Ebola: When to Act

Recently, many of our readers have become very concerned about the on-going Ebola outbreak that has spread across West Africa. In particular, they want to know if this disease is something to worry about and when and how they should hit the bug out button. The answers to these questions now are relatively simple, but as this disease evolves, possible contingencies may arise where one must be prepared to take more drastic measures.
To begin, Ebola is a fatal communicable disease where up to around 90% of patients die. This particular strain does not appear to be as fatal, but has spread over a much broader region. There is no known cure and treatment is generally limited to providing pain management and fluids. The disease is transmitted by close contact with an infected person’s bodily fluids that include sweat, vomit, and most likely saliva. It does appear possible that the disease has some persistence and items contaminated with infected body fluids can transmit the disease until sterilized or disinfected. Also, the virus can be transmitted from an infected corpse after the person has died making burial and handling of bodies very risky. At this time though, the disease is not airborne and effective precautions can be taken to mitigate the spread. Nonetheless, to date, over 100 health care workers that did take “proper precautions” have become ill with the disease and most have since died. Further, it is important to note that a virus by its design mutates to survive. It is possible that in a worst case scenario, Ebola could mutate to be an airborne virus. This would constitute a biological worst case scenario that would quickly become a worldwide pandemic. Still though, for the virus to rapidly spread, it doesn’t require it to be airborne. In an area like West Africa where diseases are already endemic, understanding of the disease is poor, and hygiene and health care services are inadequate, the disease is now spreading like wildfire. In fact, since the virus has made its way out of the jungles and into the cities, Ebola escaped our best chance to contain the virus and is now exponentially spreading.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has instructed the public not to worry and said that Ebola does not pose a threat to Americans. However, actions speak louder than words. The CDC declared a Level 1 health emergency, which is its highest threat level, making one wonder why the CDC would go on its highest state of alert if the public has “nothing to fear” as the government claims. Since then, a growing number of Americans are being tested for Ebola “symptoms,” but the government has not released the details of these possible cases even as the numbers grow. This leads one to conclude the government is trying to suppress the true danger of this disease to prevent panic all while hiding behind medical privacy. Further, other countries are taking Ebola very serious. Nigeria recently declared a state of emergency after at least five people in and around Lagos were confirmed to have Ebola and Sierra Leon and Liberia are deploying troops and closing borders. The World Health Organization has also declared the Ebola outbreak as out of control and declared it a health emergency. So, even if the CDC says not to worry, it is clear governments are very worried. In fact, when the government says stay calm and don’t panic, it is probably time to become worried.

Extremely worrisome is the fact it appears that the US government and CDC are trying to calm nerves with faux action designed more to prevent hurt feelings than to stop the spread of a deadly disease. Instead of closing down our borders and restricting travel to and from countries known to have active Ebola outbreaks, the US government announced it was only stepping up the screening of passengers for symptoms coming from countries in West Africa. Those that understand the disease should quickly realize the ridiculous ineffectiveness of this strategy. Specifically, the disease can take up to 21 days for a patient to become symptomatic after exposure to Ebola. Although a patient is only believed to be contagious while actively showing symptoms, the infected person could easily move through international airports around the world for weeks before any symptoms arise. This means individuals with Ebola could already be inside the US and easily pass through our ports of entry with the disease. Further, once here, it would likely be a number of days before an infected person sought medical help for their worsening symptoms that first present like any other bad flu. During this time, even one infected person could come into contact with thousands of other people and unknowingly infect many. As this disease spreads into the urban populations, it has the potential to quickly overwhelm medical facilities and fuel very real panic.
So to answer your questions, yes, Ebola is something you should worry about, but radical action at this time would be premature. I have read many articles that claim Ebola is being used to create panic and sell vaccines. These articles often seem to imply that because a pharmaceutical company may seek to profit off of this disease that somehow the disease is overblown or not a threat. This logic is plain stupid and although companies may indeed exploit this situation, it by no means mitigates the disease threat to you and your family. Ebola has not yet spread to the point that one should consider bugging out/in. However, after analyzing the spread of the disease in West African cities, it is clear the numbers of infected hit a critical tipping point approximately two weeks ago and is now exponentially spreading. As such, I predict with a high level of assurance that Ebola will begin to be confirmed in major cities around the globe over the next two weeks. As the cases are confirmed and patients are moved to quarantine in hospitals, a growing number of health care workers will contract Ebola. This will begin a cycle that could quickly strain the health care system if the disease is not contained within days from this post.

If Ebola breaks out in major cities around the world, as it now looks increasing likely, this is when you will need to start looking at a bug out/in option. Right now, if you have not done so, you should be stocking up on decontaminates like hydrogen peroxide and Clorox as well as medical grade masks, gloves, face shields, and gowns. These items will become nearly impossible to get once Ebola goes mainstream in major cities around the world. Note that these items alone will not protect you from Ebola contamination if you are in direct close contact with an infected patient, but they will give you some stand off and ability to decontaminate your own living spaces. For proper precautions against Ebola, one would need to be fully covered in duplicate full body suits and ideally have a totally contained suit with its own oxygen supply. Depending on how the outbreak develops, if it becomes clear hospitals in the US are receiving a growing number of Ebola patients, which almost definitely would correspond with a growing number of health care workers contracting the disease, it would be wise to go ahead and pull your kids from school and take a long term leave of absence from work. In short, this is when one should be ready to leave town.

My personal trip wire for bugging out parallels this logic, but is a tiered response. Specifically, as I monitor the disease outbreak, I initially self-segregate from others and highly populated areas as much as possible. This includes restricting my travel through major transportation hubs and completely avoiding large public gatherings. I also mandate constant hand washing and implement more severe disease mitigation strategies around my work and home. Further, I try to get what I can delivered to my house and do any residual necessary shopping when the fewest number of people are out, usually in the early morning or late evening. I also will not shake hands and forego any type of hugs or physical contact with others. If the disease spread worsens, I then close up shop and move all my operations to an offsite interim bug out location. This location is far safer, more secure, and requires only the most minimal contact with the outside, but one which is still in contact with my work, small town America, stores, and supplies if needed. If the disease outbreak moves to Middle America and continues to spread, I execute my full scale bug out contingency and lock down my retreat. Until the disease has a vaccine or burns itself out, I remain completely isolated from anyone that wasn’t a part of the initially quarantined group. This makes bugging in a poor choice for those located in urban areas where the disease spread will always be worse. If at all possible, remove yourself and your family/group to a remote bug out location and monitor the crisis safely from the radio, internet, and TV. Your guiding principles should be the sooner you leave the better and the fewer people you have contact with the safer. You also should not advertise your plans and destination, but rather use a viable cover story if necessary for work and school to explain the absence. Ultimately, each one of your situations is unique and will require a custom tailored response; however, always trust your good judgment and maintain a bias for action. Do not rely on the government to help you or to tell you when it is too late. Remember that when the government steps in, it will be because it is already too late and their mission is not to protect you, but rather, retain their control. This will almost certainly not work out well for you if your plan for survival relies on the government to save you so act now, the clock is ticking.

