February 25, 2010
Air Force Bugbots Micro Air Vehicle (MAVs) buglike drones
The U.S. military has been working for a while on tiny, buglike drones — to serve as miniature flying spies, Defense Department robot-makers say. But this video, from the Air Force Research Laboratory, shows that the military is also interested in turning these "Micro Air Vehicles," or MAVs, into biomorphic weapons that can lie in secret for weeks at a time — and then strike an adversary with lethal accuracy.
"Individual MAVs may perform direct-attack missions," says the video's gravelly voiced narrator. "They can be equipped with incapacitation chemicals, combustible payloads or even explosives for precision-targeting capability."
.
Wild Thing's comment.....
This is awesome !! What a GREAT idea.
......Thank you RAC for sending this to me.
RAC has a website that is awesome. 336th Assault Helicopter Company
13th Combat Aviation Battalion - 1st Aviation Brigade - Soc Trang, Republic of Vietnam
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:55 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
February 23, 2010
Journalist Bets He Can Endure 15 Seconds Of Waterboarding
Video has been removed by user at YouTube.
Playboy.com journalist Mike Guy underwent waterboarding by a trained member of the U.S. military in the site's new Lab Rat feature.
There is no permanent damage done... but the response is immediate. A much more humane and effective way to obtain critical intelligence quickly without brutalizing the prisoner. Sure beats electrocution, ripping off finger nails, acid showers, whippings/beatings, cutting off limbs, removing eyes & tongues, drilling out teeth, dislocating shoulders, burning, and other ways that the enemies of our freedom use.
Guy bet that he could endure 15 seconds of the interrogation technique used by the Bush administration on al Qaeda chief Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah
Wild Thing's comment.......
The enemy we’re facing is slightly more committed, fanatical, and tough than a journalist. I don't consider this to be torture.
KSM lasted 17 seconds and spilled his guts about everything to the interrogators. 17 seconds for a man committed to dying for his cause. The brilliance of water boarding is that it takes physiology into account along with the psychological fear of drowning.
We have been waterboarding close to 500 of our own troops and aviators annually for dozens of years during SERE training.
......Thank you RAC for sending this to me.
RAC has a website that is awesome. 336th Assault Helicopter Company
13th Combat Aviation Battalion - 1st Aviation Brigade - Soc Trang, Republic of Vietnam
Posted by Wild Thing at 08:48 AM | Comments (3)
February 20, 2010
Iwo Jima Vets Observe Battle's 65th Anniversary
Retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Larry Snowden presents Gen. James T. Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, with a war document he carried home from the Battle of Iwo Jima at the National Museum of the Marine Corps, Triangle, Va., Feb. 19, 2010. The men spoke at a 65th anniversary commemoration of the battle.
.
.
Veterans and military leaders gathered February 19 at the National Museum of the Marine Corps to remember the 65th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima.
Iwo Jima Vets Observe Battle's 65th Anniversary
TRIANGLE, Va.,
Feb. 19, 2010
Dozens of veterans of the Battle of Iwo Jima and their families gathered at the National Museum of the Marine Corps here today to commemorate the 65th anniversary of the iconic World War II battle.
The battle for Iwo Jima – the first U.S. attack on Japanese soil – is memorialized worldwide by the famous Joe Rosenthal photo of five Marines and a Navy corpsman raising the U.S. flag on Mount Suribachi. Three of the six later were killed in battle.
“Iwo Jima was not the bloodiest or the longest battle” of World War II and “it probably was not even the most successful in the Pacific Island campaign,” Gen. James T. Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, told the audience. “All that said, Iwo Jima occupies a place in our history like no other battle.”
Conway said he believes that’s a result of the determination, courage and sacrifice of the men who fought there, noting the “savagery” of the battle. “It was kill or be killed,” he said.
And that was true of both sides of the fighting, Conway said, noting a comment a Japanese lieutenant colonel made about the Americans during the battle: “They are relentless, and they fight with a mentality like they are exterminating insects.”
George Alden of Fort Worth, Texas, was a 20-year-old sergeant with 1st Battalion, 27th Marine Regiment, 5th Marine Division, when he stormed the volcanic ash beach in the first wave of U.S. troops onto Iwo Jima. The Japanese -- who with 21,000 troops had nearly three times more men than Alden and his unit expected -- had terraced the beach, making for an arduous climb for the troops who had no alternative but to move forward on the eight-square-mile island.
About 400 yards up the beach, Alden and his unit came upon a bunker. After taking charge of the action that demolished the bunker, Alden was seriously wounded on his left side by rifle fire. “I laid out in the open until almost dark,” he recalled.
Finally, a litter bearer approached the injured Alden. “They said they’d passed me four times thinking I was dead,” he said. They could not evacuate him until the next morning, leaving Alden and three of his comrades in a fox hole overnight.
Three days later, on the fifth day of the battle, Alden was aboard a hospital ship when a medic told him to look out the port hole over his bed. “That was when I saw the flag rising up above the smoke and haze,” he said, remembering the scene of Rosenthal’s famous photo.
Like others, Alden said, the image of the U.S. flag on the mountaintop made him think the battle soon would be over. In fact, it would last 31 more days, claiming 6,820 Americans dead or missing, and 19,000 wounded.
“We could not have guessed that Feb. 19, 1945, would start 36 of the most deadly days in the history of the Marine Corps and probably the most savage fighting we have ever engaged in,” Conway said.
For today’s Marines, Iwo Jima is the “gold standard,” the commandant said. “It drives us, it inspires us, and it gives us confidence” in training and preparedness, he said.
In the Iraq war, Conway said, a young Marine was asked about the possibility of U.S. troops wresting control of Fallujah from insurgents. “Of course we can take Fallujah,” Conway said the Marine replied. “We took Iwo Jima.”
Retired Marine Corps Gen. James L. Jones, now President Barack Obama’s national security advisor, thanked the veterans for their service. “We honor your legacy for the lives you saved,” he said.
Jones said today’s Marines gain strength from the examples set by the veterans of Iwo Jima, and he asked the audience to keep today’s Marines in mind, especially those confronting the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Ron “Rondo” Scharfe, an Iwo Jima veteran from Missoula, Mont., was 16 when he hit the Japanese island’s shores. “Our knees were shaking so bad we could barely stand up,” he said. “We didn’t know where the hell we were going. We were tight as rubber bands.”
Scharfe said he and his comrades crawled onto the beach, which already was smoking and “smelling like a junkyard” on the first day of battle. The Japanese “waited ‘til we got on the beach, then they opened up on us,” he said.
Scharfe survived nine days of Iwo Jima without serious injuries, before being sent to Okinawa. Today, he said, he thinks about the Marines in Afghanistan and thinks Iwo Jima was easier in at least one way. “At least we knew who the enemy was,” he said.
Retired Marine Corps Col. Harvey Barnum, a Medal of Honor recipient for heroism in Vietnam, said the courage of those on Iwo Jima was proven by the number of Medal of Honor recipients the battle yielded: 22 Marines and five sailors.
The commemoration of the battle is important for the veterans who remain, Barnum said.
“They’ve gotten older, but nothing has changed in their heart,” he said. “These people are all in their 80s, and they’ve come from all over the country to be here. But this will be the last time for many of them.”
Bill Toledo, Frank G. Willetto and Keith Little, Navajo code talkers, participate with other Iwo Jima veterans at a ceremony commemorating the 65th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima at the National Museum of the Marine Corps in Triangle, Va., Feb. 19, 2010. On Feb. 19, 1945, the United States launched its first assault against the Japanese at Iwo Jima, resulting in some of the fiercest fighting of World War II.
.
1945: US flag raised over Iwo Jima 2/23/1945
US troops have raised the Stars and Stripes over Iwo Jima four days after landing on the Japanese-held volcanic island.
The 28th Regiment of the 5th Marine Division took Mount Suribachi at 1030 local time.
The extinct volcano offers a strategic vantage point for the ongoing battle for control of the island.
Lying in the north-west Pacific Ocean 650 miles (1,045 kms) from Tokyo, Iwo Jima would serve as a useful base for long-range fighters to cover B-29 Superfortresses in a bombing campaign against the Japan’s capital.
Although the Stars and Stripes are flying over the island the battle is far from over and the Japanese are reported to be defending every inch of the island using elaborate underground defences.
The battle for Iwo Jima has been described as the toughest fight in US Marine history by the commander of the Marines in the Pacific, Lt-General M “Howling Mad” Smith.
On 19 February, after four days of naval and air bombardment had pounded the beaches and weakened Japanese defences, the 4th and 5th Marine Divisions landed on the south side of the island under the overall command of Vice-Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner.
After a day of little resistance, the enemy fought back in earnest.
Hidden in fortified caves and pillboxes linked by a series of tunnels they relentlessly attacked the Americans with artillery fire, grenades and other explosives as well as from the air.
The last 24 hours have seen the fiercest fighting yet with every step of the way up the mountain defended by the Japanese.
But by 1035 local time the Marines had reached the summit of Mt Suribachi.
Reporting from the US base in Guam, Admiral Chester W Nimitz said so far the battle had cost 5,372 casualties, including 644 dead, and that US carrier-based aircraft flying over the Bonin Islands north of Iwo Jima had destroyed three enemy planes.
Reuters news agency also reports Marines have finally reached the Japanese fighter-plane base in the centre of the island, which lies just 700 yards (640m) from the bomber airfield taken by the Americans two days ago.
In Context
The Japanese army and naval troops under Lt-General Kuribayashi Tadamichi fought to the death but the US Marines finally secured the whole island on 26 March in one of the bloodiest battles of the war.
Out of the 74,000 Marines that landed more than a third were killed or wounded.
The US then used the island to launch bombing raids on Japan.
The photograph of the US Marines raising the flag over Mount Suribachi was taken by Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal and is one of the most famous images of the war. It won the Pulitzer Prize in 1945.
A memorial based on the photo stands at Arlington Cemetery, Virginia.
Iwo Jima was returned to Japan in 1968.
.
Wild Thing's comment.......
Ron “Rondo” Scharfe, an Iwo Jima veteran from Missoula, Mont., was 16 when he hit the Japanese island’s shores. “Our knees were shaking so bad we could barely stand up,” he said. “We didn’t know where the hell we were going. We were tight as rubber bands.”
Wow 16 years old.
These true Americans heroes are leaving us so fast. I love to listen to them speaking about their past.
One Uncle was in the battle on Iwo Jima and all the other Islands, two uncles made D-day one to the beaches, the other dropped in with 101st Airborne. They have all passed away, but when they would talk about the war I woud sit with them and listen.
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:55 AM | Comments (9)
February 18, 2010
Afghan Official: Taliban Using Human Shields
Afghan Official: Taliban Using Human Shields
MARJAH, Afghanistan
Taliban insurgents are increasingly using civilians as human shields as they fight allied troops trying to take the militants' southern stronghold of Marjah, an Afghan official said Wednesday as military squads resumed painstaking house-to-house searches.
With the assault in its fifth day, insurgents are firing at Afghan troops from inside or next to compounds where women and children appear to have been ordered to stand on a roof or in a window, said Gen. Mohiudin Ghori, the brigade commander for Afghan troops in Marjah.
"Especially in the south of Marjah, the enemy is fighting from compounds where soldiers can very clearly see women or children on the roof or in a second-floor or third-floor window," Ghori said. "They are trying to get us to fire on them and kill the civilians."
The Marjah offensive is the biggest joint operation since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan and is a major test of a retooled NATO strategy to focus on protecting civilians, rather than killing insurgents.
Ghori said troops have made choices either not to fire at the insurgents with civilians nearby or they have had to target and advance much more slowly in order to distinguish between militants and civilians as they go.
Even with such caution on both the NATO and Afghan side, civilians have been killed. NATO has confirmed 15 civilian deaths in the operation. Afghan rights groups say at least 19 have been killed.
In northern Marjah on Wednesday, U.S. Marines fanned out through poppy fields, dirt roads and side alleys to take control of a broader stretch of area from insurgents as machine gun fire rattled in the distance.
The Marines found several compounds that had primitive drawings on their walls depicting insurgents blowing up tanks or helicopters, a sign that Afghan troops say revealed strong Taliban support in the neighborhood.
Lt. Col. Brian Christmas, commander of 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines, said security has improved enough in northern Marjah for Afghan police to step in. Other Marine units have taken control over main locations in the center of town.
"Bringing in the Afghan police frees up my forces to clear more insurgent zones," Christmas said.
Combat engineers were building a fortified base at the entrance of town for the police, who are expected to arrive Thursday.
Afghan police chosen for the task in Marjah were selected from other regions of the country instead of Helmand province, Marine officials said, in order to avoid handing over day-to-day security to officers who may have tribal or friendship ties to the Taliban.
A day earlier, Marines and Afghan forces moving by land from the north had succeeded in linking up with U.S. units that have faced nearly constant Taliban attack in the four days since they were dropped by helicopter into this insurgent stronghold.
The linkup between the two Marine rifle companies and their Afghan army partners will enable the U.S. to expand its control in Marjah, about 380 miles southwest of Kabul.
A top Taliban commander, Mullah Abdul Razaq Akhund, dismissed the offensive as NATO propaganda and said on the group's Web site that Marjah was militarily insignificant.
Four NATO service members have been killed in the Marjah operation. An American and a Briton were killed on Saturday, while two others whose nationalities were not identified were killed Tuesday. One Afghan soldier also died Tuesday, Afghan officials said.
The Marines and Afghan troops "saw sustained but less frequent insurgent activity" in Marjah on Wednesday, limited mostly to small-scale attacks, NATO said in a statement.
Marine officials have said that Taliban resistance has started to seem more disorganized than in the first few days of the assault, when small teams of insurgents swarmed around Marine and Afghan army positions firing rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades.
Troops are encountering less fire from mortars and RPGs than at the start of the assault, suggesting that the insurgents may have depleted some of their reserves or that the heavier weapons have been hit, Ghori said.
Nevertheless, Taliban have not given up. Insurgent snipers hiding in haystacks in poppy fields have exchanged fire with Marines and Afghan troops in recent days as they swept south.
Insurgents tried but failed to shoot down an Osprey aircraft with rocket-propelled grenades as Cobra attack helicopters fired missiles at Taliban positions, including a machine gun bunker.
NATO said it has reinstated use of a high-tech rocket system that it suspended after two rockets hit a house on the outskirts of Marjah on Sunday, killing 12 people, including at least five children.
The military coalition originally said the missiles went hundreds of yards off target but said Tuesday that it determined that the rockets hit the intended target.
Afghan officials said three Taliban fighters were in the house at the time.
Violence and NATO strikes have continued elsewhere in the country.
In neighboring Kandahar province, four Afghan policemen were killed and four others were wounded when their vehicle struck a roadside bomb on Tuesday, the Afghan Interior Ministry said.
And in the east, NATO said it killed more than a dozen insurgents in an airstrike near the Pakistani border.
.
Wild Thing's comment.......
"The Taliban Is Using Human Shields"
The Traitor-in-Chief told them to with his "rules of disengagement."
OBAMA is getting more of OUR troops killed. Our soldiers are dying due to this insnane ROE !
From a New York Times article: “Troops: Strict War Rules Slow Afghan Offensive "
February 15, 2010
“MARJAH, Afghanistan (AP) — Some American and Afghan troops say they’re fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap — strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire. “
Although details of the new guidelines are classified to keep insurgents from reading them, U.S. troops say the Taliban are keenly aware of the restrictions.
''I understand the reason behind it, but it's so hard to fight a war like this,'' said Lance Cpl. Travis Anderson, 20, of Altoona, Iowa. ''They're using our rules of engagement against us,'' he said, adding that his platoon had repeatedly seen men drop their guns into ditches and walk away to blend in with civilians.
If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon -- or if they did not personally watch him drop one.
What this means, some contend, is that a militant can fire at them, then set aside his weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location. It was unclear how often this has happened. In another example, Marines pinned down by a barrage of insurgent bullets say they can't count on quick air support because it takes time to positively identify shooters.
''This is difficult,'' Lance Cpl. Michael Andrejczuk, 20, of Knoxville, Tenn., said Monday. ''We are trained like when we see something, we obliterate it. But here, we have to see them and when we do, they don't have guns.''
more of my comment........
All the enemy has to do is drop their gun and they are “civilians”?? They can’t even be detained? AND a civilian who permits a terrorist killer to "blend in" with him is not an "innocent" civilian.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:50 AM | Comments (8)
February 17, 2010
Marines Face Fierce Resistance in Afghan Assault
.
Troops Mass Ahead of Afghan Onslaught
.
from CNN
.
Marines push 'The Breacher' against Taliban lines....this is known as the Assault Breacher Vehicle It is used to plow out the IED's.
Another VIDEO
Marines from Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 6th Marines
Major Afghan assault claims first Taliban casualties
.
Marines face fierce resistance in Afghan assault
MARJAH, Afghanistan
U.S. Marines leading one of NATO's biggest offensives against Taliban Islamic militants in Afghanistan are facing fierce resistance in some areas, bogged down by heavy gunfire, snipers and booby traps.
Marine units have tried twice since Sunday to reach a bazaar in Marjah, the last militant stronghold in the country's most violent province, Helmand, only to be pushed back.
Coming under heavy gunfire and sniper attacks -- one assault lasted over an hour -- they were forced to call in Harrier jets and attack helicopters with Hellfire missiles.
There have been conflicting assessments of how much progress NATO has made, but it seemed clear that the campaign to seize insurgent-held areas before a planned 2011 troop reduction could drag on for weeks.
"We are making steady progress, but being very methodical about detecting and clearing routes in an area heavily saturated with IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices)," Marine Capt. Abraham Sipe told Reuters in reply to an e-mail, adding that counts of militants killed or captured would not be provided.
"In many parts of Marjah, we have seen very little opposition. There are areas where Marines have met with stiff resistance, but they are making steady progress throughout the area."
The assault, one of the biggest in the eight-year war, is the first test of U.S. President Barack Obama's plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, where the Taliban have made a steady comeback since a U.S.-led invasion ousted them in 2001.
The Marines' efforts to close in on Taliban snipers in Marjah's bazaar came a day after the compound the U.S. troops are holding in the heart of the town was attacked several times, showing the Taliban are not confined to one area.
Afghanistan is a top foreign policy issue for Obama so failure here could be seen as damaging to his presidency.
Much of the operation's success in Helmand province depends on whether the administration wins residents' trust and Afghan troops are able to keep the Taliban from returning.
ARMY TRAINING CRUCIAL
"Looking to the day when we leave Afghanistan requires a government with a police and security force with the strength to deal with the Taliban. Training of the army is the most critical part of our long-term policy there," said U.S. special envoy Richard Holbrooke.
Speaking to a U.S.-Islamic Forum in Doha, Qatar, he added: "Security has to be the first criteria as we help the Afghans rebuild their nation."
Afghan officials said on Sunday that as many as 35 militants had been killed in the first two days of the offensive.
Taliban spokesman Qari Mohammad Yousuf, citing reports from Helmand, said in a statement on the group's website that its fighters had repulsed attacks by NATO troops on Monday.
NATO and the Afghan government's credibility rests on limiting civilian casualties, and NATO commanders told Marjah residents to stay at home during the offensive.
NATO rockets killed 12 civilians by accident on Sunday in the attack on Marjah, a farming area criss-crossed by canals, a breeding ground for insurgents and lucrative opium poppy cultivation, which Western countries say funds the insurgency.
Three Afghan civilians were accidentally killed in separate incidents during the offensive, NATO said. On two occasions the civilians ignored warnings to stop approaching NATO positions.
It also said that a NATO airstrike on suspected insurgents in Kandahar province, not part of the current offensive, had accidentally killed five civilians and wounded two.
Showing the dangers of fighting an unpredictable enemy, Helmand Province Governor Gulab Mangal said three would-be suicide bombers were gunned down on Sunday while trying to blow themselves up among troops.
The offensive is going as expected, he told a news conference. "The forces are extending their advances from points they have captured and the operation is going on successfully," he told a news conference.
The Taliban could not be reached for comment on Monday.
But in a statement on the 20th anniversary of the withdrawal of defeated Soviet troops from Afghanistan, after battling Western-backed mujahideen fighters for nearly a decade, the Taliban said: "The current occupiers of Afghanistan, like the Red Army, will face defeat.
"Twenty years after the defeat of the Red Army, today Obama, also in Afghanistan, has given one-and-a-half years to the commander of foreign invaders, (NATO Commander U.S. General Stanley) McChrystal, to prove his success against the Islamic Emirate."
Key Taliban Commander Mullah Baradar Captured in Pakistan
And this is the report on the capture of key Taliban Commander Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar in Pakistan as the result of a secret operation carried out by U.S. and Pakistani operatives. Baradar is second only to Taliban Leader Mullah Omar, and was captured in Karachi about a week ago. He is reportedly now cooperating with authorities and providing intelligence.
.
Wild Thing's comment........
Please keep all our brave warriors in your prayers.
WAR UPDATE: Afghan and Allied Forces Begin to Secure Taliban Stronghold
Summary as of February 13
-5 confirmed enemy killed. More enemy casualties likely from air strikes, but not confirmed (Taliban often hides bodies and does not advertise casualties for propaganda purposes)
-One of Marjah’s bazaars has been secured
-Multiple and ongoing air strikes have been reported
-Marines are clearing landmines and booby-traps
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:55 AM | Comments (5)
SAS and SEALs Take Out 50 Taliban
SAS and SEALs Take Out 50 Taliban
The joint attacks with US special forces over the past two weeks have helped prepare the ground for the biggest battle in Afghanistan yet - when 4,000 British troops will go into action.
Special forces dealt the deadly blow to the Taliban by taking out scores of their top field commanders in the build-up to the massive offensive.
SAS men and US Navy SEAL teams killed the 50 insurgent leaders in a series of dramatic covert operations deep inside southern Afghanistan's Helmand badlands.
Their objective was to destroy the Taliban command structure - and military sources labelled the daring raids "a great success".
Precise details remain a secret but it is known that the elite forces spearheaded a "shaping operation" to soften-up the enemy before the biggest offensive since the conflict began in 2001 is launched.
Other British units have also been heavily engaged in the operations to disrupt the Taliban.
Scots Guards uncovered a bomb-making factory and destroyed more than 20 deadly devices.
Grenadier Guards pushed south, hunting for insurgents.
But the Taliban fled rather than fight, leaving booby traps behind.
The Grenadiers left the way clear for dozens of local Afghan National Army and police to flood in and begin the process of bringing security to the district.
Major Jim Green, one of the Grenadier officers who planned the shaping operation, told The Sun: "This phase was all about putting the insurgents on the back foot.
"The lads down there have done some incredible things. This has been a great success. It was an operation to free the local people from the Taliban's grip."
Meticulous planning stretching back weeks would have gone into the SAS raids which struck the first blow against the Taliban - and put fear in their hearts.
Patrols of around four men would have used the tried and tested "find, fix, strike" method to locate and destroy their prey.
Their tactics are veiled in secrecy. But they would have moved by night, covering their tracks as they went. Then they would strike with lethal force before vanishing to seek new targets.
The full allied assault, labelled Operation Moshtarak, will involve up to 15,000 troops - at least 4,000 of them British.
Fighting in the Taliban- controlled Nad e-Ali area of Helmand is expected to be ferocious.
Insurgents have even hung from trees blood-stained uniforms discarded by British troops as a taunting warning.
Major Green said the presence of British troops alongside Afghan National Army soldiers in operations so far was welcomed by people living in the insurgent stronghold.
And when the big assault gets under way, a similar tactic will be used, with Our Boys and Afghan forces going in side by side.
This is the first time Afghan troops have been engaged with the international force on such a scale.
Commanders hope it will help reassure locals in Taliban hotspots that their ordeal is almost over.
So many helicopters and transport planes are now using the air base there that it is officially busier than Essex's Stansted Airport, an RAF officer revealed.
Squadron Leader John Parfitt is Senior Air Traffic Control Officer at the base.
And when the generals give the order for the big push to start, he and his colleagues will co-ordinate helicopter movements in and out of Camp Bastion.
He said: "We currently have more than 550 movements a day.
"And during the op we will see a surge in movements. It will be the busiest day of our careers."
He described the mood as "businesslike but confident".
THE Taliban's leader in Pakistan did die of wounds received in a US missile attack on his stronghold in Waziristan last month, Interior Minister Rehman Mali said yesterday.
Ruthless Hakimullah Mehsud, 28, was behind bomb attacks that have killed more than 600 people.
.
Wiild Thing's comment........
Good. Shooting them keeps the SEALS from being prosecuted by Holder and Obama if a terrorists complains of a fat lip.
Wild Thing's Miranda warnings .
We have the right to make you remain silent, forever. Anything we have in our arsenal can and will be used against you in a firefight. You have the right to a hellish journey. If you are afraid to make that journey, one will be appointed to you. We don’t care if you understand these rights as they have been dealt to you?
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:50 AM | Comments (3)
February 15, 2010
Lt Col Peters on Biden's Iraq Comments
Lt. Col. Ralph Peters responding to Joe Biden saying that Iraq will be one of Obama's greatest achievements, while at the same time accusing Dick Cheney of rewriting history.
Peters: "This is crazy, here's Biden saying Cheney can't re-write history and my god, Biden just claimed that Iraq is gonna be one of Obama's great achievements, if that's not re-writing history, I don't know what is but at the end of the day, it doesn't pay too get wired up about anything the Vice President says, Joe Biden, he's a decent guy but he's all gunpowder, no bullets. He's like the crazy uncle in the family that sits around the holiday dinner table and always says something wacky and the rest of the family just rolls their eyes and keeps eating, you gotta kinda treat it like that"
"Even after the surge had been an obvious operational success, Biden was still claiming the summer after the surge that it was a failure, and that mattered. Because it's not just politics, it's undercutting our troops, it's giving our enemies ammunition to believe that we're failing"
Wild Thing's comment........
Joe Biden, Gibbs and Obama are creating a massive Karma bomb for themselves that’s inevitably gonna drop on their heads.
Thank you Lt.Col. Peters.
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:49 AM | Comments (3)
February 12, 2010
Outright LIARS Joe Biden and Robert Gibbs TRY to Take Credit For Success In Iraq
Robert Gibbs Tells White House Press Corps That Obama Administration Saved Iraq
Robert Gibbs yesterday tried to take credit for the success in Iraq even though both Biden* and Obama voted against the successful surge that stabilized the country. That’s not all. Biden caused rioting and protests when he pushed legislation to divide Iraq into three countries. Barack Obama told supporters in 2007 that, “Preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.”
And as if that is not bad enough others are saying similar things. GRRRRRR
First we need to remember that In 2007 both Barack Obama and Joe Biden continually spoke out against the Bush troop surge in Iraq.
Joe Biden took credit for Iraq.
Joe Biden said the day before
......." On January 16, 2007, Chuck Hagel, Delaware Democrat Joe Biden (Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair), and Michigan Democrat Carl Levin (Armed Services Committee chair) co-sponsored a non-binding resolution that says it is “not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq.”
Speaking at Camp Lejeune on February 27, 2009, Barack Obama talked about the success of our efforts in Iraq which he and the Democratic Party tried to undermine on a daily basis.
But that was 2007. This last Wednesday, Feb. 10th, 2010, Vice President Joe Biden was on with Larry King. During the conversation Vice President Biden, a cut-and-runner, said that Iraq was one of the great accomplishments of the Obama Administration.
BIDEN:
Well, you’ve heard me say that for the last 10 years. I think it’s the — it’s a big country. It has nuclear weapons that are able to be deployed. It has a real significant minority of radicalized population. It is — it is not a completely functional democracy in the sense we think about it. And so it’s — it — that’s my greatest concern.
I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer.
You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government. I spent — I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months — three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society.
It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.
In 2007 candidate Barack Obama said that, “The United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.”
.
Then by Joe Biden:
What happens after we surge these women and men? ... General Petraeus ... may be the only one who believes this is a good idea! Virtually, no one else think it's a good idea! — Joe Biden, March 14, 2007
The first thing I'm going to do is veto that bill [for surge money] and I'm going to take out that money for those MRAPs, those vehicles to save lives over there. ... I gotta kid going over there ... the idea that we're not building new Humvees with the V-shaped thing is just crap, man! Kids are dying that don't have to die. The second thing we're going to do is shove it down his throat. — Joe Biden, April 27, 2007
[General Patraeus is] dead, flat wrong [about trying the surge]. The fact of the matter is that there is ... this idea of the security gains we made have had no impact on the underlying sectarian dynamic. None. None whatsoever. Can anybody envision a central government made up of Sunni, Shi'a, and Kurds that's going to gain the trust and respect of 27 million Iraqis? There have been some tactical gains, but they have no ultimate bearing at this point on the prospect of there being a political settlement in Iraq that would allow American troops to come home without leaving chaos behind. — Joe Biden on "Meet the Press," September 9, 2007
Now by Joe Biden:
I'm very optimistic about about Iraq, and this can be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the, uh, end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government. — Joe Biden on Larry King Live, February 10, 2010
.
Wild Thing's comment.......
Wow, just WOW...they truly think no one cares about the truth. Talk about grasping at straws...ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
These people make me sick! They not only lie but they also never give the troops creidt either. I can't stand this BS!
Biden did not elaborate on what all the administration’s other “great achievements” were so far so I will.
1) Record gun and ammo sales
2) The rise of tea Parties
3) The Russians eagerly awaiting to pounce on Eastern Europe
4) record National debt that would make members of Gamblers Anonymous blush
5) setting back racial relations back 20 years with the Cambridge incident.
Soon to come:
1) Pakistan implodes
2) China dictates our foreign policy
3) 12$ a gallon of gas after Iran goes nuclear and USES IT.
.
..... Thank you Richard for sending this to me.
Posted by Wild Thing at 02:50 AM | Comments (13)
February 11, 2010
Military Cancels Detainee Interview in Navy SEAL Case
Military cancels detainee interview in Navy SEAL case
The military has canceled the deposition of an alleged terrorist mastermind who claimed that he was assaulted by the military following his capture last year. The law firm Puckett and Faraj, representing Navy SEAL Matthew McCabe, made the announcement on Sunday.
Major General Charles Cleveland, the convening authority for the upcoming special courts-martial for three of the Navy SEALs involved in the operation, has decided to cancel the trip to Iraq to depose Ahmed Hashim Abed. Since the SEALs have a Constitutional right to confront their accuser in court, the alleged terrorist’s statements won’t be used as evidence for the case.
Abed, who is still in U.S. custody, is believed to be the al Qaeda mastermind behind the 2004 Fallujah ambush where four U.S. private security contractors were killed and their bodies mutilated. According to court documents, he claimed that he received what amounted to a punch in the stomach while in U.S. custody.
The prosecution’s case against the SEALs appears weak. For instance al Qaeda’s training manual states that once captured, members should claim torture and abuse. In addition Abed was initially detained at an Iraqi facility, which presents a chain of custody issue. Complicating matters further, the military has not released any corroborating evidence, such as medical records or photographs, and the sailor who claimed to witness the incident has given five conflicting statements.
Also, the SEALs were initially offered an Article 15 hearing, which carries relatively light non-judicial punishment. Instead, the sailors requested trial by courts-martial, which allows all evidence to be considered, but carries much heavier punishment – including incarceration. The SEALs possibly made their decision in an effort to protect their careers. Many believe a non-judicial process would leave the impression of guilt.
The military previously decided not to bring Abed to the U.S. for interview. Commander Tierney Carlos, the military judge for the trials of SO1 Julio Huertas and SO2 Jonathan Keefe, decided in January that since the military ruled that Abed would not be flown from Iraq to the U.S., that the sailors’ trials would be held in Iraq.
It is not known whether the military’s decision to disallow the detainee interview will affect the cases of Huertas or Keefe. Their trials are set to start in April. McCabe’s trial is set for May.
The statement from Puckett and Faraj said, “Since those two military judge’s rulings, Major General Cleveland has canceled the government trip to Iraq to depose the detainee. This leaves the SO2 McCabe defense and government teams without the Iraqi detainee’s presence or sworn statements as evidence in the case.”
.
Wild Thing's comment.........
To the terrorists....“Nuke ‘em till they glow...Shoot ‘em in the dark...”
Looks like this case is unraveling, as it damn well should.
Obama is prosecuting our US citizens Navy Seals in a military court for possible war crimes yet prosecuting foreign terrorists for war crimes in civilian court! sheesh!
Will Obama let them get back to work, or is this now an official witch hunt against these brave American Warriors! ?!
....Thank you Jack for sending this to me.
Army Combat Engineers
Quang Tri & Chu Lai '68 -'69
67-69
Jack's blog is Conservative Insurgent
Posted by Wild Thing at 04:50 AM | Comments (7)
January 26, 2010
U.N. Seeks to Drop Some Taliban From Terror List
U.N. Seeks to Drop Some Taliban From Terror List
The leader of the United Nations mission here called on Afghan officials to seek the removal of at least some senior Taliban leaders from the United Nations’ list of terrorists, as a first step toward opening direct negotiations with the insurgent group.
In an interview, Kai Eide, the United Nations special representative, also implored the American military to speed its review of the roughly 750 detainees in its military prisons here — another principal grievance of Taliban leaders. Until recently, the Americans were holding those prisoners at a makeshift detention center at Bagram Air Base and refusing to release their names.
Together, Mr. Eide said he hoped that the two steps would eventually open the way to face-to-face talks between Afghan officials and Taliban leaders, many of whom are hiding in Pakistan. The two sides have been at an impasse for years over almost every fundamental issue, including the issue of talking itself.
“If you want relevant results, then you have to talk to the relevant person in authority,” Mr. Eide said. “I think the time has come to do it.”
Last week, the American envoy to the region signaled some willingness to allow the names of some Taliban to be taken off the list as long as they are not senior commanders responsible for atrocities or associated with Al Qaeda.
“A lot of the names don’t mean much to me,” Richard C. Holbrooke, the Obama administration’s special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, said last week in Kabul. “Some of the people on the list are dead, some shouldn’t be on the list and some are among the most dangerous people in the world.
“I would be all in favor of looking at the list on a case-by-case basis to see if there are people on the list who are on the list by mistake and should be removed, or in fact are dead,” he said.
.
Afghan president Hamid Karzai urges West to buy off the Taliban
The government will provide the Taliban and other insurgent groups who wish to respect the constitution a dignified way to renounce violence and peacefully reintegrate into their communities,” says a draft version of the plan.
The international community has insisted that key Taliban leaders such as Mullah Mohammed Omar would not be part of any such plan. “The red line is links to Al-Qaeda,” Miliband said. But the document offers “key leaders of the Taliban movement” an opportunity for amnesty and reintegration.
Aside from differences between nations over who to negotiate with, there is scant evidence that the Taliban wish to come in from the cold.
US officials admit that it was a bad tactical error for President Obama to cite a target date of July 2011 to start withdrawing troops in his speech announcing the surge.
The date, which was inserted by the White House at the last minute to assuage disgruntled Democrats, has led the Taliban and their backers in Pakistan to believe they just have to wait.
“The Taliban are telling the local population the Americans will be gone in 18 months and we’ll be in charge so you better not cross us or we’ll kill you,” said an adviser to General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan
.
Wild Thing's commnet........
Why on earth drop any of the Taliban from a terror list. good grief!
"Afghan president Hamid Karzai urges West to buy off the Taliban"
Yeah, buy ‘em off with bullets. It’s blackmail and extortion all rolled into one. I can’t imagine a way it can turn out good for those who decide to pay them off, even once. You can’t buy off terrorists.
We all saw this coming when they started practicing “catch and release” with the local Taliban in Afghanistan. Troops were complaining that they would turn the Taliban prisoners over to Afghans, only to find them back on the battlefield again shortly.
Posted by Wild Thing at 04:50 AM | Comments (8)
January 19, 2010
Remember Pearl Harbor
.
Wild Thing's comment..........
I missed posting this in December and it is so well done.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 03:40 AM | Comments (5)
December 07, 2009
Pearl Harbor Survivor Returns to Site for First Time Since War
Pearl Harbor Survivor Returns to Site for First Time Since War
PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii — Ed Johann will always remember the sound of planes diving out of the sky to bomb U.S. battleships, the explosions and the screams of sailors. He still recalls the stench of burning oil and flesh.
The 86-year-old retired firefighter is due to return Monday to Pearl Harbor for the first time since World War II to attend a ceremony marking the 68th anniversary of the Japanese attack.
"I really don't know how I'm going to handle it," said Johann, from his home in Oregon. "When I think about it, all I have is unpleasantness. I'm sure it's not like that now."
Johann was a 17-year-old apprentice seaman on Dec. 7, 1941. He had enlisted in the Navy only five months earlier so his parents, who picked and packed tomatoes and other crops in California's San Fernando Valley, wouldn't have to support him.
He and two other sailors were waiting to ferry passengers on a small boat to and from the USS Solace, a hospital ship that was moored in Pearl Harbor, when they saw the Japanese planes.
They first thought they were U.S. aircraft conducting drills until they saw explosions and flames from the stricken ships.
Johann's motor launcher boat rushed to the USS Arizona, which was hit by several bombs, one of which struck her forward ammunition magazines and set off a massive explosion. Already fueled and manned when the attack began, their 30-foot boat was the first rescue vessel to arrive at the scene.
They found the water littered with people — some wounded, some dead, some unharmed. Many were covered in the leaking oil from the ships.
They loaded as many as they could and delivered them to the hospital ship before returning to the USS West Virginia for more.
"As we're pulling them out of the water, a lot of times the skin would come right off the arm," Johann said. "They would just be black with oil, except maybe you could see the white of their eyes."
The planes kept coming. Dive-bombers plunged out of the sky, dropping bombs and strafing the water and ships with machine gun fire before roaring back up for another round. Torpedo bombers flew in level to drop their submersible weapons for underwater assaults.
The burning, sinking vessels at first lowered men into Johann's makeshift rescue boat. But some sailors started to panic and jump into their small ship, forcing it to pull away so it wouldn't sink too.
"Some of the sailors would be like in shock and some of 'em would be like going out of control, screaming and hollering," Johann said.
The next morning — after nervously worrying the Japanese planes would return — Johann's boat unloaded men from the Solace who failed to make it through the night and delivered them to land.
"We had them stacked like cordwood in our boat. The open end where the feet was sticking out was these big brown tags that said 'unknown, unknown,"' Johann said. The military hadn't adopted dog tags yet and many couldn't be identified.
The attack sank four U.S. battleships and destroyed 188 U.S. planes. Another four battleships were damaged, along with three cruisers and three destroyers.
More than 2,200 sailors, Marines and soldiers were killed.
"We didn't survive by any skill," Johann said of his boat. "It was just luck, pure luck. Because all we were concentrating on was trying to save people, and not save ourselves."
Johann served the rest of the war on the USS Wright, a seaplane tender. After 1945, he returned to California where he worked in sawmills before moving to Portland, Ore. where he spent 28 years as a firefighter. He retired to a beach cottage in Lincoln City and where he served on the city council, helping build hiking trails and campaigning against domestic violence.
Every Fourth of July, he goes to bed early to avoid the fireworks because they remind him of Pearl Harbor's explosions. Even so, the blasts keep him awake.
But the horrors he went through also led him to become a firefighter.
"I think I had it in my mind," Johann said, "I wanted to help people."
For years, Johann said he wouldn't go to the annual observance in Hawaii in honor of those killed in the attack. But now that he's 86, it seemed liked a good idea.
"If I'm ever going to do anything like that I'd better do it now," Johann said. His son, who lives on Maui, will accompany him.
Organizers expect between 40 and 50 survivors of the attack to come. Overall, some 2,000 people are expected to attend the ceremony on a pier overlooking the spot where the Arizona sank.
The bodies of more than 1,000 sailors and Marines are still on board, and small drops of oil continue to rise from the battleship.
Wild Thing's comment...........
Gob Bless Ed, all who served and all who remain on station below.
On March 7, 1950, Admiral Radford, CINCPAC, ordered that an American flag be flown from Arizona's remains.
Nine months later, on the ninth anniversary of the attack, he had a plaque placed on the wreck, making it the first Arizona Memorial. The bronze plaque states: "May God make his face to shine upon them and grant them peace."
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:47 AM | Comments (9)
December 04, 2009
The Worst CIC in History Obama Insisted on Removal of F-22A Raptor At His Elmendorf AFB Speech
White House aides insisted F-22 be removed from Obama speech venue
When President Obama spoke to troops at Alaska's Elmendorf Air Force Base last month, the unit there parked a shiny new F-22 fighter plane in the hangar. But according to multiple sources, White House aides demanded the plane be changed to an older F-15 fighter because they didn't want Obama speaking in front of the F-22, a controversial program he fought hard to end.
"White House aides actually made them remove the F-22-said they would not allow POTUS to be pictured with the F-22 in any way, shape, or form," one source close to the unit relayed.
Stephen Lee, a public affairs officer at Elmendorf, confirmed to The Cable that the F-22 was parked in the hangar and then was replaced by an F-15 at the White House's behest.
The airmen there took offense to the Obama aides' demand, sources told The Cable, seeing it as a slight to the folks who are operating the F-22 proudly every day. They also expressed bewilderment that the White House staff would even care so much as to make an issue out of the fact that the F-22 was placed in the hangar with the president.
A White House official, commenting on background basis, told The Cable that yes, there were discussions about which plane or planes would be in the hangar, but that they were not meant as an insult to the pilots and other personnel who work on the F-22. The official couldn't elaborate on why the White House aides felt it necessary to get involved in the matter in the first place.
The official pointed to Obama's speech to the troops that day, where he praised both the 90th Fighter Squadron, known as the "Dicemen," and the 525th Fighter Squadron, the "Bulldogs," both of which operate the F-22.
Even so, the Air Force personnel thought it odd the White House wanted to display the older plane rather than the more advanced plane that, in the eyes of its supporters, represents the latest and greatest in American aviation.
The Obama administration fought hard and successfully to cut off production of the F-22 at 187 planes, a number Defense Secretary Robert Gates endorsed but that was hundreds less than originally planned and about half of the 381 planes Air Force leadership lobbied hard for in the years preceding Obama's inauguration.
"It's one thing to be against further production; quite another to slight the folks who are flying them in the operational world," one source said, adding that "the F-15 pictured was put into service roughly around the same period when Obama graduated from college. It's vintage."
.
Wild Thing's comment........
I wish they had told Obama and his people to put his demands where the sun does not shine. This makes me so angry that he did and does things like this.
Obama is a national disgrace!!!!
F-22 at Obama’s Elmendorf AFB Speech Removed by White House
I get the idea that Obama doesn't care about our troops/airmen.
I get the idea that Obama doesn't care about the F-22.
I get the idea that Obama doesn't care about fighting terrorism.
I get the idea that Obama doesn't care about our national security.
I get the idea that Obama doesn't care about people's health.
I get the idea that Obama doesn't care about the economy.
I get the idea that Obama doesn't care about ending racism.
I get the idea that Obama doesn't care about employment.
I get the idea that Obama doesn't care about the environment.
I get the idea that Obama doesn't care about meeting our energy needs.
I get the idea that Obama doesn't care about energy independence.
I get the idea that Obama doesn't care about the collapsing banks.
I get the idea that Obama doesn't care about the collapsing dollar.
I get the idea that Obama doesn't care about our industry.
I get the idea that Obama doesn't care about the continuing foreclosures.
I get the idea that Obama doesn't care about the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
I get the idea that Obama doesn't care about our sovereignty.
I get the idea that Obama doesn't care about this country.
I get the idea that Obama doesn't care about God.
......Thank you RAC for sending this to me.
RAC has a website that is awesome. 336th Assault Helicopter Company
13th Combat Aviation Battalion - 1st Aviation Brigade - Soc Trang, Republic of Vietnam
Posted by Wild Thing at 03:49 AM | Comments (5)
West Point Cadets Were Asked To Respond “enthusiastically” To Obama Speech
Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric — and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.
One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama’s speech would be well-received.
Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond “enthusiastically” to the speech. But it didn’t help: The soldiers’ reception was cool.
One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.
An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan — and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war — and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.
Wild Thing's comment.......
From a friend that has been to West Point:
Chrissie, In my four years at West Point, we were NEVER coached on how to applaud. Reagan, Bush 41, Powell, Dan Quayle, Stormin Norman - no coaching. How degrading to have your schedule interrupted, have to wait for hours for the Messiah to show up, and then have an OFFICER coach you on how to applaud. Morale must be getting low. And that is due to Obama and his R.O.E.s and his lack of caring about our guys."
President Bush speaks at West Point....what a difference!!
Posted by Wild Thing at 03:47 AM | Comments (7)
Obama's Longtine Terrorist Friend William Ayers Protesting Against Obama's Decision on Afghanistan
The longtime Obama friend William Ayers hammering Obama on his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, saying it is an "absolute tragedy." Ayers does not believe there is any way Obama will begin pulling troops out of Afghanistan in July 2011, despite having said he would. Ayers said he is "appalled and alarmed" at Obama's decision.
Ayers made the remarks yesterday in Chicago where he joined demonstrators against the war.
Read more...
.
Weather Underground Bombs the Capitol, Pentagon, and State Department
Weather Underground Bombed the Pentagon 5-19-72
Obama's friend of 20 years William Ayers' group sets off bombs in honor of Ho Chi Minh's Birthday... Video from Abcnews in 1972, Pentagon reports starts at 4:10
On March 1, 1971 a bomb exploded in the Capitol building in Washington D.C. Members of the Weather Underground claimed responsibility for the terrorist act. The group claimed it was in protest of the government's involvement in the country of Laos.
On May 19, 1972 a bomb went off in the Pentagon . The Weathermen said it was in celebration of Ho Chi Minh's birthday (a North Vietnamese communist revolutionary).
On January 29, 1975 the Weathermen set off a bomb in the Department of State's building. The bombing was supposedly in protest of America's support for South Vietnam and Cambodia. On the same day another bomb was set to go off in a federal building in Oakland, California.
Obama began his political career in the living room of this man's home on the South side of Chicago.
.
Wild Thing's comment.......
It’s a win-win for both leftists.
Ayers gets to be publicly against the war.
Obama gets to say “I’m not with Ayers”.
There’s still not a dime’s worth of difference between them, not when you consider the ROE that Obama is laying on the same troops he’s sending over there.
Posted by Wild Thing at 03:40 AM | Comments (4)
December 03, 2009
Former Secrtary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Responds To Obama's LIES
Former Secrtary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld responded to Barack Obama’s claims that US commanders were repeatedly refused support in Afghanistan.
by Michael Goldfarb
“In his speech to the nation last night, President Obama claimed that ‘Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.’ Such a bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as Secretary of Defense, deserves a response.”
“I am not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006. If any such requests occurred, ‘repeated’ or not, the White House should promptly make them public. The President’s assertion does a disservice to the truth and, in particular, to the thousands of men and women in uniform who have fought, served and sacrificed in Afghanistan.”
“In the interest of better understanding the President’s announcement last night, I suggest that the Congress review the President’s assertion in the forthcoming debate and determine exactly what requests were made, who made them, and where and why in the chain of command they were denied.”
This is true as far as I know and conforms with what Steve Hayes reported in THE WEEKLY STANDARD in October:
Perhaps more infuriating for Bush veterans was the suggestion by [Robert] Gibbs that the Bush administration ignored requests for more troops. It's nonsense, they say. McKiernan wanted more troops--he asked for three additional brigades in the summer of 2008--but he understood that he could have them only when they became available. "McKiernan was making requests down the line," says a Pentagon official, "and late in 2008 we did have the ability to commit more forces. So we did." Indeed, Bush sent nearly 7,000 additional troops to Afghanistan before he left office, including one brigade that had been repurposed from Iraq.
One Bush veteran asks, "If it's true that the Bush administration sat on these troop requests for eight months, is the White House suggesting that the Pentagon was incompetent or negligent or both? That would be a good question to put to the defense secretary--and President Obama is in a position to make him talk."
I couldn't reach Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, but I did talk to a senior defense official who serves with him. This person stressed that Gates has gone to great lengths to avoid being dragged into political fights between administrations. Nonetheless, he offered a strong rebuke to the present White House political team.
"There was no request on anyone's desk for eight months," said the defense official. "There was not a request that went to the White House because we didn't have forces to commit. So on the facts, they're wrong."
Wild Thing's comment...........
Good - call his bluff with a “put up or shut up” dare. Obama the LIAR! Rumsfeld is doing a Joe Wilson- You Lie.
Is Obama finally going to realize that “Bush’s fault” ISN’T a policy and he’s finally going to have to lead? Nah ...
"Such a bald misstatement"
Call it by its correct name, Rumsfeld. It's called a bald-faced LIE!
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:45 AM | Comments (4)
December 02, 2009
Obama and His Speech At West Point Regarding The War
.
Obama announced that 30,000 more troops will go to Afghanistan and then they will come home 18 months later.
.
Krauthammer said a timetable for withdrawal sends a bad signal to our allies in Afghanistan.
Charles Krauthammer: I thought it was a rather strange speech. It was defensive and it was a lot of hedging. the president said at the end that our resolve is unwavering. He said in August this was a war of necessity. And then he gives us all of the reasons that we need to start leaving in a year and a half. And among the reasons he gave was that it was a very expensive war and we have a bad economy and that’s at least of equal importance. It’s not exactly the kind of speech you would have heard from Henry V or Churchill. And it’s not exactly the kind of speech you heard from George Bush when he announced his surge.
Stephen Hayes: The most important role of a president is Commander in Chief. This felt very small to me. The president in one sentence called this the common security of the world is at stake. And literally in the very next sentence he said we’re going to get out in July 2011. If it is the case that the common security of the world is at stake you don’t say that we need to figure out the problem in 18 months or we’re out of here.
.
MY NOTES During Speech:
Obama is screwing over Charlie Brown. What the hell did Charlie Brown ever to do him. I watch that Charlie Brown Christmas show every year.
Obama's lips are looking especially blue tonight. yuk!
The camera panned the audience and I swear it was checking out all the various people asleep during Obama's speech.
Blames Bush....BLAHHHHHHHHHHH
Obama mentioned the successful War in Iraq but for some strange reason he forgot to mention Bush or the fact that he was against the Bush Surge. He also forgot to thank General Petraeus, who was sitting in the audience.
Obama blames former administrations for their Pakistan policies.
Islam, one of the world's great religions"
"Tolly Bon"...."Paah ki stahn"....there he goes into his Muslim speak. I guess he thinks this is how he speaks a foreign language. Besides how he also can say the other things related to his precious Islam.
20:08 Blames President Bush for losing Afghanistan.
He is not foolinng the Corps of Cadets with this tripe.
He compared Afghanistan to Vietnam. His comparison with Vietnam is so flawed it is laughable. He says we faced a broad based local insurgency. BS. It was a communist inspired insurgency aided and abetted by North Vietnam. The overwhelming majority of South Vietnamese were against the communists.
Obama said he spent this year renewing our alliances.
OMG how he LIES
Give me Charlie Brown and Linus instead of this creep Muslim America and troops hater.
"Let me be clear"...."Let me be clear"...."Let me be clear"
ME, ME, I, mine, my, I me, ME, ME, MEEEEEEE!!!!
I wish those wonderful Cadets could get up and walk out...or boo...or turn their backs to him
20:11 Pres_ _ent Obama blames GOP for war. (smirks), calls them “partisans”, then talks about how HE has visited military caskets, etc.
OMG- He has sent letters of condolence to the families of the fallen...........AND HE wants to be SURE we KNOW IT.
“He’s seen first hand the terrible wages of war” which means he watched some Oliver Stone movie about ‘Nam.
I-I-I-I again! I write letters! I visit Dover! Someone should count up the “I”’s. He’s said about 20 in the last minute. It’s ridiculous. NARCISSIST.
18 months a pull out............ he just told the enemy they have 2 years to kill as many Americans as they can (bonus 30,000 troops), then he has to pull the remaining ones out, so he can shore up his anit-war base to win another 4 years.
He is giving the Generals 30,000 troops. Too bad the Generals asked for 33% more than that.
20:17 Pres_ _ent Obama’s goal is to “end the war”.
Pres_ _ent Obama wants to stop the “momentum” of the the “Talley—ban”, not kill and destroy them.
Again he says it. .....He said he would pull out troops in July 2012.
I’m measuring 22 head flips per minute, an all time record stress level is maxed out
Teleprompters must be running on fast speeded up or something. haha
Obama is not used to giving speeches that aren’t interrupted with orchastrated applause. I think he might actually be boring himself to death.
The Taliban are thinking; WTF! This guy is so stupid, he’s telling us his plan. All we have to do is wait for 18 months and we will be back in business.
Quoting Ike now about the need for “balance.” He should have quoted Ike’s prophetic warning about the dangers of the Military-Industrial Complex.
I never thought I could lean to hate....
This man is creating his own reality......
Arhhhhhhggggg ......I wish the troops would rebel against this traitor!!!!!! ECOMCON NOW!!
Loved the shot from the camera of one cadet yawning!!!!!!!!
Up to 24 flips per minute.......we’re in uncharted territory here
Now he’s tying it to the economy.
He claims "we much rebuild here at home" while he is bankrupting the nation daily/hourly.What the heck ,triangulation, smells of Axelrod all the way. He is losing it. The economy? This is the wrong audience.
some more cadets looking down/closing eyes
The cameras can’t get a good shot of the audience without showing someone asleep. LOL
America has forged a new beginning with the Muslim world????
OMG, he can so bite me.
On and on the speech goes. He sounds like a third world dictator, e.g., Castro, who just drone on and on spewing platitudes and grand theory. Now comes the self-congratulation. He is crediting himself for setting up a new relationship with the Muslim world. LOL. Iran, AQ, Pakistan, the Palestinians, and the rest of the Middle East are not drinking his Kool-aid.
Ok Obama you’ve made your point. Now say goodnight Gracie.
Holy Crap! EVERYONE in the audience is dozing, nodding off...
Hillary, Gates, cadets, generals...they’re all in the zone.
It’s amazing- it’s snooze... punctuated by what the heck moments.
He’s a frikking word machine. Not a brain in his head. I think his teleprompter has mixed up a bunch of different speeches and it won’t stop!
LOL
He stopped, waited for applause.
They finally applauded — they thought he was finished.
He wasn’t.
The cliches keep coming, quoting Lincoln now.
More references to diversity and multiculturalism. Stresses the need for unity yet he is the most polarizing President we have ever had.
They’re clapping because it’s finally over.
.
Chris Matthews calls West Point the "Enemy Camp"
MSNBC's Chris Matthews referring to the assembled cadets at West Point to hear President Obama's speech on Afghanistan as the "enemy camp." Incredibly, Matthews was critical of the fact the cadets were not supportive enough of Obama during his speech, saying he saw "if not resentment, skepticism."
Matthews has made some really bizarre statements over the years, but this is one of the worst,
.
Few Marines in Afghanistan wake for Obama's speech
CAMP LEATHERNECK, Afghanistan — Only a handful of the thousands of troops in the U.S. Marines' main base here thought it worth the effort to get out of bed for President Barack Obama's speech on Afghanistan, which began at 5:30 a.m. local time.
In the workout gym — one of the few public places with TVs — only two Navy Seabee engineers were watching when the speech began, and they were sharply divided on the wisdom of the president's plan.
"I didn't really hear a good reason," said E3 Steven Lewis, 23, of Boise, Idaho. "I think it's all gone on too long. 9/11 happened a long time ago."
Lewis had been riding an exercise bike close to the dusty, 21-inch TV when the speech started and sat through half of it, including the announcement of the size of the buildup, before he got up to leave.
Next door in a weight room, Marine Sgt. Alvaradoj Imael of San Diego was doing abdominal exercises. He said he hadn't needed to watch the speech because the basics had been leaked in advance.
.
Wild Thing's comment...........
When Bush announced the surge in 2007 he did it in the White House LIbrary. NOT as a photo op like Obama did at West Point.
Get politics out of WAR and let our troops do what they do!
Our troops in the war zone need their sleep a helluvalot more than they need to be even further depressed by the idiot-in-chief.
Our military men and women already KNOW what’s going on.
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:55 AM | Comments (13)
November 28, 2009
Obama Considering To Allow U.S. Soldiers to Be Tried At Hague
Obama and anyone that thinks it is ok to go after our troops in any way should be ..........well use your imaginaton and think of the worst punishment possible........the WORST!
Prosecuting American 'War Crimes' The International Criminal Court claims jurisdiction over U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. The ICC’s chief prosecutor, though, has no intention of waiting for Washington to submit to the court’s authority. Luis Moreno Ocampo says he already has jurisdiction—at least with respect to Afghanistan. Because Kabul in 2003 ratified the Rome Statute—the ICC’s founding treaty—all soldiers on Afghan territory, even those from nontreaty countries, fall under the ICC’s oversight, Mr. Ocampo told me. And the chief prosecutor says he is already conducting a “preliminary examination” into whether NATO troops, including American soldiers, fighting the Taliban may have to be put in the dock. It was clear who the targets of these particular inquiries are but the chief prosecutor shied away from spelling it out. The fact that he avoided a straightforward "I am looking into possible war crimes committed by American soldiers" showed that Mr. Ocampo is aware of the enormity of crossing this legal and political bridge. Mr. Ocampo remained tight-lipped about the specifics of his preliminary examination. Asked whether waterboarding—a practice that simulates drowning without causing lasting physical harm—is a form of torture produced a telling "no comment." Yet if the Obama administration considers this practice torture, one has to wonder if the ICC's chief prosecutor would give it his stamp of approval. There is also the issue of whether Predator strikes of unmanned drones targeting terrorist leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan—as carried out in the very first week of the Obama presidency—are part of the bombings he's looking into. Mr. Ocampo chuckled and answered evasively. Continue HERE for the rest of the article
.
Wild Thing's comment............. If Obama allows this happen even once, or signs the treaty, it is high treason and he must be quickly removed from office. Turning over American soldiers over to a foreign entity to be tried is a bright red line, which must not be crossed. This just keeps getting worse and worse! You can’t fight a war this way and expect to win!!!!!!!! Obama did say he does not seek Victory in war.
Posted by Wild Thing at 02:50 AM
| Comments (13)
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed “great regret” in August that the U.S. is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This has fueled speculation that the Obama administration may reverse another Bush policy and sign up for what could lead to the trial of Americans for war crimes in The Hague.“We have to check if crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide have been committed in Afghanistan,” Mr. Ocampo told me. “There are serious allegations against the Taliban and al Qaeda and serious allegations about warlords, even against some who are connected with members of the government.” Taking up his inquiry of Allied soldiers, he added, “there are different reports about problems with bombings and there are also allegations about torture.”
Asked repeatedly whether the examination of bombings and torture allegations refers to NATO and U.S. soldiers, Mr. Ocampo finally stated that “we are investigating whoever commits war crimes, including the group you mentioned.”
"We have people around the world concerned about this," he said, and when pressed, added, "Whatever the gravest war crimes are that have been committed, we have to check."
November 27, 2009
Navy Seals Charged For Fat Lip On Terrorist
Navy SEALS May Go to Prison for Giving a Fat Lip to Islamic Terrorist
by Jim O'Neil
Jim O'Neil was born in June of 1951 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Jim O’Neill proudly served in the U.S. Navy from 1970-1974 in both UDT-21 (Underwater Demolition Team) and SEAL Team Two.
On March 31, 2004, a small convoy guarded by four American civilian contractors was ambushed at Fallujah, Iraq, and the guards were killed. The bodies of the four Blackwater security guards were burnt, hacked, and two of the mutilated bodies were hung for display on a bridge over the Euphrates river.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that in ” a macabre and murderous town fete, locals cheered as one corpse was attached to a car tow rope and pulled triumphantly up and down the main road….”
The article noted that “In terms of its sheer bestial violence, the attack on the Blackwater operatives was unprecedented….”
The ambush, and desecration of the bodies were all videotaped by Islamic extremists, and subsequently disseminated world-wide as anti-American propaganda.
This incident, believed to have been planned by Ahmed Hashim Abed, is widely held to have led directly to the first Battle of Fallujuh, that began four days after the guards were murdered.
All four of the American guards worked for Blackwater, out of Moyock, N.C. Blackwater (now called Xe—pronounced “zi”) was founded in 1997 by former Navy SEALs, Eric Prince, and Al Clark, (Clark later left to start Special Tactical Services).
One of the murdered guards, Scott Helvenston, was also a former SEAL.
In 2007, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, headed by Henry Waxman (D-CA), laid all of the blame for the slaughter at Blackwater’s doorstep. Their report does not mention Islam, terrorists, Muslim extremists, war, radicals, insurgents, or atrocity.
Reading the House report, one could be excused for thinking that the Blackwater operatives ambushed themselves.
This past September, the purported leader of the Fallujah ambush—“one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq”— was captured by Navy SEALs.
Ahmed Hashim Abed, code named “Objective Amber,” was briefly held at Camp Baharia (Dreamland), a Marine base adjacent to the main compound of Camp Fallujah, located about 2 miles southwest of the city. (Source)
Ahmed Abed alleges that while under the watch of Navy SEALs, he was punched, and suffered a bloody lip. Three SEALs are now facing court-martial charges.
A court-martial is defined as “a military court to try members of the armed services who are accused of serious breaches of martial (military) law.”
The three SEALs have turned down the opportunity for a captain’s mast (also known as an admiral’s mast, or flag mast), which is not a trial, but a non-judicial discipline hearing.
Perhaps they are curious about the Pentagon’s pusillanimous pandering to political correctness. Or perhaps they would like to see real proof of their CIC’s citizenship.
Whatever their reasons, I salute their bravery, and service to our country—as I’m sure all patriotic Americans do as well.
Wild Thing's comment.......
How are we to fight the broader war of Islamo-terrorism if we are so blind to see the restraints within our midst? It is the political correctness straight jacket of the Left (and their political dupes) that has infected this nation's ability to survive. It has caused the Twin Towers destruction and the Fort Hood massacre. These terrorists are being treated with kid gloves on the battlefield at the sacrifice of our fighting heroes. It has infused itself into the military culture like a cancer. Political correctness has allowed our precious heroes to fight with both hands tied behind their backs. Every human rights group in the world follows them around looking for the one bullet shot that looks like a war crime. Every action is weighed and scrutinized as we force our fighting heroes to measure their actions for possible war crimes prosecution. May God help us!
This political correctness is costing us more than the Fort Hood massacre. It is influencing the way we wage this war against Islamic terrorist who want to kill every American they can.
And every time Obama opens his mouth, the entire world is aghast at the dismal leadership we have placed in the position of Commander in Chief.
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:45 AM | Comments (6)
November 25, 2009
Heroes Our Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Supposedly Giving Most-Wanted Terrorist A "fat lip"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist
Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.
The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.
Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.
Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.
Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.
Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement.
Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation.
The three SEALs will be arraigned separately on Dec. 7. Another three SEALs — two officers and an enlisted sailor — have been identified by investigators as witnesses but have not been charged.
FoxNews.com obtained the official handwritten statement from one of the three witnesses given on Sept. 3, hours after Abed was captured and still being held at the SEAL base at Camp Baharia. He was later taken to a cell in the U.S.-operated Green Zone in Baghdad.
The SEAL told investigators he had showered after the mission, gone to the kitchen and then decided to look in on the detainee.
"I gave the detainee a glance over and then left," the SEAL wrote. "I did not notice anything wrong with the detainee and he appeared in good health."
Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, spokeswoman for the special operations component of U.S. Central Command, confirmed Tuesday to FoxNews.com that three SEALs have been charged in connection with the capture of a detainee. She said their court martial is scheduled for January.
United States Central Command declined to discuss the detainee, but a legal source told FoxNews.com that the detainee was turned over to Iraqi authorities, to whom he made the abuse complaints. He was then returned to American custody. The SEAL leader reported the charge up the chain of command, and an investigation ensued.
The source said intelligence briefings provided to the SEALs stated that "Objective Amber" planned the 2004 Fallujah ambush, and "they had been tracking this guy for some time."
The Fallujah atrocity came to symbolize the brutality of the enemy in Iraq and the degree to which a homegrown insurgency was extending its grip over Iraq.
The four Blackwater agents were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph.
Intelligence sources identified Abed as the ringleader, but he had evaded capture until September.
The military is sensitive to charges of detainee abuse highlighted in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The Navy charged four SEALs with abuse in 2004 in connection with detainee treatment.
.
Wild Thing's commenrt........
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot !!
This is beyond belief. Our heroes being treated this way. This is more than the senses can comprehend. Insanity reigns!!!!!! What the hell are we doing to the men and women who risk their lives for us?
The Holder/Obama destruction agenda for America and our military, and the treachery of these democrats now ruling America is beyond tolerable.
Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.
The man tortured, killed and mutilated the bodies of four Americans and then hung the remains on a bridge for animals (regular animals and human ones) to desecrate and he's upset that he was punched in the mouth.
Anyone in military service should just shoot the terrorist bastards on sight — anything else and you risk your career, or risk having them tried and released where they return to terrorism.
We need to take back our country and we need to do it now before it is too late.
CIC obama has said he would side with the MUSLIMS if the “political winds turn ugly.” How effing ugly does it have to get before Americans say NO MORE!?!?!
Dear God ..end this madness ! And protect our brave troops, suffering under the most despicable CIC in our history.
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:55 AM | Comments (14)
November 23, 2009
11 Congress Members Want to Pass a Tax to "Share the Sacrifice" of War
Below two items written by Robert Stokely proud dad SGT Mike Stokely KIA
.
11 Congress Members Who Want to Pass a Tax to "Share the Sacrifice" of War
By Robert Stokely
I am sorry but right now I am somewhat having one of those anger induced bladder discharge moments. And sorry if this is not very well proof read - I tried, but it made me more angry each time I thought about this legislation. But read on if you like.
First, read this, article where: House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, and Representative John Murtha, who chairs that panel's defense subcommittee; and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank set forth that "The only people who've paid any price for our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are our military families: and state "... We believe that if this war is to be fought, it's only fair that everyone share the burden."
Then read this pdf document and pay real close attention to the definition of who is "family" when it comes to who would be exempted from paying this Share the Sacrifice tax to support the War on Terror - it actually winds up excluding most of the family of the fallen, or in some cases could result in a non-family member who receives the death gratuity to be given preferential tax treatment as "family" while none of the fallen's family would be exempted.
SGT Mike Stokely was killed in action fighting the War on Terror and his death was and continues to be devastating to our family. The familial and emotional cost can only be measured by a lifetime of love lost. But in the aftermath of that lifetime of love lost, our family has also suffered direct and significant financial impact. This impact will affect our family prosperity for a lifetime to come. I estimate the costs to date and the future costs to exceed $50,000.00. Some have a perception that families like us got a large check from the American Government because Mike died in the War on Terror. However we didn't because Mike Stokely did what any good husband would do, he took care of his wife by naming her the beneficiary of his death gratuity and group life.
The Stokely family in Sharpsburg Georgia - me, my wife, and Mike's brother and sister work hard for what we achieve in life and we pay the prevailing tax rate on our earnings. We don't get any exemptions for the costs that we continue to incur because of and only because Mike as KIA in the War on Terror. And we are not looking for one either.
Rep. Obey, Murtha, Frank and other Congress members who want to pass the "Share The Sacrifice Act of 2010" claim it exempts the families of the fallen. Well the truth of the matter is it only exempts the person(s) who received the death gratuity (which is the single lump sum payment the government makes - $100,000 - to the named beneficiary of a fallen soldier and which can be, as it is in some cases, made to a non-family member). Thus, this Share the Sacrifice tax will be a new tax for most of the family of the fallen, including Mike Stokely's family.
Sadly, these Congress members also have another agenda other than to "Share the Sacrifice". This is a Health Care Reform Tax as well, as it seeks to shift costs of the War on Terror that "devours money need to fix the health care system."
To Rep. Obey, Murtha, Frank and others who think the Stokely's and others like us should pay the war tax surcharge and thus "SHARE THE SACRIFICE: given you crafted legislation that sets forth the premise we have not Shared the Sacrifice, please tell me how much you think is our fair share of the sacrifice in the War on Terror?
Robert Stokely
proud dad SGT Mike Stokely
KIA 16 AUG 05
15 miles south of Baghdad near Yusufiyah / IED
2nd Platoon, E Troop 108th CAV 48h Brigaded GA NATL GUARD
.
This was also written by Robert Stokely father of SGT Mike Stokely in December of 2005
Came across your blog this morning, and thought I'd share my thoughts as the dad of an American Soldier killed in action four months ago. My son was standing cover flank for two buddies checking out a suspicous location in the roadway while on patrol at 2:20 A.M. 16 Aug when an IED exploded. He was the only one killed. Two soldiers suffered serious injuries and are now home on permanent medical leave, but both will live normal lives after they finish med rehab and surgery.
Life is hard when you lose a child; you have children and you think of them burying you and not the other way around. But war brings a nw perspective to the parent child relationship, for the parent is put in a position that they are unable to fulfill a basic parental instinct - protect your child. Losing a child, especially in war and especially with media attention focused on your loss, is difficult. I find myself counting time in weeks - every Monday at 6:20 p.m., I silently remember, maybe with a tear, that X weeks ago Mike died at what was 2:20 a.m. his time on Tuesday; then as the evening goes on, I think, Mike was dead X hours at this time; I then awake on what is my Tuesday mornng, and at 7:00 a.m., I remember the call to my home and the voice saying "Mr. Stokely, this is Maj. Hulsey - please come to the door, you dog won't let us up the driveway and we need to speak to you" and then remembering my fast gait to the driveway and asking, before they can say anything "is my boy dead" and the the words they spoke, with humble sadness in the eyes of Maj. Hulsey and the Chaplin that was with him "we regret to inform you...." But the pain,while there, is more manageable. I think it must be like the rigors and harshness of war - it is always the same, you just adjust.
No pity for me is needed, for as a friend said to me, I am lucky to have a son who has brought such honor to his father and the entire family. My son was a man who had a heart that cared deeply for others, and they likewise cared for him. In all of this, so many stories of his simple kindness have been shared with us and touched us. My favorite is the one where he and his buddies had been on continuous duty for several days (their normal day was 22 hours long). He and one of his fellow soldiers had to pull guard duty after being on missions for that continuous period without any sleep. He told his buddy to take a nap and he would stand watch and then they would swap out. For the next six hours, he let his buddy sleep while he stood the whole watch.
We miss him so much. We hurt inside. But we burst with pride in our son and brother. His memory will not fade nor will our love for him. When Mike was just becoming a teenager, I tried to imagine what he would be one day. I often told people I wasn't sure where life would take him, but I knew he would do something different and be very well known in his chosen field. I never dreamed he would become an American Hero who would serve his country so well.
For whatever reason, the last few days what Cindy Sheehan said "Casey didn't die for a just cause" has been on my mind. Maybe it is because some people have felt comfortable enough four months out to ask me how I felt about Mike's death and whether I thought the cause was "just" enough to justify his sacrifice.
My response is that Mike didn't die for a "just cause", he died JUST BECAUSE - just because he loved his country enough to want to serve it since the time he was in middle school; just because he loved his family enough to want to protect them; just because he loved his friends enough that he would rather fight a war "there" than here; just because he believed in our order of government whereby the civilian government rules and the military obeys, and when the President, with lawful authority, calls upon soldiers to go and fight, he believed it was not only his duty, but his honor to go; just because he wouldn't let his fellow soldiers - his guys - go it alone; and just because he wanted to do for others - the Iraqi people - what he would do for his own country.
A good friend of our family, Charles Carmical, wrote these words in tribute to Mike - “Would I lay down my life for a country to defend? I willing would if it housed my family and friends."
Mike Stokely didn't die for a just cause, he died for a lot of just causes, including the ones I set out above. I wish I were fit to tie his shoe laces but I am fortunate enough to have a son who believed in God, family, duty, honor and country and who certainly turned out to be the better of the two of us.
.
Want to do something?
Contact your Represenative here:
Contact the miscreants here:
.
Wild Thing's comment..........
These people in Congress are so horrible.
Murtha’s planning to kill two birds with one stone. Get a tax increase passed to recruit more antiwar liberals to “cut and run” plus he’ll have more money available for his grubby hands.
We are already paying for the war with taxes.
Posted by Wild Thing at 02:45 AM | Comments (6)
Liz Cheney Talks About Afghanistan, and Sarah Palin
Liz Cheney on "This Week" saying that the lack of a decision on Afghanistan is "completely inexcusable."
Liz Cheney said "I think it's just completely inexcusable that we've now had month after month of photo-op out of the White House and no decision." She said "the President is very fond of saying, "before I commit troops I'm going to think very carefully about it," somebody in the White House needs to remind him he's already committed troops. We've got American men and women in Afghanistan today."
.
.
.
Wild Thing's comment.......
Liz Cheney just completely overwhelmed the panel.
Whenever she spoke the rest were absolutely quiet and appeared rather spell bound.
She has the same charismatic,yet brilliant delivery of Sarah Palin and both today command huge audiences and always deliver for freedom and democracy.
Liz Cheney never fails to impress with her knowledge and ability to easily and intelligently converse on all subjects.
Especially national security.
Posted by Wild Thing at 02:44 AM | Comments (6)
November 20, 2009
The WORST CIC Obama Tells Troops: "You guys make a pretty good photo op"
Yes, that's what the commander-in-chief said to his troops today in South Korea.
.
No Afghan decision before Thanksgiving
SEOUL
Obama will not announce his decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan before the Thanksgiving holiday, senior aides said Thursday.
The news came as the president greeted 1,500 troops at Osan Air Base in South Korea, just before boarding Air Force One and heading back to Washington after an eight-day trip to Asia.
Obama said in interviews Wednesday that he would reveal his decision within the next several weeks. On Thursday, aides clarified that there would be no announcement before Thanksgiving.
Obama did not mention the looming decision in his remarks to U.S. troops, referring to the Afghan conflict only by thanking South Korea for its efforts and expressing gratitude to the American military personnel who have served there.
But he did discuss the region in his meeting with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, whose government is sending 150 civilian aid workers to Afghanistan.
Obama arrived on the base 3:19 p.m. local time (1 a.m. Eastern Standard Time) and received a rousing welcome from 1,500 troops in camouflage uniforms, many holding cameras or pointing cellphones to snap pictures.
"You guys make a pretty good photo op," the president said.
Standing on a riser wearing a blue suit and red tie, with a cluster of troops and a large American flag behind him, Obama expressed "the gratitude of the American public" and said his meetings in four countries over eight days in Asia will help deliver a "safer, more prosperous world for all of us."
He got a huge cheer when he told them he was increasing military pay. "That's what you call an applause line," he said, before boarding his jet and taking off at 4:11 p.m.
Wild Thing's comment.......
What an arrogant horrible person. Gawd I despise this ‘man’. I utterly despise him. He is a self-absorbed marxist thug liar. He is doing his damndest to destroy what is left our values and our economy.
"received a rousing welcome from 1,500 troops in camouflage uniforms, many holding cameras or pointing cell phones to snap pictures."
How on earth did they find 1500 Democrats in the military?
Obama arrived on the base 3:19 p.m. local time (...snip...)
"That's what you call an applause line," he said, before boarding his jet and taking off at 4:11 p.m.
And he spent a whopping 52 minutes with the troops.
Posted by Wild Thing at 04:50 AM | Comments (17)
November 18, 2009
Jane Fonda's Friend Jodie Evans Met With Taliban ~ Code Pink Gives Terrorists Direct Line to Obama
Jane Fonda: Obama Funder Jodie Evans Met With Taliban; Code Pink Gives Terrorists Direct Line to Obama
Top Obama donor and fundraiser Jodie Evans met with the Taliban in Afghanistan on a recent trip there, according to a report by Jane Fonda of a discussion she had with Evans last month. The meeting with the Taliban took place just weeks before Evans was videotaped directly handing to President Barack Obama a package of information about her trip to Afghanistan at a high dollar fundraiser in San Francisco.
The meeting with the Taliban was kept secret by Evans and her group Code Pink in reports she and the group posted from Kabul and in interviews with the media and bloggers about the trip. Fonda, a close friend of Evans, let the secret meeting slip in an account of her dinner with Evans at a fundraiser for the Armand Hammer Museum in Los Angeles:
Last Saturday, My dear friends Jodie Evans and Max Palevsky, invited Richard and me to join them at their table at a fundraiser at the Armand Hammer Museum in Westwood. It was a good evening for lots of reasons. I had never been to the museum and definitely want to go back. Clearly it is a courageous place, very cutting edge. Then, too, I saw lots of friends I hadn’t seen in a long time and I sat next to Jodie who told me a little about her recent trip to Afghanistan with an American delegation that included a retired colonel, and member the State Department (Army Reserves Col. (Ret.) and ex-diplomat Ann Wright). While there, she met with people ranging from the brother of President Karzai, Afghan members of Parliament, activists, to warlords and members of the Taliban (emphasis added.) Jodie is co-founder of the peace organization, Code Pink, and always willing to go to any lengths to try and find out what’s really going on. Bottom line: everyone she met with wants the U.S. Military out of their country. They feel our presence there has brought more violence rather than security. Please read a short article she wrote about the trip which is on the Women’s Media Center website.
