Group items tagged

Spot on analysis by a retired Navy lawyer who knows his U.S. military history.The striking parallels he points to between contemporary U.S. drone terrorism and the notorious Viet Nam War Phoenix Program terrorism are no accident. Among the super-hawks of the War Party, there has been a persistent meme that the U.S. military suffered no defeat in Viet Nam, that the vaunted "counter-insurgency" strategy and tactics were working, and that the war was lost by politicians and the American public who lost the nerve to continue the war.  If you put your blinders on firmly enough to pretend that the North and South Vietnamese were separate people, there's an element of truth to that myth. The South Vietnamese Viet Cong guerrillas were decimated by 1970. But the North and South Vietnamese were in fact one people of a single nation, who had united to defeat and evict the French military force. The division into two nations was to have been only a one-year thing, prelude to national election of a government for a reunited Viet Nam. It was the U.S. puppet government of the South that, realizing they could not win the election, reneged on allowing it in the South.  Long before the Viet Cong became a shadow of its former force, the Vietnamese from the North had responded to the betrayal of the treaty by sending North Vietnamese regular army troops ("NVA") to the South, spearheaded by the same battle-hardened men who had defeated the French. And the U.S. military was well and truly overwhelmed by the NVA's strategy and tactics, forced to retreat into strongholds from which they ventured only in force. The NVA's Tet Offensive in 1968 failed to succeed in the effort to capture multiple Vietnamese cities concurrently. But the number, weaponry, and power of their force caused Lyndon Johnson to realize that the U.S. generals had been lying to him, that the U.S. was not on the brink of victory, and that there was a very long slog ahead with an unknown outcome if the U.S. continu

I've been disgusted with American mainstream media and our political class for a very long time. Every now and then I get super-disgusted.  I'll begin with the Obama Administration. They tried to make political hay with something that should not have been made public other than notifying the released American prisoners' parents before the prisoner had been debriefed. Moreover, while I have no problems with swapping Taliban prisoners to get the American prisoner back even if it meant not giving Congress the full 30-day notice required by statute, the Administration certainly could have done a better job of it, notifying key committee members earlier that the deal might be pulled off. Waiting until the Taliban prisoners were up to the steps of the airplane bound for the exchange was not the way this should have happened. Next up, we have the members of Congress who have done their level best to turn the situation into a partisan issue. Obama may have deserved criticism given that he tried to make political hay with the release. But prisoner swaps during wartime have been a feature of most U.S. wars. It is an ancient custom of war and procedures for doing so are even enshrined in the Geneva Conventions governing warfare. So far, I have not heard any war veteran member of Congress scream about releasing terrorists. During my 2+ years in a Viet Nam combat role, the thought of being captured was horrifying. Pilots shot down over North Viet Nam were the lucky ones. No American soldier captured in South Viet Nam was ever released. The enemy was fighting a guerrilla war in the South. They had no means to confine and care for prisoners. So captured American troops were questioned for intelligence and then killed.  Truth be told, American combat troops were prone to killing enemy who surrendered. War is a very ugly situation and feelings run high. It is perhaps a testament to the Taliban that they kept Sgt. Berdahl alive. Certainly that fact clashes irreconcilably with

Since early in the Viet Nam War, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has dominated the production and smuggling of opium. After the Viet Nam War, that operation was largely transferred from Southeast Asia's "Golden Triangle" to Afghanistan, with primary shipment initially through Pakistan. That production center was threatened when the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan in 1996, as the Taliban began shutting down the growing of opium poppies in that nation. So it was no surprise that Afghan production of opium skyrocketed after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan. Indeed, there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that al-Qaeda was blamed for the 9-11 attack precisely to justify invasion of Afghanistan to block the Taliban's interference with the CIA's production of opium. Opium, like cocaine production in South America, provides enormous amounts of off-the-books financing for CIA covert activities. For such reasons, there are strong reasons to suspect that ISIL would not be taking over opium production in Afghanistan without the CIA's acquiescence and participation. (For example, ISIL would need to use the CIA's shipment and marketing capabilities in Pakistan to bring their product to market. So I regard ISIL's rise in opium production as further evidence that the CIA and ISIL are joined at the hip, that ISIL is a CIA operation.

The really sad parts about this are: [i] this is radical thinking, coming from the U.S. military; and [ii] it will never be followed, because were the U.S. to pay sufficient heed to the causes of insurgencies, we'd wind up fighting for the insurgents. Example: Viet Nam War. Everyone knew that to "win" that war we'd have to do things like break up the large French landholdings and do land redistribution. But we were intervening in Viet Nam to protect the French interests in the same land, to prolong the same colonialism that the insurgents were fighting against.  So until the U.S. military becomes a force for the good of the common man, don't hold your breath until the U.S. military actually implements this doctrine.

Well, Obama's end to the U.S. combat role in just ended. U.S. combat troops are back in action.  An analogous situation might have been if the U.S. reinvaded South Viet Nam just as the last helicopter lifted off from the U.S. Embassy carrying refugees from the North Vietnamese onslaught.  Some wars can't be won. Viet Nam is one of them. Afghanistan is another. The time when the Taliban will not take over soon after the U.S. removes its combat troops will never come.  But not being the President who lost a war is apparently far more important in the White House than the expense of even more lives wasted in a military stalemate. At least Mikhail Gorbachev had the sense to get out of Afghanistan when he recognized that the Soviets were were incapable of winning their futile war. But not Barack Obama, who is increasingly looking like the sorriest excuse for a President that the U.S. ever had. 

Perhaps no other moral principle is so deeply burned into the psyche of the American soldier than "leave no one behind." It is a permutation of the Golden Rule that allows of no cost-benefit analysis. Commonly, hundreds of lives have been lost to save only a few. That we left behind hundreds of members of the U.S. military as prisoners of war in Viet Nam is morally reprensible. That John McCain, himself a former POW,  played and still plays a key role in the cover-up conspiracy is well beyond morally reprehensible.   

Nice round-up of linked articles on NED-sponsored color revolution efforts in ASEAN nations, with a deeper look at activities in Viet Nam.

"Doug Casey on American Socialism"  .  Awesome interview, especially the discussion on Liberalism and how the socialist Norman Thomas decided to co-opt the term as an effective replacement for the disreputable socialism.  Links to the Thomas 1932 socialist platform that Casey points out has pretty much been put into place.   Good discussion.  Focus on an article published by socialist apologist and idiot, Allan Colmes.

I agree that Colmes is far from the sharpest knife in the drawer. In my opinion, he was largely a Fox News invention to give Shawn Hannity a far weaker opponent to argue against that Hannity's idiocy could still overcome. There are in reality liberals that Hannity could never have gone toe-to-toe with. (That's not an endorsement of liberalism; it's commentary on the quality of Hannity's arguments.) The show was mostly a variant of the straw man logical fallacy; the fact that Colmes lacked the ability to think critically or communicate effectively made Hannity "win" the pseudo-debate in the eyes of those unable to think critically themselves. I have some criticism of Casey's remarks that apply more generally to my experience of strict Libertarians and perhaps even farther to strict adherents to any "ism." My criticism boils down to a couple of examples of hard issues usually avoided by strict Libertarians. -- The Disabled: When discussing Social Security disability benefits, Casey changes the subject from the genuinely disabled to a short rant about those whose disability claims are bogus and the "ambulance chasing" lawyers who pursue their claims. But if pressed to the wall and forced to answer, I strongly suspect that Casey would admit that there are people, likely the majority of Social Security disability benefits, whose claims are genuine. The net effect of his relevant argument: an impression that he has a Darwinian view that he would leave the disabled dying in the streets without sustenance or medical care. That kind of society is unacceptable to me. Perhaps it is to Casey too, but if so I think it was incumbent on him to offer a solution for the genuinely disabled. (In fairness, I'll note that at one point Casey hinted but did not forthrightly say that he would favor financial assistance for single mothers in Harlem.) -- Medical Care: I agree that our health care system is badly broken. But again Casey is long on criticism but short on realistic idea

The War Party is not happy with the consensus position of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies that leaving U.S. troops in Afghanistan is futile. I offer them my lesson learned from 27 months of combat duty in Viet Nam: When you find yourself part of an invading force in a foreign land fighting patriots, it's time for a reality check on your world view.

While I'd be the first to agree that the degree of fiscal mismanagement of this nation's economy is beyond insane and have to admit that I see very little to admire in Barack Obama's presidency, the meme about Executive Order 13603 authorizing confiscation of any property and enslavement of the American public needs to be put to rest. See http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/2012.html#13603 E.O. 13603 is not much more than an updating of similar executive orders issued by prior presidents beginning with Dwight Eisenhower. In fact, in skimming it a few minutes ago, I didn't see anything drastically different from some of the prior related orders. E.g., it reflects that a bunch of agencies that were formerly either independent or under other departments are now under the newish Department of Homeland Security, whose Secretary now gets the authority formerly delegated to other department and agency heads. If blame must be cast, it belongs on the Congress that enacted the Defense Production Act of 1950, 50 U.S.C. 2061, et seq. The executive order does no more than obey that Act's instructions. For example there is a section authorizing pre-emption of manufacturing capacity of critical industries over any existing civilian contracts in the event of a national emergency, but that language is in the statute as well. But that power hasn't had much traction since Harry Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry to break a nationwide strike. The Supreme Court swatted down that effort as an abuse of a power that would be lawful in a true emergency, like another major. But even that semi-radical "survival" power is ameliorated by other provisions of the statute and the order that authorize loan guarantees for companies' construction and maintenance of critical productive capacity. Much of that has been implemented over the years as outright grants. So for example, many chemical manufacturing plants were built with Defense Production Act funds, with

Bayonets for police? Good grief! We couldn't even get them in the Army  in Viet Nam.

Ah, all that U.S. money spent retraining, re-equipping, and re-arming the Iraqi military after they fled from Mosul, leavinng their weapons behind for ISIL, instead of fighting, all for naught. A heads-up for Obama and Gen. Dempsey: Peace with Honor has never worked for the U.S. as a strategy for disengagement. Fess up thqt we lost the Iraq War and bring the troops home. Training the indigenous troops did not work in Viet Nam but over half of the 3 million plus deaths caused by that war happend during the Peace wqith Honor phase, when everyone there knew that the South Vietnamese Army would never be able to stand against the other side after we left. Obama's big mistake was going back in after once withdrawing. This is a situation the folks who live in the Mideast are going to have to work out without the U.S. 

Nothing new here. Remember when Donald Rumsfeld announced the day before 9-11 that the Pentagon could not account for $2.3 trillion? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj1rT4bszWg It was the same way in Viet Nam. During my entire 27 months there, we could not be issued socks. We had to write home to ask family or friends to buy socks and send them to us. They could buy them at military surplus stores in the U.S., regulation Army field socks with cushion soles, but we couldn't get them from the Army. "An army travels on its feet," but no socks. Socks were not the only supply chain failures, of course. If you can't manage to get socks to your soldiers because they've been declared surplus, maybe you'd have problems accounting for expenditures too, ya' think? 

Sunstein was the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration, a long-time buddy of Obama's who taught law at the University of Chicago. He's also the husband of neocon U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power. He now teaches law at Harvard.  I haven't read Sunstein's book, but did read a paper he had previously published, as I recall on SSRN, along the same theme. It was a comical read, seemingly the winner of some sort of contest to see who could stuff the most logical fallacies into a set number of pages. And of course the premises of the fallacies had no citations. Sunstein simply assumes that the official version of events is invariably the only true version and that any version that conflicts is a dangerous "conspiracy theory."  So then he proposes some asinine, truly juvenile propaganda methods that the government might use to destroy the reputations of the "conspiracy theorists." Having been a professional, trained propagandist for the U.S. Army in Viet Nam, I can say with some confidence that no one need fear Sunstein's proposed methods.  Short story, Sunstein is a "good ole' boy" from the Chicago Democratic Machine who in truth lacks the skills and abilities to be even a good academic, let alone a good propagandist. That isn't to suggest that ad hominem attacks can never destroy reputations. But "conspiracy theorist" just isn't strong enough to instill fear. Call us "terrorists" instead and maybe you'd get some traction. 

What I'm still waiting to hear from the hawks is any kind of plan with a shot at achieving either a victory that also includes an exit strategy. Fact: the last major war the U.S. won was against Japan in 1945. Since then, the U.S. has been defeated in every major war, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I also want to hear a reasonable plan for funding such a war. Until I see those details filled in, I hear nothing but a politics of fear call for government subsidization of the military/industrial complex. As though we could afford it.  

Ukraine Mission Creep began Wednesday, January 20, 2015. The U.S. is about to be put ground troops into *another* war. Be certain  that the date has been marked on Russian diplomatic and military calendars. Remember, both the Viet Nam and our latest Iraq wars began with sending "trainers" and "advisors."

Highly recommended reading. But note that, while I've never had occasion to correct Tom Engelhardt before, he errs in attributing the beginning of U.S. involvement with what we now call Al-Qaeda to the Reagan era. In fact, that honor belongs to the Carter Administration, specifically to then National Security Advisor and arch-anti-Communist Zbigniew K. Brzezinski, who wanted to give the Soviet Union its own "Viet Nam moment."  

I get so expasperated by "thank you for your service" that I usually just respond that it would be good to inquire how someone feels about their "service" before they say "thank you for your service." There are many veterans who haven't fallen for the "hero" and "patriot" propaganda constantly being spread about "our troops" and "our veterans." Many of us are far less than proud of what we did in the military and the wars we fought. Anyone who repeats that horrible "thank you" slogan is in reality displaying just how ignorant they are of the reasons the U.S. goes to war and in my experience just as ignorant about how many millions of people we have killed and maimed, both military and civilians alike. Example: We killed over 3 million Vietnamese. The men and women we fought were true patriots. We were foreign invaders. I sum up the wisdom I gained from 27 months plus one day in Viet Nam as follows:  "When you find yourself part of an invading force in a foreign land fighting patriots, it's time for a reality check on your world view." The same could be just as accurately be said of those who say, "thank you for your service."   

"During an attack the gunship performs a pylon turn, flying in a large circle around a target, allowing it to fire for far longer than conventional attack aircraft. The AC-130H Spectre was armed with two 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannons, one Bofors 40mm autocannon, and one 105 mm M102 cannon; after 1994 the 20 mm cannons were removed for most missions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130  The 40 mm cannons are descendants of the WWII "ack-ack" anti-aircraft "pom-poms." It's projectile is substantially larger than the 30 mm cannon used by the U.S. Warthog close air support tank killer aircraft. The 105 mm cannon is howitzer class, also used as a field artillery weapon. I've seen these weapons platforms in use in Viet Nam. They rain devastation. 

The earlier Gulf War lasted only 100 hours, but still resulted in 21% compensable disabilities among its veterans, not counting those who are still in active military service. But the Iraq and Afghanistan wars still continue after 10 years, albeit we're now fighting the Iraq War with mercenaries only. And thus far, 45 per cent of those who served in Iraq and Aghanistan have applied for VA disability compensation, with far more still in service and thus ineligible for VA disability comp until they are discharged from the military. That's how badly the U.S. government treated its military in these latter wars, with many of them serving as many as seven combat tours of duty. That compares with the Viet Nam war where a 3-year enlistee normally saw only a single combat tour. The incidence of injury increases along with time spent in combat. And some types of injuries, e.g., posttraumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"), result from cumulative time spent in combat. Virtually everyone has their breaking point and the more time spent in combat the more likely that PTSD will result. Likewise, the more time spent handling projectiles weighted with depleted Uranium or walking through areas where such rounds have exploded, the more likely that radiation sickness or cancer will result. And a huge range of injuries may only result in disabilities well after the aggravating factor of aging has worked its magic. As Prof. Bilmes said in 2008, "in World War II and Vietnam and Korea, the number of wounded troops per fatality was about two-to-one or three-to-one. And now, the number of wounded troops per fatality is seven-to-one in combat, and if you include all of those wounded in non-combat and diseased seriously enough to have to be medevaced home, it's fifteen-to-one. So it's a very significant difference. And this difference compared to previous wars is, of course, you know, a great tribute to the medical care that they receive on the field and the enormous advance