lewrockwell--2020-01-07--Standing Up to the Pronoun Police, Once And For All

The first effort to “ no-platform ” me caught me by surprise .
It wasn ’ t until the day before I was due to speak at King ’ s College in London that I was made aware of a petition , signed by staff and students , calling on the university “ to retract her invitation , cancel the event and publish a public apology.
” The petitioners claimed that I was “ someone who opposes women , trans and non-binary people and their well-being and survival , ” and so there was a “ high risk ” my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in “ attacks on transgender people.
” I am critical of modern-day feminism .
I have questioned the promotion of transgender issues among young children and I have challenged the idea that men should be legally recognized as women simply because they declare themselves to be women—what is known as “ self-identification.
” However , I was not planning to talk about any of this .
My lecture was supposed to be a scholarly overview of the history of academic freedom .
Yet in the eyes of campaigners , defending free speech today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on vulnerable individuals .
I needed to be silenced .
And it seems I am not the only one .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 In a very short space of time , it has become controversial to say what people have taken for granted since time immemorial : that humans are born either male or female .
The newly correct view , enforced at every turn , is that gender is located in brains rather than in bodies .
According to this way of thinking , cruel doctors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a child ’ s birth and parents and teachers then force children to dress and behave in line with a misguided assumption about whether they are a boy or a girl .
Transgender activists argue gender is something we need to discover for ourselves and then reveal to a readily accepting world .
Going along with this may seem like a small act of politeness , but it has huge consequences for how we organize society and , in particular , women ’ s place in it .
We routinely restrict access to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sports , and some other educational and leisure activities according to sex .
Often , this is just common sense .
Men do not need midwifery services .
Sometimes it is a question of safety .
Vulnerable women looking to escape a violent male partner need a female-only refuge .
Women and girls may not want to undress in unisex changing rooms .
Sometimes it is a necessity .
Segregation in sports allows women to compete and not have their place taken by taller , stronger , biological males .
Much is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sex .
Yet those who so much as question this new orthodoxy rapidly find themselves denounced as heretics and transphobes by a new generation of activists .
The upshot is that major social change is occurring in the absence of debate .

The first effort to “no-platform” me caught me by surprise. It wasn’t until the day before I was due to speak at King’s College in London that I was made aware of a petition, signed by staff and students, calling on the university “to retract her invitation, cancel the event and publish a public apology.”
The petitioners claimed that I was “someone who opposes women, trans and non-binary people and their well-being and survival,” and so there was a “high risk” my advocacy for freedom of speech would result in “attacks on transgender people.”
I am critical of modern-day feminism. I have questioned the promotion of transgender issues among young children and I have challenged the idea that men should be legally recognized as women simply because they declare themselves to be women—what is known as “self-identification.” However, I was not planning to talk about any of this. My lecture was supposed to be a scholarly overview of the history of academic freedom. Yet in the eyes of campaigners, defending free speech today is tantamount to calling for violent attacks on vulnerable individuals. I needed to be silenced. And it seems I am not the only one.
Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details) In a very short space of time, it has become controversial to say what people have taken for granted since time immemorial: that humans are born either male or female. The newly correct view, enforced at every turn, is that gender is located in brains rather than in bodies. According to this way of thinking, cruel doctors jump to conclusions at the moment of a child’s birth and parents and teachers then force children to dress and behave in line with a misguided assumption about whether they are a boy or a girl.
Transgender activists argue gender is something we need to discover for ourselves and then reveal to a readily accepting world. Going along with this may seem like a small act of politeness, but it has huge consequences for how we organize society and, in particular, women’s place in it.
We routinely restrict access to public restrooms, healthcare provision, jails, sports, and some other educational and leisure activities according to sex. Often, this is just common sense. Men do not need midwifery services. Sometimes it is a question of safety. Vulnerable women looking to escape a violent male partner need a female-only refuge. Women and girls may not want to undress in unisex changing rooms. Sometimes it is a necessity. Segregation in sports allows women to compete and not have their place taken by taller, stronger, biological males.
Much is at stake if gender self-identification replaces biological sex. Yet those who so much as question this new orthodoxy rapidly find themselves denounced as heretics and transphobes by a new generation of activists. The upshot is that major social change is occurring in the absence of debate.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-01-07--Make No Mistake: Military Robots Are Not There To Preserve Human Life, They Are There To Allow Even

Make No Mistake: Military Robots Are Not There To Preserve Human Life, They Are There To Allow Even More Endless Wars.

When human troops are replaced by robots on the battlefield , it won ’ t be because the Pentagon ’ s had some revelation about the value of human life – it ’ ll be an effort to defuse anti-war protests by minimizing visible casualties .
US military commanders are itching to get their hands on some killer robots after an Army war game saw a human-robot coalition repeatedly rout an all-human company three times its size .
The technology used in the computer-simulated clashes doesn ’ t exist quite yet – the concept was only devised a few months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pipeline , and that should concern anyone who prefers peace to war .
“ We reduced the risk to US forces to zero , basically , and were still able to accomplish the mission , ” Army Captain Philip Belanger gushed to Breaking Defense last week , after commanding the silicon soldiers through close to a dozen battles at Fort Benning Maneuver Battle Lab .
When they tried to fight an army three times their size again without the robotic reinforcements ?
“ Things did not go well for us , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 So why shouldn ’ t the US military save its troops by sending in specially-designed robots to do their killing ?
While protecting American lives is one reason to oppose the US ’ ever-metastasizing endless wars , it ’ s far from the only reason .
Civilian casualties are already a huge problem with drone strikes , which by some estimates kill their intended target only 10 percent of the time .
Drones , an early form of killer robot , offer minimal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it difficult to distinguish combatants from non .
Soldiers controlling infantry-bots from afar will have even less visibility , being stuck to the ground , and their physical distance from the action means shooting first and asking questions later becomes an act no more significant than pulling the trigger in a first-person-shooter video game .
Any US military lives saved by using robot troops will thus be more than compensated for by a spike in civilian casualties on the other side .
This will be ignored by the media , as “ collateral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UN and other international bodies might locate their long-lost spines and call out the wholesale slaughter of innocents by the Pentagon ’ s death machines .
Worse , having no “ skin in the game ” – literally , in this case – means one of the primary barriers that once stopped the US from starting wars with whatever country refused to bend to its will is lowered .
The US has not picked a fight with a militarily-equal enemy in over half a century , but robots capable of increasing the might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ninefold will seriously shift the balance of power in Washington ’ s favor .
The country ’ s top warmongers will be fighting amongst themselves over whom to strike first , reminding apprehensive citizens that it ’ s not as if their sons and daughters will be put at risk – unless the US ’ chosen target just happened to lob a bomb overseas in retaliation .
The chilling possibility that the avoidance of home-team casualties would open the door to all the wars the US has ever wanted to fight , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ runs up against the fact that Washington – already over $ 22 trillion in debt – can ’ t possibly afford to further expand its already monstrous military footprint .
Yet the Pentagon never runs out of money – it added $ 21 billion to its budget this year , and has never been told there ’ s no funding for even the most ill-advised weapons program .
So while money might be a logical protection against the endless expansion of endless war , in the US , the Fed will just print @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse The Fort Benning experiment already hints at a dystopian future of endless war , but the tech used to win those simulated skirmishes is positively quaint compared to other technology in the pipeline .
Autonomous killer robots – bots that select and kill their own targets using artificial intelligence – are the logical endpoint of the mission to dehumanize war completely , filling the ranks with soldiers that won ’ t ask questions , won ’ t talk back , and won ’ t hesitate to shoot whoever they ’ re told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a technology are obvious .
If AI can ’ t be trained to distinguish between sarcasm and normal speech , or between a convicted felon and a congressman , how can it be trusted to reliably distinguish between civilian and soldier ?
Or even between friend and foe ?
Everyone has seen The Terminator , or The Matrix , but speculative fiction is starting to infringe on reality when real-world bright minds like Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking raise the alarm that AI can spell humanity ’ s doom – not to mention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlets .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 25.00 The first human soldier to die by a robot comrade ’ s “ friendly fire ” will no doubt be framed as an accident , but who will be held responsible in the event of a full-on robot mutiny ?
Does anyone remember the plot of Terminator , or the Matrix ?
The warbot-minded military is aware of the bad publicity .
A recent Pentagon study ( focusing on robotically-enhanced humans but applicable to robotic soldiers as well ) warns that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ prepare ” for the impact of these technologies by crafting a regulatory framework in advance than to hastily impose one later , presumably in reaction to some catastrophic robot mishap .
In order to have their hands free to develop the technology as they see fit , military leaders should make an effort to “ reverse the negative cultural narratives of enhancement technologies , ” lest the dystopian narratives civilians carry in their heads spoil all the fun .
Meanwhile , the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots , a coalition of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and politicians who ’ d rather not take a ‘ wait and see ’ approach to a technology that could destroy the human race , are calling on the United Nations to adopt an international ban on autonomous killing machines .
Whose future would you prefer ?
The statements , views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT .

When human troops are replaced by robots on the battlefield, it won’t be because the Pentagon’s had some revelation about the value of human life – it’ll be an effort to defuse anti-war protests by minimizing visible casualties.
US military commanders are itching to get their hands on some killer robots after an Army war game saw a human-robot coalition repeatedly rout an all-human company three times its size. The technology used in the computer-simulated clashes doesn’t exist quite yet – the concept was only devised a few months ago – but it’s in the pipeline, and that should concern anyone who prefers peace to war.
“We reduced the risk to US forces to zero, basically, and were still able to accomplish the mission,” Army Captain Philip Belanger gushed to Breaking Defense last week, after commanding the silicon soldiers through close to a dozen battles at Fort Benning Maneuver Battle Lab. When they tried to fight an army three times their size again without the robotic reinforcements? “Things did not go well for us,” Belanger admitted.
What could go wrong?
Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details) So why shouldn’t the US military save its troops by sending in specially-designed robots to do their killing? While protecting American lives is one reason to oppose the US’ ever-metastasizing endless wars, it’s far from the only reason. Civilian casualties are already a huge problem with drone strikes, which by some estimates kill their intended target only 10 percent of the time. Drones, an early form of killer robot, offer minimal sensory input for the operator, making it difficult to distinguish combatants from non. Soldiers controlling infantry-bots from afar will have even less visibility, being stuck to the ground, and their physical distance from the action means shooting first and asking questions later becomes an act no more significant than pulling the trigger in a first-person-shooter video game.
Any US military lives saved by using robot troops will thus be more than compensated for by a spike in civilian casualties on the other side. This will be ignored by the media, as “collateral damage” often is, but the UN and other international bodies might locate their long-lost spines and call out the wholesale slaughter of innocents by the Pentagon’s death machines.
Worse, having no “skin in the game” – literally, in this case – means one of the primary barriers that once stopped the US from starting wars with whatever country refused to bend to its will is lowered. The US has not picked a fight with a militarily-equal enemy in over half a century, but robots capable of increasing the might of the Pentagon’s military force ninefold will seriously shift the balance of power in Washington’s favor. The country’s top warmongers will be fighting amongst themselves over whom to strike first, reminding apprehensive citizens that it’s not as if their sons and daughters will be put at risk – unless the US’ chosen target just happened to lob a bomb overseas in retaliation.
The chilling possibility that the avoidance of home-team casualties would open the door to all the wars the US has ever wanted to fight, but not had the military capacity for, runs up against the fact that Washington – already over $22 trillion in debt – can’t possibly afford to further expand its already monstrous military footprint. Yet the Pentagon never runs out of money – it added $21 billion to its budget this year, and has never been told there’s no funding for even the most ill-advised weapons program. So while money might be a logical protection against the endless expansion of endless war, in the US, the Fed will just print more.
Yes, it could get worse
The Fort Benning experiment already hints at a dystopian future of endless war, but the tech used to win those simulated skirmishes is positively quaint compared to other technology in the pipeline. Autonomous killer robots – bots that select and kill their own targets using artificial intelligence – are the logical endpoint of the mission to dehumanize war completely, filling the ranks with soldiers that won’t ask questions, won’t talk back, and won’t hesitate to shoot whoever they’re told to shoot.
The pitfalls to such a technology are obvious. If AI can’t be trained to distinguish between sarcasm and normal speech, or between a convicted felon and a congressman, how can it be trusted to reliably distinguish between civilian and soldier? Or even between friend and foe?
Everyone has seen The Terminator, or The Matrix, but speculative fiction is starting to infringe on reality when real-world bright minds like Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking raise the alarm that AI can spell humanity’s doom – not to mention dozens of think pieces in tech media outlets. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $25.00 (as of 06:10 UTC - Details)
The first human soldier to die by a robot comrade’s “friendly fire” will no doubt be framed as an accident, but who will be held responsible in the event of a full-on robot mutiny? Does anyone remember the plot of Terminator, or the Matrix?
The warbot-minded military is aware of the bad publicity. A recent Pentagon study (focusing on robotically-enhanced humans but applicable to robotic soldiers as well) warns that it’s better to “anticipate” and “prepare” for the impact of these technologies by crafting a regulatory framework in advance than to hastily impose one later, presumably in reaction to some catastrophic robot mishap. In order to have their hands free to develop the technology as they see fit, military leaders should make an effort to “reverse the negative cultural narratives of enhancement technologies,” lest the dystopian narratives civilians carry in their heads spoil all the fun.
Meanwhile, the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, a coalition of anti-war groups, scientists, academics, and politicians who’d rather not take a ‘wait and see’ approach to a technology that could destroy the human race, are calling on the United Nations to adopt an international ban on autonomous killing machines. Whose future would you prefer?
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.


lewrockwell--2020-01-07--Ignorant BBC Plans To Rewrite Charles Dickens and Put the F-Word Into the Mouth of Ebenezer Scrooge

The BBC plans to rewrite Charles Dickens tonight , complete with the f-word and a scene showing a character urinating on a grave .
It has no right to do so .
It is typical of this increasingly cynical , ignorant organisation that it should put four-letter words into the mouth of Ebenezer Scrooge , and invent gross and disturbing scenes in a drama that is bound to be seen by the young and impressionable .
Does anyone really think the ‘ watershed ’ matters any more ?
Far better to abolish it and ask if the programme concerned deserves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its makers can not create proper drama without resorting to pornography , obscenity and violence .
It may even be that some people will actually switch on A Christmas Carol thinking that they will get – from the modern BBC of all people – a faithful version of this great and powerful drama .
We know , of course , that this can be done , thanks to Alastair Sim ’ s marvellous performance in the 1951 film Scrooge .
This cleverly adapted Dickens ’ s story without in any way vandalising its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of us have been clobbered into submission by the Corporation ’ s revolutionaries by now .
Either we take what we are given , or we know better than to watch in the first place .
A Christmas Carol Charles Dickens Best Price : $ 2.90 Buy New $ 1.99 It is as if the Church of England turned St Paul ’ s Cathedral into a shopping mall , or the National Gallery got some Turner Prize winner to cut up its masterpieces and scrawl slogans over them .
When we inherit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do with as we wish .
We have a duty to preserve them for those who will come after us .
Charles Dickens invented Christmas , as it is celebrated in the entire English-speaking world .
The festival we all hope for , and seldom achieve , is the one which eventually happens in A Christmas Carol .
We want the clear frosty morning that follows the black and freezing night .
We want that transformation of mean-spirited greed into generosity .
We want , in short , an earthly British miracle .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of us is not ever sentimental ?
It is the other side of cruelty , and more of us are cruel than like to admit it .
Dickens lived a hard and often cruel life .
When he wrote A Christmas Carol , he was at a bleak moment in his career .
He was , beyond doubt , on the receiving end of many filthy curses and saw plenty of squalor and obscenity in the seething , debauched England of the time .
Much of his childhood was hellish .
He knew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underside of life .
Yet he managed to describe its miseries and terrors without ever resorting to the cheap and easy trick of lavatory-wall language .
We know in detail the grim taste of the thin gruel in Oliver Twist ’ s workhouse .
We know the weary despair of the child set to work in the blacking factory and the shame of the debtor ’ s prison .

The BBC plans to rewrite Charles Dickens tonight, complete with the f-word and a scene showing a character urinating on a grave. It has no right to do so.
It is typical of this increasingly cynical, ignorant organisation that it should put four-letter words into the mouth of Ebenezer Scrooge, and invent gross and disturbing scenes in a drama that is bound to be seen by the young and impressionable.
Does anyone really think the ‘watershed’ matters any more? Far better to abolish it and ask if the programme concerned deserves to be shown at all, if its makers cannot create proper drama without resorting to pornography, obscenity and violence.
Guy Pearce, who plays Scrooge, and Charlotte Riley are pictured above in the BBC adaptation. Dickens did not need to describe every foul detail of squalor to conjure it up. We all know what it is like
It may even be that some people will actually switch on A Christmas Carol thinking that they will get – from the modern BBC of all people – a faithful version of this great and powerful drama.
We know, of course, that this can be done, thanks to Alastair Sim’s marvellous performance in the 1951 film Scrooge. This cleverly adapted Dickens’s story without in any way vandalising its central message or its genius.
But most of us have been clobbered into submission by the Corporation’s revolutionaries by now. Either we take what we are given, or we know better than to watch in the first place.
It is as if the Church of England turned St Paul’s Cathedral into a shopping mall, or the National Gallery got some Turner Prize winner to cut up its masterpieces and scrawl slogans over them.
Victorians such as Dickens understood that civilisation is built on restraint, on the things we do not do or say, and on the hiding of ugliness. The society they created was so strong, so peaceful and so rich that we still rely on it, though I don’t think it can or will last for ever
When we inherit treasures, they are not ours to do with as we wish. We have a duty to preserve them for those who will come after us.
Charles Dickens invented Christmas, as it is celebrated in the entire English-speaking world. The festival we all hope for, and seldom achieve, is the one which eventually happens in A Christmas Carol.
We want the clear frosty morning that follows the black and freezing night. We want that transformation of mean-spirited greed into generosity. We want, in short, an earthly British miracle.
No doubt it is sentimental. Which of us is not ever sentimental? It is the other side of cruelty, and more of us are cruel than like to admit it. Dickens lived a hard and often cruel life. When he wrote A Christmas Carol, he was at a bleak moment in his career.
He was, beyond doubt, on the receiving end of many filthy curses and saw plenty of squalor and obscenity in the seething, debauched England of the time. Much of his childhood was hellish.
He knew, if anybody did, the maggoty underside of life. Yet he managed to describe its miseries and terrors without ever resorting to the cheap and easy trick of lavatory-wall language.
We know in detail the grim taste of the thin gruel in Oliver Twist’s workhouse. We know the weary despair of the child set to work in the blacking factory and the shame of the debtor’s prison.
The great illusion of 50 years ago, that by removing the restraints on the grubby, the coarse and the violent, we would have a more healthy, open-minded society have turned out to be utterly wrong
With Dickens we go into the minds of thieves and grave-robbers, of cowards and frauds, seducers and their victims, convicts and crooked lawyers.
He was, I think, the first author to describe that very modern type – the person who is noisily concerned about the problems of the Third World while forgetting those closer to home.
Those who decide to read him, even now, generally find it easy to do so because of the wonderful flow of language, not academic or grand, just ordinary English rolling like a river.
He was a genius, of the sort which appears only once in a few centuries. He could make us shout with laughter, or cry, or shock us into astonishment, by reaching into our imaginations with his own.
It is typical of this increasingly cynical, ignorant organisation that it should put four-letter words into the mouth of Ebenezer Scrooge, and invent gross and disturbing scenes in a drama that is bound to be seen by the young and impressionable
As the playwright Alan Bennett once wisely said about great writing, it is as if a hand, belonging to a kind friend, has reached out from the far past and gently clasped our own.
Dickens did not need to describe every foul detail of squalor to conjure it up. We all know what it is like.
He needed only to hint at it. But the cultural commissars of our age think it is progress to uncover what our ancestors hid.
They are like fools who raise some ancient evil spirit, thinking it is only a game, and then run in terror from the thing they have summoned.
Victorians such as Dickens understood that civilisation is built on restraint, on the things we do not do or say, and on the hiding of ugliness.
The society they created was so strong, so peaceful and so rich that we still rely on it, though I don’t think it can or will last for ever.
But the great illusion of 50 years ago, that by removing the restraints on the grubby, the coarse and the violent, we would have a more healthy, open-minded society have turned out to be utterly wrong.
Don’t watch this poison. Get down the old dusty book and read it instead. Its warnings and its hopes are as good as they ever were, and it will revive, in the most leathery heart, the ancient, redeeming promise of Christmas.
Never forget that Blair was a Trotskyist too
Looking more than ever as if he is actually mummified, and has risen from some ancient, richly decorated tomb, the Blair creature appears among us.
Once again he is here to tell us that in fact he knows better than everyone, despite having made, in Iraq, the worst single mistake in foreign policy of the past half-century.
Why do people still deal kindly with this person, who veers between being a vague, rambling nonentity and a raging warmonger, when not surrendering to terrorist murderers on shameful terms?
Generally he returns among us to drivel about the European issue, forgetting that he longed for this country to join the euro, a policy almost every breathing human now realises would have been a disaster.
Once again he is here to tell us that in fact he knows better than everyone, despite having made, in Iraq, the worst single mistake in foreign policy of the past half-century
But this time he has reappeared to gloat over Jeremy Corbyn’s failure and claim that Mr Corbyn’s revolutionary programme and Marxist past stopped him winning the Election.
This is very odd. We now know from his own lips, though 99 per cent of the British media have never reported it, that Mr Blair was himself once a Trotskyist.
He has never revealed which organisation he joined, though a close friend of his belonged to the International Marxist Group, which called for ‘Victory to the IRA’ and urged its student members to infiltrate and take over the moribund Labour Party in the 1970s, when no normal person under the age of 50 would have joined it.
An astonishing number of Mr Blair’s Cabinet were also ‘former’ Marxists – and these are just the ones we know about.
And, as it happens, Mr Blair was in a position to give ‘Victory to the IRA’ in his surrender to them in 1998 – the fact that it was a surrender is shown by the continued legal pursuit of British soldiers accused of crimes during the Troubles, and the effective mass pardon given to IRA killers, though people still refuse to see it.
As for Mr Blair’s other policies – rapid integration in the EU, participation in mad foreign wars, sale of our gold reserves just before the price shot up, a gigantic splurge in welfare and NHS spending way beyond our means, fanatical pursuit of political correctness – they are a mixture of zealotry and stupidity, slightly different from Mr Corbyn’s, but not in fact that different.
I just wish all those who managed to see the obvious Corbyn threat will one day understand the damage they allowed Mr Blair to do by praising him as the ‘moderate’ he never was.
If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens click here


lewrockwell--2020-01-08--After Soleimani Killing, Suddenly the US Is Alone

The silence is deafening .
The lack of response from U.S. allies around the world to President Trump ’ s assassination of Major General Qassem Soleimani tells you things have fundamentally changed .
Normally when something like this happens the U.S. has all of its allies lined up with statements at the ready .
A gaggle of the usual suspects behind lecterns pledging support replete with the requisite hand-wringing and virtue signaling .
That didn ’ t happen this time .
Only arm-twisting by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo cajoled a few lukewarm responses from European allies stunned by Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ escalation of hostilities .
Because they know the world is more dangerous today than it was a week ago .
Pompeo ’ s whining that no one believed the White House ’ s ludicrous talking point that this strike was done to prevent a war rather than start one , betray epic levels of fatuousness .
But , make no mistake , Miracle Whip Mike got everything he wanted here .
The strategic errors the Trump Administration has piled up over the past twenty months since abandoning the JCPOA have reached a breaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has taken the brunt of Trump ’ s belligerence with Iran and Russia .
Their businesses have suffered .
Their energy security is threatened .
The neocons have humiliated them and treated them like chattle .
And to this point Europe ’ s leadership has been up to the task playing the part .
It ’ s obvious the Necons ’ policy is to leverage Trump ’ s America Uber Alles mentality to get everything they want to subjugate Russia , China and Iran .
Trump ’ s instincts are the right ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leverage for tanks in the streets is still war , however .
Just because you don ’ t define it as war doesn ’ t mean it isn ’ t war .
Trump ’ s mistakes come from his believing sanctions are legitimate tools of terror , while simultaneously holding that Soleimani ’ s tools are not .
And that can no longer be an excuse to absolve him of the strategic and tactical errors he ’ s manipulated into by his staff or takes upon himself .
Pompeo ’ s whining about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflects Trump ’ s madness and frustration .
No amount of pressure on Iran seems to get the desired results .
He sees their attacks on U.S. troops as personal affronts and thinks raising his threats to existential levels will finally make people see he ’ s serious .
Iran knew he was serious three years ago .
It didn ’ t deter them .
If anything , their discretion in the face of open hostility only emboldened Trump to go farther .
But now he ’ s just a madman with nukes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , anger and fear towards making even more dangerous decisions than the ones he ’ s already made .
Because , when you realize that Soleimani was in Baghdad to deliver Iran ’ s opening terms for a negotiated peace with Saudi Arabia , this attack was a blunder .
When you further realize that Soleimani was there at Trump ’ s behest with Iraqi Prime Minister Mahdi as broker , this attack looks like patently insane .
Soleimani was in Baghdad to begin the peace process , again , at Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within the Iranian government to handle said negotiations because of his position as head of the IRGC Quds Forces .
If he brought these terms to the table , the militias and proxies he trained and tacitly commands would take them far more seriously than if they were brought by President Hassan Rouhani .
Rouhani represents , to them , the failed diplomacy that led to the current crisis , thinking the U.S. would honor their deals .
So , the meeting between Soleimani and the Iraqi Prime Minister would have been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we know , the U.S. is Not Agreement Capable , in the words of Russian President Vladimir Putin .
So , now the question is why did this happen ?
What ’ s the rationale here ?
A New York Times article detailed the situation in the White House in the days leading up to Trump ’ s decision .
It reads like a Pentagon whitewash of its role in creating the atmosphere which led to Soleimani ’ s death .
It paints the picture of a president sinking into madness as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Baghdad unfolded .
It tries to deflect all the blame onto Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence .
But the big takeaway from this article isn ’ t just that the Pentagon is looking to deflect blame from Defense Secretary Mark Esper and CIA Director Gina Haspel onto Trump .
The big takeaway from this article is the Pompeo/Pence narrative of Soleimani was imminently primed to attack U.S. diplomatic targets was complete fiction .
Unwritten by the Times but lurking between the words is who was really behind this narrative , Israeli @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s clear over the past six months Netanyahu couldn ’ t accept the idea of peace breaking out around him .
He consistently pushed the envelope of Israel ’ s belligerence into Iraq over the opening of the Iraq/Syria border crossing .
Now the Saudis were wavering ?
This can not stand .
War with Iran must happen .
This is the most likely scenario that pushed Trump into this action with Pompeo , Esper and Haspel feeding him a steady diet of , at best , misleading information .
Trump then does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets too hard to figure out .
Netanyahu worked so hard to manipulate events and people to get to that point .
He needs a win back home to show voters he is the man to bring Israel salvation through the studious application of American exceptionalism .
Now , that he ’ s done so , he is abandoning Trump after pushing him into the pit .
So , given all of this , is anyone surprised the leadership in Europe isn ’ t happy here ?
They were instrumental in getting Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ JCPOA , which Israel was livid about .
It was in everyone ’ s interest for the deal to work , especially Iran ’ s .
Iran got sanctions relief and much-needed investment .
Its heavy water reactor became a strong source of revenue .
Europe got access to cheap Iranian oil and gas through that investment , securing its energy needs .
Moreover , with the deal in place , the undoing of the U.S./Israeli/Saudi plan to atomize Syria by Russia , Iran and Hezbollah ended the flow of refugees into Europe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only happens because of the JCPOA .
Trump ’ s entire foreign policy is based on antagonizing everyone and subjugating them through dollar weaponization and energy dominance .
That ’ s been his modus operandi .
He aligned himself with Israeli interests from the outset because 1 ) he wanted to and 2 ) it was the path of least resistance for him to stay in power .
At every critical juncture of his presidency Trump has knuckled under to the neocons in his office .
The biggest effect of killing Soleimani isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even Iraq ’ s .
Yes , they will impose costs which will change the geopolitical game board .
How ?
We don ’ t know .
What we do know is this big effect ; the realization that everyone around the world is thinking , “ Are we next ?
” So far Trump has accepted no limits on who he will attack with sanctions .
There is no rule he ’ s willing to breach .
The neocons in the Senate now have the ultimate leverage over him — Pelosi ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate like Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio have been at full mast so long thanks to Trump ’ s bombing they need to see a doctor .
They got him to kill Soleimani , ensuring there will be no peace with Iran .
They ’ ve begun the upward escalation of tensions which likely ends with an airstrike on Iran ’ s Fordow Nuclear Facility .
If you don ’ t think that ’ s what that tweet means , then have either your eyes or your reading comprehension checked .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , bluff and bluster to misdirect and/or stir the pot .
This has been a clear message he ’ s sent since the campaign trail .
And this attack on Soleimani was the next step in that process .
He ’ s hoping it brings Iran to the bargaining table .
And that ’ s why this only ends with bombing Fordow .
The Israelis and neocons have used Trump ’ s animus towards Obama and Europe to try to subjugate them as well .
It ’ s not that Europe is praiseworthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their comeuppance for trying to build an Empire to replace the U.S .
But regardless of whether the EU sucks or not , this incident is your point of no return in U.S./European relations .
They have no choice but to slowly back away from the insane man in the White House and break bread with the sober one in the Kremlin .
Angela Merkel already arranged a meeting with Putin for next week .
This has cost the U.S. whatever moral status it has with the rest of the world .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump will get from here on out are ones that don ’ t matter .
He ’ s set the U.S. squarely on the path to its own destruction as the world realizes the cost of doing business in the dollar just rose immensely .
I ’ ve been looking for that moment where Europe makes the decision to move out of the U.S. ’ s orbit and into Russia ’ s .
Their silence tells me this was it .
For more of my thoughts on this subject and why Europe will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my latest Podcast here .
The Best of Thomas Luongo

The silence is deafening. The lack of response from U.S. allies around the world to President Trump’s assassination of Major General Qassem Soleimani tells you things have fundamentally changed.
Normally when something like this happens the U.S. has all of its allies lined up with statements at the ready. A gaggle of the usual suspects behind lecterns pledging support replete with the requisite hand-wringing and virtue signaling.
That didn’t happen this time. Only arm-twisting by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo cajoled a few lukewarm responses from European allies stunned by Trump’s violations of International Law and escalation of hostilities.
It’s clear Trump stunned them into silence.
Because they know the world is more dangerous today than it was a week ago.
Pompeo’s whining that no one believed the White House’s ludicrous talking point that this strike was done to prevent a war rather than start one, betray epic levels of fatuousness.
But, make no mistake, Miracle Whip Mike got everything he wanted here.
The strategic errors the Trump Administration has piled up over the past twenty months since abandoning the JCPOA have reached a breaking point, especially with Europe.
Europe has taken the brunt of Trump’s belligerence with Iran and Russia.
Their businesses have suffered. Their energy security is threatened. The neocons have humiliated them and treated them like chattle. And to this point Europe’s leadership has been up to the task playing the part.
It’s obvious the Necons’ policy is to leverage Trump’s America Uber Alles mentality to get everything they want to subjugate Russia, China and Iran.
Trump’s instincts are the right ones, avoiding open warfare. Substituting economic leverage for tanks in the streets is still war, however.
Just because you don’t define it as war doesn’t mean it isn’t war.
Trump’s mistakes come from his believing sanctions are legitimate tools of terror, while simultaneously holding that Soleimani’s tools are not.
And that can no longer be an excuse to absolve him of the strategic and tactical errors he’s manipulated into by his staff or takes upon himself.
Pompeo’s whining about Europe betrays a solipsism and narcissism that reflects Trump’s madness and frustration. No amount of pressure on Iran seems to get the desired results.
He sees their attacks on U.S. troops as personal affronts and thinks raising his threats to existential levels will finally make people see he’s serious.
Iran knew he was serious three years ago. It didn’t deter them. If anything, their discretion in the face of open hostility only emboldened Trump to go farther.
But now he’s just a madman with nukes, being pulled by betrayal, frustration, anger and fear towards making even more dangerous decisions than the ones he’s already made.
Because, when you realize that Soleimani was in Baghdad to deliver Iran’s opening terms for a negotiated peace with Saudi Arabia, this attack was a blunder.
When you further realize that Soleimani was there at Trump’s behest with Iraqi Prime Minister Mahdi as broker, this attack looks like patently insane.
Last resolution: -A complaint to UN for #US target assassinations in #Iraq
-Impose on the gov to terminate the request of support from the interntnll coalition (all countries)
-End presence of ALL foreign forces and to prevent any country from using Iraq against another country pic.twitter.com/r5OTtZUs6d — Elijah J. Magnier (@ejmalrai) January 5, 2020
Soleimani was in Baghdad to begin the peace process, again, at Trump’s request. He was uniquely positioned within the Iranian government to handle said negotiations because of his position as head of the IRGC Quds Forces.
If he brought these terms to the table, the militias and proxies he trained and tacitly commands would take them far more seriously than if they were brought by President Hassan Rouhani. Rouhani represents, to them, the failed diplomacy that led to the current crisis, thinking the U.S. would honor their deals.
So, the meeting between Soleimani and the Iraqi Prime Minister would have been a major opportunity for peace.
But as we know, the U.S. is Not Agreement Capable, in the words of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Remember what both Vladimir Putin and his foreign minister Sergei Lavrov have said about the U.S. It is ‘not agreement capable.’ Any deal made with the U.S. government or military will be broken at the earliest possible opportunity to further its goals.
So, now the question is why did this happen? What’s the rationale here?
A New York Times article detailed the situation in the White House in the days leading up to Trump’s decision. It reads like a Pentagon whitewash of its role in creating the atmosphere which led to Soleimani’s death.
It paints the picture of a president sinking into madness as the ‘attacks’ on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad unfolded.
It tries to deflect all the blame onto Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence were two of the most hawkish voices arguing for a response to Iranian aggression, according to administration officials. Mr. Pence’s office helped run herd on meetings and conference calls held by officials in the run-up to the strike. Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and General Milley declined to comment for this article, but General Milley’s spokeswoman, Col. DeDe Halfhill, said, without elaborating, that “some of the characterizations being asserted by other sources are false” and that she would not discuss conversations between General Milley and the president.
But the big takeaway from this article isn’t just that the Pentagon is looking to deflect blame from Defense Secretary Mark Esper and CIA Director Gina Haspel onto Trump.
The big takeaway from this article is the Pompeo/Pence narrative of Soleimani was imminently primed to attack U.S. diplomatic targets was complete fiction.
Unwritten by the Times but lurking between the words is who was really behind this narrative, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It’s clear over the past six months Netanyahu couldn’t accept the idea of peace breaking out around him. He consistently pushed the envelope of Israel’s belligerence into Iraq over the opening of the Iraq/Syria border crossing.
Now the Saudis were wavering? This cannot stand. War with Iran must happen.
This is the most likely scenario that pushed Trump into this action with Pompeo, Esper and Haspel feeding him a steady diet of, at best, misleading information. Trump then does what Trump does best when the game gets too hard to figure out.
He filps the table.
Netanyahu worked so hard to manipulate events and people to get to that point. He needs a win back home to show voters he is the man to bring Israel salvation through the studious application of American exceptionalism.
Now, that he’s done so, he is abandoning Trump after pushing him into the pit.
BREAKING: Netanyahu told security cabinet that Israel wasn’t involved in the killing of Soleimani and stressed “it is a U.S. event and we should stay out of it”, according to 2 cabinet ministers who attended the meeting — Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) January 6, 2020
So, given all of this, is anyone surprised the leadership in Europe isn’t happy here? They were instrumental in getting Iran to the table to agree to the JCPOA, which Israel was livid about.
It was in everyone’s interest for the deal to work, especially Iran’s.
Iran got sanctions relief and much-needed investment. Its heavy water reactor became a strong source of revenue. Europe got access to cheap Iranian oil and gas through that investment, securing its energy needs.
Moreover, with the deal in place, the undoing of the U.S./Israeli/Saudi plan to atomize Syria by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah ended the flow of refugees into Europe and began stabilizing the region.
That only happens because of the JCPOA.
Trump’s entire foreign policy is based on antagonizing everyone and subjugating them through dollar weaponization and energy dominance. That’s been his modus operandi.
He aligned himself with Israeli interests from the outset because 1) he wanted to and 2) it was the path of least resistance for him to stay in power.
At every critical juncture of his presidency Trump has knuckled under to the neocons in his office.
The biggest effect of killing Soleimani isn’t Iran’s response or even Iraq’s. Yes, they will impose costs which will change the geopolitical game board. How? We don’t know.
What we do know is this big effect; the realization that everyone around the world is thinking, “Are we next?” So far Trump has accepted no limits on who he will attack with sanctions. There is no rule he’s willing to breach.
The neocons in the Senate now have the ultimate leverage over him — Pelosi’s sham impeachment. The half-men in the Senate like Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio have been at full mast so long thanks to Trump’s bombing they need to see a doctor.
They got him to kill Soleimani, ensuring there will be no peace with Iran.
They’ve begun the upward escalation of tensions which likely ends with an airstrike on Iran’s Fordow Nuclear Facility.
IRAN WILL NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 6, 2020
If you don’t think that’s what that tweet means, then have either your eyes or your reading comprehension checked.
Many of Trump’s tweets are nonsense, bluff and bluster to misdirect and/or stir the pot. This has been a clear message he’s sent since the campaign trail.
And this attack on Soleimani was the next step in that process. He’s hoping it brings Iran to the bargaining table.
But it won’t.
And that’s why this only ends with bombing Fordow.
The Israelis and neocons have used Trump’s animus towards Obama and Europe to try to subjugate them as well. It’s not that Europe is praiseworthy or anything. The EU leadership deserves their comeuppance for trying to build an Empire to replace the U.S.
But regardless of whether the EU sucks or not, this incident is your point of no return in U.S./European relations. They have no choice but to slowly back away from the insane man in the White House and break bread with the sober one in the Kremlin.
Angela Merkel already arranged a meeting with Putin for next week.
This has cost the U.S. whatever moral status it has with the rest of the world. It stands alone now.
The only deals Trump will get from here on out are ones that don’t matter. He’s set the U.S. squarely on the path to its own destruction as the world realizes the cost of doing business in the dollar just rose immensely.
I’ve been looking for that moment where Europe makes the decision to move out of the U.S.’s orbit and into Russia’s. Their silence tells me this was it.
For more of my thoughts on this subject and why Europe will abandon Trump and the U.S. listen to my latest Podcast here.
Reprinted with permission from Gold Goats ‘n Guns.
The Best of Tom Luongo


Gratitude

The concept of gratitude has been on my mind .
Somewhat late in life I have been truly blessed with a wonderful life in France .
My lovely French wife is a television journalist/documentarist .
I am voluntarily swept into the wake of her work on projects that have recently taken her to Tahiti , to Africa , and all around France .
We have a lovely , healthy daughter who is funny and intelligent .
A few years ago I was skiing with her in the Alps .
I was a nerdy kid from Chicago .
I never touched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be skiing…in the Alps…with my French daughter !
!
!
Well , it was too much to believe .
Her existence is a miracle for me and my wife .
We have bought a house in Burgundy with a view into a little valley full of grapevines and a Medival castle .
I pinch myself to think that I have the life of George Clooney .
I have gratitude , gratitude , and more gratitude for my good fortune .
As an old and old fashioned father with an adolescent daughter , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a lack of gratitude for our wonderful life .
I realize that there is something called adolescent psychology , and these moments of disquietude are merely part of a phase in her development .
Nonetheless , I can ’ t help but note them .
Just after Christmas , I was in this house in the mountainous region of central France called the Massif Central .
It is owned by a childhood friend of my wife near her home town of Roanne .
When we arrived the power had gone out .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and candles were added as the bit of winter light faded out .
But after 4 hours without power we had a growing concern about how to cook dinner ( the oven is electric ) , heating the whole house ( the boiler has electrical controls ) and a lack of batteries for the flashlights .
Then , sudden as these events are , the power came back on .
We were so grateful that we popped open a bottle of champagne .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have for living in a society where the electricity is so well delivered ( more than likely nuclear-generated in France ) .
Certainly , I recognize there are many very troubling trends in the world that are well documented on LRC .
I have none of the optimism of a Steven Pinker , who I have a hard time taking seriously , if only because of his hair .
I do what I can to cope with the inherent risks we are all facing ( e.g.
, by holding physical gold ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have gratitude for so much that is still good in this life .
As I was sipping my champagne , these thoughts coalesced on poor Greta Thunberg who is so sad and angry .
I could only sense pure hatred in her UN speech as she cited statistics she clearly does not understand .
With my daughter in mind , I also recalled Dave Collum ’ s line in his 2019 Year in Review , “ Who in their right mind would turn to teenagers for wisdom on globally important geopolitical topics ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the sheltered first-world life she enjoys .
For her , there are no choices to be made , no unintended consequences are possible , no uncertainty in modeling complex physics , economics or political action .
Imagine if she ever gained political power .
I have nothing profound to offer in this short essay only an appeal to my fellow libertarians not to lose our gratitude for family , friends , and the blessings of civilization even as they are under grave attack .
The Best of Ira Katz

The concept of gratitude has been on my mind. Somewhat late in life I have been truly blessed with a wonderful life in France. My lovely French wife is a television journalist/documentarist. I am voluntarily swept into the wake of her work on projects that have recently taken her to Tahiti, to Africa, and all around France. We have a lovely, healthy daughter who is funny and intelligent. A few years ago I was skiing with her in the Alps. I was a nerdy kid from Chicago. I never touched a ski until my mid-twenties. To be skiing…in the Alps…with my French daughter!!! Well, it was too much to believe. Her existence is a miracle for me and my wife. We have bought a house in Burgundy with a view into a little valley full of grapevines and a Medival castle. I pinch myself to think that I have the life of George Clooney. I have gratitude, gratitude, and more gratitude for my good fortune.
As an old and old fashioned father with an adolescent daughter, it is troubling to sometimes see that she has a lack of gratitude for our wonderful life. I realize that there is something called adolescent psychology, and these moments of disquietude are merely part of a phase in her development. Nonetheless, I can’t help but note them.
Just after Christmas, I was in this house in the mountainous region of central France called the Massif Central. It is owned by a childhood friend of my wife near her home town of Roanne.
When we arrived the power had gone out. There was already a warm fire going and candles were added as the bit of winter light faded out. But after 4 hours without power we had a growing concern about how to cook dinner (the oven is electric), heating the whole house (the boiler has electrical controls) and a lack of batteries for the flashlights. Then, sudden as these events are, the power came back on. We were so grateful that we popped open a bottle of champagne. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
My thoughts wandered to the gratitude we should have for living in a society where the electricity is so well delivered (more than likely nuclear-generated in France). Certainly, I recognize there are many very troubling trends in the world that are well documented on LRC. I have none of the optimism of a Steven Pinker, who I have a hard time taking seriously, if only because of his hair. I do what I can to cope with the inherent risks we are all facing (e.g., by holding physical gold). However, it is also important to have gratitude for so much that is still good in this life.
As I was sipping my champagne, these thoughts coalesced on poor Greta Thunberg who is so sad and angry. I could only sense pure hatred in her UN speech as she cited statistics she clearly does not understand. With my daughter in mind, I also recalled Dave Collum’s line in his 2019 Year in Review, “Who in their right mind would turn to teenagers for wisdom on globally important geopolitical topics?”. Greta shows no gratitude whatever for the sheltered first-world life she enjoys. For her, there are no choices to be made, no unintended consequences are possible, no uncertainty in modeling complex physics, economics or political action. Imagine if she ever gained political power.
I have nothing profound to offer in this short essay only an appeal to my fellow libertarians not to lose our gratitude for family, friends, and the blessings of civilization even as they are under grave attack.
The Best of Ira Katz


Afghanistan Papers

Unfortunately , the blockbuster report known as the Afghanistan Papers has not received nearly as much coverage by most of the national news media as it deserved .
Overshadowed by impeachment news and perhaps a touch of professional media jealousy , most people outside the readership of the Washington Post have read little of this shocking report .
The Post story said , “ U.S .
officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign , making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Afghanistan Reconstruction , said , “ The American people have constantly been lied to.
” Sopko headed the agency which conducted more than 400 interviews in a side project called “ Lessons Learned ” which began in 2014 .
He should be considered as an American hero for his work .
And while I seldom agree with the Washington Post , the Paper should be commended for its three-year legal battle to win release of his interviews .
War is a Racket : The A ... Smedley Darlington Butler Best Price : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is sad that some at the top of the federal government fought so long and hard to keep the 2,000 pages of Sopko ’ s interviews secret .
His report is filled with quotes like that of Gen. Douglas Lute : “ We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan – We didn ’ t know what we were doing.
” He was the White House Afghan war czar during parts of both the Bush and Obama Administrations .
Or Jeffrey Eggers , a Navy Seal and White House staffer under both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably laughing in his grave considering how much we have spent on Afghanistan.
” The costs have been staggering : Almost 2400 U.S. soldiers killed , or 20,000 wounded , and at least $ 1 trillion spent thus far , although the costs will go up for years in payments to those who were maimed or disabled .
My opposition to the war in Iraq was well-publicized .
Not nearly as well-known was my longtime opposition to dragging out the war in Afghanistan and my support for bringing home our troops years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform , on which I served , and once met privately with me and Congressman Walter Jones in Jones ’ office to thank us for how we were speaking out on Afghanistan .
On Nov. 1 , 2017 , Sopko appeared before the National Security Subcommittee , of which I was a member .
At that hearing , in response to a question , he said the “ security situation has deteriorated dramatically ” in the then almost six years he had served there .
The report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousands of ‘ ghost ’ soldiers and police ” on U.S. payrolls , “ nearly a half billion dollars wasted ” on planes bought second-hand from Italy that were later scrapped for pennies on the dollar , $ 28 million on uniforms with the wrong camouflage for Afghanistan , and on and on .
At that hearing , I read into the record this paragraph from the September 4 , 2017 New York Times International Edition : “ When the American author James Michener went to Afghanistan to research his work of historical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and there were barely any roads in the Country .
Yet there were already Americans and Russians there jockeying for influence .
Later , the book ’ s Afghan protagonist would tell an American diplomat that one day both America and Russia would invade Afghanistan and both would come to regret it.
” I was proud of my own military service , in which I did nothing heroic but did rise through the ranks from low-enlisted to Captain .
However , now very few in Congress and at high levels of recent administrations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because they have not served , they seem to be afraid that someone will question their patriotism if they do not give the military everything it wants .
However , most of our recent wars and deployments have been far more about money and power than they have been about any real threat to this Country .
I wish more people would remember ( or read for the first time ) these words by William F. Buckley , Jr. , about Iraq but which apply just as well to Afghanistan : “ A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States is engendered by our own success in engagements in which we take part .
A point is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfastness of purpose but misapplication of pride .
”

Unfortunately, the blockbuster report known as the Afghanistan Papers has not received nearly as much coverage by most of the national news media as it deserved.
Overshadowed by impeachment news and perhaps a touch of professional media jealousy, most people outside the readership of the Washington Post have read little of this shocking report.
The Post story said, “U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.”
John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, said, “The American people have constantly been lied to.”
Sopko headed the agency which conducted more than 400 interviews in a side project called “Lessons Learned” which began in 2014. He should be considered as an American hero for his work.
And while I seldom agree with the Washington Post, the Paper should be commended for its three-year legal battle to win release of his interviews. War is a Racket: The A... Smedley Darlington Butler Best Price: $6.45 Buy New $3.79 (as of 03:45 UTC - Details)
It is sad that some at the top of the federal government fought so long and hard to keep the 2,000 pages of Sopko’s interviews secret.
His report is filled with quotes like that of Gen. Douglas Lute: “We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan – We didn’t know what we were doing.” He was the White House Afghan war czar during parts of both the Bush and Obama Administrations.
Or Jeffrey Eggers, a Navy Seal and White House staffer under both Bush and Obama: “Osama was probably laughing in his grave considering how much we have spent on Afghanistan.”
The costs have been staggering: Almost 2400 U.S. soldiers killed, or 20,000 wounded, and at least $1 trillion spent thus far, although the costs will go up for years in payments to those who were maimed or disabled.
My opposition to the war in Iraq was well-publicized. Not nearly as well-known was my longtime opposition to dragging out the war in Afghanistan and my support for bringing home our troops years ago.
Mr. Sopko appeared seven times before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, on which I served, and once met privately with me and Congressman Walter Jones in Jones’ office to thank us for how we were speaking out on Afghanistan.
On Nov. 1, 2017, Sopko appeared before the National Security Subcommittee, of which I was a member. At that hearing, in response to a question, he said the “security situation has deteriorated dramatically” in the then almost six years he had served there.
The report attached to his testimony told of “thousands of ‘ghost’ soldiers and police” on U.S. payrolls, “nearly a half billion dollars wasted” on planes bought second-hand from Italy that were later scrapped for pennies on the dollar, $28 million on uniforms with the wrong camouflage for Afghanistan, and on and on.
At that hearing, I read into the record this paragraph from the September 4, 2017 New York Times International Edition:
“When the American author James Michener went to Afghanistan to research his work of historical fiction, Caravans, it was 1955 and there were barely any roads in the Country. Yet there were already Americans and Russians there jockeying for influence. Later, the book’s Afghan protagonist would tell an American diplomat that one day both America and Russia would invade Afghanistan and both would come to regret it.”
I was proud of my own military service, in which I did nothing heroic but did rise through the ranks from low-enlisted to Captain.
However, now very few in Congress and at high levels of recent administrations have ever served in our military. Because they have not served, they seem to be afraid that someone will question their patriotism if they do not give the military everything it wants.
However, most of our recent wars and deployments have been far more about money and power than they have been about any real threat to this Country.
I wish more people would remember (or read for the first time) these words by William F. Buckley, Jr., about Iraq but which apply just as well to Afghanistan:
“A respect for the power of the United States is engendered by our own success in engagements in which we take part. A point is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfastness of purpose but misapplication of pride.”


The New Racism

A voter may dislike a black , homosexual or female candidate , but it ’ s not likely that he would openly admit it .
However , diversity-crazed leftist/progressive Democrats have openly condemned the physical characteristics of some of their 2020 presidential candidates .
Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are be leading the polls despite the fact that they have been condemned as old white men .
While Pete Buttigieg is homosexual , something that pleases diversity crazies , he is also a white man , young and religious .
With Kamala Harris ’ departure from the race , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persons of color .
Another , Senator Cory Booker , stands at 2 % in the polls ; his days are numbered .
That means the only Democratic candidates polling high are those condemned as old white people — two men and one woman , Elizabeth Warren .
LaTosha Brown , the co-founder of Black Voters Matter , said she was initially eager for Joe Biden to enter the race but now has second thoughts .
Brown said : “ I ’ m over white men running the country .
I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting in changes the field .
He has name recognition , but his strength is also his weakness.
” Former presidential candidate Howard Dean lamented , “ If we have two old white guys at the top of this ticket , we will lose.
” The newest entry into the presidential sweepstakes , Michael Bloomberg , had to apologize for what some see as his diversity insensitiveness namely that of calling fellow presidential candidate Cory Booker “ well-spoken ” in a TV interview .
The New Jersey senator said he was “ taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg ’ s racist “ trope.
” American Contempt for ... Walter E. Williams Best Price : $ 6.81 Buy New $ 13.08 Michael Moore gave us his racist warning : “ Two-thirds of all white guys voted for Trump .
That means anytime you see three white guys walking at you , down the street toward you , two of them voted for Trump .
You need to move over to the other sidewalk because these are not good people that are walking toward you .
You should be afraid of them.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ much of it learned and taught at our nation ’ s colleges .
George Orwell said , “ Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.
” The stupid ideas about inclusion and diversity originate with academics on college campuses .
If their ideas didn ’ t infect the rest of society , they might be a source of entertainment .
But these cancerous ideas have infected society .
Statements such as “ I ’ m over white men running the country , ” or “ If we have two old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ticket , we will lose ” are examples of that cancer .
Last year , Philip Carl Salzman wrote “ The War Against White People ” in Minding the Campus .
He declared : “ Anti-white hate is now mainstream American culture .
Not just by racial extremists such as Black Lives Matter , for whom statements such as “ all lives matter ” or “ blue lives matter ” are racist .
Our highest leaders sing the same song.
” When Barack Obama was campaigning for the presidency in 2008 , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They get bitter , they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren ’ t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
” During the 2016 presidential campaign , candidate Hillary Clinton claimed that half of Donald Trump ’ s supporters were “ a basket of deplorables ” who were “ racist , sexist , homophobic , xenophobic , Islamophobic — you name it.
” Do you think Clinton was talking about Trump ’ s black , Asian and Hispanic supporters ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump ’ s white supporters .
Then there ’ s Sarah Jeong , a member of The New York Times editorial board and graduate of the University of California , Berkeley , and Harvard Law School .
She expressed publicly many anti-white opinions .
Among them are : “ The world could get by just fine with zero white people.
” “ Dumbass f—-ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.
” It ’ s “ kind of sick how much joy I get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men.
” I guarantee you that The New York Times would have fired any employee making similar statements about black , Hispanic or homosexual people .
The bottom line is that the new racism , born in academia , is just as ugly as the old racism .
The Best of Walter E. Williams

A voter may dislike a black, homosexual or female candidate, but it’s not likely that he would openly admit it. However, diversity-crazed leftist/progressive Democrats have openly condemned the physical characteristics of some of their 2020 presidential candidates. Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are leading the polls despite the fact that they have been condemned as old white men. While Pete Buttigieg is homosexual, something that pleases diversity crazies, he is also a white man, young and religious. With Kamala Harris’ departure from the race, the Democratic field has lost one of its persons of color. Another, Senator Cory Booker, stands at 2% in the polls; his days are numbered. That means the only Democratic candidates polling high are those condemned as old white people — two men and one woman, Elizabeth Warren.
LaTosha Brown, the co-founder of Black Voters Matter, said she was initially eager for Joe Biden to enter the race but now has second thoughts. Brown said: “I’m over white men running the country. I don’t know if him (sic) getting in changes the field. He has name recognition, but his strength is also his weakness.” Former presidential candidate Howard Dean lamented, “If we have two old white guys at the top of this ticket, we will lose.” The newest entry into the presidential sweepstakes, Michael Bloomberg, had to apologize for what some see as his diversity insensitiveness namely that of calling fellow presidential candidate Cory Booker “well-spoken” in a TV interview. The New Jersey senator said he was “taken aback” by what he saw as Bloomberg’s racist “trope.”
American Contempt for ... Williams, Walter E. Best Price: $14.29 Buy New $11.75 (as of 02:30 UTC - Details) Michael Moore gave us his racist warning: “Two-thirds of all white guys voted for Trump. That means anytime you see three white guys walking at you, down the street toward you, two of them voted for Trump. You need to move over to the other sidewalk because these are not good people that are walking toward you. You should be afraid of them.”
This is the new racism, much of it learned and taught at our nation’s colleges. George Orwell said, “Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” The stupid ideas about inclusion and diversity originate with academics on college campuses. If their ideas didn’t infect the rest of society, they might be a source of entertainment. But these cancerous ideas have infected society. Statements such as “I’m over white men running the country,” or “If we have two old white guys at the top of this ticket, we will lose” are examples of that cancer.
Last year, Philip Carl Salzman wrote “The War Against White People” in Minding the Campus. He declared: “Anti-white hate is now mainstream American culture. Not just by racial extremists such as Black Lives Matter, for whom statements such as “all lives matter” or “blue lives matter” are racist. Our highest leaders sing the same song.”
When Barack Obama was campaigning for the presidency in 2008, he said of working-class white voters, “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” During the 2016 presidential campaign, candidate Hillary Clinton claimed that half of Donald Trump’s supporters were “a basket of deplorables” who were “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.” Do you think Clinton was talking about Trump’s black, Asian and Hispanic supporters? No, she was talking about millions of Trump’s white supporters.
Then there’s Sarah Jeong, a member of The New York Times editorial board and graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, and Harvard Law School. She expressed publicly many anti-white opinions. Among them are: “The world could get by just fine with zero white people.” “Dumbass f—-ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.” It’s “kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” I guarantee you that The New York Times would have fired any employee making similar statements about black, Hispanic or homosexual people.
The bottom line is that the new racism, born in academia, is just as ugly as the old racism.
The Best of Walter E. Williams


An Empire Self-Destructs

Empires are built through the creation or acquisition of wealth .
The Roman Empire came about through the productivity of its people and its subsequent acquisition of wealth from those that it invaded .
The Spanish Empire began with productivity and expanded through the use of its large armada of ships , looting the New World of its gold .
The British Empire began through localized productivity and grew through its creation of colonies worldwide—colonies that it exploited , bringing the wealth back to England to make it the wealthiest country in the world .
In the Victorian Age , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ There will always be an England , ” and “ The sun never sets on the British Empire.
” So , where did we go wrong ?
Why are we no longer the world ’ s foremost empire ?
Why have we lost not only the majority of our colonies , but also the majority of our wealth ?
Well , first , let ’ s take a peek back at the other aforementioned empires and see how they fared .
Rome was arguably the greatest empire the world has ever seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went to other parts of the world , subjugating them and seizing the wealth that they had built up over generations .
And as long as there were further conquerable lands just over the next hill , this approach was very effective .
However , once Rome faced diminishing returns on new lands to conquer , it became evident that those lands it had conquered had to be maintained and defended , even though there was little further wealth that could be confiscated .
Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buy New $ 8.00 The conquered lands needed costly militaries and bureaucracies in place to keep them subjugated but were no longer paying for themselves .
The “ colonies ” were running at a loss .
Meanwhile , Rome itself had become very spoiled .
Its politicians kept promising more in the way of “ bread and circuses ” to the voters , in order to maintain their political office .
So , the coffers were being drained by both the colonies and at home .
Finally , in a bid to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entered into highly expensive wars .
This was the final economic crippler and the empire self-destructed .
Spain was a highly productive nation that attacked its neighbours successfully and built up its wealth , then became far wealthier when it sailed west , raiding the Americas of the silver and gold that they had spent hundreds of years accumulating .
The sudden addition of this wealth allowed the Spanish kings to be lavish to the people and , as in Rome , the Spanish became very spoiled indeed .
But once the gold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the New World was down to a trickle , the funding for maintaining the empire began to dry up .
Worse , old enemies from Europe were knocking at the door , hoping to even old scores .
In a bid to retain the empire , the king entered into extensive warfare in Europe , rapidly draining the royal purse and , like Rome , the Spanish Empire self-destructed .
In the Victorian era , the British Empire was unmatched in the world .
It entered the industrial revolution and was highly productive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wealth from its colonies in the form of mining , farming and industry .
But , like other countries in Europe , it dove into World War I quickly and , since warfare always diminishes productivity at home whilst it demands major expense abroad , the British Empire was knocked down to one knee by the end of the war .
Then , in 1939 , the game was afoot again and Britain was drawn into a second world war .
By the end of the war , it could still be said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but its wealth had been drained off and , one by one , its colonies jumped ship .
The days of empire were gone .
Into the breach stepped the US .
At the beginning of World War I , the US took no part in the fighting , but , as it had experienced its own industrial revolution , it supplied goods , food , and armaments to Britain and her allies .
Because the pound and other European currencies could not be trusted not to inflate , payment was made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US was expanding its productivity into a guaranteed market , selling at top dollar , using the profits to create larger , more efficient factories , and getting paid in gold .
Then , in 1939 , it all happened again .
Although the US eventually joined both wars , they did so much later than Britain and her allies .
At the end of World War II , the US had a lively young workforce , as they had lost fewer men to the war .
They also had modern factories , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nations , that could now be used to produce peacetime goods for themselves and the rest of the world more efficiently than anyone else .
And ( and this is a very big “ and ” ) by 1945 they owned or controlled three quarters of the world ’ s gold , as they ’ d drained it away from the warring nations in the early days of the war .
This allowed the US to invite the post-war leaders to Bretton Woods to explain that , as the holders of the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dictate what the world ’ s default currency would be : the dollar .
But this was all threatened by the fact that , when the now-poorer nations of the world sold their goods to the US , they , too , beginning with the French , wished to be paid in gold .
And so , in the subsequent years , the gold in Fort Knox was beginning to travel back to the east , from whence it had come in previous years .
In 1971 , this flow was shut off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foremost empire , had the power to simply remove all intrinsic value from the dollar and turn it into a fiat currency .
Payment in gold ended .
Fast-forward to the post-millennium era and we see that America , like the previous empires , ended its acquisition of gold after World War II , yet its people became spoiled by political leaders who promised ever-increasing bread and circuses .
The productivity that led to its initial strength was dying off , and it was spending more than it was bringing in .
Finally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through warfare , thereby creating a dramatic drain to its wealth .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 Like other empires before it , the US is now on the verge of relinquishing the crown of empire .
If there ’ s any difference this time around , it ’ s that its collapse will very likely be far more spectacular than that of previous empires .
However , just as in previous collapses , those who least understand that the collapse is around the corner are those who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the majority of Americans are worried about their future yet can not conceive of their country as a second-rate power .
And those who hold the reins of that power tend to be the most deluded , delving ever-deeper into debt at an ever-faster rate , whilst expanding welfare and warfare without any concept of how it might all be paid for .
It ’ s understandable , therefore , that those of us who are on the outside looking in find it easier to observe objectively from afar and see the coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stated in the first line of this essay , “ empires are built through the creation or acquisition of wealth.
” They tend to end through the gradual elimination of the free-market system , the metamorphosis to a welfare state , and , finally , through the destruction of wealth through costly warfare .
Does this indicate the “ end of the world ” ?
Not at all .
The world did not end with the fall of Rome , Spain , England , or any one of the many other empires .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ different geographical location—one that encourages free-market opportunity .
The wealth moved with them , then grew , as the free market allowed productive people to make it grow .
Freedom and opportunity still exist and indeed flourish .
All that ’ s changing is the locations where they are to be found .

Empires are built through the creation or acquisition of wealth. The Roman Empire came about through the productivity of its people and its subsequent acquisition of wealth from those that it invaded. The Spanish Empire began with productivity and expanded through the use of its large armada of ships, looting the New World of its gold. The British Empire began through localized productivity and grew through its creation of colonies worldwide—colonies that it exploited, bringing the wealth back to England to make it the wealthiest country in the world.
In the Victorian Age, we Brits were proud to say, “There will always be an England,” and “The sun never sets on the British Empire.” So, where did we go wrong? Why are we no longer the world’s foremost empire? Why have we lost not only the majority of our colonies, but also the majority of our wealth?
Well, first, let’s take a peek back at the other aforementioned empires and see how they fared. Rome was arguably the greatest empire the world has ever seen. Industrious Romans organized large armies that went to other parts of the world, subjugating them and seizing the wealth that they had built up over generations. And as long as there were further conquerable lands just over the next hill, this approach was very effective. However, once Rome faced diminishing returns on new lands to conquer, it became evident that those lands it had conquered had to be maintained and defended, even though there was little further wealth that could be confiscated. Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
The conquered lands needed costly militaries and bureaucracies in place to keep them subjugated but were no longer paying for themselves. The “colonies” were running at a loss. Meanwhile, Rome itself had become very spoiled. Its politicians kept promising more in the way of “bread and circuses” to the voters, in order to maintain their political office. So, the coffers were being drained by both the colonies and at home. Finally, in a bid to keep from losing their power, Roman leaders entered into highly expensive wars. This was the final economic crippler and the empire self-destructed.
Spain was a highly productive nation that attacked its neighbours successfully and built up its wealth, then became far wealthier when it sailed west, raiding the Americas of the silver and gold that they had spent hundreds of years accumulating. The sudden addition of this wealth allowed the Spanish kings to be lavish to the people and, as in Rome, the Spanish became very spoiled indeed. But once the gold and silver that was coming out of the New World was down to a trickle, the funding for maintaining the empire began to dry up. Worse, old enemies from Europe were knocking at the door, hoping to even old scores. In a bid to retain the empire, the king entered into extensive warfare in Europe, rapidly draining the royal purse and, like Rome, the Spanish Empire self-destructed.
In the Victorian era, the British Empire was unmatched in the world. It entered the industrial revolution and was highly productive. In addition, it was pulling wealth from its colonies in the form of mining, farming and industry. But, like other countries in Europe, it dove into World War I quickly and, since warfare always diminishes productivity at home whilst it demands major expense abroad, the British Empire was knocked down to one knee by the end of the war.
Then, in 1939, the game was afoot again and Britain was drawn into a second world war. By the end of the war, it could still be said that there would always be an England, but its wealth had been drained off and, one by one, its colonies jumped ship. The days of empire were gone.
Into the breach stepped the US. At the beginning of World War I, the US took no part in the fighting, but, as it had experienced its own industrial revolution, it supplied goods, food, and armaments to Britain and her allies. Because the pound and other European currencies could not be trusted not to inflate, payment was made in gold and silver. So the US was expanding its productivity into a guaranteed market, selling at top dollar, using the profits to create larger, more efficient factories, and getting paid in gold.
Then, in 1939, it all happened again. Although the US eventually joined both wars, they did so much later than Britain and her allies. At the end of World War II, the US had a lively young workforce, as they had lost fewer men to the war. They also had modern factories, which had been paid for by other nations, that could now be used to produce peacetime goods for themselves and the rest of the world more efficiently than anyone else.
And (and this is a very big “and”) by 1945 they owned or controlled three quarters of the world’s gold, as they’d drained it away from the warring nations in the early days of the war. This allowed the US to invite the post-war leaders to Bretton Woods to explain that, as the holders of the world’s wealth, they’d dictate what the world’s default currency would be: the dollar.
But this was all threatened by the fact that, when the now-poorer nations of the world sold their goods to the US, they, too, beginning with the French, wished to be paid in gold.
And so, in the subsequent years, the gold in Fort Knox was beginning to travel back to the east, from whence it had come in previous years. In 1971, this flow was shut off, as the US, still the foremost empire, had the power to simply remove all intrinsic value from the dollar and turn it into a fiat currency. Payment in gold ended.
Fast-forward to the post-millennium era and we see that America, like the previous empires, ended its acquisition of gold after World War II, yet its people became spoiled by political leaders who promised ever-increasing bread and circuses. The productivity that led to its initial strength was dying off, and it was spending more than it was bringing in. Finally, it sought to maintain its hegemony through warfare, thereby creating a dramatic drain to its wealth. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
Like other empires before it, the US is now on the verge of relinquishing the crown of empire. If there’s any difference this time around, it’s that its collapse will very likely be far more spectacular than that of previous empires. However, just as in previous collapses, those who least understand that the collapse is around the corner are those who are closest to its centre. Clearly, the majority of Americans are worried about their future yet cannot conceive of their country as a second-rate power. And those who hold the reins of that power tend to be the most deluded, delving ever-deeper into debt at an ever-faster rate, whilst expanding welfare and warfare without any concept of how it might all be paid for.
It’s understandable, therefore, that those of us who are on the outside looking in find it easier to observe objectively from afar and see the coming self-destruction of yet another empire.
As stated in the first line of this essay, “empires are built through the creation or acquisition of wealth.” They tend to end through the gradual elimination of the free-market system, the metamorphosis to a welfare state, and, finally, through the destruction of wealth through costly warfare.
Does this indicate the “end of the world”? Not at all. The world did not end with the fall of Rome, Spain, England, or any one of the many other empires. The productive people simply moved to a different geographical location—one that encourages free-market opportunity. The wealth moved with them, then grew, as the free market allowed productive people to make it grow.
Freedom and opportunity still exist and indeed flourish. All that’s changing is the locations where they are to be found.
Reprinted with permission from International Man.


lewrockwell--2020-01-08--Baghdad Wants Us Out. Let’s Go!

Baghdad Wants Us Out. Let’s Go!

Fifteen years after the U.S. invaded Iraq to turn Saddam Hussein ’ s dictatorship into a beacon of democracy , Iraq ’ s Parliament , amid shouts of “ Death to America !
” voted to expel all U.S. troops from the country .
Though nonbinding , the expulsion vote came after mobs trashed the U.S. embassy in an assault that recalled Tehran 1979 .
What provoked Iraq ’ s Parliament into demanding the ouster of all U.S. troops ?
First , the five December U.S. strikes on Iraq ’ s Popular Mobilization Forces in retaliation for a dozen Kataib @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which killed a contractor and wounded four U.S. soldiers .
Then came President Donald Trump ’ s decision to launch a drone-strike and kill Iranian General Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport .
Killed in the same strike was the Shiite Iraqi leader of Kataib Hezbollah .
During his return flight to Washington Sunday , Trump warned Iraq : Follow through on your demand that all U.S. troops get out , and we will insist that Baghdad repay the money we just spent on a major air base .
The Death of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amazon for Pricing .
Moreover , said Trump , if Iraqis expel U.S. troops , then we will impose upon them “ sanctions like they ’ ve never seen before , ever .
It ’ ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame.
” Where do we stand now in Iraq ?
Though Sunnis and Kurds abstained , the Iraqi parliament has voted to expel all our troops .
The State Department has urged U.S. civilians to flee Iraq .
82nd Airborne units have moved into the region to protect the U.S. embassy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have separated themselves and stood down .
In Iraq , the war on terrorism is on hold .
Across the Middle East , U.S. diplomats , soldiers and civilians are on alert .
The acting prime minister of Iraq , in an echo of Tehran and radical Shiites , is demanding that all 5,200 U.S. soldiers in Iraq depart .
How can our troops , detested by the PMF militias and their thousands of fighters , unwanted by the Iraqi Parliament majority , the acting prime minister , and much of the Shiite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city of Baghdad or the country ?
Two months ago , crowds were in the streets of Iraq protesting Iran ’ s dominance of their politics .
Crowds were in the streets of Iran cursing that regime for squandering the nation ’ s resources on imperial adventures in Iraq , Syria , Lebanon , Yemen .
Things were going America ’ s way .
Now it is the Americans who are the targets of protests .
Over three days , crowds numbering in the hundreds of thousands and even millions have packed Iraqi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tribute to Soleimani and to curse the Americans who killed him .
As emotions are running high and America ’ s friends in the region are mute , the twin goals of Iran and its militia allies appear clear : Tehran wants to avoid a war with the United States , but to direct the passions of the moment toward forcing an expulsion of the Americans from the Middle East , beginning with their ouster from Iraq .
Thus , Tehran has signaled that its retaliation , its revenge for the death of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be proportionate .
Tehran is telegraphing an attack on the U.S. military .
Hassan Nasrallah , the head of Hezbollah in Lebanon , has called on his followers not to attack innocent Americans in the region but to zero in on U.S. military targets .
Oddly , what the America-haters of the Middle East seek is what Soleimani wanted , and what Trump promised in his campaign of 2016 — an end to U.S. involvement in the forever wars of the Middle East .
Perhaps , rather than sending troops into Iraq and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we should accede to the local nationalist demands , start bringing our troops home , and let Iranians , Iraqis , Libyans , Syrians , Yemenis and Afghans settle their quarrels .
Churchill , Hitler , and ... Patrick J. Buchanan Best Price : $ 9.49 Buy New $ 14.35 Despite the rage in Iran over the killing of Soleimani , the political imperatives that existed before last Friday ’ s drone strike remain .
Iran does not want war with the United States .
And Trump wants no war with Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its extrapolation from that truth .
Assuming that because Trump did not want war , he would recoil from a fight , Soleimani believed he could kill Americans with impunity , as long as his fingerprints were not on the murder weapon .
Killing Soleimani was just .
But what is just is not always wise .
Yet , his killing restores Trump ’ s credibility as a Jacksonian who avoids wars but who , wounded , will stab the enemy who cut him .
Trump has a red line .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at American soldiers , the drawing of American blood .
The message the rulers of Iran should have received ?
If they retaliate for Soleimani by killing American soldiers , diplomats or civilians , using either Iranian troops or proxy militias , Trump will retaliate against Iran itself .
Otherwise , “ Come Home , America , ” George McGovern ’ s slogan from the 1972 presidential campaign , has rarely seemed more relevant .
The Best of Patrick J. Buchanan

Shop all books by Pat Buchanan
Fifteen years after the U.S. invaded Iraq to turn Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship into a beacon of democracy, Iraq’s Parliament, amid shouts of “Death to America!” voted to expel all U.S. troops from the country.
Though nonbinding, the expulsion vote came after mobs trashed the U.S. embassy in an assault that recalled Tehran 1979.
What provoked Iraq’s Parliament into demanding the ouster of all U.S. troops?
First, the five December U.S. strikes on Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces in retaliation for a dozen Kataib Hezbollah rocket attacks on U.S. bases, which killed a contractor and wounded four U.S. soldiers.
Then came President Donald Trump’s decision to launch a drone-strike and kill Iranian General Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport. Killed in the same strike was the Shiite Iraqi leader of Kataib Hezbollah.
During his return flight to Washington Sunday, Trump warned Iraq: Follow through on your demand that all U.S. troops get out, and we will insist that Baghdad repay the money we just spent on a major air base.
Moreover, said Trump, if Iraqis expel U.S. troops, then we will impose upon them “sanctions like they’ve never seen before, ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame.”
Where do we stand now in Iraq?
Though Sunnis and Kurds abstained, the Iraqi parliament has voted to expel all our troops. The State Department has urged U.S. civilians to flee Iraq. 82nd Airborne units have moved into the region to protect the U.S. embassy. U.S. troops fighting ISIS alongside Iraqi troops have separated themselves and stood down. In Iraq, the war on terrorism is on hold.
Across the Middle East, U.S. diplomats, soldiers and civilians are on alert. The acting prime minister of Iraq, in an echo of Tehran and radical Shiites, is demanding that all 5,200 U.S. soldiers in Iraq depart.
How can our troops, detested by the PMF militias and their thousands of fighters, unwanted by the Iraqi Parliament majority, the acting prime minister, and much of the Shiite majority, remain safely inside the capital city of Baghdad or the country?
What a difference a presidential decision can make.
Two months ago, crowds were in the streets of Iraq protesting Iran’s dominance of their politics. Crowds were in the streets of Iran cursing that regime for squandering the nation’s resources on imperial adventures in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen. Things were going America’s way.
Now it is the Americans who are the targets of protests.
Over three days, crowds numbering in the hundreds of thousands and even millions have packed Iraqi and Iranian streets and squares to pay tribute to Soleimani and to curse the Americans who killed him.
As emotions are running high and America’s friends in the region are mute, the twin goals of Iran and its militia allies appear clear:
Tehran wants to avoid a war with the United States, but to direct the passions of the moment toward forcing an expulsion of the Americans from the Middle East, beginning with their ouster from Iraq.
Thus, Tehran has signaled that its retaliation, its revenge for the death of Soleimani, a military man, will be proportionate. Tehran is telegraphing an attack on the U.S. military. Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah in Lebanon, has called on his followers not to attack innocent Americans in the region but to zero in on U.S. military targets.
Oddly, what the America-haters of the Middle East seek is what Soleimani wanted, and what Trump promised in his campaign of 2016 — an end to U.S. involvement in the forever wars of the Middle East.
Perhaps, rather than sending troops into Iraq and Kuwait to defend U.S. troops already there, we should accede to the local nationalist demands, start bringing our troops home, and let Iranians, Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Yemenis and Afghans settle their quarrels. Churchill, Hitler, and... Patrick J. Buchanan Best Price: $9.48 Buy New $14.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
Despite the rage in Iran over the killing of Soleimani, the political imperatives that existed before last Friday’s drone strike remain.
Iran does not want war with the United States. And Trump wants no war with Iran.
But Iran made a mistake in its extrapolation from that truth.
Assuming that because Trump did not want war, he would recoil from a fight, Soleimani believed he could kill Americans with impunity, as long as his fingerprints were not on the murder weapon.
Killing Soleimani was just. But what is just is not always wise.
Yet, his killing restores Trump’s credibility as a Jacksonian who avoids wars but who, wounded, will stab the enemy who cut him.
Trump has a red line. It is not shooting at American drones but shooting at American soldiers, the drawing of American blood.
The message the rulers of Iran should have received?
If they retaliate for Soleimani by killing American soldiers, diplomats or civilians, using either Iranian troops or proxy militias, Trump will retaliate against Iran itself.
Otherwise, “Come Home, America,” George McGovern’s slogan from the 1972 presidential campaign, has rarely seemed more relevant.
The Best of Patrick J. Buchanan