Lawdog voices an increasing concern

 

I'm sure most of my readers have read The Lawdog Files - either the old blog, or his books.  He's a personal friend of long standing.  Lawdog is now writing on Substack, and a lot more frequently, too.  Do yourself a favor and bookmark his new online home, and visit it frequently.

Here are excerpts from one of his recent essays, which I endorse completely.

There are a whole bunch of 50-70 year-olds in the United States who fought the Cold War in dark alleys, midnight ports, and moonlit rooftops with knives, brass knuckles, and silenced pistols.

There are a whole bunch of 30-50 year-olds in the United States who fought vicious CQC battles in places like Mogadishu, Tora Bora, Fallujah, Najaf, and Mazar E Sharif.

There are 20-somethings from places like Compton, El Paso, Chicago, Detroit, Tiajuana, “the barrio”, “the ghetto”, and “the heights” who have stainless-steel teeth and thousand yard stares.

There are uncounted numbers of immigrants who have come here from war-torn hell-holes — and brought the skills and attitudes that enabled them to survive along.

On top of all that — America is the only country that I know of where a man of good record can walk into a school, hand over cold hard cash, and get a weekend of training that Special Forces in the Third World are envious of.

This is what I’m worried about.

I’m worried that when Biff the Hygienically-Challenged and his Coterie of Fanatics decide that sucker-punching neo-nazis just isn’t enough — or torching electric cars doesn’t have that same rush — and mission creep themselves into Proper Fanatical Stupidity, that some truly scary people are going to start whacking and stacking in response.

I don’t want to find myself standing over what’s left of a coyote attack and suddenly realizing that unless coyotes are carrying knives, some unsettlingly well-trained monster has just decided that he has had enough, and has gone hunting.

Y’all should be worried about this, too.

There's more at the link.  Go read it all.  It's worth it.

I fit Lawdog's fourth paragraph quoted above.  The group of friends we've gathered here in north Texas includes representatives of his first and second paragraphs, too:  and most of us have added the training mentioned in his fifth paragraph to that we received from our respective armed forces during our previous lives, incarnations and careers.

We've all seen the growing propensity to anarchic, extremist violence among certain segments of our population.  We're all worried by it . . . and we've all taken steps to ensure that if said segments of our population attempt to get frisky in our general direction, we'll be ready, willing and (very) able to do something about it.  The same can be said for a fairly sizable proportion of the residents of the small town where we live.

 Therefore, around here, we don't have too many worries about squirrelly extremists.  However, where you live, can you say the same thing?  If not, go read the whole of Lawdog's article, and think about where you stand (or sit, or whatever).

Food for thought.

Peter

Will realism trump idealism in Ukraine?

 

James Howard Kunstler appears to think so.

The conclusion of “Joe Biden’s” Ukraine War fiasco looms. You can tell because The New York Times published a gigantic piece Sunday detailing how the Pentagon and the CIA actually ran all of Ukraine’s tactical operations out of a base in Wiesbaden, Germany — after building a colossal Ukraine war machine post our 2014 color revolution in Kiev. Since the very start of the hot war in 2022, we did all the targeting for the weapons we gave them and planned their every move. What a surprise! (Not.)

The motive behind all that, as conceived by US neo-cons and NATO neo-morons, was to “weaken” Russia, bust it up, and seize its resources. All the sanctions piled on only induced Russia into an import-replacement campaign that actually strengthened its economy, while the war led to a revolution in Russian war-fighting tactics and advanced weaponry. Now, the whole thing is ending in Ukraine’s defeat and the West’s humiliation.

The Times could have published this in 2023-24, but it would have been a major embarrassment for “Joe Biden” and his shadow managers moving into the election. They put it out just now because the jig is up and the paper desperately needs to pretend that it’s ahead of events to preserve the last shreds of its credibility.

Mr. Trump, the uber-realist, knows that the Russians are going to roll up in Ukraine this spring and there is increasingly not much that can be done about that, except to try to put the best face on it — which is, that it wasn’t his war. As long as the coke freak Zelensky remains in charge, Ukraine will be negotiation-unworthy, as the Russian phrase goes. So, US-Russia peace talks were largely diplomatic showbiz. Both Putin and Mr. Trump were painfully aware of this, and hence, Mr. Trump’s latest performative bluster about “more sanctions” will probably not amount to anything.

And also hence, the synchronized idiocy on display in France, Germany, and the UK. They were all-in on the neo-con scheme that is now falling apart and its failure has driven them plumb crazy. As the US drops out of the stupid proxy war, they declare their intention to take it from here and go beat-up Russia. Their war-drums are teaspoons beating on so many quiches.

There's more at the link.

I like Mr. Kunstler's description of President Trump as an "uber-realist".  I hope and pray he's right.  Heaven knows, we need a realist in the Oval Office, rather than the cloud-cuckoo-land flights of political and ideological fantasy that have polluted it for the past four years!

It's time for cold, hard realism to prevail in considering options in and for Ukraine.  Without it, this will degenerate into a never-ending slogging match that will poison Europe for generations to come.  We need to cut the Gordian knot of foreign policy fantasy that's been created by idiots over the past decade or more, and get back to realpolitik.

Peter

Thank God Putin was less aggressive and war-minded than the Biden administration

 

If you haven't yet read the two New York Times reports from last weekend about how deeply embroiled the US was in the Ukraine war, you really should find a way to do so.  If their claims are correct, there was ample justification under the laws of war for Russia to bombard NATO bases in Europe, and target senior US and allied officers for assassination as active belligerents.  It boggles the mind to realize that under President Biden - who, to be fair, may not have known just how militant his subordinates had become - the United States became literally an active co-belligerent with Ukraine in the war against Russia.  There's no other way to describe it.

The two articles (behind a paywall) are:

The Secret History of America's Involvement in the Ukraine War

Key Takeaways From America’s Secret Military Partnership With Ukraine

If you can't find non-paywalled versions of the articles, you'll find detailed summaries at these sources:

New York Times Publishes Explosive Investigation Article

Showing U.S. Military Boots on Ground in Ukraine,

and CIA Operation to Target Russian Federation with Drones and Missiles

Key Takeaways From NYT's Secret History

 Detailing US 'Shocking' Involvement In Ukraine War

Here are a few out of many points made in the articles:

• ... a New York Times investigation reveals that America was woven into the war far more intimately and broadly than previously understood. At critical moments, the partnership was the backbone of Ukrainian military operations that, by U.S. counts, have killed or wounded more than 700,000 Russian soldiers. (Ukraine has put its casualty toll at 435,000.) Side by side in Wiesbaden’s mission command center, American and Ukrainian officers planned Kyiv’s counteroffensives. A vast American intelligence-collection effort both guided big-picture battle strategy and funneled precise targeting information down to Ukrainian soldiers in the field.

• Time and again, the Biden administration authorized clandestine operations it had previously prohibited. American military advisers were dispatched to Kyiv and later allowed to travel closer to the fighting. Military and C.I.A. officers in Wiesbaden helped plan and support a campaign of Ukrainian strikes in Russian-annexed Crimea. Finally, the military and then the C.I.A. received the green light to enable pinpoint strikes deep inside Russia itself. In some ways, Ukraine was, on a wider canvas, a rematch in a long history of U.S.-Russia proxy wars — Vietnam in the 1960s, Afghanistan in the 1980s, Syria three decades later.

•  Ultimately, the U.S. military and C.I.A. were allowed to help with strikes into Russia.

As Zero Hedge concludes:

Notably, this is essentially US officials and the NY Times also admitting that the Kremlin has all along been right when it insisted this was never really simply about Moscow vs. Kiev - but that NATO countries have militarized Ukraine and weaponized it against Russia. President Putin and Kremlin officials have been fiercely complaining about US intervention all along, but this was dismissed in the West as merely 'propaganda'.

Tell me, dear readers:  how do you feel about our government, our President, committing us to fighting a war - one which might have escalated to the use of nuclear weapons - about which we were never fully informed?  If Americans had been killed by Russian retaliation, we would unhesitatingly have blamed Russia for "aggression" - without knowing that the aggression had first been committed by US forces in, and supporting, Ukraine, including chemical and biological weapon research facilities and other destabilizing activities set up by the CIA long before Russia lost patience and invaded Ukraine?

If the New York Times is correct, America is the primary aggressor in the Russia-Ukraine war, and was from the very beginning.  Without American involvement in the years prior to the Russian invasion, the war might never have happened.  This reality requires a complete reassessment of the current situation, and certainly of America's role in the war.

As Sundance points out:

On one hand, the NYT article spills the beans and informs the public. On the other hand, their reason for purposefully spilling the beans is to create a problem for Trump and Rubio, and possibly between Trump and Rubio.

It makes sense now why Secretary of State Rubio was the first Trump official to publicly say the United States was in a proxy war against Russia using Ukraine as the justification.

On the upside, this creates an opportunity for President Trump to distance himself from the prior administration and withdraw all CIA operatives and admitted/revealed U.S. military boots on the ground in Ukraine.

President Trump could use this revelation, now public and widespread, to reset the U.S-Ukraine dynamic and withdraw all elements of prior Biden authorization from the conflict.

Will he?

Good question!

Peter

Streaming video is a curse if you don't want to stream

 

It used to be easy to watch a video or TV series without paying for cable or a streaming video subscription.  All one had to do was wait until the DVD series came out, then buy a copy.  However, in the past couple of years that's become almost impossible.  Streaming video services are commissioning their own series, then making it impossible to buy a copy or view them anywhere else.

Trouble is, I refuse to pay for most streaming video services due to ethical and moral considerations.  Pay Disney after what that studio has done to trash so many sterling properties in the name of "woke", not least Star Wars?  I won't give them a cent of my money.  Netflix, after its child pornography fetish as exhibited in several made-for-TV movies and series?  My gorge rises at the thought.

The problem is made worse when these morally and ethically bankrupt companies buy other, perfectly good outlets and fold them into their streaming video umbrellas.  I'd love to watch the FX remake of "Shogun":  all reports are that it's outstanding, and the few clips I've watched on YouTube confirm that - but I can't subscribe to FX without giving money to its owner, Disney.  If I'm to remain true to what I believe in, in moral terms, I can't (and won't) do that.  I know that if I bought a DVD series of "Shogun", some money would still go to Disney;  but I wouldn't be throwing money at them month after month for the rest of their dreck.  I could forgive myself for a one-off purchase, but not for a subscription - but since FX (and/or Disney) hasn't released the series on DVD, that's not an option anyway.

How about you, readers?  Do any of you find yourselves in the same situation, unwilling to support a questionable outlet by paying a monthly subscription, but frustrated because you can no longer buy a DVD series of something you'd really like to watch?  Let us know in Comments.

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 255

 

Gathered from around the Internet over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

 

Courtesy of Larry Lambert at Virtual Mirage, we find this graphic illustration of the Gross Domestic Product of the USA, divided 50/50.

Click over to Larry's place for a larger version, if you wish.

That's a pretty sobering image, isn't it?  Couple it with a visual representation of which areas vote for which political parties, and it becomes even more sobering.  We're growing less united as a nation, not more.

Peter

Once again, the Babylon Bee gets to the heart of the matter

 

I have to admit, there are times when I think the Babylon Bee's irreverent, satirical take on the news of the day is divinely inspired.  They can strike exactly the right note.  For example:

That's almost as good as their earlier headline, "Democrats Say Fire At Tesla Facility Likely Caused By Climate Change".

Peter

Palestinians emigrating to Indonesia???

 

I was mind-boggled to read this news.

Roughly 100 Palestinians from Gaza will travel to Indonesia for construction work under a new Israeli pilot program, according to Channel 12 News, which reported the initiative as the first stage of a larger plan to facilitate voluntary migration from the Hamas-run enclave.

. . .

If successful, the program will be transferred to Israel’s newly established Migration Directorate, a unit created within the Defense Ministry by Defense Minister Israel Katz and approved by Israel’s Security Cabinet just days earlier. The Directorate is tasked with organizing “safe and controlled passage” for Gazans seeking to relocate abroad, including logistics for land, air, and sea departures.

According to the report, the 100 workers headed to Indonesia — a Muslim-majority nation with no formal diplomatic ties to Israel — will be employed in the construction sector. Despite the diplomatic gap, cooperation was reached to facilitate the pilot program, marking a quiet milestone in Israel’s regional outreach efforts.

The long-term goal is to enable thousands more Gazans to take advantage of similar employment-based migration opportunities, provided host countries are willing to participate. While international law allows for return migration, Israeli officials have emphasized the aim is to support permanent resettlement elsewhere, alleviating the pressure of Gaza’s humanitarian and security crisis.

There's more at the link.

A few questions come to mind:

1. Is Indonesia aware that almost no Arab nation will accept Gaza Palestinians, due to their (well-earned) reputation for being surly, disruptive and just plain difficult?
2. Are Gaza Palestinians aware that Islam, as practiced in Indonesia, is a rather different variety of the faith to what they're used to in the Middle East?
3. If any Hamas members are part of the Gaza contingent, are they aware that the Indonesian security forces - who've had their own problems with Islamic terrorism - are likely to give them even shorter shrift than they received from Israel?

I have a feeling that the old proverb, "There's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip" is about to be demonstrated afresh in Indonesia.  Nice idea (?), but in practice . . .

Peter

"Zombie" agencies in government, and what they cost us

 

RealClearInvestigations has been taking a look at the shadowy world - or should that be underworld? - of agencies and programs that were authorized in the past, but whose authorizations expired years (sometimes decades) ago.  However, Congress has rubber-stamped their budget allocations even though technically they were no longer legally authorized to receive them.

At a time when the Trump administration is moving aggressively to scale back government, including eliminating the entire Education Department, it’s sobering to note that 1,503 agencies or programs live on despite expired authorizations, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Another 155 will expire on Sept. 30. The Zombies, nearly half of which have been officially dead for more than a decade, persist in a budgetary netherworld. In a deep dive last year, CBO analysts were able to find dollar amounts for 491 of the programs, with total expenditures of $516 billion. They don’t know how much funding the other programs received.

The total federal budget in 2024 was $6.8 trillion, meaning expired Zombie programs take up at least 8% of the budget, and likely much more.

. . .

Many Zombie programs now soak up far more funding than lawmakers originally envisioned. The Federal Election Commission, for example, was expected to spend $9.4 million per year before its authorization expired in 1981. Yet the agency continued to receive funding and spent $95 million in 2024, auditors at government watchdog Open The Books found. The Federal Communications Commission was originally allocated $339.6 million per year. Its funding authorization expired in 2020, yet it spent $28.4 billion last year.

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency hasn’t addressed the Zombies that are prowling the federal spreadsheets. Given DOGE’s headlong push to first root out alleged waste, fraud, and abuse and ask questions later, experts say, Zombies may offer a ripe target. 

There's more at the link.

It'll take months, if not years, to investigate all of those authorization-expired 1,503 agencies and programs.  Therefore, why not do it the easy way?  Simply tell Treasury that they may no longer allocate funds or make any payments to, or on behalf of, any program or agency that is not currently authorized to exist and/or operate.  Kill the lot of them stone dead in budgetary terms . . . then see who screams that their pork barrel isn't being refilled.  If it's an important function, then Congress must do its job and reauthorize it.  If it turns out to be a minor function without which the business of government can continue unimpeded, let its corpse be buried in the bureaucratic graveyard.

There will undoubtedly be some important programs and agencies that need to be funded:  but I have a sneaking suspicion that many others will be non-essential to the functioning of government.  They may well have become just "jobs-for-the-boys" slush-fund-disbursing hollow shells.  If so, it's long gone time they were shuttered.

As Tom Kratman said about USAID:

The moral of the story is that, when a governmental agency has done the job it was created to do, or failed after a lengthy and expensive effort to do the job it was created to do, kill it before it gains sentience and discovers a survival instinct.

Let's make sure we do the same to "zombie" agencies and programs.

Peter

Is the left-wing politicization of our military a threat to our country?

 

Shortly after President Obama took office, word began to circulate among veterans and those of us with current service contacts that our military was being deliberately politicized.  Those with combat experience were being sidelined for promotions, those with conservative viewpoints were eased out of the ladder for promotion, and specialized units like Special Forces received particularly close attention, almost amounting to the appointment of political commissars to ensure that they were "purged" of any disloyalty to the progressive left then in power.

That appears to have had a lasting effect.  Cynical Publius warned about it yesterday.

There is an enormous problem in our nation’s military, one that I have not seen discussed in depth elsewhere.

I have heard from multiple sources that many active duty officers openly and deeply despise the Trump Administration, and they are not at all shy about expressing their opinion both in and out of uniform. One active duty major I know estimates that it’s 1 in 4 who have this problem. (Those of you who follow me probably know who that major is, but I’d rather keep that major out of this for his/her own protection.)

This is an astonishingly bad problem. Putting aside for the moment that this is a clear violation of Article 88 of the UCMJ, this is how military coups take place.

I guess I should not be surprised given Mark Milley’s traitorous actions towards his Commander-in-Chief, but the fact that this has permeated to lower levels of the officer corps surprises me and causes me great worry.

For reference, in my 22 years of commissioned service (starting in the late ‘80s), it was virtually impossible to know the political leanings of ANY officer unless they were an extremely close friend. Many officers purposely had no political preferences of any kind. In fact, I knew many officers who refused to even vote because it suggested that they were somehow partisan. This was an ethos that said “We serve under the Constitutional will of the American People; whomever the People select as the Commander-in-Chief is someone to whom I have a duty of absolute loyalty.”

This was a sacred bond, and still is supposed to be.

Apparently it no longer is.

This phenomenon suggests a complete breakdown in good order and discipline across our entire military, and throughout world history has been a precursor to rule by military junta. I am not exaggerating this threat. We cannot allow our military’s officer corps to continue down this path unchecked.

There needs to be a complete reversal of this trend before it’s too late. Pete Hegseth and his team need to get on top of this. But here’s the hard part—it’s not enough to just get these officers to shut their mouths. They need to also re-train their brains and their hearts to deeply understand and accept that they have a duty of loyalty both to the Constitution and the lawful orders of the chain of command the People elect under that Constitution, and that their current thoughts and actions are wholly incompatible with that duty.

I served under Bill Clinton. I know it’s possible because I’ve done it. If these officers cannot do this, they need to be separated from service. It’s better to have vacant officer positions than have them filled with people who are disloyal to their Constitutional duties.

Military officers have a solemn duty to the nation. Too many are ignoring this duty. This must change before it is too late.

I guess it goes without saying that the progressive left would welcome a military coup against the Trump administration.  To them it would be "saving the nation" from his malign influence - regardless of the fact that the majority of Americans voted for him.  He won both the Electoral College and the popular vote, making his constitutional and democratic legitimacy unshakeable . . . but they don't see it that way.

I blame President Obama for deliberately politicizing our military (and President Biden for continuing to do so).  Obama, above all others, pushed to strip right-wing and conservative opinions out of senior officer ranks, and made it possible for the Milleys of this world to reach high rank.  Too many of their deadwood remains in senior ranks, which is doubtless why Secretary of Defense Hegseth is looking into purging a great many Flag and General ranks and billets, and promoting new blood.  I hope he plans to promote as many combat veterans as possible, because it's only "up the sharp end" that one develops a keen awareness of what a military force really needs.  A bureaucratic or support-function soldier simply lacks that understanding.

Have any of you, dear readers, heard or seen anything similar to what Cynical Publius is reporting?  If so (or if not) please tell us about it in Comments.

Peter