Mostly because I have difficulty seeing any "good" answers to many questions about US involvement in the region. I know for good or for ill, the US is tied to Israel, and it is likely a bad idea to walk away from that even if the US could and wanted to. The Middle East has rarely known peace in the entirety of human history, and I don't know when or how humanity will solve that issue. The only thing I can think of is putting more or less a fence around the region, letting them sort themselves out, and then figuring out how to work with the winner. That looks pretty cynical and bloody and impractical.

As for such attacks on US forces, maybe let it known that all US forces in the region are now authorized to respond immediately to incoming fire and will return fire on drones, missiles, mortars, small arms, etc, with much bigger sticks. Additionally, let it be known that any vessel, no matter how flagged, that transmits information on US asset locations will be assumed taken over by pirate/terrorist forces and treated accordingly (aka blown out of the water. Transmit the warnings loud in clear and then follow through. Get these various groups to understand that attacking US "peacekeeping" assets in the region is going to end only one way with the US forces having itchy trigger fingers blasting anything that farts in their direction. I don't like that answer for the tactics of using civilian or false flags to initiate attacks opens up bad outcomes, but what doesn't at this point?

It would be nice to pull back even more from the region if possible. Further reduction of the US Economy needing oil to run on while also increasing domestic production would be a very good start. It would also be nice to get NATO/EU to take a bit of interest in helping with the protection of the sea lanes if the UN isn't willing to step in. It's going to take some sort of international force to at least allow the free flow of commerce on the seas.

It sounds like a tactical move, but I argue it’s far more strategic in nature. Saudia Arabia and UAE represent the most rational players in the region. KSA is close to normalizing relations with Israel, current operations notwithstanding. Both hold great influence economically (OPEC and financial industry) and have a permanent US military presence unlikely to be scaled down anytime soon. I’m aware of Saudi’s historical flaws but they pale in comparison to Iran. I also spent five months in Riyadh working with government and military personnel; although anecdotal they were all extremely happy to have us there as a hedge against the Iranians/Shia.

Deterrence of Iran has failed. Neither our current course of action nor the JCPOA would curtail their nuclear ambitions. They have grown ever-happier to push/exceed limits WRT power projection via proxies and they feel safer than ever knowing the most we’ll do is hit a weapons cache or radar site (outside Iran, of course) after putting them on notice. If we want to deter Iran, we need to change the strategy and hit them directly. Refineries, Bushehr and IRGC facilities come to mind - there are options, all within unrefueled range from Diego.

They have zero relevant allies in the region. Of course, there would be soft words spoken out against “escalation” by Saudi, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, etc. but they’ll all be giving a subdued “thank you” if we take such action.

Very late to this but waiting to take the teenager home from her job so will do the best I can banging away on a phone.

I don’t think our strikes did much except maybe estrange us a little more to the Iraq government whose PM visited the wounded that were on the receiving end. We told them we were going to do it, told them to please understand this isn’t an escalation, and then stopped. If anything, we proved once again that former Pres. Obama’s Iran policies remain dominant. For the life of me I don’t see a positive outcome for the US or our allies.

I’m glad the President went to the Dignified Transfer. I’ve been to them. They’re professional in all manners. The families appreciate it. Having the President there surely made it special. I wonder if the wars didn’t make us numb to these events though, even for our generals and political leaders who attend. It inspires no nationalism, no resolve, no changes in policy. Guess we’ll see if more than just three die (had a close call in Syria this weekend).

I do think we can and should be tied into the Middle East as the cost of energy is still a prime interest, Israel is still a country that needs support, international shipping lanes need protected, and there is still a solid chance Iran, given resources, is going to make a nuclear weapon and detonate it, through a proxy, on the US or Israel. I recognize my bias in that I have an affinity for the Iraqis and Afghans and want the best for them.

The resources that are needed to stay in the Middle East, build defenses/partnerships in the Indo-Pacific, and support Ukraine in the face of Russian invasion aren’t limited because domestically our financial policy is trash. We’re doing it all now because we don’t give a shit about the debt or the burden on the military. How long can we do it? That may be the real question.

Anyway, I could go on. Not sure I gave you what you wanted.

RIP Toby Keith…you brought an anthem that fired up the troops and for that I’ll always be greatful.

Alas, it isn't.

I truly enjoyed your post and endorse it. I did not intend to create a sideshow but that is not an excuse. The remedy is to take a time out. Apologies.

Hang in there. Anger management is hard. My problem is that I like to be angry. I kid.

for some reason they're not giving my daughter any merit based aid, despite her excellent GPA and test scores. They're the only ones, even CU is chipping in 10k and Wyoming 15k. AZ is giving 35k.

CSU is her first choice but they're forcing her to consider other options. Very strange, something we certainly didn't expect.

If you want to head over there and crack some skulls, I'd appreciate it.

And people thought we had such promise.

Snide; no connection to the original post; of no value to other participants in the thread. Better just to keep silent. Or, better still, offer insights, convey knowledge, instruct.

If I were Board Ops, I'd shut it down and give myself more time for fun or interesting stuff.

Your subject line and opening paragraph set the tone. Nappy Joe and the border are generally unrelated to the broader points you wanted to discuss.

So, where did you envision the thread going after that? Did you consider that there are generously ten people who regularly contribute to the board that have the requisite knowledge and/or experience to engage thoughtfully on the strategic questions that you noted? The expected participants that many of us would defer to on these subjects weighed in to varying degrees, and still the interesting thread you envisioned did not develop. But, rather than let it go, or make additional posts to try to guide the thread, you decided to express disappointment via your own snide post.

Most posters here aren't interested in getting in an argumentative thread with you on any topic. Let alone on a topic where your insight and experience are far superior. As Sorin69 pointed out, we're here to learn from others in areas where we are lacking sufficient knowledge to participate.

I don't think you really expect or believe that our politicians (especially these two nimrods) will have a meaningful discussion as it relates to "geostrategy and vital national security interests". Frankly, I don't want them to. Trump is a bona fide idiot. Has he had a thoughtful, meaningful discussion on any subject in his entire life? And, Biden can do the least amount of damage while napping so I encourage him to take more.


I don't know the answers to your questions. You mention the Indo-Pacific theatre? For the uninformed, what is going on there? Are you referring to China's ambitions, China's desperation, or something more concrete and active?

Circling back to your subject line, isn't all of this about how it makes us feel? Does any of it really matter? If Russia takes over Ukraine, does it matter? If Ukraine repels Russia, does it matter? If China invades Taiwan, does it matter? If Israel decimates Gaza, does it matter? My opinion is that it doesn't. Just like it didn't matter that we fought for twenty years in Afghanistan. I don't view these as existential problems as it relates to the Illinois or Iowa farmer or the accountant in Chicago, the banker in New York, or the programmer in San Francisco. Don't get me wrong, I recognize these are existential problems for the Ukrainian farmer and the others. I'm just not convinced that America's finger on the scale makes a whole lot of difference. It's just different people dying.

I should first say that I think you’re being disingenuous when you suggest that NDN is home to a clerisy of foreign affairs mavens, and only they can have discussions which are informed or relevant. That’s nonsense. The board is littered with educated, well-informed people. No one’s opinion or views are illegitimate, and part of the fun is when issues are debated.

Yes, there are posters whose life experience conveys a measure of credibility that others might not have. But I am leery of this. Say we’re talking about jurisprudence. Must we listen to lawyers only? God forbid. Foreign affairs? No one knows more about political/military affairs than WilfordBrimley, and any thread where he is a participant should garner attention. But who among us does not pay attention when sorin69 or Kbyrnes participate in a thread? Neither of them has experience in foreign affairs beyond a lively interest, however, sorin69 is a learned scholar whose subject is Church history. Kev is a polymath, for chrissakes.

OT: One of the great experiences in my life is accompanying Kev to a lunch at an Albanian restaurant in Chicago. On the way over there, he delivered a spirited talk entitled “The Cuisine of Illyria”. Had Mike been there, he could have lectured on Albania as an exemplar of the religious tolerance on the part of Ottoman imperial society, in which the Orthodox Church and its communities were protected inside an Islamic sultanate. I have traveled there, but I don’t know much about Albania except that Zog is my favorite royal name. The remains of King Zog, King of the Albanians, were returned to Albania in 2012. His grandson, Crown Prince Leka II lives in Tirana and is married to an Albanian movie actress. I feel sorry for the guy because it does not seem that he is invited to any of the royal weddings in Europe.

You might ask, what was on the menu that day? I think we were served a plate with small piles of lentils, each pile a different color—black, red, green. When lentils are featured prominently on a menu, you can be sure this signals poverty. I mean, what do you get when you visit an Ethiopian restaurant? In fact, I like lentils, especially lentil soup. Travel tip: If you plan to visit Albania or Ethiopia, put Beano tablets in your dop kit.

Back to our subject: You well know that I am an old man. Old men have leeway when it comes to offering advice or counsel. Here’s some—when you are in high dudgeon, you make mistakes, get sloppy, etc. To wit, your last paragraph. It’s not just you, it’s all of us. Anger tends to ruin the fun, and I am as guilty on occasion as anyone.

You ask where I thought the thread might go? Like sorin69, I thought someone might take up the Bibi/Gaza issue, that is, the position that I hint at in the post. I am surprised no one took the bait.

Right off the bat, you suggest the border has nothing to do with vital national security interests (VNSIs). I’d challenge that and say that the border issues have everything to do with national security. For me, a list of VNSIs begins with the Western Hemisphere. Yes, ahead of Russia and China. We must maintain friendly relations with our near neighbors, particularly Canada, Mexico, and countries in the Caribbean Basin so that they are enlisted to ensure no military threat ever arises in the Western Hemisphere. We are never safe until we have this assurance. I call it the “Monroe Doctrine” because I think that’s a catchy name. For some, it’s sort of scary because, among other things, the doctrine demands that the next time Russian strategic bombers land at Símon Bolívar International Airport in Caracas, we crater the runways so they can’t take off and the air crews are required to return to Archangel in a banana boat.

Following below are the concluding paragraphs of an essay I wrote four years ago. I think I posted it (parts of it) here. Here goes:

Samuel Huntington observes that “No other immigrant group in American history has asserted or been able to assert a historical claim to American territory. Mexicans and Mexican-Americans can and do make that claim.” That is, the blurring of our southwestern frontier has become a geographical fact. Neither Trump’s wall nor American technology will prevail against this fact. Furthermore, to rely on American nationalism to preserve our Anglo-Protestant culture and values is a fool’s errand. Partial Latinoization of our society is inevitable. The organic connection between Mexico and the US—geographical, historical, and demographic—is simply too overwhelming. As Robert Kaplan points out, America is no longer an island protected by two oceans: “It is brought closer to the rest of the world not only by technology, but by the pressures of Mexican and Central American demography.” (The Revenge of Geography, New York: Random House, 2012).

For Kaplan, success for the US in the 21st century represents a multiracial civilization oriented from north to south (the axis turned 90 degrees), the globe’s preeminent hot-zone for business transactions, the favored residence for the global elites, and a place which uses its immigration laws to asset-strip the world of its best and brightest.

However, this vision requires a successful Mexico, a stable and prosperous Mexico working in organic concert with the US, a combination, Kaplan believes, that would be unbeatable in geopolitics: “A post-cartel Mexico, combined with a stabilized and pro-American Colombia [would] fuse together the Hemisphere’s largest, third largest, and fourth largest countries in terms of population”, thus preserving America’s sway over Latin America and the Caribbean Basin. In other words, fixing Mexico is far more important than fixing Afghanistan.

Again, I look to Robert Kaplan: “…if the United States and Mexico do not eventually come together to the degree that the U.S. and Canada already have—if we do not have Mexico as an intimate and dependable ally in world forums—it will adversely affect America’s other relationships, especially as Mexico’s (and Central America’s) population grows at a much higher rate than ours, and thus Mexico will assume more importance as time goes on…Mexico must play a central function in any grand strategy we decide upon.”

Instead we got the equivalent of a tsk, tsk.

I didn't post or imply that the border isn't a vital national security interest. I said it's "generally unrelated" to your broader post. I guess it's up to you to decide if you feel differently that discussing Middle East strategy and it's interplay with Eastern Europe/Russia or Southeast Asia should naturally segue to our southern border security.

As for the deep well of foreign affairs expertise here, I'll just point out that the three posters you noted all participated in the thread as did the handful of others that I would hope or expect to participate. Beyond those, I'm sure there are many others with expertise or insightful thoughts. They just don't regularly contribute to the board.


High dudgeon and feelings and advice and mistakes

My last paragraph was not an emotional throwaway or a response in "high dudgeon". Kevin and WilfordBrimley touched on it a bit in their subthread. I just took it to an extreme end. If we're talking "strategy" then I'd suggest it would behoove us to start with "does it matter?". I don't mean this in the nihilist "in the end we're all dead anyway" viewpoint, but rather to extrapolate out the "what if we don't do anything" scenarios. Where do our feelings diverge from reality?

Change is uncomfortable and painful, so we place excess value on stability and expend excessive energy on trying to maintain stability. This happens in everything. Often, we lament the change (since we're lamenting it, it's invariably a change for the worse) as a failure to act, but just as often, if not more so, the change is a result of action -- just the wrong action. I'll also note that we rarely celebrate changes for the better in the moment. We bemoan them and only after time and reflection and experiencing the benefits do we concede "that was a good change".


So, I'll reword my ending paragraph...

If Russia takes over Ukraine, how does it affect our vital national security interests? Does it empower Iran? Does it empower China? In the inverse, does us stepping up more forcefully to help Ukraine also put Iran and China in check or does it make them think we're distracted? Flip flop Ukraine with Taiwan or Israel and Russia with China and Iran as desired.

If we do nothing, how does it affect our vital national security interests? Is it a sign of weakness or a sign of focus?


I don't think there are clear actions to take, so we do what we've been doing --- help Ukraine but keep our troops out officially, bomb the desert, try to calm Israel down. It may not feel like action, but no action is probably our best move.

I think it matters alot if Russia takes over Ukraine. Do you think Putin stops there? If you do then, yeah it probably doesn’t matter a lot to the common US citizen except for theoretical issues with us not helping out. But, if you don’t think Putin stops there, as I don’t, the next steps are the really scary ones. Does he go after Moldova next or does he feel the Baltic states, or Finland or Poland, deserve a lesson?

If China takes over Taiwan there is a very real path it could lead to a worldwide Great Depression , forget about the possible war that develops if we decide to defend Taiwan. But either way I think it does matter to the US citizen.

Again with Gaza it depends on the next steps. If Israel decimated Gaza does Iran finally get off the toilet and get personally involved. Do other Arab nations? Will it touch our shores by terrorists fighting for Islam? For better or worse we are always connected to Israel in the eyes of most of the Arab world. If Israel goes too far, and I don’t know what that line is, but if they do we will probably face the consequences of it as well.

I think the world is much more connected than you suggest and just because it hasn’t appeared like that for a few decades doesn’t mean it’s not ready to ignite in an instant. Depends on the catalyst I imagine.

I had various versions of that paragraph including one discussing the complex web of interests, and just like dealing with an actual spider web, the deft touch it requires to keep the whole thing intact. I ultimately decided to go with what I did because it likely represents a lot Americans' feelings, and I thought it was enough of a stance (hopefully without coming across a complete idiot) to provide plenty of room for good discussion in the counterpoint.


With regards to Putin/Russia and Ukraine, I'm supportive of our current approach. I'm not in favor of our escalation with American troops. Nor am I in favor of stopping the aid to Ukraine. To EC's point, I don't think there's much more for Putin to do beyond Ukraine. If he pushes into a NATO country then our response should be immediate and unforgiving.

For China/Taiwan and Israel/Gaza, I'm more on the side of "can American intervention attempts really change anything?". So, it's less about does the whole thing actually matter and more does our response actually matter. If China decides to invade Taiwan then there's nothing we can do about it. We're an ocean away, and our citizenry just doesn't care. Sure, they'll be affected, maybe terribly affected, but they certainly won't think it could have been stopped.

Outside of Moldova, he doesn't have very many options outside of NATO countries. (This map is old, and both Finland and Sweden are now in NATO.)

I guess that he could go south into Georgia, Armenia, or Azerbaijan. I'm not sure what he will gain by doing this. Taking back Ukraine makes sense from a historical perspective, the rest don't seem to have the same sentimental value as Ukraine does.

Likely the Baltics. He just has to get it in his head that we and europe would flinch.

The big wars have generally started with miscalculation by one or more parties. I'm sure a geriatric Putin has a major miscalculation left in him.

You could have shut down airborne’s off-topic thread instead of participating in it.

when posters drop the usual trigger lines. Like any number of people on this board, BI holds Biden in contempt (I don't). In this particular instance, the made for TV reception of the bodies of the dead soldiers, I imagine vets find it particularly galling to see dead soldiers as props, esp when the reason they were put in harm's way isn't transparent (sort of how I felt when Bush took a premature victory lap with the infamous Mission Accomplished landing -- on the deck of a carrier named for our greatest president, who had to take on the burden for one hell of a lot more dead soldiers). And the original post in the thread was meant to ask why the hell those soldiers are there. People should ignore the throw-away lines that irritate them. Though what the hell, this is also supposed to be fun and noisy, it's not a seminar room. No one needs a designated driver to get home.

questions, under the general heading of "What are we doing here?", as we sidle into another Middle Eastern war. I recognize these threads aren't seminars. But the genuine, though not extreme, diversity of opinions on the big question and the subsidiary ones, makes it a natural for a forum like this one -- and for the chance for mutual education, a big attraction for someone like me, who lacks life experience in a huge array of professions, locales, etc.

...That a lot of warmaking is performative, not strategic. Now, when we were bombed at Pearl Harbor, our overall response was strategic, and so was our activity in Europe. When we crawled all over Afghanistan so we could kick the Taliban's butts after 9/11, a lot of that was performative--to grossly simplify, it was a "feel good" thing for us. I'm re-reading David Fromkin's Europe's Last Summer Who Started the Great War in 1914? and, man, there was a lot of performative huffing, puffing, growling, and sneering. Some of the German general staff had the position that, gee, we have to go to war with Russia and Great Britain eventually, so why not take advantage of what happened in Sarajevo...

I agree that Europe and the Indo-Pacific should occupy a lot more of our attention and resources. The Middle East seems like yet another "tar baby" situation. We seemed to be able to maintain a foreign policy before about 1980 without having a military ground presence in the Middle East. Why is it necessary now?

of Afghanistan was performative. It was arguably the most effective campaign the U.S. military has ever waged in terms of strategic outcomes gained relative to cost or investment in personnel, materiel / logistics, and so forth. If anything, we probably should have gone a little heavier in the first 3 - 6 months (the 10th Mountain and 25th Infantry should have been close behind the SF ODA teams and CIA SAD). It is to Bush's (and Rumsfeld's, as much as I dislike the guy) credit that they leaned heavily on their staffs and combatant commanders and high-leverage, low visibility assets to get it done. It also doesn't hurt that the gap between U.S. military and the rest of the world in the world in the fall of 2001 was the largest it has ever been and potentially will ever be. Besides severely underestimating the willpower and reaction of the American voting population, Osama's biggest strategic mistake was that he didn't quite understand just how good the U.S. military was at the time, especially relative to his own assets.

Performative would have been 100,000+ on the ground within 3 - 4 months and flattening everything from Kandahar to Jalalabad. Instead, we went light, fast, and local.

It all blurs together in the regular person's mind these days - even the people who pay close attention to these kinds of things - largely because we were there for a generation, but Afghanistan didn't really turn truly south until late in the 2000's. There was somewhat regular but predictable violence throughout the country for most of the first 5 - 6 years (which is an eternity in an insurgency), but for those paying attention, it was the Helmand River, the Arghandab, the Korengal, and Nuristan in 2007 - 2009 that were very clear canaries in the coalmine. If anything, Obama's surge from 2009 - 2011 might have been a bit performative, but even then there was a good bit of operational and strategic need for it.

...I agree that it achieved significant military goals and had met strategic goals within the conceptional four walls of the concept of defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan. However, that begs the question of whether those military goals served our larger national strategic interest. The 20 years we spent there do not seem to have been. I'm open to contrary argument on that point.

an anachronistic viewpoint to what, at the time, would have been sound strategic decision-making and by every educated account in the long-term strategic interests of the country. There are hundreds - thousands - of factors that changed between the initial invasion and 6 - 8 years later when the war really turned for the worse; then there would have been a thousand more factors that changed between the late Bush and early Obama years and the mid-2010's when we started clearly signaling that we were going to exit; then there would have been a thousand more factors that changed in the interim between then and having former allies dropping out of the cargo doors of C-17's to their deaths thousands of feet below. Those are all inherently unknowable factors years and decades before the ultimate outcome was decided. That doesn't mean the actions theretofore were "performative".

Your use of "performative" in your original post implies a public relations element of military decision-making that potentially, at times, supersedes the operational and strategic goals. There are innumerable times in American military history where that has happened - the Doolittle Raid, Operation Linebacker, large chunks of the initial phase of Iraq in 2003 - 2004 up until Fallujah I, et al - but the idea of the initial invasion of Afghanistan being categorized as "performative" is preposterous.

...because I'm looking at it from 2024. In that strictly literal sense, everything anyone says here about stuff that happened in the past is anachronistic.

I'm not convinced that the decision to go into Afghanistan was "sound strategic decision-making and by every educated account in the long-term strategic interests of the country." I am re-reading chunks of Andrew Bacevich's book, America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History--I have my copy here in the office. Here are some snippets regarding the period between 9/11 and our venture into Afghanistan:

"Every new administration arrives in office bearing its own foreign policy vision, which rarely survives the encounter with actual events. The vision of the new Bush administration, which came to power on January 20, 2001, was more ambitious and more concrete than most. It derived from specific convictions that President Clinton had willfully disregarded. Chief among those convictions was a belief in military assertiveness as the foundation of American global leadership....The events of 9/11 created the opportunity to act on this perceived imperative....Rumsfeld's very first impulse on 9/11 itself was to frame the problem in the broadest possible terms. 'Need to move swiftly...go massive--sweep it all up, things related and not.'"

I don't question that once the project was assigned to the military, that it was carried out as you indicated, with diligent efforts put forward and militarily strategic goals established and often met. As I noted previously, I feel that some of the Afghan warmaking had performative elements, and I would say those were coming from those in Washington D.C. and at the Pentagon; not the generals and service members who were in the field, who performed most admirably. But I wonder if, in flexing our muscle for all to see, we had reasonably thought out what the end-state of that military effort would be.

And to make sure this point is understood... I think every member of our military served admirably, with valor and courage. I appreciate and honor their service.

I just think, other than a small group intent on taking out bin Laden, they shouldn't have been sent at all to Afghanistan or Iraq, at any scale.

a number of really important points. But someone killed some of our people. That should never, EVER, be acceptable. We should never, ever, walk away from that with our tail between our legs. A response was mandated. Frankly, I'd have hit Iran more directly.

So, we can and absolutely should have the discussions you raise. Geopolitics and "war is a racket" are difficult things. I reject any notion that we withdraw from the world and focus only on our own narrow interests. But yes, we absolutely can and should handle our moral mission better.

just around the corner from the Bab-el-Mandeb where, 24 years later, Houthi rebels launch rockets and drones at our ships. Over two decades, and nothing has changed, certainly not the behavior of people committed to do us harm. We have bombed them, we have captured them and put them in Guantanamo, we have issued stern warnings. I guess one of my first questions is, what can we do to modify behavior we don’t like? At the same time, what requires that we continue to put our people at risk? In Yemen of all places, a treeless desert shithole. We know they want to kill us. We sure do give them easy shots.

Just for the record, I do not say in the post, nor have I ever said, that “we [should] withdraw from the world and focus only on our own narrow interests.”

I agree with the premise that safety of our forces should be a very high priority. I cannot say it is the only priority, because that is not the nature of service or warfare. There will always be risks. So I don't know what you mean by "what requires that we continue to put our people at risk?" I would assume you'd add the modifier "unnecessary" in there somewhere. Otherwise, why have a military.

There are economic measures that can be taken, or at least tried, to keep people from hating us. They are not always successful. But that doesn't mean we are then required to stay away from the area. Sometimes force, or at least a show of force, is required to modify behavior.

Yemen may be a treeless shithole, but it sits in a rather important neighborhood.

But my wife sent me this link a couple of weeks ago and I sobbed after watching it. Even 3 years ago I thought there was no way I would go back there. But this instagram reel gave me hope and made me consider that perhaps something good may come from our time there yet.

I am glad we continue to have a presence in Iraq. I would seethe with anger if we had another Afghanistan in Iraq. But these are the feelings I try to tamp down and bubble up at times… and others get caught in the crossfire of that misplaced anger.

• Click here for link at https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2umhIUIfhu/?igsh=eGFkeW9rN2p

in the area helping with communications and guiding the Houthis with their attacks. Has anyone read anything about this? And is this not their direct involvement? This doesn't answer the questions on the appropriate responses to the Houthis hitting one of our ships though, but I'd assume we'd sink that ship at the least?

Is to include Joe badgering the families of the deceased about Bo - he died in Iraq a hero you know.

And I have no idea what you're criticizing him for.

Maybe you have further insights into what happened at Dover AFB, but your criticism seems pretty far out to sea from what I heard.

biden visiting walter reed and dover and blathering about Beau? Really?

Also, have you overseen this transfer? I have done so a handful of times at Dover. I have escorted parents whose sons were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Never, ever, once, did I think it was appropriate to do anything but ask about their son and be an ear to listen.

Read this - ctrl + f Beau. He's a blathering insensitive buffoon.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-meeting-fallen-americans-families/2021/08/30/07ecff7c-09ac-11ec-a6dd-296ba7fb2dce_story.html

exposure?

You realize he was a signal officer in the green zone. He wasn't at a remote fob literally stirring a slurry of shit and JP8.

Joe claimed, "...More people are coming home from Iraq with brain cancer than ever before, than any other war." Not true. Just another facet of the Gold Star father skit for which Biden is famous. Beau died from glioblastoma. My brother died from the same thing. It's a tragic thing, not a glorious death on the battlefield.

To date, no evidence has been found supporting Biden's claim of a linkage between burn pit exposure and brain cancer. At best, the studies that have been done, e.g., National Academy of Science, are inconclusive. What is not inconclusive is the linkage between various cancers--in my case dermo stuff and prostate--and Agent Orange. Joe doesn't have to worry about that.

• Click here for link at https://www.va.gov/resources/presumptive-cancers-related-to-

So does the VA. They are all part of the Executive Branch, and if they know the president wants exposure to be "presumptive" (whatever that means), it will be so. It's a political thing. But there is yet no medical scientific evidence to show that exposure to burn pits is any more dangerous than exposure to wood smoke from a campfire. There may well be evidence in due course, but today no. It is well to remember that the guy served out his tour sitting in a Quonset hut doing lawyer stuff.

My guys were taking turns driving skid steers pushing batteries, human shit, and trash around a pile while it smouldered. Prior to that my guys mixed human shit and jp8 fuel in a can and stirred it with a shovel to slowly burn it away. I'm a lead from the front kind of guy and gave it a whirl. The smoke is black and thick up close. From afar you can smell it... Dare I say its smell would warm the cockles for perverse reasons.

As you say there is no proven connection. Andy's comment shows why we need a draft. If you ask any veteran with integrity the same question they will react as we are. If you ask some fat reservist who is 100% disabled for "PTSD" for his time managing the wash rack in kuwait he will say yes. There is a reason for the divergence in the answer and it comes down to integrity. If you ask a civilian they will assume that DoD is correct. It is not.

Maybe you should read the science. You just emote. Yeah, you have "integrity" as do all real men who look at their butts in the mirror. As opposed to guys who don't even lift.

between burn pits and brain cancer? All three studies I found from the National Academies and in pub med find NO relationship between burn pit exposure and brain cancer, and at least one brain cancer specialist outlined reasons that brain cancer is an unlikely outcome of exposure to combustion products (the same reasons that brain cancer is hard to treat - most chemicals don't pass the blood/brain barrier).

• Click here for link at https://www.factcheck.org/2019/12/biden-exaggerates-science-

On their website, under a section title: "Am I eligible for VA disability compensation?"

"For some conditions, we automatically assume (or “presume”) that your service caused your condition. We call these presumptive conditions.

If you have a presumptive condition, you don’t need to prove that your service caused the condition. You only need to meet the service requirements for the presumption.

Find out more about these categories of presumptive conditions:

A chronic (long-lasting) illness that appears within 1 year after discharge

An illness caused by contact with contaminants (toxic chemicals) or other hazardous materials

An illness caused by your time spent as a prisoner of war (POW)"


As you correctly point out, this is a political conclusion not a scientific one. As recently as last year, the NYT stated that the president has long "speculated" on this linkage. There is no scientific conclusion to match his speculation. Maybe one will arise in the future. Maybe it will be proven to have no basis whatsoever. But in the absence of either, we have politically determined to cover and treat those conditions as though there is direct causation.

There are nearly 8 million people living in Baghdad. Are we going to pay them all out for disability as well? The green zone was a safe metropolis within iraq where carrying your weapon would get you the side eye. This shit makes me hopping mad.

It's like saying you live in Englewood in Chicago when you reside in Kenilworth. It should be dismissed on its face.

The VA is required to treat such disease as presumptive. But it comes from the PACT Act, is my understanding, which was passed in 2022 with relatively bipartisan support.

with Nelson Mandela and Corn Pop.

just published an essay about what we will do when the Iranians do what I would do in their situation: rush to nuclearize toute suite, not to drop the big one on Israel but as the kind of protection that North Korea and Russia enjoy. Despite eccentricities in Shiite eschatology (in which I am not expert), I doubt the regime of the mullahs is suicidal. What's our move to forestall that? Seriously, what is our move?