Video shows the conflict between China and India over the border.

The above video is of the conflict between India and China and an update to the post I wrote about here. At the time I didn't find this video so I decided a new post was in order. It shows the conflict between the Indian and Chinese soldiers in Sikkim region.

I don't have much else to say about the case other than the fact that the video would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. Both sides seemed more interested in pushing each other around rather than any kind of actual combat. It seemed like a group of drunks at a bar that want to fight each other but are too worried about getting into trouble to actually throw a punch.

 I guess that makes sense. Both sides wanted to intimidate each other but neither wanted to be responsible for starting an actual war. That limited their possible responses to either using harsh language or pushing each other around a bit. In the end it was probably the right choice.

The United States is winning the war against ISIS.

Iraqi civilians celebrate ISIS' defeat in Mosul. AP/Defense One.

The United States strategy in Iraq and Syria is working to defeat the ISIS terrorist movement. Defense One. Bret McGurk, a defense official that worked in both the Obama and Trump White Houses claims that ISIS is being defeated in many key areas due to changing strategies in the Trump Administration. First, the supply of foreign fighters for ISIS has been completely cut off. Second, the Iraqi Army has been built up from the force that broke in 2014 and has been transformed into a highly effective fighting force that hasn't lost a battle against ISIS. Third, in Syria, McGurk claims that the battle for the ISIS capital of Raqqa is 40% finished.

A major reason for that victory is because Trump has given local commanders much more leeway, allowing them to take more risks, such as the surprise attack on the Tabqa dam. Defense Secretary Mattis has also implemented a surround and destroy ISIS fighters instead of letting them flee. Other effective measures by the Trump administration are continuations of Obama policies, such as encouraging other coalition members to increase funding and severing financial links between core ISIS groups and their affiliates. The coalition against ISIS has liberated over 70,000 square kilometers of territory and rescued 5 million people. 

My Comment:

One of the things that President Donald Trump gets zero credit for is the victories he has had against ISIS. Though the Obama Administration had begun to turn the tide against ISIS even before Trump got elected and deserve some credit for reversing course, since he was, the pace of collapse has increased. This is one of the most obvious victories in a young Trump administration and given how hostile the media is against Trump, it's little wonder why he isn't getting credit for it. 

I generally agree with Bret McGurk's assertions. We are winning the fight against ISIS due to how we have changed course. Our new strategies are working and it's clear that ISIS is on the verge of defeat. They are no longer on the offensive and have lost major defensive battles, with the battle of Mosul being the most substantial. 

Though Trump deserves a lot of credit for most of the victories, we can't take too much credit for the fact that foreign fighters have been kept out of Syria and Iraq. That wasn't us, it was Turkey and they did it for their own reasons. Namely, the ISIS fighters they essentially supported turned on them and started to conduct terrorist attacks inside Turkish territory. Plus they wanted an excuse to punish the Kurds so they decided to close the border to Syria. This was a huge factor in why ISIS is failing. They no longer have any reinforcements. Turkey didn't do it to help us though, they did it for selfish reasons.

Other than that though, I do think that Trump and his administration deserves a lot of credit. The difference between the Obama admin and this one is clear. For one thing it really is important that Trump has released his local commanders to actually fight in the way they see fit. Obama was a famous micro manager to the point where every descion had to go through him. That slowed down operations and let ISIS terrorists survive situations they really shouldn't have. Loosening up the rules of engagement and letting his generals actually fight has greatly helped things. The Taqba dam victory is just one example of this working out. 

Another huge mistake that the Obama administration committed was allowing hundreds of ISIS fighters to flee battles. The idea was that doing so would reduce civilian casualties, but in the long run it didn't because those fighters would just end up fighting in other battles. Utterly destroying the vast majority of fighters in more recent battles like Mosul will prevent them from regrouping. Civilian casualties are up, but the war is going to end much sooner. 

One thing that McGurk left out is ending our failed efforts in training Syrian rebels. This was a major course change and one that was very overdue. Only one group, the Syrian Democratic Forces, led by the Kurds, has had much success and has earned continued support. Other groups were either defeated in battle, surrendered to terrorist groups like al-Nusra or, worst of all, switched sides and supported the enemy. The Trump administration has ended those efforts that were doing nothing to hurt ISIS and were a complete waste of money. 

Trump has also attempted to work with Russia and Syria to fight ISIS as well. Things aren't going as good on that front as they could be, after all the Obama administration and the media's Russian election interference conspiracy theory have greatly damaged relations with Russia. That being said it's amazing that there is any cooperation at all and I think Trump realized something that Obama never did. Whatever sins Bashar al-Assad committed, he's still the best possible outcome left for Syria. With that in mind Trump has supported limited cooperation with Russia and has supported cease fire deals as well. 

It's fairly clear that ISIS as a state is doomed. Raqqa will fall soon and after that there is only Dier ez Zor remaining for major cities under ISIS control. After that ISIS will remain a threat as a terrorist insurgency. It is critical that we don't make the same mistakes that the Obama administration, and the Bush admin before them, made in Iraq. We must continue to support the Iraqi government and anyone else who is fighting ISIS to make sure that they do not return from defeat... 

Australia disrupts Islamist terror plot targeting airplanes.

A police officer stands guard at the site of one of the raids. Reuters. 

Australia has disrupted an Islamist terror plot to bring down an airliner. Reuters. The Australian government has conducted multiple raids and has arrested four accused terrorists. The government suspects that the plotters had connections to radical Islam. It is unclear what the specific target for the plotters was other than it was an aviation target. In response to the plot, Australia has increased airport security. The plot is one of several disrupted in Australia, along with several successful lone wolf attacks. 

My Comment:

Another major terrorist plot disrupted, this time in Australia. And this one was very serious. Plots targeting airplanes are always a major concern and they have succeeded in the past. ISIS managed to take a Russian airliner down in Egypt and killed 224 people. That attack was a gamechanger and may have had such an impact that Russia joined the war in Syria. And there was, of course, 9/11, the terrorist attack that changed everything

The fact that this attack involved explosives and multiple arrests show that this wasn't a "lone wolf" attacker. This was clearly a larger plot probably supported by a major terrorist group. A single person isn't going to be able to take down a whole plane without help. 

So which terrorist group is it? The obvious suspect is ISIS. They are large enough and well funded enough to pull this off and they have targeted airliners as well. The only other suspects are the various al-Qaeda groups, with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). The problem with AQAP is that they mostly are active in Europe, so they aren't likely. I am guessing that this was indeed an ISIS plot. 

If so ISIS is falling into the same problem that al-Qaeda had fallen into. Taking down an airplane is not an easy thing. It's an extremely complex plot that requires multiple plotters, any of which can betray you to the authorities, and access to explosives, which are extremely hard to get. Then, assuming the plot doesn't fall apart beforehand, you have to somehow sneak a bomb onto a plane and get past security. The only reason that it worked in Egypt is that they had someone in security to help them out. 

There is a reason why that terrorism has moved away from attacking airplanes. Airports themselves are much more vulnerable. Though if you take down a plane you will kill hundreds of people, but you have almost no chance of success. Attacking a terminal before security? You might kill fewer people but you have a much bigger chance of success. The attacks in Turkey and Belgium are great examples of this working out.

Which is why I am surprised that these plotters made the choice to go after the airplanes. I guess it is possible that the headlines I have seen are misleading, but it sure seems like the targets were the planes themselves and not the airports. If so, that the plotters screwed up, trying to go for a spectacular attack that has little chance of success instead of a smaller one much more likely to work. Instead of trying to sneak a bomb into the airport they could have tried to bomb or shoot up the terminal. It's very lucky that they didn't. 

Australia isn't the first country you think of when you think of Islamic extremism, but they have had several major plots there. Which is surprising since they only have less than 500,000 Muslims, making up only 2% of their population. It just goes to show, it's not the number of Muslims, it's how many of them are radicalized and apparently enough of them are in Australia to carry out multiple terror plots... 

Migrant kills one and injures six others in stabbing attack in Hamburg, Germany

Police work at the scene of the crime in Hamburg. Reuters. 

An illegal migrant in the city of Hamburg, Germany, has killed one person and wounded six more in a knife rampage. Reuters. The suspect was a 26 year old from the United Arab Emirates who was due for deportation. Officials could not deport him though because he didn't have identification and they were unsure of his citizenship. The suspect began a stabbing rampage in a supermarket. German civilians and a Turkish man fought back against the attacker by throwing chairs and other objects at him, with one of the injuries being caused by throwing heavy objects. This forced the attacker to flee and he was arrested by the police shortly after. No links to terrorist groups have been found so far but the attacker did scream "Allah Akbar" during the attack, a common phrase for terrorists. 

My Comment:

This looks like yet another lone wolf attacker in Europe. The attack was simple and mostly failed but it just goes to show that one guy with a weapon can cause chaos. My guess is that this person was inspired by terrorist literature on the internet and took their advice for staging attacks. Given the fact that this was in Germany, we might never know if he had any further links to ISIS or other terror groups, but I personally doubt there will be any other connections. 

I am fairly disgusted that this person was even in Germany. He wasn't a refugee as he was from the UAE. Though I probably would want to live in Germany instead of the UAE as well, he had no legitimate reason to even be in the country. Though the UAE isn't all that great if you aren't in the ruling class, it's not a war zone like Syria. It's a safe country and there is no reason why the suspect was in Germany except for economic reasons. He wasn't a refugee, he was an illegal economic migrant. 

Even worse, Germany wouldn't deport him. His asylum was denied and he was supposed to have been deported but they didn't. And I don't understand their reasoning. Isn't the fact that he didn't have identification reason enough to deport him? I mean they were able to figure out that he was born in the UAE, what else do they need? I mean the guy was bad enough that he didn't qualify for asylum in Germany of all places. He should have gone back. 

The local Germans and one Turkish man that fought this guy off deserve quite a bit of praise. Fighting back is the right move in this situation, especially if you can't flee. You don't have to get close enough to fight hand to hand but throwing things at the attacker is a good way to slow him down or even injure or scare him off. It's probably not as good of a move if the guy has a gun but when all they have is a knife, fleeing might not be the best move. 

I don't know if this will effect the election in Germany. They haven't had any luck in getting rid of Angela Merkel and I don't think that this attack or any of the other attacks Germany will change anything. The refugee crisis didn't hurt Merkel all that much and I doubt this attack will change anything either. Though people aren't as supportive of Merkel as they used to be her party is still likely to win elections. 

"Skinny" Obamacare repeal vote fails in the Senate, torpedoing GOP hopes.

Senate leader Mitch McConnell. AFP

Senate Republicans failed to pass the "Skinny" Obamacare repeal in a massive defeat for the party. AFP. The vote failed by one vote as Senators John McCain, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins all voted no along with every Democratic senator. The failure damages not only the Senate GOP, but also members of the House of Representatives and President Donald Trump who all campaigned on repealing and/or replacing Obamacare. The so called "Skinny" repeal would have left large parts of the law intact and was largely seen as a vehicle to get the bill into the conference committee with the House of Representatives. 

My Comment:

A massive failure for the GOP and a major embarrassment for the Senate. This failure will haunt the GOP for years and will have long reaching impact both in the short term and long term. The bill was never going to be easy but the fact that, with a 52 member majority, the Republicans couldn't even get a bill to conference with the House of Representatives marks a massive embarrassment. 

The Republican voter base is furious right now and for good reason. Many of these Senators campaigned, some for as many as seven years, on repealing and replacing Obamacare and they just broke their promise. The people that voted for the GOP expected action on this issue and they got nothing for their vote. 

I personally had a conversation today about this with a coworker who is rarely political. He said something to the effect "We finally got Trump in there and gave the Republicans everything they needed and they still lose". He sounded utterly disgusted and when I tried to tell him about how the Democrats are in worse shape right now all he could say is "That's really saying something". 

All across America this morning there are people that are going to be angered or disappointed that this failed. Some of them are people that were forced to buy insurance they don't need and can't afford. Others are business owners that can't expand now because of Obamacare. And some are principals zealots that just hate socialize medicine or government expansion. In theory all three groups of people are represented by the Republicans, but in practice, all three groups were just let down by them. 

I also want to point out how different things were when the Democrats last had control of the Senate, House and Presidency. Back in 2008 they had all three and guess what they did? They worked together and passed Obamacare in the first place! They have their own issues of different factions wanting different things but back then they were able to put those differences aside and pass a bill. The party has splintered again and I am not so sure it would go smoothly if they were to capture all three houses again in 2020, but still, it's no question that today's GOP is less effective than yesterdays' Democrats. 

There will be consequences for this failure. The one person most responsible for it, John McCain, will likely avoid them. He's never running for election again and is probably not long for this world due to his horrific cancer diagnosis. Indeed, I suspect that's the reason the vote was 49-51 as several other Senators probably would have voted against the bill if they had been forced too. McCain threw himself on that grenade, which would have been a heroic act if it wasn't such a betrayal to the voters that elected him and his party. Whatever goodwill that McCain got back with his cancer diagnosis he burned through with this act and I expect him to be a persona non grata in the GOP from now on. 

Others though aren't so lucky. Before this failure I was pretty sure that the 2018 midterms would go well for the GOP, despite the historical precedence against that possibility. Now I am not so sure. To be clear, I don't think that the people that wanted an Obamacare repeal would ever vote for the Democrats as their healthcare plans are status quo ante at best and single payer at worst, but this has to depress turnout a bit right? I mean I plan to vote in 2018 but, damn it, I am not excited to do so. Perhaps people that don't care as much as I do will just stay home out of disappointment. The only saving grace is that the Democrats are even more split and incompetent right now then the Republicans, so as pathetic as it is, the GOP still has a chance. 

I also expect some of the people that failed here to get primaried, both in the Senate and the House. Incumbents usually win primary battles but not when they fail like this. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell may also lose their leadership positions, assuming they get reelected in the first place. Paul Ryan is especially vulnerable and I wouldn't be surprised if he's gone in 2018.

President Trump is going to get some flack for this as well. Is it deserved? On the one hand it is his job as President to be the leader of the party. He has to herd all the cats and make them agree and it's pretty clear the failed to do so. It's also clear that he promised to have a big beautiful repeal and replace bill and it failed miserably. 

On the other hand, what else more could he have done? He wheeled, dealed, glad handed, threatened, shamed and pleaded and yet the Senate wouldn't budge. And he did it for a party that hasn't supported him and has undermined his presidency at every turn with phony complaints about Russia and constant shaming on tone. At the end of the day you have to ask yourself how much he could have possibly done. 

 I do think that this is personal for Trump. He wants good healthcare and he hates seeing failure like this. If it were possible he'd fire the entire senate for this debacle, but it isn't so he will have to deal with it. I think he also realizes that part of the issue is John McCain's personal animosity for him. You can't tell me that McCain's descion to kill the Obamacare repeal isn't payback for Trump's very critical treatment of McCain. Well McCain got his revenge but it's the rest of the party that's going to suffer. 

I write all this as a person that doesn't really care that much about healthcare. I think it's a toxic subject that probably should have been left alone in the first place by both parties. There isn't a good solution and no matter who touches it, it will turn to crap, period, end of discussion. It's a third rail in politics and the GOP would have been much better off if they had just left it alone, just as the Democrats would have probably not been decimated over the last 8 years had they just tried to do anything else back in 2008-2009. 

Still, it angers me to see a party that I worked hard to help this past election, pardon the language, fuck up so spectacularly. We had a great chance to put away the Democrats for a generation, but we squandered it over health care and we don't even have a law to show for it. At least the Democrats can say "we get results" even if those results are of questionable value. 

I sincerely hope that the GOP just focuses on other things for the rest of this congressional term. They have a golden opportunity here to push through more legislation and the window might be closing sooner, rather than later. They need to pass something, anything, just so people think they are even remotely competent. Something as simple as funding for Trump's border wall or easing restrictions on guns could help. Putting people like Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz would help too. Because right now I am asking myself what is the point of voting for people that don't keep their promises? And millions of other Republicans, Conservatives and Independents are asking the same thing... 

People predicted major political happenings for the 27th. Did we get them?

Former Secretary of State and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. MSNBC/Getty.

Yesterday I talked about the internet rumors/speculation/possible fake news that something huge was going to happen today. To sum it up, there was supposed to be a major disclosure about the Awan brothers investigation. Barring a major revelation in the next couple of hours I think it's safe to say that nothing new on that front is happening. President Trump did retweet an article about the case, but other than that, nothing really happened. 

ABC, NBC, And CBS Pretty Much Bury IT Scandal Engulfing Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Office https://t.co/PjbZ2TGIKb

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) July 27, 2017

So that means that the rumors and speculation were completely wrong right? Well not really. A lot DID happen today politically and some of it was pretty significant. The problem is that none of it had much to do with the Awan brothers case and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

What did happen then? Well the most important by far is that congressional Republicans are calling for a 2nd special counsel to investigate former Attorney General Lorreta Lynch, former FBI director James Comey and, the biggest prize of them all, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton herself! The Committee on the Judiciary's letter can be found in full here.

This investigation is huge if Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein actually assign a special prosecutor and will satisfy the demands of Donald Trump's most passionate supporters. It also may help to explain why Donald Trump has been so hard on Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Trump must have known that this was coming and wanted Sessions to feel the heat if he was having second thoughts about the investigation, or, failing that, force him to resign so Trump could get someone that would lead this investigation.

The actual letter itself was a greatest hits collection of complaints about what has happened in the past year or so. Everything is included. Clinton's e-mail scandal, the possible pay to play scandal with her foundation, her collusion with the DNC and media to rig the primaries against Bernie Sanders, the wiretapping/unmasking accusations targeting the Trump campaign, and the phony Trump dossier created by Fusion GPS. Given how much we have found out about those issues already, it's very likely that there will be prosecutions and convictions. This is a massive story as the implications of investigating, arresting and prosecuting a former presidential candidate, secretary of state and first lady are huge, not to mention the former Obama officials that could go down too.

But that's not all that happened today. House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes sent a letter to DNI Dan Coats saying that work needed to be done on the unmasking scandal. He alleges that someone in the Obama Admin, possibly UN ambassador Samantha Powers, unmasked possibly hundreds of people with little justification. This too is huge news and could lead to arrests as well if an investigation is started. 

I would say that those two stories are hugely important and, with the relatively recent Awen brothers/Debbie Wasserman Schultz case breaking wide open as well I think that it is safe to say that there are major things afoot right now. Three major investigations that could utterly destroy the Democrats. Does that mean that the random posters on the internet were right about things? No, but it does seem like today was a huge day. The posters were either knowledgeable about something and made up the details or were just incredibly lucky.

Also, I have to say, that given the gravity of these stories it is amazing to me that the MSM isn't covering it. Right now the headlines are still about Scaramucci talking about leaks (another major story that broke recently), the healthcare fiasco and more Russia sanctions. All important stories but the special counsel story is getting buried compared to the rest. And the unmasking stories and the Awan brothers case? Not getting any coverage outside of right wing media...  

Something to keep an eye on for tomorrow...

Debbie Waaserman Schultz

I don't usually post things about internet rumors, but this one might have a little teeth to it. I have been seeing quite a bit of chatter that there is supposed to be some major disclosure about criminal investigations regarding the Democrats tomorrow. Many people think that the disclosure is about the Awan brothers case.

That case is very real and has potential to bring down some very important people in the DNC, including the former head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Beyond that there isn't much else to say other than  people suspect that the story will reveal actual collusion between the DNC and foreign governments during the 2016 election. At the very least there are some major questions to be answered about the case.

The rumors go quite beyond that, but the problem is the source. People are citing multiple anonymous posts on 4chan.org's political board /pol/. That is, quite frankly, not a source you can trust, to say the least. /pol/ is a far right conspiracy website that has been taken in by things like this before. So why even mention it? For one reason and one reason only. One of the posts correctly predicted the Awan arrest. That gives it at least the air of credibility and shows that the person who posted had enough connections to know the arrest was coming, though it isn't actual evidence of anything else. Either that or it was an extremely lucky guess.

Hours before DNC Staffer Imran Awan was arrested, a user on /pol/ said his uncovering would mark the start of what we've been waiting for. pic.twitter.com/wpvLftj6gB

— /pol/ News Forever (@polNewsForever) July 25, 2017

It's extremely thin, I know, but if it is right, it could be a game changer. I'd give this about a 99% chance of being nothing but a troll, but if the 1% chance is correct then there is going to be huge repercussions. I figured it would be important to get it on the record if something huge does go down tomorrow but if it doesn't I give you permission to make fun of me for giving this rumor credence.

Heroism in Egypt as a tank crew crushes a suicide car bomb.

The moment of the blast. Screenshot via RT

A heroic tank crew crushed a suicide car bomb containing four armed militants saving many lives in a bombing in Egypt. RT. The incident happened at a checkpoint in the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, which has an ISIS insurgency. The car approached the checkpoint and the tank crew quickly acted and crushed the vehicle. This gave many of the civilians the opportunity to escape, though seven people are known to have died in the incident. Egypt's defense ministry says the action of the tank crew saved as many as 60 lives. 

The incident was captured on video and can be viewed below. WARNING! Graphic content. 

My Comment:

Very heroic action by these tank crewmen. Though they were protected by their tank's armor there was a real chance of death or injury when they crushed that vehicle. The blast looked large enough that if the tank was on top of the vehicle when it blew up, the crew probably would have died or at least been severely injured. They knew this and did it anyways, probably thinking if their was a bomb and it went off they heavy armor on their tank would help contain the blast. Thankfully, the tank was able to retreat after neutralizing the attackers, but that doesn't make this tank crew any less brave. 

The defense ministry said that this action probably saved 60 lives, and I can believe it. If the car had been able to pass the tank it could have reached the civilian vehicles and less armored APC's behind the tank. If that had happened dozens of civilians and soldiers could have been wounded or killed. And that's assuming that the gunmen inside didn't hop out and start shooting people as well. Thankfully, that didn't happen because of the quick thinking of this tank crew. 

I haven't heard much else about this incident. Outside of RT and the British tabloids, this incident hasn't gotten any coverage. You would think a news report where a tank crushes a car bomb that then blows up would be bigger news, but I guess the American media has more "important" things to cover. 

Though, as far as I can determine, nobody has taken credit for this attack, I would guess it was ISIS. They have a large presence in the Sinai and the affiliates there are one of the most brutal and effective ISIS cells left. This kind of joint attack with a car bomb and gunmen is right up their ally and it only failed because of this tank crew. There are other Islamist insurgencies in Egypt, but most of them are in other parts of the country. 

The attackers picked a good target but they didn't count on the quick action of the tank's driver. Their plan very well could have worked. A combined suicide bombing and mass shooting at a military checkpoint could have killed dozens. And even though this attack could have been worse, they still managed to kill several people. I don't know if the seven deaths in this incident include the four terrorists in the car, but even if it did they still killed three people. Expect more of these attacks in the future in Egypt. 

Donald Trump bans transgender Americans from serving in the military

President Donald Trump. 

As you probably know by now Donald Trump has announced on Twitter that transgender Americans can no longer serve in the United States military in any capacity. You can read the tweets below:

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

....Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming.....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

....victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

This has, predictably, caused a storm of criticism on social media from the usual suspects. They claim that banning transgender soldiers from serving is discriminatory, ignoring the fact that huge swaths of people are already banned from serving in the military even if they want to.

Got a bad knee (which is why I never served)? No service. Got ADHD? No service. Take medicine for depression? No service. Have an IQ under 85? No service. In short there are a whole list of medical reasons why you cannot serve in the United States military. Even things as seemingly irrelevant as height is enough to prevent service. Military.com has an extensive list of all the medical conditions that can keep you from serving.

This isn't discrimination. Being transgender is a medical condition and the military has long stopped people with medical conditions from serving. If they can drop a soldier for having bad allergies or being too short, then they can certainly drop soldiers for having gender dysphoria.

Though not allowing the transgender to serve may seem "mean" there are very valid reasons for the ban. The first one is that the transgender community has a much greater risk of other mental issues that are comorbid with the disorder, including depression and suicide attempts. Around 41% of transgender individuals have attempted suicide. When combined with the already high number of suicides in the military, the risk of suicide is completely unacceptable. Suicide obviously has a major negative impact, not only on the person that attempts or succeeds in committing it, but for everyone around that person as well.

Secondly, there are the obvious logistical nightmare that the transgender cause for military units. Transgender individuals need extensive medical care and treatment, which is a major issue while deployed. I won't go into all the gruesome details but transgender people need drugs and other things to keep healthy and stay as their preferred gender. If they lose access to those things in combat they might have a mental breakdown and in any case those drugs and supplies would take up critical space that would better be used for medicine or ammunition.

Third, there are medical concerns as well, unrelated to mental health. Someone that has transitioned to a different gender and has had surgery is at risk for infection and other things in combat. In short, while a vagina is self cleaning, a pseudo-vagina is not and is, therefore, prone to infection. When in combat conditions overseas the problem would be much worse. This means that transgender people at risk of getting sick or being down for treatment when their unit really needs them.

Fourth, there are the "bathroom" issues with having the transgender serve in the military. No matter how you solve the issue, people are either going to have to take a communal shower with someone of the opposite sex or the opposite gender. This isn't like a normal bathroom where you have a stall for privacy, it's in out in the open. That's going to be damaging to unit cohesion and the mental well being of other soldiers.

I should talk about the political reasons for this ban as well. Many people, myself included, considered the Obama administration's choice to lift the ban in the first place was nothing other than political theater. In short, he was more interested in forcing political correctness on the military than it's actual job of defending the country. It never should have been lifted in the first place.

It's also an easy political victory for Donald Trump. Not only did he just do something that is extremely popular among his base, who hated that Obama lifted the ban, he has completely distracted the media once again. Given that the health care bill seems to have failed in Congress, he needs a distraction right now.

There is a concern that this action will anger the LGBT community who has been slowly coming around to voting for Republicans. I have said in the past that Donald Trump is incredibly pro-LGBT as compared to other Republican candidates and even many democrats. He's in favor of gay marriage, thinks "bathroom laws" are a pointless distraction, and was extremely supportive of the LGBT community after the Pulse nightclub shooting.

So did Trump throw away the inroads he was making with the LGBT community? Well, the pundits are doing everything in their power to make it look like that. I am not so sure though. The more rational among the LGB portion of the community should realize that this ban has nothing to do with them. They can still serve in the military and are not effected by this at all.

I would hope that the LGB community would realize that this was a rational descion and one that won't actually effect anyone but the T's. And Trump is about as good as they are going to get when it comes to LGBT rights among the Republicans and is doing quite a bit to increase the tolerance in the party. The fact that Trump was able to support gay marriage, have a gay man, Peter Thiel, speak for him at the convention and say that bathroom bills are a waste of time should be a major victory for the LGBT community, even if he doesn't want them in the military under the advice of his generals.

Finally, this is much ado about nothing. Something between .03 and .3 percent of the population is transgender and the numbers I have seen is that there is between 2000 and 6000 transgender people in the military. That's a rounding error in a 2 million soldier military. The number of people that will actually be effected by this directive is statistically insignificant.

What is going on with Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump?

Jeff Sessions official picture. 

As you may know there has been trouble brewing between President Donald Trump and his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. Last week Trump publicly bashed Sessions in a New York Times article saying that he never would have hired him if he knew that he was going to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. Trump has continued to sporadically criticize Sessions including a pair of new tweets this morning. 

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump campaign - "quietly working to boost Clinton." So where is the investigation A.G. @seanhannity

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2017

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes (where are E-mails & DNC server) & Intel leakers!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2017

This is a fairly shocking turn around for the president because Jeff Sessions had been one of his first and most loyal allies and was a huge help for him during his campaign. Before the inauguration, Sessions was largely seen as one of Trump's best political friends and huge asset.  But now rumors are flying and there is a chance that Sessions could resign or get fired. For right now Sessions seems like he wants to stay but who knows where this is heading?

So what is going on here? I think there are a couple of possibilities. The first is that this is some kind of 3-d chess move to mislead the media and get them to cover something other then the Russia conspiracy theory. I have noticed that Trump often does exactly that. Someone will leak that someone in his cabinet is unhappy and threatening to quit and then nothing comes of it. That could mean that Sessions is in on it and knows that his job is actually secure.

This public spat also would have an advantage for Trump. It gives cover for Sessions to act freely on issues such as the Russia investigation. If Trump and Sessions were getting along it would make it harder for him to act on Robert Muller, the special consul  investigating Russian links to the election. This gives Sessions cover in case he decides to fire Muller or other people accused of leaking in the Justice Department. It's very clear that Trump wants Muller gone and he can get rid of him for cause at any point, but he also knows that it would go much better for him if Sessions was the one to pull the plug on the phony Russia investigation.

At first I thought that was the more likely possibility, but as this spat goes on I think that the more likely explanation is that Trump really is upset with Sessions. The fact that this dispute is so public and headline news makes me think that it's a little too on the nose to be anything other than what it appears to be.

Plus, I do think that Trump has a reason to be upset. The recusal from the Russia investigation was a huge mistake by Sessions and one that gave some credibility to what would have otherwise been regarded as a conspiracy theory. I am guessing that the Russia story would have been completely dead if Sessions had simply drawn a line and said, "Hell no, I did nothing wrong". There would be no special prosecutor, no further leaks and no media headlines and the Democrats wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it other than gnash their teeth and deal with it. But he did what so many Republicans do when under unfounded and unethical attacks by the Democrats. He backed down, despite the obvious downsides in doing so.

Even without that Sessions has been a bit of a disappointment as Attorney General. I know I thought that we were going to get a pit bull who would tear into the various political scandals that tarred the 2016 election, but instead we got a very quiet toy poodle who hasn't gone after any of the major players. I fully expected that Hillary Clinton, at the very least, would be under a microscope at this point. This is a sentiment that I have heard elsewhere, though Sessions always had his defenders that said "just wait, he will come through". But my desire to wait for results is growing thin, and apparently the same is true for our president.

In Sessions defense, it's possible that there is a lot going on behind the scenes and he could be working very hard to prosecute the criminals in the Democratic Party, the previous administration and so on. But he isn't making his case to the public and, apparently, the President himself.

This is not a good thing for his job security. As many pundits and experts noted after Trump was elected, there was likely to be a high turnover rate in the Trump administration. Trump is running his presidency like he ran his business and people that don't measure up, like James Comey and Sean Spicer, end up by the wayside. If Sessions can't prove to Trump that he's an asset he's as good as gone.

The problem Trump has is that firing Sessions has consequences. A lot of people still like and admire Jeff Sessions, myself included. He was an amazing senator and still commands the loyalty of a lot of people on the right. Indeed, the conservative places I hang out online are more divided on this issue then I have ever seen, baring the Trump administration's bombing of the Syrian airbase in response to the chemical attack. If Trump does fire Sessions, he's going to make a lot of his fans upset.

Trump also has to worry about finding a replacement. The short list I have heard is Rudy Guiliani and Ted Cruz, both of which have problems. Guiliani is very qualified for the role, but would never pass confirmation. Cruz is qualified as well and the Senate would confirm him just to get rid of him, but he's a political enemy of Trump. Neither of those are good choices and after that there aren't many other good options.

I am hoping that this whole situation is a minor bump that will be smoothed over in time. Sessions may end up moving in the direction Trump wants him too and I hope that everything works out. If it doesn't though, I have to say that I am disappointed in the whole situation. I like Jeff Sessions but I also understand that he hasn't lived up to his promise and has been a disappointment. If he has to go then so be it.

China warns India in ongoing border dispute.

A conference room used by China and India. Reuters. 

China had warned India to not hold any illusions about China's ability to defend it's territory. Reuters. The two countries are in a dispute over the mountainous region in the Indian state of Sikkim. The Chinese claim that Indian troops crossed the border and interfered with a construction crew who was building a road. India claims that the road is a strategic threat to them. The two countries troops have since been in a standoff in the strategic "Chicken's Neck" area where a strip of land controlled by China separates India from their close ally Bhutan. Approximately 300 soldiers total from both sides are facing each other in the plateau region. 

My Comment:

A fairly dangerous situation on the top of the world. China and India have faced off before including a border war in the 1960's. China won that war but things have changed quite a bit since then. A war now between China and India could be horrific given the fact that both of the countries are nuclear powers and have a web of allies in the region. If the situation spirals out of control, it could be a global disaster. 

Is war likely though? I kinda doubt it. Though China has been saber rattling for quite some time with practically all of their neighbors, there really hasn't been even a skirmish. China is probably just trying to make an impression and save face by issuing these threats. I doubt they want war. 

China would have very little to gain from a war with India. Such a war would be hugely disruptive to China's economy and would also probably loosen the Communist Party's grip on the country. Plus there is the possibility that they would lose the war, which would be a huge embarrassment. And they risk a nuclear exchange with India which would kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. A tiny strip if land in the mountains isn't worth it. 

India does have a point though. A road in the plateau is a strategic threat to them.China's main problem with any war in the region is logistics. Right now they would have real problems with sending troops to the area. They would largely be limited to sending troops on foot or by helicopter, the 2nd method which could be cut off if they lose air superiority at any time. India wants to keep that advantage so if they did harass the road workers it makes sense. 

I am guessing that this conflict will remain a war of words and not an actual war. Neither side has much to gain from a conflict and a hell of a lot to lose. That being said I also don't see either side giving up on their ambitions on this area. 

So what would a border war with China and India look like? Very strange. The border between China and India is mostly the Himalayas, also known as the largest and highest mountain range in the world. There are limited places on the border that are even acceptable for warfare, with neither side likely being able to deploy troops.    

Most of the fighting than would be in the limited areas where troops are actually deployable, like the plateau in Sikkim. Expect artillery duels and skirmishes but not much in the way of major troop movements. 

The air war would be a larger factor and I think that India probably has the advantage. China has advanced fighters and a large number of jets, but they would have quite a bit of difficulty deploying them to the region. There aren't many airbases in Tibet while India has bases in the area. China has more aircraft but that matters little if they can't deploy them. 

I don't think a nuclear exchange is likely in such a war. In a border war there is no real reason to deploy nuclear weapons, especially when it's only over a thin sliver of land in the mountains and that there will be nuclear retribution. No matter how badly the war goes, it's not like the governments are going to be overthrown or large scale invasions are going to happen. If a war happens it's going to be a minor skirmish and air duel, not a full scale war... 

Rare terror attack in Jordan targeting Israeli Embassy kills one and injured two.

Jordanian police stand guard near the Israeli embassy. Reuters.

A terror attack in Jordan targeting the Israeli embassy has killed one Jordanian worker and wounded another Jordanian and an Israeli. Reuters. The Jordanians were furniture workers and were shot along with the Israeli. Violence in Jordan is rare and doubly so for Israelis in Jordan. It is unclear what the motive for the attack was but tensions have increased due to Israel installing metal detectors at al-Asqa mosque in response to a separate terror attack. Many Muslims see the metal detectors as humiliating and the instillation has caused tensions between Israel, Palestine and many other countries in the region. As for the incident in Jordan, Israel has banned journalists from talking about the story and has not commented publicly. Details about how was responsible for the attack and how it occurred are unavailable. 

EDIT: Reuters is now reporting that the 2nd Jordanian has now died. 

My Comment:

Very strange story out of Jordan. It's pretty rare for Jordan to have terrorist attacks, at least in comparison to its neighbors. They also get along quite a bit better with Israel then their neighbors as well, so this attack leaves quite a few questions. 

The most pressing is how this attack even happened. Right now it's unclear if the two Jordanians injured and killed were innocent bystanders or the perpetrators of the attack. That's a fairly basic question and right now I haven't been able to find any answers at all. There were no mentions of the suspects being in custody or still at large so it could be either case. 

Part of that is the Israeli boycott on the story. That seems almost unbelievable to me. When our embassy in Benghazi, Libya was attacked and our ambassador murdered it was the top story for quite some time. Banning the story strikes me as extremely censorious and counterproductive. I don't really understand it either. The only justification I can think of is that Israel doesn't want people to know how easy it is to attack one of their embassies. 

It's unclear if this was a "lone wolf" attack or something connected to a larger terrorist group. As far as I can tell nobody has taken credit for it. The traditional terrorist groups in the region do not have much of a presence in Jordan. ISIS and al-Qaeda never really got a foothold there and the various Palestinian groups don't do much there either. It's very hard though to judge when we have so little information. I will say that if the attack was by the two Jordanians working there that suggests a more complex plot but if they were innocent victims then I would suspect a lone wolf attacker. 

As for the underlying tensions between Israel and everyone else, I don't really understand what the issue is. I don't see how anyone could be offended by metal detectors. If a site like the al-Asqa Mosque is under considerable terrorist threat then of course there should be metal detectors. It's sad that things are so bad that they are necessary but I don't see how it is offensive. Other then the fact that many people find anything Jewish people do as offensive. 

I have a long standing policy to not cover Israel on this blog because it is one of those topics that everyone has an opinion on and people generally aren't able to express it without losing their minds. That may be the case for this terror attack as well...

Mexican Drug War is getting worse with the death toll last month greater than any time in two decades.

Mexican soldiers and Federal police stand guard near a shooting scene in Tijuana. LA Times. 

The Mexican Drug War is heating up with more murders last month than any period in the past two decades. LA Times. Nation wide prosecutors opened 2234 homicide cases last month, a 40% increase since June 2016 and an 80% for June 2015. 12,000 people have been murdered in Mexico this year so far, but not all of those are cartel related. The violence is starting to take place in previously safe regions, including tourist areas and the capitol. The uptick in violence is due in part to the opioid epidemic in the United States and the relative instability in the Sinaloa Cartel after Joaquin "El-Chapo" Guzman was arrested. Though Mexican President Enrique Pena Neito has come under criticism of his anti-cartel tactics, he has blamed the United States for the demand there for drugs. Other factors could include a reformed criminal justice system that gives more rights to suspects and a very poor closure rate in homicides. 

My Comment:

The Mexican Drug War continues to be the least covered international conflict in the world. No matter how bad it gets or how many people die, it hardly ever gets headlines. Though not all of the 12,000 murders in Mexico can rightly be named results of the war, I would guess the majority of them are. If that pace continues, by the end of the year the Mexican Drug War will have had as many people killed as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, each of which had about 23,000 deaths last year. Last year saw almost 10,000 dead in Mexico and it appears that number is increasing dramatically. Since the war began between 100,000 and 150,000 people have died in this horrible war. 

Yet nobody ever seems to talk about the war in Mexico. Shockingly, it never seemed to come up during the US presidential election, despite the fact that it was a major war on the border of the United States. Both sides probably would have probably benefited from doing so. The Republicans could rightly say that Mexico is a war zone filled with horrible atrocities committed by cartels that sell poison to our children. The Democrats could also rightly say that many of the Mexican immigrants that will be deported under Trump will be deported to a war zone that is almost as deadly as Iraq or Afghanistan. 

But it never came up. Why? I am not sure. I think it could be that bringing attention to the issue might force us to do something about it. Obviously, nobody wants to deploy troops to Mexico to destroy the Cartels, but if there was public support for doing something we might have to focus on it. It would also help Donald Trump's presidency since it would greatly justify his border wall and his deportations, but even he never seems to bring it up. 

Of course America has a role in the war as well. Though President Neito is foolish to place all the blame on the United States, he does have a point. If it wasn't for our endless appetite for drugs, the Cartels wouldn't have much to fight over, in theory at least. 

I don't think it would work out that way. We could completely legalize opioids and the Cartels would still have their hands in all kinds of crime. They would move from drugs to human and weapons smuggling, extortion, prostitution and all the other normal organized crimes. Legalization would seriously hurt the Cartel's bottom line but they would still exist and still fight. 

Either way though, the Opioid crisis in the United States is helping fuel the violence in Mexico. It's also fueling violence in the United States as well as gangs work to try and take and defend territory. It is a problem that is getting worse and there is billions of dollars to be made in the veins of America's addicts. 

What is even more concerning is how the violence is spreading. In the past, even during the worst of the fighting, there were some areas that were off limits for the Cartels. The tourist areas and Mexico City were always considered free areas and the vast majority of fighting was in the border states. That is no longer the case with several massacres and deaths in what were previously safe areas of the country...

With friends like these... Turkey leaks locations of US bases in Syria.

US troops in Syria. The Daily Beast/Getty. 

Turkey has leaked to their media the locations of US bases in Syria, further increasing tensions between the NATO allies. The Daily Beast. The Turks released the locations of 10 US bases in Syria and even listed the number of troops and the involvement of French special forces. Turkey has long been upset by US support for Kurdish rebels, who are leading the fight against ISIS in Syria. Turkey considers the YPG, peoples protection units, to be members of the banned PKK Kurdish terrorist group and have accused the US of letting provided arms fall into the hands of the PKK. The leaks between two NATO allies is unprecedented. 

My Comment:

Once again Turkey has proven themselves to be a horrible ally in the fight against ISIS. This leak is almost unforgivable. There is no reason whatsoever for Turkey to do this other than petty revenge. Turkey gets nothing from this other than the satisfaction of giving the middle finger to the United States. 

And lets not downplay how serious this action is. Turkey has put the lives of US (and French) soldiers at risk. These bases were being kept secret for a reason and that reason is so that ISIS and other terror groups wouldn't be able to target them. Now they can. 

Attacking US forces on the ground is a huge priority for ISIS. Doing so would be a propaganda coup for them and if they were to kill US troops it would regain them some of the credibility they have lost since the war turned on them. Capturing US troops would be worse since they would almost certainly be executed horribly. Though they have the will to do so, they might not have the forces, but if they can scrounge some up they could attack these US bases. 

In order to prevent that from happening the United States may have to take steps that they shouldn't have to do. They may have to move these bases so that they can be secret again. They may also have to deploy further troops to the region to provide better security. None of which would be necessary if Turkey hadn't released this information. 

And there is the chance that even after we redeploy or reinforce our troops, Turkey could just pull the same stunt again. The fear is now that because of Turkey we simply cannot have operational security. This will cause deaths if it continues. 

So why did Turkey do this? Quite simply, because they hate the Kurds. Turkey has always treated its religious and ethnic minorities horribly. Just ask the Armenians and the Greeks. Turkey does not want the Kurds to gain power and respect because they consider them a existential threat to their Turkish identity. 

What concerns the Turks the most isn't the threat of the PKK, though that is an admittedly valid concern. It's the idea of an independent Kurdistan that is recognized internationally. The Kurds in Syria have all but accomplished this goal and have gained a massive amount of prestige and respect during their war with ISIS. If that continues it may encourage Kurds in Turkey to continue their fight. The rebels could use the liberated areas of Syria as a base to attack Turkey. 

Turkey doesn't want that to happen and they are furious at us for supporting the one group in Syria that is actually fighting ISIS. Our goals their have diverged greatly, so much so that the Turks are actively undermining our fight in Syria. 

Not that Turkey has been all that great of an ally in the first place. For a very long time they allowed ISIS to grow and proper while Turkey turned a blind eye to the flood of foreign fighters that passed through their borders. Even worse they actively helped ISIS by buying their oil. This tacit support of ISIS continued until ISIS decided that attacking Turkey was a good idea. It wasn't and it temporarily got Turkey and the United States on the same side of the war. 

That is no longer the case. Now Turkey is fighting our goals in Syria and putting our troops at risk. And Turkey has also gotten into diplomatic slap fights with other allies in NATO, including Germany and the Netherlands. At this point I think that Turkey is a horrible ally and should be kicked out of NATO. Whatever benefit keeping them in the alliance is outweighed by their actions... 

My quick thoughts on John McCain's cancer diagnosis.

John McCain's Senate portrait. Via Wikipedia. 

As you probably know by now, John McCain has been diagnosed with brain cancer. The cancer was discovered after doctors cleared out a blood clot in his brain and has been removed. Though I am no fan of John McCain, I wouldn't wish cancer on anyone and I hope that he makes a full recovery. No matter what you think of him, you have to admit that McCain is one of the most important politicians in America today. 

There was a time when I liked and respected John McCain. Back in 2008 I voted him and not just because I despised Barack Obama. I actually worked security at one of his town halls during the campaign and I was very impressed at the depth of his knowledge he displayed about foreign policy and other issues. Despite the fact that I don't like him much now, given the same two choices between Barack Obama and John McCain, I would probably still vote for him over Obama. 

But things have changed. I, like many Republicans, no longer believe in regime change as a desirable goal. Iraq was a complete disaster in the end game and Afghanistan and Libya weren't any better. Had we gone to war in Syria things would be even worse there now, as hard as it is to believe. Unlike the rest of the GOP though, John McCain remained a warhawk in a party that was getting sick of war. 

I could forgive that, but what I couldn't forgive is McCain's war against Donald Trump. The start of the conflict is understandable and I don't really blame McCain for not like Trump. Trump bashed McCain's military service and for someone that is obviously very proud of his military career forgiving Trump would be a bitter pill to swallow. It's little wonder why he didn't like Trump. 

That being said, his opposition to Trump became an obsession. He didn't support Trump during the campaign and hasn't supported him since the inauguration. Indeed, whenever the news media needs a token Republican to bash Trump it's often McCain or his buddy Lindsey Graham. Giving the media ammunition in this well didn't sit well with me to say the least and didn't help McCain's popularity among the GOP. Indeed, it was somewhat of a surprise that McCain was reelected at all. 

With McCain's cancer diagnosis, I wonder if he will continue being a senator. There is a possibility that McCain will recover fully and if he does than he can remain being a senator. But if he can't then he probably should be removed. There is some evidence already that John McCain is already having cognitive problems. The below video shows a very confused McCain questioning former FBI director James Comey. 

My guess is that John McCain is probably done as a Senator. Nobody would blame him if he quit now and even his opponents would respect him if he did so. It would be a sad and tragic end to a very important and history making career, but I think it's probably for the best. We will find out soon if he is able to continue or if he decides to put his health first... 

US ends CIA arms program to Syrian rebels.

An FSA fighter in Deraa. Reuters. 

The United States has ended a controversial CIA program to arm Syrian rebels. Reuters. President Barack Obama had started the program in 2013 to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but the program was widely regarded as a complete failure. Many of the rebels trained by the CIA defected to ISIS, al-Nusra or other Islamic militant groups. The descion will likely be praised in Russia who has always supported Bashar al-Assad. The descion was made before the meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin during the G20 summit. Donald Trump also was a harsh critic of the program during the election campaign and hinted that he would end the program. The United States will continue to support other groups in Syria, most importantly the Kurdish led Syrian Democratic Forces. 

My Comment:

Once again the news media is reading this story wrong. While looking for a decent source for this post I had to read a lot of different articles, almost all of which tried to imply that this descion was done as part of the vast Russia conspiracy in the Trump White House. The most hysterical of them are trying to imply that this was the result of a "secret" (ie standard and announced to the press) dinner meeting with the G20 leaders where Trump and Putin talked, even though the descion was made before July 7th, when G20 took place. 

There is no doubt that Russia will be pleased with this action. They do, after all, support Bashar al-Assad and his regime and were never happy that we were trying to overthrow him. There is hope that this action could result in better relations with Russia, which is, of course, a very very good thing. Of course the US media would disagree. They seem to think that any action that pleases Russia is practically treason, even if it has benefits to the United States as well. 

But that makes zero sense. The people that are complaining about this descion are greatly downplaying how stupid this program is. It was, quite frankly, an absolute disaster. Time and time again these rebels betrayed us or simply failed. Many of them either abandoned their weapons to ISIS or al-Nusra or even joined the terror groups taking their weapons with them. And the ones that didn't were wiped out by the same groups. 

And how soon we forgot how badly these rebels did. Not only did we only ever train a couple hundred troops, we spent $500 million doing it. And what did we get for it? Negative value. Not only was our money completely wasted, we ended up helping our enemies who either wiped out our allies or convinced them to switch sides. 

Even if the program did have any value whatsoever, it wouldn't make much sense to continue it. Why? Because Assad, Russia and Iran are very obviously winning the war. Once the city of Aleppo fell, there was no hope of a non-terrorist group taking over from Assad. The secular groups were largely wiped out while the terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Nusra remain. 

It makes zero sense to continue to support rebels who have no chance of winning. I guess if we went to war with Russia, destroyed the Syrian government and attacked Iran we could potentially allow the Syrian rebels to win. That would probably result in nuclear war and would kill millions of innocent people and basically end civilization. And, of course, even if we did all that, there is still no guarantee that the rebels would be the beneficiary. Instead it would be the terror groups like ISIS and al-Nusra. Removing Assad at this point is giving Syria over to the terrorists, which is the worst outcome possible from the Syrian Civil War. 

Basically, those complaining about the end of this program want it to continue despite the fact that we are wasting money on troops that aren't loyal on a war that isn't winnable on a cause that doesn't really benefit us even if we went all out and made the huge sacrifice in lives and treasure needed to win. Ending the program saves us money and allows us to focus on the rebel groups that are actually fighting ISIS and has the added benefit of reducing tensions with Russia which have been risen to cold war levels y the US media and the outgoing Obama administration. 

Make no mistake, Russia doesn't have our best interests in mind. Putin is many things but he's not a fool and he wouldn't ever want to help us in a way that hurts himself. That being said there will be times where Russia's interests and our own will align. Right now that is the case in Syria, so it makes no sense to continue the failed Obama rebel training program. 

Obamacare repeal is dead... again.

Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell. The Hill. 

After failing to pass a replacement bill for Obamacare, it appears that the effort to repeal Obamacare is also dead. The Hill. Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell is planning on holding a vote on repealing the health care law sometime this week, but it appears he does not have the votes. There are 52 Senate Republicans so McConnell can afford to lose two, but already three senators, Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Shelley Moore Capito (West Virginia) are very unlikely to vote for the repeal. Senator Rob Portman (Ohio) has also publicly questioned the wisdom of repealing Obamacare without a replacement. Passing the repeal bill would not end Obamacare, but it would defund the health care exchanges and subsidies. 

My Comment:

What an embarrassment for the Republican Party. This was a massive failure for our senators and it will be remembered for quite a long time. It is amazing to me that nobody was able to herd the cats in the Senate to get a replace bill passed. The failure will likely have consequences in the future. 

The problem is that the GOP coalition never agreed on what to do with health care. On the conservative end, Senators like Rand Paul wanted a total repeal and would accept nothing less. On the other end, Senators like Susan Collins wanted to keep Obamacare or even expand it. Between both of those factions there was the rest of the Senate who wanted a replacement bill. None of these factions could agree enough to get something passed. 

This failure comes after the lower house in Congress was able to pass a bill. That bill, while certainly not perfect, was a suitable replacement for Obamacare. Passing the House version of the bill would have kept the replace Obamacare promise that the Republicans have made since the passage of the bill with no Republican votes. 

Of course, if the repeal only bill passed it would be an absolute disaster for everyone. Though the bill has a two year grace period before it comes into effect, it would make a lot of people lose healthcare. The theory would be that doing so would force Democrats and reluctant Republicans to support a replacement bill, but the risk is that they would not go along with it and would allow Obamacare to expire. 

Doing so would cause massive damage to pretty much everyone in Washington. Republicans would be blamed for repealing the bill and Democrats would be blamed for not passing a replacement. Both actions would anger the hell out of anyone who likes Obamacare or cares about healthcare. Only a few radicals that want the complete repeal would be happy. 

I still think that tackling Health Care first was a massive mistake for the Republicans. Doing so was a lose lose proposition. First, if they passed the Obamacare replacement they would own, pretty much exclusively, any problems that inevitably happened . Second, if they failed, like it appears they have, they would have to face major anger from their base who voted for a repeal/replacement of Obamacare and have done so for the last four elections. 

There were so many other things that they could have passed first, many of which would have been simple fixes. The Republicans have essentially wasted the first seven months of the Trump presidency accomplishing nothing when they could have easily passed something like stronger protection for gun rights, funding and building the border wall or tax reform. Instead they have nothing to show for the last seven months. 

I fear that this could have consequences for the 2018 elections. Normally mid term elections are tough for the incumbent party, so the GOP already has an uphill battle. Completely failing to keep a major campaign promise is likely to make things worse. The Republican base is going to be disgusted with this failure and may stay home. It may even cause some representatives to get replaced in the primaries. 

Of course passing a repeal or replace of Obamacare would have had consequences as well. Not the least of which would be a reinvigorating of the Democrats base. Doing so would have massive consequences because right now the Democratic Party is a mess. They don't seem to stand for anything other than opposing President Trump, but if a repeal or replace bill was passed they would stand for health care yet again.

Still, there is a small chance that something will get done with Obamacare. There is a small chance that one of the reluctant senators would flip, but I am not holding my breath. Even more unlikely is a bipartisan compromise that would fix some of Obamacare's problems, which is technically possible but very unlikely to happen. Much more likely is that we will have to live with Obamacare as it is until the makeup of Congress changes. 

Venezuela crisis deepens as millions vote against plan to create new assembly.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. EPA/BBC.

More than 7 million voters in Venezuela have voted against President Nicolas Maduro's plan to create a new assembly that would have the power to revise the constitution and dissolve government agencies. BBC. Opposition forces organized the vote and are calling for new presidential elections. The opposition believes that if the 545 member assembly is passed it would delay the vote when Maduro's term expires in 2019. Maduro said the vote was phony and backed by Western agents. Venezuela is in a crisis due to low oil prices and the high costs of the social programs put into place by Maduro. 100 people have died in protests since the crisis began, including one woman killed during the most recent vote. 

My Comment:

This vote was mainly symbolic but it does have a real purpose. When the actual vote for the new assembly 30th of July the world will have a benchmark of how valid the vote is. 98% of the 7 million voters voted against this assembly so if the assembly eventually passes, we know that someone cheated. There are about 20 million voters in Venezuela so there is a chance that the people that didn't vote in this election will turn out for Maduro, but that seems very improbable. 

Still, the vote is largely meaningless other than as a message. There is widespread opposition to the Maduro government and the obvious grab for power they are going for. And it's very clear that is what Maduro is after. They want this assembly so they can kick out opposition forces from the government and dissolve institutions that oppose him. 

Maduro is largely blaming foreign governments for his troubles. I think there is probably some truth to this since Venezuela has been a US enemy since Hugo Chavez took power. And Donald Trump just said that he might be interested in punishing Venezuela's government for their treatment of protesters. 

That being said, whatever the US is doing in Venezuela, they could probably stop and nothing would change for Maduro. He's having these problems for two major reasons, the price of oil and socialism. The price of oil has collapsed completely, largely due to US fracking. This has greatly damaged every country that is dependent on oil, many of them are opposed to the United States, while it has been an economic boom for the US. So much so that we have gone from importing energy, to being energy independent (see the news cover that!) to actually exporting oil and other energy! 

Still, other countries have faced the same problems with oil prices as Venezuela and haven't had the instability that they have. Why? Socialism. Instead of investing in their economy, Venezuela has spent heavily on social programs. Other countries have tried to diversify their economies and tried to find other sources of income as the price of oil collapsed. 

But Venezuela? They didn't even invest the money they needed to maintain their own oil fields! Indeed, they kicked out foreign companies, nationalized the whole thing and spent all the money on socialist programs that bankrupted the country. Not they can't even ramp up production because they don't have the expertise to do it themselves and they have burned their bridges with foreign companies. 

All of this should have been very predictable. After all, socialism has failed again and again. The people of Venezuela had made a massive mistake when they elected Hugo Chavez. The bread lines and instability were obvious consequences of his polices that have been continued by Maduro. I geniuinely hope that Maduro is removed from power and a more right wing government can come to power in Venezuela. They probably won't be able to save it at this point but at the very least it could stop the rot before it destroys everything...