I'm writing this to have a record the thoughts I had as I watched from Kuwait as Iran struck American bases in Iraq.
WWIII is not starting. The sky isn't falling. We killed a high ranking Iranian general - supposedly their top general. They fired some missiles at our bases, but didn't kill any Americans, which seems like a disproportionately light response, and to me that looked deliberate.
What would we do, if someone assassinated our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Surely, we'd do far worse, and justifiably so.
From here in Kuwait, the strike looked like theater. The Iranians put on a big show, while in fact, they did almost no damage to us.
Neither side wants war, but neither side wants to look weak.
We'll see in time, but right now it looks like Iran, Iraq, and the US just created a situation where the US got a reason to leave Iraq, and all three parties get to claim a "win".
The US killed a Very Bad Man (whose popularity could one day threaten the Mullahs), the Iranians got to "strike the Great Satan", and the Iraqis got to reassert their national sovereignty.
The American news media - and yes, this includes Fox News - is trying to stir Americans up into a frenzy, but they don't know what they're talking about. UPDATE 9 Jan 2020:Iran gave advanced warning.
Iran informed Iraq's prime minister that a missile attack on one of the country's bases hosting US forces was imminent, his office said on Wednesday.
Caretaker Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi then warned US and Iraqi forces stationed at the base of the coming strike, his office said, further casting doubt on Iranian claims the missile attack killed dozens of "American terrorists".
Finland has also said it was given advance warning of the strike, Finnish newspaper Ilta-Sanomat reported. Nearly 80 of the country's troops are stationed at a military base in Erbil targeted in the Iranian strike.
IRANIAN state TV has boasted at least 80 "American terrorists" were killed in missile attacks launched by Tehran on US targets in Iraq.
It also went on to brag not one of the Islamic Republic's 15 rockets were intercepted during the brazen barrage on the Al Asad and Erbil air bases.
In fact, there were zero casualties. As I suspected, the Mullahs put on a show for the home audience. Pres Trump's response follows.
Today I am going to ask NATO to become much more involved in the Middle East process.... We [the USA] are now the #1 producer of oil and natural gas anywhere in the world. We are independent, and we do not need Middle East oil.
If true, this is excellent news. Pres Trump spoke aloud a truth that no other politician dared say. The USA doesn't need the Middle East anymore, but Europe, China and Russia do. The Middle East should not be our problem. It should be their problem. It's high time they pulled their weight.
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.
Once the airstrikes have weakened the rebels and their allies in the military forces loyal to former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, a ground invasion of Yemen is planned by Egyptian Saudi and other forces.
The assault will come from Saudi Arabia and by landings on Yemen's coasts along the Red and Arabian seas, according to three Egyptian military and security officials.
Three to five Egyptian troop carriers are stationed offshore, they said, although the number of troops was not specified, and the timing of the operation was not given.
The aim is not to occupy Yemen but to weaken the Houthis and their allies until they enter negotiations for power-sharing, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk about the plans with the press.
But fear not! Yemen is still a model for counter-terrorism success.
You can read a transcript of the exchange from ABC News here. Here's a bit of it.
QUESTION: You know, that -- that's astounding. You're saying that you still see Yemen as the model? I mean, the central -- building up the central government, a central government which is now collapsed; a president who has apparently fled the country. You know, Saudi troops massing on one border; the Iranians, you know, supporting the rebels. You consider this -- this as a model for counterterrorism?
EARNEST: Again, John, what the United States considers to be our strategy when confronting the effort to try to mitigate the threat that is posed by extremists, is to prevent them from establishing a safe haven. And certainly in a chaotic, dangerous situation like in Yemen, what the United States will do and has done is worked to try to support the central government, to build up the capacity of local fighters, and use our own technological and military capabilities to apply pressure on the extremists there.
If White House Press Secretary, Josh Earnest's response sounds like nonsense to you, it's probably because you're not high. If so, a move to Washington State or Colorado may be in order.
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.
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?
I watched the movie American Sniper almost a week ago, so if you've been living under a rock and haven't heard of it, or are somehow on the fence about the most controversial film in years, allow me to make things clear as mud. You're welcome!
American Sniper brought to mind two movies. The first is fairly obvious - Lone Survivor. Unlike Lone Survivor, I haven't read the book on which American Sniper is based, thereby violating my own rule (I'll get to it, dammit!), so I can't say how closely the movie follows the book.
The second movie American Sniper brings to mind is - shockingly - The Deer Hunter, minus the anti-war, anti-American propaganda. It left me wondering what movie American Sniper's "Liberal" critics saw, because the movie I watched is a realistically brutal portrayal of the price war exacts from the people involved in it. Obviously, the movie deals with the price Chris Kyle paid fighting in Iraq, but it also portrays the damage done to his family (especially his wife, Taya), his friends, his brother, fellow servicemen and - to a lesser, but dramatic degree - Iraqi non-combatants.
In fact, I'd say it's the most personal and realistic portrayal of one human cost of war - the price paid by the living - that I've ever seen. This is truly a great movie. It was also very difficult for me to watch.
Bradley Cooper, by the way, was outstanding in the lead role. He put on a lot of weight, grew a beard, changed his voice and mimicked Kyle's accent. He pretty much disappeared into the role. I never once thought, "oh yeah, that's the dude from The Hangover".
Like most books made into movies, I suspect some of American Sniper is embellished. For example, Mustafa, the sniper, was a real person. You can probably still find - in the darker corners of the internet - the videos he and his associates made of Mustafa shooting American servicemen. I doubt, however, that there was a snipers' duel (like Zaytsev vs. König in Stalingrad, or Carlos "The White Feather" Hathcock vs. "The Cobra" in Vietnam) between Mustafa and Kyle in real life. Unfortunately, embellishment is always a part of Hollywood movies.
If you want to read two great, real life stories about Chris Kyle, by the way, check out this article.
Anti-war protesters in San Francisco, 2003.
The controversy:
As I stated in my Lone Survivor review, Leftists can only abide portrayals of American servicemen as either victims or monsters, often simultaneously. American Sniper, presents us with a deeply flawed - but undoubtedly heroic - Chris Kyle making split second, life and death moral choices in the worst possible circumstances. That is unacceptable to the Left. American servicemen must only be portrayed positively when killing their superiors, deserting their units or committing treason.
That's why this movie is controversial.
Why American Sniper Is Important:
You've probably heard of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. You may not know that they've been around a lot longer than the talking heads on TV let on.
The enemy portrayed in the movie is Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Later in the war, they began calling themselves The Islamic State in Iraq. Their stated goal was to create an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East, starting with Iraq. AQI/ISI members that survived the war in Iraq went to Syria to fight in that civil war and began calling themselves The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (or the Levant, depending on whom you believe).
Apparently, they hate the name Daesh, so that's what I'll call them from now on.
Daesh is nothing new. Any defense, intelligence or diplomatic official who "didn't see [Daesh] coming" is either lying or incompetent.
The movie portrays their brutality accurately. The mutilations, the use of power tools in torture, the murder of children, the use of children as cannon fodder - it all happened.
Such a lead brought soldiers earlier this month to the hidden room in Muqdadiyah, about 60 miles north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said Thursday. Graffiti on the building proclaimed "Long Live the Islamic State" - a reference to the Islamic governance, or caliphate, sought in Iraq by Sunni extremist groups that include al-Qaida.
Scrawled in white paint above a bed in the torture area was a Quranic phrase in Arabic normally used to welcome a guest. But the context suggested only sadistic mockery: "Come in, you are safe."
The floor was littered with food wrappers, plastic soda bottles and electric cables that snaked to a metal bed frame, presumably where detainees were shocked, according to the U.S. account of the discovery during a Dec. 8-11 mission.
The rooms "had chains, a bed - an iron bed that was still connected to a battery - knives and swords that were still covered in blood," said U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, the top U.S. commander in northern Iraq.
Nearby were nine mass graves containing the remains of 26 people, he said.
Soldiers from 5th IA said al Qaeda had cut the heads off the children. Had al Qaeda murdered the children in front of their parents? Maybe it had been the other way around: maybe they had murdered the parents in front of the children. Maybe they had forced the father to dig the graves of his children.
A raid on a major al-Qaida hideout north of Baghdad has uncovered evidence of a network of child suicide bombers who have been coerced into launching terror attacks across Iraq.
