In her first interview ahead of the publication of her new book, Adios, America! conservative commentator Ann Coulter stood by her claim that Americans should “fear immigrants” from Mexico “more than ISIS,” the extremist group making gains across Iraq and Syria.
“I have a little tip. If you don’t want to be killed by ISIS, don’t go to Syria. If you don’t want to be killed by a Mexican, there’s nothing I can tell you,” Coulter said in an interview Tuesday with Fusion’s Jorge Ramos.
After several seconds of silence from a rather stunned audience, she added, “Very easy to not be killed by ISIS. Don’t fly to Syria.”
“Are you really saying . . . we’re talking about 40 million immigrants in this country?” Ramos said. When he pressed Coulter further, she suggested that certain “cultures are obviously deficient.”
“There are a lot of problems with that culture,” she said of Mexico. “Hopefully it can be changed. But we can share our culture with other nations without bringing all of their people here.” (Read more from “Jorge Ramos Spars With Ann Coulter Over Her Comparison of Immigrants to ISIS” HERE)
Photo Credit: NBC News Washington lawmakers are demanding an accounting of how many airport security badges have been lost or stolen around the country as an NBC News investigation reveals the problem may be bigger than originally thought.
“Clearly there are an awful lot of things falling through the cracks and there’s just no room for error when it comes to this issue. We need answers. They’re not providing them,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who chairs the Transportation Committee . . .
As NBCDFWreported in March, more than 1,400 of the badges — which allow employees to access secure areas like runways and boarding gates — went missing at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport over approximately two years.
Now, the station, in partnership with NBC San Diego, has learned that more than 270 badges went missing at the San Diego International Airport in the last two years. (Read more from “More Airport Security Badges Missing as Washington Demands Answers” HERE)
Photo Credit: The Telegraph By Julian Ryall. China’s armed forces are to extend their operations and its air force will become an offensive as well as defensive force for the first time, in a major shift in policy that will strengthen fears of accidental conflict . . .
The People’s Liberation Army, including its navy and air force, will be allowed to “project power” further beyond its borders at sea and more assertively in the air in order to safeguard its maritime possessions, the [defense] white paper [released by the chief administrative body of the Chinese government] stated . . .
The posture risks escalating the tension over disputed islands in the South China Sea and elsewhere in the Pacific, where the United States is determined to protect the interests of allies like Taiwan and the Philippines . . .
Global Times, a tabloid newspaper run by the Communist Party, said that China might have to “accept” there would be conflict with the United States.
“If the United States’ bottom line is that China has to halt its activities, then a US-China war is inevitable in the South China Sea”, said the paper, which is often seen as a mouth-piece of hardline nationalists in the government in Beijing. (Read more from “US-China War ‘Inevitable’ Unless Washington Drops Demands Over South China Sea” HERE)
_____________________________________________
What Else did China’s Defense White Paper Predict for the Future?
By Kieth Johnson. [I]n the United States . . . the consensus over accommodating China’s rise seems to have given way to a more hawkish stance on the need to contain the rising Asian giant.
China’s new white paper provides plenty of points of continuity with past strategies, especially with Mao Zedong’s doctrine of “active defense,” known in the United States as the Billy Martin school of conflict management (“I never threw the first punch; I threw the second four.”)
At the same time, though, the defense blueprint breaks new ground. It codifies the ongoing transformation of China into a true maritime power, and puts more emphasis on high-seas, offensive naval operations. More broadly, it envisions a much bigger, global role for Chinese armed forces than had previously been the case, and in some places echoes the famously hawkish Chinese views of thinkers such as Liu Mingfu, whose bestselling book “The China Dream” paints a vision of nearly inevitable conflict between the two global titans. . .
For a 5,000-year old civilization that has survived invasions from Mongols, Japanese, and Western Europeans, this is a sobering conclusion: “In the new circumstances, the national security issues facing China encompass far more subjects, extend over a greater range, and cover a longer time span than at any time in the country’s history.” Later, the paper notes: “Due to its complex geostrategic environment, China faces various threats and challenges in all its strategic directions and security domains.”
That’s especially true when it comes to the South China Sea. (Read more from “China’s Military Blueprint: Bigger Navy, Bigger Global Role” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-27 00:09:142016-04-11 11:00:43US-China War ‘Inevitable’ Unless Washington Drops Demands Over South China Sea
The Supreme Court is heading into the final month of its annual term.
In a potentially historic ruling, the court will decide whether same-sex couples have a right to marry nationwide, culminating a two-decade legal and political fight for [homosexual marriage].
Another much-anticipated decision will be whether the Obama administration may continue to subsidize health insurance for low- and middle-income people who buy coverage in the 36 states that failed to establish an official insurance exchange of their own and instead use a federally run version.
If the court rules against the Obama administration, about 8.6 million people could lose their subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.
Between now and late June, the court will hand down more than two dozen decisions on matters such as politics, civil rights, free speech and air pollution. Several of these cases have been pending for months, suggesting the justices have been sharply split. (Read more from “Black Robed Rulers Soon to Rule on 13 Important Cases” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-27 00:09:052016-04-11 11:00:43Our Black Robed Rulers (aka the Supreme Court) Soon to Issue Decrees on 13 Important Cases
The Vatican has interested itself in global warming, going so far as to stage an invitation-only exhibition on the matter, and to release through the Pontifical Academies of Sciences and Social Sciences the curious document “Climate Change and The Common Good.” The document’s main author is the Chancellor of the Academies, Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo.
His Excellency was criticized by many for the low-quality, error-laden science in this document, but he received the most heat for buddying up to abortion and “population control” enthusiasts like UN boss Ban Ki-moon and economist Jeffrey Sachs.
Evidently, these critiques stung. The Archbishop returned fire, accusing his detractors of acting on the orders of a cabal dedicated to destroying Science — a charge which found sympathetic ears. But he couldn’t quite escape the scandal caused by his purposely associating with, and giving political cover to, abortion and contraception advocates. More explanation was called for, so he gave it.
In an interview with Stefano Gennarini, Sánchez shot back with an odd claim he has made many times, that the “climate crisis leads to poverty and poverty leads to new forms of slavery and forced migration, and drugs, and all this can also lead to abortion.” Elsewhere, he included prostitution and “organ trafficking” as other results of global warming.
By any reckoning, this is an impressive list of evils. Yet what’s missing from his Excellency’s statements is any explanation of how exactly the slight increase in clement winter afternoons has caused abortion, prostitution and other grave human evils to increase.
Did the fraction of a degree uptick in temperature late last century make men more amorous? Perhaps the dearth of hurricanes and tornadoes — the “climate crisis” has pushed these way down — induced men to seek other excitement in their lives. Or again, maybe the minuscule accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide has shouldered aside oxygen, depriving our brains and lessening our capacity to reason.
“These are serious matters!” the objection will run. And so they are. But mentioning something serious doesn’t make you a serious person. There must be more than moral dudgeon backing a claim as . . . grandiose as Sánchez’s, namely that global warming causes abortion. There must be evidence. Is there? The answer depends on how reliable global warming theory is.
Many have fallen prey to the unscientific belief that predictions of doom are proof the predictions are right, and that therefore the theory which generated the predictions must be correct. Otherwise intelligent people commit these blunders because of fear, or because they are in the grip of environmentalist ideology, or, in the worst cases, because it is politically convenient.
The predictions of doom have been consistent: temperature is promised to soar ever upwards. The theory is that small boosts in carbon dioxide (compared to the atmosphere as a whole), by way of feedback mechanisms too complicated to explain here, are responsible for the rise. The predictions are consistent, all right. Consistently poor. No, worse than poor. Rotten. For nearly two decades, climate models have predicted rising temperatures, but the reality has been that there is no such increase.
Since the climate is demonstrably not changing in the direction or rate predicted, how could this non-event be increasing the incidence of abortion, organ harvesting and slavery?
Let me pose another question. Which is more likely to lead to more abortions:
(A) Global warming, through a twisting, fanciful chain of causality, which anyway hasn’t even happened yet, or
(B) The bolstering of the rich, influential, abortion- and contraception-friendly United Nations and radical NGOs, who can now claim to enjoy “Vatican support”?
It is, or used to be, a fundamental principle of science that a theory was proved false when predictions made based on the theory were a bust. Even Einstein had to wait for Arthur Eddington to verify relativity’s predictions before scientists wholly backed the theory.
Sánchez was asked about this principle: “What do you answer to so called ‘climate skeptics’ who point to the lack of change in temperatures in the past 18 years and the difficulty in finding any definite correlation between human activity and large scale climate changes?”
His response was revealing: “I hope you are not [a skeptic] because then we would discover the true reason for these false accusations against us!”
Sánchez went on to hurl some false accusations of his own. He said climate change skeptics were all either members of the Tea Party or people with “incomes derived from oil.” Because, well, that would prove that everything they’re saying is false, wouldn’t it? Thank heavens no scientists who assert that man-made climate change is a crisis receive any income for their work, or support from billion-dollar foundations.
Archbishop Sánchez is keen on sustainability, which many take as a code word for population control. On this issue, he said that his Sustainable Development Goals didn’t “even mention abortion or population control. They speak of access to family planning and sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights.”
Everybody, even his Excellency, knows what such words are: dull euphemisms for population control and abortion. This is why he tried to deflect the moral implications of including these terms in Church documents by saying, “Some may even interpret [these terms] as Paul VI, in terms of responsible paternity and maternity.” If there is a polite, ecclesiastical way of saying “balderdash,” this is the place for it.
The Archbishop said that we “can rest assured that the two academies of which I am chancellor are against abortion and against population control simply because we follow the Magisterium of the Popes, on which we directly depend.” Okay, let’s accept that. Yet it is also true that Sánchez’s actions have lent political, cultural, and religious support to organizations which push, and push heavily, population control and the systematic killing of the unborn. They now can claim Vatican support for their agendas.
The Archbishop sought these worldly connections to give weight and prominence to his political programs. He ought to at least consider what is obvious to the rest of us: that his actions will foster the very evils he hopes to eliminate. (See “Vatican Science and Cheap Moralism on the Tiber”, originally posted HERE)
In the days before the “hook-up” culture started teaching all women of every age to act like teenage boys, there was an ugly expression which callous men used: Some girls were “cheap dates.” They were so flattered when men showed interest in them, that they would respond by giving a sexually aggressive guy what he wanted, in the hope that he’d keep calling them, maybe even fall in love. He rarely did.
No doubt many girls who let themselves be treated as “cheap dates” were in fact quite attractive, intelligent, compassionate and kind. They had a lot more to offer a man than a forgettable roll in the hay, if only they had known it.
Well, there’s a political philosophy out there that persistently acts like that lonely teenage girl with low self-esteem. It’s called libertarianism. Maybe you’ve heard of it.
In its most defensible form, the libertarian worldview has a certain stark, even classical beauty — like a Greek statue seen at sunrise. Its fundamental premise is the dignity of the person and his right not to suffer violence or coercion. From this flows the “non-violence” principle: In our interactions with others, we will not use force or fraud but free exchange. All we ask of them in return is exactly the same.
We are each finally responsible for our own lives and our choices, and we should neither be parasitical on other human beings nor permit them to prey on us. We should not blame our problems on a nebulous “society,” nor let envy goad us into finding easy scapegoats, such as “the One Percent,” or “the WASPs” or “the Jews.” Nor should we expect the state to act as our wet nurse, concierge or hired hit man.
The State is there, if at all, to keep all bandits and invaders at bay. We don’t want it to wipe our nose, and we won’t let it steal our handkerchief. Like pioneers on the frontier or settlers on Mars ((libertarians love both Westerns and science fiction) we start off life with a nearly blank slate, and must carve out our way in the wilderness.
It’s incomplete, but there is much truth in this vision. The State has proven dangerous throughout history — especially in the 20th century, when apart from all deaths in wars, some 170 million civilians were murdered by their governments. Even apart from totalitarianism and murderous war, there are much worse mistakes we could make than to prune the invasive, toxic weed of unlimited government, which grows like kudzu in every nook and cranny of our lives, strangling human initiative and transforming capable grown-ups into lazy, resentful drones.
No, I don’t mean inner-city teenage moms, who are mostly victims of the welfare state — which rewards them with subsidies and financial independence for getting pregnant at age 16. I’m referring to the thousands of white, college-educated liberal arts grads using food stamps at Whole Foods, teaching adjunct as a hobby, and blogging all day about “sustainability.” Such people should go work at some place like Hobby Lobby. In a libertarian society, hunger, if nothing else, would compel them to do so.
A libertarian society would also starve the crony capitalists, who cynically exploit programs like farm subsidies to rake in tens of billions in unearned profits on useless goods — enough corn to choke us, overpriced cotton protected by tariffs that harm poor farmers in Africa, even government-subsidized tobacco. Many corporations, with thousands of lobbyists on their payroll, are tapeworms on the taxpayer, using the State to suppress competitors so that they can fleece consumers. And don’t get libertarians started on defense companies, NSA spies or the prisoners of our Drug War.
So for all their lovely principles, and cogent policy insights, why do libertarians let themselves be used again and again by the left? Like a gorgeous National Merit Scholar with an unhealthy taste for “bad boys,” libertarians consistently see their ideas trotted out whenever it suits progressives who wish to bulldoze some bulwark of ordered liberty — then callously discarded, in favor of bigger and badder government. Here are just three examples.
Same-Sex Marriage
Libertarians defend freedom of contract and free association, and the Left made good use of their arguments in attacking natural marriage. By the same principle, “covenant marriages” should also be legal and enforceable — but is anyone arguing for that? Far worse, if the Supreme Court mutilates marriage, Obama’s solicitor general has warned us that the whole panoply of anti-discrimination laws will be used to target churches that won’t worship Caesar. So big government grows, private schools and charities close, Christians lose their liberty, and the left moves on to the next target of opportunity.
Open Borders
Most libertarians argue for the free movement of peoples, and favor open borders. They say that absent a welfare state, people would spontaneously seek out opportunities, then when jobs dried up they would pick up and leave. Maybe this is true. But we will never find out because the welfare state isn’t going anywhere — in part because recent immigrants are heavy users of public benefits, so they almost universally vote for Democrats who will extend them. And impose onerous regulations on employers, nullifying their freedom of contract. And raise taxes. Low-skill immigrants serve the left as captive voters, undermining almost everything libertarians say they stand for. The left uses libertarians as human shears to cut holes in the border fence, then drops them and moves along.
Islam and War
Libertarians are right to be reflexively antiwar, since war really is “the health of the state.” Each major war we have fought, needful or not, greased the massive and irreversible growth of bureaucratic control over American citizens’ lives. Libertarians were wise when they warned that building liberal democracy via cluster bomb in the Muslim world is a wasteful errand. They are even right to worry about the implications of seeding mosques with FBI agents and informants.
But libertarians are dead wrong when they try to whitewash Islam, to pooh-pooh truth-tellers who point to that religion’s core texts, as interpreted by all recognized Islamic scholars. Their message is icy cold and crystal clear: Islam is a religion of power, of social control, which respects no rights but Allah’s. Human beings are “slaves of God,” and non-Muslims or bad Muslims are rebellious slaves who need to be punished. Devout Muslims are called to punish them, via jihad, terror, or honor-killing.
Every country on earth is a target for infiltration and conquest, then the absolute suppression of every worldview except Islam. The Muslim utopia is something like Saudi Arabia or the Islamic state. They will build it here if we let them. But libertarians encourage open immigration, which brings in millions of Muslims, a certain percentage of whom will wage jihad. Acts of terror give spooks and spies in the NSA a pretext to listen to our calls and hack our email accounts. Big government grows again, with the unwitting help of libertarian efforts to shrink it.
Used and then Discarded
If only libertarians had more respect for the integrity of their principles, and would stop letting themselves be used by opportunistic progressives. On any given issue, there are valid small-government, individual-liberties arguments to be made. But liberties come with responsibilities, which is something the left won’t admit.
So the left will gleefully accept libertarian support in removing some traditionalist or conservative restriction on individual freedom. But they won’t agree that people must live with the consequences of their choices. You want a same-sex marriage, fine — but don’t expect the Catholics or Baptists to accept it or perform it — so a libertarian would say. The leftist drops the liberty argument the moment he’s finished with it, and demands that the state enforce acceptance from every citizen.
You want to come work in America? Fine, but if you can’t support yourself you have to leave. Again, the left stops feigning interest in freedom the moment the border is open, and welcomes every immigrant to his crib in the nanny state. The process is drearily predictable.
Too many libertarians are eager to support leftist attacks on order, confident that in its absence, liberty will grow. But time and time again we see what springs up instead: More coercion, of a streamlined, more poisonous modern strain.
I wish libertarians could learn to love their principles more. I wish I could take each one of them aside and say, “You’re fabulous. You’re special! Don’t sell yourself so cheaply. Hold out for that wedding ring, and stay away from those creepy guys with goatees in the Che Guevara t-shirts.” (See “For the Left, Libertarians Are Like a ‘Cheap Date'” HERE)
Listen to an earlier interview with this author on The Joe Miller Show:
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-27 00:08:342016-04-11 11:00:43For the Left, Libertarians Are Like a ‘Cheap Date’ [+video]
The United States allows 70,000 people from all over the world to obtain legal permanent residence through our Refugee Program–one of the most generous in the world. We also bring in another 40,000 or so through the Asylum program. Then there is the Special Immigrant Visa for people from Iraq and Afghanistan–about 10,000 in FY 2014–and a Cuban/Haitian Entrant program bringing in another 20,000 annually. That adds up to about 140,000.
Many of these “refugees” come from Islamic countries like Somalia, Iraq and Iran, bringing with them at least the potential for terrorism, in many cases a contempt for our country and the almost universal edict among Muslims to dominate. Islamic supremacist Mega Mosques are being erected all over the country, vigorously supported by the Obama Justice Department, which runs interference for them over the objections of local citizenry.
It’s about to get worse. The Syrian civil war–enabled at least partially by Obama’s insane foreign policy–has created a refugee crisis, with approximately 2.9 million Syrians now living in refugee camps in surrounding countries. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees wants the U.S. to accept 130,000 Syrians by the end of 2016. We have only taken 700 so far, but given the FBI’s warning that it cannot guarantee ISIS or other terrorists are not among the refugees, even that is too many.
Not to be dissuaded from such silly national security concerns, a group of 14 U.S. senators, led by the indefatigable Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, have written a letter to Obama urging him to allow 65,000 Syrians in as refugees. This would require a dramatic expansion of the refugee program, and virtually guarantee that a sizable number of ISIS fighters would slip in among them. Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy has given them the moniker “Jihad Caucus” because practically speaking, Jihad is what this request will bring.
The 14 senators demanding this massive influx of Syrians are:
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Christopher Coons (D-DE)
Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Edward Markey (D-MA)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
These same 14 sent another letter in April Demanding action on the Syrians. These senators have truly earned the name Jihad Caucus. A few years back, Dick “Turban” Durbin, as he has been called, said U.S. troops guarding Guantanamo Bay prisoners, were Nazis. Sounds like a bit of projection to me. (See “The Jihad Caucus”, originally posted HERE)
Listen to an earlier interview with this author on The Joe Miller Show:
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-27 00:08:272016-04-11 11:00:44The Jihad Caucus: How Islamic Immigration to the US is About to Get Much Worse [+video]
Thanks to the assiduous work of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (and NO thanks to congressional Republicans), America can finally celebrate a victory for the rule of law and separation of powers. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction the lower court placed on Obama’s November 20 executive amnesty, thereby stopping the issuance of work permits in its tracks. The three-judge panel noted that “because the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal of the injunction, we deny the motion for stay and the request to narrow the scope of the injunction.”
However, before conservatives pop the champagne and declare an immigration victory, remember that Obama is working overtime to fundamentally remake America’s immigration system through many other means – avenues not directly addressed by the courts. Congress can and must use the upcoming appropriations season to restrict and condition funding to ensure the Administration fully cooperates with established laws, rules, and precedents on issues related to interior enforcement, prosecutorial discretion, and asylum policy.
At the very least, they should pass stand-alone legislation addressing Obama’s immigration malfeasance and keep up the public pressure against executive action. Unfortunately, everyone knows there’s a collective sigh of relief in the offices of elite GOP politicians who are hoping the courts will give them cover for ignoring Obama’s pernicious immigration policies.
Earlier this year, we highlighted 5 reasons it is Congress’, not the court’s, responsibility to defund Obama’s executive amnesty. Here are 6 more reasons why Congress cannot rely solely on the courts and shirk their responsibility to wield the power of the purse:
1. Obama Has Violated the Injunction: He has already issued 2,000 work permits in contravention to the lower court’s decision. His modus operandi seems to be “ask for forgiveness, not permission.” The spigot of funding must be shut off.
2. Obama Using Asylum: Obama has already abused the existing legal channel of asylum to bring in the new wave of illegal migrants carte blanche from Central America. It’s a well-known secret in some of these Central American countries that all they need to do is file an asylum application and they are home free. Despite the fact that 70% of asylum cases are usually fraudulent, still over 90% of applications are approved. Recently, congressional leaders on the House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform Committees have expressed concern that terrorists are also exploiting the asylum loophole.
3. DACA Has Not Been Overturned: Even though the court has overturned Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), it has not overturned Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Although a group of ICE agents brought a lawsuit against Obama’s 2012 DACA program, the 5th Circuit astoundingly held that federal agents lacked standing to bring a lawsuit against the government, even though they are being threatened by the administration for following the Constitution. Obama has already issued 541,000 Social Security cards to DACA recipients. The more Obama is able to implement DACA without any congressional controls, the more the fiscal costs will become irrevocable, even if a Republican wins back the White House in 2017.
4. Hyper Prosecutorial Discretion: In addition to those illegal immigrants who are affirmatively granted work permits and Social Security cards, Obama is forcing CPB and ICE agents to release thousands of illegal aliens, including dangerous criminals, onto the streets. Although the court injunction will likely halt the issuance of benefits, it will not stop Obama’s abuse of prosecutorial discretion, which allows these people to remain on the streets. As the surge from Central America continues to grow, states and local communities will continue to incur significant costs in the form of education, healthcare, and criminal justice. Without any congressional requirement that Obama keep track of those illegal aliens that are released – something he has refused to do until now – much of the harm will be immutable.
5. Ending Local Immigration Enforcement: After years of allowing illegal aliens to flood this country without any coherent federal policy or even a desire to stem the tide, state and local enforcement of immigration laws has become the most effective tool against illegal immigration. They are the bulwark against the endless cases of illegal aliens killing Americans in drunk driving incidents, such as the killing of a Houston firefighter and his wife earlier this month. Now, Obama is committed to suspending all cooperation between local law enforcement and federal authorities on immigration.
6. Refusing to Deport: There are now 900,000 illegal aliens who have been ordered to leave the country by the courts, yet the administration is refusing to deport them. Of those ordered deported, 167,000 are criminal aliens, the very type Obama said he would prioritize for deportation. Congress has a huge role to play here. (See “6 Reasons Congress Can’t Rely on Courts to Stop Executive Amnesty”, originally posted HERE)
Listen to an earlier interview with this author on The Joe Miller Show:
Photo Credit: Foreign Policy Shiite militias and Iraqi government forces have started to move into place around the Islamic State-held city of Ramadi in preparation for a highly-publicized but hastily-planned push to wrest the city from the fighters who chased the Iraqi army out earlier this month.
U.S. military officials believe that the militants had been carefully planning the city’s conquest for weeks, slipping fighters into the city to isolate several government buildings, then surrounding and isolating the Iraqi forces trapped in those pockets. They also battered Iraqi positions with dozens of captured Iraqi armored vehicles and bulldozers packed with explosives — 10 of which have been reported to be as large as the 1995 Oklahoma City blast. With scores dead and wounded, the exhausted and demoralized Iraqi forces were ordered to pull back to defensive positions outside of the city. U.S. officials said that dozens of armored vehicles, along with tanks and artillery pieces, were abandoned by government forces.
Furious American policymakers blasted the Iraqis for effectively abandoning the city. The Iraqi army “was not driven out of Ramadi,” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told reporters at a NATO summit in Brussels last week. “They drove out of Ramadi.” Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, meanwhile, used an interview Sunday to publicly accuse the Iraqis of lacking the “will to fight,” The White House quickly tried to walk the comments back, but there is little doubt Carter was speaking for many inside the Pentagon.
The Defense chief’s comments hinted at the biggest question hanging over both the Ramadi fight and the broader push against the Islamic State: can Baghdad win the war if its generals seem to be continually out-thought and out-maneuvered by their counterparts from the militant group?
As always, however, matters of victory and defeat in war are complicated. When it comes to Ramadi, the loss isn’t one that can simply be placed at the feet of bad leadership. The Iraqi Army and police there had been fighting almost continuously for 18 months with little support — and no relief — from the government in Baghdad, said Michael Knights, a fellow at the Washington Institute who specializes in Iraqi military issues. And for them there has been “no safe place, no real rest and recuperation, no escape from the battle.” (Read more from “Why Are the Islamic State’s Commanders so Much Better Than the Iraqi Army?” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-27 00:07:572016-04-11 11:00:44Why Are the Islamic State’s Commanders so Much Better Than the Iraqi Army?
Talk to anyone in my business and they’ll all say the same thing: No matter how long you write stories and put them in the newspaper, you are never really sure which ones are going to strike a nerve.
What you think might be a Pulitzer-quality epic might draw only a nice call from Mom, while a simple tale tossed off on deadline causes an uproar, or an avalanche of praise. One legendary former investigative reporter at this paper wrote scores of stories that changed laws and saved lives, yet never did he get more mail than when he wrote about burying his cat . . .
Photo Credit: Frank Glick
A quick recap: Amateur photographer Frank Glick was on his way to work when he drove through Fort Snelling National Cemetery early one morning. He spotted a bald eagle through the mist, perched on a gravestone, and snapped shots with his aging but ever-present camera . . .
An acquaintance saw the photo and suggested that he see if the deceased soldier had any living relatives who might want it. Indeed, Maurice Ruch’s widow was alive and well and delighted to receive a copy of the eagle watching over her beloved husband . . .
Mail and calls from Minnesota, then Chicago, Florida, Arizona, North Carolina and finally, Afghanistan. The picture and story had gone viral. I noticed 11,000 people had recommended it on Facebook. I forwarded scores and scores of requests for reprints to Glick. Unfortunately, he had become ill and has been in the hospital off and on since the column ran. Mail piled up. (Read more from “Photo of Eagle on Fort Snelling Gravestone Touches Hearts, Goes Viral” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-05-27 00:07:482016-04-11 11:00:44Photo of Eagle on Fort Snelling Gravestone Touches Hearts, Goes Viral