Why is it that people in the United States, the land where ‘all men are created equal,’ the land where ‘constitutional patriotism’ was born, have been pulling their hair out over an issue that appears nowhere in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers? For Spain’s Diario Exterior, columnist Carlos Alberto Montaner examines one of the most vexing issues in the U.S. today, and why America’s ‘ethnic neurosis’ is destined to dissipate if people simply wait.

For the Diario Exterior, Carlos Alberto Montaner starts off this way:

The New York Times front page has announced that in the previous year, more than half the children born in the United States (50.4%) were non-White. Of that percentage, 26 percent were Hispanic (mostly Mexican), 15 percent were Black and 4 percent were Asian.

Why was it on the front page? Pure ethnic neurosis. Fear of the other. The same thing happened a few years ago when Samuel Huntington caused such a stir with the publication of his The Hispanic Challenge. This type of information causes a certain anxiety among “Whites.” They think they are losing control over and the direction of America. They fear becoming a minority.

The first bit of nonsense is classification. Hispanics are defined by the language they speak, or by what language they are supposed to speak, regardless of skin color. A Chilean of Basque origin or a Cachiquel Guatemalan are Hispanics, even if the language of the latter isn’t Spanish. Blacks, evidently, are classified by race. Asians, by geography, be they Chinese or Indian.

I have no idea, for example, if an Israeli-American of Sephardic origin is Asian, White or Hispanic. Nor do I know if that brilliant engineer called Rafael Reif, a Venezuelan son of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe who was recently named President of MIT, is Hispanic, White, or if by chance the census allows it, simply Maracucho. [Maracucho is the Zulian dialect in northwest Venezuela].

Thoughtful, civil comments are welcome at TMV. Please read the Commenters Rules at the top of the masthead. Thank you. Eds.

READ ON IN ENGLISH OR SPANISH AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

Contrary to the narrative in the West, in Beijing’s alternate reality, Russia and China are the real heroes of the Syria story. According to this editorial from China’s state-controlled Global Times, only Russia and China stand in the way of an even more horrific conflict brought on by selfish Western determination to remake the Middle East in its own image.

The Global Times editorial says in part:

China and Russia have called for a resolution by peaceful means, as this is obviously the least painful path toward transition. Western powers, however, insist that unless Assad leaves, there can be no solution. What this in fact amounts to is calling for bloodshed rather than peace. It will force the Syrian parties to decide their fate through war.

But the regime is not without roots. Half the Syrian population remains loyal to Assad, and if this support is to be eradicated, it will cost Syrians dearly. The West’s strategy is built on Syrian flesh and blood. It is a political kidnapping of the destinies of over 20 million people.

If one country is permitted to intervene in another’s domestic affairs at will, our world would be plagued by a long series of wars driven by the subversion of regimes. However history judges such events, they would be a nightmare for the people of our age.

The West should not expect cooperation from China and Russia if it insists on dictating its values and mindsets to the world by all means possible. For it if does, it will find China and Russia standing in its way.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

Emad Hajjaj, Jordan

So much for the Syrian government’s cover story in the Houla killings that took 108 lives and shocked the world with images of scores of dead children lying side by side: the UN says most victims were summarily executed…period:

Most of the 108 victims of the Houla killings in Syria were executed, the United Nations said Tuesday – an announcement that triggered a coordinated worldwide expulsion of Syrian diplomats.

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights says its monitors found that fewer than 20 died from artillery fire. It was first thought the majority of the deaths were caused by artillery fire.

Images of bloodied, young bodies laid out in a shallow grave after Friday’s onslaught triggered shock around the world and underlined the failure of a six-week-old U.N. cease-fire plan to stop the violence. [TMV Editor's Note: WARNING here are those disturbing, tragic graphic video images via You Tube]

Syrian authorities blamed “terrorists” for the massacre, among the worst carnage in the 14-month-old uprising against Assad, which has cost about 10,000 lives.

In an effort coordinated by Britain, several nations – including Canada, Australia, France and Germany – responded to the U.N. findings by expelling diplomats, as ITV News reported. Syria’s charge d’affaires, Ghassan Dalla, the country’s topranking diplomat in London, was among those ordered to return to Damascus.

The Guardian:

Britain, France, the United States and three other European countries are expelling the ambassadors of Syria in protest at the massacre of more than 100 people, including scores of children, in Houla near Hama last weekend.

The co-ordinated international diplomatic action came as Kofi Annan, representing the UN and the Arab League, met the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, in Damascus “to convey the grave concern of the international community about the violence in Syria” and the prospects for the implementation of his apparently failing six-point plan.

Australia also said it was expelling the Syrian ambassador. It is understood that the US will follow suit. Germany announced it was expelling the Syrian envoy, and Spain and Italy are due to do the same.

Syria has flatly denied responsibility for the atrocity, calling it a “terrorist massacre”.

France’s president, François Hollande, was the first European leader to announce the expulsion of the ambassador, describing it as “not a unilateral decision but in consultation with our partners”. Britain’s decision was due to be made public by William Hague, the foreign secretary, shortly afterwards.

It was not immediately clear why other members of the 27-strong EU had not joined in.

Britain withdrew its ambassador and in effect closed its embassy in Damascus on security grounds earlier this year. That meant there was little to lose by taking this punitive step. But its effect will be largely symbolic. Syria’s ambassador, Sami Khiyami, left London some months ago. The charge d’affaires, Ghassan Dalla, was given the news when he was called into the Foreign Office. Two other Syrian diplomats have also been told to leave the UK.

Many Republicans have demanded the U.S. take stronger action in various forms: covert, arming rebels, Polls have found sentiment in Europe for UN intervention and little interest among the U.S public for American intervention amid Iraq-Afghanistan war fatigue.

This copyrighted cartoon is licensed to run on TMV. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.

In honor of our fallen troops, CNN.com has created an amazing interactive “Home & Away map” which includes information about all of the men and women who have died in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars since 2001.

It is a stunning, interactive map where you can learn where our heroes lived and how and where they died on the battlefields, in the deserts, in the mountains and in the streets of towns and cities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, the distribution according to age (note how young most of them were), home states and when they died.

For example, point and click to Monroe, MI, and the names of the two service members from that town who died in Iraq will pop up. Click on one of the names, and you’ll see where and how he died. You can also leave a message or memory about them for their families.

Amazing and sad.

Please take a moment during the final hours on this Memorial Day to visit the site and honor our fallen soldiers here and here.

This is significant because Syrian President Bashar Assad is a Russian protégé in the tussle for influence in the region between Washington and Saudi Arabia on one side and the new Vladimir Putin regime on the other. Despite his distrust of Washington, Putin is shocked at the weekend massacre of 108 people in the poor farming villages of the Houla municipality, including some 49 children and 34 women.

Syria is an important client state for Russia and a major buyer of arms and other exports. A large shipment of weapons was delivered just days ago and Moscow is concerned that pro-government fighters, not necessarily members of Assad’s army, may turn more of them against civilians. The Syrian government has flatly denied involvement in the Houla slaughter. But the villages are interspersed with army bases and killings might have been the work of pro-government militia hunting rebels hiding among the civilians. It is common during armed uprising for villagers to give shelter to rebel guerrillas because of coercion or sympathy.

Moscow is seeing Syria as a zero sum game. It thinks that Assad’s fall will lead either to chaotic tribal violence or put the country in the hands of Washington-backed elements or Saudi-backed radical Sunni Muslims. That would end Russia’s only toehold in the region. It would also make Russia’s Muslim territories more vulnerable to radical Islamists trained by Salafi preachers from Saudi religious centers.

Yet, setting aside misgivings, Moscow stepped forward today to strongly condemn the Houla massacre although it is not yet clear whether Assad was behind it. Following a meeting with his British counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia is not interested in propping up Assad. Instead it wants Assad to implement a plan brokered by UN special envoy Kofi Annan. He endorsed a UN report earlier this week that put most of the blame for the deaths, currently estimated at 12,000 over 15 months, on the Syrian government while noting that opposition, too, has caused many deaths.

This changed tone backed by a joint Russian-British-French effort to boost Annan might allow the UN Security Council to approve tougher words against Assad. In the past, it has been stymied by a Russian veto. China may also stop saying no and say yes or abstain.

However, nothing is likely to change inside Syria until the US and the NATO allies threaten military force to topple Assad, similarly to Libya when Muammar Gaddafi began killing his own people. That kind of credible threat seems unlikely at this time because of war-weariness in the US and President Barack Obama’s election season. Neither the US nor Europe has the money required to finance another relentless air campaign even if no boots are placed on the ground.

Still, withdrawal of Russian support from Assad, or even equivocation in that support, could severely weaken the Syrian President’s position in the eyes of his backers inside Syria. That might persuade him to follow the Annan plan, provided that he does not lose his head to bullets or a hangman’s rope, or end up serving life after a verdict of the World Court. In that case, he might prefer to die in the civil war. His British wife and children are already safely in the UK.

Annan arrived in Syria on Monday for more talks and to meet some of the over 250 UN peacekeepers who entered in May to monitor the violence. Before the Houla tragedy his peace plan, which calls for a cease-fire and dialogue, was floundering without hope. It might now become the starting point of a slow crawl away from full civil war and anarchy.

It’s that time of year again: The U.S. State Department has issued its annual report on human rights around the world. And, as has become the custom, states like North Korea and China, which disapprove of America’s rendering, issue denunciations of the report.

We have posted three articles, two from China and one from North Korea, that encompass the latest counter-criticisms of the United States by the two one-party states.

First, in an article headlined America ‘Disqualified’ as Global Human Rights Judge, China’s state-run Global Times, informs that Beijing has issued its own report on human rights in the United States that highlights America’s ‘dismal human rights record,’ which renders it ineligible to judge others:

“The cases highlighted in this report are tiny but illustrative reflection of America’s dismal record on human rights … America’s tarnished human rights record renders it a morally, politically and legally feeble judge of global human rights.”

Also from the Global Times, although this and most Chinese editorials and op-eds are published almost simultaneously in all of its media, in an editorial headlined Human Rights Criticism of China a Fig Leaf for Diminishing U.S. Influence, Beijing argues that given America’s loss of financial and military influence, the human rights issue is Washington’s last remaining ‘ace in the hole.’ :

“While China’s improving human rights situation brings no benefit to the United States, discrediting China by finding fault with its rights record pays important dividends. In an age when Washington is losing its economic advantage and cannot use its military might at will, America has no ace in the hole left other than the human rights issue.”

Finally, one of Pyongyang’s state-mouthpieces, the Rodong Sinmun, quotes a commentary from another state-run media outlet, the Korean Central News Agency, which cites U.S. abuses that the Kim Jong-un regime asserts disqualifies Washington from criticizing anyone else. Say what one will about young despot Kim Jong-un, the quality of commentary coming out of Pyongyang since he came to power at least sounds more sane that its former Stalinist drivel:

“The right to food, clothing and housing – the most elementary of all human rights, are mercilessly suppressed in a society where the law of the jungle reigns and money is everything. … Furthermore, the consequences of America’s deeply-rooted racial discrimination regularly manifest in the fabric of everyday life. … The unending violence against women fully betrays how a barbaric U.S. society is facing the end of an era.”

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

UPDATE:

The Huffington Post has published a piece on the Associated Press report that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are filing for disability benefits at a historic rate.

As of this writing, there are already 618 comments (with 34 more pending).

I realize that many of our readers would not “be caught dead” visiting the HuffPost.

However, I would recommend that you take a chance this Memorial Day and venture to that site and browse through those comments.

Skip the ones that blame Bush for the Iraq disaster and that blame Obama for the continuing carnage in Afghanistan.

Skip the ones that reflect a twisted political or anti-war agenda.

And especially skip the callous and cynical comments such as “Great—-just what the USA needs—-more entitlements!!!” and ”Those are the things you need to think about before you sign up to go to foreign countries to kill the local inhabitants.”

Some will say, “That doesn’t leave many.” Perhaps, but those that “are left” are the heart wrenching accounts by widows, wives, sons and daughters of our veterans from our many wars, that tell us that these wounds and injuries — physical and mental — are real, are horrendous and debilitating and must be adequately addressed by the nation and the people who sent these brave men and women into battle.

And while our readers are at it, perhaps they may also want to read an opinion piece in the New York Times, written by a former U.S. Marine who, in 2001, was part of the initial force of Marines who landed in Afghanistan and who, in 2003, took part in the heavy fighting of the first wave of the invasion of Iraq, and who writes about the hell he has been through since coming home.

==

Original Post:

As we remember and honor those who have fought and died in all our wars, let us not forget the hundreds of thousands who have been injured and continue to be injured — physically and mentally — in our two most recent wars.

This sad reality is poignantly brought home this Memorial Day weekend by an Associated Press report, published in the Stars and Stripes which tells us that an astounding “45 percent of the 1.6 million veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are now seeking compensation for injuries they say are service-related.”

According to the Stars and Stripes:

That is more than double the estimated 21 percent who filed such claims after the Gulf War in the early 1990s, top government officials told the AP.

These new veterans are claiming eight to nine ailments on average, and the most recent ones over the last year are claiming 11 to 14. By comparison, Vietnam veterans are currently receiving compensation for fewer than four, on average, and those from World War II and Korea, just two.”

In its report, the Associated Press postulates that there may be many factors that drive up these figures: “[T]he weak economy, more troops surviving wounds, and more awareness of problems such as concussions and PTSD.”

Other factors and circumstances pointed out by the Associated Press which “spent three months reviewing records and talking with doctors, government officials and former troops to take stock of the new veterans” :

More — 28 percent of those filing disability claims — are from the Reserves and National Guard rather than career military.

“More of the new veterans are women, accounting for 12 percent of those who have sought care through the VA… Some female veterans are claiming PTSD due to military sexual trauma…”

The different types of injuries incurred by the new veterans, such as those caused by improvised bombs and the fact that improved body armor and improved battlefield care has “allowed many of them to survive wounds that in past wars proved fatal.”

Please read more about these somber statistics and the horrific injuries adding up to some staggering numbers here.

Image: www.shutterstock.com

While America is a young country not as prone as some others to preserving ‘relics’ of the dead, we do appear to have a thing for blood, which, if modern science progresses as some think it might, could result in some interesting historical clones. This article on the subject by El Pais columnist Marcos Balfagon reflects on this odd historical preoccupation, and on the wisdom of someday restoring another Ronald Reagan to the world.

For El Pais, columnist Marcos Balfagon starts off this way:

An online auction house [PFC Auctions] based on the island of Guernsey, a British tax haven, has put up the “for sale sign” for a vial of blood that supposedly came from Ronald Reagan. According to the seller, the sample, now dried out, was taken on March, 30, 1981 at the hospital in Washington that the-then president was taken to in the moments after he was wounded at the hands of a madman. Of course, the news has angered the Reagan family, and through its foundation, denies the authenticity of the sample, as does the U.S. medical profession.

This not the first time – nor will it be the last – that civil relics have been for sale. As mentioned by the magazine The Atlantic, the United States lacks the saints whose alleged remains have been saved through the centuries in Europe – nor has it an officially-recognized church to protect them. To indulge their fetishism, they have to opt for newer remains. The blood-stained sheets of assassinated President Lincoln are preserved, as is the blood-spattered dress Jackie Kennedy wore as her husband was killed in Dallas.

READ ON IN ENGLISH OR SPANISH AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

We remember and pay tribute to the patriots who died long ago on battlefields near to home with familiar, sacred names such as Valley Forge and Gettysburg.

We remember the troops who gave their lives on foreign battlefields and shores thousands of miles away such as Meuse-Argonne and the Beaches of Normandy.

Fresher in our memories and in our hearts are the men and women who have fallen on battlefields with names like Inchon, Khe Sanh, Tora Bora, Fallujah and Kandahar.

The sheer magnitude of the sacrifices we are commemorating overwhelms the mind and overburdens the heart.

Presidents traditionally honor all these men and women on behalf of a grateful nation at the hallowed grounds of Arlington National Cemetery where more than 260,000 of our fallen troops rest. They oftentimes single out a few of these heroes for special praise.

I would like to single out the following patriots from my hometown and elsewhere whom I have had the honor of personally knowing or knowing about.

Three of my U.S. Air Force Officer Candidate School’s classmates who gave their lives while serving our country during the Cold War and the Vietnam War. They are Capt. Earl L. Boggs, Capt. Albert N. Meier and Capt. James F. Ray. Capt. Ray died on June 5, 1969, when the Strategic Air Command RC-135 aircraft he was navigating disappeared and crashed after taking off from Shemya at the tip of the Aleutian Islands in Alaska. His body and those of the other 18 crewmembers were never recovered. Ray was only 32.

Maj. Bill Davidson, the husband of Austin, Texas, resident and former WASP (Women Air Force Service Pilots) Millie Dalrymple, who gave his life during World War II when the B-17 he was piloting on the return from a bombing raid on a German ball bearing factory was shot down by German fighters over the North Sea in February 1943.

Also Millie’s brother, Lt. James M. Inks, a World War II B-24 navigator from Llano, Texas, who had to bail out when his aircraft was hit during a bombing raid on the critical Ploesti oil installations in Romania. After spending nearly a year evading the Germans by joining the anti-communist “Chetniks,” Inks was finally liberated and continued to serve his country as an Air Force troop carrier pilot flying 92 combat missions in Korea during that war. Lt. Col. Inks passed away in 2001.

Sgt. Allen W. Hancock Sr., the father of disabled Vietnam War veteran and Austin resident Allen Hancock, was taken prisoner by the Japanese while serving in the Philippines during World War II, was forced to march in the tortuous “Bataan Death March” and spent an equally tortuous 44 months in Japanese prisoner of war camps. His son’s eyes still moisten when he tells that his father weighed a mere 64 pounds upon his release at the end of the war. Sgt. Hancock continued to serve his country in the Civil Service at Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. He died July 9, 2000.

Friend and next-door neighbor, Marine Lieutenant Colonel Earl Charles “Charlie” Rodenberg, a highly decorated and courageous Marine aviator who passed away a year ago after a long and valiant struggle with cancer. “Charlie” served his country with distinction for 24 years including as a life-saving “MEDEVAC” helicopter pilot in Vietnam and as a combat Naval Aviator during Operation Desert Storm.

As our country becomes embroiled in new and lengthy wars and as we continue to wage a protracted war on terrorism, it is becoming customary to, on Memorial Day, also remember those who are presently in harm’s way in posts and battlefields around the world, especially our troops getting shot at in Afghanistan and those who risk their lives on dangerous and critical missions as did those magnificent Navy SEALs in Pakistan.

The President and others have used this day to also thank and pay tribute to America’s veterans, especially our most recent ones from the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.

But lest we forget America’s oldest war veterans: Our World War II veterans who are leaving us at the unrelenting rate of roughly 1,000 each day.

I want to pay my respect and gratitude to the approximately two million of these wonderful men and women who are still with us. Especially to the beautiful 92-year-old lady I mentioned above, Lt. Millie Inks Dalrymple, Congressional Gold Medal recipient, who as one of the first, trailblazing WASP during World War II contributed so much to America’s war effort and to the cause of women in military aviation.

Finally, to my good Austin friend, 92-year-old French-American Maj. John Tschirhart, who flew 35 combat missions as a B-17 bombardier over Nazi-occupied Europe during World War II.

I salute and honor them, along with all our heroes from all our wars.

Image Courtesy Air Force News Agency

Crossposted from the Huffington Post

WASHINGTON — Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Wednesday questioned Mitt Romney’s choice in foreign policy advisers, saying that some are so right-wing that the advice they give deserves “second thought.

“I don’t know who all of his advisers are, but I’ve seen some of the names and some of them are quite far to the right. And sometimes they might be in a position to make judgments or recommendations to the candidate that should get a second thought,” Powell said during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

He gave the example of Romney recently saying that Russia is the “number one geopolitical foe” to the United States.

“Come on Mitt, think,” Powell said. “That isn’t the case.”

The Nation took a look at Romney’s foreign policy advisors and it’s pretty scary.

Yet though the candidates and their views were often hard to take seriously, their statements on foreign policy reflected a more disturbing trend in the GOP. Despite facing a war-weary public, the candidates—with the exception of Ron Paul, an antiwar libertarian, and Jon Huntsman, a moderate internationalist—positioned themselves as unapologetic war hawks. That included Mitt Romney, marginally more polished than his rivals but hardly an expert. Given Romney’s well-established penchant for flip-flopping and opportunism, it’s difficult to know what he really believes on any issue, including foreign affairs (the campaign did not respond to a request for comment). But a comprehensive review of his statements during the primary and his choice of advisers suggests a return to the hawkish, unilateral interventionism of the George W. Bush administration should he win the White House in November.

Bush retreads:

Romney is loath to mention Bush on the campaign trail, for obvious reasons, but today they sound like ideological soul mates on foreign policy. Listening to Romney, you’d never know that Bush left office bogged down by two unpopular wars that cost America dearly in blood and treasure. Of Romney’s forty identified foreign policy advisers, more than 70 percent worked for Bush. Many hail from the neoconservative wing of the party, were enthusiastic backers of the Iraq War and are proponents of a US or Israeli attack on Iran. Christopher Preble, a foreign policy expert at the Cato Institute, says, “Romney’s likely to be in the mold of George W. Bush when it comes to foreign policy if he were elected.” On some key issues, like Iran, Romney and his team are to the right of Bush. Romney’s embrace of the neoconservative cause—even if done cynically to woo the right—could turn into a policy nightmare if he becomes president.

Yes, when it comes to foreign policy Romney even scares the Koch brothers Cato Institute.  There is every reason to believe that a Romney administration would bring more wars and more tax cuts leading to a ballooning deficit.  No body who is sane thinks that a war with Iran would be anything but a disaster.

If you liked George W Bush you will love Mitt Romney.  That would make a great bumper sticker.

How confused and ‘dangerous’ has German foreign policy become? For the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, German Vice Admiral Ulrich Weisser [ret.] pulls no punches, as he lays out in detail how Germany has disappointed the United States and its NATO partners in Europe with its U.N. Security Council abstention on action in Libya, its refusal to allow its forces to face the same dangers as its coalition partners in Afghanistan, and its unhelpful attitude toward vital cooperation with Russia on missile defense.

For the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Vice Admiral Ulrich Weisser writes in part:

Germany is untrustworthy. The expectation on the part of our most important European allies and America that we would adopt a reasonable strategic role in and for Europe was bitterly disappointed when our country sidelined itself in the face of a looming humanitarian crisis in Libya. Germany’s abstention at the U.N. Security Council has far-reaching consequences.

The German position is also diametrically opposed to the future needs of European security: With the U.S. commitment to Europe diminishing, Europeans will have to handle future crises on their own. This historical failure on the part of Germany is a result of the many caveats imposed by the federal government and Bundestag, which have tied the hands of German soldiers in action – in combat against piracy and also in Afghanistan. This has prevented our soldiers from shouldering the same risks as their NATO comrades.

And so far, the federal government has not distinguished itself in furthering an improvement in relations between NATO and Russia. The Alliance has made no substantial progress on the critically-important issue of whether and how to establish a shared missile defense system. Russia has long expressed a clear willingness for genuinely equal cooperation on the project, would be a litmus test for the Alliance’s sincerity on the issue of partnership and mutual transparency on strategic issues. The lack of willingness for cooperation that became so apparent at the summit therefore represents a failure of far more than just a project.

Inexplicably, NATO still refuses to guarantee to the Russians that the missile defense system would not be directed at its strategic response capability.

Although the U.S. repeatedly asserts that Russia has no need to worry about the issue, the guarantee Moscow demands has failed to materialize. President Obama would have to have a suitable treaty approved and ratified in the Senate, which seems impossible given the domestic political confrontation between the two parties in Congress; and Republican Mitt Romney still considers Russia America’s most dangerous enemy. This view fails to recognize that our most dangerous and threatening risks – radical Islam and terrorism – are concentrated in the Middle East, and thus right at our doorstep.

READ ON IN ENGLISH AND GERMAN AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

Is the European “Union” too disunited to keep NATO afloat? For Poland’s Gazeta Wyborcza, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, a European Parliamentarian from Poland and an envoy to NATO, warns that unless Europeans pool their defense capabilities and start thinking and acting in a more unified fashion, the E.U. and NATO will become increasingly irrelevant – and America will no longer defend European strategic interests.

For the Gazeta Wyborcza, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski writes in small part,

To escape this impasse requires more than just a substantial increase on defense spending in national E.U. budgets. For years, their combined spending for defense has been lower than the U.S. defense budget, the market has become more fragmented, and E.U. efforts have overlapped. The twenty seven E.U. countries produce over 80 different weapons systems (the U.S. produces 27) and maintain more than 60 shipyards, while in the United States there are two. The lack of a common military market costs the E.U. €3 billion a year [$3.8 billion]. In today’s economic environment, that is money being too easily spent.

The financial crisis has further deepened the differences between the “Union” and the “North American” segment of the Alliance: over the past ten years, the U.S. and Canadian portions of the NATO budget rose by 10 percent, up from 65 percent in 2000 to 75 percent in 2011. Estimates from 2011 show defense cuts in all European NATO countries, and only two maintained defense spending at 2 percent of GDP, as is required by the Washington Treaty.

Most importantly, there has been a weakening of European countries with the most important weapons industries, namely France, Germany and Great Britain (which together contribute 65 percent to the European share of NATO’s budget and 88 percent of funds for research and development). Because of the need to finance operating deficits and service debts, the situation in the defense sector won’t improve until at least 2016. This means that no country on its own will be able to ensure the E.U.’s defense, not to mention operations beyond E.U. territory. The intervention in Libya confirmed these deficiencies. Also confirmed was the reluctance of Americans to defend European strategic interests, something that was clearly enunciated by former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates in his farewell speech.

Without additional efforts, it will be difficult for Europe to maintain its role in its neighborhood and the world. Without a strong military capability, E.U. diplomacy will be far less effective, and individual member states – even the larger ones – will find that they are too small to count on the international stage.

READ ON IN ENGLISH OR POLISH AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

Are Arab states weak because they lack the spirit to fight against enemies other than themselves? For Iraq’s Kitabat, Nashwan al-Jurayssi writes that the ‘Arab nation’ have been knocked off balance by the West, and in order to revive itself, Arab attentions should be turned toward building a martial spirit focused not on one another, but on those who seek to contain them.

Fir Iraq’s Kitabat, Nashwan al-Jurayssi starts off this way:

Days ago, the Russians held an impressive and solemn military parade to commemorate their victory over Nazism and the defense of their country. This was an exhibition of clout and state power that serves as a deterrent to anyone tempted to threaten the security of the Russian homeland, since military force is one of the key attributes of advanced and powerful states.

All through history, the most powerful nations have been more martial than civil, because their mindsets see things offensively rather than defensively. Ancient Rome was a military state. So were the Persians, French and British. The United States, too, has a military spirit, say what one will of a more passive approach.

Even that monstrous entity Israel is a military state. And while vibrant and powerful nations become increasingly militarized, we have become increasingly demilitarized. They go on the offensive and we go on the defensive.

READ ON IN ENGLISH OR ARABIC AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

He believes that we only encourage illegal immigration by discussing amnesty for the 12-20 million illegal immigrants living in the United States today and adamantly opposes such.

He believes in tightening and strengthening our border control efforts, including using his own design of a concrete border wall and cites his 35 years of experience in the earth-moving, drainage and concrete construction business. His concrete wall would function as both a human and vehicle barrier, inspired by the success of the concrete wall in Israel.

King also believes in shutting off the job magnets that encourage illegal immigrants to come to the United States and, in support of this, he has authored “New IDEA,” the Illegal Deduction Elimination Act, which would protect American jobs for American workers by making wages and benefits paid to illegal immigrants nondeductible for federal tax purposes.

He also introduced H.R. 140, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011, to limit birthright citizenship to a child born in the United States to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or national, a legal permanent resident living in the United States, or an individual who is serving on active duty status in the U.S. Armed Forces.

King concludes his immigration thoughts on his web site with words about “assimilating immigrants” whereby immigrants “will benefit from our shared American culture of individual freedom, personal responsibility, and patriotism.”

All good and well, but comparing immigrants to dogs?

Salon.com reports that this is exactly what King did at a town hall meeting in Pocahontas, Iowa, yesterday, “telling constituents that the U.S. should pick only the best immigrants the way one chooses the ‘pick of the litter.’”

Salon.com:

King told the crowd in Pocahontas, Iowa, that he’s owned lots of bird dogs over the years and advised, “You want a good bird dog? You want one that’s going to be aggressive? Pick the one that’s the friskiest … not the one that’s over there sleeping in the corner.”

King suggested lazy immigrants should be avoided as well. “You get the pick of the litter and you got yourself a pretty good bird dog. Well, we’ve got the pick of every donor civilization on the planet,” King said. “We’ve got the vigor from the planet to come to America.”

Salon.com adds:

King has long been one of Congress’ most vociferous and toxic opponents of illegal immigration and “amnesty,” often partnering with notorious immigration hawks like former congressman Tom Tancredo and Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

In 2010, he took to the House floor to declare that he could detect “illegals” by their footwear and his “sixth sense.”

Mr. King is entitled to have his positions on the subject of immigration (legal and illegal), as he does on his web site.

However, such outbursts as in Pocahontas only hurt his credibility and his movement.

As his Democratic challenger, Christie Vilsack, says:

If we’re going to have a real discussion on immigration, we should start by acknowledging that immigrants are human beings. Iowans are taught in their community, in their church, and at the dinner table to respect each other, not to compare people to dogs. People expect a serious discussion between candidates and that’s what we’re committed to.

Read more here

Former IMF Chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn is being charged with yet another sex crime committed in the United States, this time just steps from the White House. According to reporter Emeline Cazi of France’s Le Monde, the alleged victim, a Belgian woman transported to the United States for a party with Strauss-Kahn, has testified that as she struggled to escape, DSK lay on top of her and DSK’s friend, French entrepreneur David Roquet, held her wrists until she gave in.

Here are some excerpts from the Le Monde news report:

To determine the facts, the Lille’s Criminal Investigation Department, to which this investigation has been assigned, will have to compare testimonies, some of which are contradictory, of those who were present behind the closed doors of the hotel room. The party was held on December 16, 2010 at the W Hotel, just steps from the White House. Present were Fabrice Paszkowski, a major organizer of DSK’s evening soirees; David Roquet, the public works entrepreneur; National Assemblyman Jean-Christophe Lagarde, and their Belgian companions, Estelle and Marion. All arrived the day before from Paris to meet the IMF chief after a meal washed down with plenty of alcohol, the small band decided to continue partying in the suite with the two girls. Only Jean-Claude Menault, a police chief from the north [of France], also on the trip, slipped away before this turn of events.

Marion, who received €2,300 [$3,000] for the trip, says that at the beginning of the after-dinner “feast,” she had conventional sex with Dominique Strauss-Kahn, even if she was surprised at the “roughness” of her partner. Then came the second sexual act that DSK wanted to force on her, which she confirmed to police in her Dec. 11, 2011 testimony, which she says she refused with a clear “no.”

“I tried to get away but it was difficult because he was on top of me and was very heavy.” Estelle, the other escort, wasn’t far away, and was preoccupied with her “business,” but she heard me protesting, swears Marion. “I kept saying that I didn’t want to … I didn’t scream, but I said clearly … several times out loud … I tried to get away … but Dominique Strauss-Kahn pinned me down with his weight.

[French construction entrepreneur] David Roquet then came to DSK’s aid.

READ ON IN ENGLISH OR FRENCH AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

With their resources drying up like a pond in the hot sun, can NATO do what is necessary to ensure the Alliance’s continued relevance in a world that appears increasingly unstable? For Die Zeit, columnist Claudia Major writes that to survive as an institution, NATO members must achieve a far higher degree of integration and trust, and the sacrifice of a greater measure of national sovereignty, which even in Europe, is something that few if any have been willing to embrace.

For Die Zeit, Claudia Major writes in part:

up to now, when confronted with the diminished sovereignty greater security cooperation would require, NATO member states have balked. They fear a loss of control over where and how their militaries will be deployed. They also find it difficult to agree on common weapons systems, because each country has its own arms industry. They also fear that a clearer division of labor could lead to problems in time of emergency, because they may not be able to rely on their NATO partners. For how can it be ensured that an operation will be carried out if a partner nation doesn’t want to participate, even if its military capacities, for example aircraft, are needed? How can we guarantee that a country will not be left out in the cold during an operation when another suddenly withdraws its troops? How can it we ensure that a member state isn’t slacking off at the expense of the rest?

Although there are legitimate concerns [about further integration], member states have no choice if they want to halt the decay of their military alliance. If the Alliance is to continue to be relevant, its members must adjust to the new reality: If its military striking power declines, the alliance cannot afford to do very much. In other words, if it is to live up to even a diminished level of ambition, greater collaboration is essential.

The larger European “dwarves” have a particular responsibility: Germany, France and Great Britain must toughen their partners in Europe and lead the way by example.

READ ON IN ENGLISH OR GERMAN AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

German dominance over Europe, particularly since Europe’s foreign debt crisis began, has been a major topic of discussion throughout the continent, with the wounds of World War II clearly on display – particularly in Greece. But when the Germans themselves start satirizing their own influence, it is a sure sign that Berlin is getting used to its growing influence. In this tongue-in-cheek article from Germany’s Die Welt, columnist Hans Zippert pokes fun at these allusions to German influence and Chancellow Angel Merkel’s insistence to austerity rather than stimulus – and takes them one step further.

For Die Welt, Hans Zippert starts off this way:

Even Francois Hollande didn’t escape unscathed. With [confident and former cabinet minister] Horst Seehofer nodding approvingly, Merkel let it be known that a president whose name is the same as another E.U. country [Hollande] might not be ideal as leader of the French. Just imagine if the president of Russia were named “Drafi German.” Merkel unmistakably said, “You’re welcome to broadcast that.”

Merkel told a spontaneously convened press conference that this recalcitrance was getting on her nerves, and that sometimes even her patience runs short. She announced, “I have asked [German President] Gauck for Barack Obama’s dismissal from the Oval Office, and he was happy to comply with my request.”

Merkel blames Obama in particular for her losses in the North Rhein/Westphalia state parliamentary elections, when the Americans didn’t so much as make an appearance. Obama was clearly taken by surprise and left the conference hall in tears.

READ ON IN ENGLISH OR GERMAN AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

Rather than imposing conditions on delivering promised funds to Pakistan – such as reopening NATO’s supply route through the country, should Washington give Pakistan the money it has promised with gratitude? With the shadow of the friendly-fire incident at Salala hanging over the NATO Summit in Chicago, this angry editorial from The Frontier Post argues that Pakistan has paid a far heavier price for America’s ‘War on Terror’ than the U.S. and its NATO allies put together, so paying Islamabad – and apologizing for Salala, is simply the honorable thing to do.

The Frontier Post editorial starts off this way:

How could the hubris of the self-important people in the U.S. Congress, administration, think tanks and media be anything but maddening? How could one react any other way when, while fleecing someone with a long, sharp butcher’s knife, they pose as though they were performing an act of great generosity?

The case at issue is funding for Pakistan from the Coalition Support Fund. U.S. Congressmen, by an overwhelming majority, want to link this support to a reopening of NATO supply routes through Pakistan. But this money is no hand out, charity or alms. It is reimbursement for what a recipient has spent out of his own pocket fighting America’s spurious war on terror. And Pakistan has been deceitfully short-changed and even cheated by the Americans on this reimbursement for years.

Even now, they are sitting on bills pending payment to Pakistan worth over $3.2 billion. Yet these Congressmen have the audacity to pretend that if we succumbed to their arm-twisting, they would be doing us a great favor by releasing the money.

U.S.-led adventurism has cost Pakistan dearly and multifariously. In monetary terms, it has inflicted economic losses on Pakistan to the staggering tune of a $70 billion. Much-hyped U.S. economic aid totaling $7.5 billion over five-years, said to be at an annual rate of $1.5 billion per annum, under the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act wouldn’t even cover a respectable fraction of the colossal losses Pakistan has suffered. Even this puny amount of aid is slow in coming. The grandees in the Islamabad establishment who should be telling us the truth are too loyal to their American benefactors and treacherous to their own people. But while they remain stone silent, co-author of this law, Senator Lugar, has been more forthcoming.

Indeed, one such panjandrum, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, wants to “cut off every cent” to Pakistan “because it is being used for evil purposes.” But at the same time, this Congressman Rohrabacher has been holding open hearings and moving resolutions in Congress for the dismemberment of Pakistan and the potential secession of its Baluchistan Province. Apparently, this jester doesn’t think that working toward a sovereign state’s dissolution is evil! He presumably holds that it is a noble task.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

President Obama in the ICU at Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan, May 1, 2012, where he presented three Purple Hearts

The Purple Heart is the oldest U.S. military decoration, one that has not only changed in name, but also in purpose and award eligibility criteria. During its 220-year existence, the Purple Heart, perhaps more than other military decorations, has reflected and continues to reflect the changing nature of warfare and, more importantly, the changing character of the nation that sends its men and women into harm’s way. The changes, however, have not come without opposition and controversy.

The medal originated during the Revolutionary War, thanks to the personal efforts of Gen. George Washington who established the Badge of Military Merit to be awarded to Continental Army troops who displayed unusual acts of “gallantry, extraordinary fidelity and essential service” — not necessarily including incurring wounds or injuries — during combat.

The medal fell into disuse after the Revolutionary War and was brought back in 1932 by the Army as the Purple Heart, to be awarded to “anyone serving in the Army who had received combat-related injuries or had received the [Army Expeditionary Force’s] Meritorious Service Citation Certificate during World War I, the latter criteria harkening back to the intent of George Washington’s ‘Badge of Military Merit.’”

On December 3, 1942, a year after Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an Executive Order authorizing the Purple Heart to sailors and Marines wounded or killed on or after December 6, 1941. At the same time the Legion of Merit medal was established for meritorious service, discontinuing the use of the Purple Heart as a merit award.

The criteria for the award of the Purple Heart, eligibility and applicability to the various military services have been periodically changed, broadened or restricted by executive orders, Congressional action and National Defense Authorization Acts.

For example, a 1984 amendment authorized award of the Purple Heart to those killed or wounded as a result of “an international terrorist attack,” and “as part of a peacekeeping force” subsequent to March 1973.

Other changes expanding the eligibility criteria include the award of the Purple Heart to service members wounded while serving in any armed conflict in which the U.S. is engaged, even undeclared, for wounds received as a result of friendly fire and while held as prisoner of war or while being taken captive.

On the other hand, in 1997, Congress passed legislation prohibiting future awards of the Purple Heart to civilians.

When significant numbers of our troops began returning home from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) — often referred to as the “signature wounds” of those wars — and the American people understood the grave nature of those injuries, a serious national debate started on the military’s and the government’s refusal to recognize PTSD and TBI as injuries of war and, consequently, the refusal to recognize those injuries as qualifying for the award of the Purple Heart.

Despite vigorous lobbying by U.S. military psychologists, medical experts and combat veterans, the Pentagon continued to block any such change in the Purple Heart award criteria well into the first term of Obama’s presidency.

Indeed, military regulations specifically excluded PTSD as one of the injuries or wounds qualifying for award of the Purple Heart.

The debate has been heated. Some claimed, “It is disturbing that the Pentagon needs to see blood to establish the validity of a war injury,” while others claimed that awarding the Purple Heart for depression or mental health disorders would cheapen the medal.

In 2011, the Army clarified its criteria for awarding the Purple Heart to soldiers suffering from enemy caused, blast-related concussion wounds like TBI, dropping the caveat for loss-of-consciousness and leaving discretion for awarding the Purple Heart to battlefield doctors who could diagnose the injuries properly.

In November 2011, Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the Army vice chief of staff told the PBS NewsHour that he would like to see PTSD called Post Traumatic Stress Injury, or PTSI, instead, as the term Post Traumatic Stress Disorder carries a stigma that has discouraged too many soldiers from understanding the condition and seeking proper treatment.

According to PBS:

“It is an injury,” Chiarelli said. Calling the condition a “disorder” perpetuates a bias against the mental health illness and “has the connotation of being something that is a pre-existing problem that an individual has” before they came into the Army and “makes the person seem weak,” he added.

In December 2011, the commandant of the Marine Corps expanded the eligibility for the Purple Heart to Marines who suffer a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) or concussion caused by enemy action if a medical officer makes a disposition that the Marine is not fit for full duty for more than 48 hours due to the persistent signs, symptoms, or findings of impairment from the concussion, provided the disposition was made within seven days of the event.

As was mentioned, members of the armed forces can receive the Purple Heart if they are killed or wounded as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States.

“International” is the key word here.

But how about the military victims of a domestic terrorist attack, such as the 2009 Fort Hood, Texas, shootings by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan that left 13 people dead and 32 wounded?

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. and Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., chairmen of their respective Homeland Security Committees, have introduced bills to expand the eligibility for the Purple Heart to include members of the armed forces killed or wounded in domestic terrorist attacks.

According to the Los Angeles Times:

King’s bill would remove the distinction between domestic and international terrorism by expanding eligibility to military victims of “a terrorist attack within the United States perpetrated by an individual or individuals expressing a political, religious or ideological obligation to engage in unlawful violence directed against United States military operations or foreign policy.”

It is quite likely that there will be additional changes as war and society evolve.

Image: White House Photo by Pete Souza

Additional Sources:

http://www.purplehearts.net/id6.html

http://www.marines.mil/news/messages/Pages/MARADMIN245-11.aspx/

http://www.homeofheroes.com/medals/purple_heart/purple_heart.html

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/17/134604533/army-revising-purple-heart-rules-for-soldiers

http://www.lvrj.com/view/veterans-who-suffer-from-ptsd-now-eligible-for-purple-heart-129539753.html