Foreign Policy

Home » Foreign Policy

Trump Never Stopped Arming Syrian Rebels

in Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, Middle East, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

Trump Never Stopped Arming Syrian Rebels


This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

In July, it was reported that President Donald Trump had put an end to the U.S. program providing weaponry to Syrian rebel groups hoping to oust President Bashar al-Assad. But just a few months later, a groundbreaking report showing that the U.S. Department of Defense under Trump’s watch was still funneling billions of dollars’ worth of weaponry to certain groups in Syria hit the news.

Syrian

According to the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), the Pentagon has, so far, provided groups like the Syrian Democratic Forces and the Kurdish People’s Protection Units $2.2 billion worth of weapons.

Because of the lack of oversight, the report claims, the arms trafficking is helping to fuel an already chaotic and shadowy Eastern European arms trade, allowing these weapons to fall into the hands of pretty much anyone.

According to one of the report’s authors, Ivan Angelovski, the Pentagon “is removing any evidence in their procurement records that weapons are actually going to the Syrian opposition.”

If the report is correct then this program has stepped into the effort that had allegedly been brought to an end by Trump, equipping the so-called “moderate rebels” in Syria who want Assad out.

While on paper weapon shipments such as the ones being run by the Pentagon must include information regarding who is the end-user, the Defense Department has decided to have the equipment transfer take place without any vetting, giving any militarized group or militia access to these weapons. That includes Syrian rebels.

So in essence, the announcement that the Trump administration actually brought the program providing the Syrian opposition with arms and supplies was nothing but an empty promise.

Still, the Pentagon disputes these claims, saying that the usage of the equipment is closely monitored and that the program’s main goal is to help forces to secure territory taken from the Islamic State. But as we know from recent history, weapons and other supporting material meant for “moderate” rebels quickly fell into the hands of Islamic State militants. As a result, U.S. taxpayer-backed programs like these not only helped to fuel the Syrian war but they also helped to create the type of humanitarian crisis that is now responsible for the massive flow of refugees running away from conflict in the Middle East.

This illustrates just how little a massive government bureaucracy like the one we have in gear truly knows about the long-term consequences of their actions. And who pays for their irresponsible efforts in the end? We do.

Trump’s Afghanistan Strategy Jeopardizes Our Economic Future

in Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, Middle East, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

Trump’s Afghanistan Strategy Jeopardizes Our Economic Future

 

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

With Donald Trump winning the 2016 presidential election, we were all told, policies would be more home-centered, with the Trump administration becoming less willing to engage in foreign intervention in the Middle East in order to save taxpayer dollars.

As it turned out, Trump hasn’t been living up to the hype.

Afghan_village_patrol

Speaking about the 16-year-old Afghanistan war this week, the president told a room full of Army soldiers we would remain in the country.

We will be there, he told the audience, to “fight terrorists,” and not to nation-build. But for that, he must escalate U.S. presence, increasing the number of troops on the ground. And that takes a lot of cash.

The same man who once said that if he was president, “the era of nation-building will be ended,” doesn’t seem to realize that regardless of our intentions in the region, what has been keeping this nearly two-decade invasion going has been nothing but bad economic policy that steals from the country’s future. On top of that, the results on the ground are nothing close to what we set ourselves to do, which is to rid the region of terrorism.

As a matter of fact, ever since the U.S. invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan, ISIS has grown in the region.

Paraphrasing a veteran friend of mine who served in the special forces in Afghanistan years back, when the U.S. ramps up its presence in the region, locals are driven to pick sides. As a result, they either fall into the hands of terrorist organizations out of resentment or are killed for standing with the U.S., otherwise known locally as the invaders.

So as Afghans want all Westerners to leave and the Taliban reassure reporters that more U.S. presence will lead to nothing but more waste of tax dollars, we keep telling ourselves that exiting the country for good would lead to nothing but disaster. Both the left and the right support Trump in staying in the country indefinitely, apparently oblivious that this entire war has been paid for through loans and loans alone, with all its ghost soldiersbad uniform decisions, and waste of dollars on a military intervention that has helped the local poppy production.

It’s time we ask ourselves whether we are really willing to tell future U.S. generations their hard-earned money is needed to pay for a war that has helped to boost the opioid epidemic and the threat of terrorism globally. If so, are we also willing to jeopardize any chance at economic recovery anytime soon in the name of a war on terror that was never meant to be won?

Unfortunately, governments aren’t in the business of listening to people and actually putting their well-being first. This hasn’t been the case when we entered Afghanistan and is not going to be the case now. The best libertarians can continue doing is to never stop talking about the incredible waste of resources, money, and lives associated with these military interventions.

And in a practical sense, continue fighting for decentralization. Because when power is at arm’s reach, it’s easier for us to keep an eye on it.

Can we cut military spending without endangering U.S. security?

in Ask Dr. Ruwart, Liberator Online, Military, National Defense by Mary Ruwart Comments are off

Can we cut military spending without endangering U.S. security?

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Question:

In a libertarian society, the U.S. military would be scaled down. By doing this, won’t the U.S. be putting itself at risk should it face a country with a larger military that is aggressive towards the U.S.?

military

Answer:

Although it’s likely that we’d have a smaller military in a libertarian society, we’d probably have a much more efficient one.

Navy Seal Commander Richard Marcinko was asked by his superiors to infiltrate key Naval bases with a handful of colleagues. Commanders of the target installations were given notice that Marcinko’s raiders were coming. Nevertheless, with only seven men, Marcinko planted dummy demolition charges on nuclear submarines, captured the women and children living on base, and even gained access to Air Force One as it was being refueled! The Commanders complained that Marcinko had cheated by coming in by water or other “back doors” that they hadn’t prepared for. (You can read more about it in Marcinko’s book, Rogue Warrior.)

Our military is a subsidized monopoly that has trouble protecting us on our home turf. Like most government services, it costs much and delivers little, wasting the energy and lives of our brave soldiers. This isn’t the fault of our soldiers. It’s due to politics and the inevitable inefficiency of government. Our soldiers deserve better — and so do we!

Afghan Soldier Uniforms That Didn’t Match The Terrain Cost Taxpayers $28 Million

in Liberator Online, Military, News You Can Use, Taxes by Alice Salles Comments are off

Afghan Soldier Uniforms That Didn’t Match The Terrain Cost Taxpayers $28 Million

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Recently, Defense Secretary James Mattis was in the news for complaining about the Pentagon’s offhand spending habits.

While this may sound somewhat contradictory thanks to Mattis’ earlier claims indicating he would, indeed, love if defense had access to even more taxpayer money, his complaint brought light to yet another issue we often see happening with government.

uniforms

According to a recent Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) report, the agency spent $28 million on camouflage uniforms for Afghan soldiers that, unfortunately, do not work well with Afghanistan’s terrain. This means that, the $28 million that was used to purchase forest-patterned uniforms should have never been spent this way.

The decision to purchase these uniforms was made after a former Afghan defense minister saw the model online and “liked” them. However, only two percent of the country’s terrain is woodland.

And who picked up the bill? The U.S. taxpayer.

In his response to the Department after this discovery was made, Mattis criticized officials who allowed this “cavalier” expenditure to take place, adding that this decision wasted taxpayer dollars “in an ineffective and wasteful manner.”

Claiming that this careless spending is an indicator of an “attitude that can affect any of us at the Pentagon or across the Department of Defense,” Mattis rightly pointed out that this makes the department lose focus on what matters.

But what Mattis may have missed is that government waste exists and is part of how government operates. It’s a feature, not a bug.

The Defense Department isn’t more or less likely to be wasteful than the Education Department or the Health and Human Services department. What makes any — and all — government agencies prone to waste is the very fact that these organizations aren’t worried about how they spend this money.

When you spend other people’s money, you’re more likely to abuse it. After all, only you know how better spend your own money.

But that’s not all.

Agencies often make huge mistakes when judging policies or particular approaches simply because they do not have the knowledge necessary to know what will work. Real-world consequences are often ignored because bureaucrats and officials make all the decisions, often basing their assessment on faulty or incomplete information.

Because knowledge is dispersed and difficult to access, governments are naturally incapable of acting with all variables in mind. As a result, they cannot ensure that the service in question will meet the demand.

Whether it’s Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria, government officials have repeatedly claimed to have the answer, leading the country into military campaigns that not only backfired but that will also cost several generations of Americans.

While Mattis is right to be worried, it would serve him and others in similar positions to remember that there’s little one can do to put an end to waste within the government that doesn’t involve stripping government from free, easy, and endless sources of revenue.

Trump Flips On Libya, Seems Set To Continue Obama’s Policy

in Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, Middle East, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

Trump Flips On Libya, Seems Set To Continue Obama’s Policy

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Buried in the news, somewhere under the tons of reports covering Donald Trump Jr.’s email exchange with Russians promising him damaging information on Hillary Clinton, was a report nearly ignored regarding Libya. The same Libya that was destabilized to utter ruin thanks to the policies implemented by President Barack Obama and his then Secretary of State Clinton.

After having claimed that he saw no role for the United States in Libya, U.S. officials are now saying that the President Donald Trump administration will soon announce a dramatic shift in policy, looking into not only appointing a new U.S. ambassador, but also putting more American boots in the country.

Libya

So what happened? After Clinton and Obama toppled Muammar Gaddafi, a power vacuum transformed Libya in fertile ground for constant conflict, despair, and misery. Now, Trump’s America wants to help, sending in boots to secure the “unity government” in Tripoli.

Adding more fuel to the fire, the operation would also send troops to Benghazi where a rival faction has taken over. With these ingredients in the mix, it’s hard to see how the U.S. ramped up involvement in the region won’t translate into more direct involvement, pitting U.S. forces against militants and terrorists in the region in the name of Libya’s new “official” government, which is the same faction that was once backed by Obama.

While the former administration offered the unity government the same support, helping them to fight off ISIS, the victory did nothing for Libya’s new government concoction. As a result, the country is divided and run by different powers, with Tripoli still under the care of the unity government.

If the current administration is serious about increasing its presence in the region, the U.S. may end up becoming a staple in the country, just like it did with Iraq. As such, whomever ends up taking the government of the country will also end up being a client of the United States.

Proving that Trump was never up to truly challenging Obama’s policies where it truly matters, the president is now doing the exact opposite of what he promised during his campaign.

He isn’t erasing the former president’s legacy, after all. Instead, he’s simply building on it, pursuing policies that repeat the same mistakes and rely on the same old and failed tactics.

With the U.S. continued involvement in Libya, resentment associated with our involvement in the country will only grow, giving terrorist cells in the broader region enough recruitment tools to continue growing their power over the region. If Trump wants to grow groups such as ISIS and al Qaeda-linked terrorist cells, he’s doing precisely what he should. In the process, he’s also sucking the taxpayer dry. Not the most austere — or prudent — of combos.

Shouldn’t we intervene in other countries if we could save lives?

in Ask Dr. Ruwart, Foreign Policy, Liberator Online by Mary Ruwart Comments are off

Shouldn’t we intervene in other countries if we could save lives?

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Question

If we have the power to save lives by intervening internationally, which is the greater evil: imposing our will on others or the destruction of lives? Yes, it is correct that we tend to ignore civil strife in areas where we would either get bloodied or areas we don’t care about (like Rwanda), but should we intervene where we can do so at little physical cost if a net balance of lives can be gained?

lives

Answer

Ah, the age old question, ‘Can the ends justify the means?’ I’ve come to the conclusion that when we use bad means to obtain good ends, our efforts backfire every time. Rather than supporting a war funded with taxes, I chose to help the refugees.

Naturally, when you, as an individual, feel that you can do good by supporting a fight, you should follow your conscience by supplying your own time, money, and effort. If you force your neighbor who feels differently to participate, however, you’ll jeopardize your cause. After all, by using taxes to support the fight, you are first attacking your peaceful neighbors to save others from tyranny. You become the tyrant in order to save others from oppression. The contradiction should be obvious.

Many people applaud our entry into World War II as an example of how good (e.g., defeating Hitler) can come out of bad (e.g., taxes and the draft). With the advantage of historical hindsight, let’s see if this is an accurate description of what happened.

Hitler offered to let the Jews leave Germany if other countries would accept them. Few nations would alter their immigration quotas, however. If you visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C., you can see a picture of a shipload of Jews being turned away from U.S. shores. They eventually had to return to Europe, where most of them were killed. Without the aggression of immigration laws, we could have saved the Jews without spilling the blood of our young men.

Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor probably wouldn’t have occurred without the aggression of a U.S. oil embargo, saving the lives of our servicemen there.

Hitler’s finest were already trying to assassinate him by the time the U.S. entered the war and probably would have succeeded eventually. Instead, the U.S. entered the war, took Stalin as an ally, and gave Stalin most of Eastern Europe. Stalin proceeded to kill millions, without offering to let them migrate elsewhere, making Hitler look benevolent in comparison. Those who survived these purges were forced to live in constant fear, poverty, and strife. Did our aggression against our own neighbors make war on tyrants save lives or take them? The body count suggests that our aggression cost more lives than it saved.

Why Won’t The U.S. Ever End Its Cozy Relationship With Saudi Arabia?

in Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, Middle East, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

Why Won’t The U.S. Ever End Its Cozy Relationship With Saudi Arabia?

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Saudi Arabia has been in the news a lot lately. It was in the oil-rich kingdom that President Donald Trump started his Middle East trip and it was in the country’s capital, Riyadh, that the president urged the Muslim nations to unite against terrorism.

Saudi Arabia But as the president condemned Iran for its sponsorship of terrorism, vowing to stand by our ally, Saudi Arabia, not one mention of the human rights abuses perpetrated by the Saudi kingdom was uttered. The president was also mum about the kingdom’s well-documented support for terrorism.

But even more importantly, the president failed to mention what has, over the years, kept the United States and the Saudi kingdom so closely connected. As a man who prides himself on being a nationalist, he should know that this relationship has disproportionately helped the Saudis while all the U.S. has gotten in return is that the oil-rich nation and Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) member continues to sell its petroleum in dollars.

In a 2014 piece, the founder and president of the Carl Menger Center Paul-Martin Foss explained that President Richard Nixon’s 1971 decision to cancel the convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold brought the president to the Saudi kingdom for a very important meeting.

During his stay, Nixon and the House of Saud struck a deal, making the Middle East nation the “anchor of the petrodollar system.” For as long as Saudi Arabia would make its deals in dollars, America would promise to protect the nation militarily.

As it turned out, Nixon appears to have been afraid that closing the gold window would devalue the dollar — and he was right! But he figured that as long as the dollar was being used by nations purchasing and selling oil internationally, its core value would remain strong. With this deal, Nixon guaranteed America would continue experimenting with inflation without care while giving Saudi Arabia a strong military ally.

Fast forward to 2017: As Trump stands before the Saudi kingdom and the press, telling them how devoted he is to remain their partner, he promises to cut taxes like never before at home while increasing defense spending.

Will Trump, or any other president for that matter, ever recognize Nixon’s deal as the very reason why the U.S. remains blindly devoted to a country with such a terrible reputation? Probably not. Is it shameful that mainstream news outlets never report on this obscure piece of history? You bet.

Manning Revealed U.S. War Crimes, Celebrate Whistleblowers Like Her

in Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, National Defense, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

Manning Revealed U.S. War Crimes, Celebrate Whistleblowers Like Her

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley, is a former United States Army soldier who, in 2013, was convicted of violating the Espionage Act. Her clandestine activities as a soldier allowed Americans to learn about the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike, an incident involving a Reuters journalist as well as other innocent men and children who were targeted by the U.S. military. Her leaks to WikiLeaks were made famous, but her cover was blown while she discussed her actions with former hacker Adrian Lamo.

ManningLamo turned Manning in to the authorities once Manning told him that the information she had leaked “might change something.”

“I want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are,” she told him. “Because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.”

Her sentence was meant to end in 2045, but due to the current administration’s latest actions, she is set to be released on May 17.

Like Edward Snowden some time after her, Manning was able to help expose the U.S. government in a way seldom imagined by liberty advocates. After all, we all know government is inherently incompetent, but it’s often difficult to identify instances of misjudgment and irresponsibility when it comes to government entities involved in military action abroad. Without whistleblowers, how would we know about these actions?

As we all know, bureaucracy removes the personal responsibility element from individuals working for government or government-run enterprises. When the buck never stops anywhere, who is to blame for a serious mistake or misjudgment? The public?

No. The individual.

Unfortunately, few bureaucrats, soldiers, policemen, or administrators are charged for their crimes, giving the public little to no hope that they will ever be held accountable for their actions.

With that in mind, it’s easy to see why governments have a hard time tolerating whistleblowers.

As libertarians or liberty lovers, we must recognize the importance of whistleblowers. They let us know veterans are being mistreated, alert us when government wants to violate our privacy, and let us know when officials are not upholding the constitutional rights of our citizens. It’s a victory for liberty that Manning is having her sentence commuted, but as a group of conscious and involved people, we must celebrate her and her importance by encouraging others to step forward. After all, libertarians and their message of individual sovereignty can only be embraced widely if the evils associated with the centralization of power are finally exposed.

Feds Rely on Unreliable Databases to Deport Undocumented Immigrants, Time to Decentralize

in Foreign Policy, Immigration, Liberator Online, National Defense, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty by Alice Salles Comments are off

Feds Rely on Unreliable Databases to Deport Undocumented Immigrants, Time to Decentralize

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

The incoming, as well as the current U.S. presidential administrations, have a lot of common. But how could they not?

ICEIf the President-elect team has its way on implementing its immigration policies, they could look a lot like what has been happening for the past 8 years. Why? Because the new administration could be making use of the same unreliable database to track undocumented immigrants the current administration has been using.

In places like California, where local law enforcement agencies like the Los Angeles Police Department have vowed to say no to the incoming president’s deportation policies have been cooperating with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for years. People deported are often accused of having gang ties, but in many cases, The Intercept suggests, these accusations do not hold true because the information they collect is not always verified.

As these task forces combining federal and local law enforcement become newsworthy again, it’s important to note they have been around since the George W. Bush administration. The program, which is part of the Operation Community Shield, was put in place to identify and deport undocumented immigrants with criminal records.

Over the past decade, ICE has arrested 40,000 alleged gang members, but the total number of deportations tied to gang-related crimes has not been released. Nevertheless, 2.5 million people were deported under the current administration in its first six years, a record-breaking number.

Due to the lack of transparency, we do not know how many people actually involved in gangs have been deported or arrested through the deportation program currently in use. Since the data used by law enforcement might be flawed due to the government’s refusal to make it accountable, Peter Bibring, a senior attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California told The Intercept, “it’s irresponsible of the state to be using [California’s database], let alone handing over information to ICE.”

With big government policies like the drug war taking up so many resources, it’s difficult to see how law enforcement is able to manage this type of program effectively. How about decentralizing immigration policies, allowing states to apply their own rules by allowing states to become immigration policy laboratories, helping to reduce the burden on the taxpayer?

After all, it’s time to stop pretending the federal government has a say in who an employer can and cannot hire. Let states handle actual crime, pass their own immigration laws, and finally, put an end to the drug war so this type of problem does not continue to impose a greater burden on a nation already drowned in debt.

Speech Censorship Is Bad, Even If It Targets Terrorists

in First Amendment, Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Property Rights by Alice Salles Comments are off

Speech Censorship Is Bad, Even If It Targets Terrorists

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Censorship never works. Especially when it comes to speech that is considered offensive or criminal. Why? Because when individuals are given a platform where they may express themselves openly, they become more visible, giving others who disagree with their methods or philosophy an opportunity to spot them and stay out of their way.

TwitterBut when fear is at play, people tend to lose grasp of their emotions and what could have turned into a reasonable debate turns into a witch hunt.

As politicians and others urge companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter to crack down on users who identify as Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) fighters and sympathizers, encouraging these users to be banned from their platforms, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) admits that banning ISIS users from online platforms pushes them “to a place where they’re less able to proselytize broadly but more able to communicate in a secure way.” Meaning that, when users are blocked from Twitter, it makes it difficult for law enforcement to track them down.

Who would have thought?

According to Tech Dirt, intelligence officials are usually able to get good intelligence from paying attention to social media accounts from ISIS fighters. But in spite of what many consider to be a risk associated with how easily ISIS fighters are able to recruit by keeping active accounts on social media, Tech Dirt points out that nearly every single study on radicalization shows that online recruitment is not as effective as many would think.

Silencing users might help to keep social media websites “clean” from speech we find offensive, but instead of making us safe, it just pushes individuals who follow dreadful philosophies into the shadows, making it harder for us to spot them and keep an eye on what they are up to next.

When translated into enforcement, the banishment of users from online platforms only makes it hard for officials to track terrorists down.

As US officials continue to press private tech companies to open backdoors so that law enforcement is able to closely spy on American citizens, public pressure to ban offensive speech adds fuel to the fire, oftentimes giving officials reasons to lobby for the expansion of government’s spying powers.

Instead of allowing our feelings to speak louder than reason, we must always remember that what may seem as the best solution superficially might not produce the desired outcome. No matter how many times we implement the same policy.

Homeland ‘Security’? Gov’t Wants to Collect Travellers’ Social Media Info

in Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty, Property Rights by Alice Salles Comments are off

Homeland ‘Security’? Gov’t Wants to Collect Travellers’ Social Media Info

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

In Omnipotent Government, Ludwig von Mises writes that tending toward “a transgression of the limit” of the application of violence is a natural impulse among professionals who use violence in their line of work, even if the particular application of violence is seen as legitimate.

These transgressions are seen everywhere, from instances of police brutality to the ever-growing presence of law enforcement agents on our borders and airports.

SmartphoneNow, this transgression is entering another realm, making way for law enforcement to have an even more formally accepted online presence.

According to a new Department of Homeland Security proposal, officials are considering asking visitors entering the United States under the Visa Waiver Program to disclose information pertaining to their social media presence.

If the DHS has its way, visitors would have to fill out a form with links to their Twitter, Facebook, and other online applications. According to the DHS, the collection of this information would “enhance the existing investigative process and provide DHS greater clarity and visibility to possible nefarious activity and connections by providing an additional tool set which analysts and investigators may use to better analyze and investigate the case.”

But the wording in this new proposal is broad enough to allow officials to dig at will, increasing the risk of abuse of power—a surveillance issue that has already been associated with 4th Amendment violations in the past. To privacy advocacy organizations like Restore The 4th, this new transgression is everything but legitimate.

In a press release, the organization explained that the DHS new proposal is toxic.

In a letter addressed to the US Customs and Border Protection, the group along with “over two dozen human rights and civil liberties organizations” outlined the program’s “disproportionate risks, excessive costs, and other serious shortcomings.”

According to the letter, the DHS will be further invading individual privacy, putting freedom of expression at risk if this proposal is implemented. Furthermore, the federal government would have to worsen the national debt due to the high cost of implementation. The maintenance of this program would also cost taxpayers greatly, Restore The 4th added, and these costs “appear to be unaccounted for in the DHS Paperwork Reduction Act statement.”

The advocacy group also claims that the DHS would ignite the expansion of the surveillance state by opening a new window into the traveler’s private life. If implemented, this new rule could impact particular groups of travelers, allowing law enforcement to refer to their racial and religious bias in order to do their job.

Restore The 4th explains:

“This ‘disparate impact will affect not only travelers from visa-waiver program countries, but also the Arab-Americans and Muslim Americans whose colleagues, family members, business associates, and others in their social networks are exposed to immediate scrutiny or ongoing surveillance, or are improperly denied a visa waiver because of their online presence.’”

The letter urges CBP to dismiss the DHS proposal altogether. ​

Should Women Be Drafted?

in Ask Dr. Ruwart, Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, Military, National Defense, War by Mary Ruwart Comments are off

Should Women Be Drafted?

Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared on Dr. Ruwart’s website

My short answer is that no one should be drafted. After all, our Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude, which is exactly what the draft is. Our young men—and possibly women—will be forced—at gunpoint, if necessary—to take up arms and kill other people.

DraftExcept for a few psychopaths, taking up arms with the intention to kill others day after day is difficult, even when our nation is truly threatened. It’s a rare individual who remains unscathed by killing others and being a target, which is why so many return home with post-traumatic stress disorder or serious mental illnesses. Going to war should always be the last resort, since the cost in lives, money, and disabilities is so high. In recent times, however, sending troops overseas seems to be a knee-jerk response to any provocation.

When our young people perceive that a war is not just or not warranted, they become unwilling to risk their lives or kill for it. In Vietnam, a war I remember well, this is exactly what happened. Although young men enlisted early in the war, they soon concluded that Vietnam was not a threat to the United States, and resisted the draft overtly or covertly.

Today, not enough of our young men are enlisting to sustain the conflicts in the Middle East. Our troops look forward to going home after their tours are up, only to be forcibly reenlisted under the stop-loss fine print in their contracts. We claim to have a volunteer army, but in fact those who enlist can be drafted for another deployment. This discourages further enlistment, as new recruits start to understand that they are actually signing an open-ended contract.
Clearly, the government believes it will need a draft in the not-so-distant future to maintain its chosen military action. We are told that without a draft, our young people will not step forward when our country is threatened. This is patently false. After 9/11, volunteers flooded to sign up for the anticipated military action. Now they no longer do, as they perceive their government is embarked on never-ending wars.

If our nation is truly threatened, our young people step forward willingly; if it isn’t truly threatened, why should they risk life and limb? We can’t keep killing people overseas because maybe, someday, they might try to harm us. There are simply too many people who “might” try to hurt us. A better strategy is to make sure our domestic security is strong enough that those who would do us harm will be thwarted in their attempt.

If we engage in overseas wars that are not truly defensive ones, and may even be primarily in the service of special interests, our young people should refuse to go. These young adults become the canaries in the coal mine, warning us that the war we wish to fight might not be so right.
Killing is difficult enough when it is perceived as a necessary evil, but it’s even more difficult without the motivation to protect our homes and loved ones. The draft isn’t only involuntary servitude; its slavery of the worst kind as it asks the draftees to do things they find morally repugnant. How are we to spread freedom abroad by taking it away from our young people at home?

Women have a major role to play in discussions about the draft. They should indeed talk about equal rights—for both men and women. Self-determination, the decision whether or not we are willing to go out and kill others, is a right that belongs to both sexes. Instead of insisting that their own rights should be violated, as the rights of men are today, women should be lobbying for an end of the draft. Our great, great-grandmothers fought to end the slavery of black people; today, we honor their memories by fighting to end the slavery of the draft.

Remember: the FBI Is Still Trying to Have Full Access to NSA’s ‘Unfiltered’ Data

in Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, National Defense, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty, Property Rights by Alice Salles Comments are off

Remember: the FBI Is Still Trying to Have Full Access to NSA’s ‘Unfiltered’ Data

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

As the country follows the cries of politicians in Washington doing their best to undermine our security and freedom in the name of the war on terror, don’t forget that, just a few months before the deadly Orlando shooting, the Obama administration was reportedly looking into allowing the National Security Agency (NSA) to share data on private communications with other intelligence agencies without the benefit of privacy protections.

NSAOn paper, access to the contents of phone calls, emails, satellite transmissions, and communications between individuals abroad gathered by NSA employees is restricted, meaning that agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are not allowed to use data collected by the NSA without due process. But due to executive order 12333, an order signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 that binds US intelligence agencies to cooperate with CIA requests for information, the NSA may soon be sharing information on innocent Americans with the FBI.

According to the New York Times, the current administration is interested in expanding the NSA’s reach by giving the intelligence community access to unprocessed information pertaining to countless Americans who were never accused of any crime to begin with. But by augmenting the intelligence community’s access to more information, the haystack becomes much larger, making it harder for officials to find the needle.

According to Alexander Abdo, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, the country should not be allowing the NSA to “spread that information further in the government” if protections on people’s personal information are not being erected. But according to the spokesman for the office of the Director of National Intelligence, the final rules under consideration by the current administration would help to “ensure that they protect privacy civil liberties and constitutional rights while enabling the sharing of information that is important to protect national security.”

Despite the US government’s claims that officials are doing all in their power to protect innocent Americans from the government’s overreach, abuse exists. Giving agencies such as the NSA and the FBI blanket access to the private information of others has and will continue to backfire, allowing employees and officials to abuse their power whenever possible.

The framework under review by the current administration has been under development since when President George W. Bush triggered the change but now, the Obama administration is carrying on with the task of developing a framework to put the changes in motion. And as officials work on a way of continuing the NSA’s involvement with the country’s war on drugs while boosting the agency’s role, progressive and conservative politicians, and even presidential candidates, continue to justify their support for mass surveillance by evoking the war on terror.

Expect to hear more on this and other efforts to boost the surveillance state, especially after the tragic killing of Pulse club goers in Orlando, Florida.

US Lawmakers Want America to Be More Like Russia, Seriously

in Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, National Defense, News You Can Use by Advocates HQ Comments are off

US Lawmakers Want America to Be More Like Russia, Seriously

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Instead of attempting to lower the income tax so we might, indeed, become more like Mother Russia where it counts, Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) and Ted Lieu (D-CA), as well as several House supporters, want us to fight propaganda like the Kremlin does instead. Why? Well, because if other governments lie, we must be just as good at it as them.

PutinH.R. 5181, a bill introduced by the bipartisan super duo, wants to create a structure that would allow for the creation of government-funded news propaganda. Too bad none of the H.R. 5181 supporters seem to know this approach is nothing short of tyrannical.

According to the bill’s text, the idea behind this piece of legislation is to create a “whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions” in order to fight “foreign disinformation and manipulation,” more specifically coming from countries like Russia.

In a statement, Kinzinger said that “As Russia continues to spew its disinformation and false narratives,” they proved to be a problem to the United States “and its interests in places like Ukraine, while also breeding further instability in these countries.”

In order to remedy what Kinzinger and Lieu believe to be a propaganda problem, their approach is to boost the country’s role in “countering these destabilizing acts of propaganda” with a bill that would “[develop] a comprehensive U.S. strategy to counter disinformation campaigns through interagency cooperation and on-the-ground partnerships with outside organizations that have experience in countering foreign propaganda.”

According to Lieu, foreign propaganda makes the world less safe. But not one word on how US intervention in other countries’ businesses is actually making us less safe was ever uttered by none of H.R. 5181’s sponsors, nor did they ever mention any examples of destabilizing consequences provoked by foreign propaganda. So what is the real purpose of this bill?

If signed into law, H.R. 5181, or the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016, would task the Secretary of State with coordinating the leadership of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Defense, and finally the Broadcasting Board of Governors with the creation of a Center for Information Analysis and Response, giving bureaucrats the power to identify “disinformation” so that the same bureaucrats are able to develop “fact-based narratives” to help undermine different narratives.

The bill’s very text admits that the task force would search for “current trends in foreign propaganda and disinformation, including the use of print, broadcast, online and social media, support for third-party outlets such as think tanks, political parties, and nongovernmental organizations, and the use of covert or clandestine special operators and agents to influence targeted populations and governments in order to coordinate and shape the development of tactics, techniques, and procedures to expose and refute foreign misinformation and disinformation and proactively promote fact-based narratives and policies to audiences outside the United States. (emphasis added)”

In other words, the US government would have a group of bureaucrats focus solely on what those who dissent from the official narrative are saying in order to target them and fight the influence of their petulant commentary.

I wonder if anybody supporting this bill has ever heard of the 1st Amendment (or even McCarthyism).

US ‘Fights al Qaeda’ in Yemen, But Refuses to Do the Same in Syria

in Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, Middle East, Military, National Defense, News You Can Use, War by Advocates HQ Comments are off

US ‘Fights al Qaeda’ in Yemen, But Refuses to Do the Same in Syria

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Earlier this month, the Pentagon acknowledged sending American troops to Yemen for the first time since the beginning of the Yemeni civil war. According to Navy spokesman Captain Jeff Davis, a “very small number” of American military personnel has joined Yemeni and Arab coalition forces to “release” the port city of Mukalla from the hands of Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

MarineBut while the US military justifies this move with claims that having “a terrorist organization in charge of a port city” in a foreign land is not “of great interest to us,” it continues to refuse to go along Russia’s call to join them in an air strike campaign against al Qaeda’s Nusra Front militants in Syria.

According to Captain Davis, the United States does “not collaborate or coordinate with the Russians on any operations in Syria,” but are willing to not only provide weaponry and intelligence to Saudi Arabia, but also send in troops to help the oil rich kingdom as well as the United Arab Emirates carry out one of the most disastrous military campaigns in the Middle East in recent history.

In March of 2015, the Saudi Arabia, UAE coalition launched a military campaign attacking the Iran-backed Houthi rebels, a group that had taken control over portions of the country. As the country became even more deeply embattled by war, a report from UNICEF claims, an estimated 14.1 million people, including about 7 million children, were left in need of health assistance. The Saudi Arabia-led blockade in the region has been tied to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the region, but the United States seems oblivious of the consequences of its involvement.

While the US military justifies its involvement by claiming to be fighting al Qaeda in the region, the current administration showed no signs of regret for having had armed rebel groups in Syria that pledged allegiance to al Qaeda in the past.

While the current administration seems out of step with the realities of the Middle East’s embattled nations and the taxpayers who foot the bill of its destructive campaigns abroad, it continues to claim to be fighting a war on terror while aiding groups responsible for mass hunger and deaths.

As Congress works on passing legislation that would enable the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia, one question is left unanswered: Will the victims of US-led and backed military campaigns abroad ever be able to sue the United States officials who have led preemptive and intrusive campaigns abroad in the name of homelands security?

I think you know the answer to that question.

FBI Refuses to Disclose Details on Software Security Flaw; What Does the Gov’t Have to Hide?

in Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty, Property Rights by Advocates HQ Comments are off

FBI Refuses to Disclose Details on Software Security Flaw; What Does the Gov’t Have to Hide?

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

The fight ignited by Apple continues, as the feud between the tech industry and the US government warms up because Mozilla, the software company behind the popular browser Firefox, is now pressing the feds to disclose information pertaining to a potential security flaw.

FBIMozilla filed a motion with the US district court requesting information on potential Firefox vulnerabilities that could expose users and their data to major privacy infringement risks. The info was unearthed during a criminal investigation carried out by the FBI in which officials hacked into a Dark Web child pornography website in February 2015. During some time, the website was run by FBI officers from inside of a government facility in Virginia. But once the investigation was finalized, vulnerabilities that allowed for this hack were kept secret.

According to Mozilla, if the issues unearthed aren’t addressed by the tech companies, users’ privacy could be under attack. Since the Tor Browser is “built on the same base code as the open-source Firefox browser,” Mozilla believes the vulnerabilities should be shared with the group.

In Mozilla’s motion, the group claims that the government has “refused to tell Mozilla whether the vulnerability at issue in this case involves a Mozilla product,” prompting the company to inquire further in order to protect its users.

The fact the government used an exploit that hasn’t been unveiled makes government officials more likely to use the same artifice to “compromise users and systems running the browser,” a reality Mozilla seems to refuse to accept. According to Mozilla Corporation’s chief legal and business officer Denelle Dixon-Thayer, even the “judge in this case ordered the government to disclose the vulnerability to the defense team but not to any of the entities that could actually fix the vulnerability.” To the company, the judge’s decision makes no sense “because it doesn’t allow the vulnerability to be fixed before it is more widely disclosed.”

But as Tech Dirt has reported, once the judge ordered the FBI to turn over information on the hacking tool to the defense team, the feds refused. Instead of standing his ground, Judge Robert J. Bryan reversed course, allowing the FBI to keep the information under wraps.

According to Motherboard, the judge met with the government in order to learn more about the FBI’s reasoning in this case after the ruling, which prompted his decision to reverse his position. While Bryan “still thinks the defense has a reason to see that code,” he cannot ensure this will actually happen.

Tech Dirt believes there’s “a 0% chance of the FBI voluntarily turning this information over to the defense,” but Mozilla is pressing on anyway. Whether the FBI will be successful in keeping this information from the public is a matter of time.

What’s left to ask is: Why is the FBI so invested in keeping important information on data security from those who develop software that protect us from hackers?

Lawmaker Targets Burner Phones Over Terrorism, Ignores Unintended Consequences Tied to New Restrictions

in Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, Middle East, National Defense, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty by Alice Salles Comments are off

Lawmaker Targets Burner Phones Over Terrorism, Ignores Unintended Consequences Tied to New Restrictions

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

As politicians in Washington DC continue to wage what the late author Gore Vidal called an “idiotic” and “eternal” war on terror, more lawmakers refer to anti-liberty measures to crack down on potential terrorists at home.

Phone A bill known as Closing the Pre-Paid Mobile Device Security Gap Act of 2016 seeks to require consumers looking into buying prepaid burner phones to register and provide identification. Requirements would make it impossible for consumers to purchase the so-called burner phones without providing personal information upon purchase. According to Tech Dirt, the bill’s timing may have something to do with reports claiming that burner phones used by Islamist extremists helped them to evade law enforcement.

Democratic congresswoman Jackie Speier, the same lawmaker who introduced the proposal in Congress, called the prepaid phone “loophole” an “egregious gap in our legal framework.” According to the lawmaker and others who support the bill, allowing consumers to purchase anonymous phones helps terrorists and criminals.

This is not the first time Washington DC has targeted regular consumers in their fight against an abstract enemy. Recently, legislators targeted encrypted phones after reports claimed terrorists had used encryption to evade law enforcement. The encryption reports were later debunked.

According to Tech Dirt, the current proposal doesn’t provide a great deal of information on how legislators want to tackle the burner phone issue. But while the bill’s text remains a secret, the proposal has already been referred to three House committees.

If Speier’s proposal is passed by both the House and the Senate and it ends up making it to the president’s desk, customers would have to always provide their personal details to retailers whenever they purchase a burner phone. But what Tech Dirt writers claim is that, even if the law were to pass, it would do little to keep terrorists or criminals from providing their personal information. Instead, Tech Dirt argues, criminals would continue doing what they have already done in the past by using straw purchases or buying directly from resellers.

Much like the debate about background checks for gun purchases, the idea of forcing retailers to request extra information from prepaid phone consumers is likely to backfire, pushing criminals further into the dark. Another potential consequence of passing this law would be that the poor will be the first to suffer.

Too often, low income consumers choose to purchase burner phones because of credit issues or simply because they do not have the identification requirements needed to open an account with a phone service provider. A burner phone law change would end up inflicting further difficulties on those who are already suffering greatly. Furthermore, boosting restrictions could also push the price of these affordable phones up, which will also end up hurting the poor.

If lawmakers are serious about spotting criminals and targeting them—not common and innocent Americans who may not feel comfortable releasing their personal information in exchange for a cheap cell phone—this bill should be tossed. Quickly.

America’s Ally is Decimating the Yemeni Population, What’s Behind the Silence?

in Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, Middle East, News You Can Use, War by Alice Salles Comments are off

America’s Ally is Decimating the Yemeni Population, What’s Behind the Silence?

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Saudi Arabia, a United States ally in the Middle East, has been leading a heavily interventionist policy in Yemen for the past year. The war between factions claiming to represent the Yemeni people has led to a “catastrophic” crisis in the region, but Saudi Arabia, along with America, have played important roles.

Airstrike So far, over two million people have been displaced from their homes while countless others lack access to basic services and necessities such as water and food. According to The American Conservative’s Daniel Larison, most of the damage caused by war over the last year in Yemen is due to Saudi Arabia and their allies.

Prior to the military intervention, most Yemenis depended on humanitarian aid. As the war deepened, their needs have only grown. As aid groups struggle to help in any way, they are also faced with challenges brought about the blockades placed and enforced by Saudi Arabia since 2015. While both the United States and the United Kingdom governments have allegedly attempted to persuade the Saudis by urging them to change their tactics, Saudi officials continue to have access to American weapons.

In 2015, the United States sold $33 billion in weapons to Gulf allies, including Saudi Arabia. According to the State Department, the deal between the US government and Saudi Arabia allows Saudi officials to purchase everything from attack helicopters to ballistic missile defense systems, despite the fact Saudi Arabia continues to uphold a blockade that is effectively decimating the Yemeni population.

At the moment, about 19 million people in Yemen lack access to water and sanitation while over 14 million Yemenis also require urgent health services. Out of the 14 million Yemenis requiring medical attention, at least 2 million are children, pregnant, and lactating women who are also malnourished.

As Saudi Arabia continues to uphold the blockade while targeting insurgents, Yemen slips into a much greater crisis. In the meantime, America remains complicit. Not only because it has been virtually silent over the past 12 months, but also because it continues to sell heavy weaponry to the Gulf state.

As the same administration that claimed to have a “responsibility” to protect Libyans turns a blind eye to the crisis in Yemen, the Saudis are effectively starving Yemenis to death.

In an article for the Cato Institute, A. Trevor Thrall and John Glaser argue that America should distance itself from Saudi Arabia, especially after the Yemen civil war began. “Yemen,” the authors begin the article, “is the latest U.S. foreign policy disaster.”

According to the Cato report, Saudi Arabia’s “ruthless” military campaign in Yemen has been enabled by the United States from the get-go.

The initial conflict started when Ali Abdullah Saleh, a long-time US-Saudi ally, was overthrown. Following the deposition, Abed-Rabbo Mansour Hadi became the president of the transitional government. Hadi was the only candidate on the ballot and he counted with the support of both the United States and Saudi Arabia. In 2014, however, Yemen’s Shiite Houthi rebels launched an insurgency, taking control of the capital city, Sanaa. Once Saudi Arabia started a bombing campaign in March of 2015 to contain the Houthis, Glaser and Thrall write, the civil war “morphed into an intractable proxy war.”

Since the Saudis see the Houthis as Iran proxies, the United States’ nuclear deal with Iran may seem as stab in the back to Saudi Arabia. According to the Cato scholars, “U.S. officials have apparently felt obliged to reassure Saudi Arabia by supporting its war in Yemen.” In light of these issues, we must ask ourselves: Why is America still supporting Saudi Arabia while also calling for the removal of Bashar al-Assad in Syria?

Snowden: Bulk Data Collection is Ineffective, Promotes Insecurity and Oppression

in Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty, Property Rights by Alice Salles Comments are off

Snowden: Bulk Data Collection is Ineffective, Promotes Insecurity and Oppression

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

As the country watches the battle between the FBI and Apple unfold, former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden uses his notoriety to bring attention to the surveillance problem publicly.

During an interview with the Spanish TV channel Sexta, Snowden gave his two cents on the subject, extending his commentary to the realm of bulk data collection and why it never works.

SnowdenDuring the interview, Snowden claimed that what Washington D.C. believes to be the most effective way to deter terrorists doesn’t pass the smell test.

“In the wake of the revelations of mass surveillance,” Snowden explained, “[US] President [Barack Obama] appointed two independent commissions to review the efficiency of these [surveillance] programs, what they really did and what effect they had in combating terrorism.” What they found, Snowden continued, was that none of the surveillance programs carried out by Washington “stopped a single terrorist attack and never made a concrete difference in a terrorist investigation.”

When looking into how the CIA and NSA have violated the US Constitution for ten years by snooping on Americans’ private communications without ever producing warrants, Snowden continued, “we must ask ourselves: Was it ever worth it?”

With news showing surveillance programs are used for purposes other than fighting terrorism, it’s difficult to ignore the whistleblower’s claims. Especially since the current administration seems unwilling to put an end to its ineffective programs.

Nowadays, bulk data collection is “more aggressive and invasive” than ever before, Snowden told Sexta. “Law enforcement and intelligence structures do not any longer bother to pick up a suspect and hack his cell phone, they cut into all lines and communications” instead. To the whistleblower, this is a clear violation of innocent people’s rights, since federal agents attack the “heart of the society” instead of following tangible evidence.

The debate revolving around privacy and bulk data collection often misses the importance of privacy in a free society. Something that Snowden likes to revisit often. During the interview, he explained this angle of the debate by reminding the reporter that “it is no different from saying you don’t care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say, … There are rights that provide value to you even if you’re not actively engaged in them in that moment.”

Currently, Americans are struggling to identify exactly what is and isn’t the best way to go about the surveillance subject. As the public is bombarded with divisive, autocratic rhetoric tied to the presidential campaign, many become oblivious, ignoring their surveillance-related concerns.

Understanding that existing tools like the Internet will always be abused by criminals, and that the federal government is incapable of keeping tabs on what citizens are doing at all times is all part of the problem. Famed economist F. A. Hayek talked extensively about the knowledge problem, explaining that the importance of knowledge of individual circumstances is often minimized by state officials, and the results are often bad to freedom since central planners like to claim they know just what they need to do to solve whatever problem is at hand.

Much like economic problems, which often become much worse as government intervention gets a boost, more surveillance has the same effect, forcing criminals to take part in even more obscure communication methods in order to remain untraceable. The unintended consequences are seldom discussed, but it’s the American individual who pays the price.

If Snowden and many other privacy advocates are right, the federal government’s efforts against terrorism could benefit greatly from a privacy-centered policy. After all, sacrificing freedom in the name of a false sense of security makes us both less safe and less free.

Without a Clear War Strategy, White House Wants to Increase Spending to Fight ISIS, Boost Surveillance State

in Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, Middle East, National Defense, News You Can Use, War by Alice Salles Comments are off

Without a Clear War Strategy, White House Wants to Increase Spending to Fight ISIS, Boost Surveillance State

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

As the country focused on Iowa, the email server scandal, and Kanye West’s last Twitter feud, the Barack Obama administration geared up for a significant defense budget request.

The factor behind pushing the country further into debt? ISIS.

ISIS

According to Reuters, the current administration wants to add over $7 billion to its 2017 defense budget. The additional funding would provide support to this administration’s military campaign against the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL/Daesh). The additional request represents a 35 percent increase from past year’s defense budget.

While Reuters broke the story early Tuesday, US Defense Secretary Ash Carter had already planned on discussing the current spending priorities publicly during an address to the Economic Club of Washington. The White House will only release the full budget proposal on February 9th.

If approved by Congress, the 2017 defense budget would cost taxpayers $583 billion.

Since 9/11, military spending has risen sharply. But in 2013, military spending declined, going from $671 in 2013 to $619 in 2014.

To critics, the current administration has done everything in its power to “gut” military spending. These critics often suggest that the lack of an inflated military budget will leave America vulnerable, increasing the risk of terrorist attacks on US soil. But in reality, this administration is everything but fiscally conservative when it comes to the defense budget. Despite its strategical shortcomings.

According to Reuters, the current request to increase defense spending by $7 billion is mostly due to the administration’s campaign against ISIS. Despite the lack of details concerning the administration’s strategy to defeat the Islamic State, experts like former US ambassador to Syria Robert Ford have been vocal in their opposition to one of this administration’s most questionable strategies: to arm and train rebels in Syria.

To Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) who was also against the strategy to arm Syrian rebels, the current administration’s efforts against ISIS are insufficient. Mostly because the so-called war against the militant group was never authorized by Congress. Putting the issue up for discussion first could have helped the administration find a different approach to its campaign in Syria and Iraq.

To Russian President Vladimir Putin, the focus in Syria should have always been to target ISIS. Instead of telling the Syrian people who their leader should be, Putin told CBS’s “60 Minutes,” world powers should come together to eliminate ISIS. But for most of the past year, the Obama administration reassured the media that the only way to make Syria safe was to make sure President Bassar al-Assad was out of the picture.

While the White House’s most pressing concern is ISIS, the militant organization is not the only issue listed as a priority in the 2017 defense budget proposal. According to Reuters, the administration also hopes to increase spending to “reassure European allies following Russia’s intervention in Ukraine.” Former Republican congressman Ron Paul has been warning against further intervention in the region since the first signs of turmoil in Ukraine hit the news.

The 2017 defense budget proposal also includes a request to fund a new Air Force bomber, which has replaced the Ohio-class submarines used to carry nuclear weapons. If Congress approves the proposal, the Obama administration is also hoping to use the extra funding to increase cybersecurity, electronic warfare, and US satellite security.

Could that mean that the surveillance state will get a boost?

Page 1 of 3123