There is precedent to suspect that Evans is acting as a conduit for the Taliban to Obama. In June, her fellow Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin hand carried a letter out of Gaza from the terrorist group Hamas addressed to Obama.
Over the seven years of its existence, Code Pink has acted as propaganda shills for the anti-American governments of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez, Bolivia’s President Evo Morales, Cuba’s Castro brothers and Iraq under Saddam Hussein, as well as Middle Eastern terrorist groups.
Fonda has her own history of working with America’s enemies. During the Vietnam war she visited North Vietnam in 1972 and was photographed manning an anti-aircraft battery used to shoot down American planes. Fonda also recorded propaganda radio broadcasts for the North Vietnamese communists
In 2007 Code Pink brought Fonda out of protest retirement at a so-called antiwar demonstration held at the Navy Memorial in Washington, D.C.
What was in the package that Evans gave Obama at the San Francisco fundraiser? She describes what she gave Obama in an article at the Huffington Post:
…we were careful to make the package very user and security friendly. It was filled with photos, quotes, thousands of signatures (on a petition against more troops for Afghanistan), a copy of Rethink Afghanistan and our 25-minute interview with Afghan MP Dr. Roshanak Wardak from Wardak Province, who is adamant that the U.S. should not send new troops and rather, must leave.
Evans notes that she gave a similar package to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who was also at the fundraiser being held in her city.
No mention is made by Evans on whether she relayed oral or written messages from the Taliban to Obama. However, it is a strong possibility given Fonda’s revelation and Code Pink’s history.
Code Pink’s image as kooky but well-meaning women committed to peace is belied by their words and actions. At home they work to undermine morale in our soldiers, their families and the American public. Abroad they work with terrorist enemies of the United States.
And one of Code Pink’s co-founders, Jodie Evans, works with President Obama. Is anyone in our nation’s capital paying attention?
.
Wild Thing's comment.......
So Obama gets his news from terrorists, next he will be bowing to them.
A hand-delivered package, though, will be off-record. They probably have other channels that are more watched, monitored, and regulated. So, Obama has a Code Pinko carrying on now not-so-secret talks with the Taliban and being a envoy between them. He’s completely not involving the CIA or any intelligence agency.
John Kerry did this same thing during Vietnam. He should have been executed for it. Ditto for Jane and this Jodie Evans and all the other leaders of Code Pink. If it wasn't called treason when code pink went to Fallujah and Ramadi in 2003 and gave aid and comfort to the enemy. And if it wasn't called treason when jane fonda went to N. Vietnam and gave aid and comfort to the enemy. When will giving aid and comfort to the enemy ever be called treason, and dealt with accordingly?
And we all know what a scum a total scum communist Hanoi Jane is.
"..Jodie Evans is a radical activist and Democratic fundraiser best known as the co-founder -- along with Diane Wilson, Global Exchange's Medea Benjamin, and a Wiccan calling herself Starhawk -- of Code Pink for Peace. Evans also works closely with Leslie Cagan, the pro-Castro leader of United For Peace and Justice..."
Code Pink’s “Sugar Mommy” – Jodie Evans
"..Ms. Evans is a very rich and powerful woman, thanks largely to her divorce settlement from the billionaire capitalist Max Palevsky in "common property" California..."
These women can all join the John Kerry Traitors to America and our troops Club.
"...at a fundraiser for the Armand Hammer Museum in Los Angeles..."
Now there's an interesting connection. Look that one up. Armand was the son of one of America's earliest Communists - Julius Hammer. Despite being one of America's richest men at the time, old Julius was also a close confidant of none other than Lenin himself.
Julius's next best friend was an itinerant backwoods tent-revival preacher from Tennessee whom Julius' money and influence made into a US Senator. His name was Albert Gore, the father of our own dear frog-boiling, global warming "Chicken Little" - Albert J. (for "Julius" after his father's political/financial patron) Gore "Jr".
Armand Hammer simply followed in his daddy's footsteps and used their family fortune to promote "Socialist" (just a cowardly euphemism for Communist) causes around the world including the "Armand Hammer World College" in Montezuma, NM. Hammer was just another dirty Communist bastard. It doesn't surprise me in the least that Jane Fonda would be raising money for his "library", or that the Code Pinkos are involved.
The biggest terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11, the Fort Hood Massacre, happens on Obama's watch.
Soros’ people , Barack Hussein Obama, Ms. Fonda and Ms. Evans do not like the United States, have never liked the United States, and will not be happy until it is turned into a little Marxist dictatorship. They also never met an enemy of the United States they didn’t like.
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:50 AM | Comments (9)
November 16, 2009
Obama Fails as CIC and Plummeting Military Morale
German Defence Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, wearing body armour, disembarks from a plane on arrival in Kabul November 12, 2009, as he makes a surprise visit to Afghanistan to meet with military commanders and to inspect German Army, Bundeswehr, troops stationed there. Reuters
NO OBAMA VISIT to the TROOPS! ~ Wild Thing
.
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd lays a wreath in observance of Remembrance Day during a service held at Camp Holland near Tarin Kowt November 11, 2009. Rudd was in Afghanistan to mark Remembrance Day with the Australian troops. afpak-fun-05g-ure taken on November 11. Reuters
NO OBAMA VISIT to the TROOPS! ~ Wild Thing
.
Obama and Plummeting Military Morale
New Army surveys, reports the Wall Street Journal, show that morale has fallen sharply among soldiers fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and confirm an unusually high suicide in their ranks.
Perhaps this has something to do with doubts about their commander-in-chief's commitment to win this war by standing staunchly with them in spirit and providing the necessary troop levels and other resources. With fatalities and injuries surging among them, the president's prolonged and frazzled indecision on how to wage this struggle must leave these soldiers with a sense of being cast adrift in limbo, if not hell itself. Having first, very belatedly, consulted directly on strategy with the man in charge of the war, General Stanley McChrystal, President Obama then proceeded for months to pore over, appear to accept, throw out, and then start all over examining, various options.
In an act of deep interpersonal significance, as Claudia Rosett observes, the president has not bothered to pay a visit to Afghanistan to bolster morale. Yet, to buck up his foreign policy credentials, he managed to make a campaign stop there while running for president. Once elected, he found time to extend a friendly hand to Muslims in Cairo, lobby for Chicago's Olympics bid, vacation in Martha's Vineyard, and have a "date night" in New York City with his wife. Soon he'll be off to Oslo to accept a Nobel Peace Prize, which he has done nothing yet to deserve, in Afghanistan, at home, or elsewhere in the world.
It could also have not done much to fortify our soldiers to learn of the president's obfuscations and omissions in his recent Fort Hood tribute to their slaughtered 13 comrades. He could not bring himself, as Michael Goodwin and others noted, to call the massacre what it clearly was: treason and terrorism, visited by an Army officer on his defenseless comrades. While failing to acknowledge that Nidal Malik Hasan had shouted, "Al lahu akbar" (God is great) as he fired his weapons, the president also commented, "No just and loving God looks upon them with favor." The president declared the nation to be "in a time of war," but then downgraded the killings to the level of a mere "tragedy." He alluded to 9/11, warning that "the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America," but neglected to say that the same militant Islamism led to the recent slaughter. He was silent about the shooter's contacts with al Qaeda, but stated, "No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts."
Rosett urges the president to betake himself without further delay to Afghanistan and deliver "a soaring speech" to our troops, such as to "display for their benefit and the world's, that as commander-in-chief of these men and women who are risking their lives under his command, he is not AWOL."
But one wonders just how soaring such a message could possibly be, coming from one who cannot muster the leadership to decide how, and indeed if at all, to proceed on their battleground. So geared to mollify his leftist political base has this president's every action seemed so far in his tenure that our courageous soldiers have every reason to fear themselves but chess pieces in his long game of political calculation.
Can the hearts of our troops yet be touched by a commander-in-chief who has for so long failed to show his face, and left them alone, on the battleground? By now they, like many among us, must acknowledge that this is the same commander-in-chief who, during his bid for the presidency cynically - then, too, for rank political reasons -- trumpeted the war in Afghanistan to be the most "necessary" one in the fight against terrorism.
But, above all, the drag that this president exerts on our soldiers comes from his unwillingness even forthrightly to name the enemy with whom they are locked in deadly combat.
If President Obama's lack of leadership and alienation from our troops continue, he may go down in history as America's great demoralizer-in-chief. But, vastly more momentous than his place in history, his failure to lead this nation, and the world, during these hazardous times may well precipitate a series of crises that will plague us for generations.
Wild Thing's comment.............
DAMN obama!
This makes me sick to see this happening to our troops.
Posted by Wild Thing at 04:49 AM | Comments (13)
November 13, 2009
Barack Obama Demands Exit Strategy in Afghanistan
Barack Obama has demanded the inclusion of an exit plan in the new US strategy for Afghanistan.
White House officials said that in a meeting with Pentagon chiefs Mr Obama had made clear he wants his decision on troop reinforcements to offer a strong suggestion of when and how responsibility for security would be turned over to the Afghans.
After two months of discussions with his advisers he rejected all four options they had touted on the number of troops to be sent, in a surprise move that risked provoking further allegations of “dithering”.
While he is still expected to announce that he is sending reinforcements, Mr Obama insisted that a broad framework for handing over control of security to the Afghan army is written in, as he sought to warn Afghan leaders - and reassure the US public - that the mission is not "open-ended".
Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, said on board Air Force One, said: “The president believes that we have been there for eight years, and we're not going to be there forever. And it's important to fully examine not just how we're going to get folks in but how we're going to get folks out.”
The move followed a forceful intervention about the troop build-up from General Karl Eikenberry, the US ambassador to Kabul.
In two classified cables and comments he made to Mr Obama by video link late on Wednesday, he came out firmly against bolstering the American presence unless President Hamid Karzai seriously addresses corruption, and argued that more US troops would only make the Afghans more dependent.
As the US commander in Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007, Gen Eikenberry’s views will carry extra weight, as well as annoying his successor, Gen Stanley McChrystal, who has requested a “surge” of up
Tensions between the White House and the Pentagon over the deployment have already bubbled to the surface. Senior presidential advisers have accused generals of leaking the misinformation that Mr Obama has all but decided to dispatch more than 34,000 additional troops, in a bid to force his decision. There are currently 68,000 US military personnel in Afghanistan.
Wild Thing's comment........
I sure wish Osama would give us HIS an exit strategy from OUR White House and go and get lost!
I guess the troops will have to wait an added 2 months for Obama to get his exist strategy as well. It has taken him this long to decide he does not know what the heck to do yet.
Posted by Wild Thing at 03:50 AM | Comments (11)
November 12, 2009
Traitor and Obama Groupie Gen. Powell to President Obama on Af-Pak Strategy: "Take Your Time"
Gen. Powell to President Obama on Af-Pak Strategy: "Take Your Time"
Jack Tapper
November 11, 2009 3:01 PM
In an interview with Roland Martin on the Tom Joyner Morning Show this morning, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell revealed that he recently advised President Obama to take his time in devising his strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"This is a very difficult one for him," Powell said. "And it isn't just a one-time decision. This is the decision that will have consequences for the better part of his administration. So Mr. President, don't get pushed by the left to do nothing; don't get pushed by the right to do everything. You take your time and you figure it out. You're the commander-in-chief and this is what you were elected for."
Powell said he had "advised him is to not be rushed into a decision because this one is the decision that will have consequences for years to come."
"If you decide to send more troops or that's what you feel it is necessary, make sure you have a good understanding of what those troops are going to be doing and some assurance that the additional troops will be successful," Powell says he told the president. "You can't guarantee success in a very complex theater like Afghanistan and increasingly with the Pakistan problem next door, but you have to have some sense of what these additional troops will be able to do.
"And secondly, take your time," Powell said, "and third, you've got to ensure that you're putting this commitment on a solid base, and the base is a little soft right now. We've got a president in Afghanistan that had a rough election; a lot of corruption associated with the election; a lot of corruption in the government. And he has been told -- Mr. Karzai has been told, and I know him very well -- he's been told he's got to do something about this; he's got to do something about the drug problem, and he's got to start pulling the Afghan people together. And so the president has to measure that; what kind of base is he putting this new strategy on because it isn't just what we do; what do the Afghans do. And as I said a moment ago, it's made particularly difficult because of the unstable situation along the Pakistan border and in Pakistan."
Wild Thing's comment........
"This is a very difficult one for him," Powell said
For God's sake...HE'S THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!! It's ALWAYS a difficult time. Presidents make tough decisions EVERY DAY
Advice from the affirmative action General to the affirmative action President.
The only thing Powell ever did right was shutting up and letting Norman Schwarzkopf plan and run the first Gulf War.
Men and women continue to put themselves in harm’s way and dips$$t Colonectomy says “Take your time”?!
Moral courage is a 10 second decision. 10 months is rushing it for boy wonder.
Posted by Wild Thing at 03:55 AM | Comments (11)
November 04, 2009
CIC Obama Offers Taliban 6 Provinces for 8 Bases ~ Taliban Says NO
Mullah Zaeef, a former envoy to Pakistan, reportedly represented the Taliban side in the recent talks.
When Obama stated that he was going to reach out to the Islamic world, he was not kidding. The weakness of Obama has lead to the Taliban getting stronger. He has even given the Taliban the OK to participate in the future political landscape of Afghanistan. Apparently none of this was enough though, and now Obama is willing to share power in Afghanistan with the Taliban .
US Offers Taliban 6 Provinces for 8 Bases
By Aamir Latif
The emboldened Taliban movement in Afghanistan turned down an American offer of power-sharing in exchange for accepting the presence of foreign troops, Afghan government sources confirmed.
"US negotiators had offered the Taliban leadership through Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakkil (former Taliban foreign minister) that if they accept the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan, they would be given the governorship of six provinces in the south and northeast," a senior Afghan Foreign Ministry official told IslamOnline.net requesting anonymity for not being authorized to talk about the sensitive issue with the media.
He said the talks, brokered by Saudi Arabia and Turkey, continued for weeks at different locations including the Afghan capital Kabul.
Saudi Arabia, along with Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates, were the only states to recognize the Taliban regime which ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001.
Turkish Prime Minister Reccap Erodgan has reportedly been active in brokering talks between the two sides.
His emissaries are in contact with Hizb-e-Islami (of former prime minister Gulbadin Hikmatyar) too because he is an important factor in northeastern Afghanistan."
A Taliban spokesman admitted indirect talks with the US.
"Yes, there were some indirect talks, but they did not work," Yousaf Ahmedi, the Taliban spokesman in southern Afghanistan, told IOL from an unknown location via satellite phone.
"There are some people who are conveying each others’ (Taliban and US) messages. But there were no direct talks between us and America," he explained.
Afghan and Taliban sources said Mutawakkil and Mullah Mohammad Zaeef, a former envoy to Pakistan who had taken part in previous talks, represented the Taliban side in the recent talks.
The US Embassy in Kabul denied any such talks.
"No, we are not holding any talks with Taliban," embassy spokeswoman Cathaline Haydan told IOL from Kabul.
Asked whether the US has offered any power-sharing formula to Taliban, she said she was not aware of any such offer.
"I don't know about any specific talks and the case you are reporting is not true."
Provinces for Bases
Source say that for the first time the American negotiators did not insist on the "minus-Mullah Omer" formula, which had been the main hurdle in previous talks between the two sides.
The Americans reportedly offered Taliban a form of power-sharing in return for accepting the presence of foreign troops.
"America wants 8 army and air force bases in different parts of Afghanistan in order to tackle the possible regrouping of Al-Qaeda network," the senior official said.
He named the possible hosts of the bases as Mazar-e-Sharif and Badakshan in north, Kandahar in south, Kabul, Herat in west, Jalalabad in northeast and Ghazni and Faryab in central Afghanistan.
In exchange, the US offered Taliban the governorship of the southern provinces of Kandahar, Zabul, Hilmand and Orazgan as well as the northeastern provinces of Nooristan and Kunar.
These provinces are the epicenter of resistance against the US-led foreign forces and are considered the strongholds of Taliban.
Orazgan and Hilmand are the home provinces of Taliban Supreme Commander Mullah Omer and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
"But Taliban did not agree on that," said the senior official.
"Their demand was that America must give a deadline for its pull out if it wants negotiations to go on."
Wild Thing's comment.......
President of the United States begging the Taliban thugs for a deal!! We shouldn't be offering the Taliban anything other than bullets lubed with pork lard?
And there are Afghans who have risked their lives, and their families lives, to support us. Obama sold them out too along with our troops. Good luck getting any more support from them.
How about we exchange Obama for our troops and let Obama stay over there with his favorite terrorists the Taliban. He would fit right in and wouldn't even have to learn their language.
The Taliban would be crazy to accept this proposal. If they wait, they can have it all. If they wait long enough Obama will give them all they want over there and heck over here too. The Taliban already said no. They are ruthless but not stupid.
Posted by Wild Thing at 04:55 AM | Comments (11)
October 29, 2009
Obama Concludes U.S. Can't Beat Taliban
Obama Concludes U.S. Can't Beat Taliban; May Wait Until Late November for Afghan Decision
Obama has asked senior officials for a province-by-province analysis of Afghanistan to determine which regions are being managed effectively by local leaders and which require international help, information that his advisers say will guide his decision on how many additional U.S. troops to send to the battle.
Obama made the request in a meeting Monday with Vice President Biden and a small group of senior advisers helping him decide whether to expand the war. The detail he is now seeking also reflects the administration's turn toward Afghanistan's provincial governors, tribal leaders and local militias as potentially more effective partners in the effort than a historically weak central government that is confronting questions of legitimacy after the flawed Aug. 20 presidential election.
"This is obviously a complicated security environment in Afghanistan, and the president wants the clearest possible understanding of what the challenges are to our forces and what is required to meet that challenge," said a senior administration official who has participated in the Afghanistan policy review and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss it. "Any successful and sustainable strategy must clearly align the resources we provide with the goals we are trying to achieve."
As U.S. forces in Afghanistan endure the deadliest month of the eight-year-old conflict, Obama is weighing a request by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, for a quick jump in forces to blunt the Taliban's momentum against concerns that too many new troops could help the insurgency's recruiting efforts.
Administration officials say that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and national security adviser James L. Jones, a retired four-star general, support Obama's request for a more detailed status report on each province that could identify potential U.S. allies among Afghanistan's local leaders, some with less-than-sterling human rights records.
Gates and Jones have pushed McChrystal to justify as specifically as possible his request for 44,000 additional troops, the figure now at the center of White House deliberations. The review group once included intelligence officials, generals and ambassadors, but it has recently narrowed to a far smaller number of senior civilian advisers, including Biden, Gates, Jones, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Administration officials said the province-by-province analysis will be ready for Obama before his scheduled Friday meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the White House.
"There are a lot of questions about why McChrystal has identified the areas that he has identified as needing more forces," said a senior military official familiar with the review, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the deliberations candidly. "Some see it as an attempt by the White House to do due diligence on the commander's troop request. A less charitable view is that it is a 5,000-mile screwdriver tinkering from Washington."
~ snipet ~
About half the 44,000 troops McChrystal requested would be sent to take back Taliban sanctuaries in southern Afghanistan. The others would push into western Afghanistan, where the U.S. military has only a slight presence, and reinforce operations in the mountainous east. One brigade would train Afghan army and police forces.
Even after weeks of review, administration officials say a range of options is still under consideration, including whether additional U.S. forces could be deployed in phases. Although Obama had been expected to announce his decision before leaving Nov. 11 on a 10-day trip to Asia, administration officials say he may wait until he returns.
"I think it's important to hear and to get this right," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Wednesday.
In reviewing McChrystal's bracing assessment of the war, the president and his senior advisers have concluded that the Taliban cannot be eliminated as a military and political force, regardless of how many more troops are deployed.
~snipet~
Some White House officials, including Biden, have advocated a strategy that would focus primarily on counterterrorism efforts against al-Qaeda. The vice president has argued for preserving the current U.S. troop level of 68,000, expediting the training of Afghan forces, intensifying Predator drone strikes against al-Qaeda operatives and supporting the Pakistani government against the Taliban within its borders.
But the deepening conflict is complicating those plans. For example, administration officials say that sending additional U.S. training brigades to accelerate preparation of the Afghan security forces may not accomplish as much as hoped because recruitment -- and retention -- has gone poorly as the war intensifies.
"It's all part of the endemic problems of illiteracy and security that plague many countries, but particularly this one," said a senior administration official familiar with the review process, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss it. "You want to increase the number of people engaged in training, but at some point bringing in more and more Americans won't produce quicker results. There's a ceiling."
McChrystal has advocated something far closer to a nation-building project. Some Republican supporters of the general's plan in Congress have compared his strategy to the 2007 "surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq, a shorter-term effort that helped pull the country back from sectarian civil war.
But administration officials reject the comparison, pointing out that McChrystal's troop request would require a far longer deployment of U.S. forces and that Afghanistan is in a less dire position than Iraq was at the time of the surge.
Wild Thing's comment......
The Washington Post reports that Barack Obama and top administration officials have concluded the Taliban cannot be beaten and that they are looking for ways to cede parts of Afghanistan to the Taliban without those regions becoming safe havens for al Qaeda.
The article also reports that Obama may wait until after he returns from a 10 day visit to Asia that begins November 11 to decide his policy for Afghanistan.
The article describes Obama's defeatist attitude about the invincibility of the Taliban.
Sooooooo Obama thinks our military can’t beat a bunch of mountain huggers in sandals.Obama is doing all he can to show our troops how little respect he has for all of them, every branch of service, every one of them.
They need to tell Obama screw you and stop trying to avoid civilian casualties and go back to using a Rolling Thunder strategy. Instead Obama wants to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We can win, but Obama does not want to. With him as POTUS, America can never win a war. Somehow they have to over-ride what he wants, he is not qualified to be CIC not even close. He has NO clue at all about our military.
When, I ask, will we see the day when this country has had it with this TRAITOR! He isn’t fit to shine the shoes of our brave fighting men and women.
It's clear that the Kenyan Clown is heavily invested in the U.S. failing — Barack Hussein Obama hates and despises this country, and he will relish victory for the Taliban.
Can you even imagine what this will do to Troop morale? This isn't their fault, they HAVE the will to win. It isn't their fault they were stuck with CIC Obama.
Obama is weighing a request by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, for a quick jump in forces to blunt the Taliban's momentum against concerns that too many new troops could help the insurgency's recruiting efforts.
But apparently NO concern that perceptions of American weakness and irresolve, "could help the insurgency's recruiting efforts." Obama is a traitor to our troops and all he is doing shows us he wants the Islamic radicals to win.
Obama is intentionally permitting the blood of America's fighting men to be splattered across the front pages in order to distract from his domestic failures and depredations. And quite possibly for other reasons even more contemptible.
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:50 AM | Comments (12)
Obama Makes MORE Cut Backs in Defense Spending
Barack Obama attends a briefing on Afghanistan in the Situation Room of the White House
.
Barack Obama attends a briefing on Afghanistan in the Situation Room of the White House
Victory for Obama Over Military Lobby
When the Obama administration proposed canceling a host of expensive weapons systems last spring, some of the military industry’s allies in Congress assumed, as they had in the past, that they would have the final say.
But as the president signed a $680 billion military policy bill on Wednesday, it was clear that he had succeeded in paring back nearly all of the programs and setting a tone of greater restraint than the Pentagon had seen in many years.
Now the question is whether Mr. Obama can sustain that push next year, when the midterm elections are likely to make Congress more resistant to further cuts and job losses.
White House officials say Mr. Obama took advantage of a rare political moment to break through one of Washington’s most powerful lobbies and trim more weapons systems than any president had in decades.
Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said Wednesday that the plan was to threaten a veto over a prominent program — in this case, the F-22 fighter jet — “to show we were willing to expend political capital and could win on something that people thought we could not.”
Once the Senate voted in July to stop buying F-22s, Mr. Emanuel said in an interview, that success “reverberated down” to help sustain billions of dollars of cuts in Army modernization, missile defense and other programs.
Mr. Emanuel said the strategy emerged when the defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, told Mr. Obama they needed to “shake up sacred cows and be seen as taking on fights.”
And Senator John McCain of Arizona, the former Republican presidential candidate, who has criticized the Pentagon’s cost overruns, provided Mr. Obama with political cover to make the cuts without being seen as soft on the military.
Still, Mr. Obama said at Wednesday’s signing ceremony, there is “more waste we need to cut.”
The act authorizes $550 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget in fiscal 2010 and $130 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That compares to a total of $654 billion for both accounts in fiscal 2009.
The measure also includes a ban on hate crimes that Democratic leaders attached to the bill.
Mr. Obama had wanted to cancel an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a new plane that is expected to be a mainstay for the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines. He had also threatened to veto the military bills if they took money from plane purchases to keep developing that engine.
But Congressional leaders say the believe that the second engine will provide crucial insurance for the $300 billion fighter program. And they say they will take money from other parts of the military budget to save it.
Wild Thing's comment........
All part of the plan. Destroy the military so we’re helpless against the invading muslims.
So how many jobs is this alone going to cost America? He's weakening America militarily and economically in one fell swoop.
And yet Obama is the guy who runs up the largest yearly deficit in the history of the country. So basically he’s reducing spending on things that are constitutional to spend money on unconstitutional.
And Senator John McCain of Arizona, the former Republican presidential candidate, who has criticized the Pentagon’s cost overruns, provided Mr. Obama with political cover to make the cuts without being seen as soft on the military.
Now wasnt that nice of Mr. McCain.... NOT! Notice how McCain's name always pops up when something bad happens.
Only one department of government is being cut. The hated miliatary, for 50 years a target of the lunatic left Democrats. And yes, that dim wit McCain and his butt boy Lindsey Graham helped provide cover. Emperor Obama has not the slightest interest in saving money as shown in his other programs, but he has great interest in neutering the military and playing golf and traveling the globe while Americans die waiting on his new policy for Afghanistan.
The kicker is that the Bush Administration paid for Defense out of the Defense budget and had War Supplemental bills to cover a lot of the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan. The supplementals are getting few and far between and the real amounts to the military are going down.
If you are a fighter pilot and you aren't deployed you are riding the pine. In the Navy they are calling 11 hours a month the "tactical hard deck." In reality it means a U.S. strike fighter pilot that is going to drop bombs in Afghanistan next year is flying less than a Chinese Su-27 pilot in a peace time setting.
And then added in is the post yestersday about US military in Afghanistan is to be allowed to pay Taliban fighters who renounce violence against the government in Kabul.
That is also included in this defence bill which President Obama has signed.
AUGH!
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:50 AM | Comments (5)
October 28, 2009
U.S. Official Resigns Over Afghan War
U.S. official resigns over Afghan war
The Washington Post ...for complete article
Foreign Service officer and former Marine captain says he no longer knows why his nation is fighting
When Matthew Hoh joined the Foreign Service early this year, he was exactly the kind of smart civil-military hybrid the administration was looking for to help expand its development efforts in Afghanistan.
A former Marine Corps captain with combat experience in Iraq, Hoh had also served in uniform at the Pentagon, and as a civilian in Iraq and at the State Department. By July, he was the senior U.S. civilian in Zabul province, a Taliban hotbed.
But last month, in a move that has sent ripples all the way to the White House, Hoh, 36, became the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war, which he had come to believe simply fueled the insurgency.
"I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan," he wrote Sept. 10 in a four-page letter to the department's head of personnel. "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end."
The reaction to Hoh's letter was immediate. Senior U.S. officials, concerned that they would lose an outstanding officer and perhaps gain a prominent critic, appealed to him to stay.
U.S. Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry brought him to Kabul and offered him a job on his senior embassy staff. Hoh declined. From there, he was flown home for a face-to-face meeting with Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"We took his letter very seriously, because he was a good officer," Holbrooke said in an interview. "We all thought that given how serious his letter was, how much commitment there was, and his prior track record, we should pay close attention to him."
While he did not share Hoh's view that the war "wasn't worth the fight," Holbrooke said, "I agreed with much of his analysis." He asked Hoh to join his team in Washington, saying that "if he really wanted to affect policy and help reduce the cost of the war on lives and treasure," why not be "inside the building, rather than outside, where you can get a lot of attention but you won't have the same political impact?"
Hoh accepted the argument and the job, but changed his mind a week later.
"I recognize the career implications, but it wasn't the right thing to do," he said in an interview Friday, two days after his resignation became final.
"I'm not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love," Hoh said. Although he said his time in Zabul was the "second-best job I've ever had," his dominant experience is from the Marines, where many of his closest friends still serve.
"There are plenty of dudes who need to be killed," he said of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. "I was never more happy than when our Iraq team whacked a bunch of guys."
But many Afghans, he wrote in his resignation letter, are fighting the United States largely because its troops are there -- a growing military presence in villages and valleys where outsiders, including other Afghans, are not welcome and where the corrupt, U.S.-backed national government is rejected. While the Taliban is a malign presence, and Pakistan-based al-Qaeda needs to be confronted, he said, the United States is asking its troops to die in Afghanistan for what is essentially a far-off civil war.
As the White House deliberates over whether to deploy more troops, Hoh said he decided to speak out publicly because "I want people in Iowa, people in Arkansas, people in Arizona, to call their congressman and say, 'Listen, I don't think this is right.' "
"I realize what I'm getting into . . . what people are going to say about me," he said. "I never thought I would be doing this."
~ snipet ~
This week, Hoh is scheduled to meet with Vice President Biden's foreign policy adviser, Antony Blinken, at Blinken's invitation.
If the United States is to remain in Afghanistan, Hoh said, he would advise a reduction in combat forces.
He also would suggest providing more support for Pakistan, better U.S. communication and propaganda skills to match those of al-Qaeda, and more pressure on Afghan President Hamid Karzai to clean up government corruption -- all options being discussed in White House deliberations.
"We want to have some kind of governance there, and we have some obligation for it not to be a bloodbath," Hoh said. "But you have to draw the line somewhere, and say this is their problem to solve."
.
Wild Thing's comment........
Matt Hoh is an American Hero.
I remember hearing Mike Yon report on him from Iraq. This guy is the real deal .
Far be it from me to try to explain this man’s reasons.He has been through enough and from the full article he had or maybe still does sleepless nights and other things. Perhaps he sees that Obama isn’t in it to win ( as Obama has stated very clearly in the past ) and he (Hoh) recognizes that, why stick around for the blood bath, literally and politically? There is that too of course. I might be wrong but it seems Hoh is upset with the administration’s lack of purpose and strategy. I think he’s saying, in essence, “It’s clear Obama doesn’t think this job is worth doing well, so what am I doing here?”
“but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end.”
I do have to say however, that Hoh's saying the war effort is fueling the insurgency is misguided. We assisted the mujahedeen against Russia. the Afghanis should have handed us Osama Bin Laden on a platter as a well deserved favor between allies. Instead we were repaid by 9-11.
As long as there are non Muslims ( all of us ) on this planet the jihadis will be either financing or participating in bloodshed against us. We fight them now or we’ll end up fighting them later. Either way, war is inevitable. apathy, inaction & appeasement will very likely make the confrontation worse.
" joined the State Department after leaving the military and was a diplomat in a Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan"
I keep wondering why no one mentions why we went to Afghanistan in the first place.It was called Operation Enduring Freedom and it began on October 7th of 2001. We sent troops to Afghanistan to go after the terrorists after 9-11.
I may be wrong but it was after Iraq and the surge there when troops were taken from Iraq and sent to Afghanistan that all of a sudden it changed to how can we help these people, how can we bring them democracy etc. While at the same time going after terrorists.
I don’t think we’ve put the effort into Afghanistan that we did in Iraq. The Iraqis did man up once they knew we weren’t going to cut and run. The populace isn’t convinced we’ll stick it out, so they’re reticent to stick their necks out.
The Taliban are not stupid they hate and are all about death and destruction but stupid is not one of them. They and the citizens of Afghanistan many of them anyway must be aware as well of what Obama is about and the difference in Obama and Bush.
Could it have anything to do with the mighty Obama's reversal of prior agreements with Poland re missile defense? Or with his not sticking by Israel in the face of the threats they're receiving? Or, his snubbing of our other allies, such as Great Brittain? Or, with his appeasement approach to Iran? Or his desires to have negotiations with the Taliban?
Or, might it have more to do with his lack of resolve in not following through with his campaign statements that the war in Afghanistan is just and must be prosectuted?
The list of backpedaling on agreements with our allies and formation of new relationships with our enemies goes on and on and on.
If we do a surge in Afghanistan and drop the damn R.O.E.'S and get back to KILLING the enemy, I believe the area can be stabilized and the citizens lives improved.
If we are not going to do the surge then get the hell out of dodge. Because the only reason we would stay would be for political purposes and the intentional murder by Obama of our troops. We have GOT to be in it to WIN and take no prisoner attitude and actions. Make Chesty proud for God's sake instead of sheep at the slaughter that has been gonig on since Obama brain dead as a CIC took over.
If we did pull out, I believe Iraq will take the brunt of it. And then Afghanistan will fall and Iraq will be next.
I think it is imperative we clean up Afghanistan. Otherwise we’ll eventually pay for not having done so.
Obama has is no strategy. Obama has yet to publish a strategy for Afghanistan. Obama has yet to publish the National Security Strategy for the United States.
He has no clue.
Bascially now in Afghanistan, our troops are told to sit and be quite as to wait and be fired upon. The ROE's were changed as soon as Obama sort of took the oath. Up to that election, our troops in Afghanistan were much safer and taking out a lot of terrorists.
Dying to achieve a win over the terrorists goal and to secure our Nation is bad enough. Not one member of the military should die when there is no goal. It sickens me because I really believe in our military and I believe we CAN win and we can keep our troops a hell of a lot safer if ONLY Obama would go back to Bush's R.O.E.'S. and also do a surge.
Please read Michael Yon’s “Adopt-a-stan” post at his website http://www.michaelyon-online.com. Definitely a realistic view on what is goin on there. Considering all the civil action projects, I don’t think it’s necessarily feeding the insurgency. If anything, lack of reliability by policymakers, in the form of scant Allied presence, gives locals pause for thought. Marines have won over locals in northern Helmand province in relatively short time (2 or 3 years).
When Bush warned of a war spanning a generation, he was more accurate than most gave him credit for. Keep in mind the Islamists have been planning the reconquest of Europe since the Versaille Treaty of 1919. This event was a watershed because it turned liberated Ottoman Empire territory into a collection of virtual colonies of European powers.
Sun Tzu’s The Art of War is as relevant now as it was a thousand years ago. To some extent, al Qaeda took some lessons from the godless Mao, who employed a strategy of taking land away from Nationalist Chinese forces by winning over the local contryside populace through coercion or force.
COIN operations in Malaya proved Mao’s strategy could be defeated.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 07:48 AM | Comments (2)
October 26, 2009
Karzai Questions US Reliability As Partner
University students play with a burning effigy of the President Barack Obama during a demonstration in front of the Afghan Parliament in Kabul, Afghanistan on Sunday, Oct. 25, 2009. Hundreds of Afghans shouted anti-US, NATO and Afghan government slogans and burned effigy of the President Barack Obama
Karzai questions US reliability as partner
Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai questioned the reliability of the United States as a partner Sunday, as he fought off criticism of his government’s legitimacy following fraud-marred elections.
Karzai’s main challenger, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, warned in an interview with CNN that the US strategy will not succeed without a credible partner in Kabul, blaming Karzai for deteriorating conditions.
But underscoring the political headache that Washington faces if Karzai wins a run-off against Abdullah next month, Karzai pointed the finger at the United States in a separate, pre-recorded CNN interview.
“Is the United States a reliable partner with Afghanistan? Is the West a reliable partner with Afghanistan?” Karzai asked. “Have we received the commitments that we were given? Have we been treated like a partner?”
Karzai said a partnership to him was "where the Afghan lives are respected, where Afghan property is respected, where the Afghan traditions are respected, where we know the direction we are moving to."
The comments appeared to allude to Karzai's longstanding criticism of civilian deaths in US air strikes, and to President Barack Obama's still unresolved review of US strategy and his commander's request for up to 40,000 more US troops.
Abdullah said more troops were needed to stabilize the country. But he said that after eight years of war, Afghanistan should have been in position to ask for fewer troops, not more.
"We are not there. Why? Because of the failures of the current administration in Afghanistan," he told CNN.
"Any success for the US strategy in Afghanistan will depend on the credibility of your partner, on the legitimacy of your partner," he added.
Wild Thing's comment.......
LOL I could care less if those students want to use their time burning effigy's of Obama. Go for it! Hahaha
Regarding Karzai questioning OBAMA'S reliability we know the answer to that one. Obama is all about Obama and has already made it very clear that VICTORY in war is not important to him.
Just one other thing....note to Karzai........ after 9-11 we did not go into your cave dwelling land of sand to do anything BUT go after the terrorists. So let's get that straight. If you don't want to better your country, roads, hospitals, schools, you name it then tell us to get the hell out. All the lives of your people do not equal even ONE of our troops.
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:47 AM | Comments (5)
October 25, 2009
Pakistan Army Captures Hometown of Country's Taliban Chief
Handout picture from Inter Services Public Relations shows picture of Pakistani Taliban commander Hakimullah Mehsud.
Pakistan Army Captures Hometown of Country's Taliban Chief
ISLAMABAD
Pakistani soldiers captured the hometown of the country's Taliban chief Saturday, a strategic and symbolic initial prize as the army pushes deeper into a militant stronghold along the Afghan border. An army spokesman said the Taliban were in disarray, with many deserting the ranks.
The 8-day-old air and ground offensive in the South Waziristan tribal region is a key test of nuclear-armed Pakistan's campaign against Islamist militancy. It has already spurred a civilian exodus and deadly retaliatory attacks.
Washington has encouraged the operation in the northwest because many militants there are believed to shelter Al Qaeda leaders and are also suspected to be involved in attacks on Western troops in Afghanistan.
The U.S. military has also kept up its own missile strikes in the lawless tribal belt, including a suspected one that killed 22 Saturday.
The battle for Kotkai town was symbolically key because it is the hometown of Pakistani Taliban chief Hakimullah Mehsud and one of his top deputies, Qari Hussain. It also lies along the way to the major militant base of Sararogha, making it a strategically helpful catch.
The fight was intense, taking several days and involving aerial bombardment, officials said.
The majority of homes in the town were converted into "strong bunkers" and it also was home to a training camp for suicide bombers, army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas told reporters. Troops had begun ridding it of land mines and roadside bombs.
"Thank God, this is the army's very big success," Abbas said. "The good news is that (communications) intercepts show that there are differences forging among the Taliban ranks. Their aides are deserting them."
Abbas said some of the fleeing Taliban have shaved their beards and cut their hair to try to blend in with the civilian population. Taliban spokesmen could not immediately be reached for comment.
Three soldiers and 21 militants died in the most recent fighting in the region, the army said. Because it has blocked access to South Waziristan, independently verifying the data is all but impossible.
The government has forged ahead in South Waziristan despite a wave of violence that has put the nation on edge. Some 200 people have been killed in a variety of militant attacks across the country this month.
Others noted that Pakistan had failed at least three times before to wrest the region from the Taliban and said they feared the damage the army might cause.
"Years ago, the army suddenly started an operation and we all had to leave our area in the clothes we were wearing," said Abdul Samad Khan, 65, a farmer from the Spinkai Raghzai area. "When we returned to our area all our homes were either bombed, bulldozed or torched. Our animals were missing. Now imagine, if they come with more might, what they will do with our area."
The army has deployed some 30,000 troops to South Waziristan to take on some 12,000 Taliban militants, including up to 1,500 foreign fighters, among them Uzbeks and Arabs.
The U.S. has launched scores of missile strikes at militant targets in Pakistan's tribal belt over the past year, killing several top insurgents including former Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud.
Pakistan formally protests the missile strikes, saying they violate its sovereignty and raise sympathy for the Taliban, while the U.S. rarely discusses the attacks. However, analysts believe the two sides have a secret deal allowing the strikes.
The U.S. has shown no sign of easing the drone-fired attacks even as Pakistan is waging its own fight in the tribal areas. Asked if the missile attacks are a distraction or help, the army spokesman said Pakistan would prefer to go it alone.
"We do not want any assistance or interference from outside," Abbas said.
Wild Thing's comment........
How about giving our troops in harms way - on the 'ghan side of the border where these miscreants run to when things get hot in Pakistan - some more boots on the ground (they have ALWAYS been under-forced and under equipped there) so's they can protect themselves.
Nah, that would upset the Taliban, 'bama's new friends - then they might not sit down and talk with him.
....Thank you Darth for sending this to me.
Darth
U.S. Airforce
C-5 loadmaster
84-97
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:47 AM | Comments (4)
October 20, 2009
Special Gifts from the 15th and 26th Marine Expeditionary Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan
I thought I would share something with all of you.
On October 7th, 2001 Operation Enduring Freedom begins in Afghanistan. I had notified the various ships after some lengthy research how to contact them. I told them that I wanted to support our troops on this important mission for our country and the world. I explained I was no one of importance just a grateful American that would like to send care packages and letters of support.
It was a special time, we were answering back to the terrorists after their attack on 9-11 and the world other then Muslim countries were in full support of the mission. It was the first time in my life there was a feeling of unity among the good vs. a pure evil. People were enlisting that had never even thought about it before they wanted to be a part of going after the terrorists. Many other re-enlisted as well and there was an awakening in our country that spread to every city and town, big and small. Flags were flying from shops and business's and homes and cars that had never been there before. Flag stickers were seen on vehicles proudly displayed showing support of our country. A pride in America like I have never seen in my lifetime.
As time went by Nicholas and I sent numerous packages, letters asking for requests for special items and needs. Friendships being made that will always be special just as those have been from the Gulf War and the Vietnam War.
One of the main ships we were in contact with was the USS Bataan. The 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit deployed aboard the USS Bataan. The unit went to Spain, then participated in the Operation Bright Star exercises in Egypt. It looked like it might be a normal cruise. He said there was a lot of supposition that the 26th would be going into Afghanistan, but it didn't become official until after the Marines exercised in Albania.
The 26th MEU followed the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit into Camp Rhino, near Kandahar, Afghanistan. The unit then took, secured and protected Kandahar International Airport. It was the longest amphibious landing in history. The Navy placed the Marines more than 500 miles from their ships.
Once they got there we continued to stay in touch. Much of the news we kept to ourselves so as not to put our troops in more danger, other news we would share.
A giant U.S. flag that flew over New York's ground zero and was scrawled with the names of victims of the Sept. 11 terror attacks was raised by Marines at their base at Kandahar airport. The flag was given to the Marines by the New York Police Department in the hopes that it would be flown over Afghanistan, said Col. Andrew W. Frick of Task Force 58.
In the white stars of the flag's blue field were written the names of the police officers who died in the World Trade Center attack, as well as those of 17 sailors killed in an October 2000 suicide bombing against the Navy ship USS Cole in Yemen.
Two weeks after the terror attacks, the flag was draped across a building near the World Trade Center. Later, it was taken to an emergency services office in Manhattan, where it became a memorial cloth.
It was flown to the USS Bataan, a Navy warship in the northern Arabian Sea, and then went with the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit from Camp Lejeune, N.C., which seized this international airport.
Remember John Walker, the American that joined the terrorists to kill Americans? When the Marines were coming back from Afghanistan aboard the USS Bataan, they had John Walker on board with them. They wrote me about it and said they kept him locked up and away from the others they had taken prisoner. They also said the stench from him was almost unbearable. They had to clean him up just to bring him back. But they had to do it once he was already on the ship.
One day to my complete surprise a large, box arrived from Afghanistan. There was special wrapping paper folded neatly inside it was a red background with the USMC emblem on it in gold and a card. A bottle of wine with the map of Afghanistan, a small glass bottle with sand from Afghanistan, a set of 12 cups and saucers with the USMC emblem on them in gold, a Screaming Eagles Zippo lighter, a mug, and cap.
I sat there so surprised and tears running down my cheeks. I was so proud of them and so grateful and they didn't have to give me anything. Their service and the service or our soldiers, Airmen and Sailors was MORE then one could ask for.
Over the years these items, these gifts sit on a special shelf for others to see. I have never posted about this and thought you might like to see them. The sand in the little bottle being from Afghanistan when thinking about it can you imagine what that sand has been through. The history of that sand, amazing.
One of the Marines called us and told us how we could open the bottle of wine and still manage to save the thin gold thread wrapped along it from the top. LOL He said that is what they all were doing. I laughed and said NO way. That wine will never be drunk, it is too valuable to me and I will cherish it and all the things always.
The Cap from the USS Bataan and the small bottle of sand from Afghanistan
The Mug
The cup and saucer
The bottle of wine with the map of Afghanistan and it says Operation Enduring Freedom over the map and Bataan ARG....LOL I left it pretty big so you can see the image detail better.
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:55 AM | Comments (12)
Karl Rove Sets Barack Obama White House Straight on Afghanistan Blame Game Attempt
Karl Rove Sets Barack Obama White House Straight on Afghanistan Blame Game Attempt. Karl Rove, former top adviser to President George W. Bush, bluntly accused President Barack Obama of deliberately "destabilizing" the government of Afghanistan, in an interview this morning on the Fox News Channel.
Rove said Obama sent Democratic party henchman James Carville to help the campaign of one of President Hamid Karzai's opponents for the August presidential election.
An article by NPR last summer says Carville's strategy was to drag the election in to a runoff to aid his candidate, former World Bank official Ashraf Ghani.
Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel made remarks this weekend that questioned whether the Obama administration would send more troops to Afghanistan if the Karzai government remained in power.
Rahm Emanuel, in an increasingly-embarrassing and ineffective Team Obama strategy, attempted to pass the buck on the lackluster Obama Administration .
"Do you have a credible Afghan partner for this process that can provide the security and the type of services that the Afghan people need?" Emanuel said the Obama White House is asking as it conducts a strategy review before answering Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for more troops.
Rove puts Rahm and the rest of the Obama-istas in their proper place.
Take a look at what this administration has done. They have destabilized the Afghan government by saying you know what we're not certain that Karzai is a good partner for us.
And the Obama administration sent in James Carville, Democrat party operative, in order to handle the campaign of Karzai's opponent. And then they express surprise when Karzai is trying to cut side deals with the remaining warlords and regional powers in Afghanistan in order to make certain he has a power base if the Americans pull the rug out from underneath him.
I mean its really unusual that this administration is so quick to criticize the Bush administration when they are really destabilizing the regime in Afghanistan in a fundamental way.
Among the highlights:
* Why are David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs in war strategy meetings?
* What's up with James Carville helping Hamid Karzai's political opponent?
* Is Barack Obama and his team destabilizing Afghanistan with their policies?
Wild Thing's comment.......
OH yessss three cheers for Rove.
For Mr. Rove to state that Obama sent Democratic party henchman James Carville to help the campaign of one of President Hamid Karzai's opponents for the August presidential election... is BIG.
You can imagine the callous and cynical minds that would undermine an election with these kinds of consequences.
Horrific. This admin is putting us in so much danger in so many ways, I can’t keep up with it. We are in trouble and I am very concerned for our troops.
Our central government has become a domestic enemy!
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:48 AM | Comments (15)
October 19, 2009
76 Days Since Request For More Troops, Obama STILL Stalling
U.S. Soldiers conduct a dismounted patrol across the Arghandad River to assist Afghanistan National Police with humanitarian relief operations in the Kashani village in the Zabul province of Afghanistan Oct. 9, 2009. The Soldiers are with Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment and deployed throughout southern Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.
76 days since request for more troops, Obama accused of stalling
Afghanistan they would call it a shura, the traditional tribal way of listening to elders’ views before reaching a consensus. In Washington, where President Barack Obama has now held five war councils, they are starting to call it dithering.
With another council on the Afghan war scheduled for this week, US officials admit it could be November before a decision is finally taken on whether to agree to General Stanley McChrystal’s request for more troops. One participant revealed that the protagonists have not yet discussed troop numbers.
Latest polls show a majority of Americans now disapprove of Obama’s handling of a war which may come to define his presidency. Many senior members of his own party are in open revolt.
Senator Robert Byrd, at 91 a Democratic institution, was so incensed that he dragged himself from his hospital bed last week to make a 13-minute speech. “Does it really take 100,000 troops to find Osama Bin Laden?” he wondered. “And how much will this cost? How much in terms of more dollars? How much in terms of American blood?”
Obama has kept his own views to himself, although he is thought to be leaning towards acceptance that more forces will have to be added to the 68,000 US troops already committed. But his professorial style of asking for position papers and hearing all views is leading to accusations of drift.
“It has been 76 days since General McChrystal submitted his review to the administration requesting additional forces, and the clock continues to tick,” complained Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the senior Republican on the House foreign affairs committee.
The slow pace, explained one adviser, is explained by the fact that each meeting focuses on a different part of the problem. “They are methodically going through all the information,” he said.
“The discussion itself is not unexpected,” said a Pentagon spokesman. “It’s not as if we were expecting a rubber stamp.”
The White House gives away little after each session, barely changing the adjectives used to describe them. The first was “rigorous and deliberate”, the second “comprehensive”, the next “robust” and the last “fairly comprehensive”.
Behind the scenes a number of big personalities are jostling for power. The man said to have the president’s ear is Robert Gates, the steely defence secretary who served the previous administration of George W Bush and who believes more troops are necessary.
Obama also respects the views of General James Jones, the national security adviser, for his on-the-ground experience of Afghanistan from 2003 to 2006, when he was Nato’s supreme allied commander for Europe. He is said to be wary of sending more men. “Afghanistan is a country that’s quite large and swallows up a lot of people,” he said recently.
The biggest tussle is between McChrystal and Vice-President Joe Biden, who argues against escalation. Biden, who wants more emphasis on Pakistan, pointed out in a paper entitled Counterterrorism Plus that the real threat is not the Taliban but Al-Qaeda, whose leaders have moved over the border.
Biden, 66, seen as the in-house pessimist, has adopted a subtle campaign to make his case, with aides letting slip to journalists the extent of his influence over his inexperienced commander-in-chief.
While McChrystal was slapped down for unwisely choosing a lecture in London to press his point, there has been no attempt by the White House to rein in Biden. Yet with Obama leaning towards sending more troops, the vice-president seems to be heading for defeat.
Although Biden prides himself on his foreign policy experience, a key factor in his selection, critics point out that his judgments have proved questionable in the past.
“When was the last time Biden was right about anything?” asked Thomas Ricks, a military writer affiliated with the Center for a New American Security, a think tank founded by Democrats.
Biden voted against the Gulf war of 1991, voted for the Iraq invasion of 2003, proposed partitioning Iraq into three sections in 2006, and in 2007 opposed the troop surge that was later credited with turning Iraq around.
Whether or not he succeeds in convincing Obama of his case, nobody can dispute that he has changed the nature of the debate. Biden reflects widespread scepticism among Democrats about investing more heavily in an eight-year war that the US and its allies seem to be losing.
Jim McGovern, a Democratic congressman from Massachusetts, is pushing a bill that calls for an exit strategy. He argues that extra American troops will only antagonise the Afghans and help the Taliban win more recruits.
Wild Thing's comment..........
“When was the last time Biden was right about anything?” asked Thomas Ricks, a military writer affiliated with the Center for a New American Security, a think tank founded by Democrats.
Good one!
I say this makes Obama criminally culpable in the murders of American service members across this 76 day time span.
I'm no expert but I'll hazard a guess or two based on what I do know. Obama is attempting to triangulate; that is, to find a course of action that exposes him to the minimal risk of political damage, especially to his grandiose domestic programs, and at the same time exposes him to as little responsibility as possible for whatever events transpire in a war zone. IRegarding the welfare of the troops in all of this, it doesn't figure in at all except insofar as it reflects on Obama.
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:50 AM | Comments (6)
Sen Kerry: "Irresponsible" To Commit More Troops
Sen Kerry: "Irresponsible" To Commit More Troops Until Afghan Election Decided
Kerry:"We have a responsibility to make certain that the government here is a full partner in our efforts to be able to be as effective as we can be. So before the president makes a decision about the numbers of troops that ought to come here, I believe it is critical for us to be satisfied that the reform efforts that are absolutely mandatory within the government here are in fact going to take place and be fully implemented."
Wild Thing's comment........
John Hanoi Kerry....yes we know this traitor all too well!
* Denouncing America with ‘Hanoi’ Jane
He became a celebrated organizer for one of America's most extreme appeasement groups, Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He consorted with the likes of “Hanoi” Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark, Lyndon Johnson’s radical former attorney general.
* Those evil American soldiers: Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 23, 1971, Kerry claimed that U.S. soldiers had “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.”
* We are not the best’: In his testimony, Kerry claimed there was no communist threat and said: “In 1970 at West Point Vice President Agnew said ‘some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse,’ and this was used as a rallying point for our effort in Vietnam. But for us, as boys in Asia whom the country was supposed to support, his statement is a terrible distortion from which we can only draw a very deep sense of revulsion, and hence the anger of some of the men who are here in Washington today. It is a distortion because we in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country ….”
* Throw as I say, not as I do: On that same day he led members of VVAW in a protest during which they threw their medals and ribbons over a fence in front of the U.S. Capitol.
Kerry later admitted the medals he threw were not his. To this day they hang on the wall of his office.
* Communist stooge: The communist Daily World delightedly published photos of him speaking to demonstrators and boasted that the marchers displayed a banner depicting a portrait of Communist Party leader Angela Davis, on record stating, “I am dedicated to the overthrow of your system of government and your society,” the New American recalled in May 2003.
* “Under Kerry's leadership, VVAW members mocked the uniform of United States soldiers by wearing tattered fatigues marked with pro-communist graffiti. They dishonored America by marching in demonstrations under the flag of the Viet Cong enemy.”
* The book he doesn’t want you to see: When Kerry ran for election to the U.S. House of Representative in 1972, “he found it necessary to suppress reproduction of the cover picture appearing on his own book, The New Soldier. His political opponent pointed out that it depicted several unkempt youths crudely handling an American flag to mock the famous photo of the U.S. Marines at Iwo Jima,” according to Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry.
“Suddenly, copies of the book became unavailable and even disappeared from libraries. But the Lowell (Mass.) Sun said of the type of person shown on its cover: ‘These people spit on the flag, they burn the flag, they carry the flag upside down, [and] they all but wipe their noses with it in their efforts to show their contempt for everything it still stands for,’” the New American reported.
* Freindly With The Enemy. As chairman of the Select Senate Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, created in 1991 to investigate reports that U.S. prisoners of war and soldiers designated missing in action were still alive in Vietnam, Kerry badgered the panel into voting that no American servicemen remained in Vietnam.
"No one in the United States Senate pushed harder to bury the POW/MIA issue, the last obstacle preventing normalization of relations with Hanoi, than John Forbes Kerry,” noted U.S. Veteran Dispatch.
“But Kerry's participation in the Committee became controversial in December 1992,” reported the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, “when Hanoi announced that it had awarded Colliers International, a Boston-based real estate company, an exclusive deal to develop its commercial real estate potentially worth billions. Stuart Forbes, the CEO of Colliers, is Kerry's cousin.”
* Kerry is also a fan of China’s communist dictatorship. “On May 19, 1994, five years after Tiananmen Square, Kerry spoke on the Senate floor against linking China's Most Favored Nation trade status to its human rights record,” Slate reported.
Kerry said: “China is the strongest military power in Asia. We need China's cooperation. We cannot afford to adopt a cold-war kind of policy that merely excludes and pushes China away.”
Remember when our awesome soldiers did this in response to what Kerry had said about them.............
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:49 AM | Comments (6)
October 17, 2009
Obama Ignored Warnings Before Deadly Afghan Attack
The Department of Defense released these photos as they announced on Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2009 the death of eight soldiers who were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. They died Oct. 3 in Kamdesh, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their contingency outpost with small arms, rocket-propelled grenade and indirect fires. They were assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo. On the top row are, from left to right, Sgt. Justin T. Gallegos, 27, Tucson, Ariz., Spc. Christopher T. Griffin, 24, Kincheloe, Mich., Pfc. Kevin C. Thomson, 22, Reno, Nev., Michael P. Scusa, 22, Villas, N.J. From left on bottom row, Sgt. Vernon W. Martin, 25, Savannah, Ga., Stephan L. Mace, 21, Lovettsville, Va., Sgt. Joshua J. Kirk, 30, South Portland, Maine, Sgt. Joshua M. Hardt, 24. Applegate, Calif. (AP Photos/Dept. of Defense)
.
U.S. ignored warnings before deadly Afghan attack
Three intelligence reports dismissed days before eight U.S. soldiers killed
Three intelligence reports warned that Taliban insurgents were planning an attack just days before this month's raid on two remote military outposts in eastern Afghanistan that killed eight U.S. soldiers, but the reports were dismissed as insignificant, U.S. officials told The Washington Times.
As a result, military officials did not send additional troops or make preparations to protect the 140 U.S. and Afghan troops at the combat outposts near Kamdesh in Nuristan province by the Pakistan border, the officials said.
Army Maj. T.G. Taylor, a spokesman for the Army's Task Force Mountain Warrior, told The Times that the three reports did not stand out among hundreds of others and that the intelligence was deemed to be not specific and uncorroborated.
"Reports like this happen all the time in all of our areas," Maj. Taylor said in an e-mail. "It is only through corroboration of reports and/or multiple instances of reporting that we can develop patterns."
One U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, said that despite the Army's characterization of the reports as insignificant, some of the reporting was included in finished intelligence that circulated in classified channels throughout the region before the attack. Finished intelligence is material that has been analyzed and determined to be of value.
A former senior Army officer said the intelligence should have prompted action to provide the outposts with more defenses.
"Why didn't they react and have immediate support on site, based on the intelligence, and even based on the initial attack that occurred?" retired Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely asked.
Gen. Vallely said the outposts near the border should have been staffed with more Afghan troops, who despite eight years of U.S. assistance and training are not deemed capable of running such posts themselves.
The attacks on the Keating and Fritsche outposts - the deadliest in more than a year - are now being reviewed by the Pentagon. The disclosure of prior intelligence warnings comes as President Obama is weighing a request by his top commander in the region to deploy up to 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.
Some 200 Taliban insurgents attacked the outposts on the morning of Oct. 3 with assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, nearly overrunning the fortified bases.
They killed eight U.S. Army soldiers and two Afghan soldiers, making it the deadliest single attack against allied forces in Afghanistan since a similar raid in nearby Wanat in July 2008. Nine U.S. soldiers were killed in that battle, which prompted a re-evaluation of U.S. counterinsurgency tactics in Afghanistan.
One of the intelligence reports on Kamdesh, released in part to The Times, stated that a new Taliban sub-commander in Kamdesh, named Ghulan Faroq, had been appointed and "charged with attacking COP Keating," but no date for the attack was given. COP is military shorthand for combat outpost.
The report also stated that on or about Sept. 29 or 30, "fighters in Kamdesh received a resupply of B-10 ammunition" suitable for use with Soviet-design B-10 recoilless guns that fire 82 mm mortarlike rounds.
A second report stated that, around Oct. 2, a Taliban meeting took place in Kamdesh and that "a Taliban commander will arrive in Kamdesh soon to conduct attacks against coalition forces."
The third report stated that around late September, "a Taliban commander planned to conduct simultaneous attacks against coalition bases in Gewardesh, Kamu and Kamdesh regions of Nuristan and that each attack would be perpetrated by 10-15 Taliban fighters in each location."
"At the same time as these attacks, another unit would attack Barg-e Matal with up to 150 fighters."
Despite the information in the intelligence reports, Maj. Taylor insisted that the attack took the 50 U.S. troops and 90 Afghan police officers and soldiers at the combat outposts by surprise.
"There was no early warning of attacks or significant reporting in the area, which would lead us to believe there would be attacks," he said.
Asked to define significant reporting, Maj. Taylor said that "no significant reporting means that there was no reporting that would lead anyone to believe that anything was out of the ordinary."
Nuristan province is considered a hotbed of al Qaeda and Taliban forces. It is located close to the border where insurgents regularly cross into refuges in Pakistan.
The Army operates several intelligence units in the eastern region of Afghanistan that are in charge of collecting, analyzing and disseminating reports. A military official said communications between headquarters and the outposts was not a problem.
Maj. Taylor said the attack on the outposts, which left at least 27 injured, is under investigation by the military under Article 15-6 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Such inquiries occur "any time there is a loss of life," he said.
Before the attack, the 200 Taliban and other Islamist insurgents infiltrated a mosque in Kamdesh and dug into positions on adjacent hillsides within firing range of the bases.
The U.S. and Afghan soldiers fought back with 155 mm artillery despite heavy enemy fire that limited their capacity to return fire. The soldiers received no combat air support until Apache attack helicopters reached the outposts 30 minutes after the attack began.
After the July 2008 battle at nearby Wanat, the military conducted an investigation to determine whether commanders had been negligent. Military analysts say that battle led to a decision to begin moving forces out of remote hard-to-defend areas.
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, commander of U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, has proposed a counterinsurgency strategy that would move U.S. troops closer to larger population centers with a goal of better protecting the Afghan public against the insurgents. The risk is that the Taliban will be able to move more freely and control more of the countryside.
Both Kamdesh and Wanat are symptomatic of what critics have called the "under-resourced war" in Afghanistan - one that is being fought with too few troops and without other needed equipment.
A draft U.S. military report circulating in military circles stated that troops at the Wanat outpost were distracted by preparations for replacements and did not have enough surveillance drones in use to detect preparations for the attack.
The combat posts at Kamdesh were abandoned days after the battle and then bombed by U.S. aircraft. Western news agencies reported that a Taliban spokesman had boasted that the group's flag was flying over the abandoned outposts.
Wild Thing's comment.......
It sickens me that this happened and didn't have to. Are you listening you POS Obama????????????????
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 03:55 AM | Comments (16)
October 14, 2009
Obama Quietly Deploying 13,000 More US Troops to Afghanistan
Obama quietly deploying 13,000 more US troops to Afghanistan
Move is separate from Nato commander General Stanley McChrystal's request to increase troop levels
Barack Obama is quietly deploying an extra 13,000 troops to Afghanistan, an unannounced move that is separate from a request by the US commander in the country for even more reinforcements.
The extra 13,000 is part of a gradual shift in priority since Obama became president away from Iraq to Afghanistan.
The White House and the Pentagon both announced earlier this year that the number of US troops in Afghanistan was to be raised by 21,000, bringing the total at present to 62,000, with the aim of 68,000 by the end of the year.
But the Washington Post, based on conversations with Pentagon officials, said that on top of those an extra 13,000 "enablers" are also being deployed. They are mainly engineers, medical staff, intelligence officers and military police. About 3,000 of them are specialists in explosives, being sent to try to combat the growing fatality rate from roadside bombs.
The deployment of such non-combat troops is in line with the professed aim of the new US commander, General Stanley McChrystal, to try to win the hearts and minds of the Afghanistan population.
In addition to the deployments under way, McChrystal has also requested an extra 40,000 troops he says are necessary to prevent the country falling into the hands of the Taliban. That request has provoked an intense debate within Washington, with some political advisers in the White House opposed to any further escalation of a war that is already proving unpopular at home.
The Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai, today expressed support for McChrystal's request. "I'm fully behind him for what he's seeking in this report," Karzai told ABC's Good Morning America.
As part of the internal debate, the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, who is cautiously supporting McChrystal, is due to meet later today the vice-president Joe Biden, who is opposed to the troop increase and favours a shift in priority to tracking down al-Qaida in Pakistan.
A decision on McChrystal's troop request appears to have been postponed for a few weeks. Any extra troops will come as a result of a parallel reduction in the number of US troops in Iraq.
A US military planner told the Army Times: "We've increased forces in Afghanistan before we've reduced forces in Iraq in a meaningful way. If they want forces sooner than 2010, there are no additional forces available. You'll have to pull them from Iraq and put them in Afghanistan."
The US spokesman in Iraq, Brigadier General Stephen Lanza, said yesterday that the number of US troops in Iraq will be down to 120,000 by the end of the month, down 23,000 since January. But any further large-scale reductions will have to wait until after Iraqi elections next January.
He said the aim was to get all combat troops out of Iraq by August, leaving 50,000 troops to advise and support the Iraqis.
Obama Blames Bush for 13,000 New Troops in Afghanistan
Later, spokesman Robert Gibbs rejected a published report that the president had authorized 13,000 additional troops that were now arriving in Afghanistan. He said those troops were part of a deployment ordered by the former Bush administration, but had not made their way to the Afghan theater by the time Obama became president. The Washington Post had reported those forces were authorized by Obama.
.
Wild Thing's comment........
Obama has established a pattern of blaming his predecessor for nearly any difficulty he has faced in office. His failure to accept a modicum of responsibility ten months in to office for a troop movement that his administration had to approve and support, no matter that it was initiated by President Bush, is pathetic. Especially because Obama retained Bush's Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who carried out the orders of both presidents in deploying the 13,000 troops to Afghanistan.
Obama doesn't want to get his base made at him. What a total jerk. What a wee-weed up wimp. He will never fill the shoes of a Commander-in-Chief. NEVER!
Clinton’s legacy=Never met her
Obama’s legacy = Bush’s fault
And Bush wrote “Dreams of My Father"
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:55 AM | Comments (16)
October 13, 2009
Obama Ready to Pay Afghan Fighters to Ditch the Taliban
The Obama administration is considering outbidding the Taliban to persuade Afghan villagers to lay down arms as it struggles to find a new approach to a war that is fast losing public and congressional support.
Despite five war councils in two weeks, President Barack Obama has so far failed to come up with a strategy for the conflict that may define his presidency. Fierce infighting continues between his own generals and advisers.
Obama has been handed three options by General Stanley McChrystal, commander of the US forces in Afghanistan. These range from 20,000 to 60,000 more troops, which would almost double the US military presence. McChrystal is said to favour an increase of 40,000 men, without which he warns the mission will fail.
The White House is uneasy about sending so many on top of an extra 21,000 already dispatched this year, fearing this could escalate the war which has already claimed the lives of 241 American soldiers this year.
Obama’s delay in coming to a decision has led generals to warn that the Taliban will see it as lack of resolve and take advantage. The Taliban stepped up attacks last week with a bomb in Kabul, which killed 17 people, and an onslaught against a US military post in which eight Americans died.
Anthony Zinni is one of a number of retired generals who have taken to the airwaves insisting more troops should be sent. “The risk if you take too much time is you look like you’re dithering and both our allies and enemies will wonder if we’re really committed,” he warned.
The president is reportedly frustrated that the debate has become polarised between those who want to send more troops and their critics, who say it would lead to another Vietnam. They advocate more reliance on drones and special forces.
Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, argues that the president has only himself to blame. “It was Obama who insisted in March and again last month that this was a ‘war of necessity’ and must be fully resourced rather than looking at what we really have at stake in Afghanistan.”
One official said the key emphasis in the White House meetings had been to identify options that would prepare the way for American troops to leave. Apart from training more Afghan troops, the focus has shifted to accepting a political role for the Taliban, while also trying to weaken them by winning some over.
Afghans are known for changing sides back and forth during their long years of war — there is an old saying that “you can rent an Afghan but never buy one” — and battles have often been decided by defections rather than combat.
Paying Taliban foot-soldiers to switch sides could spare US lives and save money, say its advocates. A recent report by the Senate foreign relations committee estimated the Taliban fighting strength at 15,000, of whom only 5% are committed idealogues while 70% fight for money — the so-called $10-a-day Taliban. Doubling this to win them over would cost just $300,000 a day, compared with the $165m a day the United States is spending fighting the war.
The tactic was used to good effect in Iraq where the US government put 100,000 Sunni gunmen on its payroll for about $300 a month each.
Some experts disagree. Gilles Dorronsoro from the Carnegie Institute insisted: “You cannot break an insurgency that strong with money. It’s not a mercenary force — it’s a very powerful movement.”
More troops, say McChrysal’s allies, could tip the balance of power away from the insurgents and give the population the confidence needed to switch sides.
McChrystal had his knuckles rapped for failing to go through the chain of command when he described advocates of a focused attack on Al-Qaeda as “short-sighted”. He was told to cancel a trip to Washington to brief Obama.
One serving general close to McChrystal told The Sunday Times he has been taken aback by the White House’s attitude. “It surprised a lot of us — we thought the policy decision was made to come down on the counter-insurgency course of action.”
The source described as “crazy” the idea that “we can just cut deals with the Taliban without having to do anything”.
He added: “At the moment you can’t recruit from Pashtun communities or their families will be killed, so we need to first improve security.”
The Pentagon insists that not sending more troops would signal a lack of resolve and give the enemy the opportunity to regain the initiative.
Obama has scheduled further talks for this week. But it has not gone unnoticed among his generals that among the works of art chosen by the Obamas to hang in the White House is Edward Ruscha’s painting about indecision, I Think I’ll ... The picture superimposes phrases such as “maybe ... yes”, “maybe ... no” and “wait a minute” on top of a blood-red sunset.
Wild Thing's comment....
So what happens when you stop paying the Taliban or does Obama plan on paying them forever. And since Obama is a Muslim he will never say the truth, that Muslims LIE, they are taught that in the Koran. So one can NEVER believe a Muslim.
Might as well say we are going to fund terrorism.
Obama thinks he can buy the Taliban the way he bought blacks in this country...with promises of government money. Every so often he has to come out and hand them a few thousand dollars (such as in Detroit the other day) and he thinks this will be the same.
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:55 AM | Comments (15)
October 10, 2009
After Nobel Nod, Obama Convenes Afghan War Council
Hours after being named a Nobel peace laureate, President Barack Obama Friday shouldered his duties as commander in chief of the US armed forces and convened his war council for crucial talks on Afghan strategy.
Obama gathered his top political, military, and security aides in the secure Situation Room of the White House for the fourth in a series of in-depth consultations on rescuing the US mission in the unpopular eight-year war.
"The president had a robust conversation about the security and political challenges in Afghanistan and the options for building a strategic approach going forward," an administration official told AFP.
Obama "looks forward to continued discussion on Wednesday," the official said.
Obama was scheduled to be briefed by Afghan war commander General Stanley McChrystal on his report warning that the US counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan could fail within a year without more troops.
The meeting came amid more suggestions of tension between the White House and top military brass on the best way forward.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that Friday's meeting could be followed by more than one meeting before the president makes a decision on strategy, still several weeks away.
The Taliban scoffed at Obama's shock Nobel prize award on Friday, suggesting his policy towards Afghanistan barely differed from that of ex-president George W. Bush.Related article: Obama urged to spur peace
"We have seen no change in his strategy for peace," said Zabihullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the Islamic fundamentalist militants.
"He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan," Mujahid told AFP. "He has not taken a single step for peace in Afghanistan or to make this country stable."
Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has seen his stock diminish in the United States amid election fraud allegations, immediately congratulated Obama on Friday, saying he was the "appropriate" person to win the peace prize.
"His hard work and his new vision on global relations, his will and efforts for creating friendly and good relations at global level and global peace make him the appropriate recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize," Karzai spokesman Siamak Hirai told AFP.
On Thursday, Gibbs said there was "clearly a difference" between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. He said Al-Qaeda was as an "entity that, through a global, transnational jihadist network, would seek to strike the US homeland."
"I think that the Taliban are obviously exceedingly bad people that have done awful things. Their capability is somewhat different, though, on that continuum of transnational threats."said Gibbs.
The White House comments on the Taliban came after the group said Wednesday it did not pose a direct threat to the United States.
Wild Thing's comment......
"Gibbs: "I think that the Taliban are obviously exceedingly bad people that have done awful things."
OMG ....yes well ok they are bad people but um they are worse then bad people you FOOL, they are terrorists and they would love to slice your head right off your body.
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:55 AM | Comments (13)
October 09, 2009
Obama ~ Taliban Can Be Part of Afghanistan’s Government
Obama says the Taliban aren’t the enemy and we could cede parts of Afghanistan over to them! What a sad, pathetic, weak man we have in the White House. Obama Takes Yesterday’s Taliban Talking Points, Makes Them Today’s WH Spin God, help us!
Obama focusing on al-Qaida, not Taliban
President Barack Obama is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future and appears inclined to send only as many more U.S. troops as needed to keep al-Qaida at bay, a senior administration official said Thursday.
The sharpened focus by Obama's team on fighting al-Qaida above all other goals, while downgrading the emphasis on the Taliban, comes in the midst of an intensely debated administration review of the increasingly unpopular eight-year-old war.
Though aides stress that the president's final decision on any changes is still at least two weeks away, the emerging thinking suggests that he would be very unlikely to favor a large military increase of the kind being advocated by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
McChrystal's troop request is said to include a range of options, from adding as few as 10,000 combat troops to - the general's strong preference - as many as 40,000.
Obama's developing strategy on the Taliban will "not tolerate their return to power," the senior official said in an interview with The Associated Press. But the U.S. would fight only to keep the Taliban from retaking control of Afghanistan's central government - something it is now far from being capable of - and from giving renewed sanctuary in Afghanistan to al-Qaida, the official said.
.
Wild Thing's comment.........
Meanwhile....Iran keeps supporting the Taliban.
Obama does NOT want to kill the Taliban. Weak, weak, weak. Our enemies now know they have nothing to fear from Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
Let's look back at Obama's history about the Taliban since he became the Anti-American illegal President.
From some posts I made in March of this year..............
March 7th 2009
Obama Ponders Outreach to Elements of the Taliban
Obama declared in an interview that the United States was not winning the war in Afghanistan and opened the door to a reconciliation process in which the American military would reach out to moderate elements of the Taliban, much as it did with Sunni militias in Iraq.
March 9th,2009
Taliban Responds To Barack Hussein Obama
March 12th,2009
Taliban To Obama ~ "moderate Taliban and what it means?"
"This does not require any response or reaction for this is illogical," Qari Mohammad Yousuf, a purported spokesman for the insurgent group, said when asked if its top leader Mullah Mohammad Omar would make any comment about Mr Obama's proposal.
"The Taliban are united, have one leader, one aim, one policy...I do not know why they are talking about moderate Taliban and what it means? "If it means those who are not fighting and are sitting in their homes, then talking to them is meaningless. This really is surprising the Taliban."
“Obama’s comment resemble a dream more than reality,” said Waheed Mozhdah, an analyst who has written a book on the Taliban.
“Where are the so-called moderate Taliban? Who are the moderate Taliban?” asked Mozhdah, who was an official in both the Taliban and the Karzai governments.
"'Moderate Taliban' is like 'moderate killer'. Is there such a thing?", asked writer and analyst Qaseem Akhgar.
Posted by Wild Thing at 02:55 AM | Comments (25)
General's D.C. Trip Put Off as Strategy Talks Drag On
The White House has told the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan to delay a planned trip here Friday to brief President Obama and his senior advisers on his recommendation for a major troop increase.
Officials had hoped to have Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and what national security adviser James L. Jones called "all the key players" speak to Obama in person by the end of this week, leading to final deliberations over a forward strategy.
But "we're not finished," Jones said Thursday, and meetings may extend beyond next week. When the White House is ready, he said, McChrystal -- along with the U.S. ambassadors to Afghanistan and Pakistan -- will fly to Washington so that the three "can meet with the president before a decision is made."
~ Snipet ~
Senior Republican lawmakers who support McChrystal's request for more troops began demanding weeks ago that Obama bring the commander back to testify before Congress -- as Petraeus did in explaining why President George W. Bush's decision to "surge" thousands more troops into Iraq was the right one.
McChrystal initially planned to arrive in Washington in time for the meeting, "but he was told it would be best if he stayed in Afghanistan" for the time being, a senior military official in Kabul said. The message, which originated with Jones, was conveyed by Gates.
Although officials in Washington insisted that the decision to delay the trip reflected only the timing of White House deliberations, this military official said that it was equally a reflection of the desire of both Gates and Mullen to take the lead military role in the discussions. Gates, he said, has worked hard to forge a close relationship with Obama and believes he can effectively represent the Pentagon's positions.
Mullen is determined to fulfill his responsibility to represent the views of all the service chiefs in a way he believes was circumvented under Bush, a Pentagon official said. "Our perspective," he said, "is that [Obama] prefers to use the chain of command and that he wants to hear what the chiefs think."
Here is video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the Charlie Rose Show slamming Gen. Stanley McChrystal "with all due respect." Pelosi praised the proposed strategy for Afghanistan being put forward by Vice-President Joe Biden as one that "has currency" among the American people and members of Congress.
She then said Gen. McChrystal should be giving advice to the President "through the chain of command," not "in press conferences." She was slamming comments made by McChrystal during a Q & A session in London following a speech he gave there last week. McChrystal never mentioned Biden's name, but was asked by a participant if he favored a strategy that would use fewer boots on the ground in Afghanistan, but concentrate efforts only on attacking Al-Qaeda. This strategy would essentially allow the Taliban to retake control of the country.
Olilie North with our troops in Afghanistan to show support and let them know how much we love them all and support them back home.
American troops in Afghanistan losing heart, say army chaplains
American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban.
Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, the chaplains told The Times in their makeshift chapel on this fortress-like base in a dusty, brown valley southwest of Kabul.
“The many soldiers who come to see us have a sense of futility and anger about being here. They are really in a state of depression and despair and just want to get back to their families,” said Captain Jeff Masengale, of the 10th Mountain Division’s 2-87 Infantry Battalion.
“They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,” said Captain Sam Rico, of the Division’s 4-25 Field Artillery Battalion. “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.” The chaplains said that they were speaking out because the men could not.
The base is not, it has to be said, obviously downcast, and many troops do not share the chaplains’ assessment. The soldiers are, by nature and training, upbeat, driven by a strong sense of duty, and they do their jobs as best they can. Re-enlistment rates are surprisingly good for the 2-87, though poor for the 4-25. Several men approached by The Times, however, readily admitted that their morale had slumped.
“We’re lost — that’s how I feel. I’m not exactly sure why we’re here,” said Specialist Raquime Mercer, 20, whose closest friend was shot dead by a renegade Afghan policeman last Friday. “I need a clear-cut purpose if I’m going to get hurt out here or if I’m going to die.”
Sergeant Christopher Hughes, 37, from Detroit, has lost six colleagues and survived two roadside bombs. Asked if
the mission was worthwhile, he replied: “If I knew exactly what the mission was, probably so, but I don’t.”
The only soldiers who thought it was going well “work in an office, not on the ground”. In his opinion “the whole country is going to s***”.
The battalion’s 1,500 soldiers are nine months in to a year-long deployment that has proved extraordinarily tough. Their goal was to secure the mountainous Wardak province and then to win the people’s allegiance through development and good governance. They have, instead, found themselves locked in an increasingly vicious battle with the Taleban.
CLICK HERE for the complete article.
Wild Thing's comment.........
Obama appointed General McChrystal's and he can't stand to be in his presence. He doesn't even really want input from him, that is so obvious.
Regarding what Obama is doing to our troops , I shake from anger when I am typing this I am so angry.
Praying hard for our troops!!! And DAMN Obama to the worst place in HELL whatever that would be.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 02:49 AM | Comments (11)
October 07, 2009
Defense Sec. Gates ~ "I Try To Avoid Terms Like Winning Or Losing" ~WTH?
"Do you think we can win in Afghanistan?"
Amanpour: "Secretary Gates, the majority of the American people believe that America can win in Afghanistan, do you think America can win in Afghanistan?"
Gates: "From the time I took this job I have tried both in Iraq and Afghanistan to avoid terms like winning and losing, because they become very loaded in our domestic debate, but they also become loaded around the world.
"I think the key thing is to establish what our objectives are, and can we achieve our objectives"
Wild Thing's comment.........
OMG, that is lilke Obama has said he did not care about a victory.
One thing we know for sure, Gates would never say “I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.” Aren’t we all just equal now?
Thanks to Gates and Obama they must be proud of themselves as they say things like this that raises the enemies’ self-esteem.
Memo to Mr. Gates, well then sir it appears as if you have made a bad career choice. Maybe you should be coaching kindergarten soccer.
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:55 AM | Comments (13)
October 06, 2009
Democrats H.R.3699 Bill To Prohibit More Troops in Afghanistan
Hakimullah Mehsud the Pakistan Taliban head cracks jokes, vows vengeance
H.R.3699
Title: To prohibit any increase in the number of members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Afghanistan.
Sponsor: Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] (introduced 10/1/2009) Cosponsors (21)
Latest Major Action: 10/1/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
To prohibit any increase in the number of members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Afghanistan. (Introduced in House)
HR 3699 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3699
To prohibit any increase in the number of members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Afghanistan.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 1, 2009
Ms. LEE of California (for herself, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. WATERS, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Ms. WATSON, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. CLEAVER, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. COHEN, Mr. HONDA, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. STARK, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. KUCINICH, Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland, Ms. CLARKE, Mr. FILNER, and Mr. GRAYSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services
A BILL
To prohibit any increase in the number of members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Afghanistan.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON INCREASE IN NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES SERVING IN AFGHANISTAN.
No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to increase the number of members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Afghanistan so that the number of members serving in Afghanistan exceeds the number so serving on the date of the enactment of this Act.
COSPONSORS(21), ALPHABETICAL
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 10/1/2009
Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] - 10/1/2009
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 10/1/2009
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 10/1/2009
Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4] - 10/1/2009
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 10/1/2009
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 10/1/2009
Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] - 10/1/2009
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 10/1/2009
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 10/1/2009
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 10/1/2009
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 10/1/2009
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 10/1/2009
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 10/1/2009
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 10/1/2009
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 10/1/2009
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 10/1/2009
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 10/1/2009
Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] - 10/1/2009
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 10/1/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 10/1/2009
Pakistan Taliban head cracks jokes, vows vengeance
SARAROGHA, Pakistan
Flanked by heavily armed fighters, the new leader of the Pakistani Taliban sat on a blue blanket, amiable and relaxed as he cracked jokes and mixed in threats of vengeance for deadly U.S. airstrikes.
One day later, a suicide bomber attacked a U.N. office in Islamabad.
Hakimullah Mehsud met with reporters Sunday for the first time since winning control of the militant group, quashing speculation that he had been slain in a succession struggle following the killing of his predecessor in a U.S. drone attack.
He also described his group's relationship to al-Qaida as one of "love and affection." Osama bin Laden and other top al-Qaida leaders are believed to be hiding out in the remote border region with Afghanistan, possibly in territory controlled by Hakimullah.
The militant vowed to retaliate against the U.S. and Pakistan for deadly attacks on his allies and said his fighters will repel an anticipated Pakistani offensive into his stronghold.
At one point, he pulled out a laptop to show his guests an Afghan comedian's standup routine about jihadi - or holy war - groups. On the serious side, he also showed pre-attack video testimony made by a suicide bomber.
Hakimullah spoke flanked by fighters wielding automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades. He agreed to be interviewed on condition his comments not be published until the reporters left the area Monday.
One of Baitullah's deputies, Hakimullah was known for brazen strikes on civilians, claiming responsibility for the June 9 bombing of the Pearl Continental Hotel in Peshawar and the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore earlier this year.
He vowed his forces would avenge Baitullah Mehsud's killing and would strike back at Pakistan and the U.S. for the increasing airstrikes.
Unmanned drones have carried out more than 70 missile strikes in northwestern Pakistan in the last year in a covert program, killing several militant commanders along with sympathizers and civilians. The Pakistani government publicly protests the attacks but is widely believed to sanction them and provide intelligence for at least some.
"There is no doubt that American spy planes are being used in these attacks, but we know all the intelligence is being provided by Pakistan," Hakimullah said. "We have taken revenge for the past attacks and we will definitely take revenge for the remaining drone attacks."
Wild Thing's comment........
Can you belive it, here we have men and women, risking their lives in thie war and their CIC and his democrats are doing this H.R.3699 bill. .....or trying to.
OMG ......TREASON!
Obama's liberal buddies are blocking a surge. This is from the blog at TheHill.com, the Briefing Room.
"Nearly two dozen House liberals have signed onto a bill introduced this past week that would prohibit an increase of troops in Afghanistan. A bill introduced by Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) Thursday would bar funding to increase troop level in Afghanistan beyond its current level. Lee and 21 lawmakers, largely from the liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus..."
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:50 AM | Comments (15)
Obama Throwing Generals Petraeus and McChrystal Under The Bus
Obama is not just avoiding his top general in Afghanistan. Obama has also pushed aside miracle worker General David Petraeus.
Voice of Bush’s Favored General Is Now Harder to Hear
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the face of the Iraq troop surge and a favorite of former President George W. Bush, spoke up or was called upon by President Obama “several times” during the big Afghanistan strategy session in the Situation Room last week, one participant says, and will be back for two more meetings this week.
But the general’s closest associates say that underneath the surface of good relations, the celebrity commander faces a new reality in Mr. Obama’s White House: He is still at the table, but in a very different seat.
No longer does the man who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have one of the biggest voices at National Security Council meetings, as he did when Mr. Bush gave him 20 minutes during hourlong weekly sessions to present his views in live video feeds from Baghdad. No longer is the general, with the Capitol Hill contacts and web of e-mail relationships throughout Washington’s journalism establishment, testifying in media explosions before Congress, as he did in September 2007, when he gave 34 interviews in three days.
The change has fueled speculation in Washington about whether General Petraeus might seek the presidency in 2012. His advisers say that it is absurd — but in immediate policy terms, it means there is one less visible advocate for the military in the administration’s debate over whether to send up to 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.
General Petraeus’s aides now privately call him “Dave the Dull,” and say he has largely muzzled himself from the fierce public debate about the war to avoid antagonizing the White House, which does not want pressure from military superstars and is wary of the general’s ambitions in particular.
The general’s aides requested anonymity to talk more candidly about his relationship with the White House.
“General Petraeus has not hinted to anyone that he is interested in political life, and in fact has said on many occasions that he’s not,” said Peter Mansoor, a retired Army colonel and professor of military history at Ohio State University who was the executive officer to General Petraeus when he was the top American commander in Iraq.
“It is other people who are looking at his popularity and saying that he would be a good presidential candidate, and I think rightly that makes the administration a little suspicious of him.”
General Petraeus’s advisers say he has stepped back in part because Mr. Obama has handpicked his own public face for the war in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who last week gave an interview to CBS’s “60 Minutes,” met with Mr. Obama on Air Force One and used a speech in London to reject calls for scaling back the war effort.
If anything, General McChrystal’s public comments may prove that General Petraeus might be prudent to take a back seat during the debate. On Sunday, when CNN’s John King asked Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser, if it was appropriate for a man in uniform to appear to campaign so openly for more troops, General Jones replied, “Ideally, it’s better for military advice to come up through the chain of command.”
How much General Petraeus’s muted voice will affect Mr. Obama’s decision on the war is unclear, but people close to him say that stifling himself in public could give him greater credibility to influence the debate from within. Others say that his biggest influence may simply be as part of a team of military advisers, including General McChrystal and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The men are united in what they see as the need to build up the American effort in Afghanistan, although General Petraeus, who works closely with General McChrystal, said last week that he had not yet endorsed General McChrystal’s request for more troops.
Together the three are likely to be aligned against Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., as well as other administration officials who want to scale back the effort. In that situation, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who has worried about a big American presence in Afghanistan but left the door open to more troops, could be the most influential vote.
What is clear is that General Petraeus’s relationship with Mr. Obama is nothing like his bond with Mr. Bush, who went mountain biking with the general in Washington last fall, or with Mr. Obama’s opponent in the 2008 presidential campaign, Senator John McCain of Arizona, whose aides briefly floated the general’s name last year as a possible running mate.
By then the general had been talked about as a potential presidential candidate himself, which still worries some political aides at the White House.
But not Mr. Obama, at least according to one of his top advisers. “The president’s not thinking that way, and the vice president’s not thinking that way,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff. “The president values his insights in helping to turn around an eight-year-old war that has been neglected.”
General Petraeus’s advisers say that to preserve a sense of military impartiality, he has not voted since at least 2003, and that he is not sure if he is still registered in New Hampshire, where he and his wife own property. The general has been described as a Republican, including in a lengthy profile in The New Yorker magazine last year. But a senior military official close to him said last week that he could not confirm the general’s political party.
In the meantime, General Petraeus travels frequently from his home in Tampa to Washington, where he met last week with the Afghan foreign minister. He also had dinner with Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The general also makes calls on Capitol Hill.
“He understands the Congress better than any military commander I’ve ever met,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican, who said that General Petraeus had the nationwide influence to serve as a spokesman for the administration’s policy on the Afghan war.
But until the president makes a decision, and determines if he wants to deploy General Petraeus to help sell it, the commander is keeping his head down. “He knows how to make his way through minefields like this,” said Jack Keane, the former vice chief of staff of the Army.
White House angry at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan
The relationship between President Barack Obama and the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan has been put under severe strain by Gen Stanley McChrystal’s comments on strategy for the war.
By Alex Spillius in Washington
According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.
The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago’s unsuccessful Olympic bid.
In an apparent rebuke to the commander, Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, said: “It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations, civilians and military alike, provide our best advice to the president, candidly but privately.”
Tensions rise over Afghanistan war strategy
As Obama's team works on its plans, McChrystal and other advisors are asked to keep the process more private.
By Christi Parsons October 5, 2009
Reporting from Washington - Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Monday that President Obama's advisors should keep their guidance private, in effect admonishing the top U.S. and allied commander in Afghanistan for publicly advocating a troop-intensive military approach at a time when the White House is considering an overhaul of its strategy.
The comment by Gates came a day after a top White House official, national security advisor James Jones, said military commanders should convey their advice through the chain of command, a sharp reaction to Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's call in a speech in London last week for a strategy aimed at stabilizing Afghanistan.
The exchanges suggested a certain disarray in the Obama administration attempt to forge a new policy on Afghanistan and underscored the wide differences among top officials over the correct approach after eight years of failed efforts.
The controversy centered on McChrystal, a special forces commander tapped by Obama to take charge of the Afghanistan effort in June to institute a sweeping counterinsurgency strategy. Obama and McChrystal spoke Friday aboard Air Force One on an airport tarmac in Copenhagen, and White House officials did not detail what the two talked about.
Gates' comments, in an address before an Assn. of the U.S. Army meeting, came in the midst of what the Pentagon chief called a "hyper-partisan" debate over Afghanistan policy. Many Republicans and even some leading Democrats demand the president comply with commanders' troop requests.
Wild Thing's comment..........
First, they are ignoring Petraeus. Second, they are out to get McChyrstal. What is next? I think we will be seeing a lot of stories in print and in the TV meida the losses of Russia in Afghanistan .
This is worse then if Obama was simply confused and being out of his realm, this is by design by Obama.
I am grateful to Gen. David H. Petraeus and General Stanley McChrystal for their service and these articles that slander them and Obama doing all he can to put them under the bus is unforgivable. These POS would not be living in a free land if it were not for our military. With Bush our military got treated with respect and also received timely answers. With Obama there is no respect and obviously disarray. Not good and even worse with a hot war going on and our troops dying on the battle field.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:49 AM | Comments (11)
October 05, 2009
Obama As CIC Is Dangerous For Troops
WASHINGTON
By openly declaring their views on the Afghan war, US military leaders have placed President Barack Obama in a bind as he faces a fraught decision over the troubled US-led mission.
Obama has refused to quickly approve a request from his commanders for a major troop build-up in Afghanistan, insisting first on a full vetting of the current strategy.
But while a war council takes place behind closed doors at the White House, top military officers have made no secret of their view that without a vast ground force, the Afghan mission could end in failure.
If Obama chooses to change course in Afghanistan or decline a request for large numbers of troops, he will be rejecting the advice of the US military, raising the political stakes.
Commentators on the left say the military ought to keep its advice private without trying to influence public debate, with New York Times columnist Frank Rich accusing the generals of an attempt to "try to lock him (Obama) in" on Afghanistan.
Drawing on blood-soaked experience in Iraq, military commanders now fervently embrace counter-insurgency doctrine, which calls for large numbers of troops providing security and winning the trust of the local population.
Amid rising casualties and a spreading insurgency, skeptics in Congress and the White House have floated proposals to freeze or even reduce the 65,000-strong force.
"You can't hope to contain the fire by letting just half the building burn," McChrystal told Newsweek.
Top US military officer Admiral Mike Mullen and the head of the regional Central Command, General David Petraeus, have publicly endorsed the manpower-intensive strategy set out in a report by McChrystal.
The heated debate over war strategy mostly pits hawks on the right demanding Obama promptly endorse the commander's request for more troops against voices on the left who raise the specter of a quagmire akin to Vietnam.
The British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told Obama to back your generals and send more troops to Afghanistan.
Back your general and send more troops, David Miliband urges Barack Obama
David Miliband urged President Obama to embrace a renewed “hearts and minds” strategy in Afghanistan as ministers indicated that they would not send more British troops unless the US adopted such an approach.
The Foreign Secretary did not mention America by name but called on every government in the coalition to back troops, aid workers and diplomats in support of a clear plan. “We came into this together. We see it through — together,” he told the Labour conference in Brighton.
His words reflect a growing concern in the Government over Mr Obama’s apparent reluctance to garner political consent for a troop “surge”, which commanders say is needed to build up the Afghan Army and defeat the Taleban insurgency. General Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, wants a revamped counter-insurgency — more forces on the ground engaging civilians and persuading the Taleban to switch sides — as opposed to a counter-terrorism strategy focused on al-Qaeda — reducing troop numbers and attacking militants mostly with drone missile strikes.
General McChrystal, speaking in London at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that the campaign had been underresourced in the past. “The situation is serious — and I choose that word very, very carefully.
Army chief warns of 'terrifying prospect' of failure in Afghanistan
The head of the British Army, General Sir David Richards, has issued a wake-up call to the public by warning of the "terrifying prospect" of a defeat in Afghanistan.
In an unprecedented intervention, the chief of the general staff described the conflict as "this generation's war" and added that failure by Nato would have an "intoxicating effect" on militant Islam.
In his first interview as the head of the Army, Sir David told The Sunday Telegraph that if Britain and Nato failed in Afghanistan the risks to the western world would be "enormous" and "unimaginable".
The general's intervention comes at a crucial time, with the US General in charge of operations in Afghanistan calling for more troops to be sent to the country to fight the Taliban.
He said: "If al-Qaeda and the Taliban believe they have defeated us – what next? Would they stop at Afghanistan? Pakistan is clearly a tempting target not least because of the fact that it is a nuclear-weaponed state and that is a terrifying prospect. Even if only a few of those (nuclear) weapons fell into their hands, believe me they would use them. The recent airlines plot has reminded us that there are people out there who would happily blow all of us up."
At home, the Government has come under increasing pressure for the way it has handled the war, with critics saying the armed forces have been under-resourced.
Obama's National Security Advisor publicly undercuts the general Obama selected for Afghanistan
Obama's National Security Adviser James L. Jones suggested Sunday that the public campaign being conducted by the U.S. commander in Afghanistan on behalf of his war strategy is complicating the internal White House review now underway, saying that "it is better for military advice to come up through the chain of command."
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who commands the 100,000 U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, warned bluntly last week in a London speech that a strategy for defeating the Taliban narrower than the one he is advocating would be ineffective and "short-sighted." The comments effectively rejected a policy option that senior White House officials, including Vice President Biden, are seriously considering nearly eight years after the U.S. invasion.
SEND MORE SOLDIERS, FURIOUS FRONTLINE TROOPS TELL MINISTER
MILITARY anger boiled over last night after Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth rebuffed a plea from front-line soldiers for immediate reinforcements in Afghanistan.
Mr Ainsworth had asked soldiers who have just endured a gruelling and bloody six-month tour what they needed. Without hesitation he was told: “More troops”.
But the Defence Secretary – in Afghanistan with Home Secretary Alan Johnson, ironically to boost morale – merely replied that reinforcements would “take time”.
Staff Sgt Kim Hughes, who will shortly return to his family in Shropshire, said: “It’s been a ridiculously busy, ridiculously hard tour. We have lost two guys.
“Clearly more troops are needed on the ground, but then the same could be said for equipment.”
British troops complain that they can take ground from the Taliban but do not have enough men to hold it. They have to keep retaking areas over and over again, increasing the risk of casualties.
.
Wild Thing's comment.......
"Commentators on the left say the military ought to keep its advice private without trying to influence public debate, with New York Times columnist Frank Rich accusing the generals of an attempt to "try to lock him (Obama) in" on Afghanistan."
OMG what a vile horrible, thing to say about our military. Whoever these "Commentators" are hell has a place for these kind of people and I wish they could go there NOW!
And the crap ROE do not help matters one bit. Obama wants to parley with the enemy and bow to them instead of making life painful for them. Our brave people fight with their hands chained behind their back ALL BECAUSE OF OBAMA'S rules of engagement.
My blood is boiling how angry I am with Obama and anyone in our government that think they know better then our troops how to fight a war, how to man it and provide equipment. They want death of our troops NOT the enemy.
God protect these brave man and women.
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:50 AM | Comments (9)
Obama to Take on Military Gay Ban at 'Right Time'
Obama to Take on Military Gay Ban at 'Right Time'
Obama will focus "at the right time" on how to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving openly in the military, his national security adviser said Sunday.
"I don't think it's going to be — it's not years, but I think it will be teed up appropriately," James Jones said.
The Democratic-led Congress is considering repealing the 1993 law. Action isn't expected on the issue until early next year.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., recently wrote Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked to share their views and recommendations on the contentious policy. In Sept. 24 letters, Reid also asked for a review of the cases of two U.S. officers who were discharged from the military because of their sexuality.
"At a time when we are fighting two wars, I do not believe we can afford to discharge any qualified individual who is willing to serve our country," Reid wrote.
Jones said Obama "has an awful lot on his desk. I know this is an issue that he intends to take on at the appropriate time. And he has already signaled that to the Defense Department. The Defense Department is doing the things it has to do to prepare, but at the right time, I'm sure the president will take it on."
As a candidate, Obama signaled support for repealing the law. To the disappointment of gay-rights supporters, he has yet to made a move since taking office in January. The White House has said it will not stop the military from dismissing gays and lesbians who acknowledge their sexuality.
Last year, 634 members of the military were discharged for being gay, or .045 percent of the active-duty U.S. force, according to an Aug. 14 congressional report.
The largest number of gays who were ousted under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy came in 2001, when 1,227 were discharged, or .089 of the force.
The House is considering legislation to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" and allow people who have been discharged under the policy to rejoin the military.
Jones appeared on CNN's "State of the Union."
Wild Thing's comment........
IMO Military should make the decisions for the Military. Those without Military experience should butt out.
I think the days of presidential candidates having served in the military are pretty much over.That's sad because being in command of that military is such an important part of the job.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:45 AM | Comments (3)
Virginia Argues They Don't Need to Send Out Military Absentee Ballots in Time to Vote
Virginia argues that they don't need to send out military absentee ballots in time to vote ....for complete article
Last year, we covered some of the problems in the counting of military absentee ballots in Virginia, as did others. This problem has not gone away. It has just moved. The day before election day 2008, the McCain campaign filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia to force Virginia to count military absentee ballots that came in after election day. McCain lost Virginia by more than enough votes, but the case went on with the Department of Justice replacing the McCain campaign.There were filings last month and will likely be a hearing this month. So what?
The Virginia State Board of Elections argued in their most recent filing that they have no legal obligation to send out military absentee ballots in a timely manner. Restated, the State of Virginia has argued in a federal court filing that they can legally send out absentee ballots to active duty soldiers the day before an election.
Restated again, the Democratic Chairwoman of the Virginia State Board of Election (appointed by the Democratic National Committee Chair Tim Kaine, in his capacity as Virginia Governor) Jean Cunningham just claimed a legal basis for massively raising the barrier to voting for soldiers at war.
Wild Thing's comment.........
They really really hate this country and our troops. And Virginia has a huge military population. Many of them at sea.
And the article says there is legislation that passed the senate to keep this from happening at the state level. Nancy Pelosi will not let the legislation be presented in the House.
"The State of Virginia has argued in a federal court filing that they can legally send out absentee ballots to active duty soldiers the day before an election."
Bastards. They are trying to undermine the morale of the troops from every direction they can come up with. I wish the earth would open and swallow them.
They want to guarantee the military does not get to vote.
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:44 AM | Comments (6)
October 04, 2009
Eight U.S. Troops Die in Attacks in Afghanistan
.
8 U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan
KABUL, Afghanistan
Eight U.S. service members and two members of the Afghan National Security Force were killed Saturday in a battle with militants in eastern Afghanistan, officials said.
Tribal militants attacked two security outposts in the Nuristan province, said the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).
The militants launched their attack from a local mosque and a nearby village, the international alliance said.
Coalition forces repelled the attack, inflicting "heavy enemy casualties," the alliance said without offering details.
All eight service members killed were Americans, the U.S. military said.
"My heart goes out to the families of those we have lost and to their fellow soldiers who remained to finish this fight," said Col. Randy George, commander of Task Force Mountain Warrior. "This was a complex attack in a difficult area. Both the U.S. and Afghan soldiers fought bravely together; I am extremely proud of their professionalism and bravery."
ISAF withheld the identities of the deceased until family members were notified.
Eight U.S. troops killed in east Afghan battle
Attack near Pakistan border was one of fiercest in troubled eight-year war
KABUL - Militant fighters streaming from a village and a mosque attacked a pair of remote outposts near the Pakistan border, killing eight American soldiers and as many as seven Afghan forces in one of the fiercest gunbattles of the troubled eight-year war.
The Taliban claimed responsibility for the deadliest attack for coalition forces since a similar raid in July 2008 killed nine American soldiers in the same mountainous region known as a haven for al-Qaida militants. The U.S. has already said it plans to leave the remote area to focus on Afghan population centers.
Fighting began around dawn Saturday and lasted several hours, said Bandar, governor of Nuristan province. Badar said the two outposts were on a hill — one near the top and one at the foot of the slope — flanked by the village on one side and the mosque on the other.
Nearly 300 militant fighters flooded the lower, Afghan outpost then swept around it to reach the American station on higher ground from both directions, said Mohammad Qasim Jangulbagh, the provincial police chief. The U.S. military statement said the Americans and Afghans repelled the attack by tribal fighters and "inflicted heavy enemy casualties."
Jangulbagh said that the gunbattle was punctuated by U.S. airstrikes and that 15 Afghan police were captured by the Taliban, including the local police chief and his deputy. Afghan forces were sent as reinforcements, but Jangulbagh said all communications to the district, Kamdesh, were severed and he had no way of knowing how they were faring Sunday.
"This was a complex attack in a difficult area," Col. Randy George, the area commander, said in the U.S. statement. "Both the U.S. and Afghan soldiers fought bravely together."
Obamas celebrate anniversary with dinner out
First celebration of their marriage since entering the White House
WASHINGTON - There was no trip to New York and no fancy outing as the Obamas celebrated their first wedding anniversary since they moved to the White House.
Instead they kept it simple, with a dinner out Saturday night at an elegant, American-fare restaurant near Georgetown. The evening was balmy and the moon almost full.
President Barack Obama stayed in all day before taking a motorcade with Michelle Obama to the Blue Duck Tavern to mark their 17th wedding anniversary.
Mrs. Obama stepped into the restaurant wearing a backless knee-length dress while the president wore a dark suit.
Last year, the Obamas also had an understated anniversary with a simple dinner out in downtown Chicago. The Obamas were married Oct. 3, 1992, in a ceremony at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
.
Wild Thing's comment...........
Someone has to take the reigns from obama!! So now at least 51 have died, not counting the Afghans, since McChrystal requested more troops. Obama is sitting their twiddling his thumbs, trying not to offend the lunatics on the left, while our troops die. Obama’s ROE’s strike again!
Fly over and the mosque!!!!!!
Prayers for the soldiers and their families. Our young men and women should not be sent into harm’s way without full support, and definitely not with ‘rules of engagement’ that will surely end up with more totally unnecessary deaths.
And Michelle and Barack go out, ok but did he return back when hearing this news and realize the 17th anniversary dinner had to wait. That he had to do something NOW! Damn them ...damn him for his despicably disdainful, nonchalant treatment of our troops and their urgent needs.
Dear God. I’m heartsick. I’m in tears. My heart is breaking for our brave troops, andn to have this vile person for their CIC.
"This attack was launched from inside a mosque that was considered off-limits for US forces."
Just as we thought--freakin' "Obama Rules".
That’s TWENTY-FOUR United States Soldiers killed in Afghanistan in the last 9 days!!
Obama’s rules of engagement are turning this place into a SHOOTING GALLERY, with our family’s soldiers as the targets!!!
This is war and our troops are supposed to be kill what's trying to kill you.
Prior to August 30, 2009, the USA has averaged 66 Military deaths per year in Afghanistan. Since August 30, 2009 ALONE, under General McChrystal and the new Rules of Engagement established by the obama administration, the USA has lost 51 of our Finest and Best. That is ALMOST an ENTIRE year's average in ONE MONTH!
8 members of our armed forces gave up their lives for our country while he went out to dinner. While he did nothing to support them or provide for their success. Today 8 families lost loved ones because Obama doesn't know what he is doing. I'd bet he is sleeping just fine tonight
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:55 AM | Comments (11)
October 03, 2009
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal Given Short Meeting By Obama on Tarmac
Obama Meets Top Afghan Commander as He Mulls Change in War Strategy
President Obama held an unannounced meeting here on Friday with Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, his Afghanistan commander, to discuss a possible change in strategy and a proposed troop buildup in the eight-year-old war.
General McChrystal flew here from London, where he gave a speech on Thursday affirming the need for a military buildup in Afghanistan. He joined Mr. Obama in the forward cabin of Air Force One on the tarmac of the Copenhagen airport for 25 minutes after the president finished his presentation to the International Olympic Committee on behalf of Chicago’s bid to host the 2016 Games.
It was the men’s first meeting in person since General McChrystal took over all American and NATO forces on the ground in June. They spoke only once after that, in a videoconference call in August, until this week, when the general joined a video conference with the president to discuss the situation in Afghanistan. Mr. Obama spoke with the general by phone on Wednesday and suggested they meet in Copenhagen.
Wild Thing's comment........
They met for 25 minutes. Glad the President could squeeze in such an important meeting. sheesh Just 25 minutes to discuss the lives of our troops and the plans of what to do.
T-shirt idea ... McCrystal had a T-shirt that said: “I came to Copenhagen and all I got was this T-shirt ... Chicago got squat” ...
.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:50 AM | Comments (14)
September 29, 2009
U.S. Commander in Afghanistan Talked with Obama Only ONCE!
U.S. commander in Afghanistan talked with Obama only once
By Amanda Carpenter
The military general credited with capturing Saddam Hussein and killing the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, says he has spoken with President Obama only once since taking command in Afghanistan.
"I’ve talked to the president, since I’ve been here, once on a VTC [video teleconference]," Gen. Stanley McChrystal told CBS reporter David Martin in a television interview that aired Sunday.
"You’ve talked to him once in 70 days?" Mr. Martin followed up.
"That is correct," the general replied.
This revelation comes amid the explosive publication of a classified report written by the general that said the war in Afghanistan "will likely result in failure" if more troops are not added next year. Yet, the debate over health care reform continues to dominate Washington’s political discussions.
On Monday, the White House announced President Obama would travel to Denmark to lobby the International Olympic Committee to select his hometown of Chicago for the 2016 summer games.
Former U.S. Ambassador for the United Nations John R. Bolton said the lack of communication with the general was indicative of Mr. Obama’s misplaced priorities.
Here is video of GOP Sen. Judd Gregg saying it is "startling" that President Obama has only talked "once" to top U.S. Commander in Afghanistan - Gen. Stanly McChrystal - since he has been on the ground there. This, despite the fact Obama is supposed to be trying to decide our stretegy going forward there, and whether or not to give McChrystal the 30,000-40,000 additional troops he needs.
Gregg said President Bush "spoke very regularly" with Gen. David Petraeus about Iraq. He said you would think the President would want to talk to his commander on the ground more often than "once."
.
Wild Thing's comment..............
Obama, his wife and every person in his adminstration hate our military! And Obama doesn’t care about combat deaths either. I am convinced of that, he could care less. He is a disgrace to what CIC is all about.
Community Organizers do not govern. They go around complaining about things and blaming other people for problems.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:48 AM | Comments (10)
Plan to Boost Afghan Forces Splits Obama Advisers
This video from 2006 was Powell back when he said we were not winning in Iraq and how the surge would not work. He was WRONG the surge DID work.
Plan to Boost Afghan Forces Splits Obama Advisers
Obama weighs sending more troops to Afghanistan, one of the most consequential decisions of his presidency, he has discovered that the military is not monolithic in support of the plan and that some of the civilian advisers he respects most have deep reservations.
~snipet~
The competing advice and concerns fuel a pivotal struggle to shape the president’s thinking about a war that he inherited but may come to define his tenure. Among the most important outside voices has been that of former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, a retired four-star Army general, who visited Mr. Obama in the Oval Office this month and expressed skepticism that more troops would guarantee success. According to people briefed on the discussion, Mr. Powell reminded the president of his longstanding view that military missions should be clearly defined.
Mr. Powell is one of the three people outside the administration, along with Senator John F. Kerry and Senator Jack Reed, considered by White House aides to be most influential in this current debate. All have expressed varying degrees of doubt about the wisdom of sending more forces to Afghanistan.
Mr. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has warned of repeating the mistakes of Vietnam, where he served, and has floated the idea of a more limited counterterrorist mission.
In the West Wing, beyond Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has advocated an alternative strategy to the troop buildup, other presidential advisers sound dubious about more troops, including Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff, and Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser, according to people who have spoken with them.
At the same time, Mr. Obama is also hearing from more hawkish figures, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Richard Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Musharraf: Afghan debate shows U.S. weak
Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said Monday that the U.S. would make a "disastrous" mistake if it withdrew from Afghanistan and warned that a delay in sending more troops would be seen as a sign of weakness.
Mr. Musharraf also denied that Pakistan's elite Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was giving secret support to the Taliban, which the ISI helped build in the 1980s to confront the Soviet Union.
Asked by reporters and editors at The Washington Times whether the U.S. and its allies might be seen as weak because of the prolonged debate over whether to send more forces to Afghanistan, Mr. Musharraf said,
"Yes, absolutely. ... By this vacillation and lack of commitment to a victory and talking too much about casualties it shows weakness in the resolve."
Mr. Musharraf, a former army chief of staff who seized power in a 1999 coup and resigned last year under threat of impeachment, now resides in London and is on a speaking tour in the U.S.
He said al Qaeda was less of a threat than the Taliban, which he said is growing in strength among ethnic Pashtuns who straddle the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"We must win in Afghanistan," Mr. Musharraf said, warning that otherwise it would become a haven again for al Qaeda as it was before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"Quitting is not an option," he said. "We should not delay. Earlier the better."
Wild Thing's comment.......
What a mess ....a total mess in Washington.
God help our troops!!!
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:45 AM | Comments (3)
September 21, 2009
McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'
Army Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal
McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'
Top U.S. Commander For Afghan War Calls Next 12 Months Decisive
The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure," according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says emphatically: "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."
His assessment was sent to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30 and is now being reviewed by President Obama and his national security team.
McChrystal concludes the document's five-page Commander's Summary on a note of muted optimism: "While the situation is serious, success is still achievable."
But he repeatedly warns that without more forces and the rapid implementation of a genuine counterinsurgency strategy, defeat is likely. McChrystal describes an Afghan government riddled with corruption and an international force undermined by tactics that alienate civilians.
He provides extensive new details about the Taliban insurgency, which he calls a muscular and sophisticated enemy that uses modern propaganda and systematically reaches into Afghanistan's prisons to recruit members and even plan operations.
McChrystal's assessment is one of several options the White House is considering. His plan could intensify a national debate in which leading Democratic lawmakers have expressed reluctance about committing more troops to an increasingly unpopular war. Obama said last week that he will not decide whether to send more troops until he has "absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be."
The commander has prepared a separate detailed request for additional troops and other resources, but defense officials have said he is awaiting instructions before sending it to the Pentagon.
Senior administration officials asked The Post over the weekend to withhold brief portions of the assessment that they said could compromise future operations. A declassified version of the document, with some deletions made at the government's request, appears at washingtonpost.com.
McChrystal makes clear that his call for more forces is predicated on the adoption of a strategy in which troops emphasize protecting Afghans rather than killing insurgents or controlling territory. Most starkly, he says: "[I]nadequate resources will likely result in failure. However, without a new strategy, the mission should not be resourced."
'Widespread Corruption'
The assessment offers an unsparing critique of the failings of the Afghan government, contending that official corruption is as much of a threat as the insurgency to the mission of the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, as the U.S.-led NATO coalition is widely known.
"The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and ISAF's own errors, have given Afghans little reason to support their government," McChrystal says.
The result has been a "crisis of confidence among Afghans," he writes. "Further, a perception that our resolve is uncertain makes Afghans reluctant to align with us against the insurgents."
McChrystal is equally critical of the command he has led since June 15. The key weakness of ISAF, he says, is that it is not aggressively defending the Afghan population. "Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us -- physically and psychologically -- from the people we seek to protect. . . . The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can defeat ourselves."
McChrystal continues: "Afghan social, political, economic, and cultural affairs are complex and poorly understood. ISAF does not sufficiently appreciate the dynamics in local communities, nor how the insurgency, corruption, incompetent officials, power-brokers, and criminality all combine to affect the Afghan population."
Coalition intelligence-gathering has focused on how to attack insurgents, hindering "ISAF's comprehension of the critical aspects of Afghan society."
In a four-page annex on detainee operations, McChrystal warns that the Afghan prison system has become "a sanctuary and base to conduct lethal operations" against the government and coalition forces. He cites as examples an apparent prison connection to the 2008 bombing of the Serena Hotel in Kabul and other attacks. "Unchecked, Taliban/Al Qaeda leaders patiently coordinate and plan, unconcerned with interference from prison personnel or the military."
The assessment says that Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents "represent more than 2,500 of the 14,500 inmates in the increasingly overcrowded Afghan Corrections System," in which "[h]ardened, committed Islamists are indiscriminately mixed with petty criminals and sex offenders, and they are using the opportunity to radicalize and indoctrinate them."
Noting that the United States "came to Afghanistan vowing to deny these same enemies safe haven in 2001," he says they now operate with relative impunity in the prisons. "There are more insurgents per square foot in corrections facilities than anywhere else in Afghanistan," his assessment says.
McChrystal outlines a plan to build up the Afghan government's ability to manage its detention facilities and eventually put all such operations under Afghan control, including the Bagram Theater Internment Facility, which the United States runs.
For now, because of a lack of capacity, "productive interrogations and detainee intelligence collection have been reduced" at Bagram. "As a result, hundreds are held without charge or without a defined way-ahead. This allows the enemy to radicalize them far beyond their pre-capture orientation. The problem can no longer be ignored."
McChrystal's Plan
The general says his command is "not adequately executing the basics" of counterinsurgency by putting the Afghan people first. "ISAF personnel must be seen as guests of the Afghan people and their government, not an occupying army," he writes. "Key personnel in ISAF must receive training in local languages."
He also says that coalition forces will change their operational culture, in part by spending "as little time as possible in armored vehicles or behind the walls of forward operating bases." Strengthening Afghans' sense of security will require troops to take greater risks, but the coalition "cannot succeed if it is unwilling to share risk, at least equally, with the people."
McChrystal warns that in the short run, it "is realistic to expect that Afghan and coalition casualties will increase."
He proposes speeding the growth of Afghan security forces. The existing goal is to expand the army from 92,000 to 134,000 by December 2011. McChrystal seeks to move that deadline to October 2010.
Overall, McChrystal wants the Afghan army to grow to 240,000 and the police to 160,000 for a total security force of 400,000, but he does not specify when those numbers could be reached.
He also calls for "radically more integrated and partnered" work with Afghan units.
McChrystal says the military must play an active role in reconciliation, winning over less committed insurgent fighters. The coalition "requires a credible program to offer eligible insurgents reasonable incentives to stop fighting and return to normalcy, possibly including the provision of employment and protection," he writes.
Coalition forces will have to learn that "there are now three outcomes instead of two" for enemy fighters: not only capture or death, but also "reintegration."
Again and again, McChrystal makes the case that his command must be bolstered if failure is to be averted. "ISAF requires more forces," he states, citing "previously validated, yet un-sourced, requirements" -- an apparent reference to a request for 10,000 more troops originally made by McChrystal's predecessor, Gen. David D. McKiernan.
A Three-Headed Insurgency
McChrystal identifies three main insurgent groups "in order of their threat to the mission" and provides significant details about their command structures and objectives.
The first is the Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) headed by Mullah Omar, who fled Afghanistan after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and operates from the Pakistani city of Quetta.
"At the operational level, the Quetta Shura conducts a formal campaign review each winter, after which Mullah Omar announces his guidance and intent for the coming year," according to the assessment.
Mullah Omar's insurgency has established an elaborate alternative government known as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, McChrystal writes, which is capitalizing on the Afghan government's weaknesses. "They appoint shadow governors for most provinces, review their performance, and replace them periodically. They established a body to receive complaints against their own 'officials' and to act on them. They install 'shari'a' [Islamic law] courts to deliver swift and enforced justice in contested and controlled areas. They levy taxes and conscript fighters and laborers. They claim to provide security against a corrupt government, ISAF forces, criminality, and local power brokers. They also claim to protect Afghan and Muslim identity against foreign encroachment."
"The QST has been working to control Kandahar and its approaches for several years and there are indications that their influence over the city and neighboring districts is significant and growing," McChrystal writes.
The second main insurgency group is the Haqqani network (HQN), which is active in southeastern Afghanistan and draws money and manpower "principally from Pakistan, Gulf Arab networks, and from its close association with al Qaeda and other Pakistan-based insurgent groups." At another point in the assessment, McChrystal says, "Al Qaeda's links with HQN have grown, suggesting that expanded HQN control could create a favorable environment" for associated extremist movements "to re-establish safe-havens in Afghanistan."
The third is the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin insurgency, which maintains bases in three Afghan provinces "as well as Pakistan," the assessment says. This network, led by the former mujaheddin commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, "aims to negotiate a major role in a future Taliban government. He does not currently have geographical objectives as is the case with the other groups," though he "seeks control of mineral wealth and smuggling routes in the east."
Overall, McChrystal provides this conclusion about the enemy: "The insurgents control or contest a significant portion of the country, although it is difficult to assess precisely how much due to a lack of ISAF presence. . . . "
The insurgents make money from the production and sale of opium and other narcotics, but the assessment says that "eliminating insurgent access to narco-profits -- even if possible, and while disruptive -- would not destroy their ability to operate so long as other funding sources remained intact."
While the insurgency is predominantly Afghan, McChrystal writes that it "is clearly supported from Pakistan. Senior leaders of the major Afghan insurgent groups are based in Pakistan, are linked with al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups, and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan's ISI," which is its intelligence service. Al-Qaeda and other extremist movements "based in Pakistan channel foreign fighters, suicide bombers, and technical assistance into Afghanistan, and offer ideological motivation, training, and financial support."
Toward the end of his report, McChrystal revisits his central theme: "Failure to provide adequate resources also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support. Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure."
Wild Thing's comment.....
In my civilian opinion, NO amount of troops will help if they are not allowed to shoot at the enemy.
And when the Generals asked for troops Bush gave them troops because they knew best. You are either going to fight a war or you are not.
Obama is learning a hard lesson about screwing with the generals. Just last week he punted on McChrystal... now first thing Monday morning, the ...a-hem Washington Post has a copy of the general's assessment, warts and all.
Obama's not going to be able to hide from this one.
Posted by Wild Thing at 07:45 AM | Comments (8)
September 08, 2009
McChrystal Agreement with Karzai
U.S. forces in Afghanistan are now required to hand over insurgents to the Afghan authorities within 96 hours of detainment. This is according to a new rule inherited by Gen. McChrystal and by NATO member states .
McChrystal Agreement w/Karzai Hinders Troops
Special Report With Bret Baier
At the Pentagon, Jennifer Griffin, Fox News
SHANNON BREAM: The U.S. military says an American service member was killed today in a bomb blast in Afghanistan, making August the deadliest month for U.S. forces since the war began.
National security correspondent Jennifer Griffin reports on growing dissatisfaction among the troops with one of the rules they have to live and possibly die by.
JENNIFER GRIFFIN: Not only did U.S. forces in Afghanistan inherit an enemy they cannot see, but now these troops are finding they’re required to hand over insurgents to Afghan authorities within 96 hours or release them, according to a restrictive rule agreed to by NATO member states and inherited by Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
According to one top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, quote, “It is a big limitation. In COIN [counterinsurgency operations] not being able to detain individuals to conduct interrogations and follow on exploitation is very restrictive. Something that we didn’t have to worry about in Iraq.”
MAJ. GEN. ROBERT SCALES (RET.) [Fox News Military Analyst]:This 96-hour NATO rule is driving the troops nuts. They call it the revolving door problem. And it goes like this: They’ll capture a prisoner and they have 96 hours to turn him over to the Afghan authorities.
GRIFFIN: Marines in Southern Helmand Province are balking and in some cases, Fox has learned, are stalling or refusing to send helicopters to pick up a detainee, knowing he will be released.
SCALES:The problem with that, particularly in the south, is that often it’s a 24-hour effort just to get a prisoner by helicopter to the Afghan authorities. In addition to that, the troops don’t have enough time to interrogate these prisoners when they follow the rules. And so what happens all too often is they’ll take a prisoner who knows something and they’ll put him on a helicopter and watch the information fly away. It’s absolutely outrageous.
GRIFFIN: A Marine spokesman in Afghanistan adds, quote, “The routine logistics of transporting people and materiel are extremely challenging. So the time-sensitive requirement for moving detainees adds another challenge to a situation that’s already pretty tough.”
McChrystal’s strategy review will be released by the Pentagon next week, but I’m told it does not demand the 96-hour rule be changed, even though it hampers U.S. troops’ ability to fight and win.
Wild Thing's comment......
This news is crazy and stupid to make our troops do such a thing. I worry about our troops.
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:45 AM | Comments (9)
September 05, 2009
AP publishes photo of dying Marine even after family objects.
This undated photo provided Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2009 by the US Marine Corps shows Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard, …
AP publishes photo of dying Marine even after family objects.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is objecting “in the strongest terms” to an Associated Press decision to transmit a photograph showing a mortally wounded 21-year-old Marine in his final moments of life, calling the decision “appalling” and a breach of “common decency.”
The AP reported that the Marine’s father had asked – in an interview and in a follow-up phone call — that the image, taken by an embedded photographer, not be published.
The AP reported in a story that it decided to make the image public anyway because it “conveys the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it.”
The photo shows Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard of New Portland, Maine, who was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade in a Taliban ambush Aug. 14 in Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, according to The AP.
Gates wrote to Thomas Curley, AP’s president and chief executive officer. “Out of respect for his family’s wishes, I ask you in the strongest of terms to reconsider your decision. I do not make this request lightly. In one of my first public statements as Secretary of Defense, I stated that the media should not be treated as the enemy, and made it a point to thank journalists for revealing problems that need to be fixed – as was the case with Walter Reed."
“I cannot imagine the pain and suffering Lance Corporal Bernard’s death has caused his family. Why your organization would purposefully defy the family’s wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me. Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple American newspapers is appalling. The issue here is not law, policy or constitutional right – but judgment and common decency.”
The four-paragraph letter concluded, “Sincerely,” then had Gates’ signature.
The photo, first transmitted Thursday morning and repeated Friday morning, carries the warning, “EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT.”
The caption says: “In this photo taken Friday, Aug. 14, 2009, Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard is tended to by fellow U.S. Marines after being hit by a rocket propelled grenade during a firefight against the Taliban in the village of Dahaneh in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan. Bernard was transported by helicopter to Camp Leatherneck where he later died of his wounds.”
Gates’ letter was sent Thursday, after he talked to Curley by phone at about 3:30 p.m. Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said Gates told Curley: “I am asking you to reconsider your decision to publish this graphic photograph of Lance Corporal Bernard. I am begging you to defer to the wishes of the family. This will cause them great pain.”
Curley was “very polite and willing to listen,” and send he would reconvene his editorial team and reconsider, Morrell said. Within the hour, Curley called Morrell and said the editors had reconvened but had ultimately come to the same conclusion.
Gates “was greatly disappointed they had not done the right thing,” Morrell said.
The Buffalo News ran the photo on page 4, and the The (Wheeling, W.Va.) Intelligencer ran an editorial defending its decision to run the photo. Some newspapers – including the Arizona Republic, The Washington Times and the Orlando Sentinel – ran other photos from the series. Several newspaper websites – including the Akron Beacon-Journal and the St. Petersburg Times – used the photo online.
Morrell said Gates wanted the information about his conversations released “so everyone would know how strongly he felt about the issue.”
The Associated Press reported in a story about deliberations about that photo that “after a period of reflection,” the news service decided “to make public an image that conveys the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it.
“The image shows fellow Marines helping Bernard after he suffered severe leg injuries. He was evacuated to a field hospital where he died on the operating table,” AP said. “The picture was taken by Associated Press photographer Julie Jacobson, who accompanied Marines on the patrol and was in the midst of the ambush during which Bernard was wounded. … ‘AP journalists document world events every day. Afghanistan is no exception. We feel it is our journalistic duty to show the reality of the war there, however unpleasant and brutal that sometimes is,’ said Santiago Lyon, the director of photography for AP.
“He said Bernard's death shows ‘his sacrifice for his country. Our story and photos report on him and his last hours respectfully and in accordance with military regulations surrounding journalists embedded with U.S. forces.’”
The AP reported that it “waited until after Bernard's burial in Madison, Maine, on Aug. 24 to distribute its story and the pictures.”
“An AP reporter met with his parents, allowing them to see the images,” the article says. “Bernard's father after seeing the image of his mortally wounded son said he opposed its publication, saying it was disrespectful to his son's memory. John Bernard reiterated his viewpoint in a telephone call to the AP on Wednesday. ‘We understand Mr. Bernard's anguish. We believe this image is part of the history of this war.
The story and photos are in themselves a respectful treatment and recognition of sacrifice,’ said AP senior managing editor John Daniszewski.
“Thursday afternoon, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called AP President Tom Curley asking that the news organization respect the wishes of Bernard's father and not publish the photo. Curley and AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll said they understood this was a painful issue for Bernard's family and that they were sure that factor was being considered by the editors deciding whether or not to publish the photo, just as it had been for the AP editors who decided to distribute it.”
The image was part of a package of stories and photos released for publication after midnight Friday. The project, called “AP Impact – Afghan – Death of a Marine,” carried a dateline of Dahaneh, Afghanistan, and was written by Alfred de Montesquiou and Julie Jacobson:
“The U.S. patrol had a tip that Taliban fighters were lying in ambush in a pomegranate grove, and a Marine trained his weapon on the trees. Seconds later, a salvo of gunfire and rocket-propelled grenades poured out, and a grenade hit Lance Cpl. Joshua ‘Bernie’ Bernard. The Marine was about to become the next fatality in the deadliest month of the deadliest year of the Afghan war.”
The news service also moved extensive journal entries AP photographer Julie Jacobson wrote while in Afghanistan. AP said in an advisory: “From the reporting of Alfred de Montesquiou, the photos and written journal kept by Julie Jacobson, and the TV images of cameraman Ken Teh, the AP has compiled ‘Death of a Marine,’ a 1,700 word narrative of the clash, offering vivid insights into how the battle was fought, and into Bernard's character and background. It also includes an interview with his father, an ex-Marine, who three weeks earlier had written letters complaining that the military's rules of engagement are exposing the troops in Afghanistan to undue risk.”
WASHINGTON,
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates used the strongest terms in trying to persuade the Associated Press to refrain from running a graphic picture of a Marine taken shortly after the servicemember was wounded in southern Afghanistan, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said here today.
Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard later died on the operating table Aug. 14.
The Marine’s family in New Portland, Maine, asked the Associated Press not to run the photo, which was taken by Julie Jacobson, who was embedded with the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marines, in Afghanistan’s Helmand province.
The AP put out a series of photographs of the Marine patrol, and Gates objected to one showing Bernard clearly in anguish while being treated. He had just been hit in the legs by a rocket-propelled grenade.
When Gates heard the AP was going to send the photo to its subscribers, he called Thomas Curley, president and chief executive officer of the news service, asking him to pull the photo, Morrell said.
Morrell quoted the secretary as saying to Curley, “I’m begging you to defer to the wishes of the family. This will cause them great pain.”
Curley told the secretary he would reconvene his editorial team to re-examine the release. The secretary followed his call with a letter to AP.
“I cannot imagine the pain and suffering Lance Corporal Bernard’s death has caused his family,” the secretary wrote. “Why your organization would purposefully defy the family’s wishes knowing full well that it will lead to more anguish is beyond me. Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple American newspapers is appalling. The issue here is not law, policy or constitutional right – but judgment and common decency.”
Curley got back to Morrell later yesterday afternoon and said his crew had “seriously considered the secretary’s concerns and the families concerns … but ultimately decided that they wanted to proceed with pushing out this image to their clients,” Morrell said.
Morrell said Gates was extremely disappointed that the Associated Press did not adhere to the wishes of the family. The vast majority of news outlets did not run the photo, he added.
Wild Thing's comment.......
This sickens me so much, I honestly have no words other then total anger.
AP has opted for profit over compassion. If after reading the article you wish to contact the AP here is the contact info -
Headquarters
450 W. 33rd St.
New York, NY 10001
Main Number
1-212-621-1500
For comments - info@ap.org
Posted by Wild Thing at 07:18 PM | Comments (3)
September 03, 2009
V-J Day Remembered
Richard Bong was a red haired Wisconsin farm kid like most of the farm kids who became heroes in World War II. Major Bong would go on in the Pacific to shoot down 40 Japanese aircraft with the wonderful P 38, which was a twin engine fighter.
The tale of this is simple. He was a natural pilot just like all of America's best in those we knew. Chuck Yeager had that horizon eyesight where he could spot planes before others could see them. Pappy Boyington and Joe Foss were just good hunters.
Richard Bong was not flashy. He simply knew his plane, flew it well, studied the situation he was in and then struck the enemy.
His first combat in America though was with an American housewife in California who Bong decided to play with as she was hanging out her clothes. Bong would fly so low he blew her laundry off the line.
His General, Kenney, after getting an ear full, called Bong into his office and told him that he was going to go to that woman's house, do her laundry, put it up, hang around and mow the lawn, take down the laundry and not drop any on the ground.
Richard Bong did all of that and proved the Army Air Corp was good for something other than annoying housewives.
He would complete the war covered with medals including the Medal of Honor. He would die though in serving America in America on of all days, the day America dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.
He was test flying a Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star in jet propulsion when the plane malfunctioned and crashed too close to the ground.
Wild Thing's comment........
September 2 yesterday was V-J Day.....VJ Day, when Japan surrendered
Each person that has served our country is so important, each one has a story, and we must never forget our Heroes. We must never forget those that have sacrificed and served our country, to me they are the Stars that shine and light the way for freedom. Because without them, the Stars they would not really shine as brightly , and we would not know the Freedom we have been so blessed to have.
.... Thank you Eden for sending this to me.
H/t to Lame Cherry for a beaurtiful write up about Richard Ira Bong.
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:49 AM | Comments (9)
August 16, 2009
An Interview Inside the Taliban
A Taliban fighter loyal to Jalaluddin Haqqani, whose operations also include suicide bombers. Photograph: Ghaith Abdul-Ahad
Inside the Taliban: 'The more troops they send, the more targets we have'
In the first of a series of exclusive reports in the run-up to next week's Afghan elections, award-winning correspondent Ghaith Abdul-Ahad meets a group of Taliban in their mountain stronghold
The Guardian.co.uk ....for complete article
The provinces of Khost, Paktia and Paktika in south-eastern Afghanistan are dominated by one name: Jalaluddin Haqqani. A famous commander, tribal chief and cleric, Haqqani came to prominence during the war against the Soviets. In more than 20 years of fighting, he built an extensive network of influence that covered eastern Afghanistan and the tribal area of Waziristan in Pakistan, and reached as far abroad as the Gulf states, which he visited often.
Once a minister in the Taliban government, he is now aligned with their leader, Mullah Omar, but has retained independence and control over his men. His operations have struck deep into the territory controlled by Hamid Karzai's government, reaching targets in Kabul. The movement's signature attack is well co-ordinated and includes several suicide bombers, who storm into buildings before detonating their bombs.
~ snipets~
It was noon and we had a few hours to kill. Like everywhere in Afghanistan, there was road etiquette to respect. From nine in the morning until four in the afternoon, the government controls the country's main arteries. The rest of the time they belong to the Taliban.
"The situation is very simple here," he continued. "We are Muslims and tribal people, the Taliban are Muslim and from the same tribes, the foreign troops are non-Muslims and there was no referendum from the people to ask them to come here. God told us to fight the occupation so the people are against the occupation. The people are ideologically similar to the Taliban, so the Taliban don't hide, they live with the people."
Instead of the trademark Taliban uniforms of turbans, eyeliner and flip-flops, these men wore Russian and Nato poncho raincoats over their shalwars, and boots and trainers. Most striking was the way they held their guns. Instead of carrying them in the standard militia style, on their shoulders or holding them like walking sticks, they wore them strapped around their chests, one hand by the trigger and the other holding the muzzle down. They stood just like the Americans.
The stout commander, Mawlawi Jalali, sat surrounded by his men. One carried the white flag of the Taliban and another a video camera, which he kept pointed at me at all times.
What about the new American surge, I asked. Did it concern him?
"We attack the towns, like in Wazi Zadran, where there is a strong American and Afghan garrison, and mine the streets every day. We average two or three attacks a day against the Americans and their allies. The more troops they send, the more targets we have, so it's good."
Allahu akbar, the men around him murmured in response.
He went on to explain the difference between his men and the average Taliban.
"We follow Haqqani. He was a smart mujahid against the Soviets and during all his wars he taught us how to focus on training and teaching. I was taught by him and most of our men were trained by him and his commanders. We have order, because we had good teaching and good training."
"We have mujahideen from the time of the emirate, but we have new fighters too," Mawlawi Jalali told me. "The young are keen to join, but we tell them stay put, finish your madrasa now and then come. We can't provide for all of them now and we can't get them supplies. The government and the Americans control the streets and the cities because of the planes, but the mountains are for us."
The hum of a generator rose and fell in the background, sometimes drowning our conversation. I looked for signs of electricity, but apart from a few flickering oil lamps in a faraway village, there was nothing but darkness for kilometres on each side of the valley. I realised suddenly what a "generator hum" meant on a mountain in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"Drone … plane … sky …" I mumbled my words, closed my eyes and waited for the whoosh of a missile.
The commander and his men laughed. "These are media lies, that Americans can see us," he said. "Look now, we are a big group of Taliban. There are 200 men here and they can't see us. We believe in God, so don't be scared."
Another fighter spoke up: "If you stand still in the dark and not move they can't see you. It's written in the Qu'ran."
On the way to the camp I had been told of other drone-dodging techniques. If you are on a motorcycle and the drone fires a missile, jump off and the missile will follow the motorcycle. If you are with a large group, stop, like musical statues, and the drone will confuse you with the trees.
A young fighter called for prayer and the commander and half his men lined up to pray, their guns on the ground in front of them. When they had finished, the other half began to pray.
"We are Afghans, we have lived all our lives in the trenches and caves," said the commander as he shook my hand. "We tell the Americans to stop this war, we are not tired." His fatigued voice, however, told a different story.
"You are not the first Iraqi here," said one of the fighters. He was tall and thin and poor-looking, with a big beard and clothes that were a faded grey. "There is an Iraqi commander who is fighting in the mountains. He has been here for many years and he is very good." He scooped up bits of eggs and tomatoes with a piece of bread.
He positioned a glass and a piece of bread and a cucumber in a triangle. The glass represented the target.
"We hit them [the glass] with a mine and we position ourselves here [bread and cucumber] and shoot. Then when the attack is over we move towards the woods before the helicopters arrive."
After dinner the men wrapped themselves in their blankets and scarves and slept.
Men squatted in the fields, relieving themselves. We walked in the muddy lanes. Women with heads wrapped loosely in colourful scarves walked in small groups carrying buckets of water.
On a mountain road outside the valley, a group of contractors and their heavily-armed security escorts were clearing the road of debris. It was the wreckage of one of their cars, an SUV that had been blown in half earlier in the week. Bits of blackened flesh lay on the road and a piece of blue cloth hung from a bush.
We drove on, down from the high mountains of eastern Afghanistan towards Kabul.
.
Wild Thing's comment..........
Interesting interview, so they wear eyeliner? Never knew that before. LOL
I get it, they wear eyeliner, they cover their faces like cowards, they hide behind women and children, they dress in Burka's to mix in with the village people so our troops ONLY because of the Muslim freak in the White House and his ROE not to shoot if you 'might' hit a civilian.... protects them, their claim to fame is they can get off a bicycle fast so a drone goes after the bike and not them, ( pssst we have many more that WILL kill your smelly ass you terrorist! and you only had ONE bike).
Can you imagine all the things our troops know about these human flesh from hell? Our troops are so well trained and knowledgeable of the enemy.
A little song and some imagery for this terrorist in the article.
Posted by Wild Thing at 07:48 AM | Comments (6)
August 09, 2009
Obama Says War On Terror Is Over ~ Replaced With " kiss terrorist ass"
White House: 'War on terrorism' is over
It's official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a "war on terrorism." Neither is it fighting "jihadists" or in a "global war."
President Obama's top homeland security and counterterrorism official took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.
"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.
The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is "at war with al Qaeda."
"We are at war with al Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda."
Mr. Brennan said that to say the U.S. is fighting "jihadists" is wrongheaded because it is using "a legitimate term, 'jihad,' meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal"
"Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself," Mr. Brennan said.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in March that the administration was not using the term "war on terror" but no specific directive had come from the White House itself. Mr. Obama himself used the term "war on terror" on Jan. 23, his fourth day as president, but has not used it since.
Mr. Brennan's speech was aimed at outlining ways in which the Obama administration intends to undermine the "upstream" factors that create an environment in which terrorists are bred.
The president's adviser talked about increasing aid to foreign governments for building up their militaries and social and democratic institutions, but provided few details about how the White House will do that.
Wild Thing's comment..........
Did anyone tell the Taliban and Al Qiada or the US military? This is more than appeasment and stupidity, that is total insanity. We are now ruled by insane people....this is surrender or as close it it can get to surrender.
Then why the he** are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan? What are our troops doing there if not fighting Jihadist and terrorists?
Obama sees us as the enemy, not the Jihadists. So, what are we gonna call it from now: “The War Against Really Mean and Smelly People?”
If the war on terror is over then we sure as hell don't need Homeland Security. Let's get rid of that too. Fire that Bitch Janet and tear up the stupid possible terrorists list Veterans are on and Tea Party people are on.
"The president's adviser talked about increasing aid to foreign governments for building up their militaries and social and democratic institutions"....
Unbelievable. He is going to throw more away overseas with much going to our enemies. Obama has got got some extra money from cutting military spending.
I hope that someone in the White house remembered to give this memo to the various Jihadists groups around the globe. They all need to know that they must be affiliated with al Qaeda to attack the United States under the current Obama administration. I know they would all like to avoid the embarrassment of following improper procedure while employing terrorism.
Sheesh!
But al-Qaeda is only one of many organizations committed to using the tools of terror against America and its citizens. To call it a "War on al-Qaeda" is not accurate either, for it omits other such organizations equally at war with us. So the Taliban is not a terrorist group but Veterans are??????
And what is it that links and motivates all of these groups but must yet remain unexpressed by our leaders in Washington? Why must we play these games? Because our President is a MUSLIM and has already had a terrorist as a friend ( Ayers) and has already made it clear to Hamas and other terrorists that he is on their side against Israle so why not also against the USA.
Nice how he respect our troops isn't it, the lives we have lost the wounded. Yes Obama is a reall class act.........NOT!
Posted by Wild Thing at 07:55 AM | Comments (15)
July 29, 2009
Barack FONDA Obama and UK Gordon Brown Want Talks With " Moderate" Taliban
A soldier in Gereshk, Afghanistan. Gordon Brown has signalled the end of the first phase of Operation Panther's Claw, aimed at driving back the Taliban. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA Wire
Britain and US prepared to open talks with the Taliban
A concerted effort to start unprecedented talks between Taliban and British and American envoys was outlined yesterday in a significant change in tactics designed to bring about a breakthrough in the attritional, eight-year conflict in Afghanistan.
Senior ministers and commanders on the ground believe they have created the right conditions to open up a dialogue with "second-tier" local leaders now the Taliban have been forced back in a swath of Helmand province.
They are hoping that Britain's continuing military presence in Helmand, strengthened by the arrival of thousands of US troops, will encourage Taliban commanders to end the insurgency. There is even talk in London and Washington of a military "exit strategy".
Speaking at the end of the five-week Operation Panther's Claw in which hundreds of British troops were reported to have cleared insurgents from a vital region of Helmand province, Lieutenant-General Simon Mayall, deputy chief of defence staff, said: "It gives the Taliban 'second tier' room to reconnect with the government and this is absolutely at the heart of this operation."
The second tier of the insurgency are regarded as crucial because they control large numbers of Taliban fighters in Pashtun-dominated southern Afghanistan. The first tier of Taliban commanders – hardliners around Mullah Omar – could not be expected to start talks in the foreseeable future. The third tier – footsoldiers with no strong commitments – are not regarded as influential or significant players.
The change in tactics was revealed as the Ministry of Defence announced that two more British soldiers were killed in southern Afghanistan. One, from the Light Dragoons, was on patrol in Operation Panther's Claw; the other, a soldier from the Royal Artillery, was killed on foot patrol in Sangin. Ten soldiers have died in Operation Panther's Claw.
A ComRes poll in today's Independent suggests most people now believe British troops should be pulled out of Afghanistan. Most of those who responded (58%) said the Taliban could not be defeated militarily, and 52% of those surveyed said troops should be withdrawn immediately.
America's priorities in Afghanistan will be spelled out in a briefing paper drawn up by General Stanley McChrystal, the new US commander in the country, due to be handed to Barack Obama tomorrow.
He will emphasise the need for speeding up the training of Afghan troops, according to defence sources. He is also expected to ask for more troops from Nato allies. British military commanders are drawing up contingency plans to increase the number of British forces to more than 10,000 from the current 9,000.
Miliband's call for talks with more moderate Taliban elements was echoed later by Gordon Brown, who said: "Our strategy has always been to complement the military action that we've got to take to clear the Taliban, to threaten al-Qaida in its bases – while at the same time we put in more money to build the Afghan forces, the troops, the police."
.
.
Wild Thing's comment......
OMG The United States and Great Briatian are not opening negotiations with the very enemy they were supposed to purge off the face of the earth??? would a winning military force want to open up negotiations? This will embolden our enemy.
"call for talks with more moderate Taliban "
I don't care what level they want to split the Taliban into there is NO moderate Taliban . Remember how the the Taliban laughed at the idea that there are moderate Taliban’s spoken of by Obama when he said he wanted to sit down with the moderate Taliban. Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan
"Our enemies may be irrational, even outright insane, driven by nationalism, religion, ethnicity or ideology. They do not fear the United States for its diplomatic skills or the number of automobiles and software programs it produces. They respect only the firepower of our tanks, planes and helicopter gunships." ~ Ronald Reagan
It won't change the fact that they want kill us. It will give them breathing room, an air of respectability with those that may have opposed them otherwise, and of course obama will throw in funding from our tax dollars to them. This bad, this is real bad.
I think it's going to take years to reverse the damage that this asshole has already done...and he's just getting started. Obama's history is he will apologize, we all know that. He will slam our country for going to Afghanistan after 9-11 to hunt down the terrorists, and ‘causing’ this war to begin and continue.
So now we know, Obama did say he was not interested in VICTORY now we know what he is interested in ......talking., more of his insane speeches..........
I can see it now, limp wristed Obama and his teleprompter, turning his head side to side with his ugly chin raised just a tad to let them know he thinks he is the future ruler of the world. The Taliban with visions of not sugar plums dancing in their head but nice shiny sharp swords and knives being turned by the handle around and around as they pretend to be "moderate" as they listen to him say...... " Let me make this very clear......eh ah let me make this clear........I can offer you free medical insurance just like the other illegals and did I tell you I am a Muslim and the call to prayer in Islam is the most beautiful sound I have ever heard, did you hear my speech in Cairo?"
Fade to black screen and sounds of.......... " but what if I show you my real birth certificate?"....
.
....Thank you Richard for sending this to me.
Posted by Wild Thing at 08:48 AM | Comments (9)
July 28, 2009
President Hamid Karzai Wants New ROE for US Troops
Karzai: Afghans want rules for troops changed
KABUL
President Hamid Karzai said Monday he wants new rules governing the conduct of U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan and would be willing to talk with Taliban leaders who publicly renounce violence and endorse peace.
But Karzai, acknowledging shaky relations with his international partners in the war on terror, told The Associated Press in an interview that he was not prepared at this time to discuss the key Taliban demand - a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops.
Karzai said the presence of U.S. and international forces was in the Afghan national interest but should be "based on a new contract" that would minimize civilian casualties, limit searches of private homes and restrict detaining Afghans indefinitely without charge.
He also said he wants the U.S.-run prison at Bagram Air Base, where about 600 Afghans are held, re-evaluated and inmates released unless there is evidence linking them to terrorist affiliation. He said arrests are turning ordinary Afghans against U.S. and NATO forces.
Karzai has promised to pursue those demands for changes in the relationship with foreign forces if he wins a second term in the Aug. 20 presidential election. He is considered the leading contender in the 39-candidate field, though he would be forced into a runoff if he fails to win a majority of votes in the first round.
"The Afghan people still want a fundamentally strong relation with the United States," Karzai said. "The Afghan people want a strategic partnership with America" based on fighting Islamic extremism.
But he added that the partnership must ensure "that the partners are not losing their lives, their property, their dignity as a consequence of that partnership."
The 91,000 international troops based in Afghanistan include about 65,000 under NATO's International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF. The rest are part of a U.S.-led coalition involved in counterterrorism and training Afghan forces. Both groups operate under different rules, which are kept secret for operational security reasons.
It is widely assumed, however, that the U.S.-led counter-terror command enjoys broader powers to search homes and detain people indefinitely if they are suspected of posing a security threat.
Last month, the new U.S. and NATO commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, issued new orders saying troops may attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses only if international forces are in imminent danger. The measures were put into effect to quell a storm of criticism from Karzai's government about civilian casualties, which help fuel the Taliban insurgency.
During his interview, Karzai suggested those measures may not be enough to convince most Afghans to accept a long-term international role, which he said was in the interest of the Afghan people.
Karzai said no Afghan mother would weep over a son killed or wounded in the war "but that Afghan mother would very much want her other son, her husband or her daughter to be safe in their homes, to be safe in their communities, not to be bombed, not to be arrested, not to have their homes broken into at night with their front gate blown up by dynamite."
Karzai also said he wanted a dialogue with Taliban members not affiliated with al-Qaida or "in the grips of foreign intelligence agencies" in order to "reintegrate" them into Afghan society. He said those Taliban members must first repent "and announce that publicly."
He did not specify any foreign intelligence agency, but Afghan officials have in the past accused Pakistan of backing the Taliban, which Pakistan denies.
But Karzai also made clear he was not prepared to call for a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign forces, which some key Taliban figures have demanded before they will enter peace talks.
Karzai acknowledged strong differences over the years with the NATO and U.S.-led forces "but I also know and the Afghan people also know that the presence of international troops in Afghanistan is bringing stability to Afghanistan."
"I would advise the Taliban not to ask for the exit of international forces in Afghanistan because that is not in the interest of the Afghan people," he said.
Instead, both sides should work toward a relationship in which foreign troops show greater sensitivity to Afghan culture and the Afghans display "better management of governmental affairs."
Karzai has come under criticism for embracing some of Afghanistan's most notorious warlords, including his vice presidential running mate Mohammad Qasim Fahim, and his defense adviser, Gen. Rashid Dostum, who has been accused of killing hundreds of Taliban prisoners in 2001.
Karzai defended those ties, saying many of those now branded as warlords had received "million and millions of dollars" from the United States for their help in fighting the Taliban in the 2001 U.S.-led invasion.
Wild Thing's comment........
What an idiot Karzai is! If we pulled our troops from Afghanistan, his life would not be worth a plug nickel.
Between this guy and the comment Obama made last week that didn't care about a victory in Afghanistan OMG!
What Obama and his like need to realise, is that the object of war, as Patton put it. “Is to kill the other guy before he can kill you" . As for the Afghan president, he should think long and hard about what position he would be in if we just decided to cut our losses and leave. He’d be so far up the proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle. You’d hear him begging us to stay on the moon. But none of this will happen because it means do to it right and keep our troops from being killed means we have to do what our troops do best and the Obamessiah can’t have that now can he.
.
....Thank you Jack for sending this to me.
United States Army
1965-1971
Army Combat Engineers
Quang Tri & Chu Lai '68 -'69
67-69
Jack's blog is Conservative Insurgent
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:48 AM | Comments (7)
July 21, 2009
A Voice For Missile Defense
Meet America’s Top Missile-Defense Cheerleader
Riki Ellison, the onetime NFL linebacker who hung up his cleats to become the one of the most prominent U.S. advocates for missile defense.
Bloomberg’s Curtis Eichelberger has an interesting profile of Ellison, who’s been busier than ever with his campaign to keep the missile-defense dollars flowing. And as an owner of three Super Bowl rings, Ellison can’t resist a football metaphor.
“Sometimes you play zone defense, other times you play man-to-man, the key is to layer your defense so you can protect your goal line no matter how they attack you,” Ellison told Eichelberger. “That’s essentially how a missile defense system works.”
With a belligerent North Korea brandishing missiles, Ellison has been particularly vocal about keeping alive some of the programs that have been targeted for cuts by the Obama administration. And before a recent North Korean missile test, Ellison wrote to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, urging the deployment of the Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX), a powerful tracking and discrimination radar was undergoing repair in Hawaii. While the SBX was not diverted to track the missile, Ellison managed to get more attention to the program.
During his NFL career, Ellison held internships at Lockheed Martin where he met Edward Teller, who helped develop the first atomic bomb while working on the Manhattan Project and was the force behind Reagan’s missile defense initiative.
Following the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, Ellison, a registered lobbyist, formed his organization to work for the deployment of a missile defense system.
It is funded by about 9,000 private donors, defense contractors and others interested in missile defense. He wouldn’t identify them.
“In football, you can’t win by building everything around your offense,” Ellison said. “In the real world, it’s imperative that you keep the opponent from reaching your end zone, even once.”
Wild Thing's comment......
Maybe this guy can convience Obama he is wrong. Obama doesn’t think the country should be allowed to defend itself.
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:40 AM | Comments (4)
July 16, 2009
Obama Betraying America's Soldiers: Iranian War Criminals Go Free
Betraying America's Soldiers: Iranian War Criminals Go Free
"The moment you give up your principles, and your values . . . the moment you laugh at those principles, and those values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period." Orianna Fallaci
On Thursday, July 9th, the US released 4 Iranian detainees who are suspected of being members of an Iranian Special Forces team that facilitated the smuggling of explosives and explosive devices into Iraq, including shaped charges that could penetrate US armored vehicles. A recent article on the National Review Online, by Andrew C. McCarthy entitled "Negotiating with Terrorists" outlines one of the actions these men are suspected of planning, equipping and executing.
"On Jan. 20, 2007, five American soldiers were killed and three seriously wounded in Iraq. As Bill Roggio relates at the Long War Journal, it was a daring operation: a twelve-man terrorist team disguised as U.S. servicemen attacked our troops as they held a previously arranged meeting with local officials in Karbala. Four of the soldiers were alive when they were abducted from the scene. They were handcuffed and murdered in a remote location when the coalition forces attempting to rescue them closed in."
A few months later Qais Qazali, Laith Qazali and Ali Mussa Daqduq were captured, along with documents that confirmed they were agents of Iran responsible for organizing and directing terror cells in Iraq. Hundreds of US servicemen and women and thousands of innocent Iraqis died horribly because of them. What these Iranians did were war crimes, from the killing of civilians to the execution of prisoners. They likely took part in operations themselves; in fact the attackers in Karbala were so expertly disguised as American soldiers their equipment and vehicles were very likely supplied directly by Iran.
McCarthy continues;
"About two weeks ago, the Obama administration released Laith Qazali after extensive negotiations with the Asaib al-Haq terror network. That network has long been in negotiations with the fledgling Iraqi government, dangling the possibility of laying down its arms, renouncing violence, and integrating into Iraqi society, provided that its top members - particularly Qais and Laith Qazali, as well as Ali Mussa Daqduq - be released."
Now that has been done, below the radar, and over the graves of our soldiers. These war criminals are being called diplomats in an attempt to hide the release from the American public. They are being set free to reunite with friends and family and continue their work for a brutal murderous regime that is our mortal enemy.
What the US may receive in return is a temporary lull in terror attacks, so the precipitous withdrawal of US troops by the Obama administration won't be seen for the blunder that it is. Our soldiers and their grieving families will not receive justice; their murderers are now a tool of the Democrats, their release a stratagem for political gain.
All this should make Americans realize just what kind of people are in the White House and in Congress. They do not respect or honor our foundational principles; they do not respect or honor America's values. You do not let a crime go unpunished. You do not reward evil; it cannot be appeased. We will inherit no goodwill; we will enjoy no diplomatic concessions; we are the "great Satan" to the regime in Teheran and treating with us is an immoral act. Their ideology and their policies are based on hatred. To think otherwise is not merely naïve, it is idiotic.
We are in the awful situation were an American President and his administration sides with our enemies, where crimes against us are ignored for petty political gain. How much more American and Iraqi blood will be spilt because of their adolescent leftist ideology? Can they truly be so blind to the horrific consequences of releasing terrorists in an attempt to secure peace? Or do they hate our soldiers so completely that they do not care?
The Obama Administration has betrayed this nation's servicemen and women. They have sold our soldiers lives for a pittance, for short term political expediency. They are dealing with the devil, and are comfortable doing it. By their actions the Obama administration has set the stage for the killing of more brave young Americans and countless innocents.
.
Wild Thing's comment..........
Obama is in charge. This couldn’t happen without his direct involvement.
It is outrageous. The current White House occupants gave the OK. The Iranians had been trying to get these jihadis released since 2007 but got no where until now.
Here is Andrew's complete article about this.
The Obama administration ignores a longstanding — and life-saving — policy.........By Andrew C. McCarthy
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:48 AM | Comments (9)
July 14, 2009
Tonight CBS News To Do a Report on Green Berets Operating in Afghanistan and Iraq
Tonight on CBS Evening News - a report on the Green Berets operating in Afghanistan and Iraq.
From CBS website
Probe of Cheney's Covert CIA Plan Urged
I just checked and on the Esst coast it comes on at 1830.
It looks like it is a half hour show.
Congressional Leaders Never Told about Operation Ordered by then-VP to Kill Al Qaeda at Close Range ~~~
and why on earth is that a bad thing. Dead is dead at any range. And God bless the soldier, sniper, Special Forces, Marine, Saiilor, Air Force whoever does it. K-POW bye bye terrorist! ~ Wild Thing
HERE IS THE VIDEO .......CBS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVnHLEfNWXc
Wild Thing's comment........
giggle. This is a quickie post, I just got home and wanted to let you all know right away in case you wanted to see it too.
....Thank you Tom for sending this to me.
Tom
US Army Aviation
Vietnam 1966-68
US Army Special Forces
1970-72
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:06 PM | Comments (4)
Thank You America – And Damn You, You Bastards
Iraqi Columnist: Thank You, America
Our contributor Stephen Schwartz points out a recent editorial from a Baghdad newspaper that provides an interesting Iraqi perspective:
Translated from this newspaper
http://www.albayyna-new.com/
Thank You America – And Damn You, You Bastards
By Jabr Al Jabouri
Al-Bayyna Al-Jadida [Baghdad]
July 1, 2009
America chose to save us from the most evil party, and the most despicable President in the universe [Saddam]. Meanwhile, the Arab powers stood firmly against the American project. They used all means to thwart them, but Allah’s will had another say in this matter. America turned the Ba’athists into the world’s laughing stock by showing them fleeing in their underwear on live television. Meanwhile, the Arab powers turned those cowards into national heroes on their satellite channels.
America gave the lives of 4,000 of its people to Iraq’s land to instill security and democracy, while the Arabs sent us their filthy mercenaries who mercilessly murdered, bombed, and slaughtered the Iraqi people.
America came bearing democracy for Iraq, while the Arabs brought us the new religion of the Wahhabis and Salafists. This religion aims to destroy Iraq and return it to the days of minority rule.
America canceled all of our debts and urged the rest of the world to do so, while the Arabs refused to do so and they even demanded payment for every Iraqi citizen living in their countries.
America allowed Shias to practice their religion while the Arabs bombed the Askari shrine. America proposed that the Iraqi President be Kurdish – so that we can prove to the world that Iraq has entered an age of freedom and respect for ethnic minorities. Yet, the Arabs have “removed Iraq from the Arab map,” pointing to the fact that the President is a non-Arab. America urged all honorable Sunnis to take part in the political process, while the Arabs issued a fatwa to kill every Sunni Iraqi who works with the government.
America opened the world to us, while the Arabs slammed their doors in our faces. America urged the world’s countries to open embassies in Iraq. Thus far, the Arabs have not opened embassies… or even acknowledged Iraq’s new democratic regime. America is carrying the burden of removing Iraq from Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, while the Arabs – led by Saudi Arabia – are doing their best to obstruct these efforts.
America urged the Gulf States to allow Iraq to return to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), while the Arabs refused to allow Iraq to join the GCC. The Americans sponsored Iraq membership in international, political, and cultural organizations, while the Arabs expelled the Iraqi Authors and Writers Union from the Arab Writers Union.
America decided to withdraw from Iraq cities and hand these cities over to the Iraq forces on June 30 in preparation for the final withdrawal from Iraq. The Arabs decided to hinder the withdrawal so that their excuse for fighting the occupier and killing the Iraq people can remain. America signed the Strategic Framework Agreement with Iraq, which includes all political, cultural, military, and technological fields. The Arabs issued a decision stating that Iraq is “officially occupied” because we signed the security agreement. Never mind that all these Arab countries have agreements with America. The Arabs decided that every American soldier in Iraq is an occupier that must be killed, while if an American soldier was to be in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, or Egypt he would be considered as a friendly ally that must be treated with respect. The Arabs decided to consider every Iraqi living in America to be a traitor and spy, even though Iraqi people living in America are fewer in numbers than all other Arab nationalities. The Arabs consider every Iraqi who works as a translator for the American forces to be a traitor…
This is how Arabs are, and this is just a drop in a vast ocean. All this is what the Arabs do in public. What they do behind the walls is another matter entirely.
According to American news sources, Saudi Arabia has been trying hard to convince America to return the Ba’athists to power in Iraq. However, the American Administration does not care about what Saudi Arabia thinks or wants in this country.
Today, our American friends are true to their word. They have handed over security responsibilities to the Iraq forces, and they decided to withdraw from the Iraqi cities.
I wonder when the American forces in Saudi Arabia – estimated at 80,000 troops – are going to withdraw. When are the 30,000 U.S. soldiers in Kuwait going to withdraw? When are the American bases in Qatar, Egypt, Oman, Yemen, and all other Arab countries that live off American aid going to be shut down?
The geographically close, but, in humanitarian terms, distant Arab Nation does not deserve any political, cultural and commercial ties with us. Nations that are completely different from and unrelated to us are racing to assist us.
After six years of liberation, we now know who our friend is and who our foe is. We should not give a chance to those idiots who claim that Iraq is part of the Arab Nation. These idiots should understand that Iraq is part the federal, free and democratic world.
.
Wild Thing's comment......
This is wonderfull , oh how I wish our troops could see this. Wow this is very special.
....Thank you Tom for sending this to me.
Tom
US Army Aviation
Vietnam 1966-68
US Army Special Forces
1970-72
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:50 AM | Comments (11)
July 07, 2009
Obama's Stupid New ROE As Taliban Fighters Dress As Women To Escape Marines
.
Wild Thing's comment.........
Stupid, STUPID and dangerous for our troops!
So much for reading history and why being soooooo careful ONLY kills our troops. And of course it would be too much to ask Obama to actually do some istening of our military and what would work best for them.
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:47 AM | Comments (4)
Mullah Sprung From GITMO Jail Now Leads Taliban Fighting US Troops in Afghanistan
A former Gitmo detainee is leading the Taliban in Afghanistan in fighting the US in Afghanistan's Helmand Province.
KABUL, Afghanistan
As Marine Corps forces roll into southern Afghanistan, they face an enemy familiar to US officials -- Mullah Zakir, a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner who now leads a reconstituted Taliban.
Abdul Qayum Zakir, also known as Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, is from Helmand Province and has taken a circuitous route to become head of the radical Islamic group.
Zakir was a senior fighter during the Taliban regime in the 1990s. In a memorandum prepared for his administrative review board at Guantanamo, Zakir apparently "felt it would be fine to wage jihad against Americans, Jews, or Israelis if they were invading his country."
And he acknowledged that he was "called to fight jihad in approximately 1997," when he joined the Taliban.
In 2001, he surrendered to US and Afghan forces in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif as the regime was collapsing. He spent the next several years in custody, was transferred to Guantanamo around 2006, then to Afghanistan government custody in late 2007, and was eventually released around May 2008. American officials won't say why he was let go and have not released a photograph of him.
Zakir wasted little time rekindling his relationship with the Taliban, especially its inner shura, or leadership council, based in Pakistan. According to some accounts, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar appointed Zakir as a senior military commander in mid-2008. He quickly developed a reputation as a charismatic leader.
The Taliban, apparently concerned that some governors and military commanders had become ineffective and bracing for the growing US military presence, announced its own new strategy in April.
They called it Operation Nasrat ("victory") and pledged to use "ambushes, offensives, explosions, martyrdom-seeking attacks, and surprise attacks." The Taliban also warned that they would attack "military units of the invading forces, diplomatic centers, mobile convoys and high-ranking officials" of the Afghan government.
As Marines move through Helmand, they will be on the lookout for Zakir and his support network. But like many senior Taliban leaders, Zakir spends a lot of time in Pakistani cities like Quetta and Karachi, frightened he'll be killed in an attack.
.
OH But that is not enough , because you see Obama wants to make sure the Taliban has every chance possible not to be taken out. ~ Wild Thing
Directive Re-emphasizes Protecting Afghan Civilians
WASHINGTON
A new tactical directive for coalition forces serving in Afghanistan re-emphasizes the importance of preventing civilian casualties.
Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces Afghanistan, released the directive July 2. It builds on previous tactics and is much clearer about use of close-air support, searching Afghan houses and protecting Afghan cultural and religious sensitivities. All coalition forces in Afghanistan must follow the directive.
Taliban fighters use a tactic of engaging coalition forces from positions that expose Afghan civilians to danger. Close-air support of coalition and Afghan personnel engaged in a May 4 firefight with the Taliban in Afghanistan’s Farah province killed numerous civilians. The Taliban cite such incidents to lead people to believe the NATO-led force does not care for Afghan civilians.
McChrystal’s tactical directive emphasizes that ISAF is in Afghanistan to protect the people from the insurgents. “Like any insurgency, there is a struggle for support and will of the population,” he wrote. “Gaining and maintaining that support must be our overriding operational imperative – and the ultimate objective of every action we take.”
Still, the directive does not prevent commanders from protecting the lives of their troops engaged in direct combat.
The directive is general because the nature of a counterinsurgency is complex and no one can foresee all eventualities, officials said. McChrystal expects commanders at all levels to understand the directive and use it when planning and conducting operations.
“Following this intent requires a cultural shift within our forces – and complete understanding at every level,” he wrote.
The tactical guidance takes the new strategy for Afghanistan as its base, recognizing that ISAF and Afghan forces may win tactical victories against the Taliban, but lose the war. “We must avoid the trap of winning tactical victories – but suffering strategic defeats – by causing civilian casualties or excessive damage and thus alienating the people,” McChrystal wrote.
Specifically, the directive calls on commanders “to scrutinize and limit the use of force like close air support against residential compounds and other locations likely to produce civilian casualties.” Bombing residential compounds will be allowed only under very limited conditions, the directive says. For example, if a coalition force comes in contact with Taliban fighters and the enemy takes cover in a residential compound, the NATO force can break contact and wait out the enemy rather than calling for close-air support.
Another portion of the directive states that any search of Afghan homes will be done by Afghan security forces with the support of local authorities.
“No ISAF forces will enter or fire upon, or fire into a mosque or any religious or historical site except in self-defense,” McChrystal wrote in the directive. “All searches and entries for any other reason will be conducted by the Afghan National Security Forces.”
The directive is not a departure from past practices, officials said, noting that killing civilians never has been an International Security Assistance Force tactic.
“Working together with our Afghan partners, we can overcome the enemy’s influence and give the Afghan people what they deserve: a country at peace for the first time in three decades, foundations of good governance and economic development,” McChrystal said.
.
Wild Thing's comment......
I blame Obama this comes from him, he is the CIC and he may not have let the prisoner out, that was under Bush. BUT Obama is the one that has chnged the ROE.
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:45 AM | Comments (2)
July 02, 2009
Camp Leatherneck Marines Deploy on Major Mission Afghanistan
U.S. Marine Corps file photo by Sgt. Freddy G. Cantu
Largest Marine Offensive since Vietnam -Operation Khanjar - “Strike of the Sword” Begins
Operation Khanjar (Strike of the Sword) involved nearly 4,000 US forces as well as 650 Afghan police and soldiers, the Marine Expeditionary Brigade said, announcing the pre-dawn launch of the drive in southern Helmand province… Deploying about 50 aircraft, the air and land assault was to push troops into insurgent strongholds in what officers said was the biggest offensive airlift by the Marines since Vietnam… "What makes Operation Khanjar different from those that have occurred before is the massive size of the force introduced, the speed at which it will insert," MEB commander Brigadier General Larry Nicholson said in a statement… Troops would hold areas they take until they could transfer security responsibilities to Afghan forces, said Brigadier General Larry Nicholson .
Marines Deploy on Major Mission
Thousands Fan Out in Afghanistan's South in Crucial Test for Revised U.S. Strategy
CAMP LEATHERNECK
Afghanistan
July 2
Thousands of U.S. Marines descended upon the volatile Helmand River valley in helicopters and armored convoys early Thursday, mounting an operation that represents the first large-scale test of the U.S. military's new counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan.
The operation will involve about 4,000 troops from the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, which was dispatched to Afghanistan this year by President Obama to combat a growing Taliban insurgency in Helmand and other southern provinces. The Marines, along with an Army brigade that is scheduled to arrive later this summer, plan to push into pockets of the country where NATO forces have not had a presence. In many of those areas, the Taliban has evicted local police and government officials and taken power.
Once Marine units arrive in their designated towns and villages, they have been instructed to build and live in small outposts among the local population. The brigade's commander, Brig. Gen. Lawrence D. Nicholson, said his Marines will focus their efforts on protecting civilians from the Taliban and on restoring Afghan government services, instead of mounting a series of hunt-and-kill missions against the insurgents.
"We're doing this very differently," Nicholson said to his senior officers a few hours before the mission began. "We're going to be with the people. We're not going to drive to work. We're going to walk to work."
Similar approaches have been tried in the eastern part of the country, but none has had the scope of the mission in Helmand, a vast province that is largely an arid moonscape save for a band of fertile land that lines the Helmand River. Poppies grown in that territory produce half the world's supply of opium and provide the Taliban with a valuable source of income.
The operation launched early Thursday represents a shift in strategy after years of thwarted U.S.-led efforts to destroy Taliban sanctuaries in Afghanistan and extend the authority of the Afghan government into the nation's southern and eastern regions. More than seven years after the fall of the Taliban government, the radical Islamist militia remains a potent force across broad swaths of the country. The Obama administration has made turning the war around a top priority, and the Helmand operation, if it succeeds, is seen as a potentially critical first step.
Traveling through swirling dust clouds under the light of a half-moon, the first Marine units departed from this remote desert base shortly after midnight on dual-rotor CH-47 Chinook transport helicopters backed by AH-64 Apache gunships and NATO fighter jets. Additional forces poured into the valley during the pre-dawn hours on more helicopters and in heavy transport vehicles designed to withstand the makeshift but lethal bombs that Taliban fighters have planted along the roads.
The initial Marine units did not face resistance as they converged on their destinations. Marine commanders said before the start of the operation that they expected only minimal Taliban opposition at the outset but that assaults on the forces would probably increase once they moved into towns and began patrols. Field commanders have been told to prepare for suicide attacks, ambushes and roadside bombings.
Officers here said the mission, which required months of planning, is the Marines' largest operation since the 2004 invasion of Fallujah, Iraq. In the minutes after midnight, well-armed Marines trudged across the tarmac at this sprawling outpost to board the Chinooks, which lumbered aloft with a burst of searing dust. A few hours later, another contingent of Marines boarded a row of CH-53 Super Stallion helicopters packed onto a relatively small landing pad at a staging base in the desert south of here. As the choppers clattered through the night sky, dozens of armored vehicles rolled toward towns along the river valley.
The U.S. strategy here is predicated on the belief that a majority of people in Helmand do not favor the Taliban, which enforces a strict brand of Islam that includes an-eye-for-an-eye justice and strict limits on personal behavior. Instead, U.S. officials believe, residents would rather have the Afghan government in control, but they have been cowed into supporting the Taliban because there was nobody to protect them.
In areas south of the provincial capital, local leaders, and even members of the police force, have fled. An initial priority for the Marines will be to bring back Afghan government officials and reinvigorate the local police forces. Marine commanders also plan to help district governors hold shuras -- meetings of elders in the community -- in the next week.
"Our focus is not the Taliban," Nicholson told his officers. "Our focus must be on getting this government back up on its feet."
But Nicholson and his top commanders recognize that making that happen involves tackling numerous challenges, starting with a lack of trust among the local population. That mistrust stems from concern over civilian casualties resulting from U.S. military operations as well as from a fear that the troops will not stay long enough to counter the Taliban. The British army, which had been responsible for all of Helmand since 2005 under NATO's Afghan stabilization effort, lacked the resources to maintain a permanent presence in most parts of the province.
"A key to establishing security is getting the local population to understand that we're going to be staying here to help them -- that we're not driving in and driving out," said Col. Eric Mellenger, the brigade's operations officer.
With the arrival of the Marines, British forces have redeployed around the capital of Helmand, Lashkar Gah, where they are conducting a large anti-Taliban operation designed to complement the Marine mission. Two British soldiers were reported killed in fighting in the province Wednesday.
The Marines have also been vexed by a lack of Afghan security forces and a near-total absence of additional U.S. civilian reconstruction personnel. Nicholson had hoped that his brigade, which has about 11,000 Marines and sailors, would be able to conduct operations with a similar number of Afghan soldiers. But thus far, the Marines have been allotted only about 500 Afghan soldiers, which he deems "a critical vulnerability."
"They see things intuitively that we don't see," he said. "It's their country, and they know it better than we do."
Despite commitments from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development that they would send additional personnel to help the new forces in southern Afghanistan with reconstruction and governance development, State has added only two officers in Helmand since the Marines arrived. State has promised to have a dozen more diplomats and reconstruction experts working with the Marines, but only by the end of the summer.
To compensate in the interim, the Marines are deploying what officers here say is the largest-ever military civilian-affairs contingent attached to a combat brigade -- about 50 Marines, mostly reservists, with experience in local government, business management and law enforcement. Instead of flooding the area of operations with cash, as some units did in Iraq, the Marine civil affairs commander, Lt. Col. Curtis Lee, said he intends to focus his resources on improving local government.
Once basic governance structures are restored, civilian reconstruction personnel plan to focus on economic development programs, including programs to help Afghans grow legal crops in the area. Senior Obama administration officials say creating jobs and improving the livelihoods of rural Afghans is the key to defeating the Taliban, which has been able to recruit fighters for as little as $5 a day in Helmand.
In meetings with his commanders at forward operating bases over the past three days, Nicholson acknowledged that focusing on governance and population security does not come as naturally to Marines as conducting offensive operations, but he told them it is essential that they focus on "reining in the pit bulls."
"We're not going to measure your success by the number of times your ammunition is resupplied. . . . Our success in this environment will be very much predicated on restraint," he told a group of officers from the 2nd Battalion, 8th Marines on Sunday. "You're going to drink lots of tea. You're going to eat lots of goat. Get to know the people. That's the reason why we're here."
Wild Thing's comment.....
Prayers for their safety and a successful mission. Chesty is cheering them on!!
I am not sure how true this is. "officers said was the biggest offensive airlift by the Marines since Vietnam". The Marines were also in Iraq. But I forget how many but I do remember we had a lot of Marines and Army in Iraq.....a lot of each.
When the articles are not written by the DOD I want to make sure it is accurate, but no way to check right now as these are the only links right now.
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:49 AM | Comments (6)
July 01, 2009
U.S. Combat Forces Turning Over Security of Cities in Iraq
Army Capt. Rich Turvey, commander of 2nd Battalion, 20th Field Artillery Regiment, signs over Joint Security Station Salaam to Iraqi army 1st Lt. Jassim Abbas at a transfer ceremony near Numaniyah, Iraq, June 20, 2009. In accordance with the U.S.-Iraqi security agreement, Iraqi security forces took full ownership of security in their cities, towns and villages on June 30, 2009. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. 1st Class Joe Thompson
.
Withdrawal Marks Historic Day for Future of Iraq, General Says
By Army Staff Sgt. Dave Lankford
CONTINGENCY OPERATING BASE BASRA, Iraq, June 30, 2009
In accordance with Article 5 of the security agreement between the U.S. and Iraqi governments, Iraqi security forces now have full ownership of security in their cities, towns and villages.
“As of today, U.S. combat forces will turn over the security of cities to Iraqi security forces, and begin a period where our primary security role is one of training, mentoring and advising the ISF,” said Army Maj. Gen. Rick Nash, Multinational Division South commander. “Today’s ISF is capable, ready and dedicated to keeping the people of Iraq safe.”
Nash praised the dedication of the Iraqi security forces as well as the proficiency of U.S. and coalition forces, and attributed the successful implementation of the security agreement to their actions.
“Iraq’s successes and significantly improved security are a testament of the ISF’s progress and its dedication to Iraq’s sovereignty,” Nash said. “The Iraqis have made strides in their ability to protect their citizens, and our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are doing a great job in helping them build both their security forces and their civil capacity.”
Though U.S. and coalition forces no longer will inhabit Iraqi cities, they will continue to support the Iraqi security forces within the parameters of the security agreement, Nash said.
“Leaving the cities does not mean that we are backing off,” he said. “Instead, it indicates our confidence in the Iraqis to safeguard their own citizens. Likewise, the security agreement is a tangible, positive sign of a mature relationship between two sovereign nations.”
In accordance with agreement, U.S. forces will withdraw from all Iraqi territory by Dec. 31, 2011. Today will be remembered as a significant step toward the realization of that objective, Nash noted.
“So, on this important day of transition in Iraq, our two nations move forward together as friends, with the shared goal of the safety and security of the Iraqi people,” he said. “I am very encouraged about the future success of Iraq.”
Gen. Raymon Oderno, commnading general, Multi-National Forces-Iraq pays tribute at the Monument of the Unkown Solidiers, June 30.
Iraqi officials and military commanders place flowers on the tomb of the Unknown Soldier and to stand a minute to read (Surat Al-Fatihah) for the lives of the martyrs of Iraq.
As U.S. Meets Withdrawal Deadline, Baghdad Declares Holiday
As the United States completed its withdrawal of combat forces from Iraqi cities in accordance with today's deadline, Baghdad commemorated the milestone with a national holiday.
The departing American brigades and battalions leave behind a significantly smaller contingent of U.S. trainers and advisors in the cities, where Iraqi forces now have primary authority, the top U.S. commander in Iraq said.
Meanwhile, news reports from Baghdad describe Iraqis marking the day with a military parade attended by Iraqi reporters and dignitaries in the international area known as the "Green Zone" at the official monument to an unknown soldier.
Similar celebrations took place around the country in recent days as the American drawdown from cities neared completion.
But today's transfer of responsibility to Iraqi security forces represents a "significant milestone," Odierno said.
"It is a day when Iraqis celebrate as they continue to move towards exercising their full sovereignty," he said. "The Iraqi people should be very proud of the dedication, progress and sacrifice of the Iraqi security forces and the government of Iraq. Their accomplishments in preparing for this day are commendable."
As Iraqis secure the cities, Odierno said, U.S. forces are establishing a layer of defense outside the urban areas, conducting full-spectrum and stability operations alongside Iraqis to eliminate safe havens, crack down on insurgents and stem the flow of foreign fighters. U.S. forces also will support civil efforts led by the U.S. Embassy, the Iraqi government, and the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq, he said.
"Our combat forces, partnering with the Iraqi security forces, will secure the belts and borders in an attempt to eliminate safe havens and sanctuaries and to limit freedom of movement of insurgents and prevent the facilitation of foreign fighters through the borders," he said.
As Iraqis celebrate a nationwide holiday highlighting their added responsibility, Americans also can be proud of the efforts by U.S. forces to stabilize Iraq, which last month had the lowest levels of violence since the war began six years ago, the general noted.
"The American people can also be very proud, as well, of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, as well as our civilians, who have worked so hard over the past years -- and tirelessly -- and sacrificed so much in helping the people of Iraq progress towards a peaceful and democratic society," Odierno said.
Maj. Jacob Evans, team chief for Military Transition Team 0228, instructs an Iraqi Soldier on the proper placement of the flag on a uniform aboard Camp Hamza, Iraq
.
.
Wild Thing's comment.......
OK now I want to show you something, this was
June 30, 2009
Obama statement on Iraq
Transcript from President Obama's remarks on Iraq:Today American troops have transferred control of all Iraqi cities and towns to Iraq's government and security forces.
This transition was agreed to last year as part of our status of forces agreement with the sovereign Iraqi government. It's a part of our strategy to responsibly end the war by removing all American combat brigades from Iraq by next September and all of our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.
So the Iraqi people are rightly treating this day as a cause for celebration. This is important step forward as a sovereign and united Iraq continues to take control of its own destiny.
With this progress comes responsibility. Iraq's future is in the hands of its own people, and Iraq's leaders must now make some hard choices necessary to resolve key political questions, to advance opportunity and to provide security for their towns and their cities.
In this effort America will be a strong partner to the Iraqi people on behalf of their security and prosperity.
Now, make no mistake, there will be difficult days ahead. We know that the violence in Iraq will continue. We see that already in the senseless bombing in Kirkuk earlier today. And there are those who will test Iraq's security forces and the resolve of the Iraqi people through more sectarian bombings and the murder of innocent civilians.
But I'm confident that those forces will fail.
The future belongs to those who build, not those who destroy. ( Obama has done nothing BUT try to destroy, That is all he has done with America since he was sworn in and that is all he has tried to do with the moral and non funding of our troops in the war. Destroy should be his middle name. ~ Wild Thing)
And today's transition is further proof that those who have tried to pull Iraq into the abyss of disunion and civil war are on the wrong side of history. ( that has Obama's name written all over it! ~ Wild Thing)
Finally, the very fact that Iraqis are celebrating this day is a testament to the courage, the capability and commitment of every single American who has served in Iraq. Through... That's worth applauding.
Through tour after tour of duty, our troops have overcome every obstacle to extend this precious opportunity to the Iraqi people. ( Obama get real , you are the big ole Muslim loving Military hating OBSTACLE!~ Wild Thing)
And these women and men are not always in the headlines, but they're our hearts and prayers. And we will forever honor their selfless service and sacrifice, as well as the service and sacrifice of their families.
There's more work to be done, but we've made important progress in supporting a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq. And everyone who's served there, both in uniform as well as our civilians, deserves our thanks.
Now, it's fitting that we're here today to talk about what each of us can do to lift up this nation, because our troops' sacrifice challenges all of us to do what we can do to be better citizens. That's what the people that you've heard from already are doing every single day.
.
Obama is so full of it! He makes my stomach turn.
NEVER FORGET....NEVER FORGET.....NEVER FORGET!
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:55 AM | Comments (10)
Biden to Take New Role Overseeing Iraq Policy
Biden to take new role overseeing Iraq policy....Biden's New Job: Beacon Of Bipartisanship
President Barack Obama has asked Vice President Joe Biden to take on a new role overseeing the US departure from Iraq and Washington's effort to promote internal political reconciliation there.
The White House said Tuesday that Biden would work closely with General Ray Odierno, the top US commander in Iraq and US ambassador to Baghdad Christopher Hill as US forces prefer to leave for good by the end of 2011.
"The vice president has been asked by the president to oversee the policy," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.
Biden would work with Iraqis "toward overcoming their political differences and achieving the type of reconciliation that we all understand has yet to fully take place but needs to take place."
"Given his knowledge of the region, the number of times he's been there, he's perfectly suited for this type of role," Gibbs said.
Biden, who was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee before becoming vice president, has made repeated trips to Iraq, and is playing a similar role overseeing a 787 billion economic stimulus package.
Gibbs said that an idea once put forward by Biden, of dividing Iraq's Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities into a federation of autonomous zones, was not on the table for the Obama administration.
He said the vice president's role would likely include travel to Iraq and also meetings with the key players on US Iraq policy.
Biden's new portfolio had been rumored for several days, and Gibbs confirmed the reports on the day that US troops withdrew from the center of Iraqi cities and towns under an agreement with the Baghdad government.
Wild Thing's commnet..........
LOL Obama has been getting ticked at Biden for his many gaffes. The last one I think was when he kidded about the birth certificate. So now he has planned for Biden to be as far away from 1600 Penn. Ave. as possible.
Talk about your disasters waiting to happen!
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:50 AM | Comments (8)
June 15, 2009
Japan Apologizes for Bataan Death March
Japan Apologizes for Bataan Death March
SAN ANTONIO - Japan's ambassador to the United States apologized Saturday on behalf of his country for the 65-mile forced walk of U.S. troops and allies during World War II that left some 11,000 prisoners of war dead.
"As former prime ministers of Japan have repeatedly stated: The Japanese people should bear in mind that we must look into the past and to learn from the lessons of history," Ichiro Fujisaki said at the American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor, the San Antonio Express-News reported.
He said his country was extending a heartfelt apology for "having caused tremendous damage and suffering to many people, including prisoners of war, those who have undergone tragic experiences."
Although Fujisaki received a standing ovation from about half of the 400 to 500 attendees, others said the apology was overdue and didn't seem sincere.
Former POW Hershel C. Boushey told the ambassador that he did not accept "your apology," and that the atrocities and mistreatment many suffered was severe.
In 1942, Japanese captors marched about 78,000 prisoners of war - 12,000 Americans and 66,000 Filipinos - for six days on the Philippine island of Luzon to a prisoner-of-war camp in what became known as the Bataan Death March. Many prisoners were denied food, water or medical care, and some were stabbed or beheaded.
As many as 11,000 prisoners died, according to the U.S. Air Force.
Survivor Tony Montoya, of Woodland, Calif., also questioned Fujisaki's sincerity.
"This young man knows very little of the atrocities," Montoya said. "They probably rehearsed him on it."
Abie Abraham, of Renfrew, Pa., said it was time to move on.
"I was never one of those guys that worried about whether we got an apology or not," said Abraham, a 95-year-old vet.
"The way I look at it is - Japan is now our ally," Abraham said. "Why should we get an apology from them?"
Retired Tech Sgt. Joe Alexander, of San Antonio, said he was satisfied because "we finally got the apology that we wanted."
About 73 surviving Bataan Death March veterans of the Army and former Army Air Corps members attended the convention Saturday, which served as the march survivors' final reunion.
Wild Thing's comment.......
One of my Uncles was a Bataan survivor, he has since passed away. But I knew him well enough to know he would not accept Japan's apology, no way.
I wonder why they actually did this, they are always consumed with saving face and it is not like them to apologize for anything. The Japanese have not ever really SINCERELY apologized for anything they EVER did in WW2. Like the atrocities committed in Nanking, China and other places in Asia.
They are like a criminal that is more sorry for getting caught than the real act committed. They think that the suffering of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wash away all their sins, when in fact they are just really sorry for losing.
I honestly think this has a lot more to do with more recent (or future) events that have little to do with Bataan.
.
......Thank you SSGT Steve
SSgt Steve
1st MarDiv, H Co., 2nd Bn, 5th Marine Regiment
2/5 Marines, Motto: "Retreat, Hell"
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 04:47 AM | Comments (6)
June 11, 2009
Miranda Rights for Terrorists
When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. “I’ll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer,” he said, according to former CIA Director George Tenet.
Of course, KSM did not get a lawyer until months later, after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and saved lives. “I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal – read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up,” Tenet wrote in his memoirs.
If Tenet is right, it’s a good thing KSM was captured before Barack Obama became president.
For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.
“The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.
Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. “I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn’t been briefed on it, I didn’t know about it. We’re still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative.”
That effort, which elevates the FBI and other law enforcement agencies and diminishes the role of intelligence and military officials, was described in a May 28 Los Angeles Times article.
"The FBI and Justice Department plan to significantly expand their role in global counter-terrorism operations, part of a U.S. policy shift that will replace a CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogations with one built around transparent investigations and prosecutions.
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 familiar with the effort said."
Thanks in part to the popularity of law and order television shows and movies, many Americans are familiar with the Miranda warning – so named because of the landmark 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda vs. Arizona that required police officers and other law enforcement officials to advise suspected criminals of their rights.
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense."
A lawyer who has worked on detainee issues for the U.S. government offers this rationale for the Obama administration’s approach. “If the US is mirandizing certain suspects in Afghanistan, they’re likely doing it to ensure that the treatment of the suspect and the collection of information is done in a manner that will ensure the suspect can be prosecuted in a US court at some point in the future.”
But Republicans on Capitol Hill are not happy. “When they mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the 'right to remain silent,’” says Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation--lawyering up.”
According to Mike Rogers, that is precisely what some human rights organizations are advising detainees to do. “The International Red Cross, when they go into these detention facilities, has now started telling people – ‘Take the option. You want a lawyer.’”
Rogers adds: “The problem is you take that guy at three in the morning off of a compound right outside of Kabul where he’s building bomb materials to kill US soldiers, and read him his rights by four, and the Red Cross is saying take the lawyer – you have now created quite a confusion amongst the FBI, the CIA and the United States military. And confusion is the last thing you want in a combat zone.”
“The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.
One thing is clear, though. A detainee who is not talking cannot provide information about future attacks. Had Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had a lawyer, Tenet wrote, “I am confident that we would have obtained none of the information he had in his head about imminent threats against the American people.”
In a March 2003 interview aired on CBS' "60 Minutes" President Obama said Guantanamo detainees do not "deserve" to be read Miranda rights.
KROFT: Some of it being organized by a few people who were released from Guantanamo.
OBAMA: Well, there is no doubt that we have not done a particularly effective job in sorting rough who are truly dangerous individuals that weve got to make sure are not a threat to us, who are folks that we just swept up. The whole premise of Guantanamo promoted by Vice President Cheney was that, somehow, the American system of justice was not up to the task of dealing with these terrorists. I fundamentally disagree with that. Now, do these folks deserve miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not.
Wild Thing's comment.........
The media and the WH know this is not going to go over very well with the American people and were purposely trying to hide it. He hides almost everything. He is still hiding his so called statement about the terrorist attack in Little Rock at the Recruiting office. How crazy is that! It is NOT there! I have decided it was all BS that he made a statement even though so many of us had a link to what was supposed to be the statement. Obama absolutely hates our military PERIOD!
While working on this post, I have heard on the radio now during the news breaks three different times about this as well and each one said.....the troops are very confused about thie miranda rights and how the hell are they supposed to fight this war. My heart breaks, it hurts for how our troops are being treated by Obama.
So now we’ll have F.B.I. agents embedded with special forces every time we go after “high value” suspects.... I wonder if the F.B.I. agents are going to be ordered to write reports on the special forces operations- and will those reports be used to discipline or prosecute military personnel that kill or harm “high value” suspects they’re trying to capture?
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:55 AM | Comments (13)
May 27, 2009
Visiting Our Troops Through Images
Buck is a medic with 25th Infantry Division's Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 14th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team.
by U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. William Greer
.
ROOFTOP SECURITY - U.S. Army Pfc. Paul Mandrell watches for possible enemy activity from the roof of Joint Security Station Oubaidy near Sadr City, Iraq, after a series of attacks. He is assigned to the 10th Mountain Division's 2nd Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade.
by U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Jason T. Bailey
.
ZODIAC PATROL - U.S. Marines carry Zodiac boats into the Euphrates River below the Haditha Dam in Iraq to conduct security patrols with Provisional Security Forces. The Marines are assigned to Company W, 3rd Battalion, 23rd Marine Regiment.
U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Tyler Hil
.
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:49 AM | Comments (6)
May 20, 2009
Democrats Won't Fund Guantanamo Closing for Now
Democrats won't fund Guantanamo closing for now
Barack Obama's allies in the Senate will not provide funds to close the Guantanamo Bay prison until the administration comes up with a satisfactory plan for transferring the detainees there, a top Democrat said Tuesday.
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said Obama's plan to close Guantanamo is not dead—only that the funding will have to wait until the administration devises an acceptable plan to handle the closure and transfer the detainees. Obama has promised to close the military prison by January.
"The administration has not come up with a plan at this point," said Durbin, who is the whip, or No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. He added that Democrats are likely to address the issue on later legislation. "I think Guantanamo should be closed and we have to wait for the president's direction on what happens to the detainees."
With debate looming on Obama's spending request to cover military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, says Democrats will deny the Pentagon and Justice Department $80 million to relocate Guantanamo's 240 detainees.
The administration has yet to develop a plan for what to do with the detainees, and Obama's promise to close the facility is facing strong GOP opposition.
It appears to be a tactical retreat. Once the administration develops a plan to close the facility, congressional Democrats are likely to revisit the topic, provided they are satisfied there are adequate safeguards.
Explaining the reversal, Durbin said: "The feeling was at this point we were defending the unknown. We were being asked to defend a plan that hasn't been announced. And the administration said, 'Understood. Give us time to put together that plan and we'll come to you in the next appropriations bill.'"
The developments on Capitol Hill came as the Pentagon said it still expects the prison at Guantanamo Bay to be closed by January 2010 as Obama has ordered.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters on Tuesday that he sees nothing to indicate the January 2010 deadline will be delayed.
Republicans are poised with an amendment by James Inhofe of Oklahoma that would block any of the Guantanamo detainees from coming to U.S. soil to stand trial or serve their sentences. A detainee was released to France last week, leaving 240 at Guantanamo.
"Shuttering this facility now could only serve one end: and that is to make Americans less safe than Guantanamo has," said GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
House Democrats also dropped funding to close Guantanamo when producing their version of the war funding bill, which easily passed last week.
The Guantanamo controversy has roiled Washington, with most Republicans adamantly opposed to closing the prison, which mostly holds enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan. Republicans say abuses at the facility are a thing of the past.
The Senate's massive war spending measure otherwise sticks closely to Obama's request. The House version effectively exceeds Obama's request by almost $12 billion, adding $2.2 billion for foreign aid and eight C-17 cargo planes despite Defense Secretary Robert Gates' desire to cease purchases of the aircraft as part of his effort to overhaul Pentagon procurement.
Wild Thing's comment......
The Democrats are scared to death that if the U.S. is victim of another major terrorist attack after Obama disarms our security apparatus their cushy gov’t jobs will be in serious jeopardy. As well they should be along with any Republican.
Obama spoke about closing GITMO and didn't even have a plan set up ahead of his announcement. Community Orangizers did not have the how to run a country in their help manual.
Posted by Wild Thing at 04:47 AM | Comments (8)
Soldiers to Test New Army Combat Pants
The new Army Combat Pants will be tested this fall by soldiers in Afghanistan, Army officials said
Soldiers to test new Army Combat Pants
Service could field trousers in 2010
Soldiers in Afghanistan will test the new Army Combat Pants, which are rugged trousers designed to stand up to the mountainous country’s jagged terrain.
The pants will be tested this fall, Army officials said. Program Executive Office Soldier began developing the new pants last spring after soldiers complained the standard and fire-resistant versions of the Army Combat Uniforms were wearing out too quickly during mountain operations.
“They were not designed for that kind of environment,” said Jeff Myhre, assistant product manager for Fire Resistant clothing. “Really the only way to get down [steep slopes] is slide down on their rear end, and sometimes when they are climbing, it’s foot-knee, foot-knee to get up to altitude.”
The current version of the ACP features built-in hard kneepads that can be adjusted up or down and side to side for comfort. The material is heavy, 7.3-ounce fire-resistant twill compared to the 6.5-ounce fire-resistant fabric in the fire-resistant ACUs.
The back pockets have flaps with Velcro fasteners rather than buttons that can easily rip off when soldiers slide down steep rock faces on their backsides, Myhre said.
The reinforced seat is designed to stretch for better range of motion, and the cargo pocket on the calf of the leg is larger to hold more mission-essential items, Myhre said.
The ACP prototypes have been through two soldier evaluations, one with the 75th Ranger Regiment and one with the West Virginia Army National Guard.
Rangers tested them while training on airborne, air assault and shoot-house operations. Mounted cavalry soldiers from the West Virginia Guard wore them while climbing in and out of vehicles during training.
Equipment officials are preparing to have soldiers evaluate about 3,000 pairs of the latest prototype this fall in Afghanistan.
The evaluation is slated to last 30 to 45 days.
“Barring any small incremental changes we will do to the pants … we will look to the Army to determine is there is a requirement” to field the ACP, Myhre said.
If all goes as planned, the Army could decide to field the ACP sometime in mid-2010.
Wild Thing's comment..........
Any way they can improve on equipment and clothing for our troops I am all for it.
Posted by Wild Thing at 04:40 AM | Comments (10)
May 14, 2009
Obama Fires Top General in Afghanistan
US fires top General in Afghanistan as war worsens
Barack Obama fired the top U.S. general in Afghanistan on Monday, replacing him with a former special forces commander in a quest for a more agile, unconventional approach in a war that has gone quickly downhill. With the Taliban resurgent, Obama's switch from Gen. David McKiernan to Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal suggests the new commander in chief wants major changes in addition to the additional troops he's ordering into Afghanistan to shore up the war effort.
McKiernan, on the job for less than a year, has repeatedly pressed for more forces. Although Obama has approved more than 21,000 additional troops this year, he has warned that the war will not be won by military means.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates echoed that view at a grim Pentagon news conference announcing the leadership overhaul. "As I have said many times before, very few of these problems can be solved by military means alone," he said. "And yet, from the military perspective, we can and must do better."
"It's time for new leadership and fresh eyes."
A new team of commanders will now be charged with applying Obama's revamped strategy for challenging an increasingly brutal and resourceful insurgency. The strategy, still a work in progress, relies on the kind of special forces and counterinsurgency tactics McChrystal knows well, as well as nonmilitary approaches to confronting the Taliban. It would hinge success in the seven-year-old war to political and other conditions across the border in Pakistan.
McKiernan, named to his post by former President George W. Bush, had expected to serve into next year but was told he was out during Gates' visit to Afghanistan last week.
Gates said he asked for McKiernan's resignation "with the approval of the president." The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, and McKiernan's military boss, Gen. David Petraeus, both said they supported the switch.
The White House said the recommended change came from the Pentagon.
"The president agreed with the recommendation of the secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the implementation of a new strategy in Afghanistan called for new military leadership," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement.
McChrystal is a former special forces chief credited with nabbing one of the most-wanted fugitives in Iraq. Taking a newly created No. 2 slot under his command will be Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, a veteran of the Afghanistan fight who has been Gates' military shadow, the top uniformed aide who travels with him everywhere.
Asked if McKiernan's resignation would end his military career, Gates said, "Probably." But he praised the general's long service, and when pressed to name anything McKiernan had failed to do, Gates demurred.
"Nothing went wrong, and there was nothing specific," he said.
McKiernan issued a short statement in Kabul.
"All of us, in any future capacity, must remain committed to the great people of Afghanistan," McKiernan said. "They deserve security, government that meets their expectations, and a better future than the last 30 years of conflict have witnessed."
In June 2006 Bush congratulated McChrystal for his role in the operation that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. As head of the special operations command, McChrystal's forces included the Army's clandestine counterterrorism unit, Delta Force.
He drew criticism for his role in the military's handling of the friendly fire shooting of Army Ranger Pat Tillman - a former NFL star - in Afghanistan. An investigation at the time found that McChrystal was "accountable for the inaccurate and misleading assertions" contained in papers recommending that Tillman get a Silver Star award.
McChrystal acknowledged he had suspected several days before approving the Silver Star citation that Tillman might have died by fratricide, rather than enemy fire. He sent a memo to military leaders warning them of that, even as they were approving Tillman's Silver Star. Still, he told investigators he believed Tillman deserved the award.
.
Wild Thing's comment..........
They dumped this guy for bombing the Taliban Insurgents. No kidding. He was killing the enemy so Obama puts him under his bus.
Why does this freaking idiot refuse to understand that the ONLY think Islam understands and fears is BRUTE FORCE!
This General has been asking for more troops as long as he has been there!!!!!!!! Now Obama/Gates say here are your troops and oh by the way, you are fired. Not transferred or re-assigned mind you but fired!!!! There is something we are not being told about GEN McKiernan.( just a gut feeling) Did he perhaps have something derogatory to say to or about the CIC? The truth will come out in time, and I’ll bet it wont make Obama look good. Four Stars don’t get fired everyday.
From what I have heard 65% of the active duty troops detest Obama!
This is nothing against Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal , I jsut feel badly about what Obama has done to Gen McKennan....to fire him that is horrible to do to him.
Here is something about Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal. And a big God bless to our black ops people. I am not a fan of Newsweek and they did out this Gen. regarding the Black ops, but I hate to say this, but Bush outed him first , I will never forget that and I saw it live back in 2006, as well as poor Gen. Caldwell later trying to answer without answering.
The Hidden Genenral
June 26, 2006 issue
No one would have mentioned his name at all if President George W. Bush hadn't singled him out in public. Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, West Point '76, is not someone the Army likes to talk about. He isn't even listed in the directory at Fort Bragg, N.C., his home base. That's not because McChrystal has done anything wrong—quite the contrary, he's one of the Army's rising stars—but because he runs the most secretive force in the U.S. military. That is the Joint Special Operations Command, the snake-eating, slit-their-throats "black ops" guys who captured Saddam Hussein and targeted Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi.
JSOC is part of what Vice President Dick Cheney was referring to when he said America would have to "work the dark side" after 9/11. To many critics, the veep's remark back in 2001 fostered his rep as the Darth Vader of the war on terror and presaged bad things to come, like the interrogation abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. But America also has its share of Jedi Knights who are fighting in what Cheney calls "the shadows."
And McChrystal, an affable but tough Army Ranger, and the Delta Force and other elite teams he commands are among them.
After the Zarqawi strike, multinational forces spokesman Gen. Bill Caldwell refused to comment on JSOC's role, saying, "We don't talk about when special operating forces are involved." But when Bush revealed to reporters that it was McChrystal's Special Ops teams that had found Zarqawi, Caldwell had to gulp and say (to laughter), "If the president of the United States said it was, then I'm sure it was."
McChrystal has checked all the right career boxes, serving as an unflappable military briefer during the Iraq invasion, and doing fellowships at Harvard and at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York (where he would run to work from Brooklyn, about six miles away). Still, the secrecy surrounding McChrystal's role worries some who note that Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have given clandestine operations the lead in the war on terror--with little public accountability, including in the interrogation room.
Rumsfeld is especially enamored of McChrystal's "direct action" forces or so-called SMUs--Special Mission Units--whose job is to kill or capture bad guys, say Pentagon sources who would speak about Special Ops only if they were not identified. But critics say the Pentagon is short-shrifting the "hearts and minds" side of Special Operations that is critical to counterinsurgency--like training foreign armies and engaging with locals. (Special Operations Command spokesman Ken McGraw says the Pentagon is "significantly increasing" those units.)
Experts like former Deputy Defense secretary John Hamre are also concerned that Special Ops now has generic authority to deploy where it wants without case-by-case orders. Without proper civilian oversight, a Zarqawi-style success can easily become a "Black Hawk Down." Keeping that from happening is McChrystal's most important mission.
"Experts like former Deputy Defense secretary John Hamre are also concerned that Special Ops now has generic authority to deploy where it wants without case-by-case orders. Without proper civilian oversight, a Zarqawi-style success can easily become a "Black Hawk Down." Keeping that from happening is McChrystal's most important mission."
Screw this guy John Hamre! He is wrong, he was a typical Clintonoid social activist who found the military "distasteful" at best.
Leftist Political type, he is never willing to accept the blame for the consequences of his stupidity.
The Leftist Presidents from LBJ to Carter to Clinton fumbled just about EVERY time they demanded "Civilian Over Sight" of Operations.
What ever their other flaws, bless Bush 1 and 2 with the brains to manage the politics and leave Operations to the pros.
"Blackhawk Down" become a "Black Hawk Down" because of the "civilian oversight" not wanting to do soemthing un-PC, rather than just letting the military do its job! warriors kicked ass that day - When things went to sh*t our guys cowboy'd the hell up and took the fight to'em - They did not lose whatsoever that day or that battle - They got their marks that were at the hit location and they brought them in
OK so bottom line is, this guy will be great it seems. But I still am ticked about what they did to General McKiernan.
Just one more thing, General Petraeus endorsed this change. So again there may be things we don't know about. I trust Petraeus to know what is best.
....Thank you Jack for sending this to me.
Army Combat Engineers
Quang Tri & Chu Lai '68 -'69
67-69
United States Army
1965-1971
Vietnam
1968-1969
Jack's blog is Conservative Insurgent
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:55 AM | Comments (9)
May 11, 2009
General Petraeus: Al Qaeda's Base is Pakistan
WASHINGTON
Senior leaders of al Qaeda are using sanctuaries in Pakistan's lawless frontier regions to plan new terror attacks and funnel money, manpower and guidance to affiliates around the world, according to a top American military commander.
Gen. David Petraeus, who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, said in an interview that Pakistan has become the nerve center of al Qaeda's global operations, allowing the terror group to re-establish its organizational structure and build stronger ties to al Qaeda offshoots in Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, North Africa and parts of Europe.
The comments underscore a growing U.S. belief that Pakistan has displaced Afghanistan as al Qaeda's main stronghold. "It is the headquarters of the al Qaeda senior leadership," said the general, who took the helm of the military's Central Command last fall.
In the interview, Gen. Petraeus also warned of difficult months ahead in Afghanistan, saying Taliban militants are moving weapons and forces into areas where the U.S. is adding troops, planning a "surge" of their own to counter the U.S. plan.
The commander said the U.S. had intelligence showing that the Taliban were deploying new fighters to southern Afghanistan, appointing new local commanders, and prepositioning weapons and other supplies.
"We have every expectation that the Taliban will fight to retain the sanctuaries and safe havens that they've been able to establish," he said.
Gen. Petraeus said U.S. intelligence information suggested that al Qaeda has re-emerged as a centrally directed organization capable of helping to plan attacks in other countries. "There is a degree of hierarchy, there is a degree of interconnection, and there is certainly a flow of people, money, expertise, explosives and knowledge," he said.
Gen. Petraeus painted a picture of a globalized al Qaeda that maintains extensive logistical and communications links to terror groups in Morocco, Somalia and other countries. He said militants and supplies pass through southern Iran, helped by Sunni Arab "facilitators" in the predominantly Shiite Persian country.
A ring of Tunisian suicide bombers who were recently apprehended in Iraq appear to have received their directions from al Qaeda figures in Pakistan as well, he said. "There's absolutely no question about these links," he said.
The Pentagon has looked at possible changes in Afghanistan amid concern over the course of the conflict -- some of which have met resistance from current military leaders including Gen. Petraeus. A task force formed by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is conducting a broad review, according to a copy of its agenda. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is expected to appoint an additional general to handle day-to-day operations there, senior defense officials say. A spokesman for Gen. Petraeus has declined to comment.
Gen. Petraeus spent the past week in Washington as part of the Obama administration's summit with presidents Karzai and Zardari.
.
Pakistan Again Faces a Test It Has Often Failed Before
Pakistan faces a dual test it has often failed before as soldiers again square off against Taliban militants in the Swat Valley: The country is fighting a counterinsurgency campaign while caring for those displaced by the conflict.
For the past several days, Pakistan's army and the Taliban have been fighting sporadically along the mountain ridges of Swat after a peace deal collapsed. Pakistani officials say they are determined that the offensive will continue until the military asserts control over the 400-square-mile area.
The Pakistani army said Friday it had lost 13 of its own men in the past 24 hours and killed 143 militants. There was no word on civilian casualties. But front-line officers report only slight gains against the thousands of militants in Swat and two neighboring districts, Buner and Lower Dir.
"This is going to be hard fighting, no quarter here. These miscreants know the terrain. They are formidable," said an army major in a telephone interview.
Pakistan's military, built for tank battles and artillery duels against Indian forces on the plains of the subcontinent, has in the past four years struggled through a series of campaigns against the Taliban across the mountains of northwestern Pakistan. Most, like the 18-month battle in Swat, ended in standstill.
The U.S. is stepping up its efforts to try to reshape Pakistan's military into a force that can fight insurgents in the rugged terrain along the Afghan border, where the Taliban and al Qaeda have flourished.
U.S. and Pakistani officials say the Americans will provide night-vision goggles and more helicopters. There are also plans to train Pakistani soldiers in counterinsurgency doctrine and wean them from their reliance on artillery and air power, which often flattens villages and kills more civilians than insurgents.
Still, U.S. officials privately question whether Pakistan's top brass, many of whom still see India as the real threat, are committed to reorienting their forces.
.
Wild Thing's comment..........
Just a gut feeling here, but I honestly don't think Pakistan has been giving it i100% going after the Taliban. I see in the article it says they did not have all the right kind of equipment so I will give them a break on that. But still, these terrorists needed to be sought and taken out. And they have had so many years at least do even half of what was promised when Bush was President.
God bless General Petraeus for speaking up and sticking to his guns. I liked when it said that General Petraeus had no comment, that says all we need to know in how he felt about what was planned.
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:47 AM | Comments (6)
May 08, 2009
Iraq Blames Al Qaida Revival on U.S. Release of 4,000 Insurgents
Iraq blames Al Qaida revival on U.S. release of 4,000 insurgents
Iraq has launched another offensive against Al Qaida, raiding suspected AQI strongholds throughout the Diyala province, capturing insurgents and confiscating suicide vests.
The Iraqi offensive was launched amid an AQI suicide bombing campaign in Baghdad and Mosul. Officials said AQI has revived its operational cells and intensified operations as the U.S. military prepares to withdraw from cities by June 30.
Iraqi military spokesman Maj. Gen. Atta Qassim said the resurgence of Al Qaida was fueled by the U.S. release of nearly 4,000 insurgents in 2009. Qassim said the released insurgents have been returning to both Al Qaida and organized crime.
On May 6, at least 17 people were killed in a two car bombings at a market in southern Baghdad, populated mostly by Sunnis. Officials acknowledged that security at the market was light.
Officials said the Iraqi security forces were capable of battling AQI. But they acknowledged that authorities were hampered by a shortage of intelligence.
Officials said more than 50 suspected insurgents were killed in nearly one week of the Iraqi operation.
"We've seized weapons, included suicide vests," Iraqi Col. Salam Ahmed Naji said.
Security forces also captured more than 60 suspects, including three women, in Diyala. Officials said the province has been the launching pad for AQI insurgency attacks in Baghdad.
On May 4, 31 insurgency suspects were killed in Iraqi operations. Officials said scores more were injured and killed since the operation began on May 1.
.
Wild Thing's comment.......
Things in Iraq were calming down. Our troops were making huge progress with the surge........right up until the Obamaeffect! Yes the Obamaeffect, he just had to go further then speak of a withdrawal as Bush did, he had to give a date and top that off with releasing terrorists. Then in the next Obamaeffect he brings up the interrogation memos and then the photos.
Obama has empowered the terrorists with his Obamaeffect. And in doing so he has pulled the trigger aimed at our troops.
Dear God please make Obama let the military run this war and NOT Obama!!!
.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:47 AM | Comments (12)
May 07, 2009
Obama's Apology To Leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan
Barack Obama, meets with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, left, and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, Wednesday, May 6, 2009, in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington
Obama expresses regret for Afghan civilian deaths
Flanked by the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan, President Barack Obama expressed deep U.S. regret Wednesday for civilian casualties in a deadly incident this week in western Afghanistan, promising "every effort" to avoid recurrences in the war against a rising Taliban insurgency.
Obama had a more upbeat and determined tone as he lauded "unprecedented cooperation" between the two neighbors in fighting Taliban and other extremist threats. But he cautioned that success will not come quickly.
"Along the border, where insurgents often move freely, we must work together with a renewed sense of partnership to share intelligence and to coordinate our efforts to isolate, target, and take out our common enemy," Obama said after a day of meetings with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.
Obama met separately with Karzai and Zardari, followed by a three-way session that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton portrayed as an embodiment of a central tenet of the administration's new Afghan war strategy - that Pakistan and Afghanistan are linked problems.
The latest report of Afghan civilian casualties came at an especially awkward time for the administration, which is stepping up its military campaign inside Afghanistan while also seeking to emphasize the importance of nonmilitary efforts to stabilize the country. The U.S. has pledged, for example, a major increase in civilian expertise in farming and other specialties, along with an increase of 21,000 U.S. troops.
Gen. Jim Jones, Obama's national security adviser, told reporters that the president began his meeting with Karzai by addressing reports that dozens of civilians had been killed by American bombs on Sunday.
Jones said Obama commented "with great sympathy" and expressed regret for the loss of innocent life. Earlier, before her meetings with Karzai and Zardari at the State Department, Clinton said the U.S. "deeply, deeply" regrets the losses.
Both Obama and Clinton stopped short of accepting U.S. blame for the deaths.
Obama told Karzai that investigations "will be pursued aggressively with full intent to discover what in fact did happen, how it happened and how we can make sure that things like that do not happen again.
And it was clear that President Karzai was moved by that ... and he thanked the president for starting off the meeting with that expression of condolence."
Karzai did not ask that U.S. airstrikes be suspended or reduced in intensity pending the outcome of the investigation, Jones said.
Nor did Zardari raise an equally sensitive topic on his side of the border - the use of U.S. Predator aircraft to attack extremist targets, Jones said. Pakistanis have strongly protested those attacks, saying they have killed innocent civilians.
In Afghanistan, the U.S. forces commander said it wasn't a certainty that Sunday's deaths were a result of U.S. military action. Gen. David McKiernan said American forces came to the aid of Afghans who may have been ambushed by the Taliban. He said the Taliban beheaded three civilians, perhaps to lure police.
"We have some other information that leads us to distinctly different conclusions about the cause of the civilian casualties," McKiernan said. He would not elaborate.
Karzai, whose public criticism of U.S. airstrikes has grown increasingly indignant, thanked Clinton politely for her concern.
"We appreciate that," Karzai said. "And we hope we can work together toward reducing and eventually completely removing the possibilities of civilian casualties."
The United States has estimated that 80 percent or more or civilian deaths are caused by militants, not U.S. or allied forces, but Obama and his advisers say they know the corrosive effect the airstrikes have on civilian support for the military mission.
In his remarks at the White House, Obama emphasized the progress he said was achieved in the Washington meetings.
"We have advanced unprecedented cooperation," Obama declared. "We will work for the day when our nations are linked not by a common enemy but by a shared peace and prosperity."
Veteran diplomat Richard Holbrooke, the administration's point man for Afghanistan and Pakistan and a participant in the meetings, was upbeat in brief remarks after Obama summarized the day's talks. "It was a day that exceeded our expectations," Holbrooke said. "We turned a corner" in improving coordination.
Gathering the three leaders together at one table, along with lower-level officials from the three countries, "reflects the kind of concrete cooperation and detail that is going to ultimately make a difference in improving opportunity and democracy and stability in Pakistan and in Afghanistan," Obama said.
The stakes couldn't be higher, he said.
"We have learned time and again that our security is shared," the president said. "It is a lesson that we learned most painfully on 9/11, and it is a lesson that we will not forget."
The president said all three governments must cooperate in fighting insurgents who control parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan and must "deny them the space" to threaten local residents - or Americans.
Earlier in the day, Clinton told reporters that Karzai and Zardari made specific commitments of how they would increase the fight against militants. She wouldn't name their promises yet, but said the talks were "producing some very promising early signs" of greater cooperation.
"I am very optimistic that this process is making a difference," she said in remarks in the White House briefing room.
.
Wild Thing's comment...........
Their leadership shouldn’t be mingling with civilians, if they do the deaths are their responsibility.
"Obama told Karzai that investigations "will be pursued aggressively with full intent to discover what in fact did happen, how it happened and how we can make sure that things like that do not happen again."
OMG if this doesn't come close to a JOHN MURTHA statement I don't know what does.
This POS Obama needs to learn he is the CIC and we are at WAR and he is pretending to be an American and he better freaking start to act like one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If this was during D-Day, Obama would have focused on civilian deaths rather than how the Allies were liberating France.
....Thank you Jack for sending this to me.
Army Combat Engineers
Quang Tri & Chu Lai '68 -'69
67-69
United States Army
1965-1971
Vietnam
1968-1969
Jack's blog is Conservative Insurgent
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:50 AM | Comments (14)
May 06, 2009
Iran Launches Airstrikes Into Iraq
Iranian aircraft attacked three villages inside Iraq over the weekend. The airstrikes — Iran’s first on Iraqi soil since the U.S. invasion — could complicate the Obama administration’s efforts to normalize relations with Tehran.
“The bombardments appeared to have targeted the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK), an Iranian Kurdish separatist group which has launched attacks on Iran from rear-supply bases in the mountains of northern Iraq,” AFP reports. Iran has attacked the Kurdish group before, with artillery. But this is the first time the Iranians followed up, with assaults from the air.
.
Iran Launches Airstrikes on Iraqi Villages
Iranian aircraft attacked three villages inside Iraq over the weekend. The airstrikes — Iran’s first on Iraqi soil since the U.S. invasion — could complicate the Obama administration’s efforts to normalize relations with Tehran.
“The bombardments appeared to have targeted the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK), an Iranian Kurdish separatist group which has launched attacks on Iran from rear-supply bases in the mountains of northern Iraq,” AFP reports. Iran has attacked the Kurdish group before, with artillery. But this is the first time the Iranians followed up, with assaults from the air.
Details on the airstrikes remain sketchy. Voice of America says the attacks were carried out by helicopters, which remained in Iranian airspace. Al-Arabiyah television, on the other hand, says it was “Iranian planes [that] raided those villages.”
It is a serious development because the Iraqi airspace is under the control of the US Air Force and under US protection. So the raids are either approved by the United States, as was the case when a US nod was previously given to the Turkish Army, or such operation was a surprise by the Iranians. According to eyewitnesses, the planes were flying at very low altitudes, which may indicate that they were trying to escape detection by radars. So these planes were able to attack many locations. Eyewitnesses and official Kurdish sources said that the raids were carried out by fighter jets and not helicopters.
In February, American fighter jets shot down an Iranian drone flying over Iraq. Such an incursion would’ve likely provoked an angry response from the previous administration. But the reaction to the drone incident was muted — perhaps in the interest of keeping the dialogue with Tehran going.
.
Iran shells Iraqi Kurdistan village
Iran shelled a Kurdish village in a remote area of northern Iraq's largely autonomous Kurdistan region on Monday, causing damage to buildings but no casualties, the region's border police said. Brigadier-General Ahmed Ghraib, head of the border police of Kurdistan's Sulaimaniya province, where the shelling took place, said the shells landed in a mountainous area bordering Iran.
On Saturday, Iran shelled Kurdish rebel positions in Iraqi Kurdistan and used helicopters to fire on them on the Iranian side of the border.
"Iranian shelling started at 11 a.m. (0800 GMT) until 1:15 p.m. (1015 GMT) against the villages of Penjwin. No casualties occurred except damage (to buildings)," Ghraib told Reuters
"The people of these villages have deserted the area because of the shelling," he added.
The Iranian attacks followed clashes between Iran's police and guerrillas from the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK), an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) which took up arms in 1984 for an ethnic homeland in southeast Turkey.
Gunmen killed 10 Iranian police in that firefight in western Iran on April 25. Ten PJAK fighters were also killed, Iranian state media said.
.
Wild Thing's comment........
Here is my quesdtion, this happened over the weekend, so why hasn't Obama made a statement. And why didn't FOX news have something on this. I know Obama controls all the other media but he can't stand FOX. Maybe they mentioned it and I missed it but it wasn't in any of my news alerts I get . Just weird!!!! Has anyone heard anything about this??????
Homeland Security has the same stories as above.
And there is this.....................
I blame Obama YEP! Obama with his withdrawl BS. Obama is trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. Bombings increasing everyday..now Iran and Turkey acting out. The Arab League is now upset over the Iranian bombings:
Special Report: Tension escalates in Iraq
CAIRO, May 6 (Xinhua) -- The Arab League (AL) expressed Wednesday its concerns about the Iran's shelling on Kurd villages in northern Iraq.
The AL considered the Iran's shelling as a violation to Iraq's territory and is not in line with good neighborhood policies, adding that these actions will not serve regional stability, said an AL statement.
Iranian warplanes and artillery carried out a predawn bombardment on Iraqi villages near the Iranian-Iraqi border on Monday.
Iraq Foreign Ministry Tuesday condemned Iranian shelling of border villages in northern Kurdistan region, requesting Iran to immediately halt such violations, and warning of "severe negative impact on overall relations between the two countries."
Iran and Turkey often attack areas inside Iraq, targeting Kurdish rebels who use Iraq's Kurdistan as a safe haven and a launch pad for their attacks against authorities in Iran and Turkey.
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:55 PM | Comments (6)
May 03, 2009
Obama Is To Blame As Iraq Bloodshed Rises as U.S.Allies Defect
A US soldier of Bravo Company, 1-18 Infantry Battalion stands guard during a patrol at a market in Mosul
US troops may have to stay in Iraq's third largest city, Mosul, beyond a June 30 deadline, the spokesman for US forces in Iraq said on Friday.
.
Iraq bloodshed rises as US allies defect
Obama’s withdrawal pledge is at risk as militias paid by the US begin to rejoin the insurgency
IRAQ is threatened by a new wave of sectarian violence as members of the “Sons of Iraq” – the Sunni Awakening militias that were paid by the US to fight Al-Qaeda – begin to rejoin the insurgency.
If the spike in violence continues, it could affect President Barack Obama’s pledge to withdraw all combat troops from Iraqi cities by the end of June. All US troops are due to leave the country by 2012.
A leading member of the Political Council of Iraqi Resistance, which represents six Sunni militant groups, said: “The resistance has now returned to the field and is intensifying its attacks against the enemy. The number of coalition forces killed is on the rise.”
The increase in attacks by such groups, combined with a spate of bombings blamed on Al-Qaeda, has had a chilling effect on the streets of Iraq. More than 370 Iraqi civilians and military – and 80 Iranian pilgrims – lost their lives in April, making it the bloodiest month since last September. On Wednesday, five car bombs exploded in a crowded market in Sadr City, Baghdad, killing 51 people and injuring 76. Three US soldiers were killed on Thursday and two more yesterday when a gunman in Iraqi army uniform opened fire near Mosul.
The resistance council recently issued a call to disaffected Sons of Iraq to take up arms against US and Iraqi troops after the government of Nouri al-Maliki failed to integrate them into the national security forces.
Many fighters have abandoned their security posts, allowing militant groups to fill the gap. Abu Omar, the leader of an Awakening militia in northern Baghdad, said more than 50 out of 175 fighters had quit.
Ginger Cruz, America’s deputy inspector-general for Iraq reconstruction, warned that disillusioned Sunnis could join forces with Al-Qaeda as well as resistance groups.
“The Sons of Iraq provided a critical turning point for Iraq, so the question now becomes: what will the Iraqi government do with them?” Cruz said. “In fragile states, you need to take unemployed young men with access to weapons and give them something to do to ensure they don’t turn to Al-Qaeda or other groups.”
The gradual emergence of the Shi’ite Maliki as an Iraqi strongman has alienated some Sunnis and corruption is worse than ever, according to Cruz.
There is also growing Sunni anger about arrests of Awakening leaders, including Adil al-Mashhadani, from Baghdad, who warned recently: “There’s a 50-50 chance that Awakening guys who are not very loyal to Iraq or who need to support their families will join Al-Qaeda again.”
Iraq has already begun negotiating with the United States about exceptions to the June 30 deadline, according to press reports.
In Karrada, an affluent district of Baghdad where a suicide bomber killed dozens 10 days ago, Esam Omar, 44, a father of two, said: “I fear the violence is back. Sectarian war may be the next step.”
The Iraqi security forces were not yet ready to assume control, he said, even if the US was worried about the cost of the war. “I think American forces will have to stay here much longer. It will be shameful if the Americans leave us sinking in blood, simply to escape their economic crisis.”
Wild Thing's comment........
And what did they think would happen when we announce we are leaving? Obama has demonstrated weakness to the enemies of our country and prostrated himself before them. Things like that send the wrong message to to Iraqis.
OH but Obama did pretty send ONE clear message to America that he controlled domestic law enforcement when he sent Air Force One over New York City along with a couple of F-16s. That show of military force for domestic purposes was coordinated right out of the White House by The Obammunist's Military Commissar.
The Iraqi security forces were not yet ready to assume control, he said, even if the US was worried about the cost of the war. “I think American forces will have to stay here much longer. It will be shameful if the Americans leave us sinking in blood, simply to escape their economic crisis.”
Hey bub, it is NOT the economic crisis that is the reason there has been given a date for leaving Iraq. Get real! It is the freaking military hating Obama that wants to pull out and not listen to the military on how bad it is to give a date, a timeline and listen to them when they feel Iraq is ready. Every drop of blood is on OBAMA'S hands in this matter and don't kid yourself!
" ... President Barack Obama’s pledge to withdraw all combat troops from Iraqi cities by the end of June."
I heard a simular phrase last night on the radio and it scared the crap out of me.
Hussein Obama's decision has made every life voluntarilly given for freedom and righteousness a mat to be trampled by the enemy. NOT form any of us, we know the cost of freedom and the cost of the lives of our Warriors and are grateful more then words can say for all they do. But Obama could care less.
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:47 AM | Comments (8)
April 22, 2009
Obama Will Not Rule Out Prosecuting Bush For Torture!
Obama spokesperson Robert Gibbs today said that the administration will not rule out prosecuting President Bush for torture.
Asked what changed after it seemed the President did not intend to prosecute Bush Administration Officials regarding GITMO interrogation techniques ... Gibbs......."no one is above the law."
.
Wild Thing's comment.......
Power can be a wonderful thing, a person with power can do a lot of good in the world. But it also works the other way too. The power Obama has been given is not a good thing, it is the worst thing that could ever happen to a person like Obama. He will use his power to hurt others, and destroy our country.
Even for the short time he has illegally held the office of president he will go down in history as the worst president this nation has ever had.
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:55 AM | Comments (24)
April 21, 2009
Obama on Torture Memo Release
Obama Open to Prosecutions Interrogation Abuses
April 21, 2009
Obama Open to Prosecution of Officials Who Cleared Interrogation Tactics
President Obama says it is up to the attorney general whether to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who wrote the memos approving harsh interrogation tactics.
President Obama left open the door Tuesday for charges to be brought against Bush administration lawyers who justified harsh interrogation techniques, though he continued to argue that CIA agents who used those tactics should not be prosecuted.
The president showed wiggle room on the issue as he faces calls from Democratic lawmakers and organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union to support such charges. Asked about the possibility of prosecution related to the interrogation program, the president deferred to Attorney General Eric Holder.
"With respect to those who formulate those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws," Obama said. "And I don't want to prejudge that. ... There are a host of very complicated issues involved there."
It was the first time Obama took a question on the matter since his administration released a string of previously classified memos detailing harsh interrogation tactics used against terror suspects. At the time, Obama said agents who followed Department of Justice advice would not be prosecuted.
He reiterated that point Tuesday. "For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it's appropriate for them to be prosecuted," he said.
But while he also repeated his view that investigations into Bush officials could get politicized, he indicated for the first time an openness to such a course provided it is carried out in a "bipartisan fashion."
The attorneys who authored the memos, and who are the subject of an internal Justice Department ethics inquiry, are John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote a letter to Obama Monday asking him to reserve comment on the issue while her panel completes its review of detainee interrogations. She estimated the study would be completed in six to eight months.
MoveOn is also seeking 200,000 signatures for a petition to Holder urging him to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the interrogations.
One source familiar with the matter told FOX News that, if appointed, a prosecutor would most likely be limited to pursuing "aiding and abetting" charges against the lawyers who wrote the memos.
"If (Justice attorneys) go after them, that's all they can get them on because they didn't torture but they facilitated the torture," the source said, adding that prosecutors first have to prove a criminal act of torture was committed.
"But if I were these people, I would still get a very good lawyer," the source said.
Wild Thing's comment........
Here it comes - the start of a two or three year criminal investigation into all things Bush.Sheesh! This is an extremely treacherous road that Obama is traveling. Exposing national intelligence does not seem like something a president has ever done.
If Hussein tries to prosecute members of our armed forces OMG, please God don't let that happen.
Just as our operatives in the CIA have been intimidated by the inexcusable threats of the Obama administration, subsequently withdrawn, to prosecute CIA operatives, so now everyone who sets his hand to put pen to paper to render a legal opinion or simply a policy memorandum will hesitate to touch the pen to paper.
The liberals always loved to talk about the "chilling effect" upon free speech of a policy they do not like. Now they have become masters of the art. The Democrats have always tended to criminalize policy differences. Now Obama has one more tool to keep his administration under control.
There is literally nothing this man has done in office which is incongruent with a radical Marxist seeking due aggrandize personal power and irretrievably break our democracy.
President Bush could easily have had Bill Clinton investigated for so many things. All those ' gates" that went on during the Clinton era and dead bodies as well. But he didn't and he said the reason why he moved on about it was because he did not want to show disrespect for the actual office of the President. Not so much the person at all, but the office the person holds. (not exact quote, only how I remember it)
I think the idea was that if a President is taken down, kicked out of office etc. it needs to be done during their presidency not afterward as it takes on another life one that destroys a country in keeping it constantly at in a battle of legal wars for years. And while they are in office there is more of an urgency to get things done as soon as possible. I could be wrong about this.
Hussein's “...it does no good to revisit the crimes of the past; we must move forward,” stuff he was spouting on his Apology and Appeasement Tour obviously only applied to the his fellow anti-America, anti-USA, socialist, communist buddies that are leaders of other countries.
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:40 PM | Comments (4)
March 25, 2009
Obama Wants War Called "Overseas Contingency Operation"
To say I am ticked is putting it mildly. This graphic above of this adorable kitty is so cute, but the words show a good example of how simple changes give off an entirely different meaning. Obama wants us to play nice with the terrorists. The Mullahs are grinning about this I am sure. This kitty has more smarts then the stupid pansy in the Oval Office.~ Wild Thing
The End of the Global War on Terror
By Al Kamen
The end of the Global War on Terror -- or at least the use of that phrase -- has been codified at the Pentagon. Reports that the phrase was being retired have been circulating for some time amongst senior administration officials, and this morning speechwriters and other staff were notified via this e-mail to use "Overseas Contingency Operation" instead.
"Recently, in a LtGen John Bergman, USMC, statement for the 25 March congressional hearing, OMB required that the following change be made before going to the Hill," Dave Riedel, of the Office of Security Review, wrote in an e-mail.
"OMB says: 'This Administration prefers to avoid using the term "Long War" or "Global War on Terror" (GWOT). Please use "Overseas Contingency Operation.'"
Riedel asked recipients to "Please pass on to your speech writers and try to catch this change before the statements make it to OMB."
An OMB spokesman took issue with the interpretation of OMB's wishes. "There was no memo, no guidance," said Kenneth Baer. "This is the opinion of a career civil servant."
Wild Thing's comment........
So to make sure I understand this nonsense. If millions of patriots where to take up arms against the enemy within, it would not be called a Civil War, instead, a “Local Contingency Operation.’”
Perhaps we should change a few other things. Instead of referring to Nuclear bombs of missiles as Nuclear bombs, how about we call them Conflict Resolution Devices.
Bullets could be changed to ‘little flickers of hope’.
Our Military Troops could be called, Conflict Management Representatives
So, all of you conflict management representatives, please load up our Conflict Resolution Devices, collect your Little Flickers of Hope and ready yourself to be placed in a “Overseas Contingency Operation.’”
We don’t need no stinking military, all we ever needed to do was change our vocabulary.
I do hope we can keep one acronym that fit with my thinking... they can all KMA.( kiss my ass)
I would write more about this, but it’s time for me to check my tire pressure so that I can save the planet like Buc