliff.
The media in the United States has found it difficult to cultivate a reputation of non-bias. The political right accuses the media of actively promoting liberal candidates and causes, and the left either points out the conservative sympathies of the dominant Fox News Network, or scoffs at hearing the same complaint once again. I was raised in Europe in a multi-cultural household (meaning French-American), and my brother and sister and I developed an international perspective to life at an early age. I have always attempted to stay abreast of political developments in far-off places, and chose an occupation that would ensure a healthy dose of unique environments to live in and absorb. In particular, I have enjoyed international politics. That being said, I rarely commented about politics in other countries unless I had accrued some living time in said location. I may devour the statistical results of Burkina Faso's last Congressional election, but I will keep my comments to myself. Why? Because the political events in most foreign countries do not directly impact me (I said most, not all), and frankly put, it's none of my business. I have spend two decades of my life battling against the specter of "The Ugly Anerican", who continues to expect everyone in Paris to speak English and to have a McDonald's on every street corner of Tbilisi. I refuse to add to the problem by telling people how they should run their own country. In fact, except for providing basic information, I rarely notice U.S. media editorializing about foreign elections (the unavoidable exception being any French election which includes Marine Le Pen and the National Front political party).
That being said, we certainly are not given the same courtesy. Yesterday, while vainly training to reach "Radio Classics-148" on my Sirius Satellite radio without getting distracted on the way (I failed), I caught a BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) commentary on the current U.S. political scene. The announcer was forgettable, and his material shockingly predictable, but it still managed to infuriate me, which I'm sure would please Mr. BBC if he knew. The first "fact" regarding the 2016 election that I managed to get from the commentary was that "ignorant, racist" (my quotation marks) people were voting in droves, hence the success that Donald Trump has enjoyed to date. On the left, Bernie Sanders has also enjoyed a surprising level of popularity, but his voters were "young, thoughtful college students determined to have their say". The BBC, picking up where NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and CBS left off, has no problem expressing its own opinion regarding U.S. politics. I'm so ancient, I remember a time when the media at least made an effort to appear unbiased. The commentary continued to insult, repeatedly referring to Donald Trump's political ideology as "racist and bigoted". I don't recall Ted Cruz being mentioned much, but I belief Kasich was introduced as the only moderate in the Republican field, so therefore obviously having no chance whatsoever. The commentator mentioned Hillary Clinton, barely disguising his sadness regarding her high negative ratings and continued problems with "server-gate".
I should have anticipated what the BBC had to offer beforehand and kept that dial moving until I reached "Dragnet" or "Johnny Dollar, Insurance Investigator". Instead, I listened to the entire commentary and was reminded of just how stupid the British people must think we are, as they ponder how in the heck we managed to defeat them in two wars. If I had been delivering a commentary instead of Mr. BBC, my perspective wouldn't have taken long to share. Donald Trump, who I DO NOT support, is on the receiving end of a angry and frightened electorate's attempt to change the direction in which our country is headed. Contrary to the smart folks at the BBC, I do not believe that the "bigot and racist" voting bloc has finally showed its strenth in 2016. The simple truth is that changes are taking place in the United States that are subtlety impacting the way our children are raised and the way in which we represent ourselves internationally. The current administration has been determined to steadily increase the number of Americans who are dependent upon Washington DC for a paycheck, for programs regarding elementary education, and to make moral decisions without really taking into account the perspective of the majority of Americans. The Obama Administration has purposely politicized the government to the point that career civil service employees either jump on board the entitlement express, or retire. The Justice Department and the FBI have been told what and who to investigate, just as the IRS, with a brand-new politically appointed Director, starts harassing Conservative political organizations and lining up their supporters for audits. President Obama has decided that he is just too intelligent to be burdened with the Constitution, so instead of working with Congress, Executive Action is used to handle controversial issues. As for our international standing, the free world has been effectively without a leader since 2008. Actually, the Obama Administration did decide to impact one particular foreign environment: Iraq. Because we unexpectedly removed our troops (and military instructors) in 2010, ISIS took full advantage, crossed back into Iraq from Syria, forced military engagement with the Iraqi Army outside Tikrit, and when the scared, untrained 17-year old Iraqi soldiers dropped their weapons and ran back towards Baghdad, ISIS was on the receiving end of a military weapons and supplies haul like has never before been seen.
These are just some of the reasons that the American people are voting for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Both men are considered to be outside the GOP establishment, which has avoided standing up to this Administration at almost every opportunity (there is no shame in being called a "racist", Senate Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker of the House Ryan, if the accusation is FALSE). The American Conservative voter is demanding change, and will not relax until steps are taken to address the obscene national debt. Jeb Bush never got off the schneid because conservatives want change. The Democrats are flirting with "Chairman Mao" Bernie Sanders but will eventually rally behind Hillary. Seems to me they are only interested in turning back the clock, some of them to the days of Marx and Engels.
I began this long post with a complaint regarding the media, and I will try and end on that note. We can't control what decisions are made by the press and media, and they would ignore our advice regardless. They are the ultimate elite and understand economics, foreign policy, and the human heart so much better than the Unwashed Masses. What I dream of is a media that presents the news, full stop. Who decided that we needed editorials anyways? When did some network corporate genius come along and decide that we were too stupid to understand the events taking place in our world, so they needed to EXPLAIN it too us. In 2008, the European media fell in love with Barack Obama, and instructed Europeans (including political leaders) to love him as well. Nothing else can explain the blind loyalty with which the EU has supported a president who took office with no military experience, unable to understand any language but English, and having never really had a job. So BBC, following in line behind most U.S. media, has discovered that the voters who have chosen Donald Trump and Ted Cruz to fight it out for the nomination, are crusty, angry, ignorant racist bigots. Let's see how far this gets them as the election heats up.
PS (WANTED: A non-political news service that gives me the news, and has enough faith in me to assume that I can figure out the details on my own.)
That being said, we certainly are not given the same courtesy. Yesterday, while vainly training to reach "Radio Classics-148" on my Sirius Satellite radio without getting distracted on the way (I failed), I caught a BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) commentary on the current U.S. political scene. The announcer was forgettable, and his material shockingly predictable, but it still managed to infuriate me, which I'm sure would please Mr. BBC if he knew. The first "fact" regarding the 2016 election that I managed to get from the commentary was that "ignorant, racist" (my quotation marks) people were voting in droves, hence the success that Donald Trump has enjoyed to date. On the left, Bernie Sanders has also enjoyed a surprising level of popularity, but his voters were "young, thoughtful college students determined to have their say". The BBC, picking up where NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and CBS left off, has no problem expressing its own opinion regarding U.S. politics. I'm so ancient, I remember a time when the media at least made an effort to appear unbiased. The commentary continued to insult, repeatedly referring to Donald Trump's political ideology as "racist and bigoted". I don't recall Ted Cruz being mentioned much, but I belief Kasich was introduced as the only moderate in the Republican field, so therefore obviously having no chance whatsoever. The commentator mentioned Hillary Clinton, barely disguising his sadness regarding her high negative ratings and continued problems with "server-gate".
I should have anticipated what the BBC had to offer beforehand and kept that dial moving until I reached "Dragnet" or "Johnny Dollar, Insurance Investigator". Instead, I listened to the entire commentary and was reminded of just how stupid the British people must think we are, as they ponder how in the heck we managed to defeat them in two wars. If I had been delivering a commentary instead of Mr. BBC, my perspective wouldn't have taken long to share. Donald Trump, who I DO NOT support, is on the receiving end of a angry and frightened electorate's attempt to change the direction in which our country is headed. Contrary to the smart folks at the BBC, I do not believe that the "bigot and racist" voting bloc has finally showed its strenth in 2016. The simple truth is that changes are taking place in the United States that are subtlety impacting the way our children are raised and the way in which we represent ourselves internationally. The current administration has been determined to steadily increase the number of Americans who are dependent upon Washington DC for a paycheck, for programs regarding elementary education, and to make moral decisions without really taking into account the perspective of the majority of Americans. The Obama Administration has purposely politicized the government to the point that career civil service employees either jump on board the entitlement express, or retire. The Justice Department and the FBI have been told what and who to investigate, just as the IRS, with a brand-new politically appointed Director, starts harassing Conservative political organizations and lining up their supporters for audits. President Obama has decided that he is just too intelligent to be burdened with the Constitution, so instead of working with Congress, Executive Action is used to handle controversial issues. As for our international standing, the free world has been effectively without a leader since 2008. Actually, the Obama Administration did decide to impact one particular foreign environment: Iraq. Because we unexpectedly removed our troops (and military instructors) in 2010, ISIS took full advantage, crossed back into Iraq from Syria, forced military engagement with the Iraqi Army outside Tikrit, and when the scared, untrained 17-year old Iraqi soldiers dropped their weapons and ran back towards Baghdad, ISIS was on the receiving end of a military weapons and supplies haul like has never before been seen.
These are just some of the reasons that the American people are voting for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Both men are considered to be outside the GOP establishment, which has avoided standing up to this Administration at almost every opportunity (there is no shame in being called a "racist", Senate Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker of the House Ryan, if the accusation is FALSE). The American Conservative voter is demanding change, and will not relax until steps are taken to address the obscene national debt. Jeb Bush never got off the schneid because conservatives want change. The Democrats are flirting with "Chairman Mao" Bernie Sanders but will eventually rally behind Hillary. Seems to me they are only interested in turning back the clock, some of them to the days of Marx and Engels.
I began this long post with a complaint regarding the media, and I will try and end on that note. We can't control what decisions are made by the press and media, and they would ignore our advice regardless. They are the ultimate elite and understand economics, foreign policy, and the human heart so much better than the Unwashed Masses. What I dream of is a media that presents the news, full stop. Who decided that we needed editorials anyways? When did some network corporate genius come along and decide that we were too stupid to understand the events taking place in our world, so they needed to EXPLAIN it too us. In 2008, the European media fell in love with Barack Obama, and instructed Europeans (including political leaders) to love him as well. Nothing else can explain the blind loyalty with which the EU has supported a president who took office with no military experience, unable to understand any language but English, and having never really had a job. So BBC, following in line behind most U.S. media, has discovered that the voters who have chosen Donald Trump and Ted Cruz to fight it out for the nomination, are crusty, angry, ignorant racist bigots. Let's see how far this gets them as the election heats up.
PS (WANTED: A non-political news service that gives me the news, and has enough faith in me to assume that I can figure out the details on my own.)
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Europe suffers another terrorist attack, as the free world continues to search for a champion.
On Tuesday, terrorists conducted suicide attacks in Belgium, killing upwards of 31 people and at least 160 injured. The terrorist operators chose to detonate their suicide gear in the crowded Maelbeek Metro Station in Brussels, and also at Zaventem International Airport. This horrific event was no doubt some sort of retaliation for Belgium's aggressive efforts to assist the French authorities in identifying, locating and apprehending terror suspects who are using Belgium as a safe haven. Only three days ago, Belgian police apprehended one of the individuals suspected of direct involvement in last year's Paris attacks. I have nothing but admiration and support for the law enforcement authorities in Belgium and France. Over the previous four months, a great deal of attention has been generated regarding the issue of national security, as everyday French (and Belgian) citizens have to consider just how safe rheir families really are. Sadly, we aren't discussing Europeans on vacation who inadvertently got caught up in local violence. The people of Europe are obliged to have public discourse regarding the safety of their own communities. This is a very sobering time for resiidents of Avila, Spain, or Cork Ireland, or maybe Schlitters, Austria, who have basically always been able to assume the relative security of their neighborhoods and villages, at least as far as foreign threats go. The world has become a much smaller place, and liberal immigration laws and the lack of enforcement has provided those persons who harbor latent resentment towards anything from the west, to move in next door. That reality is no longer worth the argument. These people had to come from somewhere, which makes the continued debate regarding refugees from Syria even more important.
One of the most frustrating aspects of the terror attacks in Belgium, is the predictable, toothless response of the United States. President Barsck Obama, who just happens to be visiting Cuba (enjoying Cuba Libres and good seafood while political prisoners and no doubt a number of U.S. citizens, starve in the Havana jail), tossed out the tired "our thoughts and prayers" comment to the press, and then continued his original speech, which was so ideologically leftist that Che Guevara saluted from the grave. It is so difficult to accept (but we must, at least for the next nine months) the direction we are taking with regards to Socialist Cuba, when at the same time the Obama Administration has gone out of its way to embarrass Israeli President Netanyahu and create difficulties between our nations. In truth, it wouldn't have mattered if Obama had been in DC or Durban when the news from Brussels first broke. President Obama has laid down the law, policy-wise. ISIS does not pose a threat to the United States, and any effort by the United States to take a leadership role in the fight against ISIS would be innappropriate. This hardline "laissez faire" approach to international terror is living our European allies in a bit of a fix. In 2008, when Barack Obama took office, the leaders of Europe were tripping over each other to be the first to be best friends with the first African-American President of the United States. This sickening lovesick attitude (which pervades amongst the people of Europe as well), was on display in foreign relations, as France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands were perfectly willing to grt in line behind whatever policy Obama thought best. Examples include the terrible New Start Nuclear Disarmament Treaty, which was supported by Europe, the lack of spine in dealing with Russian threats against Nato expansion, and the never-ending sanctions regime put in place to force Russia to end its support of murdering thugs and guerillas in Ukraine. Where has that policy gotten us? Nowhere, except we have to change our maps to correctly show Crimea as again a province of Russia.
Now that the leaders of Europe have lined up their equities alongside Obama, they impatiently wait for the United States to step up and show some aggressive leadership in the fight against this evil plague that continues to expand and continues to kill. Sadly Monsieur Hollande, Frau Merkel, and Mr. Cameron will have to wait at least until late January 2017. Unless ISIS conducts a major terrorist operation within the United States, the European nations, as they are doing with the refugee crisis, will have to formulate policy sans the U.S.A. The Obama Administration's wilingness to wait until the bad guys strike us domestically before we recognize them (and all Islamic Extremists) as the enemy is a terrible mistake, and very well may prove costly. For a month or so, it appeared that possibly Russia and Vladimir Putin might be willing to take the lead in the campaign to destroy this group, but we found out, not surprisingly, that all Putin wanted was to strengthen the bargaining position of Russia's Syrian puppet, Bashar al-Assad. So the free world continues to look for a champion, someone who will rain destruction on these thugs. As things stand, ISIS has no opposition to its expansion into Africa (through Boko Haram and al-Shabaab), Latin America and Southest Asia. Militarily, ISIS appears to have no problem fighting the Iraqi Armed Forces to a stand-still (even with air support and ad hoc special forces ops for Iraq). Now that the Russians have stepped things down in Syria, ISIS feels no real threat or pressure. I fear that this summer may bring tragedy to many people; I pray everyday to be wrong.
One of the most frustrating aspects of the terror attacks in Belgium, is the predictable, toothless response of the United States. President Barsck Obama, who just happens to be visiting Cuba (enjoying Cuba Libres and good seafood while political prisoners and no doubt a number of U.S. citizens, starve in the Havana jail), tossed out the tired "our thoughts and prayers" comment to the press, and then continued his original speech, which was so ideologically leftist that Che Guevara saluted from the grave. It is so difficult to accept (but we must, at least for the next nine months) the direction we are taking with regards to Socialist Cuba, when at the same time the Obama Administration has gone out of its way to embarrass Israeli President Netanyahu and create difficulties between our nations. In truth, it wouldn't have mattered if Obama had been in DC or Durban when the news from Brussels first broke. President Obama has laid down the law, policy-wise. ISIS does not pose a threat to the United States, and any effort by the United States to take a leadership role in the fight against ISIS would be innappropriate. This hardline "laissez faire" approach to international terror is living our European allies in a bit of a fix. In 2008, when Barack Obama took office, the leaders of Europe were tripping over each other to be the first to be best friends with the first African-American President of the United States. This sickening lovesick attitude (which pervades amongst the people of Europe as well), was on display in foreign relations, as France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands were perfectly willing to grt in line behind whatever policy Obama thought best. Examples include the terrible New Start Nuclear Disarmament Treaty, which was supported by Europe, the lack of spine in dealing with Russian threats against Nato expansion, and the never-ending sanctions regime put in place to force Russia to end its support of murdering thugs and guerillas in Ukraine. Where has that policy gotten us? Nowhere, except we have to change our maps to correctly show Crimea as again a province of Russia.
Now that the leaders of Europe have lined up their equities alongside Obama, they impatiently wait for the United States to step up and show some aggressive leadership in the fight against this evil plague that continues to expand and continues to kill. Sadly Monsieur Hollande, Frau Merkel, and Mr. Cameron will have to wait at least until late January 2017. Unless ISIS conducts a major terrorist operation within the United States, the European nations, as they are doing with the refugee crisis, will have to formulate policy sans the U.S.A. The Obama Administration's wilingness to wait until the bad guys strike us domestically before we recognize them (and all Islamic Extremists) as the enemy is a terrible mistake, and very well may prove costly. For a month or so, it appeared that possibly Russia and Vladimir Putin might be willing to take the lead in the campaign to destroy this group, but we found out, not surprisingly, that all Putin wanted was to strengthen the bargaining position of Russia's Syrian puppet, Bashar al-Assad. So the free world continues to look for a champion, someone who will rain destruction on these thugs. As things stand, ISIS has no opposition to its expansion into Africa (through Boko Haram and al-Shabaab), Latin America and Southest Asia. Militarily, ISIS appears to have no problem fighting the Iraqi Armed Forces to a stand-still (even with air support and ad hoc special forces ops for Iraq). Now that the Russians have stepped things down in Syria, ISIS feels no real threat or pressure. I fear that this summer may bring tragedy to many people; I pray everyday to be wrong.
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.
Friday, February 12, 2016
The Nine LIves of Syria's Basar al-Assad.
Anytime between 2010 and 2015, if you had told me that de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would survive Syria's Civil War and eventually once again preside over a government that was recognized by the Western Powers, I would consider you to be a bit out of touch with reality. Let's face it; since the Arab Spring gave real impetus to a budding Syrian opposition movement, things had gone progressively bad for Assad. The fact that he faced an armed opposition movement wasn't necessarily a surprise, but the ability of the rebels to almost immediately put government forces on the defensive was shocking. Why? Because up to the arrival of the Arab Spring, the Syrian Ba'ath Party and Bashar al-Assad, like his father before him, had never faced a legitimate threat to their authority. For many years, Syria, under Bashar's old man Hafez al-Assad, held a major place on the Middle Eastern chessboard. Syria was and continues to be Russia's greatest ally in the region. Interestingly enough, the fall of the Soviet Union did not have much impact on Russia-Syria relations. Another long-time and trusted ally of Assad is Iran, a fact which has proved beneficial in the evolution of Iran's new partnership with Russia. Regardless, until two months ago, Assad appeared finished. Jabhat al-Nusra, a major opponent of the Assad regime, had been making tremendous advances on the battlefields of northwest Syria since Spring 2015. ISIS was not far behind, harassing regime elements in far east Syria, and also in and around Damascus itself. Everyday seemed to bring a news item detailing the latest defeat of government forces. Then Russia and Iran decided to not only stir the pot, but to tip it over completely. Russia's military intrusion into Syria left very little to the imagination, deploying impressive amounts of military hardware and soldiers from the very beginning. Putin's public announcements attempted to paint Russia's military deployment (and almost immediate targeted bombing campaign) as just another sincere effort on behalf of one of the "good guys", to destroy ISIS. At the same time, Iran increased effortd to involve itself on the conflict through its surrogate Hezbollah. Most experts were not fooled. Putin's vaunted "bombing campaign to destroy ISIS", wasn't targeting ISIS whatsoever.....at least not in the beginning. After the first week or so of watching the Russian Air Force pulverize Assad's indigenous Syrian opposition, complaints. started to be directed toward Moscow. The result? Now, instead of ten out of ten bombing sorties targeting Assad opposition, now eight out of ten were focused on the regime's internal enemies, with the remaining two managing to drop a few bombs on ISIS Headquarters in Raqqah.
All along, the purpose of direct Russian military involvement in Syria was the survival of Bashar al-Assad. Personally, I don't see what Putin appreciates so much about trained opthemologist Bashar and his Ba'ath Party buddies. Russia could easily just have backed the opposition, and with the United States being completely disengaged, they would have no problem creating a new Russian client state through whatever opposition they decided to support. Why was Assad so important? The answer appears to lie somewhere with Vladimir Putin. He was bound and determined not to see a Russian loyal puppet regime fall victim to a variety of different armed Syrian liberation movements, including a few that were allegedly supported by the United States and Europe. Under the previous Bush Administration, it is highly unlikely that Putin would have acted so brazenly (Russian jets killed many rebels who were trained and supported by the United States...remember the Free Syrian Army?). But President Obama has telegraphed to the world that the United States is "checking out" of complicated foreign affairs during his last year in office. His 2016 State of the Union Address, in which he once again dramatically downplayed the threat ISIS poses to the United States, and absurdly exaggerated the amount of discrimination that Muslim-Americans face stateside, appears to suppprt that belief. Today Russia publicly stressed the need for a negotiated settlement to the Syrian situation (after Assad's legitimate opposition has been decimated). Not surprisingly, the United States and the group of Obama sychophants that pretend to be the leaders of Germany, France, and the UK, have agreed to the Russian proposal. What are the odds that the Russian plan calls for the return of President Bashar al-Assad to power (rhetorical question, folks)?
All along, the purpose of direct Russian military involvement in Syria was the survival of Bashar al-Assad. Personally, I don't see what Putin appreciates so much about trained opthemologist Bashar and his Ba'ath Party buddies. Russia could easily just have backed the opposition, and with the United States being completely disengaged, they would have no problem creating a new Russian client state through whatever opposition they decided to support. Why was Assad so important? The answer appears to lie somewhere with Vladimir Putin. He was bound and determined not to see a Russian loyal puppet regime fall victim to a variety of different armed Syrian liberation movements, including a few that were allegedly supported by the United States and Europe. Under the previous Bush Administration, it is highly unlikely that Putin would have acted so brazenly (Russian jets killed many rebels who were trained and supported by the United States...remember the Free Syrian Army?). But President Obama has telegraphed to the world that the United States is "checking out" of complicated foreign affairs during his last year in office. His 2016 State of the Union Address, in which he once again dramatically downplayed the threat ISIS poses to the United States, and absurdly exaggerated the amount of discrimination that Muslim-Americans face stateside, appears to suppprt that belief. Today Russia publicly stressed the need for a negotiated settlement to the Syrian situation (after Assad's legitimate opposition has been decimated). Not surprisingly, the United States and the group of Obama sychophants that pretend to be the leaders of Germany, France, and the UK, have agreed to the Russian proposal. What are the odds that the Russian plan calls for the return of President Bashar al-Assad to power (rhetorical question, folks)?
Monday, February 1, 2016
ISIS and its Global Strategy
Since The start of the new year, the world seems to be paying less attention to ISIS. So many of us were sitting on pins and needles during the various New Year's celebrations in New York, Paris, London, and other great cities around the globe, hoping not to hear any breaking news stories about terrorist attacks. We made it through the new year basically unscathed, and I think that with a huge sigh of relief, many of us went back to "business as usual" before the October 2015 Paris attacks and the December 2015 shootings in San Bernardino. The fact that the mainstream press in the United States seems intent on pushing the narrative that ISIS is being beaten on the battlefield, so its OK to do non-stop new stories about Donald Trump and the circus that has become the Republican nomination process (the Republicans are the circus, even though the Democrats are going to nominate a potential felon in Hillary Clinton or an outright lunatic in Bernie Sanders). Why is the press so intent on downplaying the threat by ISIS? Because Barack Obama told us that the threat was being exaggerated. The press always responds in a defensive posture to everything Barack Obama does. No doubt if he farted at a State Funeral, the press would blame the White House Chef. So Obama says that we aren't headed to World War III, and that ISIS is not a threat to the United States. I assume that the family members of U.S. citizens killed in San Bernardino, California, and Chattanooga, Tennessee, by persons claiming allegiance to ISIS would disagree; I know I do. ISIS has a series of strategies, each one going into effect after the previous has been accomplished (or altered by events). ISIS has reviewed the current state of the battlefield, which has it in possession of one-third of Iraq and one-half of Syria, and decided that the time is ripe to exploit its surprisingly successful international outreach efforts. The monsters making the decisions at the top of this organization are no dummies, nor will they put their equities at risk for ideology's sake (are you listening, President Obama?) We are entering a new phase in the battle with ISIS, and it includes the introduction of a new strategy.
ISIS believes that the key to successfully expand its brand of worldwide-revolution is to dedicate resources to its budding operations in nations with strong Islamic traditions. This includes all the nations of North Africa, and it includes Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Most of these nations are in no military position to fight off a serious ISIS invasion, at least not without assistance in the form of "troops on the ground". ISIS rakes in an incredible amount of money on a daily basis. Why the Obama Administration has not been able to dent this flow of financial assistance is a mystery to me, because so many pundits in the media seem to know the various sources of this support. Regardless, ISIS is intent on spreading the conflict outside of the borders of Syria and Iraq. It has been testing its ability to project itself with operations in Libya, West Africa, and Indonesia, and results have been encouraging. ISIS knows that any attention drawn to Southeast Asia or North Africa, will draw the enemy away from the battlefields of Iraq and Syria. So by increasing recruitment and eventually, attacks in Tunisia, Libya, and Pakistan, ISIS will be not only spreading the Caliphate revolution, but also forcing the United States and its lock-step European partners to devote resources and attention to other allies and battlefields. I'm still not sure where Russia fits into the picture; with all the hubbub and hardware that Putin brought to his Syria adventure, I expected much more in the way of battlefield victories by now. Assad's internal opposition will eventually disappear completely under the weight of daily Russian attacks, and Putin will be obliged to either leave Syria or attack ISIS.
Obama must be aware that ISIS is expanding all over the globe, and yet he still makes public claims diminishing the threat that ISIS actually poses. If they are so "insignificant", Mr. President, then why haven't we been able to defeat them? True, we haven't really tried. What a joke this Administration's entire Syria policy has been. We still don't know what became of the millions of taxpayer dollars and the "Free Syrian Army" we were training in Jordan to take the place of U.S. infantry. Obama still has one more year in office; no doubt it will be dedicated to domestic politics. We all know that an Executive Order of some sort will be in place before the November election. The uproar this will cause will certainly distract us all from the activities of ISIS in North Africa and Southeast Asia, but what a mess it will leave for his predecessor.
ISIS believes that the key to successfully expand its brand of worldwide-revolution is to dedicate resources to its budding operations in nations with strong Islamic traditions. This includes all the nations of North Africa, and it includes Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Most of these nations are in no military position to fight off a serious ISIS invasion, at least not without assistance in the form of "troops on the ground". ISIS rakes in an incredible amount of money on a daily basis. Why the Obama Administration has not been able to dent this flow of financial assistance is a mystery to me, because so many pundits in the media seem to know the various sources of this support. Regardless, ISIS is intent on spreading the conflict outside of the borders of Syria and Iraq. It has been testing its ability to project itself with operations in Libya, West Africa, and Indonesia, and results have been encouraging. ISIS knows that any attention drawn to Southeast Asia or North Africa, will draw the enemy away from the battlefields of Iraq and Syria. So by increasing recruitment and eventually, attacks in Tunisia, Libya, and Pakistan, ISIS will be not only spreading the Caliphate revolution, but also forcing the United States and its lock-step European partners to devote resources and attention to other allies and battlefields. I'm still not sure where Russia fits into the picture; with all the hubbub and hardware that Putin brought to his Syria adventure, I expected much more in the way of battlefield victories by now. Assad's internal opposition will eventually disappear completely under the weight of daily Russian attacks, and Putin will be obliged to either leave Syria or attack ISIS.
Obama must be aware that ISIS is expanding all over the globe, and yet he still makes public claims diminishing the threat that ISIS actually poses. If they are so "insignificant", Mr. President, then why haven't we been able to defeat them? True, we haven't really tried. What a joke this Administration's entire Syria policy has been. We still don't know what became of the millions of taxpayer dollars and the "Free Syrian Army" we were training in Jordan to take the place of U.S. infantry. Obama still has one more year in office; no doubt it will be dedicated to domestic politics. We all know that an Executive Order of some sort will be in place before the November election. The uproar this will cause will certainly distract us all from the activities of ISIS in North Africa and Southeast Asia, but what a mess it will leave for his predecessor.
Friday, January 22, 2016
Thirteen years later, a look back at the Iraq War, its motivations, and its consequences. (Part II)
Part II
At the time, the only real conflict in the region was taking place in Syria, but the revolution to overthrow Bashar al-Assad had nothing to do with the new Iraq, so there probably was not a rush to fully complete the training program. In 2010, when the training program was still basically in the beginning stages, President Barack Obama ordered the U.S. military to depart Iraq according to a particular timeline. At the end of the day, I believe the timeline called for the removal of all but the most essential military personnel with one year. Allegedly, the Obama Administration was warned by the Pentagon that the Iraqi military was in no shape to take over the security of the nation, but it made no difference. You see, mid-term elections were coming up stateside, and the Administration's political base was not happy that President Obama hadn't fulfilled his campaign pledge to bring U.S. troops home. Because this post has already stretched into two, I will mercifully bring things to a close. We left Iraq with an untrained army, holding a billion dollars worth of the world's most modern weaponry.
Across the border in Syria, ISIS, which had started to draw attention to itself through its regular use of butchery and stark brutality, saw an incredible opportunity. They took an eraser to their previous maps of "the Caliphate" and added Iraq. Then ISIS put together a military campaign that relied heavily on its ability to be mobile and move quickly, and invaded Iraq. The only real opposition facing ISIS were the Kurds and the Peshmerga, as first Mosul fell, and then to the south, Baiji and Tikrit, which was the real catastrophe. The young, untrained Iraqi Army recruits deserted their positions en masse, living in the sand rifles, GPS devices, mortars, electronic warfare equipment, targeting devices, artillery, and even vehicles. ISIS is known for its ability to adapt, and that equipment and ammunition not doubt, has been essential in subsequent operations. As for Iraq, the schools are now only half-open, many of the new highways are destroyed by artillery fire, and the Baiji refinery itself as been one of the most contested battlefields of the conflict. From 2009 to 2016....Iraq is an example of what happens when people who don't respect or understand the military, make decisions that direct impact the battlefield. In this instance, the decision created one.
At the time, the only real conflict in the region was taking place in Syria, but the revolution to overthrow Bashar al-Assad had nothing to do with the new Iraq, so there probably was not a rush to fully complete the training program. In 2010, when the training program was still basically in the beginning stages, President Barack Obama ordered the U.S. military to depart Iraq according to a particular timeline. At the end of the day, I believe the timeline called for the removal of all but the most essential military personnel with one year. Allegedly, the Obama Administration was warned by the Pentagon that the Iraqi military was in no shape to take over the security of the nation, but it made no difference. You see, mid-term elections were coming up stateside, and the Administration's political base was not happy that President Obama hadn't fulfilled his campaign pledge to bring U.S. troops home. Because this post has already stretched into two, I will mercifully bring things to a close. We left Iraq with an untrained army, holding a billion dollars worth of the world's most modern weaponry.
Across the border in Syria, ISIS, which had started to draw attention to itself through its regular use of butchery and stark brutality, saw an incredible opportunity. They took an eraser to their previous maps of "the Caliphate" and added Iraq. Then ISIS put together a military campaign that relied heavily on its ability to be mobile and move quickly, and invaded Iraq. The only real opposition facing ISIS were the Kurds and the Peshmerga, as first Mosul fell, and then to the south, Baiji and Tikrit, which was the real catastrophe. The young, untrained Iraqi Army recruits deserted their positions en masse, living in the sand rifles, GPS devices, mortars, electronic warfare equipment, targeting devices, artillery, and even vehicles. ISIS is known for its ability to adapt, and that equipment and ammunition not doubt, has been essential in subsequent operations. As for Iraq, the schools are now only half-open, many of the new highways are destroyed by artillery fire, and the Baiji refinery itself as been one of the most contested battlefields of the conflict. From 2009 to 2016....Iraq is an example of what happens when people who don't respect or understand the military, make decisions that direct impact the battlefield. In this instance, the decision created one.
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Thirteen years later, a look back at the Iraq War, its motivations and its consequences. (Part I)
Link: Wikipedia entry for the Benghazi scandal.
Part I
The recent opening of a well-produced and costly film on the 2012 Benghazi incident in which four Americans, including an Ambassador were killed, reminds us of the sadly dangerous world we live in. Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three young men that lost their lives that night, believed that they were in Benghazi, Libya, to help spread America's message of freedom and give hope to a nation in great need of something in which to believe. When I was a child, I would spend hours looking at the globe my parents bought me for my ninth birthday, and try to learn, day by day, a little bit about all the different countries around the world. Over the year, I remember using that globe to identify places where war had broken out. As I've gotten older, the areas free from conflict has continually gotten smaller. Today, as I look at a map of the world, I can no longer identify a place which isn't in some way either directly under attack or threatened by the plague of Islamic Extremist terrorism. In the seven years following the 9-11 tragedy, the United States used its military capability to force the terrorist elements to fight in their own backyard. True, Al-Qaeda was guest-of-honor of the Taliban in Afghanistan, not Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But strategically, the best way to get at Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was by using Iraq as a spring-board. The Bush Administration had been in a war of words with Iraq and its manipulation of the oil-for-food program to ignore United Nation's Resolutions. I don't know the real answer, but it would seem that the Bush Administration gambled that the Democrats, the United Nations, and the rest of the world wouldn't mind if the U.S. borrowed Iraq's U.N. Resolution violations as an excuse to invade Iraq and turn it into a U.S. military base. I understand the reasoning behind the strategy: the best was to annihilate Al-Qaeda was to force them into a conventional war (to which they were wholly unsuited) in their own backyard; no place to retreat.
As for the politics involved, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue, I understand the frustration of folks who did not follow the Bush Administration's lead. But Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant who had ignored every attempt by the United Nations to get him in line. And by 2009, the Iraqi insurgency was over, and Iraq was beginning, for the first time as an independent and free nation, to stand on its own feet (thank you, U.S. taxpayer). You see, while the military was defeating first, Saddam loyalists and second, the insurgency, we had engineers, architects, plumbers, construction specialists, electricians, town planners, and all sorts of other "nation rebuilding" experts in place, to rebuild Iraq. Highways were put back in order, from one side of Iraq to the other. The urban transportation systems were modernized and put back on line, along with traffic lights and speed limits. The water distribution and waste disposal systems in place were practically from the time of the Ottomans, and we fixed what was repairable and replaced the rest. Education was important to President Bush, and school building was a priority, from grade school to university-level education. A tremendous effort to put Iraq's refining capacity back on line was not complete by 2009, but a great deal had been accomplished. Also, the U.S. military was in the process of training a streamlined, effective, modern Iraqi Armed Forces.
Part I
The recent opening of a well-produced and costly film on the 2012 Benghazi incident in which four Americans, including an Ambassador were killed, reminds us of the sadly dangerous world we live in. Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three young men that lost their lives that night, believed that they were in Benghazi, Libya, to help spread America's message of freedom and give hope to a nation in great need of something in which to believe. When I was a child, I would spend hours looking at the globe my parents bought me for my ninth birthday, and try to learn, day by day, a little bit about all the different countries around the world. Over the year, I remember using that globe to identify places where war had broken out. As I've gotten older, the areas free from conflict has continually gotten smaller. Today, as I look at a map of the world, I can no longer identify a place which isn't in some way either directly under attack or threatened by the plague of Islamic Extremist terrorism. In the seven years following the 9-11 tragedy, the United States used its military capability to force the terrorist elements to fight in their own backyard. True, Al-Qaeda was guest-of-honor of the Taliban in Afghanistan, not Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But strategically, the best way to get at Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was by using Iraq as a spring-board. The Bush Administration had been in a war of words with Iraq and its manipulation of the oil-for-food program to ignore United Nation's Resolutions. I don't know the real answer, but it would seem that the Bush Administration gambled that the Democrats, the United Nations, and the rest of the world wouldn't mind if the U.S. borrowed Iraq's U.N. Resolution violations as an excuse to invade Iraq and turn it into a U.S. military base. I understand the reasoning behind the strategy: the best was to annihilate Al-Qaeda was to force them into a conventional war (to which they were wholly unsuited) in their own backyard; no place to retreat.
As for the politics involved, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue, I understand the frustration of folks who did not follow the Bush Administration's lead. But Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant who had ignored every attempt by the United Nations to get him in line. And by 2009, the Iraqi insurgency was over, and Iraq was beginning, for the first time as an independent and free nation, to stand on its own feet (thank you, U.S. taxpayer). You see, while the military was defeating first, Saddam loyalists and second, the insurgency, we had engineers, architects, plumbers, construction specialists, electricians, town planners, and all sorts of other "nation rebuilding" experts in place, to rebuild Iraq. Highways were put back in order, from one side of Iraq to the other. The urban transportation systems were modernized and put back on line, along with traffic lights and speed limits. The water distribution and waste disposal systems in place were practically from the time of the Ottomans, and we fixed what was repairable and replaced the rest. Education was important to President Bush, and school building was a priority, from grade school to university-level education. A tremendous effort to put Iraq's refining capacity back on line was not complete by 2009, but a great deal had been accomplished. Also, the U.S. military was in the process of training a streamlined, effective, modern Iraqi Armed Forces.
Saturday, January 9, 2016
As terrorism becomes part of our daily lives, President Obama is not even looking for the battlefield.
As much as possible, I try and keep the blog politics-free. The truth is, that occasionally, its just not possible, nor should it be. Politics impact every aspect of our lives, and it certainly plays a large part in the current events we address here at Mukhabarat, Baby! The day of the San Bernardino shootings, I posted a blog that delivered a dire warning regarding the future. I opined that if Islamic extremists had been able to develop a network of sleeper cells in cities across the United States, than we can expect not a rash of high profile attacks, but a monthly event to keep the issue in the news, and keep the fear alive in our communities. The enemy doesn't want a body count as much as they want to change the way we live our lives. An attack in this west coast location this week, and another incident in the southeast two weeks later, will be the modus operandi of a forward-thinking terrorist group. As long as the newspapers and the media are talking about preparedness and the need to react by altering our schedules and lifestyles, then the bad guys are on track. The attack in Philadelphia today, and other similar incidents have me very concerned that the enemy is taking this route, in its never-ending effort to see us abandon our hard-won freedoms and retreat behind locked doors and security systems. I urge my readers to live your lives with a reasonable amount of caution ("no vacation to Damascus this spring, Mildred"), but to fight the enemy with the tools for which so many heroes over the years have made the ultimate sacrifice: enjoy the freedoms we have, spend time out with family and friends, and take that vacation to the Ozarks. For those of us who can no longer carry a rifle on the battlefield, we have our own way of fighting back. We must live free.
Last week, President Obama once again used Executive Authority to make law. Executive Authority exists for a reason. It provides the president with the tools necessary to make decisions in a time of great national crisis. President Obama, taking full advantage of the raw emotions relating to the recent events in San Bernardino, signed an ideologically motivated law that will make it more difficult for persons who want to legally purchase a firearm. Obama sees himself as a master of theater, but truly, he is an amateur. We've seen the tears before, and bringing the kids on stage isn't a novel idea either. The law that you passed using abusing Executive Action will not impact criminals and terrorists who want to repeat what occurred in San Bernardino. Creating more laws to impede law-abiding citizens has been shown time-and-again to accomplish one thing: it strengthens the Black Market, which is where the bad guys usually get their weapons, anyways. The shooters in San Bernardino allegedly convinced a friend to buy the weapons. Will Obama's new law prevent friends from buying firearms and then illegally selling them or giving them away? I don't think so. The point is, Obama is anxious to solidify his legacy as a progressive thinker who didn't let something as meaningless as our checks-and-balances system of government interfere with his obligation to help the American people who are too stupid to help themselves.
I've heard a number of Obama supporters screeching about the use of Executive Action by George Bush (oh, how they do still hate Bush! LOL.) and others. If a president chooses to utilize Executive Action in manner that does not threaten the separation of powers and our checks-and-balances system, then it is not an ABUSE. Executive Action has been used in the past, but not for avoiding a confrontation with Congress that the Executive Branch is sure to lose. Obama put Executive Action into effect because he would not be able to get Congress to pass gun-control legislation that was possibly unconstitutional and did nothing to address the actual problem. While this issue is being slapped back-and-forth by commentators and analysts in the media, ISIS, Al-Qaida, and all the other party poopers continue to kill people. I believe we have reached a point in the history of the United States in which domestic terrorism in the form of the activation of Islamic Extremist sleeper cells (not just groups but single operators as well) may very well become a part of our lives. Our immigration system, built for a moderate level of security by a nation with a tradition and history of welcoming visitors, is not difficult to exploit. Not only would it be possible for the bad guys to set up shop through legal entry on tourist visas, but hiring an expensive and proven smuggler in Mexico is not Rocket Science; the enemy can enter illegally just as well. But the real problem is our complete unwillingness to address the problem at its root. If ISIS is destroyed (and we should take out Al-Qaida, Al-Nusra, Khorasan, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Boko Haram simultaneously), then the cells in foreign countries, no longer having access to a support network and resources, dry up and disappear. President Obama would be hard-pressed to declare war on Islamic terrorism, considering he has just sponsored a nuclear treaty with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world's greatest supporter of terrorism (you know Iran....the "death to America" bunch).
As things are, we can only hope that our superb law enforcement and intelligence organizations can keep a lid on things until we can have a change in the oval Office. Actually, I'm predicting the use of Executive Action on Amnesty/Immigration Reform as well; President Obama does still have a year to work on that legacy, you know.
Last week, President Obama once again used Executive Authority to make law. Executive Authority exists for a reason. It provides the president with the tools necessary to make decisions in a time of great national crisis. President Obama, taking full advantage of the raw emotions relating to the recent events in San Bernardino, signed an ideologically motivated law that will make it more difficult for persons who want to legally purchase a firearm. Obama sees himself as a master of theater, but truly, he is an amateur. We've seen the tears before, and bringing the kids on stage isn't a novel idea either. The law that you passed using abusing Executive Action will not impact criminals and terrorists who want to repeat what occurred in San Bernardino. Creating more laws to impede law-abiding citizens has been shown time-and-again to accomplish one thing: it strengthens the Black Market, which is where the bad guys usually get their weapons, anyways. The shooters in San Bernardino allegedly convinced a friend to buy the weapons. Will Obama's new law prevent friends from buying firearms and then illegally selling them or giving them away? I don't think so. The point is, Obama is anxious to solidify his legacy as a progressive thinker who didn't let something as meaningless as our checks-and-balances system of government interfere with his obligation to help the American people who are too stupid to help themselves.
I've heard a number of Obama supporters screeching about the use of Executive Action by George Bush (oh, how they do still hate Bush! LOL.) and others. If a president chooses to utilize Executive Action in manner that does not threaten the separation of powers and our checks-and-balances system, then it is not an ABUSE. Executive Action has been used in the past, but not for avoiding a confrontation with Congress that the Executive Branch is sure to lose. Obama put Executive Action into effect because he would not be able to get Congress to pass gun-control legislation that was possibly unconstitutional and did nothing to address the actual problem. While this issue is being slapped back-and-forth by commentators and analysts in the media, ISIS, Al-Qaida, and all the other party poopers continue to kill people. I believe we have reached a point in the history of the United States in which domestic terrorism in the form of the activation of Islamic Extremist sleeper cells (not just groups but single operators as well) may very well become a part of our lives. Our immigration system, built for a moderate level of security by a nation with a tradition and history of welcoming visitors, is not difficult to exploit. Not only would it be possible for the bad guys to set up shop through legal entry on tourist visas, but hiring an expensive and proven smuggler in Mexico is not Rocket Science; the enemy can enter illegally just as well. But the real problem is our complete unwillingness to address the problem at its root. If ISIS is destroyed (and we should take out Al-Qaida, Al-Nusra, Khorasan, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Boko Haram simultaneously), then the cells in foreign countries, no longer having access to a support network and resources, dry up and disappear. President Obama would be hard-pressed to declare war on Islamic terrorism, considering he has just sponsored a nuclear treaty with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world's greatest supporter of terrorism (you know Iran....the "death to America" bunch).
As things are, we can only hope that our superb law enforcement and intelligence organizations can keep a lid on things until we can have a change in the oval Office. Actually, I'm predicting the use of Executive Action on Amnesty/Immigration Reform as well; President Obama does still have a year to work on that legacy, you know.
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).
Saturday, January 2, 2016
2016 and domestic terror: best-case and worst-case scenarios.
The international community enters 2016 in a state of turmoil that probably hasn't been matched since the Second World War. The terror organization ISIS continues to expand its ability to impact peoples lives. Yesterday, while police in Germany were disrupting a planned attack at a rail station, another terror group, The Taliban, detonated a bomb at a restaurant in Kabul, which killed at least three persons while injuring scores of others. The Taliban is not ISIS, nor are Boko Haram and Al-Qaida the same organization. But they have the same motivations, follow Islamic extremist ideology, and use the same targets. Earlier in the week, while appearing on Fox News, I responded to a comment made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, identifying ISIS as "a new group". We can no longer allow our leaders to get away without making use of the tough but necessary labels. ISIS is not a new group; they are a reconstituted organization that in 2005 was set up in Iraq to organize a resistance to the U.S. military presence. By 2008/2009 they had lost all initiative had had not choice but to gather their remaining members and relocate to the deserts of eastern Syria. And why not? Syria was ripe territory for a terrorist group to lick its wounds, recruit, and adopt a new slogan. When ISIS lectures about its desire of a new Caliphate, it is just as worthless as when the Taliban argues that it is only interested in getting westerners out of Afghanistan, or when Al-Qaida preaches that its goal is the removal of U.S. warships and influence in the Persian Gulf. These separate "causes" are one of the many methods utilized by these groups to distract us into thinking that they can be reasonable, and negotiations might be possible. The reality is that these groups in their core are no different from each other. They are driven my an Islamic extremist ideology which has been selectively plucked from Quran for the sole purpose of mobilizing the Muslim world in a Holy War against all other religions. Many still mistakenly believe that these fanatics are focused on destroying "Christianity and The West". This war is not just taking place in Syria, Iraq, Europe, Africa and the United States. Its also underway in far western China, as the Chinese government is forced to confront its own Muslim extremist population. It is also brewing in the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Indian Subcontinent. This plague has succeeded in reaching every corner of the globe, and obviously its not only ISIS. If we focus exclusively on ISIS, the phalanges of Islamic extremism, either as Boko Haram or Al-Qaida in the Maghreb, will continue to spread the virus. And if this scenario isn't scary enough, remember that this movement has had years to perfect methods of disguising how it raises and launders money, and also how it smuggles weapons and operatives from one country to the next. No one abuses the goodwill offered to humanitarian organizations as effectively as Muslim extremists.
The best-case scenario would be the continued disruption of active terror plots and the apprehension of terrorists. Our Law Enforcement Officers are the best in the world, and they are on-the-job 24 hours a day, while we sleep or watch the Sugar Bowl with our friends and families. We will never know the stories about all the successes, believe me. I was stateside on September 11, 2001, and I remember how quickly the Intelligence Community and Law Enforcement came together to respond to the threat. In a matter of days, our men and women in local Police, Sheriff's offices, Constables, and Federal Law Enforcement started rooting out groups of people with plans to cause mayhem. I'm not at liberty to discuss where, when, or how many, but rest assured that it is happening, even as I write this blog. As for me, I'm praying for the best-case scenario. I believe that anything is possible, and we can defeat this monster without having to endure any additional loss of life in our nation. It may seem unlikely to some, but law enforcement all over the world successfully disrupted numerous attacks during the Christmas-New Years Holidays. As the bad guys get better at what they do, we get better at finding them. They are the ones who must hide like criminals, and there are still more of us then them.
In January 2016, our biggest concern has to be with the spread of ISIS and other terrorist groups to other parts of the world. Areas of the third world provide extremists with ideal recruitment opportunities, and the lack of civil authority simplifies the need to remain clandestine as weapons are purchased and smuggled. The United States does a tremendous job working with many third-world governments to locate and root-out terror groups, but administrations have a tendency to change quickly, and president so-and-so one day may not be as helpful as his predecessor was the day before. Speaking of changes in administration, the United States will elect a new president in 2016, and the American people are already being subjected to endless promises from all the candidates regarding national security and foreign affairs. This has no bearing on the job Federal Law Enforcement and the Intelligence Community faces today, in locating any terror cells presently in the United States, while at the same time preventing new ones from getting in. At the moment, no one is talking seriously about the use of profiling to assist in identifying potential terror suspects. But if the United States suffers from a string of terror attacks similar to what happened in San Bernardino, there is no doubt that people will be more willing to give up certain conveniences. As we begin 2016, the worst-case scenario would be the activation of a string of sleeper cells throughout urban America. I have no reason to believe that these cells exist in any great number. I have great faith in our Law Enforcement and Border Patrol to keep us safe. But in the United States, we love our liberties and have a tremendous history of welcoming visitors, and extremists won't think twice about abusing our courtesy. But if we consider the worst-case scenario, and the United States is faced with terror-related incidents in numerous locations, we must remember what the enemy is trying to achieve. They don't care about the number of people they kill; their only goal is to create a sense of fear in our nation that directly impacts the way we lead our lives. We must let our Law Enforcement authorities do their job and deal with the terrorists directly, while we do everything that we can to stay out of the way and follow instructions. For those of us without weapons, our job is just as important. Once the dust clears, it is incumbent upon us to continue living our lives as we did the week before. Go to the movies, go to the beach, go to dinner, celebrate a birthday, take a trip overseas. We must keep our faith strong, support each other, and draw strength from the examples being set by those first-responders and soldiers in the field who remind us everyday what it means to be a brave American.
The best-case scenario would be the continued disruption of active terror plots and the apprehension of terrorists. Our Law Enforcement Officers are the best in the world, and they are on-the-job 24 hours a day, while we sleep or watch the Sugar Bowl with our friends and families. We will never know the stories about all the successes, believe me. I was stateside on September 11, 2001, and I remember how quickly the Intelligence Community and Law Enforcement came together to respond to the threat. In a matter of days, our men and women in local Police, Sheriff's offices, Constables, and Federal Law Enforcement started rooting out groups of people with plans to cause mayhem. I'm not at liberty to discuss where, when, or how many, but rest assured that it is happening, even as I write this blog. As for me, I'm praying for the best-case scenario. I believe that anything is possible, and we can defeat this monster without having to endure any additional loss of life in our nation. It may seem unlikely to some, but law enforcement all over the world successfully disrupted numerous attacks during the Christmas-New Years Holidays. As the bad guys get better at what they do, we get better at finding them. They are the ones who must hide like criminals, and there are still more of us then them.
In January 2016, our biggest concern has to be with the spread of ISIS and other terrorist groups to other parts of the world. Areas of the third world provide extremists with ideal recruitment opportunities, and the lack of civil authority simplifies the need to remain clandestine as weapons are purchased and smuggled. The United States does a tremendous job working with many third-world governments to locate and root-out terror groups, but administrations have a tendency to change quickly, and president so-and-so one day may not be as helpful as his predecessor was the day before. Speaking of changes in administration, the United States will elect a new president in 2016, and the American people are already being subjected to endless promises from all the candidates regarding national security and foreign affairs. This has no bearing on the job Federal Law Enforcement and the Intelligence Community faces today, in locating any terror cells presently in the United States, while at the same time preventing new ones from getting in. At the moment, no one is talking seriously about the use of profiling to assist in identifying potential terror suspects. But if the United States suffers from a string of terror attacks similar to what happened in San Bernardino, there is no doubt that people will be more willing to give up certain conveniences. As we begin 2016, the worst-case scenario would be the activation of a string of sleeper cells throughout urban America. I have no reason to believe that these cells exist in any great number. I have great faith in our Law Enforcement and Border Patrol to keep us safe. But in the United States, we love our liberties and have a tremendous history of welcoming visitors, and extremists won't think twice about abusing our courtesy. But if we consider the worst-case scenario, and the United States is faced with terror-related incidents in numerous locations, we must remember what the enemy is trying to achieve. They don't care about the number of people they kill; their only goal is to create a sense of fear in our nation that directly impacts the way we lead our lives. We must let our Law Enforcement authorities do their job and deal with the terrorists directly, while we do everything that we can to stay out of the way and follow instructions. For those of us without weapons, our job is just as important. Once the dust clears, it is incumbent upon us to continue living our lives as we did the week before. Go to the movies, go to the beach, go to dinner, celebrate a birthday, take a trip overseas. We must keep our faith strong, support each other, and draw strength from the examples being set by those first-responders and soldiers in the field who remind us everyday what it means to be a brave American.
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.
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Iraq: U.S. compromises with Iran have not influenced the Iranians to abandon the policy of undermining United States initiatives.
Links: A. Turkey unilaterally invades Iraq to launch attacks against Kurdish PKK militants.
B. Iraq claims to have retaken 60% of Ramadi City.
In a move that will no doubt escalate already dangerously high tensions in the area, Turkey deployed military units into northeastern Iraq, just outside of Mosul, in order to more effectively launch attacks against militants from the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK). If Turkish President Erdogan was looking for the quickest way to unite the Kurds, and at the same time, bring the Iraqi government and the Kurdish authorities closer together, they found it. Turkey's actions are almost inexplicable, unless Erdogan is determine to make things difficult for Barack Obama as he tries to leave office gracefully. At the same time, the Pentagon is preparing to deploy roughly 200 U.S. Army Special Forces elements into Iraq, to act as a mobile "hit squad" to take out ISIS leaders, if you will. This policy seems to fly in the face of Executive Order 12333, signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, which prohibits any Agent or Representative of the United States Government from involvement in assassinations. I may be nit-picking here, especially since we already are aware of this Administration's perception of the Constitution and the laws of this nation. Either way, the arrival of this American Special Forces Unit has already come under heavy criticism in Baghdad, where Prime Minister Abadi is doing everything he can to keep the ship of state from sinking altogether. Abadi is under particular pressure from the Shi'a elements in the Council of Representatives, who are angling to bring a vote of no confidence against the Iraqi Prime Minister. Also, Iranians in Baghdad are as thick as fleas on a mongrel's back, and they are also putting pressure on the government, both to oppose the deployment of more U.S. troops, and to take action against the Turkish incursion northeast of Mosul. Abadi has been under fire before, but this time his administration may not survive.
One of the most appalling and embarrassing developments in the region has been the continued intransigence from the Iranians with regards to any U.S. diplomatic or military initiatives. I assume that following the nuclear treaty negotiations, the Obama Administration (the President, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Kerry in particular) expected the Iranian government to lighten the anti-U.S. rhetoric and to be less aggressive in opposing every U.S. action in the region. I knew better, and you knew better, but for some reason, the three men with the greatest access to intelligence on this planet, didn't see this coming. Or did they, and it just didn't matter? At the moment, events in Iraq and Syria need to be stabilized, before the Iraqi's end up at war with Turkey, or the Turks decide that the time is right to "ethnic-cleanse" northern Iraq of Kurds once and for all. The action ordered by the President and taken by the Pentagon to deploy Special Forces is way too little and way too late, and will cause more harm than good, especially if Abadi falls from power. It has been suggested (whispered more like) in DC that the Obama Administration is hesitant to take stronger military action against ISIS, because increased U.S. presence in the region will infuriate Iran, and put Obama's "legacy treaty" with Iran in jeopardy.
What we can expect is the Administration attempting to steer the media away from connecting the recent terror attack in San Bernardino to the ongoing conflict in Syria. Obama is bound and determined to avoid getting drawn into a full-scale war in Syria/Iraq. I'm not so reactionary that I don't see the ideological motivation; the United States has a tempestuous relationship with most of the governments in the Middle East and Persian Gulf, and lets not forget that we invaded Iraq twice in the last thirty years. Our historical tradition of supporting unpopular governments in Egypt and Iran and our long-term, close relationship with Israel, have not endeared the U.S. to the people of the region, that's for sure. But the clock is ticking (excuse the cliché); ISIL/ISIS/Daesh or whatever you want to call them, have not been really impacted by the Russian intervention in Syria (probably because most of the Russian bombs were dropped on anti-government Syrian groups as opposed to ISIS). ISIS is increasing its activities in Africa and in the Far East, and I expect we will soon see a more regular pattern to domestic terror events (God forbid). Still today, on December 9, 2015, the United States is military capable of destroying ISIS on our own. But a serious effort at building a military coalition, to include our European allies and Russia (who should be told, bluntly, to "get on board or get out of the way"), would a tremendous advantage in eliminating this scourge once and for all. Why now? Because if ISIS continues to raise money and recruit, I have no idea how improved their conventional army will become (with modern weapons, tanks, artillery, and possibly and Air element), nor can we accurately gauge how complicated and dangerous the situation will be in the urban and residential areas of Europe and the United States. Some crusty old General once said, that when you go to war, you must use everything at your disposal, every weapon, no matter how heinous, and you must fight with the utmost aggression and determination. This is the formula for ending a war quickly, which will save countless lives on both sides, especially when compared to wars that drag on and on and on......
B. Iraq claims to have retaken 60% of Ramadi City.
In a move that will no doubt escalate already dangerously high tensions in the area, Turkey deployed military units into northeastern Iraq, just outside of Mosul, in order to more effectively launch attacks against militants from the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK). If Turkish President Erdogan was looking for the quickest way to unite the Kurds, and at the same time, bring the Iraqi government and the Kurdish authorities closer together, they found it. Turkey's actions are almost inexplicable, unless Erdogan is determine to make things difficult for Barack Obama as he tries to leave office gracefully. At the same time, the Pentagon is preparing to deploy roughly 200 U.S. Army Special Forces elements into Iraq, to act as a mobile "hit squad" to take out ISIS leaders, if you will. This policy seems to fly in the face of Executive Order 12333, signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, which prohibits any Agent or Representative of the United States Government from involvement in assassinations. I may be nit-picking here, especially since we already are aware of this Administration's perception of the Constitution and the laws of this nation. Either way, the arrival of this American Special Forces Unit has already come under heavy criticism in Baghdad, where Prime Minister Abadi is doing everything he can to keep the ship of state from sinking altogether. Abadi is under particular pressure from the Shi'a elements in the Council of Representatives, who are angling to bring a vote of no confidence against the Iraqi Prime Minister. Also, Iranians in Baghdad are as thick as fleas on a mongrel's back, and they are also putting pressure on the government, both to oppose the deployment of more U.S. troops, and to take action against the Turkish incursion northeast of Mosul. Abadi has been under fire before, but this time his administration may not survive.
One of the most appalling and embarrassing developments in the region has been the continued intransigence from the Iranians with regards to any U.S. diplomatic or military initiatives. I assume that following the nuclear treaty negotiations, the Obama Administration (the President, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Kerry in particular) expected the Iranian government to lighten the anti-U.S. rhetoric and to be less aggressive in opposing every U.S. action in the region. I knew better, and you knew better, but for some reason, the three men with the greatest access to intelligence on this planet, didn't see this coming. Or did they, and it just didn't matter? At the moment, events in Iraq and Syria need to be stabilized, before the Iraqi's end up at war with Turkey, or the Turks decide that the time is right to "ethnic-cleanse" northern Iraq of Kurds once and for all. The action ordered by the President and taken by the Pentagon to deploy Special Forces is way too little and way too late, and will cause more harm than good, especially if Abadi falls from power. It has been suggested (whispered more like) in DC that the Obama Administration is hesitant to take stronger military action against ISIS, because increased U.S. presence in the region will infuriate Iran, and put Obama's "legacy treaty" with Iran in jeopardy.
What we can expect is the Administration attempting to steer the media away from connecting the recent terror attack in San Bernardino to the ongoing conflict in Syria. Obama is bound and determined to avoid getting drawn into a full-scale war in Syria/Iraq. I'm not so reactionary that I don't see the ideological motivation; the United States has a tempestuous relationship with most of the governments in the Middle East and Persian Gulf, and lets not forget that we invaded Iraq twice in the last thirty years. Our historical tradition of supporting unpopular governments in Egypt and Iran and our long-term, close relationship with Israel, have not endeared the U.S. to the people of the region, that's for sure. But the clock is ticking (excuse the cliché); ISIL/ISIS/Daesh or whatever you want to call them, have not been really impacted by the Russian intervention in Syria (probably because most of the Russian bombs were dropped on anti-government Syrian groups as opposed to ISIS). ISIS is increasing its activities in Africa and in the Far East, and I expect we will soon see a more regular pattern to domestic terror events (God forbid). Still today, on December 9, 2015, the United States is military capable of destroying ISIS on our own. But a serious effort at building a military coalition, to include our European allies and Russia (who should be told, bluntly, to "get on board or get out of the way"), would a tremendous advantage in eliminating this scourge once and for all. Why now? Because if ISIS continues to raise money and recruit, I have no idea how improved their conventional army will become (with modern weapons, tanks, artillery, and possibly and Air element), nor can we accurately gauge how complicated and dangerous the situation will be in the urban and residential areas of Europe and the United States. Some crusty old General once said, that when you go to war, you must use everything at your disposal, every weapon, no matter how heinous, and you must fight with the utmost aggression and determination. This is the formula for ending a war quickly, which will save countless lives on both sides, especially when compared to wars that drag on and on and on......
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
ISIS hopes for anti-Muslim backlash; can ISIS be defeated by a conventional army?
Link: ISIS hoping for backlash against western Muslims.
In the intelligent, thought-provoking editorial that I have linked, Harleen Gambhir, a contributor to the Washington Post and a counterterrorism analyst for the Institute for the Study of War, explains
ISIS' plan to create a backlash against Muslims living in the west. Gambhir predicts that recent attacks against civilian targets in the United States, Paris, Spain and over the Sinai, is intended to cause fear and anger towards Muslims living in western communities. When western governments, in response to ISIS attacks and demands by the majority of their citizens, cracks down on Muslims living in Paris, Vienna, Chicago, New York, London and Sydney, young Muslims will feel marginalized and ISIS will benefit through increased recruitment. History has already proven Gambhir to be correct; after each terrorist attack in a western city, law enforcement has increased its focus on Muslim members of the community. At first, it would appear that this focus is necessary to identify any additional terrorists that may be concealing themselves amongst their neighbors. The truth is, after a terrorist attack which leaves civilian casualties, both the government and law enforcement are under tremendous pressure from the populous to at least "appear" to be aggressively working against the bad guys. If law enforcement doesn't have any real leads, then it becomes even more tempting to increase surveillance and random searches against persons who share the religion and ethnic background of the terrorists. Intelligence reveals that recruitment numbers increase for terrorist groups in the period following high-profile attacks similar to the recent shootings and explosions in Paris.
On a separate subject, an important issue that is currently being discussed by political commentators and some politicians involves the supposed difficulty in defeating ISIS on the battlefields of Iraq and Syria. One of the GOP candidates for president (Ben Carson) remarked that the U.S. military had the capacity to destroy ISIS in a relatively short period of time. I believe that President Obama may have taken exception to the remark, and the conversation was started. Actually, defeating a terrorist organization requires a tremendous amount of patience and planning, and ideally, regular access to time-sensitive intelligence. Normally, locating the terrorists is half the battle. But ISIS is a completely different animal altogether. The Islamic State, or ISIS, has developed a conventional military capability. In other words, they have an army, and that army is currently fighting on two fronts: Iraq and Syria. In order to destroy ISIS, the conventional army must be annihilated, and the more traditional network of operatives hiding in cities all over the world (and also in rat holes and caves in Sudan and Afghanistan) must be identified, located, and wiped out. Ideally, both incarnations of ISIS should be targeted simultaneously. The United States, the UK, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, China and probably a half-dozen other nations have the military capacity to destroy ISIS, but it won't be a localized affair and a few diplomatic toes might get stepped on in the process. You would think that anyone who stands up and announces a willingness to single-handedly destroy the nastiest bunch of assholes the world has ever seen, would be given a pass, as far as diplomatic obligations go. Vladimir Putin stepped up and announced Russia's intention to destroy ISIS, but within a few days we discovered that Putin was more interested in keeping his ally, de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in power. After a few days of Russian bombing raids obliterating the Syrian indigenous opposition to Assad with nary a fart in the direction of ISIS, it became clear the regardless of the outcome, Russia's entry into the Syria sweepstakes was about much more than fighting ISIS.
Again, Russia is one of a number of countries who have the military capacity to destroy ISIS. It can't be done without a commitment to using ground troops in both Syria and Iraq, and it may be necessary to take chances where civilian lives are concerned, when an important target has been located. ISIS will use every opportunity to hide themselves amongst women, children and the elderly, because unlike ISIS, we are a bit squeamish about killing innocents. But make no mistake; in order to destroy ISIS, there will be civilian casualties. It might also be necessary to use weapons that are frowned upon, and interrogation techniques that are much criticized. Some great military leader once said (I can't remember who), that when a country enters into a war, it must do so with a willingness to use its total military might, and every weapon at its disposal. The enemy must be given no quarter. This will end the conflict soonest, and limit the number of casualties for both combatants. I remember that comment because it truly makes great sense. The longer the war, the higher the number of casualties. We need to throw the book at ISIS. The Marines, Special Forces, Navy Seals, and whoever else we can squeeze in. This group thinks that it can outmatch any opponent for ruthlessness. When it comes to the battlefield, we need to prove them wrong. Right now, we are still fortunate enough to have ISIS limited to Syria and Iraq, at least as far as its conventional capabilities go. Eastern Syria and western Iraq is basically one big, occasionally rocky desert. ISIS has no place to hide from our satellites, spies in the sky, and spies on the ground. While our military deals with ISIS on the battlefield, our intelligence forces will track down and wipe out each and every cell, regardless of country, until there are none.
In the intelligent, thought-provoking editorial that I have linked, Harleen Gambhir, a contributor to the Washington Post and a counterterrorism analyst for the Institute for the Study of War, explains
ISIS' plan to create a backlash against Muslims living in the west. Gambhir predicts that recent attacks against civilian targets in the United States, Paris, Spain and over the Sinai, is intended to cause fear and anger towards Muslims living in western communities. When western governments, in response to ISIS attacks and demands by the majority of their citizens, cracks down on Muslims living in Paris, Vienna, Chicago, New York, London and Sydney, young Muslims will feel marginalized and ISIS will benefit through increased recruitment. History has already proven Gambhir to be correct; after each terrorist attack in a western city, law enforcement has increased its focus on Muslim members of the community. At first, it would appear that this focus is necessary to identify any additional terrorists that may be concealing themselves amongst their neighbors. The truth is, after a terrorist attack which leaves civilian casualties, both the government and law enforcement are under tremendous pressure from the populous to at least "appear" to be aggressively working against the bad guys. If law enforcement doesn't have any real leads, then it becomes even more tempting to increase surveillance and random searches against persons who share the religion and ethnic background of the terrorists. Intelligence reveals that recruitment numbers increase for terrorist groups in the period following high-profile attacks similar to the recent shootings and explosions in Paris.
On a separate subject, an important issue that is currently being discussed by political commentators and some politicians involves the supposed difficulty in defeating ISIS on the battlefields of Iraq and Syria. One of the GOP candidates for president (Ben Carson) remarked that the U.S. military had the capacity to destroy ISIS in a relatively short period of time. I believe that President Obama may have taken exception to the remark, and the conversation was started. Actually, defeating a terrorist organization requires a tremendous amount of patience and planning, and ideally, regular access to time-sensitive intelligence. Normally, locating the terrorists is half the battle. But ISIS is a completely different animal altogether. The Islamic State, or ISIS, has developed a conventional military capability. In other words, they have an army, and that army is currently fighting on two fronts: Iraq and Syria. In order to destroy ISIS, the conventional army must be annihilated, and the more traditional network of operatives hiding in cities all over the world (and also in rat holes and caves in Sudan and Afghanistan) must be identified, located, and wiped out. Ideally, both incarnations of ISIS should be targeted simultaneously. The United States, the UK, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, China and probably a half-dozen other nations have the military capacity to destroy ISIS, but it won't be a localized affair and a few diplomatic toes might get stepped on in the process. You would think that anyone who stands up and announces a willingness to single-handedly destroy the nastiest bunch of assholes the world has ever seen, would be given a pass, as far as diplomatic obligations go. Vladimir Putin stepped up and announced Russia's intention to destroy ISIS, but within a few days we discovered that Putin was more interested in keeping his ally, de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in power. After a few days of Russian bombing raids obliterating the Syrian indigenous opposition to Assad with nary a fart in the direction of ISIS, it became clear the regardless of the outcome, Russia's entry into the Syria sweepstakes was about much more than fighting ISIS.
Again, Russia is one of a number of countries who have the military capacity to destroy ISIS. It can't be done without a commitment to using ground troops in both Syria and Iraq, and it may be necessary to take chances where civilian lives are concerned, when an important target has been located. ISIS will use every opportunity to hide themselves amongst women, children and the elderly, because unlike ISIS, we are a bit squeamish about killing innocents. But make no mistake; in order to destroy ISIS, there will be civilian casualties. It might also be necessary to use weapons that are frowned upon, and interrogation techniques that are much criticized. Some great military leader once said (I can't remember who), that when a country enters into a war, it must do so with a willingness to use its total military might, and every weapon at its disposal. The enemy must be given no quarter. This will end the conflict soonest, and limit the number of casualties for both combatants. I remember that comment because it truly makes great sense. The longer the war, the higher the number of casualties. We need to throw the book at ISIS. The Marines, Special Forces, Navy Seals, and whoever else we can squeeze in. This group thinks that it can outmatch any opponent for ruthlessness. When it comes to the battlefield, we need to prove them wrong. Right now, we are still fortunate enough to have ISIS limited to Syria and Iraq, at least as far as its conventional capabilities go. Eastern Syria and western Iraq is basically one big, occasionally rocky desert. ISIS has no place to hide from our satellites, spies in the sky, and spies on the ground. While our military deals with ISIS on the battlefield, our intelligence forces will track down and wipe out each and every cell, regardless of country, until there are none.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)