DOCSLIB.ORG

Cold War Open Letter

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cold War Open Letter Ray F. Longaker Jr. [email protected] BMCM (CMC -|- SW) [ 27 May 1961 to 30 April 1988] USN, Ret. Subj: Open Letter ---|--- Unsolicited Comments Encl: (1) Cold War Era Please find submitted for your review Enclosure (1) regarding Our Country’s Military Actions – Missions – Operations during the Cold War Era. If you would, while reading my unsolicited comments, please keep in mind the following: I am most proud of last Century’s Military and those I served with. The Navy’s Mission Statement then couldn’t have been simpler: “Keep the Sea Lanes Open.” I DO NOT have any party affiliations as I believe they ALL have let this Great Country down. It must be noted that George Washington warned against the two party system because of what is happening right at this very moment in time. I am proud of my Country – as stated by Stephen Decatur in an after-dinner toast of 1816 – 1820 said: “Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, Our Country!” Later stated by, and often attributed to, Carl Schurz, in 1872[1] “My Country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” During my Military assignments, my desire was to perform to the best of my knowledge; abilities; and a desire to learn, improve, grow and when relieved to try and leave my duty station in better shape than received. A thought most important to me regarding this period of time, which is always in the forefront of my mind, is that all of US in the Uniform(s) of the Services of Our Country gave some and that some gave ALL. Reflecting on what is going on right now in Our Country’s history, I can’t help but feel somewhat like Steve McQueen’s character MM1 Jake Holman in the final scenes of the movie “Sand Pebbles,” where MM1 Holman, fatally wounded, pulls himself up to a sitting position and apparently reflecting back on all that has gone on yells out, “…what the hell happened!…” This to me means, while in the Service of my Country, my whole entire adult life, there seems to have been some sort of “parallel universe” in the background working against all this Country stands for; what the hell happened!? During this whole period of time “those” individuals working in that “background” seemingly have been utilizing Our Tax Dollars against US specifically to undermine America’s leadership and exceptionalism in the World. That parallel universe seems to me to be comprised of educators in general and seemingly most politicians; most of whom having very little or no Military Service or simply just despising the Military and apparently the Great Country in which “they” live. “Their” apparent attempt to tear down this Great Nation, by “their” goals towards overwhelming “the system,” is succinctly stated in a quote by Dr. Adrian Rogers in 1984: “You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the industrious out of it. You don't multiply wealth by dividing it. Government cannot give anything to anybody that it doesn't first take from somebody else. Whenever somebody receives something without working for it, somebody else has to work for it without receiving. The worst thing that can happen to a nation is for half of the people to get the idea they don't have to work because somebody else will work for them, and the other half to get the idea that it does no good to work because they don't get to enjoy the fruits of their labor.” Which seems to me where We as a Nation are at this moment in time. To understand my comments expressing my concerns regarding this so called “Parallel Universe,” run by “Educators” and “Politicians,” please review a few examples: “Cloward – Piven Government” by: James Simpson: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/clowardpi ven_government.html “The Shadow Party” by: David Horowitz and Richard Poe http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?AR TID=11100 “Barrack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis” by James Simpson: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html Barack Obama and Alinsky's Rules for Psychopaths by James Simpson: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_alinskys_rule.html These commentaries are just a small representation of some people’s concerns as to where Our Country is being pushed against Our will and at Our expense. This abuse of Our Tax Dollars for politics and so called education has nothing at all to do with the Common Good for We the People ... and now that I’m old, fat and ugly I’m having to deal with the real threat of “OBAMACARE.” For just one glaring example regarding that issue, please see: “Complete Lives System” by jonolan: http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/complete-lives-system/ If you happened to “recoil” at my statement, “…old, fat and ugly…” please note I hold dear my RIGHT to Freedom of Speech. Regarding the VERY WRONG Political Correctness movement please see, for starters down that thread: “Political Correctness” by: “The Obama File” http://www.theobamafile.com/_opinion/PoliticalCorrectness.htm Regarding the equally and I believe most wrongful and destructive idea of Diversity, where again I feel Our Tax Dollars are totally wasted on that so called education, please see, for a start down that thread: “Bowdoin’s Idea of Diversity” by Linda Chavez: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/15/bowdoins-idea-of-diversity/ as a basic example. In our Great Nation it is not diversity, (to divide), it is E pluribus unum. Latin [ˈeː ˈpluːrɪbʊs ˈuːnũː]) for "Out of many, one" and is a dictum on the Seal of the United States, adopted by an Act of Congress in 1782.[1] After reviewing Enclosure (1), regarding Our Service and all of the Service Members who throughout this lengthy period of time provided the strength and security of Our Great Nation and now with the immutable act of time on one’s person, compounded by the seemingly Hell Bent direction of “those” “educators” and “politicians” to destroy this Great Nation, who is going to relieve my generation of Service Members on the Ramparts? Who will provide for Our Safety, Our Security, Our Rights and Freedoms? The so called educational system in general teaching that everything in the World is America’s fault? Those politicians who owe somebody something and are in politics for their personal gain at the peril of this Great Nation? The most biased liberal media with their constant vitriol against this Nation driven by “their” Bush Derangement Syndrome? The Cold War (Russian: Kholodnaya voyna) (1945 – 1991), was the continuing state of political conflict, military tension, proxy wars, and economic competition existing after World War II (1939 – 1945) between the Communist World – primarily the Soviet Union and its satellite states and allies – and the powers of the Western world, primarily the United States and its allies. Although the primary participants' military force never officially clashed directly, they expressed the conflict through military coalitions, strategic conventional force deployments, extensive aid to states deemed vulnerable, proxy wars, espionage, propaganda, conventional and nuclear arms races, appeals to neutral nations, rivalry at sports events, and technological competitions such as the Space Race. Cold War U.S. Military Operations from September 2, 1945 to December 26, 1991. 1945 – China. In October 50,000 US Marines were sent to North China to assist Chinese Nationalist authorities in disarming and repatriating the Japanese in China and in controlling ports, railroads, and airfields. This was in addition to approximately 60,000 US forces remaining in China at the end of World War II.[RL30172] 1945–49 – Occupation of part of Germany. 1945–55 – Occupation of part of Austria. 1945–46 – Occupation of part of Italy.[citation needed] 1945–52 – Occupation of Japan. 1944–46 – Temporary reoccupation of the Philippines during WWII and in preparation for previously scheduled independence.[citation needed] 1945–47 – US Marines garrisoned in mainland China to oversee the removal of Soviet and Japanese forces after World War II.[3] 1945–49 – Post WWII occupation of South Korea; North Korean insurgency in Republic of Korea[4] 1946 – Trieste (Italy). President Truman ordered the increase of US troops along the zonal occupation line and the reinforcement of air forces in northern Italy after Yugoslav forces shot down an unarmed US Army transport plane flying over Venezia Giulia..[citation needed] Earlier US naval units had been sent to the scene.[RL30172] Later the Free Territory of Trieste, Zone A. 1947 - Greece. US Marines land in Athens and assist in the re-establishment of monarchy and the arrest of Greek Communists. Highjump (1947) — US Naval expedition to Antarctica. Berlin Airlift of 1948: Vittles — US part of the Berlin Airlift 1948 – Palestine. A marine consular guard was sent to Jerusalem to protect the US Consul General.[RL30172] 1948 – Berlin. Berlin Airlift After the Soviet Union established a land blockade of the US, British, and French sectors of Berlin on June 24, 1948, the United States and its allies airlifted supplies to Berlin until after the blockade was lifted in May 1949.[RL30172] 1948–49 – China. Marines were dispatched to Nanking to protect the American Embassy when the city fell to Communist troops, and to Shanghai to aid in the protection and evacuation of Americans. 1950–53 – Korean War. The United States responded to North Korean invasion of South Korea by going to its assistance, pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions. US forces deployed in Korea exceeded 300,000 during the last year of the conflict.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 103 Spring Qtr 2020
    Issue #103 Spring Quarter 2020 The Official Newsletter of the Association of Minemen In This Issue: Mine Warfare in the News Underwater Mine History: Nicaragua, Iran COMOMAG Update AOM Reunion 2020 TAPS and Binnacle List Miscellaneous Mineman Flotsam and Jetsam From The President MNCM John Epps, USN (Ret.) Notable Quotable I’d like to pass on my condolences to the families of recently departed shipmates and family members. Know that you, as well as those on the Binnacle List, are in our thoughts and prayers. “ You may not control all the events that I hope that everyone is staying safe during this Corona- happen to you, but you can decide not to virus event. It can be a scary time for us older shipmates, especially those with underlying health conditions. There have be reduced by them.” —Maya Angelou been many mandated, as well as suggested procedures that we have been asked to adhere to. We must all do our best to stay healthy for ourselves and loved ones. Carolyn and I are following the necessary steps so we can attend many future Reunions and hope to see you all at them as well. Unless things take a turn for the worse, the upcoming 46th Annual “History doesn’t repeat, Mineman Reunion will proceed as planned in Charleston, SC. Charles Humbard is keeping a close watch on conditions there but it often rhymes…” and will let us know as early as possible if we must cancel the event. Volunteers are still needed to assist so please lend often credited to Mark Twain your shipmate a hand.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran's Gray Zone Strategy
    Iran’s Gray Zone Strategy Cornerstone of its Asymmetric Way of War By Michael Eisenstadt* ince the creation of the Islamic Republic in 1979, Iran has distinguished itself (along with Russia and China) as one of the world’s foremost “gray zone” actors.1 For nearly four decades, however, the United States has struggled to respond effectively to this asymmetric “way of war.” Washington has often Streated Tehran with caution and granted it significant leeway in the conduct of its gray zone activities due to fears that U.S. pushback would lead to “all-out” war—fears that the Islamic Republic actively encourages. Yet, the very purpose of this modus operandi is to enable Iran to pursue its interests and advance its anti-status quo agenda while avoiding escalation that could lead to a wider conflict. Because of the potentially high costs of war—especially in a proliferated world—gray zone conflicts are likely to become increasingly common in the years to come. For this reason, it is more important than ever for the United States to understand the logic underpinning these types of activities, in all their manifestations. Gray Zone, Asymmetric, and Hybrid “Ways of War” in Iran’s Strategy Gray zone warfare, asymmetric warfare, and hybrid warfare are terms that are often used interchangeably, but they refer neither to discrete forms of warfare, nor should they be used interchangeably—as they often (incor- rectly) are. Rather, these terms refer to that aspect of strategy that concerns how states employ ways and means to achieve national security policy ends.2 Means refer to the diplomatic, informational, military, economic, and cyber instruments of national power; ways describe how these means are employed to achieve the ends of strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • Allied Protection of Ships in the Persian Gulf in 1987 and 1988
    BURDEN SHARING Allied Protection of Ships in the Persian Gulf in 1987 and 1988 142164 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20648 National Security and International Affairs Division B-240294 September 6,199O The Honorable Pat Schroeder Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives The Honorable Andy Ireland House of Representatives This report is the unclassified version of our classified report. It summa- rizes and updates the information provided to your staffs during our April 5, 1990, briefing on the major activities of the allies and Persian Gulf states to sustain open navigation in the Persian Gulf between March 1987 and August 1988. Specifically, our objectives were to (1) identify the countries involved in sustaining open navigation and the role each played, (2) analyze the value of the contributions provided by those countries, and (3) assess the potential economic impact of the dis- ruption of Gulf oil imports on Gulf states and industrialized countries. In late 1986, Iran began attacking ships in the Persian Gulf, In the spring of 1987, the President announced that the United States would reflag and escort Kuwaiti ships. In May 1987, he extended U.S. protec- tion to neutral ships on a case-by-case basis, under an operation called Earnest Will. The United States also called upon its allies to protect shipping in the Gulf. Section 1 of this report provides a historic perspec- tive of non-Gulf countries’ presence in the region. Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the Results in Brief United States escorted and monitored their flagged ships and helped keep the Persian Gulf shipping lanes clear of mines.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Deterrence Model
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by OTHES DISSERTATION Titel der Dissertation „Iran’s Nuclear Program: Comparative Study of Deterrence Stability Models in South Asia and the Middle East“ Verfasser Muhammad Tehsin angestrebter akademischer Grad Doktor der Philosophie (Dr.phil.) Wien, am Februar 2009 Studienkennzahl It. Studienblatt: A 092 300 Dissertationsgebiet It. Studienblatt: Geschichte Politikwissenschaft Betreuer: Univ.-Prof. Hans-Georg Heinrich ABSTRACT The advent of nuclear weapons since the end of World War II altered threat perceptions and the Weltanschauung of policy makers and laymen alike. And, while the nuclear ‘taboo’ has matured over time, states have continued to pursue nuclear capability for its ‘equalizing capability.’ The scholars of international relations offer three general motivations behind national pursuit of nuclear capability. First, national power, second, scientific advancement and technological prowess, and the third reason put forward for nuclearization is national prestige. Given reports of an Iranian nuclear program, it is important to assess policy prescriptions to help prevent nuclear proliferation in Iran and the Middle East. In order to conceptualize the evolving strategic environment in Middle East, this study focuses on its` comparison with South Asia. It has been posited that stability of détente – i.e. conflict normalization (CBMs, resolution of political differences and economic linkages) and non-aggressive nuclear policies and doctrines – is empirical evidence of the stability of a nuclear deterrence model. An unstable deterrence model is characterized by hegemony; spiraling arms races; alliances, and bandwagoning/balancing: efforts that could lead to a general war involving nuclear weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Military Engagement in the Broader Middle East
    U.S. MILITARY ENGAGEMENT IN THE BROADER MIDDLE EAST JAMES F. JEFFREY MICHAEL EISENSTADT U.S. MILITARY ENGAGEMENT IN THE BROADER MIDDLE EAST JAMES F. JEFFREY MICHAEL EISENSTADT THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY WWW.WASHINGTONINSTITUTE.ORG The opinions expressed in this Policy Focus are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Washington Institute, its Board of Trustees, or its Board of Advisors. Policy Focus 143, April 2016 All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publica- tion may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing fromthe publisher. ©2016 by The Washington Institute for Near East Policy The Washington Institute for Near East Policy 1111 19th Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Design: 1000colors Photo: An F-16 from the Egyptian Air Force prepares to make contact with a KC-135 from the 336th ARS during in-flight refueling training. (USAF photo by Staff Sgt. Amy Abbott) Contents Acknowledgments V I. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF U.S. MILITARY OPERATIONS 1 James F. Jeffrey 1. Introduction to Part I 3 2. Basic Principles 5 3. U.S. Strategy in the Middle East 8 4. U.S. Military Engagement 19 5. Conclusion 37 Notes, Part I 39 II. RETHINKING U.S. MILITARY STRATEGY 47 Michael Eisenstadt 6. Introduction to Part II 49 7. American Sisyphus: Impact of the Middle Eastern Operational Environment 52 8. Disjointed Strategy: Aligning Ways, Means, and Ends 58 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Persian Gulf Campaign for DCS: F-14A the Persian Gulf Map Presents a Wonderful Opportunity to Merge Existing Or Pending Asse
    Persian Gulf Campaign for DCS: F-14A The Persian Gulf map presents a wonderful opportunity to merge existing or pending assets within DCS to create a compelling Naval warfare campaign centered on the F-14A. This campaign aspires to recreate and build upon true events of 1987-88 during which the US Navy fought an undeclared war against Iran. While the player will view these scenarios through the lens of a Naval aviator, operations in the Gulf of Oman and Strait of Hormuz involved a wide range of USN units and capabilities. Combat missions associated with Operation Earnest Will during 1987 and 1988 offers an excellent opportunity for creating realistic DCS campaign scenarios for the DCS: F-14A and the DCS: Strait of Hormuz map. It combines a real operation (largest USN operation since WWII) with an available DCS map and a DCS module placed into the correct era for the operation. Iran is also an interesting opponent for the US Navy during the late 1980s. On one hand, the Iranian Air Force and Navy have an intimate, if slightly outdated, understanding of American equipment and tactics. Nearly every piece of military hardware that they possess was American made and the majority of their senior military staff were either trained in the US or by American personnel. However, my 1987-88 their military was generally quite depleted. The precise number of operational aircraft is unclear, but evidence suggests that only 20-35% of their aircraft were operational with an unclear supply of remaining missiles and ammunition. Iran did manage to obtain parts and missiles as part of the Iran-Contra scandal, but demand still managed to outstrip supply (most likely).
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the Last War: Balancing Ground Forces and Future
    APRIL 2013 Beyond the Last War Balancing Ground Forces and Future Challenges Risk in USCENTCOM and USPACOM A Report of the CSIS International Security Program PROJECT PROGRAM CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS DIRECTOR DIRECTOR Stephanie Sanok Errol Laumann Sam Eaton Nathan Freier David Berteau Jacquelyn Guy Steven Nicolucci Megan Loney Curtis Buzzard J.P. Pellegrino Beyond the Last War Balancing Ground Forces and Future Challenges Risk in USCENTCOM and USPACOM PROJECT DIRECTOR Nathan Freier PROGRAM DIRECTOR David Berteau CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS Stephanie Sanok Jacquelyn Guy Curtis Buzzard Errol Laumann Steven Nicolucci J.P. Pellegrino Sam Eaton Megan Loney A Report of the CSIS International Security Program April 2013 CHARTING our future ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD Lanham • Boulder • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK About CSIS—50th Anniversary Year For 50 years, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has developed solutions to the world’s greatest policy challenges. As we celebrate this milestone, CSIS scholars are developing strategic insights and bipartisan policy solutions to help decisionmakers chart a course toward a better world. CSIS is a nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Center’s 220 full-time staff and large network of affiliated scholars conduct research and analysis and develop policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. Founded at the height of the Cold War by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke, CSIS was dedicated to finding ways to sustain American prominence and prosperity as a force for good in the world. Since 1962, CSIS has become one of the world’s preeminent international institutions focused on defense and security; regional stability; and transnational challenges ranging from energy and climate to global health and economic integration.
    [Show full text]
  • Past U.S.-Iran Confrontations Hold Lessons for Current Crisis | The
    MENU Policy Analysis / PolicyWatch 3145 Past U.S.-Iran Confrontations Hold Lessons for Current Crisis by Michael Eisenstadt Jun 27, 2019 Also available in Arabic ABOUT THE AUTHORS Michael Eisenstadt Michael Eisenstadt is the Kahn Fellow and director of The Washington Institute's Military and Security Studies Program. Brief Analysis Despite its measured approach thus far, Tehran may come to view the latest showdown as an existential conflict with an irresolute adversary, warranting greater risk-taking on its part. s Iran’s military ripostes to America’s “maximum pressure” campaign threaten to spark a broader conflict, A U.S. decisionmakers should bear in mind the lessons of prior military confrontations. On several occasions over the past three decades, Washington has grappled with similar challenges of escalation, coercion, and deterrence, including the naval convoy operations during the Iran-Iraq War, the lethal assistance that Tehran provided to Shia militant groups “resisting” the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and the competing pressure campaigns that preceded the 2015 nuclear deal. GULF CONVOY OPERATIONS (1987-1988) I n response to Iranian small-boat attacks on neutral shipping during the latter phases of the Iran-Iraq War, the United States initiated Operation Earnest Will in July 1987 to escort reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. With the start of operations, the Reagan administration warned Iran against attacking the convoys with Silkworm missiles as they transited the Strait of Hormuz. The administration assumed that the presence of the USS Kitty Hawk carrier group would deter Iranian countermoves. Yet while the launch of convoy operations spurred the Iranians to dramatically reduce their small-boat attacks, they were quick to challenge the United States indirectly; during the very first convoy, the tanker Bridgeton struck a covertly sown mine.
    [Show full text]
  • Ship Covers Relating to the Iran/Iraq Tanker War
    THE IRAN/IRAQ TANKER WAR AND RENAMED TANKERS ~ Lawrence Brennan, (US Navy Ret.) SHIP COVERS RELATING TO THE IRAN/IRAQ TANKER WAR & REFLAGGED KUWAITI TANKERS, 1987-881 “The Kuwaiti fleet reads like a road map of southern New Jersey” By Captain Lawrence B. Brennan, U.S. Navy Retired2 Thirty years ago there was a New Jersey connection to the long-lasting Iran-Iraq War. That eight years of conflict was one of the longest international two-state wars of the 20th century, beginning in September 1980 and effectively concluding in a truce in August 1988. The primary and bloody land war between Iran and Iraq began during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. The Shah had left Iran and that year the USSR invaded Afghanistan. The conflict expanded to sea and involved many neutral nations whose shipping came under attack by the combatants. The parties’ intent was to damage their opponents’ oil exports and revenues and decrease world supplies. Some suggested that Iran and Iraq wanted to draw other states into the conflict. An Iranian source explained the origin of the conflict at sea. The tanker war seemed likely to precipitate a major international incident for two reasons. First, some 70 percent of Japanese, 50 percent of West European, and 7 percent of American oil imports came from the Persian Gulf in the early 1980s. Second, the assault on tankers involved neutral shipping as well as ships of the belligerent states.3 The relatively obscure first phase began in 1981, and the well-publicized second phase began in 1984. New Jersey, half a world away from the Persian (Arabian) gulf, became involved when the United States agreed to escort Kuwait tankers in an effort to support a friendly nation and keep the international waters open.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S.-Iran Tensions and Implications for U.S. Policy
    U.S.-Iran Tensions and Implications for U.S. Policy Updated July 29, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45795 SUMMARY R45795 U.S.-Iran Tensions and Implications for July 29, 2019 U.S. Policy Kenneth Katzman Since May 2019, U.S.-Iran tensions have escalated. The Trump Administration, following its Specialist in Middle 2018 withdrawal from the 2015 multilateral nuclear agreement with Iran (Joint Comprehensive Eastern Affairs Plan of Action, JCPOA), has taken several steps in its campaign of applying “maximum pressure” on Iran. Iran and Iran-linked forces have targeted commercial ships and infrastructure Kathleen J. McInnis in U.S. partner countries. U.S. officials have stated that Iran-linked threats to U.S. forces and Specialist in International interests, and attacks on several commercial ships in May and June 2019, have prompted the Security Administration to send additional military assets to the region to deter future Iranian actions. However, Iran’s downing of a U.S. unmanned aerial aircraft might indicate that Iran has not been deterred, to date. Clayton Thomas Analyst in Middle Eastern President Donald Trump has said he prefers a diplomatic solution over moving toward military Affairs confrontation, including a revised JCPOA that encompasses not only nuclear issues but also broader U.S. concerns about Iran’s support for regional armed factions. During May-June 2019, the Administration has placed further pressure on Iran’s economy. By expanding U.S. sanctions against Iran, including sanctioning its mineral and petrochemical exports, and Supreme Leader Ali Khamene’i. Iranian leaders have refused to talk directly with the Administration, and Iran has begun to exceed some nuclear limitations stipulated in the JCPOA.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 46 No. 2 Whole Number 210 May 2018
    NJPH The Journal of the NEW JERSEY POSTAL HISTORY SOCIETY ISSN: 1078-1625 Vol. 46 No. 2 Whole Number 210 May 2018 New Jersey Pioneer Air Mail A failed ship-to-shore flight card, postmarked at East Rutherford, Nov. 13, 1910. Only 7 years after the Wright Brothers’ first flight, pioneer air mail began. See page 63. ~ CONTENTS ~ President’s Message ................................................................................ Robert G. Rose ............... 60 MERPEX/NOJEX/POCAX ..................................................................... ........................................ 61 New Jersey Pioneer Air Mail ........................................................................... Robert G. Rose ................ 63 William Joyce Sewell, U.S. Senator & Railroad President...................... John B. Sharkey.............. 68 Ship Covers Relating to the Iran/Iraq Tanker War & Reflagged Kuwaiti Tankers, 1987-8 ..............................................................................Capt. Lawrence B. Brennan (U.S. Navy, Ret,)... 77 An Addition to the Vroom Correspondence .................................................. Don Bowe .........................90 Revisiting 19th Century New Jersey Fancy Cancels................................ Jean R. Walton ............... 94 Foreign Mail to and from Morris County ~ Part 8: Cape Verde Islands to Morris County.............................................. Donald A. Chafetz........ 104 Member News: Member Changes, Thanks to Donors, Reminders, etc........ .........................................109
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Notes April 2021
    THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY APRIL 2021 POLICY NOTES NO. 103 Deterring Iran in the Gray Zone: Insights from Four Decades of Conflict Michael Eisenstadt resident Joe Biden has stated that if Iran returns to full compliance with the 2015 nuclear accord, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the United States will too, as a starting point for P 1 follow-on talks about Iran’s missile program and regional activities. The path to a stronger, longer, and broader JCPOA, however, may be tortuous and prolonged; success is not foreordained. Indeed, since the Biden administration took office, Tehran has already resumed proxy attacks on U.S. intrests in Image: The Japanese-owned Iraq, and has accelerated work on its nuclear program while limiting access tanker Kokuka Courageous, by international inspectors, in order to (1) build leverage, (2) roll back U.S. showing damage from an sanctions, and (3) obtain other concessions. Washington needs to be able to Iranian limpet mine attack in the Gulf of Oman, June 2019. deter or counter such moves and deny Tehran advantage in ways that do not Screenshot: U.S. Central hinder renewed diplomacy. Moreover, even if talks succeed, U.S.-Iran ties will Command. MICHAEL EISENSTADT DETERRING IRAN IN THE GRAY ZONE likely remain tense for years to come. Deterrence engendered by more effectively deterring and will therefore remain a core component of U.S. policy countering Tehran’s regional activities may enhance toward Iran as a way to manage tensions, avoid Washington’s ability to deter a potential future escalation, and deny Tehran leverage, thus creating nuclear breakout by Iran.
    [Show full text]