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

The Taliban and the "Innocent Civilians" Continue to Express Their Gratitude for COIN in Afghanistan!

Monday morning quarterbacking combat from the operational vantage point continues to be the preferred parlor game for those without prior service or specific experience in combat operations - anywhere, or anytime. There have been many stories and even more commentators questioning everything from the mission to the load plan for the CH 47 (presumably) that crashed this past weekend. These stories and commentary are all based on partial explanations from military sources who are balancing a nation's "need to know" with operational security issues and are all, generally, pointed in the wrong direction.

It has been typical for folks, again, without any specific experience, to lash out at lower level command whenever troops are killed and in the most aggravating and consistent way, refusing to question the legitimacy of decisions from the upper echelon command structure that placed them in a position to be killed to begin with. There should be a general desire to safeguard and secure our troops and their commanders and a corresponding groundswell of pressure placed on upper echelon military officers and politicians here at home. But for some perverse reason, the reverse seems to be true.

Whether a single Chopper used to deliver the thirty eight who perished was a wrong choice is something that the local command is currently dealing with. There are, however a myriad of reasons why this decision was made and none of us may ever know the reasons why, nor do we have a "need to know". What is far more important is why this specific mission may have been launched to begin with. A report just out by Stratfor has a lot to say about what might have been the impetus for a mission to begin with; from the story:

"The helicopter, which was shot down and left 30 U.S. troops dead in Afghanistan, was a trap set by a Taliban commander, an unnamed Afghan official said Aug. 8, AFP reported. According to the official, Taliban commander Qari Tahir told U.S. forces there was a Taliban meeting at the scene. Four Pakistani nationals helped Tahir, the official said, adding that the Taliban knew the route the helicopter took to the scene. The Taliban took position on either side of the valley, shot rockets and other weapons and brought the helicopter down with multiple shots, the official said."

While it is still too early to know exactly when or how this supposed conversation took place or even with whom, it is a very damning statement to say the least.

Why?

Because for months now, we have been told by the 'movers and shakers' of this COIN menagerie that it is imperative to bring the Taliban into the "peacemaking" process along with the "legitimate" government in Kabul, Tribal leaders, et al. Bringing the Taliban into the 'peace process' would be akin to bringing the Japanese into a "peace process" during the battle of Saipan in the Pacific Theatre during World War II. The Taliban have everything to gain through subterfuge, false starts, our weakened posture, our downsizing of forces and a general wasting of time. In addition, if any element of the story above is true and there in fact was a conversation with U.S. forces about a meeting, and if that meeting took place before the original patrol was launched to the site in response this intel, we then have COIN and upper echelon circles to thank for the tragedy.

Trusting an active enemy leader to "help" you or deliver to you intel that would presumably lead to a mission to kill his own while still fully engaged in the battle space isn’t foolish; it's insane! Understanding that lower command has very little choice but to carry out the intent of upper echelon circles and the political will of Washington DC in turn, places the entire fault for this at those upper levels. Operationally; the intel gatherers and the operators did precisely what was expected of them. Again; information is early but this certainly sounds like an effort to "turn" some Taliban leadership in an effort to forge a trust which would in turn create an opportunity to sit down with an enemy that is not yet suppressed…unbelievable political cowardice!

There are other stories circulating that say the locals in the region where this took place have become frustrated by night raids and are siding with the Taliban. The only reason this is important is because it is an overt example of what is true - nationwide. There has never been nor shall ever be a reason for the vast majority of Afghan culture or it's people to side with us against a body of their own. While the Taliban may be oppressive in some ways, they are never-the-less, brothers, ideologically while we remain the infidel.

Are we ever going to see a little political courage from the boneheads in DC? How about just 10% of the compassion for our troops on the ground that they show for the general population of Afghanistan? How about 1/2% of the courage displayed by our Upper Echelon Military Leadership and Politicians who approved the firebombing of Tokyo which destroyed 16 square miles of the city and killed an estimated 100,000 and injured another 125,000 and all before the dropping of the two atomic bombs! And this was done because the specter of another possibly 1 million American deaths was repugnant - to American Leadership!

Why aren't American deaths on the battlefield today, as repugnant to our current leadership as they were back then? Why don't the leaders of this country, today, expect the Afghan's to share the devastation of broken families, untimely death of children and other ravages of warfare to secure their own futures?

Why is it only Americans who must "pay the price for freedom" - even the freedom of foreigners who don't relish it?

These are the questions all of us who have experienced loss on the battlefield are asking. The families of those lost in this latest headline grabber will be asking those and other questions as well.

Is anyone in DC ready to justify their wanton destruction of the lives of American Warriors on the plains of Afghanistan…yet?

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

The Media, Absurdity and Knee-Jerk Analysis; Equating the Norway bombing and the Latest Fort Hood Incident.

The latest attempt by a self described, pious member of Islam has brought out the usual bevy of experts not only in psychology, but in religion as well. Typically, these "experts" have little to no actual experience in any religion and show a general distrust, if not disdain for those who do practice one form of religion or another.

I have been chided, on occasion for sharing my faith in these kinds of venues and have made attempts to keep this element of my life out of the conversation. But it is difficult at times to investigate what is clearly evil without the ability to contrast.

What I can tell you is that it requires an actual study of the specific doctrines of specific belief systems in order to be able to legitimately make claims of any kind about them. Those who would arbitrarily lump all religions together and claim them to be equally motivating for ideological murders, destroy their own credibility.

I have always held that the religion cannot be judged by the actions of the individual but that the individual should be judged by the doctrines of the religion. This requires personal study, and mentoring by those who have the study of these religions as their life's pursuit. It also means it requires time and most of the typical prognosticators aren't interested in investing the time. It is far too easy to just lump all ideology together and castigate all who render themselves obedient to them.

Anders Behring Breivik has been touted as a Christian gone crazy, but even a glance at this guy tells a decidedly different story. There is very little in this man's life that suggests he studied or understood the precepts of Christianity, rather, he gave himself over to a fanciful idea of whom he believed the famed Knights Templar of the Crusades were. A study of this monastic order is not the point of this piece. Let's just say that their origin, original mission and actual prowess on the battlefield differs somewhat from source, to source.

What can be said is that there is no mandate, recommendation or commendation, in the New Testament to kill children, women or unarmed men - especially of one's own people. For either the deluded Breivik or the anti-Christian/Jewish media to suggest that this was an act by a pious follower of either faith lacks understanding of either the history or doctrines of both faiths. Breivik's actions were in fact the actions of someone motivated by some internally conjured understanding of honor and a perverted honor driven purpose - not religion.

Conversely; Naser Jason Abdo made it clear that he was a pious Muslim. He is the product of a Muslim Father and a non-denominational "Christian" Mother…

Side Note: I can tell you that any ANY, true, practicing, studied, Christian woman would not marry a Muslim man so it is better stated; a Muslim man who married a woman brought up "in the Christian tradition"…much like our sitting President.

This is the interview where he justified his request for conscientious objector status based on his Islamic faith. Astonishingly, the interviewer never saw the necessity to question why this was a problem for him only after having signed, knowing we were at war with Islamic forces. It now appears his provisionally approved request was halted because investigators found child pornography on his government computer.

This seems to be a common theme with devout jihadists; claim devotion to Allah and Jihad and participate in pornography on the eve of an actual attack. Abdo went AWOL (absent without leave) upon hearing his request for CO status was on hold pending a court martial for the pornography charge. It was during his absence that he determined to kill yet more fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. Undoubtedly, more information will become available as this investigation proceeds but what we do know now, certainly paints a picture a lot closer to Major Nidal Malik Hasan than the deranged Breivik in Norway.

The point is, of course, that there is no relationship between the two men or their individual acts. Their motivations are from entirely different sources; one from a deity and his doctrines and the other from the fertile, if not twisted, mind of the perpetrator.

The Koran is replete with examples of Allah commending and commanding the killing of those who refuse to take a knee before him and we have detailed many of those verses here in the past. Recent history alone records tens of thousands of examples of men and women, claiming allegiance to Islam, killing and maiming and all in the name of Allah. Connecting the dots between the admission of guilt for an act of murder and the coincident adherence to a specific religious doctrine doesn't require work; just a willingness to listen.

Trying to manufacture a connection between a religious ideology and a killer when the killer hasn't identified himself with great specificity as a follower of the religion; is a witch hunt!

Question; Why is the largely agnostic media so hungry to force all ideologies into the same category on one hand and yet seemingly so light handed in it's scrutiny of a religion that has spawned so many brutal ritual murderers, on the other? Add to this the absolute cowardly approach to this point by our representatives in DC, and we are left rudderless in our "attempts" to defend these shores from those who would do us harm.

What is clear, is that those who hold the authority and the power to clearly identify legitimate threats are either incapable or unwilling to do so.

And that is just cause for a lot of sleepless nights!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

The Unabashed Literary Fondling of Petraeus; Architect of American Graves!

Those who know me well enough, know I bleed red blood cells branded with United States Marine Corps emblems. It also follows that as a Marine, I take my Oath very seriously. I have only taken two Oaths; one to the Marine Corps and one other to my Wife. I am still bonded to both. I have been and will continue to be, ready, willing and able to defend both my Corps, my fellow Marines, my Wife, my Daughter and anything else that falls under the purview of those oaths. I hold that as an American, there is nothing on earth as sacred as the lives of Americans and most especially, the lives of those in our Military! Scream if you want to, but shame on all who dare claim to be Americans who are not first and last concerned about this country and this country's citizenry!

Having said that I will take the time to castigate anyone - ANYONE, who maliciously, carelessly or wantonly destroys the lives or well-being of any of the above; although I take no pleasure in it, I will hold all those accountable by this venue who tread on the sacred lives and honor of those precious to me and enveloped by those Oaths.

In spite of the mountain of evidence that has been presented by these venues and by the well studied students of history, Islamic Ideology and the unvarnished realities presented daily by the Afghan, the Iraqi and the Muslim world in general, General David Petraeus has insisted on following what any rational clear thinking Military Leader would have avoided. Rather than pay whatever personal and professional price was necessary to provide our Warriors and by extension, the security of these United States with the first and best strategy to defeat Al Qaida and the Taliban, he chose rather to use a strategy that history records as foolish and he insists on continuing in spite of the mounting harvest of American deaths that are the true fruit of his decision. Add to this the gaggle of JAG prosecutors, gleaning after action reports and frothing at the mouth for an opportunity to prosecute any young American Serviceman they can and his insistence is nothing less than a direct insult to every American Serviceman - and their families, who has ever donned a uniform!

Referring to him as the "architect of counter insurgency doctrine" is another insult; one directed at the Marines who authored the original document. The fact is, the only legitimate use of the strategy was directly after the United States Marine Corps printed it as the Small Wars Manual of 1940. The British used Counter Insurgency Doctrine to drive out the death squads of Mao Tse Tung from the Jungles of Malaya from 1948-1960. I say it was legitimate because the British were heavily invested in the business, governance, protection and daily lives of the Malayan people and the Malayan people were invested in them. In essence, under the leadership of General Templer, the British defended their own territory from an outside, unwanted element - and the Malayan people agreed. There has never existed any similar
type of symbiotic relationship between Afghanistan and the United States. And one more point; T-H-E T-A-L-I-B-A-N A-R-E I-N-D-I-G-E-N-O-U-S!

If the average Afghan is so bloody interested in having our help to eliminate the Taliban, then how come the vast - VAST majority of IED's go unreported until one of our Marines or Soldiers finds it or is destroyed by it?

If Petraeus is such a strategic genius, why hasn't he been able to see what every enlisted man in-country and every retired Military man - Officer and Enlisted seems to be able to see (of course I am not including those who have sold their souls to the political system)?

The greater question is why is so much of the media which is typically all too ready to castigate the average infantryman and some infantry officers as murderers all too willing to fawn over the "great man"? One answer is that they are as lazy in their pursuit of historical truth as he is! They are not nearly as interested in the daily sacrifices made by the average infantryman as they are creating one-more-rock star. After all rock stars sell better and what sells better, propels you further up the ladder and fattens
your wallet.

Some in the media and in political circles are concerned that the average American seems to be so disenchanted with this government that the next election is likely to be an attendance blowout. The newspaper industry is nearly extinct and the main venues of news reporting aren't even doing as well as some Blogs. Are they seriously confused about the reasons the American public no longer trusts them, their opinions or the politicians they report on? Then a quick look at this "masterful" piece of "reporting" should explain why. Just take a look at this little gem published by one of the great news sources. Really? Not one word of derision? Not one, single question about the claims of "success" - even as Afghan Soldiers continue to turn their weapons on American and NATO Marines and Soldiers?

Were any of these claims vetted? Did any editor question whether there was really anything to "celebrate"? Was anyone actually affected by the decisions this man made contacted for a rebuttal? The obvious answer is no! They are too busy being the first to cast the base of the monument to a man who chose to use a dubious strategy, COIN, to first safeguard a people who don't care whether sovereign United States Marines and Soldiers live or die. But by his reckless selection of the strategy governing our troops actions in this ideologically monolithic society hell bent on killing any and all who will not take a knee to Allah, who hold apostasy as the greatest of sins and relish in the burning of those who are, who treat women as animals, who force little girls to marry, who rape and abuse little boys, who deny education to women and little girls, who export drugs as their number one crop, who plan and export death and mutilation to the United States; he has by this choice in strategies intentionally placed the lives of our Sons and Daughters at undue risk and for this, he is applauded!?

Hey "reporters"; get a grip!

Hey Americans; you had better get off your couches and away from the TV set before someone you actually know and care about becomes "fruit" of the "great man's" folly!

Enough!!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

The Specter of Success in COIN. But for Whom?

Juxtaposition is a literary expression of the side-by-side positioning of incongruent terms or ideas. Politics and culture seem to do this as a matter of the normal transaction of day to day business; suggesting that certain ideas or arguments make a point that is polar opposite. Most of the thinking population would describe these attempts to bolster support for an ideal or an idea, deceitful. I would agree but there is something even more devious about this tactic in that while it may be successful in convincing an audience to think or believe a certain way, the real danger is to the wielder of this tactic. At some point they become oblivious to their own act of deceit and begin to believe their own garbage or at least justify it as a must, to meet an "honorable" end.

Curious: If one must lie to achieve a specific goal; can that goal really be considered honorable?

There was a Country and Western song which loosely quoted Alexander Hamilton; "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything". Sadly it has become daily commentary for a government obsessed with compromise which equals giving in on a principle, equals the shedding of truth and honor, equals leadership that is, well, compromised. While the dealing of politics and business in DC may generally lead to some not-so-great legislation that could adversely affect business, savings accounts and our posterity, these things pale in comparison to the decisions (or lack thereof) that directly affect the lives of a small percentage of this population, here and now; our Military.

This political season which will end 1 year and 5 months from now and deliver us our next President, has already compromised on national security. In doing so it has also compromised the lives of the men in our Armed Forces serving on an active battlefield in the midst of a yet unidentified enemy that doesn't seem to be suffering from the same inability to identify us as his enemy. And like pawns deemed expendable in a chess game played by a novice, our Marines and Soldiers continue to be placed side by side with people who deem us an enemy based on the teachings of their deity.

The proponents of COIN doctrine have continued to suggest over, and over again, that there is a component of Afghan society, friendly to us and sharing of our political vision for that country. They are so convinced of this they have been willing to place the Sons and Daughters of this generation shoulder to shoulder with members of Afghanistan's current generation while denying them what every conventional military has used for 6 millennia; fear and force and the will to use them to force our will on the enemy while preserving the lives of their military.

The soft skinned, three-piece suited, environmentally air-conditioned members of Congress and the White House, seem to be equally content to leave our men and women in uniform exposed to the 'non-existent' dangers from the 'unidentified enemy', as well. After all, there are far more difficult things to consider like, the debt ceiling, taxes, the shenanigans of Rupert Murdoch's empire and of course; the coming election. Of course the "watchdog" media is obsessed with the trial of a young woman in Florida, the possible paring of a young starlet and a Marine at the Marine Corps Ball, the Prince and Princess of another country and any number of other truly meaningless events. To say the media, DC and the general public is now completely numb to the plight of the average Warrior abandoned on the battlefield in Afghanistan is really just stating the obvious but even the British are now angered by the apparent waste of their blood and treasure.

Success has apparently been defined and met in Afghanistan, by this administration which announced it will begin a draw down starting this month which will reach 30,000 in time for the election, this coming year. Of course one man's success is another's abysmal failure but when all of the media and all of the statistical experts are in your corner, it is easy to craft a story that is supportive of your claim to success - regardless of the actual evidence to the contrary. I won't delineate the "evidence" used by this Administration or Congress to back their claims, just watch the news.

I would like to suggest that 1400 years of ideological history and the nearly 5000 years of habitation there paint a picture of a people who are not going to change their minds or their ways and are certainly not going to "westernize" nor become fast friends with us. The past ten years, excluding the first 6 months, have shown us that trying to convince the citizenry there of our majestic vision for their future has met with mixed reviews - at best. At worst, it has cost the lives of hundreds dead and thousands disfigured; physically and mentally. The trend toward an anti-American and anti-ISAF culture there seems to be growing - not subsiding. Consider the events of just a week:

1. The weekend of 09 July 2011, two Americans, one Iowan National Guardsman and a civilian contractor are gunned down by an Afghan National Intelligence Service who also wounded another Guardsman before being killed himself. The debacle that followed including angry local Afghan's surrounding the unit, nearly ended with more Americans being killed.

2. 12 July 2011, Ahmed Wali Karzai, half brother of Afghan president, is killed by a "trusted confidant". My entire interest in Afghanistan revolves around just two issues; first that those who would do this country harm are dealt with - finally and second for the welfare of our Warriors. Karzai's brother and family welfare don't make my list of concerns but one has to ask just how this fits the Petraeus/Obama model of success?

3. 13 July 2011, 5 French Service Members are killed by a suicide bomber on the very day that Karzai is in Kandahar to mourn his brother's death (can it actually be considered murder if an Afghan Islamic Soldier kills an apparent apostate?)

4. 14 July 2011, in an apparent violation of a "gentlemen's agreement" within the religious community there that tolerate/respect the wearing of Turbans by some members in the Mosque, a member killed 3 Imams and wounded 15 others by detonating a bomb hidden in his turban.

5. 16 July 2011, another as yet unidentified NATO Soldier is killed by a member of the Afghan National Army. Of course, ISAF was quick to suggest he might just be "someone" wearing the uniform but Taliban spokesmen were clear he was not one of them. The dirt-bag ran away after killing the soldier.

