Sep 11th, Cavalry, Coffee, and Croissants

On the 11th of September 2001, nineteen Muslim terrorists hijacked four American civilian airliners, and crashed one into each tower of the World Trade Center in New York City, and one into the Pentagon. The Fourth, United Flight 93, crashed into a field in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, when the passengers - who had by then heard of the fates of the other flights - heroically attempted to regain control of the aircraft from the Muslim terrorists. In all, 2,977 people were murdered, and more than 6,000 others injured by the terrorists who perpetrated the attack.

You knew all that, of course. But, do you know the reason why Osama Bin Laden chose the 11th of September as the date on which to attack the United States of America?

On the 14th of July 1683, the Muslim Ottoman Empire, with its capital in Istanbul, Turkey (which used to be Constantinople, the capital of the Orthodox Christian Byzantine - or Eastern Roman - Empire), besieged Vienna, Austria with an army of 300,000 men. This was the second Muslim Ottoman siege of Vienna (the first was in 1529), and it arguably marked the zenith of 1,000 years of Muslim conquest of Christian lands, including the entire middle east, all of North Africa, much of Eastern Europe, and the Iberian Peninsula (which was liberated in 1492, after 780 years of the "Reconquista"), Sicily, Malta, etc.

Understanding that the Ottoman incursion into Western Europe threatened them all, the European powers mobilized forces to assist the besieged Austrians.

On the 12th of September 1683, the siege was broken by the largest cavalry charge in history (18,000 horsemen), led by King John III Sobieski of Poland, whose heavy armored cavalry tore through the exhausted (from failed attempts at undermining Vienna's walls) Ottoman forces downhill.

The 1683 Battle of Vienna is considered one of the battles that saved Western Civilization, and it marks the decline of the Ottoman Empire - the greatest Muslim empire in history. From that point, though it remained powerful for hundreds of years, the Ottoman Empire gradually shrank, until it was finally dissolved after fighting on the losing side of World War I.

And that is why Osama Bin Laden chose the 11th of September. The symbolism is unmistakable. Bin Laden wanted to take the world back to the 11th of September 1683. He wanted to take the world back to a time when Muslims reigned supreme, and Christians were fighting for their very existence, and he perceived that the greatest obstacle to his goal was the United States of America.  

Now you know. What now? Well, there's a part of the story that I believe to be true, and though I don't know that for sure, I'm going to tell you anyway.

The story goes that, when the victorious Christian troops looted the abandoned Muslim Ottoman camp, they found something of which they'd only heard rumors. They found sacks of a drink that supposedly gave the Muslim Ottoman troops energy to stay up all night on guard duty. They found coffee.

The story continues that a civilian baker that had volunteered to stay in Vienna to help feed the troops (many civilians evacuated as the Muslim Ottoman army approached) requested to commemorate the victory with a special pastry. He created a pastry shaped like the crescent moon on the Muslim Ottoman flag. He created the croissant.

So, on this 11th of September, and on every 11th of September, by all means, let us mourn the dead. Then, on the 12th of September, let us celebrate past victories, and commit ourselves to never bend the knee to anyone but Christ, by feasting on coffee and croissants.

Philippine Marine Scout Sniper Test

I don't trust anyone this much.

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.  

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.

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?

"Zero Dark Thirty" Trailer

From Katherine Bigelow, director of The Hurt Locker:



I'm glad Hollywood is finally making movies that portray the US military in a good light again, as opposed to anti-military garbage like "Redacted" and "Stop Loss", but if this is as unrealisticly bad as "The Hurt Locker", I'm going to puke.

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".

New Ballistic Helmet

From Kit Up:

The Marine Corps and Army have tapped Ceradyne Inc., to make the first of the new Enhanced Combat Helmets, ending a five-year search for a brain bucket capable of stopping rifle rounds. 

The Marines and Army have given the green light to Ceradyne to build 8,600 ECHs, which will be split between the services. Fielding won’t begin until after the services approve the ECH for full-rate production, a decision scheduled for May, according to a recent press release.

SPC Tom Albers survived a rifle round to the helmet
with no injuries in Afghanistan.

Our current helmets are already very good.  A very short search turned up several stories of US Soldiers and Marines, and a UK Soldier who survived rifle rounds to the helmet; none of which penetrated the shell.

I did find one story of a UK Soldier who survived a rifle round to the helmet even though it penetrated.  That being said, British and Australian helmets are different than ours.  I don't know which is better.

German sniper team.

Armor - whether on battle ships, tanks or individual Soldiers - is always a compromise between protection and mobility.  Given the same technology, more protection = more weight = less mobility.  That's why Special Ops servicemen, who generally require more mobility than ordinary Soldiers, often use helmets like the ones to the below.  Note the large cutouts over the ears that make the helmets lighter and block less sound, but also provide less protection.

The new helmets the US Army and Marine Corps commissioned supposedly use new technology that provides more protection without adding weight.  I think I'd be happy with the same protection our current helmets provide with less weight.  

Active Duty SFC in US Paralympic Shooting Team

From The Firearm Blog:

Sgt. 1st Class Josh Olson, with the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit, is the first active-duty Soldier to be nominated to the U.S. Paralympic Team and will compete in London this summer. 

Awesome!

Dropkick a Claymore

On a lighter(?) note, here are instructions on how to "dropkick" a Claymore mine.

This is the kind of useful stuff the Army doesn't normally teach us non-cool-guys.