War On Terror News

Living High on the Hog: SecDef Leon Panetta

This Ain't Hell's Jonn Lilyea points out the hypocrisy of the man calling for increasing the fees that the Obama Administration initiated on Military Retirees.  While he only quotes the new enrollment fees, and doesn't mention the annual premiums and increases on prescription co-pays of more than 800%, the bigger story is just how much Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, is costing the Department of Defense for his personal travel.

Every weekend, Mr. Panetta takes a $32,000 trip, for which he pays $630.  This is only the cost of air plane operation, equivalent to a Gulfstream jet, not the cost of his Security Detail, their lodging and meals, or any other part of the trip.  He has paid $17,000 for the cost of coach fare on a common carrier, while enjoying the $860,000 perks of traveling on what amounts to a private jet, in about a year.  That does not include the costs of moving his security detail, in addition to him, nor does it include the costs incurred when he decided to hold campaign speeches at the Presidio of Monterey or Naval Postgraduate School, so he wouldn't have to even pay the $630.  There's been at least 9 times when he made sure to have "official business" in the direction of his weekend plans, or greater than 20% of the time.

Known for his bean counting and asking Congress to legislate what amounts to a tax on Military Retirement, while throwing Soldiers and Marines into the unemployment lines, he is defended by the Pentagon Press Secretary:

Taxing The Buffett Farmers, Veterans, & Elderly

Who are those miscreants not paying their fair share?  YOU!  As Obama goes on his campaign to institute the "Buffett Tax," one has to look back to his original proposal to see what he wants to actually tax.  A look at the "White House" site only reveals the current political campaign, without the actual proposal.  It's still there, but buried under numerous campaign messages from 2011 and 2012.  He has put parts of it in the 2013 DoD budget proposal and 2013 Government budget proposal, but that only demonstrates his focus on getting the other taxes through.

It isn't just a tax bill.  It's also a spending bill.  And a shell game.  Hidden amidst flowery words, it recognizes the law of diminishing returns, i.e., even the part that "taxes the rich," the returns diminish quickly.  Who wouldn't want to tax the rich, after all?  You'd be surprised to learn that the Nation's Elderly, Military Retirees, and Farmers are the "Buffett Rich."

The Elderly?  Yep, the Obama Administration proposes taxing them for the medications and health care.  He doesn't call this a "tax."  He calls it a "savings," because they survived to 65, paying into Social Security and Medicare, their entire lives, and now they're sponging off the system that taxed them.  He has determined that by increasing their costs for Part B Medicare (as well as Part C & D), they can pay their "fair share" of the Buffett tax.  Eventually, you too will qualify for this tax, no matter who you are.

What to do about those "Crazed Combat Vets?"

In the first quarter of 2012, the media has publicized an Iraq Veteran killing a Park Ranger in Washington, an Orange County Deputy killing a Marine, an Army Private being stabbed to death by Meth Heads in Washington, and a Staff Sergeant that allegedly killed 16 Afghans in their sleep, along with so many other stories of Violent Veterans.  The media is quick to tell us that these are Combat Veterans, but often fail to tell us when the person was tossed out of the military, like in that first case listed, or correct the story when they weren't in Combat at all, or weren't in the military as they had claimed.

In 2008, the NYTimes was on the same hunt, to prove that "Crazed" Combat Veterans were slaughtering American Civilians.  They wrote about 121 cases in which someone died.  The problem was that in many of those the Veteran was found to be innocent or to have acted in self-defense, while in others the trial had not occurred, and in many it was not murder at all.  In those latter cases, it was often a car accident, that helped to boost their body count.  When it was all said and done, the numbers demonstrated it was safer to be near a Combat Veteran than to be in the safest big city in America.

But "one is too many."

One case of domestic violence, one murder, or one suicide is "too many."  Yeah, that sounds good, but short of locking every American up in solitary confinement, there is NO program that can end all violence in this Nation, any subsection of it, or in any other country.

The question is whether or not the media attention presents a true picture.  It sells papers and tunes in viewers when the headline reads "Crazed Combat Veteran Kills Civilians," and they are selling papers.  The problem is that by pimping that headline while ignoring headlines about illegal aliens, druggies, and gangbangers killing cops and civilians, the media is creating, purposely, the perception that Our Veterans are violently, deranged lunatics, to be feared by Our Citizens.  The evidence does not support that.

What Were the Founding Fathers Thinking!?!?

It has become popular to say the US Constitution is" outdated."  Politicians in Washington have stated more than once that they won't let it get in the way of their plans.  And many people appeal to the American Voter's compassionate side to claim that "someone must do something," which is often synonymous to a campaign to increase the size of the Federal Government, and the amount of tax and debt it collects.

When I ask those that tell me that the Constitution is outdated, what exactly it is that doesn't apply to governance today, they usually say something about modern technology, but they can't point to anything in the Constitution, because they don't seem to have read it.  The Constitution does not govern technology.  It governs government.  It lays out responsibilities and authority of various branches and levels of government.  It spells out how it can be changed, if such a change is needed. 

"The power under the Constitution will always be in the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to REPRESENTATIVES of their own choosing; and whenever it is executed contrary to their interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their SERVANTS can, and undoubtedly will, be recalled." George Washington

It is a living document, not because it can be changed at the whims or "interpretation" of a politician or judge, but because it affords a method of amendment, which has been used 27 times, the last of which took 201 years to be ratified.  It is written in clear, precise, simple English.  You don't need a law degree to understand it.  At worst, you may need a dictionary from the 18th Century and perhaps a High School Diploma.  Shall and Shall not are rarely used today, but they offer no room for loopholes.

The Constitution is first and foremost the blueprint for how the Federal Government is established.  It creates the US House of Representatives and the US Senate and gives Congress the greatest list of powers; to declare war, to raise Armies, to maintain a Navy, to write laws, to raise revenue, and to spend that money.  It establishes the Executive Branch, which is to preside over the government and do the day to day business of the Nation, but limits the authority of the President to that which the Representatives of the People authorize.  It establishes the Judiciary, whose responsibility is rule accordingly to the law & the Constitution, not empathy or politics, in matters of dispute.

To simplify the 4 original pages of the US Constitution into an ideology of governance, it says that the Federal Government has responsibility for external affairs, and for affairs between the States, while the States have responsibility for governance within their borders.  It sets up various mechanisms to prevent the Federal Government from punishing or rewarding regions or states, and to maintain a level playing field.

