SUMMERVILLE, S.C. (KABC) -- A Summerville, S.C. man is facing a slew of charges after police say he stole a squad car and led them on a high-speed chase.
Dramatic dash cam video shows how officers were able to catch up with the suspect.
The pursuit began after an officer pulled over Arthur Thompson last week. He was suspected of trying to steal a computer from a local Wal-Mart.
Thompson fought with the officer and got Tasered twice before jumping into the squad car and taking off.
He was arrested a short time later after crashing into a truck.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Dear Chief Owens....I know this is not the publicity you want for the department but.....
I would love to read the letter this explaining this....
Whenever I tank up I think two words...."Thanks Obama!"
A great one from RightChange....then again the world ends today so gas prices are no problem anymore.....
Gassing Up with Obama from RightChange on Vimeo.
Have a great weekend...Friday, May 20, 2011
An oldie but a goodie!
As you all know the former Govenor of California has had some martial difficulties recently and like any good ambulance chaser Gloria Allred is on the scene. She is representing one of Arnold's girlfriends in some matter...in other words she wants to cash in like the good leech she is.
With that in mind I'm reposting a great skit from Saturday Night Livefrom last year....
Arnold, you should have left it in your pants man.....
With that in mind I'm reposting a great skit from Saturday Night Livefrom last year....
Arnold, you should have left it in your pants man.....
Socialist Senator Sanders Is engaging in capitalism....are there three other horsemen out there?
Socialist Senator Sanders Hawks His Book Like an Evil Capitalist - HUMAN EVENTS
I've always had a bit more respect (or more accurately, a bit less contempt) for Bernie Sanders than the other liberals in the Congress. Unlike the other Democrats he is an open socialist, as opposed to Pelosi, Reid and B Hussein Obama, who are socialist but will never admit it. But like those Democrat leaders he is the typical leftist hypocrite in that he believes the socialism is good for you but not for him. After all this anti-corporation man of the people has no problem with him being a mult-millionaire, but that is different...just ask him or his supporters.
You gotta love how Jason Mattera nails him...he is really uncomfortable isn't he? Message to members of the Forth Estate, this is how an objective journalist should make a politician look.
Now there is some interesting follow up in the article.
Ain't it great to see a leftist made uncomfortable by his pursuit of money? Hey Bernie, maybe you can join John F Kerry (who by the way served in Vietnam) on that yacht Theresa bought for him...you know, the one he was trying to dodge taxes on.
I've always had a bit more respect (or more accurately, a bit less contempt) for Bernie Sanders than the other liberals in the Congress. Unlike the other Democrats he is an open socialist, as opposed to Pelosi, Reid and B Hussein Obama, who are socialist but will never admit it. But like those Democrat leaders he is the typical leftist hypocrite in that he believes the socialism is good for you but not for him. After all this anti-corporation man of the people has no problem with him being a mult-millionaire, but that is different...just ask him or his supporters.
You gotta love how Jason Mattera nails him...he is really uncomfortable isn't he? Message to members of the Forth Estate, this is how an objective journalist should make a politician look.
Now there is some interesting follow up in the article.
Vermont’s Sen. Bernie Sanders is a different kind of socialist: the kind who will partake in the capitalist venture of freely exchanging money for products… at least when it comes to selling his own book...
...That’s where HUMAN EVENTS caught up with Sanders to ask him how exactly an avowed socialist squares his collectivist worldview with the fact that he’s taking a bite of the forbidden fruit of capitalism? Is he giving away his “profits” to the federal government?
Sanders’ response: I’m giving the money to “the children of Vermont.”
To be clear, that’s not actually a nonprofit organization in the Green Mountain State, but, his office told HUMAN EVENTS, was instead a general statement about the kind of group he’ll likely give the book proceeds to, although the specific decision hasn’t been made just yet. Meanwhile, if Sanders follows through on his pledge, there’s no word on whether or not the Senate’s only (admitted) socialist will use the “donations” to lower his taxable income for 2011.
Ain't it great to see a leftist made uncomfortable by his pursuit of money? Hey Bernie, maybe you can join John F Kerry (who by the way served in Vietnam) on that yacht Theresa bought for him...you know, the one he was trying to dodge taxes on.
Security Weekly: Corruption: Why Texas is Not Mexico May 19, 2011
By Scott Stewart
As one studies Mexico’s cartel war, it is not uncommon to hear Mexican politicians — and some people in the United States — claim that Mexico’s problems of violence and corruption stem largely from the country’s proximity to the United States. According to this narrative, the United States is the world’s largest illicit narcotics market, and the inexorable force of economic demand means that the countries supplying the demand, and those that are positioned between the source countries and the huge U.S. market, are trapped in a very bad position. Because of this market and the illicit trade it creates, billions of dollars worth of drugs flow northward through Mexico (or are produced there) and billions of dollars in cash flow back southward into Mexico. The guns that flow southward along with the cash, according to the narrative, are largely responsible for Mexico’s violence. As one looks at other countries lying to the south of Mexico along the smuggling routes from South America to the United States, they too seem to suffer from the same maladies.
However, when we look at the dynamics of the narcotics trade, there are other political entities, ones located to Mexico’s north, that find themselves caught in the same geographic and economic position as Mexico and points south. As borderlands, these entities — referred to as states in the U.S. political system — find themselves caught between the supply of drugs flowing from the south and the large narcotics markets to their north. The geographic location of these states results in large quantities of narcotics flowing northward through their territory and large amounts of cash likewise flowing southward. Indeed, this illicit flow has brought with it corruption and violence, but when we look at these U.S. states, their security environments are starkly different from those of Mexican states on the other side of the border.
One implicit reality that flows from the geopolitical concept of borderlands is that while political borders are clearly delineated, the cultural and economic borders surrounding them are frequently less clear and more dynamic. The borderlands on each side of the thin, artificially imposed line we call a border are remarkably similar in geographic and demographic terms (indeed, inhabitants of such areas are often related). In the larger picture, both sides of the border often face the same set of geopolitical realities and challenges. Certainly the border between the United States and Mexico was artificially imposed by the annexation of Texas following its anti-Mexico revolution as well as the U.S. annexation of what is now much of the U.S. West, including the border states of Arizona, California and New Mexico, following the Mexican-American War. While the desert regions along the border do provide a bit of a buffer between the two countries — and between the Mexican core and its northern territories — there is no geological obstacle separating the two countries. Even the Rio Grande is not so grand, as the constant flow of illicit goods over it testifies. In many places, like Juarez and El Paso, the U.S.-Mexico border serves to cut cities in half, much like the Berlin Wall used to do.
Yet as one crosses over that artificial line one senses huge differences between the cultural, economic and security environments north and south. In spite of the geopolitical and economic realities confronting both sides of this borderland, Texas is not Mexico. The differences run deep, and we thought it worthwhile this week to examine how and why.
Same Problems, Different Scope
First, it must be understood that this examination does not mean to assert that the illicit narcotics market in the United States has no effect on Mexico (or Central America, for that matter). The flow of narcotics, money and guns, and the organizations that participate in this illicit trade, does have a clear and demonstrable impact on Mexico. But — and this very significant — that impact does not stop at the border. This illicit commerce also impacts the U.S. states north of the border.
Certainly the U.S. side of the border has seen corruption of public officials, cartel-related violence and, of course, drug trafficking. But these phenomena have manifested themselves differently on the U.S. side of the border.
In the United States there have been local cops, sheriffs, customs inspectors and even FBI agents arrested and convicted for corruption. However, the problem is far worse on the Mexican side, where entire police forces have been relieved of their duties due to their cooperation with the drug cartels and where systematic corruption has been traced all the way from the municipal mayoral level to the Presidential Guard, and even to the country’s drug czar. There have even been groups of police officers and military units arrested while actively protecting shipments of drugs in Mexico — something that simply does not occur in the United States. And while Mexican officials are frequently forced to choose between “plata o plomo” (Spanish for “silver or lead,” a direct threat of violence meaning “take the bribe or we will kill you”), that type of threat is extremely rare in the United States. It is also very rare to see politicians, police chiefs and judges killed in the United States — a common occurrence in Mexico.
That said, there certainly has been cartel-related violence on the U.S. side of the border with organizations such as Los Zetas conducting assassinations in places like Houston and Dallas. The claim by some U.S. politicians that there is no spillover violence is patently false. However, the use of violence on the U.S. side has tended to be far more discreet on the part of the cartels (and the U.S. street gangs they are allied with) than in Mexico, where the cartels are frequently quite flagrant. The cartels kill people in the United States but they tend to avoid the gruesome theatrics associated with many drug-related murders in Mexico, where it has become commonplace to see victims beheaded, dismembered or hung from pedestrian walkways over major thoroughfares.
Likewise, the large firefights frequently observed in Mexico involving dozens of armed men on each side using military weapons, grenades and rocket-propelled grenades have come within feet of the border (sometimes with stray rounds crossing over onto the U.S. side), but these types of events have remained on the south side of that invisible line. Mexican cartel gunmen have used dozens of trucks and other large vehicles to set up roadblocks in Matamoros, but they have not followed suit in Brownsville. Cities on the U.S. side of the border are seen as markets, logistics hubs and places of refuge for cartel figures, not battlefields.
Even when we consider drug production, it is important to recognize that the first “super labs” for methamphetamine production were developed in California’s Central Valley, not in Mexico. It was only pressure from U.S. law enforcement agencies that forced the relocation of these laboratories south of the border. Certainly, meth production is still going on in many parts of the United States, but the production is being conducted in mom-and-pop operations that can produce only relatively small amounts of the drug, usually of varying quality. By contrast, Mexican super labs can produce tons of meth that is of very high (almost pharmacological) quality. Additionally, while Mexican cartels (and other producers) have long grown marijuana inside the United States in clandestine plots of land, the quantity of marijuana the cartels grow inside the United States is far eclipsed by the industrial marijuana production operations conducted in Mexico.
Even the size of narcotics shipments changes at the border. The huge shipments of drugs that are shipped within Mexico are broken down into smaller lots at stash houses on the Mexican side of the border to be smuggled into the United States. Then they are frequently broken down again in stash houses on the U.S. side of the border. The trafficking of drugs in the United States tends to be far more decentralized and diffuse than it is on the Mexican side, again in response to U.S. law enforcement pressure. Smaller shipments allow drug traffickers to limit their losses if a shipment is seized, and using a decentralized distribution network allows them to be less dependent on any one link in the chain. If one distribution channel is rolled up by the authorities, traffickers can shift their product into another sales channel.
Not Just an Institutional Problem
Above we noted that the same dynamics exist on both sides of the border, and the same cartel groups also operate on both sides. However, we also noted the consistent theme of the Mexican cartels being forced to behave differently on the U.S. side. The organizations are no different, but the environment in which they operate is very different. The corruption, poverty, diminished rule of law and lack of territorial control (particularly in the border-adjacent hinterlands) that is endemic to the Mexican system greatly empowers and emboldens the cartels in Mexico. The operating environment inside the United States is quite different, forcing the cartels to behave differently. Mexican cartels and drug trafficking are problems in the United States, but they are problems that can be controlled by U.S. law enforcement. The environment does not permit the cartels to threaten the U.S. government’s ability to govern.
A geopolitical monograph explaining the forces that have shaped Mexico can be found here. Understanding the geopolitics of Mexico is very helpful to understanding the challenges Mexico faces and why it has become what it is today. This broader understanding is also the key to understanding why the Mexican police simply can’t be reformed to solve the problems of violence and corruption. Certainly, the Mexican government has aggressively pursued police reform for many years now, with very little success. Indeed, it was the lack of a trustworthy law enforcement apparatus that led the Calderon government to turn to the military to counter the power of the Mexican cartels. This lack of reliable law enforcement has also led Calderon to aggressively pursue police reform. This reform effort has included unifying the federal police agencies and consolidating municipal police departments (which have arguably been the most corrupt institutions in Mexico) into unified state police commands, under which officers are subjected to better screening, oversight and accountability. Already, however, there have been numerous instances of these “new and improved” federal- and state-level police officers being arrested for corruption.
This illustrates the fact that Mexico’s ills go far deeper than just corrupt institutions. Because of this, revamping the institutions will not result in any meaningful change, and the revamped institutions will soon be corrupted like the ones they replaced. This fact should have been readily apparent; the institutional approach has been tried in the region before and has failed.
Perhaps the best example of this failure was the “untouchable and incorruptible” Department of Anti-Narcotics Operations, known by its Spanish acronym DOAN, which was created in Guatemala in the mid-1990s. The DOAN was almost purely a creation of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. The concept behind the creation of the DOAN was that corruption existed within the Guatemalan police institutions because the police were undertrained, underpaid and underequipped. It was believed that if police recruits were carefully screened, properly trained, well paid and adequately equipped, they would not be susceptible to the corruption that plagued the other police institutions in the country. So the U.S. government hand-picked the recruits, thoroughly trained them, paid them generously and provided them with brand-new uniforms and equipment. However, the result was not what the U.S. government expected. By 2002, the “untouchable” DOAN had to be disbanded because it had essentially become a drug trafficking organization itself and was involved in torturing and killing competitors and stealing their shipments of narcotics.
The example of the Guatemalan DOAN (and of more recent Mexican police reform efforts) demonstrates that even a competent, well-paid and well-equipped police institution cannot stand alone within a culture that is not prepared to support it and keep it clean. In other words, over time, an institution will take on the characteristics of, and essentially reflect, the environment surrounding it. Therefore, significant reform in Mexico requires a holistic approach that reaches far beyond the institutions to address the profound economic, sociological and cultural problems that are affecting the country today. Indeed, given how deeply rooted and pervasive these problems are and the geopolitical hand the country was dealt, Mexico has done quite well. But holistic change will not be easy to accomplish. It will require a great deal of time, treasure, leadership and effort. In view of this reality, we can see why it would be more politically expedient simply to blame the Americans.
Corruption: Why Texas is Not Mexico is republished with permission of STRATFOR.
This is why you handcuff people.....
This is scary....the officer was booking this turd and while his back was turned he went nuts. I would say I guess he didn't think he was in a jail and this ain't a movie, but turds like him generally don't think.
Thankfully the officer got the upper hand, he's ok and the turd was apparently severely arrested. But the article explains why you always handcuff a suspect.
Thankfully the officer got the upper hand, he's ok and the turd was apparently severely arrested. But the article explains why you always handcuff a suspect.
Elyria officer assaulted at station
ELYRIA — Elyria police officer William Witt was bruised but did not need to go to the hospital after being attacked by a man he was booking into jail Sunday morning, Police Chief Duane Whitely said.
Witt and another officer arrested Anthony Thomas, 29, of Cleveland, at a Middle Avenue apartment around 2:52 a.m. The officers were investigating a domestic situation and arrested Thomas, without incident, on a contempt of court warrant, according to an Elyria police report.
While being taken to the cruiser, Thomas told Witt he would not be cooperating if he were not in handcuffs and said he could sense the “smell of fear” on Witt. However, Thomas remained quiet and cooperative on the way to the Elyria Police Department and while being walked into the booking area.
Witt took Thomas’ handcuffs off and sat down at a computer to confirm Thomas’ address and take a booking photo. When Witt tried to take the photo Thomas lunged over the booking counter and punched Witt several times in the head, the report stated. Witt fought back and realized Thomas was reaching for Witt’s gun, according to the report.
Witt tried to call for assistance, but was unable to do so because his radio microphone had fallen off and he could not reach the phone. He was able to put Thomas in a choke hold until other officers arrived.
Thomas was initially going to be charged with the warrant and taken to the Lorain County jail on $2,000 bond. He was given an additional charge of assaulting a police officer and was arraigned in Elyria Municipal Court yesterday, with bond was set at $150,000...
What's going on in the World Today 110519$
HYPERLINKS MAY REQUIRE AN EMAIL:
Except where noted courtesy www.stratfor.com
USA
U.S. Naval Update Map: May 18, 2011 | STRATFOR
EUROPE
Poland, U.S.: Joint F-16 Deals Planned Under Offset Program May 19, 2011
Poland’s WZL-2 aviation works, Lockheed Martin and the Polish Economic Ministry will sign a deal under the U.S.-Polish offset program for two projects related to the contract for 48 F-16 jets Poland has purchased from Lockheed Martin, PAP news agency reported May 19. Lockheed Martin Deputy CEO Philip Georgariou said during a speech at the Polish Economic Ministry that the offset program has resulted in long-term contracts for Polish industry and will continue to bring benefits to the country. The contract, which will include the transfer of fuselage painting technology, will be signed May 20.
Poland's Continued Hesitation Over Eurozone Entry | STRATFOR
ASIA
North Korea, Iran: China Blocks U.N. Report On Missile Tech Transfers May 18, 2011
China’s U.N. Ambassador Li Baodong said Beijing is still studying a U.N. expert panel’s report indicating North Korea and Iran have been sharing ballistic missile technology in violation of U.N. sanctions, AP reported May 18. Li’s comments came after a closed-door meeting of the U.N. Security Council to discuss sanctions implementation against North Korea. Britain’s Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations Philip Parham said the U.N. Security Council had broad support for the report’s release with China as the only country to object to its immediate publication.
RUSSIA
Russia: ICBM Placed On Combat Duty May 17, 2011
Russia placed its new RS-24 Yars intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) carrying multiple individually targeted warheads on combat duty, Voice of Russia reported May 17. The RS-24 missiles can penetrate highly protected targets as well as any current ballistic missile defense for the next 20 years, Russian Strategic Missile Force commander Sergei Karakayev said.
Russia: May Give Belarus Missiles To Counter U.S. Defense May 19, 2011
A military diplomatic source in Moscow said May 19 that if the third deployment area of the U.S. missile defense system is opened in Poland, Romania or other NATO countries, Russia will have to put the S-400 Triumf on its western border with Belarus, Interfax-AVN reported. The source said that since Belarus is a strategic ally for Russia, it would be unnatural to supply it with armaments within the Russian framework at market prices. Therefore, Russia has decided to meet the challenge by creating a common air, missile and, in the long term, space defense system.
IRAN
P
Iran Backs Down on a Flotilla Threat | STRATFOR
Iran: Impeachment Motion Filed Against President May 17, 2011
A number of lawmakers have filed a lawsuit with the Majlis Presiding Board against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government for violating the Iranian Constitution, Fars news agency reported May 17, citing the Majlis’ Article 90 Commission member Fazel Moussavi. The lawsuit was further referred to the Article 90 Commission, and the commission has a 10-day deadline to decide if the lawsuit is valid or not. After the decision, the commission will present a report to the Presiding Board who will then present a report to the Majlis. If the Majlis validates the report in three separate votes, then the impeachment motion will be put on the Majlis’ agenda.
IRAQ
NOTHING SIGNIFICANT TO REPORT
ISRAEL
Israel's Post-Nakba Crisis | STRATFOR
AFGHANISTAN
Afghanistan: 1,700 Militants Disarmed Through Program May 19, 2011
More than 1,700 former Taliban fighters have joined a reintegration program during its first year, AFP reported May 19, citing British Maj. Gen. Phil Johns, who is in charge of the program. Another 40 to 45 groups of militants are in negotiations, Johns said, bringing the possible total to 2,000. International financing for the program totals $141 million, including $58 million from the U.S.
Afghanistan: Taliban Attack Construction Company, Kill Dozens May 19, 2011
Thirty-six people were killed and 20 were wounded May 19 in a firefight that followed an attack by the Taliban on an Afghan road construction company, AFP reported. A large group of Taliban attacked the company around 2 a.m. local time in the eastern Afghan province of Paktia, a provincial spokesman said. The attack lasted several hours and killed eight Taliban, the spokesman said. A Taliban spokesman said 40 people were killed and four vehicles were burned.
MIDDLE EAST
U.S. Operations in Pakistan Upset Domestic Balance of Power | STRATFOR
SOUTH OF THE BORDER
Mexico Security Memo: Massive Vehicle Theft | STRATFOR
Guatemala: Suspected Los Zetas Leader Arrested May 18, 2011
Guatemalan security forces arrested suspected Los Zetas leader Hugo Alvaro Gomez Vasquez on May 17 in the municipality of Tactic, Alta Verapaz department, Milenio reported May 18. Gomez Vasquez is reportedly linked to the murders of 27 people in the department of Peten on May 15.
Mexico: CPS Second-In-Command Arrested May 19, 2011
Mexican soldiers arrested suspected drug boss Victor Valdez and the police chief accused of protecting him on May 19 in Cuernavaca, Reuters reported. Valdez is believed to be the second-in-command of Cartel Pacifico Sur (CPS) led by Hector Beltran Leyva. Valdez told reporters that local police chief Juan Bosco helped the cartel evade capture. Bosco received about $1,290 a month for tipping off the cartel, Valdez said. Bosco was later arrested by soldiers, according to the Mexican army.
MISC
The Limited Significance of the 'Stealth' Helicopter Wreckage | STRATFOR
Except where noted courtesy www.stratfor.com
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Our border is more secure than ever....
When I hear that statement from the Homeland Security Secretary I think she is quoting a great movie when the power behind the throne tells the notional king "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
I'll believe my lying eyes...this is a truck of illegal aliens trying to cross the border into the US from Mexico. Over 500 people were jammed into 2 semi-trailers but caught on X-Ray.
Here is a pic of the people in the trailer
At least the group was diverse. From the report:
Here is the rest:
And we don't need to secure the border.....
I'll believe my lying eyes...this is a truck of illegal aliens trying to cross the border into the US from Mexico. Over 500 people were jammed into 2 semi-trailers but caught on X-Ray.
...Chiapas authorities say they rescued 513 migrants: 410 of the migrants were from Guatemala, 47 from El Salvador, 32 from Ecuador, 12 from India, six from Nepal, three from China and one each from Japan, the Dominican Republic and Honduras.
Here is the rest:
TUXTLA GUTIERREZ, Mexico — Police in Mexico's southern Chiapas state found 513 migrants on Tuesday inside two trailer trucks bound for the United States, and said they had been transported in dangerously crowded conditions.
Some of the immigrants were suffering from dehydration after traveling for hours clinging to cargo ropes strung inside the containers to keep them upright as the trucks bounced along from the Guatemalan border, and allow more migrants to be more crammed in on the floor.
The trucks had air holes punched in the tops of the containers, but migrants interviewed at the state prosecutors' office said they lacked air and water. The trucks were bound for the central city of Puebla, where the migrants said they had been told they would be loaded aboard a second set of vehicles for the trip to the U.S. border.
"We were suffering, it was very hot and we were clinging to the ropes," said Mario, a 23-year-old Honduran migrant who identified himself only by his first name, for security reasons. Mexico's National Human Rights Commission says thousands of undocumented migrants are kidnapped and held for ransom by drug gangs in Mexico each year.
...The migrants said the smugglers were charging them about $7,000 apiece to get them into the United States. A Guatemalan migrant who identified himself as Juan said remaining in his hometown in Guatemala was not an option, noting "a lot of us are Indians, and we can't stay in our homes. There is no work, and there's nothing to eat."...
...The alleged smugglers tried to escape police but were chased down and captured, prosecutors said...
And we don't need to secure the border.....
Geopolitical Weekly: Visegrad: A New European Military Force May 17, 2011
By George Friedman
With the Palestinians demonstrating and the International Monetary Fund in turmoil, it would seem odd to focus this week on something called the Visegrad Group. But this is not a frivolous choice. What the Visegrad Group decided to do last week will, I think, resonate for years, long after the alleged attempted rape by Dominique Strauss-Kahn is forgotten and long before the Israeli-Palestinian issue is resolved. The obscurity of the decision to most people outside the region should not be allowed to obscure its importance.
The region is Europe — more precisely, the states that had been dominated by the Soviet Union. The Visegrad Group, or V4, consists of four countries — Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary — and is named after two 14th century meetings held in Visegrad Castle in present-day Hungary of leaders of the medieval kingdoms of Poland, Hungary and Bohemia. The group was reconstituted in 1991 in post-Cold War Europe as the Visegrad Three (at that time, Slovakia and the Czech Republic were one). The goal was to create a regional framework after the fall of Communism. This week the group took an interesting new turn.
(click here to enlarge image)
On May 12, the Visegrad Group announced the formation of a “battle group” under the command of Poland. The battle group would be in place by 2016 as an independent force and would not be part of NATO command. In addition, starting in 2013, the four countries would begin military exercises together under the auspices of the NATO Response Force.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the primary focus of all of the Visegrad nations had been membership in the European Union and NATO. Their evaluation of their strategic position was threefold. First, they felt that the Russian threat had declined if not dissipated following the fall of the Soviet Union. Second, they felt that their economic future was with the European Union. Third, they believed that membership in NATO, with strong U.S. involvement, would protect their strategic interests. Of late, their analysis has clearly been shifting.
First, Russia has changed dramatically since the Yeltsin years. It has increased its power in the former Soviet sphere of influence substantially, and in 2008 it carried out an effective campaign against Georgia. Since then it has also extended its influence in other former Soviet states. The Visegrad members’ underlying fear of Russia, built on powerful historical recollection, has become more intense. They are both the front line to the former Soviet Union and the countries that have the least confidence that the Cold War is simply an old memory.
Second, the infatuation with Europe, while not gone, has frayed. The ongoing economic crisis, now focused again on Greece, has raised two questions: whether Europe as an entity is viable and whether the reforms proposed to stabilize Europe represent a solution for them or primarily for the Germans. It is not, by any means, that they have given up the desire to be Europeans, nor that they have completely lost faith in the European Union as an institution and an idea. Nevertheless, it would be unreasonable to expect that these countries would not be uneasy about the direction that Europe was taking. If one wants evidence, look no further than the unease with which Warsaw and Prague are deflecting questions about the eventual date of their entry into the Eurozone. Both are the strongest economies in Central Europe, and neither is enthusiastic about the euro.
Finally, there are severe questions as to whether NATO provides a genuine umbrella of security to the region and its members. The NATO strategic concept, which was drawn up in November 2010, generated substantial concern on two scores. First, there was the question of the degree of American commitment to the region, considering that the document sought to expand the alliance’s role in non-European theaters of operation. For example, the Americans pledged a total of one brigade to the defense of Poland in the event of a conflict, far below what Poland thought necessary to protect the North European Plain. Second, the general weakness of European militaries meant that, willingness aside, the ability of the Europeans to participate in defending the region was questionable. Certainly, events in Libya, where NATO had neither a singular political will nor the military participation of most of its members, had to raise doubts. It was not so much the wisdom of going to war but the inability to create a coherent strategy and deploy adequate resources that raised questions of whether NATO would be any more effective in protecting the Visegrad nations.
There is another consideration. Germany’s commitment to both NATO and the EU has been fraying. The Germans and the French split on the Libya question, with Germany finally conceding politically but unwilling to send forces. Libya might well be remembered less for the fate of Moammar Gadhafi than for the fact that this was the first significant strategic break between Germany and France in decades. German national strategy has been to remain closely aligned with France in order to create European solidarity and to avoid Franco-German tensions that had roiled Europe since 1871. This had been a centerpiece of German foreign policy, and it was suspended, at least temporarily.
The Germans obviously are struggling to shore up the European Union and questioning precisely how far they are prepared to go in doing so. There are strong political forces in Germany questioning the value of the EU to Germany, and with every new wave of financial crises requiring German money, that sentiment becomes stronger. In the meantime, German relations with Russia have become more important to Germany. Apart from German dependence on Russian energy, Germany has investment opportunities in Russia. The relationship with Russia is becoming more attractive to Germany at the same time that the relationship to NATO and the EU has become more problematic.
For all of the Visegrad countries, any sense of a growing German alienation from Europe and of a growing German-Russian economic relationship generates warning bells. Before the Belarusian elections there was hope in Poland that pro-Western elements would defeat the least unreformed regime in the former Soviet Union. This didn’t happen. Moreover, pro-Western elements have done nothing to solidify in Moldova or break the now pro-Russian government in Ukraine. Uncertainty about European institutions and NATO, coupled with uncertainty about Germany’s attention, has caused a strategic reconsideration — not to abandon NATO or the EU, of course, nor to confront the Russians, but to prepare for all eventualities.
It is in this context that the decision to form a Visegradian battle group must be viewed. Such an independent force, a concept generated by the European Union as a European defense plan, has not generated much enthusiasm or been widely implemented. The only truly robust example of an effective battle group is the Nordic Battle Group, but then that is not surprising. The Nordic countries share the same concerns as the Visegrad countries — the future course of Russian power, the cohesiveness of Europe and the commitment of the United States.
In the past, the Visegrad countries would have been loath to undertake anything that felt like a unilateral defense policy. Therefore, the decision to do this is significant in and of itself. It represents a sense of how these countries evaluate the status of NATO, the U.S. attention span, European coherence and Russian power. It is not the battle group itself that is significant but the strategic decision of these powers to form a sub-alliance, if you will, and begin taking responsibility for their own national security. It is not what they expected or wanted to do, but it is significant that they felt compelled to begin moving in this direction.
Just as significant is the willingness of Poland to lead this military formation and to take the lead in the grouping as a whole. Poland is the largest of these countries by far and in the least advantageous geographical position. The Poles are trapped between the Germans and the Russians. Historically, when Germany gets close to Russia, Poland tends to suffer. It is not at that extreme point yet, but the Poles do understand the possibilities. In July, the Poles will be assuming the EU presidency in one of the union’s six-month rotations. The Poles have made clear that one of their main priorities will be Europe’s military power. Obviously, little can happen in Europe in six months, but this clearly indicates where Poland’s focus is.
The militarization of the V4 runs counter to its original intent but is in keeping with the geopolitical trends in the region. Some will say this is over-reading on my part or an overreaction on the part of the V4, but it is neither. For the V4, the battle group is a modest response to emerging patterns in the region, which STRATFOR had outlined in its 2011 Annual Forecast. As for my reading, I regard the new patterns not as a minor diversion from the main pattern but as a definitive break in the patterns of the post-Cold War world. In my view, the post-Cold War world ended in 2008, with the financial crisis and the Russo-Georgian war. We are in a new era, as yet unnamed, and we are seeing the first breaks in the post-Cold War pattern.
I have argued in previous articles and books that there is a divergent interest between the European countries on the periphery of Russia and those farther west, particularly Germany. For the countries on the periphery, there is a perpetual sense of insecurity, generated not only by Russian power compared to their own but also by uncertainty as to whether the rest of Europe would be prepared to defend them in the event of Russian actions. The V4 and the other countries south of them are not as sanguine about Russian intentions as others farther away are. Perhaps they should be, but geopolitical realities drive consciousness and insecurity and distrust defines this region.
I had also argued that an alliance only of the four northernmost countries is insufficient. I used the concept “Intermarium,” which had first been raised after World War I by a Polish leader, Joseph Pilsudski, who understood that Germany and the Soviet Union would not be permanently weak and that Poland and the countries liberated from the Hapsburg Empire would have to be able to defend themselves and not have to rely on France or Britain.
Pilsudski proposed an alliance stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea and encompassing the countries to the west of the Carpathians — Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. In some formulations, this would include Yugoslavia, Finland and the Baltics. The point was that Poland had to have allies, that no one could predict German and Soviet strength and intentions, and that the French and English were too far away to help. The only help Poland could have would be an alliance of geography — countries with no choice.
It follows from this that the logical evolution here is the extension of the Visegrad coalition. At the May 12 defense ministers’ meeting, there was discussion of inviting Ukraine to join in. Twenty or even 10 years ago, that would have been a viable option. Ukraine had room to maneuver. But the very thing that makes the V4 battle group necessary — Russian power — limits what Ukraine can do. The Russians are prepared to give Ukraine substantial freedom to maneuver, but that does not include a military alliance with the Visegrad countries.
An alliance with Ukraine would provide significant strategic depth. It is unlikely to happen. That means that the alliance must stretch south, to include Romania and Bulgaria. The low-level tension between Hungary and Romania over the status of Hungarians in Romania makes that difficult, but if the Hungarians can live with the Slovaks, they can live with the Romanians. Ultimately, the interesting question is whether Turkey can be persuaded to participate in this, but that is a question far removed from Turkish thinking now. History will have to evolve quite a bit for this to take place. For now, the question is Romania and Bulgaria.
But the decision of the V4 to even propose a battle group commanded by Poles is one of those small events that I think will be regarded as a significant turning point. However we might try to trivialize it and place it in a familiar context, it doesn’t fit. It represents a new level of concern over an evolving reality — the power of Russia, the weakness of Europe and the fragmentation of NATO. This is the last thing the Visegrad countries wanted to do, but they have now done the last thing they wanted to do. That is what is significant.
Events in the Middle East and Europe’s economy are significant and of immediate importance. However, sometimes it is necessary to recognize things that are not significant yet but will be in 10 years. I believe this is one of those events. It is a punctuation mark in European history.
Visegrad: A New European Military Force is republished with permission of STRATFOR.
The Chinese are not being discrete anymore....
Last month I posted on how Hollywood wimped out on the remake of Red Dawn, having the North Koreans invade Washington State. The fact they couldn't invade South Korea or themselves for that matter is not a problem for these idiots in the movie industry. Well with that as an intro, here is something else with the Chinese and electronics.
Gee, why do I feel uneasy about this? Is it the fact the Chinese are building a Navy (granted years away, but the process is on going) to challenge us? Or the fact we're paying for it by borrowing billions from the Chinese so we can build a socialist utopia...the type China found sucks and it moving away from, as opposed to our leaders who are heading forward to it at light speed? Or that this country would always look upon the West as an adversary but would use discretion, but now is doing it openly? Or that the leaders we have don't seem to be uneasy about this?
For decades, China has copied many of its military systems from foreign-made originals. It’s a hallmark of a fast-growing power just finding its footing in the high-tech world.
The latest example? A first-person-shooter video game, developed by China’s Giant Network Technology Co. and backed by the People’s Liberation Army. It’s apparently modeled on the U.S. Army–made shooter America’s Army.
Like its American counterpart, introduced as a recruiting tool in 2002, Glorious Mission begins with simulated basic training before deploying the player to an imaginary battleground to duke it out in close-quarters combat. News reports show scores of Chinese troops dutifully gaming away in front of their computer screens...
...But there’s one key difference between the American and Chinese “shooters.” Where the bad guys in America’s Army are generic Middle Eastern or Central Asian insurgents and terrorists, the enemy in Glorious Mission is apparently the U.S. military. A TV report offers glimpses of an American-made Apache gunship crashing in flames.
There’s another big difference. America’s Army has been criticized for having a subtle, propagandistic effect on young players. In Glorious Mission, the politics are anything but subtle. Following training and combat, the game’s third stage recreates the “fiery political atmosphere of camp life,” according to one Chinese-language news report.
Glorious Mission follows a long line of computer games meant to reproduce some element of the military experience in a particular nation or conflict. Besides America’s Army, the Pentagon has also developed so-called “first-person thinker” games for training commanders to make tough decisions in times of information overload.
Islamic group Hezbollah slapped together a crude shooter called Special Force 2, in which the player battles Israeli invaders for the future of Lebanon. NATO has a game for negotiating with pirates.
Amid Beijing’s apparent enthusiasm for Glorious Mission, some observers warn of conflating real warfare with mere simulations. “The game content and the values embodied in military thinking … are very different,” one Chinese website warns. “Long-term use is not conducive to military education and training, and may even mislead officers and men.”
It could be one of a thousand factors that mislead Chinese trainees into thinking the United States is destined to be China’s enemy. And not just on digital battlefields
Gee, why do I feel uneasy about this? Is it the fact the Chinese are building a Navy (granted years away, but the process is on going) to challenge us? Or the fact we're paying for it by borrowing billions from the Chinese so we can build a socialist utopia...the type China found sucks and it moving away from, as opposed to our leaders who are heading forward to it at light speed? Or that this country would always look upon the West as an adversary but would use discretion, but now is doing it openly? Or that the leaders we have don't seem to be uneasy about this?
A bit too much symphathy for the devil....
Although the Bible calls on us the love the sinner and forgive, this is a bit much.
If it was a joke it was in poor taste. If not, discretion is called for...Father Badway, would you be so understanding for a call to pray for the soul of Hitler? I think Jews might have an issue with that, or any other rational person...some sins cannot be forgiven.
For absolution I was always taught you must first admit your mistake...to say the least these men (and UBL is in the league of Hitler and Stalin) are not deserving of it.
Prayer request for Osama bin Laden at Catholic Church in West Palm Beach
Prayer request for Osama bin Laden at Catholic Church in West Palm BeachHere is the local TV report on the issue.
By: Marissa Bagg
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - The name of Osama bin Laden appears in the Holy Name of Jesus Sunday bulletin. There's a cross next to it.
A parishioner made a prayer request for the mastermind behind the 9/11 attack on America.
A church secretary took the Mass intention a week ago. She admitted she thought it was a joke at first. But few are laughing.
"I think it's totally wrong, he doesn't belong in the Catholic religion. For what he did to Americans, he doesn't belong anywhere," says Lois Pizzano, a Catholic Church member. "It's unconscionable, it's sacrilegious," said Pizzano.
Father Gavin Badway admits many in his congregation are unhappy. But he says the church has never turned down a prayer request before. He says making the right decision isn't always easy.
"Their hearts are troubled because they're thinking emotionally about what he has done and he has done a lot of evil. Nevertheless, Jesus tells us, love and forgive," says Father Badway, who is the church pastor.
There are some Christians supporting Father Badway's decision to honor the request and pray for bin Laden's soul.
"I can see why they'd want to do that since the Bible does say to love your enemy and pray for those who hate you," says Aaron Wormus...
If it was a joke it was in poor taste. If not, discretion is called for...Father Badway, would you be so understanding for a call to pray for the soul of Hitler? I think Jews might have an issue with that, or any other rational person...some sins cannot be forgiven.
For absolution I was always taught you must first admit your mistake...to say the least these men (and UBL is in the league of Hitler and Stalin) are not deserving of it.
High speed chase in Missouri....
This is incredible...suspect in high speed chase led the cops over 20 minutes on the highway at one point with a blown tire. Officer keeps up, calls out calmly while under fire from an AK-47. Damned good work officer!
Gunman caught
Hopefully he was severely arrested
Gunman caught
Police have gunman Cody Wilcoxson, 31, in custody.
He was captured in Rolla after the vehicle he was driving was reported seen on Highway 63.
Radio traffic indicates Wilcoxon has injuries to his hand and arm, including a gunshot wound.
Wilcoxon started off trying to gain access Thursday morning to military base Fort Leonard Wood, located in Pulaski County.
He was unsuccessful in his attempt, and started a police pursuit that led to Rolla, where Wilcoxson was lost on the Missouri S&T campus after crashing his vehicle on the campus and fleeing on foot.
He reportedly stole another vehicle and took off again, renewing police efforts to locate him....
Hopefully he was severely arrested
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
What's going on in the World Today 110517
HYPERLINKS MAY REQUIRE AN EMAIL:
Except where noted courtesy www.stratfor.com
USA
Dispatch: Mississippi River Flooding and New Orleans | STRATFOR
U.S.: Government Sharing Intelligence Seized From bin Laden May 11, 2011
The U.S. has shared intelligence from materials seized in Osama bin Laden’s hideout with other unnamed governments, Reuters reported May 11, citing counterterrorism officials. Among the materials is a manual written by bin Laden. The manual has not revealed evidence of new terrorist plots, but may result in adjustments in security arrangements.
U.S.: 2 Arrested In N.Y. Synagogue Attack Plot May 12, 2011
Two men attempting to buy weapons to use in attacking Manhattan synagogues were arrested late May 11 in New York, ABC News reported May 12, citing police. The men, who attempted to purchase AK-47s and grenades, were arrested in Midtown Manhattan and will appear in court May 12 charged under the state’s anti-terrorism laws. One of the men was a Muslim man of North African descent, and had already acquired small arms and a grenade. The men had discussed the attack but no specific synagogue had been targeted.
EUROPE
A Tectonic Shift in Central Europe | STRATFOR
ASIA
China Political Memo: May 13, 2011 | STRATFOR
RUSSIA
Russia, Norway: Joint Military Exercise To Begin May 11, 2011
Russian and Norwegian naval forces departed the Russian Northern Fleet port at Severodvinsk to begin the joint Pomor-2011 military exercises in the Barents and Norwegian seas, RIA Novosti reported May 11. Russian anti-submarine warfare ship Vice Admiral Kulakov and Norwegian frigate Helge Ingstad will participate in the five-day exercises, which will involve practice maneuvers in a variety of conditions, artillery targeting, anti-submarine and counterpiracy operations, and freeing a simulated oil platform from militants.
Russia: Rosatom Did Not Supply Uranium To Iran In 2011 May 12, 2011
Russian nuclear energy agency Rosatom did not supply uranium to Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant in 2011, according to an unnamed Rosatom source, BBC reported May 12. The source said Russia supplied the nuclear fuel to Tehran only in December 2008 and January 2009.
IRAN
Iran: Nuclear Fuel Received From Russia May 11, 2011
Iran received from Russia a new shipment of nuclear fuel, weighing 30 metric tons, for the Bushehr nuclear power plant, Iranian Arabic-language Al-Alam TV reported May 11.
Russia: Iranian Nuclear Plant To Launch In Weeks - Official May 12, 2011
That Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant has been brought to the minimum level of power needed for self-sustainment suggests its final launch will come in a matter of weeks, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said May 12, RIA Novosti reported. Russia is working to honor the agreed-upon schedule with Iran following the reported removal of fuel from the reactor’s active zone, Ryabkov said, adding that the final launch will likely come before July.
IRAQ
NOTHING SIGNIFICANT TO REPORT
ISRAEL
The Geopolitics of Israel: Biblical and Modern | STRATFOR
Israel: Shin Bet Reports Increase In Arms Smuggling From Sinai To Gaza May 12, 2011
Shin Bet has reported an increase in arms smuggling from the Sinai Peninsula to the Gaza Strip following the latest events in the Middle East, Ynet News reported May 12. A document published by the organization said that lowered Egyptian governance over the Sinai Peninsula and a preoccupation with domestic issues has allowed smugglers to act almost uninterrupted, including their ability to smuggle anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons.
Israel: Police Search For Syrian Protesters May 16, 2011
Israeli police said hundreds of officers were working in the Golan Heights town of Majdal Shams, seeking out protesters who had not returned to Syria, AFP reported May 16. Police went door-to-door looking for protesters and had set up road-blocks, the police spokesman said.
AFGHANISTAN
Afghanistan: Taliban Attack Northern Village May 11, 2011
One person was killed May 11 when around 100 Taliban fighters on motorcycles attacked the northern Afghan village of Abduraman, which was preparing to join the government-sponsored local police against the insurgency, AP reported. Around 17 militants were killed in the ensuing two-hourlong gunfight, Jawzjan provincial police chief Abdul Aziz Ghyrat said. The Taliban attacked the village upon discovering it was joining the local police force, according to Ghyrat.
Afghanistan: India Offers Up To $2 Billion In Aid May 12, 2011
India has committed about $1.5 billion to Afghanistan for developmental assistance and plans to commit another $500 million over the next five years, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said May 12, AFP reported. Priority areas for the aid will be social programs, agriculture and infrastructure, according to Singh.
MIDDLE EAST
Libya: Rebels Capture Misurata Airport May 11, 2011
Libyan rebels have captured the Misurata airport, driving back forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, BBC News reported May 11. Gadhafi’s forces left behind burning tanks as they fled, according to witnesses. Meanwhile, explosions were heard in Tripoli.
Syria: Mass Grave Found In Daraa May 16, 2011
Residents of the Syrian city of Daraa, permitted by the army on May 16 to venture out from their homes for two hours each day, found a mass grave in the old part of the city, a member of the National Organization for Human Rights in Syria told AFP, Ya Libnan reported. The area was immediately cordoned off, and authorities promised to hand over some of the bodies later, the activist said.
Pakistani Taliban Claim Revenge Attack for bin Laden | STRATFOR
SOUTH OF THE BORDER
Argentina: Oil Refinery Workers Begin Strike May 12, 2011
Argentine oil refinery workers began a nationwide strike May 12, though YPF, which accounts for about half of the country’s approximately 600,000 barrel-per-day refining capacity, said none of its plants are currently affected by the strike, Reuters reported. Federation of Oil, Gas and Biofuels Workers Union Secretary Pedro Milla said the strike has halted operations at such refineries as Esso’s Campana plant, Refinor in northern Salta province, Oil Combustibles’ San Lorenzo refinery and YPF’s Lujan de Cuyo plant. Milla also said strikers are beginning to block access to the plants, rendering supplies and non-striking workers unable to enter.
MISC
NOTHING SIGNIFICANT TO REPORT
Except where noted courtesy www.stratfor.com
Monday, May 16, 2011
The New York Times says something nice about Drudge!
As the official mouth piece of the left in this country, The New York Times rarely gets stories straight and even rarer on conservatives. But I have to say this piece on Drudge is dead on.
I gotta say an all in all balanced and fair report (see, not fair and balanced) of the how Drudge works and has remained relevant over the years. But the thing I find really interesting is "...Gabriel Snyder...told me, “the best wire editor on the planet." You mean you don't need a graduate degree from the Columbia School of Journalism and contacts from the Obama White House who put out talking points as news to be a journalist? Damned, who would have thought it. In all seriousness, an old gum shoe reporter like Bob Novak or a modern blogger who gets out and actually asked questions, finds politicians out of the office, was not friends with the people he covers is light years ahead than the flakes who populate the 4th Estate now.
Drudge, you were an original and you like Madonna who kept up by reinventing herself, you've kept up by remaining the same...and true to yourself and your readers. He's to another 14 years!
How Drudge Has Stayed on Top
For most big news Web sites, about 60 percent of the traffic is homegrown, people who come directly to the site by dint of a bookmark or typing in www.latimes.com or www.huffingtonpost.com. The other critical 40 percent comes by referrals, the links that are the source of drive-by traffic, new readers and heat-seekers on a particular story.
By far, most of the traffic from links comes from the sprawling hybrid of Google search and news, which provides about 30 percent of the visits to news sites, according to a report released last week by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, part of the Pew Research Center. And the second? Has to be Facebook, right? Nope. Then Twitter must be the next in line. Except it isn’t.
Give up? It’s The Drudge Report, a 14-year-old site — a relic by Web standards — conceived and operated by Matt Drudge. Using data from the Nielsen Company to examine the top 21 news sites on the Web, the report suggests that Mr. Drudge, once thought of as a hothouse flower of the Lewinsky scandal, is now more powerful in driving news than the half-billion folks on Facebook. (According to the study, Facebook accounted for 3.3 percent of the referrals to news sites, less than half as many as generated by The Drudge Report.)
“When you look at his influence, it cuts across all kind of sites, both traditional news outlets and online-only sites,” said Amy S. Mitchell, the deputy director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism and one of the authors of the study. “He was an early and powerful force in setting the news agenda and has somehow maintained that even as there has been a great deal of change in the way people get their news.”
With no video, no search optimization, no slide shows, and a design that is right out of mid-’90s manual on HTML, The Drudge Report provides 7 percent of the inbound referrals to the top news sites in the country. “It’s a real achievement,” said John F. Harris, the co-founder of Politico. “I covered the Clinton White House in 1997 and 1998 and I would never have conceived that he would be an important player in the landscape 12 years later. He does one thing and he does it particularly well. The power of it comes from the community of people that read it: operatives, bookers, reporters, producers and politicians.”...
...His durability is, first and foremost, a personal achievement, a testament to the fact that he is, as Gabriel Snyder, who has done Web news for Gawker, Newsweek and now The Atlantic, told me, “the best wire editor on the planet. He can look into a huge stream of news, find the hot story and put an irresistible headline on it.”
...Yes, Mr. Drudge is a conservative ideologue whose site also serves as a crib sheet for the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. But if you believe that his huge traffic numbers are a byproduct of an ideologically motivated readership, consider that 15 percent of the traffic at WashingtonPost.com, which is not exactly a hotbed of Tea Party foment, comes from The Drudge Report.
It is, in its own way, a kind of utility, with stable traffic of about 12 million to 14 million unique visitors every month no matter what kind of news is breaking. Everyone goes there because, well, everyone else goes there.
And in the last 14 years, there have been no big redesigns, no big rollout of new features and no staffing up to provide original content. The initial site, designed to load quickly in the age of dial-up modems, remains relatively untouched. (As does Mr. Drudge’s penchant to stay under the radar. He did not respond to e-mails requesting an interview.)
“The genius of Drudge is the simplicity of the layout,” said Matt Labash, a writer for The Weekly Standard. “Everyone else who tries to knock him off complicates that. There’s no tabs. There’s no jumps. There’s hardly any clutter, even if he now runs more headlines than he used to. He’s secure enough in the formula that he’s never changed it.”
Mr. Drudge understood the whole high-low bifurcation that news consumers are drawn to long before there was such a thing as Gawker. Andrew Breitbart, the founder of several conservative Web sites including Breitbart.com and the author of “Righteous Indignation,” met him in 1995 when Mr. Drudge was still working at the CBS gift shop in Los Angeles and running the Web site on the side. Mr. Breitbart immediately began helping him.
“Matt Drudge is an American original,” Mr. Breitbart said. “He does not rig search optimization, he does not care about the next big Web innovation, he just has the best nose for news there is. He gives people everything, every single thing, they want to know in a single stop.”
...
I gotta say an all in all balanced and fair report (see, not fair and balanced) of the how Drudge works and has remained relevant over the years. But the thing I find really interesting is "...Gabriel Snyder...told me, “the best wire editor on the planet." You mean you don't need a graduate degree from the Columbia School of Journalism and contacts from the Obama White House who put out talking points as news to be a journalist? Damned, who would have thought it. In all seriousness, an old gum shoe reporter like Bob Novak or a modern blogger who gets out and actually asked questions, finds politicians out of the office, was not friends with the people he covers is light years ahead than the flakes who populate the 4th Estate now.
Drudge, you were an original and you like Madonna who kept up by reinventing herself, you've kept up by remaining the same...and true to yourself and your readers. He's to another 14 years!
Officer Down
 |
| SA Clark |
 |
| SA Rojas |
US Border Patrol Agent Hector R. Clark
End of Watch: Thursday, May 12, 2011
Age: 39
Tour of Duty: 10 years
US Border Patrol Agent Eduardo Rojas, Jr.
End of Watch: Thursday, May 12, 2011
Age: 35
Tour of Duty: 11 years
Border Patrol Agent Hector Clark and Border Patrol Agent Eduardo Rojas were killed when their vehicle was struck by a train near Gila Bend, Arizona.
The agents were assisting other agents track a group of illegal immigrants and were attempting to position their vehicle north of the group when it was struck by a 90-car freight train at the Paloma Road crossing. The vehicle was dragged a quarter mile by the train.
Agent Clark had served with the United States Border Patrol for 10 years. He is survived by his wife and two children.
Agent Rojas had served with the United States Border Patrol for 11 years. He is survived by his wife and two children.
Rest in Peace Gents…We’ll Continue The Watch
Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before
I generally keep some anonymity on my blog for multiple reasons. One is my profession. The other is my agency is really, what is the word, picky (polite word, open site) about social media. But I will let a little bit out. I just got a new license plate for my vehicle and it is a classic if I say so myself!
Until recently Texas would only allow a six character license plate and I was looking at "NC1701" or something like that, but it was not good. Then I just happened to be reading the paper in February and there was an article saying for seven days beginning March 7th at 700 am (see a pattern) you can order a seven character plate. So I woke up at a quarter to seven, drank coffee, logged, put in the request and my heart almost stopped when I got the message "Plate Available". Yes! To my astonishment there was not a bigger geek out there...then again they are probably just going to sleep, not waking up. It has to be destiny.
Few minute filling out the online request, paying too damned much money and a few weeks to get the actual plate in. But I wanted to frame it better than the dealer frame and online again...and it has the real words to start the show (Sorry Captain Picard, but it will always be "no man"...Kirk kicks ass!).
And final precaution...security bolts on it...God knows there are other nerds out there who might be tempted.
I really wanted it for the Harley but they won't issue seven character plates for motorcycles yet. But I own the license for this plate number for ten years so I can transfer if the opportunity presents itself.
So yes, you get to the Houston area and see this plate, you got an ID on MikeAT from A Cop's Watch.
Few minute filling out the online request, paying too damned much money and a few weeks to get the actual plate in. But I wanted to frame it better than the dealer frame and online again...and it has the real words to start the show (Sorry Captain Picard, but it will always be "no man"...Kirk kicks ass!).
And final precaution...security bolts on it...God knows there are other nerds out there who might be tempted.
I really wanted it for the Harley but they won't issue seven character plates for motorcycles yet. But I own the license for this plate number for ten years so I can transfer if the opportunity presents itself.
So yes, you get to the Houston area and see this plate, you got an ID on MikeAT from A Cop's Watch.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Another great cartoon....
Cool cartoon...and about right. I'm recalling how Jimmy Carter tried to not answer for the disaster his administration was by wrapping himself in foreign policy. Didn't work then....hopefully won't work this time!
Thank you Andy....ANDY'S PLACE...: Good 'Toon...
LSU students exercise their freedom of expression
But you gotta love how the idiot's rights were abused.
ROTC students stand next to a U.S. flag and Louisiana state flag during a prayer vigil held Monday, May 2 at the LSU War Memorial. (LSU Photo)
I just love the fact this idiot's expression was stopped by a buerocrat rule...great work LSU, especially ROTC.
ROTC students stand next to a U.S. flag and Louisiana state flag during a prayer vigil held Monday, May 2 at the LSU War Memorial. (LSU Photo)
Angry Mob Chases Would-Be Flag Burner Off LSU Campus 11 May 2011
NEWSCORE - A mob of angry protesters chased a would-be flag burner at Louisiana State University (LSU) off campus Wednesday to chants of "USA, USA."
Graduate communications student Benjamin Haas had earlier been given permission by the school to burn the flag. But because he lacked a local burn permit, he agreed instead to read a statement in an area of the university known as free speech alley.
As Haas read the statement, a crowd around him erupted into cheers and jeers, many shouting "Go to hell, hippie, go to hell."...
...Fox News reports that Haas' actions were in response to the arrest of another student, who was charged with taking and burning the American flag once posted at LSU's War Memorial. That incident came just hours after Osama bin Laden's killing by US Navy SEALS last week.
Haralson, who filmed the protest, said Haas was surrounded by police officers on horseback and as they protest swelled, they moved him to a safer location.
"At that point, all the students began rushing him, continuing to throw trash at him," he said. "He was finally escorted into a cop car in the street and students were banging on the cop car."...
...Word of the potential burning had sparked pockets of anger throughout the campus.
"It's time that my generation stand up for what they believe in and exercise their freedom of speech and let people know that we are not OK with this," said Cody Wells, the student government association president. "I am angry that an individual would want to do this at a public higher education institution."
I just love the fact this idiot's expression was stopped by a buerocrat rule...great work LSU, especially ROTC.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
A speck of blue in an ocean of red
From this morning's Houston Chronicle...kinda reminds me of the great bumper sticker, "Keep Austin Weird" :<)
Another episode of Clueless in Houston
Last month I posted on how clueless some people can be when police are out with weapons drawn. Another classic example is in this YouTube video posted by two males completely unaware of the danger they are in.
Warning: PG-13 language on the video
At the beginning you see lots of cops with weapons drawn...
At 26 seconds, a shotgun blast...finally gets a hint they should not he there....
At 60 seconds they drive up to there cops using a car for cover...notice they all have weapons drawn. And the cops tell them to get out there.
Then as they drive off you hear a lot of shooting...over 140 rounds were reportedly shot during this incident...and it never occurs to Beavis and Butthead they should not be there.
Idiots.
Warning: PG-13 language on the video
At the beginning you see lots of cops with weapons drawn...
At 26 seconds, a shotgun blast...finally gets a hint they should not he there....
At 60 seconds they drive up to there cops using a car for cover...notice they all have weapons drawn. And the cops tell them to get out there.
Then as they drive off you hear a lot of shooting...over 140 rounds were reportedly shot during this incident...and it never occurs to Beavis and Butthead they should not be there.
Idiots.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Officer Down
Sergeant Brian Dulle
Warren County Ohio Sheriff's Office
EOW: Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Age: 36
Tour of Duty: 12 years
Sergeant Brian Dulle was struck and killed by a suspect's vehicle while deploying stop sticks at the intersection of U.S. 42 and Utica Road.
The pursuit had been initiated by the Franklin Police Department and traveled into Warren County at 1:50 am. The suspect ran one cruiser off the road and into a ditch on U.S. 42 before continuing towards Utica Road. After striking Sergeant Dulle the suspect fled on foot but was arrested several hours later following a massive manhunt.
Sergeant Dulle was a U.S. Army veteran and had served with the Warren County Sheriff's Office for 12 years. He is survived by his wife, three children, parents, and two siblings.
Rest in Peace Bro…We’ll Continue The Watch
Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh.
Geopolitical Weekly: U.S.-Pakistani Relations Beyond Bin Laden May 10, 2011
U.S.-Pakistani Relations Beyond Bin Laden
May 10, 2011
By George Friedman
The past week has been filled with announcements and speculations on how Osama bin Laden was killed and on Washington’s source of intelligence. After any operation of this sort, the world is filled with speculation on sources and methods by people who don’t know, and silence or dissembling by those who do.
Obfuscating on how intelligence was developed and on the specifics of how an operation was carried out is an essential part of covert operations. The precise process must be distorted to confuse opponents regarding how things actually played out; otherwise, the enemy learns lessons and adjusts. Ideally, the enemy learns the wrong lessons, and its adjustments wind up further weakening it. Operational disinformation is the final, critical phase of covert operations. So as interesting as it is to speculate on just how the United States located bin Laden and on exactly how the attack took place, it is ultimately not a fruitful discussion. Moreover, it does not focus on the truly important question, namely, the future of U.S.-Pakistani relations.
Posturing Versus a Genuine Breach
It is not inconceivable that Pakistan aided the United States in identifying and capturing Osama bin Laden, but it is unlikely. This is because the operation saw the already-tremendous tensions between the two countries worsen rather than improve. The Obama administration let it be known that it saw Pakistan as either incompetent or duplicitous and that it deliberately withheld plans for the operation from the Pakistanis. For their part, the Pakistanis made it clear that further operations of this sort on Pakistani territory could see an irreconcilable breach between the two countries. The attitudes of the governments profoundly affected the views of politicians and the public, attitudes that will be difficult to erase.
Posturing designed to hide Pakistani cooperation would be designed to cover operational details, not to lead to significant breaches between countries. The relationship between the United States and Pakistan ultimately is far more important than the details of how Osama bin Laden was captured, but both sides have created a tense atmosphere that they will find difficult to contain. One would not sacrifice strategic relationships for the sake of operational security. Therefore, we have to assume that the tension is real and revolves around the different goals of Pakistan and the United States.
A break between the United States and Pakistan holds significance for both sides. For Pakistan, it means the loss of an ally that could help Pakistan fend off its much larger neighbor to the east, India. For the United States, it means the loss of an ally in the war in Afghanistan. Whether the rupture ultimately occurs, of course, depends on how deep the tension goes. And that depends on what the tension is over, i.e., whether the tension ultimately merits the strategic rift. It also is a question of which side is sacrificing the most. It is therefore important to understand the geopolitics of U.S.-Pakistani relations beyond the question of who knew what about bin Laden.
From Cold to Jihadist War
U.S. strategy in the Cold War included a religious component, namely, using religion to generate tension within the Communist bloc. This could be seen in the Jewish resistance in the Soviet Union, in Roman Catholic resistance in Poland and, of course, in Muslim resistance to the Soviets in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, it took the form of using religious Islamist militias to wage a guerrilla war against Soviet occupation. A three-part alliance involving the Saudis, the Americans and the Pakistanis fought the Soviets. The Pakistanis had the closest relationships with the Afghan resistance due to ethnic and historical bonds, and the Pakistani intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), had built close ties with the Afghans.
As frequently happens, the lines of influence ran both ways. The ISI did not simply control Islamist militants, but instead many within the ISI came under the influence of radical Islamist ideology. This reached the extent that the ISI became a center of radical Islamism, not so much on an institutional level as on a personal level: The case officers, as the phrase goes, went native. As long as the U.S. strategy remained to align with radical Islamism against the Soviets, this did not pose a major problem. However, when the Soviet Union collapsed and the United States lost interest in the future of Afghanistan, managing the conclusion of the war fell to the Afghans and to the Pakistanis through the ISI. In the civil war that followed the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the United States played a trivial role. It was the ISI in alliance with the Taliban — a coalition of Afghan and international Islamist fighters who had been supported by the United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan — that shaped the future of Afghanistan.
The U.S.- Islamist relationship was an alliance of convenience for both sides. It was temporary, and when the Soviets collapsed, Islamist ideology focused on new enemies, the United States chief among them. Anti-Soviet sentiment among radical Islamists soon morphed into anti-American sentiment. This was particularly true after the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm. The Islamists perceived the U.S. occupation and violation of Saudi territorial integrity as a religious breach. Therefore, at least some elements of international Islamism focused on the United States; al Qaeda was central among these elements. Al Qaeda needed a base of operations after being expelled from Sudan, and Afghanistan provided the most congenial home. In moving to Afghanistan and allying with the Taliban, al Qaeda inevitably was able to greatly expand its links with Pakistan’s ISI, which was itself deeply involved with the Taliban.
After 9/11, Washington demanded that the Pakistanis aid the United States in its war against al Qaeda and the Taliban. For Pakistan, this represented a profound crisis. On the one hand, Pakistan badly needed the United States to support it against what it saw as its existential enemy, India. On the other hand, Islamabad found it difficult to rupture or control the intimate relationships, ideological and personal, that had developed between the ISI and the Taliban, and by extension with al Qaeda to some extent. In Pakistani thinking, breaking with the United States could lead to strategic disaster with India. However, accommodating the United States could lead to unrest, potential civil war and even collapse by energizing elements of the ISI and supporters of Taliban and radical Islamism in Pakistan.
The Pakistani Solution
The Pakistani solution was to appear to be doing everything possible to support the United States in Afghanistan, with a quiet limit on what that support would entail. That limit on support set by Islamabad was largely defined as avoiding actions that would trigger a major uprising in Pakistan that could threaten the regime. Pakistanis were prepared to accept a degree of unrest in supporting the war but not to push things to the point of endangering the regime.
The Pakistanis thus walked a tightrope between demands they provide intelligence on al Qaeda and Taliban activities and permit U.S. operations in Pakistan on one side and the internal consequences of doing so on the other. The Pakistanis’ policy was to accept a degree of unrest to keep the Americans supporting Pakistan against India, but only to a point. So, for example, the government purged the ISI of its overt supporters of radial Islamism, but it did not purge the ISI wholesale nor did it end informal relations between purged intelligence officers and the ISI. Pakistan thus pursued a policy that did everything to appear to be cooperative while not really meeting American demands.
The Americans were, of course, completely aware of the Pakistani limits and did not ultimately object to this arrangement. The United States did not want a coup in Islamabad, nor did it want massive civil unrest. The United States needed Pakistan on whatever terms the Pakistanis could provide help. It needed the supply line through Pakistan from Karachi to the Khyber Pass. And while it might not get complete intelligence from Pakistan, the intelligence it did get was invaluable. Moreover, while the Pakistanis could not close the Afghan Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan, they could limit them and control their operation to some extent. The Americans were as aware as the Pakistanis that the choice was between full and limited cooperation, but could well be between limited and no cooperation, because the government might well not survive full cooperation. The Americans thus took what they could get.
Obviously, this relationship created friction. The Pakistani position was that the United States had helped create this reality in the 1980s and 1990s. The American position was that after 9/11, the price of U.S. support involved the Pakistanis changing their policies. The Pakistanis said there were limits. The Americans agreed, so the fight was about defining the limits.
The Americans felt that the limit was support for al Qaeda. They felt that whatever Pakistan’s relationship with the Afghan Taliban was, support in suppressing al Qaeda, a separate organization, had to be absolute. The Pakistanis agreed in principle but understood that the intelligence on al Qaeda flowed most heavily from those most deeply involved with radical Islamism. In others words, the very people who posed the most substantial danger to Pakistani stability were also the ones with the best intelligence on al Qaeda — and therefore, fulfilling the U.S. demand in principle was desirable. In practice, it proved difficult for Pakistan to carry out.
The Breakpoint and the U.S. Exit From Afghanistan
This proved the breakpoint between the two sides. The Americans accepted the principle of Pakistani duplicity, but drew a line at al Qaeda. The Pakistanis understood American sensibilities but didn’t want to incur the domestic risks of going too far. This psychological breakpoint cracked open on Osama bin Laden, the Holy Grail of American strategy and the third rail of Pakistani policy.
Under normal circumstances, this level of tension of institutionalized duplicity should have blown the U.S.-Pakistani relationship apart, with the United States simply breaking with Pakistan. It did not, and likely will not for a simple geopolitical reason, one that goes back to the 1990s. In the 1990s, when the United States no longer needed to support an intensive covert campaign in Afghanistan, it depended on Pakistan to manage Afghanistan. Pakistan would have done this anyway because it had no choice: Afghanistan was Pakistan’s backdoor, and given tensions with India, Pakistan could not risk instability in its rear. The United States thus did not have to ask Pakistan to take responsibility for Afghanistan.
The United States is now looking for an exit from Afghanistan. Its goal, the creation of a democratic, pro-American Afghanistan able to suppress radical Islamism in its own territory, is unattainable with current forces — and probably unattainable with far larger forces. Gen. David Petraeus, the architect of the Afghan strategy, has been nominated to become the head of the CIA. With Petraeus departing from the Afghan theater, the door is open to a redefinition of Afghan strategy. Despite Pentagon doctrines of long wars, the United States is not going to be in a position to engage in endless combat in Afghanistan. There are other issues in the world that must be addressed. With bin Laden’s death, a plausible (if not wholly convincing) argument can be made that the mission in AfPak, as the Pentagon refers to the theater, has been accomplished, and therefore the United States can withdraw.
No withdrawal strategy is conceivable without a viable Pakistan. Ideally, Pakistan would be willing to send forces into Afghanistan to carry out U.S. strategy. This is unlikely, as the Pakistanis don’t share the American concern for Afghan democracy, nor are they prepared to try directly to impose solutions in Afghanistan. At the same time, Pakistan can’t simply ignore Afghanistan because of its own national security issues, and therefore it will move to stabilize it.
The United States could break with Pakistan and try to handle things on its own in Afghanistan, but the supply line fueling Afghan fighting runs through Pakistan. The alternatives either would see the United States become dependent on Russia — an equally uncertain line of supply — or on the Caspian route, which is insufficient to supply forces. Afghanistan is war at the end of the Earth for the United States, and to fight it, Washington must have Pakistani supply routes.
The United States also needs Pakistan to contain, at least to some extent, Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan. The United States is stretched to the limit doing what it is doing in Afghanistan. Opening a new front in Pakistan, a country of 180 million people, is well beyond the capabilities of either forces in Afghanistan or forces in the U.S. reserves. Therefore, a U.S. break with Pakistan threatens the logistical foundation of the war in Afghanistan and poses strategic challenges U.S. forces cannot cope with.
The American option might be to support a major crisis between Pakistan and India to compel Pakistan to cooperate with the United States. However, it is not clear that India is prepared to play another round in the U.S. game with Pakistan. Moreover, creating a genuine crisis between India and Pakistan could have two outcomes. The first involves the collapse of Pakistan, which would create an India more powerful than the United States might want. The second and more likely outcome would see the creation of a unity government in Pakistan in which distinctions between secularists, moderate Islamists and radical Islamists would be buried under anti-Indian feeling. Doing all of this to deal with Afghan withdrawal would be excessive, even if India played along, and could well prove disastrous for Washington.
Ultimately, the United States cannot change its policy of the last 10 years. During that time, it has come to accept what support the Pakistanis could give and tolerated what was withheld. U.S. dependence on Pakistan so long as Washington is fighting in Afghanistan is significant; the United States has lived with Pakistan’s multitiered policy for a decade because it had to. Nothing in the capture of bin Laden changes the geopolitical realities. So long as the United States wants to wage — or end — a war in Afghanistan, it must have the support of Pakistan to the extent that Pakistan is prepared to provide support. The option of breaking with Pakistan because on some level it is acting in opposition to American interests does not exist.
This is the ultimate contradiction in U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and even the so-called war on terror as a whole. The United States has an absolute opposition to terrorism and has waged a war in Afghanistan on the questionable premise that the tactic of terrorism can be defeated, regardless of source or ideology. Broadly fighting terrorism requires the cooperation of the Muslim world, as U.S. intelligence and power is inherently limited. The Muslim world has an interest in containing terrorism, but not the absolute concern the United States has. Muslim countries are not prepared to destabilize their countries in service to the American imperative. This creates deeper tensions between the United States and the Muslim world and increases the American difficulty in dealing with terrorism — or with Afghanistan.
The United States must either develop the force and intelligence to wage war without any assistance — which is difficult to imagine given the size of the Muslim world and the size of the U.S. military — or it will have to accept half-hearted support and duplicity. Alternatively, it could accept that it will not win in Afghanistan and will not be able simply to eliminate terrorism. These are difficult choices, but the reality of Pakistan drives home that these, in fact, are the choices.
U.S.-Pakistani Relations Beyond Bin Laden is republished with permission of STRATFOR.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)