Jews Know How To Fight?

By Findalis

Chanukah Day 1

Jews fight?  That was asked when I was a child.  Right!  They can't fight their way out of a paper bag.  Jews don't know how to fight.  That is why the Nazis were able to kill them.

But the reality is that Jews were known for their fighting prowess for thousands of years.

The miracle of Hanukkah wasn’t performed by G-d alone. The Maccabees played a crucial role in defeating the Syrian Greeks on the battlefields. It was a partnership of human courage and Divine guidance. Matisyahu and his sons prevailed because they were wise enough to recognize that although Jews revere peace, we acknowledge that there may be a time that demands we go to war.

And that was not an easy thing for our people to admit – neither then, nor today.

Psychologists tell us there are basically two ways in which we can cope with the world: fight or flight. Encountering any difficulty, one can either attempt to cope, grapple and wrestle with an issue and overcome it, or one can flee and give up at the outset.

Some may rationalize flight as the correct religious response. Let me not do anything, and if G-d really desires a certain outcome, let Him handle it to His satisfaction.

As I heard Rabbi Soleveichik once explain it, this was the way of Jacob, even from the time he was in the womb. Jacob had actually been conceived first. He should’ve been the one to be born before his brother. Technically, he was the eldest, with all the attendant privileges of primogeniture. His brother Esau, however, pushed himself forward and forced himself over Jacob. “And after that came forth his brother and his hand had hold on Esau’s heel and his name was called Jacob” [Genesis 25:26] . The very name Jacob comes from the Hebrew word related to heel. Jacob was holding on to his brother’s heel; he begins his life being trampled upon, unfairly deprived by force of his rights.

Jacob’s life continued to unfold, guided by the unspoken philosophy that “nice Jewish boys don’t fight.” His twin brother Esau fooled father Isaac into thinking that he was the more pious and deserving son - and were it not for the intervention of his mother, Jacob would not have said a word in the face of this injustice.

When Jacob fell in love with Rachel only to have his father-in-law switch brides and trick him into a marriage with Leah, his response was to quietly accept the obligation to work for yet another seven years in order to earn the hand of the woman that was already rightly his.

Passivity in the face of evil and the silent acceptance of ill treatment defined Jacob’s theology. Jacob eventually realized his error in the dramatic story that so altered his perception that it was responsible for a change of name, a change that acknowledged that his newfound insight literally turned him into a new person.

Left totally alone and attacked by a mysterious assailant the commentators identify as the evil representative of Esau, Jacob realizes he has no alternative but to fight. At the end of a long night of battle, Jacob is left limping but nonetheless receives a blessing. He is now no longer the stepped-upon Jacob, but from this time forward is Israel – “because you have striven with G-d and with men and have prevailed” [Genesis 32:29].

Jacob may have suffered a blow, but he won the greater battle – the battle over his unwillingness previously to engage in combat. Jacob won the greatest victory of all – he finally managed to conquer himself.

And, explain the commentators, if he was left limping, what of it? That would simply mean he would never again be able to run away from anyone or any place, not even from himself.

The name change of Jacob to Israel differs from that of Abram to Abraham. Once Abram became Abraham he would never again be called by his original name. Abraham identified his new mission as “the father of many nations,” the first one to bring monotheism to the consciousness of the world. That name change was exclusive.

However even after Jacob became Israel, when the pacifist became the fighter, we still find him at times referred to by his earlier name. The reason is obvious. It is what was stated so beautifully by Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes: “There is a time for peace and there is a time for war.” Both names are to be used, both modalities are to be employed.

Peace is the ultimate goal. But until the messianic era, war remains an unfortunate necessity.

We wish we would only have to imitate the way of Jacob who sat peacefully in his tent dedicating his life to study. But as long as there remain those like Esau who threaten our existence we know we must assume the identity of Israel and do battle with our enemies.

The Maccabees understood this. While they surely would have preferred to lead the peaceful life of priests, they recognized the responsibility placed upon them by the threat of a Greek-Syrian army bent on their destruction.

Of course nice Jewish boys don’t want to fight. That is not our way. But the world needs to know that we are the nation of Israel, defending the land of Israel. And like our forefather Israel, we will fight for survival. Like the Maccabees, Israel will go to war when it’s necessary. That’s because we love peace so much that we are ready to fight for it.

And that is one of the contemporary messages of Chanukah.

Source

The people of Israel don't ask for war.  They prepare for war, they train for war, they pray for peace.  Yet their neighbors demand that they leave their ancient, ancestral land.  A land that they fought for.  Not just in the past, but for the last 65 years.  And we will NOT just leave the land over a piece of paper.  Will will NOT tear a city in 2 to appease Obama.  And we will NOT give up our weapons to appease a world more concerned with finishing the job Hitler did, then allow the children of the Holocaust survive.  Nor will we trust an enemy who for decades has threaten to wipe us off the planet.

For this first night I did not choose a Chanukah video, but I do believe that this song says the meaning of Chanukah and the Jewish people more than any other could.

Andy Williams Sings "The Exodus Song (This Land Is Mine)"


Click here if the video doesn't load.

Happy Chanukah!!

Intervention in Syria: Just Waiting for an Excuse

I believe that the conditions are now set to "justify" US/NATO intervention in Syria should Bashar al-Assad cross a "red line."

1. The United States has formally recognized the Syrian opposition coalition as the "legitimate representative of the Syrian people."  France, Britain, Turkey and the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, et al) have also formally recognized the rebel coalition.  (VOA)  That makes the Assad regime illegitimate.  Does that somehow make us justified to protect this "legitimate" Syrian government from attack by Assad's regime?
2. The United States has designated the Al Nusra Front, a Syrian rebel group, as a terrorist organization.  The Al Nusra Front is claimed to be an off-shoot of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).  (HotAir, The Investigative Project)  As described in my piece "Al Qaeda: Tip of the Brotherhood's Spear," the existence of this group in Syria obliges the United States to become involved in the conflict to prevent its arch-enemy, Al Qaeda, from taking over the government or obtaining WMDs.  This means US support for the non-al-Qaeda rebels.
3. There have been multiple reports that the forces of the Assad regime are preparing to employ chemical weapons (e.g. sarin nerve agent) against the rebels.  This has been identified as a "red line" that would trigger US/NATO intervention should it be crossed. (Reuters)
4. Syria has reportedly fired SCUD missiles against rebels within the borders of Syria (from Damascus to the north, close to Turkey). (CNN)  Should they stray into Turkey, or carry chemical weapons, that will "justify" intervention.  Patriot missile systems have been deployed to Turkey that have the capability to shoot down many types of surface-to-surface missiles like the SCUD.  (Foreign Policy)

Again I ask: why is no American leader opposing our march to war in Syria?

--Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Syria: Why is no one opposing our march to war?

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world" --George Washington's Farewell Address 

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none." --Thomas Jefferson

Why is no one in America standing up and saying "no" to US involvement in the Syrian war?  It now seems to be a foregone conclusion that our military will be involved...not question of "if," but "when."

Is Syria's use of chemical weapons against its own citizens a proper justification for our military to become involved?  What threat are they to the security of our nation and our people?  Have the Syrians attacked us?

Do we not understand that the Syrian port of Tartus is the only one that the Russian military has use of in the Mediterranean Sea?  Do we not understand that the ouster of the Shia Bashar al-Assad in Syria will be a significant blow to Shia Iran's security?  Perhaps it is because of these very reasons that we believe it advantageous to encourage civil war in Syria, and then get directly involved when a conveniently placed "red line" is crossed.

Are we to think that the Russians and Iranians will not avenge the loss of Syria?  And what about the jihadis in Syria who we are aiding?  Just like the mujahideen in Afghanistan and Libya, they will turn right around and attack us.  You're delusional if you believe this will not happen.

Yes, our military still has the power to undertake wars in other nations (it is debatable for how much longer), but just because we can does not mean we should.  Being on the verge of economic collapse, we need to husband our military resources instead of squandering them on questionable adventures in the Middle East.  Yet here we are moving Patriot anti-missile batteries to Turkey and determining that it will take 75,000 US soldiers to secure Syria's chemical weapons.

What benefits will are nation really get from involvement in Syria?  Or will it instead benefit King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia, who seeks to lessen the power of his arch-rival Shia Iran?  Or Erdogan in Turkey who is reasserting Turkish dominance in the region?   Or the Muslim Brotherhood and Sunni Caliphate in general?

Why is no American leader standing up and saying "no" to this steady march to war?

America and its allies are playing with fire in Syria, and we are all about to get burned.  We need to back off and have nothing to do with that mess--chemical weapons or not.  We are not justified to start killing Syrians and our involvement is not worth one single American life, bomb, or dollar.

--Against All Enemies

AAE Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com

AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Is Major War Now Imminent?

Judging from the anger being stoked by Islamic leaders in response to the film "Innocence of Muslims," I would say that the overall effect will more than likely result in a major attack or attacks on the interests of the United States, and potentially the West in general (factor in the Muhammad cartoons that were recently published in France).  I am not speaking of protests at Embassies and Consulates.  I am talking about significant terrorist attacks against our citizens, which will most likely precipitate a major conflict.

In the back of my mind I wonder if we were not being shaped into this war ever since September 11, 2001.  Or perhaps even earlier.

I have watched our leadership deliberately refer to Islam as the "religion of peace," which is not true.  To the follower of Mohammad, peace will only be achieved once Islam rules over the entire world.  Until then, they are instructed by their god and prophet to spread their religion by the sword.

Our leadership has bent over backwards trying not to offend Muslims.  In a word, it is a policy of appeasement.  Now we are on the verge of being subjected to laws that will limit our freedom of speech and thereby allow a very intolerant religion to continue to advance, unchallenged.  We are, in effect, accepting Islam as a truth that cannot be ridiculed or disputed.

Our leadership has deliberately ignored documents that clearly state the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to overthrow our government and destroy our way of life.  Today we see Muslim Brotherhood operatives advising members of the Executive Branch of our government.  They have the command and control structure established in America to facilitate coordinated attacks on our soil.  We assist the Muslim Brotherhood obtain power in nations such as Egypt, Libya and Syria, which is opening Pandora's box so that we can watch expansionist Islam rise out of its dark depths.

It is almost as if we are being brought to the very limits of our patience, which will explode with another jihadist attack on our nation.  A spark has set the Islamic world on fire with rage against us.  Movie, cartoon, or something else, the spark does not matter.  The spark will be found one way or another and it is only a matter of time before they sally forth to avenge their prophet.

Continue reading here.

http://aaenemies.blogspot.com/2012/09/is-major-war-now-imminent.html



--Against All Enemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Are You Ready for "Peace?"

What follows is an analysis of the "Report from Iron Mountain," a study conducted in 1966 to determine how to prepare American society for disarmament ("peace").  This analysis was done prior to my reading Chapter 24 of "The Creature from Jekyll Island."

Introduction

I began my blog as an investigation into current events, because they seemed far outside the norm of what should be happening in the United State of America as established by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  I sought to discover the motivation behind these events.  From my research, I have developed the hypothesis that world leaders are attempting to establish a "One World Government" to finally bring "peace" to the world.  Let me explain:

1. I believe that God, as revealed to us in the Bible, exists.
2. I believe that men have a natural tendency to seek power over other men.
3. I believe that men have a natural desire to attempt to solve humanity's problems (i.e. establish "peace"), without the assistance or acknowledgement of God, as this will make them god-like.
4. If you are going to establish "peace" on the planet, you will have a plan to do so.

I believe that I may have come across a seed crystal for just such a plan that focuses on transitioning a society from a state "war" to a state of "peace," potentially under a One World Government of some sort.  This plan is described in the "Report from Iron Mountain" which was written in 1966 by a group of 15 professionals who represented different fields and professions and were collectively referred to as the Special Study Group.  We are potentially seeing glimpses of the actions taken during such a transition today.

Whether or not anyone follows the recommendations of this Report verbatim, the thought process behind it is very similar to what is being done for Agenda 21 and other socialist movements.  The authors of the Report call for centralized control of the population, and acknowledge that "The elimination of war implies the inevitable elimination of national sovereignty and the traditional nation-state." (p. 36)  Interestingly enough, this is not at odds with general communist goals, as stated at the first World Congress in 1919:

The Comintern [Communist International] would work "by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State."  (source)

Before we continue, we must ask ourselves, what is "peace" (dictionary definition).  In the Report, it only means the absence of war between nations.  But there is an implication that is not stated.  With peace, generally something must be surrendered.  In Christianity, the individual surrenders to Christ.  In Islam, the society surrender to all the aspects of its totalitarian ideology.  So what do you surrender in a man-made peace?  I believe it is your liberties afforded you as an American citizen, because according to this report, to achieve peace, the population must be deceived and strictly controlled.  If you believe what the Lord has taught us, there will be no true peace until the return of our Savior.  Until then, any efforts by man to do likewise, especially through socialist methods, will end in utter failure, and most likely death (look back to transitions in Soviet Russia, Communist China, and Pol Pot in Cambodia).

The "Report from Iron Mountain" indicates that the following actions may be required in a transition to peace:

1. Deceiving the people of the United States
2. Maintaining centralized control of the population
3. Massive disarmament and the transition of the economy to another form
4. Creating fictitious alternate enemies (aliens, pollution, etc.)
5. Potentially implementing a modern form of slavery
6. Implementation of a eugenics program for population control
7. Implementation of a massive social welfare program

What the Report does not address:

1. God (ruled out from the beginning)
2. The People of the United States as being sovereign
3. The Constitution of the United States and the protection of individual liberties

In its Report, the Special Study Group (SSG) first looked at the current state of war and its functions within society, identified what is needed for transition to peace, and then made recommendations as to what substitutes could replace those functions provided by war.

The Functions of War (from pp. 59-60 of the Report)

1. Economic.  War has provided both ancient and modern societies with a dependable system for stabilizing and controlling national economies.
2. Political. The permanent possibility of war is the foundation for stable government; it supplies the basis for general acceptance of political authority. It has enabled societies to maintain necessary class distinctions, and it has ensured the subordination of the citizen to the state, by virtue of the residual war powers
inherent in the concept of nationhood.
3. Sociological.  War, through the medium of military institutions, has uniquely served societies, throughout the course of known history, as an indispensable controller of dangerous social dissidence and destructive
antisocial tendencies.... [T]he war system has provided the machinery through which the motivational forces governing human behavior have been translated into binding social allegiance. It has thus ensured the degree of social cohesion necessary to the viability of nations.
4. Ecological.  War has been the principal evolutionary device for maintaining a satisfactory ecological balance between gross human population and supplies available for its survival.
5. Cultural and Scientific. War-orientation has determined the basic standards of value in the creative arts, and has provided the fundamental motivational source of scientific and technological progress. The concepts that the arts express values independent of their own forms and that the successful pursuit of knowledge has intrinsic social value have long been accepted in modern societies; the development of the arts and sciences during this period has been corollary to the parallel development of weaponry.

Requirements for Transition to Peace (from p. 61 of the Report)

1. Economic.  An acceptable economic surrogate for the war system will require the expenditure of resources for completely nonproductive purposes at a level comparable to that of the military expenditures otherwise demanded by the size and complexity of each society. Such a substitute system of apparent "waste" must be of a nature that will permit it to remain independent of the normal supply-demand economy; it must be subject to arbitrary political control.
2. Political. A viable political substitute for war must posit a generalized external menace to each society of a nature and degree sufficient to require the organization and acceptance of political authority.
3. Sociological.  First, in the permanent absence of war, new institutions must be developed that will effectively control the socially destructive segments of societies. Second, for purposes of adapting the physical and psychological dynamics of human behavior to the needs of social organization, a credible substitute for war must generate an omnipresent and readily understood fear of personal destruction. This fear must be of a nature and degree sufficient to ensure adherence to societal values to the full extent that they are acknowledged to transcend the value of individual human life.
4. Ecological.  A substitute for war in its function as the uniquely human system of population control must ensure the survival, if not necessarily the improvement, of the species, in terms of its relations to environmental supply.
5. Cultural and Scientific. A surrogate for the function of war as the determinant of cultural values must establish a basis of socio-moral conflict of equally compelling force and scope. A substitute motivational basis for the quest for scientific knowledge must be similarly informed by a comparable sense of internal necessity.

Potential Substitutes for War Functions (p. 62 of the Report)
1. Economic.
    a) A comprehensive social-welfare program, directed toward maximum improvement of general conditions of human life.
    b) A giant open-end space research program, aimed at unreachable targets.
    c) A permanent, ritualized, ultra-elaborate disarmament inspection system, and variants of such a
system. (This last substitute was generally rejected by the SSG.)
2. Political.
    a) An omnipresent, virtually omnipotent international police force. (This recommendation was generally dismissed by the SSG because it would imply a continuing state of warfare of some nature.)
    b) An established and recognized extraterrestrial menace.
    c) Massive global environmental pollution. d) Fictitious alternate enemies.
3. Sociological.
    Control Function:
      a) Programs generally derived from the Peace Corps model.
      b) A modern, sophisticated form of slavery.
    Motivational Function:
      a) Intensified environmental pollution.
      b) New religions or other mythologies.
      c) Socially oriented blood games.
      d) Combination forms.
4. Ecological. A comprehensive program of applied eugenics.  (eugenics: the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).)
5. Cultural and Scientific.
    Cultural: No replacement institution offered.
    Scientific: The secondary requirements of the space research, social welfare, and / or eugenics programs.

Signs of Transition

Like all good planners, the SSG recommends that the solutions be arrived at before implementation begins.  What follows is taking the model provided by the SSG planners and fitting current events to that model.  The fact that many current events fit into this model does not in and of itself validate that the powers-that-be are actually following the model as laid out in the Report.  However, it could help explain these curious events that currently seem to make no sense otherwise.

1. Economic.
    a. The Affordable Care Act, being enormous in cost, independent of the normal supply/demand model, and under arbitrary political control, may meet the criteria to be a substitute function for the current military expenditures of the United States.  It even calls for a new civil defense force that may meet the need for a Peace Corps type organization in the Sociological realm.
    b. Some national leaders have thrown out the ideas of establishing a "moon base" or putting a human on Mars, which could be interpreted as efforts to establish an open-ended space program as the substitute for the military portion of the budget.
    c. Sequestration and the currently planned cuts to the military budget will assist in significantly reducing the size of the United States military over a 10-year period, and reduce its portion of the entire national budget.
    d. The current precarious position of the US military deployed in the Pacific and Mideast could result in significant losses should war erupt in near-simultaneous fashion.  This, coupled with the budget/deficit problems, could force the retirement of the US military from overseas positions.
    e. The creation of, and government support for, "green jobs" may be an attempt to replace a portion of the military industry in the economy with a completely new sector.

2. Political.
    a. The UFO phenomenon that has been present for decades now may not be a credible enough threat  to force people to accept political authority.  Threat from a meteor/asteroid strike might not either.
    b. Islam could be used as the external (and potentially internal) "menace," or even the controlling political structure itself.  However, the acceptance of Islam by the American people as that internal political structure may not be feasible.

3. Sociological.
   a. There will be a requirement to transition people currently serving in the military into other professions due to "general disarmament."  The new initiative by the Department of Defense, "Reverse Boot Camp," could be the start point for a larger program to support such massive disarmament and returning military professionals to civilian life commensurate with the disarmament.
   b. With the amount of debt being placed on the backs of the American taxpayer in the form of the national debt, home loans, college loans, etc., this could potentially serve as a modern form of slavery for the American people--slavery to enormous debt that is owed to the central government. (control function)
   c.  There are the current hyped-up threats of man-made "global warming" and "climate change" that can be used for the motivational function and provide "fear of personal destruction."  Maybe an asteroid or meteor strike.  (motivational function)

4. Ecological.
    a. Legalized abortion serves eugenics purposes by limiting the size of the population and the number of children had by members of the lower classes of society.  With pre-natal testing, abortion allows couples to abort children with birth defects.
    b. The promotion of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender behavior also helps reduce the size of the population by encouraging men to "shoot at the wrong target" and women to opt out of child-bearing relationships.
    c. Some researchers are now suggesting that post-birth abortions are ethical, which can also be used to reduce the size of the population and eliminate children with birth defects that were not identified in the womb.

5. Cultural and Scientific.
    a. A potential cultural replacement institution could be Islam which brings with it the complete totalitarian package that appears to be required by this Report.  However, the SSG potentially dismisses the need for a "god" by stating "It may be, however, that a basic cultural value-determinant [i.e. God] is not necessary to the survival of a stable society." (p. 63)  Another possibility could be the worship of the planet.
    b. An attempt to find a substitute for the scientific contributions of the war industry could be with the development "green technology," or potentially the space exploration sector should the US decide to resume its space program.

Special Study Group Recommendation

The Special Study Group's (SSG) primary recommendation at the conclusion of the report was for the United States Government to establish a WAR/PEACE Research Agency to determine technically feasible, politically acceptable, and socially credible "substitute institutions for the principal non-military  functions of war" (pp. 61, 69) and "to ensure the continuing viability of the war system to fulfill its essential nonmilitary functions for as long as the war system is judged necessary to or desirable for the survival of society." (p. 70)

The Agency's organization and powers are described as follows:

This agency (a) will be provided with non-accountable funds sufficient to implement its responsibilities and decisions at its own discretion, and (b) will have authority to preempt and utilize, without restriction, any and all facilities of the executive branch of the government in pursuit of its objectives. It will be organized along the lines of the National Security Council, except that none of its governing, executive, or operating personnel will hold other public office or governmental responsibility. Its directorate will be drawn from the broadest practicable spectrum of scientific disciplines, humanistic studies, applied creative arts, operating technologies, and otherwise unclassified professional occupations. It will be responsible solely to the President, or to other officers of government temporarily deputized by him. Its operations will be governed entirely by its own rules of procedure. Its authority will expressly include the unlimited right to withhold information on its activities and its decisions, from anyone except the President, whenever it deems such secrecy to be in the public interest. (p. 69)

Conclusion of the Special Study Group (pp. 64-66)

Such solutions, if indeed they exist, will not be arrived at without a revolutionary revision of the modes of thought heretofore considered appropriate to peace research. That we have examined the fundamental questions involved from a dispassionate, value-free [aka no God] point of view should not imply that we do not appreciate the intellectual and emotional difficulties that must be overcome on all decision-making levels before these questions are generally acknowledged by others for what they are. (p. 64)

A viable system of peace, assuming that the great and complex questions of substitute institutions raised in this Report are both soluble and solved, would still constitute a venture into the unknown, with the inevitable risks attendant on the unforeseen, however small and however well hedged. (p. 65)

It is possible that one or more major sovereign nations may arrive, through ambiguous leadership, at a position in which a ruling administrative class may lose control of basic public opinion or of its ability to rationalize a desired war. It is not hard to imagine, in such circumstances, a situation in which such governments may feel forced to initiate serious full-scale disarmament proceedings (perhaps provoked by "accidental" nuclear explosions), and that such negotiations may lead to the actual disestablishment of military institutions. As our Report has made clear, this could be catastrophic.(p. 66)

Summary

This Report is one of the most evil documents I have ever read.  The SSG presupposes the absence of God, and treats humans as animals governed by evolution and survival of the fittest.  Not surprisingly, their construct is the polar opposite of how our Founding Fathers solved the problem of creating a new government for the United States of America, by first assuming there is a God who endowed us with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What we observe in the Report from Iron Mountain is man's total reliance on science (or human knowledge and reason) and a blatant rejection of God.  What is important to know is that there are people in the world that think this way, and can exploit science and reason to "rationally" support their conclusions, no matter how faulty their premises or how inhumane their solutions.  As a result, these are very dangerous people.

The Report from Iron Mountain, like socialism, is a great thought exercise.  However, its implementation will result in utter failure because of a critical precondition that was set by the Group: that God is not a factor (basically, does not exist).

The United States of America, as a Christian nation, can never be at "peace" with the rest of the world.  This is because the rest of the world is replete with poisonous ideologies that seek to destroy our liberties and faith in God.  So to even harbor the thought that peace is possible before the return of Christ is fallacious.

Finally, in the United States, the people are sovereign.  The fact that this Report proposes that our government deceive the people in order to transition to a state of peace indicates that many of the recommendations of the "Report from Iron Mountain" are treasonous (treason: 1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign. 2.a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state. 3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.).

Read the Report from Iron Mountain at your own mental peril.  Two of the group members experienced heart attacks following the completion of the Report. (p. 13)  I personally have not experienced such a bad physical response to reading a document since reading descriptions of partial-birth abortions.

Primary resource: "Report from Iron Mountain: On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace."  New York: The Dial Press, 1967.  (link)

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Prelude To War

From Wikipedia:

World War 1:

In the 19th century, the major European powers had gone to great lengths to maintain a balance of power throughout Europe, resulting by 1900 in a complex network of political and military alliances throughout the continent. These had started in 1815, with the Holy Alliance between Prussia, Russia, and Austria. Then, in October 1873, German Chancellor Bismarck negotiated the League of the Three Emperors (German: Dreikaiserbund) between the monarchs of Austria–Hungary, Russia and Germany. This agreement failed because Austria–Hungary and Russia could not agree over Balkan policy, leaving Germany and Austria–Hungary in an alliance formed in 1879, called the Dual Alliance. This was seen as a method of countering Russian influence in the Balkans as the Ottoman Empire continued to weaken. In 1882, this alliance was expanded to include Italy in what became the Triple Alliance.

After 1870, European conflict was averted largely through a carefully planned network of treaties between the German Empire and the remainder of Europe orchestrated by Bismarck. He especially worked to hold Russia at Germany's side to avoid a two-front war with France and Russia. When Wilhelm II ascended to the throne as German Emperor (Kaiser), Bismarck's alliances were gradually de-emphasised. For example, the Kaiser refused to renew the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia in 1890. Two years later, the Franco-Russian Alliance was signed to counteract the force of the Triple Alliance. In 1904, the United Kingdom sealed an alliance with France, the Entente Cordiale, and in 1907, the United Kingdom and Russia signed the Anglo-Russian Convention. This system of interlocking bilateral agreements formed the Triple Entente.

German industrial and economic power had grown greatly after unification and the foundation of the Empire in 1871. From the mid-1890s on, the government of Wilhelm II used this base to devote significant economic resources to building up the Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial German Navy), established by Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, in rivalry with the British Royal Navy for world naval supremacy.[19] As a result, each nation strove to out-build the other in terms of capital ships. With the launch of HMS Dreadnought in 1906, the British Empire expanded on its significant advantage over its German rival. The arms race between Britain and Germany eventually extended to the rest of Europe, with all the major powers devoting their industrial base to producing the equipment and weapons necessary for a pan-European conflict. Between 1908 and 1913, the military spending of the European powers increased by 50 percent.

Austria-Hungary precipitated the Bosnian crisis of 1908–1909 by officially annexing the former Ottoman territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which it had occupied since 1878. This angered the Kingdom of Serbia and its patron, the Pan-Slavic and Orthodox Russian Empire. Russian political maneuvering in the region destabilised peace accords that were already fracturing in what was known as "the powder keg of Europe".

In 1912 and 1913 the First Balkan War was fought between the Balkan League and the fracturing Ottoman Empire. The resulting Treaty of London further shrank the Ottoman Empire, creating an independent Albanian State while enlarging the territorial holdings of Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece. When Bulgaria attacked both Serbia and Greece on 16 June 1913, it lost most of Macedonia to Serbia and Greece and Southern Dobruja to Romania in the 33-day Second Balkan War, further destabilising the region.

On 28 June 1914, Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian-Serb student and member of Young Bosnia, assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo, Bosnia.[24] This began a period of diplomatic maneuvering among Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, France, and Britain called the July Crisis. Wanting to finally end Serbian interference in Bosnia, Austria-Hungary delivered the July Ultimatum to Serbia, a series of ten demands intentionally made unacceptable, intending to provoke a war with Serbia.[25] When Serbia agreed to only eight of the ten demands, Austria-Hungary declared war on 28 July 1914. Strachan argues, "Whether an equivocal and early response by Serbia would have made any difference to Austria-Hungary's behavior must be doubtful. Franz Ferdinand was not the sort of personality who commanded popularity, and his demise did not cast the empire into deepest mourning".

The Russian Empire, unwilling to allow Austria–Hungary to eliminate its influence in the Balkans, and in support of its longtime Serb proteges, ordered a partial mobilization one day later. When the German Empire began to mobilize on 30 July 1914, France, resentful of the German conquest of Alsace-Lorraine during the Franco-Prussian War, ordered French mobilization on 1 August. Germany declared war on Russia on the same day. The United Kingdom declared war on Germany on 4 August 1914, following an "unsatisfactory reply" to the British ultimatum that Belgium must be kept neutral.

From Wikipedia:

World War 2:

The main causes of World War II were nationalistic tensions, unresolved issues, and resentments resulting from the World War I and the interwar period in Europe, plus the effects of the Great Depression in the 1930s.

The culmination of events that led to the outbreak of war are generally understood to be the 1939 invasion of Poland by Germany and Soviet Russia and the 1937 invasion of the Republic of China by the Empire of Japan.

These military aggressions were the result of decisions made by the authoritarian ruling Nazi elite in Germany and by the leadership of the Kwantung Army in Japan. World War II started after these aggressive actions were met with an official declaration of war and/or armed resistance.

I could go on for many wars.  The main thesis is that posturing and beating of the chests will only cause others to prepare for war instead of becoming scared of the idiot with the aggressive behavior. This was true all through out history and is true today.

The IDF has deployed Armored forces near the Israel-Egypt border, moving tanks closer to the fence, Ynet has learned. The unusual move followed Monday's terror attack on defense contractor crews building the new security fence.

The attack claimed the life of Said Phashpashe, 36, from Haifa. Golani soldiers who were scrambled to the area killed two terrorists.

Ynet was able to document the presence of Israeli tanks in close proximity to the border – maneuvers which are barred by Jerusalem's peace treaty with Cairo. The last time the IDF boosted its front-line combat vehicle presence in the sector was in August 2011, following a murderous terror attack by the Islamic Jihad, which left nine Israelis dead.

At the time, the military deployed several armored personnel carriers along the border, as part of the heightened security measures in the sensitive area.

Ynet's chief military commentator Ron Ben Yishai noted that several months ago, Israel and Egypt arrived at an agreement by which Cairo would be able to deploy 20 tanks near the border, to ward off attacks by Bedouins on Egyptian forces, despite the fact that such a move contradicts the peace treaty.

It is likely that the deal also allowed Israel to do the same in favor of increased protection for the area's communities.

Gaza Division Southern Brigade Commander Col. Tal Harmoni held a press briefing Monday, following the terror attack: "We are in a race against the clock to close the border," he told reporters. "We have to seal off the border as soon as we can to prevent exactly these kinds of attacks."

Harmoni added that as tragic as the attack's result were, "It could have been far worse – a large-scale attack was prevented.

"The IDF has strong ties with the Egyptians forces, who are working tirelessly to thwart such incidents," he concluded.

Source

Every day there is an attack or attempted attack on Israel from the Sinai.  The military claims that they don't have jurisdiction to arrest the terrorist.  The Muslim Brotherhood is stirring the people of Egypt towards war with Israel.  A war the Egyptian military doesn't want and the Israelis dread the war and the loss of life it will bring.

It seems that only the Muslim Brotherhood want war with Israel.  A War of Liberation they are calling it.  A war in which they believe they will not only liberate Jerusalem but turn it into the Capital of Egypt.  A war in which both military and civilian in their nation will pay the price.

Israel has placed some of its tanks on the border with Sinai.  The IDF is preparing war plans to defend the nation.  Planes are standing by and Rabbis are beginning to pray for the nation.  Egypt is too confident, too cocky.  Egypt can be hurt, damaged, destroyed if necessary.  The women of Egypt will cry to G-d in anger and pain.  This will be a war that could be averted but not with the Leadership we now have in the White House.

Iran’s Leaders WANT War

Iran’s Leaders WANT War 

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

In order for the twelfth Imam to return to earth and set up a worldwide Caliphate, the world must be in chaos.  Not ought to be, not might be, not close to being, but MUST be in chaos.

The current theocratic leaders of Iran believe that it is incumbent on them to insure that the world is brought to chaos as soon as possible. 

The race in Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is critical to Iran’s obligation to create chaos through war. 

There must be a spark and some now believe that if Israel or the US do not soon ignite the conflagration of war then Iran will strike the US and/or Israel to insure that the chaos of war is soon visited on the world.

The recent passage of two Iranian warships through the Suez Canal sort of tipped Iran’s preemptive hand. Those ships stood off the Israeli coast, then turned and went back through the Canal, most likely to their homeport in Iran.  It was a head fake, if you will.  It was a way of saying:  “See?  We can come within easy missile range of Israeli cities with our naval assets.”  In a confirmation of sorts, Iranian leaders said that they could, and would, take preemptive action against Israel (or the US) if they felt it necessary.

In my opinion, Iranian leaders are under no illusion that they can win a war against Israel or the US and certainly not against BOTH.  But victory is not the point -- and it is certainly not the goal of the Mullahs.  The goal is to START the war.  Once the Middle East is aflame, THEN, and only then, can the twelfth Imam appear to lead the Islamic world to worldwide victory and the establishment of a global Islamic government.

No amount of sanctions will change their minds. Neither fleets of warships nor squadrons of aircraft from the western world, no matter the number; will stop the coming war with Iran. There will be war.  There MUST be war.

The civilized world is dealing with religious fanatics.  That is always bad.

Remember the Japanese military of the 2^nd World War?  Remember what it took to stop those religious fanatics?  Remember the costs in blood?   

At this writing, it seems clear that if Israel does not soon attack Iran, then Iran will attack Israel.

Obama’s diplomats, whether from the US State Department, or the Department of Defense, seem utterly at a lost to understand what is happening in the Middle East today.  To watch those men and woman at work is akin to watching a group of out and out amateurs. 

Obama’s involving America’s top generals in diplomatic missions is embarrassing to the soldiers and to the people of America.  It is an affront to the US military as a whole.  It is also a sign that the Commander-in-Chief hasn’t a clue what he is doing.

Iran has obviously decided that America is more willing to live with an Iran armed with atomic weapons than it is to go to war to prevent it.  Obama’s gutting of the US military and his desire to cut our nuclear arsenal by 80% is evidence that the Iranians are correct in their assessment of the Obama Regime.

Wisely, Israel doesn’t trust the Obama Regime.  How can they?  Obama has shown his distaste for Israel and his favor for the Islamic states quite clearly.  Israel would be foolish to discuss any plans they have for stopping Iran’s nuclear programs with the Obama regime.  Israel’s government is not foolish. 

In the meantime, Iran is basking in the spotlight the world has shone upon them.  They prance, preen, and strut across the world stage, like Bantam roosters, soaking up the attention.  They feel their importance and they don’t mind making spectacles of themselves before the world just to make sure the rest of us understand they (Iran) hold the keys to war and peace.

All the while, the 12^th Imam sits, down in his well, and waits for the chaos necessary to get him out of that hole.  After all the centuries he has spent in the bowels of the earth he is surely impatient.

The dogs of war are straining at their leashes growling, howling, and snapping their drooling jaws at civilization.  At the other end of the leashes is Iran’s mad mullahs hissing the words:  “Sic ‘em.”

J. D. Longstreet

Afghanistan A Lost Cause And A Hopeless Case

Afghanistan A Lost Cause And A Hopeless Case
Blissfully ignorant and happy to stay that way
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet


When a country has chosen to isolate itself from the remainder of the world in a Luddite fashion (taken to the "nth" degree) and huddle together in tribes while choosing to live in abject squaller as their ancestors did in the seventh and eighth centuries, plus perceive any offering to help them advance into a modern age as an insult to them and their god of choice, then any one, any country, attempting to help will ultimately find their efforts are utter failures and the people to whom they have offered assistance will return their magnanimous offers with out and out hatred and rage.

Such is the case with the US and Afghanistan today.

The people and the rulers of Afghanistan have shown us they are quite content living their savage, primitive, ignorant, corrupt lives, as the cesspool of the world.  Fine.  Let them.  Afghanistan isn't worth the life of a single American soldier, sailor, Marine, or airman.

It was my understanding, and I believe the understanding of the majority of Americans, that US military forces went into Afghanistan to destroy terrorist training camps, kill as many terrorists AS POSSIBLE, hopefully catch or kill Bin Laden and ... come home.

That didn't happen.

Things called "mission creep"  and ROE or "rules of engagement" prolonged and changed the US military's mission in Afghanistan until neither the Afghanis nor the Americans understood what was going on in that hell hole of a country.

American troops have been in that sludge pit for over ten years now.  Victory is nowhere in sight.  In fact, the entire Pentagon would be hard pressed to define what victory would even look like in Afghanistan.

Many decades ago, while in the US Army, I was taught to kill the enemy.  Not a single one of my trainers, not a single one of the cadre entrusted with turning me and my fellow recruits into soldiers said a cussed thing about "collateral damage."  Not ONE!  We were taught to do one thing and that was ... to kill the enemy.

There were no lawyers in the in the battle planning sessions.  What there were ... were soldiers taught to ... KILL THE ENEMY, period.

Then came Vietnam -- and President Lyndon Johnson and President Richard Nixon, both, decided neither would go down in the history books as the first American President to lose a war.  Added to the mix, the newly imported European philosophy called POLITICAL CORRECTNESS and we had a battle plan for failure in Vietnam.

Unfortunately, our leaders didn't learn a darned thing from the Vietnam experience. They continue to allow political correctness and lawyers to "advise" on war fighting missions and battles -- and even wars -- and we have not won a "WAR" since. 

No, I do not consider the first Iraq invasion a real war.  It was more a prolonged battle, which lasted a few days.  Of course, I side with those of the opinion that had we gone on to Baghdad -- THEN --and took out Saddam Hussein THEN -- we would not have had to go back to Iraq ten years later for a second round that accomplished little short of killing Hussein.

I can remember a time when the American military was taught to war fight much as our Special Forces are today.  That may be because we did not have Special Forces troops then.  But the point is -- maybe we ought to train ALL American fighting men to conduct warfare at the level our Green Berets, Delta Force, SEALS and other Special Operators do.  (I am referring to their focus, skill, and intensity in combat.) Problem is,of course, unless the civilian commanders of the US Military allow them to use those skills to actually win wars, we STILL will not see victory again. 

What a shame!

That brings me full circle back to the Afghanistan problem. 

My friend, Alan Caruba, pointed out in a recent commentary that even Alexander the Great found Afghanistan just as screwed up as it is today and just as hard a nut to crack.  (You may recall that Genghis Khan had the same problem with a place we know today as Vietnam.  In fact  he wrote it off as "unconquerable.")  How little we learn from history -- and yes, it DOES repeat itself.  Different actors, different centuries, same ending to the play.

I ask you to consider if General Douglas MacArthur or General George Patton were commanding the American forces in Afghanistan,  and Afghanistan's leader, Hamid Karzai, publicly defied their orders, as he consistently does the current American commander's orders. How long do you think Mr. Karzai would be President of Afghanistan?  Better yet -- how long do you think there would BE a President of Afghanistan?

My, how times do change.  I'd remind you -- we haven't actually WON a war since the Second World War.  Wonder why???

Unless the United States is prepared to commit genocide in Afghanistan, there is simple no way to win a "war" there.  If we stay another ten years, we will be in no better position, militarily, than we are today.  

So far as democracy in Afghanistan --- the Afghanis are simple not capable of living in a democratic society.  It cannot be forced on them.  They have to want it.  Clearly, they do not.

Conclusion:  Stop pouring American blood and treasure into an. open septic tank.  JUST STOP.  Bring our military out so they can prepare for the coming war with Iran. 

We should turn our backs and shake Afghanistan's dust off our boots -- and never look back.  

Finally, will someone please tell our Presidents to stop giving aid and comfort to our enemies by telling them, months in advance, when American troops will be leaving their country?  Even the dumbest of hill tribesmen understands that all he has to do is conserve his troops and supplies and wait 'til the Americans leave to resume his war.   This is elementary stuff -- and yet -- the civilian leader(s) of the US military cannot grasp this simple, simple, fact.

J. D. Longstreet

Obama And Romney Tied

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Rasmussen reported yesterday (January 5^th, 2011) that Obama and Romney are tied in their polls.

“The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Obama and Romney each earning 42% of the vote.  Eight percent (8%) prefer some other candidate, and another eight percent (8%) are undecided.” (SOURCE)

However, Rasmussen goes on to say,  “Last week, Romney held a 45% to 39% advantage over the president, his biggest lead yet and the largest lead a named Republican candidate has held over Obama to date.  However, the two candidates have been essentially tied in regular surveys since January 2011.  The report continues:  “A generic Republican candidate now holds a narrow lead over Obama as has been the case in all but three weekly surveys since late May.” (SOURCE)

The same report also says:  “Voters identify all of the leading Republican presidential contenders as ideological conservatives but see Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul as the least conservative of the group.”

(SOURCE)   

Ok.  So what to make of all this?  The truth?  I haven’t a clue!

You have heard the old saw that polls are only a snapshot in time -- and that is true – but they certainly help to identify trends.  Even so, those trends are, too, snapshots in time.

I remain deeply concerned that Obama will win a second term.  I fear for my country.

Some months ago, I warned that the Mainstream Media would soon begin to make “upbeat” reports on the nations economic situation.  It has already begun.  Frankly, it is mostly Bovine Scatology.  They would have us believe the unemployment rate is 8.6% when, in reality, it is closer to 12%. 

The MsM would also have us believe that the economy has begun to improve when; in fact, if there is any improvement it is miniscule.  Just yesterday we learned that Boeing is planning to lay off 2,100 workers from a Wichita Plant -- and Obama is reported to be preparing to cut tens of thousands of US military troops from our ground forces.  All these people will some be looking for jobs that simply do not exist.

I mentioned the two instances of coming lay-offs above because they are linked.   Boeing says they are closing the Wichita plant due to “defense budget reductions.” (SOURCE)

Look:  My crystal ball is extremely cloudy these days – but even without it -- it is plain to see that the US is staring down the barrel of a regional war in the Middle East -- and soon. When the balloon goes up, we are going to need those ground troops.  Is Obama planning on reinstating the draft?  I would not be the least bit surprised.

According to the Jerusalem Post, thousands of US troops will be deployed to Israel this spring for Israel’s largest ever missile defense exercise. The J-Post says: “Last week, Lt.-Gen. Frank Gorenc, commander of the US’s Third Air Force based in Germany, visited Israel to finalize plans for the upcoming drill, expected to see the deployment of several thousand American soldiers in Israel.” (SOURCE)

Now here’s the really interesting part of this story: “The drill, which is unprecedented in its size, will include the establishment of US command posts in Israel and IDF command posts at EUCOM headquarters in Germany – with the ultimate goal of establishing joint task forces in the event of a large-scale conflict in the Middle East.” (SOURCE)

It appears to this scribe that the world is edging ever closer to a conflagration in the Middle East that will affect the entire world.  It all seems eerily familiar to the conditions prior to the Second World War.

This is what happens, dear reader, when America withdraws from its role in world leadership.  Obama’s “Leading from behind” simply does not work -- and it is dangerous.

America is at a point in world history when we need a strong leader -- a leader not afraid to assert America’s leadership.  Obama is NOT that person.

I am very afraid there is no one vying for America’s leadership today any stronger as a national or world leader. 

In a recent column, Thomas Sowell said:  “The 2012 Republican primaries may be a rerun of the 2008 primaries, where the various conservative candidates split the conservative vote so many ways that the candidate of the mushy middle got the nomination – and then lost the election.”   I think he pegged it.

I will be genuinely surprised if America is not involved in what passes for a world war these days -- within the next four years. I plan to vote accordingly. 

J. D. Longstreet

Iran Threatens The Straits Of Hormuz Again

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

I sometimes wonder if Iran actually enjoys being a boil on the world’s backside.  They have been a pain in the posterior, most especially of the US, since the decade of the 1970’s. 

America spends millions upon millions of taxpayer’s dollars to patrol the shoreline of Iran in an on-going attempt to keep the oil flowing through the Persian Gulf.  Only a portion of that oil is bound for the US, which means the US is acting, again, as the global police. 

What is it with nations like Iran and North Korea?  They seem to feel they must continuously stir up trouble so the rest of the world won’t forget they are there.  Like a spoiled child “acting out” to get the attention of his parents, these rogue nations will scream and stamp their feet and wail like banshees until somebody notices them.

Recently, Iran has outpaced North Korea with their spoiled brat theatrics.

Once again, Iran is threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz.  Although the Straits are approximately 20 miles wide at the narrowest point, the sea-lanes are only 4-miles wide with a two-mile wide partition between the incoming sea-lane and the outgoing sea-lane. 

Yes, Iran has the capability of closing the Straits.  She can attack oil tankers while they are in the straits, sink them, and create a blockage of the waterway.  But there is little doubt, if any, that the US would strike Iran, with all barrels blazing, if Iran was dumb enough to execute a military strike on unarmed merchant vessels within the straits in a bid to close the Gulf and stop the flow of oil out of those waters through the Straits of Hormuz. 

Some 40 percent of the world’s oil, transported by sea, passes through the Straits of Hormuz.  Thus, effectively closing the Straits would create a worldwide shortage of petrol and petroleum based products… and that is nearly everything.  I don’t think it is really possible, at this point in world history, to estimate the damage to the global economy such an act would cause.

To say there would be an increase in gas prices would be an understatement of enormous proportions.  It would, no doubt, push many of the world’s nations over the brink, upon which they are tottering today, and into the abyss of economic collapse.  There would be chaos on a global scale. 

And there would be war.

There seems little doubt that most of Iran’s naval assets would be destroyed before they ever cast off their lines or hauled in their anchors.  Her submarines, (old Kilo class subs) are of special interest to the US Navy (as are all submarines) and, we suspect, they would be destroyed almost immediately.  Besides, operating a submarine in the shallow waters of the Gulf presents special problems for even the best submariners and, frankly, we have doubts about the proficiency of Iranian sub crews. 

So, what about Iran’s ship killer missiles?  Well, they have them -- and they reportedly are mounted on those so-called “fast attack” boats we became so familiar with during the Iran-Iraq war. The missile is reportedly a hybrid.  They are said to be a cross between the old US Harpoon missile and the old French Exocet missile.  They are made -- you guessed it – in China.

Iran should understand that any unprovoked attack on shipping in the Straits will bring an instantaneous counter attack by the US Navy and, certainly, the navies of other countries whose oil supplies would be severely curtailed or cut-off completely. The advantage to Iran of any such attack is difficult, if not impossible, to discern.

But if, as the theology experts warn us, Iran is determined to pave the way for the return of the 12th Imam, the Madi, which is said to depend upon worldwide chaos, then such an unprovoked attack is certainly within the realm of possibility and, frankly, probability.  In any event, the US -- and the world -- should be prepared.

The other troubling aspect of our current state of relations between the US and Iran is what many Americans define as weak leadership coming from the Office of the President of the United States.  This concern was underlined when our Commander-in-Chief did not order US troops to recover the lost reconnaissance UAV aircraft that, apparently, landed itself in Iran recently.  Even a missile attack on the drone to insure it’s destruction and prevent our top secret intelligence gathering electronics from falling into the hands of Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea, would have been preferable to Obama’s reaction, which was, shamefully, NO action.

The point of all this is simple.  Even though we are celebrating the return from Iraq of US forces this month, and family reunions at Christmastime, we must keep our forces well trained, well equipped, and leaning forward … because we WILL be forced to return to war in the Gulf region soon … very soon.

J. D. Longstreet

The Sino-America War

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

It is coming as sure as the sun rises in the east.  China and America are headed for a military showdown. 

China’s recent announcement that it will now consider roughly 90% of the South China Sea it’s territorial waters will certainly cause our two navies to brush up against each other and create sparks… sparks that could easily ignite a global conflict between the US and China.

“China’s aggressive behavior and threatening rhetoric are complemented by massive militarization. Beijing is projecting military power far from its shores with a rapidly growing, modern blue-water navy, long-range aircraft with refueling capabilities, a global satellite network, anti-access ballistic missiles (read aircraft carrier killers) and its first aircraft carrier. These instruments of war provide Beijing an expeditionary capability that could lead to a shooting war.” (SOURCE)

Things have gotten so touchy between the US and China militaries that “… the U.S. established a cold war-like hotline between China’s People's Liberation Army and the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff …”) (SOURCE)

With tensions so high it is prudent to expect the US 7^th Fleet to find itself in perilous situations with China’s navy as the 7^th fleet patrols the South China Sea.

All this pugnacious behavior by China has scared the dickens out of many of the neighborhood’s Asian countries. They have begun banding together and they are asking the US to join with them to aid them in countering China’s expansionist moves in the region.

Just as things are reaching critical mass in the Middle East and China is showing signs that it is about to begin throwing it’s military weight around, the US government is seriously discussing massive cuts in the US military.  If the huge cuts in the military budget, made possible by the failure of the Congressional “Super Committee’s” inability to reach some sort of agreement, are actually allowed to come to pass, the US will have a military slightly larger than it had at the beginning of World War One. The feared “hollow military” will become a fact --  and the world will be defenseless against such opportunist countries as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, not to mention the Islamofacists and their terror machine.

Look.  Cutting the US military at such a critical time in world history would be stupid and idiotic -- not to mention suicidal.

A US-China war has been brewing since shortly after the Second World War.  With Chinese interests and assets all over the world now, when it comes, it will be a global conflict.  

The ‘dogs of war” are inevitably set loose when America elects a weak President.  Mr. Obama has proven to be an astonishingly weak President. His administration has been a “by-stander” administration. He enjoys leading from the rear much as “parade ground generals” do.  It looks good, but it does absolutely nothing to either maintain the peace or instill confidence in the military -- let alone our friends and allies.

If history has taught us anything -- it is that a weak US President invites trouble from America’s enemies.

Leftist and liberal presidents usually ARE weak in defending America.  It appears they are embarrassed for being an American citizen, and they jump at every chance to apologize to the world for what THEY consider America’s mistakes.  Such weakness only emboldens America’s enemies and makes a laughing stock of America’s President. More importantly, it places the people of the United States in danger.    

Some in the Obama Administration are suggesting to the President that the US should reduce its military commitment in the Middle East and re-focus on Asia.  They are claiming the US has allowed Asia to “slide,” if you will, in the past few decades.  I agree with only a part of that suggestion.  It seems to me that America should focus on China and prepare for the inevitable – military conflict with the Chinese. At the same time, the US cannot afford to turn its back on the Middle East.  The plain truth is -- we MUST have Middle Eastern oil.  AND we have Islamic enemies based in the Middle East who are intent on the destruction of the US (and Israel).  In fact, the US will not BE ALLOWED to turn away from the Middle East, even if we wanted to.

China’s neighbors in Asia are seriously seeking to create a sort of NATO of Asian states with the US as the anchor, just as in NATO.  That may, in fact, turn out to be a good idea.  Even the former enemy of the US, Viet Nam, is angling for an American security blanket in Asia. THAT should tell you just how frightened China’s neighbors really are.

Even Europe is unstable these days.  European history teaches us that European states tend to go at each other’s throats when desperation sets in -- as it seems bound to do in the very near future.

The US simply cannot afford to reduce its military when the world is on the brink of utter chaos.

The wisest course, it seems to me, is for the US to BUILD-UP its military, and prepare for the coming contest between itself and China.  On the other hand, the US needs to accept that America is in the Middle East for many decades to come.  To make huge cuts in the US military budget now, or in the immediate future, is a pipe dream and should be trashed and forgotten.

J. D. Longstreet