CSI: THE WORLD - Starring Barack Obama

image by rees

article from Investor's Business Daily
June 3, 2009

War? What War?

War On Terror: The phrase is actually now a misnomer. Iraq and Afghanistan have been rebranded the "Overseas Contingency Operation," and lawyers are being deployed to fight the real battles.

The strategy of the new administration looks a lot like the course the Clinton administration set us on before Sept. 11, 2001. And we know how that turned out: Clinton relied on prosecutors to fight terrorists, mistakenly treating terrorism as random crime rather than the grave national security threat that it is.

After each al-Qaida attack that occurred on his watch, Clinton dispatched FBI agents and lawyers overseas to collect evidence. This simply bought Osama bin Laden and his henchmen more time to launch their "Big Bang," as counterterrorism officials call 9/11.

Astonishingly, this administration seems to have adopted that failed strategy, which could leave us exposed to an even bigger bang. According to the Los Angeles Times, the Justice Department will now have "a central role in overseas counterterrorism cases."

The administration has expanded its authority to question foreign suspects and gather evidence "to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option." In other words, the FBI is in, the CIA is out, and the Pentagon is gradually being stripped of its war. The Global War on Terror is now a global crime scene. The real battles going forward will be waged inside courtrooms.

The FBI played a lead role in international terrorism investigations before 9/11. Its intelligence proved lousy. The Pentagon and CIA, meantime, have taken the fight to the enemy in their backyard, keeping them off balance. Yet they're being edged out, and the White House has even directed the Pentagon to stop calling what it's doing in Iraq, Afghanistan and other terror fronts a "war."

In a recent e-mail to Pentagon staffers, the Defense Department's office of security review noted "this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror.' (GWOT.) Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' " Contingency is code for reacting to trouble, and not going on the offensive — though the aggressive strategy has kept the country free from a major attack for eight years.

In another throwback to the Clinton era, the White House has redirected law enforcement to focus investigations on white supremacist groups.

According to a recent internal report by the Department of Homeland Security, the administration thinks Timothy McVeigh types pose a greater domestic threat than radical Muslims, even though several homegrown terrorism cases have popped up in the last month alone — including Monday's shooting of U.S. soldiers in Little Rock by one Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad. DHS was set up after 9/11 to protect the country from Islamic terrorism.

All this comes on top of the administration's plan to close Gitmo and transfer al-Qaida terrorists into the U.S. court system, treating them as if they were criminal defendants and not the enemy combatants they are.

With each passing month, the administration seems to backslide deeper into a dangerous pre-9/11 mentality that puts the nation at increasing risk of attack.
Click to read the article and the comments

Here's Obama's Cairo Speech - Or at least the speech he should give

June 02, 2009
from American Thinker
by Robert Spencer

As Barack Obama prepares to give his long-anticipated major address to the Islamic world from Cairo, as a public service I here offer the speech he should give:

Dear friends,

I have said that in this speech I would offer my personal commitment to engagement with the Islamic world, based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. Establishing peace between the forces of the global jihad and America and her ally Israel is something that I would very much love to do. The first thing I must acknowledge, however, is that much as I would love to see this peace dawning over the world, it is not within my power to achieve this.

That may surprise many of you. You have grown accustomed to thinking that the tensions between Muslims and the United States - tensions that boiled over on September 11, 2001 and on the occasions of many other acts of jihad terrorism as well - are entirely the fault of the United States. Americans have been told that we are hated because of our support for Israel, and because of our attempts to bring freedom and stability to the overwhelmingly Muslim people of Iraq and Afghanistan. We are hated because we have spent American treasure to try to secure a better life for Muslims the world over, spending billions of dollars in aid for Egypt, Pakistan, and other Muslim countries.

I must speak honestly with you. It puzzles and pains Americans to see ourselves vilified and hated for trying to help others. Now, unlike the Islamic Republic of Iran and other Islamic entities, we seek no apologies, no restitution. We do not ask for a word of thanks for our numerous attempts to help Muslim societies become safe, prosperous places to live for all their citizens. We do not ask for your approval. But at this point we are going to cease efforts to build bridges of understanding with the Islamic world that have turned out to be fruitless, and even self-defeating.

We have showered billions on Pakistan to enable the Pakistani government to fight the Islamic jihadists, only to see a great deal of that many being funneled to those same jihadists, who are now stronger than ever.

We have tried to establish democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, only to see non-Muslim minorities treated worse than ever, such that they have been streaming out of Iraq in unprecedented numbers, while the few that remain in Afghanistan are subject to increasingly violent persecution.

We have brokered peace treaty after peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians - from Camp David to Oslo to the Road Map for Peace - only to see the Palestinian side again and again trample upon its commitments to recognize and respect Israel's basic right to exist.

I have offered you America's outstretched hand. In doing so I have followed a path blazed by my predecessors. But that gesture of conciliation has never been reciprocated. And so now, even as my good will is still extended to you, I must act more realistically.

Pakistan and other Muslim countries will not receive another penny of American aid unless and until they demonstrate - in a transparent and inspectable fashion - that they are working against, not abetting, the forces of the global jihad. This will include instituting comprehensive nationwide programs to teach against the jihad doctrine of Islamic supremacism, teaching that Muslims and non-Muslims must live together as equal citizens on an indefinite basis, without any attempts by Muslims to subjugate non-Muslims as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law.

I trust you will understand that we cannot continue to fund the cutting of our own throat.

Afghanistan and Iraq must immediately guarantee the equality of rights of women and non-Muslims, or American arms will no longer devote themselves to keeping regimes in power that do not guarantee those rights.

I will call upon Israel to make no further territorial concessions. The withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 demonstrated only that such concessions whet, rather than sate, the appetites of Islamic jihadists for more concessions. The assumption that territorial concessions will bring peace ignores not only recent history, but also the stated goal of the jihadist movements arrayed against Israel: the destruction of the Jewish state.

That state is an American ally - a more reliable one than any Islamic state has ever been. And we will do whatever is necessary to preserve and defend that ally.

Our hand is outstretched, but we are not unrealistic about the nature of the world. The animus between us is as much, if not more, the result of the doctrines of jihad and Islamic supremacism as it is a result of American policy. I am telling you today that we understand this, and will be acting accordingly. Ultimately a policy based on realism will be much better for both of us than policies based on the fantasies and half-truths that have hitherto prevailed.

Thank you, and may God bless you.

Click to go to the article and read the comments

Pakistan and the Bomb - The security of their nuclear arsenal is shaky

from The Wall Street Journal
By BRUCE RIEDEL
May 30, 2009.security

What the U.S. needs to do to avert a crisis

The Pakistani army, backed by attack helicopters, is fighting intense gun battles in the Swat valley 60 miles outside the capital of Islamabad with Islamic extremists. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have struck back with suicide bombs in Pakistan’s major cities, including Lahore. A plot in Karachi was foiled but the extremists vow more carnage is imminent.

The battles are the latest in a deadly struggle for the control of Pakistan. Some are hoping this, at last, is the turning point when the army and the Pakistani government will finally defeat the extremists, but history suggests that conclusion is premature. More likely this will be yet another temporary setback for the Islamists to be followed by new advances elsewhere.

The fighting has cast a spotlight on the shaky security of Pakistan’s growing nuclear arsenal—the fastest growing arsenal in the world. Pakistan is finishing construction of several new reactors and is seeking to buy more from China to increase its production of fissile material. The United States has provided Pakistan with over $10 billion in military aid since 2001. No one outside Pakistan can say if some of that money was diverted directly to the nuclear program by the army, but undoubtedly the U.S. assistance indirectly made it easier for the army to use its own funds to accelerate the development of its nuclear weapons.

Today the arsenal is under the control of its military leaders; it is well protected, concealed and dispersed. But if the country fell into the wrong hands—those of the militant Islamic jihadists and al Qaeda—so would the arsenal. The U.S. and the rest of the world would face the worst security threat since the end of the Cold War. Containing this nuclear threat would be difficult, if not impossible.

The danger of Pakistan becoming a jihadist state is real. Just before her murder in December 2007, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto said she believed al Qaeda would be marching on Islamabad in two years. A jihadist Pakistan would be a global game changer—the world’s second largest Muslim state with nuclear weapons breeding a hothouse of terrorism.

Yet it’s not inevitable. For the past 60 years, U.S. policy toward the country has been inconsistent and mercurial, rife with double standards with Pakistan’s neighbor India. Increasing calls to “secure” the country’s nuclear weapons by force are far from productive—in fact, it’s making serious work with Pakistan more difficult.

Pakistan is a unique nuclear weapons state. It has been both the recipient of technology transfers from other states and a supplier of technology to still other states. It has been a state sponsor of proliferation and has tolerated private sector proliferation as well. Pakistan has engaged in highly provocative behavior against India, even initiating a limited war, and sponsored terrorist groups that have engaged in mass casualty terrorism inside India’s cities, most recently last November in Mumbai. No other nuclear weapons state has done all of these provocative actions.

The origins of the Pakistani nuclear program lie in the deep national humiliation of the 1971 war with India that led to the partition of the country, the independence of Bangladesh and the destruction of the dream of a single Muslim state for all of south Asia’s Muslim population. The military dictator at the time, Yaqub Khan, presided over the loss of half the nation and the surrender of 90,000 Pakistani soldiers in Dacca. The Pakistani establishment determined it must develop a nuclear weapon to counter India’s conventional superiority.

The new prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, convened the country’s top 50 scientists secretly in January 1972 and challenged them to build a bomb. He famously said that Pakistanis would sacrifice everything and “eat grass” to get a nuclear deterrent.

The 1974 Indian nuclear explosion only intensified the quest. Mr. Bhutto received an unsolicited letter from a Pakistani who had studied in Louvain, Belgium, Abdul Qadeer Khan, offering to help by stealing sensitive centrifuge technology from his new employers at a nuclear facility in the Netherlands. Over the next few years—with the assistance of the Pakistani intelligence service, the Inter Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI)—Mr. Khan would steal the key technology to help Pakistan produce fissionable material to make a bomb.

This is a long article. Click to read the rest and the comments

Obama sweet talks our enemies - the horrific results...

image by rees

Defense Secretary Gates praises soldier in pink boxers

from Yahoo News.com
May 21, 2009
by David Morgan
Editing by Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday praised an Army soldier in eastern Afghanistan who drew media attention this month after rushing to defend his post from attack while wearing pink boxer shorts and flip-flops.

In fact, Gates said he wants to meet the soldier and shake his hand the next time he visits Afghanistan.

"Any soldier who goes into battle against the Taliban in pink boxers and flip-flops has a special kind of courage," Gates said in remarks prepared for a speech in New York.

"I can only wonder about the impact on the Taliban. Just imagine seeing that: a guy in pink boxers and flip-flops has you in his cross-hairs. What an incredible innovation in psychological warfare," he said.

Army Specialist Zachary Boyd, 19, of Fort Worth, Texas, rushed from his sleeping quarters on May 11 to join fellow platoon members at a base in Afghanistan's Kunar Province after the unit came under fire from Taliban positions.

A news photographer was on hand to record the image of Boyd standing at a makeshift rampart in helmet, body armor, red T-shirt and boxers emblazoned with the message: "I love NY."

When the image wound up on the front page of the New York Times, Boyd told his parents he might lose his job if President Barack Obama saw him out of uniform.

"I can assure you that Specialist Boyd's job is very safe indeed," Gates said in the speech.

The U.S. defense chief was scheduled to deliver the speech at New York's annual Salute to Freedom dinner in Manhattan.

(Reporting by David Morgan; Editing by Will Dunham)

Democrats won't fund Guantanamo closing - But wait, they're the ones that wanted to close it...

from Breitbart.com
by Andrew Taylor
Associated Press Writer
May 19, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's allies in the Senate will not provide funds to close the Guantanamo Bay prison next January, a top Democratic official said Tuesday.

With debate looming on Obama's spending request to cover military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the official says Democrats will deny the Pentagon and Justice Department $80 million to relocate Guantanamo's 241 detainees.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the proposed changes to the bill were to be unveiled later.

The administration has yet to develop a plan for what to do with the detainees, and Obama's promise to close the facility is facing strong GOP opposition.

It appears to be a tactical retreat. Once the administration develops a plan to close the facility, congressional Democrats are likely to revisit the topic, provided they are satisfied there are adequate safeguards.

The developments on Capitol Hill came as the Pentagon said it still expects the prison at Guantanamo Bay to be closed by January 2010 as Obama has ordered.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters on Tuesday that he sees nothing to indicate the January 2010 deadline will be delayed.

Republicans are poised with an amendment by James Inhofe of Oklahoma that would block any of the 241 Guantanamo detainees from ever coming to U.S. soil to stand trial or serve their sentences.

"Shuttering this facility now could only serve one end: and that is to make Americans less safe than Guantanamo has," said GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

The massive war spending measure otherwise sticks closely to Obama's request—unlike a House version that reversed a Pentagon plan to stop production of C-17 cargo planes.

The House bill effectively exceeds Obama's request by almost $12 billion, adding $2.2 billion to foreign aid accounts, refusing to fund the closing of Guantanamo, and funding eight C-17 cargo planes despite Defense Secretary Robert Gates' desire to cease purchases of the aircraft as part of his effort to reform Pentagon procurement.
Click to read the article and the comments

Obama's Gitmo-to-Va. Uyghur Plan Hits A Wall: Jim Webb

from The Counter Terrorism Blog
By James Gordon Meek
May 18, 2009

Over the weekend, the Obama administration's ambitious plan to resettle a small group of Guantanamo Bay detainees in the Virginia suburbs of Washington ran into a wall. Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Sen. Jim Webb said "the answer is no" to the proposal that the former enemy combatants - ethnic Turks from China called Uyghurs - will live in Fairfax, Va.

Up 'til then, the debate over the Uyghurs' fate had been mostly down partisan lines, with Republicans led by Rep. Frank Wolf complaining loudly that no former Gitmo inmates should be incarcerated, put on trial or released inside the U.S. With Virginia Democrat Webb unexpectedly becoming an obstacle, Obama's "contingency operations" are now in peril.

I've also reported in the New York Daily News many senior counterterror officials believe the half-dozen Uyghurs eyed for release in Virginia have troubling ties to an Al Qaeda-affiliated terror group, the Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP), also known as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement. While few officials worry that the Uyghurs will form a cell or commit future acts of terrorism, they view the precautions they have been readying as a big - though manageable - hassle.

"We'll have 24-7 coverage up on them for years," one top U.S. security official told me. "It's extremely labor-intensive. But if we don't do it, we'll be called idiots if anything bad happens."

So why are lawmakers and counterterror officials fretting about the Uyghurs?

The Gitmo group were mostly nabbed fleeing a TIP terror training camp in eastern Afghanistan during the U.S. invasion following 9/11. Their defense lawyers insist the detainees have gotten the "terrorist" rap by the Communist Chinese government, which oppresses Uyghurs.

But we reported in The News today that the TIP, who ran the Afghan camp, released a jihad video last month in which they praised Al Qaeda-in-Iraq and the Uyghurs' former Afghan hosts, the Taliban. The video was released through an Al Qaeda-affiliated Web site, Al-Fajr, and includes clips showing "mujahadeen brothers" blowing up U.S. military Humvees. The Uyghur jihadis "will cause China to experience what America experienced in Iraq and in Afghanistan," a narrator promises, according to a SITE Intelligence Group translation.

It also probably didn't help when Obama's Treasury Department designated the group's leader, Abdul Haq, as "a member of Al Qaeda's Shura Council" on Apr. 20.

TIP's praise for Al Qaeda in its video, "Persistence and Preparation for Jihad in the Cause of Allah," was in some way payback to Osama Bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri, who has mentioned the Uyghurs' plight in China's East Turkistan region five times in his tapes since 2005, according to IntelCenter. East Turkistan has been included in the context of major jihad struggles Zawahiri discussed, such as Somalia and Chechnya.

On Feb. 22, after excerpts of the forthcoming TIP video began appearing online, Zawahiri released a taped rant that included criticism of the United Nations, which has placed the Uyghur terror group on its list of designated terrorists. He said showing "respect for the principles of the United Nations basically means ruling by other than Shari'ah" and is tantamount to blessing UN-member states' oppression of Muslims, including "China’s control over East Turkistan."

Aside from the growing political opposition to relocating the Uyghurs from Gitmo to a Washington suburb, the biggest roadblock may be the detainees themselves. Multiple sources confirm that some do not even want to live in America. And since no other country will accept them, "the question then becomes, can we force them to leave Cuba?" wondered a U.S. counterterror official.
Click to go to the article

U.S. Ready to Take out Pakistani Nukes

from the blog Islam In Action
Saturday, May 16, 2009

As the violence has escalated in Pakistan since the inception of Sharia law in the Swat Valley, many of us have wondered about the nuclear arsenal within Pakistan. Here is what one Pakistani news organization had to say.

Hat tip to The Religion of Peace.

‘Plans ready to take out Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal’
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Monitoring Desk

WASHINGTON: The US has a detailed plan for infiltrating Pakistan and securing its mobile arsenal of nuclear warheads if it appears the country is about to fall under the control of the Taliban, al-Qaeda or other Islamic extremists, a leading TV network reported.

“American intelligence sources say the operation would be conducted by the Joint Special Operations Command, the super-secret commando unit headquartered at Fort Bragg, NC,” a report by Rowan Scarborough of the FoxNews said on Friday. The report has also been posted on foxnews.com, the website of the TV channel.

It said: “The JSOC is the military’s chief terrorists hunting squad and has units now operating in Afghanistan on Pakistan’s western border. But a secondary mission is to secure foreign nuclear arsenals — a role for which the JSOC operatives have trained in Nevada.

“The mission has taken on added importance in the recent months, as Islamic extremists have taken territory close to the capital of Islamabad and could destabilise Pakistan’s shaky democracy. “We have plans to secure them ourselves if things get out of hand,” said a US intelligence source, who has deployed to Afghanistan. “That is a big secondary mission for the JSOC in Afghanistan.”

The source said the JSOC had been updating its mission plan for the day President Obama gave the order to infiltrate Pakistan. “Small units could seize them, disable them and then centralise them in a secure location,” the source said. A secret Defence Intelligence Agency document, first disclosed in 2004, said Pakistan had a nuclear arsenal of 35 weapons. The document said it planned to more than double the arsenal by 2020.

FoxNews quoted a Pakistani official as saying the US and his country had an understanding that if either Osama bin Laden, or his deputy, Ayman Zawahiri, was located, the US troops and air strikes might be used inside the borders to capture or kill them.

“What makes the Pakistan mission especially difficult is that the military has its missiles on the Soviet-style mobile launchers and rail lines. The US intelligence agencies, using satellite photos and communication intercepts, is constantly monitoring their whereabouts. Other warheads are kept in storage. The US technical experts have visited Pakistan to advise the government on how to maintain and protect its arsenal.

“Also, there are rogue elements inside Pakistan’s military and intelligence service, who could quickly side with the extremists and make the JSOC’s mission all the more difficult.“It’s relatively easy to track the rail-mounted ones with satellites,” said the intelligence source. “Truck-mounted are more difficult. However, they are all relatively close to the capital in areas that the government firmly controls, so we don’t have to look too far.

“The JSOC is made up of three main elements: Army Delta Force, Navy SEALs and a high-tech special intelligence unit known as the Task Force Orange. The JSOC was instrumental in Iraq in finding and killing Abu Musab Zarqawi, the deadly and most prominent al-Qaeda leader in the Middle East.

“There is speculation in the intelligence community that a secondary reason for Army Lt-Gen Stanley McChrystal being named the next commander in Afghanistan is that he headed the JSOC in 2006-08 and is read-in on its contingency missions in Pakistan.

“Adm Michael Mullen, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, this month said that based on the information he had seen, Pakistan’s nuclear warheads were safe. “I remain comfortable that the nuclear weapons in Pakistan are secure, that the Pakistani leadership and, in particular, the military is very focused on this,” it said. “We, the United States, have invested fairly significantly over the last three years, to work with them, to improve that security. And we’re satisfied, very satisfied with that progress. We will continue to do that. And we all recognise obviously the worst downside of — with respect to Pakistan is that those nuclear weapons come under the control of terrorists.”
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Unbelievable Quote by by a U.S. General...

Lt. Gen. Dennis J. Hejlik, a U.S.-based Marine commander, suggests that General McChrystal who is replacing General McKiernan as the commander of all U.S. forces in Afghanistan, "will do things differently."

"He really does understand that you're not going to win the war by killing all the enemy. That's just not going to work," he said.

Are you kidding me??? I think it would be quite obvious that if you killed all the enemy, the war would be over! Who would you still need to fight???

What war college did he graduate from? I believe they usually teach you that the object is to kill all of the enemy. This is just an unbelievably bizarre statement to make. Are these the new talking points from Obama? Are we going to fight a war where the object is not necessarily to kill the enemy? Obama has turned this world upside down.

I would like to recommend this quote from General Patton:

"There is one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."- General George S.
Patton Jr.

As long as there are Taliban left standing, there will be a war.
Rees

Analysis: Obama seeks effective war innovations

By Robert Burns
Ap National Security Writer

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is struggling to confront a central reality of the Afghanistan war it inherited — that more troops, more aid and a retooled strategy alone are not enough.

It wants to energize the effort with new ideas, too — and do it before American public patience runs out.

It's a grim given that U.S. casualties are likely to increase in the months ahead as additional soldiers and Marines arrive to take on the Taliban in their southern strongholds. Already some prominent members of Congress — including from Obama's own party — are questioning whether Afghanistan is a lost cause.

That concern may explain, in part, the decision Monday to sack Gen. David McKiernan as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan and replace him with an officer known for innovative action, Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Pentagon chief Robert Gates said it was time for "new thinking and new approaches."

Yet it seems unlikely the switching of commanders portends a new U.S. war strategy. Obama announced a revised plan just two months ago. Instead the administration is hoping that a military command shake-up will lead to a more effective implementation of the existing strategy, which is aimed at defeating al-Qaida terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan and preventing their return to either country.

William Fallon, the retired Navy admiral who was responsible for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and the broader Middle East in 2007-08, is optimistic that new leadership will make a difference.

"I have the highest confidence in his judgment," Fallon said of McChrystal. "He gets it."

The change at the top in Afghanistan won't mean new marching orders for arriving Marines, said Lt. Gen. Dennis J. Hejlik, a U.S.-based Marine commander. However, Hejlik, too, suggested that McChrystal will do things differently.

"He really does understand that you're not going to win the war by killing all the enemy. That's just not going to work," he said.

McKiernan recently described the war as "stalemated, at best" in the southern part of Afghanistan where the Taliban are strongest. For months he has called for an increase in U.S. forces, but during the Bush administration his requests went unmet as Iraq dominated the White House's focus.

Obama entered the White House promising to make Afghanistan and Pakistan the higher priority, arguing that stopping al-Qaida from launching new attacks was of greater strategic importance than the task in Iraq. He also said he would "not blindly stay the course" in Afghanistan and would regularly review his approach. Since then the situation — militarily and politically — has arguably gotten worse.

The boldness of the insurgency was underscored Tuesday. Eleven Taliban suicide bombers struck government buildings in a daylong assault in the eastern city of Khost. The assault led to running gunbattles with U.S. and Afghan forces that killed 20 people and wounded three Americans.

At the heart of Obama's approach to the war is his view, shared by senior commanders, that military power alone will not lead to success — and that stability in Afghanistan is not possible without stability in neighboring, nuclear-armed Pakistan, where the radical Taliban movement has been on the rise.

That means Obama will look to McChrystal to find more effective ways of linking military action with an accelerated effort to build workable Afghan government ministries, to expand and improve Afghan security forces, to promote Afghan reconciliation with more moderate elements of the Taliban, and to improve the U.S.-led coalition's ability to overcome remarkably effective propaganda efforts by the Taliban and al-Qaida.

It also means that turning around the war in Afghanistan will require changes beyond Obama's control — perhaps most importantly a more effective Pakistani government response to the Taliban insurgency in Pakistan.

Two months after announcing his new strategy, Obama has little to show for it, although the extra 21,000 troops he approved as reinforcements are only now beginning to arrive and there is the prospect of a further restructuring of the U.S.-NATO command in Afghanistan. Also, the new U.S. ambassador in Kabul, retired Army Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, just arrived in the capital last week.

The outlook is not bright. At a hearing Tuesday, Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, painted a grim picture, saying he was stunned by a lack of progress in Afghanistan, which he called a "black hole" with no bottom.

"It is just breathtaking, the amount of money, the American lives we've spent there, and you have a government that has control maybe to the outskirts of the capital," Risch said.

The man to whom Risch was speaking, Richard Holbrooke, the veteran diplomat who is coordinating the administration's policy on Pakistan and Afghanistan, responded that his own initial assessment was not much different. Holbrooke insisted, however, that the administration has a workable strategy and that dismantling the terrorist network that attacked the U.S. on 9/11 is too important not to press ahead.

Obama needs Congress to go along with the piece of his strategy that calls for providing billions more in aid to Pakistan with the aim of preventing a collapse into chaos that could spill over into Afghanistan. But it was evident from Holbrooke's appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that some of the most skeptical and reluctant members of Congress are from Obama's own party.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said he feared that adding U.S. troops in southern Afghanistan would only expand the trouble in Pakistan.

"You are absolutely correct that an additional amount of American troops, particularly if they are successful in (southern Afghanistan), could end up creating a pressure in Pakistan, which would add to the instability," Holbrooke said. He said this would require closer coordination with the Pakistani government.

Another obstacle to progress in Afghanistan that has seemed beyond U.S. efforts to overcome is the recurrence of civilian casualties. It's a problem that has undercut Afghan public support for the U.S. mission and assisted the Taliban in promoting the notion that the Afghanistan government is a U.S. puppet.

One more problem demanding an innovative solution.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

A Perfect Storm? Will Pakistan Implode?

By Investor's Business Daily
Posted Monday, May 11, 2009

Terrorism: After long demanding that Pakistan get a legitimately elected president, Democrats now threaten to abandon his war efforts. Meanwhile, the Taliban and al-Qaida eye Islamabad's sizable nuclear arsenal.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, widower of the assassinated Benazir Bhutto and leader of her Pakistan People's Party, has come to Washington, but he hardly conquered it.

After meeting with Zardari for 90 minutes, members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, threatening de-funding, were grumbling he said little about his game plan on defeating the Taliban, whose forces have made inroads into more populated areas.

Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., chairman of the House panel, remarked that Zardari "did not present a coherent strategy for the defeat of this insurgency." When confronted with Berman's complaints on NBC's "Meet the Press," the best Zardari had to offer was to say he has "always have been of the view that democracy is the answer to the problem."

He spent much of the interview complaining that his predecessor, Pervez Musharraf, was a dictator and that the United States had supported him.

But as flawed and heavy-handed as Musharraf was, at least while he was in power the Taliban and al-Qaida were not making inroads toward overthrowing Pakistan's government — and gaining possible access to as many as 100 nuclear weapons.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Gen. David Petraeus, chief of the U.S. Central Command, confirmed that "the location of al-Qaida's senior leadership is, indeed, in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of that very rugged border region of western Pakistan just east of Afghanistan."

And according to U.S. and Pakistani officials, al-Qaida operatives seek "to sow chaos in Pakistan and strengthen the hand of the militant Islamist groups there," the New York Times said Monday.

In a March Washington Post interview, David Kilcullen, top counterinsurgency adviser to Petraeus during the surge in Iraq, described the situation as "reaching the point where within one to six months we could see the collapse of the Pakistani state . . . ."

Kilcullen noted that "the Pakistani military and police and intelligence service don't follow the civilian government; they are essentially a rogue state within a state."

Former Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn, now leading the Nuclear Threat Initiative group, recently pointed out that Pakistan's "generals aren't guarding those weapons. The privates are — the young people are . . . . And that's . . . a big question mark, as the country becomes more subject to revolutionary-type zealots."

Pakistan, the only Islamic nuclear power, now has a president who, while possessing democratic bona fides, seems weak, has questionable control of and respect from his military, and has cultivated a reputation for obfuscation.

Meanwhile, a resurgent Taliban may threaten the Islamabad regime's very existence; al-Qaida, headquartered in Pakistan, sits perched, ready to take advantage; and Democrats in Congress seem eager to pull the financial plug.

Is a perfect storm gathering that will empower al-Qaida or its allies with nuclear weapons?
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Gates (Obama) Tosses A General Under The Bus For The Civilian Air Raid Deaths - and blames Bush again

Obama via Gates, conveniently tosses General McKiernan under his bus. He's doing this to deflect criticism arising from the large number of civilians that were killed in the recent U.S. bombing raid. Obama is making McKiernan the scapegoat. He's asked for McKiernan's resignation so he can replace him and then say the problem has been resolved. From this point on, Obama will not want to hear any more criticism.

Gibbs in his press conferences will just say we investigated what transpired and we've taken corrective action. Cased closed. No more questions.

I'm not disappointed that he's being replaced. I made a post back on April 10, 2009, after General McKiernan made a statement where he was apologizing for past U.S. mistakes and saying he is was studying the Quran. He was doing the Obama goose step feel good approach with the Taliban. Well, it doesn't look like it worked out very well for him and the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. Imagine that!.

The picture is of Stanley McChrystal. Here is Stanley McChrystal's Joint Chiefs of Staff biography. He is the new commander for all U.S. Forces in Afghanistan. His resume is very impressive. I like the fact that he has a Specials Forces background. Here is his Wikipedia biography.
Rees

from Yahoo News.com
By Pauline Jelinek And Anne Gearan
Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON – The Pentagon replaced its top general in Afghanistan Monday as President Barack Obama tries to turn around a stalemated war. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he asked for the resignation of Gen. David McKiernan. Gates said new leadership is needed as the Obama administration launches its strategy in the seven-year-old campaign.

