Putin is taking center Stage in the Middle East but what is his real agenda?

Moscow’s military campaign in Syria is relying on supply lines that require air corridors through both Iranian and Iraqi air space. The only alternatives are naval supply lines running from Crimea, requiring a passage of up to 10 days round-trip. How long that can be sustained is unclear.

Early on the morning of Sept. 30, a Russian three-star general approached the American embassy in Baghdad, walked past a wall of well-armed Marines, to deliver face-to-face a diplomatic demarche to the United States. His statement was blunt: The Russia military would begin air strikes in neighboring Syria within the hour — and the American military should clear the area immediately.

It was a bout of brinksmanship between two nuclear-armed giants that the world has not seen in decades, and it has revived Cold War levels of suspicion, antagonism and gamesmanship.

With the launch of airstrikes in Syria, Russian President Vladimir Putin instigated a proxy war with the U.S., putting those nation’s powerful militaries in support of opposing sides of the multi-polar conflict. And it’s a huge gamble for Moscow and quite difficult and logistically complex. The Russians don’t have much in the way of long-range power projection capability.

That and other questions about Russian military capabilities and objectives are taking center stage as Putin shows a relentless willingness to use military force in a heavy-handed foreign policy aimed at restoring his nation’s stature as a world power. In that quest, he has raised the specter of resurgent Russian military might — from Ukraine to the Baltics, from Syria to the broader Middle East.

VLADIMIR Putin is preparing to send 150,000 troops to Syria in a bid to wipe out the evil Islamic State once and for all.

The Russian leader is reportedly mounting an enormous military mission to take control of the terror group’s stronghold of Raqqa.

The city is the self-declared capital of ISIS in Syria and is patrolled by as many as 5,000 jihadi members.

Putin is set to mobilize 150,000 reservists who he conscripted into the military earlier this week.

Russia-Putin_3151917b

It is very clear that Russia wants to sweep up the west of the country, taking Raqqa and all the oil and gas resources around Palmyra. Putin knows that this is fast becoming a race to Raqqa – to secure the oil fields they need to cleanse the region of insurgents, and the IS capital is vital to do that while Obama stance and strategy is to .

It comes a day after Russian jets obliterated nine ISIS outposts in just 24 hours using bunker-busting bombs.

Russian jets pounded terrorist targets and blew up a command center, potentially killing dozens of fighters.

Confirming the successful raids, Andrei Kartapolov from the Russian army vowed to ramp up the pressure, saying: “We will not only continue strikes… We will also increase their intensity.”

And Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said: “Over the past 24 hours, Sukhoi Su-34 and Su-24M fighter jets have performed 20 sorties and hit nine Islamic State installations.

A bunker-busting BETAB-500 air bomb dropped from a Sukhoi Su-34 bomber near Raqqa has eliminated the command post of one of the terror groups, together with an underground storage facility for explosives and munitions.

isis.w529.h352.2x-750x400

These and other highly exact means of attack in recent days have been used to target objects of Islamic State terrorists. It is reported that these command posts, stores of weapons and oil products, workshops where weapons of suicide bombers are made.

Meanwhile a terrorism expert revealed that ISIS have vastly exaggerated their military strength and called on Western leaders to launch a coordinated fightback which would obliterate the hate group.

Has ISIS become its own worst enemy with its campaign of terror against the West, which has prompted an international backlash?

Islamic-State-troops-358823 (1)

Other reports from those strategists say it won’t take very long at all to drive them, if not out of all of Iraq or Syria, then certainly the majority of their territories.

“They will hide in towns, but I would say do not to follow them as they would use innocent civilians as human shields.”

David Cameron initially gave the Russian air strikes a cautious welcome and said the UK would need to look very carefully at Putin’s operations. David Cameron said Russia was targeting anti-Assad rebels over Daesh militants.

David Cameron Has said Russian President Vladimir Putin is making a terrible mistake by sending jets to prop up Syrian tyrant Bashar al-Assad.

Cameron

The Prime Minister said most of the Russian airstrikes in Syria appeared to have been in areas not controlled by Islamic State but by other opponents of the regime.

He told the BBC the Russians were “backing the butcher Assad, which is a terrible mistake for them and for the world. It is going to make the region more unstable. It will lead to further radicalization and increase terrorism.asaadputin

“I would say to them: ‘Change direction, join us in attacking Isil, but recognize that if we want to have a secure region, we need an alternative leader to Assad’.”

But yesterday he warned the intervention is making the situation worse and helping to support the “butcher” president Bashar Assad.

Separately Mr. Cameron pledged to “beef up” the SAS and double the number of British drones to combat ISIS militants in an interview ahead of today’s Conservative conference.

The Prime Minister said investment in Special Forces and surveillance was essential to meeting the terrorist threat facing the UK.

He revealed that the UK will buy a fleet of 20 new Protector Drones capable of targeting IS extremists in Iraq and Syria.

The Russians called it Center 2015: a series of military exercises they carried out in mid-September involving some 95,000 troops. In contrast to common practice, Moscow outlined publicly with great specificity what type of exercises its troops conducted. Its Hind attack helicopters, for example, practiced rocket and bombing runs against ground targets and provided air cover at very low altitude to ground forces. They fired unguided rockets against military columns below. They practiced flying with one engine off—simulating engine failure—at just 650 feet above the ground.

bombs

Whether Russia’s incursion into the increasingly deadly Syrian civil war was foreseeable or not—and if it was, whether it was deterrable—is now moot. Russian President Vladimir Putin has in an instant changed markedly the course of a conflict that has claimed at least 250,000 lives and displaced millions—numbers that may yet grow much higher. Moscow and Iran, Damascus’s heretofore primary benefactor, are now making it clear that they are all-in when it comes to defending the current regime. On September 21, Iran began dispatching hundreds of elite Quds Force soldiers—the expeditionary arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard—as well as its leader, Qassem Suleimani, to lead ground assaults backed by Russian airpower against the forces opposing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. They have since been joined, according to intelligence reports, by deployments of Iranian and Iraqi Shiite militias.

They are there for a very specific reason, which is not simply to combat ISIS. By October 5, in fact, the Pentagon had become convinced that the majority of Russian air strikes thus far had targeted not ISIS units, but U.S. trained rebel groups in various parts of the country. The Russian troops are there to combat anyone and everyone who might fight against Assad, who the U.S. and its coalition partners still insist has to go. Indeed, on September 29, at the United Nations, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir could not have been clearer: “Assad has no future in Syria. Any attempt to whitewash him or make him acceptable is a nonstarter,” he told reporters.

The Russian intervention, as President Barack Obama, al-Jubeir and everyone else involved understands, comes at a critical moment. Despite the relative passivity and ineptness of the United States in funding and training anti-Assad rebels, the dictator’s position was slowly eroding as he attempted to fight off multiple rebel groups of varying sectarian and ethnic stripes (everything from hard-core ISIS fighters to more “moderate” Sunnis to Syrian Kurds). For Putin, a man who says repeatedly—because he believes it—that the greatest “geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century was the demise of the Soviet Union.

But from Moscow’s perspective, there likely was more to it than that—much more. The move provides a foothold in a part of the world that the Soviet Union was kicked out of four decades ago. At a moment when the United States appears to be washing its hands of the increasingly bloody and chaotic region, it gives Russia an expanding military presence in the Mediterranean on the doorstep of a NATO ally (its newly established airfield at Latakia in eastern Syria sits just 75 miles from the border with Turkey), and the gambit may yet serve as leverage with the West as Putin seeks to get out from under economic sanctions imposed as a result of Moscow’s annexation of Crimea in Ukraine.

obama-putin_2637988b

Is Putin’s actions game-changing? Obama seemed less impressed—or less willing to congratulate the Kremlin on its cunning, at least in public. All this was done out of a position not of strength but of “weakness,” he said at a White House news conference in early October. “This is not a smart strategic move on Russia’s part.”

Throughout much of the Middle East, that declaration was met with howls of derision (for reasons that we will get to); at home, it was dismissed by many as petulant spin from a president who had been badly wrong-footed in this war. But whether Obama had been wrong-footed or not, the logic behind what he said is not obviously wrong. That Syria’s a snake pit couldn’t be more obvious. And it’s true, as sources in Moscow and the Middle East acknowledge, that if Russia decides more troops are needed to bolster its position, it may be drawn into a quagmire it can ill afford.

Despite a still-grim economy in Russia, Putin remains popular in his country. Most of what he does to show that Moscow is a serious player on the world stage only buttresses that good opinion. But the public appetite for a war against anti-Assad rebels in Syria appears limited, to say the least.

In Sunni Arab capitals around the Middle East, one word is being uttered with increasing frequency: “Afghanistan.” Not the ongoing post-9/11 U.S. war there, but the one before it: when the mighty Soviet army was driven out by jihadi rebels (who were funded by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab states) and armed by the United States. As a student of what is known in Russia as the “catastrophe,” Putin knows that the humiliating Soviet withdrawal came in 1989, after a decade of war.

By 1992, his beloved Soviet Union ceased to exist. He also knows that the same countries that aided the Afghan rebels in the 1980s are now funding anti-Assad rebel groups.

So should the United States just say, “After you, Vladimir Vladimirovich? Be our guest! Syria’s all yours,” as GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump, among others, has advocated? If at least part of Putin’s plan is to combat ISIS—which, after all, the U.S. seeks to “degrade and destroy”—shouldn’t we welcome Moscow’s intervention, as Secretary of State John Kerry indicated Washington might?

The reasons why that’s probably a terrible idea are numerous. The deployment of the Russian military and increased Iranian ground forces means Assad can stay in power for as long as his two patrons desire. At the same time, there is also little evidence that the axis supporting Assad has the wherewithal to crush the Sunni-backed rebel groups.

It’s hard, therefore, to draw anything but the grimmest of conclusions. Syria—already a “geopolitical Chernobyl,” as former CIA chief David Petraeus recently put it—is about to get worse. Is it possible that the advent of Russian reinforcements is likely only to cement a brutal stalemate that has driven millions of people from their homes, radicalized the region, cause a humanitarian apocalypse, and turn Syria into a magnet for global jihadists?

syriacivilians-inspect-a-site

The Russian move into Syria will only deepen concern among Washington’s traditional allies in the Middle East about U.S. goals in the region. Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies have all watched, with varying degrees of alarm over the last five years, as the Obama administration zealously pursued a nuclear deal with Iran, an archenemy to all of those countries. Obama did so over their strenuous objections. Many suspect—indeed, some are convinced—that his overarching goal in the region was to legitimize Iran, integrate it into the international system so as to, as his stance was back in 2014 to create an “equilibrium” between “Sunni, or predominantly Sunni, Gulf states and Iran in which there’s competition, perhaps suspicion, but not an active or proxy warfare.”

If Obama’s goal was to get Iran to that place, starting with a nuclear deal, how likely was it that he was going to attack Syria in the wake of its chemical attacks, even having drawn a “red line” in 2012? Similarly, Tehran didn’t want a more aggressively funded and trained Western-backed rebel force in Syria, and Obama hasn’t done much to provide one. Had there been some firm action, we would not be in the place we are in.

This relative inaction has bred toxic suspicions throughout Washington’s traditional allies in the region—suspicions that are rarely voiced publicly but have hardened over the past 18 months. Simply put, they believe the Obama administration has not just pulled away from the Middle East but rather switched horses—backing Iran in search of that equilibrium the president spoke of last year. The White House has consistently and furiously denied this.

Vladimir-Putin-Islamic-State-troops-609757

Now, with Putin in Syria and Obama just 15 months from his White House retirement, the likelihood that the U.S. will do anything of consequence to change the status quo on the ground is slim. It seems extremely unlikely that Obama will risk a direct conflict with Putin. Any hope of a no-fly zone in Syria, or even an intensification of U.S. airstrikes, is likely gone as well. Indeed, with Europe under tremendous pressure from the crush of Syrian refugees, the fear among Sunni Arabs is that the West will latch on to Putin and Iran as the only hope for reining in Assad.

But that’s not why Russian troops are now fighting in Syria. They are there to prop up Assad by helping him destroy “terrorists”—defined as anyone fighting against his regime. It’s been about four and a half years since Syria’s civil war commenced—since it became a “geopolitical Chernobyl.” The meltdown may have only just begun.

ALL LIVES MATTER

A man raises his arms at a rally during the National Action Network National March Against Police Violence in Washington December 13, 2014. Thousands of demonstrators gathered in Washington on Saturday for a march to protest the killings of unarmed black men by law enforcement officers and to urge Congress to do more to protect African-Americans from unjustified police violence. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS CRIME LAW CIVIL UNREST) - RTR4HWG2

Harris County Texas Sheriif Ron Hickman is not quite sure why suspect Shannon J. Miles allegedly shot and killed his deputy, Darren Goiforth, last week. Police investigating the homicide have not been able to identify a motive but Hickman has a theory and it involves Black Live Matter.

“I think that’s something that we have to keep an eye on,” he commented. “The general climate of that kind of rhetoric can be influential on people to do things like this. We’re still searching to find out if that’s actually a motive.”

Then he took more direct aim.

“We’ve heard black lives matter, all lives matter,” Hickman said. “Well, cops’ lives matter, too. So how about we drop the qualifier and just say lives matter?”

Fox News than took this rhethoric and ran with it. Hasselbeck from ‘Fox & Friends’ asked conservative writer Kevin Jackson why the Black Lives Matter movement hasn’t been classified as a “hate group”, and an onscreen banner the network ran labeled ‘Black Lives Matter’ a “Murder Movement.” Bill O’Reilly later piled on

This past Wednesday, Hickman appeared on Fox News and said he isn’t quite sure if Black Lives Matter is to blame, but he still has his hunch. “You can’t help but wonder if there are people who are susceptible to the message that someone should lash out and make targets of police officers,” he said. “You can’t help but wonder.”

Wondering is fine, but directly accusing Black Lives Matter of promoting violence against police without any evidence is stereotyping at its finest. A black man allegedly killed a police officer, and now all black people involved in the movement are being indicted for the crime.

Black Lives Matter is an easy target because of its high-profile media presence and its ability to galvanize. Miles is held up as a representative of a group, rather than viewed as an individual — which frequently happens when it comes to race, for better or for worse. As Shaun King wrote for The Daily Kos “Just because this man who killed Officer Goforth was black, doesn’t make him a part of this movement any more than being white qualifies you as a member of the Ku Klux Klan.”

The argument that the Black Lives Matter movement is driving individuals to kill cops is specious, and if someone brings it up, here are five things you can tell them.

  1. Nobody doubts that being a cop can be hard and dangerous. But statistics show this is not any more true today than it was last year or the year before that.

mike brown

Police officers in Ferguson monitoring protests one year after 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot and killed by officer Darren Wilson.

And if statistics are any indicator, being a police officer may actually be less dangerous in 2015 than it was in 2014. According to numbers from Officer Down Memorial Page, an independent nonprofit that tracks cop killings, 24 officers were shot and killed in the line of duty so far this year, but 29 were killed during the same time period in 2014.

And while those 24 deaths are obviously tragic, 2015 has actually seen fewer year-to-date shooting deaths of police officers than nearly every other year in the past two decades. The lone exception was 2013, when the FBI says killings of police overall hit a 50-year low.

And to those who say the race of the officer matters in these targeted killings, half of the police shot and killed this year were black.

The Counted: number of people killed by police this in June alone this year reached 500 which will keep the US on track for the civilian death toll to reach over 1,000 by the end of the year.

525

Resentment toward police officers who abuse their authority existed before Black Lives Matter.

Anyone who points to the “rhetoric” of Black Lives Matter as a root cause of violence doesn’t know anything about black history. In 1988, N.W.A released “Fuck tha Police” to protest police violence and racial profiling of the black community. The song, like hip-hop in general, and now Black Lives Matter, has often been blamed for the resentment black folks feel toward law enforcement. But this aggressive criticism of police, like the concerns voiced by Black Lives Matter, is a response to mistreatment at the hands of police officers. And it’s that mistreatment, not “rhetoric,” that continues to fuel this resentment.

Back in 2012, a CNN commentator by the name of LZ Granderson summed up why he and many black folks distrusted about law enforcement:

“when you’ve been pulled over for no good reason as many times as I have; when you’ve been in handcuffs for no good reason as many times as I have; when you run out to buy some allergy medication and upon returning home, find yourself surrounded by four squad cars with flashing lights and all you can think about is how not to get shot, you learn not to trust cops”.

Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Montgomery_arrest_1958

And to anyone who says Martin Luther King Jr. was more thoughtful with his rhetoric, remember that he was also blamed for inciting violence against the police. Simply put, when a movement is countering the dominant narrative with truth — and particularly, unapologetic truth — that movement is blamed for inciting violence. It’s a tired, old argument.

  1. The idea that Black Lives Matter and the idea that the lives of cops (or anyone else) matter are not mutually exclusive.

When people say “Black lives matter,” it is because this nation has made it clear that it often doesn’t agree. The phrase “black lives matter” does not — and has never meant — that the lives of police officers, or anyone else, don’t matter. As Janell Ross pointed out in The Washington Post.

To Hickman and more than a few law enforcement union leaders and public spokesmen around the country, it seems that in a world in which Black Lives Matter, police lives accordingly do not. That sounds a lot like saying that effective policing and law enforcement where officers feel and remain safe cannot happen unless those same public officials are free to do their work without regard for the civil rights and liberties of people of color in the communities they police.

A cop getting murdered is awful. Their lives do matter. But to place blame on the Black Lives Matter movement and claim it promotes the idea that only black lives have meaning is false, divisive and especially misguided. The movement’s premise is that all lives are important, but every life isn’t treated as such.

  1. The Black Lives Matter movement doesn’t promote violence against police officers or anyone else.

black-american-teenager-police-arrest

No one who claims to speak for the Black Lives Matter movement has promoted violence as a means to achieve an end. The message the movement spreads has nothing to do with inflicting violence or pain against police officers — or anyone else, for that matter. It is simply a call to end the police brutality and misconduct that disproportionately take a toll on black bodies.

It’s entirely possible to simultaneously want to reduce police shootings and want to keep police officers safe. In this regards, the goals are mutually beneficial. Black Lives Matter activists have proposed at least 10 policies that aim to hold law enforcement accountable without putting them in harm’s way, ranging from ending aggressive low-level policing and instituting better police training to limiting standards for use of force and equipping cops with body cameras.

Furthermore, if Black Lives Matter is a movement committed to enacting reform through systemic change to policing priorities and tactics, how, exactly, would killing a cop help them in that goal?

That’s not to say that people haven’t said inappropriate things at protests against police violence, but the actions of a few, again, do not represent the majority. The fact that critics of Black Lives Matter seize upon one impolitic act while ignoring the rest of the movement’s message, again, speaks to a broader disconnect in this debate.

  1. Cop killers face the full punishment of the law, and everyone thinks that’s how it should be.

casket

CREDIT: Jewel Samad. Officers carry the casket of Wenjian Liu, a NYPD officer killed along with his partner, Rafael Ramos, in December 2014.

When a civilian kills a cop, justice is swift. Lamont Price, Christopher Monfort and Myles Webster, who all killed cops, were punished to the full extent of the law. Cops, on the other hand, are less likely to be convicted for killing a civilian.

Even over the past year, the cops who killed 18 year-old Michael Brown, 19-year-old Tony Robinson, 22-year-old Rekia Boyd and 43-year-old Eric Garner faced no legal repercussions for their actions. And despite the controversy, many people both in and out of law enforcement saw no problem with those decisions.

There’s a glaring double standard here. Police officers are heavily protected by the legal system: they are authorized to use force in ways civilians are not; their excessive force cases are often investigated by members of their own department; and most people are reluctant to second-guess an officer’s decision to use force — even in courtroom settings.

Granted, at least 41 cops have been indicted on murder or manslaughter charges this year for killing civilians in the line of duty. But a 2015 Washington Post analysis found that of the thousands of fatal shootings by police since 2005, only 54 officers have been charged. Far fewer were actually convicted.

Police-militarization

The problem as I see it, is that people have stopped listening to one another a long time ago. There is simply no communication. No leadership. Our streets has become a war zone where hundreds of unchecked fanatical law enforcement officers are out of main street USA not following protocol and carrying out street justice against the very citizens it is sworn to protect and serve. Some as we see every single day are acting as judge and executioner.

We see this is in the military. In most every career but mostly in high risk careers. People develop phobias, psychosis, fears, insecurities and react. Some are racists, troubled, plagued by alcoholism, drugs, relationships that due affect their work in a variety of means. Some have PTSD, anger management, anxiety issues that go unchecked. A great deal of the simply bomb waiting to explode.  An IED lying dormant for the time your ignorance rolls over it. The questions is, who developed that IED?

When a police officer gets killed, entire departments empties out to seek out the killer and will stop at nothing and use whatever faculties and force to get the job done. What happens when an innocent black or white child gets killed non-related to law enforcement?

Everyone needs to take a hard cold look in the mirror. There are a great deal of amazing law enforcement officers out there but we need more out of them. We need them to take a stand against the officers the make this country the most corrupt. To stop turning the blind eye. To being turning in the ‘bad cop’.  To remove these vigilante officers off our streets. To earn the respect and integrity behind the shield they wear.  In turn, we will all hopefully unite and become color blind. Restore to order and regain our constitutional freedoms and rights.

brian-moore-funeral

Here are police officers in dress blue giving their respects to a fallen officer. On patrol for a better part of a century, officer’s uniforms varied but were merely non-threatening but commanding button-down grey/blue/black shirts, neckties, slacks, black shoes, navy jackets and peaked hats. In colder months, a leather jacket was worn. This photo along with  the policeman’s oath represented integrity, honor  and pledge to serve his fellow man with “favor, skill, knowledge and no malice or ill-will”.

coppies

This photo is something you would find in Kabul, Afghanistan or Mosul but this is police response teams on the Main Street USA.  Why is our police waging war against the very citizens it swore to protect? Do the police consider it’s citizens Terrorists?

ALLLIVESMATTER rich or poor. We the law and the citizens for whom they serve need to respect and honor one another. It is a two-way street. Not one of each other is better than the other. If someone breaks the law, the law-breaker regardless of stature needs to be held accountable for his/her actions. In fact, if a crime is committed by an officer of the law, they should be held to stricter standards like all leaders in our communities and in our administrations.  We need to restore order, eliminate chaos, and focus on our true enemies here and abroad.

Mutual respect is the foundation for honesty, trust and meaningful communication. Right now, we need mutual respect for a new mindset and transition for re-establishing a proper regard for the dignity of the officer and all citizens. In order for relationships to remain healthy, both the public and public servants must be equally respected, appreciated but neither should expect to receive or expect any praise for doing what it is his or her job to do. The truth is that anytime anyone shares their hand or heart, they should be valued and appreciated for it. It is defined as a proper regard for the dignity of another. Policing and the public is a conveyance of a relationship like a marriage that contains value. We as Americans have that capacity to care and love. It is inherent. We have seen that in each other in 9/11 when we become one.

StudentServices_CampusPolice_1

Mutual respect is intentional. Based upon traditional values and acts of appreciation.  Modern men and women have been programmed in part to dislike each other. We are living in an uncivilized world perpetrated by terrorism. We are also living in a corrupt world led by corrupt leadership and blinded by misconceptions, broken policies and agendas.

We need to re-structure our government. Establish new protocols and psychological assessments and review boards before placing those in powerful positions as part of stringent background checks and training. These must be integral for a new set and dimension of strategies and standards of training. We need to re-build our nation from within before we break down the chains of terrorism abroad. If we want our citizens to be accountable for their actions, we have to insist that our police and everyone involved in the legal process be accountable equally. ALLLIVESMATTER – EQUALLY.

Credits; AP

Why is the United States the Police Department for the World?

Why is it incumbent for us to intervene in almost every conflict and put our troops in harm’s way? With the ever escalating fiscal crisis in our country and our own domestic conflicts to fight here with our oversight committees in Washington, there appears to be hundreds of oversights to be accountable right here.

The United States is simply not the emergency police service of the world when another country pushes the buttons for 911 as no other country dialed in on 9-11 in New York. Our interests are served just fine enough with diplomacy, not military might. We have the Department of Defense, not the Department of War nor the Department of 9-11 Crisis.

military fighting

Our past Presidents has thrown us into Wars that is not our fight but into a conflict that is simply a civil war and unrest between rival nations and not a war with the United States. Obama was a President voted into office because of his views in part to his approach to the use of armed forces so Americans chose a candidate who has opposed Bush’s was in Iraq and bring U.S. commitments back in line where the Norwegian Nobel Committee thought so to all too soon. However, as we saw all, Hussein was the only Muslim and President in history who bowed to an Arab Sheik which is a sign of weakness. This set an epitome.

If we are stockpiling weapons, why are we handing billions of dollars of weaponry to countries that are inevitably used against our troops? War does have its place when it is justified as in War War II. We must be serving the American people, not the Arab world or the Islamic state.

We are the problem. We have allowed our government to make decisions that is not in the best interests of the American people. I always believe till today, that the government are elected officials who are public servants to serve and preserve liberty and freedom and the American taxpayer. Here and not abroad.

History have proven that approximately 6,000 U.S. troops were Killed in action and immeasurable were wounded. Almost the same committed suicide upon their return. In the Iraq conflict, almost 7,000 U.S. troops were killed and the much higher number in military contractors and more wounded. The cost to the United States was about 2 TRILLION dollars.

USCasualtiesC130DoverAFB

We need to reign in establish a multi-disciplinary approach to tax and fiscal analysis and the utility of government in America that is fully transparent. We must demand and wipe away the obscurity of the government’s ability to enhance the quality of life to compliment the prosperity of our society at large and not the political machine. I believe that our government has set an example of a greedy corrupt mechanism of a new world order.

We no longer require rhetoric, we should thirst for a directive action that is in the best interests of the American public and no one else. The public needs to take back our country and know if our leadership is working in the best interests of our nation and not ‘special interests’ hell bent on greed. They can be terminated just like any hard-working American. We need to reign in politicians who spend our money lavishly because they believe in entitlement. The only entitlement they deserve is what we are entitled to; a reasonable pay check, accountable to pay their child support, taxes, be arrested for their crimes and removed from office like any other citizen. No one is above the law.

 quote-leading-from-the-front-it-s-what-built-america-but-these-days-the-federal-government-isn-t-at-michael-bloomberg-211852

We need to clean house. Lower unemployment and crime. Give jobs to the citizens of this country and not outsource to third world toilets. Our military can fill positions to watch our borders, fill law enforcement positions and create other agencies to deport all illegal aliens, tighten, enhance and provide proper law enforcement training who are in positions to also ‘serve and protect’ and not beat and menace.

I remember when my parents, grandparents came to this country, it was not a right and a privilege. You had to earn your right to enter this country thru Ellis Island. Today, most people if not all believe in the opposite with their hands out and our government obliges handing them food stamps, housing, and education on our dime. What has happened?

There is so many important changes that needs to be addressed and all of us have a voice. Why are so many mute and afraid to speak? God, gave you a voice. Cowards hide in the shadows, Bystanders stand with the ignorant and are the catalyst for failure. What is important to you?

The Militarization of U.S. Police Departments  

Do you remember the ‘Posse Comitatus Act’ in 1878. “The purpose of the act… (was) to limit the powers of the Federal government in using its military personnel to enforce the state laws“

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law enacted by Rutherford B Hayes in which the purpose of the act is to limit the powers of the federal government is using its military personnel to enforce state laws. They set as a priority legislation to prohibit any future President or Congress from directing, by military order or federal legislation, the imposition of federal troops in any U.S. state.

Since the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, therefore, the U.S. government has been constrained overall in the use of military force domestically in any of the U.S. states.

This constraint, though, has never been the case in U.S. international policies and, therefore, the U.S. has engaged in militarizing the domestic arenas of other countries that fall under U.S. areas of interest (such as the Philippines, South American countries, the Middle East, etc.).

Low-Intensity Conflict (LIC) is a “Policing/Militarization of the U.S. Empire”

What is “Low-Intensity Conflict”? There are seemingly many definitions of the term. Regarding the impact of the U.S., however, I refer to it as “low-intensity” only for the U.S. military. In other words, the U.S. military does not get its hands dirty nor is it violently impacted but instead trains others for this insidious work. This is in contrast to those who are the recipients of it.

“Low Intensity Conflict” is simultaneously “high intensity” for those outside the U.S. who are victims of these U.S. international LIC policies. These victims are often under intimidating surveillance, sometimes suffer or are killed by summary execution, torture, displacement etc. by military or police in their own country who are trained philosophically and militarily by the U.S. In other words, it is a method employed to “police/militarize” the U.S. political and economic interests. This could also be referred to as war capitalism.

When militarizing the domestic arena of its areas of influence in the world, it pays no attention to its own domestic laws that do not easily allow for this militarization in its own domestic sphere.

militarized cops

So instead of the United States military goes into about 70 countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Columbia, Argentina, etc. to train troops from these countries which is to serve the interests of the United States and the friendly elite of these countries. Again, it is a “policing” or “militarization” of countries in what the United States considers its empire of interests. The reality is, these countries are not friendly nor allies of the U.S. Once trained and given military grade weapons, they are later used against our own troops.

As with the international structural adjustment policies that are now being implemented in the United States, as mentioned above, I have always assumed that the U.S. would also want to implement the LIC (Low Intensity Conflict) strategies or increased domestic militarization in the U.S. as well. The Posse-Comitatus Act has invariably prevented this from happening to any significant degree. One way around this, as in by not being able to send in the federal troops to cities and states, is to militarize the local police forces and this is happening to a significant degree in the United States.

As the ACLU has reported:

All across the country, heavily armed SWAT teams are raiding people’s homes in the middle of the night, often just to search for drugs. It should enrage us that people have needlessly died during these raids, that pets have been shot, and that homes have been ravaged.

milpolice

Our neighborhoods are not warzones, and police officers should not be treating us like wartime enemies. Any yet, every year, billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment flows from the federal government to state and local police departments. Departments use these wartime weapons in everyday policing, especially to fight the wasteful and failed drug war, which has unfairly targeted people of color.

As our new report makes clear, it’s time for American police to remember that they are supposed to protect and serve our communities, not wage war on the people who live in them.

cop-soldiersThe “war on terror” has come home–and it’s wreaking havoc on innocent American lives. The culprit is the militarization of the police….

A recent New York Times article by Matt Apuzzo reported that in the Obama era, “police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.”  The result is that police agencies around the nation possess military-grade equipment, turning officers who are supposed to fight crime and protect communities into what look like invading forces from an army. And military-style police raids have increased in recent years, with one count putting the number at 80,000 such raids last year.

According to Alex Kane’s “11 shocking facts about the militarization of the U.S. police” are:

  1. It harms, and sometimes kills, innocent people.
  2. Children are impacted.
  3. The use of SWAT teams is unnecessary.
  4. The “war on terror” is fueling militarization.
  5. It’s a boom to contractor profits.
  6. Border militarization and police militarization go hand in hand.
  7. Police are cracking down on dissent.
  8. Asset forfeitures are funding police militarization.
  9. Dubious informants are used for raids.
  10. There’s been little debate and oversight.
  11. Communities of color bear the brunt.

There is a rampant and systematic abuses by police to beat and kill innocent unarmed American citizens. Police officers excessive use of force is observed on a daily basis in the United States in direct view of the public.These are barbaric and savage crimes. It is also corruption by the very judicial system that is also established to protect us by failing to prosecute these officers for obvious crimes.

This is collusion in that it promotes dishonesty and fraud, which, in turn,undermines the integrity of the entire judicial system.We know that law enforcement and prosecutors are married at the hip. Therefore when law enforcement commit the assaults and murder are generally never charged. In turn, from their respective departments suspended from duty nor disposed from duty. Most of their actions are legitimized by their departments and swept under the carpet of the code of silence.

Some of these abuses and murder of citizens are carried out when the oppressed is in custody and restrained with handcuffs. There is anywhere from 4-16 officers on hand to control one individual who is at times begging for their lives. Some never get the chance as they are killed within a minute.

Kelly-Thomas-Police-Beating

There should be no escalation of lethal force with anyone that is not carrying any weapon and can be controlled with ANY non-lethal weapon.  If not, the police academy do not have proper standards and training. The golden rule is to use one more ounce of force that is used against you. If you cannot accomplish this and control any given situation, you should not be an officer of the law that is sworn “to protect and serve”. The problem initiates with the foundation of training. However, any citizen that endeavors to become an officer of the law needs to have rigorous psychological assessments before moving ahead with training and re-evaluated on a steady basis.

Scott Bernstein  – International Tactical Law Enforcement & Military Trainer. ‘Global Security International|Bounty Hunter Training Academy’

CIA Interrogation Techniques

I always thought CIA interrogations methods even till today were clandestine. Through research, CIA interrogators waterboarded their first prisoner, Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, in 2002 justifying the simulated drowning as a vital tool to extract secrets about future attacks against the United States.

At a secret prison In Thailand for about 20 days, the CIA implemented round the clock interrogations, waterboarding, physical assaults and confinement. Their conclusions was the Saudi Operative knew nothing about new plots.

Such techniques are used to break a person will or ability to resist. The goal is obtain the confidential intelligence information and access undisclosed threat information.

These types of treatments got into the hands of the Senate Intelligence Committee recently which was placed into scrutiny. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism attacks, under intense demands to produce usable intelligence, the agency resorted to deception, manipulation and intellectual contortions to rationalize and continue using interrogation techniques that even some of its own officials worried amounted to illegal torture, the report documents.

cia

At CIA headquarters, officials repeatedly pushed interrogators at secret detention facilities in Poland, Thailand, Afghanistan, Romania and elsewhere to intensify the harsh treatment, even after officers at the sites had concluded there was little more information to be gained from a prisoner.

CIA Director John Brennan said in a statement “we acknowledge that the detention and interrogation program had shortcomings and that the agency made mistakes.” He added that “the most serious problems occurred early on and stemmed from the fact that the agency was unprepared and lacked the core competencies required to carry out an unprecedented, worldwide program” of detention and interrogation.

