One of the most famous quote from the Vietnam War was a statement attributed to an unnamed U.S. officer by AP correspondent Peter Arnett in his writing about Bến Tre city on 7 February 1968:
'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it', a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong.
It appears that those tactics still exist in the US military.
The campaign to free Raqqa from ISIS finally ended with the total destruction of the city! Comparing the battle to the one that the Syrian government backed by the Russians did to free Aleppo from ISIS shows some stark differences.
Raqqa was destroyed by the Syrian Kurds, backed by US air strikes.
Aleppo exists, is rebuilding and has become an economic center again. The battle there was with the Syrian army, backed by Russian air strikes.
As Syria goes back to normal, which foreign country will be seen as an ally and which will be seen as an enemy? …
Iraq has been an on again and off again enemy for many years. Although the government ignored them prior to WWII, by 1928 US oil corporations had gained almost 24% control of their oil. Iraq’s prime minister during WWII endorsed the Nazi’s, so the US endorsed England’s suppression of him.
In the 40s and 50s, we sought to stabilize Iraq and in 1955, signed the Baghdad Pact as an anti Soviet defense partnership. By 1958, a bloody military coup overthrew the King and became anti west.
From 1958 to 1979, Iraq claimed to be neutral, but “played” the US and the Soviets off of each other. Neither Iraq nor the US pursued democracy in Iraq.
In 1967 Iraq severed relations with the US, claiming that we supported Israel in the 6 Day War. This was our first time that we equipped and supported the Kurds. We backed down (Kissinger) and Iraq and Iran agreed to get the Kurds under control.
In 1979, Saddam Hussein seized power. Saddam “sold” himself as the anti Ayatollah Khomeini. From 1980 to 1988, Iraq and Iran fought massive land battles which accounted for more than 1 million casualties.
President Reagan’s administration provided Iraq with economic aid,shared intelligence information and military aid.
In 1989, Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia. We responded with the first gulf way. The first President Bush maintained to deal with Saddam constructively, in spite of the war, thinking that it would be a counter on Iran. When he changed his mind, we “played” the Kurds once again, and it worked out just as well for them as the first time.
Then the never ending war started in 2003. All still ostensibly to be a counter to Iran and keep them under control.
Our allies disagree. …
The Kurds have been America’s “whipping boy” for many decades. I don’t understand why they still believe us. Kissinger was the first to pump them up and then pull the plug on them once we didn’t’ need them anymore. We did it again to them after the first Gulf War. We’re doing it again.
Despite our efforts in the never ending wars in the Middle East and Africa, we are creating allies and alliances that without our intervention would never have happened.
Who would have believed when we started that Iran and Iraq would form a military alliance? Who could have seen the time where Russia would gain huge influence in the Middle East again? The Saudis and the Israelis are partnering up on issues. The King of Saudi Arabia visits Russia for the first time ever.
We’ve achieved some regional stability. Just not the stability that we set out to accomplish.…
The US seems to be stuck in the Cold War. We see the only way to make allies is to pick a side in a country and arm and train them to defeat the other side. As has been our model for decades we pick someone to lead these countries and of course it’s usually someone that has been educated in the west and is someone we like as opposed to someone that the people of the country like. It has never worked out well.
The fall of the Soviet Union taught a lot of lessons to our foes around the world. We defeated them by bankrupting them. Our adversaries realized that “investing” in military hardware was not a bright idea.
Fast forward to 2017. Our former adversaries have been concentrating on economic growth. They had discovered that it is easier and more profitable to gain geopolitical influence with economic power than military power.
For those who question the concept of trade as a weapon, you just need to look at South Korea and China. South Korea exports a lot of goods to China. When we forced the South Koreans to install the Thaad system in their country, China saw it as a threat. Oddly enough, South Korea’s exports to China were turned off. Huge economic impact on South Korea.…
The growth of ISIS brought troubled youth from around the world to support their cause. Radicalized people from Europe, the US, the Middle East and SE Asia rallied to the cause.
Some came for adventure. As some surrender in Syria, many merely came for the money. Others really were radicals.
As ISIS breaks up, many will want to return to the countries they came from. Allowing these radicals back into your society is fraught with danger.
Indonesia is tackling the issue right now and we should watch and learn from how it works. …
There have been a few weapons that actually changed warfare. Tanks, Aircraft, Chlorine Gas, the machine gun, drones, atomic bombs are just some of the more significant.
The atomic bomb became more of a political weapon than a military weapon. The concept of mutually assured destruction has kept the atomic bomb as a mutual threat and negotiating tool. Neither side ever evolved a first strike capability that was quick enough to destroy the enemy without him having the time to strike back.
Hypersonic weapons represent a sea change in weapon development and could give an adversary the opportunity for a first strike with impunity.
It’s not just us that is developing this capability. …
Most of us read about the tragic deaths of four Special Forces soldiers in Niger. Many asked what we were doing there. I ask why?
The neos would have you believe that it’s about becoming a major market for consumer goods. Could this be as simple as the old banana wars? Soldiers dying to protect the bottom line of corporations?
We try to colonize Africa by training and equipping one side to kill the other side. China engages by making them wealthier and of course gaining political influence.
The US policy is quick. China takes the long view and has been investing in Africa for the last 15 years. Whose policy makes more sense? …
Stealth aircraft were all the rage in the 1980s. It was the height of the Cold War and everyone wanted to have the ability to conduct strategic bombing at will.
Like everything in life, there are trade offs. The things that make stealth such a viable concept for strategic warfare detract from the ability to conduct tactical warfare. Despite 16 years of our never ending wars we are investing in military equipment that will do nothing to support what the neos say could be 50-60 years long.
Does it still make sense to invest heavily in equipment needed for the last war?…
A police chief’s daughter in Bucks County Pennsylvania got drunk with a group of her friends and went on a gay bashing event that resulted in beating two gay individuals merely for being gay.
The daughter and others were charged.
A local person started a parody web site that made fun of the Chief’s daughter. All of this is a different county within the state of PA. Chief goes to the local District Attorney and before you know it, the District Attorney dispatches detectives to the workplace of the woman who started the web page. They get her fired and threaten to charge her with crimes if she doesn’t stop her web site.
She finds a lawyer and sues. Pennsylvania courts rule that the detectives and the DA have qualified immunity which means she can’t sue them.
US District Court rules that you cannot use your office to perform prior restraint on the 1st Amendment.
A victory for freedom.…
Who saw this coming? A “conservative” court making a ruling based on the constitution. Georgia’s court is not packed with liberal, “let the criminals run free” judges.
This is the “killer” paragraph that judges everywhere need to read, learn and embrace:
We interpret a constitutional provision according to the original public meaning of its text, which is simply shorthand for the meaning the people understood a provision to have at the time they enacted it. This is not a new idea. Indeed, there are few principles of Georgia law more venerable than the fundamental principle that a constitutional provision means today what it meant at the time that it was enacted. “[T]he Constitution, like every other instrument made by men, is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the makers of it at the time when they made it. To deny this is to insist that a fraud shall be perpetrated upon those makers or upon some of them.”
A victory for freedom.
…