The change is aimed at "getting fresh thinking, fresh eyes on the problem," Gates told a Pentagon news conference.

The move comes as more than 21,000 additional U.S. forces begin to arrive in Afghanistan, dispatched by Obama to confront the Taliban more forcefully this spring and summer.

Replacing McKiernan will be Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who has had a top administrative job at the Joint Chiefs of Staff for less than a year. He is a former commander of the Joint Special Operations Command.

McKiernan held the command in Afghanistan for about 11 months.

Gates recommended to Obama that McChrystal be nominated for the top job and that Lt. Gen. David M. Rodriguez be McChrystal's deputy. He urged the Senate to confirm the two quickly.

Obama had approved 17,000 additional combat forces for Afghanistan this year, plus 4,000 trainers and other non-combat troops. By year's end, the United States will have more than 68,000 troops in the sprawling country — about double the total at the end of Bush's presidency but still far fewer than the approximately 130,000 still in Iraq.

McKiernan and other U.S. commanders have said resources they need in Afghanistan are tied up in Iraq.

Asked if McKiernan's resignation ends his military career, Gates said, "Probably."

Gates visited Afghanistan last week to see firsthand what preparations and plans are under way to set the president's counterinsurgency strategy in motion.

"As I have said many times before, very few of these problems can be solved by military means alone," Gates said Monday. "And yet, from the military perspective, we can and must do better."
He noted that the Afghan campaign has long been shortchanged of the people and money needed in favor of the Bush administration's focus since 2003 on the Iraq war.

"But I believe, resources or no, that our mission there requires new thinking and new approaches from our military leaders," he said. "Today we have a new policy set by our new president. We have a new strategy, a new mission, and a new ambassador. I believe that new military leadership also is needed."

In June 2006 McChrystal was congratulated by then-President Bush for his role in the operation that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. As head of the special operations command, his forces included the Army's clandestine counterterrorism unit, Delta Force.

McChrystal also came under fire for his role in the furor surrounding the friendly fire shooting of Army Ranger Pat Tillman — a former NFL star — in Afghanistan. An investigation at the time found that he was "accountable for the inaccurate and misleading assertions" contained in papers recommending that Tillman get a Silver Star award.

McChrystal acknowledged he had suspected several days prior to approving the Silver Star citation that Tillman may have died by fratricide, rather than enemy fire. He sent a memo to military leaders warning them of that, even as they were approving Tillman's Silver Star. He told investigators that he believed Tillman deserved the award.

The Army overruled a Pentagon recommendation that he be held accountable for his actions.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Hey Obama, this is what military leadership really is...

from the blog Dear Mr. President
Sunday, May 10, 2009

Dear President Obama: In case you're wondering what military leadership really is.

So far, you've been a clueless idiot about most all things military.

In everything from lying during your campaign about troop withdrawals, to blowing off the Medal of Honor Reception on your inauguration, to trying to get us to pay for our own wounds by sticking it to our own insurance companies, you've been an utterley loathsome Commander in Chief.

Well, Mr. President, here's another clue in the clue bag as to what it takes to lead. It's about courage. It's about sacrifice. It's about honor.

And frankly, Sir, you seem to lack any clue about any of those tenets of leadership. So here's a video, from CBS of all people, that may give you a glimpse of what you're in charge off.

No con job like your last photo op with screened military supporters. But the real deal.

So, watch this, Mr. President. Get a grip. And get a clue. This is the kind of leadership YOU should aspire to.

from the blog This Ain't Hell But You Can See It From Here
May 8th, 2009

The Warriors Code, Part II

Maybe not for you guys, but this one comes with a hankie warning for me anyway. Nah, who am I kidding, even if you have a Grinch pre-whoville 2 sizes too small heart, this one will choke you up.



Click image or this link to watch the video - it plays automatically

Brian Brennan is a fellow alumnus of The Citadel, and a brother of mine, in arms if not in blood. He is a recipient of the Arland D. Williams Award, and a true American Hero.

I just feel so humbled by men like Brian.

Here is his website

H/t to Hawkeye and the VA

Pakistan: Islamic Taliban trumps Islamic Military - War is a farce

Pakistan hangs back from major Swat offensive, talks secretly to Taliban
fron the DEBKAfile

May 10, 2009

Pakistani troops in embattled Swat Valley

While by no means a phony war, DEBKAfile's military sources report that accounts of a major Pakistan military offensive launched to flush Taliban out of their strongholds in the northern Swat Valley are generally inflated. This is not to say that hundreds of thousands of civilians are not fleeing the valley. Some half a million are on the move and will join the same number displaced since August, generating a large-scale humanitarian catastrophe.

According to our sources, the Pakistani army has so far not fought a single pitched battle with the Taliban. Neither have the insurgents been rooted out of any of the cities and villages under their control.

Islamabad's one-sided claims of some 200 Taliban killed in three days are not independently confirmed. At most, the Taliban have suffered some 50 dead combatants.

Pakistani troops are attacking Taliban positions with long-range artillery. Three to five warplane and helicopter strikes have been staged at most, as well as heavy machine gun fire on small Taliban groups on the move.

Pakistani prime minister Yusuf Raza Gilani's statement Wednesday, May 6, that the "armed forces were being called into to eliminate the militants and terrorists" is locally assessed as intended for Western ears rather than their own commanders. It was made when president Asif Ali Zardari was in Washington warding off criticism for not doing enough to fight Islamist terror.

However, our military sources do not at this point see the 15,000 Pakistani troops poised in the Swat Valley actually launching a major offensive against the 5,000 Taliban fighters standing against them.

One reason is that not all the armed men fighting in Swat belong to the Taliban; some are local Swat militia groups whose chiefs have made ad hoc deals with Taliban. It is far from certain that Pakistani troops will want to fight their own countrymen.

Furthermore, according to DEBKAfile sources, the Islamabad government and local insurgent chiefs are in secret negotiation to arrange for the army to move "victoriously" into the main Swat towns of Mingora and Kambar without facing resistance. Taliban would retreat to the countryside, undefeated and with minimal losses. Both sides would then revert to the original deal for the imposition of Sharia law in the province in return for a ceasefire.

The negotiations also provide for Taliban to pull out of Bunar province which is 90 kilometers from Islamabad.

Both sides allowed a refugee catastrophe to develop to generate an eve-of-battle climate – hence the lifting of the curfew for a few hours Sunday, May 10, to encourage the civilian exodus.

A breakdown of these talks may well result in the much-publicized Pakistani military push actually taking off. At the same time, military experts estimate that at least double the number of Pakistani troops deployed at present will be needed to regain control of the Swat Valley from Taliban and its allies.

This extremely volatile situation prompted Gen. David Petraeus, chief of the US Central Command, to remark Saturday, May 9 that it is "too soon to gauge the full magnitude or duration of the Pakistani response.
Click to go to the article

Talked to Death

"The idea of reaching out again to the Taliban, who have repeatedly demanded unacceptable conditions for talks, should be shelved once and for all."

from The New York Times
By Hassina Sherjan
Published: May 7, 2009
Kabul, Afghanistan

FOR several years, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan has been trying to negotiate and reconcile with supposedly moderate elements of the Taliban to end the insurgency. This approach has failed every time. Thus it is puzzling to many Afghans that President Obama has also been talking about negotiating with “moderates.” Let’s hope that when the two men met in Washington this week, along with President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan, the idea of reaching out to the Islamic extremists was shelved once and for all.

After all, President Karzai’s efforts have simply revealed the weakness of the Afghan government and its international allies. Taliban spokesman have repeatedly demanded unacceptable conditions for talks, including the departure of all foreign forces from Afghanistan and the establishment of Shariah law.

Indeed, shortly after Mr. Obama raised the subject of reconciliation, the Taliban rejected his proposal, stating there were no extremists or moderate groups within their ranks. On this point at least, the Taliban are right. Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, put it very clearly: “The Taliban were united under the leadership of Mullah Muhammad Omar. All the fighters follow and obey orders of one central command. The existence of moderates and extremist elements within the rank and file of Taliban is wishful thinking of the West and the Afghan government.”

What can be the purpose of talks with the Taliban? These men deprive women of their rights, throw acid in the faces of schoolgirls, reject religious freedom and oppose constitutional democracy. They also threaten to kill any Afghans who have worked with Western militaries and nongovernmental groups or had other contact with foreigners.

Is it possible, as some have said, that the Taliban have mellowed since being toppled in 2001? Muhammad Ibrahim Hanafi, a top Taliban commander, answered that question in an interview in March with CNN: “Our law is still the same old law which was in place during our rule in Afghanistan.”

The more President Karzai and his Western allies talk about reconciliation, the farther their public support will plummet. I returned to Afghanistan in 2001 after more than two decades in America and founded a manufacturing company with the intention of using part of its profits to help young women get an education. In the early days, the discussions at our organization’s meetings were dominated by talk of building schools and other big plans. Lately, however, the main topic has been the future of us women in Afghanistan under another Taliban regime. We know that there is not, and will never be, any “moderate Taliban.” Extremists and ideologues do not compromise.

The atmosphere has been made worse by the president’s signing of a family law affecting Shiite Muslims that places restrictions on when a woman can leave her house and states the circumstances in which she is obliged to have sex with her husband. I was part of a group of civil-society representatives who recently met with President Karzai to express our concerns about the law; he replied that he hadn’t known the full details when he signed it and promised to “fight for us” to have it amended. We’ll see. But his later statement that “there are no reconciliation processes” going on with the Taliban, which seems at odds with the facts, did not inspire much hope.

The family law and other governmental efforts to appease religious extremists are having one effect that reminds me of the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of 1979: Afghanistan is being drained of the people who would be most effective at putting it back together. It seems as if every group of Afghans that attends training programs in the West now returns just a bit smaller. Last year, the accountant and the top administrator of my factory left for the Netherlands with their families. My new accountant recently went to Islamabad, Pakistan, to meet with German Embassy officials about a possible visa.

This is a far cry from the 1960s and ’70s, when many Afghans, including my father and five of my uncles, studied abroad on scholarships but returned to work in the government or to start businesses and create jobs. That sense of nationalism has disappeared; unless we rediscover it, Afghanistan will become a failed state.

The only “reconciliation” strategy that is going to work is one between the Kabul government and the Afghan people. The key is making changes at the community level. Many local mullahs and citizens who have tolerated the Taliban in the past are open to working with a government that can protect them and help them find livelihoods. The government and its allies can best weaken the insurgency by better protecting the population, organizing local citizens’ groups to cooperate on economic development, and hiring more people from every part of the country into the growing Afghan Army and police force.

This is the only way that the reconcilables will be separated from the irreconcilables. We need to understand where Afghanistan’s true moderates are to be found, and not look for them in leadership positions of one of the most repressive organizations on earth.

Hassina Sherjan is the president of Boumi, a manufacturer of decorative products for the home, and the director of Aid Afghanistan for Education, a nonprofit group.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Civilian Deaths Apparently Not Obama’s Fault - Nor is anything else...

from the blog Cheat-Seeking Missiles
May 9th 2009
Posted by: Laer

An joint Afghan-US investigation has shown that a number of civilians were in fact killed in heavy fighting that occurred last Monday and Tuesday in and around two villages in Farah province, Afghanistan.

I’ve read the AP report twice now, and apparently it’s not Obama’s fault that these civilians died. In fact, the word “Obama” doesn’t even appear in the report. There’s no mention of Obama’s actions to increase U.S. deployments there, or of his longstanding support for the war in Afghanistan, or of his campaign promises to get things straightened out there.

Instead, we learn that the Taliban (called “militants” by AP) was really to blame because they used human shields (which may or may not be worse than waterboarding; it depends on who you ask), and that local leaders’ accounts of 147 civilian deaths were “extremely over-exaggerated.” Really, “exaggerated” would have sufficed; the “over” is uncalled for.

Imagine a similar incident occurring under the Bush admin. The 147-deaths figure would have led the article, and the village leaders would have been prominent, with extensive quotes about the pathos and the need to blame Bush. The joint US-Afghan study would have been given secondary billing, and the word “Bush” would have appeared at least twice.

So, thanks to his good friends and burger buddies in the media, there’s not much Obama Drama coming out of his war.
Click to read this article and others

No Worries, Obama Will Talk To Them

This is from a post at Sigmund, Carl and Alfred

Hey Obama - How's That Search For Osama Bin Laden Going?

We're all curious as to the status. All of us rember your bravado, the chest thumping, your declaration during the campaign that you would be the one to actually capture or kill him, unlike the evil George W. Bush was unable to do.

Well, the airways have been absent any mention of Obama. Just make sure you let us know when you find him, OK? Thanks!
Rees




Following is a statement from Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton in response to the Republican debate in Des Moines this morning.

"The fact that the same Republican candidates who want to keep 160,000 American troops in the middle of a civil war couldn't agree that we should take out Osama bin Ladin if we had him in our sights, proves why Americans want to turn the page on the last seven years of Bush-Cheney foreign policy."

and this:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy.

and this:

"For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just “muddle through” in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell – but he won’t even go to the cave where he lives.

and this:

"AL-QAEDA leader Osama bin Laden should be executed, if he is ever captured alive, US Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama said in interview excerpts released yesterday."

The Illinois senator told CNN that the accused mastermind of the September 11 attacks in 2001 should face the full weight of US and global justice.

"I am not a cheerleader for the death penalty," Senator Obama said. "I think it has to be reserved for only the most heinous crimes, but I certainly think plotting and engineering the death of 3000 Americans justifies such an approach.

"I think this is a big hypothetical, though - let's catch him first.

"We have failed to seriously go after al-Qaeda over the last five years because of the distraction of Iraq.

"I think we are now seeing the consequences of that in Afghanistan."

Gee, what a coincidence! Tues news: US troops killed Afghan civilians, Wed news - Obama & Karzai meet

WHO SAID THE FOLLOWING?: "This war against terrorism will succeed only if we fight it from a higher platform of morality."

Karzai did - This type of mush usually oozes out of Obama's mouth. Gee, now they're all set to have their U.S. Troops bashing session in the White House. They can both climb up on their morality platforms and spew away. I can't wait for the sound bites.

Like I've said before, it's no longer possible to fight a war. Our soldiers have gone from having one armed tied behind their back, to now having both of them. It's dangerous enough when you have normal rules of engagement, but now it will be suicidal. We should pack-up our troops and get them the hell out of Afghanistan and let the prehistoric wasteland go back to the full-blown tribal warfare that they so crave.
Rees

Afghans say US bombing run killed dozens

by Rahim Faiez And Jason Straziuso
Associated Press Writers

KABUL – Bombing runs called in by U.S. forces killed dozens of civilians taking shelter from fighting between Taliban militants and Afghan and international troops, Afghan officials said Tuesday. The U.S. promised a joint investigation.

A provincial councilman said he saw about 30 bodies, many of them women and children, after villages bought them to a provincial capital.

Overall death toll estimates varied widely. Villagers estimated from 70 to well over 100 civilians may have died, according to local and regional officials. But no government official could confirm such a toll.

Civilian deaths have caused increasing friction between the Afghan and U.S. governments, and President Hamid Karzai has long pleaded with American officials to reduce the number of civilian casualties in their operations. Karzai meets with President Barack Obama in Washington on Wednesday.

In remarks at a Washington think tank Tuesday, Karzai alluded to the problem of civilian casualties without mentioning the bombing deaths. He said the success of the new U.S. war strategy depends on "making sure absolutely that Afghans don't suffer — that Afghan civilians are protected."

"This war against terrorism will succeed only if we fight it from a higher platform of morality," he added in a speech at the Brookings Institution. Asked later what he meant by that remark, Karzai said, "We must be conducting this war as better human beings," and recognize that "force won't buy you obedience."

The latest fighting broke out Monday soon after Taliban fighters — including Taliban from Pakistan and Iran — massed in Farah province in western Afghanistan, said Belqis Roshan, a member of Farah's provincial council. The provincial police chief, Abdul Ghafar, said 25 militants and three police officers died in that battle near the village of Ganjabad in Bala Baluk district, a Taliban-controlled area near the border with Iran.

Villagers told Afghan officials that they put children, women, and elderly men in several housing compounds in the village of Gerani — about three miles to the east — to keep them safe. But villagers said fighter aircraft later targeted those compounds, killing a majority of those inside, according to Roshan and other officials.

The top U.S. spokesman in Afghanistan, Col. Greg Julian, confirmed that U.S. coalition forces participated in the battle. Julian said five wounded Afghans sought medical treatment at a military base in Farah.

"We offer our condolences to those affected by today's operations and will immediately investigate the claims to determine what happened," Julian said.

Abdul Basir Khan, another member of Farah's provincial council, said Farah's governor had hoped to send a delegation to the bombing site Tuesday to investigate, but that officials decided not to go because of how dangerous the region was. It wasn't clear when investigators might reach the village.

The United Nations often takes a lead role in investigating high-profile civilian death cases, but the U.N. doesn't have any officials in Farah province.

A Western official in Kabul said Marine special operations forces — which fall under the U.S. coalition — had called in the airstrikes. The official asked not to be identified because he wasn't authorized to release the information.

Khan said villagers brought bodies, including women and children, to Farah city to show the province's governor. Khan estimated that villagers brought about 30 bodies.

"It was difficult to count because they were in very bad shape. Some had no legs," Khan said.

Farah's hospital treated at least three wounded villagers, including an 11-year-old boy whose chest, arms and shoulders were completely bandaged. A girl named Shafiqa had bandages under her chin. Two of her toes were severed in the fighting.

"We were at home when the bombing started," she told AP Television News. "Seven members of my family were killed."

Khan said villagers told him more than 150 civilians had died, but he said he had no way to know whether that claim was true.

The issue of civilian deaths is complicated in Afghanistan. Journalists and human rights workers can rarely visit remote battle sites to verify claims of civilian casualties. U.S. officials say Taliban militants sometimes force villagers to lie and say civilians have died in coalition strikes.

But the villagers' claims on Tuesday were bolstered by the wounded at Farah's hospital shown on AP Television News. And Khan's account of several truckloads of bodies taken to Farah city added more weight to the claims.

Mohammad Nieem Qadderdan, the former top official in the district of Bala Baluk, said he saw dozens of bodies when he visited the village of Gerani.

"These houses that were full of children and women and elders were bombed by planes. It is very difficult to say how many were killed because nobody can count the number, it is too early," Qadderdan, who no longer holds a government position, told The Associated Press by telephone. "People are digging through rubble with shovels and hands."

Qadderdan said the civilian casualties were "worse than Azizabad," a reference to an August 2008 strike in a district immediately to the north of Bala Baluk.

An Afghan government commission found that an operation by U.S. forces killed 90 civilians in Azizabad, a finding backed by the U.N. The U.S. originally said no civilians died; a high-level investigation later concluded 33 civilians were killed.

After the Azizabad killings, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, announced a directive last September meant to reduce such deaths. He ordered commanders to consider breaking away from a fire-fight in populated areas rather than pursue militants into villages.

Associated Press writers Noor Khan in Kandahar and Robert Burns in Washington contributed to this report.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

IRAQ: OBAMA TAKES HIS EYE OFF THE BALL

from the blogspot The Real World
image from The Real World
Sunday, May 03, 2009

Candidate Obama and his fellow anti-war buddies spent well over a year accusing the Bush gang of taking their "eye off the ball" in Afghanistan by choosing to fight in Iraq.

By the time Bush left office, Iraq was largely a settled matter and focus had shifted back to the Afghan situation. What became clear is that most jihadists had given up on Iraq and had reconvened in Pakistan in order to fight across the border.

Candidate Obama promised to do two things. First, to fight vigorously against the resurgent Taliban in Pakistan. Second, to get Osama. He has accomplished a tad of the first and none of the second. The Afghan war continues to escalate and become increasingly problematic.

President Obama has sent in additional forces but the tide continues to run against him. To date, the anti-war Obama is escalating the fighting and losing the battle. Apparently, it is much easier to be a smartass as a candidate than it is to be the responsible decision maker as the POTUS.

But the real irony is this: Obama has taken his eye off the ball. As the following story reports, our military is facing growing jihadist activity in Iraq, where things had been progressing nicely pre-Obama.

However, by announcing withdrawal plans, ordering the end of our terrorist detainment regime, promising to no longer practice enhanced interrogation on enemy combatants and generally taking a far less aggressive posture than the Bush administration, Obama has not only taken his eye off the ball, he can no longer see the field. He has encouraged the enemy to return to the fight.

The message to those on a jihad: America is backing off and there is a much clearer field for you now to practice murder, torture, intimidation and genocide. Obviously, the terrorists have gotten the message.

Our troops are now much more in harms way in Iraq than was the case in January. Further, we are clearly worse off in the Afghan and now Pakistan region of conflict than we were six months ago.

In other words, Obama has taken his eye off the ball in Iraq while at the same time dropping the ball in Afghanistan. At immediate risk are American troops in the field in both Mideast theatres.

At risk ultimately are the American people and the homeland. This leftist anti-war President has remained loyal to his long held doctrinal beliefs relative to our military and the ongoing conflicts with our sworn enemies.

To date, he has shown little loyalty to his fellow Americans in such matters.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Obama, You Are An INFIDEL - That's according to Islamic law!

Obama, You Are An INFIDEL - That's according to Islamic law, not just what I'm saying, even though I agree with the Infidel part

I absolutely believe you understand your identity according to Sharia law. It would be intellectually dishonest if you were to deny it. It would be inconceivable if you didn't.

Let's proceed with the understanding that you know you're and infidel along with the rest of us non-believers. Islamic law is inflexible and unforgiving. Unless you and the rest of us non-believers convert, we will destroyed. It's a simple as that. You can talk to them all you want, but nothing is going to change.

Even you as the current day Messiah, will not succeed in changing Islamic law, and their professed intentions to implement it worldwide. The choices are very clear, you need to work towards stopping their effort, or someone else needs to assume your position and proceed with our battle to survive.
Rees

Obama’s Grand Delusion about Iran
A clearer, tougher policy is required — urgently
May 1, 2009
from Pajamas Media
by 'Reza Kahlili'

President Barack Obama’s recent video message to Iranians and their ruling mullahs for the Persian new year was both kind and heartfelt. Norouz, the Persian new year, has been celebrated by Iranians for almost 3,000 years. Norouz means new day and it represents two symbolic ancient concepts: end and rebirth — or end of evil and rebirth of good.

But the ruling mullahs in Iran are trying to usurp our Persian heritage and replace it with Arab/Islamic events. They have even tried to ban the new year celebration, calling it un-Islamic. If it were not for the courage and resistance of Iranians, our new year would have been replaced with an Islamic event just like the many other social changes since the Iranian Revolution.

Forcing Iranians to adhere to a strict Islamic dress code is the least of it. We have been subjected to amputation as the punishment for stealing, lashing for drinking, stoning for adultery, and execution by hanging from cranes for speaking against our rulers. Just days ago, Ayatollah Mohammad Mohammadi Gilani was awarded the highest judicial honor for his 30 years of service to the Islamic Republic. As the chief judge of the Revolutionary Courts, he ordered that demonstrators be killed and virgin girls be raped prior to execution so they could not go to heaven. He called the torture and killing of male and female opponents of the regime fair and just. All for no other reason than they violated the Islamic law as viewed by the mullahs.

President Obama’s comments may be well-intentioned, but like previous U.S. presidents, he ignores the ideology behind the mullahs’ regime. The mullahs’ view of Islam is based on Sharia, Islamic law that condemns as enemies of God all those who oppose them and all those who don’t believe in Allah. The mullahs believe in jihad or holy war for Islam, shahadat (martyrdom), and mahdaviat (the coming of the Shiites’ 12th imam to usher in Armageddon.) They believe that justice can only be served by killing the infidels and raising the flag of Islam worldwide.

These beliefs shape the mullahs’ jihadist policies. And therein lies the reason that U.S. presidents have not managed to succeed in negotiations with Tehran — either through secret or open channels — since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. President Jimmy Carter failed to negotiate the release of American hostages in Iran after the U.S Embassy in Tehran takeover. President Reagan failed to improve relations and failed to release American hostages held in Lebanon in exchange for arms. President George H. W. Bush failed in his secret negotiations with Hashemi Rafsanjani, going as far as recognizing him as the new leader of Iran. President Bill Clinton failed to improve relations when he met Iranian demands, removed sanctions, and apologized to the Iranian government for past U.S. behavior toward Iran. And President George W. Bush failed with his constant threats, which saw no follow-through.

The lesson of America’s failed carrot-and-stick foreign policy toward Iran is clear: Carrots don’t work; sticks work only if there is a follow-through.

The mullahs have backed down only once. Reagan had just about had it with the mullahs after his failed negotiations with them. Iran would not accept peace with Iraq and constantly threatened the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf. Reagan ordered attacks on the Iranian oil fields and naval units in the Persian Gulf. A top Revolutionary Guards commander told me, “A message has been sent by Reagan that if we do not accept peace [with Iraq] immediately, they will nuke us.” It was only then that Ayatollah Khomeini caved in and ended the Iran-Iraq war.

President Obama must be clear and concise with his policy toward Tehran. An Iran with nukes must never be allowed. The mullahs must abandon their enrichment activity and allow full International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections of all suspected sites. And they must stop supporting terrorism. Only then should they be welcomed by the world community.

If the mullahs continue to defy U.N. Security Council resolutions, there must be serious consequences. It could start with a naval blockade of Iran’s refined oil imports, which account for almost half of its domestic consumption. If that does not persuade them, then taking out the mullahs’ nuclear installations would be a better solution than facing a nuclear-armed Iran. Hesitation with Iran will only result in an inevitable nuclear confrontation with dire consequences, not only for Iranians but the region and the world.

The mullahs’ lobbyists in the U.S. have been trying hard to influence the Obama administration with their delusional picture of the leaders of Iran. The mullahs say a softer tone will earn their love and that their problems are not with America but with Israel.

In a recent New York Times column, Roger Cohen defended the mullahs against claims that they are a messianic apocalyptic cult. He said the regime is “the same ‘messianic apocalyptic cult’ that has survived 30 years, ushered the country from the penury of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war … cooperated with America on Afghanistan before being consigned to ‘the axis of evil,’ and kept its country at peace in the 21st century.”

Apparently, Mr. Cohen has been living in a cave for the past 30 years, during which the Iranian regime was busy with the bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, the torture and killing of American hostages such as CIA agent William Buckley in 1985, the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, and the bombings of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994 and the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Other atrocities include:

• the massacre of as many as 30,000 political prisoners in 1988
  
• the stabbing and mutilation in France of Shahpour Bakhtiar in 1991 — the last prime minister under the shah — and the ensuing release of a French hostage by Hezbollah in exchange for the French turning a blind eye to the killing
  
• the Mafia-style assassination of the Kurdish opposition leaders in Germany in 1992 (Mykonos Trial)
  
• the serial killings of Iranian dissident intellectuals in 1998
  
• the 1998 stabbing and mutilation of the leader of Iran’s National Party and his wife (Dariush and Parvaneh Forouhar) while tied to the chair in their home facing Mecca
  
• the killing of the students in their uprising of July 1999
  
• the 2003 rape, torture, and killing of Zahra Kazemi, an Iranian/Canadian reporter in Tehran
  
• and the recent imprisonment of Roxana Saberi , a U.S. journalist on trumped-up charges of espionage.
  
• some of the highest-ranking Iranian authorities are currently either on Interpol’s most-wanted list or have arrest warrants issued for them by several courts around the world for their terrorist activities.

Mr. Cohen also claimed after a short visit to Iran that life was not that bad for the Iranian Jews under the Islamic rule of the mullahs. I guess Mr. Cohen did not get the chance to talk with the Jews who were blindfolded and taken in front of an execution squad and told they were going to die unless they signed a confession letter admitting they spied for Israel. He probably didn’t have the opportunity to talk to those Jews who, out of fear, converted to Islam but still had their passports confiscated every time they came back from a trip outside of Iran and had to put up with hair-raising questioning sessions in the Revolutionary Courts about their travels.

Mr. Cohen, a short visit to Iran does not make you an expert. I have lived it and seen it. I was a member of the Revolutionary Guards and chose to spy for America, thus putting my life and the lives of my family on the line to help America see the truth about the mullahs and the true aspirations of the great people of Iran.

It’s time to learn from past mistakes and understand the seriousness of the situation. A nuclear-capable Iran will create uncertainty, havoc, and total imbalance in world order. If one thinks the proliferation of arms by Iran to Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Iraqi militants, the Taliban, Sudan’s radical regime, and many terrorist groups around the world is a problem now, wait until dirty bombs show up everywhere.

The mullahs will sit at the negotiating table and shake hands, but as they have done for the past 30 years, they will sting you in the end just like a scorpion, for it is their nature to help Islam conquer the world. The Quran is their best guidance: deceive your enemies until such time as you are powerful enough to destroy them.

“Today Iran, with the grace of God, is controlling the entire nuclear fuel cycle,” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on state television of the nuclear fuel facility in Isfahan, which is capable of producing 10 tons of nuclear fuel annually. Once fully operational, it could produce sufficient plutonium for two nuclear weapons a year.

Iranian officials have also announced an increase in the number of centrifuges at Iran’s uranium enrichment facility in Natanz (7,000, up from 6,000) and indicated their progress in testing a more advanced type of centrifuge.

It is estimated that Iran currently possesses over 26 kilograms of U-235 in its stockpile of low-enriched uranium and produces close to two kilograms more a month. The amount needed for a first-generation atomic bomb is 21.6 kilograms, and the time needed for the conversion of low-enriched uranium to weapons grade uranium is estimated to be two to six months. This is while the Revolutionary Guards, with the help of North Korea, are working on long-range ballistic missiles in tests that are concealed by its space project. As long as America continues to step back from its red line, both Iran and North Korea will take a more offensive posture in their policies.

Learn the lessons of history, Mr. President. If you don’t, the world is in peril.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments