The Fall of Assad and Syria What does it mean for the U.S., Israel and the West?

 The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan was an embarrassment of monumental proportions. It not only left the Taliban back in charge of the government and the people (especially the women) worst off, Al Qaeda was still militarily and politically operational. We left so much military equipment behind, that Afghanistan went from being a country of no military significance to being one of the most powerful countries in the region!    

To add insult to injury, it now appears that Al Qaida will emerge as the controlling power in post Assad Syria. It's worth mentioning, that while we were battling Al Qaeda in Afghanistan for 20 years, following the cowardly attack on 9/11, the U.S. was arming and supporting Al Qaida's efforts, albeit under the names "Jabhat al-Nusra Front" and "Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham'  (aka"HTS" ) in Syria to overthrow President Bashar Assad.

Of course, ISIS/ISIL is back. They've already reoccupied the Syrian city of Homs and look to further expand. To give you an idea as to their intentions, all one needs to do is look at their name--- the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. On September 24, 2014, the Obama Administration officially announced they would be more "hands on" in Syria in order to oust ISIS.  

At about the same time, the CIA began using Syria as one of its base of operations, starting from the mid-1990s and extending well into the 2000's, for its "extraordinary renditions" (aka "unofficial kidnappings") of so-called "ghost detainees" (ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters, cleric, and supporters) for the purpose of extreme interrogation methods.

In 2008, the CIA formed the "Damascus Community School" to lure anti-Assad groups, officials, and civilians (such as teachers and professors) away from the pro-Soviet orbit. They also started funded and training various paramilitary units to oppose Assad, as well as pro-Iranian terrorist organizations. It should be mentioned that the CIA has been active in Syria since 1949 when it helped plan the March Coup of 1949. Syria was the CIA's first "test case" for overthrowing governments not seen as favorable to U.S. national interests.

Using the code name "Operation Inherent Resolve" (my how they do love their secret code names), the U.S. vowed to fight ISIS through the Syrian Free Army (aka "Revolutionary Commando Army" or "RCA") and the Kurdish led Syrian Democratic Front, led by the Kurdish "Popular Protection Units", which are regarded as a terrorist organization by Qatar and Turkey (one nation's terrorists is another nation's liberators). Other groups involved in the fighting include Syrian National Army and the Turkish Armed Forces.

Now, why would we underwrite groups to overthrow the government of President Bashar Assad? The answer is really simply. Syria has been Russia's regional ally for decades. Syria is to Russia what Israel is to the United States. Of course, the U.S. made the usual allegations about the people fighting for their democracy and so forth, the truth was to simply remove the pro-Russian Assad Government, secure access to Syrian oil and gas, and further isolate Iran.

Iran is the center piece in this regional game of chess. The neocons goal all along has been to take control of Iraq and Afghanistan, and destabilize Syria.  Then, with our Arab allies, isolate and ultimately strangle the Iranian government. Well, Iraq is free of Saddam but it's far from stable. However, like the Russians before us,  we were handed our eviction notice by the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan while Iran remains still standing.  

In fact, Iran is hard at work developing a nuclear bomb and delivery system to "wipe Israel off the map, even at the cost of Iran being vaporized.  In addition, the Iranians have helped to underwrite and arm terrorist groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, Boko Harem in Africa, and terrorist organizations in Yemen, Libya, Sudan, and elsewhere. 

The only glimmer about the Assad Government's fall is that Russia is without its primary regional ally. The problem is that Al Qaeda, which has already launched rockets at Israel while fighting the Syrian military, will now be that much closer to Israel and will have another shot at a Islamic State.

Israel has used the chaos in the aftermath of President Bashar Assad's departure, to expand its presence from the 1973 UN imposed buffer zone with Syria by redeploying its troops from the top of the Golan Heights to new positions just a few miles on the other side of the Golan mountains, thus pushing Al Qaeda's Iranian supplied missiles a little further back. 

Not unexpectedly, the rest of the Arab world, including some of its nominal "friends" like Jordan and Egypt, to object, claiming that Israel is attempting to permanently occupy Syrian territory.  Of course, it didn't help that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said precisely that was Israel's intent. 

Although Russia has been engaged in a protracted war with Ukraine, designed to keep it bogged down, deplete its military and economy, and (hopefully) weaken Putin's hold on the government, Russia did make a attempt to aid their old comrade, Assad, despite a chorus from the West (led by the U.S. State Department) alleging "interference". Why is it that the U.S. and West can aid allies but nobody else can?

While Assad wasn't necessarily a good guy, at least as far as U.S. interests were concerned, he did provide a stabilizing presence. Much like Saddam Hussein had done in Iraq (even after having his wings clipped following "Operation Desert Storm",  Saddam provided Iraq and the region with political and military stability while keeping the religious extremists in check albeit under his iron fist. Hussein's removal and U.S. failure to have a post-Saddam plan in place, ultimately resulted in a backlash against U.S. occupation and its puppet government, the suppression of the majority Shiite, and radical Islam. 

For those unfamiliar with the political situation in Iraq and why a majority religious group would be held in check, it's because Saddam Hussein was part of the Sunni minority. Saddam ensured that Sunni tribal chieftains and members of his family (including uncles and cousins) were given positions of power while key members of the government and military were also Sunnis.  

The suppressed Shiites were often brutally treated (as were the Kurdish and Christian populations). It's worth mentioning that Saddam had only one Christian as part of his secular administration, Tariq Aziz, who was Deputy prime Minister. Aziz was a member of the Chaldean Catholic Church, a sect of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Kurds and Yazidis had no one in Saddam's government.

Like Hussein, Assad managed to keep religious fanatics  at bay and limit Iran's influence (he also throttled Turkey's expansionist ambitions. However, like the Turks, he was no friend of Kurds and only tolerated the Yazidi as well as the Christians).  Now, that's all changed thanks in large part to neo-con arrogance and a shortsighted U.S. foreign policy. So, what happens next?

As with most events of this sort, there will likely be a prolonged and bloody battle for final control of the country. Syria will, no doubt, end up divided with two dominant players jockeying for position behind the scenes.  The first will of course be the U.S. and its proxy, Israel. The other will be Iran and its puppet terrorists organizations, and behind it Russia and China. The trouble, I think, is that the neo-cons and Iranians are playing two very different and dangerous games.

The U.S. is, as always, thinking in terms of regime change. Its objective is the ultimate control of Iran's ample oil and gas production, and control of the region. China is playing a similar game by buying up rights to resources all over the world. It knows that whoever controls key resources such as fresh water, farmland, and strategic minerals needed for technology, wins. We are banking that the control of oil and gas will ultimately trump China's objectives.

Iran, however, is less interested in who among the non-believers control what. It's outlook is strictly religious. It sees as its sole objective to restore or impose a strict global Islamic Caliphate, to aid in the coming of the 12th Imam (a messiah or prophet of sorts) and the destruction of Israel at any cost, even that of its own survival.

The thing about religious zealotry is that you can only bargain with it in the short term, You can never compromise with it over the long term. Why? Because from its perspective, it is God's sole arbiter on Earth. How can God be negotiated with or bought off? There is only submit or perish.

President Assad's departure will create a void more severe than did Saddam Hussein's by creating a similar strategy as to the neocon's, but in reverse. It's mortal enemy, Iraq, is no longer a threat. The Shiites are now in charge, which is good for Iran. After 20 years of war, Afghanistan remains. The Taliban is still in charge. The "Great Satan"---the United States---has been defeated in their eyes, and our unorganized departure has left them stronger than they were in the beginning.

 Despite the decimation of its leadership, Al Qaida remains , and now it's on the verge of controlling a large swath of Syria. ISIS/ISIL too presents a serious threat.  Iran's proxies are closer to Israel than ever, and therefore Iran's missiles won't require the development and deployment of a long range delivery system. In fact, Al Qaida has already shown that it can easily hit Israel's Galilee area from their positions in northern Syria.

Israel's occupation of the far side of the Golan Heights, which has been demilitarized since the Syrian defeat in the 1973 Yom Kipper War, is understandable from a military security perspective. Additionally, there is some bad blood between many of the rebels now in control of Syria. How that will play out remains a serious question with the very real possibility of a renewed civil war.

It provides a badly needed extra buffer zone, but at what cost? The ire of the Arab world, including its tentative friends? Even its historic allies in the West, principally the EU/NATO and even the U.S., have accused the Israelis of deliberate "genocide" of the Gazians  (although Hamas has done far worse to them, and bear in mind, Hamas started this fight with a massacre of 1200+ Israeli civilians on October 7, 2024).

Now, Turkey, a major power of the EU and NATO, has hinted at intervention if Israel doesn't back off. If that happens, what then? The prime directive of NATO is "an attack on one is an attack on all". Could little ole Israel find itself facing NATO and the Arab world, and if so, what about the United States? It's the linchpin of NATO. Meanwhile, the various factions will duke it out for greater control and old scores will be settled as it always tends to happen in a power vacuum.  This is what's at stake now that Assad's government has fallen and U.S. foreign policy continues to blunder forward with outdated objectives.

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you found our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free thinking individuals. We do ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever site you found us on, and that you please pass our post along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

Who are the rebels in Syria?

Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)

5 things to watch as Syria confronts a new future

Islamic State

Syrian Democratic Forces

US intervention in the Syrian civil war

 

Revolutionary Commando Army

CIA activities in Syria

 

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

The Killing of Qassem Soleimani: Making the World Safer or Lighting the Fuse for WWIII?

I'll cut straight to the chase and right to the point. President Trump ordered the execution of a cold blooded terrorist. A man who was directly responsible for the murder of thousands of Iranians, Iraqis, Yemites, Afghanis, Yazidis, Kurds, and American servicemen and women as well as civilians. Iranian General Qassem Soleimani was involved in aiding the likes of ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Boku Haram.

They are responsible for the murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and even other Muslims, plus the kidnapping, rapes and selling of young women into slavery. The final straw for the U.S. was the murder of an American contractor, ordered by General Soleimani. From a moral perspective, the world is far better off by his removal. But is the world any safer? By removing this individual are we any closer to world or even regional peace?

There's no question that General Soleimani, who headed the Quds Force, part of the hard line Revolutionary Guards which serves as a cross between the CIA, the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and Delta Force, was despicable; someone on the same level as a Tamerlane or Himmler. President Trump has received nothing but criticism, ranging from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and members of the Democratic Party to the print and electronic media to the talking heads on television.

Pelosi is miffed that Trump didn't tell her first about the pending attack. But then, President Obama didn't tell her beforehand about taking out Osama Ben Laden either and she was just fine with it. In fact, not only Obama, but George W. Bush had ordered the targeting of key ISIS and Al Qaeda leaders without alerting either Pelosi or Congress and everyone seemed okay with that. In fact, the media never said "boo" to either about it. Now why is that? My guess is that this is nothing more than an ongoing attempt at character assassination; of promoting public distrust of President Trump.

So, what was General Soleimani doing in Iraq on January 3rd in the first place (and at a public airport no less)? His presence there was supposed to have been forbidden by the Iraqis. Well, it turns out that he was there to meet with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandi, the deputy commander of the Iranian sponsored Popular Mobilization Forces, an umbrella organization overseeing the various pro-Iranian militias.

Al-Mudandi had arrived with a small convoy to meet with Soleimani and escort him to a safe location outside of Baghdad, presumably to coordinate plans for future terror attacks on pro-Western targets, including U.S. diplomats and military personnel. Al-Mudanhi and a driver were also killed in the attack. It should be pointed out that the drone attack which took out Soleimani came just days after a failed attempt to seize the U.S. embassy by pro-Iranian militias in Baghdad had ended (that attack was in response to an earlier U.S. air attacks killing 25 Hezbollah fighters).

In addition, under the direction of Soleimani, members of the Revolutionary Guards had seized or attacked several oil tankers in the Gulf of Hormuz, attacked a Saudi oil field, and shot down a U.S. surveillance drone (okay, that may have been justified). Pro-Iranians militias, operating through Quds Force, have also been active in Syria and supplying both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Giza.

So now what? Well, in keeping with tradition, Iran responded. They withdrew from the agreement restricting their development of "nuclear reactors" (wink wink) which, to be honest, they've not been following anyway. They also launched a limited missile attack on two American bases in Iraq (no one was killed or injured). Heck, they've even raised their "red flag of doom" on the Jamkaran Mosque in Qom to signify a pending war (this is Iran's largest and most famous mosque).

Nevertheless, while their flag stills flies atop the mosque, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said that "proportionate measures" have been taken and the matter is now concluded. He added that Iran didn't want any further escalation but would respond in self defense is provoked further. However, Iran's religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called the Iranian missile attacks a "slap on the face" of the U.S. hinted at possible, more "severe" attacks to come in the near future.

Iran has to be careful in its response. First, to overreact is to essentially admit that Western intelligence was correct about Soleimani's importance as the mastermind behind Iran's attempts to destabilize the region and export its brand of radicalized Islam. Iran, while acknowledging Soleimani as the head of Quds Force, has long denied any involvement in terrorism in the region. Their response must be measured; even downplayed. He must be treated a merely a high ranking general.

Secondly, despite American led sanctions, Iran depends heavily on its restricted oil exports to keep the economy going. Iran has close ties to Russia, China, and North Korea which has helped. So has its limited trade agreement with the EU (especially France, Germany and the UK), along with various Arab nations including the United Arab Republic (UAR). To engage the U.S. in a tit-for-tat conflict could easily disrupt Iran's current trade arrangements, which would plunge the country into an economic spiral for which it might not recover.

At the same time, a enlarged U.S. military involvement in the region could also trigger panic in the West and drive the cost of oil and gas to near record highs (some have predicted as much as $100 per barrel of oil). Despite having one of the strongest militaries in the Middle East, Iran wouldn't stand much of a chance against the U.S. However, Iran would be no Iraq. The Iranians are much better trained and equipped than Saddam's forces thanks to support from Russia and China.

In addition, Iran is the lynchpin in the "We Hate America and Israel" club. Muslims throughout the Middle East and elsewhere, while appreciating the removal of a despot like Saddam Hussein, resent the continued presence of Western forces in the region which is viewed as a "conquering force". They also disapprove of our continued support of Israel. A war could result in Iran being able to unite Muslims and turn it from a political/economic conflict into a religious one (and as any historian will tell you, religious wars are the most ruthless and bloody of them all. After all, you're murdering on behalf your god. How can you possibly compromise or surrender?).

I would expect Hamas and Hezbollah to attack Israel with weapons its stockpiled from Iran. Additionally, it would provide an irresistible opportunity for North Korea to act up as well with a possible attack against South Korea, launch missiles at Japan (which it hates as much as it hates us) or even Hawaii or U.S. territories like Guam or Midway. Who knows, maybe China would use U.S. preoccupation to retake Taiwan. After all, we can't be everywhere and with over 20 years of active military engagement, we're kind of pooped. Our military badly needs time to reset, overhaul equipment and replenish inventory. The burnout rate of military personnel is at record highs (as are suicides).

Lastly, there's home...our home, America. Although Homeland Security, U.S. intelligence agencies, members of Congress, and the media have long known but remained virtually silent on the point that there is the strong likelihood of the Muslim terrorist cells in the U.S and quite possibly Canada, the UK, Mexico, throughout Western Europe.

For that matter, Russia and China likely have terrorist cells as well. Both Russia and China have had ongoing problems with Muslim separatists. There are some 9.4 million Muslims in Russia; mostly living in the southwestern portion of the country. Russia's troubles with the Chechens started back in 1994 and is still going on, with thousands dead and no end in sight. China has been attempting to suppress the Muslim Uyghurs in the Xinjiang Province for a couple of decades now.

The Uyghur comprise almost 50% of the population in Xinjiang with large pockets throughout mostly western China, including the Hui, Kyrgyz, and Kazakh who are also mainly Muslim. Although no official numbers are kept, it's estimated that China has around 23 million Muslims---up to 2% of their entire population. However, the more pressure applied by the Chinese, the more they resist. Already, almost 1.5 million Muslims have been imprisoned in what Chinese officials called "reeducation camps".

A war or even a serious uptick in hostilities between Iran and the United States benefits no one. It would deeply affect not just the already fragile economy of Iran (and possibly topple their government), but further destabilize the region, and deeply affect the economies of Europe, the U.S. and the rest of the world. It could engulf the world in a asymmetrical war which could last decades and where there would be no winners.

It's even possible, if not likely, that the end result could be a nuclear war. At the very least, it could involve chemical and biological weapons regardless of any so-called "international prohibitions". I don't care what god you believe in, I can't imagine one who would want to see all of humanity either destroyed or reduced to subsistence conditions. We could only hope that aliens would come down and save us from ourselves.

But reality being what it is, this is about oil. It's about gas. It's also about its control and flow. As an aside, Iran had just announced the discovered of an new oil field capable of producing over 56 billion barrels of oil. Think that's a coincidence? The ruling Oligarchy is, as readers of A/O already know, all about the control of assets and resources, which, by the way, also includes us.

If they are unable to acquire control through normal business channels, then they will employ the resources of government, which they control, to achieve their desired consequences, backed by a media they also control, to manufacture a properly suited villain. Add a dash of nationalism, a pinch of fear and you've got yourself the recipe for a military "intervention". Whether it's called a "war of liberation", a "fight for freedom" or "spreading democracy", it's all about control and, of course, profit.

President Trump, whether you love him or loathe him, acted on the intelligence presented to him by his advisors and generals, along with their recommendations. Trump was and will always be a businessman. He's not an expert on foreign policy or military matters. Obama, with virtually no political experience and had been a local "community organizer" wasn't either. George W. Bush was a largely unsuccessful businessman and mediocre governor wasn't much better.

All three men acted on what others told them. This is where you'll find the ruling Oligarchy; the "Deep State". It lays within the system itself, which makes the situation all the more dangerous. We can only hope that those who advise the president, whoever that may be, are acting in our national interests with an eye toward preserving Humanity rather than towards short term power and wealth.

'Stick of dynamite in a tinderbox': Why General Qassem Soleimani was killed, and what may happen next

European Commission: Iran


Iran supreme leader says missile attack was a 'slap on the face' of the U.S. but it was 'not enough'.


Trump Says Iran Appears to Be Backing Down From Conflict After Overnight Strikes


Analysis: The different stages of Iranian support for ISIS

Ceasefire in Syria: Buying Time for the Kurds and the Region

There's a tenuous truce right now between Syrian, Kurdish, and invading Turkish troops. The truce and ceasefire went into effect on October 17, just days after US forces withdrew from the northern region of Syria, separating Kurdish forces and Turks massing on their eastern border. The ceasefire agreement came as a result of---or perhaps despite of---a October 9th letter sent to Turkey's President, Recep Tayyip Erodogan, and President Donald Trump in which he urged the Turkish President not to be a "tough guy" or a "fool".

President Trump went on to say that the U.S. could and would use economic sanctions to disrupt the Turkish economy, and closed with a promise to follow up with a phone call. Allegedly the Turkish president wadded up the letter and threw it into the trashcan. The letter was written the same day Turkish forces began crossing into northern Syria. Whether or not the letter was taken seriously or should have been worded more diplomatically, it appears to have had the desired result.

The Kurds, who were instrumental in the defeat of not just ISIS, but also in the downfall of Saddam Hussein, have had a long standing feud with the Turks, primarily over the issue of sovereignty. Part of the land occupied by the Kurdish people over the last 5000 years or so, includes eastern portions of Turkey, as well as part of northern Syria, northern Iraq, and western Iran.

Following the end of World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Kurdish people had been promised a independent homeland by the victorious allies (principally France and England who acquired the lion's share of the Middle East). However, just a few years later, that promise was broken and the Kurdish people were divided up between four newly created countries---Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey---with a semi-autonomous territory called Kurdistan created in northern Iraq.

Meanwhile, the Kurds were subjected to purges and genocide. Turkey even refused to acknowledge the Kurds on the eastern border, referring to them as "Mountain Turks" instead, along with attempts to suppress their language and culture. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein wage a catastrophic war on the Kurds, including the use of nerve and saran gas attacks. Things weren't much better in Iran or Syria.

So why the invasion? An interesting question to be sure. Partly because a measure of stability has been re-established in the region with the defeat of ISIS. In addition, Syria, a long standing major Russian ally, is much more weakened militarily and economically because of its recent civil war with factions within the country (the U.S. was also looking at not just weakening Syria, but in toppling its president, Bashar el-Assad, in hopefully of a more pro-American government, which would deprive Moscow of a key ally in the region). In addition, it would allow the US an opportunity to put surveillance and perhaps ground forces close to Syria's border with Washington's archenemy, Iran. Perhaps this would give the Turks an opportunity to seize territory in northern Syria, as well as to get rid of the newly embolden Kurdish fighters and put an end to the idea of a independent homeland for the Kurdish people once and for all.

Another key factor is that the semi-autonomous province of Kurdistan sits on approximately 1/3 of Iraq's oil and gas reserves. Nothing in geopolitics gets more attention than the control and flow of oil and gas, which was a key factor in removing former ally, Saddam Hussein, who got a little too big for his britches with the invasion of Kuwait and it's oil production (as well as proximity to the Persian Gulf and their regional enemy, Saudi Arabia). Meanwhile, in Iran, the Kurds have been engaged in a "hot and cold" with whoever was in charge, for a independent homeland, especially since 1918. Since 2014, the intensity has increased to a much more "hot" insurgent war. Since 1946, there has been approximately 28,000 fighters killed, while from 1980 to 2000, around 30,000 civilians have died with no signs of easing hostilities.

President Erdogan alerted Trump on October 6th of his intentions to invade and requested that U.S. troops in the area be evacuated. Trump agreed, and the small detachment of soldiers and equipment were moved further south. What prompted Trump to do so, knowing full well that our Kurdish allies would likely be annihilated is unknown. At first there was a quip about the Kurds not "helping" us in World War II. I don't know if he was serious or not, but no one was smiling. The Pentagon and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle were quick to criticize Trump's decision. In the eyes of the world, especially the Middle East which places a very high value on trust and loyalty, this didn't go down well.

Now President Trump is trying to force the Turks back out of Syria and minimize any damage to the Kurds. However, damage has already taken place. Kurdish troops guarding captured ISIS prisoners have been forced to flee the area, leaving the battle-harden ISIS fighters (in at least one case, around 1000 ISIS prisoners were able to escape thanks to the Turkish backed Free Syrian Army).

In addition, a key Kurdish politician and women's right advocate, Hevrin Khalaf, along with eight others, were ambushed and murdered by Turkish supported rebels who oppose Syria's President Assad. Hevrin was secretary-general of the Future Free Syria Party and a key diplomatic figure in trying to find a peaceful settlement to the situation in Syria and the region. Thus far, approximately 38 civilians have been killed since the October 9th invasion began.

Trump's blunder is serious. It has damaged our image in the eyes of not just our friends and allies, but has also provided a strategic opening for our enemies. They will use this opportunity to show that the United States isn't to be trusted; that it's better to deal with them than an American government whose support ebbs and flows based on its current needs. It will be surprising if North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, Russia's Vladimir Putin, or China's Xi Jinping don't make use of this error in judgment.

Another factor is that while Erdogan has agreed to a ceasefire, he has not agreed to a withdrawal of Turkish forces. This may result in a potential Syrian-Turkish clash. Given the strategic importance of Syria to Russia, there's little doubt that Putin will not allow any attempts at seizing either territory or toppling the Assad Government. Given that Turkey is a member of NATO and an important trading partner of the EU, that will prove to be interesting, especially given that an attack on one NATO partner is viewed as an attack on NATO itself.

How will the other NATO countries respond if Russian troops are introduced en-masse in Syria? In addition, China is also a friend of Syria, supplying it with an array of weapons as well as economic trade (Russia and China are supporters of the Iranians as well). Meanwhile, Israel sits isolated with its back to the Mediterranean with Iranian back Hezbollah to the north and Iranian back Hamas to the south. Not a position I'd like to be in.

So where does that leave us? First, it leaves President Trump with mud on that orange face of his. He has to first find a way to protect our Kurdish allies while at the same time convincing our NATO ally to back out gracefully. He has to be aware of Russia's keen attention to the situation (as well as China's). I would suggest that he be sure to keep both in the loop and well informed of what we're doing. Any misstep could set in motion something no one wants.

Meanwhile, he has to allow Erdogan to save face, especially in the eyes of the Muslim/Arab world. Turkey is 99% Muslim (mainly Sunni), however, it's also very secular and tends to be Westward looking. That makes Erdogan vulnerable to Muslim extremists who would love to turn Turkey into another Iran. As an aside, it would prove to be interesting to see how NATO would deal with a extremist backed civil war in Turkey, especially one supported by Iran. The potential affect could devastate the world economy, especially in Europe.

Trump will have to also find a way to reestablish trust with our Kurdish allies. It's essential, particularly given that ISIS is down but not out in the region. The Kurds not only provided us with military or logistic support, they were major sources of military intelligence. Without them, we would have had a much harder time not just defeating Saddam, but also in defeating ISIS.

Now that Turkish backed groups are busy freeing ISIS prisoners, we can expect that they'll be back with a vengeance. You can expect a uptick in terrorist attacks throughout the region, as well as in Africa, Europe, and even in Asia which has a large Muslim population. Lastly, you can bet that they'll look for ways to strike the U.S. both overseas and domestically.

I generally like Trump. I like his pro-American attitude and willingness to challenge that corrupt bipartisan status quo which has taken control of the government. As I've written many times before, and as academia has verified, America is an Oligarchy. Our Republic is gone. All that's left is the illusion of what we once had similar to what ancient Rome experienced. Trump has shown the moxie to fight back.

Naturally, he's being fought tooth and nail every step of the way by Democrats and Republicans and their corporate owners. Whoever advised Trump to step aside and allow the Turks to invade either knew nothing of political realities of the region or intended to intentionally sabotaged him, knowing the potential outcome of what those actions would bring. I don't know which is worse. I know that control, be it of assets, resources, or us, is the name of game and that lives matter little to the Oligarchy.


Turkish Backed Forces Are Freeing Islamic State Prisoners


Kurdish politician, other civilians 'executed' by Turkey-backed group

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

I Know You Heard What I Said But Did You Understand What I Meant?

I titled this article after a oft used quote from a good friend of mine back in my Navy days. His name was "Nick', although we all called him "Moses" because of his thick black beard. Nick was forever making quips which, unfortunately, were sometimes taken out of context. This occasionally led to some intense verbal discussions mainly with folks who didn't understand Nick's personality very well. Nick's response was usually the above quote. Nick was fond of saying that so many times people see and hear what they want to see or hear; usually as a result of societal preconditioning. It's almost like they were subconsciously preconditioned to pick up on specific words or images without considering the rest. I used to kid Nick that, for a "Yankee", that was pretty insightful, and it was.

I've been writing Another Opinion since 2005, but my articles go back a lot further than that (I've got some 500 or so articles under my belt as far as A/O goes). I've had articles published in numerous professional journals, magazines, and newspapers. I've appeared on television and been a guest of various radio shows. I've even co-hosted a top rated Independent radio show of my own. My opinions have sometimes changed on various topics as new information became available, but I don't think its affected my core beliefs. One of those core beliefs has been to be open minded; to at least actually listen to the other person. While rarely my opinion was changed, I've have often learned something new or became aware of something I wanted to know more about. If you don't change and evolve, you stagnate and decay. It applies just as much to ideas as to life, and dogmas aren't very good at change.

However, I've noticed a decided change of late where an exchange of opinions, especially opposing opinions are increasingly not tolerated any more. It's like one side or another has decided that what the other person's has to say is not only automatically "wrong" because it's different, that person doesn't even have the right to express it. We're seeing it on college campuses (which should be the last place where freedom of expression and speech should be denied), high school and elementary school, and even in the corporate world (where a single comment or even word, taken out of context, almost automatically leads to manufactured condemnation, boycotts, and public ridicule).

We've seen individuals attacked, protests which have turned into near riots with businesses vandalized. Even those who have been invited to speak have found themselves assaulted, the stage swarmed, and deprived of the opportunity to express their opinion, all because its differs from the current "groupthink" or "echo chamber" mentality which simply reinforces one's beliefs and values by being exposed to one narrative only. People are then left assuming that their particular opinion is the only valid one. Meanwhile, the other side is demonized.

This type of thinking carries with it the implied belief that the other side has no "right" to their opinions or to express them. I think, at its core, this "groupthink" goes back to our education system, from grade school through college, with students not being taught critical thinking skills; the ability to research and reason out logically an argument. I remember being taught to not just know the other side's position as well as our own, but actually having to defend their position in order to know how to best validate ours. In addition, students are not taught Civics or history (at least to any meaningful degree). What they do learn is very narrow and limited in scope and typically one sided. As an aside, we need to focus on practical skills and trade schools which provide near immediate entry into the job market with good pay and benefits. Not everyone should or need to go to college.

Some college administrators have recently had to cancel speakers over threats of protests and possible violence. Even I have had individuals complain about some of my posts; usually claiming that I write, post, or comment about just one side and not the other. A few have directed their comments (or emojis) at me personally if they happened to dislike an article I came across and posted. I've even had fellow writers, vloggers, and talk radio jocks who've been attacked verbally and in some cases, physically threatened over their articles or comments What happened to civility folks?

I recall an old quote by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, an English writer of Voltaire, which goes something like this, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it", which reminds me of another quote which is equally important, especially these days, "Your freedom of expression stops where my personal space begins" (paraphrased from Judicial philosopher and civil libertarian Zechariah Chafee Jr, who said "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins"). Again, it all goes back to civility and the right of individuals to express their opinion on various topics in a mutually respectful matter and environment.

Of course, much of the disrespect these days is manufactured by paid political operatives hiding behind fake shill groups and amplified by the corporate-owned media for the purpose of shutting the other side in an effort to control the political narrative. It's a coordinated effort to end or discourage public discourse in order to control the political (and thus social and economic) direction this country pursues. What this reminds me of is the running street battles between the SA (Brownshirts) and the Communists during the early 1930s in Germany. Each side would attack the other's speakers and/or disrupt meetings and events, except here most of the attacks and disrupting are being done just by one side (so far).

An increasing number of writers and social commentators (your truly included) have noted that this has contributed greatly to America's widening social, economic, and political divide. Many noted political scientists and historians have pointed out that America hasn't been this deeply divided since the decade preceding the Civil War. The same can be said of Germany in the 1930's as mentioned above. One thing for certain, is that this divide, which began with Bill Clinton and continued through George W Bush and Barack Obama, may have already reached and passed the point of no return.

As I've often pointed out (and been equally criticized about for reminding people), Hillary's defeat amid charges of repeatedly lying to Congress, illegal weapons and uranium sales, rigging of the Democratic Primary (in conjunction with the then DNC Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who was fired for her role but immediately hired by the Clinton Campaign), the Benghazi Scandal, and other charges along with the election of Donald Trump, the non-Establishment Republican candidate, may historically represent the tipping point
.
Some would argue that Obama was the tipping point, and there's certainly a good argument for that given his gutting of ICE and suing the State of Arizona for enforcing immigration laws (and allowing Mexico to join in the lawsuit---a first), Eric Holder's illegal arms deal with the drug cartels (resulting in the deaths of border agents as well as DEA agents), and repeated efforts to invade Syria just to mention a tiny few. Of course, one could equally argue George W Bush was the tipping point. Lord knows he bungled enough! We could start with the invasion of Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, which destabilized the entire region and led to the rise of ISIS and Boko Harem and the genocide of Assyrian Christians, Yazidis, and Kurds. It also triggered the mass influx of "migrants" into Europe (thanks also to the imbecilic political "leadership" in Europe), but there's so much more than just that. The point is that regardless of their political parties, we've witnessed a recent history of disastrous policy mistakes.

It's this point which is so often overlooked by critics (even friendly ones) of Another Opinion. From their preconditioned perspectives, I must either be Left or Right. It's one or the other. There are no other choices because the corporate-owned media has told them there are no other choices. The fact is that there are other choices. It's not all black or white (or red and blue in this case I suppose). I don't ascribe to any partisan party dogma. Been there. Done that. No thanks. I prefer to think for myself, which often means doing my own research and studying the pros and cons of every argument. But, that kind of thinking is viewed almost as heresy these days because it doesn't fit with the established political narrative which says that what ails you and society---whatever it is---is the fault of the other side.

Listen folks, if the Democrats were all they claim to represent, there wouldn't be a Republican one in office anywhere in America. By the same token, if the Republican Party was all it claimed to be, you couldn't find a Democrat anywhere. The fact is they aren't. They both represent Corporate America because they underwrite their campaigns. Their lobbyists help them write the bills and then provide summaries of those bills along with recommendations on how to vote. These corporations provide a revolving door into some very lucrative positions and back again. Meanwhile, you and I get the illusion of thinking that we make a difference by voting when in actuality, we simply get to pick between two pre-approved candidates. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if we chose between red "Kool-Aid" or blue "Kool-Aid".

The system is broken, at least as far as we are concerned. For the ruling elites which make up America's Oligarchy, it works just fine...as intended. It is this game which I won't play. I want our democratic Republic back. I believe that when someone is elected to office, they should cease being a Republican or Democrat or whatever. They cease representing a political party and it's myopic dogma and represent Americans and what's best for all of us, not just a few, and certainly not just the uber-wealthy and powerful. I believe in representatives not dependent on corporate money. I believe in a transparent government with public input (taxes, pay raises should all be voted on by the citizens). I believe there should be term limits.

I believe Congress and the Presidency should be bound by the same laws that we are (and that includes their insurance. They also should not receive lifetime salaries or security---they can pay for it if they want it). I also believe that the United States, like every other nation, has the right to protect their borders. Any group which aids illegal immigrants should be fined and lose their business or tax exempt status (suspended for six months with their first offense. One year with their second and permanent with their third). Only US Citizens should be entitled to any taxpayer based social services.

Everyone graduating from high school should be required to have two semesters of Civics minimum, which includes volunteering for some charity like Meals on Wheels or at the VA; maybe helping out with the Board of Elections doing voter registration drives. In addition, students graduating from high school should have a basic comprehension of math, science, history, and English (of course, I would love to see teachers paid on par with coaches too). I couldn't care less what kind of athlete they are. If they are on a sixth or eighth grade academic level, they don't graduate. On a unrelated note, the LBJ's "War on Drugs" is a failure. We need to legalized marijuana and focus more on rehabilitation for misdemeanors (being sure to segregate them from felony cases, especially violent and/or career criminals). Those convicted of violent crimes involving premeditated murder should be given a choice---solitary confinement for life or execution. Their choice. I don't want to hear about their sad little childhood. They're adults who made adult decisions, albeit bad ones.

I support the 2nd Amendment. Period. It wasn't written for hunters or weekend target shooting. It was written to protect the people from a tyrannical government. I support the right of employees to organize, be it as a union or an employee association. If you look at the history of unions, they developed in industries where employees were abused and taken advantage of. However, I think many of today's union leadership are little better than corporate bosses. That needs to stop, and unions should return to the employees if unions are to have any chance of surviving. At the same, if you're a business and you want to avoid unions, then stop treating your employees like crap and pay them a decent wage. Problem solved.

While I'm at it, fully support a social safety net. We also need help at some point, and sometimes that help has to come from society (preferably as a last resort). However, never should living off of taxpayer charity be a "career choice". It should be temporary; just long enough to get retrained or find another job (and no, you shouldn't continue to get more money for continuing to have more children. If the national average is 2.5 for instance, the maximum amount of assistance should be three kids. Families on public support should not be penalized for having the male remain with the family. I don't support Affirmative Action. Sorry. I see it as simply legalized reverse discrimination. Employers should be able to hire the best qualified candidate. It's good for the business and its good for society in the long run.

I don't support intervention in the affairs of other nations, especially their elections unless there is a legitimate need. We get bent out of shape with claims of their alleged intervention in ours. The US has been overthrowing governments and assassinating duly elected leaders and backing military dictatorships. It's not our business who another country freely elections or what kind of government they want (for that matter, we need to stop propping up governments. We need to seriously start closing overseas bases where we don't have a real security need to be there, and that includes withdrawing from NATO. While we're at it, we need to reexamine who are our strategic allies are today instead of basing them on war which ended in 1990.

So dear reader, there you have it. If any of this makes me seem "Right" leaning or "Left" leaning, so be it. I see myself, and this blog as Centrist (it's been consistently ranked among the top 25 Centrist blogs in the country for several years now). I see issues and look at addressing them based on the facts at hand, not through a blue or red prism. I also feel free to change my opinion as those facts change without fear of not being a ideological purist. I have no use for political dogma, either Right or Left, and I refuse to fit neatly in some prepackaged "either/or" box. I will consider myself free to praise or criticize Republicans or Democrats or anyone else based on what they actually did. I am very good at tap dancing on toes and tipping sacred cows. The nice thing is that I know I'm in good company. Independents such as myself are now the political majority with 44% of the electorate and growing, while Democrats and Republican are stuck in the 20% range and shrinking. I eagerly await word of their impending demise. It's time to take back our country from the ruling plutocracy---the Oligarchs---and their trained media attack dogs. I refuse to chose "either/or" politics and instead, chose a democratic Republic with We the People in charge. Now that you've heard what I have to say, do you understand what I mean?