The Other Side of History: Trump

Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts

Thursday, August 22, 2024

National Security Strategy and Politicizing the Military

What is a National Security Strategy Document?

The National Security Strategy (NSS) is a report prepared by the Executive branch and delivered to Congress that describes the major national security threats and how the current administration intends to address those threats. The NSS report can be presented in both classified and unclassified forms. This document is mandated by section 603 of the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 and must describe and discuss the following[1]:

“The worldwide interests, goals, and objectives of the United States that are vital to the national security of the United States.”
Foreign policy and national defense capabilities necessary to deter aggression and implement part (1)
Proposed short-term and long-term uses of national power to achieve (1)
Evaluation of the adequacy of national power to achieve (1)
Any other information to help inform Congress related to (1)

Problems with the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance of March 2021

The NSS released in March 2021, entitled “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance” (INSSG)[2], lists some of the priorities that the Biden Administration will address[3]: the pandemic, economic downturn, racial justice, and “climate emergency.” Exactly none of these are military threats, and whose gravity depends on a specific political bias. It attributes our current geopolitical situation to changes in the “distribution of power across the world,” which is an explicitly Marxist interpretation of history[4].

Another non-military threat discussed in the INSSG is domestic violent extremism, against which the Biden Administration promises[5] to

work as a coordinated, unified federal government to use the full array of tools at our disposal in concert with state, local, tribal, private sector, and foreign counterparts. Robust law enforcement and intelligence capabilities, as well as strong cooperation and appropriate information sharing, will be critical to understanding and addressing the broad spectrum of violent extremism America confronts today.

This part appears to directly target January 6th Protesters. It is interesting to note that the NSS that was released the year following the Oklahoma City Bombing of 19 April 1995 made no mention of domestic violent extremism[6].

For the national security to be effective[7], “[w]e will enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion, and prioritize flexibility and improve training across our national security workforce.”

Unlike NSS documents released by the George W. Bush and the Trump Administrations, the INSSG explicitly mentions the policies of the previous administration when it comes to immigration, stating that the Biden Administration “ended the previous administration’s family separations policy and discriminatory travel ban.”

Finally, beyond the above mentioned changes to immigration policy, the territorial integrity of the United States is given almost no attention, beyond stating that the administration “will not be able to solve all of the challenges we face at the southern border overnight.[8]”

Overall, many of the supposed threats listed in the INSSG are chosen to match the Biden Administration’s political leaning, and the major threat – the unsecured southern border – is downplayed and no plans to apply national power to counter this threat are given. It is clear proof of the politicization of the military by that administration.

Footnotes

[1] Goldwater–Nichols Act
[2] The White House, “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance.”
[3] Ibid, 6
[4] Sherman, “The ‘How’ and ‘Why’ of Power”
[5] Ibid, 19
[6] The White House, “A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement.”
[7] The White House, “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance.”, 21
[8] Ibid, 19

Bibliography

Goldwater–Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of October 4, 1986, Pub. L. 99-433 (1986), Retrieved 22 August 2024 from https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/dod_reforms/Goldwater-NicholsDoDReordAct1986.pdf

Sherman, M. “The ‘How’ and ‘Why’ of Power: from Marx to Foucault to Power Today.” 13 April 2015. Retrieved 22 August 2024 from https://melinasherman.com/2015/04/13/the-how-and-why-of-power-from-marx-to-foucault-to-power-today/

The White House. “A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement.” February 1996. Retrieved 22 August 2024 from https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/nss/nss1996.pdf?ver=4f8riCrLnHIA-H0itYUp6A%3d%3d

The White House. “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance.” March 2021. Retrieved 22 August 2024 from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NSC-1v2.pdf

Friday, April 19, 2024

Comparison of Three Defense Strategies

Introduction

The "National Strategy for Homeland Security", "National Defense Strategy", and "Interim National Security Strategic Guidance" documents represent three different visions of what constitute American interests, and three different ways of advancing those interests.

Comparison of the Three Documents

In "National Strategy for Homeland Security" we have a statement that includes the broadest scope in what counts as national interest - not only territorial integrity but also infrastructure and key resources. The threats to these include both man-made dangers (terrorist attacks and industrial accidents), natural disasters (especially Hurricane Katrina), and mixtures of the two (infectious diseases).

To protect all this, the goal was to prevent and disrupt terror attacks by denying access to and import of WMDs, securing the borders, cargo screening, "Intelligence-Led Policing," and engaging "key communities."

The solution that was implemented was a "bureaucratic" approach. This involved the creation of new intelligence agencies, departments, and offices such as:

Department of Homeland Security
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Homeland Security Council
National Counterterrorism Center
U.S. Northern Command

Along with these new agencies there was also sweeping legislation including:

USA PATRIOT Act
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
Protect America Act of 2007
Reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)

State, local, and tribal emergency response agencies were pressured to integrate with each other and their federal counterparts. This integration included a common command structure (the FEMA ICS) as well as shared communication systems. Finally, there was a call for citizen involvement (the "see something, say something" mantra).

Mattis' "National Defense Strategy" presents the most concrete and realistic approaches to national defense. The document advocates inoperability of defense agencies with the intel community, the modernization of key capabilities, cultivating workforce talent, and to prioritize the preparedness for war.

Of the three documents, this one is the only to recognize asymmetrical warfare and irregular tactics by requiring the agencies charged with defending the United States to "be strategically predictable, but operationally unpredictable." It recognized that our enemies would engage in economic sabotage and other "Fourth Generation Warfare" tactics, and that we must "counter coercion and subversion".

The "Interim National Security Strategic Guidance" is the only one of the three to list non-military threats to the United States, specifically:

The pandemic
Economic downturn
Racial justice
"Climate emergency"

The document attributes our current geopolitical situation to changes in the "distribution of power across the world." It states that we will be unable to close the southern border overnight.

This is the only one of the three documents to specifically mention the policies of the previous administration.

Conclusion

Of the three documents, the one that directly addresses how American engages in warfare is Mattis' "National Defense Strategy." It explicitly addresses the need to prepare for war and that our enemies will be using irregular tactics including economic sabotage. The Bush-era "National Strategy for Homeland Security" advocates the centralization of executive branch political power into the Department of Homeland Security. The "Interim National Security Strategic Guidance" is the only one to mention non-military threats to this country, and to treat these as equivalent in importance to military threats.

MISTER James Mattis

Bibliography

Homeland Security Council. (October 2007). "National Strategy for Homeland Security". Last retrieved 18 April 2021 from https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/nat_strat_homelandsecurity_2007.pdf

Department of Defense. (2018). "Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America." Last retrieved 18 April 2021 from https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf

The White House. (March 2021). “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance.” Last retrieved 18 April 2021 from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NSC-1v2.pdf

Wednesday, September 15, 2021

Treason, Up Close and Personal

According to a forthcoming book, "Peril" by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made two secret phone calls to the Chinese military stating that he would give the People's Liberation Army, and hence the Chinese Communist Party, advance warning of any US attack against them.

These calls were made during the end of Trump's time in office, when Milley believed that "the president had suffered a mental decline after the election" and that Trump would use nuclear weapons against them.

During the first call, on October 30, 2020 - before Trump's supposed decline, Milley is quoted as telling his Chinese counterpart:

"I want to assure you that the American government is stable and everything is going to be okay... We are not going to attack or conduct any kinetic operations against you. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It's not going to be a surprise."

Parts of this book were released by the Washington Post, which states:

"[Milley] called the admiral overseeing the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, the military unit responsible for Asia and the Pacific region, and recommended postponing the military exercises, according to the book. The admiral complied."

It gets worse:

"Milley also summoned senior officers to review the procedures for launching nuclear weapons, saying the president alone could give the order — but, crucially, that he, Milley, also had to be involved. Looking each in the eye, Milley asked the officers to affirm that they had understood, the authors write, in what he considered an “oath.”"

The second call was made on January 8th - two days after the protest on the Capitol - when China doubted US stability. Milley calmed them down, stating

"We are 100 percent steady. Everything's fine. But democracy can be sloppy sometimes."

None of this was communicated to Trump, but Milley did discuss this with Nancy Pelosi.

Woodward and Costa used only unnamed sources, according to the WaPo, but Milley has just released a statement affirming that he did indeed make those calls.

When asked about Milley's actions, Biden said, "I have great confidence in Gen. Milley." The cycle of incompetence thus continues with this ringing endorsement.

Excusing the Inexcusable

Defenders of Milley's actions would say that Trump was "squirrelly", and that this somehow necessitated communication between Milley and the CCP. But what evidence is used to justify claims of squirrellyness? That Trump required NATO members to pay their dues? That he called mass illegal immigration for what it is - an invasion? That he put terrorists on notice that there would be swift retribution for their attacks? That he pissed off the left-wing media?

Well, Trump did indeed piss off the left-wing media. Milley saw this, stuck his finger in the air to determine which way the wind was blowing, and acted accordingly. He started by apologizing for inspecting the damage done by Antifa and BLM rioters while standing next to Trump. Then came his House Armed Services Committee testimony in which he was offended that people would call the military "woke" while simultaneously stating that he wants to understand critical race theory and the roots of "white rage":

"I want to understand white rage, and I’m white, and I want to understand it. What is it that caused thousands of people to assault this building and try to overturn the Constitution of the United States of America? I want to find that out."

Now, we find that he has been working with at least one enemy. His actions were based on political expediency and nothing more.

Imagine that the United States did indeed choose to attack China - how would the Chinese use the information that Milley would provide? Further, did Milley actually believe that his tango with the Chinese would end with Trump being out of office? His naiveté is staggering.

The Context

Milley was not acting in a vacuum.

Even before the disastrous exit from Afghanistan, you had a West Point cadet advocating for communism, former high ranking officials making disparaging remarks about their Commander-in-Chief like Mister James Mattis and his inexcusable "bone spurs" comment, and the National Guard being used to protect the Capitol against "insurrectionists and violent extremists" - while not providing them with any ammunition.

And of course there's the woke Army recruiting video.

Then during and immediately after the loss of the Kabul airport you have Defense Department spokesman John Kirby admitting that he doesn't know how many Americans are still in Afghanistan, and General Kenneth McKenzie Jr. stating that he was sharing information with and relying on the Taliban to provide security.

At the highest level there is Joe Biden. He admitted that lists of Americans and American sympathizers were given to the Taliban so that they can expedite their exit (presumably from Afghanistan, not from this mortal coil). Biden stated that he accepts responsibility for the exit, then immediately lays blame for the Taliban takeover on the Afghan National Army and on the left's perpetual whipping-boy, Donald Trump.

Between the exit from Afghanistan and the woke military, the latter is the most damaging to us, for it indicates the criteria used to measure the worthiness of any military action. Potential actions will not be judged upon whether they further America's safety and security, or on the possibility of success. No. Instead, actions will be judged on whether they act against the cis-normative hegemony and deliver a blow against the patriarchy, all while being culturally sensitive and minimizing our carbon footprint. To quote Trump, "everything woke turns to shit." You, gentle reader, can complete the syllogism.

Signs of Hope

All is not lost, however, for there are dissenting voices. One of them belongs to USMC Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller who, following the Kabul airport terrorist attack that killed 13 service members including 11 Marines, released a video in which he absolutely excoriated the higher-ups for their shortage of accountability over the events in Afghanistan:

"I’m not saying we’ve got to be in Afghanistan forever, but I am saying: Did any of you throw your rank on the table and say ‘hey, it’s a bad idea to evacuate Bagram Airfield, a strategic airbase, before we evacuate everyone. Did anyone do that? And when you didn’t think to do that, did anyone raise their hand and say 'we completely messed this up.'

That one man with his one video has proven that there are some men with a spine left in the US military. Hence the importance of dissent - it allows us to separate the institution from some very rotten apples.

And Scheller's not alone: others have come out against the leadership vacuum.

And they're not alone, either: those of us with friends who are either active duty or retired military cannot help but see the courage and patriotism in their eyes.

The Fallout

Both Milley and Scheller should be concerned for their future (as should we all), but notice the difference between them: Milley, in his "desire to understand white rage" comments, expressed his opinion without concern for personal repercussions. This could mean that either politicians would accept those comments as obsequious bromides, or more likely that the expression of those sentiments was the goal itself, consequences be damned. That's called virtue signaling, the sine qua non of wokeness.

Scheller explicitly acknowledges the personal consequences that would befall him after his video goes public. There is nothing wrong with doing so. It does not prove that he has a martyr complex; rather it shows a man who is fully aware that opinions and actions have consequences, the opposite of wokeness.

Shortly after the release of that video, Scheller announced that "I have been relieved for cause based on a lack of trust and confidence." Whose trust? Whose confidence? No one of any merit.

Popular opinion holds that only tragedy awaits those with principle. This is incorrect - those with principle are resilient, and that resiliency comes from having a spine. Those with principle understand that an individual must stand up one more time than he is knocked down. Men with principle can move the world; those without merely stand with their fingers in the air, waiting for the winds to change.

Scheller is a man of principle, hence he will land on his feet.

For Milley, the wind is shifting against him. Christopher Miller, the Secretary of Defense during the time Milley made at least one of his calls with the Chinese military, stated that he did not and would never authorize such calls. Supposedly, several Pentagon officers present in Milley’s secret meeting are willing to testify against him under oath. He even lost the support of never-Trumper Alexander Vindman.

So, what of Milley? Biden, in his quest to accept responsibility, is looking for a new whipping boy, and Milley just moved to the front of the line.

Friday, January 15, 2021

Muh Private Company

Over the past two weeks we have witnessed big tech flexing their muscles against President Trump and against a social media site.

After a month of labelling Trump's election-fraud-related tweets as falsehoods and making those tweets either more difficult or impossible to share, Twitter has completely banned him from their platform. Facebook, YouTube, and other social media platforms then piled on top. Further, Shopify has taken down two of his online stores, and Stripe will no longer process payments.

Twitter did this over the incorrect claim that Trump incited violence at the Capitol last week. Meanwhile, Twitter says that China’s tweets stating that Uyghur forced labor camps don't exist are acceptable, despite the fact that such camps do indeed exist. Twitter is OK with censorship on US soil but is opposed to Uganda’s internet shutdown, since Uganda is violating basic human rights by doing so.

Twitter didn't stop with Trump – General Michael Flynn was blocked, as was Sidney Powell, and supporters of QAnon, along with many, many conservatives, myself included.

In a Project Veritas video recorded by a Twitter whistleblower, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey stated:

"We are focused on one account [@realDonaldTrump] right now but this is going to be much bigger than just one account and it’s going to go on for much longer than just this day, this week, and the next few weeks, and go on beyond the inauguration."

In brief, they're just getting started.

Big tech effectively muzzled the most powerful man on Earth, and that fact should terrify everybody regardless of political persuasion. If they can do it to Trump without consequences, then they can do it to anybody else.

The reaction by some people supposedly on the Right has been along the lines of "Twitter is a private company, they can do what they want. Just let the free market work. You can always build your own platform." This, by the way, is the same rationale given by people who support private businesses enforcing the social-distancing and mask edicts that certain state governors enacted in response to the China Flu.

Some on the Right did exactly that - they built their own platforms, one of which is called Parler.

Within the past few days:

Apple and Google removed the Parler app from their respective app stores
Twilio and Okta, which are authentication services, ended their relationship with Parler
The database that Parler contracted, ScyllaDB, also terminated their services
The cloud hosting platform on which Parler was built, Amazon Web Services, suspended their hosting service
Finally, their lawyers stopped representing them.

So much for building your own platform.

If this isn't enough to dissuade the limousine libertarians from their position, let's apply their line of ~~bullshit~~ rhetoric to the Jim Crow laws. These were state and local laws that enforced segregation and were passed by Democrats to roll back the advancements made by blacks following the Civil War.

Under Jim Crow, blacks and whites had to travel in separate rail cars, cars that while being separate were certainly not equal. According to the limousine libertarians, blacks should build their own railway system and quit their complaining.
Blacks had to sit in the back of busses in Alabama until Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat. Instead of protesting, she should have started her own busing company.
After Jim Crow laws were overturned by Brown v. Board of Education, some companies continued enforcing segregation. For example, black people couldn't eat at the same Woolworth lunch counters as whites. Maybe blacks should build their own lunch counters and let the free market work.

"This is horrible!" the limousine libertarians would say between sips of their caramel lattes while wondering if they need glasses for their myopia.

Yes, it is indeed horrible, but if they are consistent, they must condone this.

"But they're private businesses, they can do what they want!" the limousine libertarians bleat.

No, they can't do what they want. Being a business owner doesn't absolve him of the obligation to do what is right.

Further, in what sense are they "private" businesses? They lost that status when they became proxy law or edict enforcers - like with the enforcement of Jim Crow laws, or with tax laws, or with the companies that currently enforce China Flu restrictions. They lost it when corporations harvested and sold customer data without consent. Big tech companies certainly lost their status as private businesses when they interfered with and invalidated our elections.

The problem with limousine libertarians (they may be chauffeured in limousines, but they're usually the chauffeurs) is that they are silent in the face of oligarchy. Their "build you own" mantra is just a stale bromide used to cover their cowardliness while allowing them to feign enlightenment.

Bootlickers, Ahoy

Republicans knew this would happen, that big tech would flex their muscles. Trump vetoed the NDAA in part because it retained the Section 230 blanket protections for big tech. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who was himself briefly banned from Twitter in 2019, voted to override Trump's veto. Given the Republicans' refusal to investigate election fraud, this turncoat behavior is to be expected from them.

Politicians weren't the only quislings...

The extent to which a few patriot commentators are willing to accept all this is nauseating. A few days ago the host of one online video show stated that this is not a free speech issue since you, gentle social media user, agreed to their terms of service agreements.

You'd think such commentators never heard about individual rights: such rights, be they God-given or follow from our nature as rational animals, are not gifts from the state. Individual rights, including the freedom of speech, are inalienable, which means they cannot be transferred or signed away. So much for terms of service agreements.

This same commentator was excoriating Trump supporters for doing nothing but flying their American flags, having fun at Trump rallies, engaging in online arguments with Leftists - in other words, for enjoying the relative freedom that we had under Trump.

What should we do instead? One would hope that this commentator would implore us to be wolves instead of sheep. He didn't, he was too busy either wallowing in guilt or insisting that we wallow in guilt. No one told him that masochism has no place outside the bedroom.

The Politics of the Future

Conservative Twitter users are cutting their losses and heading to greener pastures. This loss of users won't just impact Twitter's customer count, but also the quality of the platform: Twitter thrives on conflict, and without conservatives Twitter will just be an echo chamber where liberals boast about their intersectionist brownie points.

Meanwhile, Trump seems to be experiencing an increase in popularity - we are seeing the Streisand Effect in action!

No reporter has investigated how the actual process by which the deplatforming of Trump and the attack on Parler were orchestrated - which is not surprising. Did we witness a series of independent actions, or were they coordinated? Are the CEOs acting on their own wokeness, or are they responding to a woke mob in order to appease them?

In Twitter's case, Jack Dorsey took the initiative, at least based on the Project Veritas video. Similar videos from inside Google show the same thing. This may or may not hold for other tech giants and doesn't address whether there is collusion among them.

Again, in this conservative cleansing, are the companies taking the initiative, or are they reacting?

In one sense, it doesn't matter - the companies are the ones doing the deplatforming and the election-rigging, and they richly deserve retribution for their actions.

It does matter in another sense, because we must know who is in the driver's seat, the CEOs or the social justice warriors. If the CEOs are in charge, then they will influence the woke mob to do their bidding. If the SWJs are in charge, then the CEOs will be constantly blown about, constantly adjusting their company's terms of service to address the latest outrage du jour.

CEOs can make the claim that they actually built their companies, even though they have wet noodles for spines. The SJWs' only hold on the world are other people's tolerance for their shrillness and arrogance. These pink-haired, skinny-jean wearing, dildo waving hipsters only claim to importance is that they are woke. They are actually less intelligent after getting their gender studies degrees than before they entered college. They truly expect the federal government to pay off their useless degrees that rendered them not only unemployed but unemployable, and they see nothing wrong with shitting in their own mess kit.

In essence, tech CEOs and woke hipsters are equally unqualified to mettle in the affairs of others, and their sense of entitlement over the affairs of others must be resisted at all costs.

If the CEOs are acting on their own initiative, then they are on the treadmill of politics, not technology and not business. Perhaps they will realize that this wasn't the reason they got into the IT business in the first place, but that's doubtful.

If they are reacting to the petulant demands of the woke mob, then the CEOs are blind cowards who evade the fact that mobs are never satisfied by appeasement or capitulation. In reference to countries that were neutral at the start of World War 2, Winston Churchill said:

"Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last. All of them hope that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured. But I fear greatly that the storm will not pass. It will rage and it will roar ever more loudly, ever more widely."

This applies to corporations as well.

The answer to who is in the driver's seat ultimately answers another question: is America now an oligarchy or a mobocracy, the pure democracy that the Left wants? It is too early to tell, but something we know now is that businesses will be the enforcers of either alternative, and that their terms of service are more important than our Bill of Rights.

(From Stonetoss Comics)

Monday, October 29, 2018

Photos from #WalkAway

"You want to give me food stamps just because I was in foster care? I think you just want my vote." - Terrence K. Williams

Winner of the best sign goes to...

Happy people in the rain.

Musician singing "Where We Go One, We Go All." He also sang the Oath Keeper's song, "Arm Yourself."

"The blue wave is 500 miles south of the border"

Guy in crowd: "good job umbrella man!"

Will from PragerU

"Are there any Russian bots here?"
Person in back raises hand
"There's one! We're 1/1024th Russian, so we're a Russian bot movement!"

Flags out, phones out.

Bikers for Trump provided security

On way to Freedom Plaza, there was a man selling t-shirts. He used this call: "Spicy memes! Get yer HOT spicy memes here!" Yea, I had to have one.

Passing Trump International Hotel

Arrival at Freedom Plaza - E Pluribus Awesome!

Inside Freedom Plaza now. It's a party. Make America Fah'BULOUS Again!

Dog shares a stroller with Trumpy Bear!

Flower child brings out the sun!

More signs

This gay man legally came to America from Venezuela when he was 18. We talked about that country's downward spiral, and I asked him if he still had family there. He said that his parents are buried there, but looters stole their bronze headstones.

Pastor Mark Burns lays down the law!

"I had a bedroom and office in the White House. I got to know the Clintons intimately. Not like that with Hillary. Not with Bill, either" - Buzz Patterson

I think Buzz Patterson was channeling my #WalkAway essay!

Mason Weaver

Michael Flynn, Jr

These bots are made for walkin'! "You're not bots, you're too sexy!"

Don't know who he is, but he's a fantastic speaker!

Stacey Dash

People enjoying the music

Diamond and Silk on video!

Joy Villa! She brightens whatever venue she's in!

Brandon, getting ready to go on stage.

Doreen: "You went because you have a crush on him, don’t you?"
Me: "Na, me and Mattis are still tight"

And here he is, the founder and organizer of #WalkAway! Brandon Straka gave two speeches during the rally. The first one was an expansion of his original video.

"I've done the closet, and I'm not going back"

"To compare is to despair"