Category Archives: military news

military news

Lloyd Austin needs to lead DOD

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

I will get to the point immediately. Lloyd Austin is an outstanding selection to become our nation’s next secretary of defense and the U.S. Senate should confirm him.

Indeed, Austin’s nomination from President-elect Biden comes with a caveat: He needs a congressional waiver to serve as the leading defense official in the government. Austin retired four years ago from the U.S. Army; federal law requires that defense secretaries need to have been out of the military at least seven years.

Austin served with honor and distinction. He was a four-star general. He led the Central Command before retiring from the Army. He has led men and women in combat. Austin would become the nation’s first African-American defense secretary.

I get the need to ensure civilian control of the military. Thus, Austin is now “Mr. Austin,” not “Gen. Austin.” He is a civilian.

Congress granted a waiver for Donald Trump’s first defense secretary, James Mattis, who needed the exemption because his service in the Marine Corps fell within the seven-year window. Mattis served well as defense secretary until he resigned in a major snit with the commander in chief.

I should note that my hope would be that future defense secretaries shouldn’t require the waiver that Austin will need. Future presidents, or even the president who’s about the take office, should be able to find competent, capable patriots to lead our military services who do not have the conflict that confronts Lloyd Austin.

Lloyd Austin, though, is highly regarded by the individuals who served under his command. The waiver should be granted. President-elect Biden needs a defense secretary he can trust. He found one in Lloyd Austin.

Let this patriot serve the nation.

military news

Biden to make history with DoD pick

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Retired Army Gen. Lloyd Austin is President-elect Biden’s choice to become the next secretary of defense.

I applaud the choice. Gen. Austin would be the first African-American to lead the Pentagon. He is a former Central Command leader and a warrior with a distinguished and heroic military career.

But oh yes. There’s an issue with Austin. The law requires that a former military man or woman must be out of the service a minimum of seven years before assuming a top-level Cabinet post. Austin’s been out of the Army for only four years.

What does the Senate do? Simple! It does what it did for retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis when Donald Trump nominated him to be defense secretary. Mattis received a waiver from the Senate because he, too, hadn’t been a civilian for the requisite length of time.

The Senate can — and should — do the same for Lloyd Austin. Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the Senate shouldn’t grant another waiver so soon after it did so for James Mattis. “Waiving the law should happen no more than once in a generation,” Reed said in 2017. “Therefore, I will not support a waiver for future nominees. Nor will I support any effort to water down or repeal the statute in the future.”

Hooey! Lloyd Austin is an outstanding choice who deserves a Senate waiver to enable him to take command of the Pentagon.

military news

He joined the fight immediately

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

I want to commemorate today by remembering the impact an event that occurred 79 years ago had on my family.

You know already that my father, Peter John Kanelis, is my favorite veteran. Some of you might even recall that I have written on this blog about how Dad answered the call to fight for his country on Dec. 7, 1941. I will recap here briefly.

Dad was the oldest of seven siblings living in Portland, Ore., when the Japanese attacked our naval forces in Hawaii. Two of his siblings are still living. One of them is Dad’s youngest brother, who a year ago told me of how Dad — who was listening on the radio to the horrible events of that day — left the house and went downtown to enlist in the Navy. He joined the fight that very day.

He wouldn’t suit up for a few more weeks. In early February, Dad ventured to San Diego, Calif., for his basic training. He ended up in the Mediterranean Theater of Operations where he fought the Nazis and the Italians who joined their Japanese allies in declaring war on the United States.

I want to mention this once again because Dad’s bravery and — in the words of President Roosevelt — his “righteous anger” symbolized a nation that would fight the tyrants to the bitter end.

Dad became one of 16 million Americans to join that fight. They became what we now refer to as “The Greatest Generation.” They’re all very old now. Fewer than 500,000 of them remain among us.

They were called to arms because an enemy state miscalculated the resolve of what had been referred to in real time as a “sleeping giant.”

I am proud to be the son of one of those gallant Americans who envisioned immediately his need to take up arms against tyranny and fight for the nation he loved.

That love of country is part of Dad’s enduring legacy.

military news

Who are ‘Vets for Trump’?

(AP Photo/Brennan Linsley)

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

I will acknowledge being a member of the “Never Trump” brigade.

I get to join some prominent Republicans, even though I am not one of them. Given that we in Texas vote in an “open primary” system, we do not have to “register” with a particular political party.

Now that we have established that bit of info, I want to explore briefly the phenomenon called “Veterans for Trump.”

Why in the name of public service does any veteran stand with this guy? The Atlantic magazine article that portrayed Trump as someone who detests those who serve in uniform ought to have dissuaded any self-respecting veteran from backing this individual’s re-election effort. They have their assorted reasons and I will respect them for standing on their rationale.

To be fair, I known personally plenty of vets who fall into that category. I mean no disrespect to any of them. They are my friends and I love them all.

