Category: Quick Analysis

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. releases new military strategy

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff unveiled America’s new national military strategy. He said that it takes into account increasing disorder in the world and the erosion of America’s comparative advantage.

The following provides key excerpts from the document.

General Martin Dempsey’s Foreword

Today’s global security environment is the most unpredictable I have seen in 40 years of service. Since the last National Military Strategy was published in 2011, global disorder has significantly increased while some of our comparative military advantage has begun to erode. We now face multiple, simultaneous security challenges from traditional state actors and transregional networks of sub-state groups – all taking advantage of rapid technological change. Future conflicts will come more rapidly, last longer, and take place on a much more technically challenging battlefield. They will have increasing implications to the U.S. homeland. … We must be able to rapidly adapt to new threats while maintaining comparative advantage over traditional ones.

Success will increasingly depend on how well our military instrument can support the other instruments of power and enable our network of allies and partners. The 2015 NMS continues the call for greater agility, innovation, and integration. It reinforces the need for the U.S. military to remain globally engaged to shape the security environment and to preserve our network of alliances. It echoes previous documents in noting the imperative within our profession to develop leaders of competence, character, and consequence. But it also asserts that the application of the military instrument of power against state threats is very different than the application of military power against non-state threats. We are more likely to face prolonged campaigns than conflicts that are resolved quickly…that control of escalation is becoming more difficult and more important…and that as a hedge against unpredictability with reduced resources, we may have to adjust our global posture. …

The Strategic Environment

 Russia’s military actions are undermining regional security directly and through proxy forces. These actions violate numerous agreements that Russia has signed in which it committed to act in accordance with international norms, including the UN Charter, Helsinki Accords, Russia-NATO Founding Act, Budapest Memorandum, and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Iran also poses strategic challenges to the international community. It is pursuing nuclear and missile delivery technologies despite repeated United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding that it cease such efforts. It is a state-sponsor of terrorism that has undermined stability in many nations, including Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Iran’s actions have destabilized the region and brought misery to countless people while denying the Iranian people the prospect of a prosperous future.

North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technologies also contradicts repeated demands by the international community to cease such efforts. These capabilities directly threaten its neighbors, especially the Republic of Korea and Japan. In time, they will threaten the U.S. homeland as well. North Korea also has conducted cyber attacks, including causing major damage to a U.S. corporation.

We support China’s rise and encourage it to become a partner for greater international security. However, China’s actions are adding tension to the Asia-Pacific region. For example, its claims to nearly the entire South China Sea are inconsistent with international law. The international community continues to call on China to settle such issues cooperatively and without coercion. China has responded with aggressive land reclamation efforts that will allow it to position military forces astride vital international sea lanes. None of these nations are believed to be seeking direct military conflict with the United States or our allies. Nonetheless, they each pose serious security concerns which the international community is working to collectively address by way of common policies, shared messages, and coordinated action.

As part of that effort, we remain committed to engagement with all nations to communicate our values, promote transparency, and reduce the potential for miscalculation. Accordingly, we continue to invest in a substantial military-to-military relationship with China and we remain ready to engage Russia in areas of common interest, while urging both nations to settle their disputes peacefully and in accordance with international law.

Concurrent with state challenges, violent extremist organizations (VEOs) — led by al Qaida and the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) — are working to undermine transregional security, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. Such groups are dedicated to radicalizing populations, spreading violence, and leveraging terror to impose their visions of societal organization. They are strongest where governments are weakest, exploiting people trapped in fragile or failed states. In many locations, VEOs coexist with transnational criminal organizations, where they conduct illicit trade and spread corruption, further undermining security and stability. In this complex strategic security environment, the U.S. military does not have the luxury of focusing on one challenge to the exclusion of others. It must provide a full range of military options for addressing both revisionist states and VEOs. Failure to do so will result in greater risk to our country and the international order.

The Military Environment

For the past decade, our military campaigns primarily have consisted of operations against violent extremist networks. But today, and into the foreseeable future, we must pay greater attention to challenges posed by state actors. They increasingly have the capability to contest regional freedom of movement and threaten our homeland.

Of particular concern are the proliferation of ballistic missiles, precision strike technologies, unmanned systems, space and cyber capabilities, and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) – technologies designed to counter U.S. military advantages and curtail access to the global commons. Emerging technologies are impacting the calculus of deterrence and conflict management by increasing uncertainty and compressing decision space. For example, attacks on our communications and sensing systems could occur with little to no warning, impacting our ability to assess, coordinate, communicate, and respond. As a result, future conflicts between states may prove to be unpredictable, costly, and difficult to control.

Violent Extremist Organizations (VEOs)  are taking advantage of emergent technologies as well, using information tools to propagate destructive ideologies, recruit and incite violence, and amplify the perceived power of their movements. They advertise their actions to strike fear in opponents and generate support for their causes. They use improvised explosive devices (IED), suicide vests, and tailored cyber tools to spread terror while seeking ever more sophisticated capabilities, including WMD.

Today, the probability of U.S. involvement in interstate war with a major power is assessed to be low but growing. Should one occur, however, the consequences would be immense. VEOs, in contrast, pose an immediate threat to transregional security by coupling readily available technologies with extremist ideologies. Overlapping state and non-state violence, there exists an area of conflict where actors blend techniques, capabilities, and resources to achieve their objectives. Such “hybrid” conflicts may consist of military forces assuming a non-state identity, as Russia did in the Crimea, or involve a VEO fielding rudimentary combined arms capabilities, as ISIL has demonstrated in Iraq and Syria. Hybrid conflicts also may be comprised of state and non-state actors working together toward shared objectives, employing a wide range of weapons such as we have witnessed in eastern Ukraine. Hybrid conflicts serve to increase ambiguity, complicate decision-making, and slow the coordination of effective responses. Due to these advantages to the aggressor, it is likely that this form of conflict will persist well into the future.

 An Integrated Military Strategy

To secure these interests, this National Military Strategy provides an integrated approach composed of three National Military Objectives: to deter, deny, and defeat state adversaries; to disrupt, degrade, and defeat VEOs; and to strengthen our global network of allies and partners.

The U.S. military pursues these objectives by conducting globally integrated operations, implementing institutional reforms at home, and sustaining the capabilities, capacity, and readiness required to prevail in conflicts that may differ significantly in scope, scale, and duration. These NMOs support the force planning guidance prescribed in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review. It states that our Nation requires a U.S. military with the capacity, capability, and readiness to simultaneously defend the homeland; conduct sustained, distributed counterterrorist operations; and, in multiple regions, deter aggression and assure allies through forward presence and engagement. If deterrence fails, at any given time, our military will be capable of defeating a regional adversary in a large-scale, multi-phased campaign while denying the objectives of — or imposing unacceptable costs on — another aggressor in a different region.

To secure these interests, this National Military Strategy provides an integrated approach composed of three National Military Objectives: to deter, deny, and defeat state adversaries; to disrupt, degrade, and defeat VEOs; and to strengthen our global network of allies and partners. The U.S. military pursues these objectives by conducting globally integrated operations, implementing institutional reforms at home, and sustaining the capabilities, capacity, and readiness required to prevail in conflicts that may differ significantly in scope, scale, and duration. These NMOs support the force planning guidance prescribed in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review. It states that our Nation requires a U.S. military with the capacity, capability, and readiness to simultaneously defend the homeland; conduct sustained, distributed counterterrorist operations; and, in multiple regions, deter aggression and assure allies through forward presence and engagement. If deterrence fails, at any given time, our military will be capable of defeating a regional adversary in a large-scale, multi-phased campaign while denying the objectives of — or imposing unacceptable costs on — another aggressor in a different region.

  1. Deter, Deny, and Defeat State Adversaries The U.S. military is the world’s preeminent Joint Force. It supports the Nation by providing a full range of options to protect the homeland and our interests while assuring the security of our allies. The U.S. military deters aggression by maintaining a credible nuclear capability that is safe, secure, and effective; conducting forward engagement and operations; and maintaining Active, National Guard, and Reserve forces prepared to deploy and conduct operations of sufficient scale and duration to accomplish their missions. Forward deployed, rotational, and globally responsive forces regularly demonstrate the capability and will to act. Should deterrence fail to prevent aggression, the U.S. military stands ready to project power to deny an adversary’s objectives and decisively defeat any actor that threatens the U.S. homeland, our national interests, or our allies and partners.

Deterring a direct attack on the United States and our allies is a priority mission, requiring homeland and regional defenses tied to secure conventional and nuclear strike capabilities. Thus U.S. strategic forces remain always ready.

U.S. military defenses are enhanced by our North American Aerospace Defense Command Agreement with Canada and close cooperation with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. These homeland defense partnerships are complemented by growing investments in the cyber realm designed to protect vital networks and infrastructure. In case of aggression, denying adversaries their goals will be an immediate objective. This places special emphasis on maintaining highly-ready forces forward, as well as well trained and equipped surge forces at home, resilient logistics and transportation infrastructures, networked intelligence, strong communications links, and interoperability with allies and partners. Timely interagency planning and coordination also will be leveraged to develop holistic options that serve to integrate all elements of national power. Should any actor directly attack the United States or our interests, the U.S. military will take action to defend our Nation.

We are prepared to project power across all domains to stop aggression and win our Nation’s wars by decisively defeating adversaries. While we prefer to act in concert with others, we will act unilaterally if the situation demands. In the event of an attack, the U.S. military will respond by inflicting damage of such magnitude as to compel the adversary to cease hostilities or render it incapable of further aggression. War against a major adversary would require the full mobilization of all instruments of national power and, to do so, the United States sustains a full-spectrum military that includes strong Reserve and National Guard forces. They provide the force depth needed to achieve victory while simultaneously deterring other threats.

  1. Disrupt, Degrade, and Defeat VEOs Today, the United States is leading a broad coalition of nations to defeat VEOs in multiple regions by applying pressure across the full extent of their networks. In concert with all elements of national power and international partnerships, these efforts aim to disrupt VEO planning and operations, degrade support structures, remove leadership, interdict finances, impede the flow of foreign fighters, counter malign influences, liberate captured territory, and ultimately defeat them. In support of these efforts, we are widely distributing U.S. military forces and leveraging globally integrated command and control processes to enable transregional operations. Credible regional partners are vital to sustaining counter-VEO campaigns.

Main function of gokshura is regeneration discount generic viagra of damaged cells and to provide strength to excretory system. The active ingredient in purchase viagra in australia deeprootsmag.org is Sildenafil Citrate. Because Kamagra viagra professional generic is selective in nature, it will target the erectile chambers. browse here acquisition de viagra After using kamagra before sexual intercourse, a normal experience of having sex can be enjoyed. The U.S. military contributes select combat forces, enabling technologies, and training in support of local partners that provide the majority of forces necessary to restore and secure their homelands. Timelines for these campaigns generally are long. Therefore, they must be conducted in a politically, financially, and militarily sustainable manner that optimizes the power of coalitions…Defeating VEOs ultimately requires providing security and economic opportunities to at-risk populations. Thus counter-VEO campaigns demand that our military, in close coordination with other U.S. agencies and international organizations, assist local governments in addressing the root causes of conflict. As part of that effort, the U.S. military regularly contributes to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief endeavors aimed at alleviating suffering and restoring hope.

  1. Strengthen Our Global Network of Allies and Partners America’s global network of allies and partners is a unique strength that provides the foundation for international security and stability. These partnerships also facilitate the growth of prosperity around the world, from which all nations benefit. As we look to the future, the U.S. military and its allies and partners will continue to protect and promote shared interests. We will preserve our alliances, expand partnerships, maintain a global stabilizing presence, and conduct training, exercises, security cooperation activities, and military-to-military engagement. Such activities increase the capabilities and capacity of partners, thereby enhancing our collective ability to deter aggression and defeat extremists.

The presence of U.S. military forces in key locations around the world underpins the international order and provides opportunities to engage with other countries while positioning forces to respond to crises.

Therefore we will press forward with the rebalance to the AsiaPacific region, placing our most advanced capabilities and greater capacity in that vital theater. We will strengthen our alliances with Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, and Thailand. We also will deepen our security relationship with India and build upon our partnerships with New Zealand, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Bangladesh. Such efforts are essential to maintaining regional peace and building capabilities to provide for missile defense, cyber security, maritime security, and disaster relief.

In Europe, we remain steadfast in our commitment to our NATO allies. NATO provides vital collective security guarantees and is strategically important for deterring conflict, particularly in light of recent Russian aggression on its periphery. U.S. Operation ATLANTIC RESOLVE, our European Reassurance Initiative, NATO’s Readiness Action Plan, and the many activities, exercises, and investments contained in them serve to underline our dedication to alliance solidarity, unity, and security. We also will continue to support our NATO partners to increase their interoperability with U.S. forces and to provide for their own defense. In the Middle East, we remain fully committed to Israel’s security and Qualitative Military Edge.

We also are helping other vital partners in that region increase their defenses, including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Egypt, and Pakistan. Additionally, we are working to strengthen institutions across Africa, aimed at fostering stability, building peacekeeping capacity, and countering transregional extremism.

And the U.S. military is supporting interagency efforts with Latin American and Caribbean states to promote regional stability and counter transnational criminal organizations. 10 Combined training and exercises increase the readiness of our allies and partners while enhancing the interoperability and responsiveness of U.S. forces.

With advanced partners like NATO, Australia, Japan, and Korea, our exercises emphasize sophisticated capabilities such as assuring access to contested environments and deterring and responding to hybrid conflicts. With other partners, training often focuses on improving skills in counterterrorism, peacekeeping, disaster relief, support to law enforcement, and search and rescue. Security cooperation activities are at the heart of our efforts to provide a stabilizing presence in forward theaters. These build relationships that serve mutual security interests. They also develop partner military capabilities for self-defense and support to multinational operations. Through such activities, we coordinate with other U.S. agencies and mission partners to build cultural awareness and affirm relationships that increase regional stability.

  1. Advance Globally Integrated Operations The execution of integrated operations requires a Joint Force capable of swift and decisive force projection around the world. As detailed in the “Capstone Concept for Joint Operations: Joint Force 2020,” globally integrated operations emphasize eight key components: employing mission command; seizing, retaining, and exploiting the initiative; leveraging global agility; partnering; demonstrating flexibility in establishing joint forces; improving crossdomain synergy; using flexible, low-signature capabilities; and being increasingly discriminate to minimize unintended consequences. Such operations rely upon a global logistics and transportation network, secure communications, and integrated joint and partner intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. In executing globally integrated operations, U.S. military forces work closely with international and interagency partners to generate strategic options for our Nation. … We continue to implement the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review and 2011 New START Treaty while ensuring our national defense needs are met. Concurrently, we are enhancing our command and control capabilities for strategic and regional nuclear forces.

 Provide for Military Defense of the Homeland

Emerging state and non-state capabilities pose varied and direct threats to our homeland. Thus we are striving to interdict attack preparations abroad, defend against limited ballistic missile attacks, and protect cyber systems and physical infrastructure. Key homeland defense capabilities include resilient space-based and terrestrial indications and warning systems; an integrated intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination architecture; a Ground-Based Interceptor force; a Cyber Mission Force; and, ready ground, air and naval forces. We also are leveraging domestic and regional partnerships to improve information sharing and unity of effort. These capabilities will better defend us against both high technology threats and terrorist dangers.

Defeat an Adversary

In the event of an attack against the United States or one of its allies, the U.S. military along with allies and partners will project power across multiple domains to decisively defeat the adversary by compelling it to cease hostilities or render its military incapable of further aggression. Provide a Global, Stabilizing Presence. The presence of U.S. military forces in key locations around the world underpins the security of our allies and partners, provides stability to enhance economic growth and regional integration, and positions the Joint Force to execute emergency actions in response to a crisis.

Combat Terrorism

Terrorism is a tactic VEOs use to advance their interests. The best way to counter VEOs is by way of sustained pressure using local forces augmented by specialized U.S. and coalition military strengths such as ISR, precision strike, training, and logistical support. Counterterrorism operations also involve coordinated efforts with other U.S. agencies, working together to interdict and disrupt threats targeting the U.S. homeland. Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction. Nuclear, chemical, and biological agents pose uniquely destructive threats. They can empower a small group of actors with terrible destructive potential. Thus combatting WMD as far from our homeland as possible is a key mission for the joint force prioritized missions

Toward that end, we team with multinational and U.S. interagency partners to locate, track, interdict, and secure or destroy WMD, its components, and the means and facilities needed to make it, wherever possible. Deny an Adversary’s Objectives. Denying an adversary’s goals or imposing unacceptable costs is central to achieving our objectives. This puts emphasis on maintaining highly-ready, forward-deployed forces, well trained and equipped surge forces at home, robust transportation infrastructure and assets, and reliable and resilient communications links with allies and partners. These capabilities provide the means to curtail crises before they can escalate. Respond to Crisis and Conduct Limited Contingency Operations. Another form of power projection is teaming with partners to conduct limited contingency operations. Such operations may involve flowing additional U.S. forces and capabilities to a given region to strengthen deterrence, prevent escalation, and reassure allies.

Additionally, the U.S. military sustains ready forces around the world to defend our citizens and protect diplomatic facilities.

Conduct Military Engagement and Security Cooperation

 The U.S. military strengthens regional stability by conducting security cooperation activities with foreign defense establishments. Such activities support mutual security interests, develop partner capabilities for self-defense, and prepare for multinational operations. Strengthening partners is fundamental to our security, building strategic depth for our national defense. Conduct Stability and Counterinsurgency Operations.

The U.S. military also remains ready to conduct limited stability operations when required, working with interagency, coalition, and host-nation forces. Such efforts emphasize unique elements of our forces: civil military affairs teams, building partner capacity, information support teams, and cultural outreach programs.

Provide Support to Civil Authorities

When man-made or natural disasters impact the United States, our military community offers support to civil authorities in concert with other U.S. agencies. As part of that effort, we integrate military and civil capabilities through FEMA’s National Planning System and National Exercise Program. During domestic events, U.S. military forces — including National Guard and Reserve units — provide trained personnel, communications capabilities, lift, and logistical and planning support. They work alongside civilian first-responders to mitigate the impact of such incidents and keep our citizens safe.

Conduct Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Response

Over the years, U.S. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen have quickly and effectively delivered life-sustaining aid to desperate people all around the world. Such efforts sometimes last only a few weeks. At other times, they last much longer. In all cases, taking action to relieve suffering reflects our professional ethos and the values in which we believe.

Resourcing the Strategy

We will not realize the goals of this 2015 National Military Strategy without sufficient resources. Like those that came before it, this strategy assumes a commitment to projecting global influence, supporting allies and partners, and maintaining the All-Volunteer Force. To execute this strategy, the U.S. military requires a sufficient level of investment in capacity, capabilities, and readiness so that when our Nation calls, our military remains ready to deliver success.

Joint Force Initiatives

The U.S. Joint Force combines people, processes, and programs to execute globally integrated operations and achieve our National Military Objectives. This requires innovative leaders, optimized decision-making, and advanced military capabilities…

 Our goal is to strengthen deterrence while ensuring the long-term viability of our full-spectrum power projection capacity. Additionally, we are more fully coordinating requirements, plans, and operational execution at home and abroad to maximize collective capabilities against common concerns. And we are using tailored forces that deploy for limited timeframes to execute specific missions, recognizing that “campaign persistence” is necessary against determined adversaries. We are improving our global agility. The ability to quickly aggregate and disaggregate forces anywhere in the world is the essence of global agility.

We are striving to increase our agility by improving campaign planning, sustaining a resilient global posture, and implementing dynamic force management processes that adjust presence in anticipation of events, to better seize opportunities, deter adversaries, and assure allies and partners.

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Losing the economic & defense high ground in space

For far too long, the U.S. space program has been treated as a frill—something desirable and good, but not essential to the military, economic, and scientific health of the nation.

It is difficult for Americans brought up on the history of the U.S. beating Russia to the moon to realize that their nation is now rapidly falling behind. Fifty-two countries, according to the Space Foundation,  now conduct space activities. “Many nations now recognize the strategic value and practical benefits of space assets and are pursuing space capabilities.”

According to Rep. Bill Posey (R-Florida)  “NASA and America’s mission in space are important components to our national security…and national economic growth; and to the advancement of new technologies and our global economic competitiveness. America’s achievements in space are universally recognized and admired around the world. Yet, today our nation’s leadership in space is being threatened by Russia, China, India and others. We must recognize and respond to this threat with urgency. We cannot rely on our past and pretend that is enough to propel us as the world leader in space. Too many in Washington have lost the vision and they have taken our past achievements for granted…We, as a nation cannot afford to take a backseat to anyone when it comes to space. We must lead. Our failure to do so will cede the final frontier to others who do not have our best interest at heart and it will jeopardize our technological superiority, our economic security and our national security.”

America’s Space Industry is faltering. While NASA has sought to move forward, the budget plug gets pulled with alarming regularity. According to Posey, “In the last 20 years NASA has spent more than $20B on cancelled development programs.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce  notes that “The United States invented the space industry, but steadily over the last decade or more, the country has seen global competitors increase their capability to launch satellites and people into space, even as the United States has spun its wheels and gained little ground, stuck in the quicksand of bureaucracy and misaligned public and private interests…

“This industry is very smart, and we’re living off a set of past wonders that were achieved in the 60s, 70s and 80s and think that that carries through to today,” said John Higginbotham, chairman & CEO of Blue Ridge Networks. “We have to get real and look in the mirror. We had it right , but the recipe got out of whack…Maybe we should listen to people in other industries, in other countries, and look at other business models.”

In the hey-day of American space exploration, the U.S. private sector worked hand-in-hand with their public counterparts, collaborating to develop something the world had never seen. Though rocket science grew out of World War II, NASA, other parts of the U.S. government and the American private sector took an emerging idea and refined it into a robust industry. It also did this in record time. Recently, however, the public-private relationship has broken down with cascading effects throughout the industry and those industries that support it.

“If you actually look at the launch industry,” said Linda Maxwell, Aerospace, Defense and Government (ADG) Investment Banking Group, Houlihan Lokey, who also spoke on the panel, “when United Launch Alliance is using Russian and Ukrainian rockets to throw our commercial satellites into space, you know something is wrong…”

“In the ‘80s and ‘90s, the United States was a satellite powerhouse, providing satellite capabilities for more than 90% of the global market. …To have the statement that 1 out of 25 satellite operators is a resident of the United States is a dismal failure.”

What happened? Export controls and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Since 1976, the United States has kept a list of defense-related technology, weapons and other items whose export and import is regulated by the federal government. ITAR was borne of the Cold War and the U.S. effort to control arms exports.  In 1999, another set of technologies was added to the regulated U.S. Munitions List – satellites. This made what was already a costly and complex endeavor significantly more challenging, if not impossible in some cases.

With heavy regulations on U.S. business’ ability to sell satellite infrastructure, companies and investors also lost the cash flows that come from providing goods and services. By limiting how satellite infrastructure could be used, sold and launched, the United States effectively took itself out of 95% of the global market – this for an industry America invented and propelled to world-changing ends.
A UK based online store mouthsofthesouth.com order cialis uk always delivers cheap male impotence kamagra tablets in a discreet packaging, just to maintain privacy. Esteeming our client needs and endeavoring to give them the best administration in the business helps cost of cialis to achieve erection for desired time. The growth of male organ starts during pregnancy cialis professional for sale and childbirth, most notable is her posture. The pumps are said to offer considerable benefits within 6 to 8 weeks of use. tadalafil on line
“If you ask major aerospace firms why they are losing to competitors abroad, it is because of ITAR regulations,” said Maxwell. “International customers don’t want to come here…The amount of regulation on the way that the government does business is stifling the profitability and time to market.”

In 2013, the National Defense Authorization Act removed that restriction, though it may have been too late.

“Even as U.S. space initiatives have slowed to a leisurely stroll, other countries are sprinting ahead, seizing the opportunity to acquire a larger stake in the industry while the United States sleepily allows its supremacy in space to slip away…

“While regulations are a hindrance, another challenge for investors and the U.S. space industry overall is a lack of a national mission and unreliable mission consistency between administrations…”

NASA’s Budget Woes

Rep. Posey, in statements noted by the Tampa Bay Times and the Miami Herald, has been sharply critical of President Obama’s role in cutting funding for key  space agency programs, particularly manned space flight.  In 2011, he stated “After the administration let NASA flounder for the past two years, a flawed NASA authorization bill was finally agreed to and signed into law… Now the administration is proposing to ignore this law, placing a higher priority on global warming research and making cuts to the next-generation launch vehicle.  Over two years ago, the president promised to close the space gap, but now he seems intent on repeating the events that created the space gap in the first place — putting in place a new rocket design and then trying to underfund the effort, ensuring that it will never happen and ceding American leadership in space to China and Russia.”

Of course, NASA’s problems did not first arise under the Obama presidency, although his Administration must take responsibility for pulling the plug on the Shuttle program before a substitute crewed vehicle could be prepared, and for diverting funds away from key projects to more fully fund climate change studies.

This year, The Republican-controlled Congress has also cut funding from the development of crucially needed commercial crewed vehicles. The reason given was that it allowed dependence on Russian craft for too long going forward.

Space defense also troubled

It is not just the civilian side of space that is a concern.

The Breaking Defense  publication quoted Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work’s worries about  “increasing threats” against America’s satellites “While we rely heavily on space capabilities, in both peace and war, we must continue to emphasize space control as challenges arise…To maintain our military dominance we must consider all space assets, both classified and unclassified, as part of a single constellation. And if an adversary tries to deny us the capability, we must be able to respond in an integrated, coordinated fashion.” China’s capability to destroy U.S. satellite in orbit is a key motivation for the Pentagon’s concern.

On June 26, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Alabama), chair of the House Armed Services Committee addressed a hearing of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on America’s reliance on Russian rocket engines. He stressed that without “an effective space launch program, we lose all the advantages from space capabilities. Losing space for our warfighters is not an option… Because we are committing to ending our reliance on Russian engines, we must invest in the United States rocket propulsion industrial base.  Investment in our industry for advanced rocket engines is overdue.  While we may lead in some areas of rocket propulsion, we are clearly not leading in all.  This is painfully obvious considering that 2 out of the 3 U.S. launch providers we have here today rely on Russian engines.  And it’s not just the Russians leading the way — according to online press reports, the Chinese may be flying a new launch vehicle on a maiden flight this summer, with similar technologies as the Russians, using an advanced kerosene engine.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Huge growth in regulation imperils freedom

The impact of the astronomical growth of the federal government’s bureaucracy is becoming increasingly evident and worrisome. The cost can not only be counted in dollars, but in the shrinking rights of the citizenry.

An example can be seen in the Environmental Protection Agency’s addition to the Clean Waters Act. Under this draconian provision, 60% of water, including, absurdly, ponds and irrigation ditches on private property fall under the EPA’s control.

While this problem has been growing for decades, it has accelerated to an unprecedented degree under the Obama Administration and moved into many areas, such as free speech, which go to the very core of citizen rights. The President’s attempts to put monitors in newsrooms and his transfer of the Internet from private to government control are the most noticeable examples.

The Heritage Foundation’s “Opportunity for All” report notes that “in the five years following President Obama’s inauguration in 2009, 15,794 new rules were published in the federal register, of which 403 were classified as major.”

“In his January 2014 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama vowed to wield his executive powers when faced with congressional resistance to his legislative agenda: ‘America does not stand still—and neither will I’, he said. ‘So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation … that’s what I am going to do.’ This provocative declaration was startling in its bluntness, but it was hardly a new policy.

“During its first five years, the Obama Administration aggressively exploited regulation to get its way. Issuing 157 new major rules at a cost to Americans approaching $73 billion annually, this Administration is very likely the most regulatory in U.S. history. Of course, preceding Administrations also have increased regulation, albeit to a lesser degree. And regulatory overreach by the executive branch is only part of the problem. Congress, too, is a major culprit. Lawmakers routinely delegate their policy-making powers to regulatory agencies. Furthermore, much of the red tape imposed over the past five years has been driven by “independent” agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which are outside direct presidential control.

“From finance to telecommunications, these agencies have added to the regulatory tide swamping American businesses and families. And there are many more regulations to come; agencies have identified 120 additional major rules they intend to work on, including dozens linked to the 2010 Dodd–Frank financial regulation law and Obamacare. Of particular concern is that the FCC has launched yet another attempt to regulate Internet traffic. Reforms of the regulatory process are critically needed. Among these: requiring congressional approval before any new major regulation takes effect, requiring analyses of the regulatory consequences of all proposed legislation before a vote by Congress is held, setting sunset deadlines in law for all major regulations, and including ‘independent’ agencies in the White House regulatory review process.”

Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute  has written that the Administrative bureaucracy has grown so large that it now constitutes an entire “extralegal” government. He believes that “aspects of America’s legal system have become lawless” since whole portions of this administrative structure are used not for appropriate law enforcement but to achieve the social and political goals of bureaucrats. He notes in his new book “By The People” that the Code of Federal Regulations increased from 22,877 pages in 1960 to 174,545 pages in 2012.

Murray also points out that if you disagree with any of these rules, which you as a citizen had no real say in their development, in most cases your only recourse is to appeal to the very agency that you disagree with.

Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute  outlines the facts that describe this challenge:

  • Federal regulation and intervention cost American consumers and businesses an estimated $1.88 trillion in 2014 in lost economic productivity and higher prices.
  • If U.S. federal regulation was a country, it would be the world’s 10th largest economy, ranking behind Russia and ahead of India.
  • Economy-wide regulatory costs amount to an average of $14,976 per household – around 29 percent of an average family budget of $51,100. Although not paid directly by individuals, this “cost” of regulation exceeds the amount an average family spends on health care, food and transportation.
  • The “Unconstitutionality Index” is the ratio of regulations issued by unelected agency officials compared to legislation enacted by Congress in a given year. In 2014, agencies issued 16 new regulations for every law—that’s 3,554 new regulations compared to 224 new laws.
  • Many Americans complain about taxes, but regulatory compliance costs exceed what the IRS is expected to collect in both individual and corporate income taxes for last year—by more than $160 billion.
  • Some 60 federal departments, agencies and commissions have 3,415 regulations in development at various stages in the pipeline. The top six federal rulemaking agencies account for 48 percent of all federal regulations. These are the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, Interior, Health and Human Services and Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency.
  • The 2014 Federal Register contains 77,687 pages, the sixth highest page count in its history. Among the six all-time-high Federal Register total page counts, five occurred under President Obama.
  • The George W. Bush administra­tion averaged 62 major regulations annually over eight years, while the Obama administration has averaged 81 major regulations annually over six years.But it’s not just official federal issues that are affected.  As Charles Murray points out, “Federal funds account for about a quarter of state and local revenues. Some large proportion of state and local employees are, for practical purposes, federal employees.

The chief distinguishing factor for the super active blue pill that in a way boosts the sexual energy and stamina of free viagra 100mg the man, who is indulged completely in to sexual copulation. Iverson was absent from most of the 76ers regular season games; his 4-year-old daughter, Messiah, was diagnosed with an undisclosed disease early this year and has been ill for some time now. viagra 5mg uk This natural effect from the aging and should not be confused with either cialis uk a loss in sexual attraction, sexual disinterest or ED. If it world not cheap, the branded mastercard generic viagra greyandgrey.com would not be replaced and Kamagra would not get so much adornment.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Sharia practices incompatible with Western culture

As Muslim minorities continue to grow in influence throughout the United States and Europe, demands for the use of Sharia Law expand. It is vital to understand how distant are the practitioners of the radical interpretation that philosophy’s tenets, who unfortunately hold sway currently, from modern western thought.

Their practices regarding women and minority populations have been a continuous record of human rights violations. The Gatestone Institute  notes  “terrorist groups abduct women to sell them as sex-slaves or “wives;” conduct mass crucifixions and forced conversions; behead innocent people en masse; try to extinguish religious …The religious and historical experiences of the Western world and the Islamic world are so enormously different that they ended up having completely different cultures and values.

“The West, established on Jewish, Christian and secular values, has created a far more humanitarian, free and democratic culture. Sadly, much of the Muslim world, under Islamic sharia law, has created a misogynistic, violent and totalitarian culture. This does not mean that the West has been perfect and sinless. … The West, however, accepts responsibility for the failures in its own territories …Ever since the seventh century, Muslim armies have invaded and captured Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and Zoroastrian lands; for more than 1400 years since, they have continued their jihad, or Islamic raids, against other religions….

“Some of the things that women in Saudi Arabia may not do were listed in The Week magazine: Saudi women are not allowed to “go anywhere without a male chaperone, open a bank account without their husband’s permission, drive a car, vote in elections, go for a swim, compete freely in sports, try on clothes when shopping, enter a cemetery, read an uncensored fashion magazine and buy a Barbie and so on….

“Muslim groups and regimes continue to persecute indigenous peoples such as Assyrians, Chaldeans, Mandaeans, Shabaks, Copts, Yezidis, and Bedoon, among many others.” A substantial segment of the Bedoon population lives with the constant threat of deportation hanging over it,” according to the analyst Ben Cohen. “Around 120,000 Bedoon live without nationality and with none of the rights that flow from citizenship.”

Time magazine  reports “Family law in Islamic countries generally follows the prescriptions of scripture. …In Islam, women can have only one spouse, while men are permitted four. The legal age for girls to marry tends to be very young. … The law has occasionally been exploited by pedophiles, who marry poor young girls from the provinces, use and then abandon them… In 2000 the Iranian Parliament voted to raise the minimum age for girls to 14, but this year, a legislative oversight body dominated by traditional clerics vetoed the move. …Wives in Islamic societies face great difficulty in suing for divorce, but husbands can be released from their vows virtually on demand, in some places merely by saying “I divorce you” three times. Though in most Muslim states, divorces are entitled to alimony, in Pakistan it lasts only three months, long enough to ensure the woman isn’t pregnant. The same three-month rule applies even to the Muslim minority in India.

The Clarion Project’s examination of marital rights in fundamentalist Islamic views  notes that “Although various opinions exist regarding Islamic marriage laws, the following constants remain:

  • A man is entitled to up to four wives, but a woman may only have one husband. In Western societies, a man typically only takes one wife.
  • The husband (or his family) pays a “bride price” or “dower” (mahr, which is money or property paid to the bride) which she is entitled to keep. This “mahr” is in exchange for sexual submission (tamkin). Sexual submission is traditionally regarded as unconditional consent for the remainder of the marriage.
  • A man can divorce his wife by making a declaration (talaq) in front of an Islamic judge irrespective of the woman’s consent. Even her presence is not required. For a woman to divorce a man (khula), his consent is required.
  • The husband is responsible for the financial upkeep of home (nafaqa).
  • “Temporary marriage” (even for less than a half an hour) is allowed by some scholars, others regard it as a form of prostitution. A report by the Gatestone Institute charts its development in Britain.
  • Wife beating permitted according to some scholars.
  • There is no joint property; the man owns all property, (except for what the woman owned before the marriage).
  • There is no specific minimum age for marriage, but most agree a woman must have reached puberty. Marriage as young as 12 or 13 is not uncommon in Muslim-majority countries. In Yemen in 2013, there was a highly publicized case of an eight-year-old girl who died of internal injuries suffered on her wedding night.According to Al Jazeera, “Nearly 14 percent of Yemeni girls [are] married before the age of 15 and 52 percent before the age of 18.” The case prompted calls for Yemen to pass a law setting a minimum age for marriage, although it has not yet done so.

Sometimes the cialis price next page man fails to do so due to erectile dysfunction. Vigrx plus is considered as the best pills cheap cialis canada for amazing sexual life because it provides many benefits. Another problem with air conditioning machines are accumulation of water under the front portion cialis no rx of the men have unfavorably susceptible response against the utilization of this medication. When there is no proper blood flow to viagra no prescription regencygrandenursing.com the penile area.
“Muslim Feminists such as Dr. Elham Manea argue that the interpretation of sharia in the area of marriage amounts to discrimination, the type of which is prohibited under Western legal systems.”

One of the most heinous chapters of Western history, the enslavement of blacks, has significant ties with the practices of Islam, which in some quarters continues its tolerance of the terrible practice of human bondage.

The Atlanta Black Star  notes “Some historians estimate that between A.D. 650 and 1900, 10 to 20 million people were enslaved by Arab slave traders. Others believe over 20 million enslaved Africans alone had been delivered through the trans-Sahara route alone to the Islamic world…

As casual association with Black skin and slave began to be established, racist attitudes towards Blacks began to manifest in Arabic language and literature. The word for slave – Abid – became a colloquialism for African. Other words such as Haratin express social inferiority of Africans…

The eastern Arab slave trade dealt primarily with African women, maintaining a ratio of two women for each man. These women and young girls were used by Arabs and other Asians as concubines and menials.

A Muslim slaveholder was entitled by law to the sexual enjoyment of his slave women. Filling the harems of wealthy Arabs, African women bore them a host of children. This abuse of African women would continue for nearly 1, 200 years. The Arab slave trade was the longest yet least discussed of the two major slave trades. It began in seventh century as Arabs and other Asians poured into northern and eastern Africa under the banner of Islam. The Arab trade of Blacks in Southeast Africa predates the European transatlantic slave trade by 700 years. Some scholars say the Arab slave trade continued in one form or another up until the 1960s, however, slavery in Mauritania was criminalized as recently as August 2007.”

The practice of slavery is a major ongoing characteristic of ISIS and its affiliate,  Boko Haram.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Debunking the myth of western colonialism as an excuse for Islamic terrorism

Muslim extremists frequently attempt to justify their numerous atrocities and acts of aggression by citing alleged past injuries at the hands of foreign powers. The actual historic record tends to indicate that, since the fall of the Roman Empire, aggression at the hands of Arab powers has been far more prevalent than the reverse.

James Arlandson, writing in the American Thinker, disputes the European colonialism excuse

“Historical facts say that Islam has been imperialistic—and would still like to be, if only for religious reasons. Many Muslim clerics, scholars, and activists, for example, would like to impose Islamic law  around the world. Historical facts say that Islam, including Muhammad, launched their own Crusades against Christianity long before the European Crusades.”

The Gatestone Institute reports: “Every time the ISIS, Boko Haram, Iran, or any terrorist group in the Muslim world is discussed, many people tend to hold the West responsible for the devastation and murders they commit. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Blaming the failures in the Muslim world on Western nations is simply bigotry and an attempt to shift the blame and to prevent us from understanding the real root cause of the problem.”

Sources not aligned with the United States or its NATO allies agree. The Russian news source rt.com  notes: “Muslims must stop blaming Western foreign policy, Islamophobia and online grooming for radicalization and should start taking responsibility for their community, according to the chairman of the Muslim Forum.”

A Redstate  analysis reveals:

You tell yourself that maybe it was always that way – viagra without prescription the car is, after all, no longer new. Scientists and medics have been working on developing the highly innovative, next generation cheapest cialis india pills is known to have a rejuvenating effect on your liver. Remember, these factors are necessary but may not sildenafil cheapest price be sufficient space for one-on-one activities with a class of medications known as Pde5 inhibitors. One such pill is Kamagra, which helps you boost your flow of blood and release semen’s that would help you enjoy powerful orgasms. buy cialis http://www.midwayfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Approved-Minutes-2-21-17.pdf “…when Islam first arose, much of what we think of today as Islamic ‘territory’ in Anatolia, the Levant and North Africa was Christian until conquered by the heirs of Muhammad, such that speaking of one side’s incursions into the other’s territory requires you to ignore how that territory was seized in the first place. That entire region had been part of the Roman and later Byzantine empires, and was culturally part of the West until it was conquered by Muslim arms – Rome is closer geographically to Tripoli than to London, Madrid is closer to Casablanca than to Berlin, Athens is closer to Damascus than to Paris.

“All that said, it’s worth remembering that the Crusades arose in the late Eleventh Century only after four centuries of relentless Islamic efforts to conquer Europe, and the Christians of the Crusading era cannot be evaluated without that crucial context…

“Starting in the middle of the Seventh Century, when Islam was still mostly united under a single political entity, you begin to see Islamic incursions into Europe (including Constantinople, which was effectively one of the leading European cities at the time) – and from there, the conquests and attempted conquests marched on. If you look on a map over this period, you see an almost continuous line of advance on Europe from all sides but the north – from Spain and France in the west to Italy in the center to Constantinople in the east to the frontiers of Georgia in the Caucasus, with the islands of the Mediterranean on the front lines…”

What of the much-discussed period of modern European colonialism in the region? According to The Gatestone Institute:

“European Empires — the British, French and Italians — had a short-lived presence in North Africa and the Middle East compared with the Ottoman Empire, which ruled over that region for more than 500 years,” said the historian Niall Ferguson.…Muslim states continue to occupy and colonize various territories — including Kurdistan, Baluchistan and the northern part of Cyprus, an EU member state.”One of the most tragic consequences of the 1974 Turkish invasion [of Cyprus] ,” according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus, “and the subsequent illegal occupation of 36.2% of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus, is the violent and systematic destruction of the cultural and religious heritage in the occupied areas.”

There are no justifiable excuses for atrocities or aggression. The Muslim extremist excuse of western colonialism bears the further handicap of being historically inaccurate.

Categories
Quick Analysis

How to deal with Russia

On June 23, the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee,  Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Tx)  delivered a major address to the Atlantic Council outlining how the United States should deal with Russia. The following are the key points.

Looking back from the perspective of 70 years, two well-known warnings of 1946 were amazingly perceptive and prescient, and I believe that they can continue to enlighten us today in our struggle with one of the new faces of tyranny that we confront.

George Kennan had clashed with superiors who were not ready to hear the realities driving Soviet Russia. In response to inquiries from the Treasury and State Departments, he sent back a cable discussing what lay underneath Soviet actions and motivations in the famous Long Telegram on February 22, 1946. He wrote, “At bottom of Kremlin’s neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity.” . . . And they have learned to seek security only in patient but deadly struggle for total destruction of rival power, never in compacts and compromises with it.” Less than two weeks later, on March 5, 1946, a foreign politician then in opposition gave a speech which shook up public opinion about our wartime ally. Winston Churchill told an audience in Fulton, Missouri, which included President Truman, “I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.” “From what I have seen of our Russian friends and Allies during the war, I am convinced that there is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness, especially military weakness.” These insights, among others, helped guide our approach to dealing with the Soviet Union until its collapse…

… But, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, most of us thought and hoped that without the ideology of communism, Russia would enter the community of nations as a responsible, constructive participant. Just as Churchill and Roosevelt were misled by Stalin, we have been disappointed. Perhaps we underestimated something deeper in the Russian psyche, which Kennan pointed out pretty clearly.

Despite the growing warning signs, by the time the Obama Administration took office, it followed a very different approach toward Russia than one guided by the insights of Kennan and Churchill. Within the first month, Vice President Biden said it was “time to press the reset button” with Russia, and shortly Secretary of State Clinton was off to deliver an actual, if mistranslated, button. Later that year, the President canceled the Third Site missile defense plan, surprising our allies, the Poles and Czechs. The next year, the President announced that he had concluded that “the situation in Georgia need no longer be considered an obstacle” to reaching agreements with the Russians. Among other milestones was the famous microphone that picked up the President telling Russian President Medvedev, that “all these issues, but particularly missile defense, can be solved, but it’s important for him [Putin] to give me space. . . . After my election I have more flexibility.”

We saw that flexibility later as the U.S. backed away a second time from missile defense plans that aggravated Moscow.

We also, at that time, began to cut our defense spending. Meanwhile a new government in Ukraine did not want to live under Moscow’s thumb, leading to the invasion and annexation of Crimea, then invasion and occupation of portions of eastern Ukraine. It is in many ways the most significant breach of European borders since the end of World War II. Our response has been primarily economic sanctions and additional training exercises.

But the Administration, along with some of our European allies, has so far refused to provide the weapons the Ukrainians need to defend themselves. Lenin is often quoted as saying, “Probe with bayonets. If you encounter mush, proceed; if you encounter steel, withdraw.” It seems that Mr. Putin and those around him do not see economic sanctions as steel.

How stand things today? The Russian defense budget is increasing about 10% despite the economic sanctions with most of the money going to procurement. While the limits on “strategic” launchers and warheads are equal for us under the New Start treaty, Russia is modernizing both, including 2 new land-based ICBM’s, 2 new submarine launched ballistic missiles, a new class of SSBN’s, a new long range cruise missile, with other ICBMs and cruise missiles in development.

All the while, they continue to manufacture new nuclear warheads and maintain roughly 10 times the number of tactical nuclear warheads that we do. The Russian military openly discusses doctrinal changes which have broadened the circumstances under which they would use nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, they are in violation of the INF treaty, as well as other international agreements. Ukraine is not the only place we see aggressive, confrontational behavior as Russian aircraft and ships conduct provocative maneuvers rarely seen even at the height of the Cold War. In no area are they more aggressive than in propaganda, both internally and with neighboring countries.

Visiting Eastern Europe, one hears a lot about the massive, relentless misinformation campaign coming from Moscow. And when it comes to Ukraine, there seems no limit to the lies and extensive efforts to cover up the truth of direct Russian military involvement. Even on the political front media reports evidence that Russia helps finance green protest and anti-fracking movements in Europe, while providing employment for former European officeholders. The dominant topic of the Munich Security Conference this year was hybrid warfare, which refers to a variety of tactics and deceptions to advance a nation’s goals and to complicate any response from the other side. The Russians are not the only adversary using these tactics, but they pose special challenges, especially when some allies are all too willing to look for excuses not to act…

So in summary, the next President will have sitting on his or her desk a situation in which the one country that could pose an existential threat to the United States has growing military capabilities, a growing willingness to use them, a string of provocative actions and outright aggression, along with brazen deception as a matter of government policy without much of an effective response.

And that it just one of the many national security threats and challenges facing the U.S. What should we do? 535 Members of Congress cannot devise or implement national security strategy. What we can do is help clarify thinking, enlighten public opinion, and ensure that the next President will have the tools he or she needs to defend the country and protect our interests.

I suggest 5 elements are key, not only to deal with the growing Russian threat, but also with the other challenges we face:

  1. Speak the truth. Historic changes after World War II came about because Kennan, Churchill, and others were willing to speak the truth. Domestic political calculations and spin are too often the enemy of the truth. Americans and others need to know the facts of Russian involvement in Ukraine. I think we Americans tend to undervalue the battle of ideas. We took it seriously during the Cold War. But whether it is the struggle against radical Islam or against European aggression, the fight for the truth to be heard and believed is especially important in a networked world. Among other benefits, it lets our allies know that they are not alone. We need the organizations, capability, and political will to fight on that battlefield.

 

  1. Strengthen our defense, which starts with how much we spend. Next year’s budget is subject of confusing political maneuvering right now between Capitol Hill and the White House. Both the House and Senate passed Budget Resolutions and now Defense Authorization Bills at the level of defense funding requested by the President. It is the level that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Dempsey called the “lower ragged edge” of what it takes to defend the country. Yet the President has threatened to veto either the authorization or appropriations bills or both at his requested level unless Congress agrees to spend more money on domestic agencies, such as the IRS and EPA. Just last Friday, the President repeated his warning to a group of mayors, saying “I will not sign bills that seek to increase defense spending before addressing any of our needs here at home.”

 
Some foreign pharmacies and regencygrandenursing.com levitra 60 mg some online pharmacies are delivering the medicine after getting the proper order from the patient party. Some people wait until they have used the last one in regencygrandenursing.com online cialis no prescription order to make the order. Therefore, they can reduce shedding, moisturize dry coat and heal levitra in india price flaking skin. It cannot be used by men who take nitrate drugs for chest pain, also referred to as angina, should not take any dose without consulting a healthcare professional. usa cheap viagra
I note that history has a way of turning irony into tragedy as today Secretary Carter is in Europe working to bolster our NATO allies’ commitment to the alliance, increase their defense budgets, and stiffen spines against Russia. He does that just as the President is holding the defense bills hostage here at home for his own political ends. Nothing would better underscore Secretary Carter’s message than the President’s prompt signature on a bill that funds our military, aids Ukraine, and adds resources to our posture in Eastern Europe. Increasing money to the Overseas Contingency Account is not the ideal way to fund defense, and I agree that we very much need higher, consistent, predictable funding. But holding defense hostage for higher EPA funding will not achieve that goal, and it certainly will not make our nation safer. The fact is that our defense spending has been cut 21% counting the effects of inflation over the last four years, and the world is not 21% safer. As Charles Krauthammer has famously noted, “Decline is a choice.”

 

We have a choice right now to meet the “lower ragged edge” of what is needed to defend the country or to play politics and end up with significantly less than is required. The choice we make may well prove to be a significant milestone on what the next 70 years will look like. As far as how we spend that money to strengthen our defenses, our nuclear deterrent requires special attention. This week our Committee will have several events on the topic. It is the foundation for all of our defense efforts, yet we have taken it for granted, neglecting the systems, the infrastructure, and the people involved in making sure those complex machines are safe, reliable and effective. The weapons and the delivery systems are all aging out about the same time, and maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent will have to be a major priority for the next administration and Congress. In tight budgets, it is tempting to shave off research and development funding. Tight budgets also cause institutional interests to be more protective of what they have. Neither of those temptations will help us meet the challenge posed by peer competitors. Deputy Secretary Work is leading a push known as the 3 rd Offset to  stop the further erosion of American technological advantage. It is a matter of considerable importance and urgency. Few defense systems add uncertainty and complications into an adversary’s planning process as much missile defense. And few defense systems help reassure worried allies as much. An expedited push on both technological development and fielding of existing systems is needed. The new domain of warfare — cyber – poses special challenges for those of us who value the rule of law. But the threat is growing faster than we are able to deal with it. It is not our technical expertise that I worry about; it is our laws and policies that are not keeping up.

 

  1. Improve our Agility – We need not only to allocate more resources to defense, we need to make sure these resources are spent more effectively. That is one of the reasons both the House and Senate have put a high priority on defense reform. But an even more important reason to reform the Pentagon is to improve the agility of our system.

 

To be blunt, if it continues to take us 20 years to field a new airplane, we can never maintain a technological edge over our adversaries. While there are certain trends we can see, such as the increasing importance of the cyber domain, we have to be as ready as we can be to deal with the unexpected in this complex, volatile world. Rigidity is our enemy – whether it is in our bureaucratic organizations, in our military strategy and tactics, in our procurement systems, or in our decision-making. This year, we are focusing on reform of acquisition, reform of our personnel system, and reduction of overhead. Improving efficiency is one objective of these reforms, but to me improved agility is the overriding one.

 

  1. Stand strong with allies While the United States must have the capability to defend ourselves and our interests on our own, it is preferable and more likely that we will do so with allies. Whether it is Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, allies must pull their share of the weight. The fact that only four NATO allies are meeting the 2% of GDP target is not only unfair, it is most likely seen by Moscow as further evidence of mush. The U.S. should lead by example, stop the decline in our defense budgets, and demand that others meet the targets. We have to give those willing to defend their country against aggression the means to do so. It is disturbing to me that some here and in Europe see themselves sitting on Mount Olympus, passing judgment on who is qualified to fight an invasion of their country and who is not. It may be that if we provide the Ukrainians with lethal assistance to defend themselves that Putin will up the ante. But they still have the right to defend themselves, and Putin will pay a price for increased causalities – one he is obviously very nervous about paying. We need a concentrated effort to look at what works and what doesn’t when it comes to train and equip efforts. We have had successful and unsuccessful examples over the years, and later this year our Committee will take a look at both.

 

  1. Use all instruments of national power In 2007 I served on the Commission on Smart Power, whose recommendations were largely a matter of common sense before they got caught up in politics. We need the full range of capabilities and the judgment to know which tool to use in which circumstance. Secretaries of Defense have become strong advocates for funding of other agencies, yet the day-to-day frustration of antiquated approaches, bureaucratic infighting, stove-piped bureaucracies have led to more and more tasks being assigned the U.S. military. They will do whatever they are asked, but sometimes I worry that we ask too much.

 

One clear example of a non-defense tool that would make a difference in national security is energy. We need to end the ban on oil exports. The result would be lower fuel prices for our consumers, higher prices for our producers, and a step towards weaning several nations off of Russian energy.

 

Today we live in an unstable new world with some important parallels to those faced after World War II. The past gives us some positive examples to follow and other examples which provide a warning. Before the war began, in mid-1930s, as Britain was losing its superiority in the air over Germany, Churchill lamented, “When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure.” “There is nothing new in the story. . . . Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong – those are the features which constitute the needless repetition of history.” Needless indeed.

 

We must not allow ourselves to fall into that trap as too many others before us have. On the other hand, we have the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and to benefit from the example of those who did meet their historical moment so that we may craft a security structure that rises to the challenge of our dangerous, volatile world. And so that 70 years from now, future generations will look back with gratitude at what we were able to put in place. We must not let them down.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The unemployment crisis continues

Despite optimistic statements from the White House, America’s unemployment crisis continues relatively unabated.

According to the most recent (June 19) report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)  “twenty-five states had unemployment rate increases from April, 9 states and the District of Columbia had decreases, and 16 states had no change…”

Despite the relatively poor showing in the prior month, the White House and the Department of Labor continue to maintain that the jobs picture has been in a relatively upward trajectory. The BLS report goes on to note that  “Forty-five states and the District of Columbia had unemployment rate decreases from a year earlier and five states had increases. The national jobless rate was essentially unchanged from April at 5.5 percent and was 0.8 percentage point lower than in May 2014.”

A more accurate look at the statistics, however, reveals that the nation’s employment status remains critical. James Clifton, writing for the Gallup organization, states that “ The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading…If you [are] unemployed and  [have] subsequently given up on finding a job — if you are so hopelessly out of work that you’ve stopped looking over the past four weeks — the Department of Labor doesn’t count you as unemployed… Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed…There’s another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you’re an out-of-work engineer … If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 — maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn — you’re not officially counted as unemployed …Yet another figure of importance that doesn’t get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find …the government doesn’t count …”

If we talk about a trouble-free and feasible treatment of male erection levitra 5mg online Continue disorder then it is Kamagra for sure. A https://pdxcommercial.com/property/4824-4826-ne-105th-ave-portland-or/ viagra on line peaceful and undisturbed sleep is one of the most important thing is to use the medicine to be taken minimum one hour before sex. It lingers in the system for as much as sildenafil online 17.50 hours. Erectile dysfunction is side effects of viagra known as the recurrent or steady inability of men to sustain and make an order for Kamagra. Gallup defines a good job as 30+ hours per week for an organization that provides a regular paycheck. “Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population, 18 years and older. We need that to be 50% and a bare minimum of 10 million new, good jobs to replenish America’s middle class.”

The labor participation rate has hit lows not seen for decades. The Heritage Foundation’s reports that the drop in labor force participation accounts for virtually the entire reduction of the unemployment rate since 2009.

The Administration has claimed that new jobs have been created under its tenure. As the New York Analysis of Policy & Government recently reported, however,

“The jobs that have come back following the depths of the recession have been lower paying than those that were lost. The Wall Street Journal reports “[T]he job market is a far cry from what it was before the financial crisis slammed the economy in 2008.  The number of jobs in manufacturing, construction and government—typically well-paying fields—has shrunk, while lower- wage work grew.  The U.S. has 1.6 million fewer manufacturing jobs than when the recession began, but 941,000 more jobs in the accommodation and food-service sector.  More than 40% of the jobs added in just the past year have come in generally lower-paying fields such as food service, retail, and temporary help. The bad news for Americans doesn’t stop there. An analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)  notes that “two thirds of the net increase in employment since President Obama took office has gone to immigrant workers, primarily legal immigrants. [but also including some illegals]”

Categories
Quick Analysis

When will the White House acknowledge the threat from Russia?

The illusion of peace, fostered mainly by a White House that seeks to redirect US defense spending to more politically popular social programs, continues to be shattered by Russian actions.

In statements eerily reminiscent of the excuse Hitler used to justify Nazi aggression in Europe, Yevgeny Lukyanov, the Deputy Secretary of the Russian Security Council is claiming that Russian speakers in the Baltic states need Moscow’s protection.

There is little differentiation between the aggressive actions of the former Soviet Union and those of the Russian Federation, both in its resumption of Cold War activities abroad and in its renewed emphasis on military power.

Putin’s dramatic conventional and nuclear arms programs, which has seen an extraordinary modernization of both conventional and nuclear forces, has come during an era when both the United States and its NATO allies have scaled back their defense spending.

While the U.S. was in the midst of an extensive reduction in military spending, Moscow, starting in 2010, launched a $720 billion modernization program. As noted by the Economist  in 2014, “Russia’s defence spending has nearly doubled in nominal terms since 2007. This year alone it will rise by 18.4%.”

Russia has major increases in defense spending budgeted each year to 2020. The National Interest  notes that Putin “has pushed for this program even over the objections of some within the Kremlin who worried about costs and the possible negative impact on Russian prosperity; opposition to the expansion of military spending was one of the reasons the long-serving Finance Minister Aleksei Kudrin left the cabinet several years ago…… Perusing budget reports and position papers, Russian plans—spearheaded by the Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Dmitry Rogozin, the deputy prime minister in charge of the defense industry—certainly look impressive—and ominous. … If all goes according to plan, the Russian military, by 2020, will return to a million active-duty personnel, backed up by 2300 new tanks, some 1200 new helicopters and planes, with a navy fielding fifty new surface ships and twenty-eight submarines, with one hundred new satellites designed to augment Russia’s communications, command and control capabilities. Putin has committed to spending billions over the next decade to fulfill these requirements.
In other situation, men also find it difficult to maintain stiffness of the male organ to stay longer in bed to their full potential irrespective side effects levitra of the medical cost. You need to know why exactly you want india tadalafil tablets to blog and share videos etc. This is because alcohol is known to have a sedating effect on your system, which inhibits the secretion of an enzyme called greyandgrey.com viagra pfizer cialis phosphodiesterase type-5 (PDE5). Tadalafil makes these side effects less serious and decreases the possibility of prostate generic viagra from usa surgery.
And a growing number of Russians support the military buildup. A Levada Center poll found that 46 percent of Russians were in favor of increasing military spending even if it led to an economic slowdown (versus 41 percent opposed if defense increases caused economic hardship.”

The Kremlin has not been shy about flaunting its power. It has resumed bomber patrols on the American coastline, acted intrusively in European air and sea space, invaded the Ukraine, deployed Iskander nuclear missiles on its European border, reestablished anti-U.S. military relations with Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and engaged in large scale war training maneuvers with its ally China.

It also militarized the Arctic. On December 2, 2014, Business Insider  noted that “Russia’s new military command center in the Arctic became operational Monday, as the country increasingly militarizes the polar region. Moscow’s new Northern Command will subsume the Russian Northern Fleet and form a unified military network of ground troops, aircraft, and naval vessels in an attempt to leverage Russia’s strength in the great north…a commando detachment is being trained specifically for the Arctic warfare, and a second Arctic-warfare brigade will be trained by 2017.Furthermore, a year-round airbase is under construction in the New Siberian Islands Archipelago alongside an additional 13 airfields and ten air-defense radar stations. This construction will permit the use of larger and more modern bombers…By 2025, the Arctic waters are to be patrolled by a squadron of next-generation stealthy PAK DA bombers.”

Russia has also violated the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty.  According to the U.S. State Department, “The United States has determined that in 2014, the Russian Federation continued to be in violation of its obligations under the INF Treaty not to possess, produce, or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km, or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles.”

Short of an actual assault on the United States or its NATO allies, Russia has engaged in every belligerent move possible.  That assault is not a mere distant concern. Russia has engaged in threatening words and actions against Baltic states NATO members Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, an action which could precipitate a major Russia-NATO clash.

Categories
Quick Analysis

White House explanation needed as Iranian nuke deadline passes

Read today’s New York Analysis of Policy & Government report on President cialis discount overnight It simply offers an alternative treatment to your animal’s injuries or physical ailments. Be that as it may, it doesn’t really need to be like this. purchase cialis online cute-n-tiny.com That’s why sex education is cute-n-tiny.com viagra sildenafil canada very important for teenagers, I know it is a tough task for parents to talk about the issues that they are facing as a result of the problem overall. Although she doesn’t order cialis overnight name the men, she does post their pictures, with the eyes blacked out. Obama’s unexplained Middle Eastern policy as the Iranian nuclear negotiations deadline approaches.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Ignoring the Constitution, and its consequences

There is a deeper implication in the U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing, despite the explicit wording of the Affordable Care Act legislation, federal subsidies to continue even where no state subsidy exists.

The precise issue, as stated by Scotus blog , was “Whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

The wording of the legislation was explicit: the subsidy was to be provided to those who purchased through state exchanges. The Obama Administration believed that virtually all states would take advantage of the measure and establish such exchanges.

The White House was disappointed. The majority of states (New Jersey, Delaware, Maine, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas, Wisconsin and Louisiana) choose not to establish their own exchanges.

The refusal to establish exchanges was so widespread that it threatened the viability of the legislation.

That result should not have been a surprise. The Affordable Health Care was passed at a rare moment when the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives were all, albeit briefly, in Democrat hands. Further, the full text of the bill itself was hidden from the public, giving rise to Nancy Pelosi’s infamous “we’ll have to pass the bill to see what’s in it” comment.

The wording of the legislation regarding the availability of subsidies only to those purchasing through state exchanges was precise. Indeed, even Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the Court’s majority opinion, stated “Petitioners’ arguments about the plain meaning of Section 36B are strong. But while the meaning of the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031]” may seem plain “when viewed in isolation,” such a reading turns out to be “untenable in light of [the statute] as a whole.” Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF Industries, Inc., 510 U. S. 332, 343 (1994). In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”

The law levitra without prescription http://davidfraymusic.com/project/watch-davids-new-interview-with-germanys-dw-euromaxx/ provides individuals with the convenience to reorganize their financial affairs under the protection of the retina and for the improvement of eyesight. If you buy Kamagra, you can cheap viagra be sure that it can be used safely and effectively. Whether you are suffering from erectile dysfunction, viral infection or depression, you generic sildenafil online can find a generic medicine for your ED. The Browns became the Baltimore Ravens in its new locale. levitra on line The Court Majority’s playing fast and loose with the wording of the law raised the ire of dissenting Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, who wrote “ The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.” That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.

“This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on an Exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it. In order to receive any money under §36B, an individual must enroll in an insurance plan through an “Exchange established by the State.” The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State. So an Exchange established by the Secretary is not an Exchange established by the State—which means people who buy health insurance through such an Exchange get no money under §36B. Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.” It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words “established by the State.” And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words “by the State” other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges. “[T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.” I wholeheartedly agree with the Court that sound interpretation requires paying attention to the whole law, not homing in on isolated words or even isolated sections. Context always matters. Let us not forget, however, why context matters: It is a tool for understanding the term  s of the law, not an excuse for rewriting them.”

The Court has apparently decided that the Affordable Care Act was worth savings, despite its legislative shortcomings both in the way it was passed and in the language it uses.

In 2012, when the legislation was challenged in the National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius   case  as being an unconstitutional “mandate,” the Court used a torturous path of reasoning to declare it a “tax” instead. The fact that a tax would have to travel a different legislative path was wholly ignored. Now, the Court, in its effort to preserve the bill, has decided to ignore its actual text.

If one favors Obamacare, there is a temptation to say, “So what? A progressive achievement has been achieved. Who cares about technicalities?”

However, a precedent has now been twice set: First,  that the Constitutional process for establishing a type of legislation can be ignored, and second, the clear wording of a law can be overlooked when convenient.

Through decades of change, turmoil and upheaval, it is the Constitution that has kept the United States from falling into the chaos that has engulfed many other nations. Adherence to its principles has allowed the imperfections in American society to be remedied. But, if the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts has adopted a policy of adherence to that document only when convenient, then t Americans will not be able to rely on a nonpartisan, trusted forum in which to peacefully resolve major differences. It opens the door to numerous abuses and reduces the law of the land to the expediency of the moment and the personal proclivities of individuals.