Category Archives: General Interest
“Ebola and the Centers for Dissimulation and Confusion” from The American Thinker
Filed under Ebola, General Interest, Politics
Ebola’s spread and Islamic burial rituals – The American Thinker
Filed under Culture Wars, Foreign Policy, General Interest, Islam, Politics
Is Foggy Bottom working with terrorists to fight ISIL?
The other day I wrote about Kobani and some concerns (questions) I had about the Kurds fighting there and serendipitously Nightwatch for October16, 2014 contains some fascinating information about this very thing:
“Syria: Syrian Kurdish sources claimed that the Kurds with US air support have driven ISIL forces from Kobani. They claim that ISIL is only holding a few neighborhoods. The US defense spokesman said the situation is fluid, but confirmed a significant increase in air attacks against ISIL forces in and near Kobani in the past two days.
–
An al Jazeera article reported that the so-called heroes of the fighting are not the Kurdish peshmera militia, but the hardened fighters of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which the US and NATO have identified as a terrorist organization. The US State Department today confirmed it held a weekend meeting with Syrian Kurdish envoys affiliated with the PKK.
Comment: The ironies of the fight for Kobani continue to mount in that the US air operations are supporting an organization that the US has designated a terrorist organization. That is the only group capable of standing up to ISIL’s fighters. US contact with affiliates of the PKK almost guarantees that Turkey will provide little help in the fight against ISIL.
As for ISIL, the fight for Kobani has not ended because it must take Kobani to secure its northern border.”
Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics
Scary thoughts
Andrew Thomas posed some scary scenarios in his latest piece at The American Thinker “Ebola, Islamists, and Executive Orders”
Filed under Culture Wars, General Interest, Politics
America at another crossroads
Gladius forwarded an important Thomas Sowell column, “Local or National Elections?”, which explains the stakes of this year’s battle over control of the Senate. Dr. Sowell, in his inimitable style, reminds us that while Tip O’Neill popularized the “all politics is local” phrase, on some elections in Washington the very course of America’s future rests. In clear, simple terms he explains:
“In 1860, some abolitionists split the anti-slavery vote by running their own candidate — who had no chance of winning — instead of supporting Abraham Lincoln, who was not pure enough for some abolitionists. Lincoln got just 40 percent of the vote, though that turned out to be enough to win in a crowded field.
But what a gamble with the fate of millions of human beings held as slaves! And for what? Symbolic political purity?
This year as well, there are third-party candidates complicating elections that can decide the fate of this nation for years to come. No candidate that irresponsible deserves any vote. With all the cross-currents of political controversies raging today, what is the overriding national issue that makes this year’s Congressional elections so crucial?
That issue is whether, despite all the lawless edicts of President Obama, threatening one-man rule, we can still salvage enough of the Constitution to remain a free, democratic nation.”
Recently, Gwyneth Paltrow, obviously not well-versed on the arguments in “The Federalist Papers”, made headlines extolling President Obama’s brand of lawlessness, stating:
“It would be wonderful if we are able to give this man all the power he needs to accomplish the things he needs to,” Ms. Paltrow said.
The same mindless drivel permeates America, with citizens completely uneducated about The Constitution, American history and more importantly our foundational principles. In country music small remnants of American ideals still linger and Paltrow’s comments brought to mind the lyrics from an old Aaron Tippin song, “You’ve Got To Stand For Something”: “You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything!” What Paltrow is preening about is giving one man unchecked power. In her isolated, elitist celebrity bubble, she rubs elbows with movers and shakers of the American political left, but one can only wonder if she has ever read “The Constitution of the United States”.
My friend, Minta, expressed the erosion of American ideals based on our founding principles, in our latest email exchange:
“I think we need to think about two different countries, one called the United States and the other called America. Most people in our country no longer live in America, just the States. It’s a useful way to view it. They can absolutely be un-American, because America is an idea set onto a real country. If that country loses the idea—the ideas and ideals—America will cease to be. This is the fight we are waging: to keep the United States being America too.”
In lieu of fabricated narratives, lame hash-tag campaigns and repeating hollow slogans, it’s time for Americans to do some independent research away from political ideologues on either side of the political aisle. Dr. Sowell feels this election is imperative to check the tide of lawlessness (yes, even some liberal law professors have spoken out against President Obama’s brand of “I’ve got a pen and a phone” governance by executive decree) and I hope a Republican majority can check executive hubris, but our problems, while magnified by high-profile attention to Washington, stem from a lazy, uneducated citizenry, bereft of even a morsel of dedication to civic duty. More than half the country receives some form of hand-outs from Washington, content to believe in what is owed to them rather than what they owe America. We have become a nation of mindless followers and one election, albeit a crucially important one, won’t change America, until, “we the people” can sit down at the dinner table as one nation, united by our American ideals.
President Lincoln, attempting to unite a divided America at the close of the US Civil War, left us with these immortal words:
“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
His words remain important, but even more important is how a man from humble origins became one of the most pivotal presidents in American history. “The Eloquent President”, by Ronald C. White, Jr., takes you on a journey of understanding Lincoln through his words and as one of our most gifted writers and orators to ever hold the office of President, plenty of material exists. Lincoln didn’t have access to public libraries or the internet; what he had was the intestinal fortitude to pick himself up and work hard to improve himself. He refused to believe in “insurmountable obstacles” (yes, that ever-recurring LB theme – “faith to move mountains” and a willingness to work hard). A little story from Lincoln’s youth explains how this backwoods lawyer found the words to pen the Gettysburg Address. White writes:
“When Lincoln moved to New Salem he made the decision to master the English language by an intense study of grammar. While living in New Salem, Lincoln heard that a farmer, John Vance, owned a copy of Samuel Kirkham’s English Grammar. Lincoln walked six miles to get it. He was twenty-three years old.” (pages 102-103)
No one handed President Lincoln a free ride to an Ivy league school and likewise Dr. Sowell’s personal biography demonstrates that with hard work anyone can succeed. Lincoln walked six miles to track down a book he thought held the key to improving his grammar; Dr. Sowell, a poor black man from Harlem, worked hard to acquire an education in the 1950s, long before the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964.
A few years ago I wrote a piece, “The Quest For American Leadership In The 21st Century: A Few Home Truths” and I still think my three-step plan is worth considering:
“The quest for our 21st century American leaders starts with you. Step One: Think for yourself; move away from being swayed by political partisans hurling talking points at you. Take the time to study issues, candidates and find your own moral compass. President George Washington, my favorite founding father, wrote a list titled, Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior In Company and Conversation”, 110 rules covering everything from admonitions not to clean your teeth with the tablecloth to don’t run in the streets. He ended with #110: “Labour to keep alive in your breast that Little Spark of Celestial Fire Called Conscience.” That should be your guide.
Step Two: Be the leader of your own destiny. Don’t be a follower of populist movements. left or right, unless you have completed Step One. Before becoming a political lemming, allowing professional media figures to press your political hot buttons, calmly discuss issues with family and friends. In our 24 hour news cycle, internet-connected world, misinformation, disinformation and outright lies can circle the globe in minutes. Don’t let these control your political reasoning, refer back to Step Two.
Step Three: Follow the rules. President Lincoln’s call for reverence for the laws provides the keystone to rebuilding a stronger America. When political aspirants lack personal integrity, obfuscate on public issues, or find excuses for not following the rules; move on and continue your quest for worthy leaders. To honor those who sacrificed all, to secure our blessings of liberty, at the very least we all have a duty to become informed citizens, who demand men and women of character to lead us in this century.”
NBC’s health professional – LOL, OMG or WTF?
With medical reporters like Nancy Snyderman and our hapless CDC director trying to calm public anxiety at the expense of the truth, we should be very concerned. Snyderman recently traveled to Liberia to cover the ebola story and one of her team members contracted ebola. The team returned and was placed under a “voluntary quarantine” for 21 days. Reports surfaced of Snyderman violating the quarantine, leading to NJ officials to issue a mandatory quarantine for 21 days October 11th.
Here’s Snyderman’s statement:
“While under voluntary quarantine guidelines, which called for our team to avoid public contact for 21 days, members of our group violated those guidelines and understand that our quarantine is now mandatory until 21 days have passed. We remain healthy and our temperatures are normal.
“As a health professional I know that we have no symptoms and pose no risk to the public, but I am deeply sorry for the concerns this episode caused. We are thrilled that Ashoka is getting better and our thoughts continue to be with the thousands affected by Ebola whose stories we all went to cover.”
As a health professional she knows she poses no risk to the public, despite ebola having a 21 day incubation period and her having had contact with a person with ebola. Trust her, as her statement says, she’s a health professional……one who didn’t even have enough sense to follow the precautionary guidelines.
Filed under Culture Wars, General Interest
Kobani questions abound
Stratfor provides insights into understanding Turkish President Erdogan’s ambiguous actions regarding ISIS, in an interesting piece, “Why Turkey Will Not Help Kobani”:
“Turkey does not sponsor the Islamic State, nor does Erdogan actively collude with the group’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. But Turkey has done little to prevent the group from wresting control of Kobani, and its abstention from the conflict has raised concerns among its neighbors and the United States. In fact, Turkey has not participated in the campaign against the Islamic State at all even though the militant group holds positions precariously close to its southern flank. Instead, it has elected to secure its border. With the most powerful conventional fighting force in the region, Ankara knows it will not succumb to the group’s advances as Iraq did. With that in mind, Erdogan and his associates are looking at the bigger picture — a view that conflicts with Washington’s plans for the Levant.”
The Independent, a British publication ran a lengthy opinion piece, “War against Isis: US strategy in tatters as militants march”, offering the following views on Turkey’s reluctant support:
“In the course of the past week it has become clear that Turkey considers the Syrian Kurd political and military organisations, the PYD and YPG, as posing a greater threat to it than the Islamic fundamentalists. Moreover, the PYD is the Syrian branch of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has been fighting for Kurdish self-rule in Turkey since 1984.
Ever since Syrian government forces withdrew from the Syrian Kurdish enclaves or cantons on the border with Turkey in July 2012, Ankara has feared the impact of self-governing Syrian Kurds on its own 15 million-strong Kurdish population.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan would prefer Isis to control Kobani, not the PYD. When five PYD members, who had been fighting Isis at Kobani, were picked up by the Turkish army as they crossed the border last week they were denounced as “separatist terrorists”.”
Sounds like the oft-repeated saying, “one group’s terrorists are another group’s freedom fighters”, but there you have it. Not being an expert nor on the ground in Kobani to ascertain which Kurdish groups determinedly fight on to hold Kobani, I’d welcome any information or insights into the US stance on the PKK, PYD and YPG and on the boots on the ground units, for whom we’re providing air support in this war plan of President Obama’s. This reminds me of our intervention in the former Yugoslavia, where we armed KLA separtists, whom certainly wouldn’t meet even the most generous definition of “moderates”.
Once again, the Obama administration seems stuck on parsing, because they don’t understand the lay of the land, the history of the region, the rivalries, hostilities or alliances in this volatile region fraught with many duplicitous players. A safe bet is that “moderates” aren’t in Kobani, vowing to fight to their death. The American press has presented these Kurdish fighters as heroic freedom fighters, but does our intelligence and historical research support that image? Are we witnessing two terrorist entities fighting it out in Kobani? Shouldn’t our CINC have a grasp of the details and a clear understanding of the positions of regional leaders, before launching air strikes? Opinions and insights to help sort this out are welcome.
Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics, The Media
News Headlines
CNN reports: “Texas health worker is positive for Ebola, would be 1st Ebola transmission in U.S.”
McClatchy DC News reports: “U.S. commander does abrupt about-face on American troops’ contact with Ebola patients”
McClatchy DC news again: “More misinformation on the NSA”
UK’s Mail Online provides a Kobane update (lots of pictures): “ISIS pour reinforcements into border town of Kobane after Kurdish forces halt their advance”
Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Islam, Military, Politics
Another half-baked cakewalk
At National Review today there’s a piece by Matthew Continetti, “Accept No Substitutions“, pounding the same old neocon drum for more military adventurism in the Mid-East. Like many with no military experience, Continetti falls prey to the Kagans overly simplistic strategic posturing:
“If only. A future president — and with the way Obama is handling the Middle East, we will be dealing with the Islamic State and other hazards for many years indeed — needs to take a look at the strategic plan devised by Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute and Kimberly Kagan and Jessica Lewis of the Institute for the Study of War.
“U.S. forces need to play the role of honest broker once again, as they did in 2007 and 2008,” the Kagans wrote recently in the Los Angeles Times. “But they can only play that role if they are present.” The Kagans say 25,000 troops are necessary to reverse enemy gains.”
I posted the first comment there, under my other alias, “mhere”, rambling on rather longish, giving my two cents worth:
“American ground troops most certainly can provide a winning “military” strategy against ISIS, but herein lies the same dilemma we’ve faced since removing the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Gadaffi from power – there is no political solution in sight to insure stability in the aftermath. The Kagans and their neocon friends brought us the “cakewalk” in the Iraq prognostications and recently penned a power point plan in the Weekly Standard, http://www.weeklystandard.com/….”
“A year ago, Frederick Kagan wrote an opinion piece in the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/…, urging arming the ever elusive Syrian “moderates”. Both Kagans are supposed military “experts”, but his concern in this piece was the flagging morale of the Syrian rebels, not the morale of our American troops. Both failed to address the more important strategic dilemma in Syria, which ISIS now glaringly highlights – removing odious secular autocrats in the Mid-East isn’t a challenge for US military might. However, leaving gaping power vacuums only exacerbates the “providing safe havens for terrorists”, which rests as a real threat to our national security. Here’s the rub, that no one talks about – Assad posed no real threat to American national security. Certainly he does Iran’s bidding, but he wasn’t making pronouncements inciting “Death to America”. Our President lied about the WMD intelligence in 2012, assigning blame to Assad before an investigation was even conducted and reporters beyond Seymour Hersh should be asking, “Whose Sarin?” (google his article by that title and then research that one).”
“Unless our “strategic thinking” moves beyond simplistic power point presentations, such as the Kagans plan, we will remain mired in Mid-East quagmires. Our military abilities far exceed our long-range strategic thinking and defeating a foe is far easier than “preserving states”, so perhaps we need to think more about the end goals. Military occupations unto perpetuity will only fuel the jihadist movement.
If we sit back and let ISIS run its course, then those Shia and Sunni power-brokers in the neighborhood will be forced to act. We should secure our borders, work toward energy independence, rebuild our military, which suffers from over a decade of wear and tear, and work on some long-range strategic-brainstorming. I don’t want America to be the “mercenary” air force for either side in the larger Sunni-Shia battle, which is what is happening now. In the current configuration, we’ve switched sides and are providing air support to help Assad regain ground in Syria, because he has “boots on the ground” ready to capitalize on our air strikes against ISIS. The mullahs in Iran probably are sitting there laughing at how easily we’ve been drawn in by ISIS propaganda videos.”
“Our troops deserve better strategic-thinking than the Kagans simplistic power point presentations and war by disingenuous slogans. No more cakewalks, shock and awe, winning the hearts and minds, please!”
Another commenter, verity, followed my comment with this much shorter, but very succinct insight:
Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Islam, Military, Politics, Uncategorized
Bergdahl update
The Hill reports, “Report: Bergdahl investigation completed”, but alas due to the upcoming election (my editorial opinion), guess, what:
“Army spokesman Wayne Hall said the review process likely would be lengthy, and that “the Army’s priority is ensuring that our process is thorough, factually accurate, impartial, and legally correct,” according to the report.”
The key word, in case you missed it, was lengthy….
Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics
libertybelle diaries 