It's the Strategy; Stupid!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Mosques are the “Trojan Horses” of the Global Caliphate

The Greek siege of Troy had lasted for ten years. The Greeks devised a new ruse - a giant hollow wooden horse. It was built by Epeius and filled with Greek warriors led by Odysseus. The rest of the Greek army appeared to leave whilst actually hiding behind Tenedos and the Trojans accepted the horse as a peace offering. A Greek spy, Sinon, convinced the Trojans the horse was a gift despite the warnings of Laocoon and Cassandra. Helen and Deiphobus even investigated the horse. The Trojans celebrated the raising of the siege hugely, and when the Greeks emerged from the horse the city was in a drunken stupor. The Greek warriors opened the city gates to allow the rest of the army access and the city was ruthlessly pillaged — all the men were killed and all the women and children taken into slavery.

The creator and purveyor of the new radical Muslim Global Caliphate is the Muslim Brotherhood based out of Medina and Mecca in Saudi. Their Troy is the Western World. Their ‘Trojan Horses” are the Mosques funded by front organizations and Saudi money. It is now what many of us call “Stealth Jihad”. Muslims have been dreaming about a Caliphate that can unite the entire Muslim world and rule with strict Islamic code ever since the death of Muhammed. There have been coups, countercoups and civil wars because of disagreements over whether or not to install the Caliph. The dream of a caliphate is what is responsible for the Shia-Sunni split. Several Caliphates existed over time until 1924 when Mustafa Kamal Ataturk abolished the Ottoman Caliphate and established the secular Turkish Republic.

Al-Qaeda has clearly stated that the re-establishing the Caliphate is one of its primary objectives. Although Al-Qaeda has taken the violent path to realize their dream of the massive Islamic empire, there are many Islamic groups all across the world that use politics to gain influence; Tanzeem-al-Islami and Hizb ut-Tahrir to name a few.

What exactly is a Caliphate?

A caliphate is the Islamic form of government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world. The head of state (Caliph) has a position based on the notion of a successor to Muhammad’s political authority. It is a dream that has never been realized by Muslims and it will never be. There will always be Muslims who dream about this empire and on the other hand the power-hungry leaders will prevent any movement that could dissolve their nation-state. Therefore, Muslims are stuck in an eternal conflict between Islamists and nationalists.

What are the goals of this Caliphate?

Besides uniting the Muslims, the goal is to arrange a massive army and call for Jihad against infidel states for the expansion of the Caliphate. Various caliphates have used this strategy to expand their states. The rapid Islamic expansion during the reign of the Caliphs is nothing but staggering.

The reason behind that is millions of eager men willingly joining the fight with the Infidels because they believe that Allah will reward them heftily if they die. There has never been a shortage of recruits in the army. This is the same reason there is no shortage of suicide bombers today. The ultimate goal of the Caliphate would be to bring every square inch of this planet under Islam and convert/subdue all remaining Infidels.

Who are behind this movement?

Various groups around the world are actively advocating the creation of the Caliphate. The growing support for this empire all over the world is evident. In order to spread Wahhabi. Wahhabi Islam is a term commonly given to a strict Sunni sect of Islam. Followers of Wahhabi Islam do not refer to their religion as “Wahhabi” (Anon., Justifying; Bijlefeld; Hardy). Many merely call themselves “Muslim,” for according to their beliefs they are only true Muslims. Some Wahhabists refer to themselves and their religion as “al-Muwahhidun,” “Salafi,” “Salafi Da’wa,” or “Ahlul Sunna wall Jama’a” (Anon., Justifying; Bijlefeld; Hardy). Depending on the region and dialect in use, other names also exist. For the sake of simplicity, I will refer to this religion as “Wahhabi Islam” and its followers as “Wahhabists.” By “Wahhabi Islam”, I am referring to the forms of Islam that share the strict revivalist vision and beliefs that were preached by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab in the late 1700’s.

