COUNTERCOLUMN: All Your Bias Are Belong to Us

The New York Times reports:

President Obama told Congressional leaders on Tuesday that he would not substantially reduce American forces in Afghanistan or shift the mission to just hunting terrorists there, but he indicated that he remained undecided about the major troop buildup proposed by his commanding general.

The truth, however, is that Obama is undecided about the major troop buildup he himself proposed during the campaign.

Democrat Barack Obama said Monday that as president he would send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan, where U.S. soldiers face rising violence and endured their deadliest attack in three years on Sunday.

The proposed force increase - about 7,000 troops - is part of Obama's plan to pull combat troops out of Iraq and focus on the growing threat from a resurgent al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

"As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan," Obama said in an op-ed published Monday in The New York Times, a day before he plans a speech here on his vision for Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there," Obama said.

Obama hasn't articulated a contrary position since that time. McChrystal came out in support of the only guidance Obama has publicly given so far. Truth be told, it was Biden, not McChrystal, who 'put his cock on the anvil' arguing a position contrary to the President. It was Biden, not McChrystal, who was "off the reservation," with his proposal.

Biden should keep his council private and use the chain of command. If Biden really has a problem with the Commander-in-chief, he should resign now, and then he can go as public as he likes.

Democrats, of course, philosophically hold the same position -- and blame McChrystal.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Afghanistan, Army, Biden, foreign policy, McChrystal, Obama, Politics, soldiers' issues, War on Terror, Warfighting

So General McChrystal is getting excoriated by the leftards in the media, by Gen. James Jones, Obama's National Security Advisor, and now by Generalissima Pelosi herself for providing a forthright answer to a question directly in his purview by a member of the media.

The treatment he is getting is outrageous.

Why?

1.) The question was whether the General would support Biden's suggestion to dramatically lower troop strength in Afghanistan, and try to fight it with special operations forces and Predator strikes. The general said he would not.

There are strong doctrinal resources for this: COIN doctrine, however imperfect the fit with the Afghanistan battlefield, holds that the "key terrain" in the counterinsurgent fight is the population itself. The fight is not for control of real estate, but for the loyalty of the people.

That takes boots on the ground.

The second doctrinal reason to reject the Biden plan is that COIN, by its nature, is intelligence driven. The best source of battlefield intelligence is a strong relationship between our soldiers and marines on the ground and the local population. If we enact the Biden plan, the result will be a rapid retreat from the battlefield, leaving the population, including many who risked everything to support us, to the tender mercies of Taliban reprisals. If we retreat even a little from our commitment to village and tribal elders who have stuck their necks out to support us, word will spread like wildfire and the village and tribal elders will cut their own deals in order to survive.

In my view, we may already be seeing this happening: In a vicious firefight last week, in which an American outpost was in danger of being overrun, the Taliban was able to stockpile hundreds of weapons in a nearby village mosque. Large numbers of villagers must have known. And yet no one alerted coalition forces.

The logistics for massing materiel already underway, the Taliban managed to quietly gather in battalion strength to launch two deliberate attacks against American and Afghan outposts... and again, no one alerted Coalition forces.

This is symptomatic of a huge tactical intelligence failure on the ground. American forces were not, apparently, present in enough strength to defend the position and patrol aggressively simultaneously - with disastrous but not unsurprising results: A poor relationship with the people of the neighboring village and the ceding of the tactical initiative.

General McChrystal is seeing the same compromise being made all over the country: Troop strength being spread too thin. And Biden, without acknowledging the strategic and operational tradeoffs that MUST come with a reduction in troop strength, and without adjusting the General's mission in Afghanistan, wants to spread those troops even further.

So General McChrystal sticks up for his mission - and what's more, advocates precisely what President Obama himself is already on record as advocating: a substantial increase in troop strength in Afghanistan.

"I said a year and a half ago that we needed more troops in Afghanistan -- at least two brigades," Obama said. "John McCain, at the time, didn't think that was necessary, and now there's a convergence around the notion that we need at least two and maybe three brigades in Afghanistan."

McChrystal, then, was simply articulating a view already publicly endorsed by the Commander in Chief. As far as we know, the President has said nothing since that piece was published that would contradict that view. He has long held that Afghanistan is the central front on the War on Terror Group Hug Against Scary Things, and has repeatedly called for more troops in Afghanistan to prosecute that war. McChrystal was well within his guidelines, and when the President has been as vague and noncommital in policy statements as he has - despite a direct request from McChrystal for more troops, what else does McChrystal have to go on besides Obama's own public pronouncements?

Further, given the President's repeated calls for an increase of two to three brigades in Afghanistan, it wasn't McChrystal speaking out of school, it was Biden. I would argue that the Biden plan is the outlier, not McChrystal's statement that he would not support it.

What's more, there is no way that McChrystal can possibly be seen to be bucking the chain of command... because A.) Obama, the commander in chief, is already on record as calling for MORE boots on the ground, not fewer, and B.) Biden is NOT NOT NOT in the chain of command in any sense whatsoever.

I'm very cognizant that subordinates at all levels should take care not to pain their leadership into a corner. But that obligation goes both ways - leaders owe subordinates clear guidelines and directions. And that goes ESPECIALLY when the battlefield situation is vague.

I've noticed for several months now that Afghanistan policy was coming apart at the seams. Not from any one thing, but from having read a variety of news reports and hearing things through the military grapevine, the infantry mafia, the blogger boys club, and the intel syndicate. I haven't had time to blog them lately, and I regret that now. But this was a long time in the making.

McChrystal used the chain of command. He submitted his request to his boss,, General Petraeus at CENTCOM. And that, apparently, is where it languishes, because the President and his National Security decision-making apparatus has not yet produced a product useable for the commanders in the field.

McChrystal used the Chain of Command... the Chain of command, unfortunately, is not functioning.

McChrystal is entitled to know what he is expected to accomplish. He needs to know in order to issue orders down the chain. Every soldier and marine and corpsman and airman on the ground is entitled to know what he or she and their units are expected to accomplish.

Everyone involved in the effort is entitled to a decision from the President.

It's not like he didn't know the Afghan war was waiting for him when he got to the Oval Office.

Splash, out

Jason

And Pelosi's an ignorant twit.

Labels: Afghanistan, Army, COIN, McChrystal, soldiers' issues, USMC, War on Terror, Warfighting

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

Back in January of this year, I wrote that Obama's decision to commit to closing Guantanamo Bay Prison down without first having a plan for disposition of each one of the inmates was dumber than a sack of hammers. Indeed, I wrote that Obama was painting himself into the biggest legal corner in living memory, and that his "ready, fire, aim" decision-making process was indicative of his fundamental unseriousness and and the intellectual unseriousness of the American left.

It turns out reality caught up to these dreamy-eyed morons, as unicorn shit and pixie panties and Skittles from on high were not enough to empty the prison by that idiotic, self-imposed "deadline."

The Washington Post account is by far superior to the CNN account (no surprise: their reporters have a much thicker rolodex of well-placed sources in government than CNN), and makes the backstory clear: The outgoing Bush Admin officials and career diplomats clearly warned the Obamabots against trying to close Gitmo without placing the inmates first. The arrogant, starry-eyed libtards thought they were better, and threw the government at the mercy of foreign governments they could not control.

Craig oversaw the drafting of the executive order that set Jan. 22, 2010, as the date by which the prison must be closed.

"It seemed like a bold move at the time, to lay out a time frame that to us seemed sufficient to meet the goal," one senior official said. "In retrospect, it invited a fight with the Hill and left us constantly looking at the clock."

"The entire civil service counseled him not to set a deadline" to close Guantanamo, according to one senior government lawyer.

Think of it: The entire civil service. And this crackhead overrulled them all. I hope Obama told him what I would have told him: "You made me look ridiculous, and a man in my position cannot afford to be made to look ridiculous!!!"

Looks like Craig's been taken off the case. Indeed, according to the Washington Post, he's been heavily involved in vetting White House appointees.

So now we know who's responsible for Van Jones, too. Brilliant!

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: detainees, Gitmo, I told you so, Obama, Politics, State Department, War on Terror

This report just came out today.

VIENNA (AP) - Experts at the world's top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press.
The document drafted by senior officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency is the clearest indication yet that the agency's leaders share Washington's views on Iran's weapon-making capabilities.

At least our Eastern European allies feel secure in our commitment to protect them.
Oh, wait!

Labels: International relations, Iran, NATO, nukes, Poland, War on Terror

I would point out, though, that Obama elected to keep the same Secretary of Defense. He also sacked the guy he says was underfunded and neglected.

"This was underresourced, underfunded, undermanned and ignored for years," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

"The president is focused on ensuring that we meet measurable benchmarks. ... It's going to take some doing."

I'd hate to be the President that has to clean up after this crew in power now.

But if I were, I sure wouldn't be passing the buck backwards nine months into my term.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Afghanistan, Obama, pentagon, Politics, War on Terror

Crossposted from Althouse's comments on this post:

Any libtard who blindly asserts that 'torture doesn't work' is a half-witted, naive little panty-waist talking out of his ass.

Torture works. It always has. The threat of torture works. It always has. Not in every single instance with every single suspect, but damn well enough and consistently enough.

Here's where the typical pony-tailed pinko tries to assert "yeah, it's effective at getting the victim to say what he thinks the torturer wants to hear."

That's because the libtard shitbird is an amateur, and he read about torture committed by amateurs, and therefore, in his ignorance he cannot conceive that other people are professionals.

Torture is extremely effective at extracting confirmable information, where the victim cannot be certain that the information is not already known to the interrogator, and where the detaining power is sufficiently brutal - or is perceived to be sufficiently brutal - that the victim has a reason to believe that his lot will become substantially worse if he is caught in a lie.

This is not difficult to do where the detaining power is organized and disciplined about tracking information received and shares it among the interrogators, carefully keeping track of known and unknown, confirmed and unconfirmed information.

In some cases, less intense forms of interrogation are effective BECAUSE more brutal interrogations were performed on others, and the subject of the less intense interrogation has no idea whether the first guy broke or not - but must assume he has.

I keep seeing libtards argue crap they don't understand till they're blue in the face.

There are legitimate moral arguments why we should not practice torture - putting aside definitional problems. But every time some ignorant fool argues that it just isn't effective, he makes an utter clown of himself.

Labels: detainees, ethics, The Left, War on Terror, Warfighting

A long-time reader writes in:

Several very disturbing things have happened in the last few days, the aggregate of which will be to either disembowel or corrupt the output from our intelligence apparatus.

- First, there's the shameful release of a classified report that even Obama appointee CIA Director Leon Pannetta has eloquently argued against on the grounds it will undermine the foundation of trust between CIA patriots and their government. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8398902
- Second, there's AG Eric Holder's announcement that not only will he seek to prosecute intelligence employees for doing their jobs, but that he's selected a prosecutor to head that investigation that has already displayed a bias against the intelligence apparatus and its professionals in the past. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/24/AR2009082401743_pf.html Can you say "Witch Hunt"? I knew you could. Holder has displayed a preference for the rights of terrorists to get access to our court systems over the rights of Americans to continue to live.
- This leads to the third, disturbing occurrence, the WH creation of a unit that will supervise all high profile interrogations. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112169988 This is upsetting on multiple counts. First it displays unparalleled WH micro management of the intelligence process. Second, we now have an "Interrogation Czar". If this is under the WH auspices like all the other Czars, will they claim executive privilege in keeping out congressional oversight to a degree never imagined even by those who criticized the Bush administration? Finally, this office will work from the FBI, under the same Eric Holder who doesn't seem to care for our anti-terror fight, displays a preference for terrorists' rights over Americans' civil liberties, has displayed animus against intelligence professionals, and who thinks a law enforcement approach to countering threats to our nation is preferable to a military one even though that's the mindset that led to all the terrorist attacks under Clinton and to 9/11.

Ironically, what these things mean is that, intentionally or unintentionally, the White House is going to gain much greater influence over the intelligence that comes out of our agencies, in a way that vastly overshadows anything the Bush White House is alleged to have had, and that the left railed against. Remember the meme that the Bush WH was trying make the intelligence fit what they wanted to do? Can you imagine what will happen under this WH when the it is seen as being so intensely involved in management of the intelligence apparatus by those inside it?

One has to wonder whether these acts are to intentionally weaken our intelligence apparatus, intentionally control it, or unintentionally destroy it through liberal naivete.

I confess I hadn't thought of that last issue. But I think the reader makes an excellent point - when intelligence product is manufactured by the pols at the White House, and not by a separate agency of careerists that must answer as much to Congress as the Presidency, how can ANYONE trust that the product is free of political taint?

Labels: Intelligence, Obama, War on Terror, Warfighting

Remember when the leftards got the vapors when Colin Powell's office outed Valerie Plame to the press when they thought it was someone other than someone in Colin Powell's office?

Yeah, I remember that, too.

Now the ACLU is spying on CIA operatives outside their houses, and showing their photos to Al Qaeda operatives in Gitmo to identify these covert operatives by name so they can be subpoenaed.

When you get their fundraising envelope in the mail, send it back with no donation... just a copy of this article.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: ACLU, Gitmo, law, stupid, War on Terror

When it looked like the Achille Lauro terrorists were going to go free - terrorists who had only killed a handful of people, Ronald Reagan dispatched the U.S. Navy to intercept the airplane flying them home, over international waters, forced the plane down, and brought them to justice.

At 5:30 P.M. on Thursday, October 10, President Reagan was aboard Air Force One, returning to Washington, D.C. from a speaking engagement in the Chicago area, when word reached him that the terrorists were getting away. He authorized the carrier USS Saratoga, patrolling the Adriatic Sea, to put seven F-14 Tomcats into the air. Their orders: divert the Egyptian aircraft to a NATO base at Sigonella, Sicily. The appearance of the Tomcats unnerved the EgyptAir pilot, who compliantly altered course for Sicily. He had no way of knowing that the American "top guns" had orders to refrain from shooting down the 737 without direct instructions from the president.

Initially the Italians were not disposed to cooperate, scrambling their own warplanes to prevent a landing at Sigonella, but after a call from Reagan, Italy's Prime Minister Bettino Craxi gave permission to land. The American plan was to load the Palestinians onto a U.S. military aircraft and transport them to the States. But when American troops encircled the 737 they found themselves surrounded in turn by Italian soldiers. Italy had decided that since the Achille Lauro was an Italian vessel, the hijackers should be tried in Italian courts. The terrorists faced charges of premeditated murder, kidnapping and hijacking. When Reagan called Craxi this time, the Italian leader wouldn't budge -- Abul Abbas and his cronies would remain in Italian hands. After Arafat threatened *uncontrollable reactions" if the Italians turned Abbas over to the Americans, Italy refused a U.S. request to extradite the terrorist leader. Abbas was soon freed. In 1986 the four hijackers were convicted and sentenced to long prison terms,

The American public emphatically approved of the bold mid-flight interception of the Achille Lauro terrorists. Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak decorated the 737 pilot and demanded an apology from the United States. Reagan vowed he would never apologize.

When Scotland let the Lockerbie bomber go free - an ogre who murdered hundreds - Obama, the Apologist-in-Chief, dispatched a letter expressing "disappointment."

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Great Britain, International relations, justice, law, Obama, Scotland, terrorism, War on Terror

If you're considering the CIA as a career, I'd stop considering it for a while - at least until this wrecking ball of an administration is turned out of office.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has a reliable ally in this Administration. The guys we asked to get information out of him to save thousands of other lives? Better get a good lawyer.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: CIA, Intelligence, justice, law, Obama, War on Terror

...then who will answer the call?

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."

I guess his pal Bill Ayers put him up to this.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: foreign policy, language, Obama, The Left, War on Terror

The Obama administration, parting with years of practice under Bush, folds like a cheap tent.

Labels: Al Qaeda, law, Obama, stupid, War on Terror

That'll show them.

The sad thing is, this appears to be the clearest and most concrete statement our government has yet made in support of pro-democracy reformers in Iran.

Labels: International relations, Iran, Obama, State Department, War on Terror

What a weenie.

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States said Monday its invitations were still standing for Iranian diplomats to attend July 4 celebrations at US embassies despite the crackdown on opposition supporters.
President Barack Obama's administration said earlier this month it would invite Iran to US embassy barbecues for the national holiday for the first time since the two nations severed relations following the 1979 Islamic revolution.
"There's no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats," State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters.

I wonder: How many young women do Iranian goons need to shoot in order for Obama to reconsider the invitation?

How many women need to be clubbed over the head for Obama to reconsider the invitation?

How many soldiers in Iraq does Iran have to kill, through their proxies, for Obama to consider rescinding the invitation.

How many Iranian-manufactured explosively-formed projectiles have to go off in Iraq for Obama to consider rescinding the invitation?

How much American blood, specifically, does the current Iranian regime have to have on its hands, before Obama considers rescinding the invitation?

How many?

Labels: Iran, Obama, stupid, War on Terror

Obama the Lion has a new general in Afghanistan, and Obama the Lion's new general has announced tough new rules of engagement: Track down Taliban holing up in a house? Leave them alone.

