“As militants advance in Iraq, U.S. Embassy in Baghdad readies evacuation”
posted at 9:31 pm on June 11, 2014 by Noah Rothman
“As militants advance in Iraq, U.S. Embassy in Baghdad readies evacuation”
posted at 9:31 pm on June 11, 2014 by Noah Rothman
Filed under Foreign Policy, Military, Politics
Really short on time this morning, so this will be just a few sentences – back to the VA scandal. G. Murphy Donovan (GMD for short) took aim at the VA, “Veterans in the Crosshairs”, which is a must read. He says:
“Alas, corrupt government is host to many ironies, but three are paramount: success is a liability, failure is an asset, and as long as the intentions are pure in the public mind, better funding follows failure, not success. Once established, bigger civic programs have few measures of effectives. The end game is there is no end.”
He cites a 2012 Human Events piece with more background on the VA, titled, “Hopelessly Broken” – another must read, but also check out all the links in GMD’s piece, ’cause he always links to interesting stuff.
Filed under Culture Wars, General Interest, Military, Politics
The always excellent US security nightly newsletter, Nightwatch, put out by KGS, offers the following comments on the Taliban exchange:
“Comment: The mainstream media have covered the increased risk of hostage-taking as the direct and foreseeable result of the hostage exchange. This was not a prisoner of war exchange.
Two points not mentioned in most mainstream commentary are noteworthy. This exchange invests Omar and his Islamic Emirate with stature that neither had when the Taliban ruled in Afghanistan. It negotiated as an equal with the US and got the better deal. That sets a precedent for potential deals with other NATO members. It is a powerful disincentive for Pakistan to rein in Omar and his cohorts.
The second point is the release of the five Taliban leaders will boost Taliban morale; help improve their organizational and fighting skills and enhance their operations. It might have a ripple effect on the now divided Pakistani Taliban.
The timing could hardly be worse for Allied forces. As NATO draws down its forces, the Taliban get an influx of experienced leaders, undermining years of effort to degrade the leadership. These were men Mullah Omar trusted in the early days of Taliban rule. He now has a seasoned core around which to build a reinvigorated administration and movement.”
Nightwatch is John McCreary’s baby and his bio is here. What I like is often the “comments” are delivered with a touch of humor, but rest assured always carefully researched, with the facts differentiated from the opinion.
Now a subject I haven’t heard any military experts talk about yet and one that I have questions about is: “What impact does the release of those terrorists, in addition to the troop draw-down have on the day-to-day security situation for those remaining troops left in Afghanistan? What is the true readiness assessment of the Afghan National security services on whom they will have to rely? Will a reinvigorated Taliban potentially leave our remaining troops vulnerable? How does the draw-down affect the resupply and support situation, with an already overstretched supply route? Has the CINC ever asked about the safety of the troops he is leaving in Afghanistan- vulnerable in such small numbers? What will their mission be – hunkered down on a base or will they still be out on patrols?
Filed under Food for Thought, Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics
So, an unnamed senior U.S.official leaks details of Bergdahl’s condition and captivity. With this administration and Bergdahl health updates, wow, pass the salt shaker on that one, need more than a grain (courtesy Huffington Post):
“The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss what Bergdahl has revealed about the conditions of his captivity.”
What official – a Obama flunky or a US Army official – that is what I want to know? And also the official spoke anonymously, because he was “not authorized” to discuss what Bergdahl has revealed – yet the official still released this “information” anyway – what do rules mean to these people. Bergdahl’s fate needs to be decided by the respective command authority – not Obama spinners. The investigators should be allowed to investigate and make a determination on the case. It’s time for people to learn to follow the rule of law. Everyone in the chain of the command, to include the President, has a DUTY to follow the rules and not try to influence the investigation or outcome.
Decided to add a bit more. The “Bowe Bergdahl war hero” trial balloon deflated, next was an attempt to smear his teammates as psychos and blame the command. An attempt to spin Bowe Bergdahl “the victim/ traumatized captive” is the next casting. He walked away from his post to find the Taliban, because from his history we can deduce the French Foreign Legion mercenary dream didn’t pan out, his father said Bowe envisions himself as Bear Grylls the British survivalist. From there he joined the US Army, but that didn’t suit, so he walked away looking for the Taliban. That is the intelligence a Special Forces Commander, Rusty Bradley, said they received when they were sent to search for Bergdahl, last night on Fox News. MAJ Bradley was there, so I believe his first-hand account of the information they received over the radio when Bergdahl went missing. I believe his teammates too.
That is what people will have to decide – who is lying about the information they release (anonymously mostly – hiding like snakes in the grass). I am forming an opinion that this troubled young man had dubious loyalties, lived in a fantasy world and was selfish and only concerned about his thirst for adventure. He reminds me of a young man who came to work at my store a few years ago. On day one he told me that we don’t know anything about management when I calmly told him what tasks he needed to do. He was a wanderer (we get lots of those), so I tracked him down and told him that he needed to go to the furniture department and zone (clean up the side counters in the department and put away returned merchandise). He told me he had been in the Army and we don’t know anything about management. I told him, “That’s nice, I was in the Army long ago too, but this isn’t the Army and these are the tasks you need to work on.” He got indignant and told me his sister works at another store and she told him all about how things are supposed to be. This young man, like many we get, did not follow the rules, thought he knew everything, did not complete his tasks, was an attendance problem and ended up fired quickly. Bowe Bergdahl walked away from his unit more than once and I am wondering if he was held accountable for the previous incidents and if that might have led to his disillusionment. Just something I wondered.
I don’t know yet, that is why I am weighing the credibility of the sources of the information, the facts that have been corroborated by more than one source, and then assessing them. I haven’t made a full judgment yet, because I am “analyzing” the information . Here is something I learned from an excellent little booklet:
“When we deal with information, we sometimes see through prisms – not real ones, made of glass, but “intellectual” prisms, in our minds. In other words, we approach an issue with a distorted view of it.”
he adds:
“In politics, the word for these intellectual prisms is “ideology.”
Meyer, Herbert E. (2010-10-10). How to Analyze Information: A Step-by-Step Guide to Life’s Most Vital Skill (Kindle Locations 86-87). Storm King Press. Kindle Edition.
Meyer, Herbert E. (2010-10-10). How to Analyze Information: A Step-by-Step Guide to Life’s Most Vital Skill (Kindle Locations 79-80). Storm King Press. Kindle Edition.
To get the correct information you have to leave the partisan politics aside and start learning how to analyze information. This little booklet I found at Amazon.com – kindle edition is $1.99. Mr. Meyer’s bio frombusinessweek.com includes this information:
I found his booklet very informative and helpful.
Filed under Culture Wars, Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics, The Constitution, The Media, Uncategorized
Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Messages of mhere, Military, Politics, The Constitution, The Media
Today, being the 70 year commemoration of D-Day, which put Allied boots firmly on French soil, from where they fought on the many miles to Paris, liberating France and eventually defeating Hitler’s German forces is the perfect time to discuss “when wars end”. So, let’s put on our thinking hats, while libertybelle, your big-box store employee, former homemaker challenges this endless stream of White House spin, “when wars end” blah, blah, blah prisoners of war get traded all the time”. First, sometimes, sometimes not – that is the historical record. The larger point about “war” is just by President Obama declaring an end to the fighting and unilaterally withdrawing does not mean the war is ended. This man is the most obtuse fool ever to occupy the Oval Office and his minions don’t really study military history, being “anti-war” and so intellectually superior. The Taliban is hitting the airwaves announcing they will continue to target Americans. Does that sound like “the war” is ended to you? The other side gets to play their hand too and since we announced our defeat, they intend to seize on that weakness. Al Qaeda is morphing and growing, the Taliban intends to target Americans too, so lame White House spin is not only another big fat LIE, it’s putting Americans at risk. The single biggest threat to American national security, in my opinion, sure seems to be coming from this arrogant, clueless band of nincompoops at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. There isn’t any ceasefire or treaty or anything remotely like an end to war in the normal sense – we’re dealing with bands of terrorists, not nation-state players. And maybe they missed getting their news from the newspapers the past few days, but the Taliban and other jihadists are reinvigorated with the release of these 5 Taliban terrorists – they are happily broadcasting it. So, really, this spin on top of all the other LIES is really pathetic! The war, unfortunately isn’t over, so maybe someone can send President Obama this newsflash, since he waits to learn about world events, his administration failures and everything else from the media. When things spin even more out of control as this moves along, expect more altered intelligence documents to be fed to the media – just like Benghazi.
Filed under American History, Culture Wars, Foreign Policy, General Interest, Islam, Military, Politics
The Obama administration should consider hiring Taliban spokesmen to train them in public relations and effective media coordination, rofl. Money and a “communications strategist” like Brandon Friedman, the Obama flunky who ran to Twitter to smear Bergdahl’s platoon members isn’t working very well :
“Here’s the thing about Bergdahl and the Jump-to-Conclusions mats: What if his platoon was long on psychopaths and short on leadership? (1/5)”)
Yawn, yawn, Susan Rice has doubled down on her “served with honor and distinction”…. Well, this crowd are graduates of the “that depends what the definition of is, is” Paul Begala/George Stephanopoulis/James Carville school of White House communications ( proud Mendacity U alumni). Oh, and just in time Monica Lewinsky is set to give her first TV interview – debuts today ………. memories, mystery water-colored memories……… 😉
Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics
Many things, on many levels, disturb me about the latest President Obama disaster of releasing 5 terrorists for a US soldier held in captivity. This situation contains so many threads we’ll probably be trying to untangle this massive web of lies, truth and partisan spin for years and future historians will certainly have plenty of information to sift through to put a stamp of judgment on President Obama’s decision to make this trade. One thread I’m going to attempt to untangle (and feel free to toss in your opinions in the comments) is the choices open to Bowe Bergdahl. None of us will ever be able to ascertain for certain what he thought or what he believed and the investigation, the accumulation of facts that come forward about his actions before, during and after his leaving his base in Afghanistan, and how we line these up will lead each of us to form an opinion in the matter.
Most of us are people of beliefs, opinions, feelings, desires and no man can ever be totally objective and free from some degree of bias, because we can’t separate our thinking into tidy little separate compartments. Sadly, from watching these sorts of national crises of “conscience” play out over the years, the political strategists have trained Americans to rely on poll numbers and influencing feelings to sway “public opinion” and thus allow the politicians to pursue their agendas without much oversight from “we the people”.
Bowe Bergdahl was a young man who voluntarily decided to enlist in the US Army. Of course, I can relate to that, because as a young woman I did the same thing, in perhaps a very similar naive way. No matter how carefully you research the military before raising your right hand and swearing an oath to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, the reality turns out very different from your preconceived notions.
The single most important lesson military service teaches you is that there are other things more important than yourself (selfless service). You are part of a team tasked with a mission and in combat the very lives of your fellow soldiers depend on TRUST – lives depend on this and accomplishing the mission depends on it (loyalty and trust).
When soldiers swear that oath, they agree to follow lawful orders and to work toward that big picture mission “defending the Constitution”. How that big mission trickles down to the individual soldier in our Republic is a combination of civilian political decision-making with the President having a great deal of latitude in execution of military missions and Congress with the prescribed role of declaring war, oversight of military actions and fiduciary responsibilities (they control the purse strings). Now, how the little missions get passed on down through the ranks has evolved in our military since General George Washington first took command of the Continental Army on June 15, 1775. From that day forward the military rules and traditions evolved and today Army soldiers operate under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and we agree to uphold Army Values, to live by the Soldier’s Creed and Warrior Ethos.
Often times what you “feel” differs from what the people above you in rank order you to do and believe me, being a private in the US Army is a lesson in forbearance and self-restraint, because you’re at the bottom of the power structure and everything rolls downhill. That means you often feel like you’re being run around in circles, because you don’t know what the big picture parts of the mission are and as the little parts get tasked on down the chain of command, both good and bad decisions are made. It’s a complex organization and lots of hands are required to achieve the big picture mission. You follow your orders, unless the order is unlawful.
Based on the emails that Bowe Bergdahl’s parents reportedly shared with the frequently referenced 2012 Rolling Stone magazine article (hardly a hardcore right-wing source). Bowe Bergdahl had many negative feelings about his chain of command, his teammates and the overall mission in Afghanistan. At a later date, that will likely be a blog post to tackle – American foreign policy failures.
I can sympathize having been a private in the US Army and having grave misgivings about our military mission in Afghanistan and Iraq, especially since President Obama took office, but truthfully even for most of the Bush presidency too. From the very biggest picture level on down to the execution on the ground, I have disagreed with everything from nation-building on down to rules of engagement. I have nothing but contempt for military strategy reliant on lame slogans, rather than a clear strategic vision for America, both short-term and long-term. It looks to me like Bowe Bergdahl drank the “hearts and minds” three cups of tea mission. I disagreed with it then and I disagree with it now. COIN is not a strategy – it’s a tactic, in my opinion and I’ve felt all along it should be just a part of our military toolkit, not the complete doctrine in the Army. Yes, we’ve all listened “shock and awe” and “it will be a cake walk” on to the “winning the hearts and minds”, which the media regurgitate like trained parrots. Right now, the press and the politicians hit us with “we never leave one of our own on the battlefield” type slogans.
Most in the media have no clue about anything having to do with military matters. No one in the President’s inner-circle of trusted advisers knows anything about military matters (and they suck at managing their PR big time too). From watching this unfolding circus, sadly way too many of the retired military pundits and commentators on which the media and public rely to translate military matters into civilian language are partisan political hacks. Sadly, I’ve thought most of our top brass are political hacks for a long, long time. When the “war on terror” began and the Bush administration began briefing these retired officers and sending them out to be “military analysts” for the media, it’s pretty easy to determine where these officers’ political loyalties lie and it’s not with telling the truth.
So, now back to Bowe Bergdahl, the Private First Class, arriving in Afghanistan in March of 2009 and on June 30, 2009 he walked away from his base. I love my Sun Tzu, while our military is more attuned to Clausewitz and Jomini. I love reading about military strategy and military history, so naturally I have lots of opinions. Bowe Bergdahl seems to have formed lots of opinions too. And that is what the point of this post is. No matter how the media and politicians or his supporters or the folks for the war or against the war try to spin it – at the heart of the matter is Bowe Bergdahl, whom I can sympathize with in many ways, as a naive young man, “wanting to help the Afghan people” according to his father. I am always trying to “help people” too. I can even sympathize with his parents and even his father trying to talk to the Taliban, trying to get his son released. The crux of the matter and what this will boil down to – unlike Bowe’s father, mine lived by a simple code of honor that he drilled into our heads, “If you give your word, you keep it!” Bowe’s father, a religious man, told his son, according to that Rolling Stone interview, “OBEY YOUR CONSCIENCE!” Bowe gave his word and didn’t keep it, nor did he discuss his change of conscience with his chain of command. He walked away in a war zone for an as yet to be determined personal mission.
Here’re the simple facts. Bowe Bergdahl had other choices. It was not a matter of he had no other course of action to pursue if he felt, as a matter of conscience he couldn’t do this. Like everything in the military, conscientious objector status is covered in UCMJ too. Did Bowe Bergdahl ever talk to anyone in his chain of command about his misgivings about the war? Did he attempt to seek conscientious objector status or even try to get out of the Army? The reporting indicated he tried to join the French Foreign Legion, wanting to be a mercenary, so fighting didn’t seem to be morally reprehensible to him then. He joined the Army and was reported to have earned the nickname SF, short for Special Forces, because of his fascination with COIN. How he was planning to help the Afghan people matters and we may never get that answer from him. I would love to hear his father explain in what ways he believes Bowe intended to help the Afghan people. How was he going to help them, this young man fascinated with being a mercenary and survivalist skills? To me, I’m trying to wrap my mind around his father’s views in this video, where he at length talks about how he feels the mission in Afghanistan was wrong, but I can’t make heads or tails out of how he believes his son intended to help the Afghan people.
So, away from the politics, there are honorable and dishonorable ways to “obey your conscience” and sorry, walking away from your base is not one of them. Not being a JAG lawyer, I don’t know if Bowe Bergdahl’s convictions would have met the threshold for conscientious objector status. This website About.com on this issue it states: “You can’t pick and choose which war you object to. By law, a conscientious objector is one who is opposed to participation in all wars. The person’s opposition must be based on religious belief and training, and it must be deeply held.” My husband had a soldier who found God on the way to the Gulf War and he was still in the company when they returned, albeit on his way out. I haven’t consulted Gladius on this matter yet, but like everything else in the Army, there are various types of actions commanders have at their disposal to deal with a soldier and his/her conscience in a war zone – Bowe Bergdahl decided to skip all that.
This isn’t about the merits of the US mission in Afghanistan or the partisan politics, this is about one soldier who swore an oath and the choices he voluntarily made. And when the political left tries to turn this into an indictment of the policy in Afghanistan – what matters here is that the UCMJ applies to every soldier and that’s why so many soldiers are demanding he be held accountable for his actions. We might sympathize with his feelings, but we can’t lose sight that we are a nation of laws, not men. That law is the Constitution of the United States of America and if keeping your word no longer matters, our Republic will crumble. Don’t once again buy into the crap about the polls of how the American people feel or the partisan spin – that doesn’t matter!!! We are a nation of laws, not of what people feel this week based on the latest poll numbers!
Just to put “undue command influence” in clear terms, I once again called on Gladius to explain it, as he is well-qualified to speak to questions of the law, both civilian and military, and I hope he doesn’t mind me divulging he served as an officer in the US Army. Here’s how he explained undue command influence:
“When a command authority, such as a 2-star division commander, assigns an officer to investigate a major concern under his or her 15-6 authority, that commander should not and must not dictate to the investigator what the expected outcome of the investigation should be.
For instance, “Colonel, I’m assigning you to investigate the allegations against Corporal Jones. Make sure that low life stands trial for his crimes. We need to make an example of him.” The General has now told the Colonel what the outcome of the investigation should be. Better to have said, “Colonel, I’m assigning you to investigate Corporal Jones. I want to make sure you have all the resources and authority you need to conduct a thorough investigation.” That statement has no indication of what the outcome should be
.
Recent problems at the Air Force Academy is a good example. The Air Force leadership told the investigators to go after certain individuals, to make an example. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force made statements to that effect, about what he would and would not tolerate.Same with the prosecution of the NCOs down at Lackland regarding sex with recruits. Several recent examples exist where general officers made speeches or statements that presupposed the outcome or guilt of the subject of the investigations.
Command influence is the life of the military. By nature, commanders influence. If they didn’t we wouldn’t have a military; we’d have a club. Undue command influence is outside the proper chain of command communications. When a senior officer, either intentionally or carelessly, makes statements or takes actions to influence, persuade or oppress a junior officer in the performance of his or her fact-finding or trial duties, that is undue command influence. The influence can be in the form of direct instructions to the subordinate, instructions through the subordinate’s chain of command, or statements and actions done in such a manner that the influence is clearly directed at the outcome of the subordinate’s duties. On the other hand, if there is a subordinate unit that is failing to perform to standard, counseling of that subordinate command to improve, replacing that failed commandeer and instructing his/her replacement to perform, is not undue command influence.”
Here’s a good website: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa103000d.htm
Thanks Gladius for that excellent explanation. Of course, this Bergdahl situation will present new challenges and hopefully we can count on this obtuse CINC to rein in his mouthpieces and let the military justice system handle this matter – fairly, impartially and without undue command influence. The wise thing for this administration, not noted for its discipline or sense, would be to duct tape the mouths of all those know-it-all women, from Valerie Jarrett and Susan Rice on down to that twit, Marie Harf, at the State Dept. ALL matters concerning SGT Bergdahl should be referred to the Pentagon, with only a few, well-briefed spokespeople assigned to field those questions. But what do I know, I spent most of my life being a homemaker, lol.
Filed under General Interest, Military, Politics