Tag Archives: Russia

Current Events

Finally!

4 Comments

FINALLY!  Generals from all services are beginning to speak out against what CMC is doing to the Marine Corps. Many have met with him, but state, he took notes, asked no questions, and changed nothing. This first article is from a Marine I know very well. I was his Company GySgt for a short while, until I was commissioned and  stayed in the same company; he was a Capt at the time. I served with him again when he was a Colonel and  G-1 of the 2d Marine Division. Then again when I had 2/6 and was going to become 2/8, he was my regimental CO. Then yet again when he was a fresh caught  BG at LFTCLant. So, I know him fairly well.

I and several others pegged him as a future general when he was nothing but a captain at 8th & I. The smartest, most capable Marine officer I ever met throughout my career. When he made four star he was assigned as  Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic and Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Command. Consider the significance of that assignment. The first time ever that a non-naval officer was assigned to that billet. He controlled all the  forces, including the navy ships throughout the Atlantic!

General Jack knows his stuff, so I am heartened by the fact he has finally come to life. Someone had  best listen to him, specifically another four star named Berger!

Wasteful Spending, a Shrinking Force and the Marine Corps’s Big Bet

The Marines may be “the only branch adapting fast for the future” (“U.S. Defense After Ukraine,” Review & Outlook, March 8), but what future and how wisely? The military’s poor record of predicting the next war urges maintaining flexibility. This has long been a strength of the Marine Corps, which maintained itself for decades as a combined-arms force in readiness, rapidly deployable, balanced and able to organize for any mission. This has proved its worth to the nation at all levels of crisis and conflict.

Yet today the Marine Corps is betting all on a conflict with China in the Western Pacific, to the neglect of other contingencies, creating littoral regiments to be scattered in small units across island chains to engage Chinese ships with missiles as part of a campaign for sea control. To pay the bill for this new vision of war, the Marine Corps has already got rid of all its tanks. It is reducing cannon artillery from 21 to five active batteries, eliminating three infantry battalions and reducing those remaining by a third in manpower, and reducing air power and other combat support commensurately. The war in Ukraine shows the folly of this. Or should someone tell the Russians and Ukrainians these systems are all obsolete?

These initiatives risk turning the Marine Corps into a niche force optimized for one conflict that is unlikely to occur, while hobbling its ability to meet security challenges that are certain. This is not what the nation needs or expects from its Marine Corps.

Gen. J.J. (Jack) Sheehan, USMC (Ret.)

Alexandria, Va.

Mr. Sheehan was NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic (1994-97). How dare the WSJ refer to this Marine as “Mr.”

Another general speaks out in the same WSJ article.

The editorial board has been right on its defense analysis for months. Now it is correct about our defense-budget outlook, especially the relationship between the creeping inefficiencies that have plagued the Pentagon and our need to modernize.

If Vladimir Putin is successful, he will not stop at Ukraine. Nor will Xi Jinping stop at Taiwan. America must be ready to combat these threats and adjust to the end of the post-Cold War order. That will require more defense spending—a reality that our NATO allies are coming to grasp as well. But if we don’t get more bang for the buck, these spending increases won’t yield the capabilities we need to defend our freedoms, which are at risk.

Though we spend more today in constant dollars than we did at the peak of the Reagan buildup, we have a smaller force by all measures. The largest drivers of this ever-shrinking fighting force are a broken acquisition system that costs more, takes longer and produces less; the excessive amount of money tied up in the Pentagon’s massive, layered overhead and support functions; and the fully burdened and life-cycle costs of the all-volunteer force, with its outdated personnel management, compensation and retirement programs.

Without reforms, we will not improve our capabilities in either the quality or quantity necessary. The Pentagon and Congress need to establish performance goals that ensure we are better, faster and cheaper than our adversaries. The focus needs to be on outputs, not only inputs.

Congress should also fund the government through a regular process instead of the insanity of never-ending continuing resolutions, which already cost the Defense Department close to $40 billion in purchasing power in this fiscal year. The Pentagon and defense-industrial base need steady, predictable funding. Budget chaos is no way to deter our adversaries.

Maj. Gen. Arnold Punaro, USMC (Ret.)

McLean, Va.

Mr. Punaro is author of “The Ever-Shrinking Fighting Force.”

Your editorial observes that President Jimmy Carter “did a 180-degree turn . . . and began a defense buildup.” This is a bit generous. Alarmed by the enormous Soviet military program and the overthrow of the shah, NATO countries agreed to each undertake a 3% increase in real defense spending. Yet when Mr. Carter offered his budget for fiscal year 1980, his defense numbers were closer to half that, which his spokesmen rationalized with the fatuous claim that the part relevant to NATO had met the target.

In the face of this foot-dragging, two “defense Democrats,” Sens. Ernest Hollings and Sam Nunn, took matters into their own hands, introducing an amendment to raise the overall number by 3%, as pledged, and by 5% the next year. The Carter administration lobbied strenuously against this, yet it passed 55-42. This began the buildup that was carried much further by the Reagan administration, contributing to victory in the Cold War.

Joshua Muravchik

Wheaton, Md.

Mr. Muravchik was executive director of the Coalition for a Democratic Majority (1977-79).

STRENGTH    RESPECTS    STRENGTH. Always has, always will, Amen

Originally posted 2022-03-12 10:09:43.

Current Events

Is it NATO or ATO?

2 Comments

Another informative and thought provoking treatise from my good friend and our Marine Brother. Thank you Greg.

Holding the bag.

By Greg Maresca

While many Americans would have trouble finding Utah on a map, let alone Ukraine, they would equally struggle with the acronym, NATO, that if we are being truthful means: Not Able To Operate (without the U.S.). They need to drop the “N” and make it ATO – American Treaty Organization, a synonym for American expeditionary forces.

NATO was established in 1949 to defend Western Europe from the Soviet Union. Its mission according to the alliance’s first Secretary General, Lord Hastings Ismay, “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down.”

The post-Soviet Union Russia retained its formidable military that includes thousands of nuclear warheads, so disbanding NATO was out of the question. Besides, alliances, like government bureaucracies, rarely disappear. More importantly, peace through strength is no cliché. Tyrants will always exploit weaknesses and it’s naïve to believe otherwise.

In his historic 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington made it clear how he opposed alliances. Defense treaties always work to the advantage of one country and to the disadvantage of another.

The other always being the United States and as the most powerful member we will continue to pay for ensuring its effectiveness.

NATO protects Europeans from having to provide for their own defense. It is a lot easier to let the American taxpayer pick up the tab, while also keeping the sea lanes free and open. Granted, it’s in my interest if my neighbor’s house doesn’t go up in flames. However, that doesn’t mean I must pay his house insurance.

The well-intended but fossilized NATO is more bark than bite when it comes to any support that is not American in origin. Our southern border is under siege but do not count on any NATO member to come to our aid. We can’t even count on some NATO members to vote with us at the United Nations, where we also pay the majority of the U.N.’s bill.

NATO’s first supreme commander, Gen. Eisenhower, said if U.S. troops were still in Europe in 10 years, NATO would be a failure.

Article V of the NATO treaty says any attack on a NATO member will be treated as an attack on all. NATO’s sole Article V intervention was in 2001 in Afghanistan – a long way from Europe and the North Atlantic and its founding objective.

Any member that fails to meet their obligations betrays the alliance by being strategically and ethically negligent and by escalating their dependence on Russian gas and oil only magnifies their irresponsibility.

NATO members prefer to invest in the socialist welfare state than in the necessities of defense where allegiance to the alliance and to one another is debatable. Regarding military contingency, NATO would rather conduct summits where the English would make the reservations, the Germans the strudel and the French hors d’oeuvres. All the while, Uncle Sam does the heavy lifting with the troops, tanks, planes, and ships.

During a Bold Guard/Northern Wedding NATO exercise, the only NATO trooper I interacted with was a drunk Dane who approached our armory of which I was one of two sentries. It is sobering to behold what a sliding bolt can do for the language barrier. I suppose the Carlsberg beer that was three for a dollar was just too good to pass up. The Danes did provide a hot meal in one of their air bases’ chow halls that the salty grunts of the 4th Marine Amphibious Brigade promptly cleaned out to the dismay of our hosts. Without a doubt, Uncle Sam was billed accordingly.

Lack of accountability has bred imprudence like unionized troops throughout NATO. One Air Force captain told of a NATO exercise where he was walking with a couple of Dutch officers when they passed two generals. The Americans saluted, while the Dutch, who were wearing hair nets to cover their shaggy hairdos, waved. The Dutch explained how their union claimed saluting was humiliating.

Yet, historians still debate why it took the Nazi’s four days to eliminate the Dutch from World War II.

If our NATO allies took their defense seriously, they would be a formidable neutralizer to Russia and assuage their reliance upon the U.S., while saving Uncle Sam plenty of money and headaches.

 

Originally posted 2022-03-10 17:04:48.

Current Events

How Do You Spell Olympics?

5 Comments

Well, are they over? Who won the most gold? Anyone maimed, kidnapped, or killed? No? Shucks. I have no idea as I did not watch one episode, game, or advertisement, which I hear there were very many of them. I did hear something about not knowing who was going to represent who?  Did NBC make any money? I hope not. I watched Netflix and Amazon Prime, they have great movies as well as series. If you haven’t watched Reacher, Ozarks, or 1883, you need to. Anyway, Greg provides somewhat of a recap of the games — should we really be calling them games anymore? Hmm, good question for my watchers. 

 

The indifferent games

By: G. Maresca

 

The television audience for the 2022 Beijing Olympic Winter Games resembled a Joe Biden rally. This is no surprise as the Tokyo Summer Olympic Games made for the worst ratings since NBC first began broadcasting them in 1988.

Running counter to the Olympic spirit, the games have been politically hijacked. The Olympics lost its way after the 1972 Summer Games in Munich, West Germany with the Israeli massacre. The governing body is corruption personified, while half the competing countries use their doped-up athletes as nothing more than public relations fodder.

The latest version provided an international stage for the unholy tripartite of NBC, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and China’s Communist Party (CCP). NBC is a left-wing political subdivision of the Democrat Party. The IOC followed the playbook of the World Health Organization that refused to hold the CCP accountable in the COVID pandemic by allowing them to host the games and ignore their competition rules.

U.S. citizens Eileen Gu and those 16 Americans who played hockey for China is such a violation. Americans competing for any country other than the U.S. is patriotic sacrilege. Perhaps they all need to live the rest of their lives in the Middle Kingdom.

Then there is the 15-year-old Russian skater Kamila Valieva, who was permitted to compete after she failed a drug test. How much was the IOC bribed to award China the games?

China is about slave labor, authoritarian rule, who gave the world COVID-19, while they lied, covered up, and blocked any investigation of the pandemic. Not to mention their repugnant disregard for human rights and international law, while being the foundation of the Biden family fortune. This malfeasance runs counter to good ratings.

Lousy television, debauched politics, cheating in events you have never heard of where officials judge on politics rather than athletic ability sounds like a new Netflix series?

What’s not to like?

The opposite of love is not necessarily hate but indifference. Such indifference was reflected in a poll conducted by the News-Item when nearly two-thirds said they didn’t watch any of the games.

Once upon a time in America, the Olympics were a must watch event where compelling amateurs battled for patriotic glory like in 1980, when the U.S. hockey team prevailed over the Soviets at the height of the Cold War.

Today, multimillion-dollar pro athletes and corporate sponsorships rule the games that are immersed in politics and propaganda and are no longer a welcomed distraction, but a blatant manifestation of them.

Without American broadcast revenue and commercial investment there are no Olympics. All those American woke companies and their media allies dismissed China’s ongoing ethnic genocide.

Moreover, given the assorted internet platforms, it is easier to watch the games piecemeal and at your convenience. That is, if you really care. One friend who actually watched some summarized the games saying, “NBC: Nothing But Commercials.” He also said there was no truth about the U.S. bobsled team naming their sled “Biden” as nothing has gone downhill faster. He admitted that there is only so much curling, skiing and team skating that resembles a roller derby that one can watch that included more than its share of political messaging.

Seeking political direction from athletes and Hollywood is like panning for gold in a dumpster. They need to stay in their lane and entertain and cease the lecturing.

Tonya Harding encouraging our Olympians to “break a leg” was in poor taste but what did you expect? The most telling quote belonged to another skater in 17-year-old Russian Alexandra Trusova, who won silver saying: “I hate this sport!”

She should be awarded gold for most honest.

Why not give the next winter games to Russia who could host them in Siberia where the skiers could do their thing between the gulags. What about having the Mexican drug cartels host? At least, the cartels’ body count is less than the CCP and they have more money.

It is long past time for the Olympics to find a permanent site for the summer and winter games where random and independent supervised drug testing is the norm.

Until then, you can continue to spell Olympics: C-O-R-R-U-P-T.

Originally posted 2022-02-24 10:39:20.

Current Events

A Veteran Affair

6 Comments

Another good one from my good friend Greg, thanks Greg, this one is very fitting and timely BUT, I have one that will follow along on this one and be a barn burner for many, especially we Marines. Be sure to read when I post it tomorrow. Trust me, you will be sick Marines. .

By Greg Maresca

Not knowing why Veteran’s Day was on a Thursday and not part of a three-day weekend was somewhat perplexing to a recently minted government employee. There is a historic tradition why some holidays like Christmas, New Year’s Day and the 4th of July are standalone celebrations.

Veteran’s Day is one of them.

Given its history and place on the Gregorian calendar, why couldn’t the Great War have ended in June, July, or August? It just so happens that World War I, the war to end all wars, ceased on the 11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month in 1918. For some it must be frustrating having a holiday in early November when the days are short, the skies overcast and the mercury doing a daily descent.

To take a society’s emotional temperature, listen to what folks complain about. As we approach this Veteran’s Day many who served in the nation’s armed forces are concerned about the trajectory of where our military, and thus the nation, is headed.

As the Chinese fly dozens of sorties into Taiwanese airspace probing their defenses, the Biden administration counters by naming Rachel Levine an honorary four-star admiral of the U.S. Public Health Services Commissioned Corps, the first “woman” to reach that rank. “Rachel” is Richard, a biological male and father, who never served in any branch of the military.

Where is that army of ardent feminists as a male living under the aberration of being a female is bestowed such a title?

Do you believe the Russians and Chinese play pretend like we do?

Hoist that rainbow flag to let the enemy know we mean business as soon as they pick the right dress for war.

Such a dubious sideshow draws attention away from the folly of the Biden administration that recognizes global warming and COVID as more tactical enemies than communism and the piecemeal dismantling of the Constitution by American Marxists.

Besides developing viruses, the Chinese are working diligently on weapons’ systems that include their recent launch of a hypersonic nuclear missile which flies below radar, expanding their navy from a green water fleet to a blue water one, while enlarging their nuclear arsenal and learning to fight the next generation of war: cyberspace.

Provided our armed forces continue to serve more as a social experiment than a fighting force, it is guaranteed we will pay an immense price in blood and treasure on a future battlefield.

Rather we counter with “Rachel” Levine, Critical Race Theory, a bungled Afghanistan defeat and forced vaccinations.

If Afghanistan was a “logistical success,” as Gen. Milley defined it, then what retreat wasn’t? The top brass are a bunch of trick or treaters with more ribbons than brains. What would have been the result had the U.S. squared off against the Axis powers in World War II with a woke president and military joint chiefs where social justice is priority one?

The only thing our military is working at hypersonic speed is the implementation of wokeism.

Recently, the navy failed to execute basic shipboard firefighting aboard USS Bonhomme Richard and lost a ship with 15 years of service left. However, they did plant some trees as carbon offsets, so award those humanitarian service medals.

Navy SEALs seeking a vaccine religious exemption are being coerced into compliance. Not only does such harassment intrude upon their First Amendment rights that they swore to uphold, but it is detrimental to our national security.

Global warming and social change are not the military’s mission.

Our military superiority will cease provided we continue to politicize the armed forces, while discharging those who do not adhere to the woke policies of the Biden administration.

There are about two billion people residing in freedom thanks to the sacrifice of the U.S. military over the last 241 years. That is as noble an achievement as any in history and November 11 has been set aside to honor those who have made and continue to make that sacrifice.

Those who have honorably served make up only seven percent of the population.

For them, take a few minutes to right our ship by contacting your Congressional representatives and urging them to act and what better time than Veteran’s Day.

 I fly out tomorrow to be the guest speaker for a group of Marines in Mesa, AZ for their Birthday Ball. I have been perplexed now for weeks trying to come up with something to talk about, and am stymied. Now today, I read an article that saddens me to no end about my beloved Corps. Now I am really baffled as to what to say to the Marines Saturday night. Lord, I need your help. I will post the article tomorrow a.m. before I depart for the airport. STANDBY MARINES!!!!

Originally posted 2021-11-04 17:03:38.

Current Events

Ms. Milley’s Worried?

2 Comments

Sorry for the lack of posts gang. I wonder what keeps a so-called retired Marine of 80 so damn busy all the time? When I figure it out I’ll let you know. Anyway, sort of tiring writing about Joe the idiot and all his clowns, it actually gets boring after a while. I mean no one knows what they will do next. I’m done with him and his puppet handlers. This particular post intrigued me because it talks about Ms. Milley, who as we all know does not have a clue what he is supposed to be doing as CJCS. Now he is attempting to show concern for China, but can’t get his arms around it since he is to wrapped up in more important things like diversity, and ridding the military of extremists, which we all know I am one of them. What a flaming idiot this guy is.

And of course he is supposed to be the military advisor to the bigger idiot, Sleepy Joe, who also does not have a clue even where he is at anytime. Oh dear, I can just imagine how hard the world is laughing at us dumb ass Americans.

Pentagon Rattled by Chinese Military Push on Multiple Fronts

Air Force Gen. John Hyten, outgoing commander of US Strategic Command, speaks during a change of command ceremony at Offutt AFB in Nebraska, Monday, Nov. 18, 2019. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik, File)

1 Nov 2021

Associated Press | By Robert Burns

WASHINGTON — China’s growing military muscle and its drive to end America predominance in the Asia-Pacific is rattling the U.S. defense establishment. American officials see trouble quickly accumulating on multiple fronts — Beijing’s expanding nuclear arsenal, its advances in space, cyber and missile technologies, and threats to Taiwan.

“The pace at which China is moving is stunning,” says Gen. John Hyten, the No. 2-ranking U.S. military officer, who previously commanded U.S. nuclear forces and oversaw Air Force space operations.

At stake is a potential shift in the global balance of power that has favored the United States for decades. A realignment more favorable to China does not pose a direct threat to the United States but could complicate U.S. alliances in Asia. New signs of how the Pentagon intends to deal with the China challenge may emerge in coming weeks from Biden administration policy reviews on nuclear weapons, global troop basing and overall defense strategy.

For now, officials marvel at how Beijing is marshaling the resources, technology and political will to make rapid gains — so rapid that the Biden administration is attempting to reorient all aspects of U.S. foreign and defense policy.

The latest example of surprising speed was China’s test of a hypersonic weapon capable of partially orbiting Earth before reentering the atmosphere and gliding on a maneuverable path to its target. The weapon system’s design is meant to evade U.S. missile defenses, and although Beijing insisted it was testing a reusable space vehicle, not a missile, the test appeared to have startled U.S. officials.

Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the test was “very close” to being a Sputnik moment, akin to the 1957 launching by the Soviet Union of the world’s first space satellite, which caught the world by surprise and fed fears the United States had fallen behind technologically. What followed was a nuclear arms and space race that ultimately bankrupted the Soviet Union.

Milley and other U.S. officials have declined to discuss details of the Chinese test, saying they are secret. He called it “very concerning” for the United States but added that problems posed by China’s military modernization run far deeper.

“That’s just one weapon system,” he said in a Bloomberg Television interview. “The Chinese military capabilities are much greater than that. They’re expanding rapidly in space, in cyber and then in the traditional domains of land, sea and air.” Meanwhile you have other more important eggs to fry dealing with diversity, transgenders, gays, and of course getting rid of all those mean, bad constitutionalists in the military.

On the nuclear front, private satellite imagery in recent months has revealed large additions of launch silos that suggest the possibility that China plans to increase its fleet of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs.

Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert at the Federation of American Scientists, says China appears to have about 250 ICBM silos under construction, which he says is more than 10 times the number in operation today. The U.S. military, by comparison, has 400 active ICBM silos and 50 in reserve.

Pentagon officials and defense hawks on Capitol Hill point to China’s modernization as a key justification for rebuilding the U.S. nuclear arsenal, a project expected to cost more than $1 billion over 30 years, including sustainment costs.

Fiona Cunningham, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania and a specialist in Chinese military strategy, says a key driver of Beijing’s nuclear push is its concerns about U.S. intentions. Really? Oh Okay that suits Ms. Milley as she can go back to the really important stuff.

“I don’t think China’s nuclear modernization is giving it a capability to pre-emptively strike the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and that was a really important generator of competition during the Cold War,” Cunningham said in an online forum sponsored by Georgetown University. “But what it does do is to limit the effectiveness of U.S. attempts to pre-emptively strike the Chinese arsenal.”

Some analysts fear Washington will worry its way into an arms race with Beijing, frustrated at being unable to draw the Chinese into security talks. Congress also is increasingly focused on China and supports a spending boost for space and cyber operations and hypersonic technologies. There is a push, for example, to put money in the next defense budget to arm guided-missile submarines with hypersonic weapons, a plan initiated by the Trump administration.

For decades, the United States tracked China’s increased defense investment and worried that Beijing was aiming to become a global power. But for at least the last 20 years, Washington was focused more on countering al-Qaida and other terrorist threats in Iraq and Afghanistan. That began to change during the Trump administration, which in 2018 formally elevated China to the top of the list of defense priorities, along with Russia, replacing terrorism as the No. 1 threat.

For now, Russia remains a bigger strategic threat to the United States because its nuclear arsenal far outnumbers China’s. But Milley and others say Beijing is a bigger long-term worry because its economic strength far exceeds that of Russia, and it is rapidly pouring resources into military modernization.

At the current pace of China’s military investment and achievement, Beijing “will surpass Russia and the United States” in overall military power in coming years “if we don’t do something to change it,” said Hyten, who is retiring in November after two years as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “It will happen.” Yessiree!

The Biden administration says it is determined to compete effectively with China, banking on a network of allies in Asia and beyond that are a potential source of strength that Beijing cannot match. That was central to the reasoning behind a Biden decision to share highly sensitive nuclear propulsion technologies with Australia, enabling it to acquire a fleet of conventionally armed submarines to counter China. Although this was a boost for Australia, it was a devastating blow to Washington’s oldest ally, France, (What, our oldest ally? LOL, that’s a joke.) which saw its $66 billion submarine sale to Australia scuttled in the process.

Taiwan is another big worry. Senior U.S. military officers have been warning this year that China is probably accelerating its timetable for capturing control of Taiwan, the island democracy widely seen as the most likely trigger for a potentially catastrophic U.S.-China war.

The United States has long pledged to help Taiwan defend itself, but it has deliberately left unclear how far it would go in response to a Chinese attack. President Joe Biden appeared to abandon that ambiguity when he said Oct. 21 that America would come to Taiwan’s defense if it were attacked by China.

“We have a commitment to do that,” Biden said. The White House later said he was not changing U.S. policy, which does not support Taiwanese independence but is committed to providing defensive arms.

Okay, guys, there you have the rea; scoop straight from all the pseudo sophomoric idiots who have all the answers. But what about helping the  transgender’s, gays, diversity,  etc. in the military, better get them first.? And Lordy be, got to get rid of those extremists who keep touting the constitution!

Originally posted 2021-11-02 12:47:20.