Clark Griswold

That could be a COA but I’m not allergic to a US presence (permanent or routine rotations on the ground in some numbers) but only for those in real danger of what Ivan is likely to try - Intimidation / Coercion Ops, small land grabs, Hybrid Warfare, etc... Germany, Italy, Spain, etc... are not in danger of those and even if they were being targeted with those types of Russian ops we should not be leading the pushback but only be the backstop if it really starts to wrap up into tightening spiral The idea of NATO may not be outdated but the current NATO and it’s baggage are either in need of rebuild or leaving Case in point Turkey, quickly becoming more troublesome https://rusi.org/commentary/worm-fruit-rising-strategic-foe-inside-nato NATO 2.0 would be best a collection of regional alliances with a linking structure to get the regions to ideally communicate, and collaborate, coordinate ops occasionally but keep the decision making alliances to reasonable sizes and keeping all members of said smaller alliances in the same security concerns sphere. Mediterranean alliance members for example could and would best understand / empathize with a member under aggression, likely quickly coming to a consensus and pushing back against aggression (external or internal). Expecting defense members now not in the same regions, with different national and economic interests to develop consensus when a problem / crisis arises that doesn’t directly affect them is crazy. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would it or does it matter if we are still a member of NATO but not forward deployed to Europe? Is this a foundational requirement? If they are sovereign, capable and responsible countries do we have to be there? If we do then they are not. They’re then client states of ours. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Holy shit Batman Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, that’s one less Hezbollah ammo dump to worry about Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m skeptical of it actually happening or other redeployment / draw downs but I hope that it does, not out of animus to Western Europe but because I do not believe it is in our best interest. I’ve mentioned this idea before in other threads but why do we deter aggression or coercion from one state (Russia) when Germany and others do business with them and other threats (Iran notably), it just does not work. It’s embarrassing, emasculating, infuriating and stupid. This is a cuckhold relationship, no thanks. NATO is part of a world order that doesn’t really exist any longer, where American largesse was great enough to overlook problems and unfair / untenable arrangements out of magnanimity and some ego, it’s time to admit that and act accordingly. Besides, the locus of threat is no longer the Fulda Gap but at the contentious new eastern flank of NATO, the Allies could take the wind out of the sails of NATO skeptics like me by offering modest forward deployments of their own forces with ROE that bypasses the blob of NATO bureaucracy, puts those forces while deployed under the OPCON of NATO members under threat of direct or coercive Russian aggression. Skin in the game and guarantee to fight if Ivan tries something? That’s a different NATO than what we have now This does not mean chaos following redeployment or there being no military relationship post NATO but something has to change, the old order is gone. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur End it gracefully but retain what could be useful in a new future (interoperability, routine joint training, logistical support) Long term relationships need more than just momentum to justify their continuance Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur on the age for elective federal office or any position requiring confirmation restriction, my limit would be 75 or less when you take an oath of office or are confirmed. Never been a fan of term limits but they may be required to fight stagnation by tenure, that policy change could mitigate the problem (I think it is a problem) of our government often but not always led by people in the sunset of life, setting policies they themselves will not live with or see carried to fulfillment and having a mindset likely set by the world as it was 30-40 years ago. Concur on underestimation of Biden or more specifically the elements of the Left supporting him, not a pejorative statement against them but they are nimble and cunning, plan accordingly. Musing on the election of President and the shit show that it is now, methinks we had it right prior to the 17th Amendment without the direct election of senators, applying that idea to the Presidency in an updated way (all state elective office holders being the voting population for POTUS, the people deciding the candidates to be considered as an example new process) would give the people a say but have a secondary process with less emotion and pandering to select a President that will serve the people and country best. Not a perfect process but likely better than what we have now. Our current system of Popular Vote then the Electoral College is kinda like what I would want but this would be explicit, the people choose the canidates, the state government officials decide which one of the several (not just two) wins the Presidency, President elect then selects VP.

I'll take that bet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lr_lhMh9-Q Trump has "rhetorical flourishes" also granted but Biden does not have stamina, for short periods and not repeatedly, he is coherent but like many older folks I have known he can't keep it up for extended periods of time. Not a personal slight on him, it happens to all at some point in later years but that is the way I see it. On the election, Trump and the Republican party, TC summed it up pretty well if you are not a Dem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS-bsetu01w

Concur Recommend Kenya, coastal location likely Mombasa. As to the end of Spang, needs to happen along with the end of most if not all Western European basing. If we have any defense interests in being forward deployed to Europe it is a modest foot print in Central / Eastern Europe and the Baltic states with some basing in Southern Europe for Mediterranean access and logistical bases for ME ops (if absolutely required). They (Western Euros) are not our enemies, they are friends but have different outlook on the world and the use of military force for deterrence, intervention and foreign policy priorities. Their day to day defense is not our responsibility.

