PC Is Destroying Our Ability To Fight Wars

     Like so many "new" liberal ways and thinking, PC or Political Correctness found its beginning in one of the more liberal countries in Europe.  PC caught on immediately with other European countries and came literally flying across the Atlantic to America.  We in America seem think that anything originating in Europe, must be good.  Why else do we take such pains to emulate European fashions and customs?  Note how Madison Avenue is always using terms like, "latest European fashion," or "European Style," etc.  Conversely,  Europeans who look down their noses at us as "uncultured," rough mannered folks, don't hesitate to copy our music and other elements of popular culture.  Blue jeans (strictly an American thing!) have become standard in Europe as well as the rest of the world.  Baseball caps, rock and roll, hot dogs and hamburgers, the list goes on and on.  But, when it comes to intellectual elements of culture, we take more from Europe than they do from us.
     Such is the case with Political Correctness.  We accepted PC with open arms and now have taken it beyond what the Europeans started.  In short, we have over-reacted, as usual, and now have become victims of it!  Some of our candidates for the coming presidential election are using this particular theme, saying that PC is killing our country.  Perhaps they are overhyping the situation, perhaps not.  They are, however, correct in that PC has done great damage to our country, our society as a whole. PC has done irreparable damage in some areas of our culture and society and it has greatly damaged our military and its ability to carry out their mission, that of fighting wars.
     It all began during Vietnam War, when we started to pay more attention to what others may say or think about our conduct of war rather than trying to win!  An ancient Chinese philosopher said, never go to war unless you are prepared to carry it out to the end, to win!  Very simple and direct, doesn't have any hidden meanings, not a riddle, means exactly what it says.  Yet, we have not followed this simple line of thought since Vietnam!  There were only three short wars in which we followed the ancient advice on war.  Our Invasion of Grenada, Invasion of Panama, and the First Gulf War.  We entered those wars prepared to carry them out to the end and win, which we did.  The subsequent war in Afghanistan and the Second Gulf War in Iraq did not follow the same line.  In both wars, initially we seemed to have entered the wars to win, but things got muddled with too many cooks in the kitchen and too many rules!  The result is what we have today.
     During World War Two, if you asked a G.I. in Europe what he was doing there, he would have responded in one way or another that he was there to fight the Nazis, to prevent them from taking over the world.  If you asked a Marine in the Pacific, you would have gotten the same answer except that it would have been Imperial Japan instead of Nazis.  By the time you got to Korea five years later, things were not quite as clear, but still, the response would have been to fight communists, to help South Korea.  Vietnam also was clear cut at first, to help South Vietnam from getting overrun by the communist Viet Cong and NVA. 
     To that point, it was a fairly clear cut mission for our fighting men.  Engage the enemy and defeat the enemy.  If you were a flier, you did this by bombing and strafing.  If you were on the ground, you engaged the enemy in ground combat and tried to destroy the enemy to the best of your ability.  But as the Vietnam War progressed, things began to change.  The American fighting man was asked to risk his life and face the enemy, but with certain rules applied, such as the enemy was to be left alone in certain areas or the enemy could not be pursued beyond a certain point.  Rules began to pop-up making things difficult for the American fighting men who had an extremely difficult job to begin with!  Essentially the G.I.s and Marines in Vietnam were asked to fight the enemy with one hand tied behind their backs!
     Under such conditions, it didn't take long for the morale to start sagging.  But why did this happen?  How did these restrictions come about when they didn't exist before, not during World War Two, not during Korean War.  Our changing society, which embraced such new "intellectual" concepts as Political Correctness began to affect our thinking even when engaging in war!  We were slipping back to the days of chivalrous behavior on the battle field, like the famous soccer game between Germans and British on Christmas day during World War One.  At least it seemed that way.  There were Rules of Engagement that we were to follow.  It didn't matter that the enemy paid no attention to any convention, any rules.  The enemy fought every way it could to win, while we fought by rules established by some lawyers in Washington!
     The reason we were successful in the three wars mentioned earlier that were short was because of their shortness, there was no time for these ridiculous Rules of Engagement to take effect!  Let me just give you an example of just few of these ROEs that our fighting men and women have to abide by in Afghanistan and Iraq or anywhere else where we are engaged in a war against terrorism.
--"Don't shoot fleeing hostile actors."  This means don't shoot at enemy if they turn and run!
--"Only use minimum force (in self defense)."  What the hell does this mean?  Another ridiculous rule....
--"Shoot one and assess."  Assess what?  If you are being shot at that means the other guy is trying to kill you, so you shoot once and wait? 
     The dumbest one of all is what is known as five S's.  Our fighting men and women are taught to apply the five S's in combat! 
--1."Shout" 2."Show" 3."Shove" 4."Shoot"(warning)  and 5."Shoot" (to stop threat).  There's a good chance you'll be in a body bag by the time you go through all five S's!
     Who the hell thinks up these stupid rules?  The JAG office.  Everyone today is so concerned with being charged for misconduct or inappropriate use of force that most G.I.s are reluctant to engage the enemy!  There are more soldiers and marines serving time for having fired their weapons or engaged enemy "improperly" than ever before.  In fact, we've never had so many soldiers in stockades or brigs held on such charges before!  During the well known and bloody Battle of Fallujah, the JAG released another "rule" which became part of the package since.  The rule was/is:  "Do not shoot military aged males, even if they are armed, unless they are pointing or firing their weapons at friendly forces."
Are you kidding me?  A soldier or a marine in the heat of the battle is supposed to withhold firing at an enemy unless he is pointing or firing his weapon?
     I didn't make this up, these are actual our Rules of Engagement (ROE) written by JAG lawyers!  ROE written by lawyers who never saw combat, have no idea what combat is all about.  Yet, they dictate how our fighting men and women are supposed to fight!
     As more rules are written, to conform to Political Correctness, our leaders become more and more confused.  Our generals are reluctant to back their troops and rubber stamp charges filed against our fighting men and women, whether deserving or not.  Those generals that object to this new approach to running the military are fired, usually reported in the media as having been "critical" of administration's conduct of war against terrorism.  That explanation is partially correct.  But the main reason that some senior officers, both field grade and general are fired or forced into retirement is because of their objection to this new military that is just obsessed with rules!
     Given this new "climate" under which we are supposed to conduct warfare, it is a small wonder that the military leaders are confused and muddled in their approach on how to fight ISIS or any one else for that matter.  Neither ISIS/ISIL nor Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram or any other terror group for that matter, follows any rules of engagement!  They use civilians as shields, women and children as suicide bombers, and kill American soldiers any way they can.  But we have to abide by ROE, some silly rules as mentioned above.  I am not suggesting that we should also use the same tactics as the terrorists, I am only saying that at least we should level the battlefield and get rid of those ridiculous Rules of Engagement!  But that won't happen.  If anything there will be more rules added!  That's just how our system operates.  Once we latch on to something, we ride it until it self destructs!

The French snub Iran, the Italians capitulate, and we hold Iftars!

     After giving up so much, paying out so much of tax payers' monies for the Iran Nuclear Deal, we can't even get a penny of it back through commercial deals!  I have been critical of our negotiating abilities and lack of understanding the Middle Eastern and Asian mind-set.  I am sure that readers of my blogs are tired of hearing it, but the latest developments go to prove my point even further!
     Upon getting the windfall from the Nuclear Deal, the first thing that Iran did was to go to Moscow and sign a multi billion dollar deal to purchase the Russian Anti-Missile system.  This was done with the initial influx of cash released by us.  When more funds became available, more weapons were purchased from Russia.  Russia, at this point, was one of the winners (besides Iran who was the biggest winner!) in the Nuclear Deal.  The latest beneficiary is France and the European Union, the other signatories of this so-called Nuclear Deal.  It seems all of the signatories had reason to see the Nuclear Deal go through, their countries benefitted from the deal, all of them except us!
     Iran's President Hassan Rouhani traveled to Europe eager to make some purchases.  Apparently the lifting of sanctions and the latest large influx of funds that we gave up to Iran was burning a hole in his pocket!  What did Rouhani do?  After dangling a teaser before us, saying that Iran was interested in purchasing a fleet of commercial planes for their antiquated airline, he gave the impression that Boeing was one of his choices.  But upon arrival in Rome, he promptly signed a 18 billion dollar contract to purchase 118 Airbuses!  The Airbus is, if you didn't know, a joint venture European Union product, an aircraft that is built specifically to compete with U.S. aircraft industry, namely Boeing! It is primarily a French-German-Italian product.  Then Rouhani traveled to France and signed a contract with Peugeot-Citroen for a deal that will deliver 200,000 cars a year for $436 million over the next five year period!  No Boeing, no GM or Ford, all our money is going to other countries, namely those European countries that were party to the Iran Nuclear Deal!  What a great deal we made!  We gave out and are giving out all this money and getting nothing in return!  Oh yes, we have secured world peace, at least that is what we are being told by our leaders!
     In yesterday's blog I talked about the Shariah Law, the Islamic Law which essentially calls for total domination of the world.  Remember the saying "When in Rome...." i.e., do as the natives, it is good manners for guests to honor the host's customs.  Well, that doesn't apply to Islam.  Whereas non-Muslims would be in big trouble if they did not abide by Muslim customs, the reverse does not apply. At a state dinner in Rome, the Italians did not serve wine and covered up nude statues with large boxes, so that Rouhani would not be subjected to blasphemy!  What a crock!  Wine and those statues are as much a part of Italian culture as their language!  To give in to the demands of the Muslim leader who is a visitor, is unconscionable!  There was much criticism from Italian public for its government's cowardly act.  It is an embarrassment and was called a surrender by some!  Why does the host have to change its tradition and ways for the guest?  It is the guest who should accept the host's ways, but obviously that is not the case with Muslims.  It is an example of Shariah at work, our way or no way!
     In contrast, and to their credit, the French did not give in to Shariah!  The French President Hollande canceled a dinner with Rouhani who demanded a halal menu and no wine at the table.  The French Ambassador to the U.S. explained, "It is not the halal which was a problem, but the wine.  Nobody should constrain anybody to drink or not to drink!"  Good for the French!  Unlike the Italians who so easily gave in to Rouhani and his unreasonable demands, so typical of Muslims, the French stood their ground.  For the French it was an important point.  If they had given in to Rouhani's demands, it would have shown "weakness" in the eyes of the Muslim community.  The French have enough problems with their Muslim community as it is, they don't need to embolden the Muslims any more! Despite Hollande's slight, Iran did not cancel any of its business deals!  At least the French seem to know how to deal with Muslims!
     Our record in dealing with Iran or other Middle Eastern countries has been nothing but miserable.  We don't seem to understand their mind-set at all and are continually giving in to their demands.  Giving in, in their eyes, is a weakness!  So, they see us as a giant patsy!  A giant with a military might that could squash them like a bug, but would never do that because of "weakness."  So, they tweak our nose at every opportunity and squeeze all the money that they can out of us.  They have no respect for us.  Respect in that culture is measured in strength, both physical, namely military power, and none physical, which is commercial, political, and religious.  We have shown weakness in all areas.  Commercially they don't see us at the top any more.  Politically, they have outmaneuvered us at each turn and religiously, Islam has made tremendous gains.  Militarily, although we have shown great power, we never finish what we start and seem to be aimless, directionless in our approach to warfare, so they don't fear us in that regard either.
     The French, to their credit, refused to bend to Islam and chose to cancel dinner with the Iranian President Rouhani.  The Italians, as they have done numerous times in the past, capitulated!  We, on the other hand, bumble our way and give up everything whenever we deal with Muslims.  As for halal dinners, hell, Obama's White House has held several Iftars, post Ramadan dinners!  No leader of non-Islamic country in history has ever held an iftar in the official residence, until Obama!  That would be the same as having a Christmas or Easter Dinner hosted at an Islamic country's leader's residence.  In other words, it would be the same if Rouhani of Iran hosted a Christmas dinner!  Yeah, that would happen when pigs fly!  But Obama hosted an iftar several times, he might do it again after this coming Ramadan!

The Islamic Law

     Most Americans believe that Islamic terrorism is something that is born and taking place outside of the United States borders.  When something like 9/11 takes place, it is because those terrorists from outside had entered the U.S. to perform terrorism.  An act such as the one that took place at Fort Hood when a Muslim Army Major went berserk and shot and killed a number of people is seen as an anomaly, he was a nut case, etc.  The recent San Bernardino massacre is also viewed the same way.  The husband, although a U.S. citizen, was just a nut case who was perhaps mislead by his Pakistani wife who was a recent arrival.  All of the above explanations are correct to a degree, but what most people fail to recognize is that the act of terror was something that was a part of their religious belief.  It was not a case the perpetrators in America were emulating their counterparts in the Middle East.  It was simply an act that according to the Islamic law, the Shariah Law, they had to perform!  A quarter of a century ago, a terror act committed in the name of Islam in America was unheard of, something that just didn't take place.  But with the rise of Muslim population in America, and arrival of new immigrants from the Middle East, these terror acts are becoming more common place.
     A worldwide study conducted by respected international institutions have shown certain results that most countries are reluctant to show their public.  It is for fear of "slandering" Islam, giving Islam a bad name, that much of the information from such studies are withheld from the public.  The study has shown following tendencies with Muslim populations around the world. 
--If the Muslim population is under 2 % of the total population, then usually everything is under radar and no problems exist. The Muslims keep a low profile and are not active.
--At 2 to 5 %, the Muslim population becomes more active and begins to seek converts and targets disaffected.  This is what is happening in America today with the Muslim population of between 3 and 6 % and the disaffected in particular are attracted to ISIS type organizations.
--At 10% the Muslim population becomes increasingly lawless.  Witness France and UK where populations of Muslims are reaching that number!
--At 20 to 40 %  Warfare spreads...this is true of parts of Middle East.
--At 50 % infidels are persecuted.  The country is now Muslim, despite the fact that at least half of the population is still non-Muslim.
--At 80 % or more, it is total intimidation and subjugation of non-Muslims.
     Currently, overall, 6 % of the Europe's population is composed of Muslims.  That is rapidly changing, especially in view of recent influx of Muslim refugees from Syria!  America has a Muslim population of between 3.3 to 7 million, depending on who is doing the counting.  It is anticipated that the Muslim population will increase by more than 66 % within a decade.  That is not counting the influx of refugees that our government has agreed to take in!  What can we expect in a decade?
     Of course not all Muslims are bad and vast majority practice their faith peacefully and are good citizens of their countries.  Unfortunately, there is a percentage that interprets the Islamic Laws literally and tries to convert this world into an Islamic world with Shariah Law.  Shariah Law, which I am sure everyone has heard of, is simply the Islamic Law as written in the Qur'an and other Islamic documents.
     Unlike the Christian Bible or the Jewish Torah, or any of the other texts of major religions of the world, the Qur'an espouses not just religion and philosophy, but political ideology as well.  But the Qur'an is not the only document that the Muslims follow.  There are series of books and documents that are a part of Islamic teachings and are followed by the faithful.  The Qur'an is just one of the guides, or rule books on every aspect of life, including running a government!  Whereas most religious texts were written in ancient times and have been passed down through the ages, albeit, probably with some changes now and then.  The Qur'an and accompanying Islamic documents were written in several stages, some parts as late as the 14th Century!  They are a detailed map on how to live, behave, govern, and thereby serve Allah!  They are totally intolerant of all other religions and repeatedly mentions that "infidels" should be stricken down, annihilated, subjugated!  Where compassion is shown and mentioned, it is all directed at fellow Muslims, not infidels!  As I have already mentioned in the previous blog, slavery is not just condoned, but actually encouraged when it comes to non-believers.  There are just far too many passages in Qur'an and the other documents that refer to total subjugations or extermination of infidels to mention all.  It is not as if it is mentioned only once or twice!
     At this point you might ask, how do peaceful Muslims reconcile these violent and barbaric passages from their texts with their beliefs.  It appears that all those "negative" parts of the Qur'an and other texts are simply avoided, not read or practiced by the peaceful Muslims.  That is the only explanation that can be given because all those references to violence and call for barbaric acts, such as cutting hands and feet of thieves or stoning to death women who commit adultery, or the practice of "honor killing," etc., are there, but are apparently simply ignored. 
     Those passages exist  and they have not been taken out of context!  That is why the so-called "extremists" do perform those acts.  In reality, in the context of the Shariah Law, those that we identify as "extremists" are not extremists at all, they are simply following the Shariah or the Islamic Law, they are being good Muslims! It is not an indictment of Islam, simply a statement of fact.
     I guess the best way to describe the Shariah Law is to say that everything that is in our Constitution is completely opposed in the Shariah!  The Shariah Law is derived from four sources, not just the Qur'an.  The first source is the Qur'an and its 114 chapters!  The second source is a 900 page document, the Sira (The Life of Mohammad), a biography.  The third source is the Hadith, the series of collection of sayings of Mohammad.  When someone is quoting Mohammad, they are not quoting the Qur'an, they are more than likely quoting the Hadith.  The fourth document is The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (also known as Reliance of Traveler, a law book).  The bottom line is that the Shariah Law says, "Obey Mohammad and his laws," period.  A true believer follows the Shariah without questioning.  That is what Al Qaeda and ISIS and other fundamentalists are doing.  But they are not the only ones.  The Mullahs of Iran are an example of others that also believe in the Shariah.
     Islam is totally intolerant of all other religions, beliefs, and way of life.  There is only one way, their way, the Shariah Law.  We need to understand this.  Israel and the Jews in Israel understand this.  They have faced the wrath of Shariah for centuries, they know that there is no such thing as middle ground or peaceful co-existence when it comes to Shariah.  To put it another way, Islam, as it is practice by the so-called "extremists," seeks total domination over non-believers.  To think that we can negotiate with them, somehow strike a middle ground, is both foolish and unrealistic.  Our leaders should make themselves more familiar with the Sharia Law!
    

Islam and Slavery

     Every culture, every religion, every nation has its undesirable past, a dark side.  However, in time, most manage to either push back the negative elements and strive to promote only the positive.  Such is the case with all of the major religions in this world.  Both Christianity and Buddhism promote benevolence and kindness towards others, as does Judaism, Hinduism and Islam.  But, interestingly, it is only Islam that "accepts" slavery as a norm.  That is because only Islam, of all the religions, makes a big difference between Muslims (believers) and infidels (non-believers).  Christians do refer to others as non-Christians, but do not discriminate to the extent that the non-Christians are relegated to the level of someone inferior.  In Islam, a non-Muslim is definitely someone who is inferior, an infidel, and is regarded as such.
     The Bible, the Tora, the Buddhist and Hindu texts may mention slavery, but do not recognize or approve it.  The Qur'an not only recognizes, but justifies slavery and often mentions slaves.  Qur'an 33:50 - "Prophet, we have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slaves whom god has given you as booty."  There are numerous and repeated mention of slaves in the Qur'an.  The Qur'an accepts the distinction between slave and free as part of the natural order.  According to the Qur'an and the hadith (Muhammad's sayings), only children of slaves or non-Muslims could become slaves, never freeborn Muslims.  However, even Muslims could become slaves if they were captured as prisoners of war.  As such, Islam institutionalized slavery and Muhammad took slaves after he moved to Medina and had power.  Is it small wonder then that all the slave traders, the ones who captured and sold slaves were mostly Arabs?  Even in ancient Asia, not just in Africa, they were all Muslims!
     Slaves existed in all cultures and all religions at one time or another.  Our own shameful history in that regard illustrates this perfectly.  We were a nation that was supposedly founded on the principal of freedom, yet slavery was practiced and thrived until a bloody civil war ended it.  Of the developed countries in the world, most certainly among European or Western nations, we were the last to abolish slavery.  But, as history has shown, despite the terrible and shameful past, we have tried to correct the wrong and have been atoning for it ever since!  It doesn't appear that the same holds true of some Islamic nations.  Slavery was officially abolished in Saudi Arabia and Yemen only in 1962.  In Oman in 1970, and Mauritania in 2007, although it appears that slavery is alive and well in that country.  Slavery is openly practiced in Chad, Mauritania, Niger, Mali, and Sudan.  But they are not the only ones.  Although Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, and other Middle Eastern countries supposedly abolished slavery, it is still practiced, although it may not be called slavery!
     There are thousands upon thousands of Filipinos, Pakistanis, and to a lesser degree Malaysians and Indonesians, who travel to the rich Gulf countries for employment and end up working as slaves, albeit, with a salary!  In some extreme cases they are not even paid, but held simply as slaves!  The host governments are always on the side of their rich countrymen who employ these foreigners.  Even in a country such as Egypt, which is not as wealthy as the Gulf countries, vast majority of house servants are Filipino or other nationalities from poorer regions.  Majority are women, and they are treated brutally.  Cases of sexual enslavement is common.  It seems that you only hear about it when the victim manages to get away.  Local authorizes rarely, if ever, do anything.  It doesn't take much to pay off an Egyptian cop or a Saudi investigator!  Besides, as I said before, they will always side with their countrymen, claiming that the foreign female domestics are nothing but "whores" etc.
     If non-extremists in Islamic countries see foreign or non-Muslim domestics as "slaves," you can easily see how the extremists such as the Taliban or ISIS would view non-Muslims, especially women!  Is it small wonder that they are so brutal to their prisoners?  It is not an indictment on all Muslims, far from it.  But it seems to me that Muslims in the Middle East are of a different breed than Muslims here in America for the most part, or Muslims in Asia, like Malaysia and Indonesia.  Of course there are extremists there too, as there are Muslim extremists right here in America.  But for the most part, Islam seems different in the Middle East and Africa than it is here or in parts of Asia.
     I believe that the major difference is that Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc., are religions first and foremost.  They are religions that espouse their philosophy by which their followers attempt to live.  Islam is not just a philosophy.  Islam is more than a way of life, it is a system, an all governing system that rigidly enforces its rules. It is a political system.  But once again, it depends on how an individual chooses to follow it, interpret its rules.  One way, as it is practiced by many, it has a tolerant, benevolent approach to life.  Another way, as some seem to prefer, it is rigid, intolerant of anyone other than those of Muslim faith.
     There was a pseudo religion that popped-up in Japan shortly after the end of World War Two.  Times were tough and people were struggling, just the right moment for a religion or sect that promised all sorts of rewards to surface and attract followers.  That "religion" has become a powerful force in Japan and has even penetrated politics.  It is called Sokko Gakkai, a sort of a Buddhist sect that really isn't.  It is essentially intolerant of all other religions and is very aggressive in its attempt to convert others.  It is more than a religion or a philosophy.  It is a way of life and a political movement, it is like Islam!

Body Counts and Medals

     Way back, at the height of the Vietnam War, our government was releasing some very impressive body count numbers of the enemy killed by our bombing and in ground combat.  I remember being somewhat surprised by the very high numbers reported in the media.  Some of our heavy bombing did kill a lot of NVA, and there were some ground combat engagements that were not typical and involved large forces on both sides, so there were instances of high casualties.  But for the most part, ground combat involved fire fights that, although brutal, did not raise the body count to the level reported in the media.
     So, taking one of those early, prehistoric Texas Instrument calculators (they were a marvel, compared to the abacus and the slide rule, remember the slide rule?), I punched-in the numbers reported by the news media and discovered that, at least according to what was reported, we had killed the entire population of North Vietnam!  I double checked my findings, and the TI calculator did not lie, so who was not telling the truth, and if it was a lie, why tell such a lie?  Later it was uncovered that those inflated numbers were the product of the Friday night "Saigon Follies" press conferences and news reporting by reporters in Saigon who never left the hotel bar to report on the war.  Of course, they did not dream up those numbers.  Those numbers were given to them by the starched uniformed and spit-shined booted, MACV headquarters element, those Army, Marine, Air Force, and Navy Officers who also never saw any combat (although they all somehow managed to earn a Combat Infantry Badge or a Combat Action Ribbon!).  Whatever the case, the numbers were obviously fabricated.  You can't kill the entire population of a country and still be fighting their soldiers!  Where were these NVA troops coming from, China?
     The sad story of the Vietnam War has long been over, more like 40 plus years!  But apparently we still have people in Washington, in our government, with the same mind set.  We haven't learned anything from history!  They say that history repeats itself.  If that is the case, then our war against ISIS is not going to end well.  At least not unless we change our mind set, our tactics, and reporting!
Just this morning, I saw an article on the front page of the newspaper that we have killed around 500 ISIS fighters per week in the last three months for a total of around 7000.  Since our war against ISIS began in "earnest" a little over a year ago (that's when we started bombing them and convinced our allies to join in on the fight), our bombing has killed around 25,000 ISIS fighters, if we are to believe the reported figures.  At the same time, our intelligence reports that there are a total of about 20,000 to 25,000 ISIS/ISIL fighters in Syria and Iraq.
     I am not very good at math, but even I don't need a calculator this time to put the numbers together.  In short, we have killed the entire ISIS/ISIL fighting force if we are to believe the reported bombing casualty numbers.  But if that is so, who is still murdering and creating havoc in the region?  Who is holding all of that territory and key cities in Iraq?  Street gangs?  Something is just not right.  Once again, like some 40 years earlier, the reporting on the war is just not believable.  We have fallen into the same trap.  Those in the rear echelon, sometimes hundreds of miles away, are the ones who are shaping the news of the war to be released to the public.  It is a small wonder that Pentagon announced that a new medal, decoration for combat, will be awarded to drone operators.  This decoration will be ranked higher in precedence than the Bronze Star!  For those who are unfamiliar, the order of precedence for combat medals for valor begin somewhere around the Commendation Medal with a "V" device with the Air Medal with "V" device next higher in precedence.  These two are just below the Purple Heart which is awarded for wounds received in combat.  The Bronze Star with a "V" device is our fourth highest award for valor, just below the Silver Star.  So now, a drone operator sitting hundreds of miles away from danger, can receive a decoration that is higher than a Bronze Star!
     I have all the respect and admiration for those who operate drones and they deserve recognition for their outstanding work.  It requires exceptional high degree of technical skill to operate the drones successfully and decorations should be awarded when it is earned.  But to award a medal to someone who sits in an air-conditioned building hundreds of miles away from danger, a medal higher in precedence than a bronze star just doesn't make sense.  The poor grunt who is in the thick of it, facing all sorts of physical discomfort and actual physical danger of being killed or maimed, rarely if ever receives a medal.  More than likely it will just be a good conduct medal (if he stays out of trouble) and campaign ribbon....oh yeah, today everyone also gets the National Defense Medal as well as the Medal for War on Global Terrorism, but so does the drone operator!
     My beef is not with this business of new medal or drone operators, I just got side-tracked.  My main concern is that we seem to have slipped right into the same mold that we were during the Vietnam War.  The vocabulary is a bit different, and there are a lot more medals and ribbons being awarded (mostly to keep troops happy!), but we are doing exactly the same thing.  Reporting inflated body count numbers to the media and all sorts of other "successes" that are really questionable!  This all ties-in with everything else our government has been telling the public, not just the war on ISIS.  How about the Iran Nuclear Deal that I have been ranting about or the recent "prisoner" exchange.  Everything seems to be inflated to make the administration look good.  Never mind that it is not true, the sentiment appears to be that as long as the public swallows it, it will be happy!

Putting on a Spin and "When Pigs Fly!"

     It is amazing how our government, with the collaboration of liberal media, manages (or at least tries to!) to put on a spin on everything that may appear suspicious, or not exactly right to the American people.  What happened in the last few days, the so-called "successful" prisoner exchange with Iran is a perfect example.
     Initially the media reported that four U.S. citizens were exchanged for seven Iranians imprisoned in the U.S. for "sanction violations," i.e., trying to smuggle out forbidden technological data or equipment, possibly even those related to nuclear weapons.  Neither the media nor the government gave any specifics.  Rather, they made it sound as if it wasn't such a big deal.  Well, if it wasn't such a big deal, why were these Iranians arrested and imprisoned?  In addition, we had 14 Iranian terrorists and suspected terrorists taken off the International Terror Watch List.  This means that these 14, who were mostly in hiding around the world (except for those that were members of Iranian government!) are now able to come out of hiding, travel around, and commit terror acts!  On top of this, sanctions against Iran have more or less been lifted completely, at least in the area where it counts.  Iran is allowed to sell its petroleum on the world market and its banks are allowed to operate without restrictions.  Oh, these two things are "not" connected to the prisoner release, according to the spin doctors in the White House and news media.
     Obviously the government was a bit concerned about the reaction from the public.  Despite the fact that the release of the four U.S. citizens was welcomed universally, just about everyone was concerned about the lop-sided trade.  Of course everyone wanted these U.S. citizens released from Iranian prisons, but at what price?  Starting about yesterday, the media began to refer to released U.S. citizens as being five, not four.  The fifth American was a language student who was held for 40 days on unspecified charges and released, as it so happens, the same time as the four who were traded for the Iranian prisoners.  Yet, in a subtle way, the government and the news media wanted the public to think that the fifth American was part of the deal! Oh, there was or is no claim to that effect, but the suggestion is there.
     Yesterday another bit of information was leaked about this latest deal.  Turns out that we, the American tax payers, are going to pay Iran 1.7 Billion dollars that the U.S. government "owes" to the Iranian government.  Supposedly, the prior regime, the Imperial Iran, had paid us 400 million dollars for purchase of military equipment which we never delivered.  So, considering the time, 37 years, the compounded interest, and other monies that we "owed" Iran, we are paying the outrageous sum of 1.7 Billion dollars.  Kerry, who is a lawyer by training (some lawyer!) explained on CNN that had the case gone to Hague (International Court), the amount would have been much greater and that we were lucky that Iran was willing to settle for this amount!  Kerry stuttered his way through the interview, sounding very unconvincing, naturally claiming it was a good deal!
     A good deal?  The 400 million was owed to the Imperial Iranian government, the government that was displaced by the new and current Islamic government.  We don't owe these Mullahs anything!  There is historical precedence in cases like this.  Some of our companies, like Remington Arms, owed Imperial Russia millions of dollars for rifles that were never delivered because of the revolution and the subsequent change in government.  We (Remington Arms) never paid that money to Russia! That is just one example, yet we are paying Iran?  What about reparation payments to more than 50 Americans who were held hostage by this same government for 444 days!  Kerry says we are "working on it!"  Why not just deduct our claim from the 1.7 Billion that we are about to pay?  Makes sense to me.  Unless our government doesn't even have a figure to work with, in other words, has not done anything to get reparations from Iran!
     Concurrently, with the release of information of our ridiculous payment to Iran, there was an announcement that we have enforced "new" sanctions against Iran for their missile testing.  It was explained that we waited purposely, until the prisoners were released before we "slapped" them with these new, harsh, sanctions.  What clever negotiators we are!  According to a Middle East expert from one of our "think tanks,"  the sanctions that we lifted from Iran on this Nuclear Deal, if you were to measure by weight, were several tons!  The sanctions that we just imposed were less than a slap on the wrist, may be a couple pounds!  We sure are clever and tough in our negotiating.
     But what bothers me the most is that with all the hoopla and self congratulatory statements by our government, we still didn't get an important prisoner released!  Robert Levinson is a former DEA and FBI agent who worked for CIA as a contractor, so he was a CIA employee, albeit on contract.  He disappeared in Iran in 2007.  Initially, six years ago, he was supposedly kidnapped.  But then word got out that he was arrested and imprisoned by Iranian intelligence, then just disappeared.  The Iranian government claims they have no idea where he is!  Can you believe that?  In a country with a totalitarian system where even its own citizens can't do anything without government knowledge, a foreigner just disappears?  I'll believe that, as the old saying goes, "when pigs fly!"  Is our government so naïve that we believe these Mullahs when they claim they have no knowledge of missing American's whereabouts?  For the sake of his family, I hope he is alive, but I am afraid more than likely he was killed by the Iranians, perhaps unintentionally during a torture session!
     Kerry tells us that his "good friend," Javad Zarif, the Foreign Minister of Iran who has already taken Kerry to the cleaners a couple times, "promised" that the Iranians will search for the missing American.  Kerry said the Iranians are fully cooperating with us on this and he is certain everything will be done to locate Levinson.  I know I am repeating myself, but, oh yeah, "when pigs fly!"

Our Wonderful Deal Making with Iran

     We seem to have a long history of making "wonderful" deals with Iran in which they always get more in the process.  Such was the case when we made a deal with them some 36 years ago when Iran held hostage more than 60 of our embassy staff in Tehran for 444 days!  Iran had committed a terrorist act, an act that was totally against all international conventions, against the diplomatic convention that they were supposed to abide by as a nation.  But what did we do?  We first protested, but that didn't work.  Then we attempted a military rescue which went south, the famous Desert One fiasco.  Next we closed their embassy in Washington and sent their diplomats home!  Then, together with the completely "toothless" UN, we imposed sanctions and Iran simply thumbed their nose at everyone.  It is small wonder that Iran and other "uncooperative" countries have total lack of respect and regard for the outdated and ineffective UN!
     There is a rule by which countries operate their diplomatic missions abroad, informally it is called a "tit-for-tat" rule.  We even have a special office set up for that in the State Department.  In other words, if country one kicks out two of our diplomats, then we kick out two of their diplomats of equal rank.  If country two allows our diplomats to have only one vehicle, then their diplomats are allowed to have one vehicle only, so on and so forth.  Generally speaking, that rule is applied across the board, more or less.  However, it seems we are always behind the curve.  For instance, in Saudi Arabia our female members (family and employees) of our mission are not allowed to drive cars because that country does not allow women to drive.  Yet, the Saudi women are allowed to drive in our country!  Mexico allows our diplomats to register only one car for personal use (with diplomatic plates) while we place no such restrictions on Mexican diplomats in the U.S.  When you consider the fact that we have less than ten diplomatic and consular missions in Mexico (the number varies since we open or close small posts depending on funding) while Mexico has over 48 in our country, something just does not balance!  So, you get the point.
     For the past couple days the big story in the news has been that Iran had detained ten of our navy personnel, held them for several days and used them for propaganda purposes.  They did exactly what Taliban, Al Qaeda, or North Korea (or the old Soviet Union) would have done, which was to make one of the sailors "apologize" and admit "guilt" for entering Iranian waters.  It was a very unpalatable thing to watch on TV, thankfully, no American sailor appeared to have been physically abused or hurt.  Then, of course, the big news that in a magnanimous gesture, the government of Iran released the ten American sailors.  Shortly word began to leak out that our illustrious Secretary of State John Kerry had negotiated with his good friend the Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif to secure the release of the Americans.  Word also leaked that both President Obama and Kerry had offered their apology to the Iranians!  Now since when do you need to apologize when it was an unintentional straying into Iranian waters due to mechanical breakdown?  Of course, both the White House and the State Department vehemently denied that either Obama or Kerry had apologized to the Iranians.  But it is highly unlikely that Iran would have released the sailors so quickly had there not been an apology!
     In many ways, dealing with Iran is like dealing with North Korea.  Both countries's leadership seem to have unreasonable hatred for the United States.  The North Koreans have kept that hatred simmering for the past 63 years and have used it to motivate their people.  Iran has only been our enemy for 37 years, a little more than half the time the North Koreans have hated us.  However, don't be fooled by the fact that its only been 37 years that Iran has called us the "Great Satan."  Their hatred for us has not only a political base, but religious as well! So, when all is said and done, Iran's leadership is no more trustworthy than North Korean, when it comes to our relations!
     Now this morning the big news is that the four U.S. citizens held in Iranian jail will be released.  None of the four had committed any crime, although they were accused of being spies, a totally unfounded accusation.  In return for the release of four U.S. citizens, we are releasing seven Iranians held in U.S. for "violating sanctions."  In other words, these seven were involved in trying to smuggle electronics or other prohibited items to Iran and perhaps were also involved in actual espionage.  The government will not release the details of their violations of sanctions.  But wait, that isn't all.  We are also going to remove 14 Iranians from the International Terrorist Watch List!  If that wasn't enough, conveniently the IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency) announced that sanctions against Iran's oil sales will be lifted completely, immediately.  Now Iran has been selling oil through intermediaries since this summer when the "Iran Nuclear Deal" was penned and they have been selling it on the black market for a long time.  What has happened now is that they can openly sell their oil and also receive money for the sales in their banks, which was not allowed before!
     So, to gain the release of four U.S. citizens who were held on trumped up charges, we release seven known Iranian "spies" (I don't know what else to call them when they were illegally trying to sneak out forbidden technology), take 14 known and suspected Iranian terrorists off the International Terror Watch List, and open up Iran's ability to freely trade in oil on the international market and allow their banks to do business in U.S. and elsewhere.  I don't know, in my book it was a lop-sided deal.  But I believe that isn't all.  I believe this whole thing started when Kerry was "negotiating" to get the release of those sailors who got caught straying into Iranian waters.  For that, Kerry and Obama paid the price of apologizing to Iran for something that needed no apology!
     I said earlier that Iran was like North Korea in certain ways.  One of those similarities is their demand for apology for something that needed no apology!  For them it was an important point to get us to grovel!  North Koreans would define it as our "loss of face" and their gain!  Iran, no doubt would define it more or less the same way.  It is a victory for them to have the "Great Satan" apologize to them, even if it was for only an imagined offense!  Apparently our leaders in Washington don't understand this particular aspect of Iranian culture.  Either that, or our leadership simply doesn't care and doesn't mind humbling itself, literally kow-towing to Iran just to gain some political points at home!  Yes, it is great to get those U.S. citizens out of Iranian jail.  Yes, we should try to always get Americans out of foreign imprisonment if they are falsely imprisoned.  But at what cost?  Was it a smart move to trade six Taliban prisoners who were in Gitmo for that deserter Bowe Bergdahl?  Those freed terrorists, wherever they are, are probably planning to, if they haven't already, tried to kill Americans.  But I guess it is important for this administration to get political points, after all, why do such a lop-sided deal?