Happy New Year!

No real post tonight as it's a holiday and there isn't much to write about. I just wanted to wish my readers a very happy New Year and I hope that 2020 is a great year for each and every one of you! I appreciate all my readers and I hope that 2019 was a good year too! Thank you all for taking the time to read my blog!

Revisiting my 2019 predictions!

As always, I like to make predictions at the end of a year and then revisit them when the year is over. Last year's post can be found here but I am going to copy/paste the relevant stuff and then see how bad/good I did. In the next few days I plan to have another post up for my 2020 predictions. I will be giving my self a score at the end and every correct prediction I make will give me 1 point and I will give myself half credit if I was partially correct. I was fairly conservative last year so I am guessing that my predictions will do well, but we shall see. The original predictions will be in plan text but my comments and scores will be in red.

POLITICAL PREDICTIONS:
President Trump will still be the president in 2020 and will not be removed from office or otherwise be out of office. Correct. 1 point

Efforts will be made to try and impeach President Trump but those efforts will die in the Senate. I'm giving myself credit here. Impeachment was filed but never even made it to the Senate by the end of the year. 1 point

The Mueller investigation will linger on but will not find any wrong doing by President Trump. For all intents and purposes, correct. The Mueller report landed with a thud and though they went out of their way to imply that the president did something wrong, no actual findings of wrongdoing were found. 1 point

Congress will pass no major bipartisan legislation and will be deadlocked. Wrong, the Mexico/Canada trade agreement, USMCA was passed and ratified

3/4




There will be at least one incident of violence directed at prominent Republicans. Wrong. 

There will also be at least one incident of violence directed at prominent Democrats. Wrong again.

At least one politician or pundit on either side will be seriously injured or even killed due to this violence. Still wrong.

One way or another there will be work done on the border wall with Mexico. Correct! 1 point

President Trump's approval rating will be near or higher than the current rating of 46% (via Rasmussen). Correct, today's rating was 46% and it's been mostly above or near that in recent weeks. 1 point

At least one major politician will go down to #MeToo accusations. Correct, congresswoman Katie Hill resigned for an inappropriate relationship with her staffers. 1 point

There will be no clarity on who will be the Democratic presidential candidate in 2019. Correct, though Biden is the front runner, he very well could lose to Bernie Sanders or maybe Elizabeth Warren. 1 point

The Democratic Debates will have lower ratings than the GOP ones in 2016, (don't worry, I will still do my reactions if I can watch them). Correct, sometimes it seemed like I was the only one watching them. 1 point

President Trump will face a primary challenge with at least one major candidate declaring in 2019. Correct, he actually had three though one has dropped out already. 1 point.

6/9

WAR PREDICTIONS:
America will not get involved in any new wars in 2019. Correct, 1 point

US Troops will no longer be on the ground in major numbers in Syria (with an exception for special forces) Correct, 1 point.

 Despite lower troop levels Afghanistan will remain an absolute mess with the Taliban making further gains. Half credit. Though Afghanistan is still a mess there are signs that a diplomatic solution might be found. 1/2 point

ISIS will lose whatever remaining territory they have in Syria. Correct, 1 point

3.5/4

There will be a terror attack in the United States where 10 people are injured and/or killed. Correct, the El Paso shooting probably counts as it was political in nature. 1 point

There will be a terror attack in Europe where 10 people are injured and/or killed. Wrong

There will be at least one terror attack in Canada and Australia. Wrong, though New Zealand had one. 

There will NOT be a terror attack that kills and injures more than 100 people committed by Islamic terrorists in a Western country in 2019. Correct, 1 point

2/4




President Trump will meet with Kim Jong Un and will have a successful meeting. Half credit, the meeting happened but fell apart at the last moment. 1/2 point

Real work will be done on the peace deal between North and South Korea and the North will begin to get rid of their nuclear weapons. Wrong.

The Russia/Ukraine conflict will remain status quo ante with no major changes. Wrong, thankfully work is being done to end the conflict. 

The Mexican Drug War will continue with large numbers of deaths and little media coverage. Half credit, for the first time there was media coverage of the war in Mexico due several high profile battles and the mass murder of some American citizens. 1/2 point.

1/4

CULTURAL PREDICTIONS:
Tech censorship will get even worse to the point where more mainstream Republicans will be banned from placed like Twitter, Facebook and Google. Correct, 1 point

Nothing will be done about this tech censorship by the United States government. Correct, 1 point

This will lead to another incident like the YouTube headquarters shooting. Wrong.

Black Lives Matter will continue to be irrelevant. Correct, haven't heard from them all year. 1 point

The Alt-Right will also continue to be irrelevant. Half credit. There was some noise made by Nick Fuentes who arguably counts as alt-right, but the movement as a whole is dead. 1/2 point

Targeted harassment for people expressing political opinions openly will continue at a fever pitch. Correct, 1 point

Ratings for the NFL will continue to be stagnant but the kneeling issue will get next to no media coverage. Half credit, ratings have improved but the kneeling issue is dead. 1/2 point

Star Wars Episode 9 will have a lower opening day than The Last Jedi (we won't have enough time to see if it will be a bomb before the end of the year, will be release on December 20th). Correct, though it didn't do as bad as I thought it would. 1 point

#MeToo will claim a few more scalps in Hollywood. False, the movement appears to be over with no notable names that I can recall other than Katie Hill.

The backlash against #MeToo will continue as more truly innocent men are caught up in it. Correct, the backlash was severe enough that it is totally spent as a social force as far as I can tell. 1 point. 

7/10

TOTALS: 

22.5/35 64%.

As you can tell I didn't do great this year. Mostly it was because I was too pessimistic. 2019 was a fairly good year compared to the past few years and we generally didn't have as many problems as we have been having with violence and terrorism. Though tensions are still high in the culture war I was way off base in expecting actual violence, which there wasn't much off, at least directed at politicians. Other than that I was pretty spot on with my political predictions as most of what I said came true. 

On the warfare questions I was overly pessimistic on the amount of terror attacks we had. There weren't any major Islamist ones targeting the Western world and only the Easter Sri Lanka attacks were hugely notable. There were a few attacks done for political reasons but they weren't in the countries I was predicting and not for the reasons I was predicting. 

I was too optimistic with North Korea. I was expecting a political solution to be found but the meeting happened and didn't produce the kind of results we wanted. Then impeachment came up and totally overshadowed the peace effort to the point that it's hardly on anyone's radar anymore, let alone the US governments. But I was too pessimistic with Ukraine which seems to be coming to a conclusion sooner rather than later. 

As for the cultural predictions I was mostly spot on. I didn't expect Me Too to die the way it did but honestly it wasn't much of a factor in 2019. I think leftist groups and the Democrats realized that their own people were getting caught up in it and that was that. The backlash was pretty severe to the point where prominent Democrats are criticizing the movement for taking down some of their leadership.  

Overall, I think I am happy to be wrong in most of the cases. I was overly pessimistic this year but I was pleasantly surprised that 2019 was a good year. Other than the various mass shootings, it was a very good year for almost anyone. Too bad the good news has been totally drowned out by the impeachment nonsense. 

Finally, I will say that I plan to do predictions, in basically the same format, for 2019 soon. Due to the holiday and other factors it might be this weekend, but I hope you will join me then for what I think 2020 will look like. It's a new decade and I am pretty optimistic that things will go well compared to the last 10 years, both for the world in general and for me personally. Thanks again for taking the time to read and support this blog! 

Russia thanks America after tip leads to arrests for plot to attack New Years Eve celebration in St. Petersburg.

President Trump and President Putin shake hands in 2017. BBC/Reuters.

Russian President Vladimir Putin called and thanked US President Donald Trump for providing information that prevented an New Years Eve attack in St. Petersburg. BBC. Russian media states that two were arrested and materials and plans for the attack were sized by Russian police. Russia states that they were tipped off by the attack from intelligence services. Despite strained ties between the two countries this is not the first time America has helped stop a terror attack on Russian soil. Back in 2017 America helped prevent a similar plot in St. Petersburg. It is unclear who was responsible for the threat and how advanced it was, though ISIS has threatened Russia in the past. 

My Comment:

Even though relations between Russia and the United States are still frosty, I am glad they aren't so bad that exchanges like this aren't possible. America likely saved many Russian lives thanks to this action and we should be proud that we did so. And I sincerely believe that Russia would return the favor if they were given the opportunity. After all, we have bailed them out twice now.

Though we may be worlds apart on many major issues it seems as though Russia is on the same page when it comes to terrorism. They have helped fight ISIS in Syria and allowed our mission to take out ISIS's leader to go forth. Hopefully this spirit of cooperation continues. 

In more sane times I would hope that this would help improve relations with Russia but I don't know how possible that is. The Democrats here in the United States have been on an insane crusade against Russia as they blame the country for losing in 2016, instead of blaming Hillary Clinton for not campaigning in Wisconsin or any of the other dozens of massive screw ups she made. In that environment it's hard to improve relations with a country that really shouldn't be our enemy.

As for the attack itself, it's unclear what the background is, other than the two arrested were Russian nationals. Russia does have a large Muslim population so we can't rule out Islamic terrorism as a possibility and I do think that's the most likely motivation. But without more information I don't want to speculate too much. 

I personally thought New Years Eve celebrations were prime for attacks. Though Times Square in New York is locked down pretty good, other locations could be soft targets and be especially vulnerable to attacks. Plus, many of the victims would be drunk and panic could cause more injuries. I am surprised we haven't seen a major attack on a New Years Eve celebration before. I've never cared much about New Years Eve in the first place and I almost always work for it regardless, but if I was out celebrating I would keep that in the back of my mind... 

Armed worshipers stop mass shooting at a church in Texas.

An ATF agent and dog respond at the scene of the attack. Dallas  Morning News.

Armed worshipers shoot and kill an attacker who opened fire at a Texas church, putting an end to an attack that left two people shot, one of which died. Dallas Morning News. The attack occurred at the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, which is west of Forth Worth. The attacker opened fire, shooting two people, but was then shot and killed by armed civilians. No motive for the attack has been released and police have not named the suspect. Police and politicians praised the two people who returned fire, stopping the suspect, but have not yet named them. At least five other people pulled firearms during the attack.

My Comment:

There is video of this attack but I will not post it here for several obvious reasons, with the video being removed and violating the terms of service being the top two. However, I have seen it and I can describe what happened. EDIT: The Truth About Guns has an article up with video showing the attack.

The attacker was near the back of the church when he pulled out what looks like a short shotgun, either a sawed off one or something like a Mossberg Shockwave. As he is pulling that gun out an armed man right next to him goes for his gun too but is shot by the attacker before he can draw down. The attacker then shoots a 2nd person who is right next to him before getting shot himself by yet another armed man, which seems to kill him instantly. At least five people are seen drawing guns in the aftermath. Either three or four shots appear to have been fired from all guns and the entire event happened in about three seconds.

I would say that this is the expected outcome of a shooting at a Texas Church but I think the Sutherland Springs shooting proves that you can't always expect an armed response at a Texas Church. Though the attacker in that case was indeed put down by an armed NRA member with an AR-15 it was after he had finished his killing. Nobody inside that church was armed and 26 people died because of it. 

In this most recent attack though, it seems an armed response saved lives. The Church was full and even though a shotgun has limited ammo and range, he could have killed a few more people. Even assuming he only had a 5 shot Shockwave, he could have shot and possibly killed two to three more, even without reloads. And he probably had reloads as well. This easily could have been a mass shooting where double digit people were killed or injured but in the end only one good guy died so far with the other one in critical condition. 

I do have to point out that it was critical that there were multiple people that were armed. The first man who drew down on the attacker didn't get his shot off and caught a shotgun blast to the chest. If he had been a little bit faster on the draw he could have shot the attacker before he shot anyone, but tragically he couldn't quite make it. It was a matter of milliseconds and he lost the race. Thankfully, there were many other people in this church that were armed and were able to stop the attacker in his tracks. The man who put this attacker down deserves a lot of the credit, but if he had failed there were others waiting in the wing. The first man may have failed to end the attack but he bought a critical second or two to allow others to stop the attacker. 

As for the Church itself I do wonder if these were just armed churchgoers or if they were armed security. It seemed like the two people that got shot were confronting the gunmen before things went to hell so I think they either were armed guards or they were parishioners that were trying to help out. Still, even if there was armed guards at this church, I don't think they would have hired more than one guard and the way I saw it at least five people pulled out guns.

I won't speculate too much on motive. This might have been a planned attack or a spur of the moment thing, though I can't imagine why someone would be so upset at a church service that they would pull out a shotgun. My guess is that this was a planned shooting and that the suspect for whatever reason decided to talk to some people before he started shooting. But he was sitting down before he got up and pulled out his shotgun so who knows what he was thinking? It's very possible that this was a political or religious statement of some kind but in the end that doesn't matter too much. Whatever his reason the attacker was put down quickly and that's what really matters. 

I do think it's a sad state of affairs that attacks on places of worship are sadly common these days. Though I agree that it's a very good thing to have armed people in churches it is sad that it is necessary. Churches and other places of worship are obviously supposed to be sacred ground but that very argument is why they get targeted, regardless if it's by Islamic extremist, political terrorists or simply assholes who want a large group of people gathered together. Thankfully, both churches and the people that go to them realize this and have taken steps to harden these churches as targets.

As for news coverage of this event, I think it is biased as always. I am a little surprised that they are covering it at all, but most of the headlines are leaving out the fact that the attacker was stopped by armed civilians. I think that given this attack happened on a Sunday in a week that contains a holiday, it will be memory holed soon and only local outlets will follow up with further investigations into the attackers motives and goals. That's why I used a local source who made it very clear that this attack was put down by good guys with guns.  

Mass stabbing targeting Jews attending a New York Hanukkah party.

Police guard a synagogue in New York. New York Times/AP.

Five people were stabbed at a Hanukkah party in Monsey New York. New York Times. The attacker broke into the home of a Rabbi and begun stabbing people but managed to escape afterwards and is still at large. Of the five wounded, two were in critical condition and one was the son of the Rabbi. It is unclear what the motive for the attack was but there has been an uptick in antisemitic attacks in the New York area. 

My Comment:

This is a breaking news story so some of the information here might be wrong or out of date. It seems like a pretty clear example of mass violence, but it is unclear what the motive is. I am guessing it was probably antisemitism though. I suppose it could be an example of a regular home invasion but that seems very unlikely. Home invasions are rare in the first place and so are random attacks without motive. The most likely explanation is that this was a bias crime. 

I know that there have been quite a few incidents where Jews in New York have been attacked, mostly by black men. That aspect of these incidents is under-reported but the tensions between the two groups are very high. Why is beyond me but it's clear that Jews and blacks aren't getting along right now. I don't want to speculate too much about why the two groups don't get along for pretty obvious reasons, no matter what I say I could get accused of bigotry. However, I will say that it's unclear what race the attacker is in this case and for all I know it could be another Jewish person. 

This is, of course, a good example of why someone doesn't need a gun to attack a bunch of people. Armed only with a knife this attacker managed to send five people to the hospital and actually manage to escape afterwards. He might have had some more casualties if he had a gun but it didn't seem to matter too much, five people are hurt and more were terrorized. 

I also think that Jews should probably start considering arming up. I know the stereotype is that Jews are anti-gun but I think this attack demonstrates why that is such a bad idea. If even one person at the party had a gun this story would probably have ended with either nobody getting stabbed and the attacker getting shot or at worst a stabbing or two before the attacker was driven off or killed. 

I do think that there has been a rise of antisemitism lately, both in America and throughout the world. Some of that is due to Islamic immigration but it also seems to be on the uptick on both the far right and the far left. Without going into the reasons why that is or what can be done about it I do think that attacks like this will continue. 

Massive truck bomb in Mogadishu Somalia kills at least 90 people.

The aftermath of the blast. Reuters. 

A massive truck bomb in Mogadishu Somalia has killed at least 90 people. Reuters. The dead included many children, 17 police officers and two Turkish nationals. Saturday is a working day in Somalia and the bomb exploded during rush hour. No one has taken credit for the attack but local officials are blaming al-Shabaab, the al-Qaeda linked terror group who has a long history of deadly bombings in Somalia. 

My Comment:

Fairly horrible attack in Somalia, most notable for the number of deaths it caused. Somalia has a long history of violent attacks like this but the death toll isn't usually this bad. It seems as though the terrorists had a very powerful explosive device to cause this much devastation. 

I am guessing that the local officials are correct and that this was an al-Shabaab attack. They are the biggest and most powerful terror group in the East Africa region and ISIS doesn't have much of a presence in the region. Plus ISIS tends to target westerners not local groups, unless they are non-Suni Muslims. 

Al-Shabaab remains one of the more deadly and dangerous terror groups active today. They have launched several attacks in the past, some of which dwarf this attack. The most notorious of those was the Westgate mall attack in Narobi Kenya which ended with 71 people dead and 200 wounded. They are also an al-Qaeda affiliate and one of the few remaining ones that still have the capability to launch major attacks, along with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. 

This attack probably won't make much of an impact. Somalia has been a basket case for years and people generally ignore what happens there. The deaths of children may give this attack more attention but I am guessing coverage for this attack will fade pretty much immediately. 

I do have to say though that the pace and severity of major terror attacks has decreased dramatically. For years it seemed like there were major attacks almost weekly and for awhile there it seemed like even daily attacks weren't out of the question. And these attacks were often targeting western targets and even happening in western countries. 

Now though? This is the biggest terror attack in recent memory besides the Easter Sri Lanka ISIS bombings that happened awhile back. There was also the London Bridge mass stabbing but that was a fairly minor attack with only two deaths. Other than that, 2019 was a fairly quiet year for terrorism. 

Why is that? I think it's largely because most of the world's tinderboxes have calmed down and the various terror groups have lost their bases of operations. Both ISIS and al-Qaeda are mere shadows of their former selves and really aren't capable of launching attacks anymore. Plus, their media empire has collapsed so they have trouble even inspiring lone wolf attacks. Only in dysfunctional countries like Somalia are these terror groups having anything that remotely resembles success now. 

And I think that is one of the biggest stories of the last couple years and one that just doesn't get enough coverage. ISIS and al-Qaeda are greatly reduced and the massive threat of frequent terror attacks seems to be mostly contained. That's a hugely positive thing and it's not something that gets enough coverage. 

Unknown drones spotted over Colorado.

Warzone/The Drive.

A large group of unknown drones have been spotted flying grid patterns at night over Colorado's airspace. Warzone/The Drive. Every night this week the drones have been spotted flying from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm. There are an estimated 17 drones all of them with six foot wingspans and were operating with lights on. Military and civilian organizations do not claim these drones and they do not know who is operating them. The drones could be conducting surveillance of the area, which is desolate and without much human presence. However, the drones area of operations are within 30 miles of the F.E. Warren Air Force base which houses nuclear ICBM's. 

My Comment:

The government needs to find out who is flying these drones and they needed to do it yesterday. There are many possible explanations for this and none of them sound good to me. The government needs to find out who these people are and what their goals are immediately as even the less sinister explanations are putting people at risk. 

It's possible that this is just some civilian or group of civilians having some fun with their drones. That's probably the best case scenario but it still begs the question on how they managed to plot the flight paths and what they are trying to do. They are also putting civil and commercial aviation at risk by not filing a flight plan with the FAA. 

Another possibility is that this is an intelligence operation by some foreign government or non-government organization. Given the sophistication and size of these drones that's certainly a possibility but one wonders how they would get the drones here, if they were not produced domestically. There is little of interest for foreign governments outside of the F.E. Warren Air Force Base, but this could be a "dry run" for more valuable targets. The fact that these drones are lit up at night might be for evaluation purposes. 

The most disturbing possibility is that these drones are part of a military or terrorist operation that could target military or civilian targets. These drones could be in a dry run before an attack and they may be evaluating how reliable they are. Though the drones alone are not much of a threat they could be rigged with explosives and could be used as crude bombers or as kamikaze attackers. Such attacks have been used before, most notably by ISIS in Syria and Iraq and during the recent Iranian attack on a Saudi oil facility, so the possibility is out there. 

It might be very difficult to track down who these people are. Indeed, the only reason we know that this is happening at all is because the pilot(s) of the drones have mysteriously left their lights on. If they were running dark the people of Colorado would have no idea that their skies were infested with drones. And given the small size of these drones and the massive amount of remote territory in Colorado it would be fairly easy to launch and recover these drones without being noticed. It would likely take a huge effort by law enforcement and military assets to find these people or a lucky break where they made a mistake. 

I also wonder if these drone operations aren't more widespread than it seems. Remember, the only reason we know about these drones is because they turned their lights on. It's possible that this is only the tip of the iceberg and there are many other drones out there. 

Finally, I do wonder if more regulations on civil drone usage is coming. Obviously, what is happening in Colorado is already illegal but it is fairly disturbing that they can get away with this so easily. I don't really support new regulation but if this does turn out to be an foreign intelligence operation or a terror plot than I could see drones getting banned entirely or at least much more heavily regulated. 

President Trump warns Governor Gavin Newsom that federal intervention might be needed in California.

Governor Gavin Newsom.

President Trump has warned Governor Gavin Newsom of California that federal intervention may be necessary to solve the states homeless problem. Fox News. California has the most homeless people in the United States with over 120,000. 68% of those people have some kind of shelter available to them. Newsom blamed the federal government for not following his plan to house people first instead of giving them mental health and drug treatment. Governor Newsom and President Trump have not gotten along with both often criticizing the other. 

Governor Gavin N has done a really bad job on taking care of the homeless population in California. If he can’t fix the problem, the Federal Govt. will get involved! https://t.co/2z8zM37PUA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 25, 2019

My Comment:
The other day I was bored online and decided to check out both Los Angeles and the Skid Row neighborhood as well as San Francisco on Google Maps. What I saw was truly shocking. The streets of Skid Row are filled with tent cities filled with homeless people. In San Francisco I saw people lying in the streets with needles lying near them, clearly stoned out of their mind at the very least and possibly even dead.

Clearly, the homeless problem in California is huge. I am not sure why it's such a problem. I think part of it is the milder climate in California which means that people can easily live outside. But I think it also has a ton to do with the liberal government of California. They make it very hard to arrest criminals and vagrants. Some of these people should be in jail or prison. California's insanely high taxes, cost of living and real estate prices doesn't help either.

I don't think that Newsom's plan to house the homeless will work. Many of these people are either drug users, who are usually banned from public housing, or are people that have no desire to live anywhere else but the streets. They might be able to get some of the people off of the streets but I don't think many will sign up for it.

Will President Trump be able to help things?  It depends on what he wants to do. I think if he tries to get more mental health for these people and get them off of drugs he could improve their lives. And something has to be done as it's very clear that Governor Newsom and California are incapable of solving the problem. But even with the help, I don't know if that will be enough.

I think there will always be some homeless people. Some people are just crazy and can't really be helped. Some people want to do drugs or otherwise don't want to follow the rules of society. And sometimes people just have a streak of bad luck. There is only so much we can do to reduce the harm these people cause and how much we can help them. They will always be a problem.

That being said, I think that other states do a much better job of taking care of the homeless than California. Every state has some homeless people but the rest of the country doesn't have tent cities in the middle of a major city or drugged out people passed out on the street. Clearly, what California is doing is not working and I hope that someone can, if not solve the problem, make things better there.

Turkey likely to send troops to Libya to defend Tripoli.

Recep  Tayyip Erdogan. 

Turkey is holding a vote to deploy troops to the Libyan city of Tripoli to defend one of the rival governments there. AP. Libyan Prime Minister Fayez Sarraj invited Turkish troops there after signing a military cooperation agreement with Turkey. Sarraj's government has been under siege in Tripoli from forces loyal to the rival government based in Eastern Libya under the command of General Khalifa Hifter. Turkey has gone so far as to recruit fighters in Syria in order to ship them to Libya. The vote will likely happen in early January and is extremely likely to pass. Support between the two governments of Libya is split with Turkey, Italy and Qatar supporting Sarraj while the United States, Russia, Egypt and France support Hifter. 

My Comment:

Yet another example of Turkey being an extremely poor ally to the Untied States. America has backed Khalifa Hifter but Turkey insists on backing his biggest rival. The why here isn't important it's the fact that yet again Turkey is actively acting against US interests internationally. 

I'm not sure why America supports either side in the Libya quagmire as the country has been a mess since the overthrow of Gaddafi. My guess is that we decided to back a winning horse after it was clear that Sarraj couldn't control the country. We know what can happen when Libya is unstable and it isn't pretty so I am guessing they just want someone in command of the whole country.

Can Turkey's forces actually save Tripoli though? I am not so sure. I haven't been too impressed with Turkey's military performance. They have been mildly successful in Syria against the Kurds but that was because they had heavy armor and air support. I am not sure if those things are going to be available in Tripoli. 

Indeed, I wonder how effective Turkish troops will be in an overseas deployment. They don't strike me as a military that has effective logistics. How will they be able to supply and support there troops and will the be able to deploy heavy weapons? I really don't know. 

What I do know is that Turkey is going to cause this war between the two governments of Libya to go on for much longer than it should. Whatever the pros and cons of Sarraj and Hifter, keeping them both in the game fighting each other will cause the war to continue and for more people to suffer. If one side were to win, and it looked like Hifter was winning, the war would end and Libya could rebuild. Turkey is preventing that from happening. 

France announces they have launched their first armed drone strike during their operations in Mali

A French armed drone. France 24/AFP.

France has announced that they have launched their first lethal drone strike in an operation in Mali. France 24. The strike came after France killed 33 Jihadists during a rescue mission there. Seven additional Jihadists were killed by the drone in a follow up operation. France had just recently announced that their drone force was active and they have three drones stationed in the region. 

My Comment:

Just a quick update to yesterday's post about France's operations in Mali. I don't have too much more to add but it does look like France is bringing up the pressure on these insurgents. They have killed 40 of them in just a few days, rescued to hostages and captured a large number of weapons and vehicles. This is a pretty big victory for them, even before the drone strike. 

What really gets me though is that France hasn't developed drone technology until this late in the game. I guess I just thought that they were in the drone game quite awhile ago, but apparently this is their first time using armed drones. 

It's also clear that they are using US technology. The article said that the drone was a MQ-9 Reaper which was purchased from the Untied States. They have had these drones since 2013 so I wonder why it took them so long to use them offensively. My guess is that they may have had to use their own missiles for the drones and that takes time to develop. 

I don't have much else to add to this one, I just thought it was very interesting that France is finally using armed drones. It seems they are very late to this particular game and it might change how they fight in Mali. I don't think it is a game changer or anything but I do find it funny. 

Former President Barack Obama is talking up Elizabeth Warren for Democrat's wealthy donors.

Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Former President Barack Obama is talking up Elizabeth Warren to the Democrat's wealthy donors. The Hill. Though Warren has attacked wealth donors as part of her platform, Obama has been privately meeting with many of them to ensure that they will support Warren if she becomes the candidate. He has also gone to bat for her when she was criticized. Though Obama claims he would throw his support behind any of the candidates should they win, 200 of his staffers recently announced their support for Warren. Obama has not thrown his support for his former Vice President Joe Biden.

My Comment:

It seems clear that Warren is Obama's favorite in the 2020 primary race. Though he claims he isn't endorsing her, I think this report is a message to the other candidates. Obama wants Warren to win for some reason and the fact that he is going to bat for her is a big sign that she's getting his help. 

I also think that having 200 Obama staffers endorse Warren is a big sign that Obama himself wants her to win. I doubt all 200 of them just decided on their own to pick Warren, they were probably instructed to do so by Obama himself. That way he can appear to be independent but also send a message to those in the know that he wants Warren to win. 

This has to be a bitter pill to swallow for Joe Biden. He was Obama's Vice President and a close friend from back in their Senate days. He probably thinks he earned Obama's support through his work with him during the presidency. But Obama hasn't really commented on his campaign at all. 

I do think that Warren's anti-rich people campaign will hurt her with donors. I've even heard that some of the bigger donors might switch over to President Trump if she is the candidate as her rhetoric has been so over the top that they feel they have no choice. That includes even the big tech companies who are otherwise completely opposed to President Trump. 

Barack Obama is aware of this weakness and is trying his best to herd the cats in his direction. By sticking up for her he might convince some of these rich donors to stay with the Democrats or even give Warren some support on the down low. She might not publicly support wealthy donors but I doubt she wouldn't accept some kind of help from them if it wasn't public. 

So why is Obama doing this? I think it has less to do with Warren and everything to do with how weak Joe Biden is as a candidate. He's approaching senility and has made dozens of major gaffes on the campaign trail. He touches women and girls without their consent and is implicated in the Ukraine scandal, which, thanks to impeachment, isn't going away anytime soon. He's still in the lead but I think Obama knows that Biden doesn't have much of a chance in beating President Trump.

But I do wonder why on earth he thinks that Warren has a better shot. I consider her one of the few people in politics that approaches, or maybe even surpasses, the unlikability of Hillary Clinton. I have always thought that Warren comes off as a shrill, elitist, know it all that despises regular people almost as much as she hates the wealthy. Plus her racist use of affirmative action alone should disqualify her as president.

Most of all though, I think she's a terrible matchup against President Trump. Warren cannot keep her cool around President Trump and has been totally embarrassed by him in the past. She handled President Trump's attacks on her supposed Native American ancestry in about the worst way possible when she accidentally proved that her supposed Indian ancestry was essentially background noise in her DNA test. 

All of this should be obvious to Barack Obama and I'm not sure why he would throw his support to Warren. It could be political beliefs, even though Obama and Warren have clashed in the past. Maybe he's just trying to keep the other candidates out of the office, even though he says he supports them? Either way, I find this move puzzling to say the least. 

France announces that they have killed 33 terrorists in Mali.

French President Emmanuel Macron visits the troops in the Ivory Coast. BBC/AFP.

France has announced that they killed 33 terrorists in Mali. BBC. French President Emmanuel Macron made the announcement while visiting the troops in the Ivory Coast for an early Christmas. The victory comes weeks after France faced it's worst one day death toll in years when 13 French troops died in a helicopter crash while fighting Jihadists. The French have had troops in the region since 2013 after Islamist militants took over much of the countryside. The operation has been unpopular and French generals have said the war cannot be won with military strength alone. In addition to the 33 dead jihadi fighters, French troops captured another one and rescued two captured Malian gendarmes.

My Comment:

Some rare good news for embattled French President Emmanuel Macron. The last time I talked about France's war in Mali, they had lost 13 troops in a freak helicopter collision that was a major tragedy and embarrassment for the French. The war in Mali hasn't been going that great so any good news is needed. 

This operation looks like it was a major success. They killed 33 militants, captured another one and rescued two allies. When the French military are allowed off their leashes they can be extremely effective and competent and this is a good example of that. Rescuing prisoners is one of the more difficult things a military can do and to pull it off with both of the hostages alive and no friendly casualties is a major accomplishment. 

Still, 33 terrorists is just a drop in the bucket in a very dangerous and complex war that involves many of the local players in the region. France's role there is fairly limited and mostly consists of training and logistics, not commando raids. They cannot win the war against the various jihadists groups without local forces on the ground helping out. 

I do think that Europe would be wise to help out France. Countries like Germany and the United Kingdom have a vested interest in not allowing Mali to become a jihadist launching pad like Libya and Syria used to be. But France, and their local allies, are fighting this war alone. 

Finally, I do have to say that I do like that Emmanuel Macron was visiting the troops. I am no fan of Macron at all, given his globalist economic policies and the fact that he hasn't been listening to the poor and middle classes of his country, but I do think that visiting the troops is something leaders should do. My opinion of him rose a very small amount because of his visit to the Ivory Coast. 

New Zealand's gun buyback passes amnesty date with less than 50,000 guns turned in

Police handle an AR in New Zealand. Washington Post/AFP/Getty.

New Zealand's gun buyback has passed the amnesty date and only 47,000 of the banned weapons have been turned in. Washington Post. It is unclear how many of the banned weapons are still in circulation with estimates ranging between 50,000 and 170,000. A local gun rights group says that as many as 2/3rds of the weapons were not turned in. New Zealand banned semiauto rifles in the wake of the Christchurch mosque shooting, which was committed by an Australian. The gun owners that did not turn their weapons in could face five years in prison if they are discovered, though New Zealand has no records of who owns these firearms. Critics say the buyback was a failure as compliance was low in a country that did not have a strong firearms culture. 

My Comment:

If the Washington Post is critical of this gun buyback you have to know that it's actually a disaster on the ground. Having less than 50,000 of these guns turned in is a huge problem for them as they were expecting more than that. 

The fact that there are people that are risking five years in prison to give a middle finger to the left wing government of New Zealand is a good sign. It shows that even in a weak country like New Zealand which does not have anything like our protections for civil rights, people will not comply. 

This matches what has happened in the United States when gun control has passed. In places like New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, people have largely ignored new gun laws that ban or force registration of firearms. And in Virginia people are so mad at proposed gun laws that the majority of the state is now a 2nd amendment sanctuary with people actively forming militias to possibly engage the governor if he tires to take guns. 

Unfortunately that hasn't happened in New Zealand, even though it should have. The people of New Zealand don't seem to value their rights that much and the media makes it seem like the main reason people didn't turn in their firearms is because the government was offering such miserly rates for them. Given that the people of New Zealand also didn't overthrow their government after they blocked their rights to read and see what they wanted, I don't have much hope of things getting better there. 

I have to say I am still totally disgusted by what New Zealand did in response to the Christchurch shooting. Indeed, Brenton Tarrant predicted that his actions would lead to more gun control, in New Zealand and abroad. And he was also right that that gun control could cause a civil war in the United States. It hasn't come to pass yet but I would say that leftists acted far to predictably in the wake of his attack. 

Thankfully, America is still a free country and this should be a lesson for the gun control movement here. Even in New Zealand, a country with no real gun culture to speak off and in the wake of  a terrible mass shooting, people did not turn in their arms. The best case scenario they got was 50 to 33% of the arms being turned in. And that's in a country that has no 2nd amendment and no gun rights movement to speak off. If it's a total failure in New Zealand what do you think will happen in America if they try to ban semi-autos? 

Editor's Note: Next Democrat Debate.

As you may be aware, the next Democratic Debate is tomorrow night at 7:00 pm. Usually I live tweet the debates and watch them, but I think this time I am going to skip it. Why? Because I am on vacation and, quite frankly, I have better things to do. The last few debates have been a slog to get through and I think I can sit this one out.

I don't think there is too much that is going to happen regardless. The news is distracted right now due to the impeachment farce and many of the more interesting candidates did not qualify for the debate. Only seven candidates will be on stage tomorrow and none of them are that interesting. My guess is that it will be beat up on Joe Biden night.

So what will I be doing instead? It depends. If I am feeling up to it, I might be going to a gun range. If that happens I will probably write up a range report and post it around that time. If not, I will probably do my last minute Christmas shopping. Either way, it will be a better use of my time than watching a debate. If I finish things early and I don't have anything else to do I might chime in with a few things, but my guess is that I will just relax instead.

However, if you do want to watch the debate, it will be on CNN starting at 7:00 pm central. The fact that CNN is hosting it is another reason to skip it as I always feel disgusted with myself giving them any ratings at all. Thankfully, this time I am checking out!

FISA court publicly criticizes FBI's handling of the Carter Page scandal

Former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. Reuters. 

In an very unusual move the FISA court has publicly criticized the FBI for their handling of the Carter Page order that authorized spying on President Trump's presidential campaign. Reuters. The scathing order comes after the Inspector General's report on the FBI's handling of the investigation into supposed Russian interference in the 2016 election. The report found that the FBI had made several errors and omissions and even went so far as to lie about the fact that Carter Page had worked for the CIA and had helped them with intelligence against the Russians. The judge said that the FBI's behavior was so bad that it called into question other applications the FBI had made to the secret court. The judge gave the FBI until January 10th to outline what they would be doing to ensure that their applications are accurate. 

The judge's order can be found here.  (PDF)

My Comment:

Reuters (and every other news outlet I have seen covering this ) is burying the lead. The letter ends with this: "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to FISC Rule of Procedure 62(a), that the government shall, no later than December 20, 2019, complete a declassification review of the above-referenced order of December 5, 2019, in anticipation of the FISC's publishing that order. In view of the information released to the public in the OIG Report, the Court expects that such review will entail minimal if any redactions."

This is referencing a court order to provide information on who was responsible for withholding the fact that Carter Page was a CIA asset. That information will be coming out no later than December 20th and seems like it will be a major deal when it does come out. 

As for the letter itself, it seems pretty clear that the FISA court is furious with the FBI. They have been given rock solid evidence that the FBI lied to the court. The FISA Court relies on government agencies to have at least a little bit of honesty and integrity and the FBI failed to do so. 

Of course the FISA court has come under criticism for being a rubber stamp anyways. I think this court order is more about the emperor having no clothes and it being exposed. My guess is that the FBI and other intel agencies lie like this all the time and the only difference is this time they got caught. 

That being said, I still say there is obvious bias here. The FBI didn't make all these mistakes and choices by accident. They did it because they wanted to spy on President Trump because they didn't want him to be president. And once they did that they made up the whole Russian interference narrative to justify their spying. 

Either way, I think it's pretty clear that on the eve of impeachment that the entire President Trump narrative is false. The FBI was lying back then about who Carter Page was in order to spy on the Trump campaign and I am pretty sure that people are still lying about President Trump...   

92% of Americans believe that their basic rights are under threat.

USA Today/Getty.

A new poll says that 92% of Americans believe that their basic rights are under threat. USA Today.  Americans ranked free speech as their most concerned right with 48% saying it was at risk, with the right to keep and bear arms at 47%. 41% said that their right to equal justice, a fair trial and presumption of innocence was at risk as well. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion were at 37% and 35% respectively. 

My Comment:

I tend to agree with the polling, our rights are under threat. And I think most Americans agree, even if they don't always agree with which ones are under threat. Indeed, I think a decent portion of the American public would like some of those rights to go away. 

I would say that our freedom of speech is almost gone in this country. Sure you can say whatever you want in the privacy of your own homes and the government can do little to stop you but if you want to actually reach anyone and change anyone's mind you pretty much have to use the internet. And more and more frequently these huge tech companies are deciding what can and cannot be said. I know I have to censor myself all the time both here on my blog and on my social media platforms if I want to avoid a ban. 

The threat to free speech isn't really from the government, it's from these tech giants. People like to argue that the 1st amendment doesn't apply to private companies, and that's true to an extent, but free speech isn't just about the 1st amendment. In what manner is speech free if you cannot speak or write in a way that anyone can hear? 

Gun rights are more of a mixed bag that really depends on what part of the country you live in. In many states rights are being restored, and we have even gained back some of our rights. For example, concealed carry is now legal in some form in all 50 states, which wasn't true awhile ago. I know in some of those states it's still essentially a defacto ban if you are a regular Joe but the fact remains that the right to actually carry arms is now country wide. And some states, like Kansas and Alaska, have got further to secure the right to keep and bear arms. 

But in blue states controlled by the Democrats? It's getting worse than Europe in some of those states. Assault weapon bans, red flag laws, magazine limits and even registration are rearing their ugly heads. Sure, compliance is non-existent but the fact remains that you could be a felon in these states for simply owning a piece of plastic and metal that happens to be a gun. 

What's happening in Virginia is a good example of this. Outside forces flooded the state's election with millions of dollars allowing the Democrats to take all three branches of their government and immediately allowing Democrats to threaten new gun laws. The backlash has been fierce and there is some evidence that they are going to back down but you can't argue that the right to keep and bear arms in Virginia isn't under severe threat.

I also think that the right to a fair trial is going away too. Though there haven't been too many examples recently, I think back to the George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson cases where outside pressure forced prosecution on people that very obviously didn't do anything wrong. Those cases were correctly decided in the end, but the men still had their lives ruined. 

At the federal level too we have seen some disgusting kangaroo style courts that show that there just isn't any respect for the rules of evidence anymore. The Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings was this with wild accusations that would never stand up in court flung around without any consideration of presumption of innocence. And let's not even get into the impeachment farce... 

Still, with all that being said, I do think that things will likely change. The culture war seems to be a bit more calm right now with most people either tuning it out or being exhausted with it. And I think there are lot of people that are beginning to stand up for their rights. I do hope that Americans are wrong and we will still be able to enjoy our rights for a long time to come. 

Virginia National Guard weighs in on potential gun law enforcement...

National Guard logo. 

The Virginia National Guard has responded after Democrats in the state say that they may be used to enforce gun laws. The Hill. State representative Aston Donald McEachin said that Virginia Governor Ralph Northam may "nationalize" the Guard in order to enforce the proposed laws after a huge number of counties and cities in Virginia have declared themselves 2nd amendment sanctuaries. In a statement on Twitter, the Guard refused to speculate about such use and said they respect the passion people have for the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution. Governor Northam has already said that the counties may face "consequences" if they do not enforce gun laws. 

We understand and respect the passion people feel for the U.S. Constitution and 2nd Amendment rights. We will not speculate about the possible use of the Virginia National Guard.

— Va. National Guard (@VaNationalGuard) December 13, 2019

My Comment:
Things seem to be escalating quickly in Virginia, to the point where even the National Guard had to weigh in. Representative McEachin caused a firestorm of criticism for his comments and it looks like the National Guard was flooded with calls and e-mails to see if they would go along with it.

 This tweet doesn't say much but I do think that it's encouraging that they didn't preemptively say that yes, they would help Governor Northam enforce gun control laws. Instead, General Timothy P. Williams effectively punted and reminded his soldiers that they shouldn't comment on politics while wearing the uniform. It's clear that he doesn't want this issue to come up.

As for the sanctuary movement, it's gathering quite a bit of momentum. As of this writing, according to Wikipedia, 76 out 95 counties, along with 9 out of 38 cities and 11 towns, have adopted 2nd amendment sanctuary status. That's pretty big news and shows that this isn't going away anytime soon.

Media coverage of this has been scarce and pretty much exclusively on the right wing of political outlets. And even The Hill missed why everyone is so angry. Nobody cares to much about the universal background checks, all of the anger is over the assault weapons ban, red flag law and the attack on 1st amendment rights of gun owners. Mainstream media seems to be ignoring the story completely.

This is a mistake as the anger over these laws is not going away. If things are so bad in Virginia that people are already talking about calling in the National Guard than it's very close to open rebellion. This could end up being the biggest story of 2020 and right now the media is asleep on it.

A real question is if the National Guard will actually follow an order to enforce these gun laws. Keep in mind that soldiers are one of the biggest owners and users of assault weapons in the United States and would not be pleased with trying to enforce those laws on their own people. Plus, I can't see many of them turning their weapons on people from their hometowns. My guess if it comes to that Governor Northam would be out of luck.

On the ground it seems like people are organizing. There are regular threads on 4chan's /pol/ board that seems to be organizing things and it sounds like there is going to be a huge rally at the capital on January 20th. So far people are trying to keep calm and enforce that if anyone is going to shoot first it's going to be the Governor of Virginia.

Will it come to that? I don't think so. I sincerely doubt that the Virginia Democrats thought they would garner this level of outrage. The people of Virginia are absolutely furious and I don't doubt their ability to organize and protests. Already, the gun confiscation bill has been dropped and I am guessing that the assault weapons ban and red flag laws aren't going to pass either.

But if they do? Then it will be luck and luck alone that will keep this incident from blowing up. People own firearms to prevent this kind of abuse and the people of Virginia haven't been beaten down like people in New Jersey, New York and California. If it comes to that, and I hope it will not, I am guessing they will fight...

Editor's note: Vacation!

Just a quick note, I'm going to be on vacation for the next week or so. This means I will probably be posting at weird times or not at all. I'm not planning on going anywhere but I do have to get all my Christmas shopping done. Posting will depend on how busy I am and how much I feel like posting.

Tories win big in UK as Labor faces huge losses in election.

Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn.

The Tories are headed to a majority government while Labor is facing huge losses in UK election. Reuters. The election was primarily concerned with Brexit where Tories, led by Prime Minster Boris Johnson, supported it while Labor, led by Jeremy Corbyn, called for another referendum. Corbyn, an avowed socialist, is taking much of the blame for the loss as his platform was unpopular and his party was damaged by claims of antisemitism. He led the party far to the left as compared to the party's centrist history under Tony Blair and it appears to have alienated voters. If exit polling is correct than this will be the biggest victory for the Tories since the Margret Thatcher era. 

My Comment:

I'm far from an expert on British politics, so I will keep this short and sweet. I was expecting a Tory win as I doubt Boris Johnson would have even called for this election if he didn't know he was going to win. I was also expecting a landslide victory, and that appears to be the case. 

Why? Brexit. Though the media is blaming this on Corbyn I think it was more about the fact that people just want Brexit to happen. Even if they didn't vote for it, Labor's plan to just ignore the fact that the people voted for it probably made the Tories a much more attractive option. 

I always felt that Labor (and the Lib Dems) planned to overturn the results of the referendum and would do almost any dirty trick to get that accomplished. In that way they share the basic plan of the Democrats here in America. Winning them was so important to them that they didn't care if they were alienating their core voters who have left them in droves. 

Antisemitism came up in the UK election but I think the importance of it is way overblown. I think antisemitism is one of those things that is very important to the media and the political elite but is not something that anyone else cares about. I know whenever I hear about antisemitism my eyes glaze over and I get bored. It's not like there are jackbooted thugs running around beating the crap out of Jewish people in the UK, and most of the accusations were about Israel, the third rail of politics in both America and the UK.

The big question now is if Boris Johnson can actually deliver Brexit. I see this vote as a major mandate to get it done. If he can't pull it off than the Tories will be in big trouble. I know that even as an American I am sick of hearing about Brexit and I just want it done. If Johnson can't make it work with this mandate than it might not even be possible. 

As for Labor, I think that they need to learn a major lesson from this. Not respecting Brexit was a terrible move but that's not all they need to change. They need to get rid of their socialist party and run screaming to the center. Will they do so? I kinda doubt it. One of the things leftists just can't seem to do right now is make any kind of change. No matter what they do they keep doubling down...

Governor of Virginia threatens consequences for 2nd Amendment sanctuary cities.

Map showing the current status of 2nd Amendment sanctuary cities. Gun Rights Watch. 

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has said that counties that fail to enforce gun laws in Virginia could "face consequences". WTKR. The 2nd Amendment sanctuary movement has exploded in Virginia after Democrats took control of all three branches of government in the state and immediately threatened gun control laws. Those laws would include an assault weapon ban, red flag laws and a ban on training with firearms. Northam has said he "wasn't taking anyone's guns away" despite red flag laws being designed to exactly that, and also claimed the laws being considered are constitutional. Northam did not state what the consequences could be but he did say that the 2nd Amendment sanctuary movement could hurt business. 

My Comment:

This story has been brewing for awhile now and hasn't got much in the way of national attention. I have been following it closely as it looks like it could erupt into violence. The laws proposed are much harsher than we have seen outside of the deepest of blue states and the people of Virginia are having none of it. 

Governor Northam, as a reminder, was embroiled in a massive racism scandal where he was seen in blackface and with someone in a KKK outfit. That would have destroyed the career of any non-Democrat but he somehow survived it and instead of lying low and thanking his luck and media help, he's trying to start a war. 

This is a very good example of the rural/urban divide in America today. The only places that aren't totally rejecting the proposed laws in Virginia are the big cities. Those cities are the places where there is any support for gun control at all while the rest of the state views these laws as a major threat. 

I also think that Virginia is a test case for the gun control movement in general. Most of the worst laws in this country come from blue states where Republicans haven't had power in years. Colorado was the first exception and the gun laws there have been largely ignored by the rest of the state. However, Virginia was until very recently a deep red state. Only demographic shifts allowed the Democrats to take all three chambers of power in the state and that happened in the last election. 

It's unclear how much resistance will be offered by the 2nd amendment sanctuaries. My biggest hope is that local officials will arrest any state or federal official that tries to enforce these crazy laws but I don't see too much signs of that happening. More likely that these counties and cities will simply ignore any requests to cooperate but won't go so far as to arrest someone trying to enforce these unconstitutional laws.

And there is no doubt in my mind that these laws are unconstitutional. Forget about the 2nd amendment for a moment and you still have laws that violate the bill of rights. The ban on training is an obvious violation of the 1st amendment and red flag laws are obvious and terrible violations of the 4th amendment. And, of course, they violate the 2nd amendment as well. 

It's also unclear what, if anything, Governor Northam could do if these laws pass. He's threatening consequences but that's a term so vague it could mean anything from a strongly worded letter all the way to sending state police to attack the leadership of these counties and cities. The 1st option is way more likely but the 2nd would not end well for anyone. 

There are some signs that Northam's will is beginning to crack. One of the laws proposed would have banned assault weapons without a grandfathering in of existing weapons. It seems as though that effort has been dropped though the assault weapons ban still exists. It's possible that the laws might not even pass. Remember, the Democratic majority in the Senate is only two seats and there is a real chance that at least a couple of Democrats won't go along with it.

But what happens if they do? I sincerely think that this could lead to an armed conflict. The people of Virginia are drawing a line in the sand and the Democratic Party seems determined to cross it. There is a lot of chatter online about people actually using their 2nd amendment rights and if that happens there could be bloodshed. 

My sincere hope is that Democrats will come to their senses. I don't think they expected this level of backlash and will likely try to modify these laws further and when that doesn't work, pull them completely. If they are faced with thousands of armed citizens outside of the legislature they probably won't have much of a choice. Either way I will be watching this story closely. 

US government lied about success in Afghanistan..

A US soldier in Afghanistan. Yahoo News/Reuters.

A new document release shows how the US government lied about the war in Afghanistan through three administrations. Yahoo News. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) released a report called "Lessons Learned" which detailed the problems and waste the war caused. SIGAR reviewed and interviewed hundreds of people including Americans, Afghanistan officials and even NATO allies. One of the major findings is that President Bush lost interest in Afghanistan in the build up to the Iraq War and even later in his term Afghanistan was on the back burner. President Obama did no better by announcing both a troop surge and a withdrawal date and based the surge on fighting al-Qaeda, which was largely eliminated at that point. 

The Obama era officials also lied about what they were accomplishing to the point that claiming that suicide bombings were a sign of desperation from the Taliban and that U.S. casualties were a sign of progress. The report also detailed how much of the $1 trillion was wasted, such as failing to control heroin production and wasting money on schools that didn't have teachers and were even converted into bomb making factories for the Taliban. 

The Washington Post report is here.

My Comment:

With the duel competing stories of the impeachment scandal and the FISA report this release is falling by the wayside. However, this is a huge deal and has been compared to the Pentagon Papers. That too was a study that was released to the media and detailed how a major war was a failure. Under normal circumstances this would be by far the largest story in the world. 

I also have to say this is a rare case of a major journalistic outlet actually spending some time doing investigations. The Washington Post used to be putting out this quality of journalism regularly but since Jeff Bezos bought them out it's been a joke. Perhaps this is going to be a return to actual journalism? 

I think the criticism of the Bush and Obama administrations were largely correct. Though I think the war was justified it's clear that President Bush mismanaged the war. The invasion of Iraq, which was a mistake, distracted from Afghanistan. If we hadn't invaded there we could have focused on defeating al-Qaeda and then pulling troops out. 

That didn't happen but even later under Bush's second term the focus wasn't there. Bush was too busy trying to put out the Iraq fire and did not focus on pulling troops out. At this point al-Qaeda was defeated and we could have pulled out even if the Taliban wasn't gone. Our goal changed from defeating al-Qaeda to defeating both the Taliban and nation building and that was a recipe for disaster. 

President Obama didn't do much better. Instead of doubling down on trying to defeat the Taliban or focus on withdrawal Obama tried to both and in both cases he failed. He left a mess for President Trump and though he inherited a mess with Afghanistan and Iraq, he handled the situation extremely poorly. Honestly, Afghanistan was one of the better outcomes as though we wasted billions of dollars and lives at least ISIS didn't end up taking over like they did in Iraq, Syria and Libya. 

A common thread with both Presidents Bush and Obama was that they were downplaying how badly things were going in Afghanistan. They always sounded confident that we would win in Afghanistan, when they bothered to talk about it at all. In truth, we were losing and badly.

As for President Trump, I think he was a bit more honest about it. He's fired some of the people responsible for Afghanistan largely for the lack of results. Though Trump rarely admits any failure I think you could get him to acknowledge that the war in Afghanistan is not working. 

I do think that President Trump is at least trying something different. It remains to be seen if he will succeed but instead of ignoring the problem like President Bush did or use half measures like President Obama. Instead he is trying for a peace resolution with the Taliban. It has already fallen apart once before but it's a new approach that could lead to troops coming home. 

Unfortunately, President Trump is dealing with domestic issues, such as the impeachment and trade negotiations. I think he would love to be able to focus on pulling troops out but he just can't. And he is facing major resistance from the Pentagon and even members of his own party on the issue who seem to want to keep troops in Afghanistan forever. 

I do have to say that it is long past time for us to pull out of Afghanistan. We have wasted countless lives and $1 trillion for what? We defeated al-Qaeda years ago and the only real threat left is ISIS and I think that the Taliban and the Afghan government can handle it. We need to pull out and this new release shows that we should have done it years ago.