The Mouth of the South, President Chavez of Venezuela, accused Columbia of sending it's troops into Venezuela and has begun serious saber rattling over the "incident" (which never happened by the way).
He's looking for an excuse to give Columbia a bloody nose.
Chavez has begun ratcheting up the rhetoric to include threatened use of military force to destabilize Columbia, whose president he doesn't like.
The true intent of his massive arms buildup appears to be coming to fruition. He's out to make everyone around him into socialists.
If he does attack Columbia, he'll probably claim that Columbia invaded Venezuela, and that Venezuelan troops are pursuing the Columbian forces back into Columbia.
It's a pretext that has been used before: when Japan opened hostilities with China in 1937, they accused the Chinese of sneaking across the Marco Polo Bridge from China to Japanese-occupied China and kidnapping one of their soldiers. Tensions had been building for months, and on that day in particular, there had already been shots fired between the Chinese and Japanese armies. The missing Japanese soldier incident started major military action, once the Japanese got their foot into the door.
That's exactly the sort of situation that will set off the powder keg between Columbia and Venezuela, since Chavez is obviously spoiling for a fight. And the news that Columbia is talking to the U.S. about leasing seven Columbian bases to U.S. forces for drug interdiction and regional security guarantees is driving Chavez bonkers.
Perhaps if he quits funding and arming FARC, which opposes democracy in Columbia, the U.S. bases will be unnecessary. But he's unlikely to do that, isn't he?
Showing posts with label military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military. Show all posts
Monday, August 10, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Congress "Retires" F-22 Raptor: NOT
The press is reporting that Congress has officially "retired" the F-22 Raptor, which was to replace several older models of strike fighters operated by the Air Force and Navy.
No they didn't.
They decided to end the production of the F-22, but the 200 that have already been built will remain in service for 10-20 years before the model is officially "retired" by the military, not by Congress.
Congress abandoned the F-22 Raptor in favor of the newer and cheaper F-35 Lightning II, which will be operated by the U.S. military as the "Joint Strike Fighter." They've just placed an order for more F-35s even as they cut production of the F-22.
If this new fighter can do the workload of the F-22 for less cost, then this is a good decision. In it's heyday, the now-retired F-14 Tomcat cost $30 million per copy; the F-22 cost $99 million per copy, which made many in Congress choke on the cost.
For the billions they put into the F-22, the military should use the F-22 Raptor for a while to justify the cost that was put into R&D and procurement of the F-22.
That's a financially sound decision too.
No they didn't.
They decided to end the production of the F-22, but the 200 that have already been built will remain in service for 10-20 years before the model is officially "retired" by the military, not by Congress.
Congress abandoned the F-22 Raptor in favor of the newer and cheaper F-35 Lightning II, which will be operated by the U.S. military as the "Joint Strike Fighter." They've just placed an order for more F-35s even as they cut production of the F-22.
If this new fighter can do the workload of the F-22 for less cost, then this is a good decision. In it's heyday, the now-retired F-14 Tomcat cost $30 million per copy; the F-22 cost $99 million per copy, which made many in Congress choke on the cost.
For the billions they put into the F-22, the military should use the F-22 Raptor for a while to justify the cost that was put into R&D and procurement of the F-22.
That's a financially sound decision too.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Obama Administration Mounts a PR Assault on the Military "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy: Strategy Will Backfire
As anticipated, the Obama Administration is making noise about dismantling the military "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy toward gays. His press secretary confirmed that he wants to go to Congress to repeal the policy, but won't do so until late 2009 or 2010.
Ultimately, it won't work.
I think it will actually drive more gays out of the military and lead President Obama to hastily restore the policy--in it's current form. There are many who wouldn't mind seeing this happen.
President Clinton beat a hasty retreat on this issue and never returned to it. I think history will repeat itself with President Obama once he takes a measure of how the military feels about this issue, and how the public feels about it. In fact, he's already delayed looking at this issue until 2010.
