8 dead in vehicle ramming attack in Manhattan.

Eight dead in a vehicle ramming attack in Manhattan, New York. New York Times. The attacker, identified as Sayfullo Saipov, plowed his truck through a large group of people using a bike path killing eight people and wounding eleven more before crashing into a school bus. He then ran out of his vehicle and began threatening people with a pellet gun and a paintball gun before being shot and captured by police. Saipov reportedly yelled "Allah Akbar" and had materials in his truck pledging allegiance to ISIS. Saipov was an immigrant from Uzbekistan. 

Police stand near a victim of the attack. New York Times/AP

In NYC, looks like another attack by a very sick and deranged person. Law enforcement is following this closely. NOT IN THE U.S.A.!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 31, 2017

My Comment:
Yet another terrorist attack committed by a Muslim who pledged allegiance to ISIS. The suspect was an immigrant from Uzbekistan. Some are making light of the fact that Uzbekistan isn't on Donald Trump's travel ban, but the ban never said anything about kicking out people that are already here.

It's too early to be sure if this was a lone wolf attack or if Saipov had help. I would say that a lone wolf attack looks more likely. This attack wasn't sophisticated at all. The attacker didn't have any firearms or explosives and it was all he could do just to get a truck and a couple of toy firearms. It's just another copycat attack of the extremely successful Nice attack. It obviously wasn't that successful, but ever since that attack happened, people realized how easy it is to kill large numbers of people with a vehicle.

Saipov was armed with toy guns, did the pellet gun and paintball gun pose a threat? I would say yes but not much of one. A pellet gun can injure or even kill someone if you hit someone in the right place. A paintball gun is less dangerous, but it could still put someone's eye out. The cops were more than justified for shooting Saipov, even if they knew that he only had toy guns. He was still a threat and could have used those guns to either injure someone or use them to hijack a vehicle. The police were right to shoot him because he could have continued his attack by using those toy guns.

Saipov picked a good target for his attack. A bike path is a fairly smart place to attack with a vehicle. Bike paths are narrow, so there isn't a great way to escape if the victims see you coming. And many of them won't because people tend to listen to music while biking. There are probably places in New York that have larger concentrations of people though. Most of them would likely be better guarded and the population would have more chances for escape and would be more aware of their surroundings.

I have to wonder if Saipov was targeting children. The attack occurred right as the local schools were letting out. I don't know the culture of New York City but I bet at least a few kids still ride their bikes home and could have been using that path. However, I doubt that the ramming of the school bus was something different. That was either a target of opportunity or the driver just losing control. Plus, ramming a school bus with a pickup truck isn't going to hurt the school bus. Had Saipov not rammed it he probably could have continued his attack.

If he was specifically targeting children than this attack was even more disgusting than most terrorist attacks. Even most terrorists won't stoop that low. But ISIS has a long history of attacking children, and it would not surprise me at all if Saipov was targeting them specifically.

Speaking of ISIS, even as they are defeated in Iraq and Syria, they can still inspire attacks like this. ISIS hasn't been able to pull off a professional terrorist attack in awhile but they have been able to inspire people to attack even as their propaganda outlets get shut down and marginalized. We should probably expect more attacks like this one as ISIS fades into the background. They may be essentially defeated on the battlefield, but they are still a force to be reckoned with. Even as ISIS dies, their ideology will live on...

About Kevin Spacey...

Kevin Spacey in 2013. via Flikr

The latest member of Hollywood to be accused of sexual abuse is actor Kevin Spacey. He has been accused of trying to molest Star Trek actor Anthony Rapp when Rapp was 14. Rapp wasn't raped, but he was propositioned and harassed. Spacey apologized and said he was coming out as gay. 

I have a few thoughts. The most obvious is that odious way that Spacey apologized. Though I give him some credit for admitting wrongdoing the way he did so was pretty stupid. First of all, he claimed to not remember the event because he was drunk. Being drunk isn't an excuse for trying to sleep with a 14 year old. Obviously. 

More serious was the fact that he decided to come out as gay. I don't think anyone really cares if Spacey is gay or not but everyone criticized the timing of him coming out. Coming out of the closet after being accused of attacking a child is not going to play well. It makes it seem like he is trying to distract from what he did and get gay sympathy points. Needless to say this did not work at all for Spacey. 

I think that Spacey is going to suffer for this. There is a small chance he could face charges but given the incident happened 30 years ago so the statue of limitations may have run out, depending on the state. He might not face any criminal charges but he could still face civil charges, especially if other victims come forward. 

Spacey career will take a hit as well. Already Netflix has canceled his critically acclaimed drama House of Cards. Considering how popular House of Cards was and how much of a critical darling it was, this shows that Spacey has become toxic. Sure House of Cards wasn't as popular as it used to be, but it is still a Netflix cornerstone. The show getting canceled shows how much blowback Spacey is getting. 

I do have a hope that the fact that Spacey is crashing and burning here encourages others to come forward. Harvey Weinstein opened the floodgates and I am hoping more people will come forward in Hollywood. We all know that there are pedophiles, rapists and abusers throughout Hollywood and though Weinstein was powerful, he wasn't an A-lister. Spacey wasn't either but he's damn close and I am guessing other people will come forward now, especially if Anthony Rapp career isn't threatened by this revelation. 

Apparently a lot of people agree with me about Spacey. I tweeted about this yesterday and it seemed to resonate with people... 

Kevin Spacey is #Hollywood royalty. The fact that #AnthonyRapp feels comfortable accusing him shows that the system is collapsing.

— Jeff H (@politicswarblog) October 30, 2017

My thoughts on the Paul Manafort indictment.

Paul Manafort via Twitter.

As you may know, Donald Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort has been indicted for financial crimes in the Muller probe. He, along with his aide, Richard Gates, have surrendered to the FBI and have been charged with 12 counts regarding money laundering and fraud against the US government for his work with the Ukrainians. 

The left celebrated this as the "thing that will take down Trump and this time we mean it!" A quick perusal of the indictment, which can be seen below, makes that fairly obviously wrong. Trump wasn't mentioned once in the document and it's very clear that almost every crime Manafort has been charged with happened well before Manafort joined the campaign. The conspiracy charge has an end date in 2017, but that's how conspiracy charges work. And the only other crime he committed recently was lying to investigators, which happened after Manafort was fired in August 2016. 

A few more things. Much hay was made on Twitter and elsewhere that Manafort was charged with "Conspiracy Against the United States". Though that sounds very serious, a reading of the criminal code (18 USC 371) shows that it is a minor felony that has nothing to do with treason and everything to do with fraud. It's a felony charged when people conspire with each other to defraud the government and it has a sentence of five years.

Critically, the indictment has nothing to do with Donald Trump or election interference. These financial crimes were related to Ukraine, not Russia and nothing to do with our elections. They also happened years before and there was little chance of Donald Trump actually knowing about it. It shouldn't hurt Trump at all, other than the fact that he probably shouldn't have hired him even though there wasn't a way for Trump to know about this. To his credit as soon as Trump found out about Manafort's Ukraine links, he fired him.

I think that Democrats are going to be severely disappointed in the Muller investigation. Nobody on the right cares about Manafort going down, other than being annoyed that he got caught by Muller instead of the FBI or IRS. Manafort had nothing to do with Russian interference with the election so the special consul investigation has gone rather far away from its goals. Manafort was always just a tool used by Trump to get elected and not a critical player. He only used him to counter Ted Cruz's effort to flip election delegates. He's not important, especially since he has nothing to do with Russia collusion.

Further more, it looks like some Democrats are going to go down with Manafort. Specifically, I am talking about the Podesta brothers, including John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager. In the indictment, two companies were mentioned as "Company A" and "Company B". NBC has revealed that one of those companies was the Podesta Group. And Tony Podesta just stepped down from the company...

Sources: Podesta Group, Mercury are companies "A" and "B" in indictment https://t.co/wmJqADo5sQ pic.twitter.com/oa1s23G947

— NBC News (@NBCNews) October 30, 2017

I think it is very clear that Tony Podesta is probably going down for similar financial crimes. He, too, failed to register as a foreign agent and he might very well be caught up in Manafort's money laundering scheme. I can't think of another reason for him to step down other than that he suspects that an indictment is coming. I'm not so sure that John Podesta, Hillary's campaign manger, will go down as well but I bet he's scared. I consider both of the Podesta brothers to be creepy, gross and corrupt and I think that there is a decent chance that the investigation into the Podesta group could go far beyond Manafort's financial crimes. Though I never bought into the "Pizzagate" conspiracy theories it is very clear to me that both Podesta brothers have... odd taste in art, to say the least.

As far as the Muller probe, it seems like it is winding down after this. No actual collusion has been found and the only charges are for Manafort's financial crimes and former unpaid Trump advisory George Papadapoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. Now that the investigation seems to be heading to the Podestas, I think it will wrap up.

Almost all American citizens fighting for ISIS are unaccounted for.

An ISIS fighter from the Philippines captured in Syria. Fox News/AP

Almost all American citizens fighting for ISIS remain unaccounted for, raising concerns that they may return and commit terrorist attacks. Fox News. A new report from the Soufan Center says that as many as 129 US citizens left for Syria and Iraq to fight with ISIS and we only know the whereabouts of 7 who returned to the United States. Over 5,600 fighters have returned to their home countries, which is roughly 15% of ISIS's total strength. There are fears that American ISIS fighters could sneak back into the country through our porous borders. Many of the fighters have been killed but others still remain and those that were stopped in other countries before joining the fight are a major concern. All and all, over 300 Americans have joined the wars in Syria and Iraq with most of them joining ISIS but others fighting with non-terrorist groups like the Kurds. Further complicating things is the presence of women and children among the Americans who traveled to ISIS controlled territory. 

My Comment:

My initial thought is that the vast majority of the Americans who went to fight with ISIS are dead or will be so soon. ISIS has been hemorrhaging personal due to heavy amounts of attrition and our new strategy of cutting off fighters and then killing them. Foreign fighters are also a priority target, not only for the United States, but for practically every local force in the area as well. These foreign fighters were not even popular among ISIS, let alone the general populations of Iraq and Syria. Few will survive assuming any of them are even left at this point. 

Plus, ISIS has been cut off from the outside world for quite some time. Ever since Turkey closed their border with Syria and joined the war, ISIS hasn't been able to move people in or out of their Syrian and Iraqi holdings. I am sure there are still Americans left who want to escape but to do so would mean crossing dozens of miles, maybe even hundreds, just to make it to a place like Turkey. 

And even when they get there, it's not like they have an easy way back to the United States. Unlike Europeans or Africans, there isn't an easy land route to get to their home countries. Air travel is out because they are surely on a watchlist and they likely lost their passports and other documents. Keep in mind, many ISIS fighters burned their passports to show their commitment to the Caliphate. Sure they can forge or steal documents but that takes time and carries with it a major risk. Booking a berth on a ship might be the only way to sneak in and even that seems unlikely.  

Assuming they could cross the Atlantic Ocean, they would still have problems getting into the United States itself. The Fox News piece suggested that they could get through the Canadian or Mexican borders, but even with how unguarded those borders are it still seems unlikely that they would be able to get into those countries in the first place. It's not that Mexico and Canada have great border controls either but the Atlantic Ocean is really a huge hurdle to pass. 

Still, it's not like there isn't a real threat here. Even granting that getting to America would be difficult, it still is frightening how much damage even a handful of these people could be. Though we didn't have that many people join ISIS, all of them are extremely dangerous and if they were to come back they could cause some major terrorist attacks. These people are likely veterans and have been hardened by battle. They may have experience with small arms, explosives and just plain old murder. I have no doubt that if they can get here they could cause serious problems. 

I also think that the report was right in that people that wanted to join ISIS but were stopped before they could get their, either because a foreign government stopped them or because circumstances did, are a huge threat. Unlike the actual ISIS fighters, these guys might not be on the radar and would have an easier time getting back. And they might be looking for a fight after missing Iraq and Syria. 

Another question is what to do with these people when they do come back. Obviously joining ISIS is a very serious crime and we should throw the book at them. But I worry that sending them to prison could be dangerous as well. Keeping ISIS fighters in state or federal prisons has the potential to radicalize other prisoners which is not a good thing. My instinct would be to throw them into Guantanamo Bay but ISIS fighters might even be too hardcore for them to handle. After all, the last thing we need is to rile up the people kept there. 

We also have to wonder what to do with the women and children. I am fully in favor of locking up the women who joined ISIS and throwing away the key as they knew what they were doing and are responsible for their actions. They shouldn't get a pass for their gender and they should also be considered a major security threat. Even though ISIS didn't practice equality, I think we are better than that and we shouldn't be making excuses for any women that joined, just like we wouldn't for the men. They knew damn well what they were doing and should be held responsible. 

Children are a more difficult question. As children they are not fully responsible for their actions, and the younger ones had no choices at all, but we also have to realize that they are going to be ticking time bombs unless we can deprogram them somehow. I don't even know if such a thing is possible but we will probably try. 

Of course we might be making a mountain out of a molehill here. I don't think that many ISIS fighters are even going to survive the war. Most of them fight to the death and the few that don't aren't going to make it back here without a huge amount of skill and luck. We still have to worry about the possibility but I don't think it's all that different than the threat we have from homegrown terrorists. 

We are lucky that we have the Atlantic Ocean to protect us. What concerns me is that Europe and Africa do not have such a luxury. While our worries about ISIS returnees are minor, they are a huge threat to Europe and Africa. Those two continents also have to deal with returnees from other countries as well as local ISIS fighters fleeing as well. The massive refugee and migrant crisis that is consuming Europe provides perfect cover for terrorists to infiltrate. I fear that even as ISIS is defeated in Syria and Iraq, Africa and especially Europe could be the next battlefield. 

Weekend Movie Night: Mindhunter

It's time to review something new! This time it's not technically a movie but instead is a Netflix original series based on the true story of the FBI profiling unit called Mindhunter. It's based on the true crime novel by FBI profiler John Douglas and Mark Olshaker. I had originally read the actual Mindhunter novel a decade ago and was really interested in the book. So much so that I also bought the follow up book Journey into Darkness. 

My copy of the novel.

Before I say anything else, this review will have spoilers. I am not sure if you need spoilers for a series based on historical events, many of which are common knowledge, but it's here anyways. I will say that I recommend the series even if I do think it has a few flaws. Obviously, if you are disturbed by depictions of murder, especially murders of a sexual nature. They don't show much but the descriptions are pretty disgusting. More sensitive viewers should probably skip this one. 

So did the series live up to the novel? I have to say that it is largely accurate from what I remember of the novel. It's a fair representation of the FBI Behavioral Science Unit and its beginnings, as far as I can tell.  Every case in the series was based on something in the novel. Yep, Edmund Kemper, Richard Speck, Jerry Burdos and Dennis Rader are all real people as horrifying as that is. The main characters are also based on real people with Holden Ford being based on John Douglas, Bill Tench based on Robert Ressler and Dr. Wendy Carr based on Dr. Ann Burgess. 

Obviously, the series has amped up on the drama. From what I remember, it didn't seem like Douglas/Ford's interview techniques were controversial at the time and the entire unit was less divisive than it was portrayed in the series.   

Also, Edmund Kemper never threatened Ford/Douglas. He did mention to Tench/Ressler that he probably could rip his head off during a shift change at the prison but he claimed he was joking. That was obviously taken very seriously and after that FBI profilers were not allowed to interview subjects alone. 

Ford/Douglass did get extremely sick at one point too but that wasn't after meeting with Kemper, it was while he was trying to help with the Green River killings. Also, the foot fetish principle isn't a real person but was based on a thought experiment in the book. 

These minor historical differences aside, the series is otherwise extremely accurate to the book. The incidents of inaccuracy are justified because they are either there to make the story more interesting or being used to demonstrate how the FBI profiling unit works. It's way more accurate than most historical series and I commend them for keeping it based on reality. 

As for the acting I think the actors are doing a good job. Johnathan Groff is nailing Holden Ford as the cocky yet intelligent profiler and matches what I think John Douglas was like back then. The rest of the main characters are well acted as well but Cameron Britton knocks it out of the park as Edmund Kemper. He plays the friendly and intelligent but completely evil Kemper perfectly. 

If I have a major criticism of the plot of Mindhunter it's the relationship between Holden Ford and Debbie Mitford. I'm not a fan of all the relationship drama in a series that is supposed to be about serial killers and the FBI. The sex scenes are the worst though. Not only do they seem completely gratuitous, since they don't have much to add to the plot, they also offer up a major mood whiplash between the sex and then the horrible descriptions of sexually motivated murder. Not something I ever wanted to see together. 

It kind of seemed like Netflix thought that the series couldn't stand alone without sex scenes and nudity. That seems the way steaming/premium tv shows are going and it's like Mindhunter is just following the trend. I do think that the series got a lot better when the sex scenes started to go away. I do guess that there was a point where Ford wasn't able to have sex after being disgusted by Jerry Brudos, but that's about the only scene that was justified.  

As for the future of the series, I think there is a lot of potential for further seasons. Mindhunter the book covered quite a few serial killers that haven't yet been covered in the series. Dennis Rader the BTK killer is getting quite a bit of forshadowing but there will be others as well. Supposedly the Atlanta child murders will dominate the 2nd season but I think there is a lot of material for quite a few seasons. I hope that the series will be renewed beyond that. 

Iraqi forces launch attack on the last remaining ISIS strongholds in Iraq.

Iraqi forces with a technical. BBC/AFP.

Iraqi forces have launched their final offensive on the last remaining ISIS strongholds in Iraq, the border towns of al-Qaim and Rawa. BBC. The Prime Minster of Iraq, Haider al-Abadi has told ISIS militants that they must choose between "death and surrender". ISIS still has control of parts of Syria, with the besieged city of Dier ez Zor being their last major holding. Iraqi forces have already clears some villages and liberated the H-2 airbase in the western desert. ISIS is thought to have 1500 remaining troops in the al-Qaim area. 50,000 civilians remain in the two towns as well. 

My Comment:

This is the beginning of the end for ISIS in Iraq. After Rawa and al-Qaim fall they will have no major holdings left in Iraq. All of the cities and towns they captured since 2014 will be liberated in Iraq. They may still have holdouts camping out in the desert or left behind in those cities and towns but as a major fighting force ISIS will be done. Their Caliphate will no longer exist in Iraq.

And they will be defeated sooner rather than later. With only 1500 fighters left they are facing a very strong and battle tested Iraqi military along with their US and other allied air support. They have very little hope of survival, let alone victory. They can't hope to defeat the forces arrayed against them, they can only delay the inevitable. 

Their best bet is to fight a rear guard action while most of their troops flee to Syria. That could save the lives of some of those ISIS fighters and allow them to continue fighting for another day. But even that option is evaporating quickly and would likely just be a fool's errand. Both the Syrian government, backed by the Russians, and the Syrian Kurds, backed by the United States, are advancing quickly towards the border with Iraq as well. Their last major stronghold in Syria, Deir ez Zor has been cut off and is currently besieged by Syrian forces. 

There really isn't anywhere to flee to. Escaping from the Iraqi/Syrian border region isn't possible because all routes of escape have been cut off. ISIS is too weak and devastated that they can't really try and break out either. Even attempting it seems impossible at this point. Fleeing to Syria could buy a bit of time with the hope that somehow things there could devolve into a major war between the Kurds and the Syrian government as well as their backers, but even that seems inconceivable now. 

ISIS will be defeated in both Iran and Syria and the only question that remains is how long it will take and how many people will have to die before it happens. They have no chance of recovering from this as an actual state and they have lost both of their capitals in Raqqa and Mosul. My guess is that Iraq will be liberated completely before the end of this year and Syria will join them sometime early in 2018 at the latest. 

Of course, and I always say this since the war turned against ISIS, the defeat of ISIS on the battlefield will not mean the end of ISIS. They will continue on as a guerrilla force and will continue to launch raids and terror attacks in both Iraq and Syria. And there are potentially millions of people that still support what they tried to do and will support them in the future as the Islamic State evolves into a more traditional terrorist movement. 

I also always have to mention that it really was a game changer when both the Iraqis and the United States changed the rules of engagement to prioritize killing ISIS fighters over letting them escape. Doing so has greatly increased the pace of liberation and probably saved thousands of lives. Sure, the shift probably killed a few civilians in the short term, but it is going to end the fighting so much quicker. Both President Donald Trump and Prime Minster Haider al-Abadi deserve a lot of credit for that. 

I don't know what will happen after ISIS is kicked out of Iraq. I think that the tensions that are already flaring up between the Kurds and the Iraqi government could fracture Iraq's chances for peace. That would be a shame as Iraq certainly deserves some peace after the US invasion, the first insurgency and the ISIS catastrophe. I sincerely hope that the defeat of ISIS in Iraq will represent an end to the fighting there. Let us all hope that peace finally breaks out. 

Photo gallery shows how unprepared for war the North Koreans are.

A wood powered truck. Pen News.

The Herlad Sun has a photo gallery showing how woefully unprepared the North Korean military is for war. The gallery shows North Korean soldiers with fake guns, wood fired trucks and female soldiers wearing high heels. The pictures were taken on the East Coast near Wosan. The photographer has remained anonymous. He said that he was worried that the photos would be erased so he had a backup memory card but in the end the guards didn't even check it. 

My Comment:

Interesting photo gallery and one that shows that the conventional North Korean military isn't much a threat. Their technology is ancient and I have never even heard of a wood fired truck. I guess it makes sense as North Korea doesn't have much domestic oil production and is completely reliant on imports for gasoline. Using them would offer a measure of protection against sanctions and trade disruptions. Still, a wood fired vehicle has to be less reliable and efficient than a normal one.

I also have to note that all of the soldiers looked rather pathetic. Unlike the DMZ, these were normal North Korean soldiers who presumably don't get as much food as the DMZ guards who are probably the cream of the crop. Even the DMZ soldiers are a lot less impressive than the well fed and beefy South Korean and American soldiers stationed on the other side. 

The soldiers back from the DMZ shown in these photos though? They are weak and skinny. None of them look particularly healthy and none of them seem like they get enough food. Even the least impressive American soldier could take these guys without much problem in a hand to hand fight. 

I don't know how North Korea expects to win a war with this conventional army. Their technology is extremely outdated and their soldiers are weak and underfed. Their only strength is raw numbers and even that doesn't help much against the superior weapons and soldiers of the South and America. Their superior numbers would quickly evaporate under the superior firepower of the combined South Korean and American forces.  

This also helps explain why North Korea has been so demanding on their nuclear issue. They need nukes in order to assure that attacking them would be too high of a price to pay. Their conventional army isn't much of a threat and would fold quickly in a real war. Nukes, along with North Korea's expanding biological weapons program, gives them some credibility as a threat and may act as a deterrence. 

Of course the downside to that strategy is that they may provoke the war that they are trying to prevent. Nobody wants North Korea to have a credible nuclear weapons program and the missiles to deliver them. And they also don't want North Korea to have a dangerous biological weapons program. The relative increase of this threat is why there is so much saber rattling going on right now. 

Ironically enough, if North Korea had invested the millions of dollars they wasted on the nuclear weapons program into their military they might have had a conventional military that could work as deterrence and get rid of the main reason everyone wants regime change anyways. Investing in nuclear technology was a major mistake but they can't change strategy now. They have sunken too much money and prestige into their nuclear program and can't give it up now... 

Anti-Trump senator Jeff Flake announces he will not run in 2018

Arizona Senator Jeff Flake. Congressional photo.

Anti-Trump GOP senator Jeff Flake announces that he will not run in 2018. New York Times. Flake announced his retirement during a 17 minute speech in congress complaining about President Trump's tone. Flake's policies seemed to have little place in a Republican Party led by Donald Trump as he is pro-immigration and pro-globalism. Many Republicans were also furious with Flake due to the possibility of him torpedoing tax reform, a major GOP goal. Flake was likely to lose his seat regardless as his approval rating was a dismal 18% and he was trailing his primary opponent, Dr. Kelli Ward, a pro-Trump candidate, by 27 points.

My Comment:

I don't believe for a second that Flake is retiring because of his criticism of Trump. Well, technically he is because doing so caused his base to completely abandon him, but the real reason is because he couldn't get elected as dog catcher in Arizona. He was massively behind his primary opponent, Dr. Kelli Ward, and would likely lose in a general election against whoever wins their primaries. His whining about Trump is just to cover for the fact that he has lost support in Arizona. Nobody with an 18% approval rating is going to win an election.

So why was Flake so unpopular? Well criticizing Trump was a large part of it. Arizona went for Trump by about 5 points and Trump is reasonable popular there. Trump's got a lot of people that voted for him and I doubt many of them appreciated Flake's criticism against him. I'm not from Arizona but I despised Flake and I am very happy that he isn't going to be a senator anymore, even if it means that the Democrats somehow win in Arizona. He was that bad. 

I think others were upset that Flake was trying to pick a fight with Trump instead of actually doing his job. Whatever you think of Trump, he is the leader of the GOP and the party is stuck with him until 2020 at the very least, with a 2024 date being likely as well. Trying to divide the party in a purity spiral over something as pointless as "tone" is not going to go over well with people that think "my party right or wrong". There are a lot of Republicans out there that do think that Trump should keep off of twitter and act like a more traditional president, but they won't tolerate someone from their side undermining the party by fighting Trump over it. The recognize that despite the perceived faults with Trump, he's not the enemy. The Democrats are and Flake was helping them and hurting the GOP with his attacks on Trump.

Of course, part of his unpopularity is the general incompetence of the Senate GOP. The Senate has failed to pass the Obamacare repeal and is now floundering on tax reform. They have also failed to fund Trump's wall and won't take action on supporting gun rights. Indeed, they haven't accomplish much of anything. Had Flake and the senate GOP actually accomplished, well, ANYTHING, Flake might have been popular enough to run and have his criticism taken seriously. 

I do think that this is a wider rejection for the anti-Trump wing of the GOP. Flake isn't the only GOP senator that is retiring because he couldn't win an election. Bob Corker, another anti-Trump Republican is also on the way out for similar reasons. He can't win against Trump. And anti-Trump GOP leadership, like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are also hugely unpopular. 

Though the conventional wisdom is that congress gets weaker for the incumbent party during midterm elections, I do think that Trump is going to be stronger after the election. Not only is he going to lose some of his most powerful and outspoken opponents to retirements, the Democrats have more seats to defend than the Republicans.

And I think that there is a chance that Flake and Corker are just the first to fall. Steve Bannon, former White House adviser and Breitbart editor said that there will be primary challenges for all GOP senators up for election with the sole exception being Ted Cruz. I don't know how successful that effort will be, the best chances of victory were Flake and Corker, but they are both down and out. However, Bannon and Breitbart were able to push Roy Moore over incumbent Luther Strange in Alabama. Still, it shows that there is strong resistance to the anti-Trump forces in the Senate. 

I think this should be a huge warning to anyone in the GOP that wants to criticize Trump. Do so at your own peril as doing so will cause your polls to collapse and either force you into retirement or embarrass you during the primaries. Heed the lessons of Flake and Corker. Fall in line or get kicked out of congress. 

North Korea is developing biological weapons along with their nuclear weapons program.

North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. The Telegraph/Getty. 

North Korea is suspected of building a major biological weapons program according to a new study. The Telegraph. They are suspected of using 13 biological agents, including smallpox, anthrax and cholera. North Korea may also attempt to bypass the technical difficulty in loading biological agents into warheads by using unconventional tactics. They could instead use infiltrators to spray agents or contaminate water supplies. In addition to their nuclear weapons, the North Koreans could use biological weapons as a major distraction during any potential war. It is unclear how advanced North Korea's biological weapons program is as there are not any clear signs like earthquakes from the nuclear tests. The study recommends that the United States increase focus on the biological threat. 

The Harvard Kennedy School report can be found here. 

My Comment:

North Korea has gotten the most attention for their advanced nuclear program. That program is a threat. If they were to deploy their weapons and they successfully detonated in major South Korean cities, millions could die. And North Korea's missile program is advanced enough that they can definitely hit Japan or Guam and perhaps the west coast of America as well. 

Still, even if a nuclear war were to break out with North Korea, it would be survivable. Sure millions of people would die but it would not be a threat to human civilization. Even if China, Russia and the United States launched all of their nukes humanity would survive, though greatly weakened. 

That might not be true for biological weapons. It is possible that the North Koreans could develop a biological weapon that could kill more people through pandemic than even a full scale nuclear war. Weaponizeing something like smallpox but modifying it to make the vaccines against it not work is something that is technically possible and could spread throughout the world. 

Though such a thing is technically possible, I doubt that the North Koreans have the technical ability to do so. Modifying biological weapons has been done before, but it takes quite a bit of expertise and it is very expensive. I don't know if they North Koreans are capable of doing so. The problem is that I don't know if anyone else does either. 

Of course even a conventional release of a normal pathogen could be hugely dangerous. Smallpox is one of the biggest threats. Smallpox has, of course, been eradicated since 1980 and the vaccine is dangerous as well. We have largely lost our immunity to the disease and if it were to be released it could kill millions of people. And agents like Anthrax and Cholera would devastate the South Koreans.  

The limiting factor is that any release of biological weapons would occur during a major war. That major war would greatly limit travel in the region and prevent the disease from spreading to other countries. They would likely devastate South Korean civilians and weaken both their military and any US troops deployed in the region, but hopefully it wouldn't spread beyond that. And agents like Anthrax and Cholera wouldn't be easily spread outside of the region anyways, though Smallpox would spread like wildfire. 

I also think that there would be a global panic if North Korea used biological weapons. People have a natural fear of disease and will be horrifying by the images that would come from a massive biological attack. Remember the Ebola outbreak? That outbreak was mostly limited to Africa but the few cases that made it outside caused quite a bit of concern. Imagine how freaked out people would be if that outbreak was man-made. And remember that Ebola could potentially be weaponized if the North Koreans have access to it...

Still, there is a strong argument to be made for North Korea being smart enough to not deploy biological weapons. The obvious reason is that any deployment of biological weapons has a very good chance of backfiring and hitting your own troops and population. Even North Korea's leadership would be put at risk, especially from any weapons that don't have an available vaccine. And official US policy is that any chemical or biological weapons strike will be treated as a nuclear one and responded to in kind. 

 On the other hand, North Korea has to know that they can't win a conventional war against the combined forces of South Korea and America, plus anyone else that wants to join in. Their conventional Army, Navy and Air Force are outdated and outgunned by their enemies. Anything that can weaken their enemies might be considered even if it results in further North Korean deaths... 

Keep an eye out for over-hyped news stories.

As you are probably aware there is a new kind of problem we have all been experiencing lately. Though we are all aware of fake news, I think there is a new issue rising. I'm talking about the over-hyped news story. Instead of a totally false story like fake news, these are stories that are built up to be earth shattering expose that will totally change everything forever! And then the story is released. Most of the time something really happens but it's not nearly as big as it is hyped to be.

It's very obvious why this kind of thing happens. Journalists want to build up hype so people actually read the story when it comes out. They also tend to believe their own exaggerations and greatly overestimate how much impact any kind of story that they have.

We need to keep any eye out for these stories and realize that oftentimes when people promise the moon they don't have much. Sometimes those stories are actually very important but when people are expecting earth-shattering they get disappointed with just a huge story.

I think some of this is just people expecting too much. For example there was the recent Uranium One story. It's a major news story that accuses Hillary Clinton of serious wrong doing and also implicates other members of the Obama administration of wrongdoing. But people are disappointed with that? Why? I guess they wanted something so powerful that no one would ever want to be a Democrat again. What that could be I don't know since I think people would still support Clinton even if she was caught on camera sacrificing babies to Moloch, but the point remains. If you want the one thing that ends Democrats forever (or Republicans for that matter), you are probably going to be disappointed.

So what are some signs of an over-hyped news story? People saying things like "tick tock" tends to be a huge red flag. People saying that their story is a "gamechanger" or that it will change everything is also a very bad sign. Generally, you shouldn't trust anything that is telling you what you want to hear.

Video: Japanese pilots flee from burning airplane.

A pilot escapes from the burning F-4EJ. 

In dramatic video footage, two Japanese pilots escaped from a burning F-4EJ Phantom II before takeoff. Daily Mail. The accident occurred at Hyakuri Air Base in Ibaraki prefecture. The two pilots escaped without injury. It is thought that the fire was caused by a malfunctioning landing gear. Japan has grounded their F-4EJ Phantoms to make sure the problem doesn't occur again. The F-4EJ Phantom II's are old jets first introduced in the 1960's and are due to be replaced by F-35's. 

My Comment:

Scary moment for the Japanese pilots. They were very close to being burned alive, which is horrifying. They were very lucky that nobody was hurt. You can see the video in the link above or on Youtube below in case you don't want to support the Daily Mail (or Youtube for that matter).

What is most surprising to me is that the Japanese still use F-4 Phantoms. These planes are almost five decades old now. America retired our last combat jets in 1996, though we kept them on for non-combat roles. Japan is one of only a few countries, including South Korea, Turkey and Iran. Yep, the F-4's are so old that the pre-date the Islamic Revolution in Iran. 

Japan still has three combat squadrons but they aren't in a front line role and are due to be replaced. The reason they haven't been is because the delays with the F-35 program. Those new F-35's, with as many problems as they have, are now desperately needed for Japan. Right now their F-4 Phantoms are no longer reliable. 

Given how high tensions are that is a very bad thing. If a war were to break out between North Korea and everyone else the Japanese might not be ready now. I don't think these F-4's would have a large amount of effect, but it would reduce Japan's strike capability. Very bad timing for these F-4's. 

President Trump's statement on the liberation of Raqqa from ISIS.

President Trump released a statement about Raqqa today and I thought I should post it here. I don't have much to say about it other than what I have said in Tuesdays post but I thought it might be good to post what the President had to say.

President Trump indicates that he is likely to release the last JFK assassination files.

Marker outside of the birthplace of John F. Kennedy. Reuters. 

President Trump indicates that he is likely to release the last files concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Reuters. The long classified files are scheduled to be released next week but many news outlets said that Trump was not going to authorize their release. The JFK assassination remains mired in conspiracy theories despite the official story being that Lee Harvey Oswald committed the crime and acted alone. Intelligence agencies have argued for withholding these files with the justification that they may endanger intelligence operations and practices. The files are not expected to have any bombshells but may shed light on Oswald's travels in Cuba and Russia. 

Subject to the receipt of further information, I will be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 21, 2017

My Comment:
Once again the mainstream media got the story wrong. Politico had written an article saying that Trump was not going to release the documents less than a day before Trump tweeted that he was indeed going to release them, subject to review. One wonders if Politico was just making things up or if they were led on a wild goose chase but either way they got this story wrong. It now seems very likely that Trump will release these documents, barring a major change of course.

What is going to be in them? Good question. The Reuters report speculates that these documents have information about Oswald's travels to Russia and Cuba. Oswald was a defector to both countries but returned. He was also a dedicated communist and certainly had contacts with both governments. That information is publicly known but there could still be some details we are missing.

Is it possible that there is some kind of bombshell here? I think there is. I have always considered it a possibility that Oswald was in fact an agent of the Russians or Cubans. That doesn't mean they ordered the attack, but if it had been revealed in the 1960's that Oswald was a spy it could have resulted in a world war. It's very possible that a deal was reached with the foreign governments after our government determined that he wasn't acting on orders. There is also a slim possibility that he was acting on orders and if that is true that will rewrite history. 

I don't know how much I buy the intelligence agencies argument that sources and techniques could be compromises. Most of the people involved in the intelligence game from the 1960's are either dead or long retired and our intel gathering has grown enough that many of our old techniques are out of date. My guess is that there is probably some embarrassment for these agencies in these files. That and the obvious inertia there is for intel agencies to release anything if they don't have to.

Still, I don't think there will be much here. I am convinced that if there was something earthshaking left to learn about the JFK assassination we would have learned it by now. Someone would have leaked something and it would have happened decades ago. I think people would be wise to seriously temper their expectations about what these documents will reveal. It's not likely that there is going to be a smoking gun.

I have never been convinced with the traditional JFK assassination theories. I think most of them are stupid and even the more thought out ones are fairly far fetched. Indeed, the only one I give any credence at all to is the "Oswald was a Russian and/or Cuban spy" theory that I mentioned above. And that is one of the more unpopular ones.

It's my sincere belief that Oswald acted alone and he did so because he was a devoted communist that wanted to kill that anti-communist John F Kennedy. I doubt he had any help and I doubt he did so under orders. There was no second shooter and there was no further conspiracy. Barring some absolutely unprecedented info released in these documents I don't see my views changing anytime soon.

I also don't think that anyone else's minds will be changed either. People believe what they want to believe about the JFK assassination. New evidence, even if it supports a conspiracy angle, will not convince them that their pet theory is wrong no matter how strong it is. Everyone who lived through it made up their minds long ago and the new generations were born into the conspiracy theories.

Of course this whole post could be moot. Trump still has time to backpedal. He may well decide that he doesn't want to release these documents after all or could release them with so many redaction that they are completely useless. Doing so would probably be a political mistake because I think people will be really excited about this, but I think it is possible. I won't speculate on why he would tweet this out and change his mind as it would seem to be very out of character for him. My only guess is that it could be used as leverage against his enemies, but even that seems a bit "tinfoil hat" for me.

My guess is that these documents will come out and nothing much will come of them. The might shed some new light on things but they will do nothing to stop the conspiracy theories. In the end I think people will never give up on the "Who killed JFK?" question...

Another Gold Star family member releases audio showing Donald Trump offering condolences.

The above video is from the Washington Post and shows the conversation President Donald Trump had with Natasha De Alencar who is a Gold Star wife. Her husband, staff sergeant Mark De Alencar was killed in Afghanistan by ISIS militants last April. He left behind his wife and 5 children. 

Just watch the video and then tell me that Congresswoman Frederica Wilson is telling the truth about Trump disrespecting a Gold Star family. I saw nothing but respect in that video and it seemed like Trump was really trying to connect with De Alencar. 

The media has, of course, tried to make this thing about race. But obviously in this case this was a mixed race Hispanic/Black family and Trump acted with nothing but respect. Indeed, that's what De Alencar said herself and she was very impressed that Trump took the time to call her and learn a little about her family before he called. 

I have to say that I am fairly disgusted by this whole scandal. It's clear to me that Trump did nothing wrong here and he should be commended for taking the time to call the family of these people. That a ghoul like Fredercia Wilson would use this as an opportunity to attack the president is just disgusting to me... 

John Kelly has the final word on the Niger phone call controversy...

The above video is moving stuff. It's Donald Trump's Chief of Staff, John Kelly, explaining how presidents contact the families of dead soldiers and how the current controversy erupted. If, somehow, you don't know what is going on, a congresswoman, Fredrica Wilson (D), claimed that she listened into a phone call that Trump made to one of the four soldiers that had died in a terrorist attack in Niger. She claimed that Trump had said that "he knew what he signed up for". 

Of course the statement was taken completely out of context and was made to imply that Trump didn't actually care about the fact that a young man had died defending his country. John Kelly destroys that narrative with his moving speech above. He's the one that explained to Trump what he should say that would comfort people and he wanted Trump to point out that anyone who joins the military does so under their own volition and are heroes for doing so.  

I always knew that this as a faux controversy in the first place. For one thing I don't trust anyone in Congress to ever say anything true when it comes to politics. I also don't trust any scandal that the media promotes because the vast majority of time it is a faux scandal. And I especially don't trust any scandal that targets Donald Trump. So many of them have fallen apart in the past that my prior is that any scandal targeting him is, at the very least, missing context. More often than not, it's a completely false narrative. 

Also, I never understood why saying "he knew what he signed up for" was a bad thing. I guess if it was the only thing you said it might be a little cruel, but within context it makes a lot of sense. John Kelly pointed this out and he makes it pretty clear that Trump meant it in a complimentary way. Nobody has to join the military and anyone that does knows that they can die in combat. That's why they are brave. They know that they are risking death to serve their country and do so anyways because that's what they signed up for. I can't think of higher praise. 

It seems very clear to me that there is a huge gap of what kind of person President Trump is and the kind of person the media and leftist portray him and actually believe he is. It's fairly obvious that Trump, at the very least, cares as much as previous presidents about the troops. You would know that if you listened to him and it is even clearer if you listen to people who he has visited or talked with in the wake of previous tragedies. But the media and the Democratic Party seem determined to portray him as the ultimate evil who isn't capable of any human emotion. So they take what he said, strip it of context, and then use it to make him look bad.

The truth of this matter is if people like Fredrica Wilson or the news media had granted Trump any charity at all this scandal would never would have happened. The only way anyone could think "he knew what he signed up for" as hateful is if you twist the words and take them out of context. Either because you are lying or because you are so disconnected from reality that you can't even admit to yourself that Trump isn't a monster even when he does something obviously human. 

Should Donald Trump visit the DMZ between North and South Korea?

VP Mike Pence visited the DMZ last April. Washington Post/AP. 

The Trump White House is considering a visit to the DMZ that lies between North and South Korea. Washington Post. The visit has been a tradition for sitting US presidents and already Vice President Pence has observed the DMZ last April. However, some are worried that a President Trump visit could inflame already high tensions with North Korea and could even put Trump's safety at risk. The South Koreans do not want the president to visit but many advisers, including ones from the former Bush and Obama admins say that he must. Trump has not released the schedule of his upcoming trip to Asian nations. 

My Comment:

Very interesting situation in North Korea and I can see both sides to the argument. I do think that if Trump doesn't visit the DMZ, the media, at the very least, will attack him for it. They will attack him for going as well, but the attacks that will come if he doesn't go will be much more harsh. 

It will be seen as weakness if Trump doesn't go to the DMZ. And not just by the anti-Trump mainstream media. North Korea will take it as a sign that Trump is afraid of them and could encourage them to continue on their nuclear path. Their propaganda would claim that Trump was "scared" and our media would agree with them. 

That being said no matter what we do we will anger the North Koreans. A Trump visit to the DMZ is essentially a middle finger to the North Korean government. If the goal is to ratchet down tensions, now might not be the time to inflame them. It really depends on what Trump wants to accomplish. If he wants to demonstrate strength and attempt to intimidate the North Koreans he will go. If he wants to ratchet it down tensions he might not go. 

We do have to worry about Donald Trump physical safety. There is a real possibility that the North Koreans could attempt to attack him. Doing so would almost certainly result in a war even if the attack wasn't successful so no rational leader would try doing so. 

But we have to wonder if Kim Jong Un is rational. After all, he should now that threatening nuclear war with the United States is about the stupidest thing you could possibly do but he is doing so anyways. He obviously isn't in his right mind so he might think an attack on POTUS is a good idea despite all the evidence that it isn't. 

Still, I think that Donald Trump will go. He doesn't seem like the type that will back down from a controversy. After all his tweets and arguments with people I sincerely doubt that he will be intimidated by the North Koreans. I don't think he cares about potential higher tensions and I doubt he's concerned with his safety. 

Trump also doesn't want to be the first president since Reagan to not visit the DMZ. Though George Bush 41 didn't visit as president, he did visit as Vice President. Reagan, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama all visited and even Mike Pence has gone. Trump doesn't want to be the odd man out. I would be shocked that before his 1st term is up that Trump doesn't go at some point, unless war breaks out making the whole issue moot. 

I do think there is a chance that his advisers could convince him to not go. If they really fear a terrorist attack or that a visit could completely derail diplomacy, he might not visit. It will be a hard sell for his advisers as Trump does not want to appear weak. But I also think that if the consequences are bad enough he might stay home. I don't find it that likely though. 

Raqqa falls! ISIS capital liberated by Syrian rebels.

An SDF fighter waves her flag in Raqqa. BBC/AFP.

Raqqa, ISIS's de facto capital in Syria, has been liberated according to US backed rebels on the ground. BBC. The Syrian Democratic Force has captured the last ISIS strongholds in the city, which were the hospital and the stadium. Major combat operations are over but work clearing out landmines and booby traps, along with any stray ISIS fighters, will continue. Raqqa fell to ISIS in 2014 and was the first provincial capital captured by the terror group. Since then it has served as ISIS's capital for it's Caliphate.

My Comment:
This is a historic and massive victory against ISIS and very likely spells the end of the idea that ISIS is a state. They have lost so much in the past year or so. They lost almost all of their holdings in Iraq, including their grandest prize in the city of Mosul. Now they have lost their capital itself. This is incredible news and this post is one that I have been looking forward to for years now.

There are a lot of people that can take credit for this defeat. Most obviously, the fighters in the Syrian Democratic Force deserve the lion's share. They were the ones that took the fight to ISIS and they are the ones that not only liberated the city but also the region. Without them Raqqa would still stand under ISIS control today. This is a huge victory for them and they deserve praise.

The United States and our allies deserve some of the credit as well. We obviously supported the fight against ISIS and our troops put their lives on the line training and fighting with the SDF. Four of our service members have died there while others have been wounded. Without our help the SDF might have won but it would have taken much longer and came at a much higher price.

I think President Trump, and to a lesser extent, President Obama, deserve some credit too. Though Obama's record on Syria is poor at best, he did at least help to train and fund the Kurds and other rebels that did the fighting. President Trump was the game changer though. His new strategy of bombing the hell out of ISIS while at the same time adopting a surround and destroy strategy against ISIS is a huge reason why ISIS was never able to recover. ISIS would have been defeated eventually anyways but without Trump's plan it would have taken much longer and many more people, especially civilians, would have died.   

As loath as I am to admit it, Turkey changed the course of the war as well when they joined the fight against ISIS after long being a de facto ally. Once Turkey closed the border and cleared out the northern reaches of Syrian territory of ISIS fighters, ISIS was doomed. They were cut off from their supplies of new recruits and lost one of their main sources of income from selling oil in Turkey. The Turks did this for selfish reasons as their intervention had as much to do with punishing the Kurds as it did to do with retaliating against ISIS terror attacks, but we have to admit that finally coming down on ISIS helped end the war much quicker.

ISIS is essentially done as a state and no longer have a real claim to being the Caliphate. They still control quite a bit of territory but it is a rump state compared to their height. The only major city they have major forces left in is Dier Ez Zor, and that city is under siege by the Syrian government and their Russian allies with the SDF closing in fast as well.  They control a series of small towns and cities on the Euphrates river but none of them are major and all of them are now under pressure. They still have holdings in both Syria and Iraq but they are rapidly losing control and will shortly lose those holdings as well. 

I am now predicting that many ISIS fighters will go underground to continue the war as a guerrilla and terrorist army. I don't see them openly controlling areas like they did before but they will  conduct raids and terrorist attacks. They still have quite a few fighters and some will be missed by security forces in the aftermath of the battles. ISIS won't just lay down and give up just because they lost their capital. They will continue to fight even if the strategy is less about taking and holding territory and more about causing chaos.

We also have to realize that ISIS is a global phenomenon that won't simply go away because ISIS has largely been defeated on the battlefield. Even if every "official" ISIS member in the world dropped dead tomorrow there would still be thousands of radicals willing to take up the cause of Jihad. These people will remember that even though ISIS lost their capital they were still able to accomplish some, quite frankly, unbelievable things. The Caliphate may die but those who support it won't just go away. They will continue to kill in the name of the Caliphate even as the Caliphate collapses.

And even though ISIS has been routed in Syria and Iraq, they still have cells and holdouts throughout the world. There is evidence they are beginning to regroup in Libya and they have never really been defeated in Egypt. They are also infesting Yemen, Afghanistan and various places in Africa. Most alarmingly, they have popped up in The Philippines. The battle of Marawi City, which also came to a close today if we are to believe Rodrigo Duterte, took everyone by surprise. ISIS may have had their main power base broken but they are not defeated.

I am also worried about where things go from here. Until now a fragile kind of peace has reigned in both Syria and Iraq. Well, peace is probably the wrong word for it, but many of the diverse factions in Syria were working together against ISIS or even just staying out of each others way. That may change and change quickly now that ISIS is on the run. My hope is, at the very least, America and Russia can continue keep out of each others way.

Still, the cracks are already appearing in Iraq. I wrote yesterday that the Kurds and the Iraqi government got into a few skirmishes over Kirkuk. That kind of thing could happen in Syria. The state is already filled with factions that hate each other and without the common threat of ISIS it could devolve into the massive disaster that it was for years. ISIS losing Raqqa won't bring peace to Syria. Not by a long shot.

I also have to wonder how much of a role the United States should continue to play in Syria. Obviously ISIS still has a presence there and as long as that is true we should have a presence there. But what happens when ISIS loses it's last strongholds? Right now we are kind of running out of things to bomb and what little is left risks possible conflict with the Syrians and Russians.

My instinct is to say that we should just leave but the major question then is what is to be done with the other evil army of Jihadi madmen running amok in Syria? I am, of course, talking about al-Nusra. Though they are not as bad as ISIS, they are still evil men that could very well expand into another global terrorist organization. The Syrian government and their Russian allies should be able to handle them but if they can't than perhaps our mission in Syria is not over yet... 

Iraqi government and Kurdish forces clash over Kirkuk.

Kurdish fighters. BBC/AFP

Iraqi government and Kurdish forces have clashed over the oil rich city of Kirkuk. BBC. Peshmerga fighters fled from the city as Iraqi troops have captured the K1 military base, oil fields and a oil companies offices. The retreat was mostly peaceful, but clashed have broken out between the Kurds and government fighters south of Kirkuk. The Iraqi operation is seen in response to the independence referendum that passed in the Kurdish region of Iraq. Information is lacking but it does seem clear that people have died in the clashes and military equipment has been destroyed. The deployment of Iranian backed militias have complicated the situation further. 

#Kirkuk - southern city limit checkpoint. All peaceful until...#bbcnews #iraq @OrlaGuerin pic.twitter.com/CROgynoVtj

— Duncan Stone (@DuncanCStone) October 16, 2017

My Comment:

Fairly disappointed in both sides of this conflict. The Kurds and Iraqis were brothers in arms for most of the war against ISIS and it is sad to see them throw it away so quickly. I think both sides bear responsibility for this conflict.

First, the Kurds did not have to hold their independence referendum so soon. ISIS isn't even defeated yet and they still control some of the countryside. Iraq isn't stable right now and the Kurds needed to realize that pushing for independence now wasn't ever going to fly. They should also realize that the Iraqi military is not the broken force it once was. It is now a professional, well armed, well led and well motivated fighting force. Pushing them around with this independence vote was a very bad idea. A better time would have been when ISIS was at it's peak and the Iraqi government was too weak to respond.

But it's not like the Iraqi's are innocent here either. They shouldn't have pushed so hard to regain control of Kirkuk. Doing so has only intensified the conflict. Instead they should have gone to the negotiating table. They didn't have to give the Kurds independence but they could have at least stalled for time. The war against ISIS isn't over yet and they last thing they need is to open up another front in the war.

Speaking of ISIS, I have long said that the only chance they have is another major conflict to erupt that could divide the forces arrayed against them. Certainly an all out war between the Iraqis and Kurds would do so nicely, especially if that conflict spreads to the neighboring states with Kurdish minorities as well. Both military forces are powerful now but a major conflict between them could weaken them both enough that ISIS could make a resurgence in Iraq. It's still a longshot given how completely devastated ISIS is, but they are still getting an opportunity if war does break out.

The United States probably isn't happy about this. We have long supported both the Iraqi government and the Kurdish fighters in their war against ISIS and they have been our best allies throughout the war. Not only does this work against our purpose against ISIS, it undoes much of the progress we have made in the Middle East.

The enemies of the Kurds in the region are probably thrilled. Obviously ISIS counts, but the governments of Iran, Syria and Turkey are also happy. Iraqi's aren't the only people afraid of an independent Kurdish state. With large Kurdish minorities in all three countries, they are happy that Iraq appears to be making an example of the Kurds.

Why did Iraq go for Kirkuk though? Well they had to abandon the city during the war against ISIS. The Kurds stepped up and took the city and defended it against ISIS even though it wasn't their territory. Now that the war against ISIS is winding down, the Iraqis want the city back, even though the Kurds fought for it.

Why? Because of money. Kirkuk is in one of the most fertile oil producing areas in the country and Iraq desperately needs that oil money to help rebuild the country. It's a massively important strategic asset and they can't let the Kurds keep it under any circumstances.

Finally, is war likely? I honestly don't know. You would hope that the two groups that fought side by side for most of the war would be able to get over something like this. But on the other hand, wars have started for stupider reasons and it's not unreasonable that Iraqis would fight to keep control of Kurdish territory and that the Kurds would want their own country. I fear that war may indeed be coming and if it does it will be another dark chapter in the already depressing story of Iraq... 

Editor's note

Just an FYI, I've been extremely busy this weekend. I'm working OT tonight so no time for an actual post. Things should be back to normal by tomorrow. Hopefully.

Fantasy Football update: Week 6

My current roster. 

As you may know, I am pretty into fantasy football. Though the difficulties with the NFL has kept me from actually watching games, I still have been playing the fantasy version of football. Fortunately, it's always been possible to play without watching the games. 

Last year I covered the first few weeks of the season but then my team fell apart. This year my team is doing much better. I am 4-1 and in third place in a tight three way tie with the tiebreaker being points scored. I'm a bit behind the other two teams in points scored but I am also doing much better than I was doing this time last year. 

So why am I doing well? Well for one thing I got really lucky. Week 1 my opponent had a bunch of Tampa Bay and Miami players and that game got canceled due to Hurricane Irma. This knocked out two of his QB's and his best RB as well and left him without any options. Though the game was still somewhat close, I managed to win a game I probably should have lost. 

I have also had a couple of games where my opponents teams just did horrible. These guys didn't have bad teams or anything, just bad luck. How bad was their luck? One guy scored 46 points against me due to a one week collapse and the other lost despite the fact that I had a similar situation where I couldn't field two QB's due to Maroita being out and Cousins being on a bye week. My team came through in both occasions, doing well despite tough circumstances. Both weeks my teams scored way more points than they should have. 

So what can I take credit for outside of my luck? Well I have insane depth at RB. As far as I am concerned I have 5 starting RB's. Picking up 3rd down receiving backs was a very good choice because Chris Thompson and Alvin Kamara are great. And both Kamara and Ingram got a boost in value due to the Adrian Peterson trade. Drafting Chris Hogan turned out to be a major win as well, giving me a bit more depth at WR. Taking Kelce was a major win as he has been fairly good. I also just picked up the Jaguars D/ST this year who have been amazing and were still on waivers for some reason. They have only had one bad fantasy day this year and if they keep it up they could end up winning me some games. 

Still, my team does have some problems. Though I have 3 good WR's and one serviceable one in Rishard Mathews, I don't have anything else on the roster. If more than one of those goes down to injury I could be in trouble. And if I lose one of my QB's or Kelce, I might be screwed because in a two QB league it's very hard to get a good QB if one goes down. Kelce is irreplaceable outside of trading as well. And I never seem to be able to pull off trades...  

I also have a tougher schedule coming up. My next two games are against the other 4-1 teams and they are scary. I am slightly protected by the bye weeks and the fact that Ezekiel Elliot had his suspension upheld, but there is a real chance of me being 4-3 by the end of it. My schedule gets easier after that, but it's not like the rest of the league isn't scary as well. 

Still, this is the best team I have had in years. It would be very surprising to me if I didn't at least make it to the playoffs. I might not make it very far once I get in, but it would take a total collapse for me to not make it there. I've got 5 really good RB's at this point along with three pretty damn good WR's and the 2nd best TE. My QB's are decent and I have a very good D/ST now. If my team can stay healthy and productive I should make it to the playoffs.