General Hayden on why the Constitution is optional and America always loses wars

General Michael Hayden is a man I respect and admire, but one with whom I disagree on several issues. Some are ephemera, but two that do matter are defending and abiding by the Constitution and answering the question “Why does America wage war?” In a recent television interview with Bill Maher, General Hayden words were described as follows by the New York Times:

[General] Hayden cited Trump’s pledge to kill family members as being among his most troubling campaign statements.

“That never even occurred to you, right?” [Bill] Maher asked.

“God, no!” Hayden replied. “Let me give you a punchline: If he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act.”

“That’s quite a statement, sir,” Maher said.

“You are required not to follow an unlawful order,” Hayden added. “That would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict.”

Now recall that General Hayden approved of and ran NSA’s domestic collection programs that unquestionably violated — one might say shattered — the 4th Amendment. The supporters of that program argue that such collection is the only way to keep America safe; that is to say, it seems to me, the national government wages electronic war against all Americans, curtails their civil liberties, but still cannot stop domestic attacks such as those at Fort Hood, Garland, Texas, and San Bernardino. This seems a somewhat specious argument.

A much better and more truthful — though politically unacceptable — position would be simply to state that if senior U.S. military officers were to disobey an order from Mr. Trump to “kill anything that moved and anything that stood on the field of battle with the Islamists” they would only be continuing their unconstitutional behavior.

The U.S. military has not once balked at waging unconstitutional wars since the surrender of Imperial Japan. Every one of those wars has been unconstitutional, and in almost every one of them America has been defeated. Now, there are those who will argue that congressional resolutions allowing post-1945 presidents to use military force at their discretion are equivalent to the formal, congressional declaration of wars that are mandated by the Constitution, and which are the sole prerogative of the Congress. But they would be wrong.

The power to declare war, you see, was assigned in the Founders’ constitution only to the Congress, and that power can never be delegated onward to others in the other branches the national government — especially not to the chief executive. The Founders’ knew that vesting that power in one man, either directly through the constitution’s words or via the process of illegal delegation existing today, would transform the president into a tyrant — not unlike King George III or Louis XIV — by empowering one man to decide why, when, and where to take the republic to war. From President Truman’s unconstitutional decision to go to war in Korea, to Lyndon Johnson’s unconstitutional and personal war in Vietnam, to George W. Bush’s unconstitutional and disastrous invasion of Iraq, to Barack Obama’s equivalent and unconstitutional madness in destroying Qaddafi’s regime, all have been illegal wars and yet the senior generals of the U.S. military have never flinched at waging them without the sanction irrefutably mandated by the Constitution.

Let us, however, leave this issue aside for the moment and move on to General Hayden’s explanation that waging war to protect the United States and annihilate the enemy — as did FDR, Eisenhower, Marshall, Patton, and Nimitz — “would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict.” What General Hayden is acknowledging with these words is the reality that since 1945 the Congress and U.S. presidents have progressively neutered America’s ability to win wars by an equally unconstitutional and destructive delegation of power to groups of foreign nations.

Now, there is no doubt that the president and senate are empowered by the Constitution to conclude treaties with another nation or nations if such treaties serve the interests of the United States and do not violate U.S. sovereignty or jeopardize America’s independence of action. But there is no sane manner in which the constitution’s treaty-making power can be said to delegate to those two entities the prerogative to reduce America’s ability to defend itself and defeat enemies if attacked, which is always the primary task of this republic’s government. And yet that is precisely what has been done by presidents and Congress since 1945 in deliberate acts that have negated much of America’s sovereign independence on the issue of war. Two examples will suffice.

NATO: While this treaty may have made sense in the late 1940s, it ceased to do so after the Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrated that while a confrontation between the United States and the USSR might well commence looking like a conventional-arms event, it would inevitably and probably quite quickly become a nuclear war. As this reality dawned on the world, the rest of NATO began spending less on their military, more on social services and the EU nightmare then aborning, and depending on diplomacy and the Anglo-American nuclear deterrent to keep the peace.

The United States thus became Europe’s sole defender and was, in essence, enslaved by the willingness of U.S. leaders to go to war automatically if any other NATO country was attacked. This reality deprived the United States of its independence of action and its sovereignty in foreign affairs in that Congress’s constitutional responsibility to declare war was negated because an attack on a NATO member put America at war automatically. It also contributed — obviously and massively — to the growth of the U.S. president’s unilateral war-making power, starting him down the road to the tyrant he is today.

After the demise of the USSR, moreover, President George H.W. Bush, instead of asking Congress to authorize America’s withdrawal from the NATO Treaty — thereby demonstrating the wisdom always attributed to him — proved terribly unwise and opened the door to NATO’s expansion to its current twenty-eight states, with two or more nations now on the edge of membership. As this expansion continued, Europe’s unilateral disarmament accelerated and today has left the United States on the hook to defend 27 militarily feeble countries with which — save, perhaps, for Britain and Canada — it has so little in common that they cannot be considered worth the loss of an American life or dollar. Indeed, why should the United States defend 27 countries that will not spend enough to defend themselves, and are willing to let the Islamic State (IS) send hundreds of its fighters to Europe disguised as migrants and do nothing to prevent IS’s consolidation in parts of Libya?

Imagine, if you will, sitting here in North America and seeing the current Turkey-vs-Russia confrontation turn into a shooting war in which America’s NATO membership would force it to charge off to the aid of Turkey and its Islamic State ally. There would be no presidential request for a declaration of war, no congressional vote on a declaration of war, and no public debate over whether America should fight or wish a pox on both combatants. Indeed, nothing would occur except America being launched — like a mindless automaton — into a great war based on a treaty obligation that probably was unwise when Turkey joined the alliance in 1952, and certainly is nothing less than suicidal today. And if NATO is not bad enough, recall that the national government would act in the same manner if Israel, Saudi Arabia, Japan, or South Korea were attacked in any serious way. These obligations — like illegal immigration — make an absolute mockery of any claim that America is an independent and sovereign nation that controls its own fate.

“The international laws of armed conflict”: As noted above, these are the laws that General Hayden argues make it impossible to annihilate America’s enemies in the manner FDR, Marshall, Eisenhower, and Nimitz employed in annihilating Germany and Imperial Japan. To all appearances, he also believes that it is perfectly legitimate for the United States to be so legally hamstrung by its association with foreigners that it consistently is being defeated by Islamist forces that have no air cover and little in the way of mechanized forces. This seems an odd position for any U.S. military officer charged with defending the republic and destroying the enemies who attack it.

The question, of course, is why would U.S. politicians, statesmen, and generals enter into such legal arrangements knowing full well that — like NATO and other international pacts — they undermine U.S. sovereignty by constraining the national government’s independence to choose to respond to those who attack the republic in the most lethal, destructive, and decisive manner possible.

The question posed above — “Why does America wage war?” — can be answered quite simply: America fights only to defend itself and to utterly defeat the enemy so that the fight will not have to be resumed at a later date. It also fights in a manner characterized by commonsense; that is, once the enemy attacks America, he, his patrons, and his supporters have voluntarily surrendered any right to expect the United States to regard them as fellow human beings rather than classifying them for what they are: masses of soon-to-be-dead belligerents.

This may sound a bit harsh, but a casual review of the way the world has worked since 1945 will show that the United States, some of the other NATO states, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea are about the only ones who have followed General Hayden’s “international laws of armed conflict”. Such a review also will show that those countries have lost almost every war they have engaged in, and that some of those wars — Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan — took decades before they were finally lost.

Why? Because the enemy did not follow — indeed, they laughed at and denigrated — the “international laws of armed conflict”, and were eager to kill as many of its opponents as necessary, with whatever means came to hand. The “international laws of armed conflict”, in short, are the products of well-educated but foolish theorists who believe that men today are different and better human beings than they were in Caesar’s and Hitler’s time, and that they can be further perfected. Well, they are not better and they can never be perfected. It is best to accept that as a hard but accurate and intellectually emancipating fact. It is more than safe to assume that the world always has been and always will be a place where you will be killed if you do not kill those who want to kill you.

So what to do? Well, first, the next president — if he is an adult, which leaves aside most the candidates — ought to find a few other constitutionally obedient and nationalist adults and begin to review NATO and other pacts, treaties, agreements, and emotional attachments that will automatically trigger the entry of America into unnecessary wars. (NB: Unnecessary wars are those in which America is not attacked first or has no severe threat to preempt. If its own genuine national security interests are not concerned, America ought never to go to war to save or serve either abstract ideas – freedom, democracy, human or women’s rights, etc. — or the interests of others, be they foreign nations, peoples, or the favorites of domestic U.S. lobbies.) Traditionally, most of these arrangements require a year’s notice of the intention to withdraw. There is nothing more important to U.S. national security than to start the withdrawal clock ticking on NATO and all other arrangements requiring America to go to war in any manner but that which the Constitution prescribes, and national sovereignty and independence demands.

Second, the next president’s team ought to begin the process of cordially withdrawing the United States from international legal arrangements — General Hayden’s “international laws of armed conflict” — that limit the national government’s independence to decide to annihilate any enemy that attacks the United States by using any or all of the resources it commands. Although it may require a clear demonstration or two, once those who want, or think they want, to be America’s enemies come to believe that America will wage war in a manner that features everything but mercy, they will have second thoughts. And if they are not wise enough to decide not to attack, not to worry, they and theirs soon will be dead among smoking ruins.

“For unless treaties are mutually beneficial to the parties,” George Washington wrote to Gouverneur Morris on 28 July 1791, “it is vain to hope for a continuance of them beyond the moment when the one which conceives itself over reached is in a situation to break off the connection.” The United States has long since reached the point where it has far “over reached” in making binding and automatic war commitments, and is now in “a situation to break off the connection[s]”, especially in terms of NATO, other treaties or agreements denying America freedom of action, and many of the “international laws of armed conflict”.

There is nothing selfish or ignoble about such actions. Indeed, they would halt America’ slide toward tyrannical one-man war making and restore what our post-1945 politicians, statesmen, and generals have unconstitutionally given away. And they would again allow the national government to reassert in fact, rather than in knowingly false rhetoric, that America truly is an independent and sovereign republic in the conduct of foreign affairs, that it fights only to defend itself, and that the only liberty that matters to it is that which exists — and is meant to be expanded — within the confines of this republic.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , | 7 Comments

WELL DONE MR. TRUMP!!! Israel-First, Neocons to join Hillary, all America’s enemies in one party

The disloyal Israel-First/Neoconservative (IF/NC) crowd seems to be having a collective and hopefully fatal seizure over Mr. Trump’s pledge to be strictly even-handed and neutral in the ongoing war between Israel and the Arabs — a war both sides clearly intend to fight to the death.

Now, many past presidential candidates have said much the same thing, but they have always added that silly, ahistorical mantra that the United States will defend Israel’s “right to exist”. But Trump did not add that mantra of the brain-dead, and so has markedly distressed the Israel-Firsters and Neocons. Indeed, they always have opposed Trump because, it seems, they sense that he will always put America first and let those individuals, nations, and groups irrelevant to the republic’s security and economic prosperity swing in the wind. I think — or at least hope — they are right.

What makes the current Israel First/Neocon seizure so hearteningly severe are not only Trump’s words and apparent America-First foreign policy inclinations, but the fact that he is getting so very many votes. “Could it possibly be,” ponder the likes of Bill Kristol, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Robert Kagan, Michael Bloomberg, Peter King, Elliott Abrams, Eric Edelman, Michael Chertoff, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and John Bolton, “that Americans are not genuinely happy, proud, and eager to have their fellow citizens and soldier-children dying uselessly in wars motivated in large part by the U.S. interventionism we advocate and by America’s subservience to a country that does nothing but degrade the republic’s security and drain its treasury?” “Could it be,” the IF/NC’ers are wondering, “that Trump and the increasing number of voters supporting him know that we Israel-Firsters and Neocons have played them for fools, corrupted their political system and media, and done our best to keep their kids dying in wars meant to serve a foreign nation’s interests at the cost of their own?” Well, it is too soon to tell, but the words of the Israel Firsters and Neocons and their fierce hatred of Trump surely suggest that they fear their war-causing disloyalty has been identified and — at long last — their jig is about up.

Facing the next-to-last last ditch, the disloyal are nearly frantic in their support for Senator Marco Rubio. And why not? Rubio is a thorough-going IF/NC, and — as he has little money of his own — is on the payroll, according to the media, of two pro-Israel, Jewish-American billionaires. Rubio also has denounced the Founders’ approach to foreign policy, expressing his belief that the IF/NC approach to U.S. foreign policy — that is, America at war everywhere, all the time, to protect Israel — is superior to John Quincy Adams’ republic-preserving advice that the United States must never go abroad “in search of monsters to destroy.”

But Rubio, after his Super Tuesday shellacking, is circling the drain until the Florida primary sends him barreling toward the sewer, and the Neocons and Israel Firsters, as Jacob Heilbrunn has written in the National Interest, have only one place to go, and that is to Hillary Clinton, who already has few of both detestable species on her team, but, the media says, only one pro-Israel, Jewish-American billionaire.

Mr. Heilbrunn’s excellent article notes that the IF/NC was originally based in the Democratic Party and so in a sense would be going home if they side with Clinton. That they were once aligned with the Democrats is clearly true, but being aligned with is much different than being part of, and I would argue that the IF/NC have never been anything but a one-issue party of their own.

Their party — best identified as the Disloyal Party or perhaps just as Copperheads — has never had any goal other than protecting the interests of Israel and keeping the United States steadily involved in the Israel-Arab war by promoting and purchasing a U.S. foreign policy that results in wars to install “democracy” abroad, but which are, in reality, only wars that are intended to annihilate Israel’s enemies, while unnecessarily making Israel’s enemies America’s. Can any clear thinking person really believe, for example, that “Foundation for Defense of Democracies” is anything but an IF/NC tool for fomenting war against Muslims in order to protect what they describe as “the only democracy” in the Middle East?

The use of the democracy angle by the IF/NC crowd is amply demonstrated in a recent article by one of its leading lights, Max Boot, titled “The GOP’s Apologists for Tyrants”. In this piece, Mr. Boot denounces Republican presidential candidates Trump, Cruz, and Kasich for “their support for dictators” and their clear lack of enthusiasm for unnecessary overseas democracy mongering and interventionist wars. Mr. Boot lauds the usual Copperhead line and insists that overthrowing Saddam, Gaddafi, and others was the correct thing to do. The only problem, he says, is that the U.S. government did not go far enough in waging those useless and massively counterproductive wars. Only the Israel First-owned Marco Rubio, Boot declares, refuses to “embrace genocidal tyrants”, which means the Copperheads were betting that they could count on Rubio for more war.

Well, Mr. Boot, no, Trump, Cruz, and Kasich are not seeking to “embrace genocidal tyrants”, but rather are looking out for America first. They know that neither Saddam nor Gaddafi was ever a serious national-security threat to the United States; indeed, both were key and extraordinarily lethal allies — and ones we did not have to pay — in the war against the Islamists.

