My family and I attended the annual "Run For The Fallen" event in Ogunquit Maine this past weekend. This is the fourth year for the event which honors those who fell combating the more evil elements of Islam in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. The event organizer is a combat veteran from the Vietnam war and a good friend, John Mixon. John and I have visited with three of the four members of Maine's Congressional delegation to Washington over the past several months and have plans to continue the effort with representatives from other States.
Of course our focus of effort has been and continues to be the proper support of troops exposed on the field of combat. The mantra has been that the current operational strategy, COIN was not only poorly chosen but requires a level of restraint not seen before in the annals of American warfare and which has tilted the battle space in favor of the enemy. I have been detailing the many horror stories associated with the more egregious elements of the ROE for the past two years and have made the case before Senators Snowe and Collins and Congressman Michaud, several times.
It was during the Run For The Fallen event that I was approached by Congressman Mike Michaud who told me that House Amendment # 318, which amended, HR # 1540, The National Defense Authorization Act, 2011, had passed. The language in the amendment is as follows:
"An amendment numbered 38 printed in House Report 112-88 to require that the rules of engagement allow any military service personnel assigned to duty in a designated hostile fire area to have rules of engagement that fully protects their right to proactively defend themselves from hostile actions."
I applaud the efforts of those in Congress who crafted the amendment and then voted for the bill in which it is included. I am, however, awe struck by the sheer insanity that dares suggest a formal statement needed to be made by some members of Congress requiring American Political Leadership and the Upper Echelons of the American military establishment, to afford members of the United States Armed Forces the "legal right" to "defend themselves" from the enemy!?
Have we really come to this point, where we can demand sovereign American citizens to place themselves in harm's way while simultaneously denying them a way to defend themselves…from an enemy they are there to confront; presumably with force? Apparently! But if this doesn't stretch your ability to see the leadership in this country as anything more than impotent; when you study the vote, the number of Congressional Representatives who voted against it -will!
I will not take the time to list each and every Congressman who voted against the Bill and the amendment, but I will introduce you to one. (For a complete listing of the vote; follow this link).
Chellie Pingree, Representative of the 1st District in Maine, is among the 77% who voted against the bill although she claims to be a staunch supporter of Veterans - active, retired, wounded etc.
From her website: "We must provide for those who willingly put themselves in harm's way in the defense of our every day freedoms. I am committed to providing our troops with the resources they need to do their jobs, during peacetime and war."
And yet she voted down a bill that would fund the needs of those very same combat troops currently engaged on the field of combat by the institution of which she is a member and in doing so, broke ranks with those who penned the amendment designed to force the Pentagon, the upper levels of military leadership and politicians, to allow United States Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Coastguardsmen, the right and ability to defend their lives and the lives of their fellows from the Islamic hordes they have been forced to face - by these same "leaders"!
While the representative is apparently conflicted about funding a war she doesn't agree with, even though those withheld funds would place the American Fighting Man at even greater risk, she doesn't have any problem legalizing marijuana (see question # 12).
Personally it is comforting to me to see such consistency from this element of society; Send people to war, deny them their very lives, legalize mind altering drugs for the entire population of Americans (which happens with the stroke of a Presidential pen and a doctor's prescription) while giving our sworn enemies moral support - and money; let's not forget the billions of dollars in aid sent to various Islamic countries, including Afghanistan which ends up in the hands of terrorists.
Another notable 'No' vote, came from Ron Paul, "Republican" from Texas…And this guy wants to be President of the United States???
Here's a little plan for you lost souls in DC:
If you are going to "fight" a war; "FUND" the war!
Don't send Honorable men and women into the jaws of death and abandon them there!
Don't send Honorable men and women into harm's way and deny them the right to defend themselves!
Don't you dare tell our enemies that you are representative of this entire nation and then effectively surrender to them! You do not represent my belief in this nation and our inherent right to defend these shores and the rights of men and women in uniform to defend themselves on the field of combat, while confronting the hordes of hell.
And I have some sad news for you; you are not representing the majority of Americans who are dumbfounded by your complete lack of compassion for our American Servicemen in lieu of your new love affair with an incalcitrant, ideologically belligerent and hateful people, hell bent on killing those same American Servicemen.
I would like to thank Mike Michaud for supporting the amendment, and the bill even though he doesn't believe we have any further national security interests in Afghanistan. He never-the-less understands that this war and our men and women need financial support until such time as this country deems it possible to bring them home.
You're "firing on all cylinders" Mike!
www.letthemfight.blogspot.com
Semper Fidelis;
John Bernard
The "Islam is a religion of peace" and the "world peace" crowds have been spouting about the beauty and hope of the "Arab Spring" phenomenon for months now. Even after the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt went back on their word not to get involved in the political process there, the nauseatingly effervescent, supporters of all things Islam refused to accept the possibility that they might not have the religion, the Arab angst or the likely outcome of these uprisings, right.
Stratfor released it's analysis of the current situation today . Their concern is several months too late and they are still not quite willing to place their voices where the collective of Arab spring protestors and their western supporters are clearly heading. From the story:
"The standard analysis of the situation was that oppressive regimes had been sitting on a volcano of liberal democratic discontent. The belief was that the Arab Spring was a political uprising by masses demanding liberal democratic reform and that this uprising, supported by Western democracies, would generate sweeping political change across the Arab world.
It is now more than six months since the beginning of the Arab Spring, and it is important to take stock of what has happened and what has not happened… However, the belief in an Arab Spring helped shape European and American policies in the region and the world. If the assumptions of this past January and February prove insufficient or even wrong, then there will be regional and global consequences…(and hasn't that been the problem all along? Our collective belief/hope that the Ummah will somehow magically throw off core doctrines of the religion and govern and act for the protection of individual rights to self-determination? jb)
It is important to begin with the fact that, to this point, no regime has fallen in the Arab world. Individuals such as Tunisia’s Ben Ali and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak have been replaced, but the regimes themselves, which represent the manner of governing, have not changed… what regime changes that might come of the civil wars in Libya and Syria are not going to be clearly victorious, those that are victorious are not going to be clearly democratic and those that are democratic are obviously not going to be liberal…(and why would anyone ever have believed they could be democratic or liberal or western or at least not bound in Sharia to begin with? jb) The myth that beneath every Libyan is a French republican yearning to breathe free is dubious in the extreme… (no kidding? jb)
Egypt… Elections are coming, but the opposition is deeply divided between Islamists and secularists, and personalities and ideological divisions in turn divide these factions…and the Egyptian military junta is already acting to suppress elements that are too radical and too unpredictable.
The important question is why these regimes have been able to survive…(no, the important question is upon what historical facts did we feel confident to place such faith in an Islamic people - anywhere, to act in a way that was inconsistent with Sharia? jb)
Why analysts like those at Stratfor and other like agencies are so unwilling to identify the religion or it's goals as the likely winner in these uprisings is troubling and counter-productive. It's counter-productive because their very reason for existing is to provide those with a need for intelligence and analysis a clear understanding of the players and organizations they claim to have some insight into. If you are unwilling to at a minimum, clearly identify the people, agencies, ideologies or nations as they see themselves, your analysis is then based on wishful thinking rather than fact. If this is true, then your analysis is likely detrimental to the safe conduct of those using your work as guidance.
Years ago I had a history professor who told us there were four classic revolutions; the English, American, French and Russian. He refused to consider the "Latin" revolutions, discounting them as poor excuses for elections. In many ways, what we are witnessing in the Mediterranean, Middle East and South Asian regions amount to the very same thing. In the end, their single act as "free agents" in a "democratic society" will be the one vote they cast placing them back into slavery to Islam under theocratic governance.
What this story does do is suggest a fracture in the stalwart vision of a world with peaceful Islamic followers. Could it be that the visionaries are beginning to question their own abilities to accurately judge the motivations of a billion adherents to a religious ideology without the benefit of even a modest education in it's doctrines? If so, there may be a little hope for western civilization yet. Of course we must not expect too much, too soon; we are still stubbornly in support of bombing Ghaddafi into the stone age even though the people we are supporting by extension are infiltrated with the same ideologically motivated Al Qaida agents we are presumably battling along the Durand line in Afghanistan!?
And speaking of that; my friend Herschel Smith at the Captain's Journal released a story today that drives a knife into the heart of yet one more troubling government analysis we have heard over, and over, again; the Taliban and Al Qaida are not the same. While there are differences in personnel, size and scope of their individual Areas of Operation, their world-wide goals are never-the-less the same. Let's not forget that it was the Taliban that gave training space, cover, food , protection and therefore the ability to plan and carry out the attacks of 9/11.
In addition, the original Commander's Intent statement clearly stated we were in this war to destroy Al Qaida and hold all those who gave them health and comfort accountable.
Can you say Taliban?
And if the Taliban are an enemy is it not prudent to discuss where they are from and who gives "aid and comfort" to them?
Can you say, the "innocent Afghan population"?
Parsing the organizational "initiatives" of both groups became a tool to support COIN and it's limited warfare concepts while unintentionally giving over control of the battle space to the "lesser problematic" Taliban. By marginalizing the Taliban's "vision", and therefore it's danger to this nation, we lost sight of who they truly were, where they got their recruits from and then placed our own forces at undue risk. The story at the Captain's Journal clearly, again, tells us who the Taliban say they are and who they believe they are in league with. Why is it and has it been so difficult to take this enemy at their word?
Why do we believe we know who the enemy is and what he desires, better than what they tell us of themselves?
At some point, the strategic geniuses of this war will have to explain themselves and their amorous if not downright perverted, affair with COIN and it's murderous ROE because, having gotten everything else wrong to date, it appears all efforts are in defense of the selection of COIN.
And in defense of the careers and legacies of those who selected it.
www.letthemfight.blogspot.com
Semper Fidelis;
John Bernard
Monday morning quarterbacking combat from the operational vantage point continues to be the preferred parlor game for those without prior service or specific experience in combat operations - anywhere, or anytime. There have been many stories and even more commentators questioning everything from the mission to the load plan for the CH 47 (presumably) that crashed this past weekend. These stories and commentary are all based on partial explanations from military sources who are balancing a nation's "need to know" with operational security issues and are all, generally, pointed in the wrong direction.
It has been typical for folks, again, without any specific experience, to lash out at lower level command whenever troops are killed and in the most aggravating and consistent way, refusing to question the legitimacy of decisions from the upper echelon command structure that placed them in a position to be killed to begin with. There should be a general desire to safeguard and secure our troops and their commanders and a corresponding groundswell of pressure placed on upper echelon military officers and politicians here at home. But for some perverse reason, the reverse seems to be true.
Whether a single Chopper used to deliver the thirty eight who perished was a wrong choice is something that the local command is currently dealing with. There are, however a myriad of reasons why this decision was made and none of us may ever know the reasons why, nor do we have a "need to know". What is far more important is why this specific mission may have been launched to begin with. A report just out by Stratfor has a lot to say about what might have been the impetus for a mission to begin with; from the story:
"The helicopter, which was shot down and left 30 U.S. troops dead in Afghanistan, was a trap set by a Taliban commander, an unnamed Afghan official said Aug. 8, AFP reported. According to the official, Taliban commander Qari Tahir told U.S. forces there was a Taliban meeting at the scene. Four Pakistani nationals helped Tahir, the official said, adding that the Taliban knew the route the helicopter took to the scene. The Taliban took position on either side of the valley, shot rockets and other weapons and brought the helicopter down with multiple shots, the official said."
While it is still too early to know exactly when or how this supposed conversation took place or even with whom, it is a very damning statement to say the least.
Why?
Because for months now, we have been told by the 'movers and shakers' of this COIN menagerie that it is imperative to bring the Taliban into the "peacemaking" process along with the "legitimate" government in Kabul, Tribal leaders, et al. Bringing the Taliban into the 'peace process' would be akin to bringing the Japanese into a "peace process" during the battle of Saipan in the Pacific Theatre during World War II. The Taliban have everything to gain through subterfuge, false starts, our weakened posture, our downsizing of forces and a general wasting of time. In addition, if any element of the story above is true and there in fact was a conversation with U.S. forces about a meeting, and if that meeting took place before the original patrol was launched to the site in response this intel, we then have COIN and upper echelon circles to thank for the tragedy.
Trusting an active enemy leader to "help" you or deliver to you intel that would presumably lead to a mission to kill his own while still fully engaged in the battle space isn’t foolish; it's insane! Understanding that lower command has very little choice but to carry out the intent of upper echelon circles and the political will of Washington DC in turn, places the entire fault for this at those upper levels. Operationally; the intel gatherers and the operators did precisely what was expected of them. Again; information is early but this certainly sounds like an effort to "turn" some Taliban leadership in an effort to forge a trust which would in turn create an opportunity to sit down with an enemy that is not yet suppressed…unbelievable political cowardice!
There are other stories circulating that say the locals in the region where this took place have become frustrated by night raids and are siding with the Taliban. The only reason this is important is because it is an overt example of what is true - nationwide. There has never been nor shall ever be a reason for the vast majority of Afghan culture or it's people to side with us against a body of their own. While the Taliban may be oppressive in some ways, they are never-the-less, brothers, ideologically while we remain the infidel.
Are we ever going to see a little political courage from the boneheads in DC? How about just 10% of the compassion for our troops on the ground that they show for the general population of Afghanistan? How about 1/2% of the courage displayed by our Upper Echelon Military Leadership and Politicians who approved the firebombing of Tokyo which destroyed 16 square miles of the city and killed an estimated 100,000 and injured another 125,000 and all before the dropping of the two atomic bombs! And this was done because the specter of another possibly 1 million American deaths was repugnant - to American Leadership!
Why aren't American deaths on the battlefield today, as repugnant to our current leadership as they were back then? Why don't the leaders of this country, today, expect the Afghan's to share the devastation of broken families, untimely death of children and other ravages of warfare to secure their own futures?
Why is it only Americans who must "pay the price for freedom" - even the freedom of foreigners who don't relish it?
These are the questions all of us who have experienced loss on the battlefield are asking. The families of those lost in this latest headline grabber will be asking those and other questions as well.
Is anyone in DC ready to justify their wanton destruction of the lives of American Warriors on the plains of Afghanistan…yet?
Semper Fidelis;
John Bernard
The latest attempt by a self described, pious member of Islam has brought out the usual bevy of experts not only in psychology, but in religion as well. Typically, these "experts" have little to no actual experience in any religion and show a general distrust, if not disdain for those who do practice one form of religion or another.
I have been chided, on occasion for sharing my faith in these kinds of venues and have made attempts to keep this element of my life out of the conversation. But it is difficult at times to investigate what is clearly evil without the ability to contrast.
What I can tell you is that it requires an actual study of the specific doctrines of specific belief systems in order to be able to legitimately make claims of any kind about them. Those who would arbitrarily lump all religions together and claim them to be equally motivating for ideological murders, destroy their own credibility.
I have always held that the religion cannot be judged by the actions of the individual but that the individual should be judged by the doctrines of the religion. This requires personal study, and mentoring by those who have the study of these religions as their life's pursuit. It also means it requires time and most of the typical prognosticators aren't interested in investing the time. It is far too easy to just lump all ideology together and castigate all who render themselves obedient to them.
Anders Behring Breivik has been touted as a Christian gone crazy, but even a glance at this guy tells a decidedly different story. There is very little in this man's life that suggests he studied or understood the precepts of Christianity, rather, he gave himself over to a fanciful idea of whom he believed the famed Knights Templar of the Crusades were. A study of this monastic order is not the point of this piece. Let's just say that their origin, original mission and actual prowess on the battlefield differs somewhat from source, to source.
What can be said is that there is no mandate, recommendation or commendation, in the New Testament to kill children, women or unarmed men - especially of one's own people. For either the deluded Breivik or the anti-Christian/Jewish media to suggest that this was an act by a pious follower of either faith lacks understanding of either the history or doctrines of both faiths. Breivik's actions were in fact the actions of someone motivated by some internally conjured understanding of honor and a perverted honor driven purpose - not religion.
Conversely; Naser Jason Abdo made it clear that he was a pious Muslim. He is the product of a Muslim Father and a non-denominational "Christian" Mother…
Side Note: I can tell you that any ANY, true, practicing, studied, Christian woman would not marry a Muslim man so it is better stated; a Muslim man who married a woman brought up "in the Christian tradition"…much like our sitting President.
This is the interview where he justified his request for conscientious objector status based on his Islamic faith. Astonishingly, the interviewer never saw the necessity to question why this was a problem for him only after having signed, knowing we were at war with Islamic forces. It now appears his provisionally approved request was halted because investigators found child pornography on his government computer.
This seems to be a common theme with devout jihadists; claim devotion to Allah and Jihad and participate in pornography on the eve of an actual attack. Abdo went AWOL (absent without leave) upon hearing his request for CO status was on hold pending a court martial for the pornography charge. It was during his absence that he determined to kill yet more fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. Undoubtedly, more information will become available as this investigation proceeds but what we do know now, certainly paints a picture a lot closer to Major Nidal Malik Hasan than the deranged Breivik in Norway.
The point is, of course, that there is no relationship between the two men or their individual acts. Their motivations are from entirely different sources; one from a deity and his doctrines and the other from the fertile, if not twisted, mind of the perpetrator.
The Koran is replete with examples of Allah commending and commanding the killing of those who refuse to take a knee before him and we have detailed many of those verses here in the past. Recent history alone records tens of thousands of examples of men and women, claiming allegiance to Islam, killing and maiming and all in the name of Allah. Connecting the dots between the admission of guilt for an act of murder and the coincident adherence to a specific religious doctrine doesn't require work; just a willingness to listen.
Trying to manufacture a connection between a religious ideology and a killer when the killer hasn't identified himself with great specificity as a follower of the religion; is a witch hunt!
Question; Why is the largely agnostic media so hungry to force all ideologies into the same category on one hand and yet seemingly so light handed in it's scrutiny of a religion that has spawned so many brutal ritual murderers, on the other? Add to this the absolute cowardly approach to this point by our representatives in DC, and we are left rudderless in our "attempts" to defend these shores from those who would do us harm.
What is clear, is that those who hold the authority and the power to clearly identify legitimate threats are either incapable or unwilling to do so.
And that is just cause for a lot of sleepless nights!
Semper Fidelis;
John Bernard
Those who know me well enough, know I bleed red blood cells branded with United States Marine Corps emblems. It also follows that as a Marine, I take my Oath very seriously. I have only taken two Oaths; one to the Marine Corps and one other to my Wife. I am still bonded to both. I have been and will continue to be, ready, willing and able to defend both my Corps, my fellow Marines, my Wife, my Daughter and anything else that falls under the purview of those oaths. I hold that as an American, there is nothing on earth as sacred as the lives of Americans and most especially, the lives of those in our Military! Scream if you want to, but shame on all who dare claim to be Americans who are not first and last concerned about this country and this country's citizenry!
Having said that I will take the time to castigate anyone - ANYONE, who maliciously, carelessly or wantonly destroys the lives or well-being of any of the above; although I take no pleasure in it, I will hold all those accountable by this venue who tread on the sacred lives and honor of those precious to me and enveloped by those Oaths.
In spite of the mountain of evidence that has been presented by these venues and by the well studied students of history, Islamic Ideology and the unvarnished realities presented daily by the Afghan, the Iraqi and the Muslim world in general, General David Petraeus has insisted on following what any rational clear thinking Military Leader would have avoided. Rather than pay whatever personal and professional price was necessary to provide our Warriors and by extension, the security of these United States with the first and best strategy to defeat Al Qaida and the Taliban, he chose rather to use a strategy that history records as foolish and he insists on continuing in spite of the mounting harvest of American deaths that are the true fruit of his decision. Add to this the gaggle of JAG prosecutors, gleaning after action reports and frothing at the mouth for an opportunity to prosecute any young American Serviceman they can and his insistence is nothing less than a direct insult to every American Serviceman - and their families, who has ever donned a uniform!
Referring to him as the "architect of counter insurgency doctrine" is another insult; one directed at the Marines who authored the original document. The fact is, the only legitimate use of the strategy was directly after the United States Marine Corps printed it as the Small Wars Manual of 1940. The British used Counter Insurgency Doctrine to drive out the death squads of Mao Tse Tung from the Jungles of Malaya from 1948-1960. I say it was legitimate because the British were heavily invested in the business, governance, protection and daily lives of the Malayan people and the Malayan people were invested in them. In essence, under the leadership of General Templer, the British defended their own territory from an outside, unwanted element - and the Malayan people agreed. There has never existed any similar
type of symbiotic relationship between Afghanistan and the United States. And one more point; T-H-E T-A-L-I-B-A-N A-R-E I-N-D-I-G-E-N-O-U-S!
If the average Afghan is so bloody interested in having our help to eliminate the Taliban, then how come the vast - VAST majority of IED's go unreported until one of our Marines or Soldiers finds it or is destroyed by it?
If Petraeus is such a strategic genius, why hasn't he been able to see what every enlisted man in-country and every retired Military man - Officer and Enlisted seems to be able to see (of course I am not including those who have sold their souls to the political system)?
The greater question is why is so much of the media which is typically all too ready to castigate the average infantryman and some infantry officers as murderers all too willing to fawn over the "great man"? One answer is that they are as lazy in their pursuit of historical truth as he is! They are not nearly as interested in the daily sacrifices made by the average infantryman as they are creating one-more-rock star. After all rock stars sell better and what sells better, propels you further up the ladder and fattens
your wallet.
Some in the media and in political circles are concerned that the average American seems to be so disenchanted with this government that the next election is likely to be an attendance blowout. The newspaper industry is nearly extinct and the main venues of news reporting aren't even doing as well as some Blogs. Are they seriously confused about the reasons the American public no longer trusts them, their opinions or the politicians they report on? Then a quick look at this "masterful" piece of "reporting" should explain why. Just take a look at this little gem published by one of the great news sources. Really? Not one word of derision? Not one, single question about the claims of "success" - even as Afghan Soldiers continue to turn their weapons on American and NATO Marines and Soldiers?
Were any of these claims vetted? Did any editor question whether there was really anything to "celebrate"? Was anyone actually affected by the decisions this man made contacted for a rebuttal? The obvious answer is no! They are too busy being the first to cast the base of the monument to a man who chose to use a dubious strategy, COIN, to first safeguard a people who don't care whether sovereign United States Marines and Soldiers live or die. But by his reckless selection of the strategy governing our troops actions in this ideologically monolithic society hell bent on killing any and all who will not take a knee to Allah, who hold apostasy as the greatest of sins and relish in the burning of those who are, who treat women as animals, who force little girls to marry, who rape and abuse little boys, who deny education to women and little girls, who export drugs as their number one crop, who plan and export death and mutilation to the United States; he has by this choice in strategies intentionally placed the lives of our Sons and Daughters at undue risk and for this, he is applauded!?
Hey "reporters"; get a grip!
Hey Americans; you had better get off your couches and away from the TV set before someone you actually know and care about becomes "fruit" of the "great man's" folly!
Semper Fidelis;
Juxtaposition is a literary expression of the side-by-side positioning of incongruent terms or ideas. Politics and culture seem to do this as a matter of the normal transaction of day to day business; suggesting that certain ideas or arguments make a point that is polar opposite. Most of the thinking population would describe these attempts to bolster support for an ideal or an idea, deceitful. I would agree but there is something even more devious about this tactic in that while it may be successful in convincing an audience to think or believe a certain way, the real danger is to the wielder of this tactic. At some point they become oblivious to their own act of deceit and begin to believe their own garbage or at least justify it as a must, to meet an "honorable" end.
Curious: If one must lie to achieve a specific goal; can that goal really be considered honorable?
There was a Country and Western song which loosely quoted Alexander Hamilton; "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything". Sadly it has become daily commentary for a government obsessed with compromise which equals giving in on a principle, equals the shedding of truth and honor, equals leadership that is, well, compromised. While the dealing of politics and business in DC may generally lead to some not-so-great legislation that could adversely affect business, savings accounts and our posterity, these things pale in comparison to the decisions (or lack thereof) that directly affect the lives of a small percentage of this population, here and now; our Military.
This political season which will end 1 year and 5 months from now and deliver us our next President, has already compromised on national security. In doing so it has also compromised the lives of the men in our Armed Forces serving on an active battlefield in the midst of a yet unidentified enemy that doesn't seem to be suffering from the same inability to identify us as his enemy. And like pawns deemed expendable in a chess game played by a novice, our Marines and Soldiers continue to be placed side by side with people who deem us an enemy based on the teachings of their deity.
The proponents of COIN doctrine have continued to suggest over, and over again, that there is a component of Afghan society, friendly to us and sharing of our political vision for that country. They are so convinced of this they have been willing to place the Sons and Daughters of this generation shoulder to shoulder with members of Afghanistan's current generation while denying them what every conventional military has used for 6 millennia; fear and force and the will to use them to force our will on the enemy while preserving the lives of their military.
The soft skinned, three-piece suited, environmentally air-conditioned members of Congress and the White House, seem to be equally content to leave our men and women in uniform exposed to the 'non-existent' dangers from the 'unidentified enemy', as well. After all, there are far more difficult things to consider like, the debt ceiling, taxes, the shenanigans of Rupert Murdoch's empire and of course; the coming election. Of course the "watchdog" media is obsessed with the trial of a young woman in Florida, the possible paring of a young starlet and a Marine at the Marine Corps Ball, the Prince and Princess of another country and any number of other truly meaningless events. To say the media, DC and the general public is now completely numb to the plight of the average Warrior abandoned on the battlefield in Afghanistan is really just stating the obvious but even the British are now angered by the apparent waste of their blood and treasure.
Success has apparently been defined and met in Afghanistan, by this administration which announced it will begin a draw down starting this month which will reach 30,000 in time for the election, this coming year. Of course one man's success is another's abysmal failure but when all of the media and all of the statistical experts are in your corner, it is easy to craft a story that is supportive of your claim to success - regardless of the actual evidence to the contrary. I won't delineate the "evidence" used by this Administration or Congress to back their claims, just watch the news.
I would like to suggest that 1400 years of ideological history and the nearly 5000 years of habitation there paint a picture of a people who are not going to change their minds or their ways and are certainly not going to "westernize" nor become fast friends with us. The past ten years, excluding the first 6 months, have shown us that trying to convince the citizenry there of our majestic vision for their future has met with mixed reviews - at best. At worst, it has cost the lives of hundreds dead and thousands disfigured; physically and mentally. The trend toward an anti-American and anti-ISAF culture there seems to be growing - not subsiding. Consider the events of just a week:
1. The weekend of 09 July 2011, two Americans, one Iowan National Guardsman and a civilian contractor are gunned down by an Afghan National Intelligence Service who also wounded another Guardsman before being killed himself. The debacle that followed including angry local Afghan's surrounding the unit, nearly ended with more Americans being killed.
2. 12 July 2011, Ahmed Wali Karzai, half brother of Afghan president, is killed by a "trusted confidant". My entire interest in Afghanistan revolves around just two issues; first that those who would do this country harm are dealt with - finally and second for the welfare of our Warriors. Karzai's brother and family welfare don't make my list of concerns but one has to ask just how this fits the Petraeus/Obama model of success?
3. 13 July 2011, 5 French Service Members are killed by a suicide bomber on the very day that Karzai is in Kandahar to mourn his brother's death (can it actually be considered murder if an Afghan Islamic Soldier kills an apparent apostate?)
4. 14 July 2011, in an apparent violation of a "gentlemen's agreement" within the religious community there that tolerate/respect the wearing of Turbans by some members in the Mosque, a member killed 3 Imams and wounded 15 others by detonating a bomb hidden in his turban.
5. 16 July 2011, another as yet unidentified NATO Soldier is killed by a member of the Afghan National Army. Of course, ISAF was quick to suggest he might just be "someone" wearing the uniform but Taliban spokesmen were clear he was not one of them. The dirt-bag ran away after killing the soldier.
6. 16 July 2011, yet another NATO soldier was killed - in his quarters, by an Afghan National Soldier who the Taliban claim was a sleeper agent….Sleeper agent or not; the vetting/non-vetting process cleared this dirt-bag for service and now one more soldier will not be returning home to his family.
I want to thank M.J. Green's tireless efforts in 'cataloguing' these latest pieces of evidence "chronicling COIN success" - at least as defined by this administration. I would also like to suggest you all read a piece by Andrew Bostom which provides some insight into the "success" story in Iraq. He provides not only a glimpse at the preposterousness of the continued suggestion that COIN has changed anything there but a look at the British history there and their perspective from their attempt, in the 1930's.
In addition; please stop by Diana West's Blog to read her perspective on these and other interesting details that seem to not be included in the equation of Strategic success; operating under COIN in a predominately Muslim culture and as defined by Politicians.
It is important to keep what our political establishment considers success in mind as we delve ever deeper into the "evolutionary" processes of other Muslim nations across the region because what they have deemed successful in Iraq and Afghanistan will be tried in other areas.
Our Warriors will continue to be tasked with the whims of the ignorant in DC and will continue to pay a price.
Are you now ready to demand change from your elected officials or are you satisfied with these weekly tallies which define success; for the enemy, yet unidentified?
Visit www.letthemfight.blogspot.com
Semper Fidelis;
John Bernard
