<div dir="ltr"><div>I was discussing with others recently the possibilities for the current administration to mobilize the public into acquiescence with its agenda. A major domestic terror attack might accomplish this, or a new war, as you point out. Or they could keep up the fear mongering about Muslims, immigrants, border security and the lack of domestic law and order in general. Even Obama still remains a target for propaganda, with the wiretapping charges. These tactics appear to have worked to a large extent, without a major terror attack or another new war.</div><div><br></div><div>We are already at war in the Middle East, currently in both Syria and Iraq. and also still in Afghanistan. It's just a matter of how far involved we become. The so called non-combat role of US forces in Iraq is still a US military involvement. I don't call US bombing runs in Iraq, or Syria or Afghanistan "non-combat." Talk about doublespeak! I guess they mean we don't have so called "combat" troops on the ground.</div><div><br></div><div>According to this article below from the Military Times, the US has extended its troop commitment of 8400 in Afghanistan into 2017 and the new US administration.</div><div><br></div><div>Of course a war with North Korean would be disastrous especially for the South Koreans, even if China in some scenarios would limit its involvement. But the language recently employed by Secretary of State Tillerson on North Korea appears to imply a more aggressive position on military action against North Korea.</div><div><br></div><div><font size="4">If the president is truly as psychologically compromised as some suggest, I would not rule out a war with North Korea, regardless of how disastrous.</font></div><div><br></div><div>I just read this article posted 3-19-17 that mentions school children in Japan conducting drills to prepare for a North Korean attack.</div><div>---------------------------------------</div><div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.ksl.com/?sid=43553156&nid=235">http://www.ksl.com/?sid=43553156&nid=235</a></div><div><br></div><div>By <span class="gmail-author">Lionel Lim, Taehoon Lee and Holly Yan, CNN</span> | Posted Mar 19th, 2017 <br></div><div><h1>Japan: Children prepare for North Korean attacks</h1><p>As North Korea's missile program gets more sophisticated, schoolchildren in Japan are preparing for attack. </p><p>-----------------------------------------------------------</p></div><div><h2 class="gmail-article-title">New in 2017: Big decisions for the wars in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan</h2><p class="gmail-article-title"><a href="http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/donald-trump-iraq-syria-afghanistan-james-mattis">http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/donald-trump-iraq-syria-afghanistan-james-mattis</a></p><div class="gmail-article-subinfo"><span class="gmail-article-author"> By: <a class="gmail-author-link" href="http://www.militarytimes.com/author/andrew-tilghman"><font color="#000080">Andrew Tilghman,</font></a> </span> <span class="gmail-article-subdate">December 26, 2016</span></div><div class="gmail-article-subinfo"><span class="gmail-article-subdate"><br></span></div><div class="gmail-article-subinfo"><span class="gmail-article-subdate">With a new administration preparing to take charge, there is growing uncertainty about the role of U.S. troops in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. <br><br>When Donald Trump assumes office in mid-January, there will be 15,000 American personnel deployed to those theaters. He has sent mixed signals regarding the wars, vowing on the one hand to crush extremists determined to attack the homeland while also signaling an “America first” policy meant to avoid expending more blood and treasure overseas. </span></div><div class="gmail-article-subinfo"><span class="gmail-article-subdate"></span><br></div></div><span class="gmail-article-subdate"><div>It’s possible all three combat theaters could need more U.S. forces in the coming months. And with President Barack Obama gone and Republicans in control of Congress, there may be less concern in Washington about putting “boots on the ground.” <br><br>In Iraq, the Islamic State will likely lose the territory it had occupied, transforming into a full-blown insurgency. When that happens, the U.S. may need to continue or even expand its train-advise-and-assist mission in order to help the Iraqi army preserve its hard-fought gains. </div><div><br></div><div>In Syria, the U.S and its fragile cast of allies must defeat the Islamic State in its self-proclaimed capital, Raqqa. That’ll be a large operation. <br><br>In December, the Pentagon expanded its authorized footprint in Syria from 300 to 500 troops, primarily special operations forces, advisers and explosive ordnance disposal specialists. Many experts believe a much larger American presence will be required to destroy ISIS there. <br><br> In Afghanistan, there is considerable pessimism about the 15-year-old war that Obama had hoped to end before leaving office. Instead, he’ll be leaving 8,400 troops there. <br><br>The Taliban continues to mount large-scale offenses. U.S. airstrikes are targeting a fledgling Islamic State faction there. And top U.S. commanders acknowledge they have overestimated the ability of the Afghan military and government to modernize. <br><br>The task of assessing and ultimately determining future force levels in all three theaters will likely fall to be a man who knows the region well. Retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, Trump’s nominee for defense secretary, oversaw military activity throughout the region as head of U.S. Central Command from 2010 to 2013. </div><div><br></div><div class="gmail-article-subinfo"><br></div></span><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 9:48 PM, <a href="mailto:rhayes@frontier.com">rhayes@frontier.com</a> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rhayes@frontier.com" target="_blank">rhayes@frontier.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif;font-size:16px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><div id="m_-666032729269580073yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1489978994333_6728"> The Bannon administratition is desperating looking around for a war that we can win in order to deflect ongoing critisism of its policies. It can't be too easy, but will requiore the sacrafrice of a goodly number of soldiers in order to unify the country. N.Korea would be a bit too messy, as it would involve China, and that would be WW war III. Hmmmm, where do we wage war? I would guess the Middle East again. Oil and money, and not too messy.</div><div id="m_-666032729269580073yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1489978994333_6737">This never ends does it?</div><div id="m_-666032729269580073yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1489978994333_6768" dir="ltr">Thanks you Trump voters...</div></div></div><br>==============================<wbr>=========================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
==============================<wbr>=========================<br></blockquote></div><br></div>