Run away.

The top U.S. general in Afghanistan will soon formally order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding in Afghan houses so the battles do not kill civilians, a U.S. official said Monday.

The order would be one of the strongest measures taken by a U.S. commander to protect Afghan civilians in battle.

What kind of fellatist journo takes a look at what's essentially an order to surrender the towns to the enemy and considers that a "strong" anything?

McChrystal will issue orders within days saying troops may attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if the U.S. or NATO forces are in imminent danger and must return fire, said U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith.

"But if there is a compound they're taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option they should take," Smith said. "Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept captive by the Taliban."

Nice. So the civilians have no incentive to fight off Taliban themselves. And the Taliban get a million free safehouses around the country out of the deal.

If we lose Afghanistan, this is the moment you can point to.

McChrystal's predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan, issued rules last fall that told commanders to set conditions "to minimize the need to resort to deadly force."

But McChrystal's orders will be more precise and have stronger language ordering forces to break off from battles, Smith said.

Run away!!!! Run away!!!!!!

The Obama military. Tough. Strong.

UPDATE: MCQ at Blackfive has the same reaction I do, and asks: "I mean, you tell me, where, if possible, would you initiate all of your contact from now on if you're the Taliban?"

UPDATE II: In the comments to the above, commenter Marcus, who apparently blogs here, writes:

General McChrystal is playing a very smart game of counterinsurgency. He understands the Afghan culture--particularly the ethical code of "Pashtunwali." Two of the major tenets of Pashtunwali are "Melmastia" and "Nanewati" which loosely translates into "hospitality" and "protection." The Afghan people--and the ethnic Pashtun in particular--will provide shelter and protection in their own homes for whoever asks for it. That includes the Taliban... and our people too.

Destroying houses and villages with Taliban in them because the locals won't turn them over is a quick way to turn the population against us. The center of gravity in this war--and any counterinsurgency for that matter--is the popular support of the people. In this case it is the Pashtun peoples, as the insurgency has not caught fire amongst the Tajiks, Hazara, Uzbeks or other ethic groups within the country.

Unlike in Iraq we enjoyed a tremendous wave of popularity amongst the Afghan people after we invaded. The Afghans hated (and still hate) the Taliban, and therefore welcomed us in with open arms. This has all changed within the last two years and our popularity with the people there has plummetted. Since we cannot hope to win if the people hate us, we have to get them on our side. And what the people there want more than anything right now is security--so McChrystal's metric of success may very well be spot on.

We can run around killing insurgents all day long but that will definitely not win the war for us. It didn't work in Iraq and it's not working in Afghanistan either. If we focus on killing bad guys while alienating the Afghan people we will eventually lose. Then we'll sit around like the Vietnam generation and bitch about how we won all the battles but lost the war. They lost because they didn't understand COIN. We've figured it out--it sure as hell took long enough--and now hopefully it's not too late to apply what we've learned.

If you look at the new FM 3-24 (Counterinsurgency), or more importantly read Bernard Fall, Sir Robert Thompson, Roger Trinquier or even Mao you'll see that protecting the populace and getting them to support you is critical.

McChrystal is applying COIN doctrine while tailoring it to the Afghan culture. He's also looking at it from a operational and strategic perspective... not tactical. And that's good, since that's what the man gets paid for.

Will we lose more people on the ground because of this adjustment to the ROE? Maybe. But I would argue its better to lose a few more men and women and win the war, rather than be casualty-adverse and lose it.

Now that may sound like a cold thing to say from a "Chairborne Monday Morning Quarterback," and it would be. So full disclosure--I will personally be over there humping the hills and working with the ANA in a few months time--and I still think McChrystal's policy is the smart play. I'm willing to put my own ass on the line, perfectly comfortable with this new ROE. It's up to guys like myself to figure out the tactical problems framed within the confines of guidance nested within the operational and strategic framework. And I'm cool with that.

Like Denzel Washington said in the movie Training Day... "This shit is chess, it ain't checkers!"

Labels: Afghanistan, Army, soldiers' issues, stupid, War on Terror

Cedarford, a racist, bigoted, Jew-hating jerk who comments on Althouse, nails the recent escape of a NYT reporter from Taliban captivity:

Oh, to have been a fly on the wall during the NYTimes hostage negotiation for their reporter.

"Look, we gave you info on the Afghan Predator program, America tapping into SPRINT to find Islamoid financiers. We regularly give page 1 to any "wedding party atrocity" you alledge. We helped kill hundreds of American soldiers by working hard to inflame Muslims with endless stories of Abu Ghraib, GITMO torture, Haditha, Koran desecration..Details on jammer devices the military was trying against IEDs. Endless advocacy of terrorist's precious rights and civil liberties."

"Frankly, you Taliban and Al Qaeda owe us! Release our guy!"

Labels: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, journalism, New York Times, War on Terror

John F. Kennedy: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge—and more."

Ronald Reagan: "Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

Barack Obama:"“It’s not productive, given the history of the US-Iranian relationship, to be seen as meddling,”

Labels: foreign policy, Iran, Obama, Politics, War on Terror

When a liberal criticizes the Bush administration, 'dissent is the highest form of patriotism.'

When a conservative criticizes the Obama administration, the CIA chief calls it "dangerous politics."

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Cheney, CIA, Intelligence, Politics, Republicans, The Left, War on Terror

Here's John Bolton on the subject:

Conservative foreign and national-security policies do not need remaking, rebranding or remessaging. They need not be escorted by prefixes or adjectives, nor do they need "moderating."

Conservative foreign policy is unabashedly pro-American, unashamed of American exceptionalism, unwilling to bend its knee to international organizations, and unapologetic about the need for the fullest range of dominant military capabilities. Its diplomacy is neither unilateralist nor multilateralist, but chooses its strategies, tactics, means and methods based on a hard-headed assessment of U.S. national interests, not on theologies about process. Most especially, conservatives understand that allies are different from adversaries, and that each should be treated accordingly.

Though I speak with a big stick, with the tongues of neocons and classical liberals, and have not strength, I sound as a hand-wringing loon or a screeching hippie. And though I have the gift of gab, and understand women, and ragheads, and though I have all faith in the power of words and soft rhetoric, so that I could move mountains, and have not strength, it avails me nothing. And though we transfer aid to the poor, and food to the starving, and though we give our soldiers' lives to be sacrificed for the liberty of others, and have nonot strength, it avails us nothing.

Strength suffers long, and is mostly kind. It envies not, and vaunts not itself, which is what that whole Teddy Roosevelt thing was about. It is not puffed up. It does not behave unseemly, but does keep an accounting of wrongs. It seeks not its own, but aquires targets. It rejoiceth not in iniquity, but shit happens. It can kill all things, break all things, destroy all things, blast all things.

Strength never fails. But where there are diplomats, they may fail. Whether there be tongues, they shall cease, and where there shall be weakies, they shall vanish away in a pink mist. There are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. But when that which is strong shall come, that which is weak will vanish away.

When I was a libtard, I understood as a libtard. But now I am a man, and it is time to put away liberal things. '

For we saw through the optics, darkly. But now we are within small-arms range. And now abide peace, hope and strength, these three. But the greatest of these is strength.

I think I fudged the ending a little.

Labels: Bolton, foreign policy, State Department, War on Terror

STRATFOR has it, apparently from multiple sources predating the Little Rock shooting, that it did.

Several weeks ago, STRATFOR heard from sources that the FBI and other law enforcement organizations had been ordered to “back off” of counterterrorism investigations into the activities of Black Muslim converts. At this point, it is unclear to us if that guidance was given by the White House or the Department of Justice, or if it was promulgated by the agencies themselves, anticipating the wishes of President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

Now a Little Rock soldier is dead.

Even though lone wolves operate alone, they are still constrained by the terrorist attack cycle, and because they are working alone, they have to conduct each step of the cycle by themselves. This means that they are vulnerable to detection at several different junctures as they plan their attacks, the most critical of which is the surveillance stage of the operation. Muhammad did not just select that recruiting center at random and attack on the spot. He had cased it prior to the attack just as he had been taught in the militant training camps he attended in Yemen. Law enforcement officials have reported that Muhammad may also have researched potential government and Jewish targets in Little Rock, Philadelphia, Atlanta, New York, Louisville and Memphis.

Had the FBI opened a full-field investigation on Muhammad, and had it conducted surveillance on him, it would have been able to watch him participate in preoperational activities such as conducting surveillance of potential targets and obtaining weapons.

Mission. Accomplished.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Crime, Obama, soldiers' issues, stupid, terrorism, War on Terror