That Was Then, This Is Now: Yemen Edition

Via Instapundit:

Six months ago, Yemen was - supposedly - a rare foreign policy success.



Today...

The last US special forces have been withdrawn from Yemen without exciting much notice from the US press.  Max Boot tweets: “All US SOF evacuating Yemen. Huge win for AQAP, huge defeat for US. How many foreign policy disasters can we handle?” Reuters reports, “the United States has evacuated its remaining personnel, including about 100 special operations forces, from Yemen because of the deteriorating security situation there, U.S. officials said on Saturday.”  This means that the last vestiges of what the Obama administration only recently touted as their model counter-insurgency operation are gone.  The collapse has flown largely under the media radar. 

Last week Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post reported that $500 million dollars in American supplied weapons are now in the hands of “Iranian-backed rebels or al-Qaeda”.  The Islamist blitzkrieg is living off huge quantities of captured US materiel.

In other words, the same thing happened in Yemen that happened in Libya and Syria.  Read the rest, if you dare.  It gets worse.

Along these lines, it appears that the world is becoming more violent.

According to an analysis of data from the world’s 20 most lethal wars last year, at least 163,000 people died in conflict. That compares to just under 127,000 in the 20 worst wars the previous year, a rise of 28.7 percent. 

That’s a pretty disturbing spike by anyone’s terms. And if you look at the first few months of 2015, the violence doesn’t seem to be waning. 

What’s even more worrying is that this seems to be part of an ongoing trend that now goes back eight years. According to the Australia-based Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), global violence — as defined by a range of measures from conflict deaths, to displaced persons, to homicide rates — has been rising since 2007.

It's a good thing a Nobel Peace Prize recipieant has been leading the free world since 2009, otherwise, who knows what could've happened?  

Lone Survivor Movie Review

This review is very late.  I watched the movie about three weeks ago.  I read the book during my first tour in Afghanistan.  I recommend reading the book somewhere other than Afghanistan.

The real deal (above) and the actors (below)

I waited to write about it because I wanted to mull it over.  It's that important.

First, it's one of the top three war movies I've watched.  The other two are "Band of Brothers" (actually a miniseries, but I think it counts, and based on another true story and far better book) and "Saving Private Ryan" (fiction inspired by several real stories).

I loved the realism:

1. Telecommunications are the bane of every combat unit. 
2. No shooting from the hip.  Even the Taliban aimed, though not nearly as skillfully as the SEALs, which is realistic.
3. Grenades do not make giant fire balls.
4. Finite ammo: fighters on both sides employ fire discipline, change magazines and even (gasp!) run out of ammo.
5. Shooting, moving and communicating between teammates, and I don't just mean the SEALs. 
6. Referring to each other by call sign over TACSAT. 
7. The silly names Servicemen give serious matters - and the gallows humor between friends at war. 

Other stuff I loved: 

1. Mark Wahlberg as Marcus Luttrell, the actual Lone Survivor.  This is the same dude who starred in movies as disparate as "The Fighter" and "Ted", for goodness' sake!  If you would've told me during his "Marky Mark" days that he'd grow into such a talented, versatile actor, I'd have said you were crazy.  As if that wasn't enough, he seems to genuinely respect and honor the people whose story he tells. 
2. Taylor Kitsch as Medal of Honor recipient Michael "Murph" Murphy.  Yes, that Murph.  The man is a legend, and Mr Kitsch honored Murph's memory with his performance.
3. Ben Foster as Matt "Axe" Axelson.  
4. Eric Bana as Erik Kristensen.  It was a relatively small role for a big name actor, but Mr Bana brought a dignity and details (see the link) to the role that prove the people who made this movie really cared about the subjects of the story.  
5. Marcus Luttrell's cameos.  Look for them. 
6. They left intact Marcus' belief - expressed in the book - that the fact he lost his rifle, and it kept its zero, was a genuine miracle. 
7. The people portrayed as the most heroic are Afghans. 

What disappointed me:

1. As with most books adapted to film (not "The Hobbit"!), time constraints forced the film makers to leave many details out.  Read the book! 
2. The film makers embellished the ending in typical Hollywood fashion.  I understand why they did it, but I think the real ending is more compelling.  No, I won't explain.  Read the book! 

Why this movie is important: 

First, civilians, from the low-information non-voter on the street to policy makers in DC, have a concept of special operations troops as techno-magical ninjas that can accomplish impossible missions with minimum political risk.  Stories like "Lone Survivor", "Black Hawk Down" (read the freaking book!) and "Bravo Two Zero" remind us that these men, though far from normal (yes, I mean exactly that), are still human.  They screw up.  Or, they don't, and circumstances conspire to screw them up.  If war is "policy by other means", then there is no such thing as a politically safe way to engage in it.  Furthermore, these men are real people with real families who face real, deadly consequences.  Those consequences - because of the nature of their missions - often affect entire countries.  Politicians need to be a lot more careful about what missions they assign these men, and why. 

By the way, Hollywood is really into remakes right now, even remaking all kinds of movies that should never be remade.  If there's on movie that desperately requires a remake, it's Bravo Two Zero.  But, even if they do, read the freaking book!

Second, the training these men go through to become special operators is brutal, some would say sadistic.  If you haven't watched the Discovery Channel series "Surviving the Cut", do so.  You can find in on Netflix, and I'm sure elsewhere.  If you haven't experienced combat, you may be tempted to think that kind of brutality unnecessary, but "Lone Survivor" demonstrates why it's essential.  The kind of man who did what those four SEALs did is not common.  He isn't average.  He isn't even normal.  And one can't identify that kind of man with psychological profiles or any method other than making their "training" (it's not really training; it's testing) so hellaciously painful, that the many who lack the ability, the will, or both simply quit.  They self-identify.  The few who survive the cut never even consider quitting.  Ever.  You see that attitude dramatized more effectively in "Lone Survivor" than in any other movie I've watched. 

The controversy:

Screw the controversy.  The only reason there is any controversy (and there are oodles) is that "Liberals" demand American Servicemen be portrayed in only two roles - monster and victim - often both, especially we who've fought from Vietnam until now.  If you hold no such belief, you'll find "Lone Survivor" a gut-wrenching experience that pays fitting tribute to the people it portrays, and (importantly) does so with artistry worthy of recognition it will never receive from "Liberals".

Sounds familiar.

If you haven't already, watch these trailers.

Obama-Backed Terrorists Attempt Religious Extermination in Maaloula, Syria

This is why we need to stay out of Syria.  If we support Assad, we support a mass-murdering dictator and Iran, but by supporting the rebels, we're supporting this.

Maaloula is a special place. It has been a safe haven for Christians for 2,000 years - until now. It was a place of refuge so secure in its rugged mountain isolation that a dialect of the language of Christ, Aramaic, is still spoken here. But not today. 

Its Christian community of 2,000 has fled. In the tight alleyways and streets that wind up the Maaloula's mountainside their language has been replaced by the Arabic of two bitter enemies: rebels from three Islamist groups and the soldiers of President Bashar al-Assad.
Some 70,000 tourists a year used to come here from all over the Middle East, Europe and America to marvel at the Christianity carved into its rock. But the "Welcome to Maaloula" sign as I drove in seemed almost laughable. 

There was hardly time to notice the white statue of Christ the Redeemer on the hillside before we were fired on, bullets aimed at our van, blowing our tyre and holing the chassis. We screeched to a halt and scrambled clear.

Lee Stranahan, one of the few American reporters in the area, has details of the attack.

For weeks in early September, the world got sketchy reports on the back and forth fighting in Maaloula, as combined Syrian rebel forces consisting of U.S. backed ‘Free Syria Army’ fighters battled next to al-Qaeda backed al-Nusra troops against Syrian goverment forces for control of the town. 

The Maalourla survivors, speaking out for the first time, said that the Free Syria Army troops were as one with the al-Nusra warriors. They described in heartbreakng detail how Maaloula’s townspeople were terrorized and some killed for being Christian. 

The attack began with a suicide bomber attacking the local checkpoint. One survivor said that armed Muslims were inside her house almost immediately, and held a machine gun to her husband’s head. The Islamists bragged about smashing a statue of Mary and taunted the family for their Christianity. The survivor broke down in tears describing her fear that her daughter would be raped by the men and that the family would be killed. 

