LINDSEY GRAHAM--The "Duke" of Dysfunctional Congress--=-DEMANDS IRAQ-AFGHAN WITHDRAWAL HEARING

ATTN CD@TACNET   VIA JC@AMBUSH//PATROL    SUBJ   FAILED STATE


SWIVELHEAD SENATOR TO BLAME FOR FAILED CONGRESSIONAL SESSION

 (The Scullery)--- Senator Graham (R-SC) has called for immediate hearings regarding CINC sudden call to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, decisions hailed by allies and enemies alike. Turkey will have a free throw to toss the Kurds out, Russia thinks it's getting an automatic first down and ISIS and the Taliban are dancing together in the streets of Baghdad and Kabul. But wait, there's more--

Senator Graham calls for hearings on troops in Syria, Afghanistan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican Senator Lindsey Graham on Friday called for immediate U.S. Senate hearings on President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw all American troops from Syria, which prompted the resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters he wanted to hear directly from Mattis at any hearing.

     It wasn't too long ago, before Obama bailed out of Iraq bringing on the "surge" mentality in Congress pressed by Graham and that war hero Arizona Hanoi Hilton survivor, the South Carolina senator had doubts about the role of America in Iraq, expressed at a hearing featuring General David Petraeus as the star witness, reporting in the Sioux City Journal by David Broder,

Graham's question to Ambassador Ryan Crocker "What's the difference between a dysfunctional government and a failed state?" The Senator ought to know the answer to that today amid a government shutdown. How does he expect to have a hearing with the government at impasse over border wall funding, much less call the Secretary of Defense, who handed in his resignation over protest over the withdrawal orders, into a hearing.    Again, the Senator from South Carolina exhibits his ability to stand for and against everything at the same time. Senator Graham urged the president to veto the short term stopgap that would have allowed the government to continue to operate:

Sen. Lindsey Graham Encourages Trump To Veto Short-Term Funding Bill

Amber Athey | Media and Breaking News Editor Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is encouraging President Donald Trump not to sign a short-term government funding bill unless it includes funding for the border wall.

Supporting Documents
Graham call for hearings, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-graham/senator-graham-calls-for-hearings-on-troops-in-syria-afghanistan-idUSKCN1OK22L
"Reality based Iraq Policy", David Broder, Sioux City Journal, 16 Sept 2007, Page A9
Short term veto, https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/20/lindsey-graham-trump-veto-funding-bill-border-wall/

FWD ASAP MERTZ, GI DETAIL, 28TH RLT, CAMP SAN MATEO--

HEADHUNTING FOR #SECDEF--- Pentagon Candidate Diversity---E STANTON & THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR

ATTN CD@TACNET VIA JC@COC/PATROL SUBJ THE 13TH BUNKER

     (Scullery, Grease Trap Ops)--Again, as in the previous post, consideration for the new candidate may well hinge on ability to adjust to a number of unexpected crises. In the case of HL Stimson, during the FDR war years, the Secretary of War had to make a decision on internment of Japanese American citizens, due to the fact that their loyalty might well have been "impossible" to determine. Removal from the West Coast Exclusion Zone, though unpopular as it was even for the officials involved, became a political and security reality that Americans have come to accept, with regret. Yet another example when considering the right candidate for the job, as in the previous consideration, is the necessity of a military background. That may be the last important qualification on the resume, and if anything, as was just the case for Marine General Mattis, a drawback, the general weighed down by all his medals.
   

     During the American Civil War, President Lincoln retained Edwin Stanton, by no means a military man and at the time, a Washington insider, a lawyer, as Secretary of War. Naturally a military outsider, Stanton would receive criticism from the field commanders for managing, and micromanaging, the Union war effort, but the outcome speaks for itself when General Lee of the Army of Virginia handed his sword to general Grant at Appomattox in April, 1865. Again, as in the previous post referring to Secretary Stimson, Stanton had extra duty, this time in the case of postwar Reconstruction. That required occupation of the states that had seceded from the Union and would create further friction from Southerners already suffering a humiliating defeat and forced to accept the new amendment signed by President Lincoln, the 13th, requiring emancipation of the slaves. As is universally known, Lincoln was assassinated and VP Johnson became president during this critical period of readjustment for all Americans; North, South, East and West.  Eventually, the Secretary of War fell into disfavor from the new president and following an unsuccessful impeachment attempt, Johnson remained in power. Stanton was forced to resign.
     However, we are again reminded that the duty of the Secretary of Defense falls beyond the category of just sending troops into harm's way to assure the outcome of a political agenda. We must consider whatever else lay on the horizon that a man of military career background may not have the qualifications to meet the task. In the past few presidencies, the Secretary of Defense office has had a revolving door installed due to the constant changing of the guard at the top in the Pentagon.

