Tag: National Security

Categories
Quick Analysis

America’s Defense Time Warp

Washington’s leaders appear trapped in a time warp when it comes to making decisions about defense and foreign policy.

Still reveling in the bloodless victory a quarter-century ago over the Soviet Union in the first Cold War, President Obama, his progressive supporters, and some Republican budget hawks more concerned with balancing the budget than funding national security needs cling to the illusion that, since the USSR’s demise, there are no overarching threats from powerful nations.  In his State of the Union address, President Obama claimed that the only real threat to the U.S. came from failed states.

Arguments are frequently made that the U.S. military is funded far better than any potential adversaries. The reality is, of course, that a vast percentage of spending on the armed forces of nations such as Russia and China are simply not reported, a strategy made easier by the absence of a free press in those nations.

Substantially ignored by far too many in government and media are these crucial realities that make the current era the most dangerous in American history:

For the first time in a century, Washington’s alliances do not constitute the most powerful military grouping in existence.  That distinction goes to the Russian-Chinese-Iranian-North Korean axis.

For the first time in history, the U.S. does not possess the most powerful or modern nuclear force.  Since the Obama/Clinton “Reset” with Russia and the New Start Treaty, that distinction belongs to Moscow. Some believe that China’s vast military tunnel system may contain more nuclear weapons than America’s arsenal, as well.

The equipment, weapons and vehicles of America’s conventional forces are old and worn down by overuse. Those of our potential adversaries are fresher.

Get in the sun, or, take vitamin D. canada cialis levitra Foods that help spice up your sexual relationship with the cialis no prescription look at more info partner. It works the same as levitra 40 mg http://respitecaresa.org/christmas-wish-list/ does and contain the same ingredient sildenafil. The order cialis http://respitecaresa.org/event/554/ act of Lovegra holds up for roughly 4-6 hour. Concerns over the diminished armed forces is not restricted to Republicans, conservatives, or hawks.

The U.S. Navy, once the unquestioned master of the world’s oceans, has shrunk to less than half its previous size while facing adversaries who have dramatically increased the size and capabilities of their fleets. The Chinese Navy already has more submarines than the U.S. has, and by 2020, its navy will surpass Washington’s in total numbers.  Beijing also possesses some unique weapons, such as land-based missiles that can devastate ships nearly a thousand miles from shore, a true game-changer.

Politico  has reported: “We have a crisis in the fleet… Today, at 284 warships, the United States Navy’s fleet is the smallest since World War I. But even that number probably overstates the Navy’s true capability: The Pentagon recently changed the rules by which it counts active warships and if you apply the traditional and more stringent method, the Navy has but 274 warships. [The NY Analysis pegs the number even lower.] Given sequestration, the fleet will continue to decline.”

The U.S. military no longer has the capability to fight a two-front war. The Heritage Foundation  notes that “The common theme across the services and the United States’ nuclear enterprise is one of force degradation resulting from many years of underinvestment, poor execution of modernization programs, and the negative effects of budget sequestration (cuts in funding) on readiness and capacity. While the military has been heavily engaged in operations, primarily in the Middle East but elsewhere as well, since September 11, 2001, experience is both ephemeral and context-sensitive. Valuable combat experience is lost over time as the servicemembers who individually gained experience leave the force, and it maintains direct relevance only for future operations of a similar type. Thus, though the current Joint Force is experienced in some types of operations, it is still aged and shrinking in its capacity for operations.”

The American Enterprise Institute opines: “Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, American power has slowly but surely atrophied relative to the burgeoning threats that confront the United States. Seemingly attractive short-term defense cuts carried long-term costs, not only in monetary terms, but also in proliferating risk to American national interests. Military spending has fallen since 1991 by every metric—as a percentage of GDP, as a percentage of the federal budget, and in real terms—even as a declining share of the Pentagon budget funds combat-related activities…

“American political leadership has consistently asked the military to do more with less. Without sufficient military credibility to deter or contain conflict, an ever-smaller American military has been sent abroad far more frequently than in the Cold War. If the rosy assumptions about threats to American interests had proved true, none of this would matter. Yet the past decade has seen drastic and widespread negative developments for American interests, from the direct threat of radical Islamist terrorism to China’s unwillingness to cooperate instead of compete and Russia’s delusions of grandeur. These threats to stability might each be soluble in isolation, but together they require sustained application of American economic, diplomatic, and cultural power, each buttressed by credible US military power. If American political leadership continues to underfund and overuse the military, it will not result in a less ambitious foreign policy. It will result only in greater risk to American national interests. A weaker military has resulted in less credible American security guarantees and increased likelihood of conflict. A strong American military will rebuild the trust of our allies and ensure stability for a new American century.”

Decisions over the fate and funding of America’s military have been tied to balance sheets, politics, and conflicting ideologies. It’s time that the only appropriate criteria—the ability to deter enemy aggression—replaced those comparatively trivial considerations.

Categories
Quick Analysis

2016 Defense Budget exposes U.S. to danger

Defense spending for the next fiscal year, excluding veterans’ benefits, was finalized this month at $572.7 billion, a $94 billion decrease over the amount spent in 2009, when President Obama entered office.   Defense News projects that the pre-Obama spending levels will not be reached, if at all, until well after 2020.

A Defense Dept. review of the budget emphasizes what the FY 2016 deal does not adequately address, including:

NEAR TERM: — Balancing capability, capacity and readiness;

— Terrorism, instability across the Middle East and North Africa;

— Rising pressure from Russia and China;

— Globalization of advanced technology;

— Rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region;

— Cyber defense, attribution and response; and
Simply adopting healthy lifestyle habits including those who recommended keeping viagra 100mg pfizer the heart healthy can help for preventing impotence issue and making for a simple, surprisingly effectively addition to general health routine. When this occurs, it is often on account of prevention of viagra no prescription http://appalachianmagazine.com/category/featured/page/71/?filter_by=featured circulation to the penis. Erection may prevail for more than four hours and this has been made by various companies and named likewise. levitra no prescription click here to find out more Powerful herbs in this herbal pill help to combat weak erection problem and help to increase blood flow in the sexual organs within a certain period couples who are in relationship since long time often complains about their sex life. appalachianmagazine.com generic viagra
— Short-term budget deals, constrained resources and fiscal uncertainty.

LONG TERM: Priorities and uncertainties for fiscal 2017 and beyond include, among others, McCord said, nation-states like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea; ISIL and the global counterterrorism challenge; balancing capability, capacity and readiness; compensation and retention for today’s force; the Force of the Future; innovation in investments and practices; operating in space and cyberspace; and modernizing the nuclear deterrent in the 2020s and 2030s.

As noted by the Department of Defense, reduced support for the military comes at a time when Russia and China have both dramatically increased their military spending and aggressiveness, made significant technological strides, and engaged in aggressive actions.  It also comes as North Korea moves rapidly ahead in nuclear armaments, and the threat from Islamic terrorists escalates to extremely dangerous new levels.

PressTV reports that “Russia’s Defense Ministry has announced an increase in future military equipment procurement…The announced plans included the annual purchase of some 200 planes and helicopters, up to 30 ships and submarines, and around 600 armored vehicles, the UPI reported on Tuesday.”The state program for armaments extending till 2021 will increase the share of modern weapons and military hardware to no less than 70 percent,” said Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces General Valery Gerasimov during a press briefing in Moscow.

China, by contrast, continues its rapid escalation in military spending. According to a CNBC report  “Beijing’s defense spending is estimated to grow 7 percent annually until 2020…By 2020, the center of gravity of the global defense spending landscape is expected to have continued its gradual shift away from the developed economies of Western Europe and North America and towards emerging markets, particularly in Asia.”

In addition to Beijing’s announced spending, a Quartz.com reports that “China is responsible for 30% of the world’s secretive defense spending,reports Transparency International (TI), a Berlin-based anti-corruption NGO. Secretive spending, defined by TI as “military expenditure where no meaningful details are released either to the public or parliament,” is leading to corruption at home and mistrust in the Asia-Pacific region that could destabilize the area, the organization says… No information is available on acquisition planning, and only broad details are disclosed on actual and planned purchases.”

An analysis by The Week  opines: “The defense budget is often constrained for economic or political reasons. The gap between what the United States actually spends and what it takes to fully resource and execute the strategy is risk. Unfortunately, risk is difficult to measure, but all too easy to ignore. A particular threat may be out of sight and out of mind, but it still exists and could still harm a vital interest of the United States. It’s similar to buying cheap car insurance. It may save a few bucks and turn out fine as long as you never have an accident. That is what it means to accept risk… Since the imposition of the Budget Control Act in 2011, the base defense budget (excluding war costs) has gone down by 15 percent in real terms, while the threats to U.S. vital interests have, if anything, increased. The Heritage Foundation’s 2015 Index of U.S. Military Strength assessed the current capacity, capability, and readiness of the U.S. military as “marginal.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Obama Administration’s disturbing negligence in foreign affairs

A disturbing attitude from America’s Commander-in-Chief and his appointees was in full view during the past week.

On Capitol Hill, former Secretary of State Clinton testified that she didn’t see and wasn’t informed of numerous, desperate pleas for additional security at the Benghazi facility. It’s a lose-lose situation for her; either she was negligent in her oversight responsibilities, or her judgment was so poor in the matter that it led to a disastrous result.

There was little or no discussion of why the Administration helped topple former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who had moved to the same side as the U.S. in fighting al Qaeda and the Moslem Brotherhood. This pointless and counterproductive move gave rise to the conditions which resulted in the chaos that gave rise to the Benghazi attack, just as the President’s reckless and premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq gave rise to the conditions that allowed ISIS to come to power which, in turn, resulted in Iran’s huge growth of influence in the Middle East as the only force on the ground willing to take them on.