The Atlantic cited numerous sources who confirmed that Trump referred to vets as “suckers” and “losers.” He denigrated the service of those who were captured by enemy forces. Trump even told associates that parades honoring veterans shouldn’t include those who suffered grievous injury because “no one wants to see that.”

I hasten to add that The Atlantic article has been verified by other reputable news sources. They have corroborated what the reporter, Jeffrey Goldberg, revealed in the article.

And so I have to ask: How do veterans continue to stand with this guy who disparages them in such grotesque fashion?

To be sure, I am not one of them. Then again, I am a proud member of the “never Trump” team.

military news

Why the silence, indeed?

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

I found this letter to the editor of the Dallas Morning News today that I want to share on this blog.

Five times I have written my congressman, Van Taylor, about his silence on reports of Russian bounties, the president’s alleged comments about prisoners of war, those killed in actions and wounded veterans. He has not responded directly. A staffer called after my letter on bounties but all he did was list the bills Taylor supported.

Taylor touts his service as a Marine. Why is he silent on the statements from Trump, actual and alleged, that denigrate military people? Has he forgotten why he served and those with whom he served?

Michael Bulkeley, Richardson

***

Rep. Taylor is my congressman, too. He is a first-term Republican whom I have met and discussed some local issues. He seems like an earnest young man.

However … I want to echo Mr. Bulkeley’s letter to the DMN. Taylor, though, is far from alone in the GOP silence on reports that Russian goons have paid Taliban terrorists bounties for Americans they have killed on Afghanistan battlefields.

We are witnessing a shameful and shocking fealty to a president who has demonstrated a horrifying disrespect for those who make the kinds of sacrifice that he infamously sought to avoid during the Vietnam War. Van Taylor, given his combat experience as a Marine in Afghanistan, ought to be yelling the most loudly in challenging Trump’s silence on the Russian campaign against our fighting forces.

He isn’t. Nor are his GOP colleagues in both chambers of Congress.

Think about this for a moment. Traditional Republican politicians would be aghast to hear such things about this longstanding hostile foreign power. Donald Trump has acknowledged already that he has declined to bring it up with Vladimir Putin during several phone calls he has had with the Russian president. What the hell?

The GOP congressional caucus also has sat in stone-cold silence over The Atlantic story in which Trump reportedly called service personnel “suckers” and “losers” if they are injured or killed in combat. Indeed, has Rep. Taylor called Donald Trump out for the remarks attributed to him in The Atlantic? I am waiting patiently.

What we have here, I daresay, is a Republican political caucus that is too beholden to an individual. It is a disgraceful example of blind and muted loyalty to a president who demands it of others but who refuses to return that loyalty to those who defend our nation.

military news

Honoring an Army ‘loser’?

1 Comment
(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

I am not proud of the thought that entered my mind when I heard the news, but I want to acknowledge it nonetheless.

Donald Trump draped a Medal of Honor around the neck of Army Sgt. Major Thomas P. Payne, honoring the recipient for the astonishing heroism he exhibited while rescuing hostages being held by Islamic State terrorists in Iraq.

Sgt. Major Payne is the real thing. He deserves the honor he received today in a ceremony that had been scheduled long before another story broke recently.

It was the report in The Atlantic that Trump has referred to men and women in uniform as “suckers” and “losers.” Trump denies saying those hideous things, which one would expect to hear from the commander in chief.

But the thought immediately was this: Did the sergeant major recall any of those ghastly views attributed to Trump while he was being honored for the astonishing battlefield heroism he displayed?

Sgt. Major Payne is, as Donald Trump described him today, “one of the bravest men anywhere in the world.” If only this ceremony wasn’t sullied by remarks attributed to the commander in chief.

Sgt. Major Payne’s heroism, despite the backdrop, stands alone.

Thank you so much for your service to the nation, Sgt. Major.

military news

Trump takes aim at the brass

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis _92@hotmail.com

I cannot remember ever hearing an American president say the things that Donald Trump has said about the high command of the nation’s military.

Moreover, I also doubt the generals and admirals about whom Trump was referring had ever heard it, either.

Trump called a press conference on Labor Day and then decided to take off on a riff against the brass. He said the line soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines like and respect him, but not so much with the top end of the chain of command.

He essentially accused the Pentagon brass of being war profiteers. They want to keep fighting “endless wars” because it keeps weapons suppliers in business, which Trump said suits the brass just fine.

Hey, I never got close the brass while I served in the U.S. Army, so I cannot speak with any actual authority on the subject. I just will posit the notion that generals and admirals who have been to war want no part of it even though they no longer thrust themselves into harm’s way.

How do I know this? I just do. I have talked over the years with enough junior- or field-grade officers who’ve seen combat to know how they feel about the idea of going to war. They hate war with a purple passion!

So, for Trump to effectively defame the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the officers who answer directly to them makes me wonder: How do these men and women continue to serve silently under a commander in chief who has no appreciation for what they have endured while serving the country they all love?

military news, national news

Yep, the shoe fits

“I would be willing to swear on anything that I never said that about our fallen heroes. There is nobody that respects them more.”

Donald J. Trump

By JOHN KANELIS

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Do you believe the commander in chief’s denial that he denigrated and disparaged the men and women who serve in our nation’s military?

Yeah. Me neither. Nor does Chuck Hagel, the former Republican U.S. senator from Nebraska and former defense secretary in the Obama administration.

The source of this angst comes from The Atlantic magazine, which published a story by Jeffrey Goldberg citing four anonymous sources who reportedly heard Trump speak ill of those who were wounded in action, were killed in action or taken prisoner by enemy forces.

According to USA Today: Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran and two-term Republican senator, told ABC News “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz that if Trump’s reported comments are “real, it’s beneath the dignity of any commander in chief. Truly they’re despicable.” 

OK, Hagel is giving Trump a sliver of a benefit of the doubt on the remarks attributed to him in The Atlantic. I saw the ABC News interview and I came away from watching it that Hagel truly believes the remarks fit a pattern that Trump already has exhibited.

No, this story won’t go away any time soon. Nor should it. The reporting paints the commander in chief in the most hideous context imaginable.

I would accept Donald Trump’s denial, that he would swear on anything he could find. Except that his constant and relentless lying has destroyed all semblance of credibility.

military news

Trump exhibits ignorance

By JOHN KANELIS

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Donald Trump’s ignorance of military matters is well-known, thoroughly chronicled and has become the talk of the planet.

But then the commander in chief said today that rank-and-file enlisted men and women love him, but that the generals and admirals at the top of the chain of command well … think a lot less of him.

“I’m not saying the military’s in love with me,” Trump said. “But the soldiers are.

“The top people in the Pentagon probably aren’t, because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy, but we’re getting out of the endless wars, you know how we’re doing.”

That was his response to a question today at a press conference about statements attributed to him in The Atlantic article, the one in which he reportedly called injured service personnel “losers” and “suckers.”

Trump’s astonishing, jaw-dropping ignorance drew a sharp rebuke from retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a Vietnam War combat veteran who led troops into battle during the Persian Gulf War.

McCaffrey noted that the individuals at the general grade officer level themselves came up through the ranks. Many of them saw combat as junior-grade officers; they suffered injury; they suffer from PTSD. Those individuals, Gen. McCaffrey noted correctly, are adamantly opposed to going to war.

And for the commander in chief to suggest they are in bed with weapons makers is as disgraceful a statement that McCaffrey said he has ever heard come from a commander in chief.

It’s instructive, too, that Trump would say such a thing in the wake of the blowback from The Atlantic article that attributes astounding comments from Trump about those who have sacrificed so much in defense of the nation.

To my eyes and ears, what Trump said today about the general-grade officers, alleging greed is pushing them into continuing to fight “endless wars” only validates the reporting that The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg has provided.

The commander in chief’s ignorance about military matters, as Gen. McCaffrey has noted, makes him a menace to our national security.

military news

This story will stick

By JOHN KANELIS

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

I have no doubt about the veracity of a story that has grown more legs than a centipede.

It involves statements attributed to Donald Trump in which he denigrates the service performed by wounded servicemen and women, those who were captured by the enemy and even those who gave their lives in defense of the nation.

He called them “losers” and “suckers,” according to the article published in The Atlantic.

Of course, Trump denies it vehemently. He has gone on the attack against the author of the piece, Jeffrey Goldberg, against the owner of the publication, and against the “fake news” media for reporting what Goldberg has written.

But think about it for just a moment: The statements attributed to Trump are wholly consistent with statements he has made publicly, out loud, and for the record about service personnel who have served with honor, valor and heroism.

He disparaged the late John McCain’s time as a Vietnam War prisoner; he castigated a Gold Star couple whose son was killed in action in Iraq; he criticized Admiral William McRaven after the special operations commander coordinated the mission to kill Osama bin Laden, saying he should have killed bin Laden sooner; he ridiculed Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who testified in the impeachment inquiry against Trump.

He feigns admiration for our servicemen and women. He brags about all the great things he has done for our veterans and for our active-duty personnel.

Still, he finds moments to denigrate the service of those who serve their country.

He wants us to believe he didn’t say those things attributed to him in The Atlantic? He must be out of his ever-lovin’ mind to believe Americans should accept his overheated denials.

I believe this story will continue to grow even more legs as we move toward the end of the presidential campaign. As it should. It rings true to this veteran’s ears. I suspect there are others among us who will be as repulsed as I am to read the things that fly out of the mouth of the man masquerading as our commander in chief.