New ISIS Head Unveils Plan to Defeat Detection by US Military

A Rose By Any Other Name...

Obama Concentrates on His Plan to Defeat ISIS

Leadership Then and Now

From a letter from F.D.R. to the British Government, Dec. 9th, 1941

There is no question in my mind that if we summon our resources, both our leadership resources and all of the tools at our disposal, not just military force, which should be used as a last resort, but our diplomacy, our development aid, law enforcement, sharing of intelligence in a much more open and cooperative way—that we can bring people together.

But it cannot be an American fight. And I think that we will support those who take the fight to Hitler. That is why we have troops in France that are helping to train and build back up the French military, why we have special operators in Italy working with the Sicilians, so that we can be supportive.

But this cannot be an American fight, although American leadership is essential.*

Sincerely,

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

P.S. Good luck with the whole "D-Day" thing.

*Hillary Rodham Clinton, after a few substitutions.

Dead Tree Headline du jour

This works on two levels: one the claim President If You Like Your Doctor You Can Keep Your Doctor is making, two, what is actually happening (with emphasis).

Is 'Red Shirt' Another Name for 'Corpseman'?

Original art by John Cox. More at John Cox Art

The Monuments Men, ISIS and Empire

Full disclosure: I am NOT on the cutting edge of cultural evolution. I do my best to keep pace with its rear echelons. Nevertheless, I finally watched The Monuments Men on Blu-Ray. Based on a true story, it's a buddy movie of sorts, set in WWII Europe. The Nazis are stealing art all over Europe, in all their occupied lands, particularly from the Jews. Every work of art, painting or statuary, gold brick or gold filling that they can lay their hands on is ending up in the homes of SS officers or being shipped by truck or train to large, makeshift warehouses, until it can be gathered at war's end to fill the planned Fuehrer Museum.

Not all art is equally valued, though. Modernist artists, like Picasso, were not deemed worthy, and many of their works were destroyed. Here we have a small band of Americans, along with one Frenchman and one Brit, tasked with trying to save as many of these irreplaceable works of art as possible.

Along the way, they discover that there exists a directive from Hitler, that if he were to be killed, all of the art was to be destroyed. Apparently, he thought that if he couldn't have it, no one could! Part of the tension in the movie is the race against the clock to save these art treasures, compounded by an invading army of Russians from the East, looting stolen art from the Germans, to take back to Russia as reparations for the damage Germany had caused to the USSR.

The movie works well for the most part. Good acting, a solid story line and a few scenes to make you laugh and tug at your heart, ending with what I consider to be a minor ripoff of Saving Private Ryan. If you haven't seen the movie, I would recommend it, not just for an interesting slice of history, but perhaps the chance not to be doomed to repeating it.

Watching the movie, seeing the Nazis destroy works of art that they did not deem worthy, made me think of ISIS with their total disregard for the historical treasures they destroy, because they find them contrary to their religious beliefs. There are a number of parallels between the Nazis and ISIS in their blatant disregard for human life, killing men, women and children for their ideological ends. This was just one more.

There was a second theme I noticed that ran through the movie (to me anyway), and that was empire. The Third Reich plundered every country they conquered, taking art, natural resources, slaves...whatever they wanted. It is the way of empire. The Soviet Union was a competing empire. As they conquer eastern Germany, they looted it of everything they could get their hands on. The satellite countries of the U.S.S.R. paid tribute of whatever they had to Mother Russia, because, that is the way of empire.

And then, you had a handful of men, commissioned by the US government to lay their hands on every piece of art they could find...and return them to their rightful owners. I believe they said that over five million pieces of art were retrieved, Rembrandts, Monets, a sculpture by Michelangelo, each worth millions by themselves, returned to the private owners whenever possible, the churches, the museums from whence they had been taken. This is NOT the way of empire.

We conquered Kuwait without taking their oil and gave the country back to the Kuwatis. We conquered Iraq, but did not loot it for either its national treasures or its oil. And apparently, conquered Europe without looting their art. As I said above. Just one more thing.

The looney Left likes to hurl the epithet "empire" at us, as did their Neoisolationist fellow traveler Ron Paul, as I detailed in "We Can't Afford the Empire".

Even under the sloppiest thinking short of downright dishonesty, it is impossible to define the United States of America as an "empire". We have many military bases around the world, much as our blue water navy, to project American power and to respond to events anywhere in the world, that might threaten our freedom. At least, that was true up until the last decade. Without the will to use that power, they may as well sit on their hands as our embassies are attacked and American citizens are tortured and killed.

Should we realistically evaluate our military bases, both foreign and domestic, so that we can maintain those and perhaps only those that are vital to our security and defense? Certainly. We have seen the disaster caused by the precipitous withdrawal of troops from Iraq and the far greater threat that was allowed to blossom in the absence of our military strength or a correspondingly strong Iraqi national defense.

Are we the "cops of the world"? Under Barack Obama we are scarcely the "Neighborhood Watch" of the world. China is building a blue water navy, Putin is running roughshod over the Ukraine, in spite of our written agreement with Britain, Russia and the Ukraine to defend their sovereignty. Our word was apparently no good under the current president. The same man who told us Iraq was stable enough for us to depart completely, who lied to us and told us "if you like your doctor, you can keep him", told the Ukraine that if you like your borders, you can keep them". Why should our allies believe anything he says? After drawing red lines and accusing the Syrian president of war crimes, Obama did nothing and the tyrant still sits in the seat of power. He brings toothless sanctions against Russia, all the while reducing sanctions against Iran because "they're not working".

Why should our enemies believe anything he says? Our military is steadily shrinking, our space program has been all but gutted. The preeminence of American power has been diluted, diminished or destroyed by this president.

To paraphrase Bill Buckley, I will not insult your intelligence by saying that you actually believe the argument you make when you say that the US is an "empire"

Madness Not Confined to March

It's almost that time! Time for Obama to neglect his golf game, vacations and celebrity dinners at the White House, to shoulder the heavy burden of picking college basketball teams!

Unfortunately, the Madness is not confined to March!

Obama Blames Intelligence Community for Underestimating ISIS

Obama often skips face to face presidential briefings in favor of reading summaries of the reports.

Mark Twain on Obama's Coalition Building

Obama has a problem. Yes, I know I am the King of Understatement. But I was speaking specifically in terms of his coalition building attempts to battle ISIS/ISIL/IS/ those 'beheading folk'. He once again makes the classic blunder of telling his opponents exactly what he will and won't do in regards to "managing" the ISIS crisis. One of those things he has been adamant about is committing combat troops, commonly referred to as "boots on the ground".

Obama is willing to send bombers and intel and support personnel, but refuses (at the present time) to commit combat troops to the effort. The reasoning?

 "..this is not our fight alone. American power can make a decisive difference, but we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region... America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat."

You see, it's not really our fight, well, it's kind of our fight, but just because we're leading the fight doesn't mean it's our fight. It's your region, so it's only fair that you guys put up the bulk of the cannon fodder, er, boots on the ground!

Man! That really ranks up there with "I have not just yet begun to fight!" doesn't it? More like, "Damn the torpedoes, you guys go on ahead, I'll catch up with you!"

Other than a sophomoric "fairness" argument, I have not heard Obama make the case for why any country should commit ground troops to a war where we will not.

America is seen by most of the world as a land of wealth. People we consider as being "below the poverty line" have a standard of living envied by most of the third world.  One of the criticisms of the Viet Nam war, advanced by good liberals, was that the draft was "unfair" because the sons of the wealthy were able to avoid it. The sons of poor people died in disproportionately high numbers to the sons of the wealthy.  The son of Senator Al Gore did go to Viet Nam, but as a REMF with a typewriter, well behind the battle lines. I don't believe that he has ever heard a "shot fired in anger". And George W. Bush, even though he was trained as a fighter pilot, still caused apoplexy among liberals as being "AWOL from Viet Nam".

How much will the world, Mr. President, view your request for ground troops from poorer nations to engage in mortal combat, while the sons of the 'affluent' sit home and play Mortal Kombat? "Unfair"?

If you are serious about destroying ISIS, why not care enough to send the very best? I, like most of the nation, am war weary. Mostly because it is unfair to ask even one young man to risk his life for no other real purpose than to provide photo ops and cover for venal politicians, as has been the case for the last six years.

The armed forces of the United States should be committed only when there is a clearly defined objective, are properly trained and equipped, and there is an exit strategy. Allowing casualties in Afghanistan, for example, the war that Obama said we needed to fight, simply to mark time until it is politically expedient to withdraw them, is criminal.

We need to destroy ISIS and simultaneously need to secure the borders that allow any people of uncertain motive into the heartland of our country.

But if we expect a coalition of countries to join us, and commit combat troops to the effort, we must lead by example. Nothing less will do. Nothing.

When Twain's Tom Sawyer was whitewashing his fence, he was able to con a number of people into doing the work for him. Those were simpler times, and Mr. Obama:

You're no Tom Sawyer.

Original art by John Cox. More at John Cox Art
Cross posted at LCR, Political Clown Parade