Tag Archives: Islamic State

International news

When does the clock start on ISIS destruction?

Is it fair to wonder if the time is approaching to start holding Donald Trump accountable for his boasts about getting rid of the Islamic State?

The president told us during the 2016 campaign that he knows “more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me.” He vowed to destroy the hideous terrorist organization. He has declared the end of an era in which the United States is “losing” in the fight against its worldwide enemies.

So I’m wondering when we might start some sort of countdown clock. When does the president become fully responsible for any failure to make good on the bold boasts he made while seeking the office he now occupies?

If we are not going to formulate a countdown clock, then it well might be time to start pressing the commander in chief about whether he intends to make good on his campaign promise.

I was struck during the campaign by the ease with which these boasts poured forth. He made it sound as if all he had to do to rid the world of the Islamic State was to bomb the terrorists into oblivion. Didn’t he once say he’d “bomb the s***” out of them? Hey, we’ve got the ordnance. Let’s use it, he said.

They’re still out there, Mr. President. ISIS is still fomenting terror. It’s still taking responsibility for terrorist activities. It’s still causing American service personnel considerable grief.

It’s time to get busy, Mr. President.

International news

Hoping ISIS leader is a goner … finally!

The Russian government usually isn’t to be trusted to tell the truth about anything.

The country’s foreign ministry, though, has put out a tantalizing morsel: Russian air strikes might this past month have killed the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Before we get all a-flutter over this possibility, it’s good to ponder some elements that ought to keep us grounded.

Is the terrorist really dead?

Al-Baghdadi’s death would not mean the end of ISIS. It opens the door for another madman to step forward to take his place.

You might recall that when U.S. special forces killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in May 2011, there was dancing in front of the White House and chants of “USA! USA! USA!” Sure, we got the 9/11 mastermind, but the fight against al-Qaeda goes on.

There also have been earlier claims of al-Baghdadi’s death. The Russians have been hitting ISIS targets in Syria with air strikes and ground-based artillery. Are the Russians to be believed now? Do we hold out hope that they actually got this monstrous madman? Furthermore, are the Russians to be believed?

I guess I could remind all of us that terrorism doesn’t exist within the ranks of international organizations. “Lone wolf” terrorists lurk among us. They skulk out from under rocks. Latest example? The guy who shot the Republican lawmakers practicing for a charity baseball game, wounding several people, including the House GOP whip, Steve Scalise.

I am going to hope the Russian claim that they might have killed al-Baghdadi. I am going to retain the realism of the fight in which we are engaged against terror. The fight likely never will end.

International news

Mitt Romney: ahead of his time in 2012?

Mitt Romney issued a warning in 2012 that many Americans — yours truly included — derided as hopelessly out of touch.

Perhaps you’ll remember when he declared Russia to be the world’s “No. 1 geopolitical threat.” President Obama all but laughed him out of the proverbial room.

The president spoke instead of the threat presented by international terrorism. Many of us agreed with the president and not the then-Republican Party nominee who was running against him.

It well might be that Mitt was ahead of his time five years ago. Republicans in Congress are starting to echo their party’s one-time presidential standard bearer.

Sen. John McCain is one of them. Speaking to an Australian radio station, McCain said: “I think ISIS can do terrible things. But it’s the Russians who tried to destroy the fundamental of democracy and that is to change the outcome of an American election.”

It’s still to be determined just how much impact the Russians had on the 2016 electoral outcome, but they surely have succeeded in throwing the U.S. political debate into a tizzy.

Indeed, the Russians still possess a lot of nuclear weapons. They have a formidable conventional military force, which they have used in places like Ukraine and Syria.

Are the Russians the most fearsome political foe we face?

Yes, it looks that way to a lot of us — and, yes, that includes yours truly.

I regret that I doubted you, Mitt.

military news

POTUS said what? To whom?

Whoa, Mr. President!

Did I hear this right? The New York Times is reporting that the president of the United States told the leader of The Philippines that we have deployed two nuclear submarines off the Korean Peninsula.

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte isn’t your ordinary head of state. He’s a despot, strongman, dictator who has just declared martial law in his country. He appears to be Donald J. Trump’s kind of guy. Tough dude. Strong leader.

But hold on here.

The location of our strategic nuclear arsenal is supposed to be, um, highly classified. It’s a state secret. We never disclose the location of these weapons of war. That’s why we deploy them to travel underwater, they are out of sight, they are intended to sneak up on our potential enemies.

