Showing posts with label Osama Bin Laden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Osama Bin Laden. Show all posts
Monday, February 23, 2015
Why Has ISIS/ISIL Been So Successful? (Part II)
(Part II)
Another reason that the IS has been successful is that it Islamic Extremism does not consist of a handful of disparate, arguing, selfish groups that can't ever get on the same page. I believe that once we get past all the bullshit, we will discover that one command structure exists for Khorasan, Al-Nusra and the IS. The little identity game they play has already caused problems for the "air campaign" coalition, as certain Gulf States have refused to participate in targeted bombing raids because they weren't comfortable with the target. The reality is, the IS has grown stronger because the Extremist cause has learned the importance of supporting one another. AQIM will support Boko Haram, just as the Taliban support Al-Qaeda. Unfortunately, the bad guys are finally grasping the ancient cliché that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (from a Muslim prince, by the way). Recently, the world was focused on Yemen (for about seven minutes). Al-Qaeda, who control a good part of the southern coast east of Aden and up to the border with Oman, have been utilizing Yemen as a training environment for new recruits. Once we are in a position to interview (we don't use the word interrogate anymore)some of the IS soldiers who surrender in Syria after a battle, it will be fascinating to determine just how many of them had previous training assignments in Yemen. Any Islamic Extremist who has trained in Yemen is affiliated with Al-Qaeda, so the discovery of a Syrian battlefield of veterans of the AQ training module in Arabia Felix, will destroy the myth that Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are distinctly separate terrorist groups.
I believe that the willingness and ability of Islamic Extremist groups to modernize and take full advantage of the advances made in telecommunications has been the most important part of their success. That, and their use of Social Media has positively affected just about everything else they try to accomplish. I am saving another important factor for last. The Islamic Extremist cause was forced to adapt in a constantly evolving, modern world. George Bush recognized this fact, and following September 11, 2001, Bush (and the Pentagon, I assume) realized that to force Al-Qaeda into a conventional war would require all of its resources and would eventually cripple the organization. And the only way to force Al-Qaeda into a conventional war, was to take the conflict to a Muslim country. Iraq was the perfect patsy, and even provided justification (let's face it, Saddam had been breaking U.N. prohibitions for years). The United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and although things did not always go smoothly, (Abu Ghraib, the Sunni Insurgency) The U.S. military left Al-Qaeda crippled and down for the count. Unfortunately, the American people voted for an Administration with an entirely different perspective regarding U.S. obligation and debt to the Muslim world. The message that we would be basically inactive for some time (with the exception of finding Bin Laden, which was nothing more than a political tool) was telegraphed to the Gulf States, North Africa and beyond. Al-Qaeda was allowed to lick its wounds and rebuild. Bin Laden structured his organization so that his death would not impact the long-term plans of the group. At this point, something pivotal occurred: Ayman al-Zawahiri became the go-to man. Why is this so pivotal? Because Zawahiri is arguably brilliant, and he spent his cave-time as number two, analyzing the history and strategy of the conflict, and creating a map to victory. First and foremost, the Islamic Extremist cause had to create a conventional military element; and army, for lack of a better term. AQIM had risen from the dust or far west Iraq and had inserted itself into the Syrian conflict, as "the Islamic State for Iraq and al-Sham", and later to "the Islamic State for the Levant"; but make no mistake - Baghdadi or no Baghdadi, this group looks west to the mountainous region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, to a shrunken, tiny old Egyptian Doctor, for their guidance and leadership.
The decision to adopt a more formal approach to the struggle was not accomplished overnight. In fact, it would be wise to assume that the Islamic Extremist cause continues to keep a smaller, discreet more typical capability on hand. But after embracing the move to a more conventional model, the call went out for recruits. A legitimate army must have soldiers, and Yemen was the location chosen to train the new recruits. Why else would Al-Qaeda be devoting so many resources to that rocky, barren, stinky, qat-obsessed little dump? The Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Iraq have provided training-under fire at one time or another. The options have become a bit more limited as of late, with Yemen and Iraq getting special attention. Surprisingly (at least to me), the bad guys have taken to the idea of conventional warfare quite quickly. IS units in the field appear to be well-fed, supplied and rested. Just last week, the IS launched a mini-offensive in Anbar Province that took the Iraqi military by complete surprise. This offensive was coordinated with attacks south of Tikrit and Samarah. The IS is attempting to cut off Iraqi military units and Shi'a militia in place around Baiji, and the manner in which the offensive was conducted (the IS waited until the weather was overcast, to limit the impact of coalition air attacks. As you read this, the IS is causing some serious headaches in Tehran, which is really such a shame. Just when the Iranians were preparing to storm our embassy a second time (on this occasion, in the guise of a treaty with the United States regarding Iranian nuclear ambitions), the IS has to start making noise in a province that borders the Islamic Republic Of Iran. What is truly interesting is that all of the Islamic Extremist groups are beginning to show signs of military discipline and planning. Certainly Boko Haram and AQIM function in this manner. After the death of Bin Laden, I believe Zawahiri made the decision to start infusing techniques of modern warfare and the benefits of the twenty-first century into the Islamic Extremist gameplan. Does the current environment support my theory? Isolated attacks in Paris, London, Boston, Sydney and Copenhagen, Boko Haram acting with impunity in Central and West Africa, the IS running a bit wild in Iraq and pushing the envelope in Syria, and real concerns about a well-funded, organized (surprised?) IS beginning to stretch its legs in Libya. I guess they were just waiting for the dust to clear. Certainly the almost complete disappearance of the United States in the battle against Islamic Extremism has contributed to this high-water mark, but the changing of the guard must have had an impact as well.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Why Has ISIS/ISIL Been So Successful? (Part I)
Links A. Stratfor Assessment Of The Islamic State
B. IS Tweets Itself To Success
C. Obama Haunted By Yemen Comments
Please take the time to visit the links I have chosen. Today in particular, they are very useful in support of our discussion. Is this really a discussion? Well,.....I hope the post will stimulate conversation between you and your colleagues/family/friends, during which you present my perspective, which inserts me into your discussion. Ideally, that's the way it works. To be honest, I wouldn't want to be present during everyone's conversations, because people might yell at me and call me a fascist, which would hurt my feelings.
Next to the debate about Bruce/Belinda Jenner, I think the most pondered question has been, how did the Islamic State become so powerful? Its a truly fascinating issue, one that involves many factors. I will approach the subject with the confidence of a blogger with six months of my own attitude and opinion to back me up. Our society has seen Terrorist Groups come and go. Some have died away, others have ended up in jail. A few have re-made themselves into peaceful political participants (the Sandinistas, Hamas, Hezbollah), but the peaceful part seems to be a flexible description, especially in the case of Hamas and Hezbollah. Our friends with Hezbollah have managed to involve themselves in the conflict against the Islamic State (IS). You see, Hezbollah has been snuggling with de facto Syrian President Bashir al-Assad for some time, and his father before him (gross!). When Lebanon became a proxy state for Syria, Hezbollah flourished at the discretion of Assad in Damascus. To their credit, Hezbollah has been on the front lines in Syria, bleeding by the bucketful for Assad. The IS has given heartburn to just about everyone at one time or another, including the Peshmerga, Syrian Kurds, SAF, IAF, Shi'ite militias, and even the Iranians. As we've pointed out previously (and was repeated word for word by numerous sites with no attribution......assholes), the Islamic State used to be Al-Qaeda in Iraq, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was still breathing. So even the United States military has had its run-ins with the IS. Another point that I continue to make repeatedly but has yet to catch on, is that all of these Sunni-based Islamic Terrorist Groups are connected. Assigning different names and creating the impression that one group is actually ten or fifteen, increases fear and knee-jerk reactions from the west, which usually leads to mistakes of one kind or another. The leader of Al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian physician and former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, is the top dog as far as I'm concerned. Since these groups operate with such apparent independence, I don't expect Zawahiri to act as the CEO or CIC of Islamic Extremism. But they do work together. Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) is aware what is happening is Syria, and Boko Haram is in regular communication with bad guys in Libya. Al-Shabaab in Somalia and Kenya follows the company line, and has been doing yeoman's work as of late recruiting in the townships of Nairobi. I see the military wing of Islamic Extremism to be one entity fighting on many fronts, and the sooner our leaders accept this reality, the better off we will be.
When International Terrorism fist made itself known to the west, it was through the hijacking of airplanes, the kidnapping of bankers and industrialists, and attacks in airports. Even though I was still in short pants, I remember the 1972 Munich Terrorist Attacks. But even the horror of Munich did not truly bring the reality home (unless, of course, you were Israeli). September 11, 2001 made everyone feel vulnerable; this was a group of twenty determined young men, who must have been supported by a much wider network. Terrorism could no longer be thought of as four men with Uzis and one woman with a floppy hat, sun glasses, and a pistol. Terrorism has arrived into the twenty-first century with a resounding thud. They network, the plan, they recon, and they practice. Advances made in telecommunications have made everything easier. If an operation planned for Lagos is short one explosives expert, relief is a phone call (or text, or email, or Skype) away. The bad guys have turned Twitter into a huge propaganda loudspeaker, and the ability of just about every cell phone to take and share videotapes has been invaluable as well. The IS can announce that a hostage was just beheaded, and to expect a video within twenty minutes. The press gets prepared, and the video shows up, right on schedule. Islamic Extremists use social media to incite fear; they are thrilled with the idea that their disgusted videos are causing people to no longer feel safe in their homes. Social Media has also been a boon with regards to recruitment. Today I learned that supporters of the IS (or bored, sick people) have been tweeting the wives of soldiers, and you can imagine what is being said. Social Media has made planning, organizing, supply, communication, recruitment, and the spread of propaganda so much easier than before. This is a big part of their success.
Click here to continue on to Part II of this post
B. IS Tweets Itself To Success
C. Obama Haunted By Yemen Comments
Please take the time to visit the links I have chosen. Today in particular, they are very useful in support of our discussion. Is this really a discussion? Well,.....I hope the post will stimulate conversation between you and your colleagues/family/friends, during which you present my perspective, which inserts me into your discussion. Ideally, that's the way it works. To be honest, I wouldn't want to be present during everyone's conversations, because people might yell at me and call me a fascist, which would hurt my feelings.
Next to the debate about Bruce/Belinda Jenner, I think the most pondered question has been, how did the Islamic State become so powerful? Its a truly fascinating issue, one that involves many factors. I will approach the subject with the confidence of a blogger with six months of my own attitude and opinion to back me up. Our society has seen Terrorist Groups come and go. Some have died away, others have ended up in jail. A few have re-made themselves into peaceful political participants (the Sandinistas, Hamas, Hezbollah), but the peaceful part seems to be a flexible description, especially in the case of Hamas and Hezbollah. Our friends with Hezbollah have managed to involve themselves in the conflict against the Islamic State (IS). You see, Hezbollah has been snuggling with de facto Syrian President Bashir al-Assad for some time, and his father before him (gross!). When Lebanon became a proxy state for Syria, Hezbollah flourished at the discretion of Assad in Damascus. To their credit, Hezbollah has been on the front lines in Syria, bleeding by the bucketful for Assad. The IS has given heartburn to just about everyone at one time or another, including the Peshmerga, Syrian Kurds, SAF, IAF, Shi'ite militias, and even the Iranians. As we've pointed out previously (and was repeated word for word by numerous sites with no attribution......assholes), the Islamic State used to be Al-Qaeda in Iraq, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was still breathing. So even the United States military has had its run-ins with the IS. Another point that I continue to make repeatedly but has yet to catch on, is that all of these Sunni-based Islamic Terrorist Groups are connected. Assigning different names and creating the impression that one group is actually ten or fifteen, increases fear and knee-jerk reactions from the west, which usually leads to mistakes of one kind or another. The leader of Al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian physician and former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, is the top dog as far as I'm concerned. Since these groups operate with such apparent independence, I don't expect Zawahiri to act as the CEO or CIC of Islamic Extremism. But they do work together. Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) is aware what is happening is Syria, and Boko Haram is in regular communication with bad guys in Libya. Al-Shabaab in Somalia and Kenya follows the company line, and has been doing yeoman's work as of late recruiting in the townships of Nairobi. I see the military wing of Islamic Extremism to be one entity fighting on many fronts, and the sooner our leaders accept this reality, the better off we will be.
When International Terrorism fist made itself known to the west, it was through the hijacking of airplanes, the kidnapping of bankers and industrialists, and attacks in airports. Even though I was still in short pants, I remember the 1972 Munich Terrorist Attacks. But even the horror of Munich did not truly bring the reality home (unless, of course, you were Israeli). September 11, 2001 made everyone feel vulnerable; this was a group of twenty determined young men, who must have been supported by a much wider network. Terrorism could no longer be thought of as four men with Uzis and one woman with a floppy hat, sun glasses, and a pistol. Terrorism has arrived into the twenty-first century with a resounding thud. They network, the plan, they recon, and they practice. Advances made in telecommunications have made everything easier. If an operation planned for Lagos is short one explosives expert, relief is a phone call (or text, or email, or Skype) away. The bad guys have turned Twitter into a huge propaganda loudspeaker, and the ability of just about every cell phone to take and share videotapes has been invaluable as well. The IS can announce that a hostage was just beheaded, and to expect a video within twenty minutes. The press gets prepared, and the video shows up, right on schedule. Islamic Extremists use social media to incite fear; they are thrilled with the idea that their disgusted videos are causing people to no longer feel safe in their homes. Social Media has also been a boon with regards to recruitment. Today I learned that supporters of the IS (or bored, sick people) have been tweeting the wives of soldiers, and you can imagine what is being said. Social Media has made planning, organizing, supply, communication, recruitment, and the spread of propaganda so much easier than before. This is a big part of their success.
Click here to continue on to Part II of this post
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Review Of The Fight Against Islamic Extremism since 2009
Link: A. What Is Our Strategy To Defeat Terrorism?
B. After Paris, Will Obama Administration Move Against Terrorism?
Barrack Obama has been in office since January 2009. In 2008, his campaign for the White House targeted the Bush Administration's Foreign Policy, as opposed to the ideas and platform of his opponent, Senator John McCain. Obama had a field day going after Bush, who was an easy target. What is it about the Bushes, that they seem so incompetent when it comes to self-defense? I remember when Bush Senior, while expressing indignation at the Clinton Campaign in 1992, could find nothing harsher than "Bozos" to call his detractors. Ouch? Obama criticized the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and openly hypothesized that Bush's "personal" obsession with Saddam Hussein was the reason we had yet to catch Osama Bin-Laden. The Democrats were energized, and were absolutely focused and driven in recruiting new voters and getting them to the polls. I can recall Obama's criticism of Bush quite clearly; what I can't remember is an Obama anti-terrorism plan. Was he planning on pulling the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and using the resources to exclusively search for Bin Laden? Can anyone help me out here? In 2008, during the election, what were Obama's intentions regarding Al-Qaeda? It must have been in the Party Platform that was agreed upon at the convention. I am anxious to determine just how closely Obama followed his own plan.
The truth is, there wasn't a plan. What was important was getting the troops out of Iraq. I can't fault the Administration there; the American people were more than ready to turn the page on that chapter as well. But if my memory serves me correctly, the Democrats and the left never really separated Afghanistan and Iraq. The plan was to disengage from both countries at the earliest opportunity. Once Obama was in office, he realized that Afghanistan was going to be a bit trickier than Iraq, which explains why we are still there. Another issue that was important to Obama (and something he openly intended to do all along) was the closing of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. You can bet your last Cuban peso that Guantanamo will be closed before he leaves office. But aside from the departure from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the closing of Guantanamo, what policy or
plan did Obama have for dealing with Al-Qaeda and the like? The apology-tour must have been part of someone's plan, because something like that doesn't get decided over night. Strange that during the campaign, he didn't announce his intention to travel to the Middle East, apologizing about the brutish behavior and U.S. history of bullying, to anyone who would listen. And no doubt, behind closed doors, he also announced that Israel would no longer be getting a "free ride", and that the Arabs and Palestinians finally had a friend in the White House. I'm positive this message was shared, if not by Obama directly, then by Hillary and her team of State Department apologists. The coup de grace was Obama's speech in Cairo. Obama certainly has some strong feelings about the history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, but did he mention any of this during the campaign? I don't think the American people would have taken well to our president groveling in front of this particular group of people. Did I say grovel? Remember, this is only my opinion. I saw his attitude as an effort to make the United States appear as a racist, guilty, internally-broken country.
Instead of over-analyzing President Obama, let's get back to the review of terrorism in the world since he took office. Let's do this by continent, shall we?
B. After Paris, Will Obama Administration Move Against Terrorism?
Barrack Obama has been in office since January 2009. In 2008, his campaign for the White House targeted the Bush Administration's Foreign Policy, as opposed to the ideas and platform of his opponent, Senator John McCain. Obama had a field day going after Bush, who was an easy target. What is it about the Bushes, that they seem so incompetent when it comes to self-defense? I remember when Bush Senior, while expressing indignation at the Clinton Campaign in 1992, could find nothing harsher than "Bozos" to call his detractors. Ouch? Obama criticized the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and openly hypothesized that Bush's "personal" obsession with Saddam Hussein was the reason we had yet to catch Osama Bin-Laden. The Democrats were energized, and were absolutely focused and driven in recruiting new voters and getting them to the polls. I can recall Obama's criticism of Bush quite clearly; what I can't remember is an Obama anti-terrorism plan. Was he planning on pulling the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and using the resources to exclusively search for Bin Laden? Can anyone help me out here? In 2008, during the election, what were Obama's intentions regarding Al-Qaeda? It must have been in the Party Platform that was agreed upon at the convention. I am anxious to determine just how closely Obama followed his own plan.
The truth is, there wasn't a plan. What was important was getting the troops out of Iraq. I can't fault the Administration there; the American people were more than ready to turn the page on that chapter as well. But if my memory serves me correctly, the Democrats and the left never really separated Afghanistan and Iraq. The plan was to disengage from both countries at the earliest opportunity. Once Obama was in office, he realized that Afghanistan was going to be a bit trickier than Iraq, which explains why we are still there. Another issue that was important to Obama (and something he openly intended to do all along) was the closing of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. You can bet your last Cuban peso that Guantanamo will be closed before he leaves office. But aside from the departure from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the closing of Guantanamo, what policy or
 |
| Barak Obama at Cairo Univ. 6/4/2009 Source: The Official White House Photostream-Flickr |
Instead of over-analyzing President Obama, let's get back to the review of terrorism in the world since he took office. Let's do this by continent, shall we?
- North America: The attack at the Boston Marathon was handled brilliantly by local authorities and because of this, the casualty rate was low. The FBI has disrupted a number of planned domestic attacks; remember, the news media doesn't always know what's happening behind the scenes.
- South America: The Islamic Extremist community has been involved in criminal activity in South America for sometime. Both Hamas and Hezbollah have a history of operating in the Tri-Border Region (Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina), and recently Al-Qaeda has arrived. Since the 1994 terrorist attack at the Jewish community office in Buenos Aires, the majority of the Jewish population has emigrated from Argentina. And let's not ignore the fact that a number of South American governments are openly Socialist, and hostile to the United States (Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina).
- Africa: Al-Qaeda is having a field day in Africa. The organization is growing in size and influence in West Africa, and its surrogate Boko Haram has repeatedly embarrassed the Nigerian Army. In the East, Al-Shabaab has become more active in Kenya, taking advantage of the endemic poverty and lack of jobs, to recruit in the townships. In the last few years, Al-Shabaab has successfully conducted a number of high-casualty terrorist operations. They have no fear of operating in Mombasa, and enjoy shooting up the wealthier suburbs of Nairobi. The South African anti-terrorism unit of the SAP had better be keeping a close eye on its townships, especially the ones with high-immigrant populations. Al-Qaeda and ISIS are there as we speak, recruiting jobless, disaffected young men — especially those with military experience.
- Europe: Besides the highly-publicized recent episodes in Paris, the UK has also suffered through a number of terrorist-related attacks. No doubt the governments and police of Italy, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, etc., are keeping tight-lipped about the number of operations they have disrupted.
- Australia: Late last year, Australia suffered is own horrific pro-ISIS attack in a cafe in Sydney.
- Asia, which includes Iraq, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and is just too much for me to tackle in this post. Thank goodness the terrorists haven't reached Greenland…yet.
Friday, February 6, 2015
Why Is Pakistan So Welcoming To Islamic Extremists?
Links: A. Pakistan Wikipedia
B. Pakistan Bans Terror Groups In Word Only
C. Al-Qaeda Active And Influential In Pakistan
D. Pakistani Support For Extremists Persists
(Quick personal comment: I am so grateful to all of you who come to this blog to read my commentaries. I do my very best to include as much substance and fact as I do opinion, but by the end of the post, I will express my perspective on whatever issue I am discussing. I welcome opposing viewpoints; most of the opinions I have today are variations of what they once were. We have to learn to evolve our opinions in the face of presented facts that were previously unknown to us. It is a sign of maturity and goodwill. Also, if you do enjoy my posts, please recommend the blog to other persons who you believe might also find it interesting. An unavoidable reality is that growth is essential in this medium, especially given the number of like-minded commentaries.)
I always find myself battling the need to keep my posts at a reasonable length. I don't like to split a commentary into "Part I" and "Part II", because the uninterrupted flow of the conversation is essential. But occasionally I give myself no choice. Writing about Pakistan is a huge challenge. As a nation, Pakistan has existed less than sixty years. But it feels like an old soul, with many grievances to be addressed. Please forgive me for this unworthy and inadequate review of Pakistani history, but a respectable effort would require a Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV....you get the picture. What we know as Pakistan today was originally part of India. When Great Britain decided to grant independence to India, it was decided that the Predominantly Muslim North Western and Eastern Provinces would be partitioned to create the nation of Pakistan. Oddly enough, the British partition of India created two pieces of Muslim Pakistan separated by a giant India with a huge Hindu majority. Twenty-four years following the partition, Eastern Pakistan suffered a bloody Civil War, with the opposition openly supported by India. Without the possibility of reinforcements and supplies, the Pakistani forces eventually surrendered, and the nation of Bangladesh is the result. Given that relations between Pakistan and India were already less-than-friendly, India's interference in what Pakistan considered to be an internal rebellion, caused even more difficulties for the two nations. Eventually, Islamabad and New Delhi might very well have healed the right, if it weren't for the Province of Punjab. The far-north, mountainous area is almost equally divided in population between Muslims and Hindus (depending on whose census you believe), and Pakistan has always believed that it should have been included in the original partition. India is just as adamant that it belongs to India. This beautiful but almost inaccessible land has been a bone of contention ever since, and has come close to igniting a war between two nuclear powers.
I'm not writing this post to sink myself into the quick-sand of Pakistani-Indian history, so I will move on from the issue of relations with India. Suffice to say that the two nations have never been friends, although a few times in the last decade, serious diplomatic efforts resulting in face-to-face meetings between the two Prime Ministers, have given rise to optimism. Frankly speaking I find it hard to believe, and a bit disgusting that both of these nations have nuclear weapons. In order to reach that level of technology, a huge amount of resources must have been expended, by two countries who still have trouble feeding their people. That makes no sense to me. The huge defense expenditures allocated by both governments, compared to funds set aside for housing, education and social welfare programs, is astonishing and should be a national embarrassment. And the real tragedy is that both countries are armed to the teeth because of the threat posed by their neighbor. The fact the Pakistan has nuclear weapons is more disturbing because of the unstable nature of Pakistani politics. People get assassinated in Pakistan (also in India) and governments fall. I am forced to look at Pakistan through red, white and blue glasses. I can't allow myself to be distracted by the sorry state of affairs with India, and the complete lack of opportunity and hope for the young people of Pakistan. For one reason and another, this nation has become the world's largest safe house for Al-Qaeda and probably a bunch of other nasty groups as well. The pillars that constitute the government of Pakistan have been infiltrated for decades by the bad guys, and I'm not referring to the bribes the average Pakistani has to pay to get a license to wipe his ass and water his yard. The Pakistani Intelligence Service (ISI) is rotten to the core with Al-Qaeda sympathizers, as are all branches of the military. The civilian government is not nearly as corrupted by extremists, but it certainly has its share of thieves. In fact, the presence of the corruption is what allowed the extremists in to begin with. The people of Pakistan are only being reasonable. They voted for the party of capitalism and it failed them. They elected a bunch of socialists, who also robbed them blind. So who can blame them for looking towards the traditional, religious answer, especially when it delivers food?
If anyone has any question regarding the depth of extremist influence in the Pakistani military and security service, just remind yourself that Osama Bin-Laden's compound in Abbottabad was located across the street from the Pakistani Military Academy. That juxtaposition was not accidental, it was meant to discourage any raids like the one that occurred. Zawahiri is in Pakistan as well. he is probably closing in on ninety yrs. old, and not many sick, whiny, spoiled Egyptian intellectuals will choose a cave in Afghanistan over a house. Why do the people of Pakistan provide safe haven to terrorists? The answer is not as complicated as some people want it to be. Because of the economic situation in Pakistan ($3,100 per capita income) and the lack of employment opportunities (officially unemployment is 5.1 percent, but in reality its closer to 30 percent), the younger generation, which continues to grow, has little hope or opportunity for the future. When I was in Pakistan, I was always taken aback by the number of young men walking the streets during the day, every day. From habit, I said to myself, "shouldn't they be at college or at work?" These young men are the perfect targets for groups like Al-Qaeda, who will blame the west, and Israel, and India, and their complacent government, for all the ills of Pakistani society. And when Al-Qaeda hosts a blame party, they do it right. whoever is on the receiving end isn't just the trouble maker, they are the enemy, THE DEVIL, and they will never allow you to better your condition or improve the lives of your relatives. The crusade to blame the west and Israel (even more so than India, who is only a seasonal bad guy) has been so successful, that the terrorists and their support network can find sympathizers on every street, on every block, and in every city. There is an entire segment of Pakistani society that is vehemently opposed to the message of Islamic extremism; they have my support and admiration but I fear that they are fighting a losing battle.
Pakistan continues to give the appearance of a politically moderate Muslim nation. In the United Nations, it votes with the anti-Israel bloc, but on other issues, Pakistan is known to support the United States, especially regarding Russia. On the other hand, Pakistan has developed a warm relationship with China, a development which originated with the ignorant decision on the part of the United States to accept payment from Pakistan for some F16s, and then decide not to deliver them. Its my understanding that diplomatic efforts were made to address and rectify that particular insult, thank goodness. The Pakistani government has given the U.S. military a surprisingly free hand to deal with the Taliban, especially on the border. The U.S. military continues to train and equip the Pakistani Army and Air Force (what they don't get from China), and the United States can rely on some internal support, especially from the military High Command. But the issue isn't limited to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban moving back-and-forth across the border, or with the activities of extremist groups in Waziristan. The United States must address the alarming fact that Al-Qaeda militants likely have safe-houses in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad. If this tumor living within Pakistani society becomes a cancer, and extremists take control of the Pakistani government, then we have a real problem. A nuclear Iran and a nuclear Pakistan, both controlled by Islamic extremists. I don't believe we have reached that point just yet. I would like to believe that secular Pakistan will win the day, but the battle is for the hearts and minds of the young, not the middle-aged and old. Those who love a secular and peaceful Pakistan must find a way to end corruption and provide opportunities for this generation and the one coming up right behind. Otherwise they won't hesitate to listen to another message.
B. Pakistan Bans Terror Groups In Word Only
C. Al-Qaeda Active And Influential In Pakistan
D. Pakistani Support For Extremists Persists
(Quick personal comment: I am so grateful to all of you who come to this blog to read my commentaries. I do my very best to include as much substance and fact as I do opinion, but by the end of the post, I will express my perspective on whatever issue I am discussing. I welcome opposing viewpoints; most of the opinions I have today are variations of what they once were. We have to learn to evolve our opinions in the face of presented facts that were previously unknown to us. It is a sign of maturity and goodwill. Also, if you do enjoy my posts, please recommend the blog to other persons who you believe might also find it interesting. An unavoidable reality is that growth is essential in this medium, especially given the number of like-minded commentaries.)
I always find myself battling the need to keep my posts at a reasonable length. I don't like to split a commentary into "Part I" and "Part II", because the uninterrupted flow of the conversation is essential. But occasionally I give myself no choice. Writing about Pakistan is a huge challenge. As a nation, Pakistan has existed less than sixty years. But it feels like an old soul, with many grievances to be addressed. Please forgive me for this unworthy and inadequate review of Pakistani history, but a respectable effort would require a Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV....you get the picture. What we know as Pakistan today was originally part of India. When Great Britain decided to grant independence to India, it was decided that the Predominantly Muslim North Western and Eastern Provinces would be partitioned to create the nation of Pakistan. Oddly enough, the British partition of India created two pieces of Muslim Pakistan separated by a giant India with a huge Hindu majority. Twenty-four years following the partition, Eastern Pakistan suffered a bloody Civil War, with the opposition openly supported by India. Without the possibility of reinforcements and supplies, the Pakistani forces eventually surrendered, and the nation of Bangladesh is the result. Given that relations between Pakistan and India were already less-than-friendly, India's interference in what Pakistan considered to be an internal rebellion, caused even more difficulties for the two nations. Eventually, Islamabad and New Delhi might very well have healed the right, if it weren't for the Province of Punjab. The far-north, mountainous area is almost equally divided in population between Muslims and Hindus (depending on whose census you believe), and Pakistan has always believed that it should have been included in the original partition. India is just as adamant that it belongs to India. This beautiful but almost inaccessible land has been a bone of contention ever since, and has come close to igniting a war between two nuclear powers.
I'm not writing this post to sink myself into the quick-sand of Pakistani-Indian history, so I will move on from the issue of relations with India. Suffice to say that the two nations have never been friends, although a few times in the last decade, serious diplomatic efforts resulting in face-to-face meetings between the two Prime Ministers, have given rise to optimism. Frankly speaking I find it hard to believe, and a bit disgusting that both of these nations have nuclear weapons. In order to reach that level of technology, a huge amount of resources must have been expended, by two countries who still have trouble feeding their people. That makes no sense to me. The huge defense expenditures allocated by both governments, compared to funds set aside for housing, education and social welfare programs, is astonishing and should be a national embarrassment. And the real tragedy is that both countries are armed to the teeth because of the threat posed by their neighbor. The fact the Pakistan has nuclear weapons is more disturbing because of the unstable nature of Pakistani politics. People get assassinated in Pakistan (also in India) and governments fall. I am forced to look at Pakistan through red, white and blue glasses. I can't allow myself to be distracted by the sorry state of affairs with India, and the complete lack of opportunity and hope for the young people of Pakistan. For one reason and another, this nation has become the world's largest safe house for Al-Qaeda and probably a bunch of other nasty groups as well. The pillars that constitute the government of Pakistan have been infiltrated for decades by the bad guys, and I'm not referring to the bribes the average Pakistani has to pay to get a license to wipe his ass and water his yard. The Pakistani Intelligence Service (ISI) is rotten to the core with Al-Qaeda sympathizers, as are all branches of the military. The civilian government is not nearly as corrupted by extremists, but it certainly has its share of thieves. In fact, the presence of the corruption is what allowed the extremists in to begin with. The people of Pakistan are only being reasonable. They voted for the party of capitalism and it failed them. They elected a bunch of socialists, who also robbed them blind. So who can blame them for looking towards the traditional, religious answer, especially when it delivers food?
If anyone has any question regarding the depth of extremist influence in the Pakistani military and security service, just remind yourself that Osama Bin-Laden's compound in Abbottabad was located across the street from the Pakistani Military Academy. That juxtaposition was not accidental, it was meant to discourage any raids like the one that occurred. Zawahiri is in Pakistan as well. he is probably closing in on ninety yrs. old, and not many sick, whiny, spoiled Egyptian intellectuals will choose a cave in Afghanistan over a house. Why do the people of Pakistan provide safe haven to terrorists? The answer is not as complicated as some people want it to be. Because of the economic situation in Pakistan ($3,100 per capita income) and the lack of employment opportunities (officially unemployment is 5.1 percent, but in reality its closer to 30 percent), the younger generation, which continues to grow, has little hope or opportunity for the future. When I was in Pakistan, I was always taken aback by the number of young men walking the streets during the day, every day. From habit, I said to myself, "shouldn't they be at college or at work?" These young men are the perfect targets for groups like Al-Qaeda, who will blame the west, and Israel, and India, and their complacent government, for all the ills of Pakistani society. And when Al-Qaeda hosts a blame party, they do it right. whoever is on the receiving end isn't just the trouble maker, they are the enemy, THE DEVIL, and they will never allow you to better your condition or improve the lives of your relatives. The crusade to blame the west and Israel (even more so than India, who is only a seasonal bad guy) has been so successful, that the terrorists and their support network can find sympathizers on every street, on every block, and in every city. There is an entire segment of Pakistani society that is vehemently opposed to the message of Islamic extremism; they have my support and admiration but I fear that they are fighting a losing battle.
Pakistan continues to give the appearance of a politically moderate Muslim nation. In the United Nations, it votes with the anti-Israel bloc, but on other issues, Pakistan is known to support the United States, especially regarding Russia. On the other hand, Pakistan has developed a warm relationship with China, a development which originated with the ignorant decision on the part of the United States to accept payment from Pakistan for some F16s, and then decide not to deliver them. Its my understanding that diplomatic efforts were made to address and rectify that particular insult, thank goodness. The Pakistani government has given the U.S. military a surprisingly free hand to deal with the Taliban, especially on the border. The U.S. military continues to train and equip the Pakistani Army and Air Force (what they don't get from China), and the United States can rely on some internal support, especially from the military High Command. But the issue isn't limited to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban moving back-and-forth across the border, or with the activities of extremist groups in Waziristan. The United States must address the alarming fact that Al-Qaeda militants likely have safe-houses in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad. If this tumor living within Pakistani society becomes a cancer, and extremists take control of the Pakistani government, then we have a real problem. A nuclear Iran and a nuclear Pakistan, both controlled by Islamic extremists. I don't believe we have reached that point just yet. I would like to believe that secular Pakistan will win the day, but the battle is for the hearts and minds of the young, not the middle-aged and old. Those who love a secular and peaceful Pakistan must find a way to end corruption and provide opportunities for this generation and the one coming up right behind. Otherwise they won't hesitate to listen to another message.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Please Excuse The Tinest Bit Of Politics
Links A. Will Hillary Clinton Run In 2016?
B. Romney Looking Like A Candidate For 2016
C. Another Bush Eyes The Oval Office
The 2016 election began the moment Mitt Romney conceded the 2012 race to Barrack Obama. The Republican power-brokers (who appear to exclusively be Members of Congress) were quoted all over the media about the need to find "new blood" and "fresh faces" to lead the GOP into this new century. I agreed; because of reasons not unrelated to tradition and loyalty, Republicans always seem to chose the candidate who has "put in the time". In 2012 Mitt Romney's candidacy and eventual nomination as GOP standard bearer seemed predestined, even with a couple grumbles from Rick Santorum. A month before the actual election, it appeared that Mitt as in the driver's seat. All the polls showed Romney in the lead, and he avoided any terrible missteps in the less-than-inspiring final debate. Not only did Romney lose, but he lost every single battleground state (except maybe Florida; I can't remember how Florida finally ended). So as 2014 comes to a close, who is on top of all the major polls for the 2016 Republican nomination? Why Mitt Romney, of course. I don't mind Romney and I believe he would make a decent President, but what I do mind is his obvious belief that the United States cannot survive without a President Romney. Why else would someone run for the office three consecutive times (you will recall that before John McCain got hot, Romney was leading the GOP race in 2008)?
And if Romney were to decide against running in 2016 (fat chance), who else is making noise on the Republican side? Jeb Bush. As if the name "Bush" is all America needs to regain the edge. I'm sorry, but I'm not ready for another Bush. I like some of the younger Bushes who seem to have their own ideas and ambitions, but enough time hasn't passed for me to jump back onto that Bandwagon. I like Jeb as much as I like Mitt, but it just ain't gonna happen. I will not support a Bush for the Republican nomination in 2016 (unless Barbara decides to run). Rick Santorum is another face that refuses to go away. I prefer Rick to Mitt and Jeb, but he has about as much chance as Osama Bin Laden's corpse of getting elected President in 2016. I mean no disrespect, but I can't support a candidate who is so polarizing that the Democratic nominee would win in a landslide (and I like the fact that Santorum does not run away from his Catholic faith). I'm hearing Beltway rumors that Mike Huckobee is considering a run. Oy Vey! Thank goodness for Chris Christie, who I don't particularly support, and Rand Paul, who I like, for bringing a bit of variety into the conversation. Rick Perry? Rick missed his opportunity in 2012, and Ted Cruz isn't quite ready for prime time.
On the Democrat side, I've heard three names mentioned repeatedly: Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden (snicker). In plain English, the nomination is Hillary's for the asking, and ask she will. Her syncophants have lately tried to spread the idea that Hillary may not run, either for medical or unrelated personal reasons. Give me a break. Hillary has been running for President ever since Bill left office. Hillary wants to be President because she craves authority; its a large part of her nature. She believes that she is more intelligent than most people and therefore deserves to be in a decision-making position. Unfortunately for Hillary, she was a terrible Secretary of State, with a degrading and compromising treaty with Russia (New Start Treaty) as her only achievement. I can't imagine the "Hillary 2016" tour is going to highlight Clinton's diplomacy vis-a-vis Vladimir Putin as reason to trust her foreign policy acumen, and we haven't even gotten to Benghazi. Elizabeth Warren, the darling of the left-of-left modern hippies that appear to be all that's left of the Obama base, will probably run in order to keep her name and future options fresh. Biden may run out of vanity alone, but everyday he seems to morph into an even larger baboon, and I can't imagine the Democratic power-brokers allowing Joe to make a complete ass of himself (anymore than usual, that is).
