Closing Thought–28Aug19

We hear from our beloved monarch that our manufacturing sector is doing well and that we will be opening 6 or 7 news steel mills soon.

He spent all day Tweeting his ass off about the Fed and manufacturing……..according to His Majesty our manufacturing is doing really well.

But just how well is our manufacturing really doing?

Trump has long claimed that he and his policies would be a boon to workers, especially blue-collar ones. But since he became president, over 716,000 American workers have received pink slips from their employers as jobs are eliminated and plants close.

“716,341 workers have been notified of plant closings and layoffs,” American Bridge 21st Century said in a statement on Wednesday, citing their analysis of the publicly available information.

The numbers may actually be worse, since several states — Arkansas, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Wyoming — haven’t provided data.

https://shareblue.com/over-716000-plant-workers-lost-jobs-us-trump/

Just lots of lies or as we say the Trump spin…..which means nothing out of his mouth is truthful.

Keep this in mind as you prepare to vote.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

VOTE!

“Lego Ergo Scribo”

Advertisements

2020 Dem Candidates On Foreign Policy

We have such a large field of Dem candidates for the 2020 election that it is hard to get to know the ones that the media wants to ignore or marginalize.

But thanx to the manipulation of the polls and the media the DCCC will allow only 10 of the candidates to participate in the next debate in Houston.

To my way of thinking is the foreign policy is the major issue that I use to judge the candidate…..so far in 2020 foreign policy does not seem to be that damn important even though we have our longest wars ever still raging and Americans are still dying.

More questions should be asked of ALL the candidates…….for there is more happening in foreign policy than troops in Afghanistan….

Of the Democratic presidential candidates, only Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Buttigieg have committed to withdrawing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan during their first year in office.

When the candidates were asked if there would be U.S. troops in Afghanistan at the end of their first term, Elizabeth Warren said, “No”; Bernie Sanders replied, “I suspect not”; Beto O’Rourke responded, “We have to begin to bring these wars to a close”; Kirsten Gillibrand said, “I believe that we need to bring our troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria”; Cory Booker noted, “We cannot have forever wars in this nation”; Julian Castro replied, “We need to withdraw in a way that is orderly, that respects our allies”; Amy Klobuchar responded, “We have been there longer than some of our young people have been on this earth”; Andrew Yang opined, “It’s impossible to know that for sure, given that reality on the ground might lead us to have more people there”; Marianne Williamson said, “I would make no move in Afghanistan until first I spoke to Afghan women”; and Kamala Harris answered, “We need to have a presence there in terms of supporting what the leaders of Afghanistan want to do.”

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/19/foreign-policy-litmus-test-democrats-2020

So to help my readers out I try to find ways of comparing the candidates in one place so that the research is on me and the readers have an easier time learning about the candidates.

I found one such article in the 538 website…..sadly not all candidates are included but enough to give my reader a good idea about their stands.

The next Democratic president may be significantly more anti-war than Obama; that is, wary of deploying or increasing the number of American troops anywhere. That’s at least the general consensus on foreign policy and national security that emerged from the 15 Democratic presidential candidates (both from the party’s left and left-center wings) who responded to FiveThirtyEight’s eight-question survey on their foreign policy stances.1

Before we get to the results, a few brief notes on our questions. Obviously, it’s hard to confine foreign policy to eight questions, so we tried to avoid subjects in which we thought the candidates would all have the same answer. For example, virtually all Democratic candidates would reengage the U.S. in the Paris climate accord. We also tried to avoid topics for which we couldn’t come up with a fairly concise question. It’s a safe bet that any of the Democratic candidates, if elected president, would be more critical of Russian President Vladimir Putin than President Trump has been, but it’s hard to design a question that would illustrate the differences between the candidates on that subject. So there are some major foreign policy issues (like how the U.S. should deal with Russia) that are not represented.2

Here are the results:

Democratic Candidates Answer Yes-Or-No Questions About Foreign Policy

I do not agree with the conclusion of 538….that the next Dem president will be more antiwar than Obama…..that will depend on the Dem…..the ones that the MSM promotes daily will probably keep the status quo meaning they will waffle on ending the endless wars we now fight.

So far I am sticking with Tulsi Gabbard….no one comes close to her in foreign policy.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

VOTE!

“Lego ergo Scribo”

What Of The New “Pacific Theater”?

We here lots of chest thumping these days about the capabilities of the US military…..and in the same vain we here about the expansion of the Chinese influence in the Pacific and the possibility of some sort of confrontation is in the cards without some changes…..

China is working hard to replace the influence of the US in the Pacific…..

China, especially under President Xi Jinping, seeks a return to what it regards as its rightful position, replacing the U.S. as the world’s dominant economic and military power. Previous U.S. administrations have slouched in the direction of understanding the strategic competition that grows from this ambition but did little. The current U.S. administration gets it, as evidenced by the National Defense Strategy’s identification of China as a major peer competitor.

https://www.hudson.org/research/14861-china-wants-to-replace-the-u-s-in-the-pacific

But if the confrontation comes to the forefront how does it look for the US in such a conflict?

The United States Studies Centre (USSC), a research center based at the University of Sydney in Australia, released a study titled, “Averting Crisis: American Strategy, Military Spending and Collective Defence in the Indo-Pacific.” The study makes the argument that the US would not be able to defeat China in a military confrontation in the Indo-Pacific.

The USSC is funded by the Australian government, over the past five years one percent of their budget came from the US government and eight percent came from “US-based foundations, companies or individuals.”

The three researchers whose names are on the study are part of the USSC’s Foreign Policy and Defence program. The program lists its partners as the Australian government, The US defense company Northrop Grumman, the French defense company Thales and the US State Department.

New Study: China Would Beat US Military in Pacific

Does Trump’s trade wars help this situation in any way?

 

ISIS–The Return

Now appearing in a geopolitical theater near you.

These days with the craziness around the issues for the 2020 election we do not hear so much about that almost defeated foe, ISIS.

But guess what?

They may not be slinking away into oblivion after all….

The Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) is not defeated despite the loss of the territory it claimed as its so-called ‘Caliphate’ in Iraq and Syria. It is stronger today than its predecessor Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) was in 2011, when the U.S. withdrew from Iraq. AQI had around 700-1000 fighters then. ISIS had as many as 30,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria in August 2018 according to a Defense Intelligence Agency estimate. ISIS built from the small remnant left in 2011 an army large enough to recapture Fallujah, Mosul, and other cities in Iraq and dominate much of eastern Syria in only three years. It will recover much faster and to a much more dangerous level from the far larger force it still has today.

http://www.understandingwar.org/report/isiss-second-comeback-assessing-next-isis-insurgency

The Pentagon has issued a report that states that there is a major struggling dealing with a resurgent ISIS in the Middle East…..

Between April and June 2019, the Islamic State terror group “solidified its insurgent capabilities in Iraq and was resurging in Syria,” the Department of Defense Inspector General Quarterly Report says.

The report references significant changes in the region. In addition to the president’s sudden announcement of a drawdown of U.S. troops in Syria -– against the counsel of military advisers -– the report raises concerns that ISIS is gaining a renewed foothold in Iraq because U.S. personnel there were evacuated from diplomatic posts due to rising tensions with Iran. Experts told NBC News that as a result, that also has led to less surveillance of ISIS activity in Iraq.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/u-s-backed-forces-struggling-quell-isis-insurgency-syria-iraq-n1040186

While the media and the public chases the shiny objects that the government throws out there…ISIS is returning to prominence in the Middle East as well as around the world in regions like Afghanistan, South Asia, etc.

ISIS and al-Qaeda are rebuilding and should not be taken lightly….that happen before and we know how that ended don’t we?

The problem as I see it is that we are using tactics from 50 years ago….we need an upgrade……

I am in my second year of teaching a U.S. CT policy course to adult students ages 50-90. I have learned a few lessons from trying to explain our CT policies since the 1970s. The biggest lesson is that while administrations change the headline for our policy each time the other political party takes the helm; from “combating global terrorism” (Nixon and Republicans) to using a “law enforcement model” (Carter and Democrats), they really don’t change the underlying policy. Each administration since Richard Nixon has actually looked at the previous polices and kept the concepts they think are most important. The strategy only gets richer and more detailed. So, the U.S. counterterrorism policy hasn’t been re-written every 4 years anew; instead its been steadily evolving and trying to adapt to our enemies use of terror. That’s oversimplifying it for sure, but I want to get us to the current solutions.

https://news.clearancejobs.com/2019/08/08/the-future-of-countering-terrorism-ideas-not-bullets/

After 18+ years we are still reacting to the so-called jihad…..

While the media talks mindlessly about Greenland an old danger, no an old evil, is returning…..but why is it returning?

A report from the Pentagon inspector general found that President Donald Trump’s decision to rapidly pull troops out of Syria and divert attention from diplomacy in Iraq has inadvertently aided the Islamic State’s regrouping in Syria and Iraq.

The Department of Defense’s quarterly report to Congress on the effectiveness of the US Operation Inherent Resolve mission said that “ISIS continued its transition from a territory-holding force to an insurgency in Syria, and it intensified its insurgency in Iraq” — even though Trump said ISIS was defeated and the caliphate quashed, The Wall Street Journal reported.

https://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-blames-trump-for-return-of-isis-syria-and-iraq-2019-8

Now that is a pro-war excuse…..but at least it can explain the new rise…….

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

“Lego Ergo Scribo”