Hillary Clinton is Jacob Zuma Twice Over

With this strange period in which political dysfunction cannot get any bizarre or hail maryish on the last play of the game with three seconds left type of ish, I have decide to entertain myself thinking about other things that happen to cross my mind when I tune out.  One is what I will address now, how Hillary Clinton reminds me of Jacob Zuma but only two times as worse. Hillary Clinton and Jacob Zuma are the epitome of establishment politics and poster children of what to expect when one uses the system to enrich themselves above and beyond unscrupulous reproach and corruption.

It is easy when you speak of Jacob Zuma, the current President of South Africa to see the level of alleged corruption he is involved. Unlike Hillary he either doesn’t care if he is seen as being corrupt, or just sees his job as an avenue for personal profit and such is expected. This is the problem, having lived in South Africa, I know that this is politics as usual. But Zuma had a different orientation into formal governmental politics that just disallowed me to see him, once obtaining office, to be as corrupt as other African politicians after independence.

Zuma was one of the first ANC leaders to return to South Africa to begin the process of negotiations after the ban on the ANC in February 1990. Eventually he would become Deputy President of the ANC, a position which he would be removed from by then ANC President Thabo Mbek in 2005 – due to allegations of corruption and fraud related to a 1999 $5-billion weapons acquisition deal that he profited from economically. Through all of this, Zuma still managed to become the ANC candidate for President in 2009 and was sworn in as President of South Africa that same year and re-elected again in 2014. Being from the ANC, the party of liberty and freedom it just surprised me that he was able to Phi Beta Kappa his corruption skills so quickly. 

But Zuma has nothing on Hillary R. Clinton, the present democratic nominee for the U.S. Presidency. HRC has been preparing for this since her Goldwater girl Nixon days. Yes, ever since she was a young lawyer working on the Watergate investigation until her Benghazi testimony, plane to see she has dreamed of this right here – being President of the U.S.  Indeed interesting because while with Nixon, she was accused of being unethical during the House Judiciary impeachment inquiry into Watergate – something about lying and hiding some documents.

Likewise multiple investigations made into South Africa's President Jacob Zuma has found evidence of corruption in his administration starting with him. From improper relationships with wealthy businessmen to rape, Zuma’s past decade has seen one racketeering charged followed by another, with Zuma repeatedly denying doing anything wrong or unethical. Even in light of evidence that he approved the use of state companies to make himself wealthy.

Hillary Clinton is the valedictorian of using the state and/or the machinery of the state as a vehicle for self-profiteering. From allegedly stealing antiques from the Whitehouse to Travelgate and the death of Vince Foster, from Norman Hsu to her dealings with the King of Morocco or the Russian Rosatom Uranium mine deal; her path was with the added advantage of being white and middle class whereas Zuma was not. Consequently the range and diversity of scandals and allegations collected by the Clintons led them to view white privilege profiteering based on using the state as normal behavior.

And the private server bit – saying you intended to set up the server but you didn’t intend to use the server for official state department business. This is harder to understand that her saying she didn’t make loot from the Clinton foundation, or that she didn’t integrate foundation business with state dept business. Hillary has a few bodies too, but I would not put it past Zuma to have some as well. Even still, Hillary has him beat, and just wait to see her expand that lead if she becomes president.

Read More

Yes, Our Generals Have Been Reduced to Rubbish

Rubble is a noun that describes waste or debris from the demolition of buildings in the form of stone, brick, and/or concrete. After saying U.S. “generals under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have not been successful,” and that under their leadership “generals have beenreduced to rubble, reduced to a point where it is embarrassing for our country” during a media extravaganza produced by NBC, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has been deluged with criticism for his assertions.  Unfortunately criticism aside, there is both truth and merit to his statements whether the word used was rubble or rubbish.

By definition rubbish is something very bad, worthless or useless, it means that something has lost its utility (the state of being useful, profitable, or beneficial). If one looks at how the military leadership has been rendered impotent (utterly unable to do something for lacking in power and strength) he is correct. Since Obama began his term in 2009, with respect to the U.S. military and armed forces, one thing has been clear – he has removed more of the top military leadership brass than any president in modern times.  Let us just look at his record to start with. Since taking office, high ranking military officers have been removed from their positions at a rate that has never been seen before by a U.S. President.  In fact it is somewhat reminiscent of what we have just observed Erdogan do in Turkey.  One report notes that President Obama has removed or purged the military of at least 197 top admirals and generals in his first five years.

Obama fired Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to “assist and provide intelligence for” military forces ordered into action by Gen. Carter Ham. By the way, Gen. Ham. was also relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.

Then there is the strange issue of President Obama’s approach to defeating the Islamic State. It is well documented that President Obama typically silences any general that advises the use of US groundtroops in Iraq.  The Whitehouse has done this publically and behind closed doors. His consistent mantra, regardless of the advice of those with military and combat experience is that the US will not fight another ground war in Iraq nor will he put US boots on the ground.

This albeit US commanders inform him that it is improbably that the United States military will ever be able to defeat ISIS via air power alone. Gen. Lloyd Austin was the top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and Gen. MartinDempsey was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2011 to 2015 both advised President Obama that ground troops would be required t defeat ISIS. Yet still, any advice offered that didn’t match Obama’s political aims (not military aims) were rejected, in particular the use of ground troops. Instead, President Obama unilaterally decided that he knew better and would only send an additional 475 U.S. troops to assist Iraqi and Kurdish forces.  Even General Austin’s predecessor, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, said Obama’s decision not to send ground troops basically makes the mission to defeat ISIS improbable.

It is true Obama had to reduce the number of troops on the ground in Iraq, but namely because he failed to even try to argue against the levels outlined in the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. At the time there were around 45,000 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq and generals on the ground had requested a reduced number but did not foresee the military's troop-level going below 10,000. But such a number was too high for the Obama administration which preferred a number closer to 3,000, which meant that this was never a combat mission but rather served a training only commitment.

The same can be said for the mission in Afghanistan as well. It is well know that the Afghan military do not have the necessary combat troop levels and power to protect every part of the country let alone to be in the position to effectively counter the Taliban. Gen. Martin Dempsey replacement, Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated that he didn’t agree with Obama’s decision to pull all troops out by the end of 2016.  His purview was that such a troop reduction seems to place policy over military implications.

This has been noted by several military experts. Retired Army Gen. John Keane, who devised the 2007 Iraq troop surge and has advised Afghan commanders in the past question Obama’s approach to Afghanistan as well as Army Gen. John Campbell, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, among others.

Keane pointed outthat Gen. Campbell wanted to retain the current force of 9,800, but Mr. Obama “cut that in half,” adding that President Obama frequently “does not listen to his combat field general,” and on six occasions ignored “field commander recommendation on force levels for troops in combat.” And like ISIS, the Taliban is becoming more brazen and powerful while claiming more area without any real push back from the Afghan security forces or police.

In addition, Obama’s plan will have to depend on an unlikely assumption: that the formation of an inclusive Iraqi government under Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi can manifest.  This is the only way President Obama will have a 1 percent chance of defeating the Islamic State without U.S. troops being on the ground.  In addition, this means that Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi will have to make significant inroads into healing sectarian wounds that were engendered by Nouri al-Maliki. But bringing the new Shia-led government to a Kumbaya moment with Iraq’s Sunni minority may proffer to be a lot more difficult and could result in Sunni tribesmen moving towards ISIS instead of away from them. This approach is not only mousy and incoherent; it also involves serious risk (mainly having to depend on an incompetent and dysfunctional Iraqi military).

So Donald Trump may be more accurate than some may desire. When the President fires, without hesitation, top Brass the likes of the aforementioned, and never even considers firing or disciplining appointed member of his staff when they break the law, there has to be some additional motive and or reasoning behind such. Obama. The question is why deliberately reduce or military leadership to rubbish? 

Read More