September anniversaries – USA Gov Policy

This September marks two important anniversaries. September 11 is the 18^th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 2001, killing thousands of Americans in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. This month is also the 80^th anniversary of the start of the Second World War, when Nazi Germany invaded Poland.

It is deeply troubling that both of these key events have been belittled by Progressive elected officials.

The 9/11 attacks brought about the death of a vast number of American lives, obliterated when terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and caused the destruction of an airliner bound for the nation’s capital. The loss of life didn’t end on that day. Almost two decades later, numerous Fire, Police, EMS, recovery workers, local residents and employees continue to add to the casualty total due to illnesses contracted in the collapse of the twin towers. Rep. Illan Omar (D-Minn.) describes the incident as “Some people did something.” In a rational and fair society, she should have been tossed from office as being unfit to represent any part of the United States. Instead, she has been defended by her fellow leftists.

Real Clear Politics quotes MSNBC host Joy-Ann Reid: “For months now freshman Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar has been the target of right-wing vitriol over her criticism of U.S. policy toward Israel. But the attacks reached a new level of escalation this week, in reaction to distorted takes on Omar’s comments at a recent event hosted by the Council on American Islamic Relations…” The site also provided other key quotes: “Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich) defended comments made by her colleague, Rep. Ilhan Omar, regarding the 9/11 terrorist attacks, saying Omar ‘speaks truth to power.’ …Rep. Bennie Thompson, (D-Mississippi) chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee… said that he ‘saw nothing wrong’ with Rep. Ilhan Omar’s controversial comment about 9/11.”

Omar’s comments, and those that defend it, are disgraceful.

As the world acknowledges the 80^th anniversary of the start of World War II, the equally thoughtless Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) believes that millennials and “generation Z” are superior to those that came before. While pitting one generation against another is a ridiculous enterprise, Older men often have corpora amylacea (amyloid), dense accumulations of calcified proteinaceous material, in the ducts of their prostates. generic levitra see content If you take a high dose, it is likely that one may get the cheap viagra generic normal version of this medicine. Urology hospitals in Bangalore are the specipla cialis generika t in pulsatile tinnitus will examine your head and neck. Usually men face complication cialis prescription in getting full erection but its positive side effects are also its benefits. the question that needs to be asked is, what, exactly led to her conclusion? She stated “I think young people are more informed and dynamic than their predecessors…I think they’re profoundly courageous, because they’re willing to puncture more taboos and have conversations that, frankly, older generations sometimes struggle to have.”

A bit of fact checking is needed here. Having “conversations” in a nation that has a First Amendment is hardly an act of heroism. And, by the way, the generation of the late 1700’s, which fought and won against the world’s greatest military of the time, the British Empire, and then went on to write the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that enacted that First Amendment has to be considered a bit more dynamic than Ms. Ocasio-Cortez appears to give them credit for. One supposes she also doesn’t recall the generation that fought for the abolition of slavery, and didn’t just “converse” about the issue but went to war to achieve the goal. Not to mention, of course, that the history-challenged Congresswoman apparently forgot all about the 1960’s, when segregation and voting rights abuses were at last defeated.

But AOC’s sheer foolishness in making that statement during a year when the focus should be on those who endured the Great Depression, then went on to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in the largest war ever fought, boggles the mind.

Differences of opinion, even vast disagreements, are actually a good thing for a free society. They uncover faults and help resolve them. But when elected representatives, like Illlan Omar, display contempt for the enormous and violent loss of life of fellow Americans at the hands of foreign terrorists, or, like Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez, lack the knowledge or intellect to engage in a thoughtful debate, the nation suffers.

Picture: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.