So what's happened?

Now that President Obama, and his administration, have kicked the tires and taken the USA around the block, what stands out in foreign policy and national security? Here's my take:

The foreign policy method of the current administration is becoming increasingly dangerous. Changing policy and attitude is one thing, putting America second, is wrong. Also, the Executive is focusing on the wrong problems, to wit:

1) The Taliban has taken control of the Swat region of Pakistan, and is 60 miles from Islamabad. Should the Taliban obtain control of Pakistan, they will now have access to nuclear weapons. The Taliban's actions over the past decade indicate they have no regard for anyone who does not subscribe to their bizarre interpretation of Islam. Additionally, they have the inclination to strike at their neighbors, whether India, Iran, or perhaps to create a single country out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unfortunately, the US is putting more troops in Afghanistan.

2) North Korea is re-starting its nuclear program. While the North Koreans only pose a regional threat, their continued research and development efforts are in high demand on the world market. Perhaps China might see fit to restrain NK; however, Kim Jong Il is acting more to poke Obama in the eye, than in most other self-interests.

3) Apparently, the administration's p.c. buzzword for the area south of Lebanon, northeast of Egypt, and west of Jordan is Palestine. Two senior bureaucrats, in two separates sessions, described "the events happening in Palestine" and "the human rights issues in Palestine" to a class of senior Marines. If the Executive has issued a mandate to name a region that has not existed in over 60 years, then Israel should be on notice (which it likely is), that this administration is NOT committed to its security, and perhaps not even to Israel's existence. Frankly, words, speeches, and reassurances, are insignificant tripe compared to actual actions.

4) The vapid accusations and accompanying statements of the Department of Homeland Security regarding "right-wing extremism" have been discussed to a point of near nausea. Secretary Napolitano netiher understands her job, the security situation in North America, or who might be involved in a plot to overthrow America. The calls for her resignation are well-founded and the correct thing for her to do is step down. She is out of her league and it shows.

Hopefully, these are just cases of Executive naivete. Perhaps the next 100 days (though I do think this is an unfair standard) will be better.

Anti-Goverment Wacko

According to the recent report from the Department of Homeland Security, veterans, particularly those returning from combat tours in Iraq or Afghanistan, represent the some of the most attractive recruits to right-wing extremists. As if vilifying veterans wasn't enough, the report suggests that both federal and state law enforcement target people who sport bumper stickers supporting third-party candidates such as Bob Barr and Ron Paul.

Based on my veteran status (though not of OIF or OEF) and my belief in the text of the Constitution and its Amendments, I am possibly a "person of interest" to the DHS. Lovely.

Apparently, the policies of President Obama and the legislation getting forced down the throat of ordinary Americans has little to do with the perceived "increased threat" to the Homeland.

What's next? A bilateral exercise with the Civilian National Security Force (proposed by Senator Obama during the '08 Presidential campaign) and the Iranian Religious Police? Perhaps the President does in fact have a way to bring the Iranians to the negotiation table...

On a brighter note, hats off to Texas governor Rick Perry for endorsing a State Resolution affirming the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. By the way, no implementing legislation is needed for the 10th Amendment. Constitutional law scholars - gird thy loins, the war is coming, the battlefield will be the Federal Courts and Legislatures.

Did John Galt Arrive?

The intrusion continues...here's the latest from the House Financial Services Committee, whom most of you know the chairman, Barney Frank. Yes, Mr. I-helped-create-the-financial-crisis himself has quietly brought back the proposed (and unconstitutional) tax on compensation. But, this bill goes a step further by giving Comrade Secretary Geithner the right to set compensation for any employee in a company which has received government funding.

What's more is the quote from the bill' s author, Rep. Alan Grayon (D-FL)

"you should not get rich off public money, and you should not get rich off of abject failure." Grayson expects the bill to pass the House, and as we talked, he framed the issue in a way to suggest that virtuous lawmakers will vote for it, while corrupt lawmakers will vote against it.

"This bill will show which Republicans are so much on the take from the financial services industry that they're willing to actually bless compensation that has no bearing on performance and is excessive and unreasonable," Grayson said. "We'll find out who are the people who understand that the public's money needs to be protected, and who are the people who simply want to suck up to their patrons on Wall Street."

With proposals like this bounding out of our Congressional Politburo, there won't be an employee on Wall Street left. In case he forgot, four of Congressman Grayson's top five campaign contributors are large unions. Most union pension funds are heavily invested in the stock market. Hmm...

Also, whose virtue does Congressman Grayson espouse?

I'm looking for John Galt.

Who's Genuinely Qualified to Manage Money?

All the credit to Mark Steyn over at National Review Online for spelling out how bad things are getting in the economy and the market.

As much as I've been attempting to stay out of commenting on purely political issues; however, I can remain silent no more. This is out of control...call your Congress member, make this a critical issue in their world.

Decisive CT Operation Barely Reported by Press - Surprise?

CT operations occur all over the world. In the States, we only hear about a select few. In Sri Lanka, Tamil Tiger operations have been bloody, brutal, and frequent over the last ten years. Recently, the Sri Lankan government took decisive action to defeat the Tigers, but still no headlines. Perhaps an oversight? Maybe a more sinister agenda is afoot? What would you have done if you were the President of Sri Lanka?

Gold Wings

Yours truly reached a career-long goal this past weekend. I earned my Marine Parachutist insignia, more often known as "Gold Wings".

When I was a young 2ndLt. at 1/1, the Regimental Supply Officer sported these shiny gold jump wings on his uniform. If I remember correctly, he was one of maybe five Marines in the entire Regiment who had any type of wings, much less gold ones. This Marine, Capt McNamara, helped me survive my first deployment cycle. He also taught me the importance of supply operations and how it could directly affect the infantry's mission accomplishment. As a professional mentor, I could not have asked for better.

After my first tour, I transitioned to the Inspector-Instructor Staff 3Bn/23rd Marines. There, my I-I, LtCol Ferraro was dual-cool. [For the uninitiated, this means he had both his gold wings and a dive bubble]. LtCol Ferraro is one of the most impressive officers I have ever worked with. For years I've remarked that if he called and asked me to serve on his planning staff to invade the Gates of Hell, I'd be there within 48 hours. He's that type of leader.

I owe a considerable amount of gratitude to these two Marines. They never said I should jump, encouraged me to jump, or even casually remarked I should jump. But, they are both officers whom I wanted to emulate. Accordingly, getting gold wings was always on my radar.

So now I've got 'em! I have to thank all my friends and family for their kind congratulatory words. Also, I'm thankful to all the jumpers and jumpmasters of 4th ANGLICO for helping me learn parachute operations and bettering my abilities. This is a great way to start 2009!

Break in the Action

Today, Israel's Defense Ministry announced it would halt offensive operations in Gaza to permit humanitarian aid to get through. Even though the operational pause will only last for three hours, and the IDF reserved the right to defend itself if Hamas attacked, one must wonder why the humanitarian crisis needs to be avoided in the first place?

Hamas created this situation by launching over 8000, yes EIGHT THOUSAND, rockets at Israel's southern cities, over the past eight years. Hamas is the freely elected government who chose to purchase weapons, rocket parts, tunnel materials and engineering expertise, as opposed to, additional power plants, waste removal services, recycling centers, school improvements, hospitals, and other infrastructure items. Where are the social services Hamas was (in)famous for prior to its election? Why is the West Bank acting as if the action in Gaza is in another country?

The short answer is Hamas is reaping the harvest of its terrorist actions. This is the end state of non-state terrorist actors, such as Hamas (and possibly Hezbollah), when they have finally pushed too far. Unlike the United States in 2003-04 in Iraq, Israel has thoroughly planned its operation into Gaza. Overwhelming force has been deployed to the Gaza Strip. Israel's mission shall not end until it has degraded Hamas' ability to launch rockets. As Israel's Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, has said, the operation may go on for an extended period of time.

Currently, the world watches what happens when governments get fed up with terrorist actions. Turkey took similar action against the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) last year. Russia launched operations into Chechnya. The United States operates in both Iraq and Afghanistan to counter terrorists. India has a newfound interest in extending its operations. Israel is no different and has every right to pursue Hamas into every hole, school closet, hospital operating room, and mosque where they attempt to hide.

p.s. Where are Hamas' supposed leaders? Oh that's right, they don't even live in their own region, they hide in Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah controlled Lebanon.

Future ANGLICO Royalty?

Apparently, after much detrimental publicity, Prince Harry is now a battlefield air controller in Afghanistan.

JTAC next for the Sandhurst grad?

In the true spirit of joint coalition operations, we would love to see HRH with our 0861s (fire support men).

Thoughts on Iraq

Had an interesting conversation at the gym yesterday evening when I was asked "What's your opinion of Iraq?"

This is particularly timely for several reasons. First, I'm a Marine officer, so I do not really have the ability to "speak out" for/against particular administration policies. Second, broad sweeping questions, like the one presented, tend to encourage a particular answer. (My inquisitor is more liberal in mindset). Third, with the presidential election pending, the United States future in Iraq is up for discussion. Here are some thoughts as to why the United States should remain for the long haul in Iraq.

1) Before the House of Saud conquered the land now known as Saudi Arabia, they were challenged for the leadership by the Shammar tribe.

• The Saudis won the dispute and installed the Wahhabist form of Islam as the law of the land. The Shammar tribe left the region, migrated north, and now occupies a large amount of territory in western Iraq from Baghdad to Jordan. The Shammar tribe comprises approximately two million people and are much less radical than the Wahhabists.
• Oil is the reason the United States is in so tight with the Saudis. Most Americans are aware the Saudis have only recently began clamping down on the terrorist cells. Also, most know the 9/11 hijackers were mainly Saudi nationals. The Saudis have also been exporting Wahhabism throughout the world. Should oil go away, what relations will the United States and the Saudis have?
• In contrast, Shammar represents the opportunities for future relationships beyond oil. Iraq is a market ripe for expansion. Where does the United States have better chance of building commercial relationships -- a secular Iraq or a Wahhabist Saudi Arabia?

2) Moving forward in Iraq prevents Iran from increasing its hegemonic designs on the region.

• In part, Iran is progressing with its nuclear weapon program (despite the National Intelligence Estimate statements to the contrary), because the United States is camped out in Iraq. Some might argue this gives strength to the leave Iraq position; however, just because the U.S. might leave Iraq, does not mean Iran will abandon its quest for nuclear weapons.
• Iran is the real issue with which Americans are having trouble. Currently, America occupies land on two sides of Iran, and water on a third. Should a military action against Iran be required, America is already in position to act. America would not have to seek permission from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Afghanistan, or any other country in close proximity. Hopefully, the military option becomes less and less likely.
• Additionally, Iran is as interested in Iraq as we are. Iranian military and intelligence units have been operating there for several years. Frankly, had Iran wanted more confrontation between the Iraqi groups it supports and coalition forces, it would have done so. However, now that the Iraqi Shi'i population is represented in the government, Iran has some designs on exporting the revolution to Iraq. A pan-Islamic Republic, of Iraq-Iran, would be extremely detrimental to the future of region.

The future of the United States is intertwined with the future of Iraq. Although many Americans would blanch at the possibility of the second President Bush entering the annals of history as a hero, his legacy will only be realized at some point in the distant future. Depending on how the situation plays out, Bush will either become a hero (for helping to establish a democratic, Arab state) or a true goat (for many popular reasons). But for now, the way forward is remaining in Iraq, rebuilding institutions, turning the Awakening into a Wide-Awake, and pressing ahead with economic growth.

Arms Race - Mideast

Israel successfully tested a long-range nuclear capable missile on January 17, 2008. This test occurred concurrently with Russian naval exercises and the Russians own missile test. Debka further reports the Russian are in the process of establishing permanent naval bases in Tartous and Latakia, both in Syria. These actions, which also include Russia's third shipment of nuclear material to Iran, constitute an arms race occurring in the Middle East, the likes of which have not been seen since the Cold War.

The contrast to the 1980s is the location of all of these armaments are well within range of established military bases. Israel has already proven it can hit targets in Syria with conventional airpower. The success of the Israeli strike has caused the Russians to put their best salesmanship hat on to impress the Syrians that the NEXT air defense system will be the one to prevent future attacks. Simultaneously, the Iranians are not sitting on their haunches and are providing equipment, technology, and training to the Syrian, Hezbollah, AQ-I, Taliban, Hamas, et al. Also, Iran already has the capability to strike Israel with missiles, now they are working on increasing the lethality of their delivery systems.

Additionally, President Bush notified Congress of his intent to transfer 900 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) to Saudi Arabia. Of course, pro-Israeli members of Congress have asked for assurances that the Saudis will not use these weapons to attack Israel, or the United States. Generally, Debka states the Persian Gulf states are looking to diversify their weapons sources beyond American suppliers. Already, the amount of military equipment currently located in the Gulf Region is only slightly less than the number of raindrops during a Florida thunderstorm.

The danger in this arms race, besides the technology itself, is the proximity in which the weapons, bases, and personnel are located. In contrast to the somewhat dispersed American and Russian forces of the Cold War, the Mediterranean andGulf States have all of their military forces in theater. Most are already at medium levels of mobilization to counter real and perceived threats to their sovereignty and security. Unlike the 1980s, the current situation is more akin to the pre-World War I arms race and buildup in Europe.

Historians refer to the Balkans during that time as "The Powderkeg". One century later, we are watching the keg again filling. Will we also witness its lighting?

Iran's Nuclear Program - Who Knows What?

The recent United States National Intelligence Estimate stated Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Interestingly, the current estimate contradicts the 2005 NIE, which stated Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Supposedly, Iran canceled its program in response to international pressure. However, Iran staked out an anti-Western agenda long ago; therefore, are we expected to believe Iran no longer intends to build a nuclear arsenal?

United States - The NIE assessed with high confidence that Iran suspended its pursuit of nuclear weapons in 2003. Up until then, Iran was focused on procuring these weapons. However, the NIE then states:

We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons
program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.

Even if Iran did not restart its internal weapons program, nothing rules out their possible purchase, or trade, for a nuclear weapon. In all likelihood, if Iran did not buy a nuke, they probably would not use the publicly known enrichment locations such as Bushehr and Natanz. Back to the NIE:

We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities rather than its declared nuclear sites for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon. A growing amount of intelligence indicates Iran was engaged in covert uranium conversion and uranium enrichment activity, but we judge that these efforts probably were halted in response to the fall 2003 halt, and that these efforts probably had not been restarted through at least mid-2007.

Immediately after the release of the NIE, Israel argued the United States' assessment was at least flawed. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen was dispatched to Tel Aviv to meet with senior Israeli military, intelligence, and political officials to discuss the differences in the two countries' opinion of Iran's nuclear intentions. So what does Israel know?

Israel - Although there is no "smoking gun" piece of Israeli intelligence to counter the NIE, the two countries differ on the interpretation of current indicators. Israel points out that if Iran truly dismantled its weapons program in 2003, why did it not proclaim this to the world? While Israel may or may not have additional intelligence on Iran's intentions, the Israelis certainly have legitimate reason to remain vigilant on Iran.

Russia - Nuclear fuel has been shipped to Iran. An additional 80 tons of nuclear fuel are to be delivered in the next two months. Russia has also stated an attack on Iran is an attack on Russia. The probable Russian business interest outweighs any concern over whether or not Iran actually produces nuclear weapons. Of course, the Russians can always fall back on "they told us it was for peaceful purposes only!!"

Iran - Only the Iranians know what the status of their nuclear weapons program is. Since their nuclear energy program is moving forward, they announced they will build a second plant in Darkhovein. And, the delivery of nuclear fuel from Russia would not stop enrichment activity in Natanz.

What are we to make of this?

The moderate confidence of the NIE suggests there are many things we do not know. In one sense, Iran perceives the West to be wearing egg on its face because of the constant statements, prior to the NIE's release, that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The NIE recognizes that any Iranian nuclear weapon program would likely be secret, underground (literally and figuratively), and not near any currently known nuclear locations.

To paraphrase a European diplomat, who has experience as a foreign service officer in Tehran, "We know they lie about everything, the question is what do we about it?"

Iran may have abandoned its nuclear weapons program for its own use. But, Iran has already shown it will act through proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iraq insurgent groups) to accomplish its anti-West goals. Perhaps the Iranians have put aside their own ambitions for a nuclear arsenal in favor of packaging a nuclear product for proxy use. If so, the threat is as palpable as ever.

Israel and the Information War

Charlie, over at Op-For, correctly raises the grave importance of the information war should Israel take offensive action against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Although the IDF is prepared to begin operating in Gaza, the specter of the Summer 2006 war in Lebanon causes all involved to counsel prudence. Even though many believe Israel was the "loser" and Hezbollah "won," the view in the Middle East is quite different.

Hezbollah's leader, Sheik Hasan Nasrallah, admitted in a television interview that if he had known the consequences of kidnapping Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, he would have never continued with the operation. The result of the kidnapping operation? Lebanon's infrastructure was severely damaged by the IDF air force. Thousands of Lebanese were driven from their homes. Most western nations realized, and admitted, Hezbollah is nothing more than an Iranian proxy. However, the ultimate blow was the greater Arab sentiment that Hezbollah made an enormous mistake and should never have engaged in the operation.

Today, FoxNews reports Hamas is preparing to repel a possible Israeli offensive into the Gaza Strip. One gunman is quoted as saying:

"The U.S. and Israel and other regional powers were generous enough to provide Fatah security with very good weapons, and now they are in our hands."

Assuming this comment is true, it begs the question of whether Fatah has handed over the weapons it received to Hamas. One could argue Hamas and Fatah are getting along better than what is reported in the media. Behind closed doors, Mahmoud Abbas and Khaled Meshaal could have agreed to the following:

Abbas: Khaled, please continue to spout virulent anti-Israel and anti-West rhetoric. If you do so, I will provide you with the weapons we received from the western powers.

Meshaal: Mahmoud, I would be honored to continue the war against the occupiers. Also, could you please send some of your newly-trained security personnel to us? We would like to compare the West's tactics with those we learned from the Al-Qods force.

Abbas: I would be delighted to do so.

Could this conversation have happened? Perhaps. Both Hamas and Fatah have the same goal, ridding the world of Israel. If they looked past their differences and began to work collaboratively, these groups could be on the verge of completely fooling the Western world. Abbas said all the right things at Annapolis to imply he's interested in a peaceful, two-state solution. Nevertheless, the two-state solution has been on the table for over a decade, but has never been acted upon.

The common thread between today's Hamas press release and the releases of Hezbollah in the summer of 2006 is the continued propaganda war against Israel. Lebanon still smarts from the destruction wrought by Hezbollah's ill-conceived plan to kidnap Israeli soldiers. Gaza has been reduced to a shantytown since Hamas seized power from Fatah. The closing of the Karni crossing, from Gaza to Israel, has resulted in Gaza businesses losing thousands in revenue because they are unable to trade goods in Israel.

In both of these cases, Israel has been reactive. Israel has responded to the brazen attacks of Hamas and Hezbollah. However, Israel has not been at the forefront of the information war in an effort to win popular, international support for its actions. Should Hamas step up its attacks, Israel will likely respond decisively. Therefore, before judging the severity of any Israeli reaction, one should take into account what brought the reaction in the first place.

Words That Annoy Me

Redeployment - Most recently used by any number of politicians who are calling for American troops to exit Iraq. A vocal Iraq critic, Representative John Murtha (D.-Pa.) stated: (from The Politico)

On Friday, Murtha, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, clarified his remarks. The surge, he said, “has created a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government,’’ which he added has “failed to capitalize on the political and diplomatic steps that the surge was designed to provide.”

“The fact remains that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily, and that we must begin an orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as practicable,” Murtha said.

According to The Free Dictionary, redeployed means:

1. To move (military forces) from one combat zone to another.

2. To shift (something) from one place or use to another for greater effectiveness.

Arguably, most politicians are probably referring to the first definition, as opposed to the second. If so, where do they propose to redeploy U.S. forces? Last I checked, there's no combat zone in the United States. Should U.S. forces be loaded on transports and sent to the Horn of Africa, or Afghanistan, or perhaps to support a notional peacekeeping operation in Pakistan? Accordingly, where does Representative Murtha intend on redeploying our forces?

He must be referring to the second definition of redeployment and intends to move our troops back to the U.S., so they can be more effective. But, use of this definition would make Representative Murtha a hypocrite because he opined the additional "surge" troops have been effective in fulfilling their mission.

[Representative Murtha] returned from a trip to Iraq and told reporters Thursday that “the surge is working” to improve security, even though the central government in Baghdad remains “dysfunctional.”

Redeploying the troops to the United States would probably make them much less effective in helping to rebuild Iraq.

So what does redeployment actually mean? Probably, it's politically correct speech for withdrawal, exit, abdication, or heaven forbid - retreat.

Unfortunately, Representative Murtha, like many other vocal war critics, are missing the correct political points, which are the surge continues to work, Iraq is safer, businesses are reopening, citizens are returning, and sectarian violences continues to be reduced. Instead of redeploying our forces, how about we repeat the things that have brought so many rewards?

Support Sarkozy

The riots in France continue for a third day. The dangerous new element of these riots is the use of shotguns. Apparently, these riots began as a result of a car accident involving "minority teens" and French police. Allegedly, the police did not stop to assist the "minority teens". The police argue they stayed at the scene until EMS arrived. Who are we to believe?

Should we, as educated, critical thinking, internationally aware citizens subscribe to:

1. The idea that the French police would engage in hit-and-run tactics?
2. The idea that "disenfranchised immigrants" would react violently to a car accident in which they had absolutely no direct involvement?
3. Or, perhaps the idea that the latent, terrorist sympathies burst forth on the most slim of provocations?

Charlie, over at Op-For, raises some excellent points about the history and use of the term "urban guerrillas". I respond:

The French are in a tough position. The MSM is not going to name these upstarts appropriately. So, let's call them what they are - aspiring Muslim terrorists. They are not urban guerrillas, disenfranchised youths, out-of-work slackers, or persons upset over spilled milk. As our 42nd President might have said, "they're f**k*n terrorists, stupid."

I do believe Sarkozy is the right man to lead France into the next decade. He was the interior minister during the 2005 riots and rightly labeled the rioters "scum". He's already shown his mettle in facing down, and breaking, the powerful French transportation union. He will take this battle to the immigrant-terrorists in their neighborhoods. Plus, Sarkozy pledged to keep French forces in Afghanistan for as long as the U.S. is there.

The key issue for the United States is not to let the same thing happen here. The Los Angeles police recently scrapped a Muslim neighborhood mapping plan. But, were they on the right track?

More Guns, More Rights

As many are aware, the Nine on High (SCOTUS) have granted certiorari to review the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller, which challenges the District’s outright ban on handguns. Heller argues the District’s ban violates his Second Amendment right to bear arms. This will be the first time the Court addresses the scope and contours of the Second Amendment. Many are curious as to whether the Court will actually spell out the parameters of the Amendment, thereby applying it to the States, or if a narrower ground will be found for the decision. Both sides of the gun control debate are anxiously watching to see which way the Court will go. In this case, the Court will probably make a concrete decision and overturn the District’s ban.

The Second Amendment states – “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Two points are important to the Court’s analysis of Heller. First, what does it mean for “the People to keep and bear arms”? The gun control lobby would have us believe this clause means the right of the States to outfit their militias (now National Guard) with weapons. Second, how would this right be “infringed”? A related question, and the greater issue, is whether the Court will extend the Amendment’s application to the States.

As to the first definition, the people’s right to “keep and bear arms” should be interpreted to mean every individual person possesses the right to own weapons and keep them at home. This phrase relates to a right of the “the People”. In other sections of the Constitution, “the People” has been interpreted to mean everyone, all of us, each individual in the United States. For comparison, the interpretations of “the People”, in the first and fourteenth amendments means individuals. In fact, in remarks to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch pointed out this glaring inconsistency of Constitutional mis-interpretation.

The gun control lobby’s argument is the Second Amendment does not apply to the individual, but to the State. The lobby would have us all put our collective heads in the sand and ignore both the plain words of the Amendment, but also the entire document in which it was included. The Second Amendment is included in the Bill of Rights; the section of the Constitution inserted by the Framers to ensure the federal government would not become too powerful (tyrannical). In many cases, the Framers have been given due credit for knowing what they were doing and what words they were choosing when the Constitution was drafted. Therefore, the Amendment’s words should be given their basic, simple, common sense meaning and people (individuals) are Constitutionally permitted to own weapons and use them in defense of their persons.

The second issue, pertaining to how the right could be “infringed” will be slightly more difficult for the Court to resolve. Heller is not the perfect test case because it arises within the District of Columbia. Thus, the Court will have to work in the 50 states, if they decide to overturn DC’s ownership prohibition. However, this is not too great an obstacle to overcome. The more important issue is whether the Court will invalidate the laws of the States which outright prohibit weapon ownership.

The trend in the States has moved toward more ownership. In the past 20 years, the number of States completely restricting gun ownership has decreased from 15 to 2 (Illinois and Wisconsin). The number of “may issue,” where a State agency has discretion to issue an owner’s permit has decreased from 26 to 9. Most interesting is the number of States requiring the State administrative agency to issue ownership permits with a “shall issue” law. Over the past twenty years, the number of States changing to “shall issue” has increased from 8 to 37! Considering the trend across the Union, complete and thorough restriction on the right to own is headed the way of the white buffalo.

The change in State statutes will be reflected by the likely decision by the Court. Most likely, the conservative bloc (Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas) will vote to strike down DC’s prohibition and leave the regulation issue to the States. The liberal bloc (Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer) will probably vote to uphold DC’s law in an effort to stem the tide of gun ownership. While Kennedy is the “swing vote”, I suspect he will join the conservatives, and support the right of the States to regulate, but not prohibit, weapon ownership.

The upshot of the Court's decision is the people will again have the ability to determine how their own rights are affected. If Professor Balkin is correct, then the people will have their work cut out for them to prevent the Hillary-crats from disarming our country. The Founding Fathers inserted the right to "keep and bear arms" in order to prevent the State from engaging in tyranny nanny-ism. Should the Court strike down DC's prohibition, the People should ensure the next government does not quickly reverse the Court through legislation.

Krav Maga - First in a Long Series

Krav maga is the official self-defense system of the Israeli Defense Forces. The method is proven, battle tested, and one of the most effective personal self-defense systems available to the public.

No discussion of krav maga would be complete without a discussion of two people. First is the founder of krav maga, Imi (Sde-Or) Lichtenfield. The second is the Grandmaster of Israeli krav maga, Haim Gidon. This is the official, real-deal, not watered-down Israeli krav maga. If you're interested in learning the system, these are individuals with whom you want to trace your lineage.

Speaking of lineage, mine goes like this:

1. Imi (Sde-Or) Lichtenfeld
2. Grandmaster Haim Gidon
3. Senior Instructor Rick Blitstein
4. David Kahn
   
5. Me

I obtained my instructor certification this past summer in Netanya, Israel. While there, I had the privilege of training with some outstanding individuals (I will do profiles of them in the future).

The instructors course is thoroughly challenging. It's three glorious weeks in Haim's Playhouse where air conditioning is a rare luxury. We train approximately 7-10 hours a day, with a recuperative dip in the Mediterranean almost every evening. Next time I'm there, I promise to memorialize our daily hell...

In the meantime, if you're interested in learning krav maga make sure to ask the instructor two things:

1. What's your lineage?
2. When was the last time you trained in Israel?

The answers to these questions will tell you the quality of instruction you will receive.

Shalom v-yom tov.

Shout-Out

Thanks to my fellow airborne Marine, LtCol P for the promotion. I have greatly enjoyed the topics presented on Op-For and I will continue to comment there.

History Repeats

Currently, I'm watching Why We Fight World War II - A Prelude to War & the Nazis Strike, a 1940s era American propaganda movie, as part of the Marine Corps' Command & Staff Seminar. The movie was produced by both the Department of the Army and Hollywood (my how times have changed). The movie's main point? Simple - one way of life must survive, the USA's (and other freedom loving nations) or the Axis'.

What has struck me most are the parallels between how the Nazis, Italian fascists, and the Japanese operated then and how Islamic political and terrorist organizations are operating today. Throughout the movie, the Axis powers are shown to be advocating their way of life is not only the one, true way, but also, the way in which the whole world will eventually live under their rule. Unfortunately, the similarities between the occurrences of under 70 years ago are alive and well today.

For example, Italian women were honored and rewarded for giving birth to many sons. In comparison, the families of Palestinian suicide bombers are given state aid and numerous amounts of donations.

A second example is the political propaganda of the Axis powers. Each of those government's leaders made speech after speech about how the individual should put their trust in the state. The individual should give up thinking and criticizing the government and allow the state to think for them. Today, we see the same type of speeches in Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and others. This type of subjugation of the individual to the state is fascism, plain and simple.

The third example is no less shocking. The Japanese plan for its conquest was set out in the Tanaka Plan. The Tanaka Plan had several phases: 1) Conquest of Manchuria and then China; 2) Conquest of Southeast Asia; 3) Conquest of America's Pacific Islands; and 4) the Western United States. The efficacy of this plan is subject to extensive debate. However, the Japanese did execute a fair portion of it in an effort to assert their imperialistic goals.

Similarly, the stated goal of Al-Qaeda is to re-establish the caliphate of the 7th Century. They are not alone in this goal. In fact, a centerpiece of Muslim proselytizing is to convert the unbelievers to The Way.

The shocking thing is how little the free world is paying attention to the similarities between the Axis methods to those of today's Islamic terrorists. The ideology is similar - world domination. The methods are similar - subjugation of the individual to the state, or in this case, the religion. And, they both will use military action to achieve their goals. The minor difference is the Axis powers had the regular military at their disposal. The Islamists have successfully co-opted the general populace.

Wake up!!! Take notice of what is going on around us. Wake Up!!