War on Iran has been a neo-conservative priority for decades. In 1996, they wrote "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for the Realm," (led by Richard Perle & David Wurmser), long before PNAC. They do not want an Israeli war on Iran -- for them, it has to be an American action. This may be their time, after having failed several times before. I have been a neo-conservative tracker since Perle, Wolfowitz and the boys were somewhat lowly Congressional staffers with Scoop Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. They have been in and out of power circles many times, but somehow, almost miraculously, have stuck together pushing policies that sometimes take decades. In 1999, largely "out of power" during the Clinton Administration, they used Congressional connections to engineer a resolution in Congress (the late Stephen Solarz was a key ally) to state that regime change in Iraq was the policy of the United States. The resolution was non-binding, couldn't pass on its own, and was passed as an amendment to a spending bill. After 9/11 that resolution became the propaganda underpinning for "Overthrowing Saddam Hussein IS the policy of the United States". In 2003, they got their invasion of Iraq -- the sowing of dragon teeth. The neo-cons have waited a long time for war against Iran. In 2004, some of them hoped the quick overthrow of Saddam Hussein would lead to regime change in Iran. It did not, they continued to maneuver. In 2006, Dick Cheney made an end-run trip to Saudi Arabia to try to get the Saudis to join in supporting the war on Iran. Cheney was exposed, the backlash was enormous -- the bombing and war against Iran didn't happen. The neo-cons never lost faith or focus. Cumulatively, thousands of books, articles, talks, think-tank blather, videos and daily TV news diatribes have made it possible to see the war on Iran come to fruition. I don't see anyone in the Trump administration who will stand up against this act of insanity in the Soleimani assassination, and prevent an escalation. But I believe that this Committee of Correspondence can make a difference. Many of you in the committee know the costs of war first-hand unlike the neo-cons, chicken hawks, President Trump, and his #1 West Pointer. That matters.

A good antidote for Joltin' Jack Keane's madness would be for Lou Dobbs and other mainstream media (MSM) to have Col Pat Lang as the commentator for analysis of the Syrian situation. Readers of this blog are undoubtedly aware that Col. Lang's knowledge of the peoples of the region and their customs is a national treasure. This President appears at times to recognize the reality of nation states and the meaning of national sovereignty. He needs to understand that on principle, not merely on gut instinct. President Trump's press conference today focused in one section on a simple fact -- saving the lives of Americans. Gen. Jack Keane, Sen. Lindsay Graham, and other gamers who think they are running an imperial chessboard where they can use living soldiers as American pawns, are a menace. Thanks Col. Lang for calling out these lunatics.

In George MacDonald Fraser's "Flashman in the Great Game," the great, tragic 1842 retreat from Kabul by the British and East India Company forces is graphically, though humourously described. Flashman is the last English survivor of the over 20,000 people killed by Afghan tribesmen and enemy forces, and of course, emerges as the hero. A different literary treatment of this event is the chilling conclusion of Rudyard Kipling's masterpiece, The Young British Soldier: When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier. Go, go, go like a soldier, Go, go, go like a soldier, Go, go, go like a soldier, So-oldier of the Queen! Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

A perfect thought. Thank you.

My father, father-in-law, both grandfathers and every uncle I ever knew, were all soldiers and saw war, some in combat and some in support, as young men. They didn't complain, and never forgot. With your help, Colonel & Mrs. Lang, I hope to finish writing that story of one of those soldiers. Thank you always for this Committee of Correspondence and for the hope that it brings to us all. Decameron.

PS. My grandfather jumped ship (from the Italian navy) in Port Arthur, Texas, circa 1922. He was a machinist and boiler expert in the Italian navy, and did not want to return to Mussolini's Italy. It was many years before he was made "legal," and he was a devoted American patriot whose sons-in-law fought against Hitler and Mussolini. Immigration is complicated, and there are many stories from the 1930s-40s-50s and present, that show that trying to base immigration on cost-effective criteria (as Trump and his Son-In-Law have done) will hurt the U.S., not help us.

Thank you, Colonel. I, too, am all for Merit based immigration status, but the issue is multi-faceted, and I think Mr. Trump tried to boil it down to a two-dimension, transactional issue. Example: Low-skilled immigrants take jobs away from low-skilled Americans, therefore, admitting more high-skilled immigrants will free up low-skilled jobs. Maybe true, BUT: (1) many American-born people don't want the low-skilled agri-jobs, or construction jobs (very hard work) that immigrants take. Secondly, US college grads are having a hard time finding the high-skilled jobs that will allow them to pay off their college loans. Some--maybe many--of those jobs are being taken by high skilled immigrants (or even out-source jobs in India or other locations) and denying those to Americans. Not simple.

A friend who worked in the HR head-hunting business at a high-skill level indicated that in trying to find candidates with experience in civil engineering, he could not find American native-born nationals. Why is that? Is university training to expensive? Too demanding for spoiled American youth? Let's find out.

Agree with your additions. Trump said that lower skill immigrant are taking away jobs from lower skill Americans, but it looks to me like the opposite. If he wants more accomplished foreigners to come in for highly skilled and perhaps high tech jobs, what will that do to American college graduates who are finding it hard to get a job in their fields and have a massive college tuition debt to pay off. The President's arguments makes no sense to me.

Yes, Colonel. You're right. Criminals are already excluded. Why the President threw in the fact that his plan makes all criminals "inadmissible", was a demonstration to me that this policy announcement was rhetoric, not policy. Maybe his 2020 base believes that Obama and prior presidents opened the door to "criminals", but that's now how I see it.

Thankyou Larry. May 21st is the anniversary of Mike Pompeo's Heritage Foundation speech where he laid out the "Ten Commandments" that Iran must abide by. Today, the Administration policy is being referred to as "Maximum Pressure" on Iran with the objective of reducing Iran's intake of funds to almost nothing. No oil sales, no waivers, sanctions and punishment against countries, individuals and entities that do business with Iran, etc. To justify this to skeptical and cautious allies and neutrals there must be a threat. Hence the Big Lie by repetition of Iran's terrorist profile (the falsehood that you so effectively demolished here), its nuclear threat, its missile threat, its sponsorship of "terrorist" groups (wrongly naming Hezbollah and Hamas which are successful, popular political movements, like it or not). The objective of Trump's "maximum pressure" is to break Iran's role as a "regional menace". All over Washington, pundits are splitting hairs that John Bolton's policy is to overthrow the Iranian regime, while the President's policy is to overthrow the policies of the Iranian regime and get Iran to obey the conditions that Pompeo laid out. If Iran obeys the Pompeo list, there's a chance for new negotiations. We're close to war by intent or by miscalculation.