Category: Military issues

  • 4 Soldiers Killed in Helicopter Crash

    The Fort Hood PAO has announced that four US soldiers were killed in the crash of a UH-60 on the Fort Hood Military Reservation. The aircraft crashed yesterday sometime after 5:49PM (CST).

    The aircrew was assigned to Division West, 1st US Army. The precise unit to which the aircraft and crew were assigned, as well as the names of those lost, have not yet been released.

    The incident provides a grim reminder that even routine peacetime training is often deadly serious business.

    Rest in peace, brothers-in-arms. May God comfort your surviving family and friends.

  • Arrest In Spencer Stone Stabbing

    California LEOs have arrested a man in connection with the 8 October stabbing of USAF SSgt Spencer Stone.  Stone was one of the three US citizens who  thwarted the recent French train terror attack by taking down an armed assailant barehanded.  (Two other French citizens – one of whom was American-born – attempted to stop the terrorist bastard prior to that point but were disabled during their struggles.)

    The man arrested was James Tran, who lives IVO Sacremento, CA.  He reportedly has at least one previous felony arrest and known gang connections.  However, authorities do not believe the assault on Stone was gang-related.

    The Fox article has more details.  It’s not too long, and is IMO worth a read.

  • Throwing Good Money After Bad?

    Stripes today has an article  indicating the US Deputy SECSTATE has announced US pledges of another nearly $100M to support “Syria’s opposition”.  Presumably, that’s the “non ISIS”, moderate Syrian opposition – assuming any of those creatures still exist today.  The aid will go to “support local and provincial councils, civil society activists, emergency services and other needs on the ground inside Syria.”

    Well, whatever isn’t stolen or diverted theoretically will, anyway.  I’m guessing a fair chunk will end up used for other purposes – and possibly even in ISIS’s coffers.  But maybe I’m wrong.

    The article goes on to say that Saudi Arabia “wants Assad gone”, and that the timing of his departure – along with the departure of “foreign fighters” – are major sticking points in ending the Syrian civil war.  Gee, ya think?  I’d have never guessed.  How about we file that bit of wisdom in the “No Sh!t” category?

    Of course Assad’s departure is a sticking point – he has no intention of departing, and he’s currently running part of Syria.  Further, both Assad and those “foreign fighters” have their own interests in being there, and in preventing an ISIS takeover of Syria – kinda like we do, actually.  So that’s obviously a “sticking point”, too.  Sheesh.

    This new pledge brings to $500M the amount the US will have spent supporting the Syrian opposition since 2012.   Now it seems to me we could have spent all that money far more effectively, given the results we’ve gotten to date.  But maybe that’s just me.

    “I’ve got a bad feeling about this.”  I said that years ago, and I see no reason to change my mind now.

    Sometimes the devil you know is indeed better than the one you don’t.  If you don’t believe that . . . think back 3 years, then look at ISIS today.

  • A Word of Caution Regarding DPAA’s Korean War “POW/MIA Lists”

    The Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) has the mission of accounting for those who never came home. And they do a credibly good job IMO of doing so.

    However, here’s a caution regarding some of the information on their website.

    DPAA maintains publicly-accessible lists of those US personnel still missing from past conflicts going back to World War II. These lists are excellent sources, and seem to be kept reasonably well up-to-date as additional personnel from those conflicts are identified.

    These lists are differently structured for World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. A bit of background about each of those lists is essential to understand what the lists are actually telling you. I decided to write this article to give that background.

    World War II.

    The DPAA World War II lists (they don’t provide a consolidated one) are simple to understand, if perhaps not so easy to use. The DPAA World War II lists (found here) list only those who have not yet been formally accounted for – e.g., whose remains were never recovered.  These lists are clearly identified as what they are – lists of those still missing.  DPAA does not provide a list of POWs who returned alive, escaped, etc . . . , from World War II, and none of their lists would lead one to believe that’s its subject.

    The DPAA World War II lists are broken out alphabetically and by service, so there are a relatively large number of individual lists; as a result, they’re not necessarily too easy to use. But if you know an individual’s name, finding out whether they’re still missing is fairly straightforward (if perhaps a bit tedious).

    Vietnam.

    DPAA provides numerous lists for Vietnam  (by service, by state, etc . . . ) as well. However, for Vietnam DPAA also provides consolidated lists.  Four are IMO the most useful: the consolidated lists of Escapees, Returned, Accounted-For, and Unaccounted-For personnel. The lists’ names are self-explanatory: the Escapee list lists all personnel who escaped from their captors in SEA and returned alive to US control; the Returned list, those who returned alive from captivity at the end of the war; the Accounted-For list, all whose fate is definitively known (including escapees, returnees, and the turncoat bastard Garwood); and the Unaccounted-For list includes those who are still missing. The lists are comprehensive; thus, they’re quite useful for ferreting out fake Vietnam POW claims.  If the individual isn’t on the Escapee or Returned lists, DoD doesn’t recognize them as a Vietnam POW. Period.

    Korean War.

    DPAA also maintains a page it calls “Korean War POW/MIA Lists”.  Unfortunately, some of these Korean War lists are problematic. Bluntly:  taken at face value some of them can be hugely misleading.

    The Korean War lists are structured exactly as are the Vietnam lists; one would thus expect them to contain the same information.  One group of them does.  One does not.

    There are two types of Korean War “POW/MIA” lists: the “Accounted-For ” lists and the “Unaccounted-For”
    lists. The latter are good sources of data regarding those still missing, and appear to be both comprehensive and accurate.  However, there is a huge issue with the former group – the “Accounted-For” lists.

    On the DPAA Vietnam “Accounted-For” lists, those who escaped captivity and who returned alive from same are included in those lists; they are explicitly identified by their status code as having returned at the end of the war or to have escaped.  (They’re also broken out on separate lists for ease of review.)  In contrast, the Korean lists do not appear to include those US POWs who returned alive during/after the war, or who may have escaped from captivity during the war itself and returned to US control.

    What first tipped me off (some time ago) regarding this issue was when I looked at the consolidated Korea “Accounted For” list and found it had around 300 names (even today it only shows 322 names). This is far less than 10% of the number of US POWs documented to have returned alive during or at the end of the Korean War.

    I haven’t been able to find data on how many US personnel (if any) escaped from NK/Red Chinese captivity and returned to US control during the Korean War, or who might have been rescued by Allied forces.  However, near and after the end of the Korean War the US and NK/Red China conducted two major prisoner exchanges:  Operation Little Switch and Operation Big Switch.  Over 3,700  US personnel returned alive from POW status during these operations.

    Operation Little Switch occurred during April and May, 1953. During this exchange, 149 ill and/or wounded US POWs were returned to US control. Operation Big Switch occurred between the armistice ending the Korean War and the end of 1953; during multiple exchanges, 3,576 US personnel were repatriated. The total number of former US POWs known to have returned alive to US control in 1953 is thus at least 3,725.*

    None of the US personnel who returned in either “Switch” operation appear to be included on the Korean War “Accounted-For” lists.  Rather, those lists only appear to include the names of those whose remains were returned and/or definitively identified after the end of Operation Big Switch..  So the fact that someone (1) claims he/his dad/ his uncle/whoever is or was a Korean War POW s, when (2) their name doesn’t appear on any of the Korean War “Accounted-For” lists tells you . . . nada.  US POWs who returned alive at the end of the Korean War simply aren’t listed there.

    Why?  Dunno.  Seems to me that DoD must have a by-name list of who came back alive from POW status in Korea in its archives.  For whatever reason, apparently they’ve chosen not to make that list readily available through DPAA.  I wish they would, if for no other reason than to complete the historical record.

     

    * Historical Note:  per the armistice agreement ending the Korean War all POWs from both sides were given the opportunity to remain with the enemy if they so chose. A total of 3,597 US personnel were offered the opportunity to return from captivity during Operation Big Switch. Shockingly, 23 US personnel initially refused repatriation. Two later changed their minds (the Armistice agreement provided for a 90-day window during which a POW  initially declining repatriation could change their mind and opt to return home instead) and returned to US control in 1953. However, a total of 21 disloyal bastards ultimately declined repatriation to the US and opted to remain in Communist custody.  Most later decided that had been a mistake and returned to the US after several years. However, at least 4 (and possibly 5) never did. One died not long after the end of the Korean War.  The other 3 or 4 lived out the rest of their  turncoat lives under Communism.

    A well-meaning error by the military allowed those who later returned to the US to do so without facing severe legal consequences.  All of the US personnel opting to remain with the Communists were given a dishonorable discharge from the military in absentia.  When they later returned to the US, the result was that they could not be prosecuted for misconduct under the UCMJ – because due to their dishonorable discharges they were no longer in the military.  I  strongly suspect that’s why policy today is to keep the individual “on the rolls” in deserter status in such a case:  to ensure they can receive the appropriate UCMJ “tender mercies” on return.

     

    (A link to this article has been added to the “Military Records” button on the TAH site banner.)

  • About that Iran Nuclear Deal . . . .

    Remember the current     group of feckless fools and clueless tools’     Administration’s nuclear deal with Iran? You know, the one that     that gang of incompetent neophytes     the Administration refused to allow to be made public for review before it was signed?

    Well, maybe now we know why. Turns out some some senior Administration officials who’ll have to implement the deal have taken a hard look at what this       clown krewe     Administration agreed to allow in that deal. And there’s a problem.

    The deal appears to violate existing US law.  Law signed by – you guessed it – the current POTUS himself.  In fact, it runs afoul of multiple existing laws.

    The deal purportedly allows subsidiaries of US firms to do business with Iran. This is a major part of the deal, and is expected to result in tens of billions of dollars of trade between Iran and those subsidiaries.

    However, it so happens there’s this little thing called the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012..  It was passed by Congress in the summer of 2012. It was signed into law by the current Occupant, 1600 Penn Ave, in August of that year.

    Section 218 of that law explicitly prohibits foreign subsidiaries of US companies from doing business with Iran. Section 605 of that law requires this to remain the case until (1) the POTUS certifies to Congress that Iran is no longer listed by the DoS as a state sponsor of international terrorism, and (2) the POTUS certifies to Congress that Iran has ceased efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.  Both are required.

    The Iran nuclear deal is not a treaty; it is an “executive agreement” It thus does not trump existing Federal law.

    What’s more, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015  – also signed by the current POTUS –  specifically states that prior sanctions on Iran mandated by Federal law are not affected by the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran; they thus remain in effect.  So the current POTUS has signed Federal law requiring any US nuclear deal with Iran to be IAW existing US laws regarding Iran sanctions not once, but twice.

    I mean, really – how freaking incompetent must a group be to “accidentally” sign off on an agreement that is patently illegal?  Did they not bother to have any of their legal staff look at the damn thing before signing on the dotted line?

    Looks to me like someone has painted themselves into a corner. Best I can tell, the only way to actually implement key parts of the Iran nuclear deal at this point would be to require a clear violation of Federal law. Or, alternatively, the POTUS could certify to Congress that Iran is now neither a sponsor of terrorism or pursuing any form of WMD program.

    Personally, I’m betting on the former (ignore existing law). This Administration IMO seems quite comfortable with that, and I don’t think even this clueless krewe is stupid enough to do the latter.  But that’s just me.

  • About Those “I Escaped from the VC/NVA” Claims

    One of the common – and immensely frustrating – claims by military fakes is falsely claiming to have been held as a POW in Vietnam or elsewhere in Southeast Asia.  It’s also one of the easier false military claims to disprove quickly.  DPAA maintains a public list of POWs who returned from captivity during or at the end of the Vietnam War.

    However, many individuals making a “Vietnam POW” aren’t content to merely claim they were a POW.  Many have to claim to have been in a “tiger cage” temporarily, or to have later somehow escaped from enemy custody – or both.  Hell, Jonn posted an article about one such fake claim earlier today.

    Well, it turns out this kind of claim is also laughably easy to disprove. Turns out that DPAA maintains a second list – specifically, a list of those who successfully escaped enemy captivity during the Vietnam War.

    This latter claim (to have escaped from being held as a POW in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam Conflict) is not only laughably easy to verify or disprove, it’s also is one that’s virtually guaranteed to be bullsh!t.  Here’s why:  Only a total of 37 individuals were captured in SEA and later escaped and returned alive to US control.

    That’s right – thirty-freaking-seven.  Total.

    I haven’t counted.  But I’m pretty sure Jonn’s busted more than that many here at TAH alone for falsely claiming to have been “Vietnam POWs” who “escaped from Charlie”.

    The point?  Such individuals are incredibly rare.  They amount to a bit over 5% of all Vietnam POWs who returned alive – and according to DPAA, there were only a total 721 total POWs that returned alive, including civilians held captive.  (37 who escaped plus 684 who were released during or after the war).  Since approximately 3.1 million people served in the military in SEA during the war and only 32 of the escapees were military personnel, that means you’re literally talking about one Vietnam vet in about 97,000.

    Rare?  You betcha.  Especially since a number of those bona fide escapees are no longer alive.

    A few other interesting points about the successful escapees.

    1. Five of these individuals were civilians.
    2. Two were women (both were civilians).  They were both captured and escaped during the somewhat chaotic partial collapse of South Vietnam during March, 1975.
    3. Among the 32 military personnel who were taken prisoner in SEA and who later successfully escaped captivity, 19 were Army; 10 were Marines; 2 were Navy; and 1 was Air Force.
    4. With two exceptions, all successful escapees appear to have been taken prisoner and held in South Vietnam. The two exceptions were the two Navy personnel who later escaped; they were captured and held in Laos.
    5. No Navy SEALs were taken POW in Vietnam and later escaped.
    6. The vast majority (27, or 75%) of escapees escaped within a month of being captured. Only 4 were held longer than 2 months.  Only two escaped after being held longer than 6 months:  SFC Isaac Camacho, 5th Special Forces Group, US Army – captured on 24 November 1963 and escaped/returned to US custody almost 19 months later, on 13 July 1965; and 1LT James Nicholas Rowe, captured on 29 October 1963 and escaped/returned to US custody over 5 years later, on 31 December 1968.
    7. Three of the individuals who escaped captivity were both captured and escaped captivity the same day; another three were captured one day and escaped the next. If someone’s claiming they aren’t on the POW list because “they weren’t held long enough”, that’s bullsh!t.  There is NO “minimum time required” before DoD considers someone a POW.

    Still, we keep seeing this kind of bogus claim.  So, in the interest of being a ready reference, here is the complete list of those individuals who DPAA recognizes as being successful escapees from enemy captivity during the Vietnam War.

     

    Branch of Service  Location of Incident  Name  Rank Date Captured  Date of Return
    USA S. Vietnam AIKEN, Larry Delarnard E4 1969/05/13 1969/07/10
    USA S. Vietnam ANDERSON, Roger Dale E2 1968/01/03 1968/01/12
    USA S. Vietnam BABCOCK, William H. Jr. O2* 1968/01/31 1968/01/31*
    USA S. Vietnam BRASWELL, Donald Robert E4 1967/08/23 1967/08/24
    USA S. Vietnam BREWER, Lee E5 1968/01/07 1968/01/08
    USA S. Vietnam CAMACHO, Issac E7 1963/11/24 1965/07/13
    USN Laos DENGLER, Dieter O2 1966/02/01 1966/07/20
    USA S. Vietnam DIERLING, Edward A. E5 1968/02/01 1968/02/23
    CIVILIAN S. Vietnam DODD, Joe Lee Civ 1965/10/10 1965/10/25
    USMC S. Vietnam DODSON, James E5 1966/05/06 1966/06/20
    USMC S. Vietnam ECKES, Walter W. E3 1966/05/10 1966/06/20
    USA S. Vietnam FANN, Jerry L. E3 1967/03/21 1967/03/21
    USA S. Vietnam GRAENING, Bruce A. E3 1967/03/09 1967/03/18
    USA S. Vietnam GUFFEY, Jerry E4 1969/03/04 1969/03/04
    USMC S. Vietnam HAMILTON, Walter D. E2 1965/10/18 1965/10/29
    USA S. Vietnam HATCH, Paul G. E3 1969/08/24 1969/08/25
    USA S. Vietnam HAYHURST, Robert A. E5 1968/02/01 1968/02/23
    USA S. Vietnam HOLT, Dewey Thomas E4 1967/08/23 1967/08/24
    CIVILIAN S. Vietnam HUDSON, Henry M, Civ 1965/12/20 1965/12/21
    USMC S. Vietnam IODICE, Frank C. E4 1968/05/30 1968/06/01
    CIVILIAN S. Vietnam JONES, Edwin D. Civ 1965/12/20 1965/12/21
    USA S. Vietnam KING, Everett Melbourne Jr. E4 1968/02/01 1968/02/08
    USN Laos KLUSMANN, Charles F. O3 1964/06/06 1964/08/31
    USA S. Vietnam MARTIN, Donald Eugene E5 1968/03/02 1968/04/14
    USMC S. Vietnam NELSON, Steven N. E3 1968/01/07 1968/01/21
    USMC S. Vietnam NORTH, Joseph Jr. E2 1965/10/18 1965/10/29
    USAF S. Vietnam PAGE, Jasper N. E6 1965/10/30 1965/11/04
    USMC S. Vietnam POTTER, Albert J. E5 1968/05/30 1968/06/01
    USMC S. Vietnam RISNER, Richard F. O4 1968/08/20 1968/08/22
    USMC S. Vietnam ROHA, Michael R. E1 1968/01/07 1968/01/21
    USA S. Vietnam ROWE, James Nicholas O2 1963/10/29 1968/12/31
    CIVILIAN S. Vietnam SMITH, Linda Civ 1975/03/10 1975/03/27
    CIVILIAN S. Vietnam SMITH, Michelle L. Civ 1975/03/10 1975/03/27
    USMC S. Vietnam TALLAFERRO, William P. E4 1968/02/06 1968/02/13
    USA S. Vietnam TAYLOR, William B. E5 1968/03/20 1968/05/06
    USA S. Vietnam VANPUTTEN, Thomas E4 1968/02/11 1969/04/17
    USA S. Vietnam WRIGHT, Buddy E5 1968/09/22 1968/10/06

    Note:  for unknown reasons, the DPAA list does not give a rank or date of escape for Babcock.  However, the Military Times Hall of Valor database lists his rank when captured as 1LT, and indicates he escaped from enemy custody/was rescued the same day.  Other Internet sources also give Babcock’s  rank as 1LT at time of capture; those sources further indicate he was captured and escaped/was rescued the same day.  I have thus entered this data in the table above.

     

    That’s the entire DoD-recognized escapee list.  It may be verified directly from DPAA by following this link.  All other Vietnam War POWs who returned alive did so after being released during or after the end of the war.

    If someone’s making a “Vietnam POW” claim and isn’t on that list, well, personally I’d not believe a word they said.  And I’d probably also leave the area immediately – before I lost my temper and did something stupid.

     

    (A link to this article has been added to the “Military Records” button on the TAH site banner.)

  • Alice, George, and History

    Long ago, an election was stolen.

    It was stolen in a place that was effectively a one-party state at the time. Oh, yes, there was technically political opposition. But as a practical matter, the ruling party called the shots; its candidates always won. Elections were largely a formality, held for show.

    But elections were held nonetheless. The standard tricks of the trade were used to affect their outcome: votes recorded that were not cast, dead people voting, bought votes, fraudulent totals – you name it.

    However, sometimes the ruling party would squabble within itself, with no clearly “pre-anointed” victor. In those cases, the results might be close. And things could get . . . interesting.

    In one such case, the results were close indeed. After a hard fight, one of the two indeed won. Then the election was stolen. And the results were so obviously fraudulent as to be nauseating.

    In one location, dead people were documented to have voted. People who never voted during the election – and who were out of town on election day and thus unable to vote at all – were nevertheless counted as having voted in person.

    The totals in favor of one candidate were nauseatingly one-sided – so much so, that it’s impossible to believe them: 408-110; 5,554 -1,179; 965-61 (or 966-61; sources differ); 711-158; 723-198; 2,908-166; and 4,195-38 (later “amended” to 4,620-40 – or an election “turnout” of 99.6% of registered voters in that locality).

    All told, it’s estimated that tens of thousands of outright fraudulent votes were cast. They were overwhelmingly cast for one candidate. And when that wasn’t enough, days after the election one key result was “corrected”; enough names were added – alphabetically and in the same handwriting – to official poll lists as having voted for a single candidate to change the election’s results.  Barely.

    In short, the election was blatantly stolen. And though challenged, the challenge was unsuccessful. The beneficiary of the theft ended up keeping the stolen office – a high national office, at that.

    Now, you might wonder why I’m writing this and posting it to a military blog. Well, the above is indeed true. But it’s not a story about fraudulent elections in some Third-World dictatorship or Communist nation during the Cold War – nations that were known to hold elections merely for show.

    I’m also not talking about the 2008 Minnesota Senate Election that was stolen to put Al “Comic Relief” Franken in the Senate.

    Rather, it’s the story of what happened in South Texas during the 1948 Democratic Senate Primary Run-Off election. That election was patently fraudulent – and blatently stolen.

    That’s the election that sent LBJ to the Senate, saving his political career and setting him on the path to the White House.

    Without that stolen election, LBJ isn’t Vice-President on the morning of November 22, 1963. And without LBJ as president, IMO Vietnam as a major land war either never happens at all or plays out far differently than it did. LBJ was terrified of being identified as being “soft” on Communism, and identified as having “lost” a nation to the Communist cause. IMO that’s the main reason he engineered our involvement there – and kept “upping the ante” when things didn’t go as planned.

     

     

    If you’ve never read Robert A. Caro’s Means of Ascent, I’d strongly recommend you do so while you’re on this side of the dirt – regardless of your feelings about LBJ. In Chapters 13-16, Caro documents precisely how people working on LBJ’s behalf stole that election, and how they kept it stolen afterwards. And he makes a persuasive case that not only did LBJ know precisely what was going on, but also approved of it wholeheartedly.

    Elections have consequences. Sometimes they’re not felt for decades.

     

    Author’s Note: None of the ballot boxes produced in court during Federal Special Master Hearings investigating allegations of fraud during the 1948 Texas Senatorial Run-Off Election in late September 1948 were marked as was the one in the above photo. The ballot box depicted in the photo above was thus quite obviously not among those produced in court during that Federal Special Master investigation.

    The box in the photo is believed to have been from Precinct 13 in Alice, TX, in Jim Wells County. That precinct was the one to which the 200 votes (some accounts say 201 or 202) that changed the election’s outcome were added days after-the-fact.

    The individuals in the photo are known associates and political allies of George B. Parr, political Jefe of the local area. One of them is his cousin, Givens Parr.

    Precinct 13 in Jim Wells County is known to have had two ballot boxes. Both were ordered brought to court during the Special Master investigation.

    One box from Precinct 13 was indeed opened in court during the Special Master hearings.  The second ballot box from Precinct 13 in Jim Wells County was either among those that remained unopened when the investigation was ordered halted – or was not present in court that day.

    The ballot box in the photo above has never been located.

    LBJ himself is known to have possessed a copy of the above photo. On at least one occasion during his Presidency, showed his copy of that photo to a journalist during an interview(1967).

    Draw whatever conclusions from the above you desire.

  • Russian Combat Equipment, Troops in Syria – Along With Iranian Troops, Too

    We all know that the current        group of feckless fools and tone-deaf tools running things in DC      Administration has been somewhat reluctant to become involved in Syria’s civil war – at least, when it came to sending US troops.  I have to admit I think that’s the right call.  Or at least, it was when inactivity on the Administration’s part made it the de facto US response.

    Hey, even a stopped clock is right twice daily.  (smile)

    But other nations aren’t so reluctant to become involved.  Take Russia, for instance.

    Russia has apparently sent combat troops to Syria.  They’ve recently (as in last week) been reported to have participated in combat operations on the side of the Syrian government.

    It’s hardly a minor “just to show the flag” deployment, either.  The Russians have made a serious logistical effort to support operations in Syria, and appear to be setting up airfield/basing facilities IVO Latakia – including billeting for up to 1,500 troops.  They’ve conducted numerous Antonov 124 flights to deliver troops and/or key other items.  They’ve also delivered tanks (including T-90s), APCs, and artillery pieces via ship.  Components for the SA-22 SAM system have also reportedly been assembled in Syria.

    Russia also isn’t the only foreign nation supporting the Syrian government. Iran has also sent a number of troops to “support” Russian forces in Syria.

    The US government – or, at least those currently in DC pretending to perform that function – are reacting predictably to these latest developments.  They have publicly expressed “deep concerns” over Russian forces in Syria, and also indicated they are “closely monitoring the situation“.

    Well, that’s just dandy.

    This last tells me that the introduction of forces was both unforeseen and undesired by the current Administration.  Otherwise, why draw attention to the fact you couldn’t prevent it from happening by expressing your “deep concerns”?

    And unforeseen?  GMAFB.  The Russians have been arming Syria for decades; the Iranians have been similarly close recently as well.  The fact that either or both could decide to intervene on Syria’s side should have been foreseen, oh, maybe about 24 hours after the current Syrian troubles began.  Yet all this Administration can manage to do is call attention to an unwanted and apparently unanticipated foreign action – and wring its hands after-the-fact.

    Yeah, that’s effective leadership.  Just like we had back in 1977-1980.

    Let me be crystal clear here:  I’m not calling for US forces to be deployed to Syria. And maybe having Russian and Iranian forces there to do something we’re not willing to do (e.g., fight ISIS on the ground) is the correct course of action.  Dunno.

    But calling attention to your own major diplomatic failure probably isn’t going to get us much respect in that part of the world – or anywhere else, for that matter.  And I do wonder what quid quo pro Assad will give to his Russian and Iranian benefactors afterwards to show his gratitude for saving his butt.

    As I’ve said before about the current Syrian civil war:  “I got a bad feeling about this.”