Category Archives: military news

Gov. Abbott weighs in on Khan kerfuffle

Abbott-2_jpg_312x1000_q100

Now it’s Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s turn to speak out against remarks aimed at the parents of a slain U.S. Army hero.

Abbott, the state’s Republican chief executive who’s now backing GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump after backing Ted Cruz initially in the party’s presidential primary, said this, according to the Texas Tribune:

“The service and devotion of Gold Star families to America cannot be questioned,” Abbott said in a statement provided Monday to The Texas Tribune. “Captain [Humayun] Khan, like many heroes who paid the ultimate sacrifice, will be forever remembered for their service in protecting the freedoms we cherish in America.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/01/trump-attacks-greg-abbott-muslim-soldier/

OK, governor. Good words. But like so many Republican political leaders who now are backing Trump — who’s been battling Capt. Khan’s parents, Kzhir and Ghazala Khan, over their statements against the GOP nominee — he declined to say the rest of what needed to be said.

If he would have asked me to write his statement, I would have added: “Therefore, it is disgraceful that our party’s nominee, Donald Trump, would soil Capt. Khan’s service in such a manner by criticizing his parents for exercising their constitutional rights — as U.S. citizens — to speak out in a public political forum.”

Capt. Khan, a U.S. Army officer who happened to be Muslim, died in Iraq in 2004 while protecting soldiers under his command from the enemy. His parents spoke out at the Democratic convention against Trump’s candidacy.

Trump has said Kzhir Khan had “no right” to criticize him.

Actually, as a U.S. citizen, Mr. Khan had every right.

So many Trump insult targets … where to begin?

trump-military

Donald J. Trump’s insult-fueled rise to the Republican Party’s presidential nomination makes observers like me torn as to which one of the insults causes the most disgust.

I’ll comment today on the invective he has hurled at our military establishment.

Trump continually calls our military a “disaster.” He laments what he calls a failed foreign policy and the allegation that “we don’t win anymore.”

Two points need attention.

One of them is that Trump has no military service in his record. He doesn’t have any real understanding of military life, of military chain of command, of the stresses associated with serving during a time of war, let alone in a war zone.

To be fair, Barack Obama has no military experience, either. Nor does Hillary Rodham Clinton, the current Democratic Party presidential nominee. Then again, they have nothing but high praise for the men and women who serve in our military.

That this kind of criticism would fly out of the mouth of someone who sought multiple deferments during the Vietnam War disgusts me in the extreme.

The second point of contention is that I have several members of my family  who’ve served in the military during the past two decades. A young cousin served in the Navy; another first cousin of mine is currently serving in the Army — and has gone through several deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan; a young nephew of mine saw heavy combat during one of his two tours in Iraq while he served with an Army armored unit that breached the Iraqi frontier at the beginning of the Iraq War in March 2003; and another nephew is currently serving in the U.S. Air Force.

They all have served — right along with their fellow servicemen and women — with honor.

I resent highly any inference from a presidential candidate that their service has been a “disaster.”

And yet this clown’s insults fly over the heads of supporters who hear him utter them, and which — in my view — defame the very men and women he seeks to lead as their commander in chief.

Go figure.

Thornberry weighs in on Khan kerfuffle … more or less

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, questions Defense Secretary Ash Carter as he testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, March 18,2015, before the committee's hearing on President Obama's use of military force proposal against IS and the Defense Department's budget. (AP Photo/Molly Riley)

U.S. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry said this about the recent tumult over remarks that Donald J. Trump made about the parents of a fallen U.S. Army hero:

“I am dismayed at the attacks Khizr and Ghazala Khan have endured after they spoke about their son’s service and sacrifice… I believe that each of us are called every day to show our deepest respect and gratitude to all of those who protect our freedom and their families.”

That’s it? Yep. Apparently.

To my reading of the statement from my congressman — a man with whom I have had a good professional and personal relationship for more than two decades — seems, shall we say, more than a bit tepid.

Thornberry is a dedicated Republican congressman representing an equally dedicated Republican congressional district. His party’s presidential candidate, Trump, has managed to step deeply into a morass by criticizing Khizr and Ghazala Khan after they spoke of their son’s death in Iraq during an appearance at the Democratic National Convention.

The Khans are a Muslim family and Trump’s response to their criticism of him has been, to say the very least, well … despicable and reprehensible.

I wish my member of Congress would take a moment or perhaps two to share the outrage that other Americans are feeling about the comments that a major-party presidential nominee would make about a grieving Gold Star Family.

As a friend of mine noted in a social media post, Thornberry’s response is on a par with declaring his undying opposition to “child abuse.”

Ghazala Khan breaks her silence

Khizr Khan, father of fallen US Army Capt. Humayun S. M. Khan and his wife Ghazala speak during the final day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia , Thursday, July 28, 2016. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Donald J. Trump wasn’t satisfied to compare his high-rise building “sacrifice” to the grief shared by the parents of a young American hero.

Oh, no. The Republican presidential nominee felt compelled to question why the young soldier’s mother remained silent during her husband’s soliloquy at the Democratic National Convention.

Yes, the parents are Muslim. Their son, a U.S. Army captain, died in Iraq in 2004. Trump wondered aloud whether Ghazala Khan was silenced because of Muslim tradition.

She has spoken out in an op-ed that’s worth your time to read.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ghazala-khan-donald-trump-criticized-my-silence-he-knows-nothing-about-true-sacrifice/2016/07/31/c46e52ec-571c-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html?campaign_id=A100&campaign_type=Email

Mrs. Khan wrote an essay for the Washington Post in which she said: “Donald Trump said that maybe I wasn’t allowed to say anything. That is not true. My husband asked me if I wanted to speak, but I told him I could not. My religion teaches me that all human beings are equal in God’s eyes. Husband and wife are part of each other; you should love and respect each other so you can take care of the family.”

Ghazala Khan is a Gold Star Mother who, along with her husband, Khzir Khan, have made the ultimate sacrifice. Their son, Capt. Humayun Khan, died heroically in defense of his country.

Donald J. Trump is a disgraceful demagogue.

NATO remains our premier alliance

formation-of-nato-hero-AB

Here’s a quick pop quiz question for you …

Of all the alliances that included the United States, which of them was deemed the most crucial and which of them has lasted the longest?

Time’s up!

The answer is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, formed in 1949 as the Cold War was reaching a fever pitch. It was formed as a defense alliance against the military threat posed by the Soviet Union and its bloc of nations against Western Europe.

Its mission has changed a bit since 1991, when the Evil Empire collapsed. The Soviet Union no longer poses a threat, but Russia does.

So, what does the Republican Party’s presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, propose to do? He wants to establish financial conditions on whether the United States would honor its treaty obligations in case Russia were to attack, say, any or all of the Baltic States.

Trump told the New York Times that if he’s elected president that he would examine whether a threatened NATO nation had upheld its financial responsibilities as part of the defense pact. I mention the Baltic States because they once were Soviet provinces, but they became independent as the Soviet Union fell; Russia has been making some noise about re-annexing Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, all of which are now NATO members.

With that statement, Trump has proposed a fundamental rewriting of our oldest post-World War II military alliance.

According to the New York Times: “The United States created the 28-nation alliance, and Article 5 of the NATO treaty, signed by President Truman, requires any member to come to the aid of another that NATO declares was attacked. It has been invoked only once: NATO pledged to defend the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

Yes, we’ve been a charter member of the United Nations, which was formed in 1945. I’m wondering if Trump — in stating his nationalist fervor — is going to propose we withdraw from the U.N. as a sop to the TEA Party faction with the GOP that has been supporting his presidential candidacy.

GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney in 2012 called Russia the nation’s No. 1 geopolitical threat. Given that hindsight provides such clarity, Romney’s view now appears to be quite prescient.

Trump now is going to put conditions on whether we rise to the defense of a NATO member nation. Are they paying their bills? Have they made good on maintaining their financial obligations to NATO? Are we going to let the citizens of a country under attack be subjected to the tyranny that Russian rule would bring to them because their government hasn’t paid their fair share of the cost associated with NATO membership?

How many more examples is the GOP presidential nominee going to provide that demonstrate his absolute ignorance of geopolitical alliances before it sinks in that he is unfit for the office he seeks?

Great nations do not go back on their word to protect their allies.

Wait for the big announcement; it’s coming soon

080712-N-3285B-007 MAYPORT, Fla. (July 12, 2008) Adm. James Stavridis, commander, U.S. Southern Command, speaks at the 4th Fleet reestablishment ceremony held on board Naval Station Mayport. Fourth Fleet is the reassigned numbered fleet assigned to NAVSO, exercising operational control of assigned forces. Fourth Fleet conducts the full spectrum of Maritime Security Operations in support of U.S. objectives and security cooperation activities that promote coalition building and deter aggression in the maritime environment.  U.S. Navy photo Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Regina L. Brown (Released)

The cat’s out of the bag.

No. Not that cat. Not the big one, which would involve the announcement of just who Hillary Rodham Clinton will choose as her running mate in the upcoming presidential election.

The cat to which I refer is the timing of the announcement.

It’s coming Saturday. Clinton will be in Florida — one of those crucial “swing states” — where she’s expected to declare the name of her vice-presidential pick.

Frankly, I had hoped she’d do it on Friday, a single day after the Republican National Convention had adjourned for the next four years.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/07/timing-could-be-everything-for-the-next-vp-selection/

Reports are flying that Clinton wants to stress “national security” in her pick. More reports are flying that such an emphasis has elevated a retired Navy admiral’s standing in her hunt for the perfect No. 2.

James Stavridis might get the call. Or it might go to Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. Or it could be Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack of Iowa.

Admiral Stavridis has no political experience. He does have a boatload — yes, the pun is intended — of national security experience. He’s a strategic thinker and someone who has worked with Clinton at the State Department.

The last general-grade officer to serve on a national ticket was the late Admiral James Stockdale, who in 1992 ran with independent candidate  H. Ross Perot. You’ll remember Stockdale asking — rhetorically, I presume — “Why am I here?” during the VP debate that year. The question has endured as a punch line, sadly besmirching the reputation of a man who, like John McCain, served heroically as a prison of war in North Vietnam.

That was then. The here and now gives the Democratic presidential nominee a chance to steal a whole lot of thunder from the Republicans.

We appear to be ready to learn the name of the Democrats’ vice-presidential pick on Saturday.

If not sooner.

This ceremony is worth watching … over and over

President Barack Obama took a few minutes out of his busy day this week to hang a medal around the neck of an 86-year-old hero.

The hero’s name is Charles Kettles. Nearly 50 years ago — yes, 50 years — Kettles found himself in the middle of an intense fire fight in Vietnam.

Kettles, an Army pilot, already had been awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his effort to rescue his fellow soldiers, flying them out of the landing zone to safety.

But someone in Ypsilanti, Mich., where Kettles lives, heard about the story and worked for five years to ensure that Kettles received the nation’s highest military award, the Medal of Honor.

This video tells the story. It’s moving. It speaks to one man’s humility, which as I’ve long believed speaks to the fundamental character that all true heroes share.

The event also enables us, as the president noted, to honor the “basic goodness” of Americans. “It’s been a tough couple of weeks,” the president said.

Indeed it has … which helps make this presentation so meaningful.

Thank you, Lt. Col. Kettles.

Newt proposes going to war against Islam

the_crux_of_our_endless_war_on_terror

President George W. Bush stood firm and resolute in the days after 9/11 and declared — without equivocation — that America would not go to war “against Islam.”

Our enemy, he told a grief-stricken nation, are the religious perverts who acted in the name of a mainstream religion.

Then we went to war against terrorists.

President Barack Obama came into office eight years later and said the same thing. He has followed through on President Bush’s declaration. Yet those who condemn Barack Obama’s strategy choose to ignore the war policies enacted by his immediate predecessor in the White House.

So, what does a one-time congressional leader and former candidate for president of the United States want to do? He wants to go to war against Islam. Newt Gingrich said last night the nation needs to apply “tests” to Muslims to determine if they believe in Sharia law, which he said is incompatible with “western civilization.”

The former speaker of the House has given the radical Islamists a lead-pipe-cinch recruitment tool. He has just delivered to them all the evidence many of the terrorists need to justify their jihad against the United States and our many allies around the world.

Two presidents — one Republican and one Democrat — who’ve been up to their armpits in this on-going war against radical Islamic terrorists have laid down an important marker that Newt Gingrich has declared no longer matters.

Suffice to say, at least, that Newt no longer is in a position to turn his shrill rhetoric into public policy.

Thank goodness, at least, for that reality.

So long, Omar the Chechen

th

Omar the Chechen is dead.

It took a while to confirm that the Islamic State leader had bought it in a U.S.-led attack, but the terrorist group has confirmed The Chechen’s death.

So, what does this mean?

To me, it means a couple of things.

First, it signals that our efforts to eliminate terrorist leaders is gaining ground. The U.S. military — the one that some politicians keep saying is “losing” — is showing that it remains quite a capable fighting force.

Second, The Chechen’s death should not be seen as a final “victory” in this ongoing war against the despicable terrorist organization. It only means that we must keep up the fight and must pursue the enemy — in the worlds of one-time GOP presidential nominee John McCain — “to the gates of hell” if need be.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/islamic-state-says-senior-commander-killed-in-iraq/

Omar al-Shishani was born in what was once known as the Soviet Union. He was just 30 years of age.

The fight must go on. There likely will be another madman who’ll step into Omar the Chechen’s shoes.

His death, though, does suggest that ISIS has suffered yet another in a lengthening string of key tactical defeats.

Let there be many more of them.

U.S. redoubles efforts to protect civilian lives

drone strikes

U.S. drone strikes have killed perhaps as many as 116 civilians since 2009, according to the White House.

What, then, is the response from the commander in chief, Barack Obama? He issued an executive order today that redoubles our military’s efforts to avoid killing civilians in future drone strikes.

I can hear it now from critics of the president.

* He’s soft on terrorists.

* Obama isn’t really committed to killing Islamic killers.

* We’re trying to conduct a “politically correct” air war against these monsters.

It’s all crap!

What the executive order signifies to me is that we’re better than the bad guys, who actually target civilians. They seek to go after so-called “soft targets” at airport terminals, train stations, shopping malls, schools, residential neighborhoods.

Our aim in launching these manned and unmanned air strikes has been to take out military targets — which we are doing with considerable effectiveness.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/white-house-at-least-64-to-116-civilians-killed-in-drone-strikes-since-2009/ar-AAhRCSZ

The White House figures are at odds with some independent estimates of civilian deaths, which place the number a good bit greater.

However, let us not give short shrift to U.S. military policy that seeks to minimize these deaths.

Sure, we didn’t always follow that doctrine. U.S. aerial bombardments during World War II targeted civilian population centers specifically. But that was then.

We are able in this modern age to launch air strikes with remarkable precision and accuracy. Are they always successful? Are we able to carry these strikes without inflicting death and injury on civilians? Of course not.

We shouldn’t change our standards to match the barbarism committed by our enemies.