Let Them Fight or Bring Them Home

Unreasonable Risk and Ill-Conceived Combat Missions!

2012-01-22T19:25:00.000-05:00

During an exchange with a Senatorial Aide, I received from him the link to a piece written by a Colonel Tony Pfaff, USA. The piece is entitled, 'RISK, MILITARY ETHICS AND IRREGULAR WARFARE'. In this piece the Colonel details the problems encountered in asymmetrical combat, the unwieldy and artificially established parameters thrust upon not only unit field leaders but upon individual combatants as well.

He refers to the 'absurdities' created in an environment created by the unusual mix of non-combatants, friendly combatants and 'irregular' fighters. The absurdities he refers to amount to forcing friendly combatants to measure the value of life on a sliding scale with the non-combatant at the top and the friendly combatant at the bottom. To his credit, he makes it clear that a commander should never take the indefensible position of not considering protection of his force when planning and carrying out the mission.

The main problem with the piece is that while it accurately portrays the combatant as being the instrument through which a sovereign nation can project violence to protect it's citizenry and thus rightly assumes risk on it's behalf, it never-the-less tries to equate all human life. From the vantage point of a government's responsibility to it's citizenry, that should never be an issue. From a strictly objective view point and certainly through the eyes of our Founding Fathers and our Constitution, all men are indeed created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights "by their creator". The problem, however, is that men are free to determine for themselves who that "creator" is and whether he has indeed established that standard for literally all men or if he has decreed that unbelievers should be brutalized, and killed.

While I do recognize and agree with the Founding Fathers on the rights of all men, I do not see the world as flat. I recognize that there are indeed men who have given themselves to ideologies that run counter to our unique understanding of that vision and that some men in fact hold ill in their hearts for any who do not believe as they do. Such are they who hold to the doctrines of Islam and the entire population in Afghanistan stands in excess of 98% compliant with that religion.

Colonel Pfaff continues and quotes from Walzter:

"While commanders are expected to conserve soldiers’ lives as a matter of military necessity, the demands of irregular warfare—where support of the local population is critical to mission accomplishment—place almost all the risk associated with conducting operations onto the soldier.

The difficulty for the standard view [conventional warfare] is that when choosing where to transfer risk—mission, enemy civilians, or themselves—combatants must always choose to transfer risk to themselves, except when the mission itself is at stake. By placing friendly combatants lowest in priority in terms of risk avoidance, one effectively denies them the right to life. By denying them the right to life, they are denied the protection of the state they are defending. This view is explicitly held by Walzer who notes:

“The immediate problem is that soldiers who do the fighting …lose the rights they are supposedly defending. They gain war rights as combatants and potential prisoners, but they can now be attacked and killed at will by the enemy. Simply by fighting … they have lost their rights to life and liberty … and they have lost it, even though, unlike aggressors states, they have committed no crime.” [13]"

Doesn't this by necessity draw into question the efficacy of COIN warfare? While history demonstrates not only the unusual risks associated with this sort of campaign, it also illustrates the futility of defining mission accomplishment in an environment where the local population and/or the government is not equally invested to the point of willingness to sacrifice their own lives for their own benefit. The popularized phrase, "winning of hearts and minds" in itself is a damning indictment of the reluctance of the local population to even agree with the "liberating force". And if they must be "convinced" first, was there ever an emergency of conscience to begin with?

This is a further indictment against our Sovereign leader's ability to define the enemy and separate them from the "non-combatant/innocents" in that country. It should also force us to reconsider just how far from the original mission of retribution for the actions of 9/11 we have strayed!

The Colonel then moves the discussion from combat operations to law enforcement with such fluidity as to suggest they not only should exist simultaneously, but says that the Soldier and Marine should be expected to operate in both environments, alternately, with ease. While that may seem reasonable as an operation ages and in fact did happen in both Japan and Germany in the forties, it is worthy to note that the transition there did not occur until after Germany and Japan had capitulated. It is also worthy to note that we were fighting regular forces answerable to the Sovereign governments of both those countries. We were also battling and then working with men who had a sense of personal honor not unlike our own. Their understanding of their responsibilities to their sovereign government and then to us as occupiers was measured by their own government's mandate for them. Once their government capitulated, they essentially laid down their arms.

Neither the Taliban nor Al Qaeda represents a Sovereign government or a people if we are to believe the ISAF and United States narrative. I have argued that at least the Taliban are as much an Afghan phenomenon in Afghanistan as their brothers in Pakistan are, Pakistani. Because of that distinction, separating them from the civilian population is not only daunting, but fruitless because they are, essentially, the same. Making that case need not go further than a quick look at IED proliferation. I will use an analogy: We live on a rural dirt road, in a rural town that is approximately 3.5 miles long and has a population of approximately 100. I can tell you with confidence that no one can travel down this road, much less spit on it without someone and sometimes everyone knowing it. As such, enforcement of the law and security of property and lives here is a relatively simple task. In any case, nothing goes undetected.

In Afghanistan, if we are to believe the narrative, the average Afghan citizen only wants 'peace' and security from the Taliban. According to Karzai and our government, we are (were) there to offer them that opportunity. If this is true and the average Afghan does not agree with the Taliban, then there should be very few instances of IED's being successfully set and nearly zero of ISAF, NATO and American troops falling victim to them. The facts show something decidedly different, however. In a land that is by any measure rural and where digging a hole in a road and setting an explosive device would surely be noticed by some if not all of the population adjacent to the IED site, there is little evidence that a plurality of the population in any of the areas we have operated in, have made a good faith effort to aid in the identification and location of either the IED's or the 'perpetrators' and the staggering numbers of amputees and deaths as a result of that lack of non-combatant good faith effort punctuates the point.

If we extend this conversation of Afghan civilian/non-combatant situational awareness to the presence of Taliban and Al Qaeda members in their midst, it is extremely difficult to make the case that the 'non-combatant' element of Afghan society is not also complicit on some level. And if they are complicit, there is one question that has not been adequately answered by the Colonel and that is whether anyone, with a straight face, can declare any portion of the population as non-combatants. And if we can't, then the apparent ethical problem plaguing our Sovereign government and our upper echelon military leaders is a self-inflicted wound that has neutralized their ability to consider force protection as primary during combat operations in an ideologically monolithic society like Afghanistan.

As a consequence of that misplaced ethical concern for an inappropriately identified non-combatant population, they have unnecessarily endangered our forces and reduced their combat effectiveness by forcing them to consider the lives of these 'non-combatants' as superior to their own. This is the very definition of 'unreasonable risk'.

As an unintended consequence, this has made this Sovereign nation less secure and it's population less safe.

At the same time, they have emboldened an unsophisticated gaggle of murderers and their compatriots (the complicit 'non-combatant') and have caused our allies to have far less confidence in our ability to accurately identify legitimate threats across the world and drawn into question our willingness to meet them on any field of combat with appropriate force.

Colonel Pfaff also quoted Israeli Asa Kasher and then Major General Amos Yadlin who refuted Waltzer's earlier claim that the state should always place the life of the combatant as a last concern remarking:

“…the duty to minimize casualties among combatants during combat is last on the list of priorities … we reject such a conception because it is immoral.” [14] The authors argued that the state’s obligation to protect its citizens from harm—which justifies the use of force in the first place—extends also to soldiers. While recognizing that soldiers do assume risks friendly civilians do not, they argue that soldiers still retain their rights to life. The state may be justified in putting his life at risk because of its obligation to defend all citizens, but the obligation to protect the soldier to the extent commensurate with his duties does not go away."

To which I say; AMEN!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Can the United States Continue to Suffer the Willful Ignorance of her Government and Survive?

2011-12-22T10:42:00.001-05:00

Herschel Smith and I have had some lengthy conversations about this current war, the disposition of the enemy, their relationship with the civilian populations amongst whom they operate and the substance of the religion they all claim to adhere to. Fundamentally, we agree. We have had some minor disagreements about strategy selections from time to time but agree that an unintended consequence of 'giving the nod' to the "innocent population" in the AO (Area of Operation) is more dead American servicemen. For me; that is intolerable! As far as I am concerned, the number one responsibility of an American administration, American elected "servants", Sec Def, the Pentagon and the entirety of upper echelon military circles is to declare the security of the United States, it's citizenry and it's Warrior community as primary before choosing which strategy to employ and govern our use of force in the AO.

To that end, it has been my contention that this administration, the past administration and the entire upper end structure of the military machine, has failed miserably. Not only have they chosen the wrong strategy to achieve a definable victory for their nation, they chose one that has been disproportionately brutal for our forces while providing cover for the enemy and the population that has proven, over and over again to be untrustworthy.

History has defined and will continue to define only a miniscule number of opportunities for a theater-wide application of the precepts of Counter Insurgency doctrine to have been efficacious. Even a casual glance at the human terrain in either Iraq or Afghanistan with Syria and Iran to possibly follow, should have given the critical thinker everything they needed to adequately keep COIN under lock and key in the vault of terrible ideas.

But rather than heed history, a bevy of analysts or common sense, and like undisciplined children discovering a new toy, the Generals and their civilian counterparts pounced on COIN and hitched their violated consciences, their personal legacies and the lives of hundreds of thousands of trusting, American Warriors to it.

The fruit of their arrogance is measured in the thousands of American Servicemen who have been sacrificed at the altar of pride and the tens of thousands more who have suffered life altering wounds.

Some legacy!

In the latest piece from the Captain's Journal, Glen Tschirgi does a masterful job in recounting the disastrous failures in judgment, political courage and decision making which have left both operations in this larger war on the edge of failure. In fact to bolster his points, I would say that arrogance bolstered by blind pride are the only things that could allow anyone to describe either theater of operation as anything but unmitigated failures. In addition, we have so bought into our own deception that we have chosen to propagate the fruit of those failures in Egypt, Libya and I fear soon, in Syria and Iran.

Glenn makes an observation about the religion of Islam however that I do not agree with and that is in the parsing of factions within the Muslim community. First of all, if someone can point me toward the ongoing, public record of support for America in either of these operations or the public record of Muslim denunciation of the actions of the "terrorist" or "radicalized" Muslim or Jihad as a war doctrine, Taqiyya as a deceptive practice with the intent of keeping the enemy off balance, please show me?

The clear evidence only suggests groups as defined by those who willingly strap on bombs and those who do not. Unfortunately, we know that from within the second group comes the financial and spiritual support for the first.

Suggesting you can parse these two and do harm to one while garnering support for said harm from the "moderates" simply misses the truth about religion - all religion!

Case in point; There has been a healthy division between the Catholic Church and the so-called Reformed Church movement since the 16th century. There are understandings of certain doctrines in the New Testament which both adhere to that are, in some cases, radically different. Bridging these differences with the hope of bringing these two groups of worshippers together has proven to be an insurmountable task with both sides declaring the other is filled with the lost. However; if you bring in a piece of legislation that appears to attack Christianity or core understandings of the beginning of life or freedom of religion issues, these two seemingly polar opposite, doctrinally divided groups, come together as Brothers.

The point is; regardless of our interpretations of specific doctrines, we are never-the-less bonded as Brothers in unity as followers of Jesus Christ. I will say that the likelihood of a successful destruction of that bond is incalculably small.

Seeing Islam and it's many fractured parts in a different light is naïve. Islam is similar to Christianity and every other great religion of the world on one point and that is, it has as it's focus, a deity. To deny the religion or to deny another Muslim is, effectively, to deny the deity that binds you.

In the piece he states; "A muslim who does not subscribe to the Wahhabist version and rejects militant Islam should be no more offended when we target the Islamists than a 1940's German would be offended by our targeting of Nazis." And this for me is where separating religious ideology and secular ideology is important. Even though the zeal with which some Germans supported Hitler and the Nazi Party may have bordered on worship, the fact is, Nobody thought Hitler was "god". Those supporters simply acted on a perverted understanding of nationalism.

Islam, while carrying within it's structure the seeds of jurisprudence which is defined as Sharia and also containing verses which effectively call it's adherents to arms, is still fundamentally, teaching and admonition from their "god", Allah. Thinking you can cause a Muslim to abandonhis fellow worshipper (and then effectively placing enmity between himself and Allah), for the sake of the vision of a non-submitted, infidel force of foreigners is simply misunderstanding the dynamics of religion; the difference between the spiritual and the secular.

While we can certainly visually define the actions of some as more violent than others, we cannot see into the heart of man. What history has told us is consistent with Gen 6:5; " The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." This was not a statement about a group or faction, the saved and the unsaved, Jews or non Jews. This was an indictment about the condition of the heart of mankind.

We watch the wanton destruction of human life by the forces of Islam and the associated silence from the "moderates" every day. Is it the contention of those who submit to the "two Islams" vision that we should continue to assume the best of a people whose religion is belligerent to non-believers? Are they suggesting we continue to place our Sons & Daughters at undo risk to preserve the lives of those who fundamentally support the destruction of those same Sons and Daughters? Personally, I will never submit to anything that requires our forces be sacrificed for a presumption steeped in willful ignorance of a self-defined enemy!

This country is at a crossroad. Americans are now facing the prospect of a future replete with civilian and military leadership that is hostile to the idea of sole security for our uniquely American documents, ideals, citizenry and security. Is this what Americans want for their Sons and Daughters because this current vision of the world places the United States citizens en par with those who would declare us an enemy and then institutes policies that intentionally endanger American lives with the stated purpose of preserving the lives of those who, endanger American lives!

It is time, we stop playing with the common definitions of ideologies. We must accept Islam at what it declares itself to be, a religion and not just another doctrine of governance. Seeing it as something else forces actions that will always fall short when trying to defend against it's most egregious doctrines; doctrines which were delivered to Mohammed by an entity he believed was a "god" who called himself Allah.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

US - Taliban Talks Said to be at Critical Point…Really?!

2011-12-19T10:11:00.000-05:00

Today, Stratfor reported that secret talks between US officials and the Taliban, which have purportedly been underway for sometime have now reached a critical juncture. According to the story, tentative agreements about the disposition of EPW Taliban at the Guantanamo Bay facility are being ironed out. If this passes muster with the Taliban, the US would release an untold number of known Taliban operatives back to the Afghan government and then, presumably, back to Afghan society. The report also stated the US official would expect some kind of token act from the Taliban in kind; to show "good faith".

There are so many facets of this story that are wrong-headed that it is difficult to know where to begin. First of all, these alleged talks have proceeded for a significant period of time without direct participation by Kabul or Karzai. Apparently, US officials have felt "progress reports" to Kabul would suffice. While I am no fan of Hamid Karzai or his administration, it strikes me as presumptuous that any agreement between US officials and the so-called insurgency, the Taliban would be acceptable on it's face to the "legitimate" government in Kabul. If these talks have any chance of acceptance by the parties who will have to live with them, it is hard to imagine that happening without both parties sitting directly across the table from one another.

Another problematic point is that we have not only participated in talks with a unrepentant belligerent like the Taliban, but have offered to return hardened militants back to them and then, in all likelihood, back to the same battle space where our forces are still operating. This goes far beyond naiveté or even simple incompetence; this is laying the groundwork for future murderous acts which will certainly be perpetrated against our sovereign American forces.

Where do we find people like this? That an American would even consider returning known murderers back to the killing field from whence they were taken and upon which fellow Americans are still operating defies logic, common sense and compassion! It is certainly a criminal act in a parallel universe where they still understand the difference between right and wrong!

It will be interesting to find out what token action the Taliban will present as their sign of good faith. Is there truly anything they could offer to offset such an inexplicably generous offer by the US representative (unnamed)? Can anyone give a reason why the Taliban should take this seriously considering they are looking at the final months of US operations in Afghanistan? One thing that is absolutely certain at this point is there is probably no amount of evil the Taliban can perpetrate from now until 2014 that will cause any kind of shift from this administration's current plan to draw down - and the Taliban know it!

We have unilaterally chosen to not hold them responsible by virtue of our self-administered restraints in the hopes of motivating an unresponsive civilian population to be cooperative, if not proactive in their "liberation" from the blood-lusting Taliban "insurgency". Now we are holding talks with them, in an attempt to cause them to want to normalize relations with a sitting government placed there by us. Let's not forget, we are the ones who forcibly removed them from the seat of governance in Kabul ten years ago - an act of mercy for the average Afghan, if you truly buy into the narrative and an act of retribution for their participation in the planning phases of the attacks on US soil on 9/11. Now, somehow, the enemy that was unseated but not held accountable, that is still actively engaged in combat with us, is supposed to feel motivated to cooperate.

Stunning!

The better plan would have been to consider US interests and US interests alone. If the Taliban truly aided Al Qaeda in the planning, equipping and carrying out of the slaughter perpetrated on 9/11, then destroying them to a man would certainly have been a reasonable response. However, mounting an incursion into sovereign Afghan space to experiment with a historically failed strategy like COIN, the precepts of which define elements on the ground - which do not exist in Afghanistan, not only amounts to sloppy planning and a brutal failure to understand the human terrain, it was also a negligent waste of American lives and treasure.

If anyone still believes that any kind of positive gain can be measured from our ten year venture in this latest nation building fantasy, then stand by because it looks like we are preparing for more exciting adventures in the reshaping of the human psyche in yet other Islamic lands!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Analyzing Egypt's "Wondrous" Transformation!

2011-12-07T19:04:00.000-05:00

Does anyone still remember when the proponents of the "Arab Spring" erupted with glee over the prospect of a 'blossoming democracy' in the midst of tyranny in Egypt? How about the thunderous applause and shrieks of adulation when the 'rebels' in Libya so bravely took on the hordes of Khadafy's hell hounds?

Does anyone remember the support from the West for the Muslim Brotherhood and their even-handed and reasonable concern for the poor and abused masses in both of those countries? Do you remember the Muslim Brotherhood's declaration that they were not interested in political power but only for the breaking of the chains of tyranny in Egypt?

Is anyone still alive that can recall Egypt's population being defined as "secular" rather than ideological? Can you recall the elitist academics declaring that Christians and Jews had nothing to fear from the hope of a burgeoning democracy in Egypt? If you can't, then maybe you can remember that many of us warned that what would emerge from the ashes of a crushed Mubarak Regime would be nothing short of a foreign policy nightmare for the United States, U.S. citizens and the West in general. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist candidates won 42 of the 52 individual seats contested in runoffs for the first stage of Egypt’s multiphase parliamentary elections.

Are you feeling good about the seers and academics who promised you Roses and Doves in Egypt now?

Many of us had commented that their (Egyptians) first act as free men would be to cast a vote that would drive them right back into slavery but this time to a Sharia centric theocracy. This democracy, such as it is, is proving to be everything we do not want and that the nation of Israel doesn't need on it's border. What is proving to be true is that the general population in Egypt is far from Secular and is in fact as ideologically motivated as any of the worst of the Islamic populations in the region.

You think not? Then you will have to explain why the people of Egypt used their one vote to elevate the ideologically driven Muslim Brotherhood to power rather than seek a more moderate or secular representative government.

In the meantime, Libya's NTC is still struggling to determine who will "guide" that country toward "free" elections. They can't even agree on who should remain armed and who should lay down their arms. Tunisia is concerned about the armed factions on their border, the NTC is being led by a known Al Qaida Operative and an undisclosed number of surface to air missiles are still missing. We haven't even been told which country supplied those missiles or which generation of missiles they are. What we do know is that an undisciplined gaggle of "rebels" were provided air support by the United States and allies; air support which, by the way, has been withheld from our own forces in Afghanistan, to help soften up Khadafy's forces even though we knew they had Al Qaida operatives in their midst! And now; missiles which could further jeopardize Americans operating in Iraq, Afghanistan and possible Iran in the near future, are "missing".

So a question remains; to what level of inanity is this administration and our legislators going to be allowed to stoop to before the American people wake up, and shake up the status quo? Current polling suggests more of the same. Those rising in the polls in the GOP are known "insiders" when what is truly needed is someone who is not beholding to any specific interest group or who has any baggage that needs explaining.

What we need is a "Servant". Someone who actually understands in the depths of his soul that political service is a divinely endowed gift to serve those from whose numbers he has been called. Someone whose primary focus is the preservation of this nation, as it was envisioned by it's founders and who-will-not-falter in carrying out the very specific and narrowly defined mission embedded within the words of the oath taken at the inauguration ceremony.

Can anyone out there tell me who that person is? I can tell you the gentleman who currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is not he. The current resident is clearly beholding to those who would, with zealous rage, destroy the seat and substance of this nation. But I can also tell you that I do not see, in a single candidate, one whose focus is to keep the vision of the Founding Fathers alive or who is primarily concerned with the welfare or it's citizens. I have not heard a definitive cry to eliminate the Income Tax. I have not heard an unquestionable intent to defend these shores and the citizenry from foreign pestilence. I cannot discern among their number a single man who understands that when Americans are in harm's way, the priority of the day is their well being and victory for their mission!

So while we watch two more abysmal failures of foreign policy vision unfold before our very eyes in the very much touted "secular" Egypt and another in the ashes of Libya, we should be asking ourselves what is for us a defining question; Are we determined to demand a man who will in fact deliver to us the country and governance envisioned by our Founders or are we going to settle, once again?

The fact is; our true servants, those who from among our number have elected to jeopardize their lives, their future and our posterity, continue to languish in a sand box filled with demonically inspired forces, led by the uninspired who are dictated to by men of ill intent, voted into office by the American populace. This-must-not continue!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

One Officer Shown the Door after Investigation of Ganjgal Travesty!

2011-11-23T15:25:00.004-05:00

It has taken two years and two months for an investigation to determine that the dereliction of duty on the part of at least one Officer led to the deaths of four Service members at Ganjgal. For those not familiar with the story, this is the same engagement that yielded a Congressional Medal of Honor for Corporal Dakota Meyers and is likely to see another member of the ill-fated mission
honored with yet another.

Questions concerning fire support or better, lack of fire support have been asked ever since but have not produced truthful answers. What is clear is that once the Task Force came under overwhelming fire, they requested supporting arms fire which they had been promised during the planning phase of the operation. The command element that denied them supporting fires did so citing the tightened Rules of Engagement that were initiated by General Stanley McChrystal just months earlier.

Those rules were put in place to reduce civilian casualties which had the "unintended" consequence of increasing risk to our forces. We have argued this point over these past nearly three years now as being short-sighted, ineffective and immoral and largely because they were set as a direct result of a strategy that never had any chance of success; COIN.

Many have argued that orders to withhold fire support from that and other engagements were, and are correct and necessary in order to properly support COIN. Of course, those who argue this last point do so because they have bought into the fantasy that employing this strategy, in this environment, could succeed. The sad truth is, those who support COIN as a legitimate strategy
cannot envision an environment in which it cannot succeed. Add to this an absolutely baseless understanding of the people in Afghanistan, their willing adherence to Islam, their level of support for the Taliban in the face of a perceived Infidel occupying force and what you have is a recipe for dead American Servicemen.

Given this prevailing mindset within the military community and the political structure here at home, it is truly remarkable that this investigating board would finally render a ruling ending the career of one Officer and possible another. For me, it is far less than what these Officers deserve. Anyone tasked with delivering supporting arms fires to Marines and Soldiers needing them, who
then denies them, deserves not only expulsion, but prison.

There are many others guilty however, because the decision to hold back supporting arms fire - artillery and air, was promulgated by the restrictive ROE put in place by General Stanley McChrystal. And that was put in place because the Command structure had determined the best way to proceed with the Afghan operation was within the paradigm of COIN doctrine. Coin doctrine was selected given the Op Order produced by the Pentagon which got it's assessment from Sec Def. Sec Def was poisoned by a politically correct and academically stunted body politic who could not, and cannot, stand the truth about either Afghanistan or the teachings of it's prevailing religion. So if these Officers are guilty of the deaths of those service members, so is the entire command/political structure that created the situation in the first place.

There is absolutely no question that the Officers given charge of those supporting arms assets are guilty of poor judgment that day and I know there are those reading this who will argue the point. The problem for those who see it differently, however, is that the UCMJ does not give any of us "wiggle room" to declare our actions as correct just because we are "following orders". Anyone who wears the uniform is held to a higher standard and that requires the individual to assess the orders he is given and disobey orders that are illegal. While that standard may not always be easy to determine, it is never-the-less, the standard. Any Officer who would deny
providing an asset designed to protect the lives of our service members - especially under these circumstances, is not worthy of the uniform. And yes providing either artillery or air that day may well have increased the risk of civilian casualties and for those Officers, their careers may well have been shortened anyway but I will bet they would be sleeping a whole lot better!

And what of our Politicians who, for the most part have been sitting idly by while we have watched incident after incident unfold in which American Servicemen have been killed or brutalized? How many times must we write these stories or call them demanding they take action before we declare the entire system irrevocably corrupted and their lack of action, criminal? How many more Servicemen need to suffer - not the pains of war but wounds inflicted by a flawed strategy born of a stubborn adherence to a faulty understanding of the enemy born out of
politically correct tripe?

Burn these Officers? You bet! But throw those in congress, and the administration and Sec Def and the Pentagon who allowed this to happen to begin with, into some cold, damp pit of a prison until eternity as well!

SF

jb

Karzai's Gauntlet; Unfortunate Rambling or Veiled Truth?

2011-10-24T13:44:00.003-04:00

For well over two years now I and others, have been questioning the wisdom of conducting a Counter Insurgency effort in the center of an ideologically monolithic society. The problem with COIN is that it assumes a much flatter playing field than what we, as a non-Shariah compliant society, can expect when conducting military operations in countries where religious adherence to Islam is above 98%.

The truth is, if we had chosen to understand the religion and the dedication of it's adherents in a way that is consistent with how they have identified themselves -over and over again, COIN would never have been on the table in the first place. Instead; we chose to ignore the obvious in deference to our westernized vision of "harmony among all peoples" and this, to our detriment.

This is also an indictment of the very "nation building" nonsense that has plagued this country at least since the end of World War II. Here's a little wisdom for the folks inside DC:

1. No nation on earth is responsible for the political vision of another people.

2. No nation is responsible to eradicate the evil that another people have brought upon themselves.

3. No nation is responsible to "convince" another society to "play nice with others" unless that society is jeopardizing that nation.

We did not have any responsibility to cause Afghanistan to "transform" itself into any vision or version of a "democratic" society and it is the height and breadth of ignorance to think we could overcome what is for far too many, the core religious belief that all men are not created equal but instead either compliant and brothers, or apostate and worthy of death.

Many of us have tried to convince Congress to review the selection of COIN in this theater of operations and the Office of the Secretary of Defense's willful ignorance of the historical and spiritual truths of Islam but largely, to no avail. The fruit of this systematic dereliction of the duty of the various offices of the Federal government to protect the populace of this country and it's holdings with a clear understanding of this current enemy, ripens every day.

There is no more clear evidence of our failure to understand this enemy than in the most recent statement by Harmid Karzai this past weekend. From the story and Karzai's own mouth:

“Against all the Pakistan establishment has done to Afghanistan, Afghanistan is still a brother,” he said. “Afghanistan will never forget, will never forget the welcome, the hospitality, the respect and the brotherhood shown by the Pakistan people to the Afghan people.”

His comments ignited a wave of angry calls to radio talk shows in Kabul on Sunday. Many Afghans, particularly in the north, consider Pakistan the source of much of its current troubles. One caller said, “When the president calls them brother and the nation calls them enemies, then there will be a conflict between the president and the nation.”

It is clear that many who live near the Pakistani border disagree with Karzai's comments for practical reasons. However, the most substantive element of that comment is what needs to be understood; “Against all the Pakistan establishment has done to Afghanistan, Afghanistan is still a brother,” And that is what we have been trying to hammer home these last nearly three years.

While there is no doubt that there are Afghan's who live a more secular life, the fact is the vast majority of Afghan's, as all other Muslims, see the world through the prism of Islamic teachings and in the end, the brotherhood of Islam trumps fanciful and temporary arrangements with the Infidel community of the world.

Saying this is no different than saying all Christians see things through the prism of Biblical teachings. While it is true that many Christians do not live a life that is completely in lockstep with Biblical teachings, all Christians never-the-less, see the world as taught through Scripture. The difference is, there isn't one single New Testament Scripture that commands, recommends, alludes to or tolerates the murder of another person - especially for non-compliance with Biblical teachings. There is also no teaching which abrogates earlier Biblical truths as there is in the Koran. If a "Christian" murders, he has done so without authority of Scripture and is in fact, in violation of it.

It is also unlikely that one "Christian" nation will project it's military might in defense of another "Christian" nation based simply on religious compliance. Karzai's "brother" comment, clearly says he sees things differently and in spite of all of the "help" we have given him in eradicating the "unwanted" Taliban and in spite of our unilateral restraint and associated increased cost in American lives, through COIN.

Karzai's comments tell a story which exemplifies what is exactly the core of the argument against assuming a less robust role in a country of this type. Here; religion inevitably trumps all other alliances. Assuming you can exploit tribal differences indefinitely and in your favor, is to simply ignore historical and ideological proof to the contrary.

The whole point of this discussion has not been to simply cross swords over differing understandings of this religion but to remember that our "theories" about the religion hold dire ramifications for those ordered to perform under COIN and it's damnable ROE. It is also to remind those who are making decisions about strategy and will not have to face the dangers of IED's set by the local population or ignored by them, that someone will pay the ultimate price in this environment because of our less aggressive posture under COIN.

And in case the most salient point in this is missing on some; I will spell it out: This latest statement from Karzai, whether immature prattle or doctrinal exhortation, will surely make the environment in Afghanistan far more lethal for our Warriors. Let's keep in mind that an ever growing percentage of our footprint there is now dedicated to training ANA and ANP and they, technically, answer to Kabul.

Whether the average Afghan soldier or policeman actually sees himself as a patriot or not isn't going to be as great a factor as his shared distaste for the "pigs and swine" of the "Great Satan" he is forced to train with.

In a land where acts of treachery are commonplace and even seen as signs of reverence for your deity, this new exclamation of support for things "not American" is certainly going to make things even less stable than they have been for our Warriors.

If that is possible…

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Al-Awlaki Exterminated and Ron Paul Mourns!

2011-10-04T11:25:00.001-04:00

Thereare many things for which President Obama will be held accountable in the 2012election. He initiated, approved of and presided over many decisions which havebeen and will be injurious to the economy of this country and it's security.The citizenry of this nation have never felt so exposed and unsure. Because of those decisions, thefuture hope of this country, on many levels and without definitive course correction is bleak.

Thekilling of Anwar Al-Awlaki however, was not one of those decisions.

Afew voices are beginning to ring out in dissension over Awlaki's beingvaporized by US Predator drones last week which is astounding on many levels. I fully expect some knuckle-head to recommend a statue to this guy at ground zero any time now. The only legitimate argument against his killing is that he was born onAmerican soil. However, being born on American soil does not guarantee onesactions or words will be in concert with the goals, aspirations and vision ofeither the Founding Fathers or the US Constitution they ratified in 1789.

WhileI agree that the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech, there arecertainly legal statutes which limit our behavior as it affects the lives andwell-being of fellow Americans. Awlaki broached that line with the temperament ofan Islamic zealot having actively participated in renouncing the United States,United States citizenry, the US Constitution by his adherence to the doctrinesof Islam and his repeated calls for Jihad against the United States.

Anyonenot fully understanding the ramifications of that call, needs to "tuneup" their understanding of the doctrines of the "religion ofpeace" and do a little research on this character in particular. Byactively calling for volunteers to take up arms against the United States, hechallenged the sovereignty of the US - through rhetoric and physical threat,effectively denouncing his citizenship! By definition he is a traitor! Ifnothing else resonates with those who agree with those dissenting voices, you should know that Awlaki looked forward to his own death by taking on the mantle ofa Jihadist.

Wouldany of this stand up in a court of law? I don't know. What I do know is legaldecisions have a lot more to do with influence, ideology and money than they doright and wrong..

RonPaul saw fit to condemn the killing as "denying" an "American" his constitutionalrights. Of course, once again, a dissenter is doing so from a comfortable environment while wearing the costume of a businessman rather than the uniform of acombatant who is sworn to the defense of that same Constitution. Mr. Paul might wantto consider the fact that the former reprobate known as Al Awlaki was callingfor the killing of American citizens and was, at least by proxy, responsiblefor the killing of Americans - from foreign soil, thereby effectively denyingthem their Constitutional rights.

Hemight also want to consider using his rhetorical skills to speak for those whohave willingly suspended their rights so he can exercise his to defend theindefensible. For all of his supposed libertarian posturing, I have yet to hearmuch from the good Congressman about the plight of American Warriors undulyexposed by the insanity of COIN in an environment as naturally hostile toAmericans as the Serengeti to a rabbit.

While he may find these wars - or allwars personally offensive, he should never-the-less be showing at least alittle more concern for the American Serviceman already in harm's way than hedoes humanity in general and thisbecause he dares suggest to be the right man for the Office of President of theUnited States.

Hecan argue for the Constitutional rights of the indefensible, the right to lifefor the ideological murderers of the world and the legality of wars big andsmall from now until the Second Coming, BUT; his first loyalty in this narrowdiscussion should be to the American Serviceman in harm's way. Instead, hespeaks to NPR, the Christian Science Monitor, various domestic and foreign newsagencies and anyone else who will listen as he castigates the decision makers involvedin the killing of a man who intentionally separated himself from Americansociety and then planned, plotted and carried out the killing of Americancitizens through his ideological laity!

In thispiece, he tries to compare the actions and ideology of Awlaki with that ofTimothy McVeigh. Again; it is astounding that someone could not understand thedifference between one man and his friend acting out of anger, frustration andprobably insanity - on American soil and the actions of an ideological leaderof a faction dedicated to the perpetual death and destruction of everythingthat disagrees with them.

Theresimply is no comparison.

WhileTimothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols committed a single act of multiple murder andthe destruction of a federal building on American soil, Awlaki joined areligiously motivated militant movement. This movement is destined to force theentire world into submission or destroy it in the process. Awlaki's decision injoining that movement and his follow-on actions made him an enemy of thiscountry while McVeigh's and Nichols' actions made them uncommon criminals.

Muddyingthe waters with political tripe is not helpful. Attempting to demonize agovernment agency or individual for the killing a self defined enemy of thisnation is unconscionable. It is an especially deplorable act when that agencyis already forced to balance acts of security with the perverted need to not"offend", the offensive zealots of the world.

Itlooks like we are at yet another crossroad; are we willing to hold theseideological murderers accountable or are we now preparing to lay down our armsand submit to Allah?

SemperFidelis;

JohnBernard

Our "Allies" and Enemies are More Forthright than Our Leadership!

2011-09-28T17:01:00.005-04:00

Inthe war of ideologies, there is no more frustrating battle than the battle fortruth. In the battle for truth, there is no more frustrating effort than tryingto enlighten the hard-headed. Our enemy has been telling us for decades who heis and what his intent is. He has shown us over, and over again that he iscommitted to defeating us and has used every means at his disposal to that end.

Injust as frustrating a fashion, our leadership has seen fit to ignore thosefacts as if seemingly to muse; "oh,you're just funnin' us!". As discussed here in the past, the Pentagonactually hired an expert on the subject, who delivered a message that was apparently"too much to bear" and who was summarily fired for his effort. Asthis operation ages, two things will continue to be true; one, the ROE will become increasinglytighter and deadlier for our troops and, two, that Stephen Coughlin's warningabout Islam was dead-on-the-money!

Evenas we have watched our Afghan allies turn their weapons on their trainers - ourWarriors, on a seemingly regular basis, we have chosen to discount those reoccurringincidences as aberration rather than heed them as omens.

AndrewBostom sent me the link to a story that should cause the"see-no-evil" stalwarts in our government to question their"faith in all mankind" attitude. After the latest incident that leftyet another American contractor working for the CIA dead from gunshot wounds, WaheedMujhda, of the Afghan Analytical and Advisory Center in Kabul wasquoted as saying:

"This is a bigsecurity concern for the Americans and it shows they can't fully trust theirAfghan staff. But the Americans never want to accept that there are serioustrust and cooperation issues and they have encountered that in their securityoperations with Afghan forces."

Also keep in mind that recently, the Taliban claimed notonly collusion with the Haqqani network but that Haqqani was in fact Afghan.This is important in that our intelligence has them slipping back and forthacross the Durand line with one of their last, missions being the attack on theAmerican Embassy in Kabul. Addto this Admiral Mullen's admission/allegation that Haqqani has been workinghand-in-hand with the Pakistani ISI, and what you have is aparticularly virulent enemy with the backing of a legitimate state agency - acountry we have deemed an "an ally" in the "war on terror".It seems we may have to declare Pakistan a terrorist haven instead!

This story ties the Pakistani'sdirectly to the killing of an American Army Major just moments after ameeting with Pakistani officials, in 2007, in Teri Mengal. As the story states,the reasoning seems to be for revenge. How that mitigates the egregious natureof the attack on Americans by a presumed "ally" is beyond my abilityto reason as is Washington's intent to keep it quiet. What is clear, is thatthe nature and scope of the enemy is more publicly obvious now than it has beenfor all of these last ten years.

Will the American public finally begin to realize this andhold this government more accountable? I guess we will see in the next 15months.

A better question is how our intelligence apparatus couldhave so completely screwed up the analysis of what is so complex a threat? Oris it that our intelligence agencies have been ignored or their reportsdownplayed in an effort to massage some unholy alliance either with foreignplayers or with internal minorities? What is certain is that more reports andevidence of collusion between those we have chosen to trust and our"enemies" is surfacing by the day.

If there is a glimmer of light emanating from down the longhallway of insanity, it is that some of our agencies, at least, seem to beplanning for what is apparently not politically palatable - or correct. ThisFBI training video, while dry, makes it clear that the agencyunderstands the threat to be larger than the small cells our politicians seemto be focused on. Even the British have been forced to face the reality of workingwith a duplicitous "ally" and a report to that extent is strongly recommendingeach and everyBritish Soldier working with the ANA or ANP - be armed…You think??

Of course if one can apply Newton's Laws of Motion to theseeming randomness of actions from within our government, then you would needto find an opposing force to the FBI's apparent epiphany. One need not lookfurther than the DOD's DefenseScience Board Task Force and theirreport dated April 25 2011. From the report, page four:

"…thefinal report of the DSB Task Force on Defense Intelligence, Counterinsurgency(COIN) Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Operations study.The Task Force was asked to identify how Department of Defense (DoD)intelligence can most effectively support COIN operations."

Sofor all of the studying, daily revelations of collusion between state agencies,Islamic militant groups, cross-border operations and a dissipating confidencein the trustworthiness of the ANA and ANP recruits we are training, COIN supportappears to be alive and well - regardless!

What'sthat old adage about beating your head against a wall?

SemperFidelis;

JohnBernard

Legitimizing Cold Blooded Murderers; The New Rave!

2011-09-20T19:05:00.003-04:00

Thereis barely a day that passes without the drone-like reminder that the world wenow live in is riddled with the carnage left by the blood lusting anddemonically influenced hordes in our midst. One would think that after 10 yearsof studying and fighting this enemy, we might actually have a firm understanding of him and have determinedhow best to defeat him.

Wecertainly should have been able to determine what doesn't work.

Instead,we unilaterally placed a "governor" on our force projection whichpresumed to increase trust and goodwill amongst the Afghan population byreducing civilian casualties. In so doing, we necessarily extended the need forUS forces there into perpetuity. And we did this based on a faulty presumption;that the average Afghan did not agree - to greater degree, with the Taliban. Italso almost by necessity assumes then that the average Afghan does not see us asanything other than good people coming to the rescue.

Bothof these assumptions are wrong and have been proven wrong, over and over again.All COIN has left us with is a river of blood - American blood. It is needlessand will prove to have been for naught because without a discernable victory,there can be no definable end.

Wehave been so sure of our perception of this enemy that we have extended it toother countries where he resides and other situations. From the rise of theMuslim Brotherhood and their venomous propaganda in Egypt to revelations thatAl Qaeda agents are "guiding" the NTC in Libya, we are reminded,daily, that this administration and this government in general, has chosen toblind itself to this self-defined enemy and has recklessly endangered ourWarriors in the process.

Thisis fruit of what I believe to be a deliberate effort to ignore the lowprobability of a trustworthy cooperation between not only the Afghan governmentand us, but certainly, the Pakistani government and us as well. If suggestingyou can massage a snake long enough to safely extract venom without eventuallygetting bit is risky business then blindfolding yourself in the process is foolish.

The argumentthat the killing of civilians during combat operations or even the night raidswhich were all but halted by the ROE, drives "innocent civilians" intothe arms of the Taliban, further exposes the lie that the average Afghan hatesthe Taliban. Herschel Smith did an excellent analysis of the story bythe Christian Science Monitor. And while this articledares to suggest that night raids have continued, they have largely been conductedby Afghan forces. Our involvement was curtailed by a decision made over 2 yearsago.

Thefollow on argument deals with the conduct of open combat operations against theTaliban. As the argument goes; "You can't kill your way to Victory".I beg to differ. You will have to explain that to the men who fought in the lastwar this country actually won and, I might add, in two different theaters ofoperation and against uniformed armies no less determined. The suggestion thatthere is no limit to the number of recruits the Taliban can raise ignores onemain point; even the devout wince at pain!

Ofcourse, you have to be willing to deliver the pain.

Evenwhile "the fight" against the Taliban continues in Afghanistan, the United States has facilitated the opening of aTaliban "office" in Qatar by "blessing" it. And even though the Haqqani networkalong the Afghan Pakistani border, saw fit to launch an attack against the USEmbassy in Kabul, last week, we are still reaching out to them.The "open channel" was buffered by remonstrations by Hillary Clintonwho demanded the Pakistan government attend to the situation, but it iscertainly made hollow by the universal knowledge that this administration seesconflict resolution as sharing tea and goat meat at a "peace table"with all elements of the Taliban, Kabul and the US present rather thanpunishing those who aided in an assault against the Embassy or these shores.

Forthose who can't follow the logic; let me help you: Reaching out to the HaqqaniNetwork, right now, after so brazen an attack in Kabul, against Sovereign USterritory, would be akin to reaching out to Al Qaeda one week after the TradeTowers were blown back to the earth.

Thething that is most troubling is that while the Pakistani government ispressuring the US to end the war in Afghanistan, they are simultaneouslydemanding that it be done in a way that "meets their needs". Ofcourse, they also want assurances we will support their security needs alongtheir border with India.

Nowwhy in the world, would anyone side with someone proven untrustworthy who is atwar against a nation we have a good, healthy relationship with?

Theaudacity of Pakistan in all of this could only be missed by the completelyignorant or naive. We have had problems with cross border raids from Pakistansince we first invaded Afghanistan and attacks on logistic trains which runnorth from Karachi and through the Khyber Pass have been allowed to continue,unabated for as long. Their entire intelligence apparatus is so corrupt thateven Islamabad can't tell you who they actually trust.

Cooperationhas been a one way street and none of this should have been or should be asurprise for if the Pakistani government, the Afghan government or the Afghanor Pakistani population can be depended on for anything, it is treachery; atleast where dealing with us is concerned.

Afterall, they still have far more in common with each other than they ever willwith us, and they have a shared religious ideology that in the end, trumps allit's presumed ties.

SemperFidelis;

JohnBernard

Remembering; on the Tenth Anniversary of 9/11.

2011-09-09T11:06:00.002-04:00

(To be given on a memorial service in North Reading Massachusetts this coming Sunday. Unfortunately, I will not be present to deliver it. BTW By coincidence; this is my 100th entry)

About eight months ago, I agreed to an interview with PaulHair, a Conservative Blogger who writes on Islam, the US Military and Politics.He is also continuing to serve his country in the Army Reserve after a 6 yeartour of active duty which included combat in Iraq.

Here is the last question he asked me:

"The World War II generation iscalled the Greatest Generation. Yet when that generation fought they foughtwith a generally united nation and when the Draft existed. What do you think ofyour son’s generation who fights today when a large portion of the nation doesn’t support American troops andno Draft compels service?"

I will give you my answer at the end.

Ten years ago, today, 19 Al Qaeda affiliated hijackersstole 4 jets and flew them into the World Trade Center Buildings, the Pentagon,along route 95 and attempted to crash a fourth into some as yet unknown target.That fourth plane never reached it's "reassigned" destination. Inall, 2998 people perished at the hands of those 19 zealots of a seventhcentury, demonically inspired ideology.

I refuse to call them terrorists.

Terrorist is but one of many misnomers that has beenassociated with a segment of the world population that believe the actions ofthat day were righteous. Make no mistake about it; the nineteen men thatcommitted that atrocity on American soil that we remember today were but thetip of the sword.

As Americans, we have grown to respect the concept ofself determination, freedom of speech, the right to assemble and freedom ofreligion. We cherish a live and let live attitude that has drawn many to theseshores, seeking refuge from a world seemingly gone mad. Over the many centuriessince that small group of exiles landed on the east coast of what would becomethe United States of America, escaping religious persecution from their ownhomeland, this country has stood as a beacon of freedom, and a haven of rest.

However, as is all too often true of people, thiscountry has been lulled into a coma, comforted by the fact that we have beeninsulated from the ravages of war and the abuses of tyrants for all theseyears. Except for a very few isolated incidents, including the events ofSeptember 11 2001, we have been blessed with relative peace on these shores.What the apathetic forget, however, is that peace has been bought and paid for.As the old adage goes; "Nothing is free"; not even freedom.

In New York City, today, all of the families of thevictims, of those 19 True Soldiers of Allah, the Politicians of that City and arepresentative contingent of Politicians from Washington DC, will gather at theWorld Trade Center site to remember the events of that day.

Notably absent will be those who stood shoulder toshoulder with others who willingly sacrificed their own lives in an attempt tosave those trapped in those two towers, that day. They will not be there,because they were not invited.

The Apathetic have forgotten.

While today is a memorial for those who died in thoseattacks, it is imperative that we also never forget that many were not in thosebuildings that day to make money, they ran into those buildings to save livesand that selfless act ultimately cost some of them their lives.

Since that day, hundreds of thousands of United StatesService members, have been compelled, by this government, into harm's way tohold responsible those who plotted those attacks. Tens of thousands have beenwounded, some with life changing effect. Nearly five thousand have died doingthe same.

Their combined sacrifices are a direct result of theactions of that day and yet, they are neither remembered nor their brothers, invited.We compound this injustice by perpetuating an insidious act of political cowardiceby not naming the enemy who inspired those attacks, cheered the attackers andwith whom we are still, presumably, locked in battle.

If America wants to know what a real memorial lookslike we need not look further back than the few short years following a similarevent which occurred on December 7th 1941. That generation had absolutely noproblem naming their enemy or delivering them a mortal blow. The devastationthat was rained downed on Germany and Japan in answer to the events of thatday, were a grand manifestation of the righteous anger, the resolve and themoral courage of not only a focused nation, but true, leadership.

What we are witnessing today, in the Halls of thosegreat political institutions in DC will be chiseled in stone to be viewed byfuture generations as the meanderings of the feeble minded, the self-centeredand the cowardly. For anyone who declares himself a Leader and then abandonsthe selfless hero on the field of battle and forgets him at the Memorial, is noleader. He is a scourge on his nation!

I was on a jobsite in the serene mountains aroundRangeley Maine when word of the first plane hitting the first tower came in. Iinstantly knew the ramifications of the impact of that plane. I also knew myMarine Corps Reserve unit would be buzzing, even before I got the first call. Bythe end of that day was I angry, like every other American. The transformationI witnessed in the attitudes in this country over the next few weeks, washopeful. I still believe, America can be as it once was, but not if itcontinues to flush the blood of it's heroes, down the toilet bowl of history.

My admonishment to you it is this; never forget touphold those who have been willing to pay for your freedom with their verylives, even as you mourn your victims.

My encouragement for you is in the answer I gave tothat question from Paul Hair. It is encouragement because as long as it is true;we still retain a remnant of the hope those Pilgrims brought with them fromtheir

estranged homes:

"That generation rose to the occasion.I believe there is a segment of every generation that is great and it ismeasured by acts of selflessness. There is very little in society or even lifein general that could be defined as acts of selflessness. The Armed Services ofthis nation will never have to wonder about that. The very act of joiningensures you will be acting apart from self. Those who have served are thebest of their generation; PERIOD!"

Myprayer is that while we remember those lost on that day, ten years ago, we alsoremember, with humility, those who have sacrificed their very lives, and hopes,and dreams that we might continue to live in the relative peace and comfort wehave been blessed with, these many years.

SemperFidelis;

John Bernard

The "First Fruits" of our Support of the Arab Spring Endeavour in Libya!

2011-09-05T21:31:00.003-04:00

The fruit of our "compassionate support" for the "oppressed" Islamic peoples of the world is now starting to show. In the past two weeks, both the United States and France have reached out to the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) and predictably, the NTC turned it's back on those very same nations that came to their rescue.

The US State Department reached out to our "new friends" in Libya, hoping to retrieve Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the mastermind behind the 1988 Lockerbie airline bombing and the NTC said no. The no was neither tentative nor was it contingent on some prerequisite understanding or action. They said no with emphasis. The NTC spokesman said; " [We] will not give any Libyan citizen to the West…". So much for thanks, the spirit of cooperation, any understanding of right and wrong or any semblance of a common understanding of human rights, just; no.

Days later, the NTC dismissed a report that they, presumably, had promised 35% of it's oil production to France. One would have to assume that since France was under the opinion they had a deal; they then, had a deal. While political conditions in Libya probably won't gel into it's final form for months, if not years, there are rightful expectations by members of NATO and others who supported this "Arab Spring" version of an election, for at least a spirit of cooperation; and fair play.

For those who choose to immediately dismiss these as the "growing pains" of a new regime protecting it's interests, let me say that this continued naïveté toward the Islamic mind and their collective vision of the west and all non-compliant nations, is delusional! These are not the actions of righteous people whose vision includes a belief that all men are created equal. These are the actions of a people who deem all men are either submitted to Allah or they are not; and there are consequences for non compliance.

Naïve or not, the United States and our NATO friends, embarked on a mission to help secure freedom for the Libyan people, as though freedom is a universally understood concept. The US Constitution generally defines freedom as every individual's God given inalienable right to self determination. The Bible describes freedom as freedom from the bondage of sin. What the Koran teaches is anathema to any constructive understanding of personal freedom. Rather it teaches submission and it's adherents, to propagate, by the sword if necessary.

This is not a new revelation, this is an age old truth as defined in the Koran, the Hadith and the very words of the Islamic Scholars. So what continues to give hope to our western minded "leadership" that what these various rebellions are seeking is indeed, freedom? And what gives them the idea that supporting their efforts will in the end support our unilateral interests to defend these shores, and our Constitution? Please… tell me.

Something new was revealed, however, from a news source that would never be confused as "friendly" to the west, the United States, the John Locke/Jeffersonian view of freedom or that which Patrick Henry exhorted his fellow Congressmen to take up arms for. Al Jazeera reported (gleefully, I expect) that Al Qaida operative, Abdul al-Hakim al-Hasadi, had taken control of the Tripoli Military Council (TMC) which effectively puts the power behind the NTC in his hands. So what we all knew and a few members of this administration, suspected, is now known fact and even supported by the Islamic propaganda machine; Al Jazeera.

Feeling all squishy about this administration's wonderful insight into the world of Islam; now?

So this administration finds itself in yet another awkward position - created by itself; first "battling" Al Qaida in one country while throwing in with them in another. What makes this so incredibly insane is that this administration and, I am ashamed to say, members of the supposedly more rational right wing, applauded the removal of Ghadaffi by these Al Qaida operatives.

Let me be clear; the world will be no worse off with Ghadaffi's head on a pike but supporting a gaggle of 7th century thugs who would have Al Qaida in their number never mind in a position of leadership, will set us all back two decades. It was Ronald Reagan, who last struck Libya in response to the 1986 Berlin Disco bombing. And while this did not halt Ghadaffi's hand in terrorist activity, it certainly curtailed his zeal.

In any case, an aging, withering idiot is a lot less formidable than a young force of zealous Islamic soldiers even if they are a gaggle. How was removing this old relic in favor of new, demonically contaminated blood supposed to serve the national security interests of the United States? This is a question that is never going to be answered by this administration or anyone in Congress or even the former administration. And the reason it won't is because their collective foundational premise is that the religion, at it's core, is pure and peaceful.

The American Politician's inexplicable love affair with the "downtrodden" Islamic citizens of Islamic regimes, around the world, will prove to be the worst foreign policy vision in the history of this nation - if not the world! While Ghadaffi and others may have fostered hatred for western nations and even been heavy handed with their own citizens, they were never-the-less, a known quantity and an aging one at that. The greatest threat they posed was to their own citizenry.

What we are in the process of helping to unleash in regions of the Islamic world that was tethered, is most certainly going to prove to be just as formidable and just as destructive to our national security, western ideals and Israel as anything we have seen to date. Within those nations where the Arab Spring "electorate" live, however, we have helped unleash a zealous, unrepentant, spiritually awakened behemoth with an insatiable lust for blood; infidel blood!

In another era, a nation which miscalculated the side effects of an ill-conjured attack declared; "We have awakened a sleeping giant.".

Let's pray this naïve decision, unabated by the obvious realities on the ground, to continue giving aid and comfort to our demonically bound enemies does not become our "sleeping giant".

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

The Helen Glover Show Interview

2011-09-03T12:15:00.003-04:00

To all;

I was invited by Helen Glover to discuss my take on House Amendment # 318. For those interested; this link will get you there.

.http://www.920whjj.com/player/?program_name=podcast&program_id=helenglover.xml&omu=http%3A%2F%2Fa1135.g.akamai.net%2Ff%2

F1135%2F18227%2F1h%2Fcchannel.download.akamai.com%2F18227%2Fpodcast%2FPROVIDENCE-RI%2FWHJJ-AM%2FJOHN+BERNARD+DEFENSE.mp3&art=helenglover&tra=podcast

helenglover - podcast - 920 WHJJ

www.920whjj.com

helenglover - podcast

House Amdt #318, Passes! Congress says it is "OK" to defend yourself…In Combat?!

2011-08-25T10:33:00.004-04:00

My family and I attended the annual "Run For The Fallen" event in Ogunquit Maine this past weekend. This is the fourth year for the event which honors those who fell combating the more evil elements of Islam in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. The event organizer is a combat veteran from the Vietnam war and a good friend, John Mixon. John and I have visited with three of the four members of Maine's Congressional delegation to Washington over the past several months and have plans to continue the effort with representatives from other States.

Of course our focus of effort has been and continues to be the proper support of troops exposed on the field of combat. The mantra has been that the current operational strategy, COIN was not only poorly chosen but requires a level of restraint not seen before in the annals of American warfare and which has tilted the battle space in favor of the enemy. I have been detailing the many horror stories associated with the more egregious elements of the ROE for the past two years and have made the case before Senators Snowe and Collins and Congressman Michaud, several times.

It was during the Run For The Fallen event that I was approached by Congressman Mike Michaud who told me that House Amendment # 318, which amended, HR # 1540, The National Defense Authorization Act, 2011, had passed. The language in the amendment is as follows:

"An amendment numbered 38 printed in House Report 112-88 to require that the rules of engagement allow any military service personnel assigned to duty in a designated hostile fire area to have rules of engagement that fully protects their right to proactively defend themselves from hostile actions."

I applaud the efforts of those in Congress who crafted the amendment and then voted for the bill in which it is included. I am, however, awe struck by the sheer insanity that dares suggest a formal statement needed to be made by some members of Congress requiring American Political Leadership and the Upper Echelons of the American military establishment, to afford members of the United States Armed Forces the "legal right" to "defend themselves" from the enemy!?

Have we really come to this point, where we can demand sovereign American citizens to place themselves in harm's way while simultaneously denying them a way to defend themselves…from an enemy they are there to confront; presumably with force? Apparently! But if this doesn't stretch your ability to see the leadership in this country as anything more than impotent; when you study the vote, the number of Congressional Representatives who voted against it -will!

I will not take the time to list each and every Congressman who voted against the Bill and the amendment, but I will introduce you to one. (For a complete listing of the vote; follow this link).

Chellie Pingree, Representative of the 1st District in Maine, is among the 77% who voted against the bill although she claims to be a staunch supporter of Veterans - active, retired, wounded etc.

From her website: "We must provide for those who willingly put themselves in harm's way in the defense of our every day freedoms. I am committed to providing our troops with the resources they need to do their jobs, during peacetime and war."

And yet she voted down a bill that would fund the needs of those very same combat troops currently engaged on the field of combat by the institution of which she is a member and in doing so, broke ranks with those who penned the amendment designed to force the Pentagon, the upper levels of military leadership and politicians, to allow United States Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Coastguardsmen, the right and ability to defend their lives and the lives of their fellows from the Islamic hordes they have been forced to face - by these same "leaders"!

While the representative is apparently conflicted about funding a war she doesn't agree with, even though those withheld funds would place the American Fighting Man at even greater risk, she doesn't have any problem legalizing marijuana (see question # 12).

Personally it is comforting to me to see such consistency from this element of society; Send people to war, deny them their very lives, legalize mind altering drugs for the entire population of Americans (which happens with the stroke of a Presidential pen and a doctor's prescription) while giving our sworn enemies moral support - and money; let's not forget the billions of dollars in aid sent to various Islamic countries, including Afghanistan which ends up in the hands of terrorists.

Another notable 'No' vote, came from Ron Paul, "Republican" from Texas…And this guy wants to be President of the United States???

Here's a little plan for you lost souls in DC:

If you are going to "fight" a war; "FUND" the war!

Don't send Honorable men and women into the jaws of death and abandon them there!

Don't send Honorable men and women into harm's way and deny them the right to defend themselves!

Don't you dare tell our enemies that you are representative of this entire nation and then effectively surrender to them! You do not represent my belief in this nation and our inherent right to defend these shores and the rights of men and women in uniform to defend themselves on the field of combat, while confronting the hordes of hell.

And I have some sad news for you; you are not representing the majority of Americans who are dumbfounded by your complete lack of compassion for our American Servicemen in lieu of your new love affair with an incalcitrant, ideologically belligerent and hateful people, hell bent on killing those same American Servicemen.

I would like to thank Mike Michaud for supporting the amendment, and the bill even though he doesn't believe we have any further national security interests in Afghanistan. He never-the-less understands that this war and our men and women need financial support until such time as this country deems it possible to bring them home.

You're "firing on all cylinders" Mike!

www.letthemfight.blogspot.com

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Re-Analyzing the "World Saving" Arab Spring…That Wasn't!

2011-08-16T15:40:00.001-04:00

The "Islam is a religion of peace" and the "world peace" crowds have been spouting about the beauty and hope of the "Arab Spring" phenomenon for months now. Even after the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt went back on their word not to get involved in the political process there, the nauseatingly effervescent, supporters of all things Islam refused to accept the possibility that they might not have the religion, the Arab angst or the likely outcome of these uprisings, right.

Stratfor released it's analysis of the current situation today . Their concern is several months too late and they are still not quite willing to place their voices where the collective of Arab spring protestors and their western supporters are clearly heading. From the story:

"The standard analysis of the situation was that oppressive regimes had been sitting on a volcano of liberal democratic discontent. The belief was that the Arab Spring was a political uprising by masses demanding liberal democratic reform and that this uprising, supported by Western democracies, would generate sweeping political change across the Arab world.

It is now more than six months since the beginning of the Arab Spring, and it is important to take stock of what has happened and what has not happened… However, the belief in an Arab Spring helped shape European and American policies in the region and the world. If the assumptions of this past January and February prove insufficient or even wrong, then there will be regional and global consequences…(and hasn't that been the problem all along? Our collective belief/hope that the Ummah will somehow magically throw off core doctrines of the religion and govern and act for the protection of individual rights to self-determination? jb)

It is important to begin with the fact that, to this point, no regime has fallen in the Arab world. Individuals such as Tunisia’s Ben Ali and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak have been replaced, but the regimes themselves, which represent the manner of governing, have not changed… what regime changes that might come of the civil wars in Libya and Syria are not going to be clearly victorious, those that are victorious are not going to be clearly democratic and those that are democratic are obviously not going to be liberal…(and why would anyone ever have believed they could be democratic or liberal or western or at least not bound in Sharia to begin with? jb) The myth that beneath every Libyan is a French republican yearning to breathe free is dubious in the extreme… (no kidding? jb)

Egypt… Elections are coming, but the opposition is deeply divided between Islamists and secularists, and personalities and ideological divisions in turn divide these factions…and the Egyptian military junta is already acting to suppress elements that are too radical and too unpredictable.

The important question is why these regimes have been able to survive…(no, the important question is upon what historical facts did we feel confident to place such faith in an Islamic people - anywhere, to act in a way that was inconsistent with Sharia? jb)

Why analysts like those at Stratfor and other like agencies are so unwilling to identify the religion or it's goals as the likely winner in these uprisings is troubling and counter-productive. It's counter-productive because their very reason for existing is to provide those with a need for intelligence and analysis a clear understanding of the players and organizations they claim to have some insight into. If you are unwilling to at a minimum, clearly identify the people, agencies, ideologies or nations as they see themselves, your analysis is then based on wishful thinking rather than fact. If this is true, then your analysis is likely detrimental to the safe conduct of those using your work as guidance.

Years ago I had a history professor who told us there were four classic revolutions; the English, American, French and Russian. He refused to consider the "Latin" revolutions, discounting them as poor excuses for elections. In many ways, what we are witnessing in the Mediterranean, Middle East and South Asian regions amount to the very same thing. In the end, their single act as "free agents" in a "democratic society" will be the one vote they cast placing them back into slavery to Islam under theocratic governance.

What this story does do is suggest a fracture in the stalwart vision of a world with peaceful Islamic followers. Could it be that the visionaries are beginning to question their own abilities to accurately judge the motivations of a billion adherents to a religious ideology without the benefit of even a modest education in it's doctrines? If so, there may be a little hope for western civilization yet. Of course we must not expect too much, too soon; we are still stubbornly in support of bombing Ghaddafi into the stone age even though the people we are supporting by extension are infiltrated with the same ideologically motivated Al Qaida agents we are presumably battling along the Durand line in Afghanistan!?

And speaking of that; my friend Herschel Smith at the Captain's Journal released a story today that drives a knife into the heart of yet one more troubling government analysis we have heard over, and over, again; the Taliban and Al Qaida are not the same. While there are differences in personnel, size and scope of their individual Areas of Operation, their world-wide goals are never-the-less the same. Let's not forget that it was the Taliban that gave training space, cover, food , protection and therefore the ability to plan and carry out the attacks of 9/11.

In addition, the original Commander's Intent statement clearly stated we were in this war to destroy Al Qaida and hold all those who gave them health and comfort accountable.

Can you say Taliban?

And if the Taliban are an enemy is it not prudent to discuss where they are from and who gives "aid and comfort" to them?

Can you say, the "innocent Afghan population"?

Parsing the organizational "initiatives" of both groups became a tool to support COIN and it's limited warfare concepts while unintentionally giving over control of the battle space to the "lesser problematic" Taliban. By marginalizing the Taliban's "vision", and therefore it's danger to this nation, we lost sight of who they truly were, where they got their recruits from and then placed our own forces at undue risk. The story at the Captain's Journal clearly, again, tells us who the Taliban say they are and who they believe they are in league with. Why is it and has it been so difficult to take this enemy at their word?

Why do we believe we know who the enemy is and what he desires, better than what they tell us of themselves?

At some point, the strategic geniuses of this war will have to explain themselves and their amorous if not downright perverted, affair with COIN and it's murderous ROE because, having gotten everything else wrong to date, it appears all efforts are in defense of the selection of COIN.

And in defense of the careers and legacies of those who selected it.

www.letthemfight.blogspot.com

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

The Taliban and the "Innocent Civilians" Continue to Express Their Gratitude for COIN in Afghanistan!

2011-08-08T12:20:00.001-04:00

Monday morning quarterbacking combat from the operational vantage point continues to be the preferred parlor game for those without prior service or specific experience in combat operations - anywhere, or anytime. There have been many stories and even more commentators questioning everything from the mission to the load plan for the CH 47 (presumably) that crashed this past weekend. These stories and commentary are all based on partial explanations from military sources who are balancing a nation's "need to know" with operational security issues and are all, generally, pointed in the wrong direction.

It has been typical for folks, again, without any specific experience, to lash out at lower level command whenever troops are killed and in the most aggravating and consistent way, refusing to question the legitimacy of decisions from the upper echelon command structure that placed them in a position to be killed to begin with. There should be a general desire to safeguard and secure our troops and their commanders and a corresponding groundswell of pressure placed on upper echelon military officers and politicians here at home. But for some perverse reason, the reverse seems to be true.

Whether a single Chopper used to deliver the thirty eight who perished was a wrong choice is something that the local command is currently dealing with. There are, however a myriad of reasons why this decision was made and none of us may ever know the reasons why, nor do we have a "need to know". What is far more important is why this specific mission may have been launched to begin with. A report just out by Stratfor has a lot to say about what might have been the impetus for a mission to begin with; from the story:

"The helicopter, which was shot down and left 30 U.S. troops dead in Afghanistan, was a trap set by a Taliban commander, an unnamed Afghan official said Aug. 8, AFP reported. According to the official, Taliban commander Qari Tahir told U.S. forces there was a Taliban meeting at the scene. Four Pakistani nationals helped Tahir, the official said, adding that the Taliban knew the route the helicopter took to the scene. The Taliban took position on either side of the valley, shot rockets and other weapons and brought the helicopter down with multiple shots, the official said."

While it is still too early to know exactly when or how this supposed conversation took place or even with whom, it is a very damning statement to say the least.

Why?

Because for months now, we have been told by the 'movers and shakers' of this COIN menagerie that it is imperative to bring the Taliban into the "peacemaking" process along with the "legitimate" government in Kabul, Tribal leaders, et al. Bringing the Taliban into the 'peace process' would be akin to bringing the Japanese into a "peace process" during the battle of Saipan in the Pacific Theatre during World War II. The Taliban have everything to gain through subterfuge, false starts, our weakened posture, our downsizing of forces and a general wasting of time. In addition, if any element of the story above is true and there in fact was a conversation with U.S. forces about a meeting, and if that meeting took place before the original patrol was launched to the site in response this intel, we then have COIN and upper echelon circles to thank for the tragedy.

Trusting an active enemy leader to "help" you or deliver to you intel that would presumably lead to a mission to kill his own while still fully engaged in the battle space isn’t foolish; it's insane! Understanding that lower command has very little choice but to carry out the intent of upper echelon circles and the political will of Washington DC in turn, places the entire fault for this at those upper levels. Operationally; the intel gatherers and the operators did precisely what was expected of them. Again; information is early but this certainly sounds like an effort to "turn" some Taliban leadership in an effort to forge a trust which would in turn create an opportunity to sit down with an enemy that is not yet suppressed…unbelievable political cowardice!

There are other stories circulating that say the locals in the region where this took place have become frustrated by night raids and are siding with the Taliban. The only reason this is important is because it is an overt example of what is true - nationwide. There has never been nor shall ever be a reason for the vast majority of Afghan culture or it's people to side with us against a body of their own. While the Taliban may be oppressive in some ways, they are never-the-less, brothers, ideologically while we remain the infidel.

Are we ever going to see a little political courage from the boneheads in DC? How about just 10% of the compassion for our troops on the ground that they show for the general population of Afghanistan? How about 1/2% of the courage displayed by our Upper Echelon Military Leadership and Politicians who approved the firebombing of Tokyo which destroyed 16 square miles of the city and killed an estimated 100,000 and injured another 125,000 and all before the dropping of the two atomic bombs! And this was done because the specter of another possibly 1 million American deaths was repugnant - to American Leadership!

Why aren't American deaths on the battlefield today, as repugnant to our current leadership as they were back then? Why don't the leaders of this country, today, expect the Afghan's to share the devastation of broken families, untimely death of children and other ravages of warfare to secure their own futures?

Why is it only Americans who must "pay the price for freedom" - even the freedom of foreigners who don't relish it?

These are the questions all of us who have experienced loss on the battlefield are asking. The families of those lost in this latest headline grabber will be asking those and other questions as well.

Is anyone in DC ready to justify their wanton destruction of the lives of American Warriors on the plains of Afghanistan…yet?

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

The Media, Absurdity and Knee-Jerk Analysis; Equating the Norway bombing and the Latest Fort Hood Incident.

2011-07-29T12:47:00.002-04:00

The latest attempt by a self described, pious member of Islam has brought out the usual bevy of experts not only in psychology, but in religion as well. Typically, these "experts" have little to no actual experience in any religion and show a general distrust, if not disdain for those who do practice one form of religion or another.

I have been chided, on occasion for sharing my faith in these kinds of venues and have made attempts to keep this element of my life out of the conversation. But it is difficult at times to investigate what is clearly evil without the ability to contrast.

What I can tell you is that it requires an actual study of the specific doctrines of specific belief systems in order to be able to legitimately make claims of any kind about them. Those who would arbitrarily lump all religions together and claim them to be equally motivating for ideological murders, destroy their own credibility.

I have always held that the religion cannot be judged by the actions of the individual but that the individual should be judged by the doctrines of the religion. This requires personal study, and mentoring by those who have the study of these religions as their life's pursuit. It also means it requires time and most of the typical prognosticators aren't interested in investing the time. It is far too easy to just lump all ideology together and castigate all who render themselves obedient to them.

Anders Behring Breivik has been touted as a Christian gone crazy, but even a glance at this guy tells a decidedly different story. There is very little in this man's life that suggests he studied or understood the precepts of Christianity, rather, he gave himself over to a fanciful idea of whom he believed the famed Knights Templar of the Crusades were. A study of this monastic order is not the point of this piece. Let's just say that their origin, original mission and actual prowess on the battlefield differs somewhat from source, to source.

What can be said is that there is no mandate, recommendation or commendation, in the New Testament to kill children, women or unarmed men - especially of one's own people. For either the deluded Breivik or the anti-Christian/Jewish media to suggest that this was an act by a pious follower of either faith lacks understanding of either the history or doctrines of both faiths. Breivik's actions were in fact the actions of someone motivated by some internally conjured understanding of honor and a perverted honor driven purpose - not religion.

Conversely; Naser Jason Abdo made it clear that he was a pious Muslim. He is the product of a Muslim Father and a non-denominational "Christian" Mother…

Side Note: I can tell you that any ANY, true, practicing, studied, Christian woman would not marry a Muslim man so it is better stated; a Muslim man who married a woman brought up "in the Christian tradition"…much like our sitting President.

This is the interview where he justified his request for conscientious objector status based on his Islamic faith. Astonishingly, the interviewer never saw the necessity to question why this was a problem for him only after having signed, knowing we were at war with Islamic forces. It now appears his provisionally approved request was halted because investigators found child pornography on his government computer.

This seems to be a common theme with devout jihadists; claim devotion to Allah and Jihad and participate in pornography on the eve of an actual attack. Abdo went AWOL (absent without leave) upon hearing his request for CO status was on hold pending a court martial for the pornography charge. It was during his absence that he determined to kill yet more fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. Undoubtedly, more information will become available as this investigation proceeds but what we do know now, certainly paints a picture a lot closer to Major Nidal Malik Hasan than the deranged Breivik in Norway.

The point is, of course, that there is no relationship between the two men or their individual acts. Their motivations are from entirely different sources; one from a deity and his doctrines and the other from the fertile, if not twisted, mind of the perpetrator.

The Koran is replete with examples of Allah commending and commanding the killing of those who refuse to take a knee before him and we have detailed many of those verses here in the past. Recent history alone records tens of thousands of examples of men and women, claiming allegiance to Islam, killing and maiming and all in the name of Allah. Connecting the dots between the admission of guilt for an act of murder and the coincident adherence to a specific religious doctrine doesn't require work; just a willingness to listen.

Trying to manufacture a connection between a religious ideology and a killer when the killer hasn't identified himself with great specificity as a follower of the religion; is a witch hunt!

Question; Why is the largely agnostic media so hungry to force all ideologies into the same category on one hand and yet seemingly so light handed in it's scrutiny of a religion that has spawned so many brutal ritual murderers, on the other? Add to this the absolute cowardly approach to this point by our representatives in DC, and we are left rudderless in our "attempts" to defend these shores from those who would do us harm.

What is clear, is that those who hold the authority and the power to clearly identify legitimate threats are either incapable or unwilling to do so.

And that is just cause for a lot of sleepless nights!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

The Unabashed Literary Fondling of Petraeus; Architect of American Graves!

2011-07-20T09:07:00.006-04:00

Those who know me well enough, know I bleed red blood cells branded with United States Marine Corps emblems. It also follows that as a Marine, I take my Oath very seriously. I have only taken two Oaths; one to the Marine Corps and one other to my Wife. I am still bonded to both. I have been and will continue to be, ready, willing and able to defend both my Corps, my fellow Marines, my Wife, my Daughter and anything else that falls under the purview of those oaths. I hold that as an American, there is nothing on earth as sacred as the lives of Americans and most especially, the lives of those in our Military! Scream if you want to, but shame on all who dare claim to be Americans who are not first and last concerned about this country and this country's citizenry!

Having said that I will take the time to castigate anyone - ANYONE, who maliciously, carelessly or wantonly destroys the lives or well-being of any of the above; although I take no pleasure in it, I will hold all those accountable by this venue who tread on the sacred lives and honor of those precious to me and enveloped by those Oaths.

In spite of the mountain of evidence that has been presented by these venues and by the well studied students of history, Islamic Ideology and the unvarnished realities presented daily by the Afghan, the Iraqi and the Muslim world in general, General David Petraeus has insisted on following what any rational clear thinking Military Leader would have avoided. Rather than pay whatever personal and professional price was necessary to provide our Warriors and by extension, the security of these United States with the first and best strategy to defeat Al Qaida and the Taliban, he chose rather to use a strategy that history records as foolish and he insists on continuing in spite of the mounting harvest of American deaths that are the true fruit of his decision. Add to this the gaggle of JAG prosecutors, gleaning after action reports and frothing at the mouth for an opportunity to prosecute any young American Serviceman they can and his insistence is nothing less than a direct insult to every American Serviceman - and their families, who has ever donned a uniform!

Referring to him as the "architect of counter insurgency doctrine" is another insult; one directed at the Marines who authored the original document. The fact is, the only legitimate use of the strategy was directly after the United States Marine Corps printed it as the Small Wars Manual of 1940. The British used Counter Insurgency Doctrine to drive out the death squads of Mao Tse Tung from the Jungles of Malaya from 1948-1960. I say it was legitimate because the British were heavily invested in the business, governance, protection and daily lives of the Malayan people and the Malayan people were invested in them. In essence, under the leadership of General Templer, the British defended their own territory from an outside, unwanted element - and the Malayan people agreed. There has never existed any similar
type of symbiotic relationship between Afghanistan and the United States. And one more point; T-H-E T-A-L-I-B-A-N A-R-E I-N-D-I-G-E-N-O-U-S!

If the average Afghan is so bloody interested in having our help to eliminate the Taliban, then how come the vast - VAST majority of IED's go unreported until one of our Marines or Soldiers finds it or is destroyed by it?

If Petraeus is such a strategic genius, why hasn't he been able to see what every enlisted man in-country and every retired Military man - Officer and Enlisted seems to be able to see (of course I am not including those who have sold their souls to the political system)?

The greater question is why is so much of the media which is typically all too ready to castigate the average infantryman and some infantry officers as murderers all too willing to fawn over the "great man"? One answer is that they are as lazy in their pursuit of historical truth as he is! They are not nearly as interested in the daily sacrifices made by the average infantryman as they are creating one-more-rock star. After all rock stars sell better and what sells better, propels you further up the ladder and fattens
your wallet.

Some in the media and in political circles are concerned that the average American seems to be so disenchanted with this government that the next election is likely to be an attendance blowout. The newspaper industry is nearly extinct and the main venues of news reporting aren't even doing as well as some Blogs. Are they seriously confused about the reasons the American public no longer trusts them, their opinions or the politicians they report on? Then a quick look at this "masterful" piece of "reporting" should explain why. Just take a look at this little gem published by one of the great news sources. Really? Not one word of derision? Not one, single question about the claims of "success" - even as Afghan Soldiers continue to turn their weapons on American and NATO Marines and Soldiers?

Were any of these claims vetted? Did any editor question whether there was really anything to "celebrate"? Was anyone actually affected by the decisions this man made contacted for a rebuttal? The obvious answer is no! They are too busy being the first to cast the base of the monument to a man who chose to use a dubious strategy, COIN, to first safeguard a people who don't care whether sovereign United States Marines and Soldiers live or die. But by his reckless selection of the strategy governing our troops actions in this ideologically monolithic society hell bent on killing any and all who will not take a knee to Allah, who hold apostasy as the greatest of sins and relish in the burning of those who are, who treat women as animals, who force little girls to marry, who rape and abuse little boys, who deny education to women and little girls, who export drugs as their number one crop, who plan and export death and mutilation to the United States; he has by this choice in strategies intentionally placed the lives of our Sons and Daughters at undue risk and for this, he is applauded!?

Hey "reporters"; get a grip!

Hey Americans; you had better get off your couches and away from the TV set before someone you actually know and care about becomes "fruit" of the "great man's" folly!

Enough!!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

The Specter of Success in COIN. But for Whom?

2011-07-18T10:55:00.008-04:00

Juxtaposition is a literary expression of the side-by-side positioning of incongruent terms or ideas. Politics and culture seem to do this as a matter of the normal transaction of day to day business; suggesting that certain ideas or arguments make a point that is polar opposite. Most of the thinking population would describe these attempts to bolster support for an ideal or an idea, deceitful. I would agree but there is something even more devious about this tactic in that while it may be successful in convincing an audience to think or believe a certain way, the real danger is to the wielder of this tactic. At some point they become oblivious to their own act of deceit and begin to believe their own garbage or at least justify it as a must, to meet an "honorable" end.

Curious: If one must lie to achieve a specific goal; can that goal really be considered honorable?

There was a Country and Western song which loosely quoted Alexander Hamilton; "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything". Sadly it has become daily commentary for a government obsessed with compromise which equals giving in on a principle, equals the shedding of truth and honor, equals leadership that is, well, compromised. While the dealing of politics and business in DC may generally lead to some not-so-great legislation that could adversely affect business, savings accounts and our posterity, these things pale in comparison to the decisions (or lack thereof) that directly affect the lives of a small percentage of this population, here and now; our Military.

This political season which will end 1 year and 5 months from now and deliver us our next President, has already compromised on national security. In doing so it has also compromised the lives of the men in our Armed Forces serving on an active battlefield in the midst of a yet unidentified enemy that doesn't seem to be suffering from the same inability to identify us as his enemy. And like pawns deemed expendable in a chess game played by a novice, our Marines and Soldiers continue to be placed side by side with people who deem us an enemy based on the teachings of their deity.

The proponents of COIN doctrine have continued to suggest over, and over again, that there is a component of Afghan society, friendly to us and sharing of our political vision for that country. They are so convinced of this they have been willing to place the Sons and Daughters of this generation shoulder to shoulder with members of Afghanistan's current generation while denying them what every conventional military has used for 6 millennia; fear and force and the will to use them to force our will on the enemy while preserving the lives of their military.

The soft skinned, three-piece suited, environmentally air-conditioned members of Congress and the White House, seem to be equally content to leave our men and women in uniform exposed to the 'non-existent' dangers from the 'unidentified enemy', as well. After all, there are far more difficult things to consider like, the debt ceiling, taxes, the shenanigans of Rupert Murdoch's empire and of course; the coming election. Of course the "watchdog" media is obsessed with the trial of a young woman in Florida, the possible paring of a young starlet and a Marine at the Marine Corps Ball, the Prince and Princess of another country and any number of other truly meaningless events. To say the media, DC and the general public is now completely numb to the plight of the average Warrior abandoned on the battlefield in Afghanistan is really just stating the obvious but even the British are now angered by the apparent waste of their blood and treasure.

Success has apparently been defined and met in Afghanistan, by this administration which announced it will begin a draw down starting this month which will reach 30,000 in time for the election, this coming year. Of course one man's success is another's abysmal failure but when all of the media and all of the statistical experts are in your corner, it is easy to craft a story that is supportive of your claim to success - regardless of the actual evidence to the contrary. I won't delineate the "evidence" used by this Administration or Congress to back their claims, just watch the news.

I would like to suggest that 1400 years of ideological history and the nearly 5000 years of habitation there paint a picture of a people who are not going to change their minds or their ways and are certainly not going to "westernize" nor become fast friends with us. The past ten years, excluding the first 6 months, have shown us that trying to convince the citizenry there of our majestic vision for their future has met with mixed reviews - at best. At worst, it has cost the lives of hundreds dead and thousands disfigured; physically and mentally. The trend toward an anti-American and anti-ISAF culture there seems to be growing - not subsiding. Consider the events of just a week:

1. The weekend of 09 July 2011, two Americans, one Iowan National Guardsman and a civilian contractor are gunned down by an Afghan National Intelligence Service who also wounded another Guardsman before being killed himself. The debacle that followed including angry local Afghan's surrounding the unit, nearly ended with more Americans being killed.

2. 12 July 2011, Ahmed Wali Karzai, half brother of Afghan president, is killed by a "trusted confidant". My entire interest in Afghanistan revolves around just two issues; first that those who would do this country harm are dealt with - finally and second for the welfare of our Warriors. Karzai's brother and family welfare don't make my list of concerns but one has to ask just how this fits the Petraeus/Obama model of success?

3. 13 July 2011, 5 French Service Members are killed by a suicide bomber on the very day that Karzai is in Kandahar to mourn his brother's death (can it actually be considered murder if an Afghan Islamic Soldier kills an apparent apostate?)

4. 14 July 2011, in an apparent violation of a "gentlemen's agreement" within the religious community there that tolerate/respect the wearing of Turbans by some members in the Mosque, a member killed 3 Imams and wounded 15 others by detonating a bomb hidden in his turban.

5. 16 July 2011, another as yet unidentified NATO Soldier is killed by a member of the Afghan National Army. Of course, ISAF was quick to suggest he might just be "someone" wearing the uniform but Taliban spokesmen were clear he was not one of them. The dirt-bag ran away after killing the soldier.

6. 16 July 2011, yet another NATO soldier was killed - in his quarters, by an Afghan National Soldier who the Taliban claim was a sleeper agent….Sleeper agent or not; the vetting/non-vetting process cleared this dirt-bag for service and now one more soldier will not be returning home to his family.

I want to thank M.J. Green's tireless efforts in 'cataloguing' these latest pieces of evidence "chronicling COIN success" - at least as defined by this administration. I would also like to suggest you all read a piece by Andrew Bostom which provides some insight into the "success" story in Iraq. He provides not only a glimpse at the preposterousness of the continued suggestion that COIN has changed anything there but a look at the British history there and their perspective from their attempt, in the 1930's.

In addition; please stop by Diana West's Blog to read her perspective on these and other interesting details that seem to not be included in the equation of Strategic success; operating under COIN in a predominately Muslim culture and as defined by Politicians.

It is important to keep what our political establishment considers success in mind as we delve ever deeper into the "evolutionary" processes of other Muslim nations across the region because what they have deemed successful in Iraq and Afghanistan will be tried in other areas.

Our Warriors will continue to be tasked with the whims of the ignorant in DC and will continue to pay a price.

Are you now ready to demand change from your elected officials or are you satisfied with these weekly tallies which define success; for the enemy, yet unidentified?

Our Warriors are waiting…..

Visit www.letthemfight.blogspot.com

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

'Friendly Persuasion' Subverted the Enemy Assessment Process and Robbed Our Warriors of a Chance to Win and Survive in Afghanistan; Three- years-Ago!

2011-06-17T11:48:00.003-04:00

Part III

The Message, Apathy and Malfeasance

The Message:

The message in Coughlin's thesis, "To Our Great Detriment", is principally that ignoring so major a doctrine based ideology as Islam and refusing to consider it's potential for motivating it's followers is foolish. This is especially true when the enemy you are about to engage or the people you are about to surround your Warriors with, are uniformly beholding to that ideology.

No one can deny that Islam is the predominate religion of Afghanistan to the tune of 99+%. No one can deny that Allah is their God. No one can deny that they all submit to Jihad, and live by the doctrines like Taqiyya and Kitman. If this is true then why the aversion to doing what men have done since the dawn of warfare; study the enemy and his doctrines?

Throughout history men have considered the religions of their enemies and considered the religion's role in motivating men and providing them with the endurance needed to continue in a prolonged conflict with an enemy. Conquering Armies from the time of Joshua to Sennacherib, Hitler to Stalin and in history in between, and since have recognized the value of religion in motivating men to endure the hardships of battle and the willingness to fight, mutilate and die for their deities and their doctrines.

General Orders have been given not only to stifle the religions and places of worship of whole populations but to destroy edifices and places of worship in recognition of their power over the people.

The phrase 'religious ideology', is not of necessity tied to a spiritual deity but is always tied to an entity - alive or spiritually existent. It is also something that defines a significant part of the person who chooses to take on that ideology. Separating the ideology from the adherent is work that Missionaries do simply by sharing opposing ideologies. Sometimes this is effective and sometimes it fails. Failures of this kind are catastrophic for the Missionary often ending with the killing of the Missionary and his family.

In the first few pages of his thesis, Coughlin quotes from a speech by General Peter Pace who declares;

"Remember Hitler; Remember he wrote Mein Kampf. He said in writing exactly what his plan was and we collectively ignored that to our great detriment. Now, our enemies have said publicly on film, on the Internet, their goal is to destroy our way of life."

How strange that we can collectively understand the tragedy of that statement as it relates to a conflict in history but not understand that the principle it teaches is timeless. While Mein Kapf relayed the principles and doctrines of a socio-economic structure, those who believed in it followed it with the same vigor as any religious adherent. How much more should we expect, then, from a religious adherent who by willing submission to a deity also submits to the revelations and precepts of the religion?

Coughlin also exposed what is second to the potential dangers of the literal teachings of Jihad doctrine. Quoting from Jeff Stein, national security editor for Congressional Quarterly;

{He}"exposed the depth of the deficit among senior Washington decision-makers, including those with direct responsibility for WOT related issues. Leading into the elections, in a New York Times article titled “Can you tell a Sunni from a Shi’ite?,” Stein caused a stir by demonstrating that most American officials interviewed “did not have a clue” about the most basic issues concerning Islam."

This is a sad commentary and completely inexcusable because these cretins we call public servants have been making uninformed decisions FOR TEN YEARS, that have cost the lives and limbs of tens of thousands of this generation's best! Not only have their decisions been uninformed, but intentionally so.

Some will ask, then, why a study wasn't ordered…Well; it was, within the Department of Defense under Deputy Secretary Gordon England but that study which is the subject of this piece, was effectively buried by an ideological mole by the name of Hesham Islam and England himself. The study was the victim of an apathetic and uneducated if not cowardly pool of Congressional Representatives and Senators and the poor professional ethics portrayed by England.

Coughlin's study makes the case, over and over again, that the religion and it's supporting texts, scholars and studies declare the religion and it's exhortations are for "believers" to actively support and be part of Jihad as understood in the latter verses. From page 10 of the thesis;

"From the English language translation of the Saudi-published Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’an in the English Language, one can read “Appendix III -- The Call to Jihad -- (Holy Fighting for Allah in the Qur’an Statement),” written by Saudi Arabia’s Chief Justice, and learn that jihad --holy fighting in Allah’s Cause -- is a requirement of Islam:"

"The Verses of the Qur'an and the Sunnah (the Prophet's legal ways, orders) exhort Muslims greatly to take part in Jihad and have made quite clear its rewards, and praised greatly those who perform Jihad (the holy fighting in Allah's Cause) and explained to them various kinds of honours which they will receive from their Lord (Allah). This is because they -Mujahidin are Allah's troops. Allah will establish His religion (Islam), through them (Mujahidin). He will repel the might of His enemies, and through them He will protect Islam and guard the religion safely. And it is they (Mujahidin) who fight against the enemies of Allah in order that the worship should be all for Allah (Alone and not for any other deity) and that the Word of Allah (i.e. none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and His religion Islam) should be superior."

The very Scholars of Islam make it imperative to understand the tenets and principles of any teaching from the progenitors of those doctrines rather than from our own history and teachings. Trying to imbue our desire for these teachings upon the adherents or their doctrines is not only futile, but doomed to fail. It amounts to a dog chasing his own tail.

The thesis continually draws a distinction between the language of the western ideal and Islamic teaching. Whenever the subject of "terrorist" acts comes up for instance, the question that follows leads to misleading answers; does "true" Islam teach terrorist acts are permissible? Of course the typical answer to the typical infidel is no. However it is important to remember that one man's terrorist act is another man's righteous act in combat. An example is the underground movement in France, Belgium and other European countries during World War II. We, as a nation supported those efforts with rhetoric and war materiel. The German soldier however saw those acts in a far different light.

It is easy to mark the acts committed by "Islamic extremists" as different by virtue of their seeming indifference to the wanton killing of civilians but not so if you consider their understanding of the civilians they kill. For them, those civilian deaths are just as justifiable as the killing of infidel soldiers because those particular civilians fall into one of two categories; (1) non-believers and (2) apostates. In both cases, by the chronologically defined latter verses and keeping the doctrine of abrogation in mind, Allah permits and even commends the killing of these two groups. The killing of civilians that fall into these two categories while killing infidel troops, then, is win, win.

Again; trying to confine the religion of Islam, as defined by the Prophet and the Scholars of the religion, within the constraints of western concepts, reaps a wrong-headed understanding of the religion and it's mandates for the believer. Coughlin's entire effort was to provide insight into the religion as seen through the eyes of the Prophet, the Caliphs and the Scholars; unfiltered and without bias. Consider this from page 44 of the thesis;

"Because the paper seeks to reflect the broader consensus view, Islamic authorities

and authoritative sources relied on will be those demonstrating broad acceptance within the four orthodox schools of Sunni Islamic law - the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali– as reflected by the broad acceptance of those authorities in the historical writings on jihad. For this reason, while reference to Hanbali authorities may be used to round out representation of the four doctrinal schools, this paper will not rely on Hanbali law to establish the doctrinal authority of any point of law. The decision is purposeful and based on three reasons. First, a review of “extremist” literature from Wahhabi groups like al-Qaeda reveals that they rely on the writings of the authorities from all the schools, including those used in this thesis. Extremists rely on these authorities not only because they are recognized among the broader Islamic community but also because, by using them, they can genuinely demonstrate that jihad -- as they define it -- actually is a requirement of Islam for all Muslims."

When you keep the doctrine of Taqiyya in mind, it renders any Islamic renunciation of terrorist acts, or any defense of Jihad as a 'personal inner struggle with sin' or the many other declarations by true adherents as suspect especially when the very Apostles of the religion say something radically different. Deceit as a weapon in the war to subjugate the world to the teachings of Islam becomes the single most effective weapon if it keeps the infidel forces off balance and forces them to adopt battlefield strategies and practices that weaken their ability on the battlefield.

For a military organization to employ Counter Insurgency Doctrine in a religiously monolithic society that upholds deceit and cunning as proper in the day to day transaction of business with unbelievers as righteous and sanctified by the deity of that society is sophomoric and doomed to fail. And yet that is the road the General Grade Officers of this nation chose to do. There can only be one of two reasons they did so; they are either incredibly poor strategists or they proceeded with faulty or incomplete information.

Over and over again, Coughlin allows the teachings and beliefs of those in authority within the structure of the religion to inform those reading his thesis. Let's remember that the purpose of the thesis was to analyze the religion, it's doctrines and demands on it's adherents and ultimately, then, the likely affect they would have on a population of people ensconced in a culture controlled by this religion.

Coughlin's own notes from page 34 define his definition of doctrine along with a recent example of this nation studying the doctrine of a then current enemy in order to better understand them from a cultural and martial perspective:

Author’s Note on Doctrine. Through the Cold War, national security analysts and

decision-makers evaluated the Soviet threat based on its known doctrine. Soviet military commanders trained their forces using Soviet war-fighting doctrine and their competencies and capabilities were evaluated based on their conformance to it. When commanders deviated, they were evaluated to determine if they broke from it because they were inadequate to the task or whether instead they exceeded its parameters through sheer command of the operational art. In all cases, the evaluation was templated against the Soviet doctrine that defined their rules of engagement. If, rather than evaluating Soviet military commanders based on their doctrine, national security analysts and decision-makers used U.S. war-fighting standards, those analysts and decision-makers would have concluded that Soviet war-fighting was incoherent and therefore difficult to explain rationally. A Soviet meeting engagement was not the same as a U.S. movement to contact. This was true even as they appeared the same in battle because they reflected two different concepts of the battle based on competing theories of war. Islam is not Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism. Islamic law is not U.S. Constitutional, English common or European civil law. Hence, to measure against those standards, or to allow Current Approach advocates to explain along those lines, is to find incoherence and an inability to explain – or predict – the rational decisions of a rational threat. This often leads one to erroneously conclude that we are facing an irrational threat making irrational decisions. Before being able to generate the ability to reliably plan against terrorism perpetuated in the name of Islam, one must first know Islamic doctrine and then Islamic doctrine as it relates to Islamic concepts of war. To be able to do this, one must first read their doctrine.

What a unique concept; studying the enemy and his doctrines in order to better understand him and the effect of his doctrines - whatever they might be, on his decision-making processes.

Does anyone want to argue that a culture or country with a 99% adherence to Islam is not likely to have some of that teaching affecting their day-to-day decisions - especially as they pertain to a common enemy; an enemy as defined by the sacred writings of the "one true prophet", having been received through revelation by their god? And if we can agree that ignoring information of this kind to be not only irresponsible but potentially catastrophic, then what does it say about a person or persons who deliberately withheld a well appointed thesis from consideration in a process designed to improve our chances on the battlefield and reduce our casualties? What can we then say about our current government and their continued disregard for this treasonous episode and the intentional diversion of this information from those who could use it to save lives; American lives?

Conclusion

I first heard of this story a little over a year and a half ago and instantly realized the ramifications of the actions of all involved on our war effort and most importantly, our Warriors. That either makes me one of the most insightful people in the world, or suggests something very devious about those whose sworn duty it was to provide the most accurate and timely appraisal of the human terrain in Afghanistan. This information was critical to facilitating our Warriors ability to win this war by vanquishing an incalcitrant and ideologically motivated enemy and the survival of our Warriors amidst an ideologically driven population.

I humbly suggest the latter.

It defies logic to think that people who have been rewarded with rank and appointments to lofty positions in the upper echelons of the defense structure, could collectively miss such important information by sheer chance. It also seems highly unlikely that there would be a confluence of personal gut feelings, knee-jerk, politically correct attitudes and chance that would so affect the entire upper echelon military structure to the point of intellectual paralysis. What does seem clear, is that the continual campaign-mode attitude in DC with it's politically correct vision of this ideology and the one billion people who have made a free will choice to subjugate themselves to it's doctrines were waiting for a convenient pass. It also appears that the upper echelon Military structure was awaiting the same. If there were those who did not fall under the trance, they lacked the political and personal courage it required to define the enemy at the time. The sad thing is, they still lack the courage and now the vision. Both got what they wanted and needed, and like Pontious Pilate, they washed their hands and ceded responsibility to someone else and in this case, the good Islamic soldier, Hesham Islam.

Hesham Islam, and his associates in ISNA and MB were successful in piercing the security of the Pentagon and Gordon England's better judgment and in so doing, caused the citizenry of Afghanistan to be declared 'friendly and oppressed' and needing the protection of America and her Allies. It also successfully caused this country's war planners to decree an Afghan phenomenon, The Taliban, an insurgency not known or wanted by the average, Afghan citizen. The reality is, the Taliban are Afghan and are of the citizenry, supported by the citizenry and recruited from the citizenry. Even the Pentagon's defense of COIN strategy testifies to this truth. Over, and over again they have told us that not making heroic attempts to preserve the lives of the "innocent" in Afghanistan would cause them (the "innocent" Afghan's), to join the Taliban.

This schizophrenic defense has been allowed to stand and even thrive by a media lacking any regard for their first obligation as American citizens to actively engage in the defense of this nation and this government's lack of intestinal fortitude to declare our current enemy - the enemy. A curious thing being as they have made it clear for nearly as long as we have been a nation. Stranger still being as the doctrine they have chosen to believe is 1400 years old.

NOTE: Had Coughlin's thesis been studied, what has since come to be the war doctrine in Afghanistan, would never have been considered. The entire Defense department and military establishment has been guided to 'another rail' by the complaint of a man the FBI deemed a security risk with questionable loyalties.

Essentially, England allowed a personal relationship with a person of questionable design for this country to divert his attention from his sworn duty to support and defend the Constitution and the security of this nation. In so doing:

1. He pulled the thesis and removed Coughlin from the project. The result was an assessment without consideration of the possible ramifications of a, religious and ideologically motivated enemy for our forces on the ground. In addition, it yielded a skewed understanding of the "innocent civilian" population there and the possibility of collusion to our detriment. The persistent mantra that the Taliban is an "insurgent militancy" continues to poison the well of reason and absolutely no legitmate consideration is given to the relationship between the insurgency and the local population. This continues to hamper the ability of local commanders to deal, realistically, with the threat faced by our Warriors on the ground. It does so strategically and personally for there is an eager gaggle of lawyers gleaning after action reports, seeking which American Warriors they might prosecute - and the entirety of our Military; knows it.

2. This led directly to the adoption of COIN and it's disastrous ROE. For if in fact the local population did not agree either with the Taliban or their ideological motives, an argument could be made that a properly waged Counter Insurgency operation could succeed. But if, in fact, the population had been misjudged and the affect of their shared ideology ignored or underestimated, COIN could in effect finish the job an underequipped militant force could not. The evidence is to the latter. Our government's current efforts to woo the Taliban are not only fruit of a failed strategy - they are repugnant and an insult to the incredible valor displayed by the average PFC and LCpl!

The consequence is that the total number of American deaths suffered in Afghanistan at least since June 2009 as well as Afghan civilian deaths can be attributed to this failure to adhere to proper and secure relationships, free of the perils of fraternization by England and the subversive conduct of Islam.

3. Coughlin's report has never been gleaned for impact on the war strategy by the people who wrote the orders and selected the strategy although Coughlin has been asked to present his material to deploying units at the behest of the base and unit commanders being held to the most stringent elements of COIN doctrine. Although his thesis is readily available in PDF format online, the upper most echelons of civilian and military leadership as well as our collective Congressional representation have stubbornly refused to read it and consider it's conclusions.

The cost of the illicit relationship between Islam and England has effectively destroyed any possibility of military success in Afghanistan and contributed to a far less secure America by virtue of our having effectively abandoned the battlefield and allowed the Taliban, the enemy, to exploit the vacuum and our perceived weakness in not maintaining pressure on the Taliban due to the doctrinal restraints of COIN "warfare"; and this because Hesham Islam through Gordon England, ensured the information in Coughlin's thesis was never scrutinized by those whose job it was to properly assess the "human terrain" in Afghanistan.

Our follow on decisions in Libya, Syria, Yemen and the others that-will-follow are evidence that the particulars of that same faulty assessment have contaminated our world-wide perspective of Islam and it's motivational affect on civilian and military populations alike. The current unrest in Iraq and threats from Al Sadr's Al-Mahdi militancy to attack American forces still on the ground in Iraq, punctuate our continued misunderstanding of the implications of a religiously motivated population.

The question that begs asking is whether the intentional deflection by Hesham Islam from a full and proper analysis and the failure in judgment of England rises to the level of a treasonous act. For most; the radical associations of Hesham Islam and his subsequent forced resignation, ended the entire episode…But not for the hundreds of thousands of American Warriors forced to perform under the most stringent set of rules ever experienced in the annals of warfare.

And what of Coughlin and his thesis?

As for Hesham Islam, what is certain is that his most affective single act of "service" was to his religion and not for this country during his years "of service" or, for that matter as a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Regardless of what we, as Americans choose to believe about this man or his religion, the fact is he managed to get the single piece of evidence buried that would have caused the order writers who were reconsidering our posture in Afghanistan and would have forced the General Grade Officers in charge of the operation there to consider alternate strategies rather than rolling COIN doctrine from the battlefield in Iraq, to the battlefield in Afghanistan without so much as a blink.

And the best of this generation continue to pay the price and our current crop of representatives continue to ignore the cost….Except at grave sites!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

'Friendly Persuasion' Subverted the Enemy Assessment Process and Robbed Our Warriors of a Chance to Win and Survive in Afghanistan; Three- years-Ago!

2011-06-15T13:22:00.003-04:00

Part II

The Cast of Characters

The Mole:

Hesham Islam was born in Cairo in 1959. He was raised in Alexandria where he remained until his parents moved the family to Basra during his teenage years. It was in Saddam Hussein's Basra that he completed his High School education and attended the Arabian Gulf Academy, where he purportedly graduated with a BS in Maritime Studies. His native language is Arabic and he is a devout Muslim.

In 1980 he immigrated to the U.S. Considering the era in which this happened, it would be nice to know the particulars of that move but very little is publicly known about the family migration or even under what circumstances they left Iraq.

From 1985-2005 he served in the U.S. Navy first as an enlisted man serving at Groton Connecticut as an Electronics Technician for the Submarine Service before being accepted to OCS in 1987. He was hired by DRS Technologies, a defense industries company in February of 2009. According to his biography, he completed his Master's program in California, earning an M.A. in National Security Affairs. His 139 page thesis about the Middle East, entitled "Roots of Regional Ambition", railed against US policy on Israel and the Middle East region, favoring a more Arab-centric policy. In a story by Claudia Rosett at the National Review dated January 25, 2008 the thesis was anything but even-handed; from the story:

"…he devoted dozens of pages to lambasting Israel, and the influence of American Jews on U.S. politics. He deplored "Israeli activities which have detrimentally affected U.S. objectives but which have continued with impunity." He argued that U.S. support for Israel "has negatively affected the attainment of U.S. objectives in the Middle East." He blamed the influence of American Jews on U.S. policy for a host of ills, ranging from Arab "retaliation" against Americans, to jobs lost overseas, to hampering sales of "defensive arms to friendly Arab states."

It is important to note that he was also accused of 'padding' his personal biography. While those elements of his biography affected by that effort are of very little consequence to the overall story, it raises questions about the man's trustworthiness and particulars of the years prior to his migration to the U.S.

Question: How does an Islamic immigrant from Iraq, during Saddam Hussein's reign, manage to get clearance for Officer Candidate School much less the clearance necessary to be assigned to the Submarine Service?

To give this context; ten years earlier, I had considered applying to the FBI only to be told that I would not pass the first level of scrutiny because my Mother had migrated… from Canada!

Curiously, Mr. Islam's biography is silent as to when he was first assigned to the Staff of the Secretary of the Navy under Gordon England but the two became very good friends during this assignment. It is important to note that England identified Islam as a close personal friend and 'confidante'; "I take his advice," England said, "and I listen to him all the time."

Note: professional relationships that develop into personal friendships are not rare but are traditionally deemed unwise and in some instances, in some organizations, discouraged or made unlawful - especially in the ranks of the highly structured, military and intelligence communities. This is especially true when the friendship crosses lines of authority. The reason for this is the high probability of compromising one's authority and responsibilities. Fraternization across lines from Enlisted to Officer and from Officer to Senior Political Appointee is not allowed within the Armed Forces. Even if we consider England's apparent lack of familiarity with military life as excusable, Islam should have, never-the-less, acted in a way that was in keeping with this protocol. This is, of course, assuming his first priority and first loyalty was to Corps and Country.

Question: Was Hesham Islam sincerely interested in securing a friendship with England or was he softening up a stooge for a future need? The question is valid for a 'man cannot serve two masters'. Any diversion from a full blown examination of all aspects of a society, would certainly render the assessment incomplete and thus invalid. Any true American, loyal to country first, would be most interested in securing the best and most complete information for safeguarding our American troops. But if a man with divergent loyalties were so placed as to influence the process of selecting the information used to assess that society, the entire process would be suspect. Hesham Islam was certainly loyal to the religion of his youth and hence, his fellow worshipers. What other justifiable reason can there be for denying access to an academic study of the very words of the Scholars of that religion and it's likely affect on military operations in a predominately Muslim society, than giving deference to that religion above that of the security of the country?

In 2005, Islam was reassigned to the staff of Deputy Secretary of Defense under the title of Special Assistant for International Affairs, shortly after England himself was appointed as Deputy Secretary. It is during this assignment that Islam's associations and actions came under the intense scrutiny of Federal investigators.

Islam was accused of essentially acting as liaison and setting up meetings with Husam al-Dairi of the Muslim Brotherhood in late 2005 and ISNA (named by the Department of Justice as a member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and an unindicted co-conspirator in the case of the Holy Land Foundation, an Islamic charity indicted in 2005 in Dallas federal court for allegedly providing millions of dollars to the terrorist group Hamas, itself an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood) with England with the intent of "influencing the process".

The two most egregious points of the story are; (1), England was preparing to meet with them based, remarkably, on Islam's prompting alone; (2) No one except the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs seemed concerned about it even though it was against protocol. From the Story:

At the urging of a subordinate, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England scheduled at least two meetings with foreign emissaries in direct contradiction of U.S. policy at the time. The meetings date back to 2005. They involved a Lebanese ambassador considered a proxy for the Syrian government and a leading member of Syria's Muslim Brotherhood.

U.S. policy at the time was not to engage in talks with either man, because they represent groups with whom the United States was not to communicate. The meetings were organized by England's special assistant for international affairs, Hesham Islam.

An invitation to Muslim Brotherhood official Husam al-Dairi was canceled in late 2005 after a senior State Department official heard about it and insisted it not take place. That official, J. Scott Carpenter, told IPT News he was shocked that such an invitation was issued, let alone that it was done without anyone consulting the State Department.

Carpenter was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs at the time and knew the meeting went against U.S. policy toward the Muslim Brotherhood.

"I said, ‘what are you talking about?'" he remembered in an interview last week. "It was a bad idea."

Without due deliberation, it is easy to send the wrong message "broad and near," Carpenter said. "If something like that were to come up and be blindsided … it's not just a procedural foul up. It could unwittingly create bigger problems for the United States government."

"When you have somebody who has a controversial background," Carpenter added, "you don't want to give the impression that the United States government is standing behind them."

Two discussions should have taken place, he said. One would debate whether the meeting should take place at all. If it was agreed it should, the next question should determine the level of government appropriate to meet someone from the Brotherhood. Deputy Defense Secretary is far too high, Carpenter said.

After Carpenter relayed his concerns to England's office, a staff member called back. She told him it would be "a huge hassle to postpone it" and if that happened, England's office would make it clear this was the result of the State Department "putting its foot down and [saying] the meeting should not take place."

Carpenter said that was fine by him. The episode, including the serendipitous way he learned about it, made him wonder whether other meetings like that took place without State Department consultation, he said.

In a story released by WND released as early as February 2008, the FBI described Islam as a "Trojan Horse" and England's apparent blindness to the tactics of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islam this way; "England doesn't know it's an influence operation that's been laid at his door," he said. "His lack of awareness is irresponsible.".

So what we have thus far, is a devout Muslim and nationalized citizen from Saddam Hussein's Iraq, who manages to get access to a highly confidential area of the Navy, the Submarine Service and eventually a Commission leading to two high level positions within the Department of Defense. During his last appointment under the Deputy Secretary of Defense, he orchestrates meetings between members of the Muslim Brotherhood and the ISNA and his boss, the Deputy Secretary of Defense in direct contradiction of US policy at the time.

Keep in mind that we were in the process of trying to define the nature of an enemy and the local population in a country that is 99% Muslim. Add to this the fact that an Analyst had been hired, by the Department of Defense to produce a study defining not only the religion but it's likely affect on the decision-making process of not only the enemy but the local population as well.

This study would certainly have helped address implications for an American, "Infidel" Force fighting within that society. Let us keep in mind that the "Infidel Force" is made up of the Sons and Daughters of this current generation of Americans - not some nebulous force of drones from space. One assumes that a patriotic "American" would be concerned about that first.

Islam's lack of professionalism and the true object of his loyalty can be summed up in the simple comment he made about the Analyst who had been hired for his expertise in this particular area; "A Christian zealot with a poison pen." is how he described the Analyst. Curious that he didn't see the Analyst as an American investigating a facet of Afghan society that could have a profound affect on the thought processes of the individual Afghan that could negatively affect American Warriors.

As a result of the conversation he had with his boss/friend, Gordon England, the thesis was ignored. Remarkable! A very critical piece of information that would have been used to help formulate a more exacting understanding of the enemy and the population we were about to thrust American Servicemen in the midst of was buried because of the unwise friendship between a subordinate and his boss.

Can you say, compromised?

It is safe to say that Hesham Islam was far more concerned about the implied stigma the Analyst's report would leave on his chosen religious ideology. He was certainly more concerned than for the accuracy of the information provided to men whose study and conclusions would affect the lives of American Warriors working in a 99% Islamic compliant country.

Consider these comments from an FBI agent close to the investigation:

WND has learned that Islam is closely associated with a Muslim military chaplain trained at a radical Islamic school that federal agents raided after 9/11 in connection with terror-financing.

As WND reported, the chaplain, Abuhena M. Saifulislam, studied Islam at the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences in Virginia.

Recently declassified FBI documents reveal its sister organization, an Islamist think tank known as the International Institute of Islamic Thought, or IIIT, is involved in a Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy to wage a cultural and political jihad to eventually take over America from within; most notably, through infiltration of government agencies.

Islam works closely with Saifulislam (Arabic for "sword of Islam") on Pentagon outreach projects involving Middle Eastern embassies and the so-called Wahhabi lobby in Washington.

"He's a Muslim brother," an FBI official said of Islam. "He's a bad actor. He's well-positioned to be where he is, and that doesn't do us any good."

He also said Saifulislam is "definitely Muslim Brotherhood," while noting that Islam "is a lot smoother than Saifulislam," who as a chaplain at Gitmo lobbied for special meals and other privileges for al-Qaida detainees.

The official hastened to add that, at this point, belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood is not criminal, and neither Defense Department employee is the subject of a formal counterterrorism or counterespionage investigation. Both men have refused interviews, and the Pentagon had no comment.

However, the FBI official warned that the Muslim aides are part of a conspiracy by Muslim Brotherhood fronts to run "influence operations" against the U.S. government.

It may be true that the Muslim Brotherhood, the ISNA and several other organizations we could mention, including the KKK, Neo-Nazism, the Black Panthers, the Communist Party, the Crips, Bloods, et al are not illegal to be members of. It is, however, the epitome of arrogance and the very definition of poor judgment for anyone to be actively engaged with organizations like these - especially at the highest levels of government and especially when we are trying to define an enemy, within the borders of a country whose people share that enemy's ideology. Remember; the Analyst we are talking about was hired, by the Pentagon, because of his credentials in this area of study and for the specific purpose of answering those questions and providing counsel and guidance on this narrow aspect of Afghan society.

This study would help round out our understanding of the people of Afghanistan, Afghan custom and courtesy, the home-grown Taliban phenomenon we were preparing to re-engage and whether or not the religion would complicate those efforts.

The Useful Idiot:

Gordon England was sworn in as the Secretary of the Navy on May 24, 2001. His selection for the role was controversial at the time because of his lack of military service and his business background in the defense industry. The rightful concern was that a conflict of interest might arise from the inevitable lobbying attempts from other members of the industry.

Whether his defense contract background is or was an issue is a topic for another day but being selected to serve in one of the top military billets in government without a resume´ including military service is disrespectful of those serving at-the-least.

Whether it is a position in business without any associated experience in that industry or a position of authority in the military lacking the same, questions concerning suitability will and should arise and are certainly justifiable.

The military community is unique from all other walks of life because the professional Warrior is held to a different set of standards than his civilian counterpart. Personal discipline and a personal understanding of selflessness is not only required, but I argue, part of the character makeup of those who seek to serve in this capacity. Those who seek a political appointment lacking that background most likely lack the ability to understand they are not suitable for the position in the first place. While they may 'respect' the Warrior community, they lack an intrinsic understanding of the Warrior ethos and they certainly lack an empathetic respect.

There are also other stated yet subtle reasons why a person not brought up in the military community should be excluded from serving as the head of any branch and Gordon England ran afoul of one of those rules; Fraternization.

Definition. Fraternization is a social or business relationship between Marines of different grades in violation of a custom of the naval service which, in the eyes of one experienced in military leadership, impacts adversely on good order and discipline, or degrades or at least threatens to degrade the character or status of the position that a Marine holds.

While I admit this is a definition from the Marine Corps Fraternization Policy, the spirit of the policy exists in all branches of the service. Many mistakenly attribute this exclusively to male/female relationships across lines of rank, but in fact it covers any gender and in all situations.

The concern is, as the policy definition states, that the higher ranking person's authority may be compromised by restrictions placed on the individual by the relationship. This isn't rocket science; this is simply a classic understanding of human behavior. So how does this fit our current discussion? Because it was during this first appointment that Hesham Islam was assigned to the office of the Secretary of the Navy and during this tenure that the two, purportedly, became friends. It's too bad our naïve Congressional Servants aren't as concerned about things like fraternization as they were about lobbyists in this case.

If there is legitimacy to the concern over an E-3 Lance Corporal having a friendly relationship with an E-6 Staff Sergeant, how much more should we be concerned over a friendship developing between a member of the armed forces and a high level civilian appointee to whom he reports? Legitimate concerns about national security and the effectiveness and security of our Armed Forces are raised. Will the civilian senior be able to hold that relationship in check and not allow it to affect his judgment during a time of crucial decision-making? Considering Gordon England's own words describing his loyalty to his friend and the level to which he shared information and accepted counsel from him, it is clear his judgment was affected by the friendship.

At this point in the story, we have a naturalized citizen from Saddam Hussein's Iraq, who somehow gets accepted not only into the Navy but the Submarine Service and finally as an Officer. He is eventually ushered into two of the highest and most classified areas of the Defense Department, answering directly to the heads of both of those departments. Those heads are in fact the same person and someone whose intrinsic understanding of those departments lacks a history of military service. He allows a friendship to develop in violation of fraternization policies that threatens to undermine his authority and his judgment. By his own words, he uses his friendship with this Naval Officer for counsel and guidance.

Does anyone see a potential problem here?

The next entry to the story will introduce you to the Analyst and his work. I want to remind the reader that his contribution to the assessment of the 'human terrain' in Afghanistan was crucial to rounding out our entire understanding of the very people our Warriors would be surrounded by, day to day. It is unreasonable and sophomoric to arbitrarily exclude any element of a society, the culture, the religion, the economy or the standard of living from the assessment. Any of these can motivate people, in normal times, to act in ways that can lead to violence. Add to this the stresses of War and the inclusion of an outside, uniformed force and all of these elements take on a new dimension. If you consider the possibility that the uniformed force is likely to be seen, as an occupying force of pagans and a religiously defined unclean element and the opportunities for covert and overt violent acts or even a general lack of cooperation should be apparent.

But none of that was possible to be considered because that element of the study was buried by the Deputy Secretary of Defense at the demand of his friend, the naturalized American and pious Muslim, Hesham Islam; a man who was given access to areas of the government not made available to the average American born here.

The Messenger:

(Excerpt from his bio with SEG, Inc.) Stephen Coughlin is the Vice President of Strategic Communication Initiatives for SEG, Inc. He is considered to be the leading expert in the United States on Islamic Doctrine, specifically as it relates to the doctrine of jihad. He is a Major in the Army Reserve in Military Intelligence, and was previously assigned to CENTCOM J2 where he worked in strategic communications / information operations problems. He was a consultant to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, J2 (Intelligence) where he supported Joint Staff strategic communications related to Islamic law on jihad in association with OEF, OIF, and the WOT.

He is an attorney with a background in International law and International business. Before starting with Jorge Scientific, he worked at LexisNexis Special Services Inc supporting certain government organizations in the classified domain. Prior to that, he was the International Export Counsel for West Group and a member of the prestigious West Publishing Editorial staff.

Mr. Coughlin holds the JD from the William Mitchell School of Law, and BA degree in history and Russian area studies, from the University of Minnesota. Mr. Coughlin also served on the Board of Governors of the Minnesota State Bar.

In 2006, Mr. Coughlin’s thesis, “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad,” was accepted by the National Defense Intelligence College, and details the doctrinal drivers of jihad within Islamic Doctrine, and the failure of the United States leadership to learn and understand this doctrine. He has taught, lectured, and briefed senior members of DoD, members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials, and many law enforcement and intelligence officers in the United States.

It is the substance of the 2006 thesis that caused Stephen Coughlin to run afoul of Hesham Islam and their boss, Gordon England.

Again; keep in mind that He was hired for his expertise in this area and for recommendations and conclusions about the likely affect of Islam on the mission. Apparently, his analysis was a bit more than the DOD and the Pentagon were willing to consider or just maybe, the White House.

In any case, it took very little persuading on the part of Hesham Islam to cause Gordon England to ditch the thesis and the ramifications of it's contents. This was done without any academic rebuttal, any opposing study, any lengthy discourse. All it took was for a friend to convince the Deputy Secretary of Defense, a man who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and by proxy, the security of this nation and it's people, to sidetrack the very piece of work Coughlin had been hired to produce.

This thesis was not 'the assessment' but a detailed piece of information that the order writers needed to help fill out a picture of the human terrain in Afghanistan. This assessment in turn would be used by General Grade Officers to determine the best course of action and the best strategy to complete the stated Commander's Intent with the least number of American casualties while inflicting the greatest amount of pain on the enemy.

After all; isn't that the point of warfare? To inflict as much pain on the enemy in as short an amount of time as possible - all in an attempt to convince him of the hopelessness of continuing the struggle? Wouldn't this in fact be the first best way to avert undue hardship and pain on the local population, our Warriors and their waiting families at home?

Or maybe that wasn't of any interest to either man. Maybe Gordon England's first concern was loyalty to his friend rather than his duty to his country. Maybe Hesham Islam's first loyalty was to the religious ideology of his homeland rather than the security of his adopted home; the home that overlooked his questionable background and swept him up into the United States Naval Service and into several of the most critical areas of security in this nation.

In Part III we will look at the Thesis, the perspective of it's author and ask why this was considered too inflamatory to give to the assessors.

'Friendly Persuasion' Subverted the Enemy Assessment Process, Robbing Our Warriors of a Chance to Win and Survive in Afghanistan; Three- years-Ago!

2011-06-14T15:43:00.006-04:00

NOTE: This Entry will be released through this Blog over three days. It is lengthy but I implore all of you to take the time to read it and pass it on to all you know and most especially to your Congressmen/women.

This is the genesis of the argument against COIN/ROE. It is the sole act, I believe, that "gave permission" for the military ideologues to dust off a 70 year old controversial doctrine and roll it into Afghanistan. And the rest, as they say, is history.

* * *

Part I

Introduction and Definitions of Betrayal and Doctrine

Introduction:

What follows is a summary of a problem that finds it's genesis in the office of then Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordan England. Elements of this story were reported on by Mil-Blogs and a couple of smaller news agencies in 2008 but the most egregious details of the story were either missed or glossed over as not news-worthy. Even the federal agencies that investigated this story missed the crucial elements of it in lieu of a lesser issue; that of Hesham Islam's questionable ties to organizations considered 'unfriendly' to the United States. By itself, any relationship to these various organizations would be inconsequential without an associated intent to harm. Lacking a "smoking gun", federal authorities and the court determined his associations unwise and applied pressure for him to resign from his post….

* * *

The past nearly three years have caused even the staunchest supporters of our war effort in Afghanistan to question the viability of our current strategy and the competency of both our entire federal political establishment and upper echelon military leadership. It has been hard to watch the nearly total support of the American public for this war erode after ten years of promises followed by ten years of casualties caused by a cluster of murderers, cutthroats, brigands and pious adherents to Islam with an 11th century mentality.

As the Counter Insurgency Effort in Afghanistan continues to plod along, nearly daily reminders of the complexity of Afghan society are thrust before our eyes by one example of treachery, after another. And yet, the very General Grade Officers that have been given nearly total reign over the direction and strategic governance of this war seem oblivious to the realities that declare we have somehow missed the mark. It raises serious and yet basic questions:

1. How is it that the best trained, best equipped, most motivated and dedicated Warriors in the world can't seem to stop what can be legitimately described as a gaggle of cavemen with rifles, RPG's and various raw materiel ?

2. What was it that gave the Pentagon and the Officers who had been charged with the conduct of this war any reason to think that controversial COIN doctrine was not only a viable option but the very strategy that would successfully fulfill the Commander's Intent; 'Find and destroy Al Qaida and hold all those who give them aid and comfort accountable'?

3. How can an entire Administration and it's upper Military General Grade Officers still be puzzled to the point of asking "Why is this Still Happening?" every time a "trusted Afghan Partner" turns his weapon on his American trainers?

In the next few pages we will see how the actions of one man derailed a process that should have properly identified the enemy, the likely actions of the enemy and the local population and the best course of action for dealing with him in the midst of a hostile population and culture. We will also see that Federal Law Enforcement Agencies had this man, in their hands and still missed his effective subterfuge that diverted this country's Military might toward a perverse game of wack-a-mole. He was not only successful in subverting the process of studying and learning about the enemy, he was also successful in diverting attention from this treacherous act to a lesser concern.

We will see that while having missed that unique opportunity they also missed the single most damaging aspect of his successful mission and most importantly, failed to undo the damage he caused. This failure condemned literally tens of thousands of sovereign American Marines, Sailors, Soldiers, Airmen and Coastguardsmen as well as their NATO partners, to suffer the cruelties of physical and emotional trauma, the loss of limb(s), severe mutilation and death as well as unnecessary repeated operations into the very same areas once thought cleared of the "enemy".

These are the "Fruit" and "Legacy" of a single pious man and his "Useful Idiot". Their combined act of sedition has caused a delusion about the religion among much of the General Grade Officer Corps and caused others to 'dig in', in an attempt to preserve personal careers and legacies and all at the cost of the life and limb of the average Warrior and to the detriment of our National security.

Quite an accomplishment for a quiet, pious, adherent of what we have been told over and over again is a religion of peace; made even more astounding by the fact that federal prosecutors had him in their sights and amazingly, let him go.

If there has been a single point we have been making, over, and over, again, it is to the irrelevance of individual 'gut feelings' about the religion or even the adherents when it comes to our military posture in the midst of an overwhelming Muslim population. What needs to be determined is what the religion's texts and Scholars say about the religion. Every thought, every order and every strategy must reflect a historic and textually accurate understanding of that same religion and it's culture. To do less, is to make the immoral decision to place someone else in harm's way with incorrect information and incorrect perceptions of the enemy and the population.

As free thinking Americans living in a land that values freedom of thought, we must never lose sight that someone has to pay a price for that freedom. Demanding that others pay the price for what we 'think' may be true is immoral. If those who truly believe Islam is a religion of peace are prepared to test that theory with their own lives - or that of their children, then at least they are consistent. The problem is the vast majority of this population and their elected officials are prepared to send someone else to test their lofty theories but unwilling to jeopardize their own lives for the same.

A good leadership principle is; "Never ask a Man to do something you would not, or could not, do yourself". Our elected representation would do well to consider that little piece of wisdom and to reflect on the reasons we are paying a high price to subdue an "enemy" in the midst of "a friendly population" who are far too often turning their weapons on our Warriors and failing to offer up sound intelligence on the whereabouts of recently set IED's and other dangers.

None of the three questions posed earlier would need to be asked if our posture in Afghanistan was focused on security for our forces, first, and trusting an unknown civilian population, second. If the enemy we sought justice from was indeed nestled in the protective cover of the population of Afghanistan, it was then the burden of the Afghan people to prove themselves worthy of the trust of our Warriors - not the other way around.

The continued treacherous actions of those in ANA and ANP uniforms as well as the unreported presence of literally 10's of thousands of IED's deadly to our Forces, is proof that we have approached this population with the wrong posture - because of an incomplete study of the enemy and the population.

This paper hopes to show how we arrived at such a wrong understanding of the people of Afghanistan.

Definitions:

Before we look at the specifics of the betrayal that has caused us unnecessary casualties and frustrated the best efforts under the constraints of COIN, we will need to lay some ground work. What follows is a glossary of terms with definitions from the dictionary, U. S. Constitution, Koran, Hadith and the Reliance of the Traveler.

These definitions need to be considered as you read the context of this story. Failing to understand that the definitions of the Islamic doctrines listed below are considered Sacred and the very purpose and desire of Allah, will cause you to misunderstand the motivation of the Islamic worshiper to use and keep these doctrines.

* * *

Treason: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. (United States Constitution, Article 3, Section 3)

Subversion: Action designed to undermine the military, economic, psychological, or political strength or morale of a regime. (Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defense 2005.)

Abrogation: An Islamic doctrine that says any newer verse that seems to contradict an older one, takes precedent over the intent and message of the older verse:

2:106 "Whatever of Our revelations We repeal or cause to be forgotten, We will replace them with something superior or comparable. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things? Do you not know that Allah reigns sovereign over the heavens and earth and besides Him you have no protector or helper? Would you question your messenger as Moses was questioned in his time? Those who exchange their faith for disbelief have gone astray from the right path."

16:101 "When We exchange one verse for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say, 'You are making this up.' Most of them do not understand."

Jihad: The Islamic doctrine of 'struggle' which has been offered up by adherents to describe the inner struggle of man with himself and his sin. The fact is, more current verses say something radically different: (there are over 100 verses related to Jihad)

The Abrogated Verses on Jihad:

32:48 "Say 'O men, I am sent to you only to give a clear warning"'

32:67 "If they contend with you, say, 'God knows best what you are doing"'

23:98 "Repel evil with that which is best"

33.56 "Leave them (the unbelievers) in their confused ignorance for a time"

20:130 "Be patient at what they say"

20:135 "All are waiting, so you too wait if you will"

73:10 "Have patience with what they say and leave them with dignity"

19:87 "Make no haste against them

19:40 "Warn them of the Day of Distress"

2:103 "Forgive and overlook"

The Abrogating Verses on Jihad:

2:212 "Fighting is prescribed for you"

9:29 "Fight those who do not believe"

9:124 "Fight the unbelievers whom you find round about you"

2:189 "Fight them (the unbelievers) until Allah's faith prevails"

4:089 "They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back [to their homes], then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper."

8:12 "God revealed his will to the Angels, saying; 'I will be with you. Give courage to the Believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!' "

9:5 "Slay the pagans wherever you find them"

2:187 "Slay them wherever you catch them"

Taqiyya: This is a doctrine of deceit which is commended by Allah in dealing with 'the enemy/infidel'. When you understand who the 'enemy' is, you then understand how insidious and pervasive this doctrine is. It renders the Islamic adherent completely untrustworthy when we, the Infidel, are dealing with them.

3:28 "If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them . [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers-except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion."

3:54 "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers."

49:857 (From the Hadith) "That she heard Allah's Apostle saying, "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar."

pg 746 - 8.2 Reliance of the Traveler "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression..."

Enemy: Understanding who Muslims are taught to be enemies is important to understanding how the Islamic community is likely to respond to the kinds of incursions we are currently embroiled in:

9:29 "Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by God and His Apostle[Mohammed], nor acknowledge the religion of truth, [even if they are] of the People of the Book[Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

2:191-193 "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

47:4 "When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.

Infidel: The classic definition of Infidel does not change from the secular to the religious, or among differing religions:

in·fi·del 1. Offensive An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion,

especially Christianity or Islam.

2. One who has no religious beliefs.

3. One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or

principle. (American Heritage Dictionary of the English

Language)

A Strategy Change Needed From "Placate and Capitulate" to "Force and Fear"

2011-05-16T16:01:00.001-04:00

It is a universal truth that some are won over by love and others through fear. Those without a natural malice toward others are naturally drawn by acts of love and charity. Those who harbor ill-will and whose natural tendency it is to harm others, typically require a solid dose of fear to encourage change in their inclinations toward others.

It is wise to keep this in mind as we peruse the deluge of reporting and Monday morning quarterbacking of the unfolding events following the demise of Osama Bin Laden. The only truly wise thing I have heard from the typical news agencies and prognosticators in the past two weeks has come from an unlikely source. During Mike Huckabee's show Sunday night, Ted Nugent was asked if he thought the removal of Osama Bin Laden from the roles of the living would have a significant affect on the war/unwar. His answer was definitive and without hesitation; No. Score one for common sense and understanding!

It's too bad our illustrious leadership in the alabaster halls of the Dark City aren't as knowing; or at least as candid. I have heard a number of speeches and commentary littered with contradiction and political innuendo all with a clear design and that design is to send a message - in some cases to multiple audiences. Even the "disposal" of the murderer's body was orchestrated to send a message. Of course, that act was ill-conceived and will probably have caused far more damage than good once the carnage is cleared and analyzed through the prism of history. If you remove the fact that a non-uniformed enemy of this nation was given the distinct honor of being buried in our most profoundly solemn form, from the deck of a US Naval vessel, what is left is a laundry list of questions.

Friend and author, Andy Bostom delineated the incredible ineptitude and lack of understanding in the handling of the late scum's carcass by blowing a one time chance to send an indelible message to the pronounced enemies of this nation. Instead of treating him with the disdain he has so efficiently and maliciously shown the men, women and children of this nation, we chose instead to show him deference for his adherence to the very demonically influenced doctrine that motivated his perverse actions to begin with. What would have been more appropriate? How about using his carcass for chum and sending a four points bulletin to the world; "Don't Tread On Me!"

In another one of the more painful speeches to watch, this sitting President announced the details of the operation including everything but the very names of the operators and their families and then spent undue time trying to convince the Muslim world we "knew" Bin Laden was no leader of the Muslim people while, declaring that attention to his Islamic compliant burial was an attempt to not alienate the Muslim peoples of the world?!?

A rhetorical question: If Bin Laden really wasn't considered a leader amongst the vast majority of the Muslims peoples of the world and was in fact reviled by them for "hi-jacking" the religion; why would there be any concern how his "abused" remains might affect their judgment of us?

Since then, there has been yet one more incident where a "trusted" Afghan Policeman unloaded his AK 47 on sovereign US Soldiers, killing one and wounding three before he was killed. The story quotes "an unnamed official" as saying the incident arose from a disagreement between him and the soldiers. I agree; in all of these cases the disagreement is exactly the same. They are Muslim and the US soldiers are not.

The point remains effectively the same; the civil servants in this country have subjugated the population of this country to the perverse desire of this sitting President to handle the Muslim enemies of this nation in a way that elevates the value of their lives above that of our Marines and Soldiers. In subjugating the population of this nation he makes the sovereign forces of this nation of no account and certainly of less value than the collective body of adherents to Islam. These "servants" are, in fact, guilty of the willful destruction of a government asset and because that asset is human - murder. Claiming ignorance of the well documented doctrines of the ideology that motivates all of the players on the ground in Afghanistan may give them sway in a court of civil law, but the ultimate judgment awaiting them will not be as merciful; in that I have great confidence!

In another story of perverse logic ruling the day, an ISAF medical evac helicopter was fired on by Taliban murderers while they (ISAF) were attempting to load an unidentified "soldier" onto the helicopter who had stepped on an IED - set by the Taliban. This caused the local American Commander to denounce it as an "un-Islamic" act?!…..So…setting IED's that might maim or kill women and children is an Islamic act? Of course the question raised by a friend and Marine Mother, M. J. Green was whether or not it was against the Geneva Conventions to do such a thing? The unequivocal answer is; yes it is. The greater question is why these non-uniformed murderers have been afforded the protection of the Geneva Conventions in the first place. They aren't covered by print or spirit of intent by the Conventions; period!

Folks; we are ten years into this battle and our well protected servants, from the confines of their air-conditioned offices have had enough time to become Islamic Scholars themselves. They have certainly had enough time to understand the ramifications of forcing sovereign US forces to patrol the streets of villages without hope of fire support or, in some cases even being able to return fire with the rifles they carry simply to ward off an attack. They have been witness to the 30 sons of American parents who have perished since December at the hands of Afghan's; Afghan's being trained by those very Soldiers who are attempting to train them to make Afghan lives and that of their families, safer and yet, the elected servants of this country remain silent and worse yet, even convinced, they are doing the right thing by refusing to accept the possibility that the religion is the motivator for the evil they do.

In this nation we have a right to Free Speech, Free Thought, and Self-Determination among others. These rights are emblazoned in the Ten Bill of Rights which are guarded by the United States Constitution and by extension, the oaths and lives of our Warriors.

Could there be a greater perversion of justice than to have our elected "servants" stand by idly while men of ill intent force these same Warriors to forfeit their very lives on the fields of Afghanistan, for a fantasy? Forcing them to provide "protection", at undue risk to themselves for a people who ideologically agree with the slaughter of those same Warriors? And yet, as the political rhetoric begins to ratchet up for yet another election cycle, there is barely a word about the war, the plight of our forces being pinned down by a faulty strategy and it's demonically spawned ROE. What is at the top of the agenda? Money!

People invariably ask what I would do then given my disgust for the current condition. Typically I haven't answered the question because the answer is painfully obvious. But for those who can't make the logical leap; here goes:

Take the two greatest weapons we have, out of the vault and place them back in the hands of the greatest military force this world has ever witnessed; Fear and Force!

Tell the "innocent" Afghan, the demonically inspired Taliban, the deranged Al Qaida operative, the corrupt government official, the Imam, the Cleric, the Tribal Elder, the "moderate" Muslim, the "Extremist", the True Soldier of Allah, the coward, the patriot, the militant and any other name you have a fancy to call them and tell them we are there because we are through being their "mission field". We are there to hold Al Qaida and all those who give them aid and comfort, accountable - we are going to find them and kill them regardless of where they hide. All those who choose to help may be spared; all those who choose another path, will leave children and women mourning over their carcasses.

This is war. It isn't a war we started, and it sure isn't something we can negotiate away. This is a holy war because the enemy has told us so. Just because our delicate western sensibilities can't allow some within our ranks to wrap their heads around it doesn't change that fact. So we can meet the enemy on a battle field of our choosing or we can wait for him to outlast us while we continue to fumble around trying to make nice with the devil.

One thing for sure, he is patient.

Are we ever going to be willing to do what must be done so our Marines and Soldiers can come home - and victorious?

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

The most Recent Incident of U.S. Warrior Murders; A Peek at Pragmatism, Piety and Patience in Islamic Afghan culture.

2011-04-27T09:28:00.001-04:00

Today, Matt Lauer did us proud. He asked the question that the Media has thus far not dared to ask; is there anything to these incidences involving Afghan National Soldiers and Police turning their weapons on their American and ISAF Trainer/Handlers? Until today, the standard answer has been that these were individual acts of murder perpetrated by deranged, angry men, acting, if you will out of personal discontent. Any suggestion that these were connected in any way was not only regarded as incorrect, but bordering on racial slur.

Baseless denunciation aside, characterizing the 21 plus similar acts that have occurred over the past 1.5 years which has yielded 42 American deaths, as individual is a sign of stupidity. The running total since December of this past year alone stands at 28. When you add to this the most recent 'jailbreak' in Khandahar by 500 Taliban fighters - and supporters, the real question should be how is it that General Petraeus and his fellow supporters of the current strategy can continue to support what is clearly a failed strategy?

The prevailing wisdom that produced the strategy is that 'all roads lead to God' and Islam is just another expression of the 'pious Muslim' seeking reconciliation with him. The problem is, of course, that the writers of the original Op Order failed to even consider the possibility that these pious adherents of Islam might be motivated and even commanded by their deity to kill any and all who refuse to take a knee to Allah - even their 'allied trainers'.

These latest two incidences make this a rather busy week for the Taliban and their supporters. How anyone can conclude that the jailbreak alone was not orchestrated with the help of the prison's guards defies logic. This is not the first such break. A little over 2 years ago over 1100 'inmates' escaped with little to no coverage or seemingly any kind of concern. In fact, the most troubling part of all of these stories is the seeming lack of concern for what this suggests about the efficacy of the strategy and it's ill effect on the very lives of our troops. If insanity is truly continuing to do that which continues to fail, then the entire political and upper echelon military structure are themselves acting like 'escaped inmates' - from a different kind of institution.

Within our Western culture, murder is accepted as a wholly unacceptable and despicable act. It is neither tolerated nor allowed to go unpunished. Our loathing of it has extended to the battlefield where the acts of sovereign US Warriors, fighting on our behalf, are so scrutinized by JAG lawyers that they have been rendered nearly ineffective. Why is it that this same western culture that seems so willing to imprison our own, is so unwilling to hold accountable a society that deems murder a righteous act? How is it that we can be so 'compassionate' toward a culture that practices ritual murder and so intolerant of men acting out of self defense and urgency to defeat an enemy bent on our destruction?

Every questionable act that has occurred since the original terrain assessment was completed can be tracked right back to that assessment and the utter failure of Pentagon officials to insure that every facet of Afghan culture, Afghan life and Afghan religion was scrutinized.

The act of wanton murder in Kabul today is not an aberration and it is not the act of a single deranged individual. The murder on the Tarmac in Kabul, today, was the act of a penitent and pious true believer. One of many from within a society that celebrates such acts as holy.

If the Muslims in Afghanistan can be said to be pious, they are also pragmatists. Using us as what some have defined as useful idiots, practicing patience and all for the honor of Allah, is as much a sign of true adherence to the Koran and it's precepts as facing East on bended knee.

It appears, however, that time for patience is waning as these 'aberrations' increase in number and effectiveness.

General Petraeus and DC had better take that lesson to heart and learn before we lose any more of our Warriors to these pious acts of the simple, peaceful Afghan citizenry.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Cowardly Prostration Vs. 'Gunboat' Diplomacy

2011-03-27T11:31:00.001-04:00

We may have found the actual answer to the question, why we involved ourselves in Libya. Prognosticators and armed chair generals will give you a laundry list of reasons legitimizing yet one more incursion into a region entirely hostile to American interests but it is almost always a thin veil covering something far more devious - or cowardly.

The classic, public answer to the question has to do with our 'goodwill toward all men', our concern for the safety and individual right to self-determination and the elimination of 'bad men', but this week, the administration may have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag.

On Sunday, March 27th, NBC's Meet the Press (MTP) hosted Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton who were sent to spread the word about this administration's compassion for the oppressed peoples of the world and to justify, by extension, our involvement in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation; Libya. After all the dribble about the poor, disaffected, freedom-loving, innocent civilians there, Ms. Clinton sought to punctuate the righteousness of our actions by mentioning that even Al Jazeera had expressed 'gratitude' for our gracious involvement for the innocents in Libya.

When you consider how this sitting President started his term, prostrating himself in Muslim lands, before a Muslim audience, apologizing for the 'excesses' of American living and the 'abuses' of American arrogance, not to mention assuring his Muslim audiences that America was not a 'Christian' nation, the reference to Al Jazeera, was enlightening. In the midst of that simple effort by Clinton to justify military action through the gratitude of Al Jazeera, she told us all we may need to know about this administration's actual end game strategy.

Al Qaida and other Islamic groups have been given safe harbor in Libya and are part of the 'freedom-seeking' rebel faction seeking to oust Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi. It now appears that intrinsic to the strategy is an ill-advised if not naïve attempt to offer an olive leaf to our age old enemy. After all, by throwing in with the rebel faction we have in fact allied ourselves with Al Qaida. Assuming the administration is not completely uneducated about the demographics in that country and given Ms Clinton's faux pas during MTP, it is not a huge leap to make this conclusion.

Later in the show, during the round table discussion with this week's guests, Savannah Guthrie, Ted Koppel, Bob Woodward and Tom Ricks, Ricks made an extraordinary claim that not all extremists (spelled Islamic Extremists) were necessarily hostile to the United States?!

Really?

Ted Koppel actually stood out as the reasonable voice at the table questioning the wisdom of pitting ourselves between the two Islamic factions, ultimately putting ourselves in bed with a group that might eventually bite us in the backside. Koppel should have been able to muster this little piece of wisdom having covered similar events throughout his career where we have seen the fruit of these kinds of foolish couplings. Can you say T-A-L-I-B-A-N?

All of the guests agreed the military would baulk at yet one more ill-advised and undefined incursion into the devil's lair and Ricks said his Blog is filled with commentary from military personnel denouncing this latest venture. Of course! They are the ones paying the price for this fantasy that we can sweep up all the 'bad guys' in the world and make all of the people - even Islamic peoples, friends.

No; what we will have is egg on the face of this administration and by proxy; us. It is naïve at best, criminal at worst to knowingly subjugate this nation to an ideology hostile to it's existence. Reaching out to an incalcitrant, enemy ideology and it's minions with chocolates rather than heavy guns is by definition an act of capitulation. There is little doubt left concerning the ineptitude of this Administration or Congress in general when discussing Islam, the Middle East, Southwest Asia, the Arabian Peninsula or North Africa.

The only serious question remaining is whether the American Voter, is paying attention and whether the 'King' is prepared to take back control of his country in 2012.

Tom Ricks made the comment that the US Military's history has been rather defined by this kind of 'Gunboat Diplomacy'…He should be careful not to try to equate the era of the Great White Fleet with the political failures of recent decades. In addition, our talking heads and politicians would do well to remember the battle of Iwo Jima which helped turn the tide in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Although costly to the United States Marine Corps, of the estimated 22,000 Japanese defenders on that island, only an estimated 300 survived to the end of the battle, March 1945. The Japanese surrendered, officially, 2 September 1945.

The Soldiers of Islam may be pious, even pragmatic, but there is a limit to the amount of suffering even they are willing to endure.

If we are going to survive as a nation that treasures self-determination as an American right, we had better be preparing to deliver pain, instead of presents.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

The Enemy You Know Is Better Than The Enemy You Refuse To Know

2011-03-24T16:28:00.002-04:00

The big question looming since a coalition of UN nations began airstrikes inside Libya last week is, why? While the carefully crafted answer to that question revolves around a concern for the civilian population there, no one has adequately explained why it should be a concern to the United States specifically or the world in general. Why should we care more for the Islamic rebels than their Islamic Leader?

Libyan oil output does not factor in as national security concern nor a factor in our overall economy. Ever since President Reagan authorized an attack against Ghaddafi over 20 years ago, the leadership in that country has posed very little in the way of an existential threat. When you also consider the percentage of the population dedicated to Islam standing at 97%, there is little to hope for in the way of reconciliation with that nation's people. So; why are we concerned that the Muslim tyrant of a particular Muslim country is not kind to the overwhelming Muslim population of his country? And why have we decided to throw in with an Islamic rebel faction intent on overthrowing the government there? Does this sitting government actually believe there is any hope for an actual democratic, constitutional republic or constitutional monarchy to rise from the ashes of this latest struggle and if so; what gives them that hope?

We have been stretched to our military limits fighting in two countries who, arguably, posed a long term threat to our security. The eventual outcome of those two endeavors is still unknown as the wisdom of our political and upper echelon military remains highly questionable. Conditions on the ground in Iraq continue to crumble as the Iraqi Shia sect and their Iranian mentors continue to deliver death to the general population and instability to government agencies. In Afghanistan where the focus is now on training those resistant to sound training in an effort to expedite the beginning of US troop withdrawal, the Taliban is still able to muster enough influence to cause the cell phone service providers in Helmand province to discontinue service. Let's recall that Helmand province has seen more military action than in any other province of Afghanistan and was just recently declared to be stable by General Petraeus.

When you consider the more important issues of schools, roads, infrastructure and simple hygiene, cell phone service isn't nearly as important. On the other hand, security of roads, schools, water purification plants, wells and the like are by nature harder to secure than something as simple as cell towers and yet the Taliban still retain enough influence to cause even these companies to fold for fear of retaliation.

The two questions that emerge from this are, one; when are the Afghan people going to take charge of their own security and two, doesn't this bring into question the credibility of those who instituted the current strategy there? One of the defining elements of a successful COIN expedition is found in the changing attitude of the population and yet the local population still doesn't seem to feel the need to step up and take charge of their own destiny even if it means bearing arms to hold off those whom, our leadership has been telling us are a pariah on the plains.

What should be clear to our current crop of Representatives, the White House and the Pentagon is that you cannot reason with a people who hate you ideologically. This simple fact would be clear to them if any were serious students of history and specifically of the growth and goals of historic Islam. Dumbing down sound tactical doctrine on a hunch is not only illogical; it is in fact, disastrous.

Our goals should be narrowly defined and our offensive actions, aggressive. Whether the United States of America lives or dies matters little to the nations of the world much less the Islamic nations of the world. Our national security needs to be our number one concern, as Americans and the lives of our American Warriors adjacent to that.

Fire-bombing the vipers in one pit while feeding the vipers in another, is an act of fools. They are both venomous. The one detail that continues to elude DC is what all of the parties in these current conflicts have in common; Islam. There will be no reconciliation with the Islamic nations of the world; not with a predominately Christian nation and certainly not with the 'Great Satan', the United States. Thinking these Libyan rebels will somehow magically dump their religious ideology for the freedoms enjoyed by Infidels is foolish thinking. Expending American lives and gold to foster that thinking is immoral.

This morning on the Today show Natalie Morales informed Americans that a 'rogue' unit of American Soldiers were being tried for killing unarmed 'civilians' in Afghanistan. It would have been nice if she had also informed her viewers that 6 other American Soldiers had been shot, two mortally, by a 'trusted' Afghan Security Officer - while they cleaned their weapons.

I remember a world in which Americans, regardless of their chosen professions, were primarily concerned for the lives of Americans and American ideals.

Whatever happened to that nation?

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Double Minded Justice; Sgt Larry Hutchins ordered back to Prison.

2011-02-16T12:25:00.003-05:00

If denying Air and Artillery support to our Forces as they are under fire is a reprehensible act, prosecuting those same Warriors for 'war crimes' against an incalcitrant and murderous band of thugs is the very definition of an evil and satanic act. Sgt Larry Hutchins and seven fellow Marines and Corpsman were convicted of plotting the murder of an Iraqi man in Hamandiya in 2006. Let us remember that our Warriors have been fighting an enemy that is hard to define, treacherous and motivated by an ideology that promotes, recommends and idealizes ritual murder. Let us also remember that this enemy does not wear a uniform and represents no flag, no nation, no people. They kill, maim and destroy to pacify their deity.

What makes this case so astoundingly evil is that the upper echelon chain of command and in fact the entire federal government of this nation has placed the lives of this squad and by extension, the lives of every Warrior, beneath the lives of the very people they were sent there to confront. While the lives of these men were being judged by Courts Martial, other Officers, sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, had been ordered to review the cases of hundreds, if not thousands of civilian clad murderers and to consider whether their words of repentance are sincere enough to allow them to return to Afghan society. There were similar acts of insanity in Iraq where holding these ideological murderers accountable was and is still deemed unnecessary and even injurious to the overall mission.

The incoherency of the strategy to pacify those who do not know compassion has become the calling card of all in federal government and upper echelon military circles. If trying to explain the apparent blindness to the reality of this enemy and these battlefields as an act of career preservation, is unpalatable, trying to explain blowing second chances at redemption for the despicable miscarriage of justice in this particular case defies all rational - or irrational explanation.

Sgt Hutchins had already served four years for what will always remain questionable. Parsing acts of war and preservation from deliberate acts of murder on the battlefield is tricky at best. Charging him with murder, dragging him through the system, handing down an eleven year sentence, releasing him after four years due to inconsistencies in his defense and then sending him back to prison should be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

The problem is, this government has dual loyalties; one for those who cast votes to place them in office and a greater one to the world community and most especially those all too willing to remove American heads from torsos.

Judging this squad's acts on the battlefield that day, holding them accountable as though they were 'back on the block' surrounded by reasonable people and as a consequence destroying their lives for political gain or international respect is something that will be despised by all nations and all men when history reveals it for what it is.

While we are watching the political circumstances in a dozen nations evolve before our very eyes and in a way that is highly unlikely to be friendly to us, we are, as a nation, destroying our own military prowess in profound ways. If anyone in the legal system or the government as a whole thinks that destroying the lives of young American Warriors is somehow going to make us safer or send the correct message to our enemies, you are deluded!

The men and women of the American Armed Forces this government continues to abandon and actively seeks to destroy are in fact the very definition of honor while the actions and inaction of the bureaucrats and morally depraved legal community are their antithesis.

To those of you daring to seek office in 2012 be warned; anything short of clemency for all of our Warriors languishing in prisons for the benefit of political cowardice, will not be acceptable.

If you don't understand this single point; stay home.

The American people don't want you and our Warriors, can't afford you!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Paul Hair Interview

2011-02-14T10:25:00.000-05:00

I was approached by Paul Hair who writes a column with the Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/author/paulhair/), about three weeks ago. We agreed on an exchange of e-mail messages with Q & A to complete it and Diana West was kind enough to run it on her Blog, http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1682/An-Interview-with-John-Bernard.aspx . For those who may have missed it or who may be interested, please follow the link back to Diana's Blog.

Reactive Pronouncement is not Leadership; it's Deadly!

2011-02-06T21:38:00.000-05:00

As events have developed in the Middle East in the past two weeks we have watched a transition in the public pronouncements of nearly every entity on the planet. The only person to hold ground, to some degree has been the Egyptian President Mubarak. Although he announced that he would not seek office again in September, he was quick to temper his statement by saying he never intended to run again. Whether he has been good for Egypt or bad is a question for Egyptians. Whether he has been an asset to the United States and our foreign policy in that region of the world is another issue entirely.

The state of our credibility balances on two issues; one, our apparent resolve and two, the outcome of the upheaval we are witnessing in Egypt. In a part of the world that scrutinizes it's enemies for weaknesses to exploit, how we will be perceived by the winning side will determine whether or not we will be able to influence anyone in the Islamic community, peacefully, in the future.

The White House has been reactive throughout the entire process and, arguably because there isn't a single end game scenario that plays out well for us. On the one hand we have handled Mubarak as a friend for decades and any indication of distancing ourselves from him 'in his hour of need' will not play well with other Islamic nations with whom we have a 'working' relationship. If we back him, it will send a message to the Egyptian population that we are abandoning them in favor of a 'leader' they accuse of abuses and apathy. Considering whether the latter could push the voting population there closer to a Theocratic government is a waste of time; a Theocracy is the likely outcome in any case.

Once the dust has settled, it is likely that Mubarak will be gone and the Egyptian people will have won an opportunity to chart a course for themselves; one that is very likely to be unfriendly to Western civilization, the United States and Israel. Early in the demonstrations, Nic Robertson of CNN, walked amongst the demonstrators and interviewed some of them for a better understanding of their complaints, their resolve and their future hopes. Their answers were daunting. It wasn't so much what they said but the level of calm and the matter-of-fact tone with which they said it.

In the early stages of the demonstrations, the Mubarak government accused the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) of being behind the protests and shortly thereafter, a Muslim Brotherhood spokesman said as much. Although there were those insisting that the Muslim Brotherhood's sole desire was for the 'rights' of the people only, and not political control, as the days have progressed, it has been increasingly clear that they have designs on political control . Of course they have maintained their peaceful intentions from the beginning. They were quick to say, however, if Israel made any provocative moves against Egypt. they would change their stance. In addition, on February 4th, the former Director General of the IAEA, Mohamed Elbaradei said he would not seek the presidency although later in that same day said he would leave the door open 'if the people asked him to'. Since that time, the Muslim Brotherhood has reached out to Elbaradei, seeking a coalition of sorts?! Curious for a group not interested in power.

Are you keeping up so far?

Throughout all of this, there has been a chorus of voices trying to convince the more skeptical of us in the United States, that Elbaradei is not associated with the MB even though there is mounting evidence to the contrary especially in light of how fast the MB has been willing to 'extend a hand' to him. In any case; why do we care, if the MB is the peaceful organization we are being told they are?

That same chorus of voices has been applauding the democratic desires of the protestors even though it is becoming ever increasingly obvious that the choices they make charting their collective destiny is likely to place them on a collision course with the United States, Israel and the rest of the non-Islamic world.

Today, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton expressed 'cautious optimism' over the prospects of Muslim Brotherhood involvement in the political process there. President Obama's comments were intended to be an encouragement for the entirety of Egyptian society, we are led to believe. But his comments clearly downplayed the possibility of a Muslim Brotherhood victory indicating some elements of the Brotherhood (in Egypt) were anti-American. If the Muslim Brotherhood has not been forthright with their behavior to this point, what is that gives him any optimism and does he have any right to hang our future sovereignty and security on his personal perceptions?

Both the President and Secretary of State have displayed an astounding lack of understanding of MB vision both in Egypt and the US. They have placed our entire war footing in Central Asia in the hands of advisors who are the natural 'children' of a group poised to fill the coming power void in the nation of their birth. The advice they have received from MB has determined our strategy in Afghanistan and our commitment to spend untold billions of dollars to rebuild parts of Afghan society not made entirely clear to US taxpayers.

It should at least astonish the majority of the population to know that an organization whose charter spells out a vision for a world in which the United States is not consistent, is given so much credibility and power - especially when the President openly admits that their numbers include those hostile to the United States.

A New York Times article talks about the ambiguity in the 2004 Afghanistan Constitution concerning religious freedom. Because of inconsistencies in interpretation, Christians and new Christian converts from Islam stand the risk of being hung as apostates. Let's remember that our entire vision of that country, it's civilian population, the Taliban and the government are seen through the prism of the very same organization now vying for power in Egypt; an organization that President Obama clearly indicated had elements not friendly to the United States. The MB in the United States did not originate on Mars, they originated in Egypt. There is a shared philosophy of governance, jurisprudence and a shared recognition of the spiritual state of all peoples; some are Believers and others are Infidels. Infidels, historically, have suffered greatly under Islamic control and that can still be seen today and most remarkably, in Afghanistan.

If the President and the Secretary of State share the same view; 'cautious' optimism for the people of a foreign land, why is it they have not seen fit to show that same level of caution when selecting advisors who would, and are, governing the conduct of our Warriors on the field of battle?

Why is it apparently all right for Afghan Christians to live with uncertainty in Afghanistan, but untenable for Egyptians? And why is it all right to place our Warriors in the middle of all of that uncertainty?

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Andrew Bostom on Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood

2011-02-03T16:10:00.003-05:00

Friend and Author, Andrew Bostom wrote a piece that I felt compelled to share with everyone. His knowledge of Islam, it's history and it's doctrines give him a level of credibility lacking in all of our media outlets, talking heads and bureaucrats.

Do not be fooled into thinking the events in Egypt are somehow not contributory to what may lay ahead for the region. The players at work in Egypt are also busy in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Jordan and others as you read this. Andrew's insight into this is a must if you are going to parse truth from myth as the demonstrations across the region progress.

I want to make sure everyone also understands that at the core of the COIN/ROE discussion is our government's failure to understand the fundamentals of Islam and by extension, the enemy.

Egypt: “Lost,” or Found?

Posted By Andrew Bostom On February 2, 2011

Across the political spectrum, the punditry has been sharing its profound analytical wisdom on the Egyptian protests, and resultant political turmoil. Two dominant themes have emerged from these analyses: delusive celebratory predictions about the “democratic ^[2]” uprising in Egypt from both mainstream (i.e., Left) and conservative ^[3] pundits, or a historical drivel already assigning blame to the Obama administration for the “loss ^[4]” of Egypt.

Amidst this cacophony of uninformed nonsense, motivated by the twin perversions of cultural relativism, and partisan hackery, I read these sobering observations ^[5] written by an Egyptian student, Sam Tadros:

The opposition you wonder? Outside of the Muslim Brotherhood we are discussing groups that can each claim less than 5,000 actual members. With no organization, no ideas, and no leaders they are entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

The perspicacious Mr. Tadros’ concern raises larger questions—almost entirely ignored—about the Muslim Brotherhood’s unequivocal ideology, and societal goals, but more importantly, why its message resonates with the Egyptian Muslim masses.

The 1928 charter of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (MB) states, “Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its Constitution; Jihad ^[6] is its path, and death for the sake of Allah (i.e., murderous jihad “martyrdom ^[7]”) is the loftiest of its wishes.” Hamas ^[8], popularly elected by Egypt’s Palestinian Muslim neighbors, is a self-avowed branch of the MB as proclaimed in its charter (article 2), “The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times.” Both the Egyptian MB, and its Hamas affiliate seek, progressively, local, regional, and ultimately global imposition of Islam’s totalitarian religio-political code—the Sharia ^[9]—through non-violent and violent jihadism.

Mirroring the attitudes of its Palestinian constituents, elective democracy has already brought Hamas to power. Are there consistent trends discernible in Egypt? In a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.org ^[10] interview survey ^[11] of 1000 Egyptian Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007, 67% of those interviewed-more than 2/3, hardly a “fringe minority”-desired this outcome (i.e., “To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate”). The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 74% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition “To require a strict [emphasis added] application of Sharia law in every Islamic country.” Subsequent confirmatory survey data just released in December 2010 ^[12] by Pew indicated that three-fourths of Egyptians favored these draconian Sharia-based punishments: lethal stoning for adultery, execution for “apostasy” from Islam, and limb amputations for theft. Moreover, Historian David Littman ^[13] reported to the UN Human Rights Commission on April 23, 2010, “The FGM (female genital mutilation) figure for Egypt… remains today a deadly 97%” This barbaric practice is sanctioned by the Shafiite school of Sunni Islamic Law that predominates in Egypt. The predictable medical complications of this barbarity—acute (“severe pain, shock, infection, bleeding, acute urinary infection, tetanus, and death”) and chronic (“chronic pain, difficulties with micturition and menstruation, pelvic infection leading to infertility, and prolonged and obstructed labor during childbirth”)—are described in this 1993 British Medical Journal ^[14] report. Indeed, it has been the semi-secular, authoritarian military regime of Mubarak that made FGM illegal in a vain attempt to protect Egyptian Muslim women against the obvious wishes of its citizenry. Finally, reflecting longstanding attitudes of Egypt’s Muslims engendered by the canons of mainstream Islam, the late Sunni Muslim Pope, Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi ^[15], Grand Imam of Cairo’s Al Azhar University from 1996 till his death last March 2010, wrote a 700 pp. treatise rationalizing traditional Islamic Jew hatred, past and present. Tantawi also sanctioned homicide bombings against Israeli non-combatants, and supported “martyrdom” attacks on US troops in Iraq–although under pressure he eventually equivocated on this latter justification,

This is the overall context which explains the MB’s popularity in Egypt. But as Der Spiegel ^[16] just reported, the MB is not only popular, it is savvy and fully capable of cultivating a “moderate” image for consumption and witless regurgitation by Western media sycophants. Noting how the MB’s current rhetoric is being, “carefully calibrated to convey normality,” even its emblematic martial—i.e., jihadist—symbols are being concealed during media encounters:

A Koran, two crossed swords and a message: “Prepare yourselves.” The crest of the Islamist Egyptian group Muslim Brotherhood is nothing if not martial. Perhaps even a bit too martial for the international press. On the first floor of a shabby apartment building on El-Malek El-Saleh street in downtown Cairo, the group – which for years has been Egypt’s largest opposition movement – is receiving a gaggle of scribes from abroad. And the official symbol is nowhere to be seen. Even verses from the Koran or photographs of the holy Kaaba in Mecca, of the kind that hang in living rooms across Egypt, are absent. Instead, visitors are confronted with desks piled high with fliers, packed bookcases and cabinets full of file folders. The message is clear: The Muslim Brotherhood is but a normal political party, right down to the business cards, water fountain and chalk board.

At the moment ^[17], pro-Mubarak demonstrators have appeared en masse in the Cairo streets, and they are engaged in violent clashes with anti-government protesters. Perhaps the military regime will prevail in the near term—clearly a preferable outcome. But if ever the Islamic attitudes and desires of Egypt’s masses are given full “democratic” expression, the ultimate ruling elite is likely to be the MB. And the MB represents the apotheosis of millennial-old Egyptian Muslim attitudes towards all non-Muslims as recorded in 1836 by Edward W. Lane ^[18], the great Arabic lexicographer, who resided amongst the Egyptians for a decade:

Of the leading features of their character, none is more remarkable than their religious pride. They regard persons of every other faith as the children of perdition; and such the Muslim is early taught to despise. It is written in the Kuran (5:51 ^[19]): “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.”

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2011/02/02/egypt-%E2%80%9Clost%E2%80%9D-or-found/

Egypt; Does it Affect our Afghanistan policy? It Should!

2011-01-31T11:11:00.001-05:00

Nobody seems to be asking this question. The talking heads can't make the connection because for the talking heads, there is no commonality. Hasn't that been the argument all of this time? We have been trying to get someone - anyone in government or anywhere in the media to consider, even for a minute, the possibility that there might be other factors to consider and yet they remain immutable.

There was almost no publicly displayed concern when Tunisia crumbled and very little talk about the 'growing pains' in Lebanon. Egypt has been different though. Egypt has been seen as an ally in a region of the world where the difference between your friends and your enemies can be defined by the bruise on your forehead - assuming you still have a head to bruise.

Mubarak's government media made it clear the Muslim Brotherhood was behind this latest round of protests and within days, the Muslim Brotherhood made it clear that they were. During this same period, Iranian officials made it clear that they supported the protestors and their quest for 'democracy'. The Egyptian government outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood in 1954 just 26 years after they formed in that country largely due to their political opposition. Their efforts in Egypt since then can be defined as an underground movement and when these latest protests began in earnest last week, their effectiveness became readily apparent.

The fact that Iran has come forward and made clear their support of the protestors who are being 'lead' or 'encouraged' by the Muslim Brotherhood should suggest they are in league with each other - at least ideologically. If our government has shown a complete lack of credible understanding of Islam they have never-the-less been more or less all in agreement that Iran is rogue in a part of the world they (the US government), see as otherwise peaceful. If Iran is rogue and their Clerics have in fact hi-jacked an otherwise peaceful religion, shouldn't we be concerned that they are apparently in league with the Muslim Brotherhood's efforts in Egypt? Is there any serious indication that elections in Iran have been conducted without coercion? If not; then what exactly is the definition of a democracy in Iran?

Let's also recall that the Muslim Brotherhood is the principle advisory 'committee' for this sitting government and the Pentagon. Getting nervous yet? This sitting government's military decisions in that region of the world are based largely on advice from Muslim Brotherhood officials.

If, then, the Muslim Brotherhood is behind a protest that is lauded by the Iranians who all agree are violent and 'extremist' in their ideological views, what confidence can anyone have for the future of Egypt? The protestors in Egypt may well achieve democracy but it will be short lived. In their first democratically cast ballot, they will likely vote themselves into another form of slavery taught by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian Clerics. The sad truth is all of the countries with predominantly Muslim populations in that area with autocratic regimes are likely to follow suit.

Our Representatives in DC are likely to get several lessons in Islamic Theocratic processes in short order. The question is what they will learn from these lessons and whether it will cause them to reconsider their rosy view of Islamic doctrine and Islamic society in Afghanistan specifically. Let's not forget that the COIN strategy governing our military prowess in that country has a lot more to do with US human terrain assessments than it has to do with sound battle strategy.

As Iran is about the business of developing a nuclear program capable of delivering a warhead, they are also busy seeding the region with their version of Shia Islam and replicating themselves. If the toehold they now have in Iraq is a devastating indictment of our complete misunderstanding of the draw of fundamental Islam on Muslims, misunderstanding the Iranian and Muslim Brotherhood's intent for the crumbling governments of it's neighbors will be confirmation of that ignorance.

In the end; governments come and governments go. In a Democracy or a Constitutional Republic such as ours, casting blame on the incompetency of government is tricky. In this land of government, 'by the people, for the people', the people have only themselves to blame for the shortsightedness of their elected representatives.

If, then, the people are in fact dissatisfied with the way our Marines, Sailors, Soldiers, Airmen and Coastguardsmen are being led on the plains of Afghanistan, they are going to have to rise from their soft cushioned thrones in front of the television set, pick up the phone and do something about it.

Our Warriors are.

They are doing the very thing they swore to do; obeying the lawful orders of the Officers placed above them - who are carrying out the mission statement of the White House and blessed by those same representatives…By - Their - Silence!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Afghanistan Strategy Change Needed; Making the Case

2011-01-24T15:03:00.000-05:00

Much of the discussion about war strategies, ROE, nation building and the like has been steeped in one side or the other denouncing existing strategies or defending them. All of it is based on intelligence reports and analyses by third parties trying to untangle the seeming conflicting daily stories and events coming from both Afghanistan and Iraq.

There should be little doubt that any critical look at the analysis of the current strategy in Afghanistan should include a look at the progress or lack thereof in Iraq. After all, the argument for a successful COIN operation seems to stem in part from our experiences there. The recent uptick in bombings, the reemergence of Al Sadr on the political scene, the continuing violence by Afghan troops and police against our troops and continued instability in the Iraqi government all paint a picture of a country on the verge of a change unfriendly to us. If COIN is then to be seen as the strategy that provided what now exists, the bad should not be overlooked or understated if the intent is to use it as a template for future campaigns in this part of the world.

For a quick recap:

The first written guidance for Counter Insurgency Doctrine (COIN, as we know it today), first emerged in 1940 in the 'Small Wars Manual' of the United States Marine Corps. Much of the doctrine, strategy and wisdom imparted by the Small Wars Manual was generated from 40 years of Marine Corps experience garnered during the Banana Wars fought in Central and South America. It is worthy to note that Major General Smedley D. Butler, a hero from those campaigns and twice awarded the Medal of Honor, denounced the small war effort as a waste of Blood and Treasure in his book 'War is a Racket'. Although the book is a damning expose on political and industrial motivations, it is also a wake-up call to anyone unlucky enough to have to plan such a campaign.

The next major emergence of the doctrine came in 1948 in Malaya. 'Chairman Mao' was busy redefining government and society in his sphere of influence and sent a contingent across the Thai border into Malaya with the specific intent of destabilizing the government, turning the local population against their British overseers and offering the Malayan people an alternative a` la Communist China. It took 12 years for the British to destroy a relatively small force and return Malaya to some semblance of normal. This campaign the British dubbed 'The Malayan Emergency', has been touted as confirmation of COIN theory and because of it's successful employment there, has been tried several times since with a generally mixed if not disastrous effect.

It should be noted that the British had been in Malaya for 100 years prior to Mao's incursion and the relationship between the Malayan people and the British was amicable. The British owned the plantations, hired the Malayans as workers, provided security for Malaya and shadow governance. Religious differences weren't an issue probably because the typical lifestyle of this tropical state precluded serious religious study. They just weren't that invested. Whatever the reasons, neither British nor Malayan took issue along the lines of religion.

When David Petraeus and the Pentagon began formulating strategies for Afghanistan, they set out at a disadvantage. Whether intentionally sidelined or blinded by agnostic indifference, the reality is the completed assessment of the enemy either ignored the likely effect of religious ideology or seriously downplayed it's role as a motivator for both the tenacity of the enemy and willing cooperation of the civilian population. This analysis put Afghanistan more or less en par with Malaya in the sense of human terrain. The assessment suggested there could be a meeting of the minds and that we, as a Western culture, a predominantly Christian culture, could be viewed by the average Afghan as a liberator of the Afghan from his Taliban oppressors. I have no doubt, the analysis included tribal structure and although likely naive` in the beginning, at least accounted for it. Not so the ideology. Even today, getting any elected official, in this country to discuss even the possibility of the predominant religion of the region playing a role is impossible. Whether for political gain, ignorance, personal prejudice or special interests influence, the vast majority of this government has hamstrung itself and the entire military establishment by it's stubborn refusal to accept what any High School student of world history should know.

Understanding the bare basics of Islamic doctrine, for the novice, as it affects a believer's relation to the world around him is as easy as a quick Google search. For the analyst, there are libraries devoted to Islamic history and scores of academics who have dedicated significant portions of their lives to studying and understanding the core doctrines of the religion. So why is it that the Pentagon and the intelligence community as a whole seem to have shifted the entire weight of authority on the subject to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization established outside this country in 1928 and whose stated primary goals are in fact antithetical to our national security interests? This is one of many questions that could be and should have already been asked of the Pentagon and upper echelon military establishment by our elected Representatives and Senators; yet they remain silent.

The most basic understanding of the doctrine of Jihad and the Islamist's relationship to the infidel community, places us in a tenuous situation under normal circumstances. Placing the sovereign forces of this nation of infidels in the midst of an Islamic nation is an insult and intolerable to the Islamist - whether 'enemy' or 'friendly'. The number of incidences where Afghan and Iraqi Policemen and Soldiers have fired upon American and NATO forces, which continues to this day, should be providing a wake-up call to our Representatives and yet they remain silent.

There are six points of change to the argument that we have been making collectively and I will provide them here. For those who have wanted to call their Representatives and Senators to voice their concerns and have not known what to complain about specifically, this list will help. I also recommend Robert Spencer's 'Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades'. For those who are ready for 'meat', I highly recommend Andrew Bostom's book 'The Legacy of Jihad'. For those of you with a 'fast food' appetite, there is always Wikipedia and the several sites a simple search will provide. For an understanding of the Malayan Emergency; read; 'War of the Running Dogs'. This last one will give you a perspective of the complexities of a COIN operation. The point is, in the year 2011, there is little excuse not to self educate on the defining international issue of our day.

The Six Points of Change to confront your elected Representatives with:

1. Revisit our assessment of the enemy and human terrain in that part of the world and make it align with history, Islamic doctrine and how they see themselves.

2. Rewrite the strategy so that it aligns with our 'new understanding' of the enemy and the 'friendly population' there.

3. Write an ROE that is commensurate with the new strategy based on our new and corrected understanding of the enemy and civilian population.

4. Identify the specific threat to our national security and allow our Marines and Soldiers to locate, close with and destroy them without fear of retribution from the hordes of self absorbed and self-righteous prosecutors gleaning after action reports.

5. Write a definable Mission Statement and Operation Order, complete that mission and bring our forces home.

6. Cease and desist from all activities distracting our Armed Forces from completing the Mission - including Nation building schemes. This is the work of Diplomats, Bureaucrats, the Peace Corps and Missionaries - not Warriors!

The road to change is never an easy one and with all of the distractions afforded the average American on any given day, it is amazing that anyone is paying attention to anything of importance. That box in the family room, video games, snowmobiles, sports, the almighty dollar, legitimate family concerns, hurdles to jump in contacting anyone in DC and the all important Evening News all do their part to keep the American citizen from actively holding their Representatives accountable for their actions.

The primary concern here should not be the Health care bill or Union domination of the work force, the survival of the car industry or any other self-serving issue; it should in fact be a heartfelt concern for those who willingly sacrifice their time, and their very lives for us; The Warrior!

Call your Representative today!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Truth in Reporting; the Selective approach

2011-01-10T13:44:00.000-05:00

We have another brilliant example of how people can be so fundamentally blinded to an obvious contradiction. Ever since Representative Giffords was gunned down in a public parking lot in Arizona two days ago, those bastions of truth have worked at a feverish pitch in the hope of grafting the gunman to any political conservative they can. Even after it was determined that this guy was almost certainly mentally disturbed and was shot down by everything from Army recruiting to the always liberal colleges and even his acquaintances, the media remains staunch in it's efforts to make this someone else's fault.

Match that up to the media's handling of Major Nidal Hasan; the 39 year old Islamist plant in the United States Army who killed 13 'fellow' soldiers and wounded another 32, all in the name of Allah. I don't seem to recall any particular outrage focused on any other group - political or religious following the incident and certainly not by the usual media outlets. No; that particular minority group is off limits to such scrutiny and certainly to any charges of misbehavior, even though witnesses heard him cry out 'Allah Akbar' before firing his weapon. No such outbursts were uttered by the shooter, Loughner who in fact seemed stoic if not disaffected by his actions; even disconnected.

Postings on his My Space page and in other areas have been determined to be disturbing at the least and one person who was associated with him on the college campus (from which he was expelled) was relieved when he was banished, fearing he might show up and start shooting one day.

The Army made it clear he had failed to get past the initial urinalysis during the screening process and he was convicted of drug use violations on at least one occasion. He is also said to have listed a wide range of books, personal favorites which included 'Mein Kampf' and 'The Communist Manifesto' which by themselves mean nothing but when considered within the collage of behaviors that is Jared Loughner, paints a picture that is certainly left of center.

So how does a media outlet - any media outlet come away with the opinion that he was a 'right-wing nutcase'? Easy; he shot some folks who were left of center.

The point is; left or right, you can't lose sight of the fact that this guy is a sociopath and quite comfortable with the idea of shooting people, on the street, at random really. Why do I say random? Among the list of people he shot was a 9 year old girl. I may not have figured out everything in life but I believe it is safe to say she wasn't a threat to anyone. She was a young girl who accompanied her parents to what should have been an exciting event.

Regardless of our political leanings, religious understanding or feelings about the actions of this sitting government, the vast majority of Americans understand this to be the act of a lone madman. I had not given as much as one minute of thought to Gabrielle Giffords or any other person affected by the actions of Jared Loughner nor Loughner himself; until 2 days ago. Our concern now should be for the family of those shot and for those who while shot, have survived.

Attributing blame to the political adversaries of the desires of the left leaning media makes those individuals nothing more than opportunists. If they think hitching one nut case to the wagon of those who disagree with them somehow to be insightful, they are as deranged as the shooter himself. They remain as incoherent as they have been in their unwillingness to connect the dots between Nidal Hasan's actions and his ideology.

After all; he himself made his motivations clear as he snuffed out the lives of 13 and wounded 32 supposed brothers in arms.

Is there anything the media has determined to be sacred?

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Prophetic 'Fairy Tales' or Inconvenient Corroboration?

2011-01-07T09:38:00.012-05:00

Many in this country are heading for a cross road; a place where a decision will have to be made. On the one hand, there has been a stubborn if not self-destructive resistance to Biblical teaching and an almost zealous effort to expunge all written commentary, history and remnant of Biblical teaching from the national psyche. After all; academia has succeeded in convincing the majority of the population that the very phrase 'separation of church and state' exists in the writings of the US Constitution…It doesn't.

On the other hand, those of us who are looking, see an ever mounting pile of evidence to suggest that much of what was spoken of in the books of Ezekiel, Daniel, Mathew and Revelation may be closer to coming to fruition than at any point in human history.

My intention is not to proselytize but to simply draw attention to something that far too many people in this country have made a conscious decision to deny, ignore or shake off as fantasy. As we will read however, our enemy is not of that camp and even though he does not believe in the prophetic writings of the Bible, he does believe in the prophetic writings of his 'holy' book. And as we shall see, those writings are very close to the prophetic writings in the Bible albeit with a perverted twist. And he is preparing to act on his version of those prophecies.

I would like to begin to build a case for all of this by providing you with 4 links to stories that emerged in just the last few days. Individually, these may not suggest much to the average listener but to those who are becoming ever more keenly aware of the precipice we are speeding toward, they are daunting. Collectively they weave a pattern for a cataclysm we have not yet seen on the earth and a signal that time is indeed short.

Exhibit 'A' - Cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has returned to his native home; Iraq. For those of you who may not remember, he is the cleric who caused much trouble for our forces in Iraq not that many years ago. He is also a known 'extremist' whom we had in custody on several occasions and who, on at least one occasion we had an opportunity to kill along with many of his loyal followers who were all held up in a Mosque, firing at our troops. Even the local Iraqi's were telling us to blow up the Mosque but we made yet one more bone-headed decision; and let him go. Consider these points as well:

1. He is also someone who said he could not be part of any government that had Maliki as an active member.

2. He has been sitting under the tutelage of the Clerics in Iran for these past years…learning….one would have to say; submitting…preparing…but for what?

3. He was as 'radical' as any Islamist we had seen - before he spent time in Iran.

4. He has now made it clear he wants to work with Maliki… and Maliki has made it clear he now wants to work with him!?

While Iraq may not be a big player on the scene, it has in fact been touted as positive fruit of the strategy of COIN and is being seen as a 'win', of sorts. From our American perspective, that would have to mean something that is stable and at least no longer a threat to American security - even friendly to the United States and Americans. If this Iranian trained Cleric, who has been hostile to America and our efforts to neutralize 'extremists' is now set to become part of the Iraqi government, does anyone dare to guess how long it will be before we see another Theocracy in the mold of Iran? And if this happens; how does that translate into either an American COIN success or American security?

Exhibit 'B' - The Saudi Arabians have now 'acquired' two nuclear warheads from Pakistan. What has not been made crystal clear from the Saudi perspective, the Pakistani perspective or the media is the purpose of this piece of 'generosity'. Has the Pakistani government now come to terms with the possibility that their nuclear stockpile is in grave jeopardy? It has been no secret that the Pakistani Army and the ISI are both riddled with people with, shall we say, divided loyalties and this in addition to the many attempts by militant factions to breach the security of Islamabad.

So does this also mean that the Saudi's have decided to be an honest broker in Central Asia/Middle East by trying to help secure what could be the single most destructive force in the area; nukes in the hands of militants? If you believe that to be so, you will have to reconcile this statement by one of Saudi Arabia's 'officials'; from the story:

"Saudi officials close to their intelligence establishment have been going around security forums in the West and dropping word that the kingdom no longer needs to build its own nuclear arsenal because it has acquired a source of readymade arms to be available on demand."

Let's not forget that Saudi Arabia is an Islamist nation and by virtue of that has far more in common with Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Turkey et al, than they do with us. Their shared religious ideology, the doctrines and prophetic writings of Islam and their understanding of submission are far stronger and give them far more in common with these other nations than they will ever have with America - much less Israel.

So how does yet one more Islamist nuclear state not give us cause for further concern?

Exhibit 'C' - Reza Kahlili, a former member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and author of the book 'A Time to Betray', made some very revealing comments to Erick Stackelbeck December 21st 2010. This link will take you to the interview and it is in this interview that this former Revolutionary Guard member and former adherent and believer in Islam, reveals truths about Islam and what the Clerics in Iran truly believe about their place in history. It is worthy to note that these 'revelations' are not new. Those of us who have been following this have known these things and shared them with an unbelieving public. But there is nothing better than hearing something from 'the horse's mouth'.

In this interview he reveals how the Clerics believe they have been divinely placed in history to bring about the cataclysmic events foretold in Islamic doctrine. Curiously, similar events are spoken of in the books of Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation. Of course, the doctrine of abrogation forces all Islamists to discount any and all writings in the Bible. Their understanding and actions are based solely on Islamic text.

The differences in the revealing of end time events in the two diametrically opposed documents is subtle. In the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, these events are said to be future (from the perspective of the audiences contemporary to the writings) and believers/readers are warned in Mathew 24 and again in Mark 13; "However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows." On the other hand Luke 21 tells believers that when you see the signs spoken of in the passage, to be prepared for the time is at hand. Interesting; we can't tell when this great cataclysm will take place, but we are warned to be watchful.

The Iranian Clerics, however, believe it is their personal destiny to bring the events of the final days to pass; to force the issue and here is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak.

There are those who even after this writing and reading the imbedded pieces provided, will still refuse to accept that those ancient writings in the Bible are in fact trustworthy. This point, for them, however is irrelevant because the enemy believes a perverted version of it and believes it is his destiny to bring them to pass. So one way or the other they are likely within view. We as a nation have become like the three monkeys. If we block our eyes, ears and mouths, it will all go away. Of course, the enemy is counting on that.

So while it may not be comfortable for some to have to revisit some of those Sunday school classes of old, ignoring current events and the spoken intentions of this enemy is not wise.

It is also imperative to understand that this enemy - your enemy, the sworn enemy of America, the West, all who have refused to take a knee to Islam; he who is the bitter enemy of Israel, is not so confused about the doctrines of his youth. He believes and is prepared to act in an even more brutal way than he has over these last 14 centuries. He believes, he is preparing and he is acting.

The Nuclear aspirations of Iran are not about bringing Iranian power en par with the Western powers, it is about providing a very specific weapon and bringing it to bear against a very specific enemy to bring about what they believe to be the final acts that drive the world to submission to Allah.

Heed these eerily parallel verses from the Book of Ezekiel 38: 4-9;

(4) I will turn you around and put hooks in your jaws to lead you out with your whole army your horses and charioteers in full armor and a great horde armed with shields and swords.

(5) Persia (present day Iran), Ethiopia, and Libya will join you, too, with all their weapons.

(6) Gomer (likely present day SE Asia of Islamic root) and all its armies will also join you, along with the armies of Beth-togarmah from the distant north, and many others.

(7) "Get ready; be prepared! Keep all the armies around you mobilized, and take command of them.

(8) A long time from now you will be called into action. In the distant future you will swoop down on the land of Israel, which will be enjoying peace after recovering from war and after its people have returned from many lands to the mountains of Israel.

(9) You and all your allies—a vast and awesome army—will roll down on them like a storm and cover the land like a cloud.

Exhibit 'D' - We made a decision way back in 1979 to declare Islam a religion of peace and every President since, has continued to perpetuate that view. Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan under the nonsensical policy of COIN rose out of this faulty understanding of this religious ideology. After 9 years of fighting and especially given the troubling inclusion of Al Sadr in the government of Iraq and all that it portends, this latest appraisal of the COIN effort in Afghanistan should give all pause. Remembering that our primary purpose for being there was to locate, close with and destroy those who committed mass murder in New York - not 'build nations', it has always been an act of insanity to approach this ideologically monolithic nation as though there were friends there - anywhere with a heart to 'help' us; the infidel.

Knowing that all of these nations are of the same basic ideology and carry the same basic hopes, hatreds and loyalties it is impossible to understand how an entire government as complex as the US government could so completely fail to understand this and the implications of this simple truth for us. While academia can be blamed for planting the initial seeds, it is the individual who ultimately bears responsibility because we have the ability for self education, critical thought, and the free will to choose right from wrong, truth from fantasy.

Keep this in mind; in the same way that trying to impress on the Islamist who you wish for him to be is foolishness, choosing to ignore current events because they might align themselves with an ancient Biblical prophecy that you may have chosen to disregard is equally foolish.

In light of this evidence; the Iranian view of future events, the Islamist state of Saudi Arabia's newest acquisition, the testimony of a former Revolutionary Guard, the current actions of Islamists worldwide, the precarious physical position of the state of Israel, the uniform hatred of Israel by all Islamist states and especially those in such close proximity to Israel and the apparent blinding of our sitting Representatives, Senators and the White House, can we, as a supposedly well educated society continue to ignore what is patently obvious? If we do, is it not at our peril?

In a recent round table discussion we had on the radio show 'East Coast, West Coast', the host, made the single most damning comment of the evening; It may be that in our zeal to remove the Bible from our national psyche, we have inadvertently removed what will prove to have been the greatest weapon we had to defend ourselves.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard