The CFR Assessment of the US Effort in Afghanistan (sigh...)

Stratfor just released a report that the CFR had completed it's recent assessment of Afghanistan and Pakistan and yes; I read the whole report. I stopped just short of reading the final 27 pages of notes and biographies of those who visited and then assembled the report.

Overall the report is objective but dare I say somewhat naive. As has been the problem since the very beginning of our military incursion into this region 9 years ago, the CFR, as our illustrious elected servants, manage to stay completely away from any discussion of religious ideology as a possible factor in the region's troubles. They go as far as to say that Afghanistan was at peace from 1929 - 1979, until the invasion by Russia (pg 26); daring to suggest that Russia and the US somehow fostered otherwise 'rational' people to act out in an irrational way. While what was there might pass for peace by their standards; stonings, decapitations, honor killings, rampant pedophilia, drug use, the poppy industry, slavery, general abuse of women and corruption in government are not generally accepted as the hallmarks of civil living.

The report does recognize that the mission (pg 30), while 'counter terror' in it's beginnings, has transformed into a more nation building effort and as time goes on, the line between the two blurs... Frankly, that is being exceptionally kind to the 'architects' of this debacle. The COIN effort has all but eliminated any prospect for a reduction - much less destruction, of the Taliban phenomenon. The Taliban itself has seen a growth in sister cells on both sides of the border until it appears the only thing likely to be left standing will be the true soldiers of Allah.

They quote Sec Def, in an appearance before Congress as stating the American people should 'rein in expectations' for the outcome of our very expensive efforts there, not to mention the cost in blood and should not expect a 'valhalla' (pg 31). I'm not sure if those remarks were intended to be witty, daunting or just plain realistic but the same question remains; why do we even care? If the original effort was to exact justice and to enccourage anyone (or everyone) within Islam to reconsider their goals of global jihad, why should we care if Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Syria et al, live or die? Why is it so complicated for these people to understand that our only legitimate concern should be for the security of the United States? If peoples from any country want to come along for that ride, then fine.

On (pg 33) we have another indication of otherwise intelligent people still having difficulty differentiating between an 'insurgency' and 'terrorism'. And again, absolutely no mention of any religious overtones. As though some form of alien malevolence suddenly crept into their sand blasted skulls and rearranged their otherwise docile DNA and caused them to 'act out'.

Those CFR members would do well to consider that men are not generally motivated to bond together for common cause without some kind of formal 'encouragement'. The Koran and, therefore, Allah has made it clear that obedient adherence requires the forced subjugation of all men in the whole world and that ritualistic murder is a very motivational tool in the effort to please Allah in this way.

There was one little piece of genuine sanity in the piece, almost an epiphany for them. On (pg 34) they acknowledged the Taliban gaining strength and momentum in light of our lackluster efforts grinding to a halt by our stubborn adherence to COIN, to stop them. They said that the counter insurgency effort was likely 'opening up space' for organizations like Al Qaeda to reassert themselves on sovereign, Afghan soil. Really? Didn't see that one coming...

Funny...Isn't that where we entered the scene, 9 years ago? Wasn't the Taliban in power in Afghanistan when we arrived? Wasn't it the Taliban that invited Al Qaeda to train on Afghan soil? Didn't we drive the sitting government (Taliban) from power; retribution for aiding Al Qaeda's efforts to deliver fuel laden aerial 'bombs' into the World Trade Towers?

So why are we now trying to coax the Taliban back into Kabul to 'share' power with the ever corrupt puppet, Harmid Karzai? Why aren't we demanding the Afghan people pay for their freedom in gold and blood? Why aren't we singularly focused on US security?

So many questions...so few intellectual 'servants' to get answers from and now; the CFR. It ain't getting better folks!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

More on ROE, COIN, Governance and Apathy

I was brought into a thread started by a concerned citizen over the debacle in Afghanistan (the Pentagon really) and asked to put in my two cents. For what it is worth; here is what I shared:

We can fully expect the Rules of Engagement to continue to tighten and become even more deadly to our troops as time passes. The reason I say this has absolutely nothing to do with some ethereal ‘gifting’ some will imagine I possess but simply because I understand what has promulgated the need for them.

In the thread that was passed on to me earlier today; someone asked if there was a way to determine exactly how many American troops and Marines had been killed by the ROE and my answer is simple, perfectly logical, provable and without possibility of a proper retort; since June of 2009 – virtually every combat related death, in Afghanistan, can be laid at the threshold of the current ROE.

There is a general misunderstanding among those who are now ‘awakened’ about what those rules are, when such rules are dictated, by whom they are dictated and why they are as tight as they are at present. What I hope to do in the next few lines is to give you every bit of information you need to fully understand all of this as well as something you can use when you speak to your Congressmen and other ‘servants’ in government.

First you need to approach this with an understanding of just how ignorant nearly every one of our elected ‘servants' are on this subject.

Second, you need to understand that all of them feel they are indemnified, Constitutionally, from any type of penalty for faulty decision-making, willful ignorance, apathy, or half-hearted answers with the specific intent of placating seriously concerned citizens.

Third; you need to be illuminated on the history of Islam, Military protocol, Strategy, the relationship of the three branches of government with the Military and our collective relationship to the world.

Fourth; you will have to understand and more importantly make your ‘servants’ understand that the assessment that was done during the early planning stages of the war, on the enemy and the people of Afghanistan was fatally flawed, historically incorrect and doomed to place our troops in jeopardy from every component of Afghan society until our Marines and Soldiers are literally surrounded by an enemy that is 1400 years old.

Fifth; because of their shared religious heritage and worship of their deity Allah (who IS NOT the God of the Bible) and their desire to fulfill his mandates in the Koran to kill all those who will not take a knee to him, there is virtually no hope of reconciliation.

Sixth; because of our stubborn adherence to COIN and it’s damnable ROE, we have willfully turned over control of the battle field to the enemy.

The fact is, within the first 6 months of our involvement in Afghanistan, we had managed to topple the sitting government, scatter the Taliban like the vermin they are, establish our puppet (Karzai) in Kabul and instill a requisite amount of fear into the people, government, Taliban and neighboring countries of Afghanistan. Over the following years, we lost focus largely due to our involvement in Iraq.

By early 2009, we had re-focused on Afghanistan, but with a different vision and different purpose and therein lies the real problem. The real problem is not the ROE; it is the strategy that bore the ROE and that is Counter Insurgency Doctrine.

Although elements of COIN are readily found in almost every military engagement since the dawn of mankind and war, COIN as a stand-alone doctrine has only been with us since 1940. Since that time it has been tried by other countries and on other battle fields and in all but one instance – failed.

Because of the nature of COIN and the intent of the military force operating within that paradigm, it requires an unusually high degree of restraint when engaging the enemy and most especially around civilians. That is because, the actual intent is to strengthen the resolve of the people and their government to seek out and destroy the insurgency that has beset them. One of the problems in Afghanistan is that the Taliban has been erroneously identified as a foreign ‘insurgency’.

They are in fact an Afghan phenomenon whose ranks are filled largely by Afghans, Pakistanis and some foreign fighters of the same religion and similar philosophy of jurisprudence. The reason that I can say with absolute clarity that the insurgency, while part Pakistani, is a local phenomenon is because the border that separates Afghanistan from Pakistan, effectively splits the largest communal tribe in the region, the Pashtun and they have never recognized it since it’s appearance in 1894.

Because we have already determined (falsely) that the Afghans were illegally infiltrated by the Taliban and that they were not welcome, it was determined that Counter Insurgency Strategy would best serve the needs of Afghanistan and the security interests of the United States by minimizing civilian casualties while ‘encouraging’ the ‘innocent’ Afghan people to take an active role in eradicating the Taliban. This goal, of course, was watered down even further under President Obama who even removed typical military jargon from the lexicon so as not to ‘ create ill feeling’.

The ‘formal document’ detailing the level of restraint used on the battle field in which we find the ‘official ROE’, is secret and can only be viewed or discussed by people with the right security clearance. This makes a very convenient argument against hearings when they are demanded by our representatives. This argument, however, is ludicrous because the people who know our ROE the best, is the enemy; the Taliban.

I hope this has given you some indication of where we are at present. It is most frustrating for me to know that this is unlikely to ever be solved because there are very few in Congress – or anywhere in representative government for whom this is a front-and-center issue and given the results of the election; they are right.

The American people didn’t vote the way they did because of a concern for the plight of the military in Afghanistan; they did it for reasons of money and that is where your new crop of elected ‘servants’ will be focused. They can continue to be willfully ignorant while claiming adherence to the will of the people; the people can continue to believe what they have been told, that Islam is a religion of peace and the Pentagon can continue as they have against an enemy falsely assessed.

The President will find a reason to exit Afghanistan long before it becomes an election issue, Iran will have subverted the sovereignty of both Iraq and Afghanistan in less than two years, we will continue to distance ourselves from our only ally in the region, Israel and we, will become an anachronism.

Having said that; let me tell you this: You have listed the Oath on your web site but there is an equally important mandate handed down to each and every one of us who has actually ‘served’; they are the General Orders and the 5th general order is the one I want you to keep as your Holy Oath; “To Quit My Post Only When Properly Relieved’. I don’t know about you; but I am still breathing…

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

'How Do You Like Me Now'...

A few days ago, Stratfor reported that the Iranian government had been funneling money into the Karzai government through Karzai's Chief of Staff, Umar Daudzai. In the early days of the story, both Harmid and Umar denied the funding and the Iranians denied giving it. That was October 24th.

On October 25th, the Iranian Embassy in Kabul formally denied the report that Tehran sent cash payments to Umar, calling the report “ridiculous and insulting,” Later the same day, US State Department spokesman Philip Crowley released a statement that they (the administration, presumably), were skeptical of Tehran's intentions........????

On October 26th the Iranian government acknowledged (of course) sending regular installments to Kabul also stating that the payments were for Afghanistan's infrastructure so that the foreign [devils] would no longer have a reason to stay in Afghanistan.

Apparently Tehran didn't get the same memo the Obama administration apparently missed; the one stating that our intentions for being there were for reasons of US security and not Afghanistan's need for a face lift to it's infrastructure. I wonder what kind of 'infrastructure changes you make to rocky goat paths through the mountains..?

By November 1st, Karzai was promising to release details of the universally denied 'financial aid' given to Afghanistan by Iran. In the meantime, the silence from within the DC beltway suggests someone there is trying to figure out how to handle the inevitable questions from the media - should they ever decide to get off their collective backsides and try to connect the dots (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan) - the New York Times effort aside.

Diana West wrote an exceptional piece on this that I hope all will read. But the truth is that there is yet an even more chilling prospect and one that suggests much, much more than simple international intrigue and a shared hatred of a common enemy. Let's not forget that Iran's version of Islam is particularly virulent. Their disdain for the United States, Israel, Jews and Christians knows no bounds and their willing adherence to the more troubling aspects of their doctrine make them a clear and present danger to us.

When you consider the clever doctrinal mentoring they afforded Al Sadr in Iran earlier this year and his consequent sudden interest in 'working with' Maliki - and Maliki's sudden interest in working with Al Sadr, it is clear that we are very close to seeing the emergence of yet another Islamic theocracy. When you couple Iran's new found sense of philanthropic kindness toward Afghanistan with their concern for Al Sadr's religious condition, it is hard to not see a cohesive plan. I mean, does anyone really believe the Iranians are only concerned about the 'infrastructure' in Afghanistan?

While this has been unfolding, Karzai made it clear that he intends to follow through with the shutting down of all civilian security agency business in Afghanistan leaving every foreign civilian contract worker virtually unprotected. Needless to say, every foreign contractor presently working and those looking forward to fulfilling future contracts in Afghanistan, is reconsidering their stake there. If there isn't any guarantee of protection for the work force - there won't be a work force. And our answer? Diplomacy...sort of.

With BO's eyes now firmly set on the rapidly approaching campaign for 2012 and the likely-hood that today will result in a watershed movement away from the 'throne of grace' at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it is highly unlikely that the White House is going to suddenly develop a new found zeal for American Security. The need to bring our involvement in Central Asia to a fast close is job number one - regardless of the outcome; the spin doctors can work out the details and spoon feed the American population in the next few months.

It has been clear, since the beginning, that our elected 'servants' have been far more concerned with appearances and the impression we would be leaving on our 'global neighbors' than they have been with national security. Every effort they have pursued with vigor amounts to a first aid kit and an ambulance service. No one would seriously define what this batch of 'servants' have been doing as preventative.

Projection of Force and the Fear of annihilation, is preventative as well disciplinary. You want people to stop an activity, let them know they will pay a price for their abhorrent behavior. Threaten their lives and then be prepared to follow through. All we have told these 7th century thugs so far is that we have a lot of money to burn and that our Warriors lives are not all that valuable to us. Incidentally; that puts this government on par with our Islamic enemy. Our Warrior's lives are of zero value to them as well.

The Islamist, however, does experience fear. We, have the capacity to provide them with that experience as well as affording them the opportunity to test their belief in the existence of their deity by meeting with the Deity who awaits us all!

A couple of tankers of chitterlings and fat back would help too...

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Afghanistan; Understanding the Failure

A couple of weeks ago I had the privilege of speaking on a radio show broadcasting in Florida about the complexities that arise when you attempt to fight an enemy with a faulty assessment. Of course we were talking about Afghanistan in particular but Islam, globally. During that interview the Host made a point of saying that it appeared a larger percentage of the American population was becoming more educated and more engaged in this conversation. He essentially asked if that gave me some comfort and I told him yes but with a caution.

From my vantage point, we are now at a very dangerous point in this discussion. People are generally lazy when it comes to foreign policy and politics in general. It requires effort to study the issues enough to understand them and then the politicians to fully understand their stand on any issue. In foreign policy it requires doing that but then being willing to delve deeper to more fully understand whatever history there may be between players on the world stage. Although having the discussion of the Rules of Engagement (ROE) finally on national TV is promising, the fact is, knowing just those three words does little to change policy.

What was once considered to be a sound high school education in world history would have been enough to allow the student the ability to understand the dynamics of our many cultures and the basic geography of the globe. These would then have been enough to make people ask whether or not the rules under which our Warriors have to perform made sense and then to ask what was promulgating those rules.

At least some of us were intrigued by what we had learned and were motivated to then read a little bit further. Of course we didn't have the list of 'distractions' available to the average high school student of today and the average history teacher, of that generation, still believed it was all right to be an American. For instance, Thomas Jefferson, while his Christianity is in question, never-the-less understood the value of Biblical teaching and morality. His influence caused Biblical morality to be infused into the fabric of the constitution that would be the foundation of jurisprudence and governance in this country. And just as importantly, he understood our age old enemy in Islam.

Since those days we have watched our halls of education become temples of indoctrination; performing a kind of bloodless sacrificial offering on the altars of misinformation in an effort to expunge from the American psyche the evil concept of American nationalism - certainly the idea that our founding fathers established this country with a Judeo/Christian world view. And if the entire American model was so evil, how could anyone justify going to war to defend it or us - ever?

In order for that kind of training to take root, you also have to paint every other culture and their ideology as superior to what we have traditionally held dear, here in America. Convince a child of this and it is nearly impossible to recover him later in life.

So it is of little surprise that when academics began telling us that Islam was a 'peaceful' religion only 'seeking God', wisdom and dealing with the inner struggle (jihad), that in a century, our entire country would view Islam as just another religion. Of course, history and the extraneous writings of the Islamic Scholars tell us different. The actions of the true soldiers of Islam, tell us different. The actions/inaction of the 'innocent' population in Afghanistan tell us different. So how is it that we could so profoundly bumble what should have been a fairly simple mission there? With the strongest, best trained, best equipped military machine ever assembled in the history of mankind, how is it that we seem to have been halted by so primitive a force? Answer; Faulty assessment.

Our original Mission was clearly stated: Locate, Close with and Destroy the enemy that attacked us on 9/11/2001. Identify all those who gave them shelter, comfort and the ability to plan and train for an attack on US soil and destroy them - then come home. There was one caveat to that 'Commander's Intent Statement'; be prepared for a long war. What this told us was that this enemy was insidious and tenacious. It told us that even after we had completed this mission, there would undoubtedly be other attacks and other missions to hold them accountable for. Could it be, that in those early days, we were willing to assess the enemy in a way we have since lost the stomach for? Or could it be that the evil indoctrination of several generations has caused us to doubt the morality of self preservation and the damnable nature of Islamic doctrine and it's adherents?

Once the 'Commander's Intent' was made clear, the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff began assembling an order we know as the Five Paragraph Order; acronym SMEAC which stands for Situation, Mission, Execution, Admin and Logistics and Communication. It is in the pages of the 'Situation' paragraph that this mission began to fall apart for within this paragraph resides the fruit of our intelligence gatherers and the assessment of the enemy, his doctrine, the population of the country you will be fighting in and the government of that country.

The confluence of decades of academic socialist indoctrination, the watering down of the truth of Islam, the tearing down of the American ideal and the decision to use operatives from the Muslim Brotherhood as advisors conspired to insure we would fail at this juncture of the planning phase of the war. And this has colored our entire understanding of how and when we should engage this enemy.

Once the order was written, with it's faulty assessment, it was all but inevitable that something like the 80 year old doctrine of Counter Insurgency (COIN) would be hauled out, dusted off and re-tooled to govern our actions against an enemy who had been so hopelessly, falsely assessed.

Now for the damning statement that unhinges all who in their gut sense something is wrong; the Rules of Engagement, which I have made the case are directly attributable to all of the deaths of our American Warriors, is precisely correct. They are precisely correct if you are fighting within the paradigm of Counter Insurgency Doctrine. The question then, is not how to change the ROE, rather it is whether or not COIN is the right strategy under which to conduct combat operations against this enemy, in this country.

And the answer is a resounding, no!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

The Pen vs The Sword or, the Willing vs the Unwilling

In the ongoing discussion about the validity of the use of COIN doctrine in an ideologically monolithic society, there is no end to the number of people willing to join the conversation. In general, I have no problem with that as long as they are equally ready to place their collective butts where their collective theses 'meet the sand'. Enter one Nadia Schadlow. While I certainly hold no specific disdain for academics I have no use for those who try to sway the kind of public policy that will; I repeat WILL have a detrimental effect on the very lives of our Warriors. I have even less use for those who are so willing to steep the odds against our Warriors while they insulate themselves from the cost of their arrogant presumptions.

Ms Schadlow wrote a piece in the Armed Forces Journal entitled 'The False Dichotomy' about the ongoing discussion about the effectiveness of counterinsurgency doctrine in Afghanistan. Her main point is that the discussion is not based on the reality that small wars of this kind are the likely venue for the future. Her argument then states and supports the idea that the most logical answer is the 'holisitc' approach employed by COIN. Of course her entire essay lacks any discussion of the enemy, the people or the insidious nature of the ideology that binds them all together. It also lacks any recognition of the fact that the government and the people are tied to the 'insurgency' (spelled Taliban) by blood, shared history and shared ideology all at the expense of the Warriors who are forced to perform within the COIN paradigm. Her entire essay is generic in nature and assumes a flat playing field - all things being otherwise equal. This is exactly the kind of simplistic logic that has us in the position we now find ourselves in.

Herschel Smith just wrote a piece in which he highlights the efforts of a contractor in Afghanistan using his passion for the rodeo to help mend fences and deflate stresses among both American and Afghan Warriors. The contractor tells a story of conditions that have become less stable and more dangerous; hardly a glowing review for the much touted COIN. In addition Stratfor released an assessment by Maj. Gen. Afzal Imam, the Afghan army's operations chief, who listed the areas still under militant (again, spelled Taliban) control; the areas are as follows: Kamdesh district, Nuristan province; Nika district, Paktika province; Nawa district, Ghazni province; Khak-e-Afghan district, Zabol province; Ghorak and Mianshin districts, Kandahar province; and Baghran Washer and Desho districts, Helmand province. Not the most glowing review for a doctrine the good Doctor, the President and upper echelon military claim to be the holy grail in such an environment - especially considering the amount of blood and treasure we have spent trying to secure some of these regions utilizing COIN.

At some point, someone, will decide that a legitimate review of this enemy, the government in Afghanistan, the people of Afghanistan, their combined history, their 1400 year old religious ideology, the Russian experience, the British experience, the literature of Kipling, the after action reports of the current engagements, the testimony of troops returning from the sand box et al, will probably make sense. The problem is that by the time they decide that, the politically expedient decision will already have been made and the brush spreading the paint of deceit will already have drawn a picture of 'success' for the American voter to consider when they go to the polling booths in 2012. And no one will be held responsible for such a sloppy assessment of the enemy, the people, the history, the ideology or the family ties that bind the entirety of that land together against us. In the end, someone will finally determine what we have known right along, that the original Commanders Intent was the only legitimate mission and the only legitimate strategy, was the one that would have killed as many of the enemy as possible.

In the end, leaving that country could have been many years back. The plight of the Afghan people, will continue to be the responsibility of those who have the most to gain or lose; the people of Afghanistan. Freedom isn't free; the Afghan people need to learn that lesson. Those seeking office in the American system of government need to learn that their knee-jerk reactions to failing strategies eventually cost lives.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

To Burn, or Not to Burn...

I have never had much patience for anyone who acts out of frustration and then in a way that is 'unprofitable'. Back in the 60's and 70's Hippies burned American Flags, spit on returning Warriors, and generally acted like spoiled brats without the ability to reason. As the years have passed, some of these practices have done little but incite disgust, deliver personal insult and otherwise alienate the very people they were intended to influence. I know I take it as a personal insult when someone desecrates the flag. I am somewhat less insulted by the burning of the Bible largely because it is an act of disobedience against the omniscient, omnipotent God who is fully capable of retribution. It is his word that is being abused by the unrepentant - and at their eternal peril.

So it was curious to me that so much fury could be raised by the mere suggestion that a small group of individuals might burn a few Korans. Here is my point by point take on the subject:

1. Mat 28:16-20 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. Based on this command it strikes me that doing something that you know will insult someone and thereby remove the possibility of speaking to them, places you in violation of the command. After all; even Islamists are to be reached out to with the Gospel. This Pastor and his congregation certainly have the right to do this (a right the President seems conflicted about), but as Believers should have refrained.

2. General Petraeus, President Obama and the entire administration have bent over backwards to accommodate the Afghan people, government and apparently, 'repentant Taliban' and all at the expense of American Warriors. The level of 'restraint' shown during engagements, while seemingly admirable, is doing little to bring about victory - a victory our Warriors should be able to expect for their efforts and sacrifices. There is evidence that tax payer dollars are being funneled into that country to rebuild/build Mosques. And this knowing that Islamists have never been 'tolerant' of any ideology or system of governance inconsistent with the Koran or Sharia. It has also been apparent for some time that the Strategy has become the goal and the security of the United States a forgotten concern.

3. Anyone who truly believes that Islam is 'a religion of peace' is smoking some very strong dope. Anyone who believes that burning a few Korans can transform otherwise rational and peaceful people into a murderous horde isn't giving those 'rational and peaceful people' much credit for the ability to reason. Anyone who truly thinks the 'true soldiers of Allah' aren't capable of using an otherwise mundane act as an excuse to incite violence and propaganda is a prisoner of his own inept mental faculty. Anyone who thinks violence in the streets is a perfectly normal and expected reaction to this kind of protest and doesn't allow Christians or Jews the same latitude, is a bigot.

I find it appalling that the same government officials and media that pressured this Pastor and his congregation to abandon their plans to protest the atrocities of 9/11 caused by the true soldiers of Allah by burning a few copies of the Koran are eternally silent when the Bible, Jesus or other Christian elements are so disgraced. I find it disgraceful that any sitting President would so defile his own country's history by denying the spiritual underpinnings of his nation's history in a speech to a people who already revile us and then show undue deference to those same people that he would deny his own.

In the end, the Islamists never needed a reason to be violent. Their violent expressions of displeasure for the act of burning Korans - that never happened only serves to reveal the true heart of the religion and it's adherents. This is not and has never been a peaceful religion and it's followers have never been a peaceful or loving people. The tolerance so demanded of our people by our elected representatives is not expected or demanded of others by those same representatives and this disparity only serves to embolden an enemy that has proven it's patience and it's intent to fulfill what it believes is it's mandate; to subjugate the world.

The acts of retribution feared by General Petraeus against American Warriors for the threat of burning the Koran are on any other day, acts of hatred for American Warriors that he should have been dealing with right along. They are the same acts of hatred that propelled the true soldiers of Allah to fly planes into the Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon 9 years ago and which caused us to seek justice by invading the very country where those acts were planned. It is the same hatred that has followed this religion throughout it's 1400 year history and that has never truly been confronted. It is, in fact, the same hatred and lack of the almighty 'tolerance' that will be there long after our politically motivated withdrawal from the plains of Afghanistan.

While the very act of considering the burning of the Koran would for most of us seem an anemic act of protest and fuel for an already hate filled people, the fact is, the seeds of hatred for all things not in submission to Allah were planted centuries ago. It would, then, be a far better use of time, the spoken word and study to determine the truly best way to confront what is proving to be greatest challenge to Western and American civilization.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

It's the Strategy; Stupid!

The last few weeks has been somewhat lacking generally propagated Intelligence reports on the progress in Afghanistan. Low quantity intel reports would usually suggest a lull in the AO but there seems to be enough coming out to indicate that isn't the case. At the same time, there has been more chatter coming from the White House about the future of the operation in Afghanistan and that, on the heels of President Obama's speech lauding the 'end of combat operations' in Iraq. From the story:

"Next August, we will begin a transition to Afghan responsibility. The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground, and our support for Afghanistan will endure. But make no mistake: this transition will begin – because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people’s."

I'm not sure what you could do to cause more damage to our efforts in any war than to give the enemy specific information indicating the limits of our resolve. This President has made repeated concessions to the Taliban. How? By saying that they should be part of the solution by becoming part of the governance in Afghanistan. Wasn't that what we had when we first entered that country? A theocracy punishing it's people and led by the Taliban. Wasn't it the Taliban who 'invited' Al Qaida and gave them health and comfort and a place to train and plan attacks to kill American citizens?

The vast majority of stories coming from DC and abroad these days amount to 'greasing the skids' for the next Presidential election cycle. For those who may have missed the point of the '2011' pullout from Afghanistan that Obama was touting during his campaign in '08, it was clearly an indication of the focus of his heart; Obama 2012. The suggestion that anyone, much less an individual with zero experience in foreign policy, could tell three years out that a war would be nearing an end is ludicrous. That a significant portion of the population seemed to find that reasonable, is laughable. That those same elements still think it reasonable to read those same tea leaves, two years later, is scary.

Of course the main points are still not discussed and the general lack of understanding of this enemy from a historical or current day perspective is as troubling as ever. General Paul Vallely made yet another attempt to educate those lacking understanding and I urge all to read his thoughts here.

Again, the discussion revolves around the question of use of force and whether or not the United States military is to be used as an international force or one whose sole purpose is to safeguard the United States and it's citizenry. It is also about whether or not we still possess the moral will to use that force to hold an enemy accountable for actions it may have taken against us. To date; the focus is still safeguarding Afghan civilians - at all costs. This of course brings into question the legitimacy of any comments from the White House suggesting that the government in Kabul is near ready to assume defense of it's own interests much less prepared to continue it's battle against the 'insurgency'.

Each country should be willing and prepared - as it's citizenry should be, to defend itself from rogue elements determined to undermine it's sovereignty or the safety of the people. It is not our responsibility as Americans to spill the blood of our youth in an attempt to secure for the Afghans what they seem unwilling to do for themselves. It is our responsibility to bring to justice those who continue to plot our destruction; a destruction, by the way, demanded by their religion and their deity.

So the question remains; will the American people choose a different course than the one plotted by this President and initiated by the last one or will we, as a people, declare once again, that we are first committed to wholly American concerns. Will we, as a people, select from among out number, representatives without the tarnish of prior political entanglement who understand what should be commonly known to all men. Will we choose, as a people, to recognize our national interests as the singular priority of our military and let them fight the war we have set before them, kill the enemy who would kill us and then let them come home victorious? Or will we continue to tolerate a political institution and an upper military structure that refuses to accept their constitutional duty to protect these shores uniquely, our people and our Warriors, regardless of the cost to others remembering that this war was thrust upon us.

This election cycle in November will answer those questions and will hopefully motivate the White House and the General staff to do what is right instead of what is politically convenient or internationally palatable. Our Warriors deserve that little bit and our Constitution requires it!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard