Day: October 7, 2016

News From Afghanistan

As usual the news is NOT about the deaths of Americans…..no one seems to care that our soldiers are still dying….well most everybody.

Yet again…..an American soldier has been killed while on ops in Afghanistan…..in case anyone is interested….this is the 7th death of an American soldier in 2016…..

The seventh death of a US soldier in Afghanistan so far in 2016, the Pentagon today announced an unidentified US service member was killed in an operation against the nation’s ISIS affiliate. The operation was in the Nangarhar Province, just a few miles from the Pakistan border.

Officials say an investigation is still ongoing to determine exactly what happened, but the soldier reportedly died during a foot patrol, as the result of an improvised explosive device (IED). It is unclear, according to those familiar with the situation, if the device was detonated remotely or not.

I guess only American deaths that we care about are the ones that can have some sort of political weight….kinda like Benghazi…..

I recall all the criticism of the 10 year Vietnam War as a failure and a waste of American lives……with that said….what about a 15 year war in Afghanistan?

There is a perverse symmetry on display in Afghanistan right now. Fifteen years ago, American warplanes bombed targets there, beginning an offensive against the Taliban government and al-Qaida precipitated by the 9/11 attacks. This week, they were in action once again.

There was, of course, a big difference in the two operations. In 2001, our forces were opening a campaign that would end quickly in victory. Today, they are part of a war that has no victory, or conclusion, in sight.

The original triumph came quickly. By the end of 2001, the Taliban had surrendered in the capital; a new, pro-American government was in place; and Osama bin Laden was running for his life.

Source: In Afghanistan, a 15-Year Failure – Reason.com

Just maybe now is the time to re-think some of our involvement overseas…..what say you?

This is it….gotta bounce and visit my doctors…oh goody!

TTFN!

The Wholesale Failure of American Foreign Policy

I have been writing for a long time about the failure of American foreign policy….the only action we know is to attack some where or someone…..

We have NO plan short of using our ordinances so that the industry can make even more money replacing the spent weapons……

One has to wonder just how much longer the American people will silently permit the categorical failure of American foreign policy, both in theory and in practice. The evidence confirming the totality of our failure is breathtaking in scope and severity. Changes are needed to preserve U.S. national security and economic prosperity.

Recent headlines have captured the character of this failure. Fifteen years after the invasion of Afghanistan, the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR) released findings that “corruption substantially undermined the U.S. mission in Afghanistan from the very beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom. … We conclude that failure to effectively address the problem means U.S. reconstruction programs, at best, will continue to be subverted by systemic corruption and, at worst, will fail.”

Source: The Wholesale Failure of American Foreign Policy | The American Conservative

I think that the first presidential debate illustrated just how far down the rabbit hole our foreign policy has traveled…….during the final section on national security their answers sounded like something a 10 year old made up ……

Although Hillary seemed more likable than usual in the first presidential debate and Trump was his old angry and agitated self, they both still have record-breaking unfavorable ratings as candidates. Yet that is because overwhelmingly, people just don’t like their normal personalities. And sadly, most voters never get beyond a superficial grasp of their policy differences. They just know that Hillary has many years of public experience and represents the status quo and have a vague notion that Trump, who has none, wants to shake up the system. Yet a closer examination of their policy stances in foreign affairs should likely lead voters to the same place – both candidates stink.

Source: First Debate Showed That Both Major Candidates Stink on Foreign Policy – Antiwar.com Original by — Antiwar.com

Our world will be fighting conflicts for generations to come and we need a president that can think outside the “bombs” box……instead we will get a leader that thinks that wart is the answer to all the world’s problems.

That is unless the voter listens to a Libertarian, Ron Paul, and supports Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party……

Paul, who himself was the Libertarian nominee in 1988 and ran as a Republican primary candidate on several subsequent occasions, said he actually prefers Green Party nominee Jill Stein on important issues like civil liberties and foreign policy.

“She’s probably the best on foreign policy at the moment,” Paul said,

Source: Ron Paul suggests support for Jill Stein, admits he is “disappointed” by Gary Johnson – Salon.com

Libertarianism and War

Note:  Please forgive the small amounts of posts but yesterday and today are my doctors and their tests and probes and tickles…….I should be back to form on Monday.

This election as with most in recent history there will be a Libertarian vying for the presidency, Gary Johnson…..normally I am not a fan of the Libertarian economic policies however I do find some of their stands in foreign policy interesting and even some that I could support….like their ideas on interventionism.

Their ideas on war or armed conflicts if war is too strong of a word for you….go back about 60 years to 1956 (and here is that historical perspective that has been missing for a couple of posts)…….