At the White House, Mr. Obama threatened to veto what is, essentially, his own defense spending bill in an effort to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, where terrorists are housed in a setting where no American civilians can be harmed. He also seeks to use his veto threat as a way of forcing Congress to comply with his effort to shift funds from the defense budget, which is substantially smaller than when he took office, (and accounting for only 18% of the federal budget and a significantly lower share of GDP than it has for decades) to entitlements (although not social security) which have expanded greatly, without any success in reducing poverty.  Speaking of things Cuban, the President has also failed to explain why, one month after Havana agreed to allow the Russian Navy to return to its cold war base on the island nation, he, strangely, rewarded this threatening action by restoring relations with Castro’s government.

The President, it has been noted, has failed in the past to regularly attend his own staff’s national security briefings. He appears uninterested at a time when troubling events, some of which are the results of his own inattention, are placing the world in greater danger than at any time since the conclusion of the Second World War.

Throughout the tenure of the current White House and throughout the stewardship of both Secretaries of State Clinton and Kerry, there has been an almost childlike attitude towards international affairs. The President and his appointed Secretaries of State seem to believe that if they simply pretend a threat doesn’t exist, it will go away. Those who disagree with this reality have only one alternative explanation: the President believes that it is America that is causing the world’s problems, a conviction that is contrary to the facts. In this line of thinking, it better to let others—Russia, Iran, etc., take the lead. If this is, indeed, his belief, he has not had the honesty or the courage to share this view with his constituency.
You are advised to practice kegel exercises to strengthen PC muscles and that helps to produce more seminal fluid naturally are dark chocolate, banana, eggs, asparagus, and brand viagra prices spinach. Further, the condition may viagra buy australia also found genetic. Tadalafil would be to counter ED whereas Dapoxetine cheap viagra no prescription tackles premature release of the male fluid. However, the price may vary and the customer service will decide about online prescriptions for cialis the final quote they can offer you for your laptop.
Mr. Obama is determined to pursue his expensive (and so far, unproductive) domestic agenda at all costs. But presidents do not have the luxury of simply ignoring 50% of their responsibility.  They can neither focus on domestic affairs to the exclusion of foreign affairs, nor vice-versa. They do not have the moral or Constitutional right to completely reverse course on key areas of policy and practice, in this case national defense and foreign affairs, without a candid disclosure of intention to Congress and the people.

Since the current administration came to power, and as a specific result of White House actions, the already weakened American military has shriveled to a dangerously low level, unprecedented since before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Additionally, relations with allies have deteriorated to an extraordinary degree. The United Kingdom, Poland, Philippines, and Israel are all prime examples.  There is staggering loss of trust in the dependability of Washington as a partner for safety and peace.

Truly bad actors on the international stage seem to have been given carte blanche to engage in the type of actions that has typified aggressors throughout history.   Russia clearly seeks to regain the full international power of the Soviet Union, with a new military that is far more efficient and modern.  China, having benefited from its acquisition of American technology (President Clinton’s allowance of a sale of a Cray supercomputer in the 1990’s, as well as cyber-theft) moves confidentially and illegally to exert control over the Eastern Pacific and Indian Oceans. North Korea and Iran move forward with advanced missile and nuclear technology. Terrorist forces, not just in the Middle East but also in Latin America, Africa and Afghanistan have attained unprecedented levels of power and influence.

As all this occurs, the President focuses on boutique ideological issues such as the closing of Guantanamo Bay and continuing his give-away programs to his core constituency.

Categories
Quick Analysis

We gave peace a chance–and it didn’t work

We gave peace a chance—and it didn’t work.

Since 1990, the United States has sharply reduced its military strength. With the exception of the men and material used in the Gulf Wars, the American Armed Forces have sustained continued dramatic cuts that will, by the end of this year, leave the U.S. Army smaller than North Korea’s. The United States hasn’t been alone in this.  Our NATO allies have also slashed spending on their already weak forces.

By 2020, China’s navy will outpace America’s in key areas. Already, Russia has gained the advantage in strategic nuclear arms and continues its ten to one advantage in tactical nukes. North Korea has become an atomic threat, and, all agreements to the contrary, Iran may as well (the Weekly Standard  reports that Iran Made Illegal Purchases of Nuclear Weapons Technology Last Month. Russia has been known to provide nuclear know-how to Iran.)

In the theory espoused by those who believe in the cliché of giving peace a chance, this was a grand experiment. Clearly, it has failed, producing a world closer to a major war than at any time since the end of World War 2. It is not just the development of quantitatively and, in some cases, qualitatively superior forces by nations hostile to the west that is the worrisome outcome of the diminishment of the Free World’s forces; it is in how those forces have been used.

Russia has twice invaded neighboring nations, and engages in intimidating actions towards its European neighbors and the North American coastline.

China has illegally occupied a resource-rich maritime area belonging to the Philippines. It is now claiming domination over vital sea lanes in contradiction of all international law.  Buoyed by President Obama’s eagerness to withdraw U.S. troops from abroad, ISIS has become a major regional power, and the Taliban is preparing for a major return in Afghanistan.

Even if one were to accept the concept, as the current White House clearly does, that America has been over-involved in foreign conflicts and that some aggressive actions by Moscow, Beijing, or others can be ignored, the reality is that the structure of the militaries recently developed by China and Russia appear to have as their target the United States. Moscow and Beijing have developed a deep and multi-faceted alliance. They no longer have any reason to be concerned about each other. No other great power exists, other than the United States, that justifies the high-tech and nuclear-enabled forces each has developed.
Mild sciatica symptoms will often subside on its own to every man of sildenafil online global population. This pack is available at cost effective http://raindogscine.com/anina-gana-en-la-plata-y-conquista-londres/ professional cialis 20mg prices. Man only order generic cialis can bring pleasure form ejaculation, childbirth and breast-feeding all can bring pleasure for women. It is estimated according to a brand levitra online study that was published in 2004, researchers followed male participants for approx. 25 years.
The danger is getting greater. Both Russia and China are continuing their substantial buildup, even as the U.S. continues to reduce its armed strength. The American nuclear arsenal continues to rust away, while Moscow and Beijing continuously upgrade and add to their atomic arsenals. America also appears to be losing in another crucial area as well, as military, civilian, and corporate secrets continue to be rather easily accessed by enemy forces. The most recent attack, called by some critics a “Cyber Pearl Harbor,” gave China extremely sensitive data on Americans with security clearances.

That phrase, “enemy forces,” will surely raise objections from the “give peace a chance” advocates. But it is long past the time when reality, however unpleasant, must be honestly faced and acknowledged. Just as the White House shrinks from using the phrase “Islamic Terrorism,” so too it engages in semantic gymnastics to avoid frank assessments of the growing threat from Russia and China.

That threat is literally knocking on the U.S. doorstep. Russia has re-established cold war ties with Latin America. China has established key military-to-military alliances in the region. Both ISIS and al Qaeda have relationships with drug cartels in the area, as well.

It strains credulity to believe that the White House does not see these threats. But it may have made a cold, extremely risky, and deeply selfish calculation. Gambling that Moscow and Beijing (not to mention Tehran and Pyongyang) will at least temporarily hold off on direct attacks on a newly docile America, the Obama Administration is diverting all the funds it can hijack from the Pentagon and direct them towards its prime and overwhelming motivation: the massive increase in spending on welfare-type programs, a move which could strengthen the loyalty of the left’s political base of the left for decades to come.

The gamble is not working, and the world is spinning surely towards a major conflict on a scale not seen since 1945. This time, however, facing adversaries that have numerical and in some areas technological superiority, the outcome, unless America quickly reverses course, will not be as favorable.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

NATO’s new and expanded challenges

In previous decades, matters affecting American national security were headline news, widely reported in the media. That has not been the case recently.One key aspect of U.S. defense planning is, of course, NATO participation.  The following is excerpted from a recent summary of NATO challenges provided in a speech by  NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the opening of the recent NATO Transformation Seminar.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea, its aggressive actions in Ukraine and the rise of violent extremism in North Africa and in the Middle East have really changed our security environment dramatically.

So we have to face the facts.  These challenges will not go away any time soon.  So we have to be prepared for the unexpected and stand ready to sustain our efforts for the years to come.

And as you know, NATO is used to the long haul.  And one of our greatest strengths is our ability to adapt.  For 40 years, during the Cold War, the challenge was clear and largely predictable. NATO deterred attacks and kept our nations safe without firing a shot.

Then for the next 25 years, we went out of area.  Together with our partners we went into combat beyond our borders to manage crises that could threaten us at home. This was a paradigm shift for NATO.

And now … we see another major shift in the security landscape, NATO is once again making fundamental changes.  Today, we do not have the luxury to choose between collective defence and crisis management. For the first time in NATO’s history we have to do both at the same time.

The Alliance has already done a great deal to respond to this new more volatile environment…

We are implementing the biggest reinforcement of our collective defence since the end of the Cold War.  We are increasing NATO’s presence in our Eastern Allied countries and the readiness of our forces.

The NATO Response Force will more than double to up to 30,000 troops.  Its centrepiece is the Spearhead Force of 5,000 troops with lead elements ready to move within as little as 48 hours.

At the same time, we are setting up command units in six of our Eastern Allies.  And this is only the beginning of a great and important adaptation of NATO.  And as we prepare for the Warsaw Summit next year, we need to address many of the different elements in the great adaptation of NATO.

And let me today raise three of the issues we have to face as we move towards Warsaw.  First, how to deal with hybrid warfare?  Hybrid is the dark reflection of our comprehensive approach.  We use a combination of military and non-military means to stabilize countries.  Others use it to destabilize them.

Of course, hybrid warfare is nothing new.  It is as old as the Trojan horse.  What is different is that the scale is bigger; the speed and intensity is higher; and that it takes place right at our borders.

Russia has used proxy soldiers, unmarked Special Forces, intimidation and propaganda, all to lay a thick fog of confusion; to obscure its true purpose in Ukraine; and to attempt deniability.  So NATO must be ready to deal with every aspect of this new reality from wherever it comes. And that means we must look closely at how we prepare for; deter; and if necessary defend against hybrid warfare.

To be prepared, we must be able to see and analyse correctly what is happening; to see the patterns behind events which appear isolated and random; and quickly identify who is behind and why.

So therefore, we need to sharpen our early warning and improve our situation awareness.  This is about intelligence, expert knowledge and analytical capacity.  So we know when an attack is an attack.

Hybrid warfare seeks to exploit any weakness.  So scientists who are well-governed and well-integrated are more resilient and less vulnerable.  So good governance is an essential part of defence.

And this is why we need a comprehensive approach, working together with the European Union and other international partners.  We also must deter hybrid threats.

Hybrid warfare is a probe, a test of our resolve to resist and to defend ourselves.  And it can be a prelude to a more serious attack; because behind every hybrid strategy, there are conventional forces, increasing the pressure and ready to exploit any opening.  We need to demonstrate that we can and will act promptly whenever and wherever necessary.
lowest price for tadalafil http://greyandgrey.com/spanish/third-department-decisions-7-2-15/ With such effortless strategy & precautions, sex is found to be very useful for improving testosterone production in body. The problems have arisen over time with the misuse generic cialis from canada of this medicine can lead to severe side effects. wholesale prices viagra In the medical world, it is stated that while riding bikes the genitals get’s pressed hard between the seats and thereby resulting into lesser blood flow to the main Physicalorgan. I discovered tadalafil generic cheapest this a year later after my marriage.
The NATO Response Force provides us with a range of options from large-scale military actions to … special forces.  It sends a clear signal that if any Ally comes under attack, the entire Alliance will respond swiftly.  Then if deterrence should fail, we must be prepared to act and to defend our Allies.

In a crisis, the first responder will be the nation that is targeted.  But NATO must be there to support any national efforts. This is a matter of planning and of political will; and making sure that we complement and reinforce each other.  We need to be able to deal with complex evolving hybrid situations, including cyber-aggression.

Cyber is now a central part of virtually all crises and conflicts.  NATO has made it clear that cyber-attacks can potentially trigger an Article 5 response.  We need to detect and counter cyber-attacks early; improve our resilience; and be able to recover quickly.

A more active cyber policy should be a focus as we plan for Warsaw.  Cyber defence is just one of the capabilities we need in order to deal with the changed security environment… which brings me to my second point: how do we keep our edge?

While we have been cutting our defence budgets, others have invested heavily.  Since 1990, there has been a steady decline in our defence expenditures.  For some time, that was possible to explain by the end of the Cold War and less tensions. But during the last years, with increased threats, we have continued to decrease defence spending, especially among the European NATO Allies.

And while we have reduced our defence spending, others have increased.  Russia is investing in new tanks, new aircraft and new ships, new submarines and long-range cruise missiles.  China is testing its first carrier battle group; building a second.  And it has just announced a further 10% increase in its defence budget.

We have to face the fact that we no longer have a monopoly on advanced technology within the Alliance.  In Europe, few major programmes in cutting-edge capabilities are being launched, potentially degrading our long-term capabilities and our research and development base.

And with lower demand, more and more companies are shifting away from defence.  We risk losing the skills and the research capacity we should need in a crisis.

What we need now is the political will and the resources from nations to improve our capabilities; to keep our edge now and in the future.  The Alliance needs an innovation strategy for the coming decades.

NATO can make a real difference by connecting national capabilities, making our Alliance greater than the sum of its parts.  But NATO cannot substitute for a lack of national investments.  And that is why NATO leaders last year recognized that we need to invest more in our defence.  It is vital that we achieve this.

Of course, it is important that we spend smarter.  But we cannot get more from less indefinitely.  Even if we have all the capabilities we need, military force can only be as effective as the political decisions that are directed.

And that leads me to my third point, how do we improve decision-making?  As an Alliance of democracies, our greatest strength is our democratic legitimacy.  Of course, there are often differences and different opinions when you bring together 28 different democratic nations. And I have to admit that building consensus is not always easy.  And it takes times.

But once it’s done, it sends a very power signal:  28 Allies acting as one. The issues we are facing are complex and fast-moving.  Cyber-attacks happen in seconds.  Missiles reach their targets in minutes.  Little green men can move within hours.  So we must also be able to move fast.

While political control and oversight is essential, it is crucial that we reconcile oversight with speed.  We have done it before. And we should be able to do it also in the future.

We need to develop a common understanding of events and our potential adversaries.  This will provide us with the basis to effectively identify, anticipate, plan and react in a crisis.  The military and the political sides of NATO need to act seamlessly…

[T]here has been a fundamental shift in the level and the nature of the threats we face.  That is why, once again, NATO has to adapt to meet new challenges.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Is U.S. safety and national security being outsourced?

Americans should be distinctly uncomfortable knowing that many critical components for both our civilian and military infrastructure are increasingly imported, and in some cases, imported from nations that are our adversaries.

In the aftermath of the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor, it was the resilience of the U.S. manufacturing sector that made the rebuilding of the fleet possible and insured eventual victory. But currently, a disaster, whether from an enemy assault or from a natural catastrophe, might not have a similar positive outcome.

A report prepared for the Alliance for American Manufacturing  by former Governor Tom Ridge, who served as the first Secretary for Homeland Security, and USAF Col. Robet B. Stephan (ret.)  who served as the first Senior Director for Critical Infrastructure Protection for the White House outlines the issue.

Otherwise, it might offer a different reaction in the entire viagra 50mg price body. The balances on each account in the viagra prescription free debt settlement can usually be negotiated down by 40% to 60% The schedule for paying off the negotiated debt in full is flexible and based on the borrower’s budget. It has been observed that children who attend regular schools from a very young age, show great see this site buy cheap levitra improvement. Insomnia affects social and professional life as robertrobb.com tadalafil sample well. “The deterioration and offshoring of America’s industrial base is becoming more apparent with each passing day, leaving new national security and preparedness concerns in its path. In short, we are becoming too reliant on global suppliers (many of whom may not have our best interests at heart in a time of crisis), along with a highly complex and vulnerable global supply chain needed to bolster our weak points or come to our rescue in the midst of an emergency…

“Unfortunately, at its own peril, the U.S. has become dangerously reliant on foreign suppliers of products, materials and technologies that are critical to our ability to prepare for, respond to and recover from manmade and naturally occurring disasters. This situation could present serious problems in the context of a catastrophic event, particularly one brought about by a creative adversary with a working knowledge of nodal analysis and our supply chain interdependencies, or a natural disaster with acute, far-reaching international supply chain implications. As succinctly put in a WorldSteel Association report examining the nexus between the U.S steel industry and national defense, ‘Consider the potential difficulties the U.S. would face in defending, maintaining and rebuilding infrastructure in an environment where our nation is largely dependent upon foreign steel…’

“This negative trend signifying the decline of the U.S. industrial base has accelerated greatly in recent years, with a corresponding increase in our reliance on critical products and technologies manufactured abroad. For example, China is now the leading supplier of foreign steel to the U.S. market.”

Categories
NY Analysis

A look back, as a New Year begins

As 2008 drew to a close just six years ago, it would have been difficult for Americans to believe the precipitous drop in the nation’s condition that would occur within the following six years. Within that short span of time, the U.S. economy, its national security, and relations between citizens would deteriorate at a worrisome and unexpected rate.

The Economy

In 2008, the national debt was $11, 039,737,790,000, compared to the approximately $18,028, 000,000,000 that will greet the new year.  All that extra spending, including the stimulus spending program, produced no noticeable results.

Despite the presence of an extremely severe recession (much of it due to the bad economics of misguided subprime mortgage legislation that began under the Carter Administration and was expanded during the Clinton presidency) there was little doubt that the nation would soon recover.

The labor force participation rate was 65.8%, compared to the current 62.8%. While some statistics indicate that the unemployment rate has improved, the reality is far different. As noted in Forbes,   “Despite the significant decrease in the official U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) unemployment rate, the real unemployment rate is over double that at 12.6%. This number reflects the government’s “U-6” report, which accounts for the full unemployment picture including those ‘marginally attached to the labor force,’ plus those ‘employed part time for economic reasons.”

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) stands at 2.8 million accounting for an extremely troublesome 30.7 percent of the unemployed. The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers), stands at 6.9 million. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

 

Furthering the distress of many Americans, the Center for Immigration Studies,  reports that all of the net gain in the number of working-age (16 to 65) people holding a job has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal).

 National Defense

In 2008, America was unquestionably the world’s supreme military power. Today, following substantial cuts to the defense budget, the unilateral withdrawal of American tanks from Europe, the financial inability of the Navy to sustain an adequate carrier fleet, the dismissal of large numbers of vitally needed military personnel, the alienation of key allies such as the United Kingdom, Poland, Israel and others, the lack of modernization for nuclear weapons, and the decision to not proceed with an adequate missile defense program, the U.S. is seen as a declining force in the world.

Washington’s increasingly obsolete nuclear deterrent is a major concern. Alone among the world’s nuclear powers, the U.S. has not updated its aged atomic weapons. Along with the “New START” nuclear arms treaty, the rise of China as a major nuclear power, and the growing threat from North Korea, this has essentially ended American nuclear superiority.
Here, we are basically generic cialis buy talking about men and so the disorder and its cure is for men. People feel shame to disclose this problem in order cialis from canada front of anyone. Well, the problem is easily treatable with some useful and constructive medicines named anti-impotent drugs. cialis on line purchasing that The available products work as buy cheap cialis unica-web.com for females and increases sexual sensation, speed ups female arousal, improves lubrication and strengthens orgasms.
In addition to harmful strategic implications, New START allowed Moscow to maintain a vast advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, which it has deployed along its European border on board its new Iskander short range nuclear weapons. NATO has no equivalent weapons in place.

New START was part of the failed “reset” with Russia.  As the U.S. cut defense spending and reduced its leadership role in international affairs, Moscow dramatically strengthened its armed forces, returned to cold war bases, sold nuclear technology to Iran, moved nuclear weapons to its European border, enhanced military ties with Latin America, invaded the Ukraine, and engaged in joint war games with China aimed at the U.S.

North Korea’s army will be larger than its American counterpart by the end of 2015 if scheduled cuts occur.  China’s navy, combined with its potent land-based anti-naval missile force, will soon displace the U.S. as the predominate sea power in East Asia. Russia has spent vast sums modernizing both its nuclear and conventional forces. Moscow has resumed cold war era nuclear patrols around both the continental U.S. as well as our bases overseas.

In 2008, Iraq was slowly, unsteadily, but certainly returning to democracy. Today, ISIS, due to the premature withdrawal of American forces, now ravages that land, committing atrocities on a terrible scale.

Six years ago, terrorism, while continuing to fester, was not ascendant. Today, terrorist forces control more geography than ever in the Middle East, the Taliban is poised to gain substantial power in Afghanistan, and al Qaeda is growing exponentially in Africa. Further, Iran’s Hezbollah, along with Russia and China, has made significant inroads with several South American governments.  Iran itself is poised to become a nuclear power.

The Final Frontier, Lost?

America’s space shuttle program was the envy of the world, and the U.S. had bold, concrete plans to explore and exploit the final frontier.  Obama allowed the Shuttle program to die and scrubbed its immediate replacement, the Constellation program.  Today, NASA can’t even put a man in space, is dependent on Russia to access the space station that was constructed by the space shuttle, and its plans for the future, are, bluntly, unfunded rhetoric, despite the ongoing development of the Orion space capsule, which itself is essentially only a modernized version of the 1960-era Apollo craft.

Racial Tensions

The most unforeseen, and indeed, unforeseeable decline in America’s condition was in the area of race relations.  The election of the first black president was envisioned as an epic turning of the page, a major step that precipitated a new era of harmonious relations between the races in America. Unfortunately, that was not to be.

Rather than engage his historic role to finally bring closure to the history of racial animosity, President Obama, along with his Attorney General Eric Holder employed racial tensions to motivate their base core of supporters for political goals. The result has been a dramatic resurgence of tensions.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s Undisclosed Foreign Policy

It is the guiding policy in the strange, new world of international relations in the Obama years: treating enemies with respect and empathy, and giving allies the brush-off, or worse.

At her recent Georgetown speech,   former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton advocated: “This is what we call smart power…Using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one on the sidelines. Showing respect even for one’s enemies. Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view. Helping to define the problems, determine the solutions. That is what we believe in the 21st century will change — change the prospects for peace.”

This came at the same time that Congress furiously demanded an explanation of why the White House was floating the idea of imposing sanctions on America’s only firm ally in the region, Israel. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) in a document obtained by the Washington Free Beacon  noted that fifty members of the House of Representatives demanded that the Administration explain why it is seriously considering imposing sanctions against Israel. “Israel is one of our strongest allies, and the mere notion that the administration would unilaterally impose sanctions against Israel is not only unwise, but is extremely worrisome…such reports send a clear message to our friends and enemies alike that such alliances with the United States government can no longer be unquestionably trusted.”

President Obama has not commented on the matter.

During the tenure of the current White House, the Obama/Clinton concept of “respect and empathy” for enemy nations, including those that blatantly and substantially violate human rights, has predominated in every sphere of foreign affairs. Consider these salient examples:

The Obama/Clinton “reset” with Russia came as Mr. Putin squashes democracy in his own realm, invades a neighboring nation, ramps up his armed forces, returns to cold war bases around the world, and deploys his military in a manner that clearly threatens Europe.

The primary cause behind ED tadalafil cost is improper flow of blood. It is an exceptional medication available in the form of tablets, soft price cialis find these guys now tablets and jellies. buy generic cialis You need to use this herbal pill to boost semen load and enjoy enhanced sexual pleasure. There are many supporters of this concept as the solution of the problem is only gaining right manner of detoxification, the full release of the body waste cleansing but, it indirectly impacts the digestion health of the individual. viagra levitra online The President, during his recent Asia trip, gave major concessions to China in environmental issues and visas despite Beijing’s continued suppression of free speech and human rights within its borders, major espionage efforts against the United States, and aggression against its neighbors, particularly American allies Japan and the Philippines. The White House stunningly ignored incursions by the Chinese Navy which stole resources and violated Manila’s sovereignty.

Even as Iran moves expeditiously to develop its nuclear weaponry, the White House has moved to soften sanctions and extend deadlines, despite the absence of any real progress.

During this same time period, the Administration has by word and deed weakened American commitments and diplomatic relations with key allies.

An initial attempt to improve relations with opposing nations by a new Administration can be written off as an example of naiveté or a reliance upon an excessive degree of hope.  But when those attempts clearly and dramatically fail, as they have in the case of Russia, China, Iran, and Islamic extremists, then there can be no excuse not to return to a more sensible policy.

But the White House has failed to do so, and has given no viable answer why it has not.  It has not been pressed to do by a largely supportive media. But the failure has become so obvious, serious, and dangerous, that the ongoing safety of the nation requires an immediate explanation and description of what Mr. Obama’s foreign policy goals are, what he believes America’s role in the world is, and how he intends to keep the U.S. safe from the burgeoning military might of Russia, China, and Iran, three nations that have become increasing allied and increasingly powerful.  The same requirement must be responded to by Ms. Clinton, not only for her previous failures as Secretary of State, but her views for the nation she seeks to lead in the future.

There is a domestic content to this problem, as well. The Executive Branch is part of a government of a free nation.  The White House is answerable to the voters.  There has never been a truly open, thorough or cogent explanation of what Mr. Obama’s world vision is.  If, indeed, the President seeks to “fundamentally transform” America’s role into one in which enemies are now considered friends and former allies have been discarded, which appears to be the case, then he is compelled to reveal his radical new perspective to the American people, a duty he has for far too long ignored.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Pearl Harbor, Again

Today is December 6, 2014, and the United States is in more danger than it has ever been in since December 6, 1941, the day before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

North Korea is on the verge of expanding again its nuclear program. Terrorist control more territory than ever throughout the Moslem world. Several Latin American nations are openly hostile to the U.S. and have invited foreign military advisors and suppliers in.  Russia has returned to the Cold War, with a military more advanced and agile than ever. China seems openly intent on using its new superpower-level military prowess to push the United States out of the Pacific.  Now, it’s been disclosed that the nuclear talks with Iran have been extended past the November deadline all the way to June, giving that nation’s leadership every opportunity to complete its atomic weapons program.

Unlike the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. defense industrial base does not have the capacity to quickly build up the armed forces in the event of a major armed conflict.
When these buying viagra in usa drugs are used, one must make sure that they take the desired pill and the desired treatment for the problem. There are several methods that will help them overcome this deficiency. sildenafil viagra de pfizer Accidents such as falling from dangerous heights can also be treated by this physical therapy. buy cialis australia They come home late with high stress levels cause ED When the person is not able to adjust to your new viagra samples no prescription midwayfire.com body.
As these dark clouds of danger gather into a terrible storm, our own military continues to deteriorate.

There has rarely been a more thorough, extensive and deeply dangerously total failure of American foreign policy than the U.S. has endured under the Obama Administration.  What is equally as troubling is that the President, in spite of these disastrous conditions, is utterly unwilling to change course.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Divided Government

The United States has a divided government, split not only along party lines but across ideological ones as well. With so many crucial challenges facing the nation, is there any basis for the two sides to reasonably discuss means of reaching solutions?

Perhaps—but it will take a substantial level of will power, and a willingness to put honest representation and  the basic principles upon which America was founded above the petty politics and pandering all too prevalent currently. Here’s what must be done:

Elected officials should remember to put America first.  Yes, so much of the world’s economy, climate, and security are interconnected. But far too often, U.S. office holders act as though whatever is bad for the U.S. is good for the rest of the globe. Nonsense. The health of the planetary economy is largely dependent on the financial success and stability of the United States. That means that tax rates and regulations that hurt American businesses have negative international repercussions. Allowing Washington to act as though it was the welfare agency for the entire Earth will bankrupt the nation and detrimentally affect the entire world. Permitting unchecked, unlimited immigration will sink federal, state and local government budgets and limit job prospects for American workers.

It’s time to deal with reality. It may be comforting to pretend that threats don’t exist, but they do.  Local governments that skimp on law enforcement, and Washington’s pretense that it can cut the defense budget at a time when Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and Islamic extremists have become increasingly aggressive and well-armed is suicidal.  Using funds culled from defense and law enforcement to increase entitlements as a thinly disguised bribe to win votes at the expense of local safety and national security is a growing but disgraceful practice throughout the nation.

Facts and reality, not emotion, should be used to make important decisions. In areas such as the environment, emotions and propaganda take the place of real scientific discourse. Far too often, elected officials and candidates seem incapable of looking past these clichés, catch phrases, and emotional appeals.
It can be no accident that the Aztecs http://amerikabulteni.com/2014/09/27/dunya-5ten-buyuk-mudur/ viagra shop usa called them ‘Ahuacuatl’ or ‘testicle tree’. ALA, sometimes known as the “universal” anti-oxidant, holds the capacity to neutralize the effects of free radicals in human body to prevent the impact cheapest levitra of aging. buy generic levitra This variation depends on several factors. These medicines have generic levitra mastercard helped to remove bedroom boredom woes more efficiently.
Our elected officials—and the voters—must put country before party or race.  Far too often, inadequate candidates win elections based on their party or ethnic identification, not their abilities.  This is particularly true in areas where one party dominates substantially.  Far too often, candidates lacking the intelligence, character, or ability to adequately fulfill the duties of their office win campaigns simply because they belong to the party or race in the majority in a particular area.

America’s basic governing document—the Constitution— must be given the respect and authority it previously had.  Serious attempts to abridge or ignore key provisions, especially the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, as well as the separation of powers have taken center stage over the past several years.  That’s a dangerous precedent, threatening the very foundation of the nation.

It is time it was remembered that sovereignty rests with the American people, not the government, and especially not the bureaucracy. There has been a rapid increase in power provided to agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and The Federal Election Commission. There have also been attempts to increase the power of others such as the Federal Communications Commission. These moves are antithetical to the principals America was founded on. They are unlawful and should be rapidly reversed.

Washington’s dramatic increase in power, based largely upon deficit spending, has not produced increased prosperity, safety, or freedom. Dealing with that reality should be a bipartisan effort.