...
The use of children had been seen as a way to bypass security checks that have gradually become more stringent nationwide.
In reference to Iraq, at least, the U.N. report found that the terrorist group is resorting more and more to brutal acts such as enslaving, raping, beheading, crucifying and burying people alive. Some of those affected are children.
"We have had reports of children, especially children that are mentally challenged, who have been used as suicide bombers, most probably without them even understanding what has happened or what they have to expect," said Renate Winter, an expert with the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child.
Some as young as age 8 are getting training to become soldiers, she said.
Son of Australian Muslim, Khaled Sharrouf, holds the decapitated head of a soldier in the Syrian city of Raqqa.
"Children of minorities have been captured in places where the so-called ISIL has its strength, have been sold in market with tags, price tags on them, have been sold as slaves," Winter said.
People of the Yazidi faith -- which draws from Christianity, Judaism and the ancient monotheistic religion of Zoroastrianism, and which some Muslims consider devil worship -- have long faced persecution, though by comparison ISIS' cruelty to them has been extraordinary. Kurdistan Regional Government adviser Nazand Begikhani, for instance, has said Yazidi "women have been treated like cattle, ... subjected to physical and sexual violence, including systematic rape and sex slavery."
Yazidi children haven't fared much better at the hands of ISIS. An earlier U.N. report described how militants rounded up all Yazidi males "older than 10 years of age at the local school, took them outside the village by pickup trucks, and shot them."
In light of current events, American Sniper serves as a stark reminder of what happens when we knock an enemy down, then fail to follow through.
I highly recommend American Sniper, although I don't know if I'll ever watch it again. Be warned, it's tough to watch, especially if you fought in Iraq or Afghanistan. If you have loved ones there now, you may want to wait until they're home safe. Or, like my wife, refuse to watch it... ever!
Totalitarian regimes of all stripes have many things in common. The one feature they share most ardently is a pathological obsession with restricting their subjects' behavior. In that spirit, the terrorist organization currently taking over Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, AKA the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham; ISIS), released a set of rules they imposed on the people of Mosul (Nineveh) in northern Iraq.
Firstly it tells "anyone who is asking," who its members are and what it is about: "We are soldiers of Islam and we've taken on our responsibility to bring back glory of the Islamic Caliphate."
Obviously, they understand the utility of a mission statement.
It confirms that it seized up to half a billion dollars from the Mosul branch of the Bank of Iraq but states it can be trusted with the funds.
"Comrades, turn in your arms!"
Stealing coupled with assurances of moral purity - another common feature of totalitarian regimes. Here's the best part.
No public gathering other than those organised by ISIS will be allowed at any stage. No guns will be allowed outside of its ranks.
From Lenin, to Hitler, to Stalin, to Mao, to Castro - and now ISIL/ISIS - totalitarians agree. Oppressing people is much easier after you've disarmed them.
Iraq’s embattled government urged the terrified residents of Mosul to set up armed vigilante groups and fight Islamic militants who have taken over the city, the country’s second-largest and in Nineveh province.
In a meeting in Baghdad presided by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, members of the Nineveh Crisis Team said the city vigilantes should help the Iraqi police and security forces in their fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which stormed into Mosul on Sunday, after about 24 hours of clashes with the police and army.
Dhia al-Wakil, spokesman for the office of the armed forces commander-in-chief, suggested that the firearm registration scheme made sense for "organisational and statistical" reasons.
“It is designed to limit the numbers of arms owned by civilians, and hence it’s in the interests of people's safety and security," Wakil said.
Officials at the interior ministry, whose police will issue the gun licenses, said the process would be properly conducted.
"The people who get gun licenses will undergo checks," deputy interior minister Ahmed al-Khafaji said. "The decision permits possession of a firearm inside houses, not outside them, and just one per home – no more.”
By limiting gun ownership to one gun per household, the Iraqi government made it impossible for law abiding Iraqis to defend their communities against ISIL/ISIS. And by forcing law-abiding Iraqis to register their guns, they made it easier for ISIL/ISIS to finish disarming decent Iraqis. All the terrorists have to do is go to each local police station (most of which are abandoned anyway), take the list of registered weapons owners, then go house-to-house confiscating their guns. With only one gun per house, there's no way a family could defend themselves against a group of armed, battle-hardened men. An entire neighborhood, with only one gun per house, would be unlikely to defend themselves.
How do mostly-disarmed people defend themselves against this?
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:
Telecommunications are the bane of every combat unit.
No shooting from the hip. Even the Taliban aimed, though not nearly as skillfully as the SEALs, which is realistic.
Grenades do not make giant fire balls.
Finite ammo: fighters on both sides employ fire discipline, change magazines and even (gasp!) run out of ammo.
Shooting, moving and communicating between teammates, and I don't just mean the SEALs.
Referring to each other by call sign over TACSAT.
The silly names Servicemen give serious matters - and the gallows humor between friends at war.
Other stuff I loved:
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.
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.
Marcus Luttrell's cameos. Look for them.
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.
The people portrayed as the most heroic are Afghans.
What disappointed me:
As with most books adapted to film (not "The Hobbit"!), time constraints forced the film makers to leave many details out. Read the book!
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".
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.
GD’s Ordnance and Tactical Systems division was showing off the 23-pound LWMMG at Modern Day Marine 2013, touting it as the needed bridge between the M240 and the M2 .50 caliber machine guns.
“We wanted a round that could provide capabilities to eliminate the gap between 7.62mm and .50 cal,” a GD official said. “We needed a round that could provide accurate, effective fire on target beyond 1,500 meters.”
The LWMMG fires a 300 grain .338 caliber bullet and is capable of effective fire out to 1,700 meters, compared to the M240 round which is effective out to 1,100 meters.
“It puts a lot of energy on the target; it doesn’t compare to the .50 cal which is a 650 grain bullet, but we are not trying to replace the .50 cal,” the GD official said. The LWMMG isn’t being marketed as a replacement for the M240 either even though it’s about 4 pounds lighter. The heavier, .338NM ammo weighs about 9 pounds for every 100-round box. One hundred rounds of 7.62mm weights about seven pounds.
“You can mount this anywhere an M240 will mount,” he said. “You can put effective fire on targets at extended ranges, and that is why we chose that round; we built the weapon around the round.”
After 12 years of war, our Enemies in the AfPak theater know our weapons' capabilities pretty well. Consequently, they prefer to initiate an ambush with an IED, then open fire with machine guns, RPGs and recoilless rifles (when available) from elevated positions out of range of our weapons.
Our .50 cal machine guns can reach them, but a dismounted patrol can't carry a .50 cal. And a mounted patrol can't dismount the .50 cal from a truck and maneuver it to a more advantageous position if the enemy's fighting positions are too far up on the high ground (which they usually are).
This machine gun weighs roughly the same as an M-240, but with much greater range. Carrying an M-240B in Afghan terrain is no joke, but our servicemen do it. And this guns range is long enough that the enemy wouldn't be able to out-range them.
My first thought when I read the Kit Up headline was - why not .338 Lapua? How does the .338 Norma compare to it? I don't know the answer to those questions, but here's this from the article...
The plan was to build the LWMMG in the same round as U.S. Special Operations Command’s new Precision Sniper Rifle, which Remington is now building in .338 Lapua magnum, GD officials said. While the company is pleased with the performance of the shorter .338NM cartridge, it would not be difficult to convert it to .338 Lapua, GD officials maintain.
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
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?
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!
“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.
Reuters Social Media Editor, Anthony De Rosa, demonstrated to the world what a biased, pro-terrorist, useful idiot he is via Twitter. Thankfully, a reader called him on it.
At the beginning of the day, I noted an ugly tweet by Reuters’ Anthony De Rosa. One response to De Rosa was sufficiently embarrassing and, uh, viral enough to make the wire service’s social media editor remove his tweet.
This is why the Lame Stream, dinosaur media hates the Internet, social media and bloggers in particular. Technology makes it possible for ordinary people to demonstrate that they are nothing more than mouth pieces for Leftist causes.
How dare we, the unwashed masses, assault their ivory towers?!
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.
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.
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.
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!
Every presidential election seems to bring out some "October surprise"; a scandle involving a major candidate revealed in late October to try and sway voters. That didn't happen this year. PJ Media has a theory as to why.
In Mitt Romney’s case, the answer is pretty obvious: He’s squeaky clean. His entire adult life has been like a boring treatise on Mormon moral rectitude. There are no skeletons in Romney’s closet, otherwise we would have heard about them.
But in Barack Obama’s case, the situation is reversed: Everything he’s ever done is scandalous. The reason there was no October Surprise for Obama is that we’re all scandaled out. Anyone’s who been paying attention since 2008 has literally been in paralytic shock every single day. We spent October 2012 exactly as we’ve spent every month of the last four years: Our jaws on the floor, aghast, stupefied, unable to breathe. Almost every single thing Obama has done since he’s been in the national spotlight could have been and should have been a career-ending October Surprise. But the mainstream media, as we all know, has devoted itself to protecting him.
The article then provides an extensive list of scandals that would've ended almost any other politician's career. Here are a few of them. And I really mean few.
• $6 trillion in new national debt under Obama…after he promised to decrease the deficit.
• In both the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, the Obama campaign purposely disabled the credit card verification system for its Web site donations, allowing anyone from any foreign country to donate with no limit and no proof of identity
• Operation Fast & Furious — a government-sponsored illegal gun-running scheme designed to purposely go awry so as to induce public outcry for gun control.
• Militarily intervened in Libya in 2011 without the Congressional approval required by the War Powers Act — technically an impeachable offense.
• Under Obama’s watch, for the first time in history America’s credit rating was downgraded, due to his poor economic policies.
• Appointed Van Jones, a former avowed communist who supported a “9/11 Truth” petition, to be “Green Jobs Czar.”
• Appointed Anita Dunn, who said Chairman Mao was her “favorite philosopher,” to be White House Communications Director.
• Appointed John Holdren, who perviously entertained the notion of forced mass sterilzation to stop overpopulation, to be Science Czar.
• Appointed Steven Chu, who openly advocated an artificial increase in gasoline prices to $10/gallon (and similar increases in other energy prices) to be Secretary of Energy.
• Appointed Kevin Jennings, who led a group that promoted X-rated “sex-positive” textbooks for 13-year-olds, instructed teenagers at a conference how to perform “fisting” (anal penetration by fists), who refused to report instances of statutory rape, and who expressed admiration for a member of NAMBLA, to be America’s “Safe School’s Czar.”
The list goes on and on. If you din't already know all of these, you haven't been paying attention. Or, you've only been paying attention to the dinosaur media.
Remember, remember, this sixth of November, The radicals’ treasonous plot. I know of no reason the radicals’ treason Should e’er be forgiv’n or forgot.
The Sixties were waning, and Leftists were claiming That radical changes were due. Their Marxist solution was armed revolution: The Weathermen made their debut.
The radicals raged on the national stage, and Horrific explosions ensued. Their bombs were dramatic, but also erratic; They sometimes killed radicals, too.
The Leftists grew older, the underground, colder, And so they came in from the cold. “Subvert from within – in the long run, we’ll win,” said The Leftists, determined and bold.
And thus it began – this nefarious plan – and The radicals slowly took charge: Complete infiltration of all education; The long institutional march.
The journalist schools would produce useful fools, for The Left would need media shills. And Hollywood, too, would assist in the coup, with Its slick propagandizing skills.
“Community action” would build a new faction; ’Twould organize proles on the street. A smooth politician would front for the mission, And run for the president’s seat.
The radicals’ goal, which they proudly extol, is A communist U.S. of A. Collectivist schemes lead to brutal regimes, and For this do the radicals pray.
But Jefferson’s aim, with the charters he framed, was To guard individual rights. And “redistribution” was not a solution, But one of the evils to fight.
So let us remember, this sixth of November, Just what is at stake on this date. Will Jefferson’s dream, or the radicals’ scheme, now Determine America’s fate?
“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.
The Church was born in persecution. Its founder, Christ, was its first martyr (though he didn't stay that way). He was soon followed by Stephen, all the Apostles (except for John, who died on the prison island of Patmos), and unknown thousands of others. And that was just the first century.