The year was 1956: the icy winds of the cold war were blowing across the political landscape. And it was a presidential election year, pitting the internationalist Republican Dwight Eisenhower against Adlai Stevenson, the darling of the Democratic party’s left wing. The “isolationist” faction of the GOP, led by Sen. Robert A. Taft, had been finally defeated by what Phyllis Schlafly later called the Republican “kingmakers” of the Eastern Establishment. And the looming menace of the cold war turning hot was everywhere in the headlines. While Eisenhower was rallying the nation against the alleged Communist “threat,” Stevenson was calling for a nuclear test ban, negotiations with the Soviet Union, and an end to the military draft.

There was no organized libertarian movement at the time, although the people and institutions that would later emerge as the leadership were beginning to coalesce. Prominent among them was Murray Rothbard, then a thirty year old economist and consultant for the Volker Fund, who was also the Washington correspondent for the quasi-libertarian Faith and Freedom magazine. While most if not all conservatives and libertarians favored Eisenhower, Rothbard shocked his readers with a ringing endorsement of the liberal Democrat Stevenson.

Source: Libertarianism and War – Antiwar.com Original by — Antiwar.com

Foreign policy should be foremost on the voters mind……but instead we have platitudes and campaigns about NOTHING…..I mean these campaigns this time around are more boring than the Seinfeld Show…..

There is still time for the voter to come to grips with the absolute worthlessness of the two major candidates and find an alternative that could lead this country……but will they?

But the Libertarian candidate leaves much to be desired to be considered as a viable candidate…..

Gary Johnson’s had his “Aleppo moment.” He’s had his “forgetting world leaders” moment. And now the Libertarian candidate for president has completed the foot-in-mouth trifecta with his “Are you seriously asking me for the name of North Korea’s leader?” moment. USA Today reports that that latter event happened during a Wednesday interview with the New York Times, in which Johnson was asked if he knew the name of that particular person who happens to run Pyongyang and its environs. “I do,” he replied, before adding, “You want me to name [that person]. … Really.”

Yes, Gary, really—which is why you were asked. But he didn’t ever give the Times that name. (It’s Kim Jong Un, by the way), and the Times speculates he was “conspicuously [seeking] to avoid another misstep” with his non-answer, noting that he spoke “dryly” when he asked if the reporter was serious. Jezebel has the most reasonable speculation on why Johnson may have demurred from speaking the Supreme Leader’s name: He perhaps confused him with Voldemort. (Still, Gary Johnson says don’t forget about Gary Johnson on Election Day.)

Time to get serious and find a candidate that is not an idiot or uninformed……

 

What We Talk About When We Don’t Want To Talk About Nuclear War

While surfing I saw the title and it intrigued me……since their has been lots of talk in this election about nukes…..it is a subject that we want to bring up during an election but we do not really want to talk about the situation.

You may have missed it. Perhaps you dozed off. Or wandered into the kitchen to grab a snack. Or by that point in the proceedings were checking out Seinfeld reruns. During the latter part of the much hyped but excruciating-to-watch first presidential debate, NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt posed a seemingly straightforward but cunningly devised question. His purpose was to test whether the candidates understood the essentials of nuclear strategy.

A moderator given to plain speaking might have said this: “Explain why the United States keeps such a large arsenal of nuclear weapons and when you might consider using those weapons.”

Source: What We Talk About When We Don’t Want To Talk About Nuclear War – Antiwar.com Original by — Antiwar.com

With all that said……there is more that needs saying…….why?  Nukes are still a big part of our “defenses”……to the point of add more and more to the stockpile.

Should the United States reject the “first use” of nuclear weapons?  That question was put to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during their first debate.  Colonel (retired) Andrew Bacevich asks us to take their answers seriously in his latest insightful essay at TomDispatch.com, which I urge you to read here in full.

Trump was asked to respond first, and his rambling answer, I thought, showed the evidence of someone who had crammed for a test.  He was desperate to show he knew something – anything – about America’s nuclear forces (here some may recall how Trump obviously knew little about America’s nuclear triad during the Republican primary debates).  So Trump rambled on about obsolete B-52s flown by the sons and grandsons of previous pilots, a non sequitur since the B-52 has been continuously upgraded with new engines, advanced avionics, the latest in high-tech weaponry, and despite their age they’re still more than capable of doing the job.  But somebody must have told Trump to use the B-52’s age as a talking point, and he was determined to get it in.

Source: Ignorance and Dishonesty: Trump, Hillary, and Nuclear Genocide – LA Progressive

You may have thought nukes were an issue from the past….but in reality they are as much a part of the US as they ever were…..

People who make their living thinking about defense policy and national security like everything to fit into a nice framework, preferably one that can be visualized on a PowerPoint slide. If you are unfortunate enough to be standing next to two officials speaking Pentagonese during a reception, you will note that their language is full of acronyms relating to projects and obscure government agencies—and that they refer regularly to strategic concepts and systems, including the venerable “triad” of nuclear deterrence.

Source: Is Nuclear War Becoming Thinkable? | The American Conservative

Just a few things to consider before you vote……

Tick….Tock……