I'm not sure that the Democrats in Congress will want to risk alienating their constituents, who have shown that they may vote their own way on issues related to gay rights, regardless of party label. Look at California and their Proposal 8 controversy. I knew that proposal would pass; voters don't like being told what to do and having the power of their votes taken away by activist judges.
Even though the Democrats control the government, I think this will be an uphill battle for them, should they choose to try. And at this stage, I'm not sure they want to go on record with their vote.
And even if they do succeed, how long will it last?
Ultimately, it won't work.
I think it will actually drive more gays out of the military and lead President Obama to hastily restore the policy--in it's current form. There are many who wouldn't mind seeing this happen.
President Clinton beat a hasty retreat on this issue and never returned to it. I think history will repeat itself with President Obama once he takes a measure of how the military feels about this issue, and how the public feels about it. In fact, he's already delayed looking at this issue until 2010.
I'm not sure that the Democrats in Congress will want to risk alienating their constituents, who have shown that they may vote their own way on issues related to gay rights, regardless of party label. Look at California and their Proposal 8 controversy. I knew that proposal would pass; voters don't like being told what to do and having the power of their votes taken away by activist judges.
Even though the Democrats control the government, I think this will be an uphill battle for them, should they choose to try. And at this stage, I'm not sure they want to go on record with their vote.
And even if they do succeed, how long will it last?
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Japan and Australia Deny Entry of Chinese Flame Protection Unit: Finally, Some Credibility to This Fiasco
Japan and Australia have announced that they will not allow the Beijing Olympic Games "Sacred" Flame Protection unit to participate in any security proceedings when the Olympic torch arrives in those two nations.
Finally, some common sense!
This Chinese paramilitary unit has established themselves as a gang of troublemakers; fights and scuffles with street protesters in London and in Paris firmly established the true nature of these Beijing Olympic Games.
Good riddance to the Flame Protection Unit.
Finally, some common sense!
This Chinese paramilitary unit has established themselves as a gang of troublemakers; fights and scuffles with street protesters in London and in Paris firmly established the true nature of these Beijing Olympic Games.
Good riddance to the Flame Protection Unit.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Pelosi Declares a Surge a Total Failure, Despite Major Progress
Looks like Nancy Pelosi is getting ready to own defeat in Iraq again, pronouncing the highly successful surge a "failure" on high.
The surge did what it was supposed to: give the Iraqi government some breathing room to accomplish their political objectives, which, I might add, were imposed upon them by the U.S. Imperial Congress in another flagrant violation of Iraqi sovereignty.
For Speaker Pelosi to try to take success away from our troops is, quite frankly, appalling and disingenuous.
For all this talk from the politicians that there's "no military solution in Iraq, only a political one," I haven't seen any mindboggling political solutions to getting Iraq on it's feet and our troops out of there any faster. All I've seen are political deadlines from American politicians directed at their Iraqi counterparts in Baghdad; to which the Iraqi politicians take great delight in thumbing their nose right back at the U.S. Congress.
I'm not sure what's funnier: America's politicians attempting to tell the Iraqis what to do, or the Iraqi practice of ignoring the American deadlines and doing what they want regardless of political pressure coming from Washington. It's more pathetic than funny.
Pelosi has no legs to stand on; she can't get her own party to listen to her; the Administration isn't listening, and the Iraqis sure aren't either. What's she going to do about it?
It's just more of the same coming from Washington.
The surge did what it was supposed to: give the Iraqi government some breathing room to accomplish their political objectives, which, I might add, were imposed upon them by the U.S. Imperial Congress in another flagrant violation of Iraqi sovereignty.
For Speaker Pelosi to try to take success away from our troops is, quite frankly, appalling and disingenuous.
For all this talk from the politicians that there's "no military solution in Iraq, only a political one," I haven't seen any mindboggling political solutions to getting Iraq on it's feet and our troops out of there any faster. All I've seen are political deadlines from American politicians directed at their Iraqi counterparts in Baghdad; to which the Iraqi politicians take great delight in thumbing their nose right back at the U.S. Congress.
I'm not sure what's funnier: America's politicians attempting to tell the Iraqis what to do, or the Iraqi practice of ignoring the American deadlines and doing what they want regardless of political pressure coming from Washington. It's more pathetic than funny.
Pelosi has no legs to stand on; she can't get her own party to listen to her; the Administration isn't listening, and the Iraqis sure aren't either. What's she going to do about it?
It's just more of the same coming from Washington.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
If Someone Like Edwards is Elected President, Will U.S. Military Be Able to Pull Troops and Equipment Out in First Year of New Administration?
Democrat John Edwards has promised to pull the U.S. military completely out of Iraq in the first year of his Presidency as part of his campaign platform. A question: if an anti-war candidate like Edwards is elected in November, can the military fulfill that wish in one year, assuming that the current administration keeps troop levels around 130,000?
The answer is: probably not. It's simple physics and logistics. The military brass say that they can move one combat brigade out of Iraq per month. There are between nineteen and twenty combat and support brigades and their equipment currently deployed. That's a minimum of twenty months, if all the ships and transport aircraft stay available and don't have maintenance issues.
The military pace is more realistic than the political pace.
The only way that a promise like Edwards' can be fulfilled is if President Bush starts withdrawing troops on a large scale in 2008, which is doubtful.
Edwards and the others shouldn't make promises that they can't keep. A more realistic promise is to withdraw troops by the end of their first term. The politicians are really going to mess things up if they have their way.
The answer is: probably not. It's simple physics and logistics. The military brass say that they can move one combat brigade out of Iraq per month. There are between nineteen and twenty combat and support brigades and their equipment currently deployed. That's a minimum of twenty months, if all the ships and transport aircraft stay available and don't have maintenance issues.
The military pace is more realistic than the political pace.
The only way that a promise like Edwards' can be fulfilled is if President Bush starts withdrawing troops on a large scale in 2008, which is doubtful.
Edwards and the others shouldn't make promises that they can't keep. A more realistic promise is to withdraw troops by the end of their first term. The politicians are really going to mess things up if they have their way.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Democrats Are Using Back Door to De-Fund Iraq War: $50 Billion Funding Bill Stalls in Senate Until January
It appears that the anticipated de-funding of the Iraq War by the Democrats is currently underway. But they're not taking the direct approach as was predicted by analysts.
Instead, they're guaranteeing that their legislation on war funding either doesn't make it to the President's desk, or if it does that he is certain to veto it. All the Democrats have to do is insert a clause that calls for withdrawal from Iraq to doom the legislation.
They have effectively de-funded the war, without drawing attention to the fact that this is/was their goal. They can publicly claim that they won't de-fund the Iraq War and will continue to put forth bills with terms and conditions that the Republicans find indigestible and will move to block.
The other tactic being employed is that the Democrats are ignoring the President's war funding requests for months at a time. Congress has already passed the Pentagon's $471 billion budget but stripped war funding from that bill. President Bush asked for $192 billion more in supplemental spending for the wars since mid-February; Congress is getting around to that request now, in mid-November.
The war bill passed by the House and rejected by the Senate would have provided $50 billion for the wars, and set the end of 2008 as a withdrawal date of troops from Iraq.
There's a time-crunch in play here; the current war funding will run out in February, and the military will have to divert money out of it's new $471 billion budget--money needed for repairing battle-damaged equipment or replacing it, beefing up V.A. hospitals, building mine-resistant vehicles, providing care for our wounded warriors, and purchasing new weapons platforms--to pay for the wars.
They've already signaled that they're diverting $4 billion immediately.
And the military is planning to make deep cuts when the designated war-fighting funding runs out in February. And it probably will; the only war funding bill on the table and on the horizon has been KO'ed.
Another mess.
Instead, they're guaranteeing that their legislation on war funding either doesn't make it to the President's desk, or if it does that he is certain to veto it. All the Democrats have to do is insert a clause that calls for withdrawal from Iraq to doom the legislation.
They have effectively de-funded the war, without drawing attention to the fact that this is/was their goal. They can publicly claim that they won't de-fund the Iraq War and will continue to put forth bills with terms and conditions that the Republicans find indigestible and will move to block.
The other tactic being employed is that the Democrats are ignoring the President's war funding requests for months at a time. Congress has already passed the Pentagon's $471 billion budget but stripped war funding from that bill. President Bush asked for $192 billion more in supplemental spending for the wars since mid-February; Congress is getting around to that request now, in mid-November.
The war bill passed by the House and rejected by the Senate would have provided $50 billion for the wars, and set the end of 2008 as a withdrawal date of troops from Iraq.
There's a time-crunch in play here; the current war funding will run out in February, and the military will have to divert money out of it's new $471 billion budget--money needed for repairing battle-damaged equipment or replacing it, beefing up V.A. hospitals, building mine-resistant vehicles, providing care for our wounded warriors, and purchasing new weapons platforms--to pay for the wars.
They've already signaled that they're diverting $4 billion immediately.
And the military is planning to make deep cuts when the designated war-fighting funding runs out in February. And it probably will; the only war funding bill on the table and on the horizon has been KO'ed.
Another mess.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Iraqi Prime Minister's Statement That Iraq Can Take Care of Itself Should the Americans Leave Suddenly: Bravado or Reality?
The Iraqi Prime Minister recently made some eyebrow-raising statements concerning political upheaval in Washington that could lead to a sudden pull-out of the U.S. military from Iraq. Said he: "...American troops can leave anytime they want." He also said that Iraqi troops are capable of taking over.
Really? Since when, exactly?
That sounds like bravado backed up by facts not in evidence. I would think that we've heard enough bravado in this war to make everyone uneasy over his choice of words. I believe al-Maliki misspoke and hurt his own cause.
It smells of someone else standing on the deck of a U.S. aircraft carrier with a "Mission Accomplished" banner over his shoulder, stating that major combat operations in Iraq were at an end, or that same person's declaration that he didn't care if bin-Laden was brought in, "dead or alive."
Politicians are the same the world over.
Really? Since when, exactly?
That sounds like bravado backed up by facts not in evidence. I would think that we've heard enough bravado in this war to make everyone uneasy over his choice of words. I believe al-Maliki misspoke and hurt his own cause.
It smells of someone else standing on the deck of a U.S. aircraft carrier with a "Mission Accomplished" banner over his shoulder, stating that major combat operations in Iraq were at an end, or that same person's declaration that he didn't care if bin-Laden was brought in, "dead or alive."
Politicians are the same the world over.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The Hogs Are At the Trough Again: Congress Adds $20 Billion in Pork to Military Emergency Supplemental Bill
Why the &^%# do spinach farmers, peanut storage facilities, and lawmakers who are looking for more office space in Washington, DC, need emergency MILITARY money for??!
Congress has added $20 billion in pork spending to the $105 billion military supplemental bill for DEFINITE non-military uses.
What, is there a new type of peanut-based ammunition that is under development for the military? Spinach for Popeye the United States Marine?
ALL non-military pork should be removed from this bill immediately, and those Congress people who did this should be ashamed of themselves.
Katrina relief, port security, Veterans Administration affairs, national disaster preparedness, avian flu preparation and other important national issues DO deserve to be discussed and financed, but NOT as part of this military bill. They should be discussed under their OWN bills and free of additional non-related pork.
OINK!! OINK!! OINK!!
Congress has added $20 billion in pork spending to the $105 billion military supplemental bill for DEFINITE non-military uses.
What, is there a new type of peanut-based ammunition that is under development for the military? Spinach for Popeye the United States Marine?
ALL non-military pork should be removed from this bill immediately, and those Congress people who did this should be ashamed of themselves.
Katrina relief, port security, Veterans Administration affairs, national disaster preparedness, avian flu preparation and other important national issues DO deserve to be discussed and financed, but NOT as part of this military bill. They should be discussed under their OWN bills and free of additional non-related pork.
OINK!! OINK!! OINK!!
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Murtha's Proposal Intrudes on Separation of Powers; The President in CinC, Not Murtha and Not Congress
Congressman Jack Murtha is announcing plans to put all kinds of conditions on what the military must do in order to get money that's been allocated to waging war in Iraq.
They include: one year of training for any soldier designated for a combat tour in Iraq, one year time limit in Iraq with no extensions, no soldier goes to Iraq unless fully trained and fully equipped, and one year between combat tours.
These are great ideas, but there's only one problem. These ideas should be coming from the Constitutionally recognized Commander in Chief.
That's not Jack Murtha; nor is it any of his colleagues in Congress. It's the President of the United States.
Congress does have the power of the purse, but only to the point of a "yes" or "no" vote to spending bills of their or the President's creation. That means if the majority of Congress wants to pass a spending bill that funds the military but ends funding for the Iraq War, they can do so at will.
But these conditions (which I do like) cannot be made by Congress as to how the war is waged and how military personnel are moved around. That falls into the President's jurisdiction.
Murtha ought to push for President Bush to adopt these "suggestions" as military policy, and get to the main event of the Democratic agenda that they keep denying: their intent to de-fund the war itself (which I think is unwise at this point).
There's got to be a better way to expressing displeasure with the President than feeding parts of the Constitution into a paper shredder. Bush did it first (equal protection), now Congress wants to do it too.
THROW THEM ALL OUT OF OFFICE!
They include: one year of training for any soldier designated for a combat tour in Iraq, one year time limit in Iraq with no extensions, no soldier goes to Iraq unless fully trained and fully equipped, and one year between combat tours.
These are great ideas, but there's only one problem. These ideas should be coming from the Constitutionally recognized Commander in Chief.
That's not Jack Murtha; nor is it any of his colleagues in Congress. It's the President of the United States.
Congress does have the power of the purse, but only to the point of a "yes" or "no" vote to spending bills of their or the President's creation. That means if the majority of Congress wants to pass a spending bill that funds the military but ends funding for the Iraq War, they can do so at will.
But these conditions (which I do like) cannot be made by Congress as to how the war is waged and how military personnel are moved around. That falls into the President's jurisdiction.
Murtha ought to push for President Bush to adopt these "suggestions" as military policy, and get to the main event of the Democratic agenda that they keep denying: their intent to de-fund the war itself (which I think is unwise at this point).
There's got to be a better way to expressing displeasure with the President than feeding parts of the Constitution into a paper shredder. Bush did it first (equal protection), now Congress wants to do it too.
THROW THEM ALL OUT OF OFFICE!
Practice of Extending Tours of Duty in War Zones Must End: It's Not Helping Military Families That Are on Verge of Breaking Apart
Every time a military unit is sent into a war zone, there is a spike in the number of divorces in the unit, or problems at home involving children get worse. Extensions of these tours of duty make bad situations even worse and push borderline families over the edge. It has to stop.
Military families are suffering already; some of these soldiers need to get home immediately and get their kids and families back on an even keel. And they need to see to their own physical and mental health too.
Extending tours is not good policy; and while some of the soldiers may not mind it, their families certainly do.
If we are sending these troops to Iraq or Afghanistan for one year, then they should go for one year and then come back, regardless of the security situation. If anything, we should be shortening their stays---sending them over for one year, then bringing them back ahead of schedule.
That plan wouldn't work with the current rotation plan and troop levels, but it's something they really ought to look at and make alterations to accommodate it. And if that means pulling out 60,000 troops this year to increase the size of the soldier pool available for future rotations, then they should do it.
Something has to change, and soon.
Military families are suffering already; some of these soldiers need to get home immediately and get their kids and families back on an even keel. And they need to see to their own physical and mental health too.
Extending tours is not good policy; and while some of the soldiers may not mind it, their families certainly do.
If we are sending these troops to Iraq or Afghanistan for one year, then they should go for one year and then come back, regardless of the security situation. If anything, we should be shortening their stays---sending them over for one year, then bringing them back ahead of schedule.
That plan wouldn't work with the current rotation plan and troop levels, but it's something they really ought to look at and make alterations to accommodate it. And if that means pulling out 60,000 troops this year to increase the size of the soldier pool available for future rotations, then they should do it.
Something has to change, and soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)