Most people tend to think of Christianity as a Western religion because it survived in Europe, while the expansion of the Muslim empire all but eradicated Christianity from the Middle East and North Africa. Today, however, the vast majority of Christians live in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
The rise of non-Western Christianity has come as a huge surprise [to those who don't read and/or believe the Bible ~ OS]. Christianity outside of the West was thought to be a product of European imperialism, and it was expected to wither and die in the post-colonial era. Just the opposite happened. Consider the huge change in Africa. There were only about 9 million Christians in all of Africa in 1900. Today, there are an estimated 397 million African Christians. Says historian Philip Jenkins, the Christianization of sub-Saharan Africa is probably “the largest religious change in human history.”
The spread of Christianity in Asia, Africa and Latin America began with Western missionaries, but it's long been driven by local missionaries and pastors. Most of our Christian brothers and sisters in these lands live much like their neighbors - desperately poor, never knowing if there'll be enough to eat the next day, much less how they'll send their kids to school.
Imagine the unspeakable fury that would erupt across the Islamic world if a Christian-led government in Khartoum had been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Sudanese Muslims over the past 30 years. Or if Christian gunmen were firebombing mosques in Iraq during Friday prayers. Or if Muslim girls in Indonesia had been abducted and beheaded on their way to school, because of their faith.
Such horrors are barely thinkable, of course. But they have all occurred in reverse, with Christians falling victim to Islamist aggression. Only two days ago, a suicide bomber crashed a jeep laden with explosives into a packed Catholic church in Kaduna, northern Nigeria, killing at least eight people and injuring more than 100. The tragedy bore the imprint of numerous similar attacks by Boko Haram (which roughly translates as “Western education is sinful”), an exceptionally bloodthirsty militant group.
Other notable trouble spots include Egypt, where 600,000 Copts – more than the entire population of Manchester – have emigrated since the 1980s in the face of harassment or outright oppression.
So, why do we in the West hear so little of this?
One result of this oversight is that the often inflated sense of victimhood felt by many Muslims has festered unchallenged. Take the fallout of last month’s protests around the world against the American film about the Prophet Mohammed. While most of the debate centred on the rule of law and the limits of free speech, almost nothing was said about how much more routinely Islamists insult Christians, almost always getting away with their provocations scot-free.
That's a good start, but doesn't quite cut it.
One reason why Western audiences hear so little about faith-based victimisation in the Muslim world is straightforward: young Christians in Europe and America do not become “radicalised”, and persecuted Christians tend not to respond with terrorist violence.
Bingo! Christians don't blow things up and chop people's heads off when insulted or persecuted, therefore they deserve only mockery and scorn. When Muslims feel offended, they riot, burn embassies, kill nuns, etc. Therefore, they deserve respect.
The average Christian in the world today, historian Dana Robert reminds us, is a woman from Africa or Latin America. Her family has little money. Her husband farms, and he scrounges up short-term cash jobs when he can. She tries to sell a few things at the market. The children haven’t had their shots, and they get sick. She struggles to keep them in school, where there are no textbooks. The political situation is fragile, and the national government doesn’t get much done, while local officials demand bribes. Our sister reads her Bible, and its accounts of famine, plagues, poverty, displacement and exile, tyranny, cronyism, and corruption — which seem distant to most of us in the global North and West — are immediately relevant to her. The Bible is her book.
How, exactly, does this fit with the "Health Wealth and Prosperity Gospel" most popular in the modern American Church?
It doesn't.
I contend that most American Christians don't want to hear about their persecuted brothers and sisters in Christ because those facts expose the "Health Wealth and Prosperity Gospel" they hold dear as a sham.
I used to wonder where are the modern giants of the faith; the modern Paul, Peter, John, Silas, Stephen, etc.
Having traveled to the Middle East, central Asia and East Africa, I don't wonder anymore.
So, here's my challenge to Western believers in the "Health Wealth and Prosperity Gospel". Use some of your wealth to buy a plane ticket to Pakistan, South Sudan, Northern Nigeria, Iraq, etc. find one of these impoverished, persecuted Christians (if you can... they may be in hiding) and explain to them that the reason they're not healthy, wealthy and prosperous is that they don't have enough faith.
Go ahead.
I dare you.
If, on the other hand, you want to help your persecuted and impoverished siblings in Christ, I recommend the following organizations.