When the Maaloula witnesses was told that U.S Sec. of State John Kerry had referred to the FSA forces as ‘moderate’ in Senate testimony, she closed her eyes, shook her head both and forth and said “No no no no no.” 

She said that she didn’t trust the press after seeing their reporting on the situation in Maaloula, which deemphasized the Islamist elements of the attack.

More from Mr Stranahan:



For more info, visit Mr Stranahan's site and read this report from Ed Morrissey. 

Syria Is Different

Remember when it was unconstitutional for a president to send troops to war without congressional approval?

The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. ~ Sen Barack Obama (D, Il) 2007

Remember when principled members of congress called for the impeachment of a president who might consider military strikes against a foreign country without congressional approval?

“The president has… no…. Constitutional… authority to take this nation to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked, or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,” Biden declared, loud and clear.  ”And if he does, I would move to impeach him.  The House, obviously, has to do that.  But I would lead an effort to impeach him.” ~ Sen Joe Biden (D, De) 2007 

Remember when Bashar Assad was "a reformer"?


Remember when Assad was "generous"?

On March 16, 2011—the day after the first mass demonstration against the regime—John Kerry said Assad was a man of his word who had been “very generous with me.” He added that under Assad “Syria will move; Syria will change as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States.” This is the man who might be our next secretary of state.

Remember when Assad was Secretary of State, John Kerry's, "dear friend"?

Staffers describe their collective cringe when, after a motorcycle ride with Bashar al-Assad, he

returned to Washington referring to Bashar as “my dear friend.”

If none of this fills you with confidence, given the current state of affairs, fear not, everything's different now.  But that sets up a whole other set of problems with consistency, doesn't it?

Take it away, Victor Davis Hanson.

Deriding the Iraq war was Obama’s signature selling point... For the last five years, disparagement of “Iraq” and “Bush” has seemed to intrude into almost every sentence the president utters...
His sudden pro-war stance makes a number of hypocritical assumptions. First, the U.S. president can attack a sovereign nation without authorization from Congress (unlike the Iraq war when George W. Bush obtained authorization from both houses of Congress). Even if Obama gets a no vote, he said that he reserves the right to strike.

He does?  How does that square with his statement from 2007?  It doesn't, that's how.  Now, shut up, you racist!

But then, as VDH noted, not much the Pres does now squares with his rhetoric.  Fortunately, Dr Hanson provided us with some examples.

On the perils of going it alone without allies 

“Where the stakes are the highest, in the war on terror, we cannot possibly succeed without extraordinary international cooperation. Effective international police actions require the highest degree of intelligence sharing, planning and collaborative enforcement.” (2004) 

So far no European or Arab nation has offered military support for our planned effort against Syria. 

On the need to obtain UN approval before attacking another country 

“You know, if the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it, do we have the coalition to make it work, and, you know, those are considerations that we have to take into account.” (2013) 

After misleading the UN in obtaining no-fly-zones for Libya (and then bombing troops on the ground), Obama is not even approaching the UN for a resolution to bomb this time around. 

On the idea that armed intervention is ever a good option 

“I don’t want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.” (2008) 

The mindset in Iraq was to stop a genocidal dictator like Saddam Hussein who had gassed his own people — apparently the present mission is to stop the genocidal dictator Bashar Assad, who has gassed his own people. 

On the folly of starting a wrong war to ensure a president’s sinking credibility 

“It’s time to reject the counsel that says the American people would rather have someone who is strong and wrong than someone who is weak and right.” (2008) [Talk about false choices.  It's entirely possible to be both weak and wrong. ~ O.S.]
“That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.” (2002) 

Most believe that we are going to war mostly to restore Obama’s credibility after he issued an ill-advised red line to Syria that he thought would never be crossed — a war, in other words, predicated on “politics.” 

On the dangers of not defining a mission or a methodology 

“I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.” (2002) [As opposed to arming Al-Qaeda, like we did in Libya. ~ O.S.]

“When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.” (2004) 

So far we have not articulated the purpose of attacking Syria, the methods of intervention, or the desired outcome of the war — at a time of deep administration cuts to defense, soon to be made worse by sequestration. 

On not intervening in the civil wars and internal affairs of Arab nations 

“The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. Our troops have done all that we have asked them to do and more. But no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else’s civil war, nor settle the grievances in the hearts of the combatants.” (2007). 

Syria is currently in “somebody else’s” civil war in which the Assad dictatorship, Hezbollah militias, and Iranian volunteers are battling al-Qaeda affiliates, the Free Syrian Army, and various unknown coalitions of Assad opponents.

There may have been a time, early in the Syrian civil war, when we could have armed rebel groups that sought to establish responsible governance in Syria.  Even if that was ever true - and that's a big if - that time is long past.  Today, the Syrian civil war boils down to a fight between Iran and Al-Qaeda.  Regardless who we back, we back an enemy.  

Double Standards (Political Edition)

Remember when Sarah Palin said that "you can see Russia from Alaska"?  No, she never said, "I can see Russia from my house".  That was a Saturday Night Live parody that political ignoramuses ascribe to her.  Sarah Palin was, of course, right.  You can see Russia from the Alaska across the Bering Straight.

"Liberals", naturally, ridiculed her for making a factually accurate statement.  They always know better, even when they're wrong. 

Compare that with how they treat Pres Obama's many geographical errors.

Mr. Obama’s geographical confusion has become habitual. He once claimed that he had been to all “57 states.” He also assumed that Kentucky was closer to Arkansas than it was to his adjacent home state of Illinois. 

In reference to the Falkland Islands, Mr. Obama called them the Maldives — islands southwest of India — apparently in a botched effort to use the Argentine-preferred Malvinas. The two island groups may sound somewhat alike, but they are continents apart. Again, without basic geographical knowledge, the president’s commentary on the Falklands is rendered superficial. 

When in the state of Hawaii, Mr. Obama announced that he was in “Asia.” He lamented that the U.S. Army’s Arabic-language translators assigned to Iraq could better be used in Afghanistan, failing to recognize that Arabic isn’t the language of Afghanistan. For that matter, he apparently thought Austrians speak a language other than German.

Remember, Sarah Palin made a factually accurate statement about her home state, and was ridiculed for it.  Pres Obama made multiple abysmally ignorant statements about his country and both his home states (Hawaii and Illinois).  Clearly, the "Liberal" media mocked him mercifully for it, right?

Of course not!  Haven't you been paying attention?

The president’s geographical illiteracy is a symptom of the nation’s growing ignorance of once-essential subjects such as geography and history. The former is often not taught anymore as a required subject in our schools and colleges. The latter has often been redefined as race, class and gender oppression to score melodramatic points in the present rather than to learn from the tragedy of the past.

See?  When Sarah Palin makes a factually accurate statement, she's an idiot.  When The One makes multiple ignorant statements, it's everyone else's fault.  Gotta love how that works.

To be fair, the author I quoted above - Victor Davis Hanson - is a conservative, which is why he was willing to point out all those ignorant statements.  "Liberals" won't even admit they exist.

Egypt's New Pharaoh

Where are all those "enlightened ones" who told us the Muslim Brotherhood is a "moderate" political organization?

Almost two years after Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak was removed from power, Cairo's Tahrir Square is still an epicenter of protest and violence. It's an epicenter of protest and violence because Egypt is again ruled by a man who has declared himself dictator. The country's new president, Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, announced that constitutional declarations, decisions and laws issued by the president are final and not subject to appeal.

That didn't take long.  Egypt just went through the age-old cycle: despotism to revolution, to democracy, right back to despotism.

Euro Zone Back in Recession (Updated)

How's Socialism working for Europe?

The debt crisis dragged the euro zone into its second recession since 2009 in the third quarter despite  modest growth in Germany andFrance, data showed on Thursday.

The two leading economies both managed 0.2 percent growth in the July-to-September period.

Got that?  Their two leading economies grew at the roaring rate of 0.2%.

But the resilience could not save the austerity-hit 17-nation bloc from overall contraction as the likes of The Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Austria shrank.

Economic output in the euro zone fell 0.1 percent in the quarter, following a 0.2-percent drop in the second quarter.

Those two quarters of contraction put the euro zone’s 9.4 trillion euro ($12 trillion) economy in recession, although Italy and Spain have been contracting for a year already and Greece is suffering an outright depression.

Incredibly, this is the direction some Americans actually want to follow them off the cliff by spending more, borrowing more and taxing more.  It's insane.  We should be taking the opposite approach, because as Ed Morrissey states...

At some point, the Germans and French citizens will tire of having their production dedicated to rescuing less disciplined neighbors on the Continent.  When that day comes, the Atlantic will not protect us from the shock waves — which is why it’s more urgent than ever for the US to get its own fiscal house in order.

Fortunately, our president promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.  Of course, it's his second term now, and he hasn't even tried, but it's the thought that counts, right?

UPDATE (18NOV2012): Half of UK voters want to leave the EU, and I can't say that I blame them.

The survey will fuel the growing political debate about Britain’s future place in the EU, which has seen even Cabinet ministers suggesting that the UK would prosper outside the union.

The YouGov poll showed that 49 per cent of voters would vote to leave the EU in a referendum. Twenty-eight per percent said they would opt to remain a member, while 17 per cent said they did not know how they would vote.

British voters are also gloomy about the future of the EU: 65 per cent said they are pessimistic about the union’s prospects, while only 22 per cent were optimistic.

Another poll published yesterday in The Guardian claims it's more like 56%, but the link wouldn't work for me (maybe it'll work now).

Remember when Americans thought the EU would overtake the US as the world's leading economic power?  No nation, or group of nations, can spend more than they take in, lavish their population with welfare programs that give them incentives to not work, punish those who do work with excessive taxes, make it excessively difficult to start or run a business with excessive regulation,  produce too few children to replace in the future the people who are working today, and expect to survive.

And we're making all the same mistakes.

Ausies Set New Sniper Record

Who'll get to 3,000 m first?

Barrett M82A1 50 caliber rifle

Earlier this year a Commando sniper team was secreted in Helmand. Through binoculars at a distance invisible to the naked eye they spotted a group of Taliban. The soldiers having means of identifying targets went through a process of obtaining verification and permission to engage.

Two marksmen using Barrett M82A1 50 calibre rifles simultaneously fired. The bullets were six seconds in the air. One killed the Taliban commander. It is not known for certain which sniper fired the fatal shot.

While there have been no triumphant press releases, in the tight global Special Forces sniper community the shot is much discussed, because it seems certain to be a world record.

Australian SOTG Sniper Team in Yakima, WA Afghanistan

As the bullet yawed through the thin air on a windless morning, GPS aids measured the distance at 2815m.

Last I'd heard, the record holder was the aptly named Canadian sniper Rob Furlong, but apparently he'd already been surpassed. 

The previous world record achieved by British Corporal Craig Harrison occurred also in Helmand in November 2009. Firing from a distance of 2475m, Harrison killed two Taliban.

Such feats are mind-boggling, and highly effective against the enemy, not only fisically, but also psychologically.  Also, a sniper's bullet is far less likely to cause collateral damage than an air strike, artillery or even a assault by an infantry platoon or SOF team.

Unfortunately, the talent, self-discipline and will to necessary to achieve such skill are rare.  Consequently, mass producing such Soldiers is impossible.

War Plans for Mali

Shhhh.... Nobody tell Obama voters, but the war he got us into in Libya (illegally, without Congressional approval) caused another war in Mali.  And now he plans to get us into that one as well.

Military planners from Africa, the United Nations and Europe in Mali’s capital Bamako last week drew up a battle plan that would involve a foreign force of more than 4,000 personnel, mostly from West African countries. It remains unclear how much of the force would come from Western nations.

Also, don't tell Obama voters that these are "imperialist wars for oil".

In Libya there’s an argument to be made that even though the United States ‘led from behind’ we were nevertheless used by French oil interests among others to increase French prestige and power in the neighborhood. The French are very good at getting other people to do their dirty jobs for them. Mali is part of France’s ghost empire in Africa; there’s a case to be made for remaining well in the rear and not even leading.

I thought Pres Obama was supposed to be the peace president.

It's almost as if Obama voters' "anti-war" stance was really just an anti-Republican stance.  Nah... that's just cynical!

Who Disobeyed the President?

President Obama recently claimed in an interview that...

“The minute I found out what was happening [in Benghazi] . . . I gave the directive,” he said, “to make sure we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to do. I guarantee you everybody in the CIA and military knew the number-one priority was making sure our people are safe.”

Did we do "whatever we need[ed] to do" to "[make] sure our people [were] safe"?  According to Adm. James A. Lyons (USN, Ret.), the answer is "no".

The Obama national security team, including CIA, DNI, State Department and the Pentagon, watched and listened to the assault but did nothing to answer repeated calls for assistance.
.....
At our military base in Sigonella, Sicily, which is slightly over 400 miles from Benghazi, we had a fully equipped Special Forces unit with both transport and jet strike aircraft prepositioned. Certainly this was a force much more capable than the 22-man force from our embassy in Tripoli [Tripoli is also about 400 miles from Benghazi ~ OS].

I know those Special Forces personnel were ready to leap at the opportunity. There is no doubt in my mind they would have wiped out the terrorists attackers. Also I have no doubt that Admiral William McRaven, Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, would have had his local commander at Sigonella ready to launch; however, apparently he was countermanded—by whom? We need to know.

Our fighter jets could have been at our Benghazi mission within an hour. Our Special Forces out of Sigonella could have been there within a few hours. There is not any doubt that action on our part could have saved the lives of our two former Navy SEALs and possibly the ambassador.

 In other words, we did not do "whatever we need[ed] to do" to "[make] sure our people [were] safe".  Which means that, if in fact President Obama gave the order to do everything possible to secure our people on the ground, somebody disobeyed his order.

Somebody high up in the administration made the decision that no assistance (outside our Tripoli embassy) would be provided, and let our people be killed. The person who made that callous decision needs to be brought to light and held accountable. According to a CIA spokesperson, “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need.”

All right; so the CIA denies making the call, and no one in the Administration has contradicted them, so who did?  Why hasn't the Administration said who made the call?  Is it possible that the president doesn't know who disobeyed his order and denied our people in Benghazi the assistance they requested?  Adm. Lyons's conclusion:

Having been in a number of similar situations, I know you have to have the courage to do what’s right and take immediate action. Obviously, that courage was lacking for Benghazi. The safety of your personnel always remains paramount. With all the technology and military capability we had in theater, for our leadership to have deliberately ignored the pleas for assistance is not only in incomprehensible, it is un-American.

Whoever made the call deserves prison.

Watching Our People Die...

...And then lying about it.

From CBS News:

CBS News has been told that, hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle.

So, our leadership watched as Islamic terrorists murdered our people in our consulate... and did nothing!  To make matters worse, they continue to lie about it.

[The] basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.

So says SECDEF Leon Panetta.  But as I stated earlier that is...

BULLS__T!  That's called a "movement to contact".  It's a standard offensive operation.  In fact, in a real movement to contact, you don't even know the enemy's location.  In Banghazi, the enemy's location was obvious!

Apparently, Sec Panetta has never picked up a copy of FM 7-8.  But it's even worse than I thought, because, as Jonah Goldberg asks...

First, Panetta says they didn’t have real-time information. Uh, if having a live video feed and real-time reports from assets on the ground for hours doesn’t count as real-time information, what does?
.....
If the circumstances in Libya didn’t meet the “enough information” threshold for a rescue attempt or some other form of intervention, then what does?

Good questions.  Too bad the dinosaur media is largely avoiding asking them.  Of the five major Sunday news shows, only one mentioned anything about Benghazi.  Take a wild guess as to which network broke with the flock.

Keep in mind that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, the two former Navy SEALs who heroically fought and died to defend the consulate, killed around 60 terrorists.  If they'd received any air support at all the enemy would've probably scattered.

Back to the CBS article:

Retired CIA officer Gary Berntsen [hey, I know that guy!  I worked with him in Afghanistan! ~ OS] believes help could have come much sooner. He commanded CIA counter-terrorism missions targeting Osama bin Laden and led the team that responded after bombings of the U.S. Embassy in East Africa.

"You find a way to make this happen," Berntsen says. "There isn't a plan for every single engagement. Sometimes you have to be able to make adjustments. They made zero adjustments in this. They stood and they watched and our people died."

Somebody watched for hours as terrorists attacked our people, and made the call to let them succeed and murder Americans.  That "somebody" deserves prison.

Where's the Paper Trail?

Via The Blaze:

“A chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff doesn’t take an order from the president when he says ‘do everything’ and not put that in writing and send it out to the chain of command,” West said. “If that actually happened the way President Obama today said it happened, there’s a paper trail and I think people reasonably enough can say, ‘well can we see the order?’ because hundreds of others supposedly saw this order.”

“But if there is no order then people have to ask some very basic questions, ‘what the heck happened?’” he said.

Wouldn't it be great if there was a group of professionals who got paid to ask these important questions?

Benghazi - More Excuses & Lies

The Christian Science Monitor reports on claims that calls for military assistance in Benghazi were denied.

“For our top leadership, with all the technological and military tools at their disposal, to have done nothing for seven hours was a joint civilian and military failure of initiative and nerve,” writes West, a Vietnam combat veteran who has reported extensively on US combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Secretary of State Clinton has said the responsibility was hers. But there has been no assertion that the State Department overruled the Pentagon out of concern about the sovereignty of Libyan air space. Instead, it appears passive groupthink prevailed, with the assumption being that a spontaneous mob would quickly run out of steam.”

.....

At a press conference this week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the US military did not quickly intervene during the attack because military leaders did not have adequate intelligence information and felt they should not put American forces at risk, reports the Associated Press.

"The basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," Mr. Panetta told Pentagon reporters. "And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."

BULLS__T!  That's called a "movement to contact".  It's a standard offensive operation.  In fact, in a real movement to contact, you don't even know the enemy's location.  In Banghazi, the enemy's location was obvious!

I don't know who made the call to deny assistance, but somebody did, and that somebody deserves prison.

Lions Led By Jackasses

Scott on Cape Cod has a piece of the Benghazi story I hadn't read yet.

A short distance from the American compound, two Americans were sleeping. They were in Libya as independent contractors working an assignment totally unrelated to our embassy. They also happened to be former Navy SEALs. When they heard the noise coming from the attack on our embassy, as you would expect from highly trained warriors, they ran to the fight. Apparently, they had no weapons, but seeing the Libyan guards dropping their guns in their haste in fleeing the scene, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty snatched up several of these discarded weapons and prepared to defend the American compound.

Not knowing exactly what was taking place, the two SEALs set up a defensive perimeter. Unfortunately Ambassador Stevens was already gravely injured, and Foreign Service officer, Sean Smith, was dead. However, due to their quick action and suppressive fire, twenty administrative personnel in the embassy were able to escape to safety. Eventually, these two courageous men were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers brought against them, an enemy force numbering between 100 to 200 attackers which came in two waves. But the stunning part of the story is that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty killed 60 of the attacking force. Once the compound was overrun, the attackers were incensed to discover that just two men had inflicted so much death and destruction.

Please read the whole thing,

Contrast the courage, quick thinking and decisive action of these former SEALs with the cowardice, indecision, blame-shifting and back-stabbing in DC.  "Lions led by jackasses".

Making Things Worse (Continued)

Recently I posted empirical evidence that Pres Obama, far from saving us from economic Armageddon as his worshipers claim, actually made things worse through bad policy.  This time we'll take a look at one of those bad policies and its outcomes (so far).

Before Obamaphiles get in too big a tizzy, let's all acknowledge that then-Senator Obama actually warned us back in January 2008 that his policies would do exactly that.



Everything - absolutely everything - we do in the economy requires energy, so if energy prices "necessarily skyrocket", that would obviously choke off economic growth.  One way to decrease the price of energy is to increase supply.  And that's exactly what Pres Obama prevented by denying the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline Expansion from Alberta to Texas.

President Obama, denouncing a “rushed and arbitrary deadline” set by congressional Republicans, announced Wednesday that he was rejecting a Canadian firm’s application for a permit to build and operate the Keystone XL pipeline, a massive project that would have stretched from Canada’s oil sands to refineries in Texas.

Yeah.  "Rushed and arbitrary".  He only had over two years to make a decision.  In fact, he made the decision over the objections of his own "Jobs Council". 

“Continuing to deliver inexpensive and reliable energy,” the council reported, “is going to require the United States to optimize all of its natural resources and construct pathways (pipelines, transmission and distribution) to deliver electricity and fuel.” 

It added that regulatory “and permitting obstacles that could threaten the development of some energy projects, negatively impact jobs and weaken our energy infrastructure need to be addressed.”  

 Duh.  Seems pretty obvious, doesn't it?  Not if your name is Obama, apparently.

Who gets hurt worst by "skyrocketing" energy prices?  Obviously, poor people do.

“Lower-income families are more vulnerable to energy costs than higher-income families because energy represents a larger portion of their household budgets,” according to the study, which relied on Energy Information Administration data. 

Energy costs this year will represent 24 percent of after- tax income for families earning $10,000 to $30,000, up from 14 percent in 2001. Families with after-tax income from $30,000 to $50,000 will spend 7 percent of their earnings on electricity, according to the study.

Why does Pres Obama  hate poor people? 


But hey, at least Pres Obama's billionaire patron, Warren Buffet, benefited from it.

As it turns out, oil is already moved from northern latitudes, such as the booming oil fields of North Dakota, down to the Gulf of Mexico by rail of the old, low-speed variety.

As it happens, 75 percent of the oil currently shipped by rail out of North Dakota is handled by Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC… which just happens to be a unit of Warren Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc.  What a coincidence! 

And now the Chinese will benefit from Pres Obama's decision.

The prospect of Canada entering free-trade talks with China is suddenly being discussed, as Chinese leaders indicated during Prime Minister Stephen Harper's visit that they are prepared to head down that path — even though Canadian officials aren't so sure this country is ready for the jump. 

The development came as China and Canada declared Thursday that bilateral relations have reached "a new level" following a series of multibillion-dollar trade and business agreements to ship additional Canadian petroleum, uranium and other products to the Asian superpower

To make matters worse, while Pres Obama dithered for two years, refusing to make a decision on a privately-funded project that would obviously generate tens of thousands of jobs (no big deal, according to Democrats) and help boost the economy, Pres Obama spent billions of tax payer dollars on "green" tech failures like Solyndra and Fisker.

So, Obamaphiles; still insist that The One rescued us from the next Great Depression?  Of course you do!  Your adoration was never based on facts, reason or logic, after all.

Bill Whittle: Three Years of Obama

Kim Jong-il is Dead!

The tune they sing in "The Wizard of Oz" when the witch melts keeps running through my head.  "Kim, Jong, the Il is dead!"  From the BBC:

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has died at the age of 69, state-run television has announced.

Mr Kim, who has led the communist nation since the death of his father in 1994, died on a train while visiting an area outside the capital, the announcement said.

It's always good news when an evil, sadistic, megalomaniacal dictator dies, and Kim Jong-il was among the worst, but there's a dark lining around this silver cloud.

1. The Kim dynasty is still in place.
2. This could lead to a power struggle between the Kim brothers.

Kim chose his youngest son, Kim Jong-un, to succeed him.  The youngest Kim has two older brothers, and he's widely considered weak.  Could one - or both - of the older Kim brothers make a power play?  How will this affect the people of North and South Korea?  

UPDATE 1: Oh, crap.

Following the death of Kim Jong-il, the North Korean leader, China is moving quickly to deepen its influence over senior officials in North Korea and particularly with those in the military to try to ensure stability in the isolated nation, according to Chinese and foreign former government officials and analysts.

Mr. Kim’s death “means that China will have to assume a heavier responsibility over the relationship in order to maintain peace and stability on the Korean peninsula,” said Xu Wenji, a professor of Northeast Asian studies at Jilin University and a former Chinese envoy to South Korea. Shi Yinhong, a professor of international relations at Renmin University in Beijing, said, “The death significantly enhances uncertainty on the peninsula.” He added: “In my personal view, the succession is very hastily arranged and Kim Jong-un is very ill prepared to take over.”

 “Frankly speaking, there is a substantial chance of political instability in North Korea,” he said. “This is based on the nature of the regime, the inadequate process of succession and economic hardships in the country.” 

UPDATE 2: Little Kim seems to be flexing his (military hardware) muscles.

North Korea test fired two short-range ballistic missiles off the country's eastern coast just before midnight Sunday, the same day leader Kim Jong Il's death was announced, a senior US defense official told FOX News Channel.  The unnamed official said both landed in the sea and posed no threat to anyone.