Title :
link :
http://ift.tt/2ihVQGgT. COM
Wed. Aug.23, 2017
~All Gave Some~Some Gave All~ God Bless America~
Punk mayor of Phoenix has all but told the president of the USA unwelcomed there. To go to hell. Come to think of it, D. Trump is too classy to playlolitics with the good people of Phoenix. Maybe I could walk my dog up close and personal to the mayor and have him rinse the dust from hishonnor’s shoes.
Franklin Graham: Politicians, 'Stop Saying Islam Is a Religion of Peace'
By Theodore Bunker
Evangelist leader Franklin Graham wrote Saturday on Facebook that politicians "should stop saying 'Islam is a religion of peace.'"
Graham wrote in response to the attack in Barcelona last week, specifically referring to an article by former CIA officer Bryan Dean Wright for Fox News titled "Islam is at war with itself and the West isn't helping."
"I urge you to read it," Graham writes. "He says our politicians should make it clear that our fight is 'against a religious ideology rather than a random group of fanatics' and should stop saying 'Islam is a religion of peace.'"
In his article, Wright notes that many terror attacks in the West "were inspired by the teachings of Salafi Islam… an ultra-conservative" Sunni sect, Sunni being the predominant branch of Islam.
"Within Sunni Islam, there are dozens of different types of sects with distinct beliefs. The vast majority are moderate and want to live in peace," he writes. "Indeed, they're willing and eager to live amongst diverse groups of people, including Christians and atheists."
"Salafis reject a separation of mosque and state, believing that governments should be made up of religious clerics — and only clerics — that use the Quran to justify their governing decisions."
"It is this ideology that forms the backbone of al-Qaida, ISIS, and other jihadist groups," he writes.
Wright recommends that "we would stop saying, 'Islam is a religion of peace,' and instead say, 'Islam is a religion in crisis.'" He also recommends that the "Departments of State and Homeland Security . . . support the moderate, non-Salafi Muslims who are battling the extremist agenda," who make up the vast majority of Muslims.
Graham adds, "He's right—we are making a mistake by allowing the operation and spread of the dark and dangerous teachings of Islam . . . While there are millions of Muslims who don't agree with or participate in the violence of Islam, they can't leave the religion because their families would be obligated to kill them. Islam reigns in lives through fear and intimidation. I pray that Muslims everywhere will come to know Jesus Christ, the Son of God who loves them and can truly set them free."
Poll: 90 Percent Oppose Removal, Erasure, of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington
6
by NEIL MUNRO
Almost nine out of ten Americans oppose the progressive demand for the erasure of George Washington’s and Thomas Jefferson’s statues and names from public places, says a poll from Rasmussen Reports.
Ninety percent of the 1,000 likely voters in the August 17 to August 20 poll opposed the removal of Washington or Jefferson from the Mount Rushmore monument as they were asked: “Two of the four presidents honored on Mount Rushmore were slave owners. Should that monument be closed or changed?”
When asked “Should George Washington’s and Thomas Jefferson’s names be removed from public places and statues in their honor taken down?” 88 percent said the monuments should be conserved, and only 7 percent said they should be erased.
The public also is leery of the current political demand to erase Confederate statues erected after the civil war. For example, that push to remove Civil War statues will damage race relations, say pluralities of African-Americans, Latinos, political independents, young voters, moderates, blue-collar and middle-class voters, says the poll by Rasmussen Reports.
Nationwide, only 28 percent of likely voters say race relations will be helped by the removal and erasure of “Confederate monuments” while 39 percent say the removals will hurt race relations, said the poll.
The 39 percent includes 43 percent of African-Americans, 42 percent of other non-white racial groups, 36 percent of political independents, 44 percent of voters aged 18 to 39, plus 38 percent of “moderates,” 42 percent of low-income voters, and 41 percent of voters earning from $50,000 to $100,000 per year.
Twenty-six percent of all respondents said the removal would have no impact and 7 percent said they were not sure of the impact.
The poll did not directly ask about the progressives’ broader push to erase the public’s mostly favorable memories of Jefferson, Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, and other major white figures in American history. That broader push is tied to a political demand for the end of “white supremacy,” which is defined by the left as any collective civic, social, historical, financial or political imbalance between all white people and all non-white people, regardless of individuals’ circumstances or accomplishments.
However, the Rasmussen poll did ask: “Is it better to erase the wrongs of the past or try to learn from them?”
Ninety-four percent of Americans said it was better to learn from a flawed past, while only four percent support a policy to “erase the wrongs of the past.”
The poll also asked respondents if they are “sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments?”
Fifty percent agreed they were “sad,” and 37 percent disagreed when asked if they are sad.
That “disagree” number is a minority in most subgroups, but it includes 54 percent of Democrats, 64 percent of liberals and 66 percent of people who earn more than $200,000 per year. The “disagree” group likely includes many progressives who say the country will gain from the removal of the monuments and plaques to significant people in American history.
Jefferson Memorial Will Be Changed to Acknowledge Slavery Record
According to National Mall officials, an exhibit accompanying the Jefferson Memorial will be updated to acknowledge “the complexity” of the Founding Father’s life.
The pursuit of changes to a monument honoring Thomas Jefferson comes amidst a backlash over confederate statues and anything that could possibly be perceived as racist.
A private non-profit Board of Trustees has said the memorial will acknowledge Jefferson’s history as a slave owner.
“We can reflect the momentous contributions of someone like Thomas Jefferson, but also consider carefully the complexity of who he was,” an official with the Trust said. “And that’s not reflected right now in the exhibits.”
An exhibit alongside the nation’s chief memorial to Thomas Jefferson will receive an update that reflects “the complexity” of his status as a founder of the United States and a slaveholder, according to stewards of the National Mall.
But the Trust will try to strike a balance between patriotic applause and the legacy of slavery, particularly as they initiate private fundraising drives at a time of rarely-intense criticism of the founders.
Perhaps this is the best manner in which to handle an explosive situation, rather than defacing memorials or demanding they be relegated solely to museums.
It’s certainly a step upward from having a race-hustler like Al Sharpton declare the memorials be defunded and calling them ‘an insult to my family.’
As long as it remains historically accurate, while continuing to focus on the Founding Fathers’ significant contributions to our nation, updating the official records might be a proper solution.
“When you start wiping out your history; sanitizing your history to make you feel better,” she observed. “It’s a bad thing.”
Rice believes that history should serve as a lesson, not scrubbed from the collective consciousness of America.
“George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and other slave owners were people of their times,” she said. “What we should celebrate is that from the Jeffersons and the Washingtons as slave owners. Look at where we are now.”
We are a far, far better country than the liberal media is letting on. Let’s learn from the people who made it that way.
There’s a Good Reason Trump Will Rally Supporters in Phoenix
President will find crowd hungry for his red meat rhetoric, and he could use a boost after a rough few weeks
Then-presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks to a crowd of supporters during a campaign rally in June 2016 in Phoenix, Arizona. Trump campaigned seven times in Arizona before Election Day last year. (Ralph Freso/Getty Images file photo)
On Monday, President Donald Trump gave a somber address about his strategy in America’s longest-running war in Afghanistan. But that tone will likely change as the president holds a campaign-style rally tonight in Phoenix — where Trump has tossed out some of his more visceral rhetoric — and feed supporters samples of what made them love him in the first place.
It could be a pep rally for Trump after the criticism he got last week from many Republicans for the way he appeared to give a nod to white supremacists after the racial violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, disarray in the White House that has led resignations and firings in the top tier in his team, and no major legislative accomplishments to show for his seven months in office.
One of Trump’s first major rallies after he launched his campaign was in Phoenix in July 2015, a month after his announcement speech declaring that Mexico was sending rapists, drug dealers and criminals into the United States.
“So the Mexican government does not care about the border nearly as much as they care about bad trade deals that the United States is making with Mexico,” he said then.
“We have incompetent politicians, not only the President,” he said in reference to then-President Barack Obama. “I mean, right here in your own state, you have John McCain.”
This was a full week before Trump’s comments that McCain was “a war hero because he was captured.”
Since then, Trump has taken to criticizing Arizona’s other Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, calling him “WEAK on borders and crime,” and seeming to back his primary opponent, GOP state Rep. Kelli Ward.
Similarly, Trump’s pivot from acting presidential to throwing red meat to his constituents has precedent from almost a year ago.
In August of last year, Trump visited Mexico City and met with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto.
After their meeting, Trump said in a joint appearance with Peña Nieto that paying for his border wall between the U.S. and Mexico did not come up in their conversation. Trump had insisted that Mexico would pay for it to roaring campaign rally crowds.
But Peña Nieto contradicted Trump later in a tweet, saying they had discussed it, and he told Trump that Mexico wasn’t pay for it.
But despite the reserved tone of that meeting, Trump bolted to Phoenix on his way back to home and appeared with several parents of children killed by immigrants in the U.S. illegally, a tactic he has used frequently at rallies and appearances.
“Countless innocent American lives have been stolen because our politicians have failed in their duty to secure our borders and enforce our laws like they have to be enforced,” he said.
He also said explicitly that the U.S. should be able to limit immigration to those who can assimilate.
“We also have to be honest about the fact that not everyone who seeks to join our country will be able to successfully assimilate,” he said last year. “It is our right as a sovereign nation to choose immigrants that we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish here.”
“The result will be millions more illegal immigrants; thousands of more violent, horrible crimes; and total chaos and lawlessness. That’s what’s going to happen, as sure as you’re standing there," he said.
Just days before Election Day Trump returned to Phoenix, where crowds chanted “Lock her up!” in reference to Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton before Trump took the stage and Trump went into graphic detail about illegal immigrants killing citizens.
“Countless Americans are killed by illegal immigrants because our government won’t do its job.”
That rally came shortly after then-FBI Director James B. Comey, whom Trump would later fire, revealed the FBI was reviewing additional emails related to its investigation of Hillary Clinton. Trump used it to fire up the crowd.
“This is the biggest political scandal since Watergate, and it’s everybody’s deepest hope that justice at last will be beautifully delivered,” he said at the time.
Also speaking at that rally was former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whom Trump is reportedly considering a pardon for.
Still, pardoning Arpaio — who was convicted of ignoring a federal court’s order — or at least hinting at it — will be a sign Trump is reverting to what got him elected, and he is still loyal to his base, even after the departure of nationalist adviser Steve Bannon.
Rating Change: Flake More Vulnerable in Arizona
Ongoing feud with Trump complicates GOP senator’s re-election bid
Nathan L. Gonzales
@nathanlgonzales
The acrimony between President Donald Trump and Arizona Republican Jeff Flake, which is already making the senator’s re-election bid more challenging, should only intensify during the president’s rally in Phoenix on Tuesday night.
Flake is known as a Trump opponent, which could make him vulnerable in the primary. The feud appeared to start in a private meeting a year ago, but has since escalated. Earlier this summer, Flake published a book, titled “Conscience of a Conservative,” publicly criticizing the Republican Party for the rise of Trump.
While the senator gained some admirers for being so outspoken against the president, he has also drawn criticism from certain elements in the GOP. Flake has at least one primary opponent, former state Sen. Kelli Ward, who lost a primary challenge to Sen. John McCain 51 percent to 40 percent last year. Trump praised her candidacy in a tweet last week, and one of his key donors contributed $300,000 to a PAC to defeat Flake.
Flake could also face a credible Democratic opponent in the general election, if he survives the primary. State Rep. Randy Friese, the doctor who assisted Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in the 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona, is seriously interested in running. But he could be joined in the race by Rep. Kyrsten Sinema or Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton.
Democrats will gladly point out that Flake, in spite of his reputation, has voted for much of Trump’s agenda (over 93.5 percent, according to FiveThirtyEight), including the recent health care proposal, for which McCain was the deciding “no” vote. That could make Flake vulnerable in the general election. If Flake is going to win re-election, he can’t afford too many defections from Republicans who are more loyal to Trump. And he doesn’t have a lot of room for error.
In 2012, Flake was elected to GOP Sen. Jon Kyl’s open seat with a 49 percent to 46 percent victory over Democratic former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona. In that race, Flake won both Republicans, 90-6 percent, and independents (albeit narrowly, 46-45 percent), according to the exit polls.
A recent Public Policy Polling survey showed Flake with a 22 percent job approval rating among 2016 Trump voters, while 63 percent of them disapproved. It was an automated poll by a Democratic firm, but those numbers should be alarming for the senator and his allies.
At a minimum, Ward’s primary challenge will make it harder to unite the party. That’s important in Arizona considering the primary is late in the cycle — Aug. 28 — leaving little time to reunite the party between a likely bitter primary and the general election. Flake will likely need to dramatically improve among independents and/or Democrats in order to compensate for some lost or missing Republicans whose loyalties lie first with the president.
With Flake’s significant risk of losing voters on both sides of the ideological spectrum, we’re changing the Inside Elections rating of the Arizona Senate race from Leans Republican to Tilts Republican, a move in favor of the Democrats.
Want insight more often? Get Roll Call in your inbox
Considering Hillary Clinton won Nevada, Sen. Dean Heller is still the most vulnerable Republican incumbent in the country. But that doesn’t mean Flake isn’t too far behind. Both seats are important to Republicans’ ability to hold and expand their majority next year.
Trump Taken Hostage By Deep State
By DICK MORRIS
Last night's speech Afghanistan was the forced utterance of a hostage on his captor's video. Trump should really have held up a newspaper to prove the date of the transmission, like any obedient hostage does.
The speech was the second act of self-abnegation and humiliation the president has had to endure at the hands of his deep state captors. On July 17th, the president -- with his arm twisted behind his back -- signed a certification to Congress (required every 90 days) that Iran was fully complying with the nuclear deal.
Trump admitted last night that he hadn't wanted to increase our Afghan involvement and news reports surrounding the Iran certification indicate that he didn't like doing that one. In both cases, the "wiser" counsels of his deep state advisors -- led by General H.R. McMaster -- prevailed over the president's previously held views.
In the campaign, Trump called Afghanistan a waste of men and money. He described the Iran deal as "the worst deal ever."
But now Trump is under new management. Mike Flynn is gone. Steve Bannon is history. Reince Priebus is the answer to a trivia question. Sean Spicer is out. The good guys have fled and the deep state -- and their army of "rogue spooks" -- are back in charge.
Here was the deal Trump's captors offered: Change the subject from Charlottesville. Look presidential. Get network approval to go on prime-time TV (usually withheld for anything but a war). Give a mushy statement saying you'll reveal later the number of new troops and your "plan" for using them. Look presidential. Get good press coverage.
Or...continue to get pounded in the media over the Confederate statues and, on Afghanistan, read about how you are ignoring the military and sowing chaos in the Pentagon.
Or...continue to get pounded in the media over the Confederate statues and, on Afghanistan, read about how you are ignoring the military and sowing chaos in the Pentagon.
Trump caved in. Just as he did when the deep state got him to fire Bannon.
Will he now proceed to cave in across the board?
Will he trade real Obamacare repeal for media praise by pushing a bipartisan solution that leaves it in place, possibly even stronger?
Will he bathe in media accolades for a moderate reform of NAFTA that really accomplishes nothing?
Is a minor, tepid tax cut -- passed by Democrats and RINOS in the offing?
Will he triangulate at the expense of substance to relieve the pounding he is taking in the media?
Bannon: The Days Of Ivanka ‘Crying’ To Daddy ‘Are Over’ Now That Kelly Is Chief
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon celebrated Chief of Staff John Kelly’s ability to prevent Ivanka Trump from influencing her father through unscheduled emotion-laden visits to the oval office.
“Those days are over when Ivanka can run in and lay her head on the [president’s] desk and cry,” Bannon told multiple people, according to The New York Times.
Bannon, who saw his influence decrease after the conclusion of President Donald Trump’s campaign, often lamented Ivanka’s presidential access. Bannon viewed Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner, whom he referred to as “Javanka,” as a political liability and likely to alienate Trump’s base by rejecting the national populist agenda that won Trump the White House.
Kelly, who was appointed July 28, immediately brought a previously unseen degree of discipline and process to the chaotic West Wing. Kelly quickly established himself by exercising tight control over Trump’s access to information and personnel, ensuring control of the latter by instituting a strict closed door policy in the Oval office.
Jared and Ivanka clashed with Bannon over their appeals to moderate republicans and independents on issues like immigration. Bannon pushed back against their agenda, arguing that their futile attempts to appeal to an unreachable constituency would imperil support from their base.
“They hate the very mention of his [Trump’s] name,” Bannon told the duo. “There is no constituency for this.”
Kelly informed Bannon in late July that he would be required to step down, and the pair mutually agreed that Bannon would leave quietly in mid August. Bannon’s clash with fellow advisors over Trump’s response to the Charlottesville riots complicated his departure.
Bannon characteristically counseled Trump to remain adamant in his initial characterization of the Charlottesville riots as the product of criminality on both sides of the political spectrum. Bannon once again found himself isolated as the rest of Trump’s advisors convinced him to release another statement explicitly condemning the actions of the neo-Nazis present in Charlottesville.
Kelly agreed to move Bannon’s Aug. 14 departure to Labor Day so as to avoid the appearance that he was being dismissed over disagreements related to Trump’s Charlottesville’s response.
Bannon hastened his departure by contradicting Trump’s position on North Korea in an interview with The American Prospect, in which he also called for the dismissal of some in the administration.
Alan Dershowitz: ‘Violent’ Antifa movement is ‘trying to tear down America’
‘I think it’s the obligation of liberals to speak out against the hard left radicals’
Prominent Harvard law professor and liberal author Alan Dershowitz rebuked the hard left militant movement Antifa on Tuesday, saying liberals need to avoid turning violent leftist factions into heroes. (Fox News) more >By Jessica Chasmar
Prominent Harvard law professor and liberal author Alan Dershowitz rebuked the hard-left militant movement Antifa on Tuesday, saying liberals need to avoid turning violent leftist factions into heroes.
Appearing on “Fox & Friends” Tuesday morning, Mr. Dershowitz said the movement sweeping the country to take down Confederate-era statues that some find offensive is setting a dangerous precedent.
“Do not glorify the violent people who are now tearing down the statues,” he said. “Many of these people, not all of them, many of these people are trying to tear down America.
“Antifa is a radical anti-American, anti-free market, communist, socialist, hard, hard left censorial organization that tries to stop speakers on campuses from speaking,” Mr. Dershowitz said. “They use violence. And just because they’re opposed to fascism and to some of these monuments shouldn’t make them heroes of the liberals.”
“I’m a liberal, and I think it’s the obligation of liberals to speak out against the hard left radicals just like it’s the obligation of conservatives to speak out against the extremism of the hard right,” he added.
Mr. Dershowitz acknowledged that while some historical monuments are better suited in museums, liberals should avoid becoming Stalinist in trying to erase or revise history.
“We have to use this as an educational moment,” he said. “We have to take some of the statues that were put up more recently, for example, during the Civil Rights Movement and perhaps move them to museums where they can be used to teach young students about how statues are intended sometimes for bad purposes, to glorify negatives and to hold back positive developments.”
“But the idea of willy-nilly going through and doing what Stalin did — just erasing history and re-writing it to serve current purposes — does pose a danger, and it poses a danger of educational malpractice, of missing opportunities to educate people, and of going too far,” he said.
Mr. Dershowitz argued that the movement against Confederate-era statues ignores other discriminated groups in America, like Jews, women, and the Japanese.
“Once you start rewriting history of African Americans in this country, you have to start rewriting history of discrimination against many, many other groups,” he said. “Look, we’re both a nation of immigrants and a nation of discrimination against immigrants. That’s an important history for us to remember.”
Appearing on “Fox & Friends” Tuesday morning, Mr. Dershowitz said the movement sweeping the country to take down Confederate-era statues that some find offensive is setting a dangerous precedent.
“Do not glorify the violent people who are now tearing down the statues,” he said. “Many of these people, not all of them, many of these people are trying to tear down America.
“Antifa is a radical anti-American, anti-free market, communist, socialist, hard, hard left censorial organization that tries to stop speakers on campuses from speaking,” Mr. Dershowitz said. “They use violence. And just because they’re opposed to fascism and to some of these monuments shouldn’t make them heroes of the liberals.”
“I’m a liberal, and I think it’s the obligation of liberals to speak out against the hard left radicals just like it’s the obligation of conservatives to speak out against the extremism of the hard right,” he added.
Mr. Dershowitz acknowledged that while some historical monuments are better suited in museums, liberals should avoid becoming Stalinist in trying to erase or revise history.
“We have to use this as an educational moment,” he said. “We have to take some of the statues that were put up more recently, for example, during the Civil Rights Movement and perhaps move them to museums where they can be used to teach young students about how statues are intended sometimes for bad purposes, to glorify negatives and to hold back positive developments.”
“But the idea of willy-nilly going through and doing what Stalin did — just erasing history and re-writing it to serve current purposes — does pose a danger, and it poses a danger of educational malpractice, of missing opportunities to educate people, and of going too far,” he said.
Mr. Dershowitz argued that the movement against Confederate-era statues ignores other discriminated groups in America, like Jews, women, and the Japanese.
“Once you start rewriting history of African Americans in this country, you have to start rewriting history of discrimination against many, many other groups,” he said. “Look, we’re both a nation of immigrants and a nation of discrimination against immigrants. That’s an important history for us to remember.”
Conservatives Divided Over Trump’s Afghanistan Plan
President says new strategy is fluid, will be determined by 'conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables'
President Donald Trump on Monday announced his plan to recommit to the long-running Afghanistan war, a reversal that has divided conservative activists and policy analysts.
Trump long has been skeptical of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, dating to long before he became a Republican candidate for the presidency. His argument was simple: Washington politicians should stop wasting blood and treasure in Afghanistan and rebuild America instead. He cheered on former President Barack Obama when he indicated his desire to wind down the war and then blasted him when he announced a troop surge.
Now with the war months away from entering its 17th year, Trump announced another shift in strategy and hinted at additional troops. Aware of how the turnabout contrasts with his “America First” campaign, Trump said he made the decision only after a comprehensive review that considered all options.
"My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts," he said. "But all of my life I heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office. In other words, when you're president of the United States. So I studied Afghanistan in great detail and from every conceivable angle."
Trump promised to wage the campaign not just militarily, but with diplomatic and economic resources as well. He said that a diplomatic solution eventually might include elements of the Taliban. He also offered a carrot-and-stick approach to dealing with Pakistan. He said that country could not continue receiving billions of dollars in U.S. aid while harboring terrorists.
Trump also said he would demand more help from India, particularly when it comes to economic development in Afghanistan.
Perhaps most importantly, Trump pledged a "shift from a time-based approach to one based on conditions."
Trump said he would expand authority of the armed forces to target terrorist and criminal networks in Afghanistan. He declined to telegraph military action but said America would judge its efforts by results, not a calendar.
"Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on," he said. "America's enemies must never know our plans or believe they can wait us out. I will not say when we are going to attack. But attack, we will."
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) did not even bother waiting for Trump's speech before criticizing the plan. He touted his plan to revoke resolutions passed in 2001 and 2002 authorizing military action in Afghanistan.
"The mission in Afghanistan has lost its purpose, and I think it is a terrible idea to send any more troops into that war," he said in a prepared statement.
Eric Gomez, a defense and foreign policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, questioned whether a strategy change or more troops would produce different results after so many years of trying.
"I don't suspect that would change anything, and the question is, what are the troops for?" he said. "Are they a continuation of Obama-era policies? … Is it worth it to keep sending people over to maintain what we're doing there, or should we cut Afghanistan loose and make it someone else's problem?"
Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, said the United States has spent a great deal of time in Afghanistan with little to show for it.
"We've been in Afghanistan for 16 years now," he said. "The initial purpose was to take out the people who took down the Twin Towers. I think that mission's been accomplished."
Manning said 4,000 soldiers — as news reports suggest the troop increase will amount to — probably are too few to make a big impact. He said it makes no sense to continue the war in Afghanistan unless the United States is winning to fight a "spiritual" war that confronts radical Islamic ideology head-on. And even then, he said, troops and military equipment are ineffective tools for that type of battle.
"The national security adviser, Henry McMaster, never met a battlefield that he didn't want to send troops to. And he holds sway right now."
Staying in Afghanistan also might make sense if it is part of a larger strategy — for instance, to counter neighboring Iran or prevent the exportation of heroin, which often ends up on the streets of America. He also noted that Afghanistan has valuable rare earth metals, but a Chinese company during the Obama administration signed a deal to control those resources.
Simply sending troops in an effort to stabilize the country and prop up the government, however, sounds like more of the same, Manning said. He added that it is a sign that Trump's populist advisers are losing influence.
"There was a big fight in the White House," he said. "The national security adviser, Henry McMaster, never met a battlefield that he didn't want to send troops to. And he holds sway right now."
But other experts said boosting troop levels can work as long as they serve a new strategy. James Carafano, vice president of The Heritage Foundation's Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, said Trump needs to avoid Obama's mistake of surging troop strength without a well-developed plan and with a deadline that Taliban forces would wait out.
"One of the problems we had is we built that Afghan army, and we've been burning through it," he said.
Why Bannon May Wield More Power on the Outside...Trump's former chief strategist thrives on media battles with GOP Establishment
Carafano questioned the conventional wisdom that Americans are war-weary.
"Anybody protesting in the streets?" he said. "This notion that Americans won't fight this war — it's ridiculous."
Michael Johns, president and executive director of the Tea Party Community and a former Heritage Foundation analyst, said he believes Trump's base will support his Afghanistan plan as long as the strategy makes sense and is connected to achievable goals. Noting that the Islamic State terrorist organization has gained a foothold in Afghanistan, he argued that Trump has been steadfast about the need to ramp up military action against international terrorists.
"The one consistent theme on the war on terrorism is that it should be won," he said.
(photo credit, article image: Michael Vadon, Wikimedia)
"The one consistent theme on the war on terrorism is that it should be won," he said.
(photo credit, article image: Michael Vadon, Wikimedia)
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2017/08/httpift_22.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment