December 20, 2018--Trump's Distractions

If you are wondering why Donald Trump is ordering the removal of all U.S. military forces from Syria, declaring ISIS defeated even those they aren't--up to 30,000 ISIS fighters remain--the answer by now should be familiar: this retreat, which he initiated without consulting Congress or his State Department or Pentagon, is to distract us from the Michael Flynn fiasco and the humiliating collapse of his own private family slush fund, the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

You do have to admit that pulling the Syria withdrawal seemingly out of a hat is impressive in one way--who but Trump has our 2,000 troops on their radar screen ready to be brought home as a distraction from his political troubles. As of 5:00 am this morning on the New York Times webpage it is the lead story. Flynn and the Foundation are buried somewhere. He managed to turn both into one-day stories.

But don't mishear me--Flynn and the Foundation will contribute to bringing him down, especially when we get to see what is redacted in the Flynn charging memo: that he and Flynn openly conspired to play politics and strategic footsie with the Russians. As I have speculated here, Flynn was likely wearing a wire during some of those conversations, including in the Oval Office, and these tapes will turn out to be Trump's smoking gun.

And if you are wondering why Trump seems so adept, so quick in coming up with distractions of the Syria kind I suspect there is a simple explanation for that too--he has a pre-bickered list of them in his jacket pocket which he can pull out at a moments notice. 

(Ever think about why he never buttons his suit jackets? Not because they don't fit any more after he's gained at least 50 pounds since moving into the White House where the vanilla ice cream is available by the bucket, but to allow easy access to the distractions list.)

Investigative reporter that I am, from unnamed sources I have a copy of the list which I will share with you--

DJTRUMP DISTRACTIONS

Withdraw troops from Iraq

Withdraw troops from Afghanistan

Withdraw troops from Honduras

Withdraw troops from Japan

Withdraw troops from South Korea

Withdraw troops from Germany

Withdraw troops from all NATO countries

Withdraw troops from all bases in the United States
Start war with Honduras
Start war with Panama
Start war with Costa Rica
Start war with Mexico
Start war with California

Fire all Internal Revenue Service personnel

Fire all traffic controllers

Fire Ron Rosenstein

Fire Sarah Huckabee Sanders

Fire Kellyanne Conway

Fire Kellyanne's husband

Fire Jeff Sessions

Fire Rex Tillerson

Fire Reince Priebus

Fire Sean Spicer

Fire Jeff Sessions

Throw Sessions under the bus

Trow Spicer under the bus

Throw Kellyanne under the bus

Fire Wolf Blitzer

Fire Rachel Maddow

Fire Mika Brezezzzinzki

Throw Mika Bzezinzkiz under the bus

Throw Don Jr. under the bus

Throw Eric Trump under the bus

Throw Jared Kushner under the bus

Throw Ivanka under the bus

Throw Melania under the bus

Fire Omarosa

Fire Alec Baldwin

Fire Donald Trump

October 20, 2017--Sarah Is Pissed With Me

"You've finally gone too far." It was Sarah calling. I know her for more than 35 years.

"I'm listening."

"That blog you wrote about ISIS and Donald Trump."

"From a few days ago. It was the piece about the end of ISIS as an organized fighting force."

"That part of it I was OK with."

"So what has you so agitated?"

"That you assigned credit to that turd Trump for having defeated them on the battlefield. Something your New York Times was skeptical about in two articles published a few days after your blog."

"I beg to differ with your interpretation of the differences between their pieces and mine. Not that my stuff is of the quality of the New York Times. Not even close, but some times I feel I get to a story before they do. So at those times I'm ahead of the Times." 

I thought that was pretty snappy.

"You can make light of this all you want but this finally made me crazy."

"How's that?"

"For at least two years in your pieces you've been an apologist for him. By your taking him seriously you've helped normalize him. To give him the credibility of a regular politician and not the skunk he is. An unqualified and dangerous skunk." I could hear her breathing hard.

"Let's try to calm this down and unpack it. First, about ISIS. I said Trump accepted the strategy Obama set in motion and doubled down on it. In one of the Times pieces they compared how many attacks and how many bombs were dropped on ISIS during Obama's time and Trump's. They concluded Trump authorized more and unleashed our troops more than Obama did and that contributed to ISIS's defeat. That was a part of what I wrote and was also a part of what the Times reported."

"He's a lunatic, a monster, a danger to the world who has his hands on the nuclear codes and you take him seriously? I've had it up to here with you," she shouted.

"Of course I take him seriously. He's the president for ill or good. I know the ill part and try to find a few things that are good. Like maybe listening to his generals when it came to ISIS. I wrote about that too."

"That's the part that torqued me off the most," Sarah spat, "How you could find anything good to say about him."

"Now we're getting to a bigger problem."

"Now, I'm listening," she said.

"I know you'll be offended by this but I'll still take the risk of raising it with you." I waited for permission to put our relationship on the line. It didn't come, but her silence and the fact that she didn't hang up encouraged me to continue.

"Here's one of my big problems with Democrats and liberals when it comes to opposing Trump. It's almost as if they--and honestly, though I love you, I mean you too and, I have to add, me--it's almost as if we so much hate the idea that he might do something or stumble onto something good--like fighting ISIS effectively--that you'd prefer him to do everything wrong. Some call this 'confirmation bias,' where you look for things to support your already-established point of view. In Trump's case, this means that you despise him so much that the only things you pay attention to are the horrendous things he does. And of course, in my view too, almost everything he does qualifies."

Sarah was groaning. "This may sound crazy, but when it comes to a really dangerous situation like North Korea it would confirm your worst fears if he got us into a major war with them. Maybe even using atomic weapons. That would prove once and for all, including the historical assessment of his presidency, that he was, is the worst president we've ever had. If this is at all true, think about it--that his starting a nuclear war would confirm for all time that he is truly crazy and he ultimately led to many millions being killed during his years as president. You'd prefer that than think or hope he can somehow solve our problems with the North Koreans. I know this is unlikely, but it's possible and shouldn't we therefore work to make the possibility more probable? Rather than hope he'll fail with this too?"

"What you're saying is crazy," Sarah said, "He's the one who's a danger to life on earth and still you keep looking around to find good things to say about him? Again, like what you wrote about him and ISIS. How maybe since he listened to reason about how to deal with them he'll do it again when it comes to a bigger crisis like with North Korea."

"We're never going to agree about this," I said. "But one final thing. I've also written pretty extensively about how most of the liberals and Democrats I know did very little to actively defeat Trump and elect Hillary. At most, most of the people I know sent checks to support her campaign or Bernie's. I won't ask what you did though I know you didn't go to any rallies or work the phones. And you live in a purple state. So, and we're speaking frankly with each other, as you accused me, you helped by not being active in the campaign to elect the person you most hate."

"What I did is my own business. You're changing the subject. Turning it on me."

"True, I am changing it. And since I am I have one more question for you--what are you doing about Alabama?"

"Alabama?"

"In the senate race there? To replace Jeff Sessions? There's a lunatic on the Republican side. Judge Roy Moore who tried to get the 10 Commandments displayed at the statehouse. And then there's the Democrat, Doug Jones. He has a chance. In fact, a Fox poll this week has the contest as a toss up. So, if you're so riled up, what are you doing to help elect Jones?" I waited. "Your silence tells me more than I hoped to know. Bottom line--we all have to check ourselves out. Few of us are not implicated. We all contributed to this mess."

Sarah said, "Let's take a time out. I mean in our relationship. I hear you but still disagree. I mean about the role you've played in this. I'm still furious with you. You write this stuff and send it out. You have a lot of followers. Therefore, you have an additional responsibility to be careful with what you say."

"And, love, so do you. Including what you do."

Judge Roy Moore--10 Commandments

October 16, 2017--Whatever Happened to ISIS?

It wasn't very long ago that ISIS or ISIL or the Islamic State caused widespread fear in the Middle East and the West. Very much including in the United States.

Almost daily, for many months, ISIS would release a video of the hideous torture and beheading of captured Americans, Europeans, and Muslims. The map of the area showed ISIS's metastasis occurring as more and more territory fell before its brutal, seemingly unstoppable anschluss.

As recently as 2014, ISIS declared itself a caliphate. Which meant that they claimed religious, political, and military authority over all Muslims. All Muslins worldwide. In the region (beginning in expanding parts of Iraq and Syria) with visions of taking over all of the Middle East and ultimately at least as much of Africa and Europe as the previous caliphate of the 7th through 15th centuries occupied.

This terrifying aspiration did not seem far fetched. 

The Iraqis, torn by internal strife between the Shia majority and the Sunnis (who joined ISIS in large numbers), the Iraqi government and military felt powerless to resist. Syria was torn by a hopeless civil war and resisted becoming involved; and no one in the West, including the United States during the last years of the Obama administration, had a response that felt credible. 

And then there were the Russians who saw this divisiveness and chaos as an opportunity to exert influence and even dominance.

But then toward the end of the Obama years and continued and expanded during the early months of the Trump administration--yes, that administration--the U.S. military did two things that appear to have been decisive--somehow after more than a decade of frustration, we were able to train elements of the Iraqi army to actually fight effectively and supplied close-in tactical air support as they took on the previously unvanquished ISIS fighters. 

Slowly the map of the area controlled viciously by ISIS began to contract. As recently as last week the last of their caliphate strongholds, Hawija, fell to the Iraqis. Thousands while retreating were killed and then, rather than dying a martyrs' death, other thousands surrendered, mainly to Kurdish forces who have been in the mix as critical fighters.

A few things--

First--ISIS will continue to inspire and take credit for individual acts of terrorism. As hideous as this it, it's not a caliphate.

Then--though Donald Trump has a checklist of Obama initiatives and achievements that he has made his agenda--to obliterate Obama's political and historical existence is what more than anything else guides Trump. But in spite of this, in regard to ISIS, his military people saw an effective strategy and Trump doubled-down on it. Soon he will be all over Twitter and the media taking credit for "defeating" ISIS. What he boasted during the election campaign.

He is entitled to some of that credit. This is culminating on his, forgive me, watch. Maybe, doubtful, but maybe he will learn something from this--about the big things (war and peace) he might act more moderately than what many are fearing. North Korea a case in point?

Last--seemingly hopeless situations can at times resolve themselves. 

Hawija

May 23, 2017--Trump On the World Stage

Tell the truth--weren't you, like me, expecting, even hoping to see President Trump stumble on the world stage? While in the Middle East, while with the Pope in Rome, while meeting in Sicily with European counterparts at the G-7 summit?

Weakened at home as criminal investigations swirl around him, if he made a fool of himself, if he insulted Islamic leaders, made a botch of talks with the Israelis, again insulted Chancellor Angela Merkel, and said something inappropriate to the new president of France, in the aggregate, if his trip turned out to be a political disaster, it would move him one step closer to impeachment or resignation.

But, four days into his nine-day trip, from all reports, even from media sources that are not well disposed to him, he appears to be staying on script and, remarkably, actually saying a number of things that make sense. Or at least are worth putting on the table.

Before an assemblage of more than three dozen presidents of Sunni Arab nations, carefully avoiding the phrase "radical Islamic terrorists," Trump drew a distinction between ISIS fighters and the peaceful citizens of Islamic nations--

This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations. This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life and decent people, all in the name of religion, people that want to protect life and want to protect their religion. This is a battle between good and evil.

These comments were met with enthusiastic applause.

He continued, saying he wanted "partners not perfection" and that it was up to Muslim leaders to expunge extremists from their midst--

Drive them out. Drive them out of your places of worship. Drive them out of your communities. Drive them out of your holy land. And drive them out of earth.

This was a play to engage Sunni leaders in contrast to President Obama's alleged desire to strike deals with Shia-dominated countries such as Iran.

One could delete references to Obama and still make the case that a focus on Sunnis, the vast majority in the region, makes more sense. Including as part of an attempt to broker movement toward a two-state solution in Israel, something Trump spoke about yesterday when he told Benjamin Netanyahu that he heard from Sunni Arab leaders while in Saudi Arabia that if this were to happen they would consider expanding relations with Israel. Something that is occurring in private as power shifts across the Middle East.

It was also noted that Air Force One's direct flight from Riyadh to Tel Aviv is the first time there has been such a flight. Whoever added that to Trump's agenda (likely Jared Kushner) deserves praise. Gestures and symbols go a long way in that fraught region.

August 12, 2016--Russia Is Winning the New Cold War

It is now generally acknowledged that Russia's intervention in Syria has, from a Russian perspective, been effective.

Putin's Russia, unlike Obama's United States, is now seen to be the leading and most influential great power operating in the region. Russia's military and political support for Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, has effectively ended the rebellion against his government, and so now, since they made this possible, he is "owned" equally by both Russia and Iran, Assad's major patrons.

The United States is now relegated to the insignificant sidelines, unable to figure out which rebel faction(s) to support and is also seen to be impotent in regard to efforts to impose "red lines," topple Assad, or defeat ISIS.

Even in Second Cold War terms, Russia's modernized military is more than a match for ours even though we have outspent them on the development of smart weapons designed for asymmetrical warfare. This represents another miscall by the CIA and our military intelligence operatives--as during the First Cold War when they failed to notice that the Soviet Union's economy was collapsing under the pressure of attempting to compete with us weapon-system-by-weapon-system, this time around they failed to alert us to the power and sophistication of the new Russian military.

Most revealing, as Russia flexes new muscle to protect its borders as well as reduce the power of the United Staes and especially Western Europe, is the new cynical feel-good relationship developing between Russia and Turkey.

Just nine months ago a Turkish jet downed a Russian military aircraft and though it looked as if a hot war might break out between the two nations, in spite of this, earlier this week Turkish president Recep Tayyip-Erdogan was in Moscow to talk with President Putin about putting aside the past and establishing a closer relationship.

They both have skin in the regional game (and both leaders within their own countries need propping up) so going to war with each other would not be in either one's best interest.

Thus, out of mutual need, Turkey is raising questions about its role in NATO--something Putin enthusiastically welcomes--and Russia is helping to cut off the military aid the U.S. is supplying to the Kurds who are eager to carve Kurdistan out of land they live in in Syria, Iraq, and most geopolitically important, Turkey.

Erdogan is blaming America for the recent coup that failed to topple him and is suspicious about our agenda regarding the Kurds, while Putin seeks to destabilize NATO and push its forces, very much including those of the United States, back from its western borders.

Thus the appearance of these unlikely bedfellows. And their mutual interest in the candidacy of Donald Trump who is confounding our freight policy establishment as well as that of our NATO allies when he questions the on-going role of NATO, particularly why the U.S. should underwrite a disproportionate portion of its budget.

A more credible Republican candidate would have a field day with these failed polices of President Obama and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

June 29, 2016--Tuning Out Istanbul

Last night there was another horrendous terrorist attack on the international airport in Istanbul. At least 41 were killed and scores more injured. The networks, especially the cable news networks, were all over the story, proclaiming breaking news whenever there was something more-or-less new to report.

With great guilt, I watched about 15 minutes worth of the coverage. Enough for me to get the basic facts--the journalistic who, what, when, where, why, and how. And then I shut down the TV and stopped clicking on the New York Times Website for the latest.

I felt guilt since I pride myself on being well informed and concerned and compassionate when there are dire circumstances, especially when innocent people are harmed.

But in those 15 minutes of watching I got most of the who-what questions answered; and though by then no group had claimed responsibility, one knows the who and why. Sadly, these days, after 9/11 and hundreds of other "incidents," it is easy on one's own to fill in those blanks.

So why watch the same eyewitness videos over and over and over again? Because you have family or friends living or traveling in the region? To make certain the horror of the event is forever etched in one's mind? Morbid curiosity? A version of shadenfreude? Better them then me?

And then what does being well-informed mean? How does one best become well informed and then what purposes does it serve?

Isn't being well informed to help think about what actions to take? Whom to vote for? What to write about in letters to editors? What groups to join? Where to donate money? What to say to friends and acquaintances who you want to convince to change their views and come over to your side?

To become better informed about what happened in Istanbul, to immerse oneself in it, again, is for what purpose?

Assuming ISIS is responsible, other than becoming more fearful, to express more rage, what will that then mean in real-life terms?

Will it keep me off international flights? Will I no longer be willing to drop friends off at the airport? Riddled with anxieties about things I can't control, will I become more of a shut-in? Will I vote for Trump believing that he will be better at preventing these barbarous acts than Clinton? Will I sink further and further into despair and cynicism? Will I, more than I do already, want to hide out in Maine and spend less time in target-rich New York?

I can see having an interest in knowing for its own sake. Not as a precursor to taking action. I have lots of those kinds of interests. Not unrelated to Istanbul, some of them include spending time involved with escapist entertainments--my ongoing reading, a marginal interest in a few sports, wanting to listen to more music than at present. And in all cases I want to know more about them.

But as to Istanbul, at the risk of disappointing myself or deflating my self-image, I am attempting to limit my involvement. Still I know I will read more about it later today. Though as little as possible since there will be just a few important additional things to learn. But beyond that . . .

June 22, 2106--Who's Afraid of the NRA?

Who's afraid of the NRA? Pretty much every Republican member of Congress--House and Senate--and a smattering of craven Democrats.

And what are they afraid of? Simple--they fear that if they vote for even modest restrictions on assault weapons the NRA will "primary" them--run and fund someone against them who hews slavishly to the NRA line.

Why is the NRA threat so powerful that almost all Republicans in lock step will resist any piece of legislation that the leadership of the NRA perceives to be against its own self interest? Not the legislator's, not the nation's, not even the vast majority of NRA members.

This is less clear since between 70 and 80 percent of NRA members actually support stronger background checks and restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition magazines that hold up to 100 rounds of ammunition. Ideal weapon systems to commit mass murder as in Orlando 10 days ago.

One would think that if an incumbent voted for some modest limitations, such as the ones voted down by the Senate this week, it would please the vast majority of his or her constituents.

Thus, I remain puzzled. It seems like an easy choice--vote to restrict, even forbid the sale of weapons to anyone on the no-fly and terrorist watch lists and easily get reelected.

But, among others, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, robotically following the NRA-GOP talking points, when urging senators to vote against four modest pieces of legislation that would restrict the sale of weapons to potential terrorists, said that to approve any bill would be tantamount to voting to deal with symptoms and not the cause. The cause in this case fighting ISIS since the Fort Hood, San Bernardino, and Orlando shooters all said they committed mass murder in support of the Islamic State.

This would be like McConnell saying we shouldn't treat the symptoms of cancer but should focus solely on its cure. Ignoring the obvious--do both, as we do, at the same time.

The NRA funds various PAC groups and the campaigns of individual members of Congress as a way to assure its agenda continues to have congressional protection--the unrestricted sale of all forms of weapon systems. Even to criminals and possible terrorists. Their perverse logic--if even these common sense restrictions were enacted into law they will be followed immediately by Democrats and President Obama moving to eliminate the Second Amendment.

Of course this is preposterous. But there you have it.

I have one suggestion--former New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg has spent tens of millions of dollars to support gun control legislation. Thus far this has been ineffective. Why not a change of strategy--offer to fund on a two-for-one basis any money deployed by the NRA leadership to stop all forms of anti-gun legislation and to fund primary opponents of members of Congress who are targeted (pardon the metaphor) during primary season?

The NRA itself plus organizations and individuals that fund efforts to defeat gun control legislation and candidates who vote in favor of these restrictions spend about $37 million a year. Bloomberg, whose net worth is $44.6 billion, could easily come up with $75 million annually until sensible legislation is approved and signed into law.

Hillary Clinton was right--"Enough."

Wayne LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice President

June 16, 2016--Orlando and Trump's America

In a dark column two days ago in the New York Times, Roger Cohen writes--

Omar Mateen, the Florida shooter who had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, just ushered Donald Trump to the White House, Britain out of the European Union, Marine Le Pen to the French presidency, and the world into a downward spiral of escalating violence. . .
Like the 19-year-old Bosnian Serb nationalist whose bullets ignited World War I, Mateen has set a spark to a time of inflammable anger.

Cohen continues--

Of course these somber imaginings may prove to be no more than that. But there is no question that the largest mass shooting in American history comes at a time of particular unease. In both the United States and Europe, political and economic frustrations have produced a groundswell against the status quo and an apparent readiness to make a leap in the dark. Washington and Brussels have become bywords for paralysis.

Anyone doubting this only needs to replay the video of President Obama's reaction. He wasn't reading from a teleprompter, but he might as well have been.

After seven and a half years in office and with all the violence from Newtown, Connecticut to San Bernardino, California, he is out of gas. Out of outrage. Out of motivation to one more time prod Congress to do something to control assault weapons. "Paralysis" captures it.

So we're left with Donald Trump to articulate what many Americans feel--enough is enough.

Even if he has no better chance to do anything more than Obama or Hillary Clinton, he is the channel through which so much anger, fear, and rage is being ventilated.

And do we not assume that ISIS and its spawn want Donald Trump to become our president? It would help confirm their heinous anti-Western ideology to have an angry xenophobe as our leader.

So expect additional massacres between now and November. Two or three more and Cohen's dystopian vision may well metastasize into our reality.

Breaking News--Or if Trump strikes a deal with the NRA to ban guns sales to those on the FBI watch list or the government's no-fly list. The NRA seems eager to talk with him about that. It is in each of their own self-interest. Just when you thought . . .

May 10, 2016--Putin's Concert in Palmyra

Vladimir Putin has figured out yet another way to make everyone crazy.

Not just by annexing Crimea, not just by threatening Latvia, not just by striking new accords with China, not just by essentially endorsing Donald Trump's candidacy, not just by rolling out sophisticated 21st century weapon systems in the skies and on the ground in Syria, not just by helping his fellow oligarchs stash away billions of stolen Russian assets in Panama while his country languishes for a second year with a stalled economy.

In addition to all of this, as an act of assertion and to poke us and our Western allies in the eye, he arranged for a classical music concert last week in the formerly ISIS-controlled World Heritage city of Palmyra, Syria. A form of victory lap.

Palmyra had been overrun and subjugated for more than a year by ISIS. While they held the city in thrall, ISIS goons, in addition to torturing and slaughtering Palmyrians, set about destroying the ancient 1st and 2nd century Greco-Roman temples--to them "pagan" shrines--in an attempt to obliterate all traces of Western culture.

ISIS also last summer used the most spectacular of these ruins, the concert site, as a killing field, actually a public beheading field for at least 25 victims.

For some time, the United States and its coalition allies had been unable to stop the carnage much less dislodge the Islamic State fighters. Then along came the Russians.

Defying our urgings, in support of fighters loyal to their ally, Syria president Bashar al-Assad, the Russians began a sustained air offensive against ISIS and Syrian rebel targets in Palmyra and elsewhere.

The American administration was quick to point out--with some official smugness--that among other things, derived from our own propensity to became mired in internecine wars in the region, that the Russians too would find it easier to become involved than to accomplish their mission and then manage to extract themselves.

Amazingly, with some limitations, exceptions, and caveats, the Russians were able to find ways to be effective, including driving ISIS from some of the territories it had overrun in Iraq and Syria. Very much including returning Palmyra to precarious local control.

And thus the "victory" concert.

Using what the New York Times called its "soft power," Russia deployed a chamber orchestra to Palmyra along with one of the country's most esteemed conductors, Valery Gergiev, and cellist, Sergei Roldugin. A tightly-guarded V.I.P. audience, was also flown in to attend the concert, which included two pieces by Johan Sebastian Bach. Recommended attire--bulletproof vests. And then, at concert's end, quickly flown out.

Admittedly, this was a Potemkin-Village concert--more show and facade than evidence of Palmyra's liberation.

But what a brilliant piece of geopolitical theater by Putin. It might be considered his version of "Mission Accomplished." Though, as we know, these missions are rarely accomplished.

(Today would be my father's 110th birthday. He would have hated all of this.)

December 22, 2015--"Homeland": Spoiler Alert

After the first few episodes of this season's Homeland series, until after Carrie finally jettisoned her daughter and got down to the work she was born to do--chasing and eliminating terrorists--I could barely wait for Sunday nights.

This past Sunday was the season finale, and though I thought it weak and formulaic, I still loved it.

And after it was over, I ran downstairs to go on line, to check out Homeland on Wikipedia to see if there will next year be a season six. Thankfully, there will be, because I need to know if Carrie really pulled the plug on Peter Quinn (I think she did because I can see him starring soon in a series of his own as "Brody," Damian Lewis, is doing in the soon-to-be-released Billions after being literally crucified on a Homeland episode at the end of season four) or if Saul manages to re-recruit Carrie to the CIA after she, next year, spends a few unfulfilling months with her daughter (for sure, since without that there is no possibility that Homeland can go off successfully in a new direction with Carrie transforming herself into a stay-at-home mom.) In addition, Saul looms as Homeland's ongoing most interesting character. And as amazing as she is, there is just so much of Carrie's cry-face that one can endure in a full season.

So, spoiler alert, from the recesses of my frustrated-screenwriter imagination, here are a few other plot predictions--

Quinn as suggested is Homeland history, but Saul will remain and become an even greater focus of action in season seven.

Carrie will return to the U.S. and try to live a normal life. This will be short-lived since by episode three there will be a terrorist attack on America.

Just as the overall trajectory of Homeland has followed the headlines and real news from the terrorist front--the first few seasons were set in the Middle East where the actions was and this year took Carrie and company to Europe, to Berlin, just as terroristic activities in real-time shifted to the West--from Al Qaeda to ISIS-inspired terrorism. So, next year, as our focus and fears shift more to America, so will Homeland's.

Carrie will take up life in Virginia or wherever and when there is an attack in Washington (did that in season one) or thus more likely in New York, Carrie, under pressure from Saul will agree to return to her true calling and become engaged in tracking down domestic terrorists. As a Mom, how could she say no.

Or at least that's my hope.

I've given up on Girls, Good Wife, and Younger so please, producers and writers, keep Homeland focused on tracking down evil. If we can't seem to figure out what to do in real life, I need the escape of Carrie's preternatural ability to keep us safe.

Or baring that, I'll be left with streaming Mozart On the Hudson and Master of None.

Then there are books. I'm determined to work my way through the 900 pages of City On Fire. Lots of luck. I read the first 50 pages and set it aside.

November 30, 2105--The Legacy Business

I know, all recent presidents do it toward the end of their second terms--play the legacy game.

Nancy Reagan put Ronnie under pressure to focus on arms control during his last years in office to counteract the perception that he was a rigid, unrepentant Cold Warrior. He was so good at being flexible with the leadership of the Soviet Union that he was able to strike a series of arms control agreements with Mikhail Gorbachev that contributed a few years later to the collapse of the USSR and the end (at least until now) of the Cold War.

George W. Bush, stung by increasing criticism of of his Middle East policy, jettisoned one of the leading public faces of that failed war policy--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld--and committed himself to pulling all combat troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq. He saw that to be an essential ingredient of his legacy, also pushed along to do so by his wife.

Which brings us to Barack Obama--the inheritor of various failed Bush policies, from a collapsed economy, out-of-control deficits, and Bush's unfulfilled pledge to withdraw our combat troops from the region, something Obama more or less carried out as part of his own legacy-building agenda.

Obama, in fact, has been thinking about his legacy from almost day one.

He did not want to go down in history as just "the first African-American president." He cared at least as much about substance. Thus Obamacare was a major accomplishment unto itself but also prime-cut legacy material--he uniquely was able to bring about a dramatic expansion of healthcare coverage, an unachieved goal of all presidents from at least Harry Truman days. As Joe Biden said at the time, "This is a f ***king big deal."

So that legislative achievement may make the first paragraph of his Wikipedia entry.

The same legacy claim was made when he appointed Sonia Sotomayer to the Supreme Court, the first Hispanic to serve.

Then, more recently, with his presidential clock counting down, Obama and his people began to think even more overtly about his legacy.

The nuclear deal with Iran is claimed to be his capstone foreign policy achievement and a big legacy item. Ditto for the recent Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. And even yesterday's headline on page one of the New York Times about the current climate summit was titled, "Obama's Legacy at Stake in Paris Talks on Climate Accord."

Not, the "World's Future at Stake in Paris Climate Talks."

That would be the more appropriate headline considering the nature of the problem--not Obama's legacy but the fate of Earth.

So, enough with the legacy business. We have serious issues to face. Including the defeat of ISIS/ISIL/IS/ or Daesh

In legacy terms this is not going well for Obama who just a day before the Paris massacre declared "ISIL contained."

Again, in legacy terms, it is sadly understandable that he was reluctant to appear too upset by the situation in the Middle East and now Europe. He doesn't want to rise of ISIL to creep onto the first page of his Wiki entry much less future histories of his presidency.

November 20, 2105--ISIS v.ISIL

Most of the right-wing radio talk-show hosts I monitor in the middle of the night are so frustrated, almost  speechless, so descended into sputtering about what is going on in France and the Middle East that a recent focus of their anger and impotence is calling Barack Obama to task, actually savaging him,  for his stubborn insistence on calling the Jihadist terrorists ISIL while most of the rest of us "ordinary folks" refer to them as ISIS.

Small differences in ordinary circumstances but in the current inflamed state of things yet another opportunity to rant and fulminate.

ISIS gained its name as the Iraqi branch of al Qaeda after it invaded Syria in 2013. ISIS is the acronym for "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" or "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham," which is the original Arabic name for the caliphate in the region.

ISIL stands for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." A much larger region that stretches to the eastern shore of the Mediterranean and includes present day Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, and Jordan. The Obama administration prefers ISIL claiming it is a better translation for al-Sham.

A few things--

By thinking about the regional terrorists as active in all of the Levant, rather than "just" Syria and Iraq, isn't Obama granting them more geographic girth and influence than thinking about them as more contained?

Also, Levant etymologically and historically is a French construct. From the Middle French lever, literally "to rise," meaning, from a literal European perspective, facing east to the Orient where the sun rises. Couple this with the traditional European-defined lands of the "Orient," also of French origin, from the Old French oriri, "to rise," and the Middle Eastern region becomes the Orient, which in the Near East includes the Levant and those who study it "orientalists." None of these any longer politically correct.

Except perhaps, with deep irony, to Barack Obama who should know better.

What does President Obama's surprisingly Eurocentric insistence on ISIL suggest?

Nothing good. It seemingly means that to him ISIL is even more widespread in its influence than it currently, fortunately, is. And by viewing them as ISIL, cedes to them the possibility that over time, unthwarted, they will seize all the lands of the Levant.

The Eurocentrism is also surprising and disappointing for a president who came into office pledging that he would treat all of the world, especially the Islamic world, more equitably and less xenophobically than his predecessors.

Additionally, unreported in the posturing and demagogy on all sides is the fact that the Levant plus the current Iraq is the final playing field for all three religions of the Book--messianic Judaism, evangelical Christianity, and apocalyptical Islam--as they all, in their most extreme expression, await and look forward to the End Time when the world will end in a cataclysm.

Thus it is understandable that many, especially those on the right who hate and feel put down by Obama's dispassionate, patronizing professorial tone, would find his stubbornness, even fixation on ISIL maddening. Even if they know nothing about the Levant or connect any of this to eschatological matters.

November 19, 2015--By the Numbers

I noted here previously that the true horror of Paris is not equal to the number killed and wounded.

Yes, 129 were killed outright and another 350 wounded, some critically. And another 224 were killed last month when ISIS brought down a Russian charter jet over the Sinai Desert.

But in other, earlier terrorist actions about as many and sometimes more were slaughtered and maimed.

Thus, in an attempt to keep emotions from overwhelming us, including policy makers, government officials, and the public, it is important to keep things in perspective. I suspect, though he wasn't overt about it, this attempt to contain heated calls to rush to declare World War III, one explanation for President Obama's tepid response is that he was trying to keep his head while others about him were losing theirs and beating the drums of war.

Me included.

Here then is the bloody scorecard--

The terrorist bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 killed 161 Americans. Ronald Reagan promptly withdrew all forces from the region. And, tellingly, was not widely criticized for doing so.

In 1998, simultaneously in Tanzania and Kenya two American embassies were bombed. 224 were killed. It was the first time al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were brought to the public's attention.

During the peak of the Madrid morning rush hour, in March 2004, four commuter trains were hit with ten bombs by al Qaeda-inspired terrorists. 191 were killed and another 1,800 wounded.

And then of course, on September 11, 2001, four passenger jets were taken over by al Qaeda jihadists and deliberately crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and, when passengers fought back, a field in Shanksville Pennsylvania. 2,996 in the planes and workers in the buildings were killed. Another 415 first responders lost their lives.

And then there are deaths of a different sort--

22,000 die annually of drug overdoses. 32,000 die on the highways in car crashes. Another 41,000 commit suicide. 12,500 are killed with legal handgun and assault weapons.

In the latter cases there is no panic, no calls for dramatic action, and certainly no rush to either judgement or retribution. We accept these fatalities as we accept the inevitability of the sun rise and tides. As if they were natural, unremediable phenomena.

November 17, 2015--ISIS's Oil

I haven't been paying enough attention to how ISIS funds itself.

Mainly by stealing Iraqi oil I am embarrassed to admit I recently leaned. To the tune of at least $50 million a month's worth. About half-a-billion a year.

The oil comes from wells in northern Iraq, territory that ISIS now controls, and then is trucked overland into Syria and, after that, who knows.

But it has been working well for ISIS and up to now has not been interdicted by Syrian rebels, Western powers, or--and here's my rub--the United States.

One would think that with drones, satellite technology, and smart weapons easily deployed by fighter planes safely plying the skies looking for targets of opportunity, that given the go-ahead by allied forces' commanders in chief--particularly ours--it wouldn't require more than a few days to take out the oil trucks that go back and forth, east and west, through wide-open desert, at 45 miles per hour, without a place to hide.

Why then didn't we begin to bomb these facilities and trucks until two or three days ago? Why for years have we allowed this illicit commerce to take place in plain sight? Commerce that generates enough money to fund much of ISIS's evil business?

As best as I can learn the United States and it allies (such as they are) didn't want to do any permanent damage to Iraq's petroleum infrastructure. We have had the belief that ISIS would quickly be rolled up and things in the Iraqi oil fields would return to "normal." Very much in quotes.

Also, there was concern about killing civilians, mainly the drivers.

But now it appears that we feel battling ISIS will take a long time and concluding that drivers of these rigs are hardly civilians, we have turned attention to destroying the tanker trucks.

There appear to be 1,000 of them. One thousand! All easily spotted on Google Earth and of course, in even greater detail, through whatever the U.S. has in its surveillance arsenal.

In just a few days of bombing and strafing runs, according to reports in the New York Times, we have destroyed up to a quarter of them. Perhaps 250. In another few days most will have been blown up and it will no longer be easy for ISIS to remain in the oil business.

This previous hands-off approach to the ISIS oil trade also was based on the assertion that ISIS was effectively "contained" in Iraq and Syria, as claimed incredibly by President Obama just days before the uncontained attacks in Beirut and Paris.

All sorts of gears are being shifted as the result of these massive intelligence failures.

While I am ranting, I have two more questions for the Obama administration. An administration that has been ignoring reality as it attempts to "polish" its legacy. With only 15 months left in office, Obama wants to repaint reality--to claim that he ended two wars begun by George W. Bush and thus has no intention of getting in a new one against ISIS. This in spite of the fact that we are in reality half-heartedly fighting a war against ISIS.

But since we are in a version of war with ISIS why not fight smarter? Two things might help--

First, why not take down all jihadist Websites? The ones ISIS uses to promote itself and recruit young people from the Western democracies? And the ones they used to communicate among themselves, including using them to coordinate terrorist activities.

And why don't we through cyber-warfare tools disable the tanks and armored vehicles ISIS has stolen from Iraqi security forces? Vehicles and weapon systems that we manufactured and turned over to Iraqi soldiers which in turn were captured and are now being used against us by ISIS fighters?

I was just reading in Wired magazine how it is relatively easy to hack into people's Fords and Toyotas, to in effect disable them. So why not do the same thing to our Humvees and tanks that are now (see below) in ISIS's hands? I assume they are just as hackable.

If they aren't we should immediately reconfigure any weapons we sell or give to allies which inevitably get into the hands of very bad guys. As in Afghanistan where we covertly supplied the Mujahideen with weapons to use when fighting off Soviet invaders which in turn were used against us after the Mujahideen morphed into the Taliban.

I am wondering if anyone in our government and military is paying attention to these obvious things.

If not, it will be to our everlasting regret.

November 16, 2105--ISIS in Paris

I may have a different perspective after I, perhaps, cool down.

God knows there have been much worse cases of barbarism, evil during my lifetime. Even quite recently. By the numbers, ISIS's blowing the Russian plane out of the sky over the Sinai killed more innocent people than the seven or eight coordinated attacks in Paris.

Numerically, the terrorist bombings in Mumbai, Spain, Beirut, and of course on 9/11 killed and maimed more people, but there is something different about ISIS than al Qaeda. Something different for me about Paris than even New York.

That tells you how in a rage I am about what happened Friday night.

OK, I used the e-word. Evil.

All of these terrorist atrocities, including the pubic beheadings, are more than "cowardly acts." If there is such a thing as evil, this is it. Have there been worse examples? Of course. Including in France.

The French, among other "civilized" people, during the Second World War rounded up and shipped many thousands of their Jews to certain death in Nazi Germany.

A special definition of evil is necessary to categorize the various holocausts of the 20th century.

But what was perpetrated Friday still qualifies as dastardly. Unspeakable. All too human in its inhumanness.

Words fail.

French president Hollande says this was an act of "war." The Pope said we are in "World War III." Both may be right.

If we are, what then does that mean?

France is a linchpin of the NATO alliance. NATO's charter in effect says that "an attack on one is an attack on all." That includes us. The United States.

That charter was written well before al Qaeda and ISIS existed. It was for a time when there were credible threats of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. What does it mean now when the definition of war had shifted? Does it mean that the U.S. is also at war? That because France was "attacked," that it experienced more than an evil act of terrorism, we too have been attacked and thus are obligated to act accordingly? To join them in waging war?

I do not know how to think about this. What I do know is that this has struck me deeply. I have even been gathering information about going to France, Paris, this week. As an act of solidarity and defiance.

Rona thinks I'm crazy. She's right. I am.

Minimally I am trying to think about what France should do, more appropriately, as an American citizen what we should do because I do think we are at war.

Yes, I know how we got there. Not solely as the result of President Obama's weak leadership--though he has been weak and that hasn't helped, feeling that the "Arab Spring" would help bring about versions of democracy to the region. This just as naive in its own way as George W. Bush's delusion that toppling Saddam Hussein would do that for Iraq and surrounding dictatorships.

What matters now is what to do going forward.

Drone-guided bombings will not get the job done. Depending on lightly-armed Kurd forces on the ground will not defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Russia's involvement, even if it shifts to confront ISIS rather than Syrian rebels, will not get the job done.

Nothing this simple, this limited will work.

I can hardly believe I am thinking this, but only a massive, boots-on-the-ground force of American troops has any chance of succeeding. Perhaps 100,000 are required. Maybe more.

This would mean many casualties, even the beheading of captured U.S. soldiers. But does anyone have a better, more realistic idea?

I hate this. Hate all of it. But I am feeling radicalized.

ISIS has to be shown to be a failure in order to stem the flow of young lunatics to its "cause." Disaffiliated youth from the Islamic world as well as from Europe and the United States are partly drawn to ISIS because it is perceived to be winning. This encourages those with distorted minds to believe that the apocalypse they seek is near at hand. Defeat ISIS, devastate it, and that belief system will crumble.

I am sorry. I wish I could believe in the effectiveness of diplomacy and financial warfare, including bombing the oil fields and petroleum distribution system in ISIS-controlled territory.

I don't.

As long as they feel they are winning, ISIS fighters can live on fumes. They are that motivated and tenacious.

So they have to be killed. All of them would be ideal. As many as possible is imperative.

Again, I can't believe these worlds are coming from me. I have up to now considered myself to be moderate, essentially pacifistic. Not any more.

Paris on Friday changed that.

When will we too again feel the pain and fear?

August 25, 2015--Intimacy of Evil

In her remarkable book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt writes about the "banality of evil." How Adolf Eichmann, though he was responsible for the transport system that herded millions of Jews to concentration camps and their ultimate slaughter, was not in the ordinary sense actively and directly evil, but was a bureaucrat who, in a perverse sense, was carrying out orders as expeditiously and efficiently as possible.

For discussing Eichmann in this way--as a banal functionary and not a passionate anti-semite or a fanatical ideologue--Arendt was widely criticized as not holding him sufficiently responsible for his deeds--that he was, she was interpreted as saying, just doing his job. That his actions were "ordinary."

Quite the contrary--she saw his version of evil in a particularly horrific way--how it was manifested in a very average man which left the suggestion that there is a thin human line between "normality" and there ability to commit unspeakable evil. That someone so ordinary, so inconspicuous could participate so dispassionately in one of history's most heinous collective crimes.

I thought--how different is the evil being perpetrated today by ISIS.

We have been sad and outraged witnesses to their public beheadings and other barbaric crimes against innocent people in the lands they have overrun and subjugated to their merciless rule.

Just last week, in the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra, ISIS warriors slaughtered the keeper of its more-than-2000-year-old archeological treasures. Treasures considered so noteworthy and historically significant as to be listed a UNESCO World Heritage site.

To ISIS, since the temples and magnificent artifacts predate the advent of Islam, were built before the prophet Mohammed was born, they are the work of infidels and need to be brutally eliminated as do any people who do not embrace or follow ISIS's version of Islam.

Making an emphatic point of this, they hauled 83-year-old Khalid al-Asaad, the keeper of the antiquities for more than 50 years, into the town square and, after ordering all citizens to come forth as witnesses, according to the report in the New York Times, "cut off his head in front of the crowd" and then "his blood-soaked body was suspended with red twine by his wrists from a traffic light, his head resting on the ground between his feet, his glasses still on."

This is not the banality of evil.

This is not the impersonal imposition of slaughter.

This is not evil propagated from a bureaucrat's office or delivered from 30,000 feet.

This is not using current technology to force victims into "showers" and once there dispense with them by the administration of the latest in poison gases and then with bulldozers pushing the mounds of bodies into open trenches where the machines bury the dead and the evidence.

This is not evil where no one is touched. Where everything is by schedule and assisted by state-of-the-art technology.

ISIS's is the intimacy of evil. Not its banality.

These evil-doers hold victims in their arms. With their own hands they hold up victims' heads. And then, in that ugly embrace, cut off their heads. And then place them carefully on the ground, making sure eyeglasses are carefully arranged.

A friend here who is essentially a pacifist wants "to nuke" them. Minimally place enough American "boots on the ground"--even 200,000 if necessary--to kill them all. Kill them all.

I get it.

June 1, 2015--Remapping

Over breakfast at Balthazar late last week with a well-travelled friend, despite our attempt to be optimistic about things, he couldn't resist asking what I thought was happening in the Middle East.

"You need to bring that up while I'm still enjoying my scone?" I said as playfully as I could.

"Well, in fact there may be things to feel good about."

"Really?" I was skeptical.

"Put in perspective."

"In perspective?" I was still skeptical.

"Very long term perspective."

"Again, really? How does that work?"

"Maybe what's happening has to happen. If we think about the long sweep of history, I mean."

Beginning to get was he was suggesting, I said, "I guess you could push me to make a very-guardedly optimistic case for the region if you gave me maybe a 100-year time frame to project things onto."

"Look," he said, "I'm British and am old enough to have seen massive changes in our position in the world. I had family members who worked for the Colonial Service in South Asia. When India was in effect a British colony. Some of of the change was bloody others more peaceful."

"More than 'in effect,'" I said. "Look, you're as old as I am--and that's pretty old--and though I don't remember from personal history about the changes in your empire as the result of the American Revolution, they were profound."

"Very amusing," he said, "The  very old business."

"The results of the Revolution changed the map for a large part of the Western Hemisphere. And led to even more change when France made its Louisiana Territory available for purchase."

"And later you follows grabbed from Mexico a large part of what is now the American West. California very much included."

"Yes as a result of the Mexican War during the 1840s and don't forget ten years or so after that the Gadsden Purchase which allowed us to flesh out our southwestern border. And then later still there was the bargain-basement purchase from Russia of Alaska."

"So project onto that what is going on right now in the Middle East."

"For some years I've been thinking about that and writing about it on my blog--how if one looks at the map of the current Middle East, Africa, and parts of Asia for that matter, we see the remnants of big-power colonial domination and the national borders that were imposed on Arab people, as well as Persians, Jews, Turks, and others after, for example, the First World War. Newly constituted or created countries that still exist. On paper at least. Countries without borders that take history or culture or religion into consideration. So, once the colonial powers backed off--and that includes us in the U.S.--things began to unravel."

"That's an understatement," my friend said.

"So perhaps what we're seeing is a remapping. Is that your optimistic scenario?"

"For me as well very-guardedly optimistic. Yes. That's what I'm thinking."

"I've been thinking and saying that too. How what we are seeing is an assertion on the ground of various Islamic factions seeking violently to settle scores and slough off the boundaries that they have been forced to live with by the Western powers. Borders that ignored culture. And, through the support and cynical use of dictators such as Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, and the Saudi royal family, among others, attempted to tamp down and contain nationalistic strivings and the natural forces of history."

"So in your remapping scenario," my British friend said, sipping his morning tea, "you agree that this is something that has to happen? That's inevitable?"

"Yes. In history, there has been a lot of remapping. That which is the result of warfare where the victors impose new boundaries. The American, French, and Russian Revolutions are examples as is the fall of the Ottoman Empire during World War I."

"Other examples are the result of the invasions of exploding empires--the Roman Empire and Islamic Caliphate that dominated most of north Africa and western Europe. And of course our British Empire. The one where the sun never set."

"We could go on. The point being that what gets left behind or imposed as the result of these powerfully aggressive movements result in unnatural affiliations where people of very different backgrounds are forced to think about themselves as Iraqis or Syrians or Libyans. Big picture--there is no such thing as an Iraqi. Nationalities of this kind have been constructed by conquerers. This goes against the history of these peoples where they think about themselves as Sunnis or Shia or Kurds, not Iraqis. And as a result, what we have wrought are powder kegs throughout the region waiting for some spark to ignite them. And we're seeing those sparks all over the world. Very much including the emergence of ISIS."

"Thus my optimistic thought," my friend said. "As I said, perhaps there has to be this movement toward the reestablishment of cultural borders. Maybe even a few that are fluid since some of the people who live in the region are nomadic. Also, in some cases this may not even involve the concept of 'country' or 'nation.' And this of course doesn't mean that peace will break out. There will still be disputes and incursions but hopefully not at the level of all-out warfare."

"Sounds good to me, though, if you're right, I won't be around to see it."

"There you go again about being old. In the meantime, can I treat you to another cup of coffee and maybe some toast?"

May 21, 2105--Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Help Wanted. Must Be Willing to Travel

Though oil prices have declined precipitously during the the past year, things appear to still be looking good for our former-best-friends in Saudi Arabia.

There are numerous unfilled openings for well-paying jobs across many sectors.

Including for executioners.

According to the New York Times, there are so many waiting to be beheaded (or be-handed) that on the Ministry of Civil Service's website the Saudi government is advertising for up to eight executioners.

No special skills are required nor any particular kind of educational background. Just the ability to "carry out the death sentence according to Islamic Shariah after it is ordered by a legal ruling."

Candidates, though, must be able to handle a heavy workload since there apparently is a huge backlog of murderers and those convicted of other major crimes who need to be beheaded plus many others, thieves, who are waiting to have their hands chopped off.

But it appears that there is a shortage of experienced swordsmen in many regions of Saudi Arabia and so it may be some time before all eight positions are filled. In the meantime, those on Saudi Death Row are piling up. Last Sunday, a man convicted of a drug offense was publicly beheaded, making him the 85th person executed thus far this year. According to Human Rights Watch during all of last year "only" 88 were beheaded. So you can see what executioners there are facing.

In the past, the execution business was a father-son profession, with the job passed down from generation to generation. This appears to be less true today; and of course, to alleviate the shortage, it is not likely that fathers will pass down the sword to their daughters. Among other things, how would they be able to get from assignment to assignment since women in Saudi Arabia are not permitted to drive. Thus the public job posting.

On the website there is no mention of how much the jobs pay. Traditionally, since even in Saudi Arabia these are not full-time jobs, these swordsmen typically work as guards for members of the royal family and then do their beheadings on the side, apparently receiving a bonus of at least $1,000 per. How much they get for amputating hands is not known.

But I have a solution for the hard-pressed Saudis--perhaps they should consider subcontracting with ISIS. It appears that they have no shortage of members experienced in beheadings.

May 18, 2015--ISIS Takes Ramadi

It was reported yesterday afternoon that ISIS forces took the Iraqi city of Ramadi, the capitol of Anbar Provence--the site of George W. Bush's famous "surge."

Despite intensive U.S. missile and drone strikes and a seemingly strong defense put up by Iraqi security forces, ISIS drove them from their positions and took control of the city. With a population of 500,000, Ramadi is Iraq's 10th largest and lies just 68 miles west of Baghdad.

I have one question--

How did this happen?

Over 10 years we spent hundreds of billions of dollars of American taxpayer money to train an Iraqi defense forces that could defend itself from threats of this kind.

In much less time, with little money and materiel, apparently under the radar, the Islamic State, is clearly able to launch attacks successfully in spite of what one would imagine would be effective resistance by the U.S. and the Iraqi army that we trained.

If we wanted an army that could fight, we should have hired ISIS to do the training rather than turning it over to Blackwater.

How is it that this training of ISIS forces was unknown to us?  Don't we have drones and satellites to keep an eye on such things? ISIS trained thousands, not a few dozen, and this should have been apparent to us from week one.

Why is it that using Google Earth I'm able to see Rona's 2x4-foot planters on our terrace but the U.S. and its allies weren't able to spot ISIS efforts to train what is feeling to be an invincible force?

Can anyone help me out here because I am very confused. And angry.

April 6, 2015--The Iran Deal

I just heard this on Face the Nation.

Without blinking Senator Lindsay Graham said that the deal with Iran regarding its nuclear weapons program is not acceptable because it was negotiated by Barack Obama. He didn't cite one specific disagreement with the outline of the agreement (he didn't appear to have read it), rather he said that if Obama had anything to do with it by definition it is flawed and that we should not do anything regarding Iran until we have a new president. He mentioned that Hillary Clinton and all the Republican candidates except Rand Paul could do a better job.

Not do anything, I assume, means that before president-elect Cruz is inaugurated it would be OK if Obama decided we needed to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. That is, if Graham's favorite chief executive, Benjamin Netanyahu, who is now running the Republican Party, offers his approval. And of course his bromantic pal John McCain gets out his bomb, bomb, bomb Iran dancing shoes.

Netanyahu, also, made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows to attack the agreement, revealing that he as well hasn't read it since everything specific he mentioned was either not true or, in true demagogue fashion, totally made up by Bibi.

Republicans led by Graham are foaming at the mouth that Obama may very well have pulled off something historic. First the historic Obamacare, then a substantially restored economy, and now this. Something no one thought possible. What if half-African Barack Hussein Obama were to go down in history as a near-great president. Not just the first President of color. What will Lindsay and all the over-50-year old white boys think about that? Nothing good.

We used to be closely allied with Iran. It was one of Jackie Kennedy's favorite places to visit and all Republicans until Ronald Reagan couldn't say enough nice things about the Shah and his dictatorial leadership--just what was needed to keep those Wahhabi extremists in line. And recall, Reagan almost got himself impeached when his administration got caught playing footsie with the Ayatollahs in order to get arms sent illegally to the Contras in Nicaragua.

Whatever one thinks of the Shah and the current leadership, Iran is a real country (not created by colonial powers after the Second World War) with a proud history as Persia. Persia which back in the day dominated much of what we now refer to as the Middle East or the Islamic world. And, not so between the lines in the agreement just negotiated are allusions to that remarkable history and the unexpressed hope that if Iran behaves itself in regard to ratcheting back its nuclear program, and thereby is once again welcomed back into the community of nations, maybe, just maybe they will begin to step back from funding al Qaeda, ISIS, and Hezbollah.

Hidden in the details of the proposed agreement between Iran and the group of nations that negotiated it is a note about what is to become of the centrifuges in Fordo, Iran's most secret, best protected nuclear fuel concentration facility. Most of the centrifuges will be deactivated (and inspected regularly to avoid cheating) but some 1,000 will continue to spin.

Here's what's revealing--though they will remain on line they will not contain any fissile material. They will continue to spin and spin impotently but, for the sake of Iranian pride will not produce anything but continue to fuel Iran's image of itself as a great and powerful nation. Which it was and is.

Hopefully over the decade, in other ways, Persia will act more and more that way.

So it's time for the big boys, the few adults in Congress to step up, swallow their hatred of President Obama and grab a bit of history for themselves. Our security and future may depend on it.

Fordo