Category: Foreign Policy

  • Time is Not on Our Side

    Time is Not on Our Side

    A little over a week ago, a bomb rocked the city of Kabul.  As of April 25th, 64 are dead and over 300 were injured.  Despite the fact that the target of the attacks was a security team that protects government VIPs, the majority of the victims are reportedly women and children.

    In response to the attack, The commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John W. Nicholson, stated:

    “Today’s attack shows the insurgents are unable to meet Afghan forces on the battlefield and must resort to these terrorist attacks,”

    Similarly, Afghan President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani condemned the attack and tweeted this.

    “Today’s terrorist attack…clearly shows the enemy’s defeat in face-to-face battle.”

    Finally, to further “control” the narrative, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul released the following statement:

    “Afghanistan deserves peace and security, not attacks that victimize parents taking their children to school, workers on their morning commute, and people who have stepped forward to help defend their fellow citizens,”

    With the continued withdraw of a military presence from Afghanistan, no one should be surprised that soft targets, which used to take the form of military supply convoys in rural Afghanistan, are now Afghan security units inside the Afghan Capital.

    The attack came a week after the official start to “Operation Omari” (named after the late Taliban founder Mullah Mohammad Omar) which also coincided with the annual spring offensive AKA the fighting season.

    The Taliban described the operation as “[employing] all means at our disposal to bog the enemy down in a war of attrition that lowers the morale of the foreign invaders and their internal armed militias.”

    I think this statement perfectly defines what this war, from the Taliban’s perspective, has always been about.

    From the very beginning, as U.S. aircraft bombed the hell out of the Taliban, the enemy knew they could never defeat a Western military on the field of battle.  Instead, they adopted a strategy that focused on bogging us down, attrition and lowering morale.

    Afghan history taught the Taliban that whether it was the Brits, Soviets or Americans, foreign invaders would eventually tire of war and leave.

    As an American who has both a reverence for war and military history, I can appreciate the commitment to the enemy’s strategy because it is the same one General George Washington implemented to defeat the British Army during The American Revolutionary War.

    The strategy employed by both the Taliban and American revolutionaries is very reminiscent of the approach that Fabius Maximus utilized to defeat Carthaginian general Hannibal during the Second Punic War—dubbed The Fabian Strategy.  The Fabian strategy avoided decisive engagements, utilized terrain to nullify the enemy’s superior Cavalry, and focused on softer targets like foraging units.

    Of course, I’m not arguing that there was a moral equivalency between American revolutionary soldiers and the Taliban.  On the contrary, the Taliban has repeatedly demonstrated that they have no qualms about killing innocent civilians while fighting their war.  However, both insurgencies were determined to endure and banked on the enemy’s weariness of battle.  I also realize outside support from the French (for American insurgents) and Iran, Pakistan, and foreign Jihadists (for the Taliban) also facilitated in both insurgency’s ability to “go the distance.”

    My main point is to highlight that after 15 years, we have the NATO commander in Afghanistan—an American Army General—attempting to underscore that the Taliban’s terrorist attacks are a sign of weakness.

    No, it does, however, demonstrate that the insurgency is launching attacks inside an area that was previously considered a hard target and inaccessible in earlier stages of the war.

    With all due respect sir, the Taliban is not “unable” to meet Afghan forces on the field of battle; they simply are—strategically—choosing not to.  Americans are beyond exhausted with the Afghan war, and the enemy knows it.

    Like the British before us, time has become our greatest enemy and their greatest commodity.

  • “We have sent many operatives to Europe with the refugees.”

    The Washington Post today has an excellent and informative article – if also a somewhat disturbing one. It documents in some detail how four Da’esh operatives passed themselves off as “refugees” and used that ruse to infiltrate Europe.

    On a crisp morning last October, 198 migrants arrived on the Greek island of Leros, all of them seemingly desperate people seeking sanctuary in Europe. But hiding among them were four men with a very different agenda.

    The four were posing as war-weary Syrians — all carrying doctored passports with false identities. And they were on a deadly mission for the Islamic State.

    Two of the four would masquerade as migrants all the way to Paris. There, at 9:20 p.m. on Nov. 13, they would detonate suicide vests near the Stade de France sports complex, fulfilling their part in the worst attack on French soil since World War II.

    The other two Da’esh operatives were detained in Greece for lying about their identities. However, after a time they were released and allowed to continue their journey. They were later arrested in Austria – thankfully, before they could commit a terrorist attack. God only knows what other actions they took to support terrorism in the interim.

    The article goes on to provide more info about the issue of Da’esh using the “refugee” flood as cover for infiltration. That info paints a rather disturbing picture.

    Think about that for a moment. In one group of less than 200 “refugees”, 4 of them – or over 2% – were decidedly not “refugees” at all. Rather, they were radical Islamist operatives intent on committing terrorist atrocities in a foreign land. They were merely using the ruse of being “refugees” as cover for their infiltration in order to avoid more thorough screening.

    Over a million “refugees” from the Middle East have entered Europe recently. European intelligence agencies believe several hundred thousand of them may never have been adequately screened on entry.

    If even 1% of those unscreened “refugees” are instead terrorist operatives, that’s 1,000 terrorists for every 100,000 alleged “refugees” who entered. And based on an admittedly small sample, there’s evidence that the actual rate may well be more than double that.

    Da’esh brags that they have many more such “sleeper” operatives in Europe now. Indeed, this article’s title is a quote from a Da’esh commander discussing the subject.

    So far, only a bit more than three dozen of those Da’esh operatives infiltrated as “refugees” have been identified and apprehended in Europe. And of those, seven of them participated in the Paris attacks last year.

    And yet, the      gaggle of naive fools and clueless tools running the show in DC      current Administration wants to admit tens of thousands of “refugees” to the US, too. But don’t worry – the Administration assures us that any such “refugees” admitted will be screened “thoroughly”.

    Yeah, right. In reality, if admitted they won’t be screened anywhere near as thoroughly as the foreign born spouse of the couple responsible for San Bernardino. And we know how that turned out.

  • Russia’s Military Gets “Frisky”, Part 3

    I’m sure that everyone’s heard that earlier this week, the POTUS called Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin.  While he did not address the recent incidents where Russian military aircraft “buzzed” US ships and aircraft during the call, the POTUS apparently did ask Putin to “maintain the cease fire in Syria”.

    Well, it appears the POTUS now has his answer.

    Per a US defense official, Russia has moved the bulk of its forces in Syria to the vicinity of Aleppo.  Why?  The official further indicated an offensive to retake Aleppo from Syrian rebels “is poised to take place soon”.  Local fighting has apparently already resumed in the Aleppo area, and Russian bombing in support of Assad’s forces has been occurring since November – cease-fire or no cease-fire.

    I don’t think it’s exactly rocket science to figure out why Russian forces in Syria just relocated.

    US officials also report that “hundreds” of new Iranian troops are also now in Syria.  Given Iran’s past support for Assad’s regime, I’m guessing they’re probably not there to support the Syrian rebels.

    Now, about those “buzzing” incidents: while the POTUS and Putin didn’t discuss them during their PHONECON, they’ve also returned to the news this week. The Russian Ambassador to NATO, Alexander Grushko, met with the NATO-Russia council yesterday – for the first time in 2 years. Afterwards, Grushko publicly accused the US of trying to “intimidate” Russia by conducting naval operations with our allies in international waters in the Baltic. He then went on to say that Russia would take “all necessary measures” in response to future such encounters.

    Yep. Looks to me like Putin has once again given the POTUS the finger – with both hands – followed shortly afterwards by mooning.  But this time, I believe Putin shouted something in Russian just before “shooting the moon”.  The first two parts sounded something like “yob” and “ti-voy-you”, respectively.  Not sure I caught the last part correctly, but I think it sounded something like “Matt”.

    Your move again, Mr. President.

    My prediction:  look for yet another ineffectual but “strongly worded” diplomatic protest by the State Department after the Syrian-Russian offensive near Aleppo begins – and that’s it.  I’ll frankly be shocked if we do anything more than that.

    I wonder if Putin – or anyone else in his inner circle – has pulled a muscle or otherwise injured himself from laughing at us. I know their sides must ache terribly by now.

  • Russia’s Military Gets “Frisky”, Part 2

    We’ve now seen what the current         group of spineless, fearful naifs screwing up by-the-numbers in DC        Administration elected to do regarding the recent buzzing of a US warship in international waters by Russian military aircraft.  Specifically, they told Russia, “That wasn’t very nice!” – by sending a diplomatic protest – along with publicly saying, in effect, “Please don’t do it again. That could have ended badly.”

    Well, it appears Russia has given us their reply.  Last Thursday, a Russian SU-27 “barrel-rolled” a US RC-135 operating in international airspace over the Baltic Sea.  The Russian aircraft reportedly came within 50 feet of the US aircraft while doing so.

    OK, Mr. President – this time, Putin has not only given the US the finger with both hands.  He’s also mooned the Statue of Liberty, too.  And he did both while shouting Russian insults.  Your move.

    Here’s my prediction, based on past examples of “leadership” from this       gaggle of feckless fools      Administration.  Look for another “strongly worded diplomatic protest” tomorrow or the next day, along with another meaningless public platitude or two from the SECSTATE.

    Sheesh.  Putin and his cronies must be about to p!ss their pants from laughing at us so hard.  And from my perspective, that’s not terribly funny at all.

     

  • U.S. Apologizes for Naval Vessel Being in The Way of Russian Fighters

    U.S. Apologizes for Naval Vessel Being in The Way of Russian Fighters

    Introduction; American Kestrel is the latest addition to our stable of writers here at TAH. He’s a former 18F special forces intel sergeant and he writes at a number of other places around the internet. Now he writes here, too. – Jonn

    In response to Russia’s repeated flybys in the Baltic Sea, Secretary of State John Kerry made this authoritative statement:

    “We condemn this kind of behavior. It is reckless. It is provocative. It is dangerous. And under the rules of engagement, that could have been a shoot-down. [The U.S.] is not going to be intimidated on the high seas.”

    Here are five reasons (not an exhaustive list) the United States will CONTINUE to be “intimidated on the high seas.”

    1. Russia: See above.
    1.  China: The U.S. has continued to do virtually nothing to prevent China from forcefully taking over territory in the South China Sea from our allies.  The Chinese have literally built islands in contested waters, militarized said islands, and threatened U.S planes flying over “their airspace.”
    1. Iran:Iran captured our sailors, exploited them for propaganda, celebrated and mocked their capture in parade form, and have plans to commemorate the ordeal with the construction of a statue.  Oh, and Secretary Kerry THANKED them for their professionalism.
    1. Funding: Chronic underfunding of Navy and Marine assets.  Here’s one example.  Six months ago, Lt. Gen. Jon Davis–the deputy commandant for Marine Aviation– stated that the F/A-18 was 19 percent below its minimum acceptable number of operational aircraft.  This has resulted in less flight time for pilots and a five-year high in Marine aviation deaths.
    1. Poor leadership:  Remember, Obama believes that Cold War-style tactics are ancient history.  In Obama’s world, all “Western” style nations solve their problems with diplomacy (not of the gunboat variety).  States taking over another country’s sovereign territory doesn’t happen anymore (except in Georgia, Ukraine and the South China Sea).

    While the Obama administration tries desperately to fit the real world into their liberal international affairs framework, the realists of the world–Iran, Russia and China–are outplaying the United States at every turn.

    In response to Russia’s provocation, Former Ambassador John Bolton stated, “I just hope Obama doesn’t apologize for destroyer getting in the way of that airplane.”

    I’m sure this was said tongue-in-cheek but, after all of the apologies that have flowed from this administration, who knows anymore.

    As an aside, being an Army guy, I realize that I should default to a Naval officer’s verbiage, but do people still refer to international waters as the “high seas?”

  • Russia’s Military Gets “Frisky”

    Well, it appears as if the Russian military is getting a bit more “frisky” these days.

    On 11 and 12 April, Russian aircraft reportedly performed aggressive maneuvers near the USS Donald Cook.  At the time, the US warship – an Arleigh Burke-Class guided-missile destroyer – was operating in international waters in the Baltic Sea.

    In one incident, a Russian SU-24 aircraft made numerous close approaches and low-level passes IVO the ship.  In a second incident the following day, a Russian KA-27 helicopter circled the ship multiple times; the ship was afterwards again “buzzed” multiple times by a pair of Russian SU-24s.  At least one of the passes in the latter incident was what appeared to be a “simulated attack profile”.

    The US Navy has released a press release about the incident.  It can be found here.

    OK, Mr. President – a guy named Vlad has just very publicly given the US the finger.  Now, what are you going to do about it?

  • So, How Is Europe Handling “Refugees” These Days?

    Short answer:  in many locations they’re sending them back.  The days of “open doors to all” appear to have ended.

    While Germany still accepts large numbers of refugees, Denmark is taking a rather hard line – to the point of prosecuting their own citizens for “immigrant smuggling” if they assist illicit new arrivals.  Sweden, formerly world-renowned as a refugee haven, has substantially closed its doors as well.  Hungary has closed its borders; Macedonia has followed suit.  Greece is now sending new arrivals from Turkey back vice allowing them to stay.  And even Germany appears to be rethinking its “let-em-all-come” stance.

    The Washington Post recently had a longish article on the matter, focusing on Denmark.  Predictably, that article takes the hand-wringing, “Oh, the humanity!” point of view.

    But what the WaPo doesn’t address is why Europe’s practices and attitudes towards refugees have changed – IMO, probably intentionally.

    If you need to ask why, take a look at recent incidents in Europe.  Like Charlie Hebdo.  Like the e2015 Paris massacres.  The train attack.  The repeated assaults on women by “refugees”.  The demands for European nations to change longstanding cultural events and norms to “accommodate the sensitivities of refugee newcomers”.

    One has to be a moron not to realize why Europe made this change.

    Europe is closing its borders because many of those “refugees” . . . simply aren’t really refugees.  Rather, many are instead Da’esh operatives – or are otherwise Jihadis/Jihadi sympathizers intent on colonization.

    It appears Europeans’ eyes are finally opening.  And it also looks like they’ve decided they really don’t like the concept described by the term “dhimmi”.

    Maybe our government’s eyes will open one day soon as well.  But if San Bernardino didn’t already do that, forgive me if I don’t hold my breath while I’m waiting.

  • Castro pushes back

    The President went to Cuba last week, which I’ll admit was a historic event. I think he was the first president there since Teddy Roosevelt rode up San Juan Hill in his pre-president days. But Obama went there for quite different reasons than Teddy. Roosevelt was there to free the Cubans from the jackbooted thug Spaniards. Obama went there to cozy up to the latest wearers of jackboots on the island.

    From Reuters;

    Obama’s visit was aimed at consolidating a detente between the once intractable Cold War enemies and the U.S. president said in a speech to the Cuban people that it was time for both nations to put the past behind them and face the future “as friends and as neighbors and as family, together.”

    As is always the case with this administration, the visit has only provoked Fidel Castro;

    “We don’t need the empire to give us anything,” he wrote.

    Well, they don’t want anything but the reparations they say we owe them. From the Christian Science Monitor last year;

    Castro said United States payment of hundreds of millions of dollars in economic reparations for damages caused by the five-decade-old embargo, and indeed a lifting of the embargo Cuba considers a “blockade,” would also have to take place before the two adversaries can renew relations that were severed soon after the Cuban revolution of 1959.

    I guess hundreds of millions of dollars is “nothing”. Cuba has been free to trade with every country in the world, except the United States, and they blame their economic dysfunction on one country out of the 160 on the planet. And then they insult us – because they know that nothing can disrupt this administration’s plans to hand over that hundreds of millions of dollars to feather the president’s legacy nest.

    Can you imagine this administration placing demands on the communist Cuban government, demands like handing over the convicted cop-killer JoAnne Chesimard before we resume relations?