Saudis threaten to sell $750 billion US assets if Congress passes bill that would let 9/11 victims sue Saudi Arabia
Cut the House of Saud loose, and let them swing. They are the enemy within Islam, and the real sponsors of Islamic fundamentalism/terrorism. Let the victims of 9/1 sue the House of Saud directly, nay, build a superhighway to help the victims sue the House of Saud. Only Obama can screw this up, and with his track record, I suspect that there is a better than 50/50 chance he will. The House of Saud needs the security of US assets more than the US needs their money. We will be fine regardless of what Saud does. They, however, are in a world of hurt, fighting a losing battle with Iran, and faced with an economy nearly completely dependent upon oil, which is ready to plumb new lows. Now that we have the threat in hand, we should summarily cut off any further military assistance, and access to any further military hardware, including supplies for repairs, and any US training. On the State Department side we should highly limit and any further visas both in duration (no more than 2 weeks) and in number (a few hundred per year max). The House of Saud is a cancerous evil, and massive human rights violator, we need to deal with them seriously. The hegemon must address threats quickly, and forcefully.
Comments
At its core, foreign policy/international relations is straightforward, the Anglo-spheric, the Scandinavian, the Germanic, and a few other nations all play by adult rules, for the rest it is just like kindergarten.
Russian Jets Buzz U.S. Navy Ship at 30 Feet Putin is a big kindergartner. And like all kinders he will push until he finds the limit. President Obama is like a yielding parent, always unhappy with the fact that the child is unruly, and unwilling to listen or obey. This is a problem with the parent not the child. It is time to take Russia to task for its boundary pressing maneuvers, and China as well for its incursions into the South China Sea. As Mead suggests new protective treaties, including US or NATO troops could do the trick. We need to strengthen our support for the opponents of China's incursion into the South China Sea as well. Each of these proposals would sting, and would serve to discipline these recalcitrant nations. The real problem is that such actions must be actions, and not threats. President Obama has a history of drawing lines in the sand, and when his adversary steps over the line, he simply draws another. Policy without consequences, is like parenting without consequences. It is incompetent and does not result in the desired results. Once the line is drawn, a consequence must flow from breech. Every. Single. Time. These actions are likely to be effective and do not risk a more serious international crisis. However, splashing a couple of planes is more dramatic, and cathartic. I can say that because Obama does not have the constitution to execute. I suspect this problem will fester until we have a new President. With the current pool of candidates, I am at wits end over foreign policy. Hillary is the architect of the Obama foreign policy, it has been a disaster. Trump is an unknown, as is Cruz, as is Sanders. Now would be a good time for a brilliant Cincinnatus with both foreign policy, and domestic policy experience to pop out of the woodwork, and steal the presidential election. A guy can dream! Overprotective “New Army Mom” Ruins Son’s Military Life after Complaining to the Wrong People
. . . takes out precious snowflake son. If this is real, it is epic! I should probably do this to Maddogsson once he is safely down at MRCD San Diego! Now I'm just being naughty! Apparently, there is a part II. “Combat Patches are Unfair” Helicopter Army Mom Part Two: The Pizza Party Ok, so 5Bravo finessed this idiot into defcon 1 level stupidity! Here are two screen shots of the third installment of this epic journey! Photo Photos from 5Bravo's post Helicopter parents deserve exactly what they get. Sadly, we don't get to know what that Pizza Party meant exactly. Dang! I bet it was really cool! Donald Trump says NATO is 'obsolete' — here are the stats that suggest he's wrong
. . . which allows European countries to free ride on US military power. Let's be honest, NATO is a mutual defense treaty, but only Britain would come to America's defense. And virtually zero of the other NATO nations, other than the US and Britain provide any significant number of troops in any conflict. "Although NATO is based almost exclusively in Europe, and was primarily formed as a military alliance against the Soviet Union, it has a global reach and has participated in military operations throughout the world. Globally, NATO is playing a role in combating Somali piracy off the Horn of Africa. Operation Ocean Shield, launched in 2009, has helped to drastically cut down on piracy and has helped stabilize shipping lanes in the region. Close by in Ethiopia, NATO bases its support to the African Union. The operation helps provide training and operational capacities at the Union's request. And in Afghanistan, NATO continues to lead Resolute Support, a noncombat mission that provides training to the Afghan military. In Afghanistan from 2001 to 2014, NATO also played a key role in combat operations in the country. From August 11, 2003, to 2011, NATO led the International Security Assistance Force. And NATO is likely to play a major role in helping to combat ISIS, especially now following the terror attacks in member nations Brussels and Turkey. A majority of the nations that are part of the anti-ISIS coalition are already NATO members." So, it's really just UN Peacekeeping without the dysfunction, rapes, sexual slavery, etc? I though it was all about the USSR, now Russia? No? "In this regard, Donald Trump is slightly right to question the ongoing worth of the NATO alliance. According to NATO's latest annual report released on June 22, 2015, only Estonia, Poland, the UK, Greece, and the US were projected to meet the 2% spending threshold in 2015. This problem in spending caused then-NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen to warn member nations in 2014 against becoming "free-riders" under the umbrella of US military protection." "Becoming?" Are! Without the US there would be no NATO, the Europeans have no heart or stomach to protect themselves, and we should not constantly act as the parent and come to the rescue. We need to re think this entire fiasco. Perhaps it is time for the US to leave NATO so that the Europeans, the children living in their parents basement, can live on their own, and build their own protective alliances. Return the US to a less intrusive role. That would free us to build new and more necessary alliances with the former Eastern European nations, and other nations. We have spent the past 70+ years protecting Europe, after paying for their post WWII reconstruction. This allowed them to build bloated safety net welfare states which they cannot now afford, and so they again short their military expenditures, and prepare to allow the US to protect them afresh. Europe, we really don't intend to come back, and fight your butts out of another conflagration. You are knee deep in muslim extremists, and you seem to have no sense at all. We are not going to bail you out of this mess. This is very likely to devolve into a civil war, and if the Islamists have half a brain, they will simply move to and take over one of the smaller European nations, and then build from there. But they are wankers so this is probably not a serious threat. I did not think any of this would happen until well after 2020. But the timetable seems to have been accelerated. Only by the US leaving NATO will the Europeans understand the seriousness of their situation, and begin to take action, or fail to take action. I am fine with either. With Russia weakening due to low oil prices, the state of Eastern Europe is much more precarious, and our attentions need to be focused there, instead of the dilettante nations of the West. If I agree with Trump it is purely an accident. Russian Security Strategy
Russia "became involved in the Syrian conflict to demonstrate its military capabilities and gain leverage with the West, this operation is peripheral to Russia’s main interests." Russia's main interest is the motherland itself. "But as you can tell from these maps, the key country for Russia after 1991 was Ukraine. The Baltics were beyond reach for now, and Belarus had a pro-Russian government. But either way, Ukraine was the key, because the Ukrainian border went through the agricultural heartland of Russia, as well as large population centers and transportation networks." This also meant that Russia needed to be "involved fighting Chechen insurgents on their side of the frontier, intervening in Georgia, sending troops to Armenia, and so on." Friedman ends, "With regard to the current battle over Ukraine, the Russians have to assume that the Euro-American interest in creating a pro-Western regime has a purpose beyond Ukraine. From the Russian point of view, not only have they lost a critical buffer zone, but Ukrainian forces hostile to Russia have moved toward the Russian border. It should be noted that the area that the Russians defend most heavily is the area just west of the Russian border, buying as much space as they can. The fact that this scenario leaves Russia in a precarious position means that the Russians are unlikely to leave the Ukrainian question where it is. Russia does not have the option of assuming that the West’s interest in the region comes from good intentions. At the same time, the West cannot assume that Russia—if it reclaims Ukraine—will stop there. Therefore, we are in the classic case where two forces assume the worst about each other. But Russia occupies the weaker position, having lost the first tier of the European Peninsula. It is struggling to maintain the physical integrity of the Motherland. Russia does not have the ability to project significant force because its naval force is bottled up and because you cannot support major forces from the air alone. Although it became involved in the Syrian conflict to demonstrate its military capabilities and gain leverage with the West, this operation is peripheral to Russia’s main interests. The primary issue is the western frontier and Ukraine. In the south, the focus is on the Caucasus. It is clear that Russia’s economy, based as it is on energy exports, is in serious trouble given the plummeting price of oil in the past year and a half. But Russia has always been in serious economic trouble. Its economy was catastrophic prior to World War II, but it won the war anyway… at a cost that few other countries could bear. Russia may be a landlocked and poor country, but it can nonetheless raise an army of loyal Spartans. Europe is wealthy and sophisticated, but its soldiers have complex souls. As for the Americans, they are far away and may choose not to get involved. This gives the Russians an opportunity. However bad their economy is at the moment, the simplicity of their geographic position in all respects gives them capabilities that can surprise their opponents and perhaps even make the Russians more dangerous." SideBar: About the USSR/Russia winning WWII, it is not clear they would have been successful without America support, and provision of massive amounts of arms, logistics elements, food, and fuel. America provided thousands of air planes, thousands of train cars, thousands of trucks and jeeps, fuel, munitions, and much else. Without these it is unclear whether the USSR would have been able to move its "loyal Spartans" to the battle front, fuel its tanks, American trucks, American Jeeps, American air craft, American munitions, and accordingly whether it could have continued fighting. Back to the point, Syria was always a sideshow for Putin, who needed a way to demonstrate its military capabilities. This was needed to keep the locals in check, and to give the Chechenyans, Georgians, Ukrainians, and the Baltic nations a graphic explanation of what could be in store. Add to this the fact that Russia is facing the same existential problem which triggered the collapse of the former Soviet Union (an oil price collapse), and one can see why Putin would only remain in Syria as long as was necessary to make his point. If oil prices had remained high Putin would have remained in Syria, teaching a tutorial on how to make a point. But the price collapsed, and Putin is faced with continuing security concerns in the Baltics, Georgia, Chechenya, Ukraine, as well as the collapsing Russian economy at home. And so, Putin came, bombed, and left, and in the end this short shrift of a campaign will make an impression, and likely one negative to the one intended. While this campaign did show Russian capability, it also showed that Russia lacks endurance. This could quite easily backfire on Putin, with the very problems he wishes to avoid rising up to challenge his resolve, and Russia's endurance. Only time will tell. These 7 maps explain US strategy
This is a simple, straightforward explanation of US security strategy from the revolution to the present. You really should read it all, it has a wealth of understanding, and it is written in an engaging readable style. Notice how our 21st century strategy is little more than a derivative of our Cold War strategy, leading us to continually act against our current interests. When you are done, head over to this article on Mapping Russia’s Strategy. Written by the same author, also with a wealth of understanding. http://www.businessinsider.com/marine-training-psychology-success-2016-3
I am not sure when he will leave, but the Corps seems to want him sometime in March. I told him this was likely since the Corps, along with most other services has higher recruiting rates during the 6 months after the end of school beginning in about June of each year. By March, the recruit pool is dwindling, and the recruiters are pressured to fill slots. He will likely ship in the next few weeks to MCRD San Diego. "After General Charles C. Krulak became commandant — the highest-ranking position within the Marine Corps — in 1995, he decided that the Corps needed to change the way it turned young people into Marines. * * * The Corps needed "extreme self-starters," he told Charles Duhigg in his new book "Smarter Faster Better: The Secrets of Being Productive in Life and Business." But at the time, recruits coming in lacked "any sense of direction or drive," Krulak said. "All they knew was doing the bare minimum. It was like working with a bunch of wet socks. Marines can't be wet socks." Digging into research by the Marine Corps (and later work done by psychologists and psychiatrists), Krulak discovered that interior locus of control was a huge predictor of self-motivation and success. Locus of control comes in two flavors: • With an interior locus of control, you believe that the events in your life are the result of your actions. • With an exterior locus of control, you believe that the events in your life are the result of outside forces. Studies indicate that an interior locus is associated with being vulnerable to depression, doing better in school, dealing better with stress, finding more active solutions to problems, greater satisfaction with work, and greater goal orientation. But locus of control is not the sort of thing that you can hear a theory about and decide to have. It arises when people see the connection between their own efforts and results. After learning this, Krulak redesigned basic training so it would give recruits a 'bias toward action."' This is something most 20 something could use a good dose of. Then begin the tempering process where life experiences, and education temper that bias towards action, with wisdom, and experience to understand when not to act. The result is a fully formed man, who can act, but who also knows when it is more prudent to not act. Meet Captain Crunch, the Pentagon's Gun-Eating Machine
We need it to Crunch weapons like the budget destroying F-35 "Lightning" which is slow, and crappy at everything. It is the plane which will replace all other planes, inefficiently, and incompetently. The military budget of the US is bloated beyond belief, and the dull wits at the Pentagon want to spend more. What we need to do is determine what our role our military will play in the 21st century, build a model to meet that goal, and then reconstruct the military to fit the model. Instead, every day is Cold War day in Washington, and, so, with an out of date model we build an out of date military. Sigh. Perhaps if we cut the military by 50% we might have a chance of starting over and building something valuable, but until the Conservative Nanny State hops off the all-military-all-the-time bus I won't hold my breath. |
AuthorMaddog Categories
All
|