A Strategy Change Needed From "Placate and Capitulate" to "Force and Fear"

It is a universal truth that some are won over by love and others through fear. Those without a natural malice toward others are naturally drawn by acts of love and charity. Those who harbor ill-will and whose natural tendency it is to harm others, typically require a solid dose of fear to encourage change in their inclinations toward others.

It is wise to keep this in mind as we peruse the deluge of reporting and Monday morning quarterbacking of the unfolding events following the demise of Osama Bin Laden. The only truly wise thing I have heard from the typical news agencies and prognosticators in the past two weeks has come from an unlikely source. During Mike Huckabee's show Sunday night, Ted Nugent was asked if he thought the removal of Osama Bin Laden from the roles of the living would have a significant affect on the war/unwar. His answer was definitive and without hesitation; No. Score one for common sense and understanding!

It's too bad our illustrious leadership in the alabaster halls of the Dark City aren't as knowing; or at least as candid. I have heard a number of speeches and commentary littered with contradiction and political innuendo all with a clear design and that design is to send a message - in some cases to multiple audiences. Even the "disposal" of the murderer's body was orchestrated to send a message. Of course, that act was ill-conceived and will probably have caused far more damage than good once the carnage is cleared and analyzed through the prism of history. If you remove the fact that a non-uniformed enemy of this nation was given the distinct honor of being buried in our most profoundly solemn form, from the deck of a US Naval vessel, what is left is a laundry list of questions.

Friend and author, Andy Bostom delineated the incredible ineptitude and lack of understanding in the handling of the late scum's carcass by blowing a one time chance to send an indelible message to the pronounced enemies of this nation. Instead of treating him with the disdain he has so efficiently and maliciously shown the men, women and children of this nation, we chose instead to show him deference for his adherence to the very demonically influenced doctrine that motivated his perverse actions to begin with. What would have been more appropriate? How about using his carcass for chum and sending a four points bulletin to the world; "Don't Tread On Me!"

In another one of the more painful speeches to watch, this sitting President announced the details of the operation including everything but the very names of the operators and their families and then spent undue time trying to convince the Muslim world we "knew" Bin Laden was no leader of the Muslim people while, declaring that attention to his Islamic compliant burial was an attempt to not alienate the Muslim peoples of the world?!?

A rhetorical question: If Bin Laden really wasn't considered a leader amongst the vast majority of the Muslims peoples of the world and was in fact reviled by them for "hi-jacking" the religion; why would there be any concern how his "abused" remains might affect their judgment of us?

Since then, there has been yet one more incident where a "trusted" Afghan Policeman unloaded his AK 47 on sovereign US Soldiers, killing one and wounding three before he was killed. The story quotes "an unnamed official" as saying the incident arose from a disagreement between him and the soldiers. I agree; in all of these cases the disagreement is exactly the same. They are Muslim and the US soldiers are not.

The point remains effectively the same; the civil servants in this country have subjugated the population of this country to the perverse desire of this sitting President to handle the Muslim enemies of this nation in a way that elevates the value of their lives above that of our Marines and Soldiers. In subjugating the population of this nation he makes the sovereign forces of this nation of no account and certainly of less value than the collective body of adherents to Islam. These "servants" are, in fact, guilty of the willful destruction of a government asset and because that asset is human - murder. Claiming ignorance of the well documented doctrines of the ideology that motivates all of the players on the ground in Afghanistan may give them sway in a court of civil law, but the ultimate judgment awaiting them will not be as merciful; in that I have great confidence!

In another story of perverse logic ruling the day, an ISAF medical evac helicopter was fired on by Taliban murderers while they (ISAF) were attempting to load an unidentified "soldier" onto the helicopter who had stepped on an IED - set by the Taliban. This caused the local American Commander to denounce it as an "un-Islamic" act?!…..So…setting IED's that might maim or kill women and children is an Islamic act? Of course the question raised by a friend and Marine Mother, M. J. Green was whether or not it was against the Geneva Conventions to do such a thing? The unequivocal answer is; yes it is. The greater question is why these non-uniformed murderers have been afforded the protection of the Geneva Conventions in the first place. They aren't covered by print or spirit of intent by the Conventions; period!

Folks; we are ten years into this battle and our well protected servants, from the confines of their air-conditioned offices have had enough time to become Islamic Scholars themselves. They have certainly had enough time to understand the ramifications of forcing sovereign US forces to patrol the streets of villages without hope of fire support or, in some cases even being able to return fire with the rifles they carry simply to ward off an attack. They have been witness to the 30 sons of American parents who have perished since December at the hands of Afghan's; Afghan's being trained by those very Soldiers who are attempting to train them to make Afghan lives and that of their families, safer and yet, the elected servants of this country remain silent and worse yet, even convinced, they are doing the right thing by refusing to accept the possibility that the religion is the motivator for the evil they do.

In this nation we have a right to Free Speech, Free Thought, and Self-Determination among others. These rights are emblazoned in the Ten Bill of Rights which are guarded by the United States Constitution and by extension, the oaths and lives of our Warriors.

Could there be a greater perversion of justice than to have our elected "servants" stand by idly while men of ill intent force these same Warriors to forfeit their very lives on the fields of Afghanistan, for a fantasy? Forcing them to provide "protection", at undue risk to themselves for a people who ideologically agree with the slaughter of those same Warriors? And yet, as the political rhetoric begins to ratchet up for yet another election cycle, there is barely a word about the war, the plight of our forces being pinned down by a faulty strategy and it's demonically spawned ROE. What is at the top of the agenda? Money!

People invariably ask what I would do then given my disgust for the current condition. Typically I haven't answered the question because the answer is painfully obvious. But for those who can't make the logical leap; here goes:

Take the two greatest weapons we have, out of the vault and place them back in the hands of the greatest military force this world has ever witnessed; Fear and Force!

Tell the "innocent" Afghan, the demonically inspired Taliban, the deranged Al Qaida operative, the corrupt government official, the Imam, the Cleric, the Tribal Elder, the "moderate" Muslim, the "Extremist", the True Soldier of Allah, the coward, the patriot, the militant and any other name you have a fancy to call them and tell them we are there because we are through being their "mission field". We are there to hold Al Qaida and all those who give them aid and comfort, accountable - we are going to find them and kill them regardless of where they hide. All those who choose to help may be spared; all those who choose another path, will leave children and women mourning over their carcasses.

This is war. It isn't a war we started, and it sure isn't something we can negotiate away. This is a holy war because the enemy has told us so. Just because our delicate western sensibilities can't allow some within our ranks to wrap their heads around it doesn't change that fact. So we can meet the enemy on a battle field of our choosing or we can wait for him to outlast us while we continue to fumble around trying to make nice with the devil.

One thing for sure, he is patient.

Are we ever going to be willing to do what must be done so our Marines and Soldiers can come home - and victorious?

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

The most Recent Incident of U.S. Warrior Murders; A Peek at Pragmatism, Piety and Patience in Islamic Afghan culture.

Today, Matt Lauer did us proud. He asked the question that the Media has thus far not dared to ask; is there anything to these incidences involving Afghan National Soldiers and Police turning their weapons on their American and ISAF Trainer/Handlers? Until today, the standard answer has been that these were individual acts of murder perpetrated by deranged, angry men, acting, if you will out of personal discontent. Any suggestion that these were connected in any way was not only regarded as incorrect, but bordering on racial slur.

Baseless denunciation aside, characterizing the 21 plus similar acts that have occurred over the past 1.5 years which has yielded 42 American deaths, as individual is a sign of stupidity. The running total since December of this past year alone stands at 28. When you add to this the most recent 'jailbreak' in Khandahar by 500 Taliban fighters - and supporters, the real question should be how is it that General Petraeus and his fellow supporters of the current strategy can continue to support what is clearly a failed strategy?

The prevailing wisdom that produced the strategy is that 'all roads lead to God' and Islam is just another expression of the 'pious Muslim' seeking reconciliation with him. The problem is, of course, that the writers of the original Op Order failed to even consider the possibility that these pious adherents of Islam might be motivated and even commanded by their deity to kill any and all who refuse to take a knee to Allah - even their 'allied trainers'.

These latest two incidences make this a rather busy week for the Taliban and their supporters. How anyone can conclude that the jailbreak alone was not orchestrated with the help of the prison's guards defies logic. This is not the first such break. A little over 2 years ago over 1100 'inmates' escaped with little to no coverage or seemingly any kind of concern. In fact, the most troubling part of all of these stories is the seeming lack of concern for what this suggests about the efficacy of the strategy and it's ill effect on the very lives of our troops. If insanity is truly continuing to do that which continues to fail, then the entire political and upper echelon military structure are themselves acting like 'escaped inmates' - from a different kind of institution.

Within our Western culture, murder is accepted as a wholly unacceptable and despicable act. It is neither tolerated nor allowed to go unpunished. Our loathing of it has extended to the battlefield where the acts of sovereign US Warriors, fighting on our behalf, are so scrutinized by JAG lawyers that they have been rendered nearly ineffective. Why is it that this same western culture that seems so willing to imprison our own, is so unwilling to hold accountable a society that deems murder a righteous act? How is it that we can be so 'compassionate' toward a culture that practices ritual murder and so intolerant of men acting out of self defense and urgency to defeat an enemy bent on our destruction?

Every questionable act that has occurred since the original terrain assessment was completed can be tracked right back to that assessment and the utter failure of Pentagon officials to insure that every facet of Afghan culture, Afghan life and Afghan religion was scrutinized.

The act of wanton murder in Kabul today is not an aberration and it is not the act of a single deranged individual. The murder on the Tarmac in Kabul, today, was the act of a penitent and pious true believer. One of many from within a society that celebrates such acts as holy.

If the Muslims in Afghanistan can be said to be pious, they are also pragmatists. Using us as what some have defined as useful idiots, practicing patience and all for the honor of Allah, is as much a sign of true adherence to the Koran and it's precepts as facing East on bended knee.

It appears, however, that time for patience is waning as these 'aberrations' increase in number and effectiveness.

General Petraeus and DC had better take that lesson to heart and learn before we lose any more of our Warriors to these pious acts of the simple, peaceful Afghan citizenry.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Cowardly Prostration Vs. 'Gunboat' Diplomacy

We may have found the actual answer to the question, why we involved ourselves in Libya. Prognosticators and armed chair generals will give you a laundry list of reasons legitimizing yet one more incursion into a region entirely hostile to American interests but it is almost always a thin veil covering something far more devious - or cowardly.

The classic, public answer to the question has to do with our 'goodwill toward all men', our concern for the safety and individual right to self-determination and the elimination of 'bad men', but this week, the administration may have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag.

On Sunday, March 27th, NBC's Meet the Press (MTP) hosted Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton who were sent to spread the word about this administration's compassion for the oppressed peoples of the world and to justify, by extension, our involvement in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation; Libya. After all the dribble about the poor, disaffected, freedom-loving, innocent civilians there, Ms. Clinton sought to punctuate the righteousness of our actions by mentioning that even Al Jazeera had expressed 'gratitude' for our gracious involvement for the innocents in Libya.

When you consider how this sitting President started his term, prostrating himself in Muslim lands, before a Muslim audience, apologizing for the 'excesses' of American living and the 'abuses' of American arrogance, not to mention assuring his Muslim audiences that America was not a 'Christian' nation, the reference to Al Jazeera, was enlightening. In the midst of that simple effort by Clinton to justify military action through the gratitude of Al Jazeera, she told us all we may need to know about this administration's actual end game strategy.

Al Qaida and other Islamic groups have been given safe harbor in Libya and are part of the 'freedom-seeking' rebel faction seeking to oust Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi. It now appears that intrinsic to the strategy is an ill-advised if not naïve attempt to offer an olive leaf to our age old enemy. After all, by throwing in with the rebel faction we have in fact allied ourselves with Al Qaida. Assuming the administration is not completely uneducated about the demographics in that country and given Ms Clinton's faux pas during MTP, it is not a huge leap to make this conclusion.

Later in the show, during the round table discussion with this week's guests, Savannah Guthrie, Ted Koppel, Bob Woodward and Tom Ricks, Ricks made an extraordinary claim that not all extremists (spelled Islamic Extremists) were necessarily hostile to the United States?!

Really?

Ted Koppel actually stood out as the reasonable voice at the table questioning the wisdom of pitting ourselves between the two Islamic factions, ultimately putting ourselves in bed with a group that might eventually bite us in the backside. Koppel should have been able to muster this little piece of wisdom having covered similar events throughout his career where we have seen the fruit of these kinds of foolish couplings. Can you say T-A-L-I-B-A-N?

All of the guests agreed the military would baulk at yet one more ill-advised and undefined incursion into the devil's lair and Ricks said his Blog is filled with commentary from military personnel denouncing this latest venture. Of course! They are the ones paying the price for this fantasy that we can sweep up all the 'bad guys' in the world and make all of the people - even Islamic peoples, friends.

No; what we will have is egg on the face of this administration and by proxy; us. It is naïve at best, criminal at worst to knowingly subjugate this nation to an ideology hostile to it's existence. Reaching out to an incalcitrant, enemy ideology and it's minions with chocolates rather than heavy guns is by definition an act of capitulation. There is little doubt left concerning the ineptitude of this Administration or Congress in general when discussing Islam, the Middle East, Southwest Asia, the Arabian Peninsula or North Africa.

The only serious question remaining is whether the American Voter, is paying attention and whether the 'King' is prepared to take back control of his country in 2012.

Tom Ricks made the comment that the US Military's history has been rather defined by this kind of 'Gunboat Diplomacy'…He should be careful not to try to equate the era of the Great White Fleet with the political failures of recent decades. In addition, our talking heads and politicians would do well to remember the battle of Iwo Jima which helped turn the tide in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Although costly to the United States Marine Corps, of the estimated 22,000 Japanese defenders on that island, only an estimated 300 survived to the end of the battle, March 1945. The Japanese surrendered, officially, 2 September 1945.

The Soldiers of Islam may be pious, even pragmatic, but there is a limit to the amount of suffering even they are willing to endure.

If we are going to survive as a nation that treasures self-determination as an American right, we had better be preparing to deliver pain, instead of presents.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

The Enemy You Know Is Better Than The Enemy You Refuse To Know

The big question looming since a coalition of UN nations began airstrikes inside Libya last week is, why? While the carefully crafted answer to that question revolves around a concern for the civilian population there, no one has adequately explained why it should be a concern to the United States specifically or the world in general. Why should we care more for the Islamic rebels than their Islamic Leader?

Libyan oil output does not factor in as national security concern nor a factor in our overall economy. Ever since President Reagan authorized an attack against Ghaddafi over 20 years ago, the leadership in that country has posed very little in the way of an existential threat. When you also consider the percentage of the population dedicated to Islam standing at 97%, there is little to hope for in the way of reconciliation with that nation's people. So; why are we concerned that the Muslim tyrant of a particular Muslim country is not kind to the overwhelming Muslim population of his country? And why have we decided to throw in with an Islamic rebel faction intent on overthrowing the government there? Does this sitting government actually believe there is any hope for an actual democratic, constitutional republic or constitutional monarchy to rise from the ashes of this latest struggle and if so; what gives them that hope?

We have been stretched to our military limits fighting in two countries who, arguably, posed a long term threat to our security. The eventual outcome of those two endeavors is still unknown as the wisdom of our political and upper echelon military remains highly questionable. Conditions on the ground in Iraq continue to crumble as the Iraqi Shia sect and their Iranian mentors continue to deliver death to the general population and instability to government agencies. In Afghanistan where the focus is now on training those resistant to sound training in an effort to expedite the beginning of US troop withdrawal, the Taliban is still able to muster enough influence to cause the cell phone service providers in Helmand province to discontinue service. Let's recall that Helmand province has seen more military action than in any other province of Afghanistan and was just recently declared to be stable by General Petraeus.

When you consider the more important issues of schools, roads, infrastructure and simple hygiene, cell phone service isn't nearly as important. On the other hand, security of roads, schools, water purification plants, wells and the like are by nature harder to secure than something as simple as cell towers and yet the Taliban still retain enough influence to cause even these companies to fold for fear of retaliation.

The two questions that emerge from this are, one; when are the Afghan people going to take charge of their own security and two, doesn't this bring into question the credibility of those who instituted the current strategy there? One of the defining elements of a successful COIN expedition is found in the changing attitude of the population and yet the local population still doesn't seem to feel the need to step up and take charge of their own destiny even if it means bearing arms to hold off those whom, our leadership has been telling us are a pariah on the plains.

What should be clear to our current crop of Representatives, the White House and the Pentagon is that you cannot reason with a people who hate you ideologically. This simple fact would be clear to them if any were serious students of history and specifically of the growth and goals of historic Islam. Dumbing down sound tactical doctrine on a hunch is not only illogical; it is in fact, disastrous.

Our goals should be narrowly defined and our offensive actions, aggressive. Whether the United States of America lives or dies matters little to the nations of the world much less the Islamic nations of the world. Our national security needs to be our number one concern, as Americans and the lives of our American Warriors adjacent to that.

Fire-bombing the vipers in one pit while feeding the vipers in another, is an act of fools. They are both venomous. The one detail that continues to elude DC is what all of the parties in these current conflicts have in common; Islam. There will be no reconciliation with the Islamic nations of the world; not with a predominately Christian nation and certainly not with the 'Great Satan', the United States. Thinking these Libyan rebels will somehow magically dump their religious ideology for the freedoms enjoyed by Infidels is foolish thinking. Expending American lives and gold to foster that thinking is immoral.

This morning on the Today show Natalie Morales informed Americans that a 'rogue' unit of American Soldiers were being tried for killing unarmed 'civilians' in Afghanistan. It would have been nice if she had also informed her viewers that 6 other American Soldiers had been shot, two mortally, by a 'trusted' Afghan Security Officer - while they cleaned their weapons.

I remember a world in which Americans, regardless of their chosen professions, were primarily concerned for the lives of Americans and American ideals.

Whatever happened to that nation?

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Double Minded Justice; Sgt Larry Hutchins ordered back to Prison.

If denying Air and Artillery support to our Forces as they are under fire is a reprehensible act, prosecuting those same Warriors for 'war crimes' against an incalcitrant and murderous band of thugs is the very definition of an evil and satanic act. Sgt Larry Hutchins and seven fellow Marines and Corpsman were convicted of plotting the murder of an Iraqi man in Hamandiya in 2006. Let us remember that our Warriors have been fighting an enemy that is hard to define, treacherous and motivated by an ideology that promotes, recommends and idealizes ritual murder. Let us also remember that this enemy does not wear a uniform and represents no flag, no nation, no people. They kill, maim and destroy to pacify their deity.

What makes this case so astoundingly evil is that the upper echelon chain of command and in fact the entire federal government of this nation has placed the lives of this squad and by extension, the lives of every Warrior, beneath the lives of the very people they were sent there to confront. While the lives of these men were being judged by Courts Martial, other Officers, sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, had been ordered to review the cases of hundreds, if not thousands of civilian clad murderers and to consider whether their words of repentance are sincere enough to allow them to return to Afghan society. There were similar acts of insanity in Iraq where holding these ideological murderers accountable was and is still deemed unnecessary and even injurious to the overall mission.

The incoherency of the strategy to pacify those who do not know compassion has become the calling card of all in federal government and upper echelon military circles. If trying to explain the apparent blindness to the reality of this enemy and these battlefields as an act of career preservation, is unpalatable, trying to explain blowing second chances at redemption for the despicable miscarriage of justice in this particular case defies all rational - or irrational explanation.

Sgt Hutchins had already served four years for what will always remain questionable. Parsing acts of war and preservation from deliberate acts of murder on the battlefield is tricky at best. Charging him with murder, dragging him through the system, handing down an eleven year sentence, releasing him after four years due to inconsistencies in his defense and then sending him back to prison should be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

The problem is, this government has dual loyalties; one for those who cast votes to place them in office and a greater one to the world community and most especially those all too willing to remove American heads from torsos.

Judging this squad's acts on the battlefield that day, holding them accountable as though they were 'back on the block' surrounded by reasonable people and as a consequence destroying their lives for political gain or international respect is something that will be despised by all nations and all men when history reveals it for what it is.

While we are watching the political circumstances in a dozen nations evolve before our very eyes and in a way that is highly unlikely to be friendly to us, we are, as a nation, destroying our own military prowess in profound ways. If anyone in the legal system or the government as a whole thinks that destroying the lives of young American Warriors is somehow going to make us safer or send the correct message to our enemies, you are deluded!

The men and women of the American Armed Forces this government continues to abandon and actively seeks to destroy are in fact the very definition of honor while the actions and inaction of the bureaucrats and morally depraved legal community are their antithesis.

To those of you daring to seek office in 2012 be warned; anything short of clemency for all of our Warriors languishing in prisons for the benefit of political cowardice, will not be acceptable.

If you don't understand this single point; stay home.

The American people don't want you and our Warriors, can't afford you!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Paul Hair Interview

I was approached by Paul Hair who writes a column with the Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/author/paulhair/), about three weeks ago. We agreed on an exchange of e-mail messages with Q & A to complete it and Diana West was kind enough to run it on her Blog, http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1682/An-Interview-with-John-Bernard.aspx . For those who may have missed it or who may be interested, please follow the link back to Diana's Blog.

SF

jb

Reactive Pronouncement is not Leadership; it's Deadly!

As events have developed in the Middle East in the past two weeks we have watched a transition in the public pronouncements of nearly every entity on the planet. The only person to hold ground, to some degree has been the Egyptian President Mubarak. Although he announced that he would not seek office again in September, he was quick to temper his statement by saying he never intended to run again. Whether he has been good for Egypt or bad is a question for Egyptians. Whether he has been an asset to the United States and our foreign policy in that region of the world is another issue entirely.

The state of our credibility balances on two issues; one, our apparent resolve and two, the outcome of the upheaval we are witnessing in Egypt. In a part of the world that scrutinizes it's enemies for weaknesses to exploit, how we will be perceived by the winning side will determine whether or not we will be able to influence anyone in the Islamic community, peacefully, in the future.

The White House has been reactive throughout the entire process and, arguably because there isn't a single end game scenario that plays out well for us. On the one hand we have handled Mubarak as a friend for decades and any indication of distancing ourselves from him 'in his hour of need' will not play well with other Islamic nations with whom we have a 'working' relationship. If we back him, it will send a message to the Egyptian population that we are abandoning them in favor of a 'leader' they accuse of abuses and apathy. Considering whether the latter could push the voting population there closer to a Theocratic government is a waste of time; a Theocracy is the likely outcome in any case.

Once the dust has settled, it is likely that Mubarak will be gone and the Egyptian people will have won an opportunity to chart a course for themselves; one that is very likely to be unfriendly to Western civilization, the United States and Israel. Early in the demonstrations, Nic Robertson of CNN, walked amongst the demonstrators and interviewed some of them for a better understanding of their complaints, their resolve and their future hopes. Their answers were daunting. It wasn't so much what they said but the level of calm and the matter-of-fact tone with which they said it.

In the early stages of the demonstrations, the Mubarak government accused the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) of being behind the protests and shortly thereafter, a Muslim Brotherhood spokesman said as much. Although there were those insisting that the Muslim Brotherhood's sole desire was for the 'rights' of the people only, and not political control, as the days have progressed, it has been increasingly clear that they have designs on political control . Of course they have maintained their peaceful intentions from the beginning. They were quick to say, however, if Israel made any provocative moves against Egypt. they would change their stance. In addition, on February 4th, the former Director General of the IAEA, Mohamed Elbaradei said he would not seek the presidency although later in that same day said he would leave the door open 'if the people asked him to'. Since that time, the Muslim Brotherhood has reached out to Elbaradei, seeking a coalition of sorts?! Curious for a group not interested in power.

Are you keeping up so far?

Throughout all of this, there has been a chorus of voices trying to convince the more skeptical of us in the United States, that Elbaradei is not associated with the MB even though there is mounting evidence to the contrary especially in light of how fast the MB has been willing to 'extend a hand' to him. In any case; why do we care, if the MB is the peaceful organization we are being told they are?

That same chorus of voices has been applauding the democratic desires of the protestors even though it is becoming ever increasingly obvious that the choices they make charting their collective destiny is likely to place them on a collision course with the United States, Israel and the rest of the non-Islamic world.

Today, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton expressed 'cautious optimism' over the prospects of Muslim Brotherhood involvement in the political process there. President Obama's comments were intended to be an encouragement for the entirety of Egyptian society, we are led to believe. But his comments clearly downplayed the possibility of a Muslim Brotherhood victory indicating some elements of the Brotherhood (in Egypt) were anti-American. If the Muslim Brotherhood has not been forthright with their behavior to this point, what is that gives him any optimism and does he have any right to hang our future sovereignty and security on his personal perceptions?

Both the President and Secretary of State have displayed an astounding lack of understanding of MB vision both in Egypt and the US. They have placed our entire war footing in Central Asia in the hands of advisors who are the natural 'children' of a group poised to fill the coming power void in the nation of their birth. The advice they have received from MB has determined our strategy in Afghanistan and our commitment to spend untold billions of dollars to rebuild parts of Afghan society not made entirely clear to US taxpayers.

It should at least astonish the majority of the population to know that an organization whose charter spells out a vision for a world in which the United States is not consistent, is given so much credibility and power - especially when the President openly admits that their numbers include those hostile to the United States.

A New York Times article talks about the ambiguity in the 2004 Afghanistan Constitution concerning religious freedom. Because of inconsistencies in interpretation, Christians and new Christian converts from Islam stand the risk of being hung as apostates. Let's remember that our entire vision of that country, it's civilian population, the Taliban and the government are seen through the prism of the very same organization now vying for power in Egypt; an organization that President Obama clearly indicated had elements not friendly to the United States. The MB in the United States did not originate on Mars, they originated in Egypt. There is a shared philosophy of governance, jurisprudence and a shared recognition of the spiritual state of all peoples; some are Believers and others are Infidels. Infidels, historically, have suffered greatly under Islamic control and that can still be seen today and most remarkably, in Afghanistan.

If the President and the Secretary of State share the same view; 'cautious' optimism for the people of a foreign land, why is it they have not seen fit to show that same level of caution when selecting advisors who would, and are, governing the conduct of our Warriors on the field of battle?

Why is it apparently all right for Afghan Christians to live with uncertainty in Afghanistan, but untenable for Egyptians? And why is it all right to place our Warriors in the middle of all of that uncertainty?

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard