ISIS

by

Biden’s Horrible Decision About Afghanistan


President Biden has pledged to take all of our troops out of Afghanistan by September. His generals in Afghanistan have been vocal about this being a mistake and President Biden needs to listen to them!

I have heard it said that our country is not about “nation building.” Nothing could be further from the truth. At the end of World War 2, we left a very sizable number of troops in Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea. Of those four countries, all still have U.S. troops stationed there to help maintain the peace. Other countries which host a contingent of U.S. troops are Poland, Turkey, Greece and Spain. It has been 76 years since the end of that war, so why do we keep troops there? In the cases of Germany and Japan, the U.S. insisted in 1945-6 that those countries write into their constitutions that they will only maintain a defensive force, although in recent years both countries have built their military to a size where they could easily become offensive. For the most part, those countries have become very stable and their contributions to the world of innovation, science and industry have been huge.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq at the beginning of this month there were about 2,500 troops each. The stability of each is quite precarious to the extent that U.S. troops could do little to stop ISIS when it terrorized that region and is still lurking in the background. In Afghanistan, the Taliban are an even greater threat to the security of that country. By and large, the people of Afghanistan are quite happy to have U.S. forces present. Not withstanding that, the Taliban have taken a sizeably portion of the country and returned it to the brutal subugation it held prior to the war. It does not take much intellect to know that when the U.S. creates a military vacuum, one which Afghany forces are not prepared to defend, the Taliban will quickly take over.

If anything, the U.S. needs to increase its forces in Afghanistan and maintain a presence for the foreseeable future. Afghanistan has tremendous agricultural potential but that will be minimal if the Taliban are allowed to return. History dictates that it must be remembered. When the U.S. and other allied forces were victorious in World War 1, no troops were left in Germany to insure its stability. There existed several far right wing groups who did not care for the new regime and from the early 20s until 1933, they engaged in political war with the ruling government only to have it taken over by the Nazis. Other huge mistakes were made, ridiculous reparation demands of Germany cause the country to remain bankrupt until Hitler took over and refused to pay. Would things have been different had the allied forces maintained a presence in Germany? We can only speculate but at the very least it would have put a damper on right wing efforts to overthrow the ruling government.

It is very unlikely that Afghanistan will ever reach the economies of Germany and Japan, but it can become a very stable country if it is allow to find its own way with inteferance from the Taliban. And even more importantly, the work is far from done in Afghanistan for the U.S. as long as the Taliban is allowed to maintain its current strength. I can only hope that someone in Biden’s circle will read and take to heart this article, or, that he will heed his generals and stop removing troops.

by

Peace in the Middle East


The largest part of the political dialogue today is over the containment and ultimate elimination of ISIS and other groups like ISIS. I find it scary to hear leading Republican candidates talking about carpet bombing and send large number of troops into the Middle East to resolve this problem. The Democrats seem to have a little more palatable response but still quite imperfect. Is there a perfect response? Yes, but no one knows what it is.

I think it high time we give both Afghanistan and Iraq a 30-day notice of complete removal of all our troops from their respective countries. The United States has overspent in both areas trying to bring about a peace which history shows has never existed for any extended length of time. The bottom line is, and contrary to what both major parties claim, our major interests in Iraq lie entire in its huge oil reserves and nothing else. That is simply irresponsible.

Now I am not suggesting we abandon these countries entirely, that is irresponsible. What I am suggesting is that we provide intelligence support, logistical support and air support. Both the government of Turkey and Saudi Arabia have allowed for our military presence within their boundaries and both countries are quite stable.

During last night’s Democrat debate, I heard exactly one suggestion on how to carry this war to a successful completion. It was that ground military forces fighting ISIS be made up entirely of Moslem troops. In this aspect the United States can play a key role. We can certainly train and arm such armies to a level where their success is at least likely if not probable.

The fly in the ointment is Iran. Claims have been made that Iran sponsors terrorism. President Obama has done a masterful job of getting Iran to open up its nuclear program to inspection. This has given the Middle East, and Israel in particular, a feeling of safety where nuclear arms are involved. In return, the United States has freed up here-to-fore frozen Iranian assets. I suggest that through diplomatic channels a deal can be made with Iran to further reduce existing sanctions by getting Iran to end any state sponsored terrorism which now exists. I think a partnership between Turkey and Iran could help in ending Iran’s isolation from the world by it gaining a powerful and trustworthy trading partner in the Moslem world which Turkey is.

Contrary to what many Americans believe, there are more peaceful countries in the Middle East than there are those suffering civil war and terror. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Iran, the Emirates, and Kuwait need to enter into a mutual defense coalition. Even though it is experiencing a great deal of unrest, Iraq too needs to be included. This coalition, like NATO, would help preserve the peace in the Middle East from those who would have it otherwise. I have left out Lebanon because it is fairly evenly split between Moslems and Christians, 54 to 46 respectively, and might prove unwise. That is unless the Christians of Lebanon thought it a good idea.

There is no question that many countries in the Middle East need military aid from the United States. The only question is, in what form? A unified Middle Eastern army made up entirely of Moslem soldiers make the most sense in ending the strife that region now endures. The United States will not be shirking its responsibilities to Middle Eastern countries by removing all our ground personnel from Iraq but maintaining military support through other means. Our removing ourselves may actually help bring about a regional peace much sooner than our staying there as we are.

 

 

by

Why We Should Absolutely Accept Syrian Refugees


The political discussion today is whether or not the United States should accept Syrian refugees into this country. The plaque at the base of the Statue of Liberty in theory states our general belief of those who want to immigrate to our country. Why, then, should that change now?

Terror – extreme fear. I looked up the definition of this word to verify my belief in its meaning.   ISIS is a terrorist organization by the world’s definition and its own. Their objective seems simple enough: instill as much fear into as many people as they can. And where ISIS exists in significant numbers, they will take our their animosities on innocent civilians. Worse, they do not discriminate. They are more than willing to visit their form of evil upon those who, in theory, embrace their religion! That is nothing new as Al Qaeda did the same thing in Afghanistan. The difference here of course is that while Al Qaeda, for the most part, 9/11 being the exception, practiced their form of evil mostly within the borders of Afghanistan, although they did extend it to northwestern Pakistan.

ISIS has decided to take their fight to the entire Middle East, and to a lesser extent the rest of the world. They are terrorists in every sense of the word and to the extreme. Their war has forced thousands of innocent Syrians to flee the own country for fear of their own lives. And as we have seen, these refugees have gone through Turkey and the Balkans seeking refuge in Austria and Germany.

The United States is insulated from these refugees because of the Atlantic Ocean and the ability of the refugees to travel, which is quite limited. And some would argue that the European nations should be able to absorb all the refugees who show up at their door. But is that the right thing to expect? No!

The argument against accepting these Syrian refugees is that they may well include ISIS terrorists. But that argument feeds directly into the intention of the ISIS terrorists. That is exactly how ISIS wants us to feel.

I believe that if the U.S. were to accept 10,000 refugees, as President Obama has suggested, that the the possibility of one of more terrorists gaining access to our country is close to a sure thing. So what? Are we so cowed by this possibility that we are not willing to take the chance? Do we have so little faith in our civil police, Homeland Security, and the FBI that we cannot trust them to maintain the peace for us? Are we really going to let ISIS revel in the fact that they have placed enough fear into us that we refuse refuge to thousands of deserving people? I really hope that is not what we have become. I absolutely think we should welcome 10,000 refugees or more! And I believe that the governors of the 20 plus states who have said they absolutely will not take Syrian refugee should be ashamed of themselves because they have shown their fear. Fear is exactly what ISIS wants them to feel.

by

Dealing With ISIS


The terrorist attack on Paris is despicable, to say the least. The group that calls itself ISIS claims responsibility. Those are all the facts, there are no more. Politician in this country, and probably all others, debate what sort of response should be taken. The responses I have heard from politicians in this country have been anywhere from measured to outrageous.

The good thing about this country is we get to say whatever we believe and the government cannot restrict that. That works well until you enter the national and international arena. Once you find yourself on the national stage this wise response is always the measured response. Many of the Republican presidential candidates have made the decision that the best and only response the U.S. can make to terrorist attacks is by sending in the army. Such remarks are not only ill-considered but irresponsible.

Governor Christie has said he would send in the troops. Trump, Rubio and Bush have said as much. It is this kind of thinking that gets the United States into trouble over and over.

The military of the United States, and of any country, is an extension of that country’s political system. The two prime reasons for having a military is first to defend your country against those who attack you and second, to take the battle to those countries which present a real and present danger to your well-being. A secondary reason is going to an ally’s aid and defense.

That ISIS presents a real and present danger in the world is unarguable. ISIS, however, it not presently claimed by any country in particular nor has any country come out in support of ISIS. It is my belief that there is not a country in the middle-east, North Africa, southeastern Europe, the Balkans and probably all of central Asia which does not have a contingent of ISIS living within its borders. This makes attacking ISIS problematic, at the least, because of where it exists. For example, ISIS probably exists substantially in Lebanon and Lebanon borders Syria. Right now, neither of those countries have invited the U.S. inside its borders.

Former President Bush used the pretense of weapons of mass destruction the attack Iraq. We now know for fact that we were fed half-truths and absolute lies when the real motivation was to remove Saddam Hussein from power. I only mention that to pre-empt the idea of entering Syria to eradicate ISIS, and oh by the way, we remove Assad from power.

Right now the only nation that has an iron clad reason to attack ISIS with troops on the ground is France, and so far they have shown no desire to do such. Why? Because they probably realize that their chances of successfully destroying the entire central leadership of ISIS with infantry is minimal at best. And even if France were to decide to use ground troops, I think anything beyond existing NATO agreements and UN agreements is unwise. And anything beyond logistical support would be going too far. And that logistical support would exist only in Iraq in the Middle East.

The greatest threat ISIS is to the world now is mostly peace of mind. It is obvious that Europe has got to figure out a way, quickly, to secure its borders. The U.S. is already doubling down on its security, really the only thing we can do. The next right step the leadership of the world has to figure out is how to contain ISIS. For all the Middle Eastern countries this means they will have to use a combination of civil policing and military actions within their borders. For the U.S. this means we are going to have to secure the borders of both Afghanistan and Iraq. That may require additional infantry troops. Neither country is strong enough by itself to provide for its own security against the likes of ISIS.

The United States has a lot of experience in attempting to deal with an unseen enemy such as ISIS. That enemy was called the Viet Cong and the war, of course, was Vietnam. We failed miserably trying to root out the Vietcong with conventional military. ISIS is no different.

The bottom line is simple: we are already stronger than ISIS, we just need to be smarter than them to defeat them.