Saddam kept Iraq’s door locked tight and so prevented the Islamists located east of Iraq from moving westward in large numbers, and he made the Iranians little more than marginal players in the Levant. How are things looking in that area now, Mr. Boot? Gaddafi kept the Islamists at bay in much of North Africa and murdered or incarcerated every Islamist that Libya’s military and security services could get their hands on, but IF/NC wanted a pro-democracy war in Libya and got it. How are affairs in the Maghreb going these days, Mr. Boot?

And do not forget, Mr. Boot, that you and your IF/NC sidekicks insisted that the U.S. government go democracy mongering in the Middle East in the name of the Arab Spring, and then you supported the military coup in Egypt that destroyed a democratically elected regime. Now, Mr. Boot, how is all of that working out? Finally, what about that clever IF/NC plan to build a new, pro-Western democracy in Afghanistan, how is that doing? Could you check on the progress of democracy there and get back to me?

What I think Mr. Trump is saying, Mr. Boot, is that it is too bad/so sad that there are murderous dictators loose in the world, but as long as they pose no life-and-death threat to the United States there is no reason for America to militarily intervene and give them — as the saying goes — the boot. After all, if the dictators are not killing Americans and/or threatening genuine U.S. national interests, who cares? Humans are hard-wired for war, so let them fight. The U.S. government exists only to defend the republic, its commerce, and its citizens and their liberties; it is under precisely zero obligation — legal, moral, or one dreamed up by disloyal U.S. citizens — to defend any set of foreigners against the murderous machinations of the dictators who rule them or the enemies who threaten them.

The wars that disloyal IF/NC Copperheads like you champion, Mr. Boot, have invariably been greatly counterproductive for U.S. national security, the national debt, and, especially, for those you and your colleagues care the least about; namely, the parents, wives, husbands, and children who suffered the loss or maiming of their loved ones in the military while they were fighting in the unnecessary wars you and your kind demand that America fight for only one reason, to make the world safe for Israel.

So, Mr. Boot, if you and the rest of your wretched and disloyal IF/NC associates want to go to the Democratic Party and side with IF/NC’er Hillary Clinton, please go immediately and trumpet your departure from the roof tops. After all, what could be more appropriate than today’s Copperheads — a kind of snake that sneaks and strikes without warning — joining the Democratic Party, the original incubator and home of the Civil War’s Copperheads? In the decade before that war, Massachusetts’s Senator Charles Sumner was speaking when he saw one of his pro-slavery foes enter the Senate Chamber and walk toward his seat. Sumner stopped and asked, I paraphrase here, the other senators to witness that a slug was slithering across the chamber’s floor looking for a chair to adhere to. For the Republican Party, the movement of the entire IF/NC crowd to the Democratic Party would be a Godsend, a veritable slithering slug migration that would find no shortage of fellow slugs waiting for them in Hillary’s camp, and there probably would be enough chairs for all of them to adhere to.

There is, then, nothing that could strengthen the Republican Party more and attract more voters to its side than to be shed of you, Mr. Boot, and your disloyal fellow Copperheads. Be gone, good riddance, and praise God for cutting out the festering IF/NC malignancy from the Republican Party so that it can once again stand for something more than endless war and Israel First.

 

 

 

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , | 8 Comments

Of Justice Scalia, the Constitution, Obama’s tyranny, and Cuba

President Obama’s unilateral and so illegal decision to restart his and Mrs. Clinton’s personal and Africa-ruining war in Libya is a good reminder of what America lost with the death of Justice Scalia. Whether or not you agreed with Justice Scalia’s decisions, you could at least be confident that he was one of the three justices on the Supreme Court — the others being Justice Alito and Justice Thomas — who knew what and why the Founders put what they did in the Constitution, and that they intended its clear language to be interpreted in a manner that did not read into the text things that are not there and that are meant to contribute to the building of a tyrannical national government.

The Founders also included a demanding amending formula which was intended to be the only tool with which the Constitution could be changed. Neither Obama, George W. Bush, nor Bill Clinton obeyed the Constitution in terms of securing an official congressional declaration of war for the almost entirely unnecessary wars they started or joined. Each should have been impeached for that offense alone.

In regard to Judge Scalia’s replacement, the Republican leadership in the Congress was foolish to say it would not consider Obama’s nominee. Obama can now nominate another under-qualified Democratic political apparatchik as he did in the cases of Justices Kagan and Sotomayor. He will nominate a lawless, authoritarian like himself, one who is a woman, a minority, an LBGT person, a Black or Latino, or some combination of those and the other slave-like, Constitution-hating groups that worship at the altar of Obama’s tyranny. He will then be able to say that the Republicans refused to consider the nominee because they are prejudiced, misogynist, homophobic, etc. In such case, sadly, the establishment Republicans who control Congress likely would cave in, and perhaps even approve another justice who serves only to promote the Democratic Party’s plans for tyranny and minority rule.

Much better for the Republicans to have adopted a scorched-earth policy. They should have genially encouraged Obama to send up one nominee after another for a hearing — and then refuse to confirm each in their turn. It would have been the first time that establishment Republicans acted as if they know, as do the people who gave them a majority in each house, that the Democrats are no longer just the other political party, but rather the proud and lethal enemy of liberty, commonsense, and religion that must be brought to ground — and soon — in one manner or another.

In passing, it is worth keeping an eye on Obama during his trip to Cuba. The media report that he is sending a plan to Congress today that will close Guantanamo Bay prison and seeks money to facilitate the plan. While the Republicans and some Democrats oppose any such plan, and there is, I believe, a law that must be repealed to allow such an action, Obama never obeys or enforces laws he dislikes and may act — as on Libya — unilaterally, dispersing the prisoners as he sees fit.

Moreover, Obama knows that if a Republican is elected president the prison would be reopened, and that the only way to prevent that action is for Obama to give the Guantanamo Bay military base back to Cuba and immediately withdraw all U.S. military and civilian personnel from the base.

You might think that a president would never do such unconstitutional things, after all he would be breaking the law and a treaty that states Guantanamo Bay is leased to the United States in perpetuity? Well, maybe not, but how many unconstitutional actions has Obama taken in the last eight years that have gone unchallenged by either the Republicans or the pro-tyranny Democrat automatons who serve in Congress? In starting unconstitutional wars, rewriting legislation after it is law, using the IRS to neuter Conservative groups, and, generally, refusing to enforce any law he does not like, Obama has committed a string of impeachable offenses. Why not one or two more for the road?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | 17 Comments

Of America’s enemies, domestic and foreign

There is no denying that the past few weeks of events at home and overseas have been mighty interesting. None of them, however, seem to bode well for the United States.

–Democrats: In the 2016 presidential race, the extent of the destruction the Democratic Party has wrought on America’s intelligence, social cohesion, and respect for law is becoming crystal clear. The Democrats have only two candidates for their nomination. One is a geriatric socialist who seems not to know the United States is hopelessly in debt because of his party, or that most Americans will not abide the economic disaster, minority rule, and authoritarianism that socialism always yields. The other is a likely felon/traitor who is utterly dependent on her sexual-predator husband, has accomplished nothing in her life except a superb talent for deceit, and the gains made by her family’s graft, influence peddling, and corruption. This is a person so devoid of integrity, honesty, and character that her two major concerns seem to be to pocket more lucre for herself, and to ensure that human babies always can be profitably murdered, dismembered, and sold for parts right up to their due date.

Astoundingly, these two human abominations are supported by hordes of those who are often described as the best products of the nation’s educational system, all of whom seem to share the two candidates’ gross economic ignorance and loathing for America’s history. In the millennials, Generation Y, or whatever other juvenile nickname is used for this crowd of terminal adolescents — computer-addled freeloaders might be a more accurate adjective — the national government’s department of education, the teachers’ unions, and the great majority of university teachers have produced millions of childish, greedy, lazy, ill-educated, free speech-hating, uncivil, anti-American, tyrant-loving, all-for-me’ers; that is, young people who joyously look forward to electing a president eager to economically rape those Americans who increasingly work to pay for the personal expenses of non-working others. In terms of both its presidential candidates and their supporters, the Democratic Party is — as it long has been — the engine of America’s destruction.

As it did in 1860-61, the Democratic Party is now nurturing the seeds of secession and civil war it planted, only, today, tyranny is not, as in 1860-61, feared and anticipated, but well begun and observable. The pivotal question in the 2016 election is whether voters will elect a candidate intent on continuing to expand the Obama-bred tyranny and so dissolve social cohesion beyond repair and thereby shatter the Union. Through its candidates, the Democrats already have answered that question in the affirmative, and the consequences of one or the other being elected are terrible to contemplate because struggles between tyranny and liberty are always fought to the death.

–Michael Bloomberg: This man is again rumored to be considering a presidential run as a centrist candidate; of which party, no one is sure. There are three things to reflect on about Bloomberg.

–First, that Bloomberg is, as they would say in blue-collar Buffalo, a conceited and arrogant prick who seems not to regard other Americans as fellow citizens. They are, rather, lowly peasants who are to be told what they can eat, drink, and do, and who — because so few have Bloombergian brain power — cannot be trusted to recognize that Lord Bloomberg cannot be opposed because he knows what is best for all, and so they must have their right to bear arms unconstitutionally abrogated by an authoritarian central government.

–Second, Bloomberg is really not much concerned with the welfare of Americans — whom he expects to obey, behave, and pay up — but with Israelis and their state. My guess is that Bloomberg and his disloyal Neocon and Israel-first brothers fear that Clinton will go to prison, and Sanders, if elected, is not mindlessly pro-Israeli and will economically ruin Israel’s endless American source of free stuff and military protection. The same set of Bloomberg, Neocons, and Israel-Firsters passionately hate Trump because they have not been able to buy him — as they have purchased Clinton, Rubio, Cruz, and Bush — and fear that a President Trump might put America first and let the world go its own way so long as the United States is not attacked.

–Third, Bloomberg does not appear to care how many Americans or their soldier-children are killed or maimed because of unquestioning U.S. support for Israel. The evidence of this? Just do an internet search and you will easily find Bloomberg traveling to Israel when Israeli forces are pounding hell out of the houses, shops, basic infrastructure, hospitals, children, wives, and elderly of their Palestinian enemy. Israel, of course, must defend itself in the manner it deems necessary for its survival. But Bloomberg’s prominent and well-publicized presence in Israel on such occasions clearly is meant to make sure that all the Islamic world believes that the United States intends to eternally assist Israel in its killing of Muslims. Bloomberg, in so doing, knowingly paints a figurative bulls-eye on the back of every American, civilian and military.

–Syria: In March 2016, the war in Syria will be five years old. The United States so far has lost six or fewer citizens, and they died because they foolishly decided to pursue their ambitions in a war zone well-known for ferocious and indiscriminate brutality. The Syrian war has hurt nothing in the United States and none of its genuine national security interests, and yet the national government continues to intervene in the diplomatic lunacy of trying to make peace between such irreconcilable forces as nationalism-vs-Islam, Sunni-vs- Shia, and Europe’s former imperial powers-vs-their former colonials.

The Syrian war will not end by negotiation nor by the pitiful dikats of once feared Western leaders who now more resemble aged, saggy madams who indulge the delusion that they are each still queen of the brothel and can call the shots. It is far past time for the United States to look after itself and walk thankfully away from a war in which most of the republic’s enemies are slaughtering each other. And for those dear, sensitive American souls whose teary compassion for the poor Syrians, Iraqis, Kurds, Turks, Azidis, etc. runneth over, and who are willing to get America’s soldier-children killed to soothe their troubled consciences, it would only be right for them to travel to the battlefield and help those foreigners they long to save. (NB: Of course, this will not happen. I have previously suggested such a tack for U.S.-citizen Israel-Firsters, but they still sit here in North America, safe with their jobs, savings, and families, and urge policies and actions that tend to ensure the destruction of Israel. The compassion of Neocons, Israel-Firsters, and Republican and Democratic war-mongers like Kristol, Bolton, Krauthammer, Bush, Clinton, Rubio, McCain, Graham, Lieberman, Cruz, and so many others is aggressive and boundless … as long as it is some other American’s kid who dies in the unnecessary interventionist wars they so blithely start.)

–Libya: While the world focuses on the Syrian war — to which there is only a military solution — the time is fast approaching when the West will have to pay the piper for the Islamist dance it arranged to be hosted in Libya. Libya and much of Africa are near to popping because Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the war boys, McCain and Graham, did not like nasty old Muammar Gadhafi, a man who was zero threat to the United States but indispensable to suppressing Islamist power in North Africa. Obama and Clinton — with their fellow European interventionists, Cameron and Sarkozy — conducted the military destruction of Gadhafi’s regime in 20111 and then walked away, telling their electorates the obvious lie that the dictator’s demise would give birth to Western-like democracy in Libya. (NB: You will recall that Mrs. Clinton’s adamant protection of her lie led her to knowingly sacrifice four American lives in Benghazi.)

Well it is now 2016, and U.S. and Western leaders have found that Islamism, like rust, never sleeps. The forces of the Islamic State (IS), al-Qaeda-in-the-Islamic-Maghreb (AQIM) and their respective allies are solidly entrenched and growing more powerful in Libya, and they are — even while fighting their Libyan enemies — approaching Libya’s oilfields and ports, as well as training and then infiltrating fighters to the north, east and west, into Europe, western Egypt, the Sinai Peninsula, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and Mauritania. While Western leaders ignored the Islamist beachhead their intervention created in Libya, moreover, al-Qaeda and the Islamic State have been expanding southward into the Sahel and from there into west and central Africa. Al-Qaeda’s southward expansion has been effective and of longer duration, but IS recently scored a coup by enticing Nigeria’s Boko Haram to abandon its allegiance to al-Qaeda and pledge loyalty instead to IS’s Caliphate.

The Islamists — thanks to Obama, Clinton, and NATO’s leaders — are now positioned to advance and fight in a large portion of Africa. And, at this point, any Western military re-intervention in Libya could only improve the Islamists’ prospects for success because both northern and southern Africans — Muslims, Christians, animists, etc., — would perceive the intervention as the return of their former and much-hated European imperial masters. Some would fight such an intervention alongside the Islamists’ forces, many others would form separate insurgent groups. As in Syria, then, it is time for America to walk away from the Islamist problem in Libya and let European and African leaders deal with it. After all, U.S. taxpayers have poured many hundreds of billions of dollars into their countries since 1945 and it is time to find out if those they invested in can defend themselves or will be cower and scream for America to do their dirty work.

–Afghanistan: The only timbers supporting the so-called progress made in Afghanistan since 2001 are the lies of the Bush and Obama administrations and their generals. The creaking you hear is the sound of those timbers slowly splintering in prelude to the coming and catastrophic collapse of the roof over Afghanistan, one that is built solely of lies and the wasted blood of U.S. Marines and soldiers.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

Today’s senior U.S. generals endanger the republic’s survival

Readers of this space will recall my criticisms of senior U.S. general officers who:

–Are silent when getting their Marines and soldiers killed in wars they know the president has no intention of winning.

–Are endlessly repeating the absolutely false statement “there is no military solution” to this, that, and every conflict, so as to disguise the president’s refusal to win.

–Are rewarded for their spaniel-like obedience to the president, and relentless failure in war, with promotion to high office, such as General Petraeus’s appointment as CIA Director after losing the Iraq and Afghan wars.

–Are allowed to lie and are never challenged by the media when they guarantee Americans that the U.S. military’s training of foreign armies will make them into crack fighting forces able to defend their own countries.

–Are so afraid of losing their perks, fancy uniforms — adorned now with medals/ribbons in the North Korea’s Army’s comic-opera style  — and lucrative post-career corporate directorships, that not one of them, in my memory, has resigned and told the electorate what he or she knows to be true; namely, that U.S. war-making since at least the end of the Cold War has been an expensive, bloody, and endless fraud, consistent only in always yielding defeat, wasting the lives of America’s soldier-children, never eliminating America’s enemies, and further compromising U.S. security.

Many people are angered by those who voice the clear reality that most senior U.S. general officers are merely uniformed, bureaucratic yes-men; I would have been in that group twenty years ago. Nonetheless, the evidence supporting that reality seems irrefutable.

The past few months. in fact, have seen two more remarkable examples of the willingness of senior U.S. generals to lie to the American people about the main reason their generals fail to win wars against Islamists. That reason is that the generals are either too politically correct or — worse — they actually believe the nonsense that holds Westerners are far better people than Islamists and so — even when Islamists are kicking the West’s collective behind — cannot stoop to their level and kill enough of the enemy, its civilian supporters and abettors, and destroy enough of their infrastructure to secure victory. This line of logic, played out to a conclusion, amounts to:

“We Americans and Westerners are such good people that we must allow the Islamists to kill whoever they want, invade whatever they want, bankrupt our nations, and destroy constitutional government and civil liberties in the West. And for U.S. generals, ensuring the republic’s suicide in the name of humaneness is an obligatory duty.”

The first of the two above mentioned examples comes — God help us — from a man who belongs to one of the few remaining national institution’s that knows it exists to annihilate America’s enemies and, until recent decades, reliably did so; that is, the U.S. Marine Corps. Now, though, we have a decidedly anti-victory Marine named General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., USMC, who is serving as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In recent congressional testimony, General Dunford acknowledged that much of the Islamic State’s (IS) economic strength, and so its military and political endurance, is derived from selling oil on the black market, and that in most cases the oil is trucked to the purchaser. This statement was not breaking news, but the words that followed it were. While Americans assumed their generals were busy destroying IS’s major income maker, General Dunford said they were not. Why?

“We assessed a majority of the truck drivers were just people trying to make a living in the region. It’s a little bit different than enemy combatant from our perspective. I don’t think in this fight we should apologize for bringing our values to the fight. I don’t think we should be killing innocent people, which would merely feed the narrative of [the Islamic State.]” (1)

Now, that must be the most idiotic statement a general — or any Marine or soldier — could make. What could be the commonsense basis for such a statement? Dunford’s words about “feeding the [IS] narrative” is simply double-talk for “we do not want to kill too many of the enemy and his supporters because we will be criticized by the media, human rights groups, Arab tyrants, the UN, and Europeans and then have to apologize.” Clearly, though, Dunford is not ashamed to bring the contemporary American elite’s valueless values to the fight, values which include joyously wallowing in defeat and failure, insisting that abstract ideals endlessly repeated can prevail over religious fervor, bravery, and bullets, and that, well, killing the enemy until he is eradicated or gives up is just too old fashioned and unsophisticated for effeminate, modern, and goody-goody Westerners.

So, General Dunford, those poor little fellows who drive IS oil tankers are just doing so to make a buck for their families, are they? Well guess what, Sir, so were Hitler’s railroad engineers, machinists, steel workers, coal miners, chemists, welders, carpenters, assembly-line mechanics, civilian doctors, tool-and-die makers, and many other civilians who worked in innumerable additional professions. Without them there would have been no Wehrmacht, no Nazi regime, no food distribution, no concentration camps, no ammunition, aircraft, submarines or tanks, and no six years of war. Ditto for those of the Japanese emperor’s boys who worked in the same professions and were indispensable to building Hirohito’s “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”, a project that brought in its wake the Bataan Death March, the Rape of Nanking, and a four-year Pacific War which — you may recall, General Dunford — cost the lives of 19,733 Marines and wounded or maimed 67,207 more. (2)

Now, there was no shortage of moronic, Obama-like abstract idealism and foreign-policy goals bleated out between 1939 and 1945 by Roosevelt, Churchill, and many others — the Four Freedoms, the UN Charter, everything Eleanor Roosevelt said, etc.  But the war was won by speedily applying massive amounts of indiscriminate military violence with the clear intention of producing however many enemy dead were necessary to end the war. It was too bad for those guys who drove Hitler’s trains, produced his electricity, built his airfields, and dug his coal just to “make a living”, but Allied military forces killed them in droves because their deaths sapped German power, material endurance, and so shortened the war. The Japanese civilians just trying to “make a living” by laboring to support their Emperor’s barbarity were treated no differently; they died in huge numbers.

By not doing what your predecessors did, General Dunford — and by being arrogantly proud of not doing it — you and your senior general-officer colleagues have turned what should have been a two-or-three year war into a 20-year conflict which has strengthened the enemy and has no end in sight, In doing so, Sir, you have wasted the lives and limbs of thousands of the Marines and soldiers under your command. Well done, Sir.

The other of the two examples noted above came from U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Sean MacFarland, the commander of the U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. This genius told reporters that the United States was “bound by the laws of armed conflict,” when asked why carpet bombing would not be effective against IS. MacFarland then added the required, politically correct mantra: “We’re the United States of America. We have a set of guiding principles. Indiscriminate bombing, where we don’t care if we’re killing innocents or combatants, is just inconsistent with our values. Right now we have the moral high ground, and I think that’s where we need to stay.” (4) No reporter, of course, had the wit to ask MacFarland if his words meant that Russia and China could be confident the United States would not respond in kind to a nuclear attack by either on America. If I recall correctly, nuclear arms surely will cause a quite considerable level of indiscriminate killing.

Again, MacFarland, like Dunford, is saying that we Americans and Westerners are so much better people than you Islamists — and implicitly far better people than Roosevelt, Churchill, George Marshall, Dwight Eisenhower, Chester Nimitz, and the above-noted dead and wounded Marines — that we cannot fight you as we fought our other enemies until 1945.

We would rather commit national suicide, the two generals are saying, by slavishly and foolishly obeying the “laws of armed conflict” and our “guiding principles” and so fight an endless, unnecessary, and irrelevant-to-America religious war that eventually will cost Americans all they have built over the centuries in North America rather annihilate those who would kill us. (NB: The “guiding principles” the generals refer to are:  (a) relentless, war-causing interventionism (see, the Islamic world); (b) unnecessary, always lost wars (see Iraq, Libya, and now Syria); (c) arrogant crusading for imposing democracy/feminism on foreigners (see Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, etc.); and (d) reinstalling and/or protecting tyranny in the Muslim world (see Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran. Algeria, etc. )

As far as MacFarland’s lunatic remark about holding the “moral high ground”, a very good friend of mine, and a former Special Forces’ medic, once said the only high ground worth holding was the high ground that afforded you the best field of fire for killing the enemy. He was and is right.

What all this adds up to is that America today is plagued by a thoroughly incompetent and republic-killing assortment of politicians and generals who love to beat the war drum and then lose the usually unnecessary war they drum up. Because it seems we are unlikely, in the near term, to find a new, more common-sense batch of either, I would urge Americans to find a man who promises to follow the guidance of the greatest of their countrymen — George Washington — by recreating and then adhering to an America-First foreign policy of neutrality and non-intervention, while simultaneously rebuilding the U.S. military and appointing general officers who will utterly and speedily destroy any enemy that dares attack us or threatens our vital national interests. As General Washington knew and said, neutrality, non-intervention, dominant military strength, and the cultivation of an international belief that the latter would be used mercilessly if needed for national survival are the best possible guards against having to wage any war but one for national survival.

As I was drafting this piece, the news came out that Senator Rand Paul had withdrawn from the field of Republican presidential candidates. Unsurprisingly, the always-wrong Washington Post entitled its story about Senator Paul’s withdrawal, “The rise of the Islamic State doomed Rand Paul’s presidential chances”.(4)

Let me say that I greatly respect and am a partisan of Senator Paul, but I believe that what doomed his candidacy was not the rise of the Islamic State. Rather, Senator Paul’s chances were crippled when he decided to downplay an irrefutable lesson he learned at his sainted Dad’s knee, as well as from his own strong commonsense; namely, he did not publicly hammer home, with brutal clarity, the fact that the bipartisan, war-causing, democracy/feminism-mongering, and tyranny-supporting interventionism of both U.S. political parties has been and is the central motivating force behind the rise and durability of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, as well as the Muslim world’s growing antipathy toward the United States.

Senator Paul’s reluctance to deliver this admittedly hard-to-hear message seemed — to me at least — to limit his campaign’s dynamism and appeal, which is, I think, both a tragedy for America and an almost sure guarantee that more U.S. Marines and soldiers soon will plowed under and maimed by more unnecessary military interventionism abroad.

 

___________

–1.) http://www.stripes.com/news/us-adjusting-tactics-to-intensify-air-war-against-islamic-state-1.381470

–2.) http://www.usmarinesbirthplace.com/US-Marine-Corps-Casualties.html

–3.) http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/ted-cruz-carpetbombing-us-general-reacts-218528#ixzz3z0zGmYDV

–4.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/03/how-the-rise-of-isis-killed-rand-pauls-presidential-chances/

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , | 11 Comments