Do you get my drift here?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-submarines-idUSKBN18K15Y

What in the name of modern warfare is our commander in chief thinking — if that’s what you want to call it? The president reportedly bragged to the Russian foreign minister about the “great intel” he gets and then revealed some classified information to the Russians about our fight against the Islamic State. Now he gets on the telephone in late April with the president of The Philippines and blabs about the location of two nuclear submarines.

Good grief, dude! Do you think there might have been someone out there listening — perhaps, maybe, could be — to what you were telling your pal in Manila?

Hey, do you remember all the questions and concerns about giving this fellow, Trump, the nuclear launch codes?

Are you concerned — now?

International news, national news, political news

Border security, yes; the wall, no!

Well now, that wasn’t so hard, was it Congress?

Federal lawmakers have approved a stop-gap budget bill that keeps the government operating through September. They have avoided a federal government shutdown that some in Congress — and the White House — had feared might occur at the end of this week.

Here’s the thing, too: The budget contains zero money for a “big, beautiful” wall along our nation’s southern border, which Donald Trump had insisted be included … that is, until he backed down and withdrew his demand.

The bill allocates $1.5 billion for enhanced border security. Hey, that’s not a bad load of dough to protect our borders against illegal immigrants and assorted criminals and, yes, potential terrorists. More Border Patrol agents and better surveillance equipment can go a long way toward making us more secure along both of our lengthy land borders.

It also sets aside $15 billion in defense spending to fight terrorism, with $2.5 million of it contingent on the president developing a strategy to fight the Islamic State. I like that idea, too.

Let’s get busy with longer term deal

Congress isn’t done. Not by a long shot. How about lawmakers hunkering down immediately to start working on a longer-term arrangement that keeps the government functioning well past the next deadline?

Believe it or not, September will be upon us before any of us knows it. Congress, though, likely will spend the bulk of the summer spread out on recess. Members will go home, or perhaps travel on those infamous “fact-finding” junkets to exotic locations in the South Pacific, South America or the south of France.

But I’m heartened to know that the wall gets no taxpayer money, given that the president’s efforts to get Mexico to pay for it have fallen flat.

military news

‘I know more than generals about ISIS, believe me’

Strange things occur to individuals who campaign for the presidency and then actually become president.

They boast about how smart and savvy they are on matters about which they have no experience. Then they learn that — by golly — they aren’t as smart as they proclaim themselves to be.

Donald J. Trump once boasted, “I know more the generals about ISIS, believe me.” Sure thing, candidate Trump, who had zero military experience — let alone political experience — prior to running for president.

Then he wins the election. He gets a few briefings and finds out the truth, which is that he doesn’t know squat about the Islamic State, its tactics and strategy or the best way to fight and “destroy” the terrorist organization.

The military then deployed its largest non-nuclear explosive device on an ISIS compound in Afghanistan, killing dozens of terrorists and destroying many tons of valuable equipment.

Now the president says he relied on “my military” to take care of things, that he trusts the brass implicitly to know how to fight the Islamic State.

It is baffling to me in the extreme as I try to understand how this guy got elected president after saying the things he did about the greatest military force in world history.

At least, though, he is acknowledging what he should have acknowledged all along.  Which is that he doesn’t know “more about ISIS” than the career military personnel upon whom he will depend if he has a prayer of keeping his pledge to “destroy” the Islamic State.

military news

MOAB does what it’s supposed to do

1 Comment

It’s called the MOAB.

The acronym actually stands for Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb. Its colloquial meaning is Mother of All Bombs.

The military dropped one of these devices on an Islamic State operation in Afghanistan. And, sure, there’s debate on why the military chose to use the device.

I support its use. Donald J. Trump promised during the campaign that he would “bomb the s*** out of ISIS.” Well, there you go. The MOAB does do that.

It’s the largest conventional explosive device in the U.S. arsenal. It weighs about 25,000 pounds. It does significant damage.

ISIS has earned this kind of response

Let’s not get too namby-pamby about this device. The Islamic State has performed some heinous actions against innocent victims. It has performed hideous acts with regard to prisoners it has taken — and executed.

I get that the debate about the MOAB is important in one respect: The bomb is so powerful that the military must be certain to avoid civilian casualties, given that the United States as a matter of military policy doesn’t kill civilians knowingly.

Trump — who used to criticize the military as feckless and weak — now proclaims great faith in its ability to carry out missions such as the one involving the MOAB. His criticism while campaigning for the presidency was misplaced; the president’s endorsement of the U.S. military’s extraordinary capability now is quite appropriate.

Thus, the MOAB has been introduced into this fight.

My own view is that the military should use this devastating weapon whenever feasible against a ghastly enemy that has earned the civilized world’s rage.

International news, military news

Mr. President, we already are in Syria

Donald J. Trump said the other day that the missile strike on a Syrian air force airfield doesn’t mean we are “going into Syria.”

Hold on, Mr. President!

We already are in Syria, sir. President Barack Obama ordered several hundred special forces troops onto that battlefield to assist and train and coordinate attacks launched by “free Syrian” rebels fighting the Russian-backed government of dictator Bashar al Assad.

I also would add that the missiles launched from ships off the Syrian coast suggest that a more serious involvement by the United States in that conflict.

Times and circumstances do change, Mr. President, as you now are learning. Someone will need to remind the president that he used to believe that we should leave the fighting to the rebels. He also used to suggest that Assad’s forces — along with the Russians — could be capable of taking out the Islamic State terrorists.

Let the Russians deal with ISIS, he said. Sure thing, Mr. President. That will work out just fine.

My point, though, is that we already are engaged in Syria. Our special forces put their lives on the line every moment of every day they are deployed there.

The bigger, more important, question is whether we’re going to commit thousands of troops to fight ISIS head to head.

I’m now concerned that the president hasn’t given that option the careful, thoughtful and prayerful consideration it deserves.

International news, military news

Time to think strategically, Mr. POTUS

Donald Trump needs to start crafting a strategic thought pattern as it regards Syria.

In a major hurry.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has declared that Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad’s presence in power eliminates any “political solution” to the crisis and the bloodshed. So, what does Nikki Haley recommend to remove Assad?

She isn’t saying, given that it’s not her call.

That decision needs to come from the president of United States. Moreover, it needs to be made with a complete understanding of what will happen if we manage to implement “regime change” in Syria.

This situation is getting more than a little scary. Sure, we launched some Tomahawk missiles at a military target in response to Syria’s use of chemical gas on civilians. The result of that strike is mixed … at best.

What is the next course of action? What is the president planning and what will be the consequence? Will he consult with Congress, which Republican leaders used to demand of President Obama whenever he sought to take military action against the Islamic State or al-Qaeda? For that matter, where are the demands for congressional approval now that Trump is president?

Do we go in with guns blazing?

Trump used to think it was in our national interest to stay out of Syria. Let the Russians handle ISIS, he once said. Let the Syrian government root out the terrorists, he added.

No more.

Now that we have entered the fight — even in this limited fashion — there needs to be some thought given to an “end game” if we choose to escalate this military intervention.

Think strategically, Mr. President, if you are able.

International news, national news

No, ISIS … POTUS is no ‘idiot’

It’s one thing for Americans to disparage their own president, even to call him unflattering names.

When a foreign power does it — let alone a mortal enemy of the United States and the rest of the civilized world — well, that’s quite another matter.

The Islamic State has issued some kind of scathing statement in which it refers to Donald John Trump as an “idiot.” The ISIS statement says, in part: “… There is no more evidence than the fact that you are being run by an idiot who does not know what Syria or Iraq or Islam is,”

ISIS has it wrong

An “idiot” does not parlay a stake in a business handed down to him by his father into a multibillion-dollar real estate enterprise. An “idiot” doesn’t produce a successful reality TV show, nor does an “idiot” run a successful beauty pageant.

There. That’s about as close as I’m going to come to saying something positive about the current president of the United States.

He is naïve, ignorant about the complexities of the government he runs; he is morally unfit to hold the office he occupies; he speaks clumsily; he bereft of core governing principles.

An idiot?

No. Far from it.

What is troubling to this American is to hear such a description coming from a terrorist organization that beheads prisoners, kills innocent victims, hides behind children, sends suicide bombers to terrorize others — all in the name of Islam. These are religious perverts who have no right to speak for true-blue adherents to a great religion.

Perverting that religion sounds, if you’ll pardon the use of the term, like the action of a group of idiots.

Put another way, Trump well might be an SOB, but he’s our SOB.