Elizabeth Warren forms exploratory committee for 2020 presidential run.

Elizabeth Warren's senate photo. 

On a slow New Year's Eve news day Senator Elizabeth Warren has announced that she is forming an exploratory committee for a 2020 presidential run. Though it isn't official yet it is all but an admission that she is running in 2020.  

Do I think she has a chance, a nomination or presidency? Probably not. Warren strikes me as the same kind of candidate as Hillary Clinton. Obviously, she is an older woman running on a leftist platform. She's not that different than Clinton in terms of policy and to me she even looks a bit like her. Clinton famously lost against President Trump, so I don't know why the Democrats wouldn't want to try and mix it up for 2020. 

To be fair to Warren, compared to Clinton she is a lot smarter and less scandal ridden than Hillary Clinton. She is also more likable and less hated. That's almost damning by faint praise but I know if it was a choice between the two women I would be voting for Warren every time. Of course there are very few people on earth who I wouldn't vote for over Hillary Clinton, including serial killers and mentally ill people, so again, damning by faint praise. 

Warren's biggest problem is the major scandal she had where she claimed that she was part Native American. President Trump famously mocked her for this, giving her the immortal nickname Pocahontas. Furious at the nickname, Warren released a DNA test that said she had some DNA, but no more than the average white American. 

This backfired on her horribly to the point where people are still making fun of it to this day. Instead of vindicating her it just confirmed her critics right when they said she was lying when she got into college based on a lie. It made her look massively hypocritical to support things like affirmative action for minorities but being a white person taking advantage of that for her own gain. 

Which makes me wonder how the minority portions of the Democratic coalition will react to Warren. Those minorities aren't likely to vote for Donald Trump, Blexit talk regardless, but they might not turn out for a woman that lied about her ethnicity for personal gain.  

I also have to wonder what part of the Democratic coalition Warren appeals to. The "woke" members want someone who is anyone besides a white person. The neoliberals can go with someone like Joe Biden or, god forbid, Hillary Clinton. And the economic populists could go for Bernie Sanders. Warren does have some minor appeal to all of them so she might be a compromise candidate but nobody gets excited for that. She's kind of the Democratic equivalent of Jeb Bush in 2016, a candidate that doesn't really appeal to anyone. 

Plus I don't think that Warren will be able to run on her ideas anyways. If the 2016 election was all about Donald Trump, I can't imagine that if Warren is the candidate that will change. One of Warren's major weaknesses is that if she does run she won't be able to ignore Trump's insults and trash talk. She will play right into his hands and have more unforced errors like the Pocahontas fiasco. 

Overall I don't think that Elizabeth Warren has a realistic chance of winning. Though she isn't the worst candidate the Democrats could run but she is uniquely a poor matchup against President Trump. She doesn't have widespread appeal and is too similar to Hillary Clinton to be a realistic winner. 

Of course, given the Democratic primary system there is little chance of Warren winning anyways. It's going to be up to the DNC who runs and if Warren isn't the one that they choose she is doomed. And if they do I think they will be making a major unforced error as, like Hillary Clinton, the various factions of the Democratic Party aren't going to be happy with being forced with another boring white woman candidate. 

Accountability time! How did my 2018 predictions work out?

As you may know, every year I make predictions on what I think the biggest political and cultural issues of the year will be. At the end of the year I like to go through those predictions and either laugh at how wrong I was or smugly reflect on how right I was. Usually it's more of the former than the latter.

A quick note of how I will score this. I get a point for correct predictions and nothing for incorrect predictions. In some cases I will give myself half credit. If, for example, I said there was going to be $5 billion authorized for Trump's border wall and only $1 billion was raised, I would deserve some credit for at least realizing that the wall would get money, even if I was wrong on the details. All my responses will be in red text.

Finally, I do plan on writing up predictions for 2019 as a follow up post. Depending on how dead the week is for news that could be as early as tomorrow or as late as Friday. I do plan on writing it though as these posts are some of my favorites to write. Without further ado...

POLITICAL PREDICTIONS:

-Donald Trump will remain president through 2018. 95% (would be at 100% but i'm accounting for age, as sad as that would be) Obviously correct
-Despite that, there will continue to be efforts by disgruntled Democrats to remove him. 100% Also obviously correct
-The left will attempt again to resurrect the sexual harassment accusations against him yet again. 95%. Half credit. I view the recent attempts to get Jeffery Epstein back into the news as a prelude to this, and some of the fringe people on the left are harping that, but it isn't mainstream yet
-Despite their best efforts, Trump's approval rating will either be higher or remain the same as the current 45% approval rating (as of last Friday from Rasmussen). 80%   As of this writing it's at 47% from Rasmussen so correct. 

3.5/4

-The 2018 midterms will essentially be status quo ante without any major changes in control of the House and Senate. 66% Wrong on both counts. GOP lost the house but won several seats in the senate. 
-My senator, Tammy Baldwin, will lose re-election. 66% Despite my best efforts, she is still there. 
-Any senate defeats will be in states controlled by the opposite parties. 75% Wrong, Arizona flipped despite remaining a red state. 
-Major systemic voter fraud will be discovered, either in the 2018 elections, the 2016 elections or the 2017 special elections. 40% This didn't happen so I get a point, even though I strongly suspect that voter fraud did happen in all of those elections. It wasn't proven. 

1/4

-There will be another major incident of violence directed at an elected official, like the Steve Scalise shooting or the Rand Paul attack. 85% Correct, several GOP officials were attacked, mostly at the state level. 
-Violence will be directed towards a Republican. 75% Obviously correct. 
-Violence will be directed towards a Democrat. 55% I'm going to count the hoax bomb threats sent to many Democrats and Trump critics as this. 

3/3

-Another major sitting politician or one running for office will be taken down by sexual assault/harassment allegations. 95% Many such cases
-There will be a major sexual assault/harassment scandal with a woman being accused in politics. 66% At least one example.

2/2

-Despite the major threat of midterm elections, Congress will fail to accomplish anything on the scale of the Tax Bill. 75% Wrong, a major criminal justice reform bill passed
-CCW reciprocity will pass into law. 75% Wrong, sadly. 
-The wall will have more preliminary work done but will not begin major construction in 2018. 66%
Correct.

1/3

-The Robert Muller probe will end early in 2018 and will not result in any major indictments (ie top level advisers or campaign officials or members of Trump's family) beyond what has happened now. 80%. Wrong on both counts.
-There will be 2nd special counsel investigating the FBI scandal and/or the Hillary Clinton campaign. 80% There have been calls for it, but no actual action. 
-There will be an indictment for a major member of the Barack Obama administration or the Hillary Clinton campaign. 70% Wrong
-Despite being debunked, the media and the Democrats will continue to talk about Russia throughout the year. 100% Correct. 

1/4

WAR PREDICTIONS:
-There will be no major war in North Korea. 70% Correct
-There will be some minor military action on the Korean Peninsula but no full scale war (like targeted airstrikes or a border skirmish). 55% Wrong and almost unthinkable now. 
-Kim Jong Un will still be in power in 2018. 90% Correct. 
-North Korea will have another nuclear test in 2018. 75% Wrong and again almost unthinkable now.

2/4

-ISIS will still exits in Iraq and Syria in 2018 and will be able to conduct raids and terror attacks despite not controlling much territory. 90% Correct
-ISIS will continue to control territory in Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya and Yemen. 70% Correct. 
-The war in Syria will continue, but with major Syrian government victories. 80% Correct, the war is all but won.
-US and Russian forces will remain in Syria through 2018. 95% Correct, but both seem to be on the way out. 

4/4

-There will be terrorist attack in the United States that will kill and injure 10+ people. 95% The Pittsburgh Synagogue shooting counts.  
-There will be a major terrorist attack in the United States that will kill and injure 100+ people. 75%
Wrong
-There will be a major terrorist attack in the United States that will kill and injure more than 500 people. 40%. Correct
-ISIS or someone inspired by ISIS will be responsible for a terrorist attack in the United States. 99%
Wrong
-There will be another major domestic terrorism case in the United States done for non-Islamic political reasons. 95%. Again, the Synagogue shooting. Arguably the mail bombing/poisoning attempts. 
-Canada will experience an ISIS/Islamic motivated attack in 2018. 75% Yes.

4/6


-There will be terrorist attack in Europe that will kill and injure 10+ people. 100% Correct
-There will be a major terrorist attack in the Europe that will kill and injure 100+ people. 85% Wrong
-There will be a major terrorist attack in the Europe that will kill and injure more than 500 people. 55% Even more wrong
-Australia will experience an ISIS/Islamic motivated attack in 2018. 75% Correct, Australia had two ISIS inspired attacks. 
-There will be an attack committed by ISIS that is connected to the core organization instead of being a "lone wolf" attack. 70% Correct. 
-Al-Qaeda will attack a western country. 33% Correct, they did not. 

4/6

-Ukraine will largely remain a low scale war with the status quo continuing. 85% Correct
-The Mexican Drug War will continue to be violent with a number similar (ie no huge increase or decrease) to the 23,000 killed this year but will get very little coverage internationally. 95% Half credit as the violence appears to have increased (no final numbers yet) but I was correct about there being little news about it. 
-The United States will not get involved in another major conflict involving deploying troops. 95% Correct

2.5/3

CULTURAL PREDICTIONS:

-The #MeToo scandals will continue to rock the entertainment industry. 90%  Correct
-A major celebrity will be exposed as a rapist or child molester in 2018. 95% Correct
-At least one woman will be accused of sexual assault, harassment or child abuse in 2018. 66% Correct, with Allison Mack and the other Nxivm cultists, among others.

3/3

-The NFL anthem protests will continue into 2018 with no major action to stop the kneelers. 75% Correct, but with almost no coverage
-The NFL will continue to have major attendance issues and will face poorer ratings. 75% Half credit. Ratings bounced back a bit but attendance is still a major problem for some teams. 
-The Super Bowl will be one of the lowest rated ones in the history of the game. 70% Half credit. Viewrship was down 7% and was the lowest rated one for several years but not anywhere near a lowest rated game. 

2/3

-Targeted harassment campaigns will continue to be a huge problem in 2018 for both sides of the political spectrum. 75% Correct
-The "adpocolypse" will continue and online outlets that cover political stories, including this blog, will continue to be hit hard. 70% Correct and even worse now due to active censorship
-A major news outlet will go out of business. 70% Incorrect, depending on how you answer the question. I'd so no household name ones went out of business so it doesn't count. 

2/3

-Black Lives Matter will continue to be politically irrelevant and will not be able to rally attention to much of anything. 80% Until this moment I hadn't though of BLM in months
-Antifa will continue with more criminal behavior and riots but will not be as relevant as they were in 2017. 66% Correct 
-The Alt-Lite and Alt-Right split will continue with both sides interacting with each other less. 75% Correct, Alt-Right basically doesn't exist anymore as a movement. 
-Race relations will continue with status quo ante. 85% Seems accurate to me. 

3/3

-Hollywood will have another tough year in 2018 with box office numbers down for anything that isn't Comic Books or Star Wars. 90% Half credit. I had to go ahead and lump Star Wars in there and Solo bombed horribly. 
-Another movie will flop due to heavy handed political messages, either in the movie or by the people that made it, like Ghostbusters in 2016 and Mother! this year. 85% Solo, for one. 
-A major celebrity will pull another Kathy Griffen style scandal and will actually be arrested for it. 75% Wrong. 
-A major celebrity will become so deranged about politics that they will actually commit violence. 60% Also wrong as far as I am aware. 

1.5/4

TOTAL 39.5/58 68% 

So, what are my thoughts on this? I think I was overly pessimistic when it came to foreign policy. Terrorism as a whole was way down in 2018 compared to previous years. Indeed, if I had limited myself to Islamic terrorism I would have done even worse. And North Korea isn't anywhere near a threat anymore.

I was also overly optimistic politically. Midterm trends continued with the GOP losing the house and the Robert Mueller fiasco shows no signs of stopping. I was largely correct about the impact of political violence and #metoo on politics.

Culturally I was largely correct as it is clear that I overestimated how crazy celebs would get in 2018. They still shamed themselves, just not as much as I was expecting. I was all over the place with the NFL with it being a bad but not horrible year for them.

In some ways I am happy that my accuracy was done a bit from 2017, where I had 77% right. I mean it's great to be wrong about terror attacks and such. On the other I probably should have seen the drop off in attacks coming, but I did not. And I was overly optimistic on politics but I made the same mistake in 2017.

As for 2019, expect predictions there in a couple of days. I am going to have to think long and hard about what I expect for next year. As it stands right now I am not sure either way. I am hoping it's a good one and I'd like to wish everyone that reads my blog a happy new year!

Video shows a Kuwaiti F-18 Hornet hit by lightning.

A still picture from the video. The Aviationist.

VIDEO: Lightning bolt strikes a #Kuwaiti Air Force F/A-18 Hornet! pic.twitter.com/oBldSa1Tcf

— محمد بن خالد (@MbKS15) December 28, 2018

The above tweet shows a lighting strike hitting an F-18 Hornet operated by the Kuwaiti Air Force.  The Aviationist has more info about the video, but there isn't a whole lot known about what happened to the fighter jet. It seems it wasn't damaged and the only real impact was scaring the crap out of the pilot. Given the danger of lighting strikes, I can't say I blame him.

Apologies in advance if the twitter link is filtered out by your work's filter system. I know from personal experience that embedded media often fails to show up via twitter due to the ban on social media that many workforce's implement. I will post a link to a youtube video below but I don't know if will stay up for long since it seems to be a odd account.

Rioters in Congo attack an isolation clinic for Ebola cases.

The Ebola evaluation center that was attacked. BBC/Reuters. 

Rioters upset with a delay in an election attacked a processing center for suspected Ebola cases in the Democratic Republic of Congo. BBC. The attack happened in Beni, which is the center of the Ebola outbreak that has killed more than three hundred people. Beni, along with Butembo and Yumbi will have their elections delayed until March. The election has been delayed in part by the Ebola outbreak in Beni, but also due to poor security and rebel groups. All three cities are opposition strongholds. 21 people had been at the center and 17 had already tested negative for Ebola and were awaiting the 2nd test results. 4 others were awaiting test results. Only 11 of the patients have returned, though their names and addresses are known. 

My Comment:

What a mess in the Congo. I don't know much about the politics of this situation other than the fact that the Congo hasn't really had free and fair elections. It sure seems like the delay of the vote is politically motivated and it isn't a surprise that people are upset by it. Both the Ebola outbreak and the security situation are things that aren't likely to be better in March, so delaying the vote seems pointless. 

There is an argument to be made that you should cancel the vote just to make sure that Ebola doesn't spread further. I don't really buy that argument. If someone is sick enough that they are contagious with Ebola that means there is basically no way they are going to walk to a polling place. It's not a cold, you can't walk if off and it really isn't a threat unless people are sick enough that they are bleeding. 

The security problem is more valid but again, I don't see that getting better anytime soon. There are dozens of armed groups in the Congo and they won't just go away. Waiting a couple of months isn't likely to change anything. Just do the election and get it over with. My guess is that the government knows that if they count the votes from these cities their side will lose, so they are delaying to gain the advantage. Classic corruption. 

Of course the major story here isn't the politics, it is the threat this kind of action will pose. Thankfully, this was not a treatment facility. Instead it was a holding area where suspected cases were isolated and tested. It also looks like the vast majority of cases were probably false alarms and they were no danger to anyone. There are 4 possible cases where the test results aren't back yet but even then, unless the patients were leaking bodily fluids, there isn't much of a threat. 

The problem is that if they do start to develop symptoms they could be spreading it to others now. The patients are not in isolation and could spread the virus to their friends and family. That isn't too likely but it could be a few cases of Ebola that would not have happened otherwise. It does sound like the local medical authorities are on the ball and know where these people are. Plus many of the patients returned on their own, which is a good sign.

The most obvious negative outcome from this story is that it may discourage people from seeking treatment. There are treatments for Ebola that can save some of the people infected but even without that benefit, it is critical to isolate and contain suspected cases. If people are more scared of being attacked then they are of Ebola then they may stay home and spread their infection further. 

I do have to say that this was better than the incident during the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak. In that case looters and rioters attacked an Ebola treatment facility that had active patients. The rioters stole quite a bit from that hospital including blood soaked mattresses and other contaminated items. Thankfully, this is not a repeat of that disaster. 

I can not understand either case though. Out of all the places to attack I think my last choice would be a place where there are Ebola patients. The disease is horrible and not something I would ever want to be exposed to. I am glad in this case it seems like it wasn't that bad but you still have to wonder what the thought process is in this situation. 

President Trump makes a surprise visit to the troops in Iraq.

President Trump and Melania Trump pose for a selfie with the troops. Reuters. 

President Donald Trump made a surprised visit to troops at al-Asad air base in Baghdad, Iraq. Reuters. President Trump had come under fire for not visiting the troops yet in his presidency and not visiting the troops on Christmas but quelled those stories by visiting Iraq. Though Iraq has largely defeated the ISIS insurgency, 5200 troops remain the country. Trump will also visit the airbase in Ramstein, Germany on the way back home. The visit comes days after President Trump announced that he was pulling troops out of Syria and reducing the number of troops in Afghanistan. 

.@FLOTUS Melania and I were honored to visit our incredible troops at Al Asad Air Base in Iraq. GOD BLESS THE U.S.A.! pic.twitter.com/rDlhITDvm1

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 26, 2018

My Comment:
A good story to write about after the Christmas holiday. It seems pretty clear that the troops were happy to see the President and First Lady Trump. And it is always good to see a president, regardless of his party, meet with the troops he commands. Regardless of the politics it's important to remind presidents that they have a heavy responsibility to the men and women of our armed forces.

In all honesty, President Trump should have visited a war zone before this point. I know it is a logistical nightmare and that he has had a very busy presidency, but this is one of those things that needs to be done as long as the country is at war. Thankfully, he made the trip this week.

I also think it is hilarious that the media was left holding the bag. They had just put out a bunch of articles saying that Trump was the first since 2002 to not visit the troops during Christmas and were gleeful that they could portray him as not caring about the troops. And now that we find out why he didn't visit, since he was in the air to visit them in a combat zone, the media looks very stupid. Perhaps that was part of the plan?

I do have to say that compared to other presidents, Trump is getting no credit for visiting the troops in the media. The Reuters post was one of the least biased ones I could find but it still was extremely critical of Trump's foreign policy, which doesn't have a whole lot to do with the story. Compared to Obama and Bush, Trump got much more biased coverage.

Iraq was a good choice to do so as well. Syria isn't safe and we hardly have any troops there. Plus there could be a real risk of the Syrians or whoever trying to destroy Air Force One. Afghanistan is safer but not buy much. Iraq was the logical choice.

I'd also like to point out that both President Trump and Melania Trump were supposed to be on vacation over the holidays. That was canceled in part due to the government shutdown but I wonder if this trip might have had something to do with it. Trump had been saying for awhile now that he needed to visit the troops overseas but didn't give a date. Maybe this was planned for longer than we think? It's not like you can plan bringing the President of the United States to a combat zone on the spur of the moment.

Editor's Note: Christmas edition.

Due to the holiday the next couple of days, I might not have time for posting. I plan on spending both Christmas Eve and Christmas Day with my family and that's going to take a priority over posting. I hope everyone has a good holiday and a happy new year as well! Posting should be back to normal soon!

Video clip shows B-2 bombers dropping two GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator

A B-2 Spirit bomber dropping a GBU-57. The Aviationist/Whiteman AFB. 

Below is a short clip of a B-2 Spirit bomber dropping one of the largest bomb in the US military's arsenal, the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator. The Aviationist has a bit of background for the video here, but I mostly wanted to post the video. It is very impressive. 

Award winning German journalist Claas Relotius peddled fake news for Der Speigel.

Claas Relotius holds up his 2014 CNN journalist of the year trophy. Washington Post/EPA.

An award winning German journalist, Claas Relotius, has been exposed as a liar who made up the news. Washington Post.  Relotius had written a story about the small Minnesota town of Fergus Falls after the election of President Donald Trump. In the story he made up sources, libeled several individuals and accused the town of being racist. In an article posted on Medium, two local artists debunked the article point by point and accused Relotius of lying. 

In addition, the Guardian reports that Der Speigel found in 14 out of 60 cases articles Relotius lied. In addition to the false Fergus Falls report, Relotius lied about stories including topics as varied as the Mexican border, a Syrian refugee, Guantanamo Bay and Colin Kaepernick. One of his colleagues, Juan Moreano, who had worked with him on the Mexican border story discovered that two sources for the story had never met with Relotius at all. Moreano faced harassment and ridicule from his fellow journalists at Der Speigel until he ended up being vindicated. Relotius has resigned and blamed the lies on fear of failing. Der Speigel is investigating what went wrong and the incident has caused a diplomatic incident between the United States and Germany. 

My Comment:

If you read one source I posted above, make it the one on Medium. The authors are insufferable liberals, but they pretty much destroyed Relotius and his lies. Though I obviously disagree with them politically, I do extend a heartfelt thanks to them and journalist Juan Moreano. There is a huge difference between people who write something I disagree with and people who lie. Though they all may be liberals, Michele Anderson, Jake Krohn, and Juan Moreano are in the first category while Relotius is the 2nd. 

This is some over the top fake news that should have been so obvious that it should have never made it to print. It makes me wonder, don't editors check up on reporters? Or, conversely, was the leadership of Der Speigel in on the lie? Either way the readers of that publication, including myself, have been mislead. I have used Der Speigel as a source and now I have to wonder if I have spread some misinformation from them. If so I apologize, it is a weakness of this blog that I can't speak to sources directly and have to rely on journalists to do the leg work for me. 

I do think that this kind of thing is more common than people realize. I have read some articles on subjects I am knowledgeable and I have seen some pretty obvious fake news. Sometimes those are simply mistakes, but I have seen quite a few articles where I thought the journalist was lying. In many of those cases I couldn't prove it so it is a vindication when a journalist does get called out on something like this. 

I think it's clear that Claas Relotius was prejudiced and it affected his reporting. He had a belief about small town America and he wanted to convince people that everyone in Fergus Falls was a bunch of gun toting rednecks that were racist because that is what he saw them as. He had a story already in his mind and he changed the facts so they would better fit his beliefs. The truth never mattered to him.

I don't think I buy his excuse about the pressure getting to him. My guess is that he knew that reality didn't match up with what he believes politically so he decided to lie about it. I am sure he was partially motivated by greed and prestige but when it comes down to it I think this was about pushing an agenda. 

I do think it pays to assume that whenever you read any kind of journalism, even including this blog which hardly counts, you should assume that there will be mistakes, omissions and even possibly outright lies. I always try to read stories from multiple angles and when possible I look at primary sources. This helps me spot these mistakes and lies and made me much more well informed about the world around me. 

However, doing so has so lowered my opinion of journalism as a profession that I have more sympathy for criminals than I do for most journalists. There are a few of them out there that are actually doing their jobs correctly, mostly at the wire services, but the vast majority of them are only marginally better than Relotius.

It's to the point that this incident doesn't lower my opinion any lower than it could possibly be. Indeed, it actually improved it a bit since it showed that there are lines that even the media understands are too far. Perhaps Der Speigal is different than most American outlets, with some integrity left. I think if Relotius had worked at CNN, for example, he would have been promoted for these lies instead of punished for it. 

Donating money to help fund the border wall with Mexico.

Brian Kolfage's GoFundMe image. 

As you may be aware of, there is an effort to crowdsource the funding for the border wall. Brian Kolfage, a US Air Force veteran and triple amputee, has set up a GoFundMe page that has already raised $14 million with a lofty goal of $5 billion. You can find that GoFundMe page here.

The effort appears to be on the up and up. Kolfage is a well known social media star and GoFundMe guarantees that he isn't scamming people. There are also efforts in congress to allow this effort to fund the wall. There are, of course, hurdles in the way, not the least of which is that the Democrats hold congress, but if enough money is donated they might just accept it just to bury the issue. 

In theory this should be the perfect solution for funding the wall. People who don't support it won't have their tax dollars going to the effort and the people that do will get to put their money where their mouth is. I remember right after President Trump was elected the liberals I know were sharing memes that said that Trump supporters should do exactly this, and I always thought that despite the obvious contempt that it was an idea that could work if all else fails. 

And it appears that every other effort has failed. The government has been shut down due to the Democrats not wanting to give any money for border security at all. Though it is unclear if that standoff will be resolved anytime soon, it seems unlikely that the Democrats will blink. And once the Democrats are sworn in next year, we probably won't get another opportunity to fund the wall in President Trump's first term. 

I ended up giving 25 bucks to the effort. Not much but enough to say that I support the wall and want it funded. I know that the effort suggested $80, but it is the Christmas season and I have limited funds. If the fundraiser continues though, I may donate again. I just want something done on this issue so badly.

President Trump orders troop reductions in Afghanistan.

US Troops patrol near an ANA base. Reuters. 

President Trump has ordered troop reduction in Afghanistan, with at least 5000 to head home. Reuters. The move comes after President Trump ordered a complete withdrawal from Syria. The decisions may have led to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to tender his resignation. The remaining troops in Afghanistan will likely have to reduce their efforts in training and assisting the Afghan government. Peace talks with the Taliban are ongoing though the military situation in Afghanistan is not good. 

My Comment:

I'm of two minds of this. I have long said that the effort to win in Afghanistan is pretty much over. There is little chance of a military victory at this point unless we deploy hundreds of thousands of troops. The Taliban is a dedicated and formidable enemy and the Afghan military is a joke. Indeed, if it wasn't for ISIS, it's pretty clear that the Taliban probably would have won a military victory. Our best hope now is a political sentiment.  

On the other hand, losing Jim Mattis is a pretty big blow. He is one of America's best generals and was doing a good job as Defense Secretary. He is beloved by the troops and is an American Hero. Losing him is a bitter pill to swallow, even if it was clear that he and Trump were not on the same page. 

But it is also clear that Mattis wasn't succeeding in Afghanistan. He was handicapped by the fact that both President Trump and the American people wanted nothing to do with the massive deployments that could win the war. Still, it seemed that nothing our government does seems to affect much on the ground in Afghanistan. Mattis was successful in Syria and Iraq but could never get Afghanistan under control, a flaw that he has shared with every other secretary of defense since the war began. 

I do think it is time to pull out. Our goal in Afghanistan was to destroy al-Qaeda and kill Osama Bin Laden. Al-Qaeda is now nothing more than a bad memory and Bin Laden has long since disappeared into the ocean. Defeating the Taliban and propping up the Afghani government was always an example of mission creep and since that mission creep has lasted through 17 years and three presidents, enough is enough. 

Furthermore, I don't think there is a military solution that can be had. In theory if we pulled out all the stops, deployed thousands of troops, carpet bombed villages and generally acted like conquerors, there is a small chance we could win. But Afghanistan is the place where empires go to die and there is no reason, will or money to do what would be needed to win the war. 

I also am not surprised that President Trump is ordering pullouts. People that are surprised by this are, once again, not paying attention. Trump campaigned on pulling out of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. He has already pulled out of Iraq and is in the process of doing so in Syria. This was a campaign promise for Trump and it is amazing to me to think that people are surprised that he is doing this. It was the mandate he was elected for in terms of foreign policy. 

Finally, it is amazing to me that the anti-war faction of the Democratic Party is completely dead. It was very active during the Vietnam era and during the presidency of George Bush. It went completely dormant during the Obama years and nobody ever protested his wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and many other countries. 

