The War in Afghanistan: Who Benefited? Who Didn't?

Here's something you likely won't hear from the corporate media. Although we spent 20 years in Afghanistan, we left it largely the same way we found it---backwards, corrupt, and in the hands of the Taliban. So, who benefited and who didn't?

We were told that the ones responsible for 9/11 were in Afghanistan, and the Taliban run government was aiding and abiding them. Well, that was true...to a point. U.S. and Western intelligence identified Osama bin Laden as the mastermind, which was likely. This son of a wealthy and well connected Saudi family had previously "declared war" on the United States, although no one seemed to notice or care.

Al Qaeda launched several attacks on U.S. and Western targets, mostly in Africa and low security targets in Europe such as a disco in Berlin which was frequented by American servicemen and women. When that failed to adequately get our attention, he changed tactics. This time he focused on a high profile target in the United States---the Twin Towers

Bin Laden recruited 15 fellow Saudis, 2 from the UAR, and one each from Lebanon and Egypt for the mission, and sent them off into the belly of "the Great Satan" where our overconfidence became their best weapon. It's also where 2,996 innocent people going about their daily business people died. In their place, a blind and deaf patriotism was born along with about a dozen conspiracy theories (by the way, that just because it's called a "conspiracy theory" doesn't mean it isn't true).

Saved from a failing presidency, George "Dubya" Bush went from an approval rating low somewhere in the subterranean sewers of Washington DC to calls for another face to be added to Mt. Rushmore. In all the vengeful anger and patriotic fever of the moment, we allowed the so-called "Patriot Act" to take hold; a document about as "patriotic" as the Enabling Act of 1933 following the Reichstag Fire (and just as spontaneous too).

Over the next 20 years the United States and its aid dependent allies delivered Hell from above and below. An estimated 243,000 Afghani and Pakistanis died as death was delivered with UPS efficiency from above and below. 70,000 men, women and children died as a direct result. The bad guys lost at least 53,000, but that's only a guess. Apparently "holy warriors" don't keep statistics, or at least make them public.

On the other side, U.S. and coalition forces lost at least 70,600 with about 22,773 wounded. 2,356 of these were America's future. God only knows how many bear scars you can't see.  Of the 70,600 total, 65,596 were part of the Afghan Security Forces, with an additional 16,500 wounded.

By comparisons, Russia lost over 15,000 of its sons and daughters during the course of its 10 year war in Afghanistan with thousands more wounded. Russian military personnel managed to kill an estimated 90,000 Mujahedeen fighters which were heavily supported by the U.S., (it's said this was partly in revenge for Soviet support of the NVA and Viet Cong during the Vietnam War. Knowing the NeoCons, it probably was).

At the same time, over one million Afghan civilians were killed, not including those killed in the subsequent civil war which followed the Soviet withdrawal in 1989 though the takeover by the Taliban in 1996.

Not to be outdone by the Western "crusaders", the Taliban is believed to have destroyed approximately $500 million dollars worth if infrastructure affecting 13 million people in 116 districts. It left 92% of population "food insecure" and some 3 million children facing severe malnutrition. Take that infidels! 

Just since our withdrawal in May 2021, some 400+ has been murdered by the Taliban (is it still "murder" if the Taliban claims it was acting on orders from God? Guess to the dead or their families it doesn't really matter does it?). Of course, there's always the billions in U.S. military equipment left behind which suddenly made the Taliban the fifth largest military in the world. Who should the Taliban thank for that little "gift"?

Ironically, despite the majority of Americans demanding an end to war in Afghanistan (54%) by 2021, nearly half---46%--- now believe the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban's new and improved "We-Say-So" government represents a threat to U.S. national security.  Ah the fickle masses!

Meanwhile, women are being regulated back to their pre-infidel invasion third class status as school for women and girls is cancelled and women are fired from their jobs. Those who own businesses face closure. Those who speak out risk public beatings, acid thrown in their faces, or stoning to death. If only the Taliban could reach the same level of  Iran's enlightenment (sarcasm intended).

What about the American People? Aside for the deaths and injuries whose cost are beyond measure, most don't realize that our 20 year long fiasco in Afghanistan and Iraq was paid for solely on credit. Can you guess who is picking up the tab? 

Best estimates put the damage to U.S. taxpayers at around $2.2 trillion dollars (or $300 million per day). With interest, some estimates put the cost at $6.2 trillion dollars by 2050 (good luck with that Millennials and Gen Z). You might be interested to know that during the Korean War, President Harry Truman temporarily raised the top end tax rate on the rich to 92%. During Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson raised it to 77%. So what did ole "Dubya" do? President George Bush lowered the tax rate on America's richest to 8%.

So, who benefited from the 20 years we spent in Afghanistan? Well, it's hard to say. The Afghani people certainly didn't. They suffered mightily under the Soviet invasion and its nine year occupation. They suffered under the Taliban's occupation.

America's invasion and occupation was almost as bad, except there was a measure of gender equality while we were there.  Women and girls could go to school. They could work, own property, and do other things females get to do in the modern world; you know, like they were ordinary people and stuff

In addition, women and other Afghanis could also freely vote, although the Taliban and other Islamic extremists did their best to try and prevent it. Nevertheless, there was a measure of democratic freedom which is rare in the Middle East.  Unfortunately after we left (or rather, as we left), democracy came to quick end and the 10th Century returned in all its ugliness as the Taliban picked up where it left off.

The American People didn't really benefit. Sure, we were given a target to vent our anger on following the cowardly attacks of 9/11. But along the way, we were betrayed by some of our regional "allies" (I'm talking about Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency and its Prime Minister, Imran Khan) and various tribal chiefs (most had to be bribed to show any measure of loyalty).

We could have had bin Laden and many more of his key commanders much sooner had those in Imran Khan's government not help finance, arm, train, hide, and provide intelligence to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, which would have saved a lot of innocent lives on all sides. It's a shame how some individuals put their greed for personal power and wealth before the wellbeing of their own people. But, at the same time it exposes their moral weakness for all the world to see.

While extracting our revenge, we failed to notice the underhandedness happening here at home. Sure, we came together as a people. We closed ranks. We hung out flags.We cheered at the playing of our national anthem. Patriotism was back in vogue again. We hadn't been this united since December 8, 1941, the day after another cowardly attack which caught us with our pants down and our cockiness up.

Perhaps it was this unity which concerned certain individuals and groups. After all, a united America was something they didn't want. They had spent lots of time, effort, and money to keep Americans divided. After all, divided, frustrated, and confused was how to control us. United and we were suddenly dangerous. United and we just might focus our manufactured anger away from each other and on those who sought to destroy our Republic and turn it into a neo-fascist corporatocracy.

So, without even completely reading it, a document that had been drafted primarily by corporate lobbyists was rushed through Congress and passed. It was given a euphemistically optimistic sounding name of "the Patriot Act" as if questioning what it was or what was in it was somehow unpatriotic.  A few lone voices in the political wilderness tried to warn us but were quickly silenced. The surveillance state was born.

The "Patriot Act" effectively declared a never-ending war based on a loosely defined term--- "terrorism" where rights for individuals cease to exist under the pretext of national security. Gone too were all the usual checks and balances we've come to expect such as accountability, limits on search and seizure or judicial oversight.

The enemy was now whoever the State said it was. Those arrested under "FISA" can essentially disappear. Under "FISA" you have the right to absolutely nothing whatsoever. It combined all the elements of McCarthyism's "Red Scare" with aspects of the KGB's early morning knocks on the doors and George Orwell's dystopian novel "1984". 

Obviously, the American People didn't benefit, so again, who did?  Wall Street benefited. The Pentagon spent $14 trillion dollars, with roughly half that going to defense contractors (according to one report, since 2001, payments made to defense contractors have risen 164%). The majority of money spent went to just five corporations---Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Northrop-Grumman, and Boeing, but other companies such as General Electric and Halburton made out alright too.  

Thanks to our new "surveillance state", spy agencies saw their budgets balloon, particularly the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the National Security Agency (NSA), as well as the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Agency (NRC), the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), along with the various intelligence arms of the various U.S. military branches. Naturally, off the book budgets, the so-called "black budgets", likely were increased. Much of this was used to fund various covert research/development and operations carried out by "independent" contractors. 

Meanwhile, Congress and other government officials benefited. Defense contractors reportedly spent over $2.5 billion dollars over the past 20 years and employed over 700 lobbyists. On average, members of Congress had three lobbyists each just from Defense industry. We the People had none. This is the "free speech" Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) talks about when defending Citizens United.

So, if you want to know who benefited from our 20 year venture in Afghanistan and Iraq, now you know. It wasn't the Afghani People or the American People. The ones who benefited from the war which claimed tens of thousands killed or wounded, and billions of dollars in destruction were defense contractors and their de facto "employees" in Congress. This is just one relatively small example of the power and control Wall Street has over government. 

 

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

Timeline: Major attacks by al Qaeda

Hijackers in the September 11 attacks

Taliban Destroyed, Damaged Infrastructure in 116 Districts:IARCS

A year later, a look back at public opinion about the U.S.military exit from Afghanistan

The cost of the Afghanistan war, in lives and dollars

CFR: Pakistan's Support For the Taliban: What To Know

ACLU: Surveillance under the USA/Patriot Act

Watson Institute: Costs of War

 

America's Withdrawal From Afghanistan: Revenge's End or Justice Served?

Earlier this month, President Joe Biden announced that starting on May 1st---"May Day"---U.S. troops will begin the process of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.  The withdrawal of our approximately 2,500 troops is to officially end on September 11th, which marks the 20th anniversary of 9/11 and our involvement in Afghanistan.

Biden said in his speech that the U.S. "closely consulted" the pending exodus from Afghanistan with our allies in the region and most especially with Afghan's President, Ashrif Ghani. That's a polite way of saying "everyone grab what you can, we're out of here" and to President Ghani, it was a heads-up that he was on his own. It's time for him, his family, and cronies to start making arrangements to live elsewhere (which, as usual, also means to start opening a lot of foreign bank accounts).

America has been militarily engaged in Afghanistan longer than in any other place.  Our involvement in Europe and the Pacific during WWII was just three years.  In Korea, it was about three years too. The Vietnam War lasted 19 years. Then there were all the small "police actions" such as Granada, Panama, and so on. Those lasted anywhere from a few weeks to a few months.

Our presence in Afghanistan began in 2001, following the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, not to mention the downing of Flight 93 in a Pennsylvania field; the result of passengers and crew who took matters into their own hands rather than to allow themselves to be sacrificed by a few terrorists.

At the time, then President George W Bush promised the nation and the world that we would hunt down those who planned and helped carry out the cowardly attacks. It took time, and despite some duplicity by a supposed ally (Pakistan), we were ultimately able to track down Osama bin Laden, the (by then) nominal head of Al Qaeda, who was living in a windowless three story mansion in Abbottabad, Pakistan just 1400 yards from Pakistani Military Academy (their version of West Point).

It took the U.S. Military and its allies ten years to corner bin Laden and just 40 minutes to dispatch bin Laden to whatever Hell awaited him thanks to the U.S. Navy's SEAL Team Six (officially known as "Task Force Blue" or NSW-DEVGRP, which is short for Naval Special Warfare Development Group). Along the way, before and since, the top leadership of Al Qaeda and its various hydra-like splinter groups have met the same fate.

Of course, we suffered too. Many members of the same Navy SEAL Team were ambushed in Afghanistan's Tangi Valley and killed a short 90 days later in what some intelligence experts believe was a setup by informers.  The attack killed 30 U.S. troops, including 15 members of SEAL Team Six, along with eight Afghanis.  

In total, we've lost 2,312 military personnel since 2001. 20,066 have been wounded. From a historical perspective, those are low numbers. We lost over 2,501 in just one day--- June 6, 1944--- during our landing on the Normandy beaches in France. From 2001 until 2009, we had approximately 20,000 soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan. After that, the numbers rose to 100,000 due to the increased enemy activity. Compare that to just under 600,000 troops in Vietnam at its peak in 1968.

On the other side of the bloody coin, almost 40,000 Afghan civilians have been killed since 2001. As for the Taliban, the exact number of dead or wounded can't be determined with any accuracy, but it's estimated to be between 67,000 and 72,000 killed and well over 100,000 wounded.

In terms of financial cost, against the price tag is hard to pin down due to overlapping accounting between allies, not to mention the use of quasi-private "contract security" forces (aka mercenary troops which are typically paid and supplied under the table by the CIA).  Nevertheless, best estimates put the cost of the war at right about one trillion dollars.

Of this one trillion or so dollars, about $88 billion has gone to rebuild the Afghani military and security forces. $36 billion has gone for governance costs as well as infrastructure and humanitarian aid.  There has been tens of millions more spent on "unreported" costs such as buying the loyalty of tribal and village leaders, funding poppy production, supplying of weaponry to various anti-Taliban militia, and so forth.   Of course, none of this includes the "reassignment" of U.S. military and non-military equipment over to non-government forces.

So, after 20 years, four presidents, and one trillion dollars, what have we gotten out of it? War is one of those endeavors which has plagued Mankind forever. Despite the belief of men like General George Patton, there is no glory in war. No one really ever wins except the arms dealers, industrialists, and the undertakers. Nevertheless, evil must be stopped wherever it's encountered.

We went into Afghanistan in 2001 for the sole purpose of getting those responsible for 9/11. Intelligence agencies identified Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda as being behind the attack. At the time, the Taliban, a strongly repressive Islamic government, controlled Afghanistan, and were allegedly protecting both bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

We were told that the Taliban leadership refused to hand over bin Laden or any members of Al Qaeda. The truth, as we found out years later, was a little different. It seems they wanted hard proof that bin Laden was directly responsible. Perhaps it was just a matter of semantics, but nevertheless it provided the excuse to invade in what was called euphemistically "Operation Enduring Freedom". As a result, we found ourselves (not for the first time) facing two determined enemies.

Ultimately, we deposed the Taliban from power and installed a more cooperative "pro-Western" government (albeit, not exactly one known for not being easily corruptible). But, as the expression goes, "they may be sons of bitches, but they're our sons of bitches".  And, of course, we not only decimated the Taliban, we accomplished our professed objective of "bringing Osama to justice" (ie: kill) and nearly eradicated  Al Qaeda.

The cost to America and its allies was considered by those calling the shots as minimal, and it even came with an acceptable casualty rate. Not only was Osama removed, a pro-Western government was installed, and billions were made all around. We also gained accessed to Afghan's natural resources, which includes gold, copper, ore, chromium, lithium, as well as natural gas and oil.

As an aside, the attack on 9/11, also allowed the passage of the Patriot Act, which restricted various freedoms under the auspices of "national security" (many people have equated the Patriot Act with Hitler's 1933 Enabling Act), laying the groundwork for today's surveillance state.  A pleasant bonus for those who would become our ruling Oligarchy.

However, we must still address the additional ten years after the elimination of bin Laden. Were they worth it? After all, bin Laden and his top leadership were the primary objective weren't they? Could we have done it differently? Perhaps simply used our intelligence agencies and special forces to do a quick and dirty "find and seek" operation? After he was taken out, there really wasn't any reason to be in Afghanistan after that except for the fact that there was still a lot of money to be made.

Personally, I think we could have spent that one trillion dollars on other things like education, rebuilding our badly decaying infrastructure, care for seniors and veterans, shelter for the homeless and so forth. I agree with President Eisenhower, who once said, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed". 

Even though we lost "only" 2,312 soldiers and suffered 20,066 wounded or injured, that's 2,312 mothers and fathers who lost a child, not to mention the loss of a brother, sister, spouse, or a child who lost a mother or father of their own. And those 20,066 wounded or injured represent a life disrupted; some permanently (and I speak as a disabled veteran).

Of course, none of this includes those who will forever suffer from the "silent wounds" of what they experienced.   I also don't want to forget or minimized the 40,000 Afghani civilian lives lost or the hundreds of thousands wounded, injured or maimed; caught up a conflict not of their making. 

As for the Taliban, they were remove from power while a Western puppet regime was put in its place. Perhaps that's not so bad if the Afghani people benefited, but they haven't, at least not in any long lasting way. The government of President Ashrif Ghani isn't long for this world. As soon as the U.S. and allied troops leave, the militant Islamists will be back in power, just as they were when the Soviets were forced out in 1989, leaving then President Karmel swinging in the breeze (he was replaced in 1986 by Mohammad Najibullah, who was murdered by the Taliban in 1996).

As an aside, it's worth noting that the Soviets spent over $800 million dollars during their involvement in Afghanistan, from 1979 to 1989, with a loss of 26,000 personnel (Afghanistan was the called "Soviet Russia's Vietnam"). Their Afghani allies lost 18,000 with an unknown number of insurgent dead and wounded. The Afghani people, as always, suffered the most with approximately 562,000 to 2 million dead and about 3 million wounded.

The reason I mention this is because as far as the Taliban and the remnant of Al Qaeda are concerned, they withstood the full onslaught of two of the most powerful nations on the planet and their allies; they defeated the USSR and the USA. Al Qaeda, though devastated, remains functionally intact. In fact, since 2001, dozens of similar radical Islamic terrorists groups like ISIS/ISIL, Boko Haram, and Abu Sayyuf have sprung throughout the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.  

Women and young girls in Afghanistan can expect to return to a third class status with little or no educational opportunities, freedom of expression, child brides, sexual and political repression. It's a place where everyone has few freedoms or rights. Anyone who speaks out or resists is brutally punished. Such was rule under the Taliban in the past and will be again in the future.  

As Alexander the Great learned over two thousand years ago, Afghanistan is not a country that's either easily conquered or controlled. Afghanistan will continue being Afghanistan as it has done for thousands of years, regardless of which empire currently dominates the rest of the world.

The Taliban will likely soon be back in charge while America's attention turns elsewhere. The only question is whether they will be more conciliatory in their dealings with the West or will they align themselves with a hostile Iran, which itself has become much closer to the China orbit.

 

White House Fact Sheet: Normandy Landings

Biden Announces Full U.S. Troop  Withdrawal From Afghanistan by Sept. 11

As U.S. troops prepare to pull out, a look at the war inAfghanistan by the numbers

Enhanced Driver's Licenses and the Bigger Picture

Well, Kentucky has finally decided to get onboard with the new "enhanced" driver's license. Not that it had any real choice. The demand came about in the usual "closing-the- barn-door-after-the-cows-are- out" fashion by the federal government following 9/11 and the subsequent "Patriot Act". Of course, the fact that Kentucky is some 20+ years late is par for the course. As Mark Twain allegedly once said, "When the end of the world comes, I want to be in Kentucky because it's always twenty years behind the times”. Whether he did or not, it seems appropriate doesn't it? After all, look at how the Kentucky legislature continues to drag its feet over the issue of legalizing medical marijuana! Meanwhile, it's a done deal in others states.

Nevertheless, this idea of an "enhanced" driver's license was originally conceived as a national identification card, but was watered down slightly to become a state issued identification card tied to your driver's license or other state issued IDs. I supposed this seemed a little less menacing; less "Empire Strikes Back". However, for some, it still smacks of images of Gestapo or KGB Security agents demanding "Ihre Papiere bitte" or "Ваши документы, пожалуйста" which translates as "your papers please".

The law goes into effect in Kentucky the first of March 2019. The state is already getting out the word and has created an pretty nifty website which helps you select which of types of ID you get to pick from, be it a regular ID, a simple drivers license, or a four or eight year license which also serves as a passport and allows you entrance into certain federally administered sites such as onboard airplanes, cruise ships, and government facilities. You even get to pick if you want your veteran status highlighted. You will need to bring with you original or certified birth certificate, marriage license, and proof of your address (such as phone or MSD bill addressed to you). Another photo ID can be used too. However, you should check the website to see what you specifically need, again depending on which type of license you want.

Please note that they will keep the documentation you submit, which will be processed and returned to you later. Regardless though, the application will start off with a photograph. Why you ask? As most everyone knows, getting your picture taken is typically the last thing you do in getting your license. No more. The reason is because your mug will be run through a facial recognition program to see if there is any outstanding warrant or other restrictions waiting out there in cyberspace. Also, you can change your hair color, add color contacts, grow a beard or whatever. It doesn't matter since it looks at subtle measurements of your face which can't be altered. It will also access other data such as height, built, tattoos, etc. If so, your picture will send up a red flag. Now just how special is that? But it gets better!

As an added bonus, each license includes a vicinity activated Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chip which will alert a "secure system" and automatically pull up you bio-metric and biographic data for the appropriate government personnel to read as you approach. In addition, each card comes with its own bar code which, to be blunt, identifies you just the way a scanner at the grocery store price checks a loaf of bread.

Can you imagine what would have happened if the British had something like this in 1772? There would have been no American Revolution because there would have been no revolutionary agitators like Samuel Adams, John Hancock, or Paul Revere; no revolutionary leaders like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, or James Madison. They would have been quickly identified and arrested! Even resistance fighters or Jews, Gypsies and others attempting to evade the Nazis in Europe during WWII would have found it nearly impossible to beat this system.

On the upside of this, it means it will be harder for terrorists to board airplanes departing US airspace (supposedly, foreign passports are screened while overseas and run through a database operated by Interpol. However, there several airports which are notoriously lax in their security procedures. Hopefully, these passports are again screened upon arrival in the US although that doesn't do much good if the bad guys are able to board overseas and intend on doing harm before landing in the US it also doesn't help if they are able to get a package---aka a bomb---onto the plane while overseas). All the same, it does make things a bit more safe.

Another bonus is that it makes it harder for illegal immigrants since they would typically lack the documentation needed to get their license and especially when their photo is run through the facial recognition program. Even a stolen social security number won't help anyone here! However, I have to wonder if these cards will be cross linked with E-Verify to confirm employment status, a correct SSN, current immigration status (such as a valid Green card or a expired Visa)? It would certainly make for a good tool to do so.

On the other hand, what about states which issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants or allow them to register and vote in local or state elections? What states typically operate under a broad federally mandated reciprocity agreement whereby certain licenses, including drivers, are accepted from one state to another, how will this apply to the new "enhanced" driver's licenses? Will they be denied outside of their state of their issuance? Would their immigration status make them subject to arrest or being detaining until ICE can be summoned?

Just because one state decides to break federal immigration law and offer "sanctuary" status doesn't mean that all other states have to go along with it does it? Look at the trouble Arizona got into just for trying to uphold existing immigration laws under the Obama Regime! Imagine one state not accepting another state's license because it doesn't comply with the new federal mandate should that individual try to apply for a license or register to vote in a non-sanctuary state. I'm sure this will come up and will ultimately be brought before the Supreme Court in the not to distance future.

Of course, this may be also much to do about nothing. After all, despite President Trump's determination to secure our southern border, Washington has been ignoring the American People on this and other issues for a long time now, going back to at least President Reagan who first granted "amnesty" to illegal immigrates hiding out in the US at the time. There is a determination by both the political and business class to allow illegal immigrants to enter and remain in the US which appears to be unremitting despite the fact that a majority of Americans have consistently opposed illegal immigration for decades.

Some people argue that the culprits are the Democrats. Allegedly, they anticipate that the vast majority of these individuals will register to vote as Democrats and thus stem the rising conservative tide in the country. Of course, the trouble with this argument is that illegal immigrates aren't allowed to register to vote, not that some haven't tried and as I stated earlier, a few states are allowing them to vote in local elections. Another problem is that the majority of these individuals have no interest in trying to become US citizens and thus to vote legally. Even among those who are here either legally or by birth have not taken a strong interest in politics, but that appears to be changing.

In 2018, voter participation among Hispanics increased by a whopping 11% with 27% voting for the first time (compared to 18% among blacks and 12% among whites). 69% of Hispanics voted for Democrats while only 29% voting for Republicans (blacks voted 90% for Democrats while 77% of Asian did as well. This compares to 54% of whites voting Republican). If we break it down by race and gender, we find that 74% of Hispanic women voted Democrat as opposed to 63% of Hispanic men. Meanwhile, 92% of black women and 88% of black men voted Democrat. 60% of white males voted Republican while white females were split at 49%. In several states, such as Nevada, Florida, Texas, and Arizona, Hispanics were the deciding factor in several key races. It's no wonder that the Democratic Party is catering to the Hispanic community or that most "sanctuary" areas are controlled by Democrats (it's also a wonder why the GOP hasn't been more pro-active in attracting Hispanics to its tent as well as Asians and blacks who are historically conservative but vote Democrat).

Of course unions, the cash cow of the Democrats since the 1930's, have found themselves all but replaced by corporate donors. Nevertheless, they are still courted for the relatively little money they do donate and for troops they can muster to knock on doors and make phones. Where do they stand? Well, several of the larger unions actually support illegal immigration. The reason is simple economics. Illegal immigrants tend to fill jobs at the low end of the employment spectrum, which also happen to be highly unionized. Thus, that bolsters their already depleted numbers as most jobs are non-unionized these days, but more importantly, it puts money in their near empty coffers. Money, I might add, which doesn't get refunded in the event of deportation.

While overall, both parties---the Democrats and Republicans---are hemorrhaging voters as the majority of Americans shift to the more solution-oriented Independent column, the increase in Asian and Hispanic voter participation could all but eliminate the GOP from much more than a localized political party. That would leave Independents as the majority voting bloc followed by the Democrats with the GOP and third parties bringing up the rear (as some of you may already know, Indies are already the largest voting bloc in the US and have been for several years now).

So why aren't the Republicans doing anything? Why are there Republicans who seem content in allowing illegal immigration to continue with little or no increase in border protection? A political death wish perhaps? I don't think so. Actually, they have their own economic interests at heart as well. Like the Democrats, the GOP is owned by corporations whose interests are to make money and lots of it. One important way is by overloading the job market.

That increases competition for jobs, which drives down wages and benefits. In addition, with increased globalization and the exporting of jobs, American workers are now competing with workers in India, Singapore, China, Vietnam and elsewhere throughout the world; no less so with illegal immigrates who could be better described as economic migrants; individuals willing to shift to where the jobs are.

Politically speaking, the GOP is now dependent on mostly white males as their base, but also white females; both of whom are both declining in number (white males are officially a minority according to the US Census Department) and aging (the majority of whites are Babyboomers--1946-1964--or older). However, the Republican Party has in recent years been courting older black, Asian, and Hispanics which tend to be more conservative, solidly middle class, family oriented, former military and/or patriotic, and attend religious services; all key GOP values. As an aside, many naturalized or native born Hispanics as well as Asians strongly oppose illegal immigration). In addition, there is a sizable minority of Millennials who lean libertarian who are attracted to the libertarian wing of the Republican Party (they face competition of course from the Libertarian Party). So don't count the GOP down and out just yet. So, how does the new "enhanced" driver's license play into all this?

As seemly separate as the two subjects might seem, they do. The "enhanced" licenses will make it easier to track and monitor not just ordinary Americans, but especially illegal immigrants. If it is eventually tied into E-Verify and the IRS, it will be easy to monitor employment and income (thus making money laundering more difficult for drug dealers) and identification for law enforcement. If we can expect social media sites like Facebook to continue to monitor our social habits and feed the information to various intelligence agencies as they have been doing, it's quite conceivable that the joint government-corporate Deep State or ruling Oligarchy will be able to monitor the whereabouts of not just drug cartels and terrorists, but of all Americans.

So if you're one of those "off-the-grid" types, it looks like the game is over. Even if you simply want to keep a low profile and protect your privacy, you're in for a very rude awakening. Imagine what it would be like credit agencies, banks, and employers were all to link to these cards, or better yet, incorporate them into a implantable chip? There would be nearly nothing about you which couldn't be monitored. I can just see Chairman Mao or "Uncle Joe" Stalin smiling now can't you? Even Himmler would be rubbing his hands together with anticipation. Then imagine a international component added to it which presently includes the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI). I shudder to even consider the possible ramifications resulting from that.

Thus, while the idea was born out of noble intentions, the corruption and greed of the permanent political class and their corporate overlords have seemingly forged another link in our collective leach. Yes, some good will certainly come of it. Even Hitler started off with good intentions. Under Emperor Hadrian, the citizens of Rome begged the emperor to do something about the rampant crime and chaos, which included periodic invasions--military and peaceful--from surrounding barbarian tribes. The people were desperate. It was affecting commerce as well as society in general. They wanted security no matter the price.

So, Hadrian complied. In short order it was said that "a virgin could walk naked at night along the length of the Apain Way into Rome without being molested". That was largely true. Security was restored. Crime was reduced. Commerce flourished once again, and the borders were secure, at least for awhile. However, at the price of this security Romans lost much of what was left of their freedoms, which had already been curtailed by previous emperors in slow incremental steps.

There is no question that we must secure our borders or that we must prevent illegal immigrants from entering just as we need to keep terrorists and those who seek to overthrow what's left of our Republic and turn it into either a theocracy or battleground out. However, we must not be so willing to sacrifice our freedoms for security either, especially when that sacrifice is to a state which has long ceased to have our interests at heart. But right now we're being subtly directed into thinking of ourselves not as American citizens but as global consumers with no national loyalty or sense of heritage. Our loyalties are to brands. Instead of individualism, we're increasingly part of the collective and the herd mentality which is directed from corporate boardrooms.

We should focus on stopping demand by going after those who seek to encourage, support, and aid illegal immigrants be they businesses or religious institutions. We should restrict those who enter this country on temporary visas and more closely monitor those who are accepted (perhaps they should be the ones required to have these "enhanced" licenses which are linked to their Green cards and visas). We must also stop trying to justify our national sovereignty, and instead, demand it and enforce it just as every other country does.

America also must cease trying to be the world's policeman. That is not only the polar opposite of what our Founder's wanted, we simply don't have the resources or mandate to fix the world's problems. Just because another country has chosen a government whose political ideology is something that we may disagree with gives us no right to try and overthrown that government, especially if it means imposing a unpopular and unwanted military junta and/or dictatorship on the populace. If they want to trade as equals, then we trade as equals. If not, then so be it. We don't have to trade but we don't have to be enemies either.

So, when you go to get your new "enhanced" drivers license, think about the bigger picture and ramifications this so-called "smart ID" entails...and be sure to smile big. My turn is coming shortly and I can't wait to see what red flags go off when my picture gets snapped! I'm sure I'm on somebody's list somewhere. If not, after all the articles I've written and comments I've posted I should probably be ashamed of myself! Meanwhile, I think I'm going to grab my copy of George Orwell's "1984" and "Animal Farm" from the fiction section in my library and move it into to my political science or current events section. It just seems more fitting these days. What do you think?



Enhanced Drivers License: What Are They?


What is an Enhanced Drivers License (EDL)?


Key takeaways about the Latino voters in the 2018 midterm elections

All's Fair in Love Of War

The Military Industrial Complex. We've all heard the name. Some people see it as proof of America's supremacy. Others see it as a cancer. President Eisenhower warned us about it in his 1961 Farewell Address to the American Public. President John Kennedy alluded to it in his speech before the American Newspaper Publishers Association also in 1961 (Kennedy was assassinated in 1963). We have been at war in the Middle East almost continually since 1990, beginning with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and our subsequent liberation of Exxon and BP...err...I mean the Kuwaiti Royal Family and its people. The "War on Terror", which began in 2001, it has been going on ever since (technically, even longer. The first terror attack on US troops was in 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon following an earlier attack on a US Embassy).

America is "officially" at war (undeclared of course) with seven countries---Syria, Afghanistan, Niger, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya---thanks to the 2002 "Authorization for the Use of Military Force to Fight Al-Qaeda-linked militias". Never heard of it before? Yeah, don't be surprised. It was one of this "none-of-your-business" pieces of legislation passed by Congress on September 14, 2001 in the wake of the 9/11 attack. The AUMF, which mentions an additional six countries, contains no geographical restrictions, so US military might can be deployed anywhere at any time.

In fact, the bombing business is so good that the US is actually running out of bombs, seriously. The Pentagon is planning on investing an additional $20 billion dollars of its...I mean "our" money...in munitions as outlined in its 2018 budget. According to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the US has dropped approximately 1,186 munitions in just the first quarter of 2018. That's a lot folks. One key problem facing the Pentagon is that several of its suppliers simply can't keep up and have decided to quit the bomb making business. That places the Pentagon in a position where it is becoming more dependent of foreign suppliers and you'll never guess who one of those suppliers is?

Ok, I know you can't stand the suspense so I'll tell you. China. Yeah, you read that right. Communist China is one of our suppliers for munitions (now do you understand the Beltway uproar over President Trump placing tariffs on Chinese imports?). As for trying to create a broader market for all things that go bang, there really isn't any. With other suppliers dropping out, that leaves Lockheed Martin and Raytheon producing 97% of all the military's missiles and munitions (talk about businesses "to big to fail").

The Department of Defense (DoD) has publicly identified four critical areas of concern. The first is the production of solid rocket motors (SRMs). At present there are only two producers of SRMs, Orbital ATK and AeroJetRocketdyne, with Orbital ATK taking on the majority of the business. The next area is thermal batteries. These are used in every form of bombs and munitions employed by the US military. At present there is only one producer, which happens to dominate 80% of the market (the DoD declined to name the company).

Third on the critical list are fuses. Nothing goes "boom" without these. The DoD in typical bureaucratic Orwellian doublespeak says there are actually an excess of fuses available thanks to improvements elsewhere, however, it has also reduced the number of potential supplies. So apparently having to many fuses is a bad thing. Last on the list are small turbine engines. There currently only two producers of military grade turbines, Teledyne Turbine Engines and Williams International, however, Teledyne has announced that they're getting out of the business, which will leave the DoD with only one supplier (unless the Chinese want to step up). The DoD found that of 121 second tier suppliers of munitions, 98% of them were a single source provider. Of the 73 third tier providers, 98% of those were also single source. But wait, it gets more interesting.

The Pentagon has confirmed that it sole producer of a chemical propellant, Dimeryl Diisoyanate, which is used AIM-9X and AMRAAM missiles is quitting, thus leaving the military with no qualified producers. That means missiles stay in the launch tubes. Yikes! Another key component used by missiles is Dechlorane Plus 25, which is needed for insulation. Since there are no US producers, the US military has turned to the Belgian company Occidental Chemical, the only qualified producer.

However, despite the risks of being dependent on a foreign company for a key material, Occidental Chemical is itself dependent on a Chinese manufacturer that produces the pre-cursor needed to manufacture the propellant. According to the Chinese, its source has been exhausted and there is none left in the world. This is part of a growing trend faced by the Pentagon; increasingly shortages of chemicals needed to support various munitions and missiles, which is forcing the military to pay increasing prices as demand continues to grow while supply diminishes or simply evaporates altogether. The result is systems are having to be redesigned to find substitutes if possible or scraped.

As if this isn't bad enough for the Pentagon, spare parts for planes, tanks, truck, and other vehicles are in short supply. 22% of the Marine Corp's F-35's are grounded worldwide due to a lack of spare parts, reducing its readiness to only about 50% (one article cited a USAF pilot being grounded because a plastic clip on his helmet was broken and they couldn't get a spare clip from the supplier). The military, as a result, has gone into the scrounging business and looking for anything it use in so-called "boneyards" where old planes and other military equipment are consigned after reaching the end of their usefulness. They are also turning to other countries that we've sold weapons to and offering to buy back some of the spare parts. In a few cases, collectors have been contacted for possible leads. They are even raiding military museums for possible parts!

According to the Heritage Foundation's "2018 Assessment of US Military Strength", the US Army can field 31 Brigade Combat Teams (BCT). However, due to shortages of equipment and manpower, we have only three that are capable of "fighting tomorrow" and ten that are able to meet most of their assigned combat tasks (the military is suffering a personnel shortage due to the upswing in the economy, making jobs more plentiful. Another reason is that due to the numerous deployments and combat stress, a large number are leaving due to "burnout" and stress on the home lives, especially marriages). In addition, the report cites the need for an additional 19 BCTs (for a total of 50) just to meet historical requirements. The report indicated that the Army's capacity and capability are weak while its readiness is marginal.

The report also indicated that the US Navy's fleet is underpowered in the number of ships capable of extended deployment. Recently Congress had recommended a reduction in the total number of ships to pre-WWII levels. It goes on to recommend an increase to a 355 ship fleet from its current 305 and an increase to 13 aircraft carriers from the present 11. Attack submarines should be increased to 66 from their current number of 48, while surface ships need to go from 88 to 104. Deployment of aircraft carriers need to be extended to 36 months from the current 32 while surface ships need to match the carriers in deployment, going from 27 months to 36. Overall, both capacity and capability are scored as weak and readiness as marginal.

The Air Force has only four of its 32 combat coded squadrons fully combat capable. Less than 18 are able to complete the majority of its combat missions. Meanwhile, the Air Force, like all the other military branches is finding itself short of skilled personnel. In 2017, it was short 3400 aircraft engine and airframe mechanics. which in turn has grounded planes and thus reduced the number of flight hours pilots can get in for training and missions (along with the spare parts shortage), reducing its operational strength to 76%. In addition, the Air Force is depending on aging planes to meet its combat mission objectives. The reports gives the USAF a score of marginal for capacity, capability, and readiness.

Lastly, the US Marines. The Marines have long been the "tip of the spear" when it comes to boots on the ground anywhere in the world; America's shock troops. However, like the other military branches, it's faced with personnel shortages too. Normally, the USMC has been able to field 36 combat ready battalions. However, it is presently only able to field 24. It's main "combat platform" has been the M1A1/A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks (also used by the Army). When first deployed in the early 1980's, this tanks was the baddest piece of mechanized hardware on the battlefield anywhere in the world. However, despite updates, it has been surpassed by several newer and more lethal tanks including the Chinese Type 99A, the Israeli Merkava, the UK Challenger II, but most notably two Russian tanks, the T-90 and the Armata T-14. In addition to losing its main platform superiority, the Marines are suffering from shortages of spare parts like everyone else.

So, there you have. The US has been at war for 27 years, going back to "Operation Desert Storm" in 1991, which essentially can be broken down into four or five wars, depending on how you want to count our two invasions of Iraq. We are militarily involved in approximately 76 countries. George W Bush, who launched the "War on Terror" following the 9/11, resulting in the bombing of five countries or 70,000 bombs during his term. President Obama expanded the bombing to seven countries, which equated to 100,000 bombs. Under President Trump, approximately 44,000 bombs have fallen thus far, which equals around one bomb every 12 minutes according to one report.

The Pentagon requested and got a $716 billion dollar budget which the majority of both Republicans and Democrats approved. I have to wonder what else we could buy with just a fraction of that---more schools, cures for cancer and other diseases, repairing the nation's crumbling infrastructure , securing our border, improving the quality of healthcare, or more cops on the street? But here we are. We're dropping so many bombs that we're not only running out, but suppliers are quitting, and highly skilled military personnel are walking away.

There's also the argument that US intelligence agencies and the military conspired to create the enemies--the "terrorists"--and the concept of the never-ending war for profit to consider too. After all, these military contractors are among the most powerful lobbyists in Washington and among the Oligarchs who now run our country. We are now faced with a beast that is feeding on itself and its appetite is both ravenousness and insatiable. To quote from Shakespeare's Mark Anthony in the play Julius Caesar, "Cry Havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!" (Act 3 Scene 1), and so we have dear reader, we've allowed them to slip their leashes.


Timeline: US involvement with Iraq and the broader Middle East

US at war in 7 countries...

The US is running out of bombs and it may soon struggle to make more

An Assessment of US Military Power

A Matter of Perspective

When you think of poverty, what comes to mind? Is it some third world country, perhaps in Africa. or Asia, or maybe even in Latin America? Perhaps too you think about cardboard shacks, raw sewage, dirt for roads, no indoor plumbing, filthy water for washing and drinking, and little kids---barely clothed if at all---playing around garbage dumps while slightly older children rout through recently discarded refuse for anything of use. Electricity, if there is any, consists of a few bare bulbs dangling for a cord, sporadically dimming or blinking going out, leaving its occupants huddled in the dark. And almost always, just a few miles away, live the obscenely rich in their townhouses and walled estates; who throw out more food in a day than some of these people see in a week. If they're lucky, some of the poor are employed by these individuals, not that they actually make much money, but they at least have jobs which provides some relief from the misery of their poverty, and they earn at least something. If they're lucky, some can sneak some of the scraps and throw outs back home. The city where many live, just a few miles away, glows throughout the night. No brownouts there. No cold nights or oppressively hot days, not in their climate controlled condos or mansions, or in their chauffeur driven luxury cars. This was what income inequality looks like for the vast majority of the world's population.

While the United Stated sends billions of dollars and in-kind aid overseas, much of it goes to corrupt petty warlords, generals, so-called "Presidents" and their cronies in exchange for American access to their airspace, or refueling fields, or securing favorable conditions for US corporations, all under the auspices of a "positive foreign policy" of course. Most of the these wannabe dictators personally despise the US and everything it supposedly stands for, but they sure love our handouts. Only a small percentage of US aid actually makes it to the people. Most of it is squirreled away in private bank accounts, or skimmed off as bribes or sold on the black market. Is there any wonder rampant famines continue to exist? Why, with the billions not just the US exports, but the UK or Europe send every single year for decades, is there still inadequate drinking water, disease, insufficient or even no housing, let alone schools or proper irrigation and farming.

A very good friend of mine once told me that Communism doesn't arrive with tanks and warships. Communism comes with hunger and a sense of hopelessness. To bring that more current, one could argument that fanatical religious extremists don't arrive with massive

armies or navies, but with zealous fervor to stamp out what they see as corruption of their religious ideals in the face of inequality. Religion is a powerful weapon. It always has. It offers comfort in exchange for control. After all, how you argue or compromise with God? Even our so-called allies are hedging their bets and quietly financing and arming these black clad "psychopaths for God" with the same foreign aid dollars we giving them! Of course, it too is based on fear. Perhaps a great deal of fear. If you look at the history of West, you will find the expansion of our ideals alien to the native inhabitants. Alien in the sense that they are often treated as inferior; of where they are dispossessed in their own land; of where there is vast inequality.

We've overthrown democratically elected governments that we didn't agree with (or to be more accurate, that certain corporate interests couldn't work with). In exchange for overthrowing these governments (or assassinating or jailing their leaders), we've helped to install brutal military juntas who conveniently grant special "concessions" to a few privileged corporations in the name of "free trade" while the US government quietly continues to prop them up as they go about torturing, imprisoning, and murdering their own people. While Communism may not come with tanks and warships, it appears the corporate capitalism does.

Hard words to hear, but every word is true. I know you know it too. Just about every military venture from the 1890's to present day has been about using US taxpayer's dollars and blood of our US military service men and women in order to boost the bottom line for some corporation (with the possible exceptions of WWI, WWII, and the Korean War, but you can bet great sums of money was made supplying all sides). We did in Cuba, El Salvador, Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Yeah, I know we weren't and aren't the only ones, but those other countries aren't my concern. This country is. Our Founding Father's warned us repeatedly about "foreign entanglements". They also tried to teach us about a limited government and the perils of allowing a powerful centralized government to emerge, not to mention the potential danger of banks and artificial entities that we call corporations today (they also warned us about the folly of political parties too but did we listen?). We grew lazy as a nation. Instead of being vigilant of our freedoms, we trusted government to protect them---something akin to letting the wolves guard the henhouse...and likely with the same expected results.

So, now we're faced with illegal immigrants pouring in from Latin America and a government either unable or unwilling to doing anything it; hoping they can ignore the American People long enough the problem becomes so severe that it can't reversed and the invasion of America become a fait accompli, with corporations getting a overabundance of potential workers to fill a limited number of jobs, which will, of course, drive down wages and benefits while also decreasing the likelihood of employee unrest (after all, with union representation at an all time low, everyone could be easily replaced by the next warm body standing in line for failing to toe the corporate line). However, with unions largely left impotent these days thanks largely backwards looking and greedy leadership, they see only the potential to fill their nearly empty coffers with low skilled worker's dues without offering them any real power.

Overseas, we're fighting wars where we should not be involved, but to a large degree were responsible for starting so that our new oligarchy could make a killing...figuratively and literally. Those who attacked us on 9/11 were originally US trained and financed to fight the Russians when they invaded Afghanistan; they were even celebrated in the media as "freedom fighters", and then we abandoned them. Those who attacked us on that fateful day in September planned and operated from Afghanistan. That should have been our one and only target. Iraq had no "weapons of mass destructions", but Saddam Hussein was holding together a tender box and keeping a troubling Iran at bay (besides, we overthrew the previous Iraqi government and put him in power. He also supplied us with cheap oil and secure bases. We counted Hussein as a "key regional ally" for decades just like we did for the Shah of Iran, Noriega and Batista). We implicitly gave him the go ahead to invade Kuwait, and then "liberated" it amid public promises of government reforms for its citizens after oil profits dropped, while privately obtaining special concessions for its oil and removing a potential regional military threat for Saudi Arabia, again, in exchange for further oil concessions.

Such is the world we now live in, where individual lives and fates of nations are dictated by potential profits. In the end, a few,

secreted away in private boardrooms, has reaped a whirlwind of profit and power while the rest of us has reaped the whirlwind. Is it any wonder that corporate capitalism is so despised by the majority of the world's population? Even here at home, corporate capitalism is increasingly looked down on by the next generation, the Millennials, not to mention some of the graying Babyboomers. Our democratic republic has been replaced by an oligarchy and we're on the short track toward fascism. This is not what our Founding Fathers wanted for us. This is not what we wanted for ourselves. It sure isn't what we want for our children and grandchildren. The only real question of any substance is what are we prepared to do about it?

The Mystery of Flight MH370: A Possible Answer?

Much has already been written about the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 and even more speculated on. It's been the leading news since the Boeing 777-2000ER left shortly after midnight from Kuala Lumpur on March 8 for Beijing China. Originally thought to have crashed, either off the coast of Vietnam or the Indian Ocean, following dramatic mid air turn, it now appears to be a very clever and well planned hijacking. Naturally, several questions arise such as who, why, and of course, where?

I thought it interesting when the nationalities of the passengers were recently published. Of the 239 passengers, 153 are Chinese, with ages ranging from 2 to 79. Next are Malaysian, of which there are 38, who range in age from 19 to 66. There are seven Indonesians, ages 25 to 57 and six Australians, 31 to 59. There are five individuals from India, ages 23 to 59 and four from France, 14 to 52. The US has three passengers, two toddlers and one 51 year old. The Ukraine has two, both 45 years of age, as does New Zealand, one 39 and the other 50 and Canada, 37 and 42. Russia, Taiwan, Austria, Italy, Holland had one each, ranging in age from 30 to 45.

Investigators have thus far found nothing especially unusual, except of course the two Iranians with stolen passports who reportedly seeking asylum for unknown reasons. As for the two pilots, Capt. Zaharie Ahmed Shah and 1st Officer Fariq Abdul Hamid, there appeared to be little suspicious about either man. Captain Shah. 53, is very experienced with some 18,000 hours logged and an avid aviation enthusiast, joined Malaysia Airlines in 1981. Hamid appears to be quite competent with around 2700 flight hours, though perhaps something of a showoff given that it's been reported that he's allowed young girls into the cockpit and occasionally smokes onboard. But, still, nothing out of the ordinary for a single 27 year old guy. He started flying for the airline in 2007.

We know that about 45 minutes in, a final message was exchanged with Malaysian air traffic controllers during the pass off to the Vietnamese. At about the same time, communications and monitoring equipment (ASCARS) was already in the process of being shut down. Moments after the last exchange, the transponder was disconnected and the plane made a hard left-hand turn. The plane then appears to have altered altitude from a normal cruising level of 35,000 feet to 45,000 feet; some 2000 feet above the 777's ceiling. One reported speculation by a pilot familiar with the 777 thought this move was intended to depressurize the plane, rendering everyone unconscious. Later, the plane dropped to 23,000 feet and began some erratic moves. Its last radar "ping" appears to have been off the Straits of Malacca, which is one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. The plane, we're now told, continued to send pings from the engine monitoring systems to satellites for approximately 4 to 5 hours.

The public has also been told that they were unable to track the plane using the engine's monitoring system because Malaysia Airlines opted not to purchase the full program package, so the data couldn't be downloaded. As for the passenger's cell phones, 19 families signed statements saying the phones appears to working, albeit ringing only. Given the altitude as well as the cell phone range, it's likely no communications could be established anyway, but it does appear to indicate the phones are or were working. Finally, another redundant transponder appears to have indicated an additional two hours of possible flight before it mysteriously stopped transmitting; likely destroyed. So, this brings us to the "who" part of the question.

Pilot suicide? Unlikely. There doesn't appear to be anything to indicate depression, financial or professional troubles by either pilot. Also, the lack of debris seems to rule out an intentional ditching of the plane, plus it could have more easily accomplished had the plane stayed on its original flight path. But there may be something else. Captain Shah was reputed to be a devoted family man, a very religious Moslem, and an outspoken political activist. The day before the flight, Shah attended the trial of Malaysian opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim, who was sentenced to five years in jail. Shah, an avid supporter of Ibrahim, left the trial, reportedly "desponded" and headed to the airport and doomed flight according to the UK's Daily Mail. The interesting thing about Ibrahim, a devout Sunni Moslem and leader of the multiracial centrist PKR political party, is that while he's known to be a proponent of democracy, he also anti-American and anti-Israeli and often voiced his support for the plight of the Palestinians and a politically active Islam.

Now here's where it gets fun. While Sunni is the dominant form of Islam, the most prominent sect is Shafi'i, which is mainly found in just a few countries, notably Malaysia, South Yemen, and Ethiopia. South Yemen has a strong and active al Qaeda faction and where the US has made numerous successful drone attacks in recent past, taking out a number of terrorist leaders. In addition, al Qaeda in South Yemen has made attempts at acquiring airplanes as flying bombs (all thwarted). Ethiopia also has a very strong terrorist network, al Shabaab, an affiliate of al Qaeda, which originates from Somalia (think pirates and hijacked oil tankers and cargo ships).

A northern flight route would take the plane over highly populated areas with very advanced radar systems with a lot of active military flights. There's no way a plane---any plane---is going to go unnoticed. But a southern flight over the Indian Ocean could easily take the plane to either country largely undetected. Given that al Qaeda controls large swaths of territory, it's at least conceivable that a Boeing 777 could land there. It certainly would be within its fuel range.

The obvious question then is "what next"? Use the passengers as hostages? Maybe. There is a growing conflict between China and Sunni Uyghurs in the western Xinjiang Province and the majority passengers are Chinese. Another 9/11 attack? Israel isn't that far away, nor are several American allies including the oil fields of Saudi Arabia (al Qaeda has long vowed to overthrow the Saudi government) or for that matter, the key shipping channel of Suez. Freeing Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, Abu Ghaith? He is currently on trial in New York, and, ironically, previously reveal discussions about "activating" a Malaysian al Qaeda cell and attempting another 9/11 type attack.

Chilling possibilities to be sure. But one thing is for sure, whoever planned and executed this probable hijacking did a very good job of it and here we are again playing catch up.


Malaysia Airlines: Pilots of Missing Plane
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/14/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-pilot-profiles/index.html

Missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370: Pilot and first officer's role under scrutiny
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-370-pilot-and-first-officers-role-under-scrutiny/articleshow/32130084.cms

Doomed airliner pilot political fanatic
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2581817/Doomed-airliner-pilot-political-fanatic-Hours-taking-control-flight-MH370-attended-trial-jailed-opposition-leader-sodomite.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Malaysia Airline MH370: 911style terror allegations
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10700652/Malaysia-Airline-MH370-911-style-terror-allegations-resurface-in-case-of-lost-plane.html

Burning of the Koran: Fuel for Thought

“Where they have burned books, they will in the end burn human beings---Heinrich Heine.

As hard as it is to believe, a Pentecostal minister had proposed the burning of a religious text. The pretext was over his opposition to the ill-conceived building of a mosque at Ground Zero; near the site of where the Twin Towers stood (the mosque is to be named the “Victory Mosque”). Didn’t that go out of fad in the West during the end of the Middle Ages?

Reverend Terry Jones had planned on using the anniversary of 9/11 to create a media event by burning copies of the Koran outside his small 50 member church located in Gainesville, Florida. According to Jones, the Koran “espouses evil” because it teaches something other than “biblical truth” in accordance to Reverend Jones’ beliefs.

The minister has come under intense pressure not to follow through with “stunt” as President Obama put it, and claimed that it would put US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in additional harm’s way. US Secretary of State Robert Gates made a personal phone call to Jones and asked that the event be cancelled. Even the Pope weighed in and suggested the reverend reconsider.

After meeting with Imam Muhammad Musri, the president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida, and praying for a sign from God, the minister agreed to postpone, for now, the fiery demise the Moslem’s holy text, in exchange for moving the Ground Zero Mosque. Reverend Jones has agreed to fly to New York with the Imam to meet with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, leader of the Islamic Center building the mosque. Jones had commented that an agreement was reached to relocate the mosque away from the site where Moslem terror-cowards hijacked two passenger planes and rammed them into the Twin Towers.

Imam Rauf said, however, that no such agreement had been reached. If fact, the imam rather defiantly said, "I am glad that Pastor Jones has decided not to burn any Qurans. However, I have not spoken to Pastor Jones or Imam Musri. We are not going to toy with our religion or any other. Nor are we going to barter. We are here to extend our hands to build peace and harmony." Jones stands by his claim, and said "I verified that three or four times with witnesses. I trust that man who gave me that. I believe he is a man of integrity, a man of his word, I do not believe that he lied to me. If the mosque is not moved, Jones added "then I think Islam is a very poor example of religion. I think that would be very pitiful. I do not expect that."
Word of the planned burning spread rapidly in the Moslem World with counter burnings proposed amid mass protests and chants of “Death to Christians” throughout even the most moderate of Moslem countries. So what are we to make of all this?

First, I think this was a nothing more than a publicity stunt to promote Jones and his church. Sure, his disgust over the building of the mosque at Ground Zero is probably real enough. Who isn’t ticked off at its audacity? Historically, a mosque has always been erected at or near the site major victories. Is it any wonder the Ground Zero Mosque is unofficially known as the “Victory Mosque”? Of course, the new offical name is Park51. It was changed from Cordoba House. But, having said that, Jones was successfully in getting some attention for his church and perhaps, some donations from some well meaning souls. Will he be successful in getting the mosque moved? Of course not. Nevertheless, after the book burnings of Nazi Germany, how can anyone call for the burning or for that matter, even the banning of books, especially a religious text? In the end, you only destroy paper and cardboard while the ideas contained in the books are only inflamed by the fire.

Secondly, if Reverend Jones, or someone else, stages a Koran burning now or in the future, would it put US troops in danger? I think the answer is obvious, and not only US troops, but civilians as well as Westerners in general. Remember, non-Moslems are allowed to practice their religions only as courtesy of the host nation not as right. There is no such thing as religious freedom there. Non-Moslems are afforded little legal recourse against discrimination or even attacks based on religion. Christian churches, as well as Hindu and Buddhist temples (some centuries old) had been vandalized and even destroyed with no punishment of the perpetrators. The occasional public “anti-West’ demonstrations and burning of the Christian Bible, the Jewish Torah, and well as other sacred texts are not that uncommon. So, we certainly have a double standard that the West, at least, seems to be willing to play along with.

So, what’s the solution? Obviously global religious freedom, tolerance, and sensitivity would be a good place to start, but don’t look for that to happen as long as some religions have an “all or nothing” mentality and are quietly (and not so quietly) working to bring about their version of the Armageddon. While the Islamic Center in New York has a Constitutional right to build a mosque wherever zoning ordinances permit in this country, something their own religion denies to others, their insensitively to the location barely masks an arrogance and contempt for America.


Suggested Articles:

Religious Police Destroy Temple
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/mar/26/20050326-111002-8593r/
Moslems Attack Hindus
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=15923&size=A
Muslims Deny Buddhist Majority
http://hinduexistence.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/malay-muslims-denies-thailands-buddhist-majority-6-buddhists-gunned-down-in-south-thailand-by-islamic-insurgents-for-pan-islamic-jihad/
Moslems Destroy Christian Church
http://hinduexistence.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/malay-muslims-denies-thailands-buddhist-majority-6-buddhists-gunned-down-in-south-thailand-by-islamic-insurgents-for-pan-islamic-jihad/

9/11 Terrorists to be Tried in NYC

Eric Holder, who is Obama’s US Attorney General, testified before Congress on November 18th that is was his intent to bring the 9/11 cowards…err…terrorists to New York, where they will be tried in federal court for their murderous acts. When questioned about the apparent absurdity of his action and possibility of a “not guilty” verdict, Holder stated that “failure was not an option”. Well, you think? It may not be an option, but it is a very real possibility. What may be worse is not so much as an acquittal, but rather insufficient evidence to warrant the death penalty, which could mean life in prison—paid for by every US taxpayer. Can you imagine the irony that we would have to pay to keep these creeps alive? Frankly, these individual are in my opinion nothing more than cowards hiding behind the cloak of religious piety don’t deserve to breathe another hour in my opinion.

Some of the 9/11 family members both publicly and privately pleaded with Holder to allow these mass murderers to be tried under military law since this was a self-admitted, military-styled planned attack on America specifically and the Capitalist West in general. Holder said he acknowledged their anger, but would not change his mind. Coming to the defense of his AG, Obama told reporters that those who were “offended by the legal rights accorded Mohammed by virtue of his facing a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won’t find it offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him”. Really?

First of all, under civil procedure, to reach a conviction which would warrant the death penalty, the jury first must find the defendants quality beyond all reasonable doubt. Where in New York City are you going to find 12 unbiased possible jurists? No so in a military tribunal which has a five member panel. The rules of evidence in civil court are much stricter. For instance, information gather through intelligence agencies may or may not be allowed. Not so in military court. Under military law, rules of evidence are less strict (for instance, hearsay, video or audio tapes and similar evidence not allow in civil courts are allowed in military courts, and their methods of gathering remain secured. Confessions obtained under “torture” are not admitted but then again, what’s torture and what’s a persuasive inducement?). Because of the nature of military tribunals, the trials themselves move much quicker, which is important since each of the defendents will be tried seperately in civil court. Appeals (and there will certainly be appeals and countless delays filed) don’t last years in military court. And let’s talk about the death penalty itself. If found guilty, punishment is swift and certain under a military tribunal. Historically, the convicted prisoner is either shot or hanged (can we do both?). And just in case you’re wondering, this matter will have to be tried in federal court in order to seek the death penalty since the New York Assembly shot down the death penalty in 2004 as unconstitunional.

The anticipated defendants will by Khalid Mohammed, and co-defendants Ramzo Binalshibh, Ali Abd al-Aziz, Walid bin Attash, and Mustapha al-Hawsawi; all of whom are currently being held at the Marine base located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They are expected to be brought to New York and held in a local New York prison during the duration of their trial. There are five more defendants awaiting trial before a military court, including Abd al-Rahim al Nashiri, who was the alleged mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole which claimed the lives of 17 US sailors. The 9/11 attack, masterminded by Khalid Mohammed, was responsible for the deaths of some 3000 innocent men and women, was globally acknowledged as the act of unprecedented cowardice. Mohammed also acknowledged that he personally beheaded journalist Daniel Pearl.

Reaction to Holder’s decision was swift. Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called the decision “a step backwards for the security of our country”. Ed Kowalski of the 9/11 Families for a Secure America thought that giving these “war criminals” protection under the US Constitution was the “wrong thing to do” and pointed out that it had never been done before. Well, its certainly true we didn’t afford the Japanese or German war criminals the opportunity to come to America and be tried under US federal law with all the protections allow a US citizen. Holder said in his statement to Congress that he will turn over the case to the prosecutors for the Southern District of New York, which incidentally is located in Lower Manhattan and just blocks away from the former site of the Twin Towers.

Mayor David Bloomberg was delighted at Holder’s decision. Stating through a spokesman that “we have the resources and logistics” and added that “security problems posed by the trial would not be an issue”. NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly agreed and thought the decision was “highly appropriate”. Needless to say, the ACLU was also delighted with the decision. I fully expect they will provide the attorneys and ample resources to needed for the defense.

My Opinion

I understand where Mr. Holder is coming from, and I think I understand what he’s trying to do. He’s trying to say to the terrorists, both here and around the world “we’re not like you. We will not simply kill for death's sake. We are a nation of laws, and those laws apply to everyone”. The idea is to show the world, especially the Islamic world that our system works without fear and without malice. In the face of such a heinous crime, it’s human nature that our first reaction is to seek revenge, but we can overcome our desire for vengence by applying the same laws to those who hate everything we stand for that we would to our own citizens. They want to destroy civilization. We want to preserve it through our laws of justice, which serve as our foundation.

As I said, I believe this is Mr. Holder’s intent, but I’m not entirely of the same opinion. I believe bring these individuals to New York for trial may be fitting, but it may also make NYC a new target, not to mention the costs to New York taxpayers. Given the clumsiness of our prosecutors of late who have either lost or nearly lost what should have been “slam dunk” cases, I’m not sure I want to give these animals any chance of getting off. Indeed, I don’t want to give them any opportunity to use our courts as a forum to spew their hatred of America and Americans. If we’re trying to send a message, I don’t think those for whom the message is intended are listening. The only message they understand is fear and power. I believe we should demonstrate to them that they inspire no fear in us, and we will stamp out their contempt with contempt. In my opinion, the terrorists should be tried by a military tribunal free of the media circus (though, perhaps at a different location than at Gitmo), and if found guilty, promptly executed by the swiftness means possible. Their bodies should be burned and their ashes scattered to the four winds. No mercy to those who have shown no mercy.

Islam is a truly beautiful religion. It has given the world much. For anyone who has studied it, Islam is a religion of peace and intellectual inquiry. Sadly, however, these murders represent the sick minds who are attempting to hijack it. We can not and should not ever attempt to impose our culture or values on the people of the Middle East, or anywhere else for that matter. However, we should be willing to come to the aid of any people seeking to be freedom. Meanwhile, it’s ultimately up to Moslems around the world to stand up and send these cockroaches back into the dark where they belong.


Grim Reading, Crucial Choices on Energy
By Scott Bittle & Jean Johnson,
Authors of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis

You know you're in for a bout of grim reading when the international agency charged with worrying about how we power the planet starts off its fact sheet with a question like this: "Why is our current energy pathway unsustainable?"

That's the message from the International Energy Agency, which issued its World Energy Outlook report earlier this month, the organizations' annual examination of the big picture. That picture itself hasn't changed all that much. The fundamental challenge is still to meet surging worldwide demand for energy, while at the same time coming up with ways to avoid global warming and keep energy relatively affordable. Basically, the IEA says everything depends on whether or not world leaders get serious about climate change, very soon.

Chances are you've never heard of the IEA which was founded during the 1973-74 oil crisis to "coordinate measures in times of oil supply emergencies." Now IEA serves as an energy analyst, advisor, and think tank for 28 member countries -- the United States and European countries mainly, but also including countries like Japan, South Korea, and Turkey. While the agency has enormous influence among policymakers, it barely registers with the public. And despite the IEA's wonky tone and elite audience, the report has one great strength when it comes to getting the public involved: it focuses on choices and alternatives.

Here what IEA lays out in its 2009 report card:

• If we do nothing, then worldwide energy demand is projected to soar by 40 percent by 2030. The vast majority of that increase is going to come in the developing world, as people in China, India and throughout Asia see their standard of living rise. Even keeping up with that demand would require investing another $26 trillion. And unless things change, most of that energy is going to come from fossil fuels, which means "dire consequences for climate change" and air pollution, the IEA said.

• On the other hand, if world leaders committed to fighting climate change increased energy efficiency, greater use of renewable energy, and policies like cap-and-trade or carbon taxes designed to discourage use of carbon-emitting fuels, that would cost another $10.5 trillion (on top of the $26 trillion). But energy demand growth could be cut in half, and greenhouse gases would decline.

The world has decisions to make about energy, and of course, so does the United States. Everything we've learned about how people get engaged in policy decisions shows that laying out choices and being honest and clear about the pros and cons is essential -- not to mention being the right thing to do in a democratic society.
In the energy and environment arena, the choices are far from perfect, but then that's pretty typical with major public policy issues. As we've been pointing out lately, this country's choices on energy and the environment are a lot better than our choices on, for example, Afghanistan.

Changing the way we use energy will cost money and force adaptations that many of us would not choose, given our druthers. But we also have to face that sticking with the status quo will also cost money, and we could well have change forced on us by tight energy supplies and growing environmental destruction. Continuing to rely on the world's default setting on energy -- fossil fuels -- is just not going to work.
World leaders, deadlocked on many of the details, are increasingly trying to lower expectations for the big climate conference in Copenhagen next month. But delay is only valuable if it helps break the deadlock later on. The choices are ours to make, and time is running short to make them.

©2009 Scott Bittle & Jean Johnson, authors of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis

Author Bios
Scott Bittle, co-author of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis, is executive editor of PublicAgenda.org, where he has prepared citizen guides on more than twenty major issues including the federal budget deficit, Social Security, and the economy. He is also the website director for Planet Forward, an innovative PBS program designed to bring citizen voices to the energy debate.
Jean Johnson, co-author of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis, is co-founder of PublicAgenda.org, and has written articles and op-eds for USA Today, Education Week, School Board News, Educational Leadership, and the Huffington Post Website.

For additional energy resources and supplemental material, please visit www.whoturnedoutthelights.org


Poll Results

Our last poll asked you if the GOP should have done more to support their nominee, Dede Scozzafava. Ms. Scozzafava, as you’ll recall, was a moderate Republican running in a moderate district against a Democrat and very conservative third party candidate. However, conservatives, including many leading Republicans, came out in support a third party candidate rather than either support her or stay out of the fight. As a result, she quit the race and through her support behind the Democrat. The result was predictable enough---the Democrat won.

Fifty percent of you thought the GOP goofed by not backing its own nominee. The balance was split equally between those of you who thought it was ok for GOP leadership to back another party's candidate and those of you who weren’t quite sure. Personally, I’ve been position simular to Ms. Scozzafava. However, once in a fight, I never back down and I would never quit like she did, but I sure gave my local party hell and I fought on even harder.

Shopping for the Holidays?

I know if you're like me, you're so busy you don't have time to shop. May I make a suggestion that will help you and help this blog site? Check out my book recommendation to the right. You can also browse through not just the great books Amazon offers, but also the many great products offered by Amazon, and by shopping Amazon through AO, you help this blog keep going!