The Thomas Chronicles

Last week, my friend and I were treated to yet another hair-pulling episode at the Veterans Administrations hospital. Given the copious amount of literature surrounding the various incompetencies of this monstrous system, I don’t think I’ll attend to the specifics.

I’ll only say that it is an absolute travesty of justice for our elected officials to treat our veterans as though they were charity cases. They are not. It is right there in their sign up contracts that they will defend our country with all their might and with their very lives, if necessary, and in return, their health needs will be cared for by the government.

These vets have upheld their end of the bargain. Where is the honor of our government? President Bush keeps lauding our troops, calling them heroes and such. Many of our troops are returning home and are being treated like trash at the VA.

And the thing is, these soldiers are being treated better… better than vets of yesterday’s war. I keep seeing vets from the Cold War, from Desert Storm, from Vietnam pacing those hallways, sitting in overflowing waiting rooms, and these “doctors” barely give them the time of day.

These are our broken men and women. They are our soldiers. They wore the uniform of our country, stood in the path of the juggernaut and preserved our freedoms. And this is how we honor them as a country? Treating them like a pack of losers?

I’ve even heard that desk clerks have called security to cart men away for protesting their shabby treatment. In all the times I’ve been there, which have been considerable, I find that these so-called altruistic “doctors” have rarely shown up on time, EVEN AS there are signs posted everywhere telling vets not to be a “no show”.

What’s more galling is that once you’ve waited for over an hour for these “doctors” to show up, if you’re not there when they call your name, you get busted back down to the bottom of the waiting list. This means that the next available appointment is going to be scheduled six months later.

And if you protest this, you might get carted off by security because some louse behind the counter didn’t like the tone of your voice. This gets marked down in your record, and you’re automatically labeled a troublemaker. Tough tamales.

What a monstrous system, indeed.

We treat our veterans like dirt and we put chocolate mint bon-bons on the pillows of our enemies.

Forgive me if I don’t believe our politicians’ sincerity when they praise the heroism of our soldiers, liberal AND conservative.

The latter is particularly offensive to me at this point because they keep waving God and the flag in our faces while they seem to be systematically selling us out to the Globalists. What? Maybe they think that we wouldn’t see their sell-out because they’re chanting “hate queers” in the name of marriage?

(I hear it’s the President who keeps wanting to cut back funding for our non-Iraqi War veterans… So, wouldn’t it necessarily mean that our current troops being shot at in Iraq would be forgotten and dispossessed of health care when the next war occurs?)

It is probably lost on many, if not most, Americans that the U.S. military is not a democratic institution. And IT SHOULDN’T BE.

For centuries and still to this day across the entire face of the globe, military juntas and generals and warlords rule countries and regions. They mash the civilian populace under their thumbs and brutally aggregate power and resources onto themselves. It’s called a dictatorship.

It is the singular achievement and glory of America and the Anglo-Saxon tradition that we have created a system of government where the military serves the people and not the other way around. Dissent in the military to civilian rule, or for military officers to question their civilian masters should not be tolerated in any way, shape or form.

This is what makes Senator Harry Reid’s criticisms of Admiral Fallon’s resignation and other criticisms from Democrats so breathtakingly ignorant and dangerous. For political one-up-manship, Reid and others have ignored the long-standing traditions of absolute civilian rule in this Republic.

Reid called Admiral Fallon’s presumed forced resignation “yet another example that independence and the frank, open airing of experts’ views are not welcomes in this administration.”

An article at the American Chronicle wrote, “So goes the loss of another excellent military expert that did not agree with our “all hat / no cattle” President.”

This article and Senator Reid’s comments have missed the point entirely. They presume that the military has the implicit right to challenge, dissent and contradict their Commander-in-Chief. No, they don’t have that right. PERIOD. To allow it would bring us closer to losing our democracy.

Any politician, Democrat or Republican, should be zealous in maintaining our centuries old tradition of civilian rule.

Admiral Fallon probably knew the stew he was jumping into when he received the commission to be come the new CENTCOM Commander just last year.

When he took over the command, I thought it was a good lateral shift for the military in our “War on Terror”. One of the notably unqualified successes that we’ve had in our war against terrorism was in the Pacific Theater where Admiral Fallon was CNO of the Pacific. In Asia, through Admiral Fallon, we contained the jihadists in Indonesia and the Philippines. And because of our successes in Asia, many in the United States forget that we are still engaged in battle in the Philippines and elsewhere along the Pacific Rim.

Admiral Fallon was also successful in containing China’s spreading ambitions when he was commander. I know some conservatives weren’t satisfied with his approach to China while serving in the Pacific and accused him of being “too friendly” with them, but he was also instrumental to sealing our alliance with India, which from sheer geography can assist in hemming in Iran in their western flank and China in the East.

Douglas Hanson wrote an article at the American Thinker back in January of last year about Admiral Fallon’s move to CENTCOM:

Acting without the restraints imposed by nominal allies, Admiral Fallon and PACOM have been closing the gate on Iran from the east **. India’s strategic partnership with the US should be recognized as PACOM’s singular achievement to date in the War on Terror. By the use of solid statesmanship, military exchanges and defense cooperation, the US has taken away the largest potential market for Persia’s vast energy resources. Not only that, but a sea change of geo-political alignments has taken place that will be effective in countering any new alliances composed of both old and new enemies with access to Central Asia and the Pacific Rim.

This is only the most visible example of PACOM’s successes. Steady progress has also been made on the direct action front against terror groups such as Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, where it was reported last month that Filipino forces had killed the group’s leader, Khadaffy Janjalani, in a firefight in September. US Special Forces advisors, and civilian support to Filipino law enforcement agencies and the court system are gradually paying off.

In short, Admiral Fallon has been masterful in executing both our long-range strategic goals and in conducting the close fight by rolling up terror groups in the Pacific.

Whether the Coalition does in fact, embark on extensive naval and air campaigns against Iran or another rogue state is a matter of conjecture. We can be reasonably sure however, that Admiral Fallon will bring a singular focus and vision to achieving victory in the Central Region, free of CENTCOM’s institutional inertia and bias.

When he initially moved into Central Command, he was greeted with lots of critical murmuring and plenty of nodding approval and fanfare, such as Douglas Hanson’s article. And then after a few months of moving to a very conspicuous command, Admiral Fallon sank into the background here at home. Outta sight outta mind, you might say.

With such glowing praise in referring to his “solid statesmanship” and his having been “masterful in executing both our long-range strategic goals”, one wonders what happened from then to now.

Admiral Fallon had rankled senior officials of the Bush administration with outspoken comments on such issues as dealing with Iran and on setting the pace of troop reductions from Iraq — even though his comments were well within the range of views expressed by Mr. Gates.

Officials said the last straw, however, came in an article in Esquire magazine by Thomas P. M. Barnett, a respected military analyst, that profiled Admiral Fallon under the headline, “The Man Between War and Peace.” The article highlighted comments Admiral Fallon made to the Arab television station Al Jazeera last fall, in which he said that a “constant drumbeat of conflict” from Washington that was directed at Iran and Iraq was “not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions.”

…

The Esquire article quotes Admiral Fallon as urging a “combination of strength and willingness to engage.”

Readers of the Esquire article who are among the admiral’s boosters said they did not believe on reading that piece that Admiral Fallon himself had made comments that could be viewed as insubordinate to the president.

But the cast of the lengthy piece put the admiral at odds with the White House.

“If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it’ll all come down to one man,” the article begins. “If we do not go to war with Iran, it’ll come down to the same man.”

Some have read into Admiral Fallon’s resignation as a signal that the Bush Administration is maneuvering to launch an attack against Iran by the end of this year.

According to a new Esquire article by Thomas Barnett; Admiral Fallon may be prematurely ‘relieved of his command’ as soon as this summer to be replaced with a more ‘pliable’ commander.

“If that were to happen, it may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don’t want a commander standing in their way,” says the article which will be published on March 12.

Admiral Fallon, who has been named as ‘one of the best strategic thinkers in uniform today’ by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, opposed the troops surge in Iraq and has consistently battled with President George W. Bush to avert confrontation with Iran.

The Navy admiral has vowed that an attack on Iran would ‘not happen on his watch’, calling the White House warmongering echelons ‘not helpful’. (Emphasis is mine.)

It really is no wonder that Admiral Fallon was relieved of his command. As a military commander, he pronounced a unilateral commitment to not go to war when, in accordance with civilian rule of the military, only the President can make such a pronouncement. Whether Admiral Fallon was right or wrong is immaterial. He may very well be right, but such behavior in the military should not be tolerated, as we did with George Patton, as we did with MacArthur.

The civilians call the shots, not the military.

Even so, for a man noted for his tact and smooth diplomacy, I find it incongruous that he should make these statements to Al Jazeera and Esquire Magazine of all places.

Despite his troubled departure, I honor all the years of his lengthy service to the United States. I wish him well whatever his endeavors.

Others blogging on this topic:

Obsidian Wings
BlackFive

It was reported on February of this year that the United States and Canada has signed a treaty that allows each respective military to be used in case of national disasters. The Bush Administration and our Congress has been very mum about it and I have only learned of it today. But apparently this is true.

We have not had a foreign army on our soil since the War of 1812. Not even with the Mexican-American War did Mexico invade the United States or set foot upon our soil. Now, as incredible as this seems, we are inviting a foreign army to not only set foot on our soil but also to impose martial law upon our citizens.

If I hadn’t read this from an official military source, I would not have believed it… Sovereignty? What sovereignty?

If you are outraged about this please write your Congressman.

U.S. Northern Command, Canada Command establish new bilateral Civil Assistance Plan

February 14, 2008

SAN ANTONIO, Texas — U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, and Canadian Air Force Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command, have signed a Civil Assistance Plan that allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

“This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align our respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other nation’s requests for military support of civil authorities,” Renuart said. “Unity of effort during bilateral support for civil support operations such as floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and effects of a terrorist attack, in order to save lives, prevent human suffering and mitigate damage to property, is of the highest importance, and we need to be able to have forces that are flexible and adaptive to support rapid decision-making in a collaborative environment.”

“The signing of this plan is an important symbol of the already strong working relationship between Canada Command and U.S. Northern Command,” Dumais said. “Our commands were created by our respective governments to respond to the defense and security challenges of the twenty-first century, and we both realize that these and other challenges are best met through cooperation between friends.”

The plan recognizes the role of each nation’s lead federal agency for emergency preparedness, which in the United States is the Department of Homeland Security and in Canada is Public Safety Canada. The plan facilitates the military-to-military support of civil authorities once government authorities have agreed on an appropriate response.

U.S. Northern Command was established on Oct. 1, 2002, to anticipate and conduct homeland defense and civil support operations within the assigned area of responsibility to defend, protect, and secure the United States and its interests.

You can read the rest here.

For further reading see here, and here

I blogged Wednesday about the massive computer failure that shut down airport control towers all across the nation. At the end of my post, I speculated whether this could be a cyber-attack upon a vital component of our commercial traffic. But who really knows if that’s the case. For all we know, some circuits might have been fried in an altercation that involved a man with Big Mac, some fries and a large drink.

Yesterday, however, the Pentagon admitted that their own systems were under a cyber-attack.

A hacker penetrated an unclassified Pentagon email system, prompting authorities to take as many 1,500 accounts offline, defense officials said Thursday.

“Elements of the OSD unclassified e-mail system were taken offline yesterday afternoon due to a detected penetration,” US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, using an acronym for the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

“A variety of precautionary measures are being taken. We expect the system to be online again very soon,” Gates said.

Between 1,000 and 1,500 users of the system were taken offline, a defense official said.

On Wednesday, a congressional panel disclosed that hackers also have succeeded in penetrating computers at the Department of Homeland Security, the lead government agency in providing security against cyber attack.

“What does this mean? It means terrorists or nation states could be hacking Department of Homeland Security databases, changing or altering names to allow them access to this country, and we wouldn’t even know they were doing it,” said Representative James Langevin.

The Pentagon email system carries “routine email” involving administrative manners but not classified information related to military operations, Colonel Gary Keck, a Pentagon spokesman said.

Perhaps these two events are completely unrelated. Perhaps not.

What is clear at this point is that the Pentagon is well aware of the potential dangers of a cyber-attack on our system. Who can say where it will go from here.

Fresh from the Drudge Report…

“We are aware of this Turkish troops buildup on the border and the Iraqi government position has been that we will not accept or tolerate any military incursion into Iraqi territories,” he said.

“We have urged all sides, including the Kurdish leadership, to ease tension and to seek dialogue to resolve all outstanding issues because we believe any military incursion into the northern provinces would only lead to further escalations and instability and this is in nobody’s interests, not in Iraq’s, nor the United States, nor Turkey,” he added. “We are in contact with the Turkish officials and we have friendly, good relations with the Turkish government.”

According to this article from Breitbart.com, Turkish military incursions into Northern Iraq was fairly frequent before Operation Iraqi Freedom. U.S. Lt. Col. Christopher Garver can’t confirm anything at the moment but said that we were “very concerned”.

Just what in tar-nation is going on over there?

***Further thoughts below***

***Further further updates below***

As Tony Blair’s rhetoric heats up against Iran, Britain’s hostage crisis doesn’t seem to be moving any closer to a resolution. Like it as not, modern Great Britain ain’t the Great Britain of yesteryear. I blogged on this topic in late January and garnered the attention of captain of the royal navy. I meant to return to the topic after conducting further research on the matter, but after poring through hours of news accounts and hard numbers from the Ministry of Defense, I became too despondent to even write about it.

Fred Thompson’s article yesterday reminded my of Britain’s impending calamity. It seemed he read the same Telegraph article I read…

Tony Blair’s getting angrier every day. But if past Iranian hostage takings are an indication, he may be upset for a while. The American-embassy hostages were held for 444 days, and the Israeli soldiers kidnapped last year by Iran’s Hezbollah puppets still aren’t free.

Blair is threatening to escalate to a “different phase,” but Iran’s leadership knows something that most Americans don’t. Two months ago, Britain’s government announced plans to mothball almost half its naval fleet due to defense-budget cuts. Much of its existing navy is already so degraded; it would take over a year to get into action. According to the British newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, senior naval officers say that the cuts “will turn Britain’s once-proud Navy into nothing more than a coastal defense force.”

In fact, the British naval forces have been so neglected; the U.K. probably couldn’t pull off the Falkland Islands mission today. The world’s fifth-largest economy now supports an army that ranks 28th in size.

What are they thinking?

Commentor Greg Laurich opined in my previous post that, “There is still some bulldog left on that island.”

Frankly speaking, I’m not so sure.

Further thoughts:

Perhaps this entire situation would slam the Brits awake to the dangers lurking out there, and it’s a danger that Continental Europe cannot help them with.

When all is said and done, Britain is a maritime power and it’s grand strategy rests on controlling the seas. It’s an island after all. Otherwise, it would be completely defenseless to starvation, economic implosion and invasion. Would they risk that as part of the price for joining the EU?

Is it not ironic that Britain’s deadliest enemies have traditionally come from the European Continent? France, Spain, Germany, Russia… And now they plan to unilaterally disarm in the face of Islamofascism and the rising tide of fascism in general across the world.

Truly, the universe does not support boldness… and certainly not of the sort evinced by the Brits.

Update:

Britain is really gearing up to challenge Iran now. Blair and company is getting all worked up and threatens Iran with… a big, fat, happy UN Resolution.

How this changes anything is beyond me. If anything, by resorting to the UN just shows how impotent Britain truly is. How many UN resolutions have Iran defied without any meaningful consequences? Ah, I’ve lost count. It is a truism in the affairs of nations that if a country does not have vigorous navy, its means to project power is very, very limited. Britain is mothballing about half its fleet.

While it is true that Britain can threaten to nuke Iran off the face of the planet, Iran knows they won’t do it and risk economic meltdown and being ostracized from the rest of the world. This national embarrassment could go on for a long time unless we intervene and do what the Brits are unable to.

(cartoon by: http://www.coxandforkum.com/)

Update Again:

Commentor Ymarsakar wrote:

An elaboration on my point is that AIDS is more than just a disease, it is also a method by which to subvert something (a civilization) that you cannot defeat in a straight up match. If you can’t overpower someone, deceive them, right?

So Britain’s corruption has been ongoing for awhile now, Thomas. Any laments are perhaps, nearing the epitaph end of the spectrum.

Like many people, I read Melanie Phillips for the take on Britain. Now I can easily imagine that if things are bad now, that they must have been going worse since 1950s.

If you can’t take down a civilization in 50 years… well.

Yes, Britain has been in decline for the past fifty years, but that is to be expected. After WWII, they lost their empire, they lost most of their colonies, their nation was in rumble, and they were in a constant state of starvation all the way up into the 1960’s. The 20th century after WWII was really just a touch and go situation with Britain all the way around. She was lucky she didn’t fold then and there. People forget what a calamity WWII was… Just for some perspective, from the start of the century to the end of WWII, there were just a handful of countries that didn’t undergo a revolution with Britain being one of them. You could probably count the number of the countries that survived on just two hands. It’s hard for us to see sometimes but Britain really wasn’t in a position similar to ours after WWII, untouched by war on a vast continent stacked to the gills with natural resources.

So, I can’t really fault the British for being susceptible to the dream of socialism. It’s an alluring dream, especially to one that’s been through a whole wallop of trauma, but it’s dysfunctional at best and diabolically evil at worst. In comparison to most social engineering endeavors, Britain’s attempt was pretty benign… for now.

Even as late as Maggie Thatcher’s Prime Ministership, the British held that dignified stoicism that I so admired. I usually fault Labour with its demise, but I doubt that’s the case. The British people had fundamentally changed, a fact that Queen Elizabeth II had to face immediately after the death of Diana.

As to the why’s and wherefores, I contend that politics and the manipulations of social constructs had much, much less to do with with that than the collapse of Christianity in Britain.

Shortly before C.S. Lewis’s death, I heard he gave an interview where he said something to this effect (I’m paraphrasing):

“I’ve fought for the faith all my life. But the battle for Christianity in England is lost. Morality will follow. America will hold on grimly for another 50 years. Then the storm will break.”

Personally, my opinion is that any engraving on Britain’s tombstone now would be premature. I think they are still at a place demographically and technologically where they can recover and soldier on. But if they finally decide to wake up, it won’t be a very pretty sight. In fact, if they tried to reverse it, the ensuing civil unrest and violent protests would be the least of their pains.

Navies are ruinously expense, but they can rebuild under our naval umbrella. That is, if they’re smart and not piss away our Grand Alliance.

Related Posts:

Bookworm: That head scarf
Neo-Neocon: It’s “parading for the cameras” time
Michelle Malkin: Iran plays games, Britain wants condemnation
Hot Air: Hostage update: Blair threatens to …
Ace of Spades: Iran Demands Admission of “Trespass”