Obama did NOT include
one dollar of military spending in the entire
help fight the media
|It Just Boggles
|U.S. Commanders Are Confused By Obama's Rules
reporting that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), just
back from a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan and Pakistan, said he and
other senators found operational "confusion" among U.S. military
officials on how to handle detained enemy combatants.
top to the bottom, the military, the American military people that we
talked to, indicated some confusion, operationally, about what you do
when you detain a terrorist," McConnell said at a press conference on
After pointing out that a U.S. military general declined
to answer questions about the handling of insurgent detainees without
the presence of his lawyer, the minority leader said: "This operational
confusion has . . . been created, it strikes me, unnecessarily and,
frankly, dangerously, by the administration."
criticized the administration, in particular, for recently handing over
the so-called underwear bomber,
Nigerian terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, to criminal courts
rather than to the military.
"This sort of preoccupation, if you
will, that we see on full display here in the U.S., with the example of
the Christmas would-be bomber being turned over -- not to the military
for interrogation, but to criminal courts -- and told he is entitled to
a lawyer, is a mentality that I think is very dangerous in the war on
terror," the minority leader said.
McConnell said the
administration is wrongly preoccupied with "detainee rights."
"We see this preoccupation with prisoners' rights both on foreign
battlefield[s] and here at home that seems to be consuming the
administration in this war on terror," he explained. "I think it’s
McConnell added that treating captured terrorists
as if they were American citizens who have committed a crime is not the
right way to conduct the war -- "To not be allowed to properly
interrogate and to detain, without some of the concerns that you might
have if you were an American citizen here in the United States who is
under arrest for robbing a convenience store or something, strikes me as
a pretty wrong-headed way to conduct the war," McConnell said.
The Kentucky senator concluded by stating that the prison for terrorists
in Guantanaamo Bay (Gitmo) should not be closed and that enemy detainees
should be tried by military commissions.
At the press
conference, Sen. Crapo said: "It was very clear that there was
uncertainty among our military personnel as to exactly how they are
required now and going to be required in the future to deal with the
handling of detainees."
Sen. Wicker, who also visited
Afghanistan as part of the GOP delegation led by the senate minority
leader, repeated the alleged confusion created by the Obama
A task force commissioned as part of Obama’s
January 2009 Executive Order to revise terrorist detention policy,
interrogation tactics, and close down Gitmo, issued a preliminary report
in July 2009 summarizing their legal views for the handling of enemy
"When asked the question, 'What do we do with
captured enemy combatants?' it was clear that the, the answer is
confusion and uncertainty on the part of our troops and the Afghan
security forces," said Wicker.
|Political Correctness And The 21st Century Battlefield
|Paul Mirengoff is
reporting that the national security panel at the Reclaim American
Liberty conference in New York on Wednesday considered (1) whether we
have the right legal architecture for maintaining our security, and (2)
whether we have the right battlefield architecture for this purpose.
He summarized the panel discussion regarding the first question
Tonight he'll write about the second.
The key panelist on our "battlefield architecture" was Col. Allen
West (U.S. Army, Ret.). Col. West served as a commander in Iraq
and, after retiring from the Army, he served as an adviser in
West retired from the Army with full benefits after
being accused of misconduct in connection with the interrogation of an
Iraqi police officer. Information obtained during the
interrogation is said to have led to the arrest of two insurgents and
the cessation of attacks on West's 4th Infantry Division battalion.
At a hearing, West testified that he would act as he did if he had it to
do over again. "If it's about the lives of my men and their
safety, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can," West said.
surprisingly, West was blunt about Obama's military's rules of
engagement -- they are not suited for the 21st century battlefield and
they put our troops in danger. On the 21st century battlefield,
our enemy has removed its uniforms and taken to hiding among the
population. Our rules of engagement enable them to obtain an
advantage by adopting these tactics.
West noted that in a
fire-fight, our troops typically have about five seconds before the
dying starts. Yet, we require them to hold their fire until the
intentions of the enemy have been verified and the potential for
collateral has been assessed. This can't be done in five seconds.
Thus, our troops are at a significant disadvantage.
when the enemy holes up in a mosque, we cannot attack. Thus, the
enemy is able to use our own "politically correct" rules against us.
West argued that "top-down" rules of engagement are inherently
inadequate on the 21st century battlefield. When these rules are
driven by political
correctness, our ability to fight is undermined even more.
The same lesson applies to the homeland, which West correctly considers
part of the 21st century battlefield. The
Fort Hood massacre illustrates the
point. In this instance, political correctness prevented us from
dealing with the enemy before he dealt with us.
|Militarized Police Force For U.S.
|On July 2nd, 2008, Obama spoke in Colorado Springs and hit themes of
national service, foreign policy, and national security. In that vein,
Obama proposed a rather extraordinary idea -- that the US should spend
as much money on a civilian national security force as it does on the
military. His actual words were:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military
in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set.
We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as
powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Now, Prison Planet is reporting that A recent study
commissioned by the U.S. Army and written by the RAND Corporation calls
for the creation of a "hybrid" military/law enforcement unit which could
be put to use in the United States to take charge of riot control and
SWAT duties, according to the authors.
The study (PDF)
was released last year but has garnered fresh attention following
comments made by one of its authors, Terry Kelly, in an interview with
an online news website, said, "If there were a major disaster like
Katrina it could be deployed in the U. S. but that’s not the purpose of
"It’s important to point out that the goal was to
create a force that’s deployable overseas. If it’s to be used in
the United States it would be a secondary thing and then only in an
Kelly said that the main focus of the force would be
in places like Iraq, Afghanistan or Haiti, in light of the earthquake
disaster, adding that it could operate as a U.S. force under U.N.
However, the report itself uses language that leaves
open the exact agenda of the force, and makes it clear that domestic use
has been considered at length.
It states that a Federal
"Stabilization Police Force" of 2–6,000 personnel would work best under
a civilian federal agency or the military police.
"They (the data) suggest that the U.S.
Marshals Service (USMS) and the MP options are the only credible
ones. The Marshals Service has sufficient baseline
capabilities and a policing culture to build a competent SPF, and
its location in the Department of Justice makes it well suited to
achieve broader rule-of-law objectives. This finding is
consistent with a significant body of academic and policy research,
which strongly concludes that civilian agencies are optimal for the
execution of policing functions." (page 123)
The study concludes that the use of the Marshals
Service is more favorable in order to avoid a breach of the long
standing Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the domestic use of the
military for law enforcement purposes.
The report also states
that the force could both augment and be augmented by "additional
federal, state, or local police from the United States."
here . . .
|We Have Bigger Problems Than "Don’t Ask Don’t Tell"
|What was Barack Obama’s
call to scrap
the "Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell" rule barring homosexuals from military
service doing in the middle of the speech? Why is Obama addressing
this difficult, both politically and legally, issue now? We have
bigger problems than normalizing homosexuality.
advocate for the homosexual agenda, announced his desire to allow
homosexuals to serve openly in the military during his first State of
the Union address Wednesday night, saying, "This year, I will work with
Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay
Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they
are," Obama said.
The Clinton-era rule, which skirted the
outright ban on homosexuals serving in the military, would likely take
an act of Congress to change, said Elaine Donnelly, president of the
Center for Military Readiness, and "voters are concerned about national
security, and they don’t want America’s military to be used for any
purpose other than national defense."
|Obama Takes Credit For Success In Iraq
|Move America Forward, the nation’s largest grassroots pro-troop
offense last night as Barack Obama tried to take credit for the
success of the Iraq War when he was a bitter opponent of the successful
troop surge implemented by President George W. Bush. Obama
proclaimed "I promised I would end this war, and that is what I am doing
Shawn Callahan, Executive Director of Move
America Forward, said "Without the surge America would have left Iraq
with the war lost to the insurgents. If Obama had been in charge
of the Iraq war, it would have been lost along with the needless loss of
potentially thousands of innocent Iraqis who would have been at the
mercy of the terrorists and criminals. Americans would be further
at risk with a more emboldened terrorist network."
reprehensible for the President to take credit for a war his predecessor
won. Then-Senator Obama criticized the Iraq war, called it a dumb
war, said our troops would fail and that the surge would make things
worse. History has proved him wrong, and yet he still tries to
somehow take credit for our troops’ success without even congratulating
them on the good job they have done."
His speech offered only a
few minutes to the subject of national security after speaking at length
about a multitude of other issues that Obama felt were more important
despite the fact that the country is at war. Obama also failed to
address security in several other ways:
•The President failed to recognize America’s
"war on terror." His Administration continues to treat
terrorism as a police action despite the threat against America by a
group of extremists who have declared war on us.
•The President makes no mention of
Guantanamo Bay, nor does he acknowledge that his own Administration
has found terrorists held there who should be detained indefinitely.
•The President talked tough about nuclear
disarmament with respect to North Korea and mentioned Iran, but his
pandering around the world has brought no success in stopping their
•Obama refused to address complaints that
the Christmas bomber is being treated as a criminal defendant with
full constitutional rights instead of an enemy combatant who should
be in the hands of the U.S. military and intelligence agencies.
|A Great Achievement
says the same Barack Obama and Joe Biden who opposed the Iraq war,
its tactics, and predicted failure, are now prepared to accept credit
for its success.
Biden, in an
interview with Larry King, said he is certain that Iraq will turn
out to be one of the Obama-Biden administration's greatest achievements
-- No, really! He did.
Here's how Biden put it:
am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one
of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to
see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer.
You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving
toward a representative government."
"I spent -- I've been there
17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I
know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society.
It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding
to use the political process rather than guns to settle their
Biden did not elaborate on what the
administration's other "great achievements" were.
|War In Iraq To Be Given New Name
Exclusive: ABC News has learned that the Obama administration has
decided to give the war in Iraq -- currently known as Operation Iraqi
Freedom -- a new name.
The new name: "Operation New Dawn."
In a February 17, 2010, memo to the Commander of Central Command,
Gen. David Petraeus, Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the "requested
operation name change is approved to take effect 1 September 2010,
coinciding with the change of mission for U.S. forces in Iraq."
You can read the memo -- a copy of which was sent to the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen --
Gates writes that by changing the name at the same time as the
change of mission -- the scheduled withdrawal of U.S. combat troops --
the US is sending "a strong signal that Operation IRAQI FREEDOM has
ended and our forces are operating under a new mission."
move, Gates writes, "also presents opportunities to synchronize
strategic communication initiatives, reinforce our commitment to honor
the Security Agreement, and recognize our evolving relationship with the
Government of Iraq."
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell had no
comment on the memo, saying it speaks for itself.
The move has
met with some criticism. In a statement, Brian Wise, executive
director of Military Families United said, "You cannot end a war simply
by changing its name. Despite the Administration’s efforts to spin
realities on the ground, their efforts do not change the situation at
hand in Iraq. Operational military decisions should not be made for
purposes of public relations, as the Secretary of Defense cites, but
should be made in the best interests of our nation, the troops on the
ground and their families back home."
If Gates was hoping that
"Operation New Dawn" would convey a new period in the US-Iraq
relationship, it's not clear that was the best choice of name.
After all, Operation New Dawn was the name for the bloody and grueling
2004 battle for Fallujah.
Originally, US forces had called the
fight for that city "Fallujah Fury," but Iraqi leaders suggested it be
called al Fajr, or New Dawn.
"It is with all pleasure that I
announce to you that Operation New Dawn has been concluded," the Iraqi
minister of state for national security, Qasim Dawood, said at a news
conference in Baghdad in November 2004.
|Obama Plans Dramatic Reductions In Nuclear Weapons
|The BBC News is reporting that Barack Obama is planning "dramatic
reductions" in the country's nuclear arsenal, a senior US administration
official has said.
This would come as part of a sweeping policy
review designed to prevent the spread of atomic weapons, he said, adding
that the new strategy will point to a greater role for conventional
The review "will point to dramatic reductions in the
stockpile, while maintaining a strong and reliable deterrent through the
investments that have been made in the budget," the official said.
All this is in line with Obama's school-boy
vision of a nuclear free
world, and reaffirmed in Prague, a little less than a year ago.
official said the review would go further than previous reviews in
"embracing the aims of non-proliferation," saying thousands of nuclear
weapons could be cut, in many cases by retiring weapons that are now
kept in storage.
The new strategy will also seek to abandon
plans put in place by the previous administration to develop a new
generation of nuclear weapons for penetrating underground targets known
as "bunker busters"
here . . .
|Obama's War Whopper
paraphrased Mark Twain, writing there are lies, damned lies, and
then the kind of brazen rewriting of what a man stands for that Barack
Obama engaged in yesterday.
As you saw in last evening's news,
our hero showed up in Afghanistan to "rally the troops" -- an absurd
concept. In his address to the troops, Obama said:
"The United States of America does not quit
once it starts on something. You don't quit, the American armed
services does not quit. We keep at it. We persevere."
Whoooaaaaa, Nelly! That just doesn't square
with a statement he made on September, 12, 2007, while calling for the
immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq:
"There is no military solution in Iraq and
there never was."
The swaggering Obama, in his faux-military leather
jacket, who boasted to American troops that "the United States of
America does not quit once it starts on something," is the same man who
in 2007 told the troops and the entire world that America and its
military couldn't win in Iraq, never could, and should immediately quit.
Will the ObamaMedia let PBO get away with this prevarication?
clip on Morning Joe today, Norah O'Donnell, rather than reporting
the divergence between his words today and those he spoke when trying to
woo a Dem presidential primary electorate, reverentially described the
speech as "rousing."
Obama wasn't finished misrepresenting the
truth. He went on to claim that, as between Republicans and
Democrats, "there's no daylight when it comes to support for all of you.
There's no daylight when it comes to supporting our troops."
Surely Obama knows better. But let's remind him:
US troops of "terrorizing" women and children in Iraq.
• John Murtha
accused US Marines
of killing innocent Iraqi civilians "in cold blood."
• Dick Durbin
US troops at Guantanamo of acting like "Nazis."
|Obama Won't Let Navy Defend Its Ships
reporting that the US Fifth
Fleet and US aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower in the Gulf of Oman were
not allowed to shoot at an Iranian
Fokker F27 aircraft which on April 21 hovered for 20 minutes 900
meters over the carrier and no more than 250 meters away, even though
they saw its flight crew gathering intelligence on the Eisenhower and
its warship escorts.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly's military sources report
that the US Persian Gulf command went public on the incident on April
28, a whole week later, only after Gulf military circles, amazed at the
American naval and air units' passivity in the face of hostile
surveillance, threatened to break the story to local media.
striking restraint indicates that the US Gulf and Arabian fleets are
under orders to take no action -- certainly not to open fire -- against
Iranian naval or air units, without first obtaining permission directly
Military, naval and aviation sources told
DEBKA-Net-Weekly that the Iranian spy plane was 10 second away from
flying directly over the Eisenhower and could easily have been shot
To try and explain this incident away, US naval sources
Wednesday, April 28, claimed the Iranian plane was unarmed and its
encounter with the US carrier was not of a threatening nature, although
Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations,
tried to play down the importance of the incident by saying: "The
Iranians (pilots) were not provocative or threatening. As long as
they are professional and not threatening or reckless, it's
|U.S. Military Concerned With Obama's Afghan
|Sara A. Carter says the Obama administration's
plan to begin an Afghanistan withdrawal in 2011 is creating growing
friction inside the U.S. military, from the halls of the Pentagon to
front-line soldiers who see it as a losing strategy.
the plan fear that if they speak out, they will be labeled "pariahs"
unwilling to back the commander in chief, said one officer who didn't
want to be named. But in private discussions, soldiers who are
fighting in Afghanistan, or recently returned from there, questioned
whether it is worth the sacrifice and risk for a war without a clear-cut
strategy to win.
Retired Army Reserve Maj. Gen. Timothy Haake,
who served with the Special Forces, said, "If you're a commander of
Taliban forces, you would use the withdrawal date to rally your troops,
saying we may be suffering now but wait 15 months when we'll have less
enemy to fight."
Haake added, "It plays into ... our enemies'
hands and what they think about us that Americans don't have the staying
power, the stomach, that's required in this type of situation.
It's just the wrong thing to do. No military commander would
sanction, support or announce a withdrawal date while hostilities are
A former top-ranking Defense Department official also
saw the policy as misguided.
"Setting a deadline to get out may
have been politically expedient, but it is a military disaster," he
said. "It's as bad as [former U.S. Secretary of State] Dean
Acheson signaling the Communists that we wouldn't defend South Korea
before the North Korean invasion."
The former defense official
said the Obama administration's policy can't work. "It is the kind
of war that is best fought with a small number of elite troops, not tens
of thousands trying to continually take villages, leave, then take them
again," he added.
NATO commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal's rules
of engagement, which emphasize protecting civilian lives, even if that
means putting troops at greater risk, are adding to the anxiety of
troops in Afghanistan. That strategy is contradicted by a policy
that sets an early withdrawal date, said some soldiers with combat
experience in Afghanistan.
"I think McChrystal's strategy is
probably right, it is just not the strategy I want to fight under," said
one officer who recently returned from a combat tour in the Helmand
province of Afghanistan.
A Pentagon spokesman declined comment on
here . . .
Obama's "Private Flares Of Temper"
says Obama may cultivate an image as the unflappable Mr. Cool, but
he can get hot under the collar too, according to a new book.
"The Promise: President Obama, Year One," by Newsweek senior editor
Jonathan Alter, the author recounts a series of private blow-ups --
including a particularly fiery one involving the nation's top military
brass. "A presidential dressing down unlike any in the United
States in more than half a century," is how Alter describes the October
The background: Gen. Stanley McChrystal had just
given a speech in London in which he publicly rejected proposals to turn
the tide in Afghanistan with more drone missiles and special forces, a
strategy backed mainly by Vice President Biden. Obama [who
was never even a Cub Scout] viewed McChrystal's comments as a bald
attempt to back him into a Pentagon-backed plan more reliant on troop
buildups -- and he soon ripped into top commanders for what he
In an Oval Office showdown, Obama
told Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. David Petraeus that he was
"exceedingly unhappy" with the Pentagon's conduct, Alter reported,
adding that its leaks to the press were "disrespectful of the process."
"This was a cold and bracing meeting," an attendee said of the
encounter, where Obama demanded to know "here and now" if the Pentagon
would be onboard with any presidential strategy.
worked: Petraeus later described himself as "chagrined," and both he and
Gates "swore loyalty" to the President. Obama eventually supported a
Obama's often flashes of anger shine through
Alter's tome, including:
Asked during the 2008 campaign what
accounted for a drop-off in his Jewish support, Obama snipped to a
radio reporter off-air, "It's the f------ Clintons." Later, as
Obama mulled appointing Hillary Clinton his Secretary of State, he
cracked, "Hillary still has some anger issues with me."
he found that his Justice Department lawyers were relying on
Bush-era logic he disagreed with, Obama once exclaimed angrily,
"What the f---? This is not the way I like to make decisions."
When Obama learned that Massachusetts Democratic Senate
candidate Martha Coakley was mocking Republican opponent -- and
eventual victor -- Scott Brown for shaking voters' hands in the cold
outside Fenway Park, he knew he would soon be in trouble.
"No! No! You're making that up!" he shouted at aide
David Axelrod, grabbing him by the shirt. "That can't be
|Obama Says He's Accountable for Civilian
reporting that Barack Obama says he is "ultimately accountable" for
civilian deaths on the Afghanistan battlefield.
Speaking at a
White House news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Obama
said civilian deaths are "something that I have to carry with me" and
that it is not something he takes lightly.
He said the U.S. is
doing everything possible to prevent the killing of Afghan civilians.
Obama said the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties in
Afghanistan are caused by terrorist acts by the Taliban. Some
suspected terrorists have cited civilian deaths as justification for
|There Wasn't A Lot Of Cheering
|Warner Todd Huston
what was cut from Obama’s West Point speech says much about him.
Drudge has an interesting little snippet concerning Obama’s recent
speech before the graduating class at West Point. It is a short
headline about what was cut from Obama’s speech, a cut that really says
a lot about the arrogance of team Obama as well as his utter lack of
spontaneity and sincerity and his slavish reliance on the teleprompter.
Here’s the little snippet on Drudge:
"Tepid applause from cadets cuts, 'That’s a
lot of cheering,' line from prepared remarks."
Obama actually had written into his speech ahead of
time that there was to be "a lot of cheering?" This man who
campaigned against the work of these soldiers to be, this man from a
party that has called these soldiers murderers, criminals, dullards, and
dangerous, these folks were expected to give Obama "a lot of cheering?"
Obama really expected a lot of cheering from folks he and his party hate
There’s a break from sanity in the Obama White House,
But not only was it arrogant of Obama to expect "a lot
of cheering" from people he hates and has treated like dirt, that it was
actually written into the speech at all shows that he can’t even come up
with a spontaneous line without the teleprompters telling him to say it.
Finally the fact that he had to cut it and forgo saying it because
there simply wasn’t "a lot of cheering" says that these soldiers to be
aren’t as stupid as the left imagines they are. These young men
and women clearly understood that Barack Obama and his party are not
friends to our armed forces. They dutifully
golf-clapped for Obama, but they were not enthusiastic -- fully the
|Obama To Skip Wreath-Laying At Tomb Of
reporting that Barack Obama plans to spend a long holiday,
socializing, playing golf and dining-out in Chicago.
House says Obama and his family will travel to their hometown on
Thursday and stay through the weekend. It will be their first trip
back home since a visit for Valentine's Day weekend in February 2009.
On Monday, Obama is scheduled to participate in a Memorial Day
ceremony at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Elwood, Ill.
Obama's absence, Vice President Joe Biden will participate in the
customary wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at
Arlington National Cemetery outside Washington.
|Military Chiefs Of Staff Object To "Don’t
Ask, Don’t Tell" Compromise
|The chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Marines yesterday signed letters
objecting to a vote on the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell" policy today. Expressing concern that Congress would
make a decision on the matter before the military could complete the
time-consuming study they've been making such a fuss about, generals
like George Casey of the Army argued that this would send a message to
troops that the military is not living up to its promise to listen to
the input of servicemen and women. The letters were collected by
DADT proponent John McCain, and will give cover to Republicans today who
may wish to vote against the popular repeal. This position puts
the chiefs in opposition to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and
Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama, who support the compromise. It
also pits them against Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Mike Mullen, who
points out that according to the legislation's language the repeal won't
go into effect until after the study is completed anyway.
|A Right To Lawful Command
|J. B. Williams says members of the United
States Military have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution
and protect the American people from all enemies, both foreign and
domestic. Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines have voluntarily
accepted the duty to follow all lawful commands and whether Barack Obama
& Co. likes it or not, lawful command begins with a lawful
Commander-in-Chief. The US Constitution defines what a lawful
Commander-in-Chief is, in Article II, Section I, Clause V.
than 400 civil and criminal suits have been filed in countless courts
across the country raising a myriad of challenges to Barack Obama’s
legitimacy for the office of president, or Commander-in-Chief.
far, every court has declined to hear any evidence against Barack Obama.
Name one time in history when you could find not one court willing to
ask the most obvious questions on a matter as pressing as who the
president of the nation really is?
Under an unlawful commander,
every order is an unlawful order. This means that above all other
citizens, members of the military have a unique stake in the matter of
who is issuing military orders, and as a result, a very real right to
get an answer to that question.
It has been well established that
no matter who Barack Obama’s real father might be, or where on earth he
might have been born, he is NOT a "natural born citizen" of the United
States and he is, therefore, ineligible for the office he currently
Most of what Obama has stated we already know to be a lie.
He has refused to release any
records to document any part of his life, his birth, his education,
his travel, his adoption in Indonesia or his association with a laundry
list of anti-American
evil-doers. Beyond the fact that most of the public propaganda on
the man is not true, we know literally nothing about this person.
Members of the US Military are not obligated to take orders from
such an individual. Commanding our troops is an honor and a
privilege. The honor is reserved for only one individual at a
time, and that individual must meet certain specific requirements or the
honor is not theirs.
Members of the military not only have a
right to question the lawfulness of their orders, they have a
responsibility and an obligation to do so. If they act on unlawful
orders, they have lost the protection offered by their uniform.
|Obama’s Flawed Afghanistan Strategy
says torrents of uninteresting mail inundate members of Congress,
but occasionally there are riveting communications, such as a recent
e-mail from a noncommissioned officer (NCO) serving in Afghanistan.
He explains why the rules of engagement for U.S. troops are "too
prohibitive for coalition forces to achieve sustained tactical
Receiving mortar fire during an overnight mission,
his unit called for a 155mm howitzer illumination round to be fired to
reveal the enemy's location. The request was rejected "on the
grounds that it may cause collateral damage." The NCO says that
the only thing that comes down from an illumination round is a canister,
and the likelihood of it hitting someone or something was akin to that
of being struck by lightning.
Returning from a mission, his unit
took casualties from an improvised explosive device that the unit knew
had been placed no more than an hour earlier. "There were
villagers laughing at the U.S. casualties" and "two suspicious
individuals were seen fleeing the scene and entering a home." U.S.
forces "are no longer allowed to search homes without Afghan National
Security Forces personnel present." But when his unit asked Afghan
police to search the house, the police refused on the grounds that the
people in the house "are good people."
On another mission, some
Afghan adults ran off with their children immediately before the NCO's
unit came under heavy small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades
(RPGs), and the unit asked for artillery fire on the enemy position.
The response was a question: Where is the nearest civilian
structure? "Judging distances," the NCO writes dryly, "can be
difficult when bullets and RPGs are flying over your head." When
the artillery support was denied because of fear of collateral damage,
the unit asked for a "smoke mission" -- like an illumination round; only
the canister falls to earth -- "to conceal our movement as we planned to
flank and destroy the enemy." This request was granted -- but
because of fear of collateral damage, the round was deliberately fired
one kilometer off the requested site, making "the smoke mission useless
and leaving us to fend for ourselves."
doctrine says that success turns on winning the "hearts and minds" of
the population, hence rules of engagement that reduce risks to the
population but increase those of U.S. combatants. C.J. Chivers of
the New York Times, reporting from Marja, Afghanistan, says "many
firefights these days are strictly rifle and machine gun fights," which
"has made engagement times noticeably longer, driving up the troops'
risks and amplifying a perception that Marja, fought with less fire
support than what was available to American units in other hotly
contested areas, is mired in blood."
The value of any particular
counterinsurgency must be weighed against the risks implicit in the
required tactics. The U.S. mission in Afghanistan involves trying
to extend the power, over many people who fear it, of a corrupt
government produced by a corrupted election. This gives rise to
surreal strategies. The Wall Street Journal recently reported U.S.
attempts "to persuade [President Hamid] Karzai to act more presidential
by giving him more responsibility for operations inside his country."
Think about that.
Ann Marlowe, a visiting fellow of the Hudson
Institute who has been embedded with U.S. forces in Afghanistan six
times, says there have been successes at the local and even provincial
levels "but nothing that has lasted even a year." And the election
fraud last August that secured Karzai another five-year term was
symptomatic: His "government has become more egregiously corrupt
and incompetent in the last three or four years." Last month
Marlowe reported: "The Pentagon's map of Afghanistan's 80 most key
districts shows only five 'sympathetic' to the Afghan government -- and
none supporting it." She suggests that Karzai might believe that
Obama's announced intention to begin withdrawing U.S. troops next summer
"is a bluff." Those Americans who say that Afghanistan is a test
of America's "staying power" are saying that we must stay there because
we are there. This is steady work, but it treats perseverance as a
virtue regardless of context or consequences and makes futility into a
reason for persevering.
Obama has counted on his 2011 run-up to
reelection being smoothed by three developments in 2010 -- the
health-care legislation becoming popular after enactment, job creation
accelerating briskly and Afghanistan conditions improving significantly.
The first two are not happening. He can decisively influence only
the third, and only by adhering to his timetable for disentangling U.S.
forces from this misadventure.
|Obama's Vietnam Moment
|The Washington Times
says the Democrats plan to cut and run in Afghanistan.
White House is clinging to Obama's ill-conceived pledge to begin
withdrawing from Afghanistan in July 2011, regardless of how the war is
going at the time. In dogmatically standing by that pledge, Obama
is virtually guaranteeing he will preside over America's second lost
The issue arose last week during congressional testimony
when Central Command commander Gen. David H. Petraeus said that
withdrawing from Afghanistan would be "based on conditions" and that
"July 2011 is not the date where we race for the exits." Au
contraire, according to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. "The
July  date, as stated by the president, that's not moving, that's
not changing," he said Sunday. "Everybody agreed on that date."
The scope of the withdrawal is yet to be decided, but according to
Emanuel, the start date is necessary because it has "created a sense of
urgency" among the allies to get the job done. Another thing
creating a sense of urgency is the significantly degraded security
situation in Afghanistan since Obama set this deadline. Insurgent
attacks and coalition casualties are up; the areas of the country in
which the Taliban are active have increased; and Afghanistan President
Hamid Karzai is watching the United States with increasing wariness,
knowing that soon he will have to face the Taliban alone.
recent study by Anthony H. Cordesman at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies delves into the problems presented by this
arbitrary "begin the withdrawal" date. The study advises against
"timelines based on national politics, exaggerated expectations, and
past failures [which] can lose the war before it can be won."
Setting unrealistic timelines will pressure the International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF) into "trying to do too much, too quickly,"
"undermine faith in the U.S. and ISAF commitment to stay in
Afghanistan," "embolden insurgents in their war of political attrition"
and "pressure Afghans and others in the region to hedge against U.S.
departure and compromise with insurgents."
Attempts to get
results before the deadline will lead to wasting Afghan troops by
throwing them into the fight unprepared and generating a climate of risk
aversion elsewhere in the government because no one will want to stick
his neck out if America is going to abandon them. Meanwhile,
Pakistan will begin to weigh its options for the post-U.S. regional
environment, and Iran will be more active in expanding its influence.
The report notes that "President Obama's efforts to cap the size of
the U.S. military effort have been broadly misinterpreted as a sign the
U.S. plans to start major withdrawals after mid-2011." But
according to Emanuel, this is not a misinterpretation but a method, a
way of fomenting panic instead of counseling patience. Some
critics have said that setting a withdrawal start date will enable the
enemy simply to wait out the United States, but rather than sitting
back, the enemy is pouring it on. The worse conditions in
Afghanistan get, the more the arbitrary withdrawal start date looks like
retreat in the face of a superior enemy, like cutting and running.
The proper time to leave Afghanistan is when the United States has
achieved its strategic goals. Maybe this will have happened by
July 2011, or maybe not. But it is an abrogation of leadership to
cling to an arbitrary date regardless of the facts on the ground.
Obama should spend more time listening to his generals telling him how
to win wars and pay less attention to ideological functionaries advising
him on the most politically expedient ways to lose one.
|What The Heck Was McChrystal Thinking?
Breaking news: In an extraordinary article published in
Rolling Stone, the commander of the 142,000 foreign troops in
Afghanistan was quoted as denouncing the US envoy in Kabul while his
aides dismissed Barack Obama and mocked his deputies.
asks, what in the heck was Gen. Stanley McChrystal thinking? I
mean, I know what he was thinking: he was tired of being the victim of
what he believes is a concerted effort on behalf of Ambassador to
Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry and others to undermine everything he was
given 18 months to do. He was tired of being perceived in the
press as a neoconservative killer, Dick Cheney's hired assassin, or
disloyal to Obama and his staff. He was angry at being blamed for
leaking the draft of his report to the Obama to Bob Woodward. (He
did NOT leak the document). He was miffed that a large number of
mid-ranking soldiers and battalion commanders and enlisted guys didn't
support his strategy.
What I don't know is which of McChrystal's
aides thought it would be a good idea to let his senior staff speak on
background to Rolling Stone, of all publications, venting McChrystal's
frustrations and their own.
Because if there was ONE thing
McChrystal could do to reduce trust between himself and the National
Security Council leading up to December's planned policy review, it was
to allow a staffer to mock Joe Biden and call the national security
adviser a "clown" ... and to put words in McChrystal's own mouth that
I don't think McChrystal intended to do
this. Nevertheless, he did. And as for whether there was
some miscommunication about attribution, or whether McChrystal thought
no one would really notice, or whether he thought a tick-tock like this
would help his cause ... those questions are unanswerable right now.
Eikenberry's beef with McChrystal goes back to the time when
McChrystal was the Pope. The Pope is the head of the Joint Special
Operations Command. The nickname goes back to an off-hand remark
that Janet Reno made after failing to obtain information from JSOC after
the raid at Waco. (JSOC operators were on the ground but did not
assist in the raid itself.) She called JSOC the Vatican. And
the head of the Vatican is ... the Pope.
At some point, I think
in 2005, one of McChrystal's task-forces-that-didn't-really-exist did
something in Afghanistan that angered Eikenberriy, who was in command of
the region at the time. The two men exchanged words and built
mutual mistrust. They have not worked well together ever since.
McChrystal blames Eikenberry for trying to influence policy by leaking
information and by impeding McChrystal's efforts to build better
relationships with Afghanistan's fragile government.
strategy review, Eikenberry didn't think McChrystal's surge could work.
He told the White House that contractors would have to pick up the slack
for years to come. McChrystal insisted that he could execute his
COIN strategy with a heavy presence of special operations forces ... and
be out in 18 months (i.e, troops would begin to be drawn down).
The White House ultimately sided with McChrystal.
But there were
tensions. Even though McChrystal voted for Obama and told him so
during their first meeting, he sensed that a number of senior White
House aides didn't really believe that the former commander of the
military's special missions unit during the Bush-Cheney years was
suddenly on their side. National Security Adviser James Jones, who
is a bit of cipher to McChrystal's team, may or may not have been one of
these aides. No one in the West Wing bought all that liberal
Internet chatter about JSOC's alleged crimes -- but no one really didn't
buy it, either.
Within hours after today's Rolling Stone story
broke, McChrystal was called by the White House, the Secretary of
Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They were
Neither the Pentagon nor the White House would
|Most In Military Will Say McChrystal Was
says Contessa Brewer got a lot more than she was likely looking for
when she interviewed Col. Jack Jacobs [ret.] this afternoon about the
McChrystal situation. The MSNBC host wanted to focus on the
impropriety of McChrystal publicly airing his criticisms of Obama and
others in the chain of command.
But while the Medal of Honor
recipient readily agreed that McChrystal was out of line, and would
probably pay with his job, Jacobs also went out of his way -- twice --
to add an inconvenient truth: that when it comes to the substance of the
criticism, most in the military think McChrystal "was right."
CONTESSA BREWER: It's about the sort
of disdain for authority. And that worries me.
JACOBS: Well it should worry you, and I think he's going to
wind up getting fired because of that; at least partially because of
BREWER: But is his view not only about the
President but about Joe Biden, about Jim Jones, the National
Security advisor, about Karl Eikenberry [US ambassador to
Afghanistan], on and on down the list: Richard Holbrooke --
JACOBS: Those views are very widely held, by the way, inside
the military and outside the military, about those people.
That they're ineffective, that Jim Jones, the National Security
Advisor, does not have an impact on national security policy, that
he has very little access. That Holbrooke hasn't done anything
and so on. Those views are widely held. They're not just
held by McChrystal's staff for example.
Contessa didn't respond to Jacobs' startling
assertion. And when a bit later she closed with more concerns
about respecting the chain of command, the colonel took a tough parting
BREWER: There are hundreds of
thousands of enlisted men and women in the military who are taught
not to question authority; they don't go outside their chain of
command. What kind of message does this send to people at the
lower levels in the military?
JACOBS: Well, it's not a
very good one. But let me tell you what's going to happen.
Gen. McChrystal can't stay in his position. He's probably
going to tender his resignation, and it's probably going to be
accepted -- or demanded in the first place. He might stay.
There are certain circumstances in which he might stay. Likely
as not he is going to be gone, and he's probably going to wind up
And in the end, this is what the rank and file of
military establishment is going to say, privately. They're
going to say: absolutely right: you can't do this, you can't
countenance your subordinates speak to the press and say that the
rest of the chain of command above you are a bunch of knuckleheads.
But they're going to say: you know what? He was right.
|McChrystal’s Real Offense
says there is a lot of uproar about Gen. Stanley’s McChrystal’s
disrespectful comments about his civilian bosses in the Obama
administration, and Obama would be entirely justified in firing
McChrystal for statements McChrystal and his subordinates made to
Rolling Stone. Obama is a deeply flawed commander-in-chief who
doesn’t want to be fighting a war on terror, but he is the
commander-in-chief. He should have a general who will carry out
his policies without public complaint until the voters can decide to
change those policies.