The interrogations chief became so disillusioned as the treatment of detainees that he called the ‘program’ a train wreck waiting to happen and wanted off the train and no longer wanted to be associated with the program “in any way.”

There was conflicting reports about the methods used against Nashiri who the CIA claimed to be involved in the bombing of the US Cole where interrogators was allegedly hanging him upside down, holding a drill next to his body and a pistol next to his head. Those techniques reportedly were not authorized by either the CIA or the Justice Department but ruled that the interrogation practices did not violate U.S. laws against torture.

nashiri

There were two former military psychologists who were the chief architects of the interrogation program and personally conducted some of the waterboarding, even though they had no direct experience with the practice

The CIA relied on the two men to assess the psychological effects of waterboarding and other techniques on individual prisoners. That put them in position to judge the effectiveness of interrogations. A company the two formed to help run the program received $81 million from the CIA from 2002 to 2009, a Senate investigation found.

In January 2003, one of the psychologists arrived at the detention site where Nashiri was being held to assess whether he should be subjected to additional harsh interrogation measures. He recommended going ahead with “the full range of enhanced exploitation and interrogation measures” to establish a “desired level of helplessness.

Nearly two years after the CIA’s last interrogation of Nashiri, an assessment by one of the psychologists who had recommended his harsh treatment concluded the prisoner had “provided essentially no actionable information.” In 2006, Nashiri was transferred to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo.

CIA made doctors torture suspected terrorists after 9/11, taskforce finds

In the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when detaining prisoners was first discussed within the Bush administration, CIA officials promised their facilities would be comparable to federal prisons or would meet Pentagon standards for prisoners of war.

The facilities fell far short of those standards. In 2002, when officials from the U.S. Bureau of Prisons visited a CIA prison in Afghanistan known as the Salt Pit, they were stunned to find detainees shackled in their cells in complete darkness and isolation, with only buckets for human waste.

The program grew so quickly that the agency had difficulty keeping track of all of its detainees and in 2003 discovered they were holding a number of detainees the knew little about and had not been questioned for months.

CIA officers involved in the program worried from the start that they might face criminal charges and began to seek assurances from Atty General Ashcroft immunity from prosecution which was denied.

Are interrogation methods in other countries any different towards Americans and foreign Journalists?  Are interrogation methods instrumental to the national security of our country? Does the intensity of the interrogation own up to the horrors and severity we see in the terroristic annihilation of humanity?

Our leadership rhetoric has always been that we do not negotiate with terrorists. Is this is valid, why is terrorism so rampant in the world?

CRISIS IN SYRIA

The U.S. stance is to train Syrian opposition forces by the U.S. Military to defend its territory rather than to seize it back from the Islamic State.

The Syrian fighters are essential to defeating the Islamic State as countries like Turkey, Jodan and Qatar stand by. However these assembled units under the Obama administration’s will not be able to capturing key towns from the militants without U.S. Combat teams which Obama has ruled out. The Syrians then will be tasked to only preventing ISIL to reach beyond the control it maintains.

Military officials also want U.S. and allied special operations troops to advise opposition forces if those forces are thrust into combat, helping them to fight effectively and reducing the chances that the new units will disintegrate in the heat of battle.

You cannot field an effective force if you’re not on the ground to advise and assist them,” said a senior U.S. military officer with extensive experience in training the Iraqi and Afghan militaries.

Obama’s unwillingness to deploy ground combat forces is rooted in concern that American troops would be drawn into a long, bloody war in the Middle East.

Obama position is to have our military train as many as 5,00 Syrian fighters a year as an effective opposition force, not just a hit-and-run group of rebels. The first units are expected to be deployed in roughly six months. The plan is for them to safeguard cleared areas and end up being a defensive force more than an offensive force.

Lt. Gen. William Mayville, the director of operations for the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, said the opposition fighters would receive basic training and it will have some effect but not a decisive effect in the battle against the Islamic State.

A defensive opposition force also could allow President Bashar al-Assad’s government to regain territory it has lost to the Islamic State, which has been pummeled — but remains far from defeated — by hundreds of U.S. and coalition air strikes over the past month.

The long range of basic training will not suffice in the war on ISIS. Syrian militants in 6 months to a year cannot reverse Islamic State gains and certainly will not destroy the infrastructure that have enabled them to operate successfully in Iraq and elsewhere..

Those who have fled the country as refugees most likely will not want to return to their war-ravaged homeland. And some may turn to fight for ISIS

U.S. troops intends to use basic training sessions which will focus on unit discipline and elementary combat skills and advanced training in the future. This is called long ranging with hopes of engagement down the road.

Administration officials say technological advancements will allow the U.S. military to provide a degree of air support to Syrian forces without having to stand shoulder to shoulder with them. They note that in Iraq, U.S. commanders recently employed surveillance aircraft, including drones, to identify Islamic State militants near the Mosul Dam, striking them in proximity to Kurdish forces.

US officials are also talking to Jordan, Qatar and Turkey about training camps being established in Saudi Arabia. This is sending a evident message that this recruitment effort there is no U.S. commitment and our unwillingness to commit to toppling Assad and ISIS but rather sitting on th sidelines and watching from afar.

John McCain sated that it is immoral to “fight and die when we’re not going to protect them from Bashar Assad’s barrel bombs or from ISIS…You’re not going to get people to volunteer to do that.”

Some senior Defense Department officials advised that involving the use of covert operatives and private contractors reporting to the CIA, not the Pentagon, who could provide combat advice to Syrian forces and summon air support but a senior Arab official said such a request would be unlikely to receive an enthusiastic response among coalition members if the United States did not also commit troops.

Either way you look at it, basic training over a year period is sending more lambs to slaughter. Air atrikes had proven to be effective but now long will the effectiveness be to topple a terrorist group hell bent on destroying everything in its path with an instatiable quench for power.

Justification of War

World War I, was declared “the war to end all wars.” Unfortunately, wars just kept happening and we have to inquire why.

Once upon a time wars were fought for strength, fun and profit where that is still prevalent. We saw that with the Germans in WWII and was the best predictor of civil war in poor countries with the availability of lootable resources like diamonds. War in the preindustrial world was and still is more like a competition among crime families over who gets to control the rackets than a fight over principles.

You can rationalize that war simply does not pay if victorious even for the modern, wealthier nation(s). In this regard, military power is socially and economically futile. War would necessarily inflict severe economic harm even on the victor and that modern war is very, very expensive. For example, the Iraq war cost us over $1 trillion, many times Iraq’s entire G.D.P.
With that in mind, modern nations can’t enrich themselves by waging war. Yet wars keep happening. Why?

Is it a delusion that Putin thought that he could easily overthrow Ukraine’s government or enough of a chunk of it to land it in his lap on the cheap side? And for that matter, remember when the Bush administration predicted that overthrowing Saddam and installing a new government would cost only $50 billion or $60 billion?

War is always about money or a faltering economy that needs a distraction with hopes to gain politically from war. Leaders hope to distract its public from this debacle and history has shown like the present that sheep favors its ruler that invokes war.

putin

The fact is that nations almost always rally around their leaders in times of war, no matter how foolish the war or how awful the leaders. Argentina’s junta briefly became extremely popular during the Falklands war. For a time, the “war on terror” took President George W. Bush’s approval to dizzying heights, and Iraq probably won him the 2004 election. True to form, Mr. Putin’s approval ratings have soared since the Ukraine crisis began.

Starting a war going back 100 years when Britain entered the first World War was very bad but that is not valid as it is today. Times has changed with the proliferation of modern day Islamic Extremists. In the past, most cases wars are initiated by governments, not by populations. And, most of the time, they are the result of disputes over resources and land, or of a government’s desire to increase its influence and power. However, looking back over the history of warfare, what is most striking is how willing most people have been to fight in wars, or at least to support them.

It creates a sense of unity in the face of a collective threat. It binds people together – not just the army engaged in battle, but the whole community. It brings a sense of cohesion, with communal goals, and inspires individual citizens (not just soldiers) to behave honourably and unselfishly, in the service of a greater good. It supplies meaning and purpose, transcending the monotony of everyday life. Warfare also enables the expression of higher human qualities that often lie dormant in ordinary life, such as courage and self-sacrifice.

There is a moral and ethical purpose that drives men to war that gives us that sense of feeling alive, of belonging and purpose but more importantly to me and not speaking to the masses of the American people but of right and wrong but our philosophies of life, freedom, liberty, and oppression. Americans do not commit acts of genocide in the endeavor of world domination.

This isn’t to say that a warring party may not have a just cause, and this argument doesn’t explore other important social and psychological factors involved in war, such as social identity and moral exclusion. However, it does show that any stable, lasting peace depends on creating societies with a richness of opportunity and variety that can meet human needs. The fact that so many societies throughout the world fail to do this makes our future prospects of peace look very bleak.

Teddy Roosevelt was probably the last U.S. president who seemed to view war as an activity to be welcomed (he once remarked that “A just war is in the long run far better for a man’s soul than the most prosperous peace”), and subsequent presidents always portray themselves as going to war with great reluctance, and only as a last resort.

declaration-of-war (1)

In 2008, Americans elected Barack Obama in part because they thought he would be different from his predecessor on a host of issues, but especially in his approach to the use of armed force. It was clear to nearly everyone that George W. Bush had launched a foolish and unnecessary war in Iraq, and then compounded the error by mismanaging it (and the war in Afghanistan too). So Americans chose a candidate who had opposed Bush’s war in Iraq and could bring U.S. commitments back in line with our resources.

Above all, Americans thought Obama would be a lot more thoughtful about where and how to use force, and that he understood the limits of this crudest of policy tools. The Norwegian Nobel Committee seems to have thought so too, when they awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize not for anything he had done, but for what it hoped he might do henceforth.

Yet a mere two years later, we find ourselves back in the fray once again. Since taking office, Obama has escalated U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and launched a new war against Libya. As in Iraq, the real purpose of our intervention is regime change at the point of a gun. At first we hoped that most of the guns would be in the hands of the Europeans, or the hands of the rebel forces arrayed against Muammar al-Qaddafi, but it’s increasingly clear that U.S. military forces, CIA operatives and foreign weapons supplies are going to be necessary to finish the job.

I believe America’s biggest problem is that we never learned from our mistake in our prior engagements. The most obvious reason that the United States keeps doing these things is the fact that it has a remarkably powerful military but not using it to its full potential. We have the resources; hundreds of planes, smart bombs, cruise missiles and even WMD.

With reconciling our differences with other countries and rebuilding the infrastructure as our government defines it, we have put millions of arms and other weaponry into the very hands of the Terrorists who kill the very valor or our brave and honorable Military personnel.

The platform and foundation of our country is that we never negotiate with terrorists. It appears that this platform has shifted in an ominous dishonorable manner one would fashion to determine to be treasonous. This has directly led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of our own American lives.

If one was to look at who fuels the ideology of war between warring parties is the media and government. Both fuel each other. If not for the media, there is no vessel for propaganda and one’s justification.

obama-60-minutes-underestimated-isis

Obama justifies his resort to force by invoking America’s special place in the world is his usual . rhetoric and couched terms of U.S. values, commitment to freedom, etc. Back in the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama said that his favorite movie was The Godfather. And if I recall correctly, he said his second favorite movie was The Godfather, Part II. But his presidency is starting to play out like Part III of that famed trilogy, where Michael Corleone rails against the fates that have foiled his attempt to make the Corleone family legit.

I can just hear Obama saying it: “Just when I thought I was out … they pull me back in.”