Wednesday, November 23, 2011
One Officer Shown the Door after Investigation of Ganjgal Travesty!
honored with yet another.
Questions concerning fire support or better, lack of fire support have been asked ever since but have not produced truthful answers. What is clear is that once the Task Force came under overwhelming fire, they requested supporting arms fire which they had been promised during the planning phase of the operation. The command element that denied them supporting fires did so citing the tightened Rules of Engagement that were initiated by General Stanley McChrystal just months earlier.
Those rules were put in place to reduce civilian casualties which had the "unintended" consequence of increasing risk to our forces. We have argued this point over these past nearly three years now as being short-sighted, ineffective and immoral and largely because they were set as a direct result of a strategy that never had any chance of success; COIN.
Many have argued that orders to withhold fire support from that and other engagements were, and are correct and necessary in order to properly support COIN. Of course, those who argue this last point do so because they have bought into the fantasy that employing this strategy, in this environment, could succeed. The sad truth is, those who support COIN as a legitimate strategy
cannot envision an environment in which it cannot succeed. Add to this an absolutely baseless understanding of the people in Afghanistan, their willing adherence to Islam, their level of support for the Taliban in the face of a perceived Infidel occupying force and what you have is a recipe for dead American Servicemen.
Given this prevailing mindset within the military community and the political structure here at home, it is truly remarkable that this investigating board would finally render a ruling ending the career of one Officer and possible another. For me, it is far less than what these Officers deserve. Anyone tasked with delivering supporting arms fires to Marines and Soldiers needing them, who
then denies them, deserves not only expulsion, but prison.
There are many others guilty however, because the decision to hold back supporting arms fire - artillery and air, was promulgated by the restrictive ROE put in place by General Stanley McChrystal. And that was put in place because the Command structure had determined the best way to proceed with the Afghan operation was within the paradigm of COIN doctrine. Coin doctrine was selected given the Op Order produced by the Pentagon which got it's assessment from Sec Def. Sec Def was poisoned by a politically correct and academically stunted body politic who could not, and cannot, stand the truth about either Afghanistan or the teachings of it's prevailing religion. So if these Officers are guilty of the deaths of those service members, so is the entire command/political structure that created the situation in the first place.
There is absolutely no question that the Officers given charge of those supporting arms assets are guilty of poor judgment that day and I know there are those reading this who will argue the point. The problem for those who see it differently, however, is that the UCMJ does not give any of us "wiggle room" to declare our actions as correct just because we are "following orders". Anyone who wears the uniform is held to a higher standard and that requires the individual to assess the orders he is given and disobey orders that are illegal. While that standard may not always be easy to determine, it is never-the-less, the standard. Any Officer who would deny
providing an asset designed to protect the lives of our service members - especially under these circumstances, is not worthy of the uniform. And yes providing either artillery or air that day may well have increased the risk of civilian casualties and for those Officers, their careers may well have been shortened anyway but I will bet they would be sleeping a whole lot better!
And what of our Politicians who, for the most part have been sitting idly by while we have watched incident after incident unfold in which American Servicemen have been killed or brutalized? How many times must we write these stories or call them demanding they take action before we declare the entire system irrevocably corrupted and their lack of action, criminal? How many more Servicemen need to suffer - not the pains of war but wounds inflicted by a flawed strategy born of a stubborn adherence to a faulty understanding of the enemy born out of
politically correct tripe?
Burn these Officers? You bet! But throw those in congress, and the administration and Sec Def and the Pentagon who allowed this to happen to begin with, into some cold, damp pit of a prison until eternity as well!
SF
jb
Monday, October 24, 2011
Karzai's Gauntlet; Unfortunate Rambling or Veiled Truth?
For well over two years now I and others, have been questioning the wisdom of conducting a Counter Insurgency effort in the center of an ideologically monolithic society. The problem with COIN is that it assumes a much flatter playing field than what we, as a non-Shariah compliant society, can expect when conducting military operations in countries where religious adherence to Islam is above 98%.
The truth is, if we had chosen to understand the religion and the dedication of it's adherents in a way that is consistent with how they have identified themselves -over and over again, COIN would never have been on the table in the first place. Instead; we chose to ignore the obvious in deference to our westernized vision of "harmony among all peoples" and this, to our detriment.
This is also an indictment of the very "nation building" nonsense that has plagued this country at least since the end of World War II. Here's a little wisdom for the folks inside DC:
1. No nation on earth is responsible for the political vision of another people.
2. No nation is responsible to eradicate the evil that another people have brought upon themselves.
3. No nation is responsible to "convince" another society to "play nice with others" unless that society is jeopardizing that nation.
We did not have any responsibility to cause Afghanistan to "transform" itself into any vision or version of a "democratic" society and it is the height and breadth of ignorance to think we could overcome what is for far too many, the core religious belief that all men are not created equal but instead either compliant and brothers, or apostate and worthy of death.
Many of us have tried to convince Congress to review the selection of COIN in this theater of operations and the Office of the Secretary of Defense's willful ignorance of the historical and spiritual truths of Islam but largely, to no avail. The fruit of this systematic dereliction of the duty of the various offices of the Federal government to protect the populace of this country and it's holdings with a clear understanding of this current enemy, ripens every day.
There is no more clear evidence of our failure to understand this enemy than in the most recent statement by Harmid Karzai this past weekend. From the story and Karzai's own mouth:
“Against all the Pakistan establishment has done to Afghanistan, Afghanistan is still a brother,” he said. “Afghanistan will never forget, will never forget the welcome, the hospitality, the respect and the brotherhood shown by the Pakistan people to the Afghan people.”
His comments ignited a wave of angry calls to radio talk shows in Kabul on Sunday. Many Afghans, particularly in the north, consider Pakistan the source of much of its current troubles. One caller said, “When the president calls them brother and the nation calls them enemies, then there will be a conflict between the president and the nation.”
It is clear that many who live near the Pakistani border disagree with Karzai's comments for practical reasons. However, the most substantive element of that comment is what needs to be understood; “Against all the Pakistan establishment has done to Afghanistan, Afghanistan is still a brother,” And that is what we have been trying to hammer home these last nearly three years.
While there is no doubt that there are Afghan's who live a more secular life, the fact is the vast majority of Afghan's, as all other Muslims, see the world through the prism of Islamic teachings and in the end, the brotherhood of Islam trumps fanciful and temporary arrangements with the Infidel community of the world.
Saying this is no different than saying all Christians see things through the prism of Biblical teachings. While it is true that many Christians do not live a life that is completely in lockstep with Biblical teachings, all Christians never-the-less, see the world as taught through Scripture. The difference is, there isn't one single New Testament Scripture that commands, recommends, alludes to or tolerates the murder of another person - especially for non-compliance with Biblical teachings. There is also no teaching which abrogates earlier Biblical truths as there is in the Koran. If a "Christian" murders, he has done so without authority of Scripture and is in fact, in violation of it.
It is also unlikely that one "Christian" nation will project it's military might in defense of another "Christian" nation based simply on religious compliance. Karzai's "brother" comment, clearly says he sees things differently and in spite of all of the "help" we have given him in eradicating the "unwanted" Taliban and in spite of our unilateral restraint and associated increased cost in American lives, through COIN.
Karzai's comments tell a story which exemplifies what is exactly the core of the argument against assuming a less robust role in a country of this type. Here; religion inevitably trumps all other alliances. Assuming you can exploit tribal differences indefinitely and in your favor, is to simply ignore historical and ideological proof to the contrary.
The whole point of this discussion has not been to simply cross swords over differing understandings of this religion but to remember that our "theories" about the religion hold dire ramifications for those ordered to perform under COIN and it's damnable ROE. It is also to remind those who are making decisions about strategy and will not have to face the dangers of IED's set by the local population or ignored by them, that someone will pay the ultimate price in this environment because of our less aggressive posture under COIN.
And in case the most salient point in this is missing on some; I will spell it out: This latest statement from Karzai, whether immature prattle or doctrinal exhortation, will surely make the environment in Afghanistan far more lethal for our Warriors. Let's keep in mind that an ever growing percentage of our footprint there is now dedicated to training ANA and ANP and they, technically, answer to Kabul.
Whether the average Afghan soldier or policeman actually sees himself as a patriot or not isn't going to be as great a factor as his shared distaste for the "pigs and swine" of the "Great Satan" he is forced to train with.
In a land where acts of treachery are commonplace and even seen as signs of reverence for your deity, this new exclamation of support for things "not American" is certainly going to make things even less stable than they have been for our Warriors.
If that is possible…
Semper Fidelis;
John Bernard
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Al-Awlaki Exterminated and Ron Paul Mourns!
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Our "Allies" and Enemies are More Forthright than Our Leadership!
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Legitimizing Cold Blooded Murderers; The New Rave!
Friday, September 9, 2011
Remembering; on the Tenth Anniversary of 9/11.
Monday, September 5, 2011
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