Showing posts with label defense policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label defense policy. Show all posts

Thursday, June 16, 2016

JV Team...

...yes, I don't think just saying the words "radical Islamisc terrorism" does anything to stop these thugs, brigands, thieves and murderers who cloak themselves in the cloth of one of the three great Abramhamic religions...but, at least Obama (and others in power) should at least acknowledge that such a thing does actually exist, that it is a threat to America and that we need to do something about it.

Friday, June 3, 2016

HRC Goes After Trump In Foreign Policy Speech

I'm of two minds on Hillary Clinton's foreign policy speech eviserceration of Donald Trump Thursday in California....for what its' worth, it was a well-versed, cogent and frank speech detailing the threat that Trump would pose not just to America but for the rest of world and as much as I don't care for Hillary Clinton, I'll give her props on the speech: it was a damn good speech.

On the other hand, given, (a) some of her foreign policy failures and (b) the contiuning email server scandal, she's almost in no place to complain about Donald Trump.

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Donald Trump Calls Geneva Protections "The Problem"

.....does he realize what a target he's putting on the American military with those kind of words?
Donald Trump believes American troops are afraid to fight for fear of violating the Geneva Conventions, he said Wednesday.
“The problem is we have the Geneva Conventions, all sorts of rules and regulations, so the soldiers are afraid to fight,” Trump said at an afternoon town hall during remarks on torture.
“We can’t waterboard, but they can chop off heads,” Trump said, referring to the United States and the Islamic State, respectively. “I think we’ve got to make some changes, some adjustments.”
The Geneva Conventions, adopted broadly after World War II, govern the treatment of civilians and prisoners of war — including a ban on torture and summary executions. They mirror rules the U.S. adopted in 1882.
Trump has called for changing laws that govern interrogation techniques to “bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.” Trump has also previously said that American troops would not disobey him if he gave them illegal orders, but he later walked that remark back.
A campaign spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday’s remarks. (Politico)
Now, there's two big reasons why the Donald here is way out in Bizarro World here: (1) With few exceptions - remember Allen West's actions in Iraq c.2004? - American soldiers are taught explicitly not to lower themselves to the level of their enemies in their actions; in Sean Flynn's The Fighting 69th, there's an ancedote from the 1-69ths' time in Iraq when, following a series of IED blasts along the Baghdad Airport Road, the battalion's commander, then-LTC Geoffrey Slack, reminds his troops that they're Americans and that, no matter what the enemy does against them, they're not to stoop down to the enemy's level of fighting. "Always maintain the moral high ground" was the cruz of Slack's words to them. Now, there's one other reason that America upholds the Geneva Conventions and that is that when we are engaged in wars - of any kind - we must always maintain, as Col. Slack told his charges, the moral high ground....even when the enemy, as Trump so blithely puts it, "chops off their heads".

Someone should remind Mr. Trump that we're Americans....we don't torture, period. To do so would be a grave violation of everything Americans hold so damn dear.

Thursday, December 10, 2015

Rand Paul: Let's Destroy ISIS, Not The Constitution

Say whatever you want about Kentucky's junior senator, but he's right about one thing: what good does it do to go after and destroy ISIS if, in the process, we destroy the Constitution? The problem is, how do you do that? While I still don't see Rand Paul getting anywhere close to the GOP nomination in 2016, it would make sense for the eventual nominee, should they win the White House, to take some advice from Sen. Paul once in a while.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Question For The Obama Dumbasses....

Following the attacks in Paris this past Friday, the French military bombed numerous targets in Syria....including a command-control center in the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa. Question to the dumbasses on the Left: We've been bombing them - supposedly - for months now....why do they still have a freakin' command/control center for the French to bomb?

H/T to Gay Patriot

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Terror's Progressive Accomplices

There's a great article over at the Patriot Post on the Paris attacks and the feckless attitude of the Obama Administration towards America's place in the world - and the resulting power vacuum that came by our withdrawing from the world - and FWIW, Arnold Ahlert hits it square on the head.

I'll go one step further: what we are facing in the West isn't just a fight against violent extremism or against radical Islam....what we are facing in the West is a civilizational war in which there is going to be no middle ground, there no neutrals. Its' a fight that frankly, I don't think Obama & Company have the stomach for because if they actually gave a damn about America, they'd realize their whole strategy towards the Middle East these past 6 years was wrong, it was weak and its' frankly not working; we've thrown long-time allies under the bus, refused to lend even moral support to those seeking freedom and overall shown a weakness that one didn't even think America could show.

All on the progressive left. All. That.

Friday, November 6, 2015

Senate Democrats Mount Yet Another Filibuster Of Defense Bill

Why do Democrats hate the American military?
Senate Democrats launched a third consecutive filibuster of the bipartisan defense appropriations bill yesterday, once again blocking consideration of legislation that would fund the United States military and pay members of our armed forces. (Townhall)
And the reason? Partisan politics, of course...
(...) the ostensible reason that Democrats have engaged in this obstruction over recent months -- which also entailed filibustering the Veterans Affairs appropriations bill -- was to exploit the troops and veterans as leverage to force Republicans to agree to higher federal spending on unrelated matters. It was a cynical play, but thanks in part to President Obama's hyper-partisan veto, it worked. Leadership in both houses huddled together and hammered out a noxious budget deal that raised spending caps on both defense and domestic discretionary spending, relying on gimmicks to "pay for" the increased outlays. (Townhall)
A little background: a few weeks ago, just before Speaker Boehner left, Congress passes a budget that fully funds the government through March 2017 or thereabouts; part of the budget deal was a $40 billion increase in budget caps for both defense & non-defense budget items. Now, given the state of the U.S. military at present, that was a necessary evil, but now, the Democrats' won't even allow the bill authorizing the military's spending under the budget agreement to go through.

Like I said earlier, why does the Democrat Party hate our military? Why?

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

U.S., Iran Reach Nuclear Deal

Maybe its' just me, but the more that I read about this deal, the less I'm liking the terms of it...
A landmark Iran nuclear agreement was reached Tuesday after clearing final obstacles.
Senior diplomats involved in the talks in Vienna confirmed via Twitter that a deal had been reached, but they did not provide any of the details, pending a news conference to announce the agreement.
A senior diplomat said earlier that it includes a compromise between Washington and Tehran that would allow U.N. inspectors to press for visits to Iranian military sites as part of their monitoring duties.
Access at will to any site would not necessarily be granted and even if so, could be delayed, a condition that critics of the deal are sure to seize on as possibly giving Tehran time to cover any sign of non-compliance with its commitments.
Under the deal, which European officials were expected to announce in Vienna, Tehran would have the right to challenge the U.N request and an arbitration board composed of Iran and the six world powers that negotiated with it would have to decide on the issue. (CBS News)
Form what I've read, this deal sucks on many
  • Advance notification of inspections must be given to Iranian officials before said inspections can occur
  • No renunciation by Iran in regards to support for terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthi rebels in Yemen and other groups
  • No dismantling of Iran's military nuclear program
  • 10 year time limit on the deal...yeah, that's right: 10 years from now, Iran can ramp its' program back up, irrespective of what the IAEA or other groups decide
So what are the ramifications?
  • For starters, don't be surprised if Iran, once they receive the $100-$150 billion in foreign monies due them (the amount differs based on various reports), spend that money on a multitude of nefarious items, from assisting terrorist organizations to buying military arms on the open market to continuing their dominance of next-door neighbor Iraq, etc.
  • Then there's the "Odd Couple" alliance of Israel & Saudi Arabia...yeah, that's right: this deal's so bad that it may very well draw two of the more powerful opposing sides together in an 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' kind of alliance
  • There's also, continuing the previous thought, the potential for a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race as countries across the region arm up to counter Iran's ambitions in the region
Somewhere, in the Annals of History, Neville Chamberlain must be shaking his head and going, "And people accuse me of appeasement?!?"

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Should America Be The World's Policeman?

Quoting Prager University: Should America be the world's policeman? Does the world even need a policeman? Or would humanity be better off if America weren't the dominant military superpower? Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and foreign affairs expert Bret Stephens weighs in.

Ever since the end of World War II, this has been a hotly-contested question...unfortunately, whether we like it or not, the only country that can really play the role of global policeman is the United States, which means that whenever we retreat from the world, evil does have a tendency to advance, whether we care to admit it or not. 

There are going to be times where the United States must play the global policeman, whether we like it or not...the sooner we acknowledge and embrace this, the idea of "Pax Americana", the better off the world will be in the long run.

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Streiff Is An Idiot

Past ".... is an idiot" posts:
Today's installment of " an idiot" goes to a RedState writer named Streiff who recently wrote a hit piece on the Pentagon and the seeming "corruption" of the U.S. Army. First, a little background: earlier this week the Pentagon held a Gay Pride Event; one of the attendees' was a 1-star Army general, who introduced his husband at the event. This, of course, offended the delicate sensibilities of social conservatives, who are still under the illusion that LGBT individuals shouldn't serve in the military whatsoever....but Streiff took it a step further; here's what he wrote that earns him the "Is An Idiot" award...quoting:
The issue in both these cases is not the sexual preference of the officers but the fact that they entered on active duty at a time when it was against Army regulations — and illegal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice — to engage in homosexual activity. This is what is known as a fraudulent appointment. It is actually a federal crime. They accepted a salary under false pretenses. Any punishments they awarded are illegal because they held their commissions illegally. The Army is now honoring them as some sort of hero — General Smith says her promotion is about “upholding Army values” which, at some point after I left, were expanded to include lying and deceit. At a minimum, neither of these officers should have been promoted because they are self-confessed and unrepentant liars.(RedState)
See the key part above? Assuming that B.Gen. Taylor entered the Army in the late 80's, what Streiff is essentially saying here is that, by serving their country honorably without concern over their sexual orientation, they're also violating the very oaths they've sworn to defend. This kind of logic makes absolutely no fucking sense...I mean, seriously, Streiff, where's the evidence at hand above? The question he posits is a no-win question that does nothing....if Taylor answers one way, he's screwed by the system, if he answers the other way, he's screwed for lying to the authorities. In other words, its' a gotcha' question that serves no purpose in this day & age....

