Hot Afghan Summer

by with No Comment FeaturedGlobalPolitics

Despite current events, I must start with a shameless plug and state, love is in the air! It’s lingering around me like the Delta variant. Recently, I got engaged to my girlfriend, and this has been a very joyous time for us. In addition to my engagement, I’ve been busy writing a full feature film entitled “This Thing of Ours.” It’s a romantic comedy that follows a group of 30ish people dating, marrying, or doing a little bit of everything in between today’s social world of Covid and online dating. 

Given I’ve been surrounded by so many lovey-dovey oriented things, I’ve even thought about current events in relation to dating. Specifically, Afghanistan… and thinking if Afghanistan were a person, she would be Jennifer Lopez. Like J Lo, Afghanistan has had interactions with the greatest and most powerful, yet none have been able to stay. 

And there’s a good reason for this. Afghanistan that is, not the J Lo dating history.   

Back in the summer of 2019, when the world was still innocent and free of being attached to the greatest global health crisis since the 1918 Flu pandemic, Houston-based rapper Megan Thee Stallion released, “Hot Girl Summer.” A catchy little number about… well… being a hot girl in the summer. Meg, (is that what she goes by?), stated the song is simply about “being yourself” and “having a good time.” And like “Hot Girl Summer,” messaging is for people not to follow someone else’s rules for love, but follow your way. A political “Hot Girl Summer” should be applied to Afghanistan. Given the history of the country with constant foreign power intervention, Afghanistan should just be left alone and be single for a while. Let her get a new hairdo, go out for a 60-dollar brunch, even let her post dozens of dog-eared filter pictures, just let Afghanistan be her for a while. 

Dating back to Alexander the Great in 330 BC, nations have tried to either conquer or control the Afghanistan region and people. The latest being the United States, whose involvement with the nation should have only been intelligence and law enforcement… instead, it became another decades-long terrible abusive relationship known far too well to the Afghan people. 

This must end, for there has never been a positive outcome for any nation trying to force their hand with Afghanistan. What should happen is the allowance of an organic government and making it work best for the Afghan people. That outcome might not even be a political science-worthy name for it, but it will be solely for the Afghan people. 

This is true for dating. 

Either a single person themselves or their social networks always will find the need to force a situation on someone, simply to be with someone. Other nations want to force their will on Afghanistan… it’s wrong and should be changed. Some of that “change for democracy” is laced with capitalism and exploitation of resources; however, it doesn’t change the savage nature of the Taliban. The Taliban is one of the most intolerable, hostile, violent, and unproductive governments seen in modern times. With that being said, the nation up until a few weeks ago did experience two decades of some type of freedom and democracy. I just don’t believe a country the size of Texas, with a population bigger than Texas, will simply allow the Taliban to lay rule once again without disruption or outright taking over. 

Love amongst couples is best to be left alone. No matter what you or anyone else thinks, you can’t legislate love. Because one doesn’t like another’s sexual orientation, or the look of their partner, their religion, or whatever, said couple is still going to find a way to be together. No matter how powerful a nation, their people can only be “controlled” or “managed” for so long. They yearn for independence and fate being decided solely by them is the spirit of all people. And if they have to be just “Jenny from the block to do it”, so be it. 

Afghanistan Taught Us Nothing

by with No Comment FeaturedGlobalPoliticsUncategorized

So let’s have an honest discussion…

We are at point where we can say the United States has been involved in the War on Terrorism for 20 years, at least formally named. In that time a lot has changed in opinions and it’s ok to acknowledge that. It was expected to have occurred and lessons have been learned? But what if I tell you we’ve learned absolutely nothing.

Once upon a time in the not too distant past, we had a President Trump tout his date to be out of Afghanistan and the Right loved “ending forever wars”; heck, part of Trump’s appeal as a candidate was the willingness to call out the “love of war” that existed on the Right politically (and Left too). You saw him in debates get praises from the audience as he took on the perceived (but very real) military industrial complex. It makes it all the funnier now that he and his allies critique President Biden for doing just that.

When President Trump had the U.S. to be “out” by May 31st, it was so well received that it was placed on the Republican page. Trump, even one month ago, bragged how he set the wheels in motion that even if President Biden wanted to stay, he couldn’t now. However, the day the Taliban seized Kabul, suddenly the Republican website was “routinely updated” for convenience. President Biden, who caught faux backlash for extending the May 31st deadline, suddenly “incompetently withdrew” and should have taken just a little longer. But here’s the best part, this critique isn’t just for the Right. Jake Tapper did his best to drive the point home on CNN, liberal announcers feigned tears for the possible human rights violations to come (that’s another topic that’s used only for convenience). My personal favorite is Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado though. In February, she tweeted, “We’ve been in Afghanistan for more than half my life. We need to end the endless wars.” … Only to now tweet, “Joe has a 48 year history of making bad decisions. Add this weekend’s foreign policy decision to the list.”

To his credit, then Vice President Biden advised President Obama against a surge that only delayed the inevitable. Even more to his credit, President Biden took it upon himself to be “the guy” who said no more (now his press conferences leading to this day have aged TERRIBLY in fairness with the swift fall) and no more could be done from us. He took this position when even those on the Left critiqued it finally being done.

Now why do I say we’ve learned nothing?

The answer is simple, politically for three presidents, it was convenient to run on ending wars, but two failed to follow through, and the one who finally did is abandoned by “friendly media” and the opposition media and party suddenly have pivoted. This shows in a moment’s notice, if deemed politically advantageous, they’d keep us in a “forever war” for whatever reason that could be drafted and that is a prospect that after 20 years, should scare you. Our politicians, our media, and even the public at large has not learned anything but to look for political points. Next time you read an article on how we “abandoned” Afghanistan, look closely, you may see a Lockheed Martin notice on the byline as well (yes they really do this).

One last note, President Ford was the Commander-in-Chief when Saigon fell, his approval rating went up 10% within a month, far different from the narrative we are sold today with the end of Vietnam.

Now stay tuned, and I’ll be sure to explain why Dick Cheney (of all people) has been proven right years later based on Afghanistan and Iraq… I know, I can’t believe it either.

DIPLOMACY AND WAR: KNOW THE DIFFERENCE

by with 5 Comments CultureFeatured

If you find yourself in a conflict with someone else and you can’t escape, there are two options:

  1. Convince your opponent (Diplomacy).
  2. Force your opponent (War).

DIPLOMACY…

Convincing requires tact and patience. You must determine “what is right?” instead of “who is right?”

You should always give your opponent the benefit of the doubt. Be polite because antagonizing someone will only make them become defensive and dig into their position instead of considering yours.

Do not be the criminal defense attorney whose job is to defend a client even if guilty. If truth is your goal, you should cling stubbornly to no position on any issue. Always concede a good point. Listen.

Effective Diplomacy will hopefully produce a positive or at least neutral result for both sides. But if no agreement or compromise is possible, War might be the only option. 

Related: America, Why So Stubborn?

WAR…

If you must fight, fight to win. Do whatever it takes.

“That’s unfair.” Of course it is. Fairness implies rules. In War, there are no rules. You win or you lose. You live or you die.

During the American Revolution, the British Army thought that the “fair” way to wage War was to line up and shoot at one another with muskets until one side was dead. The Americans instead used the military tactics of the Indigenous Peoples and fought “unfairly” by employing Guerrilla Warfare (ambushes, sabotage, raids, hit-and-run) breaking with British Military Traditions. Spoiler alert: The British lost.

The people in power (the status quo) want to dictate the rules of the game and ensure that they always favor themselves. They want everyone to line up with muskets and fire at each other until the side with more muskets wins. Guess who has more muskets?

Hypocrisy does not matter in War because the highest morality is victory. One side will outlaw protesting, but immediately protest when out of power; condemn hate speech, but say the most vulgar things about their enemies; lambast the media for being biased, but endorse all favorable coverage; point out every time their enemy lies, but lie a hundred times more. It is foolish to point out your enemy’s inconsistencies when they only care about beating you by any means necessary.

Perhaps you feel that moral consistency is more important than victory and that certain actions are off the table. But as you consider this, also consider something as “unquestionably wrong” as committing genocide, and then please enjoy another day of extreme peace, prosperity, and comfort inhabiting the lands of America’s Indigenous Peoples.

Moral consistency matters amongst friends and allies because developing trust is paramount to building relationships. But enemies will not respect any moral boundaries that you believe to exist.

THE DIFFERENCE…

I am not advocating for violence. I am advocating that we all recognize the vast difference between War and Diplomacy and know when to use which.

Diplomacy, if possible, is always the best solution. Even the greatest military strategist of all time said:

“The supreme Art of War is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

For if you choose War against a potential ally, you may create an enemy.  And if you choose Diplomacy against a certain enemy, you may lose before the War even begins.

The genius of America is that our government allows War to be waged first at voting booths, in courts of law, and via public opinion. Though non-violent, these are battles none-the-less that require a deep understanding of warfare in order to win (I suggest reading Sun Tzu and Machiavelli).

46% of Americans did not vote in 2016 so stop trying to get your enemy to philosophically agree with you (when they have proven they will not change) and start inspiring your allies to vote.

Ignore any talk of “fairness” from your opponent. If a tactic is working to your advantage and your allies endorse it, keep using it. Your enemy will never endorse your tactics, fair or not.

But, above all, know who your enemy truly is and fight them (at the polls). Politely engage potential allies. Know the difference. Good luck. 

This article was originally published on 14 June 2018.

When Brave Words Turn to Foolish Tragic Actions

by with No Comment FeaturedGlobalPolitics

We all started this new year with the perception that this decade would bring about change. For some, that change would be professional; for others, that change would be in the form of personal growth. For the world, many of us hoped that change would come from men and women who would be less trigger happy and more eager to have an open dialogue.

Unfortunately, we were not paying attention. Our first wakeup call came on January 3rd with the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. The Iran and U.S. divide spans decades, and to try and explain the entire conflict would be exhausting and possibly passionately rebuked from not just both sides of the aisle here, but also on a global scale. 

As I was once told long ago, truth is a matter of perception.

To sum up the current events in a neat bow, and bring you, the reader up to speed on what has taken place in the past three years, here is my take on the current battleground between Iran and the United States. 

Summary of  tensions:  

Since President Trump decided to pull out of the Iran deal in 2017, tensions have been mounting between the two nations, and it took on a more aggressive tone when Trump decided to impose severe sanctions against Iran. 

Since these sanctions were in place, both nations have taken political, and at times physical swipes at each other. One could call it, testing the “waters,” so to speak. 

From capturing an ally oil tanker to shooting down a probing U.S. drone, both nations have been continually pushing one another to a boiling point. 

That boiling point came to a head in Iraq. Right after Christmas, on December 27th, 2019. An American contractor was killed among other Iraqi military personnel by an Iranian backed militia group, Kataib Hezbollah, which the group denied any involvement with the attack. 

The U.S. then responded by attacking Iranian backed militias within the region, which resulted in Iraqi citizens storming and attacking the U.S. embassy in Iraq, breaching and damaging the outer perimeter. Though the Iraqi military stepped in to break up the protests, the damage was done, and unfortunately, a set of options were brought to Trump’s table. 

These options provide the president with a set of responses ranging from the extreme to the more reasonable appropriate actions that a wise leader would take.

The option that Trump picked was the extreme option, and that was assassinating Qasem Soleimani. 

Who is Qasem Soleimani?

Qasem Soleimani was an Iranian Major General and leader of the Quds forces of Iran. From his start in the military in 1988 to his death in 2020, Soleimani rose among the ranks in the Iranian army and ended up leading and controlling the extraterritorial military and clandestine operations in service to Iran. Towards the latter part of his life, Soleimani was considered the second most powerful individual in Iran, second only to Ayatollah Khamenei, and also being the Ayatollah’s right-hand man.  

To some, especially in the west, Soleimani was the leader of a shadowy organization that ran multiple militia groups in Syria and Iraq and was behind the deaths of many American troops. To others in Iran and its allies, Soleimani was considered a hero and legend. Someone that provided Iran with a barrier against all its enemies and a role model for all that knew him or served under him. 

Perception, to one group he was a monster that needed to be removed from the game board; to another group he was more than just a military general. 

Soleimani was a symbol. 

When the Pentagon learned that Soleimani would be in Iraq, a decision was made to kill him. On January 3rd, A U.S. sanctioned drone strike attacked Soleimanis’ vehicle and his entourage just outside the Baghdad International Airport, Killing Soleimani, and other essential figures within his group. 

This attack brought the U.S. and Iran dangerously close to World War 3. After the attack, Iran vowed for revenge, and for days, the world held it’s breath on what steps Iran would take to exact that revenge. 

On January 8th, the world had its answer when Iran attacked two Iraqi bases that held U.S. troops within its walls. Strategically missing everyone and only causing minimal damage to the stations. 

This attack was a way for Iran to save face and also send a clear message to Trump not to push their buttons. Unfortunately, as with any conflict, innocents end up paying the price for being caught in the middle. 

A Ukrainian civilian aircraft that flew too close to one of the Iranian military bases in the early hours of January 8th, was shot down by an officer who mistook the civilian aircraft for a U.S. military response. 

This tragedy was a shock to the world and to the nations that had its civilians on the airliner. For days, speculations were thrown as to how and what downed the airliner, until Iranian officials admitted to mistakenly shooting down the plane with missiles.

Looking at this new conflict at the dawn of a new decade, led me to contemplate how many countless issues similar to this current one also escalated to catastrophic levels… over impulsive decisions, brave words, and cries for bloody revenge. 

How much time have we had to put aside our differences? Whether those differences deride from religious beliefs or the pigment of one’s skin tone? How much time have we been given to know better? 

How much time have we been given to learn from our forefather’s mistakes and our past? When will we individually hold ourselves and those we elect to represent us on a global scale accountable? When does it end? The divide we set amongst ourselves that only hinders our evolution and deconstructs all the hard work our species has done thus far to advance us collectively?

2020 is a big year. A year that I hope none of us can hide behind falsehoods and half-truths anymore. 

A year where we will be held accountable for our actions, and if there is any justice in this universe, a year that Trump will exit his role as president and pave the way for someone else to stand center stage. 

Someone who values life over ego. 

Top Iranian General Killed, Immediate Reaction From Army Veteran

by with No Comment FeaturedGlobalPolitics

(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

The Trump Doctrine: What Ukraine Says About Trump’s Foreign Policy

by with 5 Comments FeaturedGlobalPolitics

One of the biggest stories of 2019…  

In the latest episode of The D.C. Apprentice reality show, we unpeeled another layer of the onion that is the Trump Doctrine. Whether it’s Brexit, Afghanistan, Jamal Khashoggi, summits with North Korea, tariffs and trade deals, Putin, and now, Ukraine, we bear witness to a convoluted set of policies without specific details and a heavy emphasis on maximizing publicity and attention. Trump’s foreign policy is based on minimizing or eliminating long-term military engagements, renegotiating agreements that play into his deal-making reputation, and provoking diplomatic altercations that further establish Trump as the Commander-in-Chief of Red State America.

Trump vocally embraces the paleoconservative philosophy championed by Patrick Buchanan, Steve Bannon, Lou Dobbs, and numerous contributors to Fox News and Breitbart News. It embraces traditional social positions and nationalism while strongly opposing trade agreements, immigration, and international organizations. It also has a strong isolationist influence that opposes military interventions. Between the trade wars, ICE raids, border wall funding, immigration and asylum reductions, NATO criticisms, and troop withdrawals in Afghanistan, Trump is reliably committed to Paleoconservative orthodoxies. 

Trump’s reputation as a deal-making businessman from his real estate business in New York to his TV show to his book, ‘The Art of the Deal,’ is built on maximizing publicity by making grandiose, must-see-tv gestures that consumes all oxygen from other competitors. Whether it’s the summits with the North Korean dictator, renegotiating NAFTA, and imposing tariffs on trading partners like China, Trump uses each opportunity and/or manufactured diplomatic crisis to further burnish his perceived deal-making reputation. 

Perhaps most importantly, Trump’s foreign policy is dependent on cementing his status as the Commander-in-Chief of red-state America. The President has gone all-in on being the war-time commander in the new cold war between red and blue America. Withdrawing from the Paris climate treaty is the perfect example. The trade wars with Mexico and China appeals to the rural working-class voters in Midwest and Southern states who see their manufacturing tradition threatened by globalization. Trump’s coalition swapped out college-educated middle-class voters in suburban counties for working-class voters in rural areas. He relishes any attack from blue-state America because it further establishes his war-time credentials with red-state America. Therefore, the Ukraine news only solidifies his support from his fans. In the mind of his supporters, they are at war, and all is fair in love and war. That might seem drastic, but his supporters love that there is no line he won’t cross to defend them against their enemy. Trump has nearly 3 years of history proving himself to his supporters that he will fight every fight that they believe his predecessors were too weak to engage, and this is no different.

This article was originally published on 27 September 2019.

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

by with No Comment FeaturedGlobalPolitics

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

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

by with 2 Comments FeaturedGlobalPolitics

The president’s pullout of Syria is essentially an effort to force an end not only to our engagement in the area, but also to the basic credibility of the neoconservative worldview- as well as efforts in the future to shape global democracy and influence world order. There are plenty of Republicans who see this approach as heresy, and there are plenty of Democrats and media outlets who relish the blood-on-blood infighting to come (and who will strangely express their outrage at a decision they would have lauded once merely because the opposite of the administration’s policy is their policy), but the reality is much more nuanced.

On the surface, the president’s motivation is driven by polling. Our commander in chief is a populist at his core- not an idealist.  Most Americans (many in both parties) don’t favor extending the war in Syria. This is quite simply because we aren’t able to do what it takes to win. Assad’s forces are backed by Russia; there’s no way to build real stability in the region without a heavier hand than we are willing to take or through regime change, and there seems to be no way to force regime change short of open war with Russia. Further, as China increasingly begins to flex in the pacific and begins to highlight our “meddling in the affairs of others” -including Syria- as China launches their own massive campaign for development, seeking access to the natural resources of sub-Saharan Africa, the president is mindful that it’s from China where we face the greatest long term security threat, and it’s China who benefits most from our distraction to a protracted entanglement with Syria and Russia. Further, while the timing of Iran was the president’s doing, it’s also clear that they are a much greater threat to global security in the near term. Our security interest in Syria is that someone accountable to the UN controls and regulates the area- whether it be Turkey or the US, either will make certain that it isn’t ISIS. We really can only do so much.

But that’s only part of the story. Turkey’s interest in Syria isn’t focused first on restoring peace to Syrians. The Kurdish forces we have used since the beginning of the war in Iraq have fought with us because they are a people without a land. Spread throughout Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria, this proud, ethnic population descended of Saladin is at odds with each of those nations as they seek to restore some autonomy. They have been capable allies because they have more than 1,000 years of history fighting for their own survival. Walking away from them when we are done will be a public betrayal that the Chinese and Russians will hold up as the true nature of “American Imperialism.” They will say that Americans come with high ideals, but leave when it’s no longer convenient. To Bush-era neoconservatives, it’s unthinkable; to Trump and his “America First” agenda, it’s a way to cross the bridge back from nation-building and burn it behind him.

In the long term, this may be the better move. The people of Vietnam, the people of Iraq, and increasingly the people of Afghanistan have come to realize that Americans come and Americans go. If we fool no one, and if we do really lack the resolve (and quite possibly the ability) to build regimes and promote democracy in the aftermath of conflict, then it is possible that the sooner we go the better. This may also help us usher in a day when America accepts that it is no longer the sole global hegemon and must share global military and economic influence with both China and Russia once again. If pulling back now gives them space we would have needed to cede eventually through direct conflict, it may increase stability in the long term also.

But in the short term, it’s a lot of bad taste. To those who can’t bear to see America as anything but a beacon of light that can dictate the ways of the world, it looks like a retreat. To those focused first on human rights, it’s a turnover of power to another heavy-handed imperial force that will bring another wave of increased violence before it can hope to bring local stability. While the president’s motivation may be no deeper than extending a political olive branch to a growing, centrist plurality of the American public focused on their own economy, anxious to make a trade deal in China and not willing to subsidize stability of the Kurdish population (so long as there’s someone on the ground containing ISIS), if America is a truly is a shrinking power, in 50 years this may be seen as a thoughtful and pragmatic preservation of resources. 

Similar Read: The Trump Doctrine: What Ukraine Says About Trump’s Foreign Policy

War Taxes and Other Radical Ideas From the Left

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics

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. 

We Care So Much, That You Have No Rights

by with No Comment CultureFeaturedPolitics

A point of view from a frustrated man who’s questioning other men’s point of view.

I just finished reading an article written by a fellow contributor to The LCR, Cynthia Swiss: Alabama Abortion Is Taking Women Back To The Dark Ages. After reading the article, I had to take a moment and gather my thoughts and emotions because I agreed with every point Cynthia had made in her article. Having had the pleasure and honor of being raised and guided by powerful, empowering, no-nonsense women all my life, taking a moment to fully understand the consequences of the abortion ban and how so many other states in the MidWest are following suit gave me pause.

It’s a surreal moment when you take a step back and look in realizing that there are so many women out there and young girls now that will have to live in more fear than before. Not only is their God-given right to maintain, manage and decide what to do with their bodies being stripped away before our very eyes, but now even rape and incest seem to lose their severity in consequences.  

Why? because the only person that seems to indeed pay for it will be women, regardless of the situation, unless her life is in danger. Really? That’s the best we can do? That’s how we show our intelligence, respect, appreciation, and understanding of women in America? By telling them, they have NO choice but to carry pregnancies to term, because we care about life?

LOL, wait… that’s the reason? Really? WE CARE ABOUT LIFE? Oh man, we are unique, aren’t we? I mean, this is Gold. WE CARE ABOUT LIFE… We care so much about life that we bomb indiscriminately hospitals, schools, and population-centric areas that are FILLED with children to protect our “interests.”

We care so much about life, that the moment the child is born, we stop caring. Because the goal is to bring more life on this planet right, strictly? I mean, who cares if the mother can raise the child, emotionally, financially, or mentally. WE CARE ABOUT LIFE. THAT’S ALL THAT MATTERS!

I mean, we care so much that we lock up immigrant children in detention camps and facilities where they are abused and RAPED! Because We care.

We care so much about life, that if a woman is raped or is a victim of incest, her ability to be supported, emotionally and mentally to recover as well as be given justice for such a heinous act is not essential. Because the “life” she is carrying IS meaningful, so her ability to have a say on her body or to have support from the government, or the law is irrelevant. 

Look, I hold no influence on you, the reader, or anyone else except myself. Moreover, as a man, the craziest thing about this issue is that I have complete control over what is done or how it is done to my body in every conceivable way! However, the opposite sex is having all their liberties and rights questioned and taken away. 

We do not have the right to control what a woman does, or does not do with her body. Why it is taking us close to 5,000+ years to understand that and accept? That is probably one of the many reasons why my frustration with the human race grows a little more with every passing year. Especially when such draconian measures are taken to control, dictate, and humiliate those that our race biologically, emotionally, mentally, and physically cannot do without – Women. 

Similar Read: ALABAMA ABORTION BAN IS IS TAKING WOMEN BACK TO THE DARK AGES