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

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

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

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

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

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

Also keep in mind that recently, the Taliban claimed not only collusion with the Haqqani network but that Haqqani was in fact Afghan. This is important in that our intelligence has them slipping back and forth across the Durand line with one of their last, missions being the attack on the American Embassy in Kabul. Add to this Admiral Mullen's admission/allegation that Haqqani has been working hand-in-hand with the Pakistani ISI, and what you have is a particularly virulent enemy with the backing of a legitimate state agency - a country we have deemed an "an ally" in the "war on terror". It seems we may have to declare Pakistan a terrorist haven instead!

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

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

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

If there is a glimmer of light emanating from down the long hallway of insanity, it is that some of our agencies, at least, seem to be planning for what is apparently not politically palatable - or correct. This FBI training video, while dry, makes it clear that the agency understands the threat to be larger than the small cells our politicians seem to be focused on. Even the British have been forced to face the reality of working with a duplicitous "ally" and a report to that extent is strongly recommending each and every British Soldier working with the ANA or ANP - be armed…You think??

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

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

So for all of the studying, daily revelations of collusion between state agencies, Islamic militant groups, cross-border operations and a dissipating confidence in the trustworthiness of the ANA and ANP recruits we are training, COIN support appears to be alive and well - regardless!

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

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Legitimizing Cold Blooded Murderers; The New Rave!

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

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

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

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

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

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

The argument that the killing of civilians during combat operations or even the night raids which were all but halted by the ROE, drives "innocent civilians" into the arms of the Taliban, further exposes the lie that the average Afghan hates the Taliban. Herschel Smith did an excellent analysis of the story by the Christian Science Monitor. And while this article dares to suggest that night raids have continued, they have largely been conducted by Afghan forces. Our involvement was curtailed by a decision made over 2 years ago.

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

Of course, you have to be willing to deliver the pain.

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

For those who can't follow the logic; let me help you: Reaching out to the Haqqani Network, right now, after so brazen an attack in Kabul, against Sovereign US territory, would be akin to reaching out to Al Qaeda one week after the Trade Towers were blown back to the earth.

The thing that is most troubling is that while the Pakistani government is pressuring the US to end the war in Afghanistan, they are simultaneously demanding that it be done in a way that "meets their needs". Of course, they also want assurances we will support their security needs along their border with India.

Now why in the world, would anyone side with someone proven untrustworthy who is at war against a nation we have a good, healthy relationship with?

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

Cooperation has been a one way street and none of this should have been or should be a surprise for if the Pakistani government, the Afghan government or the Afghan or Pakistani population can be depended on for anything, it is treachery; at least where dealing with us is concerned.

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

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Remembering; on the Tenth Anniversary of 9/11.

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

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

Here is the last question he asked me:

"The World War II generation is called the Greatest Generation. Yet when that generation fought they fought with a generally united nation and when the Draft existed. What do you think of your son’s generation who fights today when a large portion of the nation doesn’t support American troops and no Draft compels service?"

I will give you my answer at the end.

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

I refuse to call them terrorists.

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

As Americans, we have grown to respect the concept of self determination, freedom of speech, the right to assemble and freedom of religion. We cherish a live and let live attitude that has drawn many to these shores, seeking refuge from a world seemingly gone mad. Over the many centuries since that small group of exiles landed on the east coast of what would become the United States of America, escaping religious persecution from their own homeland, this country has stood as a beacon of freedom, and a haven of rest.

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

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

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

The Apathetic have forgotten.

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

Since that day, hundreds of thousands of United States Service members, have been compelled, by this government, into harm's way to hold responsible those who plotted those attacks. Tens of thousands have been wounded, some with life changing effect. Nearly five thousand have died doing the same.

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

If America wants to know what a real memorial looks like we need not look further back than the few short years following a similar event which occurred on December 7th 1941. That generation had absolutely no problem naming their enemy or delivering them a mortal blow. The devastation that was rained downed on Germany and Japan in answer to the events of that day, were a grand manifestation of the righteous anger, the resolve and the moral courage of not only a focused nation, but true, leadership.

What we are witnessing today, in the Halls of those great political institutions in DC will be chiseled in stone to be viewed by future generations as the meanderings of the feeble minded, the self-centered and the cowardly. For anyone who declares himself a Leader and then abandons the selfless hero on the field of battle and forgets him at the Memorial, is no leader. He is a scourge on his nation!

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

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

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

estranged homes:

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

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

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

The Helen Glover Show Interview

To all;

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

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

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

helenglover - podcast - 920 WHJJ

www.920whjj.com

helenglover - podcast

SF

jb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're "firing on all cylinders" Mike!

www.letthemfight.blogspot.com

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

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

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