Another American Prostrates himself and his Country Before the Intolerant and Unforgiving!

In a world where every aberrant act, every self-inflicted malady and every vice is considered an epidemic, we most certainly need to add to the list the act of prostrating oneself and by extension, his country for every single assumed infraction of societal and ideological moray in every minor culture in the world!

As an American, watching senior Officers and Elected Officials continually apologizing for one piece of inanity or another has passed from bothersome to an active insult to the American people! And even if an unhealthy percentage of this population is not insulted by this most despicable of trends; many of us are! These Officers and our elected officials fail to understand they do not represent the many foreign cultures of the world and they certainly are not properly representing us by continuing to prostrate themselves and by extension, us for every little suggestion of insensitivity toward the delicate mental state of the ideologically unhinged.

This latest example was provoked by a gaggle of angry Afghan protestors who were reacting to a story that the Koran or even several copies of the Koran had been disposed of – unceremoniously. If anyone had read the actual account, they would have learned that the copies that were discarded and burned belonged to EPW’s (Enemy Prisoners of War) being held on Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. They were confiscated when it was determined that the EPW’s were using the Koran as an illicit messaging system to communicate with one another.

For those of you who do not understand the implications of that little piece of information, allowing EPW’s access to one another overtly or covertly, increases the chances of everything from an escape attempt to violent acts against their guards. Removing the Koranic message pads, was not only good judgment, it was necessary and may have saved lives – American lives.

Varying versions of the story have indicated as few as 100 and as many as 2000 “noble” Afghan’s had “assembled” for a protest of the alleged desecration of the Koran. These “peaceful” and “noble” protestors threw rocks and firebombs at security forces in anger over the insensitive handling of their “holy” book.

Just an aside; why is it that protestors, whether on this side of the big pond, or the other, are considered sincere, peaceful and righteous when they employ actions that endanger the very lives of those around them but when someone lodges a peaceful, verbal or written complaint they are being unreasonable, hate-filled and even racist? And why is it that if someone were to burn the Bible – unceremoniously or otherwise that the same kind of reaction to that act would not also be seen as reasonable? Why is it we tolerate these acts of intolerance only from the “noble” Islamic adherent?

A video shows the American Officer in charge of ISAF expounding on the horrors of the handling of the Islamic text as he tries to assure his Afghan audience and the Muslim world in general that this whole episode was just an unfortunate accident and under investigation. His public Nostrum Mendum would have been at least a little balanced if he had also mentioned that the Korans in question had already been desecrated by the Islamic EPW’s who were the original owners and who were using them as, essentially, a combat notebook. Do you suppose the “noble” protestors would have been as incensed by that knowledge? Do you think they would have demanded those Islamic prisoners be handed over for a “proper chastisement”? Or is this episode just another indication of the intolerance of a people ensconced in a religious ideology that preaches and demands intolerance of others?

Where were those “noble” Afghan protestors when eleven (yes, 11) Afghan policemen opened fire on NATO troops two days ago? And for that matter, did this Officer or his US political “handlers” care enough about that attack and the countless other attacks that have occurred in the past three years, to denounce them publically, to the “noble” Afghan?

I can’t seem to find that video anywhere…

I was also wondering why it is so imperative that we, as a nation be “sensitive” to the intolerance of a people who would just as soon have our heads on several pikes while admonishing our very same population for not being tolerant enough of others?

This goes far beyond the discussion of double standards. We are now firmly engaged in the psychologically sick act of self-destruction. We are no longer satisfied to consider ourselves or the actions of our predecessors loathsome, we are now obsessed with ensuring our own destruction as a nation, a culture and a people. Our leadership is no longer interested in right or wrong, truth or lie, acts of desecration or accidental disposal, the survival of our nation or the perception of our strength. All that really counts is ensuring the most despicable people and cultures of this world truly believe our heartfelt apology – for existing and that we will continue to strive for the total annihilation of our culture, our society, our population.

The country I heard about, read about and was taught about as a child seems to have vaporized. The dream that was the vision of our founding fathers and that was kept alive even through the generation of my parents and a sizeable portion of my generation, has been circumvented by a sub-culture of prostrating, anti-American self-mutilators who seem to think they represent all of us.

I have sad news for you; you don’t!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Obama Seeks New Ways to Insult the American Warrior Community!

