+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A worthy repeat posting to digest:
The roots of America's defeat
While Biden is solely responsible for the decision to leave Afghanistan in the manner it is, it isn't Biden's fault that the Taliban was still around and stronger than ever. The foundations of that failure were laid in the days, weeks and months that followed 9/11.
Thrown out of Saudi Arabia – into the arms of Iran and the Taliban
Even before the suicide bombings outside the Kabul airport on Thursday evening, the US media was acting with rare unanimity. For the first time in memory, US media organs across the ideological and political spectrum have been united in the view that US President Joe Biden fomented a strategic disaster for the US and its allies with his incompetent leadership of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. Some compare it to the 1961 Bay of Pigs; others to Saigon in 1975; others to the US embassy in Tehran in 1979. Whatever the analogy, the bottom line is the same: Biden's surrender to the Taliban has already entered the pantheon of American post-war defeats.
Biden is personally responsible for the humanitarian and strategic disaster unfolding before our eyes. He is the only American leader in history who has willfully abandoned Americans and American allies to their fate behind enemy lines. But while Biden is solely responsible for the decision to leave Afghanistan in the manner it is, it isn't Biden's fault that after 20 years of war, the Taliban was still around, stronger than it was on Sept. 11, 2001, and fully capable of seizing control of the country. The foundations of that failure were laid in the days, weeks and months that followed the Sept. 11 attacks.
In the aftermath of Sept. 11, then-President George W. Bush and his national security team put together the guiding assumptions for what came to be known as the global war on terror. In the years since then, some of the assumptions were updated, adapted or replaced as conditions on the ground evolved. But three of the assumptions that stood at the foundation of America's military, intelligence and diplomatic planning and operations since then were not revisited, save for the final two years of the Trump administration. All three contributed significantly to America's defeat in Afghanistan and its failure to win the war against global terror as a whole. The first assumption related to Pakistan, the second to Iran, and the third to Israel.
By rights, Pakistan should have been the first domino to fall after the Sept. 11 attacks. The Taliban were the brainchild of Pakistan's jihad-addled ISI intelligence agency. Al-Qaida operatives also received ISI support. But aside from a few threats and temporary sanctions around the time of the US invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, the US took no significant actions against Pakistan. The reason for America's inaction is easy to understand.
In 1998 Pakistan tested nuclear weapons. By Sept. 11, 2001, Pakistan fielded a significant nuclear arsenal. Following the attacks, Pakistan made clear its view of nuclear war, and the connection between its position and its sponsorship of terror.
In October and December 2001, Kashmiri terrorists sponsored by Pakistan attacked the Jammu and Kashmir parliament and the Indian parliament. When India accused Pakistan of responsibility and threatened reprisals, then-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf placed the Pakistani military on alert. India began deploying troops to the border and Pakistan followed suit.
Rather than side with India, the US pressured Delhi to stand down, which it did in April 2002. In June 2002, Pakistani-backed terrorists carried out suicide bombings against the wives and children of Indian soldiers. The countdown to war began again. In June 2002, again bowing to US pressure, India pledged it would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the conflict. Musharraf refused to follow suit.
Rather than rally behind India, the Bush administration wrested an empty promise from Musharraf that he would stop sponsoring terrorism and then pressured India to stand down again.
The US message was clear. By credibly threatening to use its nuclear weapons, Pakistan deterred the Americans. Less than six months later, North Korea expelled UN inspectors from its nuclear reactor at Yangbyon and cancelled its signature on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran escalated its covert nuclear activities at Isfahan and Natanz.
The US's decision to dodge a confrontation with Pakistan following the Sept. 11 attacks empowered the ISI to rebuild the Taliban and al-Qaida after the US decimated both in its initial offensive. Taliban leaders decamped to Pakistan where they rebuilt their forces and waged a war of attrition against US, NATO forces and the Afghan army and government they built. Osama bin Laden was living in what amounted to a Pakistani military base when he was killed by US commandos. That war ended with Biden's surrender and the Taliban's recapture of Kabul this month.
This brings us to Iran. In their post-Sept. 11 deliberations, Bush and his advisors decided not to confront Iran, but instead seek to reach an accommodation with the mullahcracy. This wasn't a new policy. Since the Reagan administration, the dominant view in Washington has been that it is possible to reach an accord with the Iranian regime that would restore the strategic alliance Washington and Tehran before the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Bush and his advisors were not moved to reassess that view when they learned that Iran provided material support to the September 11 hijackers. They didn't reconsider their assumption after al Qaeda's leadership decamped to Tehran when the Taliban was routed in Afghanistan. They didn't reconsider it when Iran served as the headquarters and the arms depot for al-Qaida in Iraq or the Shiite militias in their war against US and coalition forces in Iraq.
Barack Obama embraced Bush's assumption on Iran. Instead of confronting Tehran, he tried to realign the US Middle East alliance system towards Iran and away from America's Arab allies and Israel. He effectively handed Iran control over Iraq when he withdrew US forces. He paved Iran's path to nuclear arsenal with the 2015 nuclear deal.
After a prolonged fight with the Washington establishment and its representatives in his cabinet who embraced Bush's assumptions, in his last two years in office, Donald Trump partially abandoned the strategic assumption that Iran could and should be appeased. Biden for his part, is committed to reinstating and escalating Obama's policies towards Iran.
As for Israel, in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, then secretary of state Colin Powell convinced Bush to adopt two related assumptions on Israel. First, he determined that terror against Israel was different – and more acceptable – than terror against everyone else. And second, Bush determined that the war against terror would be directed at terror groups but not at governments that sponsor terrorism, (except Iraq). As former Bush administration official David Wurmser, who was involved in the post-Sept. 11 deliberations recalled recently, Powell argued that terror threatens the Arabs no less than it threatens America. This being the case, the trick to winning them over to the US side was to give them a payoff that would make it worth their while.
Israel was the payoff. The US would be able to bring Syria on board by getting Israel to give the Golan Heights to the Assad regime. Washington would bring in the Saudis and the rest of the Sunnis by forcing Israel to give Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Jerusalem to the PLO.
Ahead of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon tried to unravel Washington's guiding assumption about Iran. He told Bush and his advisors that Iraq hadn't posed a strategic threat to Israel or anyone else in the region since the 1991 Gulf War. If the US wanted to defeat global terror, Sharon explained, the US should act against Iran. The administration ignored him.
As for the administration's assumptions about Israel, a week after the attacks, Bush deliberately left the terror against Israel out of the terror that the US would fight in the war against terror when he told the joint houses of Congress that the war would be directed against terror groups "with global reach."
Recognizing where the Americans were headed, in October 2001, Sharon gave what became known as his "Czechoslovakia speech."
Following a deadly terror attack in Gaza, Sharon said, "I call on the Western democracies, and primarily the leader of the free world, the United States: Do not repeat the dreadful mistake of 1938, when enlightened European democracies decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for 'a convenient temporary solution.'
"Do not try to appease the Arabs at our expense – this is unacceptable to us. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. Israel will fight terrorism. There is no 'good terrorism' and 'bad terrorism,' as there is no 'good murder' and 'bad murder.'"
The administration's response to Sharon's statement was swift and furious. Sharon was harshly rebuked by Powell and the White House and he beat a swift retreat.
A month later, Powell became the first senior US official to officially endorse the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Sharon's failure to convince the Americans to rethink their false assumptions owed to his incomprehension, and fear of Washington. Benjamin Netanyahu, in contrast had an intimate familiarity with the ways of Washington. As a result, his efforts to convince the Americans to reconsider their assumptions about Iran and Israel met with significant success. Netanyahu's first success in relation to Iran came through the Arabs.
Netanyahu recognized that the Arab Gulf states were as threatened by Iran – and by Obama's efforts to appease Iran – as Israel was. So he reached out to them. Convinced by Netanyahu, Saudi Arabia led the Arab Gulf states and Egypt in embracing Israel as their ally in their existential struggle against Iran. Confronting Iran, the Saudis explained, was far more important to the Arabs than helping the Palestinians.
Israeli-Arab unity on Iran stymied Obama's efforts to win Congressional approval for his nuclear deal. It also stood at the foundation of Trumps' decision to abandon Obama's deal.
Netanyahu used his operational alliance with the Arabs as well in his effort to undo the US's false assumptions about Israel, particularly in regard to the Palestinians. He also used public diplomacy geared towards influencing Israel's Congressional supporters and public opinion. Netanyahu's efforts derailed Obama's plan to dictate the terms of a "peace" settlement to Israel. Under Trump, Netanyahu's efforts influenced Trump's decision to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem and convinced Trump to support Israeli sovereignty over parts of Judea and Samaria.
Distressingly, Netanyahu's successes are being swiftly undone by the Biden administration and the Bennett-Lapid government.
There is a growing sense that Biden's catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan is setting the world back 20 years. But the truth is even more dire. In 2001, the US was far more powerful relative to its enemies than it is today. And as has been the case for the past 20 years, the situation will only start moving in the right direction if and when America finally abandons the false assumptions it adopted 20 years ago.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
An ominous lesson for Israel?
Afghanistan’s Lessons for Israel
JNS.org – The United States has definitively lost Afghanistan. US military power ousted the Taliban and prevented its return for 20 years. As forces withdrew, the product of two decades of nation-building melted away as if it never existed, save for the heaps of military hardware left behind. The collapse of America’s Afghanistan strategy highlights the risks that Israel would incur in creating a Palestinian state, as these projects hold key similarities.
First, both the United States and Israel were involved in nation-building. The United States sought to build an Afghan democracy capable of governing Afghanistan and maintaining peace and stability. Since the Oslo Accords, Israel has been working with America to build a Palestinian democracy capable of governing a future Palestinian state and of making peace with Israel.
Both of these efforts involved building and training armies capable of suppressing terrorists. Both involved introducing Western-style democracy into regions without prior experience with it. And both sought to defeat and marginalize well-organized Islamic fundamentalist groups with a strong sense of purpose and robust networks of support. Both attempts at nation-building ultimately failed.
In Afghanistan, the corrupt US-backed government never had much legitimacy, and its military quickly dissolved when US forces withdrew. The corrupt Palestinian Authority never enjoyed legitimacy either. Its US-trained forces were swiftly routed by Hamas when the Israel Defense Forces withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, and it lost an election to the militant group in 2006. To the north, the forces that Israel backed in Southern Lebanon were quickly defeated by Hezbollah when the IDF withdrew in the spring of 2000. History demonstrates that organized, internationally-supported and motivated Islamist groups usually win in power vacuums.
Both the United States and Israel had the military ability to defeat their Islamic fundamentalist enemies, but only had sufficient political will necessary to keep them at bay and maintain a manageable status quo. For Israel, international pressure and low domestic tolerance for casualties drove it to risk its security by removing its forces from Gaza and Lebanon. The botched US withdrawal from Afghanistan was an unforced error. There was no major domestic or international demand for America to withdraw its remaining 2,500 troops immediately. In fact, international allies were left blindsided by President Joe Biden’s rapid pullout. No US soldier had been killed in combat there in more than 18 months, and the cost of maintaining an effective counterterrorism base of operations was sustainable.
The US decision to withdraw under minimal pressure bodes ominously for countries that are promised protection. Will that protection be rescinded when there really is pressure? After the United States appeared to flee before its own shadow, abandoning billions of dollars of sophisticated equipment to an enemy with no air force, no satellites and no nuclear missiles, are Taiwan and South Korea still truly confident in protection if nuclear-armed dictators come knocking?
In 2014, US Secretary of State John Kerry offered Israel technology and promises of international protection if it withdrew its military from the strategically important Jordan Valley to allow a Palestinian state to include that territory. The US withdrawal from Afghanistan suggests that Israel was right to rely on itself.
Both Democratic and Republican US administrations promoted the “two-state solution,” which in essence sought to nation-build in the Middle East. The Trump administration was the first to break with that thinking, which had persisted since Clinton. The Biden administration is back to the old playbook. It officially supports the creation of a Palestinian state. From Clinton’s Oslo Accords to George W. Bush’s “roadmap” and “disengagement,” the United States has reassured Israel that a future Palestinian state would not pose a security threat.
However, America’s poor track record at nation-building in the Middle East is mirrored by its poor track record predicting outcomes in that region. The Oslo Accords ended in a bloody intifada; disengagement from Gaza ended in Hamas capturing the coastal enclave and turning it into a terror platform. De-Ba’athification in Iraq ended in a bloody insurgency, and the withdrawal from Afghanistan yielded a rapid Taliban victory that apparently caught the Biden administration by surprise.
The world now has one more fundamentalist Islamic state: the Taliban-run Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. There is little doubt a future Palestinian state would be the same. According to recent polls, Hamas would still win Palestinian elections, but in the Middle East, more important than ballots are bullets, as the 2021 Taliban takeover of Afghanistan and the 2007 Hamas takeover of Gaza clearly show.
The US military kept the Taliban at bay in Afghanistan, and the IDF keeps Hamas from taking over Judea and Samaria. While a fundamentalist Islamic victory is surely a tragedy for liberty, tolerance and human rights, it is first and foremost a security threat. A Taliban-run Afghanistan harbored Al-Qaeda, resulting in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Many fear that it will once again become a safe haven for terrorists and that the next big attack is only a matter of time.
For Israel, a Hamas-run state bordering Israel’s major population centers, economic centers and an international airport would pose an existential threat. All of Israel would be within range of a variety of short- and long-range rockets, mortars and sniper fire, and easily infiltrated through tunnels. In the 21st century, oceans are no guarantee of national security, but at least for now, the Taliban or Al-Qaeda cannot fire volleys of rockets at Washington, DC from Afghanistan.
The US withdrawal from Afghanistan tells the world’s dictators and terrorists that America is no longer interested in its post-World War II role as the military guarantor of freedom. Any country would be wise to understand that it can ultimately only rely on its own power: “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” If Israel severely weakens its ability to defend itself by withdrawing its forces to create a Palestinian state, then it must understand that it will assuredly be left to suffer what it must when that state falls to Islamic fundamentalists, as history and the facts on the ground strongly predict.
Jeremiah Rozman is a publishing adjunct at The MirYam Institute. He has a Ph.D. in international relations from the University of Virginia with a focus on strategic/security studies, counter-terrorism, conflict resolution and asymmetric warfare.
And:
Iran keeps inching forward towards Golan.
Iran keeps inching forward towards Golan.
Israeli Analyst: Iran Entrenching Itself on Israel’s Border With the Syrian Golan
the Golan Heights
Iran is slowly entrenching itself in the Syrian Golan region at the border with Israel, a top Israeli analyst stated on Sunday.
The area of conflict is taking place in southern Syria, where certain rebel groups are still holding out after 10 years of civil war have seen the ruling regime of dictator Bashar Assad take back most of the country.
On the Syria Golan and the Hauran region, composed of south Syria and north Jordan, the Syrian army along with Hezbollah and Iran-backed militias — propped up by Russian political support — are besieging the city of Daraa, one of the last redoubts of the rebellion.
Veteran analyst Ehud Yaari writes on the Israeli website N12 that it is only a matter of time before Daraa falls, and the rest of what remains of the rebellion in the area will likely follow.
Jordan’s King Abdullah is attempting a delicate balancing act, argues Yaari, noting that the king has expressed a willingness to renew ties with Assad and help do the same with the rest of the Arab world, but does not want a Hezbollah-Iranian presence on his border.
This is particularly the case because divisions of the Syrian regular army in the region are now essentially controlled by Iran and Hezbollah, of which Abdullah is well aware.
Israel, says Yaari, faces a difficult situation: it does not want a war with the Syrian army, to upset Russia, or to gamble on the various rebel groups in the region.
Thus, the most likely scenario, he posits, is that Israel will reconcile itself to the current situation unless missiles are deployed in the area.
The downside to this is that it means Iran will have successfully extended its Hezbollah front line in Lebanon to Israel’s Syrian border. There is no indication that either Russia or Assad himself would be willing to prevent this, which means the establishment of an Iranian-controlled area stretching from the Jordanian border to the Mediterranean Sea.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
They're not happy:
They're not happy in Gaza ..
They're not happy in Egypt ..
They're not happy in Libya ..
They're not happy in Morocco ..
They're not happy in Iran ..
They're not happy in Iraq ..
They're not happy in Yemen ...
They're not happy in Afghanistan ...
They're not happy in Pakistan ..
They're not happy in Syria ..
They're not happy in Lebanon ...
SO... WHERE ARE THEY HAPPY?
They're happy in Australia ..
They're happy in Canada ..
They're happy in England ..
They're happy in France ..
They're happy in Italy ..
They're happy in Germany ..
They're happy in Sweden ..
They're happy in the USA ..
They're happy in Norway ..
They're happy in Holland ..
They're happy in Denmark ..
Basically, they're happy in every country that is not Muslim and unhappy in every country that is!
AND WHO DO THEY BLAME?
Not Islam.
Not their leadership.
Not themselves.
THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN !
AND THEN- They want to change those countries to be like THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM WHERE THEY WERE UNHAPPY!
Excuse me, but I can't help wondering...
How damned dumb can you get?
Everyone seems to be wondering why Muslim
Terrorists are so quick to commit suicide.
Lets have a look at the evidence:
- No Christmas
- No television
- No nude women
- No football
- No pork chops
- No hot dogs
- No burgers
- No beer
- No bacon
- Rags for clothes
- Towels for hats
- Constant wailing from some idiot in a tower
- More than one wife
- More than one mother-in-law
- You can't shave
- Your wife can't shave
- You can't wash off the smell of donkeys
- You cook over burning camel sh!t
- Your wife is picked by someone else for you
- and your wife smells worse than your donkey
- Then they tell them that "when they die, it all gets better"?
Well No Shit Sherlock!
It's not like it could get much worse!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
De Santis is running for president as a Republican so Democrats have begun to unsheathe their knives and their brothers in the mass media are preparing hit pieces. This is the way liberal smear those they fear are talented and capable of accomplishing something positive for our nation.
Just in case you were wondering why 60 Minutes had a hit piece on the Governor of Florida. Anyone who criticizes him - I have a question for you - can you please post your education and service to our country resume so we can put things in perspective?
“Ronald Dion DeSantis was born on September 14, 1978, in Jacksonville, Florida, the son of Karen (née Rogers) and Ronald DeSantis.[1] He is of Italian descent.[2] His family moved to Orlando, Florida, before relocating to Dunedin, Florida, when he was six years old. In 1991, he was a member of the Little League team from Dunedin National that made it to the Little League World Series in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
After graduating from Dunedin High School in 1997, DeSantis attended Yale University. He was captain of Yale's varsity baseball team and joined the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity. On the Yale baseball team, DeSantis was an outfielder; as a senior in 2001, he had the team's best batting average at .336.
He graduated from Yale in 2001 with a B.A. magna cum laude in history. He then spent a year as a history teacher at the Darlington School.[12] DeSantis then attended Harvard Law School, graduating in 2005 with a Juris Doctor cum laude.
DeSantis received his Reserve Naval officer's commission and assignment to the Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG) in 2004 at the U.S. Naval Reserve Center in Dallas, Texas, while still a student at Harvard Law School. He completed Naval Justice School in 2005. Later that year, he received orders to the JAG Trial Service Office Command South East at Naval Station Mayport, Florida, as a prosecutor. In 2006, he was promoted from lieutenant, junior grade to lieutenant. He worked for the commander of Joint Task Force-Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO), working directly with detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Joint Detention Facility
In 2007, DeSantis reported to the Naval Special Warfare Command Group in Coronado, California, where he was assigned to SEAL Team One and deployed to Iraq with the troop surge as the Legal Advisor to the SEAL Commander, Special Operations Task Force-West in Fallujah.
DeSantis returned to the U.S. in April 2008, at which time he was reassigned to the Naval Region Southeast Legal Service. The U.S. Department of Justice appointed him to serve as an Assistant U.S. Attorney at the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Middle District of Florida. DeSantis was assigned as a trial defense counsel until his honorable discharge from active duty in February 2010. He concurrently accepted a reserve commission as a lieutenant in the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the US Navy Reserve. He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal, the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and the Iraq Campaign Medal.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Biden and dead Marine's pregnant wife meet.
"He’s a man with no beliefs. That’s how he can take a speech after the murder of 13 Americans and make it about his son who died of brain cancer."
And:
Pregnant Wife of Slain Marine ‘Disappointed’ After Meeting Joe Biden at Transfer Ceremony at Dover
https://www.breitbart.com/poli
Pregnant Wife of Slain Marine ‘Disappointed’ After Meeting Joe Biden at Transfer Ceremony at Dover
https://www.breitbart.com/poli
Finally
Biden has blamed everyone but himself for the Afghanistan evacuation disaster.
The military were ordered by Biden to solve a Gordian Knot and they gave him the best of two wrong choices which he demanded and now they are being blamed. I do believe we have terrible military leadership but they were chosen y Biden. Now he is dumping on them. If they had integrity they would resign.
The Character of Our Military Leadership
By Antoinette Aubert
A nation that demands "wokeness" from their military instead of honor will get exactly what it deserves.
Earlier this week, I woke up with a historical fact pounding at my brain. I knew I had read some bit of history that explained everything wrong with our country today; specifically something that explained the disgusting mess that is the fall of Afghanistan. It came to me in a flash: Eisenhower’s resignation as supreme commander of the Allied Forces in Europe.
What’s that you say? Eisenhower didn’t resign. No, but he was prepared to do so. The night before the greatest invasion in human history began at Normandy Beach, Eisenhower penned a simple letter.
You can see a copy of the letter in Eisenhower’s own handwriting. “Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops,” he wrote. “My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”
Reading that note again, it became clear to me: That was why we won World War II. That is also why Afghanistan fell. We had men of Eisenhower’s exemplary character in 1944. We have excuse makers and finger pointers like Mark Milley, Antony Blinken and Joe Biden today.
You will notice what Eisenhower didn’t say. He didn’t blame the Free French forces or the French Resistance. He didn’t blame any of the generals who were in the field. He didn’t blame others for mistakes that were made, nor even the weather, which might have fouled up plans. Nope. If things had gone wrong, he was ready to say, “I did it. I was wrong. It is no one’s fault, but mine.” It would have precipitated his resignation. He believed if the invasion failed, he would have failed and a better man should have his job. No wonder we won that war.
Fast forward to September 11, 2012. A U.S. consulate was stormed, the ambassador murdered, his body desecrated. The U.S. secretary of state had been warned again and again about the threat in Libya, and had ignored the ambassador’s pleas. Did that secretary of state immediately admit failure and resign? No, of course not. She said “what difference does it make?” and then proceeded to run for, and was almost elected, president.
Yes, she is a woman overflowing with hubris—not good enough to shine Eisenhower’s boots. But 59 million Americans wanted her to be president. Similarly, for eight years the Obama-Biden Administration failed in Afghanistan. Despite that, Biden is now president, and gave us the final failure.
Disgrace after disgrace, failure after failure has been met with starry eyed approval by at least half this country. An Eisenhower couldn’t even be a corporal in an army that forces soldiers to engage in indoctrination exercises such as marching in high heels. A nation that demands woke from their military instead of honor, will get exactly what it deserves.
Character is destiny. Neither a person nor a nation can rise higher than its honor. Eisenhower was a giant. Today we are governed by the lowest humans possible. That is why we won in 1945. That’s why today we do nothing but lose.
From Lt. Col (ret) Ellison Vickery who received 5 Purple Hearts from combat in Viet Nam
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| ||
|
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment