The Third Iraq War, and the "new" Syrian War

     The first Gulf War was our First Iraq War.  Then the Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), which became the Second Iraq War.  President Obama pulled out all U.S. combat troops, not even leaving a residual force to allow for a smoother transition, and Iraq ends up in chaos and a new enemy surfaces, ISIS.  For quite sometime our government refused to acknowledge that it had made a mistake and that Iraq was on the verge of collapse and take over by (at first) a rag-tag, unbelievably cruel terror group that calls itself ISIL or ISIS.  So now (it started with the recent Delta raid on ISIS compound), we are back, engaged in Iraq with boots on the ground.  The so-called surgical air strikes alone did not work.  They cost the tax payers an astronomical amount of money but failed to dislodge ISIS.  Critics maintained from the start that "boots on the ground" were needed and that we should have never pulled out as we did.  Belatedly we are now sending additional Special Operations Units and a Rapid Reaction Force (more than likely Army Rangers or Marines to back up the Special Operation Forces).  We are slowly, once again, building up ground forces in Iraq.
     Meanwhile, in Syria, we have been "leading from behind" all these years, prodding Saudis and other Arab countries as well as Turks to do the fighting and only using our air power.  Obviously it didn't work.  Now (yesterday) President Obama announced that "less than 50" Special Forces advisors and trainers will be sent to Syria within a week to help train and advise Kurds and moderate Arab rebels.  Fifty men?  That's roughly four Special Forces A Detachments (12 men each).  One A Detachment is capable of training and leading a Battalion in battle. Are we going to try to win the war in Syria with four battalions of Kurds and moderate rebels?  Not likely.
     First of all, why so few, and second, why announce the number?  Everything is so politically motivated that it is just sickening.  Obviously by announcing that "less than 50"  Special Forces members will be sent into Syria, the chance of public opposition will be diminished, no doubt that is the reasoning behind the announcement.  However, sending a mere "less than 50" contingent of U.S. soldiers into the lion's den, no matter how well they are trained, is really a very bad move!  Unlike the Special Forces teams in Iraq who will have a U.S. Rapid Reaction Force to help them out if they get into trouble, who will bail out these "less than 50" men if they get into a tight spot?  Syrians?  Iranians, or perhaps Russians?
     In Vietnam the Special Forces learned that they could not rely on none U.S. forces to help them if they got into trouble.  Most U.S. units were too far away from the isolated Special Forces camps, so a Rapid Reaction Force was created by the Special Forces itself, the Mobile Strike Force known as Mike Force made up of Nungs and Montagnards.  They were on call 24/7 to help any beleaguered Special Forces unit.  Apparently the new generation of our leaders have forgotten that lesson.  To allow a small American unit to go deep into enemy territory without any backing is truly a monumental folly!  The whole business that they will only "train and advise" and not be exposed to danger is laughably naïve.  Our very first combat death in Vietnam was a Special Forces soldier killed in an ambush in 1958!  Yes, he was an "advisor and a trainer" sent to advise and train, not fight! Also, you may not be hearing this in the news, but we are suffering casualties in Philippines, a few deaths and wounded out of the 1st Special Forces Group on Okinawa, and these soldiers are trainers and advisors!
     Earlier in Aghanistan and Iraq, the British and Australians tried the approach of training and advising, but not leading the men in combat.  It was a miserable failure by their own admission.  The troops were fine as long as the British or Australian Advisors were in their presence, but once they were on their own, everything went to hell.  We, fortunately, never did that.  Our advisors always stayed with the indigenous troops for that is how we operated in Vietnam!  The Vietnamese use to say, "either protect us and be with us, or leave us alone!"  When we instituted the "Vietnamization" we essentially left them alone!  So, don't you believe the hogwash dealt out by the White House that our advisors and trainers will not participate in combat.  Besides, it is the Special Forces doctrine to not only train and advise, but actually lead the indigenous troops in combat.
     If you look up the definition for strategy in war, it will read something like this:  "Strategy ensures that you get to the right place with right force for the right reasons and the right war."  Of the three Iraq Wars, only the first one, the Gulf War appeared to follow the definition of strategy.  It was never the intention to take out Saddam Hussein or occupy Iraq, so we stopped short of Baghdad, despite heavy criticism from some quarters, and ended the war.  Unfortunately, our leaders today are unfamiliar with the definition, for we have no strategy!  That has been the criticism and complaint about this administration and its policies or none policies in the Middle East - No Strategy!
     An ancient Chinese warrior/philosopher, Sun Tzu, said that "strategy without tactics is a slow road to victory, but tactics without strategy is noise before defeat!"  We have plenty of tactics, great tactics.  That is how we were able to carry off that raid on the ISIS compound with such success.  Every time our ground troops go to battle we employ sound tactics, but unfortunately, we have no strategy!  To paraphrase from Sun Tzu's book, The Art of War, "those without strategy cannot but be defeated!"
     The worst possible way to engage in a war is to "lead from behind."  We have been "leading from behind" in Syria, and Libya.  Look where it has gotten us!  Syria is a mess and now Russia and Iran appear to be the major "stockholders" in the region!  Libya caused the death of our Ambassador and four others, a shameful occurrence.  We made threats about crossing the "thin red line" which was crossed numerous times and we did nothing.  Putin saw that he could push his way into just about anything without fear of our intervention.  He was right.  So now, after Syria had reached a point where "moderate" rebels are about to be wiped out by Russia's indiscriminate bombing (Russian "smart" bombs are considered accurate when they strike within a block!) and Iranian ground forces, we are going to send "less than 50" Special Forces soldiers with no back up such as a Rapid Reaction Force?  Talk about no strategy! 
     This latest move is doomed before it has started, unless there will be an announcement shortly that additional forces will be deployed to Syria.  But I wouldn't hold my breath.  We have a White House that is micromanaging the wars in the Middle East.  This has happened before, under Jimmy Carter.  What we have is a bunch of civilians with no military or combat experience who think they know better than the generals in the Pentagon and are micromanaging the whole thing.  They see wars as computer games, rely too heavily on technology, drones, etc.  They believe that the concept of boots on the ground is outdated, old fashioned, after all, this is the 21st Century!  They think that boots on the ground means only Special Operations, which they can watch on monitors in the White House Situation Room like a video game. They hate to admit that they are wrong, so right now they are viewing the situation as a temporary set back and grudgingly agreed to putting boots on the ground....without an overall strategy!

"Direct Action" and Kurds

     With the recent death of Army Master Sergeant Joshua Wheeler in Iraq during a raid on an ISIS compound, our government has created a new definition for combat.  It is not combat anymore, it is now the politically correct term, "direct action."  It seems that Master Sergeant Wheeler did not die as a result of ground combat in which he participated with the peshmerga commando unit, but rather he was killed as a result of "direct action." 
     Now, you must admit that "direct action" sounds a lot less dangerous or menacing than "hostile" action, or god forbid, "combat!"  We are very PC.  Since President Obama announced that we will no longer have any combat troops in Iraq, we no longer participate in combat.  We are there to advise and train, and observe.  Only an air war will be conducted against ISIS.  Ground combat?  Perish the thought!  Remember the words of Obama's speech at Fort Bragg after he announced our withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq?  He said, "I am bringing this war to a close!  After more than a decade, I am ending this war and no American life will be put in harms way any more!  We will have only a small contingent of advisors and trainers."  Ambitious words they were! It also gave ISIS and Al Qaeda a clear "green light" to launch and escalate their campaigns in Iraq.
     You might recall my earlier blogs on this subject when I said that there is no way that the so-called U.S. "advisors and trainers" will stay out of combat if they are to train, advise, and lead the Iraqi forces.  Yet, our leaders insisted that no U.S. soldier will be put in harms way any more.  Now, after Wheeler's death, the Secretary of Defense refers to his death as a result of "direct action!"  At the same time, it is interesting to note how the fact that the peshmerga's were accompanied by Delta was sort of skipped over.  Delta, incidentally, as everyone knows, is not an advisory or training unit, nor is it a defensive unit!  It is strictly an offensive arm of the Special Operations, used specifically to conduct raids and other offensive operations.  But I guess in this case Delta was there as an observer.  Incidentally, depending on the nature of the mission, the degree of classification, deaths with Delta are not necessarily released to the public.  So a Delta operator could be killed in a highly classified mission and his death will not be made public.  That is standard procedure for units such as Delta.
     Nowadays it is hard to believe anything that our government says about our activities in the Middle East or elsewhere for that matter.  Everything is obfuscated, I'd hate to think what else we are being told besides that combat is now "direct action,"  Our leaders have been known to play a bit loose with facts in the past, but it seems that it has now reached the point of being an art form, we really don't know what actually is taking place!
     The other side of this whole situation in Iraq is our continual dependence on the Kurds and the peshmergas.  As I have said repeatedly in earlier blogs, they are the only ones doing any fighting!  The Kurds are the only ones that we can depend on, yet, we have betrayed them twice before and have betrayed them for the third time recently.  However, the Kurds have no choice but to ally with us, we are the only ones that at least provide them with arms!
     The most recent betrayal of Kurds took place when we made Turkey our ally in our fight against ISIS.  The Turks are fighting ISIS, sort of, but they are also fighting Kurds!  The Turks are paranoid about having Kurds gain independence and, therefore, have their own sovereign territory, Kurdistan.  If Kurdistan becomes an independent state, it will take up a good portion of Turkish real estate!  So, the Turks are probably fighting Kurds with more enthusiasm than they are fighting ISIS!  What are we going to do with Kurds when we ultimately pull out of that region, which we will, sooner or later!  It would be another travesty, a human tragedy if we do abandon them as we abandoned the Montagnards and the Nungs in Vietnam!
     One small way that we can try to help the Kurds before everything falls apart again is to take on Kurdish refugees.  Among the refugees that are escaping Syria and landing in Greece and other Balkan countries are Kurds.  Recently one of our intelligence organizations said that there is no way that we can vet all the refugees that we will be taking in!  There are some that fear there will be ISIS or Al Qaeda members in the midst of these refugees, no doubt that will be the case.  One way to lower that possibility is to take Kurds!  There are no known ISIS or Al Qaeda members that are of Kurdish origin!  We owe the Kurds, so why not take all of the Kurdish refugees?  Seems to me a logical solution.
     I fear for Kurds.  I fear that the same thing will happen to them that happened to those unfortunate people who blindly and loyally fought for us in Vietnam.  Fortunately for the Kurds, they are a much larger group of people than Nungs (who were a very tiny minority) and the Montagnards (who are also relatively small in numbers).  The Kurds are a sizable population that is spread across Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.  They are also found in small pockets in Armenia and other surrounding countries.  So, although they have been persecuted historically for centuries and will probably continue to be persecuted, unless they gain independence, but they will survive for better or worse.
     As long as we are in that part of the world engaged in war against ISIS, Al Qaeda, or any other such Islamic Terror groups, we will rely on the Kurds to be our allies.  They are the only ones that we can count on when the chips are down, as we have discovered after more than a decade of war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Syria (indirectly, that is!). We now also have a new name for combat, a more PC term, "direct action."  I wonder what the definition of "indirect action" would be in this case?

State Department - How it works, or doesn't!

     The State Department building, an imposing structure, is located in the part of Washington that is known as the Foggy Bottom. The Metro Station closest to the State Department is called the Foggy Bottom, and naturally, the organization took on that nick-name.  Pentagon may be known as the "puzzle palace," but the State Department is known as the "foggy bottom," for more reasons than its location!  There are, however, annexes scattered throughout Washington area as well, so the State Department is literally all over Washington area.
     Most people, other than those working for the State Department, do not really know how it is organized and how it really functions or doesn't function.  Everyone is aware that U.S. government civilian employees working for various departments and agencies are categorized as General Schedule or GS (other than the Post Office).  The ranking system goes from the low of GS-1 (with officer grading from GS-7) to the high of GS-15, which is equivalent to the military 0-6 Colonel (Army, Air Force, Marines) or Captain in the Navy.  Above GS-15 (there used to be GS 16 through 18, but not any more) there is now the Senior Executive Service, the SES which is equivalent to General/Flag Officer rank.  In the State Department, however, there are actually two categories of career employees, the GS employees and the FS or the Foreign Service.  The FS ranking system goes in the opposite direction from GS, the lower the number, the higher the grade, so an FS-1 would be like the GS-15.  After FS-1, there is the Senior Foreign Service, the SFS, which is like the SES or General/Flag Officer.
     The difference is that the GS employees are stationed in Washington DC or elsewhere within the U.S., domestically, whereas the FS employees, as their name implies, are required to serve abroad at posts around the world.  The third none career category are the political appointees, those that gained their positions through political appointment (connections!).  The vast majority of employees in the State Department building in Washington and offices around the U.S. are GS type employees.  However, the FS employees are encouraged to return to the U.S. and serve at least a tour (2, 3 or 4 years) to keep them familiar with how things work back home and also to prevent some from going "native" abroad!  GS employees in turn are encouraged to take what is known as an "excursion tour" overseas and work at a post, usually in Consular or Administrative areas, but occasionally in other fields as well, so they will know what it is like to be at the other end!  However, for the GS employees it is usually just a one shot deal, whereas the FS employees spend their entire government service careers abroad with occasional break in Washington.
     Within the structure of the FS system, there are two distinct categories, the FO and the FP.  The FO stands for the Foreign Service Officers.  This is the traditional Foreign Service diplomatic officers career path.  FSOs as they are known, enter the service by taking the rather difficult Foreign Service Exam that is offered annually, and generally speaking, you have to be a college graduate.  The FP stands for Foreign Service Professional and they could be in any number of fields everything from communications, general services, medical, etc.  FPs do not enter the Foreign Service through the same process.  To reach the highest positions in the Foreign Service, you have to be in the FO category.
     The State Department is the recipient and provider of information on foreign affairs matters of our government since the days of Ben Franklin who was our first diplomat.  It is the State Department that gathers and provides information to the White House about foreign politics, economy, military and intelligence.  Of course information on military and intelligence is also provided separately by Pentagon's DIA and CIA as well.  All information that is gathered abroad goes to the State Department, to various offices and country desks (country specific offices).  The important information goes directly to the Operations Center where the information is digested and provided in Secretary of State's briefing each morning.  The Operation Center is manned by FSOs and all key positions in various offices and desks are manned by FSOs doing their stateside tours.  All matters concerning security are directed to the Diplomatic Security Office and the Operations Center as well.  So, matters concerning security at posts abroad are included in Secretary's briefing each morning. 
     In the past, prior to the 1980s when attacks on our diplomatic missions abroad escalated, an overzealous editor in the Operations Center might have, on occasion, left out information about security concerns at some small post abroad.  But that was not the case after the various attacks on our missions in the 1980s took place.  All requests or reports about security of our posts abroad was and is included in the Secretary's morning briefing paper.  It is inconceivable that if there were over 60 requests for security assistance from Benghazi, that the Secretary was unaware of it!  If all 60 plus requests were ignored and left out of the Secretary's briefings, then someone in the Operations Center was grossly negligent and should be in prison!
     So, there's the brief and somewhat inadequate run down on State Department and how information is disseminated in the system.  Information comes in from abroad, and disseminated to various offices according to the tags that were provided on the message.  Important information and information concerning security, regardless of how it was tagged, goes to the Operations Center.  The Operations Center digests all the incoming information and provides a briefing memo for the Secretary of State each morning....sort of a, "this is what happened around the world while you were sleeping" kind of a memo.  As I said, if all those requests for help from Benghazi were indeed left out of the Secretary's briefings, then someone was indeed was seriously, criminally negligent.  It wouldn't be all that difficult to find who was responsible.  Each shift in the Operations Center has editors and the Supervising Officer of the shift.  The Operations Center is open 24/7 so there are several shifts.  It would be easy enough to find the dates of the requests on who was on the shift.  Besides, copies of the Secretary's briefs should be available, unless they were all destroyed!
     Watching this last "Benghazi Hearing" taking place, I was appalled at the committees lack of understanding of how the State Department works, and therefore, their inability to ask the proper questions.  At the same time, I was appalled that Hillary was able to get away by simply answering that she did not know of 60 plus requests for increased security from Benghazi, that she left that up to the "experts."  It is one thing to leave the job of security to the experts, nobody expects the Secretary to handle everything personally, but it is another thing to say that you were totally unaware of the 60 plus requests for help!  There is something terribly wrong with the system if that is indeed the case.  The State Department is far from being perfect and it has made many mistakes in the past, but this bit about not knowing, not being informed, is hard to swallow.

U.S. - Israel Relations

     There is no doubt that the single most important country to the United States in the Middle East is Israel.  Without Israel we have no country in the region that we can truly rely on.  Yes we have other "friends" in the region, those that we have "bought" with military assistance and favorable trade agreements, those that supply us with oil to supplement our own domestic production.  But these are "fair weather" friends.  I hate to say this, but they would turn on us on a dime.  Despite our "friendly" relations with these countries now, we do have some major philosophical differences, namely in religion and our differing views on life in general!  However, as long as they supply us with oil and buy our military equipment, we remain "friends." 
     That is not the case with Israel.  Israel is much closer to us than we would like to admit.  Yes, we are predominantly a Christian nation (for now!) and Israel's national religion is Judaism.  But, we seem to possess many of the same beliefs and be in tune for most things in life.  In short, we are a lot like the Israelis and they are like us in many ways as well!  However, there are some major differences, mainly due to the different situations that we live under.  Israel is under constant state of war.  Even if there isn't an actual war taking place, there are terror attacks and killings taking place constantly.  They live in a state of war and they, of all people, know their neighbors (Islamic nations) better than anyone else!  They have to, because all of those countries surrounding Israel have openly sworn to destroy Israel, wipe it off the face of the earth!
     Of course, there is no denying that Israel receives a huge amount of assistance, both economic and military, from us and it is arguable whether they could survive as a country without our help.  But it works both ways.  We are not giving Israel all that help just out of the goodness of our hearts, out of Christian charity, we give them aide in return for having their staunch support in the region.
     The Israeli intelligence is vital to us.  They have better access and better knowledge of their Arab neighbors than we could ever hope to have.  It is because of Israel's superior intelligence and better disciplined military force that Israel is able to repeatedly defeat much larger Arab enemies time and time again.  We have much to learn from Israel if we are to navigate successfully through Middle Eastern intrigues and politics and hope to be a major player in the region.  We sought Israeli advice before the first Gulf War, but recently appear to have been ignoring their advice.
     Our relationship with Israel have soured considerably in the last several years.  Even prior to our recent nuclear deal with Iran, things were beginning to get very strained.  It appeared to Israel (rightly or not) that we were favoring Arab nations on several issues that involved Arab-Israeli relations.  There were even some murmurings from some that this administration was a sympathizer of Islam, especially after the first Iftar dinner at the White House!  The Israelis questioned, "why is there now an annual Iftar dinner?"  A good question.  In case you are unfamiliar, Iftar is a dinner celebration that is held at the end of Ramadan, the Islamic fasting period. Whatever the case, Iftar or no Iftar, the Iran Nuclear Deal really caused some major cracks to appear.
     Israel's eloquent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, appealed before our congress and before his own nation, arguing against the Iran Nuclear Deal.  He called it "the worst deal in history!"  Our liberal media "poo-pooed" his words, called him a "hawk," a paranoid anti-Arab, and that he was only looking out for Israel.  Some even said that it was nothing but a re-election ploy, that once he was re-elected, he would back off and agree with the nuclear deal.  Well, he was re-elected and he hasn't backed-off.  He has toned down his rhetoric somewhat, because things were getting too heated, but he is every bit against it as he was before.  Naturally, he has the best interest of Israel, after all he is the Prime Minister of Israel!  I would be very suspicious of a U.S President who does not have the interest of the U.S. first!  But just because he is a patriot doesn't mean what he says does not make sense or does not apply to us.  He is, by far, the most experienced of all the players involved in international affairs if you compare him with Obama, Biden, Kerry, and any of the others involved in pushing and negotiating the Iran Nuclear Deal.
     Benjamin Netanyahu was born in Tel Aviv of intellectual parents.  His father was a history professor and his mother a scientist.  He had three brothers, one older (Jonathan) and two younger.  All brothers served in the Israeli Defense Force, all in the famous Sayaret Matkal, the Israeli Special Forces.  Jonathan, the oldest, was a commander of Sayaret Matkal and died a hero in the famous Raid on Entebbe to rescue Israeli hostages from Arab terrorists.  All brothers were highly educated.  Benjamin received a Bachelors in Architecture and a Masters in Management from MIT.  He went on to work on his Ph.D. in Political Science at Harvard, but his studies were interrupted when his older brother Jonathan was killed in Entebbe, so he returned to Israel.
     He, like all his brothers served with Israeli Special Forces, in two wars, the 1967-70 War of Attrition and the 1973 Yom Kippur War.  He was wounded several times and received medals for heroism.  He knows what war is all about.  This is what he said recently about his time with Sayaret Matkal:  "I have great respect for the unit. This is a unit that changes the reality of our lives even though its actions are a secret.  Although it is a small unit, it influences all branches of the military...My service in the unit strengthened my understanding of the risks involved behind approving operations and the risks that the fighters are taking on.  It is tangible, not theoretical for me."  The key is the last sentence.  War and its effects are tangible to him, not theoretical!  It seems to many of our leaders, war is theoretical, like some computer game!
     Netanyahu's political experience in international relations are equally impressive.  He served as Israel's Foreign Minister from 2002 to 2003 and again from 2012 to 2013.  He was Israel's Prime Minister the first time from 1996 to 1999, then 2009 to 2015, re-elected in 2015 to present.  He also served in a myriad of ministerial positions in Israeli government and was Israel's Deputy Chief of Mission to their embassy in Washington and later Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations.  So, this is a man who has intimate knowledge of world politics, especially when it comes to dealing with his Arab neighbors.  Of course he is disliked by the Arabs, that is because he knows them so well!  Yet, our leaders, who have miniscule experience compared to his when dealing with Arabs, ignore his words and proceed full steam ahead like bulls in a china shop!  Now, if that isn't arrogance, I guess it is just plain stupidity!  None of our leaders have even a smidgen of knowledge of how the Islamic mind works.  We have never been able to decipher the Middle Eastern mind, especially that of Iran with whom we have had problems since 1979!  Israel, on the other hand, has intimate knowledge of Iranian psyche, their way of thinking and doing things.  That is because before the fall of Shah in 1979, Israel was heavily involved in Iran in various industrial and military projects and many Israelis spent years living and working with Iranians!
     So now we have become somewhat estranged with Israel.  It is quite apparent by facial expressions and body languages of both Obama and Netanyahu that neither one cares for the other, only Putin possibly can generate a more negative reaction from Obama and visa versa!  It is a pity, because at this time we desperately need all the help we can get in dealing with our problems in the Middle East.  Yes, Israel is hated by all the Arabs, therefore, we need to walk a fine line if we want the Arab oil!  But we've done it before, without causing a rift, why can't we do it now?  Unless the current leadership does not want to, and thinks it knows all there is to know about the Middle East.  Israel is still our best source of information and intelligence on Middle East, we can't afford to break that tie if we want to remain a major player in the region.
     Benjamin Netanyahu, like many other Israelis, is unique in his knowledge of the Arabs.  He has fought them in wars and he deals with them daily on the political scene.  He knows Arabs like no one in our administration could possibly know.  It is mind boggling to me why we don't take advantage of this resource and mine the knowledge that he has.  We don't need to agree with him, but we sure could use his knowledge!

Post Script to "Iran on the Rise"

     In yesterday's blog I mainly discussed Iran and its growing influence in the Middle East.  Ironically, in last night's evening news on Al Jazeera, Iran's growing influence was one of the topics.  In fact, the news footage even showed the "Shadow General" Qasem Soleimani, who recently led the Iranian troops in Iraq, now in Syria involved in the new "Russian" alliance!  Al Jazeera claimed that there were many more Iranian troops in Syria than indicated by most news reports.  Interestingly, none of the three big networks or CNN made any mention of Iran's increasing role in Syria.
     This morning, President Obama announced that the drawdown of U.S. troops in Afghanistan will be slightly delayed and that the troop reduction will not be as severe as originally planned.  According to Obama, next year 5500 U.S. troops will remain on three bases in Afghanistan to train and help Afghan National Army conduct counterinsurgency operations against Taliban, Al Qaeda, and now, ISIS as well.  To me, that sounds like a delaying action.  If we didn't get rid of the Taliban when we had over 100,000 troops on the ground, how are we going to do it with 5500 advisors and trainers, and, according to Pentagon itself, inadequately prepared Afghan National Army!  It makes no sense!
     There was another bit of news this week that unfortunately probably went unnoticed by most Americans.  It is that the U.S. put boots on the ground to engage Boko Haram in Africa.  Now the Boko Haram is a nasty group of Islamic terrorists, every bit as bad as ISIS and supposedly allied with the Middle Eastern counterpart.  So, something should be done about getting rid of Boko Haram.  But, we can ill afford to send troops to Africa only to get mired as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Theoretically, that is the reason that we stayed out of Syria which has now become even a bigger mess. 
     The last time we sent troops to sub-Saharan Africa was back in early 1990s when we dispatched a Ranger Battalion and Special Forces teams to Somalia.  Unfortunately the American public has a short memory and probably does not remember how we abruptly pulled out of Somalia after two Blackhawk helicopters were shot down and the Rangers were involved in a nasty fire fight.  The videos of the dead American soldiers' bodies being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu was too much for the American public and Clinton ordered a complete and abrupt U.S. pull out. 
     We left Somalia in a mess and are still paying for it.  All those pirates operating out of Horn of Africa are from Somalia.  Somalia is a haven for terrorists and it is in utter chaos.  So, although we have not gone back to Somalia, we seem to stick our nose in other African countries.  We have a permanent joint service base in Djibouti, and several other bases scattered about in Mali, Uganda, and couple other countries.  Although these are mostly small bases for launching drones, they are still bases with U.S. military personnel.  Additionally, the 3rd Special Forces Group out of Ft. Bragg, N.C., has been deployed to Africa since the fiasco in Somalia some quarter of a century ago!
     We are deeply involved in Africa and thousands of U.S. troops have been sent to that continent periodically throughout the last couple of decades.  Yet, the public never hears anything about it and the news coverage is minimal!  The U.S. Africa Command (yes, we do have a command, like Central Command for Middle East, that is specifically charged with Africa) is very tight lipped and does not give the press much access.  Pentagon will only provide vague, general responses when asked about our involvement in Africa.  So, we are reluctant to put boots on the ground in the Middle East but we are doing that now in Africa!
     Our entire strategy or policy around the world (if we have one!) appears to be completely reactive, not proactive!  You cannot defeat terrorist groups or guerrilla organizations fighting reactively!  By being "reactive," all we are doing is delaying the inevitable, which is the take-over by the terrorist/guerrilla movements.  By being "reactive" in Afghanistan and Iraq (which is what we are doing after the pull out!) we are simply delaying the total collapse of the fragile regimes that we support.  Perhaps they will last a decade, who knows, but they will fall if we simply continue to support them only reactively.  In the meantime, billions upon billions of tax payers' money is spent on these no-win situations!
     The only way to defeat terror groups such as Taliban, Al Qaeda, or ISIS in the Middle East or Boko Haram in Africa is to go in full force with military and at the same time provide economic support, education, health care, in other words, heavy on the humanitarian aide!  Obviously we can't do this alone, the cost would be prohibitive.  What we need to do as the world "leader" is to convince other developed nations to pitch-in and provide the needed economic and medical aide to these countries.  Military action alone will not do it, but to abandon the military option and simply provide reactive support is a huge mistake.
     I hate to be so pessimistic, but unless there is a dramatic shift in our foreign policy and leadership in Washington, all these countries where we are involved, will eventually succumb to the terrorist groups.  As long as we continue to be just "reactive" in places where terror groups pop-up, we might manage to stave them off for a time, but eventually will lose to them, especially when we pull out!
     Our leaders in Washington are too short-sighted.  It seems that their thinking is based on four year terms, but then again, that seems to be the gold standard in Washington! It almost seems like there is a "let the next guy worry about this or that" attitude among some politicians.  We should stop looking for quick fixes to problems and try to figure out what the root of the problem is in a particular situation.  In most countries where there is trouble, it is poverty, injustice, and corrupt governments that are the cause of insurgent movements.  Although some of these insurgencies are supposedly religion based, the so-called Islamic Terror groups, nevertheless, they got their start by telling people that they will cure the poverty, the corruption, etc.  We should always approach solving problems in troubled countries with non-military support in mind as well.  Unfortunately, we go in heavy on the military side and then end up supporting new leaders that are corrupt.  This does not solve the problem but rather make it worse!

Iran on the Rise....with U.S. help.

     Really?  How could it be that we are helping Iran?  We are supposed to be doing everything to control Iran from gaining power!  Perhaps that is what we want, but it seems that our policies and actions or inactions are bringing about exactly the opposite results.
     A while back I did a blog on Iran's sudden emergence as a player in Iraq.  This was before we struck that wonderful (according to our leaders) nuclear deal with Iran.  We had allowed Iran to insert their special operations force to help fight ISIS.  The Iranians, led by their notorious "shadow" general, had some success initially which gained them valuable prestige in the area.  Also, the simple fact that we allowed Iran to intervene in Iraq gave Iran a tremendous boost in prestige in the Middle East, especially with those who were on the fence, not sure whether to side with Iran or with our allies.  Then the bombshell, we make a "deal" with Iran on the nuclear issue and lift part of the sanctions with the rest to be lifted within a year.  What most people don't realize is that even before negotiations for the nuclear deal took place, we allowed some funds to filter through to Iran.  Those were mostly previously "frozen" assets that were suddenly and quietly "unfrozen."  The release of funds and allowing Iran to enter Iraq to fight ISIS was apparently payment to Iran for agreeing to sit down for nuclear talks.
     I won't go into the details of the agreement, suffice it to say that it sure looks as if Iran got the better end of the deal!  Once the agreement was inked, huge amounts of money was released allowing Iran to immediately go to Russia and purchase more arms, especially the sophisticated anti missile system that would make it very difficult for us to take out their nuclear sites should the need arise!  In the meantime, the Supreme Leader of Iran continued to spew out venomous rhetoric, "death to Israel, death to the shaitan, the great devil (America)," and so on.  He also kept saying that there would be no more negotiating with the U.S. whatsoever!  Cleverly, he added that although he was against any sort of an agreement with the U.S., including the recently concluded nuclear deal, it was up to the Iranian parliament to approve or disapprove the deal.  Not surprisingly, the Iranian Parliament approved it recently.
     Then last week, out of the blue, he once more reiterated that Iran would make no deals, no negotiations with the U.S. whatsoever.  Considering that there was nothing pending on negotiations with Iran, it seemed a bit strange that he would say that.  But, there was a reason, there is always a reason!  Shortly after that statement, Iran announced that the Washington Post Tehran Bureau Chief Jason Rezaian, who had been in jail for quite sometime, had been convicted of espionage!  A few days after that announcement by Tehran, Iran conducted a ballistic missile test!  Obviously the new funds that they received from the nuclear deal allowed them to go full speed ahead in weapons development!  Our reaction was to say that Iran did not violate the nuclear agreement, but they "might" have violated other UN agreements.  Give me a break!  Those missiles are meant to carry nuclear warheads, how does that not violate the nuclear deal?  But be that as it may, Iran is now flexing its muscles.  Why?  Because it knows that the only country that is capable of putting a stop to their antics, the U.S., will not do anything!  Israel, who is a threat to Iran, is unlikely to do anything without our approval unless they are directly attacked unprovoked, and Iran is too smart to do that!
     Russia has created a new Middle East Alliance by establishing a headquarters for fighting ISIS in Baghdad, right under our nose!  They have allied with Syria, Iran and Iraq, three countries that border each other!  We have, for all practical purposes, given up in Syria, although we apparently will continue the bombing, when we can, if Russia will allow us!  We have announced that we have abandoned the plan to train "moderate" rebels!  Iran, in the meantime, has moved-in to Syria in a big way.  They were already present for sometime with Hezbollah as their proxy, but now they have actual ground troops which are being reinforced constantly.  Of course, Russia is also increasing its ground presence significantly.  Those who said, "let Russia have Syria and all the mess," got their wish.  The only problem is that although it is a mess and Russia may not succeed in solving the problem, it does allow Russia as well as Iran to increase their presence and foothold in the area, and Al-Assad's regime, which we wanted so badly to topple (but did nothing!), will continue to survive if not thrive!
     In the meantime, by convicting Jason Rezaian, Iran now has a valuable hostage to trade, should we decide to try and help the Washington Post Bureau Chief!  If we don't do anything, he will be in jail for at least the next 20 years!  Sadly, and unfortunately, owing to our bungling "negotiations" and foreign policy, we will probably have to give up something significant to have Rezaian released.  Right now, Iran is holding all the trump cards and is enjoying the huge windfall from the nuclear deal.  Unless we do something about our incredibly inept foreign policy, we will continue to have major set backs and lose ground in the Middle East.

The "Uhl Mao Zeh" - Oleg Chegai

     In general, Russian Koreans, the so-called koryo saram, are confined to Russia and former Soviet Republics.  After the fall of the Soviet Union, some did manage to get out.  Probably the largest number were the ones invited by the Republic of South Korea to come and resettle in their ancestral land.  Many from the former Soviet Central Asia accepted the invitation, but also many did not like life in South Korea and returned to their former homes.  It is my understanding that those that chose to remain in Korea tend to stick with each other and are discriminated against by South Koreans because of their poor Korean language skills and totally un-Korean manners and behavior.
     The uhl mao zeh, on the other hand, being very small in numbers to start with, had very few get out of China, Manchuria region.  Some did end up in North Korea, but vast majority were shipped off to Soviet Central Asia to join the koryo saram, and eventually became koryo saram themselves.  A tiny number of uhl mao zeh did get out from under communist rule, but they sort of melted into whatever society that they chose or ended up living in by choice or necessity.  In that way, they disappeared as uhl mao zeh.  Those that got out, usually managed to do quite well for themselves, mainly because of their linguistic abilities and their ability to blend in!  One such individual uhl mao zeh was Oleg Chegai, someone I met for the first time when I was in the U.S. Army in the early 1960s. 
     The name Chegai is a peculiar Cyrillization of the Korean name Che.  For some reason, some Korean names like Ko or Che were modified to read Ko-gai or Che-gai.  No one seems to know exactly why the "gai" suffix was added, but it was always a dead give away that the person was a Russian Korean!
     I was still in the Special Forces Training Group, receiving my training to become a Special Forces soldier when I ran into an E-7 Sergeant First Class by the name of Oleg Chegai.  Chegai was about six feet tall, a good looking individual who appeared to be in his thirties, not easily recognizable as a person of Korean ancestry.  But I knew that the name Chegai was Russian Korean so, despite my lowly rank and position as a PFC and a trainee, I approached him during a break and struck up a conversation with him.  I spoke to him in Russian and he seemed a bit taken aback at first.  But then, looking at my name tag, he immediately said, "you're uhl mao zeh, aren't you?"  I told him I was, and we talked some more before class resumed.  We had many conversations after that, and eventually he invited me to his house for dinner.
     Oleg lived in an area outside of Fort Bragg called Southern Pines.  It was a modest house, what you would expect an NCO to live in.  His wife was a charming and a very attractive southern girl from the area.  Apparently the two met in a class that they were both taking in the evening at the local college.  Oleg was trying to get a college degree while he was working in the Training Group which guaranteed that he would not be deployed for the duration of his assignment.  Liz, his wife was taking a class to fulfill requirements for a North Carolina Teaching Credentials.  They had been married less than a year at the time and Liz had just gotten a job teaching at a local junior high.  She was a very friendly and chatty person, very excited about her new job.
     During the course of the evening Oleg and I often switched to Russian, and Liz seemed
completely unfazed by our Russian conversation, although she did not speak Russian herself.  Then at one point she said that she would like to learn to speak "Hawaiian" one of these days!  Both Oleg and I were taken completely by surprise at her remark.  When she noticed our surprised expressions, she said,
     "Well, you are speaking Hawaiian, aren't you?" 
     Oleg shook his head at that and said no, that we were speaking Russian.  Now it was her turn to be surprised.  Her eyes widened and she turned to Oleg. 
     "I thought you were speaking Hawaiian because you are Hawaiian, aren't you?"
     Again, Oleg shook his head and said, no, he was not a Hawaiian.
     That was a very amusing incident and I would have loved to have heard Oleg's explanation to Liz on why he spoke Russian and his racial/ethnic identity!
     According to Oleg, his father was an uhl mao zeh  from Vladivostok who came to Harbin shortly before the Bolshevik Revolution with his elderly parents.  His father was a doctor and worked for the railroad company that was headquartered in Harbin.  In Harbin his father met and married a beautiful Russian concert pianist and the two had their first and only child, Oleg, in 1930.  A few years after Oleg was born, the Japanese essentially annexed Manchuria in 1931 and created the State of Manchukuo.  Oleg's parents did not like living under Japanese rule, so they decided to move to Shanghai. 
     Since Oleg's father received his medical training in France, he settled in the French Concession of Shanghai and had a successful practice.  Oleg attended French schools and became fluent in French.  Oleg grew up speaking Russian at home, French at school, and Korean with his grandmother who came with them to Shanghai.  The grandfather died before Oleg was born.  The school he attended was French, but English was also taught at that school so Oleg learned English as well.  After he graduated from the French school at 17, he enrolled in an International College where English was the main language.  At the same time, he picked up Chinese from servants and on the streets!
     When Mao's communist forces began advancing on Shanghai in 1949, Oleg's parents managed to get visas to Australia for the three of them and booked passage.  Oleg's grandmother had died when Oleg was 14.  However, the port of Shanghai was in complete chaos as people jostled and crowded trying to get on any boat leaving the city.  Somehow during all the confusion, Oleg became separated from his parents and ended up boarding the wrong boat.  So, while his parents sailed off for Australia, Oleg didn't even know where his boat was going, although he could guess by the fact that vast majority of passengers were Korean!
     Oleg's boat docked at Inchon after a rough voyage.  He made his way to Seoul and immediately sought out the Australian Embassy, but there was no Australian Embassy in Seoul at the time.  There was only the British Embassy that apparently had an Australian interest section.  Oleg went there and explained his predicament.  But he was told nothing could be done, that since his father had all the papers, he had no proof of his claim.  He asked that they contact Australia to get hold of his parents, but was told that was impossible with all the chaos and all the refugees and what not.  So, Oleg was stuck in Korea.  But because of his linguistic abilities, he managed to get a decent job working for the local UN office.  But then everything turned upside down again when on June 25, 1950, North Korean troops invaded South Korea.  After a few days, Oleg evacuated south to Pusan with the rest of the UN staff.
     He worked for UN in Pusan, but his linguistic abilities were noticed by others and he was offered  a job by the U.S. Army's G-2 Section.  It was actually the fledging CIA which was called euphemistically as the Army's G-2.  He was hired by a unit that was called Joint Advisory Commission Korea (JACK).  JACK, a CIA operation, was headed by an Army Major with considerable experience in special operations, a Major Jack Singlaub.  Singlaub was a veteran of OSS in World War Two and was one of the founders of CIA in 1947.  Singlaub noticed the young man with an odd name, Chegai.  Having spent time with OSS in Manchuria during and shortly after World War Two, Singlaub knew of uhl mao zeh and immediately guessed that Oleg was an uhl mao zeh.  Learning of his multilingual abilities, Singlaub lured Oleg away from UN and put him to work with special operations that he ran.
     Oleg worked in various capacities, but mostly as a guerrilla fighter with the United Nations Partisan Force in Korea, the UNPFK.  He worked as a trainer as well as a patrol leader and went on many combat missions.  His ability to speak both Korean and Chinese allowed him to work in training both Korean and Chinese agents that were recruited for secret infiltration into North Korea and Manchuria, and also to train Korean troops for the UNPFK.  All his American bosses were very impressed with him, so much so that they somehow managed to get him into the U.S. Army under the new Lodge Act.
     The Lodge Act was created in 1950 primarily to recruit Eastern European volunteers for the U.S. Army.  There was an acute shortage of native speakers of Eastern European languages as well as Russian in the U.S. Army.  The Lodge Act allowed the Army to recruit likely candidates for enlistment period of five years, after which the person was eligible for U.S. citizenship.  Although the Lodge Act was designed to recruit Eastern European candidates, it did not specify ethnic origin,  the recruitment was more based on linguistic ability.  Oleg's sponsors managed to sneak him in to the U.S. Army under the Lodge Act.  There were apparently another handful of uhl mao zeh that got into the U.S. Army under the Lodge Act.  There weren't a lot of Lodge Act recruits, only a couple of hundred, and most went to the 10th Special Forces Group in Germany.  So, Oleg was accepted into the U.S. Army under the Lodge Act in 1953, sent for training to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, after which he was shipped off to Germany to the 10th Special Forces Group.  Because of his extensive combat experience in Korea and the rank of lieutenant that he held in UNPFK, he was given the rank of a Sergeant E-5 in the U.S. Army.
     After I left the Training Group I lost touch with Oleg Chegai.  Special Forces was a very small outfit at the time so I would hear from time to time that Oleg was here or there, promoted to Master Sergeant, etc.  Then in 1966 while in Vietnam, he reunited with his old mentor, now Colonel Jack Singlaub who was in charge of the secret outfit known as Military Advisory Command Vietnam, Studies and Observation Group (MACVSOG).  SOG was initially called  Special Operations Group, but the name was changed to make it sound more innocuous.  Oleg had been assigned to SOG and had gone on a number of very dangerous recon missions.  Singlaub recommended Oleg for a battlefield commission so, General Westmoreland, who was the overall commander at the time, awarded a battlefield commission to Oleg Chegai to first lieutenant, skipping the second lieutenant grade.  Another Special Forces Sergeant, Dick Meadows, was earlier given a battlefield commission to Captain by Westmoreland!
     Several years later, I ran into Oleg Chegai at Travis Air Force Base.  I had gone to Travis to see a good friend going off to Vietnam, it was in 1970, and ran into Oleg Chegai who was a Captain and going back to Vietnam again.  He said he was going to try to stay in the States after this tour, his fourth, and finish his Master's Degree in History.  He said he was very close to finishing his MA.  He and Liz had no children and she was a Vice Principal at the same junior high school where she got her first teaching job.  That was the last time I saw Oleg Chegai.  Oleg never got to finish his MA, I heard that he was killed on that final tour.
     The first draft of my book The Manchurian Tales had a chapter that was about Oleg Chegai.  However, during one of my editing frenzies, I decided to leave out that chapter as well as several others that I might rewrite as blogs in the future.

Russian Koreans III

     I began these blogs back in March of 2014 with a blog on Russian Koreans which was followed quickly with Russian Koreans II.  The reason was very simple.  I started these blogs for the purpose of promoting my book The Manchurian Tales which is about the triumphs and tragedies experienced by a Russian Korean family.  I felt that perhaps readers needed more explanation as to who were Russian Koreans, in the case of my book, the uhl mao zeh, and how they came about. 
     Periodically I would add some more information about Russian Koreans while blogging on other topics and material.  Eventually I drifted off into other topics when I changed the title of these blogs to Manchurian Tales and Snap Shots.  I was tempted to add to that and everything else!  However, I held off on lengthening the title, although if you have been following my blogs, I have written on just about everything you can think of!
     Very recently I was contacted by a young scholar who is doing research on Russian Koreans.  She is travelling to all the areas where Russian Koreans are known to live or in some cases, have lived.  She visited Harbin but made no contact with any Russian Koreans and said that very little remained of Russian architecture and culture.  The city of Harbin, in her words, was now almost completely Chinese.  This morning she sent me an email from Sakhalin where she was interviewing some Koreans, descendants of those who were brought over by Japanese in the 1930s as slave laborers.  These Koreans are considered to be a distinct group and are referred to as Sakhalin Koreans, not koryo saram, which is the name given to Russian Koreans everywhere else.
     The reason she contacted me was because she had read my book The Manchurian Tales and was interested in finding out more about the uhl mao zeh, the Russian Koreans who lived in Manchuria.  Keep in mind that Manchuria has always had and still has a significant Korean population, but these are not uhl mao zeh, the Russian Koreans.  The Russian Koreans came to Manchuria from the Russian Far East to escape the communists that were taking over the country after the revolution.  They were generally of better socio economic level, better educated, and Russofied.  Being in Manchuria, a Chinese administered area at the time, they took on the Chinese name for people such as themselves, uhl mao zeh, a Korean pronunciation of the Chinese er mao tzu, which literally means a second foreigner (using the more polite translation!).
     The young scholar said that she was not aware of the existence of this group of Russian Koreans until she read my book and wanted to learn more.  She said she had never encountered any mention of uhl mao zeh in either English language or Korean language research that she had read.  Generally speaking, she found in her research that all Russian Koreans were lumped into one group.  The only distinction made was to separate the Sakhalin Koreans from the rest of Russian Koreans known as koryo saram.  I sympathized with her, for I too was unable to find any written material on the Russian Koreans from Manchuria, the uhl mao zeh.  Their numbers were small, but they should be considered a separate group, although most of them were rounded up by the Soviets and packed off to Central Asia to join other Russian Koreans.  Still in all, they were a separate group that received Western education in contrast to their relatives in Central Asia who could only receive Soviet education.
     According to Russian census reports, there are about 470,000 Russian Koreans in Russia and other former Soviet Republics.  I believe those figures are incorrect.  The Russian census takers considered only those households where Korean was the main language spoken!  If Russian was the main language, then they were no longer listed as being Korean.  This is very typical of Russians and their approach and treatment of minorities.  I have mentioned this particular Russian quirk in The Manchurian Tales.  Essentially, if you took on a Russian first name, spoke Russian, and especially if you became a Russian Orthodox, then you were a Russian.  Russians are peculiar in that regard and  have been this way for ages.  As I mentioned in The Manchurian Tales,  Koreans readily accepted the Orthodox faith and took Russian names, therefore, they were quickly accepted by Russians, more so than other ethnic groups that resisted assimilation.
     Those groups that clung to their native faith and spoke their own language were indeed discriminated against and were not accepted.  Nothing has changed.  Just listen to Putin talking about Muslims and other "foreigners" in Russia.  To paraphrase him, he says something to the effect that, "if you accept our way of life, our language, our beliefs, then you are welcome.  If you choose to stick to your way of life, then Russia is not the place for you!"  He is not exaggerating, that is the Russian attitude and has been for centuries.  That is also why ethnic minorities could rise to high positions, regardless of their race, if they embraced Russian way of life and were "Russofied."
     It is the Koreans' willingness to accept the "Russian way" that allowed them to succeed in Russia, whether it was Tsarist, Soviet, or current Russia.  That is why Russians insist on calling them Russian Koreans, Russian first, Korean second, with no hyphen.  If they are not Russofied, then they are simply Koreans even if they hold a Russian passport.
     The United States has something in the area of 1.7 million residents of Korean ancestry.  They are, of course, first, second, and third, possibly even fourth and fifth generation Korean-Americans.  The population of the United States is currently around 319 million, a bit larger than Soviet Union's population at the last count of 293 million and larger than current Russian population of around 143 million.  If the figure of 470,000 is accurate, then the ethnic Korean population is but a drop in the bucket and significantly less than here in the U.S.  The U.S., incidentally, has the largest Korean population outside of Korea itself.  But I don't believe the 470,000 is an accurate figure.  As I stated, Russian census taking is somewhat cock-eyed in that if Korean is not spoken in the household, then those living in that household are not considered Korean.  That, as I said, is a peculiar Russian trait in separating or accepting different ethnic minorities.  If you embrace Russian way of life and speak Russian, then you are considered Russian.  If not, in the words of Putin, "find some place else to live, there's no place for you in Russia."

Pentagon's Obsession with Camouflage Uniforms

     You may not be aware of this, after all, it is somewhat of an insignificant matter in the larger scheme of things.  But our Pentagon has spent an inordinate amount time, effort, and money for camouflage uniforms!  Most of this effort and spending appears to have been for naught, since Pentagon is now going to go for another camouflage pattern uniform!  So, I believe a short history of camouflage or camo uniforms in the U.S. military is in order.
     Camouflage uniforms in our military really didn't come about until the latter part of the 20th Century.  Yes, there have been periodic attempts at some camo uniforms in the past, but nothing stuck, and it really wasn't considered all that important, until the camo uniform craze hit the scene in the early 21st Century.
     It appears that the U.S. military, as well as the rest of the world, was quite satisfied with brightly colored uniforms for centuries.  After all, our U.S. Cavalry fought the Indian Wars in the Southwest wearing blue uniforms with gold strips on trousers!  But the Spanish American War brought about a change when we discovered that blue uniformed soldiers were easy targets for Spanish snipers armed with accurate, long range German Mauser rifles.  So, we copied the British uniforms which were worn in the colonies, especially in India, and the sand colored khaki became the standard.  World War One further proved that dull colored uniforms were better for concealment in the trenches, so the dull mustard and olive drab came into being.  Germany, however, was already experimenting with camouflage pattern uniforms. Germany was always ahead of the game when it came to equipment for fighting wars!
     World War Two saw us wearing at first khakis in the Pacific but later olive drab all around the Pacific and Europe, combat uniforms which later took on the name of fatigues for the Army and Air Force and utilities for Navy and Marines.  Marines, particularly the elite Raider and Paramarine unites used the so-called "frog pattern" camouflage in the Pacific in 1943.  However, some Marine Corps "brass" decided that it didn't look "professional" so it was dropped and only retained for helmet covers.  In 1944 Army paratroopers discovered that their khaki colored paratrooper suites did not provide sufficient concealment so they painted black splotches using brushes (this was before spray paint cans!).  This worked just fine, but of course once again some Army "brass" said it looked "unprofessional" so the practice was forbidden.
     In 1950, during the Korean War, the so called "leaf and twig" camo pattern was developed.  But it was short lived and was retained for helmet covers only, like the Marines "frog pattern" camo.  In the 1960's the Engineering Research and Development Laboratory (ERDL) came up with the early "Woodland" pattern for Vietnam, borrowing some from the Vietnamese "Tiger Strip" pattern.  However, for the most part Vietnam War was fought by all wearing just olive drab, which seemed perfectly adequate.  Some special units "borrowed" the Vietnamese "tiger strip" camo, but it was never official and not widespread in use.  The highly secretive SOG units used dull black spray paint to paint splotches on their OD jungle uniforms and it proved to be excellent for camouflage.  They preferred that over any fancy camo pattern.
     In 1970 the M81 Woodland pattern became the official U.S. camo pattern, for all  services. However, OD green was still the standard fatigue and utilities uniform, perfectly adequate.  In the 1980's Pentagon foresaw a need for desert camo pattern and developed the six color ("chocolate chip") pattern just in time.  But in 1992, during the Gulf War, it was discovered that the "chocolate chip" pattern did not work well so a three color pattern as well as a special night time desert pattern were developed and used.  All branches of service used the same camouflage pattern uniforms.  Navy and Air Force rarely used camo, except for their special units like SEALs.
     We entered the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars with "woodland" and 3 color desert camo but soon things sort of went crazy.  The Marines decided to develop their own camo pattern and spent almost a half a billion dollars on developing the digital (pixelated) MARPAT or Marine Pattern camo in desert and green shades.  The Marines wanted to make sure no one else would use this pattern so the pattern includes tiny little Marine Corps emblem!  This pattern was chosen because it was "modern" and "sexy" looking, and the brass felt it would help attract recruits!  Not to be outdone, the Army abandoned the perfectly good woodland and 3 color desert patterns and developed their own pixilated, digitized pattern, the ACU camo pattern that is currently worn by the Army.  This of course, started what appeared to be a "keeping up with the Jones's"  competition war within the military community.  The Air Force had to have its own camo pattern so it developed a gray shade tiger stripe version for another half a billion dollars.  Navy, not to be outdone, came up with its own blue pattern, and later green and also desert color (for SEALs and "other" sailors!).  This was basically the same pattern as the Marines with slight variations and with a tiny Navy symbol inserted into the pattern like the Marines, so no one else could use this!  This cost the Navy a good half a billion!  This business of inserting tiny insignias so no one else could use the pattern is so childish that it is laughable!  Whatever happened to the famous inter-service cooperation that Pentagon is always talking about?
     In all, the Pentagon had spent around 5 Billion Dollars since around 2004 for development of all these camo patterns!  To make things worse, the Army discovered that their ACU, the new digitized pattern camo uniform didn't work in the high desert environment of Afghanistan, it stood out like a sore thumb!  So Army had to scramble and purchase new camo uniforms using civilian camo pattern that is used by hunters!  So the "multicam" came into being for troops deployed to combat zones.  In rear echelon areas the troops still wear the ACUs.
     Finally, someone in the Armed Services Committee discovered that Pentagon was spending all this enormous amount of money for camouflage uniforms for different branches of service.  The latest word is that there will be one camouflage pattern for all services.  However, chances are that the Marines will not give up their camo, and even Navy might try to hang on to theirs.  Why Air Force and Navy needs camo uniforms is really a mystery!  In fact, it is highly questionable as to why even all Army and Marine units need camo!  I can see combat units wearing camo, those that are exposed to enemy fire.  But troops in rear areas and working in Quartermaster, Medical, etc., have no need for camo!
     Like the Marines, the Army decided on the current useless ACU camo pattern because the "brass" felt that the pattern looked "sexy" and would attract recruits!  Give me a break!  I know that big time college football schools develop fancy uniforms to attract recruits.  Apparently the younger generation is attracted to eye catching clothing, sort of like animals during mating season, more fluff than substance!  Why would the military want recruits who join up because they liked the uniform!  I give up!
     The latest camo pattern that has been developed is called the "operational camo pattern."  It is very similar to the "multicam" now in use in Afghanistan.  The Pentagon chose the new pattern after extensive study and experimentation.  It was learned that the best camo pattern, both for desert environment and for woodland or jungle type terrain was what is known as "Syrian" pattern.  Ironically, it is not worn by Syrian Army!  This particular pattern was first developed by Germans in 1943 and was called the sumpfmuster (marsh pattern).  It was used by Bundesgrenschutz (Border Protection Police) in the 1950s.  The French borrowed the pattern for their involvement in Algeria and apparently the Syrian Army used a version of it at one time, therefor, the name "Syrian" pattern.  So, what's old is new!  All the fancy digitized patterns notwithstanding, the old splotchy patterns work best!
    We, of course, cannot use the "Syrian" pattern, so we modified it a bit, made it look more like our "multicam" and announced that all services will use this camo pattern.  We will see.  In the meantime, Pentagon will have spent close to 10 Billion Dollars developing, manufacturing, then abandoning, all these different camouflage patterns.

America, Beware of Vladimir Putin!

     I don't mean to sound as if Putin is some sort of a "bogeyman," but I think too many Americans take him too lightly, and that includes our politicians.  Despite the new technological age with instant communication and social media that seems to spread news before it even becomes news, America is physically separated from Europe and other countries by great distances.  Except for Mexico and Canada, America is not cheek to jowl with other countries as Europe and Asia has existed for centuries. This causes somewhat of an isolationist view and mentality on the part of some Americans.
     Yes, in some ways he is in our eyes a caricature of a world leader.  He may seem silly to us posing bare-chested on horseback or whatever, but to many in Russia and other parts of the world, among people who are not quite as jaded as we are, he represents a macho image that translates to strength and hope for their people.  It is a mistake for us to wave it off as amateurish posturing by a tin pot dictator.  He is no tin pot dictator, and although his posturing may seem "amateurish" to us, it is convincing and works for others, others that are under his rule!
     Putin's view of the world may not be the same as ours.  He may indeed have a cock-eyed view of the world's geopolitics as far as we are concerned.  But that is precisely why he is so dangerous and not foolish or out of touch as he seems by our standards.  Putin is convinced that the greatest 20th Century geopolitical disaster was the demise of his beloved Soviet Union.  He has openly stated this on many occasions.  He has, as I've mentioned in some earlier blogs, an almost pathological hatred for the United States and what it stands for.  He blames all of Russia's woes on the United States. 
     He is slowly bringing back many of the old Soviet Union ways, sort of sneaking them in!  The first thing that went completely unnoticed by most Americans was the reestablishment of the old Soviet Union anthem as the Russian National Anthem.  The Soviet Anthem was one of the first things that Boris Yeltsin got rid of when he came to power.  Yeltsin revived the old Tsarist Russian Anthem, changed the lyrics of course, getting rid of any reference to the Tsar.  But Putin, as soon as he came to power, got rid of the Russian anthem and reinstituted the old Soviet anthem, claiming that people were not used to the old Tsarist version and that the Soviet version with some word changes was just fine.  Naturally, it went unnoticed outside of Russia.  Little by little, he brought back many of the old Soviet ways, including his rule!
     Putin is not a fool and he knows that he can't revert the country back to a communist state, but he can make enough changes that it will suit his old Soviet style of rule!  Keep in mind that this man spent 16 years of his life as a KGB officer, a job that he dearly loved!  He reached the rank of a Lieutenant Colonel in KGB before the old Soviet Union collapsed.  It is hard for someone like him to shed his old skin and beliefs and become a "new" person.  He had dreamed of becoming a KGB officer since he was a young kid!  To that end he prepared himself physically and mentally.  He may not have been the greatest intelligence officer around, but in his mind, no doubt he was!  For someone who spent all of his youth training, and 16 years of his adult life working to bring down the capitalist West, especially the hated enemy the United States, it is a hard pill to swallow to have to play second fiddle to America now.  That is why he is doing everything and anything possible to tweak America's nose and to push his way as far as he can.
     Fortunately for Putin, our government today gives ground every time he pushes.  If you look back to the last five years or so, especially since the Syrian civil war, every time Putin bulled his way, we gave ground by not responding or complaining, but not doing much except the so-called sanctions for his misbehavior in Ukraine.
     In a recent speech Putin announced that the Third World War was inevitable, and that the United States would be responsible for it for all the recent missteps in our foreign policy.  He boldly proclaimed that Russia was indeed a nuclear power (which it is!) and hinted that it may be forced to use its power to "defend" itself.  He once more stated that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th Century.  Hearing his words, one can't help but feel that he yearns for the old days and blames the United States for everything bad that happened to Russia!  You can't take someone who feels and thinks like that lightly, no matter what you may personally think about his ideas or actions.
     Putin's latest adventure in Syria, entering that mess on the side of Al-Assad, was viewed by many with alarm, and ironically, welcomed by some!  We are a nation so divided politically that our politicians cannot see real danger in front of them unless it has something to do with party politics!  Many of our politicians actually welcomed Putin's intervention in Syria because it allowed them to point an accusing finger at Obama's lack of policy and backbone regarding Syria.  Others simply "poo-pooed" the whole thing saying that let Russia worry about Syria!  It gives us a chance to back off!  Still others are saying that Russia's involvement only destabilizes the region even more and that it will increase the ISIS and Al Qaeda presence.  All of these prognostications are correct!  No doubt the region will be further destabilized, extremists presence will increase, and Russia will get bogged down in Syria just as it did in Afghanistan. However, the bigger danger is that we will come to actual armed conflict with Russian planes or even ground troops.
     To get his way, Putin is willing to risk Russian lives and even possible confrontation with us, because he feels that we will back down!  He has absolutely no respect or fear of Europe.  He is known to joke and refer to France as a wine drinking nation that gives up fighting when the wine supply runs short, referring to France's quick capitulation to Germany during World War Two.  After the recent terrorist incident on the train to Paris where three Americans jumped the gunman, he is said to have joked and said that once again France needed America to bail them out of trouble!   England, he is known to refer to as a nation of "boy" lovers. 
     The rest of Europe he dismisses as of no consequence except for Germany.  However, Germany he feels will side with Russia in a pinch!  He feels that way about Germany because of his personal association (having worked in Germany for 5 years) and his fluent knowledge of German.  Additionally, he is a personal friend of Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor!  Angela, if you don't know, speaks fluent Russian (won a prize for her excellence in Russian when she was a student!) and is a former East German.  Germany, particularly the former East Germany has high unemployment and still has former communists who like Putin long for the "good old days."  Putin, correctly or wrongly, assumes that deep in her heart Angela Merkel is a communist like himself.  They are only two years apart in age and get along famously whenever they meet, able to switch conversations from Russian to German, back and forth without the use of any translators!
     Putin is no Stalin.  But he is, in his own way, very much like all the other Soviet leaders that followed Stalin.  He is essentially no different from Khrushev, Kosygin, Brezhnev, et all.  He knows he can't revert back to the old Soviet Union, but he can try to build a new Russia that is a facsimile of the old Soviet Union.  Perhaps not as large, but still plenty big.  As he said in one of his speeches, "we don't need new territory, we are large enough!"  Ukraine and Crimea was a different story.  Historically those regions were part of Russia and he needs warm water ports desperately, and Crimea provides him with warm water ports.
     The bottom line is that Putin will take whatever he can, by force, if necessary.  He has a deep, abiding hatred for the United States and the west in general with the exception of Germany.  It is a mistake to take him lightly or to give ground whenever he pushes.  The standard Soviet policy was to push as far as they could, until it became not winnable for them, then they backed off.  That is what happened during the Cuban Missile Crises.  That is what happened in Korea during Korean War.  They supported Kim Il Sung until he started losing then they backed off, knowing that China would step in if we (UN forces) got too close to Chinese border.  They did the same thing in Vietnam!  Yes, Russia may fail miserably in Syria, but at what cost?  Syria will fall to ISIS!  Or, they will succeed and bomb the hell out of everyone and Al-Assad will be back in power fully and Russia will gain a solid foothold in the Middle East.  Did you know that Russia has already established a joint headquarters for fighting Islamic Extremists in the region?  Their joint headquarters which includes Russia, Iran, and Iraq is set up in Baghdad!  Hell, we're still in Iraq, what are we doing?

The Effect of Islamic Extremists on Our Society

     Yesterday's terrible and senseless tragedy in Oregon is, unfortunately, another example of the effect of Islamic Extremists philosophy on people everywhere, especially those who are mentally imbalanced.  The police officials investigating the tragedy are reluctant to say anything that would connect the latest horrific act with Islamic Extremists, Political Correctness prevents them from saying what is obvious.  However, it is hard to ignore the Islamic Extremists connection.
     Yes the man was disturbed, mentally sick!  How else could someone carry out such an act?  But according to multiple witnesses, he asked each victim if they were Christian, and if they answered in the positive, he shot them.  Now, would an extremist Buddhist, Hindu or Jew do that?  Not likely, although I suppose anything is possible.  What this disturbed man did was exactly what you would expect for an ISIS/Taliban/Al Qaeda follower to do, blind hatred for Christians.  He could have been a Muslim and a self proclaimed ISIS follower.  Who knows, we won't know until further investigation will reveal more about him.
     However, more than likely he was not even a Muslim, although he could have been a recent convert.  He was probably just a disturbed individual who was mentally and emotionally on the fringe of our mainstream society.  He was no doubt familiar with ISIS and other Islamic Extremists philosophies or beliefs, even if he may not have been a follower of their web site.  There's enough daily coverage in the news about ISIS and other Islamic Extremists that no doubt he had at least the superficial knowledge of what they stand for.....namely death to Christians and Western Society.  Since he felt "outside" of our society, the ISIS philosophy would naturally appeal to him.
     Sadly, with the upsurge of Islamic Extremists worldwide, more and more disturbed individuals outside of the Islamic world identify with ISIS and other such groups.  It is not surprising that ISIS gets so many volunteers from non-Islamic countries!  America is not the only country, the only society that has developed a generation of disaffected, yet entitled young people, who feel that the world "owes" them something.  At the same time, the advanced technological age with instant communication and multitude of other previously unavailable sources of entertainment, contact, information, etc., have desensitized the younger generation to realities of life.  Even going back to the earlier tragedy in Columbine, the teenaged killers were carrying out their murderous plan as if it was some sort of a video game that they played.  They dressed in black trench coats and behaved like they were video game characters!
     Our modern technological society is as much to blame for producing such disturbed individuals as are parents who fail to provide proper guidance, control, and discipline to their children.  Yes, discipline, a word that today is considered "bad," like some sort of a curse word! If a parent disciplines their child by raising their hand, i.e., spanking, better hope no outsider sees it and reports it to the police.  That parent will more than likely face child abuse charges!  Yes, there are real cases of child abuse.  But disciplining ones child by spanking does not, in the eyes of many, constitute child abuse.  However, there are enough "politically correct" people around who consider spanking as child abuse.  That is the world we now live in!
     Ironically, all of the new technological developments, which are supposed to make our lives easier, also encourages some people to "disconnect."  Text messaging allows kids to communicate with each other without physically facing each other.  In fact, text messaging allows them to keep further distance by eliminating any facsimile of physical contact, such a telephone conversation.  Everything becomes so distant, impersonal.  You know that the kids would not say some things verbally, in a phone conversation, or especially face to face, that they do in text messaging.  So, our advanced society is as much at fault in creating a generation or generations of "disconnected" individuals.  If these same people happen to be mentally disturbed, mentally ill....then watch out!
     President Obama made a statement expressing his concern over the latest tragedy. He  said that he hopes that the law makers will now do something about more gun control to stop these incidents from happening again. What essentially takes place each time a tragedy involving guns takes place, gun control advocates push their agenda which is ultimately to forbid private ownership of guns in America.  How naïve to think that mere passage of laws forbidding private ownership will stop all gun violence.  UK has one of the most strict gun laws in the world.  The British Isles occupy a small land mass with a fraction of population that we have.  In urban areas, there are CCTV cameras everywhere.  The Big Brother is truly watching and is everywhere!  Yet, violent gun crime is widespread and on an upswing with illegal gun trade booming!  In America, a huge place compared to the British Isles, and with a huge population, it would be laughable to think that any sort of control could be established, even with Martial Law, to control illegal gun trafficking.  Look how well we are controlling the drug traffic!
     It isn't guns that kill, it is people such as the disturbed individual in Oregon.  A gun is but an instrument, an inanimate object!  Cars kill more people in America more than anything else!  Should we make cars illegal?  Murderers will always find instruments to use for their evil acts, be it a gun, a knife, or even just a rock!  In Japan, knives with blades longer than two inches are illegal to carry!  Longer blades are allowed only in the kitchens of restaurants and homes.  The traditional Japanese swords owned by collectors and enthusiasts must be licensed.  Handguns are illegal, no private ownership whatsoever.  Well, traditionally Japan was never into guns so vast majority of murders have always been committed with knives.  Despite strict "knife laws," knives are the most popular weapons for murder in Japan.  Yakuza, by the way, have been prospering in illegal handgun trade!
     What we need is more attention paid to our mental health care system.  If Obama wants to curb gun violence, instead of creating more laws which seem to never work, more effort should be put into mental health care system.  People who need help should be identified quickly and provided mental health care.  It should be as easy to receive as going to get your flu shot.  It shouldn't be a complicated and an expensive process that discourages and stops people from seeking help.  But providing better mental health care isn't the only solution.  I believe the solution should start at home, with young children who should be provided with proper guidance by their parents, disciplined when required, etc.  Unfortunately, that is probably even harder to accomplish than getting better mental health services.  As far as additional gun laws are concerned, passing more laws will do nothing but provide a platform for politicians to grandstand!  The only way strict gun laws will have an effect is if it is coupled with authoritarian approach by government, by police, like it is in Russia or China.  Yet, gun crime is rampant in Russia, and in China most criminals can't afford guns!  But they are getting there, getting richer so they can afford guns despite strict laws and the police state!