'I'll make you an offer you can't refuse' - Michael Corleone (The GodFather)

It was just a few days ago that we learned of some of the frustrations and details surrounding the final egress from Korengal Valley. Diana West gave us a pretty solid view of the complexities involved in meeting the 'spirit' of the specifics of COIN as envisioned by General McChrystal and higher echelon. What we learned essentially was what we knew; that actual application on the ground can be a lot less tactical and lot more cultural than anyone in uniform signed on for. The 'heart-to-heart' Captain Mark Moretti is recorded as having with a tribal elder complete with the customary holding of hands exemplifies what every warm blooded American male will agree is 'uncomfortable' - at best. Tactically speaking; reasoning with a man who almost certainly cannot be trusted is tantamount to reasoning with a guard dog. You might be able to win him over with a treat in the short term, but he's going to bite you sooner or later.

To be sure, it isn’t so much the getting in ‘touch’ with the locals thing that is troubling as just understanding that COIN requires it because it's proponents believe there is an element in the AO who can be and wants to be, reached and helped. Remember; there are 3 elements to be reconciled by one method or another in COIN; the local government, the innocent population and the evil insurgency. One more time;

(1) This 'insurgency' by strict definition is not an insurgency; if anything they are a rebel force. The Taliban is an Afghan phenomenon. The fact that they 'cross the border' into Pakistan is, by Afghan/Pakistan measure incidental. The tribes living on either side of that border haven't recognized it since it's establishment by the British/Afghan/Indian governments in 1893.

(2) There are blood ties between all three factions in Afghanistan and we know there are Taliban sympathizers in the government (spelled treachery).

(3) All three factions are nearly 100% Islamic and bear the same familial bonds, lands, faith, hatreds and visions of the world. WE ARE THE INFIDEL TO ALL THERE; period.

As we have been saying; it is this present global vision of the world that is skewing rational strategy. This warrantless idea that all people are created equal and therefore have the same interests, peaceful intentions and desire to play fair is causing us to not believe we have any innate right to defend ourselves without some pre-emptive nation building penitentia. It also creates the belief that American Warriors, engaged in battle do not have any expectation of protection from their own leadership. The ROE in it's current form intentionally places our Warriors at a disadvantage while placing a premium on civilian lives - civilians who hate us ideologically. Convincing those who hate us (whose farms we are trampling during the course of the fight) that trampling the family farm is in their best interest is tough enough. If you're going to convince the unconvinced that you’re ‘good-to-go’, you had better appear extremely competent, capable and fearsome. ‘Reaching out’ to the local tribal elders while paying protection isn’t going to get that done.

The story is self explanatory. We stepped into a bee-hive with a can of raid we weren’t willing to use and then decided to extract ourselves by offering them honey to not sting us in the ass as we slipped out.

By the way; if the civilian population are just poor farmers being put upon by this rogue, unwanted element (the Taliban) as presumed under COIN; why did we have to pay them (remember the 6000 gallons of fuel) to hold the rogue element off while we ‘egressed’? For some reason, the logic required to answer that question can't be found.

While we're struggling with common sense issues, a friend to our north has written a piece in an effort to help us find the right path. Canada is not one of those places I instinctively look for the level of national pride and willingness to fight I believe every nation needs to survive but we are living in unusual times. What is refreshing is that this man Ron Ewart, a Canadian, does instinctively understand that there are things worth fighting for and if there are things worth fighting for, not only should we fight, we should fight as though our very survival depends on it. Short of that; stay home. This is a very good read and refreshing considering the tripe we have been exposed to in the last few years.

UPDATE:

Given enough time, every experiment provides the answers you are looking for. In this case; I don't believe they do anything to help the argument for COIN. In a related, updated article today, Stratfor reported that the Taliban have descended on Korengal Valley and are now firmly in control of it. The 6000 gallons of fuel Captain Moretti left behind as a bartering chip with the local tribe is now in the hands of the Taliban... What a shock!

Stratfor

Afghanistan: Taliban Takes over Korengal Valley

April 19, 2010

Days after the U.S. withdrawal, Al Jazeera visited Korengal Valley and found the Taliban had control of the area and access to every part of the camp, Al Jazeera reported April 19. Taliban fighters said they intended to make use of the U.S. camp and launch attacks to capture more territory in the region. There is a lot of ammunition left behind, including mortars, rockets and missiles that will be used against U.S. forces, a local Taliban commander said.

(While fuel might have been left due to logistical constraints, all weapons, systems and munitions would have been removed or blown in place. jjb)

That warm and fuzzy hand holding exercise with the tribal Elder apparently didn't take hold...

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

"If they mean to have war, let it begin here!" Captain John Parker, 19 April 1775

Today, April 19th, two states in the Union celebrate an event history records as the defining event that triggered the American Revolution. It's both curious and sad that an event as monumental as this would not be nationally recognized. Whatever our disagreements, failings or differences, the reality is that we would not be having any discussion about anything related to our founding, principles, pluralism, governance or religious ideology had not a few brave men faced a numerically superior and far better trained force that day. We would not be discussing current events as we see them had not these few men on a small patch of green in Lexington Massachusetts determined to stand against the tyranny of their government, 235 years ago today. We would never have become the beacon of hope for so many immigrants from so many diverse cultures. We would not have become one of the most powerful and most enduring cultural entities in modern history.

As is typically the case, the few provided for the many. They provided hope for their progeny, hope for a future in the midst of tyranny. It has been estimated that a meager three percent of the colonial population at the time actively participated in the armed struggle that eventually allowed us to stand as a nation and determine our own destiny. Three percent. Many things haven't changed. Approximately one percent of the population today, is actively engaged in the pursuit of our enemies. I truly believe a smaller percentage is fully engaged in the process of self-education on the specifics of the war we are currently engaged in. These men are unique in that in the willing carrying out of their oaths, they place their lives at risk. Willingly following the orders of the Officers appointed over them by the President of the United States and the Elected Representatives in federal office has the effect of relinquishing control of their lives and giving it to others. How many of you reading this can say you have ever done that?

There are 435 members of Congress and 100 Senators. One President and one Vice President. All others in federal offices serve 'at the pleasure of the President of the United States'; meaning they are appointees, or are appointed by Congress or hired. Effectively; the very survival of this nation, the vision and scope of it's wars, the stratagem employed to fight those wars, the conditions under which our fighting men must perform, the likelihood of success and the determination to succeed all emanates from the hearts of 537 men and women. If they are 'virtuous' and have the best for this country at heart as in keeping with our founding documents; our men and women in uniform have the best chance of success on the ground. If their hearts are corrupt in any way, it is our men and women in uniform and on the ground that pay the heavy cost of the shedding of their blood for a corruptly prosecuted cause.

The future of an entire nation and it's 300 million citizens rests on the hope that 537 men and women will act in the best interests of a nation and not their own corrupt self interests. It rests on the knowledge - or lack of knowledge these 537 men and women have and are willing to increase. It rests on the vigilance of the 300 million citizens who placed them there and their willingness to hold the 537 elected representatives accountable. It rests on the knowledge that there is right and wrong - not gray area or half-truths and that doing what is right is always correct and always costly. It rests in the knowledge that we have placed some in harm's way who are relying on our willingness to do what is right and not what is politically expedient. It rests on a nation recognizing it's divine genesis and it's willingness to turn back to that which gave it birth: 'If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.' 2 Chronicles 7:14

On April 19th, 1775, approximately 200 Massachusetts Militiamen took to a small town square and faced as many as 1000 highly trained sovereign British soldiers. Some died that day, others lived to fight and die later in the war. They paved the way for our founders to secure for their future generations that which they believed God had intended for all of his created men and women.

What have these sitting 537 (save 22 who have worn a uniform) done to further that cause? What personal price have they paid? What cost are they demanding of others that they were unwilling to pay themselves? When will they show a modicum of interest in the perils our men and women face every day? When will the lives of our men and women in harm's way trump the pursuit of misguided social programs? When will they care enough to ask if the strategy President Obama, Sec Def Gates, General Petraeus, and General McChrystal has any hope of success, provides our Warriors a prospect of victory, and is right for America; the America envisioned by those 77 (correction jjb) that day on Lexington Green:

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Representative Walter Jones, 3rd District, North Carolina; a possible light?

The fight over the Rules of Engagement has, for some of us, become a defining factor in this war. As we have discussed in the past, a war should only be fought if the enemy faced poses a clear and present danger to the security of this country and it's people and then, only if we have the courage to see it through to victory. Under the current 'management', our country has not only seemingly lost an understanding of this simple concept but has in fact chosen to sacrifice the lives of our Sons and Daughters on the altar of Islam. These rules are in place to, ostensibly, prevent 'collateral damage' to the civilian population. This murderous ROE, however, virtually guarantees the deaths of our Warriors while equally guaranteeing the safety of the 'enemy' (Taliban). Any President who dictates any, ANY rules that place the welfare of foreign nationals above that of sovereign US forces on the battle field of a justly fought war is arguably guilty of murder. His oath, the oaths of his appointees, the many oaths taken by the men, women, enlisted and officers of the armed forces and virtually every other armed force and elected office in the land, demand the very narrowest of focus on the security of the Constitution of the United States which defines and guarantees the 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' of the citizens of the nation for which it is written; the United States of America. The high courts and men of questionable integrity can make something else of it if they want but you can't fool all of the citizens of this nation. Some of us actually give a damn.

As those of you who have been reading this blog and others know, finding a man or woman with an innate sense of service and courage in DC has been trying. However, a few weeks ago, I received a call from a Congressman from another State who not only shared his condolences with me for the loss of our Son, but expressed his outrage over the ROE and anything that may be demanding it. Two weeks ago, he wrote a letter to Congressman Skelton, the House Armed Services Committee Chairman. In that letter he requested a hearing on the floor of Congress to discuss the ROE. He was promptly told the ROE was part of a secret directive that could not be discussed publicly and the hearing was denied. This is incredibly outrageous if not laughable because the enemy knows our ROE and exploits it with regularity. We know in fact, that they have modified their tactics (like any decent force will) to meet this new opportunity provided them by the upper most military echelon and civilian leadership of our country. The fact that the vast majority of our elected 'servants' in DC have failed to demand an explanation just further reflects their complete lack of competence, specific concern for this country and their complete disconnect from this war and the plight of our Warriors.

With almost magical timing, General McChrystal, ISAF Commander, has demanded a review of ROE from his top field commanders in light of a recent incident where some civilians were killed on a bus in Khandahar Province this past week. The inference is that the ROE will be made yet tighter and will be zealously enforced. Add this to his latest restrictions during the battle of Marjah when two 650 pound rockets killed 10 civilians as well as a pull-out from Korengal Valley because the presence of American troops had become an irritant to the civilian population and you have to wonder whose side he is on? This war - any war we fight as Americans is suppose to be for our security; not that of others. It is the only thing that makes the taking of lives on a battle field just in any sense. If we are looking for a completely 'sanitary' war where no one but combatants are killed, we are going to have to move the physical elements of the conflict to an uninhabited planet in another galaxy! But while we're searching for that planet, I would like to remind those with a functional conscience, that it's the best of this American generation that is being sacrificed for an as yet undefined mission (under this administration) and for another people.

Be not disheartened though, for if one man can display enough courage to swim against the currents of apathy, arrogance, self-service, willful ignorance and sedition, there is hope. What we need to do is make certain he knows there are Americans more concerned about the peril of our Warriors and the uncertainty of our future as a World Force than those things this administration would like to distract us toward. We need to let Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina know that we will not tolerate any policy that further subjugates this nation to any foreign pestilence, power, nation or it's ideologically deluded population. That we vigorously support him in his quest to force the neutered elected officials in DC to see the high price of their lack of attention to the misguided handling of this war and the wanton destruction of our Warriors.

Go get em' Congressman!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

On Going Native, Chai Ops and Blood Sacrifce, et al

Special Forces and 'black op' operatives have had the experience of having to survive and be successful in their mission by melding into the tapestry of local culture throughout the history of warfare. Knowing your enemy well enough to hide in plain sight while covertly extracting critical intelligence is a craft unto itself and there are certainly plenty of interesting stories in history depicting men operating in the shadows. Hollywood and authors have had a great deal of success writing about this kind of war in the shadows and no one can dispute the value of the intel gleaned nor calculate the lives saved for the efforts of these well-trained, courageous operatives.

Standing Armies have worn the uniforms of their nations and faced enemies on the open battle field for as long as men have fought and for a couple of reasons. First; as a form of identification both for friend and foe. Second; as a sign of loyalty, bravery, commitment, espirit de corps and discipline. An Army massed on the battle field is a fearsome thing.

Fear is in fact an important tool in convincing your enemy of the futility of his cause. Recognizing the value of fear as a weapon, armies have employed 'psych ops' to ramp up fear in the enemy and to try to route an otherwise disciplined force. Even the Geneva Conventions mention the wearing of the uniform as a way of determining the validity of a combatant and the level of tolerance he must therefore be shown. We have been arguing for years whether the Jihadist has any reasonable expectation of protection under a document clearly written to protect legitimate soldiers sent to the battle field by their recognized, established, nations.

When wars are concluded and agreements drawn up between legitimate nations, then the diplomats arrive. Diplomats are not professional warriors and they don't bear weapons, they bear promises of reconciliation. Asking a diplomat to be a warrior is foolish for many reasons and asking the warrior; covert or otherwise, to be a diplomat is equally ridiculous. Neither has been - nor should be trained for the other's job. They're specialists and when trained and used at the right time, are successful. This is what makes Diana West's story about United States Marines being compelled by upper echelon to 'go native' so inexplicable. If the 'brain-trust' running this thing from Washington thought this would engender trust and friendship from the Afghan people or Muslims in general, they should consider a few things:

If you were to reverse the roles, bring some high-ranking member of Afghan society or military here, dress him up in some equally ridiculous sub-cultural garb and parade him through the streets of let's say, Lexington Massachusetts on April 19th or maybe New York City on September 11th; just how do you suppose we would, as a people, see them? We have seen most people from these parts of the world as savages our entire history. In most cases it has proven to be an accurate perception. Let's not lose sight of the fact that they see us as savages and demons. Dressing up a savage in cultural garb is akin to putting a sweater on a dog.

I had a really good friend who died a few years back; she was 94 and had seen much and had a lot of wisdom for a woman who had never set foot outside of Maine. One of her favorite expressions was, 'you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear'. For the purposes of this metaphor; the three senior Marines that are the focus of Diana's story are the sows ear for a society whose religion demands their deaths (actually it's a very fitting metaphor in this case). Let's not forget LtCol Max Galeai, Capt Phillip Dykeman and Cpl Marcus Preudhomme. They were compelled by higher echelon to show their trust in the Iraqi people by abandoning sound defensive strategy and removing their weapons and armor before attending a meeting with local Iraqi authorities. They also were compelled to fore go SOP of setting up a soft perimeter and holding back locals and, in this case, protestors. The result was disastrous for the Marine Corps, their families and even for the Iraqi's who died that day at the hands of a suicide bomber.

Whoever is making the decision to do these things is incredibly naïve or an idiot. These Officers and their 'Senior Enlisted Advisor', were paraded by the enemy like fools. A few of the young Afghan kids might (might) grow up a little positively altered by the experience but not our current enemy or Afghan society as a whole. The vision for this falls into the Seer category - not the Visionary or the Peacemaker. Short term it does nothing constructive; long term it will have helped further erode our credibility. Remember; a military force is something to be feared universally. It is through fear and force that we control, it is through control that you can bring in the Peacemakers, School Teachers, Construction personnel and Diplomats.

Once again we are asking men not trained in diplomacy to act for the cowards who are diplomats. The diplomats, the politicians and every other aspect of civilian governance that compelled our Warriors into harm's way don't trust the very strategy and ROE they are forcing on men like these three being paraded through the streets of some village in a third world nation like trussed-up dogs. Not only is it not dignified - on so many levels but it is not the way to treat or use the finest fighting force the world has ever known and IT IS COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE! Leaving fear at the gate along with Air and Indirect fire support, leaves some of the most effective weapons we have to win a war. Score another one for Haji.

Diana also brought us the story of US Admiral McRaven and Brigadier-General Kurt Fuller, deputy commander of US troops in eastern Afghanistan, going to a village where civilians were killed in a raid kicked off due to apparently faulty intel (from a local source). The American entourage with Afghan Army members in tow, brought a sheep as a 'scapegoat' to be used in conjunction with the Islamic tribal ritual of nanawate. The most troubling thing about this is that you have members of the United States Armed Forces legitimizing an Islamic practice of animal sacrifice when back a few months ago, General Petraeus found Bible Scripture addresses infused on the side/bottom of the Trijicon ACOG sights 'troubling'. The Admiral also had this to say:

“Sir, you and I are very different,” Admiral McRaven said, addressing Haji Sharabuddin directly. “You are a family man with many children and many friends. I am a soldier. I have spent most of my career overseas away from my family, but I have children as well and my heart grieves for you. But we have one thing in common. We have the same god. He is a god who shows great love and compassion.

Obviously the good Admiral has never read the Bible or the Koran's Surah #9. The God of the Bible is not the God of the Koran. If the Admiral wants to expound on Scripture and the nature of God versus the nature of Allah, he would do well to study and contrast Holy Scripture and the religion of his enemy with more thought than went into the decision to participate in the blood-letting ritual of our adversaries. Score 2 for Haji!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

On Audacity, Arrogance and Autonomy

The ongoing heartburn over Israel's announcement that they would approve permits for some 1600 housing units in East Jerusalem caused even 'the great' Tom Brokaw during Sunday's Meet the Press to guffaw. He referred to the announcement during VP Joe Biden's meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu as an 'act of audacity'. Apparently, the Messiah and his cronies have the final word in the internal affairs of all other nations. I'm sure this is news to Israel and probably caused them 'great concern'.

The fact is it may well have been a piece of gamesmanship on the part of the Israeli government which has tried, for months, without success to convince the US to take a far stronger stand against Iran. The problem is that this administration has made it clear that any hostile move against any Muslim nation will be viewed as, well, unfriendly and in this current period in our history we don't want to appear, well, unfriendly - at least to Muslim nations.

Even General Petraeus announced his desire to have the Middle East placed under his 'wing'. He expressed frustration over Israel's apparent unwillingness to play nice with their neighbors and then went further saying that Israel's actions were endangering our Warriors. Huh; Based on our obsession the whole 'winning hearts and minds' thing (at the cost of the lives of our Warriors) I didn't think that was a problem.

The interesting thing is that while we are engaged (somewhat) in the affairs of Afghanistan and Iraq, for national security reasons of our own, we find it unpalatable that the Israeli's would dare to act in kind on their own behalf. I have always held to the belief that this country should act unilaterally to protect our borders and our Constitution. I have little patience and zero respect for elected officials and their crony appointees who seek permission from other nations to do so and then act only with half measures. It is the very definition of arrogance to expect others to act on your behalf at their own peril. It is immoral not to act on behalf of our own country with whatever means at our disposal to defend ourselves and our interests.

Israel has a healthy understanding of their enemies because they have a healthy understanding of the history of those enemies and their attitude toward them. Their enemies are centuries old and relentless. Even though there has been a concerted effort to obliterate historical evidence of the holocaust and an all but successful effort to eliminate the atrocities against them by the Muslim world community over the centuries, they remember. One would think that this country's government with it's rich Judeo-Christian history and with men with memories of WW II still alive, that we would re-double our efforts to help secure Israel's friendship. Instead, we push them away and reach out to the single religious ideology that wants us as dead as they want Israel. Curious.

That General Petraeus would dare to suggest that Israel's actions were somehow detrimental to the health and well-being of our Warriors would be laughable if he himself wasn't actively supportive of an unwinnable strategy in Afghanistan and it's brutal ROE. If the good General is truly concerned about the health and well-being of the Warriors under him, he might reconsider the present strategy and clean out his own house before castigating one of the smallest nations in the world for daring to secure their own people and land.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Strategic Deception or Misunderstanding; Marjah

In an already complicated environment we find this story that suggests some confusion or inconsistency over the area and demographics of Marjah. For me the size and complexity of this particular battle space is not as important as understanding why it might have been represented as something other than what it actually is. Until further clarification is provided I think it wise to assume there might have been a general misunderstanding during one of the briefings and press releases that followed. As for the intentional spread of disinformation, I have my thoughts:

I understand the use of disinformation as a tool of strategy. I also believe that as Americans (specifically) we have an aversion to killing 'innocents'. Reasonable men, however, are going to one day crawl all over the pages of history that have been chosen to chronicle the decisions and actions of this campaign and in the end it will be determined that we either underestimated the enemy or failed to ID him correctly. And if we failed at these, we also will be seen to have failed to respond correctly. The fact that Marines are successful regardless of the sensibility of upper echelon's reasoning is almost irrelevant. The history books are replete with examples of United States Marines overcoming unbelievable odds, decimating the enemy and surviving. The greatest example is at the Chosin Reservoir. The fact that the 1st Marine Division killed an estimated 30,000 Chinese does nothing to mitigate the abysmal failures of the 8th Army and MacArthur's leadership on the other side of the Taebaeks.

The use of biometrics, the 'shutting down' of Fallujah and thus forcing cooperation would seem reasonable in a reasonably defined battle space but the Middle East and Central Asia are anything but reasonable - by western standards. And there-in lies the foundation of the problem; trying to mold the enemy into our image. This same scenario was used by Templer in Malaya with a reasonable degree of success but the players were far different. The Malayan's were largely unsympathetic to the communist insurgency and had no other ties with them. It was a gamble but one that seemed to have a likely hope of success and it did indeed succeed. No, I think the main reason that will one day be concluded for success in Fallujah was saturation. Of course the problem with saturation without a sincere concentration on destroying the enemy (body count) is that it cannot be expected to have a long term success. There is a reason why elements like Al Qaida and the Taliban have been successful where the CT's in Malaya failed; shared history and shared ideology.

The truth we seem to be unwilling to accept is that all of the players there are of the same mind with just shades of variation. Trying to 'turn' the civilian population against the 'insurgency' is about as likely as convincing entrenched citizens of Atlanta that Sherman was a hero. Any discussion about what we should expect once we pull out, in whole, should be tempered by what we are watching right now in their election cycle. There is little doubt that the Iranian influence seems to be gaining traction. The puppet government in place at the moment is highly unlikely to be able to withstand a coup of the kind the Islamic world is known for and capable of. Once the American saturation is completely removed, does anyone really believe stability, in any form we can live with, will remain?

Now move over to Afghanistan and their history. Does anyone really believe that these attempts to sway public opinion away from core Islamic jihadists and toward 'Christian' western forces and governance stands any chance of success; any? The one really great truth I have read in many days is that once we leave, the Afghan's are once again going to be left with the mess yet another outside influence leaves and they know it. They are not likely to do much to damage their future relations with the element that will be left standing; the Taliban.

Point is; as I have said before, we, as Americans have a legitimate right to defend our shores, our way of life and our population with ferocity and without a felt need to apologize for it. The Islamic world has little to hate us for specifically except for the fact we have not subjugated ourselves to Allah. This war they wage - collectively is indeed religious in nature and has been waged, as we all know, since the seventh century. If we then have any reason to suspect a threat to our security, we should respond and respond understanding that all the players, all, at the level of their ideology agree or at least have no particular heartburn with our being destroyed at the hands of Islamic forces. This being the case, we should show at least as much commitment to our own security as they are willing to show to our destruction.

As a Marine, I take personal offense to the wanton destruction of our own forces for the misplaced sentimentality shown to a people who have no regard for life, much less ours. Their plight is theirs. Our security is ours. If these two views are divergent; so-be-it. Any attempt by our elected officials to defend members of another nation while simultaneously bringing undo pain to our forces for the same, places them in violation of their oaths.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Ambassador Burns on South Asia Strategy a la Camden

Nicholas Burns, The 'Ambassador' to Afghanistan was keynote speaker at the heralded Camden conference this past week and his subject was, of course, Afghanistan. Camden conference is essentially a place for the intellectual elite to pontificate on the complexities of the world fabric, utter unspeakable truths and wisdom and, of course, create a better environment for us lesser beings. As is true with most of these cyclonic verbal events, there is far less substance than salesmanship. Most of what is shared is a greater sense of the majesty of the speaker, his vision and that of whom he represents. Anything bordering on substantive content is not garnered from personal experience as much as from think-tank type clusters. In short; a lot of hot air intended to massage the faithful and curious uninformed. What follows are high lights from this year's event with my comments in red:

CAMDEN (ANDREW bENORE 02/22/21010)— Ambassador Nicholas Burns opened the Camden Conference Feb. 19 at the Camden Opera House with a series of questions designed to frame the three-day discussion of "Afghanistan, Pakistan, India -- Crossroads of Conflict." On Sunday morning, he drew the conference to a close with several themes that developed from talks by diplomats, artists, journalists, scholars and politicians.

His opening questions were:

Will the surge work? Will European allies and NATO produce troop commitments to match the United States? Can Afghanistan establish an effective government? Will Pakistan continue to weaken in the face of aggression? Is the worst case scenario possible -- will insurgents take control of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal? Will India and Pakistan reconcile? Will Pakistan "adopt a more responsible policy toward Afghanistan?" Finally, he asked, "Will we feel better by Sunday [when the conference ends]?"

On Sunday morning, he answered some of those questions. Like the diplomats and others who spoke at the Camden Conference, his well-organized thoughts were grouped into five themes, which eventually turned into seven themes.

He started by saying that there are vital national interests in South Asia and the Greater Middle East. Burns said the strategic focus of the United States has shifted from Europe to South Asia and the Middle East. He talked about recent involvement with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries. There is no choice but to engage, Burns said. ( I agree with this)

"I can't get away from the fact that our [strategic focus has shifted]," Burns said. "That is not going to change for the rest of our lifetimes. Looking 50, 100 years into the future, our children's and grandchildren's lifetimes, this is not a distant hinterland. It is actually the core of the 21st century challenges for our country, from a strategic perspective."(Again; this last part is hard to argue with)

His second point was that the fate of Afghanistan "is not a cursory concern." He supported the Obama administration's current strategy of moving away from a military victory and instead trying to protect the people from the insurgency. The new strategy relies less on firepower and more on securing people where they are, and linking that up with economic aid and help with agriculture. (Nothing to agree with here)

"We've taken lots of towns but the lives of the people in those towns have not necessarily improved," Burns said. (And they won't until they decide they want something different - they don't!)

Marjah, the object of recent military action, where the United States is trying to secure the town and keep the Taliban from returning, is an example of the new strategy. (After we telegraphed our coming for weeks; gave the enemy time to leave and then were shackled by ROE if he dropped his weapon in transit to another firing position).

The third point was that there is no military victory possible in Afghanistan. (Here lies the mantra of the deceitful left. The truth is you have no hope of winning if you have already decided you can't - or won't) Many Camden Conference speakers said this.

"The commitment to try to win a conventional military victory would be so excessive in the number of American troops involved that it wouldn't be worth the effort," Burns said. "So I don't think we should, if we fail at 108,000 troops to achieve some victories over the Taliban, be in favor of going to 200,000 troops or 300,000 troops. Forty or 50 years ago we tried that in Vietnam and it didn't work out there."(The fact is we didn't 'try it'. We employed the same schizophrenic non-strategy then that we are now. We were so blinded by the success the Brits had in Malaya and the failure the French had in 1954 that we refused to analyze the reasons for either one. In the end we chose a course of action that history has rendered to the tell of western warfare.)

Burns said if the United States can counter the Taliban and slow its offensive and secure the population, then the U.S. policy could focus more on [diplomacy, reconciliation] (with the Taliban!?), aid, civilian efforts and education (nation building for those who don't want what we have). This can be called a transition to a political-diplomatic phase. Burns said civil wars across the world almost always end in reconciliation (Wait a minute; I thought they have been telling us this was an 'insurgency').

"They almost always end through political talks -- through the government and the insurgents (Revolutionaries???!?; see prior paragraph) compromising at some point on their basic objectives,"(Compromise; we die, they reign) Burns said. "I can't see the Afghan war ending any differently."(Because he is another of the wrong people in the wrong job. Maybe he should seek employment in the shoe-shine industry)

Burns' fourth point was to not give up on Pakistan. He acknowledged that the United States has a difficult relationship with Pakistan but "Pakistan matters."(Because there is very little difference between Pakistan and Afghanistan; look up Durand line in Wikipedia)

"It matters geographically when you look at the map," Burns said. "It matters because of the size of the country. It matters because of its very difficult but symbiotic relationship with India."

Burns said the United States can't ignore that Pakistan sees India as a strategic threat. (The fact that they have exported terrorists to India and killed 200 in Mombay is of little consequence…)In that equation is the possession by Pakistan, and India, of nuclear weapons.

"They have nearly gone to war with each other -- two nuclear armed countries -- twice since 1999," Burns said. "That would be catastrophic -- for them, for the people of the region, and for us. So I think that the United States needs to be engaged in the Kashmir problem, behind the scenes. And I know we need to be engaged in the conflux of Pakistan-India differences that are so important; we need to be the balancer in that relationship if we can."

Burns' fifth point was that the United States needs to build a global partnership with India. With changes in power around the globe, India needs a seat at the international table, Burns said.

"Strategically, in South Asia, the region we've been studying this weekend, India is the keystone country," Burns said. "It's a successful country. It's the second largest Muslim country in the world, and yet the Indians have found a way to weave together a multiracial, multiethnic and multireligion society. (Translation; The Indians don't take any crap) They struggle with it, as we have, but they are moving forward in a positive direction. They want to have this relationship with us."

India will also play a role in dealing with China, he said. Burns said it is important that China's rise -- economically and militarily -- be peaceful.

"India is critical with this big question with China," Burns said. "It's critical for America's engagement in the most important part of the world, the Greater Middle East. India will go a long way in helping to write the history of South Asia -- positively or negatively."

The final point was whether conference participants would feel better on Sunday. Burns was optimistic.(All lefties are optimists; The vast majority of Conservatives are realists. See Patrick Henry's speech 03/23/1775)

"I think in Afghanistan the Taliban cannot overthrow the government, (Technically it would not be an overthrow/coupe; just a slight nudge toward complete Theocracy…Wait, that was what we found in 2001!!!) and the Taliban cannot defeat us," (They don't have to. All they have to do is wait for us to undo ourselves) Burn said, adding that this is necessary to begin the political-diplomatic phase.

In Pakistan, Burns said, he believes the region can move forward.

He also said global leadership by President Barack Obama is a bright spot. (Praise the messiah!)

"I think we've got the smartest, most patient, most skillful, and maybe the most farsighted president in President Obama we've had in a long time," (I have goose bumps just thinking of him) Burns said. "Do we feel better on Sunday at noon? I feel that our president is leading us in the right direction."

Burns' final, final point was that citizens need to show support for the region.(In the form of a scorched-earth strategy)

"It's not just up to [Obama]; it's up to us," Burns said. "If we think that the answer to trouble overseas is isolation, and we've often thought that in our history and we've pulled back, or if we think it's unilateralism -- we're so big and wonderful and strong we can go it alone -- we tried that in 2002 and 2003 and we failed. (We failed because we decided to try to convince the world to try something other than wringing their hands) We have to lead and we have to be engaged."(Send in Americorps)

Burns said he believes in the power of the United States, and people need to back up the president.(I will leave this one alone)

"I do believe in the goodness of this country," Burns said. "I believe in the effectiveness of our government, of our soldiers and diplomats to do the right thing and to be effective. (I believe in the effectiveness of our Warriors) I feel better Sunday."

Bottom line; this guy is a bone-head. Essentially he is on a goodwill tour for Obama and company; espousing the quality and virtue of the man as the reason why all of his decisions will account for a better, more moral and secure America. I don’t know where these people come from but Joseph Stalin would have sold his family to have a few of these guys planted in the US under his tenure. The fact is we are losing the war and not because we don’t possess the ability, the morale, the troops, the training or the materiel. We are losing this fight because we have already chosen (politically) not to win it. When you try to couple nation building in one country with the legitimate safety and security concerns of another, one is certainly not going to be met (‘No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other…’ Math 6:24).

Again; the Afghan people have created their own plight. The Taliban are a domestic problem and the people are not willing to destroy or at least confront them on their own because they are unwilling to assume the risks associated with fighting the tyranny Obama and Company assumes they are under. This is nothing less than a Global Welfare program (defined as someone willing to take something for nothing in return) with no teeth. We provide all of the help and force while unreasonably endangering our men to defend those who will not defend themselves – and I don’t want to hear all the crap about the ANA and the wonderful job they are doing. We are ALL aware of just how miserably they have performed while attached to our Warriors. There have been the few; but just the few who have apparently depicted elements of the heart necessary to win. In the Corps we always talk about the 10%. The 10% who can’t get it together. A historical argument can be made that it is the less than 3% who ever put themselves in harm’s way for the good of others. In Afghanistan it is probably closer to .03%.

Add to this the fact that we have a psychologically damaged President with a decidedly anti-American agenda (sending troops to perform a mission for some other nation, with their hands tied, and with very little discernable value for the nation they represent; us) and what you have is a recipe for unduly high casualties and an eventual pull-out a la Vietnam. The warm and fuzzy lefties in this country have never had the spine to do what needs to be done and they are about to repeat history yet again having killed a good percentage of the best of this generation in the process. And all this guy can do is expound on the virtue of his messiah as the reason why this is all right.

Any Questions?

SF

John Bernard