Prior to World War II, Germany in the form of the Nazi party tried to take military control of Western Europe. Neville Chamberlain of Britain tried to appease Hitler, which only delayed opposing military action and allowed Germany to occupy more of Western Europe. A halt was called through the Allied military invasion of Normandy, for which we just celebrated the 70th anniversary.
While the Germans were ultimately defeated in World War II, Joseph Stalin of Russia tried to pick up the same agenda started by Hitler. To counteract this, the US set up the North American Treaty Organization (NATO). It basically included most member countries of Western Europe and the United States. The agreement was that if Stalinist Russia attacked any of the NATO members, all others would come to their military aid. This held Russian expansion to a Soviet Union composed primarily of backward northern European countries and Eastern Europe.
Present Reagan eventually put the Soviet Union out of business by considerably cranking up military capability of the United States. This forced the Soviet Union to try to match that military buildup, but they were unable to do so economically, and the Soviet Union collapsed.
Vladimir Putin is currently premier of Russia. He is a member of the old guard, and we strongly suspect that he is trying to reestablish Russia as the leader country in a newly constructed Soviet Union. He has taken over the Crimea, and has made noises indicating his desire to take all of the Ukraine. A new Soviet Union, similar to Nazi Germany and the old Soviet Union, would have a severe limiting effect on the personal freedoms of the people involved in the Knew Soviet Union. As a semi-pacifist, my first reaction is to let those people worry about their own personal freedoms themselves. However, the US fought a World War II in Europe to regain personal freedoms for Western Europeans. I personally have mixed feelings about the advisability of that operation, but it was done and public opinion is that it was a great success. On that basis, we would presumably do it again, but this time against the Russians rather than Nazi Germany.
However we have in the White House a peace monger. While NATO still exists and Pres. Obama has the power to use it militarily, it appears likely that he would not. At present, he appears to be traveling a course of restraint with Vladimir Putin based on sanctions, which involve economic disadvantage to Russia. Up to now, the sanctions have been minimal, but there's indication that they have been working, particularly with the threat that they could be increased to become more onerous. This may slow down or even eliminate Vladimir Putin's apparent desire for a revised Soviet Union. It's a strategy that seems to be working and to my mind much more favorable than killing hundreds of thousands of people in a military conflict, as would likely be promoted by warmonger John McCain.
I believe in general that the ideology and practices of President Barack Obama are completely wrong. But, he occasionally stumbles onto something which seems to be correct. The situation with Russia and the Ukraine seems to be one of those. I support him on these efforts, providing he uses his full hand of applying real sanctions, rather than think he can hoodwink Vladimir Putin with the usual rhetoric that he uses on the ill-informed segment of the American public.
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Secretary Of State Clinton on Benghazi
Open Email to Former Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton:
Dear Sec. Clinton,
The Washington Times quotes the following from your new book: "There will never be perfect clarity or full agreement on everything that happened regarding the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya — but that does not mean a lack of effort on getting to the truth."
I respectfully suggest that you are missing the point. This is not a game of truth or consequences. We the public just want to know what happened and why.
Ambassador Stevens was killed when the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked by Islamic militants. I believe this is factual to an episode that happened approximately 2 years ago. In addition it is also said that several other Americans were killed in that same attack. I've not heard anything which would dispute these killings.
It is also said that these killings occurred because the defenders of the Consulate were denied military assistance. That may be conjectural, but the fact that the killings occurred and there seemed to be no significant military assistance on-site makes this claim at least semi-factual. It Is this aspect of the episode on which we would like your elucidation. By that I mean, an explanation of why you apparently did not attempt to give the consulate military assistance to avoid the killings or while the attack was in progress. Since you have never commented that you did call for military assistance, we can only presume up to now that the claim of your not attempting to give any is also factual.
As Secretary of State, it is my understanding that you have the responsibility to sustain the health and welfare of Americans in US Embassies and Consulates around the world. I also believe that is indisputable, but will recognize any statement you may have to the contrary. In the absence of such statement, we will presume that you are agreed that such was your responsibility.
Perhaps you would say that you did not have control of military assets such as to apply the assistance that was apparently needed either prior to or during the terrorist attack. But, I have not heard you make any comment on that point. If we assume that you did not have direct control of military facilities to supply the needed help to the Benghazi consulate, you were the Secretary of State and presumably in close contact with Pres. Obama. The simple question is, "Did you ask Pres. Obama, as Commander-in-Chief, to supply military assistance?" If not, why not?
There have already been too many congressional hearings on the subject, but for some unknown reason none of them seem to get to the basic questions, which I have presented above. Do you want to take a shot at answering my questions or will you brush it off as "it doesn't matter"?
Dear Sec. Clinton,
The Washington Times quotes the following from your new book: "There will never be perfect clarity or full agreement on everything that happened regarding the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya — but that does not mean a lack of effort on getting to the truth."
I respectfully suggest that you are missing the point. This is not a game of truth or consequences. We the public just want to know what happened and why.
Ambassador Stevens was killed when the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked by Islamic militants. I believe this is factual to an episode that happened approximately 2 years ago. In addition it is also said that several other Americans were killed in that same attack. I've not heard anything which would dispute these killings.
It is also said that these killings occurred because the defenders of the Consulate were denied military assistance. That may be conjectural, but the fact that the killings occurred and there seemed to be no significant military assistance on-site makes this claim at least semi-factual. It Is this aspect of the episode on which we would like your elucidation. By that I mean, an explanation of why you apparently did not attempt to give the consulate military assistance to avoid the killings or while the attack was in progress. Since you have never commented that you did call for military assistance, we can only presume up to now that the claim of your not attempting to give any is also factual.
As Secretary of State, it is my understanding that you have the responsibility to sustain the health and welfare of Americans in US Embassies and Consulates around the world. I also believe that is indisputable, but will recognize any statement you may have to the contrary. In the absence of such statement, we will presume that you are agreed that such was your responsibility.
Perhaps you would say that you did not have control of military assets such as to apply the assistance that was apparently needed either prior to or during the terrorist attack. But, I have not heard you make any comment on that point. If we assume that you did not have direct control of military facilities to supply the needed help to the Benghazi consulate, you were the Secretary of State and presumably in close contact with Pres. Obama. The simple question is, "Did you ask Pres. Obama, as Commander-in-Chief, to supply military assistance?" If not, why not?
There have already been too many congressional hearings on the subject, but for some unknown reason none of them seem to get to the basic questions, which I have presented above. Do you want to take a shot at answering my questions or will you brush it off as "it doesn't matter"?
Pakistani Terrorist Groups
The Washington Times says, "The Haqqani Network, the terrorist group that the U.S. command in Afghanistan says is its most formidable enemy — worse than the Taliban or al Qaeda — has operated for a dozen years across the border in Pakistan’s North Waziristan tribal area with little to fear other than sporadic drone strikes.
We have been giving the Pakistani government $1 billion per year on average for many years.
We should now be saying to the Pakistanis, "if you want to continue receiving your billion dollars per year, we insist that you get the terrorist groups in your country under control, meaning eliminate any terrorist operations originating in your country, which jeopardize our operations anywhere in the world. However you do it is okay with us. You can put them all in jail, or kill them all, but we need proof that you have them under control, if you want your billion dollars per year. In the absence of any progress on your control of terrorist organizations in your country, we will be cutting the billion dollar contribution substantially, depending upon how much cooperation we see from you."
We have been giving the Pakistani government $1 billion per year on average for many years.
We should now be saying to the Pakistanis, "if you want to continue receiving your billion dollars per year, we insist that you get the terrorist groups in your country under control, meaning eliminate any terrorist operations originating in your country, which jeopardize our operations anywhere in the world. However you do it is okay with us. You can put them all in jail, or kill them all, but we need proof that you have them under control, if you want your billion dollars per year. In the absence of any progress on your control of terrorist organizations in your country, we will be cutting the billion dollar contribution substantially, depending upon how much cooperation we see from you."
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
Hooray for Demise of Energy Bill
Jeff Johnson reports in the May 19 issue of Chemical & Engineering News that Senate Bill 2262 on energy efficiency did not advance to the full Senate and likely will die this year. A similar bill suffered the same fate last year.
That's good news! Maybe for the wrong reasons, but the Senate Committee did something right for once. We do not need a law to impose energy efficiency on us. The price of energy is sufficient control, such that there is an automatic control of quantity usage in an individual's effort to reduce household expenditures.
We need more freedom of market choice; not less. How many of you are happy with the fact that it is difficult or impossible in some cases to buy incandescent bulbs, which give instantaneous light of a wavelength you like, rather than being stuck with some slow reacting, poor wavelength LED by law? Let the private companies continue to improve their products to the point where they sell themself to the public. We don't need a law telling us what we must buy.
That's good news! Maybe for the wrong reasons, but the Senate Committee did something right for once. We do not need a law to impose energy efficiency on us. The price of energy is sufficient control, such that there is an automatic control of quantity usage in an individual's effort to reduce household expenditures.
We need more freedom of market choice; not less. How many of you are happy with the fact that it is difficult or impossible in some cases to buy incandescent bulbs, which give instantaneous light of a wavelength you like, rather than being stuck with some slow reacting, poor wavelength LED by law? Let the private companies continue to improve their products to the point where they sell themself to the public. We don't need a law telling us what we must buy.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Taliban Prisoner Sgt. Berdahl
The television news is full of the story of Sgt. Bergdahl being recovered from the Taliban in exchange for the release of five Taliban prisoners at Guantánamo. Bergdahl had been in captivity for five years. There is some question as to how he happened to be captured by the Taliban. Some reports say that he sneaked under the fence and was actually a deserter from his unit.
The Washington Times says the Pentagon on several occasions had ground-level intelligence on where Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was being held captive at various times — down to how many gunmen were guarding him — but special operations commanders repeatedly shelved rescue missions because they didn’t want to risk casualties for a man they believed to be a “deserter.” Commanders on the ground debated several times a rescue mission, but each time decided against such mission because the prospect of losing highly trained troops was too high a price to pay for rescuing a soldier who walked away from his unit before being captured by the enemy.
That's ridiculous! It's not the Army that I used to know 70 years ago.
The main consideration is that if the Taliban position where Sgt. Berdahl was being held was a major establishment, it should have been attacked by American forces, whether Sgt. Bergdahl was there or not. Apparently, the military has gotten the idea that following World War II every war engaged in should be of limited prosecution. That is to give the impression that there is a war on but actually operate with one hand tied behind the back. This was true in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and now Afghanistan. The only exception seems to be the Desert Storm operation wherein American forces ousted Iraqi from Kuwait.
The other aspect is that while it appears that Bergdahl may have been a deserter, that is only hearsay. He is a soldier in the US Army and has every right to be retrieved from the enemy through attack procedures, if necessary. Following his recovery, he should then have been submitted to a court-martial to determine the legitimacy of the deserter charge. If found guilty, he should then have been shot, which I believe has been the standard procedure for deserters.
In other words, I claim the military did it all wrong. If they had done it right, five Taliban leaders would still be sitting in Guantánamo. We may have lost some men in a recovery operation, but likely would have wiped out a Taliban command post. We should also remember the reports that there was a mission looking for Berhdahl in which several squad members were killed. While we regret the death of those people, that is the function and risks taken by soldiers and an indication they were at least initially on the right track, until someone higher up decided to call off for rescue efforts. Those higher-ups should be chastised for their timid attitudes and demoted. We know that Pres. Obama is a peace monger, but unless he had given specific orders to not retrieve Sgt. Berdahl, it was the Army's responsibility to do it as expeditiously as possible.
The Washington Times says the Pentagon on several occasions had ground-level intelligence on where Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was being held captive at various times — down to how many gunmen were guarding him — but special operations commanders repeatedly shelved rescue missions because they didn’t want to risk casualties for a man they believed to be a “deserter.” Commanders on the ground debated several times a rescue mission, but each time decided against such mission because the prospect of losing highly trained troops was too high a price to pay for rescuing a soldier who walked away from his unit before being captured by the enemy.
That's ridiculous! It's not the Army that I used to know 70 years ago.
The main consideration is that if the Taliban position where Sgt. Berdahl was being held was a major establishment, it should have been attacked by American forces, whether Sgt. Bergdahl was there or not. Apparently, the military has gotten the idea that following World War II every war engaged in should be of limited prosecution. That is to give the impression that there is a war on but actually operate with one hand tied behind the back. This was true in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and now Afghanistan. The only exception seems to be the Desert Storm operation wherein American forces ousted Iraqi from Kuwait.