But the bigger problem with McChrystal’s
leadership has always been the general’s devotion to unreasonably
restrictive rules of engagement that are resulting in the unnecessary
deaths of American and coalition forces. We have had many, many
accounts of the rules endangering Americans, and the Rolling Stone
article provides more evidence. In the story, a soldier at Combat
Outpost JFM who had earlier met with McChrystal was killed in a house
that American officers had asked permission to destroy. From the
The night before the general is scheduled to
visit Sgt. Arroyo’s platoon for the memorial, I arrive at Combat
Outpost JFM to speak with the soldiers he had gone on patrol with.
JFM is a small encampment, ringed by high blast walls and guard
towers. Almost all of the soldiers here have been on repeated
combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and have seen some of the
worst fighting of both wars. But they are especially angered
by Ingram’s death. His commanders had repeatedly requested
permission to tear down the house where Ingram was killed, noting
that it was often used as a combat position by the Taliban.
But due to McChrystal’s new restrictions to avoid upsetting
civilians, the request had been denied. "These were abandoned
houses," fumes Staff Sgt. Kennith Hicks. "Nobody was coming
back to live in them."
One soldier shows me the list of new
regulations the platoon was given. "Patrol only in areas that
you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend
yourselves with lethal force," the laminated card reads.
For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight,
that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he
knows he won’t have to make arrests. "Does that make any
f–king sense?" Pfc. Jared Pautsch. "We should just drop
a f–king bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself:
What are we doing here?"
|Obama Bypassed Military
|Michelle Oddis says that at Tuesday’s
confirmation hearing of David Petraeus to head ground efforts in
Afghanistan, the four-star general stated that no one in the military
had ever recommended Obama’s mandatory Afghanistan withdrawal date of
July 2011. (video)
Ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee John McCain (R.-Az)
asked Petraeus if at "any time during the deliberations that the
military shared with the President when he went through the decision
making process, was there a recommendation from you or anyone in the
military that we set a date of July 2011?"
"There was not,"
"There was not by any military person that
you know of?" repeated McCain.
"Not that I am aware of," said
|Troops Punished For Defending Themselves
says violating the U.S. military's "Rules of Engagement" in
Afghanistan could guarantee a U.S. soldier a court martial, according to
sources, even though there are significant concerns the rules actually
damage the ability of soldiers to protect themselves in the heat of
combat with the Taliban.
U.S. soldiers are being told to consider
an Article 15 investigation "as part of the AAR process," or After
Action Review, one informed source said. "This is simply
incredible. It's like saying 'court martials (sic) will happen,
just consider that to be part of your counseling process,'" the military
G2 Bulletin reported last December that the new
rules of engagement ostensibly designed to protect Afghan civilians were
putting the lives of U.S. forces in jeopardy as the Taliban began to
learn to game plan their imposed limits. The ROEs were put in
place in response to Afghan President Hamid Karzai's complaints over
mounting civilian casualties during firefights.
But soldiers are
worrying that the rules, said to be classified U.S. and NATO Secret,
imposed serious restrictions to include no night or surprise searches,
warning villagers prior to searches and no firing on insurgents if they
are walking away from having just planted an explosive.
restrictive rules were imposed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former
U.S. forces in Afghanistan commander. He recently was dismissed
over his published comments criticizing the national security civilian
leadership and replaced by Gen. David Petraeus.
said the rules offer a six-step escalation of force (EOF) to include
visual warning, audible warning, non-lethal weapons and tactics, point
weapons at potential threat, disabling shot and shoot to kill.
But they are complicated by the necessity to protect such sites as
hospitals and religious and historical sites. And the rules also
must be coordinated with a page-long list of specific points imposed by
|General Wants Afghans Branded As Terrorists
reporting that Obama's pick to lead the U.S. military command
overseeing operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere said on Tuesday he
wanted top leaders of two major insurgent groups designated as
The Quetta Shura and the Haqqani network oppose U.S.
forces in Afghanistan and officially blacklisting their leaders could
trigger punitive measures, like freezing assets. Advocates say it
would also send a strong message to Pakistan, under pressure to go after
insurgents inside its borders.
"Both those groups have engaged in
terrorism and I believe the leaders of both groups should be placed on
the State Department list," General James Mattis told the Senate Armed
Mattis is nominated to take over the helm of
the U.S. military's Central Command, which oversees operations in a
volatile swath of the world that covers 20 countries and stretches from
Egypt across the Middle East and into South and Central Asia.
Quetta Shura, headed by Mullah Omar, is the remains of the Afghan
Taliban government which was overthrown and driven into Pakistan by the
2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
The Haqqani network, headed by
a hero of the 1980s guerrilla war against the Soviet Union, Jalaluddin
Haqqani, and his son, is based mainly in Pakistan's North Waziristan and
adjoining provinces in Afghanistan.
The chairman of the Senate
committee, Senator Carl Levin, said "these groups and their senior
leaders are involved deeply in supporting the ongoing insurgency in
Beyond providing tools to limit their financial and
logistical support, Levin said, the designation would also send a signal
-- including to Pakistan -- "regarding the United States' serious
concern with their ongoing activities."
The U.S. military and
intelligence agencies believe some elements within Pakistan's
intelligence service maintain contact with and may even in some cases
support the Taliban and its allies who are fighting a nine-year-old war
|Obama "Gives Enemy Sustenance"
|ABC News reports that a senior US general has
delivered a blunt warning about the risks Barack Obama is taking by
imposing a deadline on the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
General James Conway, the outgoing head of the Marine Corp, says the
policy of withdrawing troops by July next year has given a moral boost
to Taliban insurgents who now believe they can wait out NATO forces.
"Right now it is probably giving our enemy sustenance," he said.
"The last of the 30,000 troops only arrived this month. I would
also quote the analysis of one of my regimental commanders when asked
about the pace of the war. He said 'we can either lose fast or win
His comments have fuelled debate over Obama's war
strategy, with supporters saying a deadline is essential in imposing a
sense of urgency on the government in Kabul.
here . . .
He Really Doesn't Want To Be Commander In Chief
says it is not that we didn't know this before, but reading the New
York Times -- surely designed to be as favorable toward Obama as the
reporter could possibly manage -- one is left slack-jawed. Obama
doesn't like being commander in chief, isn't good at it, and has relied
on one tutor, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who is leaving next
year. The report should be read in full. But a few
A year and a half into his presidency, Mr.
Obama appears to be a reluctant warrior. Even as he draws down
troops in Iraq, he has been abundantly willing to use force to
advance national interests, tripling forces in Afghanistan,
authorizing secret operations in Yemen and Somalia, and escalating
drone strikes in Pakistan. But advisers said he did not see
himself as a war president in the way his predecessor did. His
speech on Tuesday is notable because he talks in public about the
wars only sporadically, determined not to let them define his
A former adviser to the president, who like
others insisted on anonymity in order to discuss the situation
candidly, said that Mr. Obama's relationship with the military was
'troubled' and that he 'doesn't have a handle on it.' …
Reliant on Mr. Gates, Mr. Obama has made limited efforts to know his
service chiefs or top commanders, and has visited the Pentagon only
once, not counting a Sept. 11 commemoration. He ended Mr.
Bush's practice of weekly videoconferences with commanders,
preferring to work through the chain of command and wary, aides
said, of being drawn into managing the wars. …
the president gave the military 30,000 more troops, but also a
ticking clock. …"He didn't understand or grasp the military
culture," said Lawrence J. Korb, a former Pentagon official at the
liberal Center for American Progress. "He got over that
particular quandary, and put them back in the box by saying, 'O.K.,
I'm giving you 18 months.'"
As we all suspected, he compromised our Afghanistan
war strategy for the sake of domestic politics:
One adviser at the time said Mr. Obama
calculated that an open-ended commitment would undermine the rest of
his agenda. "Our Afghan policy was focused as much as anything
on domestic politics," the adviser said. "He would not risk
losing the moderate to centrist Democrats in the middle of health
insurance reform and he viewed that legislation as the make-or-break
legislation for his administration."
He simply doesn't want to do the things that are
expected of the commander in chief, and the military's ire is profound:
The schisms among his team, though, are born
in part out of uncertainty about his true commitment. His reticence
to talk much publicly about the wars may owe to the political costs
of alienating his base as well as the demands of other issues.
Senior Pentagon and military officials said they understood that he
presided over a troubled economy, but noted that he was not losing
30 American soldiers a month on Wall Street. …
"From an image
point of view, he doesn't seem to embrace it, almost like you have
to drag him into doing it," said Peter D. Feaver, a Bush adviser
with military contacts. "There's deep uncertainty and perhaps doubt
in the military about his commitment to see the wars through to a
This was a man not only unprepared for the job, but
disposed to shirk its most important aspect. It is a measure of
his hubris and stubbornness that he has refused to, as Feaver succinctly
puts it, "embrace" the role, that is, to commit in word and deed his
full attention and effort to leading the country in war. He
doesn't want to be a wartime president? Well, sorry -- he is.
The only comfort one can draw from this appalling portrait is that
perhaps, just perhaps, after November, when his dream of transforming
America is crushed by an electoral blow-back, he will belatedly do his
|Obama’s War Against The U.S. Military
|Buzz Patterson says when presidential candidate
Barack Obama proudly announced in the fall of 2007 that, if elected, he
was going to "fundamentally change the United States of America" it was
a warning shot across the bow of the U.S. military, its culture, and the
men and women who bravely serve every day.
More to the point,
while our armed forces take fire from enemies in the sands and mountains
of the Middle East, they are also taking fire from a much more lethal
source: their commander-in-chief. Yes, America’s military is at
war with radical Islamists around the world and, more problematic, with
Obama at home.
Barack Obama’s war with the U.S. military is one
with several fronts: social engineering of the military culture at the
expense of readiness and capability; dictating the rules of engagement
(ROE) that hinder our troops’ ability to fight an enemy that doesn’t
wear traditional military uniforms and hides behind women’s burqas while
operating from schools and mosques; and, slashing the necessary funding
for force modernization and sustainability. And finally, morale --
successful military operations always come down to morale.
Former President and World War II hero Dwight D. Eisenhower once said
"Morale is the greatest single factor in successful wars." It’s
also a concept that Barack Obama seems incapable of grasping.
here . . .
|Don't Ask, Don't Tell Dies -- For Now
|Patricia Murphy is reporting that Senate
Republicans blocked the Defense Department bill Tuesday, objecting to
gay rights and immigration language in the annual legislation that sets
policies and spending levels for the Pentagon. Majority Democrats,
needing 60 votes to break a filibuster and begin consideration of the
bill, fell short 43 to 56. Arkansas Democrats Blanche Lincoln and Mark
Pryor joined all 40 Republicans in voting no.
Leader Harry Reid also voted against the bill, but for procedural
reasons. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) missed the roll call.
senators said two controversial additions -- language to begin the
repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military and a
last-minute amendment based on the DREAM Act to give young illegal
immigrants a path to citizenship if they complete two years of college
or serve that long in the military -- made the bill impossible to
here . . .
|A Devastating And Depressing Portrait Of
says the Washington Post’s story on Bob Woodward’s forthcoming book,
"Obama’s Wars," includes these passages:
Obama rejected the military’s request for
40,000 troops as part of an expansive mission that had no
foreseeable end. "I’m not doing 10 years," he told Secretary
of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton at a meeting on Oct. 26, 2009. "I’m not doing
long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion
dollars." … At one strategy session, Obama waved a memo from
the Office of Management and Budget, which put a price tag of $889
billion over 10 years on the military’s open-ended approach.
So we finally found the one institution where
Barack Obama is frugal and interested in cost-savings: the military
during time of war.
It is quite revealing that this most
profligate ideologue -- whose spending is nearly limitless when it comes
to health care, stimulus packages, bailouts, and non-defense
discretionary program -- has found his inner Barry Goldwater when it
comes to spending on defense matters.
There are two problems for
Obama. The first centers on Article II, Section II, of the
Constitution, which states, "The President shall be Commander in Chief
of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the
several States." Obama’s primary responsibility, as envisioned by
the Founders, is to serve as commander in chief, not as the tax
collector for the welfare state. "Among the many objects to which
a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention,"
John Jay wrote in Federalist No. 3, "is that of providing for their
safety seems to be first."
Obama seems to have his priorities
upside down -- largely indifferent to those areas he’s responsible for
and hyper-active in areas he’s not.
Second, the military, more
than any other branch of the federal government, is showing remarkable
results for its work. It has reformed and modernized itself in
important respects, advanced the cause of liberty, delivered lethal
blows to our enemies, and protected us from harm. Yet with America
engaged in a hot war in Afghanistan, where the consequences of failure
would be catastrophic, Obama has decided to be hyper-thrifty with his
spending. He repeatedly limits what his generals, including
General Petraeus, believe they need to successfully prosecute the war.
Quite apart from being reckless, Obama is reinforcing almost every
bad impression of his party: keen on raising taxes, spending record
amounts on domestic programs, centralizing power, and expanding the size
and reach of the federal government. When it comes to war, though,
Obama is conflicted and uncertain, in search of an exit ramp more than
victory, and even willing to subordinate security needs to partisan
concerns (most especially by insisting on an arbitrary drawdown date of
July 2011 in order to please his political advisers). As Politico
Obama’s timetable to begin a real drawdown …
is considerably more concrete than once thought. The book …
has Obama warning the Pentagon that he won’t tolerate a 10-year war
that sacrifices American troops, bleeds the treasury or drains his
own popularity with the Democratic base.
By most accounts (see
the White House is pleased with how Obama is portrayed in Obama’s Wars.
It shouldn’t be. Obama comes across, at least in the stories
released so far, as a man deeply uncomfortable in his role as commander
It is a devastating, and depressing, portrait.
|According To Woodward
says according to Bob Woodward, Barack Obama got "pissed" with the
US military for demanding more troops. The startling disclosure
that is not presidential at all comes as part of author Bob Woodward’s
first interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer as he begins to hawk his new
book, "Obama’s Wars." In one of the meetings Obama attended to
review Afghanistan policy, he simply blurted out, "I’m pissed!" because
he was getting frustrated with the insistence of US military leaders
demanding more troops so they could win in Afghanistan. Just
imagine, US military leaders actually had the unmitigated gall to dare
ask their commander-in-chief for more troops so they could win over the
terrorist enemy! How dare them! At least, that’s what was
apparently running through the socialist Obama’s mind, which is going to
be hard to understand from the viewpoint of many Americans.
"Obama’s Wars" goes on sale today, and it is supposed to be an insider’s
account of the first year-and-a-half of the Obama Administration’s
machinations and policy-making as it relates to the Afghanistan war.
While the aforementioned doozy about Obama getting "pissed" is certainly
going to upset many patriotic Americans, it should come as no surprise
from a committed liberal Democrat president who has also failed to
provide enough troops for Afghanistan, failed to provide them in a
timely manner, and has been at loggerheads with members of his own
military. Other revelations in Woodward’s book are equally as
unsettling. In large part, "Obama’s Wars" paints Obama and his
administration as a bunch of ill-prepared and in-over-their-heads
ideologues who are at the center of often chaotic and disorderly foreign
Take one episode where Obama -- much like an
unsophisticated, playground bully -- actually sees fit to push everyone
of his top aides to go along with his laughable strategy of only surging
30,000 troops (instead of the 40,000 wanted by military commanders) in
Afghanistan, with a withdrawal date of July 2011. All his
lemming-like aides sign off on his demands (What are they going to do?
Obama’s the prez, after all!), but there is no conviction among any of
them. This illustrates how Obama may have the final word, and it
may be his amateurish strategy, but he has no one -- not his military
leaders or even his own aides -- believing that it will work!
on the central, provocative divulgence in Woodward’s book -- that Obama
got "pissed" at his own military for their advice of wanting more troops
to win the war -- that is the most egregious aspect of Obama’s attitude,
to say the least. It’s ironic, too, because many Americans have a
lot of reason to be "pissed" right back at Obama. For instance,
many Americans have a very strong right to be "pissed" at Obama for
anything from double-digit unemployment that refuses to go down;
government healthcare forced down their throats; his constant
apologizing for the US; his bowing before foreign leaders; and too many
things I would run out of space to list here!
revelations in "Obama’s Wars" likely won’t shock too many conservatives
and attentive independents who already know Obama’s failures when it
comes to national security and foreign policy, it still is instructive
in reminding us all of one thing. Democrats cannot be trusted with
national security issues ever, for they are weak and ineffective at it,
to say the least.
|More Than One U.S. Soldier Dying Per Day On
that September 2010 has been the deadliest September yet for U.S. troops
in the 9-year-long war in Afghanistan as U.S. troops continued to be
killed at a pace of slightly higher than one per day during the Obama
U.S. troops have thus far suffered 38 total
casualties in September, with all but two of those being combat-related.
Before now, September 2009 had been the deadliest September of the war
with the U.S. suffering 37 total casualties in that month, 35 of which
were combat related.
Since the beginning of the war in October
2001, U.S. troops have suffered 1,206 total casualties in Afghanistan,
according to CNSNews.com database of Afghanistan war casualties.
1,041 of those casualties have been combated related.
already the deadliest year of the Afghan war for U.S. forces. So
far, 354 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan this year compared
to 303 in 2009, which was the second deadliest year of the war.
total of 650 U.S. troops troops have been killed in Afghanistan since
Barack Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2010, after campaigning for
president vowing to shift the focus of U.S. military efforts overseas
from Iraq to Afghanistan.
The 650 U.S. casualties in Afghanistan
since Obama’s inauguration equal almost 54 percent of all U.S.
casualties for the entire duration of the war. Given that Obama
has been president for 618 days, U.S. troops have been dying in
Afghanistan at a rate of more than one a day since he took over as
commander in chief.
Related: Why Is He Sending Them? -- the
great Charles Krauthammer
|You're Out Of Your Mind
is reporting that Reagan-era Secretary of State George Shultz
blasted Obama Monday night for his scheduled July 2011 date to begin
withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan.
Mr. Shultz, 89, made
the unusually blunt remarks at a packed dinner for the International
Republican Institute -- the GOP-aligned counterpart to the National
Democratic Institute -- where he was receiving the organization's 2010
"You're out of your mind," he said at a
question-and-answer forum, when asked his opinion of Obama's drawdown
date. "How can you say that 'if I haven't won by six or nine
months from now, I'm leaving?'"
Mr. Shultz -- who earlier served
under President Nixon as Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Labor
and director of the Office of Management and Budget -- called for a
prompt extension of the Bush tax cuts and expressed theoretical support
for Obama's goal of a world without nuclear weapons.
|American Military Officers Against Obama
|Mark S. McGrew is reporting that...
Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin, Major General Carroll D. Childers,
Captain Neil B. Turner, Commander Charles Kerchner, Lt. Commander Walter
Fitzpatrick, Captain Connie Rhodes, Lieutenant Colonel David Earl Graef,
Major Stefan Frederick Cook, Paul Vallely, Major General (Ret), US Army,
Jim Cash, Brigadier General (Ret), USAF, Harry Riley, Colonel (Ret), US
Army, Michael A. Trudell, Captain (Ret), USN, Harry Soloman, Lieutenant
Colonel (Ret), USAF, Carmen A. Reynolds, Lieutenant Colonel (Ret), USAF,
Debra A. Gunnoe, Lieutenant Colonel (Ret), USAF, Greg Hollister,
Lieutenant Colonel (Ret), USAF, Richard C. Morris, Lieutenant Colonel
(Ret), US Army, William Harker, Commander (Ret), USN, Bill Little,
Commander (Ret), USN. John Johnson, 1st Lieutenant (Ret), USAF, Luther
B. Neff, Captain (Ret), USAF, Fred Herndon, Captain (Ret), USAF, Jerry
Curry Army Major General (Retired), General Thomas McInerney,
...are either engaged in a legal action against Obama or have publicly
expressed their support for people in legal actions against Obama.
What motivates these people to risk their lives, their freedom and
their fortunes by publicly stating their position against a US
It is their sworn duty.
here . . .
|Time's Running Out For U.S. Troops In
|James Gordon Meek
says the countdown to Obama's
July 2011 withdrawal has begun, and the tick-tocking sound in
Afghanistan is time running out for Team America -- and the enemy knows
It's not only Beltway pundits who have picked over the fine
points of Obama's fuzzy July 2011 Afghan troop withdrawal target date,
it's the Taliban, too, from Kabul to Kandahar and Khyber to Karachi.
Never mind that Obama and Army Gen. David Petraeus have hedged on that
date, promising any pullouts will be "conditions based."
or not it's what we said, it's what the adversary thinks they heard and
what they tell their people," said a senior U.S. counterterrorism
official, who has served in Afghanistan.
Believing that America's
100,000 troops are going to exit next summer -- a myth promulgated by
the Pakistan-based Afghan Taliban -- means millions of civilians have
been understandably wary about sticking their necks out to help
stabilize their wartorn country. "Most of the Afghan population is
neither strongly pro-coalition or strongly pro-Taliban. They're
strongly pro not-getting-killed," the senior official told the Daily
News in an exclusive war briefing. That's made our exit strategy
even tougher, and has enabled the enemy to control more turf than the
surge of U.S. forces there do.
Just a few years ago, NGOs, aid
groups and the U.S. Agency for International Development were able to
build schools, dig wells and offer rural Afghans free medical care
without fear of being targeted. But the war's escalation has made
that aspect of counterinsurgency -- as critical to our success as bombs
and bullets -- "difficult, if not impossible. Non-military things
are vastly harder (to do now) than they could have been done before,"
the official lamented.
Even with 100,000 G.I.s on the ground,
they hold little turf solidly, as The News reported on Sunday.
"You can control rifle range from where you stand," the senior U.S.
counterterrorism official told The News, adding that, historically,
"Most of Afghanistan was never controlled."
Army Maj. Sunset
Belinsky, a spokeswoman for NATO's International Security Assistance
Force, said success under the Petraeus-managed war "will take time."
But four eastern provinces along the porous AfPak border are
patrolled by about 3,500 troopers from a single brigade of the storied
101st Airborne Division -- the same number of troops tackling security
in individual provinces such as Kandahar and Helmand in the volatile
south. That's a weak anvil on the Afghan side of the border while
Al Qaeda and the Taliban are being hammered by CIA drones on the
Pakistan side, U.S. officials admit.
The Screaming Eagles of the
101st in the east will continue to be stretched thin -- along with their
1st Cavalry Division replacements this spring -- until Kandahar City is
reasonably pacified. "We will not move the bulk of our forces east
and north until the security gains can be held by Afghan National
Security Forces (in Kandahar)," Belinsky said.
The U.S. "cannot
capture or kill our way out of Afghanistan," the ISAF spokeswoman added
-- after she detailed how 1,260 Taliban leaders and fighters have been
killed by Afghan, allied and U.S. Special Operations in raids since
July, when Petraeus took command.
|Task Force Obama
This is in addition to the the $200 million per day on Mumbai
boondoggle -- while wounded soldiers
As Jim Hoft
, Obama's retinue includes 3,000 people including
Secret Service agents, US government officials and journalists, 40
aircraft, and three Marine One choppers that will be disassembled in
the US, flown to Mumbai, and reassembled in India to ferry Obama and
his family and to evacuate them in case of any emergency. Also
included is military personnel to ensure his safety.
reserved the entire Taj Mahal Hotel. All 570 odd rooms,
banquet halls, restaurants, etc. In addition to hundreds of
rooms in other 5 star hotels around Mumbai. Obviously no
expense will be spared.
It seems that this is a fabulous
expenditure of taxpayers dollars for a trip that has been described
by The Global Post in this way:
The bottom line: There’s very little
chance Indians won’t be disappointed with the outcome.
"If you look closely at what the
background briefings are from the Indian side and what is being
said not only in Washington but by the U.S. ambassador here, one
gets the sense that nothing dramatic is likely to emerge from
the visit," said former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal.
Already the Obama administration is downplaying
expectations. At a press briefing to outline the broad agenda
for the visit, senior U.S. officials encouraged observers to focus
on the big picture, rather than big agreements.
Is this what
we get for a billion dollars?
|Obama Calls For End Of "Don't Ask, Don't
|The Star Online (AU)
says Barack Obama has called on the US Senate to pass legislation
allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military following the
release of a report backing a change in policy by the Department of
The nine month Pentagon study found that seventy percent
of armed forces personnel did not believe a change in the policy would
effect unit cohesion.
"With our nation at war and so many
Americans serving on the front lines, our troops and their families
deserve the certainty that can only come when an act of Congress ends
this discriminatory policy once and for all," said Obama.
"The House of Representatives has already
passed the necessary legislation … I call on the Senate to act as
soon as possible so I can sign this repeal into law this year and
ensure that Americans who are willing to risk their lives for their
country are treated fairly and equally."
Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has
vowed to hold a vote on the bill this month.
Senators have already declared their support for ending the policy,
however a small number of Democrats may oppose the bill so the outcome
Related: The real Pentagon poll: 91%
reject homosexual leaders. 85% of combat Marines distrust. 71% won't
share showers. 24% won't re-enlist.
|Military Slams Door On Mystery Missile
|F. Michael Maloof says the Department of
Defense is slamming the door on questions about the mysterious contrail
filmed Nov. 8 by a KCBS television crew near Los Angeles after questions
were raised about a warning from the National Geo-Spatial Intelligence
Agency that there could be missiles fired in that area at that time.
The official government position has been that the contrail, which
appears to have been made by a single source, was from a jet passing by.
And the refusal to provide answers to specific questions
suggests a cover-up of potential secret missile testing in the area --
contrary to official jet contrail explanation.
experts have examined the billowing plume and the single-source
white-hot exhaust which they contend was from a missile, not a jet.
It was in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin intelligence report where the
story was broken that several experts who examined the video of the
mysterious contrail confirmed it was not from a jet but a missile.
The experts who examined the video have had extensive experience
working with missiles and computer security systems for various
sensitive agencies of the U.S. government.
They even went so far
as to suggest that the missile may have been shot from a submerged
Chinese nuclear submarine, coinciding with an increasing level of
confrontation between the United States and China and designed to send a
message to Washington:
But it was in late October that the NGA issued the maritime
warning for the Eastern North Pacific off California about "intermittent
missile firing operations." While the notice gave time frames and days
of the week as well as areas for missile firings, there was no specified
time limit as to when they would end.
here . .
|Catch And Release In Afghanistan
says a cable released by WikiLeaks that is available on The New York
Times' web site underscores the difficulties that both the Bush and
Obama administrations have had in transferring war on terror detainees
to Afghan custody. The cable, which originated at the US Embassy
in Kabul on Aug. 6, 2009, begins:
On numerous occasions we have emphasized
with Attorney General Aloko the need to end interventions by him and
President Karzai, who both authorize the release of detainees
pre-trial and allow dangerous individuals to go free or re-enter the
battlefield without ever facing an Afghan court.
The cable's author goes on to explain that this is
a problem with respect to: detainees transferred from the American-run
facility in Bagram to Afghan custody, detainees transferred from
Guantanamo to Afghan custody, and also narco-traffickers.
the Afghan government accepts transferred detainees, it is supposed to
take certain security precautions. In some cases, the US government
expects the Afghans to try them in their courts. It often doesn't work
out that way.
The situation with respect to detainees once held
in Bagram is worrisome, according to the State Department's cable
Transfers from Bagram
Theatre Internment Facility (BTIF) to the Afghan National Detention
Facility (ANDF) began in Spring 2007. During that year, there
was only one pre-trial release. In 2008, there were 104 pre-trial
releases, almost all of which took place after President
Karzai formed the Aloko Detainee Commission in April 2008.
From January to March of 2009, there were 12 pre-trial releases; and
23 pre-trial releases between April and June 2009. So far in
July 2009, there have been 10 pre-trial releases.
Detainees at Bagram include those individuals the
US military and its allies suspect of fighting for the Taliban, al
Qaeda, and their jihadist allies. The cable suggests that the
Afghans released more 100 detainees without trial in 2008. The
Americans expected at least some of them, and probably many of them, to
be tried. The Afghans were on pace to release about the same
number of detainees without trying them in 2009.
with respect to detainees transferred from Guantanamo to Afghanistan is
problematic as well. The cable notes (emphasis added):
An August 2005 exchange of diplomatic notes
between the USG and the GIRoA provides the legal basis for the
GIRoA's detention and prosecution of detainees transferred? into
Afghan custody. Even though a multi-agency GIRoA delegation under
the Aloko Detainee Commission screens all BTIF detainees who are
transferred to the ANDF and assures the USG that these detainees
will be prosecuted in an Afghan court, there
have been 150 detainees released from the ANDF without trial since
2007, including 29 former Guantanamo Bay (GTMO) detainees. The
total number of transfers to date from BTIF to ANDF is 629
detainees, plus 41 from GTMO.
It is not entirely clear if the
29 Gitmo detainees referred to above were all supposed to be tried in
Afghan courts, but it certainly appears that way. It also makes
sense when put into context. Roughly 200 Afghans have been transferred
from Guantanamo to their home country, according to data compiled by The
New York Times. Many of these former detainees probably were not
slated to stand trial. But the Americans did expect that some of them
The cable suggests that the Afghans have released dozens
of former Gitmo detainees, and many more former detainees once held at
Bagram, who the Americans thought should be tried.
|Investors.com chooses to
call it the ObamaCare bureaucratic mentality applied to U.S. war
strategy. We catch hundreds of enemy combatants -- then let them
go so they can kill more U.S. troops and Afghan civilians.
Barack Obama's most resonant applause lines during the campaign was his
explanation for opposing the liberation of Iraq: "I am not opposed to
all wars; I'm opposed to dumb wars." No offense to masterful Gen.
David Petraeus -- who is not to blame for this -- but U.S. war policy in
Afghanistan is getting dumber and dumber in some big ways.
Washington Examiner's Sara Carter reports that more than 500 suspected
Taliban militants have been released from U.S. custody this year.
And there are dozens of detainees at other facilities all over
Afghanistan who've been let go.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai,
whose confidence in the U.S. war effort is shaky, is believed to be
hedging his bets with the Taliban. He's tried to free as many as
700 of their operatives since July, according to Carter, viewing them as
A spokeswoman for our forces seemed to have
entered the absurdist world of humorist P.G. Wodehouse as she explained
that "detention is necessary to mitigate the threat posed to the
government and people of Afghanistan, the U.S. and its coalition
partners" -- begging the question of why the deuce are we releasing
Hundreds of thousands of Nazi soldiers captured by the
allies were kept as prisoners for as long as three years after Germany's
surrender in May 1945. In Britain, German POWs made up a quarter
of the nation's farming work force as late as 1947.
war on terror -- of which Obama has said Afghanistan is the central
front -- is just as much a war as World War II. Why are we in such
a hurry to repatriate enemy POWs? The Petraeus counterinsurgency
strategy, made famous by the Iraq surge, in which enemy areas are
cleared and held, becomes kind of tough when the enemy forces you clear
away are allowed to come back.
A military official stationed in
Afghanistan told the Examiner, "we've got to release the bad guys"
because the Karzai government calls the shots. Would a Ronald
Reagan or Margaret Thatcher -- or, for that matter, a George W. Bush --
long accept that?
Petraeus recently denied rumors he threatened
to resign over friction with Karzai on U.S. night raids. But one
can imagine a commanding general resigning because his superiors agree
to let captured enemy operatives return to the battlefield -- by the
Most Americans are as "opposed to dumb wars" as Obama
-- especially when it's the U.S. being dumb.
|Colonel Blames Obama For US Soldier Deaths
is reporting that Lt. Col. Ralph Peters blames Obama for US soldier
deaths in Afghanistan. In a pithy appearance on The O’Reilly
Factor last night, Peters was brought on as a guest to discuss the
frustrating situation in Afghanistan, especially in light of a new poll
that disappointingly shows that most Americans now think the Afghanistan
war was not worth fighting. The
release of the Afghanistan progress report yesterday provided Peters
with another target for analysis, but his entire appearance essentially
boiled down to one point that many Americans likely concur with: US
soldiers keep dying in Afghanistan and the US keeps supporting the
corrupt Hamid Karzai because Obama does not know what he’s doing.
Peters started off his analysis by exposing the Afghanistan
"progress" report from yesterday for what it essentially was:
disorganized window-dressing. His main accusation was Obama’s
complete lack of know-how in how to prosecute the Afghanistan war, which
was seen again in Obama’s remarks yesterday during a press conference on
the "progress" report. Peters pointed out just a couple of
contradictions in Obama’s remarks. For instance, Obama claimed the
US was going after Al-Qaeda in the county, yet the vast majority of
operations in Afghanistan are directed only at the Taliban.
Secondly, Obama kept assuring the American people that he didn’t want to
nation-build, yet he kept affirming an American commitment to provide
the Afghan people with good governance and basic services, which -- you
guessed it! -- is exactly what nation-building is all about!
These Obama comments certainly make Peters' accusation against Obama for
him, as his press conference really confirmed a commander-in-chief who’s
hopelessly clueless about what to do in Afghanistan. Other
examples of Obama’s ineptitude that were cited included the failure to
pacify most of the country by only focusing the military in one or two
places; the continuous support of Karzai (whom he referred to as a
corrupt thug); and tolerating Pakistan while it continues acting against
US interests relative to Afghanistan.
O’Reilly instead blamed the
attitude of Americans not thinking the war is worth it anymore more on
Obama’s communication skills, claiming that Americans don’t understand
what the end goal in Afghanistan is. Yet that’s absurd because
anyone with a brain can tell you that it comes down to two, simple
achievements: Kill Al-Qaeda in the country and ensure that the Afghan
government can fend for itself. So it’s not really a
communications problem at all as O'Reilly bloviated, but it’s more what
Peters analyzed it to be: Obama ineptitude.
Certainly, the reason
war support for Afghanistan is slipping is because many Americans
believe, rightly so, that the US is not fighting the war with the gloves
off, instead choosing to use kid gloves on those poor, "misunderstood
freedom fighters" of Al-Qaeda. When Americans see all the
wrongness that Obama continues to allow -- like Rules of Engagement that
actually restrict soldiers from firing on the terrorists, failing to
hold territory after winning it, and continuing on a par-for-the-course
policy regarding Karzai -- they realize that he and the US government
are not committed to winning in Afghanistan. If they were,
Afghanistan could be pacified in short order.
This raises the
question, what should the US do in this case? There are really
only two options. Either continue the mishandled way that Obama
has prosecuted Afghanistan up to this point, which would, as Peters is
correct in analyzing, just continue the needless sacrifice of more
soldiers dying without a commitment to victory, or pull out and let
Afghanistan get taken over by the terrorists all over again, which would
defeat everything that was invested in Afghanistan for nine years.
I hope the solution lies in an Obama loss in 2012, the election of a
conservative hawk for president, and then a total and proper
pacification of Afghanistan the way it should have been from day one.
|Saudi Air Force Training Base To Be Sited
says an Oct. 20, Stratfor report said that the Obama administration
formally notified Congress on Oct. 20 of a $60 billion arms sale to
Saudi Arabia. The package, which includes both combat aircraft and
military helicopters, is considerable and will provide the Saudis with
even more of some of the most modern fighter jets in the entire region.
Militarily, however, Riyadh’s challenge is not a matter of
hardware: Saudi Arabia already fields a broad spectrum of some of the
highest-end and most modern military equipment in the region.
Instead, its challenge is fielding that hardware. With deliveries
years away, the new deal will do little to balance the resurgent Iranian
regime in the near-term, and prolongs Saudi Arabia’s heavy dependence on
U.S. defense support.
The new package, which will reinforce the
quality and quantity of Saudi military hardware over the course of the
next two decades, will include:
• 84 new-build and more modern
variants of the F-15S combat fighter aircraft.
upgrade of 70 existing Saudi F-15S to this new standard.
70 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters.
• 72 UH-60 Black Hawk
• 36 AH-6i light attack-reconnaissance
• 12 light training helicopters.
Associated armaments, including air-to-air and air-to-ground
ordnance (including 1,000 "bunker-buster" bombs designed to
penetrate hardened and deeply buried facilities).
Mountain Home U.S. Air Force
Now an Idaho news source, Mountain Home News
reports that the United States will be facilitating a training base for
the Royal Saudi Air Force in Mountain Home, Idaho.
Col. Pete Lee,
vice commander of the 366th Fighter Wing at Mountain Home Air Force Base
described the announcement as "a great opportunity," for the base, the
local community and the region.
The Saudi government will
apparently bear all costs for basing the squadron. The arms sale
will doubtless be welcomed by the arms industry in the United States.
Saudi Arabia is a known sponsor of Wahabbist terrorism. Is
this arrangement really in the best long term interests of the U.S?
Copyright Beckwith 2010
All right reserved