The point of this post is to release a bit of steam that has been collecting in my gizzard regarding the persons who appear to be running for President in 2016. For the life of me, I just don't understand why certain politically prolific persons refuse to retire. In the old days (pre-1990), people would run for President once, maybe twice, and then just drift away with dignity and manners. Today, we have a new breed of politicians who will hold on for life to whatever bit of power the electorate has seen fit to bestow. Jeez, how I'm sick of the same old faces delivering the same old platitudes. At least the GOP has a few new names on the list. I can't imagine what the Democrats would do without Hillary.
B. Romney Looking Like A Candidate For 2016
C. Another Bush Eyes The Oval Office
The 2016 election began the moment Mitt Romney conceded the 2012 race to Barrack Obama. The Republican power-brokers (who appear to exclusively be Members of Congress) were quoted all over the media about the need to find "new blood" and "fresh faces" to lead the GOP into this new century. I agreed; because of reasons not unrelated to tradition and loyalty, Republicans always seem to chose the candidate who has "put in the time". In 2012 Mitt Romney's candidacy and eventual nomination as GOP standard bearer seemed predestined, even with a couple grumbles from Rick Santorum. A month before the actual election, it appeared that Mitt as in the driver's seat. All the polls showed Romney in the lead, and he avoided any terrible missteps in the less-than-inspiring final debate. Not only did Romney lose, but he lost every single battleground state (except maybe Florida; I can't remember how Florida finally ended). So as 2014 comes to a close, who is on top of all the major polls for the 2016 Republican nomination? Why Mitt Romney, of course. I don't mind Romney and I believe he would make a decent President, but what I do mind is his obvious belief that the United States cannot survive without a President Romney. Why else would someone run for the office three consecutive times (you will recall that before John McCain got hot, Romney was leading the GOP race in 2008)?
And if Romney were to decide against running in 2016 (fat chance), who else is making noise on the Republican side? Jeb Bush. As if the name "Bush" is all America needs to regain the edge. I'm sorry, but I'm not ready for another Bush. I like some of the younger Bushes who seem to have their own ideas and ambitions, but enough time hasn't passed for me to jump back onto that Bandwagon. I like Jeb as much as I like Mitt, but it just ain't gonna happen. I will not support a Bush for the Republican nomination in 2016 (unless Barbara decides to run). Rick Santorum is another face that refuses to go away. I prefer Rick to Mitt and Jeb, but he has about as much chance as Osama Bin Laden's corpse of getting elected President in 2016. I mean no disrespect, but I can't support a candidate who is so polarizing that the Democratic nominee would win in a landslide (and I like the fact that Santorum does not run away from his Catholic faith). I'm hearing Beltway rumors that Mike Huckobee is considering a run. Oy Vey! Thank goodness for Chris Christie, who I don't particularly support, and Rand Paul, who I like, for bringing a bit of variety into the conversation. Rick Perry? Rick missed his opportunity in 2012, and Ted Cruz isn't quite ready for prime time.
On the Democrat side, I've heard three names mentioned repeatedly: Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden (snicker). In plain English, the nomination is Hillary's for the asking, and ask she will. Her syncophants have lately tried to spread the idea that Hillary may not run, either for medical or unrelated personal reasons. Give me a break. Hillary has been running for President ever since Bill left office. Hillary wants to be President because she craves authority; its a large part of her nature. She believes that she is more intelligent than most people and therefore deserves to be in a decision-making position. Unfortunately for Hillary, she was a terrible Secretary of State, with a degrading and compromising treaty with Russia (New Start Treaty) as her only achievement. I can't imagine the "Hillary 2016" tour is going to highlight Clinton's diplomacy vis-a-vis Vladimir Putin as reason to trust her foreign policy acumen, and we haven't even gotten to Benghazi. Elizabeth Warren, the darling of the left-of-left modern hippies that appear to be all that's left of the Obama base, will probably run in order to keep her name and future options fresh. Biden may run out of vanity alone, but everyday he seems to morph into an even larger baboon, and I can't imagine the Democratic power-brokers allowing Joe to make a complete ass of himself (anymore than usual, that is).
The point of this post is to release a bit of steam that has been collecting in my gizzard regarding the persons who appear to be running for President in 2016. For the life of me, I just don't understand why certain politically prolific persons refuse to retire. In the old days (pre-1990), people would run for President once, maybe twice, and then just drift away with dignity and manners. Today, we have a new breed of politicians who will hold on for life to whatever bit of power the electorate has seen fit to bestow. Jeez, how I'm sick of the same old faces delivering the same old platitudes. At least the GOP has a few new names on the list. I can't imagine what the Democrats would do without Hillary.
Monday, November 10, 2014
I Finally Watched "Zero Dark Thirty"
Link: Review of Zero Dark Thirty
It took some time before I decided I was ready to watch "Zero Dark Thirty", Kathryn Bigelow's expensive, haunting attempt at a non-fiction portrayal of the search for Osama bin Laden and the raid that ended his life. As a rule, I do not watch films about espionage (except James Bond. . . "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" still the best), especially the cotton-candy Mission Impossible or the Jason Bourne stuff. However, if you enjoy fictional espionage writing, my friend and former colleague Joe Goldberg has a book coming out soon: Secret Wars - An Espionage Story. It's more in the form of historical fiction and it is
sensational. I've just finished it and a further review will come later. All I can say for now is keep your eyes peeled for it when it is published. As for Zero Dark Thirty, I was a bit hesitant to watch it because of the issue of "enhanced interrogation techniques". The movie graphically illustrates at least one particularly high profile procedure. It should come as no surprise to anyone who has been reading my blog that I wholly support enhanced interrogation techniques. Yes, I have seen them used. In fact, every time that I have been aware that "enhanced interrogation techniques" (why don't I just say "waterboarding"?) were used, information was obtained that led to the capture of murderers and the saving of lives. Now I may be a lot of things (Conservative, Vegetarian, observant Catholic, animal rights activist, Dallas Cowboys fan), but one thing I am not is a liar. These techniques work to save lives. I was concerned that any portrayal on the big screen would come off badly. Actually, Bigelow did a fairly accurate job. Unfortunately, it was all for show. Its my understanding that waterboarding played no role whatsoever in the discovery of bin Laden's Abbottabad summer house. So why purposely include waterboarding in the film? Your guess is as good as mine.
Let me get my complaints out of the way first. The character, Maya, is a complete mystery
to me. I realize that a number of Seals have gone on record as saying that she did exist. Well, I worked with Seal Team Six about five years before Abbottabad (I have no idea what the turnover/replacement timetable is for Navy Seals), and I would never accuse any of these guys of lying. I loved working with them, I loved hanging out with them; I loved them period. Members of the Navy Seals and U.S. Army Special Forces have a special place in the psyche of most American men. At one time or another, we all wanted to be a Green Beret, or a Seal. Being with the Seals was like spending time with your favorite sports stars or most admired actors. They were down to earth, kind and considerate. And funny as hell. True, they live in a world that is almost all testosterone, and the jokes and hi-jinx were usually a part of the show. But if a female Agency officer was present, they were, without exception, total gentlemen. And when it comes to their job, you WILL NOT meet a more dedicated group of men. They are patient, well-read, and do not skip over the boring parts. Too watch them at work is a bit like watching a Ballet. They move as different parts of the same creature, and I have no doubt that communication takes place without words or signs. They know each other that well. So if the Seals say that Maya existed, then she did. But I will take exception to the environment in which Maya functioned. I guarantee you she was NOT the only Agency person on hand at the airbase before the lift-off for the raid. And she was not the only Agency representative to view the body and make a positive I.D. The Agency is much more thorough than that. No doubt she saw the body; I would want to see it as well, to dispel the demon nightmares I still have from September 11, 2001. But the movie created a character that worked seemingly alone in her own little world. "This job is the only job I've ever had" at the CIA. I have a problem with that statement as well. The CIA would not let someone with no track record and no relationships with other offices handle this sensitive and high-profile a case. For most of the movie, she seemed to be following her chief around, writing numbers on his office window. Is Maya a DI Intelligence Analyst (most Intelligence Analysts work in the DI)? If so, then she certainly would not have been walking around the DO, saying mother fucker to the DCI. I'm hoping she was a CTC Analyst, because they are second to none in professionalism and knowledge. To summarize, the character was, at times, a bit of a caricature. Possibly she was a combination of more than one person. But let's get one thing clear. No one, NO ONE short of the DCI, gets a plane to themselves, with a pilot who asks, "Where do you want to go?"
Overall, I loved the film. It was beautifully shot and exceptionally researched. The acting was first-rate, especially Jessica Chastain, James Gandolfini as Leon Panetta, and the guys playing the Navy Seals. It certainly had the look of reality. The filming of the raid was so well done. I did notice that the Seals on screen made a bit too much noise during the operation, but the taking of the compound, from the outer walls to the inner sanctum, had me sitting on the edge of my seat. The scenes inside the main building were probably reconstructed as close as possible to the real deal. The ending was totally in snyc with the speed and temperament of the entire film. I loved this movie, although I don't think I will watch it again. The events leading up to that particular day, and the death of Osama bin Laden, are large part of the historic diorama of my generation. It was important to spend the resources and time to track down bin Laden and take his life: as part of the obligation we have to those who suffered and died, that we will never forget. This movie reminds me of the huge debt of gratitude that I owe to the Navy Seals, Green Berets, Air Force Special Ops, CIA Ground Branch, and all the men and women of our Armed Forces and National Guard. We can never repay them in kind for their sacrifice and dedication, but we can try. When you see that person in uniform, at the H.E.B., or Target, or Walmart, picking up a few groceries before heading home, please take a few seconds to thank them for their service and their sacrifice. Truly, it is the least that we can do.
 |
| Soon to be released book by Joe Goldberg Twitter @jgoldhawk1 |
Let me get my complaints out of the way first. The character, Maya, is a complete mystery
Overall, I loved the film. It was beautifully shot and exceptionally researched. The acting was first-rate, especially Jessica Chastain, James Gandolfini as Leon Panetta, and the guys playing the Navy Seals. It certainly had the look of reality. The filming of the raid was so well done. I did notice that the Seals on screen made a bit too much noise during the operation, but the taking of the compound, from the outer walls to the inner sanctum, had me sitting on the edge of my seat. The scenes inside the main building were probably reconstructed as close as possible to the real deal. The ending was totally in snyc with the speed and temperament of the entire film. I loved this movie, although I don't think I will watch it again. The events leading up to that particular day, and the death of Osama bin Laden, are large part of the historic diorama of my generation. It was important to spend the resources and time to track down bin Laden and take his life: as part of the obligation we have to those who suffered and died, that we will never forget. This movie reminds me of the huge debt of gratitude that I owe to the Navy Seals, Green Berets, Air Force Special Ops, CIA Ground Branch, and all the men and women of our Armed Forces and National Guard. We can never repay them in kind for their sacrifice and dedication, but we can try. When you see that person in uniform, at the H.E.B., or Target, or Walmart, picking up a few groceries before heading home, please take a few seconds to thank them for their service and their sacrifice. Truly, it is the least that we can do.
Friday, October 24, 2014
U.S. Will Train New Syrian Army For Defense, No Offense
Links: A. U.S. To Train Syrians To Defend Territory
B. Lots Of Terrorist Training Camps In Iraq And Syria
C. Al-Qaeda Reborn On The Indian Subcontinent
As I've said before, the first thing I do in the morning when I wake up is read the Long War Journal. Previously I couldn't leave the house without a quick look at the Drudgereport. Now I have doubled my morning reading selection. To put it bluntly, the Long War Journal (LWJ) is in a class by itself. I am so impressed with the real-time nature of the reporting, not to mention the amazing breadth of coverage. Let me step away from brown-nosing the LWJ just long enough to get angry all over again. According to the Stars and Stripes (see ref A), the surrogate New Syrian Army that was going to represent the good guys in the ground war against the Islamic Front (IS), will only be trained to defend territory. They will not be trained or ordered to take any territory. The first problem that jumped out at me is that we are still talking in "future" terms. The New Syrian Army "WILL" only be trained to defend. Are we to believe that the training of our surrogate saviors hasn't even started? Aren't we already over a month into the air campaign? The second, and much more disturbing bit of news from Stars and Stripes, is that when we finally get started with the training, it will consist exclusively of defensive warfare. And what if, by the time our New Syrian Army is ready for battle, the IS has already occupied ninety percent of Syria. I assume they will be content to just IGNORE the "defense only" New Syrian Army, who won't be able to attack unless someone attacks them? If this development weren't so desperate and dangerous, it would be hilarious. How can the military brass just accept these kind of "political" intrusions into military strategy? Is there anyone at the Pentagon who is old enough to remember Vietnam? DEFEND ONLY doesn't work in warfare, especially against an enemy like this. Why would the Obama Administration adopt this approach? Are they concerned about killing IS operatives? After the last week of bombing at Kobani it would seem as if they don't mind killing the bad guys one bit. So why are we going to spend billions of dollars training an Army for the sole purpose of "defense"?
Ref B should also come as no surprise. The IS has occupied huge swaths of territory in eastern Syria and Western Iraq. I'm a bit surprised that with at least five coalition Air Forces in the area (maybe only four; I keep adding the Brits out of habit), anything is able to move in the desert without getting blown to bits. Even with a daily dose of Stars and Stripes and LWJ, I'm still totally confused about the organization of the air campaign. What I do know is that the U.S. and France are willing and able to deploy over both Syria and Iraq. Now here is where things get cloudy. The Qatari and Emirati Air Forces, flying the shiniest and newest F16s, seem to pick and chose when they get involved. They are willing to bomb some folks, but not bomb others. Something smells rotten here (which is no surprise, since deodorant is definitely optional in this part of the world). Since when does a military coalition partner turn in a list of "folks we will bomb", and "folks we won't"? Being the brilliantly suspicious asshole that I am, something tells me that both the Qataris and Emiratis are sympathetic to certain terrorist groups active in Syria. Qatar's thinly-veiled support for Islamic Extremist groups is not a news flash (I'm sure glad we didn't deliver those five Guantanamo residents we traded for Bergdahl to a place like Qatar), but the Emiratis are usually much more discrete. Either way, it may explain why the bad guys are able to open numerous training camps right under the eyes of our spy satellites.
Ref C is the least interesting of Thursday's "multiple Links" night. It probably comes as no surprise to my well-read readers that Al-Qaeda (AQ) has found ripe fruit to pick amongst the one hundred thirty-three million mostly poor, Muslims of India. Regardless of which party is in power in India, religious tension always seems to be boiling just below the surface. I thought that the Congress Party, under the direction of Sonia Ghandi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, would make a sincere effort to address some of the many legitimate grievances of the Muslim community, but it didn't happen. Excuse the cliché, but India truly is like an Onion. Once you peel it, you have another layer, and then another, and another....India is a nation built upon one set of hierarchies after another. Addressing the grievances of the Muslim community will probably result in the continuation of bigotry in another part of Indian society. Be that at is may, Osama bin-Laden recognized the opportunity to recruit and cause trouble here, and AQ has been a stealth presence in Muslim India for years. The attention focused on AQ on the Indian subcontinent comes as AQ releases its newest online magazine, the English-language "Resurgence". I've seen photos of the cover of the magazine and the insides, and it has an appealing, colorful modern look to it. Then you read the articles. Most of the magazine focuses on the Indian subcontinent, with writers offering explanation for the AQ plan to hijack Pakistani naval vessels. The hijacked vessels were supposed to attack the U.S. Navy warships, but the plan never got off of the ground. I don't understand why AQ has always persisted in offering explanations for its actions. AQ despises the United States and the way Americans live their lives. AQ also resents the influence and the presence of the United States around the world, financially, militarily and diplomatically. I think that covers it. "Resurgence" does include a very interesting article (with a nice graphic) on what targets would cause the most damage to American interests. They conclude that disrupting the flow of oil would be the most effective way to hurt the U.S. Obviously they have some real deep thinkers over there at AQ University. Back on the subcontinent, the potential is great for an escalation of AQ-sponsored violence. In fact, its inevitable. India has an effective, well-run internal law enforcement agency (the Central Bureau of Investigation - CBI), and I would not envy any Indian AQ members who get picked up by the CBI. If AQ orchestrates a large-scale attack, the Indian police will lock-up first and ask questions later. India has a relatively new government and it will be very interesting to observe how the New Democratic Alliance (NDA) (basically the BJP and a handful of like-minded parties) approaches this issue, and how they respond to the inevitable AQ attack.
B. Lots Of Terrorist Training Camps In Iraq And Syria
C. Al-Qaeda Reborn On The Indian Subcontinent
As I've said before, the first thing I do in the morning when I wake up is read the Long War Journal. Previously I couldn't leave the house without a quick look at the Drudgereport. Now I have doubled my morning reading selection. To put it bluntly, the Long War Journal (LWJ) is in a class by itself. I am so impressed with the real-time nature of the reporting, not to mention the amazing breadth of coverage. Let me step away from brown-nosing the LWJ just long enough to get angry all over again. According to the Stars and Stripes (see ref A), the surrogate New Syrian Army that was going to represent the good guys in the ground war against the Islamic Front (IS), will only be trained to defend territory. They will not be trained or ordered to take any territory. The first problem that jumped out at me is that we are still talking in "future" terms. The New Syrian Army "WILL" only be trained to defend. Are we to believe that the training of our surrogate saviors hasn't even started? Aren't we already over a month into the air campaign? The second, and much more disturbing bit of news from Stars and Stripes, is that when we finally get started with the training, it will consist exclusively of defensive warfare. And what if, by the time our New Syrian Army is ready for battle, the IS has already occupied ninety percent of Syria. I assume they will be content to just IGNORE the "defense only" New Syrian Army, who won't be able to attack unless someone attacks them? If this development weren't so desperate and dangerous, it would be hilarious. How can the military brass just accept these kind of "political" intrusions into military strategy? Is there anyone at the Pentagon who is old enough to remember Vietnam? DEFEND ONLY doesn't work in warfare, especially against an enemy like this. Why would the Obama Administration adopt this approach? Are they concerned about killing IS operatives? After the last week of bombing at Kobani it would seem as if they don't mind killing the bad guys one bit. So why are we going to spend billions of dollars training an Army for the sole purpose of "defense"?
Ref B should also come as no surprise. The IS has occupied huge swaths of territory in eastern Syria and Western Iraq. I'm a bit surprised that with at least five coalition Air Forces in the area (maybe only four; I keep adding the Brits out of habit), anything is able to move in the desert without getting blown to bits. Even with a daily dose of Stars and Stripes and LWJ, I'm still totally confused about the organization of the air campaign. What I do know is that the U.S. and France are willing and able to deploy over both Syria and Iraq. Now here is where things get cloudy. The Qatari and Emirati Air Forces, flying the shiniest and newest F16s, seem to pick and chose when they get involved. They are willing to bomb some folks, but not bomb others. Something smells rotten here (which is no surprise, since deodorant is definitely optional in this part of the world). Since when does a military coalition partner turn in a list of "folks we will bomb", and "folks we won't"? Being the brilliantly suspicious asshole that I am, something tells me that both the Qataris and Emiratis are sympathetic to certain terrorist groups active in Syria. Qatar's thinly-veiled support for Islamic Extremist groups is not a news flash (I'm sure glad we didn't deliver those five Guantanamo residents we traded for Bergdahl to a place like Qatar), but the Emiratis are usually much more discrete. Either way, it may explain why the bad guys are able to open numerous training camps right under the eyes of our spy satellites.
Ref C is the least interesting of Thursday's "multiple Links" night. It probably comes as no surprise to my well-read readers that Al-Qaeda (AQ) has found ripe fruit to pick amongst the one hundred thirty-three million mostly poor, Muslims of India. Regardless of which party is in power in India, religious tension always seems to be boiling just below the surface. I thought that the Congress Party, under the direction of Sonia Ghandi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, would make a sincere effort to address some of the many legitimate grievances of the Muslim community, but it didn't happen. Excuse the cliché, but India truly is like an Onion. Once you peel it, you have another layer, and then another, and another....India is a nation built upon one set of hierarchies after another. Addressing the grievances of the Muslim community will probably result in the continuation of bigotry in another part of Indian society. Be that at is may, Osama bin-Laden recognized the opportunity to recruit and cause trouble here, and AQ has been a stealth presence in Muslim India for years. The attention focused on AQ on the Indian subcontinent comes as AQ releases its newest online magazine, the English-language "Resurgence". I've seen photos of the cover of the magazine and the insides, and it has an appealing, colorful modern look to it. Then you read the articles. Most of the magazine focuses on the Indian subcontinent, with writers offering explanation for the AQ plan to hijack Pakistani naval vessels. The hijacked vessels were supposed to attack the U.S. Navy warships, but the plan never got off of the ground. I don't understand why AQ has always persisted in offering explanations for its actions. AQ despises the United States and the way Americans live their lives. AQ also resents the influence and the presence of the United States around the world, financially, militarily and diplomatically. I think that covers it. "Resurgence" does include a very interesting article (with a nice graphic) on what targets would cause the most damage to American interests. They conclude that disrupting the flow of oil would be the most effective way to hurt the U.S. Obviously they have some real deep thinkers over there at AQ University. Back on the subcontinent, the potential is great for an escalation of AQ-sponsored violence. In fact, its inevitable. India has an effective, well-run internal law enforcement agency (the Central Bureau of Investigation - CBI), and I would not envy any Indian AQ members who get picked up by the CBI. If AQ orchestrates a large-scale attack, the Indian police will lock-up first and ask questions later. India has a relatively new government and it will be very interesting to observe how the New Democratic Alliance (NDA) (basically the BJP and a handful of like-minded parties) approaches this issue, and how they respond to the inevitable AQ attack.
Thursday, October 2, 2014
A Bit More On Khorasan And Al-Qaeda
Link: The Name "Khorasan" A Big Secret?
Here we are talking about the "Khorasan" group again. Joshua Katz, Managing Partner of "The Enright Group", really rips into the Director of National Intelligence James Klapper, because Klapper revealed the name "Khorasan" Group (see the link). Like Katz, I also spent a career as an Operations Officer in the CIA and I'm guessing that ninety-nine percent of the time, I agree with Mr. Katz on issues of National Security. I believe the Obama Administration has politicized the Department of Defense, the CIA, NSA, the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and every other phalange of the federal government. The priority seems to be to elect Democrats at all costs, and the ends will justify the means. I have heard Mr. Katz speak before, and he acquits himself very well on matters of National Security. Which is why this commentary on Foxnews.com is so confusing.
Why was the release of the name "Khorasan" such a heinous error? Did Klapper put some asset's life in danger? As I read the link carefully I kept expecting to find some additional information that would have made Klapper's comments worthwhile. But those details never showed up. As far as I see it, Klapper announced the existence of a group called "Khorasan", who were active in Syria and were a threat to the United States (Klapper opined that Khorasan was a "greater threat" to the United States than ISIS). That definition sounds like Al-Qaeda to me, and I already knew Al-Qaeda was present in Syria. I'm actually grateful to Klapper. If he hadn't spoken up, I would not have known that the Administration was trying to cloak Al-Qaeda's activities in Syria. In truth, its all a game of semantics. Al Nusra Front, Khorasan, Islamic State in the Levant, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in my Grandma's Drawers, they are all part of the same enemy. The sooner we recognize that our foe in Syria and Iraq is not new to the battlefield, the better. Osama bin-Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may be dead, but the hatred they inspired and cultivated is alive and well. Forget all the various names and splinter groups. The Administration will put forth the narrative that anti-terrorist actions under Obama have decimated Al-Qaeda and reduced the Islamic extremist cause to a handful of squabbling, separately named and motivated groups.
Identifying this enemy is not difficult. Any groups associated with Al-Qaeda will be Sunni-affiliated. Although at times Iran has shown a willingness to assist anti-U.S. operations, the recent Islamic State (IS) actions in Iraq have aggravated existing Sunni-Shia tensions. I would be very surprised to discover a Shia-dominated terrorist movement with Al-Qaeda connections. Besides the Sunni angle, any Al-Qaeda group will focus its venom almost exclusively on the United States (and occasionally Europe). Although its leaders enjoy ranting about "international Jewry", Al-Qaeda has yet to conduct any legitimate operations against Israel (or maybe Mossad has disrupted such operations; its possible). Not surprisingly, Al-Qaeda was not active in Iraq until the U.S. Army arrived. Also, Al-Qaeda branches will be well-funded. They always seem to have butt-loads of U.S. dollars to throw around. Personally, I get suspicious of an Al-Qaeda presence every time I see certain well-known Islamic "Charities".
The most distressing fact regarding Al-Qaeda is its resilience. These assholes are worse than cockroaches. No doubt the Obama Administration believed that once Bin-Laden's bullet-riddled corpse (I just LOVE that phrase) was disrespectfully dumped from a helicopter into the Indian Ocean, that Al-Qaeda would wilt, dry-up and blow away. It was never a possibility. Some will argue that the continued presence of Ayman al-Zawahiri (former leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, reportedly a gifted Physician who speaks Arabic, French and English) is the manna which keeps Al-Qaeda alive, but I disagree. In order to destroy Al-Qaeda, the message of Al-Qaeda must be thoroughly repudiated. That can only be accomplished by killing (preferred method) or incarcerating every man and woman who were ever part of (or expressed sympathy for) Al-Qaeda. Its a fight to the death, my friends. Al-Qaeda can only flourish as long as they can blame the West and the United States for the miserable plight of the Arab people (at times Al-Qaeda will lash out at moderate Arab states, especially the monarchies). I don't believe the United States or our culture will be disappearing anytime soon, so we are compelled to defend ourselves. And the best defense is a great offense. And we are lucky to have heroes like Joshua Katz on our side, to never let us forget.
Here we are talking about the "Khorasan" group again. Joshua Katz, Managing Partner of "The Enright Group", really rips into the Director of National Intelligence James Klapper, because Klapper revealed the name "Khorasan" Group (see the link). Like Katz, I also spent a career as an Operations Officer in the CIA and I'm guessing that ninety-nine percent of the time, I agree with Mr. Katz on issues of National Security. I believe the Obama Administration has politicized the Department of Defense, the CIA, NSA, the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and every other phalange of the federal government. The priority seems to be to elect Democrats at all costs, and the ends will justify the means. I have heard Mr. Katz speak before, and he acquits himself very well on matters of National Security. Which is why this commentary on Foxnews.com is so confusing.
Why was the release of the name "Khorasan" such a heinous error? Did Klapper put some asset's life in danger? As I read the link carefully I kept expecting to find some additional information that would have made Klapper's comments worthwhile. But those details never showed up. As far as I see it, Klapper announced the existence of a group called "Khorasan", who were active in Syria and were a threat to the United States (Klapper opined that Khorasan was a "greater threat" to the United States than ISIS). That definition sounds like Al-Qaeda to me, and I already knew Al-Qaeda was present in Syria. I'm actually grateful to Klapper. If he hadn't spoken up, I would not have known that the Administration was trying to cloak Al-Qaeda's activities in Syria. In truth, its all a game of semantics. Al Nusra Front, Khorasan, Islamic State in the Levant, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in my Grandma's Drawers, they are all part of the same enemy. The sooner we recognize that our foe in Syria and Iraq is not new to the battlefield, the better. Osama bin-Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may be dead, but the hatred they inspired and cultivated is alive and well. Forget all the various names and splinter groups. The Administration will put forth the narrative that anti-terrorist actions under Obama have decimated Al-Qaeda and reduced the Islamic extremist cause to a handful of squabbling, separately named and motivated groups.
Identifying this enemy is not difficult. Any groups associated with Al-Qaeda will be Sunni-affiliated. Although at times Iran has shown a willingness to assist anti-U.S. operations, the recent Islamic State (IS) actions in Iraq have aggravated existing Sunni-Shia tensions. I would be very surprised to discover a Shia-dominated terrorist movement with Al-Qaeda connections. Besides the Sunni angle, any Al-Qaeda group will focus its venom almost exclusively on the United States (and occasionally Europe). Although its leaders enjoy ranting about "international Jewry", Al-Qaeda has yet to conduct any legitimate operations against Israel (or maybe Mossad has disrupted such operations; its possible). Not surprisingly, Al-Qaeda was not active in Iraq until the U.S. Army arrived. Also, Al-Qaeda branches will be well-funded. They always seem to have butt-loads of U.S. dollars to throw around. Personally, I get suspicious of an Al-Qaeda presence every time I see certain well-known Islamic "Charities".
The most distressing fact regarding Al-Qaeda is its resilience. These assholes are worse than cockroaches. No doubt the Obama Administration believed that once Bin-Laden's bullet-riddled corpse (I just LOVE that phrase) was disrespectfully dumped from a helicopter into the Indian Ocean, that Al-Qaeda would wilt, dry-up and blow away. It was never a possibility. Some will argue that the continued presence of Ayman al-Zawahiri (former leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, reportedly a gifted Physician who speaks Arabic, French and English) is the manna which keeps Al-Qaeda alive, but I disagree. In order to destroy Al-Qaeda, the message of Al-Qaeda must be thoroughly repudiated. That can only be accomplished by killing (preferred method) or incarcerating every man and woman who were ever part of (or expressed sympathy for) Al-Qaeda. Its a fight to the death, my friends. Al-Qaeda can only flourish as long as they can blame the West and the United States for the miserable plight of the Arab people (at times Al-Qaeda will lash out at moderate Arab states, especially the monarchies). I don't believe the United States or our culture will be disappearing anytime soon, so we are compelled to defend ourselves. And the best defense is a great offense. And we are lucky to have heroes like Joshua Katz on our side, to never let us forget.
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Did the Obama Administration manipulate intelligence to influence the 2012 election?
Link: Was Al-Qaeda 'on the Run'?
I have spent my fair share of time in Washington DC. Personally, I think the DC Metropolitan Area is lovely throughout the year. Spring brings a tremendous display of flowers, summers are usually not oppressively hot, and winter snowfall on the White House paints a beautiful picture. The District is home to a fascinating variety of people, many speaking different languages. But the majority of folks I ran into during my time in the nation's capital worked either in politics or for Uncle Sam. That is why I have always considered Washington DC to be a city of duel functions: it is the seat of political power, with Congress, the Supreme Court and the President all within a snowball's toss of each other, and the brain center for the functions of government. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is here, as is Health and Human Services. Foggy Bottom is home to the headquarters for the Department of State, and the Department of Justice is not far from Ford's Theater, the tragic location of President Abraham Lincoln's assassination. By living in this community and daily interacting with its residents, I quickly lost any illusions I had about politics being an honorable profession. I am proud to say that during my years working in the Intelligence Community, I seldom saw or experienced a decision that was motivated by politics (as opposed to the best interests of the nation). I believe that folks in the Intelligence Community take into account that the American people are trusting us with the secrets of the United States, and this reality alone goes a long way to keeping politics out of our work. Today I read an article in the reliable Weekly Standard that literally took my breath away. Because I have a basic understanding of the Constitution, I don't use the word "Impeachment" very often. "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are difficult accusations to prove, especially in this environment. For the first time in my lifetime, though, if the allegations implied in this article are accurate, I believe it is time for me to use that word.
In May 2011, brave men and women of the U.S. military killed Osama Bin Laden. He was hiding out in a nondescript compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. I will not repeat the details of the link which you have just read, but to say that during the 40 minutes that U.S.
personnel were on site, a great deal of intelligence-related material was collected, including hard drives, thumb drives, documents, maps, diagrams, letters, DVDs and audiotapes. I remember hearing through the grapevine that the intel haul on that day was LEGENDARY. According to the Weekly Standard, only 10 percent of the collected intelligence was accessed and decoded/translated before it was decided to shut things down "for a while". At least until after the 2012 election. Interestingly enough, the small amount of intelligence that was reviewed gave the distinct impression that Al-Qaeda was in shambles. Our efforts to destabilize the organization had made it almost impossible for them to communicate with one another and had also negatively impacted their funding and recruitment. This information was released to an understandably excited press, and the headlines read "Al-Qaeda on the Run". The Obama Administration took full advantage of the story that was painted by the release of this select few pieces of intelligence. The American people were told repeatedly during the 2012 election cycle, that the Obama Administration was responsible for the crippling of Al-Qaeda. As I recall, no one asked any really difficult questions. A number of Al-Qaeda big wigs besides Bin Laden had also been recently dispatched, and I, just like most folks, believed the storyline. George Bush went to war to destroy Al-Qaeda and failed in that effort. But President Obama, following a separate policy that did not involve invading another country, had been successful.
Now we learn that once the election was over and the rest of the haul was decoded, translated and deciphered, that the reality was quite different. According to the Weekly Standard, documents obtained during the May 2011 Abbottabad raid detail an Al-Qaeda still active and plotting. The documents revealed that Al-Qaeda was in contact with Lashkar-e-Taiba, a particularly heinous terrorist group operating in India, and that Bin Laden may have actually been involved in the planning of the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai. We also learned that a potentially dangerous relationship between Iran and Al-Qaeda was a real possibility, and that Bin Laden had established a "vast array of increasingly deadly affiliates", including ISIS/ISIL. In fact, once DIA (military intelligence) had been given access to the full amount of seized Abbottabad intelligence, they came to the opposite conclusion than was being repeatedly declared on the 2012 campaign trail. In their view, Al-Qaeda had grown even stronger.
If the CIA selectively exploited the intelligence gathered during the Abbottabad raid for the purpose of created a false storyline, then this development calls for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor. No Administration, Republican, Democrat or Whig, should manipulate the tools of national security for political purposes. If this has occurred and is not addressed appropriately, then we should not be surprised when the Department of Commerce (or any other branch of government) is directed to act for partisan political purposes. In fact, a close look at some of the other current scandals stinking up the Potomac right now hint at the use of other government agencies for partisan political reasons. It is for this reason that I give consideration to the use of the word "Impeachment". Of course, even if these allegations are correct, it doesn't mean any particular member of the current Administration is involved. It could have been a decision made solely within the halls of the CIA. But if an Independent Council is appointed, and evidence is uncovered that points to the highest office in the land, then I do believe we are looking at a case of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".
I have spent my fair share of time in Washington DC. Personally, I think the DC Metropolitan Area is lovely throughout the year. Spring brings a tremendous display of flowers, summers are usually not oppressively hot, and winter snowfall on the White House paints a beautiful picture. The District is home to a fascinating variety of people, many speaking different languages. But the majority of folks I ran into during my time in the nation's capital worked either in politics or for Uncle Sam. That is why I have always considered Washington DC to be a city of duel functions: it is the seat of political power, with Congress, the Supreme Court and the President all within a snowball's toss of each other, and the brain center for the functions of government. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is here, as is Health and Human Services. Foggy Bottom is home to the headquarters for the Department of State, and the Department of Justice is not far from Ford's Theater, the tragic location of President Abraham Lincoln's assassination. By living in this community and daily interacting with its residents, I quickly lost any illusions I had about politics being an honorable profession. I am proud to say that during my years working in the Intelligence Community, I seldom saw or experienced a decision that was motivated by politics (as opposed to the best interests of the nation). I believe that folks in the Intelligence Community take into account that the American people are trusting us with the secrets of the United States, and this reality alone goes a long way to keeping politics out of our work. Today I read an article in the reliable Weekly Standard that literally took my breath away. Because I have a basic understanding of the Constitution, I don't use the word "Impeachment" very often. "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are difficult accusations to prove, especially in this environment. For the first time in my lifetime, though, if the allegations implied in this article are accurate, I believe it is time for me to use that word.
In May 2011, brave men and women of the U.S. military killed Osama Bin Laden. He was hiding out in a nondescript compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. I will not repeat the details of the link which you have just read, but to say that during the 40 minutes that U.S.
Now we learn that once the election was over and the rest of the haul was decoded, translated and deciphered, that the reality was quite different. According to the Weekly Standard, documents obtained during the May 2011 Abbottabad raid detail an Al-Qaeda still active and plotting. The documents revealed that Al-Qaeda was in contact with Lashkar-e-Taiba, a particularly heinous terrorist group operating in India, and that Bin Laden may have actually been involved in the planning of the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai. We also learned that a potentially dangerous relationship between Iran and Al-Qaeda was a real possibility, and that Bin Laden had established a "vast array of increasingly deadly affiliates", including ISIS/ISIL. In fact, once DIA (military intelligence) had been given access to the full amount of seized Abbottabad intelligence, they came to the opposite conclusion than was being repeatedly declared on the 2012 campaign trail. In their view, Al-Qaeda had grown even stronger.
If the CIA selectively exploited the intelligence gathered during the Abbottabad raid for the purpose of created a false storyline, then this development calls for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor. No Administration, Republican, Democrat or Whig, should manipulate the tools of national security for political purposes. If this has occurred and is not addressed appropriately, then we should not be surprised when the Department of Commerce (or any other branch of government) is directed to act for partisan political purposes. In fact, a close look at some of the other current scandals stinking up the Potomac right now hint at the use of other government agencies for partisan political reasons. It is for this reason that I give consideration to the use of the word "Impeachment". Of course, even if these allegations are correct, it doesn't mean any particular member of the current Administration is involved. It could have been a decision made solely within the halls of the CIA. But if an Independent Council is appointed, and evidence is uncovered that points to the highest office in the land, then I do believe we are looking at a case of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)