But now? The same pundits who claimed the Iraq War was an illegal invasion and that going to war in Afghanistan was a huge mistake are now calling for keeping troops in Syria and Afghanistan indefinitely. The media and the blue checkmarks on social media are agreeing with neocons like Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio. The presence of those remaining neocons means that the Republicans aren't really a peace party either but at least President Trump shows little interest in unnecessary wars. 

What would I do in Afghanistan in Syria? The same thing Trump is doing. Pulling out. I would still launch airstrikes against ISIS, but at some point we have to end the wars in the Middle East and Asia. We have already lost enough lives in our campaign against terrorism and have largely won the war against ISIS and al-Qaeda. Staying to fight the Taliban, the Syrian regime, Russia and Iran is not in America's best intrests. 

US to withdraw combat troops from Syria.

American and rebel troops in Syria. BBC/AFP.

President Trump has announced that America is pulling out of Syria after the defeat of ISIS. BBC. Currently around 2000 troops are stationed in Syria with a mission of assisting local forces in destroying ISIS. ISIS still has a few fighters left in Syria but have lost much of there power there. Little is known about the schedule of withdrawal and the future of any US involvement in Syria. It is also unknown what the fate of US allies in Syria will be. 

We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 19, 2018

After historic victories against ISIS, it’s time to bring our great young people home! pic.twitter.com/xoNjFzQFTp

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 19, 2018

My Comment:
Very positive news out of Syria. Our role in that conflict is mostly complete. I have little doubt that the withdrawal of troops will not be the end of the story, but it won't be our soldiers lives on the line anymore. It will be up to the Syrians, Turks and Kurds to defeat the last few ISIS fighters in Syria. The US may play a role in an advisory or support function, but it won't be boots on the ground anymore.

There is a lot of hand wringing from the media and the other usual suspects about ISIS. Those people can be largely ignored. Yes, ISIS still has fighters and yes ISIS still controls some small territory. But they aren't even the biggest terror army left in Syria. Whatever al-Nusra is calling themselves now controls way more territory than ISIS and has a bigger army, but nobody is saying we need to stay in Syria to fight them.

ISIS as a force is broken in Syria. They only have a few fighters left and what little they do have has been forced to go underground. What remains of their army is fighting a futile last stand along the banks of the Euphrates in Eastern Syria. The battle is slow going due to all the mines and booby traps but victory is assured. Though they will remain a threat in Syria, just like they remain a threat in Iraq, they aren't the massive terror army that they used to be. They aren't a statelet anymore and they are barely an army. Pretty soon they will be just a run of the mill terror group in Syria, just like all the others.

Plus, it's not like there aren't people on the ground willing to fight them. The Kurds will continue to do so, at least until Turkey screws everything up. And the Syrian military, along with their Russian and Iranian allies are in a great position to take over our troops role in the conflict. ISIS will not escape barring some kind of incredible disaster.

The real questions now are what happens to Syria after the United States leaves. The biggest pressing question is what happens with the Kurds. They still control huge swaths of territory and it's not clear if they will willingly go back to the Assad government. It doesn't look like they can remain independent though. It seems very clear that Turkey will not allow that and may even invade Syria further to crush the Kurds.

It is also unclear if America will have the Kurds back. Though I have issues with the Kurds left wing politics, letting them be crushed by the Turks would be a betrayal. There is no guarantee that we will back them, even though they were good allies in the fight against ISIS. They were certainly better than the Turks.

Another question is what happens with Assad. With America pulling out it seems pretty clear that Assad has all but won the war. He still faces the Kurdish question, al-Nusra in the north and a few remaining pockets of ISIS and rebel resistance, but the idea that he was going to be removed from power is a dead one. Assad has won the war but can he win the peace?

I do have to say that I am disappointed in how the media is spinning this withdrawal. It is amazing to me to see the left wing dominated media praise neocons like Lindsey who are criticizing President Trump for this move. Remember when the left wing was anti-war? I do, and it seems like a lifetime ago.

And it's important to note that the neocons aren't upset about a possible return for ISIS. They want Assad gone and they also want a war with Russia. Neither of those things are likely to happen if we pull out troops and as far as I am concerned that is a very good thing...

Japan is converting its helicopter destroyers into actual aircraft carriers.

One of Japan's helicopter destroyers. AFP.

Japan is going to convert two of its so called helicopter destroyers into actual aircraft carriers capable of launching fighters. AFP. The move is set to counter China's growing naval power in the region. In addition to converting the carriers to launch fighters, Japan will buy 42 F-35's with the likeliest candidates being the STOVL F-35B variant which was designed for carrier use. Japan's constitution limits what kind of weapons it can build and buy. Though the carriers will give Japan a much larger naval footprint, they will not be a true "blue water" navy and won't use their carriers for power projection globally. 

My Comment:

I always figured this was the plan for these ships. Indeed, the term helicopter destroyer was always a joke and I knew that sooner or later Japan would convert these ships into true carriers. Helicopter carriers obviously have a role but I doubt Japan would have ordered so many of these ships. In addition to the two Hyuga-class ships that are getting converted, Japan also has three more traditional helicopter Osumi-class ships that are more traditional helicopter carriers. 

The reason for this move is very obvious. China has produced their own carriers and have just launched their first home made one. With China growing in power Japan needs to ensure that they can counter their carriers. One of the best ways to do that is a couple of carriers of their own. 

Japan also understands that they might not always be able to count on their allies. Japan is moving to strengthen their alliance with the United States. I think under President Trump, The United States would have Japan's back. But there is no guarantee that the next president would be the same way. I also don't think that the American people want to risk their own people to protect Japan.

These carriers probably don't compare to America's supercarriers. Instead these will be light carriers with probably no more than a squadron of fighters on board. Of the 42 F-35B's ordered I am guessing only a few will be on any given carrier at any given time. They will have a limited strike capability but I am guessing their primary role is to provide cover for the rest of Japan's navy. 

Though everyone seems to be getting into the carrier game, there has been some rumbling that the carrier is obsolete. China has developed missiles that supposedly can take out carriers. These missiles are ballistic in nature and are not easily countered. I do think that if a real war between China and Japan were to break out, the carriers would probably be among the first things to be destroyed. That being said, they are still very much worth it in anything other than a full scale war with a peer power. 

I do have to wonder if the arms race between Japan and China is going to work out for everyone. It's clear that people are expecting a war sooner or later, but even if there isn't one, it's possible that buying all these weapons could bankrupt either country. 

The good news is that Japan is buying weapons from America. Despite the obvious problems with the F-35 program and the F-35B in particular we are sending a large number of them to Japan. That will help ease our trade deficit with them and help recoup some of the losses caused by the program. 

Fantasy Football: Playoffs meltdown and NFL rant.

My current lineup. 

I haven't mentioned it much this season but I am still doing fantasy football. I did one post on it after the draft and then just ignored it for the rest of the season. Why? Because my team was winning every week and I didn't want to jinx it. My team did very well ending the season with a 12-1 record (which would have been a perfect season if I had made a better roster choice in my one loss) and was 1st in the league, not surprisingly. I secured the bye week and had a decent chance of repeating a 2nd championship in a row. 

Now though? Unless my kicker has a massive game tonight, my post-season is over in embarrassing fashion. My opponent has zero players left but has scored 108.9 points, which normally would be among the lowest in the league, if it weren't for my teams collapse (no offense to my opponent). The best I can do now is a 3rd place finish, which is a huge disappointment for a team that was doing so well. And I am pissed at the NFL for it. 

So what happened? Injuries are a huge part of it. I had lost Marshawn Lynch and Emmanuel Sanders, both of which would have been every week starters on any other team. That wouldn't have killed me but I also lost Chris Thompson for most of the season and when he finally came back, the Redskins had changed so much as a team, he was no longer relevant. 

More than any other player though, losing Melvin Gordon to injury killed my chances. When he was healthy he was getting me 20 to 30 points a game and not having him this week probably killed my chances. Having to rely on Jeff Wilson Jr., an undrafted rookie on a bad 49ers team was not the way to go. 

I blame the NFL for part of this and for my terrible performance this week in general. Why? Because of Thursday night football. Though there is no guarantee that Gordon would have played if he had three more days to rest, it certainly didn't help things. Plus my other skill players that remained, Tyreek Hill and Travis Kelce, were playing in that game and, as expected, both did way below of their usual numbers and I think the timing of the game had a lot to do with it. 

I just think Thursday night football is a bad idea all around, and not just from the perspective of a fantasy football player. There is a huge concern with player health and the wear and tear they go through due to Thursday night football. Plus it's an inferior product as it doesn't allow teams to plan and players to rest, so the games tend to be pretty terrible. 

People have asked me why I haven't been watching football for the past two years. I always tell them politics was a major reason, which is true, but I also just hate the way the league is run. Thursday night football is a huge example of that but it's far from the only one. 

The elephant in the room is, of course, Kareem Hunt. When that whole disaster happened I had almost decided to write up a post about it since it not only effected my fantasy football team, it was a political story as well. For those of you that somehow don't know, Hunt was recorded in a fight with a woman and the footage was posted on TMZ. Hunt is now out of the league and with it my hopes of decent ending to what had been my best season ever. 

I was completely disgusted with how the NFL handled that situation. I think they tried to play it cute with Hunt and it came back to bite everyone in the ass. And it was because they tried to split the middle and tried to appease all factions and it ended up horribly for everyone. My feel of the situation is that the NFL knew Hunt had screwed up and screwed up badly, but understood that he was an electric player and brought fans to the game, and kept fantasy football players paying attention. The NFL also knew that if the footage came out they would have all the social justice warriors all up in arms. So they tried to bury the story until it came out and they panicked.  

What would have been a better solution? Anything other than what they did. If Hunt was going to be kicked out of the league (for all intents and purposes) than it should have happened right away after it occurred, not almost at the end of the season. I know I would have drafted my team differently if Hunt had been punished back then. I probably would have gone Melvin Gordon with my first pick and Christian Mcaffrey with my 2nd and I would have won this week, assuming my opponent and rest of my roster played out the same way. 

Of course the other thing they could have done is just get rid of their polices on personal conduct. In any other profession if someone gets into a confrontation but doesn't get charged for it, they rarely lose their jobs. All the NFL has to do is say, we care about putting forward the best product we can and if that means that we keep people on after they do something stupid then so be it. Either of these solutions would have been acceptable to me, but the NFL decided to split the middle so that pretty much everyone is mad with them now. That is a common trend with them and it's a major reason why I don't watch the games anymore, even if I still play fantasy football. 

Losing Hunt was absolutely critical. It was after the trade deadline when the news broke so I couldn't make a deal and there wasn't anything on waivers other than Jeff Wilson Jr., who stunk on Sunday. Handcuffing wasn't an option either as I didn't draft Spencer Ware and he was on someone else's roster. It was the worst possible time to have it happen and there wasn't much of anything I could have done to fix it. I could have recovered from just losing Melvin Gordon since Chris Carson is a decent RB2, but losing both my starting RB's that had carried my team for the whole season? Not something you can recover from unless your team gets lucky. 

And of course, Hunt helped my other KC players do better as well. Though Hill and Kelce were hampered by Thursday night football, they were also hampered by the fact that their team didn't have their bellcow RB. The whole season I was worried that an injury to Patrick Mahomes would cripple my team, but it turned out that it was Hunt instead. 

All that being said, I did make some mistakes as well. Starting Big Ben over Rivers was a mistake but I wasn't going to risk a Thursday night performance for my starting QB. I also should have started the Titans over the Ravens D/ST. Had I not done those things, there would be a better chance that Will Lutz could have saved my season. I also could have traded away some of my depth for a better RB2. I knew I was getting thin at RB but I didn't get better backups until it was too late. I also left some points on the bench, but I am less upset about that since it made little sense to play my other players, like Tyler Locket and Dion Lewis. 

So do I keep playing fantasy football? I don't see any reason to stop. At this point it's way more about having something to do with my buddies than actually trying to win. That being said, I sincerely hope that Vince McMahon's XFL is successful and that the NFL goes out of business. I would love to watch football again with a league that isn't constantly making terrible decisions. I know the XFL doesn't have the best pedigree but at this point it's not possible to fail more than the NFL has. They had already lost me as a fan because of their stupid anthem kneeling crap, bad games and other terrible choices, but now they had to go ahead and murder my fantasy football season. 

Thousands protest the UN immigration agreement in Brussels, Belgium

Some of the protesters in Brussels. DW/Reuters.

Over 5000 people protested the UN immigration agreement in Brussels, Belgium. DW. 5500 people, led by Flemish right wing parties protested the non-biding resolution that was approved by every UN member but the United States, but was only singed by 164 countries last Monday. Between 300 and 400 people tried to raid the European Commission building but were stopped by police, who arrested 69 people. A much smaller counter protest supporting the UN resolution only drew 1000 people. Belgium's Prime Minster's descion to sign the resolution resulted in the right wing New Flemish Alliance to pull out of his ruling coalition. Critics say that UN pact could cause a 2nd wave of immigration to Europe. 

My Comment:

Even more civil unrest in Europe. It seems that everywhere you look in Europe right now there are protesters. There are, of course, the Gilets Jaunes/Yellow Jackets in France and in Hungry there are protests as well. It's not fair to say that all of these protests are about the same thing, other than it seems that many in Europe are deeply unhappy with the way their countries are being governed. 

In this case it seems that immigration is the issue. Belgium has a right to complain about this as they have had huge numbers of Islamic migrants come into their country and they have brought crime and terrorism with them. Belgium was a major hub for ISIS during the massive wave of attacks that occurred a few years back and the fact that there haven't been as many attacks lately is more due to the fact that their funding has been cut off since the terror groups setbacks in Iraq, Syria and Libya. 

Terrorism isn't the only problem as migrants often bring crime with them. Belgium was a relatively safe country, but the rates of crime has increased. And non-European people are overly represented in the arrests and convictions. 

Another major reason for people to be unhappy with this kind of immigration is the European social net. Throughout Europe, people pay very high taxes for their generous social programs. With these taxes so high it is infuriating to see new arrivals get those benefits that were supposed to be earmarked for the people that paid for them. And since those taxes are cripplingly high, people see it as essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul, except it's not Paul, it's Mohammad.

I think this discontent is only going to get worse. The millions, potentially billions of people from the third world see that Europe and other Western countries have a better standard of living and also see from their relatives that have made it, that getting there is possible. Some are fleeing war, but mostly they are fleeing the crappy governments and economies that they are responsible for.  They want a way out and as long as Europeans are allowing it, they will come. 

I have said many times that the 21st century is going to be defined by the massive movement of people from the third world to the first. There is going to be a backlash and it is going to be a lot more severe than it is right now. People are complaining about Trump and his efforts to build a wall, but I fear much worse kinds of reprisals are likely coming if the tide isn't stopped soon. That coming conflict will decide the future of Europe and the future of the world. 

Editor's note: Winter Vacation.

Just an FYI, I will be on vacation from today until next Saturday. I am not going anywhere in particular so you should still see posts from me, but they may be sporadic and posted at unusual times. This is more of a "catch up on chores" and "get my Christmas shopping done" kind of deal instead of a trip, but I am still going to relax a bit!

Wave of bomb threats occur across America.

Police respond to a bomb threat at Columbine High School in Littleton Colorado. NBC News. 

A wave of bomb threats across America caused widespread panic before being revealed as a hoax. NBC News. The bomb threats were sent via e-mail and hit New York City, Oklahoma City, and Littleton Colorado. Threats were also sent in Canada. Most of the threats involved an extortion attempt in bitcoin. Nobody is known to have paid the extortion. Many of the threats came from legitimate accounts that were hacked.

My Comment:

A fairly disruptive story that is only notable for how widely it spread. It pretty much seems to have hit everywhere and even affected local businesses in my area. Indeed, it seems very few places in America were spared this scam. 

Though it was fairly obvious that the whole thing was a hoax, it was extremely disruptive. Police and businesses had to act as though the attacks were real which required a response and in some cases evacuation. The combination of police response and loss of productivity probably cost the country a large amount of money. 

Given how widespread this attack is, if they attacker is found and prosecuted he is likely to go away for a very long time. Each case was a terrorist threat, which is a felony, plus there is extortion charges as well. Assuming they find this guy and successfully convict him, he will likely spend the rest of his life in prison. I do wonder if the attacker planned to have this attack hit so many businesses at once. It's possible that this was a more limited attack that blew up out of control. 

If the idea was to make some money I think this attack failed. It doesn't sound like anyone paid so whoever did this risked the rest of his life in prison for basically no gain. Given the widespread media coverage and quick police response, there was basically no way that this scam would have succeeded. 

However, there is a chance that the bitcoin extortion was just a red herring. This may have been a more traditional terror attack. Though nobody was hurt perhaps the goal was to cause a panic and waste resources. If that was the case then this attack was a success. 

The suspect in the Strasbourg Christmas Market shooting has been killed.

Police special forces secure the scene where the confrontation took place. NBC News. 

The suspect in the Strasbourg Christmas Market shooting that killed three people has been shot and killed by police. NBC News. 29 year old Cherif Chekatt was confronted and killed in a shootout in the same city as the attack occurred. Chekatt inexplicably managed to escape after the initial shooting and had been on the run since. Chekatt had a lengthy criminal record of 27 offenses and had been imprisoned in France, Germany and Switzerland. 

My Comment:

A quick update to a previous post, they finally caught the Strasbourg shooter. Like I said before I was pretty amazed that Chekatt had escaped in the first place. Most mass attackers like this either don't have a plan for escape or never get the opportunity. Chekatt was one of the lone exceptions and it was pretty shocking that he was able to evade justice for this long. 

There are pictures out there of Chekatt's body on the scene. I feel they are too graphic to post here, due to blogger's TOS, so you will have to look it up yourself if you want to see it. I will say that it appeared that Chekatt was armed with a revolver when he was confronted by the police, and apparently shot at them, which means them shooting him was even more justified than usual when confronting a terrorist. My guess is that was his backup gun after he ran out of ammo for the rifle he used during the attack. 

I wasn't able to recognize what kind of revolver it was, but I will say that Chekatt was still a major threat with that gun. Though a low capacity and slow reloads are detrimental to a mass shooter when it comes to revolvers, it's obvious that he could have shot and killed a few more people if he hadn't been stopped. Good on the French police for stopping this guy. 

There hasn't been much news about what connections, if any, Chekatt had with terror groups. I know that ISIS has claimed him as one of their own, but that doesn't mean too much. They tend to claim anyone who was even inspired by ISIS, or even have nothing to do with them in general, regardless. My guess is that he did have some connection, even if news on that front is scarce. 

Turkey announces offensive against US backed Kurds in Syria.

Turkish troops. BBC/Getty.

Turkish president Tayyip Erdogan says that Turkey will launch a new offensive against US backed Kurds in Syria. BBC. The attack would happen somewhere to the east of the Euphrates, which is where the United States has 2000 troops stationed. Turkey considers the Kurdish YPG group to be a terrorist organization and the US support of the YPG in the fight against ISIS has strained relations between both countries. Until now Turkish troops have not targeted YPG troops and positions east of the Euphrates river, but have cleared out many Kurdish troops from the west of the river. 

My Comment:

Troubling news out of Syria. Turkey hates the Kurds so this isn't very surprising. They feel that the Kurds controlling a large swath of territory in Syria is an existential threat to the Turkish identity of the country. They believe that the Kurds are bad people for not getting rid of their beliefs and practices and they are treated as 2nd class citizens in Turkey. 

Turkey's hate of the Kurds is so extreme they are willing to anger their most important ally, the United States. Both Turkey and the US are in NATO and are supposedly on the same side but they have very different goals. Turkey wants to ensure that the Kurds don't get a homeland and also want to weaken the government of Syria. The United States wants to defeat ISIS using the Kurds as a proxy army so they don't have to risk their own troops. 

The relationship between Turkey and America is probably at risk here. Any offensive operation against the Kurds east of the Euphrates could result in US casualties. Such an incident would be a huge deal and might end with Turkey being kicked out of NATO. Sure, Turkey can try and avoid any such incidents but doing so isn't exactly easy in the middle of a war. 

And Turkey is taking a huge risk in assuming that the Americans won't back the Kurds over them. On the one hand the Kurds are pretty expendable as they are mostly being used to fight ISIS. If they weren't fighting ISIS, we would have little interest in them. On the other, they have been the best ally we have had outside of the Iraqi government against ISIS. Betraying them to the Turks would mean that nobody else would have a reason to trust the United States again. 

The other downside is that it will delay the total defeat of ISIS. They are still hanging on in the eastern part of Syria and are currently involved in dangerous battle with the Kurds. The fighting has been brutal and slow going but assuming no interference ISIS will probably lose their last holdout in Syria. 

Of course if Turkey does end up attacking the Kurds, the offensive against ISIS will likely end. There are non-Kurdish rebels under the command of the United States, but they aren't as numerous and well trained as the Kurds. The battle against ISIS would either devolve into a stalemate or even reverse some of the gains made against them.  

This is not in the best interest of the United States and just goes to show how bad of an ally Turkey has been in the Syria conflict. Before the 2015 bombing of a peace rally in Turkey, they were de facto allies of ISIS, supplying them arms and money in return for oil sales and attacking the Syrian regime. It is not a surprise that Turkey is now interfering with our efforts to fight ISIS. 

Mass shooting in Strasbourg, France, kills four people with the suspected attacker still on the run.

The aftermath of the attack. Reuters/Twitter user @MARIOSAAVEDRA.

A mass shooting at a Christmas market in Strasbourg, France, has killed four people and the suspected attacker is still on the run. Reuters. The gunman was a robbery suspect who was known to police and was on the terror watchlist. French police had raided his home earlier today, but the suspect was not there at the time. French police reportedly had a shootout with the suspect some two hours after the attack but as of this writing they have not captured him. 11 people were also wounded in the attack, several critically. France has been on high alert for terror attacks with Christmas markets having extra security after several incidents last year in Europe. 

The Associated Press has live updates for this attack. 

EDIT: The death count has been revised down to three deaths. 

My  Comment:

I'm not going to comment much on the manhunt for the suspect in this case because what I write will likely be out of date by the time anyone reads this. However, it is extremely uncommon for an attacker in a mass shooting/terror attack like this to escape for this long. From what it sounds like, the suspect managed to escape from the scene of the crime before being confronted by the police two hours later. He was then wounded but appears to have escaped a 2nd time. 

If that is really how things played out it is fairly unprecedented. Most of the time these kinds of attackers are in custody right away as they are either shot and killed on the scene, captured by police, or kill themselves. Very few even try to run and those that do almost always fail. My guess is that the attacker is out of ammunition, but he could still be a threat and I hope French police capture him soon.

This attack was probably unplanned, or at the very least pushed up. I say that because it has been reported that the attacker's home had been raided earlier today. He was being investigated for a robbery and the police had tried to arrest him but he wasn't home. My guess is that somehow he knew that the police were coming so he decided to move his attack up and chose a target of convince. Attacking a Christmas market was probably a very obvious target as it is a large gathering of people. 

Despite increased security at the Christmas markets in response to other terror attacks like this, it seems French police failed to protect shoppers in this case. There didn't appear to be any resistance from them at the scene of the attack and they were only able to confront this guy long after the attack. Had there been an armed response at the scene of the attack, perhaps fewer people would have been shot. However, reports on this attack are confused at best and I haven't been able to get a clear reckoning on what happened. It's possible that they did respond, but it's unclear from media reports. Even so, the fact that the suspect was able to run away is not exactly the outcome you would expect during an attack like this.  

The AP report also noted that it took 45 minutes for an ambulance to arrive to help one of the victims of the attack. That is horrible and I wonder if the poor response to this attack has something to do with the civil unrest France is having right now. The Gilets Jaunes/Yellow Jackets protests are ongoing and have been a large drain on French resources. With police overworked  and ambulance drivers joining the protests, it's possible that they just weren't capable of responding to this attack normally. That's a bad sign for France.

Thankfully, this attacker didn't attack during one of those protests. Such an attack would be utter chaos and would remind Americans of the mass shooting targeting cops at a Black Lives Matter rally in Dallas, Texas back in 2016. With tensions so high in France there would have been huge consequences for both police and protesters if there had been a terror attack during one of these rallies/protests. 

It seems very clear that this attack was related to terrorism. It's unclear if it had any connection to any larger terror networks though. The suspect, who hasn't been officially named, though a name is out there right now, was on the terror watchlist, so that implies some kind of connection to terror groups. That, and the fact that the target was a Christmas market, implies at the very least that this attacker was inspired by terrorist groups, presumably ISIS or al-Qaeda. Time will tell if he was a member and if he was getting support. 

One piece of evidence that this attacker did have some terror links is the fact that he was able to get a gun. I haven't seen any reports on what kind of firearm was used, but guns are hard to come by in France due to strict gun control laws. They aren't that hard to obtain but you generally have to have links to the criminal underground or terror networks to get one. My guess is that he used an AK derivative as that has been the weapon of choice for terror attacks in France. He also had grenades in his apartment so that tells me he had some pretty good connections. France isn't Sweden where anyone can get a hand grenade, so he must have had some help. There is a real danger of this being a larger terror cell. 

Finally, I do have to say it has been some time since we have had a major terror attack in Europe. They used to be almost daily but the destruction of ISIS has helped immensely. Now it is mostly lone wolves or known wolves, not major plots. Indeed, this one has every indication of being a spur of the moment attack instead of a planned assault. That is a positive development, even if today's events are tragic. 

I do have to say that France is having a tough time of it lately. They have had some of the most horrible terror attacks in Europe and their economy isn't doing well. There is widespread discontent and major protests every weekend. The last thing they needed right now was another terror attack... 

Russia is deploying Tu-160 "Blackjack" strategic bombers to Venezuela in a training exercise.

A Russian Tu-160. Kremlin photo. 

Russia will be deploying Tu-160 "Blackjack" strategic bombers in a training exercise in Venezuela. Washington Free Beacon. At least two of the bombers have flown from Russia to Venezuela. Tu-160 flights have increased recently with seven flights in the past three months. The Tu-160 is capable of launching nuclear attacks on the United States, so these flights are of interest to the United States. They have also undergone a large modernization program to bring the aging bombers up to date. The bomber visit comes after a new deal between Russia and Venezuela. Venezuela's economy is collapse but Russia has pledged an aid package for the country, though an exact amount is unclear. Russia also says it will help Venezuela's military modernize. 

My Comment:

A quick post for tonight. This move is a pretty clear message to the United States. The Russians are showing that they can reach the United States with their Tu-160's. It's a shorter journey from Russia to the United States then it is to Venezuela. 

Of course the Tu-160's aren't that much of a threat. Any attack by them would likely be intercepted before they could launch their weapons. Plus Russia doesn't have that many of them. Russia only has 16 of the planes and a few more on order. They won't be a major threat compared to Russia's large fleet of older bombers, sub fleets and ICBM's. 

US/Russia ties are not doing well right now. Despite accusations against President Trump that he is a thrall for Russia, nothing could be further from the truth. IN fact, US-Russia relations are about has terrible as they could be short of a shooting war. There seems to be little chance of things improving either. That's a huge reason why they are doing this. 

As for Venezuela, it seems as though this was a political stunt. It seems as though they too want to give a middle finger to the United States. Considering there has been threats at regime change it makes sense that they would ally with Russia. 

However, I doubt that the Russians are going to bail out the Venezuelans. It's not  problem that the Russians can fix by themselves and even if they could they have little reason to waste their money that way. They will probably offer some token support but I doubt they will do enough to save the Venezuelan economy.