Welcome to the fight, Turkey … finally!

We hear the term “game changer” from time to time.

It refer to events that might be decisive in determining the result of, say, a struggle.

I heard the term today in a National Public Radio interview about Turkey’s decision to (a) allow U.S. aircraft to fly into Syria and Iraq from Turkish air bases and (b) actually strike the Islamic State forces with its own combat aircraft.

Welcome to the fight, Turkey.

The Turks could become the most important ally the United States in this fight against the Islamic State.

It belongs to NATO. It is a military powerhouse with a sophisticated air and ground military force.

And as of a few days ago, it now has suffered grievously at the hands of ISIL forces. A suicide bomber detonated an explosive in a Turkish portion of Kurdistan, killing more than 30 victims. The Turks, therefore, now have skin in this game.

Turkey had been a reluctant ally up to this point, denying U.S. requests to use its bases to launch attacks against ISIL installations in nearby Syria and Iraq. The Turks’ agreeing to allow access to these bases gives our air power a distinct new advantage as it continues its bombing barrage against ISIL.

What’s more, the Turks have engaged ISIL themselves, sending jets on bombing sorties against ISIL strongholds.

OK, does this mean the end of ISIL is in sight, that the fight is nearly over?

No. It does mean, however, that we now have an important ally on our side willing — for the first time — to engage the enemy face to face.

Welcome aboard, Turkey. Let’s hope this development, indeed, is a game changer.

‘Don’t vote for me if you’re worn out by war’

Wow!

Lindsey Graham today offered the most compelling campaign argument against his own candidacy I’ve ever heard.

The South Carolina Republican, who’s running for his party’s 2016 presidential nomination, said it flat out. “Don’t vote for me if you’re worn out by war.”

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/244022-graham-dont-vote-for-me-if-youre-anti-war

Well, senator, no worries there.

What he told “Morning Joe” on MSNBC is that he’s going to be the “war candidate.” He plans, if elected to the presidency, to send more troops into Iraq; he also plans to send troops into Syria; he plans to enlist Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and whichever other regional ally will join, to help American troops defeat the Islamic State and then keep the peace.

Oh, how long will they be there? “A long time,” he said.

There’s no exit strategy. No timetable. No end to the bloodshed.

Get ready for battle, he warned.

Oh, if you’re tired of fighting a war, don’t vote for me, he said.

No-o-o-o-o problem. You’ve got a deal, Sen. Graham.

 

An ‘apology’ for spewing hate?

A Pennsylvania newspaper says it’s “sorry” for allowing a reader to call for President Obama’s execution.

The outraged reader took his anger to an extraordinarily hateful extreme, and the newspaper — the Sunbury (Pa.) Daily Item — in effect sanctioned the reader’s anger by publishing it on its opinion page.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/newspaper-apologizes-letter-obama-execution-118370.html?hp=l2_4

Yes, the paper apologized later after received a storm of outrage from readers.

However, it’s instructive to note the anger that boils in the hearts of some Americans over the actions of the current president of the United States.

The letter, written by W. Richard Stover of Lewisburg, Pa., blames the president for failing to defeat the Islamic State and said that in the wake of the capture by ISIL of Ramadi, it was time for “regime change” in this country. Stover’s message of hate said the only way to do was to execute the head of government by “guillotine.”

Is this what we’re coming to in some corners of the country?

The Daily Item’s apology included this statement: “The procedure at The Daily Item is for the person editing letters to review the content for offensive language and ad hominem attacks. Publication is, however, a signal that the opinion is not one we would readily suppress, which can accurately be interpreted as an endorsement of acceptability — much to our chagrin in this instance.”

Chagrin?

Shame is more like it.

 

ISIS leader killed, wife taken captive … what now?

U.S. Army Special Forces did their job with lethal precision overnight, killing an Islamic State leader and taking his wife captive in a daring raid in Syria.

But as with seemingly all things in this complicated war against international terror, complications may set in.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-special-forces-kill-isis-commander-and-capture-wife-in-syria-raid/ar-BBjRkz5

The Delta Force raid ordered by President Obama killed Abu Sayyaf, who was supposed to be captured alive. That part of the raid didn’t work out as planned. Too bad for that, but at least another key terror leader is dead. His wife, Umm Sayyaf, was captured and taken to an Iraqi detention center.

This is where it gets a bit complicated. The Iraqis need to be monitored in the way they treat Umm Sayyaf. The Obama administration has notified International Red Cross authorities about her capture and are working to ensure that she’s treated humanely. I’m OK with that.

However, it’s reasonable to presume that Mrs. Sayyaf may be a font of knowledge about the activities of her terrorist husband. Even terrorists, I’m quite sure, engage in a little “pillow talk,” you know? She’ll need to be questioned aggressively by U.S. intelligence officials seeking as much information as possible about the Islamic State’s continuing operations.

No waterboarding, though. All right?

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter issued a statement: “The operation represents another significant blow to ISIS, and it is a reminder that the United States will never waver in denying safe haven to terrorists who threaten our citizens, and those of our friends and allies.”

Another terrorist monster is wiped out. Another one will emerge to take his place.

So, the fight goes on.

Well done, Delta Force.

 

Bush needs refresher on his own blunders

George W. Bush had followed his father’s doctrine upon leaving the presidency in January 2009.

Do not criticize the man in the office now. Be quiet and go about the business of doing other pertinent activities.

Then the 43rd president spoke to a group of Republican donors over the weekend and proceeded to rip into Barack Obama’s handling of crises in the Middle East.

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/27/the_swaggering_idiot_returns_george_w_bush_emerges_from_artistic_exile_to_rehab_his_disastrous_legacy/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

From what is known about President Bush’s remarks — they weren’t recorded visually or audibly — he apparently spoke without a hint of understanding about his own foreign policy blunders in the region and the mess he created and left for his successor.

Iraq? The war he started against Saddam Hussein because he was “certain” that the dictator possessed weapons of mass destruction? The former president made no mention, of course, of the fierce resistance our forces encountered in a country that his defense secretary and vice president said would greet us as “liberators.”

Instead, the ex-president chose to criticize the current president for seeking to negotiate a deal that rids Iran of its capability to develop a nuclear weapon. He talked about the chaos that has developed since the United States went to war against the Islamic State.

Think about this for a moment. The Islamic State has risen in Iraq because it wants to restore a Sunni government that U.S. forces evicted from power. Yes, ISIL is an evil organization, but the ex-president is showing no inclination for taking a shred of responsibility for what has developed because of what this country did on his watch in the White House.

Chaos? President Bush created enough chaos to go around when he launched the Iraq War in March 2003.

I much prefer the George W. Bush who once understood what his father still understands: He’s had his time in the hot seat, which now is occupied by someone who’s doing the best he can to protect the nation all presidents profess to love.

 

Islamic State: Islam’s public enemy No. 1

The Islamic State calls itself a group of Muslims seeking some perverted brand of religious purity.

ISIL instead of the chief enemy of Muslims around the world. Witness the attack on a mosque in Yemen that killed scores of worshipers.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/two-suicide-bombings-target-yemen-mosques-1426850471?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

ISIL has taken “credit” for the bombing. Indeed, as it has waged its bloody campaign across the Middle East, it is important to note that ISIL has targeted Muslims as well as Christians and Jews.

Conservatives in the United States, to be sure, have criticized Muslims for allegedly not rising up against ISIL. Muslims have done exactly that. Indeed, is it any surprise that Jordan and Egypt — nations that had their citizens murdered brutally by ISIL monsters — would be engaging at this very moment in the relentless bombing campaign against Islamic State military targets?

ISIL is a Sunni Muslim sect. Its worst enemies in the world are the Shiites who govern Iraq and Iran; ISIL also has been waging war in Syria against Bashar al-Assad’s forces.

This terrorist organization has done a wondrous job of alienating virtually everyone in the world except those who join the cult.

Attacks on mosques — as well as synagogues and churches — reveal ISIL to be among the world’s most monstrous organizations.

ISIL now ranks as world’s Public Enemy No. 1.

 

Report: ISIL starting to fray

Can it be happening? Could the Islamic State be feeling the pressure of the intense bombing campaign aimed at “degrading and destroying” it?

The Washington Post is reporting signs are beginning to show that ISIL is starting to come apart amid dissension, tension, frayed nerves … hey, perhaps even fear at being killed by U.S. and allied aircraft?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/islamic-state-frays-from-within/ar-AA9xeOK

According to the Post: “Reports of rising tensions between foreign and local fighters, aggressive and increasingly unsuccessful attempts to recruit local citizens for the front lines and a growing incidence of guerrilla attacks against Islamic State targets suggest the militants are struggling to sustain their carefully cultivated image as a fearsome fighting force drawing Muslims together under the umbrella of a utopian Islamic state.”

Well, how about that?

These monstrous goons are showing some signs of cracking.

The Post reports that the findings are “anecdotal,” and might not be totally accurate.

But think about the impact of the relentless attacks from the air on military targets. Does it not have an impact, even on fighters who’ve built up this aura of invincibility? Sure it does.

ISIL might be on the run near Tikrit, Iraq, where Iraqi forces have launched a major offensive against the terrorists in the birthplace of the late Saddam Hussein, the Sunni Muslim who ruled Iraq with maximum brutality until he was ousted, captured, tried, convicted and executed for crimes against humanity.

Yes, the attacks likely are having their desired effect on ISIL. The threat to its existence, though, might be internal, as the Post reports: “The bigger threat to the Islamic State’s capacity to endure, however, may come from within, as its grandiose promises collide with realities on the ground, said Lina Khatib, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.

“’The key challenge facing ISIS right now is more internal than external,’ she said, using another term for the group. ‘We’re seeing basically a failure of the central tenet of ISIS ideology, which is to unify people of different origins under the caliphate. This is not working on the ground. It is making them less effective in governing and less effective in military operations.’”

Keep bombing ’em.

 

Talk about actual troops, not just ‘boots’

Critics of President Obama have taken to challenging his use of language, such as his declining to use the term “Islamic terrorist” to refer to the enemy with whom we are at war.

Allow me to turn that semantic debate on its head. Why don’t the media, politicians and peanut-gallery observers stop using the term “boots on the ground” to describe what they really desire in prosecuting this war against terrorists.

US boots needed to defeat ISIS, Boehner says

House Speaker John Boehner today used the “boots” terminology to suggest he wants to send young Americans back onto the battlefield in Iraq and to deploy them to Syria.

“Somebody’s boots have to be on the ground,” Boehner said in a live interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “We have some 3,000 boots on the ground today. Let’s not suggest that we don’t.”

The media have fallen into that trap as well, preferring to sanitize what’s really at stake. We aren’t talking about footwear, folks; we’re talking instead about the human feet that will fill it.

It reminds me a bit of how the media — and I’ll include the newspaper where I used to work, the Amarillo Globe-News — use the term “harvest” to describe the killing of wild animal by hunters.

If we’re going to suggest that we send young Americans back into battle, then say it: It is time to redeploy American men and women, return them to the fight, put these young Americans in harm’s way.

Boots on the ground? Give me a break.

 

Say goodnight, Brian Williams

The Saturday Night Live 40th anniversary special was a hysterical event.

Seeing some of the former cast members, including those from the initial 1975 lineup, filled the evening with nostalgia and lots of laughs.

Including a few giggles at the expense of one Brian Williams, the suspended NBC News anchor.

I came away from the Williams jokes believing more strongly than ever that the anchor’s career is finished. Done. Kaput.

A wise person once said — or perhaps I dreamt it — that when you become the butt of prime-time or late-night jokes, than your career as you’ve known it is toast.

Williams’ career took a serious hit already with revelations that he fabricated a story about being shot down by rocket fire in Iraq in 2003. He said he “misremembered” the event. Whatever. Other reports came forward quickly thereafter: his coverage of Katrina; his reporting about being shot at in the sky over Israel.

NBC sent him packing for six months without pay. The network has launched an investigation into Williams’ fabrications, embellishments, other “misrememberances.”

The SNL special last night, though, sealed it for me. Williams is finished. When the audience laughs at jokes from Jerry Seinfeld and Jim Carrey about the formerly trusted news anchor, well, it’s time — as they say in the business — to “pursue other interests.”

 

Take care in defining ‘combat veteran’

It didn’t take Joni Ernst long to make a name for herself in the U.S. Senate.

The Iowa Republican is now defending her military record in which she defines herself as a “combat veteran.”

I would caution her to speak very carefully when using such terminology.

At issue is her service in an Iowa National Guard transportation company in Iraq and Kuwait in 2003 and 2004. She calls herself a “combat veteran” even though she didn’t face enemy fire during her deployment in the Middle East.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/joni-ernst-says-she-earned-the-right-to-call-herself-a-combat-veteran-despite-never-seeing-combat/

Sen. Ernst defends her record, saying that because she drew hazardous duty pay while deployed, she has earned the right to call herself a combat vet.

“I am very proud of my service and by law I am defined as a combat veteran,” Ernst said. “I have never once claimed that I have a Combat Action Badge. I have never claimed that I have a Purple Heart. What I have claimed is that I have served in a combat zone.”

Technically, she is correct. But it is a technicality that can be misconstrued. She needs to be careful how she uses such language in the future.

I understand where she’s coming from. I, too, served in a war zone for a time. The Vietnam War was raging when I arrived in-country in the spring of 1969. I received hazardous duty pay while serving as a U.S. Army aircraft mechanic and later as a flight operations specialist at the I Corps Tactical Operations Center in Da Nang.

Do I refer to myself as a “combat veteran”? No. I didn’t see direct combat — except for having to run for cover while the Viet Cong lobbed mortars into our position on occasion.

Sen. Ernst is rightfully proud of her service in Iraq and Kuwait, as I am of my service many years ago during another armed conflict.

But be careful, senator, when using terms such as “combat vet,” especially around those who’ve actually seen the real thing.