For example, on December 8, 1941, there was cooperation between the parties, then later in September 2001, there was also cooperation between the parties. Sadly, such cooperation never lasts long. After December 8th, the recriminations and witch hunting began over who was asleep at Pearl Harbor, and why things happened in the first place. This took on a pure political bent, as each side rushed to justify their position in their endless hearings after the war. There is a multi-volume set of testimony and exhibits that records those hearings, that for some reason known only to GOD, I’ve read word for word. It makes for fascinating reading to a history geek, but it should be mandatory reading for anyone that doesn’t want to repeat stupid mistakes. I say this, since I think we can also all remember the 9/11 Commission. Their report and supporting documents also make for some very interesting reading. What most people don’t realize, unless they’ve read both reports, is that you could have taken the Congressional Report published in the 1940s, and just changed the date to the 2000s. Sure there are differences in equipment, people, and places, but the lessons are the same. More food for thought as we hear from both sides of the aisle about things like ISIL, or even Putin’s actions in Eastern Europe. Maybe, just maybe, instead of peeing in each others pockets, they should pick up a history book. ~ Michael S. Pauley
If ignorance is bliss, then sometimes I think Washington, DC, might be about the happiest place on Earth. Now before anyone gets up in arms about my being partisan or political, let me say that I’m not being anything other than disgusted at both sides of the aisle. I don’t think either party gets it, so I’m being equal opportunity in my disgust. Listening to some of these politicians makes me seriously question whether their self aggrandizement will ever give way to the best interests of the country. Having said this, there are times when there will be flashes of non-partisan political movement, harmony, and even brief moments of cooperation.
For example, on December 8, 1941, there was cooperation between the parties, then later in September 2001, there was also cooperation between the parties. Sadly, such cooperation never lasts long. After December 8th, the recriminations and witch hunting began over who was asleep at Pearl Harbor, and why things happened in the first place. This took on a pure political bent, as each side rushed to justify their position in their endless hearings after the war. There is a multi-volume set of testimony and exhibits that records those hearings, that for some reason known only to GOD, I’ve read word for word. It makes for fascinating reading to a history geek, but it should be mandatory reading for anyone that doesn’t want to repeat stupid mistakes. I say this, since I think we can also all remember the 9/11 Commission. Their report and supporting documents also make for some very interesting reading. What most people don’t realize, unless they’ve read both reports, is that you could have taken the Congressional Report published in the 1940s, and just changed the date to the 2000s. Sure there are differences in equipment, people, and places, but the lessons are the same. More food for thought as we hear from both sides of the aisle about things like ISIL, or even Putin’s actions in Eastern Europe. Maybe, just maybe, instead of peeing in each others pockets, they should pick up a history book. ~ Michael S. Pauley
0 Comments
If you have never seen Monty Python’s Life of Brian, I would highly recommend it. Sure it is blasphemous to some, but there is an interesting lesson to be learned too. For example, in one scene, various groups for the “liberation of ..... (fill in the blank),” meet in an underground tunnel on their way to commit different acts of sabotage against the Romans. The scene makes much of the various names of these groups, which seemed to change depending on the phase of the moon, or someone’s mood, and the clash of their ideologies. How does this relate? Well, for those of us watching the Middle East region over the last 30 plus years, there is a huge kernel of truth to the humor.
An in-depth study of the Middle East Region will reveal an enigma wrapped in a hard shell casing of bizarre, with a soft center of “huh?” In that part of the world, truth can often be a real moving target, often spun to meet the needs of the moment, and hidden within a religious message, (often spread to the illiterate by a chose few, who are also pretty illiterate). These lunatic notions run the gamut from the Holocaust didn’t ever happen, all the way to September 11, 2014 was an operation of the USAF and Israel, (to deliberately draw the US into the region for war against all Muslims.) Some of this craziness would be funny if it weren’t so damn serious in the impact and problems they breed. Sadly, I’ve run into a group here in the United States that have taken off in a similar direction. (Sovereign Citizens, who frankly have a view of the world that is equally bizarre.) Their mantra runs from Government conspiracies of all stripes, to the notion that all contrails of passing aircraft are actually “Chem Trails,” of mind altering drugs meant to facilitate governmental mind control. Most of us look at these notions and just shake our heads, but to some it is quite real. Is it any wonder that the world is such a dangerous place? When you’re surrounded by those who have no concept of the truth, then sorting the sublime from the ridiculous can be a real challenge. ~ Michael S. Pauley Something that nobody has ever adequately explained to me is this notion that we’ve fought all these different wars since September 11, 2014. I thought that when we launched our War on Terror, in response to September 11, 2014, that it was one war. Sure we’ve had campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, but we’ve also dealt with issues in the Philippines, Malaysia, and other parts of the globe. I’m sure I’m being naive, but now that we’re faced with ISIL, isn’t this the culmination of things that would naturally be a part of our War on Terror? They have forces in Lybia, Somalia, Syria, and Iraq. Some will tell you that they can and have reached into Mexico, parts of Europe and even here in the United States. The other day, some of them came out of Pakistan and attacked an Iranian Border Checkpoint.
Some pundits argue that because we were “looking for WMD” that Iraq was a different war, and therefore the war on Iraq wasn’t about the War on Terror. I agree that is a good argument, but for me it just isn’t persuasive. What is persuasive is that Al Qaida, regardless of franchise, form, or location, is the creature of an ideology. That ideology is what we’ve been fighting for lo these 13 years, and we’re still fighting it today. We were, and still are, concerned that WMD, that includes bio, chemical, and nuclear weapons or components, can be proliferated from regimes like Saddam, or Assad’s, or even “little” Kim in North Korea. Missile technology, and other weapons have most certainly followed that course. (Ask anyone in Israel.) Now looking at ISIL, I hear some say that it just isn’t that serious or large of a threat, and that this is all media driven. Again, let’s look at the facts. Sure, it can be argued that the Al Qaida “prime” was more adept at global terror operations, and that ISIL is more of a thug conventional force limited to a region of the world. Still, this to me is merely a variation on a theme. The skill sets that made Al Qaida Prime dangerous have also proliferated from the elements of Al Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. If you think that the disagreements between Shia and Sunni will keep them off our shores, then again, that notion is delusional. Certainly, nobody questions that in our own country we disagree about how to do things, but that doesn’t make any of us less American, nor does it mean we can’t come together against a common enemy. Face it, the one time the Shia and Sunni populations don’t have a problem coming together is when you raise the question of Israel, or the US, or even the West for that matter. Again, we get back to the common ideology of all these groups/franchises, and while it is inconsistent with the actual teachings of a real religion, it is consistent with a tribal mentality of “us vs. them.” While ISIL and Al Qaida may have taken the Islamic religion as their basis for their actions, it still boils down to the reality that so long as that ideology of hate exists, then we will be threatened. President Bush noted that this was a danger, and that it would be a long, often unseen war fought around the globe. I think history is now showing this to be correct. He has spoken of the Axis of evil, and guess what. We’re now seeing that all Presidents, regardless of political affiliation, will likely be dealing with this for quite a while into the future. If you really want to see it end, then I suggest we work on the elimination of the ideology, since that is the root cause of what I see as the continuation of the War on Terror! How to do that will always be a source of discussion. In the end though, we can either eliminate it through education or through force, but make no mistake, it must be eliminated. ~ Michael S. Pauley Today I just want to give a brief homage to the men and women who are part of the force protection forces around the world. Their job is often difficult, and made even more so by the amount of terrain they must cover globally. Think about it. The bad guys love anniversaries. This means that things like September 11, 2014, are known as potential target dates for them. Sounds simple enough, except for one little issue. When does September 11th begin, when you are concerned with force protection around the globe. For the planners in Washington, this means that starting on September 10th, they need to keep their guard up, and this remains in place until the sun sets on September 11, 2014, which for those in Washington is sometime on September 12th, talk about your long day. This dynamic comes up in my book as well, where the bad guys, (in my case the Gomers), follow the twilight line around the globe to spread their havoc. These global issues mean that for someone trying to run an operation that spans the planet, the sun literally never sets nor does it rise. Just a little food for thought, and the real reason that the people running the communications centers, and other facilities dedicated to force protection, win huge awards from me. ~ Michael S. Pauley
The last weeks have been interesting, but I want to step back a minute, and focus on something said before the President’s speech the other evening. About a week or so ago, a Joint Statement was released from the NATO Summit that had something interesting in it. As a second goal in fighting ISIL, it was posited that NATO wanted to “Stop[...] the flow of foreign fighters.” I think that is great in theory, but what if....... What if we didn’t cut off the flow, and what if we allowed as many of them into that area as possible. Wouldn’t that make it easier to destroy them all? Like removal of a cancer, it might help to have them all in one spot, making the surgery far more successful. Something similar came up during World War II. While many panicked during the Battle of the Bulge, some were delighted that the German Army had decided to get into a spot where they could be destroyed in detail. Just a thought, since as it stands, even if you cut off the flow of these guys, you’re not cutting off their desire to cause harm and spread evil. By cutting off the flow, I personally believe that you are only making sure that we won’t know where they all are located around the world. This means that the ideology of terror and evil will remain, and you then still have to concern yourself with what they might be doing locally. Nope, I’d love to have them all in one spot, to me that just makes the job simpler and more clear cut as to goals and rules of engagement. Just my two cents. ~ Michael S. Pauley
Over the last week, I’ve ranted about the media, now it is time to move onto something with a little less controversy. Who are we kidding, I got nothing. Putin is not so subtly threatening us with Nukes; ISIL wants to make more videos of useless gore; and, people around the globe are struggling to make sense of all the chaos. Meanwhile, there are hearings and interviews about Benghazi, and much discussion about several past September 11th events, and how it relates to the upcoming 9/11. In other news, NATO had a big Summit, and while there was much chest pounding and leaf throwing, with the dawn of a new week, many Americans are still wondering from where, and from whom, the next blow will come. It is often said around here that one of the most heinous of old world curses was, “may you live in interesting times.” Well for most of us, we appear to be living that curse. Then again, are we worse off than say 70 to 100 years ago?
Looking back through history, you can take several periods of time and see that maybe we aren’t any different than we were those decades ago. After all, at one point in the 1930s, we were engaged in a slow recovery from a depression, while Europe was especially hard hit with rampant inflation and the spread of fascism. Meanwhile in Asia, Japan was running roughshod over China, and we were hearing about the Rape of Nanking, the sinking of the USS Panay. All of this was about the same time we were dealing with the annexation of Austria, Czechoslovakia, and the collapse of the Versailles Treaty. The only difference between then and now is that we’re hearing about things faster, and with greater stridency. The names have changed, the alliances are different, but the concepts are with us regardless of decade. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t find comfort in any of this, especially since to me, we’re just repeating history. Knowing this, I would find far greater comfort in knowing that this time we’re going to do something without waiting for the worst to force us to do something. We shouldn’t need a December 7th or a September 11th to awaken from our torpor and hope that the world will “do the right thing” without us. Unfortunately, many with the power to stop things early, before the costs become too high in lives, appear to have never read a history book. I’m not saying that this is a time for bombastic action, but it clearly isn’t a time for sitting on thumbs either. There are a lot of options in the global/historical playbook, but the one we know that absolutely doesn’t work is appeasement....... ~ Michael S. Pauley Literacy and over information can lead to the same result. For example, we wonder at how an Imam can interpret something and issue a Fatwah, that has no real basis in their own written religious works. Yet, we don’t bat an eye at how MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News, will listen to a press conference or speech, and give us their twist on things. I know I’ve harped on this before, but most of us have day jobs. We come home from work, and get a short snippet of a press conference, and then some commentator’s spin on what was said. You can listen to these various networks, and wonder if they were participating in the same press conference. This is why I no longer rely on the networks. The best I can do is listen to them, and divide by two to get to the truth. The other method is to look at the source. Several times I’ve gone to the DOD page to listen to what Rear Admiral John Kirby really said, since I can count on the news media to screw it up. Similarly, gangs and thugs like ISIL don’t check the source either. Instead, thanks to the raging illiteracy in their part of the world, they only know what they are told. So, some “Holy” man can tell them what to think, and because of their blind adherence to this bizarre sicko, they don’t bother to check the source of his rant. How can we marvel at this, when some of us are doing it too? I agree that some of us can’t help it. We have day jobs, families, obligations, and there aren’t enough hours in the day to read through the massive amounts of information that are available to us. Left with so little time, and so much information, we are relegated to relying on the talking head on the idiot box to sum it up for us. Who is worse off? Clearly they are, but we should still be aware that much of what we are hearing may not be the best, most accurate information. Something to think about, since the last thing we as a society should ever want is someone doing our thinking for us. Just for giggles, when you get a minute, check out other sources, take a look at what DOD really said, or maybe even cruise some other government websites for transcripts or footage. You just might be really surprised that some moron that pontificates at you for an hour with four commercial breaks, just might have his head up his ass. ~ Michael S. Pauley
Yes, I’m on twitter, tumblr, facebook, and here. Sometimes there is crossover in postings from one to the other, but each one has a distinct flavor. For example, on Facebook, I have friends that range back through most of my life. From childhood friends, up to colleagues in my legal world. What is always interesting is how this collection of souls have such different political views about the same things. They range from staunch conservatives to staunch liberals and every degree of viewpoint that lies in between those two extremes. What always tickles me is that some of these people get righteously indignant when I refuse to engage in a political discourse. I do not mean to be an enigma about my political views or opinions, but then again, maybe I do. Face it, I’ve worked for every Commander in Chief since Jimmy Carter, at least in some capacity, and I’ve seen some pretty great things, and some pretty stupid things. I just know that as a soldier, speaking ill of the Commander in Chief can never lead to good things happening for you.
I don’t mean being singled out for ill treatment, instead, I’m referring to the notion that when you’re in a foxhole with bullets flying by your head, the last thing you need to do is question the sanity of the leadership. You have to have faith, otherwise you’d be frozen, or worse . . .. I always have taken the position that as a professional in the military, having an opinion is great, but to express it might undermine that concept of having faith. Trust me, if the Sergeant tells his men that the Commander is a moron, this does not bode well for morale or the ability to keep his people alive. I think we all get that at the micro level, such as in the foxhole, but perhaps we should extend this to the upper levels of leadership too. As a leader, I won’t openly criticize or express my political opinions, since that can impact the ability of those around me to execute a plan that we’ve been ordered to execute. In other words, talking bad about the boss doesn’t help a bit when you’re trying to get something done. Instead, it more likely will lead to failure, and face it, failure in some things just isn’t an option. All of this leads to this particular point. When someone tells me or asks me my opinion about a Commander in Chief, you will NOT get an answer. Lest someone thinks I’m defending any one of them in particular, let me assure you, I was as offended about some of what was said by my peers about the last one, as I am about the current one. Face it, they are polar opposites in the political arena, but they are/were the Commander in Chief. People who have undertaken the profession of arms should have opinions, I just don’t want to hear them, any more than they really need to hear mine. (Take it to the voting booth, and if you don’t vote, then don’t bitch!) As men of arms we don’t check the First Amendment at the door to protect the boss, but maybe we should think about checking it at the door for our peers or our subordinates that ultimately must rely on the boss making the decision. If you want to set foreign policy, then get out and run for office, otherwise just remember our job isn’t to make it, but to enforce it to the best of our ability. The one caveat to this is that until a decision is made, open discourse is not only important, but it can be invaluable. This is why the SecDef and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have an obligation to point out things, and provide their opinions. Are they political? No, instead, they are professional assessments of the situation and the best use of the available assets. This might lead to disagreement at the upper levels of leadership, but once the Boss has made a decision, the you do your best to make it work, regardless of your personal feelings. That is how it has to work, and from my perspective, it is the ONLY way you can make it work. The other day I took a pot shot at DOJ. I don’t regret this at all, since I don’t work for DOJ, and therefore, I’m not speaking ill of the Boss. If I ruffled feathers over there, then so be it. Somewhere around here is a rat that is completely devoid of his nether regions. Let me say, I’ve never been a fan of the DOJ, or the State Department for that matter, but that has nothing to do with the Boss. Instead it has everything to do with the fact that my history with both goes back 30 to 40 years, through lots of Bosses from both parties. I just can’t stand institutional mind sets that never change or grow, which will always put me at odds with some of those bozos. Now apart from my disdain for ivy league agencies, do I have a political opinion? You bet your ass, but you’ll not hear it from me, so please stop threatening to “unfriend” me on facebook because I’m not “one of you.” Who knows, I might be, or I might not be, but either way, I’m now and always will be a military professional, ergo my opinions about the boss are mine and mine alone. ~ Michael S. Pauley Last time I wrote about ISIS/ISIL, but this time I’m going to return to my old buddy, Vladimir Putin. While we watched the most horrific video coming out of Iraq, Putin was taking full advantage of our distraction. “Aid” convoys, carrying non-humanitarian aid, are not aid convoys, they are an invasion. Armored vehicles and unmarked soldiers aren’t aid workers, and at no point does the International Red Cross need anti-aircraft missile systems for the passing out of food and medicine. To say that Russia is in Ukraine on a humanitarian mission is so over the top, it defies even the most basic logic. I’m always amazed that anyone can make such an argument with a straight face. Yet he does, and there are some who believe him. I suppose that the 18,000 armed troops along the border, along with all their equipment, weapons, rations, etc., are there to direct traffic for the aid workers and assistance convoys. What next? I’m pretty sure that most Ukrainians could live without such assistance, but then again, I might be wrong. After all, there are lots of separatists that could use the bullets, and .... Oh wait! Most of them are Russians in unmarked uniforms, so tell me again about how this “aid” is supposed to help Ukrainians? You can’t fool me, I’m too stupid. This is an invasion, pure and simple! Now comes the next question, what are we going to do about it? I’m sure someone at DOJ will consider having Putin indicted for “criminal trespass.” ~ Michael S. Pauley
The news from last week, through this past weekend, is anything but encouraging. So, I’m going to start with the ugliest of it, ISIS/ISIL. Most people get confused, since we’ve heard this group mentioned with several titles. ISIS stands for Islamic State in Syria, while ISIL stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. Make no mistake, these are the same people who are attempting to form their own state of evil, which I’m sure will be called IS or Islamic State. Are they a new threat? Not so much, but they have grown exponentially over the last year, thanks to several factors.
For example, back on February 11, 2014, the then head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, (DIA), Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, testified before the United States Senate Armed Services Committee. In his testimony, General Flynn spoke about Transnational Terrorist Threats, and listed several of the greatest “group” threats facing the United States. At the top of the list was Al’Qaida Command and Control, followed by Al’Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula or (AQAP). The next was listed as Al’Qaida in Iraq (AQI), which he then opined as being also known as Islamic State of Iraq and Levant or ISIL. I won’t belabor his testimony, but there was definite intelligence about ISIL, and it was equally clear that the Intelligence Community was concerned. Concerned enough for General Flynn to make sure that Congress knew that they were dangerous, organized, and quite capable of extending their reach outside of their normal operating area in Iraq and Syria. (They were already at this point responsible for bombings in Beirut). Now flash forward to the tribal and other issues that were arising in Iraq. The politicians, coupled with their religious/ethnic battles (Sunni v. Shia v. Kurds), were creating a climate rife for the fermenting of discontent at lots of levels, to include their own military. What nobody predicted is that the Iraqi military, trained by the United States and allies such as the United Kingdom, France, etc., would simply melt away in the face of a concerted threat. In other words, when they bolted, they abandoned their equipment. With each ISIL victory came the addition of newer equipment, and coupled with their two or more years experience of combat in Syria’s civil war, we were now looking at an even great threat. Now they are a group that can project power well beyond their region and on into the rest of the world. Fox News, CNN, and lots of pundits love to point at General Martin Dempsey (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), and say that he is changing his tune. First he didn’t want military assistance to go to Syria, and now he wants to expand operations to attack in Syria. Let me just say that arming groups in Syria several years ago was a bad idea then, and here is why. Two years ago we couldn’t be sure which groups were affiliated with ISIS/ISIL, and that was well and firmly stated at the time. Face it, if we’d handed them advanced arms two years ago, then we’d have been facing this recent threat much sooner, from a much larger territory in Syria. Ergo, I must defend General Dempsey, since he was right then, and he is right now. If you expect the Media to remind you of these things, then you won’t get it. Instead, you have to read the information that is out there from other sources. I found General Flynn’s testimony online, from an open source, and it explained to me that not only did we know about the threat, but it was NOT an intelligence failure that led to this surprise. It was instead a leadership failure in places like Iraq that allowed this to get as huge as it did, and as quickly as it did. This is why Maliki had to go, and even IRAN had that figured out. Simply put, if you want to blame someone, then don’t hang this on people like General Flynn or the rest of the Intelligence Community. They reported this news at the time, and it isn’t their fault that nobody (News Media/Congress/etc.) seemed to want to really listen! ~ Michael S. Pauley |
AuthorMichael S. Pauley is a Navy brat and an old soldier who served in all three components of the United States Army. Living in Lexington, South Carolina, Michael is now a practicing attorney and member of the United States Naval Institute and the American Legion, Post 154, Tybee Island, Georgia. Archives
June 2021
Categories
All
|