Items are archived in this category chronologically or in the order of discovery. Previous
year in left
column . . .
It Just Boggles
When Being PC Is More Important Than Living
Margaret Calhoun Hemenway
says recent pictures in Stars and Stripes feature female U.S.
service members wearing the Islamic headscarf, also known as a hijab.
These women are part of a new initiative, Female Engagement Teams, being
deployed in Afghanistan.
Aside from questions about whether the
safety of these women deployed into harm's way is jeopardized by trading
the helmet for the hijab, the photos invoke memories of a policy fight
in Congress less than a decade ago. In 2002, the Senate overturned
a DoD mandate requiring female American service members stationed in
Saudi Arabia to wear the Saudi version of the burqa, known as an abaya.
Similarly, in the House of Representatives, an amendment was enacted to
end the "abaya" mandate. Women in Saudi Arabia (or in Afghanistan under
the brutal reign of the primitive Taliban) are subject to beatings by
religious police (in Saudi Arabia known as muttawa), if they expose,
even inadvertently, a wrist or ankle.
The DoD "abaya" policy was defended under the guise
of "cultural sensitivities," but it morphed into being justified as
necessary for "force protection," since "cultural sensitivities" smacked
of political correctness. Could anyone imagine U.S. soldiers
dispatched to South Africa under Apartheid segregating black and white
soldiers to comply with "cultural sensitivities?" Yet in Saudi
Arabia, American servicewomen, prior to congressional intervention, were
subjected to similar humiliation and coerced into conformance with an
alien religious faith.
In Barack Obama's Cairo speech in June
2009, he stated, "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who
chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal." Obama implied,
mistakenly, that wearing of the hijab is by choice. Surely Obama,
with part of his youth spent in Muslim-dominant Indonesia, knows that in
strict Islamic societies, the veil or headscarf is not optional.
Even in the U.S. and Canada, young Muslim women have been killed by
their fathers for refusing to submit to Islamic practices, including
covering their hair -- their "crime" being their desire to fit in and to
look like other American girls.
Back in 2001, Congress
unanimously decided, with support from feminists and religious freedom
advocates, that it was wrong to subject female service members to
requirements of an Islamic regime that relegates women to second-class
status.
Rowan Scarborough
is reporting that American combat troops will get sensitivity
training directly on the battlefield about the military’s new policy on
gays instead of waiting until they return to home base in the United
States, the senior enlisted man in Afghanistan said Thursday.
The
Pentagon is launching an extensive force-wide program to ease the
process of integrating open homosexuals into the ranks, including into
close-knit fighting units.
Army Command Sgt. Maj. Marvin Hill,
the top enlisted man in Afghanistan where 100,000 U.S. troops are
deployed, said that the sessions on respecting gays’ rights will go
right down to the forward operating bases, where troops fight Taliban
militants.
"I have heard about the training that will be
forthcoming to the battlefield," Sgt. Hill told Pentagon reporters via a
teleconference from Kabul.
"We will take our directions from the
Department of Defense, from the secretary of defense, the chairman,
as well as the service chiefs of each service. Our plan is to
take their direction, and we’re going to execute that training right
here on the battlefield."
No unit is exempted, he said.
Sissy
sensitivity training will be scheduled right between bayonet drill and
hand-to-hand combat.
Just For Fun
Few Americans See Obama As Strong Military
Leader
Reuters
is
reporting that only 17% of Americans see Barack Obama as a
strong and decisive military leader, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll
taken after the United States and its allies began bombing Libya.
Nearly half of those polled view Obama as a cautious and
consultative commander-in-chief and more than a third see him as
indecisive in military matters.
Obama was widely criticized in
2009 for his months-long consultations with senior aides and military
chiefs on whether to send more troops to Afghanistan. Critics
called it dithering, but he said such a big decision required careful
deliberation. He eventually dispatched 30,000 more troops.
But Obama is facing mounting discontent among opposition Republicans and
from within his own Democratic Party over the fuzzy aims of the U.S.-led
mission in Libya and the lack of a clearly spelled-out exit strategy for
U.S. forces.
If the Libya mission becomes a foreign policy mess,
mixed with perceptions Obama is a weak military leader, it could spell
trouble for him in the 2012 presidential election.
The poll also
found that 60 percent of Americans support the United States and its
allies bombing Libya to impose a no-fly zone to protect civilians from
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces.
Seventy-nine percent of
those surveyed said the United States and its allies should try to
remove Gaddafi, who has ruled the oil-exporting North African country
for more than four decades.
In the survey, conducted on March 22
from a nationally representative sample of 975 adults, only 7 percent
supported deploying ground troops.
Of the 60 percent in favor of
the Libya military action, 20 percent strongly supported it and 40
percent somewhat supported it. Twenty-five percent somewhat opposed it
and 14 percent were strongly against it.
Lowest Military Op Approval In 4 Decades
Terence P. Jeffrey says Barack Obama's
intervention in Libya's civil war has not only failed to win the
approval of a majority of the American people, according to a Gallup
poll conducted Monday, it also earned the lowest public approval rating
of any U.S. military operation polled by Gallup over the past four
decades.
In fact, it was the only U.S. military intervention
polled by Gallup that received less than majority approval from
Americans.
"The 47% of Americans approving of the
action against Libya is lower than what Gallup has found when asking
about approval of other U.S. military campaigns in the past four
decades."
That compares to the 90 percent approval rating
Americans gave President George W. Bush's October 2001 U.S. invasion of
Afghanistan, the 83 percent approval rating they gave President George
H.W. Bush's January 1993 bombing of military targets in Iraq, the 76
percent approval rating they gave President George W. Bush's March 2003
invasion of Iraq, and the 71 percent approval rating they gave President
Ronald Reagan's March 1986 bombing of Libya, and the 66 percent approval
rating they gave President Bill Clinton's August 1998 missile strikes on
Sudan and Afghanistan, according to the Gallup poll.
Before
Obama's intervention in Libya, the least popular U.S. military
intervention polled by Gallup was President Clinton's 1999 intervention
in the Balkan conflict over Kosovo. In a survey conducted April 30 to
May 2, 1999, only 51 percent of Americans approved of that military
action [and we were on the wrong
side in that one].
It
won't matter. The ObamaMedia will ignore this poll and tell us
what a magnificent job Obama is doing.
Obama Says American Troops "Volunteered By
Others"
Ed Driscoll
says remember when the lads at Time magazine went on a bender in
late January and did the cover story on Obama as the second coming of
President Reagan? Try to image the Gipper uttering these words, as spotted by Bryan Preston on the
Pajamas Tatler blog:
A very alert Tatler reader tipped us to this
statement by Obama. It's from an interview he did in El
Salvador during his swing through Central and South America. Take a look
at how he characterizes how the United States has ended up putting
troops in harm's way in Libya.
And we will continue to support
the efforts to protect the Libyan people, but we will not be in the
lead. That's what the transition that I discussed has always been
designed to do. We have unique capabilities. We came in, up front,
fairly readily, fairly substantially, and at considerable risk to our
military personnel. And when this transition takes place, it is not
going to be our planes that are maintaining the no-fly zone. It is not
going to be our ships that are necessarily involved in enforcing the
arms embargo. That's precisely what the other coalition partners are
going to do.
And that's why building this international coalition
has been so important because it means that the United States is not
bearing all the cost. It means that we have confidence that we are not
going in alone, and it is our military that is being volunteered by
others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are
important internationally. And we will accomplish that in a relatively
short period of time.
There are problems with
all of that, especially in the military capabilities and will to act
that this president seems to think our allies possess. There would have
been no no-fly zone without the US, and there will be no no-fly zone if
we're not playing a major role in enforcing it. That's just reality.
But moving past that, the bolded sentence in the second paragraph
beggars belief. As president, Obama is the commander-in-chief of the US
military. It should not be "volunteered by others" for anything. Obama
is, to borrow the word of a previous president, the decider when it
comes to deploying the military. But here is more evidence that not only
is Obama uncomfortable with command, he is also very leery of American
leadership in the world. See Tony Katz's article
at PJM for a deeper
look into that.
Here's a screen capture of the relevant passage, lest
it disappear from Obama's Website:
Click to enlarge.
And since context is everything,
click here for more from
that page.
As Bryan writes, "This is a coalition and a war in
total disarray, because the American president is abdicating his
responsibility at every turn."
Obama Administration Threatens War Fighters
Fred Lucas
is reporting that the military will continue to earn money but not
be paid during a government shutdown, a senior Obama administration
official said:
"Military will continue to work as I
described earlier. "They will continue to earn money during
this period of time. Given that we do not have any money to
pay out, they will not be paid. They will not receive their
paychecks until we have money again and Congress appropriates."
[...snip...]
Military personnel would be
paid for the current pay period, but if a government shutdown extends
beyond April 15, military paychecks would be impacted, but they would
get backpay once military funding is restored, said Josh Holly, a
spokesman for the House Armed Services Committee.
House Armed
Services Committee Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) is working to
ensure that military pay does not become a political bargaining chip,
Holly said.
"They would get the pay. The problem
is they wouldn't get it when they plan on getting it," McKeon said
in a press conference Monday. "I don't even want to
contemplate that because to think we would have our young men and
women over on the front lines putting their lives on the line with
their families at home with bills to pay that don't get their
paycheck -- I just think that's really going too far. I think
we are mature enough to get this thing fixed."
[...snip...]
I really, really hate these
bastards! This administration has sent our warriors into battle with one
hand tied behind their backs, wants female soldiers to wear the hijab
instead of the Kevlar helmet, and now they are threatening not to pay
them. Despicable bastards.
And somebody inform that dickheaded
"administration official" that what our warriors are doing could hardly
be described as "work."
Obama’s New "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" Policy
The Washington Times
says soldiers offended by the sight of two male Marines kissing in
public better not mention that fact to their superiors. Under
Obama, the new "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" rules turn the Clinton-era policy
on its head. Now those who embrace traditional moral values are
the ones being told to stay in the closet.
In testimony Thursday
before the House Armed Services Committee, leaders of each service
branch answered questions about what they have been doing to implement
the repeal of the long-standing ban on open homosexual conduct in the
military. In December, defeated members of Congress rammed through
a repeal of the homosexual conduct ban in a lame-duck congressional
session. The new policy will take effect 60 days after the
Pentagon certifies that doing so won’t undermine military readiness.
Given marching orders from the White House, the top generals and admiral
made clear they have every intention of providing the rubber stamp the
Obama administration seeks.
Marine Corps Gen. James F. Amos
insisted that so far there had been no "push back" from the troops.
That’s because administration officials had been busy laying the
groundwork for this change long before the repeal was signed into law.
The message from on high has been crystal clear: Anyone who has a
problem with the New Gay Army isn’t welcome. As Joint Chiefs
chairman Adm. Michael G. Mullen put it in a briefing last year, the
answer for those who don’t like it is "to vote with your feet" and leave
the military.
Committee Republicans raised concern about how the
new policy would drive away experienced officers and enlisted personnel.
There’s no doubt that a significant number of those interested in
serving their country might pause at the prospect of joining up at a
time when political correctness, not mission effectiveness, is the
primary goal at the Pentagon. Air Force Gen. Norton A. Schwartz
equated the "moderate risk" of the open homosexuality policy with the
risk of going to war.
Under questioning, the heads of the service
branches were unable to explain how allowing homosexual conduct would
enhance the ability of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force to
wage war. That’s the big news out of this event, according to
Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness.
"All they talk about is mitigating problems," she told The Washington
Times. "Well, why cause the problems in the first place? It
all boils down to the generals’ and admirals’ hope, and the junior
officers have to cope. That’s what they’re calling leadership."
Re-education briefings already have begun at the highest ranks and
will continue down the chain of command to the enlisted ranks over the
course of the next few months. Forcing soldiers to endure
Powerpoint slides and new sensitivity training sessions would seem to be
the last thing a commander in chief who just opened a third overseas war
ought to do.
Repealing "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" never was about
anything other than payback to the radical homosexual lobby for its
support during Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. The new
policy can still be stopped if the service chiefs refuse to certify that
open homosexual conduct will have no effect on readiness. If they
value their duty to America, that’s exactly what they need to do.
Obama's Taliban-Friendly Rules Of
Engagement
Sara A. Carter
is reporting that Several Taliban detainees who had been captured in
February after being observed placing bombs in the culverts of roads
used by civilians and military convoys near Kandahar were fed, given
medical treatment, then released by American troops frustrated by a
policy they say is forcing them to kick loose enemies who are trying to
kill them.
Despite what American soldiers say was a mountain of
evidence, which included a video of the men planting the bomb and
chemical traces found on their hands, there was nothing the soldiers who
had captured them could do but feed and care for them for 96 hours and
then set them free.
In another incident, members of a unit
attached to 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment survived an attack by a suicide
bomber on their convoy when his device failed to detonate.
Soldiers managed to capture the would-be martyr, but he too was released
after being held for four days.
"We put our lives on the line to
capture the enemy," a soldier with the Stryker regiment told The
Washington Examiner. "Since my deployment, every insurgent we've
captured has been released."
International Security Assistance
Forces officials contacted by The Examiner admitted that releases like
these were common. The officials said ISAF forces can hold
detainees for up to 96 hours, during which time detainees are "screened
and a decision is made whether to release the individual, transfer them
to appropriate Afghan authorities, or to the detention facility in
Parwan [at Bagram Air Base]."
ISAF spokesman Lt. Col. John
Dorrian said things are expected to change. He said Afghanistan's
Ministry of Interior, supported by Combined Joint Interagency Task Force
435, is implementing a system for fingerprinting captured insurgents.
That'll fix them -- put ink on
their fingers before releasing them -- WTF?
Troops
say top commander Gen. David Petraeus, who "swore
loyalty" to Obama, has not fulfilled promises he made to Congress
last year to review and, where appropriate, change rules of engagement
that have restricted troops' ability to stop the enemy.
Troops
say it's impossible to hold the terrain when insurgents know that, if
captured, they cannot be held.
The policy of releasing insurgents
is expected to continue for now, officials said.
"While there may
be ample evidence to detain an individual, the same evidence may be
insufficient to obtain an indictment or bring the detainee to an
evidence-based trial," Dorrian said. "In other instances,
individuals may be detained based on legitimate intelligence, but the
intelligence may be classified and thus not able to be presented in open
court. In some instances, this results in the individual being
released."
Obama is out to
destroy our military, but don't ask, and whatever you do, don't tell.
From Blackfive
Froggy
says this story regarding whether or not the SEALs were specifically
instructed to kill UBL has now officially gotten out of control.
Obama is trying to have his cake and eat it too, and in so doing, he has
completely buddy f*cked the SEAL Teams. Already stories are being
written by Obama syncophants and AQ sympathizers implicating the SEALs
as essentially murdering an unarmed man. Meanwhile, on background,
more "Senior Administration Officials" are saying that POTUS ordered the
SEALs to assassinate bin Laden, but there's more:
The SEALs’ decision to fatally shoot bin
Laden -- even though he didn’t have a weapon – wasn’t an accident.
The administration had made clear to the military’s clandestine
Joint Special Operations Command that it wanted bin Laden dead,
according to a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the
discussions. A high-ranking military officer briefed on the
assault said the SEALs knew their mission was not to take him alive.
WRONG F*CKING ANSWER! If you order the SEALs
to kill and not capture bin Laden then there is NO DECISION FOR THEM TO
MAKE! They are following explicit orders of the President of the
United States, but Obama does not have the sac to stand behind his
decision and support the very people who are responsible for the only
foreign policy victory of his Presidency. Sure, Obama is content
to accept the congratulations from the media and his supporters for his
"gutsy" decision, but when the rubber meets the road he says, "Hey
thanks SEALs for killing bin Laden like I told you to. But you
didn't expect me to stand behind you when my left wing media starts
going after you as murderers? Oh you did? How cute."
This is the most disgusting and craven betrayal of leadership that I
have ever seen. Also, where is the NSW Leadership? JSOC?
They are keeping their mouths shut like good little soldiers while their
own men are trampled underfoot and mischaracterized as having
unilaterally decided to shoot an unarmed man despite following explicit
orders to do so. Way to go.
Senators Press Obama
On War Powers Deadline
Dana Bash
is reporting that as the U.S. military campaign in Libya approaches
the 60-day mark today, six Republican senators wrote Obama asking
if he will comply with the War Powers Act, which says Congress must
authorize action that lasts more than 60 days.
"Friday is the
final day of the statutory sixty-day period for you to terminate the use
of the United States Armed Forces in Libya under the War Powers
Resolution. Last week some in your Administration indicated use of the
United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely, while others said
you would act in a manner consistent with the War Powers Resolution.
Therefore, we are writing to ask whether you intend to comply with the
requirements of the War Powers Resolution. We await your response."
wrote the GOP senators Wednesday.
The letter was signed by Sen.
Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, Sen. Tom Coburn,
R-Oklahoma, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, Sen. Ron Johnson,
R-Wisconsin, and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.
The GOP senators said
they believe Obama already violated part of the War Powers Act -- which
says a president's constitutional powers allow him to only deploy troops
into "hostilities" with a declaration of war, specific authorization
from Congress or a national emergency caused by an attack on the U.S.
But Obama did follow the provision in the 1973 law requiring him to
provide information to Congress about committing U.S. forces after the
fact. Now the question is whether he will abide by the part of the War
Powers Act which says he must get Congressional permission within 60
days.
Tweedle Dee (Kerry) and
Tweedle Dumb (McCain) comment
here . . .
Troops Lose
Confidence In Obama
Elaine Donnelly is reporting that Barack Obama is working hard to
shore up his liberal political base, but military voters may be less
likely to lend support for his re-election. According to the 2011
Military Times Poll of active-duty subscribers, confidence in the
overall job performance of the Commander-in-Chief has plummeted from 70%
to 25%. The steep decline was illustrated with a multi-color bar graph
on a page 10 of the September 19, 2011, Navy Times print
edition, and in a
secondary link in the web-posted
article available to non-subscribers, titled "A
Souring Mood."
The 2011 annual poll published in different service versions of the
Gannet-ownedMilitary Times
indicated that weariness with the current long war is a major reason for
slumping morale. Ten years after the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan began,
many troops are losing confidence in the mission there. Approval of
Obama's handling of Afghanistan has slipped from 47% to 26%.
Military Times polls in previous years have generally found
evidence of fairly high morale. But in 2011, several indicators showed a
hard turn downward. For example, the percentage of active-duty troops
who would recommend a military career to others was 76%, but that number
is 9 points lower than it was only one year ago. (Army Times
editorial, Sept. 19, 2011)
The Times further noted, "Slightly less than half of readers
said the U.S. is 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to succeed in
Afghanistan." Support is even lower among troops who have deployed in
Operation Enduring Freedom -- significantly less than the 75% level in
2007, four years ago.
A general question about the repeal of the 1993 law regarding gays in
the military registered less opposition than in previous years, but
support remains less than 50%, except in the Navy. (According to Roper,
poll respondents are more likely to approve of a policy already in
place.) A subsequent online poll, however, revealed some unease with the
new policy in personal relationships. (Air Force Times, Oct.
24)
Military Times asked readers on active duty if the official
repeal of the 1993 law (mislabeled "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell") had any
effect on their unit or workplace. Most of the 4,818 respondents (69%)
had no experience with the repeal in their unit. But of the 31%
indicating that someone did "come out," 5% reported no increased
tension, but five times as many (26%) said that it did create tension.
Looking at the same numbers, Navy Commander Wayne L. Johnson, JAGC,
(Ret.) has noted that in those units where someone did come out, tension
was created 84% of the time. (26% of 31% represents 84% of the group of
respondents who said that someone came out in their unit. )
In the year 2000 military voters were thought to be eight times more
likely to vote for then-Texas Governor George W. Bush than for Vice
President Al Gore. In that year, contested absentee ballots in Florida,
mostly from military voters, probably saved the election of George W.
Bush.
In 2008, the advantage of Republican nominee Sen. John McCain was
only three times stronger among military voters polled by the
Military Times, (68%-23%). That
level of support was significant, but not enough to help McCain win the
election.
Social issues that affect the unique culture of the military are
matters of national security that all candidates should address in 2012.
The next Commander-in-Chief must earn respect and more than dutiful
obedience from men and women who volunteer to serve.
