Tag Archives: ISIS

Get to work to ‘destroy’ ISIS, Mr. President

March 24, 2017 kanelis2012

As if we needed any reminders …

A terrorist launched an attack in London the other day. Five people died; several others were injured. Police killed the madman (whose name I will not use, per my recently adopted policy of refusing to ID the names of these goons).

He was a British citizen of Middle East descent.

And, oh yes, the Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack, apparently because the bastard was a member of the terrorist organization.

What does this mean? It means the president of the United States — who is mired in the muck of growing controversy and potential scandal at home — has to get cracking with one of his many top priorities.

Which is to “destroy ISIS.”

Just how difficult is it to do what Donald Trump has pledged to do? We’ve just borne witness to the difficulty. The London attacker was a “lone wolf.” He took his vengeance out on innocent bystanders.

Just how does one stop this kind of attack? How does a government eradicate from the face of the planet every single individual who is capable and willing to commit these acts?

This is precisely the kind of act with which the world has lived since the beginning of time. The 9/11 attack on our country launched an new kind of “world war” that many observers said likely never would end. It becomes a war of attrition, except that with a planet full of 7 billion individuals, it becomes problematic in the extreme to eliminate every single person who is committed to some hideous cause disguised as a religion.

The London attack has revealed — as if we needed reminding — the difficulty that stands before those in power.

That includes the head of state of the world’s most powerful nation. Trump has blustered and bellowed since entering the political world about how he knows “more about ISIS than the generals … believe me.” He has vowed to destroy the terrorist organization that grew out of that terrible day on 9/11. Two previous presidents — one Republican and one Democrat — have overseen the deaths of thousands of terrorists around the world.

Have we gotten them all? Of course not. Are we able to get them all? Probably not.

Thus, the fight goes on.

International news, military news, national news

National security must be above politics

February 20, 2017 kanelis2012

I cannot help but wonder if it ever has occurred to Donald Trump that the presence of his top political strategist on the National Security Council might deter qualified individuals from seeking the national security adviser’s job.

OK, I know that the president isn’t prone to introspection at any level. But the longer he goes without a national security adviser, the more grave the risk for the United States in the event of an international crisis.

These things have a way of exploding with zero advance warning … you know?

Michael Flynn was dismissed from the post after 24 days on the job, setting some kind of dubious record for brevity. Vice Admiral Bob Harward — a Navy SEAL and a highly regarded military mind — was thought to be ready to become the new national security adviser. Then he backed out!

Now the job remains vacant. Trump’s “fine-tuned machine” of an administration does not have the individual who is closest to the president after the White House chief of staff.

And this brings me to another, related point. Steve Bannon is part of the principals committee on the National Security Council. Bannon has limited experience in national security. Sure, he was a junior officer in the Navy once. He earned his political spurs, though, while running the Breitbart.com website.

He’s a political hand. A hack. Experts in national security issues have bemoaned his presence on the NSC, suggesting that national security should be totally, completely and irrevocably removed from any political maneuvering.

The president needs unvarnished assessment of national security threats without the taint of what a response would mean politically.

Trump elevated Bannon to the NSC and demoted the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the director of national intelligence, two people who historically have served on the principals committee that meets regularly with the president to assess these national security issues in detail.

What the … fudge?

The president insists his administration is on track. It’s running smoothly, he says. Everything is in order. Everyone is on the same page.

Except that the one individual he needs to provide accurate and detailed analysis of threats to the nation is nowhere to be found. Hey, he’s got Steve Bannon — the hack and purported white supremacist sympathizer — on hand to give the president the advice he’s supposed to digest.

Trump also told us he knows “more than the generals about ISIS.” Well, actually he doesn’t know squat … in my humble view.

I believe I’ll pray each day that we can survive the chaos that has erupted in what was supposed to be a “seamless transition of power” from one president to the next one.

International news, military news

ISIS or ISIL … pick which one you want to hate

January 8, 2017 kanelis2012

Defense Secretary Ash Carter invoked a term that I find puzzling.

It’s not in a negative way, just a puzzling way.

Appearing this morning on “Meet the Press,” Carter was responding to a question from moderator Chuck Todd, who used the term “ISIS.” Carter answered him using the term “ISIL.”

ISIS, ISIL. Tomato, tom-ah-to.

President Obama for some time has been calling the terrorist monsters ISIL, which stands for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The more, um, colloquial term has been ISIS, which stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

The Levant describes a geographical region that covers roughly the nations bordering the eastern Mediterranean Sea. They comprise the site of the ongoing struggle against Islamic terrorists.

I suppose that, given the reach of the Islamic State, that “ISIL” seems a bit more appropriate, as it has done its murderous deeds throughout the eastern Med — and beyond.

Secretary of State John Kerry has been using the term “Daesh” when discussing ISIS/ISIL. Daesh is seen in the Islamic world as an epithet, a slur against the terrorists who comprise this monstrous group.

We all know, of course, how the Islamic State has elevated its profile from something President Obama once called the “JV team” of international terrorists. They’re the first-stringers these days, the varsity, Public Enemy No. 1 worldwide.

It really matters not one damn bit whether we call them “ISIS, ISIL” or “Daesh.” I’d prefer to call them all “dead.” We have killed many thousands of them since 9/11, but there no doubt remain many more to hunt down and, in the parlance so often used, “remove from the battlefield.”

I continue to have faith we’ll be able to do that — one day. I hope to be alive to welcome that event.

International news

Islamophobe to lead national security team

December 20, 2016 kanelis2012

President Bush declared it in 2001.

President Obama reaffirmed it in 2009.

“We are not at war with Islam,” both men said. The enemy, they asserted, comprises individuals who have “perverted” a great religion for some decidedly unholy causes. They are murderers, terrorists, thugs, goons … you name it.

So, who does the next president select as his national security adviser? A retired U.S. Army lieutenant general who calls Islam a “cancer.” Michael Flynn has said repeatedly over the years that the fight, indeed, is against those who adhere to a certain religious faith.

The attack at the Berlin Christmas market allegedly by an Islamic State agent, according to Donald J. Trump, underscores the hatred that Muslims harbor against Christians. Gen. Flynn shares that view and he will have the new president’s ear when the administration takes over on Jan. 20.

This is a dangerous situation that we’re about to enflame with the expected rhetoric that will come from Trump’s national security adviser.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/report-nsc-facing-staff-exodus-over-michael-flynn.html

Now we’re hearing reports of career security analysts leaving the National Security Council rather than serving under Gen. Flynn. There apparently is little contact between the NSC staff and the incoming team. What’s more, there are questions emerging about whether Flynn shared sensitive information with foreign military officers while he was serving in Afghanistan.

I don’t doubt for an instant that Gen. Flynn is a top-flight military tactician. He once ran the Defense Intelligence Agency and apparently did so with great competence. However, I do question his temperament — not to mention the temperament of the man who has selected him to lead the NSC.

Do we really need someone operating at the right hand of the commander in chief who has this nutty view that we’re fighting a war against more than 1 billion Muslims around the world?

We are at war with terrorists who do not represent the overwhelming majority of people who want to live in peace alongside the rest of the world.

The doctrine to which we have adhered since 9/11 has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of terrorists. We’ve eliminated the mastermind behind the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. We have blown other terrorist leaders to bits and have decimated the terrorists’ ability to sustain combat on the battlefield.

Have we eliminated the threat? No. The Berlin attack, the assassination of the Russian ambassador to Turkey and the shooting this past week at the Swiss mosque show us that the fight continues.

It’s a fight against terrorists. It’s not a fight against a religion.

business news, national news, political news

OMB boss-designate highlights Trump’s ideological conflict

December 19, 2016 kanelis2012

Do you need an example of the non-ideology that drives Donald J. Trump?

Here’s one. Take a look at who he has chosen to become director of the Office of Management and Budget … and then square that — if you can — with what Trump has proposed doing as president of the United States.

The OMB director-designate is Mick Mulvaney, a South Carolina member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Mulvaney is a fierce budget hawk, a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus, a TEA Party golden boy.

Mulvaney fights spending measures whenever he can. He says Congress spends too much money. Government is too big, too hungry for taxpayers’ money.

He’s a conservative’s conservative.

What does Trump want to do? He wants to spend a trillion dollars to improve the nation’s highway, bridge and rail infrastructure.

How in the world is he going to do that? Where is he going to get the money? How will he get this past his budget director, the guy who hates government spending with a purple passion?

Well, Trump is going to be the president. Mulvaney will answer to him, not the other way around.

Still, this appointment speaks to the puzzle that is Donald Trump. He ran as a populist, then has named a large number of billionaires to his inner circle. He said he knows “more about ISIS than the generals,” then picks three general-grade officers to his national security team. He spoke of his desire to improve public education, then selects a known foe of public education as the nation’s education secretary.

Now we have Mick Mulvaney being nominated to run the White House budget office. Mulvaney is a fiscal skinflint who’s going to work for a president intent on spending lots of money while hoping to enact tax cuts that will favor the wealthiest of Americans.

Oh, wait! He’s a populist, too!

Go figure. Any of it!

national news

Hoping for Trump to earn praise

December 15, 2016 kanelis2012

Those of you who read this blog regularly might be thinking: What will it take for this guy — that would be yours truly — to say something truly positive about Donald J. Trump?

I’ve said I’m trying to keep an open mind about the next president of the United States. And, no, “trying to keep an open mind” isn’t code for “not a chance in hell” I’ll ever say anything good about the guy. I mean what I am saying here.

What will it take? What can this guy do to earn my unvarnished, unqualified praise?

Let me think:

* He can order a military strike that destroys the Islamic State, forcing the terrorists to give up the fight.

* Trump can enact policies that bring jobs back to the United States of America, which he contends are fleeing this country by the thousands for places like Mexico and China.

* He can implement border policies that effectively end illegal immigration into the U.S. of A.

* The president can persuade Congress to pass laws that incentivize private businesses to hire more people, thus reducing the jobless rate even more than the dramatic reduction we’ve seen already during the Obama administration.

* POTUS can get Congress to reduce taxes on all Americans while spending money on infrastructure improvements without piling up the national debt and increasing the annual federal budget deficit.

* He can order the next attorney general to go to war against hate groups that have risen to prominence since he announced his presidential candidacy.

* Trump can issue a heartfelt apology — the real thing, man, not just some phony “If I have offended anyone …” non-apology — to the many individuals and groups he denigrated while running for the presidency.

These are the issues that come to mind immediately. I’d settle for any one or two of these things to occur. I am on board if he is able to do any of it.

My confidence remains quite low, I am saddened to say, that he’ll do any of it.

However, there’s always tomorrow.

national news, political news

Shocking! Trump was kidding about locking Hillary up

December 11, 2016 kanelis2012

Donald J. Trump didn’t mean it. He was kidding. He never intended to “lock up” Hillary Rodham Clinton over her use of a personal e-mail server.

Wow! Can you believe it? He said it was a ploy to win votes.

Interesting, yes? I think so.

Now I’m wondering what else the president-elect said just to sway voters to cast their ballots for him.

Does he really intend to build a wall across our southern border? Does he actually intend to ban Muslims from entering the United States of America? The “deportation force” is a joke, too?

Trump has acknowledged already that those hideous things he said about women were for “entertainment” purposes. Gosh, I still haven’t stop laughing. Thanks, Donald, for the hilarity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-clinton-lock-her-up_us_584b5b53e4b04c8e2bb01274?

This all seems to play into the narrative that developed not long after the election, which is that you can’t take Trump’s statements literally. When he said he knows “more about ISIS than the generals,” we’re supposed to brush it off as — what — just campaign rhetoric? When he called President Obama the “founder of ISIS,” that was meant to draw applause from those yuuuuge rallies?

As for the so-called pledge to toss Hillary Clinton in jail, many of his ardent supporters accepted as the gospel according to Trump. “Lock her up!” they chanted repeatedly.

Oh, my. We’re going to have to parse the new president’s words with great care … and even greater skepticism.

International news, military news, national news, political news

Get rid of Flynn as national security adviser

December 6, 2016 kanelis2012 1 Comment

President George W. Bush was quite adamant when we went to war in 2001 against radical Islamic terrorists that we were not going to war against Islam.

President Barack Obama has echoed that mantra ever since.

So, who does the president-elect bring in as national security adviser, the guy who’ll advise him on how to fight groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State? A retired Army three-star general who calls Islam a “cancer” and says Americans’ fear of Islam is “rational.”

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, moreover, apparently has ties with multiple foreign governments.

Flynn is now the target of groups asking Donald J. Trump to rescind Flynn’s appointment as national security adviser. They cite concerns over Flynn’s statements about Islam, Iran and whether his views would jeopardize a hoped-for peaceful settlement of the ongoing dispute between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michael-flynn-trump-appointment-advocacy-groups-232208

I don’t expect the president-elect to heed their call.

Indeed, Flynn is a noted hothead. He’s a brilliant military tactician. He also has the kind of personality that would clash immediately and often with the likes of retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, who is Trump’s pick to be the secretary of defense; I will add that Gen. Mattis is a well-chronicled hothead himself, someone known to speak his mind freely.

The issue, though, is Flynn and whether he’s a good fit to become national security adviser.

The advocacy groups asking Trump to rethink his appointment believe he is a terrible fit.

I happen to agree.

The national security adviser is a staff position and, thus, is not subject to Senate confirmation. Gen. Flynn’s status rests solely with the president he would serve.

Get rid of him, Mr. President-elect.

International news, military news, national news

Mattis at Pentagon? Not as bad as some others

December 1, 2016 kanelis2012

James Mattis is Donald J. Trump’s pick to be defense secretary.

OK, from my perch here in the middle of the country, the retired Marine Corps four-star general looks to be not as bad as some of the other selections the president-elect has made to fill out his Cabinet.

He is just four years on from hanging up his greens, which means Congress will have to enact a law that gives him a waiver from existing law; current statute requires a seven-year interim between military and civilian service. Congress waived the requirement when General of the Army George C. Marshall was picked by President Eisenhower to be secretary of state.

Gen. Mattis has gotten some high marks. According to the Washington Post: “The president-elect is smart to think about putting someone as respected as Jim Mattis in this role,” said a former senior Pentagon official. “He’s a warrior, scholar and straight shooter — literally and figuratively. He speaks truth to everyone and would certainly speak truth to this new commander in chief.”

The new president will need some truth-tellers in his inner circle. I would hope that Mattis provides that role.

Mattis is a former head of the Central Command and has extensive experience plotting military strategy in the Middle East. He’s a tough dude.

He’s also a blunt talker who’s spoken ill of the nuclear deal hammered out by the Obama administration that seeks to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-has-chosen-retired-marine-gen-james-mattis-for-secretary-of-defense/ar-AAl18p1?li=BBnb7Kz

Still, I kind of like this selection as defense boss. Mattis is far superior for this post than Betsy DeVos is for education secretary, Jeff Sessions is for attorney general and — oh, perish the thought — Sarah Palin could be if Trump picks her to head the Department of Veterans Affairs.

It is rather fascinating, though, that an individual who said he knows “more about ISIS than the generals, believe me,” would pick one of those generals to lead the nation’s military establishment and, thus, carry the fight to the Islamic State.

My strong hunch is that Trump doesn’t know more about ISIS than Gen. James Mattis.

national news

Trump must really believe he’s the smartest man on Earth

November 25, 2016 kanelis2012

Donald J. Trump told us he knows “more about ISIS than the generals. Believe me.”

I thought the president-elect was just offering us another example of rhetorical bluster on the campaign trail.

Silly me. I think he now actually believes such nonsense.

The Washington Post is reporting that Trump is forgoing the usual flood of intelligence briefings set aside for the president-elect to keep him apprised of ongoing national security threats.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/ar-AAkGkkf?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

The National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency — all of ’em — have helped prepare a team of briefers ready to get the next president up to speed.

He’s forgoing most of it.

The vice president-elect, Mike Pence, however, is soaking it all in. He’s meeting almost daily with briefers, getting tons of intelligence on those threats.

Maybe this is what Trump meant when he was asked during the campaign about Pence’s duties. The Republican presidential candidate said he’d assign Pence some of the nuts and bolts of governance while concentrates on “making America great again.”

Well, I actually would prefer that the president-elect devote himself as well to some of the nitty-gritty. I mean, the guy has had zero exposure to government policymaking. He has relied on his business acumen and he managed to persuade enough voters during the campaign of that moxie to enable him to win an Electoral College victory over Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Post reported: “Officials involved in the Trump transition team cautioned against assigning any significance to the briefing schedule that the president-elect has set so far, noting that he has been immersed in the work of forming his administration, and has made filling key national security posts his top priority.

“But others have interpreted Trump’s limited engagement with his briefing team as an additional sign of indifference from a president-elect who has no meaningful experience on national security issues and was dismissive of U.S. intelligence agencies’ capabilities and findings during the campaign.”

I believe the president-elect should get up to speed.

Now!

High Plains Blogger