This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Author: NSOM

  • Sunni dogs and Shiite cats living together, the story nobody is talking about.

    What if I told you that the Shiite theocracy in Iran had been found by a federal court to be legally responsible for training Sunni al Qaeda to carry out attacks against the United States as far back as at least 1998, at least? What if I told you this had happened over a month ago. You’d probably say, “Hey man, that’s a big deal, we’ve been told for the past decade that Iran can’t be working with al Qaeda, they hate each other. Besides, the media would be all over that.” Right?

    Drum roll please…

    According to Thomas Joscelyn at The Long War Journal this is exactly what happened. According to the decision handed down by D.C. District Court Judge John D. Bates the Iranian regime has been using al Qaeda as a tool to attack US interests around the world and gave them the training they needed to attack our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. To quote from the ruling:

    Iran had been the preeminent state sponsor of terrorism against United States interests for decades. Throughout the 1990s – at least – Iran regarded al Qaeda as a useful tool to destabilize U.S. interests. As discussed in detail below, the government of Iran aided, abetted and conspired with Hezbollah, Osama bin Laden, and al Qaeda to launch large-scale bombing attacks against the United States by utilizing the sophisticated delivery mechanism of powerful suicide truck bombs. Hezbollah, a terrorist organization based principally in Lebanon, had utilized this type of bomb in the devastating 1983 attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. Prior to their meetings with Iranian officials and agents, Bin Laden and al Qaeda did not possess the technical expertise required to carry out the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. The Iranian defendants, through Hezbollah, provided explosives training to Bin Laden and al Qaeda and rendered direct assistance to al Qaeda operatives. Hence, for the reasons discussed below the Iranian defendants provided material aid and support to al Qaeda for the 1998 embassy bombings and are liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs.

    The only notice this got the media is a brief editorial by Hoover Fellow Marc Thiessen in the Washington Post.

    It’s no doubt worth noting that both Judge Bates and Mr. Thiessen are connected to former President George W. Bush. Bates was appointed by Bush and Thiessen worked in the WH as a speechwriter. Both have proved to be a real fly in the ointment of the left over the past ten years. I can’t help but think the media blackout of what is, quite frankly, a historical ruling is interconnected.

    UPDATE:

    For those interested the entire opinion can be found here.

  • As the situation on the ground dictates…

    One of my favorite games played by the Pentagon is to replace uniformed personnel with contractors and pretend the mission of the “eliminated” billet has gone away. As the Obama administration continues to pretend that the situation on the ground permits the natural withdrawal of military personnel comes the news that Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan will be taking on private military contractors to provide physical security for the base. According to the Marine Corps Times:

    U.S. commanders want civilian contractors to provide military security at the Marine Corps’ largest base in Afghanistan as a planned withdrawal of U.S. forces from the war-torn country expands.

    —

    “As we prepare for fewer Marine boots on the ground, the requirement to maintain a certain level of security aboard Camp Leatherneck must be maintained,” Player said. “That’s where contractor support will provide Camp Leatherneck security where Marines have in the past.”

    U.S. Army Contracting Command announced a competition for the job in November. At least 166 civilian guards will be needed at all times, meaning the company that wins the contract will almost certainly need more to account for vacations and other leave time. Companies who seek the job must hire guards who are citizens of the U.S. or some of its closest allies: the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

    Now, of course, the stationing of PMCs on base, even foreign nationals is nothing new to those of use who served in Iraq. I’ve worked with Marine Corps provisional security companies a few times from 3/2, 8th Tanks and, during work up, 2nd LAAD. As long as the mission is performed by a reputable company and the base QRF is still Marine Corps there’s nothing about the job that requires it be done by uniformed service members.

    Still, this begs the question, why replace Marines with contractors? The demand hasn’t gone away, Afghanistan will be as dangerous on the PMCs first day as the Corps’ last. The mission is already mainly performed by Reservists and the shortage of fresh troops isn’t nearly as critical as in the heart of the surge in Iraq. I doubt the DoD is saving any significant money, PMCs are not cheap and it doesn’t reduce the end force reduction goals with the looming cuts. They certainly aren’t going to do a better job.

    The answer is simple: reducing the number of American troops in Afghanistan creates the phony impression the war is “winding down” and the Obama administration is reducing our commitment there. Of course neither of these things are true but, as already displayed by the sabotaging of the negotiations in Iraq to keep the desperately needed US troops there another year, this administration doesn’t actually care about winning our nation’s military campaigns, only their party’s political ones.

  • Former National Security Adviser slams Obama on Keystone

    Earlier this month the former Commandant of the Marine Corps and Obama National Security Adviser General James Jones slammed his former boss over Keystone XL, the pipeline intended to run oil from the Canadian tar sands to refineries in the United States. Jones minced few words:

    Jones, who rarely speaks in public and almost never contradicts his former boss President Barack Obama, lashed out against the administration in a press call and warned of grave consequences to U.S. national security if the project to build the pipeline doesn’t move forward immediately.

    “In a tightly contested global economy, where securing energy resources is a national must, we should be able to act with speed and agility. And any threat to this project, by delay or otherwise, would constitute a significant setback,” said Jones. “The failure to [move forward with the project] will prolong the risk to our economy and our energy security” and “send the wrong message to job creators.”

    The Keystone pipeline is opposed by the usual lunatic Green fringe who hate it for no other reason than it will make the delivery of oil to US markets easier, safer and cheaper. In an increasingly common and always enjoyable juxtaposition, our nation’s unions, always worried about the decay of easily unionized jobs, support the pipeline and the bevy of new (possibly union) jobs it will bring. Our great post-partisan uniter of a President intends to punt on the issue until after the 2012 election cycle, knowing he’ll have to let down one of his core constituencies. Somehow I doubt his former head of National Security scolding him over playing politics will sway him, he’s probably too busy checking the latest Gallup poll. Yes we can.

  • Preempting the truth with worried mockery

    A certain self-consciousness reveals itself in this recent Ted Rall cartoon. The immediate set up for the image is three veterans sitting around a military or patriotic (likely referred to in his circles as jingoistic) bar. The scene evokes the stock conceptualization of a VFW or American Legion Post. The middle patron is missing his arm. All are wearing belligerent, seemingly ignorant t-shirts. The man on the left makes mention of the betrayal of the political class in the war, an allusion to the common theme in the German Army after the Treaty of Versailles. The second compares his treatment to that of the maligned generation of Vietnam vets. The last declares his intention to run for Congress. Perhaps, for the left, the most frightening inclination of all.

    It’s the laughable paradigm in which Rall and his left-wing ilk regard us, as easily manipulated and reactionary fools, sacrificed on the alter of forces beyond our reckoning. This sort of pretentious elitism is witnessed time and again by those most divorced from the union of civic duty and personal sacrifice in the pursuit of the actual common good.

    This silly dialogue reveals something else: fear of exposure.

    Illustrating the cause for people like Rall’s concern is Fred and Kim Kagan’s excellent piece on the deteriorating situation in Iraq. It was precise in identifying the cause of the breakdown of peace and security for the people in Iraq since the end of the successful Bush/McCain “surge”. I’ll quote briefly:

    With administration officials celebrating the “successful” withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, thanking antiwar groups for making that withdrawal possible, and proffering outrageous claims about Iraq’s “stability,” “sovereignty,” and the “demilitarization” of American foreign policy even as Iraq collapses, it is hard to stay focused on America’s interests and security requirements. Especially in an election year, the temptation will only grow to argue about who lost Iraq, whether it was doomed from the outset, whether the current disaster “proves” either that the success of the surge was inherently ephemeral or that the withdrawal of U.S. troops caused the collapse.
    —
    The withdrawal of all American military forces has greatly reduced America’s leverage in Iraq. U.S. military forces were a buffer to prevent political and ethno-sectarian friction from becoming violent by guaranteeing Maliki against a Sunni coup d’état and guaranteeing the Sunnis against a Shiite campaign of militarized repression. The withdrawal of that buffer precipitated this crisis and removed much of our leverage.
    —
    Like it or not, the timing of the moves against Hashimi et al. upon Maliki’s return from Washington has created a perception in Iraq that these actions were authorized by Washington.

    After hundreds of billions of dollars and almost 4,500 American service member’s lives the Obama Administration scuttled the negotiations required to keep American forces in Iraq. After eight years of blood, sweat and treasure the end was decided by Democratic political pollsters in campaign season.

    Explosions are ripping through Baghdad at a rate and ferocity not seen since 2007. The Shiite Prime Minister is purging his government of the Sunni members needed to retain a pluralistic state, literally the day after American withdrawal. The Kurds edge closer to open secession and the Iranian Quds Force establish safe houses across the country.

    Peter Wehner in Commentary quite succinctly said:

    What is happening in Iraq is sickening, in part because the gains came at such a high cost and in part because what is happening there was so avoidable. Obama was handed a war that was largely won. What America had given to Iraq is what the Arab scholar Fouad Ajami called “the foreigner’s gift.” But Iraq being Iraq, maintaining an American troop presence there, separate from engaging in combat operations, was necessary if Iraq was ever to become whole again. President Obama has undone much of what had been achieved there, almost in the blink of an eye. And when the history of his administration is written, it increasingly looks as if he will be fairly judged to have been the man who lost Iraq.

    In an administration full of failures, this one may well rank among the highest. The human cost to Iraq and the strategic damage to America may be unimaginable. And so unnecessary.

    And so, full circle, we come back to the paranoid fear of intellectual midgets like Rall. Knowing the devastating judgment an unbiased history will lay upon the Obama Administration for so callous an abandonment of the Iraqis at at the cost of so many American’s lives he attempts to preempt this searing truth with petty mockery and stumbling historical analogy. Keep your heads on the swivel and call out this caustic and hateful manipulation when you see it.

  • On Manning: Why so lonely in Leavenworth?

    A couple days ago in an article discussing the developing legal defense of the traitor Bradley Manning an important point was raised by Josh Gerstein, the point I personally find to be the most compelling of the entire episode:

    …the hearing also produced equally compelling evidence of the larger issue that is often overlooked in discussions of Manning’s alleged misdeeds: the systematic breakdown in security that enabled a low-ranking enlisted man to abscond with a staggering quantity of classified Pentagon and State Department documents.

    As I’ve said before, the reality of running an organization the size and magnitude of the U.S. military is that you’re going to get bad apples. It’s inevitable. Most of us know these as “the 10%”, that not so illustrious group our Drill Instructor and SNCOs warned us about. If you fall in those groups it’s the weak link you find yourself wasting so much of your time with. That motley lot of shit bags and degenerates who slip through the cracks.

    No amount of TS/SCI box checking by the Office of Personnel Management will catch them all. As always our last, and only true, line of defense is the committed professionals of the NCO and Officer Corps. Bradley Manning is what happens when those people don’t do their job. That sucks to hear but it’s the hard, ugly truth.

    Gerstein goes on to recount many of the ugly facts most glaring to those of us who have or still handle classified material for a living:

    Despite a series of violent outbursts and other indications he was in serious mental distress, Manning’s security clearance wasn’t suspended until he was arrested in May of last year. Some soldiers had long thought he was a threat to himself and others. At least one believed Manning had lunged for a weapon during a fight with another soldier.
    Yet Manning was allowed to spend about six months in a purportedly secure intelligence center in eastern Iraq with routine access to classified information — the same center where he sometimes sat at his computer or curled up on the floor, unresponsive to other soldiers.
    And the fact that a junior soldier was downloading 700,000 reports, most of them classified, didn’t seem to set off any alarms. Nor were there any questions at the time about why an analyst in Iraq needed vast numbers of military reports from Afghanistan, diplomatic cables about Iceland or assessments of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
    Security was so lax that anyone with access to the classified network could burn reams of “secret” data to a CD and simply walk out the door.

    Those of us who have worked with SIPR and JWICS in responsible environments well understand that a largely unsupervised and demonstrably unstable junior enlisted man having access to either terminal with a media device which can transfer data is the sort of thing that people lose stripes over. In the instances where it’s repeated, flagrant and eventually leading to the largest disclosure of classified documents during wartime in U.S. history I’m left to wonder: where are the rest of the Courts-Martial? Where is the accountability?

    I can imagine much of this is the result in the rush to “decompartmentalize” information. The scary revelations that things like 9/11 could have been averted if the CIA, FBI and local law enforcement had only been taking to each other prompted a total reassessment of how information is sequestered. I certainly remember passing hours upon hours reading Intellipedia on SIPR for no other reason than I found it interesting and I could. Did I need classified profiles of the Pakistani General Staff? No. Did I need to be reading about specific former Soviet assets in Kabul who were on the “go to” list for DIA? No. But I could and I did. I imagine many of these things on how and why we cordon off information will be worked out over the next decade. Most pressing for people like me, though, is the question of why we aren’t holding leadership responsible for these critical national security breaches.

    Merry Christmas.

  • Eight soldiers charged in suicide of Army Pvt.

    On the heels of my complaining about the need to hold leadership accountable for the Manning fiasco comes news that eight soldiers out of the 3rd Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment, 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team are being charged in a Soldier’s suicide. Six of the eight are officers or NCOs.

    The reporting from the Washington Post:

    Eight U.S. soldiers have been charged in the death of a fellow GI, a Chinese-American who apparently shot himself in Afghanistan after being subjected to what a community activist said were assaults and ethnic taunts from his comrades.

    My RADAR goes off any time I hear about accusations from a “community activist” especially those who peddle in identity politics. Nevertheless the Post goes on to detail the hazing the Army is asserting caused Chen to kill himself:

    In a statement, the Army said Wednesday that eight soldiers in his company were charged with crimes ranging from dereliction of duty to negligent homicide and manslaughter.

    Military officials gave no details on exactly what role the soldiers are alleged to have played in Chen’s death. But a community activist raised the possibility that their bullying drove him to suicide.

    Chen’s fellow soldiers dragged him across the floor, threw stones at the back of his head, forced him to hold liquid in his mouth while upside down as part of an apparent hazing, and called him “Jackie Chen” in a mocking accent in a reference to the action star Jackie Chan, according to Elizabeth OuYang, president of the New York chapter of the Organization of Chinese Americans.

    Stories like this remind me of my own time in the barracks or overseas and all of the horrible things we did to each other, sometimes as an initiation of sorts but often times for no other reason than we were bored. I wonder if we always knew when it was in good fun and when it was going too far. Despite what the PR machine says hazing has a place in military culture and to remove it entirely will be to change that culture, for good or ill.