REF TO MERTZ, POT SHACK, 13TH BUNKER DETAIL & AL...

Supporting Documents:
Stanton photograph, and capsule,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Stanton
Lee surrender, https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/appomattox-court-house
   

PENTAGON--The Search for SecDef---PROFILING THE CANDIDATE

ATTN CD TACNET VIA JC PATROL SUBJ  ELIGIBILITY

(The Scullery)--Currently, there is a job opening at the Pentagon, at the top. In view of recent developments, it may well be necessary to review what happened.
     Concurrently, President Trump announced complete withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, claiming the war against the terrorist organization ISIS had been won. Although evid3ence may exist to the contrary, nonetheless, the order by the CINC to bring our boys home was given. About the same time, the current Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, a Marine Corps General, proffered his resignation, effective ion the new year. In addition, days later, CINC then announced a radical troop reduction in Afghanistan, which also met with harsh criticism, from allies, TV talk show pundits and Twitter trollers alike; (all of whom have about the same influence on the decision.) Aside from the news impact of the above, it contributes little to the choice of a new candidate, who will have to be confirmed by Congress. Considering the government is in impasse mode, it does provide time for a meaningful assessment of the search for a new Pentagon honcho.
     Naturally, the tendency to select someone with military experience seems the primary choice, but that may not serve a practical purpose considering new roles the military plays on the modern front, both domestic and international. We have seen the deployment recently of US regular Army and Marine forces deployed to the southern border of the United States in Operation Faithful Patriot, in direct response to several immigrant caravans moving north from Central America, with the intention of entering America, either by legal means, asylum or just plain border hopping. It brings on a new era in military policy even though it was used during the Obama administration, setting a recent precedent. It simply means the new candidate will need an understanding not just of direct military matters, but one concerning immigration policy and whatever else the President might seem fit for the honcho to do with the troops. The choice for a regular military officer, then, may not be the best and a civilian may be preferred for the assignment. General Mattis, although a fine example of a field commander, may have been weighed down by all his medals when it came to following civilian orders in relation to remature troop withdrawals and border control.

     Historically, there have been civilians tasked to the Pentagon chief assignment, but a good example of having a dual role to play may well be Henry L Stimson, Secretary of War for many presidents, including FDR during World War Two. What separates Stimson from the others, even though he was an artillery officer in combat, is that he had to make a decision and enforce it on the West Coast Exclusion Zone for Japanese Americans in World War Two. It led to the infamous internment camps where the Japanese citizens of the United States were confined as, in their mindset of the day, it was "impossible" to determine their allegiance, with widespread fear of sabotage as the motive.

     Thus, before selecting candidates, consider the background the individual has in dealing with peripheral situations that may arise, such as the one Secretary faced with Japanese internment camps that became a downside of the war effort, with an afterlife that is still discussed in Core Humanities classes on university agendas even today.

     SUMMARY: The candidate need not have a military background. The candidate needs to have a thorough understanding of the role of the job that might require additional assignments such as immigration mitigation. The candidate needs to have flexibility when it comes to spot decisions by the CINC for troop removal and deployment. The candidate may have to be resilient to criticism from career military field grade officers and admirals.


Supporting Documents:
HL Stimson & internment camp photos from Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_L._Stimson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans


REF TO MERTZ, PVT, GI CAN DETAIL, POT SHACK ..28TH RLT, CAMP SAN MATEO--

CH203.1002--Final Exam Review: Noteworthy Entries & Definitions--UNR FALL 2018

CH203.1002  (Core Humanities)
Dr S Pasqualina
Univ Nevada, Reno  Fall 18
James L’Angelle

EXAM OVERVIEW:
Define “American Exceptionalism”
     Although it might be convenient to use existing primary sources for a direct reply, it would obfuscate the reality of the term as translated into its newest form, “Make America Great Again.”  With the skill of any experienced demagogue, the phrase has been twisted as it has been in US history to place citizens of America above the rest of the world through the usual abstract qualities of moral convictions and being unique and universal. Note for instance the rally to the cause when the South seceded from the Union in 1861 and patriotic fervor swept the North like a tsunami. Lincoln called for 75,000 troops, the newspapers convinced the public war, if any, would be over in 3 months, and those who did not display a flag on their property were subject to harassment, humiliation and arrest.
     Following the battle of Manassas-Bull Run, the bluebellies were in full retreat and if it hadn’t been for the overconfidence of the South, the capital might have fallen into the hands of the Confederate army. If the American way had been so unique as proclaimed from Winthrop to Reagan, from Obama with his Affordable Care Act to Trump with his incessant grumbling over the border wall, Europe would have immediately rallied to the side of the North. As it was, it remained neutral and the Civil War became one of the most bitterly contested conflicts in the nation’s history.  Some of the “unique” and “universal” scars from it proved to be Jim Crow and the afterlife of slavery.

Define "Jim Crow"

     Post-reconstruction was the rise of animosity in the South between the races, or at least many of the Northerners were led to believe it. There was a great deal of talk about the “afterlife” of slavery but little about the afterlife of abolition. In Louisiana, for instance, Homer Plessy, a Negro,  in the late 1890’s bought a ticket and sat in a whites only intrastate railroad car where he was promptly arrested. It was setup to test segregation. The result was a test of the 14th amendment and the Supreme Court in 1896 handed down a “separate but equal” ruling that set the stage for justification of Jim Crow and segregation. It is curious that “separate and equal” is a phrase found in the opening sentences of the Declaration of Independence. The Separate Car Law was the result of the ruling but in New Orleans, for that matter, blacks were only allowed to ride in “Star cars” so it wasn’t anything new.

The 14th Amendment:
     “Abridge the privileges of citizens..” and “equal protection of the laws.” Clearly the amendment can be read in several ways. It was the privilege of whites in Louisiana to have their own railroad cars and blacks riding in those cars abridged that freedom. The blacks would be given equal protection by having cars on the railroad of equal quality as the whites. This brings up the lead-in exam question prompt:

Our course has been focused on the principles and practices  of “freedom” in US history, literature, and culture. What makes this term worthy of study is that it is so frequently invoked by politicians and talking heads, yet it remains so abstract; it is difficult, maybe impossible, to define this abstract term without fixing it to concrete examples. (1) Compare and contrast how 3 of our course readings define “freedom.” (2) According to you, which of these three definitions is the most convincing? Why?

There is nothing abstract about freedom as defined by the 14th amendment.  States cannot make laws that abridge the freedom of its citizens. This can have two meanings. First, it might mean that, as with the separate railroads for whites and blacks, the state cannot force the railroad to make whites and blacks sit in the same coach, if the whites don’t want it. The state has infringed on their freedom. All the state can do is assure that the railroad offers both whites and blacks the same quality of coach in which to ride, the “separate but equal” ruling. The amendment was subverted to force (a ruling on) segregation by the Homer Plessy setup and it backfired, causing the Separate Cars Law to be enacted in many states, used as an example of the so-called oppressive Jim Crow laws. Second, it simply means the blacks were to be afforded the same freedom as everybody else, as the whites, chinese and hispanics.
     Using course readings to describe freedom is inadequate as it will be jaded within the context of the reading biased by a myopic vision from the author depending on race, political position and morality.

Supporting Documents:
1.)The Lost Cause, Edward E Pollard, JF Trow & Co., 1866
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=cPN5DyXBjRcC&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA172
2.) Obama and America’s Place in the World, Visalia Times-Delta, 24 Dec 2010, Page 11
3.) The 14th Amendment, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
4.) Plessy v Ferguson, https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/plessy-v-ferguson