The New World Disorder

9-11 Speech to NC Guard in Charlotte

2011-09-11T22:24:00.002-04:00

Good morning!

For those of you who don’t know me, I’m SSG Byrnes. It’s a beautiful morning outside here in Charlotte. Ten years ago today, it started off as a beautiful morning in NYC. The sun was out, it was a warm late summer day, just like this.

It was Election day in New York, primary day.

I had only been back in the military about a year. I was an adult student at Hunter College in upper Manhattan, and I had joined the National Guard after a break in service from active duty, too help pay for tuition. That Tuesday, after a morning swim, I sat down early for a 9:10 Am class. Moments later, fire engines, sirens wailing, began rolling outside the window.

After a few minutes a young woman in the rear of the class room looked up from her cell phone and said:
“ An airplane just hit the World Trade Center.”

And the world changed.

Some of the soldiers who stand here were only children that day. You have grown up in a post 9-11 world. It is a different world.

My Armory was 2 miles downtown from Hunter College. I jumped in a Taxi, the driver offered to take me over the bridge to Queens. I showed him my Military ID and promised bodily harm if he didn’t get me to the Armory.

I was one of the first soldiers from my company to arrive, but there were already a few soldiers standing guard, with Bayonets attached. By 10 AM I was in uniform. My CO sent me out to get city maps, we had none. I doubled timed to Barnes and Noble, running against the Human current still pushing north from lower Manhattan. Civilians stared at me in fear and awe.

Most of the day was spent in frustrating formations, getting new head counts. Watching the events unfold, in horror, two miles away and feeling powerless. Eventually as the sun went down my company moved out to help secure lower Manhattan. After we were posted by fireteam, we took turns walking the last block down to ground zero to view the devastation. It remains to this day the single most horrific sight I have ever seen.

For the next two weeks we stood a 12 hour shift every night, securing ground zero. By day we often helped out with traffic management, crowd control, and the bucket brigades. We averaged only three or four hours of sleep.

Almost every New Yorker lost friends, family, or acquaintances that day. Five of my school friends from Grade School, HS, or College, perished. Our armory became the family support center for families of the the nearly 3000 murdered NYers. My platoon leader lost his sister, it took, a long time for him to accept the loss. Her funeral, weeks later was the saddest I have ever been to, as shared grief focused on one woman.

We worried for comrades too. Like all Guard units we had a number of firefighters and police. While almost all the police in my unit chose to respond with the Guard, the firefighters all reported in to their fire companies that day. When SSG Sean Goodridge, and Sgt Chris Engeldrum appeared on our lines our relief was overwhelming.

Chris Engeldrum died three years later in an IED attack in Baghdad, on November 29 2004, he was killed alongside Spc Wilfredo Urbina who stood next to me that morning when Chris “finally showed up.”

I don’t imagine there are many soldiers here who don’t know the sense of grief from losing a battle buddy, if you don’t I hope you stay lucky. Loss is part of a soldier’s life especially now. Just as fear of terror attacks is now part of the American fabric, though being Americans we bear it with courage.

Today we mourn not only those who died on September 11, 2001, but the thousands of Soldiers and service members we have lost fighting to prevent further attacks. Soldiers are the kind of men and women who don’t forget. We don’t forget our comrades, and we don’t forget why we have to do this job.

Since that fateful day 10 years ago we have been a nation at war. Many of you joined the military since then. Everyone here has made a choice to join, re-enlist or extend since, everyone here has volunteered knowing we are a nation at war. 9-11 changed my life, as it surely changed the life of every soldier here.

We have all experienced the sense of pride, mixed with humility when a civilian thanks us for serving. That is a good mix.

Proud of our service, humbled by the gratitude of our fellow citizens.

I want to thank you too.

I was incredibly grateful ten years ago that I was in the National Guard, that I was able to respond in a meaningful way. I am incredibly grateful that I have the opportunity to spend this morning with fellow soldiers as well. I understand I am not welcome this morning at ground zero, I was not invited! Of course I wasn’t invited ten years ago either I just went. But Thank You, as a soldier, an American and a New Yorker thank you for having the courage of your convictions to serve in a wartime Army. And thank you for helping to ensure that we never forget.

At the Gate!

2010-11-21T19:21:00.000-05:00

Grief!

2010-10-28T09:10:00.003-04:00

An email from Major Vincent Heintz, a leader and a friend came my way this morning!

Men,

Six years ago today the enemy killed SPC Segun Frederick Akintade at ASR Boa. Time passes. Grief, anger and survivor’s guilt remain. We think about a family that has been shattered forever.

I will always carry a debt of gratitude to the men in that patrol who fought so selflessly to save him. As a company, we remain deeply grateful to the intrepid aviators and docs who rushed forward to keep him alive. As Akintade began to pass, these rescuers defied not just risk but policies and protocols by taking him from the battlefield in the most respectful, decent way possible under hard circumstances.

After we came home, I learned that Akintade was not completely sold on the war in Iraq. Was his exceptional performance just the swagger of a young man trying to be a tough guy, politics be damned? Hardly. The men of first platoon in particular will remember Akintade as a modest, steady, centered man who knew his job and did his job. He superbly met the high oath that he took as a Soldier upon enlistment in 2001. He far surpassed the one he took as a new US citizen at Fort Drum in January 2004. Given the ambiguity of the war and his own views, and his humility, how and why did Akintade serve so consistently, so bravely?

After six years, the only reason that I can see is that he served, fought and died to protect his brothers.

Men, stay as safe as you can given your obligations, and stay focused. I thank you for passing this on to other members of A/2-108 IN (OIF II).

-MAJ Heintz

“There are still men out there... When I go home, people ask me, ‘Hey, Hoot, why do you do it, man? Why? You some kind of war junkie? I won’t say a God-damned word. Why? They won’t understand. They won’t understand why we do it. They won’t understand. It’s about the man next to you. And that’s it. That’s all it is... Hey, don’t even think about it, alright? I am better on my own. Hey, we started a whole new week. It’s Monday.”

-Hoot, Blackhawk Down

2010-09-21T09:28:00.002-04:00

I'm reposting an edited version of something I wrote a year ago, I think it still matters!

It has now been more than two years; on August 19, 2008 my friend was murdered. Taliban gunmen assassinated Mohammed Ayoob on his doorstep, in a village along the Kunduz River, in the Kunduz Province of Northern Afghanistan. Ayoob, only twenty years old, served as the supply sergeant for an Afghan Police unit in the district of Chahar Darreh where he lived.

Hardly the toughest soldier, Ayoob sometimes seemed to fear his own shadow. His commanders assigned him to the supply section; the Taliban noted his gentler nature and targeted him. In the end, he was tougher than he realized.

Courageous in the face of death, when three terrorists ambushed him with AK-47 assault rifles, he drew his sidearm, and fired a single round at his killers before falling, the pistol smoking in his hand.

My friend’s death exemplifies the dynamics of the violent struggle for Afghanistan. A small, fringe minority resorts to terror to intimidate the majority. Wherever Afghan and US Forces fail to secure the populace, the Taliban terrorizes the people into obedience. Since I left Afghanistan last fall, the Kunduz Province has slipped further into the Taliban grasp. Ayoob’s murder was merely a single act in their long campaign.

The last time the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, fear and violence reigned. The rule of the Mullahs confined women and girls to their homes. Taliban officials destroyed schools. The Taliban stoned adulterers. They killed apostates who converted to Christianity and then destroyed the iconic Bamiyan Buddha statues. Afghans, with America’s help, overthrew their oppressive regime.

As an American soldier, I was proud to call Ayoob my friend, but language and culture made understanding difficult. I never knew whether he was more concerned with defeating the insurgent than with holding a paying job. I suspected the latter. Ayoob, and his family, lived in a state of poverty. Like most Afghans they scraped by as best they could from year to year.

Whether he fought for patriotism or money, Ayoob chose to stand up to the Taliban. Despite the risks involved, Sgt. Ayoob accepted a job that endangered his life. He demonstrated personal courage and a rejection of the Taliban. Soon after he died, I realized his family stood with him.

Muslims must be buried within twenty four hours of death. The day after Ayoob died, my team, continued our own anti-Taliban efforts in the district. On the way back to our base we passed Ayoob's funeral. In a nation where few people have cars, I saw dozens of cars, packed with hundred’s of friends and relatives at the hilltop cemetery where they laid Ayoob to rest. Attendance at Ayoob’s funeral represented a public rejection of the Taliban.

Ayoob’s friends and family are hardly unique in their rejection of the Taliban. Last year, Afghan presidential elections were held for the second time this decade. While insurgents intimidated millions of Afghans into staying home, millions more risked heir lives to vote.

Today, in the US, politicians quote recent polls worded insure that a majority of Americans reflect the belief that Afghanistan is no longer worth fighting for. The left worked to prevent the surge strategy. President Obama campaigned for office on the claim that Iraq had distracted us from fighting the “right war” in Afghanistan.

The mid-term elections are little more than a month away.

Americans may be weary of the war after nine years. Surely though, we are not more weary than the Afghans; they have known only war and terror for decades. The difference is that millions of Afghans know this war is worth fighting.

Like the loved ones of Mohammed Ayoob, they clearly want to end the violence. Their communities have been torn apart by decades of violence, but they will not surrender to terror to achieve peace. They know that the peace of the terrified is no peace at all.

Here at home, Americans are bombarded by the objections of the political left, and spoon-fed the dubious opinions of mainstream media pundits, but hopefully we will remember our own recent past. Eight years ago the Taliban allowed al-Quaeda to plan and train in Afghanistan. Al-Quaeda used that sanctuary to attack America here at home.

Today liberals, and an increasing number of conservatives are willing to allow that same Taliban to reclaim rule over Afghanistan. Today when Pakistan is much weaker and more susceptible to the Taliban in its own borders, this would spell disaster. Disaster for Afghans, and disaster for America; our enemies, safe in their sanctuary will plot once again to export their violence to our shores.

Tolerating The Intolerable?

2010-09-20T16:02:00.004-04:00

Who will miss Western Culture when it is gone? Will the liberals and leftists who espouse tolerance for all belief systems, except right of center western political thought, miss their liberty? Will they lament it, when non-western right of center religious and political systems, and leftist non-religious political systems finally overcome us, because we were so tolerant? We have gotten to the point where we let the fox in the hen house, and refuse to see the danger for fear of being labeled anti-foxists.

The WTC mosque controversy is a glaring example. A vast majority of Americans and of New Yorkers have voiced their opinion against building the Mosque so close to Ground Zero. A vocal minority side with Imam Rauf and his Cordoba Initiative. Rauf and his allies have framed the debate largely in terms of tolerance, or in terms of Constitutional protection of religious freedom. In fact many on the left have implied that the First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Religion, mandates acceptance, and absolves Islam from criticism. Nonsense, that First Amendment also guarantees our right to voice our concerns about the Mosque, and about Islam in general.

In fact, putting aside the salt in the wound aspect, that placing the Mosque in downtown New York City has for many, the controversy really is about the reach and influence of Islam in America’s future. How much tolerance are we required to extend to Islam, and what is the intent of Islam?

As a religion, Islam’s followers are generally entitled to practice their beliefs. American legal history, does require that they do so in compliance with our Constitution and our laws. While the courts are often required to sort out fine points of religious freedom in the US, egregious violations of our legal tradition have been found to be unacceptable. Hence Indian drug use, and Mormon polygamy are not legal, religious freedom notwithstanding.

Islam should expect a similar reception. Stoning, slavery, corporal punishment for wives etc., are outside the legal norms we practice. In the name of tolerance, however, some liberals have sought to weaken our norms, asserting that we should not force our legal values on Muslims, hence a recent NJ judge's decision not to grant a restraining order against a Moroccan husband (fortunately overturned on appeal). The creation of Sharia only zones in Great Britain, Canada, and France, has encouraged Muslims and apologists to seek similar legal allowances in enclaves in St. Paul Minnesota and Dearborn Michigan. It has troubled police and neighbors where it has been allowed.

So why not? Isn’t “live and let live” part of our values? Isn’t religious tolerance inscribed in the constitution?

How do we deal with Islam, or is it Islamism? Islamism is the name that is catching on to describe those factions of Islam, both radical and mainstream that pursue jihad. Jihad is one of the pillars of Islam; the requirement to “struggle” for one’s faith. This concept of struggling has been described as both internal (within the self) and external. Jihad is used by Muslimsto describe the historical spread of Islam across much of Asia and Africa, by war, trade and assimilation.

Islam is a complex multi-faceted faith with sects and strains, just like all the other great religions. Jihad is central to all of its sects. The external Jihad is deeply entrenched in enough of those strains that it can hardly be called radical. What is now termed radical Islam, consists of those factions which seek a violent spread of Islam today.

Mainstream Islam, as it defines itself, today in the West, does not eschew external jihad, merely violence. We have accepted the Council on American Islamic Relations and Imam Rauf’s Cordoba Initiative as ideals of peaceful mainstream Islam in the US today, and yet they have obviously Jihadist doctrines.

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

Omar Ahmad, Co-Founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

In America, we have a Constitution that created a three-branch form of government - legislative, executive and judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the other two branches comply with the Constitution. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

“Well so what?” ask many Americans. After all many religions are evangelical, seeking new converts and aspiring to grow, and even to dominate.

Islam is different . Islam as a religion, includes a complete set of social, economic, political and legal prescriptions. It calls on its adherents to create theocratic states governed by Sharia, Islamic law. While Imam Rauf can soft pedal Sharia as divinely inspired law, akin to the appeal to the creator in our Declaration of Independence, the fact is that Sharia law as it is practices throughout the world is deeply at odds with Western Humanism, whether secular or Judeo-Christian.

Sharia is the law of the land in Saudi Arabia. Sharia allows slavery. Sharia oppresses women, making wives property of their husbands. Sharia calls for the execution of homosexuals. Sharia calls for the stoning of apostates. Etc etc.

Americans simply don’t want to live under Sharia. Liberals, in the media, and in academia have so elevated tolerance as a value that we develop a lack of clarity about what Islam as a belief system promotes. It promotes a non-democratic non-western government and society.

“We could deal with those Islamists except for one thing: A large segment of our fashionable opinion-makers… think that Islamists aren’t as bad as all that; and if they are, then we are still worse, and what we stand for isn’t really worth defending. So the public doesn’t know what to think, and a few self-appointed custodians push them into all manner of doubt and guilt by accusing anyone who criticizes, or — horrors! — laughs at Islamists of Islamophobia, racism, fascism, etc. etc.”

