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

Category: Terror War

  • The vacuous intellect of the anti-war Left

    In this morning’s Washington Post, Dana Milbank writes about yesterday’s protest at the White House;

    If the commander in beef had been watching from a window, he would have had reason for concern. Not the demonstrators themselves: They were Green Party types with some self-proclaimed socialists thrown in, and they had never been enthusiastic Obama supporters to start with. What the president should worry about is whether these activists are indicators of bigger things to come if he sides with his generals and decides to bulk up the U.S. force in Afghanistan.

    In Congress a bill was introduced to cut off funding for the President to add more troops (sent to us on super-secret email list);

    SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON INCREASE IN NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES SERVING IN AFGHANISTAN.

    No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to increase the number of members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Afghanistan so that the number of members serving in Afghanistan exceeds the number so serving on the date of the enactment of this Act.

    The sponsors of the bill reads like a “usual suspects” list;

    Ms. LEE of California (for herself, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. WATERS, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Ms. WATSON, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. CLEAVER, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. COHEN, Mr. HONDA, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. STARK, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. KUCINICH, Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland, Ms. CLARKE, Mr. FILNER, and Mr. GRAYSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

    Of course, like TSO emailed, it probably won’t even be discussed by the Armed Forces Committee – yet there it is. It’s all political posturing that strokes the far left egos. And they’re all playing with the lives of our troops.

    Anyone who doesn’t think that the Taliban and al Qaeda aren’t encouraged by this, is fooling themselves. Anyone who doesn’t think that the antics of the far left over the last eight years is the reason that we’re still fighting these stone age cretins on barren mountain slopes halfway around the world doesn’t grasp the idea of low intensity warfare.

    Every death, every lost limb, every case of PTSD can be laid at the feet of the anti-war, pro-terrorist left.

  • Uh? We lost something?

    OK, so the Olympics are going to Brazil in 2016 – how many of you are going? Me, neither. It’s a coupla sports games – what do I care? But to read the blogs, we’ve lost everything. That pony-tailed bike riding guy says that this is proof that conservatives want America to fail. Huh? We’ve never lost a bid for the Olympics before? The doofuses at Think Progress say; “Mission Accomplished For Conservatives Who Rooted Against America “;

    Always looking for a way to bring down Obama, conservatives not only criticized the President’s 15-hour trip, but also spent this week denegrating Chicago, downplaying the Olympics, and rooting against America.

    They even made a video that “proves” we brought Obama down;

    Apparently the Olympic Committee watches our cable TV news programs.

    From Glen Thrush at Politico;

    Judging from the volume of exultant Tweets and press releases from Republicans today — you’d think they’d won a doubleheader, what with Chicago losing the Olympics and the unemployment numbers rising unexpectedly.

    You know who really lost today? Those folks we’ve sent to Afghanistan. Out of the 15 hours the President spent in Denmark, General McCrystal got 25 minutes with him. Imagine that; all of the time he spent on getting the Olympics brought to Chicago – seven years from now (apparently three years after Obama will be out office if he keeps acting like this) – he spent twenty five minutes with the guy fighting his war for him.

    dicksmith says that’s fine;

    When I was a buck sergeant, I didn’t meet regularly with my Battalion Commander to brief him on my mission. The intermediate leaders did that for me.

    Regardless, this is a good thing:

    Imagine that – VoteVets agreeing with every.single.thing.the.President.does. Um, dicksmith, did your Battalion commander send you to another country to fight a war by yourself? We’re talking about a guy who is trying to convince the President to give our troops more resources. The same President who has spent the last five days talking to people who AREN’T commanders in Afghanistan about those resources.

    All of you folks who are so enamored with the President, listen to yourselves. Seriously.

  • What war? Where?

    This week our president has set as few minutes to talk to his National Security staff to discuss the war in Afghanistan. Ain’t that nice of him? Last week General Stanley McCrystal, the commander of our forces in Afghanistan, told a reporter that he’d only spoken directly to the President once since June. Perhaps, if they’d spoken more often, Obama might have had a plan ready when McCrystal asked for more resources.

    Since McCrystal asked for more troops, 43 more have been killed in Afghanistan while the Obama Administration diddles, according to Good Lt. at The Jawa Report.

    In the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove reminds us that George Bush faced similar circumstances in regards to Iraq;

    Mr. Obama’s predecessor faced a similar situation: a war that was grinding on, pressure to withdraw troops, and conflicting advice—including from some who saw the war as unwinnable. But George W. Bush talked to generals on the ground every week or two, which gave him a window into what was happening and insights into how his commanders thought. That helped him judge their recommendations on strategy.

