Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
The infobomb exploded suddenly: Britain doused Zelensky with a cold shower. |
2023-06-07 |
Direct Translation via Google Translate. [RusOnline] Viktor Orban said that Ukraine cannot win, while former CIA chief David Petraeus argued the opposite at the same conference. He described in colors the confident victory of the glorified Ukrainian army and the upcoming defeat of the Russian troops. However, the latest report from the British think tank RUSI on the Russian army in Ukraine could be a cold shower for US and NATO propagandists anticipating a Kyiv victory. It is reported by Tsargrad. ![]() Orban is ours On the first day of the Qatar Economic Forum in Doha, organized by the American concern Bloomberg, the editor-in-chief of the news agency of the same name, John Micklethwaite, interviewed Viktor Orban on stage. Using all possible tricks, Micklethwaite tried to channel the Hungarian prime minister's answers to questions about Ukraine and China into the "correct" channel of US-NATO rhetoric. But it didn't work with Orban. He drew applause (mostly from the Arab public) when he criticized Washington and the EU leadership for trying to interfere in Hungary's internal affairs and decide what is right and what is wrong. When Orban stressed that his policy is based on what is good for his country, which includes maintaining good relations with Russia and China, the audience burst into applause again. Regarding the armed conflict in the Donbass, the Hungarian leader bluntly stated that "Ukraine will not be able to win the war against Russia unless NATO sends its troops there directly - which it is not ready for and which Hungary will reject in any case." The surprised face of the journalist stretched even more when his interlocutor clarified: “If you look at the reality, the numbers, the situation and the fact that NATO is not ready to send its troops, it becomes obvious that the poor Ukrainians will not see victory on the battlefield. This is my position." FALL OF BAHMUT Meanwhile, after the capture of the Ukrainian "fortress" Bakhmut by Russian troops, the US and NATO elites found themselves in a difficult situation. The losses of the Ukrainians during the months of the defense of the city were colossal, primarily due to the fact that Vladimir Zelensky personally attached great strategic importance to Bakhmut. The city had to be held under any circumstances. But in the end, Bakhmut was taken by the "Wagnerites" with the support of artillery and aviation of the Russian Ministry of Defense. Russian artillery is qualitatively and quantitatively much superior to Ukrainian, despite large-scale supplies from the West. It was through the efforts of the Russian "gods of war" that the battle for Bakhmut acquired the infamous name "meat grinder". More and more brigades of the Armed Forces of Ukraine went to the city, where they came under fire from Russian artillery, which shot all positions, roads and houses during the months of the war. The ground units were replaced by new units, which were replenished at the expense of forcibly mobilized people, but the same fate awaited them. Many Western military experts, such as, for example, a retired US Army Colonel Douglas MacGregor, who is very respected throughout the world, have long come to the conclusion that the Ukrainian army has lost tens of thousands of soldiers in Bakhmut alone. The losses of PMC "Wagner" they estimated as much less significant for the following reasons: Firstly, the fighters of PMC "Wagner" are professionally trained and excellently armed - unlike their opponents. And this was clearly visible if you look at the much smaller losses of "musicians" during the battles in urban areas; secondly, the "Wagnerites" were less likely to be subjected to massive shelling from the Ukrainian artillery, which, moreover, has become less and less shells in recent months; thirdly, the PMC fighters acted mainly as defenders of the positions already won earlier, while the Ukrainian troops had to attack again and again in order to recapture the territories occupied by the enemy, while suffering heavy losses. Yevgeny Prigozhin, the head of the Wagner PMC, hinted at this when he spoke about the "Bakhmut meat grinder." According to him, the tactics of grinding the Armed Forces of Ukraine was deliberately chosen on the orders of General Surovikin, the Russian commander-in-chief of the front in eastern Ukraine, in order to pull as many Ukrainian soldiers as possible into Bakhmut and then destroy them. Petraeus came out from behind the stove For the Zelensky regime and its US and NATO aides, the fall of Bakhmut means not only a bitter military defeat, but also a political embarrassment that does not fit into the narrative that “Ukraine is winning.” And it is this narrative that representatives of the US-led “rules-based order” around the world intend to support. So, the day after Viktor Orban's speech at the Qatar Economic Forum, one could hear how a retired American general, former CIA chief David Petraeus, in iridescent colors, described in a conversation with the same John Micklethwaite the upcoming victory of the Ukrainian army, the collapse and even the disorderly flight of the Russian armies from the Donbass. Since the unprovoked, internationally violating United States attack on Iraq in 2003, Petraeus has served as supreme commander of a brutal US occupation force, including the Abu Ghraib torture prison. Later, for his services, he was unanimously appointed by the US Senate to the post of director of the CIA. For the last 10 years he has been a partner of the international asset management and investment company KKR. Thanks to all these qualities, the relevant American media such as Foreign Affairs have repeatedly included Petraeus in the list of the 100 best intellectuals. Thus, a retired US general, former head of the CIA and partner in an investment company has an aura of respect because this person knows what he is talking about. Asked by an interviewer if Viktor Orban was right when he said that Ukraine could not win, Petraeus replied: “I think he is on the wrong side of what will someday be history. I think Ukraine will show what can happen when "The army is well trained and equipped with Western weapons. Ukraine has a significant additional force that is well managed, in contrast to the Russian forces, which have miscalculated their forces and have been fighting for more than 15 months." The retired American general believes that “the Russians have suffered colossal losses, much more than in the first months of the war, and much more than they suffered in a whole decade in Afghanistan. They are poorly trained, they have no coordination. They are poorly armed. They are poorly managed "Relations within the army are based on abuse. And they will face the most difficult task of retreating under enemy fire, because they are in front of their defensive lines. This will not end well for them. In fact, I think they will collapse, in some cases they will even fall apart." Further, Petraeus began to describe the forthcoming UAF counteroffensive, which has already become a talk of the town: “Ukrainians have at least six new tank brigades. In addition, they have many additional brigades with special elements of combat support and support of combat services. And I think that they will cope much better than they think." When such a high-ranking person as Petraeus, with his connections in the highest circles around the world, using a lot of "facts", so convincingly says that Ukraine, with all its aces up its sleeve, cannot but win, who can disagree with him? Who in German government and editorial offices would not want to believe an American expert? Or, to put it another way, who would dare to doubt the words of a high-flying American intellectual, a military expert, given all the "factology" created from fake news? Report "Everything is lost!" Despite the current boom in military propaganda through fake news about Ukraine and Russia, from time to time, thanks to a fortunate combination of circumstances, the interested public can catch a timid ray of truth in any media specializing in military analytics. In this case, we are talking about the report of the "venerable" British military think tank Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) dated May 19 under the title. The authors of the report, Dr. Jack Walting and Nick Reynolds, note that the Russian army is "a structure that has become better able to cope with operational tasks over time, and also learned to anticipate new threats." According to RUSI experts, Russian troops pose a serious problem for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, whose losses are estimated at 300-500 thousand soldiers. The Armed Forces of Ukraine lose hundreds of their fighters and mercenaries daily, mainly in protracted positional battles. The heavy losses of Ukraine are, according to British experts, a paradox, since the losses in defense are usually lower than in the offensive. Experience shows that this ratio is one to two or even one to three. But in Ukraine, this postulate has been turned on its head, and not because Ukrainian soldiers are afraid or unable to fight, and certainly not because of a lack of weapons (NATO deliveries made the Neo-Bandera the most well-armed army in Europe after Russia). This low efficiency of the Ukrainian army is more likely due to the fact that the Russian troops quickly learn from their mistakes, change and improve tactics and quickly adapt to any new military situation. The British also report that the Russian electronic warfare (EW) system is still very powerful - at least one head system is installed for every 10 km of the front line. "These systems are primarily aimed at combating drones. Ukraine is losing, as before, about 10,000 drones a month. The Russian EW system is also capable of intercepting and decrypting real-time messages from Motorola tactical communications systems with 256-bit encryption, which are widely used by the Ukrainian military," experts say. The report also notes that Russian air defense systems are connected directly to powerful radar stations. In July 2022, the Russian military moved their headquarters to fortified structures: "They connected their headquarters to the Ukrainian telecommunications cable network, which already existed in the territories occupied by the Russian army, which significantly reduced the possibility of intercepting radio communications and its electronic signature." As for military aviation, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense, at least 480 Ukrainian combat aircraft and helicopters have been destroyed since February 24, 2022. Ukraine also no longer has a single operating military airfield. British experts especially note the extremely successful use of 500-kilogram FAB bombs by the Russian Air Force. These FABs are dropped from an average height from a distance of about 70 km from the target. With the help of wings and GPS guidance, they hit the target. Experts suggest that the Russian Air Force does not want to endanger their pilots from Ukrainian air defense, so the FABs are dropped from a safe distance. In this regard, experts note that "the Ukrainian military has established that Russia has large stocks of FAB-500s and is systematically converting them into glide bombs." At the same time, they note the Russian advantage in missiles, including multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS). "Russian gunners have also improved their ability to fire from multiple positions and change positions quickly, making them less vulnerable to counter-battery fire," RUSI analysts said. The British report gave a particularly high rating to the Russian engineering troops, which proved to be "one of the strongest branches of the military." It goes on to say the following: Russian sappers set up complex obstacles and field fortifications along the entire front line - concrete-lined trenches and command bunkers, wire fences, "hedgehogs", anti-tank ditches and complex minefields. The Russian demining system is extensive and combines anti-tank and anti-personnel mines, the latter often having multiple activation mechanisms, making them difficult to deactivate. Then RUSI experts come to a disappointing conclusion for the former American General Petraeus and NATO: "All this is a serious tactical problem for the Ukrainian offensive operations." So what? Petraeus, of course, is pursuing absolutely propagandistic goals, distributing an interview that the Western media will then disassemble into quotes, explaining to the layman why they need to "be patient a little more, and Russia will lose." The former Tseraushnik understands the importance of an information victory over Moscow. But wars are not won by media victories alone. Russian troops have clearly learned a lot in recent months. It will be interesting to read what Petraeus will say when the Russian flag is raised in Lvov... |
Link |
Afghanistan | ||
Petraeus Cautions Trump Over Troop Withdrawal From Afghanistan | ||
2019-08-11 | ||
A retired US Army general David Petraeus has suggested that the United States should not abandon Afghanistan as it did Iraq by withdrawing all its troops from the country. In an article published in the Wall Street Journal and co-written by Vance Serchuk, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security,
Mr. Petraeus, who has served as commander of US Central Command and of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, says that a complete military exit from Afghanistan today would be even more ill-advised and risky than the B.O. regime’s disengagement from Iraq in 2011. His comments are expressed at a time that the US is negotiating a withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan with the Taliban ![]() in Doha. A senior member of the Taliban, Mullah Khairullah Khairkhwah, said on Friday that the US and the Taliban negotiators will likely sign the much-awaited peace agreement after at the end of this week. Mr. Khairullah said the talks between the US and the group will continue after Eid al-Adha which ends on August 13. He said that the peace deal between the US and the Taliban will be signed in the presence of representatives of the UN the Islamic Organization and regional countries after the return of the US Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad to Doha after Eid (August 14). Mr. Khalilzad has said that the US is seeking a peace deal which will facilitate a conditions-based withdrawal of American forces from war-ravaged Afghanistan. But, Mr. Petraeus describes Afghanistan’s situation as complicated due to the presence of "20 foreign terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda and ISIS", who "will not join a peace deal". US President Donald Trump ...Oh, noze! Not him!... in many occasions in the last few months has mentioned that he will withdraw his troops from Afghanistan as he has spent billions of dollars for the longest war in US history. Mr. Petraeus says that "the idea that the US can leave if the Taliban promise to combat rather than conspire with these groups is wrongheaded". He says that the Taliban have clearly indicated what they will try to do once US forces are gone: overthrow the Afghan government and reimpose medieval rule. Their resistance to a formal cease-fire, continued barbaric attacks on civilians, and opposition to elections scheduled for this fall are all warning signs, he says. As an alternative, Mr. Petraeus, suggests that it should be recognized that the US doesn’t need a plan for leaving but a strategy for staying‐one that carefully minimizes American, coalition and Afghan costs and casualties but accepts the necessity of a sustained and sustainable troop presence to safeguard vital US interests. He says that the Trump administration should apply the lessons of that tragic experience ‐ during the B.O. regime ‐ to the present situation in South Asia. He concludes that the kind of US withdrawal that was inadvisable in Iraq eight years ago would be indefensible for Afghanistan today. Sources familiar with US-Taliban talks say that the intra-Afghan negotiation ‐ which will take place after a peace agreement is signed between the United States and the Taliban ‐ will be held in Oslo where the two sides will discuss a ceasefire among other relevant topics. For now, the US Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad has said that the focus will be to reduce violence in Afghanistan. | ||
Link |
-Lurid Crime Tales- |
FBI Docs: Hillary Deleted Nearly 1,000 Emails With David Petraeus |
2016-09-28 |
But it gets worse. |
Link |
Terror Networks |
Why the War On Terror Has Taken 15 Years, and Will Take Much Longer |
2016-09-15 |
By Robert Spencer [PJ] This war has gone on for a very long time, and last Sunday, the 15th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 jihad attacks, among all the reminiscences, and eulogies, and encomia, virtually no one attempted to explain why. There’s a simple reason this topic wasn’t discussed: among our political and media "elites," no one knows the answer. Even the most dire estimates of exactly how long this is going to take have fallen wide of the mark. General Petraeus said in 2010 that it could take another ten years to defeat the Afghan "insurgency." Do you think the Taliban is likely to be disbanded and Afghanistan to be a stable, functioning republic in 2020? In 2007, Britain’s security chief, Admiral Lord Alan West, said it could take 30 years to defeat terrorism in the United Kingdom. Do you think that in 2037, Britain will be peaceful and free of jihad terrorists? The very idea is preposterous, and it is preposterous for the same reason that 15 years after 9/11, no one knows why this strange war has lasted so long. West said more in that 2007 interview: I now realize that we are talking about a generation -- and by that I would say 30 years. That doesn’t mean necessarily that we are going to stay at a severe level of threat for all those years. But to be able to say one has absolutely changed the mind-set and thought of people IS going to take a generation. West nailed the answer there -- but no one seemed to notice. Because nothing, nothing whatsoever, is being done in Britain or anywhere else to change "the mind-set and thought of people." That is precisely why, fifteen years after 9/11, the West is weaker and more vulnerable than ever. The entirety of Western intelligentsia, the totality of our political and media elites, steadfastly refuses to acknowledge exactly what the "mindset and thought" of the terrorists really is, and where it comes from. Because of that refusal, policies that don’t deal with the actual problem keep being applied and re-applied -- at the cost of thousands of American lives, billions of American dollars -- and we have nothing to show for this expenditure besides a sharp and continuing loss of American power and prestige. The jihadis who struck the U.S. on September 11, 2001 have made such immense advances since then not because they are strong, or clever, or capable, but because we are weak, short-sighted, and resolute. Resolute not in fighting them, but in maintaining our denial about who they are and what they want. The denial is so complete that we have taken numerous steps to actually enable them to achieve their goals: the billions gifted to the Islamic Republic of Iran and the welcoming of the massive Muslim migrant influx are just two of the most recent examples. |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
0bean On Clinton's Emails: âThere's Classified, And Then There's Classified' |
2016-04-11 |
![]() As evidenced by the Ignoramus in Chief sticking his nose and two cents into the equation, of course. Obama's comments came during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, his first as president. Obama said he continues to believe Clinton didn't jeopardize America's national security with her private email server, but he added that "there's a carelessness in terms of managing emails" that she has recognized. They only had to club her about the head and shoulders with it for a year before she recognized it. Yeah, she's fit to be president. "What I also know, because I handle a lot of classified information, is that there are -- there's classified, and then there's classified," Obama told Fox News. "There's stuff that is really top-secret, top-secret, and there's stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of state, that you might not want on the transom, or going out over the wire, but is basically stuff that you could get in open-source." There are little people, and there are big people . . . . Obama said no one has suggested that Clinton's handling of government emails detracted in any way "from her excellent ability to carry out her duties." When asked specifically whether he can guarantee that Clinton will "not be in any way protected" during the course of the investigation, Obama said he maintains a strict line about not talking to FBI directors about pending investigations. "I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case," Obama said during an interview that was taped during his visit to the University of Chicago School of Law, where he taught. I wonder if General Petraeus would agree with you. The FBI is investigating whether sensitive information that flowed through Clinton's email server was mishandled. The inspector generals for the State Department and U.S. intelligence agencies are separately investigating whether rules or laws were broken. Maybe Guccifer might have something to say about this. Things were fine until he hacked Clinton's email. Obama touched on several issues during the interview, including the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court and how he deals with the threat of terrorism. - On Garland's nomination, Obama said he will stick with him through the end of his term. "What I think we can't have, is a situation in which the Republican Senate simply says, 'Because it's a Democratic president, we are not going to do our job, have hearings, and have a vote,' " he said. It was fine when Dingy Harry did just that on your behalf. But now the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it? - On terrorism, Obama said he doesn't think Americans have made too much of the threat of terrorist attack. He also said he hasn't let acts of terror disrupt some of his regular activities because it's important to communicate a message of resilience and "that we don't panic, that we don't fear." We don't fear because we're ignorant because you keep obscuring what's really going on from the general public. Don't think so? Ask a few in San Fran what they think of the Norks and Iranians getting nukes, who ISIS is, etc.. It's a real eye-opener! "There isn't a president who's taken more terrorists off the field than me, over the last seven-and-a-half years," Obama explained to Fox News. Any idea how those terrorists got to be there in the first place? Don't think that I don't recognize it was you who created the target-rich environment. "I'm the guy who calls the families, or meets with them, or hugs them, or tries to comfort a mom, or a dad, or a husband, or a kid, after a terrorist attack. So let's be very clear about how much I prioritize this: this is my number one job." Right after giving Iran the bomb and golfing, not necessarily in that order. - On what he most looks forward to when leaving office: "Being able to take a walk outside." No comment. I don't want to get banned for stating the obvious. - On his best and worst day in office. Obama said the best was the day health insurance reform passed and the worst was the day he traveled to Newtown, Connecticut, after the massacre at Sandy Hook. What about your best day out of the office? And Sandy Hook is bad, but nothing like the day Israel gets nuked. |
Link |
Olde Tyme Religion |
No, Professor Ahmed, the Founders Were Not So Fond of Islam |
2015-09-28 |
![]() To oppose the "burn the Quran" event planned by Pastor Terry Jones, Ahmed wrote an editorial for CNN in which he stated: Not only are the actions of Jones contrary to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, but they are also against the ideals of the American Founding Fathers. These statements are utterly opposed by the facts. John Adams said absolutely nothing of the kind. Correspondence from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on July 16, 1814, reveals John Adams' true feelings about Islam: Adams states that Mohammed is "a military fanatic" who "denies that laws were made for him; he arrogates everything to himself by force of arms." |
Link |
Home Front: WoT |
Seriously? NANCY PELOSI Blames Retired General Petraeus for ISIS Victories |
2015-06-05 |
.Moved to Opinion. Blog posts are always in Opinion. Pundit] On Wednesday retired General Petraeus stated that the United States is losing to ISIS in Iraq. On Thursday Democrat Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi blamed the legendary General Petraeus for ISIS. In response from a reporter's question during the House Democrat Leadership Press Conference Nancy Pelosi said that it was General Petraeus's job to train the Iraq military and obviously he didn't train as many as he claimed: Reporter: "General Petraeus said last night that we are losing the war in Iraq. How do you see it?" Pelosi: "Well General Petraeus had the responsibility to train the troops in Iraq. I remember going over there on any number of occasions and hearing from him that he had trained 175,000 Iraqi troops and personnel so that they can take over their own effort. I would ask him about that. I think the number was far smaller than was represented to us |
Link |
Home Front: WoT |
Will Rep. Trey Gowdy and Benghazi Select Committee Subpoena Hillary's Personal Emails ? |
2015-03-04 |
The New York Times also reported that Clinton's people sent over 55,000 emails and documents to the State Department only TWO MONTHS AGO to comply with federal record keeping laws. A source on the Hill tells PJ Media that Rep. Trey Gowdy, as head of the Select Benghazi Committee, has the authority to subpoena the emails from the ISP of her pantsuit@gmail.com account. (Shout-out to WMAL's Chris Plante for the email nomenclature.) No one can possibly take the word of Hilary Clinton's team that all appropriate emails were turned over to the State Department or turned over to any investigating authority since she has every reason to conceal what happened if she is culpable. Who else would possibly be trusted to make such a determination about evidence in an investigation? And if you are a lefty reading this and think this is not a big deal, just replace the name "Hilary Clinton" with the name "Dick Cheney" and let me know where you stand on the issue. There is some precedent to subpoena Hilary's email. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) subpoenaed Attorney General Eric Holder's email when Issa was head of the Congressional Oversight Committee regarding an entirely different scandal, Fast and Furious. Holder refused to comply and was held in contempt of Congress. Issa subsequently filed charges to compel disclosure with the DC circuit court, which naturally has refused to take up the matter. In this instance, the government isn't even in possession of the emails (well, perhaps the NSA is...) in question, so Gowdy ought to go directly to her email provider and get the emails from there to make certain the proper information has been turned over. Will he do it? Interestingly, General Petraeus just pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor involving classified documents. I'd be shocked if anything came of Clinton's e-mail irregularities/criminal activity. |
Link |
Home Front: Culture Wars |
HERE’S WHY WOMEN IN COMBAT UNITS IS A BAD IDEA |
2014-11-21 |
h/t Jerry Pournelle Three problems plague the debate over whether all combat units should finally be opened to women. (Actually, there are four problems: The fourth and most important being the likelihood that there will be no real debate, something that I hope this article will help to mitigate). Most career soldiers and officers I know believe the integration of women into Special Forces teams, and into SEAL, Ranger and Marine infantry platoons, is already a forgone conclusion. From their perspective, politicians in uniform (namely, top brass) don’t have the intestinal fortitude to brook the vocal minority in Congress – and the country, really – who think mainstreaming women into ground combat units is a good idea. As for the other three problems, the first is that every sentient adult knows what happens when you mix healthy young men and women together in small groups for extended periods of time. Just look at any workplace. Couples form. At some point, how couples interact – sexually, emotionally, happily and/or unhappily – makes life uncomfortable for those around them. Factor in intense, intimate conditions and you can forget about adults being able to stay professional 24/7. Object lesson for anyone who disagrees: General Petraeus. Problem number two: Those who favor lifting the combat exclusion ban engage in a clever sleight of hand whenever they equate women serving in combat with women serving in combat units. Given women’s performance over the past decade in Afghanistan and Iraq, who but a misogynist would doubt their capacity for courage, aggressiveness or grace under fire at this point? But battles are like exclamation points. They punctuate long stretches when there are no firefights. Spend time around soldiers when they are coming down from adrenaline highs, or are depressed or upset; they are prone to all sorts of temptations. Alternatively, under Groundhog Day-like conditions, troops invariably grow bored and frustrated. How quickly we forget Charles Graner and Lynndie England, and the dynamic between them that helped fuel the sadism at Abu Ghraib. Problem number three involves a different elision. Proponents of lifting the ban love to invoke desegregation and the demise of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Their intent in doing so is to suggest that all three are of a piece: Blacks now serve in combat units, as do (at least in theory) openly homosexual soldiers, and there have been no untoward effects. It is therefore past time to let women be all that they can be as well. Except that attraction between the sexes is nothing like the denigration of another race or the disinterest (or disgust) heterosexual men feel when it comes to the idea of one man pursuing another. Indeed, racism and bigotry lie at the opposite end of the spectrum from attraction. Lumping all three together is a canard. There is no clearer way to put it than this: Heterosexual men like women. They also compete for their attention. This is best captured by the Darwinist aphorism: male-male competition and female choice. Or, try: no female has to leave a bar alone if she doesn’t want to, whereas at ‘last call’ lots of men do. Cast back through history or just look cross-culturally: Men’s abiding interest in women (and women’s interest in having men be interested) creates limitless potential for friction. Is this really what we want to inflict on combat units? More than a decade ago, I described the critical ethos on teams, and in squads or platoons, as ‘one for all and all for one.’ Introduce something over which members are bound to compete, that the winner won’t share, and you inject a dangerous dynamic. Worse, introduce the possibility of exclusivity between two individuals and you will have automatically killed cohesion. |
Link |
A dozen years: A dozen things we've learned |
2013-09-11 |
Another 9-11-01 anniversary rolls around. There will be solemn ceremonies today. Bells will toll. The names of the dead will be read on national television, which won't stick around for all of them but will cut back now and then. As a nation we've expended a dozen years of time, effort, money, and soldiers. This is an appropriate day to look at the state of the nation as a participant in the war against terror. Just a reminder: We're not supposed to call it the war on terror anymore. I forget what its official name is now. Something like "irritating disturbance of international proportions having nothing to do with religion."
|
Link |
Africa North |
After Benghazi - Was there a Cover-Up? |
2013-08-06 |
By Pappy This is the second in a series of "After Benghazi" musings. The first one may be found here. ![]() The attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was initially blamed on Muslim outrage over a relatively obscure movie that depicted the prophet Mohammed in an unfavorable light. The producer of that movie was arrested late at night by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies on charges unrelated to the movie; he is still in jail. According to a September 11, 2012 New York Times article, the movie was "a 14-minute trailer for the English-language film, which was posted on YouTube in July, attracted little attention until... a version dubbed into Arabic was posted...then copied and viewed tens of thousands of times more." The movie was given a great amount of attention by "religiously sensitive individuals" on Egyptian television. Ironically, before the protesters attacked the Cairo compound, the U.S. mission in Cairo had issued a statement saying "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions." In any case, Muslim anger at that movie was the reason given for the violent Salafist demonstration (accompanied by pro-Al Qaeda chanting) at the US embassy in Cairo. That same reason was immediately applied to the attack on the Benghazi consulate. Later, Ambassador Susan Rice made the rounds of the talk shows that were to be broadcast Sunday, also linking the Salafist demonstration at the US embassy in Cairo with the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi. Was there a cover-up at this point? It's hard to say. There are at least four parties involved: State, the CIA, the Department of Defense and the White House. All of the "Four Horsemen" have coinciding and competing objectives, plus each of them has a reason to protect their own turf. First, the CIA: the initial CIA assessment and its revisions consistently stated "currently available information suggests that the demonstration in Benghazi was spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo." It also said the CIA advised that based on its intelligence an attack in the region would take place, with Cairo being a prime target, and with a "precarious" Benghazi also on the list. That statement was later dropped, likely due to displeased officials in either the White House or State, who viewed it as a 'CYA moment'. The CIA initially also did not want to acknowledge that two of its personnel had died during the attack on the 'consulate annex', which press reports revealed to be a CIA facility. As for the White House, it claimed "mistakes were made", saying it did not handle the Benghazi attack well both during and afterwards, and blamed it on "incompetence and confusion" and an "overabundance of caution". ("We're portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots. It's actually closer to us being idiots," claimed one anonymous staffer.) The list of errors ranged from standing down the Foreign Emergency Support Team (the order came from within the State department but no one will own up to who gave that order), failing to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group, an inter-agency War-on-Terror task force reportedly relegated to second-class status by the Obama administration, the National Security Council in particular. Other failures were stalling the release of requested Benghazi 'talking points' to Congress, and a mis-named "Dream Team" of experts from various agencies that were to be used to brief Congress but ended up fumbling their duties, plus a few other issues dealing with unfortunate semantics and wordplay. The White House, for its part, said it had agreed and signed off on the CIA's initial assessment in the Benghazi talking points for use by both Congress and Ambassador Rice, a statement reinforced by the President's spokesman. The Third Horseman, the State Department, had engaged in some pre-emptive self-protection by its memo condemning the anti-Mohammed movie prior to the Cairo demonstration. It's highly likely that State did indeed 'massage' the released assessment and the subsequent talking points, ostensibly for turf protection (i.e., to keep Congress off State's back) and to prevent State from shouldering the blame. In any case, the talking points were excised of the words "terrorism" and "al Qaeda", as well as the CIA's 'warning'. Again, the Foreign Emergency Support Team, supposedly useful for a situation like the Benghazi consulate attack, had been called off by State, but no one would say who called the team off. The last Horseman, the Department of Defense (DoD) also engaged in some self protection, primarily because it reportedly had no assets available to provide timely interdiction in the Benghazi attack (including a rapid-reaction force that was training in Croatia). While that is still being debated, it appears the DoD was not engaged in the assessment process. What about the press? Was there a cover-up by the press? If by 'cover-up' there was an active effort by the press to suppress information, there's no clear evidence. Certainly there was an admission by various and sundry correspondents, columnists and news professionals that they viewed the reactions to the Benghazi attack and criticism of the various follow-ups by the "Four Horsemen" as politically motivated. There was some inside baseball: CBS posted an article online from Slate by John Dickerson, Slate's chief political correspondent (who also happened to be CBS' political director), stating that the White House had signed off on the full CIA assessment, but State had not. The implication made by Mr. Dickerson is that State was responsible for the changes in the released assessment and Ambassador Rice's talking points for reasons of "ass covering" (both of the Department and the Secretary of State) and to keep a hostile Congress out of the way. The press was also influenced by the fact that it was an election year, and given the political atmosphere within the Beltway that also permeates the general media (with the exception of a few reporters like of CBS' Sharyl Attkisson), the media went with its usual political biases. Was there a cover-up? Not in the sense of a Nixon-Watergate moment. Not in the sense of everyone getting into a smoke filled room in the wee hours of the morning to forge an agreement, or clandestine meetings out by the D.C. reflecting pool, or phone calls and emails from bogus accounts, or another JournoList-style "let's coordinate stories". What we saw in the immediate aftermath is what, based on personal experience, passes for business-as-usual in Washington: spin, turf-protection, egotism, bureaucracy, job protection, passing the blame and incompetence. The legislative and executive branches were once again at loggerheads, with the former asking questions and demanding answers, and the latter stalling or refusing. Business-as-usual is what likely cost General Petraeus his job as head of the CIA, as well as the retirement of many senior officers. Most importantly, it was also an election year, where getting (re)elected is what mattered. The administration, the State Department, and the media viewed the Benghazi attack and its mishandling as a weapon in the hands of the Republican party and potential disaster to the President's re-election. Based on that, it was a cover-up, where the objective was to stall, delay, or deny until after the election, no matter how many metaphorical bodies piled up. Rather unfortunate for the real bodies that were flown into Andrews air base, some of them in caskets. But that's politics. The question remains, though. What about now? For that, we need to look at what's currently going on. That's for the next article. |
Link |
-Short Attention Span Theater- |
Why UAV Strikes should be Exclusively Military - Small Wars Journal |
2013-03-06 |
The recent confirmation hearings for John Brennans nomination as Klingon director occasioned an extended discussion--and unusually a rather public one at that--on the role and organizational identity of the CIA. Brennans hapless predecessor General Petraeus was a military man, perhaps the consummate military man, like any other man except more so... of the age in terms of bearing, demeanor and vision; but he was sent to run a place which has always held itself |
Link |