Wahhabi Islam counts among its adherents such names as Osama Bin Laden and Saudi Prince Nayef (Cline; Haykel; Smith; Hardy). Various groups such as Al-Qaeda, Pakistan’s Jamaat-I Islami, The Islamic Salvation Front, and al-Jihad have also adopted Wahhabism as their official religion (Ahmed; Cline; Haykel; Smith; Hardy). The extremist religion offers many a theological justification and mandate to kill those they deem to be infidels. One should note that according to Wahhabism, the vast majority of Muslims (over 99%) are also to be considered “infidels, heathens, and enemies” (Haykel; Smith; Lopez).

Wahhabists have made their presence known worldwide. From the beheading of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan to the beheading of countless Russian soldiers in Chechnya, from the beheading of Nick Berg in Iraq to the beheading of Paul Johnson in Saudi Arabia Wahhabists have shown a willingness to use television and the internet to display their gruesome acts of barbarism. To truly understand those that we must fight in this battle against terrorism, one must learn more about Wahhabi Islam and its extremist teachings.

The Origin and History of Wahhabi Islam

Wahhabism started as a movement within Islam founded by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792). To fully understand the militancy of Wahhabi Islam, it is important that one learns of the warlike nature of Wahhabi Islam’s founder and the brutal times of war in which he lived. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

Having been born in a small oasis town in central Arabia, al-Wahhab grew up studying Hanbali Law, one of Sunni Islam’s strictest and most conservative schools. He lived and studied with his grandfather until he was in his early teens, at which time he left his home to move to the holy city of Medina, where he continued his Islamic studies.

After completing his studies in Medina several years later and now a young man, al-Wahhab traveled to a city in what is modern day Basra, Iraq. There, he taught Islamic law for approximately four years. Al-Wahhab then traveled to Baghdad where he continued teaching Islamic law. There, he met and later married an affluent woman. She later died and left al-Wahhab a large inheritance, which he used to travel the region. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

The early 1730’s found al-Wahhab residing in Iran. It was here that he first started to preach his new and radical thoughts on Islam. Al-Wahhab virulently attacked the customs and beliefs of the tribes in the region, many of whom were Sufi Muslim. He also extended his criticisms to the practices of the Twelver Shia, such as paying respect at the tombs of holy men. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

With the growing unpopularity of his criticisms against Sufi Islam in Iran, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab moved back to his native town of Uyaynah in the late 1730’s. Upon his return to his birthplace, al-Wahhab began writing the Kitab at-Tawhid, which would later become the main text of Wahhabi Islam’s doctrines. It was about this time that al-Wahhab begun to gather a larger amount of followers. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s extremist views and doctrines led to controversy in Uyaynah. Many of the town’s leaders were not fond of his fundamentalist approach to Islam. After all, merely invoking the name of the Muslim prophet Muhammad was, by al-Wahhab’s standards, a grave sin. In 1744, he was expelled from Uyaynah. Al-Wahhab then settled in Ad-Dir'iyah, which was under the control of a powerful tribal leader named Ibn Sa'ud. Ibn Sa’ud became a believer of Wahhab’s doctrines and the two formed a strong alliance. Al-Wahhab and Ibn Sa’ud swore a Muslim pledge with each other in which they vowed to establish a new state that would operate under al-Wahhab’s strict interpretation of Islamic Law. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

And thus began a military campaign that would shake the Arabian Peninsula to its core. The Wahhabi faith provided Ibn Sa’ud with the justification he needed to raid and conquer nearby settlements. Though these settlements were Islamic (and traditional Islamic law prohibits Islamic states from attacking each other), the Wahhabi doctrine viewed all non-Wahhabists as infidels and not true Muslims. It was thus that Ibn Sa’ud found a legitimate purpose to bring the nearby settlements under his control, to spread “true Islam” to the infidels. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

The Wahhabists are indiscriminate in their killings of Muslims and non-Muslims alike. They soon garnered a reputation as brutal and fanatical warriors. These Wahhabist warriors were described as being so fanatical that they had little regard for their own lives … their sole purpose, it seemed, was to kill the enemy. By the time of his death in 1765, Ibn Sa’ud had managed to gain control over most of the region and had spread Wahhabism to those conquered lands. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab died in 1792 but the spread of Wahhabism continued under the leadership of Ibn Sa’ud’s son, Abd al Aziz. Abd al Aziz continued the Wahhabi campaign and managed to sack the Shia holy city of Karbala and Sunni towns in Hijaz. The Wahhabists were brutal in their treatment of captured lands and brought destruction upon those who had opposed them. In the early 1800’s, the Wahhabi army even managed to gain control of Mecca and Medina. Viewing the acts of commemorating dead holy men and praying to saints as unholy acts, the Wahhabists destroyed monuments and gravesites in the holy cities. By doing this, they sought to imitate the Muslim prophet Muhammad’s smashing of pagan symbols when he returned to Mecca in 628. Access to the holy sites in Medina and Mecca were severely limited to outsiders. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

Much of the new recruitment of young radicals in the United States, Europe and the Muslim world is done through the local Mosques and is very well documented. Then the radical Islamic cells are developed to carry out the missions of jihad.

Hopefully, many of you will now understand what is happening and how the Global Caliphate is very well planned out and funded. Let us not be naïve ……..just look around the world and keep your eyes on Iran and its proxies. The Mosques are the new ‘Trojan Horses”. No 9/11 Mosque!

Paul E. Vallely

Chairman – Stand Up America

No Fire Support; No Glasses; More 'Chai'; No Warrior Friendly Change!

For those who held out hope that the ROE was going to undergo a 'positive transformation' under General Petraeus, you will be disappointed. This is the point where I am suppose to say; 'I told you so'.

The truth is that there is very little satisfaction in a comment like that because in almost every case; the moment has passed. The salient points, the truths, the opportunities for change have usually passed; subtly, unnoticed and the great harm those points might have stopped, will, in this case, most certainly lead to the death of someone's loved one; a cost of arrogance.

When the initial story broke 3 days ago, it went almost entirely unnoticed and even for those who read it, the most egregious element of the story seemed to be missed entirely and that is the highlighting of General Petraeus's unchallenged ego. In a war that has seen a growing number of well-informed, well-educated and experienced individuals challenging the strategy and it's ROE, there is also this relentless effort to push forward even in light of a growing body of evidence that it is a losing strategy. Even the entire spectrum of the media seems incapacitated or unwilling to accept the possibility that there seems to be a problem.

The Gulf Oil Spill, the Boy Scouts, Charlie Rangel's broken compass, Lindsay Lohan, the cost of Mastiffs, Reality TV, Obama's Maine vacation all seem to bear greater significance in the American psyche than does the plight of young Men and Women who have, in the taking of their oaths, pledged to lay down their lives at the whim of madmen. It just isn't 'sexy' enough.

This morning I got a note from Andy Bostom, a good friend with a passion for the welfare of our troops, with what is now the official release of the good General's assessment of the ROE and his intent. From the story: "Going several steps better, General Petraeus has reportedly expanded the ban on air strikes and artillery fire to all types of buildings, tree-lined areas and hillsides where it is difficult to distinguish who is on the ground." The fact is, not only has he deemed the ROE as proper, he has deemed it not tight enough.

This is a precisely correct assessment in a COIN environment. If it is going to succeed and if the leadership on the ground deems it to be succeeding, each iteration and review of the ROE will be necessarily tighter than it's preceding version. This highlights a problem in the way the media and most of those studying and following this issue view it and assess changes to it. The assumption that a new leader might be willing to 'loosen' the ROE means the person making the assumption, does not understand the doctrine and that is what we have been trying to change; the lack of understanding of COIN.

He has even determined that the wearing of Oakley, polycarbonate safety glasses by our American Warriors to be detrimental to the apparent security of the Afghan population. He has directed that all, 'in-country', make great efforts to meet and greet the locals, without the glasses. For those of you who don't know, those glasses use ballistic lenses that protect against the micro-sand famous in desert terrain, shrapnel, flying debris and, oh yeah; intense sunlight. This is not only a safety device but a 'health and comfort' item. Many parents were upset when McChrystal ordered the removal of fast food restaurants in Afghanistan. I have made it clear it was of little consequence to the average Marine Corps Infantryman who rarely if ever saw one while there. But these glasses represent one of the few 'amenities' available in that extreme duty and they are in fact necessary for their protection.

Diana West's latest piece in discussing the folly of COIN in this environment details the complete lack of understanding of the culture in Afghanistan which is defined by it's adherence to Sharia. Trying to impose our delicate western sensibilities on the battlefield is foolish enough, doing it on a battlefield within a Sharia compliant country is suicide.

So the main question remains; what will it take to wake up the American citizenry, the unresponsive political servants in DC and the money-minded media?

As Christians we understand that the way we live our lives in the presence of others is a testimony to our faith and of the transformation that has taken place within us by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The resilient determination of our Warriors in the face of a violent culture in Afghanistan and a relentlessly defiant ISAF and his immoral ROE, is the testimony of a remnant of this generation's sense of personal honor and their understanding of selfless service.

The good General should be advised not to seek the limits of that resilience or the ignorance of the general American population.

1972 is not that long ago....

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Tea With Terrorists or 'Leaking' Tea?

The latest rating lifting hope of the media is the Wiki Leaks of the now infamous 'Afghan Diaries'. Stories are already making their way to the airways, written by ideologues drooling over the prospect of finding 'the smoking gun' that will bring down one political party or the other. How predictable. Equally predictable are the lead-ins opening their new stories. At the top of the list; the possibility of 'war crimes'. The great hope of the left and the confused conservative to find yet one more American Warrior to charge with some crime (whether trumped up or not) and then throw into the bowels of the penitentiary system.

Of course, the secondary concern is for evidence that may actually tie the Pakistani government with the Taliban. Herschel Smith covered the legal/ideological motivations for leaking these diaries today. Again; I can't disagree with any particular point he has made. He is right that Wiki owners have their own political agenda and American sovereignty or safety be damned. Those papers would never have been leaked during WW II or at least the culprits would have found themselves dangling from the end of the hangman's noose.

The question I have for the media in this country in general is: Can anyone in this country truly say; 'I am an American' and actually begin to know what that means? I wonder why or even when Nationalism became an evil concept or is it just being loyal to the United States that is so disdainful? And even if you hate the United States (as apparently your Australian counterpart does) - your country, why do you hold our Warriors in such low regard? Why are you so prepared to hang our Warriors on the first suggestion of 'wrong-doing' without even the slightest desire to give them what the Constitution guarantees; the benefit of the doubt? And since when does treachery by an 'ally' take second seat to the far-fetched possibility of a war crime possibly committed by our Warriors.

Let me help you with this; If the Pakistani government or any of its agencies are guilty of collusion with the Taliban, that has and is costing Americas Sons and Daughters their lives. Would you like to look an American parent in the eye and tell them that is a 'secondary concern' in your estimation? Second; if an American Warrior were in fact guilty of a 'war crime' it would absolutely be a singular act - not a conspiracy rising to the level of an Ally giving aid and comfort to a 'common enemy'.

Yes; the Pakistani government, the Pakistani people, the Afghan, the Iraqi, Iranians, Syrians, Lebanese, Libyans and I am sorry to inform you; some Americans actually hate us and side with the Taliban over us. Their commonality? They are Muslim. Islam, again, requires submission to Allah. As soon as we get that straight, the hostilities will end. Are you ready, Julian Assange, to submit? Are you prepared to be the reason the world gets to enjoy yet another 1400 years of abuses and insanity by the demonically possessed?

How about opening with the now released official details of the travesty of the operation gone wrong in Ganjgal which cost four good men their lives? As it turns out, what we already knew to be true is now official fact. The very Tribal Elders that the unit was there to protect colluded with the Taliban and told them when the unit was to return. When the unit got there they stepped right into the middle of a heavily armed ambush. What? The story is not as wonderful as the one with the far-fetched likelihood of war crimes evidence nestled in the pages of your ill-gotten diaries? (By the way; for those of you who do not have an account with Marine Corps Times, you will have to wait until Monday for the hyperlink to work).

Or how about the story with possible evidence of sedition in Investors.com? Doesn't quite rise to your level of excellence, huh? No American Warriors to take down here, just the possibility of a sitting President being at least embarrassed if not investigated. For those of you who have not seen this, you need to read it. By the way, the connection in this story leads to the very door of The Muslim Brotherhood; the preferred advisory team of the White House and apparently, the Pentagon.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Interview Segment on FOX News Sunday, 25 July 2010 at 1345 (1:45 PM EST)

I have been invited for an interview on the segment; 'America's News HQ' with Shannon Bream. We will be discussing the Rules of Engagement as they exist, alternatives, the present cost of these ROE and their relationship to COIN.

I invite everyone to watch and to call in or leave an e-mail message with FOX. In addition; this is the opportunity many of you have asked for; the chance to help and to voice an opinion with your elected officials. Tagging them with a call/e-mail/letter on the 'slip-stream' of this infrequent opportunity is exactly the thing to do.

In the meantime; pray that the questions and my answers carry as much power as 4 minutes of national air time can muster.

CONTACT FOX at: fns@foxnews.com Or Telephone: 1-888-369-4762

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

R.O.E. Responsible for All U.S. Deaths in Afghanistan!

There are few things in life worth saying if they are not completely truthful. It came to me as a harsh reality when in the past few days I came to grips with this truth and that our combined efforts to force Congress to pay attention to the strategy/non-strategy in Afghanistan was off the mark. We have been fighting for a simple review of COIN and to question whether or not it is viable in this kind of environment and relaying specific evidence of the effect of it's ROE on our Warriors. The problem is that the ROE is affecting every Warrior on the plains of Afghanistan and is specifically responsible for EVERY U.S. AND NATO DEATH there.

Every Army assembled for combat must do several things if it is going to win:

1. Take the Commander's Intent statement and assemble a Strategy and Force component to complete a mission consistent with that Intent

2. Define the Battle Space

3. Control the Battle Space

4. Determine and Exploit the weaknesses of the enemy

5. Continue to pressure the enemy

6. Deftly employ every means and capability it possesses to Locate, Close with and Destroy the Enemy.

7. Be relentless and unforgiving in it's determination to force the enemy to do it's will

As of June of 2009, at the latest, CentCom and ISAF made a deliberate decision, under the leadership of this sitting President, to not win. It even went as far as to redefine the war effort and to expunge words like 'win', 'success', 'terrorism' and 'Islamic Extremists' from the lexicon. It further determined that the new 'goal' was to protect Afghan civilians at all cost. It included a vigorous plan to 're-build' Afghanistan as a nation from the very foundations of its government. It instituted a theater-wide, controversial doctrine known as Counter Insurgency which has a historical record of failure in all except one engagement and fielded an ROE (rules of engagement) that all but eliminate the use of Air Support and Field Artillery Support for US and NATO forces except in the 'safest' possible applications (no civilians around...problematic when you consider the Taliban are civilians).

It has been said there has been a 'resurgence' on the field of battle by the Taliban; that they essentially re-constituted/regrouped and have re-emerged refreshed and emboldened in the past year. That is a deception. This suggests that, all other things remaining constant, this group of murderous thugs conjured new found courage and purpose. This is patently untrue! The reality is that the Taliban are the same as they were. What changed was our desire to prosecute this war as though we intended to win. What changed was our focus. The original Commander's Intent was to go into Afghanistan and destroy/scatter/remove Al Qaida from Afghanistan and to hold those who aided them accountable for their actions, ie the Taliban. That mission took a dramatic turn in 2009 when we chose to seek the good graces of the Afghan people instead of seeking justice for the assault on our land by Islamic Hordes.

POINTS:

1. By refusing to doggedly follow the steps outlined above, we effectively turned over control of the battle space to the Taliban. Because of this they are free to set more IED's than they would have been and free to establish yet more ambush sites thus placing our Warriors in a far more dangerous environment (See Step 3).

2. Intentionally publishing the ROE and our intent to no longer kill but protect, we have allowed the Taliban to reassert themselves and given them the opportunity to exploit our well-published weaknesses (See Step 4).

3. By diverting attention from Pursuit of the Enemy to Security Patrols in hamlets, towns and villages, we have opened lanes of effort for the Taliban to pursue us and given them freedom to set even more IED's and to pressure the locals into participating (See Step 5).

4. By removing our most valuable supporting fires from the equation, in the most desperate of situations, we have allowed more Taliban to survive engagements (See Step 6).

What we have done in the past year is to allow the enemy the opportunity to re-consider it's capability, given them maneuver space, garner support from foreign sources and increase their potential with more advanced weapons (see stories about Taliban sniper capability in British held areas of Khandahar). In addition; the number of aircraft now harassed by Taliban fire has increased making even medivacs difficult. Add to that, the Red Cross's insistence on aiding the enemy and NATO field medical facilities being forced to include Taliban in Triage decisions and even the staunchest supporter of anti-american sentiment in this country has to question the sanity of the plan.

Given all of the above, it is clear that all US and NATO deaths in Afghanistan are directly and indirectly due to the institution of the current ROE and our having intentionally given control of the battle space to the Taliban. And it is intentional because there is no way a clear thinking military mind could not fully understand the ramifications of not continuing to pressure the enemy, keeping him off balance, with every weapon in his arsenal.

The hard truth is that America's Sons and Daughters will continue to pay the ultimate price for high-minded thinkers, politicians and inept leadership until the true 'King' of the country, the Citizens decide they have had enough. And that is unlikely to happen until Islam is once again successful in attacking our homeland.

Far too many Americans have far too short a memory. God protect our Warriors.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

The Cancer is Spreading; Anti-'Infidel' Hatred Manifested

In the past two weeks we have read more stories about ANA turning their weapons on their NATO and American 'counterparts'. These are not the first incidences in this 9 year conflict to be sure but it is the first time two incidences of this kind have occurred so closely together. They also happened on opposite sides of the country, one from the other.

I wrote about the first of these most recent incidences in Dealing with the Devil. In a follow-up story, the ANA soldier who has claimed responsibility said he had planned to do so before he decided to jump ship for the Taliban; an act of revenge for civilians he says were killed by British forces.

This is being and will continue to be portrayed as a singular act of violence rather than the manifestation of a universal hatred for American Forces, NATO and western culture. It is extremely important that the 'architects' of this current iteration of COIN continue to project absolute belief in this strategy if they have any hope of stemming the growing discontent with it's premise; that Islam is ultimately peaceful and that the average Afghan wants our 'help'.

The latest incident, reported today in Stratfor and other sources, , says an ANA soldier turned his weapon on two American Contractors hired to train ANA as well as others. In the end, 4 died which included the attacker.

The question everyone would be asking if anyone was in fact listening is whether or not this is an anomaly or an undercurrent of inbred, religiously fostered hatred toward US and NATO forces. No one is asking because the people whom we have entrusted with prosecuting this action in Afghanistan refuse to accept the possibility that their originating premise is wrong. The media refuses to ask the question for a variety of reasons not the least of which is ratings. Why waste time talking about a subject that isn't going to bring home the bacon. A ten minute segment on the self-destructive life style of yet another one of the Hollywood elite is far more engrossing - and it pays better.

While the undercurrent of anger of the largely disaffected red-blooded American boils, the dead in DC continue their campaign of disinterest for the plight of our Warriors and the greedy in the media continue to dig for far more lucrative stories. When did we get here?

The fact of the matter is; we have always been here. A good friend once told me something I never forgot; fewer than 3% of the population of the colonies supported talk of separation from England - let alone a war. The remaining 97% were split between direct loyalties to Britain and loyalties to their homeland. Some have said the Tories were the majority. Even then under an increasingly oppressive government and their ever increasing levy of burdensome taxes, people were not willing to stand up and declare right what they knew to be right and to stand against tyranny.

Today, the measure of the importance of support for something is proportional to the cost of that 'something' to our wallets, our time, our entertainment or our families. Far too many times I have spoken to people about this subject and observed the glazed look of the uninterested and uneducated staring back at me. On occasion, I have witnessed a transformation but only when one of their sons or daughters have declared their interest in joining the service. Maybe that's what it will take. Maybe it requires everyone being faced with the potential of forced service to make them realize that the wanton killing, at the hands of our politicians in DC, is really at their door.

As for the media; maybe we need to use TARP funds or create another bailout/incentive fund - taxpayer funded, available only to those news agencies ready to start paying attention to the ongoing debacle in Afghanistan... Maybe we need to take their pads and cameras away and replace them with rifles they can't shoot, in places they can't get fire support, led by men prepared to bury them for the sake of the enemy.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard