The West’s Forever War against ISIS
Proposals for “upping our game” against ISIS are flying wildly from all quarters. There is unanimity on the need to apply greater military force. From Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, on the Left, to Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, on the Right, U.S. leaders agree on the need for expanded air strikes. Vladimir Putin and now Francois Hollande are not waiting for the Obama Administration to lead. The Russian Air Force and Navy are conducting strikes under a policy that can only be described as scorched earth. Many politicians and experts want to add a no-fly zone.
After that, there is little clarity and no agreement on how to proceed. Syrian and Iraqi forces, even with Russian and Iranian support, will not be able to retake the broad swathe of Sunni territory that is the ISIS heartland. There is no reason to believe that adding more U.S. trainers, advisors and air controllers will be a sufficient force multiplier to leverage the expanded air war into victory on the ground.
The reality is that airpower alone, no matter how intensely applied, will not defeat ISIS. It is not even clear whether ISIS is being significantly damaged by the intensified air campaign. History teaches that after the initial shock effect of aerial bombardment the targeted party learns to cope. In addition, the U.S. approach to employing airpower for the past year has provided ISIS with the time and relative safety needed in order to disperse assets, develop new tactics and even disguise critical infrastructure. It would be stunning if the command centers, ammunition storage sites and training centers hit over the past several months were actually occupied.
Continue reading HERE.
“Let’s be clear,” [Hillary] Clinton lectured. “Muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”
If by “nothing,” she means everything, she is correct.
Within hours of her delusional statement, another Muslim terror group, Boko Haram, killed 27 at the Radisson hotel in Mali’s capital city, while forcing guests to recite verses from the Quran.
Yet this was not Islam, either, we are told. We heard the same politically correct claptrap after Muslims bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 and after 19 more Muslims attacked Washington and New York on Sept. 11, 2001, slaughtering almost 3,000. And again after Muslims attacked Madrid, Bali and London. And when Muslim snipers shot up Washington. And when a Muslim massacred soldiers at Fort Hood. And when Muslims slaughtered more than 60, including two dozen children and three pregnant women, at a shopping mall in Kenya. And again after Muslims bombed the Boston marathon. And this year, after a Muslim gunned down five soldiers in Chattanooga.
Though the latest denials are demonstrably false, at least apologists have dropped the risible “Religion of Peace” mantra.” —Investors Business Daily
Forget the Syrian refugees. America needs to bring its Afghan and Iraqi interpreters here first.
They risked their lives for our country. Let’s do right by them.
Last week, President Obama decided to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States. But there’s another group of foreigners who deserve our help much more – the 50,000 men and women who served as interpreters for American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
During my two deployments, I worked with countless interpreters. They were essential to my work and served at great personal risk. Interpreters are routinely killed by insurgents because they’re aiding the United States. One man I worked with was targeted by attackers who knew what car he drove and where he lived. While on the job, my interpreter’s brother took his car to town. Insurgents fired a rocket-propelled grenade at the vehicle, killing his brother and wounding his father.
Because of such dangers, many interpreters seek asylum in the United States. But while American government officials say they’re doing everything they can to bring the interpreters to safety, the State Department is chronically behind in processing their Special Immigrant Visa applications. (The SIV process is based on the process for refugee asylum but tailored specifically for individuals experiencing danger and threats tied to their service for the United States.) Just three visas were issued to Afghan translators in 2011; only 63 were given in 2012. Though Secretary of State John F. Kerry overhauled the system (the State Department processed 3,441 visas in 2014), officials estimate that there are thousands of men and women stranded at various points in the process.
The program is so complex, opaque and dysfunctional that I, as a native English speaker and child of the Defense Department, can barely make sense of it. Applicants are given little information regarding the status of their application. What is passed along by the State Department is cloaked in bureaucratic language. In one instance, I tried to help one of my interpreters fill out one of the several required forms. Even I could not understand what information the State Department wanted, nor the person who was supposed to fill out the form. Was it the applicant or the sponsor? There is no help line, “how to” page or instruction form designed for a non-native English speaker. The process is akin to filing your own taxes in a foreign language with no accountant to help.
Much more to read HERE.
White Student Union Pages Horrify Moonbat Establishment
There are belligerent black identity groups on every campus in the country. They have been running riot, spreading inflammatory lies, disrupting students who try to study, deposing college presidents, erasing important historical figures, et cetera. What would happen if whites tried to defend their interests by establishing groups of their own?
Silly question, right? Everyone knows that whites are not allowed to have interests; the very notion is racist. Most assume that such a group could only be a hoax. Naturally it would be quickly suppressed:
Now go and read it all HERE.