Wake Up and Smell the Coffee – Russia Can Win in the Middle East

I last reported (see the previous blog entry) that Russia has economic and political motives that are driving its actions in Syria. I also envisioned that Russia’s motives would be best served by the total destabilization of the region with Russia then eliminating American influence in the region.  This would ultimately result in Russia being the only super power with influence in the Middle East.

Since my last report there have been statements made by various people, including the President of the United States, that Russia cannot win any territory by merely bombing. The talking heads have stated that you must have a ground force to follow through after bombings to take and maintain control of territory. And the pundits say: since the Russians are not putting boots on the ground, they cannot win the battle and they will be eternally bogged down in Syria.

Why then has the United States been bombing in Syria for a year now? We have not put any boots on the ground.  Based on the pundits’ logic, we too are doomed to an eternal bog in Syria.

The pundits are correct. We are doomed to remain bogged down in Syria.  Not only do we not have boots on the ground, we also do not have any partners of strength with boots on the ground. Our game plan was to train Syrian rebels that would have been our boots on the ground. Thus far, this strategy has not worked very well. And, there is no hope in sight anytime soon.

Funny how the talking heads inaccurately depict the Russians as making a mistake – the talking heads have not yet identified that America has been making the same mistake for over a year.

The Russians are not as naive as we are.  They are not foolish enough to waste bombs without following up with ground forces. They are following the United States' strategy (bomb and have others do the grunt work on the ground).  The difference between Russia’s plan and the American plan is that the Russians actually have boots on the ground with strength. The Syrian government’s army is able to follow through after Russia’s bombings to take and control territory. For good measure, the Syrian government is being assisted by Iranian soldiers and militia men from Hezbollah.

A good case can be made that the Syrian army along with an estimated 2,000 Iranian soldiers and an unknown number of Hezbollah militia men is a stronger ground force than the five American trained local rebels that have taken up arms against Syrian President al-Assad. Furthermore, the way things work in the Middle East, success and power projects to growth. Therefore, small successes by the Russians and the Syrian army will result in a growth of the Syrian army.  Thus, the ability to build on success and take more and more territory.

The Russians can win at this game and it is time that someone start taking the situation seriously and inoculate the remainder of the region from Russian influence before it is too late. Again, I refer to the blog entry just prior to this one for a suggested strategy that America should follow. The strategy will stabilize a region that has the potential to unravel out of control and potentially spawn World War III.  If followed, the strategy would also reposition America as the world’s true super power and expose Russia as a super bully, not the super power it pretends to be.

If Russia is the New World Power – What is Next?

I have decried the fall of American power.  This fall from power is not due to our lack of military might but due to our lack of leadership.  The world no longer believes that America has the will power to take on the challenges of being the world’s police.  This fact is indicative that the bad guys are winning the war on terror.

To this end, Russia has clearly demonstrated its willingness and fierceness to take on the challenge of terror.  Or at least it has portrayed its Syrian actions as such. 

Does anyone fear the United States anymore?  Does anyone fear Russia?  Does anyone believe that the United States can stop Russia’s aggression? Answers: No, Yes, and No.

These simple answers must lead us to think of how the world will change if Russia is the sole world power.  Russia could become the sole world power because it is willing to use its power – NOT because it is more powerful than the United States.  The refusal of the United States to exert power left the door wide open for Russia to ascend.  But that is behind us.  Analysis must now be directed to the changes that will result from Russia’s new role and what we should do about these changes.

The Middle East’s center of power may shift from Riyadh to Tehran.  Power in the Middle East may shift from Sunnis to Shias.  America has been aligned with the Sunnis (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait). Russia is aligned with the Shias (Iran, Syria). With civil war between the Sunnis and the Shias potentially expanding to engulf the entire Middle East, a potential proxy war between Russia and the United States is possible. Even worse, with Russia having nothing to lose, direct war is not out of the question. 

Russia did not go to Syria because (as Putin stated at the United Nations General Assembly) they are the only world citizen invited by the Syrian government to help them in their time of need.  They went for two reasons: 1) because the Iranians were willing to pay them as mercenaries, and 2) because they see the possibility of helping Iran expand the Sunni/Shia civil war across the region.  Not only do they see the possibility of the expanding civil war, they see the possibility of asserting enough power to assure that Tehran becomes the undisputed center of power in the Middle East.  Russia sees the potential to control the flow of oil from the Arabian Peninsula and therefore control the price of oil.  Russia desperately needs the price of oil to rise in order for its oil exporting economy to mend.

Although it has not been mentioned thus far, Russia’s actions against Ukraine are also despicable.  However, Russia’s real chance of entrenching itself as the world’s sole super power lies in its ability to control the Middle East.  So while enraged Western countries are responding to Russia’s Syrian actions with increased actions in the Baltic nations; these actions are window dressing by politicians pretending to have a back bone.  Meanwhile, the future of the world is being shaped by the lack of response in the Middle East.

Clearly no Western country should directly confront Russia on a military level at this time.  The potential for any accidental conflict should also be eliminated – even if that means that the West gets out of Syria for the time being.  After all, the Russians will take care of ISIS so the need for the West to be in Syria is not as urgent as it was before Russia’s entry.  They have saddled themselves with this responsibility and we should allow them to focus their full attention in this isolated region.  While they are bogged down in Syria, we must fortify the rest of the region.

The first thing we must do is to send ground troops into Iraq and conduct a brutal, lightning fast annihilation of ISIS in Iraq.  We need to do this to reestablish our bona fides which will be needed for the remainder of the strategy.  If you were a Middle Eastern leader, who would you pick as your protector right now; America or Russia?  We need people to believe in America again!

To rehabilitate America’s super power role, more troops are not needed in the Baltic – they are needed in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Bahram, Iraq, Egypt, the UAE and even in Yemen.  Wherever there is a Middle Eastern nation willing to host an American force (or NATO) we should be there.  Staging equipment and encampments that can be rapidly manned.  Small forces should be left in all such countries to maintain these encampments and to assist the host countries in eradicating their local form of radical Islamists.  American (and/or NATO) should get the official invitation from each of these nations and an agreement that Russia will NOT be provided with such an invitation.  In this way, Russia will not have the false pretense of do-gooder to enter another Middle East country.

After we resolve the ISIS situation in Iraq, we must resolve the Houthi situation in Yemen, then we must fix Libya.  Down the road we have to consider what we do about the Boko Haram (but focus on the Middle East right now).  If and when ISIS or another radical Islamic group threatens a sovereign nation, we must respond quickly.  We cannot allow the “JV” to get too much practice before we act.  Furthermore, we must leave troops behind to prop up a locally elected civil government.  President Obama has said it so many times that many Americans believe there is no other option: “We will not send our sons and daughters back to war.”  Well if we do not, the Russians will and eventually we will not be fighting splintered militias, we will be fighting a nuclear armed military.

Of course we must demand that the Middle Eastern nations provide ground forces to the effort, but we have been down this road before and we know that Western forces must be heavily involved if we want to win.  To that end, we should watch Russia’s conduct of operations in Syria.  We should have learned from our own past mistakes, but the Russians example is a reinforcement – go big or go home.  The next time we target a radical Islamist group for “degrade and eventually destroy” we should forget the "degrade and eventually" part and move right onto destroy.

Just so this pondering of the world situation is not blind to Russia’s physical territory, we should also beef up our defenses in the Baltic states.  Our NATO obligations should not be ignored, but we should rely more heavily on our European partners to affect these defenses.  We can provide additional technology (like more missile defense systems in Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) but Europeans need to increase their military spend and their troop presence in Eastern Europe.  We should also demand participation of the Europeans in our Middle Eastern obligations.  However, we should not use their usual lack of enthusiasm as an excuse for us not to act.

The Power Vacuum in the Middle East and the Power Vacuum in the World - Enter Russia

How long have we read of the power vacuums that allow terrorists to rise to power?  When there are no good guys to maintain law and order, the bad guys take over and make their own, brutal laws.  The Taliban in Pakistan, ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Boko Haram in Nigeria are all examples of this phenomenon.  These examples are proof that power vacuums do provide a path to power by horrible people.

Now we are witnessing the power vacuum on a global scale.  The United States of America used to be revered as the world power that maintained law and order globally – as well we should.  However, President Obama did not believe that this was an appropriate role for the United States.  He decided that walk softly and carry a big stick was not America’s role.  Instead, he believed that burying the stick and apologizing for ever having had the stick was appropriate. 

President Obama’s repeated demonstration of weakness (the removal of troops from Iraq, the meaningless red line on chemical weapons in Syria, the non-response to the Crimea invasion, the deal with Iran, and more than anything else; allowing the sequester to remain in place to the detriment of our military power) has belittled America’s role as the world’s good guy.  Sure, America is still a good guy, but who cares?  It no longer swings a big stick. 

Thus, President Obama has created a global power vacuum that is now being filled by Vladimir Putin and Russia.  Thank you Pope Francis for “God bless America.”  Right now, I am praying for God help America and the rest of the world.

9/11/2015 Week in Review: 3 Presidential Self Disqualifications and Maybe a Fourth in the Offing

It has been quite a week.  Two presidential candidates unknowingly disqualified themselves as being fit to be President of the United States and a third voluntarily stepped out of the race.  A fourth is on the brink of going down soon.

The first to disqualify their self was Governor Rick Perry of Texas.  Governor Perry dropped out of the Republican race due to lack of traction.  He should be commended for not letting his ego get in the way of rational decision making.  He never had a chance and he recognized this fact and made a good decision.  It’s a shame that he threw his hat in the ring four years ago.  The first impression he made was not good and although he was a much better candidate this time around, he could not get voters to see the new Rick Perry.  During his debut debate four years ago he stated that he would immediately eliminate three federal agencies when he became president – but could only name two of the three he would eliminate.  He forgot the third but said he would get back to us.  He looked bewildered and the nation wrote him off.  First impressions are hard to overcome.  In Governor Perry’s case, they were impossible to overcome. 

Hat’s off to Governor Perry for calling out the Donald during his exit speech.  Active candidates have been afraid of creating a duel with the Donald.  I guess a few more drop outs will help shine some light on the crudeness of Mr. Trump’s candidacy (not to mention his human nature).  Governor Perry was among the very few that criticized the Donald even as an active candidate.  For that reason alone, I will miss his participation.

The second to disqualify their self was the Donald.  I cannot imagine how anyone ever thought he was qualified in the first place but the polls suggest that he may have actually had a fleeting chance.  The emphasis in that last sentence should be placed on fleeting.  And, the chance has fled.  The Donald has been given more passes than any other politician I can remember.  This was probably because he is not a politician and spoke about the issues in blunt talk that spoke to frustrated Americans.  Now that he has been in the race this long (who would have thought) he has now become a politician and he will not be given a pass for his demeaning remarks toward Carly Fiorina.  Nor should he be.  I thought the Donald was just having fun self-promoting himself as a pretend presidential candidate.  But, when his poll numbers skyrocketed it appeared as though he actually believed that he could win – that made him a politician.  Politicians do not get passes on demeaning, misogynistic comments.  Sorry Donald, I’m sure your ego is not as salient as Governor Perry’s and you are sure to tweet you agony and anger for days (not very presidential by the way).  But to be honest, we beer drinking patriots love to hear you speak about the things we are worried about in the way we would speak them.  However, we do think policy solutions should be more than “I’ll be great for the military’ –“I cherish women” - “I will repeal and replace Obamacare with something fantastic” and “I will build a wall.”  We are hopeful for policies with more substance than you can muster.  And truthfully, although we loved your crude talk, we would not want to see the President of the United States speak in that manner.  The good news for we sane Americans is that we no longer have to lose sleep at night worried that America will be the laughing stock of the world because the Donald is our President.  I wonder though if he would have put the “Trump” lettering on the White House and Air Force One.  Oh well, another thing to stop worrying about.

The third disqualification is sad.  Vice President Biden is an affable, even lovable man who has been eyeing the White House for a good portion of his life.  The loss of a son would devastate most human beings.  This may be harsh to hear, but I believe that the Vice President has overplayed his pain.  Yes, he has gone through hell.  He lost his first wife, a daughter and just recently his son.  I count my blessing that I have not had that much loss in my life.  With that said, the Vice President has had more time than needed to decide whether or not he is fit to become president.  This is very callous, but I believe that he is playing the sympathy card to garner a following – to enlarge the “Draft Biden” movement.  The Vice President is a lovable man.  However, if he needs this much time to determine if he can devote his “entire heart and soul” into being the President – then he is not qualified to be the President of the United States.  If he were to decide that he can devote his entire heart and soul – that isn’t enough anymore.  I want more than a guarantee of his heart and soul.  I want a guarantee that he nor anyone else could ever provide.  I want a guarantee that no one else in his family will (heaven forbid) die or suffer a serious injury or disease.   If the Vice President does not have the temperament to handle the horrible situation he has endured (and very, very few people do) then he does not have what it takes to be the President of the United States (again, not many people do).  His display of vulnerability has shown me too much vulnerability.  The President of the United States is an enormous burden of life and death decision making.  The Vice President cannot take six months off the job to heal his heart and soul if another family member falls victim to the inevitability of human fragility.  How old is he?  Will his fortitude improve through the mere act of being elected?

Then there is the fourth candidate who has become dangerously close to disqualifying their self.  This would be Secretary Clinton.  In the opposite of Vice President Biden, Secretary Clinton has demonstrated a cold-heartedness that has caused many to question her trustworthiness.  First her official United States government emails were none of our business.  Then 55,000 printed pages of emails were made available after she and her lawyers determined (in a suspiciously short period of time) which were private and which emails were official business.  Then the private emails were quickly deleted.  Now the FBI is investigating and has confiscated her personal server that hosted both personal and government emails to determine what else can be found.  She claims that 30,000 of her emails were personal and none of our business.  Finally, it appears that a State Department computer engineer (who was paid personally by Secretary Clinton separately from his government paycheck) may have scrubbed the Secretary’s server clean so that even the FBI computer forensics team cannot recover any of the deleted emails.  I don’t know about you, but when I delete my emails, I hit the delete button.  I do not hire a computer engineer.  The fact that the same computer engineer has invoked his 5^th Amendment right to refuse providing testimony has also raised suspicion to extreme heights.  Watching Secretary Clinton on national television speak of how “transparent” she has been does not give anyone a warm and fuzzy feeling that she is bringing forth the truth. 

Unlike the first three candidates that have self-disqualified themselves, Secretary Clinton has not yet gone that far.  But if the email server was professionally scrubbed – she might as well join Governor Perry and say adios amigos.  Just when the threat of the Vice President running against her is evaporating, she is self-destructing due to her own ill-advised decisions (and worse yet, her attempted cover up).  But to be fair, this is speculation that has not yet been proven.  It’s just that Secretary Clinton’s actions haven’t been as “transparent” as she pretends – and most people’s antennas are attuned to her aloofness and her “I’m above the law” attitude that she exudes.

Stay tuned, more drop outs should be forth coming in the upcoming few weeks.

The Obamacare Tea Leaves

Conspiracy theorists should be swarming over the news of the past week: the Supreme Court pulled a rabbit out of the hat to save Obamacare for a second time; and five of America’s largest health insurance companies are involved in possible merger and/or acquisitions.  Conspiracy theorists are now invited to connect the dots.  It’s a pretty green field to work with – so theorize away.

Justice Scalia is definitely not a part of this conspiracy.  He bluntly called Chief Justice Robert’s decision a foul.  How is it that the Supreme Court could misinterpret a simple phrase that requires an individual to purchase health insurance through “an Exchange established by the State” in order to receive federal subsidies?  The wording of the law seemed extremely clear – to qualify for a federal health insurance subsidy, your state must have established its own website (or “Exchange”) and you must have obtained your health insurance through your State’s established Exchange.  However, my legal consultant advised me that the Supreme Court got it right.  According to my legal consultant, a law has to be interpreted in its entirety and its intention must be based on the entirety of the law.  Unambiguous or poorly written phrases should not be taken out of context with the overall spirit of the law.  Since nobody has read the 2,000+ page law, who can argue with Chief Justice Robert’s interpretation of the law’s intention?  Furthermore, does any American believe that the intent of Obamacare was NOT to give subsidies to people who could not afford Healthcare?

The Supreme Court based its decision on the spirit of the law; not on the very clear imperfections in the letter of the law.  But come on, the conspiracy theorists can’t believe this.  Chief Justice Roberts must be an actor in the conspiracy to force Obamacare down our throats.  The conspiracy is not just to force tax payers to subsidize other Americans’ health insurance – it is also to keep the train moving toward a fully socialized health care system.  Now, the conspiracy theorists are cranking.

If only such a conspiracy actually existed.  It would cause us all much less pain then the well-intended but still very imperfect Obamacare law.  An actual conspiracy would move us down the path to fully socialized health care much more quickly than the current path we are on.  The current path is one where Republicans scream that we must repeal and replace Obamacare but never define the replacement.  The current path has Democrats so defensive about the negative emotions surrounding Obamacare that they dare not take any actions to make it better.  Democrats sit back and say: “you Republicans say it is so terrible - you figure out how to fix it.”  In the meantime, President Obama declares that the Affordable Care Act (the real name of Obamacare) is a tremendous success and that it is now so neatly woven into the fabric of America that it will never go away.

If the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is such a success then why do the majority of Americans still oppose it?  Could it possibly be that the majority of Americans do not trust Washington?  Could it be that the majority of Americans believe that there is another foot to be dropped by the ACA?  Could it be that those Americans that did not receive subsidies got screwed by the ACA?  Could it be that health insurance under the ACA covers less than it did before the ACA even though the law itself mandates coverage for things that people may not need or want (e.g.: birth control and maternity benefits for a sixty year old woman)?  Could it be that you really couldn’t keep your doctor if you liked you doctor, or keep your health plan if you liked your health plan?  Could it be that the little guy making $60K a year that has to pay for his own health insurance had his premiums double and his deductible go up even more?  Could it be that the law does not apply to big businesses that are self-insured?  Could it be that members of Congress do not have to purchase their health insurance through healthcare.gov?  Or, could it be all of the above?

Note to the conspiracy theorists: focus on the insurance companies NOT the politicians.  These health insurance companies were the impediment to socializing health care.  The health insurance companies wanted to protect their survival.  Now they cannot see the forest for the trees and are setting themselves up for distinction.  It’s not a conspiracy, it’s the insurance companies’ stupidity – but we should welcome their stupidity because it paints a picture of the future and brings into to focus the questions that need to be answered to fix the ACA.

In the past week, five of the largest health insurance companies in the United States were in the news because they were trying to buy each other (United Healthcare, Aetna, Cigna, Antham, and Humana were all mentioned as targets of one or another’s takeover plans).  Apparently, the ACA leaves little room for innovative health plans to bring the cost of healthcare down, so the best way for the big insurance companies to bolster their bottom line is to reduce their administrative costs.   Bigger is better; one set of high paid executives instead of two or three improves the bottom line.  Likewise, one information system is less costly than multiple information systems.  All the insurance companies are offering the same bronze, silver, gold or platinum plans so why do they need multiple managers and information systems to manage the same plan?

If there is a conspiracy (and I am not a conspiracy theorist) it will manifest if and when the government does not prevent these large health insurance companies from massive consolidation.  But just for fun, let us ignore this sensible preventative measure and dream of a world where consolidation among health care insurance companies proceeds unencumbered.

Eventually the health insurers will consolidate to only a handful of large companies providing health insurance to the majority of Americans.  Then the government will have to intervene under our anti-trust laws and regulate these de facto monopolies.  Regulating the health care monopolies will require the government to stipulate the premiums that the health insurance companies can charge and the remuneration that health care providers will be paid.  Essentially, the monopoly health insurance companies will be outsourced administrators of the government’s health plans.  And, then someone will ask: why do we need more than one company to provide the administrative services?  And, once there is one administrator of the government’s health care plan that provides the same benefits to all citizens and pays the same fees to all health care providers someone will ask: why should different people pay different rates as over their lifespan they will all consume the same amount of healthcare?  Then someone will ask:  wouldn’t it be easier to just take a percentage of each individual’s paycheck then to administer all these individual monthly premiums?

While the above questions regarding the cost of administration are debated, another issue will be debated – should we have different pools of people provided with different benefits and charged different rates.  Today, the self-paying individual is in a pool with other self-paying individuals while the employees of big businesses are pools unto themselves.  Pools are further divided based on the geographic boundaries of each state.  There are also pools of Medicare and Medicaid recipients in each state.  Government employees are also in their own, different pools.  The obvious question is: why are there so many different pools with so many different benefit levels?  Wouldn’t the underwriting of one large pool with the same benefits provide less risk (and therefore less cost) than the sum of the risk associated with each of the individual pools?

The last question that needs to be addressed is who should pay the premium.  Why is America the only developed nation on earth where businesses pay for health insurance?  Doesn’t that put American businesses at a disadvantage?  Individuals should pay for health care the same way they pay for Social Security and Medicare.  This will not only make American businesses more competitive in the global marketplace it will also result in a more engaged nation of citizens.  Why do a higher percentage of senior citizens vote than any other voting bloc?  Because they have a vested interest in Social Security and Medicare.  If we instill a vested interest in each individual paying for their health insurance we will have a more robust democracy.

All of the above questions will be answered in time and then we will have a fully socialized health care system with a single payer and basic but equal benefits to all citizens.  And it will be more efficient than the current mess for which no one can offer a replacement.  It will also provide the health care that citizens of a developed nation deserve.  It will also allow for wealthy individuals who can afford better service to pay for it themselves.  It will also allow for health insurance companies to sell these “add-on” health care services to businesses and individuals: although the health insurance companies overall take will be a much smaller slice of the pie than it is today. 

To all those health insurance companies contemplating mergers and acquisitions: Thank you for the wisdom your stupidity has revealed.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria – Where Next?

It is time to step back and evaluate where we are.  The global war against terrorism is NOT why we are in Syria.  It should be why we are in Syria, but not in the form of air strikes.  We are in Syria for humanitarian reasons.  The Islamic State (or ISIS) has been committing acts of mass murder and genocide and we are attempting to stop it.  Most Americans would not go back to war in the Middle East unless they believed that the purpose of our military action was to protect our homeland.  Our current actions in Syria are not to protect the homeland.  The targeted bombing of the al Qaeda affiliate in Syria (the Nusra Front) on the first night of bombing was to protect the homeland.  Since then, our bombing has been to diminish the killing capabilities of ISIS: the capacity to kill other people of the Middle East, NOT Americans.

The Nusra Front was plotting attacks against Western countries; and most likely continues to do so.  Our government cannot confirm how many of the Nusra Front was killed in our air-strike.  The Obama administration has stated that at WORST it has delayed the intended attack on Western society.  To stand back and evaluate it objectively the truth is that at BEST, we have delayed the intended attack.  Al Qaeda is alive and well and planning an attack on the infidels.

We have attempted to stabilize the governments in Iraq and Afghanistan so that al Qaeda could not use these territories to plot their next attack on us.  In turn, al Qaeda found another spot on the globe where a failing government could not curtail their terroristic ways – Syria.   With all the turmoil in Syria, we have no chance of restoring a stable government in that corner of the world.  Our on-going airstrikes in Syria are to help stop the human slaughtering by ISIS on the peoples of Iraq and Syria – NOT to protect America.  Do you as an American support sending in ground forces for this purpose?  Is anyone prepared to spend another trillion dollars to fight feeble ground wars against global terrorism?

President Obama is correct to leave the stabilization of Iraq and Syria to the region’s neighbors; Muslim Arabs that will not be branded as crusaders or infidels.  Maybe the Muslim Arab neighbors will take on the larger task of preaching the true meaning of Islam and dissuade young, disenfranchised Muslims from joining such horrific terroristic groups.  Until the radical brand of Islam is discredited by other Muslim’s, martyrdom will remain a noble cause for a young Muslim with no better prospects in life.

But back to the big picture of what America must face – a world of radical Islamists that are bent on our destruction and a world of unstable governments from where these terrorists can operate.  What if we could stabilize Syria so that al Qaeda could not operate there?  They would move to Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or some other unstable part of the world.  We cannot stabilize the entire world.  Therefore, we have to take another approach to fighting terrorists.

We must spend less money on munitions and more on intelligence gathering, special operations forces, and border protection.  The pentagon needs to become the hexagon.  Joining the Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and National Guard should be the Anti-Terrorism Force.  Okay, that isn’t necessary – but the focus that such a titled force would bring to protecting America is needed.  No more large scale troop invasions on foreign soil.  No more waiting for unstable countries to collapse before learning that there are terrorists in those countries planning harm on America.  We need eyes and ears on the ground everywhere in the world, and a stealth, fast-attack, special operations force capable of swooping into every hell hole in the world, kill the bad guys and get back out as quickly as they arrived.  We need drones in the air and hell-fire missiles ready to go around the clock.  We must cease and desist as the world’s police and become the world’s surgeon capable of cutting out the cancer of terrorism where ever it is detected.

This must be an American force, but an alliance with other like-minded countries to share these anti-terrorism responsibilities must be formed and maintained on an on-going basis; not just in times of mass murder.  Terrorism is not mass murder in foreign countries; it is focused attacks to kill civilians in their homeland.  Therefore, focused special operations forces are needed to eliminate terrorism – not large masses of ground forces.

Now is the time to forge this on-going anti-terrorism alliance.  The Europeans have joined us in Iraq (not Syria) because they know they need us to protect them from Russia.  But, are six jet-fighters all the UK can lend to the current conflict?  If Putin was not threatening Europe would they have joined in on the ISIS attack?  Would any of the Europeans have joined us?  We need to cement an anti-terrorism compact now and assure an on-going involvement with the Arab countries that stand with us now.

With that said, as Americans we do have the responsibility to prevent and stop genocide on a large scale.  We cannot stabilize the entire world but we can provide relief to people in dire need.  What we are doing in Iraq and Syria is the right thing to do – but it will not protect us from terrorism.

Mr. President Do NOT Announce Arming to the Syrian Rebels

Is it just me or is having a news conference to tell the world that the United States is going to arm a group of rebels in Syria a horrific idea?  It’s worse than saying that we will not “put troops on the ground.”  Both statements inform the enemy of our tactics before ever implementing our plan.  I think it is generally accepted as good military practice to NOT let the enemy know what you are going to do – or when or for how long.

I do not doubt that we can figure out whom the good guys are and that we should arm them.  My question is:  Should we tell anybody that we are going to do it before we actually do it?  Would these so identified good guys not come under immediate attack?  Are we not telling the enemy that they better kill anybody the United States appoints as the good guys because tomorrow those good guys are going to have much better armaments?  The enemy will only plan to get those good guys now - while they are still unarmed.

This is just common sense, but I’ve heard CNN reporting all day that the President is going to say this during his speech to the nation tonight.  Please Mr. President, do not say this.  Do this, but do not advertise it.