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

Category: Terror War

  • This explains the black Crown Vic parked out front

    Ever wonder who else reads This Ain’t Hell? Well, thanks to one of Michelle Malkin‘s readers who forwarded her some military email about the discussion about the “Overseas Contingency Operations” dustup this week, we discover that folks at the Pentagon read us, too;

    So those of you who are lurking out there, they’re reading our comments, too. Join in and let your opinions be heard. Yeah, I know, shameless horn tooting here, but you guys make us what we are – so thanks to y’all for making This Ain’t Hell the one of the biggest bunch of opinionated assholes who must be heard on the internet.

  • GWOT becomes Overseas Contingency Operations

    Apparently, in an attempt to make us safer by changing the language we use, the Obama Administration has decided to rename the Global War on Terror to Overseas Contingency Operations according to the Washington Post;

    In a memo e-mailed this week to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department’s office of security review noted that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT.] Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’ ”

    The memo said the direction came from the Office of Management and Budget, the executive-branch agency that reviews the public testimony of administration officials before it is delivered.

    Not so, said Kenneth Baer, an OMB spokesman.

    “There was no memo, no guidance,” Baer said yesterday. “This is the opinion of a career civil servant.”

    Coincidentally or not, senior administration officials had been publicly using the phrase “overseas contingency operations” in a war context for roughly a month before the e-mail was sent.

    Right before we became involved in this global war on terror, the Clinton Administration decided to water down our language and redesignated “rogue nations” to “nations of concern” – the same kind of language the police use. Now our war against terrorists are ‘contingency operations” – it sounds more like meals on wheels operations than a war.

    Our enemies think they are in a war, what with all the missile attacks and death and destruction involved. Our soldiers think they’re in a war – their families think it’s a war. Apparently the only people who don’t think we’re in a war are our leaders. It’s just another indicator that this Administration is not prepared for the challenges it faces when it thinks that language is more important than their commitment to dealing with the threat we all face.

    Of course, all this really represents is a chldish move away from “everything Bush” – and attempt to cover up the successes of the Bush Administration and hide the fact that this new administration has no intention of doing anything except be the anti-Bush presidency. Four more years of this mental masturbation.

  • First Living MOH recipient in GWOT?

    Brendan McGarry reports in the Military Times that the Marine Corps may be ready to award the first Medal of Honor to a living recipient during the Global War on Terror;

    “We have a case that I sent an investigating officer out to take a look at on the West Coast that, if proven, I think will prompt me to recommend the Medal of Honor for a living Marine,” Gen. James T. Conway said.

    If the Corps were to make a formal nomination, the case would go to the secretary of the Navy for approval, followed by the secretary of Defense and then the president.

    Conway did not identify the Marine or the country in which the Marine served.

    To date, five service members — two soldiers, two sailors and one Marine — have received the military’s top valor award for actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, all posthumously.

    The video;

  • US shoots down love-bearing drone from Iran

    Wired.com is reporting that a US fighter shot down an Iranian drone over Iraq last month;

    Details of the previously-unreported shoot-down, which occurred last month, are still sketchy. But we do know that American commanders have long accused Tehran of supplying weapons and training to all sorts of Iraqi militant groups. Shi’ite militias fired Iranian rockets at U.S. troops in Iraq, according to the American military; Sunni militias allegedly used Iranian armor-piercing bombs to reduce U.S. vehicles to ribbons.

    Fox News cautions that they can’t confirm the story. So I figure that the evil US war machine just shot down what Iran had intended to be a peaceful mission and now the Bush/Cheney Obama/Biden cabal is trying to cover it up.

    Here’s an artist’s concept of the drone before it was destroyed by the imperialist running dogs;

    Hat tip to the guy who sat next to me in our Bradley during our three-country tour in 1991.

  • Biden’s latest attempt to sound smart

    On Monday, COB6 wrote about the absurd plan of the Obama Administration to negotiate with the Taliban. Well, not one to let an opportunity to beclown himself slip by, Joe Biden, the smartest man to ever come out of Scranton makes up his own facts and statistics (The Washington Times);

    Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said Tuesday that 70 percent of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan are essentially mercenaries who possibly could be negotiated with instead of fought, and said the United States likely will try this approach.

    Mr. Biden, in Belgium to discuss Afghanistan with NATO officials in advance of next month’s summit, said that he did not know what kind of concessions Taliban members might be willing to make, and said that the Afghan government would have to initiate and approve of any such talks.

    “But I do think it is worth engaging and determining whether or not there are those who are willing to participate in a secure and stable Afghan state,” Mr. Biden said.

    It seems to me that just by the simple fact that Joe is calling them “mercenaries” pretty much precludes any chance of negotiation. Mercenaries, by definition, have no loyalties to a government or land beyond the chance for personal enrichment – why would they want to “participate in a secure and stable Afghan state”? And where does he get the 70% number?

    Unless the Obama Administration plans on paying off these mercenaries (like Clinton did to the Haitian generals), I don’t see any room for negotiation. And paying off terrorists always seems to work so well, for nations who do that – like Malaysia which has conceded everything to Islamic terrorists and still gets bombs and beheadings nearly every day. Islamic extremists have proved themselves to be such rational actors.

  • Why States don’t fight wars

    Jerry920 sent us this article from the Army Times which reports on the efforts of one State Senator of mine in the sorry state of Maryland.

    Sorry? Yes, because they have a long history of being two-faced and populated by morons. They were one of the slave states that remained in the Union during the Civil War having their cake and eating it, too, since the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t apply to them. It was Marylanders that Pinkerton had to protect the new President Lincoln from as he made his way to his first Inauguration. It was Marylanders that hid John Wilkes Boothe until he could cross the Potomac into Virginia. In fact, John Wilkes Booth was a Marylander. Well, you see where I get this intense dislike of my neighbors.

    Back to the article;

    A Maryland state senator is pushing a bill that would require the governor to prevent the mobilization of the state’s National Guard for federal duty unless Congress has authorized the use of military force or issued a declaration of war.

    The bill also would authorize the governor to ask for the return of deployed units in certain circumstances.

    While the sons and daughters of 49 other States fight and die for the security of the chuckleheads of Maryland.

    Madaleno, a Democrat [as if you hadn’t guessed at this point], said he supported the Iraq invasion, although he said he believes there were “serious gaps in how the war was prosecuted after…the first six months.”

    At the same time, he argued, “If we are actually going to be actively engaged in conflicts around the world for a variety of reasons, how do we create a political process that makes sure that the people remain engaged and supportive of the conflicts that we’re in? It shouldn’t just be the executive branch that is solely responsible for that decision-making. We have to create a political process that keeps the public engaged, informed, through their elected representatives.”

    Never mind whether we win or lose, or if we’re secure in our homes – it’s more important that the public remain engaged. It’s all about feelings.

    It’s all a part of the “Bring The Guard Home” Movement which I’ve written about before here. They’re perfectly willing to let other soldiers fight their wars while they feel good about their neighbors sitting out a war at home. There’s probably a movement in your state, too. And Oh, they have the backing of Code Pink, too.

    “By doing it this way, I’m trying to take a slightly different tack than several other states, where they’ve focused solely on the resolution to bring the Guard home from Iraq now,” Madaleno said. “And I’m trying to refocus and broaden the debate a little bit: What are the lessons of this conflict that inform us for the next conflict?”

    This is why States and the US Congress don’t fight wars – they don’t understand that you can’t hamstring your military and the application of military power where and when it’s needed by setting up a series of useless and unnecessary legislative hoops to jump through.

    Jerry asked me about Minnesota – according to National Review;

    The United States Supreme Court settled this question definitively in 1990, when the then-governor of Minnesota complained that Guard troops from that state had been sent to Central America. In that case — Perpich v. Department of Defense — the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the governor of Minnesota had no such authority over the Guard troops, and recognized “the supremacy of federal power in the area of military affairs.”

    Wikipedia concurs. The actual decision says;

    Congress has provided by statute that, in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States. See 32 U.S.C. § 109(c). As long as that provision remains in effect, there is no basis for an argument that the federal statutory scheme deprives Minnesota of any constitutional entitlement to a separate militia of its own.

    So they have no legs to stand on. But, it’s just the idea….

  • Gee, ya think?

    This headline caught my eye while I was checking my email;

    Why do you think President Bush called them part of the axis of evil? What do you think they’ve been doing the last several years? Capturing British sailors, supplying the insurgency against US troops in Iraq? Are we supposed to believe it just started this weekend?

    The guy who sat next to me in the turret of our Bradley through the Gulf War sent me this article from Fox News;

    Iran can develop a nuclear weapon within a year and has ready access to enough fissile material to produce up to 50 nuclear weapons, according to a panel of current and former U.S. officials advising the Obama administration.

    William Schneider, Jr., chairman of the Defense Science Board and a former under secretary of state in the Reagan administration, offered those estimates Wednesday during a news conference announcing the release of a new “Presidential Task Force” report on Iran by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

    So are we going to continue to subordinate our foreign policy to the whims of those hags at Code Pink and IVAW? Or are we going to act like grown ups?

  • Anti-war crowd get what they voted for; not pleased

    The Washington Times‘ Michael Drost writes this morning that the anti-war crowd voted and raised money for Barack Obama knowing he was committed to winning the war in Afghanistan, and they’re not happy that he intends on keeping that pledge;

    “I’m very upset; he promised change, and this is not change. It’s just going to create more deaths on both sides and create more terrorists,” said Jodie Evans, co-founder of Code Pink. The group, known for protests and targeting Bush administration officials, posted a statement Thursday condemning Mr. Obama’s decision and urging him to replace the combat troops with “humanitarian troops.”

    “Afghanistan needs troops of doctors, farmers, teachers, not more troops,” the statement says.

    Medea Benjamin, also a co-founder of Code Pink, said the group “was always unhappy with [Mr. Obama’s] stance on Afghanistan” and has a campaign on its Web site to “Remind Obama”of his promises to promote peace, stop torture, and end the war in Iraq.

    “We hoped that putting more troops in Afghanistan was just campaign talk….”

    The liberal blog Daily Kos, headed by Obama supporter Markos Moulitsas, also includes posts that are hostile to the president’s troop surge.

    “What possible purpose can be served by escalating the conflict with another 30,000 troops?” asked one post Jan 30.

    The article goes on to quote Michael Moore (who thinks he’s some kind of learned historian) and others. Well, I suspected that Obama’s stance was just campaign rhetoric, too, but I’m heartened that he shown at least a little bit of common sense by recognizing that withdrawal from Afghanistan would have far-reaching consequences, just like Clinton’s premature withdrawal from Somalia has had on our security.

    It’s unfortunate that the squeaky wheels are still willing to sacrifice our way of life just so they can feel better, but we are fortunate that Obama recognizes that most voters will hold him accountable if he sacrifices national security for the patronage of the cranks and liars of the anti-war movement.