Two and a Half years ago!...........It's finally happening!

                                Originally posted: Sunday, July 21, 2013 

As the United States plies its brand of “democracy” in the Mideast and Persia, the Church State of Iran is countering with spreading their unique brand of Islam. It has become painfully evident that the U.S. does not have a clue when it comes to understanding any other religion forms of Christianity and Judaism. The fate of all the Mideast, Persian, and neighboring Countries hangs in the balance. With most of Europe and all of Russia sharing in this demise, the longer this state of affairs exists, the longer western expansionist tendencies in the region will last, and the more dramatic Iran’s reaction will be. What is perfectly clear is that outside involvement in the Mideast and Persia is not about the oil. It’s not about human rights. It is about the total lack of understanding of the Islamic religion. This lack of understanding fuels a high level of fear that the political and corporate driven attempts to bring calm and peace to the region can’t seem to resolve. In this case, ignorance is not bliss; it is very dangerous to the world as a whole. There is a solution to all the turmoil that has been draining the human resources of too many Countries around the world.

The solution is three-fold in nature. The first part involves a concerted effort by all non-Islamic nations to do their best in understanding the true nature of the Islamic religion. This is not a religion that foments jihad, or any sort of extreme violence. As religions go, Islam is a very beneficent religion; loving, nurturing, kind, and forgiving. The second part of the equation involves the non-Islamic nations understanding and accepting that some folks prefer a Church State to that of a western style governmental structure. Not everyone wants to be like the United States; or, Canada, England, Spain, Greece, Russia, China, etc. Once these two are put into practice, Islamic governments around the globe will truly feel that they have a place at the table, and they aren’t going to be targets of colonialism, expansionism, or occupation.

The third part is a little trickier, but not out of the realm of possibility. This would be a legal form of State sponsored assassination. The “State” in this instance would ideally be the United Nations. As a world body, the U.N. should have the ability to remove singular despots from their perches as Kings, Emirs, Dictators, Grand Imams, Ayatollahs, etc. The benchmark would not include how a ruler got into power, but what he did once he assumed that leadership role.  Topping the list of determinants for assassination would be Human Rights, as describe by the U.N.; not described by any one member Nation, or private interest group. The U.N. would have the right to choose the “who, what, when, where, and why” for this action to proceed. In no way would any corporate influence be allowed to have any weight, whatsoever, in determining the specific action. Sorry, Dick Cheney. Sorry, Halliburton. Sorry, Exxon-Mobil.

This third part, being relative drastic in nature, would necessarily be preceded by diplomatic efforts to resolve the problem in a predetermined time period. Given the enactment of this third option, it would only take a few legal assassinations to let folks know that the world means business when it comes to peaceful coexistence. In defining “crisis intervention”, this type of action offers the absolute minimum of collateral damage to people, places, and things. Certainly, all peace-loving people would agree that lowering the “collateral damage” quotient is a desirable element in achieving World Peace.

The current situation in the Near-East and Mideast is not sustainable for very much longer. The next step will undoubtedly be an escalation of hostile takeovers that the world has never seen before. The entire quagmire will amount to a “domino effect” more damaging than that which occurred in Indo-China in the 1950’s, 60’s, & 70’s; an effect the United States has yet to recover from. And, of course, what happens to Israel is totally up in the air, as they will be surrounded by the opposition.

Posted by Hutch Dubosque at 7/21/2013 12:23:00 PM 

DO WE REALLY HAVE TO GO TO WAR, DADDY?

                                       Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Given that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different outcome each time. Is the United States of America ready to re-engage the Mideast in armed conflict, again? (We can’t even seem to call it “war” anymore.) Haven’t we learned anything from our latest fiasco in the desert? From the sound-bytes coming out of Washington, DC, it certainly seems we will never learn from our mistakes. I thought the Viet Nam War was supposed to teach us all we needed to know about open-ended, limited engagement, conflicts without any exit strategy, or end game.

A new Century, a new part of the World, and we find ourselves mired in the quicksand of the Mideast deserts among tribal communities who have been at war with each other for thousands of years. We find ourselves, once again, without an exit strategy, or an end game, and on the verge of being sucked into ground combat in the very near future. What could possibly go wrong?

I need to make one thing very clear, right up front. The National Media, both electronic and print, have taken the American Public for a bunch of ignorant fools. The “facts” they so easily string together make absolutely no sense when placed in the same sentence, or argument. The “facts” they so easily string together are not, indeed, facts. Most of what is spewed over the airwaves and in the papers is total fabrication. What is amazing, to me, is that these fabrications are so transparent if their attempts to foster one editorial position, or another.

When the President of the United States says that he will not commit ground troops to a renewed engagement in the Mideast, you cannot tell the American Public that the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces is overriding that statement by saying he “envisions” there could be a day when ground troops would be a necessary commitment. The President is the Commander-in-Chief, and what he says goes; no matter what. The Chief of Staff is simply stating a military possibility that needs to be considered,; even if not used. I do have a bone to pick with the President, however. He tells the American Public that there are no “combat” troops currently being sent to the Iraq; they are only behind the scenes advisors. I harken back to 1956, when President Eisenhower told us that he was only sending “advisors” to South Viet Nam. Does anyone remember how that worked out? Another bone I have to pick with the President and the Press is that they have both insulted the American Soldier by referring to them as “boots-on-the-ground”. If you can’t respect the men and women, you send off to war. Perhaps you don’t have the right to do so in the first place. These men and women are not simply a bunch of boots on anybody’s ground. They form the backbone of the American Dream and the American Democracy, so don’t ever disrespect them; what they do for you, they do willingly. And, one more bone to pick with the Press. When you are good enough to seek commentary from a recent Veteran, or an Active Duty member, please save a few seconds of your precious time to thank them for their Service to their Country. By skipping by that part of the program, you are, once again, showing your total disrespect for our men and women in Uniform. (note to newscasters: Our Military men and women are the only reason you folks have the liberty to do what you do, night in and night out.) And, please, all of you, stop lying to us. We’re not that stupid, and we see right through you for who you are and what you’re trying to do. One little caveat to the American People. Wake up, folks, your Country is being yanked from under you and only you have the power to set things straight, again. You know who you are!

Now, getting back to the Mideast, would someone please pick up an elementary school history book on this the part of the World? No fewer than five “Empires” have tried to conquer and occupy this region. To date, no one has succeeded. I realize that there are some in this Country who just can’t understand why those Arabs over there won’t take to our style of governance. Why wouldn’t they want the very best the West has to offer in societal, political, and economic systems? We can show them the way to their salvation through democracy and capitalism; it’s so easy. Apparently, the folks who have been running our Foreign Policy for past eighty years have neglected to pay attention to history, and have, instead, been bent on spreading American Exceptionalism throughout the World. We seem to just love that “Nation Building” thing. When does this Country wake up and realize that there aren’t a lot of people who think the same way we do. They have a very different view on the meaning of Religion in their lives. They have a very different value system for their society; they like their tribal hierarchies. And, most of all, they don’t like to be told what to do by people who don’t understand them. And, history will prove me right, they don’t like being told what to do by people who do understand them. They’ve been warring among themselves for thousands of years, and they don’t trust one another, either.

So, I ask the question, “What are we doing over there, and why would we want to go back for more?” I don’t think our Government has the answer to that. I am inclined to think that the Military/Industrial Complex has the answer, and they aren’t talking. Maybe our most favorite dick, President Cheeney, could shed some light on the problem. What say you, Dick?

“Recent al-Qaida push stresses LI Iraq War vets” – NEWSDAY

My friend, Martin Evans, is keeping the flame alive, as he reports on the plight of Long Island’s Veteran population. His most recent article, below, helps to give some insight to the feelings of frustration and anger that our OIF & OEF Veterans are currently experiencing. The old guard, Viet Nam Veterans, had a similar feeling of despair, frustration, anger, and mistrust after the fall of South Viet Nam in 1975. I am honored with the opportunity to walk among some of our newly returned Veterans, and I am equally saddened by what they are going through in their battle to re-enter civilian life. As Mr. Evans has reported before, the suicide rate for our younger Veterans is climbing at alarming speed. It is now true that the primary cause of death for Soldiers and Veterans is suicide, not being in battle. Thank you Martin, for keeping this subject on the radar.

I sincerely hope that the United States of America comes to its senses, and stops making Veterans.

Originally published: January 9, 2014 7:53 PM
Updated: January 9, 2014 9:27 PM
By MARTIN C. EVANS (click)martin.evans@newsday.com

   Photo credit: Newsday / John Paraskevas | Francis Romanitch,

   a Marine Corps reservist who helped pacify Anbar Province

   when he served in Iraq. (Jan. 9, 2014)

The al-Qaida takeover of parts of Iraq's Anbar province, where about a third of American troops killed in the war perished, has left area Iraq War veterans bitterly wondering what their sacrifice was all about.

"It's disheartening," said Francis Romanitch, 28, a Marine Corps reservist who served in the Anbar city of Ramadi in 2004 as Marines fought door-to-door 25 miles away in Fallujah. “It’s like seeing the Japanese flag flying over Iwo Jima 10 years after World War II," said Romanitch, of Babylon.

Last week, al-Qaida-linked forces overran parts of Fallujah and Ramadi, commandeering police and military facilities, and setting up armed checkpoints. The White House has ruled out resending U.S. troops -- who withdrew from Iraq in 2011 -- but is providing the Iraqi government with arms.

Beginning in 2004, Anbar, a Sunni power base for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein before his capture, became the scene of some of the bloodiest confrontations during the war.

After insurgents hung the burned bodies of four American contractors from a bridge in Fallujah, U.S. troops that April rooted out opponents during weeks of door-to-door confrontations. But they paid a horrific price, according to historian Richard Lowry, author of the book "New Dawn: The Battles for Fallujah."

"These young Marines -- 19 years old -- went in every building and every room of Fallujah," Lowry told Fox News. "They entered darkened rooms, kicking down doors, never knowing if they would find an Iraqi family hunkered down in fear or an Islamist terrorist waiting to shoot them and kill them. And they did that over and over and over again."

Mental health workers have said witnessing a military collapse can be emotionally traumatic for war veterans regardless of what conflict they fought in.

"It's re-traumatizing, if you will," said Denis Demers, who served as a psychological medic in Vietnam and now counsels veterans at the Suffolk Veterans Service Agency.

In 2004, Michael Posner was stationed in Mosul with a New York National Guard unit when a bomb ripped through a military mess tent, riddling him with shrapnel and killing 14 fellow soldiers. He said watching parts of Iraq slip under insurgent control weighs heavily on him.

"It brings back a lot of memories and flashbacks," said Posner, 43, of Bellport. Feelings of anxiety, depression and anger spawned by his wartime experience for a while pushed  him to abuse alcohol and cost him his marriage.

"I lost a part of my soul over there," he said.

Posner, who since returning from Iraq has helped counsel fellow soldiers suffering from anxiety attacks, said he's recently received phone calls from veterans expressing rage.

"A lot of these guys lost a lot of their buddies and saw a lot of bloodshed," he said. "There was so much work they did, and it's gone to hell."

Scott Molloy, 29, of Kings Park, who served in Afghanistan in 2012, said the feeling of accomplishment he had over there has turned to disillusionment. Molloy has struggled to control feelings of anger and frustration related to post-traumatic stress disorder. He said those feelings have worsened because of the al-Qaeda surge.

"It hits you like a ton of bricks," he said. "You ask yourself, 'Why did I go through all that? Why am I suffering?' "d him to abuse alcohol and cost him his marriage.

Galleries:

(click)Honoring Long Island's veterans 

(click)Military heroes return to Long Island

(click)LI, NYC war casualties

(click)LI troops who died in war

                                    

Iraq in retrospect

Iraq in retrospect               8/8/2013

 

                    

A recent essay in Political Science Quarterly ^[1] caught my eye and, having read it, I can say with some degree of certainty that no one in Washington, DC has a clue as to what went wrong with our actions in Iraq. I recall that, after a little “shock & awe” had rained down from the sky, the word out of Washington was that this certainly was not going to be another Viet Nam. We were told by the Beltway intelligentsia that Regime change was a good thing, and, once we had rebuilt Iraq in our image, the world would be a safer place. I find it mildly surprising that these words were uttered from some of the very mouths that told us we were winning in Southeast Asia fifty years hence.

How soon we forget that the identical theories and practices used in Viet Nam were also used in Iraq right from the beginning. Both conflicts centered on Nation States lead by questionable characters. Both lacked a Congressional Act of a Declaration of War and saw the Executive Branch flex its muscle; changing the rules by which this Country is constitutionally supposed to go to war. Both conflicts had their own unique style of a “surge”. Both conflicts dealt with secular tribes at all levels. You can nit-pick at some of the details. Yes, most of the logistics were a little different, given modern day warfare. Yes, the soldiers who fought the battles were trained and equipped a little differently, again given to modernization. And, yes again, Communism is just a little different from radical Islam. Yet, none of that takes away from the fact that the American public was sold down the river one more time. Why do we insist on drinking the Kool-Aide every time some politician thinks it would be good for the Military/Industrial Complex to throw a little armed conflict into the mix? Based on history, yes, we are just that stupid.

What were the leaders saying during these times of armed conflict?

John F. Kennedy, 1961

“Pay any price, bear any burden, meet any

hardship, support any friend…to assure the

survival and success of liberty”. ^[2]

                      “Kennedy received conflicting advice with regards to Vietnam.                                                           Charles DeGaulle warned Kennedy that Vietnam and warfare in Vietnam would                             trap America in a “bottomless military and political swamp”. ^[2]

“In 1961, Kennedy also agreed that an extra

1000 US military advisers should be sent to

South Vietnam to help train the South

Vietnamese Army.” ^[2]

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?  These decisions and the one funding the South Vietnam’s Army were not made public because they broke the agreements made at the 1954 Geneva Agreement. ^[3] What happened in “Camelot”, stayed in “Camelot”.  Yes, everybody’s darling of a President lied to us, too. Shocked? Don’t be. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld all lied about “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq. There seems to be a historical pattern when the U.S. Government decides it has all the answers to other people’s problems, and unilaterally decides a shooting war is the most effective way to deal with the situation.

Other timely quotes from the notable players

Ho Chi Minh to the French

“You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, 

but even at those odds, you will lose

and I will win.” ^[3]

                                                   Dwight D. Eisenhower

                                                  “You have a row of dominoes set up;

                                                  you knock over the first one, and what

                                                  will happen to the last one is that it

                                                  will go over very quickly.” ^[4]

John F. Kennedy

“Now we have a problem in making our 

power credible, and Vietnam is the place.” ^[5]

                                                Lyndon B. Johnson

                                                “Our purpose in Vietnam is to prevent the success of aggression. It                                                   is not conquest, it is not empire, it is not foreign bases, it is not                                                         domination. It is, simply put, just to prevent the forceful conquest of                                                 South Vietnam by North Vietnam.” ^[6]

 ********************************************************************************

Saddam Hussein

“Allah is on our side. That is why 

we will beat the aggressor.” ^[10]

                                                      Saddam Hussein

                                                      “We are not intimidated by the size of the armies, or the type of                                                       hardware the US has brought.” ^[11]

George W. Bush

“Iraq is no diversion. It is a place where 

civilization is taking a decisive stand against 

chaos and terror, we must not waver.” ^[12]

                                                      George W. Bush

                                                     “The tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free.” ^[12]

                                                                                                    George W. Bush

                                                                                                    “Mission Accomplished” ^[13]

George W. Bush

“I sent American troops to Iraq to make its

 people free, not to make them American.

 Iraqis will write their own history and find

 their own way.” ^[14]

And, while Rome burned.............

 Richard M. Nixon

 “I'm not going to be the first American

 President to lose a war.” ^[7]

Henry Kissinger

“We believe that peace is at hand.” ^[8]

Alexander Haig

“We didn't lose Vietnam. We quit Vietnam.” ^[9]

Donald Rumsfeld

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.” ^[15]

Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney 

“What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do. If I had it to recommend all over again, I would recommend exactly the same course of action.” ^[16]

                                                                      Tommy Franks 

                                                                      “Probably we'll think of Bush in years

                                                                       to come as an American hero." [17]    

Barak Obama

“Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq. We did. I promised to refocus on the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11. We have. We've blunted the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan, and in 2014, our longest war will be over. A new tower rises above the New York skyline, al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama bin Laden is dead.” ^[18]

( to be continued…….)

***********************************************************************

How much did Vietnam cost?

19 years:

The answer to this depends on how you do the accounting, or who you ask. There are as many estimates as there are “people who know”.

What items do you included in the "cost" of any War? And do adjust for inflation to compare apples to apples? Our Nation spent 828 billion (1975 dollars) on all military operations during the Vietnam War, which is $5 trillion (2008 dollars).

Viet Nam casualties: ^[19]

58,286 KIA or non-combat deaths

303,644 WIA 

1,645 MIA 

725-837 POW 

30% of wounded service members died of their wounds

How much did Iraq cost?

7 years:

There are Analysts and “talking heads” who put the cost of the War at $80 billion. They go on to quote a figure of $10 billion per year to hold the place together. The true cost of the Iraq war: is probably more in the range of$3 trillion to $3.5 trillion.

Iraq casualties: ^[20]

4,452 KIA and non-combat deaths

31,928 WIA

1 MIA

8 POW’s

The enemy:

In both cases, the enemy masterfully engaged in “guerrilla” warfare with the use of “booby traps” and “hit & run” as effective tactics against superior forces.

The outcomes:

In both cases, a negotiated cease fire preceded the withdrawal of American Forces. In both cases, the U.S. Government was humiliated and vowed never to wage a similar war.

                          

While researching quotes and figures, I ran across this article by Major Garrett, “How We Could Do More For Our Vets” ^{[21] [22]}.  I wasn’t aware of his concern of, and writing on, Veterans issues, so this article definitely caught my attention. I have included three excerpts from his essay that I feel capture the essence of what the American public needs to know about the men and women who fight their wars.

“According to the Census Bureau, there are 2.5 million 9/11-era veterans. Their rate of service-connected disability is 26.7 percent—far higher than the 20.2 percent rate for the 7.5 million Vietnam-era veterans. The reality is most veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, despite being deployed multiple times, have returned and will return alive. In the Korean War, 2 percent of combat veterans died. In Vietnam, it was 1.7 percent. In Iraq and Afghanistan, it is currently 0.3 percent. This is the result of professional training, precise mission execution, and breath-taking advances in battlefield medicine.”  ^[21][22]

“Combat veterans need better service, and they need it now. Their lives wither while they wait for the bureaucracy to process payments for that which they lost on the battlefield. Annual increases in appropriations won't do the trick. Combined annual spending on veterans' care is now more than $140 billion. That figure is up 41 percent from 2009—and we're still way, way behind. Combat veterans deserve better.” ^[21][22]

“I propose paying those costs up front. Now. With debt. Debt that's inexpensive and that can render real and permanent benefits to those who deserve it most. We can sort out the details of who qualifies and for how much. That is easy compared with summoning the political will now to acknowledge the costs, admit the politics of paying them will only become more precarious in the years ahead, and biting the debt bullet now. The debt that is owed is real. We can and should repay it—starting now.” ^[21][22]

I am dumb-founded by the fact that politicians in this modern era can fool all the people all the time when it comes to sending our young men and women off to fight and die on foreign shores. It probably shouldn't surprise me. After all, less than 1% of the Nation’s population sees fit to don the uniforms of our Armed Services. This is certainly not the 1% that the “occupy” movement speaks of. This is the 1% who, when they return to civilian life after their stint in the Military, can’t find a job, can’t pay the rent, can’t put food on the table for their Families, get thwarted at every turn by a Veterans Administration who is supposed to help. And, God forbid if they own a house. The bankers don’t seem to care that it is illegal to foreclose on a Service Member in most instances. It’s not their family, or their kids, being tossed out in the street.

The citizenry of America are the only ones who can change this dilemma into a positive force for peace. Perhaps, our Society does have to reach rock bottom for us to act in any meaningful way. There will always be disagreements between people, tribes, sects, states, and countries. And, the dialogue may get heated from time to time. That’s alright. We can survive that. Possibly, someday, we will come to realize that hurling words at each other is a lot less harmful than hurling bullets.

Bullets tend to have a finite quality about them.

Toenotes:
All images are from "Google" images.

[1] = http://www.psqonline.org/article.cfm?IDArticle=19043#

[2] = http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_f_kennedy.html

[3] = http://www.quotesandsayings.com/qvietnam.htm, 

        http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/kennedy_vietnam.htm

[4] = http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/dwight_d_eisenhower.html

[5] = http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_f_kennedy.html

[6] = http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/l/lyndon_b_johnson.html

[7] = http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/richard_m_nixon_2.html

[8] = http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/henry_a_kissinger.html

[9] = http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/alexander_haig.html

[10]= http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/saddam_hussein.html

[11]= http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/saddam_hussein.html

[12]= http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_w_bush.html

[13]= I’m not even going to toenote these!

[14]= http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_w_bush.html

[15]= http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/donaldrums148142.html#XT1CjrZfj8ZVKrmR.99

[16]= http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/dick_cheney.html

[17]= http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/tommy_franks.html#bAUi31wmRPICqGO5.99

[18]= http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/barackobam453809.html#vtKuqy3Sz8yUCg5g.99 

[19]= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties

[20]= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_in_action#Operation_Iraqi_Freedom_.28Iraq_War.29

[21]= http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html

[22]= http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/all-powers/how-we-could-do-more-for-our-vets-    

          20130528?mrefid=site search