...but where he really earns the idiot sobriquet is in insinuating the the United States military needs to be purged of its' LGBT servicemembers for no other reason than their sexual orientation...uhmm, Mr. Streiff, we've been down that road and we ain't going back, sir. The U.S. military, by most accounts, is still the most professional organization in the country and one reason it is so is the professionalism, honor and service of its' members. Even when they do things that defy logic and common sense, they're still far more professional than America sometimes deserves and one of the reasons for that professionalism is the apolitical nature of the military; they don't take sides in political debates (nor should they)...they simply carry out the orders of the civilian leadership in power, irrespective of who leads the country. To suggest that they do otherwise, as Mr. Streiff suggests they do, is frankly an insult to not only the men & women currently serving, but to all those who've served..., Mr. Streiff,'s your sign, you stupid-ass sonuvabitch!

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Fall Of Ramadi Reflects Failure Of Iraqi - And Current U.S. - Strategy Against ISIS

When one looks back at the Iraq War, one of the major turning points in that conflict - besides the Surge itself - was something known as the Anbar Awakening, when the region's Sunni population - tired of being oppressed by insurgents, turned and joined forces with the U.S.-led coalition, eventually turning things around to where, by the end of U.S. involvement in Iraq, was actually one of the quieter regions w/in Iraq...unfortunately, things aren't looking so good now:
As Islamic State militants repeatedly attacked Ramadi this year, police solicited cash from local families and businessmen to buy weapons, one officer recalled. The Iraqi government didn’t pay the police for months, he said. “We begged and begged for more support from the government, but nothing,” said Col. Eissa al-Alwani, a senior police officer in the city.
The fall of Ramadi amounts to more than the loss of a major city in Iraq’s largest province, analysts say. It could undermine Sunni support for Iraq’s broader effort to drive back the Islamic State, vastly complicating the war effort.
Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi on Tuesday reiterated a government pledge to train and arm Sunni fighters to rout the extremists from the predominantly Sunni province. The government had announced a military campaign that envisioned taking back Anbar province in the coming months and then moving on for a climactic battle with the extremists in Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city.
But the plan to form an effective Sunni fighting force was slow to take shape, hobbled by government concerns that some of the Sunnis might be close to the Islamic State, analysts say.
Now, with Ramadi being overrun, many of the Sunni tribal leaders and fighters who might have helped the government in Anbar have been killed or have fled to other parts of the country, analysts say.
“The plan is looking like a failure,” said Ihsan al-Shamari, a political analyst who lives in Baghdad. “Now the Sunnis are even more suspicious of the government, and now it will be even harder to get them to cooperate with a political system that they already deeply distrusted.” (Washington Post)
So what happened here? A combination of things:

  • Leaving Iraq as we did back at the end of 2011 (though to be fair, we should've never been there in the first place, but that's another conversation for another day)
  • Allowing the Shia' led Baghdad government to effectively freeze out the Sunni tribes w/in Anbar Province, giving them no way to work w/the government and all-but-pushing them into the hands of Islamist radicals
  • Continued suspicions from Baghdad towards the Sunni community which fed into the previous point; although there had been instances where Iraqi weapons supplies had fallen into insurgent hands prior to the rise of ISIS, most of the Sunni tribes in the region continued to remain loyal to the central government
So what can we do? Right now, not a whole lot: no one wants to see U.S. ground forces go back into Iraq, yet at the same time, no one wants to see the region fall even further into other words, its' turning into one big mess in front of our eyes.

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Cheney Speaks Truthful Words On Pres. Obama

As much as I used to slag on Dick Cheney back when I was a dirty, stinking progressive, I still had a modicum of respect for my political opponents...but one thing I've noticed since leaving that den of shameful iniquity known as the Deluded Left is that - among other things - conservatives are far more honest about the world we live in than does the Left. Case in point: Cheney's comments to Hugh Hewill yesterday on Hewitt's radio show:
CHENEY: Well it starts from a flawed presumption on Obama's part. For most of the last 70 years since World War II, we've had a bipartisan record in this country between Democrat and Republican. Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, the Bush’s believed America had to play a leading role in the world and needs to maintain first class military capability to do that and occasionally use it. That the world works best with U.S. leadership. The first president, really, who doesn't -- no longer believe that fundamental truth is Barack Obama.
HEWITT: Is he naive, Mr. Vice President? Or does he have a far reaching vision that only he entertains of a realigned Middle East. That somehow it all works out in the end.
CHENEY: I don't know Hugh. I vacillate between the various theories I've heard. If you had somebody who, as president -- who wanted to take America down. Who wanted to fundamentally weaken our position in the world, reduce our capacity to influence events. Turn our back on our allies and encourage our enemies, it would look exactly like what Barack Obama is doing. I think his actions are constituted in my mind are those of the worst president we’ve ever had.(Ace of Spades)
Now think about Mr. Cheney's words there....from the end of World War II to the election of Barack Obama, there was an unwritten code amongst both political parties, Democrats & Republicans, that America had a duty to play a leading role in the world's affairs, that it could no longer retreat within a shell of naive isolationism and that the world was much safer with America at the fore than with America weak. Unfortunately, someone forgot to give Barack Obama that message and on that point, Cheney's dead-to-rights correct: we have one of the worst presidents in American wonder the rest of the world looks at us as they do; if you saw how weak and vacillating the Anointed One can be at times, you'd look at America too and wonder what is wrong with the American body politic...

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Iran & The Bomb

Many countries have nuclear weapons, and many more want them. Only one, though, has its neighbors and the world terrified. That country is Iran. Why is everyone so concerned? Because the Islamic theocracy has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel, sponsors global terrorism, and would leverage the deterrence effect of a nuclear weapon to advance their anti-Western and anti-American interests. Bret Stephens, foreign affairs columnist for the Wall Street Journal explains the one thing you really need to know in order to understand why we can't let Iran get the bomb -- they may actually use it.(Prager University)

*scratches head in thought* ...remind me again why Iran should possess nuclear weapons?

Friday, March 20, 2015

Marco Rubio's Defense Of Israel respect for Marco Rubio just went up a few notches after hearing this; I also think he just laid down a good marker for GOP candidates going into the 2016 presidential election...

Saturday, March 7, 2015

Klavan & Whittle's Formula For World Peace

...once again, Andrew Klavan & Bill Whittle hit it out of the park, this time opining about their formula for world peace, the basic principle being that while it is preferable to talk, debate and use diplomacy to deal with the world's problems, sometimes you have to be willing to fight and the sooner we understand that, the better off we are as a society...

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Israeli PM Netanyahu's Speech To Congress On Iran Nuclear Deal

...if Benjamin Netanyahu isn't this generation's Winston Churchill, who is?
Oh, and to the 57 or so Democrats' who decided to boycott today's should no longer be referred to as members of the Democrat Party but as members of the Anti-Semite Party because that is precisely how you acted today, especially KY Rep. John Yarmuth, who went so far as to say, "He can go home"...

Talk about setting a new low....its' a good thing the 57 members of the Democrat Anti-Semite Party weren't around in 1941 following Pearl Harbor; we might all be speaking German...or worse. Shame on you, Mr. Yarmuth....shame!

Friday, February 20, 2015

MO Sec.of State To Challenge Sen. Blunt In 2016

Given Missouri's reddish tint at present, I don't see Jason Kander winning agst. Roy Blunt:
Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander launched a Democratic challenge Thursday to U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt, criticizing the Republican's long political career and asserting, "it's time for a new generation of leaders" in Washington.
Kander, a former Army captain who served in Afghanistan, highlighted his military experience while announcing his candidacy in an online video and said in an interview with The Associated Press that Blunt is often "on the extreme edge of a lot of issues."
Kander, 33, is Blunt's first prominent opponent for the 2016 election. If Kander is elected, he would be one of the youngest U.S. senators -- an attribute he said should be a positive during a campaign. (SE Missourian)
...of course, given what happened back in the 2012 Missouri Senate race, I wouldn't be too confident at the moment if I were Roy Blunt...but I'd definitely watch Kander; he's one of a rising generation of Democratic candidates who've served in either Iraq or Afghanistan and could, if elected, have the potential to eat away at the GOP's current advantages in the areas of national security and defense policy.

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Obama: ISIS Not Representative Of Islam

Oh, really? Tell that to the Islamonazis' then....

So President Obama believes ISIS isn't representative of the 7th-century blood cult known as Islam...what, are we stuck on stupid or something? Is there a stupid virus inhabiting the bodies of the Obama Administration a/la Invasion Of The Body Snatchers?

Someone should really ask these geniuses: when should we start to care about these bloodthirsty, murderous savages....when a mushroom cloud goes up over Manhattan? Then?