While I understand that only a fraction of the population of this nation is directly affected by what you are about to read, I would never-the-less like to remind you that the remainder of the population is affected coincidentally. While the majority of the American population probably never even considered the Armed Forces as a possible career objective, there are those who never considered life without serving their country, in uniform, on a field of combat. Most of these young men and women never take the time to internalize some idealized vision of charging death for God and Country, they just have a burning desire for the call on their lives to do so and then, most importantly, they act!

President Obama, however, was apparently never burdened with that urgent call to serve others – or his country selflessly. And because the only thing he ever answered to was a call to “self-empowerment” and self-ingratiation, he has been a brutal failure as a moral leader and Commander in Chief. In addition, his unquenchable desire to “win over” that portion of the world population to whom he has sold his soul has led him to a new round of actions that should anger every red blooded American and will disgust every American who has ever donned the uniform of a United States Marine!

This week, President Obama blocked legislation that would hold Iran accountable for
the Hezbollah bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines in 1983 . This inexplicable move hasn’t any bearing on the current crisis except for it’s ability to tilt world opinion in favor of US interests. The Obama administration’s actions to derail this legislation in Congress, then, can only be seen as an effort to bolster support for the Iranian regime which can only be understood through the prism of this sitting President’s indefatigable efforts to “reconcile” with the Islamic nations of the world.

If three plus years of his purposeful attempts to insult the country he has sworn to defend through his many prostrating speeches on Islamic soil and this latest otherwise despicable move haven’t enlightened you, then maybe this next story will help finish your education!

As of February 1^st 2012, President Obama has determined that Combat Pay for US forces will be determined by a new criteria. In general, Afghanistan has been deemed a combat zone and all US forces deployed in that region have been eligible for combat pay due to the certainty of encountering dirt-bags in firefights, ambushes, IED’s or suicide bombings. This new policy now requires having been shot at first. For those not understanding the problem with this, it now says that the US Government has effectively declared Afghanistan a “safe zone”! And this in spite of the nearly daily reports of Americans being either wounded or killed!

This newest insult is certainly an effort to bolster what will be his campaign claim to have “pacified” Afghanistan during his tenure and having kept one of his last campaign promises to bring all troops home by the end of his first term. But here again is where perception, does not align with reality. In a land where the Taliban are given new control over the country by our unwillingness to hold them accountable in combat and where discussions of “peace talks” include promises to release known murderous thugs back onto the battlefield where our troops still operate, the Taliban have made it clear they are not only not in talks but that they are not interested.

Is this the “safe” Afghanistan where Warriors are still forced to patrol daily, are wounded in daily, killed in daily, betrayed by Afghan Soldiers and Police Cadets, daily and which the Obama Administration has now effectively declared no longer a combat zone?

So once again, the health and well-being of our Warriors will suffer for political expedience. In addition, all troops fired upon, wounded or killed by our “Afghan partners” will not be viewed as combat deaths but fratricide/murder, making those incidents criminal acts. This will affect the way United States Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Coast Guardsmen who are wounded or killed in that polluted land are treated by this government. It will also most likely change the SGLI eligibility status from non-taxable to taxable!!

Are things clearing up now??

These latest actions by this sitting President would be curious and difficult to understand if his actions in the first months of his administration had not been so telling. When one of the first actions in a President’s term is to give a speech on foreign soil, to people who are spiritually opposed to our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and who we know have supported terrorist acts across the world, these newest actions can only be described as part of some subversive plan. Let’s not forget that he “apologized” for the United States in that and following speeches to yet other foreign, Islamic audiences and in at least one meeting, prostrated himself to his Muslim host which had the affect of subjugating the United States and it’s citizenry to that “host”.

It remains a mystery why no one in Congress has seen fit to decry either of these last two outrages which should give you an indication of the current condition of the heart of leadership in this country.

This election cycle certainly won’t give DC the enema it needs or deserves but it could have the affect of sending a message to all those who dare suggest they are fit for leadership on the national stage. People seeking to “serve” on the national stage need to know that their personal proclivities toward self-aggrandizement will no longer be tolerated. They need to know that the American voter will be educated and engaged in the political process and that our first concern is for the future security of this nation and that vision includes those who are actively serving in regions of the world into which they have been thrust.

The people of this nation need to realign their priorities and put Honor first; not only in their own lives but in their requirement for those they would have represent them. Our Warriors have done that by the simple act of stepping forward and raising their right hands.

They should at least be afforded the dignity of having the dangerous space they operate in continue to be declared a combat zone!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

New York Times Laments the loss of income for Afghan businesses!

