Archive for the ‘National Security’ Category

Expendable

not-optimal-casualtiesToday’s Democrat Party views the United States military as nothing more than a political tool to further their agenda. And after Benghazi we see that our troops and intelligence operators are expendable if Democrats think sacrificing them is in their best political interests.

But don’t take it from me; just look at what they do.

Instead of preserving the world’s most effective combat force, the Democrat Party views the U.S. military as a massive source of funding (defense budget cuts), an opportunity to shore up political support through social engineering (allowing openly gay service members), and a means to further their liberal internationalist agenda (so-called “Responsibility to Protect” operations like Libya).

They know that the military community tends to vote strongly Republican, which partly explains their open contempt of the men and women that serve in the Armed Forces – whether falsely labeling them cold-blooded murderers (Rep. John Murtha), comparing them to Nazis, KGB, and the Khmer Rouge (Sen. Dick Durbin), joking about their intelligence (Sec. John Kerry)… the examples of the Democrat Party’s distaste for the military could easily fill an entire article.

But throughout American history, our troops knew at least if they were wounded, in danger of being overrun, or even killed, our military will do everything in its power to get rescue or recover you.

No one gets left behind. At least that’s how it used to be.

That is, until Benghazi, which has become one of the most dishonorable events in American history. When our consulate was attacked and overran, President Obama left Americans to die. Any rescue attempt was cut off – not by our enemies, but by the Obama administration.

Even worse than the tragic and preventable deaths of four Americans, Washington’s reaction over the last eight months shows the utter disregard the Democrat Party and media have for not only the fallen, but for all of our troops and operators.

I am not saying that each and every Democrat politician wanted those men to die. But can you name any Democrat politician that has said we need to get to the bottom of Benghazi? Has any Democrat even so much as distanced themself from their party’s callous disregard for the fallen? Washington can say they support the troops all day, it’s time they show us how they support our troops.

Since day one, the Democrat Party – primarily the Obama administration – and their media allies have sought to make the story go away. Since that didn’t work, they have resorted to distracting the American people and redirecting the focus by claiming Republicans are only making this an issue for political gain.

Just imagine if your son or daughter was killed in the attack and politicians reacted by saying that anyone trying to find out answers was only using the tragedy for political leverage. That really says something about our nation when the majority party can shamelessly stoop so low – and get away with it.

(more…)

No sharia court for Koran-burning soldiers

A quick update: Stars and Stripes reports that the soldiers involved in last month’s burning of Korans used by enemy prisoners at Bagram Air Base will not face trial in sharia court:

A military investigation into the burning of the Qurans at Bagram could conclude as early as this weekend. Crocker and Allen have said the soldiers involved may face punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice but will not be turned over to the Afghan courts as requested by Karzai.

Perhaps we will discover what exactly the soldiers did that was wrong since I have yet to see an explanation. I doubt offending Muslims violates the UCMJ.

The article also featured an explanation from Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Afghanistan, as to what the heck we are doing in Afghanistan:

“We have not invested the billions of dollars we have and the lives of 1,900 Americans to see the Taliban retake this country and al-Qaida once again be able to restage here,” Crocker said.

“That’s why we’re here — to be sure al-Qaida is defeated and that Afghanistan is never again a safe haven for forces that would seek to attack us on our own soil.”

Sounds great – will the ambassador clue us in as to what exactly the Obama administration is doing to “be sure al-Qaida is defeated and that Afghanistan is never again a safe haven for forces that would seek to attack us on our own soil”?

I will support a president from any party, provided the president is executing his duties as commander-in-chief effectively. What matters is trying to get it right. Both Obama and George W. Bush have got things right and wrong. I have been supportive and critical of both presidents in the War on Terror.

Perhaps letting these soldiers go to trial is the best path forward. If they violated military law, they should be punished. But I am not aware of any laws that were violated. If they were following protocol, then they should be exonerated.

But if these men are hung out to dry to appease barbarians, then Obama has dishonored the US military to a degree perhaps never before seen.

Posted on March 2, 2012 at 22:27 by Chris Carter · Permalink · Leave a comment
In: National Security · Tagged with: 

Will Obama hand over Koran-burning soldiers to Islamic court?

Update March 2, 2012, 9:28 pm: Stars and Stripes reports that the soldiers will face military trial, not sharia court.

An Afghan government website reports that NATO officials have promised to bring the American soldiers responsible for burning the Koran to justice in an open trial.

The website of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Government Media and Information Center (an official government site) states: “NATO officials promised to meet Afghan nation’s [sic] demand of bringing to justice, through an open trial, those responsible for the incident and it was agreed that the perpetrators of the crime be brought to justice as soon as possible.”

If this is true, and we do not know yet if it is, handing over US servicemembers to a sharia court in Afghanistan could be one of the most unconscionable acts ever conducted by our government.

Obama reportedly sent a three-page letter to Afghan president Hamid Karzai, but the White House won’t fully disclose the letter. A small portion of Obama’s letter – suspiciously (and perhaps deliberately) ambiguous – is floating around stating “We will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible.”

What does the president mean, holding the soldiers accountable to military law? They didn’t do anything wrong. If they did, show us what code they violated. Or does he mean sharia law? Desecrating the Koran, especially by non-Muslims could result in the death penalty. But American soldiers are held only to US law, not Islamic law. Besides, depending on what jurist you talk to, burning of Korans is entirely permissible if the books are damaged – which the Korans in question were, at the hands of Muslims.

Of course, the White House and Pentagon are not answering questions. But this is nothing new for the president who proclaims his administration as the “most open and transparent in history.”

That letter belongs to the American people. What legitimate reason does the president have to keep it from us?

Instead of fanning the flames of discontent in our own country, our president must announce what the heck is going on with these soldiers. It would be easy, but Obama apparently prefers to keep Americans angry and in the dark over the lives of those he has sent into combat potentially hanging in the balance.

This president has, on multiple occasions, utilized similar tactics to smoke out his opponents; allowing the reaction to reach fever pitch before setting the record straight – in this case, releasing what could turn out to be a harmless letter. And what could possibly whip the people into a frenzy more than using American soldiers as bait?

This could be an information operation or it could simply be a misunderstanding. The only people who know aren’t talking.

[Originally published at The US Report]

Posted on March 1, 2012 at 09:00 by Chris Carter · Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Articles, National Security · Tagged with: ,

Bible Burning vs. Koran Burning in Afghanistan

The political and military prostration to the Afghan people following the Koran-burning incident at Bagram served as the final straw for me; I once wholeheartedly supported the “war” in Afghanistan. Now, I don’t think Washington gives a hoot in hell for the troops they have sent to bleed and die in Afghanistan. So unless we can elect leaders who can formulate an effective counterterrorism strategy, I now say it’s time to bring the troops home.

As the Afghan police and army gun down our troops in numbers that now rival that of our enemies, the Obama administration thinks that WE are the ones that need to apologize. To them. And to top it all off, our military says that WE are the ones who require further sensitivity training.

At this point, “FUBAR” would be a compliment.

So how should America have responded to the burning of Korans used by detainees at Bagram Air Base you ask?

From my recent post at The US Report:

Military policy requires troops in combat zones to burn their trash. [...] In 2009, the military confiscated and burned unsolicited Bibles sent by a church to Afghanistan. In this case, the Bibles were intended for distribution, not for enemy intelligence purposes. Christians did not respond by rioting and shooting US troops, and neither the military nor our government apologized. The military simply burned them and stated that it was policy.

That is how exactly how the military should have handled the Koran incident. Once the burnings were reported, announce that prisoners were using them for intelligence, and we disposed of them as per policy. And let Muslims know that if they don’t want non-Muslims to destroy their Korans, then they shouldn’t desecrate them in the first place.

Why the constant appeasement of Islam? If we are truly a nation of religious freedom, then what works for the Christians should work for the Muslims.

We can’t please everybody, but all these serial apologies have done is pour fuel on the fire – and the Afghans have responded by murdering even more of our troops. At such a rate that ISAF decided to no longer report on casualties caused by Afghan soldiers or policemen.

Trust me, I understand the threat that jihadists pose to our country. However, we can’t defeat these barbarians if we are continually showing them weakness. Sure, we have the finest military ever assembled in human history, but if the political masters lack the will to win, what does it matter to our enemies?

Posted on February 29, 2012 at 13:45 by Chris Carter · Permalink · Leave a comment
In: National Security · Tagged with: 

Koran-burning apologies are ineffective and counter-productive

The Obama administration has been busy apologizing to the Afghan people for the burning of Korans at a military base in Afghanistan that has sparked a massive and deadly uprising. But this political prostration is actually undermining our mission and further endangering US service members.

US troops seized Korans from prisoners who allegedly used the books to pass information to other prisoners at Bagram Air Base’s detention facility. Following a plethora of apologies from the Obama administration and the military, Gen. John Allen, the commander of both US and international security forces in Afghanistan, has promised that the military will undergo more training in the “proper handling of religious materials.”

Perhaps it’s the Afghans themselves that need the sensitivity training.

Military policy requires troops in combat zones to burn their trash. So while the government is busy prostrating itself to the Afghan president, they should ask themselves what the troops are supposed to do with Korans that allegedly were used to convey enemy intelligence (besides collecting said intelligence).

In 2009, the military confiscated and burned unsolicited Bibles sent by a church to Afghanistan. In this case, the Bibles were intended for distribution, not for enemy intelligence purposes. Christians did not respond by rioting and shooting US troops, and neither the military nor our government apologized. The military simply burned them and stated that it was policy.

That is how exactly how the military should have handled the Koran incident. Once the burnings were reported, announce that prisoners were using them for intelligence, and we disposed of them as per policy. And let Muslims know that if they don’t want non-Muslims to destroy their Korans, then they shouldn’t desecrate them in the first place.

Instead, our government has thrown those responsible under the bus and dishonored their service— for following the government’s own policy!

We could require every warrior we send to Afghanistan to have a master’s degree in Islamic sensitivity and the outcome would be no different. Trying to appease an enemy (and the population that supports them) that is so barbaric that they attack little girls on the way to school should be out of the question.

John Bernard, a retired Marine who has written extensively on the conflict in Afghanistan at his website Let Them Fight Or Bring Them Home told The US Report that Washington’s reaction has been ineffective and counter-productive and that further sensitivity training would only make the situation worse.

“Sensitivity training is a fruitless effort,” Bernard said, “because it is a reflection of the [US government's] flawed understanding of the ideology [Islam] and the adherent. In essence, all it does is compound the problem by neutering an otherwise affective military presence.”

Sanitation of anything critical to Islam in the US government or military documents and lexicon began under the George W. Bush administration and expanded under the Obama administration.

Bernard wrote:

“Our leadership chose to do a knee-jerk apology rather than explain the truth of the matter,  that those texts had already been desecrated by [enemy prisoners of war] who had used them as combat field notebooks, writing in them against Koranic instruction and rendering them necessary for destruction, ironically, by fire.

The ensuing riots and murders were orchestrated by the base urges of men who have been seeking to kill American, NATO, and ISAF forces all along. This allowed their consciences what they needed to engage in uncivilized, animalistic behavior. Apologizing only further justified the belief of their seared consciences, that they were justified in their acts of violence.”

Bernard added, “Apologies in this part of the world are not seen in the same context as they are in western society. They are seen as admissions of guilt and of weakness. They are then acted upon as a pretext to violence. This cycle will not end until the Muslims get what they want.”

Posted on February 29, 2012 at 13:45 by Chris Carter · Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Articles, National Security · Tagged with: 

John Bernard on Afghan apologies

I recently asked friend and Victory Institute consultant John Bernard whether any amount of apologies or sensitivity training result in a positive outcome for our mission following the burning of Korans that enemy prisoners were using for intelligence documents. His answer is too long to publish in its entirety for my article at The US Report, but I opted to post the full version here:

This exercise in apologizing for every single “infraction” of some incredibly ill-defined set of rules, ideologically taught or traditionally handed down and not universally adhered to, is not only ineffective (as we have seen) but is in fact counter-productive. It is counter-productive from the vantage point of the original “Commander’s Intent” statement handed down – publicly, by then President George Bush shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. It was clearly stated and I will paraphrase; “Locate, Close With and destroy Al Qaida and hold all those who give them help, comfort and financial aid (The Taliban Regime), accountable.”

While the original assault on Afghanistan met that narrowly defined mission statement, the events that have unfolded since then have shown a consistent devolution away from that intent and toward the very kind of “mission” that mired us in Vietnam in the 60’s and which eventually failed there.

This notion that we, as a free and affluent society are responsible for the safety and well-being of every nation or society on the earth is not only not consistent with constitutional thought, it is not, in fact, consistent with anything except United Nations vision. By strict United States Constitutional law, our armed forces are assembled, trained, funded and should be used for the defense of this nation. In fact, if you read the various versions of the oath of service, you will find that their use is even narrower than that statement suggests. All of us who have ever served in uniform, who currently serve and who will serve, do so for the protection of the constitution of the United States nearly exclusively. By extension, we are then preserving the sanctity of American lives and American property. It is difficult – at best to explain coherently how preserving the lives of those in other cultures which are threatened by their own people, on their own sovereign soil, meets that narrow definition of use.

Because we strayed so far not only from the mandates of the Constitution and the vision of the Founding Fathers during this latest episode as well as the original Commander’s Intent Statement, we have, as a consequence fallen prey to the personal proclivities of men with visions not consistent with that of either the Constitution or the Founding Fathers. And because we have followed those proclivities, we have proceeded without clear vision or the sanctity of Constitutional law.

We have also failed to heed history or the clear actions of our enemies and the cultures amongst whom we have been operating during these past nearly eleven years and have therefore faltered at nearly every step. This has caused us to leave our forces exposed to hostiles for far longer than was necessary and has left them far more exposed because our “understanding” of the enemy and the civilian population we have working among, was so flawed. Sensitivity training then, is a fruitless effort because it is a reflection of the flawed understanding of the ideology and the adherent. In essence, all it does is compound the problem by neutering an otherwise affective military presence.

In this latest episode where the charge of “desecrating” Islamic “holy books” has been levied against our forces, our leadership chose to do a knee jerk apology rather than explain the truth of the matter, that those texts had already been “desecrated” by EPW’s who had used them as combat field notebooks, writing in them against Koranic instruction and rendering them necessary for destruction, ironically, by fire. The ensuing riots and murders were orchestrated by the base urges of men who have been seeking to kill Americans, NATO and ISAF forces all along. This allowed their consciences what they needed to engage in uncivilized, animalistic behavior. Apologizing for these “disrespectful acts of desecration”, only further justified the belief of their seared consciences, that they were justified in their acts of violence.

Apologies in this part of the world are not seen in the same context as they are in western society, they are seen as admissions of guilt and of weakness. They are then acted upon as a pretext to violence. This cycle will not end until the Afghan and the Muslim get what they want. In the short run that means expulsion of foreign troops from their land. In the long run, it means world domination and forced submission to the Koran, and Allah.

John is a retired Marine whose website is “Let Them Fight or Bring Them Home.” If you aren’t already subscribed to his posts, you should be.

Posted on February 27, 2012 at 09:14 by Chris Carter · Permalink · Leave a comment
In: National Security · Tagged with: 

Illustrating absurdity: Liberals and counter-terrorism

Victor Davis Hanson cleverly illustrates the absurdity of liberal outrage regarding our counter-terrorism strategy. Consider this:

Somehow bloggers and op-ed writers have established by their selective outrage a narrative that it was immoral of Cheney to approve the waterboarding of three confessed terrorists like KSM, but quite moral of Obama to expand fivefold the Predator targeted-assassination program that served as judge, jury, and executioner of suspected terrorists — and of any living thing in their vicinity when the Hellfire missiles obliterated their compounds.

That is not to say that I am opposed to Hellfire missile attacks against “suspected terrorists” – providing our intelligence community is doing their due diligence in vetting their targets. But Hanson makes it crystal clear that there is a significant segment of our government that is willing to jeopardize the lives of Americans in order to weaken their political opponents.

If the Democrats seriously thought that the Bush doctrine had to be discarded, as Hanson points out, they would have corrected it. Instead, they continued the very strategy that they had fought when their party wasn’t in power:

… Obama retained Secretary of Defense Gates, stuck to the Bush-Petraeus withdrawal plan in Iraq, expanded Predator-drone attacks in Waziristan, surged into Afghanistan, bombed Libya, and embraced everything from Guantanamo to renditions.

It would be comical if it weren’t for the fact that it is our lives they are risking for their personal gain. I hope enough Americans will consider this when it comes time to vote.

Posted on September 7, 2011 at 14:10 by Chris Carter · Permalink · Leave a comment
In: National Security · Tagged with: 

Sacked: Another Muslim homeland security official with shady connections

On Monday, National Public Radio featured a story about a Muslim homeland security official who was fired after being featured as a terrorism suspect in an anti-terrorism seminar.

Omar Alomari, a 60-year-old Jordanian-American, served as a multicultural relations officer for the Ohio Department of Public Safety until the state fired him following a seminar for local law enforcement officers on political Islam and terrorism. Alomari was singled out as a suspect, and shortly after the presentation, he was fired.

The NPR article implies that Alomari lost his job due to the seminar, but it turns out that he actually was dismissed for not fully disclosing his employment history when filing his background check and then lying to investigators. Alomari left out his tenure as a college professor where he was fired due to an inappropriate sexual relationship with a student and also failed to disclose that he had previously worked for the Jordanian Minister of Labor.

The website The Jawa Report conducted an investigation into Alomari, which can be found here.

Apart from appearing as a witness for a 2010 Congress subcomittee hearing, Alomari is most notable work is two pamphlets on Islam he wrote as a member of Ohio Homeland Security.

In his guide to Islamic and Arabic culture, Alomari defined jihad as “The utmost effort one should exert to achieve excellence” and states that “Jihad does not mean holy war, as many people are led to believe.”

Zuhdi Jasser, fellow Muslim and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, calls Alomari’s pamphlets “classic Islamist propaganda” and says they are “full of factual inaccuracies.”

The other pamphlet, “Agents of Radicalization,” was actually destroyed before it could be distributed. Under “organizations we are working with,” Alomari listed the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Circle of North America, Islamic Society of North America, Muslim Alliance of North America, Muslim American Society, Muslim Public Affairs Council, and the Muslim Student Association.

All of these groups are connected to Islamic terrorism.

There are far too many inaccuracies in Alomari’s pamphlets to properly address within this article. But having seen his soft-soaped definition of jihad, it is worth correcting.

Dr. Andrew G. Bostom, the author of The Legacy of Jihad and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, defines jihad using the Koran rather than perpetuating a false narrative.

“Jahada, the root of the word jihad, appears 40 times in the Koran.” said Bostom in an interview with Liberty and Security Journal. “With four exceptions, all the other 36 usages in the Koran as understood by both the greatest jurists and scholars of classical Islam […] and ordinary Muslims – meant and mean, ‘he fought, warred or waged war against unbelievers and the like.’”

John Brennan, the top counterterrorism official in the nation, shares Omari’s ahistorical interpretation, saying jihad is “to purify oneself or one’s community.” This would be funny if Brennan wasn’t responsible our national security.

Many Americans saw firsthand what al Qaeda’s interpretation of jihad is, though, and theirs apparently stems from one of the 36 violent mentions in the Koran. In fact, with over 17,000 terrorist attacks committed by Islamic terrorists since 9/11, it appears that Alomari and Brennan’s interpretation isn’t widely accepted.

“It is common knowledge in our office that Omar is definitely not on our team,” a former co-worker of Alomari told The Jawa Report. “He hangs out with these same terror-linked groups and even brings them into meetings he arranges to give them legitimacy.”

“It is no secret to anyone who knows him that Omar Alomari IS a radical, but he is great at playing the “moderate” when he needs to be.”

Is Alomari a terrorist? It is impossible to tell without seeing the seminar organizers’ intelligence. But Americans must understand that terrorist groups like al Qaeda and political Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood actually share the same goals, such as subjugating the U.S. under sharia law. Whether this is accomplished via suicide bombers or by political advocacy makes little difference.

But neither al Qaeda nor the Muslim Brotherhood would be successful without apologists like Alomari paving the way for Islamic supremacism.

Posted on July 26, 2011 at 08:13 by Chris Carter · Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Articles, National Security · Tagged with: 

Quoted in Deutsche Welle

Last weekend I was quoted in Deutsche Welle, Germany’s equivalent to BBC, for an article on how al Qaeda remains a threat following the death of Osama bin Laden. Also quoted were fellow U.S. Counterterrorism Advisory Team members Walid Phares and W. Thomas Smith, Jr.

Chris Carter, a regional director with the US Counterterrorism Advisory Team, agrees that the fight is far from over. “The threat from al Qaeda will never be truly eradicated as you can’t kill an ideology,” he told Deutsche Welle. “But a more effective military campaign, accompanied by a political resolve to defeat the Islamist threat, would further weaken al Qaeda and discourage other groups and individuals from joining the fight.”

Posted on July 18, 2011 at 13:01 by Chris Carter · Permalink · Leave a comment
In: National Security · Tagged with: ,

Dumb and dumber

Nidal Malik Hasan, the jihadist Army psychiatrist who killed 13 and wounded 32 soldiers and civilians in November 2009, is awaiting the results of a mental health exam that will determine whether he is fit to stand trial.

Not to jump to conclusions–as we were cautioned by the government and media, who ironically failed to follow their own advice following the Tucson shooting–but available evidence shows a man who knew exactly what he was doing. Looking back, Hasan had given the system every opportunity to prevent this massacre, but despite being openly jihadist, the system–infused by decades of political correctness–failed.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said, “[A]s horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.” Once I heard that, I figured it would not be long before Congress enacted a jihad version of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” for the military.

But back to Hasan’s mental report, one has to wonder which of these two are the crazier: the man who was simply following an ideology that told him to kill non-believers, or the non-believers who refuse to admit that the ideology exists, then kowtow to the ideologues who only find appeasement in the killing of the non-believers?

Remember that following the massacre at Fort Hood, the Pentagon released an 88-page report on the incident entirely devoid of any reference to Islamic supremacism. I think that Americans would be better served if it were the federal government was being given the mental health evaluation.

Posted on January 24, 2011 at 12:02 by Chris Carter · Permalink · One Comment
In: National Security · Tagged with: ,