Cowardly Prostration Vs. 'Gunboat' Diplomacy

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

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.

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

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.

SF

jb

Reactive Pronouncement is not Leadership; it's Deadly!

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

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!

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