Stay safe and healthy,

Guiles Hendrik
August 8, 2014
All rights reserved.

If California’s Drought Weren’t Scary Enough, Now It May Trigger Earthquakes

1

As the worst drought in living memory persists in California, more evidence has arisen supporting my previously published theory on earthquakes from December 2013 http://www.lastminutesurvival.com/2013/12/17/earthquakes-on-the-rise-in-oklahoma-a-new-theory-to-explain-seismic-activity-in-areas-once-considered-geologically-stable/

Specifically, scientists are now beginning to bandwagon on the idea that as aquifers are drawn down, the earth will simultaneously sink and rebound causing quakes. I outlined this theory as a probable mechanism to explain why quakes in areas such as Charlottesville, Virginia and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, where quakes were very rare, were suddenly occurring. I was able to conclude that there was a close correlation to quake activity in regions centered over confined, lake-like aquifers that have been heavily drawn down in recent years. Both Oklahoma City and Charlottesville have seen significant population increases over the last decade and have significantly drawn down their aquifers, which I believe has resulted in the occurrence of earthquakes. This conclusion better explains what I believe is a generally flawed belief that hydraulic fracking has caused quakes, specifically around Oklahoma. I dismissed fracking in my theory because the occurrence of quakes simply did not correspond well with high fracking activity. For example, if quakes were caused by fracking alone, then West Virginia and Pennsylvania should be experiencing a large number of quakes. This is not the case and when accounting for naturally occurring fault lines and other “known” causes of quakes, one must conclude that something other than fracking is at work. As stated, I have theorized that aquifer depletion is at the root of this quake activity and have been publishing on it since before the mainstream scientific community even considered the possibility.

The “so what” factor for our readers is apparent when it comes to my quake activity theory. If you live in an area that draws on a confined aquifer and has a high population density, preparing for earthquake activity would be smart. As the drought in the South West persists, demand on ground water resources will continue to grow. The increased demand will unleash a number of small quakes that may or may not be capable of damaging homes and infrastructure. What is not known is if these quakes could disturb the stability of the ground so much that the aquifer reductions could trigger secondary and much larger quakes along known fault lines. I theorize that in the event an isolated aquifer is heavily drawn down and is collocated with a known fault, it could indeed trigger much larger and unpredicted quakes than previously thought possible. Now don’t say you didn’t see it coming!

By Guiles Hendrik
August 13, 2014
All rights reserved.

For more:
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/08/04/california-drought-may-cause-earthquakes

Trauma Medicine for Massive Hemorrhage: Combat Gauze versus Celox

If you are looking to update your medical kit with effective and proven products, consider adding hemostatic agents. Over the course of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan trauma medicine has markedly improved with hemostatic gauze being one major advance. These clotting agents have proven so effective; they are standard in every medic’s trauma kit on the battlefield. As such, it is worth comparing the two most popular brands sold under the names QuickClot®Combat Gauze and Celox.
First of all, one should understand that clotting agents have been around for some time and have undergone an evolution in both composition and the mechanisms by which they work. Both Combat Gauze and Celox are the current result of this evolution and are far safer and more effective than their earlier ancestors. For example, the original QuickClot® essentially cauterized a wound with heat from a chemical reaction, which caused serious burns and contraindications. As a result, it was removed from medical kits and replaced with newer and better hemostatic agents. Today’s products are impregnated with hemostatic agents that facilitate blood clotting by complimenting or enhancing the body’s natural clotting faculties to stop massive hemorrhaging. Both Combat Gauze and Celox do this well, but which is best? Both also are used broadly by military, law enforcement, and rescue units around the world. However, these products are not cheap so if one is to invest in only one product, I recommend Celox for your medical kit.
Hemostatic agents in Combat Gauze and Celox allow for the formation of much larger clots than normal, which are more stable and more difficult to dislodge. This is critical for effective stoppage of heavy bleeding, especially, when a patient will have to be moved and clots could be jarred loose such as on the battle field. Further, both require the gauze to be used with constant firm pressure to be effective and allow the clot to form. Both are essentially used in the same manner. The specific location of the massive hemorrhage is located in the wound (usually a severed artery or large vein), is quickly wiped clean so that the wound location is identifiable, and the gauze is placed firmly and directly upon the bleed. For penetrating wounds such as gunshots, the cavity is then packed tightly being careful to maintain constant pressure on the bleed location while completely filling the void with tightly packed gauze. The packing is then held in place with a compression dressing. The gauze should be so tightly packed that it forms a gauze golf ball in the wound channel. The critical aspect for effective application of both products relies on their correct placement on the bleeding vein or artery and the maintenance of constant pressure until the bleeding stops. It is also worth noting that plain sterile gauze packed in a wound in the same manner using direct pressure is also still highly effective for stopping hemorrhaging.
Even though both products essentially are used the same way, Celox has notable advantages. First, in tests and operational employment, the Celox simply worked better at stopping serious bleeds. When similar wounds were unpacked in a surgical setting, it was clear from the degree of blood saturation that far less blood was lost in a patient when Celox was used. Specifically, in like wounds that severed the femoral artery of patients, Combat Gauze was unpacked and laid out showing over 12 yards of blood saturation whereas Celox showed approximately 12 inches before the gauze was blood free. This large difference could mean the difference between decompensated shock induced by severe blood loss and then the death of a patient or the complete prevention of hemorrhagic shock and survival of the patient. Further, the thicker Z-Folded Celox was much easier to handle and pack into wounds than the old school style of rolled Combat Gauze. Nothing is worse than having an entire roll of sterile gauze unwind into the muck on the ground just as you are trying to pack the wound of a severely hemorrhaging patient.
Evaluations of wounds treated with Celox and Combat Gauze also revealed that the clots formed by Celox tended to be larger and more stable. This may be due to how Celox and Combat Gauze clot. With Celox, the clotting agents are inherent in the compound so that they react instantly when they come into contact with blood. However, Combat Gauze relies upon concentrating the body’s own clotting agents (platelets) as they contact, accumulate, and react with the gauze. This is problematic since often, as a body enters shock from blood loss; the body naturally shunts blood flow from the core preventing the critical clotting compounds from reaching the wound site and the gauze. Further, when intravenous fluids are given without the addition of platelets, it reduces the effectiveness of Combat Gauze’s clotting mechanism because the fluid dilutes the blood’s natural clotting compounds.
Celox and Combat Gauze both help blood to begin clotting, but Celox is designed to work across a much broader range of patients. Specifically, Combat Gauze is designed to work with the narrow body chemistry of healthy fighting age patients. Celox on the other hand is designed to be effective across a much greater range of patients to include geriatric, those taking medications, and those taking blood thinners. This alone makes Celox a better “civilian” choice where it is more likely the patient will not fit into the perfect physically fit specimen of a fighting age soldier. In short, Celox employs a hemostatic agent that applies to everyone, whereas Combat Gauze is only designed to be effective in healthy fighting age soldiers.
In the recent DoD comparative study, Celox Gauze had the least overall blood loss, the highest survival and the highest overall hemostasis of all products. This study corresponds to the empiric evidence that I have gathered over the years using a variety of these products operationally.

By Guiles Hendrik
July 8, 2014
All rights reserved.

Department of Homeland Oppression and the FBI Target Gun Owners in Walmarts across Virginia

Think your latest purchase of a firearm or ammunition from Wal-Mart was innocent? The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), aka Department of Homeland Oppression, in coordination with the FBI doesn’t think so and wants to know who you are. In fact, they believe you may be a potential domestic terrorist according to reports from Wal-Mart sales managers.
Over the last two weeks our field reporters dispersed across Northern Virginia to question sales representatives selling sporting goods throughout Virginia after rumors surfaced of agents questioning sales representatives. What they found should is shocking. In Wal-Mart after Wal-Mart, our reporters were able to verify that FBI and or DHS special agents had recently visited the stores requesting information on any suspicious buyers. According to sales managers working in the retail chain Wal-Mart, special agents requested information about anyone that appeared suspicious, attempted to buy ammo in bulk, or made anti-government comments. The special agents inquired specifically about anyone that made statements relating to sovereign citizen movements and buyers that seemed out of place to the sales manager warning that they could be potential domestic terrorists. In the event the sales manager had information, they were instructed to contact various agents from the FBI and DHS.
Make no mistake; DHS and the Justice Department consider you a threat to the US. If you buy ammunition in bulk to save money, exercise your constitutionally protected First Amendment, or are otherwise having a bad day your name and information could be passed on to the FBI or DHS for investigation as a potential terrorist. This information then goes to fusion centers across the nation where you are labeled and placed on watch lists as a domestic threat. Often this information is then used to generate faux “probable cause” to obtain a search warrant that will be justified under the nebulous national security exceptions to the rule of law and basic civil “RIGHTS.” Once a warrant is obtained, agents will execute a high risk, “no-knock” warrant most likely in the middle of the night and heavily armed to arrest you and ransack your home looking for anything they can construe as a threat. Often things as innocent as duct tape, old wire, and water barrels that many of us have in abundance are cited as “bomb making” materials or evidence of “terrorist” activities. God forbid if you are caught with a book that is politically incorrect on top of the duct tape and old wire.
If you think you have nothing to hide because you are “innocent” and have done nothing wrong, don’t be fooled because you are not exempt. Remember, all it takes is the impression of a Wal-Mart sales clerk to get labeled. Who knows, perhaps, you came across as unfriendly, maybe you were disturbed that they didn’t have any 9mm ammunition in stock, or maybe the sales clerk is just a bad judge of character. Either way, it doesn’t matter in a spy state where intimidation tactics abound and citizens are coerced into spying on their fellow neighbors by the government. Many honest Americans have had their lives ruined by being “swatted” or by unjustly becoming the subject of investigation by an overly militaristic gestapo agent at DHS or the FBI. Being “watch listed” is an extremely dangerous threat. We have seen numerous examples of how these “tips” have led to egregious acts on the part of law enforcement. At best you are questioned and labeled for surveillance. However, the worst examples include raiding the homes on innocent victims, which led to the incarceration of harmless citizens, pets being shot, children kidnapped by Child “Protective” Services, and even the killing of the unsuspecting homeowner that reached for a gun in self-defense as gestapo agents broke down their door in the middle of the night.
You need to protect yourselves. Option one is to maintain a low profile and not use traceable means of commerce such as credit cards instead of cash when purchasing guns or ammunition from retailers. However, that alone apparently constitutes you being a potential threat according to memos released by DHS and doesn’t solve the issue. A better method may be to use sunlight to disinfect and inoculate your local stores before the feds can hijack your information. Use the size and finances of these companies to fight our battle for freedom. To do this, directly contact your local sporting goods retailers and have a frank, honest, and open discussion about these gestapo tactics with their management. Make it clear to store managers that you are not comfortable shopping at their stores if you know you are going to be spied on and your information potentially handed to the government. Insist that your privacy is respected and demand proof. Further, ensure their employees are briefed on the underhanded government tactics and how that violates basic civil liberties.
Contrary to what the government desires, companies still require profits to exist and no matter what the government wants, the companies; especially large retailers like Wal-Mart, will begin to push back against the government (legally if necessary), when they are boycotted and their profits begin to shrink. We have witnessed this in the case of internet companies and NSA spying. Even Google and AT&T have begun to legally push back against government spying as they recognize their profits are not immune and free men and women across the globe will take their business elsewhere if their privacy is not ensured. The bottom line is if the management pushes back on protecting our basic civil rights, organize local and regional boycotts of the retailer. Make it impossible for them to conduct profitable business if it becomes clear that they are supporting domestic targeting of innocent Americans. When the knowledge of what the retailer is doing goes viral, contemporary precedents suggest that the retailer will cave to customer demands.

By Guiles Hendrik
All rights reserved.
July 14, 2014

The O’Reilly “Fiction:” Setting the Factor Straight

Against my better judgment, I decided to watch a segment of “The O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News to hear his points on the latest developments in Iraq. In O’Reilly’s defense, he has been a brilliant talk show host and highly successful writer and businessman. However, at the end of the day, O’Reilly is still a journalist with limited real world expertise on many of the topics he provides commentary on. Specifically, O’Reilly poses as an expert, but is totally lacking in experience when it comes to matters of military application and foreign affairs. O’Reilly has never served in combat, is not an intelligence analyst, and so far has not demonstrated himself as a policy maker. So to no surprise, when I tuned in, O’Reilly was expounding his usual pompous, ill informed, bomb them all rhetoric with respect to the Islamic extremist army dubbed ISIL or ISIS. Within thirty seconds of listening to O’Reilly’s poorly informed diatribe, I remembered why I had stopped watching Fox. As such, I feel as though Fox News and Bill O’Reilly needed some better informed input to ensure Fox lives up to its “fair and balanced” moniker and openly challenge O’Reilly to a debate on Iraq policy.
First of all, I want to make it clear we lost in Iraq. Bill O’Reilly is still grasping to a false reality and believes we actually accomplished strategic objectives (won) in Iraq before our retreat. The fact the US was defeated is tough to deal with, but nonetheless fact. It in no way diminishes the honor of our veterans. Suggesting otherwise to those that cannot dissect honor from the success or failure of an army in battle is ridiculous. The notion that loss in battle or war dishonors our troops is no more logical than suggesting soldiers of losing armies across thousands of years of recorded history had no honor. For example, the many British army units fought with the utmost honor in the American Revolution, soldiers fighting for the Confederate Army during the American Civil War fought with great honor, and Rommel’s Afrika Corps has been distinguished again and again for its honor by historians, but all of the above armies ultimately lost their respective wars. In fact, honor is not hinged upon whether one wins or loses, but in how one conducts himself in combat. Iraq was never pacified and never made safe for Americans, but we maintained our honor. The US certainly isn’t calling the shots across the nation now. The end state achieved was a strategic setback for US interests across the region by strengthening our foes. No matter how much the Obama Administration whitewashes our retreat from Iraq, the enemy was still fighting and still holding ground when we left.
For those of you who did not fight in Iraq and have not visited Iraq since our retreat, you should know that Mosul was never pacified and maintained its status as a hotbed of Al Qaeda (AQ) activity. Neither President Bush nor President Obama finished the war. To the present day, Mosul has been a part of the ratline of jihadists making their way to fight in Syria. In fact, US intelligence has been well aware that Mosul has been a key staging point for AQ training and equipping jihadists en route to joining ISIL for years. Mosul has also been effectively “no-go” territory for westerners and has been controlled since before the US retreat by Sunni extremists. As such, the fear and panic that ISIL has “captured” Mosul is overstated. It is true they kicked out the token government forces, but the Iraqi military never controlled anything beyond the ground below their feet hiding behind the walls of abandoned US military bases. Beyond kicking out the token Iraqi forces, the only difference appears to be ISIL formally cemented their previous control of that city and surrounding regions with the execution of anyone supporting the Iraq government. So, if O’Reilly was consistent and well informed, he would have recognized that Mosul and neighboring cities like Tikrit with a large presence of Sunni extremists “falling” to ISIL was not in and of itself a game changer.
Second, O’Reilly fails to remember that it was the Sunnis, during the “Awakening,” that allied with US forces to fight the Shia militias attacking and killing Americans daily. In fact, I distinctly remember Sadr’s brigades of Shia militia backed by Iran attacking US military personnel with zeal throughout the war. I also remember the Shia going from house to house in what was originally mixed Sunni-Shia neighborhoods of Baghdad and ethnically cleansing the population. The Shia death squads brutally murdered any Sunni they found and turned Baghdad into a Shia city. However, it is now the Sunni extremists that O’Reilly has repeatedly called “savages” that deserve to be bombed. I would argue to O’Reilly that both factions have lived up to the pejorative term savage and have demonstrated their eagerness to kill Americans before their fellow Iraqi time and again and as such, we should be happy to leave them to their demise. In short, they are getting what they deserve and I see no reason Americans need to be again placed in the line of fire and paying to “save” savages that want us dead while they are busy killing one another.
Third, O’Reilly has totally forgotten that it was Maliki and the Iraqi government that refused to grant the US a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that would have protected our troops and allowed them to remain in Iraq beyond their set date of retreat. True, President Obama used the SOFA as a means to justify the US retreat out of Iraq, but nonetheless, the Iraqis wanted American forces out of their country. O’Reilly should perhaps volunteer himself for military service in a country that he is not invited and where killing, even in self-defense, will be deemed murder. Perhaps he does not realize the very real legal dangers our troops will be faced with as they return to Iraq. O’Reilly’s insistence on the deployment of military forces creates a conundrum for the troops because they are being deployed outside of war, to a sovereign nation, and violating its laws. Does O’Reilly actually believe Maliki’s word that our troops will now receive immunity and that President Obama will do whatever is necessary to ensure Maliki is held to his word? I think not.
Third, O’Reilly just doesn’t seem to get the fact that the war as fought under Bush was a disaster and later under Obama was also a disaster. I guess O’Reilly missed the fact that when the war began, Saddam Hussein was killing extremists for free and had nothing to do with 9/11 beyond being the fall guy for Saudi Arabia. It was Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, which was responsible for carrying out a state sponsored act of war against the US on 9/11. This fact is why Representative Walter Jones from North Carolina wants the classified 9/11 Report released so that the public will know the truth and the lies perpetrated by the US government. If US strategy was effective, there would be LESS, not more extremists. Of course it is overwhelmingly clear our strategy failed judged by this bar. O’Reilly also seems to forget that by toppling Saddam’s regime, we created the vacuum that allowed these extremists to flourish to the point they now occupy their own autonomous Islamic state. When this point is made, O’Reilly flies into defense mode and charges the person as an “apologist.” O’Reilly solely blames the Islamists, but fails to recognize the very clear order of events of cause and effect leading to this situation. O’Reilly can believe what he wants, but is not allowed to create his own facts and cherry pick from his arbitrary timeline of events. For example, O’Reilly makes the point that we invaded Iraq to rid the country of Saddam and for humanitarian purposes. On this point alone, O’Reilly must have deleted his memory files much as the IRS seems to have deleted emails. We did not invade Iraq for the purposes O’Reilly states. We invaded Iraq because we were made to believe that Iraq was an existential threat that possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that it would not turnover to U.N. inspectors, was going to use the WMD against the US, and was supporting AQ. Nothing short of creating this existential threat would have brought American into the war. As the invasion kicked off and the contrived lies became clear, the Bush Administration had to save face. The Administration then made a deliberate policy decision to change the motive for the war effort to regime change and humanitarian issues. As such, O’Reilly’s stated purpose for the war is completely fictitious. Further, O’Reilly has chided every democratic administration for humanitarian military operations, but somehow thinks he can hang on to that rationale to defend the disaster Bush created in Iraq.
O’Reilly claims we did Iraq a great favor by ridding the country of Saddam, but again, suspends logic by implying that a full invasion was the only way to “rid” Iraq of Saddam. O’Reilly has to know that there were numerous opportunities and plenty of other options to eliminate and or contain Saddam and any threat he could have possibly posed to the US. In stating this, O’Reilly totally undermines the deaths of near 1,000,000 Iraqis throughout both wars with Iraq. More importantly to me, he also dishonors the American veterans that fought in Iraq by incorrectly believing that perpetuating political lies and propaganda he somehow brings honor to their unnecessary injuries and deaths. Only by telling the truth and prosecuting the political liars within our own government that sent them out to fight a senseless war would he actually do these honorable men and women justice. However, O’Reilly continues to pander to his establishment masters to the disgrace of all who served. Although the likes of Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney may applaud O’Reilly, Bill becomes vile in the eyes of veterans those traitors sent to an illegal war. I am positive that very few of the million dead Iraqis posed even the slightest threat to America and would be much happier if they were alive for starters. I am also confident that the thousands of Americans who lost loved ones or that were horribly wounded would also be better off alive and well today, even if Saddam was still in power. No matter what O’Reilly believes from his ivory tower about how we improved the lives of the average Iraqi, the millions of wounded, displaced, starved, and dead would find comfort in knowing the US would never come to “help” Iraq again.
Fourth, our bombing didn’t work, yet, O’Reilly is adamant about the positive effects “heavy bombing” would have for the US against ISIL. O’Reilly seems to think that if we just carpet bomb one more convoy we will win. He seems to “know” that our pilots can positively identify targets flying at nearly the speed of sound or faster and often from above 35,000 feet as long as the “bad guys” are in the open desert. I would laugh, but he is actually serious…and using his own words, a buffoon. I guess he fails to understand how the fact ISIL is operating with the same US provided military vehicles that the Iraqi military is using can complicate targeting. If perhaps, O’Reilly had actually served in combat as a Joint Tactical Air Controller, he would know that his line of logic is ridiculous, but since he did not, let me enlighten him. Just because there is a convoy of trucks with guns in the Middle East does not positively identify the convoy as “bad guys.” In fact, the factions fighting often look indistinguishable even from the ground and much less so from the air. Without good intelligence and legitimate boots on the ground observing, identifying, and marking targets for air, O’Reilly’s airstrikes will not only be futile, but 100% counterproductive. I also think that O’Reilly must have somehow shelved the knowledge that ISIL possesses “Stinger” missiles. Even though I would argue that the likelihood is the bulk of these man portable, surface-to-air missiles are advanced Soviet designs smuggled into Syria by our very own CIA from Libya (hello Benghazi), the missiles nonetheless exist and pose a significant threat to our aircraft operating at low altitudes. I wonder if the loss of an American pilot and an F-16 is worth it to O’Reilly?
Finally, O’Reilly went on to say that ISIL does not recognize the Iraq-Syrian border and that we must pursue ISIL into Syria. I do not disagree that the border has long since ceased to exist and that to prosecute an effective campaign, you must not allow the insurgent sanctuary. Too bad we didn’t use this same logic in Afghanistan where even the dullest of officers recognized that to decisively defeat the Taliban, one must either secure the border or cross into Pakistan, but I digress. Moving back to bombing ISIL in Syria, O’Reilly completely demonstrates his hypocrisy and wins the award for pinhead. Time and again, O’Reilly has been on air demanding President Obama support the rebels in Syria and has attacked the Administration repeatedly for not doing enough, yet, he fails to realize that he is simultaneously demanding we bomb ISIL and support ISIL. O’Reilly is naïve and or ignorant if he fails to make the connection that we have been covertly organizing, arming, training, and equipping the rebel forces in Syria to fight President Assad and it is these same forces, which are now rampaging throughout Iraq. The savages that O’Reilly demands we bomb are the savages we created just like in Afghanistan and Libya. In fact, if we bomb ISIL at their points of origin as O’Reilly suggests… in their training camps in Syria (Jordan and Turkey too O’Reilly), I wonder if he realizes we will be killing American special forces and CIA ground branch officers currently training these terrorists. So I ask O’Reilly, who are the good guys and who are the bad guys because I am very confused.

By Guiles Hendrik
All rights reserved.

New White House Scandal Emerges: US Covering Up Loss of Stinger Missiles in Syria to ISIL

1

Media reports (see: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/06/16/us-made-stinger-missiles-have-likely-fallen-into-isis-hands-officials-say/), later tacitly confirmed by the Department of Defense (DOD) before burying the subject, have identified that ISIL possesses Stinger Missiles.  The US manufactured Stinger missile is a highly potent, man portable, shoulder launched, anti-aircraft missile that has advanced technology to defeat aircraft counter measures.  To see a video of various Stinger Missile variants in action click here: (http://www.military.com/video/guided-missiles/surface-to-air/the-fim-92-stinger-missile/1107957918001/).  These missiles pose an extreme threat to any low flying aircraft to include passenger jets.  The missiles are considered a highly sensitive weapon system and are heavily controlled due to their potential lethality.  As such, the DOD goes to great lengths to prevent these weapons from falling into the wrong hands and they are accounted for individually.  Nonetheless, these very dangerous weapons have somehow made their way into the hands of ISIL extremists.  The scandal and cover up precipitate from the answer of how these weapons found their way into the hands of ISIL.

The White House would have been happy if the media had never reported that ISIL possessed Stinger missiles.  However, it soon became clear that ISIL did possess the missiles and this could not be suppressed (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/17/iraqi-shiites-take-a-stand-against-sunni-extremist/?page=2, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant, http://www.military.com/video/guided-missiles/surface-to-air/fsa-downs-helo-with-stinger-missile/2207383115001/; http://beforeitsnews.com/strange/2012/08/cia-provides-stinger-missiles-to-syrian-freedom-fighters-2442552.html).  Therefore, the White House created a narrative about how the US missiles found their way into terrorist hands.  The White House blamed the Iraqi military and claimed the Stingers must have been captured when ISIL overran Iraqi military bases in Mosul.  There is just one major problem with this claim.  The DOD did not provide the Iraqi military with Stinger missiles and none were stored in Mosul.  The truth is that the Stinger missiles ISIL possess were not captured and did not come from Iraq.  The White House is fully aware of this fact and has intentionally attempted to cover up the truth.  The Stinger Missiles ISIL possesses are missiles the CIA directly provided “moderate” rebel groups in Syria to help them overthrow Syrian President Assad.  President Obama cannot plead ignorance on this matter because he had to personally sign the covert action “finding” to arm the rebels with Stingers.   President Obama granted this approval after the rebels pleaded for a capability to shoot down Syrian military aircraft that were persistently bombing rebel positions.  Counter to President Obama’s claims of supporting only “moderate” rebel factions and our “ability” to ensure any military weaponry the US provides the rebels would not fall into extremist hands, this is exactly what has occurred.  President Obama has at best allowed and at worse given terrorists anti-aircraft missiles and is now in complete denial mode!

The White House has been caught in another lie and the media is simply too bought and or too ignorant to identify another major cover up right in front of them.  Minimal investigative journalism would have allowed a decent reporter to put the pieces together on wear in fact the ISIL Stinger Missiles actually came from in Syria.  What makes this most recent White House scandal so damning and dangerous is the fact that, as we have warned, these anti-aircraft missiles will most likely be used against civilian passenger jetliners in the near future to kill Americans.  WHEN it happens, the Obama Administration will no doubt be “caught by surprise” and will have a readymade excuse blaming someone else (like the Iraqi military) for their utter dereliction of their duties to protect Americans.  It is your job to make sure the word gets out and you can help fix this if you contact media outlets and your elected representatives and grill them over this scandal.  Demand all military aid and support for the terrorist backed rebels in Syria be immediately cut off.  Further, demand a full investigation into how these missiles were given to terrorists and insist on prosecution of those responsible under the federal acts prohibiting material support to terrorist organizations.

For more see:

http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_24/Russian-Military-Chief-US-supplying-anti-aircraft-missiles-to-Syrian-rebels/

 

By Guiles Hendrik

All rights reserved. 

 

The Disintegration of Iraq: US Military Action in Iraq neither Wise nor Suitable

As the hordes of American/Saudi/Qatari sponsored terrorists race across Iraq in what appears to be a blood orgy of Islamic extremism of the worst sort, Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has appealed for help. Maliki’s forces, to include two divisions of American trained Iraqi soldiers, have broken and fled leaving all of their equipment behind to the attacking extremist army. Although, I believe the takfir blitzkrieg will be blunted once it hits Shia neighborhoods as it presses its advance into Baghdad and initially bypass the city for key oil infrastructure, it is clear Maliki has lost control of what used to be Iraq. In spite of the incompetence of the White House and senior advisors, this occurred exactly as we have been warning and predicted over a year ago.

See:

http://www.blackboxwire.com/2014/03/17/pm-maliki-accuses-qatar-and-saudi-arabia-of-waging-war-against-iraq/

http://www.blackboxwire.com/2014/01/31/the-rise-of-the-islamic-state-of-the-levant-as-iraq-fractures-so-does-the-middle-east/

http://www.blackboxwire.com/2014/01/10/as-we-predicted-syrian-and-iraqi-civil-wars-merge-as-president-obamas-claims-of-a-defeated-al-qaeda-crumble/

http://www.blackboxwire.com/2013/05/12/iraqs-descent-back-into-violence/

http://www.blackboxwire.com/2014/02/05/the-other-shoe-drops-syrian-kurds-declare-independence/

http://www.blackboxwire.com/2013/09/09/al-qaeda-rebels-in-syria-begin-killing-kurds/

http://www.blackboxwire.com/2013/09/09/media-missed-the-biggest-coup-in-the-middle-east-and-it-wasnt-in-egypt/

Now that Iraq has fully disintegrated, the Kurds are now effectively independent, the Sunni areas are consolidated under extremist Sharia rule, and the Shia areas are left relying on Iran to save them from being completely massacred and conquered. This critical juncture has policy makers grappling with whether or not to send in US military support to which I emphatically warn is a horrible idea. I say again, INTERVENTION IS A HORRIBLE IDEA!

Now that Iraq has collapsed, many in the US are demanding the US military again be deployed to defend “gains” previously made in Iraq. These individuals are the same hacks that never fought in a war and led US “strategy” to a complete failure in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact many of these snake oil policy makers hid from reckless wars like former Ambassador John Bolton and profit handsomely from the industry of war. Further, when one hears Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain expound upon how the US must bomb the extremist army before it seizes Baghdad, consider these are the same senators that also demanded that President Obama do more in Syria to arm this very same army and bomb President Assad. Ironically, it was Assad that has been fighting this extremist army from the beginning and pleading for help from the international community. Further, it was Russia that warned the US that this army was in fact composed of radical extremists, but we ignored them and called them liars when it was the US that was lying. After all, we knew from the beginning the army was made of jihadists because the CIA’s ground branch is what organized, armed, and trained this army. If you do not see the obvious hypocrisy, bias, lobbyist dollars, and stupidity all wrapped up in US Middle East Policy, you should remove the blindfold now and engage your faculties of logic.

The problem with the logic of intervention in Iraq is multifaceted. First of all, it completely ignores the fact that just across the Iraqi border to the west in Jordan, Syria, and Turkey, the US is covertly and now clandestinely (yes, these are different) arming, training, and equipping these terrorists to fight Syrian President Assad, which I have argued from its covert beginnings could only end bad. Second, to believe an overthrow of Maliki’s government somehow translates to lost gains presumes one actually bought into the White House’s lies and propaganda respective of accomplishing anything decisive in Iraq. The reality is the US was strategically defeated in Iraq and used the hand over and pullout as a face saving maneuver to explain its retreat. I would invite anyone that disagrees with the notion of US defeat in Iraq to attempt to walk through Iraq without being killed, kidnapped, or imprisoned. Note that we will see this strategic defeat repeated in Afghanistan. However, in Afghanistan, it will be to greater American detriment since we are currently planning on leaving 10,000 personnel in that country to be captured in killed by the Taliban when they launch their offensive to regain power shortly after the US reaches the 10,000 level of troops. Third, Iraq refused (to no angst of President Obama, who was looking for an excuse to pullout) to agree to a status of forces agreement (SOFA), which would have provided legal protections to any potential future US forces stationed in Iraq. Without a SOFA in place, US personnel could be tried under Iraqi law. As a soldier that potentially would have to kill an Iraqi in self-defense, the prospect of being tried for “murder” in Iraq made any future garrisoning of troops in Iraq untenable. Finally, it is insane to think that the US can drop a few bombs and stem the tide of events in Iraq. Events have long moved beyond the effectiveness of a few bombing raids. We spent a decade vainly trying to subdue Sunni extremists while simultaneously being attacked by Sadr’s Iranian backed Shia forces. Both sides hate us and have proven they prioritize killing Americans above killing each other. To this end, American intervention would only waste more precious blood and treasure that we can ill afford.

To avoid another quagmire, it would be best to stop aiding terrorists in Syria as a reasonable start. We should then be quite content to let the factions fight it out amongst themselves while reinforcing the Kurds and letting Assad press the extremist army from the west. In particular, the Kurds have access to ample oil, are better fighters than the Arabs, have a functioning government and infrastructure, hold a strategic geographical position and are welcoming of US bases, have proven to be pro-American, and are religiously moderate. The US Department of State, for reasons that in all respects appear to be a systemic ethnic prejudice, has persistently degraded US relations with the Kurds and at every opportunity placed Kurdish interests far below Sunni and Shia interests in Iraq. If there was ever a time to change policy and embrace the Kurds, now would be it. Finally, the US must address and stop Saudi Arabia. Saudi funding is the true catalyst of the Islamic extremist movement. The US has turned a blind eye to Saudi actions far too long and it is time the US demands Saudi Arabia stops the exportation of Wahhabism and capture, kill, and or arrest the senior Saudis responsible for the export of terrorism. Continuing to ignore the Saudi gorilla in the room is tantamount to knowingly fighting the wrong adversary while simultaneously claiming to be confused why they real enemy is still growing stronger and able to attack you. After all, it is no surprise that since the “War on Terrorism” began, Islamic extremism has done nothing but expand and strengthen. Might that have something to do with the fact we are fighting a faux war against the wrong enemy? Mark my words, until someone dismantles the Saudi extremist industry, the threat of Islamic extremism will continue to spread and grow. Radical sharia law is already upon our doorsteps, but for reasons of political correctness, ignorance, and or lobbyist dollars, our government has been derelict to the point of treason addressing the growing existential Saudi threat.

By Guiles Hendrik
June 22, 2014
All rights reserved.

As gas prices prepare to skyrocket, thank President Obama and the Saudis

I would like to advise our readers that now would be a good time to buy any fuel you may need for the coming months in bulk if you have the option. At the least, you might as well fill your gas cans and fuel tanks because the price of gas is not going to be getting any cheaper anytime soon. Due to the support provided by the United States (Authorized by President Obama) and Saudi Arabia (Qatar and Turkey to lesser extents), we have armed, trained, and equipped the largest Islamic extremist army of modern times and unleashed it on the Middle East. This army is now massacring thousands across Iraq and Syria to include countless Christians. The actions of this terrorist army will soon come home to haunt Americans that were too apathetic and or foolish to demand President Obama and Congress cease support to terrorist rebels in Syria.
As Iraq implodes, it is the Saudis and Qataris who are handsomely profiting from the spike in oil prices. The spike is a result of Obama’s schizophrenic foreign policy disaster that made it all possible. As America’s badly battered economy faces another blow it can ill afford you now must spend even more money you don’t have to just fill your gas tank, remember it was President Obama and his pals in Saudi Arabia that hooked you up. Oh, and just in case you didn’t catch it, the US government is using your tax dollars to fund terrorists that want to kill you. President Obama is claiming the US needs gun control while using your tax dollars to hand military grade advanced weapons to 100% ardent, hardened, American hating, terrorists. To add insult to injury, this is all being done while simultaneously the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is chasing domestic boogiemen at home. Remember, DHS is claiming you, your veteran uncle, and your 90 year old grandmother are potential terrorists so you must be subjected to total surveillance and physical searches that in the extreme could be considered forcible sodomy. Don’t worry though; this is all for your “security” and to “protect” you.
As I write, the extreme of extreme Islamists forces are massacring their way to Baghdad. To date, the Iraqi army has been totally routed and has fled leaving all of the weapons and equipment for the enemy. The true test of the Islamist army will be when it begins to enter Baghdad and the first all Shia neighborhoods. This army is not immune to the same carnage any army would face in urban combat where the fighting is up close and brutal. As such, I expect the onslaught to be stalled in Baghdad and perhaps even to bypass Baghdad for key oil infrastructure. Nonetheless, the Sunnis have defeated and subjugated the Shia in Iraq before and it is likely they could again. Even if the extremist forces are halted entering Baghdad, they will most likely turn the thrust of their advance to the east and bypass Baghdad. This will allow the army to seize and or destroy key oil infrastructure. This all but guarantees disruptions to production and that the cost of oil and therefore fuel is about to skyrocket.
What can be done about this for now is most likely nothing. We can watch and enjoy the spike in gas prices as our contracting economy shrinks even faster. However, I would recommend you take a whopping five minutes out of your day and cut and paste an email to your two senators and one representative in Congress and demand Congress freezes any form of support or aid to the rebels/terrorists fighting Assad and now campaigning in Iraq. You may also want to call into your favorite talk radio show and discuss these topics. Finally, come November, vote out every single incumbent and replace them with independent representatives.
By Guiles Hendrik
June 18, 2014
All rights reserved.

Failed Launch of Russian Rocket Carrying Advanced GPS Satellites No Accident

Understanding geopolitical maneuvers implies recognition that timing of events globally are not coincidental. The latest example is the failure of the latest Russian rocket launch carry highly advanced satellites to bolster Russia’s own GPS array so that it does not have to rely on US military satellites and infrastructure. This failure of a proven Russian rocket system only days after Russia announced it was ceasing space based cooperation with the USA is not accidental. Instead, this was the latest take down in a growing number of high profile cyber attacks launched by the US and perhaps the first major military strike against Russian in a new era of warfare.

Ominously, the Russia’s cyber capability is advanced and capable of significant attacks on a large scale against targets inside the US unlike countries such as Syria and Iran. One should expect Russia to see the launch failure as a clandestine military attack regardless of whether or not it actually was. Again, perception is reality and Putin cannot afford the public perception that Russia’s vaunted space program is incompetent. In retaliation, Russia will strike back. Whether Russia uses cyber warfare or not is yet to be seen, but Russia will exact a price for the loss. As I have warned, Russia recognizes that Afghanistan is an easy place to exact revenge and bleed the US so the US military should not expect a smooth retreat this year. Further, our military space launches and vulnerable satellites may become logical targets for Russian retaliation so don’t be surprised if months from now our satellites experience failure or a new NGA satellite
being launch fails to make it to orbit.

Washington is playing a dangerous game with Russia but fails to recognize the US has far more to lose. Even more disturbing is the fact that the White House has repeatedly been outmaneuvered and beaten by Russia on every foreign policy initiative and appears paralyzed under Obama’s leadership to decisively act. US policy makers have shown no ability to differentiate between the capability threat of countries like Iraq and Iran and those possessed by Russia. The White House appears drunk on hubris and forgets that it cannot bully everyone on the playground. Historically, this hubris has led to strategic miscalculations of massive proportions leading to events like World War I. Even in the best case scenario, the US gets beat geopolitically and another chunk of America’s little remaining influence and prestige is eroded away. As such, expect to see a continued resurgent Russia and a waning US.

An Open Letter to President Obama and Congress on US Policy toward Ukraine and Russia

1

As the United States races forward to develop policy to deal with the escalating crisis in the Ukraine, many citizens have been left totally uniformed respective of our regional interests and policies toward it. As a concerned citizen, I am respectfully requesting a pause to allow professional debate on the subject before the Administration effectively locks America into another Cold War with Russia. I, like many Americans, remember the days of the Cold War and do not wish to return to the fear of nuclear annihilation, incredible levels of defense spending, and never ending guerrilla wars across the globe.
Sadly, logic rarely plays any part in policy development and seems to have had almost no impact on the current administration’s policy decisions.  Further, as a mere voiceless citizen amongst the masses, I have little reason to suspect my voice matters or will ever be heard in front of our policy makers. As such, I risk being labeled a radical for daring to demand answers to critical questions all Americans should be concerned over as President Obama and the US Congress steer our nation toward a head on collision with Russia.  America, as every nation, has made many mistakes in its past.  Can we not, at least once, learn from these mistakes and try to get a policy right?  Rather than simply complain and point out the failures, I will offer solutions.  To that end, I recommend an initial, vigorous, public debate to inform upon and explore all policy options before our political knee jerk reactions land our nation in very dire waters. 
I am of the mindset that sanctions are the extreme extent of economic warfare, which is inextricably linked to waging warfare in the classical sense. Therefore, a declaration to destroy a nation’s economy is, in effect, the same as war. To assume otherwise is a dangerous oversight in respect to high stakes political brinkmanship. Perhaps the Russian oligarchs will still have steak and caviar, but sanctions will mean joblessness, hardship, and starvation for millions of Russians.  These deprivations upon the public amount to little difference from a shooting war.  Russia intimately understands this, but unlike Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, Russia has the ability to effectively fight back against global bullying. Before walking further down this treacherous road with Russia, a formidable adversary I must add, I would like the President, Congress, and ultimately the American public to definitively answer and defend in open debate the following elementary questions:
What and specifically, whose interests are being served by our involvement in the Ukraine?  What vital national interests are at stake?  What will we receive in exchange for our involvement in Ukraine?  What are our policy goals in respect to Russia and Ukraine?  What end state do we seek by sanctioning Russia? What is the timeline by which we determine success in our policy?  How far are we willing to go to achieve those goals?  Will we commit to military action should sanctions fail to achieve our policy goals?  Are we willing to risk nuclear war?
What is the projected global economic impact of sanctions on Russia for the US economy?  Are sanctions our only tools?  What price is the US willing to pay for enacting painful sanctions on Russia?  If Europe won’t support sanctions, why should the US?  Do we truly have a global economy?  If so, wouldn’t hurting the Russian economy also hurt the world economy?  If Europe is correct that sanctions would hurt the EU’s economy, wouldn’t it by default also hurt the US economy?  Can the US economy afford more negative economic pressure?  Is sanctioning Russia over Ukraine worth billions of dollars in losses for the US economy?  How many dollars in losses are we willing to endure to achieve our policy goals in Ukraine?  Will one billion dollars in loans be enough money to stabilize Ukraine?  If not, how much are we willing to spend and what will we expect as a return on investment?  What is the actual probability the US taxpayer will be repaid for the loan to Ukraine?
Why can’t Ukraine fight for itself?  Isn’t Ukraine a European issue?  Why must the US fight Europe’s battles?  What are the historic consequences of intervening in Europe’s civil wars?  What is the historical precedent for American success in this type of intervention?
Who are the leaders in the Ukraine that we are now supporting?  Did they not take power through a violent overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government?  Who supported that revolution? Could the Russians have viewed this as a threat? If the tables were turned, would we approve of similar action on our borders? How do we decide who is and isn’t the legitimate government in the Ukraine?  Who are we to decide which coups, in a string of overthrows and power grabs, are legitimate after unilaterally deciding the formerly recognized Ukrainian government was illegitimate?  How do we know the current regime in power in Kiev will work toward America’s best interests?  If the leadership we back in Ukraine becomes unpopular and fails to deliver positive change, will we continue to back the regime?  If the leadership we back in Ukraine is itself overthrown, what is the potential damage to US interests in the region?
Will sanctions actually achieve our goals by altering Russia’s decisions or just further alienate a rather large and powerful nation?  How long are we willing to continue sanctions before we assess policy failure or success?  If sanctions fail to have the desired effect, what are plans B and C?  What is the cost of inaction?  What would be the benefits to supporting Moscow over Kiev?  Have we even considered supporting Moscow?  What are the Russian grievances?  What does Russia have to gain or lose in Ukraine?  How far is Moscow willing to go to defend what it considers its vital national interests in Ukraine?  How much pain is Russia willing to endure to achieve its policy goals respective of Ukraine? Are we willing to inflict that amount of pain to force our will on Russia? How much pain will doing so entail for the US?
Are we as a nation prepared to step firmly back into a new Cold War landscape for the indefinite future?  Is the US willing to play the game of chicken to its full conclusion?  If not, why should we engage in the dangerous game of brinkmanship in the first place?  What retaliatory measures will Moscow take in response to sanctions?  Where and how could Moscow feasibly hurt America the worst?  What are the implications of Moscow shutting down the Northern Supply Route to Afghanistan during our planned retreat in 2014?  What are the implications of Moscow authorizing advanced weapons sales to countries like Syria, Iran, and China?  What if Moscow attacked the US militarily?  What would be the most likely course of action for Moscow?  What would Moscow’s most dangerous course of action be?  Do Americans realize further escalation could lead to the deaths of many Americans across the world as Russia begins to retaliate?  Is this something that America considers an acceptable loss?
I would argue that if these very basic, yet critically important questions were honestly answered and publicly debated, the policy decisions respective of the situation in the Ukraine would be patently clear.  What Americans would realize is that intervention in Ukraine is not in our vital national interests.  The US could only derive a net loss to our global geopolitical stability, security, and strength.  The public would see that US actions will be ineffective, counterproductive, and ultimately futile.  Americans would not be willing to pay the true price of a reckless intervention.  
Perhaps, I am an unbending ideologue for asking that basic logic to be applied to our policy decisions.  Maybe, I am just a blind and backwards isolationist for wanting to avoid more foreign conflict.  Certainly, I must be a cold pragmatist for the mere insinuation that one should place American interests before foreign interests.  We might as well assume I am also greedy for suggesting I am not willing to have more of my tax dollars looted to pay the debts owed to foreign banks by foreign elites.  No doubt I am also unpatriotic for not rushing to arms to support military intervention in the Ukraine.  If so, then I stand guilty as charged. 

Sincerely,
Guiles Hendrik
April 20, 2014
All rights reserved.

Contact: Please send questions or comments to guileshendrik@gmail.com