And then what?

Is a Civil War possible here in America? I would have to say, Yes. So with that in mind, I looked into 3 Wars in the past a War of Aggression and Conquest, a Revolution and a Civil War. I did this looking for similarities and how the circumstances of each could come into play in modern America and in fact the World.

A Civil War is defined as; a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.

By the definition above there is no way possible that the War of Aggression and Conquest 1861-1865 could have or should have ever been called the American Civil War. It was not the citizens of the North fighting amongst themselves, and it certainly was not the citizens of the South fighting amongst themselves.

There was another definition; a war waged to overthrow the government of ones own country. Even by this definition the War of Aggression and Conquest could not be called a Civil War. There were two distinct countries involved. The United States of America and the Confederate States of America, the Union and the Confederacy. The Confederacy nor the citizens of the Confederacy did not wage a war with the Union to overthrow the government of the United States of America. The citizens of the Confederacy certainly did not wage war against the Confederate States of America in an attempt to overthrow the government of the Confederacy.

There was even another definition; a war waged between geographic regions within the same country. While this definition comes close, it still does not fit the bill. True enough North and South are two geographic regions and they could be regions in and of the same country. The only way the War of Aggression and Conquest meets this definition is that the Confederate States of America was in the South, and the United States of America was in the North. America from the time of the Articles of Confederation until now has always been two countries in one, in more ways than one.

There was yet another definition; a war waged between political factions. A war based on politics now this really comes close, nearly a “perfect match”, close but no “cigar”. I encourage you to dive deep into this area on your own. There is much hiding in the shadows in American politics, then and now. Politics and politicians started the rift and placed the kindling.

It was not the Confederacy that started the war, the Confederacy was forced to fight. Forced to fight for its survival. But just what was the Confederacy fighting for? You can answer this for yourselves. But you must look at the reasons and the timing of the Southern States seceding. First was South Carolina then 6 more for a total of 7. Later 4 more seceded for a total of 11. Then look at what would be the benefit(s) of remaining in the Union. You may be surprised at what you find.

The Russian Revolution 1917. This was a two stage Revolution. First Removing the Czar in February(forced abdication and subsequent arrest). Second the “Reds” coming to power in October. Atrocities and Retributions abounded during and after the fighting.

The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939. This was a Civil War based on politics and political factions, citizens fighting citizens within the same country, overthrowing a government. At the conclusion General Franco became dictator(1939-1975). Atrocities and Retributions abounded during and after the fighting.

So let’s get back to the question, is a Civil War possible in America? My answer was and is Yes. If or when it happens it will not be a repeat of 1861-1865, it instead will be a combination of the Russian Revolution(1917)and the Spanish Civil War(1936-1939). The ground work has been laid, the kindling is in place, put there by the activists just waiting for a spark.

America is a nation divided, always has been always will be. This is best proven by some of the founding documents, most notably the Constitution. The Constitution established a government based on compromise. The Framers made compromises to get a document that enough states would support. Each state got a little through negotiation but no one got everything they wanted. Negotiation was the key, though now it has been made apparent that not all of the delegates negotiated in good faith. The big government types left themselves a little “wiggle room” in the Constitution but said there was nothing to fear.

America is at this point more divided than ever, and unfortunately it appears that compromising and negotiating will not and can not heal or even lessen the divide. Some groups want what they want and will resort to violence or threats of violence to get it. It is difficult, no impossible, to negotiate with a person or a group who is unwilling to make a compromise. Strangely enough most of the divisions in this Republic today are based on politics and demagoguery instead of geographical/cultural differences.

Think on this for just a moment. How many in America are calling President Trump an illegitimate president. There has been a lot of time and energy devoted/wasted trying to tie the election of President Trump to Russian influence in our elections. There are even some democrats seeking to find ways to remove President Trump from office, whether by impeachment or invoking the 25th Amendment. They want him out of office voluntarily(abdicate)or forced(impeached or the 25th). They would probably rather that he just abdicate, not as messy. I suspect that some republicans fit into this as well.

How many in America are promoting, supporting and encouraging violence as an end to political differences? The most prevalent in this area are the entertainers. There is another aspect to consider when examining the Spanish Civil War. The Fifth Column, the enemy within. Four columns assaulting from outside and the fifth on the inside aiding the four. Think about this, we can all agree that the Media is against President Trump, that could be one column. The anti-fascist element, that could be another column. The illegal aliens could be another column. Those who fall into the heated and inflammatory rhetoric could be yet another column. But who or what would make up the Fifth Column, the enemy within, the enemy among us?

So what would happen if Civil War was visited upon this Republic, citizens taking up arms against their fellow citizens? Will/would it just happen or would/will it be forced to happen? First let me say this; There will only be fighters and victims. The surest way to become a victim is not to pick a side, there will be no fence-setters. The federal government will step in and depending on who heads the government depends on how heavy the hand is. Martial Law will most certainly be declared as Local Law-Enforcement will quickly be overwhelmed. The Writ of Habeas Corpus will most certainly be suspended. The Military will be placed between a rock and a hard place, they will be forced to either take up arms against their fellow citizens or take up arms against their brothers. The same goes for Law-Enforcement. The entire country will be put between a rock and a hard place.

People should spend some time thinking about the aftermath of a Civil War. There will be no way back, not for this Republic, it will cease to exist. The land will still exist but the dream will be extinguished. Atrocities and Retributions will abound during and after the fighting, especially after. They always do.

There is another thing to consider. If there is a Civil War there will be a vacuum, a vacuum that must and will be filled. What will fill the vacuum? Look at the Civil Wars in Syria and Ukraine.

There is another thing to consider. The Civil Wars in Syria and Ukraine have had little effect on the global economy. What effect would be felt by the global economy if America were to fall into a Civil War? Something tells me that the U.S. is not going to have a Civil War for purely financial reasons. The reason is that it is not time to sink the global economy, not yet anyway. Even the smartest animal trainer knows that the animal they have trained so well and for so long can turn on them at a moments notice. Just because the time is not right for them it may happen(ready or not)anyway.

Just in case the handlers may have “hedged” their bets. Remember back to the “Fast and Furious” gun running episode. Did all of the guns find their way to Mexico? Would it be possible that some of them did but the majority of them are still in America? A possible cache for a possible Fifth Column. You would want your side to come out on top.

A Civil War would usher out the last President and Usher in the first Dictator. Who will/would be which?

So let me ask those who think violence is the way to solve/settle political differences this; Are those that inspire you to action insulated from what they cause? You can bet that they are. Most if not all of those who inspire your acts of violence are nothing more than “attention whores”, they say what they say just to get attention. Learn to think or yourself. You at present are acting out on their behalf.

Be careful what you ask for and understand the consequences, intended and unintended.

Refugees, Illegal Immigration, Sneak Attack, Capitulation and Community Organizing

Think about this, the government may soon cause what no other nation is or was capable of accomplishing, the defeat and occupation of the United States of America. Prior to the atomic age there was no nation on earth that could deal a death-blow to the U.S.A. Even when the atomic age was ushered in only the superpowers had nuclear weapons, none used them because of what was known as MAD, mutually assured destruction.

The Japanese attack on Hawaii was not intended to defeat America or to crush the American military. The attack was intended take the U.S. Navy out of the equation of war. There was at that time no way for Japan to reach America directly and the same goes in reverse. A strong navy was required to go to war if the warring nations were separated by an ocean, especially an ocean as vast as the Pacific. The goal I feel was for America to seek peace with Japan. Japan lacked the power and resources to defeat America and simply sought to eliminate the possibility of America using the Navy to take the war to Japan.

Japan did not follow-up the sneak attack on Hawaii with an invasion of mainland America for two reasons.
The first was it would have been logistically impossible to resupply an invading force that was an ocean away. An invading force has two options resupply yourself or forage for supplies. It is not only supplies that would be needed, the invaders would still need replacement soldiers. The replacements would still need to cross an ocean. Without resupply and replacements the invasion would fail.
The second was the American people themselves. The American citizens have at their disposal something that few other citizens of other countries enjoy, and that is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Japanese knew that even if they did mount and invasion and gain a foothold they would still have to face an armed population. The price for invasion was not one that the Japanese were willing to pay. Even if the sneak attack in Hawaii had been successful and the U.S. Navy was destroyed or reduced to a level that would prevent its use in war, Japan would still not have invaded America.

Two things have kept America relatively safe against aggression through the years.
The First is geographic isolation. Mainland America has only three neighboring countries, Canada to the north. Mexico to the south of Texas. Cuba to the south of Florida. Of the three only two are directly connected Canada and Mexico. Mainland America has no neighboring countries to the East or West only large bodies of water, the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The 49th state Alaska is bordered with Canada and has Russia to the west separated by the Bering Straight. The 50th state Hawaii is an island with no immediate neighbors.
The second is an armed civilian population. A nation where the people enjoy the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Geographic isolation disappeared with the advent of the Advent of the atomic age. Rouge nations now have at their disposal nuclear weapons to attack far way and distant lands. Other rogue nations will soon have at their disposal nuclear weapons. The rogue nations do not give a damn about mutually assured destruction, for them there is no price to high to pay to attack America or an ally of America. Technology, trade and travel have eliminated geographic isolation.

The citizens in some countries have voluntarily given up their personal firearms. The citizens in those countries not only gave up their personal firearms, they also gave up the ability to defend themselves against invasion or a tyrannical government or against criminals. Which may or may not be the same. They have voluntarily given their safety and protection to the government, military and law enforcement in total and complete. The citizens in some countries have never enjoyed the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and therefore have never had the ability to defend themselves or to protect their countries against invasion. Many if not most of these countries never enjoyed the benefits of geographical isolation, when it was possible.

There is now and has been for sometime an effort to disarm the American citizens. The politicians and activist groups know full well that the American population will never disarm voluntarily. They know it must be done by force(more on this in a later post). This is particularly disturbing given the fact that one of the reasons for Japan not to invade America was an armed population.

This is why I say that the federal government is freely giving those who hate America what geography had denied them in the past. They are and have been given free and unhindered access. To be fair it did not just start with the current administration. But, under the current administration it certainly is gaining momentum. There is no border control thus, there is no immigration control. Not only is there a constant flow of illegals arriving from and through Mexico there is now a new wave of people coming to America. We now are experiencing a wave of refugees from the Middle-East. I might also add that none are being vetted, they are just coming in. They bring nothing and offer nothing. There is no assimilation in to American society. There is no way of telling if they come for a better life, to live off of government handouts or if they come as terrorists. I suspect that the largest portion of those arriving come for the latter two.

As to the matter of the refugees fleeing the Middle-East, why now? The Syrian civil war has been going on for near four years. Now the Syrian refugees are fleeing and arriving in Europe by what ever means available. They bring nothing, they offer nothing and they demand everything. It is worth mentioning that the outflow of refugees begins now given the fact that the Syrian civil war is in its fourth year. It is also worth mentioning that many of the refugees are men, men that appear to be relatively healthy. This leaves me to wonder why these same capable and able-bodied men are not remaining in their country to fight Islamic extremists. I can only see two possibilities as to why the men are fleeing their country. The first is that they could not decide which side to fight for, the government forces or the Islamic extremists, so they just run away leaving everything including family. The second is that they are fighters, Islamic extremist fighters, who have mixed with the refugees to gain a foothold in Europe and will soon arrive in America. Only time will reveal the answer, but I suspect the latter.

Suppose that it was America that was undergoing some sort of “spring” and another nation, an “outside force”, decided that the government of America was oppressive and denying rights to the population. Suppose that same “outside force” decided that the long-established system of government caused strife among the population and it would be best for all if the established form of government should be abandoned. Now suppose that the established and elected government of America stood fast and did not give in to the demands of the outside forces and influences. This would really agitate the outside force and they would have to take action against the established government to see that their visions for how life in America should be. Not only life but government, a government of their choosing not the people’s. But how to accomplish the goal of regime change in America? Direct military action is an option, it is always an option, but it would be the last option. Direct military action against America would be a fool-hardy move, the only outside forces that would consider that move would be one that only sought the destruction of America no matter the cost. There are several that fit that category and more loom on the horizon. At this point America does have some allies who could possibility assist in time of need against an Overt military action. Then again, the outside forces could possibly use the same tactics against America that the BHO administration is using against Assad in Syria. They could use Covert operations, even though these Covert operations are being conducted Overtly. Some faction in America that wanted change could be armed and trained to fight against the established government. This same faction could be identified as a “moderate” group. This faction would not be a military in the truest sense of the word. They would not be soldiers and thus they would not be expected to conduct themselves as soldiers, not on the field of battle and certainly not against the civilian population, no accountability for actions. There would be no Geneva Convention, the rules of how warfare is conducted, and no law, the law would be made as they went along, basically no law. They would only be a “well-trained and armed civilian force, one that is just as well-trained and equipped as military”.(Someone in high political office did say at one time something to the effect of “We need a civilian force just as well-trained and armed as our military”, I wonder if he meant Law-enforcement).

If America found itself in the state Syria is in, what would you do?
Would you pick a side and join? Would join with the government, one that the “world” says you despise? Would you join with the “moderates” to fight against the government, the one the “world” claims you despise, even while knowing that what is coming is even worse?
Would you flee, becoming a refugee? Where would you go? As mentioned above America has only two countries with land borders. Going south from Texas to Mexico is out. The people from Mexico and points south are illegally coming to America to escape their countries. Would you go north to Canada? How many could Canada accept? Would you make your way to Alaska and try to walk or swim to Russia, depending on the season? Would you make your way to Florida down to Key West and try to swim the 90 miles to Cuba? I have not heard of many Americans migrating legally or illegally to other countries of the world, especially Mexico, Cuba or Russia. Canada, Mexico, Russia and Cuba are the closest, the rest of the world is an ocean or two away. Would you be willing to leave everything, family included? If you did become a refugee, and if you were welcomed in a foreign country would you assimilate or would you demand that the country you arrived in give-in to you demands according to the life you had? Good luck with that if you end up in a Muslim country especially if you are not a Muslim or if you are a homosexual.

What is going on a present in Syria is akin to Community Organizing. Community organizers are basically Radical Activists. The radical activists seek change and stir-up the community to achieve their goal. Remember that it is the goal of the activists, militant activists, and not necessarily the goal of the people. The goal is to remove Assad from power in Syria. The activists are the moderates and there partners in radical activism are ISIL/ISIS/IS and any other Radical Islamic Extremist group available. The organizers care only about the goal they do not ever consider what happens because there goal was achieved. If you do not believe that look at Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. There are many other fine examples of community organizing throughout the Middle-East and northern Africa. The goals were achieved and the after effects speak for themselves. The pot was stirred and look what came to the top.

There is a new organizer at work in Syria. Syria has a friend, Russia. Russia has friends and their friends have friends. Russia is going in on the side of Assad, while the U.S.A. supports the one that are called “moderates”. China will pick a side sooner or later if they have not already. And do not forget Iran, and there will be other players in this for sure. Syria may well turn into the new Viet Nam. Assad could be the new Ho Chi Minh. The countries of the Middle-East that are at present enjoying a relative peace better buckle up and hold on, they may find themselves caught-up in this the same as Laos, Cambodia and Thailand were. Regional conflicts tend to grow. NATO and the Warsaw Pact may at last get their long sought after showdown.

As stated above no country in its right mind would use or attempt to use military might to destroy America. America does enjoy a tremendous supply of tools to deter an attack or to retaliate against any attack conventional or unconventional attack, nuclear, chemical or biological. America has Allies, friends and trading partners, right. America has few allies thanks to years of failed foreign policy of this administration and the previous and even before that. The only friends we have are the ones we feel we have to buy. The bought friends will be friends only as long as the money lasts. Friends you have to buy are not worth having.
America even pays its enemies, and gives financial support to those that chant death to America and have vowed to destroy some American allies, Israel.

There is more than one way to bring a country to its knees. Could America be attacked financially? Time will tell. If America is attacked financially the outcome will not be pretty.

Wrong Title

The president of the U.S.A. has long been looked to as, and referred to as the Leader of the Free World. That statement is not only false, it is down right dangerous, and becoming more dangerous. The President of the United States of America is just that the President of the United States of America, he is not the Leader of the free word, he is however president of the greatest nation in the free world. The label of Leader of the Free World can give one an over-inflated opinion of ones self. This over-inflated opinion did not begin with BHO but it has surely become more noticeable with BHO.

Think how the world has been affected by the action of a person proudly wearing and accepting the label of the Leader of the Free World. The supposed Leader of the Free World actually thinks he knows what is right for the free world. He does this when he does not even know what is best for America, the United States of America. Reaction by Reason and Logic is replaced by Reaction by and from emotion. Giving no thought to what comes next.

Let me use this example. The Colonials living in what would become the United States of America, did not need another country or government to tell them how bad it was to live under tyranny and oppression. They new first hand what living under tyranny and oppression was like. No other country came forward to offer to help defeat Britain if we would try their form of government, it would have been rejected because the Colonials had a better idea. It was the Colonials who fought off the yoke of tyranny and oppression not the government they would form. They sought to build a country like no other and establish a government like no other. A government of, by and for the people. No longer a people of, by and for the government. The people wanted to be free, the word “wanted” is key here.

Some examples of what happens when a person that is the President of the United States of America starts to believe that he or she is the Leader of the Free World.

Iraq. Had the people reached a point where they said “no more” and rise up? That is what the citizens of Colonial America did. Did some outside influence think that they had the right answer, regime change. A people who have lived under a dictator can not be made to be free they must want it. Some people can not handle freedom and liberty, others do not want it. Freedom and Liberty come with a cost, until people are ready to pay the cost they will not seek it. When Freedom and Liberty are gained they must be safeguarded and if necessary fought for to keep. GWB did not understand that simple concept. No matter the pretext for regime change, there is a life after for the people. Removing Saddam Hussein removed one problem and created another, religious sectarian violence and near civil war. BHO did not consider what would happen when he abandoned Iraq, more religious sectarian violence and the rise of ISIL, that became ISIS and now simply IS.

Libya. Again was it the people, citizens of Libya that rose up and said “No More”? Or was it some outside influences come in to stir the “pudding”. The statement from above apply in this case also.

Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, Yemen and The Ukraine. Again was it the people, the citizens of these countries who rose up and said “No More”, or is some outside influence or influences?

Reacting out of emotion rather than reacting from reason and logic. Being a person born in a Free nation and enjoying the Liberties that go along with that make it hard to observe or hear about the atrocities suffered by the people of a nation ruled by a dictator. The instant reaction is to free them, that is emotion. Reason and logic should take hold and stop you before you can act, but sadly there are politicians and those who see themselves as the Leader of the Free world that do not. The Leader of the Free World acts before he thinks.

Meddling is not a good foreign policy and division is not a good domestic policy.

There was never a need for and no country has the right to force their will on another country. But, I guess you thought the right when you took on the title Leader of the Free World.

The next person elected President of the United States of America needs to be reminded of that fact, President of the United States of America is your title, you are not the Leader of the Free World you were not elected to that post.

The United States of America has enjoyed a head start on the rest of the world. The key reason for this is written in history. History is loaded with examples of what has failed and what has merely existed. America was not born to fail. America has not merely existed. America has thrived and grown. One part of growing is making mistakes, another part of growing is not repeating mistakes. America does not live in the past, if one stays in the past they only stagnate and are reduced from thriving and growing to merely existing and eventually going to a footnote in history.
A side note on the founding of America. This is for those who do not believe God had a hand in the founding of America and the well-being since. Was it by chance or design that so many would be at the same place at the same time wanting freedom and liberty and then enough at one place at one time willing to make the sacrifices to make it happen?

Feeding the Monsters

There are certainly many Monsters roaming America and the planet, and feeding them will certainly keep them alive and well. Throughout history Monsters have been associated with Evil, and Evil has been associated with Monsters.

One prime example of a Monster historically documented was Hitler, and no one can deny that Hitler was Evil. Hitler was even called Monstrously Evil. Hitler was ultimately destroyed along with Nazism. The Monster and the Evil he created were defeated and destroyed. There have been many other men and women throughout history who were Monsters and certainly Evil. Without fail each and every one of them were associated with fear, oppression and broken promises. Most rose to power feeding on fear, oppression and promising to make things better for the middle class, while others were born into power. Monsters create other Monsters and Evil creates more Evil, each feeding off of the other.

The problem with Monsters is that all of them do not always appear in life as they appear in fairy tales and in the movies, if they did they would be easy to recognize. Monsters are one of life’s great deceptions. Monsters may not look or appear as Monsters but they are incapable of hiding their inner Monstrous tendencies eventually they are exposed for what they are. The problem with Evil is that Evil does not always appear as Evil. Evil can and most often appears as good or necessary. Evil is another of life’s great deceptions. There is the notion that evil can be used for good, as far-fetched as that seems.

Monsters and the Evils that they create can only exist in darkness and secrecy. To be rid of them they must be exposed to the light and truth.

The question one should be asking, at least the one I was asking myself, is why would someone intentionally continue to feed the Monster and allow the Evil it creates to continue. The Monster and the Evil that I am referring to is ISIL/ISIS/The Islamic State. Given the military might of this nation, why does the Islamic State, as they now refer to themselves, continue to exist? The Monster and the Evil it does survives and thrives.

Last week Delta Force was successful in eliminating one of the Islamic State’s top thugs. In the same week the Islamic State was able to successfully attack two towns, Ramadi in Iraq and Palmyra in Syria. Our military under the brilliant leadership of BHO focuses on taking out one man while IS focuses on taking and occupying two towns in two different countries. IS is able to recruit from nearly every country in the world the dead man will soon be replaced. The two towns will cost more than one man to retake.

Multi-million dollar aircraft and priceless pilots are being sent out to bomb trucks in the desert. This same tactic was used in Viet Nam with disastrous results.

This why I say the Monster is still being fed. IS is still being resupplied with world-class military equipment. The defenders of Ramadi dropped their weapons and abandoned their equipment to include tanks in the face of IS fighters. That plus what they picked in the Palmyra offensive should give U.S. airpower more and new targets. As long as the Iraqi forces cut-and-run IS should have a never-ending supply of equipment and airpower should have a never-ending supply of targets. How many times have American combat aircraft and bombers flown missions only to destroy American equipment?

The spokesmouth for BHO said the Iraqi forces that dropped their weapons and abandoned their equipment in the face of an IS attack were not trained by the U.S. This brings up two questions.
First, who trained them? The ones who were trained should be training. The U.S. should have trained the trainers.
Second, if they were not trained by the U.S. then why the hell were the using American equipment?

The U.S. Military Academies are still open, aren’t they? Why have not great military commanders leaders like Patton, Bradley, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Nimitz, Halsey, Puller and the rest come out of West Point, VMI, Annapolis and the rest. Or have they and they have been side-lined or fired? Is someone afraid one of them might go full Patton on IS?

Keeping IS alive and well could be just as intended, never actually intending to defeat them gives one and enemy and war, even if limited, for life.

If BHO is un-willing to use the massive military might against IS, who is he planning to un-leash it on? Is there another Monster and great Evils in some ones future? Training for something. Ukraine? JADE HELM?

What will be the next excuse?

The justification of terrorism by Radical Islamic terrorists by the liberal progressives is a new bench mark in stupidity. The Islamic terrorists have no plan or intent to find work or start a business, they already have a job and are in business, and that job is terrorism, and are in the business of jihad, Islamic holy war. As for opportunity, the Islamic Terrorists engage is terrorism at every opportunity. BHO and his minions are so intent on being politically correct and avoiding offending the Muslim world that they will not call the Islamic Terrorists for what they are, Islamic Terrorists. BHO upped the ante when he said the Muslims have grievances. When a group or a person expresses grievances they are in essence trying to prove legitimacy. Is BHO suggesting that the Islamic terrorists are legitimate? The Radical Islamic Terrorists have no desire to improve their lives or the lives of anyone taken hostage or for that matter improving life in their occupied territories. Their only intention is to rob, rape, murder and pillage. The Islamic State has but one goal to re-establish the Caliphate with Baghdad as the capital just as it was before, sort of taking up where they left off.

The policies of BHO are quite similar to those of LBJ and that is frightening. Like LBJ, BHO is running the war from the White House, BHO may even selecting and approving targets personally, just as LBJ did. LBJ as president caused the loss of the Viet Nam war. By the time Nixon became president the anti-war protests were destroying this country. Nixon had to find a way out of that war, Kissinger and the Paris Peace Accords. The U.S. abandoned South Viet Nam and it fell to the Communist North.

BHO has no intention of defeating the Islamic State. The U.S. government is still seeking to arm and train the “moderate Muslims” in Syria that are fighting the Assad government forces. The moderate Muslims, if they can be called that, are at times likely to join with ISIS if they share the same ends. If ISIS is attacking Assad’s forces what will the “moderate rebels” do? Will they just observe? Or will they join with ISIS? I submit they will join ISIS, another instance of the enemy of my enemy. If BHO wanted to defeat ISIS he would be arming the Kurds directly instead of going through the Iraqi government and form an alliance with Assad. But no, he is instead arming the moderates in Syria, who may be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, or apt to switch sides at the drop of a hat. It seems a bit asinine to arm and train a likely and potential enemy. As I have written before it is extremely difficult to engage and defeat an opposing army that are using the same weapons and training, not to mention the enormous cost in life. It would be like shadow boxing, fighting ones own self.

If the intention is not to defeat ISIS, what is the intention? BHO may well be going back to a cold-war tactic, Containment. What would containment do? If ISIS were to be driven back and contained in Syria, ISIS would be the problem of Assad and his ally Russia. To drive ISIS back into Syria and contain them there they must first be driven from Iraq and where ever else they have set up operations. This can not be accomplished by pin-prick airstrikes. To accomplish this there will need to be a relentless air campaign not seen since WW 2, and then that will not be enough. Men and women in ground combat units will need to engage ISIS. Short of this action the Islamic State must be contained where they are at present.

There is one more glaring similarity between LBJ and BHO, BHO is now attempting the same thing in the war with the Islamic State aka Radical Islamic Terrorists, that LBJ did in Viet Nam, dis-ownership of the war. LBJ wanted to give ownership of the to South Viet Nam, he called it the “Viet Namization of the war”. BHO seems to want to hand the war off to the Arab nations, it will probably get some catchy name.

Not only does BHO not call Islamic extremists for what they are he also refuses to give the proper identity to the victims. The Jews murdered in Paris at the Jewish deli were not “just some folks” They were Jews and they were singled out for murder based on Religion. Just what “folks” does BHO think that would be shopping at a Jewish deli, they sure would not be Moslems. The Coptic Christians that were beheaded in Libya were not jus Egyptian citizens, they were Christians and that is why they were beheaded. These crimes against Jews and Christians were not because they had an unfortunate encounter with Radical Islam, they were singled out and killed because of their religion and for no other reason.

Since BHO felt the need to address the events in Ferguson, MO telling the world that America has its share of racial and ethnic problems, let me interject this about moderates. The protests in Ferguson and in other parts of America were at the onset to address grievances or supposed grievances. How many of the protesters percentage wise were there to address their grievances and how many of the protesters percentage wise were there to cause chaos, mayhem and destruction. The ones who were there to address grievances could be labeled as moderates. When the violence and destruction erupted how many of the “moderates” disengaged? Did they all become “radicals” and participate in the chaos, mayhem and destruction? The moderates joined the radicals and became as one, pack mentality. There were no protests to express grievances about the destruction. There was only more protests that erupted into chaos, mayhem and destruction, the cycle repeated itself and the moderates joined with the radicals. There was no news footage of the moderates disengaging. I ask the same questions about “moderate Muslims”, at what point will they become united as one?

If the lack of jobs and opportunity are the root cause of radical extremism, I ask why are not the unemployed and those denied opportunity here in America not acting as the Radical Islamists? The answer is that they are placated by government in the form of social welfare programs. Sort of bought off to prevent bad behavior. Which brings this up. Will the government placate terrorists with social welfare programs known as tribute payments. The same as the Muslim nations along the African coast did at the beginnings of America. Surely America has not regressed to the point of entertaining the notion of paying tribute to avoid attacks.

Excuses are used to justify an act, such as it was done because _________ (fill in the blank). So I ask, what excuse will be offered by BHO and his administration for the next Islamic attack on another because of religion? Do these people have a gold fish bowl full of excuses, reach in and grab one and make it fit the narrative or position? It is true that America is not at war with Islam, but it sure seems hat Islam is at war with the non-Islamic rest of the world.

At the National Prayer Breakfast BHO slammed Christianity for the Crusades. BHO did not state the truth, that the Crusades were the result of Muslim aggression and domination and the Crusades were the Christians addressing legitimate grievances. He instead blamed Christianity for the Crusades.

The strategy of having no strategy

The result of moving or attempting to move “forward” with no strategy is a guarantee of total and absolute failure, that is of course, unless failure was the strategy. A strategy is no more than a plan. In business no one plans to fail, as a matter of fact no lending institution will give a business loan unless there is a good and sound business plan. A strategy for success.In politics the exact opposite is true. Individuals and groups donate huge sums of money to politicians and causes hoping for success to further a political or personal agenda. A strategy of hope. The campaign slogan of “forward” with the absence of a strategy is in essence “backward”.

“Forward” is to “Advance”. BHO used the word “Forward” as the campaign slogan in 2012, yet BHO has done nothing to advance America.
“Backward” is to “Retreat” or “Decline”. Since his election BHO has only “Advanced” the “Decline” of America, retreating from greatness and many times apologizing for it or denying it.

The world of radical Islam has no intention of going “Forward”, advancing the Muslim world in particular and the world in general. The radical groups like ISIS, Boko Haram and the myriad of others only have the intention of advancing forward to decline, by going backwards. However, they do use modern tools, weapons and equipment to advance the decline of humanity, and will continue to do so. The establishment of a Caliphate takes their world from the 21st century and lands them square in the 4th century and no farther forward than the 14th century and make no mistake, they want that for the entire world. Radical Islam has a strategy and has announced it to the world.

BHO on the other hand has no strategy to counter ISIS and has announced it to America and the world. But, BHO does have a strategy, his strategy is to tell the enemy or potential enemy what he will or will not do, what events will drive him to possible action and even discloses the timeline of events. This is a very dangerous practice to say the least.

Strategy in Iraq. Announce to America and the world when combat operations would cease, troop strength reductions would begin and the date of total withdrawal. Upon total withdrawal inform America and the world that “we” left behind a stable and self-sufficient Iraqi government, knowing full well the exact opposite was true. Every aspiring terror group knew the exact date they could begin operations to further destabilize a less than stable government and country. Unlike the U.S. government which is divided along party lines, the Iraqi government was divided along religious lines. Sectarian violence began anew.

Strategy in Afghanistan. Announce to America and the world when combat operations would cease, troop strength reductions would begin and again the date of full withdrawal. This again tells the terror groups when they can resume operations. The Taliban and al-Qaeda are still very much alive in Afghanistan and will be heard from again.

Strategy in Libya. Destabilization. Announce to America and the world that airstrikes will be used to further weaken the Libyan government and its fighting forces attempting to hold off an insurgency. Announce the arming and training of rebel forces in Libya without any thought of how the training or arms would be used afterward. While announcing what would happen BHO also announced what would not happen, BHO announced that there would be no “boots on the ground”, no U.S. ground combat forces would be used. Establish diplomatic relations with a country in turmoil and on the brink of civil war. We all saw how that worked out. The only strategy BHO had, was to topple Qaddafi, or at least help, at the present and not for what would happen after, much less what kind of government would exist or even if there would be one.

Strategy in Syria. Again, Destabilization. Announce to America and the world that the use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces would bring U.S. military action, a red line was drawn by BHO. Low and behold chemical weapons were deployed against a town being contested and there were civilian casualties. Allegations were circulated around the world that the Syrian military had used chemical weapons. My question was, was BHO warning the Syrian government or was he encouraging the rebel forces to use chemical weapons in order to bring the U.S. into action? I still think the latter. The red-line was erased or at least blurred by the intervention of Russia. The chemical weapons were being destroyed, but were they all destroyed. That news left the front pages and has never arisen since. How much was destroyed? How much is left? If any is left who has control of it?

The blunders by BHO and his administration in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria has shown to the world how ineffective the foreign policy of the U.S. is. Middle East foreign policy has suffered since President Carter and has not recovered. The policy of appeasement did not work for British PM Chamberlain and will never work for any leader.

The policy of destabilization of Libya and Syria has created the biggest and most lethal threat America has faced in many years. ISIS or as it is known now the Islamic State could have been destroyed when they were Known as ISIL only a short few months ago. They thrive and flourish now because BHO and his administration and some members of Congress were more concerned with toppling dictators than what the future may hold. The same is true of the previous administration with regards to Iraq and Afghanistan.

ISIS has made many gains while suffering a few loses. But is ISIS the only threat? In the beginning the intent was to establish The Levant, now the intent is to establish the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and have declared the establishment of a Caliphate. Why the change? The Levant is certainly larger than the Islamic State. Have they joined forces with other terror groups with each carving out their own domain in the world? Are they combining resources? When the news broke that ISIS fighters had captured a Syrian Air Base, I wondered why. Building and maintaining a civilian airport is expensive enough, but the costs of a Military Air Base are even more, much more. ISIS has no need of an Air Base, they have no aircraft. If the intent was to deny Syrian forces the use of the Airfield why not just render it useless and abandon it. It can not be disguised or moved, it is fixed. If it is captured the rightful owner will want it back, if it is still useable they will use it. Discussing this event with a friend, I made the following statements first they either have Aircraft other than stolen helicopters or they are expecting to get aircraft and second they may have stripped the Syrians down to their underwear and marched them out to the desert for execution, but all were not executed, the valuable were taken back. I say this for two reasons, first they intend on having aircraft and will need pilots and aviation support personnel and second Military Air Bases have what civilian airports lack, defense systems and they need to learn them as well. And once again the strategy of nothingness is revealed, ISIS was told by way of the announcement from BHO that he was authorizing surveillance flights over Syria to monitor the situation. If something is revealed what action will be taken. The ISIS fighters were even informed by social media how many more American service members we going to Iraq, where they would be sent and their intended mission, emphasizing a non-combat role. Think of the money ISIS saves daily by getting their intelligence straight from the administration and avoiding the expense of satellites or a spy network.

Now the chatter of missing civilian airliners from Libya, eleven of them. The rebels took control of the Tripoli airport and the airliners are now missing and ISIS has a Military Airbase in Syria. There was most certainly fuel at the airport in Tripoli and certainly fuel is at the Syrian Base now held by ISIS. What targets are in easy reach of an airliner from Syria or Libya used as a weapon?

Now to explain my previous statement that the terrorists have joined forces. It is perfectly acceptable for a Muslim to lie to a non-Muslim, known as an Infidel. When al Qaeda said they had kicked ISIS out of their group was it a member of al Qaeda that made that statement or was it an Infidel? When the rebels in Libya and Syria identified themselves as moderates was it a member of their group or was it an Infidel. I will even go one step further and simply state that all of the terror groups and their supporters are the same force with the same goal, no matter how they dress. There are no moderates.

Not only should one not make the mistake of confusing friends with enemies and then treating them as such, or trusting the enemy of ones enemy and thinking them to be your friend, one should also never make an enemy of a friend or potential friend based on political differences.

The anniversary of September the Eleventh is approaching.

How did we get to this point?

We now are witness to the collapse and impending fall of Iraq and BHO takes time to give a speech on “climate change” fundraise, golf and vacation in California. The decision on what military action to take in Iraq will take days, and then only if the Iraqis can work out their political differences. Once again he has “telegraphed” his strategy to the insurgents when he said no “combat troops” will be involved. The Iraqis can not work out their political differences until they can work out their religious differences, and BHO knows this. In fact this latest outbreak of violence in Iraq is their way of working out their political differences based on religion. In the coming days the news media will call the increased violence and fighting in Iraq a “civil war” but it is actually a “religious war”. The Iraqi politicians are not labeled with a (D), (I) or an (R) behind their name, the are either Sunni, Shia or Kurd, therefore the religious beliefs of the elected officials dictate and are dictated in any legislation passed. They do not represent the political party and certainly not the people or the country only the religious beliefs of their sect.

There has even been talk around about breaking Iraq into three separate countries giving each of the three groups in Iraq their own country to curb and possibly prevent further violence and for political expediency. The Sunni, The Shia and the Kurds would have their own countries separate of the others. This insane idea has already been tried and has before almost brought the world to the brink of war. At the conclusion of World War 2 both Korea and Vietnam were divided, the city of Berlin was divided into four parts, Germany itself was divided, even Europe was divided, all for the cause of political expediency. These divisions that were for political expediency created a policy of containment. What was being contained Communism or Capitalism or simply just the people? The division of Iraq will not lead to peace, never has never will, and will not contain the religion or the violence.

The divisions of the nations of the world in the name of political expediency caused a stagnation in some parts of the world, some countries of the world have remained at their stage of development at the conclusion of World War 2. This is demonstrated by their lack of advancement in science and technology, they must rely upon advanced nations of the world for their mere existence with most unable to feed themselves. With few exceptions most notably Israel, South Korea, Japan and China, the only nations of the world to advance past the 1940’s are the victors of World War 2 as demonstrated by the rest of the world calling on them.

Still other nations of the world are stagnated by religious differences and remain in the same stage of development they were in at the outbreak of their religious wars. Culturally they have not advanced beyond killing one another in the name of religion, they have stagnated themselves in the name of religious expediency.

There have been many foreign policy attempts made by many leaders of the world. The policy of appeasement gave us World War 2. The policy of containment gave us the Korean War, The Vietnam War, the First war with Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the second war with Iraq and numerous other hostile actions. But of late we see a new and dangerous foreign policy of destabilization and abandonment. The best example of destabilization is the unprovoked attack on Libya. The best example of abandonment is Iraq. With the foreign policy of destabilization and abandonment if you add in the providing of arms and equipment to insurgents you get the new policy of confusing enemies with allies. Add in the idle threats made with no intent to act you get Syria. Add in the “there will be consequences” you get the Crimea and the Ukraine. The best examples of providing arms, equipment and training to insurgents would be Libya and Syria. The best example of confusing enemies with allies would be the muslim brotherhood in Egypt. Now add in the policy of not wanting to offend you get boko haram.

The foreign policy of destabilization, abandonment, providing arms, equipment and training to insurgents, confusing enemies with allies, making idle threats, there will be consequences and not wanting to offend has changed the landscape of the world. The destabilization of Libya by supporting the insurgents with arms and equipment and U.S. airstrikes led to the death of the Libyan dictator, the convenient leaving of more arms and equipment for the rebels to steal and all that combined led to the murder of four Americans at Benghazi. The very same weapons and equipment from Libya were used in the latest insurgency victories in Iraq, where more weapons and equipment were seized including helicopters, surface to air missiles, air to air missiles, anti-tank ammunition, wheeled vehicles and who knows what else. While the insurgents were overrunning town after town they stopped long enough to rob the banks of millions of dollars and gold, raise their flag and invoke sharia law. Abandonment of Iraq has led to destabilization and was an open invitation for al-Qaeda and their splinter groups to take over. Even if the government forces regain their composure and take the fight to the insurgents, which is unlikely, the insurgents still have all the weapons and equipment they already seized not to mention the millions in dollars and gold. If the insurgents take Baghdad they will get more arms and equipment and will have more banks to rob. What will be the next target for the al-Qaeda splinter groups? The U.S. will abandon Afghanistan in two years. Syria still has chemical weapons that have not yet been destroyed and quite possibly biological weapons left over from the first war with Iraq, that would be a great prize for any terrorist group. Iraq is a large country and offers many places to hide chemical and biological weapons left over from the old regime and some of those men from the old regime still live and might just know where to find them.

If America has to engage the al-Qaeda splinter groups in battle it will be a much different engagement, our country will be fighting men armed with our equipment and with the same level of training as our own military. Airpower would be used but at what cost, two forces fighting and using with the same equipment would be disastrous, wrong targets could be taken out, and correct targets could be missed. Friendly fire, mistaking allies for enemies and enemies for allies.

Two quick questions.
1. Did the latest insurgent victories in Iraq come before or after the five Taliban commanders were swapped for one deserter?
2. Has the missing airliner been found?

The best example of non-stagnation is America, there was a time when America even tried to divide itself for political expediency, the north would not let the south out of the union. The American “Civil War” more aptly called the “War of Northern Aggression” was not about slavery as much as it was about the preservation of the Union. The south wanted out for political reasons the north attacked the south for economic and self-preservation reasons. The south did not seek to rejoin their previous rulers, as was the case with the Crimea rejoining mother Russia, the yoke of tyranny had already been forcibly removed and would not be voluntarily worn again. The south viewed the life under the north as tyrannical and oppressive as life before under the rule of the British Crown. Our nation is relatively young but since the civil war we have made many advances in science and technology, we have not remained in the nineteenth century. America have moved on because America was not a victim of the same political expediency that the victors of World War 2 inflicted on the rest of the world.