A culture of fear

At some future point, history will make its conclusion about the Obama administration.  History tends to be kinder remembering the talking points more so than the details about what went into them.  I don't know what my grandchildren will be taught about Mr Obama and his legacy, I can only write about what I see now through the eyes of a retired military officer and former intelligence analyst.

Obama and his master handler, Valerie Jarrett, promised "hope and change" during the campaign trail but instead have only manifested a culture of fear.

Obama and Jarrett, ably assisted by the likes of Wolf Blitzer, want us to be very afraid of Russia.  But Russia hasn't levied sanctions against the US.  Russia did not try to overthrow a legitimate Middle Eastern leader  (Assad) thereby giving rise to the most dangerous terrorist organization (Daesh).  Russia did not threaten to shoot down a valued ally's fighters (Israel) in an attempt to convince a long-standing enemy (Iran) that Washington keeps its word.  Russia did not suddenly warm-up to a long standing enemy (Cuba) while simultaneously leveling sanctions against another country in the region (Venezuela).  

Russia human rights record is to say the least unimpressive but who is Mr. Obama to lecture Putin after his own administration has left relations between African-Americans and the police in the worst state since the civil rights movement?  Thanks to Obama, Jarrett and Holder the African-American community is now more afraid of its own police than ever before.  Police officers, especially white police officers, are more afraid than ever after the sniper shootings in Ferguson this weekend.  (Now it turns out that the racist practices of the Ferguson PD may have ironically been exposed by a righteous shooting.)

The US has a tendency to embrace a culture of fear.  During the 1930s, a culture of fear lead to US Isolationism, causing the US to pass a number of neutrality acts to prevent involvement in the war in Europe.  Paradoxically, the culture of fear lead to matters deteriorating in Europe and Asia to the point the US had no choice but to enter the war.  A culture of fear lead to the Cold War which although the US and Soviet Union never came into direct conflict, it did lead to the US getting involved in the Korean War, Cuban Missile Crisis, and Vietnam War.  

The fall of the Soviet Union introduced a brief period of relief from the culture of fear.  This is perhaps why some believe that the events of 9/11 were a conspiracy to create a new culture of fear (replacing the potential for nuclear war at the hands of the Soviets to WMD attacks by radical Islamic terrorists).  

The culture of fear was termed a "global war on terrorism' by George W. Bush.  He parlayed that into two conflicts that lasted 13 years.  The American public had grown weary of the conflicts and Obama seized on this weariness with his "hope and change" slogan.  He was going to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and bring the troops home.  While not overtly, he seemed to imply that his administration would not be a culture of fear.  But that has not been the case either domestically or overseas.

Obama's policies on immigration have legalized millions of illegal immigrants, who may be given the right to vote.  American citizens are now afraid they will lose their jobs to these newly legalized immigrants (although it remains to be seen what if any work they will be allowed to do).

Obama's administration let loose the NSA on the American public and even hacked the New York Times.  A culture of fear was now reborn but this time Americans would be afraid of their own government reminiscent of McCarthyism.  The BATF has been let lose to attempt a ban on ammunition (5.56MM) causing gun owners to fear even more draconian gun-control measures could be coming.  The measure is to "protect" police officers (even though this administration has had no qualms throwing the Ferguson and New York Police Departments under the bus).

The one branch of the government that the public still trusts is the US military.  The best way to make people afraid of the troops is to make sexual assault and PTSD front page stories.  Instead of portraying the military as heroes, now they are portrayed as broken.  Instead of maintaining high levels of discipline they are shown as sexual predators.  Instead of strong women fighting and leading others into combat they are show as victims of rape and sexual assault by their fellow troops.

Even political allies aren't safe.  Hillary Clinton has been, and still is, the presumed Democratic Presidential candidate for 2016.  However, things have not been good between the Obama and Clinton camps.  Time to make us afraid of Hillary so now the media has finally turned on her and her private emails.  Fascinating how this happened during her time as Secretary of State but we are only now hearing about it right before her planned announcement to run for President.  The media ratted Jarrett out initially but she had to quickly remind them we aren't supposed to be afraid of her!  Now according to the White House this was all "a bunch of baloney" and Jarrett had nothing to do with the leak to the media.

The problem with a culture of fear is once people are afraid, fear can become widespread and difficult to control.  Jarrett and Obama seem to have forgotten people were already suspicious of them.  Once the story hit about Hillary's emails, people began to finally remember that Ms. Jarrett was a Chicago lawyer/activist (wannabe politician) who was born in Iran.  Oops, we weren't supposed to remember that annoying little factoid.

It makes the events of the last few months seem especially suspect.  A deal with Iran to limit nuclear arms, something that up until now hasn't been a priority.  But then again, don't want to upset Tehran or they may stop sending arms to the Iraqis (who Obama bailed on as part of his campaign promise) to fight Daesh who only came to power after we tried to support an overthrow of Assad.

In the novel and movie "Dune", the protagonist Paul Muad'dib recites the following litany to himself when facing fear

"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration…"

Some random thoughts and observations as January comes to a close.

- Mr. Obama sure has his priorities in order.  He blows off the largest gathering of world leaders in Paris to honor those killed during the Charlie Hebdo attacks, yet makes a beeline for Saudi Arabia to honor there new king.  At first, this seemed like some more Obama Administration miscalculations until I went to the gas pump on Sunday and filled up at $1.85.  I'm unconvinced Saudi Arabia is an active partner in combatting terrorism in the way that say the UK or even France are but by keeping their oil production up and prices low, they are helping to keep the Obama war machine turning.

-  Mr.  Obama then makes another speedy to trip to recognize the new PM of India.  Unlike events in Saudi Arabia, this actually does represent a paradigm shift for the US which has been at odds with New Delhi since the Cold War (and professing our continued support of Pakistan).  Alas it seems too little, too late as Russia has been involved with India since the days of the Soviet Union.  India has benefitted from Russian nuclear technology and now is on the cusp of receiving cheap Russian oil to help fuel an ever growing Indian economy.

- The challenge with deconstructing a given conspiracy theory is there is almost always a little truth to them.  Case in point, the conspiracy theorists have been labeling the Charlie Hebdo attacks as a "false flag" attack, meaning it was set deliberately to justify actions by other states usually leading towards war.  In this case, France had committed to sell two warships to Russia and was reducing their military which would mean fewer French troops and equipment would be available to support US led actions.  Now France is rethinking its drawdown.

- Speaking of the Charlie Hebdo attack, a renewed debate on guns has erupted on cyberspace.  The pro-gun side believes a well armed civilian populace would have prevented the massacre in Paris.  The gun-control side believes just the opposite that access to guns increases the likelihood for an even higher body county.  Now Interpol, the police agency consisting of countries with some of the most restrictive gun-control policies, has come out with a Hobson's choice; you either arm your citizens or impose martial law.  "Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem. One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security,” stated Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble.

- The US may need to figure which side of the argument it is on soon.  Our friends at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have in another demonstration of short-term thinking are shutting down 20 percent of the US coal-burning power plants.  Hooray!  Clean-air and less carbon emissions for all!  Except with coal accounting for 40 percent of US power production, and no new EPA approved plants coming on-line, this means our power grid is being constrained even more.  It won't take make much for either a physical or cyber attack on our power grids to put us down for the count.  But we will have cleaner air.

- The US poster-child for waging asymmetrical warfare (read, killing terrorists) is the aerial unmanned vehicle or simply drone.  These remotely piloted aircraft allow for the hunting and killing of terrorists in real-time.  They also present the illusion of conducting air warfare for less than using manned aircraft and without risking the lives of American pilots.  But time marches on and what was true just 10 years ago has greatly changed.  According to Gen. Mike Hostage, chief of the air service’s Air Combat Command, "Predators and Reapers are useless in a contested environment."  Whoops, isn't that exactly the kind of environment we DON'T want our pilots to fly in?  He goes on, "Today … I couldn’t put [a Predator or Reaper] into the Strait of Hormuz without having to put airplanes there to protect it."  Wait, you need to protect you unmanned aircraft with an manned aircraft?  Why yes, according to Gen Welsh who revealed that an F-22 — the planet’s most sophisticated stealth fighter — intercepted Iranian F-4 Phantom jets that were closing in on a U.S. Predator drone over the strait last March. In November 2012, Iranian Su-25 ground attack jets fired on, and missed, an American Predator over the strait. (Source:  Foreign Policy)

- Mr. Obama has instituted several changes to the US military during his tenure; allowing women in combat, allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly, and an increased focus on reducing sexual assault.  Any one of these would have be a major cultural shift for the US military, implementing all three while the US is still deploying troops to hostile areas has led to the lowest morale of the US military since Vietnam.  This is not to argue the merits of any of the decisions but to point out that in chasing the political side of the issue, the morale of the troops has suffered.  None of these issues are easy to implement, one need only look back on the history of race in the military.  To ask the military to sort through three major issues, while facing continued deployments as well as troop reductions, is just foolhardy.  If you are serious about these issues, then give the troops the time and support to change the culture.  Otherwise this is just politics and not about the troops.

- January is the month that US President's give their State of the Union address.  Mr. Obama said the U.S. was upholding 'the principle that bigger nations can't bully the small' by opposing what he called Russian president Vladimir Putin's aggression and supporting democracy in Ukraine (Source: Daily Mail).  Strong words from a president who has a military that  has been at war for 13 years, facing a drawdown, is going through major cultural changes, and flat out doesn't like their Commander-In-Chief (CINC). But now, according to the Daily Mail,  the Russians have claimed the speech showed how the United States believes it is 'number one' and is unable to be an equal.  The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Levrov reacted by saying, "Yesterday's speech by the president shows that at the centre of the U.S. philosophy is only one thing: "We are number one and everybody else has to respect that."

- The warmongering former POW and Senator, John McCain, now is pressuring Obama to increase troop presence, "American boots on the ground are necessary to defeat [the group] in Iraq and Syria." (Defense News).  Even McCain admits there is no coherent strategy for dealing with Daesh but he wants to add more troops?  A especially egregious recommendation from a Vietnam veteran, a war the defined the ridiculousness of quantifying military victory.

- The whole GOP/North Korea/Sony Pictures attack seems to have been forgotten.  However, now that the US is ramping up for the 2016 Presidential election, Iran is back on the front burner.  Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman (Calif.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is expressing support for legislation that would impose new sanctions on Iran if talks fail to reach a deal curbing its nuclear program (The Hill).  More troops for McCain plus more sanctions for Sherman seems to equal a future conflict with Iran?

- Finally, who will next lead the US through this chaos as the 45th President?  We've already heard enough about Hillary and Jeb, now we get other retreads such as Romeny, Biden, Christie and Rubio.  Elizabeth Warren is staying pat so far and as such, no other big name Democrats (other than Biden) are really coming out.  It is the Republicans to lose, I say that due to the sense of many people have had enough of Hillary.  She is tired and not nimble on her feet like her husband.  A prolonged campaign will invite too many opportunities for her to stumble and fall.  But if the Republicans front Jeb, the country may just turn off their electronic devices for the next election.

While our attention was diverted

The mid-term elections took most of the American media's attention away from the air strikes in Iraq and Syria.  The Republican win has some serious changes coming for the Armed Services Committee which means a potential end to defense cuts.  For example, the A-10 may finally be spared and its continuation means ground troops will continue to have the best close air support platform available.

After the elections, attention has continued to be focused on how the Republican controlled Congress and Senate intend to deal with a lame duck President who intends to pass the most drastic and radical immigration reforms ever.  Obama may be playing on fears that he will try to use executive power to push it through to manage an extremely hostile legislative branch (one in which he has no friends even within his own party).  The problem is becomes a game of chicken and if he blinks, it will be over.  If on the other hand if does push through immigration then there will be calls for the legislative branch to impeach the President.  If that happens, there will be no winners.

Meanwhile, while the media and pundits await this political stand-off our attention gets diverted to yet another potential flare-up in Ferguson, MO.  The grand jury will announce its decision any day and now seems more and more like no indictment.  The press has done a marvelous job of allowing this tragedy to turn into a racially divisive issue.  If no indictment is handed out, rioting is expected and the Missouri governor has already called out the National Guard to assist police.

Somehow the similarity to having armed troops called out (again) to the earlier response by the Ferguson PD (and how its response fueled rather than dampened tensions) has escaped the governor.  To make matters worse, a Navy veteran was fired from his job at Drury Suites in Chesterfield, MO when he posted photos of dozens of Department of Homeland Security SUVs parked in the hotel garage.  Chesterfield is 25 southwest of Ferguson.  It's as if matters are being deliberated handled to make matters worse. (source: Daily Mail)

Ebola continues to burn through Liberia and the Army is sending more units according to the Army Times;

•16th Engineer Brigade headquarters, Ohio National Guard


•223rd Military Intelligence Battalion (Linguist Detachment), California National Guard


•272nd Engineer Company (Vertical Construction), Texas National Guard


•294th Area Support Medical Company, Iowa National Guard


•891st Engineer Battalion, Kansas National Guard.


The Reserve units deploying are:


•96th Sustainment Brigade, of Salt Lake City, Utah, and Denver, Colorado


•313th Movement Control Battalion, Baltimore, Maryland


•324th Fire Fighting Detachment, East Point, Georgia


•324th Expeditionary Signal Battalion, Granite City, Illinois


•329th Survey and Design Team, St. Joseph, Minnesota


•387th Medical Logistics Company, Miami, Florida


•398th Combat Sustainment Support Battalion, Rockville, Maryland


•452nd Preventative Medicine Team, Miami, Florida


•996th Horizontal Engineer Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin


•B Company, 412th Civil Affairs Battalion, Columbus, Ohio


The interesting thing is how even ebola has become a divisive issue here in the US.  Take barring passenger flights originating from ebola infected countries when the outbreak first started.  The White House claimed to cut-off those countries would do more harm then good, yet other African countries have take exactly that stance and have remained outbreak free.  Healthcare providers expected infected patients and family members to follow that they then seem to ignore themselves once they return home.

All of this takes attention away from a question that should have been bothering us for some time.  How did ISIS/ISIL/IS not only become so formidable but manage to maintain its gains even in the face of US led airstrikes?  War takes troops and weapons but most of all it takes money.  Where is ISIS/ISIL/IS getting theirs?  According to a story yesterday on RT.com, "Dozens of vehicles carrying oil leave Syria’s petroleum capital, Raqqa, currently under IS control, every hour, earning the extremist group a million dollars daily, according to an oil refinery employee in the occupied city".  The story goes on to conclude that the Islamic State has an estimated wealth of nearly $2 billion making it the richest terrorist organization in the world.  If the RT story is accurate, this means for the first time since the Cold War the US is fighting an enemy that is a financial match.

The US faces a very tough road ahead.  On one hand, the US could lose a war of attrition by simply being unable to afford enough replacement munitions and equipment (not to mention troops!) to fight IS for the long haul.  IS does not rely on expensive weapon systems such as F-22s so it is a distinct possibility.  On the other hand, should the US go after the refineries it will make others in the Muslim believe this war was only an excuse to take over resources from Syria.  We could either end-up losing a war by going bankrupt or win a war and confirm Muslim fears of US lead imperialism (and still end-up bankrupt).

One last thought to kind of tie things together, since IS has deep pocket books wouldn't a simple strategy be to recruit operatives from hotbed areas such as Ferguson and destabilize matters without ever mentioning IS?  Or IS could follow the Colombian drug cartel model of paying a third party to commit acts of terror for you?

What doe Netanyahu know that Obama doesn't?

Netanyahu has reaffirmed his/Israel's resolve to continue to bomb Hamas in the Gaza Strip despite President Obama's assurance (and one would assume Secretary of State Kerry) to help negotiate things.        Obviously the lack of diplomatic success by Obama and his team in Syria and Iraq (as well as the border situation in the United States) probably has left Tel Aviv impressed to say the least.

The real answer as to why Israel has taken matters into their own hands lies not in Washington nor even Tel Aviv but in Cairo.  The area known as the Gaza Strip borders Egypt (for about 7 miles) and Israel for around 32 miles.  Control of the Gaza Strip was first by Palestine (under Egyptian military authority) in 1948.  Israel then captured the Gaza Strip in Six Day War (1967).  Pursuant to the Oslo Accords signed in 1993, the Palestinian Authority became the administrative body that governed Palestinian population centers while Israel maintained control of the airspace, territorial waters and border crossings with the exception of the land border with Egypt. In 2005, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip under their unilateral disengagement plan.  Hamas became de-facto government of the Gaza Strip in 2007.

But for further answers we need to go all the way back to 1979 and the Camp David Accords.  Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel and President Anwar Sadat of Egypt signed the famous peace agreement (with much assistance from President Jimmy Carter).  Just two years later, Sadat would be assassinated allowing Hosni Mubarak to become President of Egypt.  Mubarak, like Sadat, kept the peace between Egypt and Israel.  Egypt was one of the main players in keeping the Sunnis of the Middle East happy even though the US made no pretenses in favoring Israel over Muslims.

Mubarak, like so many that remain in power for too long, started to use his secret police and torture as a way of keeping in power.  Although contrary to the beliefs and values of the United States, Mubarak's expertise in this area would prove beneficial after 9-11.  Suspected terrorists caught under rendition would be sent to Egypt to be interrogated (tortured).  Mubarak and his cronies didn't perfect their art by watching videos, they of course learned by torturing Egyptians.  This lead to Mubarak's ouster as part of the Arab Spring.

While it was easy to see the connection between the Sadat and Anwar regimes to the US, what gets lost in translation is the relationship Morsi (Mubarak's successor) had with the US.  Hillary Clinton recognized Morsi's value as a Sunni but could not quite spin his membership in the Muslim Brotherhood as a positive so she kept the relationship from being publicized.  As long as Morsi remained in office, the US had a means of keeping the Sunnis from trying to usurp Maliki in Iraq. Once Morsi was replaced with Sisi, the US no longer had any means for communicating with the Sunnis.  Hence the ISIL moved into Iraq, Maliki is on the ropes and the US had to turn to their old enemy, Iran. Hence Netanyahu's realization that Obama doesn't have any means of communicating with the Sunnis so his promise to help broker a peace was hollow.

One other thing, none of this should be come as a surprise if you pay attention to the flags.  First, here is the flag of Gaza Strip (Palestine);

Next up is Syria;

Next is Iraq;

Egypt;

And Iran;

Notice the similarities, those colors are not by accident.  The colors in all of these flags are of the Pan-Arab colors (black, white, green, red), each representing a different Caliphate.  The black was the color of the banner of Muhammad; white was used by the Umayyad Caliphate; green was used by the Fatimid Caliphate; and red was the flag held by the Khawarij.  These are also the colors of the Arab Revolt of 1916.

Israel has always understood the game and knows they are surrounded.  Netanyahu gets the US doesn't have clue and is taking steps to stop Hamas from lobbing missiles.  Hamas, which gets its support from Syria, sees the situation in Iraq being an excellent opportunity to split the attention of a weak White House that no longer has a way of reaching the Sunnis (other than through Iran, and who's side do we really think they are on?).

What's next for the White House?

Talking over world events with a friend the other night, it seems we are at some tipping point.  Nothing has thus far started a major conflict, everything seems to be contained to a region.  Some theorizes that this may be the new "normal" for wars, keeping things regionalized which keep costs down.

The theory doesn't allow for the acquisition of new territory which in the end is why most wars are fought.  The Sunnis for example feel they have been left out by Maliki and have thus resorted to war.  Putin felt Russia had receded far enough and annexed Crimea.  China and Japan are rehashing old claims to islands from nearly a century ago.  Japanese and Chinese aircraft are nearly bumping into each other over disputed airspace.  Russian fighters have overflown American warships in the Black Sea at extremely low altitudes.

In the 21st Century, the acquisition of territory is almost always about safety.  In modern times safety equates to access to cheap energy (oil).  The White House isn't worried about the American public tiring of war, the war is often the last thing on the minds of people (unless they themselves or their loved ones are serving).  The White House IS worried about the price of gasoline sky-rocketing as a result of a major conflict in the Middle East.  Rising gas prices would not help the Democrats in mid-term elections and would damage Hillary's chances at getting elected.

Gas prices effect not only how much you pay at the pump but how much consumer goods cost at the store.  Soaring gas prices, or worse a gas embargo, would also cripple the US military.  The jet fuel it takes to fly all of those sorties still comes from the oil pumped out of the ground in the Middle East.  About 10 years ago, the USAF successfully tested a synthetic jet fuel made from shale.  The continental US sits atop huge reserves of shale so if the technology has matured enough, the synthetic jet fuel could keep the F-35s turning and burning without regard to OPEC.  The question is does the process the USAF came with have enough capacity for all of the branches of the service?

The Navy went on better.  They have unveiled a technology for turning seawater into fuel at a cost of $3-$6 a barrel.  The article can be found here.  The process has the benefit of reducing CO2 levels in the ocean and it would eliminate the demand for oil from the Middle East.  Good news, right?  Well except for one thing, the timing of this means the Navy is a position to wait out any conflicts in the Middle East and still be able to run its non-nuclear ships.

Now let's follow that a step further.  The Air Force is rapidly follow out of favor with drones the have a bad habit of falling on innocent bystanders, nuclear launch officers who cheat, sexual assault scandals, and state of the art fighters that spend more time in hangars than in the air.  The Army takes too long to get anywhere and needs too much stuff to win.

The Navy is self-sufficient with ships and airplanes.  The Navy doesn't need expensive overseas bases to operate from.  Their nuclear forces are being benchmarked by the USAF to try to improve the readiness of Global Strike Command airmen.  Navy ships also carry Marines that can land on the shores and take-over stuff if needed.  Now with the ability to run everything on seawater, the Navy may have come back to forefront and give the White House an option to use to wage war.

But even this White House can't just wage war without some type of impetus.  Syria failed to provide enough justification for Obama, even after the use of chemical weapons.  Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons made great sound bytes but provided Obama with even less of a reason to go to war.

Iraq was supposed to be his victory lap in having pulled all the troops out but Washington's trust in Maliki blinded them to his actions.  Maliki marginalized and oppressed the Sunnis and Kurds.  Further complicating matters was the US decision to completely disassemble the Iraqi military and build anew.  The Iraqi military of Saddam Hussein had seen battle many times.  The Iraqi military of Maliki is completely new and is having to operate without their US mentors for the first time.  The results have not been impressive;

After tens of thousands of desertions, the Iraqi military is reeling from what one U.S. official described as “psychological collapse” in the face of the offensive from militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).--The Washington Post

The Sunnis have the Shiites on the ropes.  Contrary to the naysayers, the Sunnis are a bigger threat for they are the majority through Middle East.  The British intelligence agencies are quite concerned that Sunnis in the UK might be inspired towards terrorist attacks since the UK and US did nothing to help them in their fight against Maliki.

It's a stretch but this may be where the White House finds its reason to go to war.  A British 9/11 could give Obama the reason he lacks to go back into Iraq or finally attack Syria.  Of course the Sunnis most likely have operatives here in the US as well and another major attack on US soil could inspire the White House.

I never like the obvious, I think the reason for the US to go to war has yet to come out.  Perhaps Japan and China finally get tired of playing chicken and finally launch forces.  Perhaps North Korea fires a missile at Japan.  I don't think this White House will launch any kind of military action to protect the Southwest border although the continued flood of illegal immigrants here poses the most immediate threat (and where is DHS in all of this?).

Could World I and World War III be 100 years apart?

“In Ukraine, Russia’s recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe,” Obama said. “But this isn’t the Cold War. Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia right away.” Speaking to cadets and top Army leaders, Obama said the U.S.-led “mobilization of world opinion and international institutions served as a counterweight to Russian propaganda and Russian troops on the border and armed militias in ski masks.” President Obama in The Washington Post

I'm sorry Mr. President but your statements are too easily refuted.  World opinion has not been shaped in the manner which you claim.  Elections throughout Europe show people are fed-up with the notion of the European Union and are voting in far-right politicians at an unprecedented pace.  These nations are not planning to follow you or this country anywhere any time soon.  France sold 3 warships to Russia even though both former Sec Def Gates and current Sec Def Hagel begged them not to.  China signed a huge energy deal with Russia enabling Putin to continue on his quest.

If the President truly believes his attempts to mobilize world opinion have worked, he must not have read this account;

"Pro-Russian rebels downed a military helicopter in eastern Ukraine, killing 13 troops and a general, as an aide to President Vladimir Putin accused the U.S. of pushing the world toward war through proxies in Kiev."  Bloomberg

Two can play the propaganda game and what Mr. Obama forgets is the US doesn't have the reputation to being able to pull of the "good-guy" role anymore.  Many in countries ranging from Iraq and Iran to lesser known countries like Mali see the US as a hostile nation.  Putin is portraying his actions as protecting Russian speaking people, not invading sovereign nations or even attacking terrorists.

And while Mr. Obama claims that he is working through "multilateral actions" to thwart Russia's presence in Ukraine, the new Ukrainian president has a different interpretation of what that means;

"Poroshenko, 48, a billionaire who won the May 25 presidential election in the first round, said in an interview with Germany’s Bild newspaper that he intended to call on the United States for military supplies and training."  The Washington Post

While drawing parallels from the past is always fraught with error and faulty conclusions, one thing about Russia annexing Crimea is eerily reminiscent of something from exactly a hundred years ago next month.  The Great War or World War I started on July 28, 1914.  That was the date Archduke Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated serving as the trigger but the underlying problem was neo-imperialism.  Neo-imperialism was a period of unprecedented pursuit of overseas territorial acquisitions.  At this time, countries focused on building their empire with new technological advances and developments, making their country bigger through conquest, and exploiting their resources.

Obviously Russia fits the parallel but let's not forget the United States.  US overseas bases have been quietly built-up during the war on terror in Qatar, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, UAE, Djibouti, and Diego Garcia to name a few.  US drones can now be deployed through the most of the Middle East and the Horn of Africa.

Don't think the rest of the world might resent this presence?  Here is listing of all of the countries the US State Department has issued travel warnings for:  Iran, North Korea, Philippines, Kenya, Central African Republic, Ukraine, Nigeria, Syria, El Salvador, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of South Sudan, Chad, Colombia, Sudan, Burundi, Niger, Mali, Mauritania, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Algeria, Pakistan, Israel, Lebanon, Yemen, Mexico, Honduras, Venezuela, and Eritrea. (US State Department)

I did not include alerts which would have added Egypt, Thailand and Russia.  Brazil likely gets added once the World Cup starts and if there are clashes between protestors and police that make the news.

Humans like numbers and anniversaries.  The 100th anniversary of the start of the Great War may be a more than a coincidence.

"I'm NOT WEAK"

Photo:  Daily Mail

The headline for this story is "I'm NOT WEAK: Obama answers critics in West Point speech and insists the US must lead the world by example – 'If we don't, no one else will'

If one must state they are not weak, then you've already lost all chance of convincing people otherwise. If you state that the US must lead the way, you can't then hide behind "partnerships" and "multilateral actions" otherwise you just confirm that you are weak.  If you claim American exceptionalism, you can't then delegate the work to international coalitions without confirming your weakness.  You can't say your critics downplay the effectiveness of international coalitions without showing at least one example where it has worked during your administration.  You can't talk tough, as you did with Syria and Russia, and then do nothing without your enemies and allies calling you weak.

But most of all Mr President, if you are the Commander-In-Chief, then when a someone in uniform renders a salute….RETURN IT!!

Crimea, Russia and the US since we last checked-in

World War III has not started and Russia seems content with holding their troops in position.  While all seems quite on the Crimean front, back home thinks have started to become quarrelsome to say the least.

Item:  House Intelligence Chair Mike Rogers (R-MI) summed the Ukraine crisis by saying “Putin is playing chess, and I think we’re playing marbles.” --Fox News

Item: Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee made the following statement upon receipt of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) for 2014, "Unfortunately, the product the process produced this time has more to do with politics than policy and is of little value to decision makers. For that reason, I will require the Department to re-write and re-submit a compliant report. In defiance of the law, this QDR provides no insight into what a moderate-to-low risk strategy would be, is clearly budget driven, and is shortsighted. It allows the President to duck the consequences of the deep defense cuts he has advocated and leaves us all wondering what the true future costs of those cuts will be."--Armed Services Committee

Item:  On Thursday President Obama orders sanctions in response to Russia's actions.  European allies are uncertain how far they are willing to support Mr. Obama (something to do with wanting to keep the flow of Russian oil, maybe?).  Immediately Mr. Obama follows this stern action with a phone call to Mr. Putin saying there was still a way to resolve this diplomatically (even though all other options are off the table anyway).  Further, the President thinks this stance is strong enough that he is still demands that Russia recognize the legitimacy of Ukraine (not bloody likely!).--Daily Mail

Item:  In the "I'm desperate enough to try anything" category, a Pentagon research team is studying the body language of Vladmir Putin.  "U.S. policymakers are seeking any advantage they can find as they try to anticipate Putin, who in the past week has ordered Russian troops into neighboring Ukraine and laid claim to the Crimea Peninsula. "--USA Today  I must be missing something here.  Putin has told everyone his goals (protect Russian interests) and has moved his troops into position to insure that goal is achieved.  This is not a poker game, we know what he wants and how he intends to do it.  I wonder if Mr. Putin has a research team studying our President's body language?

Meanwhile, things abroad have become more interesting.

Item:  Ukrainian President Yanukovych is in a Moscow hospital after a heat attack, listed in grave condition (no worries of testimony from that person!).--Daily Mail

Item:  The USS Truxtun, a US Navy guided-missile destroyer, passed through the Çanakkale Strait en route to the Black Sea on Friday for what the US Navy described as a "routine" deployment that was scheduled well before the crisis in Ukraine (no coincidence here or why not cancel the maneuvers?).--Today's Zaman

Item:  Leaders of both houses of Russia’s Parliament said on Friday that they would support a vote by Crimea to break away from Ukraine and become a new region of the Russian Federation, the first public signal that the Kremlin was backing the secessionist move that Ukraine, the United States and other countries have denounced as a violation of international law.--NY Times

Putin is in charge of this game.  Mr. Obama's only hope is if he has the guts to get Russia kicked off the G8.  Short of that, and given his stance against any military action, the sanctions aren't going to have any short term effect on Russia.

Why our President is not a leader

Yesterday much of the social media I read was abuzz with a story that Mr. Obama did not attend a briefing by his National Security Council on the Ukraine situation.  Susan Rice was ever quick to defend this lapse in leadership and claim the President had already been briefed.

We truly don't know why the President skipped a briefing but what Mr. Obama does not seem to grasp is his image as a leader has been further damaged.  The New York Times has even realized this by titling a piece, "Making Russia Pay?  It's Not So Simple".

The first challenge of being a leader, you have to act on what you threaten.

"Finding powerful levers to influence Mr. Putin’s decision-making will be a challenge for Mr. Obama and the European allies. Mr. Obama has seen repeatedly that warnings often do not discourage autocratic rulers from taking violent action, as when Syria crossed the president’s “red line” by using chemical weapons in its civil war."--NY Times

Like in the schoolyard, when you draw a line in the sand you need to be ready to deal with your opponent when he steps over the line.  Mr. Obama has not shown that he has the heart to deal with those that cross him.

The second challenge of being a leader, know how to make things happen.

"Russia is an even tougher country to pressure, too formidable even in the post-Soviet age to rattle with stern lectures or shows of military force, and too rich in resources to squeeze economically in the short term. With a veto on the United Nations Security Council, it need not worry about the world body. And as the primary source of natural gas to much of Europe, it holds a trump card over many American allies."--NY Times

If you are going to threaten an action, make sure your opponent is going to respond.  Russia holds too many trump cards for economic extortion to work.  Europe is struggling to keep the EU together and taking on Mother Russia right now is not in their best interest.  While former Secretary of State Clinton and the President pissed off Iran, Mr. Putin eased up to Tehran to insure the flow of oil and cash.  The UN doesn't mean nearly as much to Mr. Putin as it does to Mr. Obama so that's not much of an option either.

Finally, being a leader is a lonely job.  You can only defer deciding for so long, else you start to get statements like this;

“There’s nothing we can do to save Ukraine at this point,” he said. “All we can do is save the alliance.” --James F. Jeffrey, quoted in the NY Times

Nothing we can do?  So we just give up on the very people we encouraged to break away from Moscow?  Can anyone reading this imagine in contrast Mr. Putin accepting this kind of scenario?

From Alexander the Great to Martin Luther King, all great leaders shared on thing in common.  They were unwilling to accept anything other than their vision as the only acceptable outcome.  They were all willing to sacrifice everything for what the believed was their destiny.  The problem for Mr. Obama is he just doesn't have to guts for the job.  Whether it be Syria or the Ukraine, Mr. Obama does know what to do once his advisors throw up their hands and give-up.  That, Mr. Obama, is when a leader leads…...

Of mice and men

Back in 2004, then Senator Kerry wanted to be president.  A decorated Vietnam veteran, Mr. Kerry thought he would be a cinch for the nomination.  Then cam the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) and suddenly his record came into question.  To be sure, Kerry did perform with valor but what caught my attention was that he supposedly gave back his medals in 1971.  "I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine medals", said Kerry in an interview WRC-TC Viewpoints ABC News

Kerry supposedly gave these medals back because of how he felt about the war (but more likely because as a Democrat it would not help his chances to get elected if here were seen as a hawk).  Contrast though this article on Salon from 2004 where apparently Mr. Kerry still has his medals.

“Do you still have the Silver Star,” I asked Kerry. “Yeah,” he said, “do you want to see it?” My answer was yes. He walked across his study to a secondary desk with clutter on top, mainly books, and opened the top right drawer. This is where he keeps all of his war medals. Salon

Now Secretary Kerry is leading the charge for intervention in Syria.  Kerry is certain of the use of chemical weapons by Assad (although reports are now surfacing that it may have been the Syrian rebels who used the chemical weapons). Kerry called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "a thug and a murderer" and accused his regime of using chemical weapons to kill 1,429 people--ABC

So the war hero first morphs into a "dove" then transforms again into a "hawk".  It makes it hard to really take the Secretary's bluster all that seriously.  Apparently many in Congress feel equally unimpressed with his arguments.  Yet Kerry's vitriol was able to persuade at least one elected official, President Obama.  Despite the resounding defeat of Prime Minister Cameron's effort in Parliament, Mr. Obama was going to go at it alone.

That was until yesterday evening when apparently Mr. Obama went for a walk with his senior advisor and changed his mind (NBC News).  I can't imagine how frustrated his administration has to be after Secretary Kerry brow-beat everyone into taking action in Syria.  This good-cop, bad-cop approach is going to backfire. President Obama is not seen as being particularly strong on foreign policy and defiantly comes in second to his rival Vladmir Putin.  I do not want to see the US launch cruise missiles.  However, I don't want to see a President who flip-flops on such serious matters seemingly at the turn of a hat.