web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "War"

Marine Corps Museum honors 75th anniversary of the battle of Iwo Jima

Westlake Legal Group Iwo-Jima-memorial-dc Marine Corps Museum honors 75th anniversary of the battle of Iwo Jima War Veterans Things to Do Features Things to Do special events Special Event soldiers servicemen service National Museum of the Marine Corps History historical event family-friendly event Army anniversary
© EastVillageImages / stock.adobe.com

Seventy-five years ago on Feb. 19, nearly 80,000 American Marines were tasked with taking the island of Iwo Jima as part of a battle during World War II. The battle—lasting 36 days and killing 5,931 U.S. Marines—is recognized as one of the most iconic victories of any American war. 

Here in Northern Virginia, residents are reminded of the importance of this day, and the lives lost, when they enter Arlington, traveling on George Washington Memorial Parkway and Arlington Ridge Park, catching glimpses of the United States Marine Corps War Memorial. 

While the statue—depicting American soldiers raising the flag in celebration of near-victory in late February of 1945—reflects real-life events, local residents and visitors alike will have the chance to see the actual American flags raised in Iwo Jima at the National Museum of the Marine Corps starting Wednesday, Feb. 19, as part of the site’s annual Heroes Among Us event. 

The anniversary celebration will take place throughout the historic weekend, featuring speeches from veterans who took part in the battle, lectures surrounding related artifacts, numerous family-friendly events and much more. 

The keynote speaker of this year’s affair is Hershel “Woody” Williams, a Marine veteran who was part of the 21st Marines, 2d Marine Division in the battle of Iwo Jima. Williams was recognized by President Truman in 1945 when he received the Congressional Medal of Honor at the White House, becoming the sole surviving Marine from WWII to wear the Medal of Honor. On Saturday, Feb. 22, Williams will share personal insights on the events that unfolded 75 years ago. 

Throughout the weekend, representatives from service organizations will be on-site to assist active duty veterans and their families navigate day-to-day challenges of life, which is an integral part of the Heroes Among Us event each year. Plus, for the kiddos, there will be hands-on activities, screenings of historical films and treats for all to enjoy. 

For those who want to learn more about the history-centered celebration and view a timeline of events, click here

For more Things To Do content, subscribe to our semiweekly e-newsletter. 

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Richard Bingley: A cyber war is on the way

Richard Bingley is the CEO of the London-based Global Cyber Academy, an independent education organisation dedicated to making technology safer.

Iran’s government often causes incumbent American presidents a headache during election year, although Donald Trump seems immune to diplomatic migraines.

Tehran’s response to Donald Trump’s decisive swoop to eliminate Qassem Soleimani might not be in a format we expect or understand.

After all, this was not a clandestine attack by an American secret agency practicing ‘plausible deniability’. It was a brazen and visceral public lashing by the White House.

Iran’s government has been shamed, not least by the litany of horrific and hypocritical violent operations that are being revealed.

Even among her few allies in Asia and the Gulf, Tehran is struggling to drum up much genuine sympathy for a cartel of uniformed gangsters who seemingly operated almost with a carte-blanche licence to kill beyond their own borders.

If any credit is to be had from this sorry episode, it is that the USA didn’t even bother with an ambiguous operation that could be batted away in the United Nations with suppressed smirks, nods and winks which follow covert operations.

Tehran therefore had no dilemma to struggle with as to whether to respond.

Although numerically strong, Iran’s military rank-and-file will be acutely aware that it will, in all likelihood, produce a feeble, disjointed performance on any battlefield.

Moreover, such a bedraggled spectacle – of high-tech machinery pummelling the futile billows of religious dogma – would occur under the full spotlight of 24/7 satellite television and mass digital voyeurism.

Two weeks of US, or Israeli-led, airstrikes, with Special Forces battering each flank, might usher in a final collapse for the regime.

Coupled with likely trade sanctions from some Gulf partners, then Russia and China sitting on their hands, there could only be one short-term winner if full-scale military confrontation broke out: the United States

Nevertheless, beneath her religious cloak-tails, Tehran’s boisterous government is often clever, agile and highly rational. Tehran practices – most of the time – a strong, survivalist, realpolitik.

For a prediction of what’s about to come, we should analyse the life of Soleimani himself.

Soleimani was widely described as an expert exporter of asymmetric warfare; the types of lethal guerrilla operations that can bring great humiliation, and even draw out precautionary fear and retreat, from larger military giants.

According to an array of intelligence reports, his bloody career was dedicated to producing a complex network of Shia-sympathetic fighter cells, who bombed and assassinated Sunni-dominated opposition groups and government personnel in neighbouring states, including Iraq.

Soleimani’s speciality was hybrid and deniable covert operations, which terrorised opponents and sent an intimidating signal or projection of power to Iran’s regional adversaries: principally Iraq’s fledgling government, Saudi Arabia, non-Shia of the Lebanon and, of course, Israel.

Hybrid means the mixing up of attack methods; in the general’s case, utilising good old traditional ammonium-nitrate-fuelled bombs that can liquidate an apartment block or garrison, but also increasingly deploying advanced technical capabilities: phone intercepts, target espionage and tracking, drone navigation, communications jamming, etc.

The second part of his modus operandi, technical sabotage, is likely to be Tehran’s chosen retaliation in the longer term.

Tehran will know that Trump is consistent only ever in his dramatic inconsistency. An excessive military provocation would make him likely to strike back hard, possibly to the point of attempting regime change.

Ringing in his ears will be two presidential scenarios. President Kennedy, whose personal approval ratings rose despite the unsuccessful 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion to topple Fidel Castro. Voters like ‘tough’ and they like ‘action’.

Second, Jimmy Carter’s attempt to negotiate the way out of post-revolutionary Iran for 70 trapped US embassy officials in 1979. The debacle lasted 444 days.

Carter’s cerebral, plaintive, attempt failed dismally. Ronald Reagan nailed him for his dithering and hand-wringing weakness, and duly defeated him in 1980.

Iran’s government knows all of this. As such, it has perhaps one of the most finely tuned asymmetric warfare strategies out there. As with her partly successful nuclear enrichment negotiations with Barack Obama (and the EU), Tehran thinks that it knows exactly how far to push back at an adversary, or camouflage a glitch, without necessarily provoking Washington to start pulling triggers.

Tehran’s retaliation will probably be in the form of escalating cyber attacks upon the USA, its infrastructure and its close allies. Namely, the UK, Saudi Arabia and the Dubai Emirate.

Why?

Because, even though the evidence of a cyber-attack stemming from Iran would be almost incontrovertible to insiders, general public audiences are still susceptible to claims that cyber space is too ambiguous. (Most of us are, thankfully, optimists, unless we see damning proof of something.)

Cyber-attacks are a little like taking a complicated fraud case before a jury. The evidence trail is often too difficult to prove, then the end result is perceivably not lethal. Thus, at present, few countries, if any, have gone to war over a cyber-attack.

However, let’s think back. Iran has the capability, in spades. In June 2017, MPs’ email accounts in the Houses of Parliament were successfully hacked.

Initial suspicion fell upon Russia, China, and North Korea’s infamous Lazarus cyber-crime group.

But after a four-month investigation, GCHQ (the UK government’s signals intelligence agency) pointed the finger squarely at Tehran.

In 2005, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard established a cyber army, which notably attacked Baidu, a Chinese tech firm, in 2009 and also Twitter. World-leading cyber analysts at the Israel Institute for National Security Studies ranked the IRG as the world’s fourth most powerful cyber army by 2013.

Moreover, if (for example) planned troop movements, or traffic planning systems, or hospital systems, power station systems, car GPS systems – many coordinated by automated and unchecked supervisory controls – are breached, then it simply is a fact of life that any decent cyber-attack upon a critical system will cause physical harm to citizens. And lots of us.

It’s worth recalling that North Korea’s cyber-attack using the WannaCry ransomware led to more than 1,000 NHS operations being cancelled back in 2017.

Attempts to patch up older and more vulnerable computer systems have been slow across the UK and other supposedly advanced western economies.

Unlike Israelis or Iraqis, we Brits simply do not believe that a devastating cyber-attack will happen to us.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Labour leadership contenders are lurching to the Left to placate Corbynistas

Sir Keir Starmer was interviewed by Andrew Marr yesterday on the BBC. Marr asked:

“Would you ever support military action if you were the Labour Leader in the House of Commons?”

Starmer replied:

“I would pass legislation that said military action could be taken if first the lawful case for it was made, secondly there was a viable objective and thirdly you got the consent of the Commons. I think that piece of legislation is much needed. But they would be the tests and it’s obvious from those tests that there might be circumstances in which they could be met.”

It may be his sincere view that a Commons vote should be required before any military action. Or it may be regarded as an expedient compromise in seeking to straddle public opinion and the prevailing view of the Labour Party membership. In any event, the approach is dangerously misguided.

The issue goes back to the Iraq War during Tony Blair’s premiership. Robin Cook resigned as Foreign Secretary, in March 2003, and told the House of Commons:

“From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war.”

The vote was held – which did, of course, authorise military action. But the headstone on Cook’s grave in Edinburgh includes the following quote from his memoirs:

“I may not have succeeded in halting the war, but I did secure the right of Parliament to decide on war.”

That is the legacy Starmer seeks to entrench and which many will regard as reasonable. Yet for hundreds of years before 2003 the Government had the power, under Royal Prerogative to take military action. It was a decision for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Parliament’s role was to hold them to account for their actions. That could mean bringing down the Government. But it could not bind the Prime Minister’s hands.

It doesn’t mean that MPs can not express their views. On April 3rd 1982 there was a sitting on a Saturday as the taskforce was about to embark for the Falklands. Passionate speeches were made. But the motion before the House said simply:

“That this House do now adjourn.”

As James Gray, the Conservative MP for North Wiltshire, wrote on this site:

“The truth is that if the use of military force is allowed to be political (which it must be if it needs a majority in a possibly marginal House of Commons), then it cannot be strategic. Should the Prime Minister be doing what is right for the peace and the people of the world? Or should he have primary concern for its popularity in Parliament? The former Chief of Defence Staff, David (now Lord) Richards was quoted in this weekend’s paper attacking Cameron over his actions in Libya and Syria – even going so far as to suggest that the current refugee tide may be linked to it. There may be some truth in that. The Government does seem to have got itself into a terrible tangle over the process by which we make use of our military.

“Giving Parliament the final say over warfare politicises the war; it means that possibly sensitive intelligence has to be made public; it removes any element of surprise, delays decision-making and, in a host of other ways, makes the effective conduct of military force extremely difficult, if not virtually impossible. Now even if you think all this may be a good thing, I would hope that you would agree it also has a devastating impact on our ability to project power for the good of the world. Diplomacy without arms is like music without an orchestra.”

Jesse Norman, the Conservative MP for Hereford and South Herefordshire, has made a further important point:

“If Parliament itself authorises such action in advance, what then? It gives up part of its power of scrutiny; it binds Members in their own minds, rather than allowing them the opportunity to assess each Government decision on its own merits and circumstances; and instead of being forced to explain and justify their actions, Ministers can always take final refuge in saying, “Well, you authorised it.” Thus, far from strengthening Parliament, it weakens it and the Government: it weakens the dynamic tension between the two sides from which proper accountability and effective policy must derive.”

The executive needs to have the flexibility to act quickly. The Government must be allowed the authority to govern and then to be held to account. The notion of the House of Commons – made up of 650 people – managing a war is absurd. Still more absurd than Sir Oliver Letwin attempts last year to empower them to conduct our Brexit negotiations. It also follows that passing laws that constrain the Government’s future management is misguided. For instance, over spending levels. The Conservative Manifesto pledge to make NHS spending rises legally binding might have been good politics but is bad for management of the country. The legal requirement to spend 0.7 per cent a year of GDP on foreign aid erodes the ability of the Government to adjust to circumstances. It might be more sensible for it be 0.6 per cent one year and 0.8 per cent another year. Equally, the net-zero emissions target for 2050 being legally binding shows the wrong mentality. I suppose in practice these laws could be changed fairly quickly or if the targets are missed the Minister just comes and gives a statement explaining what happened. But if these laws are mere gestures that is hardly a good argument for them.

Whatever you think about war, or Brexit, or the correct level of spending for different departments, the Government must decide and take the consequences.

Last week, I suggested that comparisons between Starmer and Neil Kinnock are unfair… to Kinnock. But there is a certain parallel. When Kinnock was standing to be the Labour leader in 1983 he did not immediately repudiate the Party’s left wing Manifesto in that year’s General Election. At that stage Kinnock defended the economic programme and unilateral nuclear disarmament – though he criticised the Militant Tendency and suggested that the proposal to withdraw from the Common Market be abandoned. His rival, Roy Hattersley, was more outspoken – and got trounced as through the summer we waited with baited breath as USDAW, the National Union of Railwaymen and others held their seaside delegate conferences.

So the dilemma for Labour leadership contenders is not new. Thus far though, they all seem to compare unfavourably to Kinnock. All are desperate to ingratiate themselves with the Corbynistas. Starmer’s campaign video stresses his credentials as an ally of striking miners and print workers in the 1980s. Jess Phillips, used her offering to mention that her grandfather was the cartoonist for Tony Benn and the Socialist Campaign Group – and in her childhood she made signs for the nuclear disarmament protests at Greenham Common.

The choice the leadership contenders are making is to ignore the dismay the electorate showed for Jeremy Corbyn last month. Instead they are devoting themselves to the Labour Party membership – most of whom regard Corbyn as a hero. Part of that will means some pretty dud policies are put forward. It makes it much harder for whoever becomes the Leader of the Opposition to establish any credibility as a responsible and patriotic statesman.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

President Trump: Al-Baghdadi “Died Like a Dog” When American Commandos Stormed His Hideout

Westlake Legal Group AP_17270622126277-620x305 President Trump: Al-Baghdadi “Died Like a Dog” When American Commandos Stormed His Hideout white house War Terrorism republicans Politics Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

President Donald Trump gives thumbs up as he boards Air Force One as he departs Wednesday, Sept. 27, 2017, at Andrews Air Force Base, Md. Trump is en route to Indiana. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Yesterday, US Special Operations Forces carried out a raid that resulted in the death of the titular leader is ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. This is President Trump’s press conference on the event.

Big picture here is that regardless of the press release war, there is obviously coordination going on between the US and Russia and Syria and Turkey to eradicate ISIS so that they can get on with the serious business of killing one another.

This raid marks a stark departure from the Obama era of killing everything that moved with drone strikes. I’m not opposed to killing people who need it but you are always better off capturing senior people than killing them. While al-Bagdadi blew himself up, the raid site was exploited. Prisoners were taken. Documents and electronic devices seized. This will lead to a cascade of raids and attacks based on this information.

Strategically, this probably will be seen as the last gasp of ISIS. It was already nearly eradicated. Funding and volunteers were drying up. When al-Baghdadi was killed he was hiding in a city in a hostile area. Hardly the mark of someone who is about to make a comeback. I’ve never been convinced ISIS mattered, but if it once did, it no longer does.

This take by an Obama toadie is just bullsh**. This operation was possible because despite the press’s brainless jihad about Russia, sane people maintained a relationship with them that allowed US overflight to get our assault force in and out. That counts.

The circumstances of al-Baghdadi’s death–described as only Trump can describe things–is not going to help his cause

This, like taking out bin Laden, is a great publicity exercise but probably of limited import. Both al Qaeda and ISIS were on the run and on their last legs when their leaders were taken out. Both of their leaders were isolated and in hiding. They will both limp around for awhile longer but they are a spent force. But the good news about radical Islam is that there is always another transnational terrorist movement in the making, so we’ll be doing this same press conference again in a few years.

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========

The post President Trump: Al-Baghdadi “Died Like a Dog” When American Commandos Stormed His Hideout appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AP_17270622126277-300x148 President Trump: Al-Baghdadi “Died Like a Dog” When American Commandos Stormed His Hideout white house War Terrorism republicans Politics Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Majority of Americans Believe We’re On the Verge of a Second Civil War Poll Reveals

Westlake Legal Group nra-constitution-620x349 Majority of Americans Believe We’re On the Verge of a Second Civil War Poll Reveals War republicans polls poll Politics Political Discourse Front Page Stories democrats civility civil war America Allow Media Exception

A new poll conducted by Georgetown University’s Institute of Politics and Public Service conducted a poll and found a shocking statistic that showed the majority of Americans believed that a second civil war is looming in the near future.

The poll found that when American citizens were asked to rate the current state of political civility from a scale of 0 (no political division) to 100 (political division to the point of civil war), the responses averaged around 67.23. The poll noted that 7 in 10 Americans believe that America is on the verge of a violent war with itself.

The poll did come with odd answers from those took it. The majority of people wanted compromise from political leaders but wanted leaders to stand firm in their opposition according to GU:

“Our Civility Poll finds that eighty percent of voters say that they both demand compromise from political leaders, but want political leaders who will stand up to the other side. That creates mixed messages for even the most skilled political leader trying to decide whether to be a fighter or a dealmaker,” said Mo Elleithee, Executive Director of the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service.

This is most likely a desire for Americans to have more give from the other side while they wish their own leaders to remain immovable. This is not going to help the situation at all if both sides are expecting flexibility from their opponents while willing to give up none. Should a politician do what the voting base expects their opponents to do, it won’t sit well, and thus you may find many politicians unwilling to budge at all, furthering the divide.

Some in the media also suggest a civil war is looming, such as National Review and Foreign Policy. Others believe it has already begun, such as Rush Limbaugh, who said we are currently in a “cold civil war.”

According to Limbaugh, the Democrat establishment may be the one who drives us into violence due to their desire to obtain and retain power by any means necessary, including finding ways to kick Trump out of office and punish the civilian population for supporting him, or ideals like his.

The idea has also sprung up on social media. Oftentimes during a gun debate, ideas would be floated around about military involvement in the seizing of guns, which usually leads to the discussion of civil war and how that scenario would go.

At this time, the radicalism of the left has driven many to openly advocate for the termination of various rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. Many have stated that this will result in war as the American people will face down the government, topple it, and reinstate a new one as the founders suggested we do in the event of a tyrannical government takeover.

Other indicators that we may be approaching levels of nationwide violence is the constant escalation of violence by radical protesters on the left, including Antifa, who openly threaten political dissenters with violence, and sometimes death.

(READ: Leftists Threaten To “Bring Out The Guillotine” If Theaters Show Jordan Peterson Documentary)

 

The post Majority of Americans Believe We’re On the Verge of a Second Civil War Poll Reveals appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group nra-constitution-300x169 Majority of Americans Believe We’re On the Verge of a Second Civil War Poll Reveals War republicans polls poll Politics Political Discourse Front Page Stories democrats civility civil war America Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Missile Defense Now – Beats Missile Defense in a Decade…Maybe

Westlake Legal Group ap-korean-missile-620x378 Missile Defense Now – Beats Missile Defense in a Decade…Maybe War Terrorism Technology Science Russia republicans Politics Policy Nuclear Weapons north korea nuclear deal North Korea News missiles missile defense military Islamist terrorism islamist ISIS iran nuclear deal Government Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy donald trump democrats Congress China Barack Obama

Let’s Play Some Defense, Shall We?

 

The planet has a bit of a nuclear weapon proliferation problem.

Many of the Good Guys have them.

The US Nuclear Arsenal

The Story of How Britain Got Nuclear Weapons

France Has Lots of Nuclear Weapons

India’s Nuclear Weapons Arsenal Keeps Getting Bigger and Bigger

Included herein is a Good Guy – who may or may not have them.

Does Israel Really Have Nuclear Weapons?

And more and more of the Bad Guys have them.

The Big China Nuclear Threat No One Is Talking About

Russia’s Putin Unveils ‘Invincible’ Nuclear Weapons

Pakistan Has Lots of Nuclear Weapons

How Did North Korea Get Nuclear Weapons?

Excellent question.  Often, because the alleged Good Guys – are very, VERY stupid.

You Can Thank Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton for North Korea’s Nukes

If a Bad Guy wants to get there – they can often count on an alleged Good Guy being very, VERY stupid.

Fact-Check: Yes, the (Barack Obama) Nuclear Deal Hands ‘$150 Billion’ Over to Iran

The planet has a bit of a nuclear weapon proliferation problem….

Since They All Have Nukes And Missiles – We Absolutely Should Have Missile Defense

Right now, the only missile defense system we have doing any missile defensing – is the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD):

“The Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System provides Combatant Commanders the capability to engage and destroy limited intermediate- and long-range ballistic missile threats in space to protect the United States….

“Ground-Based Interceptors are emplaced at Fort Greely, Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. A total of 44 interceptors are currently emplaced.”

A key component of the GMD – is the Redesigned Kill Vehicle (RKV):

“The RKV is meant as an upgrade and supplement to the current Exo-Atmospheric Kill Vehicle, or EKV.

“Both systems are ground-based interceptors for the U.S. Missile Defense Agency designed to defend the U.S. mainland against long-range ballistic missile attacks.

“The RKV offers improved maneuverability and targeting performance compared to the EKV, which has a poor test record.”

Except – the Defense Department (DoD) just killed the RKV.

Pentagon Terminates Program for Redesigned Kill Vehicle, Preps for New Competition

Have there been tech issues?  There have:

“The EKV, designed to destroy targets in high-speed collisions after separating from a booster rocket, has struggled in testing….”

There were problems.  As there always are at some point with almost all things – especially things this high-tech and uber-sophisticated.

But we can take solace:

In the history of each and every thing that has worked – there was a time when each and every one of them didn’t work.

And the problems we were having – were being fixed:

“(It) has performed reliably in major test events in recent years including a complex salvo test earlier this year.”

Instead of the current, intact, in-place, improving system – what does the DoD have planned?:

“Now that the RKV is dead in the water, the Pentagon plans to move forward with a new, next-generation interceptor competition, the statement said.”

Except – are we anywhere near a “new, next-generation interceptor?”  We’re not even close:

“The defense official said the Pentagon is still working through the details of a new, next-generation interceptor competition, including when it will be initiated and the pace at which the technology will be developed and fielded.”

The Defense Department hasn’t even yet decided what “new, next-generation interceptor” means.  Because the DoD doesn’t even yet know what a “new, next-generation interceptor” is.

This is like killing the automobile – and then beginning the process of identifying the next mode of transportation.  Which hasn’t even yet been conceived.

Well, in the meantime – we need to get around.  So don’t preemptively kill the car.

And in the meantime – we need a missile defense system.  So don’t preemptively kill the RKV.

Since the current missile defense system is the only missile defense system even conceived – let’s keep it around.

At the very least – until you can actually define what “new, next-generation interceptor” means.

Our national security is far too important – to go fishing all over again…without any safety net whatsoever.

The post Missile Defense Now – Beats Missile Defense in a Decade…Maybe appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-korean-missile-300x183 Missile Defense Now – Beats Missile Defense in a Decade…Maybe War Terrorism Technology Science Russia republicans Politics Policy Nuclear Weapons north korea nuclear deal North Korea News missiles missile defense military Islamist terrorism islamist ISIS iran nuclear deal Government Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy donald trump democrats Congress China Barack Obama  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Report: U.S. Hit Iran With a Cyber Attack After Saudi Oil Field Was Struck

Westlake Legal Group trump-iran-SCREENSHOT-300x161 Report: U.S. Hit Iran With a Cyber Attack After Saudi Oil Field Was Struck white house washington D.C. War United Nations The Hill Morning Briefing Iran Front Page Stories donald trump cyberwar Cybersecurity communism China Trade Talks China Capitalism Allow Media Exception 2019

Get ready, being this is the future of war.

In the wake of the attack on the Saudi oil fields, it looked like we were going to strike Iran once U.S. intelligence confirmed it was indeed the Iranians. President Trump made some comments that we had enough of the behavior of the regime and it looked like an attack would happen at any minute.

Well, it did, just not how it has happened for the past 30 years. A new report out says that the United State did strike Iran but on the cyber level and not with bombs.

According to The Hill

The U.S. hit Iran with a secret cyberattack after a September strike on two Saudi oil facilities that Washington and Riyadh both blame on Tehran, according to Reuters.

Two U.S. officials told the news service that the operation, which took place late last month, targeted Tehran’s ability to spread “propaganda.” One of the officials said the attack hit physical hardware, but declined to provide further information.

“They must have dreamt it,” Iranian Minister of Communications and Information Technology Mohammad Javad Azari-Jahromi responded, according to Iran’s Fars news agency.

One person’s dream is another person’s nightmare.

The United States has been the target of a number of cyberattacks from Russia, China, and North Korea over the past 10 years. Our dependence on the internet and, quite frankly, our grid are an open target for our enemies. So much so that Trump issued an executive order earlier this year about an EMP attack. Trump issued an executive order to prepare for an EMP attack

So, it is not surprising that the U.S would show a bit of what it can do to Iran to give them something to think about and also to Iran’s pals the Russians and the Chi-coms.

Hopefully, our best and brightest are working to make sure we stay ahead of the curve here and prevent this country’s enemies from striking in the same way. The U.S is incredibly dependent on electronic transactions of numerous types and if that capability went down or the power grid was fried, this country would be tested like never before.

As President Trump showed with this move, we can attack you without dropping bombs on your country.

We need to keep the same thing in mind in this country.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Report: U.S. Hit Iran With a Cyber Attack After Saudi Oil Field Was Struck appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group trump-iran-SCREENSHOT-300x161 Report: U.S. Hit Iran With a Cyber Attack After Saudi Oil Field Was Struck white house washington D.C. War United Nations The Hill Morning Briefing Iran Front Page Stories donald trump cyberwar Cybersecurity communism China Trade Talks China Capitalism Allow Media Exception 2019  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Syria joins war in… Syria

Westlake Legal Group syrian-position Syria joins war in… Syria War Turkey troop withdrawal The Blog Syrian Kurds Syria Bashar al-Assad

There’s yet another twist in the ongoing invasion of Syria by Turkey. The Syrian army, backed by Russian forces and advisers, is reportedly joining the battle. It might not sound all that surprising for the military of a nation being invaded to come to their own defense, but Bashar al-Assad hasn’t controlled the northeastern portion of his country for years. And in an even stranger twist, the Syrian Kurds are welcoming his help.

Syria’s state news agency says government forces have entered the northern town of Tal Tamr that is close to Turkey’s border.

SANA said Monday morning that the Syrian army moved into the area to “confront the Turkish aggression,” without giving further details.

The report says residents of Tal Tamr that is about 20 kilometers (12 miles) from the Turkish border welcomed the troops.

It did not say from which area the Syrian army marched toward the town.

This represents something of a shift in the dynamics of this conflict. For years now, the battles in the eastern region of Syria have been something of a proxy war between other international interests. The Americans were there helping the Kurds, who really weren’t fighting “for or against” Syria. In addition to beating down ISIS, they’ve been defending their own interests as part of an ongoing struggle to eventually establish their own formally recognized independent state. The Russians generally support Assad, but seem mostly interested in maintaining the warm water port they’ve established at Tartus. And ISIS was just being ISIS until they were effectively dispersed.

But now, if Syrian troops are actively fighting Turkish troops on their own soil, this may be turning into an actual war between Syria and Turkey. I doubt the Kurds can expect much in the way of actual support from Assad and they will likely come to regret siding with him, but they’re pretty much out of other options at this point. But that may not matter, because if Turkey really wants to get serious about this they could probably crush Syria. They have the largest army in the region by a fair margin and are bristling with both American and Russian military technology.

And what of the Americans? Well, as of this morning, there are reports indicating that President Trump may indeed be pulling us out of the country entirely.

The United States appears to be heading toward a full military withdrawal from Syria amid growing chaos , cries of betrayal and signs that Turkey’s invasion could fuel a broader war.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Sunday that President Donald Trump had directed U.S. troops in northern Syria to begin pulling out “as safely and quickly as possible.” He did not say Trump ordered troops to leave Syria, but that seemed like the next step in a combat zone growing more unstable by the hour.

If this does turn into a full-blown war between Turkey and Syria, who does the United States root for? We clearly don’t support Assad, but Turkey is quickly turning into a Russian satellite state. With ISIS fighters escaping confinement and Iranian backed militias on the prowl, this is rapidly devolving into a toxic stew where there is no good outcome on the horizon. The Kurds should probably consider packing up and heading to northern Iraq. After that, perhaps the idea of just letting the remaining forces in Syria fight it out and kill each other off isn’t so crazy after all.

The post Syria joins war in… Syria appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group syrian-position-300x173 Syria joins war in… Syria War Turkey troop withdrawal The Blog Syrian Kurds Syria Bashar al-Assad  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Takes a Moment to Tell Us What the Most Heartbreaking Part of His Job Is

Westlake Legal Group Donald-Trump-APImage-620x413 Trump Takes a Moment to Tell Us What the Most Heartbreaking Part of His Job Is War troops Syria soldiers parents mothers military Front Page Stories donald trump Allow Media Exception

Doubtless, President Donald Trump has a tough job as leader of the free world, but he took a moment on Wednesday to tell the press what the hardest part of his job is.

According to him, the most difficult part is writing letters to the families of fallen soldiers, and even attending the moments where the bodies of soldiers are brought home from overseas in a coffin with an American flag draped over it, and hearing the screams and sobs of the parents.

“The hardest thing I have to do, by far, much harder than the witch hunt, is signing letters to parents of soldiers that have been killed,” Trump said. “And it’s not only that — in areas where there’s not a lot of upside, if there’s any upside at all, and in many cases, it’s only downside.”

“The hardest thing I have to do is signing those letters. That’s the hardest thing I have to do. And each letter is different,” Trump continued. “We make each letter different. And last week, I signed five of them for Afghanistan; one in Iraq; one in Syria, from two weeks ago. And sometimes I call the parents. Sometimes I see the parents. I go to Dover, when I can, but it’s — it’s so devastating for the parents that — you know. It’s so devastating when they bring that boy or young woman out of the back of those big, powerful planes in a coffin, and the parents are there.”

“And then I see it. And I see people that were smiling, “Oh, Mr. President, thank you for being here. Thank you for being here.” And I think they’re doing great. And then, twenty minutes later, we’ll be outside when that big plane pulls up and that door comes down, and they are walking the coffin with their boy inside this coffin with an American flag over the top. And they’re walking that coffin down this ramp,” said Trump.

“And I’ve seen people that I thought were really incredible the way they were ta- — I didn’t even understand how they could take it so well — scream, like I’ve never seen anything before,” he continued. “Sometimes they’ll run to the coffin. They’ll break through military barriers. They’ll run to the coffin and jump on top of the coffin. Crying mothers and wives. Crying desperately.”

This is likely a move included in his reasons to stop the war in Syria and withdraw our troops, and many may see this as an attempt to use an emotional argument to gain public opinion for his side. Regardless, I can’t imagine having to be in his position and do that kind of thing.

Whether you think Trump is right or wrong on this, having to do this kind of thing can’t be easy on anyone.

 

The post Trump Takes a Moment to Tell Us What the Most Heartbreaking Part of His Job Is appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Donald-Trump-APImage-300x200 Trump Takes a Moment to Tell Us What the Most Heartbreaking Part of His Job Is War troops Syria soldiers parents mothers military Front Page Stories donald trump Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Lindsey Graham Warns He’ll Deliver “Sanctions From Hell” If Turkey Invades Syria

Westlake Legal Group lindsey-graham-pointing-620x413 Lindsey Graham Warns He’ll Deliver “Sanctions From Hell” If Turkey Invades Syria War Turkey Syria Sanctions republicans Politics Lindsey Graham Kurds Iraq International Affairs Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump Allow Media Exception

Lindsey Graham by Gage Skidmore, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original

In the wake of President Donald Trump announcing that he was pulling U.S. forces out of Syria, many began voicing opposition out of their concern for the safety of American allies in the region, namely the Kurds.

Turkey has made it very clear that it intends to conduct “operations in Syria” after the U.S. moves out, and already bombed the Syria-Iraq border in order to prevent Kurd movement that would allow them to fortify their positions.

“In this way, the group’s transit to Syria and support lines, including ammunition, are shut off,” said a Turkish official.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R), who is one of the Senators who denounced the decision to pull U.S. forces out of the region, has warned Turkey that if they so much as step foot in the area, he’ll bury them in sanctions.

“If Turkey moves into northern Syria, sanctions from hell — by Congress — will follow. Wide, deep, and devastating sanctions,” Graham tweeted Tuesday.

This was a follow up to statements he made on Monday, making it clear that if Turkey acts against the Kurds, then sanctions will follow. Graham already has bipartisan support for these sanctions thanks to Democrat Sen. Chris Van Hollen.

“We will introduce bipartisan sanctions against Turkey if they invade Syria and will call for their suspension from NATO if they attack Kurdish forces who assisted the U.S. in the destruction of the ISIS Caliphate,” Graham added.

While this is Trump’s decision, the President has also made it clear that any moves by Turkey in the area will result in the targeted destruction of its economy.

“As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!),” tweeted Trump.

The ball is in Turkey’s court at this point. Once the U.S. pulls out, Turkey will have to make the decision to risk the wrath of the United States. However, the Kurds aren’t so sure that’s going to scare Turkey into capitulation.

 

The post Lindsey Graham Warns He’ll Deliver “Sanctions From Hell” If Turkey Invades Syria appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group lindsey-graham-pointing-300x200 Lindsey Graham Warns He’ll Deliver “Sanctions From Hell” If Turkey Invades Syria War Turkey Syria Sanctions republicans Politics Lindsey Graham Kurds Iraq International Affairs Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com