Author: James Pasley

How Did Christmas Come to Be Celebrated on December 25?

While Christmas is a centuries old tradition, it was never an official American national holiday until 1870. When Burton Chauncey Cook, House Representative from Illinois, introduced a bill to make Christmas a national holiday which was passed by both the House and Senate in June 1870. President Ulysses S. Grant signed the bill which made Christmas a legal holiday.

• Before the Civil War
  North and South were divided on the issue of Christmas, as well as the issue of slavery. Many of the North saw sin in the celebration of Christmas, to those people Thanksgiving was more appropriate. But in the South, Christmas was an important part of the social season. Not surprisingly, the first three states to make Christmas a legal holiday were in the South: Alabama in 1836, Louisiana and Arkansas in 1838.

For most people, Christmas is all about presents. But how did such a supposedly sacred holiday become a festival of greed?

Not many people know the history behind Christmas gift giving, and it will probably shock you.

This year, Americans will spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $950 billion dollars on Christmas, but most people have no  explanation for why they are buying all of these gifts.

Those that are Christian will tell you that they are doing it to celebrate the birth of Christ, but gift giving on this holiday actually originated long before Christ was born.

Others will tell you that they are just following tradition, but most of them have absolutely no idea where the tradition of Christmas gift giving originally came from.

The truth is that most people simply don’t care about the history. They are just excited about all of the stuff that they are going to get on December 25th.

But you all know me. I just can’t pass up the chance to talk history. So here we go.

In early America, there was no Christmas gift giving. In fact, the Puritans disapproved of celebrating the holiday, and in some areas the celebration of Christmas was actually banned by law.

On May 11, 1659, the Massachusetts Bay Colony legislature even went so far as to officially ban Christmas and gave anyone found celebrating it a fine of five shillings.

The legislature stated the ban was needed “For preventing disorders arising in several places within this jurisdiction, by reason of some still observing such festivalls as were superstitiously kept in other countrys, to the great dishonnor of God & offence of others. It is therefore ordered … that whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing of labour, feasting, or any other way, upon any such account as aforesaid, every such person so offending shall pay for every such offence five shillings, as a fine to the county.”

The ban remained in place for 22 years until it was repealed in 1681 after a new surge of European immigrants brought a demand for the holiday.

However, opposition to the holiday lingered well into the 19th century, when many New England children were required to attend school on Christmas Day.

But weren’t the Puritans Christians?

Didn’t they want to honor the birth of Jesus?

Of course, they were Christians. They took their faith incredibly seriously. But they also knew their history a lot better than we do.

Most Christians do not realize this, but Christians did not celebrate anything in late December for the first 300 years after the time of Christ.

The only people that celebrated anything at that time were the pagans.

Some of you may be aware of the great Roman celebration known as Saturnalia.

But most people don’t know that our tradition of gift giving can be traced back to that holiday.

Saturnalia was an ancient Roman festival in honor of the God Saturn, held on the 17th of December and later expanded with festivities through to the 23rd of December.

The holiday was celebrated with a sacrifice at the Temple of Saturn, in the Roman Forum, and a public banquet, followed by private gift-giving, continual partying, and a carnival atmosphere that overturned Roman social norms: gambling was permitted, and masters provided table service for their slaves.

Eventually, the Romans began holding a festival at the end of Saturnalia on December 25th called Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, which means “the birthday of the unconquered sun”. 

Throughout the empire, the “rebirth of the sun” was celebrated. The winter solstice was past and now the days were starting to get longer again.  It was therefore a logical time to honor “the rebirth of the sun god”.

When the Roman Empire legalized Christianity in the early 4th century, the Roman government began to put a lot of pressure on church leaders to fit it into the broader society.

So eventually the birthday of the Son of God was moved to the time when the rest of society was celebrating “the rebirth of the sun god”. 

December 25th was first celebrated as the birthday of Jesus in about 336 AD, and in the year 350 AD Pope Julius I officially decreed that Christians would celebrate that day from then on.

Of course, Jesus was not actually born in late December.  The evidence that we have indicates that he was most probably born in the fall.

The only reason people celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25th today is because the Catholics of the 4th century wanted to appease the pagan Roman government and the pagan culture at large.

In the Middle Ages Christmas was a two week period of celebration from Christmas Eve to the twelfth night of January 6th, hence the Twelve Days of Christmas Carol written in 1780. 

In the Middle Ages the twelve days was a time of feasting, parties, and of course the giving and receiving of seasonal gifts. 

The Christmas gifts would include generous lords giving items such as clothing and firewood to their serfs.

The origin of the English word ‘Christmas’ is from the Old English middle age ‘Cristes Maesse’ which literally means ‘Mass of Christ’. 

Over time, the practice of gift giving during late December faded, and by the early 19th century the big tradition was actually to open presents on New Year’s Day.

But then merchants saw an opportunity. According to historians, advertisements for “Christmas presents” began appearing in newspapers in the United States in the 1820s.

During the mid-1800s, entrepreneurs seized the opportunity to sell holiday trinkets and gifts in the streets, from carts and stalls.

Children, in particular, liked this way of celebrating Christmas. It was around 1840 that children began to hang their stockings by the fireplace, according to the Connecticut Historical Society.

New York’s population grew nearly tenfold between 1800 and 1850, and during that time elites became increasingly frightened of traditional December rituals of “social inversion,” in which poorer people could demand food and drink from the wealthy and celebrate in the streets, abandoning established social constraints much like on Halloween night or New Year’s Eve.

These rituals, which occurred any time between St. Nicholas Day (a Catholic feast day observed in Europe on December 6th) and New Year’s Day, had for centuries been a means of relieving European discontent during the traditional downtime of the agricultural cycle.

In a newly congested urban environment, though, aristocrats worried that such celebrations might become vehicles for protest when employers refused to give workers time off during the holidays or when a long winter of unemployment loomed for seasonal laborers.

In response to these concerns, a group of wealthy men who called themselves the Knickerbockers invented a new series of traditions for this time of year that gradually moved Christmas celebrations out of the city’s streets and into its homes.

They presented these traditions as a reinvigoration of Dutch customs practiced in New Amsterdam and New York during the colonial period.

Using two story collections written by Washington Irving, their most well-known member, these New Yorkers experimented with domestic festivities on St. Nicholas Day and New Year’s Day until another member of the group, Clement Clark Moore, established the tradition of celebrating on Christmas with his enormously popular poem “A Visit from St. Nicholas” (better known as “The Night Before Christmas”) in 1822.

The St. Nicholas that Moore presented in his famous poem was like the other traditions the Knickerbockers borrowed and transformed.

His delivery of presents to children gave department stores a helping hand in selling toys, and by 1888, children were invited to meet a real live Santa at these stores.

By the early 1900s, newspapers even carried Page 1 stories about how Santa in his sleigh, filled with gifts, was on the way to reward those well- behaved children.

Around this same time, Charles Dickens‘,  “A Christmas Carol”, became a hit as it spread throughout the nation in 1867-68.

Being cheap and stingy at Christmas time would convey that you were too much like that money- grubbing Ebenezer Scrooge.

So, Santa, family rituals, and the desire to be generous have helped make this the most giving time of the year. The average consumer is expected to give 24 presents and spend about $900, according to the National Retail Federation’s survey.

However, for all the efforts of businessmen in the 1800’s to exploit the season, Americans persistently attempted to separate the influence of commerce from the gifts they gave.

What emerged was a kind of dialogue between consumers and merchants.

Americans started wrapping the gifts they gave. The custom had once been merely to give a gift uncovered, but a present hidden in paper heightened the effect of the gesture, making the act of giving a moment of revelation.

Wrapping also helped designate an item as a gift. Large stores began to wrap gifts purchased from their stock in distinctive, colored papers, with tinsel cords and bright ribbons, as part of their delivery services.

Over time, Christmas gifts came to be associated with a mythical gift giver in cultures all over the globe.

Of course, in the United States this gift giver is known as “Santa Claus”.

So, what about this whole Black Friday mess?

Historians believe the name started in Philadelphia in the mid-1960s. Bus drivers and police used “Black Friday” to describe the heavy traffic that would clog city streets the day after Thanksgiving as shoppers headed to the stores.

Businesses, however, didn’t like the negative tone associated with the Black Friday name. In the early 1980s, a more positive explanation of the name began to circulate.

According to this alternative explanation, Black Friday is the day when retailers finally begin to turn a profit for the year. In accounting terms, operating at a loss (losing money) is called being “in the red” because accountants traditionally used red ink to show negative amounts (losses).

Positive amounts (profits) were usually shown in black ink. Thus, being “in the black” is a good thing because it means stores are operating at a profit (making money).

Well, even in the first decade of the 20th century, people and organizations began to criticize this new pattern of gift-giving that had emerged in America.

Given the poor quality of the gifts and the considerable time that it took to purchase, wrap and deliver them, no wonder Progressive Era reformers looked for alternative ways to celebrate the holiday that were less burdensome and more gratifying.

That’s right folks, even back then, the liberal progressive movement was there telling us how things should be.

Their movement paved the way for Christmas cards, which became the ideal small gift for acquaintances and business associates.

A survey of the mail system in 1911 reflected the shift, showing that the total number of items posted had increased while their total weight had dropped significantly.

In 1906, the Consumer’s League formed the Shop Early Campaign to discourage last-minute purchasing, a practice that strained everyone in the retail trade.

The league also pressured stores to maintain regular store hours throughout the holiday season so that their employees could fully enjoy the celebration.

They maintained and publicized a list of stores that complied in the hope of encouraging shoppers to choose them over stores that placed more burdens on their employees.

In 1912, Progressives also established the Society for the Prevention of Useless Giving (known as SPUG).

Its goals were to curtail the presentation of gimcracks (showy but shoddily made gifts), and to curb the practice of store clerks giving presents to their supervisors (which they felt were “extorted” rather than heartfelt).

The general success of the Progressives in reforming Christmas, as well as previous efforts to mold the festivities, shows that the celebration can be changed, just like any other cultural phenomenon.

So don’t accept current complaints that Christmas has spun out of control and dictates our holiday behavior, driving us to ever-higher levels of spending. The way we celebrate Christmas, like all holidays, is constantly changing. Merry Christmas!

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/israels-annihilation-of-hamas-is-the-proportionate-response

Hamas murdered more than 700 people and wounded many thousands during its invasion of Israel on Saturday, Oct. 7. The casualty numbers keep rising. Even for a society that has so long suffered terrorist persecution, this attack was extreme and catastrophic.

Most of the world is disgusted by the terrorist atrocities. Video clips reveal that the barbarians who claim to be freedom fighters stripped and abused civilian women, desecrated their bodies, terrorized screaming children, lined up Holocaust survivors, and dragged them off as captives.

The Hamas fighters and their supporters yelped and danced in delight. It was a grotesque and damnable spectacle. The images testify to an enduring truth that the killers are motivated by a desire to subjugate and slaughter Jews simply because they are Jews.

Jew hatred is enshrined in the Hamas charter, which declares the group’s struggle to be “against the Jews.” This is not about freeing land that was never a country — referred to as Palestine.

It is about venting murderous hatred against a people. Hamas embraces antisemitic falsehoods, even referring in its charter to the discredited Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Jews are plotting to control the world). Pure hatred undergirds what Hamas did and what it has done for decades.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders recognize that the latest mass atrocity has changed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict forever.

It made the long-standing and explicit Hamas goal of annihilating the Jewish nation a looming reality. As long as Hamas exists, its reason for being will be to exterminate Jews.

This is uniting the divided Israeli state to wage a defensive war of survival. This war is necessary, unavoidable — a moral and existential necessity.

As night follows day, there will be politicians and activists on the Left who denounce Israeli retaliation. They will suggest, perhaps after three or four days of Israeli military action in Gaza, that the Jewish state’s response is “disproportionate.” (This is what we are seeing on college campuses throughout the U.S). When this moral casuistry comes, as it will, it should be rejected. Israel must have a free hand to destroy Hamas.

This point must be emphasized because it is common (and uncommonly stupid) to decry the supposed excesses of Israeli military action. The weak clamoring claims that because hundreds of Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket launches tend to kill only a few Israelis, Israel is unjustified in responding with airstrikes that kill larger numbers of Hamas fighters.

This ignores the effect rockets have on Israeli civil society, forcing citizens to abandon their lives for bunkers. No credible democratic government can be expected to tolerate such aggression against its citizens.

Hamas has the intention and capacity to rampage even amid Israeli bunkers. This expands the proper limits of Israeli proportionality. A sustained Israeli campaign to annihilate Hamas, not just its leaders but also its soldiers, support structures, and capabilities, is proportionate.

If the Israelis leave a heap of smoldering ash where Hamas used to be, that would be proportionate. Because Gaza is densely populated and Hamas uses mosques and apartment buildings as bases for its military operations, Israel’s campaign will be bloody, and innocent Palestinians will die. But Israel has the right to wage attritional war against an enemy hellbent on wiping it off the Earth.

Hamas cannot be allowed to manipulate global public relations to its advantage. It is surely banking on a few days of painful conflict, giving way to Israel buckling under international pressure to suspend military action.

 The United States must ensure that this does not happen. Whether that means United Nations Security Council vetoes or U.S. action to impose costs on those who try to prevent Israel from defending itself, the U.S. must stand firm.

Unfortunately, I am afraid that what we are seeing is the Biden administration putting pressure on Israel to hold off on a full scale ground attack. I totally disagree with this approach. Hamas needs to be destroyed immediately.

It is not certain that Israel can succeed in eliminating Hamas. But it has the right to try. The more of Hamas’s forces, weapons, and structures that Israel can eliminate, the safer Israelis will be and the better the Middle East will be.

The more of Hamas’s forces, weapons, and structures that survive this war, the greater threat Israelis will continue to face. 

Previous conflicts have shown that if Israel imposes sufficient costs on Hamas, its leaders stop the attacks in favor of ceasefires. A far harsher cost must now be imposed to restore deterrence in Israel’s favor.

Like those Palestinian terrorists who hijacked airliners and cruise ships in decades past, Hamas claims that its goal is the liberation of the Palestinian people. We now have proof that Hamas’s strategy for freedom is not one of violence pursuant to political negotiation but rather of genocide.

Now folks, what this boils down to is military teachings going all the way back to the early 1800’s following the Napoleonic Wars.

So how about a little history?

In March 1815, the United States Congress passed a law that allowed for a standing army of up to 10,000 men.  Napoleon Bonaparte had amazed the western world by his military victories. 

He gained his victories in two ways: first he harnessed the energy of the entire French army behind him, second, he had tremendous strategic abilities, and he was a military genius. 

Napoleon’s battles and victories led to the systematic study of warfare.  It became the basis for modern military thought. 

Two of the leaders in the study of warfare were Antoine Henri Jomini and Karl Von Clausewitz. 

Jomini was a general in the French army during the time of Napoleon, he attained the rank of general and in the remaining 54 years of his life, after the Napoleonic war, he served as a military consultant and scholar. 

Before his death in 1869, he had written 27 volumes on the wars of Fredrick the Great, The French Revolution, and Napoleon.  His greatest work was titled Summary of the Art of War. Jomini said there were fundamental principles for successful war making and that these principles are un-affected by time, place and weaponry.  He contended that these principles are applicable in any wartime situation. 

His 4 rules were as follows:

1. Maneuver to bring the major part of your forces to bare the enemies decisive areas and communications.
2. Maneuver to bring your major forces against only part of the enemy’s forces.
3. Maneuver to bring your major forces to bare upon the decisive area on the battlefield or of the enemy’s lines. 
4. Maneuver to bring your mass to bare swiftly and simultaneously.

Bottom Line: Bring your army’s weight to bear at the right time and the right place.

Jomini said your group should include maneuvering whereby your army can successfully dominate three sides of a rectangular zone held by your enemy.  To Jomini war is primarily a matter of maneuvering to gain territory in places, not a matter of annihilating the enemy forces.

The other leading scholar in wartime tactics was Major General Karl Von Clausewitz, born in 1780, Clausewitz was admitted to the Berlin war academy for young officers and became the organizer of the Prussian army.  His major work was titled On War, published in 1831. Clausewitz first principle is that war is essentially an act of violence. It’s outcome is not determined by specific calculation but by immaterial and moral factors. 

He contended great leaders are a matter of insightful genius, not following rules of effective strategy and tactics.  The object of war, according to Clausewitz, is to compel your opponent by violent means to bend his will to yours. 

Bottom Line: Destroy his armed forces, not seize territory or key locations.  (Totally the opposite of Jomini.)

Clausewitz also argued that wars could be determined by political implications, while in most cases wars are won by attacking the enemy’s armed forces. 

In certain wars, public opinion can play a major role.  Public opinion, put upon the government of the warring power, can cause that government to fold and surrender to its’ enemy.  The Vietnam War is a good example of this.

The works of Jomini and Clausewitz became standard reading for Americas service academies. 

So, looking at the current conflict between Hamas and Israel, it appears that Israel is taking the approach of Jomini (war is primarily a matter of maneuvering to gain territory in places, not a matter of annihilating the enemy forces).

For now.

On the opposite side of the conflict, it is obvious that Hamas has taken the approach of Clausewitz (compel your opponent by violent means to bend his will to yours).

Now Clausewitz was brilliant when it came to military tactics and made a point of including the comment, “In certain wars, public opinion can play a major role.  Public opinion, put upon the government of the warring power, can cause that government to fold and surrender to its’ enemy.

In this age of social media and instant news reporting, his comments on this point cannot be overlooked.

So, I leave you with a few questions.

Should Israel continue their strategic approach to fighting against Hamas? (Jomini)

Or,

Should Israel adopt Clausewitz’ approach and go full force against Hamas and level the Gaza Strip? (compel your opponent by violent means to bend his will to yours).

One final approach.

Will the major powers of the world determine the outcome of the Israeli/Hamas conflict? (“In certain wars, public opinion can play a major role.  Public opinion, put upon the government of the warring power, can cause that government to fold and surrender to its’ enemy”.

OK folks, I know it is unusual for me to post an article more than once a week. However, I have been inundated with questions about what is happening in Israel. Hopefully you saw and read my first article this week explaining the history of the conflict and who the players are. Unfortunately, it appears new players have now joined in and I think a little more history is in order. Especially when it comes to Turkey and Syria. So here goes. Let’s start with Turkey.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/turkish-education-official-tells-israels-netanyahu-you-will-die

Turkish education official tells Israel’s Netanyahu ‘you will die’

 By Greg Norman Fox News

A top official within Turkey’s Ministry of National Education has posted a message on X telling Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that “One day they will shoot you too” and “You will die.” 

The inflammatory remarks by Nazif Yilmaz, a married father of three and deputy minister of the Turkish agency, was posted in response to a video Netanyahu shared on his account Tuesday appearing to show the Israeli military carrying out airstrikes on the Gaza Strip.

The same day, Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan raised concerns about the U.S. moving a carrier strike group closer to Israel following Hamas’ attacks on the country. 

“What will the aircraft carrier of the U.S. do near Israel, why do they come? What will boats around and aircraft on it will do? They will hit Gaza and around, and take steps for serious massacres there,” Erdogan said, according to Reuters. 

A U.S. military official had told Fox News over the weekend that the U.S. Navy is moving warships and aircraft closer to Israel as a result of the unprecedented assault.  

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin told Fox News in a statement that he directed the movement of the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group to the Eastern Mediterranean Sea following detailed discussions with President Biden.  

The warships include U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser USS Normandy (CG 60), as well as Arleigh-Burke-class guided missile destroyers USS Thomas Hudner (DDG 116), USS Ramage (DDG 61), USS Carney (DDG 64) and USS Roosevelt (DDG 80).  

“In addition, the United States government will be rapidly providing the Israel Defense Forces with additional equipment and resources, including munitions,” Austin said. “The first security assistance will begin moving today and arriving in the coming days.”  

Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that the aircraft carrier strike group’s movements “sends a very strong message of support for Israel.  

“But it’s also to send a strong message of deterrence to contain broadening this particular conflict,” he added, according to Reuters.  

So what do we know about Turkey?

Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II, but entered the closing stages of the war on the side of the Allies on 23 February 1945.

On 26 June 1945, Turkey became a charter member of the United Nations.

Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947.

 The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.

 Both countries were included in the Marshall Plan for rebuilding European economies in 1948.

After participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.

Turkey invaded Cyprus on 20 July 1974. Nine years later the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is recognized only by Turkey, was established.

The single-party period ended in 1945. It was followed by a tumultuous transition to multiparty democracy over the next few decades, which was interrupted by military coups d’état in 1960, 1971, 1980 and 1997.

 In 1984, the PKK, a Kurdish separatist group, began an insurgency campaign against the Turkish government, which to date has claimed over 40,000 lives

 In 2013, widespread protests erupted in many Turkish provinces, sparked by a plan to demolish Gezi Park but growing into general anti-government dissent.

Turkey is a parliamentary representative democracy. Since its foundation as a republic in 1923, Turkey has developed a strong tradition of secularism. Turkey’s constitution governs the legal framework of the country. It sets out the main principles of government and establishes Turkey as a unitary centralized state.

The President of the Republic is the head of state and has a largely ceremonial role. The president is elected for a five-year term by direct elections. Abdullah Gül was elected as president on 28 August 2007, by a popular parliament round of votes.

Executive power is exercised by the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers which make up the government, while the legislative power is vested in the unicameral parliament, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey.

The prime minister is elected by the parliament through a vote of confidence in the government and is most often the head of the party having the most seats in parliament. The current prime minister is the former mayor of İstanbul, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

In 2004, there were 50 registered political parties in the country.

Supporters of political reforms are called Kemalists, as distinguished from Islamists, representing two extremes on a continuum of beliefs about the proper role of religion in public life.

 The Kemalist position generally combines a kind of authoritarian democracy with a westernized secular lifestyle, while supporting state intervention in the economy.

 Since the 1980s, a rise in income inequality and class distinction has given rise to Islamic populism, a movement that in theory supports obligation to authority, communal solidarity and social justice, though it is contested what it entails in practice.

Turkey began full membership negotiations with the European Union in 2005.

Turkey is a founding member of the United Nations (1945).

On 17 October 2008, Turkey was elected as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

The other defining aspect of Turkey’s foreign relations has been its ties with the United States. Based on the common threat posed by the Soviet Union, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, ensuring close bilateral relations with Washington throughout the Cold War.

In the post–Cold War environment, Turkey’s geostrategic importance shifted towards its proximity to the Middle East, the Caucasus and the Balkans. In return, Turkey has benefited from the United States’ political, economic and diplomatic support, including in key issues such as the country’s bid to join the European Union.

The independence of the Turkic states of the Soviet Union in 1991, with which Turkey shares a common cultural and linguistic heritage, allowed Turkey to extend its economic and political relations deep into Central Asia, thus enabling the completion of a multi-billion-dollar oil and natural gas pipeline from Baku in Azerbaijan to the port of Ceyhan in Turkey.

The Turkish Armed Forces is the second largest standing armed force in NATO, after the U.S. Armed Forces, with an estimated strength of 495,000 deployable forces, according to a 2011 NATO estimate. According to SIPRI, Turkish military expenditures in 2012 amounted to $18.2 billion, the 15th highest in the world, representing 2.3% of GDP, down from 3.4% in 2003.

Every fit male Turkish citizen otherwise not barred is required to serve in the military for a period ranging from three weeks to fifteen months, dependent on education and job location. Turkey does not recognize conscientious objection and does not offer a civilian alternative to military service.

Turkey is one of five NATO member states which are part of the nuclear sharing policy of the alliance, together with Belgium, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands.

 A total of 90 B61 nuclear bombs are hosted at the Incirlik Air Base, 40 of which are allocated for use by the Turkish Air Force in case of a nuclear conflict, but their use requires the approval of NATO.

In 1998, Turkey announced a modernization program worth US$160 billion over a twenty-year period in various projects including tanks, fighter jets, helicopters, submarines, warships and assault rifles. Turkey is a Level 3 contributor to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program.

Turkey has maintained forces in international missions under the United Nations and NATO since 1950, including peacekeeping missions in Somalia and former Yugoslavia, and support to coalition forces in the First Gulf War.

Turkey maintains 36,000 troops in Northern Cyprus, though their presence is controversial.

 Turkey has had troops deployed in Afghanistan as part of the United States stabilization force and the UN-authorized, NATO-commanded International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) since 2001.

 Since 2003, Turkey contributes military personnel to Eurocorps and takes part in the EU Battlegroups. Since 2006, Turkish troops are also part of an expanded United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)

The last official census was in 2000 and recorded a total country population of 67,803,927 inhabitants.

Turkey is a secular state with no official state religion; the Turkish Constitution provides for freedom of religion and conscience.

 Islam is the dominant religion of Turkey; it exceeds 99% if secular people of Muslim background are included, with the most popular sect being the Hanafite school of Sunni Islam.

The role of religion has been a controversial debate over the years since the formation of Islamist parties. The wearing of the Hijab is banned in universities and public or government buildings as some view it as a symbol of Islam – though there have been efforts to lift the ban.

Now to Syria.

Following World War I, France acquired a mandate over the northern portion of the former Ottoman Empire province of Syria. The French administered the area as Syria until granting it independence in 1946.

The new country lacked political stability, however, and experienced a series of military coups during its first decades.

Syria united with Egypt in February 1958 to form the United Arab Republic. In September 1961, the two entities separated, and the Syrian Arab Republic was reestablished.

In November 1970, Hafiz al-ASAD, a member of the Socialist Ba’th Party and the minority Alawi sect, seized power in a bloodless coup and brought political stability to the country. In the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Syria lost the Golan Heights to Israel.

Following the death of President al-ASAD, his son, Bashar al-ASAD, was approved as president by popular referendum in July 2000.

During the July-August 2006 conflict between Israel and Hizballah, Syria placed its military forces on alert but did not intervene directly on behalf of its ally Hizballah. In May 2007 Bashar al-ASAD was elected to his second term as president.

Influenced by major uprisings that began elsewhere in the region, antigovernment protests broke out in the southern province of Dar’a in March 2011 with protesters calling for the repeal of the restrictive Emergency Law allowing arrests without charge, the legalization of political parties, and the removal of corrupt local officials.

Since then, demonstrations and unrest have spread to nearly every city in Syria, but the size and intensity of protests have fluctuated over time.

However, the government’s response has failed to meet opposition demands for ASAD to step down, and the government’s ongoing security operations to quell unrest and widespread armed opposition activity have led to violent clashes between government forces and oppositionists.

The Syrian conflict has triggered something more fundamental than a difference of opinion over intervention, something more than an argument about whether the Security Council should authorize the use of force.

Syria is the moment in which the West should see that the world has truly broken into two.

A loose alliance of struggling capitalist democracies now finds itself face to face with two authoritarian despotisms—Russia and China—something new in the annals of political science: kleptocracies that mix the market economy and the police state. These regimes will support tyrannies like Syria wherever it is in their interest to do so.

The situation in Syria has mutated from an uprising in a few outlying cities into a full-scale civil war. Now it has mutated again into a proxy war between the Great Powers.

The Russians have been arming the regime—it was a Russian air defense system that shot down the Turkish F-4 Phantom jet—and the West is now arming the rebels.

The Saudis and the Gulf states are funneling weapons straight to the Sunnis, especially to anyone with Islamic radical credentials.

Arms are trickling across the borders with Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, and Jordan; the CIA has been given the difficult task of ensuring that at least the Turkish weapons are channeled to the right people. Who the right people are is anybody’s guess. In a village war, not even the CIA can be sure.

To the extent that there is a strategy on the Western side—and that’s a big assumption—it seems to be to tip the military balance inside Syria, without backing the US and NATO into a direct confrontation with Bashar al Assad’s protectors in Moscow.

Slowly, this strategy, such as it is, may be turning the momentum in the rebels’ favor. A rag tag bunch of village insurgents and army defectors is slowly coming together as a fighting force.

The videos they upload onto YouTube are now showing not only the pounding they’ve endured but the damage they’ve inflicted on Assad’s forces. More and more villages and towns have slipped out of the regime’s control, at least by night.

The war for Syria is likely to end only when the flames engulf Assad’s palace.

While the rebels are gaining momentum inside Syria, the exile leadership of the Syrian opposition is frittering it away outside. When opposition leaders were placed in hotel rooms in Cairo and told, by the Arab League and other foreign diplomats, to get their act together, the meeting degenerated into chaos.

The Syrian Kurds, for example, emboldened by the successes of their Iraqi cousins, sought recognition of their national identity in a post-Assad Syria, but other opposition groups weren’t ready to grant it.

Divisions of clan, tribe, ethnicity, and religion would make a united front difficult at the best of times. But it’s become clear that the Assads, father and son, were more skillful than Libya’s Qaddafi at keeping their outside opposition weak and divided.

So why has this tension between Sunnis and Shiites resurfaced in the Middle East at this particular moment?

There are several contributing factors. The first is regional power rivalry, especially between Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shiite).

The Sunni powers of the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, want to check Iran’s rise as a regional power.

To that end, Turkey (Sunni) recently agreed to allow NATO to install a missile early warning system on Turkish soil (a move that angered the Iranians (Shiites).

Saudi Arabia has been vocal in expressing its concerns about the prospect of Iran developing a “Shiite” nuclear bomb.

Recently, the all-Sunni, all-Arab member states of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) — Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and the UAE — have been moving towards some kind of political, economic and military union or federation aimed at countering Iranian influence and encircling the Gulf’s Shiites.

So, there you have it folks. As if things aren’t already bad enough, Israel now faces new threats from Syria and Turkey, two highly unstable regimes to their north.

Don’t forget Russia, China, and Iran and the role each of those nations plays in all of this.

The United States? Who knows?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/08/israel-hamas-gaza-palestinian-territories

Israel-Hamas war: what has happened and what has caused the conflict?

By Harriet Sherwood

Shocked Israelis woke on the last day of the Jewish high holidays to the wail of sirens as Hamas and Islamic Jihad fired thousands of rockets from Gaza and armed militants broke down the hi-tech barriers surrounding the strip to enter Israel, shooting and taking hostages. Militants in boats also tried to enter Israel by sea.

It was a staggering and unprecedented offensive by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and a catastrophic intelligence failure by Israel – and both will have long-lasting repercussions and consequences. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, declared that Israel was at war and that Palestinians would pay a heavy price.

Militants infiltrated Jewish communities near the border with Gaza, killing and seizing civilians and soldiers. Unverified videos showed terrified Israelis covered in blood, and with hands tied behind their backs, being taken by Palestinian gunmen. Many people rushed to safe rooms in their homes as the carnage unfolded around them.

Hundreds of young people at an all-night dance festival in southern Israel found themselves under fire. “They were going tree by tree and shooting. Everywhere. From two sides. I saw people were dying all around,” said one survivor.

By nightfall on Saturday, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) estimated there were still 200-300 Palestinian militants inside Israel. There were eight “points of engagement” where the IDF was trying to regain control from militants.

Now, a little history so you can understand the talking heads on the evening news.

First, let’s identify where this is all happening. The Gaza Strip

A small strip of land in the Middle East, bordering the Mediterranean Sea, between Egypt and Israel.

It is slightly more than twice the size of Washington, DC and 64% of its population is under the age of 24.

There are 2 million people living on the Gaza strip and they are 98% Sunni Muslims. (CIA World Factbook)

Israel removed settlers and military personnel from Gaza Strip in September 2005 So there are no Jewish people living there.

Now for the history:

Inhabited since at least the 15th century B.C., Gaza has been dominated by many different peoples and empires throughout its history; it was incorporated into the Ottoman Empire (The Turks) in the early 16th century. (Crescent moon story/French crescent rolls)

Gaza fell to British forces during World War I, becoming a part of the British control of Palestine set out by the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WWI.

(Check out the Balfour Declaration/Lawrence of Arabia)

Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Egypt administered the newly formed Gaza Strip; it was captured by Israel in the Six-Day War in 1967.

Under a series of agreements signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the Palestinian Authority (PA) security and civilian responsibility for many Palestinian-populated areas of the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank.

In early 2003, the  US, EU, UN, and Russia, presented a roadmap to a final peace settlement by 2005, calling for two states – Israel and a democratic Palestine.

Following Palestinian leader Yasir ARAFAT’s death in late 2004 and the subsequent election of Mahmud ABBAS (head of the Fatah political party) as the PA president, Israel and the PA agreed to move the peace process forward.

Israel in late 2005 unilaterally withdrew all of its settlers and soldiers and dismantled its military facilities in the Gaza Strip, but continues to control maritime, airspace, and other access.

Now to the Players:

HAMAS

Hamas goal is to create a single, Sunni, Islamic state in historic Palestine, which is now largely divided between Israel and the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Hamas, means “zeal” in Arabic and is an acronym for Islamic Resistance Movement.

Hamas’s charter calls for Israel’s destruction, and Hamas has engaged in terrorist activities.

Hamas’s leadership grew up in the late 1940s, mostly as impoverished offspring of Palestinian refugees.

Many of Hamas’s leaders were educated in Cairo during the rule of Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser. Present members include religious leaders, sheikhs (Arab chiefs), intellectuals, technocrats, businessmen, young activists, and paramilitary fighters.

To cultivate support, Hamas has provided social services to the needy in the 11 refugee camps in Gaza.

Providing social welfare and education through clinics, kindergartens, summer camps, medical services, sports programs, and job programs has tied the Hamas leadership to its supporters. (Does this sound familiar?)

Mosques and Islamic religious organizations have been Hamas’s most important vehicles for spreading its message and providing its services. Partly funded by its members, most funds come from sympathizers abroad.

The group was founded in 1988 as a militant segment of the Palestinian Arab national movement and was connected ideologically to the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in Egypt 60 years earlier.

Hamas is calling for the destruction of Israel and the return to Islamic values.

Hamas firmly opposed the 1993 Oslo Accords, in which the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel engaged in mutual recognition for the purpose of Israel’s gradual transfer of power, land, and limited self-rule to the PLO.

After denouncing the September 1993 Oslo Accords, Hamas increased its strikes against Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as in Israel proper.

It boycotted the January 1996 Palestinian presidential and legislative council elections. The elections were won by the opposing political party, headed by PLO leader Yasir Arafat.

The boycott was in part because Hamas knew it would lose the election, but also Hamas wanted to avoid giving legitimacy to the PLO’s recognition of Israel.

Under the accord, Israel, the United States, and Western European nations asked the newly created Palestinian National Authority (PNA) to suppress Hamas’s attacks.

Arafat periodically restrained Hamas terrorist actions against Israel but he did not suppress them altogether.

In March 2004 Israel Defense Forces assassinated the Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin in a helicopter gunship attack as Yassin left a mosque in the Gaza Strip.

The next month, Israel assassinated his successor Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi, a cofounder of Hamas.

In both cases Israel claimed that these two men were responsible for killing Israeli civilians. Israel announced it would continue such targeted assassinations as part of its war on terrorism.

The assassinations occurred as Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon said he was ready to unilaterally evacuate some 9,500 Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

In early 2006, the Islamic Resistance Movement, HAMAS, won the Palestinian Legislative Council election and took control of the PA government.

Attempts to form a unity government between the PLO and HAMAS failed, and violent clashes between PLO and HAMAS supporters ensued, culminating in HAMAS’s violent seizure of all military and governmental institutions in the Gaza Strip in June 2007.

Israel

Following World War II, the British withdrew from their control of Palestine, and the UN partitioned the area into Arab and Jewish states, an arrangement rejected by the Arabs. (Both sides were promised Palestine by the Brits)

Subsequently, the Israelis defeated the Arabs in a series of wars without ending the deep tensions between the two sides.

In keeping with the framework established at the Madrid Conference in October 1991, bilateral negotiations were conducted between Israel and Palestinian representatives and Syria to achieve a permanent settlement to the dispute.

Israel and Palestinian officials signed on 13 September 1993 a Declaration of Principles (also known as the “Oslo Accords”) guiding an interim period of Palestinian self-rule.

Progress toward a permanent status agreement was undermined by Israeli-Palestinian violence between September 2003 and February 2005.

As I stated earlier, Israel in 2005 unilaterally disengaged from the Gaza Strip, evacuating settlers and its military while retaining control over most points of entry into the Gaza Strip.

The election of HAMAS to head the Palestinian Legislative Council in 2006 froze relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Israel engaged in a 23-day conflict with HAMAS in the Gaza Strip during December 2008 and January 2009.

Prime Minister Binyamin NETANYAHU formed a coalition in March 2009 following a February 2009 general election. Direct talks with the PA launched in September 2010 collapsed.

So, in summary, why are Israel and Hamas current enemies?

Hamas won Palestinian elections in 2006 and reinforced its power in the Gaza Strip after ousting West Bank-based Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestine Liberation Organization, PLO, in clashes the following year.

While Mr. Abbas’ Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had signed peace accords with Israel, Hamas does not recognize Israel’s right to exist and advocates the use of violence against it.

Israel, along with Egypt, has maintained a blockade of Gaza since about 2006, in order, they say, to stop attacks by militants.

Israel and Hamas have gone to war three times, and rocket-fire from Gaza and Israel air strikes against militant targets are a regular occurrence. That is what we are seeing on the news today.

Now here is something you need to keep in mind.

The recent cease fire that President Biden has been recently referred to was agreed to between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PLO), not HAMAS.

What is a shame is that people on both sides are being killed simply because Hamas is not willing to join the PLO and Israel in finding a solution.

For its part, I think Israel has shown tremendous restraint up to this point in time. Why? Because their fight is not with the people of the Gaza strip, it is with Hamas who is using the Palestinian people as a shield, setting up their rocket launchers on top of schools, hospitals, and residential buildings.

So, there you have it folks. Think this can be solved by signing treaties, or is this a conflict that can only be settled through force?

It is not going to solve itself. It will probably only get worse in the coming months. The big question is, do you think the US should play a role in any of this?

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/10/biden-china-g20-00114892

By ALEXANDER WARD

Three days into high-profile visits to the capitals of India and Vietnam, President Joe Biden said that his presence and moves to strengthen ties with China’s neighbors weren’t designed to “contain” Beijing.

And he repeated that phrase — again and again.

“I don’t want to contain China,” he said during a news conference in Hanoi shortly after elevating the U.S.-Vietnam relationship and palling around with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

“We’re not trying to hurt China.” Under his watch, Biden said America’s goal is “getting the relationship right” between the world’s two foremost powers.

Good Grief folks! Talk about history repeating itself. Have any of you heard of a guy named Neville Chamberlain? I’m sure some of you have. If you will recall, he was that British Prime Minister guy who met with Hitler right before the outbreak of WWII. Chamberlain claimed he and Hitler had met and that was nothing to worry about. We all know how well that worked out. to ask myself, is it about to happen again?

Biden’s team has said previously it doesn’t aim to curb China’s rise, even when it imposes strict export controls on technologies crucial for its military development and takes steps to move closer to other countries in Asia. But the remarks, and the setting of the message, is the strongest signal the administration has sent to Beijing that it doesn’t want to foment a new Cold War.

Biden arrived in India on Friday for a summit of the G20 before traveling Sunday morning to Vietnam for an official upgrade in the bilateral relationship.

While U.S. officials openly stressed the Asia sojourn was about rallying allies to work together on climate change, development and a shifting global economy, they privately hinted that better ties with New Delhi and Hanoi would boost America’s regional position.

But Biden denied that his presence halfway around the world from Washington was intended to boost America’s regional standing at China’s expense. “It’s not about containing China,” he repeated. “It’s about having a stable base, a stable base in the Indo-Pacific.”

“We think too much in Cold War terms,” Biden told reporters who peppered him with questions about the state of U.S.-China ties. “I am sincere about getting the relationship right.”

The way the U.S. can do that, the president insisted, is by ensuring China plays by “the rules of the game” — that is, the tenets of the rules-based international order the United States helped create from the embers of World War II.

“I just want to make sure we have a relationship with China that is on the up and up, squared away. Everybody knows what it’s all about,” Biden said.

It’s not clear Beijing knows. Last week, China’s top security agency said that any future meeting between Biden and Chinese paramount leader Xi Jinping would hinge on U.S. “sincerity” for meaningful dialogue. The president hopes to meet his Chinese counterpart face-to-face at a gathering of Pacific nations later this year in San Francisco, especially since Xi didn’t attend the G20.

Folks, that is almost exactly what was agreed on between Hitler and Chamberlain. Again, Hitler and Chamberlain signed an agreement that they were on good terms.

Hitler needed time to build up his was machine. He also knew one of his greatest threats was the military might of England. The British had a huge navy and a top-notch air force.

Biden suggested that he hasn’t met with Xi in 10 months because the Chinese leader “has his hands full” with a sputtering economy.

“He has overwhelming unemployment with his youth. One of the major economic tenets of his plan isn’t working at all right now,” he said, adding that Beijing’s woes are “less likely to cause that kind of conflict” between the U.S. and China. “It’s not like there’s a crisis if I don’t personally speak to him.”

Again. Similarities? Hitler took control of Germany after WWI when the country was struggling to recover from $Trillion dollar/German Mark inflation. That’s right folk. I said trillion. Think about that. At the end of WWI if you lived in Germany, it took 4 Marks to equal one dollar. So 4 quarters to make one dollar. Germany was simply printing money to pay its war debts to England and France after WWI.

The money had nothing to back it (sound familiar?).

So, it now took $1 Trillion quarters to make a dollar! Hitler cam in and told the people what they wanted to hear. He would give them all jobs, put food on the table, and make Germany the powerful nation it was once again.

I don’t think that China is anywhere near that shape and Biden is fooling himself if he thinks it is.

Xi, however, was not likely to be pleased with the U.S. boosting its partnership with Vietnam. Both countries are now locked in a “comprehensive strategic partnership,” the highest such distinction for a relationship the Communist country can have with another nation.

That doesn’t mean Hanoi is a Washington ally now — a no-longer-secret arms deal with Russia is case in point — but it does indicate that Vietnam fears Beijing’s aggression in the South China Sea while it’s grateful for its economic windfall from the U.S.-China trade war.

Tensions over human rights arose during Biden’s mostly cordial visit, though. Nguyen Phu Trong, the general secretary of Vietnam’s Communist Party, emphasized the importance of “non-interference in domestic affairs,” a clear signal that he expects no reprimands for politically motivated killings and other atrocities.

Biden, who is facing criticism for the G20 communiqué that weakened language in support of Ukraine to secure Russia’s buy-in, said he brought up Hanoi’s humanitarian violations with Nguyen. But it was clear the president had his eyes on the larger strategic picture.

“I think we have an enormous opportunity,” Biden said earlier Sunday inside Hanoi’s presidential palace as cameras whirred and flashed. “Vietnam and the United States are critical partners at what I would argue is a very critical time. I’m not saying that to be polite.”

So, let’s finish with a little history lesson.

https://www.history.com/news/chamberlain-declares-peace-for-our-time-75-years-ago

BY: CHRISTOPHER KLEIN

For days, dread had blanketed London like a fog. Only a generation removed from the horrors of World War I, which had claimed nearly one million of its people, Britain was once again on the brink of armed conflict with Germany. Hitler, who had annexed Austria earlier in the year, had vowed to invade Czechoslovakia on October 1, 1938, to occupy the German-speaking Sudetenland region, a move toward the creation of a “greater Germany” that could potentially ignite another conflagration among the great European powers.

Woah! Wait. So, Hitler is simply wanting to re-unite the German speaking people into one country? Isn’t that exactly what China is saying about Taiwan?

The clouds of war billowed in the British capital as the hours to the deadline dwindled. As Chamberlain mobilized the Royal Navy, Londoners, including the prime minister’s wife, prayed on bended knees inside Westminster Abbey.

Workers covered the windows of government offices with sandbags and installed sirens in police stations to warn of approaching enemy bombers. By torchlight, they scarred the city’s pristine parks by digging miles of trenches to be used as air-raid shelters. A knot of traffic snarled the city as Londoners began an exodus.

Hundreds of thousands who planned to stay in the city stood patiently in line for government-issued gas masks and air-raid handbooks. London Zoo officials even developed plans to station gun-toting men in front of cages to shoot the wild animals in case bombs broke open their cages and freed them.

Just two days before the deadline, Hitler agreed to meet in Munich with Chamberlain, Italian leader Benito Mussolini and French premier Edouard Daladier to discuss a diplomatic resolution to the crisis.

The four leaders, without any input from Czechoslovakia in the negotiation, agreed to cede the Sudetenland to Hitler. Chamberlain also separately drafted a non-aggression pact between Britain and Germany that Hitler signed.

When news of the diplomatic breakthrough reached the British capital, normally staid London responded like a death-row prisoner granted a last-minute reprieve. Jubilation and waves of relief washed over London in a celebration that had not been seen since the armistice that silenced the guns of World War I.

On a rainy autumn evening, thousands awaited the prime minister’s return at London’s Heston Aerodrome, and the thankful crowd cheered wildly as the door to his British Airways airplane opened. As raindrops fell on Chamberlain’s silver hair, he stepped onto the airport tarmac. He held aloft the nonaggression pact that had been inked by him and Hitler only hours before, and the flimsy piece of paper flapped in the breeze.

The prime minister read to the nation the brief agreement that reaffirmed “the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.”

Remember what Biden just said last week?

“We’re not trying to hurt China.” Under his watch, Biden said America’s goal is “getting the relationship right” between the world’s two foremost powers.

Summoned to Buckingham Palace to give a first-hand report to King George VI, Chamberlain was cheered on by thousands who lined the five-mile route from the airport. As the rain poured, thousands flooded the plaza in front of the royal residence. As if it were a coronation or a royal wedding, the frenzied cheers brought forth the king and queen along with Chamberlain and his wife onto the palace balcony.

In an unprecedented move, the smiling king motioned the prime minister to step forward and receive the crowd’s adulation as he receded into the background to leave the stage solely to a commoner.

After his royal audience, Chamberlain returned to his official residence at No. 10 Downing Street. There a jubilant crowd shouted “Good old Neville!” and sang “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow.”

From a second-floor window, Chamberlain addressed the crowd and invoked Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli’s famous statement upon returning home from the Berlin Congress of 1878, “My good friends, this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time.”

Then he added, “Now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds.” As Britain slept, the German army marched into Czechoslovakia in “peaceful conquest” of the Sudetenland. The bombers did not roar over London that night, but they would come.

In March 1939, Hitler annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia, and two days after the Nazis crossed into Poland on September 1, 1939, the prime minister again spoke to the nation, but this time to solemnly call for a British declaration of war against Germany and the launch of World War II.

Eight months later, Chamberlain was forced to resign, and he was replaced by Winston Churchill.

Did Biden just give another Chamberlain speech? Should we put our faith and trust in agreements made between Biden and Xi Jinping?

What does history tell you?

Have you heard the latest news that Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un are planning to meet? The instant I heard this; one thing popped into my mind. Is history repeating itself?

Think about it. As World War Two escalated in Europe, the United States sat on the sidelines. Bear in mind that it wasn’t until Pearl Harbor in 1941 that we entered into the conflict. A full two years after the war started.

What happened? You guessed it. An alliance between our eastern and western enemies.

Hitler, Imperial Japan’s Ambassador to Germany, Saburō Kurusu (later a central figure in diplomatic talks between Japan and the United States prior to Pearl Harbor), and Count Galeazzo Ciano, Mussolini’s son-in-law, gathered in Berlin. On September 27, 1940, they signed the Tripartite Pact. 

A 10-year deal between the three, the Pact called for each country to offer military, political, and economic assistance if a signatory was attacked by “a Power at present not involved in the European or in the Sino-Japanese Conflict.” One did not have to spend much time trying to figure out who they were talking about—a still neutral United States of America. In other words, this was, on paper, a defensive alliance designed to check American power. Yet no clear-thinking individual could trust any of these powerful regimes to maintain a “defensive” stance on anything. 

There it is folks. History repeating itself.

So, what are Putin and Kim Jong Un planning? The following article points to an exchange of weapons for food. That is a real possibility. My greater concern, however, is that their alliance could trigger what we all fear. A two front war taking place in Europe and the Pacific at the same time. We have been there and done that. It was a nightmare and cost all sides dearly.

But first, let’s look at the arms for food deal.

How Worrying is a Russia-Kim Jong Un Alliance?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66714546

By Jean Mackenzie

BBC News, Seoul

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s reported plans to visit Russia this month have caused concern among the US and its allies.

He and President Vladimir Putin intend to discuss the possibility of North Korea providing Moscow with weapons to support its war in Ukraine, US officials say.

On the surface, an arms deal between North Korea and Russia makes perfect transactional sense.

Moscow desperately needs weapons, specifically ammunition and artillery shells, for the war in Ukraine, and Pyongyang has plenty of both.

On the other side, sanction-starved North Korea desperately needs money and food. More than three years of border closures, not to mention the breakdown of talks with the United States in 2019, have left the country more isolated than ever before.

But below the surface, it opens up the potential for Pyongyang and Moscow to start working more closely together. The US has been warning about a possible arms deal between the two countries for some time, but a leader-level meeting between Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin catapults this into the next realm.

While the priority for the US, certainly in the short-term, seems to be to stop North Korean weapons from getting to the frontline in Ukraine, the concern here in Seoul is over what North Korea would get in return for selling its arms to Russia.

With Russia in a desperate situation, Mr Kim will be able to extract a high price. Perhaps he could demand increased military support from Russia.

Yesterday, South Korea’s intelligence service briefed that Russia’s Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu had suggested Russia, China and North Korea hold joint naval drills, similar to those carried out by the US, South Korea and Japan, which Kim Jong Un so detests.

Mr. Kim might also be able to call in Russian weapons in the future.

But by far the most worrying request Mr. Kim could make is for Mr. Putin to provide him with advanced weapons technology or knowledge, to help him make breakthroughs with his nuclear weapons program.

He is still struggling to master key strategic weapons, chiefly a spy satellite and a nuclear-armed submarine.

However, officials in Seoul believe cooperation on this level is unlikely, as it could end up being strategically dangerous for Russia.

Yang Uk, a research fellow at the Asian Institute for Policy Studies, noted that even if Russia doesn’t sell North Korea weapons in return, it could still fund its nuclear program. “If Russia pays in oil and food, it can revive the North Korea economy, which in turn could then also strengthen North Korea’s weapons system. It is an extra source of income for them that they didn’t have.”

Mr. Yang, an expert in military strategy and weapons systems, added: “For 15 years we’ve built up a network of sanctions against North Korea, to stop it from developing and trading weapons of mass destruction. Now Russia, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, could cause this whole system to collapse.”

As sanctions have been ramped up, North Korea has become increasingly dependent on China to turn a blind eye to those violating sanctions and to provide it with food aid.

For the past year Beijing has refused to punish North Korea for its weapons tests at the UN Security Council, meaning it has been able to develop its nuclear arsenal without serious consequence.

North Korea provides Beijing with a useful buffer zone between itself and the US forces stationed in South Korea, meaning it pays to keep Pyongyang afloat.

But Pyongyang has always been uneasy about depending too much on China alone. With Russia on the hunt for allies, it gives Mr Kim the chance to diversify his support network.

And with Russia so desperate, the North Korean leader may feel he can wrangle even greater concessions from Moscow than he can Beijing.

Mr. Putin might agree to keep silent in the face of a North Korean nuclear test, whereas this could prove a step too far for Chinese President Xi Jinping.

“During the Cold War, North Korea was playing the Russians off the Chinese, very similar to how children play parents off each other,” said Dr Bernard Loo of the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

But there is still a question mark over whether the meeting will go ahead.

Mr. Kim doesn’t leave North Korea often or lightly. He is paranoid about his security and views trips abroad as fraught with danger. For his last international trips – to Hanoi to meet Donald Trump in February 2019, and to meet Mr Putin in Vladivostok in April 2019 – he rode on an armored train. The trip to Hanoi took two long days through China.

It is unclear how private the two leaders intended their meeting to be, but it is possible the US is hoping that by making it public, it can spook Mr. Kim and therefore thwart both the get-together and the potential arms deal.

Dr Loo doesn’t think Mr. Kim would have much wiggle room, however: “Given the reports about three-way military exercises, it would be difficult to cancel these kinds of events without everyone ending up with egg on their face.”

Part of the US strategy since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been to release intelligence to try to prevent deals from happening. North Korea and Russia have so far denied every suggestion they are looking to trade arms. Neither are likely to want this deal to be a public affair.

Now let’s move on to my greatest concern. What would happen if we saw a repeat of the East/West scenario we faced in WWII which left us fighting in both the European and Pacific theaters of war at the same time?

Suppose Russia, North Korea, and China signed a modern-day pact like the one Hitler, Mussolini, and Japan signed back in September 1940?

What follows is an interesting analysis of the challenges such an alliance would pose to the United States in the 21^st century.

https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/us-military-forces-cannot-fight-2-fronts

by James Di Pane

Policy Analyst, Defense Policy, Center for National Defense

China and Russia spend a significant portion of their economic output on their defense budgets, with the purpose of challenging American military superiority.

This is a concern, particularly when the U.S. needs to surge to a conflict without jeopardizing the posture of U.S. forces in another important region.

It will take time for the military to reach the level of strength required to deter and potentially fight on multiple fronts. 

The current war in Ukraine and Russia’s threatening actions toward NATO countries coupled with a rising China in Asia highlights a strategic pickle for the United States—the need to be able to deter or potentially fight two major adversaries in two very different regions of the world at the same time with the military it has on hand.

While the U.S. is unlikely to face two significant competitors at the same time, the possibility is not zero. The current situation in Ukraine, with Russian President Vladimir Putin launching missiles landing close to Poland, and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s ideological commitments to bring Taiwan into China, provides an excellent opportunity for an opportunist nation to attempt a hostile act while the rest of the world is distracted.

The U.S. is a global power with interests and responsibilities throughout the world. It must be capable of protecting Americans abroad, allies, and the freedom to use international sea, air, space, and cyberspace.

This is no easy task—and the U.S. military today is not positioned to take it on.

It is too small and too old to fight on numerous fronts. Force drawdowns since the end of the Cold War and 20 years of fighting in the Middle East have left the U.S. military a shell of its former self.

This should worry everyone—especially because China and Russia spend a significant portion of their economic output on their defense budgets, with the purpose of challenging American military superiority.

The Chinese government is rapidly expanding its military forces. Perhaps the most visible example of this is its ship-building program. At the end of 2020, the size of China’s navy was approximately 360. Compare that to a U.S. Navy fleet of 297 ships.   

China’s military forces must be modernized by 2035, according to Xi. By 2049, he claims, they should be a “world-class” military power capable of “fighting and winning wars.”

China’s breakthroughs in its hard-power capabilities are likely to lead to a significant shift in the global balance of military power.

As for Russia, its military capabilities are on display on the world stage.

The U.S. military has an overall advantage over the Russian military, but Russia has select advantages over the  U.S. when it comes to certain capabilities. For example, the U.S. Army has approximately 6,000 tanks while Russia has around 12,000. Russian tactical nuclear capabilities outnumber the U.S. by 10-to-1.

One cannot forget about the threat that Iran and North Korea also pose to U.S. national security, with their missile arsenals and nuclear programs. It is vital for the U.S. to be able to project strength globally to provide reassurance for its allies and deter its adversaries.

While the quality of the U.S. military force is currently unrivaled, its size is at a historic low, and this limits its ability to respond to the multiple threats the country faces globally. It simply does not have enough forces.

This is a concern, particularly when the U.S. needs to surge to a conflict without jeopardizing the posture of U.S. forces in another important region.

For example, if the United States were to engage Russia in a direct confrontation, it will be forced to deploy military equipment and personnel from all over the world to the Eastern European front. By doing so, the U.S. would be forced to draw forces from other regions of the world, such as the West Pacific, where our presence is critical in deterring China.

The Heritage Foundation’s annual assessment of U.S. military power, the 2022 Index of U.S. Military Strength, assesses that the U.S. military is only moderately capable of securing its vital national security interests, and would struggle greatly if called upon to deal with more than one competitor at a time. 

Low levels of capacity are particularly concerning because numbers really matter in war.

The index estimates that a joint force capable of dealing with multiple fronts simultaneously would need to consist of:

• The Army having 50 brigade combat teams, compared to its current number of 31.
• The Navy having at least 400 ships, compared to the 297 vessels it currently has.

Since President Ronald Reagan’s military buildup to deter the Soviets in what would be the final years of the Cold War, the overall trend in numbers has clearly been consistently toward a smaller force. Besides force size, some of the military’s equipment is extremely outdated, and many of its platforms entered service more than 30 years ago.

The services, like the Army and Navy, are aging faster than they are modernizing. As a result, it will be easier for major competitors to reach technological parity with the U.S. military. 

To recap, the U.S. requires a force capable of managing two conflicts because it would provide enough forces to: 1. deter an opportunistic adversary from starting a conflict while the U.S. is engaged and 2. provide the U.S. with a sufficient number of forces to handle battle losses without requiring America to denude the rest of the world to focus on one conflict.

The good news is that there appears to be bipartisan acknowledgment of the need to project power on two fronts.

“It’s difficult. It’s expensive. But it is also essential, and I believe that we’re entering a period where that is what will be demanded of the United States and this generation of Americans,” said Kurt Campbell, the White House Indo-Pacific policy coordinator, about the U.S. remaining engaged in the Indo-Pacific in the midst of the crisis in Ukraine.

But it remains to be seen whether Congress and the Biden administration address the need to field a military force sufficiently sized to address global threats and U.S. national interests. The defense budget must be sufficient to modernize and expand the force. It will take time for the military to reach the level of strength required to deter and potentially fight on multiple fronts.

The problem will not be fixed overnight. That’s why it’s important for Congress to act quickly to adequately resource the U.S. military.

I would also like to add, that it is equally important that Congress study our history. None of this is new folks.

The alliances being formed among our enemies today are very similar to what we have seen take place in the past.

Had our grandparents had the benefit of looking back on similar mistakes in the past, I would be willing to bet they would have taken action to stop the alliance of Germany, Italy, and Japan before it ever happened.

Let’s not make the same mistake.

Well folks, I have an interesting topic for you this week. Public libraries.

There has been quite a bit of controversy here in my hometown recently about the role of the public libraries. Now I know what most of you are thinking. Who needs them? I can get everything I need right here on my phone or my laptop.

That may be true but think about it. Is it really everything you need?

I ran into this problem when I was teaching my college history courses. Students often said, “Why do I need to learn this? If someone asks me a question, I can just look it up on my phone.”

Ah, therein lies the problem.

First, who is feeding that information to your phone? Is it accurate? Is it the only answer? Should you take it at face value?

Second, what are you going to do with that info? Are you going to share it? Are you now the expert on that topic based solely on what some mysterious source has told you?

If you plan on sharing that info, what would you do if someone challenged you on the validity of what you say? God forbid, what happens if their phone gives them a different answer?

These are just a few examples of why libraries, like classrooms, are so important.

Libraries not only provide resources but also opportunities.

They should replace all the signs that say “Library” with ones that say, “Opportunity”.

Libraries allow people to learn at a local level, with local people and neighbors, in a friendly environment that could care less about your social background.

Libraries are open to all, free of charge, with the sole purpose of giving you the opportunity to learn.

Libraries have been a key part of our history since the days of our founding fathers.

Why? Thomas Jefferson said it best:

“An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.”

https://dp.la/exhibitions/history-us-public-libraries/beginnings

Brady, Hillary, and Franky Abbott. A History of US Public Libraries. Digital Public Library of America. September 2015. https://dp.la/exhibitions/history-us-public-libraries.

Before public libraries spread across the United States after the Revolutionary War, people were looking for outlets to access and discuss literature. During the Enlightenment, these came in the form of literary salons, which gained popularity in France and Italy. Salons were spaces for conversations about art, politics, and literature. They were particularly empowering for women, who had been barred from formal learning spaces and now had a place to exchange ideas, read and share their writing, and debate. Decades later, libraries offered a similar opportunity for women to enter the workforce and academia in new ways, too.

With the rise of non-religious texts and literacy rates in the 1700s, private book clubs among wealthy men evolved into subscription libraries. Subscription, or membership, libraries were funded by membership fees or donations, with collections accessible only to paying members. While today there are fewer than twenty membership libraries in existence in the US—many of which focus on special collections or rare material, rather than a varied book selection—from the late 1700s to the mid-1800s, they sprang up in cities across the country. The first of these libraries was formed in Philadelphia, under the direction of Benjamin Franklin, and would come to be known as the Library Company.

In pre-Revolutionary War America, books were hard to come by for anyone who was not wealthy or a member of the clergy. The expense and rarity of books meant that members of the middle or lower classes did not readily have access to reading material.

That changed in July 1731, when Founding Father Benjamin Franklin helped bring the membership library to the American colonies.

That’s right folks, Benjamin Franklin!

Franklin worked with the other members of what was called the Junto, a club of thinkers that gathered to discuss “queries on any point of Morals, Politics, or Natural Philosophy,” as Franklin described in his autobiography. Franklin and the other Junto members, primarily merchants, owned few books and were looking for a way to access more material for their weekly discussions.

Using money from the Junto members, alongside a forty-shilling investment from each of the library’s first fifty members, Library Company organizers started its first collection. By 1732, they had sent the library’s first book order to London. Though many of the library’s early books were about education or religion, the collection expanded to feature broader topics. Notably, a majority of the Library Company’s books were written in English. (At the time, most other private and university libraries had collections primarily in Latin.) Library members could access these books as they pleased, while non-members would need to provide collateral for their borrowed book.

In addition to membership libraries, Benjamin Franklin also played a role in the development of the first lending library. In 1790, Franklin donated a collection of books to a Massachusetts town that named itself after him. Though the town asked Franklin to donate a bell, he determined that “sense” was more important than “sound.” Franklin residents voted for those donated books to be freely available for town members, creating the nation’s first public library.

Public libraries began spreading in earnest in American towns and cities after the Civil War. These lending libraries are defined as board-governed and tax-funded instead of operated under a subscription model. Most importantly, they are open to all, do not charge for their services, and focus on serving the needs of the general public.

The first totally tax-supported library was established in Peterborough, New Hampshire, in 1833. While there were many other libraries that met new public-oriented milestones—like the Darby Free Library in Pennsylvania, which has been in continuous service since 1793—the first large public library was the Boston Public Library, founded in 1848. Boston Public Library opened in 1854 and all Massachusetts residents could borrow from its collection, which began with 16,000 volumes.

By 1920—less than 150 years after Benjamin Franklin first donated what would become a town’s first public library collection—there were more than 3,500 public libraries in the United States. This rapid expansion of the US public library can be traced back to another American man’s donation—steel magnate Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie’s funding had built about half of these 3,500 public libraries, earning him the nickname, the “Patron Saint of Libraries.”

Carnegie funded the building of 2,509 “Carnegie Libraries” worldwide between 1883 and 1929. Of those, 1,795 were in the United States: 1,687 public libraries and 108 academic. Others were built throughout Europe, South Africa, Barbados, Australia, and New Zealand. The last Carnegie Library grant in the US was issued in 1919.

So who was this Carnegie guy?

Steel magnate Andrew Carnegie became one of the wealthiest industrialists in America but gave much of his fortune away for the “improvement of mankind.” When asked about the best philanthropic gift he could give to a community, his answer was a free library.

Carnegie, who was born in Scotland and moved with his family to Pittsburgh at thirteen years old, grew up in poverty. A turning point for young Carnegie, which would help guide his work as a philanthropist years later, was spending Saturday afternoons at a local private library at the invitation of a wealthy Pittsburgh man.

Carnegie eventually became superintendent of the city’s division of the Pennsylvania Railroad but quit after seeing new opportunities in the iron industry after the Civil War. It proved a risk that paid off in a big way. Carnegie’s Keystone Bridge Company (which worked to replace wooden bridges with iron ones), his later Carnegie Steel Company, and investments in the United States Steel Corporation, made Carnegie a fortune as a steel tycoon. But some of his big business choices had dire consequences for working-class Americans—like the Homestead Strike and the Johnstown Flood—that tarnished his reputation and then fueled his desire to rehabilitate it through philanthropy.

In his autobiography, Carnegie remembered that, as a child, “I resolved, if wealth ever came to me, that it should be used to establish free libraries.” And he did, providing public libraries to communities across the country, all engraved, at his request, with an image of a rising sun and “Let there be light.”

In other words, “Let there be opportunity.”

Now folks, you didn’t think I would let you get away without a final dose of history, did you? For my die-hard followers, here you go:

https://www.history.com/news/8-impressive-ancient-libraries

1. The Library of Ashurbanipal

The world’s oldest known library was founded sometime in the 7th century B.C. for the “royal contemplation” of the Assyrian ruler Ashurbanipal. Located in Nineveh in modern-day Iraq, the site included a trove of some 30,000 cuneiform tablets organized according to subject matter. Most of its titles were archival documents, religious incantations and scholarly texts, but it also housed several works of literature including the 4,000-year-old “Epic of Gilgamesh.”

The book-loving Ashurbanipal compiled much of his library by looting works from Babylonia and the other territories he conquered. Archaeologists later stumbled upon its ruins in the mid-19th century, and the majority of its contents are now kept in the British Museum in London. Interestingly, even though Ashurbanipal acquired many of his tablets through plunder, he seems to have been particularly worried about theft. An inscription in one of the texts warns that if anyone steals its tablets, the gods will “cast him down” and “erase his name, his seed, in the land.”

2. The Library of Alexandria

Following Alexander the Great’s death in 323 B.C., control of Egypt fell to his former general Ptolemy I Soter, who sought to establish a center of learning in the city of Alexandria. The result was the Library of Alexandria, which eventually became the intellectual jewel of the ancient world.

Little is known about the site’s physical layout, but at its peak, it may have included over 500,000 papyrus scrolls containing works of literature and texts on history, law, mathematics and science. The library and its associated research institute attracted scholars from around the Mediterranean, many of whom lived on-site and drew government stipends while they conducted research and copied its contents. At different times, the likes of Strabo, Euclid and Archimedes were among the academics on site.

The great library’s demise is traditionally dated to 48 B.C. when it supposedly burned after Julius Caesar accidentally set fire to Alexandria’s harbor during a battle against the Egyptian ruler Ptolemy XIII. But while the blaze may have damaged the library, most historians now believe that it continued to exist in some form for several more centuries. Some scholars argue that it finally met its end in 270 A.D. during the reign of the Roman emperor Aurelian, while others believe that it came even later during the fourth century.

3. The Library of Pergamum

Constructed in the third century B.C. by members of the Attalid dynasty, the Library of Pergamum, located in what is now Turkey, was once home to a treasure trove of some 200,000 scrolls. It was housed in a temple complex devoted to Athena, the Greek goddess of wisdom, and is believed to have comprised four rooms—three for the library’s contents and another that served as a meeting space for banquets and academic conferences.

According to the ancient chronicler Pliny the Elder, the Library of Pergamum eventually became so famous that it was considered to be in “keen competition” with the Library of Alexandria. Both sites sought to amass the most complete collections of texts, and they developed rival schools of thought and criticism. There is even a legend that Egypt’s Ptolemaic dynasty halted shipments of papyrus to Pergamum in the hope of slowing its growth. As a result, the city may have later become a leading production center for parchment paper.

4. The Villa of the Papyri

While it wasn’t the largest library of antiquity, the so-called “Villa of the Papyri” is the only one whose collection has survived to the present day. Its roughly 1,800 scrolls were located in the Roman city of Herculaneum in a villa that was most likely built by Julius Caesar’s father-in-law, Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus.

When nearby Mount Vesuvius erupted in 79 A.D., the library was buried—and exquisitely preserved—under a 90-foot layer of volcanic material. Its blackened, carbonized scrolls weren’t rediscovered until the 18th century, and modern researchers have since used everything from multispectral imaging to X-rays to try to read them. Much of the catalog has yet to be deciphered, but studies have already revealed that the library contains several texts by an Epicurean philosopher and poet named Philodemus.

5. The Libraries of Trajan’s Forum

Sometime around 112 A.D., Emperor Trajan completed construction on a sprawling, multi-use building complex in the heart of the city of Rome. This Forum boasted plazas, markets and religious temples, but it also included one of the Roman Empire’s most famous libraries. The site was technically two separate structures—one for works in Latin, and one for works in Greek.

The rooms sat on opposite sides of a portico that housed Trajan’s Column, a large monument built to honor the Emperor’s military successes. Both sections were elegantly crafted from concrete, marble and granite, and they included large central reading chambers and two levels of bookshelf-lined alcoves containing an estimated 20,000 scrolls. Historians are unsure of when Trajan’s dual library ceased to exist, but it was still being mentioned in writing as late as the fifth century A.D., which suggests that it stood for at least 300 years.

6. The Library of Celsus

There were over two-dozen major libraries in the city of Rome during the imperial era, but the capital wasn’t the only place that housed dazzling collections of literature. Sometime around 120 A.D., the son of the Roman consul Tiberius Julius Celsus Polemaeanus completed a memorial library to his father in the city of Ephesus (modern-day Turkey).

The building’s ornate façade still stands today and features a marble stairway and columns as well as four statues representing Wisdom, Virtue, Intelligence and Knowledge. Its interior, meanwhile, consisted of a rectangular chamber and a series of small niches containing bookcases. The library may have held some 12,000 scrolls, but it most striking feature was no doubt Celsus himself, who was buried inside in an ornamental sarcophagus.

7. The Imperial Library of Constantinople

Long after the Western Roman Empire had gone into decline, classical Greek and Roman thought continued to flourish in Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire. The city’s Imperial Library first came into existence in the fourth century A.D. under Constantine the Great, but it remained relatively small until the fifth century when its collection grew to a staggering 120,000 scrolls and codices.

The size of the Imperial Library continued to wax and wane for the next several centuries due to neglect and frequent fires, and it later suffered a devastating blow after a Crusader army sacked Constantinople in 1204. Nevertheless, its scribes and scholars are now credited with preserving countless pieces of ancient Greek and Roman literature by making parchment copies of deteriorating papyrus scrolls.

8. The House of Wisdom

The Iraqi city of Baghdad was once one of the world’s centers of learning and culture, and perhaps no institution was more integral to its development than the House of Wisdom. First established in the early ninth century A.D. during the reign of the Abbasids, the site was centered around an enormous library stocked with Persian, Indian and Greek manuscripts on mathematics, astronomy, science, medicine and philosophy.

The books served as a natural draw for the Middle East’s top scholars, who flocked to the House of Wisdom to study its texts and translate them into Arabic. Their ranks included the mathematician al-Khawarizmi, one of the fathers of algebra, as well as the polymath thinker al-Kindi, often called “the Philosopher of the Arabs.” The House of Wisdom stood as the Islamic world’s intellectual nerve center for several hundred years, but it later met a grisly end in 1258, when the Mongols sacked Baghdad. According to legend, so many books were tossed into the River Tigris that its waters turned black from ink.

So, there you have it folks. Libraries are key to our success as a nation.

Libraries have provided people with the opportunity to learn since the 7^th century. Why would anyone even begin to think we could survive without them?

Is Trump eligible to run for office?

by Noah Feldman | Bloomberg

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/08/20/14th-amendment-doesn-t-bar-trump-from-presidency-alas/b36a93e8-3f54-11ee-9677-53cc50eb3f77_story.html

A law review article claiming that Donald Trump is automatically disqualified from holding elected office is getting attention in large part because it was written by two conservative, originalist law professors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen.

Baude and Paulsen argue that Trump should be excluded from ballots for giving aid to an “insurrection or rebellion” in violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

OK. Hold it right there. Before we go any further, we need to know what the 14^th amendment to the constitution says. Here you go:

Section Three: 14th Amendment

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/fourteenth-amendment#14th-amendment-section-three

Section Three of the amendment, gave Congress the authority to bar public officials, who took an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, from holding office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution. The intent was to prevent the president from allowing former leaders of the Confederacy to regain power within the U.S. government after securing a presidential pardon.

Wait. What? The Confederacy? Are they saying somehow Trump triggered a civil war that killed 750,000 Americans and should be held to the same penalties imposed on the leaders of the Confederate States of America?

Last I checked he hasn’t even been brought to trial on the January 6^th mess.

Don’t get me wrong. You can support any candidate you want, but this seems something of a stretch to me. Back to the 14^th amendment.

It states that a two-thirds majority vote in Congress is required to allow public officials who had engaged in rebellion to regain the rights of American citizenship and hold government or military office.

It states that: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

There are two problems with the notion that Trump can and should be kept off the ballot by state election authorities.

First, although Baude and Paulsen’s originalism is honest and conscientious, originalists outside of academia typically won’t apply their originalism if it leads to a result at odds with their conservatism.

Second, there is precedent that contradicts their argument — precedent the scholars dismiss because they say it contradicts the original meaning of Section 3.

To condense their main points, when the 14th Amendment was drafted after the Civil War, the original meaning of Section 3 was that anyone who previously held public office and then rebelled against the US government should be automatically barred from office unless two-thirds of Congress made an exception.

This constitutional provision is law and requires no further action by Congress to implement it, the article says.

Courts can and should apply it, but we don’t need to wait for them to do so. Any government official, state or federal, whose duty it is to apply the Constitution must obey Section 3.

It follows, the authors say, that the state officials who set the ballots for the primaries and general elections should exclude Trump. If he wants to fight that in court, he can. But there’s no need for the officials to wait for a judicial determination.

To state this argument is to see why it won’t be followed by state officials.

Was the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol an “insurrection”? Did Trump participate or give aid and comfort to the “enemies” of the Constitution under Section 3? These are contentious questions of constitutional interpretation.

Again folks, the 14^th was written in response to the devastation caused by the Civil War. Can we honestly say that the January 6^th incident is the same as the 4 year conflict that destroyed the south and cost 750,000 American lives?

True, all state and federal officials are sworn to uphold the Constitution. But today we are accustomed to having the judiciary, and ultimately the Supreme Court, resolve tough constitutional questions.

A state election official who blocked Trump from the ballot would understandably feel an enormous amount of trepidation about making such an epochal decision absent judicial guidance. And even if local officials were prepared to bar Trump, they would be ill advised to do so as a matter of constitutional law.

The Supreme Court as a whole has never directly interpreted Section 3. But in 1869, the chief justice of the United States, Salmon P. Chase, issued a circuit court opinion in Griffin’s Case interpreting Section 3. (At the time, it was normal for Supreme Court justices also to work as circuit court judges.)

In it, Chase held that Section 3 was not automatically enforceable — what lawyers call “self-enforcing” — but rather could only go into effect if Congress passed a law directing its implementation. Such legislation is not today in existence.

Woah, wait a minute. I find that very confusing. What in the world is Griffins’s Case? Had to do a little research on that one.

The argument back then appeared to be that the state couldn’t bring charges under the constitution without Congress approving the state’s actions. At least that is how I interpret it. Here is what I found:

Click to access 14.3-fsfp-magliocca-report-mar-2023.pdf

….The only ostensible basis for the upside-down view of federalism that state courts are helpless to enforce the U.S. Constitution without specific congressional action is an 1869 lower court decision that applied Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the then-unreconstructed state of Virginia. See Griffin’s Case, 11 F. Cas. 7 (C.C.D. Va. 1869) (No. 5,815).

The plaintiff, Caesar Griffin, was convicted in state court of assault. Id. at 22. He brought a federal habeas corpus petition alleging that his conviction was unlawful because the Virginia judge who presided over his trial was ineligible to serve under Section Three. Id. at 22-23.

Griffin’s Case was heard by a two-judge court presided over by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, acting in his capacity as a Circuit Justice. See id. at 22. The petition was rejected on the ground that Section Three was not selfenforcing and that an Act of Congress was required for enforcement.8

A circuit court decision, even one written by a sitting chief justice, doesn’t formally bind the judiciary or even the other courts of appeal.

Nevertheless, the opinion is overwhelmingly the most important precedent interpreting Section 3. It has not been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court or the other courts of appeal since it was set down more than 150 years ago. Because it is still on the books, ignoring it would be an act of legal irresponsibility.

Back to our current case:

To be sure, Chase’s logic in Griffin’s Case is a bit tortured, as Baude and Paulsen’s article shows over some 20 pages. Chase was clearly trying to achieve a near-term legal objective (upholding convictions by judges who had once been associated with the Confederacy and might have been disqualified by Section 3).

He also likely had a longer-term political objective, namely giving a majority in Congress the ability to decide whether Section 3 would be applied, rather than requiring two-thirds of Congress to lift the bar on office.

But nearly every important judicial opinion reflects legal and political judgments. The whole idea of precedent is that it stays in place until the courts reject it.

Originalists don’t like that. In fact, they don’t like precedent much at all, because they think a law’s original meaning has more validity than later judges’ interpretation.

That’s one of the things that’s wrong with originalism. Although theoretically designed to constrain courts, originalism in fact invites judges — and others — to disrupt long-established law in favor of their preferred policy positions, dressed up as original meaning.

So, there you have it folks. Based on what I have shared, should Trump be on the ballot to run for President, or did his involvement in the January 6^th mess disqualify him?

I don’t know. The choice of who you vote for should be yours and yours alone. For that reason, I say, let him run. The people will decide.

Let’s talk about a subject that everyone seems to ignore. Is the war in Ukraine good for the American economy?

Don’t get me wrong, I am as big of a patriot as any of you. However, I often wonder about some of the military decisions coming out of Washington these days.

Let’s take a look.

Weapons manufacturers rake in a fortune as arms flood into Ukraine from the U.S. and Europe. Experts warn sending more will only fuel continued global violence.

https://www.analystnews.org/posts/as-the-war-in-ukraine-drags-on-americas-arms-industry-reaps-the-profits

BY ATIF RASHID

As the war continues, U.S. aid to Ukraine now stands at a staggering $37.6 billion, by far the largest amount of military aid given to Ukraine by any country.

Billions of dollars worth of military equipment has poured into Ukraine since Russia launched dozens of missile strikes into Ukraine late last year, marking the start of its full-scale military invasion into the country.

From state-of-the-art tanks and missile systems to helicopters, helmets and ammunition, rounds and rounds of military hardware continue to fly in. The vast majority, experts say, is coming from the United States.

“It’s certainly more than we’ve given any country before, even at the height of the Afghanistan war,” says Hanna Homestead, a policy analyst at the Center for International Policy who focuses on the impact of the U.S. arms trade around the world. “The aid that we’ve sent to Ukraine for their military is more than our NASA budget for space.” 

By the end of last year, Washington had spent almost $20 billion on arming Ukraine — nearly double the amount the United States gave in 2021 to 12 other countries combined, including Afghanistan ($4.1 billion), Israel ($3.3 billion) and Egypt ($1.3 billion). 

Ukraine is going through extremely high rates of artillery, Homestead says. Some of the weapons being provided are so sophisticated that Ukraine’s military is untrained in how to utilize them; the New York Times reports that some soldiers are using Google Translate to understand English-language manuals for instructions.

As the conflict drags on with little hope for a resolution soon, it’s the U.S. military-industrial complex that enjoys the spoils of war.

“When you have a military that’s not as professionalized, you have a lot more inaccuracies. You have a lot more artillery used than you necessarily should, especially [when] it’s being given for free,” Homestead explains. “The Ukrainians are really burning through a lot of that artillery much faster than they should be.”

As the war continues, U.S. military aid to Ukraine now stands at a staggering $37.6 billion, by far the largest amount of military aid given to Ukraine by any country. And with the Pentagon looking to compete with China by accelerating arms sales to allies, experts say there is no end in sight. 

The European Union, meanwhile, has given Ukraine €4.6 billion ($5 billion) in military aid, marking the first time in its history that the bloc has armed a non-member country. The U.K. has also pledged £4.6 billion ($5.7 billion) in military assistance and is aiming to train 30,000 Ukrainians by the end of the year.  

Ukraine has certainly pinned its hopes of victory on shipments of sophisticated Western military equipment. But as the conflict drags on with little hope for a resolution soon, it’s the U.S. military-industrial complex that enjoys the spoils of war.

So, we are spending a fortune of our hard earned tax dollars on a war with no clear ending in sight. We really need to ask ourselves, why?

Who is benefiting from the war?

Nearly 15 months since Russia invaded, the conflict has become a war of attrition.

With the International Criminal Court’s warrant of arrest against Russian President Vladimir Putin, a reluctance to negotiate, allegations of war crimes, personal jabs and no apparent peace talks in progress, the war is likely to simmer on.

So far, American defense firms have been the only winners in the conflict. Officials from Russia, China and the European Union — where it will cost €175 billion ($190 billion) to offset price hikes and supply chain issues, as well as improve its energy independence, host refugees and bolster its defense — have accused Washington of prolonging the conflict to its own benefit.

“The fact is, if you look at it soberly, the country that is most profiting from this war is the U.S. because they are selling more gas and at higher prices, and because they are selling more weapons,” an unnamed EU official told Politico in November last year.  

Regardless of declining public support for military spending and a protracted conflict, American weapons manufacturers have seen their values skyrocket since the war began. In the weeks after Russia’s invasion, the market capitalization of Raytheon Technologies shot up to $155 billion from $128 billion at the start of the year. Lockheed Martin started 2022 worth $98 billion; by the end of year, it had reached $127 billion — its highest since records show. Northrop Grumman started the year on $61 billion and ended at $84 billion. 

“It’s a huge profit center for the big companies: Lockheed Martin and Raytheon and Boeing,” says William Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute, where he focuses on the global arms trade and Pentagon spending. “At the moment, I think they’re riding the wave.”

Officials from Russia, China and the European Union have accused Washington of prolonging the conflict to its own benefit.

Wait. What? Are they saying making a profit is a higher priority than helping the people of Ukraine? Surely not.

If so, has this ever happened before? Of course it has and we simply have to look back to our history during WWII.

The might of the military-industrial complex

In 1961, former U.S. president Dwight Eisenhower warned in his farewell address “about the unwarranted influence of the military-industrial complex to push for higher and higher spending,” Hartung says.

So how about a little history?

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/ford-and-fuhrer/

Ford and the Führer

 By KEN SILVERSTEIN

We have sworn to you once,
But now we make our allegiance permanent.
Like currents in a torrent lost,
We all flow into you.

Even when we cannot understand you,
We will go with you.
One day we may comprehend,
How you can see our future.
Hearts like bronze shields,
We have placed around you,
And it seems to us, that only
You can reveal God’s world to us.

This poem ran in an in-house magazine published by Ford Motor Company’s German subsidiary in April of 1940. Titled “Führer,” the poem appeared at a time when Ford maintained complete control of the German company and two of its top executives sat on the subsidiary’s board.

It was also a time when the object of Ford’s affection was in the process of overrunning Western Europe after already having swallowed up Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland in the East.

“Führer” was among thousands of pages of documents compiled by the Washington law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, which sought damages from Ford on behalf of a Russian woman who toiled as a slave laborer at its German plant.

This past September, a judge in New Jersey, Joseph Greenaway Jr., threw the case out on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired. Greenaway, who did not exonerate Ford, did accept the company’s argument that “redressing the tragedies of that period has been–and should continue to be–a nation-to-nation, government-to-government concern.”

Ford argues that company headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan, lost control of its German plant after the United States entered the war in 1941. Hence, Ford is not responsible for any actions taken by its German subsidiary during World War II.

“We did not do business in Germany during the war,” says Lydia Cisaruk, a Ford spokeswoman. “The Nazis confiscated the plant there and we lost all contact.” She added that Ford played a “pivotal role in the American war effort. After the United States entered the war, Ford threw its entire backing to the war effort.”

That Ford and a number of other American firms–including General Motors and Chase Manhattan–worked with the Nazis has been previously disclosed.

So, too, has Henry Ford’s role as a leader of the America First Committee, which sought to keep the United States out of World War II.

However, the new materials, most of which were found at the National Archives, are far more damning than earlier revelations. They show, among other things, that up until Pearl Harbor, Dearborn made huge revenues by producing war matériel for the Reich and that the man it selected to run its German subsidiary was an enthusiastic backer of Hitler.

German Ford served as an “arsenal of Nazism” with the consent of headquarters in Dearborn, says a US Army report prepared in 1945.

Moreover, Ford’s cooperation with the Nazis continued until at least August 1942–eight months after the United States entered the war–through its properties in Vichy France.

Indeed, a secret wartime report prepared by the US Treasury Department concluded that the Ford family sought to further its business interests by encouraging Ford of France executives to work with German officials overseeing the occupation.

“There would seem to be at least a tacit acceptance by [Henry Ford’s son] Mr. Edsel Ford of the reliance…on the known neutrality of the Ford family as a basis of receipt of favors from the German Reich,” it says.

The new information about Ford’s World War II role comes at a time of growing attention to corporate collaboration with the Third Reich.

In 1998 Swiss banks reached a settlement with Holocaust survivors and agreed to pay $1.25 billion. That set the stage for a host of new Holocaust-related revelations as well as legal claims stemming from such issues as looted art and unpaid insurance benefits.

This past November NBC News reported that Chase Manhattan’s French branch froze Jewish accounts at the request of German occupation authorities. Chase’s Paris branch manager, Carlos Niedermann, worked closely with German officials and approved loans to finance war production for the Nazi Army.

In Germany the government and about fifty firms that employed slave and forced labor during World War II–including Bayer, BMW, Volkswagen and Daimler-Chrysler–reached agreement in mid-December to establish a $5.1 billion fund to pay victims.

Opel, General Motors’ German subsidiary, announced it would contribute to the fund. (As reported last year in the Washington Post, an FBI report from 1941 quoted James Mooney, GM’s director of overseas operations, as saying he would refuse to do anything that might “make Hitler mad.”)

Ford refused to participate in the settlement talks, though its collaboration with the Third Reich was egregious and extensive.

Ford’s director of global operations, Jim Vella, said in a statement, “Because Ford did not do business in Germany during the war–our Cologne plant was confiscated by the Nazi government–it would be inappropriate for Ford to participate in such a fund.”

The generous treatment allotted Ford Motor by the Nazi regime is partially attributable to the violent anti-Semitism of the company’s founder, Henry Ford.

His pamphlet The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem brought him to the attention of a former German Army corporal named Adolf Hitler, who in 1921 became chairman of the fledgling Nazi Party.

When Ford was considering a run for the presidency that year, Hitler told the Chicago Tribune, “I wish that I could send some of my shock troops to Chicago and other big American cities to help.” (The story comes from Charles Higham’s Trading With the Enemy, which details American business collaboration with the Nazis.)

In Mein Kampf, written two years later, Hitler singled Ford out for praise. “It is Jews who govern the stock exchange forces of the American Union,” he wrote. “Every year makes them more and more the controlling masters of the producers in a nation of one hundred and twenty millions; only a single great man, Ford, to their fury, still maintains full independence.”

In 1938, long after the vicious character of Hitler’s government had become clear, Ford accepted the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the Nazi regime’s highest honor for foreigners.

Woah! Wait a minute. Did they just say that Hitler awarded the Grand Cross of the German Eagle to Henry Ford?

Ford Motor set up shop in Germany in 1925, when it opened an office in Berlin. Six years later, it built a large plant in Cologne, which became its headquarters in the country.

Ford of Germany prospered during the Nazi years, especially with the economic boom brought on by World War II.

Sales increased by more than half between 1938 and 1943, and, according to a US government report found at the National Archives, the value of the German subsidiary more than doubled during the course of the war.

Does this sound familiar folks?

Ford eagerly collaborated with the Nazis, which greatly enhanced its business prospects and at the same time helped Hitler prepare for war (and after the 1939 invasion of Poland, conduct it).

In the mid-thirties, Dearborn helped boost German Ford’s profits by placing orders with the Cologne plant for direct delivery to Ford plants in Latin America and Japan.

In 1936, as a means of preserving the Reich’s foreign reserves, the Nazi government blocked the German subsidiary from buying needed raw materials.

Ford headquarters in Dearborn responded–just as the Nazis hoped it would–by shipping rubber and other materials to Cologne in exchange for German-made parts.

The Nazi government took a 25 percent cut out of the imported raw materials and gave them to other manufacturers, an arrangement approved by Dearborn.

According to the US Army report of 1945, prepared by Henry Schneider, German Ford began producing vehicles of a strictly military nature for the Reich even before the war began.

The company also established a war plant ready for mobilization day in a “‘safe’ zone” near Berlin, a step taken, according to Schneider, “with the…approval of Dearborn.”

Following Hitler’s 1939 invasion of Poland, which set off World War II, German Ford became one of the largest suppliers of vehicles to the Wehrmacht (the German Army).

Papers found at the National Archives show that the company was selling to the SS and the police as well. By 1941 Ford of Germany had stopped manufacturing passenger vehicles and was devoting its entire production capacity to military trucks.

That May the leader of the Nazi Party in Cologne sent a letter to the plant thanking its leaders for helping “assure us victory in the present [war] struggle” and for demonstrating the willingness to “cooperate in the establishment of an exemplary social state.”

Ford vehicles were crucial to the revolutionary Nazi military strategy of blitzkrieg. Of the 350,000 trucks used by the motorized German Army as of 1942, roughly one-third were Ford-made.

The Schneider report states that when American troops reached the European theater, “Ford trucks prominently present in the supply lines of the Wehrmacht were understandably an unpleasant sight to men in our Army.”

Indeed, the Cologne plant proved to be so important to the Reich’s war effort that the Allies bombed it on several occasions. A secret 1944 US Air Force “Target Information Sheet” on the factory said that for the previous five years it had been “geared for war production on a high level.”

While Ford Motor enthusiastically worked for the Reich, the company initially resisted calls from President Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Churchill to increase war production for the Allies.

Now folks, just recently I have seen news articles stating that analysts fear that we are depleting our supply of munitions here at home in an effort to continue supplying the Ukraine. They stated that in the event the US finds itself in a conflict with China over Taiwan, we are said to have only a two-month supply of necessary munitions.

Is that not exactly what Roosevelt and Churchill were telling Ford during WWII? In other words, your priority should be supplying the US, NOT Germany.

Tell me history doesn’t repeat itself. Is the military industrial complex really fighting for the preservation of democracy worldwide, or are they simply in it for the almighty dollar? It could have a lot to do with how long the war in Ukraine continues.

PS. Is it not interesting that one of the largest munitions plants in the US is in Scranton, Pennsylvania?

Is anyone out there paying attention?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66339528

By Robert Plummer

Niger’s democratically elected President Mohamed Bazoum has been overthrown by the very people who were supposed to protect and uphold his office – the presidential guards who stood watch outside his palace.

President Bazoum was the first elected leader to succeed another in Niger since independence in 1960. Now his captors have suspended the country’s constitution and installed Gen Abdourahmane Tchiani (Abdoo rach man Chee ahni) as head of state.

Niger is a key part of the African region known as the Sahel (sa hell)- a belt of land that stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea. The area is plagued by jihadists and beset by military regimes.

Western nations had looked to Niger as a bulwark against further disorder and spreading Russian influence in the region. But that turned out to be short-lived.

Here’s what you need to know about the crisis.

Why is Niger important?

Geographically, it is the largest country in West Africa.

Politically, it had been seen as an example of relative democratic stability in recent years, while its neighbors Mali and Burkina Faso had already succumbed to military coups.

Strategically, it hosts French and US military bases and is seen as a key partner in the fight against Islamist insurgents.

In fact, the US state department describes Niger as “important as a linchpin for stability in the Sahel” and “a reliable counter-terrorism partner” against various Islamist groups linked to either the Islamic State or al-Qaeda.

Economically, it is rich in uranium – producing 7% of all global supplies. The radioactive metal looms so large in the country’s economy that one of the grandest thoroughfares in the capital, Niamey, is named the Avenue de l’Uranium.

However, Niger’s people consistently rank as having the lowest standards of living anywhere in the world.

Why did the coup happen?

The Sahel region is a turbulent and unstable part of the world and democracy is currently in retreat there.

Violent Islamist groups have gained ground by controlling territory and conducting attacks in the tri-border region between Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso.

The mutinous soldiers in Niger have cited this worsening security situation as a reason for their uprising, although Niger was handling the insurgencies far better than Mali and Burkina Faso before their own coups.

The growing unrest has led some to believe that only harsh military crackdowns can solve the problem, hence the popular support that the coup seems to enjoy in some quarters.

However, it is far from clear that a military junta would have greater success in tackling the insurgents than the recently ousted government. The takeovers in neighboring countries have not made much difference.

What’s the international reaction to the coup?

France, the former colonial power, has been stern in its condemnation of the military takeover.

A statement by the French foreign ministry said President Bazoum was the country’s sole leader, adding that France “does not recognize the authorities resulting from the putsch led by Gen Tchiani”.

It added that France “reaffirmed in the strongest terms the clear demands of the international community calling for the immediate restoration of constitutional order and democratically-elected civilian government in Niger”.

The US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, has called for the president’s immediate release, while the African Union, the West African regional bloc Ecowas, the EU and the UN have all spoken out against the coup.

The only voice in favor has been that of the leader of Russia’s Wagner mercenary group, Yevgeny Prigozhin, who has reportedly described it as a triumph.

Yes, this is the same Yevgeny Prigozhin who led mercenaries for Putin in Ukraine and attempted a coup in Russia last month. He is the guy known as “The Chef”.

“What happened in Niger is nothing other than the struggle of the people of Niger with their colonizers,” he was quoted as saying on a Wagner-affiliated Telegram channel, although his comments have not been independently verified.

What’s it got to do with Russia and Wagner?

As well as jihadist groups, the Wagner mercenaries, who are active elsewhere in the region, have been seen as exercising a evil influence in Niger. Some supporters of the coup have been seen waving the Russian flag alongside that of Niger.

Before the coup, President Bazoum had complained of “disinformation campaigns” by Wagner against his government – and there is little doubt that Wagner, which has exploited mineral resources in other African countries to fund its operations, would like to do the same in Niger.

The US has said there is no indication that the Wagner force was involved in the overthrow of President Bazoum, but added that the situation continues to be quite fluid.

Now there are concerns that Niger’s new leadership could move away from its Western allies and closer to Russia.

If it does, it would follow in the footsteps of Burkina Faso and Mali, which have both pivoted towards Moscow since their own military coups.

Now here is another question to think about.

Is history to blame for the current situation in Niger?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66406137

By Leonard Mbulle-Nziege & Nic Cheeseman

Niger has become the latest country in West Africa where the army has seized control, following Burkina Faso, Guinea, Mali, and Chad – all former French colonies. Since 1990, a striking 78% of the 27 coups in sub-Saharan Africa have occurred in French colonial states leading some commentators to ask whether France – or the legacy of French colonialism – is to blame?

Many of the coup plotters would certainly like us to think so. Colonel Abdoulaye Maiga, who was named prime minister by the military junta in Mali in September 2022, launched a scathing attack on France.

Criticising “neocolonialist, condescending, paternalist and vengeful policies”, Mr Maiga alleged that France had “disowned universal moral values” and stabbed Mali “in the back”.

Anti-French vitriol has also flourished in Burkina Faso, where the military government ended a long-standing accord that allowed French troops to operate in the country in February, giving France one month to remove its forces.

In Niger, which neighbors both countries, allegations that President Mohamed Bazoum was a puppet for French interests were used to legitimize his removal from power, and five military deals with France have since been revoked by the junta led by Gen Abdourahmane Tchiani.

Partly as a result, the coup was followed by popular protests and attacks on the French embassy.The historical record provides some support for these grievances.

French colonial rule established political systems designed to extract valuable resources while using repressive strategies to retain control.

So did British colonial rule, but what was distinctive about France’s role in Africa was the extent to which it continued to engage – its critics would say meddle – in the politics and economics of its former territories after independence.

Seven of the nine French colonial states in West Africa still use the CFA franc, which is pegged to the euro and guaranteed by France, as their currency, a legacy of French economic policy towards its colonies.

France also forged defense agreements that saw it regularly intervene militarily on behalf of unpopular pro-French leaders to keep them in power.

Does any of this sound familiar folks? Surely, we would never do such a thing!

In many cases, this strengthened the hand of corrupt and abusive figures such as Chad’s former President Idriss Déby and former Burkinabe President Blaise Compaoré, creating additional challenges for the struggle for democracy.

Although France did not intervene militarily to reinstate any of the recently deposed heads of state, all were seen as being “pro-French”.

Worse still, the relationship between French political leaders and their allies in Africa was often corrupt, creating a powerful and wealthy elite at the expense of African citizens.

François-Xavier Verschave, a prominent French economist, coined the term Françafrique to refer to a neocolonial relationship hidden by “the secret criminality in the upper echelons of French politics and economy”. These ties, he alleged, resulted in large sums of money being “misappropriated”.

Although recent French governments have sought to distance themselves from Françafrique, there are constant reminders of the problematic relations between France, French business interests and Africa, including a number of embarrassing corruption cases.

It is therefore easy to understand why one Nigerien told the BBC that: “Since childhood, I’ve been opposed to France… They’ve exploited all the riches of my country such as uranium.”

Such scandals were often swept under the carpet while France’s African political allies were strong, and France’s military support helped to maintain stability.

In recent years, the ability of France and other Western states to ensure order has deteriorated, leaving them increasingly vulnerable to criticism.

Despite considerable funding and troops, the French-led international response to Islamist insurgencies in the Sahel region has failed to enable West African governments to regain control of their territories.

This was particularly significant to the fate of civilian leaders in Burkina Faso and Mali because their inability to protect their own citizens created the impression that French support was more of a liability than a blessing.

In turn, growing popular anger and frustration emboldened military leaders to believe that a coup would be celebrated by citizens.

Yet, for all of the mistakes France has made in its dealings with its former colonies in Africa over the years, the instability French colonial states are currently experiencing cannot be solely laid at its door.

It has hardly been the only former colonial power to prop up authoritarian leaders abroad.

During the dark days of the Cold War, the UK and the United States helped prop up a number of dictators in return for their loyalty, from Daniel arap Moi in Kenya to Mobutu Sese Seko in what was then Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The strong relationship between coups and the former colonial power was also much less prevalent in previous eras.

Four of the countries that have seen the highest number of coup attempts since 1952 are Nigeria (8), Ghana (10), Sierra Leone (10), and Sudan (17), which all experienced British rule.

Each of the coups over the last three years has also been driven by a specific set of domestic factors that demonstrate the agency of African political and military leaders.

In Mali, the background to the coup included an influx of extremist forces following the the collapse of the Libyan state in 2011, allegations the president had manipulated local elections, and mass anti-government protests orchestrated by opposition parties in the capital.

The trigger for the coup in Niger appears to have been President Bazoum’s plans to reform the military high command and remove Gen Tchiani from his position.

This is a strong indication that the coup was not really intended to strengthen Nigerien sovereignty, or to aid the country’s poorest citizens, but rather to protect the privileges of the military elite.

The mixed motives of recent coups are well demonstrated by the speed with which many of the new military governments have sought to replace one problematic relationship with an external ally with another.

At the recent Russia-Africa summit in St. Petersburg, leaders from Burkina Faso and Mali declared their support for President Vladimir Putin and the invasion of Ukraine.

As in the past, the beneficiaries of these global alliances are likely to be the political elite rather than ordinary citizens.

There are already reports that in May, troops from the Wagner group, in alliance with Putin’s government at the time, were responsible for the torture and massacre of hundreds of civilians in Mali as part of anti-insurgency operations.

Reducing French influence is therefore unlikely to be a straightforward boon for political stability, and in decades to come we may well see a new generation of military leaders attempting to legitimize further coups on the basis of the need to rid their countries of malign Russian influence.

So now we come to the real issue. While we are busy issuing indictments to former presidents and focusing on American politics, Russia is expanding its influence in Africa, continuing to drain our resources in the Ukraine, and conducting joint military actions in Alaska with the Chinese navy. Does anyone else see this as a problem?

In simple terms, while the US is distracted, Russia, China, Iran, and a host of other adversaries are taking advantage of the situation and expanding their holdings worldwide.