*The single-greatest error in this accident was the decision to fly without a second Crew Chief on the left-hand side of the Blackhawk, who could have provided an extra set of eyes to "look out-and-up" to see the approaching American Airlines Passenger plane.
*Night Vision Goggle (NVG) flights result in a sort-of "tunnel vision" for all who wear the NVGs and normal policy in many Army flight units is to force a full crew of 2 pilots and 2 crew chiefs for all NVG flights, so that you always have "eyes out" to both sides of the aircraft, when flying in those conditions. While not mandatory, it is the proper safety call, especially when flying in the vicinity of a busy, major airport such as Reagan Airport (DCA). No matter how competent the pilots and Crew Chiefs may be, this flight needed a second Crew Chief on the left side of the chopper.
#2
REF: Black Hawk vs AA Jet impact.
Col Joe makes some very valid points, and some serious accountability is in order.
Ref: The Philly Learjet Medical transport Jet vs Mall area impact./strong>
Watching the video. The JET impact looks more like a directed accelerated like missile, than a plane having mechanical issues.
#3
^^ When my wife and I first saw the Philly security video, I said it looked like a meteorite. We both agreed that it didn't look like a typical airplane crash.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
02/01/2025 6:10 Comments ||
Top||
#4
...The DC crash - IMHO, YMMV - is nothing more than a terrible accident, but one that should have been avoidable. It's becoming clear that there have been at least several...well, not necessarily 'close calls', but concerning ones involving helo training in and around the District. I am inclined to believe that the identity of the aircraft commander is irrelevant, but DOD isn't doing itself any favors by sitting on it.
As far as the Philly accident goes, I believe this was an accident as well - though the comparisons between this video and the Pentagon strike on 9/11 are tough to avoid. I've not seen anything yet about a mayday, though it's still early in the investigation.
#5
If the Philly aircraft had hit the mall building it would seem like suspicious. Aiming for the mall parking lot may have been the least bad option that the pilot had.
Posted by: Difar Dave ||
02/01/2025 9:21 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Trying desperately to avoit ground casualties. Not an uncommon act of valor for a dying man.
#9
Some report seeing an explosion on the Philly Learjet shortly after takeoff and before it descended. Quite possibly related to medical equipment on board.
If a spark or small explosion occurred it may well have set off the full fuel supply.
#11
Fine. Why was the helicopter near DCA at 350 ft, when the max for the down river corridor was 200 ft? Why the last minute right deviation directly into the regional jet, which was lit up for landing, with the usual string of approaching jets behind it? Why didn't the controller request immediate descent back to the required altitude? Blancolirio Report
In many ways, the appearance of this article underscores Russian Federation president Vladimir Putin's adaptation of the "Zhirinovsky Doctrine", which states the US holds sway over the Americas in the western hemisphere without interference from Russia, while Russia holds away over south Asia, again without opposition from the US and NATO. by Artemy Sharapov
[REGNUM] In his “throne speech,” US President Donald Trump repeated his frequent promise to make the Panama Canal American again—to return the main artery of the Western Hemisphere to the ownership of the United States.
Trump said that the authorities of the Republic of Panama (under whose sovereign control the canal, previously owned by the United States, has been since 1999) are not fulfilling their management responsibilities. Therefore, the United States must return what is its own, the newly elected owner of the White House is sure.
It is significant that Trump is sending his newly appointed Secretary of State Marco Rubio on his first foreign trip to Panama.
"The most important thing is that China controls the canal. We didn't give the canal to China, we gave it to Panama, and we're giving it back," Trump said.
Newly appointed Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth, nicknamed "The Crusader," clarified on January 30 that the United States is prepared to use force to "ensure freedom" of navigation through the canal. Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino has issued more than one "decisive response" to threats from Washington. But it is ironic that Mulino did so on the X social network owned by Elon Musk, who recently astonished the world with an ambiguous gesture. If it was a "Roman salute," then it is quite consistent with the neo-imperial sentiments of the creators of the "new golden age of the United States": with plans to absorb Canada, Greenland, and take back the Panama Canal.
However, the question of ownership of this 80-kilometer sea route has been a “sore subject” for the American administration over the past 150 years, so Trump is not original in his attempts to resolve this issue by force.
By a curious coincidence, today, January 31, marks exactly 35 years since the last (at least, for now, the last) attempt to resolve the Panama issue by armed means.
But before we recall in detail Operation Right Cause (which is what the American intervention of 1989 was called, without a hint of irony), let us recall the stage on which this action unfolded.
THE CHANNEL AND THE SCANDAL
Plans to build a canal through the narrow Isthmus of Panama, connecting the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (so that ships would not have to travel thousands of miles around Cape Horn), were first developed during the years of Spanish colonial rule in South America - but at that time such a project was practically impossible to implement.
The benefits of building a waterway were obvious to everyone in Europe and the New World. As early as 1827, none other than Johann Wolfgang von Goethe predicted, “I shall be surprised if the United States does not take up such an undertaking.”
But the French were the first to take up the matter.
Colombia, which had owned the Isthmus of Panama since the 1830s, brought the Panama Canal Company, founded in Paris, into the project in the late 1870s. Construction dragged on for a decade. And as a result, the word panama entered the French language, and then all the languages of the world, meaning “a large and brazen scam.”
The company, having "given a bribe" to ministers and hundreds of deputies, received permission to collect money from citizens under a winning loan, and then... went bankrupt. It turned out that half of the 1.3 billion francs invested in the project "disappeared".
It was after this that the United States took over the initiative.
The prediction of the author of "Faust" came true in 1903, when Theodore Roosevelt (also known as Teddy and Rough Rider) was president. The United States, rapidly gaining economic and military power, was actively expanding throughout Latin America - from the Rio Grande to Cape Horn. They were quite capable of implementing a project that promised to shorten the route from New York to San Francisco from 23 thousand to 9.5 thousand km.
In 1903, a deal was made whereby the United States leased a strip of territory ten kilometers wide from Columbia for a period of 100 years.
However, the process of ratifying the deal in the Colombian parliament stalled. The country had just ended another civil war (its events formed the basis for Gabriel García Márquez's novella "Nobody Writes to the Colonel"). The winners and losers were unable to reach a compromise on the canal issue, so the US decided to move on to plan "B" - separating the department of Panama from the Republic of Colombia by force.
SEPARATION AND REVOLUTION
In the fall of 1903, unrest and demonstrations began in Panama demanding independence for the region. Attempts by the Colombian authorities to suppress the protests were stopped by direct intervention by the United States. Teddy Roosevelt called this the Big Stick Policy, that is, “resolving conflicts” with the help of American military power. Trump clearly likes this approach as well.
The Republic of Panama was proclaimed on November 3, and 10 days later the new state was recognized by the United States, after which the act of transferring the territory of the future canal to American control was ratified. After the completion of construction in 1914, the States established a de facto monopoly on its use.
The state of Panama was essentially an American protectorate. In particular, local authorities were prohibited from having their own armed forces for fear that the strategic maritime trade route would be captured. Over time, the United States decided to create the Panama National Guard, whose tasks included fighting communist rebels. This decision played a cruel joke on Washington.
In 1969, a group of National Guard soldiers, who had by then become a real force, overthrew the country's government. Colonel Omar Efraim Torrijos came to power, promoted himself to brigadier general and proclaimed himself the leader of the revolution.
The junta led by Torrijos began to put pressure on the United States, demanding that it transfer control of the canal to the Panamanian Republic.
In 1977, Líder Máximo de la Revolución - Supreme Leader of the Revolution Torrijos and US President Jimmy Carter signed an agreement on the neutrality of the canal territory and its subsequent transfer to Panama's control. However, on July 31, 1981, the Supreme Leader's plane crashed under unclear circumstances, and Torrijos himself died.
But the process of nationalization continued under his successor.
The new head of the republic was Colonel Manuel Antonio Noriega, one of the commanders of the National Guard of Panama. Coming from the lower classes, Noriega received the nickname "Pineapple Face" due to the consequences of smallpox he suffered. As an officer of the National Guard, he acted together with American intelligence services in the fight against Marxist movements. In this field, he earned the status of "Our Son of a Bitch" and could lead Panama without fear.
Some may ask why the United States even entered into negotiations with some juntas and ceded the Panama Canal, which was so important to them.
However, there is nothing surprising about this. By the early 1980s, the United States seemed to be losing ground around the world, losing its status as a superpower. The defeat in Vietnam in 1975, the anti-American revolution in Iran with the seizure of the American embassy hit the country's image very hard.
The situation is somewhat similar to the situation in the United States today: an incompetent democratic government, failures in key areas of domestic and foreign policy, and a despondent mood in the White House. It seemed that the United States was close to defeat in the Cold War.
AN EXEMPLARY FLOGGING IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY
In this environment, a new administration came to power, led by Republican Ronald Reagan.
The future president went to the elections with a set of slogans that were repeated in our time by another eccentric leader - Donald Trump. In fact, the slogan "Make America Great Again" was put forward specifically for Reagan's election campaign. The new president announced the beginning of a "Crusade" against communists.
In 1983, for the first time since Vietnam, the United States decided to undertake a large-scale intervention.
In late October, the United States launched a military operation in Grenada, overthrowing the country's leftist government, which was oriented toward the USSR and Cuba. "We could not allow the specter of Vietnam to hang over the country forever and prevent us from protecting our legitimate national security interests... We did not ask anyone's permission, but did what we thought was right," Reagan later wrote in his memoirs.
However, the Noriega regime in Panama seemed to be under no threat so far.
"Colonel Pineapple Face" remained in good standing in Washington and was considered an ally in the crusade against the "Reds." For a while, the United States even turned a blind eye to Panama's involvement in the Colombian drug trade, which by the mid-1980s had reached unprecedented proportions. However, Noriega committed a more "grave sin" in Washington's eyes.
He was caught collaborating with the left.
In 1988, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) accidentally discovered that Noriega's regime had colluded with the governments of Cuba and Nicaragua, which also had a stake in the Colombian drug trade. Once this became known in Washington, Panama's fate was effectively sealed.
In January 1989, Reagan was replaced as US President by another Republican, George H.W. Bush.
Bush, not distinguished by the odiousness of his predecessor, continued Reagan's policy, but used a fundamentally new strategy. In April 1989, the United States imposed tough economic sanctions against Panama. A month later, the country held presidential elections, which were won by the opposition candidate. Noriega did not recognize the election results.
After that, the CIA organized an attempted coup in the country, which, however, was suppressed. Thus, the US tried out a model for changing undesirable regimes: economic pressure, attempts at an internal coup, and if that didn’t work, a direct military invasion.
After the CIA's involvement in the coup was revealed, Noriega demanded that the US withdraw its troops from Panama. The next day, a provocative incident occurred: Panamanian National Guard soldiers killed an American soldier and raped his wife. The US government sanctioned the military operation "Operation Just Cause", which was to become a "show flogging".
It was during the preparation of military actions in Panama that the United States first conducted an information campaign, justifying its actions by the need to “protect human rights” and “restore democracy.” This model was subsequently used to justify aggression against Iraq, Yugoslavia, Somalia, and a number of other countries.
HARD ROCK FOR A DICTATOR
A contingent of 26,000 people was formed to carry out the operation — mainly special forces fighters, supported by 100 armored vehicles and more than 200 military aircraft and helicopters. At the same time, there were only 11,000 people in the ranks of the Panamanian self-defense forces. The national guard had virtually no air defense, aviation, or armored vehicles at its disposal.
On the night of December 19-20, 1989, the United States launched a massive air strike on Panama. The targets of the attacks were the bases of the self-defense forces, most of the military did not even have time to take up organized defense. After that, 84 transport aircraft dropped a large landing force of the 75th Special Forces Regiment in Panama, which captured military and civilian airfields. After that, planes landed with personnel and armored vehicles of the 82nd Airborne Division.
Security forces loyal to the Noriega regime attempted to organize pockets of resistance, taking up defensive positions in government buildings and hastily constructed firing positions. However, the forces were initially unequal. By the end of the first day of the operation, the American military had captured the headquarters of the National Defense Forces, after which any organized resistance ceased.
During the fighting, the American special forces lost 23 people killed and about 300 wounded. As a result of the aggression, 500 Panamanian citizens died, including 50 self-defense forces. Noriega tried to hide in the Vatican embassy, but the American military installed powerful speakers around the building playing heavy rock music. Three days later, the former dictator left the embassy and was arrested. Noriega subsequently died in a Panamanian prison, having served time in the United States and France.
The out-of-control "son of a bitch" was punished - and this decision by Ronald Reagan, from the point of view of the current US administration, was correct. But - alas - Reagan did not reverse the decision, which Trump did not hesitate to call "stupid". The Torrijos-Carter Treaty remained in force, from 1979 to 1999 the Panama Canal Zone was under joint administration by the US and the Republic of Panama, with the prospect of being handed over to the Panamanians.
This is what happened in 2000, when the United States handed over control of the canal to the country's government, concluding an agreement on the neutrality of the waterway.
DREAMS OF REVENGE
Trump also addressed the issue of “returning Panama” during his first presidential term – even then he was concerned about the contacts of the small but strategically important Central American state with China, with which Trump was waging trade wars.
However, it is precisely now that the new president’s threats should be taken seriously. As in the late 1980s, the United States is experiencing an internal crisis associated with a loss of direction and failures in foreign policy. In this regard, the populism of Trump, who managed to win the election under the slogans of returning to “former greatness,” is becoming dangerous for its neighbors.
During Trump's last term, the slogan "Make America Great Again" was discredited because it was not backed up by real action.
So the US may well go for a small, demonstrative military operation to prove to other countries and to itself: we are still strong and ready to achieve our goals.
#2
If the U.S. do go in, I hope the first strategy of the take over would be to quietly land Paratroopers and Special Forces to secure every bridge crossing the canal, from being blown and blocking the canal!
#3
/\ Yes! Rename it the 'American' Canal. Flood the Zone with troops on both ends. Retake Howard AFB and kick out/retire the worthless Zonians. Night airborne operations from day one.
Bring in armed General Dynamics, Raytheon, and/or Lockheed civilian contractors to run lock operations. Day three and four, open the golf courses at Fort Amador and host a BBQ.
Appoint a military commander, send the current operators home on a slow boat to China and be done with it.
Any resistance or sabotage should be met with stronger actions to include summary executions as needed.
We have a Georgia peanut farmer to blame for all of this.
[FloppingAces] Trump’s 5-D Chess: How Mass Firings Are Freezing the Deep State.
President Trump’s federal workforce policy is beginning to look, even to his enemies, like 5-D chess. I’ll explain it in two stories. First, yesterday Newsweek ran a defiant story under the headline, “Former USDA inspector general defies Trump order, escorted from her office.” As you probably recall, President Trump fired 17 of 74 Inspectors General (IGs). The 17 former highly-paid inspectors, who are now disgruntled ex-employees, got together over soy latte and explored their options. Sue? File a grievance? Call the Union? The ex-IGs, well acquainted with technical legal arguments, dithered over the validity of their own termination notices and wondered whether Trump had “legally fired” them. Of the 17, only former USDA Inspector General Phyllis Fong (fake name alert) has decided to hashtag-Resist. FAFO, Phyllis.
Ms. Fong’s War was not quite the heroic standoff that media has painted. It seems more like she just waited for security to come get her from her office. Nevertheless, a handful of corporate media articles about Fong’s departure tried to paint the 22-year bureaucrat as “apolitical” and super-effective since she once requested a listeria investigation or something.
… Now let’s look at that second article.
The President’s enemies are beginning to awaken to the formidible possibility that Trump knows exactly what he is doing and is setting traps for them to fall into. The New York Times covered the story yesterday under the headline, “Trump’s Firings Could Bring Court Cases That Expand His Power.” (The article even mentioned our beloved Ms. Fong.)
Over the past several days, the President has “abruptly fired dozens of officials,” if not hundreds of them. The Times, at least, is beginning to detect a figure of rationality emerging from the fog of administrative war. It claims to have uncovered a pattern among Trump’s firings of powerful federal actors who thought they were safe. These included the 17 aforementioned Inspector Generals (including high-heeled rebel Fong), plus cemented-in officials from agencies like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Note that all four categories include officials appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
Astonishingly, Trump’s mass firings of top-level commissioners from the NLRB, the Privacy Board, and the EEOC, were thought to be illegal and impossible. But even more historic and astonishing, Trump has fired so many it leaves those agencies without quora. They are dead in the water. These now-paralyzed agencies literally cannot undermine Trump’s agenda, even if they wanted to, for the practical reason that there simply aren’t enough commissioners left to vote on anything. They’re frozen.
I don’t know Ms. Fong. But I’ll go out on a limb here. If the President fires you and then you refuse to leave the office, forcing a security showdown, that sort of proves the point of why you were fired in the first place. Inspectors General are classified as Executive Level III or IV, with an annual salary of around $200,000, plus generous benefits.
Because they criticize other officials, Inspectors General are expected to be among the most professional and ethical employees in the federal government.
If Ms. Fong thought her dismissal was wrong, she could have professionally challenged it in several legal and procedural ways. There was no reason to stage an embarrassing spectacle. The way media tells it, Phyllis was a brave Resister. But when security arrived, Phyllis folded like a cheap pair of LuluLemon knock offs. She just walked out. She didn’t chain herself to her desk. She didn’t make them arrest her. Phyllis clearly isn’t martyr material.
Consider this: What made you think most partisan federal workers were any braver than Phyllis Fong? Was it media narratives?
In other words, the radical “Resistance” the plagued Trump’s first term was always a 2-dimensional branding exercise, a cheap cardboard cutout. It was never an actual movement. Bacteria-like, the Resistance only thrived in a temperature-controlled culture of anonymity where defiance was cost-free—where brave bureaucrats could slow-roll policies, leak fake news to the press, and quietly sabotage the Trump 1.0 Administration while still cashing their taxpayer-funded paychecks with ironclad job security.
As we will see, those assumptions are now in doubt. But in 2017, the stakes were low and there were no real risks, not with any real consequences. So partisan federal workers boldly cast themselves as brave warriors for democracy wielding jiu-jitsu-like weapons of bureaucracy.
But Trump 2.0 flipped the script. Now there are real consequences. People are getting fired. There’s real accountability—Trump’s Team seems to know who they are. This time, there’s no guarantee the Resisters can ride out another four years unscathed. The big blue wall is cracking. Now that they’re forced to stand on their principles and take tangible risks, it looks more like a cowardly, disorganized retreat than steely-eyed defiance.
… Haha! Can you see it now? The sheer brilliance of Trump’s plan? If they do sue him, then Trump is likely to grow even more powerful. Their only other option to just take it.
#3
He's going nuclear. The Constitution says advise and consent, it says nothing about firing. He'll take it to SCOTUS on 'separation of powers'. Congress doesn't determine who gets selected or or kept or fired for the law clerks in the judiciary. That's all within one branch's prerogative. He'll argue the same applies to the executive branch. That places SCOTUS in the proverbial horns of a dilemma.
Scott Adams
@ScottAdamsSays
We are entering the "WTF" discovery phase of DOGE.
Quote
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
·
7h
The @DOGE team discovered, among other things, that payment approval officers at Treasury were instructed always to approve payments, even to known fraudulent or terrorist groups.
They literally never denied a payment in their entire career.
Not even once. x.com/robbystarbuck/…
Show more
… Not even once.
Quote
Robby Starbuck
@robbystarbuck
·
15h
The highest ranking Treasury official, David A Lebryk, is resigning rather than complying with a request by @DOGE for access to audit where they’ve spent trillions of dollars a year. Why would career bureaucrats fear an audit by @elonmusk and @doge to see where we can save money?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
02/01/2025 10:22 Comments ||
Top||
#6
My sister-in-law, who works at the VA, got the buy-out offer email, and doesn’t know what to do. She was previously scheduled to retire in the second quarter of this year, and now needs to figure out whether taking the buy-out and functionally leaving immediately would be better — or even an option — but unfortunately the FAQs she was given don’t answer any of her specific questions.
So if any of the DOGE crew happen to read Rantburg, or if there’s a Rantburger who has a connection there, any guidance would be gratefully received. Jo is actually one of the good ones — always cheerful and upbeat, bright, hardworking, professional… and quietly a conservative Trump voter from the beginning.
#8
TW, I am not connected but have looked at the buyout stuff while I was a GM employee. There is usually a target demographic and a percentage that they are after. To me this looks like a lure for young people that are not doing appreciable work or have been doing low level activism on company time. It also might be an arbitration strategy for negotiating whatever grievance results from the housecleaning. If your sister is already working with HR regarding her retirement it seems OK to point out that she received an email that lacked enough info to evaluate it. It sounds like the idea has been presented without details because the brainstorming is still in progress
[Brownstone] Some years back, in calmer times before the storm, we officers at sea held the wardroom mess in accordance with that classic naval tradition. It was modernized and conducted over secure video, so those of us in the Med studied with those in the Gulf and those in the BAM,1 but it was all the same. Our study was Thucydides.
The Peloponnesian War is too large for a deployment’s worth of weekly studies to cover, so after each session, I filled my evening with further reading. As the Oak Hill2 passed Sicily, I was drawn to the history of the Sicilian Expedition. History is studied to draw lessons for present times. Athens’ lessons are abundant for ours.
In the midst of the 30-year Peloponnesian War, factions of Athens deemed an invasion of Sicily critical to overall victory. Inherent to their argument was the reality that Sicily would be impossibly lucrative if victorious. So it was then, so it is now: potential profit often clouds sound judgment.
The opposition lost and the attack proceeded. It took the entire fleet and all its citizen manpower and it was entirely defeated. During the multi-year effort, the factions that drove it fused into an oligarchy that perpetuated itself and its war until its incompetence and complete defeat undermined its despotism. It still took the Demos physically overthrowing the Oligarchy for democracy to be restored in Athens.3
Athens could rebuild the ships. But it could not rebuild the men. Thirty thousand citizen sailors were lost in the expedition — the heart of Athens’ civilizational power. The demographic catastrophe is considered a cause of Athens’ eventual defeat in the war and its civilizational decline.4
Essentially, Americans were subjected to a counterterror-insurgency strategy implemented against them by the administrative state in response to the virus.
Two decades ago, factions argued that biowarfare threats were so significant that biodefense responsibility needed to be removed from the purview of the uniformed military and placed within NIAID
… the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases…
under NIH and under HHS. There were structural and efficiency reasons to do this but the intangible reason was that the uniformed military officer corps would not stain its honor with biowarfare. It had held the line with the bioweapons convention since Nixon axed the US bioweapons program, so it had to be removed from the picture for the factions to proceed.
This action, called BioShield, fused the pharmaceutical industry with biodefense and fused the public health agencies with the intelligence community. The two entities in America not held accountable by law or practice, the vaccine industry and the intelligence community (IC), were joined into one. Though done to achieve a positive aim, it is obvious in hindsight that this fusion would create unaccountable oligarchy. Its most apparent manifestation is the director of NIAID’s salary, the highest in government and higher than the president’s, with corresponding tangible worldwide political power. This power structure was known previously to insiders5 but only became visible to the public during the Covid response. It also goes without saying that merging medicine with biodefense under the pretext of foreign biothreats is impossibly lucrative. So it was then, so it is now: potential profit often clouds sound judgment.
The biodefense oligarchy spread its tentacles across government and industry. There is pie to be had and it is lucrative. Adversaries make advances in biotechnology so funds must keep coming and riskier and riskier research must be done to supposedly stay ahead of those adversaries, especially if it proves true that the DOD and NIH traded advanced technology to those adversaries so the IC could gain access and spy on their laboratories.6 Now with more advanced technology, the IC must do more spying on those adversaries and NIAID more research. The biodefense oligarchy is a reinforcing feedback loop. It perpetuates its reason to exist.
There does not appear to be a valid evaluation as to whether the biothreat rates such an apparatus in the context of the overarching threat picture the United States faces. It is unclear if the warriors, the combat armsmen, and the unrestricted line officers are involved in the assessment since they ceased to be involved years ago in an act of false piety (to which the origin of the Covid fiasco can be traced). And the director of NIAID will just turn off funding to the universities in the Congressman’s district when the Congressman raises opposition to the arrangement if the universities in his district have not already complained, for the oligarchy’s funds are substantial. The biodefense grantee taps DOD and NIAID for biodefense funds.
That’s two pots. Because of "the threats," they can tap IC funds. Three pots. With the Global War On Terror creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the delegation of defense functions to DHS, including biodefense, there’s a fourth pot. There are actually even more pots, as the DEFUSE proposal shows, to the consternation of federal agents trying to piece the web together.7 There is pie to be had and it is lucrative.
As with the Athenians’ Sicilian Expedition, the biodefense oligarchy became stronger as it accrued failures. The predominant failure is the creation and release of SARS-CoV-2 and the consequent response. Biodefense acolytes called Covid a war and treated it as so, forcing the nation into a war footing. War demands resources and faltering war campaigns demand more resources to keep them afloat. Resourcing demands organization — consolidation — and consolidation equates to more power.
All governments accrue more powers in wartime. Jacob Siegel, a 9/11-generation veteran like me, wrote a fantastic Tablet essay8 on the disinformation complex which addressed the fusion of the biodefense apparatus with the GWOT-Patriot Act apparatus during the Covid event (I have near verbatim unpublished essays that say the same, and my peers and I discuss this repeatedly, so it is equally fascinating that our generation sees this so clearly).
Essentially, Americans were subjected to a counterterror-insurgency strategy implemented against them by the administrative state in response to the virus. This architecture was for war overseas but was implemented against the American people. With too many interests involved, the expanding apparatus could not be stopped, even by the party in power (which is the nature of oligarchy). As occurred overseas, counterinsurgency failed and in failure imposed despotism and broke the social compact of the country. Alas, the biodefense oligarchy only accumulated more power.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Brownstone] Some years back, in calmer times before the storm, we officers at sea held the wardroom mess in accordance with that classic naval tradition. It was modernized and conducted over secure video, so those of us in the Med studied with those in the Gulf and those in the BAM,1 but it was all the same. Our study was Thucydides. 