Likewise. Conversation is fine but IMO the volume on the side screaming for the conversation is so loud that it doesn't hear the reply to it or doesn't really want to hear what the other side really thinks. Decrying racism and racist behavior is fine but it must be equally applied and the reality that we know can not be denied, the why and how to change it is the real tradespace where something can be done. Some can not be a victim, also an equal and in some contexts a bit better, we either truly believe others are equals or not, there is no path forward where we are equals some of the time but sometimes not. That said I also am aware of the reality of the other side, they along with others have not gotten a fair shake and there is a reason for them to agitate for change. Anodyne way to describe America's situation with our historical legacies but it is an acknowledgement.

How? What is it that we can do that will make it better? What is it that is feasible, affordable, moral and doesn't cut off our nose to spite our face? That is just sets us up for more inter-group resentments and does not violate the bedrock of individual freedom, individual justice and equality before the law.

Because that makes sense... https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/23/portland-commissioner-police-are-starting-fires-themselves-justify-attacking-community-members/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd like to file a micro-aggression complaint: AP says it will capitalize Black but not white To be fair or as some on this thread consider fair, not all parties in the current conversation / scream-fest think this is a good idea (article lists several black organizations that think this is a bad idea) but this is just an interesting window into the vain mind of the vanguards of woke.

I am truly sorry for your friend and hope that he is the outlier that makes it to the other side. Concur on partial legalization but not full, it’s not a perfect policy (there is none) but it likely better than what we have now. Agree on the long term and stigmatized extremely negative effect of a singular encounter or even a second with the criminal justice system for possession and personal use. Distribution is entirely different. There should be some paths to redemption for some offenses, there is a point where there is not but that point should be quite a ways to cross, not easily. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't think relatively successful is how to describe it, I would call it a wash with a light residue left behind. Plenty of evidence of that it is not all sunshine and rainbows when you legalize it at the state level, still illegally federally but hey that's just a rule of law issue, who cares about that stuff anymore? I'm not for legalization as it is now, I would be for it if it came with stringent regulation to better control what is sold to the public like alcohol is, the weed that is out there now is different than the dope old boomers smoked in the 60s - more potent and the delivery methods being used by the young and foolish (illegal vaping products) are causing injury/deaths. But like I said, if legalization were done differently and legally in accordance with the primacy of federal laws over state laws, legalization/regulation at the federal level first then states tailoring their laws inside the parameters of that overarching legal limit(s). I went on a Google spree just to cite some evidence of my neutral to slightly negative assessment of state legalization, looks like other states are taking a pause to legalization as it is a mixed bag at best in the states that have legalized. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191113153049.htm https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/27/marijuana-legal-homeless-denver-colorado https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/03/us/colorado-survey-suggests-legal-marijuana-attracting-homeless/index.html https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-13/pot-legal-states-struggle-to-stem-rise-in-driving-while-stoned https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/30/marijuana-legalization-may-increasing-number-stoned-drivers/4603105002/ https://www.rti.org/news/new-study-suggests-medical-marijuana-legalization-may-be-associated-higher-rates-mental-illness https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6461328/ https://www.mhanational.org/risky-business-marijuana-use That's not a big bunch of monkey shit I'm throwing at your post but just want to make the point that weed is a vice like many in our society, to be tolerated on a tight leash but not really embraced. Don't think the policies of the past were wrong per se if you mean the declaration by Pres Nixon of the War on Drugs in 1971 but as you say they were the past, they were what the people then making the decisions thought was the right thing to do and now we can study the results. That is NOT support to the fallacious idea of saying if they just did X (some more lenient policy) it would have been so much better. You or I can't prove a hypothetical that would have been done in the past to cause some outcome, we can only speculate. Should drug laws, policy towards the illegal drugs in the USA and abroad where we choose to support PNs in counter narcotics be monitored and updated to get the best results and operate inside of our values? Yup. Should we continue the War on Drugs? Yup. It's my two cents you never get a break from fighting for your society, values and culture. Like everything living in nature it must constantly strive and fight for its place otherwise it will be no more. Anyway, that's my rant for the night. As we are discussing the War on Drugs I will offer this podcast episode I listened to on the subject recently, worth the hour investment of time IMHO:

What if you get Mobility / C2 / ISR Heavies? Not a deal breaker I hope If you get to go to SUPT and the plinko machine puts you somewhere you can’t imagine now, make the best of it and there are lots of other possibilities on that second assignment if you shine on the first and get picked up Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quit seeking Utopia 1 - The War on Drugs is really the Battle with Dangerous Drugs as Part of the War on Crime. It will never be over because you can never stop fighting a mortal enemy that you can never kill. Crime, criminals, dangerous and illegal behavior and substances will always be with us. Because they come from the inherent flaws in every person and the people yet to be. It's tiring and draining but it must always be fought. Can we pick our battles and fight better? Sure, but ending the Battle/War is not an option, it's just a fact of life. You never get a break from history. 2 - Wars in Shitholes. Sometimes necessary (not often though), should be fought mercilessly (ends faster, achieves feasible end state usually and deters other a-holes thus preventing other wars) against our actual foes in said shithole. Due care should be taken to spare the innocent and deliver aid to those we can help but they are secondary to killing our foes and are often a distraction and enticement to other goals that do not further the interests of the United States. Get in, get done with your mission(s) and get the Hell out. We can't save the world, make people become like us or think that they will see things our way if we just try harder We can win fights, defend/assert our interests and constructively use our other instruments. Be cautious but not too cautious. 3 - Immigration. It's like salt, just a little bit makes the food better too much ruins it. Greater numbers? No, we have been taking in enormous amounts of immigrants the last 30+ years and we need to take a break, assimilate, tighten our labor market and not believe the delusion that we have magic soil and a values system that overpowers the negative parts of other cultures of people who have been migrating to the US of late and encouraged to retain said cultures and that assimilating is wrong. With the devastation that the COVID virus and subsequent economic shutdowns have caused, adding more workers to the labor market here will not improve the situation for the working, middle or professional classes but it will MASSIVELY help the Investor/Corporate class who will only have more workers competing for a pool of jobs that does not expand proportionately to growth in workers. Open borders? Nope. The cost of open borders is the dignity and living standards of your working, middle and now professional classes. I don't care what bullshit some pie in the sky academic like Bryan Caplan says will happen and how wonderful it will be. "They" fucked up before, they told us how wonderful NAFTA would be and would not hollow out the core of manufacturing in the US, "they" told us that admitting China to the WTO and giving MFN trading status would eventually cause political and cultural change as they economically grew, still waiting for that, etc.... just two examples of how "they" either don't have a fucking clue about how the world works (people lie, cheat and steal and you must interact with them based on those facts) or they don't care what happens to the masses and are just willing to sell them down the river. Emotional I know, but seeing people push an idea that they themselves will never experience the negative ramifications of while then chiding people without money or privilege about how they just need to get over it makes my blood boil. People lie, cheat and steal; they always will act accordingly.

Just posted to further the idea of a jet based solution and an expansion to the capabilities of a platform to meet Light/Independent Attack - Armed Overwatch: Light fighter/attack capes can be brought to austere op locations, some cost to be sure but not impossible or impossibly expensive. Gripen is still in production with several variants (C/D/E/F) available. Developing a new type would likely run cranium first into the economic problem of a small production run of a specialized type, along with development time and monetary cost, 99% non-starter so modify and procure an existing type. Get a two seater; look to lighten the airframe for better TOLD/rough field performance, maybe more fuel capacity, get enhanced FOD protection mods, consider a new engine (higher bypass more fuel efficient), attack mission set focused avionics, organic sensors, software but still capable of reasonable self-defense / electronic protection, robust LOS/BLOS datlink capability, etc... Not cheap to be sure but if done with a partner nation outside of the conventional DoD acquisition system, you might be able to direct to solutions in a MUCH quicker timeline, to me this should take 3 years from green light, requirements/design mod, testing and IOC. We used to get things done this fast, there is no reason other than an army of shoe clerks that we can't again. An improved version of Scorpion might meet this but methinks the cost of developing it, the growth in capabilities and then size/weight/power requirements would basically create a new aircraft. Use a design that is right now about a 50% solution, the mods asked for less in most performance areas that are difficult to achieve Relatively inexpensive to acquire, operate and support. Exceeds the needs of SOF but not overkill, avoids the perceived problem of underkill of Big Blue that is a cardinal sin and could be part of the fights against capable opponents in some new roles (arsenal, jamming, sensor node, etc...) This idea is for a requirement that doesn't currently exist to my knowledge, but folding up the Armed Overwatch, Light Attack requirements into a new one, call it something like Next Generation Light Fighter/Attack/Scout Aircraft. Expands the access of SOF to capabilities for the current LIC/COIN fight but is capable of the Grey/Hybrid fight while being relevant to the conventional fight.

True - but they (Senate Republicans) should have manned up and just had a vote, go straight line party vote and be honest about it. We will reject any nominee of the sitting Democratic President because we think there will be a Republican President who will nominate a conservative justice. That sets up the precedent for extreme dysfunctionality as an opposing Senate could block appointments for everything and I'm not saying that they should do that but in reference to Garland they should have just had an up or down vote and get it over with.

Fair enough but I disagree on your hypocrisy charge, do you expect the other side to give you their flaws and acknowledge them openly? I'm not talking shit, I'm making a legitimate point about the Democratic party. You can make yours about the Republican party if you want, I don't have to make it for you. As for checkrides and evaluator and evaluatee experience, I'll stand by statement to hide weak areas if possible from evaluators. Given years of checkrides myself, evaluator in 3 different platforms, if you don't know it and don't have to let anyone else know you don't know, don't. Don't lie, don't embellish but don't show your ass for sure if you don't have to.

Agreed it was a political WMD with a lot of collateral damage, lingering effects and may have been overkill but it kept him from getting a Supreme, in that point I’m not upset I know this is a bad loop for us to be in but I don’t think making the first move to exit will be interpreted as anything but weakness to taken advantage of, I do t know how it ends or if can end well Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes Kennedy was especially awful human being, I never said the Republicans didn't have some questionable fellows on the team but let me know when they cover up something like this for a hypocritical pontificating bloated awful piece of shit Even after this he never cleaned up his act, reference this annectodote from a 16 year old page in the 80s It was evening and she and her 16-year-old page, an attractive blonde, were walking down the Capitol steps on their way home from work when Kennedy's limo pulled up and the senator opened the door. In the backseat stood a bottle of wine on ice. Leaning his graying head out the door, the senator popped the question: Would one of the girls care to join him for dinner? No. How about the other? The girls said no thanks and the senator zoomed off. Kennedy, the formal page said, made no overt sexual overtures and was "very careful to make it seem like nothing out of the ordinary." It is possible that Kennedy did not know that the girls were underage or that they were pages and, as such, were under the protection of Congress, which serves in loco parentis. Nevertheless, the former page said she did find Kennedy's invitation surprising. "He didn't even know me," she says. "I knew this kind of stuff happened, but I didn't expect it to happen to me." https://www.gq.com/story/kennedy-ted-senator-profile Gingrich has an interesting personal life and a few other problems/issues (draft deferrals when he espoused hawkish military policy in his adult professional life) but pretty much light years away from anything even like that.... So I put my best foot forward when making an argument and conveniently don't bring up points that would undercut my argument? On check rides do you tell the evaluator what your weak on and advise him/her to pick at that scab? Tell me what school of argument and debate you went to so I won't send my kids there. As to the Constitution requiring Senate approval: Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, empowers the president to nominate and, with the confirmation (advice and consent) of the United States Senate, to appoint public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court. This clause is one example of the system of checks and balances inherent in the Constitution. The president has the plenary power to nominate, while the Senate possesses the plenary power to reject or confirm the nominee.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States Constitution doesn't specify the method of Senate approval just that POTUS must have it to fulfill an appointment.

Pay back for Bork and what they did to Thomas. The hypocritical Democratic party can eat a bag of flaming dog shit for what they've done to decent and honorable men all while protecting gigantic POS's like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton. if a vacancy comes up, they should return the favor for what they did to Kavanaugh and not have even have hearings which are not constitutionally required, just a vote in the Senate.

But if SOF modified their requirements and switched to a light and affordable platform, modified / optimized for this mission but still capable of participating at an acceptable / useful role in MCO would that break the ice? There is a logic to Big Blue being hesitant to buy a platform focused on the fight the Civ Leadership / Conventional Joint Leadership is eschewing to focus on the potential big fights. I don't support that hesitation but I understand it. If you can't get rid of an obstacle, go around it to get to want you want. A new fixed wing strike capability independent of ACC that is affordable and relevant to the SOF-centric mission but capable of supporting the Joint Team in MCO. I'm a fanboy for more robust solutions and I realize that changing the question to get a a different answer is to get consensus / buy in is not exactly what we should do but it seems close enough in this case. More capability might mean less austere capability, more care and feeding but maybe not to an unacceptable level. Not telling the SOF community to sell their soul to get Big Blue to buy into, maybe just a lease...

Unfortunately almost everything is accountable as it will be used as a parts bird for the remaining fleet I’ve got a canopy breaker from a Tweet delivered by a bud to the boneyard I flew in SUPT, only thing they would let him take from the jet Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk