Day: March 10, 2017

Closing Thought–10Mar17

The evil that is a think tank!

I have written about what I think of so-called “think tanks”….these are organizations that are contracted to present policy options and analysis…..

When I graduated from college I was recruited by 3 think tanks as an analyst…I turned them down….why?  The pay would have been excellent…then why?

Most of them are partisan and work for a certain group and their “analyses” reflects what the group wants it to reflect….I other words analysts are given a conclusion and we are told to make the research fit the conclusion…I would not be part of this lie and deception.

I read an article that covers “think tanks”……

Think tanks have the ability to influence government policy and legislative debates because of their perceived independence from corporate interests. But the need for donor funding is causing some think tank scholars to support agendas backed by their corporate donors, blurring the line between independent research and corporate lobbying.

Source: How Think Tanks Amplify Corporate America’s Influence |

One of the worse offenders is the Heritage Foundation….it is pure bullshit from the first inked word.

I would suggest that one do not accept the words of these “tanks” without doing some research on your own…..I know that is asking much these days when actual research is limited to one’s limited mental capacities….so….just do not believe everything you read…..NO matter where it originates.

That be it for the week…I start my weekend and hopefully you will do the same…..I shall return Monday with more stuff of interest……be well, be safe…..chuq

The Cult Of Backstabbers

The White House these days are a mish-mash of conservatives…..some moderates, some Tea Partyers and some alt-Righters.

I can only imagine that this would be a bit difficult for the argument of all parties on policy….I bet there is some backstabbing going on and eventually it will boil over into a full fledged brawl around the Twitter button.

There is already some rumors of cracks forming in the White House team….mainly around the Chief of staff, Rancid Prius……

As the White House struggles to gain its footing almost two months into Donald Trump’s presidency, administration officials increasingly put the blame on one person: Reince Priebus.

In interviews, more than a dozen Trump aides, allies, and others close to the White House said Priebus, the 44-year-old chief of staff, was becoming a singular target of criticism within the White House.

They described a micromanager who sprints from one West Wing meeting to another, inserting himself into conversations big and small and leaving many staffers with the impression that he’s trying to block their access to Trump. They vented about his determination to fill the administration with his political allies. And they expressed alarm at what they say are directionless morning staff meetings Priebus oversees that could otherwise be used to rigorously set the day’s agenda and counterbalance the president’s own unpredictability.

Source: Knives are out for Reince – POLITICO

I know it is early in the life of the present administration but these types of cracks can be dangerous to the president and his policies…..can these people work out their differences or will it become too much too handle?

Racid needs to watch Pence and Bannon…they both are mongoose waiting to strike.

More Fodder For The Fire?

We know about the Russian thing……we consider the wiretapping thing…..we are amazed at the stupidity of the “Trumpcare” plan……and we shake our heads at the immature prattle on Twitter by the leader of the free world.

All that concern and NO one pays attention to the tasks our troops are asked to do…..and very fewer could care less…..

I have taken upon myself to keep my readers updated on what the country is asking our troops to do….

Initially having deployed to the general vicinity in October as part of a naval mission, US Marines from the 11th Expeditionary Unit have over the past few weeks quietly gone ashore in Syria and moved to the area around the ISIS capital of Raqqa, establishing an artillery base.

Details are still scant. Officials refused to confirm the size of the unit or other details, beyond them having a number of M777 howitzers, and a support unit of infantry Marines along with them, marking the first time US artillery has been deployed into Syria.

The idea in this case is to have advanced US artillery on hand, with US troops firing it, in support of the Kurdish YPG’s eventual invasion of the city of Raqqa. The US announced the invasion fo Raqqa last year, and so far Kurdish forces have only surrounded parts of the city.

It is unknown how many US troops are now active in Syria. When President Trump took office, estimates were around 300, but a number of Army Rangers were deployed over the weekend into Manbij, and these deployments apparently happened before that, though we’re only just hearing about them now.

(antiwar.com)

More troops to be sent to ME as a “reserve” force to be used as necessary……

In a dramatic shift away from the long-standing US policy of having the president decide directly on troop levels for various wars, President Trump is said to be considering a deployment of a substantial “reserve” force to Kuwait, which would them be available for commanders in Iraq and Syria to draw upon at will.

The deployment is estimated to be somewhere around 1,000 troops, and Pentagon officials say it would allow commanders to “respond to unforeseen opportunities” in the wars in Iraq and Syria, without having to ask the president for more troops.

This appears to be among the options being considered for ongoing escalation of the US war against ISIS, with reports that the Pentagon has recommended a large supplemental ground force for Syria, with an eye toward getting “rapid results” in fighting against ISIS.

(antiwar.com)

Source: Exclusive: U.S. weighs deploying up to 1,000 ‘reserve’ troops for IS fight | Reuters

Least we forget about Afghanistan……

Speaking today to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Centcom Commander Gen. Joseph Votel confirmed that he “expects” that more US ground troops will be deployed to Afghanistan soon, though he insisted the exact details are still being worked out.

Votel indicated that the additional troops, once sent, would be used to “improve” the capabilities of Afghan forces on the ground. He said he also agrees with Gen. Nicholson, who last month said he wants “a few thousand” more troops in Afghanistan.

This reflects the reality of how poorly the war is going, with recent assessments showing the Taliban has more territory now than at any time since the 2001 occupation began, and that Afghan security forces continue to lose ground at an alarming rate. US officials were previously hyping vague “progress” in Afghanistan, but are now more worried about preventing an outright loss of the country, which means continuing to throw more troops at the situation.

(antiwar.com)

More fodder for the fire…..our troops are being sacrificed to preserve the wealth and the greed of the M-IC….we are accomplishing nothing other than the waste of life…the lives of USA troops.

I wish Americans would care as much about our troops as they do about the Kardashians…..maybe that is too much to ask.

The Lemming Democrats

Since Hillary was handed her ass in the 2016 election the Dems have spent more time trying to analyze what happened than trying to find ways to win elections.  It is not the same thing.

Lemmings?  Yep those furry little critters that when herded toward a cliff…if one jumps off the rest will follow…perfect example of the Dems.

Why do they keep marching off the same cliff?

Again and again, Democrats expect demographics to hand them unearned election victories. Vapid centrist campaigns assume that coalitions of minorities and educated white professionals will rally around candidates just because there’s a D next to their names. Strategists target upscale suburban women—the proverbial soccer moms—as the key swing voters, and they lose elections that should have been won.

Source: The Lemming Democrats | Dissent Magazine

I wish that Dems would get over this loss…..they offered the voter a candidate that was short on policies and long on slogans…..think I am mistakened?

Hillary Clinton’s campaign ran TV ads that had less to do with policy than any other presidential candidate in the past four presidential races, according to a new study published on Monday by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Clinton’s team spent a whopping $1 billion on the election in all — about twice what Donald Trump’s campaign spent. Clinton spent $72 million on television ads in the final weeks alone.

But only 25 percent of advertising supporting her campaign went after Trump on policy grounds, the researchers found. By comparison, every other presidential candidate going back to at least 2000 devoted more than 40 percent of his or her advertising to policy-based attacks. None spent nearly as much time going after an opponent’s personality as Clinton’s ads did.

Source: Study: Hillary Clinton’s TV ads were almost entirely policy-free – Vox

The past election was a choice between two shitty candidates……… and the shittiest won….

As The Middle East Simmers

WE have a new president and a new outlook for the Middle East…..although not many of us know exactly what that new outlook is or how it will play out.

The RAND Corporation takes a look at the possibility of our “new” game plan in the Middle East……

During his campaign for the presidency, Donald Trump said he would bomb the oil fields controlled by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). After the bombing, he would send in U.S. troops to protect the oil fields against their recapture. But then he said, “I would love not to be over there. … That’s not our fight.”

These comments reflect the mixed feelings of many Americans who would applaud escalating the fight against the terrorists but, at the same time, would prefer that the U.S. get out of these conflicts altogether.

Source: For US, Many Options but No Clear Path in Middle East | World Affairs Journal

News has come out that there are a substantial amount of US troops fighting in Syria….as well as Iraq.  But we need to think about our ops in Syria for this is a most dangerous situation that could very well backfire and the US will emerge with crap on its face…..

As his spitballing press conference reminded us ad nauseam, President Trump is not ready to let the bygones of the election be bygones—and where U.S. policy toward Syria is concerned, that might not be such a bad thing.

Perhaps the president’s most cogent attack on Hillary Clinton’s record as secretary of state during their race was his critique of her signature military intervention in Libya. “Look at what she did in Libya with [late leader Moammar] Gadhafi,” he argued during the second presidential debate. “Gadhafi is out. It’s a mess. And, by the way, ISIS has a good chunk of their oil. I am sure you probably have heard that. It was a disaster.”

Source: Ground War in Syria Would Be a Huge Mistake | RealClearDefense

Another study about Syria……

Rolling around 200 Marines backed with howitzers into northern Syria, the United States is shifting from working quietly behind the scenes in Syria’s conflict, turning instead toward overt displays of U.S. force in an attempt to shape the fight.

The latest deployment widens America’s footprint in a highly toxic battlefield, with U.S. credibility and prestige on the line. It also risks drawing troops into a long and costly war with unpredictable outcomes.

Source: Analysis: US troop increase risks tangling in Syria’s war

Like I have said…there is NO clear path to success in Syria…..if there is no way to win this thing then why sacrifice more American troops?

A question that demands an answer!