FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Oct 16

Strange Things Are Happening Over At The U.S. Department of Defence

by bcurry

In recent weeks, some weird things were happening over at the Department of Defence (aka: the Department of War).  Most of it had to do with the current Secretary of Defence, one Pete Hegseth.  Firstly, all of the military brass was summoned to Washington to be spoken to by Hegseth, and in turn President Trump.  This included senior commanding officers stationed on bases outside of the U.S.  For what it’s worth, a Zoom call probably would have been adequate for those matters Hegseth raised.  Instead of anything of real strategic value, Hegseth went on to criticize the prevalence of “fat” soldiers, sailors and airmen.  In addition, he introduced a new requirement that would eliminate the growth of beards by those in the armed forces, calling them “beardos”.  Trump then went on about all kinds of unrelated themes, further baffling the commanders sitting motionless and bewildered in the auditorium.

Next, one has the obvious attack on the free press by Hegseth and company.  In a 21 page document, a new set of strictures was laid out that immediately drew criticism from news organizations representing those accredited to cover Defence department news.  One of its provisions was widely interpreted as requiring reporters to seek prior approval from the government for their coverage.  Failure to comply could lead to a revocation of press passes.  A deadline was subsequently set and has now been passed.  The result is that all the major news outlets, including Fox News and Newsmax, withdrew their journalists from the Pentagon.  In short, this move by Hegseth, formerly of Fox News himself, leaves the Defence department without any mainstream media coverage.  So much for a “free press”!

In an effort to appease Trump’s irrational claims of “insurrections” in American cities, national guard were deployed to Chicago, Illinois and Portland, Oregon.  Trump referred to these cities as “hell holes”, a statement greatly contested by state Governors and the affected mayors.  Visual evidence clearly does not support the administration’s claims, and if anything demonstrates the irrationality of the decision.  If nothing else, these deployments simply create a greater dangerous possibility of confrontations by locals with the authorities.  In both cases, serious crime rates have declined in recent years.  Hegseth even replaced some of the national guard members who apparently were somewhat “obese”, as witnessed by broadcast media upon their arrival in the city.

Last but not least, the Pentagon is carrying out a number of drone strikes in International Waters against suspected boats allegedly coming from Venezuela with drugs destined for the U.S.  However, MSN just reported that the mother of a fisherman in Trinidad and Tobago says her 26-year-old son was among six people killed Tuesday in the Trump administration’s fifth drone strike on boats off the coast of Venezuela.  As yet, there has been no official comment from the Trinidadian government. The U.S. government also has not identified who was on board.  Apparently, this is not the first time there have been claims that the strike may have killed non-Venezuelans.  Some critics in Congress are now questioning whether such drone strikes are illegal under international laws and why no permission was given by Congress.  Once again, Trump has taken it upon himself to initiate these military operations, obviously with the backing of Hegseth.

The above cases are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the use of Defence officials and military personnel and equipment for what can be considered to be nebulous purposes.  For this and other reasons, one can certainly ask what the hell is going on at the Department of Defence?

Defence Free Speech Military Prowess Trump US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Jul 17

U.S. Current Involvement In The Middle East Is Just Making Things Worst In The Region

by bcurry

As if the continuing supply of American weaponry to Israel isn’t destabilizing enough with respect to Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen and Iran, now the Trump administration has bombed Iranian nuclear facilities and Israel has undertaken further military actions in Syria.  Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling coalition now has received carte blanche from the U.S. to do whatever they believe is in their strategic interests, even if this means further threatening the political and economic stability in the region.  Iran is economically in a mess, and American military actions have simply caused greater consternation and outrage.  Indeed, according to the United Nations’ refugee agency, one of the immediate consequences is the fact that Iran has speeded up its deportation back to Afghanistan of Afghan refugees who number more than 1.4 million in the country.  It’s been reported that the mass expulsions threaten to push Afghanistan further toward the brink of economic collapse with the sudden cut off of vital remittance money to Afghan families from relatives in Iran.  In addition, the sudden influx of returnees piles on Afghanistan’s already grim unemployment, housing and health-care crises.  More than half of Afghanistan’s estimated population of 41 million already relies on humanitarian assistance.

In the case of Syria, Israel recently launched deadly airstrikes on Syria’s capital, damaging a compound housing the defence ministry and hitting an area near the presidential palace, according to the Israeli military and Syrian authorities. The bombardment in central Damascus followed days of bloody clashes involving Syrian government forces in the southern region of Sweida, the heartland of the country’s Druse minority and a strategically important province near Israel and Jordan.  Israeli officials have argued previously that they want to prevent any hostile forces in Syria from entrenching near their borders.  Syria of course has a new interim government following the overthrow of former dictator Bashar al-Assad in December 2024.  Syria’s new president Ahmed al-Shara has tried to stabilize the country since the change of regime and has also attempted to forge closer relations with the U.S.  However, Israeli military actions in Syria could damage these potential improved relations.  The Trump administration so far has been silent on the Israeli initiatives, except to state that they are “very concerned” over the Israeli strikes.

For an administration that claims it is against wars and the killing of civilians in particular, Trump appears to have taken a wait-and-watch position when it comes to Israel’s military actions in the region.  This position has given clear support to Netanyahu’s aggressive military initiatives, whether right or wrong.  This could lead to more awkward and contentious relations between the two administrations.  Even Israel’s apparent attempts to improve relations with other Arab regimes such as Saudi Arabia could be in jeopardy with the continuation of Israel’s attacks on its neighbouring states.  It’s becoming harder and harder to justify Israel’s military actions back home in the U.S. and in turn America’s continuing major involvement and military support.  The prospects of a more permanent cease fire with the Palestinians and Iranians is increasingly becoming that much more difficult under the circumstances.

In addition, Ehud Olmert, a former Israeli prime minister, said in an interview with the New York Times: “In Israel, Netanyahu is ready to sacrifice everything for his survival and we are closer to a civil war than people realize. In Gaza, we have returned to fighting — and for what?  And overseas, I never remember such hatred, such opposition, to the state of Israel.”  Opposition to the actions of the Netanyahu administration is growing among Western countries, including Great Britain, the European Union and Canada.  All in all, there is little doubt that the Middle East region is today more unstable than ever, and the Trump administration through it actions or lack thereof has greatly contributed the region’s instability.

Afghanistan Donald Trump Foreign Policy Iran Israel Israel Military Prowess The Middle East US

Leave a comment »
Oct 22

The Power of the American Military Industrial Complex Continues to Grow

by bcurry

Lester B. Pearson, a former Canadian Prime Minister, was quoted in 1955: “The grim fact is that we prepare for war like precocious giants, and for peace like retarded pygmies.”  As you may know or not know, as a diplomat Pearson was largely responsible for encouraging the formation of the League of Nations after World War II, which in turn became the United Nations.

Former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in 1953: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”  As a former general during World War II, Eisenhower clearly understood the power of the military industrial complex in the States, a power that has continued to grow from this day forward.

The U.S. is the world’s biggest arms exporter.  As of last year, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the U.S. controlled an estimated 45 percent of the world’s weapons exports.  This is nearly five times more than any other nation and its highest level since the years immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union.  That is up from 30 percent a decade ago.

The current conflict between Israel and Hamas is just the latest impetus behind a boom in international arms sales that is bolstering profits and weapons-making capacity among American suppliers, especially with respect to Israel’s military.  The U.S. already provides Israel with more than $3 billion in military assistance every year, and Congress is now apparently being asked to increase funding to Israel to the tune of $10 billion in emergency aid due to the conflict.

Even before Israel responded to the deadly Hamas attack, the combination of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the perception of a rising threat from China was spurring a global rush to purchase fighter planes, missiles, tanks, artillery, munitions and other lethal equipment.  Other countries such as Turkey and South Korea are also increasing their military equipment exports, giving purchasers more options at a time when production shortfalls in the U.S. mean it can take years for orders to be filled.  During the Biden administration countries such as Poland, Saudi Arabia, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Australia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea and Japan have signed military equipment deals with the U.S.  Even some small Pacific island nations have done the same. Taiwan alone has a backlog of American weapons orders worth as much as $19 billion.  Canada recently signed an agreement with Lockheed, the world’s largest military contractor, to purchase F-35 fighter jets worth billions of dollars.

Economically, there is little doubt that foreign-based wars can stimulate certain sectors of a country’s economy.  One only has to recall the impact of the Vietnam and Iraq wars to witness the role of American military hardware providers who benefited from the billions of dollars spent in support of American actions in both countries.  Unfortunately, thousands of American lives were loss and thousands more were injured in these two nebulous conflicts.  Military equipment is being sold to all sorts of regimes, several non-democratic, simply to garner support for American foreign policy initiatives in their respective region.

Sadly, there are those who note that the Pentagon and the State Department are continuing to work to find ways to accelerate approval of foreign military sales to keep up with the rising global demand.  The industry has declared that the main bottleneck remains manufacturing capacity, requiring an industrial base capable of meeting these requirements.  Yes, there will always be those that argue if the U.S. industry doesn’t fulfill such perceived needs, then other countries will simply step in to do so.  Regrettably, this appears to be a winnable argument in Congress, with the military industrial complex taking full advantage at the expense of American taxpayers since it is often combined with foreign aid and foreign policy.

Arms Trade Canada Defence Economy Foreign Policy Military Prowess The Middle East Ukraine US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Dec 9

Accusing Canada of Not Living Up to Its NATO Commitments is Overkill

by bcurry

Canada has roughly the same population (approx. 36 million people) as the state of California. Despite this, Canada has a long and proud military history — having significantly contributed citizens and materials to two World Wars and more recently to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) involvement in Afghanistan and Latvia. With a relatively small number of regular military personnel who are well armed and trained, Canada has contributed to numerous peace time operations of both NATO and the United Nations.

At a NATO summit in Wales in 2014, NATO nations for some arbitrary reason agreed to the target measurement of 2 per cent of a country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for its total defence spending. Canada currently spends about 1.31 per cent of GDP on defence. However, tabulate the defence dollars actually being spent on the military and Canada ranks an impressive sixth among the 29 NATO nations. A number of expert observers have agreed that NATO’s defence budget formula is very flawed, and allows small obscure countries like Bulgaria and Estonia to declare that they are more than meeting the 2 per cent target. In such cases, the purchase of a new ship or aircraft and one can easily surpass this GDP target. However, these and other similar countries contribute little in actual on-the-ground NATO support or suffer casualties as Canada did in Afghanistan.

So along comes Donald Trump who threatened to pull the U.S. out of NATO if all its members didn’t meet the 2 per cent of GDP target. The U.S., as a so-called super power and having its own foreign policy objectives backed up by an immense military-industrial establishment, now spends 3.42 per cent of its GDP on defence. Little surprise there, especially given vast American operations in the Middle East, South-East Asian seas and Afghanistan. For Trump to say that NATO is “obsolete” and frequently compliment Russian President Vladimir Putin are both absurd and even dangerous. After Russia’s “illegal annexation” of Crimea, NATO spoke of its solidarity with the Ukraine. Someone has to stand up to Russian aggression — if not NATO then who?

As part of its commitment to national security and to NATO, Canada is due to embark on major expenditures on fighter jets and the navy. Whether or not Canada meets some arbitrary target in defence spending is not all that critical. What is, is the country’s need to maintain a professional, prepared and well trained military.  I fully believe that the brave and competent men and women of Canada’s armed forces will continue to uphold the country’s proud military heritage. Something that the likes of Donald Trump cannot and will not fully appreciate.

Canada Donald Trump Foreign Policy Military Prowess NATO Ukraine US

Leave a comment »
Dec 2

Canada and U.S. Need to Consult More on How to Manage Artic Waters

by bcurry

Increasingly, the Artic waterways are open for a longer period to limited shipping, including commercial vessels, due to the impact of climate change in warming the oceans’ waters. For years, the former Soviet Union and now Russia have been building a greater capacity to travel through the Northwest Passage, even when the ice is still fairly thick. North of Russia shipping from Europe to Asia now takes place on an intermittent basis. Russia is far ahead of both Canada and the U.S. in creating ice-breaking capacity and particularly in the building of large nuclear-powered icebreakers. Currently the U.S. has two heavy icebreakers that are in their last days of service, and no new replacements are under construction at this time. Under a previous Conservative government, Canada proposed building a heavy polar icebreaker, but almost no progress has been made toward its actual construction.

Besides the potential natural resources that the Artic has, the Artic waters are of an important strategic value, militarily and politically, to both Canada and the U.S.  This year Canada released a comprehensive Arctic policy framework that places the emphasis for future development on civilian development. However, Canadian policy does not address Arctic shipping concerns.  This certainly is not a way to reinforce Canadian sovereignty off our Arctic coast.  Alaska’s two senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, recently proposed the creation of an Arctic Shipping Federal Advisory Committee to centralize discussions about shipping in Alaskan waters.

I would go one step further and suggest that a joint North American body needs to be created, just as we have one for common defense concerns in the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the International Joint Commission (IJC) to deal with mutual issues involving the Great Lakes waterways, commercial shipping and environmental concerns. Not only do we need to monitor Russian activities in Artic waters, but both countries can better coordinate investments in the creation of an ‘Artic seaway’ and the development of Artic ports.

At this time, neither Canada nor the United States has much to offer in the event of a maritime disaster in North American Arctic waters. Isn’t it about time that both countries get together to share resources and expertise to counter the growing Russian influence in Artic waters.  Instead of investing in military capabilities in outer space, it might be wiser to invest more resources right here on earth where more immediate and important needs must be addressed.

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Military Prowess US

Leave a comment »
Feb 3

Are We Entering Into Another Nuclear Arms Race?

by bcurry

I was in public school when the Cuban Crisis took place in 1962. President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev almost started a nuclear war over the placement of Soviet missiles in Cuba and the subsequent American naval blockade of the waters off Cuba to Soviet shipping. Both countries had enough nuclear warheads and intercontinental missiles to wipe each other out several times over.  In school, we were even practicing in the event of a possible nuclear attack.  Scary stuff!

After that, level heads thankfully prevailed and the Soviets dismantled and withdrew their missiles from Cuba, and the U.S. quietly did the same in Turkey. Both sides recognized the concept of “mutual nuclear deterrence” which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy’s use of those same weapons. Subsequently, both the U.S. and the Soviets began negotiations to limit and reduce their respective nuclear arsenals. This also led in 1987 to the signing by President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev of  the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. The INF was to limit the deployment of all ground-based nuclear weapons with a certain intermediate range, particularly those that allowed the Soviets to hit European targets or NATO forces to hit Soviet targets from locations in Europe.

Unable to reach a new INF agreement with Russia, the Trump White House announced that it’s pulling out of the treaty, only to be followed immediately by Vladimir Putin’s announcement as to Russia’s withdrawal from the agreement and negotiations. Most experts believe that Russia had been wanting out of the treaty for more than a decade, especially given Putin’s aggressive policies in Europe as exemplified by Russia’s military intervention in Eastern Ukraine.  There appears to be little doubt that the Russians have been “cheating” under the INF by developing cruise-missile-style low-flying weapons covered under the Treaty’s intermediate defined ranges. The U.S. now intends to conduct the R&D and work on the systems they haven’t been able to use because of American compliance with the treaty.

With the lost of such arms-related treaties, the world may very well be entering another arms race compared to that during the Cold War. Do we really need this situation at a time when global peace initiatives have been threatened in numerous ways?  It will also allow other countries, like China and North Korea, to further justify the continuation their arms development. Let’s just hope that we are not heading for the brink of another crisis like that which happened over five decades ago.

Donald Trump Military Prowess US

Leave a comment »
Sep 19

Who Likes A Military Parade More Than Donald Trump?

by bcurry

Like the old saying, everyone loves a parade. Indeed, it would appear from all reports (including fake news) that President Trump would love to see a military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue displaying the military might of the U.S.A.  He apparently got the idea from watching the Bastille Day parade in Paris with President Emmanuel Macron of France last July.  He is said to have called it “one of the most beautiful parades I have ever seen”— jet planes flying overhead and tanks and other armoured vehicles rolling along, with hundreds, if not thousands, of military personnel marching along to inspirational patriotic band music.  Trump reportedly said that “We are going to have to try and top it.”

And why not? After all, North Korea, Russia and China display their military hardware in parades all the time.  Just imagine Donald Trump standing proudly on the viewing stand in a Mussolini-style pose while smiling ear-to-ear at the display of American military prowess. Never mind the cost of such an event, which would be in the millions of tax-payer dollars at a time when the feds are running huge deficits.  Just imagine the great publicity shots and huge crowds, even larger than those attending his inaugural parade.  When to do it?  Well, how about next Fourth of July!  Americans have not witnessed a major military parade down the streets of Washington since 1991 when President George Bush hosted a limited military parade after the end of the Persian Gulf war.  That display was somewhat cheap as it only cost a little more than a pitiful $12 million U.S.  Surely, Trump can do better than that!

As the Commander-in-Chief, President Trump deserves to have his parade to display the American military might for all the world to see, including the North Koreans and Russians. We’ll see who has the biggest and most powerful missiles — Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-un. Needless-to-say, I imagine that the Americans would win the bragging rights.  So go ahead, President Trump.  Spend those hard-earned tax dollars and have your little parade if it makes you happy.  I’m sure we’ll all be watching with either great anticipation or even greater unease.

Donald Trump Military Prowess US

Leave a comment »
Blog at WordPress.com.