Troops in Africa: Is this why we have a military?

In March, the United States plans to send elements of the Second Brigade, First Infantry Division, to Africa (under AFRICOM) to conduct over a hundred different missions in 34 nations, such as humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and training indigenous forces.  (source: Washington Times) The Second Brigade is a heavy brigade equipped with tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and self-propelled artillery, mind you, not a light infantry brigade or Special Forces unit.  As a result of the deployment, their training on these systems in a wartime scenario will most likely suffer.

We are also a bankrupt nation, yet spending millions deploying portions of our military to areas that are not critical to our national security.  Sounds to me like we may have found a portion of the national budget we can cut if our military has nothing better to do than hand out humanitarian assistance and wait for natural disasters in some far off land.

Our tax dollars need to instead be spent on our military defense, not on ambiguous blanket missions of doing everything except the defense of our nation.  We need to get ourselves out of this recession/depression first before we should even consider doing a mission like that of the 2nd Brigade in Africa.  The national debt is the biggest threat to our national security, not some non-existent disaster in Africa.

We must ask ourselves: Are the Armed Forces of the United States serving as the military force of the United Nations/World Government, or are they protecting America and its citizens?

As an organization, the US military is slowly being forced to reject its original foundation of the Christian faith and in its place accept humanism, as evidenced by the removal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy allowing for open homosexual behavior in the ranks.  Even the mere presence of religion in military organizations is under attack from organizations such as the Military Religious Freedom Foundation who espouse a perverted interpretation of the First Amendment.

A key component of humanism is relativism, where there is no absolute truth.  This has in part led to the development of a manual in Afghanistan that blames our own troops' insensitivity to the Islamic culture for causing the green on blue violence in that nation, rather than blaming the true source--Islamic jihad.

Furthermore, our military is confused as to who the enemy is.  They are attacked by a jihadi at Fort Hood and it is called "workplace violence."  Russian military forces are invited in our borders to participate in "counter-terrorism" exercises.  We are aiding and abetting the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East, an organization that intends to re-establish a hostile Caliphate and destroy America.  One of our Ambassadors is slain in North Africa while the military is forbidden from coming to his aid.  We kill al Qaeda operatives in Yemen (for Saudi Arabia?), while supporting them and their allies in Syria and Libya.

Military leadership has been involved in suppressing the First Amendment rights of United States citizens when it comes to speech against Islam, and have publicly humiliated a fellow officer for teaching the threat that Islam presents.  Then they "pivot to the Pacific," however China is not considered a threat but Iran in the Middle East remains so.  Then some in our government talk about unilaterally reducing our nuclear arsenal to below 300 weapons while Russia is modernizing and exercising their nuclear triad.

Who is the enemy???

We need to get our military back on track and fast.  They are all over the world "chasing Indians," disasters, and handing out humanitarian assistance.  They need to be focused on the one thing they need to get right--defending our nation against existential threats.  They need to be preparing for war, and they need a clear vision as to who are the enemies of America.  With the imminent reduction in the military budget, this becomes all the more critical.

--Against All Enemies

Army plans to shift troops to U.S. Africa Command

Aims for quick crisis response

By Kristina Wong - The Washington Times, Sunday, December 23, 2012

U.S. Africa Command, the military’s newest regional force, will have more troops available early next year as the Pentagon winds down from two ground wars over the past decade, Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, Army chief of staff, told The Washington Times.

As part of Gen. Odierno’s Regionally Aligned Forces concept, about 1,200 soldiers will deploy to Africa as early as March in an effort to place troops strategically around the globe to respond quickly to sudden challenges in hot spots such as Libya and to develop ties with the people and officials in host countries.

“It’s about us moving towards a scalable, tailorable capability that helps them to shape the environment they’re working in, doing a variety of tasks from building partner capability to engagement, to multilateral training to bilateral training to actual deployment of forces, if necessary,” Gen. Odierno said in an interview.

Amid budget cuts and with President Obama’s new military strategy downplaying the chances of another major land war, the Army has sought to maintain its relevance among admirals and generals in the Pacific, the Middle East and North Africa — likely places for the next flash point. When terrorists attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, no U.S. troops were close enough to help.

[...]

Ready, responsive

Beginning in March, small teams of soldiers from the 2nd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, based in Fort Riley, Kan., will conduct at least 108 missions in at least 34 countries in Africa through mid-2014.

The missions could include humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, training host-nation forces in marksmanship, first aid and other skills, and conducting military exercises. To prepare for these missions, soldiers are studying the regions and cultures of countries where they will deploy, and learning Arabic, Swahili, French and Portuguese.

Continue Reading (article continues)... 

Connect to AAE
   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.

Read More

Is Ahmadinejad Planning A Coup Against The Mullahs?

By Findalis
Monkey in the Middle

Word is leaking out of Iran that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is planning an end-run around the ruling Mullahs and is planning to take full control of Iran.

Ahmadinejad's second and last term of office expires in June.  It is very highly unlikely the Mullahs will support him in another term of office.  In fact, reports show they and the Revolutionary Guard are grooming his successor.  A man who will do their bidding, be their mouthpiece, and follow orders without question.

From Debka:

In the unexpected role of social crusader, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech at Kermanshah Wednesday, Jan. 2, “The country’s economy should not be controlled by 3,000 or 10,000 people.” Seventy-six million Iranians still don’t benefit from the country’s oil revenues – “only an elite minority,” he said.

Predictably, Debkafile’s Iranian sources report, the Iranian president’s relations and friends are rushing for the exits: they are selling property and packing their bags ready to quit the country, worried about his fate and their own, as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his powerful machine prepared to hit back.

Ahmadinejad is certainly in for serious persecution even before his six months as president are up in June. In his second four-year term as president, he made enemies of the most powerful parts of the ruling establishment: He attempted to overshadow the Supreme Leader, brushed aside the advice of his mentor, the influential religious figure Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi, and dared to poke a finger in the eye of the powerful Revolutionary Guard Corps, by asking why they controlled and profited from the largest slice of the nation’s assets instead of the people.

Now they are all gunning for him, using as their political bludgeon allegations of financial corruption.

But Ahmadinejad has not been put off. Although he sees his undoing written large on the wall, at every opportunity, before even small audiences of 300-400 people, he continues to maintain that the only way the country can save itself is by forcing the redistribution of national wealth.

His message goes down well in the Iranian street and he is beginning to build a grass-roots power base that may help protect him from retribution by Khamenei and his henchmen. The “elite minority,” which need to be relieved of their assets, was easily understood to impugn the super-rich, like Khamenei’s own son Mojtaba and some of the Revolutionary Guard commanders.

Our sources in Tehran say that many of his associates have already taken the precaution of removing themselves to safety in the United States or Europe; others are keeping their heads down or knocking on the president’s door to wangle foreign postings so long as he has the clout to disburse them. One such prominent figure is Hamid Baqa’I, the president’s deputy for executive affairs. In two months, he is due to take up the post of Iranian ambassador to UN institutions in Geneva and New York, in place of the incumbent Mohammad Khaza’i. Ahmadinejad is going through the motions of promoting his close aide Esfandyar Rahim Masha’I, who is also the father of his daughter-in-law, as presidential contender in June. But he knows it is a lost case. Masha’i is also likely to end up at a foreign posting with his family, when his candidacy is disqualified by the Guardian Council of the Constitution which is under Khamenei’s thumb.

Foreign appointments also appear to be in the works for some other members of Ahmadinejad’s inner circle, such as Seyyed Hossein Moussavi, Malek-Zadeh and others.

But not all his hangers-on are getting a sympathetic hearing. Our sources in Tehran have learned that the president lost patience this week when a bunch of his cronies confronted him with demands for cushy overseas appointments. He threatened instead to fire some of them Under heavy criticism for mismanaging the Iranian economy, he may use the opportunity to assign the blame to his less favorite advisers, sweep them out and replace them with new faces. One of the most prominent heads on the block may be First Vice President and de facto prime minister Mohammad Reza Rahimi.

Rahimi stirred an international furor by his anti-Semitic remarks which accused Jews of “spreading narcotics around the world in accordance with the teachings of the Talmud … whose objective is the destruction of the world.” He almost outperformed his boss, now turned social crusader, who more than once attracted international condemnation for his inflammatory remarks about Israel and Jews.

Most recently, Ahmadinejad called his close cronies together for a pep talk. He told them he held an insurance policy for his and their survival: the secret dossiers of 300 top Iranian officials containing detailed records of their misdeeds. He obtained them by rifling the archives of the Ministry of Intelligence and Security during the brief period after he sacked the intelligence minister, Heydar Moslehi, and before Khamenei forced him to reinstate the minister a week later.

He and his staff had meanwhile combed through the incriminating files and made copies of them which were now held safe in the presidential office.

Khamenei, who has the support of the bulk of Iran’s political and military leaders, knows all about Ahmadinejad’s plans and is determined to eliminate him one way or another and make sure that the 300 dossiers never leave the president’s office.

More than once, Ahmadinejad has implied recently that he would make their contents public if he or members of his clique were charged with corruption or the misappropriation of state funds. For now, he is weeding out of his administration the officials he regards as its Achilles heels – according to our sources, the first scheduled to go are Oil Minister Rostam Qassemi and Interior Minister Mohammad Mostafa Najjar.

The Iranian Oil Ministry is a notorious hotbed of financial embezzlement, whereas the Interior Ministry is responsible for organizing the upcoming presidential election a and Ahmadinejad would prefer one of his confidantes to be sitting in that office. Only last week, he sacked Health Minister Marzieh Wahid Dastjerdi for remarking that Ahmadinejad prefers to earmark foreign currency for importing dog food rather than medicines. Her dismissal put many backs up against the president in the top echelons of government.

President Ahmadinejad was publicly warned this week to shut his mouth and stop ruining his reputation by Esma’il Kovsari, Khamenist adherent and powerful parliamentary voice. Kovsari pointed out that the Revolutionary Guards helped Ahmadinejad come to power as president and supported him on many occasions and so he must not turn his back on them now.

Another supporter of Khamenei, Al Sa’idi, said that most regime heads are now sorry they brought Ahmadinejad to power because he has become a different person.

Does this royal battle within the Iranian establishment affect its nuclear plans? The answer is no. Will crucifying the president cause rioting over the summer election? Not likely. Politically, Ahmadinejad is on his way out and leaves the stage to the most radical elements of the regime. And physically? Well, car accidents are a common feature of the Iranian political scene.

I wonder if there are rumblings of an Iranian Spring.  There was one 4 years ago, but unlike the Arab Spring of 2 years ago, President Barack Hussein Obama sided with Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs.  An opportunity to destroy the reign of the Mullahs lost.  Now Ahmadinejad is trying to start and Arab Spring without him being thrown out of power.

A President with a "ceremonial" role, a ruling elite of religious fanatics who are living in the 7th Century and not the 21st, a elite military group that will lose its power if the mullahs are defeated, and add to this a nuclear program coming to completion and there is a recipe for a disaster.  A disaster that might spread not only to Iran's neighbors, but to the whole Muslim world.

Read More

Understanding The Petrodollar

By reading G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island," you gain an excellent understanding of how our nation's monetary supply is controlled by a cartel of banks, which was not the intent of our Founders.  However, the book does not cover the current status of our currency as the Petrodollar.

When the Federal Reserve System was initially created, the dollar was backed by gold.  In 1944 at Bretton Woods, 44 nations of the world agreed to make the US Dollar the world's reserve currency.  During the 1960s, the United States spent more money than it had (Vietnam, the Great Society), and nations around the world began to trade in their US dollars for gold.  President Nixon stopped this in 1971 by abandoning the gold standard, transforming the US Dollar into pure fiat (and a floating) currency.  The United States then struck a deal with Saudi Arabia to defend their nation from attack in return for the Saudis agreeing to only sell their oil in US dollars.  Other oil producing nations signed onto the US Dollar soon afterwards, and the Petrodollar was born.

The United States' continued protection of the dominance of the "Petrodollar" system may best explain why the United States:

(1) Conducts operations in Mideast nations that have significance within the Petrodollar system.  Many times it is because they are not participating in that system.
(2) Maintains a military presence in the Middle East to enforce the Petrodollar system.
(3) Gives the Islamist ideology a pass.  Oil-rich Islamic nations can blackmail us to accept the extremes of their religion in our own country.  If we do not, they will reject the US Dollar as the only accepted currency for the oil trade.
(4) Defers to the United Nations on many issues, and is slowly enforcing UN agendas, such as Agenda 21, in America.  This may be because the rest of the world perceives that we are abusing our responsibility as the stewards of the world's reserve currency to our own advantage at the expense of others.  They therefore pressure on us to reduce our quality of life through veiled socialist schemes like Agenda 21, and our government is slowly complying--most likely to appease other governments.

I highly encourage you to read the following Follow the Money Daily article in four parts that explains the Petrodollar system:
Part 1 Preparing for the Collapse of the Petrodollar System
Part 2 The Rise of the Petrodollar System: "Dollars for Oil"
Part 3 The Petrodollar Wars: The Iraq Petrodollar Connection
Part 4 The War in Afghanistan and The New Great Game

--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.

Read More

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.

Read More

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.

Read More

Hagmann: The hidden real truth about Benghazi

The Mosaic of lies, deceits and state-sponsored terrorism:

Link to article: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/50586

By Doug Hagmann  Friday, October 26, 2012 Most people know that we’ve been lied to about the attacks in Benghazi, but few realize the extent of those lies or the hidden secrets they cover. After all, the lie is different at every level. Thanks to a well placed source with extensive knowledge about the attack, the disturbing truth is slowly beginning to emerge and is lining up with information contained in my previous articles published here weeks ago . The truth reveals the most serious situation in the world today as it involves the interests and destinies of us all.

A mosaic of lies

According to the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed during a spontaneous protest at the consulate office in Benghazi by a frenzied crowd of Muslims outraged over an obscure internet video. Recently released “sensitive but not classified e-mails” from Stevens to the U.S. Department of State painted a picture of poor security for U.S. personnel and the embassy, which was obviously true but had little to do with the events of September 11, 2012. The failure to dispatch an extraction team or otherwise rescue the men during a firefight that lasted upwards of nine grueling and tortuous hours was not the result of any intelligence failure, but caused by our unwillingness to widen the conflict and expose the nature and scale of our true mission in Benghazi.

Based on information provided by my source and corroborated elsewhere, the official account by administration officials is a mosaic of lies that were necessary to cover the unpalatable truth of covert actions taking place in Libya, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The primary objective of our covert actions was to secretly arm anti-Assad “rebels” in Syria by funneling arms from Libya to Syria via Turkey, with other destinations that included Jordan and Lebanon.  Regarding the threat to Stevens and the other murdered Americans, the truth will reformat the persistent question posed to government officials, from UN Ambassador Susan Rice to White House Spokesman Jay Carney and others from “how could you not have known” to “how could you have done these things?”

First, it is important to understand that Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty and Tyrone Woods were not killed at a consulate office in Benghazi—as there is not such office there. They died at one of the largest CIA operations centers in the Middle East, which was located in Benghazi and served as the logistics headquarters for arms and weapons being shipped out of the post-Qaddafi Libya.

Although the U.S. government insisted that Stevens was involved in securing and destroying the numerous caches of arms and weapons once under the control of Qaddafi, the operation was more complex than that. The visual accounts of weapons being destroyed were indeed real, but those weapons were not operational. The working weapons were actually separated and transported to holding facilities for their eventual use in Syria. Russia was fully aware of this operation and warned the U.S. not to engage in the destabilization of Syria, as doing so would endanger their national security interests. Deposing Assad, as despotic as he might be, and replacing him with a Muslim Brotherhood-led regime would likely lead to unrestrained Islamic chaos across the region.

The Turkish warning

According to my source, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 to meet with his Turkish counterpart, who reportedly warned Stevens that the operation was compromised. They met in person so that Stevens could be shown overhead satellite images, taken by the Russians, of nefarious activities taking place in Turkey. But just what were these nefarious activities?

It is reasonable to suspect that these activities were more dire than just your average “gun running” operation. Since the overthrow of Qaddafi, it is estimated that upwards of 40 million tons of weapons and arms were shipped out of Libya to Syria. But it was also known inside intelligence circles that Qaddafi possessed chemical weapons in addition to numerous surface-to-air missiles. Could it be that Russia obtained unmistakable surveillance footage of the anti-Assad “rebels” being shown how to load chemical payloads onto missiles inside Turkey near the border of Syria? Weapons, of course, that were shipped from Libya by the CIA in conjunction with various Muslim Brotherhood rebel groups.  If so, such weapons could be used as a “false flag” type of operation—one that would be implemented to “set-up” Assad by making it appear that he was using these weapons on forces dedicated to his overthrow.

The blowback by the international community would be swift and punishing, and the entirety of the civilized world would be demanding his overthrow. NATO would then be used to expedite his ouster, and Russia’s moral position within the international community would be weakened. Was the meeting held to show Stevens that the operation was compromised and that they had to stop?

A Nation/State sponsored attack?

While the administration asserts that the attack in Benghazi was conducted by a group of rebels acting alone, the facts seem to indicate otherwise. The level of coordination was such that we did not deploy military assets, located just an hour or two away by air, to rescue Stevens and the others at the CIA operations center in their time of need. If, as the administration contends, that the attack was perpetuated by a group of frenzied rebels, our military could have easily handled them in short order. So why was there no rescue operation?

Keep reading (article continues)...

Read More

Turkey Authorizes Military Strikes Into Syria

After a mortar attack that killed five Turkish civilians, the Turkish government has authorized the use of force against Syria (which is not necessarily the same as declaring war).  Turkey's membership in NATO creates a potential challenge for the United States as hostilities between the two nations may drag us into the conflict, which we should avoid.

Syria is positioned as yet another nation to fall to the Muslim Brotherhood.  Now that the Brotherhood controls most of North Africa, they are shifting their focus eastward.  Back in the early 1980s, Bashar al-Assad's father, Hafez, crushed a revolt by the Muslim Brotherhood, the most notable of which was the siege of the town of Hama in 1982.  Now the Brotherhood wants to kick out the ruling Shia Alawite clan and replace it with a Muslim Brotherhood-controlled government.

Supporting this theory is the appearance of al Qaeda fighting against the al-Assad regime.  I find it curious that everywhere the Muslim Brotherhood takes over, al Qaeda shows up first.  This is why I believe that al Qaeda is really the tip of the spear for the Muslim Brotherhood, and thus why we see al Qaeda in Syria now.

If we support the overthrow of the al-Assad regime, we are doing the Brotherhood's dirty work for them.  Yes, al-Assad is bad.  Yes, he is associated with Iran.  But I believe that facilitating the expansion of Muslim Brotherhood power in the Middle East is ultimately far worse.  The Brotherhood seeks the destruction of the West (which coincides with the objectives al Qaeda), so the US and its Allies facilitating the Brotherhood's control of another nation-state is by its very nature suicidal.  We've already done this in Libya and Egypt--it must stop.

Regarding our current state as a nation, we are not standing on solid ground.  We are being crushed by an enormous national debt that is increasing exponentially.  Inflation is increasing, with no end in sight due to the Federal Reserve implementing "Quantitative Easing 3."  Our military is about to take a huge cut in their budget that will be devastating in its consequences.  The domestic conflict between constitutionalism and socialism create the conditions for internal strife and will be exacerbated by deteriorating economic conditions.  Any war we undertake at this moment in time must be waged only if the security of our nation is truly threatened.  Intervention in Syria certainly does not meet that criteria--we should not sacrifice the lives of our citizens or our wealth (do we have any left?) to advance the goals of our declared enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Iran is a different case, but linked to Syria for obvious reasons.  I fear that our forward deployment of two, and reportedly soon to be three, Carrier Strike Groups to the Persian Gulf region places us in a very vulnerable position.  Similarly, the deployment of two carrier battle groups to Japan may also put us at risk (five carriers is about half our fleet of eleven).  Should our carriers in the Middle East and Pacific be attacked with some success and our economy further destabilized, America will be hard pressed to recover.  America and its interests will become vulnerable.

But vulnerable to whom, you ask?  Well, Russia and China.  As we face a precipitous reduction of our military spending, they are increasing theirs.  China is becoming more and more aggressive in the Pacific.  These two nations have everything to gain from America's demise.  Should they be able to neuter our ability to project power amidst an economic collapse, China and Russia have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fill the vacuum that is created.  We must be on guard.

(AAE Note: We have seen conflicting reports as to whether the USS Stennis battle group is in the Middle East or Pacific.  Could be deliberate misinformation or deception.)

AAE Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies
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.

Read More