David Pryce Jones

If Islam, were not a religion, if it was an otherwise all encompassing belief system, we could talk more freely about its challenges to democracy. Communism was (and still is)a belief system that prescribes an entire set of beliefs about how people should interact, how they should be governed, and even what they should believe about God (he is an imaginary figure). Most Americans, even if they happen to be Marxist in their outlook, do not begrudge an honest discussion about Communism and the advantages and disadvantages of the system, surely even American liberals are not saying that communism is beyond criticism, by virtue of our freedoms of speech, conscience and association. Liberals are rabid attack dogs when challenging any perceived fascism, a much abused word that still includes a definition of Totalitarianism. Atheists and Agnostics are often quite critical of Christianity and Judaism, often because that’s where they started out. But Islam is sacrosanct. As Pryce Jones noted in today’s society criticism of Islam as a thought system=Islamophobia=Racism=Fascism=Evil.

I think that far leftist thought is often rooted in guilt and self loathing. When we no longer care enough about our own culture and traditions to defend them, we have nothing left to fight for. Tolerance is as beautiful a thing as prejudice is ugly, but blind tolerance is blind to threats. Will the last liberal standing please give the Jihadists the keys

Jihad and Western thought.

2010-07-20T15:03:00.013-04:00

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
Winston Churchill 1899

I am always taken aback when Americans will compare the minor flaws of our democracy with the far more oppressive central tenets of our competitors, as if it is beyond rude to point out the flaws of Communism or Islam, without simultaneously denigrating our own system.

It started with the quote from Winston Churchill on Islam, posted on my Facebook page. Actually, it was only part of the quote. In it the young soldier-journalist, and keen observer of the late 19th century world, soon to be the great statesman of the 20th century, identified the flaws in the Islamic system, as he encountered it particularly in the Sudan, where the British fought perhaps the first modern struggle against what would now be called “Radical Islam.”

Immediately, decent, good folks began to call me to task for impugning Islam. I was maligning a religion you see, and that is verboten in the new American era, particularly if the religion is Islam. I have noticed it is not so problematic to criticize Christianity, if the practitioners are middle class Americans, and Judaism can be spoken ill of, provided one calls it Zionism.

I don't totally agree with this quote. Not all muslims are militant, just as not all other faith's are saints. If we don't learn to tolerate and respect each other how we this ever end? We can disagree without being disrespectful.

This was the first objection I heard. It seemed to ignore the actual words of the original quote: Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities.
The objection shows how far the main stream media, academia, and the left have gotten in imposing their group think, political correctness on everyday Americans. I didn’t accuse any particular Muslims of being militant, nor did Churchill. He pointed out that the religion is militant and expansionist. This of course goes against the accepted narrative today, that Islam is a religion of peace, and that a handful of radicals in al-Qaeda and similar movements are hijacking true Islam. That trope, however, is dangerously self deceptive for us as a culture to hold on to. Islam's very words speak against us.

When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful. The Koran 9:5

I can hear the objection that the Old Testament preaches similar sentiment. While that is true, the difference between the modern followers of the two texts is substantial. First, both Christian and Jewish scholarship have continued to evolve. Today, Christians largely focus on the New Testaments message of peace. Judaism has developed a profoundly humanistic outlook through centuries of scholarship. In contrast, Islamic scholarship is largely held to have reached its core conclusions by the 9th century. That was during the height of Islam’s expansionist phase, when Allah’s warriors reached into Europe through Spain. Today every serious Koranic scholar within Islam accepts that by 900 CE, Islamic thought was complete.

Thus in Islam there was no Reformation, no Enlightenment. There has been no serious discussion among Islam’s clerics and scholars about how Islam can or should adapt to the changing world. There has been no internal struggle between various philosophies of Islam that led to a modern tolerance as exists among the Judeo-Christian culture of the west. Islamic doctrine still rests in the age of Jihad.

The only serious disagreement within Islam today is over how to carry on that jihad. Through direct use of the Sword as advocated by al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, or by a more political approach advocated by the Muslim Brotherhood. The latter approach requires immigration to western nations and slow and quiet imposition of Islamic values and even Islamic law in western societies. This can be seen in various European cities with no-go areas for native Europeans. It is aided by the acceptance by various of our western governments, allowing some Muslim enclaves to practice Sharia, at least in civil matters, supplanting Constitutional or Common law.

We also see the continued accuracy of Samuel Huntington’s admonition that Islam’s borders are contested borders. His observation, that the places where the Muslim world intersects with other of the world’s major cultures are among the world’s most violence prone, remains as true today as fifteen years ago. Muslims categorize the world into two parts: Dar al Islam or Dar al Salam (literally the world of submission, and the world of peace) on the one hand, and Dar al Harb (house of war) on the other.

I spent a year in Iraq, and a year in Afghanistan each, because Dar al Salam is actually a place of Harb. When I hear Americans remonstrate me for categorizing Islam itself as militant, as dangerous, or when they describe Islam as just another system that relativism can equate with a modern western democratic approach, I am almost speechless. Many of us have become so indoctrinated into politically correct thinking that we are afraid of insulting Muslims by speaking the truth about Islam.

Islam still allows for slavery. While Western Democracy once committed horrible acts in this regard, we have outlawed slavery, and continue to work against it. Islam is doctrinally expansionist, democracies may expand through force, but no democracy’s constitution requires it. Islam is a complete social system encompassing religion, politics and law, apostasy is a capital crime. Democracy is a political and legal system allowing for freedom of conscience and religion. Women, in Islam, are property of husbands and fathers, honor killings and clitorectomies are routine if not common. In the west women and children have robust rights including the protection of their own bodies.

In the West, through democracies we have freedom. We have the right to be so relativist in our outlook as to compare ourselves, negatively, to viewpoints which boldly and openly threatens to destroy us. We also have the right to reject such self deceptive and self destructive thinking and openly call the danger out where we see it.

The Bedouin could not look for God within him: he was too sure that he was within God.
T. E. Lawrence

Our real challenge is that, violent or not, Islamic doctrine constitutes a political vision. That is, Islam is not a mere religion as we understand the concept in the West — a set of spiritual guidelines that are denied governing authority in what is a separate, secular realm. Mainstream Islam calls for a comprehensive political, economic, legal, and social theocracy.
Andrew McCarthy 2010

Suggested further reading:

The River War Churchill 1899
The Grand Jihad McCarthy 2010
The Clash of Civilizations Huntington 1996
The West's Last Chance 2005

McChrystal and Donovan in 2012

2010-06-23T19:04:00.001-04:00

A Few Questions on Healthcare?

2009-09-10T21:57:00.011-04:00

Having re-read the speech I want to know: can Obama answer these questions?

1. If non-profit independent health care cooperatives are such a good idea, why don't we have them already? Liability? Non-viability? Bueller?

2. When you say anyone can lose their health care, did you forget that you and anyone who's ever been in Congress can't?

3. Are you aware that for all your horror stories about our current system there are worse stories from Canada, Britain etc.?

4. Since only YOU, exalted one, can fix, fraud, waste and abuse ( well no one else has been able to) and wring TRILLIONS of savings from the health care system, what do WE do when you're gone? You are planning on leaving office in the next 4-8 years? Aren't you?

5. If nothing in the plan requires VA patients to change their careplan why did you want to bill their insurers earlier this year?

6. When you compare your new requirement for all Americans to carry health insurance to states requiring drivers to carry auto insurance, do you realize that ONLY those who choose to drive are forced to purchase auto insurance. Are you aware that Americans can opt out of auto insurance by not driving?

7. Where in the constitution is the authority to require Americans to purchase health insurance?

8. Not that I personally care, but has it crossed your mind that this requirement will further stigmatize illegal immigrants by forcing them to commit another crime?

9. Will REQUIRING businesses to cover costs of health care hurt the economy by discouraging enterpeneurs and by forcing even more jobs overseas? If not, why not?

10. What happens when a person purchasing her own insurance loses an income source?Has unexpected expenses? Misses a few payments? Is it a federal offense? Does it make you a criminal? Felony, misdemeanor, violation?

11. Isn't choosing how to spend our own money and deciding where to take risks what the founding fathers meant by "pursuit of happiness?"

12. When you say: "Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company." Why then are you opposed to allowing insurers to do business across state lines?

13. "Now, Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future." Starting when? Really? Because wouldn't that be a change from the first 8 months of Obamasatan?

14. "And -- and I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need." How?

15. "And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead." How does your Messiahship plan to reconcile this with the previous statement?

16 When you say "...reforming malpractice laws..." do you mean tort reform? Will Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid seriously entertain that? If they do who will fund the DNC in the next election cycle?

17. Do you think that Ted Kennedy's will leaves more money to purchase health insurance for the poor than it leaves wealth to his children?

18. Is it possible to oppose this reform, without being demonized by the president? Does my conscience count, or am I being unpatriotic?

George Will Needs To Know: Afghanistan Matters!

2009-09-06T10:45:00.003-04:00

George Will laid down the gauntlet. While a few conservatives have always been reluctant about our efforts in Afghanistan, Will’s September 1, column advocating withdrawal has opened a rift on the American right with conservatives taking sides. George Will says it’s time to quit Afghanistan. As a soldier who was in Afghanistan for most of 2008 I say unequivocally George Will is wrong; Afghanistan matters.

Will has surprising allies including former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. They say we can’t win, though we managed to achieve success in Iraq. They claim that our struggle is against al-Qaeda not the Taliban. This is akin to saying our fight was against the Japanese and giving Hitler a pass. They say Pakistan is more important, but they don’t say how losing our base in Afghanistan will solve that nation’s problems.

The debate is set against the background of an expected decision by President Obama on whether to heed his generals who are calling for an Iraq like Surge, or to find a quicker way out. Obama may have campaigned on the premise of supporting the “right war” in Afghanistan, but liberals, including most of the democratic congress are opposed to any expansion of US forces abroad. The left is now getting help from Will and McCarthy on the right. But the stakes in Afghanistan are high. The Taliban, our enemy, are resurgent there, enabled by NATO’s inability to fight a consistent counter-insurgency campaign, and the porous border with Pakistan.

Pakistan, aye there is the rub. That nation has slowly descended into its own chaos. The area along Pakistan’s Afghan border known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), is a Pashtun-Taliban enclave, inaccessible to any forces friendly to the US and its allies. The Pakistani military, a nuclear armed force of over a million men including reserves, cannot even access, much less control its own border.

The mountainous region, including the FATA, which straddles the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, is at times referred to as Pashtun-istan. The Pashtuns, a 42 million strong ethnic group, are minority populations in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. They have always been the core strength of the Taliban. Not all Pashtuns are Taliban, but most Taliban are Pashtun. Tribal ties, tradition, and ethnic politics lead most Pashtuns to support the Taliban.

Afghanistan continues to be a failed state, Pakistan is failing. We have the opportunity to continue to influence events in the region due to our presence in Afghanistan. Should the US withdraw entirely from Afghanistan certain events are highly likely to unfold. The first would be a Taliban victory in Afghanistan. They might not see the complete victory they achieved in 1996. They would at least end up seizing and dominating several provinces. These provinces would certainly include several, North and East, which dominate the landlocked nation’s rudimentary road net. The Taliban would gain a stranglehold on the Afghan economy.

They would also rule the Pashtun speaking border region. The resulting consequences of this outcome are impossible to predict. However a larger autonomous Taliban dominated zone would surely threaten the weak Pakistani government. The unspoken, nightmare outcome, we all seek to avoid, is the takeover of Pakistan by the Taliban.

Pakistan is a nuclear power. Yet in spite of this modern achievement, it is a failing nation. Assassination and civil violence have dominated recent politics. The populace is fragmented ethnically and politically. The urban elites live western lives with modern hopes. Most others live poor desperate lives. Islam is the single greatest unifying factor! Many Pakistanis of various ethnicities have shown a consistent predilection for anti-American, anti-western, pro-Taliban politics.

Two or possibly three Talibanized nations in place of today’s Afghanistan and Pakistan are in no one’s interest, especially if one of them is nuclear armed. Let us recall further that Afghanistan’s western neighbor is the WMD seeking state of Iran. That nation has infiltrated arms and personnel into the western Farsi speaking provinces of Afghanistan to pressure the US and Afghan governments, and to create its own sphere of influence.

George Will’s imagined scenario of special-forces and airpower serving in place of boots on the ground in Afghanistan surely sounds good to deskbound policy wonks. But they would do well to remember that policy failed us through the Clinton era. At that time Pakistan was under the more stable hand of Musharraf.

If we abandon our foothold in Afghanistan, we abandon our contacts on the ground. In order for predators, cruise missiles, and SF operators to succeed repeatedly against al-Qaeda, or any other enemies, our forces need human intelligence. This is why al-Qaeda and the Taliban high command retreated to and continue to hide in the inaccessible reaches of Pakistan. It’s why al-Qaeda chose the then closed state of Afghanistan as a base in the first place.

Additionally, a premature withdrawal from Afghanistan will surely present a tremendous propaganda victory to the Taliban. This would be a strategic weapon for all of our Islamist enemies in the current struggle. George Will has stepped up his campaign, and now wants to quit Iraq early as well. He mentions the ties that Shiite Iran has established with Shiite Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki as a reason to end our commitment there.

If we were to follow Mr. Will’s prescription, by 2011 we could be facing a hostile band of powers stretching from the India-Pakistan border through Syria, to the Mediterranean. This would be the worst middle-eastern scenario the US ever faced, as bad as the Soviet dominated region envisioned by Carter and Reagan circa 1980. We could face two Islamic, hostile, nuclear powers. Such an outcome would represent the beginning of the end for Israel. It would signify the end of American hegemony, and the start of a truly new world order; one that would be highly unfavorable to our interests.

These are just the consequences for us. Mr. Will would also abandon the Afghans, the Iraqis and others to the Taliban to the likeminded Shia of Iran, and to al-Qaeda. He and his applause section remind us that Islam is incompatible with democracy, that extremism pervades the region, and that generally we have no business there anymore.

While not subscribing to the left’s drivel that poverty and frustration are the root of terrorism, I think that a poorer more Islamic mid-east will be more miserable for the Afghans and Iraqis, and the Pakistanis and Iranians. Having spent time in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I have seen that most people there want peace and prosperity. They want to end the violence and raise their children more comfortably than poverty and war has thus far allowed.

While Islam may indeed lend itself to oppressive rule, so did Christianity, for nearly two millennia of Romans, feudalism, and absolutism. Today, millions of Iraqis and Afghans have shown an appreciation for democracy, and the idea of peaceful, lawful change of governments. Come to think of it, so have the much abused Lebanese. In Iran, millions voted, and when the mullahs executed a massive electoral fraud millions protested. In India millions of Muslims regularly live peaceful lives in a democracy.

It is true that democratizing the Islamic world is not, and should not be the primary prescriptive mission of the US military. However to cede the entire middle-east to the forces of extremism, to abandon our allies, to surrender our security, and make the world a much more dangerous place seems folly. And to do it so that we can say we are not nation building, so that our military is doing what a few purists claim is “its job” is beyond foolishness. My job as a soldier is to preserve the security of my nation by whatever means necessary. Right now I can’t think of a better way we can do that than holding the line against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Reason Enough to Fight On

2009-09-05T14:35:00.004-04:00

Just over one year ago, on August 19, 2008 my friend was murdered. Taliban gunmen assassinated Mohammed Ayoob on his doorstep, in a village along the Kunduz River, in the Kunduz Province of Northern Afghanistan. Ayoob, only twenty years old, served as the supply sergeant for an Afghan Police unit in the district of Chahar Darreh where he lived.

Not the toughest soldier, Ayoob sometimes seemed to fear his own shadow. His commanders assigned him to the supply section; the Taliban noted his gentler nature and targeted him. In the end, he was tougher than he realized. Courageous in the face of death, when three terrorists ambushed him with AK-47 assault rifles, he drew his sidearm, and fired a single round at his killers before falling, the pistol smoking in his hand.

My friend’s death exemplifies the dynamics of the violent struggle for Afghanistan. A small, fringe minority resorts to terror to intimidate the majority. Wherever Afghan and US Forces fail to secure the populace, the Taliban terrorizes the people into obedience. Since I left Afghanistan last fall, the Kunduz Province has slipped further into the Taliban grasp. Ayoob’s murder was merely a single act in their long campaign.

The last time the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, fear and violence reigned. The rule of the Mullahs confined women and girls to their homes. Taliban officials destroyed schools. The Taliban stoned adulterers. They killed apostates who converted to Christianity and then destroyed the iconic Bamiyan Buddha statues. Afghans, with America’s help, overthrew their oppressive regime.

As an American soldier, I was proud to call Ayoob my friend, but language and culture made understanding difficult. I never knew whether he was more concerned with defeating the insurgent than with holding a paying job. I suspected the latter. Ayoob, and his family, lived in a state of poverty. Like most Afghans they scraped by as best they could from year to year.

Whether he fought for patriotism or money, Ayoob chose to stand up to the Taliban. Despite the risks involved, Sgt. Ayoob accepted a job that endangered his life. He demonstrated personal courage and a rejection of the Taliban. Soon after he died, I realized his family stood with him.

Muslims must be buried within twenty four hours of death. The day after Ayoob died, my team, continued our own anti-Taliban efforts in the district. On the way back to our base we passed Ayoob's funeral. In a nation where few people have cars, I saw dozens of cars, packed with hundred’s of friends and relatives at the hilltop cemetery where they laid Ayoob to rest. Attendance at Ayoob’s funeral represented a public rejection of the Taliban.

Ayoob’s friends and family are hardly unique in their rejection of the Taliban. Last week, Afghan presidential elections were held for the second time this decade. While insurgents intimidated millions of Afghans into staying home, millions more risked heir lives to vote.

Today, in the US, liberal politicians quote recent polls worded insure that a majority of Americans reflect the belief that Afghanistan is no longer worth fighting for. The left works pro-actively to prevent a possible troop surge. Next week General Stanley McChrystal is scheduled to report his assessment of Afghanistan to President Obama.

McChrystal, the new commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan is widely expected to ask the President for a significant increase in US ground troops. President Obama campaigned for office on the claim that Iraq had distracted us from fighting the “right war” in Afghanistan.

McChrystal surely envisions the “Iraq Surge” as a model for the way forward in Afghanistan. The Surge used a massive infusion of US troops combined with battle tested counter-insurgency tactics, techniques and procedures to secure the population of Iraq. The Surge enabled the legitimate government to succeed on its own in the future.

Our president, who owes his political career to the far left, is now caught between his core and his campaign. He promoted the “right war” on the campaign trail to capture the middle. Now, he can expect serious pressure from his allies in Pelosi’s Democratic congress to resist an “Afghan Surge.”

Americans may be weary of the war after eight years. Surely though, we are not more weary than the Afghans; they have known only war and terror for decades. The difference is that millions of Afghans know this war is worth fighting.

Like the loved ones of Mohammed Ayoob, they clearly want to end the violence. Their communities have been torn apart by decades of violence, but they will not surrender to terror to achieve peace. They know that the peace of the terrified is no peace at all.

Here at home, Americans are bombarded by the objections of the political left, and spoon-fed the dubious opinions of mainstream media pundits, but hopefully we will remember our own recent past. Eight years ago the Taliban allowed al-Quaeda to plan and train in Afghanistan. Al-Quaeda used that sanctuary to attack America here at home.

Today liberals, and an increasing number of conservatives are willing to allow that same Taliban to reclaim rule over Afghanistan. Today when Pakistan is much weaker and more susceptible to the Taliban in its own borders, this would spell disaster. Disaster for Afghans, and disaster for America; our enemies, safe in their sanctuary will plot once again to export their violence to our shores.

John Byrnes is a member of Veterans for Freedom. As a Staff Sergeant in the National Guard he spent most of 2008 in Kunduz Province, Afghanistan where he advised an Afghan National Police company in counter-insurgency.

Surge Ahead!

2009-08-27T19:08:00.005-04:00

Last week, half of those surveyed told a Washington Post-ABC News poll, that the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting. In two weeks General Stanley McChrystal will report his assessment of the situation in Afghanistan to President Obama. McChrystal, who recently assumed command of the US/NATO mission in Afghanistan, is expected to ask for another increase in US troop levels.

In December of 2006, half of the voters surveyed in a Washington Post-ABC News poll thought the USIraq; a month later President Bush approved the troop “surge” requested by General David Petraeus, the new senior US commander in Iraq. was losing in

President Obama campaigned last fall, promising to fight the “right war” in Afghanistan. The president should accept General McChrystal’s suggestions, and approve any call for additional troops. McChrystal is expected to request that the President honor his commitment to send another 17,000 troops raising the US total to nearly 85,000.

In the weeks before Iraqi Surge, liberal activists protested any troop increase. Today those liberals are pushing President Obama to abandon Afghanistan. They espouse varied reasons: the war is un-winnable; Pakistan is now the real problem; and for some, just plain pacifism. Their reflexive opposition to US military action abroad will ensure the resistance of congressional Democrats to a troop increase.

Speaker Pelosi and her loyalists will quote polls, claiming that voters are tired of the war. They will pressure President Obama to forget his promises and abandon the Afghans. Obama needs to stand up to his left leaning allies and listen to his generals.

Two years ago, hoping to prevent the surge, the same congressional Democrats quoted those polls about Iraq. Liberal Democrats virulently resisted the Iraqi surge, until it became clear in 2008 that the surge was working. That president, ignored the polls, stood firm behind General Petraeus and gave him time to achieve results. Today we continue reducing troop levels in Iraq, and while there is still violence, the Iraqi government is standing up to the Insurgency.

Afghanistan troop levels have been restricted for several reasons including the need for a larger number of troops in Iraq. Additionally, the 2002 accord put NATO in charge of military operations in Afghanistan. Some NATO allies, the British, Canadians and Dutch, have fought hard since the Taliban insurgency began. Last year, however, I personally encountered many NATO forces who were only interested in “peace keeping” operations.

Peacekeeping! I overheard NATO officers use this term, describing their mission in Northern Afghanistan, where the German Army is in charge. Aghast I had to wonder; between which factions are they keeping peace? Between a legitimate Afghan government and a Taliban insurgent force?

I won’t under-value the valiant effort of thousands of NATO soldiers. During my year in the German sector of Northern Afghanistan I worked with many professional NATO soldiers. But domestic politics across Europe has corrupted the efforts of several nations from the outset.

An example: thousands of US soldiers operate in northern Afghanistan as advisors to Afghan forces. Last year we had no certainty of medical evacuation by helicopter. Allied air forces would not guarantee an immediately respond to US requests for medical evacuation. US commanders had to add limit missions, damaging our ability to complete missions.

Creating effective local security forces is the priority in Afghanistan. NATO’s constraints severely limited ou r efforts to mentor the Afghans. Now the Taliban has re-asserted itself in the northern province of Kunduz; no doubt because of NATO’s timidity and restrictions on the smaller US contingent there. A robust US presence could easily reverse these events, and hold the province until Afghan forces are ready to stand on their own. The Iraq surge succeeded through these tactics.

NATO signed up for peacekeeping, not counter-insurgency. General McChrystal specializes in counter-insurgency; he adapted US efforts to this difficult style of war. Ready to use the Iraqi surge as his model, if he can get the forces he needs he will win. A fresh infusion of US troops will secure the population, and train and mentor the Afghan security forces. A coordinated counterinsurgency effort with enough US forces, can and will succeed in Afghanistan.

If Obama truly believes that Afghanistan is the “right war,” he will use the Iraq surge model. The last administration overcame the anti-war faction in Congress, including then Senator Obama. They convinced a doubting electorate to support a new strategy. Obama must face down his own allies on the left to support an Afghan surge.

The alternatives are bleak. The Afghan war is not un-winnable, but failure to fight effectively now, could strand us in Afghanistan for years. The worst outcome would be to abandon the Afghanistan people to the Taliban. A failed, or Talibanized Afghanistan, adjacent to a weak and unstable Pakistan is not in anyone’s interest. The problem is limited to neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan. Any solution must be truly regional, therefore we must secure Afghanistan from the Taliban and its al-Quaeda allies.

On The Road (to 9/11) Again!

2009-05-29T11:06:00.005-04:00

Yesterday the LA Times reported that in a stunning reversal of the recent, successful, strategy against Al-Quaeda and it’s associated terror network worldwide the Obama administration has decided to restore the FBI, as the lead “worldwide” counter-terror agency, relegating the CIA and the military to supporting roles in the Global War on Terror.

“Under the ‘global justice’ initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials said.

Though the initiative is a work in progress, some senior counter-terrorism officials and administration policy-makers envision it as key to the national security strategy President Obama laid out last week -- one that presumes most accused terrorists have the right to
contest the charges against them in a ‘legitimate" setting.’

The approach effectively reverses a mainstay of the Bush administration's war on terrorism, in which global counter-terrorism was treated primarily as an intelligence and military problem, not a law enforcement one. That policy led to the establishment of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; harsh interrogations; and detentions without
trials.

The ‘global justice’ initiative starts out with the premise that virtually all suspects will end up in a U.S. or foreign court of law.”

Here are just a few of the reasons why this is a recipe for disaster.

The FBI was ineffective at dealing with Al-Quaeda in the 1990’s. From 1993- 2001 we saw the first attack on the Trade Center, the bombing of the Khobar Towers, the attacks on the US in Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole, and the 9/11 attacks. All these attacks were perpetrated by al-Quaeda affiliates. Until 9/11 the FBI investigated these incidents and prosecuted a few identified individuals. This approach encouraged rather than deterred the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The FBI is so mistrusted as an intelligence source regarding the global network of Islamist extremism that the New York City Police department has posted its own police officers abroad as intelligence gathering agents to enable New York to detect and prevent another attack on the city.

At its roots, the FBI is a police agency. This creates problems for it as an intelligence gathering agency. The FBI primarily exists to make cases that can be successfully prosecuted by US Attorneys. The institutional culture is reactive and investigative, not preventive.

The FBI, until 2001, was a full partner with the DEA in the “War and Drugs.”
Its track record against loosely organized foreign adversaries is hardly encouraging

The new Obama approach puts Eric Holder in charge as America’s top anti-terror official. This is the same Eric Holder who has a record of supporting pardons for members of home grown terrorist groups like the BLA and FALN. Today Fox News reports:

“Charges brought against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense under the Bush administration have been dropped by the Obama Justice Dept.
The charges stemmed from an incident at a Philadelphia polling place, Election Day 2008 when three black panthers were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force -- one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.

The three, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he ‘supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews."

Eric Holder just let three more domestic terrorists off the hook.

According to the LA Time’s sources, any terror suspect, caught by any US agency, anywhere in the world will be directed to FBI custody. For soldiers and Marines operating on the battlefield this means capturing an enemy is now a law enforcement operation.

This creates several problems. Many of my friends in law enforcement call their badge a ‘license to be sued.’ While soldiers are competent at taking and securing detainees, they now will be in a position to be second guessed by everyone from non-military federal agents, to Justice Dept. lawyers, federal judges and juries.

We will now be assigning all terrorists, including those captured on the battlefield with an equivalent set of rights of US citizens arrested for crimes and misdemeanors here at home. Imagine a Taliban insurgent captured in Afghanistan will now have rights never accorded to those American enemies who abided by the ‘laws of war.’ We’ll treat al-Quaeda better than German POWs of WWII.

In fact the next set of detainees will be afforded better legal protections than most American criminal suspects because white shoe, elite, liberal law firms will be climbing all over each other to represent al-Quaeda suspects arrested by the FBI. If OJ Simpson got off because he hired a dream team imagine what will happen if Osama bin Laden is “arrested” instead of just shot by Special Forces.

His lawyers will argue everything from lack of jurisdiction, to cultural insensitivity, to the twinkie defense if it will prolong his trial their moment in the spotlight. If bin Laden was not a true extremist right about now he would be calling a lawyer and arranging to turn himself in, his chances would be so good.

Well America, get ready for more terror!

See Also:

TheLocke

Narcisstic Views

Mourning Memorial Day Pt 2

2009-05-26T11:18:00.007-04:00

For the record, in Wake County yesterday, app. 13,000 students, a full 40% of the student body were absent. I hope the school administrators who disrespected our nation's fallen take notice. Because there is something wrong in America these days. Something that the new president cannot cure with "Hope" or "Change," because he is a symptom of the malady.

A cautionary tale:

In a traditional middle class neighborhood in Staten Island New York, aging veterans donned their gear, American Legion and VFW jackets and garrison caps. So attired, they moved, some with considerable effort, to stand in formation with current National Guard soldiers. Warriors past and present saluted the flag and laid a wreath, on a local memorial. The old vets had tears in their eyes, as they approached the younger versions of themselves thanking them for fighting for our country since 9/11.

The older generation guys didn’t fight in theater with nightly ice cream, 9-month tours, Internet, Private rooms with modern AC, two weeks’ leave, $25k in individual protective and fighting gear, extra pay for housing, etc.

They just fought bloody attrition warfare on the ground against the Emperor’s children and Nazis; with aircraft made of wood and gas tanks and engines; ships loaded with electrical gear, huge boilers, ammo and diesel all ready to blow at any time, and weapons aimed with a Mark 1 eyeball alone.

“And these guys are thanking us—thanking me?” My friend recounted of his day

A few hours later. A few miles north of NYC, in one of the nicer northern Suburbs. He was at an annual Memorial Day carnival to raise money for the town’s public school (which doesn’t really need any money).

The scene: several hundred families milling about, mostly graying yuppies and captains-of-the-universe hedge fund and white-shoe law firm types, trooping their Ivy League bound spawn around from ride to ride.

The US Army officer arrives in uniform. Not one person – not one – thanks him for serving. No one asks why he is in uniform. On Memorial Day.

“You could just tell from the glances and eyes turned away that some of these folks were quite uncomfortable with me there, for whatever their reasons: afraid that I’m a vet ready to snap, or scream at them for electing BHO, or yell at them for being greedy and selfish or, most painfully, ask them what branch of the service they were in . . . who knows.”

One guy, a scout troop leader – himself in “uniform” – managed to decline an offered $1.00 for a bottle of water, but even he couldn’t make eye contact with the recent veteran of two deployments. At least it was a gesture.

There was one old lady: “She had to be in her 90s, parked under a tree by her lousy preppy grandkids; with a huge sun hat and the kooky white-rimmed sunglasses. She looked over here glasses, smiled and waved. I waved back. I appreciated that.”

My friend went straight to the nearest American Legion post, ordered a beer, and toasted the Greatest Generation.

Welcome to Obamastan!

Mourning Memorial Day

2009-05-25T14:02:00.004-04:00

Today is Memorial Day. This American holiday, first celebrated in 1865, was begun so that communities could commemorate their own fallen, amongst the hundreds of thousands of young Americans who gave their lives during our bloodiest war. Over time those local memorial services at the end of May grew into a great national tradition.

After over a hundred years of community memorials, the US congress finally acted. In 1967 they federalized the holiday, and one year later it legislated the now familiar ‘last Monday in May’ calendar placement. By the early seventies, all US states recognized the federal holiday.

Somewhere on the order of one million American soldiers have died in the nearly two and a half centuries of our national history. These men and women, define diversity. Immigrants from all four corners of the globe have served and died in our armed forces. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard, have all sacrificed their members, Active, Reserve, National Guard and Militia. Christian, Jew, Atheist, Buddhist, and Muslim; Gay and Straight; Democrat, Republican, Whig and Socialist; liberal, conservative, moderate. There have been restrictions on military service over the years, but our war dead represent every part of our great national constituency.

Among those who have fallen recently are many that I called comrade, friend, or brother. Not blood brothers, but “Band of Brothers;” Chris, Segun, Kevin, Casey, Wil, are a few of the names that I can’t summon to mind without a lingering sadness. This is the burden of service in our current military. Wherever one’s politics lie, these men and four thousand other Americans who have recently made the ultimate sacrifice deserve our respect and a moment of our time. They deserve a day.

Recently, some factions, however, have shown a desire to dismantle Memorial Day. In the middle of a war, however unpopular, what does it say about us that we are unwilling to honor those who defended us with their lives?

In Wake County, North Carolina, where I currently live, the School Board has classes running today. This is part of a year round classroom initiative. I understand the need to “think outside the box” to effect better education at cost. But when schools are closed the day before Thanksgiving, but not on Memorial Day, there is an indication that we as a society have lost our way.

This morning, as I began to research some statistics for this article, I turned to Google, of course. I was immediately dismayed when I saw that the Google banner was just their generic icon. I may not have noticed, but only two days ago their banner was reworked in an impressionist style for the entire day. They were “celebrating” the birthday of Mary Cassat, a 19th century American Artist. I have noticed similar themes on Google for Charles Darwin, Earth Day and even Dr. Seuss.

Apparently celebrating Memorial Day, even in America, does not comply with Google’s corporate image, or approximate the importance of clever children’s literature.. Google, a company, based in California, owned and staffed in America, would rather pursue a globalist agenda, than acknowledge the true strength of the nation that allowed it to dominate its market.

I don’t know how many Wake County parents pulled their children from class today. I know that many intended to. I don’t have children yet. I do know that there is a flag flying in my yard. I will stop by my local veteran’s memorial today. I will give a few moments in honor of my fallen brothers; and to the million more who have given me my freedom. And from now on I will be searching the internet with a search engine that recognizes American Holidays.

A NEW HOPE

2009-05-12T10:58:00.008-04:00

Obama is finally doing something right, a result of his remarkable decision to keep Gates as Sec-Def. He is listening to Petraeus, the head of Centcom. This week in Afghanistan General McChrystal an SF bred leader who is perfect for this type of WARFARE took over from General McKiernan an Armor officer who was pining for a good old maneuver battle. Here is the stream of consciousness approbation of one Army officer who served as a mentor, advising the Afghan police last year under McKiernan.

McKiernan was a tank officer. Not a good mindset for A-stan. Likes vehicles. Typical response to successful IED attack vs. a US mounted patrol in A-stan was a new mandate for even more vehicles (i.e. targets)in future convoys, and if you didn't have enough vehicles on your base due to maintenance issues to support scheduled patrols, then cancel patrols: a horrible climate, not the US Army/USMC of the Battle of theBulge or Iwo Jima at all, a repudation of the warrior ethos (mission first, never accept defeat, never quit, never leave a fallen comrade).

McKiernan didn't get that, didn't get counterinsurgency (COIN), though he paid it a lot of lip service. Risk averse. Liked making rules. Liked briefings. Liked being briefed. Lusted after PowerPoint slides.(I once received a compliment via e-mail from ISAF/HQ that my slides on how to train a province police swat team were appreciated by "the Boss".. . the SLIDES were appreciated, mind you, no commentary or feedback on the swat team concept (first in the country for regular police), no questions about numbers of arrests or dead terrorists as a result of deploying the swat team.)

McKiernan liked painted rocks, haircuts and parade formations. Hated SF mindset; certainly hated the idea of raggamuffin National Guardsmen going native and living in villages unsupervised. A Cold War, ground maneuver, conventional, NATOcommander.

McChrystal, is a light infantry officer, a paratrooper, a Ranger, a Special Forces officer, a Delta Force-commandingAbu-Musab-al-Zarqawi-killer. Not only not risk averse: likes risk, enjoys risk, thinks what sets Soldiers and Marines apart from other,normal people is a desire to (1) kill bad guys and break their shit and (2) take risks. Will have little tolerance for NATO's bullshit. Will have little tolerance for Obama's bullshit.

Will let Soldiers and Marines do their job: kill bad guys and protect everyone else. Will send US special forces into Pakistan and Iran covertly to do their job. Prediction: US forces will begin to get off of the large bases across the theater (not just in those particular places where the local commander gets COIN) and takes risk. Lots of dismounted patrolling. Lots of living with the locals. Lots of money spread around at grass-roots levels. Less bombing from the air; better bombing from the air.

Yes, more US casualties. BUT: Lots of HUMINT. Lots, lots, lots more AQ andTB casualties. Being a jihadist, an opium trafficker, a corrupt police officer working both sides, etc. in A-stan will become a very dangerous thing; this climate will deter fence-sitters, opportunists and those who fight for the hell of it, separating the hard-core enemy from the common schlubs. Al Qaeda already knows McChrystal by name: he killed Zarqawi,he personally inspected the remains, and they fear him. When the enemy reacts with mortal fear, with terror, to your presence, when he knowsthat you are crazier than he is, then you have the initiative.

McKiernan never had the initiative. No one feared him, not even his own men. McKiernan was a nice guy. McChyrstal is not a nice guy.McChyrstal may be the William Tecumseh Sherman of this war. NATO will complain to Obama that this new commander is too aggressive. In fact you will start to hear that when the Senate confirmation and debate process begins to make McC a 4-star, based on allegations that McChrystal's Rangers were mean to terrorists in Iraq.

Obama will succeed as a wartime commander-in-chief if he resists his own apologetic intincts and tells the Germans and French and Italians and the UN and Doctors without Borders and Karzai to go to hell, suppresses his wildly-inflated self image and lets McChrystal fight the war, while supporting him and otherwise staying out of it. McChrystal will ask for another 30,000 troops, beyond the 21,00 going in now, and a redefinition of ISAF's role in the war.

If Obama supports him in these things, then we will win: in five years, Afghanistan will be secure, ont he road to development and good governance at every level, able to defend itself internally and externally, and a contributer to the war against global Islamist terrorism. If Obama does not supportMcChrystal, then we will loose, and the signpost for that will be a movement for us to withdraw in a Vietnam-style "peace with honor"mode,with Taliban accomodated and appeased with "a province or two" inPakistan. And then both Pakistan and Afghanistan will fall. And then we will really need McKiernan's tanks and bombing missions.

Obama and Gates will take and get credit for this bold move. They should not. Petraeus did this. When we were overseas, as soon as we heard that Petraeus was getting CENTCOM, having ourselves seen how badly the theater was being commanded, we knew that McKiernan's days were numbered, no matter who the President was. Look at the attached picture from last week. The SecDef is in a suit,nothing else. The Afghans are in regular clothing. McKiernan is wearing his body armor. I guarantee that the US officer on the rightwho was not wearing his body armor had his ass chewed out after this fornot showing "good leadership" and concern for "soldier welfare" by wearing all of his gear to this photo op with "the Boss."

I have to concur here, McKiernan didn't want to offend anyone, including the enemy. He handcuffed the most effective, professional military force on the planet, due to career driven risk aversion. GOOD RIDDANCE, now let's kill some bad guys.

What Stratergies?

2009-02-27T13:16:00.009-05:00

You can say what you want about our last president, and liberals and democrats surely have. In the final analysis, though, George W. Bush not only kept the nation free from terrorist attack, but he and his National Security team provided a consistent and coherent strategy. A strategy that not only guided the combined efforts of our military and civilian agencies, but signaled to our allies and our potential foes where and why we would commit our blood and treasure.

Strategy is a misunderstood word. Webster’s defines strategy, derived from the Greek word for generalship, as: The science and art of employing the political, economic, military and political forces of a nation to afford maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war. Put another way strategy is a broad plan to achieve a nation’s goals. It is not, however, merely a list of those goals.

The Obama Administration, or as they sometimes prefer, the Obama-Biden administration (wait didn’t Joe Biden criticize Cheney for dominating Bush’s team?), has been reasonably certain of victory since September. They won an election victory in early November. They have been governing for more than a month now, after being afforded one of the smoothest transitions in White House history. But after all that, here we are without a strategy.

That’s right folks. Obama-Biden, have quietly replaced Bush’s National Security Strategy with a set of Agenda’s. I guess we’re going to defeat terrorists by holding a series of meetings. This would of course be in keeping with the current administration’s preference for engagement over conflict. After all Nazi Germany was overthrown not because of the strategy developed by Roosevelt, Churchill and George Marshall, or through the tireless wartime sacrifices of millions of Allied soldiers, but because the world “came together.” At least that’s the Obama-Biden version of history.

Joe Biden predicted before taking office that America’s enemies, and potential enemies would test our new president. Like a busted clock, even Joe Biden, has to be right occasionally. Our enemies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Northwestern Pakistan continue continue their efforts against us, and surely wait to see if Obama will be weaker than Bush. Elsewhere leaders of such diverse nations as Iran, North Korea, Peru, China and certainly Russia look to see if the new administration will allow them to advance there interests over America’s and those of the world’s democracies.

In the face of all this Obama (and Biden) have chosen to scrap coherent strategy for a few lists consisting of goals and vague intent. This in spite of their prior unrelenting criticism of the Bush strategy. Compare the Bush’s strategy to Obama’s agenda’s.

From the introduction to the National Security Strategy 2008:

The goal of our statecraft is to help create a world of democratic, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system. This is the best way to provide enduring security for the American people…

The chapters that follow will focus on several essential tasks. The United States must: ...

...
• Strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends;
• Work with others to defuse regional conflicts;
• Prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends with weapons of mass destruction (WMD);
• Expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy;
• Develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power;
• Transform America’s national security institutions to meet the challenges and
opportunities of the 21st century; and
• Engage the opportunities and confront the challenges of globalization.

From Obama’s Agenda:

FOREIGN POLICY

President Obama and Vice President Biden will renew America’s security and standing in the world through a new era of American leadership. The Obama-Biden foreign policy will end the war in Iraq responsibly, finish the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, secure nuclear weapons and loose nuclear materials from terrorists, and renew American diplomacy to support strong alliances and to seek a lasting peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

That ties to this howler further in:

Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists:

Obama and Biden will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years.

Wow, sounds like they may be too busy to govern while they’re out rounding up uranium. Funny it was never what Bush and Cheney were going to do, it was what America was going to do. I hope the dynamic duo will let us know if they need a hand.

To be fair Obama-Biden do mention strategy in their Agenda’s and some of their goals are the same as Bush’s. In fact most of them are. But it’s worth asking: Why did we de-link our goals from our plans? Just to be different from the last administration?

When The president says:

...And with our friends and allies, we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat al Qaeda and combat extremism. Because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens half a world away.
(Speech to Congress Feb. 24, 2009)

Well then I’m anxious to hear that strategy. How will you “not allow it Mr. President? Because somewhere is a terrorist feeling very safe, plotting our demise right now. With the US forces soon to be retreating from Iraq, with the Guantanomo detainees soon to be released, and any new terrorist detainees given trials, I wonder what we have in place that will “not allow it.” As far as I can see not only do we have no new strategy in place, some of us have no idea how to achieve our goals.