Weapons of Mass Destruction and Syria

May 18th, 2012

Our military is working with the Jordanians to be prepared to seize Syria’s chemical and biological weapons should (when) the Syrian regime fall (or some other catastrophe). Syria has a very large and perhaps dispersed WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction = chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons) storage arsenal.

It is generally accepted that they have nerve agents and mustard gas, most of it already placed in warheads (artillery shells, bombs, and SCUD missiles).

This partnership is nothing new. The Jordanians have a very capable commando force and we have worked with them before against Radical Islamic forces.

Some reports say that there may be about 50 sites; this would require a rather large force to secure the weapons in a timely manner. Indeed, CNN estimated that 75,000 troops would be necessary after a Pentagon briefing. Until a few years ago, the Syrians had a single primary site, located near the Iraqi border; it was to this site that Saddam send the bulk of his WMD just before our invasion. That site was taken out by the Israelis—thus the current dispersal.

There is little doubt that the Syrian WMD would create a very, very serious threat to the region and to the world if they fell into the hands of any of the terrorist groups.

Women in the Army

May 14th, 2012

On 14 May 1942, a bill establishing a women’s corps in the US Army was passed by congress; it became law the next day, creating the Women’s Auxiliary Army Corps (WAACs) and granting women official military status. In May 1941, Representative Edith Nourse Rogers of Massachusetts, the first congresswoman ever from New England, introduced legislation that would enable women to serve in the Army in noncombat positions. Rogers was well suited for such a task; she was active as a volunteer for the Red Cross, the Women’s Overseas League, and military hospitals. Because of her work inspecting field and base hospitals, President Warren Harding, in 1922, appointed her as his personal representative for inspections and visits to veterans’ hospitals throughout the country. She was eventually appointed to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, as chairwoman in the 80th and 83rd Congresses.

The bill to create a Women’s Auxiliary Army Corps would not be passed into law for a year after it was introduced (the bombing of Pearl Harbor was a great incentive). But finally, the WAACs gained official status and salary—but still not all the benefits accorded to men. Thousands of women enlisted in light of this new legislation, and in July 1942, the “auxiliary” was dropped from the name, and the Women’s Army Corps, or WACs, received full Army benefits in keeping with their male counterparts.

The WACs performed a wide variety of jobs, “releasing a man for combat,” as the Army, sensitive to public misgivings about women in the military, touted. But those jobs ranged from clerk to radio operator, electrician to air-traffic controller. Women served in virtually every theater of engagement, from North Africa to Asia.

It would take until 1978 before the Army would become sexually integrated, and women participating as merely an “auxiliary arm” in the military would be history. And it would not be until 1980 that 16,000 women who had joined the earlier WAACs would receive veterans’ benefits.

Now the issue is should women be able to be in all branches, including the combat arms and special operations forces. There are two questions: Can they do the job, and do we want them to do it. Both the Russians and Israelis tried it and did not continue.

Episode 229

May 13th, 2012

Topics

News and Comment by the Col: Why Do We Need Wonderful Groups Like Wounded Warriors & Soldiers Angels?
AF Brig Gen Dave Warner: Officers Christian Fellowship
Art Keller, CIA, Mideast: His new book
Drop: Not reporting all instances of Afghans shooting at our troops; Kendall Klingelsmith: Vietnam Wall in July; NRA; Military History; Last Thoughts

Listen to this episode:

The War with Mexico

May 13th, 2012

The War with Mexico played a key role in the growth of the US. It officially started on 13 May 1846, when Congress overwhelmingly voted in favor of President Polk’s request to declare war on Mexico in a dispute over Texas.

Under the threat of war, the US had refrained from annexing Texas after the latter won independence from Mexico in 1836. But in 1844, President John Tyler restarted negotiations with the Republic of Texas, culminating with a Treaty of Annexation. The treaty was defeated by a wide margin in the Senate because it would upset the slave state/free state balance between North & South and risked war with Mexico, which had broken off relations with the US. But shortly before leaving office and with the support of President-elect Polk, Tyler managed to get the joint resolution passed on March 1, 1845. Texas was admitted to the union on December 29. While Mexico didn’t declare war, relations between the two nations remained tense over border disputes, and in July 1845, President Polk ordered troops into disputed lands that lay between the Neuces & Rio Grande rivers. In November, Polk sent the diplomat John Slidell to Mexico to seek boundary adjustments in return for the US government’s settlement of the claims of US citizens against Mexico and also to make an offer to purchase California & New Mexico. After the mission failed, the US army under Gen. Zachary Taylor advanced to the mouth of the Rio Grande, the river that the state of Texas claimed as its southern boundary.

Mexico, claiming that the boundary was the Nueces River to the northeast of the Rio Grande, considered the advance of Taylor’s army an act of aggression and in April 1846 sent troops across the Rio Grande. Polk, in turn, declared the Mexican advance to be an invasion of US soil, and on 11 May, asked Congress to declare war, which it did two days later.

After nearly two years of fighting, peace was established by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on 2 February 1848. The Rio Grande was made the southern boundary of Texas, and California & New Mexico were ceded to the US. In return, the US paid Mexico the sum of $15 million and agreed to settle all claims of US citizens against Mexico.

More attacks on our Constitution

May 12th, 2012

The Treaties below are a major attack on our sovereignty as a nation and will severely alter our rights under our own Constitution—thus they are attacks on all of us. It’s time for free citizens to act.

Obama’s Sneaky Treaties
By Dick Morris on February 8, 2012

Published on TheHill.com on February 7, 2012
President Obama & Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are entering negotiations over — or seeking ratification of — 5 treaties that could radically limit our national sovereignty and the reach of our democratic institutions. Particularly scary is that the treaties, once signed & ratified, have the same status as constitutional law & cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by US courts. Those who wish to preserve our sovereignty & democratic control over our future must rally to block these treaties, either by pressing Obama and Clinton not to sign them or by blocking their ratification.

• International Criminal Court — Clinton has reversed George W. Bush’s policy and entered into negotiations over US participation in the court. Specifically, the leftists who are sponsoring the court wish to create a new crime of “aggression,” which is essentially going to war without the approval of the UN. If we submit to the court’s jurisdiction, our presidents and Cabinet officials could be prosecuted criminally for going to war without UN approval. This would, of course, give Russia and China a veto over our military actions. Clinton says she will stop our military’s hands from being tied, but we all must realize that once we accept the International Criminal Court, we go down a slippery slope. The court could even prosecute Americans who have been cleared by our own judicial system.

• The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) has been signed, and the Obama administration — with the aid of Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.) — will push for its ratification. LOST requires that the US pay an international body half of its royalties from offshore drilling. The body would then distribute the funds as it sees fit to whichever nations it chooses. The US would only have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money goes. LOST will also oblige us to hand over our offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it … for free.

• Small-arms control — Clinton is about to negotiate on a global ban on export of small arms. It would only apply to private citizens but, of course, most small-arms deals come not from individuals or private firms but from governments, specifically those of the US, Russia, China and Israel. The treaty would require each nation to adopt measures to stop exportation of small arms. It is easy to see how this could be a backdoor way to require national registration of all guns and to assert federal regulation over firearms. It would also require the registration of all ammunition to track its source once a gun is fired. The Second Amendment be damned!

• Outer Space Code of Conduct — Under the guise of stopping debris from accumulating in outer space, the European Union has enlisted Clinton in negotiations over a code of conduct. The code would prohibit activities that are likely to generate debris in outer space — space littering. The code might inhibit or prohibit the US from deploying anti-missile missiles on platforms in space, denying us the key weapon we need to counter Iranian, Chinese and North Korean missile threats. European leftists reacted angrily when G.W. Bush opted out of the ABM treaty banning defensive weapons. Now they seek to re-impose it under the guise of a code of conduct.

• Rights of the Child — Even more fanciful is a treaty Clinton plans to negotiate setting forth a code of rights for children, to be administered by a 14-member court set up for the purpose. The draft treaty obliges rich nations to provide funds for shelter, food, clothing and education for children in poor nations. This provision could create grounds to litigate to challenge the level of foreign aid we give as inadequate to meet our treaty obligations. Already, leftists in the UK are using the treaty to attack welfare cuts by the Cameron government.

European liberalism is advancing — masked — by way of these treaties. Defenders of liberty must say no!