    The difference of course is that Bush actually cared about the troops he sent in harm’s way. That doesn’t seem to be a factor in the Obama Administration;

    Mr. Obama’s aloofness on the war will be a problem if the recent airing of Joe Biden’s views on Afghanistan is a tipoff that Mr. Obama will rely on his vice president’s guidance. According to reports in the New York Times and other publications, Mr. Biden supports reducing troop levels in favor of surgical attacks—mostly launched from offshore—and missile strikes against al Qaeda, especially in Pakistan.

    Like I wrote yesterday, Biden and Obama prefer the Clintonian approach to warfare – make a lot of explosions so that people think they’re actually doing something and depend on under-resourced ninjas to do the close-up work – but only if they can get out of the situation without a scratch.

    Biden and Obama, like Clinton think technology can get them out of a jam. Clinton used cruise missiles while Biden puts his eggs in the drone basket. Every weapon has it’s place and none is a silver bullet solution. But you can’t tell the two smartest men on the planet.

  • Giving Obama cover for political cowardice

    The Washington Post this morning gives Obama an exit strategy for making the politically tough decision to add to our forces in Afghanistan. The headline shouts Success Against Al Qaeda Cited;

    success-against-al-qaida

    The Post quotes unnamed “officials” who think we’re winning in Afghanistan without more troops;

    A U.S. counterterrorism official said that the combined advances have led to the deaths of more than a dozen senior figures in al-Qaeda and allied groups in Pakistan and elsewhere over the past year, most of them in 2009. Officials described Osama bin Laden and his main lieutenants as isolated and unable to coordinate high-profile attacks.

    The unnamed “officials” (who could be Kenny the Copy Guy for all we know) claim that these successes stem from our successful employment of ninjas and drone aircraft – you know the same things we were doing before the Inauguration before Obama sent 20,000 new troops to Afghanistan. You remember – before the Inauguration when we were losing Afghanistan.

    Of course, this article is nothing more than cover for Obama to disregard General McCrystal’s request for more resources – mainly because it goes against the brilliant military analysis of the smartest man in the world, Joe Biden;

    Those within the administration who have suggested limiting large-scale U.S. ground combat in Afghanistan, including Vice President Biden, have pointed to an improved counterterrorism effort as evidence that Obama’s principal objective — destroying al-Qaeda — can be achieved without an expanded troop presence.

    So now we know that the White House Wing of the Washington Post will be pummeling us with more of their propaganda to give cover to Obama when he punts on the issue of increasing ground forces in Afghanistan. I’m sure we’ll see an increase in ninjas and zombie robots, though.

  • Obama on our war

    “It’s a battle — we’re going to win — take no prisoners, ” said Obama. Unfortunately, it was Michelle, not Barack and she was talking about bringing the Olympics to Chicago and not fighting terrorists .

    I guess they figure fighting for some sports games some time in the distant future would be more productive than fighting for our security. Of course, getting the Olympics is more like a campaign – the Obamas can smile their way to victory, the late Pat Moynihan would call it “boob bait for the bubbas”.

    It would be nice if Obama got as excited and involved in the war in Afghanistan instead of trying to pawn it off on our allies as reported by AFP;

    “This is not a American battle, this is a NATO mission,” Obama told reporters after the Oval Office meeting, which comes as he launches a series of intense talks on whether to send more US soldiers to the Afghan war.

    “We are working actively and diligently to consult with NATO at every step of the way,” Obama said.

    Somehow “working actively and diligently to consult” doesn’t have the same fire as “we’re going to win — take no prisoners”.

  • The dirtiest bomber

    You probably remember the suicide bomber who got close to one of the Saudi princes and damn near got him a few months back. But did you know how he got the bomb so close to the royal presence? CBS News tells the story;

    Taking a trick from the narcotics trade – which has long smuggled drugs in body cavities – Asieri had a pound of high explosives, plus a detonator inserted in his rectum.

    This was a meticulously planned operation with al Qaeda once again producing something new: this time, the Trojan bomber.

    The blast left the prince lightly wounded – a failure as an assassination, but as an exercise in defeating security, it was perfect.

    Um, yuck.

    OldTrooper sent us the article and commented; “After the shoe bomber, you had to remove your shoes. What do you think the new procedure will be for this?”

    TSO said; “You can have my guns, but you’ll get my bombs when you pry them from my cold, dead lower intestines.”

    What could I possible add after that?

    Here’s the video report from CBS;


    Watch CBS News Videos Online

  • Stop this war before we win it!

    Don Surber links to a New York Times article titled “Rethinking our Terrorist Fears” I think the article is about how we shouldn’t fear al Qaeda anymore, but I think it’s actually about not having to rethink our strategy against terrorism;

    Audrey Kurth Cronin, a professor at the National War College in Washington, cites the arcs of previous violent extremist groups, from the Russian People’s Will to the Irish Republican Army, that she studied for her new book, “How Terrorism Ends.”

    “I think Al Qaeda is in the process of imploding,” she said. “This is not necessarily the end. But the trends are in a good direction.”

    With Democrats currently thinking about jerking our military forces out of Afghanistan and as they navel-gaze while the generals are asking for more resources to fight the taliban and al Qaeda, experts have a simple warning;

    Even counterterrorism officials who agree that Al Qaeda is on the wane, for example, say the organization might well regroup if left unmolested in a lawless region in Pakistan, Afghanistan or Somalia.

    All of the people who said that we couldn’t solve terrorism with a military solution are being proven wrong. The folks who said we were just creating more terrorists discounted al Qaeda’s innate stupidity;

    “Right after 9/11, people thought, wow, America is not invincible,” Mr. Mandaville said. “It was a strike against the U.S., and they were for it.” But when large numbers of innocent Muslims fell victim to attacks, “it became more and more difficult to romanticize Al Qaeda as fighting the global hegemons — basically, ‘sticking it to the man.’ ”

    In addition, Al Qaeda, for all its talk of global religious war, offered no practical solutions for local problems: unemployment, poverty, official corruption and poor education. “People realized bin Laden didn’t have anything to offer,” Dr. Mandaville said.

    So, apparently, Democrats are rushing at light speed towards a quick surrender just so they can’t accidentally win this war.

  • Terror back on the front burner

    After months of fighting over the President’s domestic agenda, terror comes to the fore again. The Wall Street Journal offers an interview with Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, our oldest and dearest state sponsor of terrorism. Gadhafi admits that he “comprehends” our anger over Lockerbie;

    In an hour-long interview, Col. Gadhafi said he hoped to build a new era of relations with U.S. President Barack Obama — whom he called “my son” during the same U.N. address — and said he wanted to place his nation’s decades-long conflict with Washington in the past.

    The Libyan strongman denied his government had purposefully stoked nationalist sentiment surrounding the return home of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, who was convicted of the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jet that blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland. Mr. al-Megrahi, who has cancer, was released by Scottish authorities last month on humanitarian grounds.

    “My son” – that shows us how much respect he has for our President after Obama’s latest apology to the world. I’m sure the Obama administration will rebuild the respect we’ve lost over the last several months by firing off a cruise missile in the next few months.

    WSJ also reports that Iran has opened another uranium enrichment facility;

    A U.S. intelligence official said the facility is one the U.S. “has known about for years,” though the government learned more recently that it was being used for uranium enrichment.

    The official said the facility is hidden in an underground tunnel complex 30 kilometers north of Qom, Iran’s Holy City. It is built to hold up to 3,000 centrifuges, though it isn’t clear that they’re fully operational yet. The site is located at an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps base under the management of the Atomic Energy Association of Iran, though it isn’t clear if many of the people within that organization knew about the enrichment operation.

    So all of this wringing of hands the European community has done over a nuclear Iran has given Tehran time to build a bomb-resistant facility, lessening the effect of an Iraeli strike (which is what most of the world has been secretly hoping would happen to solve the problem for them so they could continue to wring their hands).

    All of this while US law enforcement rolls up three separate terrorist plots, according to Fox News;

    Federal officials said Thursday that the cases are not connected to each other or the major terrorism investigation under way in Colorado and New York.

    Michael C. Finton, 29, who also went under the name Talib Islam, was arrested Wednesday in Springfield, Ill., after federal officials said he attempted to set off explosives in a van outside a federal courthouse in the Illinois capital.

    Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, 19, was arrested Thursday in Dallas after federal officials said he placed what he believed to be a car bomb in a parking garage beneath the 60-story Fountain Place office tower.

    These events have kicked the President’s domestic agenda off of the front page, but they expose the weaknesses in our foreign policy.