6. 16 July 2011, yet another NATO soldier was killed - in his quarters, by an Afghan National Soldier who the Taliban claim was a sleeper agent….Sleeper agent or not; the vetting/non-vetting process cleared this dirt-bag for service and now one more soldier will not be returning home to his family.

I want to thank M.J. Green's tireless efforts in 'cataloguing' these latest pieces of evidence "chronicling COIN success" - at least as defined by this administration. I would also like to suggest you all read a piece by Andrew Bostom which provides some insight into the "success" story in Iraq. He provides not only a glimpse at the preposterousness of the continued suggestion that COIN has changed anything there but a look at the British history there and their perspective from their attempt, in the 1930's.

In addition; please stop by Diana West's Blog to read her perspective on these and other interesting details that seem to not be included in the equation of Strategic success; operating under COIN in a predominately Muslim culture and as defined by Politicians.

It is important to keep what our political establishment considers success in mind as we delve ever deeper into the "evolutionary" processes of other Muslim nations across the region because what they have deemed successful in Iraq and Afghanistan will be tried in other areas.

Our Warriors will continue to be tasked with the whims of the ignorant in DC and will continue to pay a price.

Are you now ready to demand change from your elected officials or are you satisfied with these weekly tallies which define success; for the enemy, yet unidentified?

Our Warriors are waiting…..

Visit www.letthemfight.blogspot.com

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

'Friendly Persuasion' Subverted the Enemy Assessment Process and Robbed Our Warriors of a Chance to Win and Survive in Afghanistan; Three- years-Ago!

Part III

The Message, Apathy and Malfeasance

The Message:

The message in Coughlin's thesis, "To Our Great Detriment", is principally that ignoring so major a doctrine based ideology as Islam and refusing to consider it's potential for motivating it's followers is foolish. This is especially true when the enemy you are about to engage or the people you are about to surround your Warriors with, are uniformly beholding to that ideology.

No one can deny that Islam is the predominate religion of Afghanistan to the tune of 99+%. No one can deny that Allah is their God. No one can deny that they all submit to Jihad, and live by the doctrines like Taqiyya and Kitman. If this is true then why the aversion to doing what men have done since the dawn of warfare; study the enemy and his doctrines?

Throughout history men have considered the religions of their enemies and considered the religion's role in motivating men and providing them with the endurance needed to continue in a prolonged conflict with an enemy. Conquering Armies from the time of Joshua to Sennacherib, Hitler to Stalin and in history in between, and since have recognized the value of religion in motivating men to endure the hardships of battle and the willingness to fight, mutilate and die for their deities and their doctrines.

General Orders have been given not only to stifle the religions and places of worship of whole populations but to destroy edifices and places of worship in recognition of their power over the people.

The phrase 'religious ideology', is not of necessity tied to a spiritual deity but is always tied to an entity - alive or spiritually existent. It is also something that defines a significant part of the person who chooses to take on that ideology. Separating the ideology from the adherent is work that Missionaries do simply by sharing opposing ideologies. Sometimes this is effective and sometimes it fails. Failures of this kind are catastrophic for the Missionary often ending with the killing of the Missionary and his family.

In the first few pages of his thesis, Coughlin quotes from a speech by General Peter Pace who declares;

"Remember Hitler; Remember he wrote Mein Kampf. He said in writing exactly what his plan was and we collectively ignored that to our great detriment. Now, our enemies have said publicly on film, on the Internet, their goal is to destroy our way of life."

How strange that we can collectively understand the tragedy of that statement as it relates to a conflict in history but not understand that the principle it teaches is timeless. While Mein Kapf relayed the principles and doctrines of a socio-economic structure, those who believed in it followed it with the same vigor as any religious adherent. How much more should we expect, then, from a religious adherent who by willing submission to a deity also submits to the revelations and precepts of the religion?

Coughlin also exposed what is second to the potential dangers of the literal teachings of Jihad doctrine. Quoting from Jeff Stein, national security editor for Congressional Quarterly;

{He}"exposed the depth of the deficit among senior Washington decision-makers, including those with direct responsibility for WOT related issues. Leading into the elections, in a New York Times article titled “Can you tell a Sunni from a Shi’ite?,” Stein caused a stir by demonstrating that most American officials interviewed “did not have a clue” about the most basic issues concerning Islam."

This is a sad commentary and completely inexcusable because these cretins we call public servants have been making uninformed decisions FOR TEN YEARS, that have cost the lives and limbs of tens of thousands of this generation's best! Not only have their decisions been uninformed, but intentionally so.

Some will ask, then, why a study wasn't ordered…Well; it was, within the Department of Defense under Deputy Secretary Gordon England but that study which is the subject of this piece, was effectively buried by an ideological mole by the name of Hesham Islam and England himself. The study was the victim of an apathetic and uneducated if not cowardly pool of Congressional Representatives and Senators and the poor professional ethics portrayed by England.

Coughlin's study makes the case, over and over again, that the religion and it's supporting texts, scholars and studies declare the religion and it's exhortations are for "believers" to actively support and be part of Jihad as understood in the latter verses. From page 10 of the thesis;

"From the English language translation of the Saudi-published Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’an in the English Language, one can read “Appendix III -- The Call to Jihad -- (Holy Fighting for Allah in the Qur’an Statement),” written by Saudi Arabia’s Chief Justice, and learn that jihad --holy fighting in Allah’s Cause -- is a requirement of Islam:"

"The Verses of the Qur'an and the Sunnah (the Prophet's legal ways, orders) exhort Muslims greatly to take part in Jihad and have made quite clear its rewards, and praised greatly those who perform Jihad (the holy fighting in Allah's Cause) and explained to them various kinds of honours which they will receive from their Lord (Allah). This is because they -Mujahidin are Allah's troops. Allah will establish His religion (Islam), through them (Mujahidin). He will repel the might of His enemies, and through them He will protect Islam and guard the religion safely. And it is they (Mujahidin) who fight against the enemies of Allah in order that the worship should be all for Allah (Alone and not for any other deity) and that the Word of Allah (i.e. none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and His religion Islam) should be superior."

The very Scholars of Islam make it imperative to understand the tenets and principles of any teaching from the progenitors of those doctrines rather than from our own history and teachings. Trying to imbue our desire for these teachings upon the adherents or their doctrines is not only futile, but doomed to fail. It amounts to a dog chasing his own tail.

The thesis continually draws a distinction between the language of the western ideal and Islamic teaching. Whenever the subject of "terrorist" acts comes up for instance, the question that follows leads to misleading answers; does "true" Islam teach terrorist acts are permissible? Of course the typical answer to the typical infidel is no. However it is important to remember that one man's terrorist act is another man's righteous act in combat. An example is the underground movement in France, Belgium and other European countries during World War II. We, as a nation supported those efforts with rhetoric and war materiel. The German soldier however saw those acts in a far different light.

It is easy to mark the acts committed by "Islamic extremists" as different by virtue of their seeming indifference to the wanton killing of civilians but not so if you consider their understanding of the civilians they kill. For them, those civilian deaths are just as justifiable as the killing of infidel soldiers because those particular civilians fall into one of two categories; (1) non-believers and (2) apostates. In both cases, by the chronologically defined latter verses and keeping the doctrine of abrogation in mind, Allah permits and even commends the killing of these two groups. The killing of civilians that fall into these two categories while killing infidel troops, then, is win, win.

Again; trying to confine the religion of Islam, as defined by the Prophet and the Scholars of the religion, within the constraints of western concepts, reaps a wrong-headed understanding of the religion and it's mandates for the believer. Coughlin's entire effort was to provide insight into the religion as seen through the eyes of the Prophet, the Caliphs and the Scholars; unfiltered and without bias. Consider this from page 44 of the thesis;

"Because the paper seeks to reflect the broader consensus view, Islamic authorities

and authoritative sources relied on will be those demonstrating broad acceptance within the four orthodox schools of Sunni Islamic law - the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali– as reflected by the broad acceptance of those authorities in the historical writings on jihad. For this reason, while reference to Hanbali authorities may be used to round out representation of the four doctrinal schools, this paper will not rely on Hanbali law to establish the doctrinal authority of any point of law. The decision is purposeful and based on three reasons. First, a review of “extremist” literature from Wahhabi groups like al-Qaeda reveals that they rely on the writings of the authorities from all the schools, including those used in this thesis. Extremists rely on these authorities not only because they are recognized among the broader Islamic community but also because, by using them, they can genuinely demonstrate that jihad -- as they define it -- actually is a requirement of Islam for all Muslims."

When you keep the doctrine of Taqiyya in mind, it renders any Islamic renunciation of terrorist acts, or any defense of Jihad as a 'personal inner struggle with sin' or the many other declarations by true adherents as suspect especially when the very Apostles of the religion say something radically different. Deceit as a weapon in the war to subjugate the world to the teachings of Islam becomes the single most effective weapon if it keeps the infidel forces off balance and forces them to adopt battlefield strategies and practices that weaken their ability on the battlefield.

For a military organization to employ Counter Insurgency Doctrine in a religiously monolithic society that upholds deceit and cunning as proper in the day to day transaction of business with unbelievers as righteous and sanctified by the deity of that society is sophomoric and doomed to fail. And yet that is the road the General Grade Officers of this nation chose to do. There can only be one of two reasons they did so; they are either incredibly poor strategists or they proceeded with faulty or incomplete information.

Over and over again, Coughlin allows the teachings and beliefs of those in authority within the structure of the religion to inform those reading his thesis. Let's remember that the purpose of the thesis was to analyze the religion, it's doctrines and demands on it's adherents and ultimately, then, the likely affect they would have on a population of people ensconced in a culture controlled by this religion.

Coughlin's own notes from page 34 define his definition of doctrine along with a recent example of this nation studying the doctrine of a then current enemy in order to better understand them from a cultural and martial perspective:

Author’s Note on Doctrine. Through the Cold War, national security analysts and

decision-makers evaluated the Soviet threat based on its known doctrine. Soviet military commanders trained their forces using Soviet war-fighting doctrine and their competencies and capabilities were evaluated based on their conformance to it. When commanders deviated, they were evaluated to determine if they broke from it because they were inadequate to the task or whether instead they exceeded its parameters through sheer command of the operational art. In all cases, the evaluation was templated against the Soviet doctrine that defined their rules of engagement. If, rather than evaluating Soviet military commanders based on their doctrine, national security analysts and decision-makers used U.S. war-fighting standards, those analysts and decision-makers would have concluded that Soviet war-fighting was incoherent and therefore difficult to explain rationally. A Soviet meeting engagement was not the same as a U.S. movement to contact. This was true even as they appeared the same in battle because they reflected two different concepts of the battle based on competing theories of war. Islam is not Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism. Islamic law is not U.S. Constitutional, English common or European civil law. Hence, to measure against those standards, or to allow Current Approach advocates to explain along those lines, is to find incoherence and an inability to explain – or predict – the rational decisions of a rational threat. This often leads one to erroneously conclude that we are facing an irrational threat making irrational decisions. Before being able to generate the ability to reliably plan against terrorism perpetuated in the name of Islam, one must first know Islamic doctrine and then Islamic doctrine as it relates to Islamic concepts of war. To be able to do this, one must first read their doctrine.

What a unique concept; studying the enemy and his doctrines in order to better understand him and the effect of his doctrines - whatever they might be, on his decision-making processes.

Does anyone want to argue that a culture or country with a 99% adherence to Islam is not likely to have some of that teaching affecting their day-to-day decisions - especially as they pertain to a common enemy; an enemy as defined by the sacred writings of the "one true prophet", having been received through revelation by their god? And if we can agree that ignoring information of this kind to be not only irresponsible but potentially catastrophic, then what does it say about a person or persons who deliberately withheld a well appointed thesis from consideration in a process designed to improve our chances on the battlefield and reduce our casualties? What can we then say about our current government and their continued disregard for this treasonous episode and the intentional diversion of this information from those who could use it to save lives; American lives?

Conclusion

I first heard of this story a little over a year and a half ago and instantly realized the ramifications of the actions of all involved on our war effort and most importantly, our Warriors. That either makes me one of the most insightful people in the world, or suggests something very devious about those whose sworn duty it was to provide the most accurate and timely appraisal of the human terrain in Afghanistan. This information was critical to facilitating our Warriors ability to win this war by vanquishing an incalcitrant and ideologically motivated enemy and the survival of our Warriors amidst an ideologically driven population.

I humbly suggest the latter.

It defies logic to think that people who have been rewarded with rank and appointments to lofty positions in the upper echelons of the defense structure, could collectively miss such important information by sheer chance. It also seems highly unlikely that there would be a confluence of personal gut feelings, knee-jerk, politically correct attitudes and chance that would so affect the entire upper echelon military structure to the point of intellectual paralysis. What does seem clear, is that the continual campaign-mode attitude in DC with it's politically correct vision of this ideology and the one billion people who have made a free will choice to subjugate themselves to it's doctrines were waiting for a convenient pass. It also appears that the upper echelon Military structure was awaiting the same. If there were those who did not fall under the trance, they lacked the political and personal courage it required to define the enemy at the time. The sad thing is, they still lack the courage and now the vision. Both got what they wanted and needed, and like Pontious Pilate, they washed their hands and ceded responsibility to someone else and in this case, the good Islamic soldier, Hesham Islam.

Hesham Islam, and his associates in ISNA and MB were successful in piercing the security of the Pentagon and Gordon England's better judgment and in so doing, caused the citizenry of Afghanistan to be declared 'friendly and oppressed' and needing the protection of America and her Allies. It also successfully caused this country's war planners to decree an Afghan phenomenon, The Taliban, an insurgency not known or wanted by the average, Afghan citizen. The reality is, the Taliban are Afghan and are of the citizenry, supported by the citizenry and recruited from the citizenry. Even the Pentagon's defense of COIN strategy testifies to this truth. Over, and over again they have told us that not making heroic attempts to preserve the lives of the "innocent" in Afghanistan would cause them (the "innocent" Afghan's), to join the Taliban.

This schizophrenic defense has been allowed to stand and even thrive by a media lacking any regard for their first obligation as American citizens to actively engage in the defense of this nation and this government's lack of intestinal fortitude to declare our current enemy - the enemy. A curious thing being as they have made it clear for nearly as long as we have been a nation. Stranger still being as the doctrine they have chosen to believe is 1400 years old.

NOTE: Had Coughlin's thesis been studied, what has since come to be the war doctrine in Afghanistan, would never have been considered. The entire Defense department and military establishment has been guided to 'another rail' by the complaint of a man the FBI deemed a security risk with questionable loyalties.

Essentially, England allowed a personal relationship with a person of questionable design for this country to divert his attention from his sworn duty to support and defend the Constitution and the security of this nation. In so doing:

1. He pulled the thesis and removed Coughlin from the project. The result was an assessment without consideration of the possible ramifications of a, religious and ideologically motivated enemy for our forces on the ground. In addition, it yielded a skewed understanding of the "innocent civilian" population there and the possibility of collusion to our detriment. The persistent mantra that the Taliban is an "insurgent militancy" continues to poison the well of reason and absolutely no legitmate consideration is given to the relationship between the insurgency and the local population. This continues to hamper the ability of local commanders to deal, realistically, with the threat faced by our Warriors on the ground. It does so strategically and personally for there is an eager gaggle of lawyers gleaning after action reports, seeking which American Warriors they might prosecute - and the entirety of our Military; knows it.

2. This led directly to the adoption of COIN and it's disastrous ROE. For if in fact the local population did not agree either with the Taliban or their ideological motives, an argument could be made that a properly waged Counter Insurgency operation could succeed. But if, in fact, the population had been misjudged and the affect of their shared ideology ignored or underestimated, COIN could in effect finish the job an underequipped militant force could not. The evidence is to the latter. Our government's current efforts to woo the Taliban are not only fruit of a failed strategy - they are repugnant and an insult to the incredible valor displayed by the average PFC and LCpl!

The consequence is that the total number of American deaths suffered in Afghanistan at least since June 2009 as well as Afghan civilian deaths can be attributed to this failure to adhere to proper and secure relationships, free of the perils of fraternization by England and the subversive conduct of Islam.

3. Coughlin's report has never been gleaned for impact on the war strategy by the people who wrote the orders and selected the strategy although Coughlin has been asked to present his material to deploying units at the behest of the base and unit commanders being held to the most stringent elements of COIN doctrine. Although his thesis is readily available in PDF format online, the upper most echelons of civilian and military leadership as well as our collective Congressional representation have stubbornly refused to read it and consider it's conclusions.

The cost of the illicit relationship between Islam and England has effectively destroyed any possibility of military success in Afghanistan and contributed to a far less secure America by virtue of our having effectively abandoned the battlefield and allowed the Taliban, the enemy, to exploit the vacuum and our perceived weakness in not maintaining pressure on the Taliban due to the doctrinal restraints of COIN "warfare"; and this because Hesham Islam through Gordon England, ensured the information in Coughlin's thesis was never scrutinized by those whose job it was to properly assess the "human terrain" in Afghanistan.

Our follow on decisions in Libya, Syria, Yemen and the others that-will-follow are evidence that the particulars of that same faulty assessment have contaminated our world-wide perspective of Islam and it's motivational affect on civilian and military populations alike. The current unrest in Iraq and threats from Al Sadr's Al-Mahdi militancy to attack American forces still on the ground in Iraq, punctuate our continued misunderstanding of the implications of a religiously motivated population.

The question that begs asking is whether the intentional deflection by Hesham Islam from a full and proper analysis and the failure in judgment of England rises to the level of a treasonous act. For most; the radical associations of Hesham Islam and his subsequent forced resignation, ended the entire episode…But not for the hundreds of thousands of American Warriors forced to perform under the most stringent set of rules ever experienced in the annals of warfare.

And what of Coughlin and his thesis?

As for Hesham Islam, what is certain is that his most affective single act of "service" was to his religion and not for this country during his years "of service" or, for that matter as a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Regardless of what we, as Americans choose to believe about this man or his religion, the fact is he managed to get the single piece of evidence buried that would have caused the order writers who were reconsidering our posture in Afghanistan and would have forced the General Grade Officers in charge of the operation there to consider alternate strategies rather than rolling COIN doctrine from the battlefield in Iraq, to the battlefield in Afghanistan without so much as a blink.

And the best of this generation continue to pay the price and our current crop of representatives continue to ignore the cost….Except at grave sites!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard