Tom Jurkowsky
Rear Admiral, US Navy (Retired)
Note to visitors: TheMessenger.com is no longer an active news source and thus all associated links originally included are no longer functional. Jan 2024
2024
RealClearDefense.com
October 21, 2024
Washington, DC
Findings Should Serve as Wake-Up Call
The Commission on the National Defense Strategy, a bi-partisan group of eight individuals authorized by Congress to examine the national defense strategy of the United States, released its findings in July of this year.
The group of eight, all with experience in national defense matters, were charged with reviewing our nation’s most recent national defense strategy, including the assumptions, strategic objectives, priority missions, operational concepts and strategic and military risks associated with that strategy.
The commission was also tasked with conducing an assessment of the strategic environment to include the threats to the national security of the U.S., including both traditional and non-traditional threats; the size and shape of the force; the readiness of the force; the posture, structure and capabilities of the force; allocation of resources; and the strategic and military risks in order to provide recommendations on the national defense strategy for the U.S.
The commission’s findings are alarming and should serve as a wake-up call for America: “The threats the United States faces are the most serious and most challenging the nation has encountered since 1945 and include the potential for near-term major war. The United States last fought a global conflict during World War II, which ended nearly 80 years ago. The nation was last prepared for such a fight during the Cold War, which ended 35 years ago. It is not prepared today.”
As sobering as those words are, the nearly 100-page report has received very little attention—including none from the two primary Presidential candidates.
The commission says the magnitude of the threats the U.S. faces is understated and significantly worse than when the National Defense Strategy was issued two years ago, especially when viewed globally and as being compounded. Commission members say since the release of the National Defense Strategy in 2022, we’ve witnessed, but not accounted for, the strategic impact of the “no limits” partnership between Russia and China and their partnership with Iran and North Korea, the outbreak of war in the Middle East and the scope and duration of the war in Europe.
The commission said that in many ways, China is outpacing the U.S. and has largely negated the U.S. military advantage in the Western Pacific through two decades of focused military investment. Without significant change by the U.S., the balance of power will continue to shift in China’s favor.
Additionally, China this year announced a 7.2% increase in defense spending. Russia, meanwhile, will devote 29% of its budget on national defense as it continues to reconstitute its military and economy after its invasion of Ukraine. Clearly, Vladimir Putin seeks a return to its global leadership role during the Cold War.
The commission noted China’s work in fusing military, diplomatic and industrial strength to expand its global power.
The U.S. cannot compete with China, Russia, and their partners alone—and certainly cannot win a war that way, the commission says. Given the growing alignment of authoritarian states, the U.S. must adopt a system of deterrence and power that includes a coordinated effort to bring together diplomacy; economic investment; cybersecurity; trade; education; industrial capacity; technical innovation; civic engagement; and international cooperation.
In its findings, the commission says that Defense Department (DoD) business practices; byzantine research and development (R&D) and procurement systems; reliance on decades-old military hardware; and a culture of risk avoidance reflect an era of uncontested military dominance. DoD leaders and Congress must replace a risk-averse organization with one that’s able to build and field the force the U.S. needs.
The commission found that the U.S. military lacks both the capabilities and capacity required to be confident it can deter and prevail in combat. It must do a better job of incorporating innovative technology; field more and higher-capability platforms, software, and munitions; and deploy innovative operational concepts to employ them together better.
Also, alarming is our industrial base. The commission found that U.S. industrial production is grossly inadequate to provide the equipment, technology and munitions needed today, let alone given the demands of great power conflict. A protracted conflict, especially in multiple theaters, would require much greater capacity to produce, maintain and replenish weapons and munitions. Fixing this shortfall will require increased investment.
The commission report cites an especially acute problem with our shipbuilding industrial base, saying the Navy’s ability to construct, maintain and repair the maritime forces it requires is fundamentally in doubt. Not being able to maintain and repair its current fleet translates to a lack of readiness.
The report notes that one Chinese shipyard has more capacity than all U.S. shipyards combined.
The commission’s report paints a grim and concerning picture. Resources are needed and needed now. The report says the U.S. must spend more effectively and efficiently to build the future force and not perpetuate the existing one.
The answer is obvious and may require reforms to entitlement spending and additional taxes.
China’s most recent military exercises that encircled Taiwan included 125 aircraft and 17 warships, including an aircraft carrier. This was a record number of units and perhaps an ominous foreshadowing of China’s intent with respect to Taiwan. The commission says that even short of all-out war, the global economic damage from a Chinese blockade of Taiwan has been estimated to cost $5 trillion or five percent of the global gross domestic product.
War with a major power would affect the life of every American in ways we can only imagine. Deterring war by projecting strength and ensuring economic and domestic resilience is far preferrable to and less costly than war.
The commissioners contend that the U.S. public is largely unaware of the dangers the U.S. faces, or the costs required to adequately prepare. They do not appreciate the strength of China and its partnerships or the ramifications to daily life if a conflict were to erupt. The public is not anticipating disruptions to their power and water or access to all the goods on which they rely. Quite simply, they have not internalized the costs of the U.S. losing its position as a world superpower.
A bipartisan “call to arms” is urgently needed so that the U.S. can make the major changes and significant investments now rather than wait for the next Pearl Harbor or 9/11. First and foremost, our political leaders must put an end to the political polarization that exists today. That polarization has contributed to our current weakened national security posture.
Additionally, our political leaders should join forces with our military leaders and communicate clearly to the public about the threats we face and the need to act with urgency. We are facing the most challenging and dangerous international security environment since World War II. The support and resolve of the American public are indispensable. Americans will respond in the way they always have when they are told the truth.
RealClearDefense.com
October 3, 2024
Washington, DC
MEMORANDUM FOR KAMALA HARRIS AND DONALD TRUMP
Subject: Restoring our Navy to Global Dominance
​
As both of you continue your campaigns to become President of the United States and assume your role as Commander-in-Chief, it’s hoped you and your national security advisors understand the importance of restoring our Navy to its preeminent posture. For the past 250 years, the U.S. Navy has ruled the seas and been the dominant maritime power in the world.
A nation’s standing in the world has always been judged by the strength of its naval fleet—both the quantity and quality of its ships and the people who man them. The importance of a strong navy had its roots with a book written in 1890 by Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan—"The Influence of Sea Power Upon History.” Mahan believed that national greatness was inextricably associated with the sea. Mahan argued that national prosperity and power depended on control of the world’s sea lanes.
“Whoever rules the waves rules the world,” said Mahan. He has been referred to as the intellectual father of the U.S. Navy and the “evangelist of sea power.”
President Theodore Roosevelt was clearly influenced by Mahan’s book when he sent the world a powerful message by building the Great White Fleet and sent 16 new battleships on a worldwide cruise in 1907. Roosevelt’s message was the U.S. was a maritime power with a capable and congressionally supported blue-water fleet.
“A good Navy is not a provocation to war. It is the surest guaranty of peace,” said Roosevelt.
Support for a strong maritime capability continued during the Woodrow Wilson administration when the fleet’s size was tripled. It was further strengthened when President Franklin Roosevelt and Rep. Carl Vinson expanded our Navy. At Vinson’s urging, Congress passed the Two-Ocean Navy Act in 1940. This was then the largest naval procurement legislation in U.S. history. It increased the size of the Navy by 70%, authorizing the construction of certain ships.
Vinson’s actions were extraordinarily prophetic as he felt our capabilities in both the Atlantic and Pacific should be increased, especially if the U.S. became involved in a global conflict that threated our nation. A year later Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. While World War II raged on for several years, the Two-Ocean Navy Act proved to be a key to our success in the war because many of the ships to see action were already being built.
However, while leaders like Roosevelt and Vinson saw the need and benefits from a strong maritime presence, we’ve seen the Navy shrink to levels that should cause alarm. Unfortunately, our military and political leaders have either forgotten the importance of Mahan’s work or have chosen to put his books on the shelf.
But while we have forgotten the work of Mahan, Chinese leaders have obviously studied his theories as China’s navy has been transformed into a modern and capable force. In its most recent report on the Chinese navy, the Congressional Research Service says China’s fleet has surpassed the U.S. Navy in numbers of battle force ships. It is now the largest navy in the world with a battle force of over 370 platforms. It’s expected to grow to 395 ships by 2025 and 435 ships by 2030.
The U.S. Navy, by comparison, has 296 battle force ships and is projected to have 294 in 2030.
As Presidential candidates, you should be concerned—perhaps alarmed—regarding the pace of China’s naval shipbuilding effort. More specifically, China’s shipbuilding industry compared with the capacity of the U.S. shipbuilding industry should get your attention. It’s estimated that China’s shipbuilding industrial base has a capacity 230 times that of ours.
Our industrial base, quite simply, is woefully inadequate and decrepit. Many of our shipyards have been shut down since the end of the Cold War. What this equates to is an inability to not just build new ships but to maintain and repair existing ones. All these factors contribute to a lack of U.S. Navy readiness.
In his essay “Alfred Thayer Mahan: Still Relevant in the 21st Century,” Frederico Bordonaro, a noted geopolitical scholar, says China’s naval strategy in the 21st century reflects a turn towards Mahanian principles, incorporating them into its strategic planning and decision-making process. This adaptation, Bordonaro says, is part of a broader shift in China’s approach to naval power—aiming to assert control over critical maritime areas and ensure safe passage of vital trade routes.
Bordonaro says as China embarked on economic reforms in the 1970s and early 1980s and began to see the importance of maritime trade, it started to recognize the strategic value of controlling sea lanes and establishing a strong naval presence. And so began the growth of the Chinese navy.
As a potential President, each of you should understand our nation’s security and prosperity depend on free and open international waters. In a $115 trillion global economy, 80% of trade by volume and 70% by value moves be sea. Additionally, 95% of international data moves along undersea cables.
Up until recently, access to the world’s oceans has fostered an era of stability and peace for nations. The U.S. and other fair-minded countries have long understood the importance of a rules-based international system that relied on a shared commitment to protecting this global approach. The U.S. Navy has been at the forefront of maintaining this peaceful posture and has helped provide that stability and ushered in prosperity for billions of people across the world.
As you prepare for the possibility of becoming President, it would be beneficial for you and your national security teams to review and understand the importance of sea power that Alfred Thayer Mahan espoused. You must acknowledge and tell your constituencies that the world we live in is a dangerous one.
If we are to prosper as a country, we have no choice but to restore our Navy to its greatness and help shape the world to one that is peaceful and stable. Otherwise, China, Russia and Iran will do it for us.
RealClearDefense.com
August 21, 2024
Washington, DC
President Donald Trump’s comments about military veterans, especially those who have been injured in combat, are well documented. He has disparaged them on several occasions and reportedly told aides when he was in office that he did not want to see service members who have lost limbs in parades.
Trump has now hit a new low with comments that compare the Medal of Honor with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. As a former Commander-in-Chief, his remarks reflect a complete ignorance about the military and what the Medal of Honor represents. ​
At a recent campaign event, Trump went to great lengths to praise a wealthy donor, Dr. Miriam Adelson. Dr. Adelson and her late husband gave millions of dollars into electing Republicans, including Trump. While he was in office, Trump honored Dr. Adelson with the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her donations to anti-addiction facilities and her work as a medical professional.
During the campaign event, Trump said the Presidential Medal of Freedom is the equivalent of the Medal of Honor but is better because “everyone who gets the Medal of Honor are soldiers. They’re either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets or they’re dead.”
As noble and important Dr. Adelson’s contributions have been, they truly cannot compare to the contributions of those who have received the Medal of Honor. How Trump could consider the two awards equal is beyond comprehension.
The Medal of Honor is the country’s highest military award for valor in combat. By law, only U.S. service members who distinguish themselves “through conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life and above and beyond the call of duty” can receive the medal.
Since the award was first approved by Congress in 1861, 40 million individuals have served our country in uniform but only 3519 have been awarded the Medal of Honor.
The Presidential Medal of Freedom is also a prestigious award and is the highest civilian award in the U.S. It’s awarded to those individuals recommended to the president who have made especially meritorious contributions to the national security or national interests of the nation; world peace; or cultural or other significant public or private endeavors. Since 1963, the Presidential Medal of Freedom has been presented 653 times.
A list of Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients would include political leaders, athletes, writers, poets, musicians, movie stars, philanthropists, and supreme court justices. As grateful we are to those who have received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, their contributions cannot be compared to those who have been awarded the Medal of Honor.
Every American should take a moment to read just a few stories of the 3519 Medal of Honor recipients.
William Henry Thompson. Army Private First Class William Henry Thompson served in the Korean War and was a member of an all-Black unit. In August 1950, North Koreans attacked his unit. Thompson was manning one of his platoon’s machine guns.
During the fight, Thompson was repeatedly hit by grenade fragments and small arms fire. When his platoon was ordered to retreat, he resisted all efforts to move toward safety. According to those who witnessed his actions, Thompson’s last words were, “Get out of here! I’ll cover you.”
As his platoon moved to higher ground to find a better defensive position, Thompson remained in place, firing his machine gun at the enemy. His fellow soldiers said they continued to hear his gun until several grenades exploded, and the sound of the machine gun stopped.
Days after the battle, soldiers from Thompson's company found his body surrounded by enemy soldiers he'd killed before he died.
Wayne Maurice Caron. After just a month in Vietnam in 1968, Caron was serving as a Navy hospital corpsman in a Marine unit. During a firefight, two Marines fell, and Caron rushed to support them. As the battle became more intense, more Marines were injured. As he moved toward them, Caron himself was shot. Knocked to the ground, he quickly got back up and made it to a severely wounded Marine.
Caron heroically performed a tracheotomy on the man, undoubtedly saving his life.
As Caron ran to another injured Marine, he was hit again. No longer able to walk, he dragged himself to a second injured Marine. As he moved to a third Marine, Caron was hit once again. Caron crawled back to his platoon to obtain more supplies. He was soon hit once again and ultimately died.
Caron was found to have 28 bullet holes in his body. His son, who was born four months after his death, attended his father’s Medal of Honor ceremony in 1970.
Although not required by law or military regulation, military members are encouraged to render salutes to Medal of Honor recipients out of respect and courtesy—regardless of rank or status. This is one of the few instances where a living member of the military will receive salutes from members of a higher rank.
Mr. Trump would be well served to read just a few of the more than 3500 jaw-dropping Medal of Honor documentations. His saying the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Medal of Honor are comparable is insulting to all those who have been honored with the Medal of Honor. He owes them and their surviving families an apology and solemn salute for their bravery, courage, and selfless sacrifice—all beyond the call of duty.
Unfortunately, those actions are unlikely to come from Mr. Trump.
Washington Times
July 25, 2024
Washington, DC
Next month, we will mark the third anniversary of a dreadful event: the attack on Abbey Gate in Afghanistan, where 13 U.S. service members were killed and 45 wounded in our disastrous withdrawal from that country.
The event will also serve as a reminder of an injustice that affects our injured combat veterans — an injustice that Congress (and specifically the Senate) must correct now.Under current policy, military members forced to retire after a combat-related injury must forfeit a dollar of military retirement pay for every dollar of disability benefits they receive from the Department of Veterans Affairs. It was an oversight/error in the fiscal 2004 National Defense Authorization Act that partially addressed the concurrent receipt problem. Still, it left out combat injuries at a time when the war in Iraq had just begun. Reducing the military retirement pay of a combat-disabled veteran to save money in the Defense Department’s personnel account is a problem Congress can solve this year.
Legislation to correct this wrong is bipartisan, widely supported and well known across Congress as the Major Richard Star Act. The legislation would repeal this unfair offset for 52,000 combat-injured veterans and has the support of 74 senators and 327 House members. Despite overwhelming support for the legislation, it has been stuck in bureaucratic procedural maneuvers with the fiscal 2025 NDAA. This highlights a problem with trust and faith in Congress.
Including the bill’s text in the 2025 NDAA would clear some of these hurdles. The House effort, however, stalled when some of the bill’s sponsors voted against it in a key Rules Committee hearing. Meanwhile, the version of the NDAA crafted by the Senate Armed Services Committee does not include the legislation, despite a reduced cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office.
How does a piece of legislation that will correct a clear injustice and that has garnered so much support in both the Senate and House fall apart? There is an apparent “say-do gap” for many lawmakers. How does a piece of legislation fail that has gained so many in Congress who “say” they support the bill when it is proposed but who fail to raise their hand, vote yes and “do”?
Sen. Richard Crapo, Idaho Republican, a strong supporter of the Richard Star Act, has come forward by introducing an amendment that will be introduced on the Senate floor as the last clear path for the bill’s text to be part of the NDAA. Credit Mr. Crapo for stepping forward and for recognizing that a very public floor vote is required to ensure our combat-injured veterans receive retirement pay for their years of service.
Simply stated, this offset makes no sense. Military retirement pay and VA disability compensation are two benefits established by Congress and for entirely different reasons. Reducing pay because of a combat disability is not the way to save money. Doing so on the backs of our service members is not how a nation should treat those who volunteer to represent their country and risk life and limb.
At a recent news conference, several combat-wounded service members shared their stories and put faces to those who would benefit from the passage of the Richard Star Act.
One of them is a Marine who was shot seven times and hit with a grenade on his third combat deployment to Iraq. He lost a leg and was forced to retire. He said his retirement pay would have helped his transition out of service, which included living in his car for two years and fighting an overwhelming sense of isolation. Unfortunately, that retirement pay has never come.
He said he didn’t join the Marine Corps for the benefits or to get rich. But he said that when he joined, he knew his country promised to take care of its veterans. He has subsequently learned that the promise hasn’t been kept.
In addition to those who suffered combat injuries when they served, many veterans have been left with an increased sense of moral injury, questioning their purpose and the value of their service. The current policy that mandates the offset punctuates that sense of moral injury. These veterans are less likely to recommend service to others, weakening an already problematic recruiting pool.
Political leaders such as Mr. Crapo, Sen. Jon Tester, Montana Democrat, and Rep. Gus Bilirakis, Florida Republican, are telling their colleagues to “do” what they “say” about supporting a piece of legislation.
Hopefully, partisanship is not a consideration on this issue. Partisanship has absolutely no place in deciding how to properly compensate veterans who were injured in a war, doing what their country asked them to do.
Our veterans should not be pushed aside because they were injured in combat. Our combat-injured service members deserve better.
• Tom Jurkowsky is a retired Navy rear admiral who served on active duty for 31 years, beginning his career as an enlisted man. He serves on the board of the Military Officers Association of America, an advocacy organization that supports our service members and their families. He is the author of “The Secret Sauce for Organizational Success: Communications and Leadership on the Same Page.”
Annapolis Capital
June 10, 2024
Annapolis, Maryland
Memorial Day — three days before Donald Trump’s guilty verdict — started out as it has for me for the last several years. It involved a lot of contemplation over the military colleagues I’ve lost and the 1.1 million service members who’ve died in battle serving our nation.
I also enjoy listening to veterans tell the story of heroic actions by their fellow soldiers on the battlefield. Their stories are eye watering.
Unfortunately, most Americans associate Memorial Day as the beginning of summer — picnics, trips to the beach and family outings. Other Americans unknowingly associate it with honoring those currently serving or who have served their country in uniform. As respectful as those thoughts are, they’re incorrect.
Not surprising, Trump has shown he too has no understanding of Memorial Day and what it means to serve and die for your country.
Trump’s former chief of staff, retired four-star general John Kelly, confirmed to CNN last year several reports that Trump insulted wounded veterans in private conversations with his staff. Trump called veterans buried in military cemeteries “losers” and referred to the 1,800 Americans who died at the Battle of the Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed, for example.
Belleau Wood occupies a hallowed place in Marine Corps history. Of the Fourth Marine Brigade’s 9,500-member complement, 1,000 were killed and 4,500 wounded, gassed or missing.
In 2018, then-President Trump was scheduled to visit the Aisne-Marne Cemetery near Paris to honor those lost at Belleau Wood. But he canceled the visit at the last minute, blaming the rain. He said his helicopter could not fly and the Secret Service would not drive him. Neither reason was true.
According to a piece in The Atlantic, Trump actually rejected the idea of a visit because he was afraid his hair would become disheveled, and he didn’t think it was important to honor the war dead. “Why would I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.”
Kelly accompanied Trump to Arlington National Cemetery during Trump’s presidency. Kelly pointed out the headstone of his son, a Marine like his father, who died in Afghanistan. Trump turned to Kelly and asked, “I don’t get it. What’s in it for them?”
Kelly also said Trump did not want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because “it doesn’t look good for me.”...
If Trump ever wants to lead this country again as the commander-in-chief, he needs to obtain a sense of compassion, sympathy and humanitarian values — qualities any leader must possess.
Trump also needs to be educated on the meaning of service to our country and a willingness by some to protect its freedom and our democracy. Perhaps reading history and the words of his predecessors would be a good start.
RealClearDefense
May 9, 2024
Washington, DC
The House Armed Services Committee’s recently released report on how to improve the quality of life for our troops and their families sends a strong message: If we want the All-Volunteer Force to survive, here is a list of things that need focus.
“We can no longer ignore the clear warning signs that more must be done to protect and preserve the all-volunteer force,” said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb), the chairman of the panel that examined several issues. “It’s vital that we fix these quality of life issues.”
The panel’s report addressed a range of items such as pay and compensation; access to child and medical care; spouse unemployment and support programs; food insecurity; and housing (including the quality of both on-base and off-base housing).
One of the specific housing issues addressed was the importance of ensuring service members be compensated with 100% of their housing allowance.
For the past five years, members have only received 95 percent of their allowance—referred to as Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). In a decision made to save costs, DoD reduced BAH one percent each year from 2015 to 2019.
The reduction in BAH hit military families hard as housing costs and utilities increased and on-post housing quality declined. In essence, this reduction to save costs was made on the backs of our people, causing them to face a greater financial burden.
In addition to the five percent reduction in BAH, pay raises for the military from 2014 to 2016 fell short of the pay benchmark, leading to a 2.6 percent pay decrement. And in 2018, a new retirement system required new service members to contribute five percent of their paychecks to receive a comparable retirement package after 20-plus years of service. These factors, coupled with inflation, have put a strain on our people and their families and have placed a greater financial burden on them.
Clearly, if the All-Volunteer Force is to survive, we must strive to create a future where our military families thrive in support of national security. Service members should never have to worry about putting food on the table or being able to afford housing. Improving the quality of life for our service members and their families must be a priority. A commitment to this direction will certainly be reflected in a willingness to serve and help solve the recruiting challenges our services are facing.
Annapolis Capital
March 26, 2024
Annapolis, Maryland
A sharp military hand salute goes to state Sen. Dawn Gile and Del. Andrew Pruski for their proposed legislation in the General Assembly that would create a commission to develop a strategic plan for how to best meet the needs of Maryland’s military families and veterans.
A goal of the legislation would be to make Maryland the best state for military families and veterans.
If passed, the commission would be composed of lawmakers and representatives from the military community. The commission would look at what legislative and budget items are needed to support the military families and veterans in Maryland. Military families face daunting challenges. These include health care access, food insecurity, employment, housing and other quality of life issues. Our local and national political leaders need insight into these problems so they can better understand the needs and challenges of military families, thereby developing policies and programs that can help address those needs.
The exceptionally high spousal unemployment rate is a result of several factors contributing to the unique challenges military spouses face in establishing and sustaining professional careers. These include:
-
Frequent moves and transfers
-
State licensing requirements
-
Childcare (costs, long waitlists for on-base providers and lack of access to off-base providers)
-
Caregiving
-
Deployments
There are currently more than 14,000 active-duty spouses in Maryland. They represent a pool of talented personnel who may be available to fill vacancies in state government.
The commission being advocated by Gile and Pruski, along with the support of Moore, is a superb initiative. It’s time to pass the necessary legislation, establish the commission and get to work on implementing policies that will make Maryland a state that members of the military, retirees and veterans want to come to.
RealClearDefense
March 6, 2024
Chicago
It’s time for Congress to do the right thing and fix an inequity that is affecting our combat injured veterans.
Under current policy, military members forced to retire after a combat-related injury must forfeit a dollar of military retirement pay for every dollar of Veterans Affairs (VA) provided disability benefits they receive. Reducing the retirement pay of a combat-disabled veteran—effectively using it to pay for their disability benefit—is as wrong as it sounds.
​
TheMessenger.Com
January 30, 2024
West Palm Beach, Florida
As we look at the world geo-politically, the focus has been on the situations in Gaza and Ukraine. However, there are several other regions that could erupt into far more serious situations. These situations include:
-
The Red Sea where the U.S. Navy and its allies are protecting commercial shipping from attacks by Houthi terrorists. The shipping under attack is a vital element to the global economy. Our Navy has performed superbly against weapon systems supplied to the Houthis by Iran.
-
Continuing attacks on U.S. troops in Syria and Iraq by Iranian-backed militants.
​
This article is no longer available online at TheMessengr.com
The Messenger.com
January 3, 2024
West Palm Beach, Florida
In the piece I argue for taking a more aggressive approach towards the Houthis who are harassing commercial shipping in the Red Sea.
​
This article is no longer available online at TheMessengr.com