Top Iranian General Killed, Immediate Reaction From Army Veteran

(An attack and murder of General Qassim Suleimani) in Baghdad, Iraq… I suppose if you’re going to do it, those are good conditions.

It’s a precarious place we’re in now.  If we knew that the embassy attack was managed from the top, the alternative would have been to let Iran think that it was ok… to assault US soil.  But it also forces Iran to either do something or eat it. I’m not sure they’re ready just to eat it, or take that loss, in laymen terms.

This is likely to escalate to open conflict.

I suppose the reason you do it this way is that if we can make the case that these guys managed the embassy assault, Russia will stay out of it.

I think we are fine with fighting Iran inside Iraq and Syria, so long as we aren’t in Iran and Russia doesn’t join.  China will also accept our word.  They won’t openly support us, but they’ll get it.

And as I think about it, this was about the best circumstance we could’ve asked for… to hit Iran hard without drawing other world powers to their side. 

If we aren’t trying to take over or topple Iran, we can fuck them up pretty badly; but this is going to be a big thing now.

And we are going to need Russia and China to stand down – and all the while we are making our case, they’re going to be saying on the surface that it’s a fake case just like the 2nd invasion of Iraq was a fake case.

Overall, it’s probably good for asserting ourselves in the Middle East.  Good for asserting ourselves as strong to Putin, and OK with China because we just inked that phase 1 deal last week. 

I would guess had we not inked and announced the deal with China, this attack wouldn’t have happened.

I understand there are a lot of troops at Fort Drum and Fort Bragg that were given mobilization orders this morning. I don’t know the number, but based on the people getting called it would be between 10,000 and 40,000. That’s a shit ton of people given that we are currently under 5,000 troops in Iraq.

Similar Read: Syria Will Be Part of Trump’s Legacy – But History’s Judgement Is Still Unclear

A Trillion Dollars in Afghanistan… So How Did We Fix This?

On December 9, 2019, the Washington Post published documents detailing how for nearly two decades the US spent nearly a trillion dollars in Afghanistan (please note, this doesn’t include Iraq). So how do we fix this?

Let’s not use this piece to discuss current political fights on being unable to afford health care for all of us or why we cant relieve student debt or the current reduction to SNAP recipients.

Today we will look at talks that have gone on in the military since the conflict began. Once, Afghanistan was referred to as America’s forgotten war as Iraq stole the headlines. In the year 2004, I was preparing to be a military officer by 2006. The concern of classmates then was, “how can we lead and train troops who saw combat while we are only studying now and the wars would be done?” Little did we know…

Since the wars have gone on, the talk was always this isn’t a single war, but the explanation you would get in honest informal talk was these were 6, 9, 12, 15 or God forbid 18-month wars. Once a new unit came in, they had their way of doing operations and what was previously done would be forgotten. And if I’m being totally honest, I was guilty of it to. Whether in Iraq or Afghanistan, in both places I was apart of our predecessors are jacked up and our replacements don’t get it yet.

In combat, you have three fights. In simple terms, there is the tactical fight, the operational fight and the strategic fight. Tactically, force vs force and owning a geographical area, I bet on us any day. Even operationally, our military will is undeniable. Then you get to this thing called the strategic fight and this is where it gets murky.

So how do we fix this?

I had a Sergeant Major who I considered a teacher tell me to ask two questions; what’s next, and who needs to know? Tactically and operationally, this is not so difficult, but strategically, that is a bigger problem. Now, I ask you to match that problem with a military system that frowns if you say “I don’t know.” Imagine a system that your evaluations and career depends on producing results and showing gains towards a desired goal. Imagine leaders who are convinced beforehand they know the problem and answer (hint: it leads to cherry-picking data).

So how do we fix this?

In the military, we have this concept we call a self-licking ice cream cone. The data pulled can tell any story you want (and often a favorable progressing story is told); but in Afghanistan, nearing two decades and a trillion dollars, the story told is extremely complicated.

So how do we fix this?

Again, that’s complicated. We all know someone who served but really, only 1% of the population serves, so there is an extreme disconnect and lack of ownership and/or true investment.

Strategically, saying have one strategy and sticking to it sounds good, but in combat, variables are fluid and can change instantly, there is no one size fits all. You need to know your objective and accomplish this BEFORE variables change, BUT the enemy ALWAYS has a vote as does other regional and global actors.

So how do we fix this, and importantly, how do we prevent this you ask? It’ll take a nation as a whole. Not every war is Desert Shield/Desert Storm where ground operations are done in under 100 hours. That is part of the problem.

I want you to think back… When have you ever heard, “this war will be long, operations will be tough, we’re going to spend trillions and your kids not yet born will one day be fighting this same war.” The answer is never… we always here how it will be business as usual and the political proclamations made publicly are held up by the military and championed by the press.

So how do we fix this? Next time conflict arises, don’t cheerlead. Ask those tough questions to leaders and the press. If misled hold those leaders accountable, but also know if our leadership changes, that’s a variable change that also may affect our actions…. so I leave you with one question, so how do we fix this?

Similar Read: Diplomacy and War: Know the Difference

War Taxes and Other Radical Ideas From the Left

Joe Biden is the clear front runner in the Democratic race for the presidential nomination. Regardless of his tone-deaf comments and self-inflicting blunders, his poll numbers haven’t wavered and the race is his to lose. With that being said, nearly every Democrat trailing him is willing to say and do anything to gain traction, including radical ideas and “sound good” policy.

Bernie Sanders, who is second in most polls, just proposed cutting student loan debt, all $1.6 TRILLION. It sounds good, but unrealistic by any measure and a weak attempt to gain traction. Student loan debt can be crippling, and maybe that’s why so many people have quickly jumped on the Bernie bandwagon after he made the announcement… some probably knowing it sounds too good to be true, and others really believing it could happen (if he wins of course). Let’s just say we defer to the former.

If that wasn’t a stretch goal, last week Beto O’Rourke proposed a “war tax”, which would require non-military households (so roughly 99% of the population) to pay a “war tax” to help cover the health care of veterans of newly-authorized wars. Healthcare for veterans, including mental health and other related services for them and their families, should be a primary concern of every White House administration. We can safely say both parties have dropped this ball. But more taxes to address this issue isn’t the answer, and if Beto didn’t know that before his announcement, Twitter quickly confirmed that it’s a nonstarter. While the taxes would be nominal, it’s still a bad idea thrown at an even worse problem.

Household income…

  • Making less than $30,000/year would pay $25
  • Making less than $40,000/year would pay $57
  • Making less than $50,000/year would pay $98
  • Making less than $75,000/year would pay $164
  • Making less than $100,000/year would pay $270
  • Making less than $200,000/year would pay $485
  • Making more than $200,000/year would pay $1,000.

Just a thought… Considering we budget more for our military than the next 7 countries combined, why don’t we start by allocating a small percentage of that to veterans healthcare? I think we’ll have enough… to still say we budget more for our military than the next 7 countries combined. 

Trump’s December, A Week To Remember

This has been a rough month for the Trump presidency, especially the week of December 17th, 2018… certainly a week to remember…  

The government shutdown, although a partial shutdown, it’s still significant considering Trump requested $5 billion for border wall funding and failed to get the votes needed from Congress. It’s important to note that Republicans currently control the three branches of government, yet have failed to deliver on the Trump’s campaign promise. The Dems won the House in the November midterms, so expect this fight to continue with Trump and Republicans losing leverage as he prepares for the second half of his first term.

Pulling troops from Syria and Afghanistan, an announcement that came from left field has everyone including our allies shaking their heads and trying to prepare for the aftermath of such a decision. It’s rumored that Turkey President Erdoğan informed Trump of his plan to move in on the Kurds and Trump made the decision to pull our troops shortly thereafter. It’s the ultimate betrayal to our allies and the news certainly shook members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans.

James Mattis, Secretary of Defense, immediately resigned following Trump’s announcement to pull troops. Mattis, a highly respected military official, leaving the White House is a historic resignation. His resignation letter didn’t even include the generic salutation most cabinet resignations mention. Scheduled to officially leave his post in February, Trump has decided to replace him much sooner… on January 1st, former Boeing Executive Patrick Shannahan will assume the position as acting Secretary of Defense. Shannahan’s authority will be extremely limited until he’s confirmed by the Senate. 

The markets are down… a lot. In fact, the markets are having their worst year since the Great Recession. Trump often brags about the markets regarding the success of his Presidency and policy decisions, but he’s avoided the topic as of late. Many fear that the run might be over. On Sunday (12/23/18), Steven Mcuchin, Secretary of Treasury, called the Chief Executives of the United States 6 largest banks (Goldman, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, BOA, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley). He reported that they have “ample liquidity” to continue lending to consumers and businesses, unlike times during the 2008 financial crisis. But why is such a confirmation needed? 

Trump signed First Step into law, aka the Criminal Justice Reform Act. While it only impacts the criminal justice system at the federal level, which is roughly 10% (181,000) of the total US prison population (2.1 million), it’s certainly a historic piece of legislation; yet, failed to get the news coverage it deserved. So what exactly does the bill do…

  • It further reduces the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences at the federal level, which partially addresses the mass incarceration of Black and Brown people in this country.
  • It takes several meaningful steps to ease mandatory minimum sentences under federal law.
  • Inmates can now get “earned time credits” by participating in more vocational and rehabilitative programs. Such credits would grant them early release to halfway houses, which would increase their opportunities to participate in educational programs and likely reduce the recidivism rate.

All of this news is amidst Mueller’s Russia investigation which continues to be a staple in the daily news. Rumors have surfaced that Mueller will release his report as early as February, but who knows. Either way, this has been a rocky December, especially the week of December 17th. And with Dems taking over the House, it won’t get any easier for Trump and top Republicans to govern. 

Independent Responds to Conservative… Transgenger Ban Revisited

On August 29, 2017, LCR Contributor Right Army Veteran published an article about Trump’s decision to ban transgender service members. He suggested that both administrations (Obama and Trump) dropped the ball regarding the policy implementation and ban. He also mentioned costs as a driving factor for the ban.

“Military service members retire after 20 years and then collect benefits for a lifetime. That’s an expensive investment- especially if 2 years may make them non-deployable for surgery at a minimum, and for years after they continue with guaranteed medical needs and lifetime complications (and sanitary requirements) that may be difficult to ensure in the filthy, harsh business of war in dark places.”– Right Army Veteran

His full article can be viewed here: Transgender in the Military – A Case in Political Hijackings by Democrats and Republicans

I disagree…

This is a farce of epic proportions. Using medical costs as a reason to exclude a person from serving in the military is a coverup for bigotry and hate against a group of people too many are unwilling to fully understand. The medical costs excuse is a smokescreen. If the military really wanted to curb or prevent medical costs they wouldn’t allow our presidents to get us involved in unjust wars. Iraq and Afghanistan are already costing us $1 trillion, that’s with a T, in medical costs. And most veterans from those two wars aren’t even 40 years old yet. If it’s really about costs, then why not completely cut medical benefits after retirement? Find me a profession in the private sector in which merely retiring at any level provides healthcare benefits for you, your spouse, and family, until death. So let’s be honest, it’s probably not about the costs. Becuase if it was then the military wouldn’t spend $41.6 million annually on Viagra alone, which according to the Military Times analysis that figure is five times the estimated spend on transgender transition-related care.

 I could accept a policy of not covering active service members who wanted to have the elective surgery; however, this ban is a universal ban – no matter what, if you identify as transgender you’re not eligible for military service.

 If this ban stays in place, the irony would be noteworthy… We’d be the world’s freest nation, yet not everyone would be free to serve and defend it.

Want to read similar content from the Left, Center, Right? SUBSCRIBE for only $2/month.