Tag Archives: Pentagon

International news, military news, national news, political news

Hitting ISIL ‘harder than ever,’ but is it hard enough?

syria-air-strikes-600x376

When the White House announces that the president of the United States is going to the Pentagon to make a statement, I tend to expect something big … maybe really big.

President Obama made a statement today, but I must say it left me wishing for more.

It didn’t come.

The president, though, did restate his anti-Islamic State war strategy but did so with a good bit more vigor.

It looked like a do-over from his brief speech a week ago that left many Americans — even some Democrats who normally support the president — wondering when the commander in chief is going to get seriously worked up over ISIL’s reign of terror.

The numbers add up to significant damage being inflicted on ISIL, the president said. Here’s part of what he said:

“We are hitting ISIL harder than ever. Coalition aircraft, our fighters, bombers and drones have been increasing the pace of airstrikes, nearly 9,000 as of today,” Obama said, adding that ISIL has lost roughly 40 percent of the territory it once held in Iraq.

I happen to agree with Obama that we need not send a huge ground force back into Iraq to fight the Islamic State.

To be honest, though, I’m waiting for evidence that the strategy we’re pursuing is actually forcing ISIL’s retreat. The president said we’ve retaken a large percentage of ISIL territory, but then we see reports of ISIL scoring more battlefield victories.

I’m going to continue hoping that one day we’ll be able to hear a presidential statement — whether it’s the current one or the individual who succeeds him — that ISIL has, in fact, been destroyed.

However, I will not hold my breath.

 

International news, Uncategorized

Lapel pins, anyone?

comparepin3

Let’s talk for a moment about lapel pins.

They’ve become something of a political statement for politicians. Have been since 9/11. Why bring it up today?

Well, a friend of mine posted something earlier today on Facebook that spoke to a ban on lapel pins by ABC News. The friend of mine who shared the post, I presume, was aghast at the decision.

I think it was an old post. I had heard years ago about broadcast and cable news networks banning the display. The new executives’ view is that journalists shouldn’t advertise their bias in favor of any cause — even if it speaks to their own country. It’s not a big deal. I get what the news execs mean.

But back to the point.

Lapel pins have become part of politicians’ uniform of the day. We see them wearing these little pins depicting U.S. flags. They’re intended to demonstrate the pols’ love of country. They began showing up on politicians’ clothing days after the terrorist attacks.

Journalists aren’t politicians, quite obviously. So, when an employer mandates that journalists — whether they’re print or broadcast journalists — shouldn’t wear the patriotic symbols, they’re trying to walk the straight-and-narrow line right down the middle.

Politicians, though, wear them because they seem to suggest that wearing a lapel pin makes them look more patriotic than those who don’t.

Frankly, the flag symbols on a politician’s jacket doesn’t mean diddly-squat in terms of their patriotism.

When the terrorists flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, politicians all across the land rose up to declare their love of country by wearing the flags on their jacket. Republicans do it. So do Democrats. I like wearing them, too, but not because I have a statement to make. I think they look nice on a jacket.

Let us not get all worked up, though, when we see these social media posts about media policies regarding how journalists should present themselves to the public. The absence of a patriotic lapel pin should not be construed as a lack of love of country.

International news, military news

How do we end this world war?

war on terror

The Paris attacks that killed more than 120 innocent victims this week brought a question to my mind this afternoon as I visited with my boss … the one at work.

I asked, perhaps rhetorically, “How are we going to kill every single person on Earth who seeks to commit an act of terrorism?”

French officials today vowed to “destroy” the Islamic State. I trust they’ll take their place in a long line of officials throughout the civilized world who’ve made similar vows.

President Francois Hollande is a very angry man today as France seeks to collect itself after the worst single act of violence committed there since World War II.

The question, though, lingers in my mind.

I am beginning to believe we’re engaged in a new kind of world war. It’s not being waged against enemy states. It’s being fought wherever we find evil men and women who seek to terrorize the world. They do not represent a government, per se. They represent some perverted ideology that uses religion as some form of cover.

How do we wipe them out? How do we know when we’ve got the last person on Earth who seeks to commit a heinous act of terror? Moreover, suppose we wipe the last person out. How can ever guarantee that another individual, or group of individuals, will emerge from the shadows to resume such acts?

We are facing a very uncertain time. Indeed, it’s been an uncertain time ever since that beautiful Tuesday morning in September 2001 when those terrorists flew the jetliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and fought with the passengers aboard the third plane that crashed into the Pennsylvania field.

My boss noted the 9/11 attack as being perhaps the first “shot” in this new world war.

When on God’s Earth will it end? Can it ever end?

I fear for the worst, which is that we’ll be fighting these forces of evil for as long as human beings are able to fight.

 

International news, military news

Special forces to Syria? What’s next?

islamic-state-syria759

It’s been said many times that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Syria’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad, is our enemy. So is the Islamic State, which also is Assad’s enemy. Thus, Assad becomes our “friend” because the United States and Syria oppose the Islamic State?

My head is spinning.

President Obama has just performed a major pivot on Syria. We’re sending about 50 special operations forces to Syria to assist the government in fighting ISIS. Does that mean we’re getting engaged in a ground war in Syria? The president says “no.” I’m not so sure.

We’re putting “boots on the ground” in a place that’s been involved in a bloody civil war for many years now.

I don’t like this change of direction.

The issue of who’s our friend in the Middle East is complicated enough as it is. By my reckoning — and I’m sure many others — we have one true ally in that region: Israel. Many other nations’ leaders say they’re with us in the fight against ISIS. By and large, they have been — at best — not totally reliable.

So now we’re going to reverse ourselves and commit a handful of ground troops to this terrible conflict. Are they going to be frontline forces? The Pentagon says no and that they won’t necessarily be thrust directly into harm’s way.

What will the nation’s reaction be when we get word of the first person killed in action?

And … for what? To assist a brutal dictator who our own president has said should be removed from power?

 

 

national news, political news

GW Bush kept us safe? Umm, not entirely

President_George_W__Bush_discussing_Social_Security

Jeb Bush took up for his big brother, the 43rd president of the United States.

He said tonight: “When it comes to my brother, there’s one thing I know for sure — he kept us safe.”

Let me think about that for a minute.

OK. Actually, he didn’t.

What about 9/11?

Unless, of course, you don’t count the 9/11 terrorist attacks that occurred about nine months in George W. Bush’s presidency.

Hey, I get that the former Florida governor wants to stick up for his brother. Family ties are unbreakable in most instances.

However, the record shows in graphic detail that the worst single hostile act to occur on American soil took place on President Bush’s watch.

Was he to blame personally for the immense national security failure that resulted in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? No. However, he did assemble a national security team that he charged with keeping the nation alert to signs of trouble.

But if the president is to assume responsibility for protecting the nation against those who intend to do us harm, well … then he must be held responsible when harm arrives.

Which it surely did on Sept. 11, 2001.

 

International news

Powell endorses Iran nuclear deal

colin-powell

In another era, an endorsement of a controversial foreign policy agreement by Colin Powell might carry some weight among other members of Powell’s political party.

It won’t this time. In fact, and you might have to wait for it, you well could hear someone suggest that Powell’s endorsement doesn’t matter at all because he endorsed Barack Obama’s two successful elections as president of the United States.

Does it matter, though, that the former secretary of state remains a loyal Republican? Oh … maybe. Then again, maybe not.

Powell said today on “Meet the Press”: “The great concern from the opposition is that we’re leaving open a lane for Iran to create a nuclear weapon in 10 to 15 years. The reality is that they have been on a super highway for the last 10 years to create a nuclear weapon … with no speed limit.”

He said he’s studied the deal in detail, pored over it thoroughly and has concluded that this agreement is better than what we had before, which was nothing.

The retired four-star U.S. Army general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, calls the agreement brokered by the Obama administration a “pretty good deal.”

It’s not perfect, he said. But he’ll settle gladly for a diplomatic solution over a military one.

Given that he’s endured combat — serving two tours of duty as an infantry officer during the Vietnam War — I’ll accept his endorsement.

military news

Do women belong in combat?

U.S. Army Soldiers conduct combatives training during the Ranger Course on Fort Benning, Ga., April 20, 2015. Soldiers attend Ranger school to learn additional leadership and small unit technical and tactical skills in a physically and mentally demanding, combat simulated environment. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Dacotah Lane/Released Pending Review)

At the risk of being labeled an unreconstructed male chauvinist — and you can add “pig” to it if you wish — I want to offer a view or two about a story that’s been giving me heartburn when I first heard about it.

Two women, both West Point graduates, have completed the U.S. Army’s highly intense Ranger training. Capt. Kristen Griest and 1st Lt. Shaye Haver went through precisely the same training regimen as their male colleagues.

They deserve high praise and congratulations for completing the course and for earning the admiration of their fellow soldiers, some of whom said the two women rendered critical assistance on the training field.

One of the women is a military police officer; the other flies Apache helicopters. They know the risks associated with the hazardous military duty.

But I keep wondering about this question: Is the percentage of dropout rates among women greater or fewer than it is for men because they cannot meet the strenuous physical requirements of becoming a Ranger?

I am thrilled that these two fine soldiers completed the Ranger training successfully. They now are certified as being among the Army’s elite fighters. But they aren’t going to be assigned front-line combat duty — at least not until the Pentagon decides to deploy women to serve in infantry, armor or artillery units.

There’s been plenty of praise for these two women, who demonstrated that they are as physically capable as their male colleagues to serve as Rangers. I join in praising Capt. Griest and Lt. Haver.

Do they represent the norm among all female soldiers who might want to become Rangers, or Green Berets, or Navy SEALs, Marine commandos, or Air Force special forces?

I keep thinking they’re the exception rather than the rule.

That is what makes me hesitate to endorse the idea of sending women into ground combat.

Heck, women already have engaged in combat operations — flying high-performance aircraft or serving in civil affairs units in hostile territory.

Am I out of step? Maybe. I’ll live with it.

 

 

military news, State news

No takeover is imminent

Jade Helm 15 is about to commence in Texas.

Despite what some nut jobs have put out there, the U.S. military is not about to take over the state and hand it over to international spies.

Do not listen to the goofballs who actually persuaded Gov. Greg Abbott to order the Texas State Guard to “monitor” the activities of the Army, Navy and Air Force special forces who’ll be conducting the exercises.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/07/jade-helm-15-no-that-helicopter-is-not-coming-for-you.html/

It’s going to be all right.

The exercise was announced some months back and the Internet then jumped to life with conspiracy theories about what it all meant to some individuals and groups. As the Dallas Morning News blogger Jim Mitchell notes, one of the nuttier notions involves the Alamo: the United Nations declared the old mission a Unesco World Heritage Site, which apparently sealed it for some. Anything that involves the U.N. has got to be bad news for Texas, they feared.

The founding fathers didn’t get it perfect when they drafted and then ratified the U.S. Constitution. One thing they got right, though, was to build in a checks-and-balances system that’s designed to prevent one branch of government from getting too powerful.

President Obama knows all of this. So does the Pentagon brass. Even the federal judiciary, which has come under fire lately because of some controversial Supreme Court rulings, understands it. Congress knows its place, too.

Let the troops come to Texas to conduct their exercises.

It’s going to be OK. Honest.

 

military news

Troop levels to drop; U.S. is still No. 1

U.S. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry is worried about reductions in the number of men and women serving in the U.S. Army.

The Pentagon plans to cut the troop strength to 450,000 by September 2017. Thornberry suggested recently that the reduction is part of an on-going strategy to slash defense spending that’s been enacted since the beginning of Barack Obama’s presidency.

He’s concerned about it. So, too, are some in the media, such as the Amarillo Globe-News, which opined on Friday that the troop reduction “is bad news.” It cited “ongoing issues related to Russia and Iran, to name but a couple.”

Then the paper decided to take a cheap shot by noting that “the federal government only spends more than $70 billion a year on food stamps.”

I think a broader question ought to be this: Are we still the world’s No. 1 military power? Yes … by a country mile.

Let us also ponder: Does a reduction in the troop levels make us less able to defend ourselves against terrorists? Given tremendous advances in technology, the use of drones (which this week killed another leading Islamic State officer), our immense intelligence capability and the tremendous skill that our troops employ in the field, we absolutely are able to defend ourselves.

Thornberry wrote: “I have consistently warned about the size and pace of reductions in both end strength and defense spending and the negative impact on our country’s national security.”

Does the presence of more men and women in uniform deter terrorists from striking at us? Do the Islamic State and al-Qaeda leaders really consider the United States defense establishment — taken in its entirety — to be less capable of defending the world’s strongest nation than it was, say, when the 9/11 attacks occurred more than a dozen years ago?

The United States remains by far the pre-eminent military power on the planet.

If we are going to seek some sort of fiscal responsibility, which Thornberry and others in Congress keep insisting we should, then we must look at all aspects of the federal budget.

The day we cannot strike hard at those who seek to do us harm is the day I’ll join the doomsday chorus that includes Chairman Thornberry. We aren’t at that point. Nor do I expect us to get there.

International news, military news

War of attrition under way against ISIL

Let’s call it a war of attrition.

A deputy defense secretary says the air strikes against the Islamic State have killed an estimated 10,000 ISIL fighters. Or, if the numbers calculating the actual strength of the terrorist outfit, about one-third of the fighting force has been killed.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-official-airstrikes-killed-10000-islamic-state-fighters/ar-BBkDogm

Does this mean we’re winning the war?

Let me remind us all of what happened in Vietnam. American forces killed many times more enemy fighters than were lost on our side. The Vietnam War claimed about 58,000 American lives and as many as 10 times that number of Vietnamese.

Who won the war?

Well, we vacated the battlefield in 1973 and two years later, the North Vietnamese stormed into Saigon, renamed the city after Ho Chi Minh … and declared victory.

What the body count signifies in the war against the Islamic State, though, is the importance of keeping the pressure on the terrorists. We cannot let up. We cannot stop bombing them — with drones, manned aircraft … whatever it takes.

Yes, ISIL continues to recruit fighters worldwide. Also, ISIL is making advances here and there in Iraq.

However, I happen to believe that a concentrated, focused air campaign can defeat this monstrous enemy.

Will that signal the end of the worldwide terrorist threat? Hardly. As long as there are zealots living and breathing anywhere on Earth, there will be a terrorist threat.

There’s been some debate in the Pentagon about whether the body count number is relevant, given what happened to that formula during the Vietnam War.

I’ll continue to hold out hope that the more of these guys our side kills, the fewer of them will be available for recruitment.

Bombs away!