Father and Son, Impending Flynn Indictments

Tags

Justice, Michael Flynn, Politics, President Trump, Russia, Russia Investigations

As rumors began circulating on social and in print media that Special Counsel Bob Mueller would soon hand-down indictments, Michael Flynn, Jr. took to Twitter to thumb his nose at Federal Prosecutors;

Mike Flynn Jr., Tweet

“SJW” means ‘Social Justice Warriors’ in case you’re wondering. Just to hone in on what that means a bit further. It means when you’re a colossal dip shit whose academic achievement culminated in an Associate’s degree in Golf Course Management (what does that even mean?) who gets to ride daddy’s coat-tails into a White House transition team position for which you have absolutely no qualification and people call you out on it, you rummage through your addled, under-developed mind and tear a page of out the Breitbart book of epithets.

You call us social justice warriors, let’s translate that into real-time meaning: People who have actually done something with their lives aside from tee-up balls on the green for Daddy and his pals. Smug bastard. He is the embodiment of all that is wrong with the United States at this point. If he doesn’t get handed a ten year sentence it will not be a sign of innocence, but proof positive of just how broken our justice system really is.

Lest we forget, this is the same dimwit who helped propagate the Pizzagate story. You know, that Hillary Clinton was running a child-sex ring out of a pizzeria in Washington D.C. The story culminated in a tragic event: a right-wing lunatic actually went to the pizzeria and shot the place up. Oddly, no child sex workers were discovered in subsequent investigations. Now, not a fan of the Clintons, but in comparison to Flynn Jr., well, there’s no comparison. This is what happens when a greens-keeper whose daddy’s military service lands him a spot in the public limelight gets to hold the mic for a minute. Junior, go to the back nine and shut up. Wait for the indictment…maybe you can fetch balls for the cons in the Big House. The good news is daddy might be there to protect you cos, son, you gonna need it.

Just can’t let it go. One could, literally, walk into any Starbucks in a major metropolitan area in the US, toss a handful of pebbles over the counter and hit half a dozen brighter, more qualified people than the likes of Mike Flynn, Jr., or Eric and Don Trump Jr., for that matter. Their very presence anywhere near the Oval Office besmirches our Republic.

The Transgressions of Flynn Senior

One hates to see it, on the one hand; a man who spent his life in service to his country with all the self-sacrifice that entails, who opts to sell himself out for cash at the end of it all. It is truly disheartening. And yet, that’s precisely what he has done. Michael Flynn, Sr., unlike his troglodyte of a son, actually did something with his life and now he has thrown it all away.

General Flynn will go down in history, on a first count, as the man who served the briefest term as National Security Adviser to the President of the United States. His tenure in office, a harrowing 24 days. He was forced out when it was found that he had–ostensibly–lied to Vice President Pence. Now that position (that Pence is an uninformed and not-culpable actor), is a topic for another posting. Flynn was forced out when it was discovered (har har) that he had lied about his meetings with Russian officials–among other now manifest misdeeds.

Michael Flynn Sr.

Both during the campaign and during his short tenure in office, Flynn engaged in a variety of activities for which he will soon be indicted. Among those, that he engaged in a quasi-official capacity during the campaign, in discussions with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak and may have traded potential policy favors for actions or the promises of action.  He also failed to register as a foreign agent and failed to disclose revenues he netted from both Russian and Turkish sources and interests. His dealings took him into direct contact with Vladimir Putin and Turkish dictator Erdogan.

The Turkish-Erdogan connection and Undisclosed Revenues and Involvements

As we now know, Michael Flynn accepted over $500,000 in payments for his work on behalf of Turkish interests. He failed to register as a foreign agent on multiple occasions, lied about it, then belatedly registered when he was caught. Pretty hard to argue, at this juncture and in the wake of his late registration, that he was an unwitting actor or that he simply forgot. A General who commanded divisions that forgets to report 500K. Nah.

It is being widely reported that Flynn, on the eve of the November, 2016 Presidential election, wrote a bizarre Op-Ed highly supportive of the Turkish regime. He also apparently participated in the planning of a scheme to kidnap Fetullah Gulen, a Muslim cleric and chief opponent of Erdogan, from his residence in Pennsylvania. Yeah, hard to make this stuff up…because when you’re a man who purportedly dedicates his life to the values of civil society what you should do is help foreign dictators kidnap political opponents in your country. Can anyone say the words, “conduct unbecoming”.

Fetullah Gulen

One thing that sets Flynn apart from the other pegs under scrutiny or indictment in this administration is that some of the things he allegedly did occurred while he was in office as a senior cabinet member in the Trump Administration. As has been widely noted, there’s also the lingering question as to why, 24 days after the stories broke about his involvements, he was allowed to prance around the capitol with one of the highest security clearances in the land. Yeah, that’s a problem.

So, Here We Are, Waiting on the Indictments

Multiple sources have reported that indictments of both Flynn and his son will be handed down shortly. Or, have they already been handed down and they remain sealed? Let’s not forget that months ago Flynn’s attorneys approached Congressional Committee members seeking immunity from prosecution. Publicly and purportedly, these advances were rebuffed. But were they?

For all we know Flynn may have pleaded months ago and he may have been working with authorities since March, 2017. Publicly, the rumors circulating are that indictments are coming and that they are using Flynn Jr. (or used) to pressure his father into turning over. Perhaps this is the reason Jethro the greens-keeper is talking shyte: Daddy already cut a deal and he knows he ain’t going to prison. That would explain it. Don’t celebrate too son, Junior, given this in your resume you won’t be working in any government office in the future. Remember, when they pull Daddy’s shingle you’re still amply qualified for any number of positions in the janitorial arts.

 

 

Quasi-Military Units, Ottoman Bashi-Bazouks

Tags

history, Middle East, US, War

Americans are peculiar insofar as the majority lack any semblance of historical knowledge or frame of reference. At best, most U.S. citizens cannot tell you much about the world prior to World War II and, as often as not, what they can tell you is filtered or manufactured out of ill-digested bits of information, mostly morsels gleaned from social media out-lets or poor presentations sucked out of alternative media venues that offer stilted versions of events.

This dearth of information and often paltry levels of understanding is as prevalent on the political left as it is on the right. In an society wherein historical understanding and knowledge is limited to a 60 or 70 year time-frame it becomes possible to rewrite history as needed, to fit any agenda. Essentially, events are interpreted through a thin filter and consumed avariciously. It’s not like most will know the difference anyway.

Examples of this lack of historicity permeate our society and culture and the evidence manifests on a daily basis, including across all major media outlets. In a society wherein the populace knows next to nothing, all things are possible. Thus, revisionist histories are flung on a daily basis and are not contested in substantive manner. Recent examples would be such nonsensical assertions as the following;

• The U.S. Civil War had nothing to do with the institution of slavery
• That we should assess the Colonial era and its major figures through a contemporary set of values.
• That colonialism is a modern, Western European invention
• That the Republican Party of today has something in common with the Republican party of Lincoln.
• That the Mexican-American war occurred in response to Mexican aggression against Americans and was sparked by the reduction of the Alamo.

The list is long and growing daily. Even the most basic elements of historical understanding can not be taken for granted in dealing with the population of the United States. When you’re writing on a blank slate, you can write anything.

Endless Fight Between East and the West

In the rhetorical posturing and pronouncements bandied about freely over the last 30 years on all sides, there’s plenty of room for critical investigation. On the political left there’s a tendency to portray the conflict between East and West, between European powers and Islam as a western invention. In this historical set of viewpoints the prevalent line of thinking posits the genesis for conflict, seemingly, at the end of World War I with the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Running alongside of this is a very dim understanding of the Crusades (also viewed as unprovoked European aggression), shoddily interpreted views on colonialism which, of course, by some Herculean stretch, was invented by the West. Also present is the portrayal of ostensibly indigenous populations. Such views are thinly based and highly selective. No one attempts to draw lines in time upon which deeper understandings might be constructed. People erect their beliefs upon very thin foundations and, when those are challenged by the presentation of factual information, they scream in the most shrill of tones.

Crusades

The conflict between East and West, between Islam and the European, Christian powers didn’t begin in the 18th or 19th centuries, nor did it begin in the 11th century with the First Crusade. If we look solely at the centuries-long and unending conflicts as a fight between major religions then the genesis may be found in the 7th century when the forces of Islam swept out of the Arabian Peninsula, across North Africa and the Middle East and into Europe, being halted in France at the Battle of Tours by Charles Martel in 732 and at the gates of Vienna during the latter part of the 17th century when the second Ottoman siege failed at the hands of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Between those two events, the latter of which represented the apogee of expansion by Islam, more than nine centuries of unending warfare.

From the political right derive equally ill-founded sets of arguments and justifications. On this end of the spectrum positions tend to stem from manufactured presentations of history which are, more often than not, founded upon religious beliefs—in that conservative viewpoints are, in a substantive sense, very hard to distinguish from the adherents to Salafist fanatics on the other side. Ill-digested notions forwarded by Zionist interests most often underpin their arguments and positions. Specifically, that Eastern and Central European Jews have any real demonstrable link to the historical inhabitants of the pre-Christian Kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Christian evangelical positioning, allied with rabid Zionism, are wont to affix and derive meanings from a series of scriptural writings which, in the 21st century, should not enter in to the realm of national policy.

All that aside, the conflicts between East and West long ante-dated the advent of Islam and, in fact, Christianity. The warfare between two fundamentally distinct agglomerations of societies has been going on since the dawn of recorded history. If anything one would conclude that by now, formulating policy based on religious belief alone is simply a bad idea, on all sides.

The Global War on Terror, Latest Iteration of a Limitless Conflict

With the advent of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) we once again have been accorded the opportunity to see where this formulation of policy on religious beliefs leads. On the one hand we have the State of Israel unduly influencing U.S. politics. Underlying this influence is the ostensible covenant between the God of Mosaic tradition which promised the land of Israel to the Jewish people. Aside from the fact that this tenuous connection between Jews in the 21st century and a semi-mythical figure who lived more than three thousand years ago, there are many other problems with the claim as reflected in the policy of the State of Israel.

Global War on Terror

Running alongside of this set of beliefs are those of evangelical Christians in the United States, filtered through quasi-religious works such as the Left Behind series, the Book of Zohar and a wide range of sources that really have next to nothing to do with early Christian tradition. Of equally dubious value, a wide range of Salafist, Wahabee beliefs similarly drawn from scriptural interpretation. Nationalism runs throughout all three broad paradigms and is mixed, to varying degrees, with stilted historical mish-mashes none of which hold up to much scrutiny.

Again, planning state policy on the beliefs of zealots who will not abide criticism of any form would seem a bad idea at the dawn of the 21st century.

Terrorism, Irregular Military Units: Remembering the Bashi-bazouks

The Global War on Terror has witnessed the use of a wide variety of irregular military units, mercenaries and purveyors of terror as a political tactic. None of this is anything new. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda didn’t invent terrorism nor were they the first irregular military units utilized by state agents. Also, such units are by no means limited to Islam. In the context of Israel, from a Roman perspective, the Maccabaeans were purveyors of terror…so were the Irgun and Hagganah in the eyes of the British authorities. Blackwater and other private military contractors used by Western interests in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan are cut from the same cloth. Perspective is everything.

The Ottoman Empire provides an earlier illustration in the guise of the Bashi-bazouks (Turkish başıbozuk). The Bashi-bazouks were state-sponsored military units acting in the interests of Empire. Unpaid, they relied upon pillage and plunder as their means of support. Legendary for their brutality, they were frequently used by the State as frontier police and scouts. Also, their presence and reputation often would suffice to quell unrest.

The Balkan Uprisings of the 1870s and the Depredations of Irregular Soldiers

The Balkans had been conquered by the Turks over the course of centuries. In the 14th century, beginning in the year 1352, the Turks invaded and conquered Bulgaria. Between 1371 and 1389, the Serbian Kingdom fought a series of wars against the Turks before final defeat at the battle of Smederevo in 1459. In 1453, the Ottomans had surrounded and laid siege to Constantinople before it finally fell, thus reducing Greek power in Anatolia forever. The year 1463 saw the defeat of the Bosian Stjepan Tomasevic, at the battle of Jajce. In 1468, the Albanian Prince Skenderberg is defeated and within a decade Albania is subdued. Croatian forces were obliterated at the Battle of Krbava in Lika in 1493. The Ottoman push continued into Hungary where, in the year 1526, the Hungarian King and his forces were defeated at the famous battle of Mohacs.

Bashi-Bazouks

Throughout these conquests, the irregular Bashi-bazouks were utilized and their brutality struck fear into conquered populations. In the 19th century, the long push to drive the Turks from the Balkans and Greece proceeded in phases. The Hellenic movement of the early portion of the century drew such famous combatants as Lord Byron.

In the 1870s, uprisings in Bulgaria spread rapidly across the region. The Herzegovina uprising of 1875-77 saw wide usage of the Bashi-bazouks as instruments of suppression used by the Ottomans. During what became known as the April uprising, they participated in the massacre of Batak in which 1,200 to 7.000 Bulgarians were slaughtered. A number of similar massacres perpetrated by the Bashi-bazouks occurred during the uprisings. In 1914, one of the last actions undertaken by these units occurred in the Greek city of Phocaea. Depending on the source, between 50 and 100 people were massacred. This formed part of a pattern of ethnic cleansing and genocidal practices sanctioned by the Ottoman State and perpetrated by irregular forces such as the Bashi-bazouks. These units were also utilized by the Turks during the Armenian genocide. 

No State Actor is Blameless, Terror Nothing New, Religion Bad Basis for Policy

In the on-going conflicts between East and West we should, at the very least, be aware of histories like that of the Bashi-bazouks and their Ottoman overlords. Neither Israel, the United States or any Middle Eastern State or set of interests has an exclusive right to justify brutality, genocide and state oppression of minorities based on what they view as exclusive religious or cultural rights to a region or area. Truth be told, none of them are “indigenous” to any area.

In the 21st century one would hope that we have learned that the formulation of state policy based on religious beliefs which appeared in the Bronze Age is just not a good idea. But until we make some effort to understand our histories we will be forever doomed to repeat the same mistakes, over and over again.

 

B-2 Stealth Bomber Over the Korean Peninsula

Tags

Asia, Korea, Military, Politics, President Trump

The Department of Defense (DOD) tasked a B-2 stealth bomber to conduct runs over the Korean Peninsula ahead of President Trump’s scheduled round of Pacific Rim visits slated to begin on November 6th. The President will be visiting South Korea, Japan, China, Vietnam and the Philippines. The B-2 possesses nuclear capabilities and is one of the most potent tools in the U.S. military’s arsenal. Currently, the United States has 20 operational B-2  bombers, though how many are mission capable at any one time is not certain.

Tasking a B-2 to conduct flyovers in the Korean Peninsula or in proximity is intended to send North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un a clear message: That any military aggression on the part of the North Koreans will be met with overwhelming force. This escalation, coming on the heels of exercises conducted in the peninsula last week using B-1 bomber runs, elevates concern considerably.

Escalating Deployment of US Military Assets in the Region

Last month, US Secretary of Defense, Jim Mattis, issued a warning to Pyongyang that,

“Any threat to the United States or its territories, including Guam, or our allies will be met with a massive military response, a response both effective and overwhelming.”

The Secretary also recently warned that any new testing of nuclear-capable missiles by the North Koreans may potentially be met with a military response. Rhetorical threats are accompanied by commensurate escalations in the number of deployed military assets in the peninsula and in region. In addition to the B-2 exercises, the US has also sent a total of three aircraft carriers to the area along with escort vessels.

US Seventh Fleet

At present, the United States has 39,000 military personnel in Japan and circa 23,500 in South Korea. There are additional US forces located in Australia, Thailand and the Philippines. There are also over 40,000 active-duty US military personnel stationed in Hawaii In the event of the opening of hostilities in the Korean Peninsula, the United States would be capable of rapidly putting an additional 30,000 soldiers on the ground during the first week. The Trump administration’s re-tasking of a variety of military assets to the peninsula and in proximity is cause for heightened concern.

South Korea’s Military Capabilities Reviewed

The population of South Korea stands at 50.924,172, twice that of its northern neighbor. It currently boasts an active duty military comprised of 627,500 personnel with an additional 5,202,250 on reserve status. In terms of aerial capability, South Korea has a total aircraft strength of 1,477, including 406 fighter aircraft and 448 attack aircraft. The republic also has a total helicopter strength of 709 and this includes 81 attack helicopters. In terms of armor and artillery, it possesses 2,264 tanks, 2660 armored vehicles, 1,990 self-propelled artillery units, 5,374 towed artillery pieces and 214 rocket projectors.

The naval forces of South Korea consist of 166 vessels, including one aircraft carrier (the North Koreans don’t possess any), 12 destroyers, 13 frigates, 16 corvettes and 15 submarines.

South Korean military

The economy of South Korea dwarfs that of its northern counterpart. Its labor force exceeds that of the North by far. In no uncertain terms, the South would be far more able to support a protracted military conflict than its northern opponent.

As multiple assessments have averred, within one week the air and sea power of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) would be completely neutralized–the United States and South Korea would essentially own the air and sea. US strategy has always been to hold any advance on the periphery of Seoul as more assets are rushed in and the North’s aerial capabilities are destroyed. Once that has occurred, the DPRK’s ground forces would be subject to virtual annihilation. It would be, simply put, like shooting fish in a barrel.

Nevertheless, even the most optimistic of analyses notes that tens if not hundreds of thousands of people would die.

President Trump’s Willingness to Use Korean Conflict as Distraction

As Special Counsel Mueller issues the first of what might become a series of sealed indictments in the on-going Russian Investigation, there’s room for some concern as to whether or not the administration might utilize the opening of hostilities in Korea as distraction. Of particular concern in his increasingly bellicose posturing is his apparent lack of understanding of what’s at stake.

President Donald J. Trump

Earlier this year, the President gave a speech during the course of which he showed an astounding lack of understanding of nuclear power. Specifically, the President noted,

“You know what uranium is, right? It’s this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things.”

In the absence of any evidence, the President’s repeated assertions that he has “the best words” and the “best ideas” such utterances do indeed heighten concerns considerably.

As members of Trump’s inner circle come under scrutiny of justice, might he launch the United States in to a costly conflict aimed merely to distract? His record over many decades would seem to support the assertion that his willingness to sacrifice others for his own interests is beyond question.

 

 

 

Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)

Tags

AUMF, Congress, GWOT, Law, Military, President Obama, President Trump, Presidents, Rep. Barbara Lee, War

In the wake of the deaths of four United States Army Special Forces personnel in the African Republic of Niger several weeks ago, there has begun a level of questioning around our global military involvements. With the advent of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) by the Bush Administration in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks which occurred on September 11, 2001, the military involvements of the United States, both overt and covert, accelerated and expanded exponentially. One critical piece of legislation which was passed on September 14, 2001–mere days after 9\11–was the Authorization for Use of Military Force or AUMF.

The AUMF granted the President of the United States the authority to use, “necessary and appropriate force” against the perpetrators of September 11, 2001 and “associated forces” or any of those who he determined to have “planned, authorized, committed or aided” in the orchestration of said events. In essence, this ceded war-making authority to the Executive in an unprecedented expansion of the authority of the President. President George W. Bush signed the legislation into law on September 11, 2001 in the absence of any semblance of Congressional debate or opposition. The only Representative to vote against the AUMF was Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) who repeatedly criticized the measure as ceding the power to wage war in the absence of congressional debate.

Representative Barbara Lee’s Repeated Efforts to Fight the AUMF

Courageously, Representative Lee has often been a lone voice in her efforts to repeal the AUMF. On June 29, 2017, a group of Democrats and Libertarian-oriented Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee approved Lee’s proposal to end the AUMF within 240 days. Momentum has begun to build and, the formerly sole voice in opposition, is gaining support from both sides of the aisle. Lee noted,  “Both Democrats and Republicans really understand the need to repeal this 2001 authorization.” The proposed amendment was later removed from the House agenda by the Rules Committee, but Lee’s efforts continue.

Rep. Barbara Lee, lone voice against AUMF

In an article which appeared in The Nation on June 30, 2017, Jon Rainwater, Executive Director of Peace Action, noted, ““The 2001 AUMF is the reason the U.S. has been involved in military campaigns in at least seven countries. It’s the reason we’ve allowed the war in Afghanistan to become America’s longest war. It’s the reason a whole generation has grown up not knowing a time without war,”

The recent events in Niger raise a range of questions regarding the expansive powers which allow the Executive Branch of our government to wage war, anytime and anywhere in the absence of public debate and often beyond not only public review but outside congressional scrutiny.

A Closer Look at the Authorization for Use of Military Force or AUMF

What does it say and what does it allow the President to do? Following passage of the legislation into law, the Bush Administration interpreted it as de facto Congressional authorization for the President to wage war whenever he deemed it warranted by circumstances. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) provided a listing and analysis of Presidential references in 2016. The preface to this analysis notes,

“The 2001 AUMF does not include a specified congressional reporting requirement, but states that the authorization is not intended to supersede any requirement of the War Powers Resolution, which does require congressional reporting for initial and continuing deployments of U.S. armed forces into imminent or ongoing hostilities.”

The report goes on to note that the AUMF has been invoked a total of 37 times. It further notes that its utilization spanned both the Bush and Obama Administrations, being used 18 times by President Bush and 19 times by President Obama. It is also of great import to note that the scope of the authorization is not limited solely to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but has also been employed in countries ranging from the Philippines and Georgia to Yemen and the Horn of Africa.

Curtis A. Bradley and Jack A. Goldsmith at Yale Law provide an analysis of the use of the authorization by the Obama Administration in a an article entitled “Obama’s AUMF Legacy” which appeared in August, 2016. In a clear indictment of the AUMF, the authors note,

“The transformation of the AUMF from an authorization to use force against the
9/11 perpetrators who planned an attack from Afghanistan into a protean foundation for indefinite war against an assortment of related terrorist organizations in numerous
countries is one of the most remarkable legal developments in American public law in the still-young twenty-first century.”

The notion of endless or indefinite war waged beyond congressional and public scrutiny at the discretion of whomsoever happens to sit in the Oval Office is something that, now more than ever, we should deeply question.

What is Being Done in Our Name, and Where?

The highly publicized deaths of four Special Operations soldiers in Niger several weeks ago offers an opportunity for the populace and members of Congress to question the use of military assets at the behest and sole direction of the White House.

As has come to light, the four soldiers who were killed operated under the umbrella of United States Africa Command (AFRICOM). One of six regional commands under the control of the United States’ Department of Defense, the command is relatively new. Created on February 6, 2007 by the Bush Administration. Initially subordinate to the European Command, AFRICOM achieved greater autonomy in October 2008 becoming a unified regional command. Charged with military relations and direction involving 53 African nations, the command has expanded greatly and very quickly.

African Command

Budgetary allocations are a testament to this rapid expansion: “The U.S. Africa Command transition team was budgeted for approximately $50 million in Fiscal Year 2007, and the command received $75.5 million for Fiscal Year 2008 and $310 million for Fiscal Year 2009”, as noted by Global Security. These numbers, however, should also be viewed with some level of awareness that they do not include allocations under the so-called “Black Budget” nor do they fully include potential funding streams for clandestine intelligence operations conducted by a plethora of agencies and offices.

It is very difficult to obtain precise information regarding military assets involved, as well as, the exact nature of their involvements. In 2014, the Washington Post published an article listing the nations where US military assets were on the ground, the following nations were cited; Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Nigeria, Chad, the Central African Republic or CAR, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DAR), South Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, Somalia, Eritrea and Djibouti. It should be noted that this list does not include clandestine personnel operating under the aegis and authorization of the Central Intelligence Agency nor does it take into account periodic joint operations with a variety of additional nations such as Egypt. Furthermore, clandestine operations utilizing drones or American aerial assets are not incorporated in the list.

Endless Wars Fought Beyond Public View and Congressional Scrutiny

As the aforementioned deaths of four Green Berets in the African Republic of Niger call attention to our many military involvements, the time has come to question both the scope and the spiraling costs–both human and economic–of the never-ending Global War on Terror (GWOT). How long will we, as a nation, allow this to continue?

The perpetrators of 9\11 are long dead, Al Qaeda and its affiliates have lost tens of thousands of members in combat operations from Afghanistan to Iraq and from Yemen to Syria. We are currently involved in overt military actions–let’s just call them wars–in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Kenya and Somalia….and now we can add Niger to the list. In truth, we simply do not know the full extent of our involvements as recent events highlight. The costs continue to sky-rocket and we must ask whether or not a nation that is 20 trillion dollars in debt can continue to wage apparently endless conflicts without any discernible legislative braking involved.

The GWOT, our endless wars

Perhaps most alarming of all is the alarm generated by the current inhabitants of the White House. President Trump, in the estimation and assessment of informed, rational observers, seems singularly incapable of exercising not only good judgement but measured restraint in his actions. Do we really wish to allow this President the continued, unrestrained authority to wage war anywhere at any time?

War Widow, Mountebank and a General

Tags

Military, U. S. History, U.S. Politics, Veterans

As everyone is now aware, four U.S. Army Special Forces soldiers were killed last week in the African nation of Niger. This tragedy spurred a flurry of questions as to the nature of the mission that requires the presence of over 1,000 U.S. military personnel in the first place. These questions, now being asked by increasing numbers of Congressional members in the coming weeks and months, will surely lead to yet another series of investigations. Hopefully, the questions generated by the loss of four American soldiers will bring a renewed level of scrutiny to our far-flung military operations. However, in an immediate sense, our crass and inept President’s handling of a condolence call has sparked a heated public controversy now ready to enter in to its second week.

President Donald J. Trump’s Call to Widow Myeshia Johnson

Some weeks ago, Sgt. La David Johnson was among a dozen man team of a U.S. Army Special Forces contingent supporting a thirty man unit of troops from the African Republic of Niger conducting ground operations in the country. In an ambush by ISIS-affiliated fighters, the Special Forces personnel engaged in a firefight during the course of which Sgt. Johnson and three of his fellow team members were killed.

When the story broke, it assumed national proportions. One series of questions revolved around why our President had apparently not called the Gold Star families of the soldiers who had been slain. In characteristic fashion, President Trump released a series of statements that were, as was later revealed, either misleading or wholly false. He claimed he had written letters–he hadn’t. He claimed that he had called “all or virtually all” of the families of those who lost their lives in service during the course of his Presidency. He further claimed he had issued a check for $25,000 to a Gold Star father though, as the father revealed he had yet to receive a check two weeks after the President’s claim.

Gold Star Spouse, Myeshia Johnson

But the story which has garnered the most attention is that of Sgt. Johnson’s wife, Myeshia. Twenty-four years of age and with two small children, Mrs. Johnson was en route to recover her husband’s remains. In her vehicle with Florida Congresswoman, Frederica Wilson-a family friend of long duration–when her phone rang. The call came from President Donald J. Trump. The call was intended to be a condolence call, yet it all went wrong. The President, whose lack of empathy for others, bent toward shameless self-promotion and egocentricity (it’s always all about him), and seeming inability to command nuance or sensitivity, of course botched the call horribly.

Among other misplaced comments, the President remarked about how Sgt. Johnson knew what he signed up for. What kind of asinine dip makes such a remark to a 24 year old woman with two children whose husband has just been killed in combat and who is en route to recover his body? Donald J. Trump, that’s who. As she would later note, the President couldn’t recall her husband’s name, a fact which reduced her to tears.

Trump further claimed that, unlike his predecessors, he called families of the fallen, a claim proven to also be completely false. Former Presidents Obama and Bush, notably, took thinly-veiled jabs at Trump for this and other claims during the course of the week.

Chief of Staff Kelly Further Adds Additional Injury to Insult

In an attempt to mollify those offended and deal with yet another public relations crisis created by his boss, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly took the podium for a press conference.

Kelly began by commenting that he thought, he just thought some things were still sacred, among them he noted three things;

• Women
• Gold Star Families
• Religion

Kelly, himself a Gold Star father who lost a son in Afghanistan, held some moral high ground and could claim some authority in this domain. Furthermore, he is a four-star Marine Corps General who served his country well and for many years. Yet, having drawn his virtual lines in the sand he went on to squander his authority as he attacked two women; a Gold Star wife and a U.S. Congresswoman–the later he attacked by asserting a series of claims which were subsequently proven false. He accused Congresswoman Wilson of “listening in” to Trump’s phone call. This was something, according to Kelly, no one should ever do….and then he went on to note that he was next to President Trump when he made his scurrilous call.

John Kelly, WH Chief of Staff

That a four-star Marine Corps General would debase himself on behalf of our draft-dodging, mountebank of a President is deeply troubling. The lying is unprecedented, the debasement of high office, unacceptable.

The scenario is typical: Make a Statement, Lie to Cover it, Attack those who Question. This is the modus operandi in the Trump White House.

The Mountebank in Charge Doubles Down

Amid the public furor that his ineptitude and crassness has unleashed, Trump doubles down. He went on to attack Congresswoman Wilson repeatedly, disputing her accounts of his so-called condolence call. When the Mrs. Johnson corroborated Congresswoman Wilson’s version of the call he went on to basically call her a liar.

Now, a young grieving widow, the wife of an American soldier who lost his life in service to country has to–on top of everything else–deal with the Commander-in-Chief calling her a liar. This is life in Trumpistan. If you are okay with your President’s conduct it’s surely time to check yourself.

 

Real War Heroes and Faux Patriots

Tags

John McCain, U. S. History, U.S. Politics, War

In a C-Span Interview which aired on Sunday evening, Senator John McCain took a long-overdue jab at President Donald J. Trump’s evasion of military service during the Vietnam War. McCain is the son of and grandson of four star admirals in the United States Navy. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1958. He went on to complete his flight training and qualified as a combat pilot.

Combat Duty and Captivity in Vietnam

In 1967, McCain requested a combat assignment and served aboard the USS. Forrestal. On July 29, 1967 there was a fire aboard the vessel which caused a massive explosion. Lieutenant Commander McCain was in close proximity to the blast and was wounded in the legs and chest by shrapnel. When the blast occurred, he had been trying to assist another pilot’s extraction from a burning aircraft. For this act of valor, he was decorated, receiving a Bronze Star and Navy Commendation Medal.

Captain McCain, war hero

With the Forrestal out of commission, McCain volunteered for assignment aboard the USS Oriskany, an aircraft carrier participating in Operation Rolling Thunder. During the course of his twenty-third bombing mission over North Vietnam on October 26, 2017 Lieutenant Commander McCain was shot down and captured by enemy forces. He had been severely wounded when he crashed and the two American POWs who shared a cell with him during the initial stage of his captivity later said they had not expected him to live through the week.

Upon discovering that McCain was the son of a high-ranking U.S. military commander, the North Vietnamese decided to administer medical care, keeping him alive for later potential propaganda use. In March of 1968 he was placed in solitary confinement, where he would remain for over two years. During his captivity, he was tortured repeatedly. When offered early release for propaganda purposes, McCain refused to leave his comrades-in-arms behind and opted to remain a POW.

In March of 1973, after five years as a prisoner-of-war, McCain was released by the North Vietnamese. His wartime injuries left him permanently disabled, though he remained a Naval Officer until 1981 when he retired from service. In every sense of the word, Captain McCain was and remains a true American hero.

President Trump’s Continual Maligning of Senator McCain

Infamously, while Trump was on the campaign trail he noted, in reference to Senator McCain, that he preferred soldiers who didn’t get captured. Rightfully, veterans around the country were filled with rage over the remark. McCain gave over 20 years of life in service to country, was decorated for his service, and suffered terribly during the war. The son and grandson of war veterans, he haled from a family where service and sacrifice were synonymous.