The other aspect is that while it appears that Bergdahl may have been a deserter, that is only hearsay. He is a soldier in the US Army and has every right to be retrieved from the enemy through attack procedures, if necessary. Following his recovery, he should then have been submitted to a court-martial to determine the legitimacy of the deserter charge. If found guilty, he should then have been shot, which I believe has been the standard procedure for deserters.
In other words, I claim the military did it all wrong. If they had done it right, five Taliban leaders would still be sitting in Guantánamo. We may have lost some men in a recovery operation, but likely would have wiped out a Taliban command post. We should also remember the reports that there was a mission looking for Berhdahl in which several squad members were killed. While we regret the death of those people, that is the function and risks taken by soldiers and an indication they were at least initially on the right track, until someone higher up decided to call off for rescue efforts. Those higher-ups should be chastised for their timid attitudes and demoted. We know that Pres. Obama is a peace monger, but unless he had given specific orders to not retrieve Sgt. Berdahl, it was the Army's responsibility to do it as expeditiously as possible.
Pres. Obama's Position on Bergdahl
The Washington Times quoted Pres. Obama as saying today that he had an obligation to secure the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, regardless of the circumstances surrounding Sgt. Bergdahl’s capture by the Taliban five years ago and despite claims he’s a “deserter” who walked away from his unit.
I agree with Pres. Obama that we had an obligation to recover Sgt. Bergdahl, whether or not he was a claimed deserter.
However, the President was wrong in the process of recovery. Instead of a prisoner exchange, the Army should have attacked the position where Bergdahl was being held, wiping out that Taliban position, and recovering Sgt. Bergdahl for a subsequent court-martial.
I agree with Pres. Obama that we had an obligation to recover Sgt. Bergdahl, whether or not he was a claimed deserter.
However, the President was wrong in the process of recovery. Instead of a prisoner exchange, the Army should have attacked the position where Bergdahl was being held, wiping out that Taliban position, and recovering Sgt. Bergdahl for a subsequent court-martial.
Sunday, June 1, 2014
More Drone Bases Needed in Afghanistan
The Washington Times says, President Obama’s plan to cut the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan to 5,000 troops will end an era of American drone superiority over the region.
I had previously said we should withdraw completely from Afghanistan and cover the threat of training camps and terrorist administration bases with surveillance and attack drones.
I was wrong.
Afghanistan is 770 miles long and 350 miles wide. Obama has considered keeping troops at Bagram Airfield, which is 20 miles north of Kabul. From that location, it is about 580 miles to the farthest eastern border with Iran.
We are now using General Atomics’ Grey Eagle attack drones in Afghanistan. They carriy four Hellfire missiles, but have an operating range of only 230 miles, which is considerably short of the 580 miles from Bagram to the farthest eastern border. .
A knowledgable person confirmed that Mr. Obama’s decision to confine remaining U.S. forces to Kabul and Bagram Air Fieldby the end of 2015 will eliminate a strategic patchwork of forward operating bases used for drone missions.
In order to retain control of terrorist activities in Afghanistan by means of drones, the program will obviously have to be changed to include maintaining the "strategic patchwork of forward operating bases", until such time as technology can catch up to be able to cover the whole country, as well as cross-border missions into Pakistan, from limited bases in Kabul and Bagram.
I had previously said we should withdraw completely from Afghanistan and cover the threat of training camps and terrorist administration bases with surveillance and attack drones.
I was wrong.
Afghanistan is 770 miles long and 350 miles wide. Obama has considered keeping troops at Bagram Airfield, which is 20 miles north of Kabul. From that location, it is about 580 miles to the farthest eastern border with Iran.
We are now using General Atomics’ Grey Eagle attack drones in Afghanistan. They carriy four Hellfire missiles, but have an operating range of only 230 miles, which is considerably short of the 580 miles from Bagram to the farthest eastern border. .
A knowledgable person confirmed that Mr. Obama’s decision to confine remaining U.S. forces to Kabul and Bagram Air Fieldby the end of 2015 will eliminate a strategic patchwork of forward operating bases used for drone missions.
In order to retain control of terrorist activities in Afghanistan by means of drones, the program will obviously have to be changed to include maintaining the "strategic patchwork of forward operating bases", until such time as technology can catch up to be able to cover the whole country, as well as cross-border missions into Pakistan, from limited bases in Kabul and Bagram.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
