Opuscula Is Afghanistan ‘Nam over again?

IMAGES OF AFGHANS TRYING TO LEAVE Afghanistan before the Taliban assumes full control. Afghanistan’s former president earlier abandoned his country to avoid “transition issues.” Something unique in U.S. foreign policy history? Hardly.

Dry Bones cartoon

Is it any wonder the U.S.’ “allies” are suspicious of Washington’s promises? Rhetorical question.  

San Diego Union-Tribune Image by Neal Ulevich - AP (https://tinyurl.com/3k7nerdw)

The Print Twitter screengrab (https://tinyurl.com/zru98mu8)

 

AFGHANISTAN SEEMS TO BE VIETNAM all over again.

Aside from the fact that the U.S. never had a policy to win a war in Afghanistan — or Vietnam, or Korea, or Iraq, or Cuba, or — there are many similarities with earlier excursions on behalf of “democracy and the American way.”

The U.S. president who got American troops out of the Vietnam quagmire was a Republican (Richard M. Nixon). The president who ended the U.S.’ 20-year involvement in Afghanistan is a Democrat (Jos. Biden), although to give credit where it is due, under a deal signed last year between the militants and then-President Donald Trump, foreign forces were to have left by 1 May. (http://tinyurl.com/27muz8yn)

In both cases, when the troops came home — from a politically unpopular war in the Far East and when they returned from what appeared to be a never-ending conflict in Afghanistan, — the military people returned sans war materiel, left behind for the victors.

When the troops returned to the States, they abandoned locals who supported the war effort.

In Vietnam, some managed to get a flight out — primarily those who worked directly for the U.S. government.

For many of those left behind, the victorious Communists had a place for them: re-education camps. (Such “camps” are popular with the Vietnamese’ masters, Communist China.)

Will the Taliban have “re-education” camps a la Vietnam?

U.S. fails to learn from others

The U.S. failed to learn the lesson the Vietnamese taught the French.

They warred against the French until the French tired of the fighting and left Vietnam.

President (ex-5-star general) Dwight D. Eisenhower sent in a limited number of U.S. troops as “Military Advisory Groups” (MAGs). His successors, Democrats JFK and LBJ massively increased the U.S. presence in Vietnam on a piecemeal basis — as troops were wounded or killed, they were replaced by green personnel.

Vietnam was NOT the first war in which Americans refused to fight. That “honor” goes back to the War for Southern Independence (a/k/a U.S. Civil War) when people could, and did, “buy their way out” by paying for stand-ins.

The Enrollment Act of 1863 provided that a draftee could pay a “substitute” enrollee the sum of $300 (about $5,000 in today’s terms) in order to enlist in his place. Such famous Americans as Grover Cleveland and John D. Rockefeller took advantage of this provision, in effect buying their way out of service. (https://tinyurl.com/9thvtsaw)

Actually, after the first skirmishes of the Revolutionary War many new Americans had other things to do rather than engage the English.

In Afghanistan, the U.S. started supporting the Afghans in their effort to oust the Soviets.

 

Revolving door (a la Vietnam)

 

It was very much the CIA’s covert war with a program to arm and finance the mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan prior to and during the military intervention by the Soviet Union. (https://tinyurl.com/2t355rsy)

After 9-11-2001 — the day Muslim terrorists flew four U.S. airliners into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, and into a field in Pennsylvania; in the the latter high jackers, were overcome by the flight’s passengers and crew — the CIA directed its efforts in Afghanistan to attacking the Taliban and its leader, Osama bin Laden. (https://tinyurl.com/2wbyes84)

According to a New York Times article (https://tinyurl.com/5b9ya9bk), the FBI knew well in advance of 9-11 that Muslims were buying flight training. Anecdotal stories claim that the “students” were not interested in landing the commercial airliners.

They won’t fight

According to Biden, the Afghans lack the will to defend their nation, despite the fact that — with substantial U.S. CIA aid — some Afghanis did take up arms against the former Soviet Union.

An Afghan guerrilla handles a U.S.-made Stinger anti-aircraft missile (https://tinyurl.com/y466xn5m)

Afghan borders Taliban ally Pakistan and the western world’s nemesis, Iran. (See map, below).

All are Muslim countries and while they often disagree, the enemy of my friend is my enemy. In this case, since the western world is deemed by Iran’s despots to be an enemy, Afghanistan is, by default, Iran’s friend (as is Pakistan).

Map of Afghanistan and its neighbors

The Taliban, Afghanistan’s rulers-du-jour, are infamous for being misogynistic.

They demanded women to be covered from head to toe according to their ideas of sharia law.

They banned education for females.

The “new” Taliban

According to reports making the media, the “new” Taliban will treat females with respect and they will allow females to be educated, unlike the “old” Taliban. (https://tinyurl.com/ye8jzawt)

The “new” Taliban promised to respect others religions, unlike the “old” Taliban of 2001 that blew up two statues of Buddah in the Bamyan valley of central Afghanistan. (https://tinyurl.com/qjuwbed)

The Taliban claimed the Buddhas violated Islam's prohibition on idolatry.

According to The Indian Express (https://tinyurl.com/yfbq8w24), “The Taliban have promised a new era of peace and security, saying they will forgive those who fought against them and grant women full rights under Islamic law, without elaborating. But many Afghans are deeply skeptical of the group, especially those who remember its previous rule, when it imposed a harsh interpretation of Islamic law. “

Still, the “new” Taliban apparently retains elements of the “old” Taliban.

The Indian Express (ibid.) reports that “The Taliban have blown up the statue of a Shiite militia leader who had fought against them during Afghanistan’s civil war in the 1990s, according to photos circulating on social media Wednesday.

“The statue depicted Abdul Ali Mazari, a militia leader killed by the Taliban in 1996, when the Islamic militants seized power from rival warlords. Mazari was a champion of Afghanistan’s ethnic Hazara minority, Shiites who were persecuted under the Sunni Taliban’s earlier rule.”

So much for forgiving those who fought against them.

Some of the “old” Taliban’s actions remain to haunt them.

A video now being circulated of a woman being murdered, apparently by the Taliban on an Afghan street, actually dates from 2015, according to the India Today Anti Fake News War Room (AFWA) (https://tinyurl.com/yenpt6yx)

On the other hand, the England’s ITV (https://tinyurl.com/rn2v4ar8) reported on 17 August 2021 that “Abdul Qadir Jalil, an Afghan-born Manchester (England) resident, traveled to Afghanistan around three weeks ago to get married.

“Mr Jalil says the Taliban has ransacked his home in Kabul, and executed people in his street.

"Last night, the Taliban was trying to attack and search every house in the street," he told ITV News. They are searching for smart phones because they are trying to wipe social media evidence.“

 

---

 

 

 

 

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.

Web sites (URLs) beginning https://tinyurl.com/ are generated by the free Tiny URL utility and reduce lengthy URLs to manageable size.

 

 

 

 

Comment on Vietnam again?

Opuscula Santayana Was Right

JORGE AGUSTÍN NICOLÁS RUIZ DE SANTAYANA Y BORRÁS was correct when he allegedly wrote Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.¹

The Santayana quote, on of this scrivener’s favorites, came to mind as I read an article titled The Kishinev Pogrom as a Catalyst to the Russo-Japanese War²

 

According to the article’s author, Col (Res.) Dr. Raphael G. Bouchnik-Chen,

The Japanese surprise assault was launched just before midnight on April 8, 1904, when Japanese destroyers fired torpedoes without warning at a line of Russian battleships lying at anchor in the Port Arthur road stead on the China coast. Ten Japanese destroyers caught the Russians unprepared, badly damaging three of their largest battleships. A declaration of war was issued a few hours later.

December 7, 1941

What immediately came to mind was December 7, 1941, a/k/a Pearl Harbor Day, when the Japanese attacked U.S. military installations in the Pacific and then —after the fact — declared war on the U.S.

There has been, since that day that was to “live in infamy,” suspicion that Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, then president, knew of the impending attack well before the attack and failed to alert U.S. personnel. In other words, FDR must share in the responsibility for the deaths and injuries of U.S. men and women.

The fact that the Japanese had a well-documented history of “sneak attacks” apparently was ignored by FDR and his lackeys or else they were ignorant of 20th Century politics and warfare.

Pearl Harbor was a repeat of the attack on Russia vessels moored at Port Arthur, China.

The Japanese followed up with the Port Arthur massacre took place during the First Sino-Japanese War from 21 November 1894 for two or three days, when advance elements of the First Division of the Japanese Second Army under the command of General Yamaji Motoharu (1841–1897) killed somewhere between 1,000 and 20,000 Chinese servicemen and civilians in the Chinese coastal city of Port Arthur (now Lüshunkou). The battle is notable for its divergent coverage by foreign journalists and soldiers, with contemporaneous reports both supporting and denying narratives of a massacre by the Japanese military.³

No, that’s not racist on the part of this scrivener; it’s history.

Vietnam

The Vietnamese kicked out the French invaders who were less than brilliant rulers.⁴

It took the Vietnamese decades to send the French packing, but the Vietnamese knew their land better than the invaders.

The Vietnamese promptly divided the country into a Communist-leaning north and a non-Communist south.

The U.S., under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, sent in a few thousand troops in Military Advisor Groups (MAGs) to help train and equipment the south’s military.

The purported reason was to counter a threatened Communist takeover (that eventually occurred).

Democrats John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson added thousands of U.S. troops, replacing Americans killed or wounded with new soldiers, mostly conscripts.

Republican President Richard M. Nixon extracted the U.S. from the morass.

President Nixon also opened trade with China; THAT did not go so well.

Afghanistan: Vietnam deux

Not learning its lesson in Vietnam, the U.S. tried to help the Afghans find peace.

Like Vietnam, the environment is different, the language is different, and the mentality is different than in the U.S.

At one point — and the alleged reason the U.S. got involved in Afghanistan — the then Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and the U.S. CIA stepped in to support Afghan resistance with training and materiel. The Afghans prevailed and the Soviets were ousted.

Enter the Taliban.

Armed with U.S. provided weapons and captured Soviet weapons — notably Mikhail Kalashnikov’s highly reliable AK-47 rifle — the Afghans bit the hand that fed them and turned on the U.S.

UNlike the Soviets, American administrations would not admit Afghanistan is another Vietnam and withdraw before more Americans were killed.

U.S. troops still are being murdered in Afghanistan in a war the U.S. cannot win.

Iraq

The U.S. twice invaded Iraq to protect its allies in the Gulf region.

The Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991), was a war waged by coalition forces from 35 nations led by the United States against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait. The war consisted of two phases the first was code named Operation Desert Shield (2 August 1990 – 17 January 1991) for operations leading to the buildup of troops and defense of Saudi Arabia. And the second was Operation Desert Storm (17 January 1991 – 28 February 1991) was the combat phase. ⁵

Although Desert Storm wound down in 1991, on May 1, 2003, standing directly under a "Mission Accomplished" banner, George W. Bush declared, "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." Bush's claim of victory in what became known as the "Mission Accomplished" speech drew criticism as the war in Iraq continued for several years thereafter.⁶

Bush managed to avoid the Vietnam conflict by joining his state’s Air National Guard.

U.S. troops still are in Iraq and falling victim to Iranian-backed Iraqi snipers and bombers.

If, like the Afghans, the Iraqis cannot resolve their own issues years after the U.S. removed Saddam Hussein, the U.S. should consider abandoning these countries to their own devices. Like Vietnam — with which the U.S. now has trade relations — Afghanistan and Iraq will survive sans U.S. military presence, and (fewer) American soldiers will return home in caskets.

Wars of attrition

Wars of attrition generally are not welcomed by Americans, particularly when, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is no end in sight.

If President Trump wins re-election, and riding high on the “normalization” agreements between Israel and several Muslim-dominated countries, perhaps he will join President Nixon in extracting the U.S. from no-win wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

War mongers will object mightily if Trump pulls the troops out, and complain that the U.S. cannot be trusted. Allies who feel that way are invited to send their troops to replace U.S. forces.

In U.S. politics, it would be interesting to see and hear who complains the loudest about “abandoning our allies.”

On the other hand, President Trump has shown that he can achieve what no president before him — neither Democrat nor Republican — has achieved, viz “normalization” between Israel and several Muslim-dominated states.

President Trump’s predecessor (and his vice president, now candidate for president) only managed to bring on the “Arab Spring” and, despite warnings, the murder of four Americans at the U.S. consulate in what the then-secretary of state claimed was a “spontaneous” attack, albeit it was later proven that the “spontaneous” attack was well organized.

Neither President Trump’s predecessor nor the current Democrat candidate managed to accomplish anything toward peace in the Middle East while they encouraged the terrorists of the PLO/PFLP and Hamas/Islamic Jihad by funding and encouraging the terrorists’ intransigence.

CAVEAT

This scrivener is not anti-war; there are wars that are justified.

Unlike Bush (ibid.) this writer spent time in the real Air Force (as a medic) and took his chances on being sent to either Korea or Vietnam.

---

Sources

1. Santayana: https://tinyurl.com/y4zxsbml

2. Kishinev Pogrom: https://tinyurl.com/y4nfq3na

3. Port Arthur massacre: https://tinyurl.com/ycvd6qrs

4. France & Vietnam: https://tinyurl.com/yyku47mk

5. Gulf War: https://tinyurl.com/yyqc25h9

6. Bush’s faux pas: https://tinyurl.com/yxv2mvku

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.

Web sites (URLs) beginning https://tinyurl.com/ are generated by the free Tiny URL utility and reduce lengthy URLs to manageable size.

 

Comment on Those who forget

Opuscula Trump willing To open talks With N. Korea

 

It worked for Obama
It worked for Nixon
It worked for Regan

According to Reuters, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said on Tuesday he is willing to talk to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to try to stop Pyongyang's nuclear program, proposing a major shift in U.S. policy toward the isolated nation.

In a wide-ranging interview with Reuters, Trump also called for a renegotiation of the Paris climate accord, said he disapproved of Russian President Vladimir Putin's actions in eastern Ukraine, and said he would seek to dismantle most of the U.S. Dodd-Frank financial regulations if he is elected president.

The presumptive Republican nominee declined to share details of his plans to deal with North Korea, but said he was open to talking to its leader.

Precedent firmly established

Obama & Castro

ABC News reported on March 21, 2016 that

President Obama is in bilateral talks with Cuban leader Raul Castro, following an official welcoming ceremony at the presidential palace in Havana this morning.

The president’s full day of events in Cuba marks the first time a sitting U.S. president has visited the island nation since Coolidge arrived by boat 88 years ago.

Cuba was blockaded by another Democrat, John Kennedy, more than 50 years before Obama's visit.

While Cuba had been "gifted" with Soviet missiles, the country never fought against the U.S. The famous "Battle of San Juan Hill (or Heights" was fought as part of the Spanish-American War in 1898 and against Spanish regulars, not Cubans.

Nixon & Mao

U.S. President Richard Nixon's 1972 visit to the People's Republic of China was an important step in formally normalizing relations between the United States and China. It marked the first time a U.S. president had visited the PRC, which at that time considered the U.S. one of its foes, and the visit ended 25 years of separation between the two sides.

Before even being elected president, Nixon had talked of the need for better relations with the PRC, with which the U.S. did not maintain diplomatic relations as it recognized the government of the Republic of China on Taiwan as the government of China. Early in his first term, Nixon and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger began sending subtle overtures hinting at warmer relations to the PRC government. After a series of these overtures by both countries, Kissinger flew on secret diplomatic missions to Beijing, where he met with Premier Zhou. On July 15, 1971, the President announced that he would visit the PRC the following year. (2)

“There is no place on this small planet for a billion of its potentially most able people to live in angry isolation.” Richard Nixon, after his election in 1968, pushed for better relations with China despite historical tensions and hostilities. In 1971, National Security Advisor and future Secretary of State Henry Kissinger took two trips to China – the first made in secret – to consult with Premier Zhou Enlai. After more than two decades of icy relations, Nixon embarked on a trip to China starting on February 22, 1972. Not only did this visit strengthen Chinese-American relations, but it also served to encourage progress with the USSR. (3)

Sources:

1. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nixon-arrives-in-china-for-talks

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Nixon_visit_to_China

3. http://adst.org/2013/02/nixon-goes-to-china/

Nixon also managed to reduce tensions with the Soviet Union's Leonid Brezhnev, yet he is only remembered for remaining loyal to a small group of people who, on their own initiative, broke into DNC headquarters in the Watergate Hotel in Washington.

Regan & the "Evil Empire"

President Regan had a long history with Soviet leaders

According to the Shmoop site,

Many of Reagan's greatest admirers today celebrate his strong anti-Soviet stance, arguing that Reagan's firmness in waging the Cold War led directly to the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991. Reagan's aggressive policy toward the Soviets, they say, ended up winning the Cold War for the United States. Reagan's detractors, by contrast, argue that he was recklessly and unnecessarily militant, and that only the good fortune of sane leadership in Moscow saved us all from nuclear apocalypse.

Both groups are mostly wrong.

In fact, Reagan's diplomatic legacy was more complicated than either his admirers or critics are likely to admit. Reagan did lead the United States to victory in the Cold War. But his greatest successes came during his second term, when he abandoned his earlier steadfastness to take a much more flexible stance in his relations with reformist Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan found victory when he found the courage to compromise. By acting as Gorbachev's partner as much as his enemy, Reagan helped the Soviet leader to dismantle the erstwhile "Evil Empire" peacefully, from within.


Then, in 1985, soon after Reagan's second inauguration, the vigorous, 54-year-old Gorbachev ascended to the leadership. He wanted to demilitarize Soviet foreign policy so that he could divert resources to the Augean task of fixing a broken economy. Initially, he expected no help from Reagan, whom he regarded as "not simply a conservative, but a political 'dinosaur.'"

In the Jack F. Matlock Jr. book, Reagan and Gorbachev: Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended, Matlock /writes:

Asked at a press conference in Moscow in 1988, his last year in office, about the role he played in the great drama of the late 20th century, he described himself essentially as a supporting actor. "Mr. Gorbachev," he said, "deserves most of the credit, as the leader of this country."

This quotation was much cited at the time as an example of Reagan's graciousness, tact and self-deprecation. But Matlock's book bears out his former boss's judgment. The 40th president of the United States emerges here not as a geopolitical visionary who jettisoned the supposedly accommodationist policies of containment and detente, but as an archpragmatist and operational optimist who adjusted his own attitudes and conduct in order to encourage a new kind of Kremlin leader.

During his first term, Reagan denounced the pre-Gorbachev Soviet Union as an "evil empire." The name-calling riled many Soviets (and more than a few Sovietologists) but did little diplomatic harm, since relations between Washington and Moscow were already in a rut. The Kremlin had become a geriatric ward, with Red Square doubling as the world's largest funeral parlor.

Opinion on a small island

In researching the above I stumbled upon several sites concerned with Islam in the UK.

Book reviewer Peter Preston, reviewing David E. Hoffman's The Deadly Hand writes that

So many of us got so much wrong through the years of fear. Polite opinion in Britain (my own included) quavered and cringed when Ronald Reagan became president of the United States. We saw a bemused ex-actor peddling conservative bromides. We saw a man who wasn't clever enough, or experienced enough, to stack Pershing 2s against Moscow's Pioneers. We prophesied doom. And yet – for very good reasons – Reagan, like Gorbachev, is a hero in Hoffman's eyes.

The English seem to worry equally about Trump. Their prime minister, David Cameron, calls Trump's proposed Muslim travel ban "stupid," and the former leader of Scotland labeling the mogul "three times a loser."

Perhaps Trump has in mind the Shiria No-Go zones on Cameron's little island. The Breitbart site has several videos showing how shiria is taking over parts of England and disregards English law.

Nigel Farage, head of the UK's Independent Party, claims that "ghettos" in parts of the UK are being run according to Shiria law as authorities "turn a blind eye" because of their "moral cowardice".

He contends that “big ghettos” have sprung up in Britain and Europe where child sex abuse, female genital mutilation, extremism and Shiria law were allowed to flourish.

"Why would Great Britain, France, Belgium or any other country, the Netherlands, why would they allow people to come to the country, not assimilate, separate, take their land ostensibly and risk even being at war with them when shiria, if you're coming from a country that you grew up under shiria, those values directly contradict the values of Western countries, why would anybody allow that?" Hannity asked.

According to hate preacher Anjem Choudary told the UK's Daily Mail "We want to run the area as a Shiria-controlled zone and really to put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term.’

Choudary has claimed responsibility for the poster campaign, saying he plans to flood specific Muslim and non-Muslim communities around the UK and ‘put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term.’

Opuscula Wet foot Dry foot

 

GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BEN CARSON doesn't know anything about the U.S. government's "Wet foot/dry foot" policy.

Not surprising. He is not a Cuban, south Floridian, or denizen of New York City.

Before anyone discounts his candidacy as they did that of then Alaska governor Sarah Palin for her lack of foreign experience, the incumbent at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue had even less experience with foreign policy. At least Gov. Palin could see a foreign nation from her state. The Chicago community organizer couldn't even see Canada from the Windy City.

While this is about politics, it is not about politicians.

WHAT IS AMERICA'S PROBLEM WITH CUBA?

There are, basically, three "official" problems with Cuba; reasons why Washington and south Florida politicians want to maintain the status quo.

Problem 1: Cuba's government barely tolerates dissent.

Problem 2: Cuba's government is one of several Communist/Socialist governments in the Western Hemisphere.

Problem 3: Cuba lacks a U.S.-style democracy.

NOW CONSIDER

The United States has diplomatic and trade agreements with China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and a number of other countries that stifle civil rights.

China, through its proxies North Korea and Vietnam, has been involved in shooting wars with the U.S. and still threatens U.S. allies South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Chinese ICBMs and ship-born (sea-to-land) missiles easily can strike cities on the U.S. mainland. China over the years has greatly increased its naval presence on, and beneath, the waves. Now Chinese warships are welcomed at U.S. ports.

Clip on image to enlarge

Russia, now in expansionist mode, has been involved with the U.S. in the so-called "cold" war for decades. Like China, Russia has the capability of sending missiles into American cities.

Saudi Arabia, which never has been in a shooting war with the U.S. does expect the U.S. to send troops to die protecting it while at the same time being one of the least tolerant nations of the world. The Saudis - under a harsh variation of the already harsh sharia law - execute women by stoning for the crime of being raped; it lops off heads of people who dare criticize the prophet (as do other Islamic nations).

Despite the above, the U.S. "enjoys" diplomatic and trade relations with all three of the above - and many more nations where civil rights are severely restricted or non-existent.

The Amnesty International Report 2014/15: The State Of The World's Human Rights provides civil rights overviews for the world's nations.

But Cuba? While the U.S. has several times invaded Cuba, Cuba never has invaded the U.S. - at least not as a military operation. True, the Russians, back when the Soviet Union existed, wanted to put ICBMs on Cuban soil and Fidel Castro was willing to accept the weaponry - in return for which the Soviets guaranteed to buy sugar and tobacco from Cuba to keep the Cuban economy from absolute collapse having Cuban products embargoed by the U.S.

Unlike China and Russia, Cuba is the U.S.' neighbor, famously 90 miles away from Key West.

It does allow some dissent, the Women in White as an example.

It seems to this scrivener that the best way to improve the lot of the average Cuban is to develop trade with the island; to export the flavor of U.S. style democracy (while realizing that not every nation can handle democracy as it is, or perhaps was, known in the U.S.).

It was Trinidad, not Cuba, but the bottom line of Rum and Coca-Cola was the "Yankee dollar." It may not have the power it once had, but it's still more welcome than the Russian ruble or even the Chinese yuan.

Opuscula China, yes, Saudia, yes, Iran, yes, Cuba, no ?

 

SOME (MANY) SOUTH FLORIDA CUBANS, including lawmakers, are ranting that the U.S. should NOT reopen diplomatic relations with its neighbor a mere 90 miles to the south because the Cuban government is not democratic and restricts people's rights.

Fair enough.

BUT, the U.S. has diplomatic and trade agreements, and in some cases, military compacts, with countries far worse than Cuba when it comes to human rights violations and democracy.

Plus, for more than 50 years the U.S. embargo - that, thanks to its allies has all but crumbled - has failed to depose the Castros and Communism.

Finally, if full diplomatic and trade relations are restored, maybe some of the Cubans who always said they would go back will go back and Miami can be American once more.

It seems highly hypocritical that politicos such as presidential hopeful Mario Rubio and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen are so against normalizing relations with Cuba when it was a Republican president - Richard Nixon - who normalized relations with China, the country that gave the world the the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989 and followed up with

Lead in children's toys
• Defective tires
• Poisonous wall board
• Tainted food products

and largely has managed to own much of the U.S., primarily through illegal trade.

Democrat Bill Clinton normalized relations with Vietnam after Nixon got the U.S. out of the war there.

The current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is leading the U.S. toward normalization of relations with Iran, not only a despotic state but one where the leaders call for "Death to America."

Neither China not Vietnam are bastions of democracy and human rights.

The U.S. maintains diplomatic relations with at least five countries labeled by the Human Rights Watch as violators of human rights:

1. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy which doesn’t even allow political parties or any kind of public dissent.
2. Zimbabwe. The US has diplomatic relations with the notoriously dictatorial government of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and actually has given the country $400 million in humanitarian aid
3. Belarus, a small eastern European country with a population of 9.5 million, which never made the transition to democracy after the fall of the Soviet Union. We have an embassy in Minsk, though the post of ambassador is right now unfilled (there is a charge d’affaires).
4. Sultanate of Brunei: The US has warm diplomatic relations and a US embassy there, despite its disregard for basic human rights
5. Vietnam The Vietnam government systematically suppresses freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, and persecutes those who question government policies, expose official corruption, or call for democratic alternatives to one-party rule. Police harass and intimidate activists and their family members

The U.S. maintains diplomatic relations with Russia, despite its record on human rights and its invasion of the Ukraine. It maintains diplomatic relations with Turkey despite its human rights record against is own, never mind the Kurds.

The U.S. State Department issues an annual International Religious Freedom Report . The report for 2013 listed the following nations as places where freedom of religion is denied or restricted:

Bangladesh, Belgium*, Burma, China, Cuba, Egypt, France*, Germany*, Hungary*, Italy*, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Latvia, Nigeria, North Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden*, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, United Kingdom*, Uzbekistan

* = noted for increasing anti-Semitism.

The Palestinian Authority is notable by its absence despite the fact that it promises a Jewish-free country.

Given all of the above, it's hard to see why Cuba should be singled out to (try to) punish for being "un-American."

Opuscula Chins & Cuba Nixon & Obama

v

 

OBAMA OPENS RELATIONS with the Castros of Cuba and the Cubans in America aren't happy.

Some politicians, notably Miami-raised U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, are making this Obama move a major part of their appeal - at least to the Cubans in South Florida.

Liberal folly to re-establish diplomatic relations with a "Communist" country only 90 miles from Key West, Florida, America's southernmost point?

Or good sense following in a Conservative politician's lead?

Consider:

U.S. President Richard Nixon's 1972 visit to the People's Republic of China was an important step in formally normalizing relations between the United States (U.S.) and the People's (PRC). It marked the first time a U.S. president had visited the PRC, which at that time considered the U.S. one of its foes, and the visit ended 25 years of separation between the two sides. (Wikipedia: 1972 Nixon visit to China)

The distance between Anchorage Alaska and China is less than 700 miles, a mere 510 miles FARTHER than the distance between Key West and Cuba.

The arch-Conservative Nixon achieved peace with radical Communist China DESPITE China's involvement in the Korean "Policing" action - a condition that remains unresolved to today and one that keeps U.S. troops far from home, protecting a people that, during the fighting, were less than dependable allies.

Arch-Conservative Nixon also signed the peace agreement with the China-leaning Communist government of Vietnam, a country that a Liberal Democrat, JFK, thoroughly embroiled this nation while ignoring the ignoble expulsion of the French early in the century. (Dwight D. Eisenhower got the U.S. involved militarily with small Military Advisory Groups [MAGs]; JFK committed thousands of U.S. troops, largely in piecemeal increments.)

Nixon, of course, was the arch-villain of the liberals who now are open to détente and full diplomatic relations with the U.S.' nearby neighbor to the south while those claiming to be Conservatives rail against the compact.

 

A little Cuban history

Toward the end of the nineteenth century, Cuban loyalty began to change as a result of Creole rivalry with Spaniards for the governing of the island, increased Spanish despotism and taxation, and the growth of Cuban nationalism. These developments combined to produce a prolonged and bloody war, the Ten Years’ War against Spain (1868–78), but it failed to win independence for Cuba. At the outset of the second independence war (1895–98), Cuban independence leader José Martí was killed. As a result of increasingly strained relations between Spain and the United States, the Americans entered the conflict in 1898 during the administration of President William McKinley. Already concerned about its economic interests on the island and its strategic interest in a future Panama Canal, the United States was aroused by an alarmist “yellow” press after the USS Maine sank in Havana Harbor on February 15 as the result of an explosion of undetermined origin. In December 1898, with the Treaty of Paris, the United States emerged as the victorious power in the Spanish-American War, thereby ensuring the expulsion of Spain and U.S. tutelage over Cuban affairs.

On May 20, 1902, after almost five years of U.S. military occupation, Cuba launched into nationhood with fewer problems than most Latin American nations. Prosperity increased during the early years. Militarism seemed curtailed. Social tensions were not profound. Yet corruption, violence, and political irresponsibility grew. Invoking the 1901 Platt Amendment, which was named after Senator Orville H. Platt and stipulated the right of the United States to intervene in Cuba’s internal affairs and to lease an area for a naval base in Cuba, the United States intervened militarily in Cuba in 1906–9, 1917, and 1921. U.S. economic involvement also weakened the growth of Cuba as a nation and made the island more dependent on its northern neighbor.

The 1930s saw a major attempt at revolution. Prompted by the cruel dictatorship of Gerardo Machado y Morales (president, 1925–33), the economic hardships of the world depression, and the growing control of their economy by Spaniards and North Americans, a group of Cubans led by students and intellectuals sought radical reforms and a profound transformation of Cuban society. Following several small army revolts, Machado was forced to resign and flee the country on August 12, 1933. Sergeant Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar, unhappy with proposed reductions of pay and restrictions of promotions, joined forces with the militant students on September 4 and overthrew the U.S.-backed regime of Carlos Manuel de Céspedes (the younger). By making the military part of the government and allowing Batista to emerge as self-appointed chief of the armed forces, the Sergeants’ Revolt marked a turning point in Cuba’s history. On January 14, 1934, Army Chief Batista also brought to an end the short-lived provisional presidency of Ramón Grau San Martín (president, 1933–34) by forcing him to resign. Although the reformers attained power five months later and Machado’s overthrow was supposed to mark the beginning of an era of reform, their revolution failed. Batista (president, 1940–44; dictator, 1952–59) and the military emerged as the arbiters of Cuba’s politics, first through de facto ruling and finally with the election of Batista to the presidency in 1940.

An aside: Cuba had agreed to accept Jews escaping from the nazis on the SS St. Louis, but on arrival in Cuba the Jews were prevented from disembarking, despite the fact they had visas. Dr. Federico Laredo Brú was Cuba's president when the SS St. Louis attempted to land in 1939, Visas to land in Cuba were issued by Manuel Benite, sans Bru's authority, which, in part, led to the refugee's being refused entry. The Jews also were denied permission to disembark at the U.S. port, condemning them to death at the hands of the Germans.

The end of the early Batista era during World War II was followed by an era of democratic government, respect for human rights, and accelerated prosperity under the inheritors of the 1933 revolution—Grau San Martín (president, 1944–48) and Carlos Prío Socarrás (president, 1948–52). Yet political violence and corruption increased. Many saw these administrations of the Cuban Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Cubano—PRC), more commonly known as the Authentic Party (Partido Auténtico), as having failed to live up to the ideals of the revolution. Others still supported the Auténticos and hoped for new leadership that could correct the vices of the past. A few conspired to take power by force.

Batista’s coup d’état on March 10, 1952, had a profound effect on Cuban society, leading to doubts about the ability of the Cubans to govern themselves. It also began a brutal right-wing dictatorship that resulted in the polarization of society, civil war, the overthrow of Batista, and the destruction of the military and most other Cuban institutions. Fidel Castro Ruz, a charismatic, anti-U.S. revolutionary, seized power on January 1, 1959, following his successful revolt against the U.S.-backed Batista government. As the Castro regime expropriated U.S. properties and investments and began, officially, on April 16, 1961, to convert Cuba into a one-party communist system, relations between the United States and Cuba deteriorated rapidly. The United States imposed an embargo on Cuba on October 19,1960, and broke diplomatic relations on January 3, 1961, in response to Castro’s expropriations without compensation and other provocations, such as arrests of U.S. citizens. The failure of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)–sponsored invasion by Cuban exiles in April 1961 (the infamous Bay of Pigs invasion) allowed the Castro regime to destroy the entire Cuban underground and to emerge strengthened and consolidated, basking in the huge propaganda value of having defeated the “Yankees.”

THERE WAS A TIME when the U.S. was a major economic force in Cuba, being the primary purchaser of sugar and tobacco products. (JFK, according to the UK's Daily Mail had a cache of Cuban cigars laid in just before he declared an embargo on the items.)

Ernest Hemingway and U.S. gangsters spent time in Cuba as did the average American who wanted to visit an affordable - and warm - foreign land.

Having grown up in South Florida listening to many ex-pat Cubans claim that if they could they would go back, it will be interesting to see just how many of the Cuban community in South Florida will indeed go back. Will English once again become Miami's first language?

Whether the Cuban guests return to their island or not, the 50-year snub of a neighbor that, of itself, never threatened the U.S. , should have ended when Nixon made a pact with China's Cho, or at least when Nixon brought the Vietnam conflict to an end.

Enough is enough, and 50 years is too much.

I am not a fan of Obama, but this time he got it right.

Opuscula KneeJerk

 

I'm not sure if "knee jerk" is one word or two or if it applies to a hasty reaction to something or to the person who is reacting*.

But the incumbent at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC comes to mind for both options.

Knee Jerk #1: Sending U.S. military personnel to fight the ebola epidemic in Africa.

Knee Jerk #2: Training and arming "moderate" terrorists in Syria and Iraq to combat the so-called Islamic State which, it seems, is considered an "extreme" terrorist group.

When will we ever learn?

Obviously not on Obama's watch.

Ebola

It's nice that the U.S. might be able to help the folks in Africa who contracted the normally fatal disease.

But, just as sending troops into combat puts American lives at risk, so does sending American troops to fight a disease that has a 90% fatality rate.

According to Wikipedia, The virus may be acquired upon contact with blood or bodily fluids of an infected animal. Spreading through the air has not been documented in the natural environment. Fruit bats are believed to be a carrier and may spread the virus without being affected. Once human infection occurs, the disease may spread between people, as well. Male survivors may be able to transmit the disease via semen for nearly two months.

The problem is, there is little in the way of laboratories where the disease runs rampant, so it is not easily diagnosed.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a page of links that cover all ebola-related concerns.

According to the CDC's "risk of exposure" information,

High risk exposures

A high risk exposure includes any of the following:

• Percutaneous (e.g., needle stick) or mucous membrane exposure to blood or body fluids of EVD patient
  

• Direct skin contact with, or exposure to blood or body fluids of, an EVD patient without appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE)
  

• Processing blood or body fluids of a confirmed EVD patient without appropriate PPE or standard biosafety precautions
  

• Direct contact with a dead body without appropriate PPE in a country where an EVD outbreak is occurring*

Low risk exposures

A low risk exposure includes any of the following

• Household contact with an EVD patient
  

• Other close contact with EVD patients in health care facilities or community settings. Close contact is defined as
  
  1. being within approximately 3 feet (1 meter) of an EVD patient or within the patient’s room or care area for a prolonged period of time (e.g., health care personnel, household members) while not wearing recommended personal protective equipment (i.e., standard, droplet, and contact precautions; see Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations)
     

  2. having direct brief contact (e.g., shaking hands) with an EVD patient while not wearing recommended personal protective equipment.

• Brief interactions, such as walking by a person or moving through a hospital, do not constitute close contact

Today the U.S. has an experimental drug that was successfully used on two American ebola patients. Unfortunately there is no stockpile of a drug deemed, even now, as "experimental."

According to Israeli sources, the blood of a person who survives being infected by ebola contains an antibody that seems to preclude that person from contracting ebola again. There was discussion in the U.S. of taking blood from one of the two survivors and using it on the remaining U.S. ebola victim, Meanwhile, the Israelis - and others - are searching for a serum to counteract the disease.

Training and arming "moderate" terrorists

Proving that neither the country's chief executive nor his advisors have ever read a newspaper or history book, and certainly never heard the expression "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (Jorge Agustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás, December 16, 1863 - September 26, 1952), Obama is proposing to train and arm "moderate" Islamist terrorists, those doing battle against the Islamic State.

Perhaps he intends for the U.S. to once again arm the Taliban as it did during the Cold war days when the Taliban were fighting the Soviets. The Taliban, having sent the Russians packing, promptly turned the weapons on the U.S. and anyone who wanted real or pseudo-democracy in Afghanistan.

Today, U.S. personnel are being murdered by U.S. trained Iraqis armed with U.S. weapons. These Iraqis are supposed to be America's allies.

Even if the Iraqis stopped killing the people sent to help them, as late as September 17, 2014, a U.S. general states that Half (of the) Iraqi Army Incapable Of Working With America - and this while the Islamic State takes over more and more of Iraq.

Training and arming terrorists to combat another terrorist organization and expecting peace and appreciation for America from a "moderate" terrorists group is a political pipe dream, especially when both extremists and moderates share so much ideology.

Although Obama promises "no American boots on the ground," that is a blatant lie. Even today there are several hundred "advisors" in Iraq. The incumbent is following in the footsteps of every president since Harry S Truman left office. In Dwight D. Eisenhower's time, the soldiers were part of "Military Advisory Groups" or MAGs. (To be fair, neither Eisenhower nor those that followed him remembered history and the fact that the Vietnamese had sent the French packing.

Obama is doing only one thing different from his predecessors is that he promoted, urged on by his far left, liberal money people, to work to instigate the "Arab Spring" which has brought instability throughout the reason. Obama, and his advisors, - one again - failed to do their homework to see that the former European powers had accomplished with their arbitrary borders.

Most of the "Islamic" countries in the region are artificial - they are composed of individual tribes, many who hate their neighbor. Only a strong central power, e.g., Sadam in Iraq, Sadat in Syria, could keep a lid on local warlords. The liberals either failed to understand that or elected to disregard what was obvious to previous administrations.

 

* Kneejerk: an immediate unthinking emotional reaction produced by an event or statement to which the reacting person is highly sensitive; - in persons with strong feelings on a topic, it may be very predictable.

Opuscula Korea, 'Nam All over again?

 

An Associated Press/Israel HaYom article under the hed US may decide to train Syrian rebels claims that U.S. President Barack Obama is weighing sending a limited number of troops to Jordan as part of a regional training mission to instruct carefully vetted members of the Free Syrian Army, according to U.S. officials gives me pause.

The U.S. got involved in Korea and in Vietnam by sending in "advisors" to help the local militaries.

We STILL have troops in Korea.

We were chased out of Vietnam (just like the French before us).

As the Pete Seeger/Joe Hickson song went, "When will they ever learn?" (The full lyrics are found at http://tinyurl.com/ycb6g3y)

Granted, Syria is neither Korea nor Vietnam.

It is more like Afghanistan.

But there are similarities to all three "involvements."

First, for the U.S. it is a no-win situation,

Even if the U.S. troops never enter Syrian territory, it will be a political fiasco.

Question (and I don't have the answer): Are the Russians sending in "advisors" to support the government and Hezbollah? Russia, in Putin's attempt to recreate a Russia of the cold war days, may be providing weapons and it may be providing training outside the region, but are there Russian "boots on the ground" or pilots in the air?

There is general agreement that Iran's ayatollahs' heavy hands are involved, but the U.S., particularly under the current administration, is not going to war with an Islamic country; it has proven that repeatedly by the "red lines" the ayatollahs cross as fast as Washington can draw them.

Second, the enemy doesn't wear uniforms. Nor do the "friends." Perhaps Syria's regular military wears uniforms, but neither Hezbollah nor the rebels wear uniforms identifying their political positions.

That should sound like Vietnam and Afghanistan. Who is the enemy? The one trying to kill you- a child? A "pregnant" woman? An old man? Ask Israelis what the enemy looks like; they know the threat can look innocent.

Third, the ability of the U.S. to "vet" people is at best questionable. Consider all the "friends" vetted in places such as Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere around the globe. The success rate is dismal.

Still, according to the article, U.S. troops will stay in Jordan to train rebel soldiers.

Until Syrian government troops - or Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists - cross into Jordan to attack the rebels-in-training. If an American is wounded or killed, the U.S. troops might cross into Syria chasing the attackers. (That would be an improvement over Korea when American troops were forbidden from cross the Yalu/Amrok River* to chase retreating North Koreans and Chinese troops.)

Although Israel and Jordan have peaceful, albeit often tense, relations today, there is no guarantee this status hold given Israel's problem with the so-called Palestinians and the Moslem Waqf that controls the Temple Mount, a site once under Jordanian control and still of interest to Jordan. A suggestion that U.S. troops train Jordanian troops to train Syrians would make the U.S.' strongest ally in the region - Israel - nervous.

One thing the administration should consider: How many Muslim states, from Morocco in the west to Oman in the east have sent troops to support either side? Aside from Iran.

What have the Arab states done to end the Syrian civil war?

 

* The Yalu/Amrok River is the border between North Korea and China.