The Bill of Rights was written and ratified almost immediately.  It re-iterates the principles of the Declaration of Independence and primacy of State Governments in the governance of the People.  The Bill of Rights were necessary because although the Founders had previously stated the Rights of the People to Freedom, as a Right given by God, not man, the Founders knew that if these Rights weren't spelled out and guaranteed, some politician wanting total power would usurp the God Given Rights of the Individual.

Again, I ask, What were they thinking?  Did they not know that the People would want Education and Health Care?  Why didn't they give such authority to the Congress?  Why did they make States, not Congress & the President, the governors of Americans?  Why did they restrict the Federal Authority to external affairs?

Who Authorizes War? Constitutionally? UN or Congress?

The War in Libya presented America with a political dance that had the Administration first telling us that it just wasn't possible to do anything to stop Qaddaffi from slaughtering protestors in the streets and then using a UN Resolution authorizing a "No-Fly Zone" to launch missiles at Television Stations because they were reporting news in support of a Sovereign government it didn't like.  We launched cruise missiles.  We sent in Military Aircraft.  We conducted warfare in Libya.  At no time, did the Obama Administration ask the US Congress for authorization to go to War.

For a year, the Obama Administration has said it just isn't possible to do anything to protect the people of Syria from the Ba'athist Regime and ally of Islamist Iran of Bashir Assad, outside of asking others to say it's a bad thing to do.  The Administration now appears to be in the opening salvo of preparing for war in Syria and Congress has some questions, namely: Will the current Administration get Authorization for War from Congress, as required by the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, which bows to no treaty, no international body, and no legislation passed by the entities it established, or not?

The question is not whether or not the Assad regime should be destroyed.  It is a state sponsor of terrorism, second only to Iran.  The question is, whether or not the Obama Administration respects the US Constitutional requirement that ONLY Congress may authorize the engagement of the Nation into War.

Outside the constraints of the Constitution, some might find Secretary Panetta's answer reasonable.  This is what the Constitution states; ONLY Congress has authority to:

Forms of Democracy & Government

Elections are held in a majority of the world's countries, ranging from Venezuela & Iran to Germany, Russia, & Britain, the United States, but does that mean the people have a true input to the political process?  Not necessarily.  For the most part, the rest of the world has some type of parliamentary system as opposed to the US Congress, and the current government in the US is very different than the intent of the US Constitution. 

In the American system, the people vote for a person, to represent their district, first as a representative of a party against the people selected by other voters for the other parties, and then between those running for that office of various parties and independents with no party affiliation.  Rarely does the political party itself choose the politician that will run for that office, but on occasion it does occur, such as in the special election of the New York 26th District in 2011 which was held when the serving Representative resigned.

In the parliamentary system, the parties choose the politicians who will hold the seats, if the party wins it.  In most parliamentary systems, voters cast a ballot for an individual and for a party.  Whereas, in the United States, the politician getting the most votes, regardless of party or how many parties get how many other votes, gets the seat. In the parliamentary system, a party getting a minimum percentage (usually about 5%) of the vote is given seats in parliament, even if they lost in every district.

Parliaments have various degrees of authority in various systems, ranging from an advisory board to the executive to the selectors of the executive (Prime Minister).  Some have a type of legislative authority and others don't.

CounterView on Afghan Violence

As Americans observe the current round of violent Afghan protests, and prepare to receive the remains of Americans whose lives were taken training Afghans to defend their own country, it is easy to say: "Screw them all!"  It's understandable that many are saying exactly that, because the rioting crowds seem to encompass the entire Nation.  After all we've done to bring Freedom, Peace, and Prosperity to a people living in the 14th Century, how could they possibly turn on us over this incident.

The first thing to remember is that those aren't "average Afghans" in the streets, and while the crowds seem large, the biggest riots numbered only in the thousands, in the capital of Kabul.  Elsewhere, there were crowds, numbering in the hundreds, in places like Jalabad & Konduz.  These are cities of tens of thousands to millions of residents.

Americans have rightly asked: When will President Karzai apologize for the Afghan troops that have murdered OUR Troops.  When will he condemn Taliban attacks on HIS civilians.  The answer is that he HAS apologized for the attack on Our Troops and he routinely condemns attacks on Afghan Civilians by the Taliban.  So, the question should be: Why doesn't the MSM report those apologies and condemnations?  Why does it only report Karzai's words when Americans are going to take offense at them?

Let Our Troops Win!

Do not short change them, by turning away those their potential brothers that are willing to put their lives on the line to defend Freedom.  Do not tie their hands behind their back by denying them equipment. 

Do not betray Our Troops by stripping them of the benefits, they earned in their Sacrifices.  The only guaranteed peace is through surrender, and that comes with the guarantee of oppression. 

H/T to Blackfive

When a Cop Kills a Marine...

... jumping to conclusions can lead to embarrassment and entrenchment.  The initial reports will never have sufficient information, and sometimes, there are people better situated to assess the situation. 

So, when I started reading reports that an Orange County California Deputy had fatally shot a serving Marine, in front of his daughters, I took a wait and see approach.  Military and Police are fellow Sheepdogs, though, at times, the fraternity has been strained.  Not every Veteran and not every Police Officer is Honorable, but the norm is that the average in both are risking their lives to protect Our Citizens.  And when two Honorable Sheepdogs meet, the exchange should be one of mutual respect.

But that was not the case at Orange County's San Clemente High School.  On 7 February 2012, at approximately 4:50AM, Pacific Time, a Deputy, who is also an Instructor in the Police Force, encountered an unarmed Marine NCO, with his two school age daughters.  The Marine was shot to death by the deputy, in front of the Marine's children.  Those are the facts.  Other parts of the story are less clear, as the story has changed with time.

"Law enforcement sources say Darren Sandberg, a instructor who joined the sheriff's academy in 2011, was responsible for the Feb. 7 shooting at San Clemente High School that killed Sgt. Manny Levy Loggins." KTLA-TV, Los Angeles

It appears that the initial report occurred at 4:41 AM at or near the school.  The officer called in a report from the "700 Block" of Avenida "Pico,"  The School is at 700 Avenida Pico. 

From the OCSD Blotter:

2/7/2012 4:41:26 AM

2/7/2012 4:41:26 AM

12-022073

CAR STOP-EXPEDITE FOLLOW UP

700 BLK AVD PICO

"[2/7/2012 04:41:26 : pos5 : SHINEFM] Landmark Comment: 992J2 92672 AREA = 75 1ST TURN OFF INTO PLOT"

“Negligent” leadership killed SFC Kenneth Westbrook!

In the early morning hours of September 8, 2009 with a full moon, the operation began.  The moon provided extra visibility, not necessarily a good thing when you are walking into an ambush!

Approximately 60 Afghan soldiers, 20 border police officers, 13 U.S. Marine and Army trainers along with a reporter made their way towards the village of Ganjgal, having left a nearby U.S. military base around 3:00 am.  The base, located in the Shakani District, is quite close to the Pakistan border.

Editor's Note:  You might be thinking this is about Dakota Meyer and how his actions resulted in a Medal of Honor!   You would be wrong!  It is also not about the 4 U.S. service members, 8 Afghan troops and Afghan interpreter who died that day.  It is in fact about Army SFC Kenneth Westbrook.  Who?  I hope that isn't your reaction. 

American Marine Faces Execution in Iran

On the 18th of December 2011, Iranian TV announced that they had captured an "American Spy" and broadcast his "confession."  Amir Mirzaei Hekmati had been illegally held since at least September 2011, and subjected to interrogations for at least 3 months.  An Iranian Islamist Court sentenced him to death on 9 January 2012, after a half day show trial.

His "crime?" "Fighting against Allah."  In Iran, that is a "crime" punishable by death.  The "evidence?"  His confession that he was a US Marine who had deployed to Iraq & Afghanistan.

Picture courtesy of www.FreeAmir.org

But what was Amir's real purpose in being in Iran?  He was there to visit his grandmother.  His parents had emigrated to the United States before he was born.  Amir is an American, born in Flagstaff, Arizona.  When he applied for his travel visa, he stated his background.  If he were a "spy," he wouldn't have said he was a former Marine.  He would have said he was a clerk at Best Buy or 7-11, or a college student, but he wouldn't have carried a US Military ID, if he had thought there was a need to hide it, i.e. if he were working for an Intelligence Agency of an adverserial government.

"Troop Levels Will be Based on..."

... "conditions on the ground," "in consultation with the Ground Commanders."

"the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda" President Obama, West Point, December 1st, 2009

These are things we have heard from the President, the Secretary of Defense, and other Administration officials.  I am not the first to have pointed out that the very opposite occurred, that the decision was made to cut Troop levels in Afghanistan before the first Soldier in "The Surge" received his orders to go.  Nor am I the first to point out that this is the wrong time, i.e. in the middle of war, to cut the number of Troops available to fight these wars.

"..a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban - a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country"  President Obama, West Point, December 1st, 2009

The Necessity of Negotiations with the Taliban?

What makes "now" the right time to "end"the War in Afghanistan?  Is it because we have defeated the enemy?  Is it because the democratically elected government of Afghanistan is now stable?  Is it because the enemy is on their knees?  Has the Taliban declared they would treat women as humans?  Is the war just un-winnable and it's time to give up?  Is the Administration declaring defeat?  Or, have we met our objectives?

Before we can ask if we've met the objectives, we have to ask why we went to Afghanistan in the first place?  On September 9th, 2001, Al-Qaeda assassinated Mahmood Shah, the leading anti-Taliban General.  On 9/11/01, 19 Al-Qaeda terrorists, having trained in the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, attacked the United States, in New York City, in Washington DC, and over the skies of Shanksville, PA.  They murdered nearly 3,000 Civilians in the United States.  Their goal was 250,000 dead Americans.

In September 2001, the US Government requested extradition of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and other co-conspirators of the attack, from the Taliban ruled Afghanistan to the United States for trial in the war crimes and acts of terrorism of the United States.  Democrats and Republicans were united.  Both Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush stated that other Nations were "either with the United States, or against us."  The Taliban government of Afghanistan called "the bluff."  It decided that it would protect its benefactor, believing that it could survive the historical cruise missile retribution attacks they had become accustomed to in the previous decade.  After all bin Laden had married Mullah Omar's daughter, not to mention given the Taliban a lot of equipment.

Denigration to "Honor" the Sacrifice of Veterans

Some people "just don't get it."  No matter what you say, how you say it, you're not going to get through their drug clouded mind what is and is not acceptable behavior.  In this particular case, we're talking not just about a generation that grew up believing they were entitled to do whatever they want, and have responsibility for none of their own actions, but took that a step further and decided that their own lack of responsibility meant also that they could desecrate the very symbols of sacrifice others have paid in blood, sweat, and tears to provide them the prosperity and security to live their lives in Freedom.  And when called on it, by those who are represented by that sacrifice, their response is: good, we wanted the publicity.

The group in question advocates for the legalization of pot.  I'm not going to weigh into the merits of legalization vs. prohibition of marijuana.  It is illegal, under current law, except in California, for "medical purposes."  It is the right of every American to attempt to convince the rest of America or the states or their local governments that a law should or should not be enacted, including potheads.

"The PoW flag is not copyrighted and is open property. It is a gift for all Americans, to do with as they see fit."

America, When Will You Stand Up for Your Veterans?

Military Retirees, under 65, probably have another job that can pay their Health Insurance Costs.  We need to convince them to use that Insurance plan instead of the one they earned by 20+ years in the Military.  Obama Administration. (paraphrased, they would never say it that clearly.)

This is what the Administration calls "not breaking faith" with Our Troops and Veterans.  I had a rather heated discussion about this with a civilian friend, who happens to support Obama.  She felt that the disgust I voiced with the Administration, and with those that continue to justify his slashes makes Veterans and Troops appear to be just a whiny special interest group.  She didn't understand how I could confuse her Support of the Troops, with annoyance that she attempted to justify the Administration's calls for culling the force.  And she typed the same lines the Obama Campaign has used to justify the cuts.  The Proposals include:

Increasing and adding new enrollment fees for retirees (for Tricare)
Establishing a new enrollment fee for the TRICARE-­‐for-­‐Life program
Implementing additional increases in pharmacy co-­‐pays
Obama proposals in January 2012, in the DoD "Defense Budget Priorities" previously proposed in the Obama Budget Proposal in September 2011 which was marketed as raising taxes on "the rich" while "raising revenue" to a greater extent from Military Retirees & Veterans.

So, how do I express myself better?  How do I better explain why it is wrong for the American Government to break its contract with the Veterans that have protected this Nation?  Why is it morally and legally wrong to charge Military Retirees for Health Care?  Why is it the responsibility of the American People to stop this?  Who can do that and How?

Strategic American Wargaming: Making Do With the Slashed DoD Budget

I just came across this strategic, long-term, war game, designed for the future Generals to test their skills at prioritizing Defense spending, Future Force.  You can buy and play the war game for yourself, as can our strategic enemies.  I would expect they already have.  I have not, so I have to rely on the words of the left aligned "Foreign Policy" organization for what Michael Peck found out about the game.  In turn, he relies on the left aligned CNAS, for his "strategy" in the game.

From what I gather, there are only a few things that the game player can influence in the war game.  It appears that one cannot choose their enemies, or alter the budget allocated to fight those enemies.  As such, it has value to the intended users of the game, i.e. Generals who must work with the resources politicians allot them to fight the enemies they've foreseen.  We don't choose who will attack us, but there would be value in allowing strategic planners to test their skills against different sets of enemies.

The game was designed prior to the announcement by the Obama Administration that it wants to cut another Half-Trillion from the Department of Defence, but implements the calls by the left to abandon the ability to fight against Standing Armies, as we did in 2003.  Michael Peck, of Foreign Policy, played by the left-leaning playbook, with the forces that will be available after the currently approved Troop cuts. 

Beginning the game with two conflicts: a major groundwar, and a counter-insurgency, along with 3 peacekeeping deployments, this is very similar to the situation of 2007.  So too, are the locations: Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, and two he doesn't name.  Using the doctrines of the left-leaning CNAS, he discovers he must cede one of the 5 to the enemy.  He discovers that based on the current policies, he can't maintain the peace in 3 locations, AND win the two conflicts.

The FACTS: Army statement on MEDEVAC issue

January 20, 2012 By Office of the Chief of Public Affairs

WASHINGTON (Jan. 20, 2012) -- "Recent news items about the use of Army medical evacuation, or MEDEVAC, helicopters in Afghanistan contain troubling information. The reporting suggests that putting red crosses on MEDEVACs, and not arming them somehow, is putting injured Soldiers' lives at risk. The facts do not support these assertions for several reasons.

First, there is no evidence, implied or proven, that the enemy deliberately targets MEDEVAC helicopters, but we know from hard experience that the enemy does try to shoot down any and all U.S. and coalition aircraft. Further, all helicopters in Afghanistan fly in pairs as a force protection matter. It's the way we do business and to suggest that arming MEDEVAC aircraft would result in crews launching sooner is a dubious assertion.

U.S. Army Soldiers transport a trauma victim to a U.S. Army medical helicopter in Tarmiyah, Iraq, Sept. 30, 2007. The Soldiers are from Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment, 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division out of Fort Lewis, Wash.

Here are the facts: DOD has specifically tasked the Army, not any other service, to provide a standing MEDEVAC capability. The other services, as well as the Army in some cases, fly CASEVAC missions. This is a critical distinction. CASEVAC stands for Casualty Evacuation, which is a technical distinction that means they use whatever helicopters are available at the moment to extract the wounded or downed aircrews. However, DOD has tasked the Army to provide evacuation to the MEDEVAC standard, which means our MEDEVAC crews and helicopters are purpose built, manned, trained and equipped to provide advanced trauma care in flight.

Cutting Troops in a Time of War?

In a recent conversation about the pending cuts to the number of Active Duty Troops, a reader asked, "but with the end of the War in Iraq, aren't these 'overflow' Soldiers unnecessary?"  (I'm paraphrasing.)  The base of the discussion is that the current Administration is cutting 49,000 Soldiers from the Active duty Army.  The question is whether this is a responsible thing to do, while we continue our War in Afghanistan, or if the end of the War in Iraq, and the Administration's plan to "end" the War in Afghanistan means that these Troops are no longer needed and hence can be thrown into the unemployment lines.

Some would argue that these aren't wars at all, that the Administration calls them "Overseas Contingency Operations," but to the Troops on the Ground, getting shot at, political correctness does not translate into a change of reality.  Nevertheless, we've been at war for 10 years, and one would think that we've increased the size of Our Military since the attacks of 9/11/01.  And we did, by a little bit, sorta, but most of the increase in Troops serving every day of the week has been by activating units and members of the National Guard and Reserves.  Other shortfalls in manning were filled by sending in Air Force or Navy Troops to back-fill the Army and Marines, in ground operations, in places that Navy and Air Force personnel wouldn't normally be assigned.

Zero Default; Zero Tolerance

As the Economy plummeted, the Military tightened its recruitment standards and Congress lowered the enlistment incentives.  Re-enlistment bonuses shrank, and Congress decided against more than the legally required pay raises.  Senator Webb, a Veteran himself, and normally on the Pro-Troop side of his party put it this way: with the Economy in bad shape, we don't need to pay the Troops more to recruit the numbers we need.  He was right of course.  The recruiters have been turning away qualified applicants for some time.  Only the National Guard is missing its decreased recruiting goals.  People are signing up for a job, instead of for the Mission.

And with the process of cutting the force by another 49,000, the Army has an opportunity to weed out bad apples, right?  Between the bad economy, the increase in new recruits, and the looming cuts, the Army has to figure out who to fire, and has little incentive to tolerate any misbehavior.  This is a good thing, right?

On the heels of bad publicity over DUI's and "Sexual Assaults" and "hazing" and the repeal of DADT, "Zero Tolerance" isn't just a buzzword, but an excuse to toss out the excess, for the least of allegations.  In the Sexual Assaults report, an allegation, even if unproven, of inappropriate contact or words, is sufficient to discharge from the military.  Innocent until proven guilty isn't applied.  There are cases of individuals allegedly slapping someone's butt in a line of Troops, where insufficient evidence exists to prove misconduct, yet the individual was tossed out.

The Growing Power & Threat of Islamism: 2011

A while back, I created a map overlay demonstrating the worldwide threats, with a focus on Islamism but also including secular and Communist regimes that ideologically or violently oppose us.  The world has changed since then.  Reluctant allies have distanced themselves in the last 3 years.  Lasting allies have fallen.  Old enemies have fallen to new enemies.  And my current picture editor isn't as good as the one I had then.

There is one small speck of good change in the world.  The Sudan split into two nations, helping to decrease the mass genocide of Islamists killing Christians and Animists in the newest Nation of South Sudan.  The South Sudanese have an uphill battle to establish their new government and this success began its path years ago.  North Sudan remains Islamist, in greater concentration.

Unfortunately, Islamism has spread dramatically in the last year, both in its violent attacks and in its takeovers of governments.  Tunisia was the first to fall, followed by Egypt, while the Islamist party of Turkey retained its power.  Some have hailed these as successes for democracy, but it is a failure of US Foreign Policy and a blow to Freedom.

The Obama Administration's response to seeing mass protests against an old ally was precisely as was the Carter Administration's.  Both in Tehran 1978 and Cairo 2011, the Administration urged a Military Coup against an allied leader.  The difference is that the Egyptian Generals were actually able to hold the reins of power for a short period of time, while the Iranian Generals had never really taken the concept as reasonable.  In both cases, the protestors were a mix of those supporting Freedom and Democracy and those supporting Islamism.  Forces for Democracy outnumbered forces for Islamism, but the Islamists were better organized.

Video: JCS GEN Dempsey Discusses the Changes the Military Faces

The JCS notes that the military will have to transition to lower budgets, fewer Troops to do Full Spectrum missions.

I'll give it to him, he recognizes that we MUST be able to do both Counter-Insurgency and (to relearn) Army vs. Army "conventional warfare," but I think he's fooling himself if he thinks an even smaller force can be ready for even wider ranges of missions.  Already the Troops are stretched to their limits in available time.  The Warriors that remember how we trained to fight Armies are retiring.   The NCO's are getting younger.

OP/ED: Hawaii Five-0 needs to learn some respect for their betters

15 December 2011

Yesterday, I got wind of a disgraceful incident by the crew of a tv show towards our most precious Veterans of Pearl Harbor Day.  The news wires were reporting that a group of Pearl Harbor survivors - respected members of our Greatest Generation -  Veterans all in their 80's and 90's,  had made a pilgrimage to the PunchBowl Cemetary to hold a commemorative Service to honor their brothers who perished on that "Day in Infamy." 

This was to be a solemn, dignified service, but because of the presence of a Hawaii Five-0 tv crew, was turned into a terrible display of ignorance and disrespect.

The milblogs heard of this, and had the expected response:

Those Pesky Veterans Are Bankrupting the Nation?

To hear some people talk about it, the Nation can no longer afford to provide Health Care and Disability payments to Our Veterans.  The Obama Administration says they need to pay for their own health care to a greater degree.  We "all" need to "share in the sacrifice."  And others point to 10 years of war and question how we could possibly afford to fulfill Our National promise and obligation to those that volunteered to put their lives in harm's way.  Surely, the number of Veterans in the Nation is rising, and the number that have earned disability checks and care for their injuries is rising as well, right?

No.  As of 2007 (VA's most recent information), there were 3x as many Veterans over 65 than under 40. Of Our Living Veterans, more than 39% are over 64. In fact there were twice as many Veterans over 80 than there are Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.  As of the end of 2006, according to CBS (in 2009), 947,000 Viet Nam Veterans were receiving compensation for their disabilities.  This compares to only 181,000 current conflict Veterans receiving compensation (of at least $1).  "Officially" we've been at war longer, and in two Nations, than we were in Viet Nam, though that doesn't account for the early years of the Viet Nam War.

Why are there so many more Viet Nam Veterans than current conflict Veterans?  A greater burden has been placed on a smaller number of people.  In Viet Nam, a very high percentage of Veterans did one deployment and one term of enlistment.  In today's conflicts, a very high percentage of Troops have served multiple tours.  And we have fewer Troops deployed.

Sex Crimes In & Out of the Military

There are facts and suppositions, followed by hype and speculation, that swirl around the question of sexual assaults, rape, and deviant behavior in the Military.  Fortunately, actual facts and figures are also available, even if under-reported in the media.  Unfortunately, some of the data is still presented in murky terms.  Let's face it, politics and social causes do not always want to report the facts.

Bottom line: Our Troops are not the rapists that some would portray.  Our Military Leaders do not tolerate or protect sexual deviants.

I have not weighed in on this issue previously, because I didn't have the hard data to provide a true assessment.  While I'll present my abridged version here, a more detailed analysis was published previously on Perspectives.

I have NO sympathy for perpetrators of sexual crimes.  It appalls me that some that wear the uniform commit such crimes, but I also recognize that Our Troops come from all walks of life, and represent a small slice of the civilian population from which they are drawn.  I find that the punishments in both civilian and military life for these crimes is insufficient, but also that the majority of Americans would not support the severity of what I do believe to be appropriate.

Also, I recognize the reasons why a victim of sexual assault might decide not to report the crime, or to decide not to pursue prosecution, though I wish that all victims would pursue prosecution to the maximum extent of the law.  I know victims that have not reported it, that did not even tell me, until it was beyond anyone's ability to take the appropriate actions.  I would encourage those that are victims of such crimes to report it as soon as possible, and to seek the counsel of a trusted leader if they are in doubt as to how to handle it.  The NCO's I've known and respected have taken as dismal an opinion of the criminals involved as have I.

The Other Side of War: One Veteran's View

 For many, the year 2003 is nothing more than a year that is long gone. For South America native, Sgt. 1st Class Fred Fox, a 12-year Army Infantry veteran and former Marine, currently assigned to Company B, 2nd Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, it is a year marked by the beginning of a life changing event. 

U.S. Forces began their push into the country of Iraq in early 2003. Veterans like Fox vividly remember those trying years leading up to the current U.S. Forces’ position within the country. “In those years of the war, it was about killing or being killed, and we [soldiers] all wanted to come home,” Fox states. 

Fox remembers these years as being some of the most mentally challenging. 

“Witnessing a battle buddy pass or a friend die is an image that you never get out of your mind. No matter how much you try to shake it, it’s always there,” said Fox. “You almost want to run away to escape the hardships.” 

These hard times brought forth growth, but for Fox, the growth that was evolving within him was one fueled with anger for a people viewed as the enemy. This anger led him to ultimately make the decision to leave the military after serving as a Marine gunner for five and a half years. 

“These people were not friends of mine. I was nothing more than an outsider looking into a culture I couldn’t understand and didn’t care to relate to,” expressed Fox. 

This pessimistic mentality changed with Fox’s return to the military as a member of the Military Transition Team. The intense combat that was previously favored started to lean more heavily toward rebuilding the country of Iraq. 

“We lost many lives during the invasion, but their sacrifice has not gone unnoticed or unappreciated. In fact, their memory still drives me to want to push forward in this fight,” a sympathetic Fox states. He said this was his reason for opting to return to the force, but as an Army infantryman. 

Fox gives much credit to his time deployed as a member of Military Transition Team. This deployment shaped his pessimistic way of thinking to an optimistic point of view, symbolizing a pivotal change in his life. 

“Living in close quarters with leaders of the Iraqi public changed the way I viewed the civilians. [Iraqi civilians] were friends. I understood them, and no longer viewed them as the enemy but as people who needed my help, a service I volunteered to do; to protect those who find it hard to protect themselves,” explains Fox. 

A humbled Fox, now a platoon leader, is on his fourth tour in Iraq in support of Operation New Dawn. He is astounded by the progression that has occurred in Iraq during the eight years that U.S. Forces have been in the country. 

“There’s a lot of good here in Iraq. When I lead my guys on patrols I tell them to avoid tunnel vision and not to be afraid to connect with the people here. I not only view the populace through the eyes of a soldier but from the perspective of a father, husband and friend,” advised Fox. 

When asked about his military career, Fox states “I joined not wanting the praise or accolades that come with the uniform but to make a difference. I’ve been deployed almost half of the time I have been married to my wife,” and every day that I’m able to inspire a soldier or young child in a village by giving them a necessity like water, it makes it all worth it”. 

Spending time away from family and friends never gets easier over the course of multiple deployments. However, Fox feels his personal sacrifice and selfless service is greatly appreciated by Iraqi civilians. He says their gratitude and appreciation can be seen in the smiles of admiration whenever his platoon arrives to a local school or village to deliver humanitarian aid.

 

 

USF-Iraq Web Site

Can A Smaller Force Keep America Safe?

The current Administration has requested and gotten approved cuts of 49,000 US Soldiers, in the Active Army alone. In 2009, it began to cut 20,000 from the National Guard, quietly, without publicity. This year, Fiscal Year 2012, which began on October 1, 2011, begins the Active Army's implementation of the 1st cuts implemented by the current Administration. This is not the first time in military history that the military has been reduced in size, but it is the first time that it has occurred during a war. And the Secretary of Defense, along with members of the Joint Chiefs have warned that these cuts may not be over.

This begs the question: How big must the military be in order to succeed in it's mission? Well, the answer depends on the question of what the politicians expect our military to be able to do? And here we need the historical context of how that has changed in the last 3 decades. (Expanded version of this article.)

In the 1980's, we faced an expanding Empire, that challenged the United States and Our Allies technologically, as well as exceeded our numerical capacity. Our Allies in Europe and Asia understood the threat that Communism posed and helped bridge the numerical disadvantage, while we accelerated our technological edge and developed a Professional edge in Troops that volunteered to stand the wall, and in sufficient numbers dedicated their lives to that pursuit. The mission was defined as the capacity to fight and win TWO prolonged wars/fronts simultaneously.

Ignoring the Chinese Threat

Few would deny that China's red star is rising in the world.  In recent years, China has completed the Yellow River Dam, became the largest foreign debt holder of the US Government, and taken over shelf space in American Stores.  Relations between the US and China during the Cold War were a chilly alliance of convenience aimed at developing fear that China would capitalize on any US-Soviet confrontation, by taking over the undefended scraps of the Soviet's soft undefended underbelly.

In decades past, the Chinese had one primary military asset, that could not be ignored: A Billion People they could throw at a regional threat.  And they demonstrated how effective that could be in the Korean War.  When Americans pushed the North Korean Army to the Northern reaches of the Korean Peninsula, the Chinese sent their hordes over the frozen Yalu River to force a standstill that protected Communism's southern flank in Asia. 

The parallels to Task Force Smith can not be ignored today.  Following WWII, President Truman had so slashed the military that North Korea (along with the Soviets and Chinese Communists) felt emboldened to take the rest of Korea by force.  The most that could be mustered to stop the invasion was a small task force, ill-equipped with outdated arms.  The United States alone lost 38,516 Troops alone in a war often forgotten, while more than 778,000 Allied Troops, 2.5 Million civilians, and more than 1.1 Million North Korean, Chinese, and Soviet Troops died in the war that has not been ended officially, and ended in a stalemate of lines in the same place it started.

Diplomacy of Doves Has Failed with Arrogance & Weakness

Politicians are often labeled Hawks or Doves, preferring calls for "negotiations" and/or diplomacy to resolve conflicts, or a strong National Defense and expressed willingness to use those forces to reduce threats to National Security, and deter misbehavors from acting on their desires.

The same parties known as Doves, focus on domestic spending programs, while the party of Hawks has traditionally protected the DoD budget from unacceptable cuts.  The Doves seem to envy the DoD budget, seeing it as money they could use instead to buy Chinese Solar Panels, Chinese made Black Berets, to build Turtle Tunnels, and Multi-Million dollar Monkey Pagodas so 7 monkeys can live in captivated style.  The Doves may claim to be "strong on Defense" but even "The One" who campaigned to place Afghanistan as his top priority, to put diplomacy ahead of the use of force, has done the opposite.

But does the party of diplomacy live up to its slogans?  Have Our Alliances been strengthened and Our Enemies weakened during the era of purported Diplomacy?  Is America more respected now than it was 4 years ago?  Are we safer?  Have our enemies fled the field of battle to negotiate peace and reconciliation?  Or are old allies turning to alliances and friendships with our old enemies?

Troops & Veterans Aren't Paying Their Fair Share?

Well, the POTUS has declared that he has a plan to reduce the deficit by $1Trillion to $4 Trillion over the next 10 years, depending on what part of his marketing you're reading.  He has said that it's time for all of us to pay our "fair share," and pointed to the words of one of his biggest contributors: Warren Buffett.  Buffett is an astute investor who was able to put together a few million in campaign donations for Obama (and for Hillary) in 2008, ensuring they backed TARP which netted Buffett a few billion more in net worth.

Buffett has campaigned for higher taxes on the rich, for as long as he's been an Obama supporter.  To hear the spin, Buffett is paying less in taxes than his secretary, but Buffett doesn't say that being rich, he doesn't need (and likely doesn't take much of) an income.  He doesn't say how much he pays his secretary, but evidently, this translates into needing to raise taxes on those that make $250k/year, as opposed to the tens of billions that Buffett has in wealth.  At any rate, the reported increase in taxes on the small segment of America would supposedly increase tax revenue by $35 Billion, less than the worth of Warren Buffett, and a small part of the total claimed deficit reduction.  At best, it's a token (<1% to 3.5% of the claimed savings) and a slogan, to politicians, but a helluva cut in takehome pay for the people that employee others.

So, who are these miscreants that aren't paying their fair share?  The ones that will pay to balance the budget deficit?  Well, Military Retirees are evidently a big part of those not paying their fair share.  While the POTUS and his SecDef talk out of both sides of their mouths, the POTUS plans to slash military retirement pay and benefits.  Evidently, Twenty years of risking life and limb, of sacrificing comfort, and time with family, is insufficient to earn a full retirement.  He wants an "independent" commission to rubber stamp his idea of cutting up to 44 years of retirement pay($21 Billion).  And he wants those that do retire to pay for it themselves, with a 401k plan, instead of a retirement plan.

The Rights & Responsibilities of the US Constitution

Educational institutions are charged with instructing the youth of America about the Constitution on this day.  It is an appropriate day, for Americans to take pause, to read and review the US Constitution, to consider what it is and what it is not, to consider the reasons why Our Founding Fathers used plain English to write the 4 pages they did.

"It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.  There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." Daniel Webster

They used words like shall and shall not.  They wrote in a language that does not need "interpretation" but in interpretation has been misused.  That simple, strong language clearly outlines the authorities, responsibilities, and restrictions imposed on each of the branches and elements of government.  And yes, it is a living document, but not in the way that the "interpreters" would pretend. 

To "Remember 9/11" is Not Enough

Ten Years of a promise to "never forget" and I must ask if just remembering is enough.  Sixty-four years of the promise to "never forget" the holocaust hasn't steeled the world against smaller scale versions of similar atrocities and has not prevented "tolerance" of those that still call for the eradication of the very same race.  For too many, 9/11 anniversaries and Memorials to the Fallen are simply an opportunity for publicity or a task that must be undertaken.  For too many, it seems that it is enough, or even too much, to acknowledge the loss of life, but it is beyond their capacity to understand what is done to prevent a repeat, beyond their abilities to Support Our Troops in their actions, in their sacrifices, and in their risks to do so.

For weeks, leading up to 9/11/11, politicians have taken the podium, newscasts have interviewed celebrities, and newspapers have sought out specific demographics to tell their story.  The stage at Ground Zero is to be so packed with politicians on 9/11/11, that there is no room for the Heroes that rushed in on 9/11/01 to preserve as many lives as every fiber of their bodies could save.

Jack Delaney: "I am a 9/11 survivor, NOT a Hero"

Jack Delaney: "It's all about the day. I was there to help people."

As the whole world watched the horror of 9/11 unfold, and in the days and years following, many heroes emerged: heroes whose only focus that day was to save the lives of others, often at great expense to themselves. My regular readers are well familiar with one such hero whose picture remains on the sidebar at Assoluta Tranquillita.  I have written often about Keith Fairben, as his mum Diane and his dad Ken have both shared their precious son Keith with us.

Even as Ken and Diane reject the label "hero" for their beloved son - and assure us that Keith would also insist "I was just doing my job" - there are others from that day who also adamantly reject the 'hero' label for what they did on September 11.

Jack ("Don't call me Mister!") Delaney is one of those who ran towards the madness that day, as others ran away from the horrors. Jack survived 9/11, and despite never having shared his personal memories, he agreed to talk with me. He did this because Ken and Diane assured him I am one of the 'good guys.' (Yes, we will both blame Ken and Diane. As Jack likes to say: "Wasn't me!") Jack had to be convinced that what he saw and did that day matters, is important for others to know. No, honest, I did not break any of his bones, but close!!

9/11/11 +10 years: Fears Realized

Everyone remembers where they were on 9/11/01 and there were only a few places I might rather have been: The Pentagon, Manhattan, Uzbekistan, ready to go face Our Enemy.  But in the scope of things, being on a range, loading ammunition, attempting to perfect my skills, with fellow warriors, was a good place to be.  I didn't know if we would do what needed to be done, but I knew it was terrorism, from the point I heard the news, which was also the moment the 2nd plane hit the WTC.

It didn't take as long as the years it seemed, to know, we would do something we needed to do.  For a moment, Americans were united, and the world was behind us.  I didn't expect it to last, but neither did I expect it would take 9 years to find OBL.  And neither did I expect that CNN would tell the enemy how we were getting close in the interim.  I cussed the media many times, along with whatever expert they put on TV telling the means of finding him.

But, I feared American resolve and memory would wain before the fight was done.  I feared that Americans would think it over when we got OBL.  I feared Americans would forget that nearly 3,000 civilian lives were lost, and that was the reason the dogs of war were finally unleashed.  Too many times, I had seen Americans forget American deaths at the hand of terrorists: Beirut, Tanzania, Khobar Towers, Kenya, the USS Cole, the first WTC attack (1993).  The Citizenry and Politicians had forgotten and done little, except perhaps launch million dollar missiles at mud huts.

Those Libyan Ties to Terrorism, CIA & MI6

During the 70's and 80's, Libya under Qaddaffi, ordered, sanctioned, and supported just about any terrorist or rebel they could find to oppose the US, Europe, or their allies.  Libya was directly responsible for bombing the La Belle discoteque in West Berlin and Pan Am Flight 103.  Qaddaffi had dreams of empire and supported atrocious dictators as varied as Charles Taylor in Liberia & Sierra Leone, Daniel Ortega's Communist Sandinistas in Nicarauga, the Red Army Faction in Europe, and Abu Sayyaf in the Philipines.

But in 2003, Qaddaffi had an epiphany.  His attempts at fomenting foreign revolutions had failed and he had witnessed the new American resolve to deal with tyrants, terrorists, and misbehavers developing weapons of mass destruction.  In December of 2003, he voluntarily gave up his WMD program.  As he began conforming to UN and International court orders to compensate the families of his prior victims, the International Community welcomed him back into the world of normalized relations.  In 2010, with the support of at least 97 Nations, Libya was elected to the UN Human Rights Council.

Today, we learn that Qaddaffi was fighting as a secret ally against Islamist Terrorists, that he had not only committed his forces in the Sahara Desert against Al-Qaeda, but also that he had directed his intelligence services to cooperate with the Central Intelligence Agency and Britain's MI-6.  And we find out that his claims of Al-Qaeda led rebels against him hold water.  The military leader of the rebel forces was previously captured in the War on Terror and transferred to Libya, after demanding assurances that he would be treated humanely.  Of course, that's not the spin the MSM is putting on the information.

Nigerian Military Dating Scams

by Guest Author, CJ Grisham, of A Soldier’s Perspective

WOTN asked me to write a blog post for his readers about the signs and symptoms of a potential military dating scam. 

First, let me go over a brief history of the scams that generally originate in Nigeria and a few other African nations. 

Readers may remember receiving (or still receive) emails informing the recipient that they had just won a kabillion dollars after a long lost family member died in Africa.  The family member had no other family members, but after an exhaustive research effort, you had been identified as that lost relative to receive the funds.  The way the scam worked is that victims would have to pay customs and handling fees in the hundreds or thousands of dollars to receive their claim.  A pittance of the promised kabillion dollars, right?  And I had a lot of fun playing with these guys under the guise of my alter ego, David Sneakers.

Citizens & Subjects

Throughout the majority of history, the common man has been a subject of the government. A subject is dependent on the ruler of the land for every benefit, for every grace given, for his livelihood, and he is subject to the whims of the ruler, to the dictates and decrees of the ruler. In history, their have been benevolent kings, who ruled their subjects graciously and mercifully, but they ruled their subject, and the subjects had gratitude for their wisdom and grace.

In Ancient Greece, arose the city-states, with citizens, rather than subjects. Citizens had responsibilities, and rights. They were free men, with a responsibility to educate themselves on the responsibilities to learn what it took to take part in their self-governance, in the direction of their lives and the laws their government put upon them. Citizenship was earned, by the residents of the city. It had responsibilities. The Greek City-States were powerful and one colony of it grew to a republic and then an empire: Rome.

Rome's decline began even as its empire grew. Its Caesar was not meant to be an Emperor, but an Emperor he became. Its citizens became its subjects, as the empire grew, even as the citizens of Rome retained their rights, their security, and their benefits. Its citizens forgot and abandoned their responsibilities, because they had those benefits.

Eventually, the citizens, even of Rome, became the subjects of the Caesar, of the Emperor. The powerful concept of citizenship, of the government of the people was lost to history, to the Dark Ages, along with the technological advances the era of citizenship had brought. The era of fealty, of kingdoms, of subjects, returned. Again, kings ruled their subjects, their lords, their serfs, their counts, and barons. Some ruled with grace & mercy, but ruled they did. They were the educated elite. They were entitled by birth, intelligence, and divine intervention to rule the unwashed masses, to whom they granted house & food, health and doctor, peace and war. It was the ruler, the lord, the baron, & the king whom secured the borders and ruled his subjects.

The subjects begged the King, for justice, for fairness, for sufficient food, for doctors, and rules & decrees to maintain law & order. And the King decreed, according to his will, what his people, his subjects would be subjected to. When the King ruled with an iron hand, the subjects hoped his son would bring respite with his reign. When the King ruled with an iron fist, the subjects sometimes brought the prince to power. 

In the far reaches of the Roman Empire had been the Franks, and the Anglos, and the Saxons. Eventually, the Anglos and the Saxons fought for a Parliament, to represent the subjects in governance from the King. Still, the King ruled his subjects, and eventually, some of his subjects sought far off lands, far from the reach of the King. They called it the "New World" but the world shrank, and the King sought to subjugate those in the New World, to expand his empire. 

Thank You, Ms Marti

It's never easy to say goodbye to a friend and when a valuable contributor to an organization parts ways, there's always a question of how best to handle the departure.  Ms Marti has been a quiet, strong, foundation of War On Terror News, since it has been on Typepad.  She has worked tirelessly, trying to stay as far in the background as possible, without asking for anything for herself, since day 1.  Many readers didn't even realize she was there, and her visibility has often been only as remarkable as her icon at the bottom of the articles she posted.  And that's how she preferred it.

On those occasions where I've noted her hard work publicly, she replied with humility and chastisement that the words overplayed her contribution.  The fact remains that War On Terror News would not be what it is today, without her ideas, ideals, and dedication.  She helped create a newsite that does not rely on any one person, indeed that does not rely on personality, but on the facts, and one that tells the story of Our Troops, with the focus on the them, not the people that tell or publish the stories the Troops make.

And it is not her only means of Supporting Our Troops.  In so many ways, without accolade, silently, she continues to Support Our Troops, actively.  She doesn't do it for money or fanfare and I'm fairly certain that even I don't know all of those other ways she does so, but I do know several, which I am not at liberty to spotlight, but for which I am grateful. 

We will miss her here, but we wish her the best in all her endeavors, because we know that she'll do all things with commitment and dedication, for the right reasons, in the right ways. 

Thank you Ms Marti, for all you've done to get the Story of Our Troops to the Citizens of Our Nation and the world, who deserve to know the rest of the story.  We will endeavor to continue in those same ideals, in the same standards, in the right ways, for the right reasons, as you have demonstrated.

All Men are Created Equal... But are Not Equal in Life

Like most of America, I cringed when I heard that a Chinook with many members of Seal Team 6 had exploded in Afghanistan.  The enemy had gotten lucky on that day.  These men had known the risks.  They have a long history of successes that we won't likely know.  Their names are not classified, but their missions have been. 

I cringed because someone decided to report the information that it was Seal Team 6.  Someone else decided to claim to know and tell the world how many members of Seal Team 6 there are.  Experts filled the space on the idiot box proving how much they knew about things no one else knew.  I don't know how many men serve on Seal Team 6, how many have served on it, or how many missions they've successfully completed.  I do know they exist, that they live a life of danger, and routinely defeat the enemy.

There was no need for DoD to release that it was ST6.  There was no need for the media to speculate that it was ST6.  It would have been sufficient to say they were Navy, or perhaps even that they were Seals.  They lived their lives in secrecy.  They risked their lives in secrecy.  They did not accept fame for their deeds.  They preferred success to fame.

Wali Karzai's Assassin Trained by CIA

Sardar Mohammed, the assassin of Ahmed Wali Karzai, is a story of intrique, of espionage, of double and triple crosses, but in a different time or if his target had been a different man, the accusations would implicate the CIA in the deed.  It demonstrates the complexity of Afghanistan, and of international politics. 

For years, the Obama Administration has run a smear campaign against Ahmed Wali Karzai, accusing him through the MSM of being a corrupt War Lord and Drug Runner.  Why not?  The Administration has been campaigning against Hamid Karzai since Obama took office.  Wali was simply a good excuse to be against his brother.  It turns out, the President's brother was not only an influential member of Afghan society, but used his personal finances to pay the Police when the government defaulted.

Russian Economic Prestige Builds

Russia Back on a Roll?
by James Brooke, VoA Bureau Chief

Peter the Great built St. Petersburg as Russia’s “Window to the West,” opening up landlocked Muscovy to Europe.

But from the East, here came China’s President Hu Jintao, looking like a Chinese emperor in a business suit. President Hu addressed rows upon rows of business suits gathered at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.

This annual summer solstice gathering, sometimes called Russia’s Davos, is a good place to take Russia’s temperature.