Dhimmi This!

Second Guessing Tora Bora

Uncle Jimbo, posting at BlackFive, has an excellent post on the battle at Tora Bora.  This battle has been subject to so much revisionism and politicizing that the truth is often overlooked because it is inconvenient to the story.  As Uncle Jimbo states, the goal of the mission "was to fix and destroy the Taliban and AQ forces in Tora Bora and if that included bin Laden then happy day. If not then we can certainly consider the hundreds of terrorists killed a success by any reasonable standard."  When analyzing any event with the goggles of history you must always remember to go back to the beginning and ask "Why was a certain action taken by a certain person at a certain time?"  It is easy to pick bits and pieces of the puzzle and skew them to fit your story line.  It is even easier when you move the goals after the event.  Uncle Jimbo does a fine job on this one, take the time to read it.

To Bomb or Not To Bomb - Is this Honor and Duty at Work?

    Michelle Malkin, who seems to be one of my favorite bloggers these days, has a story on the supposed missed opportunity to kill a group of "Taliban Terror Leaders" at a funeral.  My initial reaction was one of frustration with the fact that our rules of engagement do not have sufficient fluidity to allow for variences according to the situation.  A perusal of the comments suggest that most experienced this same feeling.

     However, upon reflection several issues spring to mind.  First, of course, is the validity and nature of the intelligence.  Were all of the people who were attending the funeral Taliban fighters? Were there a significant amount of women an children at the funeral?  Were the identities of "Taliban Terror Leaders" known and if so were they High Value Targets which justified the amount of known or unknown collateral damage? Was more or better intelligence gained by following the destination of the targets from the funeral? Could this strike, if there were a large number of noncombatants at the scene, have been justified from a public relations standpoint?

      Not knowing the answers to these questions forces me to pause before I jump to conclusions. If UBL, Mullah Omar or the likes were present then the justification to shoot drastically increases than if there were lower level leutinants and foot soldiers present.  I know that I experienced disgust with the Taliban's recent bombing at the funeral of one of the Afghanistan Provisional Governors and the bombing in Iraq at an assassinated religious leaders funeral (the names escape me at this time).  I remember thinking, "Can't they just leave them alone long enough to let them bury their dead?"  I also know that some acts by the terrorist actually do cause a backlash, mild as it may be, against them.  For instance it appears that the beheadings in Iraq have stopped because of the backlash by the Muslim community.  Essentially, it was bad PR for Al Queda so they stopped it.  It is possible that the value of the known targets at the funeral did not justify the bad PR from such an action.  Remember, this was a funeral.  I know that our actions cannot be tied to the prevailing winds of the muslim public but it also cannot be ignored.

    More than any other reason I think that the bombs were not released because of military professionalism.  Military history is replete with instances in which entire armies ceased hostilities to allow the dead to be collected and buried. Even Achilles overcame his rage and allowed Priam to recover the body of is son, Hektor. While I am the first to yell against the coddling of the terrorist and I do not think that they deserve the protections of the Geneva Conventions, I also think that our own soldiers have to live up to their codes of honor and duty.  It is the sense of honor and duty that is instilled in our soldiers that distinguishes them from their enemies.  It is possible that bombing a funeral in this instance was due to a sense of military honor and that honor not political correctness ruled the day.

UPDATE: My comments to a post at CounterColumn have been taken to task by its author, Jason.  He makes some valid points and as always they are worth reading.

 

"These Are People Who Want to Kill Your Families"

Little Green Footballs has a video post of Matt Lauer interviewing President Bush, in the Oval Office, on Friday, September 8, 2006.  Lauer essentially blows a once in a lifetime chance to allow the President of the United States to explain to the American people exactly the what and why of the  GWOT.  Lauer, who is given the opportunity to stand face to face with the President, blows the whole interview because he gets hung up on whether or not "alternative methods to extract information from a suspected terrorist" is "within the law".  Essentially, Lauer uses this  opportunity for such a rare interview to worry about the rights of the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohamed.  Lauer, who - I repeat- is interviewing the leader of the free world, is most concerned about whether there can be a "blurring of the lines between ourselves and the people we are trying to protect ourselves against" if some terrorist thug and possibly the biggest fish captured in the GWOT is treated to a little non-lethal coercion. 

This video is the pinnacle of the "Gotcha Journalism" of today. Lauer acts like he is trying to play cross examining prosecutor with some petty criminal. "I don't want to let the within the law issue slip," is the best line of questioning that he can come up with.  What a joke! All of it is topped off with the fact the the source of his "violation of the law" is Amnesty International. Well, there is a non-biased group for you! President Bush actually scoffs when Lauer mentions this.

The interview is worth watching just to see President Bush get fired up.  Frankly, I would run it as a campaign video. As President Bush explained and Lauer and others just don't get, "These are people who want to kill your families." President Bush states that he is doing everything within the law (that is our law) to extract information from the people who are trying to kill us and Lauer is worried that a little water boarding of a mass murderer may ruin the Republic. Get a life. I sleep better at night knowing that harder men than Matt Lauer are guarding our freedoms.

Attitudes, like those held by Lauer, are why every single American who watched the towers collapse, whether they admit it or not,were silently thankful that we did not have a President Al Gore. I hope that when we catch other mutts like Khalid Sheik Mohamed that we do more than water boarding to protect our citizens. What kind of "holier than though" attitude would the Matt Lauer's of the world have if Mohamed Atta had been caught on 9/10/01 and the federal government knew that there was some  plot in the making but did nothing "coercive" to get the information?

Actually, I am glad that President Bush didn't tell Lauer what we do to the prisoners because the thought of what we do is probably a lot worse than what we actually do.  In Afghanistan the threat of sending a prisoner to GITMO was one of the greatest coercive tools they had until the terrorist learned that they were not being thrown into the pits of hell. The terrorist adapted to the various techniques that were used and the interrogators had to change tactics.  Often these men that we capture have actually tortured, killed, and otherwise beaten the crap out of those opposed to them.  They know first hand the definition of torture because they have meted it out to others.  The threat of torture, as they understand it, is a lot worse than anything that we would ever do.  If President Bush actually told Lauer the limitations placed on our acts it would probably make getting caught by the US seem like a pleasure cruise to many of the Johnny Jihads. 

Regardless, Lauer, whom I am sure is very smug and thinks that he asked the tough questions, actually allowed his distaste for the policies of President Bush and of the Iraq war to ruin the chance of a fine and worthwhile interview. President Bush, on the other hand, handled him up just fine.

I Will Not Submit!

"I will Not Submit" - Michelle Malkin's 9/11 Pledge

Following the 5th anniversary of 9/11 and after spending the day contemplating the events that occurred on that day and since, I agree with Malkin that now is the appropriate time for us Americans to repledge ourselves to victory.

As President Bush stated last night (in one of his best speeches), "... On this solemn anniversary, we rededicate ourselves to this cause. Our Nation has endured trials – and we face a difficult road ahead. Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country. So we must put aside our differences, and work together to meet the test that history has given us. We will defeat our enemies … we will protect our people ... and we will lead the 21st century into a shining age of human liberty."

Now class, all together -

"I will not submit!"

 

Brian L. Jones - In Memoriam

    Brian L. Jones: Born May 9, 1957 to Pat and Lee Jones, sister Teri Marshall, brother Gary Jones; Graduated from Roosevelt Highschool, Long Island, New York; Graduated Pace College, Manhattan; Served 1976 to 1984 in the United States Marine Corps with Honorable Discharge as a Staff Sergeant; Employed as a System Administrator for Fiduciary Trust and IBM Global; New York Nicks and New York Yankees Fan. Died September 11, 2001, World Trade Center, Tower 1, 95th Floor, New York, New York, United States of America.

     On the morning of Sept. 11, Brian called his parents' house. With a calmness that defied the hideous situation, he said there was an explosion and asked his father, Lee Jones, if there was anything on television about it. The elder Jones told his son a plane had hit the building. "He said, 'OK. I'm leaving,'" said Pat Jones. "That's the last we heard of him."

    Believing that Brian Jones got out, it was only later that others in his office told the family that he was helping others leave the building.

The websites listed below describe Brian in the words of the people who  knew him best, his family and friends:   

    "He would come out to get my spaghetti," his mother said. "He was kind of a private person, but giving if you needed him. He always kept in touch." Pat Jones - Brian's Mother

*************************

    "Brian was the person you would want with you during a problem or disaster. Knowledgeable, confident and decisive, he knew when to take charge and when to let others lead. He had a quick and analytical mind, and would discuss the hidden meanings in Nostradamus and the Kabala as easily as he would the playoff chances of the Knicks and the rest of the NBA.

    As a member of the Systems Administration team, his expertise touched almost everyone at Fiduciary, although most never realized the unbelievably essential nature of his work until September 11. Brian was responsible for the Global Plus tape archive systems and the readiness of the backup IBM computers at Comdisco. There is perhaps no more fitting tribute to the contributions he made and the legacy he leaves than the flawless performance of the disaster recovery systems under his care, and the continuation of "business as usual" at Fiduciary.

    He was a consummate co-worker and good friend, and we will miss him dearly." Steven Rosenstein - Fiduciary Trust                              

*************************

    I knew Brian while serving in the Marine Corps with him in Kansas City, MO 1983-1985.  Brian and I were both active duty Marines working as computer data control technicians ... Brian was always the type of person to brighten your day even when the days seemed like they would never end!  He had a way of always being positive about life... Semper Fi Brian - Bonny Grigsby USMC Retired on 2006-02-06

**************************

    Brian has been an inspiration for me, and quite a few others at Union Bank of Switzerland ... Brian I know you're looking down on us from the heavens above, I want you to know, we all loved you at UBS. Your friend, Hi-Do-Berger (as you used to call me.) Mark Hydleburg, co-worker, Union Bank Of Switzerland

***************************

    Brian was my high school sweetheart. I loved him very much. As I will forever. Pier Robinson

 Websites Honoring Brian L. Jones

• Wall of Americans
• 9-11 Victim MemorialCNN. Com 
• September 11 Memorial
• Remember: September 11, 2001
• Newsday.com - Victims Search
• Fiduciary Trust Memorial
• September11Victims.com
• 2,996 Honoring the 9/11 Victims                                 

   May God Bless Brian and the family and friends he left behind.

Jihad Ponzi

    Michelle Malkin, reports on the latest attempt by Al Queda to use the airways to terrorize their enemies (That's us, by the way).  Al Queda has provided Al Jazerra with footage of the 9/11 hijackers, with Bin Laden, planning and practicing for the 9/11 strike against the infidel (That's us again).  Malkin reports that along with the tape is the statement  “attributed to the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, in which he said he was sure of victory against US-led forces in the country ... In the Internet statement, Muhajer also urged Sunni Muslims to kill at least one US citizen within the next two weeks.”

    First things first.  I have only seen excerpts of the video showing the masked jihadist performing for the camera.  I hate to say this,  but for the fact that what occurred was so deadly, the scenes that I saw from the video are actually keystone copish.  I am reminded of the video of Zarquawi trying to fire the captured American SAW and then once he does his dumbass underling grabs the hot barrel.  The Johnny Jihads in the video  look more like a scene from JackAss then they do well trained killers. 

    In the video I actually saw a masked man with a pistol walk up to a man with his arms in the air and then put the man in a full nelson.  The man who was placed in the full nelson quickly disarms his attacker and kicks him a deadly blow to the stomach.  I am certainly no expert, but let me get this straight, I have a pistol, it is loaded and I have it pointed at a deadly adversary who is three feet in front of me, his hands in the air and his back to me.  I am now going to walk up to him and subdue him by placing him in a full nelson and pointing the gun at the back of his head.

    Quite frankly, I am insulted that Al Queda even practices this move.  Do they really think that the average American, more less our trained professionals, are going to do something this stupid? The only reason these type of tapes are touted as skillfull propaganda is because the media treats it as if it is serious.  Certainly, with all the network money, they can afford some expert to talk about how ridiculous these guys are.  A little humiliation would go a long way in undermining these kooks' credibility with their followers. 

    Don’t get me wrong, I take their threats seriously, even a determined five year old with a gun can kill you. I also believe that "I want you dead" actually means I want you dead. However, seeing footage like this gives me some comfort.  I mean, really, this is the best of the best of the best of Al Queda.  This is their “Be All You Can Be Become a Jihadi” commercial.  What a joke.

    The next thing that caught my attention is the statement made by al-Muhajer that every Muslim should kill a US citizen within the next week.  Is this serious?  Was this guy sitting around with Baghdad Bob and Johnny Jihad smoking the hash pipe right before he made this statement.  I can see it now:
    Al-Muhajer: takes a hit of the pipe, “Now Bob what you are saying is that the Americans are not really in control of Iraq and that Uday and Quassay are actually running the show and they are letting the world think that they are dead.”
    Bob: “Yeah, man they’re runnin around with this guy known as 12 Iman - he’s a cool kick ass little dude.”
    Al-Muhajer: taking another hit, “You know Bob, during my daily prayers I’ve been thinking, man, and you know, I figure that there has got to be about 1 billion or so Muslims out there and you know, man, about half support our way, you know man, and so I’ve been thinking, and you know there are only about 300 million or so Americans, and so you know if we could get about ten million of the Muslims in the world to kill just one American each, then shit man, get them to get ten of their friends to kill just one American, and then well dude you get it, dude we’d have this thing wrapped up in no time, man.  The whole imposing Shaira and all that would be a cake walk man, you know what I mean, man.  Screw this convert to our side crap, Ahmadinejad is a loser.” 
    Bob: “I don’t know dude I tried that with an email where I asked all those guys to just send me one dinar each and I could be a rich man, but you know man they just didn’t do it, man.” 
    Someone enters the room and Johnny Jihad shoots his AK with a spray and pray - hitting no one: “Al-Muhajer - your eminence, you prince of Iraq, it is time to speak to the voice of Allah, peace be upon him, Al Jazeera”. 
    Al-Muhajer: “You know Bob, I am going for it, I am going to announce our new strategy, man, and in a month  - no, no two weeks man, I will be responsible for leading the Jihad against the Infidels and the Caliphate will be mine - Screw, Osama, I am going for it. I am the Sandman, I am the Scorpion King, dude!”

    It would be funny if they didn’t believe their own bullshit. Really in all seriousness, Jihad Ponzi? Is this the grand scheme by which the Muslim faith will overtake the world?  Honestly, and people bitch about our game plan.

Hollywood and Hand Grenades: It's Close Enough

    There seems to be three complaints by former Clinton Administration members concerning ABC’s “Path to 9/11" docudrama.  First, Madeline Albright insist that the show’s portrayal of her as the person who tipped off the Pakastani Intelligence Service (ISI), that the United States was about to tomahawk Zawhar, a Bin Laden terrorist camp, in an attempt to kill him, is incorrect.  Her gripe is that it was a senior military official (General Joseph Ralston, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff)not her who tipped off the Pakastanis.

    Albright is absolutely correct.  If she was not the person tasked with doing this job then the movie should portray the person who did it.  The only question I have is whether or not Albright was the one who ordered or requested that General Ralston inform General Karamat of the air strike.  If so, then this may be close enough for Hollywood.  If not fix it, make it accurate and the point of the scene, that Pakistan and thus Bin Laden were tipped off, stays the same.  However, to remove the scene altogether is to make the film more inaccurate and to revise history even more than if the scene was left intact.

    Second, is the alleged portrayal of Sandy Berger as being solely responsible for calling off an attempt to shoot Bin Laden.  It is undisputed that the CIA had formed a hit squad, with the help of the Northern Alliance and Massoud, with the somewhat unclear task assigned to it to capture/kill Bin Laden.  There were several opportunities to do this, Tarnuk Farms, Derunta Camp, Uruzgan Camp, Helmand River Camp, Kabul and another at a Bedouin Hunting Camp.  The Clinton White House, for various political reasons, clearly dropped the ball on all of these opportunities and Sandy Berger was intricately involved in these decisions. 

    Did a specific event occur in which Sandy Berger told a sniper not to shoot?  Probably not.  But this is television, its supposed to be art, it is the general picture that is being portrayed, the general sense of things - you know - a “you get the picture” type deal.  While the exact scene may not have happened the general sense created by the scene did happen.  The Clinton White House had ample opportunity to kill Bin Laden, for various reasons they did not take advantage of the opportunity.  The reasons are certainly more complex then not issuing an order over a satellite phone connection, but the failures in moxy and determination to kill Bin Laden are the same.  Its Hollywood, its close enough, its artistic license.

    Third, is the argument by Clinton that he was not distracted by the Monica Lewinsky affair.  Such a portrayal in the movie is absolutely correct and is not so much an artistic license as it may be a difference of interpretation of the facts depending on one's point of view (i.e. Are you Bill Clinton or every other oxygen breathing human being on the face of the earth).  In particularly, the issue regarding the strike on Bin Laden at the Bedouin Hunting camp occurred as Clinton prepared for his Impeachment Trial.  As Steve Coll writes in Ghost Wars, “All this was discussed at the White House as President Clinton prepared for his impeachment trial that winter in the Senate .. This hardly seemed an ideal time for an all-or-nothing attack against a terrorist who made few Americans feel directly menaced.” Anyway, when did Clinton become concerned with the accuracy of a story. You know, it all depends on what is, is.

    If the Path to 9/11 is portraying itself as being a historically accurate account of what occurred, then some of the inaccuracies should be corrected.  If the show is trying to give the American public a dumbed down and entertaining version of a very complicated historical event, then it sounds like they have hit the bullseye.  After all making a movie in Hollywood is like playing with  horseshoes or hand grenades - it does not have to be right on, it's just got to be close enough.

2,996 Bloggers Strong

Al-Sadr - Just Won't Go Away

Westhawk has a post about  Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army's latest clash with the Iraqi forces.  Al-Sadr has been a problem since Bremer was in Iraq.  In his book, My Year in Iraq,  Bremer states that he consistently pushed for Al-Sadr's arrest but this was resisted for various reasons by various factions (from Al Sistani to the Marines).  It appeared that Al-Sadr had been contained and somewhat nuetralized by the Marines after his last uprising.  I am wondering if his new burst of energy is a result of a vacuum of power being created by the weakening of Al Queda in Iraq.  If the recent reports are correct and Al Queda has been taking some good licks since the killing of Zarquawi someone is going to step into the void.  May be far fetched but the fight may now be down to two - the Iran supported insurgency and the Iraq Government.  My money is on the government because Al-Sadr seems to be little more than a thug. Al-Sadr should not go away mad - he should just go away!

The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan

There are reports that Pakistan has capitulated to the Taliban in the Northern Waziristan area.  The reports are that an agreement has been reached in which the area has been given its autonomy and is now being called the  “The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan.”  Is this bad news for the US or is it a strategic softball being thrown to us by Pakistan?  It has been my understanding that the hands of the US forces have been metaphorically tied by the refusal of Pakistan to allow our troops unfettered access to this region.  If Pakistan cedes its claim to this area does this allow the US to go into the region at its own will?  Pakistan is out and is no longer providing the protection of a "soveriegn state". No protection from the UN, since it is not a member. No diplomatic ties with any other nations. The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is now a rogue state.  To me it sounds like a new front in the war on terror has opened.  Through this agreement, the Taliban and Al Queda may have just put the final nail in their own coffin. Time will tell.