So True, Charlie Brown, So True

As famously, if not infamously exclaimed by Charlie Brown, "Good grief!"

Perusing Internet (so called) news sites leaves one thoroughly dismayed.  For example:

• Pelosi declared her six year old grandson wished he were brown.  
• A woman was denied aircraft boarding because of an "emotional support hamster."  
• Two school principals were arrested, one for failing to report six year olds had filmed themselves committing sex acts, and the other for failing to report a sexual assault by a seven year old.    
• A university professor told his class he wished the President were dead.
• POTUS wants a military parade in Washington, DC.
• Opinion writers, who never served in uniform, posing as journalists make categorical declarations about what it means to be in the military.  
• The Dow Jones drops more than 2000 points.
• Congress passes spending bills that deepen our already unfathomable sink hole of national debt.
• Self important "celebrities" declare this and that are horrible, yet strive for the most air time and "news" coverage.
• A bankrupt city wants to provide residents $500 per month, no strings attached. 

Good grief indeed.

Spending other peoples' money.  Narcissism running amok.  Avoiding personal responsibility.  Failing to perform the duties of the office to which elected.  Extending victimology to unheard of and unwarranted areas.  Ascribing sexual awareness where none exists.  Claiming unearned expertise.  Wanting to use the military as potted plants in shameless self-promotion (see footnote).

Good grief.   

That supposed intelligent people are involved in each and every (and vastly more) illustration is disturbing.  From this vantage point is seems as if reason and tolerance have been replaced by absurdity and bigotry.  And it continues unabated.

Good grief.  

The list of examples is virtually endless.  Has the nation gone mad?

Charlie Brown and his fellow characters could certainly do better than those involved in the illustrations.

------------------------------

Footnote: lest one think this is unique to the current White House, do not forget that First Lady Obama appeared on the broadcast of the 2013 Academy Awards, with uniformed military officers as set decorations and dressing.    

Yet another mission

As the local news stations reported, there was yet another mission.

Patriot Guard Riders and others rolled out on their bikes this morning to honor Sergeant Chad Jenson, U. S. Marine Corps.

Sergeant Jenson died, along with other Marines and a sailor, when a KC-130 Marine Corps aircraft crashed last month.  On this cool, overcast San Diego morning bikers of the Patriot Guard Riders staged near the San Diego International Airport, awaiting Sergeant Jenson's arrival.  After the mission briefing, they rolled out to escort the procession of the hearse, Jenson's family, and friends to the mortuary.  Superbly led by motor officers from the California Highway Patrol, the procession made its way north from the airport.

In the staging area prior to the mission, two retired senior officers who were to ride in the missing man formation (Navy Captain aviator and Marine Corps Colonel air command and control) spoke in clear, unambiguous terms about the state of Naval aviation, which includes the Marine Corps.  Incensed by the loss of life, including Sergeant Jenson, the two officers are highly critical of the leadership (civilian and military) that made decisions leading directly to the situation in which we now find ourselves.

It is reported that 70% of Marine Corps F/A-18s can not fly.  Also reported have been the grounding of a Navy F/A-18 squadron that is forward deployed on a carrier.  These reports join those of maintenance personnel visiting aircraft "boneyards" to scavenge parts.  And another of a mid-air collision between an instructor pilot and "nugget" aviator.  Neither aircrew had anywhere near the required minimum flight hours needed to maintain proficiency.

Not enough money to maintain the aircraft.  Not enough money for flight hours to train aircrews in perishable skills.

Though both senior officers have been retired for some time, their anger is no less intense as they recount other PGR missions for active duty personnel killed in aircraft mishaps that just should not have occurred.  Like the Marine aviator who died when his aircraft fell apart during a training flight. 

"Who the hell made these decisions?" one was heard to say.  Condemning leadership failures at multiple levels, these gray beards are aghast at the needless loss of life.  And they are equally angry at the totally unacceptable lack of readiness.  The word angry does not adequately describe the intensity of their comments.  With careers built upon training and leading our nation's finest as they prepare for combat, these war horses roundly castigated the civilian leadership, read Obama and successive SecDefs, as well as the flag and general officers in the Navy and Marine Corps who took the force to where it is today.

Who will hold those responsible for these failures?

I have no answer.  So, on this Tuesday morning, it was yet another mission to honor a serviceman who died on active duty.  In this case, a young Marine Sergeant and newlywed who died (with others) in an aircraft mishap on what should have been a routine flight.

How many more missions like this will these two warriors ride in?

Damn it.       

An outrageous affront

Today's announcement that President Obama commuted the sentence of Private Manning is an outrageous affront to all those serving or who have served honorably in the Armed Forces.  Manning is a criminal, found guilty and sentenced by a court martial.  The full sentence should be served.

It is outrageous this Commander-in-Chief takes such action, clearly and forever breaking faith with our men and women in uniform.  By his action, Obama clearly and unequivocally shows his disdain for the members of the military, their honor, their service, their sacrifice, and the oath they took upon entering our military.

Make no mistake, this action was socially motivated.  No legal or military purpose is served by commuting the sentence of a former soldier who deliberately stole classified information and provided it to unauthorized others.  In other times it is conceivable Manning could have received the death sentence.  Of course, in other times, other Presidents of the United States admired and revered the Armed Forces.

It is particularly galling, given that this week we laid to rest Major Griffiths, U. S. Army at Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery.  He died while a POW during the Korean war and his remains were just recently identified.  Posthumously awarded the Silver Star, Purple Heart, and POW medals, Major Griffiths represents all the best of our Armed Forces.  Obama's action today effectively denigrates and insults Major Griffith's service and sacrifice.

When neither a Private (Manning) or General (Cartwright) are held fully accountable for their illegal actions, because of the decision of the president of the United States, something is sorely amiss in our nation.  

Shame on you, President Obama.

20 January 2017 Update  

Though Obama's action re Manning remains an outrageous affront, at least Bergdahl will have to face the military trial for his actions.





         

Military tradition

 
Around this time of year, several military related events (US Navy birthday, US Marine Corps birthday, Veterans Day) evoke traditional actions and ceremonies.

Tradition is something civilians, in general, do not understand.  And the current group of progressives, in particular, can not comprehend the importance of tradition.  

For members of the military and veterans, our institutional beliefs make us great, as they set the tone for all who serve.  We were trained in the histories and traditions of our services, not to indoctrinate, but to ensure we understood the responsibility we undertook to safeguard the valor, memories, victories, and sacrifices of those who went before us.

Our traditions help reinforce the belief and imperative of sacrifice, of putting the welfare of our nation, service, unit, mission, and comrades above self.  Never let a fellow Marine down!

The current crop of progressives routinely attack the military and its traditions; like the absolute importance of the American Flag.  Where they can, they seek to force change in our traditions.  For example, doing away with Navy enlisted ratings. 

It is another all too sad reminder of Obama's, Clinton's, and their crowd's disdain for our military .  Tragically, it also provides insight into the world that would follow a Clinton election.  Infamous for her demands that military uniforms be kept out of sight when she was FLOTUS, one can only speculate what steps she might undertake as POTUS. 

Fortunately, we stand above HRC and her kind.  They can not appreciate that which they don't understand, as the reasons for their lack of understanding are simple.  They put self above all else.  They seek personal power, influence, and financial wealth.  They seek to destroy those institutions built upon long histories of tradition, sacrifice, and service to the nation, because these long serving institutions threaten their self-serving objectives.  They disparage those among us who willingly join to serve the nation, to embrace the traditions we learn, while understanding to do so may lead to the ultimate sacrifice.

As we celebrate, remember, and mourn, our traditions stand strong.  No politician without military experience will ever be able to understand this.   

At onetime I thought disagreeing with things was natural as one ages.

At onetime I thought disagreeing with things was natural as one ages.  For example, my parents weren't too crazy about the music, style of clothes, and other manifestations of our generation.  As I am confident their parents weren't thrilled about similar things in their youth.  So differences between generations seem normal.

Be as that may be, however, it is clear the issues we now face are far more than generational.  Our entire belief system is being attacked on multiple fronts by multiple means.  This cultural war is being waged by politicians and activists seemingly bent upon taking down the country.  Belatedly in my view, the heartland is rising up in anger against demands falsely labeled as tolerance for difference.  

It is not enough for some to plead for tolerance for the secular lifestyle, they demand that all must accept and support it.  It is not enough to ask for acceptance of Muslims, they demand that we yield to their views and cast out our Christian beliefs.  It is not enough to seek workplace equality for females, they demand preference and lowered standards, while demanding we demean masculinity.  It is not enough to seek an end to racial bias, they now demand racial preferences, racially segregated housing on college campuses, and even reparations.  It is not enough to seek solutions to the immigration problems, they demand rights reserved for citizens be accorded illegal immigrants. 

Flying under this false flag of tolerance, they are actively demanding social and cultural changes.  And since they can't make wholesale changes for the entire country, they have found one element within our nation in which they can make these social and cultural changes at will, a stroke of the pen.  Executive fiat without care or consideration of the impact.  

Most disturbing to me and fellow veterans is a particularly dangerous manifestation of these demands for social and cultural changes.  The current administration, like Bill Clinton's, uses the military as their own social science laboratory.  Hating the integrity, sacrifice, honesty, honor, courage, and commitment of the men and women in uniform, Obama and Clinton have forced changes by edict upon the military, changes that have nothing to do with combat preparedness or readiness.  They are intent upon social and cultural policies that do away with what is needed to succeed in combat.  

Concurrently they reduced budgets, selected for senior flag officers many sycophants who join in degrading  the military, failed to gain Congressional approval for war, enacted failed national security policies, appeased our adversaries, squandered crucial resources, and used men and women in uniform as potted plants for photo ops.  Flying under the false flag of tolerance, they brought in others of their ilk to shove this crap down the throats of the uniformed forces.

And because the progressives have not been able to squelch the rising voices from the conservative heartland, they continue to force the military to yield to their increasing demands, breaking faith with those who serve.  Sadly, tragically it is not too surprising, since less than one half of one percent of the nation serves in uniform and the progressives are not in this group of patriots.  

The disdain in which Obama and Clinton hold the military is well known and unquestioned.  They and their fellow  progressives, liberals, left, Democrats, media, or whatever label best fits are actually the most intolerant group in our country.  Hence the vitriol surrounding the election, as the starkly different choices are magnified in the heartland of America.      
 

We must depart the path set upon by Obama in particular.  We must turn back by repeal, cancellation, legislation, repudiation, and other action the injurious policies and actions of the past seven plus years.  I truly believe the majority of Americans understand this.  The big question is whether they will turn out in significant numbers to vote.  Sadly, Trump's words and actions work against getting the high conservative voter turnout necessary to deny Clinton the presidency.

Profoundly telling, in conversations with fellow retired senior leaders, to a man they have expressed that we could not serve in today's military.  We'd either be jailed for speaking our minds or simply depart rather than force upon the youth of our nation the perverted social and cultural policies demanded by POTUS and his cronies, who are simultaneously weakening our military to dangerously low levels.

Disagreeing with the actions of the current administration is not based upon generational differences.  It is based upon injurious actions being forced upon the military under the false rubric of pursuing tolerance.  

Only a high voter turnout can turn the tide.  

An unwarranted victory lap

Following is a news report about comments POTUS made in Elkhart, Indiana, during his so-called victory lap, as he tells America how much better our nation, our citizens, and the world are since he took office.  In this case, he was discussing the economy.

Obama, speaking in Elkhart, Ind., had lamented the “primary story” he claimed Republicans are telling about the economy – one that focuses on how “moochers at the bottom of the income ladder” are squeezing middle-class families.

“We have been hearing this story for decades,” Obama said. “Tales about welfare queens, talking about takers, talking about the ‘47percent.’ It's the story that is broadcast every day on some cable news stations, on right-wing radio, it's pumped into cars, and bars, and VFW halls all across America, and right here in Elkhart.”

Obama continued: “And if you're hearing that story all the time, you start believing it. It's no wonder people think big government is the problem.”

His rhetoric is wholly unconvincing, in addition to taking an insulting and uncalled-for-shot at veterans.

If the nation is indeed so much better because of his time in office, then why are vastly more people out of the workforce than in it?  Why was the jobs report for May 2016 so dismal?  Why is the economy cited by voters as their number one concern?  Why is the national debt approaching 20 trillion dollars?  Why is the stock market performing tepidly and is currently below its high mark?  Why aren't savings accounts paying reasonable interest?  Why are health care insurance carriers departing Obamacare?  Why are health care premiums and co-pays dramatically increasing?  And the list goes on and on.

The most telling indicator though, is that voters from both the left and right are damned angry at his big government and its overreach, as indicated by the backlash prevalent in this year's election cycle.

Action speaks louder than words

People may doubt what you say, but they will believe what you do. ~ Lewis Cass

On Memorial Day we hear and read a great deal about honoring those who fell in service to our nation. This is as it should be.

Some allowed their comments to spill over to the general topic of veterans. For this, these commenters can be forgiven. At the end of this national day of recognition, hearing and reading their comments about veterans, I come away with an observation about POTUS.

 

When deeds speak, words are nothing. ~African Proverb

Watching several speakers on television and reading comments of others, many used the opportunity to decry the on-going issues with the Veterans Administration. During one such broadcast, the aforementioned observation came to mind about POTUS.

 

I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts. ~John Locke

It occurred to me that POTUS has said a great deal about the issues with the VA and veterans. But in my view, he has done very little. Though professing concern, in comparison to social issues he supports, POTUS has been notable for his lack of action. On social issues he has shown a proclivity to sign Executive Orders and to issue Federal Regulations. By some count, thousands of pages of the two.

 

Well done is better than well said. ~Benjamin Franklin

Setting aside for the moment the illegality of his Executive Orders and Federal Regulations, what is telling is that in spite of lofty rhetoric concerning issues with the Veterans Administration and care for our veterans, POTUS has chosen not to take the same approach in addressing them as he has with social issues, climate issues, the environment, LGBT issues, international security, and other matters not involving our veterans.

 

A promise is a cloud; fulfillment is rain. ~Arabian Proverb

A minor epiphany, but a revelation nevertheless. By his actions, POTUS demonstrates his lack of care for veterans and their concerns.

Actions speak louder than words.

The slippery slope of incremental increases in military deployments

It has been recently reported that SecDec announced that more members of our military will deploy to Iraq.  Astounding after Obama's unilaterally declaring the end of combat in Iraq.

 

Apart from the obvious contradiction, the more worrisome aspect is the slippery slope of incremental increases in military deployments that SecDef's announcement highlights.  Incremental increases by a president who ran for election and reelection on the promise of ending the war.  

And these orders ignore our own military history.

All of the past and current deployment orders, from presidential administrations led by both political parties, come without benefit of a declaration of war.  One need not have to think hard to draw the startling comparison of another long war fought without a declaration of war.

Vietnam also saw the slippery slope of incremental increases in military deployments, in spite of the worthless limits on troops touted by various administrations.  Then, as now, the real numbers were obscured by personnel accounting legerdemain.  For example, if only "temporarily" deployed, the count was not added to the troop ceiling.  Simply ridiculous.

Not only ridiculous, but dishonest and probably illegal.

If we are in a position that requires the use of military force, Congress must be called upon to declare war.  With the declaration in hand, the National Command Authorities then assign the mission to win to one of the combatant commanders, with the service chiefs providing the well trained and equipped forces requested by the combatant commander.  Then  the combatant commander fights to win.  (And without the widely reported interference by young inexperienced staffers assigned to the national security council.)

We have already begun the slide down that slope.  For example, Marine Staff Sergeant Cardin was killed in Iraq after artillery was deployed to assist our allies.  Most of the nation was blissfully unaware of this deployment.  And now more force protection assets will be required.  More aircraft are being deployed.  And then even more capabilities will be deployed because SecDef said only we can take on this mission.  So much for the end of the war in Iraq, as POTUS declared.  

Sadly, we have not learned from history.  Tighten your belts, because we are about to go down that same slippery slope. 

   

 

Clinton's unsatisfactory judgement

Without a doubt, Ms. Clinton's judgment can only be viewed as unsatisfactory.  Many examples exist, but two recent events highlight again her serious character failing. 

One recent example involved a racially offensive "joke" she shared with Mayor De Blasio of New York. 

Note that the African American actor on stage made comment that the term "CP time" is offensive, but Clinton attempted to make it a play on words, rather than condemning the language.

Elsewhere, POTUS stated Clinton was careless with her email.  Another example, from a supposed supporter, referring to her judgement.  In this case, her carelessness put the nation's secrets at risk.  (One can effectively argue that her unsatisfactory judgement directly contributed to the carelessness.)

With all the problems facing our nation, we can ill afford an individual whose demonstrated judgement is so very, very flawed that she publicly participates in a racially offensive joke.  Nor can the nation afford an individual who demonstrates the carelessness described by POTUS.

And the nation can not afford to elect an individual who dismisses valid criticisms of the above, attempts to blame others, and displays contempt for the American voter and the laws of our nation.

Unsatisfactory judgement is not what the nation needs.

 

Honor, service, and sacrifice.

Saturday I will join what will undoubtedly be a large contingent of fellow veterans and bikers as we roll in the first of two missions to honor Staff Sergeant Louis Cardin, U.S. Marine Corps, KIA.  He was killed in combat last week in northern Iraq, in a war POTUS declared to be over.

I could write extensively about the political dimension, but choose not to, as it would dishonor my fellow Marine.  I write, instead, comparing those who send Marines to war and those Marines who go to war.

From POTUS to Congress to SecDef, the integrity deficit is profound.  Elected and appointed officials send our best and brightest to foreign shores to fight without the Constitutionally mandated declaration of war.  For far too long our young men and women have answered their country's call in these undeclared wars.  And often they do so in the shadows.  Case in point: the nation was unaware the Marines have an artillery battery from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit in Northern Iraq until SSgt Cardin's death forced their hand.  And the official spokesmen have acknowledged that the "troop ceiling' number they tout is inaccurate.  Using phrases like "temporary assignment," the actual numbers of men and women going is harm's way are much larger.  Utterly shameful.  The lack of honor, integrity, and ethics is monumental.  Balanced against this ineptitude are the courage and commitment of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines sent into harm's way.

These men and women embody what is best about our great nation.  All they ask, and have a right to expect, are competent leaders who will respect and honor their service and sacrifice, as well as their very lives.  These men and women stand head and shoulders above the elected and appointed officials, save some of those who have honorably served our nation in uniform and now speak out forcibly on their behalf.  

Not one of the average elected or appointed officials is worthy of the respect from those in uniform.  They do not embody the beliefs and honor of those in uniform.  Yet, they show massive disrespect by the manner in which the government treats them, including pay and benefits, and the ill performing VA.

May it be that not one more American serviceman dies for the corrupt politicians and appointed officials.

Bring question time to our government

While seated in the barber's chair this afternoon, my rather erudite barber had the TV tuned into C-SPAN and question time in the British Parliament was being broadcast.  According to Wikipedia, "Question time in a parliament occurs when members of the parliament ask questions of government ministers (including the prime minister), which they are obliged to answer."

Obliged to answer!

What a novel concept, foreign to our form of government.  For the elected representatives of the people to ask questions of the leaders of government which must be answered.

In no way recommending the parliamentary system for our country, it would nevertheless be refreshing and invigorating for the President and Cabinet to be "obliged to answer" directly those questions put to them in a public forum by members of Congress.  Instead, we endure carefully scripted and staged byplay between spokesmen/women of various entities.  Or vacuous, unchallenged statements from this elected official or that, often times offering as fact unfounded and ridiculous utterances.  And the so called press conferences POTUS rarely convenes are equally orchestrated.  He controls who is permitted to ask a question, an exercise of the ultimate in control in a free country.

As a result, our government's leaders are almost never called to answer the people.  They are never called to task, so to speak.

While viewing the British question time, I was also struck by the civility of it all.  None of the corse language increasingly, if not incessantly dominating American politics.

It would be very refreshing to institute question time in our country.   

Conundrum

It is a conundrum!

For the first time I see a possibility of not voting in a presidential election.  This is based on an assumption that Trump and Clinton will be the candidates.  A sad proposition leaving me wondering how many others out there feel the same.

For a bit I was firmly committed to voting against Clinton, but correctly placed criticism of Trump under the “lessor of two evils” construct left me revisiting the commitment.  As much as I strongly believe Clinton is wholly unsuited for and absolutely unworthy of the office and should be voted against accordingly, it is sadly beginning to look like Trump will be the GOP standard bearer.  If this indeed happens, to vote against Clinton one would have to vote for Trump.  I have concluded the unshakable strength of my convictions about Clinton does not outweigh my profound disgust with Trump.  

For a period of time I honestly believed the GOP would/will find a way to deny him the candidacy, so the issue of voting for him wouldn’t materialize.  I would then be able to vote against Clinton with a clear conscience, noting however that neither Rubio nor Cruz light my fire.  In the back of my mind I was secretly hoping the GOP would draft someone like Paul Ryan as its candidate.  Such thoughts reflect a futile mental exercise of grasping at straws in a windstorm.

So here I sit, having reached the very uncomfortable realization that I may not cast a vote in the presidential election.  And that realization is amazingly unsettling.

Strangely, perhaps, I support Sanders’ attempt to win the Dem nomination, in part to deny Clinton the nomination.   To that end, I was thoroughly impressed by Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) as she explained why she resigned from the DNC and announced her support for the "Bern.”  A Sanders – Gabbard ticket would be formidable.  

Maybe, just maybe, either legal problems or a major health issue (not hoping for such, but she doesn’t look well to me) will derail Clinton’s pursuit of the nomination.  With the DNC totally invested in her, those would likely be the only possible happenings that could take Clinton out of the race.  (Speaking of the DNC, its super delegate structure takes the votes right out of the hands of individuals.)  Back to Sanders…he is principled and genuine.  But the Clinton – DNC cabal will block his candidacy. And Obama will not permit the legal issues to interfere with Clinton’s coronation.  (I agree that he won’t pardon her, but he can certainly ensure she isn’t indicted.)

So where is all this headed?  If fellow conservatives agree with my conclusion and do not vote, Clinton will most likely be the next president, a dark day for our country.  Even darker would be an unlikely Trump victory.

In the windstorm of straws to be grasped, Sanders & Gabbard vs. Ryan & Haley would be the better presidential race for the country.  There are many, many issues for the voters to consider and that warrant a presidential election to give guidance for the nation.  These two tickets would provide that opportunity.  

A footnote of sorts.  The GOP campaign is totally disgusting.  Leaves a conservative ashamed of the label.

Conclusion: if it indeed comes down to Trump vs. Clinton, I won't vote for the first and can't vote for the other.

Obama's Action Speaks Louder than Words

It is rare that a sitting justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America dies.  There are only nine justices serving on the court at any one time, so the rarity of a funeral is further increased. 

Why, then, did POTUS not attend the funeral for Justice Scalia?

Obama speaks often about crossing the divide between the liberal and conservative points of view.  He speaks often about working together.  He speaks often about what he believes "all Americans" hold near and dear.  

In fact, he speaks often about a lot of matters.  But actions speak louder than words.

On Saturday 20 February 2016, Obama's action spoke clearly and loudly.  By his absence, Obama displayed arrogance.  He acted contemptuously towards a member of the court who did not yield to his liberal views.  

That the President of the United States failed to attend the funeral for a sitting member of the Supreme Court is shameful and disgraceful.  Differing views aside, it was the President's duty to attend.

His action will long be remembered and is indelibly marked upon his legacy. 

Low level politics

While still believing there is cause for hope in 2016, in the face of the multiple and significant issues facing our nation, it is vexing to observe the abysmally low level to which our national politics are sinking.

On one side is a candidate who may very well be indicted on felony charges.  If the FBI presents charges to the Department of Justice and no indictment ensues, the damage will be immense.  If the individual is indicted, some ridiculously argue it would be permissible for the candidate to continue to campaign for office.  How telling of the state of American politics if such a scandal were to occur.  In the same party is a proudly self-described candidate raging to demolish our basic economy.  As the candidate is the most genuine and sincere of those in his party seeking the nomination, it is scary how many people turn out in support.

On the other side is a bombastic, disingenuous candidate who speaks in perpetually negative descriptions and criticisms of the opponents.  It is tremendously sad that this candidate leads in individual polling.  Others campaigning for this party's nomination range from the virtually unknown to the shrill to the complaining, with one perhaps filling a proper role.  Still, not unlike the other party, no stellar candidate stands out.

A criminal and a fool lead the polling for their respect parties.  This alone speaks to the abysmally low level of American politics.  Were it not the highest office in the land to which the aspire, it would make great comedic theater.

Still seeing 2016 as a year of promise, I hope the nation can put aside the criminals and idiots and rise to select a good person who will work with leaders from both parties to find compromise solutions to move our country forward, unify the citizenry (after nearly eight years of purposeful divisive rhetoric), and restore honor to the political class.   

Where best American leadership?

On 12 December, President Obama stated, "“In the past seven years, we’ve transformed the United States into the global leader in fighting climate change." Regardless of one's opinion about climate change, the larger issue is one of American leadership, particularly as viewed by our country's chief executive. Of where best to invest in and wield that leadership. The president's statement speaks volumes to this critical matter.

Saying "we've transformed" states rather emphatically his position. Specifically, that he did not and does not see the role of America to lead in international security matters, a plank in both of his campaigns. He set about to reduce (transform if you will) American leadership in this area, as seen in his decision to lead from behind in his failed approach to Libya. Thus, his views require transformation away from being a nation that leads the world in international security matters, yielding to others who might seek this role. A dangerous abdication of the historic international role America has played, most notably in WWI and WWII, as well as during the post WWII era of the Soviet Union's expansionist aspirations. Certainly, this role was poorly played when the nation reached too far by seeking to nation build, leading to negative results in Vietnam and Iraq, as well as smaller proxy wars. But American international security leadership has been more positive than negative. However, Obama sought the presidency determined to transform the country and its place amongst the nations of the world.

Stating "fighting climate change" is also an emphatic declaration of his position. Since words matter, "fighting" is very telling. He could have said "counter," "correct," "resolve," or even simply "fix." He sees climate change as an adversary worthy of engaging to defeat. Whether or not you accept his position, or whether or not you believe the agreement will change our climate, or whether or not you believe the other nations will actually abide by the agreement is immaterial to understanding Obama's views on American leadership.

By his words and actions, it is clear he does not see America as the world's leader in matters regarding international security. So it follows that he does not see international security as a threat worthy of his concern. His responses to questions from the media in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks were exceptionally telling. Media from around the world were looking to the American president to take the lead in this international matter. But he did not. And taking a look at his action of the past seven years provides clear and convincing examples of his views in this arena, with the Iranian nuclear agreement being the most startling example.

So here we are, with a president proud of transforming American leadership from international security to one climate change. At a time multiple threats are visiting death and carnage across the world. At a time the threat to the American homeland is rising. At a time American influence is waining across the globe. At a time of immense excessive federal government spending driving up extraordinary debt, threatening the entire national economy.

The unasked question is why not do both, lead in climate change and international security? It was not a zero sum endeavor. Why not add climate change leadership to the mantle of responsibility for international security?

If a nuclear weapon is employed by North Korea or Iran or some non-state actor, what does Obama think will happen? What reactions would he forecast? And what of the influence on the climate of these action? What of the impact on the American economy? What happens when another 9/11 level attack occurs in the homeland? What of the growing influence and, dare it be said, leadership of a resurgent Russia in the middle east? What if the Islamist threat takes control of the petroleum assets in the middle east? What about the aggressive posture of China in the western Pacific region?

How does Obama's transformed United States leadership prepare us in the face of threats to international security? If something tragic occurs, will it be said he made wise decisions on where to invest in and wield American leadership?
     

POTUS and Congress are failing the American people

A year ago, POTUS said his strategy was to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIL (ISIS). Just three days ago, POTUS stated, “From the start, our goal has been first to contain them, and we have contained them.” This seems to me to be a dramatic change in strategy. In the aftermath of the preplanned and determined attacks in Paris on Friday, his statement is being justifiably criticized. On the 15 November Sunday talk shows, Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes said, "We absolutely agree that this was an act of war by ISIL." Over the past year-plus, in the view of this retired military officer, POTUS and Congress have failed in their responsibilities regarding this war.

POTUS and his Executive Branch have failed to recognize and react to international and national security concerns associated with the war against ISIL (ISIS), if we are indeed at war.  For example, no war has ever been won by air power alone.  On July 6, POTUS proclaimed, "Our coalition has now hit ISIL with more than 5,000 airstrikes.  We’ve taken out thousands of fighting positions, tanks, vehicles, bomb factories, and training camps."  His statement needs to be put into context for an accurate understanding.  During the 43 day air campaign in Operation Desert Storm, 109,876 combat sorties, or an average of 2,555 per day, were flown (source: www.u-shistory.com).  Even after that air campaign, we launched a ground offensive.  In the nearly year and one-half of Obama's air campaign against ISIL (ISIS), the 5,000 sorties he noted amount to less than ten strikes per day.  Not exactly an overwhelming use of military power.  It seems to match Secretary of State Kerry's September 2013 description of the plan for the ill-fated air campaign in Syria, when he said, “That is exactly what we’re talking about doing — unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.”  Even Senator Diane Feinstein sees the current strategy is failing, stating, "It has become clear that limited air strikes and support for Iraqi forces and the Syrian opposition are not sufficient to protect our country and our allies." 

We are either at war with ISIL (ISIS) or we are not.  Stating we are at war with ISIL (ISIS) and not forcibly and comprehensively engaging the enemy with all forms of military, as well as other, power is folly.  Putting American lives at risk in combat without a determination to win the war is criminal.  (Make no mistake, Mr. President, those aircrew, special operators, and others engaged in your even less than half-hearted effort against ISIL (ISIS) are at war.)  

Obama's containment strategy implemented by less than ten combat sorties per day; an occasional drone strike killing of notable figures, like Jihadi John; occasional rescue operations, one leading to the death of a U.S. soldier; 50 special operators assigned to the fight (we sent more troops to battle the Ebola outbreak); and supporting allies may provide disjointed tactical success and good PR and political sound bites, but they are woefully inadequate in a war.  The recent attacks in Paris irrefutably underscore the failure of this containment strategy.  Congress enabling this failed strategy is equally criminal.

Congress has the sole authority for providing funding, including that for our military.  In passing Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), Congress has only partially fulfilled its constitutional responsibilities.  Seeing the failed strategy of the Obama Administration in this war on ISIL (ISIS), Congress is obligated to use its power.  How can this be done, when so many errors compound one upon the other?  Sequestration brought about by abysmal expenditures exceeding revenues.  Voting to draw down the military at a time when the existential threat posed by ISIL (ISIS) is so very real.  Irresponsibly enacting costly domestic legislation that drags on the economy.  Then puffing out one's collective chests stating they have to "support the troops."  Damn right the troops need to be supported, but by corralling the ill conceived and ill executed Obama strategy.  Cut off the funding for combat operations (except for force protection) until or unless the executive branch provides Congress with a comprehensive and convincing strategy to actually defeat, not contain, ISIL (ISIL).  And this strategy can not be made public, as all politicians are prone to do.  If we are in a war, we must fight to win.  

As Sunday fades, both POTUS and Congress are failing the American people.  When ISIL (ISIS) attacks on American soil, it will be too late.  Tragically, it is not a matter of if the attacks will come, but only when and where.  Absent dramatic action by Congress and POTUS, we will see Americans killed.  Regardless of the political season, Congress has a larger responsibility to the American people.  Regardless of the past, POTUS has a responsibility to the American people.  That responsibility is to provide for the security of the nation.