Memorial Day – Bugler’s Holiday

 

We remember all those who have given so much so that we may have a day with friends and family. It seems fitting to honor the humble “Bugler Boy.”

Here is presented “Bugler’s Holiday” by Leroy Anderson, composed in 1954. This is the original version played by Leroy Anderson and the Boston Pops Orchestra’

 

 

Wishing everyone a wonderful day.

Press Secretary Smites Fox Host That Dissed Diversity in U.S. Military

This is LITERALLY a headline from the U.S. Dept of Defense website. It reads like a Buzzfeed or Twitchy headline. So leads Weasel Zippers headline. I am glad we can “smite” something even if its justTucker Carlson. Don’t comment about the Biden administration or its policies. Got it?

There has been quite a kerfuffle over Tucker Carlson’s program which I covered.

Joe Biden and his China strategy – feminize the U.S. military

It’s important that pregnant women are able to drop into enemy territory. Imagine a pregnant woman pilot with air sickness. Imagine a pregnant American woman captured by an enemy.

Imagine Joe Biden is President.

With that the Pentagon strikes back with this:

The United States military is the greatest the world has ever seen because of its diversity, Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby said during a news briefing this morning.

Kirby addressed this because a Fox cable show host used his show to denigrate the contributions of women in the military and to say the Chinese military is catching up to the U.S. military because it does not allow women to serve in the percentage the United States does.

Kirby addressed the insults to the entire U.S. military straight on. “I want to be very clear right up front, that the diversity of our military is one of our greatest strengths,” he said. “I’ve seen it for myself in long months at sea and in the combat waged by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’ve seen it up on Capitol Hill just this past month. And I see it every day here right at the Pentagon.”

No job in the military is barred to women, the press secretary noted. They fly jets, fight in infantry squads, drive tanks, command warships and soon to lead combatant commands — President Joe Biden has nominated Air Force Gen. Jacqueline Van Ovost to command U.S. Transportation Command and Army Lt. Gen. Laura Richardson to command U.S. Southern Command.

“To be sure, we still have a lot of work to do to make our military more inclusive, more respectful of everyone, especially women,” Kirby said.

There is a lack of women at senior ranks, Kirby said. “We pledge to do better, and we will,” he said. “What we absolutely won’t do is take personnel advice from a talk show host or the Chinese military. Maybe those folks feel like they have something to prove — that’s on them. We know we’re the greatest military in the world today and even for all the things we need to improve, we know exactly why that’s so.”

Full story at  Defense Gov

I am sure all the tranny’s that now will be able to have their surgeries thanks to the U.S. taxpayer will fill out our military to its finest level.

The best of the swamp today.

Joe Biden and his China strategy – feminize the U.S. military

 

It’s important that pregnant women are able to drop into enemy territory. Imagine a pregnant woman pilot with air sickness. Imagine a pregnant American woman captured by an enemy.

Imagine Joe Biden is President.

China is on a tear with a massive increase in Navy ship building. First we have Tucker Carlson giving us an update on China. Joe himself comes next with his military strategy and then our intrepid Mustang throws out some thoughts on the China matter for us think about.

 

 

China Joe himself with the necessary improvements to our fighting forces that will carry us to victory. Note his ever present minder Harris waiting in the wings prepared to pull the plug should Biden go off script or need direction to get off stage.

 

The Enemy of My Enemy

An Introduction to Chinese Checkers

by Mustang

 

 

Recently, Mr. Schweizer wrote about China’s Dragon Ships — a massive increase in Chinese navy shipbuilding. Despite Wikipedia’s warning about Peter Schweizer — that he’s a contributor to the far right media organization Breitbart News — I enjoy his articles.  They are well-researched and convey useful information in a well-organized and highly articulate manner.

Among his pearls are — 

  • The Chinese Navy has replaced the USN as the world’s largest 
  • China’s goal, in developing such a large navy is (a) to intimidate and threaten the economic security of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, and Indonesia, and (b) lay claim to the entire South China Sea as a Chinese sovereign territory
  • China’s push for nuclear powered ships reflects a longer-term goal of challenging the US and other navies around the world
  • China’s shipbuilding behavior will only get worse unless the US challenges China through diplomatic and economic penalties.

I think Mr. Schweizer did a good job in his article up until his final point.  Economic and diplomatic penalties imposed on China have never worked.  This bears repeating.  There is nothing more useless than a law that cannot be enforced, or a foreign policy that has no effect.  

So if we agree that the imposition of trade restrictions on China — or diplomatic consequences (and I cannot imagine what these might entail) — have no effect, why bother?  It makes you wonder, “Well, then, what else could the US do to challenge China?”

Beyond my reading of Chinese history and the product of the so-called China Watchers for a few decades, I am no expert.  I can say that Chinese frequently demonstrate their craftiness, and more often than not to the detriment of US foreign and trade policies (which reflects more the ineptness of American diplomats than it does on the cleverness of Chinese thinking).  As but one example, America’s involvement in the Vietnam War was entirely the brain-child of Chou En-Lai … whose trap we walked into with both eyes open.

All that aside, what could the Americans do to challenge China?

  • We could increase our naval construction program.  This is easier said than done, particularly since the US cannot bank on revenues if it intends to keep the American economy in lockdown mode.  China could more or less assure our continued lockdown by introducing yet another virus into the United States — which shouldn’t be too hard since every week, 3,881 flights arrive in the US from China.  Snap!  A robust US naval construction effort would entail more sailors (more financial outlays), but of course we cannot do that and provide unrestrained and un-budgeted-for economic stimulus programs to the American people.

 

  • The balance of power in East Asia may involve more than issues of naval supremacy; Japan, for example, purchases most of its rice from Vietnam.  We might encourage our Asian allies to pursue a more robust naval construction program — but that would only work if our Asian allies perceived the Chinese navy as a significant threat to their economic interests.  Otherwise, from their perspective, there would be no justification for increasing their spending on naval/military hardware.  Note: looking back in time, maybe FDR should have backed Japan against China in the 1930s.

 

  • I suppose the US could simply stop trading with China, although the fact is that if the US did impose an embargo on all Chinese made goods, it would only account for $106-billion (annually)… a drop in the bucket as a percentage of China’s GDP.  Plus, should we really send Wal-Mart into bankruptcy?

 

  • There is always the option of not challenging China’s naval activities at all.  Should the US really care about this — enough to spend billions we don’t have on naval construction — when China’s strategy may very well be the exact same thing we did to the former-Soviet Union, which was to drive the Soviets into economic oblivion?

 

  • Finally, the US might consider an ambitious campaign to convince Americans that Chinese noodles are deliciously nutritious.   

 Greg Poling, Director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies organization seems to agree with me, recently stating, “The South China Sea isn’t a military problem and has no military (naval) solutions.  All the force investments in the world won’t matter if the US fails to impose enough diplomatic and economic costs to alter Chinese behavior.”  

Of course, Mr. Poling probably has more confidence in America’s diplomatic corps than I do.  I cannot find one single “clever” thing the US State Department has done in the past 120 years that didn’t end up costing the American people needless loss of life or an increase in the loss of disposable income.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend is a concept suggesting that other governments who live in fear of China might become worthwhile American allies.  I laugh. 

 Our “friends” would expect that the USA subsidize their naval construction efforts, while at the same time increasing our trade deficits with them as part of the bargain.  It makes me want to question the wisdom of wasting time trying to create any worthwhile anti-Chinese alliances.  

By the way, the title expression originated in India in the fourth century before the common era.  It may not actually apply to this perceived Chinese threat since the US has no worthwhile friends and all of our former allies should have learned their lessons by now. 

Still, I wonder … what do the commenters at Bunkerville think? 

 

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

Great Power Competition: Ghoulies, Beasties & The Second Cold War

 

Great Power Competition

Ghoulies, Beasties & The Second Cold War

by Mustang

The internal disintegration of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) began in 1988 with the growing unrest within its constituent republics.  It ended in 1991 when the three principal Soviet republics (Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia) declared that they no longer existed.  Eleven other republics followed suit.  President Mikhail Gorbachev resigned; what remained of the Soviet parliament announced the end of the Soviet Era.  By the time William J. Clinton assumed the presidency, the world had already entered into a new geo-political phase.

In 1990, America’s primary competitors were the Soviet Union and Red China.  In 1991, only red China remained to challenge American leadership.  Russia re-emerged, of course, but for the ten years it took to re-organize, the former Eastern Bloc was relatively quiet.  In February 1993, Islamic fundamentalists bombed the World Trade Center.  Six people died, a thousand were injured, a blind sheik was arrested, and America went back to sleep.

The world’s conversation changed again on 11 September 2001, when Islamic fundamentalists launched a coordinated attack against the United States.  From that date, the United States shifted its focus toward the Middle East (Afghanistan and Iraq).  We entered a new phase, called the Global War on Terror — a confusing time for Americans because President Bush wasn’t sure what his short and long-term strategies should be.  

Was it, for example, finding fundamentalists and killing them, building shopping malls in Afghanistan, or purchasing oil for American blood?  What Mr. Bush did accomplish was a transformation of victory in Iraq into a resounding cockup, which he then expanded into Afghanistan (where Americans continue to serve at great risk to themselves).

President Obama’s fascination — his Islamic nation of choice — was Syria, with a peculiar fascination with Libya.  He was aided in this by his former rival for the presidency, Senator John McCain, who in helping to arm Al Qaida insurgents with American weapons, helped to create ISIS.  Thinking Americans began to wonder about our national interests in the Middle East, particularly since the Syrian civil war was the mischief of Saudi Arabia, our best-ever friend.  As a reminder of how well the United States managed its Global War on Terror —

US Taxpayer Obligations (Costs) Associated with the Global War on Terror (2001 — 2017) [Notes 1, 2]

DoD War Spending:                               $1.9 Trillion

GWOT Homeland Spending                $1.054 Trillion

DoD War related Base Spending        $803 Billion

Medical Disability Payments                $437 Billion

State Department/GWOT                     $131 Billion

Interest paid on borrowed money       $925 Billion

Total costs in dollars                               $5.25 Trillion

Total cost in human lives                        800,000 (Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan)

Cold War Returns

Between 2015-2021, another shift has occurred: a return to Great Power Competition (GPC).  Islamic fundamentalism is still with us, of course — and has been since the late 1790s, so it is unlikely that US spending on its favorite past time, the business of war, will in any way diminish.  But now, in addition to the Islamic hordes, the United States’ focus on international relations and the foreign policy has returned to Russia and Red China.  

The precious national resources wasted during the global war on terror notwithstanding, the United States government has embarked upon a new “grand strategy” with implications of substantial increases in defense spending.

Presently, US debt approaches $82 trillion, including interest.  What this means is that government spending has cost each taxpayer $222,192, or broken down per capita obligations, $84,238 — including minors who only just now entered the life cycle.  As the debt clock races forward, government changes to meet this new reality will cost the

American people even more.  It is at this point that one begins to suspect that Wu Flu and the subsequent shutdown of the American economy served China’s interests quite well.  With less tax revenue flowing into the US Treasury, taxes have nowhere to go but up. 

The new cold war (Cold War II) will demand that the US Department of Defense realign to “counter” Chinese and Russian military (and bio-War) capabilities.  We are already witness to a few of these changes, such as the recent creation of the U. S. Space Force.  DoD envisions that the US Cyber Command will evolve into yet another “combat command,” and then there are high level discussions about where to redeploy US military assets to counter America’s greatest threat (China).

The Congress, through funding, has two choices: either realign our military/naval forces to address “critical concerns,” or increase manpower levels and equipment capabilities of US forces.  Presently, DoD contingency planning includes Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) (Army/Air Force), Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) for the Navy and Marine Corps, Littoral Operations and Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations for the Marine Corps.  I’m quite sure that a Marine expeditionary brigade has China sitting on pins and needles.

The renewal of GPC has already led to a revived emphasis on nuclear weapons/nuclear deterrence.  Both China and Russia now boast of their status as nuclear powers, and China in particular makes such claims while undertaking massive military modernization efforts.  Imagine: what is any country’s justification for massive military spending if there is not some plan or intention to employ them.

Revival of the US’s competition with Russia began with the seizure and annexation of Ukraine in 2014 — it may have been one reason Obama needed to get back with Vladimir after the election of 2012.  US military planning now includes the strengthening of US and NATO military capabilities to counter Russian aggression in other areas of Europe.  

Some experts claim that present US and NATO forces are woefully inadequate to this task (blaming Donald Trump, of course, because none of the NATO allies wanted to pay their fair share), even after Army and Air Force capabilities have been expanded in Poland, and an increase in Navy and Marine Corps activities in Norway.

 

Conclusion   

The bad old days of cold war have returned.  There isn’t much that any of us can do about this — competition is in the nature of man.  I suppose we Americans could follow the European Union’s lead in all this and simply bury our heads in the sand and pretend that all is well in the world.  

On the other hand, there is a time to deploy our troops to confront evil in the world — and a time to exercise some restraint in that regard.  Lately (since the first Gulf War), our diplomatic efforts seem centered on military intervention.  It’s all we know, apparently — and I’m still trying to figure out what our national interests were/are in Afghanistan and Syria.

The costs of the Middle Eastern Wars have been high, but worse than this, our diplomatic faux pas has driven the enemy (Iran, for example) solidly into a China and Russia alliance.  While Bush/Obama sent our troops to eradicate armed goat herders, Vladimir Putin was engaged in his energetic efforts to extend the hand of comradeship and empathy to Middle Eastern puppet masters.  

China’s efforts in the Middle East, Africa, and closer to home, in Central and South America have been no less ambitious.  We will soon find ourselves within range of Iranian ICBMs and surrounded by Chinese missile installations in Cuba, Honduras, San Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia, and Venezuela.

I’m no expert, but it would appear reasonable to ask, “Who are our diplomats working for?”  The risk to this and future generations is obvious.  Two “clear and present” dangers remain: physical harm to the American people through long-range missiles, and the peril to our economy as a foolish government continues to spend far more than it produces in revenues.  

Meanwhile, members of Congress who have never seen an armed conflict they didn’t love, and US/Globalist corporations who make gazillions from the DoD’s demands for more stuff that goes bang, will eventually reduce the once-strong American economy to the level of an undeveloped country.

As an aside, China’s and Russia’s economic strategy toward the United States seems remarkably similar to the one the US employed against the Soviet Union (1980-1991); through our technological developments, we quite literally drove the USSR into bankruptcy [Note 3].

Now the tide has turned — and it occurs to me that the US would be in much better shape in our international relationships if we had qualified people running the government rather than the eggheads who have orchestrated the DoD and foggy bottom since around 1988.  In choosing Joe Biden as president, the American people — in all their wisdom — have assured us of a much greater danger than ever existed before.

Well-done, voters.  You shall reap that which you have sown.

Notes:

[1] Project on Government Oversight/Congressional Oversight Initiative: a public advocacy group, Mark Thompson, 2019.

[2] Watson Institute, Brown University, Study 20 September 2020

[3] I once spoke with a retired (former Soviet) military officer who told me that the USSR had no idea how advanced the US war machine was until the first Gulf war.  He said to me that the revelation made him ill.    

 

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

Peace Through Military Power in D.C.

 

PEACE THROUGH POWER

by Mustang

According to Reuters News Agency and Politico sources, up to 21,000 national guard troops were authorized for service inside Washington DC to provide security for the Biden inauguration.  They continue to serve under Major General William Walker, Commanding General, District of Columbia National Guard (which is the only national guard unit that answers directly to the President of the United States through the Secretary of the Army).

According to official national guard officials, their mission is to provide a back-up force to the District of Columbia Police Department, a federal agency, with infantry, communications, air guard, logistics, and coordination responsibilities with all other supporting agencies.

 

According to General Daniel Hokanson, Chief, National Guard Bureau, the national guard’s “first priority is to protect people and property and the safety and well-being of our national guard personnel and their families.”

The typical mission of the national guard, supporting state governments, is (a) to support civil authorities whose capabilities are insufficient to meet current requirements, (b) protect the life and property of all US citizens, (c) protect critical US infrastructure (d) provide humanitarian assistance during disasters and domestic emergencies, and (e) support law enforcement agencies.  In Washington, D. C., the national guard has been authorized to carry loaded weapons to protect individual members of Congress and their staffs.

Apparently, the President, his cabinet, personal staff, Congress members, and their staff are living in fear for their lives.  To the amazement of any clear-thinking person, the mission seems hardly justified since no one is authorized to carry firearms inside DC except government officials.

The costs associated with this deployment of national guard personnel, funded by the US Department of Defense, suggests that instead of serving in Washington “on loan” from their various states, the federal government federalized these weekend warriors at an estimated cost of around $550.00 per day/per guardsman – or roughly $11.5 million per day.  Their “tour of duty” has been extended through the end of March 2021, equating to around $460 million.

In contrast to the difficulty earmarking money for the southern border security wall, which Trump actually intended to provide security to American citizens and communities located near the Mexican border, the decision to expend forty million dollars to protect the political elite from radicals took all of about forty seconds.

The basis of the threat, the justification for national guardsmen, to begin with, was an FBI assessment that Trump supporters posed a clear and present danger to the “orderly and peaceful” transition of power to the new administration.

According to my sources, the FBI assessment took place in the third stall of the FBI building’s executive washroom.  An entire “division” of national guard expeditionary forces seems a bit of overkill, however.  Still, nothing is too good to protect the lives and well-being of Nancy Pelosi and her sidekick, AOC (who, along with Senator Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut, was a distinguished veteran of the Vietnam War).

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

The Ever Elusive Peace on Earth

 

The unlearned lessons of history condemns present and future generations.

by Mustang

On the eve of America’s full involvement in the Vietnam War, a great soldier was laid to rest.  The 84-year old Douglas Arthur MacArthur served in uniform for 52 years.  Within that time, he participated in the United States occupation of Mexico, at Veracruz, served with distinction in World War I, led with distinction in World War II, and commanded United Nations troops in the opening days of the Korean War (1950-51).  

Between the two great wars, MacArthur served as the Superintendent of the United States Military Academy, as Chief of Staff of the U. S. Army, and upon retirement, was appointed to serve as Field Marshal of the Philippine Army.

On 26 July 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt federalized the Philippine Army and recalled Douglas MacArthur to active duty in the U. S. Army as a major general and appointed him Commander, U. S. Army Forces Far East (USAFFE).  On 27 July 1941, Roosevelt advanced MacArthur to the rank of lieutenant general.  In that capacity, MacArthur commanded 22,000 troops, of which 12,000 were Philippine Army scouts.

The United States plan for the defense of the Philippine Islands called for the massing of troops on the Bataan Peninsula where they could “hold out” against the Imperial Japanese Army until an American relief force could arrive.  Of course, this decision suggests that the U. S. Government knew far more about Japanese intentions than they admitted publicly — the Japanese never attacked the United States until early December 1941.  It causes one to question Japan’s sneak attack.  The US government had to know in advance.

Washington’s “stop gap” plan for the Philippines was a result of America’s demobilization following World War I.  General MacArthur was ordered to hold out against the Imperial Japanese until reinforced — knowing that there would be no reinforcements.  The Washington plan for American and Philippine troops in the Philippine Islands was an overwhelming defeat — a sacrifice in order to garner the support of the American people for the United States’ entry into World War II.

But by then, on 7 December 1941, World War II had been in progress since 1 September 1939, when Germany invaded Poland and Great Britain and France declared war.  Before General MacArthur was recalled to active duty from retirement, Germany invaded the Soviet Union.  It was a long and bloody war.  Tens of millions of people died — those serving in uniform, and the hapless civilians who simply got in the way of the belligerents.  When the war was over, ending on 2 September 1945 with Japan’s unconditional surrender, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur stated succinctly:

“Men since the beginning of time have sought peace. Various methods through the ages have been attempted to devise an international process to prevent or settle disputes between nations. From the very start workable methods were found in so far as individual citizens were concerned, but the mechanics of an instrumentality of larger international scope have never been successful. Military alliances, balances of power, Leagues of Nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war.

The utter  destructiveness of war now blocks out this alternative. We have had our last chance. If we will not devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature, and all material and cultural developments of the past 2000 years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.”

But the world’s politicians — and those “free men” who elected them — did not heed these words.  How could they?  These politicians, most of whom have never once placed themselves in harm’s way, had no frame of reference to the utter chaos of bloody confrontations.  And so, following the second great war, the protectors of human liberty throughout the world, the victors of World War II, demobilized their armies and navies, and went back to sleep.

It is true that, as with those who preceded them in earlier decades, the leaders of the “free world” gaped at the ghastly developments in Europe by the Soviet Union — and opted to do nothing.  No one wanted another war.  And once more, the ugly stain of appeasement was the United Nation’s only plan of action.  Should they ignore these developments long enough, perhaps they would go away.  When war came again in 1950, everyone was looking in the wrong direction.

Who knows what was going through Harry S. Truman’s mind during these critical moments in history, when global communists decided that the time was right to strike — while everyone, so weary of war, slept peacefully at home.  

In 1948, Mr. Truman was tightly focused on winning the Presidency on his own terms — to demonstrate that he was much more than President Roosevelt’s vice president; he was a man of the people.  After his success in 1948, Truman refocused his attention on his presidential legacy.  There would be no more war; he would not stand for it — and at Truman’s insistence, the American military was once again dismantled.

But war did come and it was the incompetence of the Truman Administration that made it possible.  Once again, Douglas MacArthur was taken down from the shelf, dusted off, and put into the field with an army that could not even defend itself let alone an entire Peninsula the size of Korea.  

Many young Americans died unnecessarily because of Truman’s incompetence.  Worse, Truman’s petty arrogance led him to dismiss the good advice he received from the man he commissioned to clean up the mess he created.  By 1951, MacArthur’s patience had become thin and in his frustration, he began to speak critically about Truman’s incredible ineptness.  Under such circumstances, there was no other choice for the President — as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States — than to relieve MacArthur of his duties.

Soon after, during an invitation to address a joint session of Congress, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur spoke directly to America’s politicians.  And he told them …

“… Once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.  War’s very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.  In war there is no substitute for victory.”

“There are some who, for varying reasons, would appease Red China.  They are blind to history’s clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war.  It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement has led to more than a sham peace.  Like blackmail, it lays the basis for new and successively greater demands until, as in blackmail, violence becomes the only other alternative.”

“‘Why,’ my soldiers asked of me, ‘surrender military advantages to an enemy in the field?’  I could not answer.  Some may say to avoid spread of the conflict into an all-out war with China; others, to avoid Soviet intervention.  Neither explanation seems valid, for China is already engaging with the maximum power it can commit, and the Soviet will not necessarily mesh its actions with our moves.  Like a cobra, any new enemy will more likely strike whenever it feels that the relativity in military or other potential is in its favor on a world-wide basis.”

“The tragedy of Korea is further heightened by the fact that its military action is confined to its territorial limits.  It condemns that nation, which it is our purpose to save, to suffer the devastating impact of full naval and air bombardment while the enemy’s sanctuaries are fully protected from such attack and devastation.  Of the nations of the world, Korea alone, up to now, is the sole one which has risked its all against communism. The magnificence of the courage and fortitude of the Korean people defies description.” […]

“I have just left your fighting sons in Korea. They have met all tests there, and I can report to you without reservation that they are splendid in every way.  It was my constant effort to preserve them and end this savage conflict honorably and with the least loss of time and a minimum sacrifice of life.  Its growing bloodshed has caused me the deepest anguish and anxiety.  Those gallant men will remain often in my thoughts and in my prayers always.”

These politicians too, along with Truman, failed to listen — failed to learn.  They opted, instead, to involve the United States in yet another war of attrition, the defense of a nation that wanted neither their own freedom nor America’s version of it.  They chose for the American people a defensive war that could not, from its very first day, be won.  

Once more, young Americans gave up their lives — for nothing.  This too was part of Harry Truman’s world view.  He had the opportunity to engage in a productive discussion with Vietnamese nationalists in 1945 and opted instead to reimpose upon them French colonialism, paid for, at first, by the American taxpayer — adding later, American blood — at the direction of yet another Democrat who not only refused to allow the American military to win that Indochina war (noting that wars are not won through defensive strategies), but also a man who enriched himself from that war.

Now, forty-six years later, these lessons remain unlearned.  The sheer ineptitude of a succession of presidents (of both political parties) have led us to this point in world history.  We are, as a nation, no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave — we are, we have become, the land of appeasers.

The state of war that existed between the United States and North Korea in 1950 was never settled — so a state of war continues to exist with North Korea.  In this context, we are only removed from extreme violence by mere seconds.    

Next door, China proceeds to expand its influence in the South China Sea, creating island naval bases and declaring them sovereign territories of China.  Chinese agents have infiltrated the United States — our corporations, universities, and our Congress.  

Chinese diplomats have brokered deals with many, if not most, Central and South American countries, throughout the African nations, and made lucrative arrangements among our so-called Middle Eastern “friends.”  Once again, as danger lurks, American politicians — and the American people — are looking in the other direction.

What are America’s national interests in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia?  What is it about any of these “nations” that is worth a pint of American blood?  But if there were bona fide national interests, why have American politicians elected not to achieve them?  Are our politicians so dense that they cannot understand that victory delayed or denied becomes even more ghastly and expensive over time?

We should also ask, “What are America’s domestic interests?”  Shall we desire peace at home as much as we desire peace around the world?  Are we doing anything worthwhile to achieve domestic peace and maintain it?  In my judgment, the answer is no.  Peace eludes us at home and abroad because we have not learned the lessons of history.  

We have not learned how to employ wisdom in choosing the men and women who chart the course of our nation.  We have not learned the basics of human behavior.  For instance, an enemy always seeks to advantage themselves by discovering our weaknesses.  Why must we insist on helping our enemies to achieve their goals?

Yes, we must seek peace — but we must do so through strength.  Whoever does not understand this has no business in Congress or any executive administration.  Whoever does not understand this has no business voting in national elections.

I have hope for the future — but I do not delude myself about its prospects.  A peaceful world is not an entitlement — it must be paid for, and like the price of freedom, the cost of peace is high.  We have, in the past, been willing to pay that price, but we have not been willing to protect and preserve that which has cost us dearly.  We Americans, and I am speaking now about all of us, must be vigilant, we must be resolved, and our wisdom, if we ever find it, must be virtuous.

War and more war coming with Biden’s Sec. of State Blinken

 

Lots of wars coming up. Obama’s Iran deal will no doubt be back in place. Load up the planes with lots more cash. Liz Cheney must be jumping for joy

The Neocons should be very happy with the pick of Anthony Blinken for Secretary of State. All those military contracts coming up. Congress must be salivating. Blinken a so called “Interventionist .”