Trumps, Family of Draft Dodgers

In contradistinction, our current Commander-in-Chief comes from a very different family. His grandfather, Friedrich Trump, returned to his native Germany in 1905 and attempted to reinstate his German citizenship after having been absent in the United States for a number of years. His petition was denied and he was given eight weeks to leave the country or be deported. The reason for this forced departure? Friedrich had previously evaded mandatory military service and had fled to the United States.

Our current President’s father, Fred Trump, was hauled before Congress during the WWII era and questioned for profiteering in the provision of housing for combat veterans at his Beach Haven properties. In what may now truly be deemed a family tradition, Fred also evaded military service–of course. He did, however, net a cool 1.7 million dollars plus additional commissions and fees for his epic real estate profiteering scam during the war. He also availed himself of an additional 3.7 million in federal loans. President Eisenhower referred to Trump and his ilk, specifically, as “sons of a bitches”. 

President Trump has continually maligned Senator McCain. Think about it: On the one hand you have a family of generational draft-dodgers of who recognize no apparent ethical or moral standards of conduct. On the other hand, a family of those who have given their lives in service. Trump has no business questioning the patriotism of Senator McCain, period, and every single veteran in this great country should reject and revile Trump’s comments.

In the Family Tradition, Trump Sat and Talked While Others Served

Carrying on a grand family tradition of ducking service to country, young Donald Trump took four draft deferments during the Vietnam War before finally getting an exemption from service for bone spurs. His bone spurs didn’t stop him from participating heavily in a variety of athletic activities while at University. Now, many have noted that it was a common practice for sons of the wealthy to obtain exemptions from service during Vietnam, which is true. Yet, how many of those so exempted from service have gone on to lecture real war heroes about the meaning of service?

Fred Trump, war profiteer

The perfect illustration of just how big of a scum-bag our current President is in this domain is the remarks he made in an interview noting that sex during the eighties represented his “personal Vietnam”.  What more revealing look into what a scurrilous cad he really is might one require?

President Trump’s attacks upon a number of Gold Star families who have called him out for his dishonorable conduct and his treatment of them. Could there possibly be a Commander-in-Chief less worthy of our collective respect than Donald J. Trump?

The Enormous Restraint of Senator McCain in the Face of a True Cowardice

Imagine what it must take for Senator McCain to sit and take the crap our current President has dished out. Imagine. The current, spineless ruffian inhabiting the Oval Office demeans the sacrifice of soldiers and veterans with every breath he draws. His presence before us is an insult and he has no moral or ethical authority to lecture any of us who have served and sacrificed.

This past week, Trump was at it again. In the same vein, he mishandled a call to the wife of a Special Forces soldier who lost his life in Niger. It would be almost impossible to envision a more ham-handed and crass handling of a call to a war widow than that made by our current President. In the wake of what many saw as, at best, a very poor handling of a condolence call, Trump lacked even that modicum of decency and that measure of propriety which should have resulted in an apology. He couldn’t even muster up the personal courage for that.

In the most direct of responses yet, McCain remarked in the aforementioned C-Span interview,

“One aspect of the conflict, by the way, that I will never ever countenance is that we drafted the lowest-income level of America, and the highest-income level found a doctor that would say that they had a bone spur…”

Good for you, Senator McCain, good for you! The enormous restraint it must take for the Senator to not eviscerate our current Commander-in-Chief is a thing at which we should marvel.

None of us should take the faux patriotism of the Trump clan seriously. Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump stand alongside Jared Kushner as proud bearers of a vaunted family tradition; cowardice and the avoidance of service to country. Fine, do what you do. Here’s the thing, when you come from a family of cowardly sons-of-bitches who opt not to serve you don’t get to lecture those of us who have, period. Trump, like his father and grandfather before him is, in the words of Ike, a son-of-a-bitch.

Armed Conflict and Sowing Fear as Diversion

Tags

Donald Trump, Kim Jong-Un, Militarism, North Korea, US politics, War

It’s one of the oldest tricks in the political playbook and one that, given its repeated use by political figures the world over time out of mind, should at least merit questioning. In times of domestic unrest and dissent the political leadership of nations posit imminent external threats which require a military response. Nothing unites nations and populations more effectively than the specter of an external evil incarnate.

External Threats, Real or Imagined

The Bush Administration utilized this proven trope very effectively during the course of the Global War on Terror. There were many problems and flaws in the lead up to the invasions of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003). among them;

• That we invaded Afghanistan to exact vengeance upon the purported perpetrators of September 11, 2001 who flew commercial aircraft into New York’s Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Yet, insufficient military assets were committed to the task resulting in the successful escape of bin Laden into Pakistan where, despite the biggest manhunt in the history of the world conducted by the most complex and sophisticated intelligence apparatus ever seen, he managed to hide in plain sight for a decade.
• A plethora of shoddy pretexts for the invasion of Iraq, but principally the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, never verified, and that leader’s sinister development of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which were never found despite frenzied and far-flung efforts on the part of the American and allied forces to locate them in the wake of the US-led invasion.
• The multiple and problematic stories presented by the flawed evidence of what really transpired on 9-11.
• On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld had announced that 2.3 trillion dollars had gone missing from the Department of Defense’s coffers.
• The over-arching assertion that the forces of Radical Islam’s would, somehow and in spite of any compelling evidence, manage to invade the Continental United States and topple our government.
• That the Project for a New American Century, AIPAC affiliates and a range of Neo-Conservative organizations and individuals and manufactured a series of dire threats to our National Security which required a military response yet considerable evidence existed that such a conflict was–and remains–more in the interests of the State of Israel than of the United States.

In spite of a rather damning corpus of evidence supporting the position that fighting a far-flung “Global War on Terror” served the national interests of Israel, in primary position, and the Kingdom of Saudia Arabia, the U.S. populace allowed itself to be led by its political leadership into a series of conflicts spanning nearly two decades at an unsupportable cost in lives and fiscal outlays. Nearly 8,000 American soldiers have been killed and another 80,000 wounded at a cost exceeding 4 trillion dollars. Wars manufactured upon flimsy or non-existent evidence fought against peoples who posed no existential threat to the United States of America. The “War on Terror” in the final analysis has cost the US dearly. It remains a global conflict fought on behalf of Zionist interests and not those of our nation. Wars of distraction and not of substance, fought in the shadows with no discernible end in sight.

Bush Declares War in Iraq

The Bush Administration utilized an ostensibly imminent external threat to galvanize public opinion and distract from the population of the United States from far more cogent internal social threats…and it worked splendidly.

Kim Jong-Un, a New Existential Threat to the United States

As the Global War on Terror grinds on its seventeenth year it has lost some of its allure amid growing criticisms from both ends of the political spectrum. The Trump Administration, faced with mounting scrutiny of its Russian involvements, fiscal malfeasance, Nepotism and widespread systemic corruption, is positioning itself to yet again deploy this same old trick. This time around, the immediate, ostensible threat is posed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and its leader, Kim Jong-Un.

There’s no doubt that Kim is a megalomaniac or that he is the spoiled scion of a family that has ruled North Korea for several generations under the heavy veil of propaganda and tight, repressive and centralized control. North Korea is a totalitarian regime. It’s a repressive regime mobilized largely behind the need to resist, militarily, Yankee and western imperial designs. But does the DPRK pose a tangible, existential threat to the United States of America? Well, that’s another matter altogether.

An Examination or Threat Assessment: DPRK vs. The United States

First of all, the population of the DPRK stands at just over 25 million people versus the United States with its population of over 316 million. The GDP of the DPRK stands at $12.38 billion while that of the United States was $18.57 trillion in 2016. The United States has a nuclear arsenal of over 6800 warheads whereas North Korea is still seeking to develop its first. In terms of naval forces, the United States has eleven Air Force carriers, North Korea possesses none. Comparing US Naval power against that of North Korea is like pondering who might be victorious in a matched combat between a bunny rabbit (DPRK) and a bear (the USA).

North Korean Military

The US Navy, in addition to its eleven active aircraft carriers also has one in reserve and two more under construction.  There are over 322,000 active Navy personnel with an additional more than 107,000 Reservists. With over 3,700 combat aircraft and 276 deployable combat vessels. The US Navy alone, as it stands, dwarfs any other Naval force on the planet.  The Naval Forces of the DPRK, by contrast, consist of less than 1,000 vessels and 80% of those are gunboats. It possesses no aircraft carriers and approximately 80 submarines, though the vast majority are antiquated and no match for US counterparts. A shooting match between the two Naval forces would be about as one-sided as one-sided gets.

The DPRK has a total of 945,000 active duty military personnel, with an additional 5.5 million in its various reserve components. It possesses a total of 944 military aircraft among them 458 attack aircraft. It possesses 5,025 combat tanks, over 4,000 armored vehicles and over 6,000 artillery pieces, towed and self-propelled.

On paper, a formidable force indeed formed of a population that has been thoroughly indoctrinated to fight against the United States behind the cult of the semi-divine leader. There’s no question that they would put up a formidable fight.

Nonetheless, there’s really no question that US and South Korean forces would prevail in a conflict and while heavy losses would be felt on both sides no independent analysis of status of forces proposes that the DPRK would prevail. The North simply lacks the capacity to fight a protracted conflict. After the first month, the DPRK’s air force, by all assessments, would cease to exist as a viable fighting element as would its naval forces. Open to repeated US and allied sorties against ground forces spread over a rather small area, North Korean ground forces would be pummeled and decimated. Their equipment is antiquated and they lack reliable fuel sources. After inflicting heavy initial losses against South Korean and US forces the DPRK would, simply put, be largely destroyed.

Enter President Donald J. Trump Amid a Mounting Chorus of Domestic Woes

As mentioned above, war as diversion is one of the oldest political ploys in the playbook. Most of his major campaign promises have not been met, including; the repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), building a southern border wall and getting Mexico to pay for it, locking up Hillary Clinton and “draining the swamp” (he just stocked it with bigger gators) and putting an end to military adventurism in the Middle East. On the last of these counts he railed for years against US involvement in Afghanistan—and is now escalating US involvement.

He has dismissed or fired more senior cabinet officials than any Presidential Administration in US history during his first year in office and many of those under a cloud of scandal–with more seemingly in the works. Scandal after scandal has rocked his administration and as Special Prosecutor Mueller’s team seems to imply, it has only just begun. Amid brash displays of nepotism and cronyism on the grandest of scales what is needed is a distraction–a good one.

Daily, we are warned of the North Korean threat. That a tiny nation with limited capabilities will fire an ICBM at San Francisco or Los Angeles or Seattle. That perhaps, against every empirical assessment, the North Koreans will, somehow, manage to seriously attack the United States. Aside from the simple fact that even a bombastic, spoiled and insulated megalomaniac like Kim Jong-Un would just have to know that doing so would result in certain destruction the notion is as ludicrous as the Bush assertion that Saddam Hussein might attack us in 2002. Ludicrous.

Is there any doubt in anyone’s mind, however, that when it comes to a choice between letting Jared Kushner, Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr. come under criminal indictment or, worse yet, criminal indictment himself, that Donald Trump will hesitate to launch us into a conflict with North Korea? At a minimum and in spite of the fact that we would ultimately prevail, such a war would cost trillions and tens of thousands of American lives not to mention perhaps the lives of a million South Koreans. Is there any question in anyone’s mind that our current President would undertake such a venture to distract us from his transgressions and those of his progeny? For anyone watching there’s really no question. Of course he would.

Donald J. Trump

Every morning I wake up wondering if today will be the day when I turn on the news to the specter of war in the Korean Peninsula. Make no mistake it will be nothing more than a war of distraction and millions will pay the cost…just not our President and his family.

 

 

D-Day the Mayor of London and Donald J. Trump

Tags

D-Day, Trump, United Kingdom, Veterans

On June 6th, 1944 more than 160,000 allied troops landed across a 50 mile stretch on the beaches of Normandy in northwestern France. Casualties among allied forces exceeded 10,000 on the first day. For many American, British and Canadian families we can look back to family members who either participated directly in the Normandy landing or who followed after the beach head had been established. The fight against Fascism from that day forward continued to be costly–millions died.

But such verbal family histories passed on by our fathers and grandfathers are absent from the annals of the family of our current Commander-in-Chief. Fred Trump, our President’s father, sat out World War II. His record of war service was marked by profiteering vis-a-vis the building of Naval barracks and off-base housing for Navy personnel. He would later be called before a Senate Investigation on his practices. Folk icon Woody Guthrie, who rented from Fred Trump from 1950 forward, wrote lyrics about his landlord’s abhorrent practices and his stirring up of racial hatreds.

It would seem evading military service is a family tradition. Our President’s grandfather fled Germany to avoid service, his father engaged in war profiteering. The President himself took five draft deferments during Vietnam before finally getting a medical exemption for bone spurs–while playing college sports–and none of his sons, in keeping with family tradition, have served in our family. Evading service to country is a family tradition, it would seem.

D-Day, June 6. 1944

Great Britain Our Closest Ally

Over this past weekend several Muslim extremists attacked passersby on London Bridge, killing seven and injuring nearly fifty more. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, came out in the wake of the attack and noted that, in response, there would be a markedly increased presence in London and that people should not be alarmed.

Of course our President, on the eve of D-Day, thought it best to attack the Mayor of London by ripping his remark out of context purely for his own political gain. Our Presidents remarks sparked anger and consternation among many in Great Britain, but also across Europe and here in the United States. Many in Britain began openly discussing rescinding an invitation for a State visit extended to our President earlier on.

So, here we stand on the eve of the Battle of Normandy and our Commander-in-Chief, whose family has made dodging military service a tradition, stands before the nation attacking the Mayor of the largest city of our closest ally.

I don’t even know what to say to that, in truth. For every American family with members who served in WWII the time has come to ask ourselves whether or not having a President from a family who has not contributed a single member to the national defense for four generations running is really the best spokesman for our nation.

 

Misplaced Priorities, Syria and Mexico

Tags

Ike, Mexico, Military-Industrial Complex, Syria

Geopolitical understanding can be an onerous proposition. First of all, it requires a basic knowledge of geography and politics, which rules out at least half of the population of the United States. This is to say nothing of a secondary set of considerations such as an ability to understand other languages and world history, but that would most certainly represent a Dickensian Great Expectation that would be too much to ask.

In the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War” an exchange takes place between a CIA Case Officer and his superior during the course of which the character shouts, “because it’s a pretty good fucking idea to know the languages of the people we’re spying on”. The Case Officer’s character was based upon a real-life Case Officer by the name of Gustav Lascaris “Gust” Avrakotos.

What the film doesn’t convey is the rest of Avrakotos’s story. During the lead up to the arms-for-hostages deal between Israel, Iran and the United States orchestrated by Oliver North, Bud McFarlane and members of the National Security Council which would become known to the world as Iran-Contra, Avrakotos sought to forewarn his superior, Clair George, that the arms trade was a disaster in the making. For his dissent within the agency he was demoted to a meaningless position. Nevertheless, his role in tactics and strategic planning for the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan successfully led to the defeat of the Soviet Union, as depicted in the aforementioned film.

The scene encapsulates one salient aspect of our national dilemma: The savvy, multilingual and real-world Avrakotos, stymied by his superior–an ill-tutored, ass-kissing career bureaucrat–reflects our quandary nicely. Unquestioning and inept cogs who know next-to-nothing about how the world works rule the roost and the spew du jour emanating from the apex of power determines courses of action.

Ike’s Forewarning of the Perils of the Military-Industrial Complex

In his farewell address to the nation, delivered on January 20, 1961, President Dwight D. “Ike” Eisenhower warned that the greatest threat to the nation resided not necessarily with an exterior foe, but with the internal menace of undue power and influence accrued by what he referred to as “the military-industrial complex”, though he did recognize the potential threat posed by the Soviet Union. Specifically, he stated,

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

     Ike was right. The vast military-industrial complex requires a state of perpetual conflict, ceaseless war: This requires enemies, both foreign and domestic, so that it may continue to reap colossal profits. If a threat to our national security doesn’t exist–a viable, real threat-it becomes necessary to invent one.

From 1945 to the closing of the 1980s and the fall of the USSR and as the ebbing of the threat posed by Communist insurgencies faded, the war profiteers needed a new enemy in order to continue what that they had been doing since the defeat of Nazi Germany and throughout the Cold War era. Enter, radical Islam and the purportedly vast jihadist threat it posed. The vast machinery which had been erected over the course of decades churned into action, shifting the emphasis from Hammer and Sickle to the the Crescent Moon of Islam and the Black Banners of Salafist rebellion.

Accomplishing national shifts in global perspectives and orientation becomes a relatively easy task in a society that expends 54% of its discretionary budget on defense and Intelligence resources. Reminiscent of an Orwellian mind-set, Islam became our enemy and Muslims the focus of national enmity. In a society wherein half the population knows next to nothing about the cultures, languages, geography or history of the world and its peoples, realities can be crafted, packaged and disseminated on short notice. It becomes a fait accompli that such a populace can actually be convinced that 30,000 Bedouin, lacking an Air Force, Navy or anything resembling a modern military force present an imminent threat to the United States of America.

And so it has come to pass that the United States has managed to mire itself in a quagmire from which there is–they assure us–no extrication: Perpetual war across the length and breadth of the Middle East. Our two greatest strategic allies, Israel and Saudia Arabia, agree on nothing and the latter is the avowed funder of Wahabeeist, Radical Islam. So, of course, Realpolitik dictates that we should do what? Why continue to give an autocratic, Imperial power hundreds of millions per year in financial backing cos, you know, they are helping to defend the values of a civil, democratic society. The astonishing thing is that a goodly section of the American population actually buys this horseshit.

Misplaced Resources and Priorities: Syria vs. Mexico

First, let’s consider some statistical considerations:  The population of Syria is 18.5 million, that of Mexico 127 million. An estimated 34.6 million people of Mexican descent reside in the United States while there are less than 200,000 Syrian-Americans in the country. Mexico is our second-largest trading partner. Syria is not in the top thirty. We share a border with Mexico that is almost two hundred miles in length while Syria is more than 5,000 miles away. Despite the nonsense emanating from the Trump Administration, depicting a vast annual influx of illegal immigrants from the Federal Republic of Mexico, the Department of Homeland Security and multiple private sources indicate that immigration stands at a functional zero.

In a recent report from the The International Institute for Strategic Studies says that Syria was the most violent country in the world in 2016 while Mexico fell in second place with over 23,000 violent deaths during the year. The violence in Mexico is largely attributable to drug cartels.

Drug Violence in Mexico

Yet in spite of every consideration that should yield a conclusion which would drive the United States to fund efforts to ensure stability in Mexico over Syria we continue to dump millions of dollars per day into the civil war in Syria. And a good section of the nation continues to chant “build that wall”. How is what we are doing in our national interest? Let’s take care of the problems in our own backyard, first. Political and social stability in the Federal Republic of Mexico is far more important.

See this scenario in real-time for what it is.