After ten years of nearly constant derisiveness and complacency toward force protection and convenient ignorance of policies that have caused the severe wounding and killing of thousands of American Servicemen, The New York Times took the time to write about the loss of income for Afghan businesses in Afghanistan. The businesses they were lamenting have been thriving for most of these past ten years on what they declared to be 54 billion dollars in aid skimmed largely from US government coffers at the expense of the American Taxpayer; taxpayers, President Obama and his” port side” colleagues feel aren’t paying enough to support government ventures as it is now.

The New York Times shouldn’t fret, however, for it is just a matter of time before the appropriate Federal Department makes the case that in order for the training effort to be successful, we will have to continue to financially support the effort. It is important for the Times to reconsider it’s perception of Afghan businesses as entrepreneurial genius and see them for what they truly are; the pragmatic exploitation of funding by Islam’s spiritual enemies from the west. It is also worth their while to consider appearance of transformation within that society for what it is; Islamic pragmatism.

It should not be lost on the reader that this story was released on the same day that it was reported that another Afghan Soldier turned his weapon on a NATO Soldier, killing him. And this on the very same day that the Obama administration announced it’s intentions to end “combat operations” in Afghanistan (such as they are), in 2013. ISAF will then turn it’s attention entirely to training and support operations; the very type of operation that has bred the kind of contempt and danger-close proximity that has made our forces such inviting targets.

We are now approaching 70 US and NATO Soldiers and Marines who have been killed in the past four years at the hands of their “Afghan Partners”. And these murders have taken place during a time when the overall force numbers have been at their highest and when there was at least a perception that the United States and ISAF was interested in bringing the fight to the “enemy”. What is truly remarkable is that the entire government chooses to define these murderous attacks as ‘aberrations’ in an otherwise normal environment.

If 70 people were sickened in this country of 311 million by a new virus, in the same period of time, everyone from the CDC to Homeland Security and the White House would be declaring an epidemic if not a pandemic. Instead, they continue to violate their collective conscience by perpetuating the lie.

On an encouraging note, Lawmakers heard from military sources closer to the problem and the perception of those sources is worth noting. While they admitted that stopping these kinds of attacks was unlikely, they displayed an incredible naiveté by declaring; “…most attacks have come from members of the Afghan forces "acting intentionally yet independently…". While I agree with that assessment, they naively – or deceptively, offered it up as a defense for their incredibly poor insight into the psyche of a people whose vision of their place in the world is diametrically opposed to ours. They insist that these attacks are an aberration in an otherwise sane world and therefore no serious threat to the men and women compelled to live in such close proximity to their Afghan students, practically inviting such attacks.

The fact that these attacks are largely by individuals and not part of a known militant element makes them more dangerous than an organized militant force. It is a glaring indication of a level of personal corruption that cannot be predicted or corralled. It also provides a view of the Afghan our blinded leadership still hasn’t come to grips with. In a land where one religious ideology rules the minds, lives and perceptions of an entire population and where certain doctrines within that religion call for the killing of those who have not submitted to that religion, it is not only plausible but likely that these kinds of attacks will continue to increase in direct proportion to the draw down and our unwillingness to address them with violent retribution.

This story also states that 75 percent of the 45 incidences which have occurred since 2007 have occurred in the past 2 years! I am sure our sworn government will have a logical explanation for the increase that does not also suggest an increase in the level of inspiration to exploit our ever weakening posture there.

The fact is, declaring these murders which are increasing in regularity as anything but an aberration just doesn’t support the narrative and as any politician will tell you, the narrative is more important than reality when the perception of reality governs the minds of voters. The lives of Warriors have been determined to be nothing more than materiel for the political machine which all candidates – and this sitting President have proven by the almost total lack of foreign policy discussion thus far. At a time when this country is embroiled in a war that has claimed thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of wounded, it is not just unconscionable that foreign policy has not been discussed at length, it is astoundingly unethical and immoral!

The candidates and this President, by their silence have proven themselves to be callous and uncaring about our Warriors of whom so much has been asked. This is not only a disgraceful way to treat this current generation of Warriors, it has also had the effect of jeopardizing the future security of this nation by causing this next generation to reconsider the ramifications of serving a government that holds it’s Warriors in such low esteem!

How this primary season turns out is made almost incidental by the continual disregard shown to those who sacrifice so much, for so little.

If the only concern expressed in this election cycle is for money, jobs and more money, will it really make any difference in the end who takes the reigns in 2014? If the American people are so shallow as to not demand more from their candidates than what they have shown so far, do they have any right to hope for a better four years than what they have experienced in these last three?

For those who are not getting it, I will break it down for you; as long as there are men and women, in uniform, thrust into harm’s way, the first and last thing discussed by these candidates, by the news outlets and even in discussions over morning coffee, should be the state of that war and the well-being of those who have been compelled to sacrifice their lives because what is at stake, is lives while money, is just money!

If you know those who think differently, it is most likely because they have never sacrificed of themselves and have never been asked to sacrifice those they loved.

Do I really expect more from the New York Times? No; they are a business looking at the bottom line. Truth is not a line on the balance sheet! The American people however, would do well to look into their souls and take account because someone is outside the wire insuring your right to self-examination in relative safety!

God protect the Warrior!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Unreasonable Risk and Ill-Conceived Combat Missions!

During an exchange with a Senatorial Aide, I received from him the link to a piece written by a Colonel Tony Pfaff, USA. The piece is entitled, 'RISK, MILITARY ETHICS AND IRREGULAR WARFARE'. In this piece the Colonel details the problems encountered in asymmetrical combat, the unwieldy and artificially established parameters thrust upon not only unit field leaders but upon individual combatants as well.

He refers to the 'absurdities' created in an environment created by the unusual mix of non-combatants, friendly combatants and 'irregular' fighters. The absurdities he refers to amount to forcing friendly combatants to measure the value of life on a sliding scale with the non-combatant at the top and the friendly combatant at the bottom. To his credit, he makes it clear that a commander should never take the indefensible position of not considering protection of his force when planning and carrying out the mission.

The main problem with the piece is that while it accurately portrays the combatant as being the instrument through which a sovereign nation can project violence to protect it's citizenry and thus rightly assumes risk on it's behalf, it never-the-less tries to equate all human life. From the vantage point of a government's responsibility to it's citizenry, that should never be an issue. From a strictly objective view point and certainly through the eyes of our Founding Fathers and our Constitution, all men are indeed created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights "by their creator". The problem, however, is that men are free to determine for themselves who that "creator" is and whether he has indeed established that standard for literally all men or if he has decreed that unbelievers should be brutalized, and killed.

While I do recognize and agree with the Founding Fathers on the rights of all men, I do not see the world as flat. I recognize that there are indeed men who have given themselves to ideologies that run counter to our unique understanding of that vision and that some men in fact hold ill in their hearts for any who do not believe as they do. Such are they who hold to the doctrines of Islam and the entire population in Afghanistan stands in excess of 98% compliant with that religion.

Colonel Pfaff continues and quotes from Walzter:

"While commanders are expected to conserve soldiers’ lives as a matter of military necessity, the demands of irregular warfare—where support of the local population is critical to mission accomplishment—place almost all the risk associated with conducting operations onto the soldier.

The difficulty for the standard view [conventional warfare] is that when choosing where to transfer risk—mission, enemy civilians, or themselves—combatants must always choose to transfer risk to themselves, except when the mission itself is at stake. By placing friendly combatants lowest in priority in terms of risk avoidance, one effectively denies them the right to life. By denying them the right to life, they are denied the protection of the state they are defending. This view is explicitly held by Walzer who notes:

“The immediate problem is that soldiers who do the fighting …lose the rights they are supposedly defending. They gain war rights as combatants and potential prisoners, but they can now be attacked and killed at will by the enemy. Simply by fighting … they have lost their rights to life and liberty … and they have lost it, even though, unlike aggressors states, they have committed no crime.” [13]"

Doesn't this by necessity draw into question the efficacy of COIN warfare? While history demonstrates not only the unusual risks associated with this sort of campaign, it also illustrates the futility of defining mission accomplishment in an environment where the local population and/or the government is not equally invested to the point of willingness to sacrifice their own lives for their own benefit. The popularized phrase, "winning of hearts and minds" in itself is a damning indictment of the reluctance of the local population to even agree with the "liberating force". And if they must be "convinced" first, was there ever an emergency of conscience to begin with?

This is a further indictment against our Sovereign leader's ability to define the enemy and separate them from the "non-combatant/innocents" in that country. It should also force us to reconsider just how far from the original mission of retribution for the actions of 9/11 we have strayed!

The Colonel then moves the discussion from combat operations to law enforcement with such fluidity as to suggest they not only should exist simultaneously, but says that the Soldier and Marine should be expected to operate in both environments, alternately, with ease. While that may seem reasonable as an operation ages and in fact did happen in both Japan and Germany in the forties, it is worthy to note that the transition there did not occur until after Germany and Japan had capitulated. It is also worthy to note that we were fighting regular forces answerable to the Sovereign governments of both those countries. We were also battling and then working with men who had a sense of personal honor not unlike our own. Their understanding of their responsibilities to their sovereign government and then to us as occupiers was measured by their own government's mandate for them. Once their government capitulated, they essentially laid down their arms.

Neither the Taliban nor Al Qaeda represents a Sovereign government or a people if we are to believe the ISAF and United States narrative. I have argued that at least the Taliban are as much an Afghan phenomenon in Afghanistan as their brothers in Pakistan are, Pakistani. Because of that distinction, separating them from the civilian population is not only daunting, but fruitless because they are, essentially, the same. Making that case need not go further than a quick look at IED proliferation. I will use an analogy: We live on a rural dirt road, in a rural town that is approximately 3.5 miles long and has a population of approximately 100. I can tell you with confidence that no one can travel down this road, much less spit on it without someone and sometimes everyone knowing it. As such, enforcement of the law and security of property and lives here is a relatively simple task. In any case, nothing goes undetected.

In Afghanistan, if we are to believe the narrative, the average Afghan citizen only wants 'peace' and security from the Taliban. According to Karzai and our government, we are (were) there to offer them that opportunity. If this is true and the average Afghan does not agree with the Taliban, then there should be very few instances of IED's being successfully set and nearly zero of ISAF, NATO and American troops falling victim to them. The facts show something decidedly different, however. In a land that is by any measure rural and where digging a hole in a road and setting an explosive device would surely be noticed by some if not all of the population adjacent to the IED site, there is little evidence that a plurality of the population in any of the areas we have operated in, have made a good faith effort to aid in the identification and location of either the IED's or the 'perpetrators' and the staggering numbers of amputees and deaths as a result of that lack of non-combatant good faith effort punctuates the point.

If we extend this conversation of Afghan civilian/non-combatant situational awareness to the presence of Taliban and Al Qaeda members in their midst, it is extremely difficult to make the case that the 'non-combatant' element of Afghan society is not also complicit on some level. And if they are complicit, there is one question that has not been adequately answered by the Colonel and that is whether anyone, with a straight face, can declare any portion of the population as non-combatants. And if we can't, then the apparent ethical problem plaguing our Sovereign government and our upper echelon military leaders is a self-inflicted wound that has neutralized their ability to consider force protection as primary during combat operations in an ideologically monolithic society like Afghanistan.

As a consequence of that misplaced ethical concern for an inappropriately identified non-combatant population, they have unnecessarily endangered our forces and reduced their combat effectiveness by forcing them to consider the lives of these 'non-combatants' as superior to their own. This is the very definition of 'unreasonable risk'.

As an unintended consequence, this has made this Sovereign nation less secure and it's population less safe.

At the same time, they have emboldened an unsophisticated gaggle of murderers and their compatriots (the complicit 'non-combatant') and have caused our allies to have far less confidence in our ability to accurately identify legitimate threats across the world and drawn into question our willingness to meet them on any field of combat with appropriate force.

Colonel Pfaff also quoted Israeli Asa Kasher and then Major General Amos Yadlin who refuted Waltzer's earlier claim that the state should always place the life of the combatant as a last concern remarking:

“…the duty to minimize casualties among combatants during combat is last on the list of priorities … we reject such a conception because it is immoral.” [14] The authors argued that the state’s obligation to protect its citizens from harm—which justifies the use of force in the first place—extends also to soldiers. While recognizing that soldiers do assume risks friendly civilians do not, they argue that soldiers still retain their rights to life. The state may be justified in putting his life at risk because of its obligation to defend all citizens, but the obligation to protect the soldier to the extent commensurate with his duties does not go away."

To which I say; AMEN!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Can the United States Continue to Suffer the Willful Ignorance of her Government and Survive?

Herschel Smith and I have had some lengthy conversations about this current war, the disposition of the enemy, their relationship with the civilian populations amongst whom they operate and the substance of the religion they all claim to adhere to. Fundamentally, we agree. We have had some minor disagreements about strategy selections from time to time but agree that an unintended consequence of 'giving the nod' to the "innocent population" in the AO (Area of Operation) is more dead American servicemen. For me; that is intolerable! As far as I am concerned, the number one responsibility of an American administration, American elected "servants", Sec Def, the Pentagon and the entirety of upper echelon military circles is to declare the security of the United States, it's citizenry and it's Warrior community as primary before choosing which strategy to employ and govern our use of force in the AO.

To that end, it has been my contention that this administration, the past administration and the entire upper end structure of the military machine, has failed miserably. Not only have they chosen the wrong strategy to achieve a definable victory for their nation, they chose one that has been disproportionately brutal for our forces while providing cover for the enemy and the population that has proven, over and over again to be untrustworthy.

History has defined and will continue to define only a miniscule number of opportunities for a theater-wide application of the precepts of Counter Insurgency doctrine to have been efficacious. Even a casual glance at the human terrain in either Iraq or Afghanistan with Syria and Iran to possibly follow, should have given the critical thinker everything they needed to adequately keep COIN under lock and key in the vault of terrible ideas.

But rather than heed history, a bevy of analysts or common sense, and like undisciplined children discovering a new toy, the Generals and their civilian counterparts pounced on COIN and hitched their violated consciences, their personal legacies and the lives of hundreds of thousands of trusting, American Warriors to it.

The fruit of their arrogance is measured in the thousands of American Servicemen who have been sacrificed at the altar of pride and the tens of thousands more who have suffered life altering wounds.

Some legacy!

In the latest piece from the Captain's Journal, Glen Tschirgi does a masterful job in recounting the disastrous failures in judgment, political courage and decision making which have left both operations in this larger war on the edge of failure. In fact to bolster his points, I would say that arrogance bolstered by blind pride are the only things that could allow anyone to describe either theater of operation as anything but unmitigated failures. In addition, we have so bought into our own deception that we have chosen to propagate the fruit of those failures in Egypt, Libya and I fear soon, in Syria and Iran.

Glenn makes an observation about the religion of Islam however that I do not agree with and that is in the parsing of factions within the Muslim community. First of all, if someone can point me toward the ongoing, public record of support for America in either of these operations or the public record of Muslim denunciation of the actions of the "terrorist" or "radicalized" Muslim or Jihad as a war doctrine, Taqiyya as a deceptive practice with the intent of keeping the enemy off balance, please show me?

The clear evidence only suggests groups as defined by those who willingly strap on bombs and those who do not. Unfortunately, we know that from within the second group comes the financial and spiritual support for the first.

Suggesting you can parse these two and do harm to one while garnering support for said harm from the "moderates" simply misses the truth about religion - all religion!

Case in point; There has been a healthy division between the Catholic Church and the so-called Reformed Church movement since the 16th century. There are understandings of certain doctrines in the New Testament which both adhere to that are, in some cases, radically different. Bridging these differences with the hope of bringing these two groups of worshippers together has proven to be an insurmountable task with both sides declaring the other is filled with the lost. However; if you bring in a piece of legislation that appears to attack Christianity or core understandings of the beginning of life or freedom of religion issues, these two seemingly polar opposite, doctrinally divided groups, come together as Brothers.

The point is; regardless of our interpretations of specific doctrines, we are never-the-less bonded as Brothers in unity as followers of Jesus Christ. I will say that the likelihood of a successful destruction of that bond is incalculably small.

Seeing Islam and it's many fractured parts in a different light is naïve. Islam is similar to Christianity and every other great religion of the world on one point and that is, it has as it's focus, a deity. To deny the religion or to deny another Muslim is, effectively, to deny the deity that binds you.

In the piece he states; "A muslim who does not subscribe to the Wahhabist version and rejects militant Islam should be no more offended when we target the Islamists than a 1940's German would be offended by our targeting of Nazis." And this for me is where separating religious ideology and secular ideology is important. Even though the zeal with which some Germans supported Hitler and the Nazi Party may have bordered on worship, the fact is, Nobody thought Hitler was "god". Those supporters simply acted on a perverted understanding of nationalism.

Islam, while carrying within it's structure the seeds of jurisprudence which is defined as Sharia and also containing verses which effectively call it's adherents to arms, is still fundamentally, teaching and admonition from their "god", Allah. Thinking you can cause a Muslim to abandonhis fellow worshipper (and then effectively placing enmity between himself and Allah), for the sake of the vision of a non-submitted, infidel force of foreigners is simply misunderstanding the dynamics of religion; the difference between the spiritual and the secular.

While we can certainly visually define the actions of some as more violent than others, we cannot see into the heart of man. What history has told us is consistent with Gen 6:5; " The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." This was not a statement about a group or faction, the saved and the unsaved, Jews or non Jews. This was an indictment about the condition of the heart of mankind.

We watch the wanton destruction of human life by the forces of Islam and the associated silence from the "moderates" every day. Is it the contention of those who submit to the "two Islams" vision that we should continue to assume the best of a people whose religion is belligerent to non-believers? Are they suggesting we continue to place our Sons & Daughters at undo risk to preserve the lives of those who fundamentally support the destruction of those same Sons and Daughters? Personally, I will never submit to anything that requires our forces be sacrificed for a presumption steeped in willful ignorance of a self-defined enemy!

This country is at a crossroad. Americans are now facing the prospect of a future replete with civilian and military leadership that is hostile to the idea of sole security for our uniquely American documents, ideals, citizenry and security. Is this what Americans want for their Sons and Daughters because this current vision of the world places the United States citizens en par with those who would declare us an enemy and then institutes policies that intentionally endanger American lives with the stated purpose of preserving the lives of those who, endanger American lives!

It is time, we stop playing with the common definitions of ideologies. We must accept Islam at what it declares itself to be, a religion and not just another doctrine of governance. Seeing it as something else forces actions that will always fall short when trying to defend against it's most egregious doctrines; doctrines which were delivered to Mohammed by an entity he believed was a "god" who called himself Allah.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

US - Taliban Talks Said to be at Critical Point…Really?!

Today, Stratfor reported that secret talks between US officials and the Taliban, which have purportedly been underway for sometime have now reached a critical juncture. According to the story, tentative agreements about the disposition of EPW Taliban at the Guantanamo Bay facility are being ironed out. If this passes muster with the Taliban, the US would release an untold number of known Taliban operatives back to the Afghan government and then, presumably, back to Afghan society. The report also stated the US official would expect some kind of token act from the Taliban in kind; to show "good faith".

There are so many facets of this story that are wrong-headed that it is difficult to know where to begin. First of all, these alleged talks have proceeded for a significant period of time without direct participation by Kabul or Karzai. Apparently, US officials have felt "progress reports" to Kabul would suffice. While I am no fan of Hamid Karzai or his administration, it strikes me as presumptuous that any agreement between US officials and the so-called insurgency, the Taliban would be acceptable on it's face to the "legitimate" government in Kabul. If these talks have any chance of acceptance by the parties who will have to live with them, it is hard to imagine that happening without both parties sitting directly across the table from one another.

Another problematic point is that we have not only participated in talks with a unrepentant belligerent like the Taliban, but have offered to return hardened militants back to them and then, in all likelihood, back to the same battle space where our forces are still operating. This goes far beyond naiveté or even simple incompetence; this is laying the groundwork for future murderous acts which will certainly be perpetrated against our sovereign American forces.

Where do we find people like this? That an American would even consider returning known murderers back to the killing field from whence they were taken and upon which fellow Americans are still operating defies logic, common sense and compassion! It is certainly a criminal act in a parallel universe where they still understand the difference between right and wrong!

It will be interesting to find out what token action the Taliban will present as their sign of good faith. Is there truly anything they could offer to offset such an inexplicably generous offer by the US representative (unnamed)? Can anyone give a reason why the Taliban should take this seriously considering they are looking at the final months of US operations in Afghanistan? One thing that is absolutely certain at this point is there is probably no amount of evil the Taliban can perpetrate from now until 2014 that will cause any kind of shift from this administration's current plan to draw down - and the Taliban know it!

We have unilaterally chosen to not hold them responsible by virtue of our self-administered restraints in the hopes of motivating an unresponsive civilian population to be cooperative, if not proactive in their "liberation" from the blood-lusting Taliban "insurgency". Now we are holding talks with them, in an attempt to cause them to want to normalize relations with a sitting government placed there by us. Let's not forget, we are the ones who forcibly removed them from the seat of governance in Kabul ten years ago - an act of mercy for the average Afghan, if you truly buy into the narrative and an act of retribution for their participation in the planning phases of the attacks on US soil on 9/11. Now, somehow, the enemy that was unseated but not held accountable, that is still actively engaged in combat with us, is supposed to feel motivated to cooperate.

Stunning!

The better plan would have been to consider US interests and US interests alone. If the Taliban truly aided Al Qaeda in the planning, equipping and carrying out of the slaughter perpetrated on 9/11, then destroying them to a man would certainly have been a reasonable response. However, mounting an incursion into sovereign Afghan space to experiment with a historically failed strategy like COIN, the precepts of which define elements on the ground - which do not exist in Afghanistan, not only amounts to sloppy planning and a brutal failure to understand the human terrain, it was also a negligent waste of American lives and treasure.

If anyone still believes that any kind of positive gain can be measured from our ten year venture in this latest nation building fantasy, then stand by because it looks like we are preparing for more exciting adventures in the reshaping of the human psyche in yet other Islamic lands!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Analyzing Egypt's "Wondrous" Transformation!

Does anyone still remember when the proponents of the "Arab Spring" erupted with glee over the prospect of a 'blossoming democracy' in the midst of tyranny in Egypt? How about the thunderous applause and shrieks of adulation when the 'rebels' in Libya so bravely took on the hordes of Khadafy's hell hounds?

Does anyone remember the support from the West for the Muslim Brotherhood and their even-handed and reasonable concern for the poor and abused masses in both of those countries? Do you remember the Muslim Brotherhood's declaration that they were not interested in political power but only for the breaking of the chains of tyranny in Egypt?

Is anyone still alive that can recall Egypt's population being defined as "secular" rather than ideological? Can you recall the elitist academics declaring that Christians and Jews had nothing to fear from the hope of a burgeoning democracy in Egypt? If you can't, then maybe you can remember that many of us warned that what would emerge from the ashes of a crushed Mubarak Regime would be nothing short of a foreign policy nightmare for the United States, U.S. citizens and the West in general. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist candidates won 42 of the 52 individual seats contested in runoffs for the first stage of Egypt’s multiphase parliamentary elections.

Are you feeling good about the seers and academics who promised you Roses and Doves in Egypt now?

Many of us had commented that their (Egyptians) first act as free men would be to cast a vote that would drive them right back into slavery but this time to a Sharia centric theocracy. This democracy, such as it is, is proving to be everything we do not want and that the nation of Israel doesn't need on it's border. What is proving to be true is that the general population in Egypt is far from Secular and is in fact as ideologically motivated as any of the worst of the Islamic populations in the region.

You think not? Then you will have to explain why the people of Egypt used their one vote to elevate the ideologically driven Muslim Brotherhood to power rather than seek a more moderate or secular representative government.

In the meantime, Libya's NTC is still struggling to determine who will "guide" that country toward "free" elections. They can't even agree on who should remain armed and who should lay down their arms. Tunisia is concerned about the armed factions on their border, the NTC is being led by a known Al Qaida Operative and an undisclosed number of surface to air missiles are still missing. We haven't even been told which country supplied those missiles or which generation of missiles they are. What we do know is that an undisciplined gaggle of "rebels" were provided air support by the United States and allies; air support which, by the way, has been withheld from our own forces in Afghanistan, to help soften up Khadafy's forces even though we knew they had Al Qaida operatives in their midst! And now; missiles which could further jeopardize Americans operating in Iraq, Afghanistan and possible Iran in the near future, are "missing".

So a question remains; to what level of inanity is this administration and our legislators going to be allowed to stoop to before the American people wake up, and shake up the status quo? Current polling suggests more of the same. Those rising in the polls in the GOP are known "insiders" when what is truly needed is someone who is not beholding to any specific interest group or who has any baggage that needs explaining.

What we need is a "Servant". Someone who actually understands in the depths of his soul that political service is a divinely endowed gift to serve those from whose numbers he has been called. Someone whose primary focus is the preservation of this nation, as it was envisioned by it's founders and who-will-not-falter in carrying out the very specific and narrowly defined mission embedded within the words of the oath taken at the inauguration ceremony.

Can anyone out there tell me who that person is? I can tell you the gentleman who currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is not he. The current resident is clearly beholding to those who would, with zealous rage, destroy the seat and substance of this nation. But I can also tell you that I do not see, in a single candidate, one whose focus is to keep the vision of the Founding Fathers alive or who is primarily concerned with the welfare or it's citizens. I have not heard a definitive cry to eliminate the Income Tax. I have not heard an unquestionable intent to defend these shores and the citizenry from foreign pestilence. I cannot discern among their number a single man who understands that when Americans are in harm's way, the priority of the day is their well being and victory for their mission!

So while we watch two more abysmal failures of foreign policy vision unfold before our very eyes in the very much touted "secular" Egypt and another in the ashes of Libya, we should be asking ourselves what is for us a defining question; Are we determined to demand a man who will in fact deliver to us the country and governance envisioned by our Founders or are we going to settle, once again?

The fact is; our true servants, those who from among our number have elected to jeopardize their lives, their future and our posterity, continue to languish in a sand box filled with demonically inspired forces, led by the uninspired who are dictated to by men of ill intent, voted into office by the American populace. This-must-not continue!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard