Putin Gets Slapped Badly - By Iran!!

Russia's Vladimir Putin just suffered a major setback in the Middle East...delivered by no less than Iran's Supreme leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei.

A few days ago, there was a news story out that sent a shock through the foreign policy establishment here in the U.S. and elsewhere, that Russia would now base a squadron of its Tupolev 22M3 heavy bombers and support aircraft in Iran's Nojef airbase. This was, of course, a huge game changer and Russia's Foreign ministry proudly trumpeted the news in world media as a major sign of Russian dominance in the region.

 


Except it wasn't. The whole thing blew up in the Russian's faces, and in a particularly humiliating way.

The deal was arranged by Iran's President Rouhani, who made the mistake of forgetting his place. He summoned the national supreme military council and, without consulting with Khamenei, simply informed them of his decision to make the Nojeh air base available to the Russian air force.

Aside from being angered that Rouhani made this decision without getting an OK from him, Khamenei was reportedly upset that the Russians showed every intent of making the base their permanent turf complete with sophisticate S-300 and S-400 defense systems to protect it. The last thing Khamenei and the ayatollahs want is a base deep in Iran controlled by a foreign country.

Khamenei orchestrated major disapproval from the Majlis, Iran's version of a parliament that actually does the bidding of the Ayatollah Khamenei and his Council of Guardians. It was more than enough to kill the deal and force the Russians out bag and baggage after just three sorties into Syria.

So the Iranian defense ministry spokesman Bahram Ghasemi announced in a press conference August 22nd that the Russian mission is over for now, that it was always only a temporary use base on a Russian request.

And if that wasn't enough of a slap, Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan insulted the Russians openly for “showing off” over the air base in an “ungentlemanly manner” and a "betrayal of trust."

"We have not given any military base to the Russians and they are not here to stay."

But wait, there's more.

The Russians make a fair amount of badly needed cash selling weaponry to other countries,including Iran. The Ayatollah Khamenei wasn't finished with them yet. He forced President Rouhani to make amends and show who really runs Iran by forcing Rouhani to be photographed posing with an Iranian-made Bavar-373 missile defense system and to tell the press that with this new, home manufactured system, Iran won't need to purchase any more expensive Russian S-300s, "because the Bavar-373 is just as good."

The Ayatollah was not just telling the Russians that Iran wouldn't be buying any more of what they had to sell, but that Iran was going to be further hitting them in the wallet by putting out a competing, less expensive alternative to potential customers.

While I felt I understood why he was doing it, I've written before that Vladimir Putin was making a huge mistake making common cause with Iran. It's the same mistake Stalin made with Hitler,supplying him with oil and other raw materials literally until the day Hitler's armies attacked him.

What Khamenei was reminding Putin that 'You're a useful infidel at present, but you're still an infidel.'

It's as simple as that.

Jihad In Tennessee - Four Marines Murdered

Four US Marines were murdered and a police officer wounded when a gunman drove up to two military facilities and opened fire on them. Thanks to a Clinton era policy, no arms were permitted inside and the Marines were sitting ducks.

The killer was  Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, a Kuwaiti who is a naturalized U.S. citizen..you know, diversity. He was shot and killed in the interchange by a police officer.



 

The two military facilities Abdulazeez hit are around eight miles apart.First, he did a drive by shooting at an Armyy recruiting building on Amnicola Highway, and then drove to The Navy Operational Support Center and Marine Corps Reserve Center on Old Lee Highway, which sits near Tennessee River Park, near the Tennessee River and just northeast of downtown Chattanooga. That's where the four Marines were murdered.

Believe it or not, the usual suspects are doing whatever they can to label this simply a violent assault rather than a terrorist attack, just like Fort Hood.

Of course, there's evidence that this was a jihad attack that they'd rather ignore, like this tweet from an ISIS affiliated account:



And this one:

You might want to ask yourself just why Twitter allows itself to be used for messages like this, but certainly no one else is.

I can pretty much tell you how this went down. When they finally piece this together, they will find a radical Imam at a local mosque where Abdulazeez worshiped and was encouraged to wage jihad on the infidels right in the middle of it. And just by coincidence, it's the last day of Ramadan.

Move along, nothing to see here.

 

Breaking : Bowe Bergdahl To Be Charged With Desertion

A small item hidden in the Washington Post:

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the U.S. soldier who was recovered in Afghanistan last spring after five years in captivity, faces charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, according to his lawyer.

Eugene Fidell, Bergdahl’s attorney, told The Washington Post that his client was handed a charge sheet on Tuesday.

Bowe Bergdahl, you'll remember, was the soldier whom deserted his post in Afghanistan, and was ransomed in exchange for five dangerous Taliban commanders in Club Gitmo. He was greeted as a returning hero by President Obama, and his parents were received in a bizarre Rose Garden ceremony by none other than President Obama himself.

The Army delayed this until after the 2014 midterms,no doubt under pressure from the Obama Regime.And I'm sure they did their best to try somehow to acquit him. But in the end,there was simply noway they could let this slip by without incurring severe morale and discipline issues from the rank and file.

According to Article 85 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the maximum penalty for desertion on wartime is death. If AfPak isn't considered 'wartime' because it wasn't a declared war, the punishment ranges from 2-5 years imprisonment, a dishonorable discharge and loss of all pay and benefits.

Don't be surprised if President Barack Hussein Obama pardons him or commutes his sentence.

As far as I'm concerned, it ought to be considered war time. Just ask the men who died searching for this worthless human specimen...or their families.

Troops To Be Sent To Iraq In Spite of Obama's 'No Boots On The Ground' Promise

 

The Pentagon has announced that that up to 1,300 U.S. soldiers will be heading to Iraq in the New Year, in spite of those  promises by President Obama that there would be “no boots on the ground” in Iraq or Syria.

The troops involved found out today.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel took the fall for the president and  “authorized” the deployment,. It will initially consist of about  1,000 soldiers  the 82nd Airborne Division’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team,  based out of Fort Bragg.

Their mission, according to Pentagon Spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby "will be to train, advise, and assist Iraqi security forces.”

Based on how those Iraqi security forces have been performing so far, I'd say the emphasis is on 'assist.'

This will be the second of  President Barack Hussein Obama'a illegal wars. Even Pravda -On-The-Hudson, AKA The New York Times recognized this.

Just imagine what the press would say if George W. Bush had done anything like this.

Results Of Investigation Of Bowe Bergdahl Desertion Held Until After the Election

Remember Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier who allegedly wandered away from his post, was captured by the Taliban and was swapped for five top level Taliban commanders? The one who was greeted as a hero by President Obama even after he went public with his profoundly anti-American views and left a letter stating that he was deserting and that he was renouncing his citizenship?

 

 After every member of his platoon went on record saying that Bergdahl deserted, the Army announced that they were going to fully investigate the matter. AMong other things, there's the question of Bergdahl's promotion to Sergeant while in captivity , his restoral to active dity with full backpay and of course, President Obama's judgement in swapping him for five very dangerous Taliban commanders if in fact Berhdahl actually deserted.

The Army has now completed their investigation. But surprise, surprise...its findings are going to be withheld until after the November elections,if they're released at all.

The Army said on Friday that it had received Dahl's report and its 'reviewing it,' but it has no timeline for the completion of its audit.

'As we stressed at on the onset, this will be a lengthy process conducted in accordance with applicable laws, regulation and policy,' Army officials said in a statement.

'We recognize the importance of the media and the public understanding of our investigative process, and look forward to future discussions on this issue.

The statement went on to say that 'the Army's priority is ensuring that our process is thorough, factually accurate, impartial, and legally correct.'

'Consequently, at this time, it would be inappropriate to speculate on the potential results or the amount of time the review process will take to complete.'

Reuters says that Colonel Warren, the Pentagon's spokesperson, denied on Tuesday that the military was postponing the release of the report until after Election Day in order to give the president and his his political party cover from the potentially damning details of the probe.

But members of Bergdahl's unit say they don't understand why the Army's assessment is taking so long.

Bergdahl's former platoon leader, Sgt. Evan Buetow, has said on numerous occasions that after Bergdahl, then a private in the army, went missing, soldiers in his unit learned from locals they were observing over the radio that an American was wandering around town, looking for someone who spoke English so that he could communicate with the Taliban.

'We've come out when he first got released, and we explained exactly what happened. He deserted his post, all on his own, and we're now still sitting here waiting for answers,' Buetow told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Tuesday evening.

Buetow said he was interviewed Gen. Dahl and had a 'lengthy' conversation with him about the details of Bergdahl's disappearance, including the chatter the platoon heard over the radio.

'I have a list of the people that the general spoke to during this investigation,' Buetow told Hannity. 'It's everyone from the platoon, and I know exactly what they said.

'There's no way that they can conclude this investigation without the truth.'

The truth, Buetow said, is that Bergdahl deserted.

'There's not one person [from his platoon] who disagrees,' Buetow said.

Another former platoon mate of Bergdahl's, Sgt. Jordan Vaughn, said Wednesday on Fox and Friends that he's also suspicious of delay, given that the military had 'five years to investigate this, talk to everyone who was there, who was involved, talk to the family, check the emails, look at the facts.'

Six men died hunting for Bowe Bergdahl in Afghanistan.

It's obvious why the administration wants this held over until after November 4th. If it comes out that the Obama White House five major Taliban commanders with American blood on their hands for one U.S. deserter and, as has been reported, steamrollered over the objections the military had on the deal just to get a few more detainees out of Gitmo, the outcry would be enormous.Especially since the president broke the law to do so.

Additionally, if the Army actually did investigate Bergdahl's conduct and what his former platoon mates charged him with doing, said On the other hand, he said, 'if it turns out that the Army got some backbone and really looked at what Bergdahl did and decides he should be charged with desertion, the farcical Rose Garden ceremony the president held with Bergdah's parents looks like even worse.

It's amazing how many things are being hidden until after the midterms...President Obama's plan for amnesty for illegal aliens by executive order, the real cost of ObamaCare premiums, and the results of the Army's investigation into Bowe Bergdahl's alleged desertion.

2015 is going to be an interesting year.

Obama Sends In Large Contingent Of Ground Troops

 

Yes, President Obama has given the orders and has set a brand new objective for our military. But it's definitely not ISIS, fighting jihad or protecting our borders.

In fact, (forget about the border) he's actually cutting back on counterterrorism efforts to send 3,000 US troops on an unclear mission to Monrovia, Liberia in West Africa, the epicenter of the Ebola outbreak.

According to what President Obama's Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey has reportedly told senior officers, “The Department of Defense’s number one priority is combating Ebola.”

Even the White house appears unclear on exactly what the soldiers are going to be doing.

'U.S. Africa Command will set up a Joint Force Command headquartered in Monrovia, Liberia, to provide regional command and control support to U.S. military activities and facilitate coordination with U.S. government and international relief efforts,' a statement from the White House press office said.

'A general from U.S. Army Africa, the Army component of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), will lead this effort, which will involve an estimated 3,000 U.S. forces.'

All of which are hazy, non-specific and generic terms. What does 'regional command and control support for U.S. military activities' mean? What U.S. military activities are being planned? Are they basically being sent into a dangerous area where a highly contagious disease is running rampant to be policemen of some kind, enforcing some other country's law and order? Maybe several countries?

And the president's rationale for this is frankly ridiculous at a time when our military is already stretched thin, thousands of personnel have been released from the service and defense spending has already been cut 21 per cent since 2010, President Obama's first fiscal year in office.

 

On a Sept. 7 interview on NBC's 'Meet the Press,' as reported by the UK's Daily Mail, President Obama called the Ebola outbreak in West Africa a 'national security priority.'

'If we don't make that effort now, and this spreads not just through Africa, but other parts of the world, there's the prospect then that the virus mutates, it becomes more easily transmittable, and then it could be a serious danger to the United States,” said Obama.

So let's get this straight...the way to stop Ebola from being transmitted to the U.S. is not by policing our borders, cracking down on illegal migration, or quarantining nationals and limiting visas from the affected countries.

Instead, the president obviously feels that the way to stop Ebola from becoming a problem in America is to ignore all these things and send 3,000 soldiers we can't really spare right now into the middle of an epidemic. Can you think of a better way to bring Ebola home to America?

I can certainly see humanitarian aid, and apparently military engineers are going to slap together some makeshift hospitals. The U.S has done similar things before. But  the biggest hospital project the U.S. has committed to isn't for the locals. It's a fully equipped 25-bed 'field-deployable hospital,' that will be used solely to treat infected health care personnel and presumably those members of our military that become infected.

And the State Department, tellingly, has just purchased 5,000 body bags.



Why is the president doing this? Obviously this is not a 'national security issue'. But when it come to President Obama, there are two motivating factors you can always count on...politics and his own ego and aggrandizement.

The politics are pretty simple. With the midterms coming up, it's yet another way to dupe African-American voters into thinking that Obama cares about them, even though for all practical purposes their voting bloc is being taken for granted and has been dumped to cater to Latinos.

The ego and aggrandizement? That's pretty simple too. In spite of that totally unearned Nobel Peace Prize, in spite of all the rhetoric, President Obama has actually done very little in the way of humanitarian efforts, especially when you compare him to President Bush,who is particularly beloved in Africa for his efforts to combat AIDS and hunger. So this becomes an Obama bragging point - at other people's risk and expense, of course.

Fore!

What Happens to An Army When Race Matters And Merit Doesn't Count?

 

The U.S. military in many ways has always been one of America's meritocracies, at least since President Eisenhower put VP Richard Nixon in charge of desegregating it. As in any organization, there was always a certain amount of politics involved, with Democrat presidents promoting Democrat generals and Republican presidents leaning towards Republicans, but by and large there was always the goal of the best and brightest rising to the top, and in many cases that goal was realized.

Things have changed.

Ive already written before about how admission standards to get into Annapolis have been lowered for minority candidates based strictly on race in the name of diversity.

It appears now that the Army has decided to follow the trend... no doubt prompted by the Obama Administration. They're now concerned that there are too many white officers and not enough black ones, and we can't. have. that.

So they're apparently going to do what the Navy did. They will start by lowering standards for black candidates to get into West Point, or as they told USA Today, "One of the Army’s plans for addressing the issue will be to put more emphasis on recruiting and mentoring minority officers."

I think we can all translate what that means in reality.

The Army reports that only 10 percent of its active-duty officers are black, which has contributed to its dearth of black officers leading soldiers with occupational specialties in infantry, armor and artillery.

“It certainly is a problem for several reasons,” Col. Irving Smith, director of sociology at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, told USA Today. “First we are a public institution. And as a public institution we certainly have more of a responsibility to our nation than a private company to reflect it. In order to maintain their trust and confidence, the people of America need to know that the Army is not only effective but representative of them.”

And here you thought the Army's primary responsibility was to protect the country, and to pick the very best soldiers to lead it regardless of race? Not in the age of Obama. Job one is now 'social justice' and racial bean counting.

No one is even alleging that the Army has discriminated against black soldiers. No, they're being pressured for a very different and obvious reason.

The American people, or at least the vast majority aren't losing trust and confidence in our military because there were too many white people leading it, or because their aren't enough black officers. Nor are they worrying about the military's ability to defend the country, and one big reason for that is because they perceive the military as a meritocracy where the best and brightest succeed. Ah, but these issues are a primary concern of the Obama Administration which views everything through two prisms - race and politics.

This amounts to changing the nature of our military politically....forcing dozens of experienced officers and generals out of the service and into early retirement while replacing them with people the Regime feels are more likely to support them politically. And if it means that spaces at West Point, the other service academies and Officer Candidate Schools are taken up by people who are less qualified than others strictly on racial grounds, that isn't a concern.


 

Watch what happens to the quality of our volunteer military and to the American people's perception of it if this trend continues.

How Scottish Independence Could End Britain's Nuclear Deterrent

 

Scotland will hold a referendum next month on whether to remain part of the UK or become an independent country. While a large number of voters are undecided and the jury's still out on whether the Scots will vote 'yes' on independence, one interesting result of a yes vote could very well be the end of Britain as a nuclear power.

 

Currently Britain bases all of its arsenal of 58 Trident II D-5 missiles and 160 deployed nuclear warheads in Scotland, along with its four Vanguard-class submarines that can be used to launch them. The subs are based at Faslane, an inlet at the mouth of the River Clyde on Scotland's west coast near Glasgow.

The Scottish National Party(SNP) as well as the other parties pushing for independence have pledged that an independent Scotland would be a nuclear-free zone within four years of breaking off from Great Britain. That position appeals to a large part of the Scottish polity, who feel that the UK basing its nuclear arsenal in Scotland rather than in England or Wales makes Scotland a target in the event of hostilities because it's 'housing England's nukes.'

A “yes” vote would almost certainly force what's left of the United Kingdom to find a new home for the weapons and a new home port for its nuclear subs. The problem is that at this point, that facility simply doesn't exist.Britain might be able to lease the base from Scotland for a couple of years, but that's about it.

To build a new base would cost billions Britain doesn't have and might take close to a decade. It's likely that Britain itself might choose to scrap its nuclear deterrent instead. That's especially true given the state of Britain's military today, including the renowned Royal Navy, which has been downsized almost to the point of being a coastal defense force.

As it is, the UK plans to slash an additional 30,000 personnel from Britain’s already reduced armed forces by 2020, and any kind of military spending is unpopular, particularly among Britain's expanding Muslim electorate. The UK made a point of quickly declining to participate in air strikes on Islamic State President Obama announced earlier this month, limiting their participation to a few humanitarian supply airlifts.

To add to this factor, a vote for Scottish independence would essentially mean a divorce, with the accompanying negotiations over facilities, bases, armaments and personnel. Scotland would need to develop and equip its own defense force, and since Scots are well represented in Britain's military and many would likely want to serve in the newly composed Scottish forces, the attrition in Britain's forces might be even more severe than what's on the drawing board.

 

 Perhaps I should include a personal comment at this point.

There are a great many arguments back and forth about Scottish independence, and frankly I have no particular dog in this fight except that I normally favor people running their own affairs.

As for the military aspect, neither an independent Scotland or what constitutes Britain's current government seem overly valuable as allies just now. But I'm absolutely in favor of the UK scrapping its nuclear deterrent. It's a bad idea to leave nuclear weapons in the hands of who may  likely be taking over in a few years.

 

The Kurd's Last Stand - And America's Shame

 

The Kurds are at their last extremity. Having been denied anything in the way of arms or help by the Obama Administration, outgunned by the jihadis of the Islamic State armed with American arms, tanks and artillery they obtained from the fleeing Iraqi army and from the Obama Administration, the Kurdish Pesh Merga have been pushed back to a defensive line at Kalak, about 25 miles northwest of Irbil, Kurdistan's capitol.

A refugee camp at Kalak that was packed with thousands of refugees who’d fled Mosul and the newly conquered Christian towns just two days ago when it fell to the Islamic State was emptied as Kalak became the new front line.

As this was happening, Kurdish officials continued to beg the Obama Administration for direct military support, arms and supplies.

 

Falah Bakir, the foreign minister for the Kurdistan Regional Government, told CNN that the Kurds needed immediate military help. “We are left alone in the front to fight the terrorists of ISIS,” he said, using the old acronym for the Islamic State, which used to call itself the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (Syria).

“I believe the United States has a moral responsibility to support us, because this is a fight against terrorism, and we have proven to be pro-democracy, pro-West and pro-secularism,” Bakir said.

“I now know that the towns of Qaraqosh, Tal Kayf, Bartella and Karamlesh have been emptied of their original population and are now under the control of the militants,” Joseph Thomas, the Chaldean archbishop of Kirkuk and Sulaimaniyah, told the AFP news agency. These were the largest Christian communities in Iraq. They have now been ethnically cleansed, with the inhabitants either driven off, killed or in the case of females, forcibly converted and enslaved.

The Kurds are brave enough, but they have largely antiquated weaponry from the Saddam-era and limited ammunition to defend their homeland against the Islamic State forces armed with advanced American weaponry.The Maliki government and the U.S have consistently refused to give the Kurds any arms or military aid.

“The Americans keep saying they will help us,” Rosg Nuri Shawess, the Kurdish military commander who was overseeing the defensive preparations was quoted as saying. “Well, if they plan to help they had better do it now.”

Last night, President Obama finally addressed this situation, saying "Today, America is coming to help."

And what was that help? Food and water drops to the trapped refugees on Mount Sinjar, and 'targeted airstrikes, if necessary' to 'protect American personnel and facilities.' We have a consulate in Irbil, and a small number of American oil company personnel staying there.

The president then went on to make vague mention of 'urgent assistance to Iraqi government and Kurdish forces' and spent the rest of his time repeating the lie about how he ended the war in Iraq, apologizing to his base and assuring them that he would "not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq." Because, in the president's words, "there’s no American military solution to the larger crisis in Iraq.The only lasting solution is reconciliation among Iraqi communities and stronger Iraqi security forces.'

In other words, the president is saying that the U.S. is not committed to fighting Islamic State jihadis (what a surprise, coming from him!) but that we're just going to double down on the $25 billion we've already spent and throw good money after bad into the basically worthless Iraqi military. And the Obama team will continue to wait for the Shi'ite Maliki government to get its act together and reject tribalism, hoping for a 'reconciliation' that isn't going to happen.

So the Kurds aren't going to get so much as one bullet from this president or from Maliki. That in itself should tell you that President Obama's blather about 'reconciliation' is sheer horse manure designed to sound good and reassure his base that America's retreat will continue.

And the airstrikes? I suspected when the president mentioned them that they would be mostly cosmetic, and I wasn't mistaken.

A couple of targets were bombed last night around Makhmour, a town near Irbil. When asked about it, the Pentagon denied U.S. planes were involved, and Kurdish sources confirmed later that the strikes were made by Iraqi and Turkish planes.

According to one of my sources, the strikes last night were pretty much ineffectual and did little damage to the Islamic State's forces. This isn't surprising tome at all since it would suit the Maliki government and Erdoğan's Islamist Turkey just fine to see the Kurds overrun and weakened severely. And neither government has any particular interest in the safety of American personnel or facilities. The 'strikes' amounted to dropping a few bombs haphazardly and flying off.

 

The president had hoped he wouldn;t be forced into a decision, what withhis vacation at Martha;s Vineyard coming up, but the ineffectual nature of the Turkish and Iraqi strikes forced his hand, something that was evident in his televised speech. That's exactly why U.S. planes went into action today. A couple of F-18s off the aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush took out what's described as 'a mobile artillery target' (a tank? a missile launcher?) that Islamic State was using to attack the Kurdish lines “near U.S. personnel,” according to a statement by Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary.

“As the president made clear, the United States military will continue to take direct action against ISIL when they threaten our personnel and facilities,” Admiral Kirby said, referring to the Islamic militants by another translation of their Arabic name.

In other words, as the Admiral stated, our commander-in-chief's orders are crystal clear. As long as the handful of Americans in Kurdistan aren't directly targeted, Islamic State can have free reign and kill as many Kurds as they want to. And if things get dicey, hey, we'll just fly our people out and let the Kurds be overrun. Does anyone get the feeling that this decision was pure politics, to avoid another group of dead Americans at a U.S. Embassy on President Obama's watch?

With that in mind, there will likely be a few airstrikes  here and there, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were spaced out and irregular rather than coordinated and  decisive.

Just compare this to President Obama's aerial war against Khaddaffi to save the Islamist jihadis in Benghazi, or his strident lobbying for Hamas in Gaza. There's a pattern here.

Full scale air strikes on the Islamic State's positions would hand them a huge defeat,just as it did to Khaddafi's forces. But that's not what President Barack Hussein Obama wants, obviously.

And the Kurds?

These were the pro-American, pro-western, naturally democratic and prosperous people who should have been the model for former President George W. Bush's successful Muslim democracy.Al-Qaeda in Iraq never got the slightest foothold in Kurdistan and we could rely on the Pesh Merga to hold that territory. Unlike the Shi'ite bloc under Maliki and Moqtada al-Sadr, they literally begged us to put our bases there. Former Kurdish leader Mustafa Barzani once even suggested that America should make Kurdistan the 51st state because "we would defend you and provide you with oil."

Kurdistan could have been our loyal ally, a firm friend, a secure base in the region, helping us to protect the Persian Gulf and offset Iran. Instead we betrayed them to please the likes of Islamist fascist Tayipp Erdoğan and Iran's own man in Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki.

And now, at this last extremity, the final, foul betrayal by President Barack Hussein Obama.I have never been more ashamed.

This entire disaster is the fault of President Obama and his team. It was only a short while  ago that Secretary Kerry was asking congress for half a billion of your tax dollars to arm and train 'the Syrian Rebels', which is exactly how ISIS got so strong in the first place..the covert arms and training  this president handed them via Qatar and Turkey without bothering to inform congress. That, plus the gently used American arms and equipment they inherited from the Iraqi army who dropped them and left them behind, the better to run away a little faster.

The Kurds are not stupid, and they have survived catastrophe before. Their first instinct will probably be to bow down and try to come to terms with Iran. As a matter of fact, there are indications this may have already begun. If this is correct, it marks a major change for the Kurds. After all, if the West and particularly America is retreating, why not try to come to terms with the Strong Horse who's staying in order to try to survive?

There will be an independent Kurdistan some day, but they may have very different feelings about partnering up with America.



UPDATE, 8/11/14: Things have changed since I wrote this. I'm pleased to announce that finally, the Kurds are reportedly getting arms and ammo directly from our CIA. This about face has a lot to do with the Obama Administration's deteriorating relationship with Iraqi PM Maliki on which more shortly.

But at any event, the Kurds are finally getting the arms they need. Thank G-d.

Wrap Up On The Fort Hood Shootings

According to what Army Secretary John McHugh told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, investigators are still trying to discover why Ivan Lopez, an Iraq War veteran shot and killed three people and wounded 16 others at Texas’ Fort Hood before committing suicide — and they haven't ruled out terrorism yet.

“We’re going to keep an open mind. … Possible extremist involvement is still being looked at very, very carefully,” Army Secretary John McHugh said.

McHugh also told the committee that while Lopez served four months in Iraq, he never saw combat and was never wounded in action. His military assignment was with a logistics and support unit. In spite of that, he was in process of being psychoanalytically evaluated for Post traumatic Stress Disorder and had been fully examined a month before the shooting. He had reported a traumatic brain injury upon his return to the US, had a number of mental health issues and was receiving psychiatric help for depression and anxiety.

Another possible clue to what happened is that Lopez was taking Ambien for a sleep disorder.

Zolpidem Tartrate, which is Ambien's real name is a fairly controversial medication. It can have a number of side effects that could be relevant, such as inducing sleepwalking where people perform their daily tasks with no memory of doing so,increased irritability, increased impulsive behavior, altered thought patterns, and decreased libido. This is especially true if it's abused by the user and the prescribed dosage is exceeded, something that's also not unknown since that can provide a narcotic high. And Ambien if abused can become addictive.

This line of reasoning leads to other questions. Lopez used a Smith and Wesson .45 in the shooting , a personal firearm he had recently purchased. How did he pass the screening during the waiting period? If Lopez was being treated for mental disorders by the Army, it appears that the Army doesn't share this information. That's a large loophole that definitely ought to be closed, and it can easily be done confidentially, with a list that can be accessed during background checks for firearms purchases.

Most of the wounded victims of the shooting have been moved to stable condition, but three remain critical.

Fort Hood Shooting Update

 

The Fort Hood shooting incident is over, and we have a few more facts to deal with.

There was only one shooter in spite of earlier reports of two gunmen. He was a 34-year-old enlisted Army soldier, Ivan Lopez, who killed three of his fellow soldiers and wounded 16 others before turning his weapon, a .45 caliber automatic, on himself and committing suicide.All the victims are military personnel and their names are being withheld until the families are notified.

According to Lt. Gen. Mark Milley, the commanding general at Fort Hood, Lopez, an E-4 who transferred to the Army from the Puerto Rican Army National Guard, served four months in Iraq back in 2011 and was currently in the process of being examined for post-traumatic stress disorder, He added that while Lopez had not yet been officially diagnosed for PTSD, he was receiving treatment for depression and anxiety, had what was described as 'a self-reported traumatic brain injury' and had not been physically wounded in combat.


Exactly what happened isn't totally known at this time, but according to Army investigators, the incident began when the shooter, who was assigned to the 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) fired shots at soldiers in the 1st Medical Brigade by the motor pool, perhaps after an altercation. He then left that building,drove to another building on post, went inside and again started shooting.At that point he was confronted by an armed MP, put the gun to his head and shot himself.

Lopez was in uniform and was armed with a single 45-caliber Smith & Wesson that was his own personal firearm, not military issue. Reportedly he had just recently purchased the gun, so this may not have exactly been a spur of the moment thing.

Tragic...simply tragic.

BREAKING: Another Black Day At Ft. Hood - 4 Dead, 14 Wounded

There has been a major shooting incident at Ft. Hood, Texas involving at least one and possibly two shooters.According to the House Homeland Security Chair and U.S. Representative from Texas Michael McCaul, four soldiers are reported dead, including the man identified as one of the shooters,a soldier named Ivan Lopez who died of a self-inflicted wound.

Fourteen other personnel are reported wounded.

The base is in lockdown, and buildings are still being cleared. More on this as it develops.

Ft. Hood is the same base where the infamous jihadi Major Nidal Hasan carried two weapons inside, shouted “Allahu Akbar!” and opened fire on November 9th , 2009. He murdered thirteen people, and more than 30 wounded.

Hasan is currently on death row.

Putin Orders Military Readiness As Crimea Puts Russian Leader In Power

 

Russian leader Vladimir Putin has ordered military readiness exercises and a state of alert in the Russian strategic base of Sebastopol in the Crimea and along the Ukraine's borders:

Sergei Shoigu, the Russian defence minister, said Moscow was "carefully watching what is happening in Crimea" and that measures were being taken to ensure the security of the facilities and arsenals of its Black Sea naval fleet, which is based in the fiercely pro-Russian Crimean city of Sebastopol.

The autonomous eastern peninsula, which is home to a largely ethnic Russian population, is at the centre of tensions over the overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovych, an ally of Moscow, by pro-European protesters at the weekend.

"In accordance with an order from the president of the Russian Federation, forces of the Western Military District were put on alert at 1400 (1000 GMT) today," Interfax quoted Mr Shoigu as saying.

At the same time, Russia's foreign ministry said in a statement today that 'extremists' were "imposing their will" on Ukraine and fomenting tension and unrest.

In the Crimea itself, where the population is 60% ethnic Russian, the local assembly in the Crimean capital of Simferopol is debating holding a referendum to decide whether the Crimea will remain part of Ukraine or return to Russia, which had control of the Crimea until Nikita Khrushchev transferred it to Ukraine administratively within the old Soviet Union back in the 1960's. Numerous clashes between pro-Russian demonstrators and non-Russians, mainly Crimean Tatars who want to remain part of Ukraine are being reported.



And in Sebastopol itself, ethnic Russians have kicked out the city administrator and installed their own mayor, who promptly announced the formation of paramilitary 'self-defense' units to defend the Crimea against the "fascists" in Kiev.

Yesterday, the country's interim president, Oleksander Turchynov called the new Ukrainian parliament to discus "the question of not allowing any signs of separatism and threats to Ukraine's territorial integrity and punishing people guilty of this," according to an official statement while Russia caled on the EU's Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to condemn the rise of "nationalist and neo-fascist sentiment" in western Ukraine and 'anti-Russian' activity.
In reality of course, the Ukrainian parliament has no power to enforce anything and would probably be much better off concentrating on forming a government. Any moves to bring the ethnic Russian population to heel as part of Ukraine would provide the Russians with just the excuse they need to send the tanks in.

Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov continues to say Russia will not intervene militarily in Ukraine, but if the Crimea breaks away with Russian assistance , then he can say that technically, he kept his word. The same is true of eastern sections of the Ukraine where there are also a great many ethnic Russians whom retain their loyalty to Russia. Russia retaking the Crimea would essentially give them control of Ukraine's sea coast on the Black Sea and effective control of the country.

Stay tuned...

Obama Administration To Shrink Military Back To Pre WWII Levels

Pravda-on-the-Hudson has leaked Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's proposals to downsize our military to pre WWII levels.

The Army is going to be cut to between 440,000 and 450,000, as opposed to a post-9/11 peak of 570,000. A lot of the troops we're getting rid of include battle hardened and experienced officers, NCO's and enlisted men whom served in AfPak and Iraq...not to mention experienced and successful commanders like General Stan McCrystal and the Marine Corps' General Mattis, who have already been forced into early retirement for political reasons.

Our entire fleet of Air Force A-10 attack aircraft, one of the best anti-tank planes in the world are going to be eliminated while more money is going to be spent on what the Times calls 'the controversial F-35 warplane'. It's controversial, all right.

The Navy will be limited to adding two destroyers and two attack submarines every year, but will have to give up 11 heavy and light cruisers, which will go into what's called 'reduced operating status'. That simply isn't enough to maintain America's naval superiority on the world's oceans.

The Navy managed to save all 11 of its aircraft carriers for now, but some of them are approaching mid life and we're not going to be building any new ones. The USS George Washington is going to be overhauled and will get a nuclear refueling, but there's no guarantee for any of the others, especially if the defense budget continues to shrink under the Obama Administration as it likely will.

In an effort to discourage retention and new enlistment, pay and benefits are being cut markedly. Pay for officers is to be frozen, while enlisted men will get a single 1% pay raise before their pay is frozen as well. At the same time, a lot of the perks and subsidies that make military life affordable at the current rate of pay are being eliminated or severely cut back. Tax-free housing allowances for military personnel are going to be sharply reduced, and so is the $1.4 billion direct subsidy provided to military commissaries, so groceries and other goods at the PX are going to be a lot more expensive.

Health insurance deductibles and some co-pays will increase for some military retirees and for family members of active duty servicemen, and new enlistees will see even higher rates for these items. This is on top of the screwing our active military already took on their retirement benefits and COLAS.

Aside from the F-35, the areas where the defense budget isn't shrinking? Cyberwarfare, special ops and drones, of course.

What's going on here is pretty easy to figure out, and I said it back when Hagel was first confirmed as SecDef - the idea is to sharply reduce our military capabilities, eliminate our military's ability to fight a two front war, and to use the 'savings' for the president domestic agenda. Instead of jobs for engineers machinists, scientists, assemblers that actually create growth, and instead of providing training in various fields for our military, we'll just hand out more food stamps and welfare checks. Instead of national defense, more green energy scams and more trillion dollar stimulus programs,
Brilliant!

And of course, most of Pravda-on-the Hudson's reader thoroughly approve:

From Binghampton,NY

The size of the army is not the problem; the size of the Pentagon budget is. Replacing soldiers with gold-plated weapons systems is not the answer; demilitarizing the US economy is. The country needs a multi-year plan to cut defense spending in half without sending the economy into a tailspin. Each year 10% of the Pentagon's budget should be transferred to a new agency charged with rebuilding the country's infrastructure. In five years when half of today's trillion dollar military spending has been moved to civilian use, that new agency be phased out by cutting its budget 10% per year. In a decade, the US would finally have a peace-time economy for the first time since 1941.

From St. Louis:

It's high time that Americans have a conversation about our national values. Are we a country constantly at war, using the military as our #1 jobs program? Or are we a nation of peace, where we invest our resources and young people in more productive ways?

Given the long-term effects of war on our citizens, and the cost of caring for disabled veterans like my own father, it just seems obvious that we should scale back the military to pay for things like infrastructure, cleaner energy, job training and education. Let's hope Congress agrees.

And from San Francisco

Not only do we currently spend roughly the same annually on our military than the rest of the world combined, we currently spend ~4x more than the second place spender, China. Even if we scale back adventurous aircraft projects (that can likely easily be replaced by simple unmanned drones), other countries have a long way to go before catching up with us. The parallels drawn in the comments to WWI are unwarranted; we are not going to quickly be overtaken by any other country's military. Were another nation state to begin to turn into a threat we could also still adapt and increase spending. This is a fantastic decision to help balance our budget, and certainly wiser than cutting all known domestic aid programs...

As others have mentioned, the days of nation-against-nation combat are over. Outmoded cold-war-sized armies do no good against terrorists in bunkers. The time is right for intelligent trimming of the military.


Every one of these comments could be datelined 1938 and would fit in quite well.

This is quite a gamble to take, given what's going on with Iran, the PLA's increasing strength and a resurgent Russia,but that is after all what America voted for. Hey,what could go wrong?

Al-Qaeda Wins Major Victory Over Iraqi Army

 

Al-Qaeda forces under the command of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi turned back an Iraqi army offensive with heavy losses, winning a major military victory.

Baghdadi’s troops decimated Iraq's 7th and 1st divisions, which were trained and equipped courtesy of Uncle Sam as some of the most elite troops in the Iraqi Army. Not only did the al-Qaeda forces defeat them and send them in headlong retreat towards Baghdad, but the jihadis were able to advance, capture and hold virtually all of Fallujah and most of Ramadi, the provincial capitol of Anbar. These are both key Sunni strong points in western and central Iraq.

The Iraqi forces attempted a counterattack to retake these areas(their fourth),but were thrown back with heavy losses. Whole units fled the battlefield, dropping those shiny new American arms behind them.

The subtext of this is the ongoing war in Syria.

Al-Baghdadi is a commander in an al-Qaeda group that calls themselves Islamic State in Iraq and al-Shams, the jihadis name for Syria. ISIS, as it's known is part of the Islamists rebels fighting Syria's Bashir Assad, Hezbollah and Iran for control of Syria.

ISIS has been operating in the Sunni areas of Iraq for some time, fueled by the current Iranian-backed Shi'ite government headed by Nouri al-Maliki essentially marginalizing the Sunnis in government and in Iraq's security forces. This was exactly the opposite of what Iraq's Sunnis were promised by General David Petraeus when they went on the U.S. payroll and fought al-Qaeda in the “Awakening” groups during the 2005 Surge.Now, a lot of them are fighting with ISIS against al-Maliki's Shi'ite forces.

It's important not to overlook Iran's part in all this. Iraq is essentially an Iranian colony now, with al-Maliki kept in power by the Shiite bloc led by Muqtada al-Sadr. Remember Mookie? Al-Maliki was prodded to attack the Sunni areas of Anbar by Iran, who saw it as a second front to put more pressure on the Syrian rebels. Instead, the al-Qaeda forces, allied with the Sunni tribesmen kicked their collective behinds in and sent them retreating back to Baghdad.

The Obama Administration's response is almost sitcom worthy. They're sending al-Maliki F-16s and drones. We might as well send them to Tehran or to Basher Assad.

The al-Qaeda victory, aside from the morale boost and a harvest of gently used only-dropped-once weaponry has some major political consequences. Rather than opening up a new front for the Shiite/Iran bloc, it has done just the opposite, allowing the Iraqi al-Qaeda fighters and their Sunni tribal allies to link up with al-Qaeda elements in Syria like al-Nusrah and increasing the pressure on Assad.Iran, Assad and Hezbollah had the war in Syria pretty much going their way until this happened. Now things have turned around, with consequences for other al-Qaeda fronts in Sinai and Jordan as well.

Not only that,but the Obama Administration came out looking ridiculously ineffectual in the eyes of both sides, since they made a point of shipping heavy weapons to the Iraqi government..many of which are now in the hands of al-Qaeda and ISIS.If you think about it and remember this president's early arming of jihadis in Syria and his clueless adventure in Libya, more heavy weapons have ended up in the hands of our enemies due to American efforts since he took office than any president in modern history.

So much for President Obama's brag that 'al-Qaeda's on the run'. But as you'll recall, President Obama bears a great deal of responsibility for al-Qaeda's resurgence in the Middle East.

One thing that bears mentioning, when we talk about responsibility. President Obama was very quick to pound his chest and claim he ended the war in Iraq, and a lot of his critics are blaming him for the current chaos. Neither is true.The disposition of forces agreement was signed in 2009 by George W. Bush before he left office, and it was al-Maliki, following his Iranian friends orders who insisted on a complete U.S. withdrawal. Barack Obama had nothing to do with it - he simply followed the agreement. He neither ended the war not 'lost' it - although he certainly did his very best to do the latter as a U.S. senator.

Iraq is going to puzzle historians in the future. We went in with the idea of building a nation out of something that never really existed, just a handful of ethnically diverse provinces of the old Ottoman villayet of Mesopotamia the Brits threw together after WWI. Our only real allies and the only ones who actually had a shot at nation building were the Kurds, who begged us to be theirr allies, put our bases there and to help them establish an independent Kurdistan. Their IDF-trained Persh Merga killed every al-Qaeda jihadi that came anywhere near their territory without our having to even spend the manpower to patrol it. We sold them out for the likes of Turkey's Islamist fascist leader Tayyip Erdoğan, and instead we placed our billion dollar bet on the Shi'ites and on al-Maliki, who spent the Saddam years cuddled up with our enemies the Ayatollahs.

We went in and made a huge (and justified) deal about Saddam being a genocidal monster who needed to be taken out. And after that happened, we sat back and did nothing while Iraq's Christians were brutalized and ethnically cleansed on our watch.

Our warriors, in spite of the way they were handcuffed by the politically correct politicians back home won an amazing military victory. Osama bin-Laden made the mistake of making Iraq the central front of his war on America, and our troops decimated al-Qaeda and pushed them, for the most part, out of the Middle East.

After which we essentially left Iraq in the hands of a politician allied with our enemies and went home, washing our hands of it, and the situation has now returned to internecine violence.

Iraq will unfortunately rank with Somalia as a futile and quixotic misuse of America's armed might.

It remains to be seen how this all turns out, but hopefully the American people learned something from it..about how proper and clear objectives are needed when we go to war, and about how carefully we need to choose the leaders who make those decisions. And also about the nature of the Muslim world. Because they are not like us, they do not want what we want and pretending that they do is a sure route to repeated folly.

Afghanistan: U.S. Embassy Hit, No Agreement With Karzai And The Last Oz Troops Leave

 

An interesting Christmas in Afghanistan...

The U.S. Embassy in Kabul was fired on today just before dawn, with two rounds of what was referred to as 'indirect fire' hitting the compound. 'Indirect fire' usually means rocket attacks, RPG's or mortar rounds.

No Americans were reported as casualties, but the fact that our enemies were able to get close enough to target and fire heavy weapons at our heavily fortified embassy in what is supposedly a safe zone says quite a bit.

The Taliban claimed responsibility, but given the attacks on Americans by our supposed 'allies' among the Afghan forces, that's a pretty wide range.

Afghan police were targeted in two bombing incidents, one on a roadside restaurant in Puli Alam, the capital of Logar province some 35 odd miles east of Kabul that killed six and wounded 13 and a second attack in east Kabul that wounded three Afghan policemen.

As we retreat and draw down, they're getting a lot bolder. Winter used to be something of a lull for the most part in Afghanistan because of the weather and topography. Not anymore.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is still refusing to sign a security agreement with the U.S. that would leave some American troops in his country. He is still insisting on a ban of airstrikes,raid and the entry of U.S. forces into Afghan homes, is demanding the U.S. broker a peace with the Taliban and is still insisting that any new treaty should be signed by his successor after the next Afghan elections in the spring. Translation - Karzai, his brother and their families want to make sure they have a secure way out of the country before the Americans leave, and they won't sign on to anything until they get that guarantee.

Karzai reiterated this, interestingly enough, at a three day conference with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, with whom Karzai has signed a security agreement. Afghanistan does share a small border with India, and the Indians have a vested interest in making sure that their border is secure and that a potential flashpoint with either the Taliban or more likely Pakistan is checkmated.

And finally, today is the day the Diggers left.

 

The Australian forces represented the largest non-NATO contingent in AfPak, and as usual, they came in because they're one of the best allies we have and to them, that's what allies do. Every report I've heard of their performance in AfPak marks them, along with the Canadians, as some of the most useful and resourceful non-U.S. troops in the theater, miles ahead of most of the motley crew supplied by our European allies. They were always willing to mix it up with the jihadis, never shirked the hard jobs, and lost 40 of their mates in AfPak as their share of the sacrifice involved.

They left for Oz today from Tarin Kowt in Uruzgan province, Australia's main base in the country and I don't blame them one bit. With President Obama giving the Taliban a set in stone withdrawal date, the Australians realize that there's no reason to hang around. And PM Tony Abbot underlined that today:

"This war is ending, not with victory, not with defeat, but with hope that Afghanistan is a better place and Uruzgan in particular is a better place for our presence," Prime Minister Tony Abbott said. "I firmly believe that to be the case." 

 When one of your best allies takes a look at your strategy and at your commander-in-chief and realizes that there's no sense hanging around anymore, that says something.

Around 400 of the Australian military are committed to remain in Afghanistan through 2014 to train the Afghan military in Kabul and Kandahar. Whether that holds good if the U.S. completely bugs out as President Obama is threatening to do if no security arrangement gets signed by Karzai is doubtful.

Fair dinkum.

U.S. Army Seeks To Purge Lee, Jackson And Other Confederate Generals From Facilities

 

Various U.S. Army facilities are discussing whether to purge all mentions, statues, portraits and other memorials that mention former Confederate generals like Robert E. Lee, Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson, James Longstreet, Jeb Stuart or other American military figures who fought on the Southern side of the War Between the States.

I would bet my dollar to your dime that this came as a diktat from the White House:

The U.S. Army War College, which molds future field generals, has begun discussing whether it should remove its portraits of Confederate generals — including those of Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson.

Nestled in rural Pennsylvania on the 500-acre Carlisle Barracks, the war college is conducting an inventory of all its paintings and photographs with an eye for rehanging them in historical themes to tell a particular Army story.

During the inventory, an unidentified official (emphasis mine) — not the commandant, Maj. Gen. Anthony A. Cucolo III — asked the administration why the college honors two generals who fought against the United States, college spokeswoman Carol Kerr said.

“I do know at least one person has questioned why we would honor individuals who were enemies of the United States Army,” Ms. Kerr said.

“This person was struck by the fact we have quite a few Confederate images,” she said, adding that the portraits were rehung on a third-floor hallway. “[Lee] was certainly not good for the nation. This is the guy we faced on the battlefield whose entire purpose in life was to destroy the nation as it was then conceived. … This is all part of an informed discussion.”

It is the kind of historical cleansing that could spark an Army-wide debate: Lee’s portrait adorns the walls of other military installations and government buildings.

It seems fairly obvious that some apparatchnik from the Obama Administration raised a fuss, so the College simply moved the portraits out of the line of fire, so to speak.

Well, let's have that 'informed discussion', shall we?

There are quite a few military facilities,statues and portraits honoring military figures who fought for the South, including at West Point.

In the first place, most of them had seen honorable service under the stars and stripes, and most had been decorated for conspicuous gallantry in conflicts like the Mexican War. And however you want to manipulate the history, the facts are that most of these men made an anguished decision to resign their U.S. Army commissions and fight to defend their homes only after the Lincoln administration had called for volunteers to invade the southern states. In fact, most of the southern states including Lee's home state of Virginia held out against secession until that decision was made.

And that decision was solely the choice of the Radical Republicans, who were Lincoln's sole political base as a newly elected minority president. While there were also a number of hard liners south of the Mason-Dixon line, there was little attempt by Lincoln's government to attempt to allow cooler heads to prevail and to seek a political settlement that would have avoided the war and preserved the Union while dealing intelligently with the slavery question.

Lee, in fact, was offered command of the Union forces in 1861 at the outbreak of war and declined it for that very reason. He knew what leading a Union army into the South was going to lead to, and so did many others in his position.

Secondly, this politically correct 'purging' destroys and dishonors the spirit of reconciliation that Lee, General Sherman, General Grant and President Lincoln himself championed at the end of a brutal, bloody war, the most costly in our history. It opens wounds long healed to no purpose.

And finally, it deliberately demeans some of the most gifted and accomplished soldiers in American history. They fought with bravery and distinction against huge odds and students of military history still study their battles and campaigns as brilliant examples of tactics. However one feels about their cause, their accomplishments on the battlefield cannot be denied without indulging in an Orwellian makeover of history.

In an army that has banished any mention or study of jihad and radicalized Islam from its training manuals, purging the historical examples of what men like Stonewall Jackson achieved is not a 'reasonable accommodation' to political correctness but a massive error and a disgrace.

If nothing else, our warriors may very well need Jackson and Lee's example in the future.Mark my woirds on that.

Navy SEALs Ordered To Remove ‘Don’t Tread On Me’ Patch From Uniforms

The Daily Caller is reporting that U.S. Navy SEALs have received an order to cease wearing their traditional 'Don't Tread On Me' patches on their uniforms, per orders from their commanders.

ALL:

WARCOM and GROUP TWO/ONE have pushed out the uniform policy for NWU III and any patches worn on the sleeve.

All personnel are only authorized to wear the matching “AOR” American Flag patch on the right shoulder. You are no longer authorized to wear the “Don’t Tread On Me” patch.

Again the only patch authorized for wear is the American flag on the right shoulder. Please pass the word to all

Thanks

Senior Enlisted Advisor

[Name Redacted]

The 'Don't Tread On Me' jack and symbol is the long time traditional emblem of the U.S. Navy dating back to the American Revolution. In fact, an official Naval order,  SECNAV Instruction 10520.6 clearly states that as of 31 May 2002 all ships are to fly the flag throughout the duration of what was then known as the War on Terror.The SEAL's have worn the shoulder patch with pride since their inception, and it has seen action in any number of fierce battles.



The reason the SEALs are no longer permitted to wear the patch? Direct from the Obama-run Pentagon. It appears that the patch and Naval Jack are "too closely associated with radical groups.”

Obviously, our current commander in chief feels that the ''Don't Tread On Me' jack and symbol are associated with the Tea Party, those radical Americans who want smaller government and revere the Constitution. So in order to further demoralize what he refers to as 'my military', he obviously ordered a piece of their proud heritage to be trashed in a small, petty exercise of power.

The SEAL's and other Naval personnel will obviously have to knuckle under to this tyranny. In today's military (and I've heard more than one horror story from my correspondents), even the impression of not bowing to the Thought Police or the New Order is enough to get you tossed out of the service without cause as part of the 'restructuring' of our military this president wants.

We had better begin thinking about the implications of what this president is doing to our military. We may need them to defend us someday.

How Official Pentagon Training Manuals Promote Anti-White Racism

Todd Starnes over at FOX has discovered exactly what the military is teaching its equal opportunity officers:

A controversial 600-plus page manual used by the military to train its Equal Opportunity officers teaches that "healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian" men hold an unfair advantage over other races, and warns in great detail about a so-called "White Male Club."

“Simply put, a healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian male receives many unearned advantages of social privilege, whereas a black, homosexual, atheist female in poor health receives many unearned disadvantages of social privilege,” reads a statement in the manual created by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI).

The manual, which was obtained by Fox News, also instructs troops to “support the leadership of people of color. Do this consistently, but not uncritically,” the manual states.

DEOMI instructors are also responsible for labeling evangelical Christians, Catholics and a number of high-profile Christian ministries as extremist hate groups, something I wrote about here previously. A lot of this garbage comes courtesy of the far left extremist Southern Poverty Law Center.

What's in the manuals (FOX got their hands on one thanks to a DEOMI instructor who was appalled at what he was required to teach) is astounding:

“Whites are the empowered group,” the manual declares. “White males represent the haves as compared to the have-nots.”

The military document advises personnel to “assume racism is everywhere, every day” and “notice code words for race.” They are also instructed to “understand and learn from the history of whiteness and racism.”

“Assume racism is everywhere, everyday,” read a statement in a section titled, ‘How to be a strong 'white ally.'"

“One of the privileges of being white is not having to see or deal with racism all the time,” the manual states. “We have to learn to see the effect that racism has.”

On page 181 of the manual, the military points out that status and wealth are typically passed from generation to generation and “represent classic examples of the unearned advantages of social privilege.”

“As such, the unfair economic advantages and disadvantages created long ago by institutions for whites, males, Christians, etc. still affect socioeconomic privilege today,” the manual states.

The guide also points out that whites are over-represented and blacks are underrepresented in positive news stories, that middle class blacks live in poorer neighborhoods than middle class whites and that even though there are more white criminals than any other race, the news coverage of black criminals is about equal to the news coverage of white criminals.

The military manual goes into great detail about a so-called “White Male Club.”

“In spite of slave insurrections, civil war, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, the women’s suffrage movement leading to the 19th amendment, the civil rights movement, urban rebellions and the contemporary feminist movement, the club persists,” the document states.

DEOMI states that “full access to the resources of the club still escape the vision of equitable distribution.”

The military also implies that white Americans may be in denial about racism.

In a section titled, “Rationalizations for Retaining Privilege and Avoiding Responsibilities,” the military lays out excuses white people use.

“Today some white people may use the tactic of denial when they say, ‘It’s a level playing field; this is a land of equal opportunity,’” the manual reads. “Some white people may be counterattacking today by saying political correctness rules the universities or they want special status.”

DEOMI points out that if “white people are unable to maintain that the atrocities are all in the past, they may switch to tactics to make a current situation seem isolated.”

They said some of the ways whites may claim to be victims include saying things like, “I have it just as bad as anyone else,” “They’re taking away our jobs,” or “White people are under attack.”
The military concludes the section by urging students to “understand and learn from the history of whiteness and racism” and “support the leadership of people of color.”

What this is about is President Obama's efforts to fundamentally transform America by concentrating on one institution at a time. This is his effort to turn the military...purging it of commanders,enlisted men and officers who vote 'wrong' and might not follow his agenda and replacing them with more pliable and servile troops..while indoctrinating as many of the others as possible.

I dislike using this comparison, but need I point out that über-progressive Adolf Hitler did exactly the same thing once he took power?

Obama Admin Leaks Tell Assad Bombing Details In Advance - ' Brief And Limited'

 

This is literally unbelievable,

The Obama Administration has apparently leaked the details of its planned 'action' against Syria.

An American military attack on Syria could begin as early as Thursday and will involve three days of missile strikes, according to "senior U.S. officials" talking to NBC News. The Washington Post has the bombing at "no more than two days," though long-range bombers could "possibly" join the missiles. "Factors weighing into the timing of any action include a desire to get it done before the president leaves for Russia next week," reports CNN, citing a "senior administration official."

The New York Times, quoting a Pentagon official, adds that "the initial target list has fewer than 50 sites, including air bases where Syria's Russian-made attack helicopters are deployed." The Times adds that "like several other military officials contacted for this report, the official agreed to discuss planning options only on condition of anonymity."

Our men and women are going into harm's way and our ever clueless president and his minions have leaked the details to the press of where, when and how.

The Syrians don't even have to have spies. Any interested party with an internet connection now knows exactly what's coming. They even have a decent idea of what the targets are likely to be...so they have had ample  time to move anything they want to into safe locations and arrange anti-missile coverage and some nice, properly locked in anti-aircraft fire for any of our planes that participate.

The linked WSJ article makes the point that this could be deliberate disinformation, but I personally doubt it, based on the tsunami of leaks for political purposes that have come from this president and his administration in the past.

Both White House press secretary Jay Carney and State Department spokesperson Marie Harf have publicly announced that President Obama's goal is not regime change. And leaking the details has ensured that no real damage to Assad's military assets is going to occur.

So what exactly are we trying to accomplish here, besides more pumping up of President Obama's already overinflated ego as a foreign policy 'genius' and a useful political distraction from the scandals his administration is neck deep in? Oh yes....and to cover for his flapping his mouth about 'red lines'. Just like the doubling down in Afghanistan, we're spending U.S. blood and treasure to back up ill-conceived nonsense  rhetoric spouted by this president.

And another thing Americans ought to consider. We're attacking a sovereign nation, something that will justifiably be considered an act of war by Assad and Syria. Do a little research for yourself about Syria's long time use of terrorism as a weapon of politics and war in Lebanon and elsewhere. Read a bit about Hezbollah, the terrorist proxy of Iran and Syria and some of the attacks they've accomplished all over the globe. Terrorism expert Stephen Emerson ( who based on his track record alone ought to be taken seriously)  has documented that there are Hezbollah cells right here in America.

Right now, Basher Assad, having been reassured by our president that the coming attacks are just political kabuki is in Tehran, talking to his Iranian allies, with whom Syria has a strong mutual defense treaty.

Among other things, do you have any doubt they're not talking about retaliation?

Wag the dog, indeed. Especially when any violent blowback is only going to affect the 'little people', who really don't count anyway, at least in this president's calculations.