Road to Damascus, Part II

Some years ago I wrote about another voyage down the road to Damascus (here). It seems we are on that road, again, under a new tour guide.

US, UK, and French forces have launched a series of attacks on Syrian facilities.

The initial press reporting is somewhat garbled so it will take time to get the details right, but it seems that we are attacking to degrade Syria's ability to conduct future chemical warfare. That's pretty vague, I know, but as I said we will have to wait for further details. Such "degrading" could involve attacks on chemical weapons' stores, manufacturing centers, military units capable of conducting such warfare, supporting infrastructure of various types, and, of course, on Russian and Iranian support mechanisms. The attacks could also be aimed at degrading Assad's military capabilities, in general, and at embarrassing the Russians and Iranians by demonstrating to Assad that his friends can't spare him the pain we can inflict. In recent weeks, as Secretary-designate Pompeo confirmed, we, in fact, have been in direct combat with Russian "mercenaries," killing hundreds of them, it seems. I trust we will not go for the regime change brass ring, a la Libya, but we will see.

President Trump inherited a mess in Syria. "Mess" is too kind a word. Even the Israelis who have a vested and primordial interest in Syrian developments do not seem to have it figured out except for the part of being very reluctant to knock off Assad--something which the Israelis could have done any time in the past many years.

Although located in "far away" Syria, that mess posed a threat to America and the West. We could not go on with Obama's lackluster (at best) efforts to contain the growing ISIS caliphate and its rising prestige in the Islamic world. That mess also involves a multi-sided civil and international war with shifting alliances, Kurds, murky rebel groups of undetermined loyalty and reliability, Russian "mercenaries," regular Russian forces, Turkish forces, Iranians and their proxies, and, of course, Assad who when dealing with the West poses as the bulwark against ISIS, but who is perfectly happy to kill Kurds and others who do most of the actual fighting against ISIS.

My default position which comes from 34 years in government service is to shut up and support the troops once they go into action. The time for debate is over. I just hope that we have a plan with a realizable and positive goal, and that we are not just floundering as we did under Obama/Clinton/Kerry.  I certainly trust the instincts and leadership abilities of President Trump, NSC chief Bolton, and SecDef Mattis much more than I did those of the late and unlamented Obama misadministration.

Mueller Must Go

It's time for the Mueller Circus to follow the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus into retirement. The Ringling/B&B died from declining ticket sales and the persistent assault by animal lovers, especially the elephant lobby's charges that the pachyderms were being mistreated. Fine. I never cared for the circus, and found the animals in it to look tired and unhappy; I never liked an institution that depends on clowns for its viability. The same can be said about the Mueller version of the Greatest Show on Earth.

The President should fire Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, and Special Counsel Mueller, and take a deep, deep look into the functioning of the DOJ and the FBI. There will be a political uproar; the Dems and their media acolytes will scream about obstruction and impeachment. Yeah, yeah. They're doing that, anyhow, so let's get this Mueller monstrosity over and done with. Either that or begin naming Special Counsels right and left: one for Hillary Clinton; one for Loretta Lynch; one for Eric Holder; one for James Comey; one for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and her Pakistani gang; one for Chuck Schumer; one for Nancy Pelosi; one for Governor Brown; and, of course, why not name one to investigate Bob Mueller, himself?

No need to push or cut in the queue, folks! We have a line of Torquemada wannabes stretching to the horizon! The government has lots of money! Everybody gets a Special Counsel!

The FBI raid on President Trump's private attorney should be the final straw that breaks the poor abused camel's back. The raid took place, apparently, as a consequence of something that Mueller found out while investigating something else entirely, or so they say. Who knows? In my view, the raid on a private attorney's office and the taking of client files was simply outrageous and of questionable legality.

I know, I know. We are seeing the prog media and others go on about how such a raid could and would be approved only after multiple levels of safeguards had been gone through, so if all those honorable people cleared off, there must be "something," right? Nonsense. After all the abuses of federal power that we have seen these past few years, who the hell believes that? We can be just about 100% certain that the "process" was a Swamp Freak asking a Swamp Clown, "Hey about this for an insurance policy to prevent Trump from being President?" To name just a few abuses, we have seen the progs use the IRS, the EPA, the ATF,  the BLM, the CIA, the NSA, and, of course, the FBI/DOJ misuse of the FISA process to wage war to keep the Swamp Creature Freak Show in the center ring. The progs also have formed alliances with the high tech gurus of Silicon Valley to spy on and silence critics by "de-platforming" them with charges of "hate speech." I got hit with that myself.

Zero doubt now exists, if ever any did, that Mueller forms part of the prog effort to delegitimize the Trump Presidency, and to destroy it and him, personally, for daring to question the established wisdom of "how things get done." This effort was underway during the election when FISA, relying on a fake DNC-purchased dossier, was used to monitor the Trump campaign. The "unmasking," the salacious leaks, all of that failed to prevent Trump's victory in November 2016. Immediately after that election, the progs launched attacks on the vote totals ("Recount!") and on the electoral college ("Electors defect!"), as well as on Trump's patriotism ("Russia! Russia!") They launched riots in the streets, and even before he had taken office demanded and plotted impeachment.

No human's character and reputation now or in the past could withstand an investigation into every facet of his or her life by a prosecutor armed with a political and personal agenda, an unlimited budget, an open-ended mandate, and all the time in the world. Nobody could make it through that unscathed.

Beria and Himmler, looking up from hell, smile.

This must stop.

Fire Ringmaster Rosenstein and Chief Clown Mueller. Shut down this show.

A Quiet Place

I continue avoiding doing my taxes and writing about politics.

Instead, I, reluctantly, went to the movies with a couple of my sons and one of their significant others. They insisted we go see "A Quiet Place." As noted, I went reluctantly as I generally do not like modern "creature feature" sic-fi such as "Alien" and others of that ilk.

So . . . surprise! This film was actually very, very good--excellent, in fact, and I highly recommend it.

John Krasinski--he of "Office" (US version) and "13 Hours" fame--is the director, co-writer, and one of the stars along with his real-life wife Emily Blunt--she of "I am ashamed of my US citizenship!" fame--and a set of very talented children actors. By now you probably all know the premise: a post-apocalyptic world where the few human survivors struggle against a generally unseen horde of carnivorous creatures that react to sound. Humans survive by being quiet. Was this funded by a librarian lobby?

The film is beautifully shot in rural upstate New York. Krasinski, frankly, does a masterful job as director. It is, in fact, one of the best directing jobs I have seen in a long time. The tension in the movie is intense and unrelenting; the pacing is superb. I also liked that instead of having some introductory text scroll across the screen explaining the disaster and setting the scene, or some off-screen narrator filling us in, Krasinski cleverly, almost casually, provides some of the back story to the apocalypse: passing shots of dirty old newspapers announcing the disaster; a faded bulletin-board in the background with pictures of missing persons; the family looking for medicine in a ransacked and decrepit supermarket (an Aldi?) which still has a full stock of loud crunchy chips--no scavenger, no matter how desperate, wants those, and for good reason--and a wonderfully understated scene in which the family lights a fiery beacon at night, and in the background wilderness we see faint widely-scattered beacons from other families.

The barefoot characters hardly talk with each other, and use American sign language, instead. The acting is superb by all involved as the players must convey a range of emotions and thoughts almost always wordlessly to avoid the sound-seeking creatures--which make rare but heart-pounding appearances in the film.

The film has flaws, of course: e.g., the family farm still has electricity for which no explanation is given; the lack of defensive barriers, including, for example, an electric fence or barbed wire is puzzling; and the presence of a strategically placed nail is not explained. Why, furthermore, doesn't the family join forces with other survivors? But, never mind that stuff. This is a great and thoughtful horror movie with a surprisingly conservative theme.

I don't know if Krasinski and Blunt, two typical Hollywood libs, meant to do it, but their movie provides a strong depiction of the power of a traditional family--it does not take a village to raise, educate and protect these kids. This film pounds home the at-times gut-wrenching responsibility parents have to protect their children from the monsters out there--and that parents despite their best efforts don't always succeed. We see a pro-life stance (in a Hollywood movie!) as the Emily Bunt character becomes pregnant and gives birth despite all the risks. The birth scene is quite harrowing, and Blunt does a tremendous acting job. The family also prays silently before dinner--not a vegan meal, by the way. Both father and mother understand their equal but different roles in protecting the children. There is even a pro-gun element: a mother's love and a Remington 870 prove a useful combination when fighting monsters.

Go see it . . but make sure your phone is off and you don't eat anything crunchy . . . you never know what might be lurking out there in the dark.

Marginalia

No great insights today. Have been a bit unplugged from the news and politics. Instead have been exploring the Raleigh-Durham area in the absence of the Diplowife who's in California. Joined a very nice gun range (Triangle Shooting Academy) and took a couple of my S&W 40s to blast away at some hapless targets. Fun time was had by the Diplomad.

I earlier went "shopping" at an ALDI supermarket--didn't actually buy anything. That chain, of course, is quite popular in Europe and has begun to move into the US market. I don't know. I was not impressed. The irritating and very European habit of having to insert a coin to get a shopping cart, I did not find charming. Who the hell carries coins anymore? I found the store somewhat dim and dreary; it evoked old memories of shopping in socialist third world countries.

The products? Boring, over-priced, and poorly packaged and exhibited. Truth be told, however, I probably won't buy organic tofu burgers no matter how nicely packaged, so, I guess, you should not waste any marketing glitz on me, Herr ALDI. As far as I could tell, ALDI seems to be where angry social justice progressives, clutching recycled shopping bags and driving expensive cars, go to shop. I did not detect a whole lot of Trump supporters there. Am I  being unfair? Probably, but, hey, since I got kicked off of Twitter, I have to vent against somebody . . .

What news I did see is just more of the same. I, however, was impressed with Trump taking some significant steps on the immigration front. If, for example, the press reports are correct and he has suspended "catch and release," and asked the military to help not just in intercepting illegal aliens but holding them as they await their deportation hearings, that's a major development--perhaps. I am sure the policy will face all sorts of legal challenges, lots of virtue-signaling and tear-jerking accounts of this or that wonderful illegal alien imprisoned "unjustly," and, of course, it's only temporary since the next President can reverse it. Congress, however, remains MIA on immigration, so the President does what he can with what he has.

That's all I have got for now. Have to do my taxes. Been putting it off for as long as I can. This will, however, be the last year I pay California taxes, so there is that silver lining.

The Central American Caravan

A couple of days ago I posted a piece on Trump's foreign policy with a reference to the ancient Arabic saying, "The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."

News reports tell us there is another sort of caravan on the move. Some 1000-1200 Central Americans, aided it seems by progressive groups and the Mexican government, are "marching," driving, hiking, riding a train, whatever, on their way to the USA. It is some self-proclaimed "freedom caravan" that intends to arrive on our border, stream across, and then claim asylum in the USA from the violence in Honduras.

This seems to be a new take on the Moroccan "Green March" of 1975 used against Spain in the Western Sahara. The idea is defy the superior armed Western power to use force against a "popular" march which seeks only some altruistic goal. Very touching. You will notice these sorts of tactics are not used against certain countries known to shoot without compunction.

Anyhow, this little stunt is outrageous as it is being, as noted, aided by a nominally "friendly" country, Mexico (see my take on Mexico's friendliness here and here). Not only that, but legally the marchers have no case. If they are fleeing Honduras, they can seek asylum in Mexico, the first stop in their "escape." Mexico has the responsibility to grant them asylum, turn them over to the UN, or return them to their country of origin.

It is political season in Mexico, and the presidential candidates are trying to outdo each other in "standing up to the gringos." If this stunt succeeds, there will be a flood of similar "marches" very quickly. We either have a border or we don't. We either have a regime of laws or we don't. We either have a country or we don't. This is an existential threat as much if not more so than any actions by Russia, China, or the jihadi crazies.

We cannot just have the dogs bark. They have to bite.

One of the articles I link above noted that Mexico has over fifty diplomatic and consular missions in the United States; Honduras has about dozen missions here. All of these, the Mexican ones especially, are centers of political and immigration activism. The Mexicans, as I have noted before, have been quite open in their meddling in our internal affairs, including in the last elections.

We need to tell these governments in no uncertain terms that we intend to shut down half of their missions immediately, and will shut down others in accordance with their behavior. We, furthermore, need to tell them that we will cease issuing visas, and even shut the border to normal trade and tourism if these sorts of officially tolerated and sponsored events occur.

This is no joke. Serious as a heart attack.

Back from the Republic's Imperial Capital

Yes. I just got back from a few days in The Most Exalted Imperial Capital of Washington DC. Visiting my kids who live there and taking in the sights and the restaurants. The weather cooperated--mostly--and we generally had very nice days and nights, and the people were generally very nice as long as one did not raise politics. As I have said before, DC looks very good--a far cry from how it looked some forty years ago when I first lived there. Government is good business; wish I had bought stock in it.

The dogs stayed with my daughter and had to ride an elevator for the first time in their doggie lives. It was quite funny watching their reactions to the "room that moves." I believe it was the late great Robert Heinlein who said, "One man's magic is another man's engineering." I saw the look of awe in my dogs' eyes as the doors slid close on one scenario and then opened on another. Magic! The science is settled: technology is magic.

There was some weirdness afoot. I was walking down Massachusetts Avenue, and saw people coming out of a Methodist Church after Easter services. It was a racially mixed crowd and the people all seemed friendly with each other. I was somewhat taken aback by a large sign on the church building that read,

REPENT

We Repent for Our Origins in White Supremacy.

OK, I thought this actually is not a fun group of people. I walked more quickly before I could be asked by somebody to repent for something some long distant ancestor might or might not have done. Moses, after all, was kinda rough on the Egyptians . . .

Oh, well. It was all made good by the one thought running through my head, "Hillary Clinton is still not President." Can't be better than that.

Trump's Foreign Policy: The Dogs Bark, but the Caravan . . .

Perhaps it's that great minds think alike, or, perhaps, it's just coincidence. I have started a couple of drafts of a piece on President Trump's foreign policy gains, only to find that a few others have done the same--and probably better. I have vowed not to read anymore of them until I write my own little piece. You can find the competition in National Review, Powerline, and elsewhere.

We have heard a great deal from the media and the bureaucracy about the "hollowing out of the State Department." To give an idea of my thoughts on that, I direct my six readers to the blurb next to "my" photo at the side of this blog:

W. Lewis Amselem, long time US Foreign Service Officer; now retired; served all over the world and under all sorts of conditions. Convinced the State Department needs to be drastically slashed and reformed so that it will no longer pose a threat to the national interests of the United States.

Maybe President Trump read that? Judging from that long-ago written blurb, you could correctly conclude that I do not find it at all alarming to have the State Department asked to do with less. That, friends, is a good thing. We, of course, see moaning about those "deep cuts" to the State Department budget that will "gut" our diplomacy. Rubbish. Even with "deep cuts" the budget for State/AID remains in the $40 billion ballpark, which is a pretty big ballpark. The U.S. Foreign Service consists of over 8,000 diplomats, another over 7,500 "specialists," e.g., support personnel, plus AID officers, and a smattering of people from other agencies, such as the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce. In addition, 11-12,000 Civil Service employees work for State, most but not all in Washington, DC. So State has some 28,000 or more full-time employees, plus contractors, interns, and so on. That's a well-staffed Army division. That's a lot of people. That's too many people.

I long have held that you could cut this workforce by about one-third in a flash, and nobody would notice--well, except for those getting cut, and their landlords and real estate agents. With a little planning you could cut the whole thing in half, and have a much more nimble and productive organization. I, therefore, was not aghast, or in shock with horror, because a few positions got left vacant under the Trump Administration, or when the budget proposals were not as grand as in the past. No great foreign policy calamity will befall the Republic because a few "professionals" get their noses out of joint, or some useless programs get cut back. Cut! And cut some more! I've got lots of ideas of where to cut.

In a post written long, long ago (March 12, 2012), I noted that under the late and unlamented Obama/Clinton foreign affairs team, "there is no foreign policy coming from the White House, except a default position of apology, appeasement, and accommodation." It was all just show, what now would be called "virtue signaling." Not all of that, of course, was the fault of Obama or Clinton or her even more despicable successor, John "Christmas in Cambodia" Kerry.  There is a culture at State which I described as revolving,

around public displays of affection for the Secretary; more than that, it is based upon open adoration of the Secretary, who quickly becomes an almost mythical figure possessed of unbounded wisdom and insight. What we have, in other words, is a diluted version of North Korea. You go to staff meetings, and they ring with statements, such as "the Secretary has said," "the Secretary wants," and "the Secretary was right on point this morning." You have not seen grown people--mostly men--try to outdo themselves praising the Dear Leader until you have gone to a morning meeting at State chaired by somebody who just attended a prior staff meeting chaired by the Secretary. As the kids say, "OMG!" People you thought reasonable, lose all reason, all critical faculties as they rush to appear the Most Loyal Servant of the Secretary. These are supposed to be Americans, defenders of the Great Republic, but you expect them to break into Anna's song, absent the irony, 

"Yes, Your Majesty;No, Your Majesty.Tell us how low to go, Your Majesty;Make some more decrees, Your Majesty,Don't let us up off our knees, Your Majesty.Give us a kick, if you please, Your MajestyGive us a kick, if you would, Your Majesty Oh, That was good, Your Majesty!"

I haven't walked through the doorway at 2201 C St., NW, in quite some time, but I doubt things have gotten better. In fact, from all I hear sure they've gotten worse; I detect a sense of abandonment by the bureaucracy since the Trump Administration doesn't seem to worry too much about what the bureaucrats at Foggy Bottom have to say about foreign policy.

Folks, that's a good thing--unless you think foreign policy and diplomacy consist of doing what we always have done and getting the same results over and over. I remember, for example, the consternation at State when Reagan & Co. told us that we would have as our objective to roll-back the USSR. Horrors! "You can't do that! What about the UN? What about the Europeans? The World Order of the past 40 years? That's not how it's done!" I remember horrifying some arms control officials when I expressed that the best way to get Soviet disarmament was to increase ours and drive home to Moscow the futility of competing with the world's biggest economy. Lots of anger, especially from folks who made a very nice living conducting these seemingly endless disarmament negotiations in nice places such as Geneva and Helsinki with generous per diems. Innovation and questioning are not hallmarks of the State Department.

This President, perhaps more so than any other we've had, approaches foreign affairs with the cool detachment of an experienced businessman and negotiator concerned about the end result, not just the inputs. He asks, "Why? Why are we doing that when the USA doesn't benefit?" He is the exact opposite of the State Department belief in--irritating word--"deliverables." Prior to a top-level meeting with a senior foreigner, Department staff try to find a "deliverable," some sort of goody for our leadership to hand the alien potentate as a sign of our willingness to give more in the future. This President has the opposite approach: "I know what they're getting from us, what do we get from them? What's their 'deliverable' to us?" Shocking. He has no problem questioning the way things are--something not, as noted above, a strong point at State, or for that matter, of the usual international elites who get easily shocked by things such as Brexit, labelling Mad Kim as "Rocketman," threatening tariffs, backing out of the destructive Paris Climate Accord, etc.

Trump's approach, with or without the involvement of State, seems to be working. NATO is in better shape than it has been in  years. There is a glimmer of hope of meaningful progress on the Korean peninsula. The Middle East is doing much better now that ISIS has been virtually annihilated. We are moving our Embassy to Jerusalem with barely a peep out of the Arab world. The Saudis and Israelis (as predicted by this humble blog some years ago) are getting together in their opposition to Iran. Iranian boats have stopped harassing our fleet (wonder why?) The Chinese seem to be backing down from their threat of a trade war. Russian influence is on the wane. We have good relations with many African nations in the fight against the jihadis. These and others out there are good signs. A lot of this can be reversed, of course, but, for now, the Trump Caravan moves on even as the assorted prog dogs grow hoarse from barking.

Not bad.