Here we go:

Blinken and Kerry

Blinken was Biden’s top aide in 2002 when Biden was leading the charge in the Senate to give George W. Bush his invasion of Iraq. In 2006, Biden penned an Op-ed for The New York Times that called for dividing Iraq into three separate autonomous zones with a central government in Baghdad, later referred to as a “soft partition.” According to the Times, Blinken helped craft Biden’s proposal.

Seen as a loyal Biden aide, Blinken surprised some in the White House when he broke with Biden and supported military intervention in Libya in 2011, according to The Washington Post. Blinken also called for US action in Syria after Barack Obama was reelected in 2012. Sources told the Post in 2013 that Blinken “was less enthusiastic than Biden” about Obama seeking Congressional approval for a military strike on Syria.

In 2019, Blinken co-authored an Op-ed in The Washington Post with neoconservative Robert Kagan.

The piece argued against President Trump’s “America First” foreign policy and said the US did “too little” in Syria. “Without bringing appropriate power to bear [in Syria], no peace could be negotiated, much less imposed,” the article reads.

In 2015, Blinken facilitated an increase in weapons sales and intelligence sharing for the Saudi-led coalition after it intervened in Yemen to fight the Houthis. “We have expedited weapons deliveries, we have increased our intelligence sharing, and we have established a joint coordination planning cell in the Saudi operation center,” Blinken said in April 2015.

One area where a Biden administration could be less hawkish than a Trump administration is Iran. Blinken has been critical of President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Speaking at an event earlier this year, Blinken said Biden would return to the JCPOA. “[Biden] would seek to build on the nuclear deal to make it longer and stronger if Iran returns to strict compliance,” he said.  Read more

The Institute for the Study of War with their neocons should be more than happy.

Liz Cheney, Elizabeth O’Bagy, Military contractors- a toxic brew

ISW has increasingly drawn support from military contractors with stakes in the issues that the institute studies. “According to ISW’s last annual report,” noted Consortium News in December 2012, “its original supporters were mostly right-wing foundations, such as the Smith-Richardson Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, but it now is backed by national security contractors, including major ones like Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and CACI, as well as lesser-known firms such as DynCorp International, which provides training for Afghan police, and Palantir, a technology company founded with the backing of the CIA’s venture-capital arm, In-Q-Tel. Palantir supplies software to U.S. military intelligence in Afghanistan.”[18]

 

 

Other than that all is well in the swamp.

USA Wars: News from the front

 

Here we go with the news that is making our military-industrial complex squeal like a stuck pig. Bringing the boys home… heresy to those who have a need for a war somewhere. Always. The best part is now they have no shame. They use to hide their nefarious actions but no more. James Jeffrey is more than happy to claim the title of a treasonous scoundrel. Here we go:

 

James Jeffrey—who is retiring from his posts as the Special Representative for Syria Engagement and Special Envoy to the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS — reportedly said that “shell games” have been used to avoid telling U.S. leaders the true number of American troops in Syria.

“We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there,” Jeffrey said, according to Defense One.

Amb. James Jeffrey, special representative for Syria Engagement and special envoy to the Global Coalition to Defeat Islamic State, speaks during a news conference at the State Department in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 14, 2019. AP PHOTO/SUSAN WALSH

Jeffrey reportedly said that when President Donald Trump was interested in withdrawing from Syria, arguments against a withdrawal were presented to the commander in chief.

……

“What Syria withdrawal? There was never a Syria withdrawal,” Jeffrey told the outlet. “When the situation in northeast Syria had been fairly stable after we defeated ISIS, [Trump] was inclined to pull out. In each case, we then decided to come up with five better arguments for why we needed to stay. And we succeeded both times. That’s the story.” From Just the news

Wandering over the Afghanistan:

Speaking on the Senate floor, McConnell warned against a potentially “humiliating” withdrawal that threatens to undo Trump’s “tremendous” work in the region. The GOP leader said a “premature exit” would be reminiscent of the U.S. departure from Saigon in 1975. Leaving Afghanistan now “would be broadcast around the world as a symbol of U.S. defeat and humiliation and a victory for Islamic extremism,” McConnell said.

 

 

Acting Secretary of Defense Miller to officially announce U.S. drawdown in Afghanistan and Iraq from the Pentagon.

 

 

We can count on Liz Cheney. June 2020.

 

 

The Democrats pitched in:

House Democrats, Working With Liz Cheney, Restrict Trump’s Planned Withdrawal of Troops From Afghanistan and Germany. July,2020.

The bipartisan commitment to using Russia for endless war and imperialism remains vibrant.

THE U.S. MILITARY HAS BEEN fighting in Afghanistan for almost nineteen years. House Democrats, working in tandem with key pro-war GOP lawmakers such as Rep. Liz Cheney, are ensuring that continues.

Last night, the House Armed Services Committee voted overwhelmingly in favor of an amendment — jointly sponsored by Democratic Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado and Congresswoman Cheney of Wyoming — prohibiting the expenditure of monies to reduce the number of U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan below 8,000 without a series of conditions first being met.

The imposed conditions are by no means trivial: for these troop reductions from Afghanistan to be allowed, the Defense Department must be able to certify, among other things, that leaving Afghanistan “will not increase the risk for the expansion of existing or formation of new terrorist safe havens inside Afghanistan” and “will not compromise or otherwise negatively affect the ongoing United States counter terrorism mission against the Islamic State, al Qaeda, and associated forces.”

Read more The Intercept

Speaking of Liz – I add a refresher. Let’s roll back to 2013 and her Institute for the study of war. Wander over for the full read.

Liz Cheney, Elizabeth O’Bagy, Military contractors- a toxic brew

Just what is the  Institute for the Study of War? Unfortunately,  much of their original information disappeared yesterday from their website. Thanking various military contractors for hosting dinners, and of course Liz Cheney’s name and picture are no longer prominently displayed.

ISW has increasingly drawn support from military contractors with stakes in the issues that the institute studies. “According to ISW’s last annual report,” noted Consortium News in December 2012, “its original supporters were mostly right-wing foundations, such as the Smith-Richardson Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, but it now is backed by national security contractors, including major ones like Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and CACI, as well as lesser-known firms such as DynCorp International, which provides training for Afghan police, and Palantir, a technology company founded with the backing of the CIA’s venture-capital arm, In-Q-Tel. Palantir supplies software to U.S. military intelligence in Afghanistan.”[18]

 

Other than that all is swell in the swamp.

 

 

 

Happy Labor Day!

 

Beautiful pictures with the music “America, The Beautiful” as performed by the US Navy Band and Sea Chanters. Wishing everyone a wonderful Labor Day.

God bless America, the beautiful, my home sweet home.

 

Posted in Military. Tags: . 14 Comments »

ISIS Bride Not Sorry for Joining Terror Group, Brit Appeals court rules in her favor

 

Appeals Court Rules ISIS Bride Shamima Begum Should be Allowed to Return to the UK — May Open Door to 600 British ISIS Members to Return Home. Add their family members to the count. Interesting that this is the United States idea.

Unfortunately the Brits will not have the courage to jail the terrorists as they should be. For some reason the world thinks we should keep supporting these refugee camps that hold all these terrorists. Lock them up and throw the key away. They will not change.

On Thursday the British Court of Appeal ruled Shamima Begum should be allowed to return to the UK.
The BBC reported:

Ms Begum, now 20, was one of three schoolgirls who left London to join the Islamic State group in Syria in 2015.

ISIS bride Shamima Begum left Great Britain to join the Islamic State in Syria at age 15.

Now she is 20 and wants to return ‘home’ to the UK. She is not sorry for joining the terror cult and is only wanting to return to Great Britain because ISIS was defeated in Syria.

Syrian refugee camp

 

Shamima Begum: I think a lot of people should have like sympathy towards me for everything I’ve been through. They don’t really have proof that I did anything that is dangerous.

Reporter: They had beheaded people. There were executions.

Shamima Begum: Yeah, I know about those things and I was OK with it. I did have a good time while I was there. It was just at the end that things got harder.

 

Her citizenship was revoked by the Home Office on security grounds after she was found in a refugee camp in 2019.

The Court of Appeal said she had been denied a fair hearing because she could not make her case from the Syrian camp.

The Home Office said the decision was “very disappointing” and it would “apply for permission to appeal”.

Shamima told reporters other ISIS members may try to return to Great Britain following today’s ruling.

There are 600 British ISIS members in Syrian refugee camps.

AMERICA is demanding the UK take back 600 British ISIS fighters and their family members living in Syrian refugee camps.

The huge number of former jihadis, their wives and children who hold or are entitled to British passports is revealed for the first time today.

The US has long demanded London repatriate its ISIS fighters caught on the battlefield as the warped caliphate collapsed, and jail them in the UK.

But US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has recently stepped up the demand to include family members as well.

Donald Trump’s administration is determined to close down Syria’s giant ISIS refugee camps and don’t want any remnants of the Islamist terror network running amok in their country.

It emerged over the weekend that the American demand sparked a bitter row between Cabinet ministers during a National Security Council meeting.

H/T: Gateway Pundit

%d bloggers like this: